Here’s the map from last year and I’m supposing that it’s still good for 2013 seeing as how the Pride website doesn’t seem to have been updated completely.
And I suppose that I mean halfway down the first block of 5th Street, but it hardly matters – those with something to say about Bradley Manning or whathaveyou will be out of sight, out of mind regardless.
Balboa setting his dogs upon Indian practitioners of male love(1594) The Spanish invader Vasco Núñez de Balboa (1475-1519) shown in Central America with his troops, presiding over the execution of Indians, whom he ordered eaten alive by the war dogs for having practiced male love. New York Public Library, Rare Book Room, De Bry Collection, New York.
“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:
“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:
“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]
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?”
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.”
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:
“News conference on Dennis Herrera’s record of support for LGBT marriage equality: TODAY, Oct. 27, 12:00 noon, Harvey Milk Plaza
SAN FRANCISCO (Oct. 27, 2011) — Leaders in the LGBT community and marriage equality movement including Senator Mark Leno, Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, Supervisor Scott Wiener, Molly McKay, Stuart Gaffney and John Lewis, Cleve Jones, Julius Turman, Reese Isbell, representatives from both the Alice B. Toklas and Harvey Milk LBGT Democratic Clubs, and a growing list of others will hold a news conference to defend City Attorney Dennis Herrera’s consistent record of support for marriage equality.
The news conference at noon today is in response to political attacks published in the San Francisco Chronicle yesterday from anonymous sources who questioned City Attorney Dennis Herrera’s commitment to marriage equality.
LGBT Community Press Conference
Harvey Milk Plaza, Castro and Market
TODAY – Thursday, Oct. 27, 12:00 noon
Below is a letter issued yesterday from Phyllis Lyon, the LGBT civil rights pioneer. Lyon and her late wife, Del Martin, were the first same-sex couple married in San Francisco.”
Please join Senator Mark Leno, Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, Supervisor Scott Wiener, representatives from both the Alice B. Toklas and Harvey Milk LBGT Democratic Clubs, and many other LGBT community leaders for:
LGBT Community Press Conference
Harvey Milk Plaza, Castro and Market
Thursday, Oct. 27, 12:00 noon
With less than two weeks until Election Day, a petty smear campaign is underway to personally discredit City Attorney Dennis Herrera over his years of work for marriage equality. Incredibly, despite all the heroic efforts of Dennis and his office right from the start, anonymous sources have pushed a story in the San Francisco Chronicle that Dennis wasn’t “supportive” of Mayor Newsom’s decision to issue same-sex marriage licenses back in February 2004. It’s not true. These politically motivated attackers are hoping we’ll forget the years of hard work Dennis and his deputies invested — and continue to invest even now, in the federal challenge to Prop 8 — for LGBT equality.
My late wife, Del Martin, and I were the first same-sex couple married back in 2004.
So I remember the heartfelt and tireless work that Dennis, Chief Deputy City Attorney Terry Stewart, and the City Attorney’s Office committed to defend our marriage from day one. Yes, it was an uphill battle. We all knew it, and we all expressed doubts. But that doesn’t mean we weren’t “supportive” of marriage equality!
That’s why these anonymous political attacks are such an outrage.
It’s not just insulting to a good man and longtime LGBT ally. It insults the intelligence of LGBT voters who know that Dennis has been a consistent and effective champion for our community for years:
In the 1990s, as Police Commission President, Dennis established groundbreaking protocols to require police to treat transgender detainees with the dignity and respect they deserve.
Dennis successfully defended our landmark Equal Benefits Ordinance in his first years as City Attorney, finally defeating challengers who opposed domestic partner benefits.
In 2002, Dennis and the Assessor ended tax re-assessments homeowners faced after the death of a domestic partner — so LGBT survivors on fixed incomes wouldn’t lose their homes.
Dennis’s heart has always been with us. That’s why he was elected and re-elected City Attorney with overwhelming LGBT community support. That’s why he’s now the only candidate for Mayor endorsed by both the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club (#1) and the Harvey Milk LGBT Democratic Club (#2).
Dennis Herrera never shrank from defending the LGBT community — not once. Now, it’s our turn to defend him.
Please join us at Harvey Milk Plaza, Castro and Market, Thursday, Oct. 27, at 12:00 noon.
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.
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?
Does it benefit in me in any way shape or form to say that?
Do I think that the people behind Pride should be looking within instead of lashing out?
“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.
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:
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”
*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…