Discussion: Gay Rights II

[Marx]

What kind of mall doesn't allow kissing. Because, according to that ' code of conduct', no one is allowed to kiss in a mall?

All they have to do is get the security footage and find two straight people kissing and not being harassed by the mall cops. Discrimination proven. Case closed.

I guess the rules are open to interpretation in San Antonio.

[Marx]

What kind of mall doesn't allow kissing. Because, according to that ' code of conduct', no one is allowed to kiss in a mall?

All they have to do is get the security footage and find two straight people kissing and not being harassed by the mall cops. Discrimination proven. Case closed.

I guess the rules are open to interpretation in San Antonio.

[Marx]

What kind of mall doesn't allow kissing. Because, according to that ' code of conduct', no one is allowed to kiss in a mall?

All they have to do is get the security footage and find two straight people kissing and not being harassed by the mall cops. Discrimination proven. Case closed.

I guess the rules are open to interpretation in San Antonio.

[The Senator]

I hate to break it to you all, but Texas isn't necessarily the beacon of tolerance and acceptance...

[The Senator]

I hate to break it to you all, but Texas isn't necessarily the beacon of tolerance and acceptance...

[The Senator]

I hate to break it to you all, but Texas isn't necessarily the beacon of tolerance and acceptance...

[Marx]

I hate to break it to you all, but Texas isn't necessarily the beacon of tolerance and acceptance...

I'm very much aware of that J. :cwink:

[Marx]

I hate to break it to you all, but Texas isn't necessarily the beacon of tolerance and acceptance...

I'm very much aware of that J. :cwink:

[Marx]

I hate to break it to you all, but Texas isn't necessarily the beacon of tolerance and acceptance...

I'm very much aware of that J. :cwink:

[spideyboy_1111]

ive never understood how texas can have so many gays and still be so intolerant. it boggles my mind

[spideyboy_1111]

ive never understood how texas can have so many gays and still be so intolerant. it boggles my mind

[spideyboy_1111]

ive never understood how texas can have so many gays and still be so intolerant. it boggles my mind

[Marx]

ive never understood how texas can have so many gays and still be so intolerant. it boggles my mind

I've always heard that a 'texas gay' will kick your a**!

[Marx]

ive never understood how texas can have so many gays and still be so intolerant. it boggles my mind

I've always heard that a 'texas gay' will kick your a**!

[Marx]

ive never understood how texas can have so many gays and still be so intolerant. it boggles my mind

I've always heard that a 'texas gay' will kick your a**!

[spideyboy_1111]

I've always heard that a 'texas gay' will kick your a**!

texas gays are F'n hot

[spideyboy_1111]

I've always heard that a 'texas gay' will kick your a**!

texas gays are F'n hot

[spideyboy_1111]

I've always heard that a 'texas gay' will kick your a**!

texas gays are F'n hot

[Ion Kenshin]

texas gays are F'n hot
yes....yes they are

[Ion Kenshin]

texas gays are F'n hot
yes....yes they are

[Ion Kenshin]

texas gays are F'n hot
yes....yes they are

[Kelly]

Aw, the "Bong Boy".....I like your avvy.

[Kelly]

Aw, the "Bong Boy".....I like your avvy.

[Kelly]

Aw, the "Bong Boy".....I like your avvy.

[Kelly]

Aw, the "Bong Boy".....I like your avvy.

[Kelly]

Aw, the "Bong Boy".....I like your avvy.

[Kelly]

Aw, the "Bong Boy".....I like your avvy.

[Ion Kenshin]

I love him even more now

[Ion Kenshin]

I love him even more now

[Ion Kenshin]

I love him even more now

[danoyse]

What kind of mall doesn't allow kissing. Because, according to that ' code of conduct', no one is allowed to kiss in a mall?

All they have to do is get the security footage and find two straight people kissing and not being harassed by the mall cops. Discrimination proven. Case closed.

It's that attitude that annoys me to no end - when people think that gay couples shouldn't be expressing affection in public. I think they have as much right to kiss their significant other in public as any other couple does.

[danoyse]

What kind of mall doesn't allow kissing. Because, according to that ' code of conduct', no one is allowed to kiss in a mall?

All they have to do is get the security footage and find two straight people kissing and not being harassed by the mall cops. Discrimination proven. Case closed.

It's that attitude that annoys me to no end - when people think that gay couples shouldn't be expressing affection in public. I think they have as much right to kiss their significant other in public as any other couple does.

[danoyse]

What kind of mall doesn't allow kissing. Because, according to that ' code of conduct', no one is allowed to kiss in a mall?

All they have to do is get the security footage and find two straight people kissing and not being harassed by the mall cops. Discrimination proven. Case closed.

It's that attitude that annoys me to no end - when people think that gay couples shouldn't be expressing affection in public. I think they have as much right to kiss their significant other in public as any other couple does.

[Kelly]

I don't like any couples being over zealous in their affection for each other in public. Holding hands, hugging, a sweet kiss, sure. But, damn some I've seen, truly need to get a room.....*winks*

[Kelly]

I don't like any couples being over zealous in their affection for each other in public. Holding hands, hugging, a sweet kiss, sure. But, damn some I've seen, truly need to get a room.....*winks*

[Kelly]

I don't like any couples being over zealous in their affection for each other in public. Holding hands, hugging, a sweet kiss, sure. But, damn some I've seen, truly need to get a room.....*winks*

[CaptainClown]

I don't like any couples being over zealous in their affection for each other in public. Holding hands, hugging, a sweet kiss, sure. But, damn some I've seen, truly need to get a room.....*winks*
Same, it just is tasteless in all forms, from gay to straight get a damn room.

I remember being in Montreal behind this gay couple in the railway system walking slowly to the next staircase when they stop and start making out in front of me and everyone else in the railway station. They then got mad that nobody was "shocked" or even gave a damn that they were kissing just pissed that they were taking up lots of space by standing there kissing. They sheepishly walked up the stairs to keep the crowd moving.

I found it to be hilarious

[CaptainClown]

I don't like any couples being over zealous in their affection for each other in public. Holding hands, hugging, a sweet kiss, sure. But, damn some I've seen, truly need to get a room.....*winks*
Same, it just is tasteless in all forms, from gay to straight get a damn room.

I remember being in Montreal behind this gay couple in the railway system walking slowly to the next staircase when they stop and start making out in front of me and everyone else in the railway station. They then got mad that nobody was "shocked" or even gave a damn that they were kissing just pissed that they were taking up lots of space by standing there kissing. They sheepishly walked up the stairs to keep the crowd moving.

I found it to be hilarious

[CaptainClown]

I don't like any couples being over zealous in their affection for each other in public. Holding hands, hugging, a sweet kiss, sure. But, damn some I've seen, truly need to get a room.....*winks*
Same, it just is tasteless in all forms, from gay to straight get a damn room.

I remember being in Montreal behind this gay couple in the railway system walking slowly to the next staircase when they stop and start making out in front of me and everyone else in the railway station. They then got mad that nobody was "shocked" or even gave a damn that they were kissing just pissed that they were taking up lots of space by standing there kissing. They sheepishly walked up the stairs to keep the crowd moving.

I found it to be hilarious

[spideyboy_1111]

BREAKING NEWS! California Supreme Court to Hear Oral Arguments in Prop 8 Legal Challenge on March 5
Today at 5:15pm

The California Supreme Court announced today that it will hear oral arguments on Thursday, March 5, 2009 in the Proposition 8 legal challenge.

On November 19, 2008, the California Supreme Court agreed to hear the legal challenges to Proposition 8 and set an expedited schedule. Briefing in the case was completed on January 21, 2009.

The California Supreme Court must issue its decisions within 90 days of oral argument.

On January 15, 2009, 43 friend-of-the-court briefs urging the Court to invalidate Prop 8 were filed, arguing that Proposition 8 drastically alters the equal protection guarantee in California’s Constitution and that the rights of a minority cannot be eliminated by a simple majority vote. The supporters represent the full gamut of California’s and the nation’s civil rights organizations and legal scholars, as well as California legislators, local governments, bar associations, business interests, labor unions, and religious groups.

In May of 2008, the California Supreme Court held that laws that treat people differently based on their sexual orientation violate the equal protection clause of the California Constitution and that same-sex couples have the same fundamental right to marry as other Californians. Proposition 8 eliminated this fundamental right only for same-sex couples. No other initiative has ever successfully changed the California Constitution to take away a right only from a targeted minority group. Proposition 8 passed by a bare majority of 52 percent on November 4.

The National Center for Lesbian Rights, Lambda Legal, and the ACLU filed this challenge on November 5, representing Equality California, whose members include many same-sex couples who married between June 16 and November 4, 2008, and six same-sex couples who want to marry in California. The California Supreme Court has also agreed to hear two other challenges filed on the same day: one filed by the City and County of San Francisco (joined by Santa Clara County and the City of Los Angeles, and subsequently by Los Angeles County and other local governments); and another filed by a private attorney.

Serving as co-counsel on the case with NCLR, Lambda Legal, and the ACLU are the Law Office of David C. Codell, Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, and Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP.

The case is Strauss et al. v. Horton et al. (#S168047). For more information visit> http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/highprofile/prop8.htm
California Courts: Courts: Supreme Court: High Profile Case: Proposition 8 Supreme Court Filings
Source: www.courtinfo.ca.gov

very nice :up:

[spideyboy_1111]

BREAKING NEWS! California Supreme Court to Hear Oral Arguments in Prop 8 Legal Challenge on March 5
Today at 5:15pm

The California Supreme Court announced today that it will hear oral arguments on Thursday, March 5, 2009 in the Proposition 8 legal challenge.

On November 19, 2008, the California Supreme Court agreed to hear the legal challenges to Proposition 8 and set an expedited schedule. Briefing in the case was completed on January 21, 2009.

The California Supreme Court must issue its decisions within 90 days of oral argument.

On January 15, 2009, 43 friend-of-the-court briefs urging the Court to invalidate Prop 8 were filed, arguing that Proposition 8 drastically alters the equal protection guarantee in California’s Constitution and that the rights of a minority cannot be eliminated by a simple majority vote. The supporters represent the full gamut of California’s and the nation’s civil rights organizations and legal scholars, as well as California legislators, local governments, bar associations, business interests, labor unions, and religious groups.

In May of 2008, the California Supreme Court held that laws that treat people differently based on their sexual orientation violate the equal protection clause of the California Constitution and that same-sex couples have the same fundamental right to marry as other Californians. Proposition 8 eliminated this fundamental right only for same-sex couples. No other initiative has ever successfully changed the California Constitution to take away a right only from a targeted minority group. Proposition 8 passed by a bare majority of 52 percent on November 4.

The National Center for Lesbian Rights, Lambda Legal, and the ACLU filed this challenge on November 5, representing Equality California, whose members include many same-sex couples who married between June 16 and November 4, 2008, and six same-sex couples who want to marry in California. The California Supreme Court has also agreed to hear two other challenges filed on the same day: one filed by the City and County of San Francisco (joined by Santa Clara County and the City of Los Angeles, and subsequently by Los Angeles County and other local governments); and another filed by a private attorney.

Serving as co-counsel on the case with NCLR, Lambda Legal, and the ACLU are the Law Office of David C. Codell, Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, and Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP.

The case is Strauss et al. v. Horton et al. (#S168047). For more information visit> http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/highprofile/prop8.htm
California Courts: Courts: Supreme Court: High Profile Case: Proposition 8 Supreme Court Filings
Source: www.courtinfo.ca.gov

very nice :up:

[spideyboy_1111]

BREAKING NEWS! California Supreme Court to Hear Oral Arguments in Prop 8 Legal Challenge on March 5
Today at 5:15pm

The California Supreme Court announced today that it will hear oral arguments on Thursday, March 5, 2009 in the Proposition 8 legal challenge.

On November 19, 2008, the California Supreme Court agreed to hear the legal challenges to Proposition 8 and set an expedited schedule. Briefing in the case was completed on January 21, 2009.

The California Supreme Court must issue its decisions within 90 days of oral argument.

On January 15, 2009, 43 friend-of-the-court briefs urging the Court to invalidate Prop 8 were filed, arguing that Proposition 8 drastically alters the equal protection guarantee in California’s Constitution and that the rights of a minority cannot be eliminated by a simple majority vote. The supporters represent the full gamut of California’s and the nation’s civil rights organizations and legal scholars, as well as California legislators, local governments, bar associations, business interests, labor unions, and religious groups.

In May of 2008, the California Supreme Court held that laws that treat people differently based on their sexual orientation violate the equal protection clause of the California Constitution and that same-sex couples have the same fundamental right to marry as other Californians. Proposition 8 eliminated this fundamental right only for same-sex couples. No other initiative has ever successfully changed the California Constitution to take away a right only from a targeted minority group. Proposition 8 passed by a bare majority of 52 percent on November 4.

The National Center for Lesbian Rights, Lambda Legal, and the ACLU filed this challenge on November 5, representing Equality California, whose members include many same-sex couples who married between June 16 and November 4, 2008, and six same-sex couples who want to marry in California. The California Supreme Court has also agreed to hear two other challenges filed on the same day: one filed by the City and County of San Francisco (joined by Santa Clara County and the City of Los Angeles, and subsequently by Los Angeles County and other local governments); and another filed by a private attorney.

Serving as co-counsel on the case with NCLR, Lambda Legal, and the ACLU are the Law Office of David C. Codell, Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, and Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP.

The case is Strauss et al. v. Horton et al. (#S168047). For more information visit> http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/highprofile/prop8.htm
California Courts: Courts: Supreme Court: High Profile Case: Proposition 8 Supreme Court Filings
Source: www.courtinfo.ca.gov

very nice :up:

[wiegeabo]

As glad as I am that the Supreme Court is going to be hearing arguments, I don't like the idea of the Court being able to essentially rewrite the Constitution. The Constitution is supposed to be the highest law of the land and what the Courts use to decide the outcome of cases. They can interpret, but not rewrite.

