Posts Tagged ‘attorney’

Outing: Is sex off limits?

Thursday, May 14th, 2009

Recently, a Washington DC news anchor, Doug McKelway, while hosting a local interest news program called Let’s Talk Live, interviewed Mike Rogers about outing hypocritical politicians. The movie is Outrage1 and Mike Rogers can be found at BlogActive.com. The interview made McKelway rather hot and bothered because he told Rogers that he would like to punch him in the face (more or less).

What exactly is the outrage here? Many, of which Mike Rogers is one, have dedicated themselves to unearthing the hypocrisy of politicians at any level who engage in homosexual behavior yet routinely vote against gay rights issues. Is outing the sexual behavior of a hypocritical public official the right thing to do?

I think that each of us has a right to our private lives. Sex is just one facet of things that should be private. If we don’t need to know the intimate conversations you have about politics or money, why do we need to know the intimate conversations regarding your sexual activity? Of course, if the activities in which you engage are illegal, then those activities become a matter of public record. The intimacy is over because the right to privacy ends.

However, any action that you take as a public official that is counter to the actions you take in your private life is a real problem. If you are Eliot Spitzer (former New York Governor, New York Attorney General, Manhattan District Attorney) and you prosecute prostitutes all the while secretly engaging the services of prostitutes in multiple jurisdictions, you are not only hypocritical but you are violating the law. You cannot be trusted. Eliot was outed, sexually speaking, but Eliot is not gay.

During the interview, McKelway asks Rogers about the outings of certain public officials like Larry Craig, who was infamously arrested in the bathroom of a Minneapolis airport while attempting to obtain sex from the person in the adjacent stall. Larry Craig, apparently, has also voted against gay rights issues on multiple occasions. Rogers also mentions Florida Governor Charlie Christ, who recently announced he will run in the US Senate race in 2010. While Larry Craig’s issues are rather obvious, Charlie Christ’s issues are not. Although rumors have spread for years about both gentlemen, Christ has yet to have anyone provide proof publicly of his non-heterosexual behavior. (I don’t follow the news stories on Christ, so I am more than willing to be corrected on the facts.)

If a public official, particularly one that holds an elected position, is engaging in personal behavior that is contradictory to his/her publicly stated positions or to his/her public actions (such as a voting record), then I think that the personal behavior should be known. If Larry Craig were to dress up in women’s clothing and hang out in gay bars in order to bag a guy at a DC hotel, I really don’t care. However, if Larry Craig takes a consistent public stance against people who otherwise engage in the same behavior he does, and he echoes that stance with a voting record to match, I think Larry Craig should be outed. I don’t mean to beat up on Larry Craig, poor guy, but he’s the most recent posterchild for hypocritical sexual activity.

The question becomes this: Why is sex off limits to outing? We often out people for financial misdeeds, such as Sam Donaldson for being against farm subsidies yet consistently accepting federal subsidies for his goat ranch (or whatever) in New Mexico. That is just one example of a hypocrisy uncovered, and that was a hypocrisy committed by a private individual functioning in a public capacity (news reporting), who also reports on the hypocrises of other public figures. 

Did the message about our sexual lives being private become overdone? I don’t care what anyone does in their private lives, but if I am going to vote for you, or if you are appointed by someone else to act on my behalf, then your personal behavior better withstand the public scrutinty of a position you hold publicly. If you consistently think gays shouldn’t marry or adopt children or even be allowed to work anywhere, and you are consistently engaging in homosexual behavior, watch out! I am the public and I think I have the right to know.

Doug McKelway needs to get off the horse he’s riding because it’s way too high.

  1. IMDb: Outrage [<]

Woman Jailed Over Scarf, Appropriately?

Thursday, December 18th, 2008

A few months ago, I posted an article criticizing the greatly increasing idea that over-tolerance for religious tradition should trump practical necessity. In particular, I cited a case in which a judge in Britain disallowed a Muslim attorney from advocating in court because her refusal to remove her traditional Muslim head garb made her difficult to understand and ineffective as a counselor. I proffered that it was a reasonable infringement upon “custom,” and that its purpose was not to oppress religious practice, but, instead, to facilitate something necessary, for the sake of society and government effectiveness.

