Seriously ballsy stuff. If the court order disallows audio and video, but allows transcripts of a court case, just hire actors, build a set, and re-enact the whole damn thing.
Information wants to be free, and dammit, public court proceedings should be public. All of them.
Hawaii Senate passes civil-unions bill with veto-proof majority, 18-7
Well done. A good first step in the right direction.
Mahalo nui loa!
Obama’s fault.
Cheney supports same-sex marriage ‘on a state-by-state basis’ – Los Angeles Times.
Cheney 2012, please. All the conservative with none of the religious is just how I like my politicians.
Seeing that the California Supreme Court has established that the right of marriage may be removed from any given group and arbitrarily restricted to a specific definition simply by ballot initiative, I propose two possible propositions for the next ballot:
Proposition 8-a
| This initiative measure is submitted to the people in accordance with the provisions of Article II, Section 8, of the California Constitution.This initiative measure expressly amends the California Constitution by adding a section thereto; therefore, new provisions proposed to be added are printed in italic type to indicate that they are new.
SECTION 1. Title This measure shall be known and may be cited as the “California Marriage Protection Act.” SECTION 2. Section 7.5 is added to Article I of the California Constitution, to read: SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a man is valid or recognized in California. |
Proposition 8-b
| This initiative measure is submitted to the people in accordance with the provisions of Article II, Section 8, of the California Constitution.This initiative measure expressly amends the California Constitution by adding a section thereto; therefore, new provisions proposed to be added are printed in italic type to indicate that they are new.
SECTION 1. Title This measure shall be known and may be cited as the “California Marriage Protection Act.” SECTION 2. Section 7.5 is added to Article I of the California Constitution, to read: SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a 3 foot man and a 9 foot woman is valid or recognized in California. |
Prop. 8: The California high court upholds a ban on gay marriages – Los Angeles Times.
Bah humbug. I lost my $10 bet.
These justices were simply ducking their responsibility to uphold the constitutional protections which should be afforded to all of us. The idea that there are now 36,000 “special” gay people in California that get to be treated as heteros, and all the other gays need to suck wind, is ludicrous.
Epic fail.
DayOfDecision.com – Celebration OR Protest on the California Supreme Court DAY OF DECISION on Prop 8.
I’ve got a bet for $10 going with my gay best man -> if they uphold prop. 8, I pay him $10, if they overturn it, he pays me $10. Either way, he wins, but I’m hoping he wins by losing the bet.