Its a bit late to jump on the road to Jerusalem

The end of the long gun registry is near.  I for one am disappointed that this is the case.  I support it and I hope that I am wrong about its demise.  The Liberals are making hay with this issue calling on Jack Layton to whip the vote.  The Liberals of course set a fine example on "whipping" the vote in their own caucus.

How many Liberals voted against same-sex marriage?  How many Liberals have voted against a woman's right to choose?  How many Liberals voted to reinstate the Death Penalty?  How many Liberals have voted 120 times on confidence votes to keep the Harper Government in power?  How many Liberals voted to extend the mission in Afghanistan?  What's more disgusting, are the comments from Bob Rae earlier this year, suggesting we might have to extend the mission. 

I would be very happy to see the gun registry survive.  Why didn't the Liberals whip the gay marriage vote, or a woman's right to choose and even more importantly, the death penalty. 

To my knowledge, the NDP has never whipped a vote on a Private Members bill.  But that is missing the point.  The long gun registry is in trouble because the Liberal party has selfishly sought to protect its rear end for the last two years supporting the Harper government.  The Liberals have had 120 chances to defeat Harper. 

Jack Layton has proposed some reasonable changes to the registry, changes that will make it more workable for rural folks.  Layton and the NDP have been doing the heavy lifting for most of this Parliament.  Lets see how many Liberal MP's are sick or have a pancake breakfast too serve on the day of the vote.

Its a bit late to jump on the road to Jerusalem.

Anti Gay org loses Charitable Status

The American affiliate in New Zealand,  Exodus Global Alliance has lost its charity status.  It was revoked by the NZ Charities Commission on August 18, 2010.

I am almost tempted to say, Yes there is a god!  Exodus is a gay bashing, child abusing organization.  It says to young and old, its BAD to be gay, you are the lowest of the low.  Exodus has supported gay conversion and or reparitive therapy.  It counsels people, often the very young, that god hates what you are. Talk about pulling the spirit and soul out of someone, telling them they are the devil and must stop being themselves.

The New Zealand Charities Commission has found that there is no public good that can come from Exodus.

You can find the full decision here on the NZ Charities Commission site

You may be surprised to read that I learned of this decision from the National Organization for Marriage, that group in the USA that is opposed to same-sex marriage.  I was taken aback when I read that they were deeply concerned that an organization set up to preach that gay is bad would even be on their radar.  Again, I thought they only wanted to protect the sanctity of marriage from all us queers.  Turns out they are really against us even being here.  Silly me, I'm turning red from embarrassment...

More at Truth Wins Out and at Lezget Real and The Press (NZ News Site)

Harper creates 550 jobs in Public Service

Did I hear him right?  Harper is making a big announcement in New Brunswick.  He is talking about adding to the federal public service.  The creation of 500 Jobs.  Harper, the government cutter is announcing he will move and create 550 pencil pushing jobs. 

Was this an old Liberal press release that was pulled from the archives.  Does Harper read what he is going to deliver?   I mean Harper first runs up the biggest deficit in Canadian history and after years of calling for elimination of jobs, he is announcing 550 new public (read that again, 550 tax payer paid jobs).  Will wonders ever cease?

When Toys go Bad

Some popped culture today...

Woody seems to have hit hard times... Where did Buzz Lightyear go? What happened to Andy?

You can find this at lily fox diviant art

h/t to Culture popped blog

Ford forgets being arrested, booked and finger-printed

A big whoops Mr. Ford. Rob Ford is a city councillor in Toronto and is now running for the mayor's chair.

In a Toronto Sun article, Ford is asked if he was ever charged with possession, and he adamantly denies it saying, "I'm dead serious. When I say no, I mean never. No question. Now I'm getting offended. No means no."

Well now, turns out that No means yes.

Ford says he totally forgot about how he was arrested, booked and finger-printed in 1999 because police in Florida found a marijuana joint in his back pocket.

Now I wager that if I was arrested, booked and fingerprinted by American cops 11 years ago, that I would remember that. But then I would remember because I haven't smoked that much of the stuff. Then again in Ford's defense perhaps he was too "out of it" or "stoned" to recall this incident.

newstalk1010 radio link to story

Canada, Happy immigrants, at least I am

How soon we all forget. Most of us are immigrants or refugees. We came from somewhere else, or at least our ancestors did. John Moore writes in today's National Post just what I have been thinking. I might actually have to tune into Newstalk1010 in the mornings to hear his show.

Here is a link to his article: John Moore: Canada, a country of happy immigrants and short memories

Moore has a line for The Harper government as well...

