"If you're gay, lesbian, or bisexual, would you sacrifice for your trans neighbors and siblings? If you're trans, would you sacrifice for your gay, lesbian, or bisexual neighbors and siblings? It's something worth knowing about yourself and those around you." --Autumn Sandeen, 4/19/2010, the night before GetEQUAL's DADT repeal protest at the White House
Public Calendar
Press/media, organizations, and individuals send your time-based event info to: calendar@phblend.net
The Christian Civic League of Maine's Mike Hein calls Pam's House Blend: "a leading source of radical homosexual propaganda, anti-Christian bigotry, and radical transgender advocacy."
He is "praying that Pam Spaulding will "turn away from her wicked and sinful promotion of homosexual behavior."
(CCLM's web site, 10/15/07)
Ex-gay "Christian" activist James Hartline on Pam:
"I have been mocked over and over again by ungodly and unprincipled anti-christian lesbians."
(from "Six Years In Sodom: From The Journal Of James Hartline," 9/4/2006, written from the "homosexual stronghold" of Hillcrest in San Diego).
"Pam is a 'twisted lesbian sister' and an 'embittered lesbian' of the 'self-imposed gutteral experiences of the gay ghetto.'" -- 9/5/2008
Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth Against Homosexuality heartily endorses the Blend, calling Pam:
A "vicious anti-Christian lesbian activist." (Concerned Women for America's radio show [9:15], 1/25/07)
"A nutty lesbian blogger." (MassResistance radio show [16:25], 2/3/07)
Pam's House Blend always seems to find these sick f*cks. The area of the country she is in? The home state of her wife? I know, they are everywhere. Pam just does such a great job of bringing them out into the light.
--Impeach Bush
who monitors yours Bevis ?? Just thought I would drop you a line,so the rest of your life is not wasted.
I'm glad to see this local story receive national play. Joy Behar had on Southerners on New Ground (SONG) director Caitlin Breedlove, who, along with her partner, was kicked out of Cameron Village Shopping Center by a security guard because their innocent kiss and general affection were deemed "inappropriate."
The head of York Properties met with Breedlove and apologized. A York spokesperson said that the officer involved was immediately suspended. The supervising officer and all security officers will receive additional sensitivity training.
Breedlove appeared along with Raleigh native Clay Aiken:
Today Dan Choi went into the Armed Forces recruiting station in Times Square to re-enlist in the Army (the Marines turned him away due to age requirements). The important thing to take away from this is that, despite having a re-entry code on his DD-214 (discharge papers) that would normally bar him from re-enlistment, the recruiters eventually determined that yes, Dan was able to come back. How long he'll be allowed to serve is anyone's guess. I sincerely hope it's for as long as he wants to.
Watching this video, I have no words. I'll just let Dan do his own talking.
Today Judge Phillips ruled against the Department of Justice by denying its request for a stay of injunction in Log Cabin Republicans vs United States of America. Below please find statements from the Log Cabin Republicans and White & Case on the ruling. The order denying the stay as well as the transcript from yesterday's hearing are both attached.
Clarke Cooper, Executive Director of Log Cabin Republicans "Judge Phillips is right to stand with servicemembers by rejecting President Obama's request to continue this discriminatory policy," said R. Clarke Cooper, Executive Director of Log Cabin Republicans. "It is vital that as a nation we uphold the fundamental constitutional rights of all soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines and coast guardsmen. As this past week has shown, our military is well-equipped to adapt to open service, and eager to get on with the work of defending our freedom. As Commander in Chief, the president should drop his defense of a policy which he knows undermines military readiness and threatens national security. The president has said that 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' will end on his watch, but is currently standing in the way of its demise. Log Cabin Republicans will continue to fight this policy no matter how many obstacles he puts in the way."
Dan Woods, White & Case "We applaud Judge Phillips's ruling denying the government's request for a stay of injunction, as it brings us one step closer toward ending once and for all this unconstitutional policy that President Obama and Congress seem incapable or unwilling to end themselves," said Dan Woods, White & Case partner who is representing Log Cabin Republicans in Log Cabin Republicans vs United States of America. "Meanwhile, homosexual servicemembers are fighting and dying today in two wars for their fellow Americans' constitutional rights, while their own constitutional rights are being held hostage to an uncertain bureaucratic process that seems more interested in beancounting the trouble they would be put to from modifying their training materials than in protecting these servicemembers' civil rights."
