Ted Stevens, back in the news

Ted Stevens, the embattled former Senator from Alaska, is back in the news after Attorney General Eric Holder ask a federal judge to drop the charges arising from allegations that the trial process had been tainted.

From Reuters:

"I always knew that there would be a day when the cloud that surrounded me would be removed. That day has finally come. It is unfortunate that an election was affected by proceedings now recognized as unfair," he [Stevens] said in a statement.

This is a man who was accused of concealing huge -- $250,000 huge -- gifts from lobbyists, a major ethics crime.

Eh. Innocent until proven guilty, huh? But he's still kinda guilty, isn't he? A jury convicted him, right? I'm so confused by criminal law.

LAW: Florida law on its way out

Finally.

The law is up to be challenged again in Florida that bans gay people from adopting.

Let's hope they carry through this time.

From the Miami Herald article:

At the heart of the Monroe case is a 13-year-old boy with learning disabilities and special needs who has lived in his Key West foster father's two-story home since the Department of Children & Families placed him there in 2001. The boy is identified as John Doe. The father, 52, is not identified.

Audlin appointed the foster father as guardian for the boy in 2006. At a recent hearing, the boy testified he wanted the man to be his ''forever father'' -- like all the other kids had -- ''because I love him,'' the order says.

A home study by a social worker ''highly'' recommended the guardian and his partner be allowed to adopt the boy, saying the two men provided a ''loving and nurturing home,'' provided ''fair and consistent'' discipline and are financially secure, the order
says.

Miami attorney Alan Mishael, who represents John Doe's guardian, declined to discuss the ruling, since Audlin has not yet published it formally. He said the ruling is less about public policy than the welfare of a former foster child who wants a father of his own.

''This is a case about a young man who already had a permanent guardian but wanted to have a father,'' Mishael said. ``That's what the case is about. That's all it's about.''

Bout damn time. Fuck you Bushes for letting this carrying on (and fuck you Crist for not doing anything about it either).

I will never forgive a Bush for this. I will never forgive a Bush for the Federal Marriage Amendment. I will never forgive McCain for picking Sarah "pray the gay out" Palin.

Fuck you, fuck you, fuck you, fuck you, fuck you.

Am I getting through? Am I being clear?

BLOGGING: One year

It's August 4th, which marks the one year anniversary of this blog!!!! :-)

So what have we been talking about it. Per the categories I use:

GAY STUFF -- 80 posts
ELECTION 2008 -- 73
CINCY GAY SCENE -- 60
BLOGGING -- 55
GENERAL STUFF -- 55
OHIO/CINNKY -- 48
PERSONAL -- 38
HIV/AIDS -- 25
POP CULTURE -- 19
POLITICS -- 14
WRITING -- 9
LAW -- 8
WEARING *WHAT* WEDNESDAY -- 7
MIAMI UNIVERSITY -- 6
ENVIRONMENT -- 4
FAGWATCH -- 4

And here's the post from the old blog that announced the creation of this one:

Hahaha. For those who have not heard yet via email, here's the news: I am tired of the myspace/facebook thing. Really I am, so I'm just gonna do what I do best -- complain and complain and complain and offer inspired commentary on the world around me... and, in the process, complain :-).

Queer in the Cincy
cincywestsidequeer.blogspot.com

It'll be great. Join me and 74million other people. :-)

MUCH LOVE. THANKS TO ALL FOR LISTENING!!!!!

(And congratulations to Kate the Great over at Kate's Random Musings for her... get this... FOUR YEAR anniversary! *MUAH*)

LAW/BLOGGING: From the anti-smoking law debate...

From the old blog... This was put out by my friend DJ Joey around the time we were debating the anti-smoking amendment here in Ohio...

-----

Issue 5 -- Smoke Free Ohio -- and why it's wrong

(stolen from Joey Nicholson -- aka, DJ Joey -- fast becoming one of my favorite people in this city :-))

---------------------------

Obvious problems with Issue 5 (Ohio)- the State's Smoke-free Workplace initiative. I'm sure there's much more than what's stated here :::::::: (for those who are not ohioans, in November, we voted on a 2-1 margin to enact a law banning smoking in any place anybody is employed, superceding any local laws... this includes bars and restaurants; a few days ago we got word that it may be unenforceable due to the fact that there were no rules, just the law we voted it, which is kinda silly, and there was no method of enforcements, so it technically doesn't count, but that may or may not be true; to make it worse, they even put up a SNITCH LINE for people to call in and tell on people breaking the law... no, seriously)


===============================

1. There's NO provisions for enforcement (therefore it's not even really a law yet, just merely a suggestion). Provisions for enforcement, and the actual finalizing of the law will not occur until June 1, 2007. Therefore, Issue 5 is illegal.

2. It places unreasonable burdens on businesses that DO elect to allow smoking, within confines of the laws and ordinances of cities, villages and counties in Ohio.

