Kevin And Don Respond To Being Self Loathing

Looking back at their journey from the Stonewall Democratic Club to Log Cabin Republicans, they claim it was one that was actually started by the democrats. After being told that marriage as not a priority on the agenda in 1995, they became disillusioned with the DEMS. For a decade they felt like they did not belong until they met the republicans of the Log Cabin Republican Club and discovered they too shared a dream of marriage equality. This blog is now a digital time capsule of their time as Republicans and moderated by a friend and supporter.

Monday, October 30, 2006

Live Your Life

These wise words are from Andrew Sullivan's blog.

I was in the audience at the taping of the recent Bill Maher show that ran on HBO (October 27, 2006). Mr. Sullivan showed his frustration and disappointment with the GOP tactics of smear campaigns and sensationalist journalism around the country. I could not agree more. Living life as an openly gay male has been an education. Liberating, and many times uncomfortable, depending on how far I ventured from the cocoon. That which is safe can either be nurturing or disfunctional.

The Bill Maher broadcast also included Ariana Huffington, who spoke about being fearless in the face of fear. This is something we all need to practice in our daily lives. If we don't take action and sit still, avoiding confrontation, we are doomed.

The Republican party image has morphed into a face that is disfigured and paranoid. We need a leadership that is fearless, competent, humane, forward thinking and healthy. The radical right wing conservatives have overstayed their welcome. They need to get on board and learn to work with people like the Log Cabin because I for one intend on staying, regardless of how uncomfortable the journey. Freedom and equality do not come to the passive.

Let's send a message and speak the truth with no remorse when we vote and converse with one another. It is our planet. Our life. Be there. For yourself. For the ones you love. Just be there. We need you to do what's right.

Thursday, October 26, 2006

New Jersey On Board

The nation is looking toward New Jersey this week after a recent court decision to treat domestic partnerships the same as marriage under the law. It goes to show you despite the howling from the bible belt states a bridge across the country is looking more realistic.
There are a lot of people who get red in the face whenever the words "marraige" and "gay" get thrown around as if it were "normal" in the eyes of GOD. The problem is that the legal system, religion and public opinion are not on the same page at the same time. Nor should they try to be. Each are developing at its own pace. The Constitution provides the framework for government by the people- not by religous sect. Government of late need not be concerned about the sanctity of marriage to provide equal protection under the law. The IRS does not nullify the union of a man and a woman if a heterosexual couple commits what is deemed by the bible as a sin, so why should that dialogue even enter the picture with a gay couple? The pious don't realize they don't have a monopoly on basic civil rights. We who sin, (and yes that means you too) should not have our civil rights put in legislative purgatory. We all get to heaven. First-class, business-class or coach we all wind up at the same airport.

Monday, October 23, 2006

A Letter in The Times

How big is the Republicans' tent?
Los Angeles Times, October 22, 2006
Re "Some Seek 'Pink Purge' in the GOP," Oct. 18

The Christian conservative wing of the Republican Party should tread lightly on what some have dubbed a "pink purge" of high-ranking gay Republicans on Capitol Hill and in the Bush administration. As a trustee of the Log Cabin Republicans (a gay Republican group), I stand for the original values of the party, which include personal responsibility, low taxes, limited government, a strong defense and free markets. I also caution anyone even contemplating a "pink purge" that we have a lot of mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, relatives, friends and co-workers who are Republican and are equally appalled by the call for a gay purge. Purge the party of us and there may well be unforeseen consequences. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has shown that the party's tent is large enough for opposing views. It is shameful that the leaders in Washington do not see his vision as the start of a trend. Instead, some of them seem hellbent on destroying the party of Abraham Lincoln.KEVIN NORTEHollywood

Friday, October 20, 2006

Prop. 83 "Jessica's Law": A Taxing Problem

According to the legislative analyst, Prop 83, commonly referred to as "Jessica's Law", under FISCAL EFFECTS, states as follows: "These costs are likely to be in the several tens of millions of dollars annually within a few years. These costs would grow to about $100 million annually after ten years, with costs continuing to increase significantly in subsequent years. ¶Because the measure does not specify whether the state or local governments would be responsible for monitoring sex offenders who have been discharged from state parole supervision, it is unclear whether local governments would bear some of these long term costs."
When a proposition's enforcement is projected to cost $100 million annually and the initiative fails to state who is responsible for paying for it, IT IS IRRESPONSIBLE TO SUPPORT SUCH A PROPOSITION.

