Methane Leak indicated portential problem for industrial-type Carbon Capture and Storage.

Tom Murphy of the UCSD Physics Department has an interesting post on his Do The Math blog on carbon capture and storage. One method is trapping carbon dioxide (CO2) with sodium hydroxide (NaOH) dissolved in water and absorbed into sheets. A diagram shows that the CO2 reacts with the NaOH to create carbonate solids and water. A natural gas flame then cooks the solids to liberate the carbon as CO2, which is then filtered out and pumped under appropriate pressure into a "safe place," such as an underground oil reservoir.

He has included the sketch shown below:

Source: Carbon Engineering; Credit: Nelson Hsu, NPR -
via Do The Math, "Putting the Genie back in the Toothpaste Tube"

Well there's been a recent natural gas (methane - CH4) storage chamber in an old depleted oil well at Aliso Canyon in Southern California that's been leaking methane for quite a few days now. It appears that simply capping it will not be an option; a relief well will have to be drilled instead.

Why Engineers Can’t Stop Los Angeles’ Enormous Methane Leak

“Our efforts to stop the flow of gas by pumping fluids directly down the well have not yet been successful, so we have shifted our focus to stopping the leak through a relief well,” Anne Silva, a spokesperson for the Southern California Gas Company, told Motherboard, adding that the company is still exploring other options to stop the leak. “The relief well process is on schedule to be completed by late February or late March.”

Part of the problem in stopping the leak lies in the base of the well, which sits 8,000 feet underground. Pumping fluids down into the will, usually the normal recourse, just isn’t working…

So far, over 150 million pounds of methane have been released by the leak, which connects to an enormous underground containment system. Silva says that the cause of the leak is still unknown, but research by EDF has also revealed that more than 38 percent of the pipes in Southern California Gas Company’s territory are more than 50 years old, and 16 percent are made of made from corrosion- and leak-prone materials.

Right now, relief efforts have drilled only 3,800 feet down—less than half of the way to the base of the well. At that rate, the torrent of methane pouring into California won’t be stopped any time soon.

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/why-we-cant-stop-the-enormous-methane-leak-flooding-la -- hat tip to dtlange at Robertscribbler.

Let's see... doing the math, 150 million pounds is 70,000 US tons or 68,000 metric tons, i.e., 68 kT. That's not much for a total atmospheric methane burden of about 5 GT (5 billion metric tons) but we should be aware that there may be escaping gas problems in the future with industrial carbon capture and storage, especially if we try to capture as much CO2 and stuff into the spent wells as would fit in there.

Plus we must remember the Macondo Well (Deep Horizon) Blowout let 4.9 million barrels (210 million US gal; 780,000 m³) with approximate mass/weight of  1.5 billion pounds or 670 kT of crude oil, an unknown amount of methane into the Gulf of Mexico, chased by 1.84 million gallons of "Corexit." The Louisiana marshes and the Mississippi, Alabama and Florida Gulf Coasts were very much adversely affected and fouled by this, ecologically they are still not as healthy as they would be otherwise.

Then, of course, is the amount of CO2 created by the combustion of natural gas, the making of the sodium hydroxide, the operation of the carbon dioxide capture apparatus and the final storage of the CO2. Tom Murphy figured that the amount of CO2 created by power required for the capture and storage of carbon dioxide and related work is about 50 kg CO2 for every 350 kg captured and stored -- then he did a reality check and found he was off by 3.6 times on the optimistic side, which means the amount captured and stored would be about double the amount generated by the capture and storage machinery! Considering we have billions and billions of metric tons of Carbon that must be pulled out of the air to achieve the 2 degrees C (over 1880s values) goal of limited global warming, my gut feeling tells me that might not able to be done, given the limited amount of fossil fuel reserves left in the ground so far.