"One of my colleagues has griped indignantly that by raising our history of intolerance toward newcomers I am necessarily calling anyone with concerns about the arrival of the MV Sun Sea a racist. Not at all. But if Public Security Minister Vic Toews and others who like to stir up panic over this latest arrival of refugees find themselves sharing political terrain with unabashed racists that’s their burden to shoulder.

This doesn’t mean we don’t need to have an adult conversation about whom we welcome and how we integrate them into our national culture. But as long as people don’t even know what the difference between an immigrant and a refugee is, one has to question just how adult a conversation it’s going to be. But it is good to be inside the velvet rope isn’t it?"

Boiko the Great says repent by October 14

Its hard to believe but it appears a Russian has topped some American Evangelicals and the Catholic Church when it comes to enforcing enlightenment on his workers.  Vasily Boiko, a Russian tycoon has told 6,000 workers at his private dairy company that they'll be fired if they've ever had an abortion, or if those who are "living in sin" don't get married within two months.

Now there is no mention with respect to queer or gay employees.  Let me guess, they will be publically flogged and then dismissed.  Can't have gay men working in a wholesome milk factory can you.  Still its a bit rich that Boiko-Veliky (he changed his name, it means Boiko the Great) who has been convicted of fraud, to now be pontificating a better way or else.

Boiko the Great blames Russia's extreme weather this summer on what he called a lack of ample religious faith. "Such an extreme situation is punishment for the Russian people's sins," he said according to The Daily Telegraph. "I need to take extreme measures including looking at the way my employees treat God."

Activist Judges forcing law on America

Look out America, its too late for Canada and Mexico. Activist Judges have won! They still haven't won everything in the USA. No they have much to do yet. Watch what they have done and be warned!

bearijuana

That's right, only in BC. Some enterprising person in south eastern BC (Christina Lake) was growing about 1,000 pot plants in a fenced off area and they fed bears so they would hang around. The RCMP say there were 10 bears that seemed pretty domesticated. The bears were used as a deterrent to those that might want to raid the pot plants.

I 'm betting one of the bears was a snitch, that do gooder bear Yogi perhaps.

CBC story link here

and CBC Video link here

New Veterans Charter is a Bus out of town

By now the Vets Ombudsman has said his peace in a news conference in Ottawa.  I am not aware yet what he had to say.  We do know he was very upset with the new Veterans Charter.  The Conservative Harper government has decided the best way to deal with returning soldiers, suffering from injury is to provide them with a lump sum payment.  That payment has various levels of payment, the max being $267,000. 

After acceptance, the government washes its hands.  No Veteran issues ever again.  Too bad if you are your family used the money to do something other than invest it in order to look after yourself for the the next 50 years.

The truth is becoming more evident every day.  Soldiers who have stood almost lock stock and barrel with the Conservative party through the years are being hung further out to dry.  Just as in the USA in the Bush government with scandal after scandal breaking on the treatment of returning vets from Iraq and Afghanistan, Harper follows the same path. 

The Charter for Veterans, turns out to be a lump sum payment out of town...

See Ottawa Citizen story below: DOES THE LUMP SUM PAYMENT CONTAINED IN THE NEW VETERANS CHARTER SCREW DISABLED/INJURED CANADIAN SOLDIERS?

h/t to Rick Mercer on twitter

"Strike o the moment of being struck, kill at the moment of being killed!" - Pat Stogran

Mas Oyama said "Strike o the moment of being struck, kill at the moment of being killed!" P@ - Twitter of  Veterans Ombudsman Pat Stogran, 11:00am, August 17, 2010


Usually the Conservatives can count on someone very supportive of their efforts when that someone is a career Armed Forces fellow.  I say usually.  Today, after informing the ombudsman for Veterans he was done, the Government is in for a roasting.  The Conservatives talk a good game in being supportive of our troops and vets.  Their actions however indicate otherwise. 

Veterans Ombudsman Pat Stogran, is a retired from the Armed Forces and was appointed with glee by the Harper Government.  He was one of them.  They were making sure Vets were not falling through the cracks with his appointment. 

It appears Stogran was too good for the Harper government.  He didn't let them whitewash reports, sweep vets under the carpet, or allow the discarded vets from Afghanistan to go unnoticed. 

Unfortunately, the Government has learned how to ignore people like Veterans Ombudsman Pat Stogran.

Stogran has a press conference in Ottawa today at 1400 hours.  

Stogran met with a Cabinet Minister on August 15th.  His twitter account says it all ...

"Just met with the Minister. I will not say anything more at this time. P@"

Lawrence of Arabia

 He was gay but was he homosexual? 

"I loved you, so I drew these tides of men into my hands and wrote my will across the sky in stars

To gain you Freedom, the seven-pillared worthy house, that your eyes might be shining for me, When I came."

