Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Rights and Liberties

How Prop. 8 Could Dismantle My Marriage

By Thanh Ngo, New America Media. Posted November 5, 2008.


The passage of Prop 8 means my partner Andrew and I will be legal strangers once again. He will no longer be my husband.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Note: As of Nov. 5, it appears California's Proposition 8 has passed successfully. This piece was written prior to the vote on the ballot initiative.

I have been ''married'' three times.

Each time, to the same person.

The first time Andrew and I got ''married,'' we were in a mortgage office where Andrew's cousin worked. It was March 2003 and we were there to get our domestic partnership notarized and take Andrew's cousin to lunch. The notary checked our identification and placed a red stamp on a document that both bound and protected our relationship. The paperwork took just a few minutes to complete. We mailed in the document that same afternoon. A few weeks later, another piece of paper arrived notifying us that we were ''registered domestic partners.''

That simple act gave legal significance to our relationship. We didn't exchange rings. There were no flowers girls or ring bearers. We were in shorts and T-shirts totally casual. His cousin, Julie, was not even in the same room. She was finishing a business call when we filled out the one-page document.

We registered ourselves as domestic partners as a way to protect our rights and give legal recognition to our relationship. Both being attorneys, we were very aware of the lack of protection and recognition of our relationship. Despite being together, then for seven years, I would have been treated as a complete stranger in the eyes of the law if anything terrible happened to Andrew. His family could have kicked me out of the house we bought together or even prevented me from visiting him in the hospital. His brother, who called us an insulting term during a family argument, would have had a right to our house. I don't think my ''in-laws'' would stoop to that level, but it is all very possible within the limits of the law. And, it has happened to too many lesbians and gays in the past.

The second time we got ''married'' was on Valentine's Day 2004. Again, the big Chinese banquet or tea ceremony was lacking. We drove to San Francisco's City Hall to get married after Mayor Gavin Newsom declared that San Francisco would no longer discriminate against gays and lesbians with regard to marriage rights. We waited for four hours along with other couples for the right to have our relationship legally recognized. It was powerful to hear a judge declare us ''spouses.'' Then, several months later, the Supreme Court annulled our marriage, citing that Mayor Newsome exceeded his power to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples. So, we settled for the best thing the law afforded us at the time: a separate and unequal domestic partnership. Andrew became my ''domestic partner'' with some limited rights.

More recently, this summer, we got married yet again. And, again, it was a simple event.

There was no ceremony. My parents were not there. My siblings were not present. My adorable 6-year-old nephew was not able to be the ring bearer.

Like the second time, we drove to San Francisco. We went to the Hall of Justice, which is the criminal court building. As attorneys, we have appeared many times in those courtrooms arguing for justice and fairness for victims. It was only fitting that we came there to find justice for ourselves. My ability and right to legally marry Andrew came a few weeks earlier from the California Supreme Court. It was that court that saw the inequity of denying marriage rights to gays and lesbians. The court, in recognizing the importance of the institution of marriage to society, struck down laws that denied those fundamental rights to gay men and lesbian women. In choosing to get married this way, we gave up the chance to have a formal wedding ceremony because we wanted to get married before that right is overturned by Proposition 8. Proposition 8 on Tuesday's ballot would eliminate the rights of gays and lesbian to be married in California.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: san francisco, same sex marriage, gavin newsom, proposition 8, lgbt rights

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Rights and Liberties! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Just hang in there!
Posted by: Trist4good77 on Nov 5, 2008 2:03 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Chances are those who were stupid enough to vote yes on 8 are ALSO going to be stupid enough to think this is permanently set in stone. OMG theyre SOOO kidding themselves. You call 52 per cent "California speaking" I mean... 70 per cent of under 25 voted NO... and you have like 49 per cent of california DISGUSTED... and thats just the polls of it.... In the worst case... if all the legal motions being brough on now fail... this will be RE-Balloted in 5 to 10 years and since then all these old hags will have died off and the younguns taken over... This will be turned around THEYRE NOT getting away with this tyranny and bad prop.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This comment has been removed from the site due to non-compliance with AlterNet's community policies.
» RE: Life goes on! Posted by: That Guy
» RE: Life goes on! Posted by: TagsNOLA
» RE: Life goes on! Posted by: philipcfromnyc
» RE: Life goes on! Posted by: RosieRivetor
» RE: Life goes on! Posted by: philipcfromnyc
» RE: Life goes on! Posted by: MelStL
An agnostics view on gay marriage...
Posted by: beninpg on Nov 5, 2008 3:13 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What a surprising number of people fail to understand is prop 8 is not targeted to be mean or discriminate against gays and lesbians.

