Corporations Pledge HIV Anti-Discrimination

A regular MadProfessah.com reader alerted me to David Mixner's blog which had this interesting post about a voluntary corporate initiative to eliminate discrimination on the basis of HIV status.

The Global Business Coalition on HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria (GBC) is an organization I have not previously heard of but apparently they are announcing on World AIDS Day that several Fortune 500 corporations (representing over 5 million employees worldwide) are taking the pledge to end HIV stigma:

As a member of the Global Business Coalition on HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, my company is committed to fight HIV/AIDS discrimination and stigma in our workplace.

We pledge that our hiring, promotion and retention decisions will not be influenced by an individual’s actual or perceived HIV status.

We pledge to take prompt and meaningful action to improve our performance should we determine it falls short of these goals.

Recognizing the power of leadership by example, we pledge to use every opportunity to encourage other business leaders to make the same commitment.

Signed by the following CEOs:
Miles D. White, Abbott
Aigboje Aig-Imoukhuede, Access Bank Plc
Gilles Pelisson, Accor
Cynthia Carroll, Anglo American plc
Margery Kraus, APCO Worldwide
Anne Lauvergeon, AREVA Group
Kabelo Antony Ebineng, Associated Fund Administrators Botswana (Pty) Ltd
David R Brennan, AstraZeneca
Rahul Bajaj, Bajaj Auto
Peter Munk, Barrick Gold Corporation
Werner Wenning, Bayer AG
Edward J. Ludwig, BD (Becton, Dickinson and Company)
Vimal B.Shah, Bidco Oil Refineries Limited
Stephane Bancel, bioMérieux
Birger Sorensen, Bionor Immuno
Debra L. Lee, Black Entertainment Television (BET)
Bill Downe, BMO Financial Group
Dr. Alessandro Banchi, Boehringer Ingelheim
Shumeet Banerji, Booz & Company
Tony Hayward, BP
Michael T. Dan, The Brink's Company
James Cornelius, Bristol-Myers Squibb
Michael Predeaux, British American Tobacco
Mark Penn, Burson-Marsteller
Dave O'Reilly, Chevron Corporation
Gerald T. McCaughey, CIBC
Vikram Pandit, Citigroup
Muhtar Kent, The Coca-Cola Company
Samer Khoury, Consolidated Contractors International Company S.A.L. (CCC)
Dr. Dieter Zetsche, Daimler AG
N. F. Oppenheimer, De Beers
Blackie Marole, Debswana
Michael Dell, Dell
James H. Quigley, Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu
Gerald Mahinda, East African Breweries Limited
Gennady Gazin, EastOne LLC
Richard Edelman, Edelman
Christian Kemp Griffin, EDUN
John Lechleiter, Eli Lilly and Company
Phirwa Jacob Maroga, Eskom
Martin Vial, Europ Assistance Holding
Rex Tillerson, Exxon Mobil Corporation
Jacqueline Mugo, Federation of Kenyan Employers
Glen K. Murphy, Gap Inc.
Jonathan D. Klein, Getty Images
Alexander Saint-Amand, Gerson Lehrman Group
Andrew P. Witty, GlaxoSmithKline
Dong Soo Hur, GS Caltex Corporation
P. Igathe, Haco Industries Ltd
William A. Haseltine, Haseltine Global Health
Jean-Francois van Boxmeer, Heineken N.V.
Richard Plepler, Home Box Office (HBO)
Victor Y. Yuan, Horizon Research Group
Frank Ireri, Housing Finance Company of Kenya Limited
Anthony L. Howard, Independent Newspapers (Pty) Ltd
Heather Reisman, Indigo Books & Music Inc.
Corrado Passera, Intesa Sanpaolo
Jena Gardner, JG Black Book of Travel
William C. Weldon, Johnson & Johnson
Gerard J. Inzerillo, Kerzner International
Derek J. Oatway, KK Security (Kenya Kazi Services Ltd)
Bruno Lafont, Lafarge
John Anderson, Levi Strauss & Co.
Beatrice Dautresme, L'Oréal
John Demsey, MAC Cosmetics / MAC AIDS Fund
Ian E.L. Davis, McKinsey & Company
Richard Clark, Merck & Co., Inc.
L W Nkuhlu, Metropolitan
Dennis Pinto, Micato Safaris
Samir Modi, Modicare
William H. Roedy, MTV Networks
Robert J. Coury, Mylan Inc.
Gary Ginsberg, News Corporation
Mark Parker, Nike, Inc.
David Stern, National Basketball Association (NBA)
Daniel Vasella, M.D., Novartis
Duncan L. Niederauer, NYSE Euronext, Inc.
Marcia Silverman, Ogilvy Public Relations Worldwide
Douglas A Michels, OraSure Technologies
Jeff Kindler, Pfizer Inc.
Christie Hefner, Playboy Enterprises Inc.
Naresh S. Mehta, Power Technics
Neil Mehta, Premier Medical Corporation
Maurice Levy, Publicis
Thomas H. Glocer, Reuters
Tom Albanese, Rio Tinto
Simon Cooper, The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company
Gordon M. Nixon, Royal Bank of Canada
Dr. Ganesh P. Rane, RRR Industries
Matthew J. Wright, Russell Reynolds Associates
Graham Mackay, SABMiller plc
Fred Hassan, Schering-Plough Corporation
Rick Waugh, Scotiabank Group
Ai Lianghua, Shanghai Desano Pharmaceuticals Holding Company Ltd
Pete Ruegger, Simpson, Thacher & Bartlett
Christian Jourquin, Solvay
Gary Watts, SSL International plc
Clive Tasker, Standard Bank
Peter Sands, Standard Chartered Bank
Hiromasa Yonekura, Sumitomo Chemical
Scott Mullin, TD Bank Financial Group
Carol Johnston, Times Media Group
Christophe de Margerie, Total
John Noel, Travel Guard
Marie-Christine de Saragosse, TV5
Patrick Cescau, Unilever
Henri Proglio, Veolia Environment
Mikkel Vestergaard Frandsen, Vestergaard Frandsen
Phillippe Dauman, Viacom International
Sir Richard Branson, Virgin
Martin Winterkorn, Volkswagen
S. Shiryaev, Vostok-Service
Lev Partskhaladze, XXI Century Investments
Mick Davis, Xstrata
Dr. Subhi Quraishi, ZMQ Software System

Interesting news for World AIDS Day.

