The California Supreme Court has just issued its ruling on the case against California Prop 8 (which was passed in the November election here in California that amended the State constitution to ban same-sex marriage) and decided that Prop 8 is valid, same-sex marriage will remain illegal in the State of California. The only glimmer of good news from today’s ruling is that the court also ruled that the approximately 18,000 same-sex couples who were wed last year when the practice was legal will still be legally married:

The California Supreme Court today upheld Proposition 8’s ban on same-sex marriage but also ruled that gay couples who wed before the election will continue to be married under state law. The decision virtually ensures another fight at the ballot box over marriage rights for gays. Gay rights activists say they may ask voters to repeal the marriage ban as early as next year, and opponents have pledged to fight any such effort. Proposition 8 passed with 52% of the vote. Although the court split 6-1 on the constitutionality of Proposition 8, the justices were unanimous in deciding to keep intact the marriages of as many as 18,000 gay couples who exchanged vows before the election. The marriages began last June, after a 4-3 state high court ruling striking down the marriage ban last May. In an opinion written by Chief Justice Ronald M. George, the state high court ruled today that the November initiative was not an illegal constitutional revision, as gay rights lawyers contended, nor unconstitutional because it took away an inalienable right, as Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown argued. Only Justice Carlos R. Moreno, the court’s sole Democrat, wanted Proposition 8 struck down as an illegal constitutional revision. Justice Joyce L. Kennard, who voted with the majority last year to give gays marriage rights, joined George and the court’s four other justices in voting to uphold Proposition 8. The case for overturning the initiative was widely viewed as a long shot. Gay rights lawyers had no solid legal precedent on their side, and some of the court’s earlier holdings on constitutional revisions mildly undercut their arguments. But gay marriage advocates captured a wide array of support in the case, with civil rights groups, legal scholars and even some churches urging the court to overturn the measure. Supporters of the measure included many churches and religious organizations. Before last fall, California was one of only two states — the other was Massachusetts — to permit same-sex marriage. Iowa, Connecticut, Vermont and Maine have since legalized it, and lawmakers in New York, New Jersey and New Hampshire are considering bills of their own. California’s historic 2008 ruling, written by George, repeatedly invoked the words “respect and dignity” and framed the marriage question as one that deeply affected not just couples but also their children. California has more than 100,000 households headed by gay couples, about a quarter with children, according to 2000 census data. As soon as the ruling was final, thousands of gay couples showed up at city halls around the state to marry, and many flew in from elsewhere for California weddings. While the wedding business was brisk, opponents mounted a heated campaign with the help of churches and conservatives to overturn the court’s action. Even with the court upholding Proposition 8, a key portion of the court’s May 15, 2008, decision remains intact. Sexual orientation will continue to receive the strongest constitutional protection possible when California courts consider cases of alleged discrimination. The California Supreme Court is the only state high court in the nation to have elevated sexual orientation to the status of race and gender in weighing discrimination claims.

While very upsetting, this news is unsurprising. It was widely expected that the court would uphold Prop 8 and still validate the same-sex marriages that took place here in California when the practice was legal. The next step for same-sex marriage supporters is to put the measure back on the ballot (as early as next year) to amend the State constitution again. It is very clear that California is deeply divided on this issue … the clash of conservatives and liberals is very marked in this State. Altho I was pretty sure I knew what the ruling would be, I’m still very saddened by the outcome. It does hearten me that there are beacons of hope for true freedom in this country shining from the great states of Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont and Maine. The fight for marriage equality still has a long way to go … but we will get there one day. Of that, I have no doubt.

[Source]

After many, many weeks of being separated from one another, 16 year old Miley Cyrus stepped out yesterday with her 20 year old manfriend Justin Gaston for a little dinner excursion to the Sherman Oaks Galleria (they dined at the Cheesecake Factory). Since Miley has been bizzy all over the world working, Justin has remained here in SoCal doing whatever it is that he does while living with the Cyrus family. But, at long last, Jiley has been reunited:

Hahahaha … it looks like Justin had forgotten his place in the time that Jiley have been apart. It’s good of Miley to remind him. So … yeah … it looks like the couple are still very much in full swing. Perhaps now that Miley has returned from her adventures abroad, she’ll be able to spend more time with her older man this Summer on bike rides, movie dates and of course church services. Praise Jebus, Jiley is back together!

