7 years, 2 months and 27 days - FINALLY

Yeah, Foster finally lost his very first tooth. Apparently at the last dentist appointment the dentist recommended pulling the bottom two baby teeth since one of his "adult" teeth was already growing in behind the baby tooth. However, since then one of those baby teeth fell out (yesterday). But it looks like he'll need the second bottom tooth pulled since there is not enough room in his jaw.

I see a palate expander in his future, and huge orthodontia bills....

We, Oui, Wheeeeee, Wii

Any way you pronounce it we got it.

Laura is awesome - she was up and out and returned home on Black Friday all before I even woke up.

One store, one wii and one wii fit.



A forgotten welcome...

Welcome to the family new, flat-screen HD television. We love you and welcome you into our home...


A placeholder for...

...many things.

1. New job.
2. Prop. 8 and "family" and how we now feel.
3. The boys!
4. Vacations?
5. New job....

Soon, I promise.


And now the fight is on...

California's constitutional gay marriage ban, Proposition 8, was poised to pass as of Wednesday afternoon. As votes were still being counted, however, the California Supreme Court had already been petitioned to hear a legal challenge to the initiative.

The American Civil Liberties Union, Lambda Legal and the National Center for Lesbian Rights, filed the suit Wednesday on behalf of Equality California and six unmarried and possibly deprived same-sex couples. The plaintiffs urge the court to invalidate Proposition 8 on the grounds that the initiative process itself violated California's Constitution in aiming to prevent the judiciary from its duty to uphold equal protections for a minority: gays and lesbians. Any measure that changes the underlying principles of the Constitution, the plaintiffs charge, must first be approved by the state legislature before reaching a voter's ballot.

"A major purpose of the constitution is to protect minorities from majorities," said ACLU of Northern California staff attorney Elizabeth Gill.



Needless to say, I'm quite disappointed that Prop. 8 looks like it will pass (not what we wanted, we wanted "no on 8"). It's been a long, crazy ride. Most of the legal analysts believe our marriage will remain valid, but that's to be decided. What we learned thru this is that we have friends (and SOME family) that is so supportive of us that they fought with us, side-by-side to not have this hateful proposition pass. That means so much. The measure is passing by a slight margin - and since this has gone to the voters before in years past, what this means is that the fight is getting harder - harder to pass hatefulness in our state. And thankfully, I do not believe this is the end. Not by a long-shot.

BUT, the good news is that Obama won. WE WON my friends. We won. I cried tears of joy at 8:01pm Pacific Time when the results of the Western states came in and the news station called it. Our next president - I couldn't be more pleased. And did you hear his speech? He wants EQUALITY for ALL Americans - he specifically stated "Gay Americans" - first time EVER a president used the term in a positive way...hmmmm...the fight is so not over.

Other local propositions that I wanted are going "my way". Specifically, Prop. 2 (Treatment of Farm Animals) - I'm happy to say that protection for farm animals is on the way. AND, another VERY important proposition is Prop. 4 - (Proposition 4 threatens teen safety by mandating parental notification prior to a minor terminating a pregnancy) this one is a strong "NO" - thank Goodness the daughters in CA state, will have a choice to make this decision without the notification (in advance) of their parents - this prop. keeps them safe to obtain an abortion WITHOUT that notification. I know abortion is a hot topic and I'm NOT getting into that now, I'm just pleased that this one didn't pass.

So, in the end, I'm overjoyed that President Obama will be leading this country for the next 4 years (and hopefully more) - we deserve it.

And, we've learned who we can trust and rely on. Who in our family and circle of friends value our family as FAMILY. And most of all, that we are raising our three boys to be young men who are as tolerant and accepting as we are.

Peace out.


The Good News is - this guy! - The Change We Need

I would also have to say, to be honest, I think McCain's speech (his concession speech) was good, very good. He took the high road - good for him...


Because it's important and you should watch it.

This is important because I think many of the supporters of "Yes on 8" haven't really come up with their own agenda, or maybe have some questions, or even want to consider their choice.

Heck, I'm not even Christian but I can certainly appreciate the message.

Watch it, it's important.


An excellent question raised in the previous comment...

Mommynay asked "My understanding was that if it does pass all those marriages will be annulled...am I mistaken? While we do have domestic partnership the marriages would no longer be legal. Also my understanding was that even if it didn't pass the federal government still wouldn't recognize those marriages and we wouldn't gain many more benefits as Domestic Partnership pretty much covers all the same state based rights now anyway...Anyway I'm just curious and haven't found the time to go really research things too much. "

Well, actually, nobody is entirely sure.

I quote:
"Still, many legal observers have predicted that pre-Prop. 8 marriages would be upheld by the same state Supreme Court justices who authorized those marriages. That view is shared by Attorney General Jerry Brown, whose office would represent the state in any lawsuit over the ballot measure.
"I would think that the court, in looking at the underlying equities, would most probably conclude that upholding the marriages performed in that interval (before the election) would be a just result," Brown said in August.
Stanford law Professor Jane Schacter said the issue isn't clear-cut, but she thinks the court would be reluctant to revoke the right to marry after the fact. The main reason, she said, is that newlywed couples often rely on their marital status to take actions they might otherwise put off - adopting or having children, borrowing money, buying a home.
"We want to say to couples that when you marry, you can rely on being married," she said.
UC Berkeley law Professor Jesse Choper said the court might well conclude that retroactively nullifying a marriage would violate a couple's right to due process of law or violate the constitutional ban on interference with contracts.
Even the chief lawyer for the Yes on 8 campaign declined to predict that the court would overturn existing marriages.
"I don't think the law is clear on that," said attorney Andrew Pugno of Sacramento. He said Brown's position and the state court's evident sympathy toward same-sex marriage might sway the outcome."

According to Joan Hollinger, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley, Boalt Hall School of Law, "Constitutional scholars agree that the amendment cannot be effective retroactively."[27] The Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law conservatively estimates that more than 11,000 same-sex couples have married in California between June 17 and September 17, 2008.[28]

And no, the benefits of our domestic partnership - which Laura and I have had now for almost 10 years is NOT the same as a legal marriage. Unfortunately, the federal government currently does not recognize our legal marriage but CA state does. Recently, with my new job - I was able to select the "married" box on forms, but again, only for CA state.

My hope would be that Prop. 8 does not pass and that the federal gov't (with Obama at the lead) will eventually realize that our marriage is as legal as any other and make ours legal at the federal level.

All the more reason to vote "NO on 8".