Prop 8 Trial Re-Enactment, Day 3 Chapter 4

The Defense-Intervenors' Attorney Nicole Moss, who, according to various livebloggers watching the proceedings, was utterly snotty and condescending, cross-examines Dr. Peplau. Ms. Moss gets Professor Peplau to acknowledge that there are hardly any empirical studies which show that same-sex couples benefit from marriage or benefit more from marriage than from domestic partnerships and later on that we don’t have enough years of experience with marriage in Massachusetts to know empirically whether same-sex couples’ marrying has had an effect on heterosexual marriage. In standing her ground, Professor Peplau replies that researchers know enough about stigma and discrimination against LGBT people and how they affect relationships to predict confidently that same-sex couples would benefit from having our right to marry recognised. Responding to questions about monogamy, Professor Peplau notes that a lower proportion of gay men report valuing it than the proportions among lesbians and married heterosexual couples, although she stresses that some studies were snapshots of gay men in particular places and past times (like L.A. in the 70s / early 80s). Ms. Moss drags Professor Peplau through a drudgery of an "analysis" of complicated numerical hypotheticals about marriages of same-sex couples in Belgium and the Netherlands, though Professor Peplau insists on her lack of foreign jurisdiction expertise and notes that rates of marriage of same-sex couples in Massachusetts are much higher than Moss’s hypotheticals from Belgian data. Echoing arguments from New York State and Washington State cases rejecting same-sex couples’ right to marry, Ms. Moss secures Professor Peplau’s agreement that same-sex couples don’t accidentally get pregnant and have kids the way heterosexuals do. Professor Peplau suggests that the influence of individualism on some decline of marriage has nothing to do with gay and lesbian people -- but of course! Heterosexual couples divorce because the individuals end up having irreconcilable differences with each other, usually over money.

On redirect examination by Plaintiffs' Attorney Christopher Dusseault, Professor. Peplau observes that she knows nothing suggesting gay and lesbian people are more individualistic than heterosexually identified people or less concerned about the welfare of their children. The day then closes with a little discussion about broadcasting the trial or not -- I believe they ended up deciding not to, thanks to certain Justices at SCOTUS.



Credit to MarriageTrial.com.

Let me close with something timely and inspiring from Mr. Smith Goes to Washington: "Liberty is too precious to be buried in books."



And just like today, this movie shows that back then, the Senate was utterly corrupt.

Prop 8 Trial Re-Enactment, Day 3 Chapter 3

San Francisco City and County Attorney Therese Stewart wraps up the re-direct examination of the Plaintiffs' expert witness Professor George Chauncey.

Plaintiffs’ attorney Christopher Dusseault then begins direct examination of Letitia Anne Peplau, a Harvard educated social psychologist on the psychology faculty at UCLA, an expert on close personal relationships, sexual orientation, and gender. Ms. Peplau adds to the plaintiffs’ story by testifying that Proposition 8 hurts gay people who would benefit from marriage. She also testified that Proposition 8 does not harm opposite-sex marriage, which strips the defendants of their only "good" reason for passing Proposition 8, HAHAHA.

She testifies, based on her own research and other experts’ work, that for those adults who choose to marry, marriage is often associated with a wide range of important material, emotional and spiritual benefits, partly due to the revered status of marriage in society; that there are remarkable similarities between same-sex couples and heterosexual couples in respects such as relationship satisfaction, commitment, and stability; that same-sex couples will likely enjoy the same benefits from civil marriage that different-sex couples currently enjoy, consistent with self-reports from same-sex couples who married in Massachusetts (only more so when same-sex marriage is legal nationwide); and that allowing same-sex couples to marry will not harm heterosexual marriage, neither causing fewer different-sex couples to marry nor causing more of them to divorce. She explains that same-sex couples married when it became legal in Massachusetts at higher rates than they had entered civil unions or domestic partnerships. She concludes her direct testimony by noting that the existence of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts for four years has had zero affect on opposite-sex marriages.




Kudos to MarriageTrial.com.

Prop 8 Trial Re-Enactment, Day 3 Chapter 2

The Defense-Intervenor's Attorney David Thompson completes his cross-examination of the Plaintiffs' expert witness Professor George Chauncey on discrimination against gay men and lesbians in the history in the United States. The SF City and County Attorney Therese Stewart, redirects the witness.

As the day opens, Attorney David Thompson confronts Chauncey with all manner of evidence, including his own work that things have not changed for the better for gays and lesbians in the United States and trying to get him to concede on the stand that gay men and lesbians have amassed significant political power in the US. Chauncey stoutly tries and succeeds to limit the effect of his prior statements by insisting that the improvements are incomplete due to political polarisation. THANK YOU, CLINTON. THANK YOU, ROVE. THANK YOU, BUSH. He also asserts that the process of integrating gays into American social life slowed or stopped in 2004, when a bunch of states passed Proposition-8-like initiatives to utterly ban gay and lesbian marriage, and sometimes civil unions, explicitly in their state constitutions. Chauncey resists and insists that such these ballot question setbacks and other forms of antigay discrimination is based on a view that same-sex relationships are unequal and inferior. Thompson makes the big mistake of not restricting Chauncey to simply saying yes or no.