And that also goes for unfair parts of the Constitution like Prop 8. It may be a horrible piece of law, but it is law. Even if it rewrites the anti-discrimination areas of the Constitution.


Now, if the argument was something like Prop 8 was illegally added to the Constitution or ballet, then the Courts have every right to throw it out. But only lawmakers (which, in CA, includes the voters) should be able to rewrite the Constitution.


I'll of course celebrate if the Court does throw out Prop 8 in this manner, but I'll be expecting the Prop 8 supporters to argue just what I said. That the Courts can't rewrite the Constitution. And I'll expect a huge rise in cases asking the Court to throw out other parts of the Constitution.

[wiegeabo]

As glad as I am that the Supreme Court is going to be hearing arguments, I don't like the idea of the Court being able to essentially rewrite the Constitution. The Constitution is supposed to be the highest law of the land and what the Courts use to decide the outcome of cases. They can interpret, but not rewrite.

And that also goes for unfair parts of the Constitution like Prop 8. It may be a horrible piece of law, but it is law. Even if it rewrites the anti-discrimination areas of the Constitution.


Now, if the argument was something like Prop 8 was illegally added to the Constitution or ballet, then the Courts have every right to throw it out. But only lawmakers (which, in CA, includes the voters) should be able to rewrite the Constitution.


I'll of course celebrate if the Court does throw out Prop 8 in this manner, but I'll be expecting the Prop 8 supporters to argue just what I said. That the Courts can't rewrite the Constitution. And I'll expect a huge rise in cases asking the Court to throw out other parts of the Constitution.

[wiegeabo]

As glad as I am that the Supreme Court is going to be hearing arguments, I don't like the idea of the Court being able to essentially rewrite the Constitution. The Constitution is supposed to be the highest law of the land and what the Courts use to decide the outcome of cases. They can interpret, but not rewrite.

And that also goes for unfair parts of the Constitution like Prop 8. It may be a horrible piece of law, but it is law. Even if it rewrites the anti-discrimination areas of the Constitution.


Now, if the argument was something like Prop 8 was illegally added to the Constitution or ballet, then the Courts have every right to throw it out. But only lawmakers (which, in CA, includes the voters) should be able to rewrite the Constitution.


I'll of course celebrate if the Court does throw out Prop 8 in this manner, but I'll be expecting the Prop 8 supporters to argue just what I said. That the Courts can't rewrite the Constitution. And I'll expect a huge rise in cases asking the Court to throw out other parts of the Constitution.

[The Senator]

Considering Prop. 8 was a dramatic revision of the California constitution, and constitutional revisions are required by law to be passed by the CA state legislature, the will of the people is null and void in this case. The court will most likely rule based on that fact, and if they do... gay marriage will be legal in California, because the state legislature will not approve of a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage...

[The Senator]

Considering Prop. 8 was a dramatic revision of the California constitution, and constitutional revisions are required by law to be passed by the CA state legislature, the will of the people is null and void in this case. The court will most likely rule based on that fact, and if they do... gay marriage will be legal in California, because the state legislature will not approve of a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage...

[The Senator]

Considering Prop. 8 was a dramatic revision of the California constitution, and constitutional revisions are required by law to be passed by the CA state legislature, the will of the people is null and void in this case. The court will most likely rule based on that fact, and if they do... gay marriage will be legal in California, because the state legislature will not approve of a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage...

[The Senator]

Also, laymen shouldn't get to decide whether one group of people deserves civil rights or not... it should be left to the courts, as judges have spent their entire careers studying law, whereas Bucktooth B. Redneck and his Bigot Brigade have not...

[The Senator]

Also, laymen shouldn't get to decide whether one group of people deserves civil rights or not... it should be left to the courts, as judges have spent their entire careers studying law, whereas Bucktooth B. Redneck and his Bigot Brigade have not...

[The Senator]

Also, laymen shouldn't get to decide whether one group of people deserves civil rights or not... it should be left to the courts, as judges have spent their entire careers studying law, whereas Bucktooth B. Redneck and his Bigot Brigade have not...

[Marx]

Also, laymen shouldn't get to decide whether one group of people deserves civil rights or not... it should be left to the courts, as judges have spent their entire careers studying law, whereas Bucktooth B. Redneck and his Bigot Brigade have not...

I've always believed that the rights of the minority should never be determined by those in the majority.

[Marx]

Also, laymen shouldn't get to decide whether one group of people deserves civil rights or not... it should be left to the courts, as judges have spent their entire careers studying law, whereas Bucktooth B. Redneck and his Bigot Brigade have not...

I've always believed that the rights of the minority should never be determined by those in the majority.

[Marx]

Also, laymen shouldn't get to decide whether one group of people deserves civil rights or not... it should be left to the courts, as judges have spent their entire careers studying law, whereas Bucktooth B. Redneck and his Bigot Brigade have not...

I've always believed that the rights of the minority should never be determined by those in the majority.

[wiegeabo]

Considering Prop. 8 was a dramatic revision of the California constitution, and constitutional revisions are required by law to be passed by the CA state legislature, the will of the people is null and void in this case. The court will most likely rule based on that fact, and if they do... gay marriage will be legal in California, because the state legislature will not approve of a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage...

I see. It's a distinction between what Prop 8 is. An amendment or a revision. Amendments only need a majority of voters. Revisions require voters and the legislature.

And, of course, there's no clear definition of what qualifies a ballot initiative as one as opposed to the other.


Unfortunately, if the Court defines it as a revision and throw it out, you just know the media is going to play up the notion that the Supreme Court rewrote the law and went against the voters again. And they'll inevitably interview the loud mouths who'll say what the Court did was illegal and unjust, and anything else you can think of, ignoring the Court had the authority to do so.

[wiegeabo]

Considering Prop. 8 was a dramatic revision of the California constitution, and constitutional revisions are required by law to be passed by the CA state legislature, the will of the people is null and void in this case. The court will most likely rule based on that fact, and if they do... gay marriage will be legal in California, because the state legislature will not approve of a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage...

I see. It's a distinction between what Prop 8 is. An amendment or a revision. Amendments only need a majority of voters. Revisions require voters and the legislature.

And, of course, there's no clear definition of what qualifies a ballot initiative as one as opposed to the other.


Unfortunately, if the Court defines it as a revision and throw it out, you just know the media is going to play up the notion that the Supreme Court rewrote the law and went against the voters again. And they'll inevitably interview the loud mouths who'll say what the Court did was illegal and unjust, and anything else you can think of, ignoring the Court had the authority to do so.

[wiegeabo]

Considering Prop. 8 was a dramatic revision of the California constitution, and constitutional revisions are required by law to be passed by the CA state legislature, the will of the people is null and void in this case. The court will most likely rule based on that fact, and if they do... gay marriage will be legal in California, because the state legislature will not approve of a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage...

I see. It's a distinction between what Prop 8 is. An amendment or a revision. Amendments only need a majority of voters. Revisions require voters and the legislature.

And, of course, there's no clear definition of what qualifies a ballot initiative as one as opposed to the other.


Unfortunately, if the Court defines it as a revision and throw it out, you just know the media is going to play up the notion that the Supreme Court rewrote the law and went against the voters again. And they'll inevitably interview the loud mouths who'll say what the Court did was illegal and unjust, and anything else you can think of, ignoring the Court had the authority to do so.

[wiegeabo]

I've always believed that the rights of the minority should never be determined by those in the majority.

Agreed. Although I think the phrasing of that argument sounds like it comes from the days when rights were given out in pieces to different groups.


I say rephrase it. All people shall have equal rights under the law. That way, if you take away/grant a right to one group, you have to do the same for all groups.

[wiegeabo]

I've always believed that the rights of the minority should never be determined by those in the majority.

Agreed. Although I think the phrasing of that argument sounds like it comes from the days when rights were given out in pieces to different groups.


I say rephrase it. All people shall have equal rights under the law. That way, if you take away/grant a right to one group, you have to do the same for all groups.

[wiegeabo]

I've always believed that the rights of the minority should never be determined by those in the majority.

Agreed. Although I think the phrasing of that argument sounds like it comes from the days when rights were given out in pieces to different groups.


I say rephrase it. All people shall have equal rights under the law. That way, if you take away/grant a right to one group, you have to do the same for all groups.

[spideyboy_1111]

I see. It's a distinction between what Prop 8 is. An amendment or a revision. Amendments only need a majority of voters. Revisions require voters and the legislature.

And, of course, there's no clear definition of what qualifies a ballot initiative as one as opposed to the other.


Unfortunately, if the Court defines it as a revision and throw it out, you just know the media is going to play up the notion that the Supreme Court rewrote the law and went against the voters again. And they'll inevitably interview the loud mouths who'll say what the Court did was illegal and unjust, and anything else you can think of, ignoring the Court had the authority to do so.

i dunno the media here imo has been pretty biased, if not leaning more towards our favor

[spideyboy_1111]

I see. It's a distinction between what Prop 8 is. An amendment or a revision. Amendments only need a majority of voters. Revisions require voters and the legislature.

And, of course, there's no clear definition of what qualifies a ballot initiative as one as opposed to the other.


Unfortunately, if the Court defines it as a revision and throw it out, you just know the media is going to play up the notion that the Supreme Court rewrote the law and went against the voters again. And they'll inevitably interview the loud mouths who'll say what the Court did was illegal and unjust, and anything else you can think of, ignoring the Court had the authority to do so.

i dunno the media here imo has been pretty biased, if not leaning more towards our favor

[spideyboy_1111]

I see. It's a distinction between what Prop 8 is. An amendment or a revision. Amendments only need a majority of voters. Revisions require voters and the legislature.

And, of course, there's no clear definition of what qualifies a ballot initiative as one as opposed to the other.


Unfortunately, if the Court defines it as a revision and throw it out, you just know the media is going to play up the notion that the Supreme Court rewrote the law and went against the voters again. And they'll inevitably interview the loud mouths who'll say what the Court did was illegal and unjust, and anything else you can think of, ignoring the Court had the authority to do so.

i dunno the media here imo has been pretty biased, if not leaning more towards our favor

[Red Mask]

BUT-- considering Iceland has a gay prime minister, and ultra religious fanatics enjoy blaming society's problems on homosexuals, feminists, and everything God is apparently against, I would not be surprised if a small yet vocal wing of the electorate blames the financial crisis on homosexuals in government rather than the obvious causes.

Then it will be up to more rational people to speak out against such ignorance.

[Red Mask]

BUT-- considering Iceland has a gay prime minister, and ultra religious fanatics enjoy blaming society's problems on homosexuals, feminists, and everything God is apparently against, I would not be surprised if a small yet vocal wing of the electorate blames the financial crisis on homosexuals in government rather than the obvious causes.

Then it will be up to more rational people to speak out against such ignorance.

[Red Mask]

BUT-- considering Iceland has a gay prime minister, and ultra religious fanatics enjoy blaming society's problems on homosexuals, feminists, and everything God is apparently against, I would not be surprised if a small yet vocal wing of the electorate blames the financial crisis on homosexuals in government rather than the obvious causes.

Then it will be up to more rational people to speak out against such ignorance.

[spideyboy_1111]

Teen accused of male-on-male sex assaults in web scam
by The Associated Press on 2/6 at 1:04 pm.
Viewed 842 times.



(Milwaukee, Wisconsin) An 18-year-old male student is accused of posing as a girl on Facebook, tricking at least 31 male classmates into sending him naked photos of themselves and then blackmailing some for sex acts.

“The kind of manipulation that occurred here is really sinister in my estimation,” Waukesha County District Attorney Brad Schimel said Wednesday.

The students go to New Berlin Eisenhower High School in New Berlin, which is in Waukesha County about 15 miles west of Milwaukee.

Anthony Stancl, of New Berlin, was charged Wednesday with five counts of child enticement, two counts of second-degree sexual assault of a child, two counts of third-degree sexual assault, possession of child pornography, repeated sexual assault of the same child, and making a bomb threat.

Stancl’s attorney, Craig Kuhary, said Stancl plans to plead not guilty to the charges and hopes to reach a plea agreement with the district attorney

“It’s too early in the case for me to make a statement, other than the fact at some point we are going to go into events that had taken place earlier that might have had some impact on what he did here,” he said. He wouldn’t go into specifics.

The incidents allegedly happened from spring 2007 through November, when officers questioned Stancl about a bomb threat he allegedly sent to teachers and wrote about on a school’s bathroom wall. It resulted in the closing of New Berlin Eisenhower Middle and High School.

According to the criminal complaint, Stancl first contacted the students through the social networking site Facebook, pretending to be a girl named Kayla or Emily.

The boys reported that they were tricked into sending nude photos or videos of themselves, the complaint said.

Thirty-one victims were identified and interviewed and more than half said the girl with whom they thought they were communicating tried to get them to meet with a male friend to let him perform sex acts on them.

They were told that if they didn’t, she would send the nude photos or movies to their friends and post them on the Internet, according to the complaint. Stancl allegedly used the excuse to get the victims to perform repeated acts, the complaint said.

Seven boys were identified in the complaint by their initials as either having to allegedly perform sex acts on Stancl or Stancl on them. The complaint said Stancl took photos with his cell phone of the encounters.

Officers found about 300 nude images of juvenile males on his computer, according to the complaint. Prosecutors said the victims were as young as 15.

A preliminary hearing for Stancl has been scheduled for Feb. 26. The maximum penalty if convicted on all charges is nearly 300 years in prison.

eeek, hope the main stream media doesn't target this story... sadly with our community, a few bad eggs spoil the bunch

[spideyboy_1111]

Teen accused of male-on-male sex assaults in web scam
by The Associated Press on 2/6 at 1:04 pm.
Viewed 842 times.



(Milwaukee, Wisconsin) An 18-year-old male student is accused of posing as a girl on Facebook, tricking at least 31 male classmates into sending him naked photos of themselves and then blackmailing some for sex acts.

