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.

Wednesday, December 27, 2006

Another Defeat For Mitt Romney


Massachusetts' highest court ruled against former Log Cabin Republican supporter Governor Mitt Romney Wednesday when it ruled that the Court had no authority to force lawmakers to vote on a proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, but it still criticized them for not acting.
Romney lead the opponents of same-sex marriage who collected 170,000 signatures to get an amendment on the 2008 ballot that would define marriage in Massachusetts as between a man and a woman, but their effort still needed the support of a quarter of the Legislature.
When lawmakers failed to vote on the question in November, Mormon Mitt and The Angrey Christian Conservatives sued.
They asked the court to clarify whether the state's constitution required lawmakers to vote on a proposal that was sent to the legislature by a voter petition drive. The Supreme Judicial Court determined it could not force a vote.
"Beyond resorting to aspirational language that relies on the presumptive good faith of elected representatives, there is no presently articulated judicial remedy for the Legislature's indifference to, or defiance of, its constitutional duties," the court wrote.
The same court had ruled in 2003 that the state constitution guaranteed gays the right to marry.
In the lawsuit, Mormon Mitt argued that the people's will was being thwarted and that lawmakers were violating the people's right to petition for a constitutional amendment.
The proposal must be approved in two consecutive legislative sessions to be included on the 2008 statewide ballot.
Lawmakers are due to meet on Jan. 2 — the last day of the session and it is unlikely that they will take a vote on that day.
QUESTION:WHO CHANGES POSITIONS MORE THAN SOME PEOPLE CHANGE BED SHEETS?

Tuesday, December 26, 2006

Join Rudy 2008



"America's Mayor" Former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, a moderate Republican and possible presidential candidate, is working to strengthen his hand in California by scheduling a high-profile appearance and gathering support from California's politically active republicans.
State GOP board members have ben told that Rudy will give keynote address for the state Republican Party convention in February in Sacramento.
Rudy's appearance will catapult what was expected to be a fairly routine GOP gathering into a national event -- and is almost certain to ramp up the increasingly active parade of presidential hopefuls of both parties coming to California to court donors in a state viewed as the wealthiest source of campaign cash.
Rudy already has established a camaraderie with California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger -- a Republican in the same moderate, bipartisan mold who also supports gay rights, abortion rights and stem cell research.
Despite those more liberal positions on social issues, Giuliani is gaining the backing of some California Republicans well known to the state's most conservative grassroots base: financier and former gubernatorial candidate Bill Simon and Republican political consultant and Internet publisher Steve Frank.

While conservatives may have differences with Giuliani on social policies, Frank said, "I have no differences with a guy who, as mayor, cut or eliminated 23 different taxes, and dramatically cut crime in New York. ... Like Ronald Reagan, agree or disagree, he will look you in the eye and say, 'This is where I stand.' There's a trust factor.''
And the trust factor is a major consideration. Isn't it better to vote for someone who you truts even though you disagree with his posiiton rather than someone who reverses his position to gain your support. For instance, if you support domestic partnerships when you commuicate with the Log Cabin Republicans, it is hypocritical to say that you no longer support those rights because you wasnt the support of Christian Conservatives.

You may not agree with Rudy but you can trust him

Thursday, December 21, 2006

MARRIAGE WATCH High Court Consolidates Gay Marriage Cases

State high court to review ban on same-sex marriage
December 21, 2006|Maura Dolan | Times Staff Writer
SAN FRANCISCO — The California Supreme Court agreed unanimously Wednesday to decide whether same-sex couples should be permitted to wed, prolonging the contentious legal battle for another year.

Meeting in closed session, the state's highest court voted without comment to review an October appeals' court ruling that upheld the prohibition on same-sex marriage. The court is not expected to issue a ruling until the end of next year.


Wednesday's decision does not necessarily mean that the state high court disagrees with the lower court ruling.

Although the Supreme Court could have avoided the contentious debate and let the ruling stand, the court often reviews decisions it supports if the case has statewide importance.

Christian conservatives, satisfied with the appeals' court decision, had urged the court not to take up the case. But a lawyer for one of the groups opposed to same-sex marriage expressed confidence Wednesday that his side would prevail.

"History, common sense and legal precedent are on our side," said Mathew D. Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel, which promotes traditional Christian values in the law. "Marriage as the union of one man and one woman transcends political ideology and is grounded in millennia of human history."

Other opponents of same-sex marriage called the court's decision ominous.

Randy Thomasson, a spokesman for the VoteYesMarriage.comcoalition, which hopes to place an initiative against same-sex marriage on the 2008 ballot, said the measure would be "the only way to stop judges and politicians from destroying the beautiful, natural institution of marriage between a man and a woman."