3. The basis for the law is based on falsehoods and ''junk science'' ie; the Popular Lie, and has no scientific basis in fact. For example, 21 out of 22 studies commissioned by the U.S. government found NO correlation between second-hand smoke and lung cancer. The only study that ''found'' this link only had an accuracy rate of around 80%, whereas 90% or greater is generally considered acceptable in scientific studies of this nature. Naturally the ''SIGs'' a/k/a/ The American Lung Society and The American Cancer Society cite this ONE study to prove their ''facts.'' It's all based on falsehoods.

4. The stipulation of ''No Smoking'' within 20/25 feet of a building entrance, window or ventilation intake in impractical and unenforceable. Again, based on junk science.

5. The requirement for *ALL* businesses, government offices, etc. to remove *ALL* ashtrays from anywhere near building entrances and in all public places (I don't know if this includes outdoor areas where citizens are ALLOWED to smoke), will surely result in hundreds of thousands of Ohioans becoming criminals overnight, as they'll have to throw their cigarette butts on the ground, violating litter laws.

6. As more tobacco smokers take up ''chew'' to compensate for lack of legal tobacco smoking, the floors, ground, and other areas where people normally walk, and public places therein (bars, restaurants, etc.) will become a slimy mess as people spit out their chew everywhere.

a. This will result in a health hazard (spitting everywhere).
b. This will become a smelly, disgusting, slimy mess everywhere.
c. This will result in hazardous conditions everywhere, with more people slipping and falling as a result of slimy grounds.

(HINT HINT).

7. Issue 5 was purposely worded to be misleading and obfuscating, resulting in a lot of voters voting ''Yes'' when they meant to vote ''No.'' A lawsuit shall be initiated on these grounds alone to overturn Issue 5, and make it illegal to have ''No means Yes'' and ''Yes means No'' questions on ANY ballots in Ohio, ever again.

8. Issue 5 will result in a loss of revenue in those establishments that have traditionally, for 230 years, allowed smoking tobacco products; especially to ''border'' states around Ohio. This would include Kentucky, Indiana, Michigan, Pennsylvania and West Virginia. Businesses so affected shall, at their discretion, be able to sue the Ohio Department of Health for up to 10 times actual loss of revenue, according to financial statements starting in fiscal year 2006. Compensation shall be in the form of monetary payments for actual and liquidated damages. These payments shall come from the Ohio General Fund.

9. Issue 5 supercedes any city, village or county oridnance in effect in Ohio, disallowing for a municipality's sovereignity in their own affairs. For example, the Ohio Supreme Court just recently upheld differing cities bans on assault rifles as Constitutional. Therefore, Issue 5 is UNconstitutional on this basis alone. It should be overturned on on these grounds.

10. Issue 5 CANCELS ALL city, village and county ordinances, essentially meaning that NO WHERE in Ohio is ANY smoking oridiance in effect until June 1st, 2007. This could create a problem in places such as grocery stores, movie theaters, government offices, etc. as people are ALLOWED, by law to light up ANYWHERE in the State of Ohio, in ANY building.

11. Issue 5 is an unnecssary State issued burden for those last few places that people have traditionally been allowed to smoke. For example, in Cincinnati- smoking is allowed in pool halls, bingo halls, most bars, restaurants, nightclubs, and other ''adult'' entertainment venues. The provision in establishments that serve food is that there's separate smoking and non-smoking sections, with adequate ventilation to keep the smoke out of food preparation areas and non-smoking sections. This has been a workable compromise between smokers and non-smokers rights. Issue 5 interferes and unfairly burdens that compromise.

12. Issue 5, with the ''Snitch Line'' and provisions for fines ranging up to $2,500 per violation against the business owners, goes against all common sense in determining ''punishments equal to the crimes.'' For example, a typical liquor violation results in a fine of up to $500, a more grevious offense against the permit holder than allowing tobacco smoking.

13. Issue 5, in stipulating that smoking is not allowed in any work situation, including 18-wheeler trucks, cabs, or any vehicle used in business; is unworkable, unenforcable and unconstitutional. It intereferes with quiet enjoyment of personal property as well.

14. For the above reasons and those not listed, Issue 5 violates Due Process.

15. For the above reasons and those not listed, Issue 5 is unconstitutional.


Welcome to 1984.
All Your Rights And Tobacco Are Belong To Us.

LAW: Importuning

For non-locals, we have a really interesting law here in the area known as "importuning." This was an old law that, apparently, was struck down by the Ohio Supreme Court as being unconstitutional as it was only applied to homosexuals and not to heterosexuals. Under the importuning law, it was illegal to request sex from someone of the same sex if they may find it offensive to be asked.

Now, apparently, it only applies to requesting sex from someone 13 years old or younger (there are articles about some other implications here and here).

