Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

Did Andy Pugno Break State Law In Support Of Marriage Ban?


by Robert Cruickshank

The Courage Campaign’s Rick Jacobs today filed a complaint with the California Fair Political Practices Commission today against Andy Pugno, one of the key figures behind the effort to ban same-sex marriage in California.

The complaint, which is included below as a Scribd embed, alleges that Pugno misused public funds while on the staff of State Senator Pete Knight in the late 1990s to help the campaign to pass the so-called “Knight Initiative” – a California version of the Defense of Marriage Act banning same-sex marriage. This went to voters in November 2000 as Proposition 22 and was approved with 61% of the vote. This was struck down by the California Supreme Court in May 2008, and in turn Pugno and his allies in the leadership of the LDS and Catholic Churches put Prop 8 on the ballot to change the state constitution to ban marriage. The evidence suggests that not only was Pugno involved with those institutions involved in the planning and management of Prop 8 as we learned at the trial, but that their collaboration goes back into the late 1990s and may have violated state law.

[scribd id=26064355 key=key-1j3u8b8kl30ctlm1z5f2]

Pugno is of course the general counsel to, and a candidate for the Republican nomination for the 5th District State Assembly seat. He is a key figure in the campaign strategy used for both Prop 22 and Prop 8, and for the legal defense of Prop 8 in both the California Supreme Court and in Judge Vaughn Walker’s federal courtroom. As longtime Trial Trackers know, Pugno also played a key role in trying get this website shut down by suing Courage Campaign over the logo we use at this site.

Here’s what led to the filing of the complaint. On Wednesday investigative reporter Robert Salladay published an article on Pugno’s involvement in the Prop 22 campaign while on the payroll of the California State Senate. Specifically, it was alleged that Pugno used public resources of the State Senate – phones, faxes, stationery – to vet the proposed initiative with Mormon leaders. Salladay included a letter Pugno wrote on February 26, 1998 to BYU law professor Lynn Wardle. The letter was on California State Senate letterhead and asked Wardle to review proposed ballot language with an eye toward ensuring it could pass at the ballot box. It was also reported that Pugno may have used public funds to travel to Arizona for a “strategic consultation” meeting with LDS leaders that same year.

That appears to be in violation of the Political Reform Act, which governs issues such as this. In fact, Salladay’s article quoted FPPC staff on this very point:

As for Pugno using Senate letterhead for a political issue – and asking Wardle to use the government fax machine and phone lines – the law is fairly strict. One regulation does allow for “incidental” campaign use, but Roman Porter, executive director of the state Fair Political Practices Commission, said about cases like this in general: “The use of public funds for campaign purposes is unlawful.”

Based on the letter and the other evidence reported, Rick Jacobs filed the official complaint against Pugno with the FPPC. He also wrote to Attorney General Jerry Brown seeking an investigation (see that letter here) and to the Secretary of the Senate, Greg Schmidt, seeking public disclosure of various documents related to Pugno’s campaign work while on the staff of Senator Knight (see that letter here).

Here’s what Rick Jacobs had to say about the filing:

The new and troubling disclosures appear to demonstrate willful disrespect for the laws and rules governing the conduct of public servants. If he broke California law, how can he expect to be elected to office to make California law? Andy Pugno needs to be investigated and any appropriate consequences levied for his actions.

We will keep you posted on what happens with the FPPC complaint and other requests for investigation and public disclosure we have filed.

Tags: , , , ,


  • 1. Patrick Regan  |  January 29, 2010 at 6:35 am

    Oh, now this is interesting. Keep us informed on how this turns out.

  • 2. Anita  |  January 29, 2010 at 6:39 am

    What's sad is that I'm not actually shocked.

  • 3. JeffSD  |  January 29, 2010 at 6:39 am

    It seems the more we learn about the behind the scenes happenings of the anti-gay movement the more exposed their blatant disregard for the standards of law become.

    Heres to hoping justice is served.

  • 4. Ronnie  |  January 29, 2010 at 6:43 am

    Mr. PUG just doesn't NO!

    You know I heard if you smack your dog on the nose with a lie filled newspaper he/she may learn not to do what he/she did that was so wrong.

    NO!……NO!…..Bad Pug!…..NO!….Sit!…..No!….Bad!…..Sit!……Be Good!

    I give you a treat!………..IT"S BACON!!!!!

  • 5. george  |  January 29, 2010 at 6:53 am

    "Pugno used public resources of the State Senate – phones, faxes, stationery – to vet the proposed initiative with Mormon leaders"

    Shocking, I tell ya, just shocking!

    Boy, talk about poor losers; if you can't win on the vote, whine about it and file frivolous lawsuits.

    The people of California want to keep the defintion of marriage the way it is. Dontcha get it?

  • 6. Dieter M.  |  January 29, 2010 at 6:58 am

    dear George,

    I just sent Maggie Gallagher a nice little letter telling her that we are going to vote to make FAT people marrying illegal. As a FAT woman she is promoting and condoning an unhealthy lifestyle to our children.If we allow FAT people to get married then people will want to marry a goat.Our innocent children will be FORCED to hear about fat people in school, and they might think it is acceptable, and may want to even try being FAT themselves.This will destroy this country. her CHOSEN lifestyle directly affects me , because it is MY gay tax dollars that go to help pay for her healthcare associated with diabetes, and obesity. And since the whole purpose of marriage according to her lawyers is for procreation, and SHE had her own bastard baby our of wedlock…then clearly her getting married would violate MY rights, and her own definition of marriage.
    Fat people should not be allowed to FLAUNT thier lifestyles in public…all that taco bell running down their faces onto their dirty sweat shirts. Unacceptable. Say NO to FAT marriage. Think of the children!!

  • 7. Chris  |  January 29, 2010 at 7:11 am

    She says she was "born fat", I say she wasn't.

  • 8. Lesbians Love Boies  |  January 29, 2010 at 7:12 am

    I find the above post somewhat offensive from Dieter.

    We need to rise above the hatred aimed at us and hit the 'ignore' button. Blasting anyone puts on a bad face (and name) for the LBGT community.

    I know it angers us all to no end. But lets rise above their anger and show them that in the worst they can throw at us, we are the better blend of humans.

  • 9. Ronnie  |  January 29, 2010 at 7:20 am

    Being fat is not a choice…..God made me this way.

    No No No Maggie…. gluttony is a sin!

  • 10. Davis  |  January 29, 2010 at 8:10 am

    Dieter: That's simply brilliant!

  • 11. ThatsMyCat  |  January 29, 2010 at 8:25 am

    I don't think that it is funny. We don't have to step on other people to go where we want to go. Sometimes, attempts at humor are not appropriate.

  • 12. Morrigoon  |  January 29, 2010 at 8:31 am

    Dieter, I get that you're trying to make a point to this George character, but in doing so you're promoting fat stereotypes.

    You can gain 10 pounds a year just from eating an extra APPLE a day worth of calories. Most fat people eat pretty normally, just make the wrong choices or eat just a little more than they should, and in many cases they eat normally but happen to have very efficient digestive systems which would warrant needing to eat like a bird every day of their life in order to maintain what society considers a "normal" figure.

    PLEASE stop portraying the overweight as food-addicted slobs. While 500-lb food addicts most assuredly exist, they represent only a fraction of this nation's overweight people, and like all addicts, should be understood and treated, not shunned and insulted. You think the suicide rate is high for gays? Try fat teens some time. Reinforcing stereotypes like this, even in jest, adds to the hatred toward even the moderately obese, which I can promise you only makes the problem worse.

    You would never have considered using an early 20th-century African-American stereotype as your example, and for those same reasons I ask you not to use stereotypes of fat people.

    Sorry to distract from the dialogue, but I can no longer stand by while fat people are bandied about as the big joke group you can "pretend discriminate" against because in today's society it's still considered okay to hate us.

    Find another way to make your point.

  • 13. Nicholas Kapur  |  January 29, 2010 at 8:43 am

    I don't think it's making a point by putting anyone else down (for being fat, specifically). I mean, the whole point is that none of those points are true for gay or fat people, isn't it?

  • 14. Ronnie  |  January 29, 2010 at 8:46 am

    I think what Dieter is trying to get at is what I referred to:

    One of the main arguments from prop ha8te is the religious aspect and the Bible. If that is the route they want to take, then anything that is considered sinful or against the word of god should be made illegal.

    I have no problem with big people or "fat" people, but gluttony is one of he deadly 7 sins…therefor by Maggie's reasoning and prop ha8te that should be illegal as well.

    The problem is that they cherry pick, what is considered sinful and what is not….It is high hypocritical and contradictory….And think that is what Dieter was getting at….Am I right Dieter?

  • 15. Dieter M.  |  January 29, 2010 at 9:02 am

    personally I think only the fat people are posting they are angry with my post was not expressing my feeling, but rather a reality. it is rare to say you are genetically fat. being gay is the way we were born.
    the sarcasm in my post was simply to point out to maggie, that those arguments that she tried to use against us, also apply to her, and even more so.
    taco bell is a choice. gay is not. No offense to larger people in here.

    another point my post made was how clearly and quickly hateful words garner a negative reaction…very quickly.

    I could have just as easily replaced the word fat with jewish, or christian….or mormon…get it?
    does not matter what adjective I used..the point remains that their CHOICES bear more scrutiny than my biology.

  • 16. Dieter M.  |  January 29, 2010 at 9:04 am

    thank you nicholas for GETTING it.

    the post shows that it makes NO sense…not that I think fat people are bad.

  • 17. waxr  |  January 29, 2010 at 1:51 pm

    Dieter, I weigh over 400 lbs. I was not offended by your remarks because I know you made them to demonstrate how absurd the prop 8 arguments are.

  • 18. Dieter M.  |  January 29, 2010 at 4:14 pm

    Thank you waxr !!!!

  • 19. ThatsMyCat  |  January 30, 2010 at 12:56 am

    Oh wow, you are so creative that you outed us as being large. Gosh you are smart.

  • 20. Mike  |  January 30, 2010 at 1:18 am

    There are several categories of people that should certainly be banned from marrying, before gay people, as there is undisputed evidence that their effect on children in the household is dangerous and detrimental to a child's health and development. These include:
    smokers, even if they say they only smoke outside
    people who wear cologne or perfume
    those who put their infants in daycare at 2 months of age
    anyone who goes to McDonalds more than once a week
    persons who live in inferior school districts
    all who play Farmville on Facebook
    As a pediatrician, I could fill an entire book with these groups. But I think you all get my point.

  • 21. Sarah  |  January 30, 2010 at 4:55 am

    I read this earlier and it has been bothering me to the point where I had to come back and comment. I understand what Dieter was trying to do but I think it was completely inappropriate and unsuccessful.

