Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Blog for those interested in the truth about Toothy Tile and Gray Goose
Search This Blog
Blog info
Toothy Tile Blind Items
Other places
Blog Archive
Disclaimer
This blog is for entertainment purposes only. Images used here within this blog belong to their respective copyright owners and no infrigement of copyright is ever intended.
754 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 401 – 600 of 754 Newer› Newest»Keith Olbermann just gave a really good statement about Prop 8. (I do wish he wasn't so dramatic when he spoke, his words didn't need it).
Keith Olbermann is a raving sociopath.
Link please? :)
http://thenewshole.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/11/10/1667759.aspx
I hope the link works.
Thank you! :)
Here's a video link (I hope it works).
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#27652443
Oh, that was just amazing - Kenneth Olbermann's words are just perfect - that's really all it's about. More people need to read that! :)
I really hope that people are not going to waste precious time, energy and financial resources fighting one another and name-calling - education and words like this are the key.
Thank you, Kenneth Olbermann! :*
Oops, sorry, got a little carried away - thank you Keith Olbermann! :*
Keith Olbermann's Prop 8 Special Comment: It's "About The Human Heart" (VIDEO)
Keith Olbermann delivered a rousing, emotional, 6-minute special comment on Prop 8 Monday night. Olbermann, who has never married, vehemently disagrees with its passage and the ban on gay marriage.
"I am not personal vested this," he said, "yet this vote is horrible. Horrible... This is about the human heart." After going through the history of marriage in the United States, and reminding viewers not only that marriage between black and white people used to be illegal in 1/3 of the country, but illegal between slaves, he made a plea for love and the spread of happiness.
"The world is barren enough... with so much hate in the world, so much meaningless division... this is what your religion tells you to do?... this is what your heart tells you to do?... You are asked to stand now on a question of love."
FULL TEXT:
Finally tonight as promised, a Special Comment on the passage, last week, of Proposition Eight in California, which rescinded the right of same-sex couples to marry, and tilted the balance on this issue, from coast to coast.
Some parameters, as preface. This isn't about yelling, and this isn't about politics, and this isn't really just about Prop-8. And I don't have a personal investment in this: I'm not gay, I had to strain to think of one member of even my very extended family who is, I have no personal stories of close friends or colleagues fighting the prejudice that still pervades their lives.
And yet to me this vote is horrible. Horrible. Because this isn't about yelling, and this isn't about politics.
This is about the... human heart, and if that sounds corny, so be it.
If you voted for this Proposition or support those who did or the sentiment they expressed, I have some questions, because, truly, I do not... understand. Why does this matter to you? What is it to you? In a time of impermanence and fly-by-night relationships, these people over here want the same chance at permanence and happiness that is your option. They don't want to deny you yours. They don't want to take anything away from you. They want what you want -- a chance to be a little less alone in the world.
Only now you are saying to them -- no. You can't have it on these terms. Maybe something similar. If they behave. If they don't cause too much trouble. You'll even give them all the same legal rights -- even as you're taking away the legal right, which they already had. A world around them, still anchored in love and marriage, and you are saying, no, you can't marry. What if somebody passed a law that said you couldn't marry?
I keep hearing this term "re-defining" marriage.
If this country hadn't re-defined marriage, black people still couldn't marry white people. Sixteen states had laws on the books which made that illegal... in 1967. 1967.
The parents of the President-Elect of the United States couldn't have married in nearly one third of the states of the country their son grew up to lead. But it's worse than that. If this country had not "re-defined" marriage, some black people still couldn't marry...black people. It is one of the most overlooked and cruelest parts of our sad story of slavery. Marriages were not legally recognized, if the people were slaves. Since slaves were property, they could not legally be husband and wife, or mother and child. Their marriage vows were different: not "Until Death, Do You Part," but "Until Death or Distance, Do You Part." Marriages among slaves were not legally recognized.
You know, just like marriages today in California are not legally recognized, if the people are... gay.
And uncountable in our history are the number of men and women, forced by society into marrying the opposite sex, in sham marriages, or marriages of convenience, or just marriages of not knowing -- centuries of men and women who have lived their lives in shame and unhappiness, and who have, through a lie to themselves or others, broken countless other lives, of spouses and children... All because we said a man couldn't marry another man, or a woman couldn't marry another woman. The sanctity of marriage. How many marriages like that have there been and how on earth do they increase the "sanctity" of marriage rather than render the term, meaningless?
What is this, to you? Nobody is asking you to embrace their expression of love. But don't you, as human beings, have to embrace... that love? The world is barren enough.
It is stacked against love, and against hope, and against those very few and precious emotions that enable us to go forward. Your marriage only stands a 50-50 chance of lasting, no matter how much you feel and how hard you work.
And here are people overjoyed at the prospect of just that chance, and that work, just for the hope of having that feeling. With so much hate in the world, with so much meaningless division, and people pitted against people for no good reason, this is what your religion tells you to do? With your experience of life and this world and all its sadnesses, this is what your conscience tells you to do?
With your knowledge that life, with endless vigor, seems to tilt the playing field on which we all live, in favor of unhappiness and hate... this is what your heart tells you to do? You want to sanctify marriage? You want to honor your God and the universal love you believe he represents? Then Spread happiness -- this tiny, symbolic, semantical grain of happiness -- share it with all those who seek it. Quote me anything from your religious leader or book of choice telling you to stand against this. And then tell me how you can believe both that statement and another statement, another one which reads only "do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
---
You are asked now, by your country, and perhaps by your creator, to stand on one side or another. You are asked now to stand, not on a question of politics, not on a question of religion, not on a question of gay or straight. You are asked now to stand, on a question of...love. All you need do is stand, and let the tiny ember of love meet its own fate. You don't have to help it, you don't have it applaud it, you don't have to fight for it. Just don't put it out. Just don't extinguish it. Because while it may at first look like that love is between two people you don't know and you don't understand and maybe you don't even want to know...It is, in fact, the ember of your love, for your fellow **person...
Just because this is the only world we have. And the other guy counts, too.
This is the second time in ten days I find myself concluding by turning to, of all things, the closing plea for mercy by Clarence Darrow in a murder trial.
But what he said, fits what is really at the heart of this:
"I was reading last night of the aspiration of the old Persian poet, Omar-Khayyam," he told the judge.
"It appealed to me as the highest that I can vision. I wish it was in my heart, and I wish it was in the hearts of all:
"So I be written in the Book of Love;
"I do not care about that Book above.
"Erase my name, or write it as you will,
"So I be written in the Book of Love."
---
Good night, and good luck.
Keith Olbermann: This is about the... human heart
Keith Olbermann's heart is in the right place. :)
Stars Talk 'Milk' video
'Good Will Hunting' director Gus Van Sant's long-in-the-works 'Milk' biopic is finally coming to the big screen, and ET's with ensemble cast members Josh Brolin, James Franco, Emile Hirsch and Alison Pill to talk about the first openly gay man to be voted into public office in America -- and how the period film mirrors contemporary political struggles happening now!
Starring Sean Penn as Harvey Milk, who was elected to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors in 1977, the film charts the last eight years of the politician's colorful life after he relocated to the Castro neighborhood and became personally involved with the fight against injustice.
Armed with tenacity and a solid group of friends and supporters behind him, the larger-than-life Milk fought for equal rights until he was tragically gunned down along with the Mayor of San Francisco by fellow supervisor Dan White.
'Milk' opens in theaters December 5.
Stars Talk 'Milk'
Larry Williams loses extradition fight to US
THE long Australian battle for finance guru Larry Williams is now over after he today accepted extradition to the US. But the father of the late Heath Ledger's former fiancee Michelle Williams told The Daily Telegraph: "I will be back."
Williams, 65, handed his toothbrush and finance books to sheriffs after they stripped him of his belongings at Downing Centre Local Court. Federal Attorney General Robert McClelland gave him the option on Friday to return home and only be in custody for a day before he leaves - ending his two-and-a-half year extradition battle in Australia.
Williams has been wanted in the US for allegedly evading $1.9 million in taxes between 1999 and 2001.
Williams, who once ran for the US Senate in his home state of Montana, originally travelled to Australia in May 2006 for a series of finance seminars and to promote his stock market trading books. Since that time he has fought his extradition all the way to the High Court without success.
Williams gained celebrity status while in Australia as he continued to give finance lectures across the country and visited some of his favourite attractions such as the Hunter Valley wine region. He also made it known he wanted to live here.
...
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,24634582-5001021,00.html?from=public_rss
Keith Obamaman... a misogynystic pig.
Poor 7:01 AM #2! LOL
He applied to appear in a black pin-up calendar while at Harvard but was rejected by the all-female committee.
