Posts made by leatherbear

:lovp:

:lovp:

Jon Gnarr's buxom alter ego said the mayor was too busy to attend the party

6 August 2010 Last updated at 11:09 ET

The mayor of Reykjavik has dressed up in drag to mark the opening of the Icelandic capital's gay
pride festival.

Jon Gnarr, a top comedian who became mayor in June, appeared on stage on Thursday night in a
floral-print dress, blonde wig and bright red lipstick.

"The mayor unfortunately could not attend himself," he told the crowd.

Mr Gnarr's Best Party won the council elections after running on a platform that included free
towels in swimming pools and a polar bear for the zoo.

Promising "sustainable transparency", its campaign videos featured candidates singing to the tune
of Tina Turner's "Simply The Best".

Mr Gnarr said at the time that the victory signalled the mass discontent with politicians for their
role in the country's economic crisis in 2008.

Addressing the opening ceremony of the gay pride festival on Thursday, his buxom alter ego said
the mayor could not make it because he "was busy, even though he promised to be here".

"What might he be up to? Maybe he is visiting Moomin Valley," Mr Gnarr said, referring to the
fictional setting of a series of Finnish children's stories that feature a family of white
hippopotamus-like trolls.

"This is what we get for voting for a clown in elections," he added.

In 2009, Iceland became the first country with an openly gay head of government, when Johanna
Sigurdardottir became prime minister.

Protests, like this one in Bloomington. Minn., on July 24, cropped up in front of Target stores after the chain donated money to a group supporting the Republican candidate in the governor's race.

Brian Bakst
AP

ST. PAUL, Minn. (Aug. 6) – The head of Target Corp. apologized Thursday over a political donation to a business group backing a conservative Republican for Minnesota governor, which angered some employees and sparked talk of a customer boycott.

Target CEO Gregg Steinhafel wrote employees to say the discount retailer was "genuinely sorry" over the way a $150,000 contribution to MN Forward donation played out. Steinhafel said Target would set up a review process for future political donations.

MN Forward is running TV ads supporting Republican Tom Emmer, an outspoken conservative opposed to same-sex marriage and other gay-rights initiatives that have come before Minnesota's Legislature.

Steinhafel said the contribution from the corporate treasury to a political effort, which until this year wasn't allowed, was designed to support Emmer's stance on economic issues. Ads run by the group were focused on budget policy, not social issues.

"While I firmly believe that a business climate conducive to growth is critical to our future, I realize our decision affected many of you in a way I did not anticipate, and for that I am genuinely sorry," Steinhafel wrote.

He added, "The diversity of our team is an important aspect of our unique culture and our success as a company, and we did not mean to disappoint you, our team or our valued guests."

A phone message left with a Target spokeswoman for more details on the company's new policy was not immediately returned.

OutFront Minnesota, a gay-rights advocacy group, posted an open letter urging Target to take back its money from MN Forward. And "Boycott Target" Facebook groups began to appear.

"We appreciate they are taking this really seriously," said Monica Meyer, OutFront's executive director. "People will feel good about being heard. Some still will probably be holding back to wait and see what the next statement and the next move is."

Target is known in Minnesota for helping sponsor the annual Twin Cities Gay Pride Festival.

The reaction to Target's donation highlights the potential risks for businesses that seek to take advantage of a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that threw out parts of a 63-year-old law that prohibited campaign donations from company funds. The ruling changed regulations in about half the states, but the Target donation in Minnesota was among the first major new corporate moves to come to light.

Howard Davidowitz, chairman of New York-based Davidowitz & Associates Inc., a retail consulting and investment banking firm, said he thought any consumer backlash against Target would have been small and only a small group of customers would have been angry enough to stop shopping there.

"They don't want this to go further," Davidowitz said. "What Target did today is called damage control. And I think damage control is perfectly appropriate."

The liberal group MoveOn.org said it has gathered thousands of signatures on a petition by people pledging to avoid shopping at Target over the donation. MoveOn said it would hold a nationwide protest at Target stores Friday.