Gay Men On List Of New CA Legislators To Watch

There are twenty five newly elected members of the California Assembly that is being sworn in this week. MadProfessah fave John Perez is on the Sacramento Bee's list of five new members to watch.

AD 13 – Tom Ammiano, D-San Francisco
San Francisco supervisor. Replaces Mark Leno, D-San Francisco
District: Part of San Francisco County
Main city: San Francisco

Tom Ammiano has been a fixture in San Francisco politics, serving on the Board of Supervisors since 1994, including a stint as president.
An unabashed liberal in an unabashedly liberal city, Ammiano faced only token Republican opposition in November.
Ammiano, who worked on San Francisco's universal health care law, said health care reform would be among his top priorities in Sacramento. A local priority, he said, is installing a suicide barrier on the Golden Gate Bridge.
Politically, he is best known for the surprising strength of his write-in campaign for mayor when he challenged incumbent Mayor Willie Brown in 1999.
Ammiano could bring a lighter side to Assembly floor debates. A stand-up comedian since 1980, his nickname – which he proudly touts on his Web site – is "The Mother of Gay Comedy."

AD 27 – Bill Monning, D-Carmel
Professor, Monterey Institute of International Studies and Monterey College of Law. Replaces John Laird, D-Santa Cruz
District: Parts of Monterey, Santa Clara and Santa Cruz counties
Main cities: Carmel by the Sea, Monterey, Morgan Hill, Santa Cruz

It only took Bill Monning 14 years to win this seat. He first ran in 1994. He was more successful this time around, besting Emily Reilly, a Santa Cruz City Council member, and Barbara Sprenger, a former trustee of the San Lorenzo Valley School Board.
Monning comes to Sacramento – no kidding – as an expert in conflict mediation. It's a skill he fully expects to put to use.
"Coming in to Sacramento with a good idea gets you nowhere. You need to build consensus and coalitions, and that's where I believe I'm road-tested," he told the Santa Cruz Sentinel during the primary.
As a student at UC Berkeley during the 1960s, he went on to work as a lawyer for the United Farm Workers.

AD 75 – Nathan Fletcher, R-San Diego
Businessman, Iraq veteran. Replaces George Plescia, R-La Jolla
District: Part of San Diego County
Main cities: Escondido, La Jolla, Poway, San Diego

It takes a certain something to appear in your first political TV ad in skin-tight biker shorts.
But that is exactly what Nathan Fletcher did. An avid triathlete and decorated former Marine who served in Iraq and Africa, Fletcher has a sterling résumé for a young GOP officeholder.
He can also bend the ear of his wife – Mindy Tucker Fletcher, a former deputy chief of staff to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger – any time he's looking for political advice. Mindy Fletcher also served on President Bush's two presidential campaigns.
The assemblyman-elect has signed a no-new-taxes pledge.
"We need to create a true spending cap and rainy day fund to ensure budget stability and the full and recurring funding of our most vital services and programs," Fletcher says on his campaign site.

AD 46 – John Pérez, D-Los Angeles
Former member, Los Angeles Community Redevelopment Agency. Replaces Fabian Núñez, D-Los Angeles
District: Part of Los Angeles County
Main cities: Huntington Park, Los Angeles

John Pérez looked to be locked in a tough, three-way slugfest for the Assembly.
Then something happened. The other two candidates dropped out.
That cleared the field for Pérez, who is a cousin of Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa.
Some say the fix was in – especially after one of those would-have-been challengers was named to a plum post on the Los Angeles planning commission by Villaraigosa.
Pérez, a former member of the Los Angeles Community Redevelopment Agency, will join a new, smaller lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender caucus when he arrives in Sacramento.
He also has ties to labor, as a political director for the United Food and Commercial Workers.
And though he is just arriving in the Capitol, he's already been the subject of his fair share of speakership buzz.

AD 34 – Connie Conway, R-Tulare
Tulare County supervisor. Replaces Bill Maze, R-Visalia
District: Inyo County, parts of Kern, San Bernardino and Tulare counties
Main cities: Barstow, Bishop, Porterville, Twentynine Palms, Visalia, Tulare, Needles

Connie Conway is one of the few freshman members to arrive with a previous relationship with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.
She served as the president of the California State Association of Counties in 2006, and Schwarzenegger appointed her as chair of the California Partnership for the San Joaquin Valley.
A Tulare County supervisor like her father before her, Conway bested the wife of Assemblyman Bill Maze in the primary, as well as Bob Smith, a retired sheriff's deputy.
Her old colleagues in Tulare wish her luck in Sacramento: "Unfortunately, you're going to be going from the frying pan and into the bonfire," Supervisor Steve Worthley said at her departure.
Her top priority: "Cutting taxes and balancing the state's budget by ending wasteful spending."

