Gay 14-Year-Old Bravely Defends Teacher to Michigan School Board

Give this wonderful kid his props. Makes me wonder if all of us that truly support LGBT rights and hate-crime legislation, would be able to do what 14 year old Graeme Taylor did. From the link:

Last month, Michigan high school teacher Jay McDowell was suspended for a day when he booted a kid from his classroom for making hateful comments about gays. (The kid was also wearing a belt buckle with the Confederate flag on it.) In the wake of it, a chorus of people showed up to a school board meeting to support him, including students and fellow teachers delivering impassioned speeches. But none was so moving as young Graeme Taylor, 14 and out, speaking not only about the overarching righteousness of McDowell but about his own experiences being gay in the classroom. Must watch HERE:

I am humbled by this child.  I am highly pissed that the homophobes suspended that teacher for attempting to show that little hatred indoctrinated child that hating is wrong and never should be tolerated..

The video doesn’t have an embed code, or I would of put it up.

Surprise, C&L has the embed video:

http://embed.crooksandliars.com/v/MTg3NzUtNDE2MDM?color=bfbfbf

Its about love you hateful bastards.

Its about one of the most basic of human emotions: The ability to love and be loved by another human being, and declare that love in a ceremony that is legally binding. As it was written quite succinctly by the Judge in his ruling, filched from TPM:

“Moral disapproval alone is an improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and lesbians,”

The judge, Vaughn Walker, who has now been threatened, ruled Tuesday that the worthless bastards who created and pushed California’s Prop 8. did so unconstitutionally.  From his over 100 page ruling:

Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.

*snip*
 

In the absence of a rational basis, what remains of proponents’ case is an inference, amply supported by evidence in the record, that Proposition 8 was premised on the belief that same-sex couples simply are not as good as opposite-sex couples. FF 78-80. Whether that belief is based on moral disapproval of homosexuality, animus towards gays and lesbians or simply a belief that a relationship between a man and a woman is inherently better than a relationship between two men or two women, this belief is not a proper basis on which to legislate.

*snip*
 

The arguments surrounding Proposition 8 raise a question similar to that addressed in Lawrence, when the Court asked whether a majority of citizens could use the power of the state to enforce “profound and deep convictions accepted as ethical and moral principles” through the criminal code. … The question here is whether California voters can enforce those same principles through regulation of marriage licenses. They cannot. California’s obligation is to treat its citizens equally, not to “mandate [its] own moral code.”

It was a joyous moment here at my house when the ruling was released. The real only beautiful thing in an otherwise shitty day. But it was wonderful and made me dance a gentle happy dance, even with my screwed up, fucked up back killing me so bad I was doped up to my brown eyes all day…hell, even now.

I called a friend Karen, who wasn’t home, to tell her of the joyous event..I left a rambling, dumb-assed message about it on her answering machine. I hope she doesn’t think I was drunk..I was just on pain pills dear woman. 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640

Federal Judge rules Prop 8 case can proceed

From Jurist:

A federal judge on Wednesday refused to dismiss a case challenging California’s ban on same-sex marriage. Chief Judge Vaughn Walker of the US District Court for the Northern District of California said that a trial is needed to determine issues regarding the level of constitutional protection afforded to same-sex couples and the state’s motivations behind the ban. Walker rejected the argument that only a rational basis was needed for the amendment, pointing out that the US Supreme Court does not have a clear level of scrutiny for discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Walker also dismissed arguments of tradition and procreation. The trial is set for January.

The lawsuit (PDF) filed in May, challenges Proposition 8, which amended the California Constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage, on due process and equal protection grounds. The suit was filed by former US solicitor general Ted Olson and prominent litigator David Boies, of Bush v. Gore fame, shortly after the California Supreme Court ruled that challenges under state law lacked merit. In August, Walker ruled that several advocacy groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Lambda Legal, the National Council of La Raza (NCLR), and Campaign for California Families, could not intervene in the suit. Proposition 8, approved by voters in November, was a response to the California Supreme Court’s decision last year striking downa statutory ban on same-sex marriage as violating the equal protection and privacy provisions of the state constitution.

YAY! Another shot at the homophobes! Lets hear it for equality!