Slime Found In Pro 8 Recall Threats

What a difference a little history makes.

I've found two disturbing details in an attempt to recall another Californian judge that sheds some light on the current pro proposition 8 crowd.

In the first case, just before the election the pro 8 people swore they had nothing against same sex domestic partnerships, just marriage.  M-A-R-R-I-A-G-E was the one that had to be between a man and a woman.  

You know how  well "separate and equal" worked in the South under Jim Crow laws.  So they say they are happy to keep Californian same sex couples into those separate but equal style relationships.

But 4 years ago they attempted to recall Judge Loren McMaster for upholding Domestic Partnerships for same sex couples.  Check out an old Copley News report in the San Diego Herald Tribune December 2004 "Gay marriage opponents aim to recall judge.

And yes the same people were and are involved with both cases.  

Tony Andrade mentioned first of the pro recall group in the article linked above is shown in a November 2007 article calling gays "loony" as referenced  at San Francisco Bay Guardian "GOP initiative backer says gays are "loony"" (they have a link to the actual interview if you want to search through that).  I can't find his exact connection to proposition 8 but since he was involved in the recall attempt (which failed) of McMaster, I feel that he must have had a role.  

And even more disturbingly, opponents of same sex marriage admitted at that time that they were trying to influence judicial reviews with their attempt to recall the judge. 

Excerpt above linked report:

Acknowledging that they hope to pressure the judiciary statewide, opponents of same-sex marriage are trying to recall a Sacramento Superior Court judge who upheld domestic partner laws this fall.

The recall petition drive failed to gain the signatures needed as activists interested in an independent judiciary rushed to defend the institution.

Another person mentioned in the article Randy Thomasson is  identified as the head of Campaign for California Families which was active in getting proposition 8 passed and has striven to work against an overturn of the amendment by the CA Supreme Court.  An earlier news release noted that Thomasson was working to be part of the team working on trying to get the California Supreme Court to allow proposition 8 to continue to deny rights to same sex couples. 

They haven't been entirely successful  in that endeavor. The San Francisco Chronicle report in "Prop. 8 backers splinter as court fight resumes" that the "Yes on 8" core group was able to block them fromtheir efforts to get the high court to keep the measure saying Thomasson's group and others were too extreme, even though "Yes on 8" saw their amendment pass on the back of the lies by the extremists. Their own advertisements actually repeated the worst of the lies, but now they wan to be seen as people who are okay with second class 'marriages' for gay so that they can slip their case past the CA high court.  

The "Yes on 8" group also are likely welcome the strident threats for recall of the Justices who might vote to overturn Proposition 8, but they want to be seen as wise and kindly people who just hate the thought of allowing gays to get married.  Go figure.

 

They are all working on the back of  churches and the faithful to gain political power and very worldly  money.  I think the Biblical passage that deals with that behavior is where Jesus overturned the tables of the money changers in the temple.

Too bad the American church is embracing these new 'thieves' who are changing the concern, and donations of the faithful into secular wealth and power through politics.  Too bad the Lord isn't here to set things right again.

It's nice, though, to be able to show up the lies of such bigots.

California Supreme Court Will Review Proposition 8. But Danger Signs Appear.

The California Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments on whether Proposition 8 passed November 4th, 2008 was a constitutional amendment or revision.  If the initiative was more of a revision of the California constitution a 2/3 vote of the legislature would  be needed  to place the decision on the ballot, rather than the petition drive that was used.

The California Supreme Court has already ruled that gays and lesbians are like other often disenfranchised minorities.  In all logic this should mean that the restoration of marriage as a right for all Californians is just around the corner.   But that development isn't certain in the bizarro world we live in.  

This is the first time I've read that the Supremes have already affirmed the rights of gays and lesbians as a protected group.  I can only put that down to the fact that mainstream news is basically incompetent.  They should be offering all pertinent facts that apply to an election before it happens.

All we heard before the election  was the old carnard from the right that gays and lesbians should have no rights because "it was a choice".  

