"The Marriage Protection Act" otherwise known as Proposition 8 goes to the California voters in November 2008. But what exactly is this proposition? It would amend the California Constitution to include the phrase "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California."

In May 2008 the California Supreme Court ruled banning same-sex marriage unconstitutional thus allowing gay and lesbians to marry as early as June 17, 2008. Many did and many more are to follow, reveling in the fact that the gay and lesbian individuals are now equals in the state for marriage. But that was short lived for as soon as that ruling was past those who oppose, filed for a measure to be placed on the ballot to amend the constitution.

It is believed that those who wish to have the constitution amended convoluted the truth when they obtain the requested signatures to have the proposition placed on the November ballot, thus ensuring that it would stay. The California Supreme Court denied a motion to have the proposition stricken from the ballot as they would not hear same, thus California gets to vote on same.

Churches of various denominations as well as non-denomination support the change to the California constitution stating that they are doing same to "protect one of our nation's most sacred institutions." This is the second attempt to change the constitution to prohibit same sex marriage and supporters are confident that it will pass based on a random polling. For all the rhetoric that is being said, individuals hide behind their religious texts to support their cause who no real basis for having the constitution amended. Those who oppose spend massive amounts of money in trying to force their will on others. This is not right; there are far more important issues to address such as the war in Iraq, the economy and those who really do need help.

A federal judge has granted class-action status for a lawsuit over wages filed by two former Dell Inc. customer service employees in Roseburg.

The order signed July 10 by U.S. Magistrate Judge Thomas Coffin in Eugene covers Dell customer service employees in Oregon, Texas, Idaho, Tennessee and Oklahoma from February 8, 2004, to the present.

More than 80 people have already joined the lawsuit that could include as many as 5,000 current and former workers for the Round Rock, Texas, computer manufacturer.

The two Roseburg workers, David Norman and Walter Romas, claim in a lawsuit filed in February 2007 that Dell failed to pay overtime or keep accurate records.

Coffin said in his order that Norman and Romas "submitted evidence indicating a significant degree of commonality among the experiences" of Dell customer service workers.

Dell closed the Roseburg center last August, five years after it opened, laying off about 200 workers. Dell spokesman David Frink said the closure was part of worldwide reductions announced in May 2007 and had nothing to do with the lawsuit.

Frink said Wednesday the company has since closed service centers in Ottawa and Texas. He said the company does not comment on pending litigation but noted that Dell has said in its response to the lawsuit that the claims are inaccurate.

Canada transferred US Army deserter Robin Long back to US custody Tuesday following a decision by the Federal Court of Canada denying his asylum request. Long is the first of an estimated 200 US military personnel avoiding deployment in Canada to be returned to the US. Last week the court allowed another soldier, Joshua Key, to remain in the country while he appeals an initial denial of refugee status. In that case, the court named a number of key factors in determining whether or not the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB) should grant an applicant asylum, including the reasons for the objection to deployment, the likely legal consequences of resisting deployment, and the availability of remedies other than Canadian refugee status. Quoting Article 171 of the UN Refugee Agency Handbook regarding the justification for a soldier to be granted asylum in another country, the court wrote:

Not every conviction, genuine thought it may be, will constitute a sufficient reason for claiming refugee status after desertion or draft-evasion. It is not enough for a person to be in disagreement with his government regarding the political justification for a particular military action. Where, however, the type of military action, with which an individual does not wish to be associated, is condemned by the international community as contrary to basic rules of human conduct, punishment for desertion or draft-evasion could, in the light of all other requirements of the definition, in itself be regarded as persecution.

In Long's case, the court said he had not adequately substantiated his risk of persecution in the US were he to be denied asylum, and under Canadian law, being granted the status is the only way he could remain in the country.

Earlier this month, Canada's House of Commons voted in a non-binding resolution to grant US military deserters asylum. In November 2007, the Supreme Court of Canada declined to hear the appeals of Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey, two US military deserters who applied for asylum before the IRB. The Board had concluded that the two men would receive a fair trial if they were returned to the US and that they would not face persecution or cruel and unusual punishment.