MN Forward has attracted at least $60,000 in donations since the Target backlash erupted and more than $1 million in total since it was formed. The group has also broadened its political profile. On Thursday, it sent out mail pieces on behalf of six legislative candidates - three Democrats, three Republicans.

Brian McClung, the group's director, said MN Forward planned to push a bipartisan slate of candidates "from day one."

"This group of candidates has varied backgrounds and positions on many issues, but they all have been focused on making Minnesota a better place to grow jobs," he said.

According to public campaign reports, other contributors to MN Forward include Red Wing Shoe Company Inc., Best Buy Co., Pentair Inc., Hubbard Broadcasting Inc., Davisco Foods International Inc. and Polaris Industries Inc.

Associated Press writers Martiga Lohn in St. Paul and Doug Glass in Minneapolis contributed to this report.

As expected, the Senate approved on Thursday the nomination of Solicitor General Elena Kagan to the U.S. Supreme Court on a 63-37 vote.

Fifty-six Democrats, two independents, and five Republicans voted in favor Kagan's nomination, while one Democrat, Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, joined 36 Republicans in voting no.

Kagan watched the vote on television from a Justice Department conference room with her colleagues, the White House said.

The road to Thursday's confirmation was mostly smooth for Kagan, who was approved earlier in the summer by the Senate Judiciary Committee, 13 to 6, with the support of one Republican, Sen. Lindsey Graham. By Wednesday night, Kagan had won approval from 60 senators, including five Republicans, giving her a filibuster-proof majority for her confirmation.

Supporters called her both loyal to the rule of law and qualified for the high court.

"General Elena Kagan is a public servant who has remained far above the public fray," Majority Leader Harry Reid said. "Because of her intellect, her integrity, her respect for the law and her unwavering fidelity to the Constitution, I am proud to vote for Elena Kagan to be the next justice on the Supreme Court."

But her nomination was never completely without controversy, as top GOP senators blasted her lack of judicial experience and warned that her work as a clerk for Justice Thurgood Marshall, and a job in the Clinton White House, proved her partisan instincts.

Conservatives pointed to Kagan's role in limiting military recruiters' access to Harvard law students' career office when she was the dean there. They also objected to her work in the Clinton administration during the debate on banning partial-birth abortion and called it evidence she would be a solidly pro-choice vote on the court.

Sen. Jeff Sessions, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, spoke in opposition to her nomination. "Ms. Kagan has never been a judge and never argued before a jury," Sessions said. "She has practiced law for just three years. Ms. Kagan has less real legal experience than any nominee in the last half-century. Throughout Ms. Kagan's career she has put her politics above the law."

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell called Kagan "not suited to assume a position on this nation's highest court," saying that her career, in his opinion, had not been spent "in the pursuit of the law, but in the art of politics."

Now that the Senate has confirmed Kagan, she will be sworn in quickly to succeed retiring Justice John Paul Stevens. She'll then have about two months to hire a staff and prepare for the court's opening session in October, when she'll also have a formal investiture ceremony.

Kagan is the fourth woman confirmed in the court's history and will become the third woman on the current court.

Prop. 8 Ruling Puts Obama, Kagan in Spotlight

Andrea Stone
Senior Washington Correspondent

Andrea is a former USA Today correspondent who has covered Washington, politics and news across the nation and the world. She has reported from 47 states, 28 countries, Capitol Hill and the Pentagon.

WASHINGTON (Aug. 5) – A federal judge's decision overturning  California's voter-approved ban on gay marriage may take years to get to the U.S. Supreme Court. But the political fallout has already begun.

Judge Vaughn Walker's 136-page ruling eviscerating Proposition 8 as unconstitutional brought roaring back to life a divisive social issue that a few years ago dominated political discourse but had recently taken a back to seat to economic anxiety. And its timing, on the eve of Elena Kagan's Senate confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court, is a reminder that the issue won't be settled until nine justices have their say.