Lawrence of Arabia was born on this day in 1888.  The homoerotic passage above is from Seven Pillars of Wisdom, an autobiography by T. E. Lawrence.

Wiki link 

Revolution in BC

Are you ready for the first major revolution in Canada since Trudeau came to Parliament Hill Canada? BC is in the middle of a terrible fire season and its not just trees that are burning. The BC Liberals are falling faster than folks taking a bungee jump off the Naniamo bridge. The funny aspect to this is that the Liberals choose to dive off the bridge with additional weight attached. Some people could have told them that the weight would make it impossible to bounce back but they knew better.

The Liberals friends in Big Business told them it was worth it. After all they, big business would reap almost $1.9 billion in extra profits if it were to happen. It was the least the Liberals could do for them after receiving in excess of $400,000 in donations from the the big boys. Oddly enough, the rest of us will pay $1.8 billion more. It would have been easier for the Libs to stick their hands into our pockets, purses, wallets and piggy banks and then hand it over to big business. No they felt they needed to tell us we would all be better off with the new tax.

The amazing thing about this is that The Libs likely would not be plunging head first to bedrock, were it not for the fact thye mislead, I mean lied, to the people of BC in the first place. They waited until after they were safely elected to put the sting in place. We're talking HST. The HST they stated they were not thinking about before they election when asked. The HST they had planned to implement, the minute they were re-elected to a majority government.

Of course the majority government might not have been so big were they honest about the budget. You know the BC Liberals have won a ton of elections simply by saying the NDP would spend us into a deep hole. So they lied about the deficit in 2009. They said it would be $495 million. Again, safely elected, they show the budget deficit was really almost four times that amount. I have to look it up, but I dare say the BC Liberals have beat the NDP in the area of debt growth. Biggest deficits in BC history.

Back to the HST, seems to me the Libs have one choice for survival. Dump the tax. Now they are not likely to do that. Big Business would punish them beyond our imaginations. No they will continue. At least some of them will continue. The rest will be recalled or in fear of recall, will abandon the Liberal party. They will form a rump party in the Legislature, pretend they never liked the idea and we will see the rise of the Social Credit party again, to keep the Socialists from getting through the gates again.

My bet on the first MLA to be recalled... Donna Barnett of the Cariboo (Williams Lake and 100 Mile House). She can resign as a Liberal, but in her case, the people have another MLA in waiting, he's NDP but most people know him as a Wyse man!

Wake Up America - Wake Up Sally Kern!

"[There is] a group of homosexual millionaires who for years have been working secretly to change the society of America — the political side of America — so that there will be freedom and equality for everyone," Kern (Oklahoma State Representative) warned at the "Wake Up, America!" conference earlier this month.



Is there no end to this stuff? Yes! People can elect Brittany Novotny, Democrat in the seat currently held by Sally Kern.

Understanding Prop 8 Decision

Understanding Prop 8 Decision

So many people are having some difficulty understanding the delay and why it is the anti gay marriage folks ought to lose their request for an emergency injunction.

I found a blog with all the good stuff, laid out in very clear language. The long and the short of it all is, come Wednesday, August 18 at 5pm, same-sex couples should be getting married in California again.

Here is the link;

Proposition 8: The 'Standing' Debate

After Judge Vaughn Walker refused to grant a permanent stay on his decision to overturn Proposition 8 this week, a debate has emerged as to whether Proposition 8's defenders even have the necessary legal standing to appeal for an emergency stay from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, a process which is underway now.

The temporary stay that Judge Walker extended last week runs out as of 5pm Wednesday, August 18. If another stay is not granted by this time, the issuing of same-sex marriages resumes in California. On this basis, the "standing" debate is, obviously, a critical one. Read it all here: Proposition 8: The 'Standing' Debate

Judge Walker's full Decision on Prop 8

Judge Walkers decision is right here.  I loved reading it and I am sure many of you will too.  It appears those opposed to same-sex marriage couldn't expalin or failed to, the harm to them if a stay were issued. 

Oh how I love it when those folks get a taste of their own medicine...

here is the decision link. and below is the full decision

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
KRISTIN M PERRY, SANDRA B STIER,PAUL T KATAMI and JEFFREY J ZARRILLO,
Plaintiffs,
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,
Plaintiff-Intervenor,
v
ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, in his official capacity as Governor ofCalifornia; EDMUND G BROWN JR, inhis official capacity as AttorneyGeneral of California; MARK BHORTON, in his official capacity
as Director of the CaliforniaDepartment of Public Health andState Registrar of VitalStatistics; LINETTE SCOTT, in herofficial capacity as DeputyDirector of Health Information &Strategic Planning for the
California Department of PublicHealth; PATRICK O’CONNELL, in his official capacity as Clerk-
Recorder of the County of Alameda; and DEAN C LOGAN, in his official capacity as Registrar-
Recorder/County Clerk for the County of Los Angeles,
Defendants,
DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH, GAIL J
KNIGHT, MARTIN F GUTIERREZ, HAKSHING
WILLIAM TAM, MARK A
JANSSON and PROTECTMARRIAGE.COM –
YES ON 8, A PROJECT OF CALIFORNIA
RENEWAL, as official proponents
of Proposition 8,
Defendant-Intervenors.
/
No C 09-2292 VRW
ORDER
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