    "personally I think only the fat people are posting they are angry with my"

    That statement was particularly juvenile and rude. I am 21 and I weigh 120 lbs and I still found your comment completely unnecessary and out of place on this site. You should not make statements about the people who have criticized you to hide behind instead of admitting that in this case you were clearly in the wrong.

    Please, let's keep this community unified and positive.

  • 22. Ronnie  |  January 29, 2010 at 7:00 am

    And if the people of California want you to jump of a cliff onto a rusty nail would you do it?

    Listen Curious George, The man in yellow hat is looking for a new monkey, maybe you should apply, but your not evolved enough.

    Maybe the Recovery Act can help you

    MR. PUG-NO broke the law!

    What did Prop 8 do? Gay marriage was legal and you h8ters whined and used illegal funding to pass a law that overturned another law…Pot meet Kettle

    Keyboard meet head…..BOAW! BOAW! BOAW!

  • 23. Alan E.  |  January 29, 2010 at 7:07 am

    Walker: Well, there is something about pots and kettles,…Mr. Thompson

  • 24. Steffi  |  January 29, 2010 at 8:49 am

    hey guys, can someone explain me the saying of pots and kettels? (you might not have noticed yet after me saying it a thousand times, but I'm German. yeah I know… BIG surprise :D)

  • 25. Morrigoon  |  January 29, 2010 at 8:53 am

    Steffi: a common saying regarding hypocrisy is "that's like the pot calling the kettle black" – a phrase that made more sense when we were cooking on real fires that blackened the bottoms of all cookware, but you get the idea.

  • 26. Ronnie  |  January 29, 2010 at 8:56 am

    It comes from the pot calling the kettle black: its an idiom used to say a person is guilty of the the same thing they are pointing out….in other words a Hypocrite

  • 27. Richard  |  January 29, 2010 at 1:22 pm

    Yes, and the exact phrase is, "Well isn't that the pot calling the kettle black." No, it is not a reference to African Americans. It came about when all cooking utensils were made of cast iron. If you have ever seen cast iron cookware that is not enamelled, it is an off-black sort of color. Hence the pot calling the kettle black. Of course, another one that applies is what Yeshua ben Yoseph of Nazareth said: "You would do well to remove the beam in your own eye before you try to help your brother remove the mote in his eye." And no, I do not remember the exact passage.

  • 28. waxr  |  January 29, 2010 at 2:02 pm

    Richard, Try Matthew 7:3-5 or Luke 6:41-42

  • 29. JeffSD  |  January 29, 2010 at 7:06 am

    Please dont feed the trolls

  • 30. Richard  |  January 30, 2010 at 3:11 am

    And you may be right. George is probably one handle for a team of posters who have signed up to post for specific portions of each day, like a round-the-clock prayer vigil. That would also explain why the posts seem to be so repetitive, and yet sometimes the spelling and grammar will be there and other times it is absent.

  • 31. Chris  |  January 29, 2010 at 7:28 am

    Will you say the same thing when the voters repeal it in 2012 or thereafter?

    Support for this ban dropped 9 points in 7 years, from 61% to 52%. (Those are election results) Support has declined an average of 1.3% per year. At that rate, support for 8 is now about 50.4% and dropping.

    Mathematically, by late spring 2010 support will be below 50%. November of 2012, support for 8, using electoral history in CA as a model, would be about 46.8%.

    Better think up some spin, because you've already lost.

  • 32. Felyx  |  January 29, 2010 at 8:54 am

    Regarding Chris's numbers:

    The first vote with 61% in favor did not require $40 MM and the massive workforce of the LDS to acheive.

    If the LDS lose tax-exempt status (nice dream but probably won't happen) or at least has to pay fines, there will probably not be that kind of financial and manpower support next time.

    So in reality, the polls that predated the actual vote are probably more accurate than the vote itself. By 2012 it will be a clear majority of 60% or more in favor of gay stuff.

    For the less rational, 2012 will also be when the whole christian world comes to an end so it only seems to reason that gays will be getting married en mass.

  • 33. waxr  |  January 29, 2010 at 2:10 pm

    <blockquote cite="For the less rational, 2012 will also be when the whole christian world comes to an end so it only seems to reason that gays will be getting married en mass.">

    Tam did say that if prop 8 failed to pass that one state after another will fall into the hands of Satan.

  • 34. fiona64  |  January 29, 2010 at 7:41 am

    Dear George:

    The "poor losers" were the people who couldn't leave it alone when it became apparent that Prop 22 was unconstitutional.

    I know that you want to keep "marriage" as a special little club for straights only, but this straight married woman has this to say to you: stop whining about how you deserve special rights. That's the very definition of what you are seeking when you want to exclude others.

    It is not at all frivolous to demand transparency and fair political practices in elections.

    If you were really a lawyer, you'd know that.


  • 35. Steffi  |  January 29, 2010 at 8:51 am

    dear fiona64,
    did I mention that I love you?
    your comments are always so great!

  • 36. Richard  |  January 29, 2010 at 1:25 pm

    Fiona, tried to friend you on FB, but I couldn't get it to pull up the same picture as the one I saw in the P8TT group thread. If I have goofed in there somewhere, I hope you can find my picture in that thread and send me a friend connection. Also, keep up the GREAT WORK! I am so proud to have you in my family. Wish you could get to CT when my husband and I go up there in April to make it LEGAL! But I will post wedding pictures on my FB page.

  • 37. Rightthingtodotx  |  January 30, 2010 at 1:18 am

    george: pwnd

    fiona64…i love you too…steffi and i will start a fiona64 fan club

  • 38. Ronnie  |  January 30, 2010 at 1:29 am

    Meeee Toooooo!!!! I want to join…. ; )

  • 39. Richard  |  January 30, 2010 at 3:24 am

    @ rightthingtodotx. Pleaswe let me know when you get the fiona64 fan club started. I want to be in the charter member section!

  • 40. rpx  |  January 30, 2010 at 4:34 am

    fiona64, you are a hetro married woman???? I had you pictured in my mind completely different. Way to go fiona! FWIW me to I am a hetro maried woman.

  • 41. fiona64  |  January 30, 2010 at 6:56 am

    Dear all:

    Yes, I am a hetero married woman. I have many GLBT friends (I came up through theatre, say no more) and a few family members as well. I had gay soldiers who worked for me when I was a DoD civilian, one of whom was thrown out under DADT and one who remained closeted until he mustered out.Heck, I've even adopted a son and been adopted as a sister here on P8TT, LOL. I was engaged to a man who is now a transwoman. My best friend for many years was a gay man whom I dated before he was out.

    I tell you all of these things in response to the people who have said to me "What difference does it make to you? You don't have a dog in this Prop 8 fight." I *do* have a dog in the fight, because these are my loved ones whom you are telling that they are not good enough, and that is *crap,* pure and simple.

    The real slippery slope in all of this Prop 8 business is never the nonsense that the opponents bring up about polygamy, or churches, or animals, or lamps (for crying out loud …). It's that *everyone's* rights are in danger with this kind of precedent. I do not accept that.

    I like to believe that, had I been old enough, I would have marched along side my heroes Peter Yarrow, Paul Stookey and Mary Travers when they marched with Martin Luther King, Jr.

    We shall overcome
    We shall overcome
    We shall overcome someday
    Deep in my heart
    I do believe, that
    We shall overcome some day.

    I love you all,

  • 42. Morrigoon  |  January 29, 2010 at 8:17 am


    By "the people" you mean that narrow 2.5% margin the measure passed by? Hardly a landslide. In some circles (you know, the kind that read books instead of burn them) we call that "margin of error".

    It also means that nearly half the state thinks you're full of c—.

  • 43. ThatsMyCat  |  January 29, 2010 at 8:31 am

    I guess that we don't get it. So, doesn't that settle it? We don't get it. You do get it. There is not much for you to teach us. Your job is done sir.

  • 44. Steffi  |  January 29, 2010 at 8:53 am

    let him waste all his energy here this way he can't use that same energy to actually hurt someone vulnerable

  • 45. Tigger  |  January 29, 2010 at 9:58 am


    I'm curious.. What's your nationality?

  • 46. Vaati  |  January 29, 2010 at 11:43 am

    @George: If you can't win; cheat. That's what happened with Prop 8. Lots of out of state funding and religious help for a political campaign doomed to fail had it been presented for what it really was at the time; sheer animus against gay people and the way we live.

    We were presented as a gathering storm that was going to change EVERYTHING and butt into straight people's lives. Well, we haven't and we wouldn't. This changes nothing for straight people personally. (Unless you're in a hopelessly bad marriage because you unwittingly married a closeted gay person and have to worry about them fleeing when marriage is legal for us.)

    Voting on what rights and privileges a minority group can and cannot have is wrong no matter how you spin it, it's the reason we have a system of checks and balances, so our constitution can be upheld even if the majority of the time does not like or understand the minority in question.

  • 47. Lesbians Love Boies  |  January 29, 2010 at 11:57 am

    Very well put Vaati.

  • 48. Marlene Bomer  |  January 29, 2010 at 2:02 pm

    It's this same system of checks and balances which infuriates the religious reicht, Vaati!

    They have this delusion which has them believe they're above the law, but then at the same time hide behind them, crying "we're being oppressed!" when they don't get their way.

    The religious reicht wants nothing more than theocratic rule, and for the past *25+ years* have tried to to that by whatever means necessary.

    Thier current tactic now is to create their own so-called "law schools": Regent, Liberty, Ave Maria, ad nauseum, to infiltrate the judiciary from below, and then have these "lawyers" get the experience needed to get elected or appointed to the bench, then they'd have the fiat to legally start whittling away the rights of Americans.

    Remember the US Attorney fiasco during the last Bush term, where a number were fired because they refused to do the bidding of the Bush Administration and illegally "investigating" groups opposing the Bushies? The questions from minions in the so-called "Justice" Department where they were demanding loyalty to *Bush* instead of the Constitution? All that was instigated by so-called "lawyers" who graduated from Regent University's so-called "law school".

  • 49. Richard  |  January 30, 2010 at 3:24 am

    Vaati, YOU ROCK!

  • 50. Richard  |  January 29, 2010 at 12:48 pm

    George, ou are the one who JUST DOESN'T GET IT! Pug-NO used immoral means to try and force his view of morality into the legal system, just because he is not secure in who he is. He misused public funds,and he misused public equipment. He also went outside of the state to secure help in pulling the wool over the eyes of the voters of California so that all of you would be conned into buying a lie.

