March 4, 2010

Don’t You Do It, Kors! Don’t You DARE Do It!

Equality California, one of the most powerful gay rights groups in California, appears ready to cross a union picket line today at 5 p.m.

EQCA, led by executive director Geoff Kors, is holding a party at the El Paseo Inn in downtown Los Angeles to celebrate Mexico City’s legalization of gay marriage.

The only problem, according Richard Zaldivar, founder of The Wall Las Memorias Project, an HIV/AIDS education group based in Los Angeles, is that no social justice groups in L.A.’s Latino community meet there because it is non-union.

Zaldivar tells the Weekly that El Paseo was picketed just last week for that very reason. …

More: “Will Equality California Cross A Union Picket Line?,” Queer Town, March 4, 2010

Don’t you do it, Kors. Don’t you dare be a scab — and don’t you dare do any more damage to the LGBT community than you’ve already done.

If you can’t change venues, you cancel the damned thing — and suck up any charges, because (as QT supposes) you didn’t do your homework.

Tweet This Post!

January 15, 2010

FDL Liveblogging the Prop 8 Trial: Day Five Friday AM (19)

…in which plaintiffs’ witness Michael Lamb easily avoids the flimsy traps of Mister “Allow Me to Read Aloud from 7,000 Papers and Books” defense counsel Thompson, who attempts to draw the false conclusion that since divorce is bad for children, and some lesbian and gay parents have children from previous divorces, then lesbian and gay parents are bad for children (at least, that’s what he sounds like he’s trying to say), while, as emptywheel (blogger Marcy Wheeler) observes, Thompson himself unwittingly makes “a great case for same sex marriage” :

Tweet This Post!

FDL Liveblogging the Prop 8 Trial: Day Five Friday AM (18)

…in which Michael Lamb, Cambridge U. social psychology head & NIH social development head, takes us on the (unfortunately) necessary* trip through endless studies showing that children of gay and lesbian parents are just as normal as any other kid — after which, on cross, Mister “When You Ain’t Got Nothin’ Else, Attack the Messenger” defense counsel Thompson leaps out of the gate with “You’ve been member of ACLU. And NOW? And NAACP? Amnesty Intl? Nature Conservancy? PBS? You’re a committed liberal” (OMG, the Nature Conservancy?! How utterly subversive!), then makes his usual meandering attempt to discredit the witness, achieving nothing more than making the case that men are stupider and more violent than women (hey, don’t blame me — it’s his point):

* “Unfortunately necessary” because neither procreation nor childrearing is the sole legitimate reason for marriage, but certain morons won’t let go of the idea it is, because that’s all they’ve got left.

Tweet This Post!

January 14, 2010

FDL Liveblogging Prop 8 Trial: Day Three, Thursday Afternoon Two (Seventeen)

…in which defense counsel Wilson, in cross-examination of Dr. Meyer, attempts a disingenuous ploy to show that gays and lesbians are just plain mentally sicker than anybody else, since we don’t seem to be as affected by minority stress the way African-Americans and Latinos are:

Tweet This Post!

FDL Liveblogging Prop 8 Trial: Day Four, Thursday PM One (Sixteen)

…a very somber session in which Dr. Ilan Meyer, expert on minority stigma/minority stress, brings yours truly near tears, first by quoting from a book that did a number of my own psyche and made me wish I were dead at the tender age of eleven, and then by explaining (something I find often difficult to articulate) “prejudice events” (that no average hetero experiences nor would give a second thought), and the devastating effects of internalized homophobia on on mental and physical health:

Tweet This Post!

FDL Liveblogging Prop 8 Trial: Day Four, Thursday AM Two (Fifteen)

…in which defense counsel Peter Patterson, by suggesting that same-sex marriages would cost the City and County of San Francisco money, inadvertently makes the point that SSM would create new jobs , then attempts to claim that SSM presents a cost in lost tax revenue (because unmarried couples pay more tax than married couples) — which makes us ask, “Then why do we allow hetero couples to marry if marriage lowers tax revenues?” — and in which Edwin Egan scores big for our side, again and again, on the issue of Equal Benefits Ordinances, while Patterson falls back on the now-tired fallacy of complaining about a lack of data on same-sex marriage before same-sex marriage was legal:

Tweet This Post!

