esperando comment-62507 2012-01-19T18:26:32Z 2012-01-19T18:26:32Z The California Supreme court did not find prop 8 unconstitutional, It was found unconstitutional by Judge Vaughn Walker in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, a federal court. The California supreme court found, incredibly, that eliminating the human rights of gay couples that used to be guaranteed by the equal protection clause of the California constitution was not a "revision" of it, and so was constitutional. They then bent over backwards to invent a "right" to standing for the opponents that is not found anywhere in the California constitution or established by any legal precedent, but just on the pretty "formalism" of the ballot initiative process. So, if you are keeping score, the California supreme court says lgbt people's human rights can be taken away willy-nilly and it's no big deal, but when a well-funded powerful majority wants to take them away, it has a "right" to argue so in court even when they can show no demonstrable harm to themselves. What a pack of despicable cowards. esperando 2012-01-19T18:26:32Z Tony Sheppard comment-60439 2011-11-21T00:02:22Z 2011-11-21T00:02:22Z Why would you? It didn't fail for lack of standing, it failed in Federal court for conflicting with Federal control of immigration law - it wouldn't have mattered who brought the appeal. Tony Sheppard 2011-11-21T00:02:22Z Mark comment-60437 2011-11-20T21:45:32Z 2011-11-20T21:45:32Z You can do anything your little heart desires Davi. Ignorance and fear never goes out of style. Mark 2011-11-20T21:45:32Z Davi Rodrigues comment-60430 2011-11-20T17:15:43Z 2011-11-20T17:15:43Z My first reaction was to ask if we can now appeal the court ruling that halted implementation of prop 187. Davi Rodrigues 2011-11-20T17:15:43Z Richard Hanson comment-60427 2011-11-20T16:46:12Z 2011-11-20T16:46:12Z It is a good decision. The Calif. Attorney General should not have a veto over a vote of the people -- i.e., by refusing to defend it in court. The court has now allowed others to pick up the task when the attorney general refuses to do his job. Richard Hanson 2011-11-20T16:46:12Z Mary Nares comment-60317 2011-11-17T16:30:22Z 2011-11-17T16:30:22Z Headhunters/Cornerstone is on the corner of 20th and K Streets. Good article! Mary Nares 2011-11-17T16:30:22Z 2999JohnPaul comment-59815 2011-11-07T21:20:28Z 2011-11-07T21:20:28Z From the headline I thought maybe this was a story about Metrosexuals....:) 2999JohnPaul 2011-11-07T21:20:28Z jsf8278 comment-58191 2011-10-05T01:29:28Z 2011-10-05T01:29:28Z Congrats to Equality Action Now and Tina Reynolds! jsf8278 2011-10-05T01:29:28Z paulsijan comment-56999 2011-09-10T18:41:16Z 2011-09-10T18:41:16Z You are right. It never should have come to this. That is why there should be anti-bullying policies and instructions on schools. And since studies show that the overwhelming targets of bullying are LGBT kids and kids who are percieved to be LGBT that the focus should spotlight that problem. paulsijan 2011-09-10T18:41:16Z cogmeyer comment-56907 2011-09-08T22:11:19Z 2011-09-08T22:11:19Z Getting the government on board with whatever your flavor of co-habitation is probably not the right goal. The gay community that organized to oppose prop8 would be better served by creating their own type of marriage (call it "marriage plus" or something), and then use your organizing power to get the specific rights and access that need (spouses health records, insurance coverage whatever). Fighting prop8 for years and years just to earn the privilege of paying at a higher married tax rate does not make sense! cogmeyer 2011-09-08T22:11:19Z Aprilfool comment-56906 2011-09-08T21:55:56Z 2011-09-08T21:55:56Z If the government regulates it, it MUST be applied evenly. Please do read the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution. Driving is not a basic right, nor is it a right at all. Should we decide who can drive based on race, religion, sexual orientation...just because the majority feels like it can bully people with a vote? That is your argument from a few posts up, yes? And now you seem to be calling homosexuals criminals. As I said before, your logic mystifies me. Aprilfool 2011-09-08T21:55:56Z TWRL comment-56884 2011-09-08T16:20:11Z 2011-09-08T16:20:11Z Ms.Fool, that is an absurd argument that insults all races, yet it diminishes your argument. Marriage is NOT a basic right. This is a discussion about behaviors, and cultures set norms for that. As an example, I assure you the common criminals behavior seems perfectly fitting to the criminal, yet our culture has decided that behavior is not approved. Outside of that, the criminal still has every right to exist in the culture on equal footing. TWRL 2011-09-08T16:20:11Z Aprilfool comment-56834 2011-09-07T23:36:19Z 2011-09-07T23:36:19Z TWRL: You're ignoring the large impact of basic rights. Otherwise white people could just enslave black people and indigenous populations. As has happened. Everywhere. Your logic mystifies me. cogmeyer: I couldn't agree more. Government should have no say in who lives with whom an under what definition. We wouldn't have this problem to begin with if the government would stay out of it. However, now that government is involved, the laws need to be applied equally. That's what I've been saying all along. Maybe that's just my Libertarian views. Aprilfool 2011-09-07T23:36:19Z cogmeyer comment-56820 2011-09-07T20:00:50Z 2011-09-07T20:00:50Z I think Ron Paul has the right approach on this one. We should all be questioning why the government is involved in marriage in the first place, homosexual - heterosexual or otherwise. Marriage should be private, social or religious arrangement with zero government interference or monitoring I do still get a chuckle that the same first time Latino and Black "hope & change" voters that put Obama in office were the swing votes that made prop8 the law of the land. But that irony aside, the gay marriage "battle" is just a diversionary point of contention that extremes on both sides like to cling to in order to rally their base. We all should continually question why any government official or private entity would claim to need to know someones marital status. cogmeyer 2011-09-07T20:00:50Z TWRL comment-56814 2011-09-07T19:47:44Z 2011-09-07T19:47:44Z ".... Why the hell should the majority get to tell the minority what it should think?...." Gee Ms.Fool, because that is the basis for every law and culture. TWRL 2011-09-07T19:47:44Z Aprilfool comment-56803 2011-09-07T17:30:29Z 2011-09-07T17:30:29Z "Sorry, such a relationship, however wonderful and loving and committed it may be, is not the same as a marriage. That's the way it has been all the way back