Christian Coalition seeks marriage ban for smokers and drinkers?
LMAO!

Practice makes perfect!
:hangloose:

Threats, Dead Cat for Pro-Gay Pol.


By Michelle Garcia

A Memphis city council member who has expressed her support for a proposed LGBT antidiscrimination policy has been the target of death threats.

Police may increase patrol units around Janis Fullilove's home because she received threatening phone calls and a dead cat was thrown onto her lawn, WREG News reports.

Nonetheless, Fullilove's position is unchanged, says Jonathan Cole of the Tennessee Equality Project.

"No one should be discriminated against based upon their color, their sexual orientation, not at all," Fullilove said at a recent council meeting, according to The Commercial Appeal. "A number of states and businesses here in the Memphis area, including FedEx, put in place mechanisms that would prevent discrimination based on sexual orientation."

http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_N...at_ProGay_Pol/

omg the Dr. Evil laugh at 0:55 !!!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...9630237241541#

Behind the numbers of Prop. 8

It's crucial to understand the data about Prop. 8's victory before launching another attempt to legalize gay marriage.



By David Fleischer

August 3, 2010



Immediately after Proposition 8 passed, many who supported same-sex marriage tried to make sense of the results. A set of assumptions gained wide acceptance. Some are correct. Most, however, are just plain wrong. And it's crucial that we know what happened in the last election before launching another attempt to legalize marriage for all.

I recently headed a team that analyzed data from polls conducted by the No on 8 campaign during the run-up to the election. Our analysis sheds new light on what fueled the Proposition 8 victory.

One big question after the election: Who moved? Six weeks before the vote, Proposition 8 was too close to call. But in the final weeks, supporters pulled ahead, and by election day, the outcome was all but certain.

After the election, a misleading finding from exit polls led many to blame African Americans for the loss. But in our new analysis, it appears that African Americans' views were relatively stable. True, a majority of African Americans opposed same-sex marriage, but that was true at the beginning and at the end of the campaign; few changed their minds in the closing weeks.

The shift, it turns out, was greatest among parents with children under 18 living at home — many of them white Democrats.

The numbers are staggering. In the last six weeks, when both sides saturated the airwaves with television ads, more than 687,000 voters changed their minds and decided to oppose same-sex marriage. More than 500,000 of those, the data suggest, were parents with children under 18 living at home. Because the proposition passed by 600,000 votes, this shift alone more than handed victory to proponents.

Perhaps it shouldn't be a surprise. The Yes on 8 campaign targeted parents in its TV ads. "Mom! Guess what I learned in school today!" were the cheery-frightening first words of the supporters' most-broadcast ad. They emerged from the mouth of a young girl who had supposedly just learned that she could marry a female when she grew up.

Among the array of untrue ideas that parents could easily take away: that impressionable kids would be indoctrinated; that they would learn about gay sex; that they would be more likely to become gay; and that they might choose to be gay. California voters, depending on where they lived in the state, were exposed to the Yes on 8 ads 20 to 40 times.

The lesson: It's not enough to make the case for same-sex marriage. It's also important to arm voters — particularly parents — against an inevitable propaganda attack. And it's crucial to rebut lies so parents don't panic.

Another misconception was that those who voted for Proposition 8 were motivated by hate. This does not describe most of the 687,000 who changed their minds in the closing weeks. After all, they supported same-sex marriage before the opposition peeled them away. Yes, they turned out to be susceptible to an appeal based on anti-gay prejudice. But they were frightened by misinformation. No on 8's one TV ad that directly responded to the fear-mongering helped assuage some of the fear, but it was too little, too late.

One final false assumption by same-sex marriage supporters was that the election was so close that it will be easy to pass same-sex marriage the next time out.

It's true that the official election results — 52% to 48% — appeared quite close. But the truth is more complicated. The data we analyzed show that the No on 8 campaign benefitted from voter confusion.

Polling suggests that half a million people who opposed same-sex marriage mistakenly voted against the proposition. They were confused by the idea that a "no" vote was actually a vote for gay marriage. This "wrong-way voting" affected both sides, but overwhelmingly it helped the "no" side. Our analysis suggests that the division among California voters on same-sex marriage at the time of Proposition 8 was actually 54% to 46% — not so close. We are actually 1 million votes away from being able to reverse Proposition 8.