On Tuesday, a judge in Georgia charged a Muslim woman with contempt of court and ordered her jailed for ten days because she refused to take off her head scarf at a courthouse security checkpoint.1 Although she didn’t serve her full sentence, due to the intervention of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, she claims her civil rights had been violated, and she was reminded of the stories she had heard about the civil rights strife in the southern U.S. 2

The incident shouldn’t remind her of such stories. The premise is distinctly different. In the south, black people were segregated and barred from entry from places solely because of the color of their skin. That was the litmus test sufficient to perpetuate that heinous behavior. Lisa Valentine, the alleged victim of the civil rights infringement in this story, however, was not punished arbitrarily for having an attribute that was genetically gifted to her. She was punished for wearing a piece of clothing on her head that she insisted remain on her head, presumably to honor and obey her husband, Islam, and Allah. Her reasoning is irrelevant. The practical nature of the request to have her head scarf removed trumped her religious preference specifically because of the narrow scope of that request — that it was for the purpose of safety and security in a government operated public facility. In short, it’s hard to identify someone on security tape footage if that person’s head is covered.

How do we test this to determine whether Mrs. Valentine was being unjustly singled out for her religion? Walk into a Georgia courthouse wearing a motorcycle helmet, and then refuse to remove it, because, you’ll claim, “It violates my civil rights to have my cherished helmet removed.” For whatever reason you’ve donned such garb, it will be insufficient to override the universally applied restriction. You’d have to take off your helmet. I’d have to take off my baseball cap. It’s the same idea as if someone at an airport refused to succumb to a wand search, or removal of shoes. Regardless of the reason, religious, secular, paranoia, custom — that person would be refused access to the planes, and would likely spend a few hours in interrogation.

So, instead of a passive trait, such as skin color, being the target of hate-filled men with prejudice, where everyone possessing that characteristic would be equally mistreated, this is a case of a choice, an action that the actor tries to justify using religion and culture, being barred in a narrow circumstance, applied only to those who act similarly in that circumstance.

Although there is apparently no state law permitting or prohibiting head scarfs, it’s the discretion of the judge and sheriffs whether to allow or disallow them, and the courthouse security officers enforce that decision. I really would like to see if someone wearing a baseball cap could get through security. If that happened, then it’s obvious that there is a double standard at that courthouse, and Mrs. Valentine’s rights were, indeed, violated.

Despite my overall argument that religious rights should have no extra bonuses over basic civil rights, due process, and free speech, among other things, I must confess that I have serious issues with any decision a judge in the U.S. makes regarding religious tolerance or intolerance when that judge quite likely has on the wall behind him the big, bold words, “In God We Trust.”3

-Procrustes

StOP

  1. Last year, the same judge apparently did the same thing to a different Muslim woman. [<]
  2. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/17/muslim-woman-jailed-over-_n_151858.html [<]
  3. According to Wikipedia, “In God We Trust is found on the flag of Georgia, flag of Florida, and the Seal of Florida. It was first adopted by the state of Georgia for use on flags in 2001, and subsequently included on the Georgia flag of 2003.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_We_Trust [<]

Bush Administration Makes Last Ditch Effort to Diminish Women’s Rights

Thursday, November 20th, 2008

Apparently the Bush administration just wasn’t satisfied with all the other steps they have taken to bring the government into our bedrooms and our doctors’ offices: blocking over-the-counter access to the morning-after pill, granting fetuses a higher legal status than women, likening abortion to terrorism, promoting ineffective abstinence-only education, and fighting congressional efforts to give aid to overseas groups that provide contraceptives.1  It wasn’t enough.  They had to make one last ditch effort to further diminish women’s reproductive rights.

