Laura Bush: Gay Marriage Is Coming

May 12, 2010

by Brian Leubitz

Former First Lady is going around on a book tour, touting how sane and normal she is. And, compared to her husband and his administration, I guess she is. And apparently gay marriage is one of the areas of dispute between the two:

King: “So would that be an area where you (and George) disagree?”
LB: “I guess that would be an area that we disagree. I understand totally what George thinks and what other people think about marriage being between a man and a woman, and it’s a real reversal … to accept gay marriage.”
King: “But you do?”
LB: “But I think we could. I think it’s also a generational thing.”
King: “You think it’s coming?”
LB: “Yeah, that (it) will come.” (hat tip to Dallas Voice)

She’s right, of course. That’s why you are seeing a “new generation” of younger Republicans, think Meghan McCain, openly supporting marriage equality. Gay-bashing is so ten years ago, don’t you know we’re all the rage now?

Of course, it’s nice to rainbow wash the Bush administration’s hateful efforts by throwing Laura Bush out there as a symbol of moderation. However, when it comes down to it, George W Bush and Karl Rove cynically used our personal lives as a way to scare voters. And meanwhile, as one Republican in Alabama is busy denying that he ever believed in evolution, don’t expect that the days of our community being used as a scapegoat are over. Sure, we’re used more sparingly, and perhaps only regionally, but it’s real. We desperately need to win an election to show that these practices are no longer welcome.

Book it now: California, 2012. We’re going to repeal Prop 8.

Filed under: Uncategorized

Intellectual Contortions Testimony: Equality on Trial launching tomorrow

211358 CommentsLaura+Bush%3A+Gay+Marriage+Is+Coming2010-05-12+16%3A41%3A36Brian+Leubitz Leave a Comment

1. Ronnie | May 12, 2010 at 2:52 am

How many people believe that Mr. Bush's (hehehe) ideology was "you're the wife now quit your B!t<hing and cook my dinner"…….?

I'm just saying…he is the man who said "I can't smell because I can't see"….on that HBO special…

I believe that Laura is good people…despite her husband…….<3…Ronnie
2. Gregory in Salt Lake | May 12, 2010 at 2:54 am

I've always had appreciation for Laura Bush. In 2002 I had the opportunity be her waiter, along with Jackie Leavitt, the Utah governor's wife, at a private luncheon. During the incomprehensible actions of her husband, I never lost my esteem for her. She seemed genuine, down-to-earth and nonjudgmental as I observed her conversations from close proximity. Glad to see she is speaking up thanks for the post Brian.
3. JerzLaw | May 12, 2010 at 4:42 am

Right now, it is a generational thing. And anyone who discusses this, knows it is an inevitability in the future.

One question I have is (when/if the Prop 8 case makes it to the Supreme Court), whether Roberts wants his court to make a decision on an eventually that will come to pass.

Part of me hopes Roberts' ego will make him want to be on the right side of history when this case lands in his court… and overturn Prop 8 in the broadest way possible – marriage equality for all.

But I fear he is more in the Scalia/Alito camp and would never support such a decision regardless of the way the nation is going.

I'm thinking of that racist beckoning call by George Wallace: "Segregation today. Segregation tomorrow…" despite the fact that history was quickly moving to destroy segregation.
4. Carvel | May 12, 2010 at 4:51 am

Laura Bush was loyal to her husband and did not make waves while he was in office. Her husband is a conservative right wing religious man who feels threatened by gays. I understand her loyality, but she should have simply said that it was something they disagreed on.

However, she still does not get it and most people do not get it. Traditional marriage is not between a man and a woman. Since they have had same-sex relations between people sind the beginning of time same-sex relations are traditional. It is mentioned in the old testament. Certainly you don't mention something and condemn it if it doesn't occurr. they had same-sex marriages called marriages since before the birth of Jesus. It wasn't until 425 AD or CE that Rome forbid same sex marriages which it used to permit.

Where the H*** do they get off saying that something that is older than Christianity is not traditional. Just because the Christian (read Catholic) church changed the secular laws does not make their religious beliefs traditional. During the times of the witch hunts in Europe the church is known to have put to death and condemned more than a 100,000 women as witches and had them killed and confiscated their proptery.