Thursday, October 19, 2006

Angelides Attacks Arnold As Spread Widens

Interesting to see the Democratic nominee for Governor sinking to the same diversion tactics as the reglious right. When are they going to learn that when your campaign starts to tank dirt may be a temporary attention getter, but ultimately it falls on the one digging the hole.

Wednesday, October 18, 2006

Pink "Purge" Sought by GOP-LA TIMES HEADLINE


The LA Times front page article by Johanna Neuman reports that the pink presence in the GOP is getting out of hand, according to some Christian GOP leaders. It is riduculous and insulting to think that the Republican party is in any way being undermined by the gay community. The regligous right is wrong and should be challenged by having more gay and lesbians in all levels of government step into the light of reason. Although it seems obvious the gay gene does not predispose an indivial at birth to being a Democrat or "un-Christian". If the bizzare logic is taken on face value we should set up polling places in Catholic churches so a person can have confession and vote clean of sin. Talk about a low turnout.


Tuesday, October 17, 2006

Patrick Guerriro To Step Down As LCR Leader


MARIA & ARNOLD & LCR: Life Of The Party?

On Thursday, October 12, 2006, Don and myself attended a cocktail reception at the exquisite new home of Nadine Shiff and Fred Rosen to help raise funds for the Schwarzenegger campaign. As we entered we were greeted by a server who served us either a choice of sparkling water or Pinot Griego. Nadine herself welcomed us. Also welcoming us was co-host Cristina Ferrare. Maria and Arnold showed up and after being introduced by Fred, made a short speech about how California is finally working together again. I could not agree more. Don and myself were the only LCR members there but the tent was large enough to give us plenty of room.

It was a charming experience where we got to mingle and talk to Sylvester Stallone and a Sony Executive, Anne Merrin.  Cameras flashed as the four of us talked.  Sly could not join us for dinner and Anne, well she said something about her son and I do not remember seeing her at dinner.

Following the cocktail reception, about thirty of us went next door to the Bel Air Hotel where we were treated to a scrumptious dinner hosted by Jordan and John Davis with the menu prepared by Chef Douglas Dodd that included the best Kobe Beef I have ever had. Maria usually does not pose for political pictures but being Maria, and us being LCR "boys", she gladly posed with us and her husband. She even made them retake the shot because she said Don moved.

Dinner was quite intimate and I was seated four persons away from the governor. To my left was the lovely and charming Mrs. Barbara Davis. We had a wonderful conversation about all her hard work on behalf of children's diabetes and her up-coming Carousel of Hope Ball at the Beverly Hilton. To Don's right were Layna Friedman and Alan Friedman of Alan Diamonds. They were a very charming couple and we would love to take up their offer on going to Telluride for the film festival at the end of summer.
I toasted the honorees of the evening, The First lady of California and the Governor, with a simple toast, "To Arnold and Maria, and to quote Shakespeare, 'To the future, the Undiscovered Country'." I sat down and turned to my right.  Don whispered "I feel it."  I responded, "What?" Don shot off "Tomorrow."   I, with irreverent whit   replied, "It's called tomorrow."

Honestly, we had a night to remember. Arnold and Maria treated us royally  but there was one person who tried to let everyone know that we were "new" in a snarly fashion. He came from a family that owned a company. He let everyone know it and in particular, us. I shot back that we were Log Cabin and represented a vision. But I have to thank him.  As a transition from the comfortableness he placed us in, I used that opportunity  to make that toast that I stole from Star Trek

The evening ended with us walking back to Nadine and Fred's home because they permitted us to park our Prius at their place instead of driving after the cocktail party to the Bel Air next door (only in LA-LOL)
It was our first fundraiser where it was not gay themed (or where we were not the only ones) and we proudly wore our LCR pins. We were made to feel included in every way. With the Governor a shoe-in for the next four years, the tent is large enough and it is up to myself, Don and; the members of LCR to ensure that it stays that large.

Presence at or in the party is more important than ever than absence.


