K2 Productions, the folks behind Miss California USA, have filed a counter suit against former Miss California and opposite marriage advocate Carrie Prejean for reimbursement of $5200 for a boob job and plenty more.

“Even before she became notorious for that answer and the ensuing media storm, Ms. Prejean was already causing difficulty,” the K2 counter-suit states.

“With her new-found notoriety, an inflated sense of self, and the lure of financial gain available to her, Ms. Prejean turned even further against the Miss California USA organization.”

The new suit accuses Prejean of missing events, lying about semi-nude photos, negotiating an unauthorized book deal and using her title without authorization to help promote the National Organization for Marriage’s “campaign of intolerance” against gay marriage.

K2 asks for the proceeds from Prejean’s planned book, the $5,200 from the breast surgery and other relief.

“She attempts to cast herself as a virtuous young woman and the victim in a supposed conspiracy against her,” the cross-complaint states.

Prejean is currently suing the Miss USA Pageant for religious discrimination.

With November 4 rapidly approaching and a narrow lead in the polls, the Bangor Daily News and the Portland Press Herald have come out against Question 1 by supporting marriage equality in Maine.

From the Bangor Daily News…

Everyone must be treated equally under the state and U.S. Constitution. Denying civil marriage rights to same-sex couples violates that tenet.

Further, extending the right of marriage to a small segment of the population that has been excluded furthers the state’s interest in promoting stable families and communities. The Maine legislation also took important steps, mirroring the state’s Human Rights Law, to respect religious freedom and traditions. No church will be compelled to perform or recognize marriages that run counter to its faith. This strikes the difficult balance of respecting religious freedom while ensuring equality.

From the Portland Press Herald…

While this change in the law could seem abrupt to some Maine voters, it reflects the way people are really living now in cities and towns all over our state. That’s why we urge people to vote “no,” to allow this reasonable law to go into effect.

Leaders of the people’s veto campaign argue that extending the rights and responsibilities of civil marriage to families headed by same-sex couples would have broad effects throughout society. We have listened to their arguments, but we just don’t buy them.

While it’s technically true that the law would change the wording of the definition of marriage in state statute, it would not change the institution as it exists in Maine for thousands of traditional couples. Those vows would not be any weaker if same-sex couples were allowed to take them. Marriage would remain the key foundation for creating families, with the rights and responsibilities that come with it spelled out in the law, whether those families are headed by same- or opposite-sex couples.

Limiting marriage to a man and a woman would not make families led by same-sex couples go away. It would just keep them in a legally inferior position that is inconsistent with Maine’s tradition of equal protection under the law.

Gay men and women already live together, own property and have children, both biological and adopted. They hold responsible jobs, they volunteer in churches and schools – they are full members of our communities. The only thing they cannot do is form the legal partnership that gives them the advantages and duties that other couples have when they start families. The same-sex couples are not the only losers. This also puts their children at a disadvantage.

Sound, sensible arguments to be sure, but since when has logic gotten in the way of those who use their faith as a means to justify their hate?

Perhaps the president won’t be golfing after all. The White House is expected to announce today that President Obama will be attending the annual HRC dinner in Washington, DC on Saturday evening, the day prior to the National Equality March.

Mr. Obama’s appearance on Saturday at the annual dinner for the Human Rights Campaign, a leading gay rights advocacy group, represents a significant show of support for gay rights at a time when many prominent gay and lesbian activists have been questioning the president’s commitment to their issues.

Many gay rights activists have become increasingly vocal about their frustration over what they see as tepid support from Mr. Obama. While the president has professed support for overturning the ban on gays in the military and called the law that precludes federal recognition of same-sex marriages discriminatory, he has not engaged on gay rights issues as actively as some had hoped.

The Justice Department is defending the federal marriage law, known as Defense of Marriage Act, much to the dismay of many gay rights advocates. And Mr. Obama has been noncommittal about when he will move to end the “don’t ask don’t tell” policy. In June, he acknowledged their irritations at the slow pace of change at a gathering of about 250 gay rights leaders who had been invited to the White House.

While it remains to be seen what Mr. Obama’s appearance at the dinner will do to his standing in the eyes of gay rights activists, his speech may mollify some of their concerns.

His appearance will mark only the second time a sitting president has spoken to the Human Rights Campaign. The first time was in 1997 when Bill Clinton spoke to the group. That was the first time a sitting president had ever addressed a gay rights organization.

Here’s hoping the President will hang around and make an appearance at the Equality March on Sunday. But I wouldn’t count on it, despite this warmly worded invitation.

In an interview published by Gay City News over the weekend, NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg put the chances of passing a marriage equality bill in New York at zero.

“I don’t know how to get it to come up,” he said, explaining his view that having the issue move to the Senate floor may prove more difficult than rounding up the votes. “If you want my honest opinion,” Bloomberg continued, the Senate leadership is unlikely to move a gay marriage bill “when I don’t see these guys willing to stand up for less controversial issues.”

Despite the fact that the number of states with legal gay marriage quickly shot up to six this past spring, the mayor said, “I ‘m scared to death that the country is going in the wrong direction… I think on other LGBT issues they are clearly moving in the direction that I think they should go and you probably do too. It’s the marriage thing that I don’t see.”

Even in New York, where Paterson and his predecessor Eliot Spitzer have been outspoken in supporting gay marriage, Bloomberg argued, “Whether anybody who runs for governor next year will stand up for gay marriage, I’ll bet you 25 cents no.”

Though the Democrats did finally achieve a majority in the State Senate last November, the mayor who vows to deliver Republican votes views the composition of the Democratic caucus as a bar to action.

“There are a lot of traditional Democratic communities that are very conservative,” he said. “The black community is very conservative. The Latino. You know, I don’t win any points with these communities when I go in their churches and point out I’m very pro-choice. I’m very pro-gay rights. I’m anti-gun. I’m very pro-immigration. I believe in Darwin.”

Considering the ineptness of the NY State Senate, it’s difficult to disagree with the mayor. So Bloomberg is seeking a third term… as a Republican. A gay loving, pro-choice, anti-gun, pro-immigration and evolution believing Republican.

Is the end near?