  • 51. TPAKyle  |  January 29, 2010 at 10:50 pm

    OK George, let's talk about losers, GEORGE.

  • 52. george's boyfri  |  February 1, 2010 at 5:53 am

    Are you coming home early tonight, sweety? I don't feel like cooking tonight so I thought we'd have just desserts.

  • 53. Larry Kenneth Little  |  January 29, 2010 at 6:55 am

    Well, if he broke the law, lets have some jail time. After all, this is what happens to first time marijuana users, even those who were victims of police entrapment, shop lifters and DUI's, etc.
    This man has caused a lot of unnecessary harm in his zeal to discriminate against gays and lesbians. We have to make sure he will never hold public office or he will never stop attempting to legislate hatred against the gay population.

  • 54. Bill  |  January 29, 2010 at 7:05 am

    Let's all agree: NO MORE RESPONSES TO GEORGE.

    Let him go jerk off somewhere else.

  • 55. JeffSD  |  January 29, 2010 at 7:06 am

    Agree 100%

  • 56. Ronnie  |  January 29, 2010 at 7:17 am

    George is an acronym for:

    Guy Envying Our Righteous Gay Energy!

  • 57. Alan E.  |  January 29, 2010 at 7:23 am

    How long did you work on that?

  • 58. Ronnie  |  January 29, 2010 at 7:29 am

    not long at all actually…like a few seconds….My friends call my quick draw of the jaw..because I seem to have a way with words…..but I'm sure my ex's called me that for other reasons that shall remain private…lol

  • 59. Richard  |  January 29, 2010 at 1:27 pm

    Ronnie, that is just PRICELESS!

  • 60. Lawrence  |  January 29, 2010 at 7:55 am

    Absolutely. George is a troll – here to get reactions. People here have been astonishgly reasonable over the past two weeks. Now give it up. When he posts use that as a moment to go talk to someone new about prop 8 and equality and ignore the post.

  • 61. waxr  |  January 29, 2010 at 2:50 pm

    I disagree. George is a good example of the way prop 8 supporters think. Let's use him as one.

  • 62. Joe  |  January 30, 2010 at 4:27 am

    Also known as the Endangered Species Exhibit. 🙂

  • 63. Lesbians Love Boies  |  January 29, 2010 at 7:06 am

    Interesting one of the letters in pdf (at the bottom of the article) October 1998: Letter from Lynn Wardle to Mormon leaders Lynn Wardle writes at the bottom:

    "If there is bad news in November in Alaska (where things look very favorable at present, thanks largely to the Church's financial support or Hawaii (where the matter was describes as being very close), or later in Vermont when the state supreme court rules, or if same-sex marriage is legalized in any other state, some of our allies who oppose same-sex marriage may immediately call for a U.S. constitutional amendment to prohibit same-sex marriage.

    Their ultimate goal – IMHO – in this case is to get this to the supreme court so they can ban SSM in every state.

  • 64. Ronnie  |  January 29, 2010 at 7:39 am

    And then onto to the complete criminalization of homosexuality…..We are the ones who have an agenda?

    Right! with a hint of sarcasm and an eye roll….lol

  • 65. Morrigoon  |  January 29, 2010 at 8:33 am

    If so, they've done a pretty poor job of setting up their case.

  • 66. Felyx  |  January 29, 2010 at 10:12 am

    Fortunately, SSM cannot be banned from any state from the SCOTUS. Since states have allowed SSM the only possible recourse is to overturn it or allow it. The SCOTUS can only assert the peoples right to overturn it but it is forbidden to make a law that would require states to prevent them from allowing it (goes against States Rights so profoundly that even Republicans would join bipartisan support to invalidate the ruling!) Furthermore, SCOTUS has already decriminalized homosexuality and it would take an impossible argument to overturn it.

    This gives me hope that maybe the five conservative justices will see 'the writing on the wall' and decide that ruling against SSM would not only eventually be overturned but would also relegate these individuals to the historical status of bigots in the same manner we look at those justices that have done so in the past.

    One other interesting ray of hope…the internet and instant communication of knowledge on a global scale. (Twitter has upped the ante by combining the internet with the phone. Now you can communicate large amounts of data with more than one person simultaneously and without being stationary.) Anything the SCOTUS does will be instantly known and critiqued by people from around the world in days not decades…minutes not months. Such scrutiny with such a massive audience puts additional pressure on the justices to not look like complete bigotted idiots. (No guarantee of course but just look at the extra emphasis put on Alito when he mouthed 'Not true".)

    Here's hoping!

  • 67. Marlene Bomer  |  January 29, 2010 at 2:07 pm

    Scalia and his little yes-man Clarence are lost causes. They're so closed-minded, blind and deaf to anything but their own anti-American agenda, you can write them off.

    Scalito and Roberts are toss-ups, so Kennedy (who's had a fantastic record of pro-equality voters) will be the key.

  • 68. waxr  |  January 29, 2010 at 3:23 pm

    The whole purpose in appointing Justices for life is to make them immune to public pressure. Which is the way it should be.

    Historically, only two presidents have tried to exert control over the Supreme Court. The first was Thomas Jefferson who tried to gain control by impeaching the Justices. His attempt to impeach Justice Samuel Chase was unpopular with the public and failed. As a result the Cour was able to establish the doctrine of judicial review which Jefferson was opposed to.

    The second president who tried to control the Court was Franklin Roosevelt. Tired of the Court overriding his programs, Roosevelt attempted to appoint additional judges so that the balance of power would be on his side. The reaction against this was so great that the tradition of having nine justices became established.

    Moral: Work with the Court, not against it.

  • 69. Felyx  |  January 29, 2010 at 11:15 pm

    Immune to public pressure yes….but not immune to scrutiny or history. In an interview one justice (don't ask me who, she was female and liberal) mentioned she wrote every opinion in light of what future generations would think as well as what the present demanded. So my hope is that public pressure (and prejudice) will influence the judiciary to do what is right and within the legal code in a way that will be enduring as opposed to a law that will be overturned within years.

    The writing is on the wall. You (proh8ers) have been judged and found lacking!!!

  • 70. Felyx  |  January 29, 2010 at 11:20 pm

    Ammend: (Tired sorry)

    Public pressure (and prejudice) should read public scrutiny

    Afterall, they don't really live in a bubble and numerous articles have mentions the fact that public opinion in the past correlated with the decisions being made. I am just hoping we might overcome the pattern due to new technological advances. Just hoping…

  • 71. Ronnie  |  January 29, 2010 at 11:38 pm

    True waxer, from what I've read the people were not to happy when those sitting presidents made those choices.

    but from what I read now the people are not to happy with the ruling that the Supreme Court made about businesses being able to get involved in politics (not they weren't involved before, Just now they can do it legally).

    If Obama does this, I think it will be welcomed with open arms my the vast majority.

    And to Felyx I love the last line of your comment.

    That's right you prop ha8ters, to quote Heath Ledger(RIP) and the cast of "A Knight's Tale":

    You have been weighed, You have been measured, and you have definitely been found wanting. Welcome to the real world. And god save you, if it is rights for him to do so.

  • 72. waxr  |  January 30, 2010 at 1:16 am

    Felyx and Ronnie, Note that Sarah Palin wasted no time in attacking the president for ignoring the separation of powers. Her remarks are absurd because presidents and presidential candidates have often criticized the Court (e.g. McCain,), but Obama did it in a State of the Union address in front of the Court itself. You can bet that the Republican Party will continue to attack Obama on that.

    The fact that Obama brought this out in a State of the Union address suggests that he intends to introduce legislation on the matter which will be acceptable to the Court. But he did not indicate that he presently had a plan.

    It is not the Court's job to do the will of the people. The Court is there to see that justice is done.

    People complain about the court making laws. Our court system is based upon English Common Law. By definition, Common Law itself is law that was established through court decisions. The courts have been making laws for nearly one thousand years since the Common Law courts were established by William the Conquer.

  • 73. Ronnie  |  January 30, 2010 at 1:27 am

    Sarah Palin should learn to stuff a sock in it…nobody listen to her…I have respect for her as a woman but as a politician hell no….She spouts out crap about religious morals and traditional values meanwhile:

    1. Her daughter had pre-marital sex
    2. Got knocked up (although a baby is a wonderful creation)
    3. Her ex son-in-law to be is pursuing a career in modeling and as Miss. Palin calls it "porn" and spread in Playgirl…that hardly constitutes as porn Miss. Palin

    Pot meet Kettle…..Keyboard meet head……BOAW! BOAW! BOAW!

  • 74. Scott  |  January 29, 2010 at 7:17 am


  • 75. Brad  |  January 29, 2010 at 7:19 am

    Letter from Pugno on State Senate letterhead to Brigham Young prof….letter from Brigham Young prof to Mormon leaders….

    More indications of violations in separation of Church and State.

  • 76. Andrew  |  January 29, 2010 at 8:29 am

    I can't wait until we can get a seaparation of church and hate.

  • 77. Kim Brown in El Mira  |  February 1, 2010 at 3:07 am


    That should be made into a bumper sticker!

  • 78. Richard W. Fitch  |  January 29, 2010 at 7:23 am

    The h8rs seem to feel the ends always justify the means. But when neither ends or the means are justifiable, what has been gained? Pugno may soon become the vicitim of his own zeal.

  • 79. Ronnie  |  January 29, 2010 at 7:59 am

    The give respect to the wonderful and beautiful heterosexual goddess PINK aka Alecia Beth Moore, I quote her wonderful anthem of the Bush administration, "Dear Mr. President":

    "What kind of father would take his own daughter's rights away?
    And what kind of father might hate his own daughter if she were gay?"

    Dear George, this is what some of your straight bio parents are capable of….Gay teens are the result of heterosexual bio parents and many have killed themselves because of the words that prop ha8ters repeat to their children.

    Regardless of what the political ambitions and notions of the time were when the constitution was written, our four fathers made sure to protect all Americans with these powerful strong words:

    We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

    If they meant straight god fearing people then they certainly would have written that.

    When is the right time for equality?

    And to quote Samantha from "The Great Debaters"

    Well, would you kindly tell me when that day is gonna come? Is it going to come tomorrow? Is it going to come next week? In a hundred years? Never? No, the time for justice, the time for freedom, and the time for equality is always, is always right now!

  • 80. Tony Douglass in Ca  |  January 29, 2010 at 11:51 am

    How soon is now?????

  • 81. nightshayde  |  January 29, 2010 at 8:13 am

    Discrimination is wrong. It's wrong whether it's based in religion, tradition, ignorance, or any combination thereof. It's wrong whether it's supported by a majority or a minority. It's especially wrong when it's codified and enforced by the government.