Chauncey scored a very important point against the D-I Team, disputing their claim that being taught about same-sex marriage is bad for children. As revealed during the trial's first day, the Yes On 8 Campaign included a TV commercial relating how a Massachusetts grade school now includes fairy tales that end with the prince marrying the prince. Cross-examining gay plaintiff Paul Katami on Day One, defense lawyer Raum backed him up into a corner and managed to get him to waffle on whether or not parents could legitimately object to that, cleverly conflating the meaning of “morality,” and implying that any mention of homosexual marriage is tantamount to sex education! Again, Thompson makes the strategic error of trying to back Professor Chauncey into the same corner! Describing the Massachusetts fairy tale ad: “Is it reasonable for parents who morally disapprove of homosexuality to want to wait until the fifth or sixth grade for those sorts of issues to be taught in public school?”

Instead of being derailed by the red herring about sex, Chauncey immediately sees through the question: “Well, would you say that people who morally disapprove of racial equality or racial marriage should be able to insist that no books showing black and white people as equal or black and white people in relationships should be kept out of the schools?”

And then Chauncey drives the point home, skewering the old magical thinking that exposure of children to even the mention of LGBT people will automatically make the little tykes gay: “And in this case the child is simply being exposed to the existence of gay people. And I take note that the parents don't express concern just about marriage, but about homosexuality at all.”

On Therese Stewart's redirect, Chauncey reiterates that the Proposition 8 ballot question itself said nothing about children or what parents can teach them or what they’re taught in school. He clarified that there have long been people whose attractions today might lead them to be identified as gay; that there had been African Americans who questioned integration as a goal; that the progress made by lesbigay people in quarters such as academia has been only partial; that the majority of religious institutions and their congregants still oppose same-sex couples’ marrying and even “homosexuality”; that such religious views can be affected by anti-gay stereotypes, which were dredged up by Yes on 8 and other antigay campaigns before and since. He further stressed that these sorts of campaigns invariably reduce LGBT people to the sex act, essentially turning us into animals and "unnatural" ones at that!: "It focuses entirely -- it suggests the focus on homosexuality entirely as a matter of sexuality, not love, not relationships. This is actually a book about two princes falling in love and it's a fairy tale. It doesn't talk about sex. It's another fairy tale that seems appropriate to that age."

This is critical! Reducing us gay men and lesbians to absolutely nothing but sex and then invoking the sexual innocence of children has been a very effective strategy for the opponents of gay marriage, who prey on the magical thinking of misinformed people! Chauncey reveals what is really going on: libel, slander, and defamation of character in a smear campaign worthy of Goebbels! Would Thompson say that people who disapprove of interracial marriage should be allowed to pull their children out of school when they study the civil rights movement? HAHAHA.






Many thanks to to MarriageTrial.com.

Prop 8 Trial Re-Enactment, Day 3 Chapter 1

Thompson’s cross-examination of Professor Chauncey continues today. He is trying to get Professor Chauncey to concede that LGBT people have amassed significant political power, but the professor stands his ground that LGBT people are still relatively powerless because of the severe polarization caused by the continuous and ongoing backlash from "Religious Right" groups. At several points the D-I's attorney gets to be pretty damn annoying!



Video from MarriageTrial.com's YouTube page.

Prop 8 Trial Re-Enactment - Day 2 Chapter 5

Therese Stewart, Attorney for the City of San Francisco, conducts the direct examination of Yale professor George Chauncey of Yale University, is the leading expert in the country on the history of gay life in America. Chauncey’s testimony will address factors previously treated as relevant to the level of scrutiny, that is, how deferential or skeptical courts will be toward government, certain kinds of discrimination receive under the 14th Amendment of our Constitution. It took two transcript paragraphs to list the prizes won by his book, “Gay New York,” (I read that, it's at the Boston Public Library) which included a trail-blazing analysis of how discrimination against homosexuals (especially gay men) developed alongside the repeal of Prohibition in the early 1930’s (the Hayes committee is one notorious example -- it eliminated gay visibility in the movies) and with the rise of McCarthyism after World War II (a Lavender Scare grew up and exceeded the Red Scare). So his testimony is about how lesbians and gay men were made a "suspect class" for benefit of the hetero majority only, and have suffered widespread and acute discrimination and fearmongering over the course of the 20th Century. He explains how more than just sodomy laws were used to try to keep gay and lesbian people even from patronizing and gathering in bars, how military anti-gay policy came about, persecution and purging of gay and lesbian government employees and even priivate sector employees and the enabling of hate crimes. The bloody discrimination reinforced enduring patterns of anti-gay prejudice and hostility, forcing lesbians and especially gay men to endure the toll of the closet. The closet made LGBT people utterly invisible and has perpetuated “demonic stereotypes” of gay people, including past and present themes of gay men and lesbians as threats to children starting in the '50s, the latest examples being the images of such threats presented in the media in support of Proposition 8. He explains thoroughly that which the plaintiffs are arguing: these scare tactics were a form of irrational prejudice deployed in the Yes on 8 campaign to secure passage of the proposition.