Interesting that two of the five are openly gay men! They are only the third and fourth openly gay men EVER to be elected to the State Assembly. (John Laird and Mark Leno were the first). Interestingly, the new California LGBT Legislative Caucus is now consisting of 3 openly gay men (Pérez, Ammiano and State Senator Mark Leno) plus State Senator Christine Kehoe.

Legal Actions Obama Administration Can Take To Help LGBT

Influential law professor and occasional blogger Nan Hunter has posted to Bilerico a list of legal actions President Obama that would improve the lives of LGBT Americans dramatically.

1. President Clinton issued an executive order that prohibited discrimination against federal employees based on sexual orientation. President Obama should add gender identity to the list of prohibited bases for discrimination. One method would be by defining either "sex" or "sexual orientation" in the current order to include gender identity and expression. He has strong legal grounds for doing so, especially if the new language is added to the definition of sex discrimination, because he can invoke the ruling in Schroer v. Library of Congress, in which a federal court held that it was a violation of the sex discrimination aspect of Title VII to withdraw a job offer made to a transgender woman.

President-elect Obama has committed his administration to support anti discrimination laws that include protection for gender identity and expression. If that means anything, it should mean that he will be willing to actually make that policy a reality for federal employees. And as a matter of principle, it's a good thing for the federal government in its capacity as the nation's largest single employer to impose anti-discrimination obligations on itself before applying them to other employers.

2. Another important signal from the White House on employment matters will come if and when President Obama adds sexual orientation and gender identity to the list of prohibited grounds for discrimination by private companies that have contracts with the federal government.

3. On the legislative side, pass an inclusive ENDA already.

4. Also legislatively, repeal DoMA (especially the part limiting federal government recognition of marriage to those between a man and a woman, even if state law provides otherwise). And enact, perhaps as an amendment to DoMA, a provision that grants all federal benefits and rights and responsibilities under federal law that now go only to married persons to persons in a family relationship status formally
recognized under state law. In other words, eliminate the differential that persons in civil unions now face because their status has zero standing under federal law.

5. Lastly, reform the health care system so that every American - whether married, single, partnered or living in a cave - has access to health care. This may not be solely an lgbt issue, but it is a fact that persons in unmarried partnerships have much higher rates of uninsurance than even the abysmal U.S. average. And health care benefits are probably the number one material issue that drives the family recognition agenda. Let's solve that problem at the root.

I agree with this list, although I would add the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Act to the list of immediate legislative actions.



To the second tier of actions (to be completed by election day 2010) I would add:

1. Enacting the Permanent Partners Immigration Act. Passing a comprehensive immigration reform bill that includes the ability for Americans in binational same-sex relationships to sponsor their foreign partner for permanent residence is extremely important.


2. Repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." There is absolutely no scientific basis for the rationale that "homosexuality is incompatible with military service." The Clinton-era "compromise" public policy of allowing LGBT folk to serve in the military as long as they don't openly declare their homosexuality is wrong and should be eliminated. Almost every member of NATO allows openly gay people to serve in their military and the American public overwhelmingly supports this concept in opinion polls.


3. Producing a National AIDS Strategic Plan. Several national AIDS organizations have called for a comprehensive strategy towards addressing the HIV/AIDS crisis in this country. A national AIDS strategy would probably lead to fully funding the Ryan White CARE Act, administratively repealing the HIV travel ban, and finally enacting the Early Treatment for HIV Act, the Stop AIDS in Prison Act and many other bills that have been languishing in Congress waiting for a "reality-based" administration.

Interesting New Tactic In Marriage Culture War

Andrew Sullivan alerted me to this interesting idea by Tom Ackerman on his blog. What if we recognized nobody's marriage?

Yesterday I called a woman’s spouse her boyfriend.

She says, correcting me, “He’s my husband,”
“Oh,” I say, “I no longer recognize marriage.”

The impact is obvious. I tried it on a man who has been in a relationship for years,

“How’s your longtime companion, Jill?”
“She’s my wife!”
“Yeah, well, my beliefs don’t recognize marriage.”

Fun. And instant, eyebrow-raising recognition. Suddenly the majority gets to feel what the minority feels. In a moment they feel what it’s like to have their relationship downgraded, and to have a much taken-for-granted right called into question because of another’s beliefs.

Just replace the words husband, wife, spouse, or fiancé with boyfriend, girlfriend, special friend, or longtime companion. There is a reason we needed stronger words for more serious relationships. We know it; now they can see it.

A marriage is a lot of things. Culturally, it’s a declaration to the community that two people are now a unit, and that unity should be respected. Legally, it’s a set of rights and responsibilities. And spiritually, it’s whatever your beliefs think it is.

That’s what’s so great about America. As a Constitutionally secular nation, or at least in reality a vaguely pluralistic nation, we can all have our own spiritual take on what marriage is. What’s troublesome is when one group’s spiritual beliefs deny the cultural and legal rights of another.

An interesting suggestion, but most of the straight people *I* know do believe and support gay marriage, so why would we pubish them by not recognizing their relationship? Is that just collateral damage in a campaign to get the "mushy middle" to understand what it means for them to vote not to legally recognize mine?

What do you think?

VIDEO: Excerpt from "Milk"

I saw "Milk" in Atlanta yesterday on its opening day. It is very very good. I'll try and write-up a review soon, but I encourage everyone to see it this weekend if you can. Above is a short excerpt from the film about Harvey Milk.

Frequently Asked Questions on Prop 8

The L.A. Gay and Lesbian Center held a virtual town hall last night, emceed by intrepid lesbian reporter Karen Ocamb. As part of that event and their entire InvalidateProp8 website, they also released a very helpful FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) about Proposition 8, to inform the LGBT community about all of the circumstances around Proposition 8.

