- Empowering Spirits, Dec 30, 2009

Andy Martin, republican candidate for US Senate, has publicly announced that his republican opponent, Illinois Congressman Mark Kirk, is a homosexual. He didn’t just whisper this – he very blatantly stated it this week in a new radio spot, naming several renown Republican party members as sources for this information.

The ad is the first in a campaign called “D-Day: Disclose the facts, Disseminate the truth, and Defeat Mark Kirk.”

Of course, as quickly as his allegations began screaming across the networks and the internet, his “sources” matched his pace by immediately going on record to denounce his comments and distance themselves from him.

Had you Googled the name Andy Martin a week ago you’d have found a myriad of results- mostly in his right-winged favor. During his long, multi-faceted career, Martin has been described as an attorney, a Senate aide, a “national radio personality,” an “internet journalist,” an erstwhile politician, and more recently, a candidate for US Senator.

If you were to Google him today; however, first and foremost you would find his slanderous campaign spot. An even closer look shows that despite all the titles he’s held in the many years he’s made sure his name has stayed in the news.

Appropriately enough- the one moniker that seems to stick has been King of Smear. (Although one website now labels him a “homophobic jackass.”)

Second only to Karl Rove in the art of smear, Martin, a self-proclaimed “fearless Internet powerhouse,” is currently running for the US Senate seat previously held by President Barack Obama. The locally aired – but nationally publicized – smear ad against congressman Kirk has generated an abundance of heat and been denounced by the majority of his colleagues in the GOP.

Still, the ever-confident Martin is said to be already preparing a new round of ad attacks to support his “D-Day campaign,” aimed to expose Kirk’s “other sexual peccadilloes.”

It is important to note that Martin has run for political office 15 times- not once having been successful. In other words, he has never held a political office. He is, however, very well known for exploiting others who have.

Senator Mark Kirk, on the other hand, (a Georgetown University law school alum), is the current front-runner in this campaign who has been a successful, moderate-republican Illinois state Congressman since 2001. Additionally, and maybe even more importantly, Kirk is one of only two active drilling US Navy Reservists in Congress today.

He was commissioned as an Intelligence Officer in 1989, which makes this writer (a previous member of the enlisted US Navy Reserve Intelligence community herself) surmise that he has risen to at least the level of Commander (O5) if not Captain (O6) by now.

This potential “outing,” then, whether true or false, has much more to it if you take the time to peel back the onion.

It clearly is not just a typical, strategic, political affront by Martin towards Kirk in the run for a US Senate seat. No way. Because with the added media attention it has already garnered, it could also easily bring to bear the professional scrutiny of one of the highest ranking military members ever, under Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (DADT). The only other equally high profile expulsion was National Guard Colonel Margarethe Cammermeyer, in 1995.

Wow. Let’s think about that for a minute.

In a political climate where DADT is at the forefront of many citizens and politician’s minds…….what better way to hit a home run? Knock Kirk out of favor, the Senate race, his Congressional seat AND his prestigious military career? Hmmmmm.

Back to the basics, there is little irony in all of this. Martin has a long history of smear campaigns, and a great many of them deal with President Barack Obama, himself.

Andy Martin filed the very first lawsuit regarding Obama’s birth certificate / citizenship, and regularly emphasized – to anyone who would print or film him – Obama’s given middle name (Hussein).

He was also the first to float the idea that Obama was actually a Muslim and “lying about his religion.” Of course once this idea hit the airwaves, it took on a life of its own. This rumor still dogs the President to this day…..and Martin is ultimately responsible.

Martin also made assumptions on national TV about when and under what circumstances Obama met William Ayers. Those assumptions were wrong, of course, but unfortunately, it appears some only need to see a “sound bite” on the FOX News channel to believe it as truth. He also regularly stated that Obama’s role as a “community organizer” was merely “political staging” and “training for a radical overthrow of the government.”

Whew. Really? How can anyone take this guy seriously? But there is more…

In 2000, during one of his several unsuccessful runs for President, he advertised that George W. Bush did cocaine. We know that might be true, but the point is, he tried to (unsuccessfully) use it to his advantage.