Former Assemblyman Larry Bowler (R-Elk Grove), who is also backing the proposed ballot measure, complained that the state high court was "scheming to destroy marriage and the people's right to vote on marriage."

Bowler said he believed that the three women on the seven-member court were prepared to support same-sex marriage.

Justices Joyce Kennard and Kathryn Mickle Werdegar voted in an earlier case against an immediate nullification of same-sex marriage licenses granted in 2004 by San Francisco. But the justices have not expressed their views about the constitutionality of the state's marriage laws.

Justice Carol Corrigan, the court's newest member, also has never publicly confided her views of same-sex marriage, but Bowler said gay rights groups support her.

Legal analysts suspect the court is divided on same-sex marriage but more likely than not to rule against it. The moderately conservative court has six Republicans and one Democrat and is generally viewed as cautious.

The Supreme Court's decision on the state constitutional question is final.

Gay rights groups said Wednesday's decision gave them hope.

"This is yet another indication that the California Supreme Court appreciates the importance of this issue -- not only for same-sex couples and their children, but for the entire state," said Shannon Minter, legal director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights and lead counsel in one of the marriage cases before the court.

Jon W. Davidson, legal director of Lambda Legal and one of the attorneys in the marriage cases, said it was up to the court to permit same-sex marriage in the wake of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's veto of a bill giving gay couples the right to wed.

"So long as California's statutes deny same-sex couples and their children equality," Davidson said, "it's up to the California Supreme Court to decide the issue once and for all."

The debate over same-sex marriage reached the courts two years ago when the city of San Francisco granted nearly 4,000 marriage licenses to gay couples.

The state high court later nullified those licenses, but reserved a final decision on the constitutionality of the marriage laws until the lower courts had reviewed them.

San Francisco City Atty. Dennis J. Herrera, whose office is among those still challenging the gay marriage ban, said the city was "asserting the rights of equality and privacy uniquely enshrined in our state Constitution."

"We are also asking the Supreme Court to do what the Court of Appeal did not -- to base its decision on constitutional principles rather than on its impressions of popular opinion," Herrera said.

Atty. Gen. Bill Lockyer has defended the state's marriage laws but nevertheless urged the state high court to take up the issue to provide final resolution.

"This is one of the most important issues confronting California, and the Supreme Court is the only entity that can provide the people the legal clarity needed on the question," Tom Dresslar, a spokesman for Lockyer, said after the court's action.

The state high courts of Washington, New York and New Jersey, which also have reviewed same-sex marriage, have refused to extend marriage rights to gays.

Only the state of Massachusetts now permits gay couples to wed.