    One reason we have checks and balances in our republic is to make sure rights of minorities are protected when the majority is not wise enough to protect those rights on its own.

  • 82. Tyrras  |  January 29, 2010 at 8:16 am

    Wow. Go get 'em, Rick!

  • 83. Felyx  |  January 29, 2010 at 8:41 am

    Nice! Let's see Pugno argue Prop 8 from jail!

  • 84. Pearl  |  January 29, 2010 at 8:44 am

    Yes but the article also says it's likely the statute of limitations with CFPPC has already passed so what is the point? Is it just tit for tat over PM suing over the Trial Tracker logo? Come on. Can we rise above this and fight the good fight.

  • 85. fiona64  |  January 29, 2010 at 8:52 am

    I don't see it as "tit for tat" at all. The information just came to light, according to the post. Salladay's article was just written on Wednesday.

    It may well wind up being symbolic if the date on the letter is the determining factor, sure … but I think that it's timely given when the information was revealed.


  • 86. Bill  |  January 29, 2010 at 9:49 am

    As usual, fiona64, I totally agree.

    Even if this story doesn't go much further than the LGTB community and our allies, it just reinforces what WE already know.

    They can not 'win' this by playing by the rules. And so, just how difficult is it, really, for 52% of the population (the approximate percentage that we're 'losing' by these days) to gang up on 5% of the population? And even when we're out-voted at the ballot box by 52% of the population – THEY ARE PROVING THAT THEY CAN NOT PLAY FAIR AND WIN.

    WE have not 'cheated' and participated in illegal activity to acheive our civil rights. WE have played by the rules.

    This brings home to me that the anti-gay forces that are currently stripping LGTB citizens of what is rightfully theirs will stop at nothing. They will sink lower and lower to acheive their goals. This is GREAT for US.

    They're not the sharpest tools in the shed. They make really stupid mistakes often. They do not follow the rule of law. And they do not feel that they have to, because, as usual, it's just 'the gays.' And in their eyes, their fellow LGTB human beings DESERVE to be treated in this manner.

    What I find most unfortunate is that the other 48% does not stand up to them and demand the end of this persecution and abuse.

    But, as always, do continue, you other 52%, to assume moral superiority while you abuse millions of Americans and their families.

    God LOVES that.

  • 87. Joe  |  January 30, 2010 at 4:34 am


    You have no idea how many people who I knew that just one lie tipped them over from No to Yes. A HUGE number of people believed that unless they voted Yes, every kindergartner was going to go through mandatory same sex marriage education. They were trailing in the polls and after playing fair wasn't working, they lied their ass off to get 50%+1. And they will always do whatever (legal, illegal, moral, immoral, lie, cheat or whathaveyou) to get to 50%+1.

    But now they have been called on that. I just hope the third branch of the government does it's job and protects those of us who fight for what's right and decent.

  • 88. RAL  |  January 29, 2010 at 8:58 am

    Just off the top of my head, this new information could be relevant to the ongoing CFPPC investigation of the LDS Church. So, if there is a statute of limitations problem with this complaint going forward re: Pugno, the Lynn Wardle / BYU connection might come into play.

  • 89. RAL  |  January 29, 2010 at 9:02 am

    … or not.

    I'm just seeing this and I have to agree with Pearl, there might be bigger fish to fry than going after Pugno. Especially since this trial, in all likely-hood, may mark a sea change in the legal landscape, and maybe even attitudes.

  • 90. JeffSD  |  January 29, 2010 at 9:52 am

    I think the main issue here is that an investigation would help the voters in his district determine if they want to vote for someone with a history of miss using state funds and equipment.

  • 91. RAL  |  January 29, 2010 at 10:10 am

    Of course. Agreed Jeff.

  • 92. Richard  |  January 29, 2010 at 9:59 am

    I guess this is another reason Re-Pug-NO and his crew did NOT want the trial televised. I would also be willing to bet that some of the "witneses they were going to call "talked out of school" about this during depo, and were dropped as a result. After all, if you can't be trusted to toe the party line, and to keep your mouth shut about the party secrets, during depo, then you can't be trusted to do that during actual in-court testimony. Rick, for filing this complaint, if I didn't already think that you rock, this would be the sealing of your rocking!

  • 93. jimig  |  January 29, 2010 at 10:57 am

    I am a little late on the conversation, we discarded George however I am surprised more people haven't posted. Yesterday I asked for some suggestions regarding marriage and churches being afraid they might be sued. Thank you for giving me positive realible responses.

    I hope we can approach comments like Georges in the same way. The truth is most people do need to be educated and made aware.

    As are friends like to say "the truth is on our side" likewise this trial most likely made a number of people scared as they realize there behind the sences "agenda" are coming to light. From what we have learn during this trial is that there is an agenda regarding LGBT but it seems to be a well organized agenda to attack LGBT.

  • 94. Lesbians Love Boies  |  January 29, 2010 at 11:54 am

    Great audio about Prop 8 trial. From Golden Gate University's School of Law, Professor Peter Keane.

    On the right of the article is a pic of david boies and another gentleman. click on the "Is Prop 8 Constitutional?" to listen.

    He explains it well. very insightful indeed.

  • 95. Straight Ally #3008  |  January 29, 2010 at 12:17 pm

    BTW, the other fellow is Ted Olson, Boies' former opponent in Bush v. Gore, co-lead attorney for the plaintiffs.

  • 96. Lesbians Love Boies  |  January 29, 2010 at 12:19 pm

    Thank you. I was wondering. I know what David Boies looks like. : )

  • 97. Ronnie  |  January 29, 2010 at 12:26 pm

    Which means we have the best lawyers in the country…..


  • 98. Ronnie  |  January 29, 2010 at 12:01 pm

    I'm feeling extra speechy today…I don't know if it was Obama's SOTUA or George's trollish, immature prop ha8te empty rhetoric…but As I listened to music on my itunes I came upon a song I haven't listened to in a while and wanted to share the lyrics because they have never meant more to me then they do right now:

    This bloody road remains a mystery. This sudden darkness fills the air. What are we waiting for ?
    Won't anybody help us ? What are we waiting for ?
    We can't afford to be innocent
    Stand up and face the enemy.
    It's a do or die situation – we will be invincible.

    This shattered dream you cannot justify. We're gonna scream until we're satisfied. What are we running for ? We've got the right to be angry. What are we running for when there's nowhere we can run to anymore ?
    We can't afford to be innocent
    Stand up and face the enemy.
    It's a do or die situation – we will be invincible.
    And with the power of conviction there is no sacrifice.
    It's a do or die situation – we will be invincible.

    Won't anybody help us ?
    What are we running for when there's nowhere

    Nowhere we can run to anymore ? We can't afford to be innocent. Stand up and face the enemy. It's a do or die situation – we will be invincible. And with the power of conviction there is no sacrifice. It's a do or die situation – we will be invincible

    We can't afford to be innocent
    Stand up and face the enemy.
    It's a do or die situation – we will be invincible.
    We can't afford to be innocent
    Stand up and face the enemy.
    It's a do or die situation – we will be invincible.

    Thank you so much Pat Benatar…your words are timeless and give me strength to face adversity.

  • 99. Straight Ally #3008  |  January 29, 2010 at 12:23 pm

    And the iconic movie image of a defiant Helen Slater just fits all the more. Well-chosen blast from the past, Ronnie!

  • 100. Richard  |  January 29, 2010 at 12:53 pm

    And thank you, Ronnie for posting this. Of course, the fact that this trial even had to take place reminds me of another Pat Benatar song–"Love is a Battlefield." Any chance you could post the lyrics to that one?

  • 101. Ronnie  |  January 29, 2010 at 1:11 pm

    Hell Yeah I can ….another great song that is relevant to our fight…..Can you believe I'm only 25?…..LOL….I'm and 80's baby….hehehe

    By request of Richard, I bring you, my fellow Americans, "Love is a Battlefield" By the amazing Pat Benatar:

    We are young, heartache to heartache we stand, No promises, no demands, Love Is A Battlefield.
    We are strong, no one can tell us we're wrong
    Searchin' our hearts for so long, both of us knowing
    Love Is A Battlefield

    You're beggin' me to go, you're makin' me stay. Why do you hurt me so bad? It would help me to know
    Do I stand in your way, or am I the best thing you've had? Believe me, believe me, I can't tell you why. But I'm trapped by your love, and I'm chained to your side

    We are young, heartache to heartache we stand, No promises, no demands. Love Is A Battlefield. We are strong, no one can tell us we're wrong. Searchin' our hearts for so long, both of us knowing. Love Is A Battlefield

    We're losing control. Will you turn me away or touch me deep inside? And before this gets old, will it still feel the same? There's no way this will die, But if we get much closer, I could lose control. And if your heart surrenders, you'll need me to hold

    We are young, heartache to heartache we stand. No promises, no demands, Love Is A Battlefield

    We are strong, no one can tell us we're wrong, Searchin' our hearts for so long, both of us knowing, Love Is A Battlefield

  • 102. Richard  |  January 29, 2010 at 1:31 pm

    Thanks, Ronnie! YOU ROCK! And for me, this song is so personal because between this wonderful man I call my husband, who is taking me to CT in April to make it legal, and all of you here on this site, and everybody at CC, AFER, and all of our other allies, I don't feel as though I have to walk out onto this battlefield alone anymore. Thank you so much for that. THANK EACH AND EVERY ONE OF YOU INVOLVED WITH THIS SITE AND WITH ALL OF THE ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS WHO HELPED MAKE THIS A REALITY. EVERY LAST ONE OF YOU ROCK!!!

  • 103. Ronnie  |  January 29, 2010 at 1:47 pm

    You are very welcome…..and congrats on the near future legality of your relationship a.k.a MARRIAGE…..I hope that will happen for me soon…granted I need to find a boyfriend first….I have been all work an no play…Prom season coming up and all….plus my 26 b-day in June falls on Gay Pride this year so I am going to try to go all out…WOO HOO!!!!

  • 104. Vaati  |  January 29, 2010 at 8:17 pm

    Ok, Pat Benatar *and* Star Trek? You really are my people. <3

  • 105. DebbieC  |  January 29, 2010 at 2:24 pm

    We need a nationwide voice for queer equality, much as MLK was the voice for civil rights. I nominate Rick. 🙂


  • 106. Richard  |  January 29, 2010 at 2:38 pm

    And if Rick won't do it, then let's look for MCPO Timothy R. McVeigh of the USN, the man who sued the USN over DADT and won. But I do agree with you, Debbie. Rick is our MLK!

