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.

Friday, January 25, 2008

Equality California's "Let Freedom Ring" AD

Wednesday, January 23, 2008

La Puenata Learning Center -Plan To Ask The Governor To Change His Position


Fwd: Eight Organizations: One Event

Wednesday, January 23, 2008 1:26 PM
From:
View contact details
To:
"Daniel Zingale"
Message contains attachments
1 File (7KB)
Daniel,
Please excuse me for bothering you. I totally understand that this is a busy time, especially with the budget.  I am writing because some of my friends will possibly ask tomorrow night if at a minimum the First Lady will stop by our table at the Puenta event or perhaps we could have a few minutes of her time off to the side somewhere.  Besides Matt Foreman, Neil Giuliano, and Geoff Kors, who I will see tomorrow night, John Duran, Charles Robbins of The Trevor Project, Damon Romaine of GLAAD, James Vaughn of Log Cabin Republicans, Ryan J. Davis of The Huffington Post, and ourselves, Kevin and Don Norte will be at the Puenta event to support and honor the First Lady.  But I would simply like to know, if asked, if she would even stop by our table at the event.  The guys are so excited about the event.  Again, please accept my apologies but they simply want to know if they can meet "Maria".  Hey, what can i say. 
I think the both of them are doing a terrific job.
kev
213.200.4718
EIGHT ORGANIZATIONS:
ONE EVENT

Please join the Equality California Institute, GLAAD, Human Rights Campaign, L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center, Log Cabin Republicans, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, National Stonewall Democrats, & PFLAG.
Thursday, January 24
6 - 8 p.m.
L.A. Gay and Lesbian Center
Village at Ed Gould Plaza
1125 N McCadden Pl.
Los Angeles, Calif. 90038
RSVP via email to January24Event@eqca.org

For questions about the event call
Doug Flater at 760.327.0084

Participants will be asked to make a financial contribution to the campaign.
www.LetCaliforniaRing.org
Featured Speakers:

Joe Solmonese
Human Rights Campaign
Matt Foreman
National Gay and Lesbian Task Force
Neil Giuliano
GLAAD
Patrick Sammon
Log Cabin Republicans
Lorri Jean
L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center
Jody Huckaby
PFLAG
Geoff Kors
Equality California Institute
---

Thursday, January 17, 2008

Schwarzenegger Flip Flops on Prop 93, Gays Can Only Hope Arnold Will Flip Flop on Gay Marriage



By  (about the author)

Become a Fan Become a Fan   -- Page 1 of 2 page(s)


I voted as a director of the Log Cabin Republicans Political Action Committee - California to oppose Proposition 93 (Term Limits). I voted to oppose it because it favored certain legislators who are in place and if passed, it will, in certain situations not only permit them to serve more than the 12 year limitations set forth in Proposition 93 but more than the 14 maximim set forth in the original 1990 initiative. If this loophole was not there, I would have supported it.

I resented the fact that Proposition 93 was placed on the February 2008 ballot so that, if passed, the once termed out legislators, could than file for the primary in June of 2008. To me, it seemed underhanded and self-serving for the legislative members that might benefit from it.

But then I heard that Governor Schwarzenegger "flip-flopped" on Proposition 93 and I seriously had to take a step back. I asked myself, "Do I want a Governor who flip flops and justifies his flip flop with a terrific editorial or do I want a stoic governor who never changes his mind?" I had to answer, truthfully, that I want a governor who is willing to grow, listen, and change. One who can intellectually support his position with logical reasoning. Schwarzenegger has done that.

True, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger flip flopped on Proposition 93 mainly because he likes working with the current legislature. Now, Schwarzenegger is in a unique position because he was elected in a recall election and will never serve out 2 four year terms. With that in mind and knowing that his term is over at the end of 2010, I understand his position of not wanting to work with a new legislature but one that he is used to. Sure, he was originally against Proposition 93, but he changed his mind. Who hasn't?

And wouldn't I be a hypocrit if I did not hope that he flip flops on the issue of gay marriage if the California Supreme Court voids the anti-gay marraige initiative? Yes, I do want Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to flip flop on gay marriage if permitted to do so by the California Supreme Court sometime this year.

So while I do not support Porposition 93 in its current form, I do respect Governor Schwarzenegger's position of wanting to complete his term with a legislature he is familiar with.

Here is his editorial. Please make up your own mind:

The folowing is used with permission of Governor Schwarzenegger. It appeared in the January 15, 2007 edition of the Los Angeles Times.

"He backs Prop. 93, the governor says, because it will improve government.

By Arnold Schwarzenegger
January 15, 2008

I have long advocated reform in Sacramento, and I am proud of what has been accomplished since I took office in 2003. Now we need to take other important steps to make state government even more responsive to the people we serve.

