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.

Thursday, April 26, 2007

LOG CABIN ASKS SEN. TOM HARMAN “WWRD – WHAT WOULD REAGAN DO?”

Sacramento – Log Cabin Republicans challenged Sen. Tom Harman for his vote yesterday on SB 559 in the Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee. Sen. Harman voted against AB 559, a bill to lower property taxes unfairly assessed on domestic partners, including senior citizens, after the death of a loved one. In a letter to Sen. Harman, Log Cabin asked him to consider the question WWRD – What Would Reagan Do” when it came voting on cutting taxes.

In its letter, Log Cabin noted that Sen. Harman is the most pro-gay Republican in the state and noted that his vote was not anti-gay but wondered if it had more to do with his “disturbing trend in favor of higher taxes.” Log Cabin has consistently supported the Senator with contributions and volunteers for his views in support of homosexuality.

“This concerns us, because more important than gay issues these days, we are more concerned about higher taxes.”

Despite the criticism raised in his recent campaign for his proposals to tax disposable diapers, support adding $3,500 in smog fees to the cost of SUVs, increasing the gas tax and eroding the two-thirds vote requirement for raising taxes, Log Cabin had retained faith in him. Now that support could be in danger. Not because he isn’t gay supportive enough, but because he may not be conservative enough on tax issues.

SB 559 would restore the property tax rates for senior and other domestic partners whose property taxes may have gone up between 2002 and 2005. Under Prop 13, spouses were exempted from a reassessment of property taxes in the event of the death of a spouse. That exemption was extended to domestic partners in 2005 by legislation passed by the California legislature and signed into law by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. Unlike Prop 13, that bill was not retroactive. SB 559 by Senator Christine Kehoe (D-Dan Diego), will make that exemption apply back to 2002 when domestic partnerships were first established. If during that time one member of a domestic partnership died and the property was reassessed due to the change in ownership and the property taxes were increased, then under this bill the surviving member could apply to have the property tax rate restored to the level at the time of death of the partner.

Domestic Partnerships were created in 2002 for same sex couples and for heterosexual senior citizens over the age of 55 who could not get married for fear of losing pensions and other benefits. Domestic partnerships allow these couples to legally designate someone to act in their behalf in the event of injury, illness or death to handle medical and financial decisions. One benefit added was to grant the property tax reassessment exemption to protect partners from facing dramatic property tax increases at a time of financial and emotional hardship.

Log Cabin Republicans met with Senator Harman’s staff on April 11 to educate him about the importance of cutting property taxes for seniors and other domestic partners. As fiscally conservative Republicans, SB 559 is one of Log Cabin’s main legislative priorities.

In their letter, Log Cabin also noted that gays and lesbians have won the battle on every issue in California but the battle for same sex marriage. Log Cabin is moving beyond the social battles in California and focusing more on core Republican issues.

“It seems our job has expanded to include educating Republicans about core Republican beliefs as well as gays and lesbian issues, “ said Vaughn.

UPDATE-FROM HARMAN WEBSITE: Senate Bill 11 was heard Tuesday, April 24 th in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Under current law, same-sex couples and heterosexual couples over the age of 62 with a common residence may establish a domestic partnership by filing with the Secretary of State. SB 11 would delete the same-sex and age requirements for domestic partnership. To grant domestic partnership rights to everyone is degrading to the invaluable institution of traditional marriage. With domestic partnership, couples will receive all the benefits of marriage without actually be married. This "faux marriage" does not encourage couples to get married and raise a healthy family. Therefore, as I have done each and every year, I cast a “no” vote against this measure.
As the lead Republican in the Senate Judiciary Committee, I am committed to protect the will of the voters who unanimously passed Prop 22 in 2000.

Log Cabin Asks Sen. Dave Godgill, "WWRD?".