Defendant-intervenors Dennis Hollingsworth, Gail Knight,
Martin Gutierrez, Mark Jansson and ProtectMarriage.com
(“proponents”) move to stay the court’s judgment to ensure that
Proposition 8 remains in effect as they pursue their appeal in the
Ninth Circuit. Doc #705. In the alternative, proponents seek a
brief stay to allow the court of appeals to consider the matter.
Id.
Plaintiffs and plaintiff-intervenor City and County of
San Francisco ask the court to deny the stay and order the
injunction against Proposition 8 to take effect immediately. Doc
#718. California’s Governor and Attorney General (collectively the
“state defendants”) also oppose any stay. Doc ##716, 717. Other
than proponents, no party seeks to stay the effect of a permanent
injunction against Proposition 8. Because proponents fail to
satisfy any of the factors necessary to warrant a stay, the court
denies a stay except for a limited time solely in order to permit
the court of appeals to consider the issue in an orderly manner.
I
“A stay is not a matter of right, even if irreparableinjury might otherwise result.” Nken v Holder, 556 US ----, 129 SCt 1749, 1761 (2009) (internal quotations omitted). Rather, the decision to grant or deny a stay is committed to the trial court’s sound discretion. Id. To trigger exercise of that discretion, the moving party must demonstrate that the circumstances justify a stay. Id.
\\
\\
United States District Court For the Northern District of California

In deciding whether a stay is appropriate, the court
looks to four factors:
(1) whether proponents have made a strong showing that they are likely to succeed on the merits;
(2) whether proponents will be irreparably injured absent a stay;
(3) whether the stay will substantially injure other interested parties; and
(4) whether the stay is in the public interest.

Id (internal quotations omitted) (noting overlap with Winter v
Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc, 555 US ----, 129 SCt 365,
374 (2008)). The first two factors “are the most critical.” Nken,
129 SCt at 1757. The court addresses each factor in turn.
A
The court first considers whether proponents have shown a
likelihood of success on the merits of their appeal. The mere
possibility of success will not suffice; proponents must show that
success is likely. Winter, 129 SCt at 375. Proponents assert they
are likely to succeed “[f]or all the reasons explained throughout
this litigation.” Doc #705 at 7. Because proponents filed their
motion to stay before the court issued its findings of fact and
conclusions of law, proponents do not in their memorandum discuss
the likelihood of their success with reference to the court’s
conclusions. Neither do proponents discuss whether the court of
appeals would have jurisdiction to reach the merits of their appeal
absent an appeal by a state defendant.
To establish that they have standing to appeal the
court’s decision under Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution,
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

proponents must show that they have “suffered an injury in fact,
which is fairly traceable to the challenged action and is likely to
be redressed by the relief requested.” Didrickson v United States
Dept of Interior, 982 F2d 1332, 1338 (9th Cir 1992). Standing
requires a showing of a concrete and particularized injury that is
actual or imminent. Lujan v Defenders of Wildlife, 504 US 555, 560
(1992). If the state defendants choose not to appeal, proponents
may have difficulty demonstrating Article III standing. Arizonans
for Official English v Arizona, 520 US 43, 67 (1997).
As official proponents under California law, proponents
organized the successful campaign for Proposition 8. Doc #708 at
58-59 (FF 13, 15). Nevertheless, California does not grant
proponents the authority or the responsibility to enforce
Proposition 8. In Lockyer v City & County of San Francisco, the
California Supreme Court explained that the regulation of marriage
in California is committed to state officials, so that the mayor of
San Francisco had no authority to “take any action with regard to
the process of issuing marriage licenses or registering marriage
certificates.” 33 Cal 4th 1055, 1080 (2004). Still less, it would
appear, do private citizens possess authority regarding the
issuance of marriage licenses or registration of marriages. While
the court has ordered entry of a permanent injunction against
proponents, that permanent injunction does not require proponents
to refrain from anything, as they are not (and cannot be)
responsible for the application or regulation of California
marriage law. See Cal Health & Safety Code § 102180. The court
provided proponents with an opportunity to identify a harm they
would face “if an injunction against Proposition 8 is issued.” Doc
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