SLDN:
Statement by Army veteran and SLDN Executive Director Aubrey Sarvis:
"By the judge keeping the injunction in place, lesbian and gay service members are protected another day, but the uncertainty has not gone away. The Department of Justice will immediately ask the 9th Circuit to stay the injunction. We're talking about the careers of patriots, people who are on the frontlines serving our country - some of whom are highly decorated - and the court needs to keep the injunction in place. As the DOJ fights to keep this unconstitutional and oppressive law, we are monitoring active-duty clients' cases and fielding calls every day to our hotline. During this interim period of uncertainty, service members must not come out. Our service members need finality. Given the uncertainty in the courts, we urge the Senate to act swiftly next month on repeal when they return to Washington."
Servicemembers United:
WASHINGTON, D.C. - Servicemembers United, the nation's largest organization of gay and lesbian troops and veterans, issued the following statement today in response to District Court Judge Virginia A. Phillips' ruling denying the government's request to stay her injunction:
"Given that seven days have passed since enforcement of the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy was halted, those seeking to reinstate the policy have been proven flat wrong in their predictions of 'enormous consequences.' Judge Phillips recognized this contradiction in the Justice Department's arguments and once again refused to abdicate her duty to reach an objective conclusion based on the evidence before her," said Alexander Nicholson, Executive Director of Servicemembers United and the sole named veteran plaintiff in the case along with the Log Cabin Republicans. "Once again, we call on President Obama to stop defending the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy in court and we reiterate that it is the President, not the Attorney General, who has the final word on this decision."
HRC:
Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese issued the following statement:
"Judge Phillips once again did the right thing for our national security. We call on the administration not to appeal her decision. DADT is an unconscionable law that forces brave lesbian and gay Americans to serve in silence and has forced 14,000 patriotic Americans out of the military. The law is detrimental, not only to our national security, but also to the core American value of fairness."
HRC urges all fair-minded Americans to sign an open letter to Attorney General Eric Holder, calling on him not to defend DADT at:https://secure3.convio.net/hrc/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=940
Statement by Rea Carey, Executive Director, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force:
"Judge Phillips again rejected the government's bunk that it's necessary this discriminatory policy remain in effect any longer. She and the overwhelming majority of Americans have rightly concluded it's time to make 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' a policy of the past. Our elected officials have diddled around and played the delay game as the careers of thousands of courageous, patriotic service members have been destroyed. Phillips said enough is enough, and we couldn't agree more."
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton delivers a message to the LGBT community that "Tomorrow Will Be Better," at the U.S. Department of State in Washington, D.C., October 19, 2010.
That means that right now, I should be able to go to a recruiter and enlist. In fact, Dan Choi is reenlisting in Times Square as I write this post. (Apparently he's too old for the Marines, according to his Twitter.)
I thought about doing it today just for political purposes. Then, I decided that was a pretty stupid reason, one that is disrespectful of people who enlist because they actually want to serve. I'm a pacifist who doesn't respond well to blind authority (except in the bedroom), and I can't think of anything I'm less interested in going through than basic training.
Still, I wouldn't make a bad recruit. I'm in good health and I have two college degrees with currently nothing better to do.
So what's the point of my post? Well, while the purported "enormous consequences" of DADT are absurd, the reality is that education on LGBT identities will be necessary. For all troops. For all officers. The need for that training is not a good reason to delay lifting the ban (as I wrote last week), but an important need to address with haste.
Honestly, someone's going to have to deliver that training. Someone's going to have to talk to troops, and officers, and chaplains, and even the Joint Chiefs of Staff to say, "Hey, here's what's up with gays and lesbians." Probably a lot of someones. And that's exactly the kind of education I want to be doing. It's exactly the kind of education I'm prepared to do.
So, if the military wanted me to work for them, I will. I honestly would prefer to remain a civilian, but if they wanted someone on the inside with that responsibility, I would enlist. I would commit to the military to make it a better place for the gays and lesbians serving in it.
We've been giving Obama, Gates, and the military leaders a very hard time over DADT, and they've deserved it every step of the way. Eventually, though, we have to help. Let me be the first in line committed to making sure none of the paranoid homophobic fears people have come to pass.
I may be a pacifist, but I know the military does a lot of good work beyond fighting pointless wars; I'd be ready to be all I can be if it means making a difference for the brave gays and lesbians ready to fight for our country.
This Thursday, Fred Phelps and members of his Kansas-based Westboro Baptist Church are bringing their message of hate to three high schools, a seminary, a synagogue and four colleges and universities in Spokane & Cheney, Washington and Coeur a'Alene, Idaho. The Peace and Justice Action League of Spokane (PJALS) and the Inland Northwest LGBT Center are planning a peaceful reception for Westboro called Caravan of Love.