Tuesday, April 24, 2007

Please Resign, You Are Now Hurting The Party

N.G.L.T.F. Hails Today’s Introduction of Transgender-inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act

National Gay and Lesbian Task Force hails today’s introduction of transgender-inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act in
U.S. House of Representatives

WASHINGTON, April 24 — The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, Inc., applauds today’s introduction of the federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which would protect against workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. The measure was introduced by two Republican Represntitives Deborah Pryce (R-Ohio), & Chris Shays (R-Conn.), along with gay Demorcatic Representive, (Barney Frank (D-Mass.)), and Representative Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.).
ENDA would provide legal recourse to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people in the 33 states that don’t currently have employment nondiscrimination laws that cover sexual orientation and to transgender people in the 42 states that do not provide protection on the basis of gender identity or expression.
The Task Force was the first national organization to advocate for federal nondiscrimination protections when it worked with then-U.S. Reps. Bella Abzug and Ed Koch, both New York Democrats, to introduce a sweeping bill in 1974. The Task Force has also played a leading role in ensuring ENDA is explicitly inclusive of transgender people. Eight years ago, the Task Force vowed to oppose the legislation if it were not inclusive, prompting criticism from some community members and allies who felt the Task Force was hindering ENDA’s progress. The Task Force has remained steadfast and partnered with transgender activists and organizations to defend and secure a transgender-inclusive ENDA and has strongly encouraged LGBT colleague organizations to do the same.
Statement by Matt Foreman, Executive Director
National Gay and Lesbian Task Force
“We vowed we would not support an Employment Non-Discrimination Act that left behind our transgender sisters and brothers. We were willing to go to the mat on this, and the measure introduced today is the direct result of that perseverance and our profound belief that equality is not to be divvied out to a select few; it is a fundamental human right for all. Today marks a critical milestone for our community and our country. For decades, a majority of the American people have supported protecting gay people from discrimination. Congress needs to act, at long last, this year.”
Additional media resources:
Learn more about the Task Force’s long history of working on federal nondiscrimination legislation. Download a copy of the Task Force map illustrating current state nondiscrimination laws.

Thursday, April 19, 2007

Democrats Demand Inquiry Into How They're Doing So Far


The Onion
April 9, 2007 | Issue 43•15

WASHINGTON, DC—Democrats in both houses of Congress demanded a thorough inquiry Monday into whether or not the American people think they are doing a good enough job, and what, if anything, they should do differently.


Sen. Majority Leader Reid grills the press on whether they like him.
"We cannot afford to make a wrong move as we face this crucial crossroads in our nation's history, which is why we need to know for sure what decision you'll support the most before we make it," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi at a Democratic National Committee fundraiser Monday, scrutinizing the assembled crowd for signs of approval. "The question facing us today is simple: Do you like us? If not, why? We demand an answer."

Added Pelosi: "The time for second-guessing our every move is now."

The DNC is in the process of forming a blue-ribbon advisory panel to investigate the true extent of Democratic popularity. Members reportedly include former Democratic congressman and independent-committee stalwart Lee Hamilton, pundit Arianna Huffington, Columbus, OH resident and semi-regular voter Nicole Jones, and Mukesh Chennapragada, a guy in the phone book. Among the panel's tasks are determining exactly what the clear mandate the Democrats received in their sweeping election victory last November was, and seeking the advice of political strategists, trend-watchers, historians, elder statesmen, psychologists, family, friends, acquaintances, and people on the street believed to represent "real Americans."

Finally, the panel will close its investigation by releasing an official "Democratic Performance Comment Card," which will rate the party as either "poor," "fair," "average," or "excellent." Room for additional comments will be provided on the back of the card.

Some Democrats, however, deem the panel inadequate, and call for Congress to appoint an independent counsel to cross-examine constituents. Others believe that the feedback from a special 1-800 "How's Our Governing?" number, which has been featured on bumper stickers affixed to the campaign tour buses of Democratic presidential candidates, should be analyzed before proceeding further.

"We need to aggressively pursue whatever it is people think we should do," Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) said. "We took a bold stance against the war—is that okay with everyone? We thought that was what people wanted, but we are not above changing our minds if that is what the situation requires. We also aired some pretty harsh rhetoric about the current administration—were we out of line? If people think we should ease back on the president for a while, we'll be more than happy to take a week off and focus on naming airports. We just need to know."

Kerry continued: "We do not—and I cannot stress this enough—want to offend anybody or cause anyone to dislike us for any reason."

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said he is confident, or mostly confident, that the results of the inquiry will make the Democratic Party more responsive to the needs of its constituents, or at least more likeable.

"We just want to be as popular as we can be," Reid said. "Without immediate and diligent oversight on this matter, we have no idea if we are or are not doing whatever it is everybody may or may not want at any given time. Most of you are still opposed to the war, right? If an election were held today, would you still vote for us? These are questions that demand answers."

