Thursday, December 18, 2008

Sunday, November 30, 2008

Sunday, October 26, 2008

Halloween 2008 - A Year of Joe

We thought that the Castro would be over-run with Tina Fey impersonators. We were wrong. What we found was men in search of the American Dream, where our money could go to fabulous costumes instead of taxes. I feel that if the message could go out, that the trickle-down effect of the current economy is recycled costumes, McCain would win by a landslide!

My friends meet Joe!

Joe the plumber ... mechanic?


Joe the Drag Queens with Joe Cop ... note, they could not afford to shave!

Joe the lawer and Joe the Programmer
Joe the banker with the plumber
Joe the drunk!
Joe the wooley beast!
Joe the bubba vampire!
Joe the smug voter.
Joe ... Joe ... Joe!
Will the real Joe stand?

Sunday, October 19, 2008

Thursday, October 02, 2008

Sunday, August 17, 2008

One Word ... Blackmail


Parker and Brody at 4 Months!

Click pictures to see larger image (Brody is on the left, Parker on the Right)
















More John Wayne than Richard Simmons




For Frank's birthday this year ... a few of the boys headed over to Teatro Zinzanni's show, Hail Caesar! Billed as Love, Chaos, and Dinner, the show goes on all around you in an old spiegletent. Hilarious, one of our group, who will remain anonymous, was selected to participate in the show. Two comments from the current Caesar, our friend was not only a beautiful man ... but had a nice, firm "Upturned buttocks"! However, during the dance prep he was informed to be "a little more John Wayne and a little less Richard Simmons."

Happy Birthday Frank!

Here's a short clip of one of the acts from the show.



Tuesday, July 22, 2008

Ciò è una situazione terribile. Devo nutrire il mio gatto.

Italian Proverb

Translation: That is a terrible situation. I have to feed my cat.

Parker and Brody

Brody looks good in a tie!
Parker ponders what the future of fashion is for him!

Monday, June 30, 2008

Pink Saturday 2008

Stopping traffic in the hood.

What's playing at the Castro!

Ah...with the man on Pink Saturday!

John on the street with the masses!

The sun set on a friend today and the world continued to turn on its axis.

Tuesday, June 17, 2008

California says "I DO"

Historic Moments - F. Ruggieri and D. Miller

Since we're on the topic of gay weddings, this blog is a combined effort. First, let me set the record straight --- we did NOT get married yesterday. I'm not sure how some of you got that impression (guess it was the text Frank sent to some that was a "little" misleading). We DID go down to City Hall and participate/support the significance of the day.

We cheered, jeered (more below) and supported those couples leaving City Hall with marriage licenses in hand. Not a huge crowd, but it felt very affirming to be with so many others. There were supportive crowds, TV crews, a readily available huppa, brass band, Ben & Jerry's giving out ice cream (and we missed that... can you believe?) and the crazies. Not just your "normal" SF crazies (rest assured - they were there too) - but your hate mongering, fear infusing, intolerant crazies (sorry to digress on John McCain's campaign too much....)

Now, we may be gay, but we are doing our part for the children by taking public transportation and recycling. However, has anyone looked at the carbon footprint of these crazies?? These "Loving Christians" flew to Australia to protest Heath Ledger's funeral (sounds like someone had a little Heath fetish) for goodness sakes !!!! They fly around, create OVERLY large hate signs and had motorized vehicles circling City Hall all evening. (It is the one time I can say that gas in San Francisco is over $4.50/gal gas!!!)

Perhaps in honor of the upcoming Olympics, there was a little healthy Hate competition with the Muslims! The Muslims got their message of hate and had a motorized vehicle too!!! (of course, no worry on gas reserves there) Not sure who the "Christians" were more pissed at - us or them!!! But, good on 'em.... glad the Muslims are spreading hate too!

Anyway, we stood, supported, clapped occasionally and then exercised our freedom to........... go have an Indian meal and head home to watch The View. We're not married and as Douglas likes to say, "just because you can get married ... doesn't mean you should!" When the time is right and I'm sporting some blink from Tiffany's, then we can talk. In the mean time, it feels good to have found each other and we're glad to have seen so many committed partners yesterday.

Now... just how do we keep the "loving masses" home in November????

Saturday, June 14, 2008

A Little Father's Day Story



My father had an old pair of boots that I procured the summer after graduating from high school. I had a job at Sunset Lake, a SDA summer camp outside of Seattle, Washington, and needed a pair of boots for riding and such. The boots were old and worn and with my odd walk, the heels eventually worn down to reflect my rolling walk.

I still have them today in the closet and they still fit!

Anyway, I picked up a folder and found the following little story from my writing group (1993). Since it is Father's Day weekend, it felt like an appropriate nod to my dad. Thanks for the boots!

Happy Father's Day.

Of Friends and Phones

Alone, in my underwear and sitting at the kitchen table, I eye the lone Kraft spaghetti box laying face down on the counter, the used pan in the sink, and the torn Parmesan cheese package sitting half empty to the steaming plate of pasta and sauce. Picking up my fork, I swirl the noodles around and look at my watch calculating that I have eighteen minutes to eat, brush my teeth, and be punched in at work. Schedules. No time to wait for the spaghetti to cool, no time to enjoy it. Thank God it is Kraft's! Scooping up a forkful and shoving the strands in to my mouth, my head grimaces as the phone blares in my right ear; probably some idiot looking for an apartment.

Ring...Ring...chew...chew...Ring

"Hello, Johnson's."

"David?"

Great, it's some soft spoken man who can't fix his leaking sink and wants my dad to come to the rescue.

"No, this is his son, Daniel. May I take a message?"

"Are you a cowboy?"

"Excuse me?"

"I mean, do you have your boots on ready for a ride?"