*

maura.dolan@latimes.com

Monday, December 18, 2006

Frank Rich on Mary Cheney & 2008 Homophobe Candidates


Mary Cheney’s Bundle of Joy
By FRANK RICH
IT’S not the least of John McCain’s political talents that he comes across as a paragon of straight talk even when he isn’t talking straight. So it was a surprise to see him reduced to near-stammering on ABC’s “This Week” two Sundays after the election. The subject that brought him low was the elephant in the elephants’ room, or perhaps we should say in their closet: homosexuality.
Senator McCain is no bigot, and his only goal was to change the subject as quickly as possible. He kept repeating two safe talking points for dear life: he opposes same-sex marriage (as does every major presidential aspirant in both parties) and he is opposed to discrimination. But because he had endorsed a broadly written Arizona ballot initiative that could have been used to discriminate against unmarried domestic partners, George Stephanopoulos wouldn’t let him off the hook.
“Are you against civil unions for gay couples?” he asked the senator, who replied, “No, I’m not.” When Mr. Stephanopoulos reiterated the question seconds later — “So you’re for civil unions?” — Mr. McCain answered, “No.” In other words, he was not against civil unions before he was against them. His gaffe was reminiscent of a similar appearance on Mr. Stephanopoulos’s show in 2004 by Bill Frist, a Harvard-trained doctor who refused to criticize a federal abstinence program that catered to the religious right by spreading the canard that sweat and tears could transmit AIDS.
Senator Frist is now a lame duck, and his brand of pandering, typified by his errant upbeat diagnosis of the brain-dead Terri Schiavo’s condition, is following him to political Valhalla. The 2006 midterms left Karl Rove’s supposedly foolproof playbook in tatters. It was hard for the Republicans to deal the gay card one more time after the Mark Foley and Ted Haggard scandals revealed that today’s conservative hierarchy is much like Roy Cohn’s milieu in “Angels in America,” minus the wit and pathos.
This time around, ballot initiatives banning same-sex marriage drew markedly less support than in 2004; the draconian one endorsed by Mr. McCain in Arizona was voted down altogether. Two national politicians who had kowtowed egregiously to their party’s fringe, Rick Santorum and George Allen, were defeated, joining their ideological fellow travelers Tom DeLay and Ralph Reed in the political junkyard. To further confirm the inexorable march of social history, the only Christmas season miracle to lift the beleaguered Bush administration this year has been the announcement that Mary Cheney, the vice president’s gay daughter, is pregnant. Her growing family is the living rejoinder to those in her father’s party who would relegate gay American couples and their children to second-class legal or human status.
Yet not even these political realities have entirely broken the knee-jerk habit of some 2008 Republican presidential hopefuls to woo homophobes. Mitt Romney, the Republican Massachusetts governor, was caught in yet another embarrassing example of his party’s hypocrisy last week. In a newly unearthed letter courting the gay Log Cabin Republicans during his unsuccessful 1994 Senate race, he promised to “do better” than even Ted Kennedy in making “equality for gays and lesbians a mainstream concern.” Given that Mr. Romney has been making opposition to same-sex marriage his political calling card this year, his ideological bisexuality looks as foolish in its G-rated way as that of Mr. Haggard, the evangelical leader who was caught keeping time with a male prostitute.
There’s no evidence that Mr. Romney’s rightward move on gay civil rights and abortion (about which he acknowledges his flip-flop) has helped him politically. Or that Mr. McCain has benefited from a similar sea change that has taken him from accurately labeling Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson “agents of intolerance” in 2000 to appearing at Mr. Falwell’s Liberty University this year. A Washington Post-ABC News poll last week found that among Republican voters, Rudy Giuliani, an unabashed liberal on gay civil rights and abortion, leads Mr. McCain 34 percent to 26 percent. Mr. Romney brought up the rear, at 5 percent. That does, however, put him nominally ahead of another presidential wannabe, the religious-right favorite Sam Brownback, who has held up a federal judicial nomination in the Senate because the nominee had attended a lesbian neighbor’s commitment ceremony.
For those who are cheered by seeing the Rovian politics of wedge issues start to fade, the good news does not end with the growing evidence that gay-baiting may do candidates who traffic in it more harm than good. It’s not only centrist American voters of both parties who reject divisive demagoguery but also conservative evangelicals themselves. Some of them are at last standing up to the extremists in their own camp.
No one more dramatically so, perhaps, than Rick Warren, the Orange County, Calif., megachurch leader and best-selling author of “The Purpose Driven Life.” He has adopted AIDS in Africa as a signature crusade, and invited Barack Obama to join the usual suspects, including Senator Brownback, to address his World AIDS Day conference on the issue. This prompted predictable outrage from the right because of Mr. Obama’s liberal politics, especially on abortion. One radio host, Kevin McCullough, demonized the Democrat for pursuing “inhumane, sick and sinister evil” as a legislator. An open letter sponsored by 18 “pro-life” groups protested the invitation, also citing Mr. Obama’s “evil.” But Mr. Warren didn’t blink.
Among those defending the invitation was David Kuo, the former deputy director of the Bush White House’s Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. In a book, “Tempting Faith,” as well as in interviews and on his blog, the heretical Mr. Kuo has become a tough conservative critic of the corruption of religion by politicians and religious-right leaders who are guilty of “taking Jesus and reducing him to some precinct captain, to some get-out-the-vote guy.” Of those “family” groups who criticized Mr. Obama’s appearance at the AIDS conference, Mr. Kuo wrote, “Are they so blind and possessed with such a narrow definition of life that they can think of life only in utero?” The answer, of course, is yes. The Christian Coalition parted ways with its new president-elect, a Florida megachurch pastor, Joel Hunter, after he announced that he would take on bigger issues like poverty and global warming.
But it is leaders like Mr. Hunter and Mr. Warren who are in ascendance. Even the Rev. Richard Cizik, vice president for governmental affairs at Mr. Haggard’s former perch, the National Association of Evangelicals, has joined a number of his peers in taking up the cause of the environment, putting him at odds with the Bush administration. Such religious leaders may not have given up their opposition to abortion or gay marriage, but they have more pressing priorities. They seem to have figured out, as Mr. Kuo has said, that “politicians use Christian voters for their money and for their votes” and give them little in return except a reputation for bigotry and heartless opposition to the lifesaving potential of stem-cell research.
The axis of family jihadis — Focus on the Family, the Family Research Council, the American Family Association — is feeling the heat; its positions get more extreme by the day. A Concerned Women for America mouthpiece called Mary Cheney’s pregnancy “unconscionable,” condemning her for having “injured her child” and “acted in a way that denies everything that the Bush administration has worked for.” (That last statement, thankfully, is true.) This overkill reeks of desperation. So does these zealots’ recent assault on the supposedly feminizing “medical” properties of soy baby formula (which deserves the “blame for today’s rise in homosexuality,” according to the chairman of Megashift Ministries), and penguins.
Yes, penguins. These fine birds have now joined the Teletubbies and SpongeBob SquarePants in the pantheon of cuddly secret agents for “the gay agenda.” Schools are being forced to defend “And Tango Makes Three,” an acclaimed children’s picture book based on the true story of two Central Park Zoo male penguins who adopted a chick from a fertilized egg. The hit penguin movie “Happy Feet” has been outed for an “anti-religious bias” and its “endorsement of gay identity” by Michael Medved, the commentator who sets the tone for the religious right’s strictly enforced code of cultural political correctness.
Such censoriousness is increasingly the stuff of comedy. So are politicians of all stripes who advertise their faith. A liberal like Howard Dean is no more credible talking about the Bible (during the 2004 campaign he said his favorite book in the New Testament was Job) than twice-married candidates like Mr. McCain are persuasive at pledging allegiance to “the sanctity of marriage.”
For all the skeptical theories about the Obama boomlet — or real boom, we don’t know yet — no one doubts that his language about faith is his own, not a crib sheet provided by a conservative evangelical preacher or a liberal political consultant on “values.” That’s why a Democrat from Chicago whose voting record is to the left of Hillary Clinton’s received the same standing ovation from the thousands at Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church that he did from his own party’s throngs in New Hampshire. After a quarter-century of watching politicians from both parties exploit religion for partisan and often mean-spirited political gain, voters on all sides of this country’s culture wars are finally in the market for something new.