Just because the church does it does not make it traditional. The church only required the man and the woman in a marriage to live together in the last 500 years, so traditionally they didn't live together. Traditionally we didn't pay income taxes in this country until the last less than 100 years.

they throw around that word traditionally as if it is some authority for something. Traditionally, they put Christians to death in the arena with the lions. Traditionally, lots of things occurred that we have outlawed today. We used to glorify gun fights in the old west, but today the participants would both be locked up.

She is probably a nice person, but she married a man who was pushed up by his father's wealth, power and financial friends. A real shame that the problem with most presidents is that they are place holders until people who are real leaders come along.
5. Harriet Forman | May 12, 2010 at 5:02 am

From your mouth to G-d's ears! So be it!
6. rick | May 12, 2010 at 5:12 am

I love Laura! I wish she wouldn't smoke like a chimney though, she will die on me way too soon. I don't know why she married Goerge. But she loves the children and she is cool with gays, so she is cool with me!
7. rick | May 12, 2010 at 5:24 am

i think she was reffering to tradition in our own country, obviously we have not been around long enough to expereince something so fair as same sex marriage. I would say you are right their idea of tradition is a bit (lot) scewed.
8. rick | May 12, 2010 at 5:33 am

I would also like to say she needs to do something about those eyebrows. That is not a good look girl.
9. Chris | May 12, 2010 at 5:44 am

"Book it now: California, 2012. We’re going to repeal Prop 8. "

If the California Gay Rights groups really believed in repeal it would be on the ballot in 2010, only many these groups decided not to be involved and some actually encouraged people not to sign the repeal. While gathering signatures, I had less trouble getting straight people to support repeal than gay folk. Our supposed "advocate" organizations don't actually want change for us.
10. Straight Ally #3008 | May 12, 2010 at 5:46 am

I'm confident that evolution deniers are, to a person, all against same-sex marriage. It's the same reasoning – it's in the Bible, so it must be true, however, they pick and choose the issues to which they want it to apply. Case in point: how many of them literally give up all of their worldly possessions? It's quite the opposite; people like Pat Robertson are multi-millionaires.

Other thoughts: I think it was overshadowed by Prop 8 and Question 1, but Referendum 71 in Washington State was the first major LGBT equal rights victory at the ballot box. As for California:

Prop 22 (2000): 61% yes, 39% no
Prop 8 (2008): 52% yes, 48% no
2012: ????
11. Richard A. Walter (s | May 12, 2010 at 5:56 am

Yes, and this is yet another example of a woman who is not afraid to speak her mind. Think Cindy McCain.
However, I don't think this is an attempt to rainbow wash George W.'s administration. This is more about Laura finally having the opportunity to say what she has wanted to say for years but was not able to due to her position as FLOTUS.
12. Kathleen | May 12, 2010 at 6:29 am

Our supposed “advocate” organizations don’t actually want change for us

Chris, I don't read the failure to get the issue on the ballot for 2010 as an indication the advocate orgs don't want change (though I suspect it is true for the HRC, but that's a different matter).

I think a lot of people feel that the resources it would take to mount a repeal effort in 2010 would be better put elsewhere for now. If Prop 8 is overturned at the ballot box, before this case (Perry)has a chance to make its way through the courts, it would basically put an end to the case. If this challenge to Prop 8 in the federal courts is successful, it will mean marriage equality at least in California, and possibly across the nation. And if it's not successful, it is still possible to overturn Prop 8 at the ballot box.

In addition to the above consideration, I think many think the chances of successfully overturning Prop 8 through a vote are greater in 2012 than they would be this year.

My point is that the lack of support for the initiative drive isn't necessarily a sign that no change is wanted; it could be a difference of opinion about how best to proceed.
13. Monty | May 12, 2010 at 6:34 am

It's a sad day when someone running for a major government position feels that they have to fight an accusation that they agree with mainstream science. My faith in society continues to erode.
14. Kathleen | May 12, 2010 at 7:01 am

UPDATE: Proponents' reply in support of their motion to supplement the record – Doc 669 http://www.scribd.com/doc/31278046/Doc-669
15. Kathleen | May 12, 2010 at 7:01 am

Also, filed on Monday, but somehow I missed it. Just uploaded:
Doc 668 – Declaration in support of D-Is reply in support of Motion to strike/reconsider, with two attachments (Exhibits A & B) http://www.scribd.com/doc/31277992/Doc-668
16. Ronnie | May 12, 2010 at 7:07 am