Some highlights:

What did the campaign’s internal polling show?

Celinda Lake and her firm did extensive polling for us throughout the campaign. From the very beginning her polling showed that we were significantly behind. Not as far as we had been with Prop 22, but significantly nonetheless. In preparing the answer to this FAQ, I consulted with lead campaign consultant Steve Smith and he reminded me of the following chronology: By the beginning of August, after 6 weeks of legal marriage, our polling (after being adjusted for phone bank differentials) showed that we were down by 13 points. This was very different from the public polling which inexplicably showed us ahead, but we believed our polling to be much more accurate based in part on the turnout models being used (our models were confirmed by the ultimate result).

After every advertisement that was run, we also ran tracking polls to check on the effectiveness of the ads. For example, the Thoron ad was very effective with women, but did not help us with men as much as had been projected. The “lies” ad featuring the televisions was not effective with anyone. The Superintendent of Public Instruction ad was extremely effective. So was the Dianne Feinstein ad. Week after week we gained ground. By the Thursday before the election, accounting for phone bank differentials, our polls showed that we had gained nearly 10 points since August and were down by only 3-4 points. Unfortunately, that’s about where we ended up.

[...]

What should our next steps be?

Lots of people are talking about this. We certainly want to do all that we can to take advantage of the great energy and involvement and new leadership that has been emerging since election day. I believe we should focus on two things: a national strategy and a California strategy. President-elect Obama ran on a platform of supporting the repeal of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and of legal equality for same-sex couples at the federal level. I believe our community should work on holding him accountable for these promises.

We also need to develop and implement a California strategy. We know that approximately 500,000 votes separated the Yes and No camps. This is a tiny margin and no way reflective of any broad mandate. If anything, it shows a sea change in our direction since Prop 22. Conceptually speaking, it also indicates that if we had found 500,000 new No voters or had changed the minds of 250,000 Yes voters, we would have won. There is no reason to wait until the next time our rights are put to the test at the ballot box to do the work of talking to voters and convincing them to support the freedom to marry. Just as the Center’s Vote for Equality project has been talking to and identifying supportive voters since 2004, we must continue that work.

Some are talking about putting our own measure on the ballot in 2010. I certainly think that’s one option, but I also think it’s too soon to make those kinds of decisions without a lot more information and analysis. Clearly, it would be much better if the California Supreme Court invalidated Prop 8. And, I worry that if we move too far down the path of our own measure in 2010, it will give the Supreme Court an excuse not to do the right thing. If they believe there’s a chance we could overturn Prop 8 in 2010, might they be less likely to overturn Prop 8 now and risk the ire of religious political extremists when several are up for retention election in two years?

Further, the June 2010 election is barely 19 months away—November 2010 only 2 years away. We made great gains with the No on Prop 8 campaign in comparison to the results of the vote on Prop 22—public opinion swung dramatically during that time. If we were to go the route of a proactive ballot measure, we must be absolutely certain that two years is enough time to do the necessary grassroots work to move public opinion the rest of the way before we launch a new campaign. And, given the economy, we must be absolutely certain that sufficient funds could be raised. These are some of the questions that I think must be answered with care before any decision is made to move forward with our own ballot measure.

Many of us, new and veteran activists alike, will be working to advance the cause of the freedom to marry. I hope everyone who has been inspired to join the rallies and protests will stay involved and help us ultimately secure our full equality. At the nation’s annual LGBT activist conference, Creating Change (this year in Denver at the end of January), there are likely to be numerous workshops and training sessions inspired by the fight in California and other states where anti-LGBT ballot measures passed as well as the success of the subsequent online activism that happened nationally. I intend to be there to share, learn and participate with my fellow activists!

I hope that there will be several opportunities for actvists who are not going to Creating Change in Denver to be able to contribute to the conversations about the way forward to invalidate Proposition 8. It's my understanding there will be some more large meetings in January.

Garth Trinidad Returns to 8-10pm KCRW Slot Dec 1

Well looks like even people who disagree about EVERYTHING can agree on music! Jasmyne Cannick is as excited as I am that DJ Garth Trinidad is returning to KCRW on Monday December 1. Praise Allah!

Garth's now-legendary radio show Chocolate City (along with Trader Joe's) was one of the great joys of living in Los Angeles and Southern California. I look forward to hearing him nightly on the radio. Garth is responsible for popularizing such breakthrough artists such as Van Hunt, Kelis, Jill Scott, Macy Gray and Me'shell NdegeO'cello on the public airwaves.

NYT Editorial on Prop 8 Lawsuits

I know I am supposed to be on vacation from blogging but I had to share this New York Times editorial with y'all:

California's Legal Tangle

The approval of Proposition 8 in California, a constitutional change designed to prohibit marriage between couples of the same sex, was not just a defeat for fairness. It raised serious legal questions about the validity of using the Election Day initiative process to obliterate an existing right for a targeted minority.

These deeper questions were largely lost during the expensive campaign by proponents of Proposition 8. Essentially, in their rush to enshrine bigotry in the State Constitution, they circumvented the procedure specified in that same document for making such a serious change. Now, the state's top court, which has agreed to hear the legal challenge to Proposition 8, has the unpleasant duty of tossing out a voter-approved ballot measure.

The case turns on whether Proposition 8 is a constitutional amendment, requiring only approval by a bare majority of voters, or a more far-reaching constitutional revision, requiring a two-step process: either a constitutional convention or a two-thirds vote of the State Legislature followed by voter ratification. The court, which has struck down several measures before, should not lightly overturn the will of the people. But it has not confronted a revision this far-reaching in terms of upsetting basic rights and the state's constitutional structure.