"Judge Walker has launched the first salvo in a national culture war," said Brian Brown of the National Organization for Marriage. "There will be electoral consequences for candidates who do not stand up and support marriage. Either they stand on the side of activist judges or they allow voters to have their say. There is no middle ground."

Joe Hege, right, of San Francisco holds up a sign during a rally in San Francisco's Castro district celebrating a federal judge's decision overturning California's same-sex marriage ban on Wednesday.

The Rev. Samuel Rodriguez, president of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, called the ruling "a cultural wedge issue that has the potential to galvanize Republicans, conservatives and Blue Dog Democrats around the defense of biblical marriage."

"It's a judicial coup d'etat … that has taken over the body politic of this nation," he said.

The decision set off infighting among conservatives. Mathew Staver of the Liberty Counsel criticized lawyers for bungling the case. "I am distressed that Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) presented thin evidence to support Prop. 8," he said. Still, he was confident the decision would be reversed on appeal.

Jordan Lorence, a lawyer working with the ADF, told AOL News that Walker made clear early in the trial that he "was inclined to strike down Prop. 8" and accused the judge of ignoring written evidence and testimony during cross-examination. Asked why his side called only two witnesses, one of whose testimony the judge said "provided no credible evidence," Lorence replied, "If we had called 30 witnesses we would have had the same result." Walker "created new heights of judicial activism" in his ruling, he said.

Gay rights activists, of course, disagreed. On the day after, they claimed new momentum and pointed to polls that, while showing a majority of Americans oppose same-sex marriage, also indicate a growing acceptance of gay relations -- especially among young people. Many downplayed the political fallout from the decision even as they heralded it as a historic victory.

"This isn't 2004," said Human Rights Campaign spokesman Fred Sainz, referring to the year Massachusetts became the first state to legalize same-sex marriage and a voter backlash outlawed it in 11 states. "People have moved on because they have seen thousands of examples of loving, committed same-sex couples that are no different than they are. Cultural warriors seem very dinosaurlike to people these days."

Political analysts said voters had other things on their minds.

"When unemployment is at 9.5 percent and the economy is in horrible shape, you have a war with escalating casualties and a very controversial agenda on a variety of economic issues like health care and cap and trade, no social or cultural issues will have much impact," said Charlie Cook, editor of The Cook Political Report. "This is a mega-issue election, not a wedge-issue election."

John Pitney, a political scientist at Claremont McKenna College in California and a former GOP congressional aide, said gay marriage will provide Republicans with just one more piece of evidence, along with the recent ruling on Arizona's immigration law, that "show the danger of activist judges and the need to uphold federalism." Still, he predicted most voters will stay focused on pocketbook issues.

Shades of Gray at the White House

The ruling once again put President Barack Obama on the spot.

The White House put out a statement saying, "The president has spoken out in opposition to Proposition 8 because it is divisive and discriminatory. He will continue to promote equality for LGBT Americans."

White House senior adviser David Axelrod told MSNBC that Obama "does oppose same-sex marriage but he supports equality for gay and lesbian couples." The president favors civil unions for same-sex couples instead but also believes marriage is a state issue.

That neither here-nor-there position has irked gay rights activists. Sainz said gays are "disappointed that their president does not stand with them" on marriage. Still, Obama has done more for gays and lesbians than any predecessor, signing into law civil rights protections, extending benefits to gay federal workers and starting the clock ticking toward the end of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

Evan Wolfson of the group Freedom to Marry said Obama "has rightly opposed measures aimed at excluding gay couples from marriage, but has failed to make the case effectively to the American people because he has not yet spoken authentically in support of the freedom to marry. He has the 'what,' equality, right, but has not embraced the 'how,' the freedom to marry, thereby convincing and satisfying no one."

Cal Jillson, a political scientist at Southern Methodist University in Dallas, said Obama is roughly in the same place on gay marriage as he is on immigration. "Major chunks of the Democratic constituency want more movement faster, but the broad middle of the American public, independents in electoral terms, want stability rather than more change," he said. "Obama is caught between revving up the base and trying to win back independents" he will need for re-election in 2012.