#677 at 7. Proponents replied that they have an interest in
defending Proposition 8 but failed to articulate even one specific
harm they may suffer as a consequence of the injunction. Doc #687
at 30.
When proponents moved to intervene in this action, the
court did not address their standing independent of the existing
parties. See Doc #76 at 3; see also Perry v Proposition 8 Official
Proponents, 587 F3d 947, 950 n2 (9th Cir 2009). While the court
determined that proponents had a significant protectible interest
under FRCP 24(a)(2) in defending Proposition 8, that interest may
well be “plainly insufficient to confer standing.” Diamond v
Charles, 476 US 54, 69 (1986). This court has jurisdiction over
plaintiffs’ claims against the state defendants pursuant to 28 USC
§ 1331. If, however, no state defendant appeals, proponents will
need to show standing in the court of appeals. See Arizonans for
Official English, 520 US at 67.
Proponents’ intervention in the district court does not
provide them with standing to appeal. Diamond, 476 US at 68
(holding that “Diamond’s status as an intervenor below, whether
permissive or as of right, does not confer standing to keep the
case alive in the absence of the State on this appeal”); see also
Associated Builders & Contractors v Perry, 16 F3d 688, 690 (6th Cir
1994) (“The standing requirement * * * may bar an appeal even
though a litigant had standing before the district court.”). The
Supreme Court has expressed “grave doubts” whether initiative
proponents have independent Article III standing to defend the
constitutionality of the initiative. Arizonans for Official
English, 520 US at 67.
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

Proponents chose not to brief the standing issue in
connection with their motion to stay, and nothing in the record
shows proponents face the kind of injury required for Article III
standing. As it appears at least doubtful that proponents will be
able to proceed with their appeal without a state defendant, it
remains unclear whether the court of appeals will be able to reach
the merits of proponents’ appeal. In light of those concerns,
proponents may have little choice but to attempt to convince either
the Governor or the Attorney General to file an appeal to ensure
appellate jurisdiction. As regards the stay, however, the
uncertainty surrounding proponents’ standing weighs heavily against
the likelihood of their success.
Even if proponents were to have standing to pursue their
appeal, as the court recently explained at length the minimal
evidence proponents presented at trial does not support their
defense of Proposition 8. See Doc #708 (findings of fact and
conclusions of law). Proponents had a full opportunity to provide
evidence in support of their position and nevertheless failed to
present even one credible witness on the government interest in
Proposition 8. Doc #708 at 37-51. Based on the trial record,
which establishes that Proposition 8 violates plaintiffs’ equal
protection and due process rights, the court cannot conclude that
proponents have shown a likelihood of success on appeal. The first
factor does not favor a stay.
\\
\\
\\
\\
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

B
The second factor asks whether proponents will be harmed
if enforcement of Proposition 8 were enjoined. Proponents argue
that irreparable harm will result if a stay is not issued because
“a state suffers irreparable injury whenever an enactment of its
people * * * is enjoined.” Doc #705 at 9-10 (citing Coalition for
Economic Equity v Wilson, 122 F3d 718, 719 (9th Cir 1997)).
Proponents, of course, are not the state. Proponents also point to
harm resulting from “a cloud of uncertainty” surrounding the
validity of marriages performed after judgment is entered but
before proponents’ appeal is resolved. Doc #705 at 10. Proponents
have not, however, alleged that any of them seek to wed a same-sex
spouse. Proponents admit that the harms they identify would be
inflicted on “affected couples and * * * the State.” Id. Under
the second factor the court considers only whether the party
seeking a stay faces harm, yet proponents do not identify a harm to
them that would result from denial of their motion to stay.
Both plaintiffs and the state defendants have disavowed
the harms identified by proponents. Doc #716 at 2 (Attorney
General states that any administrative burdens surrounding
marriages performed absent a stay “are outweighed by this Court’s
conclusion, based on the overwhelming evidence, that Proposition 8
is unconstitutional.”); Doc #717 at 6 (Governor opposes a stay
based on California’s strong interest in “eradicating unlawful
discrimination and its detrimental consequences.”). Plaintiffs
assert that “gay men and lesbians are more than capable of
determining whether they, as individuals who now enjoy the freedom
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