Monday, October 16, 2006

Schwarzenegger One Step Ahead of the SUPREMES

The Los Angeles Times has reported, "In a setback for the Boy Scouts, the Supreme Court turned away today a free speech challenge to a city policy in Berkeley that denied a subsidy to a Scouting group because it excludes gays and atheists.The court's action lets stand rulings in California and elsewhere that have said cities, schools and colleges may deny special benefits to groups that refuse to comply with broad non-discrimination rules involving religion and sex orientation. "
Well I guess California Governor Schwarzenegger by signing SB 1441 (Kuehl-D) into law was one step ahead of the SUPREMES. SB 1441 requires all businesses and organizations receiving funding from the state to condone homosexuality or lose state funding. There is no exception for faith-based organizations or business owners with sincerely held religious convictions.
The governor's position is entirely consistent with the SUPREMES's most recent decision.
Way to go ARNOLD!

Sunday, October 15, 2006



New Law on Filing Deadlines Results in Ambiguities
Focus Column
By Kevin Norte

AB3078, approved by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on July 15, 2004, amends, in part, Section 1005 of the Code of Civil Procedure effective for motions made on or after Jan. 1. Attorneys need to be aware of this change in the law - and some resulting ambiguities.

Existing law provides for the deadlines, by reference to calendar days, for service of specified moving, supporting and opposing papers regarding motions and other hearings, as well as the deadline for the completion of discovery proceedings before trial and the deadline for demands involving the exchange of information concerning expert witnesses before trial.

The newly enacted statute revises those deadlines by referring to court days while leaving intact the references to calendar days for mailings, rather than just referring to calendar days or court days. AB3078 also makes other related changes.

The new rules to remember are that, unless an order shortening time is obtained, motions, demurrers and preliminary injunctions (where no temporary restraining order is issued) made on or after Jan. 1 must be filed at least 16 court days before the hearing. Oppositions must be filed nine court days before the hearing, and replies must be filed five court days before the hearing.

These amendments provide no benefit to parties who make motions before the effective date because amendments of this type are prospective and can only affect a notice of a hearing to be held after the effective date. See Civil Code Section 3 cf. Strauch v. Superior Court, 107 Cal.App.3d 45 (1980); De Miglio v. Superior Court, 115 Cal.App.3d 973 (1981).

The only motion that can be filed nine court days before the hearing is a motion to strike a demurrer. Code of Civil Procedure Section 435(b)(3).

AB3078 incorporates further changes to the Civil Discovery Act, set forth in AB3081 (effective July 1, 2005), which also was signed by the governor. AB3081, however, does not affect the operative date of the revisions to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1005(b).

Under Code of Civil Procedure Section 1005.5, a motion is deemed to have been made, and to be pending before the court for all purposes, on due service and the filing of the notice of motion. Cromwell v. Cummings, 65 Cal.App.4th Supp. 10 (1998).

Under Code of Civil Procedure Section 12, the notice period is computed by excluding the day that service was made (the date of mailing, for example) and includes the last day, unless it is a holiday - in which case it is also excluded. Lamanna v. Vognar, 17 Cal.App.4th Supp. 4 (1993) (three-day-weekend rule).

According to Government Code Section 6806, "[a] day is the period of time between any midnight and the midnight following." In computing days, "fractions are not counted but are deemed entire days." People v. Harvey, 193 Cal.App.3d 767 (1987).

For oppositions, Section 1005(b) requires service and filing "at least nine court days" before the hearing; therefore, the problem with the prior statute's 10th day's falling on a weekend is resolved. Before the change, the papers must be filed on the last day the court is open for business before the 10th day (See Steele v. Bartlett, 18 Cal.2d 573 (1941) (permitting "an extension would be to nullify legislative intent that an act must be performed more than a designated number of days before the event specified.") The same holds true for replies.

What has not changed is the requirement that proofs of service of the moving papers shall be filed no later than five calendar days before the hearing. State Rule of Court 317(c).

There are some delivery exceptions to the state's new 16-court-day plus either 2-5-10-20 additional calendar days for fax, express, mail in-state, mail out-of-state and mail out-of-country minimum-notice requirements. While not inclusive, the main requirements are at least 75 days' notice for summary judgment/adjudications (Code of Civil Procedure Section 437(a)) and 45 days' notice for discretionary dismissal motions based on delay in prosecution (Code of Civil Procedure Section 373 (a).

There remains the issue of notice regarding protective orders related to discovery motions. Whether sought affirmatively or in response to a discovery motion, these types of motions are subject to the Code of Civil Procedure Section 1005 notice provisions because protective orders may be issued only "pursuant to a motion." Code of Civil Procedure Sections 2017(c) and 2019(c).