The president's best option, said Pitney, is to stick to his personal opposition to same-sex marriage but "shift the focus to respect for the courts, the Constitution and the rule of law" when asked his view on the California decision.

Eyes on the Court

Walker's decision was the second in less than a month in which a federal judge ruled in favor of gay marriage. It came after a narrower ruling in Massachusetts in which a judge ruled the federal Defense of Marriage Act violates the constitutional rights of gay married couples there to equal protection under the law.

Both cases are likely to reach the Supreme Court, which will include Kagan, who was confirmed by the Senate today in a 63-to-37 vote.

Curt Levey of the conservative Committee for Justice said this latest ruling focuses attention on Kagan's "troubling record of gay rights activism and, more generally, on what's at stake if Kagan brings her 'living Constitution' philosophy to the Supreme Court." He warned, "A senator voting for Kagan should be willing to acknowledge that their vote is essentially a vote for same-sex marriage."

Kagan's replacement of liberal Justice John Paul Stevens won't change the partisan makeup of the court. It remains the most conservative in decades. But those nervous over how swing Justice Anthony Kennedy would vote on the matter are reviving talk about amending the U.S. Constitution to limit marriage to opposite-sex couples.

Gay marriage is illegal by statute or constitutional amendment in 41 states following a spate of state ballot measures to head off Massachusetts-style matrimony. The state-level actions removed the urgency for Congress to act and gave fence-sitters like Sen. John McCain a handy excuse to stay out of the fray. In 2006, after a long and contentious debate, the Senate fell short of the votes needed for a federal marriage amendment.

"I suspect conservatives might want to reintroduce a narrow federal marriage amendment, which would keep courts from reading the federal Constitution as requiring recognition of same-sex marriage. Such an amendment might actually pass," said UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh, founder of The Volokh Conspiracy blog. "Even if it doesn't, it could help persuade voters that conservatives' constitutional views are more in line with the voters' constitutional views."

As for the gay rights movement, still glowing over its big win in court, Sainz said it "isn't putting all of its eggs in the judicial basket."

Activists are working to add New York and Minnesota to the five states and the District of Columbia where gay marriage is legal. They also hope to put the issue back on the ballot in California and Maine as well as Oregon and Washington state in 2012.

Said Sainz: "We are pursuing marriage equality in a whole host of ways: judicially, legislatively, electorally and, lastly, by changing the hearts and minds of the American public."

I have no idea of this gents name. He may be an amateur or in the Porn Biz. I do know I would love to take him for a tour of the Dark Side.

Darth Gaydar


Google (GOOG) and Verizon (VZ) have reportedly negotiated an agreement on how to handle Web traffic that may result in higher charges to consumers, several news sources reported Wednesday. The agreement, expected within days, comes as the Federal Communications Commission is trying to get major Internet content firms, such as Google, and network service providers, such as Verizon, to strike a deal on disputed points of so-called net neutrality rules. Critics argue that the companies' agreement and the meetings are giving giant Internet firms too great a say in the future of how consumers access the Web. Separately, as DailyFinance's Amey Stone reports, Google said Wednesday on its blog that it is halting development of Google Wave, citing slow adoption. When introduced in May 2009, Wave was thought to be a breakthrough technology that combined elements of live chat and real-time document sharing.

See full article from DailyFinance: hXXp://srph.it/9k6Tcf

Child abusers/murderers have a particularly tough time in prison. It seems even criminals have a Code of Ethics and child molesters/abusers/murderers are the lowest of the low. He will be tormented constantly in General Population if not killed out right. His only salvation will be Protective Custody. That means 23 hours a day behind bars in most prisons.

I have to believe there is a special corner in Hell reserved for the likes of this @#%$^!.