In 2002, he lambasted former NYC Mayor Rudy Guiliani for several reasons, one being that he was “pandering” to the World Trade Center victims. Really? That alone should put him in the Hall of Shame.

Then in 2003, he reported on his radio program that he personally had found the exact location where Saddam Hussein was hiding out and put in a claim for the $25,000 the Bush Administration offered. Really? And people may still vote for him?

He also has a history of anti-semitic and racially charged comments over the years, in one incidence, referring to a judge once during an interview as a “crooked, slimy, Jew.” Yet, on the website dedicated to his run for US Senate, he calls out his opponent Mark Kirk for his own racist views, saying they are “bad for Illinois; bad of (sic) America.”

But still, he continues to remain relevant among followers.

Mark Kirk and his wife of 8 years legally divorced this past summer. Does that leave him open to hypocrisy? Martin says Kirk is living with his lover in D.C., and that “Kirk is swamping the state with bogus ads touting his conservative credentials while concealing his convoluted personal lifestyle from the public.

“The issue is not homosexuality, the question is hypocrisy; people are entitled to their privacy, but they are not entitled to live public lives in the closet.”

After researching Martin’s history, one wonders how those reading his words don’t weigh them against his own life-long list of hypocrisies.

Because if you really look, there are Republican denouncements going back to 1996, several jail stints, physical assaults on cameramen, lawyer license revocations, multiple unsuccessful runs for office……but no where can it be found what his personal life is about. Has he ever been married? Is HE living a life of hypocrisy? Will this scandal cause him to shoot himself in the foot and inadvertently forcibly uncover skeletons of his own?

Listen to the radio spot here:

- THE ASSOCIATED PRESS • December 30, 2009

TRENTON, N.J. (AP) — Time may be running out, but a bill that would legalize gay marriage in New Jersey isn’t technically dead.

Advocates of gay marriage are pushing lawmakers to adopt the law before Jan. 19, when Republican Chris Christie becomes governor. He says he’d veto it. The current governor, Democrat Jon Corzine, says he’d sign it if lawmakers can get it to his desk in time.

Earlier this month, the state Senate canceled a vote on the issue when it became clear there was not enough support to pass it.

The issue was handed over to the state Assembly, which has not scheduled a hearing on it.

Albert Porroni, executive director of the Office of Legislative Services, says the Assembly could take up the measure without a committee hearing.

- SDGLN Staff | Wed, 12/30/2009

(SACRAMENTO) – On January 1, three new pieces of legislation expanding rights and resources for the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community will go into effect in California. Among the new laws include a bill that recognizes the marriage of thousands of same-sex couples regardless of when or where they were married, a bill increasing services to LGBT survivors of domestic violence and a third recognizing the contributions of slain civil rights leader Harvey Milk.

The Marriage Recognition and Family Protection Act, introduced by Senator Mark Leno (D-San Francisco), holds that same-sex couples married in any state or nation anytime before the passage of Proposition 8 must be recognized as married spouses in California, regardless of whether they married in California or in another state or nation. In addition, the new statute also confirms that same-sex couples married outside of California after November 5, 2008, must be given all of the rights, protections and responsibilities of married spouses under California law, with the sole exception of the designation of “marriage.”

“This vital bill will provide much needed protections for same-sex couples who have legally married out of state, or will in the future, and who deserve to be treated like any other married couple,” said Geoff Kors, executive director of Equality California. “This bill will allow same-sex couples to get married in other states and countries and ensure they are treated equally under the law when they return to California. Ultimately, however, restoring the freedom to marry is the only way to ensure that all Californians receive the dignity and respect that come with marriage.”

Also becoming state law is the LGBT Domestic Violence Programs Expansion Bill, which was authored by Speaker-Elect Assemblymember John A. Pérez (D-Los Angeles). The bill expands access for LGBT service providers to a state fund within the California Emergency Management Agency, which supports LGBT-specific domestic violence programs across the state. The fund, originally established as part of another EQCA-sponsored bill in 2006, is subsidized by a $23 fee on domestic partner registrations. The new bill would also allow for more than four organizations to apply for programmatic funding each fiscal cycle and eliminates the requirement for providers to offer shelter – impediments to many smaller LGBT organizations that inadvertently keep several California communities from providing any services for LGBT survivors of domestic violence.

