California's Supreme Court and Prop 8

I suppose it's time I finally weigh in on the California Supreme Court's decision on Proposition 8. And my opinion may surprise you.

I haven't read the entire decision (it's over 100 pages long) but from what I've gleaned from it their decision was the right one. No, I'm not happy that it means I am now a third class citizen simply because I didn't marry someone of the same sex between June and November of last year. And here's why. The court was asked to decide whether or not Proposition 8 was a "revision" or an "amendment". I thought while watching the Court proceedings that the "revision" argument was actually a fairly weak one. And it seems I was correct.

The Court decided it was an amendment and that the People can amend the California constitution through the initiative process even if, and this is important, that amendment is "unwise". They did not reverse their ruling from last year saying that Proposition 22 was unconstitutional. As to how the Justices can reconcile the apparent dichotomy there I'm not sure.

They also ruled that the 18,000 or so same-sex couples who were married can stay married even though the state's constitution now says those marriages are invalid. Some have said that this is the great wisdom in the ruling. Perhaps now the matter will be brought up to the United States Supreme Court under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. (The minority is protected from the tyranny of the majority.)

In the future (if not already), I bet we'll hear from these discriminatory people who voted Yes on Proposition 8 that the judges were right. And these are the same "activist judges" they were so opposed to last year! These opponents to gay marriage seem to really have short attention spans.

I believe the Court's ruling is probably correct. (Again, I haven't read the whole thing; I'm not sure I'm going to.) The ruling means that it is just as easy to repeal Proposition 8 as it was to enact it. And that may also be the wisdom of the Court.

The struggle continues.

"Heather" is gagged!

I'm not sure I could be much happier with the last two days and the annoying (and illegal) Robocalls for auto warranties and "lower" credit card interest rates. Today, a judge has granted the temporary restraining order forbidding these fucking asshole companies! from making any more phone calls. The press release is below and is taken from http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/05/robocalls2.shtm.

(I realize some folks reading this may not like my choice of colorful language above but sometimes, a little foul language is really the only choice in adequately describing how I feel. :) )

Judge Orders Halt to Illegal Robocalls Selling Deceptive Warranties

Today Judge John F. Grady of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois issued a temporary restraining order stopping telemarketing company Voice Touch, Inc., its principals James and Maureen Dunne, its business partner Network Foundations LLC, and Network Foundations principal Damian Kohlfeld from making any further calls in violation of the Do Not Call Registry and other provisions of the Telemarketing Sales Rule and the FTC Act. The FTC filed the case yesterday, charging that the defendants were operating a massive telemarketing scheme that used random, pre-recorded phone calls to deceive consumers into thinking that their vehicle’s warranty is about to expire.

“Today the FTC has disconnected the people responsible for so many of these annoying robocalls,” said FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz. “We expect to see a dramatic decrease in deceptive auto warranty calls, but we are still on high alert.” If consumers continue to receive unsolicited robocalls to numbers on the Do Not Call registry, they should report them to DoNotCall.gov.

In a related matter filed by the FTC, Judge Grady yesterday issued a temporary restraining order against automobile warranty sales company Transcontinental Warranty, Inc., and its CEO and president, Christopher Cowart, who are clients of Voice Touch. In both cases, the court found that the FTC established a likelihood of success on the merits.

The court barred deceptive claims about extended warranties, froze the defendants’ assets, and appointed receivers over Transcontinental and Network Foundations to ensure that documents are preserved and assets are not dissipated. The restraining orders are in effect until a preliminary injunction hearing set for May 29, at which time the judge will reassess what type of relief should remain in place until the case proceeds to trial.

NOTE: The Commission files a complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the law has been or is being violated, and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. A complaint is not a finding or ruling that the defendants have actually violated the law.

The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, visit the FTC’s online Complaint Assistant or call 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357). The FTC enters complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 1,500 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTC’s Web site provides free information on a variety of consumer topics.

Media Contact:

Peter Kaplan
Office of Public Affairs
202-326-2334

Staff Contact:

Steve Baker or Todd Kossow
FTC Midwest Region
312-960-5634

(FTC File Nos. 092-3110, 082-3263)
(RobocallsTRO.wpd)

"Heather From Account Services" Is Finally Sued!