This analysis makes absolutely clear that supporters of same-sex marriage have a lot of work to do before we return to the ballot. But that work is already underway, and now real knowledge can underpin our efforts.

David Fleischer heads the LGBT mentoring project, which is now part of the Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center's new leadership program Learn Act Build. The project's full report and data can be viewed at prop8report.org.

Copyright © 2010, The Los Angeles Times
[/SIZE]

Anti-Marriage Equality Speaker Wrongly Tells NOM Crowd That Banning Marriage Equality Boosts Economy
 

Oh yeah.. we'll be meeting that bus in DC..

http://lezgetreal.com/2010/08/anti-m...oosts-economy/

Guess someone (read: me) needs to be making reservations! Get your posterboards and markers ready!

I'm not delusional this time...
 

It's REAL. I promise.

Judge's ruling due in California Prop. 8 trial

A San Francisco federal judge on Wednesday will issue a much anticipated ruling in the Proposition 8 trial, a decision that will be a first step in a long legal process to decide whether California's voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage violates the federal constitution.

Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker will release the ruling without holding a hearing, typical in deciding most cases. Bay Area federal court officials announced the scheduled release of the much-anticipated decision in a brief order on Tuesday.

Walker in January conducted an unprecedented trial in January in the challenge to Proposition 8, which restored the state's ban on the right of gay and lesbian couples to marry. He heard closing arguments in June, and now will decide the outcome of a lawsuit that maintains the same-sex marriage ban violates the equal protection rights of gay and lesbian couples.

Either way the judge decides, the losing side is expected to appeal the ruling to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Most legal experts expect the case to ultimately be decided in the U.S. Supreme Court.


http://www.mercurynews.com/samesexma...981?source=rss

Prop 8 Decision Tomorrow
 

Info if you want a text message or email alert when decision comes in!

Federal Court to Release its Decision Tomorrow

The federal court announced today that it will release its decision in the American Foundation for Equal Right’s landmark case, Perry v. Schwarzenegger, on Wednesday. Text “EQUAL” to 69866 to get a text message with the official decision on your mobile phone the moment the court releases its decision, or sign-up for an email alert at equalrightsfoundation.org. Join AFER on its Web site to watch a live press conference with our plaintiffs and co-counsels Ted Olson and David Boies following the release of the decision. As we receive news about the details of the release, AFER will update our Facebook and Twitter profiles, along with our Web site.

http://www.equalrightsfoundation.org...sion-tomorrow/

Rallies planned for tonight.....from joemygod
 

TODAY: Proposition 8 Day Of Decision Rallies Planned Nationwide

Veteran reporter Rex Wockner has compiled a growing list of rallies (and hopefully, celebrations) to take place around the nation today shortly after the release of the Prop 8 decision. A sampling:
LOS ANGELES: 6 p.m. | West Hollywood Park | 647 N. San Vicente
SAN DIEGO: March: 6 p.m. @ 6th & University | Rally: 7 p.m. @ LGBT Community Center | 3909 Centre St
SAN FRANCISCO: 5 p.m. | Castro & Market
LONG BEACH: 6 p.m. | Bixby Park | Junipero & Cherry @ Broadway
SACRAMENTO: 6 p.m. | Party | K & 21st | In the unlikely event Judge Walker rules against teh gay, there will be a march to the Capitol
SAN JOSE: 6 p.m. | Billy DeFrank Center | 983 the Alameda

we even have a rally here in whoville.
i wish they'd get ON with it already.

omfg

they overturned Prop 8

praise harvey

According to No-on-Prop-8 just minutes ago on Facebook:

Having considered the trial evidence and the arguments of counsel, the court pursuant to FRCP 52(a) finds that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional and that its enforcement must be enjoined.!!!!


YES!!!!!

http://www.scribd.com/doc/35374462/FF-amp-CL-FINAL

Its in..... Prop 8 ruled UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

The fight will go on, we know this, but this is a BIG victory in the on-going war!!

do NOT turn on Faux News.

savor this moment. how sweet it is.

:)

praise harvey.

thank you to the real Jesus.
for the love you meant it to be. http://www.butchfemmeplanet.com/foru...%20%281%29.gif

Sweet Sweet Music to my ears...!!
I think my headache's gone ...
http://i265.photobucket.com/albums/i...o_77/Pride.jpg

Ultimately, the judge concluded that Proposition 8 "fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. … Because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.”]

Praise the California Constitution.