Harvey Milk Day, which will be celebrated on May 22, 2010, marks the first time in the nation’s history that a state will officially recognize and celebrate the contributions of an openly LGBT person with an annual “day of special significance.” The bill was also introduced by Senator Leno.
“We are grateful to the LGBT Caucus, our allied lawmakers, and the Governor for making these landmark measures the law in California, as these bills will dramatically improve the lives of LGBT Californians and their families,” Kors said. “We look forward to the year ahead and to advancing our mission of achieving true and full equality for LGBT Californians.”

- Empowering Spirits Dec 28th, 2009

As far back as John could remember, he was on his own.

Like the 20,000 foster children who “age out’ of the system each year, John left California’s foster care system six years ago believing he had missed his chance to be part of a family.

But then something unexpected happened.

In spring of 2006, he met Mark Hauck and his partner, Tim Ferraro, a couple in their 40s. They were living next door to his former high school nurse, who had taken John, 21, into her home temporarily.

John was curious about the couple, particularly Mark who worked with high school drama programs. John enjoyed writing scripts in his spare time.

Maybe he could get some advice from Mark, he thought.

Neglected and abused

Growing up, John took care of himself.

By the age of 5, John says he fixed his own meals while his mother slept through the day. He began caring for his newborn sister, Ashley, shortly after his seventh birthday. The process became routine: Preparing the formula, pouring the milk into the bottle and feeding her tiny mouth. He changed the baby’s diapers, too.

He describes his mother as impulsive and unable to hold a steady job. His biological father disappeared before his birth.

Teachers noticed something was wrong. John’s maternal grandmother tried to intervene. California Children’s Services investigated.

Their inquiry included John’s background file, a thick stack of social worker reports, police documents and photographs. Authorities concluded John was a victim of neglect and physical and sexual abuse. When he was 16 months old, authorities reported bruises on his face. He had bite marks on his body when he was about 2 years old.

John recalls his goodbye with his mother. He was 7 when authorities whisked him away.

“I remember feeling freedom,” he said. “I remember walking out. I remember my mom saying not to go, and I returned to her and said ‘Sorry, I have to.’ “

His mother’s parental rights were later terminated, and John stopped talking to her in 2004.

By the time John reached high school in the foster care system, chances for adoption were slim. Only 7 percent of foster children 14 and older find a permanent home, according to a 2008 Department of Health and Human Services report. The state had already labeled John with attention deficit disorder, depression and behavioral issues.

His social worker wrote in his file that he was unadoptable.

Feeding, funding and playing

Shortly after they met in the spring of 2006, Tim Ferraro offered John a job at his remodeling company. Tim knew John needed the cash since he was then renting his own apartment.

One afternoon when John’s shift ended, Tim and Mark invited John into their home for dinner.

John ate as they talked about politics and religion. “I channeled my paternal Sicilian grandmother in me,” Tim joked. “And I just kept asking him, ‘Are you hungry?’ “

Their friendship blossomed, and John became a frequent guest. Sometimes after dinner, they played board games or watched movies. John showed them his scripts and music.

To help the young man out, Tim and Mark donated extra groceries to John when they could. They hired him to complete odd jobs around the house.

The couple helped him with “adult tasks” that John hadn’t learned before such as tracking finances, résumé writing and answering job interview questions.

When John fell ill, they loaned him money for doctor visits. They knew the young man struggled with depression so they found a counselor for him.

Hearing adoption stories from teens

At the same time John became part of their life, the couple was looking to expand their family.

Mark Hauck and Tim Ferraro had always considered adoption during their 20-year relationship. Career goals and imperfect timing derailed them but they were determined to become parents.

The couple got serious about adopting in the summer of 2008. They completed an adoption training program required by the state of Minnesota.

