Posts made by leatherbear

Dana Chivvis Contributor

Two New York City high school teachers accused of having a sexual romp in a classroom are suing the city for $2 million for ruining their reputations.

Alini Brito and Cindy Mauro were fired last month after a state arbitrator's report concluded that the pair of language teachers were having a "sexual encounter" when school custodians walked in on them in November 2009. But the duo filed a lawsuit Wednesday in Manhattan Supreme Court claiming wrongful termination, libel and slander, the New York Daily News reports.

"They've had to deal with these false allegations of engaging in lesbian sex," lawyer Michael Valentine told the Daily News. "It's been painful."

What actually went on that night at James Madison High School (renamed "Horndog High" by the city's tabloids) is not clear.

According to a city report, Brito, a Spanish teacher, and Mauro, a French teacher, had drinks after work with another teacher and an assistant principal before returning to the high school to attend a music and dance competition. Partway through the show, the pair retreated to Mauro's classroom.

At some point after that, two school custodians opened the door to the room to find the women on the floor, in various states of dress. A school safety officer, summoned to the scene, said she saw Brito topless on the floor and Mauro between her legs. When an assistant principal arrived, she said she saw Brito "leaning against the teacher's desk … and she seemed to be, like, zippering her boot and finishing buttoning her shirt."

But Brito and Mauro give an entirely different account of the night's events.

They say Brito, a diabetic, began feeling ill during the competition and asked Mauro to check her blood sugar. They went upstairs to Mauro's classroom, where she had candy. By the time they got there, Brito felt so weak that she lay down on the floor and Mauro took off her sweater and put it under her friend's head. She was kneeling next to Brito in the dark classroom when the janitor opened the door.

At a Department of Education hearing, the accusing custodian admitted that he was standing behind another person, 15 feet away from the slightly open door, looking into a dark classroom, and that he could only make out one half-naked woman.

The testimony led lawyer Valentine to ask, "When does a fish become a whale?"

By B.J. Reyes

Less than a year after seeing the push for civil unions vetoed, gay rights advocates cheered as Gov. Neil Abercrombie signed into law a bill legalizing civil unions and making Hawaii the seventh state to grant such privileges to same-sex couples.

Abercrombie signed the legislation at a ceremony today at historic Washington Place.

"E Komo Mai: It means all are welcome," Abercrombie said in remarks before signing the bill into law. "This signing today of this measure says to all of the world that they are welcome. That everyone is a brother or sister here in paradise."

"The legalization of civil unions in Hawaii represents in my mind equal rights for all people," he said.

The ceremony was broadcast live on television and the Internet as Abercrombie, a Democrat who campaigned on a promise to sign the bill if it reached his desk, reversed the decision made by his Republican predecessor.

Not everyone was thrilled with the new law.

"It's a sad day for the people of Hawaii," said Sen. Mike Gabbard. "Politicians have shown that they just don't care about the views and values of the majority of Hawaii's residents."

The Hawaii Catholic Conference issued a statement expressing disappointment. "Passage of this legislation is just a step towards the legalization of same-sex marriage," read the statement.

Gov. Linda Lingle had characterized it as same-sex marriage by another name, which she opposed, saying the issue was too important for government to decide and should be put to the people for a vote.

She vetoed the proposal in July.

But advocates, buoyed by the results of the 2010 elections which saw civil union opponents fail in their attempts to unseat supportive lawmakers, brought the issue back under a more favorable climate.

With support in both chambers, lawmakers sought to take advantage of the all-around consensus and fast-track the bill.

Rep. Blake Oshiro, the House majority leader and primary sponsor, said he was proud of the accomplishment, but the passage only means that the Legislature can move on to more important matters such as the budget.

"So we have one big thing down and now we move on to the next fight, the next battle, the next big issue," said Oshiro (D, Aiea-Halawa).

Senate Bill 232 allows all couples — same-sex and heterosexual — to enter into a civil union, a legal status with all the rights, benefits, protections and responsibilities as traditional marriage.

It is largely similar to the bill vetoed by Lingle, but contains specific provisions aimed at clarifying implementation for the state Department of Health.

Couples would be allowed to start entering into a civil union on Jan. 1.

"This bill has been a long time coming for committed couples in Hawaii who have been denied the basic right to take care of their families," said Laurie Temple, a staff attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union of Hawaii.

Approval of the bill also brings an end to a lawsuit filed by gay couples against the state last year after Lingle's veto, the ACLU said.

Gay rights advocacy group Lambda Legal and ACLU sued on behalf of six gay couples, alleging the state failed to provide equal rights to gays and lesbians short of marriage.

Opponents have held prayer vigils at the Capitol this week in advance of the bill signing.

