Gloria Allred...taunts religious fundamentalists at Gay Pride Festival Parade. Tense moments!

High-powered legal eagle - Gloria Allred - stabbed her fingers in the air in the direction of a handful of religious fundamentalists from an open convertible and taunted them with cries of "Shame" as she celebrated gay pride in West Hollywood this afternoon.


Each year, at Santa Monica and La Cienega Boulevards, an irate band of "Jesus" freaks set up camp and insult the paraders as they glide by on festive rainbow-colored floats all decked out in their Sunday best touting their gay pride.

Normally, the LGBT community ignores the rag-tag band of hostile protesters.

However, this year their presence was a little more raucous and threatening.

In fact - sensing there may be trouble on the streets this year in the wake of the recent California Supreme Court ruling on "gay marriage" - the Sheriff's department wisely arranged for a "riot" squad to stand by in the shadows at a respectful distance to make the crowds feel a little safer, no doubt.

In spite of the fact the group claimed to practice the Christian ethic, they shouted vulgar remarks at the participants in the high-energy parade.

"You want it in the end. You'll get it in the end," one man crudely shouted.

Another hissed, "Go back to your trailer park."

When Ms. Allred gave the finger - so-to-speak - it incited them into a frenzy.

In fact, for the first time that I recall in years, a raft of shutterbugs actually paid attention to their diatribe. Like a pack of wolves, they trotted over to the Christian camp to snap the angry reactions to Allred's demeaning gestures up-close and capture their insulting picket signs on film.

One male couple strode over and plunked themselves down in front of the enemy trenches and started to kiss passionately - as if to say - fu** you.

Yeah, don't rain on our parade!

It appears that the issue of homosexuality - and in particular, the gay marriage ruling passed down in recent days from the California Supreme Court - has stirred up a hornet's nest and the mood is at a fever pitch.

Within days after the historic "order" was signed, sealed, and delivered up - the Religious Fundamentalists had gathered up a whopping glut of signatures - enough to secure an initiative on the fall election ballot.

And, just this past week, the busy little bees placed a full two-page ad in the local daily - the Los Angeles Times - denouncing the gay lifestyle, gay marriage, and the court.

Undoubtedly, the issue will be raging on for months.

We can only hold our collective breath.

And, urge that you get out the vote in November, of course.



West Hollywood Gay Pride 2008

Gay Marriage...California Supreme Court denies "stay". Jay Leno to preside over mass ceremony June 17th.

Earlier today, with little ceremony, pomp or circumstance, the California Supreme Court denied a request for a "stay" of its ruling lifting the "ban" on gay marriage.

In a 4-3 ruling, the Justices stood by their controversial decision legalizing same-sex marriage in California and in the process a hurdle was straddled for gay couples to start tying the knot this month.

In fact, I just received word from a fellow "blogger" that on the heels of the news Jay Leno agreed to act as a Master of Ceremonies to preside over 250 Gay Weddings slated for June 17th, 2008.

Or am I being punked by you-know-who?

However, news reports are filtering in this afternoon that Jay definitely intends to make an appearance tomorrow night at "The Abbey" - one of West Hollywood's trendiest "it" bars - for a gay marriage celebration alongside Grey's Anatomy star T.R. Knight. (happy - um - gay).

There has been some speculation that it is Leno's good-guy gay attempt to make ammends to the LGBT community for what they deemed inappropriate behavior on the Tonight Show a short while ago.

The popular night-time talk show host cum-car-enthusiast sparked outrage among gay rights groups when he asked actor Ryan Phillippe to give him his "gayest look" during an interview.

Ouch!

Let's move on...

If you recall from a post a couple of days ago, this blog reported that Conservative religious groups previously asked the California Supreme Court to "stay" its order allowing state and local officials to start issuing wedding licenses mid-June until the issue could be voted on in a fall election.

In fact, the bold-faced efforts of those anti-gay-marriage "task forces" proved to be successful in recent days. Shortly after the initial ruling was handed down - in a wink - organizers snapped up enough signatures to qualify for the Nov. 4 ballot.

If the initiative passes muster in the fall it would overrule the court's decision by amending the state constitution to limit marriage to a man and a woman.

In spite of the fact an attorney strenuously argued that failure to grant the "stay" would result in great chaos across the nation, the Justices stuck by their gavels.

In fact - the four justices who rendered the decision today - were part 'n parcel of a majority opinion that found withholding marriage from same-sex couples constituted discrimination in the initial ruling.

In spite of the fact the hold-out dissenters on the bench thought a hearing on whether the stay should be granted was warranted, their pleas fell on deaf ears in the final hours.

As is usually the case in such high-profile court rulings, the majority did not elaborate on its reasons for denying the stay.

The one-page order saying its original ruling on marriage will stand and be final at 5 p.m. on June 16th will obviously become a treasured historical document for many.





Hillary and Obama not only public figures under glass...

Gay Marriage...10 U.S. States ask court for stay of ruling - pending Fall Election!