"No, I'm eating supper." Sam. I bet it's Sam. He's talking quietly so I won't recognize his voice.

"Can you put them on?"

"I'm sorry, put what on?"

"The boots. I need to talk to you, do you have the time?"

"Is this about Puff Lane apartments?"

"...yes. Can we talk?" His voice sounds urgent.

"Sure, do you live there?" I hate apartment calls.

"Yes. Do you want to come over?" Definitely Sam. Time to find out what he wants.

"I don't know. Who is this?"

"Austin Roberts."

"Well Austin, I've got my boots on and..."

"Does my voice excite you?"

"No."

"Are you a big man?"

"Yes, about 6'3"."

"No, no. I don't mean like that. I mean below the waist."

"This isn't Sam is it?"

"Do you want it to be?" The voice continues in a whine, "You're not a cowboy."

"Who is this?"

Click.

"Hello? Hello? Damn."

The spaghetti is cool now. I grab the phone book. What an idiot! Let me see, Austin Roberts. Robbins. Robert. Roberts, Austin. I punch in the numbers. It's not busy. Good. I hope the little pervert is home. One ring. Two. Three.

"Hello?" The raspy voice is a woman's.

"Hi. I was wondering if I might speak with Austin Roberts?"

"Who may I say is calling?"

"David Johnson." Ok, I lied.

"Are you a friend of his?"

"Yes." Ok, I lied again.

"When is the last time you spoke with him?"

"I just spoke to him on the phone."

"Honey, I don't think you did. Austin's been dead fifteen years." Great! I'm getting phone calls from perverts in hell.

"I'm sorry, but I... I just received an obscene phone call from a man who said he was Austin Roberts. I'm sorry, really, I am."

"Well honey, you know someone called earlier today and I answered they just hung up. Maybe it is the same person. I hope they won't bother you again."

"Thanks for your time, sorry about your husband."

"It's OK. Goodbye."

Now I feel violated, stupid, and my spaghetti looks dead.

Ring ... Ring...

"Johnson's."

"Do you have any apartments?"

"No!"

Click. I hate apartment calls.

Random Quotes - Rediscovered June 14, 2008

One of my favorite things is opening a file folder and finding little quotes that I've copied down. I especially love it when I have not context and have to determine why I wrote them down in the first place.



In Genesis, God gave man dominion over the earth. Of course, Genesis was not written by a horse.
—source unknown

To be truly liberated, one must be able to stand alone.
—source unknown

That's why we have AIDS...to do a little population control in third world countries.
—source unknown

Oh well. He wasn't going to write Beethoven's Ninth Symphony anyway.
—source unknown

Momma, I want a tit!
—small child, front row of church

Date Night with Oleta Adams


The Rrazz Room in San Francisco is evolving in to a popular place to see very intimate shows. Replacing the Plush Room, or as Katey Sagal dubbed it, the "Plushier Plush Room", it is easier to get to by public transportation and seems to quite popular. So popular that for date night, I hauled Frank down to see Oleta Adams a full week before she performed.
Personally, I love to stand at Will Call while the hostess pours over the list of people who may enter and those who are not on the list. The man in front of us plied his way in by giving some story. Did he really pay in cash the week before? Or did they see the octogenarian and decide that he couldn't possibly be lying. Either way, he was in. We were next. And we were not on the list. Luckily I had the reservation printed and the hostess scoured the list one more time ... and then she looked up, rubbed my arm, and said, "Honey, we'll see you next Thursday!"
To be honest, I am not sure how the mistake occurred. We both had it on our Yahoo Calendar and sure enough, the alert showed up a few days later. I could claim stress, but I guess I was just so excited to see Oleta again that the days could not pass quickly enough. Especially since 15 years have now passed since our initial introduction.
Back in 1993, I moved to St. Helena and worked at a couple of restaurants. I was told that I couldn't march with my graduating class if I wanted financial aid in the fall for student teaching and I was just beginning to address the fact that my life was about to take a turn down a different path. Sinead O'Connor's Am I Not Your Girl and Oleta Adam's Circle of One were the soundtracks of my summer. In constant rotation as I drove to work, drove to San Francisco it would happen on many occasions that I would leave my car with Oleta singing Get Here and walk into Tom's apartment with the same song playing.
Prior to our first date with Oleta, a friend asked us to drive up the hill to witness some papers being signed with a notary. It affected our schedule but we were happy to help and modified our date night. We didn't know at the time it would be our last time to see our friend. So walking in the door of the Rrazz room a week later there was a sense to me that I was walking in with not only Frank, but the ghosts of the past as well.
I think I cried a little more easily when I was younger. I look at my list of favorite movies and probably 90% are a favorite because they hit me on an emotional level. Oleta got me twice on our night together. She is a small woman and sat at the piano for the 2+ hours of music. We were seated about 10-15 away from her and once the sound was adjusted for the drums and bass, she transported me to another plain. She seems like a good soul and has smile that can light up the room. When she wasn't singing, she was keeping up on the piano and having a grand time.
I think it is a good thing to witness people doing something they love, not that it makes our lives look a little drab in comparison, but because it is good to keep one's eyes open and see what inspires us and what keeps us engaged in our jobs and lives. I also think it is important to appreciate the people in my life, to look at the one I love and be thankful that during a show like this, I have a hand to hold and someone to share life's experience.

Tuesday, May 20, 2008

California State Supreme Court decision on Gay Marriage

Whether or not you are personally interested in "gay marriage", last week was a historic moment in this country. For the first time California (a state followed by courts in almost ALL other states) not only recognized that denying marriage to people who decide to marry members of the same sex because of their sexual orientation is unconstitutional, it held, actually more importantly, that differential treatment based upon sexual ORIENTATION (rather than just on the basis of which sex you are) is a SUSPECT class in California (like race, religion, etc) and therefore any official laws or actions that have the effect of unfairly treating or affecting members of that suspect class must pass the strictest scrutiny in order to pass constitutional muster (in other words, be legal). This applies in work, governmental and most social and society settings far beyond the right to marry.