Chauncey has agreed with most modern historians that homosexuality as a category of humanity was discovered only in the late 19th Century. Before that, law and society focused on the acts themselves (sodomy, etc.) and assumed they would come and go in many peoples’ lives. So Thompson, cross-examining again, presses Chauncey to admit that the category “homosexual” is a fluid one with distinctions between acts and identities, and that it’s not exactly clear what it means. As the day ends, Thompson’s cross-examination of Professor Chauncey has only just begun.

Prop 8 Trial Re-Enactment, Day 2 Chapter 4

Therese Stewart, Attorney for the City of San Francisco, conducts the direct examination of Yale professor George Chauncey of Yale University, is the leading expert in the country on the history of gay life in America. Chauncey’s testimony will address factors previously treated as relevant to the level of scrutiny, that is, how deferential or skeptical courts will be toward government, certain kinds of discrimination receive under the 14th Amendment of our Constitution. It took two transcript paragraphs to list the prizes won by his book, “Gay New York,” (I read that, it's at the Boston Public Library) which included a trail-blazing analysis of how discrimination against homosexuals (especially gay men) developed alongside the repeal of Prohibition in the early 1930’s (the Hayes committee is one notorious example -- it eliminated gay visibility in the movies) and with the rise of McCarthyism after World War II (a Lavender Scare grew up and exceeded the Red Scare). So his testimony is about how lesbians and gay men were made a "suspect class" for benefit of the hetero majority only, and have suffered widespread and acute discrimination and fearmongering over the course of the 20th Century. He explains how more than just sodomy laws were used to try to keep gay and lesbian people even from patronizing and gathering in bars, how military anti-gay policy came about, persecution and purging of gay and lesbian government employees and even priivate sector employees and the enabling of hate crimes. The bloody discrimination reinforced enduring patterns of anti-gay prejudice and hostility, forcing lesbians and especially gay men to endure the toll of the closet. The closet made LGBT people utterly invisible and has perpetuated “demonic stereotypes” of gay people, including past and present themes of gay men and lesbians as threats to children starting in the '50s, the latest examples being the images of such threats presented in the media in support of Proposition 8. He explains thoroughly that which the plaintiffs are arguing: these scare tactics were a form of irrational prejudice deployed in the Yes on 8 campaign to secure passage of the proposition.

Chauncey has agreed with most modern historians that homosexuality as a category of humanity was discovered only in the late 19th Century. Before that, law and society focused on the acts themselves (sodomy, etc.) and assumed they would come and go in many peoples’ lives. So Thompson, cross-examining again, presses Chauncey to admit that the category “homosexual” is a fluid one with distinctions between acts and identities, and that it’s not exactly clear what it means. As the day ends, Thompson’s cross-examination of Professor Chauncey has only just begun.

What It's Like for a Gay Youth to Live in an Antigay Household.

I will let Joshua Scarpuzzi tell the story. It's here, beginning at Comment No. 38. He was commenting on the fifth installment of the Courage campaign's liveblog the second day of the Proposition 8 Federal trial in Federal Court in San Francisco, California.

I currently live at home with my family…and the closest description of my mother is Anita. I feel like I'm living in “prayers for Bobby” everyday. It hurts to hear these things, these statements that live off of the fear and ignorance of religious people all over our country. I am good with God, I made my peace years ago and I know where I'm going after this life, and being only 19 and out and in the spotlight of the gay community here in San Diego is rough at times but it makes my stomach churn when I see the young gays who take their rights and freedoms for granted, who haven't been through the hate and shame and isolation many of the older, wiser gays have. And I'm not saying they should go through it. No one should, but I honestly feel that losing Prop 8, and now having this battle in the public eye and discussing all of the shit we've gone through will open the eyes of other kids, families, and the public to see the truth. We have a long way to go and I wish the best for everyone in that court room. Thank you so much for blogging this to us on the outside, it is truly a blessing.

Actualy Joshua experienced a year-long concentrated dose of the hate and shame and isolation many of the older, wiser gays have gone through when his biological family sent him away and had him committed to an abusive, homophobic ex-gay cult.