Once upon a time in a universe far, far away, a group of supposely intelligent women decided that Barack Obama wasn't sexy enough for them. And thus the world was denied his image in a Harvard Law beefcake calendar. I guess we'll always have "People".
jezebel.com
Actors Hate Prop 8, Natch
So you all know, obviously, how furious we feel about this horrid Ellen-and-Portia-dooming Prop 8 fiasco happening in Cali. Here, too, are four H'wood types who couldn't hold back their hatred against hate:
Awful Truth: What are your thoughts on Prop 8 passing?
Cameron Manheim: I feel just disgusted. I don't know who would vote for Prop 8, what's the matter with love? You fight for guns, but fight against love?
James Cromwell: I think it's disgraceful, I think it's illegal and it will be turned down in the courts. And if it isn't turned down in court, I will support the gay people being out there everyday in front of that church. The Mormons, what a disgraceful performance for somebody who calls themself a Christian, to take away somebody's constitutionally given rights just because they don't think it's appropriate.
Angelica Houston: I try not to expect too much because it is actually the same world it was yesterday. But I'm expecting slowly and confidently we can change our world.
Michael Sheen: I'd hoped that people would vote for making gay marriage legal. I thought it would happen. So, I was shocked and dismayed when it wasn't.
We, too, Mike. Great job in Frost/Nixon, by the by!
Happy Birthday Leonardo DiCaprio!
"I apparently offended some animal lovers. Um, really people? I love animals as much as anyone, I don't eat pork – so for those of you fighting that good fight against me ... shut up! I was just pointing out the fact that people in California seem to care more about animal rights than human rights … I'm not running around killing chickens for fun or firing a slingshot at a squirrel."
— Samantha Ronson, resonding to people who were offended by her Prop 2 vs. Prop 8 post. [People]
Yes, but Sam, that may be an incorrect assumption. And it's takes the focus off those who really don't care. That's all. We love you and Linds. :)
And happy, happy birthday to Leo. :)
Ask the Flying Monkey
Q: So is it really true that Denzel Washington advised Will Smith not to kiss a man on film when he played a gay character in the movie version of Six Degrees of Separation? – Mandy, St. Louis, MO
A: Alas, yes. “What Denzel said is that the black community views black actors as heroes, and we're held personally responsible for the choices of our characters,” Smith told Premiere Magazine in 2006. “He said other communities don't hold actors personally responsible for character choices.”
There’s no doubt truth to the idea that black movie stars have a much more difficult path to navigate than white ones. But Denzel’s advice doesn’t answer this question: what’s so terrible about kissing another man in the first place?
Ian McKellen, who co-starred in Six Degrees, witnessed Smith’s reluctance first-hand and has been publicly critical of Smith over the years, even calling it “homophobia” in one interview.
But one thing has always been clear to the Monkey: Smith has always been far more interested in being a movie star than an actor. And let’s face it: his career choices seem to have worked.
http://www.afterelton.com/askmonkey/11-11-08
^^Actors have the opportunity to change minds - especially those well-loved and respected and seen as role models.
Religious dogma also I feel is in large part responsible for the mentality where animals are seen as "lesser" beings, so abuse and mistreatment, or being humane to them is acceptable. There was a time when it was believed that they do not feel pain and suffering in a degree worthy of too much concern.
Not everyone feels this way of course, and it is changing.
^^inhumane
Denzel Washington doesn't kiss white actresses either. He rejected a role in a very good movie with Michelle Pfeiffer because he had to do romantic scenes with her. Personally, i think is a little bit exaggerate from him but each actor/person has the right to have his own mind as long they don't cross the line by ofending someone.
Denzel Washington doesn't kiss white actresses either.
Denzel, what's the message to the black community ?
6:27, I would personally be blindsided before I ever used a racial slur. But repeating the fact of what the voter percentages were in regards to Prop 8 are just that, a fact. The fact remains that everyone who voted for Prop 8 - white or black - is a bigot. That's not "insulting religion" - that's just a fact.
And why should straight people whine or complain when it's MY rights that have been discarded and trampled upon. Poor li'l heterosexuals, so maligned and persecuted. WHAT THE FUCK.
And you go on to suggest that people should not protest or be angry - again, WHAT THE FUCK?!
We've been waiting patiently. We've been betrayed repeatedly. Certainly by the Republican party, often my the Democrats as well.
THE TIME IS UP.
"Personally, i think is a little bit exaggerate from him but each actor/person has the right to have his own mind as long they don't cross the line by ofending someone."
Gues what - Denzel Washington's homophobia has offended me from the first time I ever read about this anecdote. So he has crossed the line.
And you go on to suggest that people should not protest or be angry - again, WHAT THE FUCK?!
The article doesn't suggest that:
6:27 PM "Letter To California: Hate Won't Solve 8" article:
...
There has been a lot of talk on the blogosphere about how African-American voters are supposedly to blame for the passage of Proposition 8 in California. Yes, as Ta-Nehisi Coates acknowledges, 70% of African-American voters in California reportedly voted in favor of the amendment (according to a CNN exit poll). Given that African-Americans are one of the smallest minorities in the state of California and the margin of loss is something like 500,000, there's simply no way that African-Americans were the "cause" of the loss. Alex Blaze over at Billerico points out what should (otherwise) be blindingly obvious: race is not the biggest factor in whether a Californian voted against same sex marriage. In fact, religious affiliation, current marital status and party identification were all bigger factors — and bigger pools of voters from which to draw yes votes.
...
No need to work together, to learn together and educate one another when you can just yell and scream and carry on...because that's how you obtain civil rights.
I really think people don't have a good sense of what is going on - I really appreciate Keith Olbermann's very articulate and moving summation of what Prop 8 and marriage, and equality, really mean. Thank you.
Gues what - Denzel Washington's homophobia has offended me from the first time I ever read about this anecdote. So he has crossed the line.
^^^^
I understand what you say and that's why i posted that anecdote (confirmed by him in some opportunity,btw). But if he keeps his reasons for himself and don't talk about it as if it is a virtuous thing, i think he has the right to choose any role he wants. Besides, i do not remember him COMPLAINING about other color actors kissing their white female co stars
and who cares about DW, anyway?
Queerty
CA Supreme Court May Rule on Prop. 8 This Week
A ruling from the California Supreme Court on the constitutional legality of Proposition 8 could come as soon as this week, according to court spokeswoman Lynn Holton. The ruling would be a response to three lawsuits filed immediately after Prop 8. passed one week ago today that argue that the ballot initiative process was followed improperly. The court overruled an earlier Proposition, Prop. 22 in May that defined marriage as between a man and a woman, but as the Washington Post reports this morning:
"Legal experts say this time the proposition would not be as easy to overturn. Unlike Proposition 22, which in 2000 created a statute that was trumped by the state constitution, Proposition 8 is part of the constitution. In other words, whereas Proposition 22 was found to violate the equal protection clause of the state constitution, Proposition 8 is now part of the equal protection law of the constitution.
"In passing Prop 8, the people of California basically put an asterisk next to the equal protection clause in the constitution," said William Araiza, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. Now, he said, "it fundamentally comes down to whether the court considers this a major change or not a major change." Specifically, opponents of Proposition 8 argue that this kind of change is a "revision," not an "amendment." The distinction is important, legal experts say, because revisions require two-thirds approval in the legislature and then a popular vote. Amendments can be approved by popular vote only."
While legal experts feel that the likelihood of the Supreme Court overruling Prop 8. is slim to none, a growing chorus of California politicians are pushing for the court to invalidate the measure. Governor Schwarzenneger told CNN "I think that we will again maybe undo that, if the court is willing to do that, and then move forward from there and again lead in that area. More than one-third of the state legislature has signed a friend of the court brief arguing that "the gay marriage ban improperly usurped the state Supreme Court's duty to protect minority groups from discrimination."
The Campaign for California Families, a group that supported Prop. 8 is asking to be named as a party to the suit over concerns that the Attorney General will not properly represent the will of the voters.
http://www.queerty.com/legal-battle-for-prop-8-heats-up-20081111/
In other words, whereas Proposition 22 was found to violate the equal protection clause of the state constitution, Proposition 8 is now part of the equal protection law of the constitution.
So wrong. Prop 8 also violates the equal protection clause of the state constitution. It is in no way, no how, not never - a part of equal protection clause. Outrageous! Slavery was part of the constitution at one time too, as well as women not having the right to vote. I do hope we hear something this week.
Supreme Courts are the moral conscience of law - if it were up to the will of the voters, we might still have these awful institutions in place.
Just as the terrible American economy turned the tide in the recent presidential election (even though Obama would have won anyway), the Prop. 8 win has turned most (TT blogs) to rallys against (Proposition 8) blogs!
Hmmm, I knew it would come. Some time ago I thought sooner, but know that it's here it seems to soon. But everything comes to an end. Jake can now live his life wheather bearding or not and more important issuse can be dealt with, with more attention.
EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE - Portion of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that prohibits discrimination by state government institutions. The clause grants all people "equal protection of the laws," which means that the states must apply the law equally and cannot give preference to one person or class of persons over another.