to marry, wish to do so immediately or wait until all appeals have
run their course.” Doc #718 at 9.
Proponents do not adequately explain the basis for their
belief that marriages performed absent a stay would suffer from a
“cloud of uncertainty.” Doc #705 at 10. The court has the
authority to enjoin defendants from enforcing Proposition 8. It
appears, then, that marriages performed pursuant to a valid
injunction would be lawful, much like the 18,000 marriages
performed before the passage of Proposition 8 in November 2008.
See Strauss v Horton, 46 Cal 4th 364, 472 (2009) (holding that
married couples’ rights vest upon a lawful marriage).
If proponents had identified a harm they would face if
the stay were not granted, the court would be able consider how
much weight to give to the second factor. Because proponents make
no argument that they —— as opposed to the state defendants or
plaintiffs —— will be irreparably injured absent a stay, proponents
have not given the court any basis to exercise its discretion to
grant a stay.
The first two factors are the “most critical,” and
proponents have shown neither a likelihood of success nor the
possibility of any harm. Nken, 129 SCt at 1757. That alone
suffices for the court to conclude that a stay is inappropriate
here. Nevertheless, the court turns to the remaining two factors.
C
The third factor considers whether any other interested
party would be injured if the court were to enter a stay.
Plaintiffs argue a stay would cause them harm. Doc #718 at 9-10.
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

Proposition 8 violates plaintiffs’ equal protection and due process
rights, and the court presumes harm where plaintiffs have shown a
violation of a constitutional right. Goldie's Bookstore, Inc v
Superior Court, 739 F2d 466, 472 (9th Cir 1984). But no
presumption is necessary here, as the trial record left no doubt
that Proposition 8 inflicts harm on plaintiffs and other gays and
lesbians in California. Doc #708 at 93-96 (FF 66-68). Any stay
would serve only to delay plaintiffs access to the remedy to which
they have shown they are entitled.
Proponents point to the availability of domestic
partnerships under California law as sufficient to minimize any
harm from allowing Proposition 8 to remain in effect. Doc #705 at
11. The evidence presented at trial does not support proponents’
position on domestic partnerships; instead, the evidence showed
that domestic partnership is an inadequate and discriminatory
substitute for marriage. Doc #708 at 82-85 (FF 52-54).
Proponents claim that plaintiffs’ desire to marry is not
“urgent,” because they chose not to marry in 2008. Doc #705 at 11.
Whether plaintiffs choose to exercise their right to marry now is a
matter that plaintiffs, and plaintiffs alone, have the right to
decide. Because a stay would force California to continue to
violate plaintiffs’ constitutional rights and would demonstrably
harm plaintiffs and other gays and lesbians in California, the
third factor weighs heavily against proponents’ motion.
D
Finally, the court looks to whether the public interest
favors a stay. Proponents argue that the public interest tips in
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

favor of a stay because of the “uncertainty” surrounding marriages
performed before a final judicial determination of the
constitutionality of Proposition 8. Doc #705 at 11. Proponents
also point to the public interest as reflected in the votes of “the
people of California” who do not want same-sex couples to marry,
explaining that “[t]here is no basis for this Court to second-guess
the people of California’s considered judgment of the public
interest.” Id at 12.
The evidence at trial showed, however, that Proposition 8
harms the State of California. Doc #708 at 92-93 (FF 64).
Representatives of the state agree. The Governor states that
“[a]llowing the Court’s judgment to take effect serves the public
interest” in “[u]pholding the rights and liberties guaranteed by
the federal Constitution” and in “eradicating unlawful
discrimination.” Id at 5-6. Moreover, the Governor explains that
no administrative burdens flow to the state when same-sex couples
are permitted to marry. Id at 7. The Attorney General agrees that
the public interest would not be served by a stay. Doc #716 at 2.
The evidence presented at trial and the position of the
representatives of the State of California show that an injunction
against enforcement of Proposition 8 is in the public’s interest.
Accordingly, the court concludes that the public interest counsels
against entry of the stay proponents seek.
II
None of the factors the court weighs in considering a
motion to stay favors granting a stay. Accordingly, proponents’
motion for a stay is DENIED. Doc #705. The clerk is DIRECTED to
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

enter judgment forthwith. That judgment shall be STAYED until
August 18, 2010 at 5 PM PDT at which time defendants and all
persons under their control or supervision shall cease to apply or
enforce Proposition 8.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
VAUGHN R WALKER
United States District Chief Judge

Judge Vaughn Walker Allows Gay Marriages

Judge Vaughn Walker issued his ruling on the #Prop8 stay today.  The Judge lifted his stay and same sex marriage is again legal in the State of California.  This is awesome!!  

More at Courage Campaign,
NOH8 Campaign


check out twitter for the latest!

Joemygod
Prop8

Majority of Americans Back Gay Marriage for First Time

Majority Backs Gay Marriage for First Time

A new CNN/Opinion Research poll found that 52% of Americans think gays and lesbians should have a constitutional right to get married and have their marriage recognized by law, while 46% did not.

poll info here

Update: San Francisco & LA allowing #lgbt couples to fill out paperwork for marriage licences in anticipation of #Prop8 ruling via @EqualityOnTrial

Prop 8 decision today!