“The kind of manipulation that occurred here is really sinister in my estimation,” Waukesha County District Attorney Brad Schimel said Wednesday.

The students go to New Berlin Eisenhower High School in New Berlin, which is in Waukesha County about 15 miles west of Milwaukee.

Anthony Stancl, of New Berlin, was charged Wednesday with five counts of child enticement, two counts of second-degree sexual assault of a child, two counts of third-degree sexual assault, possession of child pornography, repeated sexual assault of the same child, and making a bomb threat.

Stancl’s attorney, Craig Kuhary, said Stancl plans to plead not guilty to the charges and hopes to reach a plea agreement with the district attorney

“It’s too early in the case for me to make a statement, other than the fact at some point we are going to go into events that had taken place earlier that might have had some impact on what he did here,” he said. He wouldn’t go into specifics.

The incidents allegedly happened from spring 2007 through November, when officers questioned Stancl about a bomb threat he allegedly sent to teachers and wrote about on a school’s bathroom wall. It resulted in the closing of New Berlin Eisenhower Middle and High School.

According to the criminal complaint, Stancl first contacted the students through the social networking site Facebook, pretending to be a girl named Kayla or Emily.

The boys reported that they were tricked into sending nude photos or videos of themselves, the complaint said.

Thirty-one victims were identified and interviewed and more than half said the girl with whom they thought they were communicating tried to get them to meet with a male friend to let him perform sex acts on them.

They were told that if they didn’t, she would send the nude photos or movies to their friends and post them on the Internet, according to the complaint. Stancl allegedly used the excuse to get the victims to perform repeated acts, the complaint said.

Seven boys were identified in the complaint by their initials as either having to allegedly perform sex acts on Stancl or Stancl on them. The complaint said Stancl took photos with his cell phone of the encounters.

Officers found about 300 nude images of juvenile males on his computer, according to the complaint. Prosecutors said the victims were as young as 15.

A preliminary hearing for Stancl has been scheduled for Feb. 26. The maximum penalty if convicted on all charges is nearly 300 years in prison.

eeek, hope the main stream media doesn't target this story... sadly with our community, a few bad eggs spoil the bunch

[spideyboy_1111]

Teen accused of male-on-male sex assaults in web scam
by The Associated Press on 2/6 at 1:04 pm.
Viewed 842 times.



(Milwaukee, Wisconsin) An 18-year-old male student is accused of posing as a girl on Facebook, tricking at least 31 male classmates into sending him naked photos of themselves and then blackmailing some for sex acts.

“The kind of manipulation that occurred here is really sinister in my estimation,” Waukesha County District Attorney Brad Schimel said Wednesday.

The students go to New Berlin Eisenhower High School in New Berlin, which is in Waukesha County about 15 miles west of Milwaukee.

Anthony Stancl, of New Berlin, was charged Wednesday with five counts of child enticement, two counts of second-degree sexual assault of a child, two counts of third-degree sexual assault, possession of child pornography, repeated sexual assault of the same child, and making a bomb threat.

Stancl’s attorney, Craig Kuhary, said Stancl plans to plead not guilty to the charges and hopes to reach a plea agreement with the district attorney

“It’s too early in the case for me to make a statement, other than the fact at some point we are going to go into events that had taken place earlier that might have had some impact on what he did here,” he said. He wouldn’t go into specifics.

The incidents allegedly happened from spring 2007 through November, when officers questioned Stancl about a bomb threat he allegedly sent to teachers and wrote about on a school’s bathroom wall. It resulted in the closing of New Berlin Eisenhower Middle and High School.

According to the criminal complaint, Stancl first contacted the students through the social networking site Facebook, pretending to be a girl named Kayla or Emily.

The boys reported that they were tricked into sending nude photos or videos of themselves, the complaint said.

Thirty-one victims were identified and interviewed and more than half said the girl with whom they thought they were communicating tried to get them to meet with a male friend to let him perform sex acts on them.

They were told that if they didn’t, she would send the nude photos or movies to their friends and post them on the Internet, according to the complaint. Stancl allegedly used the excuse to get the victims to perform repeated acts, the complaint said.

Seven boys were identified in the complaint by their initials as either having to allegedly perform sex acts on Stancl or Stancl on them. The complaint said Stancl took photos with his cell phone of the encounters.

Officers found about 300 nude images of juvenile males on his computer, according to the complaint. Prosecutors said the victims were as young as 15.

A preliminary hearing for Stancl has been scheduled for Feb. 26. The maximum penalty if convicted on all charges is nearly 300 years in prison.

eeek, hope the main stream media doesn't target this story... sadly with our community, a few bad eggs spoil the bunch

[spideyboy_1111]

but in some cheery news... a really cute video :D
http://vimeo.com/3089746

[spideyboy_1111]

but in some cheery news... a really cute video :D
http://vimeo.com/3089746

[spideyboy_1111]

but in some cheery news... a really cute video :D
http://vimeo.com/3089746

[Marx]

eeek, hope the main stream media doesn't target this story... sadly with our community, a few bad eggs spoil the bunch

I still can't believe that people actually send out nude photos of themselves over the internet or a text. It honestly shocks me.

[Marx]

eeek, hope the main stream media doesn't target this story... sadly with our community, a few bad eggs spoil the bunch

I still can't believe that people actually send out nude photos of themselves over the internet or a text. It honestly shocks me.

[Marx]

eeek, hope the main stream media doesn't target this story... sadly with our community, a few bad eggs spoil the bunch

I still can't believe that people actually send out nude photos of themselves over the internet or a text. It honestly shocks me.

[Kelly]

eeek, hope the main stream media doesn't target this story... sadly with our community, a few bad eggs spoil the bunch

Unfortunately, this is exactly what the mainstream media wants to focus on.......but hopefully it stays local.

I still can't believe that people actually send out nude photos of themselves over the internet or a text. It honestly shocks me.

There is the good and the bad of the internet......for some reason people think its not as bad if its on a screen, rather than right in front of you. But, hey "McFly" the internet is RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU......total idiots, and it doesn't shock me at all.

[Kelly]

eeek, hope the main stream media doesn't target this story... sadly with our community, a few bad eggs spoil the bunch

Unfortunately, this is exactly what the mainstream media wants to focus on.......but hopefully it stays local.

I still can't believe that people actually send out nude photos of themselves over the internet or a text. It honestly shocks me.

There is the good and the bad of the internet......for some reason people think its not as bad if its on a screen, rather than right in front of you. But, hey "McFly" the internet is RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU......total idiots, and it doesn't shock me at all.

[Kelly]

eeek, hope the main stream media doesn't target this story... sadly with our community, a few bad eggs spoil the bunch

Unfortunately, this is exactly what the mainstream media wants to focus on.......but hopefully it stays local.

I still can't believe that people actually send out nude photos of themselves over the internet or a text. It honestly shocks me.

There is the good and the bad of the internet......for some reason people think its not as bad if its on a screen, rather than right in front of you. But, hey "McFly" the internet is RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU......total idiots, and it doesn't shock me at all.

[spideyboy_1111]

my rule on the internet is simple, if you're taking pics of your junk, you want it shown. But be prepared, the more you've shown, the more people are going to see. I know i've send a naked pic of myself and someone was like "thats not you, i've already seen that" and i was like? umm yeah it is. So even i have a copy cat out there somewhere lol. But whatev i honestly don't care, you get to a point in your life eventually where you really arn't that ashamed to be naked. So that kinda black mail wouldn't work on me

[spideyboy_1111]

my rule on the internet is simple, if you're taking pics of your junk, you want it shown. But be prepared, the more you've shown, the more people are going to see. I know i've send a naked pic of myself and someone was like "thats not you, i've already seen that" and i was like? umm yeah it is. So even i have a copy cat out there somewhere lol. But whatev i honestly don't care, you get to a point in your life eventually where you really arn't that ashamed to be naked. So that kinda black mail wouldn't work on me

[spideyboy_1111]

my rule on the internet is simple, if you're taking pics of your junk, you want it shown. But be prepared, the more you've shown, the more people are going to see. I know i've send a naked pic of myself and someone was like "thats not you, i've already seen that" and i was like? umm yeah it is. So even i have a copy cat out there somewhere lol. But whatev i honestly don't care, you get to a point in your life eventually where you really arn't that ashamed to be naked. So that kinda black mail wouldn't work on me

[Kelly]

I keep some things special for special people. f they are that special to me, then I'm probably seeing them on a daily basis. No need to be sending anything along those lines by phone, email, whatever. And, I'm certainly not going to send something like that to people I don't know, never have met, don't plan on meeting, or whatever.

So, I won't be having this trouble anytime soon....

[Kelly]

I keep some things special for special people. f they are that special to me, then I'm probably seeing them on a daily basis. No need to be sending anything along those lines by phone, email, whatever. And, I'm certainly not going to send something like that to people I don't know, never have met, don't plan on meeting, or whatever.

So, I won't be having this trouble anytime soon....

[Kelly]

I keep some things special for special people. f they are that special to me, then I'm probably seeing them on a daily basis. No need to be sending anything along those lines by phone, email, whatever. And, I'm certainly not going to send something like that to people I don't know, never have met, don't plan on meeting, or whatever.

So, I won't be having this trouble anytime soon....

[Marx]

my rule on the internet is simple, if you're taking pics of your junk, you want it shown. But be prepared, the more you've shown, the more people are going to see. I know i've send a naked pic of myself and someone was like "thats not you, i've already seen that" and i was like? umm yeah it is. So even i have a copy cat out there somewhere lol. But whatev i honestly don't care, you get to a point in your life eventually where you really arn't that ashamed to be naked. So that kinda black mail wouldn't work on me

I'm not ashamed to be naked. I just don't see the point in sending stuff like that over the internet or in a text message.

[Marx]

my rule on the internet is simple, if you're taking pics of your junk, you want it shown. But be prepared, the more you've shown, the more people are going to see. I know i've send a naked pic of myself and someone was like "thats not you, i've already seen that" and i was like? umm yeah it is. So even i have a copy cat out there somewhere lol. But whatev i honestly don't care, you get to a point in your life eventually where you really arn't that ashamed to be naked. So that kinda black mail wouldn't work on me

I'm not ashamed to be naked. I just don't see the point in sending stuff like that over the internet or in a text message.

[Marx]

my rule on the internet is simple, if you're taking pics of your junk, you want it shown. But be prepared, the more you've shown, the more people are going to see. I know i've send a naked pic of myself and someone was like "thats not you, i've already seen that" and i was like? umm yeah it is. So even i have a copy cat out there somewhere lol. But whatev i honestly don't care, you get to a point in your life eventually where you really arn't that ashamed to be naked. So that kinda black mail wouldn't work on me

I'm not ashamed to be naked. I just don't see the point in sending stuff like that over the internet or in a text message.

[Kelly]

I'm not ashamed to be naked. I just don't see the point in sending stuff like that over the internet or in a text message.


Yeah, kinda how I see it....

[Kelly]

I'm not ashamed to be naked. I just don't see the point in sending stuff like that over the internet or in a text message.


Yeah, kinda how I see it....

[Kelly]

I'm not ashamed to be naked. I just don't see the point in sending stuff like that over the internet or in a text message.


Yeah, kinda how I see it....

[spideyboy_1111]

I'm not ashamed to be naked. I just don't see the point in sending stuff like that over the internet or in a text message.

turns people on ... thats about it. only pics i would never want just anyone to see are sex acts. No way would i put those online

[spideyboy_1111]

I'm not ashamed to be naked. I just don't see the point in sending stuff like that over the internet or in a text message.

turns people on ... thats about it. only pics i would never want just anyone to see are sex acts. No way would i put those online

[spideyboy_1111]

I'm not ashamed to be naked. I just don't see the point in sending stuff like that over the internet or in a text message.

turns people on ... thats about it. only pics i would never want just anyone to see are sex acts. No way would i put those online

[Schlosser85]

If the fake Christians out in California filing their motions right now care so much about "family values", they shouldn't be trying to forcibly divorce 18,000 couples.

[Schlosser85]

If the fake Christians out in California filing their motions right now care so much about "family values", they shouldn't be trying to forcibly divorce 18,000 couples.

[Schlosser85]

If the fake Christians out in California filing their motions right now care so much about "family values", they shouldn't be trying to forcibly divorce 18,000 couples.

[Kelly]

If the fake Christians out in California filing their motions right now care so much about "family values", they shouldn't be trying to forcibly divorce 18,000 couples.


But, what if they don't think those 18,000 are married?


For many that I've talked to of late about this whole thing....its about terminology...

They are fine with civil unions, and EVERYTHING that goes along with it, health care benefits, tax benefits, etc......they just have a problem with it being called, "marriage"...

[Kelly]

If the fake Christians out in California filing their motions right now care so much about "family values", they shouldn't be trying to forcibly divorce 18,000 couples.


But, what if they don't think those 18,000 are married?


For many that I've talked to of late about this whole thing....its about terminology...

They are fine with civil unions, and EVERYTHING that goes along with it, health care benefits, tax benefits, etc......they just have a problem with it being called, "marriage"...

[Kelly]

If the fake Christians out in California filing their motions right now care so much about "family values", they shouldn't be trying to forcibly divorce 18,000 couples.


But, what if they don't think those 18,000 are married?


For many that I've talked to of late about this whole thing....its about terminology...

They are fine with civil unions, and EVERYTHING that goes along with it, health care benefits, tax benefits, etc......they just have a problem with it being called, "marriage"...

[The Senator]

But, what if they don't think those 18,000 are married?

And what if they don't think the earth is round? :huh:

I mean, are we really going to justify their opposition to these marriages based on their religious beliefs? The fact of the matter is, these 18,000 couples WERE married by the state. That is what happened under LAW. They can ignore it all they want, but no amount of ignorance is going to change that fact, and I don't see why anyone should be expected to cater to these folks because their holy doctrine allows them the liberty to snub homosexuals as equal human beings.