You are right, 12:43. Reeke isn't that important.
In addition to the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, most state constitutions provide equal protection guarantees and enumerate certain fundamental rights. In many of the states with these constitutions, courts also employ a three-tiered analysis similar to that developed by the U.S. Supreme Court. State courts can interpret their own constitution to provide more, but not less, protection than that offered under the federal Equal Protection Clause.
So the validity of an amendment to a constitution is one thing, but changes to the equal protection clause - no way, especially without judicial review. They may differ on the level of scrutiny or what constitutes a protected class.
Judicial review has been justified as--among other things--necessary to maintain a separation of powers, as a way to prevent arbitrariness in the law, and as a method to offset the pressure exerted by political interest groups.
Published: Today
Lawmakers join call to overturn Prop. 8
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - More than one-third of California's lawmakers added their voices Monday to the chorus calling on the state's highest court to overturn the prohibition on same-sex marriage approved by voters last week.
Forty-four members of the California Legislature filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support one of the three lawsuits seeking to invalidate Proposition 8. The case, brought on behalf of gay couples who have not yet married, argues the ban should be tossed out because voters did not have the authority to make such a dramatic change in state law.
The brief argues that the gay marriage ban improperly usurped the state Supreme Court's duty to protect minority groups from discrimination. Proposition 8 overturned the court's May decision that legalized same-sex marriage.
Senate President Pro Tempore Don Perata and Assembly Speaker Karen Bass are among the signers. The Anti-Defamation League, the Bar Association of San Francisco and three other legal or civil rights groups also submitted letters supporting efforts to get the court to delay implementation of Proposition 8 so gay couples can continue getting married until the legal issues are resolved.
Also Monday, the Campaign for California Families asked the court for permission to become an official party to all three cases, which currently name only the state health department and Attorney General Jerry Brown as respondents.
The conservative group, which unsuccessfully sought to get a gay marriage ban on the ballot that also would have stripped same-sex couples of domestic partner benefits, said in its motion to intervene that state officials would not adequately defend the rights of voters.
http://www.apnews.com/ap/db_/contentdetail.htm?sel=dockLocations&contentguid=zSePfuJK&src=cat
More than one-third of California's lawmakers added their voices Monday to the chorus calling on the state's highest court to overturn the prohibition on same-sex marriage approved by voters last week.
Yay!!
The conservative group [The Campaign for California Familes], which unsuccessfully sought to get a gay marriage ban on the ballot that also would have stripped same-sex couples of domestic partner benefits . . .
So the truth comes out. It's not simply marriage they are opposed to. ;(
I found opinions and information in here about Prop.8 very interesting and educational but i can't help thinking about poor old Jake... not even in his sites people are talking about him!!!
But we are thinking about him! :)
For example, if Jake was in LA would he join Franco and Drew? (Yea, I know.)
I wonder where he is - if he's been sworn to silence, or a gag order by the general. ;)
I hope he's very busy working - the best way to spend bearding time.
I hope so too - ever since this all began, we haven't heard a political peep out of him.
:x
^^ :)
And Maggie seen out in fur - these
two are going downhill fast. ;) Fur looks awful on anyone but the creature who was born with it, not the creature who ends up wearing it. I can't believe someone as socially aware as Maggie G would wear real fur. It's hard to tell by looking, there is some really fabulous faux fur out there.
Could Maggie's fur be faux?
Not All Mormons Supported Prop. 8
Yesterday, Megan wrote eloquently about how pointless and divisive it is to blame African Americans for the passage of California's Proposition 8. And even though the Mormon Church pumped an estimated $22 million into the Yes on 8 campaign, it is worth noting that not every Mormon supported it either. Babble linked to a blog called Feminist Mormon Housewives, a site populated by women who write about mentoring gay teens and being incredibly disillusioned and depressed by what they believe is the hypocrisy of their church.
You might wonder why these women remain Mormons, when they disagree with so much of what others see as fundamental to the church. A blogger called "The Faithful Dissident" tries to explain:
I know that some of you out there are going through the same sort of struggles as I am. Perhaps you’re tired of having to constantly defend your personal political convictions to other Mormons. Perhaps you’ve had it up to here with the whole Prop 8 issue. Perhaps you are tired of trying to convince fellow Mormons that Barack Obama is not the Antichrist. Perhaps you are feeling really disillusioned by the hypocrisy of Mormons. Perhaps you are gay. Perhaps you are married to a non-member. Or perhaps you are a Mormon misfit, for whatever reason, and feel like the Church doesn’t have a place for someone like you. And yet, if you’re reading this right now, there is a reason why you’ve decided to stick around. For me, it’s all about Jesus; the simplicity and the purity of His message, which inspires me to require more of myself and less of others.
Another woman in the comments says, "It’s my ancestry, my family, my backbone. I may think my church is annoying or crazy or senseless at times, but the thought of not having it there seems so wrong. I don’t know who’d I be without it." And here's the thing: in a way, these women are much braver than we are. It's very easy to exclaim my pro-gay marriage beliefs in a web community like Jezebel, to an audience of like-minded people. These women are expressing their feelings to a community that is largely hostile to their message, and instead of just finding another church that is more in line with their social beliefs, they're struggling to make a place for themselves within Mormonism. While we can't get behind the Mormon Church at large when they promote intolerance, it's important to remind yourself that there are individual Mormons with their critical thinking skills intact.
Jezebel.com
We know that.
We only have the problem with the ones advocating discrimination.
Know what 3:25 PM? That "Not All Mormons Supported Prop. 8"?
While we can't get behind the Mormon Church at large when they promote intolerance, it's important to remind yourself that there are individual Mormons with their critical thinking skills intact
I was responding to the Jezebel post, saying that we know that people are individuals. Not everyone supports Prop 8. In light of what they are trying to do, it's a little insulting.
And here's the thing: in a way, these women are much braver than we are. It's very easy to exclaim my pro-gay marriage beliefs in a web community like Jezebel, to an audience of like-minded people. These women are expressing their feelings to a community that is largely hostile to their message...
Good point.
Ouch!
Hairy And Hairier
Maggie Gyllenhag and Peter Sarsgaard showed up to some event at Moma in NYC last night looking like they were just discovered living in a cave in the mountains, surviving on snake piss, tarantula legs, lizard heads and bat peens. The Olsen trolls are probably filing a lawsuit right now against these two haggard bitches. They copyrighted the "mole people of the mountains" look.
If Maggie wanted to wear fur so badly, she should've just shaved off the 70s pussy bush from Peter's face and worn that shit instead.
Dlisted
I think it is total BS. They are still a part of it, that's the bottom line. The same things that other religions claim. Just damage control to take the focus on the horrible things churches do in the name of God. These women, are a very small minority, it that is even true at all.
Bad Michael. LOL tho. ;)
Mentoring gay teens is wonderful, don't get me wrong. But were they out there protesting Prop 8 like Steve Young and his wife and contributing to the NO campaign? Did they support their son and his partner when they recently married like a Mormon dad? It's patronizing say to people that we have to remember that not everyone supported Prop 8, because we know that. We applaud those who stand up against discrimination in their church, and other teachings they don't feel are right, but we don't need to be told that at this time. We know it. I don't have a problem with religion itself, just the way certain members (NOT ALL, for the hundredth time) use it for self-serving or misguided purposes.
We have to remember that religions are not democracies; change does not come easy to them, if at all. Religions are hierarchies, not democracies, and their teachings have remained virtually unchanged for hundreds, if not thousands in some cases, years. It seems self-perpetuating if the basic tenets don't change.
At the moment Jake's ass belongs to Disney. He's gonna get take a pro-homo stand? Right. In yr dreeemz.
"Religions" are hierarchies? come on dont be stoopid. Jesus was a pink-o.
Funny, I grew up not listening to my family at all, once I reached a certain age when I began to question things around me - I formed my own beliefs, and questioned what I didn't think was right or agree with, and would leave an organization who did things I didn't believe in.
I don't the the African-American or Latino community in CA had formally organized campaigns against gay marriage.
According to some, Christianity was originally a peaceful anarchist movement (see Ebionites). Jesus is said, in this view, to have come to empower individuals and free people from oppressive religious doctrines in Mosaic law; he taught that the only rightful authority was God, not Man, evolving the law into the Golden Rule.
October 05, 2007
Gay Mormons share stories on eve of conference
Affirmation, a gay Mormon group, is celebrating its 30th anniversary in Washington with a national conference this weekend, ministering to members and former members of a church that, like many, is divided between religious identity and the acceptance of homosexuality. Gay Mormons have faced a range of adversities, from excommunication and estrangement from families to reparative therapy and even shock treatments.
Andrew Evans, an Affirmation member who plans to attend this weekend’s conference, said being Mormon is as much an institutional faith as a cultural identity that, in his case, goes back seven generations.