Friday, December 15, 2006

TRUNKS Names "Man of the Year"

TRUNKS:Out Inside The Cabin Blog proundly announces the name of this year's celebrated winner, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger as TRUNKS 2007 Man of The Year for his role in bringing all Californians together.

Evidence of his contnuing belief that Californians are Californians first and not just Republicans or Democrats, the Governor has named the co-chairs of his inaugural. The governor is making a strenuous effort, despite complaints from some Far Right Wing Republicans, to include Democrats in the Inaugural Ball. Former Assembly Speaker Willie Brown, (Democrat), has been asked to emcee the ceremonies Jan. 5 in Sacramento along with being one of the co-chairs.
"Bipartisanship" is the buzzword in Schwarzenegger's California. In fact, it seems that the entire California political power structure is joining Schwarzenegger at the Ball, with the Hyatt being the headquarters for the who's who of the Golden State's power elite.
The Ball itself is expected to be a the place to be for Californian politicians on January 5, 2007.
The list of inaugural co-chairs, neatly divided between Republicans and Democrats, includes:
Dick Ackerman, Republican Leader of the California State Senate,
Alan Autry, Mayor of the City of Fresno,
Frank Bigelow, Madera County Supervisor and President of the California State Association of Counties,
Barbara Boxer, United States Senator,
Warren Christopher, former United State Secretary of State,
Gray Davis, 37th Governor of California,
George Deukmejian, 35th Governor of California,
David Dreier, United States Congressman,
Heather Fargo, Mayor of the City of Sacramento,
Dianne Feinstein, United States Senator,
Bob Foster, Mayor of the City of Long Beach,
Gavin Newsom, Mayor of the City of San Francisco,
Fabian Núñez, Speaker of the California State Assembly.
Nancy Pelosi, United States House of Representatives Speaker-designate,
Don Perata, President pro Tempore of the California State Senate,
Curt Pringle, Mayor of the City of Anaheim,
Miguel Pulido, Mayor of the City of Santa Ana,
Nancy Reagan, former First Lady of the United States and California,
Chuck Reed, Mayor-elect of the City of San Jose,
Jerry Sanders, Mayor of the City of San Diego,
George Shultz, former United States Secretary of State,
Antonio Villaraigosa, Mayor of the City of Los Angeles,
Mike Villines, Republican Leader of the California State Assembly,
Pete Wilson, 36th Governor of California

(Also See The Inaugural Sponsor List)

Tuesday, December 12, 2006

Animal Activism is RIGHT nor LEFT


Andrew Sullivan's blog for today entitled "Dominion" was truly shocking and necessary to educate those of us who are used to the sour old republican excuse that animal cruelty is too liberal a cause to fight against. Right is Wrong. Truth is Right.

