Messages

I think I prefer the simplicity of the leaf on pure black one. But its hard to say, they both look good. lol, if I do say so myself.

Totally.. you can still feel uncomfortable.. If one doesn't feel discomfort with the government, the senses need a real check up. Its just the nature of choices vs emotion, one is black and white, the other isn't. After weighing the positive and negatives, your choice to sign a petition is black and white but emotions aren't. That's completely understandable.

We haven't seen any legislation detailing the changes that would be made by repealing it, so since its theoretical at this point, it seems hard to say exactly what supporting the repeal of don't ask don't tell would mean just yet.

One way to do it could be to adopt something similar to fair employment laws and apply them to the military. In interviews, you're not required to answer certain questions and employers aren't supposed to ask... But also similar to the laws concerning employers in some states, they should not be allowed to discriminate/discharge based on sexual orientation if they did find out. The only difference would be you can't sue the military for something like that, you can just file a complaint going up the chain of command and the matter is investigated... Yeah, that's a whole other link in the chains of the system..

The more laws that are passed implying that sexual minorities are a protected class, the more the debate on gay marriage, from a legal standpoint, becomes more open to seeing DOMA as discriminatory.. Which is all good .. heading in that general direction slowly..

LGBT stands for lesbian gay bisexual and transgender.

Mm.. yes.. it is absurd that the government is involved at all.. But things being the way they are, there are some rights afforded to married couples that unmarried people do not have and it can affect the quality of life for them. For example my partner is not a American citizen and therefore it is extremely difficult to even live together in the same country. It is deeply painful. If we could wed and benefit from the federal rights afforded in federal marriage, we would be able to migrate together just on the merits of the marriage license. Without it, there are a very difficult and expensive series of hoops to jump through in immigration law or risk living a life in fear of deportation.

The system feels unfair to begin with, but I think its more realistic to attack the disparity of rights rather than the institution of marriage itself and the whole system.. Or you could argue, just fight for each individual right that isn't given to minority couples, but there are literally thousands of rights... all in one package called marriage.. and the debate is already heated up in that direction.. so.. why not?

Yeah...politicians seek control.. but it can't be denied that they are also human and tend to seek that control in congruence with both their ideology and political power. I'm just wondering if he has a plan about all this down the road and what he's thinking.

What do you think?

Like many others, I've been wondering about Obama's intentions when it comes to the LGBT community and equal rights.. His presidential campaign broke new ground and turned out gay voters like never before and now with so many promises on hold, many are wondering if he will deliver at all. Personally I do think he believes in at least some of the promises he put forth during the campaign but that he may be biding his time about when to gamble his political capital on the more controversial issues because he has a lot on his plate to get done on a wide range of issues. I really hope that there is a master plan and that before his term is out, some major changes are made like repealing don't ask don't tell and DOMA but recently the administration filed a document supporting DOMA that compared homosexual relationships to incest and outraged gays who voted for him. Personally, reading it really lights a fire under my skin. There is no emoticon on here to express that with any justice. I've read many different opinions about this legal brief, on one end of the spectrum some say that he just used gays to help him get into office and he's been influenced by people like pastor Rick Warren and etc.. on the other end there's the fact that these supportive documents are a common legal practice to uphold laws currently in effect, even if they plan to challenge it later. What are your thoughts?

Read this article on the DOMA legal brief for details:

//http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-hogarth/obamas-doma-defense-unacc_b_215718.html

"Obama's DOMA Defense Unacceptable"

When Barack Obama ran for President, he pledged to fully repeal the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) - a mean-spirited piece of legislation that Bill Clinton signed in 1996 for crass political reasons. Obama says it's still his intent to do so, but has yet to follow up with any action. Meanwhile, the U.S. Justice Department filed a brief late last week defending a constitutional challenge to DOMA. The brief did not merely argue against the lawsuit on technical grounds such as the plaintiffs' lack of standing, but advanced legal arguments that - if pursued by the courts - could greatly damage gay and lesbian rights. Most lawyers at the Justice Department who write these briefs are civil servants who cannot be replaced by a new President, and one of the authors was in fact a right-wing holdover from the Bush years. But Tony West, an Obama appointee and the brother-in-law of San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris, allowed it to be filed in court - and his name appears on the front page. As Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division, West may argue that he's "just doing his job" - i.e., defending existing federal law. But the Administration can use discretion in these lawsuits, making this unacceptable.