“In some ways, being Mormon is a lot like being Jewish,” he said. “It is your heritage, your cultural identity, your world view, your family and all your closest relationships.”
He grew up doing all the “right” Mormon things as an Eagle Scout, a Brigham Young University student and a missionary. He said he knew for a long time he was gay, but didn’t accept it until he realized he would never be able to marry a woman. When the school threatened to expel him and take away the credits he earned, Evans said he agreed to undergo reparative therapy.
“Although my therapy was relatively harmless, the university was still conducting shock therapy on other gay students at the very same time,” he said. “I remained closeted until grad school, when I met my partner.”
He said he came out to his parents and felt alienated from his family and church. Eventually he was excommunicated. Church leaders gave him the option of leaving his partner and saying he had “fallen into temptation and was trying to change.” He chose to stay with his partner and said that while his relationship with his parents has improved, he is still estranged from a few of his eight siblings.
He said a highly centralized body of leaders with a narrow sacred doctrine runs the church. The challenge for gays, Evans said, comes when the official voice of the church conflicts with the personal experience of its members.
“Faithful members will not dare contradict official doctrine,” he said. “Yet with homosexuality, so many members have had experiences that fall outside the church’s official statements. This causes a kind of psychological, emotional and spiritual turmoil that few outsiders can comprehend.”
...
http://www.washblade.com/2007/10-5/news/national/11344.cfm
This causes a kind of psychological, emotional and spiritual turmoil that few outsiders can comprehend.
I don't know, I think if you grow up homosexual in a larger society of majority heterosexual, you might have some idea, or of a different race or religion at one point in our history. :(
Yet with homosexuality, so many members have had experiences that fall outside the church’s official statements. This causes a kind of psychological, emotional and spiritual turmoil that few outsiders can comprehend.
Sounds like emotional Hell on Earth.
Although my therapy was relatively harmless, the university was still conducting shock therapy on other gay students at the very same time.
Stupid bastards.
All the more reason not to be apologist for it. We all have a cultural identity that is difficult to separate from, but people do it.
There are a number of church denominations that have ordained GLBT pastors and married GLBT people for decades.
Obama is a member of the UCC which is one of these.
Well that's a good thing - I wish more would.
How many is "a number" of them?
And who are they? I do know of Bishop Robinson of the Episcopal church, and think he is wonderful. Nobody is putting down relgions entirely, but the few that don't subscribe to the doctrines of the majority don't excuse the actions of the majority or their teachings, or the ones who try to make legislation that discriminates against a minority. Prop 8 is the subject, and any others states that may follow this lead.
. . . married GLBT people for decades.
Decades? Marriage only recently became legal in 3 states. You mean symbolic marriages? or civil unions? Do you mean in the US, Canada or Europe? Who and where and in what such remarkable numbers? It's wonderful if it's true. I know that the UCC recognizes same-sex marriage.
We want the real thing, no imitations of marriage will do.
"How many is "a number" of them?"
The United Church of Christ is the oldest Protestant denomination in USA - also the Unitarians affirm same-sex marriage, and both denominations are very strong and socially active. The Presbyterians and Methodists and Episcopalians have been in heated conversation a long time, many brave souls in this fight. Metropolitan Community Church, Reformed Catholic, marry same sex couples.
"Decades? Marriage only recently became legal in 3 states. You mean symbolic marriages? or civil unions?"
I mean real marriages in churches presided over by ordained pastors, whether or not the marriages are state-approved. Once these are legal, of course, it is another step in the right direction, and we keep moving in this direction.
Fornication outside of marriage was illegal in New York State until recently. Does not mean that the act was not "real".
^^Who was talking about that?
Fornication outside of marriage was illegal in New York State until recently. Does not mean that the act was not "real".
I don't think anybody implied this at all, or was talking about sex. We were talking about Prop 8. It's just clouding the issue, or maybe people are unsure themselves, what marriage means, which makes education all the more important. Of course it didn't mean it isn't real, or beautiful, or worthy or the same respect as heterosexual love.
I wasn't talking at all about sex in relationships. People need to differentiate between sex and love, and stop focusing on homosexual relationships in terms of sex only. The same kinds of relationships as heterosexual - purely sexualy, or deeper,
longterm relationships.
Legal marriage is not only a step in the right direction, it's a HUGE step for equality. The marriages performed may be real, but they are not equal.
You also implied there were GLBT pastors - is that true? I wasn't aware of that many.
I see that The "Campaign for of Families" California wants to be named a respondent in all of the lawsuits. Must be expecting a legal battle. Good. Hee! :)
Prop 8 Lawsuit Explanation For Non-Lawyers: An Unbiased-and-Simple-As-Possible Explanation of the Prop 8 Lawsuits for Non-Lawyers.
We here at Johnny California are getting a lot of questions about the basis for the Prop. 8 lawsuit. People are telling us that they don’t understand it. We’re here to help. We tried to break it down as simply and as straightforward as possible for you.
Some “Disclaimers”: We are No-On-8ers and have legal backgrounds. What follows is an attempt to simply explain the California Supreme Court decision in In Re: Marriage Cases and the theory behind the current Prop. 8 challenges. What follows is geared for non-lawyers, it’s an “explanation” not an “analysis.” To keep it as “informational” as possible, we don’t give our opinion as to the chances for this lawsuit’s success.
Cool? Cool. OK let’s go.
First Some Background
In the world of civil rights law, a “fundamental right” is a big ticket item. It’s a right that is specifically stated in or derived from the constitution. Examples of fundamental rights specifically stated in both the U.S. and California constitutions include freedom of speech, free exercise of religion, and freedom of association.
Examples of fundamental rights that the U.S. and State Supreme Courts derived from the constitution include the right to privacy and the right to get married.
Last May, the California Supreme Court declared that marriage between two consenting adults, regardless of gender, is a “fundamental right” and that not allowing gays and lesbians to marry deprived from of this “fundamental right.
The California Supreme Court also declared gays and lesbians to be what’s known as a “suspect class.” In legal jargon, a “suspect class” is a group of people who have been traditionally discriminated against. At the federal level, a “suspect class” is always a racial or religious minority. At the federal level, gays and lesbians are not a suspect class, As far as we know, California is the only state to grant “suspect class” status to gays and lesbians.
Once the California Court declared that gays and lesbians were a “suspect class” that had been deprived of the “fundamental right” of marriage, the Court told the California Attorney General’s Office that it better come up with a damn good reason why gays and lesbians were not only being discriminated against but also denied the fundamental right of marriage. The AG’s Office didn’t come up with a reason that satisfied the Court, and the one man/one woman definition of marriage was found to be in violation of the California constitution.
Once the California Supreme Court declared the marriage definition unconstitutional, same-sex marriage opposition groups decided to undo the Court’s decision by amending the California constitution by a simple majority of a popular vote, also known as a “ballot proposition.” That ballot proposition was Prop. 8.
OK…Ready to move on the lawsuit?
The Prop. 8 Lawsuits
The lawsuits claim that since the California Supreme Court already declared that gays and lesbians were a “suspect class” who were being discriminated against and denied a “fundamental right”, that Prop. 8 goes beyond amending the California constitution; they claim that Prop. 8 completely violates the “constitution’s core commitment to equality for everyone be eliminating a fundamental right form just one group – lesbian and gay Californians.” In other words, the suits claim that since marriage is a fundamental right in the California constitution, Prop. 8 can’t come along and take away that right from one group.
The lawsuit’s second claim is that not only does the lawsuit interfere with the role of the constitution, it interferes with the job of the Supreme Court to protect “suspect classes” from discrimination and deprivation of their “fundamental rights.” In other words, Prop. 8 isn’t changing a law or amending the constitution, it’s telling the California Supreme Court interpret the constitution. It was decided back in the olden days that the Supreme Court is the only entity that can interpret the constitution into law and nobody can tell the Court how to interpret it. Or more simply, it’s illegal to pass a law that tells the Supreme Court how to do it’s job.
Finally, the lawsuit makes what’s known as a “procedural argument.” The suit claims that since Prop. 8 goes so far that in altering the California constitution and the role of the Supreme Court, that it actually changes the structure of the state government. They say that a ballot prop cannot wield that much power and that a same-sex marriage ban needed to first through go through the state legislature.
Over at PolitickerCA, one of the lawyers on the case who sums up the whole argument this way:
"If the voters approved an initiative that took the right to free speech away from women, but not from men, everyone would agree that such a measure conflicts with the basic ideals of equality enshrined in our constitution. Proposition 8 suffers from the same flaw - it removes a protected constitutional right - here, the right to marry - not from all Californians, but just from one group of us. That’s too big a change in the principles of our constitution to be made just by a bare majority of voters."
The End.
Feel free to comment with questions and will try to clarify anything that wasn’t clear.
And to all you other lawyer types out there, remember that we’re not “analyzing” the lawsuit, we’re explaining it to people who had the good sense to stay away from law school.