[Photo credit: X17]

Jared Leto, actor and musician, was spotted enjoying a short walk around his LA neighborhood this weekend sans shirt … behold:

It appears that someone was interested in enjoying the lovely weather we enjoyed here in SoCal over the weekend and was lookin’ to soak up some sun. Jared has really gotten his body back in shape after bulking up for his role in Chapter 27 a couple of years ago … it’s so nice of him to show it off :) Yeah, this post is pretty much chock full of gratuitousness so … let’s just enjoy, shall we?

[Photo credit: Limelight]

After finding success in Orange County, New York City, Atlanta and New Jersey, Bravo TV has just announced today that the network in in development of a new Real Housewives series set in our Nation’s capital of Washington DC. There was some talk earlier this month that Bravo was lookin’ to expand the franchise to Beverly Hills, CA (and that still may happen) but they have officially announced today that The Real Housewives of Washington DC is the next project in development. Here is the full text of the just issued press release:

Today, Bravo announced that a spin-off of its hit docu-series franchise “The Real Housewives,” is in development, this time set in the influential metropolitan region of Washington, D.C. The announcement was made by Frances Berwick, Executive Vice President and General Manager, Bravo Media. “We’re tapping personalities who are among Washington D.C.’s influential players, cultural connoisseurs, fashion sophisticates and philanthropic leaders – the people who rub elbows with the most prominent people in the country and easily move in the city’s diverse political and social circles,” said Berwick. A place for power and politics, Bravo is scouting the D.C. area to identify the city’s alluring and discriminating residents, those women who have their pulse on the most important cultural events, political galas, gallery openings and fundraisers in Washington society. These leading members of D.C. society are in the know and comfortable discussing everything from the economy to high fashion. They are the talk of the town in the most powerful city in the world. Bravo has tapped Half Yard Productions to develop this project.

Oh man … you just know that DC wives know how to bring the drama. To be honest, it really doesn’t matter where they set the series as long as they find the right people to feature on the show. That said, the wives of politicians should be an interesting group of folks to watch … but really, how much drama can come from the wife of a currently elected official? Is that even smart for one’s political future? I hope Bravo doesn’t give up on the Beverly Hills idea … without having constituencies to worry about, those housewives are SURE to bring the drama. In regards to the current season set in New Jersey, I’m still warming up to the wives. I find it really weird that Bravo would cast housewives that are mostly related by family (and as we know, family is ‘as thick as thieves’). I am very much looking forward to the return to Atlanta … I’ve been missing my NeNe Leaks like crazy. But I digress. I’m down with the idea of DC Housewives, are you?

[Source]

President Barack Obama announced his nominee to the US Supreme Court to replace Justice David Souter who announced at the start of this month that he is retiring from the Supreme Court. There was much speculation as to who Obama would select to join the court in Souter’s place and today that announcement was made. Federal Judge Sonia Sotomayor is Obama’s pick and if approved by the US Senate, she would be the Supreme Court’s first Hispanic Justice and the the third female Justice (after Sandra Day O’Connor and Ruth Bader Ginsberg). Here are a couple pics from the President’s announcement in the East Room of the White House earlier today:

President Obama on Tuesday nominated federal Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court. Sotomayor would be the first Hispanic and third female U.S. Supreme Court justice if confirmed. Obama announced the nomination Tuesday morning in the East Room of the White House. “Thank you, Mr. President, for the most humbling honor of my life,” Sotomayor said. “My heart is bursting with gratitude,” she said. She gave special recognition to her mother, who was sitting in the audience. “I am an ordinary person who has been blessed with extraordinary opportunities and experiences,” Sotomayor said. Obama called Sotomayor “an inspiring woman who I believe will make a great justice.” She “has worked at almost every level of our judicial system, providing her with a depth of experience and a breath of perspective that will be invaluable as a Supreme Court justice,” he added. Obama said Sotomayor “would bring more experience on the bench and more varied experience on the bench than anyone currently serving on the United States Supreme Court had when they were appointed.” The president met with Sotomayor at the White House for an hour on Thursday, according to senior administration officials. He was impressed with Sotomayor’s personal story and professional qualifications after meeting her, but he did not immediately offer her the job, two senior administration sources added. Obama made his final decision Monday, the sources said.