I was also concerned about the future of the decision made by Judge Walker. However, after reading several articles about this decision, I am no longer as concerned. The wording in the 136 page "Decision" is fairly simple and direct. I no longer think that it will be easy to debate the issue any longer, not only in California but Nation Wide. A considerable precedent has been set now.

Mind you, I do not think the struggle is over but I now believe the fight for Gay Rights is nearing an end for the USA. All the more reason to become vocal about your opinions on the issues and get involved with any organization that is fighting the good fight on behalf of Gay Rights.

The Prop 8 Ruling: Same-Sex Marriage Wins a Sweeping Legal Victory

From POLITICS DAILY

hXXp://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/08/04/the-prop-8-ruling-same-sex-marriage-wins-a-sweeping-legal-victo/

Always remember <–---->  

A little boy comes home from school and tells his father that his homework assignment is to find out the difference between “potentially” and “realistically.”

“Easy,” says his father. “First, ask Mom if she’d sleep with the mailman for a million dollars.”

The boy runs off, then comes back and says, “She said yes.”

“Now go ask your sister the same question,” advises the father.

Again the boy runs off, and again he comes back and says, “She said yes.”

“So, potentially, we’re sitting on two million dollars,” replies the father.

“But, realistically, we’re living with a couple of whores.”

August 3, 2010

Couples File Lawsuit Against State Of Alaska And Municipality Of Anchorage

ANCHORAGE, AK — Three Alaska same-sex couples have filed a lawsuit today challenging the state of Alaska's tax-assessment rules, which discriminate against same-sex couples by denying them equal access to a property tax exemption for senior citizens and disabled veterans. Those who qualify and who live with same-sex partners are only permitted to, at most, half of the exemption available to opposite-sex married couples because they are treated as roommates rather than families.

Each couple is denied full access to a $150,000 property tax exemption available to similarly situated opposite-sex married couples. In a 2005 decision, the Alaska Supreme Court ruled that a similar exclusion of committed same-sex couples – in that case from the family health care coverage afforded to married state workers – violated the state constitution's equal protection clause. But same-sex couples continue to be subjected to the discriminatory tax assessments. The couples, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union and the law firm Davis Wright Tremaine, are asking that the Alaska courts declare this discriminatory law, too, to be unconstitutional.

"Alaska law is clear that denying committed same-sex couples the same rights as married opposite-sex couples is unconstitutional," said Tom Stenson of the ACLU of Alaska. "For senior couples and disabled vets, every bit of savings counts. These couples should not have to pay more taxes than other families."

Julie Schmidt, 67, and Gayle Schuh, 62, have been partners for 33 years. After retiring from careers in education and selling their home in Illinois, they moved to Alaska and now own a home in Eagle River. Their bank accounts and real estate holdings are all jointly owned.

"We are disappointed to learn that the senior tax exemption treats homeowners in same-sex partnerships differently and we cannot receive the full benefit of the exemption," said Schuh.

Julie Vollick and Susan Bernard, who have been together for seven years and are raising four children, jointly purchased their Eagle River home in 2004. Vollick retired from the United States Air Force after 20 years of service, including tours in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and Pakistan, and has service-related disabilities.

"I was proud to serve our country and defend our democratic values," said Vollick. "All we want is the fairness I've fought to defend."

Fred Traber, 62, and Larry Snider, 69, have been together for 28 years and have had long careers in Alaska, including small-business ownership and government employment.

"We are proud of our relationship and are happy to stand up to ensure that our long-term commitment is treated fairly," Traber said.

"After building a life and a home together for many years, it's unfair that the government does not recognize these committed partners as the families that they are," said Leslie Cooper, senior staff attorney with the ACLU Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender Project.

"We have tried to resolve this issue with the state out of court with no success," said Roger Leishman of Davis Wright Tremaine. "We're hopeful that the courts will rule on the side of fairness."

Attorneys representing the plaintiffs in the matter of Schmidt v. Alaska are Leishman, Ryan Derry and Dave Oesting of Davis Wright Tremaine LLP; Cooper of the ACLU Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender Project; and Stenson of the ACLU of Alaska.