[The Senator]

But, what if they don't think those 18,000 are married?

And what if they don't think the earth is round? :huh:

I mean, are we really going to justify their opposition to these marriages based on their religious beliefs? The fact of the matter is, these 18,000 couples WERE married by the state. That is what happened under LAW. They can ignore it all they want, but no amount of ignorance is going to change that fact, and I don't see why anyone should be expected to cater to these folks because their holy doctrine allows them the liberty to snub homosexuals as equal human beings.

[The Senator]

But, what if they don't think those 18,000 are married?

And what if they don't think the earth is round? :huh:

I mean, are we really going to justify their opposition to these marriages based on their religious beliefs? The fact of the matter is, these 18,000 couples WERE married by the state. That is what happened under LAW. They can ignore it all they want, but no amount of ignorance is going to change that fact, and I don't see why anyone should be expected to cater to these folks because their holy doctrine allows them the liberty to snub homosexuals as equal human beings.

[Schlosser85]

But, what if they don't think those 18,000 are married?


And what if I don't think they're married? Does it matter what I have to say about their marriages?

We don't forbid people from eating pork because they think it's sinful, so why should people be forbidden from marrying because a segment of the population opposes it?

[Schlosser85]

But, what if they don't think those 18,000 are married?


And what if I don't think they're married? Does it matter what I have to say about their marriages?

We don't forbid people from eating pork because they think it's sinful, so why should people be forbidden from marrying because a segment of the population opposes it?

[Schlosser85]

But, what if they don't think those 18,000 are married?


And what if I don't think they're married? Does it matter what I have to say about their marriages?

We don't forbid people from eating pork because they think it's sinful, so why should people be forbidden from marrying because a segment of the population opposes it?

[Kelly]

No, but they do have a right to their ignorance.....we all do.

[Kelly]

No, but they do have a right to their ignorance.....we all do.

[Kelly]

No, but they do have a right to their ignorance.....we all do.

[Kelly]

And what if I don't think they're married? Does it matter what I have to say about their marriages?

We don't forbid people from eating pork because they think it's sinful, so why should people be forbidden from marrying because a segment of the population opposes it?


That is your right to not think of what they have as marriage....but they have a history and precedence on their side. So, to some what they have is marriage, to others it may not be deemed that....

I lived with a guy for close to 7 years, I had many who said I was living in sin, I didn't think so, but hey it was their beliefs, just wasn't mine......I was ok with that, we just simply disagreed....I do that alot. I also play Devil's Advocate alot.....makes people think....:cwink:

[Kelly]

And what if I don't think they're married? Does it matter what I have to say about their marriages?

We don't forbid people from eating pork because they think it's sinful, so why should people be forbidden from marrying because a segment of the population opposes it?


That is your right to not think of what they have as marriage....but they have a history and precedence on their side. So, to some what they have is marriage, to others it may not be deemed that....

I lived with a guy for close to 7 years, I had many who said I was living in sin, I didn't think so, but hey it was their beliefs, just wasn't mine......I was ok with that, we just simply disagreed....I do that alot. I also play Devil's Advocate alot.....makes people think....:cwink:

[Kelly]

And what if I don't think they're married? Does it matter what I have to say about their marriages?

We don't forbid people from eating pork because they think it's sinful, so why should people be forbidden from marrying because a segment of the population opposes it?


That is your right to not think of what they have as marriage....but they have a history and precedence on their side. So, to some what they have is marriage, to others it may not be deemed that....

I lived with a guy for close to 7 years, I had many who said I was living in sin, I didn't think so, but hey it was their beliefs, just wasn't mine......I was ok with that, we just simply disagreed....I do that alot. I also play Devil's Advocate alot.....makes people think....:cwink:

[Schlosser85]

No, but they do have a right to their ignorance


And I have a right to not have to live according to it.

[Schlosser85]

No, but they do have a right to their ignorance


And I have a right to not have to live according to it.

[Schlosser85]

No, but they do have a right to their ignorance


And I have a right to not have to live according to it.

[Hobgoblin]

No, but they do have a right to their ignorance.....we all do.

And thats the thing: People can vote any way they want for any reason they want. Its not for us to decide, just like they cant judge our reasons. Thats liberty for you.

[Hobgoblin]

No, but they do have a right to their ignorance.....we all do.

And thats the thing: People can vote any way they want for any reason they want. Its not for us to decide, just like they cant judge our reasons. Thats liberty for you.

[Hobgoblin]

No, but they do have a right to their ignorance.....we all do.

And thats the thing: People can vote any way they want for any reason they want. Its not for us to decide, just like they cant judge our reasons. Thats liberty for you.

[Kelly]

And thats the thing: People can vote any way they want for any reason they want. Its not for us to decide, just like they cant judge our reasons. Thats liberty for you.


Yep.....until it steps on my toes, and then its a violation of my rights.....:dry:

[Kelly]

And thats the thing: People can vote any way they want for any reason they want. Its not for us to decide, just like they cant judge our reasons. Thats liberty for you.


Yep.....until it steps on my toes, and then its a violation of my rights.....:dry:

[Kelly]

And thats the thing: People can vote any way they want for any reason they want. Its not for us to decide, just like they cant judge our reasons. Thats liberty for you.


Yep.....until it steps on my toes, and then its a violation of my rights.....:dry:

[Hobgoblin]

But of course! My rights are more important than everyone else's rights. :dry:

[Hobgoblin]

But of course! My rights are more important than everyone else's rights. :dry:

[Hobgoblin]

But of course! My rights are more important than everyone else's rights. :dry:

[Schlosser85]

Gays aren't the ones claiming to be superior to anyone else.

[Schlosser85]

Gays aren't the ones claiming to be superior to anyone else.

[Schlosser85]

Gays aren't the ones claiming to be superior to anyone else.

[Kelly]

Gays aren't the ones claiming to be superior to anyone else.


ok...

[Kelly]

Gays aren't the ones claiming to be superior to anyone else.


ok...

[Kelly]

Gays aren't the ones claiming to be superior to anyone else.


ok...

[Marx]

Gays aren't the ones claiming to be superior to anyone else.

This is true.

[Marx]

Gays aren't the ones claiming to be superior to anyone else.

This is true.

[Marx]

Gays aren't the ones claiming to be superior to anyone else.

This is true.

[The Senator]

And thats the thing: People can vote any way they want for any reason they want. Its not for us to decide, just like they cant judge our reasons. Thats liberty for you.

Right. But I don't think that the rest of the world should be expected to see their side of the argument when that side completely ignores established facts on the basis of what a religious text says.

[The Senator]

And thats the thing: People can vote any way they want for any reason they want. Its not for us to decide, just like they cant judge our reasons. Thats liberty for you.

Right. But I don't think that the rest of the world should be expected to see their side of the argument when that side completely ignores established facts on the basis of what a religious text says.

[The Senator]

And thats the thing: People can vote any way they want for any reason they want. Its not for us to decide, just like they cant judge our reasons. Thats liberty for you.

Right. But I don't think that the rest of the world should be expected to see their side of the argument when that side completely ignores established facts on the basis of what a religious text says.

[spideyboy_1111]

as said many times before, the majority should not have the right to tell minorities what they can and cant do. Or how to lead there lives. If that were the case Woman's suffrage and the Civil Rights movements might of never gone anywhere, and Lincoln couldn't of freed the slaves.

[spideyboy_1111]

as said many times before, the majority should not have the right to tell minorities what they can and cant do. Or how to lead there lives. If that were the case Woman's suffrage and the Civil Rights movements might of never gone anywhere, and Lincoln couldn't of freed the slaves.

[spideyboy_1111]

as said many times before, the majority should not have the right to tell minorities what they can and cant do. Or how to lead there lives. If that were the case Woman's suffrage and the Civil Rights movements might of never gone anywhere, and Lincoln couldn't of freed the slaves.

[Timstuff]

The difference is that the supreme court is not an elected body, but an appointed one. The supreme court's job is not to shoe-horn the words of the constitution into an agenda, because that is stepping on the rights of the legislature to pass laws. Proposition 8 is a part of a much bigger battle over how much power the supreme court constitutionally should have. Where does interpretation of the constitution stop, and bench legislation begins? Many Californians believed that the SC went outside their jurisdiction when they legalized same sex unions, and they decided to take the power back by amending the constitution and eliminating the gray language that the courts took advantage of.

[Timstuff]

The difference is that the supreme court is not an elected body, but an appointed one. The supreme court's job is not to shoe-horn the words of the constitution into an agenda, because that is stepping on the rights of the legislature to pass laws. Proposition 8 is a part of a much bigger battle over how much power the supreme court constitutionally should have. Where does interpretation of the constitution stop, and bench legislation begins? Many Californians believed that the SC went outside their jurisdiction when they legalized same sex unions, and they decided to take the power back by amending the constitution and eliminating the gray language that the courts took advantage of.

[Timstuff]

The difference is that the supreme court is not an elected body, but an appointed one. The supreme court's job is not to shoe-horn the words of the constitution into an agenda, because that is stepping on the rights of the legislature to pass laws. Proposition 8 is a part of a much bigger battle over how much power the supreme court constitutionally should have. Where does interpretation of the constitution stop, and bench legislation begins? Many Californians believed that the SC went outside their jurisdiction when they legalized same sex unions, and they decided to take the power back by amending the constitution and eliminating the gray language that the courts took advantage of.

[SentinelMind]

Women suffrage and civil rights amendments were put in the Constitution through the legislative branches of this country via its amendment process, both federal and state. They weren't created by the US Supreme Court. Follow the US Constitution and amend it if you feel it is necessary through the power of democracy and ability to persuade other.

[SentinelMind]

Women suffrage and civil rights amendments were put in the Constitution through the legislative branches of this country via its amendment process, both federal and state. They weren't created by the US Supreme Court. Follow the US Constitution and amend it if you feel it is necessary through the power of democracy and ability to persuade other.

[SentinelMind]

Women suffrage and civil rights amendments were put in the Constitution through the legislative branches of this country via its amendment process, both federal and state. They weren't created by the US Supreme Court. Follow the US Constitution and amend it if you feel it is necessary through the power of democracy and ability to persuade other.

[Timstuff]

Women suffrage and civil rights amendments were put in the Constitution through the legislative branches of this country via its amendment process, both federal and state. They weren't created by the US Supreme Court. Follow the US Constitution and amend it if you feel it is necessary through the power of democracy and ability to persuade other.

Exactly.

[Timstuff]

Women suffrage and civil rights amendments were put in the Constitution through the legislative branches of this country via its amendment process, both federal and state. They weren't created by the US Supreme Court. Follow the US Constitution and amend it if you feel it is necessary through the power of democracy and ability to persuade other.

Exactly.

[Timstuff]

Women suffrage and civil rights amendments were put in the Constitution through the legislative branches of this country via its amendment process, both federal and state. They weren't created by the US Supreme Court. Follow the US Constitution and amend it if you feel it is necessary through the power of democracy and ability to persuade other.

Exactly.

[The Senator]

So you basically advocate discrimination of homosexuals as long as the majority thinks it is alright... I see...

[The Senator]

So you basically advocate discrimination of homosexuals as long as the majority thinks it is alright... I see...

[The Senator]

So you basically advocate discrimination of homosexuals as long as the majority thinks it is alright... I see...

[wiegeabo]

The difference is that the supreme court is not an elected body, but an appointed one. The supreme court's job is not to shoe-horn the words of the constitution into an agenda, because that is stepping on the rights of the legislature to pass laws. Proposition 8 is a part of a much bigger battle over how much power the supreme court constitutionally should have. Where does interpretation of the constitution stop, and bench legislation begins? Many Californians believed that the SC went outside their jurisdiction when they legalized same sex unions, and they decided to take the power back by amending the constitution and eliminating the gray language that the courts took advantage of.


I think the court rightfully overturned the laws back in the summer. The state constitution guaranteed freedom from discrimination, and they saw the law banning gay marriage as violating those provisions of the Constitution. Therefore they declared them unconstitutional.

As for this amendment, the ban has literally been written into the Constitution, thereby making it constitutional. So the Supreme Court shouldn't be able to overturn it.

But...California is a little unusual in regards to constitutional changes made by voters through the ballot. If it's an amendment, the vote of the people is all that is needed to pass it. But, if it's a revision, then a vote of the people and legislature is needed to make it law. And if Prop 8 is a revision, then it didn't really pass in November.

Unfortunately, there's no clear distinction between an amendment and revision. Just that a revision makes fundamental changes to the state constitution. So the Court could decide that Prop 8 does make such a fundamental change, and still requires confirmation from the legislature.


But my state is literally on the verge of bankruptcy. And I'll be pissed with the Prop 8 supporters if they pull the legislature's attention away from our economic crisis to focus on banning gay marriage. Well, more pissed than I already am.

[wiegeabo]

The difference is that the supreme court is not an elected body, but an appointed one. The supreme court's job is not to shoe-horn the words of the constitution into an agenda, because that is stepping on the rights of the legislature to pass laws. Proposition 8 is a part of a much bigger battle over how much power the supreme court constitutionally should have. Where does interpretation of the constitution stop, and bench legislation begins? Many Californians believed that the SC went outside their jurisdiction when they legalized same sex unions, and they decided to take the power back by amending the constitution and eliminating the gray language that the courts took advantage of.


I think the court rightfully overturned the laws back in the summer. The state constitution guaranteed freedom from discrimination, and they saw the law banning gay marriage as violating those provisions of the Constitution. Therefore they declared them unconstitutional.

As for this amendment, the ban has literally been written into the Constitution, thereby making it constitutional. So the Supreme Court shouldn't be able to overturn it.

But...California is a little unusual in regards to constitutional changes made by voters through the ballot. If it's an amendment, the vote of the people is all that is needed to pass it. But, if it's a revision, then a vote of the people and legislature is needed to make it law. And if Prop 8 is a revision, then it didn't really pass in November.

