In an order issued today, the Court agreed to hear the case and set an expedited briefing schedule. The Court also denied an immediate stay.
On November 5, 2008, Lambda Legal, the National Center for Lesbian Rights and the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit challenging the validity of Proposition 8 in the California Supreme Court on behalf of six individuals and Equality California. The City of San Francisco, joined by the City of Los Angeles and Santa Clara County, filed a similar challenge, as did a private attorney in Los Angeles.

On May of 2008, the California Supreme Court held that barring same-sex couples from marriage violates the equal protection clause of the California Constitution and violates the fundamental right to marry. Proposition 8 would completely eliminate the right to marry only for same-sex couples. No other initiative has ever successfully changed the California Constitution to take away a right only from a targeted minority group.

Over the past 100 years, the California Supreme Court has heard nine cases challenging either legislative enactments or initiatives as invalid revisions of the California Constitution. In three of those cases, the Court invalidated those measures.

Lambda Legal will provide more information as this case proceeds.

We’ve turned our disappointment over the passage of Prop 8 and other antigay initiatives in Florida, Arizona and Arkansas into resolve.

Prop 8 is wrong. Help us make it right!

“I had the welts that were very red, hot to the touch, extremely inflamed, blistery.”It itched profusely.
I couldn’t sleep and was waking up itching.”

Miss Ritter, from Ohio, has filed a lawsuit against Victoria’s Secret in May and claims she has been contacted by dozens of women suffering similar symptoms who are now seeking permission to join her in a class action.

Her lawyers said they purchased the same bra types that Miss Ritter had bought and had them laboratory tested. They claim the tests revealed that the bras showed traces of formaldehyde, which is used in the textile industry to make fabrics crease-resistant. The lawyers believe Miss Ritter may be allergic to formaldehyde.

A US medical Web site was flooded with complaints against the underwear company. However, a spokesman for Victoria’s Secret has denied that formaldehyde is used to produce its bras.

“We have strict quality controls around our products, and we do not use formaldehyde in our bras,”
the company said in a statement. “We are sorry that a small number of people have had an issue,’ he added.
“Customer safety and satisfaction are always our primary concerns and we take seriously any issues that
our customers may have with our products.”

Ritter, and others who seek to join her in a class action, are demanding compensation.
A judge will decide next year if a class action can proceed.

Three days ago, eight lesbian bloggers set out to raise $8,000 in eight days to help defeat Proposition 8, the ballot initiative that seeks to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in the State of California.

Bloggers Grace Chu and Grace Rosen of Grace the Spot, Pam Spaulding of Pam’s House Blend, Dorothy Snarker of Dorothy Surrenders, Lori Hahn of Hahn At Home, Kelly Leszczynski of The Lesbian Lifestyle, Sinclair of Sugarbutch Chronicles, Riese of This Girl Called Automatic Win, and Renee Gannon of Lesbiatopia formed the 8 Against 8 Campaign to call on the public to donate to the “No to Prop. 8” campaign and help defeat the anti-gay marriage measure come Election Day, which if it passes, will nullify thousands of now legal same sex marriages and make it illegal once again for lesbian and gay couples to marry in California.

What happened next exceeded their expectations.

Donations started rolling in by the thousands of dollars per day. Less than three full days into the campaign, the eight bloggers against Prop 8 reached their initial goal of $8,000.

“I am still in shock at how quickly and effectively the community responded to the 8 Against 8 campaign,” said Renee Gannon of www.lesbiatopia.com. “The money donated and the excitement generated in three short days have far surpassed what I ever could have imagined that we would accomplish in eight days, never mind three.”

The eight bloggers intend to continue raising money for No on Prop 8 through the “8 Against 8” campaign, expressing the urgency of fighting Proposition 8.

Donations can be made here.