Funny thing about that; speaking freely is also a choice, but 'free speech' is one of our most important rights.

 From the AP report on the subject "A Calif. Supreme Court to take up gay marriage ban":

the high court had put sexual orientation in the same protected legal class as race and religion, which the California Supreme Court did when it rendered its 4-3 decision that made same-sex marriage legal in May.

So in some ways this court battle with the California Supremes is like a 1966 one as describe by LA Times report "Prop. 8 gay marriage ban goes to Supreme Court":

In 1966, the California Supreme Court struck down a 1964 initiative that would have permitted racial discrimination in housing. Voters had approved the measure, a repeal of a fair housing law, by a 2-to-1 margin. 

The difference appears to be:

Opponents challenged [the 1966 measure] on equal protection grounds, not as a constitutional revision.

But according to the NYT report on the subject "Top Court in California Will Review Proposition 8" the case does argue that Proposition 8 needs to be overturned on equal protection grounds, because that is the plaintiffs' reason for calling Proposition 8 a revision of the constitution, (because it abrogates a human right of a minority and takes away the court's ability to protect it).

The real difference may be that any California Supreme Court Justice that votes for the measure has been promised a recall fight by the pseudo-religious opponents as noted in the currently linked LA Times report above (and only there of the articles I read) and in an earlier report in the Times.   Recalls are easily achieved in California especially by those who use religious themes to get church members to vote their way. 

San Francisco Chronicle notes in "Prop. 8 foes win right to challenge measure, but problems lie ahead" that the fact that the one justice who voted against reviewing Proposition 8 was Joyce Kennard is a bad sign.  Ms. Kennard was one of the 4 judges who orignally voted to allow the marriages.   

We've seen how dishonest the anti-same sex marriage group is.    In the radio ad they proclaimed that 4 San Francisco judges had okayed same sex marriage in the state against the votes of 4 million people.  CA Supreme Court Justices live in San Francisco part of the year because that is where the court is.  I'm sure they came from all parts of the state.  According to my own research, all but one of the judges was appointed by Republican governors, and the one appointed by Schwarzenegger voted against same sex marriage.  So you had judges appointed by Pete Wilson, and George Deukmejian forming the majority of the CA Supreme court majority ruling that said gays and lesbians should have the same rights as everyone else last spring.

These aren't scary liberals.  They're only highly qualified jurists making a decision based on the California and US Constitutions.

So, of course, the right wing needs to get  them out! 

I Was Wrong. The Gay Rights Roe v Wade Has Already Happened

Interesting, isn't it that these days mainstream news helps to keep Americans completely in the dark about reality.

There has already been a Roe v Wade like decision from the US Supreme Court.

The country has just been ignoring it thanks to our wonderful Mainstream News Media.

Sure they are telling us now, but where were they after all the other anti gay marriage votes?

The Los Angeles Times reports that a 1996 decision after a 1992 law passed in Colorado.

And I bet that the gay community knew this, but it's dummies like the hetero grandmother writing this post that need to know.

Well, now one writer in one paper has written about the case.  And maybe it will spread and get talked about on weekend talk shows, if it won't be dealt with on the nightly news where most moms and pops get theirs.

I also recommend that Gays and Lesbians make sure their families and friends know.  Some of us really just don't.  The US Supreme Court has already ruled that one group can't be singled out for taking away rights.

Excerpt LA Times "A federal bailout for Prop. 8":

Writing for a 6-3 majority in Romer vs. Evans (1996), Justice Anthony M. Kennedy explained that it "is not within our constitutional tradition to enact laws of this sort. Central both to the idea of the rule of law and to our own Constitution's guarantee of equal protection is the principle that government and each of its parts remain open on impartial terms to all who seek its assistance." Laws such as Amendment 2 "raise the inevitable inference that the disadvantage imposed is born of animosity toward the class of persons affected," Kennedy wrote, adding a reference to another 1973 ruling. "If the constitutional conception of 'equal protection of the laws' means anything, it must at the very least mean that a bare ... desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot constitute a legitimate governmental interest."

