STOP THE GODDAM PRESSES.

Don't Ask Don't Tell possibly repealed in upcoming defense bill? :DDDDDD

What is it that you actually say on the anniversary of 9/11? "Happy anniversary" is wildly inappropriate. Anyways, in memory of 9/11, I hope the families affected are somewhat at peace. I can't believe it's been eight years.



Onto a less tragic, but still sadmaking note (or things that make me :| face), what's with all the Beatles haters coming out of the woodwork after the remasters and Beatles RB premiered? I'm sure there's a lot that are just trying to be ~edgy, but I'm afraid there exists people in the world that actually hate The Beatles. Which is fucking mindblowing. Comments?

OH GOD GUYS, CHRIS PINE WHO? SERIOUSLY, ALL YOU WHIPPER SNAPPERS NEED TO KNOW YOUR ROOTS.


Anyone who was looking, the lovely whenisadoor has made a Leonard "Bones" McCoy only icon post. REJOICE.


Despite having seen Star Trek three times now legally and several more not-so-legally but it wasn't good quality cough, I still wanna see it agaaaaiiin. Considering going to the LA meetup for ontd_startrek members and partying it out with them :DDD All depends on if I have time, though. And if I can tolerate LA for a few hours doubt it.


This is pretty much the most precious cast ever assembled. I must make a Star Trek spam post soon, y?




Everyone's said their bit on the Prop 8 ruling and it seems unfair to reopen old wounds, and I'm reluctant to do so. Suffice to say, I didn't think it would get overturned, because it is hard as fuck to overrule a popular vote, apparently. Though, why it was even on the ballot is a mystery, but my state does have its share of fucktards, especially here in Orange County.


But just remember that the court just didn't feel like it could go against Prop 8 because it amended the constitution of the state. It said Prop 8 is legal, not that it's right, which gives us the opportunity to regroup and get on the ballot next year to correct this. With a fire properly lit under the hereto sloppy anti-Prop 8 campaign managers, the memory of the protests that broke out like wildfire after the election, and the small streak of states allowing gay marriage (hopefully to include New York soon), I think we have a good chance of getting gay marriage rights back.

Sometimes I wonder how some right wingers can look themselves in the face every day. Obama's actions are making the US less safe, ORLY. Like getting into a war that weakened our economy, stretched our military too thin, and then driving people with fear and paranoia and bigotry never did any damage. Also, gays getting married is going to hurt children and take away heterosexual couples' rights!

Jesus Christ. If America were attacked tomorrow, Dick Cheney would rear his ugly head and gleefully say, "I told you so."

Dear god, Bill ORLY just called Obama and Rahmbo patriots for both having a fantastic sense of humor (re: Barack roasting Rahm in 2005). AM I IN BIZARRO WORLD? DOES ORLY REALLY HAVE A CRUSH ON BARACK?

Oh Keith.

Gay rights backers file 3 lawsuits challenging Prop. 8

REPORTING FROM SAN FRANCISCO AND LOS ANGELES -- After losing at the polls, gay rights supporters filed three lawsuits today asking the California Supreme Court to overturn Proposition 8, an effort the measure's supporters called an attempt to subvert the will of voters.

"If they want to legalize gay marriage, what they should do is bring an initiative themselves and ask the people to approve it," said Frank Schubert, co-chairman of the Proposition 8 campaign. "But they don't. They go behind the people's back to the courts and try and force an agenda on the rest of society."

Lawyers for same-sex couples argued that the anti-gay-marriage measure was an illegal constitutional revision -- not a more limited amendment, as backers maintained -- because it fundamentally altered the guarantee of equal protection. A constitutional revision, unlike an amendment, must be approved by the Legislature before going to voters.
The state high court has twice before struck down ballot measures as illegal constitutional revisions, but those initiatives involved "a broader scope of changes," said former California Supreme Court Justice Joseph Grodin, who publicly opposed Proposition 8 and was part of an earlier legal challenge to it. The court has suggested that a revision may be distinguished from an amendment by the breadth and the nature of the change, Grodin said

Still, Grodin said, he believes that the challenge has legal merit, though he declined to make any predictions. Santa Clara University law professor Gerald Uelmen called the case "a stretch."

UC Irvine Law School Dean Erwin Chemerinsky said his research found too little case law on constitutional revisions to predict how the state high court might resolve the question.

"There is very little law about what can be done by amendment as opposed to revision," he said.

Jennifer Pizer, a staff lawyer for Lambda Legal, said the initiative met the test of a revision because it had far-reaching magnitude.

"The magnitude here is that you are effectively rendering equal protection a nullity if a simple majority can so easily carve an exception into it," she said. "Equal protection is supposed to prevent the targeting and subjugation of a minority group by a simple majority vote."

Glen Lavy, an attorney for the Proposition 8 campaign, called the lawsuits "frivolous" and "a brazen attempt to gut the democratic process."

The first action was filed by the ACLU, the National Center for Lesbian Rights and Lambda Legal. Santa Clara County and the cities of San Francisco and Los Angeles also filed a suit, and Los Angeles lawyer Gloria Allred filed a third suit on behalf of a married lesbian couple. All the lawsuits cited the constitutional revision argument, and two of them asked the court to block Proposition 8 from taking effect while the legal cases were pending.

"The court must hold that California may not issue licenses to non-gay couples because if it does it would be violating the equal protection clause, "Allred said at a news conference.

A California Supreme Court spokeswoman said the court would act "as quickly as possible" on the challenges.

Other lawsuits could follow, but gay rights groups have called on supporters not to file cases in federal court. They fear that a loss at the U.S. Supreme Court could set back the marriage movement decades.

"We think it is early to go into federal court and ask federal courts to say we have a federal right to marry," Pizer said.

In addition to going to court, gay rights advocates sought to assure an estimated 18,000 same-sex couples that their marriages will remain valid.

The groups cited comments by Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown, who has said the initiative was not retroactive. If the marriages are challenged in court, that case too would go to the California Supreme Court. Experts differ on whether the law would protect the marriages.

The California Supreme Court voted 4 to 3 on May 15 that a state ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. The ruling also elevated sexual orientation to the constitutional status of race and gender, an elevation that provides strong legal protection from discrimination.




FUCK YEAH

California, I hate you so much right now.

And done.