Monday, December 11, 2006

BROWNBACK MOUNTAIN:The Other Side of Apartheid


Senator Brownback, (R-Kansas) and dillusional presidential nominee has held up a judicial nomination because nominee once attended a GOD FORBID lesbian neighbor's commitment ceremony.
But Brownback is now willing to let the nominee over the mountain he has placed in the nominee's path if the nominee agrees to excuse herself from any cases related to same sex unions.
THIS IS BEYOND A LITMUS TEST BUT SOMETHING MORE OFFENSIVE: JUDICIAL DISQUALIFICATION THAT REEKS OF THE MCCARTHY ERA!

"Are you now or have you ever been to a commitment ceremony?" If yes, you can only be a federal judge if you promise to disqualify yourself if the issue in somehow relates to persons in a gay union or marriage or domestic partnership.

Just imagine if there was federal Hate Crimes legislation and a prosecution and the dead victim was in a committed relationship. What result? Disqualification because the judge went to a commitment ceremony of some unknown person who was a neighbor.

This concept of prior judical restraint makes me SICK.
Someone once called him Senator DUMBF$&K. I thought it was offensive. I am starting to have second thoughts.

Saturday, December 09, 2006

American Airlines Does Not Get It RIGHT!

American Airlines is acitvely going after the gay American U.S. Dollar but when it comes to Log Cabin Republicans or the Liberty Education Forum, they do not exist on the American Airlines Gay Events Calendar. I wrote to the about them Convention in Denver from May 3 - 6, 2007, but LCR/LEF are still not included in the calendar.
I do not know if it because AA are not a sponsor and their competitor is an official sponsor of the convention and symposium or because LCR/LEF are too "RIGHT" for them. Regardless, they now publish a yearly gay calendar of events in the United States regardless of whether they are the official airline of the event or not but LCR & LEF are excluded from the calendar.
I guess the "Mid-Atlantic Leather Weekend" and the "Los Angeles Leather Weekend" are worth of inclusion community inclusion (even without any type of AA code) but not LCR/LEF.
If you fly to Denver on AA (after all I do give them credit for being the first airline to offer "Domestic Partner" benefits), you can use the general LGBT Community's "Business ExtrAA" Account 527583 when booking on-line and earn 1,000 bonus miles added to ones frequent flyer account (assuming you have one with AA). In fact, you can use 527583 whenever you book on line to get 1,000 bonus miles.
It is just SHAMFUL that AA chooses to exclude LCR/LEF from the calendar for any reason at all.

Wednesday, December 06, 2006

New Jersey TV ads




MODERATOR'S UPDATE: New Jersey Legislature Passed A Bill In A Committee That Will Call Gay Relationships "Unions" Instead of "Marriage"

Sunday, December 03, 2006

True or False: Is There Another Plan To Extend Term Limits?


Is there really a plan to place another plan to extend term limits prior to the June, 2008 primiary?
Can the following statement be true?
"An idea is floating around in Sacramento to move the 2008 presidential primary from June to March and include on the March ballot measures to change redistricting and relax term limits. . . .So, theoretically, if voters approve the plan in spring 2008, Nunez could run in the June primary and the subsequent general election for an additional term."

Brothers and Sisters Gets It RIGHT


According to Gay.com, "Much of the credit for this queer coup belongs to series creator and writer Jon Robin Baitz, who's openly gay himself. Baitz has written nuanced queer characters into plays like "The Paris Letter" and "Ten Unknowns," and he contributed to the video version of "Love! Valour! Compassion!" Baitz knows the gay terrain well, in life and in fiction."

"Sister Kitty may be less of a gay activist than Mom, but she's also far from homophobic. Played by Calista Flockhart, Kitty is a conservative talk show host who supports "family values" but also Log Cabin Republicans -- who won't stop trying to recruit poor Democrat Kevin because of his famous Ann Coulter-ish sister. Kitty surprised Kevin in a recent episode by urging him to donate sperm to his impotent brother; Kevin reminded Kitty she's supposed to be "pro-family," to which she answered, "Last time I checked, brothers were family!" "
(photo:(l-r) Don Norte, Jon Robin Baitz, Gordon Davisdon, & Kevin Norte)

Friday, December 01, 2006

Siesta Time:Do You Find This Racist?


The Los Angeles Times published this photo on December 1, 2006 as their main front page photo with the following caption:"Napping: Congressional lawmakers sleep at Congress Hall, in Mexico City, Mexico, just days before President-elect Felipe Calderon is to be named president.
(AP)"
Is it really newsworth on December 1, 2006, "WORLD AIDS DAY"or is just exploitive, stereopypical, taken out of context, and racist?