Unfortunately, there's no clear distinction between an amendment and revision. Just that a revision makes fundamental changes to the state constitution. So the Court could decide that Prop 8 does make such a fundamental change, and still requires confirmation from the legislature.


But my state is literally on the verge of bankruptcy. And I'll be pissed with the Prop 8 supporters if they pull the legislature's attention away from our economic crisis to focus on banning gay marriage. Well, more pissed than I already am.

[wiegeabo]

The difference is that the supreme court is not an elected body, but an appointed one. The supreme court's job is not to shoe-horn the words of the constitution into an agenda, because that is stepping on the rights of the legislature to pass laws. Proposition 8 is a part of a much bigger battle over how much power the supreme court constitutionally should have. Where does interpretation of the constitution stop, and bench legislation begins? Many Californians believed that the SC went outside their jurisdiction when they legalized same sex unions, and they decided to take the power back by amending the constitution and eliminating the gray language that the courts took advantage of.


I think the court rightfully overturned the laws back in the summer. The state constitution guaranteed freedom from discrimination, and they saw the law banning gay marriage as violating those provisions of the Constitution. Therefore they declared them unconstitutional.

As for this amendment, the ban has literally been written into the Constitution, thereby making it constitutional. So the Supreme Court shouldn't be able to overturn it.

But...California is a little unusual in regards to constitutional changes made by voters through the ballot. If it's an amendment, the vote of the people is all that is needed to pass it. But, if it's a revision, then a vote of the people and legislature is needed to make it law. And if Prop 8 is a revision, then it didn't really pass in November.

Unfortunately, there's no clear distinction between an amendment and revision. Just that a revision makes fundamental changes to the state constitution. So the Court could decide that Prop 8 does make such a fundamental change, and still requires confirmation from the legislature.


But my state is literally on the verge of bankruptcy. And I'll be pissed with the Prop 8 supporters if they pull the legislature's attention away from our economic crisis to focus on banning gay marriage. Well, more pissed than I already am.

[Hobgoblin]

Right. But I don't think that the rest of the world should be expected to see their side of the argument when that side completely ignores established facts on the basis of what a religious text says.

Yup. And there is the whole crutch of the fight right there: Whose law should decide the issue? God's or human's? And as I have said, if this were a theocracy (and thats if the people supported that theocracy), than I guess banning gay marriage would be "appropriate." But since this is a secular democracy, we need to discuss the issue and find some kind of agreement.

Good luck on that. :o

[Hobgoblin]

Right. But I don't think that the rest of the world should be expected to see their side of the argument when that side completely ignores established facts on the basis of what a religious text says.

Yup. And there is the whole crutch of the fight right there: Whose law should decide the issue? God's or human's? And as I have said, if this were a theocracy (and thats if the people supported that theocracy), than I guess banning gay marriage would be "appropriate." But since this is a secular democracy, we need to discuss the issue and find some kind of agreement.

Good luck on that. :o

[Hobgoblin]

Right. But I don't think that the rest of the world should be expected to see their side of the argument when that side completely ignores established facts on the basis of what a religious text says.

Yup. And there is the whole crutch of the fight right there: Whose law should decide the issue? God's or human's? And as I have said, if this were a theocracy (and thats if the people supported that theocracy), than I guess banning gay marriage would be "appropriate." But since this is a secular democracy, we need to discuss the issue and find some kind of agreement.

Good luck on that. :o

[Timstuff]

If someone were to ask me how to be 100% "fair," I would completely eliminate any reference to the word "marriage" from our legal documents, and simply use the gender-neutral term "domestic alliance" for all unions, wether it's straight, gay, polygamist, or whatever. What people choose to call their "domestic alliance" is entirely up to them, because "domestic alliance" would be a strictly legal term. The sacred institution of marriage would be left entirely up for interperation be the individual, so it would be more or less preserved in the public eye. However, I have a feeling that such a compromise wouldn't come close to satisfying the extremists on either side, so it would never happen. :o

[Timstuff]

If someone were to ask me how to be 100% "fair," I would completely eliminate any reference to the word "marriage" from our legal documents, and simply use the gender-neutral term "domestic alliance" for all unions, wether it's straight, gay, polygamist, or whatever. What people choose to call their "domestic alliance" is entirely up to them, because "domestic alliance" would be a strictly legal term. The sacred institution of marriage would be left entirely up for interperation be the individual, so it would be more or less preserved in the public eye. However, I have a feeling that such a compromise wouldn't come close to satisfying the extremists on either side, so it would never happen. :o

[Timstuff]

If someone were to ask me how to be 100% "fair," I would completely eliminate any reference to the word "marriage" from our legal documents, and simply use the gender-neutral term "domestic alliance" for all unions, wether it's straight, gay, polygamist, or whatever. What people choose to call their "domestic alliance" is entirely up to them, because "domestic alliance" would be a strictly legal term. The sacred institution of marriage would be left entirely up for interperation be the individual, so it would be more or less preserved in the public eye. However, I have a feeling that such a compromise wouldn't come close to satisfying the extremists on either side, so it would never happen. :o

[Addendum]

Is marriage really sacred though?

If it is sacred, then the government is violating the "free exercise clause" by inserting itself into a completely religious matter.

If it's a legal bond between two individuals, then "sacredness" isn't a factor at all

[Addendum]

Is marriage really sacred though?

If it is sacred, then the government is violating the "free exercise clause" by inserting itself into a completely religious matter.

If it's a legal bond between two individuals, then "sacredness" isn't a factor at all

[Addendum]

Is marriage really sacred though?

If it is sacred, then the government is violating the "free exercise clause" by inserting itself into a completely religious matter.

If it's a legal bond between two individuals, then "sacredness" isn't a factor at all

[spideyboy_1111]

Marriage was not created by Christianity and has been around well before most religions practiced today. That alone, logically, should make it null in void to be an exclusive, religious event. Churches and religions are not forced to perform gay marriages. It's very plain and simple and why people can't wrap there brains around that is beyond me.

[spideyboy_1111]

Marriage was not created by Christianity and has been around well before most religions practiced today. That alone, logically, should make it null in void to be an exclusive, religious event. Churches and religions are not forced to perform gay marriages. It's very plain and simple and why people can't wrap there brains around that is beyond me.

[spideyboy_1111]

Marriage was not created by Christianity and has been around well before most religions practiced today. That alone, logically, should make it null in void to be an exclusive, religious event. Churches and religions are not forced to perform gay marriages. It's very plain and simple and why people can't wrap there brains around that is beyond me.

[Timstuff]

Is marriage really sacred though?

If it is sacred, then the government is violating the "free exercise clause" by inserting itself into a completely religious matter.

If it's a legal bond between two individuals, then "sacredness" isn't a factor at all

Exactly, which is why I would eliminate the word from our legal language, and replace it with "domestic alliances" or some other politically correct term. What people chose to call their union would be entirely up to them, but the legal documentation would be something that is neutral to all religions and sexes so that no-one is offended.

[Timstuff]

Is marriage really sacred though?

If it is sacred, then the government is violating the "free exercise clause" by inserting itself into a completely religious matter.

If it's a legal bond between two individuals, then "sacredness" isn't a factor at all

Exactly, which is why I would eliminate the word from our legal language, and replace it with "domestic alliances" or some other politically correct term. What people chose to call their union would be entirely up to them, but the legal documentation would be something that is neutral to all religions and sexes so that no-one is offended.

[Timstuff]

Is marriage really sacred though?

If it is sacred, then the government is violating the "free exercise clause" by inserting itself into a completely religious matter.

If it's a legal bond between two individuals, then "sacredness" isn't a factor at all

Exactly, which is why I would eliminate the word from our legal language, and replace it with "domestic alliances" or some other politically correct term. What people chose to call their union would be entirely up to them, but the legal documentation would be something that is neutral to all religions and sexes so that no-one is offended.

[Addendum]

But as spideyboy said, marriage was not created by any religion, let alone christianity. It wasn't until 1545 that the christian church inserted itself into marriage, after the Council of Trent.

[Addendum]

But as spideyboy said, marriage was not created by any religion, let alone christianity. It wasn't until 1545 that the christian church inserted itself into marriage, after the Council of Trent.

[Addendum]

But as spideyboy said, marriage was not created by any religion, let alone christianity. It wasn't until 1545 that the christian church inserted itself into marriage, after the Council of Trent.

[Marx]

But as spideyboy said, marriage was not created by any religion, let alone christianity. It wasn't until 1545 that the christian church inserted itself into marriage, after the Council of Trent.

Some people choose to ignore that fact. They also choose to ignore that the definition of marriage has changed over the course of time.

[Marx]

But as spideyboy said, marriage was not created by any religion, let alone christianity. It wasn't until 1545 that the christian church inserted itself into marriage, after the Council of Trent.

Some people choose to ignore that fact. They also choose to ignore that the definition of marriage has changed over the course of time.

[Marx]

But as spideyboy said, marriage was not created by any religion, let alone christianity. It wasn't until 1545 that the christian church inserted itself into marriage, after the Council of Trent.

Some people choose to ignore that fact. They also choose to ignore that the definition of marriage has changed over the course of time.

[spideyboy_1111]

Some people choose to ignore that fact. They also choose to ignore that the definition of marriage has changed over the course of time.

well to them i say F*off, because with legal terms "ignoring facts" never holds up. And spells losing battle no matter how you put it.

[spideyboy_1111]

Some people choose to ignore that fact. They also choose to ignore that the definition of marriage has changed over the course of time.

well to them i say F*off, because with legal terms "ignoring facts" never holds up. And spells losing battle no matter how you put it.

[spideyboy_1111]

Some people choose to ignore that fact. They also choose to ignore that the definition of marriage has changed over the course of time.

well to them i say F*off, because with legal terms "ignoring facts" never holds up. And spells losing battle no matter how you put it.

[spideyboy_1111]

PooEhBxh0NY

hehe i love this

[spideyboy_1111]

PooEhBxh0NY

hehe i love this

[spideyboy_1111]

PooEhBxh0NY

hehe i love this

[CaptainClown]

Exactly, which is why I would eliminate the word from our legal language, and replace it with "domestic alliances" or some other politically correct term. What people chose to call their union would be entirely up to them, but the legal documentation would be something that is neutral to all religions and sexes so that no-one is offended.
That is pretty much what I would do.

[CaptainClown]

Exactly, which is why I would eliminate the word from our legal language, and replace it with "domestic alliances" or some other politically correct term. What people chose to call their union would be entirely up to them, but the legal documentation would be something that is neutral to all religions and sexes so that no-one is offended.
That is pretty much what I would do.

[CaptainClown]

Exactly, which is why I would eliminate the word from our legal language, and replace it with "domestic alliances" or some other politically correct term. What people chose to call their union would be entirely up to them, but the legal documentation would be something that is neutral to all religions and sexes so that no-one is offended.
That is pretty much what I would do.

[spideyboy_1111]

Tucson, Arizona Clerk Grants Marriage License to Lesbian Couple
by Towleroads.com on 2/12 at 7:29 pm.
Viewed 22 times.



Sheri and Theresa, a lesbian couple who have been together for two years, were issued a marriage license today at a Freedom to Marry action event in Tucson, Arizona. Two men applied for a license at the same time with a separate clerk but were denied.

Rainbow Foot Soldiers reports: "The male couple were told that if they changed 'female' to 'male' on the form it would be invalid. Questioning the clerk they were told that if they left the female part intact they could issue the license but they would have to swear an oath that 'all information contained on the form is true' and that any incorrect or misleading information would be grounds for perjury. Since they would not commit perjury, the license was denied. Simultaneously a lesbian couple at a separate clerk requested a license and were told that if they swore the oath they would be 'attesting to the information you have provided on the form.' Since they had not written the genders they submitted the form and the license was issued to them. The issuance came as a complete surprise and shock to those assembled and seemed to concern the police present who gathered outside the door to the office and shortly ordered the gathering crowd of supporters and reporters to clear away from the front of the building."

Watch video of the confused crowd gathered outside following the news, AFTER THE JUMP...

So are the genders part of the form already or were they written in, or were the two forms different? This is unclear at the moment, but what is clear is that a same-sex couple walked away with a license...

In November, Arizona voters passed Proposition 102 by a vote of 56% to 44%: "Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state." Same-sex marriage was already prohibited by statute in Arizona.

not sure if i understand this... but interesting

[spideyboy_1111]

Tucson, Arizona Clerk Grants Marriage License to Lesbian Couple
by Towleroads.com on 2/12 at 7:29 pm.
Viewed 22 times.



Sheri and Theresa, a lesbian couple who have been together for two years, were issued a marriage license today at a Freedom to Marry action event in Tucson, Arizona. Two men applied for a license at the same time with a separate clerk but were denied.

Rainbow Foot Soldiers reports: "The male couple were told that if they changed 'female' to 'male' on the form it would be invalid. Questioning the clerk they were told that if they left the female part intact they could issue the license but they would have to swear an oath that 'all information contained on the form is true' and that any incorrect or misleading information would be grounds for perjury. Since they would not commit perjury, the license was denied. Simultaneously a lesbian couple at a separate clerk requested a license and were told that if they swore the oath they would be 'attesting to the information you have provided on the form.' Since they had not written the genders they submitted the form and the license was issued to them. The issuance came as a complete surprise and shock to those assembled and seemed to concern the police present who gathered outside the door to the office and shortly ordered the gathering crowd of supporters and reporters to clear away from the front of the building."

Watch video of the confused crowd gathered outside following the news, AFTER THE JUMP...

So are the genders part of the form already or were they written in, or were the two forms different? This is unclear at the moment, but what is clear is that a same-sex couple walked away with a license...

In November, Arizona voters passed Proposition 102 by a vote of 56% to 44%: "Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state." Same-sex marriage was already prohibited by statute in Arizona.

not sure if i understand this... but interesting

[spideyboy_1111]

Tucson, Arizona Clerk Grants Marriage License to Lesbian Couple
by Towleroads.com on 2/12 at 7:29 pm.
Viewed 22 times.