The Politics Behind DOMA

Sponsored by Georgia Republican Bob Barr, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) passed the Newt Gingrich Congress in 1996 - and Bill Clinton signed it into law while denouncing it as gay bashing. Clinton's re-election campaign then advertised on Christian radio, touting his passage of DOMA as being pro-"family values." The federal law did two things. It allowed states to refuse recognition of same-sex marriages performed elsewhere, which is why California was able to pass Proposition 22 in March 2000. It also barred federal benefits for same-sex couples (e.g., federal taxes, Social Security and immigration rights) - even if a state had marriage rights or civil unions.

In 2007, I asked Hillary Clinton if she would support repealing DOMA. She argued it "served a very important purpose," but agreed that Part 3 (which bars all federal benefits) should be scrapped. Barack Obama, who was running against her for President, promised to repeal the whole legislation. For this and other reasons, I argued that he would make a better President for the LGBT community. I did not fault Obama for his rhetoric that marriage is "a man and a woman," because his policy pledges were sound. While many gays and lesbians complained throughout the campaign, I retorted that he (a) opposed Proposition 8 and (b) would repeal DOMA.

Today, Congress has yet to pass - and Obama has yet to sign - legislation repealing DOMA. Which is not by itself a betrayal, because he never promised when the repeal would happen - and the recession has understandably kept the White House busy. Obama is cautious to a fault, and it's clear he has tried during the first year to avoid getting pigeon-holed like Bill Clinton did on gays in the military. Prop 8 was also politically devastating to the effort at repealing DOMA, because it showed that even California rejects marriage equality. As a community organizer, Obama understands that activists cannot expect change without mobilizing a base. While advocates must keep pushing Obama on his promise, it will require a few more political victories before DOMA gets repealed.

Justice Department Brief is a Betrayal

Action by the Justice Department to oppose a lawsuit challenging DOMA, however, is a betrayal. A gay California couple that legally married before Prop 8 passed has sued to repeal DOMA on constitutional grounds, after the Bush Administration defeated their prior effort. Last week, the Obama Administration - through the U.S. Justice Department - filed a motion to dismiss their case. The brief argued that the couple lacks standing to sue, because they had not applied to get federal benefits that married couples enjoy - nor did they attempt to have their marriage recognized in a different state. The case could get thrown out for that reason alone, but I don't have a problem with the Obama Administration raising those arguments.

But the brief then proceeds to defend DOMA "on the merits" - using language that is factually incorrect, and arguments that (if adopted by the courts) would damage future attempts to secure gay rights. The Administration argued that the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution does not bar states from denying out-of-state gay marriages, and they cited prior cases of out-of-state marriages that were between (a) an uncle and niece, (b) a 16-year-old and adult and (c) first cousins. Comparing same-sex marriage with incest and pedophilia is what one would expect from a Republican Administration, and for a court to agree with such reasoning is unhelpful.

I was not surprised that the brief said homosexuals are not a "suspect class," because that is what federal courts currently recognize (as opposed to the California or Iowa Constitutions.) But I was shocked to see it argue that DOMA is "related to legitimate government interests," because the federal government has an interest in saving money. In Romer v. Evans, the U.S. Supreme Court found that a Colorado proposition did not have a "rational basis" - because its only possible justification was anti-gay bias. For the Obama Administration to distinguish DOMA from Romer by dreaming up a "rational basis" will hurt future legal efforts on this issue.