It was pretty much assumed by all that Obama would be selecting a woman as his nominee but there was much speculation about which woman he would pick. As a Hispanic myself, it thrills me that there is a strong possibility that Sotomayor will join the US Supreme Court. I cannot for the life of me imagine what it must be like to get the call from the President informing you that you have been selected to join the Supreme Court. I am not familiar at all with Sotomayor’s record as a judge so I had to do some reading up on her credentials. If you, too, would like more information on Sotomayor’s legal experience you can read more about it after the jump …

READ THE REST OF THIS POST »

The most blasphemous of blasphemies is upon us … and I’m so thrown off by it, I’m having a hard time wrapping my head around the news. In early April a new rumor started to make its way around the Internets that Sarah Michelle Gellar was “finally ready” to take on a Buffy the Vampire Slayer movie which got all the Buffygeeks (me included) excited at the prospect that BtVS might be coming to the big screen. Not long after that report took off, it was reported that Sarah Michelle Gellar is pregs with her first child (meaning she prolly wasn’t going to do a Buffy movie) and BtVS creator Joss Whedon himself insisted that the movie was “not gonna happen”. It turns out that he was wrong … kinda. The Hollywood Reporter is reporting today that a new Buffy the Vampire Slayer movie is, in fact, in the works … but here’s the kicker (in the privates), the movie will have nothing to do with Joss Whedon and will not include any of Buffy’s amazing supporting characters … ie. no Willow, Xander, Angel, Spike, etc. So now it turns out that the Best.News.Ever is actually the Worst.News.Imaginable!

A new incarnation of “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” could be coming to the big screen. “Buffy” creator Joss Whedon isn’t involved and it’s not set up at a studio, but Roy Lee and Doug Davison of Vertigo Entertainment are working with original movie director Fran Rubel Kuzui and her husband, Kaz Kuzui, on what is being labeled a remake or relaunch, but not a sequel or prequel. While Whedon is the person most associated with “Buffy,” Kuzui and her Kuzui Enterprises have held onto the rights since the beginning, when she discovered the “Buffy” script from then-unknown Whedon. She developed the script while her husband put together the financing to make the 1992 movie, which was released by Fox. Kuzui later teamed with Gail Berman, then president of Sandollar Television, bringing back Whedon to make the TV series, which was produced by Fox TV and launched on the WB in 1997. Kuzui and Sandollar received executive producer credits on “Buffy” and its spinoff, “Angel.” The new “Buffy” film, however, would have no connection to the TV series, nor would it use popular supporting characters like Angel, Willow, Xander or Spike. Vertigo and Kuzui are looking to restart the story line without trampling on the beloved existing universe created by Whedon, putting the parties in a similar situation faced by Paramount, J.J. Abrams and his crew when relaunching “Star Trek.” One of the underlying ideas of “Buffy” allows Vertigo and Kuzui to do just that: that each generation has its own vampire slayer to protect it. The goal would be to make a darker, event-sized movie that would, of course, have franchise potential. The parties are meeting with writers and hearing takes, and later will look for a home for the project. The producers do not rule out Whedon’s involvement but have not yet reached out to him.Speaking from Tokyo, Fran Kuzui said the company is constantly approached not only about sequels but theater, video games and foreign remakes for “Buffy.” When Vertigo’s Lee contacted them, they were intrigued. “It was Roy’s interest in taking Buffy into a new place that grabbed us,” she said, noting that original exec producer Sandy Gallin also was consulted. “It was based on our respect for what he does, and his particular sensitivity to Asian filmmakers, that we wanted to work with him.” Kuzui, who is prepping do direct a movie in Japan in the fall, added: “Everything has its moment. Every movie takes on a life at some point, and this seems like the moment to do this.”