FINALLY!

You've probably gotten these calls. They started with "Heather from account services" and have moved on to dire warnings that your car warranty is about to expire (regardless of whether or not you even have a car) or that you need to act now to lower your credit card interest rates (regardless of whether or not you even have a credit card).

From the FTC site at http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/05/robocalls.shtm (which will probably change, disappear or move at some point so I've reproduced the page here. It's from a government agency and, as I understand it, anything produced by the government is in the public domain.)

I particularly love this paragraph:

The FTC is asking the court for Temporary Restraining Orders that would halt the illegal practices while the cases proceed, impose an asset freeze on all the defendants, and put two of the corporate defendants under the control of court-appointed receivers. The agency also is seeking a permanent injunction that would force the defendants to give up their ill-gotten gains so they can be used for consumer redress.

And below is the entire release from the FTC.

FTC Files Suit to Stop Illegal Robocalls Pushing Vehicle “Warranty” Extensions

Companies Charged With Making Hundreds of Millions of Deceptive Calls to Consumers

The Federal Trade Commission is asking a federal court to shut down a telemarketing campaign that has been bombarding U.S. consumers with hundreds of millions of allegedly deceptive “robocalls” in an effort to sell them vehicle service contracts under the guise that they are extensions of original vehicle warranties.

In two related complaints filed in federal court, the Commission took action against both the promoter of the phony extended auto warranties, as well as the telemarketing company that it hired to carry out its illegal, deceptive campaign. In its complaints, the agency contends that the companies are operating a massive telemarketing scheme that uses random, pre-recorded phone calls to deceive consumers into thinking that their vehicle’s warranty is about to expire. Consumers who respond to the robocalls are pressured to purchase extended service contracts for their vehicles, which the telemarketers falsely portray as an extension of the manufacturer’s original warranty.

“This is one of the most aggressive telemarketing schemes the FTC has ever encountered,” said FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz. “I’m not sure which is worse, the abusive telemarketing tactics of these companies, or the way they try to deceive people once they get them on the phone. Either way, we intend to shut them down.”

According to papers the FTC filed with the court, the robocalls have prompted tens of thousands of complaints from consumers who are either on the Do Not Call Registry or asked not to be called. Five telephone numbers associated with the defendants have generated a total of 30,000 Do Not Call complaints. Consumers received the robocalls at home, work, and on their cell phones, sometimes several times in one day. Businesses, government offices and even 911 dispatchers also have been subjected to the calls.

Those who answer the pre-recorded calls hear a message telling them that their vehicle warranty is about to expire and that they should “extend coverage before it is too late.” They are told to “press one” to speak to a “warranty specialist.” The “specialists” then mislead consumers into believing that their company is affiliated with the dealer or manufacturer of the consumer’s vehicle. They try to sell consumers a service contract for between $2,000 and $3,000, which they falsely portray as an extension of the vehicle’s original warranty. The seller of extended auto warranties sued by the FTC allegedly took in more than $10 million on the sale of these deceptively marketed service contracts.

In their robocalls, the companies dial every phone number within a particular area code and prefix sequentially, without knowing anything about the vehicles of the consumers they call, or whether those consumers’ numbers are on the Do Not Call Registry, the FTC alleged. Consumers who asked that the calls be stopped often were met with “abusive behavior” or were simply hung up on, according to the papers filed with the court. Some of the defendants used offshore shell corporations to try to avoid scrutiny, and a top officer in the telemarketing company bragged to prospective clients that he could operate outside the law without any chance of being caught by the FTC, the papers stated. This defendant also claimed that he makes 1.8 million dials per day and that he had done more than $40 million worth of dialing for extended warranty companies, including one billion dials on behalf of his largest client, according to the court papers filed by the FTC.

In addition to the robocalls, the FTC charged that the company selling the warranties mails out deceptive postcards to consumers, warning them about the imminent expiration of their auto warranties. The postcards are designed to mislead consumers into believing that they are being contacted by their dealer or manufacturer, and the postcards offer consumers the chance to “renew” their original warranties.