Justice & Karma go hand in hand…Jorge Steven Lopez Mercado, a teenager, was brutally murdered for being Gay in Puerto Rico……well his killer, Juan Jose Martinez Matos, has been sentenced to 99 years…Personally I think the courts are being to kind.. >[ … Ronnie:
http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ch=news&s…
17. Monty | May 12, 2010 at 7:11 am

Unfortunately, justice only goes so far. It can't undo the crime. That's why we can never stop fighting for acceptance.
18. Tim | May 12, 2010 at 7:15 am

Chris, Kathleen pretty much said what I was going to say but she is much faster than I. I had to go to another post to make sure I got my names straight but to late! LOL..
What I was going to say was , I am one that did not support a 2010 ballot measure because I think we have a better chance (right now) with Perry vs Shwarzenegger & Olsen and Boies.
I have always thought that going state by state was/is a waist of time and money. Especialy lwith Maggie and her church's deep pocket books on our tail after every ballot measure!
We have a better chance of *Equality for all* not just for California by combining all our efforts and money in one direction rather than 50 directions.

This is an issue that effects all the LGBT communities of this country, not just one state.
So no we still support "Repeal" but now we are being smarter and much more careful to not screw it up this time. Love Tim…
19. Pete | May 12, 2010 at 7:19 am

It always makes me laugh how when folks are IN office, these HOT topics they shy away from or do the normal, I'm against it, let's protest marriage, blah blah, but once they are out, where it's safe to say what you want, they are for some of these hot topics. Not that Laura was in office, which she wasn't. I'm just saying, so much safer AFTER to voice your REAL opinion, coward in my book and her book, blah blah blah.
20. Tim | May 12, 2010 at 7:21 am

Sorry about the typos.
I vote to take this to the US supreme court, not, state by state!
21. Tim | May 12, 2010 at 7:22 am

I agree Pete! Much too little Much too late!
22. Craig | May 12, 2010 at 7:30 am

I think Mrs. Bush is cowardly. She could have been a voice of reason back when it mattered, but stood by while her husband threw us all under the bus just to incite conservative fear. Why even speak up at all now? Hm, probably because it seems personally advantageous to her to do so.

She's certainly no hero to the gay community; but on the other hand, she is probably indicative of what others will begin to do — after milking our suppression for their personal gain, once the tide turns, they'll milk supporting us for their personal gain. She is no different than the man she married – she just seems a little nicer.

There is no honor nor courage in saying stuff only based on how you think you will be received…. the principle of federal civil equality is not valid only when it seems fashionable.

How convenient for her to say how open-minded and fair she was back when there was not a shred of evidence of that…

I think she is pathetic.

Having said all that, now we have YET ANOTHER conservative to the LEFT of where our supposed "fierce advocate" Mr. Obama is on this issue…..

Regardless of her motivations, this ultra conservative Wife-Of-A-Wacko is now closer to being a "fierce advocate" than the guy in the whit house who should be ALL OVER matters of civil equality.

The irony is unbelievable.
23. Rhonda | May 12, 2010 at 7:54 am

[youtube
24. Ronnie | May 12, 2010 at 7:57 am

lol….I saw that early…<3…Ronnie

Freedom means freedom for everyone. – Dick Cheney

"Freedom is for those who can afford it." – the teabaggers.

In this country by history it is traditional to keep Blacks as slaves. It is traditional that women can not vote. It is traditional that you can not open businesses on Sunday. It is traditional that women stay home and do not get a job. It is traditional that you do not have television. Electricity is not traditional as for most of our history we have not had it. Tradition is just a catch phrase to lie to you about something.

You are so right Craig, and Obama is the same. He could be the first Black president that could free another minority. It would be a political first. He doesn't have the testicles that his wife probably has. He isn't willing to put his political life on the line for us. Too bad and what a shame.

"Book it now: California, 2012. We’re going to repeal Prop 8. "

Forgive my ignorance, but isn't the point of the Prop 8 Trial that this website was created to Track to overturn Prop 8 (thereby denying Californians to opportunity to repeal it) ?

“Book it now: California, 2012. We’re going to repeal Prop 8. ”

Why isn't the repeal on the 2010 ballot? Oh, wait. I know. Not enough signatures to get it on the ballot.

