SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
For Immediate Release
November, 10 2008, 02:09pm EDT
Contact:
Ali Bay 916.284.9187
Governor Calls Proposition 8 Passage 'Unfortunate'
In CNN Interview, Gov. Schwarzenegger Says Prop 8 Should be Invalidated Because Court Has Ruled that Banning the Right to Marry is Unconstitutional
SAN FRANCISCO
Equality California and National Center for Lesbian Rights are pleased Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has joined the millions of Californians who are disappointed with the passage of Proposition 8. In an interview with CNN Late Night on Sunday, the governor said the passage of Prop 8 is "unfortunate," and added that he believes the Supreme Court should invalidate Prop 8 because the state's highest court has already declared that denying same-sex couples the right to marry is unconstitutional.
"We are pleased the governor stands with the millions of fair-minded Californians who believe Proposition 8 isn't right for our state," said EQCA Executive Director Geoff Kors. "Justice is not served when a slim majority of voters takes away the rights of one group of people and demands that they be treated differently under law. We continue to fight for full equality in California, and will never settle for anything less."
"Proposition 8 defeats the very purpose of our Constitution, which is to protect minorities and to ensure that the law treats everyone equally," Kors continued. "This is the first time the initiative process has been used to revise the constitution in order to eliminate a fundamental right from a specific group of people. That's not what our Constitution is about, and that's not what California is about."
Equality California is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, grassroots-based, statewide advocacy organization whose mission is to achieve equality and civil rights for all lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) Californians.
LATEST NEWS
Alarm Grows Over Vought Plan to Give Trump Cronies Control of Federal Grant Money
"The test will be a simple one: Are you sufficiently loyal to the president? If the answer is no, it will result in the denial of lifesaving disaster relief, funding for research into cures, the closure of Head Start offices, and more."
Jun 13, 2026
A Trump White House plan to give political appointees more power over federal grant money has sparked alarm among scientists, public health organizations, environmental groups, and others who fear that the proposal amounts to an attempt to subordinate critical funds to the whims of the president and his far-right allies.
More than 300 organizations signed a joint letter on Friday calling on White House budget director Russell Vought, the proposed rule's architect, to extend the public comment period that's set to end on July 13, warning that the "scope and impact of [the Office of Management and Budget's] rule is vast."
"The rule will impact the entirety of government grant-making across the United States," the groups warned. "OMB itself says the revisions suggested would relate to over $179 billion of funds to small entities."
Politico, which exclusively obtained the letter, noted that the "proposed rule has already garnered over 15,000 public comments, with many expressing alarm that the changes could undermine research across fields."
Under Vought's rule, federal agencies would be required to perform "pre-issuance reviews" of federal grants—funds appropriated by Congress—to ensure their distribution is consistent with "applicable law, federal agency priorities, and the national interest."
The rule lays out a number of standards that political appointees at federal agencies must screen for when deciding whether an organization can receive federal grant dollars. For instance, the rule would prohibit the distribution of federal grants to organizations that "promote anti-American values" or support "ideologies that deny the biological reality of sex or the sex binary in humans."
The New York Times reported that the consequences of Vought's rule "could fall hardest on health and science, a field in which [President Donald Trump] has pursued some of the steepest cuts in his second term."
"In exchange for federal assistance, researchers would face limits on the subjects that they can explore, the foreign labs with which they may collaborate and even the conferences at which they can appear," the Times noted. "Dr. Georges C. Benjamin, the chief executive of the American Public Health Association, a professional organization and advocacy group, said the policy could 'devastate innovation, science, and research' in the United States."
"This is an executive power grab that would hand presidential political appointees unchecked control over more than a trillion dollars that Congress appropriated in the interests of all Americans."
Earlier this month, Lawyers for Good Government and the Environmental Protection Network said that "if finalized, the rule would put senior political appointees in charge of approving and canceling individual grants, while stripping recipients of due process rights" while attaching "ideological conditions to nearly every federal dollar, raising First Amendment and equal-protection concerns."
The two organizations published a fact sheet warning that the proposed rule has the potential to halt billions of dollars in funding that communities across the US depend on for "health, public education, scientific research, public safety, and economic development projects."
“This is an executive power grab that would hand presidential political appointees unchecked control over more than a trillion dollars that Congress appropriated in the interests of all Americans,” said Jillian Blanchard, senior vice president for climate change and environmental justice at Lawyers for Good Government. “Conditioning funding for critical programs on ideology and viewpoint discrimination, while erasing basic due-process protections, violates freedoms of speech, equal protection, and eviscerates Congress’ power of the purse.”
Democratic lawmakers have also sounded the alarm about Vought's proposal. Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, said Thursday that she has given her Republican colleagues two opportunities to denounce Vought's rule—and they declined both times.
"Vought continues to attempt to steal from communities across the country. Now, he is trying to set a new political test on grants for a wide swath of the federal government," said DeLauro. "The test will be a simple one: Are you sufficiently loyal to the president? If the answer is no, it will result in the denial of lifesaving disaster relief, funding for research into cures, the closure of Head Start offices, and more. If you are not loyal enough, if you speak out against this administration, the president and his cronies will take away resources Congress provided."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Democratic Lawmakers Condemn Trump Effort to 'Tip the Scales' in Colombia Election
"The future of Colombia must be decided by the Colombian people—not American politicians with their own agenda."