Johnny California
^^should be "may be real, but are not equal in terms of rights."
Johnny, you were crystal clear, remedial even. We have been discussing this for days. Why don't you tell the hate groups this? It might not have gotten as far as it has. Just lose the condescending attitude.
Ok, who did this?
Cute.
The United Church of Christ is the oldest Protestant denomination in USA - also the Unitarians affirm same-sex marriage, and both denominations are very strong and socially active. The Presbyterians and Methodists and Episcopalians have been in heated conversation a long time, many brave souls in this fight. Metropolitan Community Church, Reformed Catholic, marry same sex couples.
But they have only recognized and perform same-sex marriages recently, not going on for decades.
The problem is, a lot of the articles being reposted here don't seem to be getting the information entirely correct, either, not just us laypeople - it was posted here where gays and lesbians were not considered a suspect class under CA law, which I thought was puzzling, but I didn't know. Now Johnny ways they are.
^^says
While it's wonderful that there are some enlightened churches and one being the oldest Protestant denomination in the US, who do recognize same sex marriage, and perform them, most of the other major religions do not. I wanted to bring this up because it may give some the impression that things are rosy when there is so much still to be done, and states passing laws amending constitutions to take rights away.
For example, this was posted from DailyKos on Queerty:
All may not be lost in terms of Proposition 8, the California ballot measure that seems to have overturned gay marriage.
According to DailyKos, California Supreme Court Justice Ronald George, who wrote the majority opinion based on his state's precedent, not the Supreme Court, did not create a suspect class for gay folk, thereby leaving some wiggle room for debate:
"There is ample precedent under CA law that alterations of fundamental rights cannot to done with a mere amendment via majority vote of the electorate. This would constitute a "revision" of the CA Constitution would requires 2/3 vote of both Houses of Legislature AND a 2/3 vote by the electorate or alternatively a State Constitutional Convention called by 2/3 vote of both houses."
Activists are also hoping the 3-4 million uncounted ballots can help swing the polls back in our direction.
^^reposted here from Queerty.
"While it's wonderful that there are some enlightened churches and one being the oldest Protestant denomination in the US, who do recognize same sex marriage, and perform them, most of the other major religions do not. I wanted to bring this up because it may give some the impression that things are rosy when there is so much still to be done, and states passing laws amending constitutions to take rights away."
Of course there is work to be done. But generalizations about communities that are often and yes I mean often on the firing line for social action is the kind of knownothingness from which creeps forth the isms we fight against.
It's not a generalization, it's a fact. I wasn't speaking about the communities you mention, only about the ones who are pushing descrimination against gays and lesbians. What isn't clear about that? It needs to be addressed.
I am speaking specifically about the groups that are pushing Prop 8, Anon. 9:35. It's not a generalization. I can't make it any clearer to you than that. You misunderstand.
You can always find a few groups who don't follow the majority. However, that doesn't change what the majority is doing. Don't hide your head in the sand, or pretend to.
There are enough "creeps" out there, Anon. 9:35, creeping around and trying to deny people their rights.
I was referring to some earlier posts, 9:51, that seemed to be painting all "religious institutions" with the same tar brush. Certainly not forgiving nor forgetting of those that stand in the way of human rights.
Ok, I apologize if I was one who appeared to paint all religious groups with the same tar brush. It was not my intention. :)
Babytile is merely a metaphor for a new relationship.
That doesn't make any sense.
Huh 10:52 PM?
George Clooney Weighs In on Prop 8
As George Clooney is one of Hollywood's most outspoken and informed residents, been waiting to hear how he felt about Prop 8, one of the most controversial political developments in our lifetime.
Here's what Mr. C revealed exclusively to the Awful Truth:
"At some point in our lifetime, gay marriage won't be an issue, and everyone who stood against this civil right will look as outdated as George Wallace standing on the school steps keeping James Hood from entering the University of Alabama because he was black."
Couldn't have said it better, George, well done.
100.000$
Mortier Departs Post at City Opera; "Brokeback Mountain" and Walt Disney Operas Dropped
City Opera will no longer serve as the home for the aborning operas based on the film "Brokeback Mountain" and the life of late animator Walt Disney.
As reported by the New York Times on Nov. 7, appointed general manager and artistic director Gerard Mortier has departed his position at City Opera. Variety reports that he will ultimately take with him the two works which he commissioned as part of his proposed programming.
The paper states that Mortier, who was to officially begin his duties in 2009, left City Opera due to budgetary constraints that would have hindered his intended programming that included Charles Wuorinen's opera based on the short story and subsequent Academy Award-winning film "Brokeback Mountain," as well as The Perfect American, the Philip Glass opera about the life of Walt Disney.
Mortier hopes that the productions, both of which were to premiere at City Opera in the 2012-2013 season, will find homes elsewhere.
http://www.playbillarts.com/features/article/7811.html
NY Post, Cindy Adams
HERE COMES THE EARLY OSCAR BUZZ
WITH the Oscars further away than our financial recovery and none of these out yet, here's what's al ready being touted:
Best Picture: "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button." F. Scott Fitzgerald's 1922 jazzed up short story with Brad Pitt regressing in age from octogenarianship to Angelina-hood to infancy. "Revolutionary Road," a thing about marriage from Richard Yates' 1961 novel. Sam Mendes directs his wife, Kate Winslet, and her "Titanic" co-star Leonardo DiCaprio. She's in every frame, but she's figured for Best Supporting since she might nail Best Actress for "The Reader." Director Stephen Daldry's "The Reader," set in post-WWII Germany, written by a German professor, is about heart, soul, reconciliation, all those good things including leading man Ralph Fiennes.
The Vegas line puts Sean Penn for Best Actor in "Milk," director Gus Van Sant's saga of San Fran's first openly gay politico. And after playing Dubya Bush, Josh Brolin now plays Harvey Milk's live-in. He goes from loser to lover. Plus there's "Slum Dog Millionaire," some small cheapo Danny Boyle-directed indie job about an Indian version of how to be a millionaire and which "they" say, not me, "they" - is a small gem like "Crash" and "Trainspotting." Like I said, "they" say. Me, I say, forget not Meryl Streep and Philip Seymour Hoffman in "Doubt."
Mortier hopes that the productions, both of which were to premiere at City Opera in the 2012-2013 season, will find homes elsewhere.
Fingers crossed for "Brokeback Mountain" opera!
"At some point in our lifetime, gay marriage won't be an issue, and everyone who stood against this civil right will look as outdated as George Wallace standing on the school steps keeping James Hood from entering the University of Alabama because he was black."
Thanks George. Next time follow the example of your good pal and don't be stingy.
Ent Lawyer BI
This NBA star and when I say star, he is definitely All Star caliber is sleeping with this male B list actor from a Top 20 network drama. Yes, they say they are just friends, but it is way beyond that.
For those who like to vote:
...
FAVORITE MOVIE
The Dark Knight
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
Iron Man
FAVORITE ACTION MOVIE
The Dark Knight
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
Iron Man
FAVORITE CAST
The Dark Knight (Christian Bale, Heath Ledger, Aaron Eckhart, Michael Caine, Gary Oldman, Morgan Freeman, Maggie Gyllenhaal)
Mamma Mia! (Meryl Streep, Amanda Seyfried, Pierce Brosnan, Stellan Skarsgard, Colin Firth)
Sex and the City (Sarah Jessica Parker, Kim Cattrall, Kristin Davis, Cynthia Nixon, Chris Noth)
FAVORITE ON-SCREEN MATCH-UP
Christian Bale & Heath Ledger (The Dark Knight)
Tina Fey & Amy Poehler (Baby Mama)
Harrison Ford & Shia LaBeouf (Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull)
FAVORITE STAR 35 & UNDER
Jake Gyllenhaal
Anne Hathaway
...
People's Choice Awards
and
FAVORITE LEADING LADY
Anne Hathaway
Kate Hudson
Queen Latifah
FAVORITE FEMALE ACTION STAR
Cate Blanchett
Anne Hathaway
Angelina Jolie
Happy Birthday Anne Hathaway!
Baby Tile is a metaphor for change we can believe in.
I mean change in which we can believe.
Still don't get it. What change?
LOL LOL LOL
http://www.celebitchy.com/21375/reese_witherspoon_is_finally_ready_to_get_married_but_now_jake_gyllenhaal_isnt/
Wow, I'm so happy TDK did so well at the People's Choice Awards!
Congrats to Jake and Anne for winning, and Happy Birthday to Anne! :*
http://www.celebitchy.com/21375/reese_witherspoon_is_finally_ready_to_get_married_but_now_jake_gyllenhaal_isnt/
“They laugh at each other’s jokes and they’re both homebodies,” says a friend of the couple. “They have unbelievable chemistry.” Most importantly, her children, Ava, 9, and Deacon, 5, “love him.” On October 23, the couple celebrated Deacon’s birthday at Reese’s Brentwood, Calif., home. “Jake has gotten really close to her kids,” says the friend. “Family is important to him.”