I received an e-mail with the following highlights from the court decision. It is quite interesting.


Highlights of the California State Supreme Court decision on Gay Marriage
Compiled by Carl R. Stevens

HIGHLIGHTS FROM THE CALIFORNIA STATE SUPREME COURT decision on gay marriage, May 15, 2008.

NOT A LEGAL OPINION AND NOT TO BE RELIED UPON FOR ANY LEGAL PURPOSE
************************************************************

“First, we must determine the nature and scope of the “right to marry” — a
right that past cases establish as one of the fundamental constitutional rights
embodied in the California Constitution.

“We conclude that, under this state’s Constitution, the constitutionally based right to marry properly must be understood to encompass the core set of basic substantive legal rights and attributes traditionally associated with marriage that are so integral to an individual’s liberty and personal autonomy that they may not be eliminated or abrogated by the Legislature or by the electorate through the statutory initiative process. These core substantive rights include, most fundamentally, the opportunity of an individual to establish — with the person with whom the individual has chosen to share his or her life — an officially recognized and protected family possessing mutual rights and responsibilities and entitled to the same respect and dignity accorded a union traditionally designated as marriage.

“As past cases establish, the substantive right of two adults who share a loving
relationship to join together to establish an officially recognized family of their
own — and, if the couple chooses, to raise children within that family —
constitutes a vitally important attribute of the fundamental interest in liberty and
personal autonomy that the California Constitution secures to all persons for the
benefit of both the individual and society.

“Furthermore, in contrast to earlier times, our state now recognizes that an
individual’s capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship
with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend
upon the individual’s sexual orientation, and, more generally, that an individual’s
sexual orientation — like a person’s race or gender — does not constitute a
legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights. We therefore
conclude that in view of the substance and significance of the fundamental
constitutional right to form a family relationship, the California Constitution
properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians,
whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex
couples.

“Under the current statutes, the state has not revised the name of the official family relationship for all couples, but rather has drawn a distinction between the name for the official
family relationship of opposite-sex couples (marriage) and that for same-sex
couples (domestic partnership). One of the core elements of the right to establish
an officially recognized family that is embodied in the California constitutional
right to marry is a couple’s right to have their family relationship accorded dignity
and respect equal to that accorded other officially recognized families, and
assigning a different designation for the family relationship of same-sex couples
while reserving the historic designation of “marriage” exclusively for opposite-sex
couples poses at least a serious risk of denying the family relationship of same-sex
couples such equal dignity and respect. We therefore conclude that although the
provisions of the current domestic partnership legislation afford same-sex couples
most of the substantive elements embodied in the constitutional right to marry, the
current California statutes nonetheless must be viewed as potentially impinging
upon a same-sex couple’s constitutional right to marry under the California
Constitution.

“Furthermore, the circumstance that the current California statutes assign a
different name for the official family relationship of same-sex couples as
contrasted with the name for the official family relationship of opposite-sex
couples raises constitutional concerns not only under the state constitutional right
to marry, but also under the state constitutional equal protection clause.

“A number of factors lead us to this conclusion. First, the exclusion of
same-sex couples from the designation of marriage clearly is not necessary in
order to afford full protection to all of the rights and benefits that currently are
enjoyed by married opposite-sex couples; permitting same-sex couples access to
the designation of marriage will not deprive opposite-sex couples of any rights and
will not alter the legal framework of the institution of marriage, because same-sex
couples who choose to marry will be subject to the same obligations and duties
that currently are imposed on married opposite-sex couples.

“Second, retaining the traditional definition of marriage and affording same-sex couples only a separate and differently named family relationship will, as a realistic matter, impose
appreciable harm on same-sex couples and their children, because denying such
couples access to the familiar and highly favored designation of marriage is likely
to cast doubt on whether the official family relationship of same-sex couples
enjoys dignity equal to that of opposite-sex couples.

“Third, because of the widespread disparagement that gay individuals historically have faced, it is all the more probable that excluding same-sex couples from the legal institution of
marriage is likely to be viewed as reflecting an official view that their committed
relationships are of lesser stature than the comparable relationships of opposite-sex
couples. Finally, retaining the designation of marriage exclusively for opposite sex
couples and providing only a separate and distinct designation for same-sex
couples may well have the effect of perpetuating a more general premise — now
emphatically rejected by this state — that gay individuals and same-sex couples are in some respects “second-class citizens” who may, under the law, be treated
differently from, and less favorably than, heterosexual individuals or opposite-sex
couples. Under these circumstances, we cannot find that retention of the
traditional definition of marriage constitutes a compelling state interest.
Accordingly, we conclude that to the extent the current California statutory
provisions limit marriage to opposite-sex couples, these statutes are
unconstitutional.

“Although we concluded in Lockyer (MY NOTE: This is the case that was heard by the Supreme court in March of ’04 that initially VOIDED all of the marriages in San Francisco) that the City officials had acted unlawfully and that the same-sex marriages they had authorized were void ( My note: because California law did not permit it), as already noted our opinion made clear that the substantive question of the constitutionality of California’s statutory provisions limiting marriage to a man and a woman was not before us in the Lockyer proceeding and that we were expressing no opinion on this issue.