The court has correctly determined that the equal protection clause prohibits governmental discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, which extends the right of marriage to same-sex couples. But the issue goes well beyond gay rights. Allowing Proposition 8 to stand would greatly limit the court's ability to uphold the basic rights of all Californians and preclude the Legislature from performing its constitutional duty to weigh such monumental changes before they go to voters.

Treating Proposition 8 as a mere amendment would set a precedent that could allow the rights of any minority group to be diminished by a small majority. The measure passed 52 percent to 48 percent.

In California, sitting judges are subject to elections, and some supporters of Proposition 8 raise the threat of trying to oust justices who do not go along with trouncing on people's rights and proper constitutional procedure. We trust the court will not be intimidated. The justices' job is to protect minority rights and the State Constitution — even when, for the moment at least, it may not be the popular thing to do.

Eye Candy: Blatino Hotties

Hopefully these pictures will tide you over during the Thanksgiving slowdown in blogging from MadProfessah. Enjoy! Why choose Black OR Latino when you can have both: Blatino!

Pix of Black LGBT Rally Against Prop 8 In Los Angeles

About 200 people marched in the heart of Black Los Angeles, starting at Leimert Park to the corner of Crenshaw and Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevards and back on Sunday morning, chanting slogans like "What do we want? EQUAL RIGHTS! When we do we want them? NOW!"

The march was organized by Reverend Freda Lee (with the megaphone) and publicized by the Barabara Jordan / Bayard Rustin Coalition and Jewel's Catch One, which also hosted a post-march discussion from 2-4 pm.

'Lost' Trailer For Season 5

The new season of Lost starts on January 21, 2009.

Obama Raised $500 million online

According to the Washington Post Barack Obama raised more than half a billion dollars online in his campaign for the presidency. Over 3 million people gave 6.5 million donations, with the average donation about $80 and the average Obama donor giving more than once. Other tidbits:

Obama's e-mail list contains upwards of 13 million addresses. Over the course of the campaign, aides sent more than 7,000 different messages, many of them targeted to specific donation levels (people who gave less than $200, for example, or those who gave more than $1,000). In total, more than 1 billion e-mails landed in inboxes. (Four years ago, Sen. John F. Kerry had 3 million e-addresses on his list; former Vermont governor Howard Dean had 600,000.)

A million people signed up for Obama's text-messaging program. On the night Obama accepted the Democratic nomination at Invesco Field in Denver, more than 30,000 phones among the crowd of 75,000 were used to text in to join the program. On Election Day, every voter who'd signed up for alerts in battleground states got at least three text messages. Supporters on average received five to 20 text messages per month, depending on where they lived -- the program was divided by states, regions, zip codes and colleges -- and what kind of messages they had opted to receive.

On MyBarackObama.com, or MyBO, Obama's own socnet, 2 million profiles were created. In addition, 200,000 offline events were planned, about 400,000 blog posts were written and more than 35,000 volunteer groups were created -- at least 1,000 of them on Feb. 10, 2007, the day Obama announced his candidacy. Some 3 million calls were made in the final four days of the campaign using MyBO's virtual phone-banking platform. On their own MyBO fundraising pages, 70,000 people raised $30 million. The campaign even set up a grassroots finance committee that was inspired by the national finance committee's high-dollar bundlers. In the grassroots committee, though, supporters were trained to collect small-dollar donations from their friends, relatives and co-workers.

Obama has 5 million supporters in other socnets. He maintained a profile in more than 15 online communities, including BlackPlanet, a MySpace for African Americans, and Eons, a Facebook for baby boomers. On Facebook, where about 3.2 million signed up as his supporters, a group called Students for Barack Obama was created in July 2007. It was so effective at energizing college-age voters that senior aides made it an official part of the campaign the following spring. And Facebook users did vote: On Facebook's Election 2008 page, which listed an 800 number to call for voting problems, more than 5.4 million users clicked on an "I Voted" button to let their Facebook friends know that they made it to the polls. (Talk about online peer pressure.)

Aftermath of Prop 8: Black Town Hall SATURDAY!

There's a town hall meeting tomorrow morning from 8am-11am at Los Angeles Trade Tech Auditorium (400 West washington Boulevard) featuring a Who's Who of Black Los Angeles:

FEATURED SPEAKERS

Danny Bakewell Jr., Editor, Los Angeles Sentinel
Jasmyne Cannick, Journalist and Political Activist
Rev. Eric Lee, SCLC of Greater Los Angeles
Laurnea, Recording Artist
Jody Watley, Recording Artist
Reginald Sawyer-Jones, Secretary, CA Democratic Party
Speaker Karen Bass, CA Assembly Speaker
Assemblymember Curren Price, 51st Assembly District
Councilwoman Jan Perry, 9th District, City of L.A.
Councilman Bernard Parks Sr, 8th District, City of L.A.
Ed Smith, Sr. Pastor, Zoe Christian Fellowship of Whittier
Rev. Jenenne Macklin, Founder, Living in the Light Ministries
Rev. Douglass Nelson, Founder, Levitical Network
Dr. Mignon Moore, Prof. of Socio. & African American Studies
Jeffrey King, Founder, In the Meantime Men's Group
Ellene Miles, Journalist
Nevin Powell, Community Activist
Liliana T. Pérez, Community Activist
Latrice Johnson, United Lesbians of African Heritage
Charles Stewart, Chief Deputy, Cong. Diane Watson
Jewel Thais-Williams, Founder, Village Health Foundation
Craig Bowers, Community Activist
Erin Aubry Kaplan, Journalist
Ayuko Babu, Executive Director, Pan African Film & Festival
Reginald Sawyer-Jones, Secretary,CA Democratic Party
Phill Wilson, Founder, Black AIDS Institute
Pearl Jr., Author, "Black Women Need Love Too"

It should be worth waking up early for!