even to Ancient Greece, where homosexuality was common. Keep a permanent homo-sexual partner? Sure! And may they be happy. But "marry" them? Why? Marriage exists as a state of social obligation of procreating couples. It exists for no other reason. There are all sorts of different wonderful human relationships that are not covered by marriage. Nor should they be. They carry no social obligation, nor moral imperative; and should fall outside of government meddling and incentives." I actually used to agree with you, but then I thought of the very basic tenets our country is founded upon. Gay marriage SHOULD HAVE become a fundamental right the INSTANT the state got involved (issuing marriage licenses, tax breaks, etc.). If marriage is something done outside the realm of the state's purview, then it should not be regulated, and under our freedoms of religion, it would be up to whatever church to decide whether to perform ceremonies, and it would be meaningless in the eyes of the law. HOWEVER, this is not the case. The state got involved in what I would argue is an entirely religious rite. At that point, the law must be applied evenly. (This is also the reason I think "hate crime" legislation is BS and unconstitutional, but people are afraid to fight it for fear of being labeled as a bigot). Anyone objecting to gay marriage is only doing so because it is something they don't like or agree with. It's solely an emotional argument, and emotions have no place in law. As for calling it judicial tyranny, that's a total fallacy. I will reiterate that the whole reason we have our government and the freedoms we are supposed to have under our Constitution is the prevention of mob rule. Essentially our Bill of Rights guarantees that the rights of the underrepresented are not oppressed. Was it Franklin who said, "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner. Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote"? Whether arms be literal weapons or the protection of the judicial branch is irrelevant. And for me, the bottom line comes down to this: If gay marriage is allowed, it IN NO WAY harms or impinges on the rights of any other citizen. Your slippery-slope argument about consenting siblings is different. Science shows us that birth defects are heightened from incest, and that would be a reason to disallow those relationships as being sanctioned by the state, as it's protecting the rights of the unborn child (yes, sometimes "think of the children" is a valid argument). Why should the government, which is there to serve the people (in theory, though not really in practice) ban something that makes people happy without harming a single other person? Is it because you don't *like* the idea? Can you actually rationalize your argument and answer that question, with logic rather than emotion and some argument based in religion (many forms of which are far more offensive to the general public than, say, letting two people who love each other get married)? As far as I'm concerned, marriage is an abstract concept. It means different things to different people. Why the hell should the majority get to tell the minority what it should think? Aprilfool 2011-09-07T17:30:29Z Curmudgeon comment-56790 2011-09-07T14:48:56Z 2011-09-07T14:48:56Z "Very much like the arguments to lower the voting age to 18 instead of 21." Which was done legislatively, not through judicial tyranny. "And it IS going through the proper channels, in this case, the judicial branch." Because reading into the law what never existed before is just oh so proper. :-P You can demand that a cat be called a dog because it also has four legs and a tail, but it is still a cat. Calling something a "fundamental equal right" does not make it so. As for the nonsense that any opposition to the dogmatic demand that such relationships = marriage is somehow "hate based": Sorry, such a relationship, however wonderful and loving and committed it may be, is not the same as a marriage. That's the way it has been all the way back even to Ancient Greece, where homosexuality was common. Keep a permanent homo-sexual partner? Sure! And may they be happy. But "marry" them? Why? Marriage exists as a state of social obligation of procreating couples. It exists for no other reason. There are all sorts of different wonderful human relationships that are not covered by marriage. Nor should they be. They carry no social obligation, nor moral imperative; and should fall outside of government meddling and incentives. Nor is this only a Judeo-Christian objection. Marriage is everywhere in every culture. It's a natural consequence of the human condition, namely mortality and procreation. And that remains true even when married couples are barren and childless. It's binary because of the binary sexes. It's necessary because of the way the next generation comes about. And it tends to be monogamous because having rootless single men, as is common in polygamous societies, causes instability and chaos. We don't have marriage just so that women or men can wear a dress or tuxedo one day in their life so that they can feel pretty. Of course, the radicals will falsely claim that this is "bigotry". Anyone who believes marriage should be a special institution for promoting stronger families in procreating couples is a bigot by definition according to the leftists, because that marriage does not include relationship type monogamous homosexual. And I say, well, if that one, then why not relationship type polygamous, with all the problems that leads to? Or relationship type platonic friendship? Or relationship type swinger? Or consensual incest between a consenting adult brother and a sister? Or just two straight dudes or chicks who want to band together for business reasons and nothing else? Curmudgeon 2011-09-07T14:48:56Z Aprilfool comment-56735 2011-09-06T23:57:28Z 2011-09-06T23:57:28Z Not at all what I'm saying. The law is being enforced, as no gay marriages are taking place. Elected officials have made statements against it, as they do with numerous laws. Very much like the arguments to lower the voting age to 18 instead of 21. And it IS going through the proper channels, in this case, the judicial branch. I would hope that if my elected representatives found a law morally reprehensible that they would not support it. What you're saying sounds like the same line of reasoning (albeit far less extreme) of a concentration camp guard saying he was only following orders and therefore isn't at all responsible for the Holocaust. After all, shouldn't the state defend its laws? Or should the state pick and choose? Prop. 8 is hate-based legislation passed by playing to religious views (which should be separate from the state for this very reason, as the founding fathers intended) and marketed by fear (THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!!!!), that was also unfounded, to sway a not-at-all-overwhelming majority of voters to make a law that, if applied to any other way we differentiate people (skin color, ethnic background, faith, music choice, etc.), would be shot down as unconstitutional right away. People just aren't comfortable with it, so they pretend it's OK and try to rationalize it by saying we should think of the children. What's next? Will we give women the right to vote!? Aprilfool 2011-09-06T23:57:28Z newguyinsac comment-56733 2011-09-06T23:12:05Z 2011-09-06T23:12:05Z Ah, The old, "if I don't agree, its not a law I have to support" argument. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the proponents of Prop 8 should or will win, but to have elected officials refuse to defend a law that was approved by the voters is a good way to undermine the whole system. Elected officials can't pick and choose which laws they will defend, they are sworn to uphold the Constitution. And even though many people believe that Prop 8 is unconstitutional, it actually isn't until a judge makes that determination and until that time, it should be defended by the state. newguyinsac 2011-09-06T23:12:05Z Aprilfool comment-56729 2011-09-06T22:00:58Z 2011-09-06T22:00:58Z Ah, the old "mob rule" argument. I wonder how you would feel if people discriminated based on hair color or something else entirely inane. If voters decided to ban all Muslims from flying, I wonder if you wold argue the same way. The whole point of the government is to prevent mob rule. Without the balance of power (judicial branch), mob rule would run rampant in this case. As someone wrote when New York approved gay marriage, "A fundamental right was finally extended to all citizens equally, and it had absolutely no negative effect on anyone." I'm neither gay nor Muslim, but that matters not. I'm human and therefore approve of all humans having the basic rights they should be guaranteed by our constitution. (Check the preamble and the 14th Amendment if you aren't familiar with that old thing). As for the whole "voters approve" thing, the same could be said of many draconian laws of segregation in the past. Yet we seem to need to learn the same lessons time and again because people vote based on emotion rather than any form of logic. Aprilfool 2011-09-06T22:00:58Z newguyinsac comment-56723 2011-09-06T21:01:55Z 2011-09-06T21:01:55Z Seems more like the disfavored group are the Prop 8 supporters who along with the majority of California voters successfully passed a ballot initiative only to have the elected officials of the state refuse to defend the voter approved measure. newguyinsac 2011-09-06T21:01:55Z Ken Pierce comment-54599 2011-08-06T05:15:55Z 2011-08-06T05:15:55Z King was not a fighter otherwise he may have stood up for himself by beating the crap out of his long-time tormentor and what about the adults and school administrators who stood by and let this happen? Before this bully turned up the heat King never acted the way he did in school, it was the only way he could defend himself by trying to embarrass his killer into stopping his harassment. When a teacher finally stepped up and warned King to to tone it down fearing something bad would happen the next day King did not wear make-up or high-heals, he headed the warning as he was asked but the "white-supremacist" murderer decided to end King's life anyway. King's actions was his only way to defend himself in his mind since no adult stepped in to intervene until it was too late. Ken Pierce 2011-08-06T05:15:55Z TomRunge comment-54571 2011-08-05T18:57:23Z 2011-08-05T18:57:23Z You are right. It never should have come to this. That is why there should be anti-bullying policies and instructions on schools. And since studies show that the overwhelming targets of bullying are LGBT kids and kids who are percieved to be LGBT that the focus should spotlight that problem. TomRunge 2011-08-05T18:57:23Z Davi Rodrigues comment-54561 2011-08-05T15:13:02Z 2011-08-05T15:13:02Z No. What I believe is that King tried to harrass Mclerney, showing that gays are capable of doing so, and that he did so. The outcome was tragic and Mclerney's response was criminal and unneccessary. So the point is that both Mclerney and King should have been warned about harrassing and/or bullying, and the program should be inclusive of gays/transgenders/bisexuals practicing the same behavior Davi Rodrigues 2011-08-05T15:13:02Z TomRunge comment-54558 2011-08-05T08:33:03Z 2011-08-05T08:33:03Z You're talking about this case: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/07/brandon-mcinerney-planned-and-carried-out-execution-of-gay-classmate.html "King was bullied by McInerney and other boys at the school, Deputy Dist. Atty. Maeve Fox said in her opening statement in the trial, which is being conducted at a courthouse in Chatsworth. But shortly before his death, King had begun wearing high heels, makeup and earrings to school and had become more confident in himself, she said. “Larry King for the first time in his life wasn’t taking it anymore,” Fox said. “And he started to give people what I prefer to call the proverbial chin. Only it was more profane. The proverbial ‘f ... you.’” The day before King was shot, the two boys had been bickering in a eighth-grade science class, she said. When King got up to get a drink of water, “Brandon said ‘I am going to shoot him.’ And this is what a student will testify to.” The next day McInerney pulled a .22-caliber handgun out of his backpack and shot King in the head, authorities have said." So I take it from your post that you believe a 15 year old boy who stands up to his tormentors deserves to get his brains blown out? TomRunge 2011-08-05T08:33:03Z Davi Rodrigues comment-54551 2011-08-05T05:00:33Z 2011-08-05T05:00:33Z So whaddya know....It does happen: http://www.sacbee.com/2011/08/04/3818021/teacher-testifies-slain-gay-teen.html A teacher has testified that on the day before he was shot to death, a gay student at a Southern California junior high school paraded around in makeup and high heels in front of the fellow student on trial for his murder. Arthur Saenz said Thursday that he saw defendant Brandon McInerney sitting on a bench looking angry while Larry King walked back and forth in front of him as other students laughed. He said that in hindsight, he thought the incident amounted to sexual harassment. Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/2011/08/04/3818021/teacher-testifies-slain-gay-teen.html#ixzz1U7yFueea Davi Rodrigues 2011-08-05T05:00:33Z Davi Rodrigues comment-54464 2011-08-04T03:54:01Z 2011-08-04T03:54:01Z So the straight people have to just tolerate the "idiots", while the gays get a special program to deal with them. Sounds really equal...... Davi Rodrigues 2011-08-04T03:54:01Z TomRunge comment-54463 2011-08-04T03:41:03Z 2011-08-04T03:41:03Z "I also said "harrassed". But there are many cases of gays, some of which are transexual, bisexual, etc, who have badgered, conned, and bullied victims into sex, or relationships." Some gays are not transexual, bisexual, or-as you put it-"ect." They are either gay, bisexual or transexual. I'm not aware of anyone who is an "ect." Still, I doubt that anyone of these folks could con or bully an unwilling straight person into sex or a relationship. "Have any of them committed suicide? I think so, but I'd have to research it a bit. They've certainly left a mark on some people's brains." Let me know how that research turns out. I doubt you'll find anything of the kind. "There seems to be some sort of implied saintlyhood on behalf of gays lately amid all the concern for their safety, their rights, their pursuit of happiness." Not sainthood. Just our rights and protections afforded us under the Constitution. "The truth is that amid the gay/transexual//bisexual demographis lies a percentage of behavioral misfits too. Some are downright mean. some are persistant to the point of harrassment. some are criminal." You're right. These people are often called idiots or criminals. "Jeffery Damer, John Gacy for example. Were their victims killed because they were straight? Maybe..they certainly didn't seek out other gays it seems. The evidence doesn't suggest so." The evidence doesn't merely suggest, but proves that Jeffery Dahmer picked up his victims at gay bars. John Wayce Gacy went to his grave denying that he was gay, but most certainly was. He said he committed his horrendous crimes because of a loathing of homosexuals. But are you really comparing bullied gay children to serial killers? That is an odd comparison to me. "The point is, everyone should be on equal footing in any program that prevents bullying or harrassment." That would be great in theory, but the evidence shows that LGBT kids and those perceived to be LGBT are the overwhelming victims of harassment and bullying. Until that changes, let's put our resources where they are needed. "Now it seems as though it is only meant to condition people into accepting gays, transexuals, bisexuals as their peers." That's because gays, transexuals and bisexuals ARE your peers. Hate to break the news to you. "Not all of us are comfortable being badgered into doing so. I don't want to bully or harrass gays at all, but I don't want anyone telling me I'm a bad person because I don't embrace the concept or the lifestyle." Being gay, bisexual or transgender isn't a concept or lifestyle. It is an innate part of who those individual are. Nobody is forcing you to like it if you choose not to. Folks are just asking that LGBT kids are able to get an education free of harassment, intimidation or violence. "I also am not comfortable having my kids taught that they must embrace the concept or the lifestyle, especially when they are forced to do so." See above. "I was exposed to gays, transexuals, and self-described bisexuals for a lot of my younger years. Some were good, some were just OK; Some were just annoying and others downright scary." I'm sorry that you had some bad experiences with some gay or downright scary LGBT individuals. Sounds like they were idiots. It seems you have allowed your few bad experiences to paint the entire LGBT community with a broad brush. Fortunately, we don't make public policy on the bad experiences of a few individuals. Public policy is--or should be--designed for the greater good. "Some people just don't accept "no" very well, and are persistent to the point of harrassment or worse, and when you retaliate you are seen as homophobic, hateful, or a bully." I've been hit on by many folks--both gay and straight--who are so socially inept they don't take no for a answer. Again, these people are called idiots. Still, I've never felt to need to "retaliate" for someone's social ineptness. Maybe that's why I've never been called heterophobic, hateful or a bully. "So Ask again.....when does this program protect non gays from bullying or harrassment? Or is it just one way here?" See above. TomRunge 2011-08-04T03:41:03Z Ken Pierce comment-54461 2011-08-04T03:34:50Z 2011-08-04T03:34:50Z If you read carefully this program would like to protect all children from harassment and bullying no matter gay or straight. If a gay child harassed another child I would hope that the same protections be given to the other child. This program is about tolerance. It isn't about acceptance that a person is handicapped, or has a learning disability, or acts differently, or expresses themselves differently gender-wise - it's about bullies keeping their thoughts and hateful remarks and actions to themselves. Of course acceptance would be nice but the true goal is the creation of safe schools that all children can have a comfortable learning environment without fear. It's about teaching respect. I am sure you would agree with that goal. I don't appreciate you confusing persons, gay or straight who have criminal intent with those who are normal kids, (LGBT or straight or handicapped or different in any way) who are just trying to get through Jr High or High School without the constant harassment and bullying and those who will tell them they are any less of a person then they are. Lastly last time I read the words, "We hold these truths to be self–evident, That all men are created equal, That they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, That among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.