“Section 308.5, an initiative statute submitted to the voters of California as
Proposition 22 at the March 7, 2000, primary election and approved by the voters
at that election, provides in full: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” Accordingly, if section 308.5 applies to marriages performed in
California as well as to out-of-state marriages, any measure passed by the
Legislature that purports to authorize marriages of same-sex couples in California
would have to be submitted to and approved by the voters before it could become
effective…. For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that in light of both the
language and the purpose of section 308.5, this provision reasonably must be
interpreted to apply both to marriages performed in California and those
performed in other jurisdictions.

“Of course, although the Domestic Partner Act generally affords registered
domestic partners the same substantive benefits and privileges and imposes upon
them the same responsibilities and duties that California law affords to and
imposes upon married spouses, the act does not purport to (and lawfully could not)
modify the applicable provisions of federal law, which currently do not provide
for domestic partnerships and which define marriage, for purposes of federal law,
as the union of a man and a woman. (See 1 U.S.C. § 7.)

“As we explained in Koebke, supra, 36 Cal.4th 824, 843: “[T]he decision . . . to
enter into a domestic partnership is more than a change in the legal status of
individuals . . . . [T]he consequence[] of the decision is the creation of a new
family unit with all of its implications in terms of personal commitment as well as
legal rights and obligations.”

The nature and breadth of the rights afforded same-sex couples under the
Domestic Partner Act is significant, because under California law the scope of that
enactment is directly relevant to the question of the constitutional validity of the
provisions in California’s marriage statutes limiting marriage to opposite-sex
couples.

“Although our state Constitution does not contain any explicit reference to a
“right to marry,” past California cases establish beyond question that the right to
marry is a fundamental right whose protection is guaranteed to all persons by the
California Constitution. (See, e.g., Conservatorship of Valerie N. (1985) 40
Cal.3d 143, 161 (Valerie N.) [“The right to marriage and procreation are now
recognized as fundamental, constitutionally protected interests. [Citations.]

“Plaintiffs challenge the Court of Appeal’s characterization of the constitutional right they seek to invoke as the right to same-sex marriage, and on this point we agree with plaintiffs’ position. In Perez v. Sharp, supra, 32 Cal.2d 711 — this court’s 1948 decision holding that the California statutory provisions prohibiting interracial marriage were unconstitutional — the court did not
characterize the constitutional right that the plaintiffs in that case sought to obtain as “a right to interracial marriage” and did not dismiss the plaintiffs’ constitutional challenge on the ground that such marriages never had been permitted in California Instead, the Perez decision focused on the substance of the constitutional right at issue — that is, the importance to an individual of the freedom “to join in marriage with the person of one’s choice” — in determining whether the statute impinged upon the plaintiffs’ fundamental constitutional right.

“In discussing the constitutional right to marry in Perez v. Sharp, supra, 32 Cal.2d 711 (Perez), then Justice Traynor in the lead opinion quoted the seminal passage from the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Meyer v. Nebraska, supra, 262 U.S. 390. There the high court, in describing the scope of the “liberty” protected by the due process clause of the federal Constitution, stated that “ ‘[w]ithout doubt, it denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint, but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations
of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of one’s own conscience, and, generally, to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.’ ”

“As these and many other California decisions make clear, the right to marry represents the right of an individual to establish a legally recognized family with the person of one’s choice, and, as such, is of fundamental significance both to society and to the individual.

“As noted above, past California decisions have described marriage as “the most socially roductive and individually fulfilling relationship that one can enjoy in the course of a ifetime.” (Marvin v. Marvin, supra, 18 Cal.3d 660, 684; “The ability of an individual to
join in a committed, long-term, officially recognized family relationship with the
person of his or her choice is often of crucial significance to the individual’s
happiness and well-being. The legal commitment to long-term mutual emotional
and economic support that is an integral part of an officially recognized marriage
relationship provides an individual with the ability to invest in and rely upon a
loving relationship with another adult in a way that may be crucial to the
individual’s development as a person and achievement of his or her full potential.

“Although persons can have children and raise them outside of marriage, the institution of
civil marriage affords official governmental sanction and sanctuary to the family unit, granting a parent the ability to afford his or her children the substantial benefits that flow from a stable two-parent family environment, a ready and public means of establishing to others the legal basis of one’s parental relationship to one’s children (cf. Koebke, supra, 36 Cal.4th 824, 844-845; Elden v. Sheldon, supra, 46 Cal.3d 267, 275), and the additional security that comes from the
knowledge that his or her parental relationship with a child will be afforded protection by the government against the adverse actions or claims of others.

“In recognizing, however, that the right to marry is a basic, constitutionally protected civil right — “a fundamental right of free men [and women]” (Perez, supra, 32 Cal.2d 711, 714) —the overning California cases establish that this right embodies fundamental interests of an individual that are protected from abrogation or elimination by the state. Because our cases make clear that the right to marry is an integral component of an individual’s interest in personal autonomy protected by the privacy provision of article I, section 1, and of the liberty interest protected by the due process clause of article I, section 7, it is apparent under the California Constitution that the right to marry — like the right to establish a home and raise
children — has independent substantive content, and cannot properly be understood as simply the right to enter into such a relationship if (but only if) the Legislature chooses to establish and retain it.

“In light of the fundamental nature of the substantive rights embodied in the right to marry — and their central importance to an individual’s opportunity to live a happy, meaningful, and satisfying life as a full member of society — the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all individuals and couples, without regard to their sexual orientation.

“There can be no question but that, in recent decades, there has been a fundamental and dramatic transformation in this state’s understanding and legal treatment of gay individuals and gay couples. California has repudiated past practices and policies that were based on a once common viewpoint that denigrated the general character and morals of gay individuals, and at one time even characterized homosexuality as a mental illness rather than as simply one of
the numerous variables of our common and diverse humanity. This state’s current policies and conduct regarding homosexuality recognize that gay individuals are entitled to the same legal rights and the same respect and dignity afforded all other individuals and are protected from discrimination on the basis of their sexual orientation, and, more specifically, recognize that gay individuals are fully capable of entering into the kind of loving and enduring committed relationships that may serve as the foundation of a family and of responsibly caring for and
raising children.

“We now similarly recognize that an individual’s homosexual orientation is not a constitutionally legitimate basis for withholding or restricting the individual’s legal rights. In light of the evolution of our state’s understanding concerning the equal dignity and respect to which all persons are
entitled without regard to their sexual orientation, it is not appropriate to interpret these provisions in a way that, as a practical matter, excludes gay individuals from the protective reach of such basic civil rights.

“As noted above, our decision in Perez, supra, 32 Cal.2d 711, declining to define narrowly the right to marry, did not consider the fact that discrimination against interracial marriage was “sanctioned by the state for many years” a reason to reject the plaintiffs’ claim in that case. (Id., at p. 727.) Instead the court looked to the essence and substance of the right to marry, a right itself deeply rooted in the history and tradition of our state and nation, to determine
whether the challenged statute impinged upon the plaintiffs’ constitutional right. For similar reasons, it is apparent that history alone does not provide a justification for interpreting the constitutional right to marry as protecting only one’s ability to enter into an officially recognized family relationship with a person of the opposite sex. “[F]undamental rights, once recognized, cannot be denied to particular groups on the ground that these groups have historically been
denied those rights.”

“In the present context our recognition that the constitutional right to marry applies to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples does not diminish any other person’s constitutional rights. Opposite-sex couples will continue to enjoy precisely the same constitutional rights they traditionally have possessed, unimpaired by our recognition that this basic civil right is applicable, as well, to gay individuals and same-sex couples. Thus, although an
important purpose underlying marriage may be to channel procreation into a stable family relationship, that purpose cannot be viewed as limiting the constitutional right to marry to couples who are capable of biologically producing a child together. Thus, although the state undeniably has a legitimate interest in promoting “responsible procreation,” that interest cannot be viewed as a valid basis for defining or limiting the class of persons who may claim
the protection of the fundamental constitutional right to marry.

“Accordingly, we conclude that the right to marry, as embodied in article I, sections 1 and 7 of the California Constitution, guarantees same-sex couples the same substantive constitutional rights as opposite-sex couples to choose one’s life partner and enter with that person into a committed, officially recognized, and protected family relationship that enjoys all of the constitutionally based incidents of marriage.

“Whether or not the name “marriage,” in the abstract, is considered a core element of the state constitutional right to marry, one of the core elements of this fundamental right is the right of same-sex couples to have their official family relationship accorded the same dignity, respect, and stature as that accorded to all other officially recognized family relationships. The current statutes — by drawing a distinction between the name assigned to the family relationship
available to opposite-sex couples and the name assigned to the family relationship available to same-sex couples, and by reserving the historic and highly respected designation of marriage exclusively to opposite-sex couples while offering same sex couples only the new and unfamiliar designation of domestic partnership — pose a serious risk of denying the official family relationship of same-sex couples the equal dignity and respect that is a core element of the constitutional right to marry.

“Having concluded that the California marriage statutes treat persons differently on the basis of sexual orientation, we must determine whether sexual orientation should be considered a suspect classification” under the California equal protection clause, so that statutes drawing a distinction on this basis are subject to strict scrutiny. The issue is one of first impression in California, however, and for the reasons discussed below we conclude that sexual orientation should be viewed as a suspect classification for purposes of the California Constitution’s equal protection clause and that statutes that treat persons differently because of their sexual orientation should be subjected to strict scrutiny under this constitutional provision.

“Because a person’s sexual orientation is so integral an aspect of one’s identity, it is not appropriate to require a person to repudiate or change his or her sexual orientation in order to avoid discriminatory treatment.[“[s]exual orientation and sexual identity . . . are so fundamental to one’s identity that a person should not be required to abandon them”]; [“whether or not sexual orientation is based on biological or physiological factors, which may be a matter of some controversy, it is a deeply personal characteristic that is either unchangeable or changeable only at unacceptable personal costs”].)

“In sum, we conclude that statutes imposing differential treatment on the basis of sexual orientation should be viewed as constitutionally suspect under the California Constitution’s equal protection clause. There is no persuasive basis for applying to statutes that classify persons on
the basis of the suspect classification of sexual orientation a standard less rigorous than that applied to statutes that classify on the basis of the suspect classifications of gender, race, or religion. Because sexual orientation, like gender, race, or religion, is a characteristic that frequently has been the basis for biased and improperly stereotypical treatment and that generally bears no relation to an individual’s ability to perform or contribute to society, it is appropriate for courts to evaluate with great care and with considerable skepticism any statute that embodies such a classification. The strict scrutiny standard therefore is applicable to statutes that impose differential treatment on the basis of sexual orientation.

“We conclude that in the present context, affording same-sex couples access only to the separate institution of domestic partnership, and denying such couples access to the established nstitution of marriage, properly must be viewed as impinging upon the right of those couples to have their family relationship accorded respect and dignity equal to that accorded the family relationship of opposite-sex couples.

“First, because of the long and celebrated history of the term “marriage” and the widespread understanding that this term describes a union unreservedly approved and favored by the community, there clearly is a considerable and undeniable symbolic importance to this designation. Thus, it is apparent that affording access to this designation exclusively to opposite-sex couples, while providing same-sex couples access to only a novel alternative designation,
realistically must be viewed as constituting significantly unequal treatment to same-sex couples.

“Second, particularly in light of the historic disparagement of and discrimination against gay persons, there is a very significant risk that retaining a distinction in nomenclature with regard to this most fundamental of relationships whereby the term “marriage” is denied only to same-sex couples inevitably will cause the new parallel institution that has been made available to those couples to be viewed as of a lesser stature than marriage and, in effect, as a mark of second class citizenship.