Geography of the Freedom To Marry

Evan Wolfson over at the group Freedom To Marry has provided these great maps depicting the current state of governmental recognition nationwide.

New "Star Trek" Trailer

I am usually a fan of everything that J.J. Abrams (creator of Lost and Alias) does but this trailer for next summer's Star Trek remake looks a bit iffy to me. It's definitely a new direction for the venerable sci-fi franchise. There's no real sense of what the story is about (besides a deeper look at the origins of the major characters like James T. Kirk, Spock and "Scotty") and that is usually a bad sign in coming attraction movie trailer. I'll still probably in line to see it though!

"Dear Community" Letter from LGBT Leaders

The following Open Letter to the community has started getting attention

November 13, 2008

Dear Community,

We are on the cusp of a new era as our country has elected its first African-American president, Barack Obama. We hope this unprecedented event will usher in a new chapter in our nation’s history.

This past week has been a difficult time. With the passage of Proposition 8 in California to change the state constitution to eliminate the right to marry, our community has experienced a difficult defeat. We are angry and upset by the passage of Proposition 8 and the betrayal of the promise of equality that has been the hallmark of the Golden State. Yet, we know that this is only a setback in—not the end of—our journey toward full equality for the LGBT community.

It is natural to analyze what went wrong. But in recent days there has been a tendency to assign blame to specific communities, in particular, the African American community. The fact is, 52 percent of all Californians, the vast majority of whom were not African Americans, voted against us. In addition, the most recent analysis of the exit poll that drove much of this speculation determined that it was too small to draw any conclusion on the African American vote, and further polling shows that the margin was much closer than first reported. Most importantly, though, none of this discourse changes the outcome of the vote. It only serves to divide our community and hinder our ability to create a stronger and more diverse coalition to help us overturn Proposition 8 and restore full equality and human rights to LGBT people. It also deflects responsibility from the group that is responsible for this miscarriage of justice: The Yes on 8 campaign. They waged a deceitful and immoral campaign that brought about this violation of our human rights and dignity.

We as a community have come so far. Let’s not lose sight of this. Since Proposition 22 passed eight years ago by 22 percentage points, we have made our case to the people of California. We have talked to our families, co-workers and friends about what true equality looks like. In so doing, we have narrowed the gap substantially since that time. And, in the last week, we have continued to move forward with a great wave of non-violent protest and a strong and powerful legal case put together by some of the keenest legal minds, supported by the governor, our senators and many other elected officials in our state. Moreover, we have seen a great national movement growing in support of equal rights for the LGBT community as a result of our actions in California.

We are hopeful the election of Barack Obama signals a new spirit of collaboration among diverse groups of people. There are many allied communities—straight, African-American, Asian Pacific Islander, Latino, Native American, white, people of faith, and secular people—who are energized to join with us as never before. This is progress! LGBT people are a part of all those communities, and with the support of our straight allies, we know that justice will prevail.

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said it best: “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” Now is the time to come together as one community working together toward human rights and full equality. We are confident that with our growing coalition we will ultimately win this fight.


Sincerely,

Ron Buckmire
Barbara Jordan/Bayard Rustin Coalition

Rea Carey
Executive Director, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force

Jennifer Chrisler
Executive Director, Family Equality Council

Oscar De La O
President & CEO, Bienestar

John Duran
Member, West Hollywood City Council

Rabbi Denise L. Eger
Congregation Kol Ami

Lorri L. Jean
CEO, L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center

Kate Kendell
Executive Director, National Center for Lesbian Rights

Geoff Kors
Executive Director, Equality California

Francine Ramsey
Executive Director, Zuna Institute

Rev. Susan Russell and Rev. Ed Bacon
All Saints Episcopal Church, Pasadena

Rodney Scott
President, Christopher Street West/LA Pride

Joe Solmonese
President, Human Rights Campaign

Rev. Dr. Neil G. Thomas
Metropolitan Community Church/LA

Vallerie D. Wagner
National Black Justice Coalition

Marshall Wong
Co-Chair, API Equality—L.A.

VIDEO: MadProfessah's appearance on NPR's News& Notes

Last Thursday I appeared on NPR's News & Notes hosted by Farai Chideya taped live at NPR Wesrt stuidios in Culver Citym CA. Interestingly, they had webcam recording everything, so the video of most of my appearance is now available online.

ANALYSIS: The CA Supreme Court Proposition 8 Decision

The San Francisco Chronicle has an interesting front-page article in today's paper trying to read between the lines in Wednesday's California Supreme Court decision to hear the lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Proposition 8.

The meatof the story concentrates on Justice Joyce L. Kennard, who voted with the 4-3 majority in the case legalizing marriage equality, but who (surprisingly!) voted against the petition to hear the lawsuit challenging Proposition 8's constitutionality.

Kennard's vote a bad sign?

While both sides cheered the court's decision to take up the cases, Kennard's lone vote to deny review could spell trouble for opponents of Prop. 8.

Kennard is the court's longest-serving justice, having been appointed in 1989, and has been one of its foremost supporters of same-sex couples' rights. Without her vote, the May 15 ruling would have gone the other way. But she wrote Wednesday that she would favor hearing arguments only about whether Prop. 8 would invalidate the pre-election marriages, an issue that would arise only if the initiative were upheld.