Both White House contenders have differing opinions on the 1973 Supreme Court case that legalized abortion. Obama is pro-choice, while McCain is pro-life. Debate moderator Bob Shieffer of CBS asked the two men if they could nominate someone to the Supreme Court who disagrees with them on abortion. It’s expected that whoever is the next president, at least one of the justices will retire.

Both candidates said they wouldn’t apply a litmus test – a question asked of a potential candidate, the answer to which might determine whether the person nominating that candidate would proceed with the appointment or nomination.

“I have never … imposed a litmus test on any nominee to the court, that’s not appropriate,” McCain, R-AZ, said.

Although he said Roe v. Wade was a “bad decision,” McCain said he favors leaving states to decide whether or not they will allow the procedure, when and under what conditions. He said Supreme Court nominees should be first and foremost considered because of their qualifications, not their abortion view.

But, when pressed whether he would nominate someone who has supported abortion, McCain, calling himself “proudly pro-life,” gets a little hypocritical: “I would consider anyone in their qualifications. I do not believe that someone who has supported Roe v. Wade that would be part of those qualifications. But I certainly would not impose any litmus test.”

Obama also said no “strict litmus” test would be imposed, and said he believes the Constitution does in fact include a woman’s right to privacy. Roe v. Wade also shouldn’t be subject to state referendum for states to alter at their whim, he added.

“It is true, this is going to be one of the most consequential decisions of the next president,” the Illinois senator said. “I would not apply a litmus test but I am somebody who believes Roe v. Wade was rightly decided.”[via wowowow]

The group, convicted of adultery and sex offences, could be executed at any time, lawyers defending them say.

The lawyers have called on the head of Iran’s judiciary to prevent the sentences from being carried out.

The last officially reported stoning in Iran last year drew strong criticism from human rights groups and the European Union.

The eight women sentenced, whose ages range from 27 to 43, had convictions including prostitution, incest and adultery, Reuters news agency reported.

One woman, Kobra Najar, an ethnic Kurd, is said to have been condemned after being forced by her husband into prostitution. After she divorced him, he forced their daughter to sell her body.

Another defendant, Shamame Qorbani, claims she was raped but that the allegation was not investigated.

The man, a 50-year-old music teacher, was convicted of illegal sex with a student, reports said.

In theory the penalty of stoning to death applies to both men and women.

But the lawyers say that in practice, many more women than men receive the sentence because they are less well educated and often poorly represented in court.

Human rights group Amnesty International earlier this year called on Iran to abolish “this grotesque punishment” and said many facing execution by stoning were sentenced after unfair trials.

Under Iran’s strict penal code, men convicted of adultery should be buried up to their waists and women up to their chests for stoning. The stones used should not be large enough to kill the person immediately.

The tragic saga of the dead in Juárez—directly across the river from El Paso, Texas—has been covered by those who care. Amnesty International called the murders intolerable and condemned the Mexican government for ignoring them; other human-rights groups have leveled similar criticisms over the years.

In 2003, Frank Bender, a Philadelphia forensic sculptor was asked to help the police in Juarez.  For reasons he doesn’t fully understand, the Mexican police on the case ask him to help identify some of the feminicidios. Bender, through breathtakingly realistic sculptures, reconstructs the faces of unknown murder victims whose appearances are certain to have changed over years.  Bender worked for days in a Juárez hotel room with crumbling skulls, facing down death threats and an infection from the bad water as he tried to create identifiable likenesses of the dead women.

Of all the cases he covers, Bender is especially obsessed with the murders of the estimated 400 women in Juarez. One of the unidentified victims, Bender nicknamed “The Girl with the Crooked Nose,” which since became the title for Ted Botha’s book on Bender’s forensic work. The book, looks at the crimes from a different perspective. Described as a nonfiction thriller, the book views the murders through the eyes of Frank Bender.

After more than a decade, the only things that are clear are that the murders aren’t going to stop anytime soon. Take action and visit Amnesty International today, sign a petition to Mexican president Felipe Calderon urging him to take action.