"That is, unless that's too much to ask," Reid added. "If that's too controversial a question, or if it makes anyone feel uncomfortable in any way, please, just let us know. Unless, of course, you honestly don't mind. Then it's fine."

Congressional Republicans have accused Democrats of abusing their newfound power.

"They're bogging down the democratic process for no reason," House Minority Leader John Boehner said. "When we were the majority, we didn't care how Americans felt—we just did what we wanted."

The harshest criticism of the move has, as usual, come from the Democrats themselves.

"By acting hastily, we may be encouraging possible negative public opinion in 2008," Rep. Bob Filner (D-CA) said. "The last thing we Democrats need to do now is pressure the American people, when so much is on the line. If they want to give us more feedback, I'm sure they will, in time. It's best not to take too many risks."

"Right?" Filner added.

© Copyright 2007, Onion, Inc. All rights reserved.
The Onion is not intended for readers under 18 years of age.

Friday, April 13, 2007

2008:IMUS Fired While ISSAH WASHINGTON Wins NAACP Award


(NOTE-No Apology Was Necessary!)

CNN'S Coverage


I just like how our HRC leaders bend over and take it (accepting the so called apology) while Rev. Al (Tawana Brawley) and Rev. Jesse (HYMIETOWN) Jackson had enough advertiser support behind them to get Imus's head.

The GLBT Community are not even second class in this country.

Wednesday, April 11, 2007

Elected Their Cheerleader And Save Their Asses?




Cheerleader Attorney General Jerry Brown just may have saved the Democratic leaderships' asses.

"LIMITS ON LEGISLATORS' TERMS IN OFFICE. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Reduces the total amount of time a person may serve in the state legislature from 14 years to 12 years."

The title and summary does not mention that Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez and Senate leader Don Perata would see their terms extended under the initiative. The initiative is expected to be on the Feb. 5 presidential primary ballot. Both leaders are scheduled to leave the Legislature next year, unless voters approve the alteration of the 1990 law and allow them to stay in their current houses.

For legislatures elected in 2008 and there after, they could serve their 12 years by either serving 6-2 year Assembly terms or 3-4 year Senate terms (or I believe a combination of both).

My problem is that the title and summary of the proposed term limits initiative emphasizes exactly what the Democrats want California voters to hear: that the initiative would "limit" and "reduce" the terms of lawmakers.

The title and summary, which is produced by attorneys in Cheerleader Brown's office, unfortunately provides guidance for voters who like it or not do not read the entire analysis.

Lets face it, it is now a "VOTE NO ON 'LIMITS ON LEGISLATORS' TERMS IN OFFICE. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT'."

Tuesday, April 10, 2007

Assembly Bill 102 aka AB 102 aka The Names Bill


The Unofficially Entitled Kevin & Don Bill aka A.B. 102 Gives Domestic Partners Equal Opportunity To take Surname of Choice.
In September of 2003 when domestic partners were granted all the same rights and privileges of married couples, we though it was natural and in fact normal to select one single last name. We chose the name "Norte". The bill became effective January 1, 2004. Soon thereafter Don brought his Domestic Partnership document to the DMV and requested a Name Change. He wisely also brought along a copy of the DMVs regulations which he downloaded and printed out. It, at that time, recognized Domestic Partners. Don was issued his driver's license, and then went to the Wilshire Branch of the Social Security Administration Office to change his name on his Social Security Card. It took about 4 hours and they had to call Virginia to make sure it was ok. It was. Don then sent in his passport using the marriage form via US mail to the State Department and his name was changed.
Unfortunately, soon after we exercised our rights, the DMV changed their internal regs and refused to recognize Domestic Partnership name changes.
Now, there has to be a bill, unofficially named in honor of us, but it is a waste of money for taxpayers. We changed Don's sur-name. The bill is necessary because the DMV changed the regs. What a waste of taxpayer money.
AB 102, introduced on Jan. 3 by Assemblymember Fiona Ma, D-San Francisco, specifies that all Californians have the right to select a surname of their choice when they marry or enter into a domestic partnership. The legislation also requires the California Department of Motor Vehicles to issue a new driver's license or identification card with the new, chosen name upon presentation of a marriage license or certificate of domestic partnership. Six states currently recognize this naming right.
This bill is a waste of money because the same thing could be accomplished by changing the DMV regulations to what they were when Don changed his name.
California's current domestic partnership laws do address all the rights married couples have and the the issue of taking a new surname is a waste of taxpayer money but apparently, it is necessary.
We urge you to support AB 102 because it advances domestic partnership laws.
AB 102 is expected to be heard in Assembly committees this March.

