“Walesa said in a television interview on Friday that he believed gay people had no right to sit on the front benches in parliament and, if there at all, should sit in the back ‘or even behind a wall’.”
And here is Lech Walesa Street, off of famous-for-its-gay-people Polk Street, near famous-for-its gay-people Market Street, and just a half-block from world-famous San Francisco City Hall:
The former Ivy Street, at Polk:
Well here’s the big news, direct from the Office of San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera, below.
Via Steve Rhodes - click to expand
“U.S. Supreme Court sets Prop 8 oral argument date for March 26
DOMA challenge scheduled for the next day, setting the stage for back-to-back showdown over LGBT civil rights
SAN FRANCISCO (Jan. 7, 2013) — The U.S. Supreme Court moments ago published its formal argument calendar for March 2013, scheduling oral arguments in the federal constitutional challenge to California’s Proposition 8, called Hollingsworth v. Perry, for March 26, beginning at 10:00 a.m. EDT (7:00 a.m. PDT).
Another case that is also related to same-sex marriage rights — a challenge to the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA — will be heard the following day, on March 27, at the same time. That case is called United States v. Windsor.
In granting review to both marquee marriage equality cases exactly one month ago, the nation’s highest court set the stage for potentially landmark rulings on LGBT civil rights that promise to be the most eagerly-anticipated of the current court term. Rulings are expected by the end of June.
The legal issues at stake in the challenge to Prop 8, the controversial 2008 ballot measure that eliminated marriage rights for same-sex partners in California, are two-fold: first, whether the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the State of California from defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman; and second, whether the proponents of Prop 8 have legal standing to litigate the case.
The American Foundation for Equal Rights filed the lawsuit in May 2009 on behalf two California couples who sought to marry: Kris Perry and Sandy Stier, and Paul Katami and Jeff Zarrillo. They are represented by lead counsel Theodore B. Olson and David Boies. City Attorney Dennis Herrera intervened as a co-plaintiff in the case in August 2009, renewing San Francisco’s groundbreaking pubic sector legal advocacy for the broader societal interest to end marriage discrimination against lesbian and gay couples. At trial, Herrera and his legal team provided extensive evidence that state and local governments derive significant societal and economic benefits when same-sex partners enjoy equal marriage rights — and, conversely, that denying such rights inflicts grave injustices on the LGBT community that, in turn, harm government and society at large.
When the high court granted review to the case on Dec. 7, 2012, Herrera said: “The federal challenge to Prop 8 represents one of the most significant civil rights cases to be taken up by the U.S. Supreme Court in decades, and I’m confident that the high court will reach a decision that reaffirms our Constitution’s promise of equal protection under the law.”
The U.S. Supreme Court’s argument calendar for March is published online here:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/
The comprehensive timeline of San Francisco’s legal battle for marriage equality since February 2004 is available on City Attorney Dennis Herrera’s website at:
http://www.sfcityattorney.org/
The Prop 8 case is: Hollingsworth v. Perry, U.S. Supreme Court, Docket No. 12-144. The DOMA case is: United States v. Windsor, U.S. Supreme Court, Docket No. 12-307.”
Tink happy tots…
DJH and company, 2008, Civic Center:
Click to expand
On Castro near 17th and Market, near where pedestrian Sutchi Hui landed after getting hit by a bike rider earlier this year:
Click to expand
Heretofore, I’d only seen, you know, the other kind of nun.
Well this is news to me - via The Tens comes a graphic from Richard Roeper.
Click to expand
And that’s direct from Mr. Kowalski.
“These people who are making a big deal out of gay marriage? I don’t give a fuck about who wants to get married to anybody else. We’re making a big deal out of things we shouldn’t be making a deal out of … They go on and on with all this bullshit about ‘sanctity’ — don’t give me that sanctity crap! Just give everybody the chance to have the life they want.” — Clint Eastwood. [GQ]
[UPDATE: Oh, the Chron* was there. As was Steve T Jones of the Bay Guardian. And here's a short highlight clip.]
Well, a large crowd showed for today’s noontime rally in support of City Attorney and mayoral candidate Dennis Herrera. It came in reaction to this bit from John Coté and Heather Knight in yesterday’s San Francisco Chronicle.
Consider this rally, complete with pretty much all of Gay San Francisco (gee, who wasn’t there?), a strong retort.
Click to expand
1 of 4 - Chief Deputy City Attorney Therese Stewart and Senator Mark Leno:
2 of 4 – Assemblymember Tom Ammiano: “WTF, Chronicle?” (Ouch.) And then, on a different tack: ”I think we all know who was doing it.” Uh, would that be Ed Lee? And do you think Tom’s talking about Ed Lee here? ”…Healthy San Francisco, supporting it, not trying to decimate it. Honoring Occupy San Francisco and their ability to mediate and to collaborate. How about some fucking leadership?”
(Here’s the short version, complete with Henny Youngman-style one-liners.)