At this time of heightened awareness of the issue of bullying, it is more important than ever that we stand up to those who preach a message of hate. Through these peaceful respectful gatherings we will show that love and support of diversity are the values of our communities.
In support of the Caravan of Love campaign, Equal Rights Washington launched"A little surprise for Fred Phelps & Westboro Baptist Church to "welcome" them to Washington!", a joint fundraising campaign with PJALS, the LGBT Center in Spokane and the Safe Schools Coalition. Less than 24 hours since the launch and ERW tells me that over 75 people have already taken action and donated. Ya think it's safe to say that the people of the Inland Northwest don't want Kansas cults bringing their bullying into the area but are quite prepared to use such events to benefit the LGBT community? Thank you Fred - we couldn't have done it without you! Check out the Thank You card after the flip.
UPDATE: 7:15 PM ET: Dan Choi's re-enlistment into the Army is accepted (pending some med paperwork). http://goo.gl/eyMo
5:45 PM ET: The Village Voice's Steven Thrasher just sent me this crazy photo of Dan Choi getting mobbed outside the Times Square military Recruiting Center as he tries to enlist (the Marines rejected him -- too old!), and he was at this time, trying to sign up with the Army. Chaos ensued.
Louise posted the video in my earlier entry, but you have to read this to believe it. Just landed in my inbox:
Q A federal judge in California has made it clear she's not going to -- probably -- uphold the stay of the injunction of "don't ask, don't tell," and the President said recently that "don't ask, don't tell" will end on his watch. Is he, or will he, put pressure on Harry Reid -- Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to push for a vote during a lame duck session, one. And two, depending on what happens after the midterms, how does the President see ending "don't ask, don't tell" if he has diminished majorities or no Democratic control?
MR. GIBBS: Well, first and foremost, in terms of -- the process obviously with the judge will render on her own ruling. That then likely goes to a three-judge panel to consider. And we're certainly monitoring developments, as is the Department of Justice.
The President believes that the policy will end under his watch precisely because in the defense authorization bill pending in the Senate is a provision that would repeal what the President believes is unjust, what the President believes is discriminatory. It's passed the House. The President will push for defense authorization to be passed containing that provision when the Senate comes back for the lame duck.
We have obviously a lot of important business in that legislation. The repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" is certainly one of those aspects. My sense is if you can get through a filibuster -- and again, everything takes 60 votes these days -- that there are a majority of U.S. senators that believe, as the President does, that this policy isn't right and that it harms our national security.
So the President will work during the lame duck to ensure that that bill is passed and that what's passed the House and what's passed in the Senate can end up on his desk for his signature. But again, I think if we can get passed the procedural hurdles, that a majority of the U.S. Senate believes as the President does that it is time for this policy to change.
The courts have -- the courts in a number of different instances out West have determined that the lifespan of this policy is coming to its natural end. I think that that was recognized in the House. I think it will be recognized in the Senate and the bill -- the law will be repealed.
Press Secretary Robert Gibbs dealt with a rather aggressive set of questions over the Obama Administration's handling of the political hot potato. Gibbs did reaffirm his statement from the weekend in which he proclaimed that the controversial policy would end under Obama.
Woohoo (for the moment)! This is actual repeal on one front - now it is up to Obama's DOJ to formally roll it all back with its appeal for the federal ruling. (AP):
A Pentagon spokeswoman says recruiters have been told that they must accept gay applicants, following a federal court decision striking down the ban on gays serving openly in the military.
Spokeswoman Cynthia Smith said Tuesday that top-level guidance has been issued to recruiting commands informing them that the military's "don't ask, don't tell" rule has been suspended for now. Recruiters also have been told to inform potential recruits that the moratorium could be reversed at any point.
Dr. Michael Brown believes Christians have already lost the battle when it comes to public opinion on homosexuality and gender identity issues.
Pro-gay books are being read in elementary school classrooms, teachers are being mandated to use gender neutral language, gay activists have been welcomed in the White House, and young evangelicals see no problem with same-sex marriage.
The piece continues:
"The definitions of male and female are being eroded but don't sweat it because praise the Lord you had a lovely service last Sunday," he said sarcastically. "Don't let me disturb you with these trivialities."
Brown wants to awaken the conscious of Christians and bring them to a "divine reality" about what's happening in America.
There is a need to reach out to homosexual men and women with compassion, he said, but at the same time there is "a gay activist agenda that we must resist."