UPDATE:

The DMV recently changed their regs after I started writhing to various members of the government in Sacramento. I do not know who did it, but it was done. Here are the regs.

True Full Name
Your true full name appears on your BD/LP document. If you change your name, then you must provide one of the following documents to verify your name change:
Adoption documents that contain the legal name as a result of the adoption.
A name change document that contains the legal name both before and after the name change.
Marriage certificate (issued from a local or state Office of Vital Statistics).
A certificate, declaration, or registration document verifying the formation of a domestic partnership.
Dissolution of marriage document that contains the legal name as a result of the court action.
A completed Medical Information Authorization form (DL 328) in conjunction with a gender change.
This document must be issued by a government agency within the United States or a foreign jurisdiction that is authorized to issue such documents. The document must be a legible and unaltered original or certified copy with a government seal, stamp or other official imprint. You will need to surrender your current driver license and/or ID card.
Information about birth date/legal presence documents.
Information on how to change your name.

Monday, April 09, 2007

Rhode Island Jumps On The Marriage Go Round


The mariage go round hits Rhode Island. Gay couples from Rhode Island can be legally married in Massachusetts.
Rhode Island is the only state where same-sex couples can legally wed in Massachusetts. That's because it does not have a specific law barring gay marriage.
But when they return home they find their marriages are not recognized in Rhode Island.
In February, Attorney General Patrick Lynch issued a nonbinding advisory opinion saying that Rhode Island should recognize same-sex marriages performed in Massachusetts but the state refuses to.
Thus, there is another soon to be show down. Where this takes the community, who knows but it seems like we are in Holland and the finger in the dike won't do any longer.

Friday, April 06, 2007

Tim Gill On OUT's 50 Most Powerful Gay Persons in America-David Bohnett Missing From The List


Out magazine's "50 Most Powerful Gay Men and Women in America" issue has named Tim Gill as the fourth most powerful gay person in America. I am truly greatful for Tim Gill's support of LCR and would rank him higher than Anderson Cooper or Ellen DeGeneres.
I do not know how Perez Hilton ranks 17 while Los Angeles' own Shelia Kuehl ranks 20, Lorri Jean ranks 27, and Jodi Foster ranks 43.
I, personally, would replace Chi Chi LaRue with GeoCities Founder and philanthropist David Bohnett (a support of LCR's Convention last year) and in fact, I believe it is a grave mistake to ignore Bohnett while including both LaRue and Hilton.
That rankings are as follows:
1. David Geffen
2. Anderson Cooper
3. Ellen DeGeneres
4. Tim Gill
5. Barney Frank
6. Rosie O’Donnell
7. The New York Times Gay Mafia: Richard Berke, Ben Brantley, Frank Bruni, Stuart Elliott, Adam Nagourney, Stefano Tonchi, and Eric Wilson
8. Marc Jacobs
9. Andrew Tobias
10. Brian Graden
11. Jann Wenner
12. Andrew Sullivan
13. Suze Orman
14. Joe Solmonese
15. Fred Hochberg
16. Christine Quinn
17. Perez Hilton
18. Scott Rudin
19. John Aravosis
20. Sheila Kuehl
21. James B. Stewart
22. Nick Denton
23. Tom Ford
24. Nate Berkus
25. Adam Moss
26. Jim Nelson
27. Lorri L. Jean
28. Adam Rose
29. Annie Leibovitz
30. Simon Halls and Stephen Huvane
31. Bryan Lourd
32. Bryan Singer
33. Jonathan Burnham
34. Brian Swardstrom
35. Robert Greenblatt
36. Chi Chi LaRue
37. Dan Mathews
38. Neil Meron and Craig Zadan
39. Ingrid Sischy
40. Marc Cherry
41. Carolyn Strauss
42. Irshad Manji
43. Jodie Foster
44. Christine Vachon
45. André Leon Talley
46. Hilary Rosen
47. Matthew Marks
48. Benny Medina
49. Mitchell Gold
50. David Kuhn