After all, the state recognizes them as a domestic couple just like men and women are, so it's really not a rights issue. The real issue here, at least for the many agnostics like myself who voted yes on 8, is children and family.

If you study early childhood you'll see that kids need both a mother and father to properly develop. Do some reading into it...it's well established. Gays and lesbians adopting children is unfair to kids and just not right.

Family is the cornerstone institution on which our society is built, and while I don't believe in god I do believe the rules of the bible exist for a purpose.

Its too bad some of the biggoted supporters have cast a negative light on prop 8, because a lot of people have views based on things other than hate.

I have friends who are both gay and lesbian and my belief is based on both science and morality.

Look how many people voted for Obama, and still voted yes on 8...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Thanks!.... Posted by: YogiBear
Think of the children?
Posted by: bdladdy on Nov 5, 2008 3:33 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
May your narrow minded children just rot. Clearly my attempt at a quiet, dignified happily-ever-after has damaged them beyond therapy.

PS, when do we get our own rainbow-colored water fountains? I don't want to spread 'it'.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Think of the children? Posted by: beninpg
» RE: Think of the children? Posted by: mjglow
Liam on the Left
Posted by: Liam on Nov 5, 2008 3:33 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have written this before but.....I would not have voted for Prop 8 if I lived in California but the prop. victory is the result of the gay community employing a really stupid political strategy.

Replace the "marriage license" for everyone with a (call it whatever you want) "domestic business partnership". Everyone gets one if you are going to have all the connections (business and domestic) a "marriage" creates.
But get married in a church by priest, judges, ministers, druids or whoever because "marriage" should not be a governmental function!

These "in your face" political adventures liberals seem to take great joy in engaging in are losers (i.e. The "Equal Rights" Amendment instead of just accepting that the law means "all American Citizens" when it says "men")...they just had to rub the sexists faces in it! And then they lost...!!!!

The gay community needs to go to the legislatures and get legislation passed that says " a domestic, business relationship license shall be regarded the same as the term "marriage license" (now revoked). I negotiated union contracts all the time and we used to do this all the time.

Come on Liberals get smart....we now have a president with a brain and the possibilities are great...don't make it harder for him.

You may not agree with me but think about this...while you were losing ...Obama was winning the votes of the very people voting against you. Ya gotta think about that.....!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Liam on the Left Posted by: TagsNOLA
Hatred and Bigotry on AlterNet
Posted by: munchkinpup on Nov 5, 2008 4:03 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Some of the comments are amazingly ignorant as well as absurd. Since when are gays "militant wingnuts?"
BTW, Prop 8 NARROWLY passed.

Gays pay taxes exactly the same as heterosexuals do and they may have children (or not) they are trying to raise. How does it help those children of same sex unions if their parents do not have the full support of the law? And how the hell is it supposedly fine for the Mormon church as well as other religious organizations to spend millions of dollars to defeat the right of gays to marry? I deeply resent Mormons in Utah and elsewhere dictating the overturning of CA State law.

I'm sickened by the fact that these supposedly "Christian" organizations can promote their hatred and bigotry in the name of some righteous higher power. BTW, gays live on the identical "Gods green earth" as heterosexuals, and deserve full protection under the laws of CA--which is exactly what the CA Supreme Court tried to do. Bigoted and ignorant individuals have no right to force their hateful and narrow views of what constitutes "real marriage" upon others whom they know nothing about.

I wish people on AlterNet who have exhibited ignorant and sanctimonious opinions would explain the extremely high divorce rate among heterosexuals, if marriage between a man and a woman is so sacred?
And for the record, I'm a happily married straight person, and I voted NO on Prop 8.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Hatred and Bigotry on AlterNet Posted by: Father Time
Philosophical Dilemma
Posted by: dustin on Nov 5, 2008 4:51 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The author of this account, though I respect his sincerity, reveals an interesting philosophical dilemma I think held by many that believe that same-sex marriage should be legal.

That society is based on some system of morals, is a point often attacked by gays and lesbians. They argue, “What’s right for you is not necessarily right for me.” They profess to take the position of moral relativism, where no basic system of right and wrong exists. To those who hold this view (or think they hold this view) all right and wrong is relative to the individual, and a societies’ morals are the addition and subtraction of each person’s morals together. This view has many problems, but it is mainly used as an argument against religion and the basic morals that religious people think society should be founded on. This is the en vogue argument when tolerance meets morals.