  • 107. Dave T  |  February 1, 2010 at 12:38 am

    Is that the right name? Timothy McVeigh is the Oklahoma city bomber…

  • 108. waxr  |  February 1, 2010 at 6:20 am

    Timothy R. McVeigh was a Master Chief Petty Officer with 17 years service in the United States Navy when he was discharged under DADT. He sued on the grounds that the Navy illegally looked into his personal e-mails to discover if he way gay. You can find more details at:

  • 109. Darrell  |  January 29, 2010 at 7:10 pm

    Just wondering ….. could this be used in the federal proposition 8 case? and if so, could it help our cause?

    Just asking, thanks:)

  • 110. Richard  |  January 30, 2010 at 2:17 am

    Darryl, this IS the federal Prop 8 Case. Judge Walker is US District Court for One of the California districts. I guess I am not he only one who had to have that explained to me. Believe me, at first I thought this was only state level. But then I found out that when the governor is one ofthe plaintiffs, it goes to the federal level. If you mean can this be used at SCOTUS, that I don't know. But I think that what has already been introduced, and the briefs that are due Wednesday, is all that can go before SCOTUS. And it is those briefs that scare me, because we won't get to see them.

  • 111. Ronnie  |  January 29, 2010 at 11:57 pm

    Please look for this trial tracker:


    on Welcome to the Prop 8 Trial Tracker: Please introduce yourself
    January 18, 2010 at 8:26 pm

    He made a point, such as he watching for the day that America legalizes SSM (not in those words)

    This is why prop ha8te clearly has help from outside America, because we all know that when America does something politically and civilly the rest of the western world follows suit. Biggest example, The revolutionary war.

    The rights of the LGBT community is not just an American battle but a world wide one. We need to help our Brothers and Sisters and Supports all over the world.

    Equality and freedom for all Mother Earths children.

  • 112. Ronnie  |  January 30, 2010 at 12:25 am

    I just found this article on but i will just post the link because it is quite long. Basically it is about DADT and is titled:

    Pentagon starts clock on lifting gay ban

    1/30/2010, 3:43 a.m. EST
    The Associated Press

    Some of the arguments are rediculous:

    "Under the policy, the military can't ask recruits their sexual orientation. In turn, service members can't say they are gay or bisexual, engage in homosexual activity or marry a member of the same sex." – – In other words they can't be Gay EVER!

    "Between 1997 and 2008, the Defense Department discharged more than 10,500 service members for violating the policy." – – In other words that is 10,500 American citizens that are either unemployed or have the hardest time finding a job due to the fact that they were dishonorably discharged.

    "Can a soldier be forced to room with someone who is openly gay if they are the same sex?" – – You already do, it's just that now you know it.

    "Would the military recognize civil unions and how much would it cost to extend benefits to a service member's partner?" – – It wouldn't cost anything more then what it costs to extend benefits to Arm Wives (great show).

    "Would quotas be imposed to ensure openly gay service members aren't passed over for promotions?" – – If discrimination can be proved, then yes (i.e. the same notion was used for Racial Minorities)

    Here is the link:

    If the link doesn't work just google the title of the article. However small or big this is, it is just more history in the making.

  • 113. David  |  January 30, 2010 at 1:25 am

    WOW! Great work Courage Campaign – I always knew the Mormon Church was deeply involved in the Prop8 campaign. My mother is Mormon and I live with her, as her caregiver (she is 88). When Prop8 was beginning the membership of the local church met on Church grounds – (they did not meet inside the building, but still met in the parking lot) to discuss strategy. One of the members had obtained a copy of the "registered voters" list and they divied-up the list among those attending. They asked the membership to call the people on this list and to NOT IDENTIFY THEMSELVES AS MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH, BUT AS 'CONCERNED CITIZENS'. If you want a smoking gun, this should be enough to blow them out of the water.

  • 114. David  |  January 30, 2010 at 7:54 am

    I forgot to add one other important point – I was told this was done across the State of California at every ward (geographical boundary) in the State.

    While I do not attend any of their hate filled meetings, I was also told by a member, who does, they devoted at least one entire meeting to Prop8.

  • 115. george  |  January 30, 2010 at 1:33 am

    jimig said, "From what we have learn during this trial is that there is an agenda regarding LGBT but it seems to be a well organized agenda to attack LGBT."

    There has never been an agenda to attack LGBT. Those of us who support Prop8 did so as a means of returning what had been disturbed by gay advocacy groups.

    You people speak as if the institution of marriage was created as a result of animus towards gays; whereas the truth is that marriage was created as a result of the fact that men and women procreate, and society wants to encourage fathers and mothers to stay together and provide a stable environment for the offspring that they created.

    The only agenda here is from the whining gay advocates who claimed that they wanted equal rights. So the government gave them a path to equal rights via civil unions (admitted imperfect, but certainly perfectable), but the gay advocates were not satisfied to fight for the additional rights that they felt cheated out of in civil unions; no, they decided that the rights afforded to married couples weren't enough.

    The gay agenda is to try to destroy the institution of marriage; to drastically change society to accept the silly notion that men and women are not inherently different; that it doesn't matter whether children are brought up by their real parents.

    But the population has been forced by the gay advocates to fight the ridiculous fight to proclaim the obvious. And over 30 times the population has spoken: Men and women ARE different. Only the combination of man and woman can create a baby. Children should have the right to be raised by their real parents. Marriage is for men and women only. There is not such thing as a straight agenda for marriage, except that marriage should be left alone.

  • 116. Ronnie  |  January 30, 2010 at 1:58 am

    Curious George said "You people speak as if the institution of marriage was created as a result of animus towards gays; whereas the truth is that marriage was created as a result of the fact that men and women procreate, and society wants to encourage fathers and mothers to stay together and provide a stable environment for the offspring that they created."

    George George George…..Not all men and women can procreate so they cannot get married either….. So a father who beats the shit out of his wife and kids should stay married to provide a stable environment for the offspring that they created…. That is an oxymoron MORON!!!!!

    The institution of marriage was already destroyed by Britney Spears…..Civil unions are not enforced…Gay people are Men and Women so no they are not inherently different…nice try though.

    "And over 30 times the population has spoken"…well the population had spoken that AA's are animals and interracial marriage was a sin against the bible…Tell me Curious George, who did that work out for them?

    "Only the combination of man and woman can create a baby." – – Wrong the combination of man, woman, and a syringe(baster) can create a baby.

    "Children should have the right to be raised by their real parents." – – Even if daddy rapes his daughter? What about orphans, whose parents have died?

    "There is not such thing as a straight agenda for marriage" – – We didn't call it the "straight" agenda because we have straight people who support us even though you crack head refuse to see that.

    It's called the Bigot Agenda and the Religious Agenda which is illegal in this country…because the churches do not pay taxes….what they are doing is illegal….YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS IF YOU DON'T PAT TAXES.

    If you want to live in a Theocracy that discriminates against other religions then go live in the Vatican. This is America….Get over yourself GOODBYE!!!!

  • 117. Urbain  |  January 30, 2010 at 2:13 am

    Here is a practical, real life example of how the ban on marriage equality affects people. It's a video carried on a FOX news affiliate about a gay highway patrolman who was killed in the line of duty on Christmas Day and what is happening.

    George, if you can explain to us why you feel it is a good idea that the survivors be denied equality, and in particularly, the son, please let us know.

  • 118. Urbain  |  January 30, 2010 at 2:14 am

    Sorry for the typo, meant "particular," not "particularly."

    The video is about 10 minutes long but illustrates some pertinent issues.

  • 119. george  |  January 30, 2010 at 4:44 am

    #1 – I think that anyone who has kids is irresponsible if he does not draft even a simple will for his family.

    #2 – I've said here that I think that civil unions are a fine vehicle for providing equal rights to non-m/f couples.

    #3 – When I feel like I'm denied something, I do what I need to do; I certainly don't go crying to the government to fix my wittle probwems. Draw up a will. Draw up a power of attorney. This ain't rocket science, and you might actually learn something in the process.

  • 120. Ronnie  |  January 30, 2010 at 4:55 am

    #1 – Will's can be contested….MJ had a will and yet many people are fighting over who owns what and who.

    #2 – Separate but equal is not equal…How did that work out for for AA's?

    #3 – Gay marriage was legal in Cali and what did prop ha8te do? They certainly went crying to the government and their churches to fix theirs and your's wittle probwems. This ain't rocket science Curious George, and you clearly have not learned that civil unions and domestic partnerships are not enforced. Do a little research and you might actually learn something in the process.

  • 121. Tom B.  |  January 30, 2010 at 5:06 am

    Here's the problem, George:

    Marriage already acts as power of attorney, a will in absence of a written one, as well as providing all survivorship benefits should one party or the other pass on.

    CU/DP in most states do very little in that manner, and the family of the deceased partner, if they live in a state that does not recognize those, can fight and win to take everything away from the surviving partner.

    Also, the simple fact is, it takes impossible amounts of paperwork for a gay couple to gain at least similar rights to a married straight couple, as well as the fact that hospital visitation, benefits, and other factors are often IGNORED completely in regards to a gay couple, even if they have the proper legal paperwork, since most states are 'legally' allowed to ignore them.

    So tell me George, how are they equal again?

  • 122. Richard  |  January 30, 2010 at 5:09 am

    Hey, George, you are forgetting about the due process sections of our constitution. You are also forgetting about the equal protection clause. For us to go through all the paperwork to give our husbands, wives, and children the same protections that heterosexula couples get for a $20 marriage license cost over $15,000 dollars just in fiiling fees alone, not to mention the hourly costs of the lawyers. And NO, civil unions are NOT the same. First of all, they are not transferrable across state lines. In this day and age, you need something that will transfer from state to state because you never know when your boss may send you to another branch of the same company. What happens then, when all the protections you thought you had so carefully put in place for your family are not recognized where you get transferred to? What thn, George? How about you go to a real law scholol and get a real law degree?

  • 123. Urbain  |  January 30, 2010 at 6:02 am

    #1 – I think that anyone who has kids is irresponsible if he does not draft even a simple will for his family.

    I agree, having wills in place are important. However, the primary issue in the news article is that benefits typically paid to officers killed in the line of duty were denied to the dependents because the officer happened to be gay. A child is involved.

    #2 – I’ve said here that I think that civil unions are a fine vehicle for providing equal rights to non-m/f couples.

    Answered already by other posters – thanks!

    #3 – When I feel like I’m denied something, I do what I need to do; I certainly don’t go crying to the government to fix my wittle probwems. Draw up a will. Draw up a power of attorney. This ain’t rocket science, and you might actually learn something in the process.