NOOOOOOO! This is such a terrible idea … a Joss-less Buffy is no Buffy at all. As I understand it, Joss was not a big fan of the Kuzuis. I believe he took issue that their names were splashed all over every ep of Buffy and Angel even tho they had NOTHING at all to do with either series and only got credit because they financed the original, cheesy film. I imagine their plans to hijack his creation for more financial gain will not sit well with him this time. But, I have to say, on the one hand … there is hope that this drive to bring Buffy to the big screen can work — but only if Joss Whedon gets involved. I hate, no LOATHE, the idea of a new Buffy with new friends … but if Joss is able to take control of the story and write the script, I think he could come up with some way to make it work. If these people decide to move forward with this idiot idea without Whedon’s involvement, I’ll have NOTHING to do with it. I am very curious to hear what Joss has to say about all of this. I imagine he may make a statement on this new development. One thing is for sure, at least for me, no Joss = no Buffy = no chance in hell I’ll want anything to do with any bastardization of one of my favorite things in life.

[Source]

Last week we learned from a report from TMZ that Mel Gibson’s mistress, Oksana Grigorieva (whom he recently started up a romantic relationship with while he was still married to his wife of 29 years Robyn) is pregs with his child … which resulted in Robyn filing for divorce. Mel appeared on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno last night and confirmed to Jay that his girlfriend is pregs with his child, joking that he can now be called “Octo-Mel” since his mistress will be giving birth to his 8th child — classy, classy guy:

It’s official: Mel Gibson’s girlfriend, Oksana Grigorieva, is pregnant. The actor confirmed the news during a taping of NBC’s The Tonight Show With Jay Leno to air [last night]. “I guess I’m ‘Octo-Mel,’” says Gibson, who already has seven kids with his wife of 28 years, Robyn. Robyn filed for divorce six weeks ago amidst speculation that Grigorieva, a singer on Gibson’s record label, was expecting a child. “My wife and I, our marriage ended three years ago and we’ve been separated ever since then,” Gibson tells Leno. “These things happen. It’s unfortunate, it’s sad, but you know she is an admirable woman — we still got kids together, we’re friends.” “Look,” Gibson continues. “When it’s all said and done, I did a pretty good hatchet job on my marriage myself. I’m to blame. If you’re inclined to judge, put it here.” Gibson also says his separation from Robyn had nothing to do with Grigorieva, whom he didn’t meet until 2008. When asked by Leno if they would wed, Gibson says: “Why would you get married twice?” According to reports, Grigorieva is in her second trimester and due this fall.

As a result of Mel’s confirmation on national television last night, his official rep issued a statement that was released in between the show’s taping (yesterday afternoon) and the show’s airing (late last night):

Six weeks after his wife Robyn filed for divorce after 28 years of marriage, Mel Gibson has some news of his own: his Russian musician girlfriend Oksana Grigorieva, 39, is pregnant, the actor’s rep confirms exclusively to PEOPLE. “He couldn’t be happier,” says a Gibson friend. “He loves being a father.” Grigorieva, who is signed to Gibson’s record label, Icon Records, is in her second trimester and due in the late fall. For those eager to point to Grigorieva’s pregnancy as a catalyst for Gibson’s divorce, they’ll be wrong, says the close source: “This has nothing to do with the divorce. Mel didn’t even know Oksana was pregnant when they filed.”

Ha! Right! There really ain’t much damage control that can be done at this point so I guess saying that Mel didn’t even know his mistress was pregnant when his wife filed for divorce is all they could come up with. You know, even if you buy that “we’ve been separated for 3 years” line he’s trying to feed us, it’s pretty disrespectful to sleep around ON YOUR WIFE and the mother of your 7 children while you’re still married to her. WWJD? The hypocrisy of Gibson’s religiousness just grosses me out to no end. His pious bullshizz turned me off to him years ago, this just seals the deal and shows the man’s true colors, IMHO. I wish Ms. Grigorieva all the luck in the world … I hope that Mel Gibson doesn’t eff her and her baby over in the same way he effed over his wife.

[Source, Source]