Judge Vaughn Walker

In a 136-page ruling, Judge Vaughn Walker has declared Proposition 8, the measure banning same-sex marriage in California, unconstitutional under both the due-process and equal-protection clauses.
Walker

Says the ruling's conclusion:

"Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite- sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional."

And its remedies:

"Plaintiffs have demonstrated by overwhelming evidence that Proposition 8 violates their due process and equal protection rights and that they will continue to suffer these constitutional violations until state officials cease enforcement of Proposition 8. California is able to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, as it has already issued 18,000 marriage licenses to same- sex couples and has not suffered any demonstrated harm as a result, see FF 64-66; moreover, California officials have chosen not to defend Proposition 8 in these proceedings."

“Because Proposition 8 is unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, the court orders entry of judgment permanently enjoining its enforcement; prohibiting the official defendants from applying or enforcing Proposition 8 and directing the official defendants that all persons under their control or supervision shall not apply or enforce Proposition 8.”

by Danny Jensen  July 21, 2010  07:00 AM (PT)

Summer has always been a great time for road trips: a chance to explore the country, escape the heat and eat too much fast food. But it's not often that those road trips have the ambitious and venerable goal of ending homelessness, unless, of course, Mark Horvath is at the helm.

The creator of InvisiblePeople.tv and a fellow Change.org blogger, Mark hit the road this week and will travel over 11,000 miles to visit 30 cities across the United States in order to raise awareness about the issues of homelessness and poverty. While visiting tent cities, shelters, motels and the streets, Mark will interview individuals and families about their experience being homeless. He will also appear at a variety of speaking engagements, as well as local and national media outreach events. And while Mark is usually a one-man interviewer/camera operator for the videos featured on InvisiblePeople.tv, on this trip he will be accompanied by an entire camera crew as they film a documentary on homelessness using the road trip as a background.

For the road trip Mark has already received some critical funding and support from the Pepsi Refresh Grant and 100,000 Homes, as well as donations from Hanes (for all those new socks he hands out!), Ford and a number of other corporate sponsors. This year, however, Mark was unable to find a hotel sponsor and therefore still needs help securing places to stay, as well as assistance meeting other financial needs. This is where you come in. There are plenty of ways to get involved, so I've included Mark's list of suggestions below to show how you can help make the trip a success:

* Talk about the road trip. The more buzz we create, the more change happens.

* Donate. InvisiblePeople.tv is now a 501(3) so your donation is tax-deductible.

hXXps://npo.networkforgood.org/Donate/Donate.aspx?npoSubscriptionId=1003257

* Donate gas gift cards, Walmart gift cards and Subway gift cards.

* Hold a fundraising tweetup in a city he's visiting.

* Sponsor a hotel (in a downtown areas).

* Do some media outreach. Contact your local news media and bloggers and encourage them to cover the road trip.

* Donate a tweet a day.

* Pray! (Lord knows I need lots of prayer, Mark says.)

* Be creative. Example: Kevin Hendricks is putting together a book to help raise funds.

Here's why it's an effort worth contributing to: you may remember the InvisiblePeople.tv Road Trip from last year, which was a huge success, not only because it connected the dots of the homeless experience across the country, but also because it had a profound ripple effect and inspired lasting change in the communities that Mark visited. One of those inspirational moments happened in Northwest Arkansas when Mark spoke at the 1,287 event organized by the CobbleStone Project. "Mark's visit provided an opportunity for our community to rally around the issue of homelessness in a way that was authentic and approachable," said Mike Rusch, founder of the CobbleStone Project. "Because of Mark's background, he spoke from a place of authority, understanding and compassion. He could talk to us about the true faces of homelessness in a way that moved beyond the stereotypes."

Just one stop on the road trip helped the CobbleStone Project launch three amazing initiatives: The Farm,The Garden and Our Step, which are making tremendous headway in fighting homelessness and hunger in the community. This year, the results could be even greater.