Opposition is growing quickly to a Bush administration proposal which seeks to grant sweeping protections to health care providers who oppose medical procedures, such as abortion, based on their religious beliefs.  The proposed rule2 would prohibit entities that receive federal funding from discriminating against health care workers who refuse to assist in performing abortions or other procedures because of their religious beliefs.  It would also prevent hospitals, clinics, doctors’ offices and pharmacies from requiring any employee to “assist in the performance of any part of a health service program or research activity” financed by the Department of Health and Human Services, if that employee refuses because of religious or moral objections.3

Under the current laws, employers must make reasonable accommodations for employees’ religious practices, so long as those practices do not cause “undue hardship” on the business.  Under this new proposed rule, family planning providers could be forced “to hire employees who may refuse to do their jobs,” according to the Ohio Health Department.  Pharmacies have said this rule would make it legal for their employees to refuse to fill prescriptions for contraceptives and could “lead to Medicaid patients being turned away.”  The rule could also overturn state laws which require insurance companies to cover contraceptives and which require hospitals to offer rape victims emergency contraception, according to state officials.4

Among those in opposition to the proposed rule are the American Hospital Association, the American Medical Association, the National Association of Chain Drug Stores, a vast number of doctors, pharmacists, and hospitals, the attorneys general of 13 states, 28 senators, more than 110 representatives, and many other political leaders, including President-elect Barack Obama.  Among those supporting the proposal are the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Catholic Health Association.5

Three officials from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, including its Bush-appointed legal counsel, Reed Russell, as well as members Stuart Ishimaru and Christine Griffin, are opposing the rule and have stated, along with other senior members of the commission staff, that their agency was not consulted at all before the proposal was issued.  The proposal was received by the White House Office of Management and Budget on August 21 and was approved the same day.  These officials have said the rule is unnecessary for the protection of employees and could potentially cause confusion for employers.  Mr. Russell pointed to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,6 which already prohibits religious discrimination in hiring practices.   Mr. Ishimaru and Ms. Griffin issued a letter stating that 40 years of court decisions have “carefully balanced employees’ rights to religious freedom and employers’ business needs,” and that this proposed rule would “throw that entire body of law into question.”7

A line needs to be drawn.  If your child needed a blood transfusion in order to survive, and your doctor happened to be a Jehovah’s Witness who believed that blood transfusions were forbidden by her God,8 would it be acceptable to you if she refused to treat your child?  Of course it wouldn’t.  You are welcome to believe whatever you want to believe.  You can believe that tiny, invisible faeries live underground and whisper your morals to you during the night.  Whatever floats your boat.  But as soon as you try to enforce those beliefs on me, I have a problem with that.  And the next time I go to the pharmacy to receive my doctor-prescribed medicines, be they contraceptives or otherwise, I expect those medicines to be provided to me, regardless of what my pharmacist believes about them.  

Download Procrustes’ Crappy Podcast of this Otherwise Excellent Article!

-Laura

  1. http://www.now.org/issues/abortion/roe30/record.html [<]
  2. http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2008pres/08/20080821reg.pdf [<]
  3. http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2008/11/18/bush-abortion-proposal-raises-ire-of-health-groups-eeoc/ [<]
  4. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/18/washington/18abort.html?partner=permalink&exprod=permalink [<]
  5. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/18/washington/18abort.html?partner=permalink&exprod=permalink [<]
  6. http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/vii.html [<]
  7. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/18/washington/18abort.html?partner=permalink&exprod=permalink [<]
  8. http://www.religioustolerance.org/witness5.htm [<]

Fuck the FCC

Thursday, November 6th, 2008

The United States Supreme Court is currently about to uphold an FCC policy that arbitrarily and unconstitutionally fines broadcasters heavily for certain lingual slippage.1

Why?

Because the FCC thinks every time anyone ever says the word “Fuck,” everyone hearing the word will think about sex, and thinking about sex is bad. Also, every time anyone ever says the word “Shit,” everyone hearing the word will think about excrement, and thinking about excrement is bad.

What the FUCK, FCC? Are we in kindergarten? Are we a nation run by puritans? Certain people spend a hell of a lot of time and money to keep proper sex education (that actually informs students about their own God-given bodies) out of public schools because why? Because it’s offensive? Those same people spend a lot of time and money chilling free speech because, as FCC attorney Gregory G. Garre would say, those words are “patently offensive under community standards for broadcasting.” The word “Shit” is violative of the policy because it deals with excrement, according to the FCC argument. However, when asked by Justice Stevens whether, then, the word “dung” would also be violative, Garre responded that it wouldn’t… because it wouldn’t be patently offensive under community standards for broadcasting.

So, here we are again, dealing with another confusing and circular argument. Goes like this:

X evokes images of Y.
We don’t like Y.
Therefore, we censor X.
Z also evokes images of Y.
But we don’t censor Z, because, as stated above, we don’t like X.