– That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, Deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." I think that means all people, not just those you personally deem worthy of those rights. And to make sure those rights are protected the Government is charged with doing what it can to keep, for example, bullies from harming, physically or mentally, anyone from anyone else. Ken Pierce 2011-08-04T03:34:50Z Davi Rodrigues comment-54462 2011-08-04T03:26:05Z 2011-08-04T03:26:05Z "I don't appreciate you confusing victims, gay or straight who have criminal intent with those who are normal kids, (LGBT or straight or handicapped or different in any way) who are just trying to get through Jr High or High School without the constant harassment and bullying and those who will tell them they are any less of a person then they are." well, this anti-bullying campaign has been aimed at normal people too, and not just the harrassers, intimidators, assaulters, etc., so we've been lumped together with them apparently, even though we don't commit those infranctions Davi Rodrigues 2011-08-04T03:26:05Z Davi Rodrigues comment-54459 2011-08-04T02:35:14Z 2011-08-04T02:35:14Z I also said "harrassed". But there are many cases of gays, some of which are transexual, bisexual, etc, who have badgered, conned, and bullied victims into sex, or relationships. Have any of them committed suicide? I think so, but I'd have to research it a bit. They've certainly left a mark on some people's brains. There seems to be some sort of implied saintlyhood on behalf of gays lately amid all the concern for their safety, their rights, their pursuit of happiness. The truth is that amid the gay/transexual//bisexual demographis lies a percentage of behavioral misfits too. Some are downright mean. some are persistant to the point of harrassment. some are criminal. Jeffery Damer, John Gacy for example. Were their victims killed because they were straight? Maybe.. they certainly didn't seek out other gays it seems. The evidence doesn't suggest so. The point is, everyone should be on equal footing in any program that prevents bullying or harrassment. Now it seems as though it is only meant to condition people into accepting gays, transexuals, bisexuals as their peers. Not all of us are comfortable being badgered into doing so. I don't want to bully or harrass gays at all, but I don't want anyone telling me I'm a bad person because I don't embrace the concept or the lifestyle. I also am not comfortable having my kids taught that they must embrace the concept or the lifestyle, especially when they are forced to do so. I was exposed to gays, transexuals, and self-described bisexuals for a lot of my younger years. Some were good, some were just OK; Some were just annoying and others downright scary. Some people just don't accept "no" very well, and are persistent to the point of harrassment or worse, and when you retaliate you are seen as homophobic, hateful, or a bully. So Ask again.....when does this program protect non gays from bullying or harrassment? Or is it just one way here? Davi Rodrigues 2011-08-04T02:35:14Z Ken Pierce comment-54428 2011-08-03T22:03:19Z 2011-08-03T22:03:19Z Equality Action NOW members include LGBT Youths who have suffered bullying in school. We also have a lesbian teacher who has authored the very first workbook about Harvey Milk and has been awarded Best Teacher of the Year in her school district. In addition we have professional members in the mental health field ie counselors and physiologist as well as two students who are going into the mental health field. We also have a transgender person who works for an organization that helps adults with developmental disabilities, both are subject to the harassment of bullies. All are experts at knowing the damage bullies can do and they all are queer. Any more questions about our "expertise"? Ken Pierce 2011-08-03T22:03:19Z Ken Pierce comment-54427 2011-08-03T21:43:53Z 2011-08-03T21:43:53Z Please support your assumption and provide us with proof of a problem with gay kids bullying straight kids. What straight kid had committed suicide or been murdered by a rampant gay kid? Please respond. Ken Pierce 2011-08-03T21:43:53Z TomRunge comment-54423 2011-08-03T20:08:22Z 2011-08-03T20:08:22Z Or these: http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Violent+crimes+against+LGBT+individuals/5090781/story.html TomRunge 2011-08-03T20:08:22Z TomRunge comment-54422 2011-08-03T20:07:31Z 2011-08-03T20:07:31Z Or these: http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jul/13/nation/la-na-lgbt-hate-crimes-20110713 TomRunge 2011-08-03T20:07:31Z TomRunge comment-54421 2011-08-03T20:06:49Z 2011-08-03T20:06:49Z Or these: http://www.ebar.com/news/article.php?sec=news&article=5854 TomRunge 2011-08-03T20:06:49Z TomRunge comment-54420 2011-08-03T20:04:46Z 2011-08-03T20:04:46Z You mean like this kind of hate crime? http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/23/us/23oxnard.html TomRunge 2011-08-03T20:04:46Z MidtownSquinter comment-54419 2011-08-03T19:54:38Z 2011-08-03T19:54:38Z What "expertise" does this group of marriage equality rights activists offer? MidtownSquinter 2011-08-03T19:54:38Z Davi Rodrigues comment-54414 2011-08-03T18:43:36Z 2011-08-03T18:43:36Z I wonder who protects straight people from harrassment and bullying by gays, transgenders, etc. I have seen nothing about this thus far in any of these programs, Davi Rodrigues 2011-08-03T18:43:36Z Mark comment-53966 2011-07-27T22:10:55Z 2011-07-27T22:10:55Z Two people think lying is a virtue. Mark 2011-07-27T22:10:55Z Lee Middleton comment-53823 2011-07-24T00:13:08Z 2011-07-24T00:13:08Z Finally! The end of an American contradiction. Lee Middleton 2011-07-24T00:13:08Z Ken Pierce comment-53798 2011-07-23T08:46:08Z 2011-07-23T08:46:08Z Both Ken Pierce 2011-07-23T08:46:08Z TomRunge comment-53796 2011-07-23T06:25:57Z 2011-07-23T06:25:57Z Is this a press release for EAN or a story about this historic repeal of DADT? TomRunge 2011-07-23T06:25:57Z Ken Pierce comment-53386 2011-07-14T19:24:50Z 2011-07-14T19:24:50Z Amazing news folks! Your calls made the difference - Gov. Brown signed FAIR into law today... GREAT day! Ken Pierce 2011-07-14T19:24:50Z Davi Rodrigues comment-51973 2011-06-10T18:00:01Z 2011-06-10T18:00:01Z The mayor of elk grove you say? Where another false assumption of a hate crime has been perpetrated on the public? These politicians are simply pandering hustlers. they do a disservice to real victims by crying wolf. Davi Rodrigues 2011-06-10T18:00:01Z TinaReynolds comment-51926 2011-06-09T23:44:54Z 2011-06-09T23:44:54Z Don't blame the victim. It is a classic response when you don't want to see what is happening in your own community. We had great support at the event with the mayor from Elk Grove and City council folks - WE all know this is a situation that needs to be acknowledged. TinaReynolds 2011-06-09T23:44:54Z Davi Rodrigues comment-51898 2011-06-09T21:29:29Z 2011-06-09T21:29:29Z Uh,...once again no hate crime has been declared. These two popularity hustlers are crying wolf. Davi Rodrigues 2011-06-09T21:29:29Z TinaReynolds comment-51686 2011-06-04T16:03:19Z 2011-06-04T16:03:19Z This is such a wonderful thing for all of us at Uptown Studios! We feel so loved... TinaReynolds 2011-06-04T16:03:19Z fifthgensacramentan comment-51683 2011-06-04T09:08:29Z 2011-06-04T09:08:29Z It's rewarding to see great things happen to great people! Nicely done Darrell.....and a Great Big HURRAH to Tina and team!!! fifthgensacramentan 2011-06-04T09:08:29Z Curmudgeon comment-50995 2011-05-23T16:24:29Z 2011-05-23T16:24:29Z Because Harvey Milk was corrupt, criminal, and ran