    Wills and estates are probated every single business day in the United States, across the board for all people. Going to probate court is hardly "crying to the government to fix my wittle probwems." Wills and powers of attorney are constantly challenged in probate court. As to drawing up wills and other estate planning documents, in 2007, published an article citing research showing that 55% of Americans do not have wills.

  • 124. fiona64  |  January 30, 2010 at 7:05 am

    George wrote: #2 – I’ve said here that I think that civil unions are a fine vehicle for providing equal rights to non-m/f couples.

    Yep … civil unions that no longer exist if the parties move to a different state from where it was drawn up. Civil unions that can be ignored by the powers that be, as happened to Janice Langbehn and her family whilst vacationing in Florida.

    Civil unions that several states have written legislation to preclude.

    Get bent, George.


  • 125. george  |  January 30, 2010 at 7:41 am

    Civil unions need to be fixed so that they convey the same rights as marriage rights. That's the fight the gays should be waging; that's the one that stands a chance to win.

    And while I sympathize with the people that the gay advocates drag out as the "typical, just-like-heterosexual-family" couple, I've had some experience with the promiscuous homosexual lifestyle. I have a friend who I have to tell to "be safe" because I know (and he doesn't deny) that he's going out to hook-up with some new stranger at the gay club. A regular guy during the day; sexually irresponsible at night.

    I have a business acquaintance who has a new live-in lover every six months while his adopted kid asks what happened to each previous one. And I live in Leave-it-to-Beaver Land, so I can only imagine what things are like in the urban centers with high gay populations.

    I see the clips of gay pride parades, and I'm appalled; what a messed up group of half-naked, suspended-adolescence people. I've had people send me "joke" video clips of guys ramming their fists up the a$$es of other guys, guys shoving vegetables up their asses, and selected comments from gay web sites where guys are talking about hooking up in bath houses.

    I'm not convinced that most gay couples are anything like heterosexual couples, if they couple up at all. I believe that homosexuality is learned, at least in part, and I don't want my kids to be exposed to it if it will increase their chances of becoming homosexual and living that horrid lifestyle.

    So, there you have it. If a liberal-college educated guy who used to live in a big city feels this way, imagine how rural America feels about the institution of marriage being changed to accommodate this lifestyle?

    Can any of you convince me that what I know about the homosexual lifestyle is inaccurate or is only a small minority of the gay population?

  • 126. Ronnie  |  January 30, 2010 at 7:58 am

    Hey Curious George,,,(and you just proved how curious you are)

    since you are soooo! good at research check online…just one little google search…and you will find out that heterosexuals do everything that we do sexually as well….WE ARE 100% the same….

    You are human right?

    And there's that line again I have gay friends that I support….Is just as comon as "Dude I got so drunk last night I don't even know what happened (which I'm sure is a fav. of yours)

    And then we have the age old saying:

    "I love you, but I'm not IN love with you"


  • 127. Ronnie  |  January 30, 2010 at 8:26 am

    To Curious George……..

    WAIT wait wait……. "I have a business acquaintance"

    Beverly Leslie is that you?

    Curious George…..LGBT people would not be friends with people like you unless you are a closet homophobe and lie to them.

    "I’m not convinced that most gay couples are anything like heterosexual couples, if they couple up at all. I believe that homosexuality is learned, at least in part, and I don’t want my kids to be exposed to it if it will increase their chances of becoming homosexual and living that horrid lifestyle."

    And there you have it people, Curious George wants homosexuality to be illegal……Rick please report this or make sure somebody important sees this statement.

    To quote Harvey Milk:

    "How do you teach homosexuality? Is it like French?"

  • 128. fiona64  |  January 30, 2010 at 8:49 am

    George, I am sure that I will have plenty to say about your effed-up "I don't want my kids to catch teh gay" nonsense, but first I want to address your statement about the gay pride parades.

    I see a lot of homophobes bringing up gay pride parades. If you think that the boys dancing on floats in those parades, or the Dykes on Bikes, represent the entire LGBT world, then I can only assume that you think straights are completely represented by the blond bimbos in beauty pageants and parade courts.

    Both positions are woefully inaccurate, and only serve to demonstrate (further) your ignorance.

    We get it, George. You want the icky gay people to go back into the closet so you will feel comfortable.

    Too bad.


  • 129. fiona64  |  January 30, 2010 at 8:53 am

    George wrote: Can any of you convince me that what I know about the homosexual lifestyle is inaccurate or is only a small minority of the gay population?

    Probably not, since you have your mind made up and don't want to be confused by facts.

    You know what the average day of my gay friends looks like? Get up, brush teeth, shower, go to work, eat lunch, go back to work, in some cases pick up kids after school, go home, eat dinner, in some cases help kids with homework, go to bed, get up the next day and do it again.

    In other words, just like every straight household out there. Your comment that gay couples are different from straight couples is offensive to me. Do you really want to pretend that there are no straight couples where one member is unfaithful? That there is no straight pornography? And why do you watch the alleged gay porn videos if they are so offensive to you, eh?

    I pity any kids of yours who are gay, George. They will no doubt live closeted lives (if they aren't already) for fear of being thrown out of the house or worse by you.



  • 130. Ronnie  |  January 30, 2010 at 9:12 am

    Not to mention, fiona64, that the majority of gay porn stars and actors that play gay roles are Heterosexuals and are in heterosexual relationships.

    Take in part the new couple on "One Life to Live" known to their fan base as "Kish"

    Oliver Fish played by Scott Evans(thats right people the brother of hetero sex god Chis Evans). Scott is an openly gay actor. Then there is Kyle Lewis who is played by straight actor Brett Claywell.

    Also there is the Gay couple on "Brother's & Sister's", Kevin and Scotty.

    Kevin Walker is played my Straight actor, Matthew Rhys. and Scotty Wandell is played by openly gay actor, Luke Macfarlane. Their characters are in a sense married, if it wasn't for the fact that the show takes place in California.

    Look another edu. for you Curious George!

  • 131. Richard  |  January 30, 2010 at 2:36 am

    No, Geroge, the LGBTQQI population is the group that is having to fight like hell to state the obvious–that there is oppression in this country that is being shoved down people's throats in the name of "RELIGION!" Why don't you just finally admit that religion and civil law are two separate entities, and leave our civil rights alone? Or are you afraid that if we get our civil rights, then someone will out you for the closet case that you obviouslly are!

  • 132. Ronnie  |  January 30, 2010 at 2:42 am

    Doah!!!!……..Right on the nose!

  • 133. Richard  |  January 30, 2010 at 5:18 am

    to George ,As far as crying to the government, that is exactly what the prop h8 people did when Judge Walker wanted to televise the trial via tape-delay on You Tube. they went crying all the way to those same "activist" judges you seem to hate, and got it blocked. Turns out the real reason tey didn't want it shown was so that the incompetence of their "legal team" and their "expert" witnesses would not be seen all around the world. they did not want the truth to come out, so they went crying to mommy SCOTUS. You might want to read once in a while, George. this isn't rocket science. And no, George, it isn't rocket science. It is rock science. And I for one, am tired of all the rock you prop h8 people keep throwing!

  • 134. Sheryl  |  January 30, 2010 at 3:56 am

    As I read this, especially the comment that "children should have the right to be raised by their real parents." I wonder how permitting gay marriage takes away that right. Is the gay agenda really to pass a law that all children born must be taken away from their parents and given to gay couples to raise? That's certainly the only way I can see that children would lose the right to be raised by their biological parents.

    Sheryl, a straight Mormon, wonders how people can believe this kind of stuff.

    And, I want to know which definition of traditional marriage the anti-SS marriage group wants to keep, the one where women were property and had no real rights, the one where interracial marriage was not legal?


  • 135. Straight Ally #3008  |  January 30, 2010 at 5:13 am

    As I read this, especially the comment that “children should have the right to be raised by their real parents.” I wonder how permitting gay marriage takes away that right.

    Indeed, this is the biggest BS argument I've heard since "people will be allowed to marry their pets." Such a missed opportunity for the defense!

  • 136. Ronnie  |  January 30, 2010 at 2:14 am

    This was just posted on…..

    Roman Catholic Diocese of Camden reduces parishes
    By The Star-Ledger Continuous News Desk
    January 30, 2010, 9:19AM
    CAMDEN — By the end of this year, the Roman Catholic Diocese of Camden will merge and reduce the number of parishes from 124 to about 70, a report in the New York Times said.
    The area's 500,000 worshipers will have to adjust to closing churches and diminishing parish activities, such as religious education and youth ministry, according to the report. The diocese is ripe for consolidation because it is dense with churches, and it ranks 167th out of 176 dioceses in terms of overall health, according to, which factors in number of priests and adult converts to Catholicism, the report said.

    LMAO!!!!…. I mean that sucks for the amount of charity that is done for those who are heterosexual…but like somebody said in their comments section maybe they shouldn't have spent all their money fighting Gay Marriage…yeah?

  • 137. Ronnie  |  January 30, 2010 at 2:19 am

    Not to mention all the law suits that were brought up and won against child molestation by priests….Do you know anything about that George?

    Father Grabby Hands and his pals didn't even get thrown in jail, but god forbid a regular man or woman does it, they get the book thrown at them.

  • 138. rf  |  January 30, 2010 at 3:17 am

    When Prop 8 is overturned for animus (and hopefully many more reasons), are there are civil damages that can be claimed? Can an unconstitutional amendment and/or the efforts used to pass it be considered fraud or anything else that might enable people/ groups to get some of the money back that they spent fighting this thing? In other words, is there a possibility that certain groups could be crushed with litigation that put them out of business?

  • 139. george  |  January 30, 2010 at 4:52 am

    3 interesting news articles in the last couple of days:

    1. Hawaii's House essentially killed the civil union bill (read: the citizens of Hawaii do not want to change the definition of marriage)

    2. The Superbowl rejected a same-sex dating ad (read: people who watch the Superbowl don't want the gay agenda rammed down their throats)

    3. NY Times article on the openness of "successful" gay unions. (Read: Gay people want to take sexual fidelity out of marriage, because they are sexually promiscuous. Marriage becomes available for any two people regardless of whether they have sex or not, e.g., bro's and sis's)

  • 140. Ronnie  |  January 30, 2010 at 5:10 am

    # debunks for Curious George's lies spoon fed by prop ha8te:

    1. What article about Hawaii?….The definition of marriage has already been changed in 8 countries and 8 states

    It has been postponed not turned down…do a little research.

    2. The superbowl will be sued, discrimination is against the law. (LGBT people and their supporters do not want your reliogn rammed down their throats, IT"S AGAINST THE LAW!)

