Another one of my favorites from our recent trip down under...
Saturday, June 13, 2009
Sunday, June 7, 2009
Friday, June 5, 2009
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
We're still married... deal with it!
CAIRNS, Australia -- Wednesday, May 27, 2009, 2:35pm
Greetings from the future. As I write this, Kevin and I are on the other side of the world, enjoying our delayed honeymoon in Australia. In Cairns, it's tomorrow, and having just heard the news regarding the California Supreme Court decision that affirms our marriage last October, we're raising a glass in celebration of the 18,000 other same-sex couples who got married during that brief period between June and November last year, while our state had a brief moment of sanity. We also take pause concerning the Court's other decision, upholding Proposition 8 and the rights of bigots everywhere to strip their neighbors of their constitutional right to marry the one they love. So, the fight continues. For protests and demonstrations in your area, check out http://www.dayofdecision.com/. We'll join you when we're back in the States. Until then, to those who wish us well, God bless. All others can go fuck themselves.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Protect Marriage, Protect Children, Prohibit Divorce
Finally! A Petition for a California State Proposition that Prohibits Divorce between Heterosexual Married Couples...
Divorce destroys the sanctity of marriage and its powerful influence on the betterment of society. This proposition would keep the very meaning of marriage from being transformed into nothing more than a contractual relationship between two adults.
Prohibiting divorce between heterosexual married couples will keep the interests of children and families intact. We will continue to celebrate marriage as the union of husband and wife, not as a relationship between "Party A" and "Party B." The marriage of a man and a woman has been at the heart of society since the beginning of time and it promotes the ideal opportunity for children to be raised by a mother and a father in a family held together by the legal, communal, and spiritual bonds of marriage.
As a society we should put the best interests of children first, and those interests lie in traditional marriage. Permitting divorce destroys marriage as we know it and causes a profound harm to society. We should be restoring marriage, not undermining it.
And for those of you who voted yes on Prop 8 but disagree with this petition...Why? This petition is copied and pasted from literature from your website, ProtectMarriage.com, but applied to Divorce instead of Gay Marriage. So how can you argue with your own words?
Sign the petition by going here:
Friday, November 21, 2008
Thursday, November 20, 2008
California Supreme Court Grants Review in Prop 8 Legal Challenges
from EqualityCalifornia, eqca.org
Court to Determine Constitutionality of Prop 8
Yesterday the California Supreme Court granted review in the legal challenges to Proposition 8, which passed by a narrow margin of 52 percent on November 4. In an order issued today, the Court agreed to hear the case and set an expedited briefing schedule. The Court also denied an immediate stay.
On November 5, 2008, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, the American Civil Liberties Union, and Lambda Legal filed a lawsuit challenging the validity of Proposition 8 in the California Supreme Court on behalf of six couples and Equality California. The City of San Francisco, joined by the City of Los Angeles, the County of Los Angeles, and Santa Clara County, filed a similar challenge, as did a private attorney in Los Angeles.
The lawsuits allege that, on its face, Proposition 8 is an improper revision rather than an amendment of the California Constitution because, in its very title, which was “Eliminates the right to marry for same-sex couples,” the initiative eliminated an existing right only for a targeted minority. If permitted to stand, Proposition 8 would be the first time an initiative has successfully been used to change the California Constitution to take way an existing right only for a particular group. Such a change would defeat the very purpose of a constitution and fundamentally alter the role of the courts in protecting minority rights. According to the California Constitution, such a serious revision of our state Constitution cannot be enacted through a simple majority vote, but must first be approved by two-thirds of the Legislature.
Since the three lawsuits submitted on November 5, three other lawsuits challenging Proposition 8 have been filed. In a petition filed on November 14, 2008, leading African American, Latino, and Asian American groups argued that Proposition 8 threatens the equal protection rights of all Californians.
On November 17, 2008, the California Council of Churches and other religious leaders and faith organizations representing millions of members statewide, also filed a petition asserting that Proposition 8 poses a severe threat to the guarantee of equal protection for all, and was not enacted through the constitutionally required process for such a dramatic change to the California Constitution. On the same day, prominent California women’s rights organizations filed a petition asking the Court to invalidate Proposition 8 because of its potentially disastrous implications for women and other groups that face discrimination.
In May of 2008, the California Supreme Court held that barring same-sex couples from marriage violates the equal protection clause of the California Constitution and violates the fundamental right to marry. Proposition 8 would completely eliminate the right to marry only for same-sex couples. No other initiative has ever successfully changed the California Constitution to take away a right only from a targeted minority group.
Over the past 100 years, the California Supreme Court has heard nine cases challenging either legislative enactments or initiatives as invalid revisions of the California Constitution. In three of those cases, the Court invalidated those measures. For more information on these cases, click here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