They had preferred to adopt a child, but during one training session, Mark and Tim listened to the teens and young adults share their adoption stories. The teens talked about how a permanent home gave them the support and confidence to succeed.

At that moment, they realized John needed parents too.

Already friends with John for two years, they knew he was struggling. John was fired from his food service job in May 2008. His credit card debt grew to $50,000. John became anxious and depressed.

“He was really trying hard against odds that were stacked completely against him because he was unprepared to be on his own,” Mark said.

The couple says they wanted to adopt John because they believed John deserved a family

Because John was an adult, the couple knew the adoption process would be easier than adopting a child, a process saddled by home studies and heavy paperwork. Tim and Mark also knew some agencies would rule them out for adoption because of their age and sexual orientation.

But how do you ask a 23-year-old man to be your son?

That is the question that confronted Mark and Tim after they decided to propose the adoption to John. Adult adoption in the U.S. is rare — fewer than 200 adult adoptions for individuals between the ages of 18 and 20 in 2008, government studies report.

For weeks, the couple mulled over their decision to adopt John. They knew if they offered to become his parents, the act, in their minds, would be unchangeable.

Close friends asked the tough questions: Could they financially support John? What would happen if John got into trouble?

Not used to commitment

The evening of September 12, 2008, began as usual.

John arrived at Mark and Tim’s home for dinner. Their casual Friday night consisted of pizzas and Cokes, followed by several games of Rummy.

The soda shot out of John’s nose when Mark asked the question. He thought that maybe he hadn’t heard Mark correctly.

“We’d like you to be our son,” Mark offered. “We’ll leave it up to you to decide.”

But John didn’t have an answer. He asked for a few days to think about his decision. At first, John grew angry when he thought about their offer to adopt him.

“I don’t think I was used to the level of commitment they were offering,” John said. “An adoption can’t end.”

The permanency Mark and Tim promised was a striking contrast from his past. When John stirred trouble, the state moved him to another foster home. When he acted violently, the state punished him by sending him to residential treatment.

Several days later, John appeared at Mark and Tim’s door with his belongings. John decided he was tired of spending Christmas and birthdays alone. He realized, even as an adult, that he still needed parents to provide him advice — and compassion. He wanted a family of his own.

Shift in adoption trend

This month, Mark and Tim are celebrating their one-year anniversary with their 24-year-old son.

The adult adoption was finalized by a judge in December 2008, a relatively smooth process compared to adopting a child. The three adults signed the adoption paperwork in front of a judge.

“To us, Sam was simply our son,” Mark said. “It didn’t matter that we didn’t bring him home in a blanket.”

That month, John legally changed his name to Sam Ferraro-Hauck. The change would mark a fresh start.

Sam’s adoption story represents a shift in the adoption world over the last decade. Adopting older teens and young adults has become more popular, said Adam Pertman, executive director of the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute. The number of individuals between the ages of 14 and 20 adopted rose from about 2,000 in 1998 cases to more than 4,200 in 2000, according to the Department of Health and Human Services.

Experts say the federal government’s passage of the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008 has given funding incentives to states that promote older adoptions. The act extends foster care payment cutoff age from 18 to 21 years of age.

The Minnesota nonprofit Ampersand Families, where Mark now works, is one example of a growing number of nonprofits that help older teens and young adults secure permanent homes. This Christmas, the agency matched a 13-year-old foster child with a Minnesota family.

- By DEANNA BELLANDI
Associated Press Writer

CHICAGO – Abortion and gay marriage are polarizing social issues, and it’s no different in the Illinois governor’s race, with candidates staking out a wide swath of positions.

All but one of the seven Republican candidates call themselves “pro-life,” while the Democrats, Gov. Pat Quinn and Comptroller Dan Hynes, support abortion rights. Only Hynes and Green Party candidate Rich Whitney support legalizing gay marriage.

——

All seven Republicans want the state to enforce a long-dormant law requiring teenage girls to notify their parents before they have an abortion. The law was passed in 1995 but a string of court actions has kept it from ever being enforced.

“A substantial majority of the public supports the concept of notifying parents when a young girl seeks an abortion. It’s past due time for Illinois’ law to go into effect,” said former Illinois Attorney General Jim Ryan in an Associated Press candidate questionnaire.