But the most offensive part of the brief was how it defended Part 3 of DOMA, which bars same-sex couples from any federal benefits. Calling DOMA a "cautious policy of federal neutrality towards a new form of marriage," the lawyers argued that Part 3 "does not discriminate against gays for federal benefits." Which, of course, is patently false. DOMA is not a case of the federal government taking a "neutral" stance on a controversial topic. Part 3 expressly says the federal government will not recognize gay couples, even if a state chooses to acknowledge their marriage. Nor is it merely a "cautious" policy. Only twice has the U.S. Congress ever acted in its 200-year history to restrict marriage: (a) in 1865 when it made polygamy a crime, and (b) in 1996 when it passed DOMA.

Who Wrote it - and Who's Responsible?

Many federal employees are civil servants who cannot be replaced because the new Administration disagrees with their politics. And because the gay couple in this case had previously challenged DOMA when George Bush was President, it is no surprise that the Justice Department had attorneys ready to defend the suit. In fact, one of the lawyers who wrote the brief - Scott Simpson - is a Mormon Republican, and a holdover from the Bush Administration. Alberto Gonzales even awarded the guy for his legal defense of the Partial Birth Abortion Act. Arguably, the Obama Administration could not replace him with a new attorney.

But the first lawyer listed on the brief is Tony West, an Obama political appointee. West served as California finance chairman for Obama's campaign, where he raised at least $500,000. He is the brother-in-law of San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris, who strongly supports gay marriage and is running for California Attorney General. His wife, Maya Harris, was until recently Executive Director of the Northern California ACLU. The ACLU issued a joint statement this weekend with other groups condemning the legal arguments in the brief, saying they were "very surprised and deeply disappointed" with the Obama Administration.

Of course, there is no evidence that West wrote the legal brief - or even knew about it. His name was on the brief, because he heads the Justice Department's Civil Division (which handles all lawsuits filed against the federal government.) But that means he supervises the attorneys who wrote it, and he can be held accountable. Before gay marriage advocates start asking whether Obama or Attorney General Eric Holder authorized the legal brief, they should ask West: (1) did he review the legal brief before it was filed, (2) if so, why would he agree to have it submitted as written, (3) if not, would he have done so and (4) why were the arguments appropriate?

The Justice Department Had a Choice

West would probably say that he was "just doing his job." His career shows he has taken controversial cases and clients before, such as defending John Walker Lindh (the American Taliban) on charges of treason. White House spokesman Shin Inouye told the Los Angeles Times that the Justice Department was following its normal practice of defending current law. "The President has said he wants to see a legislative repeal of DOMA," he said. "However, until Congress passes legislation repealing the law, the administration will continue to defend the statute when it is challenged in the justice system."

Some advocates feel this is a double standard. The Justice Department chose not to prosecute officials in the Bush Administration for torture and other war crimes, even if their task is to "uphold the law." But prosecutors always have the discretion on whether or not to press charges, unlike a defendant forced to respond to a lawsuit. The Obama Administration arguably has a political double standard in this case, but it still doesn't answer the basic question: did the Justice Department have a choice?

Richard Socarides, a former top Justice Department official in the Clinton White House, argues that they did. "I know and accept that one of the Justice Department's roles is to (generally) defend the law against constitutional attack," he wrote this weekend. "But not in all cases, certainly not in this case - and not in this way ... Where there are important political and social issues at stake, the President should make a policy decision first and then the lawyers figure out how to apply it to actual cases. If the lawyers cannot figure out how to defend a statute and stay consistent with the president's policy decision, the policy decision should always win out."

Moreover, consider how California Attorney General Jerry Brown handled the suit against Proposition 8. Rather than defend state law (as his predecessor did for Prop 22), his office argued in front of the Supreme Court that Prop 8 was unconstitutional. Kenneth Starr (on behalf of the religious right) intervened to defend Prop 8, which the court accepted. It is not unusual when a law gets challenged in court that some advocates fear the government will not vigorously defend it. Occasionally, the court allows them to get involved. The Obama Administration did not have to defend DOMA, especially when there are plenty of right-wing groups ready to do it themselves.

