Sensational Dive Earns OUT Matthew Mitcham Gold Medal in Beijing

AUSTRALIAN Matthew Mitcham last night produced the dive of his life to win a shock gold medal in the men's 10m platform and end host nation China's stranglehold on the Beijing Olympic diving competition.

The 20-year-old Sydney diver produced the highest scoring dive in the history of the Olympics with his sixth and final effort to become Australia's first male Olympic gold medallist in diving since Dick Eve in 1924. Mitcham was trailing China's Zhou Luxin by more than 30 points leading into the final round, but scored a whopping 112.10 on his last dive - a back two and a half somersault with two and a half twists - to pull off an stunning upset. Mitcham finished with an overall score of 537.95 to defeat Zhou (533.15), who had led the final until the final round, to grab Australia's second diving medal of the Games. The openly homosexual Mitcham was in shock over his win last night. "It's absolutely surreal. I never thought that this would be possible,'' Mitcham said. "I wasn't even sure of my medal chances at all. After I did my last dive and I saw I was in first, I thought, "That's it, it's a silver medal, I am so happy with this' and then I won. I can't believe it, I'm so happy. "I had some very wise words and some very good advice before coming into the 10m competition, to just enjoy it, have fun and that's what I thought right from the very first dive in the prelims to the very last dive in the final. "I was definitely stressing it to myself, just enjoy the moment, there is nothing you can do to change what's about to happen, so just enjoy it and it worked.'' The result was a major turn-around for Mitcham from his performance in the 3m springboard, in which he failed to make the final after struggling to keep his nerves under control. Mitcham's form going into last night's final was impressive after finishing second overall in the preliminaries and semi-finals, but he didn't quite get the start he wanted in the final with his opening dive scoring 73.50 to have him ranked equal ninth after the first round. But he recovered with confidence to emerge as one of the unlikely stories of the Games for Australia. "The first dive wasn't the best, the third dive wasn't the best, but there was nothing I could do about it except just enjoy the moment,'' he said. "I knew that the best diving would come and the next three dives were really good for me.'' But Mitcham's gold almost wasn't to be. Mitcham walked away from the diving boards mid-way through 2006, feeling mentally and physically burnt out, but was lured back after watching his friends compete at last year's world championships. His decision was rewarded last night. "Absoultely everything I have done has been for this,'' Mitcham said. "Coming back and doing everything that I did was to win an Olympic gold medal. That was my aim when I was training every single day, twice a day, 11 sessions a week, 30 hours a week, before every single dive, it was like `I want to win Olympic gold' and that made me try my hardest in every single training session for the last year and a half. "It was all worth it.'' Mitcham's coach Chava Sobrino said he was blown away by his charge's final dive. "It was his best dive and that's why we put it at the end,'' Sobrino said. "The expectancy of that dive was around 106-108 points. But not 112, never. He did it at the right time, at the right moment, in the right pool with the right crowd, so I'm pretty happy and we got the right medal.'' Athens 10m silver medallist Mathew Helm, 27, finshed in sixth position with a score of 467.70 points, later revealing these Games were likely to be his last. "I have been toying with the idea of staying on and doing some synchro with Matt (Mitcham), but I'm pretty sure that's it for me,'' he said. "It's getting harder and harder.'' Helm said he never doubted Mitcham was capable of producing such a result. "Full credit to Matthew, he put on such an awesome job. The whole time that we have been here, he has been training really well, all through the prelims, semis and final he just executed how it should be done and walked away with the gold medal,'' Helm said. "I have always known that he could do that." With veteran divers Chantelle and Robert Newbery retiring after the Games, Mitcham and 16-year-old Melissa Wu will now be the faces of the team going forward to the London Games.

Mormon's Websites Question California's Prop. 8

Fri Aug 22, 7:20 pm ET

SUMMARY: Unhappy that the church took a political battle to sacrament meetings, they quietly quote LDS teachings against infringing on the rights of others.

Prompted by their church's support for a California initiative to ban same-sex marriage, some Mormons are voicing opposition to the proposed ban on the Internet -- saying in cyberspace what they might not be able to express in church buildings.

"We need a place where people can have a discussion and get information," said Laura Compton, a contributor at MormonsforMarriage.com. "And people need to know that it's not coming from an anti-Mormon place, or a gay Castro district place. It's coming from a faithful place."