"It's always hard to read tea leaves, but I think Justice Kennard is saying that she thinks the constitutionality of Prop. 8 is so clear that it doesn't warrant review," said Stephen Barnett, a retired UC Berkeley law professor and longtime observer of the court.

For those seeking to overturn Prop. 8, "I would not think it would be encouraging," said Dennis Maio, a San Francisco lawyer and former staff attorney at the court.

I'm not sure this is the correct interpretation of Justice Kennard's vote. In the marriage decision released May 15, 2008, Justice Kennard wrote a separate concurring opinion, in which she said:

"[T]he constitutionality of the marriage laws' exclusion of same-sex couples is an
issue particularly appropriate for decision by this court, rather than a social
or political issue inappropriate for judicial consideration," explaining that
"[t]he architects of our federal and state Constitutions understood that widespread and deeply rooted prejudices may lead majoritarian
institutions to deny fundamental freedoms to unpopular minority groups, and that the most effective remedy for this form of oppression is an independent judiciary charged with the solemn responsibility to interpret and enforce the constitutional provisions guaranteeing fundamental freedoms and equal protection."[emphasis added]

Does this sound like a woman who believes that 52% of Californians can deny a fundamental right by a majority vote? Justice Kennard had also written in her concurring opinion that she felt that the 4,000 couples who had been married in San Francisco in 2004 should have been allowed to remain married until the California Supreme Court resolved their constitutionality. However, if that is her position, it is somewhat odd that she didn't vote with Justice Moreno to dissent in the refusal to issue a stay on Proposition 8 going into effect, but she may have been against a stay for other judicial reasons.

The more interesting person to watch will be Justice Carol Corrigan, who as I have stated many times before, lives with another woman in the Bay Area, but voted against the majority in the In Re Marriage Cases decision. Her position then was that the Court was not exercising sufficient judicial restraint, although she believed that " Californians should allow our gay and lesbian neighbors to call their unions marriage" but "a majority of Californians hold a different view, and have explicitly said so by their vote." I believe that she will be key in whether we win the current case.

The Chronicle article also has an excellent summary of what the issues are at stake moving forward:

What is before the state high court:

1. Does Proposition 8 make such a far-reaching change to California's Constitution that it amounts to a constitutional revision, which requires a two- thirds vote of the Legislature to be placed on the ballot?

2. Does Prop. 8 violate the constitutional separation of powers by restricting judges' authority to protect the rights of same-sex couples?

3. If constitutional, does Prop. 8 invalidate the 18,000 same-sex marriages that took place in California between June 16, when the court's ruling legalizing gay and lesbian unions took effect, and the election?

What's next

Next steps for the Proposition 8 cases before the state Supreme Court:

Written arguments: The parties in the cases - same-sex couples, gay-rights advocates and city and county governments challenging the law, and the state attorney general and the Prop. 8 campaign defending it - are scheduled to file written arguments through Jan. 5.

Briefs: Other interested individuals and groups must file friend-of-the-court briefs by Jan. 15. The parties have until Jan. 21 to reply to any of those briefs.

Hearings: No court hearing has been scheduled yet, but it could take place as early as March. A ruling is due within 90 days of the hearing.

The lead case in Wednesday's order is Strauss vs. Horton, S168047.

Stay tuned.

How We Blew It: California's Prop 8 Defeat

How We Blew It
California's Prop 8 Defeat

A Bungled Campaign, A Call for Change, The 'Ick' Factor, and
Historical Inevitability

By Terry Leftgoff

Last night I attended a meeting in to hear some of the leaders of the
losing No on Prop 8 campaign discuss why they thought we lost. I found
myself strongly disagreeing with their assessment. I also found myself
in excellent company among the many villagers feeling pushed outside the
village gates.

So what happened? On a day of a monumental tidal shift when voters
bust down the front door of the White House for an African American and
Californians voted to prevent the closing of another door to abortion
rights, in a stunning reversal Californians voted to slam the door on
the civil rights of gay couples and strip us of our right to marry.

The single biggest reason for the Proposition 8 loss was an
ineffective and inept campaign strategy by the leadership of the No on 8
campaign, Despite raising record shattering amounts of money and
volunteers who worked their hearts out, the overarching state campaign
strategy was a huge flop.

How to Lose a Political Campaign

The statewide No on 8 campaign violated numerous standard rules of
political campaigns and overlooked or ignored basic campaign strategy
and in so doing lost a double digit lead to predictable scare tactics.
Independent polls from both the California Field Poll and the Public
Policy Institute of California showed Prop 8 losing by an increasing
margin following the tidal wave of joyous wedding coverage growing to a
double digit lead in September before intensive television advertising
began.(1) Internal polls conducted by Equality California (ECQA) are
said to have provided a different picture of voter opinion but ECQA has
thus far declined to disclose them.

All three major elements of a successful campaign - media, field
operation and Get Out The Vote program -- were flawed or worse,
completely non-existent.

Ineffective Media

The No on 8 campaign began by allowing the Yes on 8 proponents to
define the debate and it was never able to recover. This violated the
first rule of political campaigns which is to never let your opponent
define you first.

After a near fatal slow start, every emotional attack ad from Yes on 8
received a tepid intellectual response from No on 8. This violated
another rule of political campaigns which is to quickly respond in equal
kind to an attack so it is not allowed to penetrate the public mind.

Instead of running a diverse muti-message campaign of persuasion, the
media message was emotionless, monotone and uncompelling. In short, the
media messages failed to move or even educate voters about the issue and
instead appealed to a single abstract principle - equality - that was
not sufficiently persuasive or connected to the content of the
proposition. Worse, there appeared to be no effective Black or Latino
strategy.