“Under these circumstances, we conclude that the distinction drawn by the current California statutes between the designation of the family relationship available to opposite-sex couples and the designation available to same-sex couples impinges upon the fundamental interest of same-sex couples in having their official family relationship accorded dignity and respect equal to that
conferred upon the family relationship of opposite-sex couples.

“Because the constitutional right of privacy ordinarily would protect an individual from having to disclose his or her sexual orientation under circumstances in which that information is irrelevant (see, e.g., People v. Garcia, supra, 77 Cal.App.4th 1269, 1280; Urbaniak v. Newton (1991) 226 Cal.App.3d 1128, 1140-1141), the existence of two separate family designations — one
available only to opposite-sex couples and the other to same-sex couples — impinges upon this privacy interest, and may expose gay individuals to detrimental treatment by those who continue to harbor prejudices that have been rejected by California society at large.

“For all of these reasons, we conclude that the classifications and differential treatment embodied in the relevant statutes significantly impinge upon the fundamental interests of same-sex couples, and accordingly provide a further reason requiring that the statutory provisions properly be evaluated under the strict scrutiny standard of review.

“By the same token, the circumstance that the limitation of marriage to a union between a man and a woman embodied in section 308.5 was enacted as an initiative measure by a vote of the electorate similarly neither exempts the statutory provision from constitutional scrutiny nor justifies a more deferential standard of review. Although California decisions consistently and igorously have safeguarded the right of voters to exercise the authority afforded by the initiative process (see, e.g., Associated Home Builders, etc., Inc. v. City of Livermore (1976) 18 Cal.3d 582, 591), our past cases at the same time uniformly establish that initiative measures adopted by the electorate are subject to the same constitutional limitations that apply to statutes adopted by the Legislature, and our courts have not hesitated to invalidate measures enacted through the initiative process when they run afoul of constitutional guarantees provided by either the
federal or California Constitution.

“Although the understanding of marriage as limited to a union of a man and a woman is undeniably the predominant one, if we have learned anything from the significant evolution in the prevailing societal views and official policies toward members of minority races and toward women over the past half-century, it is that even the most familiar and generally accepted of social practices and traditions often mask an unfairness and inequality that frequently is not recognized or appreciated by those not directly harmed by those practices or traditions. It is instructive to recall in this regard that the traditional, well-established legal rules and practices of our not-so-distant past (1) barred interracial marriage (2) upheld the routine exclusion of women from many occupations and official duties, and (3) considered the relegation of racial minorities to separate and assertedly equivalent public facilities and institutions as constitutionally equal treatment.

“After carefully evaluating the pertinent considerations in the present case, we conclude that the state interest in limiting the designation of marriage exclusively to opposite-sex couples, and in excluding same-sex couples from access to that designation, cannot properly be considered a compelling state interest for equal protection purposes. To begin with, the limitation clearly is not necessary to preserve the rights and benefits of marriage currently enjoyed by opposite-sex couples. Extending access to the designation of marriage to same sex couples will not deprive any opposite-sex couple or their children of any of the rights and benefits conferred by the marriage statutes, but simply will make the benefit of the marriage designation available to same-sex couples and their children. As Chief Judge Kaye of the New York Court of Appeals succinctly observed in her dissenting opinion in Hernandez v. Robles, supra, 855 “There are enough marriage licenses to go around for everyone.” (My Note: AMEN TO THAT!)

“Further, permitting same-sex couples access to the designation of marriage will not alter the substantive nature of the legal institution of marriage; same-sex couples who choose to enter into the relationship with that designation will be subject to the same duties and obligations to each other, to their children, and to third parties that the law currently imposes upon opposite-sex couples who marry. Finally, affording same-sex couples the opportunity to obtain the
designation of marriage will not impinge upon the religious freedom of any religious organization, official, or any other person; no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs. (Cal. Const., art. I, § 4.)72 While retention of the limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples is not needed to preserve the rights and benefits of opposite-sex couples, the exclusion of same-sex couples from the designation of marriage works a real and appreciable harm upon same-sex couples and their children. As discussed above, because of the long and celebrated history of the term “marriage” and the widespread understanding that this word describes a family relationship unreservedly
sanctioned by the community, the statutory provisions that continue to limit access to this designation exclusively to opposite-sex couples — while providing only a novel, alternative institution for same-sex couples — likely will be viewed as an official statement that the family relationship of same-sex couples is not of comparable stature or equal dignity to the family relationship of opposite-sex couples. Furthermore, because of the historic disparagement of gay persons, the retention of a distinction in nomenclature by which the term “marriage” is
withheld only from the family relationship of same-sex couples is all the more likely to cause the new parallel institution that has been established for same-sex couples to be considered a mark of second-class citizenship.

“Finally, in addition to the potential harm flowing from the lesser stature that is likely to be afforded to the family relationships of same-sex couples by designating them domestic
partnerships, there exists a substantial risk that a judicial decision upholding the
differential treatment of opposite-sex and same-sex couples would be understood
as validating a more general proposition that our state by now has repudiated: that
it is permissible, under the law, for society to treat gay individuals and same-sex
couples differently from, and less favorably than, heterosexual individuals and
opposite-sex couples.

In light of all of these circumstances, we conclude that retention of the traditional definition of marriage does not constitute a state interest sufficiently compelling, under the strict scrutiny equal protection standard, to justify withholding that status from same-sex couples. Accordingly, insofar as the provisions of sections 300 and 308.5 draw a distinction between opposite-sex
couples and same-sex couples and exclude the latter from access to the designation of marriage, we conclude these statutes are unconstitutional.