The complaints charge that the defendants’ deceptive practices violate the FTC Act, and that the defendants also have violated the FTC’s Telemarketing Sales Rule (“TSR”) by calling consumers whose numbers were on the National Do Not Call Registry. The complaints further charge that the defendants violate the TSR by calling consumers who previously had asked not to be called; by concealing their phone numbers so they would not show up on caller ID, a practice known as “spoofing”; by failing to identify themselves to the consumers they called; and by failing to disclose that the call was a sales pitch.

The FTC is asking the court for Temporary Restraining Orders that would halt the illegal practices while the cases proceed, impose an asset freeze on all the defendants, and put two of the corporate defendants under the control of court-appointed receivers. The agency also is seeking a permanent injunction that would force the defendants to give up their ill-gotten gains so they can be used for consumer redress.

The complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on May 14, 2009. The complaint against the robocaller names as defendants a Florida-based company called Voice Touch Inc., and two of its principals, James and Maureen Dunne. It also names an Illinois-based company affiliated with Voice Touch called Network Foundations, LLC and a principal in that company, Damian Kohlfeld. The second complaint names a Florida-based company called Transcontinental Warranty Inc., which sells extended auto warranties, and the company’s president and CEO, Christopher D. Cowart.

The Commission would like to acknowledge the extraordinary cooperation that telecommunications carriers AT&T Mobility and Verizon Wireless provided in the investigation of the case. The Commission also greatly appreciates the help of several state attorneys general.

The Commission votes authorizing the staff to file the complaints were 4-0.

NOTE: The Commission files a complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the law has been or is being violated, and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. A complaint is not a finding or ruling that the defendants have actually violated the law.

The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, visit the FTC’s online Complaint Assistant or call 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357). The FTC enters complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 1,500 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTC’s Web site provides free information on a variety of consumer topics.

MEDIA CONTACT:
Peter Kaplan,
Office of Public Affairs
202-326-2334

STAFF CONTACT:
Steve Baker or Todd Kossow,
FTC Midwest Region
312-960-5634



(FTC File Nos. 082-3263, 092-3110)
(Robocalls.wpd)

Proposition 8: I Told You So....

I sorta kinda hate to say it, but I told ya so.

Now that Proposition 8 passed (and Ken Starr of the Whitewater investigation which turned into an investigation into President Clinton's sex life has signed on to argue for upholding Proposition 8), supporters of Proposition 8 have filed a brief with the California court which seeks to have nullified all 18,000 or so same-sex marriages performed while they were legal. Remember what I said in my post about "Valid" marriages and fear? They're doin' it.

According to an Associated Press article titled "Calif. AG urges court to void gay marriage ban" published today:

The sponsors of Proposition 8 argued for the first time Friday that the court should undo the marriages of the estimated 18,000 same-sex couples who exchanged vows before voters banned gay marriage at the ballot box last month.

The Yes on 8 campaign filed a brief telling the court that because the new law holds that only marriages between a man and a woman are recognized or valid in California, the state can no longer recognize the existing same-sex unions.

I seem to remember something about the Yes on 8 Campaign saying they don't want to take away rights. Fucking hypocrites.

Bryan Loses His Cool

The November 2008 election is over. And I've been declared a second-class citizen in three states not worthy of the same rights, benefits, privileges and responsibilities of a straight person. And, in still another state, a less-qualified parent than no parent at all. All simply based on how I was born; I am a gay man.

The Yes on 8 Campaign waged a campaign based on deceit, outright lies, and fear. Even when presented with clear, logical reasons why the proposed "amendment" was badly written and fundamentally flawed, people still said they would vote to eliminate my right to have the same benefits and privileges as a straight person has.

Ironically, now same sex marriage will indeed be taught in schools but not in the health and sex education curriculum which parents have the full right (and, frankly, obligation) to exclude their children from shoudl they not want their children in sex ed. Gay marriage will now be taught in social science and history where they, as far as I know, do NOT have the right to exclude their children. Their oh-so-precious children will now be taught about gay marriage regardless.