When the author visits the “Hall of Justice” to marry Andrew, he says, “It was only fitting that we came there to find justice for ourselves.” Here the author’s philosophical dilemma reveals itself. What does the author mean by “justice”? If justice is simply equal protection under the law with no basic moral or spiritual foundation, how can he argue to change the law on the basis of “justice”?

This isn’t possible. This is the problem with moral relativism, if you believe that “what is true for me is not necessarily true for you”, and vise versa why would you argue for your side? Why would you endeavor to change the law or seek “justice”. So the author cannot, and obviously does not think that morals are relative. He must believe that there is a system of values greater than all of us; morals that are basic and universal and that all individuals should seek these values.

These universal values, for the author, must include either, that marriage doesn’t matter, or that it can be done between any two humans, or that (and I doubt he has this view) it should only be same-sex. The author obviously holds the second view to be true, else why is he pining for a wedding with “flower girls” and “tea ceremony”; marriage matters to him.

If the author holds that, marriage is the expression of love between any two humans, is a universal and basic truth, and that we should accept this as our own as well, I see some very dubious and treacherous gaps in this view. Why now has mankind come to this revolutionary conclusion that men can marry men, and women, women? How did all of our forefathers get this basic universal value wrong? Why is this moral discovery so incredibly rare in history and modern society, if it is so basic and universal? How is it that this revolutionary view comes from those who are using the reproductive powers in a purely selfish way, (nothing besides feeling can come from it). I should be very skeptical when this new basic moral comes from those inherently self interested to change the old one. No instead it seems infinitely more likely that the truth basis for same-sex marriage is born of a group’s personal will and not some more basic truth.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Philosophical Dilemma Posted by: beninpg
» RE: Philosophical Dilemma Posted by: TagsNOLA
» RE: Philosophical Dilemma Posted by: luzmejor
» RE: Philosophical Dilemma Posted by: philipcfromnyc
» RE: Philosophical Dilemma Posted by: dustin
» RE: Philosophical Dilemma Posted by: philipcfromnyc
» RE: Philosophical Dilemma Posted by: Father Time
» RE: Philosophical Dilemma Posted by: dustin
» RE: Philosophical Dilemma Posted by: Father Time
» RE: Philosophical Dilemma Posted by: Father Time
To yes on 8 supporters:
Posted by: tincal on Nov 5, 2008 5:36 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In case you are unclear of the facts…

Who I love and who I marry:
- does not harm you personally
- does not harm your family or children
- does not harm you financially
- does not undermine your family, marriage, livelihood or religion
- does not diminish your fundamental rights in any way

However, your bigotry and religious / personal biases have:
- threatened and eliminated my fundamental rights
- threatened and undermined my marriage to another person
- threatened and undermined my right to have a family (the case in some states)
- harmed me financially (with respect to taxes, healthcare, loss of business, etc.)

So I ask you – how have YOU been harmed by me and my marriage?

If prop 8 wins – it will be by a very narrow margin and it does not indicate the view of all people. Most importantly it still does not change the fundamental issue that no one person or group has the right to deny rights or equal protection of the law from another “person” – regardless of your personal / religious beliefs. You may not be promoting hate in your quest, but it is very clear that you are promoting discrimination to all of those that don’t share your views. And you cannot deny that you are nothing more than a hypocrite if you say that it is ok for you to have rights but not me.

Your attempt to re-define marriage is purely to suit your personal and religious views / biases. Marriage should be between two people who love each other and make a commitment to each other, period.

In respect to a child being better off with opposite-sex parents, to quote a NY Times article, “Scores of earlier studies have already shown that on virtually every level of psychological adjustment -- including peer relationships, gender development, intelligence, school performance and sexual orientation -- children raised by gay parents are not significantly different from those raised by straight parents. ''How the children turn out depends on how you parent, not your sexual orientation,'' Dr. Johnson said in an interview. Parenthood requires unconditional love, respect, patience, consistent but appropriate discipline, along with actions and words that build a child's self-esteem, confidence and respect for individual differences. These qualities are not the sole province of heterosexuals, she said.”

For all those people who say we have the right to marry and same rights already – please brush up on your legal knowledge and get the facts straight - Domestic Partnerships do not have the same protections as marriage. My partner and I have been together for over 8 years, we own a home and business together and I have the tax records, healthcare premium records, insurance, and personal legal documents to prove that we do not get the same state or federal protections, rights and benefits as married couples.

