PN, by ‘next Tuesday’ you mean ‘later today’.
I think PN’s US coverage is important, as we are seeing US anti-gay groups like the Alliance Defense Fund taking an increasing interest in the UK, and we need to understand their US activities.
But please do copyedit carefully, or you discredit your US coverage.
I think other countries, like you all in the UK, definitely need to pay attention to what is happening here in the states… because the anti-gay groups here aren’t limiting their interference to just US politics. They’ve had a heavy hand in the anti-gay/death penalty legislation in Uganda as well.
Keep in mind that these are people who believe that they have a fundamental, God-given right to stick their nose into other people’s business. They truly believe they are on a divine mission… and as we all know, fanatics do not respect borders.
We do pay attention and thankfully most of us don’t rely on Pink News for US coverage.
Hopefully then you will understand that Uganda is a sovereign Country and nobody has a god given right to meddle in THEIR politics!
Exactl right atalanta and Rae. I’m fearful of their meddling in our politics. I’m confident though that the majority of the British public will reject them and ideally ban them from entering the country as undesirables and a threat to the common good of our society.
atalanta and Rae, you’re both right. We in this country do need to pay particular attention to these radical right wing religious organisations infiltrating our political system. They should be banned as undesirables as a threat to the well-being and common good of our society, just as we have banned others. The Foreign Secretary should be kept updated about their activities and exercise sound judgment in dealing with these evil people.
For those interested, the hearing will be broadcast live from San Francisco starting at 10am (I believe that would be 6pm in UK, correct me if I’m wrong.) and can be viewed here:
Supporters of marriage equality have planned a rally to take place in front of the court at 8am:
Thank you, Dana.
You’re very welcome, Robert. Actually, here is the direct link to the live webcast. The other link was to the main page.
The california supreme court, needs to be under transparenncy of human rights violations and discrimination itself the aclu, should have already made it mandatory thay the california supreme courts background check on each juge, any judge attached to a hate group or a hate religion should have immeadiatly been barred from being able to sit on the bench , you cannot sit on a court bench as a; racist and bigot who hates minoriteis and and everyone no it, and everyone no racists and biggots wrongfuly passes wrong delegations and implementations down according to the bigotry they harbor, which is wrong ;unfair and criminal to the victums of predudice and bigoty, all courts are supposed to have h;uman rights and equal rights judges so that all cases are heard and responded to fairly and not according to race or gender or sexual orientation, a biased racist already commits crimes against individual just even before hearing any case because they hate the people they hate wether theryr good
where the hell is the aclu and diane fiensten and boxer and obama , he is s;upposed to be down in californial standing for equal rights and theise other senator too that is there home town, even, where is there support for the equal rights people, how hell are the democrats planning to get back into the white and stay and increase, if they are not showing up for the people that need them and their vioce , the people cannot seel where these people are and what they are doing lately, where the hell are the democratic senators, when a serious battle for human rights , righting wrongs all of the democrats should have the backs of every state fighting against racism and bigotry, people are looking at the democratic party and trying to see all positve things . bu;t they no for a; fact where they should be giving support to the people from, there are too many of these people doing everything but what they are suppose to for the nation and the people a;nd it is destroying this naions society
This nation is going to have to take military action against uganda ghona , south africa , zimboway and iran, this is not a game serious actions must take these militants out like in libia , in order to keep theise monsters from destroying their entire countries and the children, these canables of unciviled wicked people have not allowed those nations and countries to see or have rest and peacae since the beginning of time , the children dont even know what civiliazaion is and looks like, not even real parents, maybe ;a mom are grandmother , but the men they no only as their enemies and rappedst and ab;users, they are no good, the militants and tryantts and dictators all must go, in every government, their evils has cost too many lives just like bigotry, they must become civilized countries, the govermnments, not the people must be sanctions and reprimanded and taken down and out and overhauled with new parliments, and people like what the rebels are doing, saving the lives of famiies,
Can anyone translate this please?
Sorry but promoting homosexuality and fornication is NOT civilized. It is a danger to civilization in the form of deadly plague.
The civilized approach is abstinence until marriage ,then monogamy. This is also the cure for AIDS.
Let the gays get married for God’s sake, you know they will have to take to the streets in a Gay Civil Rights Movement if they don’t.
As always, Pink News misses the subtleties of the actual legal proceedings. Please see AFER (the organisation fighting against Prop 8): http://www.afer.org/news/plaintiffs-move-one-step-closer-to-marriage-equalitym-after-proposition-8-hearing-before-california-supreme-court/ or the LA TImes: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-0907-prop8-20110907,0,1631210.story. No matter how many times it’s pointed out to them, PN fails to do the proper research or report correctly on what is actually being decided. The CA Supreme Court is NOT deciding whether ProtectMarriage.com have standing to defend prop 8 in federal court. The 9th Circuit Federal Appeals Court wants to know if the CA Constitution would grand them standing in CA court. The 9th will then decide independently whether this has a bearing on granting them standing under the US Constitution.
You can’t really understand American issues by reading about them in PN.
Respectfully, there may be issues with PN reporting on world news as commented on by many responses, I am not entirely convinced being fair this is the only news source which can be accused of this.
The subtleties and nuances of American politics policies and issues whether, States Propositions. Federal/Circuit/Supreme Courts and Constitution, can challenge even the most learned reporter unless they have a major in Political Sciences.
Your understanding and providing clarity of the American issues helps many I am sure. Yet providing clarity on one issue simply leads to confusion and raises questions and comprehension issues about other issues, which in fairness challenges even the most responsible press associations beyond the US borders.
I and others have pointed out this particular error to PN repeatedly. However, they continue to report it in the same manner. They fail to do any research to correct their error or support their assertions. I have provided two references correcting what PN has reported. Here’s a third: http://www.towleroad.com/2011/09/prop8standing.html.
I challenge PN to either support their repeated misrepresentation of this issue or print a correction. I have lost confidence in their ability and motivation to present accurate reporting. Since I know they are inaccurate in their reporting on US issues and appear unwilling to correct their mistakes, I can only assume that their reporting in other areas is equally lacking.
And, yes, I hold all news services to the same standard.
I, and others, have pointed out this particular error to PN repeatedly, yet they continue to report the same inaccurate information. I provided two references in my previous post and here’s a third: http://www.towleroad.com/2011/09/prop8standing.html. PN just doesn’t bother to do the research (even when it’s pointed out to them) to get their facts right.
Since I know they are lax and inaccurate in their reporting on US news, I must conclude that they are equally lacking when reporting other news that I can’t verify as easily.
Sorry for the double posting. To add some actual content to this one, I’ll add why I think making this distinction is important to understand.
The behaviour of the courts can be very confusing. In this case, it probably makes little sense why there is a difference or what difference there is between the CA Supreme Court and the US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling on standing for intervention. They are two independent court systems. Almost as separate as the UK courts from the European court.
The CA SC must decide standing based upon the CA Constitution and the past rulings of the court. There is no constitutional right for backers to defend an initiative, so do they want to create that right. However, the court has been generous in allowing backers to defend initiatives. So, do they want to make a statement supporting or opposing that history. Either way, the consequences affect the initiative process in CA beyond anything to do with Prop 8.
The 9th Circuit must decide based upon the US Constitution and the federal court rulings. By those standards, the appellants (the prop 8 backers) must prove that the ruling harms them specifically. Current rulings suggest that they do not have a basis to demonstrate harm. So, does the 9th allow them to intervene and set a new precedent for the meaning of harm. Does the 9th set a precedence for a state court ruling on standing to influence the federal rules.
Finally, both courts have their eye on how their rulings are going to affect a possible review of the case by the US Supreme Court and how that might affect the balance of powers between the state and federal courts.
Without understanding these issues, and reducing it to the analysis presented in PN, the actions of the courts can appear to be arbitrary and contradictory when, in fact, they make perfect sense.
I would suggest the article in Towleroad as the best overview of the issues involved.