It is to Reese, too. And now the actress wants to make it official and marry Jake. “Reese is not a very spontaneous person,” the pal explains. “So she’s given a lot of thought to whether Jake’s the one for her. And he is.”
Jake brought up marriage a while ago, “but she didn’t want to rush into it,” a source says. Reese, 32, who split with husband Ryan Phillippe, 34, in October 2006, wanted her children to have time to adjust to the divorce. She also needed time to heal. After the split, Reese admitted she was sad: “I’m just sort of living day by day.” But when she started dating Jake in the spring of 2007, he renewed her faith in love.
[From In Touch, print edition, November 10, 2008]
For the wedding, In Touch reports Reese is planning an intimate ceremony of about 25 guests, to take place at the new $6.9 million house Reese bought in Ojai. A local says, “She’s already inquired with town officials about blocking off the street and getting a ban on helicopters if they marry outside.”
Jake may even convert from Judaism to Christianity for Reese.
While she hasn’t set a date, Reese expects the wedding to happen in 2009.
But now there’s a bump in their fairy tale romance.
The National Enquirer reports Jake has told Reese to cancel wedding plans after the sudden divorce of his parents, Naomi Foner and Stephen Gyllenhaal, after 30 years of marriage.
“Jake is devastated by his mom and dad’s split, and it’s soured him completely on marriage,” an insider told The Enquirer. “He can’t believe that after all these years his mom and dad are divorcing. It blindsided him. He’s already asked Reese to cool off on the wedding talk.”
[From National Enquirer, print edition, November 17, 2008]
Even though Jake has moved in with Reese and bonded with her kids, he’s now the one who wants to take things slow.
The actor flew from London where he’s filming Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time to Los Angeles the last weekend in October to tell Oscar winner Reese that he wants to pull the plug on their wedding plans, said the insider.
“It’s too much of a drain for Jake to plan his wedding when he’s mourning his parents’ breakup,” divulged the insider.
“But Reese is already hinting to friends that they were going to throw a lavish ceremony next summer. And while she’s sympathetic to Jake’s heartbreak over his folks, she’s not going to wait forever for him to make a commitment to their future.”
[From National Enquirer, print edition, November 17, 2008]
Congrats to Jake and Anne for winning
They didn't win, they are just nominated along with other celebs.
Sorry, being nominated! :) I've had my mind on Prop 8 lately.
Jake's going to convert to Christianity if he marries Reese? I wonder if she would convert to Judaism for him. I have a friends who did that, she converted from Catholicism to Judaism. It's such a beautiful religion, it's something I'd always considered if I were marrying someone of the Jewish faith. :)
Hello, let's not forget it's In Touch crap. Same tabloid said "They have unbelievable chemistry." LOL
LOL Yes, it's crap overkill. :)
"Quantum of Solace is not a great movie. It's full of explosions and set pieces, and reminds everyone who sees it of the "Bourne" movies. But as a James Bond movie? It ranks far below the usual standards." —Roger Friedman. [Fox 411]
Poor one of the hottest men in the world!
"He is an actor who has been called one of the hottest men in the world. However, she is less than thrilled with the relationship. He has a problem in the bedroom. Even the little blue pill doesn’t work. She calls him “The Limp Noodle” or “Mr. Noodle” behind his back. Frustrated, but reluctant to leave him because being part of a celebrity couple has its perks, she has resorted to seeing an old boyfriend on the sly to satisfy her carnal needs." [BlindGossip]
Good news for a change
Same-Sex Marriages to Begin in Connecticut Today
Same-sex couples in Connecticut expect to begin marrying today after a court hearing which begins in about an hour.
"Superior Court Judge Jonathan Silbert has scheduled a hearing at 9:15 a.m. Wednesday in New Haven to enter the final judgment in the case that allows same-sex marriages in Connecticut. Once the hearing ends, couples can pick up marriage license forms at town and city clerk's offices. It's unclear how many couples will get married. The state public health department says 2,032 civil union licenses were issued in Connecticut between October 2005 and July 2008. The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled Oct. 10 that same-sex couples have the right to wed rather than accept a civil union law. Only Connecticut and Massachusetts have legalized gay marriage. The unions were legal in California until voters narrowly passed a ban last week. At least three lawsuits ask that state's Supreme Court to overturn the vote."
In last week's election, voters rejected a proposed Constitutional Convention that might have amended the state's constitution to banish marriage equality.
http://www.towleroad.com/2008/11/same-sex-marr-1.html
There are a number of church denominations that have ordained GLBT pastors and married GLBT people for decades. And who are they?
Unitarian Universalist.
From Wikipedia:
To be considered a suspect classification in the U.S. a group must meet all of the following criteria:
1. The groups' characteristics are immutable. (Race, national origin)
2. The group shares a history of discrimination.
3. The group is politically impotent.
4. The group is a discrete and insular minority. (see U.S. v. Carolene Products)
The Supreme Court has recognized that race, national origin, religion, and alienage are suspect classes...
Weird - Item 1 is "immutable." Yet religion, which is as mutable as it comes, is considered a suspect class. And sexual orientation is not. Bunch of baloney.
Yeah chemistry between R and J is unbelievable. Nobody believes it.
LOL
it fundamentally comes down to whether the court considers this a major change or not a major change
Fine. If it's not a major change, then my partner and I will go on with our wedding just like before.
Jake may even convert from Judaism to Christianity for Reese.
So as we can see, religion is not an immutable characteristic.
Prop 8
Ted Costa: State high court throwing out Prop. 8 sure to lead to recall effort
The California Supreme Court's surprising announcement that it will quickly review the legality of Proposition 8, banning gay marriage, has prompted growing speculation that the four judges who found a right to gay marriage in the state Constitution in a May ruling will quickly throw Prop. 8 out. If that happens, watch out for a "barn-burner of an election -- the biggest thing this state has ever seen," says recall election guru Ted Costa.
Costa says he's already been contacted by some of the folks who would seek to recall Ronald George, Joyce Kennard, Kathryn Werdegar and Carlos Moreno if Prop. 8 is scrapped. He thinks it's premature and risky because talk of a recall "would just (bleep) off the judges."
Costa also doesn't sound like he's too thrilled about such a recall, saying it wouldn't be "healthy." Citing all the financial turmoil in California, he said, "If someone's going to do some recalling, that should be the focus."
But Costa sounds certain such a recall would happen and agreed that it would be no problem at all for gay marriage opponents to quickly gather the signatures of 12 percent of the electorate to force a recall election targeting George, Kennard, Werdegar and Moreno. He said supporters of Prop. 8 such as the Knights of Columbus, the Mormon Church and other traditional religious groups all had "massive" resources to bring to bear.
He doesn't think the state Supreme Court will overturn Prop. 8. "I gotta believe they'll uphold the initiative process." But if the four justices do, Costa says expect an amazing spectacle.
I agree. I think literally hundreds of millions of dollars would be spent on the recall. Gay marriage opponents see Prop. 8 as akin to a last stand preventing a global movement toward acceptance of gay marriage and will go all out. Gay marriage supporters, for their part, will no longer accept incremental progress or "civil unions."
At least it would be good for the California economy.
SignOnSanDiego
Jake may even convert from Judaism to Christianity for Reese.
I hate to see him lose even more of his identity in the Witherspoon Inc. quicksand. What's wrong with sharing religious beliefs - it's beneficial for children. And the kids have their father. :(
Being gay or lesbian meets all the requirements to be considered a protected class, I would think, Anon. 11:18. I think it's just a matter of time. Generally speaking, people's religion doesn't change, and it's a cultural identity that doesn't change.
The initiative process is one thing; civil rights is another. I fully expect Prop 8 to be overturned.
Jake may even convert from Judaism to Christianity for Reese."
Isn't Reese a Protestant? Besides, good riddance. We're a great religion and heritage--we don't need him.
You certainly are! :*
I really, really don't like the idea of WASP-izing Jake, at all. I hope he wouldn't turn his back on his heritage, or just pay lip service to converting simply to marry. :(
I dont think either Maggie nor Peter has or intends to "convert" to the other's faith tradition.
I dont think Stephen nor Naomi "converted". Jake says he considers himself mostly a Jew.
Mostly? Robert J Zimmerman had a conversion experience but it was mostly a metaphor for change, like Baby Tile.
Jake has had to toe a straight line for his seven mil. Can't see how he's going to regain any credibilty after this debacle.
Come on, it's In Touch bullshit.
When they get married, then poblems will start.
Fauxmance is fun while you are trying to convince other people, but once they make it a safe, steady official routine and don't have to "work" for it then it's going to be HELL!!!!
i'm sorry for Reese's kids... those poor millionaire kids :´´´(
The entire thing is just so phoney and nauseating. It's her second marriage, and I don't think anyone needs to convert as long as one member is a Protestant? Does she need to usurp him of everything? It's all just to appeal to the majority of the public.
