FGB, Saturday Edition

I told you there was a lot of news. Pictures later.

There -- how's that?

The nuisance-suit specialists are losing everywhere -- or at least in California and New York.

First, the suit brought by the supporters of Proposition 8 is dead in the water (which doesn't mean that the wingnuts will not appeal -- gotta be able to find an activist judge somewhere). In brief, Attorney General Jerry Brown changed the language of the initiative title and description to indicate that it removes a right from a protected class, which is an accurate statement of the facts. From Box Turtle Bulletin:

Proponants of the amendment sued to have the language changed. They argue that “eliminates” is a “negative verb” and thus should not be used. They wanted language that did not discuss married same-sex couples at all or make any reference to the change in circumstances that would occur to such couples.

They did not succeed. Today Judge Timothy Frawley ruled that the language can stay (SF Chronicle):

“The attorney general did not abuse his discretion in concluding that the chief purpose and effect of the initiative is to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry,” Fralwey right. “The attorney general’s title is an accurate statement.”

And in New York, it looks like the ADF, nuisance-suit specialists extraordinaire, are on the ropes in their suit against Gov. David Paterson. See this report from the New York Sun via Queerty:

During oral arguments yesterday, Judge Lucy Billings sharply questioned the lawyer representing the group, Brian Raum.

The most heated exchange came over one of the Alliance Defense Fund's key arguments: that the word "marriage" fundamentally means a bond between a man and a woman.

Mr. Raum argued that, if Mr. Paterson's interpretation of New York law were to stand, "then marriage would mean nothing. It would mean whatever any foreign jurisdiction says."

"Yes, it does mean that in New York," Judge Billings replied. She said that there could be an exception if a certain marriage were deemed "abhorrent" but did not say gay marriages fit that definition.

Judge Billings also implied that she would rule against the Alliance Defense Fund, forcing them to appeal their case. "The petitioners, I'm sure, are headed to a higher court," she said.

You know, I don't know why these groups keep suing -- well, yes I do: it's probably mostly for propaganda purposes, so they can continue to rail against the courts for failing to recognize the "will of the people." What they're going to come up with when Proposition 8 fails (and I'm beginning to think it will) is an open question: after all, the people of Massachusetts have spoken, and same-sex marriage is still happening there.

And on the boycott front, Donald's Wildmon's boycott of McDonald's is showing a resounding lack of effect -- in fact, check out this AP report via Pam's House Blend:

Despite a tough U.S. economy, McDonald's Corp. posted an 8 percent gain in July same-store sales on Friday as hungry consumers worldwide lined up for breakfast items and the classic Big Mac sandwich.

Many consumers have cut back on eating out amid economic weakness and rising gasoline prices, but business at the Golden Arches held up well in July, especially in the U.S.

For those who were looking for the Democrats to finally have the balls to carry the standard for gay rights, check out another report from Pam's House Blend. This story's all over the place in the gay blogosphere, with pretty much the same take: you couldn't even call us by name?

Looks like the Democrats are going to have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century.

Meanwhile, Barack Obama isn't nearly so mealy-mouthed about supporting gay families:

But we also have to do more to support and strengthen LGBT families. Because equality in relationship, family, and adoption rights is not some abstract principle; it's about whether millions of LGBT Americans can finally live lives marked by dignity and freedom. That's why we have to repeal laws like the Defense of Marriage Act. That's why we have to eliminate discrimination against LGBT families. And that's why we have to extend equal treatment in our family and adoption laws.

I'll be a president that stands up for American families - all of them.

And here's a little gem of an OpEd from the son of two moms, in response to John McCain's stupefying comments on gay adoption.

I mean, come on people -- this is a total no-brainer.

And thanks to Waldo, here's a wonderful analysis of the shortfalls of politicians when it comes to families. It's by British shadow education secretary Michael Gove, and directed against the Labour Party, but I think it describes both of America's major parties quite aptly.

Under Labour there is really only one relationship which matters. The relationship between the individual and the state.

The Labour conception of society is a thin, and impoverished, one in which there appear to be only two primary centres of decision-making, the central state organises and the individual is expected to respond appropriately.

Individuals are assessed by the State as economic units in need of upskilling, taxing, monitoring or redeploying as appropriate - according to priorities set, and policed, centrally.

The quality of the relationships we enjoy - with the teachers who might inspire us with the employers who might shape our career, with the partners who're helping us raise children, with friends and neighbours in the community we inhabit- are all neglected. Because they can't be measured, directed and controlled from the centre.

Sound way too familiar?

Read the whole thing. It may be the first time some of you have heard an actual idea abut supporting families from a politician.

Dessert courtesy of Hunk du Jour: