- Facebook and adult social networking: A dream that’s all wet | Violet Blue| ZDNet – That’s what a perfect Faceporn might look like. All of the good aspects of Facebook: finding people with similar interests that aren’t necessarily about sex, but with whom you could also share a dirty gallery with for fun or… or more. Sharing links and videos with friends you’ve chosen in your own network, without the fear of censors deleting your posts without notice.
- To NSFW or not to NSFW? (NSFW) – Roger Ebert’s Journal – Now as to the problem of the workplace. I understand there will be pictures on a computer screen that will be offensive. I get that. Why will they be offensive? Perhaps because they foreground a worker’s sexual desires, and imply similar thoughts about co-workers. Is that what’s happening with the blog entry on Hefner? Is anyone reading it for sexual gratification? I doubt it. That’s what bothers me about so many of the New Puritans. They think I have a dirty mind, but I think I have a healthy mind. It takes a dirty mind to see one, which is why so many of these types are valued as censors or online police.
- ‘Client 9′ Filmmaker Focuses On Spitzer’s Foes : NPR – Filmmaker Alex Gibney’s new documentary, Client 9: The Rise and Fall of Eliot Spitzer, suggests that Spitzer’s demise wasn’t just about sex — that the many enemies Spitzer made on Wall Street and in the New York state capital at Albany may have contributed to his political demise.
- Oakland home to nation’s first transgender trial judge | SF Gate – Oakland resident Vicki Kolakowski became the first transgender trial judge in the country when she won Alameda County’s vacant seat on the county’s Superior Court bench in yesterday’s election.
california
U.S. Distrist Court website, Perry et a. v. Schwarzenegger
#728 Final Stay Order:
PERMANENT INJUNCTION. This action having come before and tried by the court and the court considered the same pursuant to FRCP 52(a), on August 4, 2010, ordered entry of judgment in favor of plaintiffs and plaintiff-intervenors and against defendants and defendant-intervenors and each of them, Doc #708, now therefore: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that: Defendants in their official capacities, and all persons under the control or supervision of defendants, are permanently enjoined from applying or enforcing Article I, Sec 7.5 of the California Constitution.
…That judgment shall be STAYED until August 18, 2010 at 5 PM PDT at which time defendants and all persons under their control or supervision shall cease to apply or
enforce Proposition 8.
#716 Memorandum in Opposition re 705 MOTION to Stay Pending Appeal filed byEdmund G. Brown, Jr.
#717 Memorandum in Opposition re 705 MOTION to Stay Pending Appeal filed byMark B. Horton, Arnold Schwarzenegger
#718 Memorandum in Opposition re 705 MOTION to Stay Pending Appeal filed byCity and County of San Francisco, Paul T. Katami, Kristin M. Perry, Sandra B. Stier, Jeffrey J. Zarrillo
Perry et al. v. Schwarzenegger opinion (U.S. District Court of California, Northern District)
- Vaughn Walker, Prop 8 Judge, Has Personal Life Debated After Gay Marriage Ruling | Huffington Post – William G. Ross, an expert on judicial ethics and law professor at Samford University in Alabama, said that a judge's sexual orientation has no more relevance to his or her ability to rule fairly on a case involving gay marriage than it would for a deeply religious judge or a judge who had been divorced multiple times…"Under the logic of the people challenging the judge's fitness to rule on a case involving gay rights because he or she was gay, one would have to find a eunuch to serve on the case, because one could just as easily argue that a heterosexual judge couldn't rule on it either," Ross said.
- Prop 8 Trial Tracker | A Project of the Courage Campaign Institute – The Prop 8 Trial Tracker is a project of the Courage Campaign Institute, which is a part of the Courage Campaign’s online organizing network of more than 700,000 supporters in California and across the country… The primary contributors are Rick Jacobs, Chair of the Courage Campaign Institute, and Robert Cruickshank, Public Policy Director of the Courage Campaign Institute. California-based bloggers Paul Hogarth and Brian Leubitz also contribute legal analysis and other content to the Prop 8 Trial Tracker. Eden James, the Courage Campaign Institute’s Managing Director, is providing strategic and promotional support as well as adding occasional content.
- N.Y. Appeals Court Affirms Lesbian’s Duty to Pay Child Support | NY Law Journal – "This Court has previously employed the 'implied promise-equitable estoppel approach' … to preclude a man with no biological or adoptive connection to a child from disavowing a relied-upon, implied promise to support the child, thus preventing the man from leaving the child without the support of two parents, as originally contemplated," the 2nd Department observed in an unsigned, unanimous ruling.
. . .While the wording is simple, the situation has quickly become complicated. One question: What happens to those same-sex couples who married prior to the ruling? Legal challenges filed on Wednesday raised other questions: Was the referendum process itself lawful? Does the new language conflict with other parts of the state constitution? Separately, should Prop. 8 opponents have filed challenges saying the proposition violated the U.S. Constitution?
To help sort through some of these questions, we chatted with David Cruz, a constitutional law expert at the University of Southern California.
Hi David. Thanks for taking the time. Frankly, we’ve been confused by much of what’s happened since Tuesday. For starters, could you help us understand the grounds upon which Proposition 8 is being challenged in court?
Sure. The three lawsuits [here, here and here] challenge the procedure by which the referendum was passed. Under California law, there are two categories of changes that can be made to the state constitution: amendments and revisions. Amendments are more minor changes; revisions are larger in effect. This is important because each has its own process for taking effect — essentially different ways they go before the voters. An amendment can go in the form of a ballot initiative, which requires a certain number of signatures to make its way on. Constitutional revisions, however, have to have a two-thirds blessing from each house of the state legislature to make the ballot.
Now, the problem, at least from the point of view of Prop. 8 supporters, is that the legislature had previously indicated a willingness to support same-sex marriage. So the proposition’s supporters were unwilling to treat this [change] as a revision and send it to the legislature, opting instead to treat it as an amendment. The Prop. 8 opponents are arguing that this change actually constitutes a revision, not an amendment, and therefore needed to go through the legislature. (more. . .)
Add to Google