FDL Liveblogging Prop 8 Trial: Day Four, Thursday AM One (Fourteen)

…in which San Francisco Chief Economist Edwin Egan lays out the revenue SF made from same-sex weddings, stood to gain, and lost, after which defense counsel Peter Patterson makes the stunning leap of ill-logic that since there was a drop-off in applications for marriage licenses by same-sex couples after marriage licenses were no longer available to same-sex couples, there is no longer a demand for same-sex marriage (!!!), and tries to twist census data to prove if SSM were legal, the demand (or “pent-up demand,” a nonsensical phrase he pulls out of his hat and repeats endlessly, like a parrot) for SSM would be negligible anyway (which makes us ask: “Well then, if we’re so insignificant, numbers-wise, then where’s the big threat to society?”):

Tweet This Post!

January 13, 2010

FDL Liveblogging Prop 8 Trial: Day Three, Wednesday PM Two (Thirteen)

…in which The Very Annoying Nicole Moss attempts to imply that Massachusetts divorce-rate statistics have some sort of cause-and-effect correlation to same-sex marriage in the state, and then complains that there isn’t enough data (to presumably prove that SSM is “harming” hetero marriages), when there can’t be any more data, because Mass SSM had only been in effect for four years prior to a given study — and also keeps trying to prove that there’s something unusual about the frequency (or lack thereof) of sex between gay people, even touching at one point on Lesbian Bed Death, prompting Dr. Peplau to ask the apparently smug and self-satisfied attorney, “Are you asking whether two lesbians can accidentally impregnate each other?”:

Tweet This Post!

FDL Liveblogging Prop 8 Trial: Day 3, Wednesday PM One (Twelve)

…in which emptywheel picks up blogging from Teddy Partridge, and we learn about the physical, psychological, and social benefits of marriage from Dr. Letitia Ann Peplau, who is then cross-examined by the very annoying Nicole Moss, who attempts to make the case 1) that these same benefits don’t apply because there’s been no empirical study (which, duh!, can’t be done until gay people are allowed to get married!), and 2) that gay men are all sluts:

Tweet This Post!

While We’re Waiting for the Next Prop H8 Installment…

Since the action left off with video of Hak-Shing William Tam’s damning deposition, it seems only fitting to post something I wrote elsewhere, which should drive home the importance of Tam’s depo for those unfamiliar with him, with his revolting homophobia, and with the further damage his testimony will do to the Anti-Gays’ (so far nonexistent) case:

January 8, 2010

You’ve heard this much already:

Witnesses for the defense in the Proposition 8 trial, due to begin Monday, January 11, with delayed coverage via YouTube, are threatening (and, apparently, in some cases) begging to withdraw from testifying.

Why? The official excuse: They’re afraid such exposure will open them up to harrassment, even violence, from those horrible, radical, militant homosexuals.

Never mind that there has been no reliably documented violence against marriage equality foes. Oh, you’ll hear plenty of stories, all apocryphal and specious at best. (Did you hear the one about the phantom Super-Gay who managed to grab 75 “Yes On 8″ yard signs, punch a poor, defenseless champion of moral values, and then disappear on foot, without a trace?)

Never mind what I like to call… lies.

And never mind all the obvious questions, such as:

“If your name and testimony are going to be part of the public record anyway, what difference is a little TV exposure going to make now?”

and

“Gee, you guys sure were happy to fill the airwaves with your anti-gay screeds, from appearing on ‘Dr. Phil’ to proudly posting your own hate rallies on YouTube. Why are you going shy all of a sudden?”

and

“Are you saying you don’t really stand by everything you said you did?”

No, never mind all that. The real reason is this:

If these bigots are forced, under oath, to own up to all the breathtaking lies they spewed throughout the Prop 8 campaign, they will have made the plantiffs’ case for them, hands down.

Take Mr. Hak-Shing William Tam, one of the original pro-H8 proponents who volunteered “to become a defendant in the case,” and “is now asking to be removed from the case.”

“On Friday, Tam told U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker that he fears for his and his family’s safety. In his court filing, Tam’s lawyers say the trial will bring him unwanted publicity and expose him to retribution from gay marriage supporters.

“Tam also says the case has been more time-consuming and more intrusive into his personal life than expected.” (source)

I’ll wait while you enjoy a good belly laugh at Mr. Tam’s whining about the intrusion into his personal life. (Isn’t cognitive dissonance a wondrous thing to behold?)