Embarrassing.

How odd to use a homophobic slur on a site like this.

Damn, looks like I'm going to miss out on the trollslaying. Have fun with this one, everybody.

Which homophobic slur is that – "Dick Cheney"?

If we win the federal trial, and both this judge and the 9th district court deny a stay, then Prop 8 is struck down pending further appeals, correct?

I've been researching what it takes to grant a stay of a decision, and it doesn't seem that the bigots will get a stay from Judge Walker…so that means that they will then request the 9th district court for a stay. If that court denies it, then Prop 8 is struck down…which means that gay marriage could be legal again this summer in California. Does anyone think that this is likely to occur?

I'm pretty sure that had to do with the competing 2010/2012 organizations. A lot of people were wary of putting it on the ballot again this year.

36. Kathleen | May 12, 2010 at 10:34 am

This link is somewhat old, but it seemed something people here should read, if they haven't. EQCA asking for input on messaging wrt marriage equality. http://www.lgbtpov.com/2010/03/eqcas-marc-solomon…
37. Carvel | May 12, 2010 at 11:05 am

No. The majority of the people WHO VOTED in California are against it so I doubt that the court will stay the enforcement of Prop 8 until the higher courts rule on the issue. It would be nice if they did. It would be even better if they did and the appeals courts denied the appeal and the Supreme court denied to hear the case and let the lower court ruling become law.

However, it will not happen like this. the high court will ultimately decide thie issue and the more I see the make up of the court the less certain i am of a win for us. We need public opinion to swing in a major way in our direction. president Obama could do it. He doesn't have the testicles to take a stand for us.

The lower court, the Federal District Court had better have a well reasoned opinion and detailed findings of fact that support our case or we are dead in the water. Sure, the legal reasoning is there, but in the end it comes down to the vote of nine people in black dresses that vote on our civil rights. I think that while there is not a federal constitutional right to a same-sex marriage there is a federal right to engage in same-sex relationships which the court has already ruled.

the next step is a tiny step to take and if they do not take that step then they will set back the legal evolution of this country for decades. They made that mistake in Bowers and had to correct it in Lawrence which was about TWO DECADES later and caused untold millions of people to suffer for an additional two decades of abuse, harassment and injustice. I know a small period of time in the entire scheme of things, but significant to those of us who live it and who don't have two decades of life left in us.

I predict that if we are denied there will be civil disobedience over the next coming years the likes of which that will be amazing. I remember what happened during the Vietnahm war protests. A president finally caved in to an unpopular war, but it took a decade of unnecessary suffering.

Our only hope is that a lot of these DOMA cases and the DADT policies will be reviewed before this case gets to the Supreme Court and they will all be coming to a head about the same time. The handwriting is on the wall for those who can see it and read it.

Look at how long it took for the courts to finally concede that smoking causes lung cancer and other cancers. It is absurd to put our trust and faith in the legal system of popular vote at the Supreme Court level, but what else do we have. That is why we must get all the political and popular support we can now. that is why the religious right should now become the religious wrong. We need to start labeling them the religious zelots and bigots and not the religious right. they are the religious wrong and the religious extremists. They would have our country be like the Muslum states and impose the standards of their religion as law upon everyone.

If so we need to lobby for outlawing divorce and all sorts of things in the Bible. We need to amend all their religious legislation to add that all businesses close on both Saturday which is the original or traditional Sabbath of thousands of years ago and also on Sunday which is the Christian Sabbath of just the last less than two thousand years. they like tradition so much, lets give them traditional values in laws that they would hate. Then see if they are willing to let us legislate their religious values into law.

Remember traditionally men of the cloth can not and do not marry. It is only in the last few hundred years when Martin Luther broke with Rome that ministers and men of the cloth can marry. therefore traditional marriage does not include ministers or dlergy. They are so full of feces that it isn't funny. Sorry about the ranting, but I am tired of their rhetoric. They just need someone to stand up to them.
38. Kathleen | May 12, 2010 at 11:23 am

Just for clarification, I think Kevin was asking if the result of a favorable decision would be stayed, not whether the court would stay enforcement of Prop 8.