What? Didn’t get that little bait and switch? Yeah, well, I’m betting that the Supreme Court (most of Bush’s lackeys, anyway) will ignore it. The way it works is that the FCC establishes a set of standards, and then justifies that set of standards in a variety of odd ways, and when any of those justifications are challenged, the FCC comes back with the defense that the standard should stay anyway… because it’s the standard. That’s exactly what Garre was saying in Court, and more than half the Court will just nod and agree. It’s not that they really agree, it’s just that some of them probably honestly believe that children need protecting, and they think that the FCC is doing the right thing to protect those children. That’s a sad state for the Supreme Court because that’s exactly what the right-wing entities that put those conservative members of that Court in place were trying to avoid — judicial activism. In other words, they’re not interpreting law in light of the Constitution, they’re making up law, and that law (or at least fealty to the FCC “law”)2 is unconstitutional, a violation of the First Amendment.

In a feeble, but honorable attempt to protect free speech, the attorney for (surprise) the Fox TV network, Carter G. Phillips, told the Court that ultimately by allowing the FCC to continue the insanely high fines imposed on the utterance of a word, the Court would be allowing the regulation of the content of speech.

Read David Savage’s more detailed account in the LA Times, and protest the fucking FCC. (Even if you have to shit in a bag and leave it on their doorstep).

(Gotta love how this article will probably trigger even more at-work automatic blocking.)

Hey, if you know of any good “Protest the FCC” websites to which I can link, please post them. Thanks! One you should be aware of is the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Go check it out!

-Procrustes (what a shithead!)3

P.S. One of my favorite interviews of all time, Frank Zappa on Crossfire. Enjoy:

And props to Chrysophrase for suggesting “Fuck you Very Much, FCC” by Monty Python:

Joe Scarborough says “Fuck” on the air, immediately sets entire nation into state of sinful copulation.

Get the Podcast!

StOP

  1. My readers have liked the fact that I actually do research, and cite stuff. So, for your reading pleasure, here are the oral arguments that took place November 4: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/07-582.pdf. Of course, I say that the Supreme Court will decide to uphold the policy, but I can’t know that for sure. (chuckle). A good resource to get caught up with this case is the Cornel University Law School’s Legal Information Institute bulletin on FCC v. Fox Television Stations. [<]
  2. Obviously the FCC can’t write laws, since it’s an executive agency, and executive agencies are only supposed to be able to enforce law, not make it. Well, unless they’re in the Bush administration, but that’s a longer rant. Anyway, the actual law that gives the FCC the ability to be such a shit is codified as 18 U.S.C. 1464. Broadcasting obscene language, and 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(D). Refer to Liibulletin in footnote 1 for a good overview of the case. [<]
  3. Does that evoke images of my head being made of poopie? [<]

Erasing Decades of Moral Progress with Proposition 8

Wednesday, November 5th, 2008

Of all the progressive steps forward taken by this nation last night, there was one giant leap backwards taken by Californians. A majority of registered Californians have spit in the face of the thousands of same sex couples who have tearfully and joyfully gotten married in the last few months.1 These Californians have bought into lies, distortions, and scare tactics, such as “gay marriage will be taught in schools,” and “priests will have to perform gay marriages,” which we have thoroughly corrected, clarified, and debunked in our previous articles and their preceding discussions.23 These Californians have claimed they consider marriage “sacred,” completely disregarding the fact that many homosexuals consider it sacred as well.

But is there an underlying cause of their overwhelming willingness to accept, give enormous sums of money to, and vote for this bigoted proposition? Is there a reason they are not stating directly, one that goes beyond the obviously false talking points? In the CNN exit polls, we can see gradual increases towards the No camp going up the scale of higher education and down the scale of age, but overall, most of the answers given are relatively split down the middle, making them close enough to possibly make their relation to the issue coincidental, given the margin of error.4 But there was one question asked in which there was an unmistakably large divide between the Yes and No camps – the vote by religion. Roughly 65% of Protestants and Catholics voted yes, while about 35% voted no. But where the poll becomes telling, and where we suddenly see a much sharper divide, is among those who practice no religion. An overwhelming 91% of those who practice no religion voted no on Prop 8, with only 9% in support of it.5 I don’t think it’s any secret that, without the backing of dogma, a position in support of denying another person basic freedoms is nearly impossible to justify.