All done? Good.

Now, if you are tempted to take Mr. Tam’s concerns at face value, consider this:

Judge Vaughn Walker was very specific about the evidence he wanted to see from the plaintiffs (the good guys). Of particular note is proof that the campaign for Proposition 8 was based on anti-gay sentiment; in other words, did the proponents exploit homophobia (as opposed to making the case that marriage equality posed a tangible detriment to society at large) in order to sway voters to pass the initiative?

That part of the order, my friends, is easier than shooting fish in a barrel. I could post a laundry list of such evidence mostly from memory by now, but I would rather direct your attention to a lengthy PDF file, Plaintiffs’ Trial Exhibit List in Perry v Schwarzenneger, which lists nearly 2,000 pieces of evidence, from prop-Prop 8 press releases to slate mailers to YouTube videos to interview transcripts to depositions and far, far beyond.

Seriously, click the link. Just skim through it. Page after page. Item after item. Bask in it for a moment.

Earlier, I wrote: “If these bigots are forced, under oath, to own up to all the breathtaking lies they spewed throughout the Prop 8 campaign…”

Without all those reams of evidence staring them in the face, the defense witnesses could, of course, perjure themselves — and ask God’s forgiveness later, which would make everything all right (Mormons, especially, have lying for a “good cause,” or Lying for the Lord, down to a science) — and considering how much they’ve lied their asses off already, I wouldn’t think a little thing like perjury would bother their washed-in-the-blood consciences a bit.

But now they can’t lie. They are on tape, in print, on record.

When forced to confront their own statements, they must, else risk a perjury charge, be forced to make the plantiffs’ case. Hands down.

And here’s the extra-added bonus: They are going to be forced to expose themselves as delusional lunatics.

Take our friend, Mr. Tam:

“In the run-up to the Prop. 8 vote, Tam told supporters that if the measure didn’t pass, ‘Every child, when growing up, would fantasize marrying someone of the same sex’ and that the ‘gay agenda’ included ‘legaliz[ing] sex with children.’ He also warned about each state falling one by one into the hands of Satan.” (source)

Mr. Tam, if you were the sole witness for the defense, you would make the case for the plaintiffs, all on your own little lonesome.

I cannot wait to see you take the stand.

Later, I was asked if there were “any legal loopholes for the bigots to win with”; I replied (and am posting it here for the record, so we can see later if my predictions bear out):

IANAL, but none as far as I can see after poring over all the briefs and analyses by people far better versed than I.

The H8ers have won a “gimme” here and there — such as not being ordered to release all their internal campaign emails (no big deal, AFAIC) — but nothing I can see that should have any effect on the outcome.

I predict Olson-Boies will win this one hands down — and then, as the case moves up the appeals ladder, our chances of continuing to win will get smaller and smaller.

And with the makeup of the current SCOTUS, we’re pretty much screwed. OTOH, if by some miracle, the justices actually do their jobs and follow the law as written, they will have no choice but to uphold Judge Walker’s original decision (which I can’t help but believe will be the first, if the only, win for us).

When it gets that far, it’s all going to rest on Justice Kennedy’s shoulders — and he’s nearly impossible to predict, even though he did write the majority opinion on Lawrence v. Texas ([something] I didn’t expect we’d win at all). So that’s something, but I’m not going to pin my hopes on him. Otherwise, I believe it’s going to end up 4 to 4, with Kennedy responsible for the most sweeping civil-rights decision (good or bad) since Loving v. Virginia.

The only thing that gives me any hope at all is the presence of Ted Olson. If I were the praying sort, I’d be praying every minute of the day for his continued good health (it’s going to be a long fight) — and for his wisdom to stay out of dark alleys and small planes.

Tweet This Post!

FDL Liveblogging Prop 8 Trial: Day Three, Wednesday Morning Two (Eleven)

…an unforgettable installment of high tension and many slam-dunks for our side, in which defense attorney Thompson attempts to equate boycotts with “AGGRESSIVE VIOLENT ACTS taken by the LGBT community” (which, of course, is the reason folks hate the gays so!), after which SF attorney Stewart, on redirect of Professor Chauncey, annihilates Thompson’s attempted claim that Anti-Gays aren’t anti-gay, winding up with a deadly-damning video of the deposition of Hak-Shing William (Mister “Next on the gay agenda is legalizing sex with children, and, oh, I don’t want to testify at the Prop 8 trial anymore! Waaah!“) Tam:

Tweet This Post!