In Arkansas, the voters decided that, simply because I am gay, I can not adopt nor be a foster parent to a child. How the FUCK do they think that denying their children a family helps the family? Exactly WHY is being gay such a horrible, awful thing that, "Oh my god! We can't have the children knowing about that!!!" Here's a newsflash; nearly ALL gay people were raised by straight people. And, to top it off, these are children nobody else wants; how does denying people who want to raise them help raise them!?

In Florida, I can't even have a domestic partnership. The voters decided that I should not be allowed even a "separate but equal" government-recognized union. How the HELL are these laws and so-called "amendments" even fucking constitutional!? There is absolutely no logical reason why a government should be denying rights to one group of people simply because of the way they were born.

I am not evil. I do not want to recruit your children. I am not less qualified to be a parent than no parent.

Fuck you, Supporters of these absurd bans!

Proposition 8: The Slippery Slope

I see a lot of the old, ridiculous arguments being brought up in favor of removing the rights of gay couples to marry. "Children need both parents", "It isn't natural", "I think it's gross", "What's next? People marrying their goats?", etc., etc., etc., ad naseum. So, if Proposition 8 passes (I don't think it will), I have a few other constitutional amendments I'd like to propose.

1. Only marriage between a fertile male and a fertile female is valid or recognized in California.
2. Once married, a child must be produced by a married couple within 4 years. Failure to do so results in a non-refundable child-free-fee of $1,500 paid to the State which doubles every 9 months the fertile couple remains childless.
3. Marriage is permanent and can not be revoked, annulled, dissolved, or otherwise canceled by any party at any time for any reason.
4. Eyeglasses are unnatural and shall be destroyed on sight.
   
5. Boogers are gross. It shall be a felony to knowingly or unknowingly display or cause to be displayed any booger at any time in any place for any reason.
   

Look, none of the fears of the Yes on 8 Campaign have come true in California. Not a single, solitary one. No church nor religious leader has been sued (successfully or unsuccessfully) for refusing to perform any marriage--much less a same-sex marriage--that they don't want to. Churches have been free to not marry anybody they so chose; the failure of Proposition 8 to pass will simply not change that.

I welcome your comments, as always.

Proposition 8: "Valid" Marriages And Fear

If Proposition 8 ("Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California") passes you can bet that there will be legal challenges to the legally performed same-sex marriages being currently performed in California. I'd wager that those challenges would take on the tone of:

"Well, it's in the constitution that your marriage isn't valid. So, the state should deny your benefits and privileges. I don't care if your marriage was performed in August 2008; the constitution says it isn't valid, so bugger off."

Though, I doubt they'd use the word "bugger".

Do you really want to have children dragged through the courts being told that the two people they call parents no longer have a valid marriage? Do you want children to have to be told in school that, yes, some same-sex marriages are legal but some aren't? Do you want to have to explain to your children the horrors of why same-sex marriage is illegal? Please. Think of the children.

Yes, I'm using a "fear" tactic to oppose Proposition 8; the same type of fear tactic that supporters use. I'm doing it to make a point. The "Yes on 8" seems to be solely based on fear; fear of what will happen to the children. However, they ignorantly don't realize that none of the fears they keep saying will happen are happening.

See, Gay Marriage is ALREADY LEGAL in California. And not ONE of the supposed "fears" the supporters bring up is happening.

Please, vote no on Proposition 8. It's for the children of this litigious society.

I welcome your comments.

Proposition 8: The Mormons' Hypocrisy

The Mormon church, for some bizarre reason, is vehemently against governments giving the same rights and privileges offered to gay couples as are offered to straight couples. I'm, of course, referring to Proposition 8 ("Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.") here in California. (I have another post which details a number of difficulties with that seemingly simple sentence.)

However, the Mormons must have to do a number of strangely contorted mental gymnastics to get around what their own scripture says. Specifically, Doctrine and Covenants 134:9, which reads:

We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied.

How is the Mormon's use of their buildings, satellite networks (also this page from the Mormon Times) in any way not mingling their "religious influence with civil government"?? And before you say that there are no churches that support gay marriage you might want to check what the Metropolitan Community Church or the Universal Unitarian churches say on the issue. Surely, there are other "religious societies" which support same-sex marriage, or Marriage Equality.