Proposition 8 suffers these same constitutional flaws. It provides that gays and lesbians -- alone among consenting adult couples -- shall not have the opportunity to enjoy the rights, privileges and social approbation conferred by the status of lawful marriage. And despite their insistence that the initiative was "not an attack on the gay lifestyle," its proponents were remarkably candid about their disapproval of homosexual families. The amendment, they argued in voter guides, "protects our children from being taught in public schools that 'same-sex marriage' is the same as traditional marriage." It protects marriage "as an essential institution of society" because "the best situation for a child is to be raised by a married mother and father."

But as California's chief justice, Ronald M. George, explained in his opinion declaring the state's previous statutory ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional, limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples does nothing to protect the interests of children. "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 on the individual's sexual orientation." Moreover, "the exclusion of same-sex couples from the designation of marriage clearly is not necessary in order to afford full protection to all of the rights and benefits that currently are enjoyed by married opposite-sex couples."

The article also notes that 5 of the 6 votes for the decision are still at the court.  I'd say some people would be surprised which of the replacements might side with the majority.  Someone who'd like to come out into the open should he get hurt in the future, and not have to worry about the press noticing that his wife didn't appear at the hospital while he was there.
Read rest at source.

Boycotting of Proposition 8 Donors Becomes Intense

Boycott Bus from the 1980s

Boycotts have worked against hate before. (Bus says "Boycott Apartheid" reminding people to not buy South African products while their country was under a system of apartheid.

(picture attribution below)

Some Proposition 8 donors are facing more problems with boycott calls now than before the November 4th vote, though one claims to  be suffering less

Some businesses claim its not fair to target them because one employee (who usually is a high level worker) donated (usually a high amount) to the Yes on 8 campaign.

See LA Times "Proposition 8 protesters target businesses" for details.

Some donors say next time they will donate in a way that obscures their act.  This usually means donating one of possibly thousands of right leaning groups who siphon off a large chunk of the money to make the top employees of the non profit quite comfortable before any money gets to an actual effort to promote an idea or bill.

Aides to nearly every right wing Congress person and state legislature, and even failed Bush administration nominees has one of them.  Take your pick.  Running a non profit to promote the right wing agenda is the best 'gig' in town, well besides some of the churches out there.

Parishioners out there need to remember that the Bible says that some ministers are false ones and will be rejected in the end themselves.  Of course, from what I've seen every minister defines good as him or herself, but congregants need to judge for themselves whether their church is promoting hate or not.

Picture allowed via Creative Commons license

From http://www.flickr.com/photos/rahul3/2873745345/"

Thanks to 'rahuldlucca' at flickr.com

Support of this blog by photographer/artist not implied. 

California's High Court Shows "Unusual" Interest in Gay Marriage Case

The California Supreme Court has asked the state attorney general,  (and former governor) Jerry Brown to reply to lawsuits against Proposition 8 which was passed on November 4, 2008 banning marriages between same sex couples which had been declared legal by the same court in May 2008, and had been celebrated since June of the year.  

A report at SF Chronicle "State high court shows interest in anti-Prop. 8 suits" says that it is unusual  for the High Court to take a case which hasn't made its way through the lower courts.  But if the justices were going to ignore the case they would likely not contact the AG to make a reply.  This rapid action also means the Supreme Court is considering a stay on enforcement of Proposition 8.

And yes, that probably means exactly what you think it means.

Drinks all around!

Excerpt report linked above:

Two groups of gay and lesbian couples and local governments led by the city of San Francisco filed the suits a day after the Nov. 4 election, when Proposition 8 passed with a 52 percent majority.

They argue that the initiative, a state constitutional amendment, violates other provisions of the California Constitution by taking rights away from a historically persecuted minority group and stripping judges of their power to protect that group. The couples' suits contend that Prop. 8 makes such fundamental changes that it amounts to a constitutional revision, which can be placed on the ballot only by a two-thirds vote of the Legislature.