In October of 2007 I was transported against my will to a behavioral modification camp in western Montana. My parents had me locked in this facility for exactly 365 days of which I spent doing labor, line drills, shock therapy, isolation therapy, among other things. I was starved at times, spit on, molested, called a faggot, and beat up by staff and other kids. These religious hypocritical leaders, and I hate to compare the two (because I would never want to minimize what the Jews went through), are the modern day Nazis of America. They want to govern everyone with their narrow minded bigotry and we have to fight! We have to come out of the closet and say enough is enough!!!!! I survived 365 days of abuse and humiliation because I knew one day I could share my story with the world. I've still not told anyone on this big of a scale but I hope that one person may read this and that one person more will take a stand. I've been out in the real world for a year and 3 months and I still, day to day, get the abuse from my family. We have to keep fighting! For my friends who are still in these camps, for our own future, and for the future of our children. :(

If only Joshua were in the Courtroom telling his story!

There are so many of these “camps”, and so many these that goes on behind the closed doors of Prop 8 supporters, churches, and religious organizations that we never hear about. I've tried a few times to contact gay newspapers, news stations, and magazines as well as police officials to try and bring light to these “camps” but no one has wanted to publish my story. People need to know about the cruelty and hypocrisy that goes on behind the God-following mask they wear!

Yes, the news must be promulgated far and wide that these ex-gay cults are a menace! They've even brought the bogus idea of "reparative therapy" to the shores of the United Kingdom (Great Britain) and much to the UK mainstream media's credit, these dangerous cults are being denounced and discredited over there!

Prop 8 Trial Re-Enactment, Day 2 Chapter 3

The cross-examination of Dr. Nancy Cott is complete and Theodore Boutros redirects for the plaintiffs.

Prop 8 Trial Re-Enactment, Day 2 Chapter 2

The Defendant-Intervenor’s lawyer David Thompson cross-examines Dr. Nancy Cott. He introduces us to the snotty, condescending method of cross-examination the defendants will use throughout the whole trial. Starting off the bat, he tries to undermine her qualifications for her testimony and slime her as a "librul." Presenting a pile of Cott’s statements from a decades-long career, he presses her to recognize defendants’ version of marriage – a Christian, monogamous institution, focused on children -- and to admit the changes she described in direct would destroy the univocal vision. She tries to stick to her original story – that marriage was always partly secular and changed in content as the society changed, mostly, she thinks, for the better – integrating the races, emancipating women. Thompson asks Cott if she agrees with a wide variety of quotations taken from law review articles and other publications on marriage written by other people; she does not agree, for example, that allowing same-sex couples to marry is “breathtakingly subversive.” He does get her to agree with him that thinking of humans in binary male/female terms is universal across cultures, which could feed the defense theme that the Plaintiffs’ are asking the court to experiment in novel and risky ways. [Other witnesses in the trial will address such “third-gender” people as Hijras in India, not to mention that Dr. Cott herself has noted that same-sex marriage in Massachusetts has not prevented the condition of opposite-sex marriage to improve there.] Her testimony is crucial, because Defense-Intervenors’ case depends heavily on establishing that heterosexual union is the only core meaning of marriage, so that any change, however harmless by normal standards of harm, will, by definition, destroy the institution.

Attorney Thompson and Cott address possible religious bases of colonial marriage laws; the legal doctrine called “coverture” and old California laws treating men and women differently in marriage; and the social meaning of marriage, where he gets her to agree that the social understanding of marriage has societal effects and that a person’s views about same-sex couples getting married are “quite affected” by various factors including their friends and their religion. Thompson then explores with Cott the motivations of congressional supporters of the “Defense of Marriage Act” (DOMA), including concerns for social stability, religious beliefs, and fear of a slippery slope to legalized polygamy. He then tries to treat her as an authority on groups’ political power and secures her agreement in effect that there is less prejudice against gay and lesbian people today -- apparently trying to establish as truth the utterly erroneous idea that the LGBT populace has significant political power.

Again, "the gay activist judge" bends over backwards for the Defense!!!

Prop 8 Trial Re-Enactment, Day 2 Chapter 1

In this installment, Atty. Ted Boutros finishes his direct examination of Professor Nancy Cott. Her expert opinion is that there has NOT been a tradition in this country of marriage being strictly for purposes of procreation, marriage has historically been restricted upon the basis of race, marriage has increasingly become a domestic partnership of two equals, same-sex marriage would be beneficial for same-sex couples, and in her home state of Massachusetts divorce rates have dropped slightly (by 2/10ths of 1% out of 100% of all opposite-sex (?) marriages) since same-sex marriage became legally recognised there.