MormonsforMarriage is one of a handful of Web sites to spring up since June, when top Mormon leaders distributed a letter to be read from California pulpits to call the faith's 750,000-plus members there to contribute money and time to help pass Proposition 8.

The Nov. 4 ballot initiative would amend California's constitution to recognize marriage as only between a man and a woman. A state Supreme Court ruling in May legalized marriage for gay men and women.

"When I heard and saw the letter that the church leaders had read in sacrament meetings, I was appalled," said Carolyn Ball, a lesbian who was excommunicated in 2002 for refusing to choose the church over her partner. "So I said, 'That's it.' I want Mormons to know that there are gay people in their congregations, every Sunday."

VP Pick: Joe Biden on Civil Rights

1978: opposed busing except for gov't-intended segregation I'll never forget going to an event in the school gymnasium in a working-class town near Wilmington. Everybody in the room wanted to know where I really stood on busing. I tried to explain what I'd been doing in the Senate and the difference between de facto (or unintentional) segregation and de jure (or government-intended) segregation. But the audience wanted a full-out mea culpa and a hard statement that I despised busing. And I got hot. I wanted them to be clear where I stood. Look, I told them, I was against busing to remedy de facto segregation owing to housing patterns & community comfort, but if it was intentional segregation, I'd personally pay for helicopters to move the children. There were howls in the crowd.
I stand by this statement, but it was probably the single stupidest moment I could have chosen to make it. I actually felt physically threatened.
Busing took effect just a few weeks before the 1978 Election Day.
Source: Promises to Keep, by Joe Biden, p.127-128 Jul 31, 2007

1968: Wilmington riots failed at conversation between races Wilmington was a strange place at the end of 1968. The city had been under martial law for nearly six months. The Democratic governor, Charles Terry, had called out the National Guard when rock and bottle throwing escalated to sniping, looting, & arson i the days following Martin Luther King's assassination.
Seven months after the rioting, Gov. Terry refused to call off the Guard. News cameras would show up to do stories about the only city where the Guard was still patrolling black neighborhoods. The white citizens were almost all happy to have the Guard there. They were afraid riots might ignite in the ghetto and spread. They were afraid Wilmington's police force wasn't big enough to keep it contained.
In the black neighborhoods of East Wilmington residents were afraid. Guardsmen were prowling the streets with loaded weapons. Curfews were in effect. The news had a way of making these stories seem like a conversation between the races, but I knew blacks & whites weren't talking to each other.
Source: Promises to Keep, by Joe Biden, p. 42-43 Jul 31, 2007

Nobody asks if you're gay in a foxhole I've been to Afghanistan, I've been to Iraq seven times, I've been in the Balkans, I've been in these foxholes with these kids, literally in bunkers with them. Let me tell you something, nobody asked anybody else whether they're gay in those foxholes. Our allies -- the British, the French, all our major allies -- gays openly serve. I don't know the last time an American soldier said to a backup from a Brit, "Hey, by the way, let me check. Are you gay? Are you straight?" This is ridiculous.
Source: 2007 Dem. debate at Saint Anselm College Jun 3, 2007

Civil unions ok; gay marriage is probably inevitable Q: In November 2003, you were asked, "Do you believe gay marriage is inevitable?" And you responded, "I'm not sure. I think probably it is."
A: Well, I think it probably is because social mores change. But I don't think the government can dictate the definition of marriage to religious institutions. But government does have an obligation to guarantee that every individual is free of discrimination. And there's a distinction. I think government should not be able to dictate to religions the definition of marriage, but on a civil side, government has the obligation to strip away every vestige of discrimination as to what individuals are able to do in terms of their personal conduct.
So New Hampshire coming out in favor of civil unions is OK by you?
A: Yes. Yes, it is.
Source: Meet the Press: 2007 "Meet the Candidates" series Apr 29, 2007