Now, the law just seems to protect the cops, mostly, who want to go online and find "sexual predators." We should call it the "Perverted Justice Law..." or the "To Catch A Predator Law (as sponsored by MSNBC)." (I am really critical of that group and that television show, and I am not alone in my criticism -- see Corrupted Justice and Operation Awareness. Perverted Justice has now posted a list of stories of internet predators actually getting to children and are fairly loud against their naysayers -- which, to me, is kinda like saying "if you're not doing anything wrong, then you have nothing to worry about" when it comes to the PATRIOT Act.)

There are, apparently, though, real live situations this is used in, and I was shocked to read about it on the Enquirer.

(I assume the man, Benjamin Price, is white or else we'd see a picture of him.)

LAW: And then there were two...

From In re Marriage Cases (the full case can be found here):

Furthermore, in contrast to earlier times, our state now recognizes that an individual’s capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual’s sexual orientation, and, more generally, that an individual’s sexual orientation — like a person’s race or gender — does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights. We therefore conclude that in view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship, the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples.

Congratulations, California, you're on your way. Now Schwarzenegger has to sign... he deferred to the court before.

LAW: California Supreme Court Ruling...

....regarding gay marriage comes this morning at 10am.

The question:

This case includes the following issue: Does California’s statutory ban on marriage between two persons of the same sex violate the California Constitution by enying equalprotection of the laws on the basis of sexual orientation or sex, by infringing on the fundamental right to marry, or by denying the right to privacy and freedom of expression?

Joe. My. God. reports the ruling should be favorable.

The announcement is here (WARNING PDF).

LAW: Prostitution

Why is prostitution illegal? asks a post on Slate.com.

Interesting question... I am not against prostitution. Rather, I think criminalizing prostitution is actually more damaging to women than allowing it to happen. After all, it unfairly targets women as criminals. (What's interesting: it's really, really hard to find crime statistics on prostitution.) I will bet you: the grand majority of female felons have "prostitution" and/or some other form of it on their files.

Men? Doubt it even appears on 10%. In fact, I'd be surprised if it appears on 5%.

I like Sweden's law: decriminalize the sale, criminalize the purchase. There, it's hugely cut into prostitution and allowed for the creation of safer streets. (Note, this is opposite of what I believe should be done about drugs: criminalize the sale, decriminalize the purchase.)

Regardless, there is an excellent website -- ProstitutionProCon.org -- that goes over in detail the pro's and con's of legalization and/or decriminalization. (It's where the pictures to the left and at the bottom come from, btw). The website also has some crime statistics, but no info on the sex of the offendee.

What is the value, ultimately? Nevada seems to be doing fine, as does Amsterdam. *shrug* I say protect the victims -- if, indeed, prostitution is mostly the result of drug use and poverty (not the high class whores that Eliot Spitzer were purchasing), then we are protecting them by decriminalizing them.

...I wonder if Swedish gals have found the loophole: purchasing a ticket INTO a brothel or INTO a room, rather than paying for the sex, you're paying for the right to be in the building, not for the sex.

LAW: OJ Simpson

Apparently, OJ Simpson's lawyers are trying to hold up the jury selection process in his new trial by saying a) blocking the mention of his PREVIOUS more famous trial, and b) asking potential jurers whether or not they think he's a murderer.

Oh goodness. This will take forever.

Let's just say this: OJ Simpson is a creepy creepy man.

Get him out of the news.

LAW: Texas ban on sale of adult toys overturned

Going to be a few moments before I can post the actual text of the decision, but:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23155562

That's right, quoting Lawrence and Garvner v. Texas (which overturned sodomy laws in 2003), the appeals judge states: "Just as in Lawrence, the state here wants to use its laws to enforce a public moral code by restricting private intimate conduct. The case is not about public sex. It is not about controlling commerce in sex. It is about controlling what people do in the privacy of their own homes because the state is morally opposed to a certain type of consensual private intimate conduct. This is an insufficient justification after Lawrence."

Now Alabama is the only state left to have real strict statutes against it.

LAW: How to Sue God

I always wondered if this would happen...

Nebraska legislator Sues God

What I think is funny is that he got a "response." Now, clearly, it came from this Corpus Christi (if anyone ever wondered what exactly that means, it literally translates to... "the body of Christ") legal group, who is not answering questions. I can't seem to find the actual legal paperwork, but I will try my damnedest.

Sen. Ernie Chambers is my new hero.

America is basically a hypocritical society and recognizes that hypocrisy is found throughout. The public doesn’t look for politicians to tell the truth or to deliver on their promises... Politicians know this. Even when the public seems to be upset, the politicians know if they can put on a brave face and ride it out, they generally will. (this quote by Sen Chambers comes from the ultimate in "truth" in this world, Wikipedia, so who knows if it's real)