Read rest at source.   I'm sure you'll understand the details as well as I do if not better.

RE: Image Above

Titled "Seashells and Bows Wedding Cake"

at "http://www.flickr.com/photos/weddingcakes/57106146/"

Thanks to 'Manassas Cakery' at flickr.com. 

There is no implication that the artist/photographer approves or supports this blog. 

The picture is solely used via Creative Commons license.

After the Passage of California's Proposition 8. Will the Tax Man Want to Audit People Who Tithe?

An interesting effect of the Proposition 8 battle is that money collected by a lot of "Christian" sources made its way into a political battle. And BTW, if you live outside of Calfornia, you are not exempt from this worry as most of the money supporting our Proposition 8 came from sources outside the state.

Two foundations, I know that are high on the list in donations to one of the the committees for promoting Proposition 8 (sorted with big contributions at top) are both religiously based and pretend they are 'charitable' foundations.  . The above linked page shows only donations to one of the pro Proposition 8 groups (and note there are hundreds more pages after the first).  Here are links to donation pages for other pro 8 groups. 1, 2, and my all time favorite pro Proposition 8 committee: Bigots Against Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness which unfortunately hasn't received any donations, so I couldn't sort on amount.  (I'm beginning to suspect that group name was some kind of joke, and a really good one at that.)  Please note that the sites for the above linked groups tended to have more than one page.  The first one linked actually had 250 pages of donors.  Click on other page links to see more donors and check if your church  contributed directly to one of the major groups promoting Proposition 8.  It could still be possible that your church could be donating your tithe or other gifts to one of the advocacy groups that are found on the lists.  You will have to check that out with them.  Don't take generalities. Demand to see the records, and check out every group to which your church donates.

Y0u as a donor of tithe money might be audited and have to pay the tax and penalties on money leaking into political acts by "charities".  Personally I don't see what denying marriage -- and thereby denying equal protection under the law -- has to do with 'charity', but these groups know the biggest losers will be their donors who may live in fear of the audit for which they may not know were illegally deducted from their income tax.

If you are donating to other groups on this list like the Prince family's favorite "Focus on the Family" or the other political groups on the list, you'd better know that any promises of deductibility shouldn't be trusted.  These groups may have gotten through the last eight years without an audit dragging in their donors, but I don't think the government is going to ignore religion allied groups playing two step with tithe  and 'charity' money anymore.  

Indeed, by searching I've found the blog of a Mormon woman worrying in the aftermath of earlier anti gay battles apparently hosted by the church whether it's 401(c)3 status will be revoked.  The woman doesn't seem to see transparency in what is done with the tithes she makes to her church.  More people should be worried about them.  It can impact your own life.

It's not to the church the taxman will come calling if it loses it's tax exempt status.  It's to the congregation of donors.

My church constantly updates what it is doing with tithes and donations, now on the web.  Ten years ago one had to stop by the office to look at the records. Thank you, Al Gore. Also, at the end of the year a printed report is presented to each member of the congregation that wants one.  This was not a happy coincident.  We searched long and hard for a church that met our needs, politically, spiritually, and with full disclosure over what they did with their money.  I can't believe the number of people who just stay in the church to which  their family consigned them.  Not checking out the way a church is run is a good way to end up in a church which is misusing the tithe and abusing the trust the congregation has put into it.

That being said, an article I read said that the Mormon contributions to the pro Proposition 8 campaign came from individual families not the church itself, and I can't identify  a Mormon church group on the lists I saw, but then again I don't know what Mormon charities are named.

Proof That Anti-Same Sex Marriage Laws Are About Bigotry

The proof is in the results of the value voting amendments.

All anti-abortion measures lost.

All anti same sex marriage measures won.

This is an even better juxtaposition in California where the "values voters" would have voted both for the bill to require parental notification and for the anti-same sex marriage laws.