The real reason Californians are using to rationalize this condemnation of homosexuals is clear – they believe their God considers homosexuality an abomination, because it says so in the Bible. Of course, they could never say this outright during their campaign, as it would shed light on a clear violation of the separation of Church and State, but anyone with a modicum of critical thinking skills knows that this is assuredly what they believe. This discrimination has been taught from pulpits for centuries. So, for this next portion, let’s turn to the Bible, the “Good Book.” And what better place to start than Sodom and Gomorrah, one of the most commonly cited Bible stories Christians use to demonstrate that heterosexuality is morally superior to homosexuality. Gather round, children. It’s story time.

In Genesis 19, we hear the story of two angels who, in the form of human men, were sent by God to the home of Lot, a Sodomite. Lot invited the angels to stay the night, but before they went to sleep, the men of the city of Sodom gathered around the house and yelled, “We know you’ve got some juicy men in there, Lot! Bring them out here, because we want to rape them!” Lot, being the righteous and holy man that he was, told the men, “Please do not rape my guests. Here, I have two virgin daughters which you are welcome to. I’ll bring them out so you can rape them any way you please, but these men are off limits.” Apparently, this wasn’t good enough for the evil gay men, and they tried to break down the door. But just in the nick of time, the angels struck all the men blind. The next morning, the angels told Lot that God was going to destroy the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah and that he needed to take his family, escape to a mountain, and never look back. Lot replied, “I don’t want to go live in a mountain. There’s a city nearby, Zoar, and since it’s very small, maybe God could pretty please not destroy this particular city?” The Lord okayed it, and Lot took his family and left. God then rained fire and brimstone on all the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah because, as we all know, every single one of them was evil, every man, woman, baby, fetus, puppy and kitten. Lot’s wife got a bit curious and looked back, so God turned her into a pillar of salt. (Apparently, the “don’t look back” rule was not quite as negotiable as the “head to the mountain” rule.) So, Lot and his daughters arrived in Zoar, but apparently it wasn’t as nice as Lot hoped it would be, so Lot took his daughters up to a mountain (that’s right, a mountain) to live in a cave. One night, the daughters, the very same daughters who were earlier offered up as rape sacrifices by their own father, decided to get their father drunk and rape him. Each of them bore a son, and they lived happily ever after.6 The ACLU, Lambda Legal, and the National Center for Lesbian Rights have filed a petition charging that Prop 8 is “invalid because the initiative process was improperly used in an attempt to undo the constitution’s core commitment to equality for everyone by eliminating a fundamental right from just one group – lesbian and gay Californians.”7 San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera, Los Angeles City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo, and Santa Clara County Counsel Anne Miller Ravel8 also filed a petition for a writ of mandate with the California Supreme Court to invalidate Prop 8.9 Finally, Los Angeles attorney Gloria Allred is representing Robin Tyler and Diane Olson, the first same sex couple to be married in Los Angeles last summer, who are filing a lawsuit against the measure. Tyler and Olson were one of the original couples who filed the lawsuits that led to the Supreme Court decision last May which declared the ban on gay marriage unconstitutional.10 It’s surely a long and difficult road ahead, but these groups are to be commended for their strength and determination.

In other news, several protesters were arrested last night, November 5th, as they demonstrated against the passage of Prop 8 in Hollywood. According to LAPD spokesman Officer Jason Lee, a citywide tactical alert was issued, requiring all available officers to respond to the protest. Lee said that protesters tried to cross a line of officers as they moved along Hollywood Boulevard and that, at one point, a demonstrator jumped onto a police car. However, Lee said that despite this and the arrests made, the protest was mostly peaceful.11

UPDATE 2:

According to the CivLib Blog, “By making the passage of California’s Proposition 8 a substantial part of its activities this year, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has violated nonprofit law. Because it has broken the law, it should be stripped of its 501(c)(3) non-profit tax-exempt status. This law will not be enforced unless complaints are filed against the LDS Church for its illegal activities.”  The blog lists all the individual documents required for filing a complaint, but our own JNTB has compiled all of these documents into one PDF for convenience. Per JNTB:

This document, IRS Form 13909 LDS.pdf, is the official form to submit to the IRS completed with the information offered by the CivLib.com blog. If you have Adobe Acrobat Reader 8 installed, it should allow you to open the PDF, add your own personal information (name/address/date of complaint) and then save the PDF to your own computer for use in an email later. If for some reason your version of Acrobat doesn’t allow the entering of info, just print, write it in, then scan back into an email to send to the IRS. Or, you can fax and snailmail, but beware …
This document, IRS Form 13909 LDS Supporting Documents.pdf, contains all the supporting documents (57 pages) that are required to file Form 13909 with the IRS. Email would be easier because faxing and snail-mailing can be annoying and costly. It’s up to you!

UPDATE 3:

Yesterday, November 19th, the California Supreme Court voted 6 to 1 to review three of the six lawsuits which have been brought forth challenging the constitutionality of Proposition 8.  A hearing on the lawsuits may be held as early as March, and it has been suggested that the court intends to resolve all the legal issues surrounding this proposition in a single ruling, including the validity of existing same sex marriages.12

-Laura

[Pro's Notes:

NPR's Alex Cohen interviewed UC Berkley law professor Jesse Choper regarding whether the 11,000 same sex couples who legally married in California will be in jeopardy of losing their marriages to nullification.

SFGate asks the same question (but indicates that there are about 16,000 couples).

This isn't a new thing for many California couples. In 2004, the California Supreme Court nullified marriages held in San Francisco. Watch this YouTube recap, and read the New York Times article that details how the court held that the 4,000 couples had no standing, and then ordered the removal of the marriage records from the books, and the nullification of the marriages.

Paul Hogarth, at Huffington Post, writes that the attempt to reject Prop 8 failed due to complacency and distraction, but that there's still hope of it being overturned with the help of younger voters in California's future. Organize now, and do it right.]

  1. http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/individual/#CAI01 [<]
  2. http://www.stateofprotest.com/2008/10/08/proposition-8-the-mormons-and-the-new-%e2%80%9cseparate-but-equal%e2%80%9d [<]
  3. http://www.stateofprotest.com/2008/04/11/regarding-roger-severinos-legalizing-gay-marriage-will-spark-lawsuits/ [<]
  4. http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#CAI01p1 [<]
  5. http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#val=CAI01p2 [<]
  6. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=GEN%2019;&version=9 ;) )

    Ah, traditional family values. Don’t they just warm your heart?

    Perhaps some of you will point out some of the more “straightforward” verses, like Leviticus 18:22, which reads, “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.” ((http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Lev%2018:22;&version=9 ;) ) There’s really no mincing of words with that one. There’s also no mincing of words with some of the other verses in that same book, such as Leviticus 11: 10-12, “And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you: ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcasses in abomination.” ((http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Lev%2011:%2010-12;&version=9 ;) ) Curious that we don’t see any Christians picketing in front of Red Lobster. And how about Leviticus 19:19, in which we are instructed not to wear clothing with two different kinds of fibers? ((http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2019:19;&version=8 ;) ) How did the Christians survive the 70s without God destroying them?

    For those of you who think your morality derives from the Bible, I encourage you to actually read the Bible. And not just the warm, fuzzy verses you hear on Sunday morning, but the horrible, hateful, vicious, contradictory, and downright ridiculous verses that are everywhere to be found. Today is a sad, sad day in California for moral progress and an even sadder day for the homosexual community. My heart goes out to those whose marriages are now ambiguous and undefined, and they will be in my thoughts as I continue to fight for equal rights for all.

    UPDATE 1:

    Three separate lawsuits have been filed, asking the California Supreme Court to overturn Proposition 8. ((http://www.dailynews.com/news/ci_10912170 [<]

  7. http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/37706prs20081105.html [<]
  8. Sometimes cited as Anne C. Ravel. [<]
  9. http://sfist.com/2008/11/05/dennis_herrera_sues_to_invalidate_p.php [<]
  10. http://www.contracostatimes.com/california/ci_10904639 [<]
  11. http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-protestarrest6-2008nov06,0,288808.story [<]
  12. http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-me-prop8-supreme-court20-2008nov20,0,7007814.story?page=1 [<]