So the referenced Dr. Michael Brown highlights the following, which have everything to do with trans people and transyouth, and not much with teh homosexuals. Some of his concerns:
• ... the Los Angeles Unified School District has a policy on "ensuring equity and nondiscrimination" for "transgender and gender nonconforming students." The policy defines gender identity as "one's understanding, interests, outlook, and feelings about whether one is female or male, or both, or neither, regardless of one's biological sex."
• In San Francisco, the school policy for restroom accessibility states, "Students shall have access to the restroom that corresponds to their gender identity exclusively and consistently asserted at school."
And the policy for locker room accessibility states, "Transgender students shall not be forced to use the locker room corresponding to their gender assigned at birth.
Brown then summarized that "if Joey's convinced he's Jane, then he can use the girls' locker room and restroom," implying as socially conservative Christians often do, of course, that male-to-female people are public restroom predators. In this instance, Brown is implying that those predatores include elementary and secondary school transyouth.
In the article, Brown calls for compassion and understanding for gay and lesbian persons (even though he also says, regarding homosexuality, that it's a moral responsibility of Christians to "expose darkness and to be a moral conscience and moral preservative"), but makes no such comment on compassion and understanding about transsexual people, transgender people, and people who identify as both transgender and transsexual. In other words, Brown apparently either considers trans people to really be gay people, or he doesn't believe trans people deserve compassion and understanding.
My guess is that Brown considers trans people to be gay people. It looks to me that Brown joins a long list of religious right people who conflate gender identity and sexual orientation, lumping it all under the heading of "gender confusion."
Perhaps it isn't a side note that when Lillian Kwon writes about transgender people and issues over at the Christian Post, to me it appears you can be sure her piece is always going to be in some way agin' 'em. In the past she's given us pieces -- such as 2007's Media Bias on Transgenders Raising Concerns, where she began that piece with the sentence...
Growing media coverage and portrayals of the transgendered life have led some Christians to raise the red flag on a movement beginning to go more public much like the homosexual one already has.
...And continued on in the piece to state about pending federal hate crimes legislation:
Heheheheh. My brother lives in Delaware, so he actually will actually get to see this dimwit's name on a ballot. (via Think Progress):
O'Donnell stumbled when asked whether or not she would repeal the 14th, 16th, or 17th Amendments if elected. She asked the questioner to define the 14th and 16th amendments, adding: "I'm sorry, I didn't bring my Constitution with me."
"You actually audibly heard the crowd gasp," said Widener University political scientist Wesley Leckrone, adding that her responses "raised questions about O'Donnell's grasp of the Constitution." Indeed, as Coons points out, the First Amendment explicitly states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." But, as Keith Olbermann discovered, O'Donnell offered her own creative interpretation of the Constitution's intent at a candidate's forum last month: "I also want to clarify that it is not separation of church and state but separate from church and state."
For the 5th year in a row, the number of pro-equality voters in Washington state is increasing. Last week The Washington Poll released the results of their annual fall poll of likely voters on questions including this one:
Q: Which of the following statements best describes your views on the issue of same-sex marriage?
Gay and lesbian couples should have the same legal right to marry as straight couples.
Gay and lesbian couples should be able to have the same legal rights as stright couples but it should not be called marriage.
There should be domestic partnerships that give gay and lesbian couples only some of the benefits and protections of marriage.
There should be no legal recognition of gay and lesbian couples.
Dunno/Getoffmylawn
The Washington Poll is a non-partisan academic survey research project sponsored by the University of Washington's Institute for the Study of Ethnicity, Race & Sexuality. They first asked this question in 2006. I combed through previous reports so that we could look at the most recent results in historical context. Looking at the graph above, the positive, unwavering trend towards equality is very clear.
We saw this statistical trend validated last year when almost 53% of the Washington electorate voted to ratify the new comprehensive domestic partnership law via Referendum 71 (a national first!). A post-election analysis showed that 38 of Washington's 39 counties had demonstrated an increase in pro-equality voting since the last time an LGBT measure was on the ballot.
So we're ready to push for marriage equality in the legislature, right? Well, not so fast.
When will they ever learn? I'm not just talking about moronic Republican bigoted politicians like this Virginia Beach Republican chairman (remember NC State Rep. Larry "Fruit Loops" Brown?), but people who think that somehow your randy/racist/homophobic emails to your "friends" may lead to forwards to "friends of friends" and then eventually to the MSM?