Many have repeated Lingle's call for a vote and said the measure would lead to gay lifestyles being taught in public schools. Opponents also have called civil unions a gateway to the acceptance of same-sex marriage.

Hawaii has figured prominently in the national gay rights movement's efforts since the early 1990s, when the state Supreme Court nearly legalized gay marriage.

The 1993 ruling would have made Hawaii the first state to allow same-sex couples to wed, but it did not take effect while voters were given a chance to decide the matter. They responded in 1998 by overwhelmingly approving the nation's first "defense of marriage" state constitutional amendment, giving the Legislature the authority to define marriage as between one man and one woman but leaving the door open for civil unions.

Final approval of Hawaii's civil unions law came the same day as the Obama administration reversed its previous position and said it no longer would defend the constitutionality of the federal law banning recognition of same-sex marriage.

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said President Barack Obama has concluded that the administration cannot defend the federal law that defines marriage as only between a man and a woman. He noted that the congressional debate during passage of the Defense of Marriage Act "contains numerous expressions reflecting moral disapproval of gays and lesbians and their intimate and family relationships — precisely the kind of stereotype-based thinking and animus" the Constitution is designed to guard against.

hXXp://www.staradvertiser.com/news/breaking/116776119.html

I like the pictures you have posted so far. I am interested in the idea of peeping and seeing cock in any scenario but locker rooms are a particular favorite.

I can ask Mike about a front page announcement of the new SIG or you can as well. Just send him a PM from the staff page.

A key provision of the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutionally biased and will no longer be defended in court by Justice Department attorneys, Attorney General Eric Holder announced Wednesday.

But he assured members of Congress that the Clinton-era federal statute, which defines marriage as between only a "man and a woman" as "husband and wife," will continue to be enforced by the executive branch until it is repealed by legislators or definitely voided by the courts.

Until now, federal attorneys have defended the law's validity in court. But President Obama himself ordered the reversal of executive branch policy and position after determining that the marriage classifications contained in the statute could not survive under the strictest standards of judicial review. "I fully concur" with that decision, Holder said in a statement.

In announcing the surprise move, Holder noted that "After careful consideration, including a review of my recommendation, the President has concluded that given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny. The President has also concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional. Given that conclusion, the President has instructed the Department not to defend the statute in such cases. I fully concur with the President's determination."

He added: "Consequently, the Department will not defend the constitutionality of Section 3 of DOMA as applied to same-sex married couples in the two cases filed in the Second Circuit. We will, however, remain parties to the cases and continue to represent the interests of the United States throughout the litigation. I have informed Members of Congress of this decision, so Members who wish to defend the statute may pursue that option. The Department will also work closely with the courts to ensure that Congress has a full and fair opportunity to participate in pending litigation."

In a letter to Congressional leaders released Wednesday, Holder wrote: "Notwithstanding this determination, the President has informed me that Section 3 will continue to be enforced by the Executive Branch. To that end, the President has instructed Executive agencies to continue to comply with Section 3 of DOMA, consistent with the Executive's obligation to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, unless and until Congress repeals Section 3 or the judicial branch renders a definitive verdict against the law's constitutionality. This course of action respects the actions of the prior Congress that enacted DOMA, and it recognizes the judiciary as the final arbiter of the constitutional claims raised."

Supporters of same-sex marriage were heartened by the decision. The Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender civil rights organization, was quick to praise President Obama's step. "DOMA unfairly discriminates against Americans and we applaud [the president] for fulfilling his oath to defend critical constitutional principles," said HRC President Joe Solmonese.

From NBC's Pete Williams
In a major reversal, the Obama administration has notified Congress that it will no longer defend the federal law that says marriage can exist only between a man and a woman.

Attorney General Eric Holder says he has recommended, and the president has agreed, that the law unconstitutionally discriminates against same-sex couples who are legally married but whose status is not recognized by the federal government.

"Given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination," Holder wrote in a statement, the administration has concluded that classifications based on sexual orientation must be subject to a higher constitutional standard than ordinary laws. And the federal Defense of Marriage Act does not meet that test, he says.

Read the full statement here.

Here's the immediate practical effect of this change:

-The Defense of Marriage Act remains in effect unless a federal court strikes it down or Congress repeals it.

-The government will stop defending the law in two court cases, in New York and Connecticut, where the law has been challenged, and in any other cases challenging the law.

-If the law is to be defended, members of Congress would have to step up and join those lawsuits.

In the statement, Holder argued that the legal landscape has changed since the Defense of Marriage Act was passed 15 years ago and signed into law by President Clinton. He mentioned the Supreme Court's ruling striking down criminal laws against homosexuality, the repeal of the military's Don't Ask/Don't Tell policy, and the fact that several lower courts have found the DOMA law unconstitutional.