The California Supreme Court Wednesday rejected without comment a challenge seeking to remove a November ballot initiative that would ban same-sex marriage in the state. The petition, filed by Equality California, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, Lambda Legal and the American Civil Liberties Union, argued that the amendment would deprive same-sex couples of fundamental rights. If approved by voters, the California Marriage Protection Act would amend the state constitution to read, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." The ballot initiative comes in reaction to a May 15 California Supreme Court decision overturning a ban on same-sex marriage in the state.

The approval of the ballot initiative came after the Attorneys General of ten states submitted a brief to the Supreme Court of California, asking it to stay its decision until after the November elections. They asserted that allowing same-sex marriages would cause citizens in their own states to become "marriage tourists" in California, and their own state courts would then face unfair, extensive, and burdensome litigation on whether to recognize the marriages. A conservative advocacy group filed a similar petition requesting a stay until November. In May, the California Office of Vital Records issued a memorandum setting June 17 as the start day for issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

A former employee of two local law offices pleaded guilty Wednesday to stealing more than $35,000 from the firms by falsely filling out closing documents.

Circuit Court Judge John Milling sentenced Carolyn Keys to 20 years in prison, which will be suspended after she serves three years in prison and five years on probation. Milling ordered the sentences to run consecutively, so if Keys does not successfully complete her probation, she must serve the remainder of her prison sentence.

Keys, 60, who lives with her sister in Virginia, pleaded guilty to two counts of breach of trust with fraudulent intent for two separate incidents at law firms in Horry and Georgetown counties, Solicitor Greg Hembree said.

Prosecutors had recommended the sentences to run concurrently, but Milling said he chose the consecutive sentence in case she failed the conditions of her probation, which include repaying $22,500 in restitution to the law firms, and random drug and alcohol testing.

Keys admitted she took $20,492 from the Manley and Hatley Law Firm while she worked there from May 2005 to December 2006 and $15,149 from the McNair Law Firm, where she worked after leaving the Manley and Hatley firm.

Keys' attorney, Mary Ashley Martin, told Milling that Keys suffered from leukemia and was first diagnosed when the incidents began. Martin said Keys also was under stress because her son had been deployed with the Marines to Iraq.

"I am so sorry. I know I can't correct what I've done. I hope you will forgive me," Keys said during the hearing as she turned to representatives of the law firms. "They put trust in me, and I betrayed that trust," Keys said.

Keys served a probation sentence in 2004 after she pleaded guilty to obtaining $1,850 under false pretenses, and she paid restitution to her former landlord in that case, Hembree said.

"She's been given a chance. Another judge gave her a chance and that experiment failed," Hembree said before Milling issued his sentence Wednesday. "This is not some kid down at the Wal-Mart, who does something stupid. This is a legal professional. We have to have faith and trust in this profession or it breaks down. She was single-handedly breaking it down."

Chad Hatley, who employed Keys, said he's spent at least $72,000 repaying clients, hiring auditors and accounting firms to review his records in addition to answering to the S.C. Bar Association about the misconduct in his office.

The unanimous decision means that, barring further legal action, voters will consider a constitutional amendment in November that would again limit marriage in California to a union between a man and a woman. The court did not give a reason for deciding not to accept the case.

"This was a frivolous lawsuit. It was a desperate attempt to try to keep the voter initiative off the ballot in November," said Glen Lavy, an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund representing the measure's sponsors.

If it passes, the amendment, known as Proposition 8, would overrule the Supreme Court decision that legalized same-sex marriage in the state as of June 16.

Equality California and other gay rights groups issued a statement Wednesday saying they were confident that the initiative, similar to gay marriage bans enacted in 26 other states, will fail.

"We're disappointed, but this ruling does not affect the campaign against Prop. 8 in any way," the groups said. "We have been focused on continuing the election and moving forward."

Equality California filed a petition last month arguing that the signature petitions used to put the proposal on the ballot, printed up before the court struck down the state's marriage laws, were misleading because they stated that the initiative would have no legal or financial effect.

The gay rights group also claimed that Proposition 8 would so drastically alter the promise of equality written into the California Constitution that it was improper to put it before voters as an amendment.