Many years ago, a majority of people were strongly opposed to a woman’s right to vote, integration, interracial marriage, etc. the majority was wrong and thankfully the courts eventually got it right and determined that it was not ok to treat people differently. This struggle for the LGBT community is no different and eventually the 14th amendment will prevail because like civil rights movements before us, we will never give up until we are given equality.

So... Why do you feel it is necessary to restrict my rights and equal protection of the laws, but it is ok for you to keep yours?

If you cannot answer the question without including some religious basis in your reasoning – then don’t bother because regardless of if you are Catholic, Christian, Mormon, Muslim, Jewish, etc. there are many other religious and spiritual people who do not share your opinion / view or support discrimination.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» How many goats? Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: To yes on 8 supporters: Posted by: happybear
» RE: To yes on 8 supporters: Posted by: YogiBear
Being gay IS a choice
Posted by: beninpg on Nov 5, 2008 5:37 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
No evidence of a "gay gene" exists.

What does exist, is scientific evidence that when children don't have a mother and father figure to relate to it can affect their sexual identity.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Being gay IS a choice Posted by: TagsNOLA
» RE: Being gay IS a choice Posted by: luzmejor
» RE: Being gay IS a choice Posted by: Father Time
» RE: you are SO wrong Posted by: WyrdSister
» RE: Being gay IS a choice Posted by: mercury613
» RE: Being gay is NOT a choice Posted by: magiquarian1969
waterman
Posted by: happybear on Nov 5, 2008 5:54 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am ignorant. I don't understand much about homosexuals. Given that, why are homosexuals hung up on the word "marriage". The story is that homosexuals want the "right" to get married, but most all of the arguments hinge on gaining Legal Rights and Legal Position. This man says that those rights are very important to him. That his partner could be in the hospital and he could be refused the right to see him. That if his partner & he split, he might lose the house. Or his brother-in-(law?)could take his house. Or similar arguments all based on legal rights. Financial & human, but legal rights. That is what a government is established to do. But since the arguing point is "marriage", couldn't the law be written so that homosexual partners could legally have exactly the same lawful rights, be legally be called a "Civil Union?" As a matter of fact, shouldn't the government stay out of "marriage" entirely? Why can't the legal contract for any or all couples be called a "Civil Union", (forget the irony of some marriages being "civil"). Leave the word "marriage" to the spirit world, and let religious organizations sanction or disallow any union of "marriage", but anyone could legally get all the rights they wanted by joining together in a Civil Union, and get married or not, with a big ceremony or not, within whatever church or religious body that they prefer. If any religious body wants to refuse to "marry" them, it wouldn't be the type of religious body that they would want to associate with anyway.
What's the big deal?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Do not be discouraged....
Posted by: philipcfromnyc on Nov 5, 2008 6:19 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It would be very easy for the gay community to lapse into depression in the wake of passage of this grotesque amendment. However, a number of points should be considered.

Firstly, the loss was extremely narrow. This means that it is entirely feasible and sensible for advocates of marriage equality to submit the same question to the voters in 2010. Furthermore, the voter turnout largely doomed gay marriage in California, because many Obama supporters were also anti-gay. All that we have to do is to keep our powder dry and wait for the next voting cycle.

Secondly, the fact that we lost gay marriage in one state does not mean that we lost any of the substantive benefits that flow from marriage in that state. Domestic partnerships (which, in California, offer to gay couples all of the substantive benefits of marriage) still remain perfectly legal in that state. It is unclear whether existing gay marriages will be converted to domestic partnerships or whether they will be left alone -- however, nothing about the passage of Proposition 8 takes away any of the legal rights and privileges of marriage.

Thirdly, the reasoning of the California Supreme Court cannot be disturbed by passage of this amendment -- the court applied strict scrutiny, and held that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is as reprehensible and as legally impermissible as discrimination on the basis of race. This aspect of the court's decision will stand, regardless of the outcome of the election cycle. This is crucial, because it means that any legislation that classifies on the basis of sexual orientation in the State of California has to be subjected to strict scrutiny. Nothing can take that away from us.

Thirdly, we won an important victory in Connecticut -- the right wing to amass sufficient political clout to vote for a constitutional convention, which was the only possible way of getting around the Connecticut Supreme Court's decision in Kerrigan. This means that gay marriage will remain legal in Connecticut, and cannot be undone in that state until 20 years have passed.

Fourthly, gay marriage remains legal in Massachusetts. Neither Connecticut nor Massachusetts has a residency requirement, which means that gay couples can get married in those states without having to be residents of those states.