    3. Lets look into incest, shall we Curious George?

    If Adam and Eve were the only 2 human to reproduce then all humans are related by blood…That is incest my friend….YOU ARE SCREWING YOUR SISTER NIMROD!!!!!

  • 141. Ronnie  |  January 30, 2010 at 5:29 am

    And second more George the Bill to approve civil unions in Hawaii was the will of the people and yet it was still postponed…. So much for "will of the people"…yeah?

  • 142. fiona64  |  January 30, 2010 at 7:10 am

    Um, Georgie dear? The ad that was rejected was not a same-sex dating ad. It was the Unitarian Church of Christ's ad that specified that they welcomed LGBT people. It was rejected because the Super Bowl says they don't take "advocacy ads." Yet, they are airing the anti-choice ad from "Focus on the Family." Where's your outrage there, Georgie?

    #3 just proves you are as full of shit as I thought you were.

    #1 is thanks to the LDS once again, so there's your religious animus yet again.


  • 143. Sarah  |  January 30, 2010 at 10:12 am

    sad sad sad

    ads that advocate taking away a woman's rights to her own body are ok but any ad that implies that someone is ok with "the gays" is not

    this is a sad time for the rights of all americans

  • 144. Dave T  |  February 1, 2010 at 12:58 am

    George is ok with LGBT folks getting all the rights of straight folks – they should be doing it through civil unions and domestic partnerships and save marriage for the straight folks. Except when George can prevent LGBT folks from getting civil unions, like in Hawaii.

    Just come right out and say it George: "I don't want LGBT couples to have the same rights as straight married couples."

  • 145. Ronnie  |  February 1, 2010 at 1:10 am

    To Dave T., Curious George actually made the statement that he(they) want Homosexuality and all LGBT people to be illegal.

    His(They're) exact words:
    "I don’t want my kids to be exposed to it if it will increase their chances of becoming homosexual and living that horrid lifestyle.”

    That means no LGBT people on TV, in the news, in books, magazines, in movies, walking down the street holding hands, kissing in public, on the internet, ect. ect. We all know the whole hate filled spiel…. That is they're agenda.

  • 146. rpx  |  January 30, 2010 at 5:00 am

    Since I'm hetro I ahve not spent any time at all visitng GLBT website so perhaps this already exists and I am jsut ignorent of the fact. This is what I am thinking. Every campaign needs a good fight song. MLK had "We shall overcome" what is our fight song?

  • 147. Ronnie  |  January 30, 2010 at 5:14 am

    Pat Benetar's "Invincible"
    One Republic's "Marching On"
    Christina Aguilera's "Beautiful"

  • 148. rpx  |  January 30, 2010 at 8:52 am

    Ronnie, many thanks for suggesting the 3 songs. I went and listened to them but I had something different in mind. What I was thinking of was more of a battle song. A song came to mind from the vietnam war period. It was by Country Joe and the Fish

    A song that has got marching rhythum like, "When Johnny comes marching home again Hurrah Hurra.

    Something with a strong drumbeat, a marching drum beat.
    Gimma a minute here I'm free associating.
    Something with this candende

    The phrase or chant shout that keeps popping up in my mind is "What about us?" I know this isn't right but something like this

    My country tis of thee
    pause in song and Shout- What about us?
    Sweet Land of Liberty
    pause in song and Shout- What about us?
    Of thee I sing
    pause in song and Shout- What about us?
    Land where my fathers died,
    pause in song and Shout- What about us?
    Land of the Pilgrims pride,
    pause in song and Shout- What about us?
    From every mountainside
    pause in song and Shout- What about us?
    Let Freedom ring
    pause in song and Shout- What about us?
    What about us? What about us?

  • 149. Ronnie  |  January 30, 2010 at 5:40 am

    This is for Curious George….just a little edu. for you:

    The Difference Between Marriage and Civil Unions
    What's the Difference between Civil Unions and and Gay Marriage?
    By Kathy Belge, Guide

    You hear the politicians saying it all the time. “I support Civil Unions, but not gay marriage.” What exactly does this mean? Some even say they support equal rights for gays and lesbians, but not gay marriage. Is this possible? And why do gays and lesbians want marriage so badly when they can have civil unions?
    First of all, What is Marriage? When people marry, they tend to do so for reasons of love and commitment. But marriage is also a legal status, which comes with rights and responsibilities. Marriage establishes a legal kinship between you and your spouse. It is a relationship that is recognized across cultures, countries and religions.

    What is a Civil Union? Civil Unions and Domestic Partnerships exist in only a handful of places like New Jersey and Washington and Oregon.

    Vermont was the first state to create civil unions in 2000 to provide legal protections to gays and lesbians in relationships in that state because gay marriage is not an option. The protections do not extend beyond the border of Vermont and no federal protections are included with a Civil Union. Civil Unions offer some of the same rights and responsibilities as marriage, but only on a state level.
    What about Domestic partnership? Some states and municipalities have domestic partnership registries, but no domestic partnership law is the same. Some, like Oregon's domestic partnership law comes with many rights and responsibilities. Others offer very few benefits to the couple.

    What are some of the differences between Civil Unions and Gay Marriage?

    Recognition in other states: Even though each state has its own laws around marriage, if someone is married in one state and moves to another, their marriage is legally recognized. For example, Oregon marriage law applies to people 17 and over. In Washington state, the couple must be 18 to wed. However, Washington will recognize the marriage of two 17 year olds from Oregon who move there. This is not the case with Civil Unions and Domestic Partnerships. If someone has a Domestic Partnership, that union is not recognized by some states and not others. Some states have even ruled that they do not have to recognize civil unions performed in other states, because their states have no such legal category. As gay marriages become legal in other states, this status may change.

    A United States citizen who is married can sponsor his or her non-American spouse for immigration into this country. Those with Civil Unions have no such privilege.

    Civil Unions are not recognized by the federal government, so couples would not be able to file joint-tax returns or be eligible for tax breaks or protections the government affords to married couples.


    The General Accounting Office in 1997 released a list of 1,049 benefits and protections available to heterosexual married couples. These benefits range from federal benefits, such as survivor benefits through Social Security, sick leave to care for ailing partner, tax breaks, veterans benefits and insurance breaks. They also include things like family discounts, obtaining family insurance through your employer, visiting your spouse in the hospital and making medical decisions if your partner is unable to. Civil Unions protect some of these rights, but not all of them.
    But can’t a lawyer set all this up for gay and lesbian couples?

    No. A lawyer can set up some things like durable power of attorney, wills and medical power of attorney. There are several problems with this, however.
    1. It costs thousands of dollars in legal fees. A simple marriage license, which usually costs under $100 would cover all the same rights and benefits.
    2. Any of these can be challenged in court. As a matter of fact, more wills are challenged than not. In the case of wills, legal spouses always have more legal power than any other family member.
    3. Marriage laws are universal. If someone’s husband or wife is injured in an accident, all you need to do is show up and say you’re his or her spouse. You will not be questioned. If you show up at the hospital with your legal paperwork, the employees may not know what to do with you. If you simply say, "He's my husband," you will immediately be taken to your spouse's side.

    Defense of Marriage Law
    Even with lesbian and gay marriages being performed and recognized in some states, the Federal Defense of Marriage Law prohibits the federal government from recognizing gay and lesbian relationships. This puts gay and lesbian couples who are married in a legal limbo. How do they file their tax returns? Do they have to pay the tax on their partner’s health insurance? How do they fill out legal and other forms, single or married?
    Creating Civil Unions creates a separate and unequal status for some of America’s citizens. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial court ruled that creating a separate class for gay and lesbian citizens is not permissible and that is why they have voted that only marriage equals marriage. The precedent was set with Brown v. The Board of Education regarding segregation in public education. Ironically, Massachusetts marriage law went into effect on the 50th anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education.

    The United States Constitution guarantees equality for all. As you can see, marriage and civil unions are not the same. Creating equal access to marriage is the only fair way to ensure equality for gay and straight couples alike.

    (Curious George Probably Will not read this because he is only interested in the rocks (like Richard strongly labeled it, Thank you Richard) that Prop Ha8te throws.

  • 150. Richard  |  January 30, 2010 at 6:14 am

    Hey, Ronnie. This is an invitation for you and for any of our other marriage equality supporters who are on the east coast. I now have the first East Coast Equality Team, and I want all of you to join so that we can get enough members on the east coast to have more Equality Teams. Go to the main CC webite and click on the link for the Cumberland County, North Carolina Equality Team. Looking forward to having you on the team. And I have a way of having meetings with everyone, espeially since I have a webcam built-in on my laptop.

  • 151. Ronnie  |  January 30, 2010 at 6:23 am

    I will definitely look into that Richard, thank you!

  • 152. Richard  |  January 30, 2010 at 6:24 am

    Thank you, Ronnie. You will definitely be an asset to any equality team you are part of.

  • 153. george  |  January 30, 2010 at 6:35 am

    I'm well aware of the current differences between civil union rights and marriage rights. If the rights are unjustly unequal, then the GLBT advocates should be fighting to expand the civil union rights at the federal level. That's a fight that they wouldn't get much pushback on and would keep the people interested in protecting marriage out of their way.

    Frankly, I see this whole push for gay marriage exploding in the faces of the gay advocates, where not only will Prop 8 be upheld, but marriage across the country will be Constitutionally defined as only between a man and a woman by this year's new Republican Congress.

    The people of the US are witnessing how financial and social liberalism is messing up the country, and there is going to be a nasty swing of the pendulum in the direction of conservativism. And if these SCOTUS justices can hang in there for the rest of the Obama (single) term, we will see a very conservative SCOTUS for a long time.

  • 154. Richard  |  January 30, 2010 at 6:45 am

    Actually, George (or should I say, Team George, since there seems to be more than one of you hiding behind the same handle), these same arguments went around during Loving v. Virginia with regard to interracial marriage. Expanding the legal rights of marriage to incude another group that is legally eligible for it in all other ways only strengthens the institution of marriage. Look at the drop in the divorce rate in Massachusetts now that people no longer have to enter into a sham marriage with a person of the opposite sex in order to gain the same protections that are now allowed in Massachusetts. You are like the line from Shakespeare: "Methinks the lady protests too much." You know how weak your arguments are, so in order to retain your closed minds, you keep repeating your hate-filled mantra to yourself over and over, even to the point of using different words so that you convince yourself you are singing a new song. But you are not. You are only singing the same song with a new verse. You really need to grow up and let the adults have a reasonable conversation here. All of you do. And yes, I ruly believe that there are several trolls hiding behind one handle. And all of you need to get out into the real world and tear down your ivory towers of prejudice.