Prop 8 Trial Re-Enactment - Day 1 Chapter 4

Today David Boies completed examining Kristin Perry and examined Sandra Shier. Their testimonies were very poignant. Then, Theodore Boutros examined the plaintiff's expert witness on the history of marriage in the United States, Dr. Nancy Cott, Ph.D. When she tried to testify about marriage outside the US as it pertains to marriage inside the US, she and Mr. Boutros were almost derailed by the defense-intervenor's counsel, saying: "OBJECTION, your honor! It was noted in the deposition that she was only an expert on marriage within the United States and that she is not an expert on marriage outside of the United States," yada yada yada... District Judge Vaughn A. Walker bent over backwards for the D-I counsel and Mr. Boutros had to carefully ask questions about marriage outside the United States as it pertained to marriage inside the United States, including the founders' observation and known history of marriage outside US society.

And this is the judge that ProtectMarriage.com is now denouncing as an impossible-to-be-impartial, gay activist judge. You will find out later why in future installments when the reenactment of the trial proceedings will reveal a serious lack of preparation and a total appearance of ridiculousness, ludicrousness and arrogance on the part of the defense-intervenor's counsel.

Prop 8 Trial Re-Enactment, Day 1 Chapter 3

Today Paul Katami finished his testimony of how he was harmed by the Constitutional change and the worsened atmosphere against gay men generated by the passing of Proposition 8 and the Yes on 8 campaign's lies about the so-called "threat" posed to children by same-sex marriage, as well as his desire to marry his partner, Jeffrey Zarrillo. I was really, really angry when the Defense-Intervenor's attorney did his cross-examination of Mr. Katami. I felt he was hunting Mr. Katami, to back him into a corner and tear him apart. My blood was boiling! I wanted to jump into the computer screen and shake some sense into the attorney's head. then I had to remember: this is only a reenactment. Kristin Perry also testified of the harm done to her and about her desire to marry her partner, Nicole Kirk (do I have that correct?) Kristin's testimony broke my heart when she said she felt that "We weren't good enough to be married" when the State courts ruled in 2004 or 5 invalidating San Francisco's issuing of marriage licenses to same-sex couples and presiding over same-sex weddings.



But remember, Proposition 8 was stolen due to black box voting!

Prop 8 Trial Re-Enactment, Day 1 Chapter 2

In this installment we have the Defense-Intervenor's opening arguments and the first two Plaintiff's witnesses: Jeff Zarrilli and Paul Katami. Jeff and Paul describe the bloody discrimination they face every day because they are not married. Usually the everyday slights, misunderstandings and downright "why did you ask for a single kingsized bed for???" type of reprimand. All this does nothing except shame and humiliate gay men, lesbians and the like. Paul also tells of a queerbashing in which the bashers threw rocks and eggs over the perimeter fence of a gay-friendly establishment. He and Jeff, along with others, got hit by the eggs and rocks. No doubt that there was property damage and I'm convinced the eggs were rotten aas well. People do not accept same-sex couples unless we are legally married! Toward the end of the vid the DI's team try to prevent the "Stand Up" (freight train and commuter trains) video in which certain California religious right ministers manage to get the conservative Christian church membership all worked up in fear with POSSIBLE SCAREY OUTCOMES if they don't go out to the polls and "Stand Up for Jesus" by voting to take already-recognized same-sex marriage rights from GLBT people (and same-sex sham marriage rights from straight people) with only irrational prejudice and religion for justification.



Here is the stinkin' "Stand Up" video. By showing two COMMUTER TRAINS, it portrays us GLBT people as an unacceptable, dangerous threat. The real Jesus would have nothing to do with this, except to rebuke the producers, directors, crew and cast, especially the featured preachers!



BTW the black preacher, Ron Prentice, looks gay. Hahahahaha. Ouch. :'(

Prop 8 Trial Re-Enactment, Day 1 Chapter 1

This is a landmark case in which a mountain range of evidence has been built which shows that prejudice against us LGBTIQ people is irrational and based on religion, lies, mid/disinformation, myth and false assumption.

Pro-Prop 8 "Expert" Witness Brings up Evidence the Question was Stolen.

Now Professor Kenneth Miller doesn't come out and say it, but under cross examination that the exit polls for those voters who went to Church only occasionally responded 'no' on the exit polls more than than the actual vote went no.

Link

But the best evidence is still over at Bradblog.

Proposition 8 Trial Tracker

You can follow the Proposition 8 Trial now going on in S.F. CA by clicking either of the below links.

http://prop8trialtracker.com/

http://firedoglake.com/prop8trial/

So Now Gavin Newsom is a Homosexual by Association! LOL

From today's session, early afternoon, of the California Proposition 8 Trial in Federal Court, S.F., CA.