We need redistricting reform to make the political system more competitive and more representative of the citizens of California. We need campaign finance reform to limit the influence of money in politics, and it is time to reform legislative term limits.

Term limits have been on the books since 1990, and I strongly support the idea of restricting the number of years politicians can spend in office. Elected officials who serve for decades lose a sense of urgency to make things better, and they often fall out of touch with the public. But we went too far and need to make some important refinements, as we do all the time with legislation that needs to be corrected, because the people are not well served by the current system.

In fact, the current system of term limits -- which allows members of the Senate to serve two terms (eight years) and members of the Assembly three terms (six years), with a total maximum of 14 years -- is contributing to Sacramento's problems rather than fixing them. I am endorsing Proposition 93, which would lower the total number of years a member could serve to 12, but also allows him or her to divide them between the houses as they choose. I am convinced that this would result in the people of California getting a more experienced, more independent Legislature.

It takes time to learn how to govern effectively. Under the current system, our elected officials are not given the time they need to reach their full potential as public servants. Just as they get seasoned in one house, they know their time is beginning to run out, and they must start positioning themselves to run for a new office.

Imagine what would happen if we told a big-city police chief or a sheriff he could stay in the job just long enough to start mastering it and then had to move on. Or if we told teachers they had to switch careers just as they started to accumulate enough experience and wisdom to really connect with their students.

Just look at the issues we are working on in Sacramento right now. We are debating the best way to make sure we never run out of water. How to reform one of the world's largest prison systems. How to fix a broken healthcare system in California that consumes more than $200 billion a year. How to fix our schools. Our budget system. How to rebuild California's aging infrastructure.

These are extraordinarily complex issues that have overwhelmed this state for decades. The people of California are not well served by so much turnover and the lack of expertise in the Legislature.

Our legislators should be given an opportunity to become outstanding at their jobs. To become policy experts who can make the kind of informed and forward-thinking decisions this state desperately needs.

The current term-limits law has created another unintended consequence that also must be fixed. It has ceded too much power to the special interests in Sacramento, because the unions, corporations and lobbyists take advantage of the relentless campaign cycle faced by legislators forced to seek a new position. Your representatives become more concerned with campaign cash, endorsements and independent expenditures than public policy. So they operate in fear of alienating the special interests they must constantly rely on for campaign money. Former Republican leader Jim Brulte had the right idea when he said he was endorsing Proposition 93 because it will give legislators the confidence to say "no" to special interests.

The constant jockeying for new positions also makes legislators more dependent on their political party and its most extreme elements. Allowing members to serve more time in the Assembly or Senate will help bring more civility and less partisanship to Sacramento.

When Proposition 93 was first introduced, I said I would not support it without a companion redistricting measure. Though some progress was made last year on that issue, we have not been able to agree on a redistricting measure in the Legislature; I'm supporting a proposal that was drafted by reform allies including AARP, Common Cause and the League of Women Voters. But Proposition 93 is good public policy irrespective of redistricting, and on its own, it will go a long way toward improving the quality of state government in California.

The reform of term limits -- along with campaign financing and redistricting -- will create fundamental and positive change in Sacramento. The Legislature will be more representative of the people and less beholden to special interests. Its members will have more time to do their jobs well and, most important of all, problem-solving will be a higher priority than partisanship and ambition.

Arnold Schwarzenegger is the governor of California."

Schwarzenegger Flip Flops on Prop 93, Gays Can Only Hope Arnold Will Flip Flop on Gay Marriage

January 17, 2008

Schwarzenegger Flip Flops on Prop 93, Gays Can Only Hope Arnold Will Flip Flop on Gay Marriage

By Kevin Norte

I voted as a director of the Log Cabin Republicans Political Action Committee - California to oppose Proposition 93 (Term Limits). I voted to oppose it because it favored certain legislators who are in place and if passed, it will, in certain situations not only permit them to serve more than the 12 year limitations set forth in Proposition 93 but more than the 14 maximim set forth in the original 1990 initiative. If this loophoe was not there, I would have supported it.

I resented the fact that Proposition 93 was placed on the February 2008 ballot so that, if passed, the once termed out legislators, could than file for the primary in June of 2008. To me, it seemed underhanded and self-serving for the legislative members that might benefit from it.

But then I heard that Governor Schwarzenegger "flip-flopped" on Proposition 93 and I seriously had to take a step back. I asked myself, "Do I want a Governor who flip flops and justifies his flip flop with a terrific editorial or do I want a stoic governor who never changes his mind?" I had to answer, truthfully, that I want a governor who is willing to grow, listen, and change. One who can intellectually support his position with logical reasoning. Schwarzenegger has done that.

True, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger flip flopped on Proposition 93 mainly because he likes working with the current legislature. Now, Schwarzenegger is in a unique position because he was elected in a recall election and will never serve out 2 four year terms. With that in mind and knowing that his term is over at the end of 2010, I understand his position of not wanting to work with a new legislature but one that he is used to. Sure, he was originally against Proposition 93, but he changed his mind. Who hasn't?

And wouldn't I be a hypocrit if I did not hope that he flip flops on the issue of gay marriage if the California Supreme Court voids the anti-gay marraige initiative? Yes, I do want Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to flip flop on gay marriage if permitted to do so by the California Supreme Court sometime this year.

So while I do not support Porposition 93 in its current form, I do respect Governor Schwarzenegger's position of wanting to complete his term with a legislature he is familiar with.

Here is his editorial. Please make up your own mind:

The folowing is used with permission of Governor Schwarzenegger. It appeared in the January 15, 2007 edition of the Los Angeles Times.

"He backs Prop. 93, the governor says, because it will improve government.

By Arnold Schwarzenegger
January 15, 2008

I have long advocated reform in Sacramento, and I am proud of what has been accomplished since I took office in 2003. Now we need to take other important steps to make state government even more responsive to the people we serve.

We need redistricting reform to make the political system more competitive and more representative of the citizens of California. We need campaign finance reform to limit the influence of money in politics, and it is time to reform legislative term limits.

Term limits have been on the books since 1990, and I strongly support the idea of restricting the number of years politicians can spend in office. Elected officials who serve for decades lose a sense of urgency to make things better, and they often fall out of touch with the public. But we went too far and need to make some important refinements, as we do all the time with legislation that needs to be corrected, because the people are not well served by the current system.

In fact, the current system of term limits -- which allows members of the Senate to serve two terms (eight years) and members of the Assembly three terms (six years), with a total maximum of 14 years -- is contributing to Sacramento's problems rather than fixing them. I am endorsing Proposition 93, which would lower the total number of years a member could serve to 12, but also allows him or her to divide them between the houses as they choose. I am convinced that this would result in the people of California getting a more experienced, more independent Legislature.

It takes time to learn how to govern effectively. Under the current system, our elected officials are not given the time they need to reach their full potential as public servants. Just as they get seasoned in one house, they know their time is beginning to run out, and they must start positioning themselves to run for a new office.

Imagine what would happen if we told a big-city police chief or a sheriff he could stay in the job just long enough to start mastering it and then had to move on. Or if we told teachers they had to switch careers just as they started to accumulate enough experience and wisdom to really connect with their students.

Just look at the issues we are working on in Sacramento right now. We are debating the best way to make sure we never run out of water. How to reform one of the world's largest prison systems. How to fix a broken healthcare system in California that consumes more than $200 billion a year. How to fix our schools. Our budget system. How to rebuild California's aging infrastructure.

These are extraordinarily complex issues that have overwhelmed this state for decades. The people of California are not well served by so much turnover and the lack of expertise in the Legislature.

Our legislators should be given an opportunity to become outstanding at their jobs. To become policy experts who can make the kind of informed and forward-thinking decisions this state desperately needs.

The current term-limits law has created another unintended consequence that also must be fixed. It has ceded too much power to the special interests in Sacramento, because the unions, corporations and lobbyists take advantage of the relentless campaign cycle faced by legislators forced to seek a new position. Your representatives become more concerned with campaign cash, endorsements and independent expenditures than public policy. So they operate in fear of alienating the special interests they must constantly rely on for campaign money. Former Republican leader Jim Brulte had the right idea when he said he was endorsing Proposition 93 because it will give legislators the confidence to say "no" to special interests.

The constant jockeying for new positions also makes legislators more dependent on their political party and its most extreme elements. Allowing members to serve more time in the Assembly or Senate will help bring more civility and less partisanship to Sacramento.

When Proposition 93 was first introduced, I said I would not support it without a companion redistricting measure. Though some progress was made last year on that issue, we have not been able to agree on a redistricting measure in the Legislature; I'm supporting a proposal that was drafted by reform allies including AARP, Common Cause and the League of Women Voters. But Proposition 93 is good public policy irrespective of redistricting, and on its own, it will go a long way toward improving the quality of state government in California.

The reform of term limits -- along with campaign financing and redistricting -- will create fundamental and positive change in Sacramento. The Legislature will be more representative of the people and less beholden to special interests. Its members will have more time to do their jobs well and, most important of all, problem-solving will be a higher priority than partisanship and ambition.

Arnold Schwarzenegger is the governor of California."