There is a lot of bigotry as in anti-gay and anti-minority hatred hidden in the value vote "morality".

But the number this year show the people against gay marriage far outstrip even the hidden bigots in the Christian Sharia camp.

So it's bigotry, pure and simple.

 

Proposition 4 Parental Notification for Underage Abortion voted down by 52%.

Proposition 8 Same Sex Marriage ban Passing by c. 52%.

CNN: Exit Polls Say Prop 8 Should Lose WSJ Showing Big Lead for the Proposition

CNN says exit polls show that Proposition 8 should lose, but the Wall Street Journal is saying early results support the proposition,  and their supporting numbers are frighteningly high 53.1% to 46.9% according to the WSJ piece.  

I just was reading at AlterNet and other places about how, besides the Mormon church and the Prince family, the proposition was driven by a Howard Ahmanson Jr. (Yes, Jr. to the Ahmanson Center dude for those who attend music events or plays in downtown LA).  Ahmanson has apparently mellowed a bit in his Christian shariah ambitions that he no longer thinks gay and lesbian oriented people should be stoned, but he's still a pretty nasty, fellow.

The Wall Street Journal gloats:

The passage of Prop 8, as it is known, would be a major victory for religious conservatives seeking to ban gay marriage in other states, and a crippling setback for the gay rights movement nationwide.

...

...Observers believe the losing side will suffer a serious blow in the national debate over gay-marriage rights. The winning side will have the momentum and also be able to claim a popular mandate as judges and voters across the country are poised to weigh the issue in other states.

An article at Mercury News "Prop. 8 holds early lead " says the early lead is holding and the measure was likely to pass. I won't try to link to it because you can't get license to see it without Google's help so copy the title into a Google search bar if you want to read it.

I'm glad we attend a church that was already against the proposition, or we would have to find another.  

No this is not a free speech case.   You can't say you have a God given right to enslave people.  The slavers of the 19th century thought they did, but finally after a long time they were proven wrong.

Pro on 8 Supporters Assault Young Woman.

I was wondering when the great rage the Pro on 8 people show towards the Anti Proposition 8 folks was going to come out as actual violence.

In San Mateo a larger group in favor of Proposition 8 and a smaller group of Anti Proposition 8 demonstrators.  Apparently feeling threatened or something (my guess) a 250lb 6ft2 male grabbed a 17 year old girl and struck her in the head.  Then another valiant Pro 8 man of about 35 years old spat in the young woman's face and a male juvenile with the group punched a resident apparently coming to the girl's rescue.

Police have arrested the spitter and the juvenile, and are looking for the big coward.  I wonder how this will be spun.

But then again you know how dangerous those 17 year old girls can be when they confront larger and older men! And how about that evil "Good Samaritan" coming to her help!  (Again /sarcasm).

See Palo Alto Daily News "Police: Girl assaulted during Proposition 8 rally, two arrested"

To get around registering, copy the exact title into a Google News or an IGoogle search bar and and click. Google currently is giving license to read the original article.  This is good for verification that the article was indeed published by Mercury News' Palo Alto Daily News, but you will be able to find the words of the article via a usenet copy we've found:  Usenet Copy --Police: Girl assaulted during Proposition 8 rally, two arrested even after the above report at the original source is hidden in archives.

Stuff They Won't Show On TV

I'm finding a lot of ads that I haven't seen on TV.

Remember the argument between Apple and Microsoft?

California's Proposition 1A: Bullet Train Would Take Funds From Schools

When I first heard of the bullet train I was skeptical, then thinking about it, it seemed better, a good alternative to more polluting air travel from LA to the Bay area and Sacramento.  

Our governor who jets 350 miles to the capital every work day won't be able to use it since the Sacramento leg certainly won't be completed until after he leaves office, but still, if the price is decent, it could have lots of passengers, and, when filled, rail touts itself to be the greenest form of travel.

Of course, the catch is that there is no promise that the ride would be affordable.