Local rules related to motions and demurrers are pre-empted by state Rule of Court 981.1(a), and any local rule concerning these fields is null and void. Of course, the exception to this rule is the "local local rule" that the time and place of the filing, and the service of a motion in limine, shall be at the discretion of the trial judge. State Rule of Court 312(d)

It is questionable whether the five-calendar-day reply rule on motions to certify or decertify a class or amend or modify an order certifying a class under state Rule of Court 1854(c) remains valid, because that term is shorter than the legislated five-court-day rule for replies. See Laborers' International Union v. El Dorado Landscape Co., 208 Cal.App.3d 993 (1989).

Under a similar analysis, state Rule of Court 313(i) conflicts with the Code of Civil Procedure. While the Rule of Court states that, "to the extent practicable, all supporting memorandum, declarations, and affidavits must be attached to the motion," Code of Civil Procedure Section 1005(b) states that "all moving and supporting papers much be filed at least 16 court days before the hearing."

A temporary restraining order can remain in effect for up to 15 calendar days, unless the court permits a 22-calendar-day period for good cause shown. Code of Civil Procedure Sections 513.010(a) and 527(d)(1).

Under the revised Section 1005, a defendant is entitled to 16 court days' notice on a motion for a preliminary injunction, and, therefore, if good cause is not shown, the temporary restraining order would dissolve before the motion for a preliminary injunction's being heard. Further, even if good cause is shown, the plaintiff may face detrimental timing issues if he or she is not careful.

There are also some exceptions to the notice rules in the event of a natural disaster (earthquake, fire or flood, for example) and civil unrest (including riots and terrorist attacks). If a branch court in a particular county is closed during such an event, it is not a considered holiday. If, however, all the courthouses where the document can be filed (that is, in an entire county) are closed, then the day would count as a court holiday in that county. Bennett v. Suncloud, 56 Cal.App.4th 91 (1997).

Thirteen 13 holidays cannot be included in the counting of court days when filing motions with the court.

It does make a difference whether one first counts 16 court days or first the five calendar days, or whether one counts backward from the hearing date or forward from the date of the proof of service, because the sequence determines how many noncourt days are included or excluded in a particular count.

No published state case has been found discussing priority of applying a count of mixed calendar and court days. Hence, a resolution of the question here is one of statutory interpretation.

Legislative interpretation begins by examination of the language of the statute, giving the words their ordinary meaning and considering them in the context of the statutory framework. Barnes v. Department of Corrections, 74 Cal.App.4th 126 (1999).

Also, Section 1013(a) provides no precedent for counting under Section 1005, because Section 1013 uses different language from Section 1005 amendments, using "increased" and "before the hearing."

Section 1013(a) states, "[A]ny period of notice ... shall be extended five calendar days, upon service by mail." So Section 1013 presents no problem as to what kind of days to extend and where to count them (since they match old Section 1005's use of calendar days, without mixing day types).

One logical interpretation of the amended Section 1005 is to follow the sequence in which it reads - that is, 16 court days, increasing by five calendar days "before the hearing" for mailing, such that the calendar days fall on the later dates.

On the other hand, the rule leaves enough ambiguity that, arguably, the five calendar days could be counted as the earlier days. To demonstrate the differences, below are some applied hypothetical scenarios.

On a computer calculator, CalDays (at, calculating notice starting with calendar days for a notice date of Nov. 30, 2005, the earliest allowed hearing date was Dec. 28, 2005. However, calculating notice starting with court days, the earliest hearing date was Dec. 27, 2005.

As another example, counting manually for an Nov. 30, 2005, hearing date, counting backward and starting with calendar days gives a service date of Nov. 1, 2005. In contrast, for an Nov. 30, 2005, hearing date, counting backward and starting with court days gives a service date of Oct. 29, 2005.

Of course, if there is opposition on the merits, then issues of proper notice are waived. Defects in motion service are waived where an opposition was filed addressing the merits. Carlton v. Quint, 77 Cal.App.4th 690 (2000), modified 2000 C.D.O.S. 928.

At this juncture, whether court days are counted before counting calendar days is open to interpretation and susceptible to vigorous debate among some in the legal community. The use of CalDays should be encouraged, but it is just one tool in the process of deciding whether a motion was timely made or not.

Kevin Norte, a court research attorney, is a member of the State Bar's Committee on the Administration of Justice.


© 2004 Daily Journal Corporation. All rights reserved.