But back to this brain-dead pol -- David Bartholomew, now the former chairman of Virginia Beach's Republican Party resigned after sending this out to friends:
MY DOG
I went down this morning to sign up my Dog for welfare.
At first the lady said, "Dogs are not eligible to draw welfare".
So I explained to her that my Dog is black, unemployed, lazy, can't speak English and has no frigging clue who his Daddy is.
So she looked in her policy book to see what it takes to qualify...
My Dog gets his first check Friday.
Is this is a great country or what?
Yes, the mask comes off easily these days for the GOP politicians. As Monica Roberts said on my Facebook wall...
VA has a GOP governor and a GOP AG, so the bigots feel comfortable enough to KKKome out and play.
The city's Republican chairman agreed to resign late Monday night, just hours after a racist joke sent from his e-mail address surfaced.
David Bartholomew is not a racist and agreed to resign because the e-mail had become a distraction to the Nov. 2 election, said Gary Byler, the 2nd Congressional District GOP chairman, after meeting with Bartholomew.
The e-mail was dated March 15 and sent from the address that Bartholomew uses as party chairman. Bartholomew forwarded it without reading the contents when "he was first getting familiar with the Internet," Byler said.
Oh. My. F*cking. Dog. Is that not the most ridiculous excuse you've heard? OK, first, any disclaimer that starts off with "he's not a racist" should just go into the circular file pronto. But "getting familiar with the Internet" makes the guy look like a moron. Perhaps Bartholomew's "forward" and "send" buttons in his email client must be inordinately larger than the rest of the commands, and his hands uncontrollably moved to hit them on that one missive.
Come on, go with the simplest explanation, since Republican bigots are a dime a dozen. Bartholomew just wanted to share his tasteless humor with people he thought were his friends. Now who's going to fess up to sending to the media? I'm sure he wants to know.
From the Palm Center press release: The Justice Department has announced that if Judge Virginia Phillips denies the government's request to allow the military to enforce "don't ask, don't tell," it will appeal the decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
As it makes its case to the appellate court, the government likely will continue to assert that last week's suspension of the ban entails negative consequences. It will likely suggest that any absence of negative consequences in the first week of the suspension is because gay troops have remained silent about their sexual orientation thus far.
The following are the leading myths that have characterized the military's thinking during the week-long suspension of the ban.
Myth #1: Gays will suddenly out themselves: Pentagon leaders appear to believe that the suspension of the gay ban entails a shift in military culture from an environment in which nobody knows who is gay, to a new climate in which suddenly the troops are surrounded by peers who advertise their sexual orientation. In fact, polls by Military Times, Vote Vets and Zogby http://unfriendlyfire.org/rese... show that between 57 to 67 percent of service members know or suspect that someone is gay or lesbian in their unit. The Zogby data reveals that even in the Marine Corps, 45 percent of Marines know or suspect someone who is gay or lesbian in their unit. Other research finds that following the lifting of a gay ban, very few additional individuals come out of the closet. The reason is that the decision to reveal one's sexual orientation is driven by the climate of the unit, not the presence or absence of a gay ban. The bottom line is that most straight troops already knew who was gay prior to the suspension of "don't ask, don't tell," and the numbers will not change significantly when "don't ask, don't tell" is permanently repealed. The silence we heard last week is the same silence we will hear when the ban is permanently repealed.
Myth #2: "Don't ask, don't tell" is cost-free. Pentagon leaders appear to believe that there are costs to stopping "don't ask, don't tell" but not keeping it. Dr. Nathaniel Frank has documented twelve types of costs http://unfriendlyfire.org/rese... that "don't ask, don't tell" imposes on the military, including wasting talent, harming unit cohesion, invading privacy, compromising morale, and undermining family readiness. Thus, military leaders ignore the costs of "don't ask, don't tell" even though scholarly research has documented such costs, and emphasize the costs of repealing "don't ask, don't tell" even though there is no evidence that such costs would materialize. Using the Blue Ribbon Commission's conservative figure of $34,000 for the cost of each service member fired under "don't ask, don't tell" and an average discharge rate of one service member fired per day, the military already saved $238,000 during last week's suspension of the ban. http://www.palmcenter.org/file...