The biggest catch though is that there will be no new bonds floated for this wonder ride.

From LA Times columnist George Skelton ( with whom I seldom agree and whose strident support of Proposition 11 we aren't supposed to question even though his daughter works for the Prop 11 campaign) I've found some news in "Bullet train would be grand, but can we afford it?

The Prop. 1A camp advertises that the 800-mile rail line would be built "without raising taxes." That's one of its problems: no dedicated revenue source, unlike previous great public works. Pat Brown's water project was financed primarily by irrigation districts and municipalities contracting for the water. The freeway system was financed by taxes paid at the gas pump.

The bullet bonds would drain money from other general fund programs: education, healthcare, welfare, prisons, parks.

We are having enough problems with our educational system already. 

Skelton also notes that Reason Magazine believes that the cost of the rail line will climb to 81 billion by the time it's complete from the project 33 for the first leg.  Private, federal, and local sources are supposed to help out, but not a one has put an offer on the table.

Also note the funding for the campaign:

Backers contend that the project would create 160,000 construction-related jobs. That's why a coalition of 2,000 heavy construction companies and 80,000 union workers -- called the California Alliance for Jobs -- is a staunch supporter of Prop. 1A.

California public construction is usually based on overpayment to companies that reward their owners and managers first and tend to hire foreign workers whenever possible.    The businesses have lots of money for campaign donations and money for media ads to throw around.  Few politicians and even fewer news media sites dare stand in their way.

Schwarzenegger has recently indicated, once again,  by calling (again) for a change to the amendment of the US constitution to allow foreign born citizens to become president, that he's aiming for the Oval Office in 2012.  I'm sure he'd like some of the huge amounts of money the owners of California's overpaid public construction companies would get from the Prop 1a's Bullet Train  job to help him ride a rail to the White House in 2012.  Look for a guy with an Austrian accent and Kennedy wife to show up with a 'broom' promising to clean up DC.  If you see him, run, run hard, run fast.  He's already knee capped California and he's coming for the rest of the nation.

Skelton also quite rightly points out that though nations can print money when they get into difficulty, states can't.

So it's your child's education, vs the behemoth Bullet Train.   A better education for your children might get them into a college with a better teachers and more opportunities.  It could also help with scholarships, which could mean less college related debt.

At this time, hurting our education capability even more than we have already is a prescription for more violence in the streets.  

Better education for all, can mean a safer, more prosperous state.  Maybe we could even afford that bullet train, say in a decade or so.

It's your choice.

Pediatrician Asks People to Vote No on California Proposition 4

She explains the problems with Prop 4 well, so I'll let her.

Dr. Sophia Yen at California Progress Report "A Doctor Explains Why She Opposes California Prop 4.

She has good reasons.  Please read them at the link.

I also oppose it because it's part of the same scenario of people using the church to take over American politics.  

The more successes they have in fooling the congregations, the more big money they get in the future.  

That is a horrifically improper use of the power of the Lord's church and the perpetrators should be turned out as surely as the man in the Bible who was sleeping with his mother.

To not reject this political use of the Church and it's pulpit, is to endanger the US and it's Christians.

We have learned that the pro Proposition 8 are sharing money with the Proposition 4 campaign which means that  the Mormon church has become a major financial back of Proposition 4, too.

Major Proposition 11 Supporter Paying To Force Californians Into the Republican Party

So they say that Proposition 11 is going to "clean up" California and make our legislature work.

But, most of the supporters are big spending Republicans from across the nation.

And now we find that California's Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner is one of the chief supporters of Proposition 11 according to LAist.

But wait, is that the same Steve Poizner who is messed up in the Republican voter registration fraud?

Why yes it is!

See Countdown report on Mark Jacoby and Young Political Majors below.  

It includes  a cameo of Mr. Poizner along with the information that the McCain California Campaign Co-chair has been paying Mr. Jacoby's enterprise $5 for each person slammed into the Republican party.  If you think it might be another "Steve Poizner" you can check out the California Insurance Department site photo.  (Twins? Both named Steve?  I doubt it.)