Some Republicans, including state Sen. Kirk Dillard of Hinsdale and Chicago public relations consultant Dan Proft, would like to see the law strengthened to require parental consent.

“Notification does not go far enough. A minor must obtain parental consent to get an aspirin from the school nurse but not to get an abortion? This makes no sense,” Proft said.

On the issue of abortion, DuPage County Board chairman Bob Schillerstrom is the only Republican who calls himself “pro-choice” and supports abortion rights, although he does support a ban on partial-birth abortions and all abortions in the third trimester of pregnancy.

The other six Republicans oppose abortion.

“I am pro-life and believe government has an obligation to protect innocent human life,” state Sen. Bill Brady of Bloomington said.

Some Republicans say their opposition to abortions includes exceptions for cases of rape, incest or when a mother’s life is in danger.

——

The Democrats don’t support the state’s notification law. Neither does Whitney of the Green Party.

“I think the law must reflect the reality that some young women are in family situations that put them at risk of abandonment or physical violence if they disclose their pregnancies. I believe that parental notification laws are unworkable,” Quinn said.

Hynes and Quinn support abortion rights.

“I have always been pro-choice. As Governor, I am committed to vetoing any legislation that restricts a woman’s right to choose,” Quinn said.

——

None of Republicans support legalizing gay marriage in Illinois.

“I believe marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman,” Chicago businessman Andy McKenna said.

Only Hynes and the Green’s Whitney back gay marriage.

“I believe that if two committed adults want to express their love and commitment to each other through marriage, they should be allowed to do so under civil law,” Hynes said.

Quinn support civil unions with the same rights as those of married straight couples.

Same-sex couples can get marriage licenses in Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts and Vermont. Starting in January, gay couples can also marry in will also be able to wed in New Hampshire starting in January.

Copyright 2009 Associated Press.

- By ALMUDENA CALATRAVA, Associated Press Writer – Mon Dec 28

BUENOS AIRES, Argentina – Two Argentine men were joined Monday in Latin America’s first same-sex marriage, traveling to the southernmost tip of the Americas to find welcoming spot to wed.

Gay rights activists Jose Maria Di Bello and Alex Freyre were married in Ushauaia, the capital of Argentina’s Tierra del Fuego state, in a ceremony witnessed by sate and federal officials.

“My knees didn’t stop shaking,” Di Bello said. “We are the first gay couple in Latin America to marry.”

The couple had previously tried to marry in the Argentine capital of Buenos Aires but were thwarted by city officials citing conflicting judicial rulings. Argentina’s Constitution is silent on whether marriage must be between a man and a woman, effectively leaving the matter to state and city officials.

Tierra del Fuego Gov. Fabiana Rios said in a statement that gay marriage “is an important advance in human rights and social inclusion and we are very happy that this has happened in our state.”

An official representing the federal government’s antidiscrimination agency, Claudio Morgado, attended the wedding in the city of Ushauaia and called the occasion “historic.”

Many in Argentina and throughout Latin America remain opposed to gay marriage, particularly the Roman Catholic Church.

But same-sex civil unions have been legalized in Uruguay, Buenos Aires, Mexico City and some states in Mexico and Brazil. Marriage generally carries more exclusive rights such as adopting children, inheriting wealth and enabling a partner to gain citizenship.

Di Bello said the city of Ushuaia initially declined to authorize the marriage but went ahead after the couple received backing from the state of Tierra del Fuego.

“We filed an administrative appeal to the government of Tierra del Fuego, which finally authorized the wedding.

A bill that would legalize gay marriage was introduced in Argentina’s Congress in October but it has stalled without a vote.

Only seven countries in the world allow gay marriages: Canada, Spain, South Africa, Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands and Belgium. U.S. states that permit same-sex marriage are Iowa, Massachusetts, Vermont, Connecticut and New Hampshire.

Di Bello, 41, an executive at the Argentine Red Cross, met Freyre, 39, executive director of the Buenos Aires AIDS Foundation, at an HIV awareness conference. Both are HIV-positive.