pass interference for his friend Jim Jones and the disgusting "People's Temple" death cult. Had the tightly wound, sore loser Dan White not made a martyr out of him, perhaps the whole truth would have come out about Harvey Milk and he would be properly regarded as the scum he was, if not forgotten altogether. That's how. http://www.city-journal.org/2009/eon0521df.html <i>"Before the congregants of the Peoples Temple drank Jim Jones’s deadly Kool-Aid, Harvey Milk and much of San Francisco’s ruling class had already figuratively imbibed. Milk occasionally spoke at Jones’s San Francisco–based headquarters, promoted Jones through his newspaper columns, and defended the Peoples Temple from its growing legion of critics. Jones provided conscripted “volunteers” for Milk’s campaigns to distribute leaflets by the tens of thousands. Milk returned the favor by abusing his position of public trust on behalf of Jones’s criminal endeavors. “Rev. Jones is widely known in the minority communities here and elsewhere as a man of the highest character, who has undertaken constructive remedies for social problems which have been amazing in their scope and effectiveness,” Supervisor Milk wrote President Jimmy Carter seven months before the Jonestown carnage. The purpose of Milk’s letter was to aid and abet his powerful supporter’s abduction of a six-year-old boy. Milk’s missive to the president prophetically continued: “Not only is the life of a child at stake, who currently has loving and protective parents in the Rev. and Mrs. Jones, but our official relations with Guyana could stand to be jeopardized, to the potentially great embarrassment of our State Department.” John Stoen, the boy whose actual parents Milk libeled to the president as purveyors of “bold-faced lies” and blackmail attempts, perished at Jonestown. This, the only remarkable episode in Milk’s brief tenure on the San Francisco board of supervisors, is swept under the rug by his hagiographers."</i> Sorry if the truth hurts. There are better role models to give kids, to say the least. Curmudgeon 2011-05-23T16:24:29Z MikeSII comment-50983 2011-05-23T05:23:57Z 2011-05-23T05:23:57Z How could anyone give a thumbs down to honoring someone who fought discrimination? MikeSII 2011-05-23T05:23:57Z TinaReynolds comment-50938 2011-05-21T23:11:10Z 2011-05-21T23:11:10Z The best way to have a more cohesive, kind and understanding community is to learn more about each others heroes- come this Sunday at 6:30 and learn what a great man Harvey Milk was! TinaReynolds 2011-05-21T23:11:10Z Richard Hanson comment-50844 2011-05-19T18:10:49Z 2011-05-19T18:10:49Z The acronym LGBT means Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender. Richard Hanson 2011-05-19T18:10:49Z TinaReynolds comment-50469 2011-05-11T21:46:59Z 2011-05-11T21:46:59Z The documentary is the original "The Times of Harvey Milk" not the Sean Penn Movie - it is a great way to see how it all happened from the time it was happening. TinaReynolds 2011-05-11T21:46:59Z Ken Pierce comment-50420 2011-05-10T17:27:39Z 2011-05-10T17:27:39Z We are showing the documentary, "The Times of Harvey Milk". Ken Pierce 2011-05-10T17:27:39Z Ken Pierce comment-50399 2011-05-10T17:26:27Z 2011-05-10T17:26:27Z UPDATE: The VIP Reception has been canceled though the presentation, entertainment, and documentary will take place beginning at 6:30pm. Hint: if you never been inside the new Crocker go early and spend some time viewing the beautiful art. This is a family event you all will enjoy. Get your tickets early. Ken Pierce 2011-05-10T17:26:27Z Carolyn Giannini comment-50386 2011-05-10T01:02:14Z 2011-05-10T01:02:14Z If you haven't seen the movie, Sean Penn does an excellent job! Carolyn Giannini 2011-05-10T01:02:14Z mark709 comment-45724 2011-02-16T01:30:00Z 2011-02-16T01:30:00Z greg is was and always will be a great guy he is my uncle and im proud he was for all who didnt he would have been a good friend mark709 2011-02-16T01:30:00Z Curmudgeon comment-45471 2011-02-11T15:42:56Z 2011-02-11T15:42:56Z I'm old enough to remember when gay people thought marriage was something only done by "mouth-breathing breeders" who were too brainwashed by society to just love whoever they wanted to love without demanding government approval. Heh. Curmudgeon 2011-02-11T15:42:56Z Gregbunk comment-39617 2010-10-27T20:04:34Z 2010-10-27T20:04:34Z Dale, Stop telling lies about Francis House. Look at our 990 and see for yourself that what you are saying is a boldfaced lie. As of last year, 76.19% of every dollar went to Direct Services recorded in our last audit ending 6/09. Where do you get off? Greg Bunker Executive Director Gregbunk 2010-10-27T20:04:34Z Gregbunk comment-39616 2010-10-27T20:03:24Z 2010-10-27T20:03:24Z Dale, Stop telling lies about Francis House. Look at our 990 and see for yourself that what you are saying is a boldfaced lie. As of last year, 76.19% of every dollar went to Direct Services recorded in our last audit ending 6/09. Where do you get off? Greg Bunker Executive Director Gregbunk 2010-10-27T20:03:24Z Dale Kooyman comment-39408 2010-10-23T02:55:09Z 2010-10-23T02:55:09Z Before donating, givers might want to check out Francis House overhead costs. When I was on the Ann Land/Bertha Henschel Commission, it was 37%. Information is obtained from reports non-profits are required to file annually with the Secretary of State. Federal government will not fund any local government agency where administrative costs exceed 15%. Dale Kooyman 2010-10-23T02:55:09Z discodana comment-39111 2010-10-19T02:34:35Z 2010-10-19T02:34:35Z I have been overwhelmed with grief since hearing the news of these young people taking their lives. Face it, it is not just depressed youth, it is our society that has caused these tradgic deaths. The bullies are only following the lead of our T-Party and republican politians and our conservative church leaders, like those who are at the head of the Mormon and Roman Catholic churches and right winged evangelical churches. If we as adults continue to allow these leaders to be so anti-gay the more young people will loss their lives. Joel Burn's video that was aired on the Lawrence O'Donald show says it all, We, all of us, as a society must put a stop to this kind of abuse of the GLBT community. It is up to us to save lives. We must demand of our leaders to stop making anti-gay remarks, period. discodana 2010-10-19T02:34:35Z ANewjulie comment-38467 2010-10-06T23:23:56Z 2010-10-06T23:23:56Z The Unitarian Universalist Society of Sacramento supports and welcomes all people of loving and peaceful beliefs. Any youth in need of a community to connect with will find it there. I teach the denomination's comprehensive sexuality program. We respect people of