There has been discussion of this before and there are different opinions. Personally, I think that if Plaintiffs win this case, the decision will be stayed — either by the district court or the 9th Circuit — pending appeal. But I've been wrong before.
39. Richard A. Walter (s | May 12, 2010 at 11:34 am

I love it. Show the antis just how ridiculous they are being by going all the way to the extreme! Way to Go!
40. Richard A. Walter (s | May 12, 2010 at 11:38 am

Tradition–a word thrown by the oppressors when they are beginning to see that those they have too long oppressed are about to become stong enough to throw off the shackles, or when those same oppressed people have their cry heard by the powers that be.
41. Lora | May 12, 2010 at 5:16 pm

I agree!
I also think Laura is wrong in saying that "it's something that needs to be debated"….there should be no debate. Equal rights now!

Also…we don't want "the same sort of rights"… we demand nothing but THE SAME RIGHTS as everyone else!
42. Hanou | May 12, 2010 at 6:59 pm

Listening, she said that she understands that other people feel that it is a tradition. And ultimately a tradition is something people feel is, and should be, a tradition.

Now, as a UU, I feel that a marriage is between any two consenting adults, since that's how I was brought up. I do find it upsetting that the religious freedom argument gets very little play from this side, since my religious freedom says that we marry anyone that wants to be married in our church.

Saying "you can have civil unions but marriage is religious", well, my religion approved that marriage!
43. Carvel | May 13, 2010 at 1:52 am

I do not think that anything will happen until the Supreme Court either hears and decides the case or refuses to hear it and lets stand a lower court ruling.
44. Carvel | May 13, 2010 at 1:54 am

Yes, but we need to attack on all fronts and see which avenue gets us there first.
45. Carvel | May 13, 2010 at 2:05 am

I guess I fell that she is full of **** so does that make it a tradition. Tradition in politics is that you say whatever you have to say to get elected and then sell out to the next highest bidder.

We learned a long time ago that separate but equal was against the law was unamerican and just plain wrong. So they now want separate but equal marriage by another name. Lets do this. All civil marriages are now called civil unions and each church can sanction what marriages they want and they get the exclusive use of the word marriage. However, the state does not recognize marriage any long, only civil unions. They would all have a fit.

It is just another way and another example of how they play Animal Farm with us. All unions are equal but some unions are more equal. (Remember, all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal.)

It proves that you can be just as smart as the average guy and still be president as the presidents have not gotten the point. It also proves that you can be first lady and not get the point either. It is one thing to disagree with the point but when you can not intelligently articulate the reason you disagree, then the least you can do is t o shut up. You are just adding to the confusion and helping resolve the problem.

We are not particularly brilliant people, we have just lived with the problem for the last few hundred years and they are using emotional arguments and not reasoning or logic.

It is a shame because I would love to see a really good discussion on the television or cable with people who want to intelligently discuss the issues and not throw emotions around to try and frighten people.
46. JC | May 13, 2010 at 12:04 pm

I totally disagree. If it was wrong to have people vote on our civil rights the first time, it sure as he'll ain't right to do it again. Civil rights are NOT a voting matter!!!!!! Ever. Period. I will not financially support any group that advocates this. I will continue to be out and having conversations about my wife and marriage, but there is no way in fucking he'll that I will support ANY vote on my civil rights.
47. Carvel | May 13, 2010 at 3:17 pm

The problem with voting on civil rights of a minority is that the majority will not usually vote to give civil rights to minorities. Perhaps we need to couple it with other things that the majority want. You know, play politics with the issue and it they don't support our civil rights then they lose some of theirs.

It has been TRADITIONAL that only the courts find minority civil rights in the application of laws and the majority just has to go along with it.
48. eDee | May 14, 2010 at 12:47 am

We are still debating this on FaceBook!
Not sure if anyone can see it: http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/profile.php?i…

Can you guess by the responses that they are ALL Good Christians? lol
49. Carvel | May 14, 2010 at 2:13 am

They can not all be GOOD CHRISTIANS if any are married, if they cursed God or cursed their parents. If any committed adultery or married a woman that was not a virgin. If they eat pork or shellfish, rabbit and other certain animals they are not good Christians. If they go out and burn witches at the stake then they are good Christians. I suppose they should stone (as in to death) juvenile deliquents, prostitutes and other people condemned in the Bible. I am tired of hypocrites. they only see their standards and not anything else.