- by Joe Mirabella at December 29, 2009 Seattle PI Blog

The LGBT community has been working for immigration reform for years. Our families are regularly split apart because we can not sponsor our foreign born loved ones for citizenship like married heterosexual couples can.

Americans are forced to split up their families or leave this country for more fair minded countries like the UK or Canada when their same gender spouse’s green card or visa expires. The policy is inhumane but persists because our Congress enjoys the status quo.

We hoped this issue would be corrected in the forthcoming immigration reform bill in the pipeline for next year. However, because some members of Congress are squeamish about our families, splitting up families will likely continue. Our only hope for an inclusive immigration reform bill is via an amendment, but there is doubt that is very likely either.

ACT on Principles reported:

Here is the problem: The bill is now out of the hands of Equality Caucus and Hispanic Caucus Member Rep. Gutierrez (D-IL-4) and has been passed to its new sponsor, Congressional Hispanic Caucus Founder Rep. Solomon Ortiz (D-TX-27)–who is not even a cosponsor of ENDA or DADT repeal.

Representative Ortiz says that “some Hispanic lawmakers may be uneasy with the same-sex provision for cultural reasons, and they may need more time to weigh it. ‘They feel a little uncomfortable. I think that ’s what it is, to be honest with you,’ he said.”

Why has this bill been turned over to Representative Ortiz, and taken from the more openly LGBT friendly Representative Gutierrez?

And if that has you worried, there is more that has been uncovered:

The majority of Congressional Hispanic Caucus Members are cosponsors of DOMA repeal, 11 out of 21 members to be exact.

In fact it seems Rep. Ortiz is the one who feels “uncomfortable”. His HRC scorecard is pathetic He received a 50% score in 110th Congress, 25% in 109th, and 22% in 108th. Oritz is not even a co-sponsor of the Uniting American Families Act, a separate bill which would allow same gender domestic partners or married couples to sponsor their loved ones for citizenship.

The Uniting American Families Act still has a long way to go if it is going to pass. The Whip count does not look good:

PUBLIC WHIP COUNT
Sponsors & Cosponsors 117
Leaning Yes 81
Leaning No 207
No 1
Unknown 29
TOTAL 435

We sure could use a “fierce advocate” in the immigration debate.

- By Carlos Santoscoy
Published: December 28, 2009 www.ontopmag.com

Opponents of a District of Columbia gay marriage law widely expected to take effect in February are pressing for a voter referendum on the issue.

The Christian-based Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) has joined Stand for Marriage DC in challenging a District of Columbia Board of Elections and Ethics ruling that blocked opponents from pursing a ballot initiative. The board concluded that such a measure would violate the city’s Human Rights Act that prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Bishop Harry Jackson, a minister at the Hope Christian Church in Beltsville, Maryland, formed Stand for Marriage DC in the spring after lawmakers approved a gay marriage-recognition bill and promised to legalize gay marriage in the city.

Mayor Adrian Fenty, a Democrat, signed the gay marriage bill approved overwhelmingly by city leaders on December 15. The law is expected to go into effect in February or early March after Congress is allowed to weigh in on the matter. While there is a possibility Congress could intervene on the matter – having final say on all laws in the District – it is widely believed that Democrats will not move against the law.

“The people of DC have a right to vote on the definition of marriage,” ADF Senior Legal Counsel Austin R. Nimocks said in a statement. “The DC Charter guarantees the people the right to vote, and the council cannot amend the charter for any reason, much less to deny citizens the right to vote.”

Agreeing with the Ethics Board’s ruling, city lawyers filed a response Friday, asking a Superior Court judge to dismiss the case.

Opponents have also taken their fight to the courtroom of public opinion. District transit buses carrying ads which state “Let the People Vote on Marriage” and direct people to the Stand for Marriage DC website began running last week.

- by Rex Wockner, www.sdgln.com
Mon, 12/28/2009

The trial in the federal lawsuit seeking to overturn California’s Proposition 8 starts Jan. 11 in U.S. District Court in San Francisco. It could last a month.

