Kicking A Lion

…hear us roar

Posts Tagged ‘prop 8

Sponsors of Prop 8 ask Calif Supreme Court to Nullify Marriages of 18K Same-Sex Couples

The sponsors of Proposition 8 are asking the California Supreme Court to nullify the marriages of the estimated 18,000 same-sex couples who exchanged vows before voters last month approved the ballot initiative that outlawed gay unions. 

The Yes on 8 campaign filed a brief Friday arguing that because the new law holds that only marriages between a man and a woman are recognized or valid in California, the state can no longer recognize the existing same-sex unions. 

The campaign submitted the brief in response to three lawsuits seeking to invalidate Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment that overruled the court’s decision in May that legalized gay marriage. 

Both Attorney General Jerry Brown and gay rights groups are maintaining that the gay marriage ban may not be applied retroactively. 

The Supreme Court could hear arguments in the cases as soon as March. 

–Associated Press

Written by kickingalion

December 20, 2008 at 1:16 am


In just a few days, our community will join together once more to make an IMPACT this holiday season. Just like on November 15th, people in cities across the country and around the world will join together to spread the message of equal rights. Peaceful candlelight vigils will be held at commercial centers in honor of the rights lost to Proposition 8 and the many rights that have remained non-existent for 1 in 10 US citizens.

Please join us this Saturday in making an impact on our nation!

See Join The Impact for more details.

Written by kickingalion

December 18, 2008 at 4:12 pm

TV Ads with Gay and Lesbian Families Promoting the Repeal of Proposition 8 to Air Inauguration Week

Written by kickingalion

December 17, 2008 at 4:19 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged with , , , ,

Leno and Wanda Sykes Determine Lesbian Sex Will Overturn Prop. 8

Recently out lesbian Wanda Sykes exercised “Day without a Gay” on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno Wednesday.

Sporting a t-shirt with a rainbow colored fist on it Sykes made a delayed entrance telling Leno she was calling in gay for work, the movement intended to protest Prop. 8 through illustrating LGBT people’s integral place in society.

“Thank you,” Sykes said to Leno. “You’ve always been so supportive.” To which a chuckling Leno claimed he made Sykes gay by hitting on her.

“We just want the same rights as everyone else,” Sykes said, adding that gay people aren’t looking for special rights.

The pair became very silly and off-color when Leno told her he never understood the argument that gay marriage undermines the sanctity of his marriage or of heterosexual marriage in general.

Sykes suggested that the only way her marriage could affect his is if she and her spouse went to his house and had sex on his living room floor, which caused a light to go off for Leno, who posed a solution to overturning Prop.8.

All you lesbians — “Go to straight guys houses and make love on the floor,” Leno said. They’ll overturn this amendment to the California Constitution, he joked.

Written by kickingalion

December 11, 2008 at 4:47 pm

Queerty Roundup

San Francisco bishop, who approached the Mormons to help support Prop 8 wonders why we can’t all just get along.

Non binding resolutions against prop 8.

Gays to march in Obama inaugaration parade?

Written by kickingalion

December 4, 2008 at 4:33 pm

Senate resolution opposes Prop. 8

Senator Mark Leno introduced a resolution Tuesday that would put the state Legislature on the record as opposing Proposition 8, the gay marriage ban that was approved by voters on the November ballot.

Senate Resolution 7 was co-authored by Leno (D-San Francisco), Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) and the LGBT Legislative Caucus, and was sponsored by Equality California, a group dedicated to ensuring civil rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered individuals.

The resolution says Prop. 8 failed to meet the legal procedures required to revise the state’s constitution.

An identical resolution, House Resolution 5, was introduced in the Assembly by Assemblyman Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco).

“Proposition 8’s revision to the California Constitution violates key structural checks and balances built into our legal system,” Leno said in a statement. “Overnight, the constitutional protections of thousands of tax paying, law abiding California citizens were stripped from them by a simple majority vote, without a prior two-thirds vote by both houses of the legislature, thereby trampling on their fundamental right to equal protection.”

The resolutions will be heard in the proper committees when the Legislature reconvenes next year.

Written by kickingalion

December 3, 2008 at 12:34 am

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged with ,

Gay marriage letter sparks opposing view

Gay marriage letter sparks opposing view

With respect to the letter of Nov. 14 “People have spoken on gay marriage bans,” I feel the writer made several wrong points.

Despite the writer’s feelings that California’s vote on Proposition 8 is a dead topic, it is still in debate if the vote (52-48 percent) was enough of a majority to cause a “revision” to California’s constitution (needing 67 percent in favor) rather than an “amendment.” Most constitutions were written with an understanding of the magnitude of turning over a basic premise (equality) versus “amending” a minor issue.

The writer speaks as if the slight majority of California has spoken with a thundering voice that Proposition 8 was the right thing to do, when in reality, even with all of the misinformation spread about the rights of gay people to marry, the law passed by a very thin majority, too thin, many feel, to overturn the more powerful basic stature of the California Constitution.

The writer then goes on to talk about marrying minors and goats, and comparing that to two adult human beings who are in love.

Laws protect minors because the legislature and the voters feel minors have not reached the age of consent and therefore cannot make an adult decision on an act that will affect the rest of their lives.

Goats (and animals of most types) do not have the cognizant capabilities to have “consent.” It would be impossible for a goat to enter into marriage, since the goat would not have the ability to understand the phrase “I do,” to make the commitment of a lifetime of love and respect.

We are not talking about children, nor are we talking about goats. We are talking about two consenting human beings who want to have exactly the same rights – including divorce, having a family, earning respect – as do millions of other couples.

Those people who feel that “civil unions” convey these rights must never have studied law. Law is based on words, phrases and precedence, which sometimes follow a tricky path.

What is a “civil union” in one state may or may not exist in another. What does it mean to be “civil unioned” in Vermont and “un-civil-unioned” in Texas, which does not support civil unions? Is it the same as “divorce?”

What if you are “married” in Massachusetts and need to get “divorced” in a state that does not recognize that marriage? As a country we recognize the bond of marriage in all of our states. This is not true of “civil unions.”

Like it or not, the laws of a nation, and indeed the world, have been written around a word. How we treat a couple in love, their rights and obligations, is based on that word “marriage.”

Unless we go through every law and every statute and make sure that the laws are consistent, then there is no equal rights under the law for one group to be “civil unioned” and one group to be “married.”

The word that defines an unequivocal and inseparable love and a commitment to that love is “marriage.” That the word “marriage” does not mean only a commitment between a man and a woman is shown in our vernacular: “I am married to my job;” “I am married to my cause.”

We use these phrases every day. The phrase “married” in these cases mean commitment, love and duty. These are the things that two people mean when they say their vows, whether they be homosexual or heterosexual.

The writer of that letter feels the “voters have spoken.” I am old enough to remember the 1950s, and I can tell you that the “voters spoke” over civil rights, particularly in the South, and they rejected civil rights for African Americans.

Fortunately, some brave judges and some brave politicians stood up and declared that discrimination as being wrong, and from that the civil rights amendments and laws were created. I still have hope that this will happen again and that the recent attack on the constitution of California will be overturned.

For those who feel that the equalization of marriage will happen “in good time,” “in good time” will not help two of my male friends who shared 40 years of fidelity and love. They will never be able to say that they were “married.” One of them died last year of brain cancer.

I hope that the American people will finally see the inequality and inhumanity of what they are doing and allow gay marriage to happen before too many more couples are parted in death.

Goats? And (better yet) taxpaying goats? The argument is not just ridiculous, it is just plain baaaaad.

Jon A. Hall


Written by kickingalion

November 30, 2008 at 5:32 am