The most important consideration is embedded in the statistics themselves. Despite pumping millions of dollars into California, the Mormons were barely able to muster the majority needed. The interference of this cult is particularly pernicious and disgusting -- these people have no right to make law in California, and certainly have no right to take away rights enjoyed by citizens of California.

The fate of Proposition 8 is undecided. The votes are still being counted. Lawsuits have been filed, seeking temporary restraining orders (TROs) to prohibit the state from enforcing this constitutional provision until a full trial on the merits is held. It is entirely possible that the same court that held that the due process and equal protection provisions of the state constitution prohibit a ban of gay marriages will also hold that the revocation of the right to gay marriage violates these provisions -- something that the court is free to decide on both state and US Constitutional grounds. The bottom line is that Proposition 8 is in legal limbo right now -- nobody knows how this measure will play out, given the very real due process issues associated with taking away rights that had previously been granted.

This is merely a temporary glitch. We will be able to recertify this question in 2010. If we fail in 2010, we will be able to recertify this question in 2012. With a margin of 52% to 48%, those who believe that this issue has been decided definitively are fooling themselves.


PHILIP CHANDLER

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» What are you fighting for? Posted by: dustin
» RE: What are you fighting for? Posted by: philipcfromnyc
Confusing the "B" word
Posted by: Ellaporter on Nov 5, 2008 8:08 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Several of you are getting your B word confused. Proposition 8 is not about bigotry. It's about biology.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Confusing the "B" word Posted by: Father Time
» No, it's about bigotry Posted by: hurricane hugo
Prop 8 Can STILL be defeated!
Posted by: dschroeder on Nov 5, 2008 11:49 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They still have not counted the three to four million provisional and absentee ballots in California, according to sources. Yes, that is right, three to four million. This is called voter fraud, because it is meaning that a discriminatory ballot has been passed although not all the votes have been counted. It denies three to four million voters their right to go out and vote and have their voice heard, their ballot counted.

Please, let's do whatever we can to make sure that this does not continue!

Call the California Secretary of State, at (917)-657-2166.

Also, you can record a complaint by calling (800)-345-VOTE.

Spread the word! An amazing amount of people gathered for a protest today in Hollywood, as I've heard. We can stop the codifying of illegal discrimination into the California Constitution!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Way to Go California
Posted by: Comfortably Yum on Nov 6, 2008 6:06 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I was raised by a lesbian.
She taught me to think for myself. I was never raised to be gay. I was never molested by my mother or my mother's girlfriend.
My Republican Christian father is the one who likes little girls.
Keep your lies to yourself and while you are making laws about who is entitled to love, keep in mind what it would be like if suddenly, for some reason known only to the stars, you were not allowed to be married to the one you love.
What if they decided interracial marriages are wrong because children need TWO parents who "fill in the bullshit reason here".
California just gave more rights to a damn chicken. Not that I don't value animal life too, but I am tired of watching my mother be hated on by people who don't know jack
Try asking some of us adult children of the GLBT movement what life was like for us. We just might tell you.
Now that you let the genie out of the bottle, lets hope they don't come for your right to marry. If they do, I'll sit back and watch.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Way to Go California Posted by: Father Time
Obama lovers, Democrats and the Gays
Posted by: George DeCarlo on Nov 6, 2008 10:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
California is another example of what I have consistently explained, not all traditionally disenfranchised groups care about Gays and Lesbians. And as groups, Blacks, Latinos and some Democrats and Obama lovers cast their votes of hatred against us. I make it quite clear to anyone that wants to be close to me as a friend, if you do not support my having Full Equal Rights you are not my friend. The groups above are not that to me.

As a relative from the Philippines just told me about our first (possibly?) non-"natural born" president elect, his persona reminds her of the snake-in-the-grass dictator Marcos' personality. Of course there is the exception that Marcos left the Gays and Lesbians alone while the restored democracy under Aquino started to oppress Gays by closing bars.

George

--
George DeCarlo, CH
Consulting Hypnotist
908-342-1275 (cell)

End heterosexual oppression of Gays, Lesbians and Bisexuals - support full equal rights!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You can still take action against prop. 8!
Posted by: CA NOW on Nov 13, 2008 1:42 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you live in California, you can tell your state legislators to pledge their vote against Prop. 8, should the California Supreme Court determine it to be a revision to the Constitution. The legal case against Prop. 8 is better than a lot of the stories out there are admitting. Here's some of the legal background.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]