FDL Liveblogging Prop 8 Trial: Day Three, Wednesday Morning (Ten)

…in which defense attorney Thompson, on cross-examination of Professor George Chauncey, wends his way aimlessly through a series of pointless and irrelevant questions we can only assume are meant to demonstrate that 1) gay people face no real discrimination anymore, so 2) what’s the big whoop about marriage? — but we’re not really sure that’s his point (and, apparently, neither is anyone else):

Tweet This Post!

January 12, 2010

FDL Liveblogging Prop 8 Trial: Day Two, Tuesday Afternoon (Nine)

…in which Professor George Chauncey takes us on a painful but necessary (and riveting) journey through the horrific (and, by police, often illegal) anti-gay discrimination of the 20th century, highlighted by homophobic propaganda in popular culture, the McCarthy witch hunts, and Anita Bryant’s “Save the Children” crusade:

Tweet This Post!

FDL Liveblogging Prop 8 Trial: Day Two, Tuesday Morning (Eight)

…in which counsel for the defense throws everything under the sun at Professor Cott in the vain hope something will stick (WTH does “assisted reproductive technology,” a subject far afield of Professor’s Cott’s area of expertise, have to do with SSM, or with the price of cheese in Bolivia, for that matter?), and no sense whatsoever is made until good-guy Boutrous eagerly takes up re-direct:

Tweet This Post!

FDL Liveblogging Prop 8 Trial: Day Two, Tuesday Morning (Seven)

…in which we learn, from the encyclopedic knowledge of Harvard Professor Nancy Cott, more about the history of marriage in the United States than you’ve ever heard before (seriously, fascinating stuff) — and in which the defense reads endlessly from law-journal articles, asks Professor Cott many meaningless questions (to the effect of “Do you agree? Well, do you?!”) in some sort of bizarre attempt to trip her up (about what, who knows?), and even drags out the name of anti-gay activist and troll David Blankenhorn, as if his opinion ever counted for anything more than feeding the equality-haters who fervently want to believe he’s actually a “liberal Democrat”:

Tweet This Post!

January 11, 2010

Scrolling REAL-Time Prop H8 Trial Action from ALL Sources (Wow!)

Twitter feeds, blogs, news articles, all at once:

Tweet This Post!

FedcourtJunkie Prop H8 Live Twitter Feed

Perry on the power of the word marriage: “Why would everyone be getting married if it didn’t do anything?” Everyone laughs

Direct done. No cross exam of Perry. TedO calls Perry’s partner, Sandra Stier, to the stand. Pray for my laptop battery…

Stier was married to a man for 12 years, then fell in love with Perry. Marriage was very difficult, but says coming out was unrelated

Says she wasn’t in love with her husband, didn’t understand love. “It didn’t really make sense to me.”

Walker just asked his first substantive question: if state stopped using word marriage for everyone, would that be OK? Stier: yes

Stier describing #prop8 supporters campaign, when they say evil must be stopped. “And that evil is, us, I guess?”

Direct done,.No cross exam of Stier. Now calling Havard Prof. Nancy Cott, who will testify about the history of marriage as an institution

Gibson ptnr Ted Boutrous handling direct exam of Cott

Cott: “Marriage is at the foundation of the private realm”

More…

Tweet This Post!

FDL Liveblogging Prop 8 Trial Six: Monday Afternoon

Tweet This Post!

FDL Prop 8 Liveblogging Five: Monday Afternoon

Tweet This Post!

Best Live Blog of Prop H8 Trial: FDL

Greatest detail/verbatim transcript of all — Teddy Partridge must be a professional stenographer:

Prop 8 Liveblogging One

Prop 8 Liveblogging Two

Liveblogging Prop 8 Trial Three

Liveblogging Prop 8 Trial Four

Tweet This Post!

Your Best Bet for Following Prop H8 Trial Live

These tweets are especially telling:

Prop. 8 proponents object to question about Paul’s experiences as calling for “expert” testimony. Overruled.

Defenders of Prop 8. object to the showing of one of their TV ads from the campaign

Defenders object to showing of ad that cites a “homosexual agenda” as a reason to stop marriage equality. Overruled.

