A confidential source close to San Francisco City Hall leaked that the California Supreme Court was gearing up to issue its opinion on Proposition 8 on Thursday, May 21, but decided to delay after getting a call from Gavin Newsom.
Remember Gavin Newsom? The goofy little tool who singlehandedly blew any chance the homosexuals might have had of getting Prop 8 defeated with his ill-advised "whether you like it or not" speech?
Right. That Gavin Newsom.
The source reported that "Newsom reached out to the Supreme Court and asked them to hold off releasing the decision so it wouldn't coincide with the anniversary of the White Night riots."
It turns out Thursday is the 30th anniversary of the San Francisco riots, which erupted when the Gay Community there learned Dan White had successfully copped a voluntary manslaughter plea in the Harvey Milk/George Moscone murder trial. If you don't know who Harvey Milk was, rent the movie.
The ensuing riots in San Francisco on May 21, 1979 caused massive damage from which the Bay Area has only lately begun to recover. Examples of the destruction abound. Here are two taken at random: a claim submitted to the city for fifteen dollars to repair a crack in a Chinatown bistro window caused by flying debris from a rioter's exploding piñata; an estimate of $300,000 to paint over the slogans scrawled on the sides of buildings on Castro Street (happily, the UN, having been deliberately misinformed that the grafitti was a free-form, stream-of-consciousness expression of solidarity with an obscure Cuban dictator, declared it a World Heritage Artifact, after which the city certified it as a tourist attraction).
Nevertheless, it's very possible the leak story is accurate. First of all, Newsom has access; his father is a retired state appellate court judge. Secondly, the smart money has the Court upholding Prop 8; releasing the opinion on the anniversary of the White Night Rights Riot (say that three times fast) would be a bit of a double whammy, n'est pas?
May 23rd update: the rumor is accurate. The Justices agreed to delay the issuance of the opinion until Tuesday, May 26.
Ahhh. Almost Spring. Birds chirping. Buds sprouting. Flowers blooming. Bees buzzing. And right in tune with Nature's whimsy in all its wondrous manifestations, we have the California Supreme Court holding hearings on Proposition 8. Yawn.
And now for the contestants.
In the far corner, the Sore Losers from last November back again for yet another dollop of discontent.
And in the near corner, representing the winners, the only man who ever succeeded in cutting Bill Clinton off at the knees.
My first thought was, "This is a fucking mismatch. Poor bastards. It's not even gonna to be close." As usual, I was right.
This from a major national paper:
The arguments on Proposition 8 wrapped up a couple hours ago out in San Francisco. The California Supreme Court did not vote or issue a ruling, but it sounds like the justices are inclined to uphold the law, which bans same-sex marriage. According to the LA Times, only two of the seven justices indicated a possible readiness to overturn the initiative. One possible bad sign for Prop. 8 opponents. Justice Joyce L. Kennard, who voted to allow same-sex marriages last year, signaled she wasn’t a fan of the challengers. Kennard said that Prop. 8 did little to change the fundamental rights granted to same-sex couples. “Is it still your view,” she asked Shannon Minter, the legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, “that the sky has fallen as a result of Proposition 8?”
This has got to be the biggest and grandest ego-booster of them all.
Let me start this way. You write a play and it gets produced and people come up afterwards and tell you how "lovely" or "touching" or "revealing" it was. Sometimes they even use words like "breathtaking" or "magical." But seldom will you get someone who tells you that your play changed his life. Or that he made a life-choice based upon your play.
I'll wager even the top playwrights rarely (if ever) get someone who tells them, "Your play changed my life."
Last September, out of the blue, I got an email from a young lady who performed in one of my productions. She told me, because of my play, she decided not to abort her baby. She wanted to thank me. Here's the email.
It speaks for itself.
And the message it carries is more valuable than money or fame.
Back in 2000, it was Proposition 22. It passed overwhelmingly, by an asskickingly huge margin. You'd think when someone gets a major asskicking, they'd go away and stay away. You'd think that, wouldn't you? But it seems we really do live in dumbdown times. They're fucking baa-aack. For more of the same.
Pretty simple, huh? And like Jewel once said, "What's simple is true."
Good news, by the way. Looks like it's gonna pass. Here's the summary of the just-completed Marist Poll:
According to the latest poll from California, those fighting for the defense of traditional marriage have a nine point advantage over activists seeking state recognition of same-sex marriage.
The poll released on Tuesday afternoon reports that the drive to pass Proposition 8 is leading among likely voters 52 to 43 percent. If Proposition 8 passes, it will amend the state Constitution to say, “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in the state of California.”
The poll also shows that Proposition 8 leads in every region of California except the San Francisco Bay Area, where 58% are opposed to the measure.
Fifty two percent of likely California voters believe the ruling was wrong to have overturned the 2000 referendum (Proposition 22) in which voters approved reserving marriage for opposite-sex couples, and 72 percent believe the decision should be left to the voters, the poll found.
The Marist College Institute of Public Opinion, which conducted the poll between September 28 and October 5, 2008, also uncovered some results that point to the cultural and moral uncertainty surrounding the controversial issue of homosexual marriage. For instance, more than half of the 43 percent against the bill said they were likely to change their mind when reminded that Proposition 8 would not affect same-sex couples’ ability to form civil unions. Moreover, 88 percent of those in favor of civil unions said they viewed marriage as between one man and one woman.
Pollsters also found that when the implications for religious freedom were considered, the voting patterns changed. Close to one third of those voting "no" on 8 and a significant number of undecided voters – would be more likely to vote "yes" if the proposition’s failure were to compromise the tax exempt status of religious schools or if children in public schools were taught that marriage was a relationship “between any two adults.”
Other results showed that 49 percent of likely voters believe that if clergy or religious institutions were threatened with lawsuits or the loss of their tax-exempt status, then same-sex marriage should not be recognized.
Additionally, 79 percent of all likely voters believe that if Proposition 8 fails, clergy should not be required to perform same-sex marriages if it violates their religious convictions.
Sounds like someone's gonna get another asskicking. Again. Some people never learn.
So....Barack Obama is almost there, just 45 delegates shy of the 2026 magic number. The voyage is almost over. Time for the Good Ship Obama to steam merrily into port, deck lights ablaze, ship's horn blaring, maybe even the fire hoses shooting streams of water into the air like they do at those tall ships events. All in all, it's time to party.
Just one little thing. Actually not so little. More than 2 million voters cast ballots in the Michigan and Florida Democratic primaries. And their votes are about to be....well, let's just say, they're about to be manipulated.
We all know the story. Michigan and Florida decided to move their primaries to the front of the line. The Democratic National Committee said, no, you can't do that. Michigan and Florida responded, "Just watch us." So, here we are with all these Michigan and Florida votes and the DNC is starting to sound like Katherine Harris (remember her?).
The problem for Barack Obama is, Hillary won those states. And if they count them, two things happen, both bad for him. Hillary gets more delegates and the bar gets raised from 2026 to 2118.
Oh my! Can't have that.
If they don't count them, Or if they work out some weaseling, behind-the-scenes, backroom deal, like counting half or giving the Michigan uncommitteds to Obama, then, as far as I'm concerned, Obama should re-register as a George Bush Republican. Because that's what he'd be.
Back in 2000, the Democrats were the ones screaming, "Count the votes! Count ALL the votes!" The same should apply here. Count ALL the votes!
And if the Democrats don't?
If I were John McCain, I'd make Robert Mugabe Barack Obama's running mate.
,