Fuck You Maggie!
 

Hahahahahaha

Oh, YES!!!

Gotta go and spread the news in other parts of the world... YES!!!

So now it will go to Appeals and then onwards to the Supreme Court, maybe? Yes? And if it reaches Supreme Court and they say it's unconstitutional... Then finally, DOMA will be killed and it will become federal law?

AND:

"Moral disapproval alone is an improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and lesbians."

That was to be expected. Both sides said that whatever the result they were going to appeal. I expect this will be taken right to the Supreme Court itself.

PROP 8 TRIAL TRACKER...A SNIPIT
 

UPDATE (2:23): The American Foundation for Equal Rights presser with Olson/Boies/plaintiffs has started. I will provide notable updates for those of you who can’t watch/are out and about.

Chad Griffin is speaking. He’s discussing principles that inspired the marches in Selma, the Stonewall riots, and other civil rights activism.

UPDATE (2:29): Chief Judge Walker issued a temporary stay:

Defendant-intervenors (“proponents”) have moved to stay the court’s judgment pending appeal. Doc #705. They noticed the motion for October 21, 2010 and moved to shorten time. Doc #706.

The motion to shorten time is GRANTED.

Plaintiffs, plaintiff-intervenor and defendants are DIRECTED to submit their responses to the motion to stay on or before August 6, 2010, at which time the motion will stand submitted without a hearing unless otherwise ordered.

The clerk shall STAY entry of judgment herein until the motion to stay pending appeal, Doc #705, has been decided.

CNN’s legal analyst, Andrew Cohen, says this means things are on hold for the time being, and they will give both sides a moment to make their case on whether marriages should be allowed or not before the next decision.

Here's a statement from Governor Schwarzenegger:

http://www.gov.ca.gov/press-release/15738

page 135
 

Moral disapproval alone is an improper basis on which to
deny rights to gay men and lesbians. The evidence shows
conclusively that Proposition 8 enacts, without reason, a private
moral view that same-sex couples are inferior to opposite-sex
couples. FF 76, 79-80; Romer, 517 US at 634 (“[L]aws of the kind
now before us raise the inevitable inference that the disadvantage
imposed is born of animosity toward the class of persons
affected.”). Because Proposition 8 disadvantages gays and lesbians
without any rational justification, Proposition 8 violates the
Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
CONCLUSION

Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in
singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license.
Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than
enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-
sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California
has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and
because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its
constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis,
the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.

Not language I normally use, but FUCK the Morman Church
 

Mormon church `regrets' Calif. gay marriage ruling

Associated Press Writer Brock Vergakis, Associated Press Writer – 16 mins ago
SALT LAKE CITY – The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints says it regrets a federal judge's ruling overturning a ban on gay marriage in California.

Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker made his ruling Wednesday in a lawsuit filed by two gay couples who claimed the voter-approved ban, known as Proposition 8, violated their civil rights.

In 2008, church leaders urged Mormons to give their time and money to support Proposition 8, which passed with 52 percent of the vote.

Church members were among the campaign's most vigorous volunteers and by some estimates contributed tens of millions of dollars to the effort. In a statement, the church said the decision reopens a vigorous debate about over the right of the people to define marriage.

FROM THE PROP 8 TRIAL TRACKER
 

UPDATE (2:40): Back to the presser: Olson is at the press conference praising Walker for presiding with “meticulous care, sensitivity, with concern for the rights of every party in that courtroom, listening to the evidence.” Questions coming.

UPDATE (2:50): WSJ asks why they can win at the SCOTUS given the conservative nature. Boies makes a joke about Bush v. Gore/split of justices. Goes onto note that the fundamental right to marry is established… this case does not ask the court to establish a new right (Adam: see the excerpt I pasted in from this decision above).

Boies: We challenged this case based on three issues. Fundamental right to marry? Already established. Does fundamental right to marry help children? No dispute. And does depriving gays and lesbians the right to marry establish any compelling government interest? We know that not to be true.

UPDATE (2:56): Notable on the stay issue:

Question: Reports that a couple is trying to be married right now at City Hall. What’s the likelihood that marriages can occur given the stay, and will the plaintiffs go get married?