LOL, Jake isn't going to marry his beard, he didn't lose his mind.
"Jake may even convert" is just another way to make Reeke about "I have it all" Reese.
^^It's horrible - I'd want my husband just the way he is, want him to bring his beautiful culture, religion and heritage - not change or remake him.
Even if Jake was dating the bitch - why would you believe some rag and think Jake would do something like that ?!?
Jake returned to USA just before election but did not make a statement to support his "unique fan base" - nor did his progressive/radical parents.
Fie on him forever. (I think)
I don't believe it - but it is outrageous to think about, someone requiring conversion of their potential husband, unless they sincerely want to themselves. An insult, really.
Potential husband? LOL
Of course they are going to get marry! If they don't, i'll start to think that there was some truth in that relationship. I don't think RW could agree bearding for a couple of years and then being dumped a second time.
Jake is going to have a powerful and millionaire wife who is going to help him in the industry and i think Reese is done with guys after her marriage fiasco, she only needs a man to show off in events and then relax to take care of her children and her most precious thing: her movie career
they are perfect together, it's fake and disgusting, but oh so perfect
In general, 12:47. Not them specifically. That remains to be seen, if ever.
It's getting so I can't stand to hear about either one of them. :)
I find everything about both of them offensive now. I have no interest in their wedding silliness, when a certain segment of America cannot even get married in the first place. Can't say anything in support of Heath, President Obama, against Prop 8. Horrible.
12:47 PM #2
There is no way to dump Reese - she will do the dumping. Just like she "dumped" Ryan.
The rag's credibility was lost when they claimed Reeke has "incredible" chemistry. Any fool can see there is none. Also, his parents have been split for over a year, so no suprises there. Maybe the Jake no longer wants to get married talk marks the start of the end of Reeke. Lets hope so anyway.
Incredible chemistry - hopefully like nitro and glycerin. ;)
NYC
Tonight We Will March in NYC for Equal Rights for LGBT Citizens
Last night I attended a meeting of NYC protest organizers and marshals in preparation for tonight's peaceful demonstration which begins at Manhattan's Mormon Temple at 6:30 pm. The protest was organized in response to the passage in California of Proposition 8 and has taken on the more general demand for equal rights and marriage equality for LGBT citizens across the nation.
According to organizers, who are preparing for a sizable turnout at tonight's march (at last count there was a "yes" response from over 3,000 on the Facebook page), it will begin at the Manhattan Mormon Temple location, and at some point, as the location reaches capacity, slowly march down Broadway toward Columbus Circle.
...
NYC protest
NYC protest - comments:
Posted by: Mike
We need one national group to coordinate our actions after all these marches. We are heavily splintered, while our adversaries are heavily coordinated, well prepared, and in some cases tax-exempt. I think we are letting our anger blind us the lessons to be learned from the Obama campaign, and also worried that we will exhaust our momentum before a new national group can be formed.
Posted by: Sterling Smith
I agree with the post by Mike. I have covered this idea in my new blog which is for this issue. It is called "The Turning Tide" and the address is: www.sterling-smith.blogspot.com
Posted by: andy
Mike and Sterling - there is something developing, stay tuned.
Thx for the prop 8 news postings. This is the BEST place to get the whole story! :)
More planted marriage talk? Geesh, I guess that Four Christmases is not doing well at the box office.
Keep on stoking those pr fires, Witherspoon. You'll get another Oscar before 2020.
Glad to see everyone joing together to be strong while we wait for what's going to happen with Prop 8. Here's an interesting article I found as well:
http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2008/11/blaming_black_v.html
An important excerpt from the above article:
But our focus groups also showed us that marriage equality faces a higher hurdle. Many people in our focus groups had difficulty sorting out the difference between civil marriage and marriage as a religious institution. Even some of the most eloquent opponents of discrimination argued that marriage was somehow different because they saw it as an inherently religious act that God had designed to be between a man and a woman. Rev. Kenneth Samuel, chair of the AAMLC's Equal Justice Task Force, says we need to be in "tough and loving" conversation to get people to think differently about that question, and to grapple with separating religious belief from commitment to constitutional principles of equality under the law. That's a hard conversation to have in the midst of a heated political campaign.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081111/ap_on_re_us/mormons_gay_rights_1
^^^
Mormon comments give gays hope for new Utah laws
Gay-rights activists see opportunities for their cause in Utah thanks to Mormon church officials, who strongly supported California's proposition denying same-sex couples the right to marry but said they did not object to granting those couples certain other rights.
The advocacy group Equality Utah is asking The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to support several bills that will be submitted to the Legislature supporting rights for the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community. Mormon support — especially in the form of campaign contributions — was an important factor in the passage of California's Proposition 8, which rejected a state Supreme Court decision allowing gay marriage.
But although church leaders are steadfastly against such marriages, during the Proposition 8 campaign they expressed willingness to accept other rights for same-sex couples. "Just last week, Elder L. Whitney Clayton stated the LDS Church does not oppose 'civil union or domestic partnerships,'" said Equality Utah Chairwoman Stephanie Pappas on Monday. "We are taking the LDS Church at its word." In a statement issued following the approval of Proposition 8, church officials said they do "not object to rights for same-sex couples regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights."
A church spokeswoman told The Associated Press on Tuesday that it would have no comment.
Equality Utah said Monday it will help draft five bills for the 2009 session, which starts in January. Three of the bills seek equal treatment for domestic partners on hospitalization, medical care, housing, employment and probate rights. A fourth bill would create a domestic partner registry. The fifth would repeal a part of Utah's marriage-defining constitutional amendment that Equality Utah Public Policy Manager Will Carlson said has been "misinterpreted to avoid any recognition of gay couples."
Previous attempts at passing similar bills have failed, but the planned legislation would benefit greatly if it is supported by the Mormon church, which counts as members about 62 percent of Utah residents.
The state Senate's only openly gay member said the church's statement changes everything. "They hadn't said any of that yet. They've said that now," said state Sen. Scott McCoy, D-Salt Lake City. "This is an invitation to make a reality of what's been said by the church. ... (The church) has said some things that are very encouraging to us, and we're here to say 'Hey, let's see if we can't move forward and get to a place where we are in a more fair and just Utah, outside of the marriage discussion.'"
Republican state Sen. John Valentine said that if the church clarified its statements regarding same-sex rights, lawmakers might be less reluctant to agree to make changes. "Equality Utah is probably correct in interpreting those statements from the church," he said. "It would probably make it an easier argument than it would be without that."
"We are taking the LDS Church at its word." In a statement issued following the approval of Proposition 8, church officials said they do "not object to rights for same-sex couples regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights."
Will see, maybe even church officials can be useful.
I just thought the CA Supreme Court's determination and definition of what marriage is really beautifully written - it's very long, but very beautiful to read: :')
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/archive/S147999.PDF
I see it as Brown v. Board of Education - all the rights in the world can't replace being deemed as a second class - and the damage to self-esteem that that could bring. Marriage between any two people should be given the same respect and esteem. :)
An odd thing about all this - marriage is the "conservative" thing. How can they complain about gays being promiscuous at the same time they are voting against marriage?
But, I do think it's a step in the right direction for Utah. :)
An odd thing about all this - marriage is the "conservative" thing. How can they complain about gays being promiscuous at the same time they are voting against marriage?
I have asked myself this question many, many times as well, Anon. 3:59.
http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2008/11/blaming_black_v.html
Blaming Black Voters for California Prop 8 Loss Is Wrong and Destructive: Here's a fact that creates some perspective. On November 4 there was an anti-gay initiative on the ballot in Arkansas to prohibit unmarried couples from adopting or being foster parents. White voters supported that anti-gay initiative by a 16 percentage point margin, twice the margin for African Americans in the state. So it's clearly not the case that African Americans are inherently more prone to supporting discrimination than white Americans.
How can they complain about gays being promiscuous at the same time they are voting against marriage?
Keep in mind that for religious people homosexuality is a life style choice and therefore a sin.
Here's a better link to the decision:
Your beautiful rights, suitable for framing! :)
http://hosted.ap.org/specials/interactives/_documents/gay_marriage051508.pdf
We conclude that, under this state’s Constitution, the constitutionally based right to
marry properly must be understood to encompass the core set of basic substantive legal rights and attributes traditionally associated with marriage that are so integral to an individual’s liberty and personal autonomy that they may not be eliminated or abrogated by the Legislature or by the electorate through the statutory initiative process. These core substantive rights include, most fundamentally, the
opportunity of an individual to establish — with the person with whom the individual has chosen to share his or her life — an officially recognized and
protected family possessing mutual rights and responsibilities and entitled to the same respect and dignity accorded a union traditionally designated as marriage. :)
As past cases establish, the substantive right of two adults who share a loving relationship to join together to establish an officially recognized family of their own — and, if the couple chooses, to raise children within that family — constitutes a vitally important attribute of the fundamental interest in liberty and personal autonomy that the California Constitution secures to all persons for the benefit of both the individual and society.