Poizner is also dogged by well documented allegations that, though he claimed not to have accepted insurance company money before or during his campaign for the insurance commissioner post, he actually just had it hidden better than his Republican predecessors.    See California Progress Report on the commissioner and the insurance companies.

Now this kind of political sleaze may be common, but it's hard to dig up the facts on it. So We have smoke and flame.  I'd say we have definite evidence of fire.  And that fire is dirty campaign tactics from one of the principle supporters of a measure that supposedly only looks like it's a gimmick to reign in the popular legislative majority of the California legislature.  To give an analogy you could say, "He may look like a crook, but he's selling selling semi-automatics to the gangs, and he claims that will help the police."

So you figure it out.

I'm voting no on Proposition 11 because it has no provision for electoral control on those who chosse the people selected for the 14 member commission who would be put in charge of reshaping California's entire legislature.

I'm also voting against Proposition 11 because it is financially supported mostly by wealthy Republicans from across the nation whose own hands are not clean.

I'm voting against Proposition 11 because one of the agendas that Governor Schwarzenegger had for coming into office was to cripple the power of the large Democratic majority in our state.  In fact, given the fact that he has made a pretty bad mess in California, I'd say it's the only one he's gotten close to achieving.  I'll be happy to stand in his way in that effort.

Not Voting Is The Same As Voting For Everything You Hate

Even though I've been a consistent voter for nearly 3 decades, I, like others, often feel  that not voting is just a lack of a positive.

But see how not voting turns into an active opposition to yourself.

I'm going to use some information from the pro Proposition 8 people first, but I  imagine they could get this fact correct.

Their ad says that 4 judges blocked the will of 4 million voters.

So apparently less than 8 million voters voted in California in 2000 when the bill for the anti same-sex marriage passed.

Checking around I found that 12 million Californian voters voted in the 2004 election, 16 million were register by 2006, and this year over 17 million voters are registered in California.

I still have a link available for the last fact.  Find it here.

  

So, if California polls haven't been swollen by millions illegally, in 2000, less than 1/4 of possible Californian voters passed the ban on same sex marriage that the Gavin Newsom ad talks about.

Most of the rest of eligible Californians voted for the ban by not voting.

This year the Christian groups which want to increase their political power by getting the amendment passed have made sure their followers know this.

Please make sure that your friends and loved ones know it, too.

The Real Gavin Newsom

Okay, I can't stand it no more.

 

Lets take a look at the real Gavin Newsom. We have been having a severely short clip pushed in our faces for months by the pro Proposition 8 people. They cut it in a way to make it seem like the San Francisco Mayor is gloating over other people.

Somehow I just felt that was false, though I thought the video (in another post below) that actually dealt with some facts used it better than the pro Prop 8 people did, and I've finally found a video that captures more of the speeches that were given after the California Supreme Court announced their decision that banning same sex marriage is, in fact, a violation of the equal rights clause.

 I'll let you see for yourself what really went on that day:

Hint: They were celebrating civil rights, not gloating.

LA Times Comes Out: No On Proposition 8

I know this is on the newsreel still and may be for a while, still, but I didn't want to let it get away.

Kudos to the Times for the well written piece which should be available until after the election anyway.

See "No on Proposition 8:Debunking the myths used to promote the ban on same-sex marriage".

The article answers  the lies of the pro Proposition 8 ads.

Hate Gavin Newsom Right?

You may have seen the clip of a hoarse Gavin Newsom Saying "It's going to happen whether you like it or not!".  If you've been watching TV in California you must have seen it.  I've even heard it on the radio.

Well, if you love to hate the San Francisco mayor and especially the way he was a little over jolly on the day that the California Supreme Court ruled that not allowing same-sex marriage was a denial of civil rights below is a video that will give you your fill of it, and some basic facts of life to go along.