Myth #3: The troops care about "don't ask, don't tell." Marine Corps Commandant General James Conway says that 90 to 95 percent of Marines oppose allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly, and implies that this is a hot-button issue for the Corps. In fact, four polls of service members have found that approximately 40 percent of troops oppose repeal, 30 percent support it, and 30 percent don't know or don't care. What's even more important is that the percent of troops who feel strongly about the issue is low. As early as 2003, retired NATO commander Wesley Clark said "the temperature of the issue has changed" since 1993; "people were much more irate about this issue in the early '90s than I found in the late '90s, for whatever reason, [perhaps because of] younger people coming into the military. It just didn't seem to be the same emotional hot button issue by '98, '99, that it had been in '92, '93." Statistical data confirm Clark's point. Even those troops who oppose repeal don't, for the most part, feel strongly about it.
Myth #4: The troops need to be taught how to interact with gays. Pentagon leaders have stated that service members require significant training to prepare for the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell." There is no evidence to suggest that the Pentagon provided any training to prepare the troops for last week's suspension of "don't ask, don't tell," yet the Services appear to have adjusted to the suspension without difficulty. In 1993, the RAND Corporation concluded that the keys to successful repeal are that the military must have a single code of conduct that applies equally to everyone, and that leaders must signal support for the new policy. The military already has a single code of conduct, and Under Secretary of Defense Stanley circulated a one-page memo last week instructing service members to comply with the suspension. It is unclear why, if training was unnecessary to prepare the troops for last week¹s suspension of the ban, it is needed prior the repeal of the policy. The troops already know how to interact with peers who they know to be gay and lesbian because they do so every day.
Myth #5: Repeal will increase anti-gay violence. Pentagon leaders appear to believe that some service members will react violently to the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell." It is important to remember that the military environment already includes anti-gay violence. A 2000 study by the Defense Department's Inspector General found that five percent of the troops witnessed an anti-gay beating during the previous twelve months. Hence, the transition from discriminatory to inclusive policy will not cause the military to switch from a violence-free to a violent climate. Rather, there was anti-gay violence before the ban was lifted, and there will be anti-gay violence after the ban is lifted. If anything, research suggests that the repeal of the ban will diminish the rate of violence because victims will be better able to report trouble without fearing the loss of their careers, and would-be perpetrators will know this.
Last week's dramatic talk of enormous consequences that would follow from the lifting of the ban echoes rationalizations that, for 17 years, have been put forward to justify "don't ask, don't tell." The RAND Corporation concluded 17 years ago that there would be no negative consequences following the lifting of the ban, a finding which is as true today as it was then. Military leaders from Britain, Canada and Israel have stated that despite predictions of disaster, the lifting of gay bans in those countries was a non-event. It is no surprise that last week's suspension of "don't ask, don't tell" proved the American military can do the same.
In the federal case of Perry v. Schwarzenegger, the plaintiffs have filed their response brief defending Judge Walker's decision to overturn Prop 8 to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals just before the midnight deadline. (American Foundation for Equal Rights via Prop 8 Trial Tracker):
OCTOBER 18, 2010 - The plaintiffs in the landmark Perry v. Schwarzenegger case that overturned Proposition 8 filed their brief with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals today, reiterating the clear unconstitutionality of the initiative that led to its being struck down by a federal district court after an exhaustive trial comprising overwhelming legal arguments, expert witnesses and first-hand testimony.
"Fourteen times the Supreme Court has stated that marriage is a fundamental right of all individuals. This case tests the proposition whether the gay and lesbian Americans among us should be counted as 'persons' under the 14th Amendment, or whether they constitute a permanent underclass ineligible for protection under that cornerstone of our Constitution," attorneys Theodore B. Olson and David Boies wrote in their filing.
"Our Constitution requires the government to treat every American equally under the law," said Chad Griffin, the Board President of the American Foundation for Equal Rights. "Only full federal marriage equality would fulfill the requirements of our Constitution. That is why we are pressing this case through the Supreme Court."
The Scribd document is below, and you can read the full intro at the AFER web site.
For complete information about the case, including court documents, photographs, video and more, visit www.equalrightsfoundation.org.
A summary of the trial is available here:www.equalrightsfoundation.org/press-releases/perry-v-schwarzenegger-trial-summary/.
I'm glad to see this local story receive national play. Joy Behar had on 
This Thursday, 
Check out the Thank You card after the flip.
Q A federal judge in California has made it clear she's not going to -- probably -- uphold the stay of the injunction of "don't ask, don't tell," and the President said recently that "don't ask, don't tell" will end on his watch. Is he, or will he, put pressure on Harry Reid -- Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to push for a vote during a lame duck session, one. And two, depending on what happens after the midterms, how does the President see ending "don't ask, don't tell" if he has diminished majorities or no Democratic control?
For the 5th year in a row, the number of pro-equality voters in Washington state is increasing. Last week 
We saw this statistical trend 
