Saturday, August 7, 2010

Lily Tomlin to Perform August 7th

Out lesbian icon Lily Tomlin to perform at a benefit to free Billy from the LA Zoo. Inconic out comedian and writer Bruce Vilanch will also perform.

This is beyond a good cause - I'm mortified that this poor elephant is stuck at the LA Zoo. If you are a fan of Lily's, please attend. It is such a worthy cause. Click on invite above for more information or to purchase tickets.

36500 Reasons to See RENT at the Hollywood Bowl

I went to this show on Friday night and it is just fantastic! I'm going again on Sunday night, and I highly recommend it.

Neil Patrick Harris directs this production, with new arrangements.

Not all the performances strike it over the moon, but as a whole, definitely a moving experience and some really fun, stand out numbers.

Click on the photo to purchase tickets and also, check out the youtube video of one of the performances from Friday evening.

Clip from Friday night's performance: TAKE ME FOR WHAT I AM

Wednesday, August 4, 2010


I downloaded a pdf of the ruling, and here are some of the highlights:

Moral disapproval alone is an improper basis on which to
deny rights to gay men and lesbians. The evidence shows
conclusively that Proposition 8 enacts, without reason, a private moral view that same-sex couples are inferior to opposite-sex couples. FF 76, 79-80; Romer, 517 US at 634 (“[L]aws of the kind now before us raise the inevitable inference that the disadvantage imposed is born of animosity toward the class of persons
affected.”). Because Proposition 8 disadvantages gays and lesbians without any rational justification, Proposition 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

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.

Plaintiffs have demonstrated by overwhelming evidence
that Proposition 8 violates their due process and equal protection
rights and that they will continue to suffer these constitutional
violations until state officials cease enforcement of Proposition
8. California is able to issue marriage licenses to same-sex
couples, as it has already issued 18,000 marriage licenses to same-
sex couples and has not suffered any demonstrated harm as a result,
see FF 64-66; moreover, California officials have chosen not to
defend Proposition 8 in these proceedings.
Because Proposition 8 is unconstitutional under both the
Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, the court orders entry of
judgment permanently enjoining its enforcement; prohibiting the
official defendants from applying or enforcing Proposition 8 and
directing the official defendants that all persons under their
control or supervision shall not apply or enforce Proposition 8.
The clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment without bond in favor of
plaintiffs and plaintiff-intervenors and against defendants and
defendant-intervenors pursuant to FRCP 58.

United States District Chief Judge