Representing the gay side are famed attorneys Ted Olson and David Boies, who, in 2000, argued opposite sides of the Bush/Gore “hanging chad” election mess before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Intervening for the gay side is the city of San Francisco. Gay rights groups Lambda Legal, the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Center for Lesbian Rights were blocked from intervening after they angered Olson and Boies by speaking ill of the case, saying it was poorly timed and unwise. The groups do have advisory status as “friends of the court.”

The defendants in the case — Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Attorney General Jerry Brown (who very likely is running for governor), state health officials, and the counties of Alameda and Los Angeles — are not expected to actually defend Prop 8, but Brown has said he agrees with Olson and Boies that it violates the U.S. Constitution. It is highly unusual for a state attorney general to refuse to defend his state’s constitution. Prop 8 amended the California Constitution to re-ban same-sex marriage.

Because of this strange situation, the forces behind Prop 8 have been allowed to intervene so that there will be someone in court to argue that Prop 8 is not unconstitutional.

Olson and Boies will attempt to convince Judge Vaughn Walker that Prop 8 violates the due-process and equal-protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution by singling out gays for disfavored legal status and discriminating on the basis of gender and sexual orientation.

California gay leaders predict that Walker will rule for the gay side, sending the case to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which, gay leaders say privately, is also thought likely to be sympathetic to Olson’s and Boies’ reasoning. In the end, the case very likely will be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

While the gay legal establishment continues to privately loathe the case, fearing the U.S. Supreme Court just isn’t ready to “go there,” many other gay leaders privately or openly don’t share the gay legal eagles’ angst.

They think it could indeed happen for gays at the Supreme Court.

What’s more, they say, with the latest ballot-box marriage loss in Maine — bringing the total to more than 30 such state losses — it’s fairly clear that if California is going to regain same-sex marriage in the near future, it is going to have to come from the U.S. Supreme Court, since voters everywhere have shown a willingness to snatch away gays’ right to marry if given the chance and since there are no further legal avenues available in California courts.

A U.S. Supreme court ruling striking down Prop 8 could, depending on the reasoning used, also strike down all other U.S. bans on same-sex marriage, which would be the mother of all U.S. gay rights victories.

A fledgling campaign to have California voters vote again on same-sex marriage — the only thing left to try inside the state — in 2010 is widely expected to fail to collect enough signatures to get the measure on the ballot. The grassroots/netroots campaign — which grew out of huge, angry street protests after Prop 8 passed in November 2008 — does not have the support of California’s gay-activist establishment.

The establishment has expressed a preference for delaying returning to the ballot until 2012 — but, privately, some gay leaders in the state are not even sure it would be wise to do so then.

As one key gay leader said, “We really need to win the federal case.”

- www.towleroad.com December 23, 2009

Julie Kamps, a former associate of Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson who is a lesbian, has filed suit against her former firm, saying she was denied partner because of her sexuality, and making several claims of harassment, Am Law Daily reports:

Kamps, who previously filed a less detailed complaint with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, claims that a female partner at Fried Frank sexually harassed her. She also alleges that the firm instructs lawyers to write exaggerated negative performance reviews about associates the firm wants out.

A firm spokeswoman did not immediately provide a comment in response to the suit. Kamps, a graduate of Harvard Law School, worked at Fried Frank from 1998 until January of this year, when the firm terminated her in the middle of an arbitration hearing.

In the complaint, to be filed this week, Kamps claims that Janice Mac Avoy, a litigation partner, “knowingly made unwelcome sexual advances and sexual comments to Kamps, both alone and in the presence of others.” Mac Avoy allegedly “told Kamps it was ‘the biggest regret of her life’ that she had not slept with Kamps ‘when she had the chance,’” and discussed various sexual acts with Kamps, the complaint states. Kamps also alleges that Mac Avoy encouraged her to “wear women’s clothes,” because William McGuinness, chair of the firm’s litigation department, believed Kamps’s preference for men’s shirts could “make clients uncomfortable.”

Kamps filed the $50 million suit yesterday: “A spokesman for the firm said the suit had ‘no substance.’”