Jun 13, 2026
A group of Democratic members of the US Congress on Friday condemned President Donald Trump and Republican lawmakers' attempts to influence the results of Colombia's upcoming presidential runoff, calling it an "insult" to the Colombian people's sovereignty.
"We see actions by US President Donald Trump and other members of Congress to endorse, advocate for, or otherwise tip the scales to a particular candidate as detrimental to the democratic rights of the Colombian people," said the lawmakers, led by Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.). "The future of Colombia must be decided by the Colombian people—not American politicians with their own agenda."
The statement came days after Trump publicly injected himself into Colombia's presidential contest by endorsing far-right candidate Abelardo De La Espriella, a 47-year-old defense lawyer who has pledged to "disembowel the left."
“The results of this Election are very important to the future of Colombia and its relationship to the United States,” Trump wrote in a Truth Social post earlier this month. “Because of his tremendous accomplishments in life, and his political support for me, personally, it is my Honor to give Abelardo my Complete and Total Endorsement.”
The US president said that if De la Espriella wins, he "will have the total support and strength of the United States behind him."
The Center for Economic and Policy Research noted that "the implicit threat in Trump’s endorsement of De la Espriella is that Colombians will be punished—through reduced aid, tariffs, sanctions, etc.—if they vote for a political leader not backed by the United States."
Two Republican lawmakers, Rep. María Salazar of Florida and Sen. Bernie Moreno of Ohio, have also endorsed De la Espriella. The New York Times reported that "before Mr. Trump posted his full-throated endorsement of Mr. De La Espriella, Mr. Moreno held a call with reporters in which he said US officials had 'vetted' Mr. De La Espriella and found him to be 'impeccable.'"
De la Espriella will face leftist Sen. Iván Cepeda, an ally of incumbent President Gustavo Petro, in the June 21 presidential runoff.
Petro has criticized his US counterpart for meddling in Colombia's presidential race, urging Trump in a recent social media post to "not intervene in the campaign and allow the people of Colombia to decide freely."
"Whoever wins will maintain the friendship of more than two centuries between Colombia and the US," Petro added.
Earlier this week, Petro planned to meet with New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani during the Colombian leader's trip to the US, but "the Trump administration effectively nixed it in a behind-the-scenes effort," The Washington Post reported.
"The Colombian government quietly called off the event following a meeting between US and Colombian officials in Bogotá in which State Department officials made clear that this week’s engagement was unacceptable, a move Colombian officials interpreted as a threat to arrest Petro on site if he proceeded," the newspaper revealed. "A State Department official told The Washington Post that the visit would violate visa restrictions the US imposed against Petro following his comments last year criticizing US support of Israel’s war in Gaza and imploring US soldiers to disobey presidential orders to kill."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'More Lawless, Performative Killing': Trump Says US Strike Executes Alleged Leader of Venezuelan Gang
"Outside of armed conflict, premeditated killing is referred to as murder," said one expert.
Jun 13, 2026
US President Donald Trump and Pentagon Secretary Pete Hegseth announced in social media posts late Friday that American forces, in coordination with Venezuelan authorities, killed the alleged leader of the Tren de Aragua gang in a strike on a compound inside Venezuelan territory.
"At my direction, the United States Southern Command delivered a swift and lethal kinetic strike to successfully execute Niño Guerrero, the infamous leader of Tren de Aragua," the president wrote on his Truth Social platform, posting what appears to be footage of the strike. Hegseth later specified that the attack took place inside Venezuela earlier this week and that Héctor Rusthenford Guerrero Flores—known as Niño Guerrero—was "confirmed killed."
The strike that purportedly killed Guerrero, whom the US Justice Department charged last year with multiple crimes including "facilitating acts of terrorism," came in the context of the Trump administration's broader, deadly military campaign in South America and off its coast. Dozens of US bombings of boats in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific Ocean since last September have killed more than 200 people—including possible victims of human trafficking—with the stated goal of stemming the flow of drugs to the US (an objective that experts say has not been achieved).
Leading human rights organizations have characterized the boat bombings as "murder."
Brian Finucane, senior adviser to the US Program at the International Crisis Group, called the strike that allegedly killed Guerrero Flores "more lawless, performative killing by the Trump administration."
"Outside of armed conflict, premeditated killing is referred to as murder," Finucane wrote on social media. "There is no indication this strike occurred in an armed conflict. Including because, as best we can tell, TdA doesn't constitute an 'organized armed group.'"
The government of Venezuela, whose president was kidnapped by US forces earlier this year, issued a statement confirming its involvement in the strike this week.
“During the operation, clashes occurred with members of criminal groups, resulting in the death of Héctor Rusthenford Guerrero Flores, alias ‘Niño Guerrero,’ the leader of one of these criminal organizations,” the statement reads.
It was not immediately clear if others were killed in the military attack.
"We extend our gratitude to the Venezuelan security forces for their support to the successful joint operation against a Tren de Aragua compound that resulted in the death of the narco-terrorist organization’s leader," said Gen. Francis Donovan, the head of the US Southern Command.
The Associated Press noted that "Trump and administration officials have consistently blamed Tren de Aragua for being at the root of the violence and illicit drug dealing that plague some US cities."
"The president spent months repeating the claim—contradicted by a declassified U.S. intelligence assessment—that Tren de Aragua had operated under Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro’s control," the AP added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular