gay

As could be expected in the United States of America, a country with more lawyers in this nation than all of Europe and many other nations combined, the decision of the California Supreme Court upholding the Proposition 8 initiative passed by the residents of the State of California is now going to be challenged by two members of the American Bar Association in a "bipartisan" partnership.

And which two lawyers are seeking another 15 minutes of fame and the spotlight?

The two primary lawyers involved in the Bush v. Gore election challenge which was, in the end, settled again in a bipartisan manner after the United States Supreme Court justices failed to unravel the mystery of just exactly what happened in Florida those many years ago, with Mr. Gore relegated then to the global warming and book tours.

Strangely enough, the challenge "officially" is being brought on behalf of two gay couples who have been refused the "right" to marry in California by a recently formed legal organization, the American Foundation for Civil Rights.

Ever since the ACLU was successful in getting a federal law passed providing for the legal fees for plaintiffs or defendants involved in civil rights matters, a whole slew of challenges to our Constitution over religion and now marriage "rights," have been filed throughout the nation.  All courtesy of the U.S. taxpayers.

Most of these organizations are listed as 501(c)(3) foundations with claimed "educational" classes and seminars tied to them so that they also can receive federal grant monies as educational institutions.  And most are headed and run by lawyers, the largest political group of contributors to both state and federal election campaigns as a whole than any other "industry."

And who also had a hand in writing some of these laws that consistently come up for challenge through their advisory capacities to members of Congress.

So as far as social welfare, the American Bar members are head and shoulders above the pack, and would appear just maybe this "new" organization may be one of the recipients of those federal stimulus monies.

After all, as advisors to Congress, they have the inside track on where all that funding was earmarked, and to which agencies.

As a community property state, and with domestic partnerships laws already in place, powers of attorney and wills available for ownership, health concerns or property distribution, I just wonder what "equal protection under the law" provisions that are denied to gay individuals given traditionally married couples in that state these attorneys will use for their court challenge, since there really is no protection anymore for individuals in marriage after "no fault" divorce laws were passed and California is one that has such provisions.

If it's the tax laws, then just what was that Head of Household option for anyway but to provide acknowledgement of support by the major wage earner of supporting children or elderly parents actually for?

Since marriage is an institution that is governed by the "common law" or "natural law" which has existed for thousands of years and which the founders referred to, I wonder what arguments will be used to justify such a challenge, since it appears the other four states in which these measures were passed didn't consult the Constitution or common law basis upon which our civil laws actually hinge when enacting their legislation or rendering their judicial opinions.

And I wonder just which industry will profit the most if this ban is lifted?  It wouldn't be the legal industry for all those potential divorces, if only a third of them eventually wind up in the lawyer's offices, would it? 

Isn't California having a claimed "budget crisis" as it is, wanting the rest of the nation to bail them out?

And I wonder just how many new judges from the legal industry will be needed in order to handle those cases at the taxpayer's expense?  Seems that this challenge is more being brought as a job stimulus for the lawyers more than anything else, so I guess those stimulus or grant monies this organization most likely is or plans on receiving will be well spent providing more jobs for lawyers.

So citizens of California who worked and supported the ban and who poured all your energies and dollars into getting that measure on the ballot in recognition of the history and civil common law upon which our Constitution is based, the "bi-partisan" legal industry has spoken.

Equal protection under the law doesn't apply to you.

Nor our Constitution, apparently.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/27/same.sex.marriage.court/

California, the "Land of Fruits and Nuts", sided with the GOP on election day and voted For Proposition 8 banning gay marriage.  Think about this for a second-the most liberal state in the union agreed with the Republicans on a social issue.  African Americans who overwhelmingly voted for Obama crossed over from the Democrats side and joined with the Republicans farther down the ballot.  Gay marriage bans also won in Arizona, Arkansas, and recently blue state Florida. Many states in past elections have also passed these same sex marriage bans. What does this mean?  Much of the nation does not support gay marriage, and the GOP is vindicated on this issue. 

But there is another story here.  When the Soviet Union collapsed many people lost sight of the dangers in the world and turned their focus to other matters.  Military budgets were reduced, the national security issue lost its importance in the world, and economic partnerships were more important than military ones.

That is what will probably happen with gay marriage.  As same sex marriage bans are passed all around the country, regular people are not going to be threatened by it as much as they were.  With an iron clad state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage why would gay marriage be a voter concern?  Concern will instead be passed to other issues like the economy, crime, and taxes. 

The GOP has won many gay marriage battles, but it is time for them to reassess this issue and move to more pressing voter concerns.

By the way...the people of San Francisco didn't name that sewage plant after Bush, and they didn't make prostitution legal. 

As many Republican office bosses can probably attest, their underlings are spending too much time checking celebrity gossip websites, the most popular of which is Perezhilton.com.  Perez Hilton is the nom de célébrité pute of Cuban American Mario Lavandeira.  A visit to his site will make you start dropping modern feminist terms like 'misogynist' at levels once reserved only for Gloria Steinem.  His sexism is brazen as his targets are mostly women.  The words "bitches", "whores", and "skanks" are emblazoned over the pictures of female celebrities with abandon with no hint of irony.  Catherine Zeta-Jones got the "twat" treatment as recently as Wednesday:

The excessive sexism even has the feminist blog, jezebel.com, devote a regular feature documenting Mario's in-your-face woman-hating. 

Huffington Post has begun to recognize (and I do too) that Perezhilton.com may have some pull in our politics.  His wall-to-wall coverage of celebrity news (some of which he breaks) ranks up there with Drudgereport in providing for water-cooler conversations.  Day-by-day, Mario attacks McCain and other GOP politicians on gay issues (Mario's gay). 

However, as Huffpo's Kelli Goff pointed out, gay rights aren't even that popular on Perez Hilton's site as his latest attack on McCain generated 700 comments, and from the looks of it, a surprisingly large number were against the blogger. 

His website may be popular, but his pull with his audience is tenuous.  He supported the failing bid of Hillary Clinton and was there to fan the Rev. Wright flames to no affect on his readership.  Positive posts on Obama are always swamped with anti-Obama comments. 

One of his problems may be is that celebrity gossip is a downmarket, uh, market.  You know, red state kind of a thing.  Basically, Mario's choir is deaf to his existence as a purveyor of such gossip and because he is a gossip-monger, his more 'serious' opinions are sidelined. 

Lawyer in preacher's defamation case hit with $90,000 penalty
<!-- end deck -->Posted: July 01, 2008
9:29 pm Eastern

<!-- copyright -->© 2008 WorldNetDaily <!-- end copyright -->

<!-- begin bodytext -->

Justice Louis Butler

A Wisconsin attorney is challenging a state Supreme Court decision that he should pay a $90,000 penalty because the deciding vote was cast by a justice who accepted money from the attorney's opponents.

The case that sparked attorney James Donohoo's dispute with the high court was brought against a "gay' activist group called Action Wisconsin, which later called itself Fair Wisconsin. That group had described visiting pastor Grant Storms, who appeared at a conference on homofascism, as having advocated the murders of homosexuals.

Donohoo, on Storms' behalf, brought a defamation action, which a trial court judge, Patricia McMahon, dismissed as frivolous. An appeals level panel reversed the decision, concluding that the jury should have been given the dispute to resolve.

The state Supreme Court, however, stepped in and with the vote of Justice Louis B. Butler Jr., who had accepted campaign contributions from those opposing Donohoo, reinstated the order for him to pay about $90,000 in legal fees incurred because of the case.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=68539

Lawyers try to cut California marriage amendment from ballot
<!-- end deck -->Posted: June 30, 2008
9:01 pm Eastern

<!-- copyright -->© 2008 WorldNetDaily <!-- end copyright -->

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=68404