“Having concluded that sections 300 and 308.5 are unconstitutional to the extent each statute reserves the designation of marriage exclusively to opposite sex couples and denies same-sex couples access to that designation, we must determine the proper remedy.

“In view of the lengthy history of the use of the term “marriage” to describe the family
relationship here at issue, and the importance that both the supporters of the 1977 amendment to the marriage statutes and the electors who voted in favor of Proposition 22 unquestionably attached to the designation of marriage, there can be no doubt that extending the designation of marriage to same-sex couples, rather than denying it to all couples, is the equal protection remedy that is most consistent with our state’s general legislative policy and preference.

“Accordingly, in light of the conclusions we reach concerning the constitutional questions brought to us for resolution, we determine that the language of section 300 limiting the designation of marriage to a union “between a man and a woman” is unconstitutional and must be stricken from the statute, and that the remaining statutory language must be understood as making the designation of marriage available both to opposite-sex and same-sex couples. In addition, because the limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples imposed by section 308.5 can have no constitutionally permissible effect in light of the constitutional conclusions set forth in this opinion, that provision cannot stand.

“Plaintiffs are entitled to the issuance of a writ of mandate directing the appropriate state officials to take all actions necessary to effectuate our ruling in this case so as to ensure that county clerks and other local officials throughout the state, in performing their duty to enforce the marriage statutes in their jurisdictions, apply those provisions in a manner consistent with the decision of this court.



According to the e-mail, feel free to pass it on to others.
BUT REMEMBER IT IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION! Here is a link to entire opinion

Saturday, May 03, 2008

Spider

This video clip has true WTF moments. Watch it in its entirety.

Thursday, May 01, 2008

Monday, April 21, 2008

See Mermaids Live

A Weekend in St. Petersburg


Bev was midway through a list in the options we could take during my weekend in St. Petersburg, when I jumped at the opportunity to Weeki Wachee Springs, home of the live mermaids. During our day at the park, we saw a manatee swimming the springs, two mermaid shows and a wedding!
Fabulous!

Weeki Wachee Springs - Music Video



The Conference

Conferences are always interesting affairs. Some attend hoping to find answers, to network, and others hope to get hired. I attended an eLearning Conference in Orlando and found myself feeling a little rebelious. I was supposed to attend a full day session but left during the last hour.

There is nothing worse than self-appointed "training leaders" demonstrating their undying love for their fellow presenters. It seriously felt like watching a bunch of middle-age white guys masterbating each other.

Stroke ... stroke ... stroke... you are so wonderful.

I just loved your book ... heh heh ... did you like the statistics that I pulled together?

Hot.

Look I included a powerpoint transitions.

Dude that is amazing!

PowerPoint is hot.

Hey, did anyone read the bullet points that promoted today's session?

Why?

Oh, that's right, we're "training leaders" ... whatever we say is gospel.

By the way, who are those people looking at us like we're absolute idiots ... didn't they hear that we are training leaders?

So, I opted to read Jeanette Winterson's The Stone Gods and headed to the Magic Kingdom with a colleague. I am happy to say that after the first day's disappointment, the rest of the session was excellent.

Monday, April 07, 2008

Messages from the Other Side ...

A few years ago my surrogate mother, Toni, passed. She struggled with cancer and eventually lost the battle.


Toni was the mother of one of my best friends. On Saturdays, her home was always open to provide a home-cooked meal, a hug, share a story, or act surprised by the antics of teenage boys.


The birthday after she passed, I received a card with her handwriting on the outside. It was a final message and it was so unexpected and so welcome.

The family of Kurt Vonnegut have released previously unpublished works and it is a gift to those of us who have enjoyed Kurt's work over the years.

"I've too damned much to say, the rest will have to wait. I can't receive mail here so don't write." (May 29, 1945)

Thursday, April 03, 2008

Saturday, March 29, 2008

An Intimate Evening with Linda Eder

The palace of fine arts is a hidden gem tucked in behind the Palace of Fine Arts and it is a great place for an intimate concert.

We used Gold Star to get tickets to see Linda Eder. This is actually the second time I've seen her, though the first time I had a group of McAteer students in tow, a tired co-chaperone and a partial view of the show, Jekyl and Hyde.

As it turns out, Ms. Eder was a Star Search success story and got her role in the Broadway show based on largely on her success on the show. Of course, and I do not give her delivery justice, she went from playing Mother Superior to playing a prostitute for three years!

Her voice is gorgeous and aside from a little rude interaction with the audience, some guy did not feel that her rendition of Judy Garland's Over the Rainbow was up to snuff.

"Judy did it better!"
"You are absolutely rude ..."
"It's true ..."

Linda Eder: "I am simply stunned."

She then went on to sing the song. If you get the opportunity to see her live, do so.

Linda Eder's Official Website

Easter Weekend - Ta-Tas, Nibbles, and Sisters

Pictures: Click here to view.

The weekend started with a little adventure with Jeff. He had tickets to SF Gay Men's Chorus' presentation of Bump and Grind Cabaret. I thought it was going to be in the Regency Ballroom, instead it was upstairs in the Regency Lodge. This was not my first time in the room. Miss Kris and I went to a holiday party for her company several years ago and now she's married (assumably doing a little bump and grind action herself!).

The room was reminiscent of a speakeasy. There were tables and things kicked off with the Twilight Vixen Revue and the introduction to Cabaret, Wilkommen.

This was not my favorite show. It was fun hanging out with Jeff, but there is something wrong when there are more ta-tas on display (see the Vixens website). At one point, the host donned a dress and in a monotone delivery, stated, "You didn't think I would go an entire evening without putting on a dress." Drag Queen, especially those on stage should have a personality. This poor thing used cue cards and was so dull that I had to question the sanity of the bear sitting next to us, who bellowed with such joy, you'd think someone put cake in front of him. After the show, we to see some other show girls at Divas ... can't wait until my brother is in town to take him on a tour. Of course, he's busy trying to kill himself in Utah, but that is another story.