Olson: Judge stayed effect of his decision until he can hear our side on the stay. The case is going to go up to the Court of Appeals. We will fight hard so the constitutional rights vindicated by the 138-page, careful, analytical opinion will be brought to fruition as soon as possible. We will say to the Court of Appeals that if there is going to be any delay at all, it should be exremely short. We need an appellate court decision right away, and a Supreme Court decision right away… we’re going to fight to vindicate these rights as quickly as we possibly can.

Question: Did Judge rule on suspect class?

Boies: Yes. Judge ruled that even if it was not a suspect class, and strict scrutiny was not required, no rational basis for depriving gay couples of the right to marry. Yes, judge held it was a suspect class, but did so under even the most deferential standard of review.

Question: Anything that will come out of this decision that will affect professional gay advocacy groups?

Griffin: We would not be here today without for the advocates over the past decades.

Question: On impact generally

Olson: This trial has helped to educate the people of this state and people of the US. People of the US who will read this opinion and teach it in law schools and civics classes will begin to appreciate the harm this has done to our citizenry. Not giving advice to advocacy groups, but we feel very good about the fact that people watching this trial have said “oh, that’s what it’s all about. Why would we withhold the opportunity for loving couples to be married?”

Question: On witnesses and trial generally

Olson: Judge pointed out that two of the witnesses our opponents put on ended up agreeing with most of the propositions advanced by the plaintiffs… judge carefully examined interests and evidence on each side of the case… placed very little value on the evidence brought by proponents of Proposition 8… even found that one witness was not qualified to testify as an expert witness. Very careful examination of not just the legal but factual issues as well.

UPDATE (3:08): Question: NOM says this ruling jeopardizes the marriage laws of 45 states. How would you respond?

Boies: This decision grants rights to be married. As the court held, there is no harm to anyone’s rights as a result of this decision. In fact, it increases the stability and value of marriage for our society. No legitimate interest of the state in discriminating against a group of our citizens. That’s what even the defendant’s witnesses admitted, and that’s what the judge found. Everyone oughta read this opinion. It’s long but clear and sets the facts forth that everyone in this country might think a bout. I’d challenge anyone putting out those kinds of press releases (speaking to NOM) to read this opinion and tell me what they disagree with and what they have left to say. Shouldn’t just ignore this opinion, but take a look at this opinion.

The press conference has now concluded. Olson and Boies will fly to LA to speak at a rally there.

UPDATE (2:02 PST): Reading through the decision, Walker is quoting the Loving v. Virginia and Griswold v. Connecticut decisions in ruling that the freedom to marry is protected under the Due Process clause, and generally goes on at length to discuss how restrictions with regard to race have been swept away, and and for a woman, “a woman’s legal and economic identity be subsumed by her husband’s upon marriage under the doctrine of coverture; this once-unquestioned aspect of marriage now is regarded as antithetical to the notion of marriage as a union of equals.”

He goes onto write:

The evidence shows that the movement of marriage away from a gendered institution and toward an institution free from state-mandated gender roles reflects an evolution in the understanding of gender rather than a change in marriage. The evidence did not show any historical purpose for excluding same-sex couples from marriage, as states have never required spouses to have an ability or willingness to procreate in order to marry. FF 21. Rather, the exclusion exists as an artifact of a time when the genders were seen as having distinct roles in society and in marriage. That time has passed.

The right to marry has been historically and remains the right to choose a spouse and, with mutual consent, join together and form a household. FF 19-20, 34-35. Race and gender restrictions shaped marriage during eras of race and gender inequality, but such restrictions were never part of the historical core of the institution of marriage. FF 33. Today, gender is not relevant to the state in determining spouses’ obligations to each other and to their dependents. Relative gender composition aside, same-sex couples are situated identically to opposite-sex couples in terms of their ability to perform the rights and obligations of marriage under California law. FF 48. Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage; marriage under law is a union of equals.
[...]

Plaintiffs do not seek recognition of a new right. To characterize plaintiffs’ objective as “the right to same-sex marriage” would suggest that plaintiffs seek something different from what opposite-sex couples across the state enjoy —— namely, marriage. Rather, plaintiffs ask California to recognize their relationships for what they are: marriages.

we are headed to a rally in a few hours.

Help!

I need sign ideas.

Well...........it's certainly an interesting read......damn.....

Judge Walker certainly made it absolutely clear Prop 8 is unconstitutional (due process and equal protection). He found no merit in anything about Prop 8.

CONCLUSION
Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and
because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its
constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis,the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.

Shepard Smith on Fake News is going to do a segment now.