Voted NO on recommending Constitutional ban on flag desecration. The Senate voted on a resolution which would recommend a Constitutional Amendment banning flag desecration (not a vote on the Amendment itself). The resolution states:
the flag of the US is a unique symbol of national unity...
the Bill of Rights should not be amended in a manner that could be interpreted to restrict freedom...
abuse of the flag causes more than pain and distress... and may amount to fighting words...
destruction of the flag of the US can be intended to incite a violent response rather than make a political statement and such conduct is outside the protections afforded by the first amendment to the Constitution.
Proponents of the Resolution say:
Fifty State legislatures have called on us to pass this amendment. This amendment simply says that "Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States."
In other words, in passing this amendment, we would give to Congress the power that the Supreme Court took away in 1989.
48 States had anti-desecration measures on the books before 1989. It was then that five unelected judges told those 48 sovereign entities that they were wrong.
Opponents of the Resolution say:
I am deeply offended when people burn or otherwise abuse this precious national symbol.
I also believe that the values and beliefs that the American flag represents are more important than the cloth from which this symbol was created.
Prominent among these beliefs are the right to voice views that are unpopular, and the right to protest.
I oppose this amendment not because I condone desecration of our flag, but because I celebrate the values our flag represents. Flag burning is despicable. However, the issue is whether we should amend our great charter document, the Constitution, to proscribe it.
Is this a problem needing such strong medicine? Are we facing an epidemic of flag burnings?
Reference: Flag Desecration Amendment; Bill S.J.Res.12 ; vote number 2006-189 on Jun 27, 2006

Voted NO on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage. Voting YES implies support for amending the constitution to ban same-sex marriage. This cloture motion to end debate requires a 3/5th majority. A constitutional amendment requires a 2/3rd majority. The proposed amendment is:
Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.
Proponents of the motion say:
If Members of the Senate vote as their States have voted on this amendment, the vote today will be 90 to 10 in favor of a constitutional amendment.
Marriage is a foundational institution. It is under attack by the courts. It needs to be defended by defining it as the union of a man and a woman as 45 of our 50 States have done.
The amendment is about how we are going to raise the next generation. It is not an issue that the courts should resolve. Those of us who support this amendment are doing so in an effort to let the people decide.
Opponents of the motion say:
This proposal pits Americans against one another. It appeals to people's worst instincts and prejudices.
Supporters rail against activist judges. But if this vaguely worded amendment ever passes, it will result in substantial litigation. What are the legal incidents of marriage? Is a civil union a marriage?
Married heterosexual couples are wondering, how, exactly, the prospect of gay marriages threatens the health of their marriages.
This amendment would make a minority of Americans permanent second-class citizens of this country. It would prevent States, many of which are grappling with the definition of marriage, from deciding that gays and lesbians should be allowed to marry. And it would write discrimination into a document that has served as a historic guarantee of individual freedom.
Reference: Marriage Protection Amendment; Bill S. J. Res. 1 ; vote number 2006-163 on Jun 7, 2006

Voted YES on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. Motion to Invoke Cloture on S. 625; Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act of 2001. The bill would expand the definition of hate crimes to incorporate acts committed because of a victim's sex, sexual orientation or disability and permit the federal government to help states prosecute hate crimes even if no federally protected action was implicated. If the cloture motion is agreed to, debate will be limited and a vote will occur. If the cloture motion is rejected debate could continue indefinitely and instead the bill is usually set aside. Hence a Yes vote supports the expansion of the definition of hate crimes, and a No vote keeps the existing definition. Three-fifths of the Senate, or 60 members, is required to invoke cloture.
Reference: Bill S.625 ; vote number 2002-147 on Jun 11, 2002

Voted YES on loosening restrictions on cell phone wiretapping. Motion to table (kill) the amendment that would provide that in order to conduct roving surveillance, the person implementing the order must ascertain that the target of the surveillance is present in the house or is using the phone that has been tapped.
Reference: Bill S1510 ; vote number 2001-300 on Oct 11, 2001

Voted YES on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation. Vote on an amendment that would expand the definition of hate crimes to include gender, sexual orientation and disability. The previous definition included only racial, religious or ethnic bias.
Reference: Bill S.2549 ; vote number 2000-136 on Jun 20, 2000

Voted YES on setting aside 10% of highway funds for minorities & women. Vote to table, or kill, an amendment to repeal the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise [DBE] Program, which requires no less than 10% of highway construction projects funded by the federal government to be contracted to 'disadvantaged business enterprises'
Reference: Bill S.1173 ; vote number 1998-23 on Mar 6, 1998

Voted NO on ending special funding for minority & women-owned business. This legislation would have abolished a program that helps businesses owned by women or minorities compete for federally funded transportation. Status: Cloture Motion Rejected Y)48; N)52
Reference: Motion to invoke cloture; Bill S.1173 ; vote number 1997-275 on Oct 23, 1997