Taste of Yountville

The Mustard Festival is always fun. We usually head to Calistoga but we stopped mid-valley to enjoy the festival in Yountville. Wine, food, and a walk in the sun.

Not a bad way to spend the day ... though my car is starting to sound like a Southwest airliner that hasn't seen it regular checkup.

We also took the opportunity to check out the new Iranian winery ... hmm ... tacky comes to mind. But that would be judgemental and I that just wouldn't be right on Easter weekend.

Speaking of tacky ... we visited the garden of the French Laundry and use the bathroom. It was lovely!

Easter morning Frank and I decided to head over to 2223 for brunch. This was followed by heading down to sister's 29 annual celebration. Duboce park was packed with celebrants ... and there was a sighting or two of Jesi.

Happy Easter!

Tuesday, March 04, 2008

Doing My Civic Duty - Jury Duty

I just spent two days sitting in a court room listening to very smart people question not so smart people. Unlike my criminal trial where I sat on the jury, these lawyers were prepared, eloquent, and passionate about what they were doing. I started a chart to determine who I felt would be selected and based on my initial guesses, 7 of the 12 were selected. Luckily, I was not one of them. To be honest, there was not a lot of drama in the court room. I was impressed with the breadth of people in the room. We represented the entire city, all ethnicities, and economic levels.

Walking in San Francisco is always an adventure. My first day of jury duty found me walking from our house on Noe Street all the way to Civic Center via Market Street. I stopped for coffee at Peets coffee and was informed that I was still wearing a sales tag on my jeans. Oops. What was worse was the detail that the man tried to tell me from his car but I was to absorbed in my iPod.

I finished listening to my NPR podcasts, the weekly radio address from the president, and called my sister to chat prior to entering the court house. As I approached City Hall, I saw what appeared to be a festive protest or demonstration. It almost sounded like a New Orleans jazz band and there were woman carrying red umbrellas dancing about. One woman looked like she was wearing a series of flags from around the world. Once I was close enough to see the details, I noted that the woman was indeed wearing a garment made from flags from around the world. She looked like a grandmother! The sign on the steps stated, "Rights for Sex Workers = Human Rights!"

I just spent two days sitting in a court room listening to very smart people question not so smart people. The interview segment of the trial was a bit dull. It was obvious which jurors were trying to be excused. This is interesting since they basically did not want to be inconvenienced, which if they were to be excused would then inconvenience someone else. I started a chart to determine who I felt would be selected, the top 12 even had inappropriate sketches representing notable facial features. I was not selected.

Outside our courthouse another protest began. The California Supreme Court was hearing the same-sex marriage lawsuit and the Bible thumpers were out in force. The usual banners were on display (see quotes below). During our lunch break, I watched as the hate-mobile drove circles around the Civic Center. The van had a giant cross, the admonition of hell for homosexuals, and the traditional "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" quote. In addition to the pictures of two men kissing in hell fire, there were pictures of the Twin Towers in New York City in flames from 911.

Aside from the hostile words, it was all quite peaceful and one bicyclist rode by saying "shame, shame, shame!" to the protestors. All the while, an apparently homeless rasta-man was yelling about how rape was wrong and this includes both men and women, and the establishment was not talking about it.

Signs Seen Outside the California Supreme Court House
  • Sodomy is sin
  • Re-Criminalize Sodomy
  • Stop Using Jesus to Promote Hatred
  • Majority Voted 4 Marriage
  • Marriage = 1 man + 1 woman
  • Moral Wrong Cannot be a Civil Right
  • NO Gays
  • "Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?" Matthew 19: 4-5 (It should be noted that Jesus was responding to a question by a pharisee regarding divorcing one's wife.)
  • "The men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error." Romans 1:27
  • “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” Matthew 4:17
  • God is not mocked (pictures of news headlines where God sent earthquakes, etc.)
  • Stop ignoring being Gay is not a choice
  • Your religion is not my goverment
  • Gay (HRC Symbol) = Pervert
  • Reverend King said, "Christianity sets forth a system of absolute moral values."
  • We oppose bigotry and discrimination
  • Gay bashing and hate mongering is not welcome in SF

Annie Leibovitz and the Dead Sea Scrolls

Frank and I went to a Member's Only event at the Legion of Honor to see the opening of the Annie Leibovitz exhibit. I really enjoyed the exhibit, though the Legion needs to work on their flow design. For a limited number of people, there were too many dead ends and the wee ones (short people who don't consider other people being able to see or not), kept dodging in and out blocking our view. Here's one of her famous pictures of Queen Elizabeth.



On our way out, Frank saw a sign for a Dead Sea Scrolls exhibit. It was not an overwhelming exhibit and we had the room pretty much to ourselves. The exhibit included glass, pottery and a segment of Psalms 119. I know they told us what section of the dead sea scroll was included, but I got shooshed by a guard, when I tried to call mom and share.

Here are the verses I believe I saw.

97 Oh how I love your law! It is my meditation all the day.

98 Your commandment makes me wiser than my enemies, for it is ever with me.

99 I have more understanding than all my teachers,for your testimonies are my meditation.

100 I understand more than the aged, for I keep your precepts.

101 I hold back my feet from every evil way, in order to keep your word.

102 I do not turn aside from your rules,for you have taught me.

103 How sweet are your words to my taste,sweeter than honey to my mouth!

104 Through your precepts I get understanding; therefore I hate every false way.

105 Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path.

106 I have sworn an oath and confirmed it,to keep your righteous rules.