David Boies: (pauses to collect himself) Turn to PX513. This is something you wrote for the campaign for Proposition 8, correect?
Dr. William Tam: Yes.
B: The heading is WHAT IF WE LOSE, correct?
T: Yes.
B: Meaning what if Proposition 8 doesn't pass?
T: Yes.
B: You write, "They will lose no time pushing The Gay Agenda."
T: Yes.
B: You wrote, "The San Francisco government under rule of homosexuals."
T: Yes.
B: Who were these homosexuals?
T: Tom Ammiano was a supervisor.
B: Was the mayor a homosexual?
T: I don't believe so?
B: So why did you say that?
T: Well Gavin Newsom married them so he must be their friend.
B: So you mean that San Francisco was under the rule of heterosexuals who were friends with homosexuals?
T: You were using your legal words to change my original intent.

So here we have Dr. Tam basically saying in his campaign email that gavin Newsom is a homosexual by association. Or at least that's how it comes off to me.

An Ex-Gay Survivor Speaks.

Today in San Francisco at the Proposition 8 Trial, Ryan Kendall testified to his own personal experience in an ex-gay cult called NARTH at their facility in Encino, CA, which is just north of San Diego. Despite our stories for over 40 years, gay kids are still joining these cults, whether by their own free will, manipulation, blackmail, or even force.

Plaintiffs' counsel Flynn led the direct investigation.

[Note: K = Kendall, F = Flynn]

K: I am an NCIC agent, it is a database maintained by the FBI. I have a secure clearance for this work.

Flynn: When were you born?
K: 1983.
F: 26 years old?
K: Yes.
F: School?
K: Evangelical Christian University.
F: How did you hear about homosexuality?
K: Proposition 2 in Colorado where I was raised.
F: Did your family talk about it?
K: Yes, it was very scare, homosexuality was wrong and evil and threatened our family, my parents said.
F: What is your sexual orientation?
K: I am a gay man.
F: How long have you known that?
K: Since I was 12 years old.
F: How did you feel when you realised you were gay?
K: ...and what your family and community did NOT like this concept, so I kept it a secret, hidden away from everyone.
F: What names were you called?
K: Homo, faggot, queer
[This shows that our natural comportment gives us away even if we don't tell a soul about our natural sexuality]
F: What else happened?
K: Played keep-away with my glasses and broke them.
F: What was it like being in that Christian School?
K: They were taunting me with a word that was so close to the truth. My parents changed schools.
F: When did your parents find out you were gay?
K: My parents discovered my journal when I was 13.
[His parents did not respect his privacy, nor his boundaries -- for they obviously read the journal.]
F: What happened?
K: My parents flipped out, they yelled, it was pretty scary the way they reacted.
F: Do you remember anything they said?
K: My mom said I was going to burn in Hell.
F: Was your family religious?
K: Yes, Church was a big part of our lives.
F: How did you feel when your mom said that?
K: I was totally stunned. I could not believe I was eternally damned.
F: What therapy did your parents send you to?
K: I was sent to a "Christian therapist" who would make me a heterosexual.
F: How many times did you go?
K: I went two or three times.
F: Did you recall much?
K: Inconsistent with Christian teachings, disapproved my parents, and that I was a bad person and evil.
F: How bad did you feel?
K: I always wanted to please my parents, now I was a bad and evil kid.
F: Was therapy successful? Did it make you heterosexual?
K: No, I was still gay.
F: Did you try to be straight?
K: No I knew I was gay the way I know I am short and half-Hispanic.
F: Next, where did you go?
K: NARTH: National Association of Reparative Therapy for Homosexuality, Encino, CA...
F: For how long?
K: Two, three years, 14 to 16.
F: How was your home life?
K: It was like night and day. My parents used to take me to school, make notes and put them in lunch, pick me up. Afterwards they called me names and that they hated me and that I was disgusting. My mom told me she wishes she'd had an abortion instead of a gay son, or Down's Syndrome or a retarded kid... instead of a gay son, me.
[Interesting, how the parents' unconditional love turned to unadulterated hate. They should be ashamed of themselves.]
F: Who at NARTH?
K: Joseph Nicolosi, Executive Director of NARTH.
F: Where did you meet with him?
K: Over the phone, an hour, 90 minutes. Then travelled to California.
F: What did you talk about?
K: Homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teachings, and not what your parents want for you.
F: Advice how to repress homosexuality?
K: No specific advice, just general admonishments.
[Just like my experience in the Boston Church of Christ! "Homosexuality will lead you to a bad lifestyle, you'll catch diseases and AIDS, you'll meet an early demise blah blah blah and then you're going to hell!" The only so-called "advice" they gave me was to pray, "Lord deliver me from these lusts!," and the like. Fat lot of good that did. I almost became an Atheist because of them.]
F: How did your NARTH experience help you reconcile your gayness and your faith?
K: At NARTH I was told I was dirty and bad, the therapy played no role in making me better or healthier.
F: Were you straight when you were done?
K: Just as gay as when I started.
F: Why did you stop going?
K: My life had fallen apart: my faith, my family, everything. If I did not stop going to NARTH, I wouldn't survive. I would kill myself.
[And by suiciding, he could have exiled himself into the Outer Darkness!]
F: How were you able to stop?
K: At 16 I surrendered myself to the Colorado Department of Children.
F: How does that work?
K: I told a social worker I was going to kill myself if I didn't leave my parents. They strated an abuse and neglect proceeding against my parents.
F: How was that?
K: I was incredibly suicidal, I turned to drugs to escape reality, things did not get better, I had lost everything.
F: How long did this period last?
K: Four to five years.
F: How did you support yourself?
K: It was a struggle.
F: On Public benefits?
K: I had to go to the emergency room for health care.
[This is why we need a National Health Service with a network of clinics for the uninsured. Instead we get Obama-Romneycare! But that's a different subject.]
F: How long have you worked for the Denver Police Department?
K: two to three years now.
F: Are you stable and can you support yourself?
K: Yes, it has been really hard, but I have been able to do that.
F: Just a couple more questions. Are you aware of organisations that are supportive of gay rights?
K: Yes. I am a member of Log Cabin Republicans, and a member of Denver Commission on LGBT Rights.
F: Are you testifying for them or you?
K: For myself, Ryan Kendall.
F: Have these organisations shaped your testimony?
K: No.
F: No more questions.

