i was involved in campaigning against senator jesse helms when i was in college. when i came out here i was not initially involved politically. i was involved in community work, helping to build the lgbt community center doing neighborhood work, and i eventually started doing campaigns and gradually got more involved in democratic party politics. ultimately in 2004, i ran for the democratic county central committee and ended up chairing the committee. it was a gradual process for me. by the time i started thinking about running for supervisor, it made sense because of my involvement in the community and the politics. i knock on about $15,000 -- i knocked on about 15,000 doors and a huge amount of people. the best way to learn about the city and what people want and what people's concerns are. i feel like i know so much more than before i started campaigning. i am a good liberal democrat. in the san francisco miniature spectrum, i am considered pretty middle of the road. one thing about me is i am very independent when it comes to the issues, and i do not vote on p

he has been cited in favor of of the gold standard and by jesse helms in opposition to the payment of union dues, by ronald reagan putting the brakes on spending. i wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to the constitution, taken from the government the power of borrowing thomas jefferson 1798, the republicans love that over and over we hear it. jefferson did write that in a very different context. and in 1987 when reagan invoked it and by the way madison disagreed strongly with that concept of jefferson taking away from government power, he borrowed heavily to fight the war of 1812 where he was president. but yes thomas jefferson's words can be quite dangerous. he wrote in 1810 that a strict observance to written laws is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen. but it is not the highest. the loss of necessity and saving our country when in danger are of a higher obligation. to lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law would be to lose the law itself and lose it by a scrupulous adherence to written law would be to remove the law itself heard pre

jefferson has been cited by ron paul is a further gold standard, by jesse helme in opposition to the payment of union dues, by ronald reagan to put the brakes on spending. others were possible to obtain a single amendment to the constitution, taken from the government the power pirate thomas jefferson 1798. the republicans loved that over and over. jefferson did write that in a very different context. in 1987 when reagan invoked it and by the way, madison disagreed strongly with the concept of taking away and borrowing heavily to fight the war of 1812 when he was president. thomas jefferson's words can be quite dangerous. he wrote in 1810 a strip to observe that thomas is doubtless one of the high duties that a good citizen, but it's not the highest. the laws of necessity, saving our treachery when in danger or a higher obligation to lose our country by scrupulous adherence to two law would be to lose the war itself, to lose our country by scrupulous adherence to written off would be to lose the law itself. president nixon used that jefferson quote to invoke executive privilege and j

he was more likely not to touch this issue in the public spotlight for some time going back to jesse helmso when he took this job as president of the boy scouts gates said he did not want to litigate his position as president. he didn't see a this environment coming. we see a lot in terms of new york where the new york council hired an openly gay adult leader n. colorado boy scouts are having pending legal action. >> the recommendation is not ultimately not up to him. this has to be implemented by scout leaders. how does that look like? can you see change this is states like massachusetts versus alabama? >> we don't know the policy they're going to put forward. we know dr. gates says they need to make the change sooner than later. he spoke clearly if they don't make the change on their own, courts could step in and force them to change. in 2000 the scouts won a court case. he thinks this legal basis is may have been undermined by recent developments. >> a lot of scout troops start in relation to a local church. mormon churches sponsor scouting activities. they said they're going to reexami