And check out Cleve Jones at around 8:00: “And finally, to Ed Lee, whose campaign began with a lie [and] is ending with a lie. And in between the lies, what did we see but cronyism, fake grass-roots organizations coming out of nowhere, vote tampering like we haven’t seen in a long, long time, money laundering, and now we’re ending with a big lie, a slur against Dennis Herrera. And how stupid do you think we are? Please.”
(Here’s the short version.)
This is the clip with the vitriol:
3 of 4: City Attorney Dennis Herrera, the man himself:
4 of 4: Herrera’s closing plus Harvey Milk Club and Alice B Toklas Club, united:
All the deets:
DJH with wife Anne:
And here’s part of the crowd descending the steps of Castro Station:
And, bonus, a special hug for Harvey and Alice:
So, uh, who’s the “political genius” who thought it was a good idea for former Gavin Newsom staffers to go to the Chron a few days back?
Because this whole affair, well, it’s not good for Ed Lee.
Not good at all…
*I swear, I don’t really get photojournalism and that sole shot presented is a good example of why. It doesn’t really transmit all that much info, it doesn’t really show who was there, and it’s not arty or anything. But it does juxtapose “applause” and “Herrera” so I guess that’s telling stories with photos and I guess that’s what PJ is supposed to be about. I suppose. (Is that day’s work, BTW?) Anyway, I prefer the camera-held-level-at-two-yards-altitude, you-are-there look.
Sometimes things happen in town and sometimes people die. That’s the way it is.
Anyway, check out “PRIDE OFFICIALS THREATEN YOUTUBE VIDEOGRAPHERS” and
and then review the current hit results here…
…and then check out the threatening letter below.
Obviously, not every shooting that occurs in the 415 during the last weekend in June is a “Pride Shooting.” Obviously.
Anyway, take a look at both sides of this issue and decide which one you’re on.
Now, do I think that the San Francisco Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender Pride Celebration Committee, Inc. has been run poorly?
Yep.
Does it benefit in me in any way shape or form to say that?
Nope.
Do I think that the people behind Pride should be looking within instead of lashing out?
Mmmm…
“Dear Mr. Wilton:
I am General Counsel for the San Francisco Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender Pride Celebration Committee, Inc. (“SF Pride”), the producer of San Francisco Pride and the owner of the trademark “SF Pride, among other valuable marks.
The YouTube video that you filmed and display athttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOfz0zxDdNc falsely states that there was a “shooting at Pride 2011″. The police and the media have all confirmed and made affirmative public statements that the shooting that happened on Saturday evening, June 25th WAS NOT AT SF PRIDE and was not connected the Pride Festival.
For example, see: http://www.sf-police.org/index.aspx?page=3763&recordid=52 which quite clearly leaves out any reference to SF Pride or the Pride festival. And http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/san_francisco&id=8214747 which notes that the shooting was “blocks from the Pride festivities.”
Your YouTube posting falsely claims in the title and in the introductory splash page at 0:01-0:06. In fact, the shooting was NOT on the SF Pride festival grounds and was not related to SF Pride, or the Pride Festival, or any LGBT issue or concern.
You did not, for example, title your video “shooting in front of Apple iPad advertisement.” Nothing in the video has any connection with SF Pride or the Pride festivities. You simply chose to sensationalize your posting by wrongly associating a violent tragedy with the safe and peaceful, SF Pride. Your advertising harms SF Pride by that false association. It harms SF Pride’s ability to attract attendees and sponsors for future events by creating the false impression that the event and festival were the site of a violent shooting.
Your video constitutes false advertising from an attorney, trade libel, and constitutes tortious interference with SF Pride’s prospective economic advantage by associated its safe event with this tragic and entirely unrelated incident.
According to YouTube, over 3,200 have viewed this outrageous misrepresentation already. Specifically:
San Francisco / Civic Center Shooting at Pride 2011 – Sat 6-25-2011
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOfz0zxDdNc
The end of the video at about 2:27 in states:
Filmed by David Wilton
Law Offices of David Wilton
http://www.davidwilton.com/
(415) 669-4059
SF Pride demands that you at once do the following or we will take all other necessary and appropriate legal action:
1. Take down the above referenced video.
2. Replace it with an affirmative public apology to SF Pride for wrongly associating it with violence, and clarifying that the shooting on Market Street had nothing to do with the SF Pride festival, and was blocks away from it;
3. Pay SF Pride $10,000 in damages and costs. Any delay will certainly see this amount increase.
Very Sincerely,
Brooke Oliver
Outside General Counsel, San Francisco Pride”
I don’t know how many days the Rainbow Flags of Market Street generally last, but these two are well past their expiration dates.
Oh well.
Maybe they’ll get replaced before Pride 2011, June 25-26 or maybe they won’t.
