Calif. court won't delay gay weddings until vote

Justices deny appeal for stay until voters decide on ban initiative

SAN FRANCISCO - California's highest court on Tuesday refused to stay until after the November election its decision legalizing same-sex marriage in the state.
Conservative religious and legal groups had asked the California Supreme Court to stop its order from becoming effective until voters have the chance to weigh in on the issue.

An initiative that would amend the state constitution to ban gay marriage has qualified for the ballot. Its passage would overrule the court's decision.
The Supreme Court says its ruling will be final at 5 p.m. on June 16.
Wednesday's denial clears the way for gays and lesbians in the nation's most populous state to get married starting June 17, when state officials have said counties must start issuing new gender-neutral marriage licenses.
On Monday, the initiative that would again outlaw gay marriage in California qualified for the state's November ballot.
California Secretary of State Debra Bowen said a random check of signatures submitted by the measure's sponsors showed that they had gathered enough names for it to be put to voters.
The measure would amend the state constitution to "provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
If approved by a majority of voters on Nov. 4, the amendment would overturn the recent California Supreme Court ruling that legalized same-sex marriage in the state. It is similar to gay marriage bans that have been adopted in 26 other states.
"This signifies the fact that California voters really do favor and will come out to vote for the protection of historic marriage," said Ron Prentice, executive director of ProtectMarriage.com, a coalition of religious and social conservative groups behind the initiative.
In response to the court's May 15 ruling, California public health officials already have amended marriage license applications to read "Party A" and "Party B" instead of bride and groom. Local officials have been told to start issuing the revised licenses to same-sex couples on June 17.
Gay men and lesbians would still be able to get married between then and the election, even with the initiative pending, unless the court agrees to stay its decision until after Nov. 4, as the amendment's sponsors have requested.
If the marriages proceed during the next five months, it is unclear whether they would be nullified if the amendment passes. Some legal scholars have said the state Supreme Court might get called on again to settle that question.

Kate Kendell, executive director of the San Francisco-based National Center for Lesbian Rights, said gay marriage advocates have already launched a campaign to defeat the measure.
"There is just so much at stake, now, in terms of what kind of state we are going to live in and what values we are going to uphold," Kendell said.
To qualify for the ballot, the measure needed 694,354 petition signatures, an amount equal to 8 percent of the votes cast during the last governor's race.
Proponents submitted 1,120,801 signatures in late April, and county clerks determined the measure qualified by verifying the validity of 3 percent of the signatures they received, according to Bowen.
Recent polls have found California voters are about evenly split on whether gay couples should be allowed to marry.

Lesbian kiss stirs debate in gay-friendly city

Usher at Seattle ballpark allegedly asked women to stop smooching

SEATTLE - Most of the time, a kiss is just a kiss in the stands at Seattle Mariners games. The crowd hardly even pays attention when fans smooch.
But then last week, a lesbian complained that an usher at Safeco Field asked her to stop kissing her date because it was making another fan uncomfortable.
The incident has exploded on local TV, on talk radio and in the blogosphere and has touched off a debate over public displays of affection in generally gay-friendly Seattle.

"Certain individuals have not yet caught up. Those people see a gay or lesbian couple and they stare or say something," said Josh Friedes of Equal Rights Washington. "This is one of the challenges of being gay. Everyday things can become sources of trauma."
As the Mariners played the Boston Red Sox on May 26, Sirbrina Guerrero and her date were approached in the third inning by an usher who told them their kissing was inappropriate, Guerrero said.
The usher, Guerrero said, told them he had received a complaint from a woman nearby who said that there were kids in the crowd of nearly 36,000 and that parents would have to explain why two women were kissing.
"I was really just shocked," Guerrero said. "Seattle is so gay-friendly. There was a couple like seven rows ahead making out. We were just showing affection."
Complaint of 'groping'On Monday, Mariners spokeswoman Rebecca Hale said that the club is investigating but that the usher was responding to a complaint of two women "making out" and "groping" in the stands.
"We have a strict non-discrimination policy at the Seattle Mariners and at Safeco Field, and when we do enforce the code of conduct it is based on behavior, not on the identity of those involved," Hale said.

The code of conduct — announced before each game — specifically mentions public displays of affection that are "not appropriate in a public, family setting." Hale said those standards are based on what a "reasonable person" would find inappropriate.
Guerrero denied she and her date were groping each other, saying that along with eating garlic fries, they were giving each other brief kisses.
On Tuesday, Guerrero said a Mariners director of guest services had apologized to her. The team spokeswoman could not immediately confirm that.
Call for 'kiss-in'After the story broke, the Mariners were blasted by the sex-advice columnist Dan Savage, who wrote about the incident on the blog of the Stranger, an alternative weekly paper.
"I constantly see people making out," Savage said. "My son has noticed and asked, `Do they show the ballgame on women's foreheads?'"
Savage called for a "kiss-in" to protest against the Mariners.
Web sites have been swamped with blog postings for and against Guerrero and her date. And the story has people talking in Seattle.
"I would be uncomfortable" seeing public displays of affection between lesbians or gay men, said Jim Ridneour, a 54-year-old taxi driver. "I don't think it's right seeing women kissing in public. If I had my family there, I'd have to explain what's going on."
"It all depends on the degree," Mark Ackerman said as he waited for a hot dog outside Safeco Field before Wednesday's game. "Even for heterosexual couples."
Past under scrutinySince the incident, Guerrero's job and her past have come under scrutiny. She works at a bar known for scantily clad women and was a contestant on the MTV reality show "A Shot at Love With Tila Tequila," in which women and men compete for the affection of a bisexual Internet celebrity.
"People are saying it's 15 more minutes for my career," Guerrero said of the ballpark furor, "but this is not making me look very good."
In 2007, an Oregon transit agency chief apologized after a lesbian teenager was kicked off a bus when a passenger complained about her kissing another girl.
Also in 2007, a gay rights group protested a Kansas City, Mo., restaurant they said ejected four women because two of them kissed, and a Texas state trooper was placed on probation in 2004 for telling two gay men who were kissing at the state Capitol that homosexual conduct was illegal in Texas.
"There's a double standard. That's the bottom line," said Pat Griffin, director of the It Takes a Team! Education Campaign, an initiative from the Women's Sports Foundation to eliminate homophobia in sports.

Florida And Michigan. The Right Decision?

Did the DNC make the right decision when dealing with the States of Florida and Michigan? some people say it seems fair and others say it was a rip of and they should not be counted at all.

This is a very unique situation. Florida and Michigan decided to make their primary dates earlier, which the DNC said that they could not. as punishment the DNC took away their delegate count and the Democrats needed delgate count was lowered.

But after much protest and campaigning. The DNC met on Saturday to decide what to do. The final decision was to give each of the delegates half a vote.