On the positive side of things, there are a (probably small) number of Mormons who oppose Proposition 8. People in this and similar groups (such as these reasonable folks) risk being excommunicated from, disfellowshipped from, or otherwise punished by the church for publicly going against their church leaders.

The Doctrine and Covenants may call it "mingling religious influence"; I call it a downright totalitarian abuse of power.

I welcome your comments.

Proposition 8 in California

Next month, voters of California will either attempt to write discrimination into the state Constitution or keep discrimination out of it. Proposition 8.

Proposition 8 ("Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.") I think it is badly written, ambiguous, divisive, and on the wrong side of history.

First, it's nearly impossible to legally define "man" and "woman". It can't be done by mere appearance; there are many masculine-appearing women and feminine-appearing men. It can't be defined by which sex one self-identifies with; what's to stop someone from saying they feel like a man just to get married to her lesbian partner? It can't be done by inspecting genitalia; there are many pre-operative transsexuals and there are many female impersonators who have implants to heighten the illusion as well as other concerns. It can't be defined by who can and can't bear children or who does or does not produce sperm; does a woman who's had a hysterectomy suddenly become male or does a man who's been castrated suddenly become female? And, finally, it can't be decided by looking at chromosomes; women born with Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome have XY chromosomes but in all other respects are female.

As a result, the proposed "amendment" is ambiguous in to whom it applies.

Besides, I can't think of *ANY* previous constitutional amendments that are specifically designed to *ELIMINATE* rights of a certain group.

Supporters of Prop 8 say that gay couples can have "domestic partnerships"; that's the same "separate but equal" argument used in segregation. There are many automatic rights and benefits granted by the government in a marriage but require a skilled lawyer for a domestic partnership--if they're even available to that domestic partnership. Separate is hardly *EVER* equal and it isn't in this case either.

Take, for example, the requirement that a domestic partnership requires the two people to live together. There is no such requirement for a marriage. And that's just one example.

Finally, Proposition 8 is on the "wrong side of history." Supporters claim that Proposition 8 only maintains "traditional" marriage. It was 'traditional' to deny women the right to vote. It was 'traditional' to keep slaves. It was 'traditional' to deny inter-racial marriage. Those traditions were wrong--they still are--and so is this 'tradition' of governments only offering certain benefits to heterosexual couples.

Prop 8 should be defeated. If they really want to "protect marriage" they should outlaw divorce.

I welcome your comments.

Gay Marriage in the United States

Mass. Senate votes to let out-of-state gays marry
(That's from the Associated Press. Since it will be available at that URL for only a month from today I'm going to post a few tiny excerpts to make my point. I believe this would be covered under the Fair Use copyright laws.)

Ok, enough of that on to why I'm writing about this.

I was REALLY hoping that California's recent legalization of gay marriage would have this sort of snow-ball effect across the country. Now, a discriminatory law that was rarely enforced in Massachusetts except for gay couples is about to be repealed.

Quoth the AP:

The state Senate voted Tuesday to repeal a 1913 law used to bar out-of-state gay couples from marrying in the state. The move to repeal the law, which prohibits couples from obtaining marriage licenses if they couldn't legally wed in their home states, is driven in part by California's recent legalization of same-sex marriage.

What I think is going to happen from here is that couples who travel to California or Massachusetts and get married will then travel back home and file suits to have their state recognize their marriage under the federal Full Faith and Credit Clause written into the United States' Constitution. It says that states should respect "public acts, records, and judicial rulings" made in other states. That means that if you're married in California, your marriage should be recognized by Oklahoma, Idaho, or even Florida. That's the way it is for heterosexual couples.

I predict a flurry of lawsuits being brought in the future. And, while I occasionally complain about the litigious society that is the US, in this case, perhaps that litigiousness will bring about some good.

Gay Marriage in California

Well, June 17th, 2008. All over the state of California men are getting married to each other and women are getting married to other women. Where is the great gnashing of teeth and opening caverns of Hell I was promised when this occurred? When will this country collapse and disappear off the face of the earth (allegedly) like every other society which has "embraced" homosexuality? Where are the great masses of "demeaned" marriages that we were told would inevitably follow same-sex marriage?

Turns out, it's rather quiet for a historic event. Strange... I guess the opposition doesn't much care to protest.