We’ll see…
One’s beating itself to death against a pole and the other looks like a kite now:
Click to expand
There’s a flag-pole rag and the wind won’t stop
(it’s my soul up there)
Our Rand Corporation has a new .pdf for you to peruse: Sexual Orientation and U.S. Military Personnel Policy: An Update of RAND’s 1993 Study.
*End User License Agreement or whatever it is. I’m all like, I’m not agreeing to that, just the way I reacted when I saw similar click box as I was trying to make a post at SFist one day back in ought-eight. The upshot of RAND’s new policy is that I’m now afraid to even read their pdfs, much less borrow text from them. Oh well. I mean, if people for whom I’m doing favors want to sue me, they’re welcome to do so, but I’m not going to make it easy for them, I’m not going to make their case a lead-pipe cinch through a written contract right from the get-go…
Anyway, all the deets, license and pdf-free:
“At the request of the Senate Armed Services Committee and the Secretary of Defense, the RAND Corporation conducted a study on sexual orientation and U.S. military policy in order to provide information and analysis that might be considered in discussing the possible repeal of the law known as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT). The study examined DADT implementation; U.S. public and military opinion about allowing gay men and lesbians to serve in the military without restriction; and the scientific literature on group cohesion, sexual orientation, and related health issues. RAND conducted focus groups with military personnel and a survey of gay, lesbian, and bisexual military personnel. RAND researchers also examined the comparable experiences of other institutions, domestic agencies, and foreign militaries, as well as how repeal of DADT might affect unit cohesion and military readiness and effectiveness.
“Most polling data suggest that a majority of Americans support allowing gay people to serve in the military without restriction. The research concludes that there would be little impact on recruiting and retention of military personnel and on unit cohesion and performance. Current research and the experience during World War II shows that cohesion of combat units comes from the common threat of the enemy, not from prior shared values and attitudes. The majority of gay and lesbian service members who responded to RAND’s survey reported that, although they did not talk about their sexual orientation, many unit members already knew that there was a gay service member in their unit. The vast majority indicated that they would remain circumspect in how they make their orientation known to other service members. Many military focus group participants said that they knew gay men and lesbians who were serving and respected their contributions. Many major U.S. allies, including Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom, have allowed gay individuals to serve without restriction for a number of years. They report no effect on unit performance or on their ability to meet recruitment goals. No country provides special accommodations for privacy or special training on sexual orientation. Police and fire departments, as well as federal agencies, major corporations, and colleges, all report that they have integrated gay individuals without serious problems and without negative effects on performance — and without making specific accommodations — by applying a strict policy of nondiscrimination.”
Pretty soon, “Ask, Tell” will be the Law of the Land, unambiguously…
It might be a little rainy this Saturday, but the forecast for 6:00 PM is actually pretty positive so get on out there why not.
Sean Penn making that Milk movie, back in aught-eight:
Click to epand
“The Annual Milk-Moscone Memorial March will take place this Saturday, November 27, 2010. The vigil will take place on the anniversary of the assassination of Harvey Milk and George Moscone, starting at 6pm. The vigil will last approximatly 1 hour and the march will begin at the Castro Muni station (Castro & Market Streets) at 6:45 PM.
The March commemorates the assassination of Supervisor Harvey Milk and Mayor George Moscone and is an opportunity for the community to mourn the loss of two of our city’s most progressive elected officials, reflect on their visions for San Francisco, and learn more about their lives through testimony from family and friends of Harvey. The event has been a community tradition annually since the assassinations. The speakers will be:
Cleve Jones, Founder, Names Project, and friend of Harvey
Harry Britt, former Supervisor, and friend of Harvey
David Campos, SF Supervisor
Carol Migden, former State Senator
Tom Ammiano, State Assembly member
The Milk Memorial Education Committee was founded in 2004 to plan for and install the bust of Harvey in San Francisco City Hall. The bust was installed in May 2008. The Committee is now engaged in educational programs at the SF Unifed School district and City College of San Francisco, on behalf of LGBTQ students. For more information see MilkMemorial.org or Rick Hauptman at 415-678-8919.
MILK MEMORIAL EDUCATION COMMITTEE 4104 24th Street #388 – San Francisco, CA 94114
Actor Vince Vaughn plays an engine designer in Ron Howard’s upcoming film called The Dilemma, O.K. fine. But people are upset at the following line, uttered when the Vince Vaughn character makes a pitch to a car company:
“Electric cars are gay. I mean not homosexual gay, but, you know, my-parents-are-chaperoning-the-dance gay.”
Well, GLAAD wasn’t happy about that, so Universal Pictures yanked these lines from the trailer promoting the movie.
Except in San Francisco, where they didn’t. So, the Metreon Theatre, as of yesterday, still uses the original trailer with the offending line intact.
So much for the promises of Hollywood…
A non-gay electric car in the Castro District:
Click to expand
And speaking of broken promises coming out of Tinseltown, when are they going to get around to fixing the steps of Alta Plaza, you know, the ones that got damaged during the filming of What’s Up, Doc back in the 1970′s?
Maybe someday.