There has been a lot of talk this weekend from lawyers, who claim the Obama Administration had no choice. Much of this analysis has taken a strict legal approach, without considering the inherent politics behind these decisions. But one lawyer said it differently. "The law can be very fluid," he wrote, "and lawyers are taught in law school to find new ways to interpret words. Lawyers who craft new legal strategies and theories that sway courts are venerated in history as civil rights heroes ... Sure, the brief was a legal document, but it was also very much a political document ... Anyone who says that Republican and Democratic presidents alike don't let their politics influence their arguments before the courts is either a liar or terribly naïve."

I completely agree. Judges, at the end of the day, are politically connected lawyers who wear robes - and lawyers cannot pretend to live in an abstract ivory tower. In a highly emotional and political case as this, we cannot discount the consequences of "upholding the law" - and the Obama Administration should have used their proper discretion in this case. Obama cannot claim to support the complete repeal of DOMA, if the Justice Department spews out arguments that may adversely affect gays and lesbians when they fight for their rights in court. Marriage equality advocates must express their displeasure, as we hope that Obama gets the message loud and clear.

EDITOR'S NOTE: Paul Hogarth was an intern for Equality California in 2005, and received his J.D. at Golden Gate University. He is an attorney licensed to practice law in California, but this piece is not intended as legal advice. He actively campaigned for Obama in last year's presidential election. He is the Managing Editor of Beyond Chron, San Francisco's Alternative Online Daily, where this piece was first published.

Yes, it shows up in firefox for me.. If you can't see it, try clearing your cache.. If you can't see it in your favorites list, try re-bookmarking the site and it should show.

I have many favicons for visited sites in my tabs and this green on black one really pops out among them all.. I think it looks good..
Np I'm glad to pitch in!
Here's the green glowy one zipped too..

Excellent work on your degree mate! I wish you the best in that..

Cheers guys.. Its great to see you all still here hanging out after so many years.. Ty kemp.. I remember you too Torris!

Heya JRL, yea I still do music..that's cool you remember that.. I sold a lot of my gear to buy a computer with sonar, a motu some new mics etc.. sometimes its hard to find time to work with it though..and I have some recordings on hold as far as vocals until I can move into a new place where I can do some sound treatment. There's no room for that where I am now. I might get around sometime to finding a track or 2 to post here so you can check out what I've been working on and how the sound has morphed over time..

I'm working on a larger than life surreal portrait of obama and other projects too.. Here's an attachment you guys can see where I am on that one.. its a really slow process, one cuz I work so meticulously and two cos life is what happens when you're making other plans...

There's a firefox extension for users to change the favicons for sites at

//https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/7849

If you have a url saved on your desktop you can change that in windows like any other icon by right clicking to properties and then change icon and browse to the .ico file you want to use.

Anyway if this site ever wants to use it, here's the leaf on black icon attached in a zip. Its the above leaf on black one from the first set I posted, I just rounded the corners by one pixel so it looks a little bit smoother I think it looks better that way.

Hey bear I remember you! Mm with my art I recently got some business cards made up and launched a professional looking site to show my work and right now I'm working on a small painting of a client's favorite singer/songwriter.. I don't get a constant stream of work but every once in a while, hallelujah.

Hows everything in NZ?? Ah I miss it there.. its so beautiful.. one of my best travels.

or this.. (I just love making icons)  :geek:

a vertical design..

or this..

I noticed this site doesn't have a favicon.. that little icon that appears next to the browser address for many sites... I made a few today with spiritplants in mind, let me know if you want to use one of these saved in .ico format..

Wow .. its been a long time.. The last time I was on here I can hardly remember.. I just wanted to give a hidy ho to the locals still here.. maybe someone remembers me... I dunno..

He was one of the most creative stars ever. I grew up with him. Its strange that all of a sudden he's gone forever. I have so many memories of school dances and roller rinks and car trips playing his music. It feels like the end of an era.

He's gotten so much coverage lately on all the news stations.. I'd rather see them celebrate him rather than tear him down in the way they report about his life, I mean yeah he was strange but good lord he just died.. I'd like to see them give him a break just once if just for his family. I see him so often on news now it just seems so obsessive.. There are people dying brutally in Iran every day.. Id rather see more about that honestly.