Lamest “argument” so far:

Cooper: Marriage equality, through which more people would be allowed to marry, will lead to fewer marriages

Cooper’s been such an ass from day one, a person would think he was a ringer for our side.

Tweet This Post!

SCOTUS That Hates Transparency Kills It Again

Figures:

U.S. Supreme Court blocks video coverage of Prop. 8 trial

The U.S. Supreme Court, acting on an appeal from conservative defenders of California’s ban on same-sex marriage, overruled a federal judge in San Francisco today and blocked video coverage of the trial on YouTube.

In a brief order, the justices said they were halting the move by U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker “permitting real-time streaming” of the trial, “except as it permits streaming to other rooms within the confines of the courthouse in which the trial is to be held.”

“Any additional order permitting broadcast of the proceedings is also stayed pending further order of this court,” the justices said. They added that the temporary order “will remain in effect until Wednesday, Jan. 13.”

The high court did not explain its reasoning.

Only Justice Stephen G. Breyer, a San Francisco native, dissented. “In my view, the court’s standard for granting a stay is not met” in this case, he wrote. “In particular, the papers filed, in my view, do not show a likelihood of ‘irreparable harm.’ ” …

More B.S. the link.

Tweet This Post!

Today’s the Day

SAN FRANCISCO — January 11, 2010 — The federal trial over the unconstitutionality of Proposition 8 will begin Monday, January 11 with an opening statement by attorney Theodore Olson, who with David Boies is leading the legal team assembled by the American Foundation for Equal Rights to litigate the case, Perry v. Schwarzenegger. Opening statements will be followed by testimony from Kris Perry, Sandy Stier, Paul Katami and Jeff Zarrillo, who comprise two couples who wish to be married but who were denied marriage licenses because of Proposition 8.

Available info: please contact press@equalrightsfoundation.org

NOTE: POLICE OR COURTHOUSE CREDENTIALED MEDIA ONLY

• For courthouse access information, visit: https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/09cv2292/

• For information about remote viewing locations, visit: http://www.equalrightsfoundation.org/news/watch-prop-8-trial-live/

• Visit http://www.equalrightsfoundation.org for updates regarding potential broadcast of trial, photos, any available footage, court filings, live tweets from the courthouse and more.

• Plaintiff’s case is outlined at http://www.equalrightsfoundation.org/legal-filings/plaintiffs-trial-brief/

Olson and Boies notably represented George W. Bush and Vice President Al Gore respectively in the 2000 Supreme Court case that decided the presidency.

At trial, Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker of the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, will weigh witness testimony, a multitude of documents and other evidence, and arguments presented by some of the nation’s most distinguished attorneys.

“This unequal treatment of gays and lesbians denies them the basic liberties and equal protection under the law that are guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution,” the plaintiffs’ suit states.

According to the suit, Prop. 8:

• Violates the Due Process Clause by impinging on fundamental liberties.

• Violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

• Singles out gays and lesbians for a disfavored legal status, thereby creating a category of “second-class citizens.”

• Discriminates on the basis of gender.

• Discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation.

Olson and Boies will also point out the “crazy quilt” of separate, unequal and unconstitutional classifications of people that Prop. 8 has compelled the California government to create:

• Opposite-sex couples who have full marriage rights

• Same-sex couples who have no marriage rights

• Same-sex couples married between May and Nov. 2008 whose current marriages are recognized, but who will be unable to remarry if widowed or divorced

• Same-sex couples married in other states who may petition California for recognition.

The defendants have the burden of demonstrating that Prop. 8 is narrowly drawn to serve a compelling government interest. Olson and Boies will demonstrate at trial, however, that the initiative fails to advance even a single legitimate interest. Tellingly, when asked by Chief Judge Walker at an Oct. 14 hearing to identify any harm to opposite-sex marriage that would result from marriage equality, the defendants’ attorney answered “I don’t know.”

The case against Prop. 8 has proceeded with uncommon speed toward trial. In an order issued after the first hearing in the case, Chief Judge Walker stated: “Given that serious questions are raised in these proceedings … the court is inclined to proceed directly and expeditiously to the merits of plaintiffs’ claims. … The just, speedy and inexpensive determination of these issues would appear to call for proceeding promptly to trial.”