  • 155. fiona64  |  January 31, 2010 at 5:40 am

    I've figured it out, everyone; this is the world in which George wants to live (and to force the rest of us into):

    He wants the US to be a real-life Republic of Gilead. For those who have not read Margaret Atwood's "The Handmaid's Tale," I suggest you do so at once … because this dystopian novel represents what a whole bunch of Fundamentalist/Dominionist types would like to see happen. The Constitution is replaced by Levitical law, just for starters …

  • 156. Rachel  |  February 1, 2010 at 6:39 am

    Oh my god… THAT IS WHAT I FEAR!!!

    I am a 24 year old woman living in NY and I am terrified of the government/church taking away my rights.

    I may not want a baby now but I want the right to decided to abort one should I be raped, drugged, or in some other way harmed by birth. I also want the choice to keep it should it come to that.

    I want to be FREE of Religion. Barely do people notice that there are more than 3 religions in the world and I know that mine *Wicca!* specifically mentions that shoving my views down ANYONES throat is wrong. That forcing people will come back to me threefold.
    That any wrong I committ will be accounted for.

    I do not want to live in a Republic of Gilead. I do not want to live in a Christian nation. I do not want to live in a Jewish nation. Or Islamic or ANY RELIGION! Religion is so PERSONAL that forcing it on others takes away from it.

    And, in a different vein, my father passed last year without a will. Does that make him irresponsible? No. He had other ways in place for me and my brother. But lacking that document has been a hassle. I do not want ANYONE ELSE to go through this pain after someone they love dies. I couldnt even call anyone when I found out let alone LOOK for that paper. The lawyer fees are retardedly high and I cant stand how my Brother and I are being treated because of the lack of will.

    Also, my brother and I grew up in a straight household. But he is gay and I am bisexual. Now since my parents divorced at 11 do you think THAT caused us to "turn" gay? NO! Actually, as far as I remember he and I have always been this way. My mom knew my brother was gay at age 2!! Is it because he grew up with a sister and a mother that he became "gay"? Not really! He has some of the MANLIEST (seriously, like 2 army uncles, 1 navy, 1 navy step dad, and TONS of military friends of family) men I ever knew in our family. People who scared boyfriends of my friends. He plays more video games(halo!!!) , watches sports and is more involved in the community than HALF the people I know. I love my brother and there is NOTHING wrong with us. We are human, citizens, and deserve these rights and privilages. If our church can marry us, they will. They dont have a problem with it, just you george.

  • 157. Ronnie  |  January 30, 2010 at 6:58 am

    "The people of the US are witnessing how financial and social liberalism is messing up the country"

    What the hell are you talking about Pot?

    Here you Kettle…. The churches do not pay taxes and funded 75% of a law that is oppressing people who do pay taxes……and in order for a law to overthrow the states that gay marriage is already legal it would have to go through the same steps that prop ha8te did and start from scratch and since that is never going to happen the constitution will never be changed to say marriage is a man and a woman because marriage does not appear in the constitution at all…nice try Curious George…do a little research.

    Frankly, I see this whole push for religion exploding in the faces of hate advocates, where not only will prop hate be DESTROYED!, but marriage across the country will be Constitutionally defined as a legal agreement between two consenting adults by this years new Bi-partisan Congress.

    The people of the US are witnessing how lies can destroy a persons credibility and illegal religious funding is messing up the countries freedom, and theres is going to be a nasty swing of the pendulum in the direction of equality. And when Obama FIRES these right wing SCOTUS judges(because it is there jobs that are on the line thanks to their recent ruling) within next few years, we will see a very Equal SCOTUS for a long time.

    Curious George….please.. I got an "A" in debate, public speaking, American History, world history, business law, and political science….. YOU ARE PWND!

  • 158. Ronnie  |  January 30, 2010 at 7:13 am

    Correction it has already been ruled by SCOTUS that marriage is a fundamental civil right protected by the constitution (no mention of man and woman, just marriage)

  • 159. george  |  January 30, 2010 at 9:39 am

    Ooooh, you made an "A" in debate! Which community college was that that offers a class in debate? Puhlease, I don't even respond to most of your posts because they are incoherent ramblings.

  • 160. Ronnie  |  January 30, 2010 at 10:04 am

    Curious George, I said I got and "A" in debate not made….Nobody on here believes you, every single person think you are uneducated and a liar….not to mention that some people believe that you are more then one person that works for prop ha8te.

    My posts are educated, intelligent, cleaver, witty, everybody thinks their funny except for you, they are rooted in reality and have actual facts to back them up.

    Where as your are threats, words of hate, misconceptions, un-realistic, filled with as much validity as ghost(note the KKK reference).

    You don't respond to my posts because you can't. All you can obviously do is pass judgement and insult people while repeating lies from prop ha8te.

    Tell me Curious George, where did incoherently ramble? Most like you will not answer this either because you can't, there are none. You have no proof. You have no evidence much like the defense.

    In this case, I am David Boies and you are One of the witlesses for the defense(you pick which one you want to be) and you are making my case for me.

    At one of the three schools I went to, in which I got 2 degrees, the "Debate" class I got an "A" was called Logic. I Learned the proper way to debate and trust me you show zero of those disciplines.

    Just accept it Curious George…..I PWN you!

    Now got to bed little boy, the adults are trying to talk!

  • 161. fiona64  |  January 31, 2010 at 4:53 am

    Ronnie, take it as a compliment. This woman-hating homophobe doesn't respond to *anyone* who takes apart what passes for an argument in his neck of the woods.

    He's no more a lawyer than my kitten is.


  • 162. Ronnie  |  January 31, 2010 at 5:01 am

    hehehehe……. I told you he wouldn't answer it…..hehehe….he's scratching his head….which way did he go george which way did he go…..hehehehe


  • 163. DK  |  January 30, 2010 at 7:03 am first video is UP!!!! 🙂

  • 164. Ronnie  |  January 30, 2010 at 7:20 am

    In all actuality Civil Unions and Domestic Partnerships have the same level of validity as Common-Law Marriages, sometimes called a de facto marriage, informal marriage or marriage by habit and repute.


  • 165. Ronnie  |  January 30, 2010 at 7:22 am

    heheehh IS NOT EQUAL! unfortunetly my typing skills are not as good as my use of words and well to put it simply (for Curious George's 3yo maturity and education level) not as good as my mouth!

  • 166. Ronnie  |  January 30, 2010 at 8:03 am

    Hey I just came up with another acronym for PROPOSITION 8:

    Parishioners Religious Oppression Proves Our Side Is The Indeed Oppressed Noogenesis(1), Nonpareil(2), Noetics(3), Normalism(4), Noosphere(5), Nous(6), Noumenon(7), Nitency(8)

  • 167. Midday Open Thread | TheW&hellip  |  January 30, 2010 at 2:01 pm

    […] Campaign over a website logo? Turnabout’s fair play, as the Courage Campaign has now filed a complaint against Protect Marriage’s lead counsel Andy Pugno for misuse of public funds in getting […]

  • 168. Richard  |  January 30, 2010 at 2:11 pm

    Actually, Team George, NONE of us can give you any evidence to the contrary with regards to your views, because you absolutely refuse to look at them with honesty, integrity, and a scientific viewpoint of open-mindedness. I grew up in West Virginia, where even in this day and age, the LGBT community brags about how long each couple has been together, and the couples are just like any heterosexual couple, except in the fact that these couples are two men or two women, and also in the fact that when these couples have differences, they rationally work through those differences, unlike the heterosexuals who get divorcd at the drop of a hat. But as I said, nothing we say will matter to you or make a difference, because you refuse to open your eyes to THE TRUTH!

  • 169. Midday Open Thread - Onli&hellip  |  January 30, 2010 at 3:23 pm

    […] Campaign over a website logo? Turnabout’s fair play, as the Courage Campaign has now filed a complaint against Protect Marriage’s lead counsel Andy Pugno for misuse of public funds in getting […]

  • 170. Makkabee  |  January 30, 2010 at 9:19 pm

    Before these guys try to enforce Leviticus (selectively enforce — I don't see any ballot initiatives to ban eating shellfish), they might consider obeying the rules in Exodus — you know, "thou shalt not bear false witness," "thou shalt not steal," that sort of thing. So far their track record with the Ten Commandments is spotty at best.

  • 171. Ronnie  |  January 30, 2010 at 11:33 pm

    Yes Yes…right on the nose… straight out of Queer As Folk

    Cody: Mind if I ask you a question, Pastor?
    Pastor: Please.
    Cody: This book, you have to believe all of it, not just some of it, right?
    Pastor: That's right.
    Cody: So, do you like shrimp?
    Pastor: Well, as a matter of fact I do.
    Cody: Because in Leviticus, a few scriptures before that man lying with man is an abomination one, it also says it's an abomination to eat shellfish, and shrimp are shellfish, right?
    Pastor: What's your point, young man?
    Cody: I believe the point is, if you can eat shrimp, we can eat c0<k.
    Pastor: Son, you need the Lord. You need to accept Jesus.
    Cody: Oh, I accept Jesus. It's assholes like you, I have a problem with.

  • 172. fiona64  |  January 31, 2010 at 5:43 am

    A longtime favorite of mine:

    God's Laws

    Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can.

    I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.

    a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

    b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

    c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

    d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

    e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

    f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

    g) Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

    h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die?

    i) I know from Lev 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

    j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them?
    (Lev 24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

    I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help.

    Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

  • 173. Ronnie  |  January 31, 2010 at 6:00 am

    I love this I am going to use it everywhere….ah the sweet cherry picking of a Roman Virgin Orgy….ewww!

  • 174. Drew  |  August 30, 2012 at 2:21 pm

    The fact is either the elections were rigged, or the majority of California actually voted to ban same sex marriage. The truth is sad no matter what it is. I used to like California, but what I realized is that all the progression that happened allowed a bunch uneducated people to survive and vote. So now we have mostly Christian wealth and Uneducated Poor deciding the ballot. Democracy, and human progress is getting worse, we really do need a mass die off of the human race. We can't educate the poor, because then they would demand an equal share of the worlds wealth. And since 1 percent is in control of this distribution, they will never get it. You know the old saying pull yourself up by your bootstraps? Well unless we have an imminent world scale disaster coming, the powers that be are planning world war three.

  • 175. porn app  |  April 11, 2014 at 7:56 pm

    It is perfect time to make a few plans for the long run and it’s time to be happy.
    I’ve read this publish and if I may I wish to recommend you some fascinating things or tips.
    Maybe you can write next articles relating to this article.
    I wish to read even more issues approximately it!

Having technical problems? Visit our support page to report an issue!