After a fall from Grace, Adam & Steve given a shot at it...


On the heels of last week's landmark ruling in California uplifting the ban on "Gay Marriage" in California, eight states with anti-gay amendments to their Constitution (plus two without) have filed "friends" of the court briefs with the California Supreme Court asking for a "stay" on the controversial ruling.

In any legal proceeding third parties are entitled to submit a legal brief to a court in the event they have a vested interest in any ruling handed down in the United States.

In sum, the "friendly" parties (oh yeah!) are asking that California's Supreme Court "stay" the controversial ruling until a fall election when the voters are expected to weigh in on the issues.

A "stay" - for those of you in the dark about such matters - would essentially "freeze" the court's decision on "gay marriage". And, in the event of such a hold, California gay couples would be barred from marrying in the State of California until it was "lifted", if ever.

In support of their arguments, Ron Prentice - the Chairman of a coalition sponsoring the proposed California Marriage Protection Act (anti-gay measure) - said he applauds the interlopers for stepping in and pledging their support.

"Redefining marriage will affect the entire nation, not just California. There is no good reason for these four judges to create nationwide chaos (!) when a ballot measure to reverse the decision is pending before the voters," Prentice stridently argued to the media.

Judges have been causing "chaos" for decades, why should they stop now at his say so?

Fortunately, Attorney General Brown has also stepped into the fray and submitted his own brief in support of "denying the stay".

At the conclusion of the legalese set forth in support of his position, he stated for the record,

"It is time for these proceedings to end."

The Justices have until June 16th to grant or deny the request. However, in special circumstances, the court is entitled to extend the deadline to allow for a proper adjudication of the issues.

San Francisco attorney Dennis Herrera (who was a legal representative for couples in the action that caused the brouhaha) is vehemently opposed to the petition for the "stay" and was quick to condemn the action,

"The court's decision firmly establishes there is a fundamental right to marriage equality for same-sex couples in bringing the lawsuit that led to the court's 4-3 decision. To deny that fundamental right based on speculation about what might happen in November is terribly inappropriate."

If the "stay" is denied, California's gay couples may proceed to their local City Hall to register for their marriage licenses as soon as June 17th, God willing.

Personally, I haven't taken a stand on the issue of "gay marriage", yet.

The issue is a dilemma for me because I was raised a Christian and I am a practicing Catholic. Moreover, I endeavour to adhere to the scriptures as much as possible in my day-to-day affairs.

However, I'd be the first to admit that I am weak, not perfect. Obviously, or I wouldn't be traversing this mortal coil with the rest of the likes of you!

If you ask me, the ten commandments - per se - are just common sense.

By following the "golden rules" - as they relate to a moral and ethical code of standard to abide by, in particular - it is wholly possible (in my humble opinion) to attain true harmony among the nations and peoples of the world one day.

And, what is wrong with that?

But, the tough scripture to fathom is that which pertains to the issue of homosexuality, and for good reason.

I may be inclined to argue - for instance - that whenever there is overpopulation in a handful of species on the planet, the sexual proclivities swing bisexual or gay to compensate for the imbalance.

Is man immune from the laws of nature? I hazard a guess that the answer is an unequivocal "no".

In fact, there have been a number of reputable studies by prominent scientists in specialized fields who have determined that Nature's influence is surely intertwined with the sphere of human sexuality, as well.

One study noted a trend that was particularly startling. In a scenario where three or four boys were born into one family unit, oftentimes the youngest male turned out to be "gay".

Why?

Scientists theorized that since there were a sufficient number of straight males born into the family to successfully guarantee the bloodline would "carry on", that there was no need for the last of the offspring to offer up his "seed" for the cause. So, nature's control mechanism stepped in.

Makes one wonder - was the need for "curbing" the population greater than that of sustaining procreation - in those instant cases?

Clearly, the argument that "homosexuality" is a force of nature itself - and not a freak or perverse occurrence - is a compelling one, isn't it?

As to the issue of the scriptures - well, I for one - have to take pause to question whether the verses condemning homosexuality as an abomination in the eyes of the Lord are truly the "words" of God.

After all, it is a known fact that throughout history - Church leaders and Monarchs alike - often manipulated (maybe even tinkered with) the sacred texts to meet their agendas.

If I knew that God truly said that homosexuality was a "sin" - then I would concur, logically thereafter - that a union of marriage between two males (or two women)would surely be an abomination in the presence of the Lord.

But, in view of the fact God's hands appear to have been a force behind nature's natural tendency to influence procreation in the subtle manifestations aforementioned, I find it difficult to accept the hateful arguments that the religious fundamentalists put forth in support of their un-christian-like position.

Notwithstanding, God created man with the capacity to love.

In view of the fact nature appears to have set mankind on a path of preservation, isn't it normal to concede that the Lord may likewise desire that lone males or females part 'n parcel to his cosmic plan outside the heterosexual scheme of things also share in the joy of a meaningful loving relationship with another sentient being?

I guess I'll just sleep on it. Alone!