“More than 30 years ago, the United States Supreme Court recognized that marriage is one of the basic rights of man,” the suit states, referring to the Court’s decision in Loving v. Virginia.

Chad Griffin, board president of the American Foundation for Equal Rights, noted that near the time when the Supreme Court struck down interracial marriage bans with its 1967 Loving v. Virginia decision, a Gallup poll found that 73 percent of Americans did not approve of interracial marriage.

While Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown were named defendants in their official capacities, along with other state and county officials, Prop. 8 is being defended in court by a prominent conservative organization, the Alliance Defense Fund. Gov. Schwarzenegger earlier filed a brief that did not dispute the unconstitutionality of Prop. 8, and called for swift action by the courts. Attorney General Brown, the state’s chief law enforcement officer, filed a brief agreeing with the plaintiffs’ position that Prop. 8 is unconstitutional.

The ACLU, Lambda Legal, and National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) are participating in the case as amici (friends of the court) in support of the plaintiffs. The City and County of San Francisco, led by City Attorney Dennis Herrera and Chief Deputy City Attorney Therese Stewart, are supporting the plaintiffs’ team as co-counsel, with a specific focus on the negative impact Prop. 8 has on government services and budgets. Herrera and Stewart led the legal battle toward the California Supreme Court decision that struck down California’s previous same-sex marriage ban.

The American Foundation for Equal Rights Advisory Board, which was announced January 9th, includes Julian Bond, Lt. Dan Choi, Margaret Hoover, Dolores Huerta, Cleve Jones, Stuart Milk, David Mixner, Hillary Rosen and Judy Shepard. For more information, see http://www.equalrightsfoundation.org/press-releases/american-foundation-for-equal-rights-names-advisory-board/.

Olson is a former U.S. Solicitor General and is widely regarded as one of the nation’s preeminent constitutional lawyers, and has argued 55 cases in the U.S. Supreme Court. Boies ranks as one of the leading trial lawyers of his generation, having secured landmark victories for clients in numerous areas of the law. This is the first time they have served alongside each other as co-counsel.

Kris Perry and Sandy Stier have been together for nine years and are the parents of four boys. Perry is Executive Director of First 5 California, a state agency that promotes education and health for children under five. She holds a BA from the University of California, Santa Cruz and an MSW from San Francisco State University. Stier is Information Technology Director for the Alameda County Behavioral Health Care Services Agency. She is originally from Iowa and is a graduate of the University of Iowa. Perry and Stier first tried to marry in 2004, after the City of San Francisco began issuing licenses. They live in Berkeley, CA.

Paul Katami and Jeff Zarrillo have been together for eight years. Katami is a fitness expert and business owner who graduated from Santa Clara University before receiving his graduate degree from UCLA. Zarrillo is the General Manager of a theater exhibition company. A native of New Jersey, Zarrillo graduated from Montclair State University. Having wanted to marry each other for more than two years, they considered options including traveling to other states for a “civil union,” but felt any alternative fell short of marriage. They live in Burbank, CA.

They have issued the following joint statement: “We and our relationships should be treated equally under the law. Our goal is to advance the cause of equality for all Americans, which is the promise that makes this nation so great.”

Source: American Foundation for Equal Rights

Tweet This Post!

January 7, 2010

New Jersey: 20 Bigots, 4 Cowards, and 2 MIAs Kill Equality

Another day, another defeat. So what else is new?

Same-sex marriage defeated in New Jersey

The New Jersey Senate Jan. 7 voted down “The Freedom of Religion and Equality in Civil Marriage Act,” the bill that — if signed by Gov. John Corzine — would have made the Garden State the sixth state in the nation to legalize same-sex marriage.

After hours of debate, the Senate saw an end vote of 20 against, and 14 for. There were 4 abstentions and 2 senators absent.

Garden State Equality, the grassroots organization fighting for same-sex marriage in the state, aim to continue the fight. …

Prior to the vote, the Senate heard remarks from Senator Sandra Cunningham (D). A descendant of African American slaves, Cunningham detailed America’s “history of inequity for black people” and said, “I cannot in good conscience not support anyone’s fight… to have a kind of life that we all want to have.

“All of us have a right to dignity, a right to love, and a right to respect.”

Tweet This Post!

November 17, 2009

Stupid Callous Homophobic Hateful Legislation

Tweet This Post!