all gender, sexual identities, trans men and women, bisexuals, and asexuals. No youth should feel alone or isolated. There are people who want to help. ANewjulie 2010-10-06T23:23:56Z Richard Rowland comment-38442 2010-10-06T16:07:29Z 2010-10-06T16:07:29Z I was an educator for 33 years until my recent retirement. Yes we should address all bullying in schools or anywhere else. It helps to remember though, that LBGT youth are less likely to complain or seek help because it involves their parents and others knowing they are LBGT. We still live in a climate in our society that has no sympathy or understanding of these issues and have a though road ahead of us in terms of educating people in this regard. I remember this bullying myself. One just had to toughen up and find a way to survive because there was no place to go for help if you were gay. Not everyone is able to do this. Andy many just give up because the pain is too great. We MUST find ways to help them!!!! Richard Rowland 2010-10-06T16:07:29Z M Johnson comment-38436 2010-10-06T15:20:19Z 2010-10-06T15:20:19Z Very, very sad. Lost a friend to suicide in high school. It was a morbid affair that stunned our school and city. Indescribable pain for the family. They never fully recovered. That said, I firmly believe we should be looking at teen suicide as a whole, not in parts. I don't think we should single out only LGBT teens to help. I think we should be helping All TEENS who are suffering from ANY form of abuse or depression that could lead to suicide. Thanks for this article M Johnson 2010-10-06T15:20:19Z bbgirl comment-38435 2010-10-06T14:55:58Z 2010-10-06T14:55:58Z For the record... Caleb Nolt was not gay but was stereo typed as to being gay. He was a loving and devoted friend to all who knew him. He got bullied at school and was called gay and fag all the time. If you don't know someone personally don't assume they are gay just by the way one acts. Words hurt more than you can imagine. R.I.P Caleb We miss you! bbgirl 2010-10-06T14:55:58Z Richard Rowland comment-38389 2010-10-05T21:18:04Z 2010-10-05T21:18:04Z What are we doing as a community to mentor and help LBGT youth facing this problem and the problems of homelessness and abuse in their own homes. We need to step up and care for our own as if they were our children. Richard Rowland 2010-10-05T21:18:04Z Casey Kirk comment-38327 2010-10-04T18:46:44Z 2010-10-04T18:46:44Z My heart goes out to the families of these young men. Heartbreaking. Casey Kirk 2010-10-04T18:46:44Z Lorri comment-38324 2010-10-04T17:59:44Z 2010-10-04T17:59:44Z I am too angry to responsibly comment on this issue so I'll wait. I know the mother of the Fort Collins boy. I can not even begin to imagine her pain. He was so young and had a full life ahead of him. These kids deserve better. I hurt... Lorri 2010-10-04T17:59:44Z Bill Burgua comment-38296 2010-10-03T22:19:10Z 2010-10-03T22:19:10Z Thanks Ken, I know there is a lot buzz on this show and that New Helvetia does a great job. Bill Burgua 2010-10-03T22:19:10Z StillAmerican comment-35706 2010-08-26T21:42:19Z 2010-08-26T21:42:19Z Thank you, AdverageAmerican, for your honesty, and for illustrating how ignorance affects every aspect of society. As a representative of the "majority of americans feel the same as [you] do," please accept the following criticisms: "You are a small minority and do not by any means represent the majority. It is wrong, I am sorry." --By definition, I see what you're saying with the idea that the "small minority" does not represent the majority; however, making the claim that the cause is wrong immediately following this statement might lead one to believe that the Adverage American is the only American who can be right. You may want to work on developing your understanding of morality and your appreciation for rights that you take for granted that were established by another "minority" (namely, the 13 original North American colonies controlled by the British Empire) "You are protected under domestic partner laws, and also share the same legal rights." --If domestic partner laws were all anyone needed, then wouldn't Americans simply apply for civil unions? Wouldn't marriages simply be a religious side note? Oh, wait. I forgot the U.S. became a Theocracy in the last two hundred years. If we share the same legal rights, but I have to call my life-long, loving relationship a "civl union," and you have to call your life-long, loving relationship a "marriage," then, pal, we've got ourselves the next big entry under "Separate but Equal." Of course, that's always been totally acceptable in the United States. "I am sorry but man kind could not survive with same sex marriages" --Ahh.. Perhaps we've reached the core of the problem: once the option for same-sex marriage has become a reality, every man will become emotionally, as well as legally, bound to another man, and the women will have to follow suit. Once that happens, every passing year will simply become a countdown until all of the remaining humans have finally passed away due to old age. Now I see the error of our ways. "It is again a slap in the face of those of us who vote, and find our votes are worthless because your cause did not get what it wanted." --This statement is one that has given me a surprisingly difficult time deciding how best to retort. I could point out that no wrong has been done to the AdverageAmerican by any means, unless you consider getting up to vote on an issue to be offensive. But that seems ineffective. I could merely repeat your sentence and replace the "your" after "because" with the word "our." But that seems too obvious. I could propose that if you didn't vote against it, then you wouldn't have to worry about it at all. But somehow I doubt you could get over your baseless, latent homophobia. No, we're not the majority of the population of the United States of America. No, we don't have the same legal rights (we'll save the lack of Federal protection from discrimination in the work place based on sexuality or gender identity until another article) No, we're not getting what we want because of ignorant and insecure people. But we're still Americans. StillAmerican 2010-08-26T21:42:19Z AdverageAmerican comment-35608 2010-08-25T16:35:33Z 2010-08-25T16:35:33Z I am sorry but I voted against Gay Marriage, and so did the majority of Californian's did too. You are a small minority and do not by any means represent the majority. It is wrong, I am sorry. You are protected under domestic partner laws, and also share the same legal rights. I am sorry but man kind could not survive with same sex marriages. It is again a slap in the face of those of us who vote, and find our votes are worthless because your cause did not get what it wanted. Thats call democracy, majority of americans feel the same as I do AdverageAmerican 2010-08-25T16:35:33Z Lwilliams comment-34629 2010-08-11T00:40:15Z 2010-08-11T00:40:15Z There is nothing wrong with gay people get married if its there choice let them be happy Lwilliams 2010-08-11T00:40:15Z yippee comment-34411 2010-08-06T09:06:18Z 2010-08-06T09:06:18Z Exactly bill, I never understood this idea that only “liberals” are activists. Let’s say he didn’t overturn prop 8. Why would he not be considered an activist judge for prop 8 proponents-or an activist for this idea of “traditional marriage”? yippee 2010-08-06T09:06:18Z 2Jerry2 comment-34282 2010-08-04T23:53:01Z 2010-08-04T23:53:01Z had not seen the LGBTQI designation before and thought about it a bit. What is the common element(s) in this political grouping. Oppression by those who misunderstand. Maybe our Moslem and Mormon friends should consider joining. 