[Cross examination]
Campbell for the Defendant-Intervenor
C: Do you live in California?
K: No.
[But he went to the NARTH cult facility in Encino and even if he didn't, this is relevant.]
C: Did you participate in No on Proposition 8?
K: No.
C: Were you contacted by the San Francisco City Attorney's Office, yes?
[So Ryan Kendall knows someone in San Fran! (-: ]
K: Yes, in October.
C: Have you studied human sexuality?
K: No.
C: Have you known people who profess to have changed their sexual orientation?
K: In public, yes.
C: Were you compelled by your parents to go to conversion therapy?
K: Yes.
C: It was all your parents, without your consent?
K: Yes.
C: You told your parents your objections.
K: I told my parents and my therapist.
C: But that did not matter?
K: Yes, it did not.
C: Did you have the goal of changing your sexual attraction?
K: Yes, I just wanted to survive it.
C: But your goal was not to change.
K: No.
C: You talked about things your parents said to you?
K: Yes.
C: But your family experience was just as damaging as the therapy itself?
K: Yes, I said that.
[Of course it would be! What do people expect, when unconditional love turns to unadulterated hate?]
C: At some point your parents lost custody with you?
K: Yes.
C: After that, did you go back to live with your parents when you were 18?
K: Yes, briefly.
C: Some people volunteer and choose to go into conversion therapy?
K: That's not my experience.
C: So no one has ever gone to conversion therapy voluntarily?
K: I don't know EVERYONE; but in my experience, no.
C: But you have acknowledged that some people have success with conversion therapy?
K: I don't know that.

REDIRECT:
F: Have you met anyone who succeeded in conversion therapy?
K: Yes, Nicolosi trotted out his perfect patient, named Kelly, who (when the doctor left the room) told me he was going to a gay bar that night and was pretending success in conversion for his family.
[HA! So not only are these ex-gay ministries cults, they are scams.]
F: You said you went back to our parents when you were 18?
K: Briefly.
F: And do you talk to your parents now?
K: No.
[Why should he? They proved to him that they were horrible parents after discovering his sexuality.]
No more questions.

Proposition 8 - Stolen and Turned to H8

Turns out that there was a huge discrepancy between the exit polls for Proposition 8 and the vote counting results. A swing of 4% from one direction to the other. And a group in Los Angeles did their own exit polling with safeguards inaugurated to minimize lying to the exit pollsters: i.e., filling out printed informal ballots anonymously and inserting them into a locked box. They found even wider swings!

Links: Bradblog.com , WasProp8Straight.org

Not only were we LGBT America citizens queerbashed, so were the majority of California's voters, their state's constitution and the US Constitution!

And it looks like SCOTUS may pull a Conservative Judicial Activist stunt, like they did with Bowers v. Hardwick. :(