Furthermore, in contrast to arlier times, our state now recognizes that an individual’s capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual’s sexual orientation, and, more generally, that an individual’s sexual orientation — like a person’s race or gender — does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights. We therefore conclude that in view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship, the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples.
Whoopi Goldberg to Attend NYC Protest Tonight
I've just received word that Whoopi Goldberg plans to attend tonight's Prop 8 protest in NYC.
the core set of basic substantive legal rights and attributes traditionally associated with marriage are so integral to an individual’s liberty and personal autonomy that they may not be eliminated or abrogated ... by the electorate through the statutory initiative process.
Is that in the California court decision from May? That seems pretty definitive.
Love you Whoopi G!
the core set of basic substantive legal rights and attributes traditionally associated with marriage that are so integral to an individual’s liberty and personal autonomy that they may not be eliminated or abrogated by the Legislature or by the electorate through the statutory initiative process.
That's going on my protest sign tonight!
Is that in the California court decision from May?
Yes.
Yes.
I like it!
Just How Long is an L.A. March?
We're as shocked as anyone that Southern California has become a hotbed of political activism, but nothing's more surprising than Angelino Prop. 8 protesters' willingness to walk long distances for many hours to make their point. This is a city where people drive to the corner market– maybe we were just saving it up for good use.
As inspiration/throw-down for tonight's protest in New York City at 6:30 pm, by the Manhattan Mormon Temple (125 Columbus Ave at 65th Street), we're including a map of Saturday's Los Angeles protest route– and the equivalent distance overlaid on Manhattan. We sent you to Greenpoint, because we have a secret kielbasa agenda.
Map of Saturday's Los Angeles protest route
"That's going on my protest sign tonight!"
Well at least it's catchy.
Furthermore, in contrast to arlier times, our state [California] now recognizes that an individual’s capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual’s sexual orientation, and, more generally, that an individual’s sexual orientation — like a person’s race or gender — does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights.
The Supreme Court of California can't take that back.
Lethal scorpion sparks panic on the set of multi-million pound Disney film Prince of Persia
A lethal scorpion brought panic to the set of a multi-million pound Disney epic after it was found scurrying across a studio floor. Shooting of Disney movie Prince of Persia starring Gemma Arterton and Jake Gyllenhaal was disrupted after after the poisonous creature was spotted by a horrified member of studio staff with its sting aloft.
Staff raised the alarm and the black scorpion was trapped in a bucket by a member of studio staff, and then taken away by a volunteer to the Animal Reception Centre (ARC) at Heathrow Airport.
It is thought the scorpion - described by the RSPCA as very poisonous - stowed away in film equipment during shooting in Morocco three weeks ago. Part of the studio has been sealed off while pest control agents fumigate the area where the scorpion was found. Studio staff are now taking 'standard operating procedures for tropical locations', a Pinewood spokesman said.
A studio insider speaking to the Daily Mail said yesterday filming was stopped after the scorpion was discovered - and there were fears more may have bred in the Buckinghamshire studio. 'It's a bit of a worry as the trucks came back from Morocco three weeks ago, so the worst case scenario is that it hatched here,' an insider said.
'The scorpion was seen walking down a corridor at the studio.'
She said the props had been driven back from Morocco had been shipped in containers and driven in by lorries, the source said. Andrew M Smith, Group Director of Corporate Affairs at Pinewood said the scorpion was found at 9am on Friday morning and had not interrupted filming.
'It was caught by us. We phoned the RSPCA, and they told us to get the animal reception centre, who took it into quarantine. 'We are using standard operating procedures for tropical locations at the moment. 'We take every precaution as production crews come from different countries. Our pest control agency is fumigating the area, that's happening now.' RSPCA inspector Derek Wilkins said that a local reptile expert took the scorpion away before handing it over to ARC.
'I have covered Pinewood for nine years and nothing like this has ever happened before.' A spokesman for Prince of Persia, Michael Singer said that the scorpion may have come from another production which he declined to name. 'The creature was found in a common area of the studio, not on our set or in any of our store rooms.
'There is another film based here which also shot in Morocco. The scorpion's origin is beyond my knowledge. It's had absolutely no effect on filming.'
The film set for release in 2010 has already attracted headlines after 19-year-old Arterton, who played a British secret agent in the latest James Bond film Quantum of Solace, has reportedly fallen in love with Eduardo Munoz, one of the Spanish stunt riders on the film. Munoz taught Arterton to ride in the film, which is based on a computer game of the same name.
Set in medieval Persia, Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time tells the story of an adventurous prince and princess attempting to stop an angry ruler from unleashing a sandstorm that could destroy the world. It is based on a computer game of the same name. There are more than 30 different kinds of scorpion in Morocco where more than 90 people die of scorpion stings each year. Scorpions only live wild in one place in the UK, on the Isle of Sheppey, where a small colony has existed since the 1860s.
PoP scorpion in England
I'm still recovering from the shock.
Yes, that was from the Court decision in May. Wow, Whoopi is going to attend the protest? That's great! And thank you to George Clooney too, his words were great. :)
Well, I hope the next time anyone from PoP heads to Morocco, they bring the poor little bugger with them and return him home! ;)
Join the Impact update:
Protest Locations & Contacts
Elton John Says Gays Should Want Separate But Equal
Elton John and David Furnish (and, according to USA Today, their cocker spaniels Marilyn and Arthur), in New York for Monday's annual benefit for the Elton John AIDS Foundation, told the paper that gays and lesbians should be happy with civil partnerships and forget the fight for marriage equality.
Said Elton: "We're not married. Let's get that right. We have a civil partnership. What is wrong with Proposition 8 is that they went for marriage. Marriage is going to put a lot of people off, the word marriage...I don't want to be married. I'm very happy with a civil partnership. If gay people want to get married, or get together, they should have a civil partnership. The word marriage, I think, puts a lot of people off. You get the same equal rights that we do when we have a civil partnership. Heterosexual people get married. We can have civil partnerships."
However, as folks in New Jersey in civil partnerships have discovered, separate but equal is not equal. Seems those in Connecticut felt the same way.
Civil partnerships good enough?
^^Elton, I love you, but you don't know what you're talking about. Civil partnerships, in the states that have them, vary from state to state in the rights they offer. Plus, the esteem of marriage equality is what matters. Who cares if it puts people off, and I don't think it will put people off. Marriage commands respect.
^^Plus, your civil partnership may not be recognized in another state.
Plus, the State of California affirmed the right to marry, and it can't be taken away by vote. That's the issue now. It's a very important issue - California is California, a very influential and visible state, and to have civil rights denied there is a terrible blow.
Sheesh what's with Elton? That's 30 years of my respect down the drain.
Towleroad has learned that moments ago the L.A. County Board of Supervisors voted 3-0 to join in the lawsuit brought by the City of San Francisco and Dennis Herrera asking the Supreme Court of California to overturn Proposition 8. Zev Yaroslavsky, Yvonne Brathwaite, Burke, Gloria Molina were the three Democratic board members voting. The two Republican board members, Don Knabe and Michael D. Antonovich, were absent.
In addition to the 44 state legislators I posted about yesterday morning, additional groups late yesterday offered their support to lawsuits asking the California Supreme Court to overturn Prop 8: "In letters to the court, the Anti-Defamation League and other groups sided with lawsuits that said Proposition 8, which reinstated a ban on same-sex marriage, amounted to a sweeping revision of the state Constitution instead of a more limited amendment...Another letter from the Bar Association of San Francisco and other groups also urged the court to strike down the measure. 'Because Proposition 8 would shatter existing principles of equal protection and fundamental rights, as well as the judicial branch's role as final arbiter of these constitutional guarantees, it constitutes a revision of the Constitution,' wrote the bar, joined by the Legal Aid Society-Employment Law Center, the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area and the Impact Fund."
Source: Towleroad
:) thx 6:56.
You're very welcome - this is beautiful to see, everyone coming together for civil rights for all! :*
The ADL is the coolest! :*
The ADL is the coolest! :*
^^I am humbled that they are involved, I truly am.
Funny how the scorpion story and the Reeke marriage story came out about the same time. Publicity in case J&R completely disappear off the radar?
Whatever happened to the story about the accident to his eye? Must have been serious as he took a sick day off and some thought he had gone blind because of the blood in his eye? No scars in recent Reeke pics?! LOL
It was a tabloid story (Star?), I think it was rag fiction too.
and some thought he had gone blind because of the blood in his eye?
Who thought that? I never read that anywhere.
I am gay and I agree with Elton John. The US should make the civil union laws of each state the same. I agree it's the word Marriage.
^^Well, each state is independent on their laws since DOMA was passed.
Post a Comment