Voted YES on prohibiting same-sex marriage. The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA): Vote to prohibit marriage between members of the same sex in federal law, and provide that no state is required to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. Define 'marriage' as 'between one man and one woman.'
Reference: Bill HR 3396 ; vote number 1996-280 on Sep 10, 1996

Voted YES on prohibiting job discrimination by sexual orientation. Would have prohibited job discrimination based on sexual orientation. Status: Bill Defeated Y)49; N)50; NV)1
Reference: Employment Non-Discrimination Act; Bill S. 2056 ; vote number 1996-281 on Sep 10, 1996

Sports Illustrated: Michael Phelps

Incredible!

Amazing!

WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

CA Judge Refuses To Order Change In Prop. 8 Title

(08-08) 14:41 PDT SACRAMENTO -- Backers of a November ballot measure banning gay and lesbian marriages in California rushed to an appellate court Friday after a Sacramento judge rejected their challenge to the state's formal description of their initiative - that it "eliminates (the) right of same-sex couples to marry."

That's the language that will accompany Proposition 8 on every ballot and in every voter pamphlet, unless the court intervenes before the close of business Monday, the deadline for sending election material to the state printer.

Superior Court Judge Timothy Frawley decided a variety of Prop. 8 issues Friday, leaving largely intact the opposing sides' ballot arguments, including the Yes on 8 campaign's disputed claim that the measure would protect kindergartners from classroom indoctrination on the virtues of same-sex marriage.

But his most important ruling involved the title and summary - the voters' official, state-sanctioned introduction to the measure - which Attorney General Jerry Brown redrafted after the state Supreme Court struck down California's previous marriage restrictions on May 15.
Before the ruling, Brown had titled the initiative as a "Limit on Marriage," the label on petitions that collected 1.2 million signatures. But after the court ruled 4-3 that the previous ban on same-sex marriage violated the California Constitution, Brown retitled the ballot measure, saying it now eliminated rights that the court had established.

Religious conservatives who sponsored Prop. 8 objected vehemently, saying the new wording was a biased argument - not a neutral description - and was designed to encourage voters to oppose the measure.

The fairest title, they said, would be the actual text of the initiative: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

At a hearing Thursday, Andrew Pugno, lawyer for the Prop. 8 sponsors, told Frawley that the new ballot language would "throw the legitimacy of the election into question because it is so one-sided."

Pugno conceded, however, that the court had legalized same-sex marriage - a point stressed Friday by Frawley, who said the ruling "unequivocally held that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry." As a consequence, he said, a ballot title based on the premise that such a right exists "is not argumentative, prejudicial or controversial."

"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," wrote Frawley, a former Sacramento prosecutor who was appointed to the bench by Gov. Gray Davis in 2002.
While another title, like "Limitation on Marriage," might be "more accurate and complete," he said, Brown legally described the measure's impact.

The Yes on 8 campaign was indignant.

"Since the Superior Court would not exercise its authority to protect voters against misleading language, we will ask the appellate court to do so," said Pugno before filing an emergency motion with the state Court of Appeal.

Geoff Kors, executive director of the gay-rights group Equality California, responded, "It's important that voters know exactly what this measure would do, which is to change the Constitution to eliminate a fundamental right, the right to marry, from one group of people."

Brown said the lawsuit against his ballot title "was more about politics than the law."
On another issue, Frawley found that the Yes on 8 campaign had overstated its ballot argument on the measure's impact on public schools, but ordered only a minor change in wording.

Arguments signed by supporters of the measure included a claim that the Supreme Court's legalization of same-sex marriage will require teachers to tell their students, as young as kindergarten age, that same-sex marriage is the same as opposite-sex marriage - in other words, that "gay marriage is okay."

The pro-Prop. 8 campaign cited a state law requiring schools that teach a health curriculum to include instruction on the legal and financial aspects of marriage.

The No on 8 campaign countered that state law does not require instruction on health, marriage or same-sex marriage and that parents in California have the right to remove their children from any health class that conflicts with the parents' values.

Frawley said the Yes on 8 argument was false because instruction on marriage is not required and parents can withdraw their children.

But - noting each side's right to argue its case to the voters - he said the ballot argument could be preserved by rewording it to state that teachers "may" or "could" be required to tell children there is no difference between same-sex and opposite-sex marriage.