Sheri and Theresa, a lesbian couple who have been together for two years, were issued a marriage license today at a Freedom to Marry action event in Tucson, Arizona. Two men applied for a license at the same time with a separate clerk but were denied.

Rainbow Foot Soldiers reports: "The male couple were told that if they changed 'female' to 'male' on the form it would be invalid. Questioning the clerk they were told that if they left the female part intact they could issue the license but they would have to swear an oath that 'all information contained on the form is true' and that any incorrect or misleading information would be grounds for perjury. Since they would not commit perjury, the license was denied. Simultaneously a lesbian couple at a separate clerk requested a license and were told that if they swore the oath they would be 'attesting to the information you have provided on the form.' Since they had not written the genders they submitted the form and the license was issued to them. The issuance came as a complete surprise and shock to those assembled and seemed to concern the police present who gathered outside the door to the office and shortly ordered the gathering crowd of supporters and reporters to clear away from the front of the building."

Watch video of the confused crowd gathered outside following the news, AFTER THE JUMP...

So are the genders part of the form already or were they written in, or were the two forms different? This is unclear at the moment, but what is clear is that a same-sex couple walked away with a license...

In November, Arizona voters passed Proposition 102 by a vote of 56% to 44%: "Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state." Same-sex marriage was already prohibited by statute in Arizona.

not sure if i understand this... but interesting

[Schlosser85]

So really, it's not valid.

[Schlosser85]

So really, it's not valid.

[Schlosser85]

So really, it's not valid.

[wiegeabo]

San Francisco tried to give licenses a couple of years back. But the state said they weren't valid.


On another note, did anyone hear anything about the protests in California for gay marriage? I heard about them last night, but haven't seen anything today.

[wiegeabo]

San Francisco tried to give licenses a couple of years back. But the state said they weren't valid.


On another note, did anyone hear anything about the protests in California for gay marriage? I heard about them last night, but haven't seen anything today.

[wiegeabo]

San Francisco tried to give licenses a couple of years back. But the state said they weren't valid.


On another note, did anyone hear anything about the protests in California for gay marriage? I heard about them last night, but haven't seen anything today.

[spideyboy_1111]

San Francisco tried to give licenses a couple of years back. But the state said they weren't valid.


On another note, did anyone hear anything about the protests in California for gay marriage? I heard about them last night, but haven't seen anything today.

havent heard anything yet.. but today or 2morrow is suppose to be marriage equality day or something.

[spideyboy_1111]

San Francisco tried to give licenses a couple of years back. But the state said they weren't valid.


On another note, did anyone hear anything about the protests in California for gay marriage? I heard about them last night, but haven't seen anything today.

havent heard anything yet.. but today or 2morrow is suppose to be marriage equality day or something.

[spideyboy_1111]

San Francisco tried to give licenses a couple of years back. But the state said they weren't valid.


On another note, did anyone hear anything about the protests in California for gay marriage? I heard about them last night, but haven't seen anything today.

havent heard anything yet.. but today or 2morrow is suppose to be marriage equality day or something.

[The Senator]

Huntsman draws controversy for supporting civil unions

Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, Jr. (R) stunned his state when his spokesperson announced the governor's support for civil unions. 70 percent of Utahns oppose civil unions, but their objections won't count against Huntsman who said he won't run for a third term as governor - but they could weigh heavily on a 2012 White House run. Huntsman is presidential-quality timber. One of the most popular governors in the country, he's smart, has deep pockets that could fund a campaign and he's had a conservative record earned by cutting taxes and slimming government. He is pro-life and calls himself a social conservative. In fact, the Weekly Standard calls him as "impressive as [Bobby] Jindal, though far more moderate." After this week's development Huntsman will live up to the "far more moderate" label. Huntsman was one of the first governors to endorse John McCain in 2008 and stayed with McCain through The Troubles.

Should he run for president, Huntsman would take heat, just as ex-Mass. Gov. Mitt Romney The Republican base, by and large, is suspicious of candidates who support any legal recognition of same-sex couples. A large plurality -- maybe a majority -- of early Republican primary voters are viscerally uncomfortable with homosexuality and view it as a threat.

Mr. Romney was blasted as a false convert to the "pro-marriage" side for appearing to switch his position from favoring civil unions to opposing them. Romney said he supported neither arrangement for gays but preferred civil unions if he had to choose; he was pushed into weighing in on the issue because of his state's Supreme Court legalized gay marriage during his term.

Huntsman might have it worse: he is choosing to take a position on the issue without being pressured to. "Pro family" groups have accused him of betraying conservatives by embracing civil unions after campaigning against them in 2004 when he ran for governor and said he supported Utah's constitutional amendment outlawing unions and marriage for gays. Huntsman hasn't yet explained his mind-change in detail.

The bill Huntsman endorsed has little chance of passing the conservative Utah legislature.

Beyond civil unions, Huntsman also threw his support behind a bill to allow two unmarried, co-habiting adults to sign a "joint-support declaration" to gain inheritance rights and medical-decision making decisions for one another, as well as a bill to outlaw employment and housing discrimination for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people.

I have always liked Jon Huntsman... I wonder if he will run in 2012...

[The Senator]

Huntsman draws controversy for supporting civil unions

Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, Jr. (R) stunned his state when his spokesperson announced the governor's support for civil unions. 70 percent of Utahns oppose civil unions, but their objections won't count against Huntsman who said he won't run for a third term as governor - but they could weigh heavily on a 2012 White House run. Huntsman is presidential-quality timber. One of the most popular governors in the country, he's smart, has deep pockets that could fund a campaign and he's had a conservative record earned by cutting taxes and slimming government. He is pro-life and calls himself a social conservative. In fact, the Weekly Standard calls him as "impressive as [Bobby] Jindal, though far more moderate." After this week's development Huntsman will live up to the "far more moderate" label. Huntsman was one of the first governors to endorse John McCain in 2008 and stayed with McCain through The Troubles.

Should he run for president, Huntsman would take heat, just as ex-Mass. Gov. Mitt Romney The Republican base, by and large, is suspicious of candidates who support any legal recognition of same-sex couples. A large plurality -- maybe a majority -- of early Republican primary voters are viscerally uncomfortable with homosexuality and view it as a threat.

Mr. Romney was blasted as a false convert to the "pro-marriage" side for appearing to switch his position from favoring civil unions to opposing them. Romney said he supported neither arrangement for gays but preferred civil unions if he had to choose; he was pushed into weighing in on the issue because of his state's Supreme Court legalized gay marriage during his term.

Huntsman might have it worse: he is choosing to take a position on the issue without being pressured to. "Pro family" groups have accused him of betraying conservatives by embracing civil unions after campaigning against them in 2004 when he ran for governor and said he supported Utah's constitutional amendment outlawing unions and marriage for gays. Huntsman hasn't yet explained his mind-change in detail.

The bill Huntsman endorsed has little chance of passing the conservative Utah legislature.

Beyond civil unions, Huntsman also threw his support behind a bill to allow two unmarried, co-habiting adults to sign a "joint-support declaration" to gain inheritance rights and medical-decision making decisions for one another, as well as a bill to outlaw employment and housing discrimination for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people.

I have always liked Jon Huntsman... I wonder if he will run in 2012...

[The Senator]

Huntsman draws controversy for supporting civil unions

Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, Jr. (R) stunned his state when his spokesperson announced the governor's support for civil unions. 70 percent of Utahns oppose civil unions, but their objections won't count against Huntsman who said he won't run for a third term as governor - but they could weigh heavily on a 2012 White House run. Huntsman is presidential-quality timber. One of the most popular governors in the country, he's smart, has deep pockets that could fund a campaign and he's had a conservative record earned by cutting taxes and slimming government. He is pro-life and calls himself a social conservative. In fact, the Weekly Standard calls him as "impressive as [Bobby] Jindal, though far more moderate." After this week's development Huntsman will live up to the "far more moderate" label. Huntsman was one of the first governors to endorse John McCain in 2008 and stayed with McCain through The Troubles.

Should he run for president, Huntsman would take heat, just as ex-Mass. Gov. Mitt Romney The Republican base, by and large, is suspicious of candidates who support any legal recognition of same-sex couples. A large plurality -- maybe a majority -- of early Republican primary voters are viscerally uncomfortable with homosexuality and view it as a threat.

Mr. Romney was blasted as a false convert to the "pro-marriage" side for appearing to switch his position from favoring civil unions to opposing them. Romney said he supported neither arrangement for gays but preferred civil unions if he had to choose; he was pushed into weighing in on the issue because of his state's Supreme Court legalized gay marriage during his term.

Huntsman might have it worse: he is choosing to take a position on the issue without being pressured to. "Pro family" groups have accused him of betraying conservatives by embracing civil unions after campaigning against them in 2004 when he ran for governor and said he supported Utah's constitutional amendment outlawing unions and marriage for gays. Huntsman hasn't yet explained his mind-change in detail.

The bill Huntsman endorsed has little chance of passing the conservative Utah legislature.

Beyond civil unions, Huntsman also threw his support behind a bill to allow two unmarried, co-habiting adults to sign a "joint-support declaration" to gain inheritance rights and medical-decision making decisions for one another, as well as a bill to outlaw employment and housing discrimination for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people.

I have always liked Jon Huntsman... I wonder if he will run in 2012...

[Schlosser85]

Civil unions, at minimum, are an absolute necessity. There must be legal recognition of same-sex couples as spouses and next-of-kin to prevent the nightmarish situation of someone denied the right to be with their significant other in the hospital, ensure wills are upheld, spouses have authority to make medical decisions, transfer of property, etc. etc. Otherwise a person who has been in a monogamous, faithful, loving relationship with their partner for decades could be denied the right to be with them as they lay dying, and an estranged biological relative could have power over them ahead of their life partner.

Those are all just fundamental rights that no one with decency would fight to deny two consenting adults, and they should not be denied just because of the stupidity, ignorance, and bed-wetting fear of a segment of the population.

We do not have to live according to people who can't walk and chew gum at the same time, and pee themselves at the sight of a gay person.

[Schlosser85]

Civil unions, at minimum, are an absolute necessity. There must be legal recognition of same-sex couples as spouses and next-of-kin to prevent the nightmarish situation of someone denied the right to be with their significant other in the hospital, ensure wills are upheld, spouses have authority to make medical decisions, transfer of property, etc. etc. Otherwise a person who has been in a monogamous, faithful, loving relationship with their partner for decades could be denied the right to be with them as they lay dying, and an estranged biological relative could have power over them ahead of their life partner.

Those are all just fundamental rights that no one with decency would fight to deny two consenting adults, and they should not be denied just because of the stupidity, ignorance, and bed-wetting fear of a segment of the population.

We do not have to live according to people who can't walk and chew gum at the same time, and pee themselves at the sight of a gay person.

[Schlosser85]

Civil unions, at minimum, are an absolute necessity. There must be legal recognition of same-sex couples as spouses and next-of-kin to prevent the nightmarish situation of someone denied the right to be with their significant other in the hospital, ensure wills are upheld, spouses have authority to make medical decisions, transfer of property, etc. etc. Otherwise a person who has been in a monogamous, faithful, loving relationship with their partner for decades could be denied the right to be with them as they lay dying, and an estranged biological relative could have power over them ahead of their life partner.

Those are all just fundamental rights that no one with decency would fight to deny two consenting adults, and they should not be denied just because of the stupidity, ignorance, and bed-wetting fear of a segment of the population.

We do not have to live according to people who can't walk and chew gum at the same time, and pee themselves at the sight of a gay person.

[spideyboy_1111]

This is very good
SutThIFi24w

[spideyboy_1111]

This is very good
SutThIFi24w

[spideyboy_1111]

This is very good
SutThIFi24w

[Excel]

Listen to what this genius senator from Utah had to say on the subject:

"Homosexuality will always be a sexual perversion. And you say that around here now and everybody goes nuts. But I don't care. They're mean. They want to talk about being nice. They're the meanest buggers I have ever seen. It's just like the Muslims. Muslims are good people and their religion is anti-war. But it’s been taken over by the radical side. What is the morals of a gay person? You can't answer that because anything goes. They're probably the greatest threat to America going down I know of."

http://www.abc4.com/content/news/top%20stories/story/EXCLUSIVE-Senator-Buttars-compares-some-gays-to/5k4Qh7clXUqlXFxVM2bCxA.cspx

Who votes for these guys, for real?

[Excel]

Listen to what this genius senator from Utah had to say on the subject:

"Homosexuality will always be a sexual perversion. And you say that around here now and everybody goes nuts. But I don't care. They're mean. They want to talk about being nice. They're the meanest buggers I have ever seen. It's just like the Muslims. Muslims are good people and their religion is anti-war. But it’s been taken over by the radical side. What is the morals of a gay person? You can't answer that because anything goes. They're probably the greatest threat to America going down I know of."

http://www.abc4.com/content/news/top%20stories/story/EXCLUSIVE-Senator-Buttars-compares-some-gays-to/5k4Qh7clXUqlXFxVM2bCxA.cspx

Who votes for these guys, for real?

[Excel]

Listen to what this genius senator from Utah had to say on the subject:

"Homosexuality will always be a sexual perversion. And you say that around here now and everybody goes nuts. But I don't care. They're mean. They want to talk about being nice. They're the meanest buggers I have ever seen. It's just like the Muslims. Muslims are good people and their religion is anti-war. But it’s been taken over by the radical side. What is the morals of a gay person? You can't answer that because anything goes. They're probably the greatest threat to America going down I know of."

http://www.abc4.com/content/news/top%20stories/story/EXCLUSIVE-Senator-Buttars-compares-some-gays-to/5k4Qh7clXUqlXFxVM2bCxA.cspx

Who votes for these guys, for real?