2Jerry2 2010-08-04T23:53:01Z Rich E. comment-34274 2010-08-04T22:50:28Z 2010-08-04T22:50:28Z um, i would think the district 9 court of appeals in s.f. could give the so-called "conservative majority" a run for their money when it comes to activist judges. Rich E. 2010-08-04T22:50:28Z Bill Burgua comment-34273 2010-08-04T22:19:45Z 2010-08-04T22:19:45Z Thanks for keeping us informed on this issue Ken. The work will continue. This is sure to go to the Ninth Circuit Court. The Ninth has tended to be intellegent and liberal. The big concern is when the case hits the US Supreme Court. The concervative majority on the Supreme Court have had no difficulty being the most activist judges in the country. Bill Burgua 2010-08-04T22:19:45Z Lee Middleton comment-34270 2010-08-04T21:51:58Z 2010-08-04T21:51:58Z GREAT! Lee Middleton 2010-08-04T21:51:58Z JoshFernandez comment-30172 2010-06-13T05:44:18Z 2010-06-13T05:44:18Z Aww, poor Jim. Heterosexual white males have been so historically underrepresented. JoshFernandez 2010-06-13T05:44:18Z The Parrhesiac comment-30012 2010-06-11T15:21:01Z 2010-06-11T15:21:01Z I wish I had the equality and attention from our government that these people do. The Parrhesiac 2010-06-11T15:21:01Z Cameron Marsh comment-29964 2010-06-10T21:07:48Z 2010-06-10T21:07:48Z Sweet, I'm glad to see more actions are underway for getting rid of this ridiculous prop. I'm sure Andy Pugno will love this haha Cameron Marsh 2010-06-10T21:07:48Z oli comment-27049 2010-05-14T16:58:44Z 2010-05-14T16:58:44Z I'm looking for an auxiliary water pump for my 1993 Eurovan projec, t it's gas 5 cylinders, can somebody advice me something? I got the bosh from an internet dealer but the electrical conector did not fit, so I jus t sent it back to them... please give a push on this... Manuel 949-350 7145 oli 2010-05-14T16:58:44Z mrwoowoo comment-26661 2010-05-11T08:43:10Z 2010-05-11T08:43:10Z Haven't been to Sacramento for many many years but, this is good enough reason to go. Harvey, too, would love it.. John Ryckman, San Francisco mrwoowoo 2010-05-11T08:43:10Z bbbbmer comment-24229 2010-04-03T19:33:09Z 2010-04-03T19:33:09Z It's about time Harvey was honored in this way... He was a great man, a humorous man, a staunch advocate of civil rights, and a hero to at least 10% of us... bbbbmer 2010-04-03T19:33:09Z waldorfandstatler comment-17253 2009-11-04T22:55:52Z 2009-11-04T22:55:52Z Can you believe it? Maine and California - hot beds of "hate" :) waldorfandstatler 2009-11-04T22:55:52Z The Parrhesiac comment-17218 2009-11-04T17:29:57Z 2009-11-04T17:29:57Z My thoughts are evolving on this issue, maybe the best thing for all men in California would be to support gay marriage. A: Gays wouldn't have anything to complain about anymore, what a relief that would be. B: They should be allowed to suffer and be just as miserable as most straight people in marriages. C: The family court system would be forced to become gender neutral. As it stands, the Court system is openly biased against men in divorce. In courts throughout California, women walk away with an unequal distribution of marital assets and they almost always get custody of the children, unless they are on drugs or insane. Gay marriage will create a dilemma for the courts to resolve - how to reconcile gender bias in family law matters. D: Gays are overwhelmingly politically liberal, if we take away their last reason to complain as a political force, in time many of them will evolve into conservatives. They will quickly tire of being overly taxed and over regulated. They will definitely start to vote more conservatively. They will no longer be single issue voters, they will be forced to look at the withholdings on their pay check stubs, their property tax bills in the same light as the rest of us. OK, THATS IT! I support the right for all people to suffer in a social construct that is virtually meaningless in modern society - most people get divorced, and few that are married actually respect the institution, so lets just get it over with and put it out of it's misery. The Parrhesiac 2009-11-04T17:29:57Z stayreal comment-17203 2009-11-04T06:14:22Z 2009-11-04T06:14:22Z No hate, no personal judgment, and discarding any religious propaganda.......same sex relationships will always be outside of the circle that is considered normal for the simple fact that if they ever became the norm, and everyone was in a monogamous same sex relationship, we would die off as a species. Lost in all of the demanding for equality, is the fact that relationships between a man and a woman are actually required to populate the planet. Same sex relationships are a bit more of an elective than a requirement. From a species survival standpoint, the debate regarding equality between same sex relationships and opposite sex relationships has never been a debate at all, they have never been and will never be equal. Social acceptance is another matter, that will ebb and flow like the wind. But from natures point of view, there is no question as to which type of relationship future humans favor. stayreal 2009-11-04T06:14:22Z advocate comment-15461 2009-10-13T17:12:38Z 2009-10-13T17:12:38Z Amazing in this world of hate, accepted and promoted by Evangelicals, Catholic church and some other religions against a targeted group, how love and bonding between two individuals are outlawed. God must be shaking his head in disbelief. advocate 2009-10-13T17:12:38Z waldorfandstatler comment-15093 2009-10-08T16:44:25Z 2009-10-08T16:44:25Z Marriage is not a right, all jokes about our relationship notwithstanding! If you want to call your same sex unions 'marriage' go ahead, but don't expect the vast majority of Californians to also embrace your stance when you ask us to vote on it. waldorfandstatler 2009-10-08T16:44:25Z