Prop 8 decision is expected within the hour. The California judge that ruled Prop 8 was unconstitutional last week heard arguements in court this week to decide if he will allow same-sex marriages to go ahead while the case goes to appeal. It will go to appeal, you can count on that.

Read more at Canuck Attitude
also check out the Huffinto Post : Why Gay Opponents Hated and Feared the Proposition 8 Trial

Its interesting to see that local government is getting ready: Sonoma County Clerk's office ready for judge's decision on Prop. 8 stay. Extra staff being put on just in case its legal for same-sex couples to marry in California. I hope those that want to get married rush in soon. Don't wait for some other legal trick to stop you! The more people that marry, the harder time the Supreme Court will have to reject gay marriage!

Gordon Campbell's friends to the rescue

The HST Petition in BC was put on ice yesterday by the Chief Electoral Officer, Craig James. James was compelled by the act to verify the petition within 42 days of receiving it. He did that. The petition has more than enough signatures, and BC's Initiative Act says James must now send the verified petition to the BC Legislature.

There is however the matter of a lawsuit brought against the petition by some people that support the BC Liberal government lead by a Premier who spent a night in jail in Hawaii and was later convicted of drinking and driving. A criminal offence in BC but not in Hawaii.

The lawsuit is being brought by the Council of Forest Industries, the Independent Contractors and Businesses Association, the Mining Association of B.C., the B.C. Chamber of Commerce, the Coast Forest Products Association and the Western Convenience Stores Association. I can't think of a better place to find Liberal party hacks and funders.

Back the the BC Initiative and Recall Act, it says the petition must be verified within 42 days. After verification it must be sent to the Legislature. Only trouble here is that there is no deadline stated as to when it must be sent, simply that it must be sent. The Court case brought by big business in BC can be seen as an attempt to usurp the rights of British Columbians.

When you consider that the only people in BC supporting the HST are people making $100,000 or more you can see who Gordon Campbell's friends are. The lawsuit if successful would nullify the petition. James in refusing to send the petition to the Legislature until the outcome of the court case is decided has set a dangerous precedent for future petitions. If you have the money, you can thwart the people. The people of BC have spoken very loudly. 705,000 people signed a petition demanding action of the government.

The BC Liberal Government deceit (they said they would not bring in an HST if re-elected in May 2009) has ironically put the current government en route to a major defeat in the next election by the NDP. It was under an equally disastrous government lead by Bill VanderZalm that the Social Credit Party was defeated. Bill VanderZalm has been working hard ever since to make up for that. He has been working with grassroots groups, unions and even the NDP to point out the arrogance of Gordon Campbell and the BC Liberal government.

If the action brought by BC's Big Businesses manages to defeat a verified petition, BC is very likely to see many Liberal MLAs recalled. 705,000 people signed a petition. They won't take this lying down.

The final irony in all of this is that the BC Initiative and Recall Legislation came into being because Premier Bill VanderZalm put it on a referendum in the election his party was soundly thrashed. The new NDP government were compelled to implement the results of the referendum.

BC Liberals can't be blamed

The BC Liberals need help with budgeting

First they said the BC budget would be about $500 million in the hole, that was before the election in May 2009.  After the election we learn the deficit will be in the order of 2 billion!

Last year they said the budget for a new roof over BC Place Stadium would be $365 million, now it is $577 million – a 58-per-cent increase in just one year.

Then before the May 2009 election the BC Liberals were asked if they would bring in an HST.  The BC Liberals said they wouldn't.  Today the results of a petition drive to get the government to introduce legislation to end the HST is to be announced at 8:30 Toronto time, 5:30 Vancouver time.  I am expecting the HST petition will be certified.

I am sure glad BC is not saddled with a fiscally incompetent NDP government.  It isn't the BC Liberals fault that they have racked up the biggest deficits in BC history.  Its not their fault that they did not know two months before the election the deficit would actually be four times the size they told the people of BC it would be.  And we can hardly blame them for the roof raising rate the cost of the new roof for BC Place stadium, I mean the markets are to blame for all the Liberals problems.

The same rules do not apply to the NDP however.

Prop 8 - gay baiting

Gay baiting abounds...After the big victory on same sex marriage in California (Prop 8) the right is out in force...

"Here we have an openly gay federal judge substituting his views for those of the American people and of our Founding Fathers who I promise you would be shocked by courts that imagine they have the right to put gay marriage in our Constitution." stated Maggie Gallagher, Board Chair of NOM."

It seems if you are gay you can't make any decisions, yet if you are straight you can condemn anyone or enforce any agenda you want. Homo equals wrong again!