I am proud that they consider themselves GOOD CHRISTIANS and of course do not consider me a GOOD CHRISTIAN. I just never thought that a GOOD CHRISTIAN sat in judgment of other Christians. Perhaps we should let the Muslum radicals sit in judgment of the GOOD CHRISTIANS and they would understand what religious tolerance is and the difference between religious belief and religious opression.
50. Monty | May 14, 2010 at 4:00 am

But are they True Christians?
51. eDee | May 14, 2010 at 6:06 am

@Monty, lol I'm sure they think so.

It saddens me that they can't see how they are promoting religious oppression.

And the part that really gets me is that even though I don't agree with their point of view, I can understand it. It's got to be very scary, gay = straight to hell – if you believe in hell that's scary!
But to not even entertain another point of view. They can't fathom the other side of the coin. I feeling like asking "You don't have to agree, but can you at the very least understand where I'm coming from?"
Neither can they do anything to defend their point other than attack.

I wonder how people we love some much can be so closed minded. How can those who taught me "Jesus loves everyone" not practice what they preach.
Sometimes I feel like my entire childhood was a lie.
52. Carvel | May 14, 2010 at 6:13 am

Dear eDee
Your entire childhood was a lie when you defected and switched to the other side and either became gay or accepted gays. Your childhood is only valid if you grow up to be a good little girl and believe all the things that they told you to believe. When you changed and accepted the mortal sin of being gay or accepting gays, you gave up all rights and all civil rights. At least that is what they would have you believe and also enact into law.
53. Monty | May 14, 2010 at 6:22 am

There are plenty of Christians who reconcile their belief with acceptance of gays, even finding perfectly reasonable (in my opinion, at least) interpretations of the popular anti-gay Bible verses to support their position. Since that is clearly possible, it means that the bigots aren't worried that their religion is wrong – they are worried that they are wrong. Sheer arrogance.
54. eDee | May 14, 2010 at 10:20 am

Carvel,
You're right …… and they said no one leaves the dark side!
It would be easier to live amidst the fluid gray, but alas the Bible teaches us we cannot have a foot in both worlds – so here I am, trying to figure out how to become a Jedi Knight.

I wonder if they would be more condemning if I were gay or if their shame would over take them and make them nervously polite.
55. Sheryl | May 14, 2010 at 3:19 pm

The Bible also teaches us to love one another. To do unto others as you would have others do unto you. Admittedly, I'm not a Biblical scholar, but I've never found passages that say I should hate oppress those who are different than me. It is so sad to me when people use religion as a basis for putting other people down.

AND, civil rights are not the same as Religious Freedom. Civil rights for all will in no way affect a person's right to practice their religion. Churches will not be required to hold same sex marriages in their chapels, Mormons will not be forced to perform temple marriages for same sex couples (heck, a lot of heterosexual Mormon couples don't qualify for a temple ceremony.

Sheryl, a straight Mormon with a gay son
56. Jerry & Carol Cu | August 14, 2010 at 10:33 am

I believe that Laura bush has forgotten the teachings of her youth. How can such a lady possible think that Same sex marriage might be something that God will see as acceptable? She has evidently forgotten the rudiments that were absolutely part of her upbringing. God will not look upon the same sex marriage issue, nor will he look favorably upon Laura Bush for her extremely liberal viewpoint on this issue.

Laura, Read your Bible!
57. Richard A. Walter (s | August 14, 2010 at 11:41 am

And if you were to read yours in the proper way, you would see that all of the laws you claim Rabbi Yoshua ben Yosef "fulfilled" at his death would include the very same ones you wish to invoke as still valid, based on nothing more than Pauline opinion. You are also forgetting that those laws in Leviticus were directed toward the Levitical priesthood, thus the name of the book, Leviticus. And if you have any further questions, I will direct them to my husband, who is a Lubavitcher Hasidic rabbi. So nice of you to judge someone based on texts that have been mistranslated and misinterpreted ever since the Catholic Church got it hands on them.
58. Ronnie | August 15, 2010 at 1:58 pm

"How can such a lady possible think that Same sex marriage might be something that God will see as acceptable?"

Because Laura Bush is human, she has a heart & soul, goodness, empathy, Love, & compassion, strong ethics & morals. She's a good woman….<3…Ronnie

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

TrackBack URL | RSS feed for comments on this post.

Prop 8 Trial Tracker

Perry v. Schwarzenegger: Tracking the right-wing