[spideyboy_1111]

dayum... i'm so done with close minded people who want to tell others to live there lives. I wish i knew voodoo or hoodoo magics. I would make them feel like there getting raped in there arse 24/7

[spideyboy_1111]

dayum... i'm so done with close minded people who want to tell others to live there lives. I wish i knew voodoo or hoodoo magics. I would make them feel like there getting raped in there arse 24/7

[spideyboy_1111]

dayum... i'm so done with close minded people who want to tell others to live there lives. I wish i knew voodoo or hoodoo magics. I would make them feel like there getting raped in there arse 24/7

[Marx]

Listen to what this genius senator from Utah had to say on the subject:



http://www.abc4.com/content/news/top%20stories/story/EXCLUSIVE-Senator-Buttars-compares-some-gays-to/5k4Qh7clXUqlXFxVM2bCxA.cspx

Who votes for these guys, for real?

Well...it is Utah.

[Marx]

Listen to what this genius senator from Utah had to say on the subject:



http://www.abc4.com/content/news/top%20stories/story/EXCLUSIVE-Senator-Buttars-compares-some-gays-to/5k4Qh7clXUqlXFxVM2bCxA.cspx

Who votes for these guys, for real?

Well...it is Utah.

[Marx]

Listen to what this genius senator from Utah had to say on the subject:



http://www.abc4.com/content/news/top%20stories/story/EXCLUSIVE-Senator-Buttars-compares-some-gays-to/5k4Qh7clXUqlXFxVM2bCxA.cspx

Who votes for these guys, for real?

Well...it is Utah.

[The Senator]

Well...it is Utah.

And the governor of Utah supports civil unions, and the state currently has two openly gay elected state representatives and one gay state senator serving...

[The Senator]

Well...it is Utah.

And the governor of Utah supports civil unions, and the state currently has two openly gay elected state representatives and one gay state senator serving...

[The Senator]

Well...it is Utah.

And the governor of Utah supports civil unions, and the state currently has two openly gay elected state representatives and one gay state senator serving...

[The Senator]

Utah senate takes up anti-gay remarks
MSNBC


SALT LAKE CITY - The Utah Senate stopped working for about two hours Monday as Republicans privately met to discuss a lawmaker's recent comments that gay people don't have morals and that gay activists are among America's greatest threats.

Not a single bill was debated on the Senate floor Monday morning, increasing the backlog of bills that may never become law simply because lawmakers will run out of time to approve them before the 45-day session ends.

Republican Sen. Chris Buttars of West Jordan told a documentary filmmaker that gay people don't have any morals and he compared gay activists to radical Muslims, saying they're one of America's greatest threats.

Last week, Senate President Michael Waddoups removed Buttars from a judiciary committee he chaired. Buttars frequently took pride in using the chairmanship to kill gay rights legislation.

Waddoups said he wanted to remove a distraction and wasn't trying to punish Buttars for the comments. Waddoups also said that his colleagues agree with many of Buttars' statements, but has refused to say which statements.

'Intolerant and immoderate'
Sen. Greg Bell said Monday he disagrees with at least one of Buttars' comments.

"I think I could say that, to a person, everyone in our caucus supports traditional marriage. Many of us, however, feel that the tenor, the examples, some of the phrasing that Sen. Buttars used in his controversial comments, were intolerant and immoderate," Bell said. "I don't believe that all gays have no morals whatsoever."

Buttars' comments and his removal from the judiciary committee have created a rift in the Senate Republican caucus, prompting the private meeting. Senate leaders said Buttars wouldn't face any more sanctions and that no position was taken on the issue during their meeting.

"It was a venting process, in my judgment, and that's why it took the time that it took," said Sen. Pete Knudson. "I think that's a healthy part of this whole situation, is that no one is being told what to think, no one is being told how to think, but they had their opportunity to express and I think that was very, very good for our caucus."

Buttars' comments first aired last week on the Salt Lake City ABC affiliate KTVX and a copyrighted audio clip is posted on its Web site. The documentary filmmaker he spoke to, Reed Cowan, formerly worked at KTVX and is now a reporter at WSVN in Miami.

[The Senator]

Utah senate takes up anti-gay remarks
MSNBC


SALT LAKE CITY - The Utah Senate stopped working for about two hours Monday as Republicans privately met to discuss a lawmaker's recent comments that gay people don't have morals and that gay activists are among America's greatest threats.

Not a single bill was debated on the Senate floor Monday morning, increasing the backlog of bills that may never become law simply because lawmakers will run out of time to approve them before the 45-day session ends.

Republican Sen. Chris Buttars of West Jordan told a documentary filmmaker that gay people don't have any morals and he compared gay activists to radical Muslims, saying they're one of America's greatest threats.

Last week, Senate President Michael Waddoups removed Buttars from a judiciary committee he chaired. Buttars frequently took pride in using the chairmanship to kill gay rights legislation.

Waddoups said he wanted to remove a distraction and wasn't trying to punish Buttars for the comments. Waddoups also said that his colleagues agree with many of Buttars' statements, but has refused to say which statements.

'Intolerant and immoderate'
Sen. Greg Bell said Monday he disagrees with at least one of Buttars' comments.

"I think I could say that, to a person, everyone in our caucus supports traditional marriage. Many of us, however, feel that the tenor, the examples, some of the phrasing that Sen. Buttars used in his controversial comments, were intolerant and immoderate," Bell said. "I don't believe that all gays have no morals whatsoever."

Buttars' comments and his removal from the judiciary committee have created a rift in the Senate Republican caucus, prompting the private meeting. Senate leaders said Buttars wouldn't face any more sanctions and that no position was taken on the issue during their meeting.

"It was a venting process, in my judgment, and that's why it took the time that it took," said Sen. Pete Knudson. "I think that's a healthy part of this whole situation, is that no one is being told what to think, no one is being told how to think, but they had their opportunity to express and I think that was very, very good for our caucus."

Buttars' comments first aired last week on the Salt Lake City ABC affiliate KTVX and a copyrighted audio clip is posted on its Web site. The documentary filmmaker he spoke to, Reed Cowan, formerly worked at KTVX and is now a reporter at WSVN in Miami.

[The Senator]

Utah senate takes up anti-gay remarks
MSNBC


SALT LAKE CITY - The Utah Senate stopped working for about two hours Monday as Republicans privately met to discuss a lawmaker's recent comments that gay people don't have morals and that gay activists are among America's greatest threats.

Not a single bill was debated on the Senate floor Monday morning, increasing the backlog of bills that may never become law simply because lawmakers will run out of time to approve them before the 45-day session ends.

Republican Sen. Chris Buttars of West Jordan told a documentary filmmaker that gay people don't have any morals and he compared gay activists to radical Muslims, saying they're one of America's greatest threats.

Last week, Senate President Michael Waddoups removed Buttars from a judiciary committee he chaired. Buttars frequently took pride in using the chairmanship to kill gay rights legislation.

Waddoups said he wanted to remove a distraction and wasn't trying to punish Buttars for the comments. Waddoups also said that his colleagues agree with many of Buttars' statements, but has refused to say which statements.

'Intolerant and immoderate'
Sen. Greg Bell said Monday he disagrees with at least one of Buttars' comments.

"I think I could say that, to a person, everyone in our caucus supports traditional marriage. Many of us, however, feel that the tenor, the examples, some of the phrasing that Sen. Buttars used in his controversial comments, were intolerant and immoderate," Bell said. "I don't believe that all gays have no morals whatsoever."

Buttars' comments and his removal from the judiciary committee have created a rift in the Senate Republican caucus, prompting the private meeting. Senate leaders said Buttars wouldn't face any more sanctions and that no position was taken on the issue during their meeting.

"It was a venting process, in my judgment, and that's why it took the time that it took," said Sen. Pete Knudson. "I think that's a healthy part of this whole situation, is that no one is being told what to think, no one is being told how to think, but they had their opportunity to express and I think that was very, very good for our caucus."

Buttars' comments first aired last week on the Salt Lake City ABC affiliate KTVX and a copyrighted audio clip is posted on its Web site. The documentary filmmaker he spoke to, Reed Cowan, formerly worked at KTVX and is now a reporter at WSVN in Miami.

[Red Mask]

Who votes for these guys, for real?

Probably the same people who wanted that Rachel Ray billboard taken down because she wore that exotic scarf.

[Red Mask]

Who votes for these guys, for real?

Probably the same people who wanted that Rachel Ray billboard taken down because she wore that exotic scarf.

[Red Mask]

Who votes for these guys, for real?

Probably the same people who wanted that Rachel Ray billboard taken down because she wore that exotic scarf.

[Hobgoblin]

Probably the same people who wanted that Rachel Ray billboard taken down because she wore that exotic scarf.

Wait. What?

[Hobgoblin]

Probably the same people who wanted that Rachel Ray billboard taken down because she wore that exotic scarf.

Wait. What?

[Hobgoblin]

Probably the same people who wanted that Rachel Ray billboard taken down because she wore that exotic scarf.

Wait. What?

[Marx]

Wait. What?

You've heard about it Demo. There was a group who led a campaign against Rachel Ray for wearing a scarf that was similar to 'the terr'rists'! The ad ended up being pulled because of the ridiculousness.

[Marx]

Wait. What?

You've heard about it Demo. There was a group who led a campaign against Rachel Ray for wearing a scarf that was similar to 'the terr'rists'! The ad ended up being pulled because of the ridiculousness.

[Marx]

Wait. What?

You've heard about it Demo. There was a group who led a campaign against Rachel Ray for wearing a scarf that was similar to 'the terr'rists'! The ad ended up being pulled because of the ridiculousness.

[spideyboy_1111]

From Drag Queen to Homecoming Queen
by Washington Post on 2/23 at 6:24 pm.
Viewed 132 times.



Spend time with George Mason University senior Ryan Allen and it's clear why he's a Big Man on Campus. He wears size 12 pumps.

Allen is now -- as of halftime at Saturday's sold-out basketball game against Northeastern at the Patriot Center -- the school's homecoming queen. He received more votes than the two women who vied for the crown.

Allen, who is gay and performs as a popular drag queen at local clubs, assumed the title of Ms. Mason. He was wearing a green-and-gold bow, sewn for him by the theater department costume's shop, that was visible even from the cheap seats, a sequined top, a black skirt and heels. Ricky Malebranche, a junior from Woodbridge, was named Mr. Mason.

Beyond the joyful tears and tiara, Allen's election exposed conflicting cultural currents at the sprawling campus in Fairfax County. Many see it as an expression of inclusiveness at a place where about one-third of the 30,000 students are minority. But others say it is an embarrassment at an inopportune time when Mason is trying to revamp its image from commuter school to distinguished institution of higher learning.

Officially, the university is "very comfortable with it. We're fine," spokesman Daniel Walsch said. The school does not require participants in the Mr. and Ms. Mason pageant to compete along precise gender lines, he said.
ad_icon

"It was just for fun," Allen, 22, said over coffee at the Johnson Center, where he was congratulated by classmates with hugs and squeals. "In the larger scheme of things, winning says so much about the university. We're one of the most diverse campuses in the country, and . . . we celebrate that."

The pageant has been a part of homecoming for five years, but it often didn't register with the far-flung student body, of which only 16 percent lives on campus. Students say it was considered the province of pretty blondes and fraternity boys.

Until now.

"I've never been into homecoming over here. This is the first time I've actually wanted to support someone," said Melissa Benjjani, 21, from Lebanon. "He deserves to be queen. He's already a queen for everybody."

George Mason has attracted greater national attention in recent years as officials worked to recruit first-class academic talent while undergoing a $400 million expansion. Then there was the Patriots' Cinderella trip to the Final Four in the 2006 NCAA men's basketball tournament -- a huge boost for school spirit.

But electing a dude as homecoming queen is not the way to bolster pride, sophomore Grant Bollinger said. Mason was recently named the No. 1 national university to watch by U.S. News & World Report, he said -- it should act like it.

"It's really annoying," said Bollinger, who works as an ambassador for the admissions office. "The game was on TV. Everyone was there. All eyes were on us. And we do something like this? It's just stupid."

Allen said he decided to enter the Ms. Mason contest this year as a joke, a last hurrah for his senior year. Soon he had donned a silver bra and zebra-print pants and was lip-syncing to Britney Spears's "Womanizer" at the qualifying pageant Feb. 9, overseen by Miss Virginia 2009. Competitors included a government and politics major from Chesapeake and a Chi Omega sorority member who told the school newspaper she should win because "I have pride in Mason to the point where my towels are green and gold."

Allen grew up in tiny Goochland, Va., about 30 miles northwest of Richmond, and endured years of taunts from classmates after coming out during his freshman year in high school. When Allen came to Mason in 2005, his world grew wider. His drag alter ego, Reann, began performing at nightclubs including Freddie's Beach Bar in Crystal City and Apex in the District. Over the years, Allen perfected his stagecraft, learning how to apply shading makeup to look more feminine and buying gowns on a student budget from other drag queens. His fame grew as each year he emceed Mason's drag show, held during Pride Week. And with fame, acceptance.

Then came Saturday.

"When they said 'Ms. Mason 2009 is Reann Ballslee,' the crowd went wild," Allen said. "It was one of the best feelings I've felt in a long time. I had so many friends supporting me."

hmmmm times are def changing... never thought i'd see a day where a drag queen won homecoming queen at a college.

[spideyboy_1111]

From Drag Queen to Homecoming Queen
by Washington Post on 2/23 at 6:24 pm.
Viewed 132 times.



Spend time with George Mason University senior Ryan Allen and it's clear why he's a Big Man on Campus. He wears size 12 pumps.

Allen is now -- as of halftime at Saturday's sold-out basketball game against Northeastern at the Patriot Center -- the school's homecoming queen. He received more votes than the two women who vied for the crown.

Allen, who is gay and performs as a popular drag queen at local clubs, assumed the title of Ms. Mason. He was wearing a green-and-gold bow, sewn for him by the theater department costume's shop, that was visible even from the cheap seats, a sequined top, a black skirt and heels. Ricky Malebranche, a junior from Woodbridge, was named Mr. Mason.

Beyond the joyful tears and tiara, Allen's election exposed conflicting cultural currents at the sprawling campus in Fairfax County. Many see it as an expression of inclusiveness at a place where about one-third of the 30,000 students are minority. But others say it is an embarrassment at an inopportune time when Mason is trying to revamp its image from commuter school to distinguished institution of higher learning.

Officially, the university is "very comfortable with it. We're fine," spokesman Daniel Walsch said. The school does not require participants in the Mr. and Ms. Mason pageant to compete along precise gender lines, he said.
ad_icon

"It was just for fun," Allen, 22, said over coffee at the Johnson Center, where he was congratulated by classmates with hugs and squeals. "In the larger scheme of things, winning says so much about the university. We're one of the most diverse campuses in the country, and . . . we celebrate that."

The pageant has been a part of homecoming for five years, but it often didn't register with the far-flung student body, of which only 16 percent lives on campus. Students say it was considered the province of pretty blondes and fraternity boys.

Until now.

"I've never been into homecoming over here. This is the first time I've actually wanted to support someone," said Melissa Benjjani, 21, from Lebanon. "He deserves to be queen. He's already a queen for everybody."

George Mason has attracted greater national attention in recent years as officials worked to recruit first-class academic talent while undergoing a $400 million expansion. Then there was the Patriots' Cinderella trip to the Final Four in the 2006 NCAA men's basketball tournament -- a huge boost for school spirit.

But electing a dude as homecoming queen is not the way to bolster pride, sophomore Grant Bollinger said. Mason was recently named the No. 1 national university to watch by U.S. News & World Report, he said -- it should act like it.

"It's really annoying," said Bollinger, who works as an ambassador for the admissions office. "The game was on TV. Everyone was there. All eyes were on us. And we do something like this? It's just stupid."

Allen said he decided to enter the Ms. Mason contest this year as a joke, a last hurrah for his senior year. Soon he had donned a silver bra and zebra-print pants and was lip-syncing to Britney Spears's "Womanizer" at the qualifying pageant Feb. 9, overseen by Miss Virginia 2009. Competitors included a government and politics major from Chesapeake and a Chi Omega sorority member who told the school newspaper she should win because "I have pride in Mason to the point where my towels are green and gold."

Allen grew up in tiny Goochland, Va., about 30 miles northwest of Richmond, and endured years of taunts from classmates after coming out during his freshman year in high school. When Allen came to Mason in 2005, his world grew wider. His drag alter ego, Reann, began performing at nightclubs including Freddie's Beach Bar in Crystal City and Apex in the District. Over the years, Allen perfected his stagecraft, learning how to apply shading makeup to look more feminine and buying gowns on a student budget from other drag queens. His fame grew as each year he emceed Mason's drag show, held during Pride Week. And with fame, acceptance.

Then came Saturday.

"When they said 'Ms. Mason 2009 is Reann Ballslee,' the crowd went wild," Allen said. "It was one of the best feelings I've felt in a long time. I had so many friends supporting me."

hmmmm times are def changing... never thought i'd see a day where a drag queen won homecoming queen at a college.

[spideyboy_1111]

From Drag Queen to Homecoming Queen
by Washington Post on 2/23 at 6:24 pm.
Viewed 132 times.



Spend time with George Mason University senior Ryan Allen and it's clear why he's a Big Man on Campus. He wears size 12 pumps.

Allen is now -- as of halftime at Saturday's sold-out basketball game against Northeastern at the Patriot Center -- the school's homecoming queen. He received more votes than the two women who vied for the crown.

Allen, who is gay and performs as a popular drag queen at local clubs, assumed the title of Ms. Mason. He was wearing a green-and-gold bow, sewn for him by the theater department costume's shop, that was visible even from the cheap seats, a sequined top, a black skirt and heels. Ricky Malebranche, a junior from Woodbridge, was named Mr. Mason.

Beyond the joyful tears and tiara, Allen's election exposed conflicting cultural currents at the sprawling campus in Fairfax County. Many see it as an expression of inclusiveness at a place where about one-third of the 30,000 students are minority. But others say it is an embarrassment at an inopportune time when Mason is trying to revamp its image from commuter school to distinguished institution of higher learning.

Officially, the university is "very comfortable with it. We're fine," spokesman Daniel Walsch said. The school does not require participants in the Mr. and Ms. Mason pageant to compete along precise gender lines, he said.
ad_icon

"It was just for fun," Allen, 22, said over coffee at the Johnson Center, where he was congratulated by classmates with hugs and squeals. "In the larger scheme of things, winning says so much about the university. We're one of the most diverse campuses in the country, and . . . we celebrate that."

The pageant has been a part of homecoming for five years, but it often didn't register with the far-flung student body, of which only 16 percent lives on campus. Students say it was considered the province of pretty blondes and fraternity boys.

Until now.

"I've never been into homecoming over here. This is the first time I've actually wanted to support someone," said Melissa Benjjani, 21, from Lebanon. "He deserves to be queen. He's already a queen for everybody."

George Mason has attracted greater national attention in recent years as officials worked to recruit first-class academic talent while undergoing a $400 million expansion. Then there was the Patriots' Cinderella trip to the Final Four in the 2006 NCAA men's basketball tournament -- a huge boost for school spirit.

But electing a dude as homecoming queen is not the way to bolster pride, sophomore Grant Bollinger said. Mason was recently named the No. 1 national university to watch by U.S. News & World Report, he said -- it should act like it.

"It's really annoying," said Bollinger, who works as an ambassador for the admissions office. "The game was on TV. Everyone was there. All eyes were on us. And we do something like this? It's just stupid."

Allen said he decided to enter the Ms. Mason contest this year as a joke, a last hurrah for his senior year. Soon he had donned a silver bra and zebra-print pants and was lip-syncing to Britney Spears's "Womanizer" at the qualifying pageant Feb. 9, overseen by Miss Virginia 2009. Competitors included a government and politics major from Chesapeake and a Chi Omega sorority member who told the school newspaper she should win because "I have pride in Mason to the point where my towels are green and gold."

Allen grew up in tiny Goochland, Va., about 30 miles northwest of Richmond, and endured years of taunts from classmates after coming out during his freshman year in high school. When Allen came to Mason in 2005, his world grew wider. His drag alter ego, Reann, began performing at nightclubs including Freddie's Beach Bar in Crystal City and Apex in the District. Over the years, Allen perfected his stagecraft, learning how to apply shading makeup to look more feminine and buying gowns on a student budget from other drag queens. His fame grew as each year he emceed Mason's drag show, held during Pride Week. And with fame, acceptance.

Then came Saturday.

"When they said 'Ms. Mason 2009 is Reann Ballslee,' the crowd went wild," Allen said. "It was one of the best feelings I've felt in a long time. I had so many friends supporting me."

hmmmm times are def changing... never thought i'd see a day where a drag queen won homecoming queen at a college.

[The Senator]

The NAACP supports overturning Proposition 8:

http://www.smartbrief.com/news/lgbt/storyDetails.jsp?issueid=AABDBE12-25F7-4E34-8178-5253C1F62147&copyid=BEC5E1E5-74A1-416A-B3D1-D86A61E0F5DA

[The Senator]

The NAACP supports overturning Proposition 8:

http://www.smartbrief.com/news/lgbt/storyDetails.jsp?issueid=AABDBE12-25F7-4E34-8178-5253C1F62147&copyid=BEC5E1E5-74A1-416A-B3D1-D86A61E0F5DA

[The Senator]

The NAACP supports overturning Proposition 8:

http://www.smartbrief.com/news/lgbt/storyDetails.jsp?issueid=AABDBE12-25F7-4E34-8178-5253C1F62147&copyid=BEC5E1E5-74A1-416A-B3D1-D86A61E0F5DA

[Reaper]

Listen to what this genius senator from Utah had to say on the subject:



http://www.abc4.com/content/news/top%20stories/story/EXCLUSIVE-Senator-Buttars-compares-some-gays-to/5k4Qh7clXUqlXFxVM2bCxA.cspx

Who votes for these guys, for real?

Hes got my vote :bh:

[Reaper]

Listen to what this genius senator from Utah had to say on the subject:



http://www.abc4.com/content/news/top%20stories/story/EXCLUSIVE-Senator-Buttars-compares-some-gays-to/5k4Qh7clXUqlXFxVM2bCxA.cspx

Who votes for these guys, for real?

Hes got my vote :bh:

[Reaper]

Listen to what this genius senator from Utah had to say on the subject:



http://www.abc4.com/content/news/top%20stories/story/EXCLUSIVE-Senator-Buttars-compares-some-gays-to/5k4Qh7clXUqlXFxVM2bCxA.cspx

Who votes for these guys, for real?

Hes got my vote :bh:

[Ugfugly]

Let gay people have the same rights that every other adult Americans have. End of discussion. How hard is that?
Heck I'm about as far right as they come and even I can see the ridiculousness of this. Just because I don't agree with this morally, my logic tells me that to deny them the same fundamental right that every other adults have is wrong. It's not like they're forcing churches to allow gay marriages. It's CIVIL unions. Morality has no place there.

[Ugfugly]

Let gay people have the same rights that every other adult Americans have. End of discussion. How hard is that?
Heck I'm about as far right as they come and even I can see the ridiculousness of this. Just because I don't agree with this morally, my logic tells me that to deny them the same fundamental right that every other adults have is wrong. It's not like they're forcing churches to allow gay marriages. It's CIVIL unions. Morality has no place there.

[Ugfugly]

Let gay people have the same rights that every other adult Americans have. End of discussion. How hard is that?
Heck I'm about as far right as they come and even I can see the ridiculousness of this. Just because I don't agree with this morally, my logic tells me that to deny them the same fundamental right that every other adults have is wrong. It's not like they're forcing churches to allow gay marriages. It's CIVIL unions. Morality has no place there.

[Marx]

Let gay people have the same rights that every other adult Americans have. End of discussion. How hard is that?
Heck I'm about as far right as they come and even I can see the ridiculousness of this. Just because I don't agree with this morally, my logic tells me that to deny them the same fundamental right that every other adults have is wrong. It's not like they're forcing churches to allow gay marriages. It's CIVIL unions. Morality has no place there.

You're my kind of Republican. http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon14.gif

[Marx]

Let gay people have the same rights that every other adult Americans have. End of discussion. How hard is that?
Heck I'm about as far right as they come and even I can see the ridiculousness of this. Just because I don't agree with this morally, my logic tells me that to deny them the same fundamental right that every other adults have is wrong. It's not like they're forcing churches to allow gay marriages. It's CIVIL unions. Morality has no place there.

You're my kind of Republican. http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon14.gif

[Marx]

Let gay people have the same rights that every other adult Americans have. End of discussion. How hard is that?
Heck I'm about as far right as they come and even I can see the ridiculousness of this. Just because I don't agree with this morally, my logic tells me that to deny them the same fundamental right that every other adults have is wrong. It's not like they're forcing churches to allow gay marriages. It's CIVIL unions. Morality has no place there.

You're my kind of Republican. http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon14.gif

[CaptainClown]

But if I let the gays get married it would affect my children in school.....THEY WILL LEARN ABOUT IT! I must shelter them!

Still one of the most clever things I saw on the Prop 8 thing was that they made gay marriage affect people who didn't care even though people with half a brain knew it had nothing to do with them. i still admire their devious minds.

[CaptainClown]

But if I let the gays get married it would affect my children in school.....THEY WILL LEARN ABOUT IT! I must shelter them!

Still one of the most clever things I saw on the Prop 8 thing was that they made gay marriage affect people who didn't care even though people with half a brain knew it had nothing to do with them. i still admire their devious minds.

[CaptainClown]

But if I let the gays get married it would affect my children in school.....THEY WILL LEARN ABOUT IT! I must shelter them!

Still one of the most clever things I saw on the Prop 8 thing was that they made gay marriage affect people who didn't care even though people with half a brain knew it had nothing to do with them. i still admire their devious minds.

[Red Mask]

But if I let the gays get married it would affect my children in school.....THEY WILL LEARN ABOUT IT! I must shelter them!

Still one of the most clever things I saw on the Prop 8 thing was that they made gay marriage affect people who didn't care even though people with half a brain knew it had nothing to do with them. i still admire their devious minds.

Yeah, that's similar to how the Nazis got the Jews, the elderly, the sick, and others shipped to the camps without objection.

[Red Mask]

But if I let the gays get married it would affect my children in school.....THEY WILL LEARN ABOUT IT! I must shelter them!

Still one of the most clever things I saw on the Prop 8 thing was that they made gay marriage affect people who didn't care even though people with half a brain knew it had nothing to do with them. i still admire their devious minds.

Yeah, that's similar to how the Nazis got the Jews, the elderly, the sick, and others shipped to the camps without objection.

[Red Mask]

But if I let the gays get married it would affect my children in school.....THEY WILL LEARN ABOUT IT! I must shelter them!

Still one of the most clever things I saw on the Prop 8 thing was that they made gay marriage affect people who didn't care even though people with half a brain knew it had nothing to do with them. i still admire their devious minds.

Yeah, that's similar to how the Nazis got the Jews, the elderly, the sick, and others shipped to the camps without objection.

[Marx]

'FOCUS ON THE 'FAMILY'' JAMES DOBSON TO STEP DOWN
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/02/27/focus-on-the-familys-dobson-steps-down/

James Dobson, evangelical leader of the Christian ministry Focus on the Family, has stepped down as board chairman, he announced Friday.

During a meeting with employees, Dobson, 72, said the move means he will no longer be involved with the administrative side of the ministry, according to spokesman Gary Schneeberger.

But Dobson's public role isn't expected to change. He'll still appear on his daily radio broadcast and as an advocate for socially conservative issues, Schneeberger said.