You can sign a petition telling the National Organization for Marriage (very anti gay group) to stop gay baiting! Here is the link - Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund Petition.

And the Republican Senator Scott Brown of Massachusetts will oppose the nomination of former Harvard Law School Dean Elena Kagan to a lifetime position on the United States Supreme Court, due to her limited courtroom experience. Yeah right!

Update: I just saw a great post on this woman on the blog: Gay Persons of Colour

overturned - California's same-sex marriage ban

A U.S. federal court judge has overturned California's same-sex marriage ban. More coming soon !

- copy of Prop-8-Ruling-FINAL

Queers in Canada's Military for 18 years!

This Friday, August, 6th marks the 18th year since Canada rescinded it's ban on LGBT in the military. The decision was made after a court case decided that the armed forces could no longer prevent homosexuals from serving in the military. The actual date of implementation was October 27, 1992, three and a half months after the Military accepted the court decision. see more at slap upside the head.

Currently 36 countries allow gays, lesbians and bisexuals to serve and 22 of the of 26 NATO countries permit them to serve. The United States as most of you know, allows gays, lesbians and bisexuals to serve as long as they keep it secret and are celibate. Countries that ban open service for gays, lesbians and bisexuals include the USA, Cuba, China, Iran and North Korea. See more on Wiki here.

A study on the acceptance of LGBT members in the Canadian Military was published in April 2000 by Aaron Belkin and Jason McNichol. Belkin was the Director of the Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military at the University of California, Santa Barbara. McNichol was Doctoral Candidate in Sociology at the University of California, Berkeley and Director of ELM Research Associates, a non-partisan research firm in Berkeley when it was published.

The study found

* Lifting of restrictions on gay and lesbian service in the Canadian Forces has not led to any change in military performance, unit cohesion, or discipline.
* Self-identified gay, lesbian, and transsexual members of the Canadian Forces contacted for the study describe good working relationships with peers.
* The percent of military women who experienced sexual harassment dropped 46% after the ban was lifted. While there were several reasons why harassment declined, one factor was that after the ban was lifted women were free to report assaults without fear that they would be accused of being a lesbian.
* Before Canada lifted its gay ban, a 1985 survey of 6,500 male soldiers found that 62% said that they would refuse to share showers, undress or sleep in the same room as a gay soldier. After the ban was lifted, follow-up studies found no increase in disciplinary, performance, recruitment, sexual misconduct, or resignation problems.
* None of the 905 assault cases in the Canadian Forces from November, 1992 (when the ban was lifted) until August, 1995 involved gay bashing or could be attributed to the sexual orientation of one of the parties. Link to study results here

The reports conclusion is that allowing LGBT folks to openly serve did not undermine Canada's military or cohesion.

Given that the USA and Canada work so closely exchanging officers to facilitate understanding and working relationships, I wonder if an open queer Canadian was ever put in charge of and American military unit...

update: from National Defense Research Institute (U.S.), United States this report from 1993 - Sexual orientation and U.S. military personnel policy: options and assessment

page 77 deals with the Canadian experience shortly after discrimination was ended against queers.

Laraque - Cause I like the colour Green?

 I can't add much more to this...

Q Can you name three of your favourite Green party policies?
A I just got a big book about all the policies. If you ask me in a month, I’ll be able to tell you. So far, the biggest policy is about promoting the environment. In the coming weeks, I will be studying and meeting and reading with Elizabeth [May] a lot more on those environmental policies to be more informed on the specific policies that they have.

Read more: National Post: georges laraque from hockey heavyweight to green party draft pick/

Billions of tax dollars for Harper re-election fraud!

Now we know why the Conservatives want to make StatsCan look stupid. Stockwell Day has decided that the government must go ahead and build more prisons because the stats showing reduced crime rates are wrong. That's correct Mr. Day lets not let the facts get in the way of a good ole law 'n order re-election campaign.

The next Conservative campaign will highlight the opposition parties as being weak on crime and you guessed it, only the Conservitives are between you and the bad dude(s).

See CBC story here; Crime statistics not accurate, Day suggests

In an effort to build public acceptance for the billions in cost for new prisons, the Conservatives are trying to create a public impression the crime rates are in fact rising when all the stats suggest otherwise.

See CTV story here: Crime rate, violent crimes drop in 2009: StatsCan

The crime rates have been falling for several years now in Canada, yet the Harper led Conservatives continue their rant, playing to their base vote and hoping to scare the lights out of the soccer moms and blue collar white men. Lets hope people see this for what it is, a multi billion dollar taxpayer paid re-election gimmick.

update: See other blogs
Stageleft:: I Admit To Confusion
thewfds.blogspot.com jail-jail-jail.html