Authors Website: www.blogcabinca.org

Authors Bio: Kevin Norte is an experienced research attorney with the Los Angeles Superior Court. Mr. Norte has been employed by the Court since 1991. Any views expressed by Mr. Norte in any article are strictly his own. Working at the busiest Courthouse in California (if not the USA), Kevin, earlier in his career helped organize the research attorneys at the Court into a public sector employee union affiliated with AFSCME. While leaning more toward a libertarian viewpoint of the world, Kevin is a registered Republican and an active member of Log Cabin Republicans. Kevin lives with his partner Don Norte in Hollywood. Both are politically active. Thanks to the late Gretchen Wyler, they both also remain active with The Humane Society of the United States' Hollywood Office (formerly The Ark Trust).

Tuesday, January 08, 2008

I Envision My Marriage on Jul 7, 2008

Can One Gay Couple Ever Make A Difference?  As I write this I believe it is true.  I have to otherwise I would not be so inspired.
Follow me and see if it happens.
Today is January 8, 2008 and I just paid Puenta Learning Center in Los Angeles for a table at the benefit on February 21st to honor Maria Shriver.  I believe Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger will be in attendance.  Since last spring I have had a routine dream that I get married this year.  I know it sound impossible.  The National Organization of Marriage has moved to California and is starting an initiative drive to constitutionalize Prop 22.  Prop 22 is in the courts now and the court is considering striking it down.  The new initiative would move the words into the constitution.  It shouldn't fly under a Romer analysis, but that may take decades because it is a federal case.
Don and I are followers of Dr. Norman Vincent Peal, Gary Zukov's Seat of the Soul, The Secret, and the Hicks, Law of Attraction.
We are going to apply what we believe.The power of positive thinking.
I also work for the Court.  I have no inside information but I am aware how the Court works and evolves on controversial decisions.
The Court can approve Prop 22 but i doubt it because it is in conflict with the Constitution.
The Court could strike Prop 22 down and this leads to 2 interesting scenarios.  The first one is to permit marriages immediate.  The second one would be to issue a stay.  If the NOM petition drive looks successful, they would logically ask for a stay until January 1, 2009 under the guise of "order" especially if their amendment passes.
Either three are possible but the court does not operate in a vacuum. Iit looks to see how the government is treating the issue.
I believe that if the Supreme Court sees that Schwarzenegger is against it, they would be more inclided to permits marriages immediately because constitutional rights delayed are constitutional rights denied.
As background, the California Supreme Court will probably rule right before Memorial Day.  Knowing that, Don and I picked July 7, 2008 as our wedding date.  It will be in Massachusetts because our families can get there.  But before that it will take a lot of new age mediation and spirituality and extreme politicking.
The Puenta Learning dinner is the start.
We bought a table and will have leaders of the gay and lesbian community with us.
Knowing that the initiative signature drive is out there, we will ask the governor to oppose the collection of signatures.  His veto messages were technical and based on the fact that a governor can never sign a bill to overrule an initiative.  The gay community treats Arnold as the bad guy in tis but if he signed it, it would be improper.  Since the governor knows the rules, it would be a wast of taxpayer money to sign a bill without legal effect.  Plus his signing an illegal law would only tie up the true fight for equality in getting Prop 22 declared unconstitutional.
So in February, leaders of the LGBT community will ask a sitting governor about s signature drive.
We do not expect a response then.
However I do plan to tun up the heat.
Along with leaders of the community, we will have Huffington Post Blogger Ryan J. Davis with us.  Davis will report on the events for historical purposes.  Also, Arnold and Maria read the Huff and it will hopefully help Arnold consider on taking a position.
My club, Log Cabin Republicans, is having a convention in Palm Springs in April, and the Governor has been extended an invitation.  We hope it will be a positive follow up to our meeting at La Puenta.
If it works according to what I "see" in my soul, then the Nortes may have actually sped up the time table for marriage in California.  If we do not get Arnold (I do not believe that because we are friends) it will still our momentum and help the other side.
Arnold and maria know their friends Kevin and Don want to get married.
This time it is personal.
Will he be changed by what we are planning?  I have to say yet.  We already have our wedding plans made.

Monday, January 07, 2008

Email Regarding Date For Wedding And Lobbing Governor and Maria


Re: Fwd: Re: July 4th, 2008

Monday, January 7, 2008 11:06 AM
From:
View contact details
To:
"jg621"
I found a minister who will marry us on Nancy's Birthday and help us with the paper work.
My parents are coming in from 1/9-1/24 so we are out of commission.
Feb is a month that we are gone.  All good.
Except the Maria Night.
I'll send you the details but it is the PUENTA Gala on 2/21 6:30 reception, 7:30 dinner.
We probaboly can't get the gang together until March.
 
If you do not do the Med trip, keep P-Town on the calendar.
All the best, i have to catch up at work.
kev