An effective target strategy would have been to send Democratic voters
mailers with a picture of Barack Obama and other prominent diverse
leaders who oppose Prop 8 and, alternately, to send Republican voters
mailers with pictures of Arnold Schwarzennegger and other prominent
religious and conservative leaders who oppose Prop 8. This is textbook
targeting.

TV AD #1: A perky but awkward teenager is sitting in a school
yard. He or she is Black or Latino. He could be the actor who plays the
gay son on Ugly Betty. He speaks directly into the camera while
shuffling his feet: "You know, it's hard growing up feeling different.
Rejection hurts. Self esteem and acceptance are vital to the success of
kids like me. Did you know that as many as 1 in 3 gay and lesbian teens
attempt suicide? Prop 8 would prevent people like me from marrying.
When I grow up, I hope to get married someday. Please don't take that
hope away from me. Just growing up is hard enough." (Gentle woman's
voice: "Vote no on 8, Please don't discriminate')
The touching images about post-Supreme Court weddings that so
effectively humanized the issue were squandered. The magnificent media
saturation about our personal stories that was broadcast throughout
every corner of the state caused huge gains in public opinion and, by
extension, voter preferences. Did our advertising strategy utilize these
moving stories? Inexplicably, they did not.

The sanitized media messages smacked of a campaign by focus group.
Such an outdated orthodox approach should have been over-riden by common
sense and political savvy. How it is our community's considerable
collective campaign knowledge could have lead the No on 8 campaign so
astray?

Ads never even mentioned the subject matter of the proposition -- gay
marriage or marriage equality -- ceding it to the Yes on 8 proponents to
define for the electorate. The No on 8 ads never featured simple first
hand heartfelt stories of gay and lesbian families talking about what it
means to them and their children to have the legal benefits of marriage
and conversely, what it would mean to have that right ripped away. They
never featured our children and what the legal protection of marriage
means to them. And significantly they did not reflect the diversity of
our electorate.

TV AD #2: A gay couple is sitting with their young children. They
speak directly into the camera: "The legal protections of marriage are
important to us because, like other parents, we're concerned about what
might happen to them should something happen to one of us. Prop 8 would
take away the right to marry of people like us. Please don't take that
away from us or from them." (Gentle voice: 'Vote no on 8. Please don't
discriminate')
When it became clear things were going awry, campaign managers were
changed mid-stream. There was a noticeable shift in messaging during
which media messages became more powerful but they continued to dance
around the issue. By this point, it was too little too late.

The 'Ick Factor'

Let's address the 'Ick Factor'.(2) In this situation, it applies to
the way our proponents sexualize and demonize the gay community then
attempt to exploit the discomfort they created. One particularly
effective theme of the demonizing attack ads by the Yes on 8 proponents
was the shameless use of lies about children. But instead of humanizing
ourselves and our children, No on 8 responded by hiding us in the
closet, in effect a self inflicted wound, and failing to show how such
attacks are hurtful to the well-being of our children.

History has shown us that when the humanity of the gay community is
showcased, public opinion is highly responsive. This has been true with
AIDS, prior attacks on gay teachers, and with the coverage of gay
weddings. Instead, the campaign message rendered gay couples and parents
invisible with antiseptic ads that in effect dehumanized us which
allowed these demonizing attack ads by Yes on 8 proponents to flourish
in the public mind. These emotional tactics by Yes on 8 proponents were
cliche, shopworn and completely predictable. The gay community was
'disappeared', hidden in the closet like a shameful crazy uncle, within
ineffective third party media messaging. The singular media message,
approach and roll out was, at best, painfully slow and monotone, and, at
worst, it reflected internalized homophobia.

There were no ads that pealed back the curtain on who the stealth
sponsors of Prop 8 were and the religiously based campaign they were
waging. The Morman Church and its members accounted for nearly $ M or
close to half of all Yes on 8 proponent contributions. They sponsored
and ran an effective ground operation that trained members to never let
on they were Morman. The Morman Church has, in a well guarded secret,
been the primary sponsor of virtually every anti-gay initiative that has
appeared on a state ballot in the United States. How salient would an ad
have been that asked voters whether the Morman Church of Utah, infamous
for its polygamists and forcing underage young girls into exploitive
marriages, should lecture Californians about marriage? We'll never know
since no such ad was produced.

TV AD #3: A well known black civil rights figure or minister
speaks directly into the camera: "The Mormon Church of Utah is behind
Prop 8 on the ballot. They want to ban gay marriage. Did you know that
for over a century, the Mormon Church banned blacks from becoming
members.(3) Now they want to tell Californians what our marriages
should look like? (Gentle voice: 'Vote no on 8. Please don't
discriminate')

I wonder how such an ad might have resonated with African American
voters, 70% of which ended up siding with the Morman Church on Prop 8.
(4) Internal polls conducted by Equality California (ECQA) are said to
show 57% support from Black voter preferences but ECQA has thus far
declined to release them.

Perhaps one of the most instructive and disturbing contradictions of
the election is to hear Black religious leaders justify their position
by using the same language and rationale against gay marriage that was
historically used against them. Several interviews with leading black
leaders supporting Prop 8 repeated the mantra that to them it was not a
civil rights issue but rather a moral or religious issue.

This is the identical language used by the racists of their day to
defend segregation, to ban interracial marriage and to justify
discrimination in housing. This latter issue is particularly salient
because, like marriage equality, it was placed before voters and, in a
similar expression of the 'people's will', was overwhelmingly approved
prior to being striken by the California Supreme Court. (5) Clearly we
failed to sufficiently make our case with Black voters. And we need to
understand why.

TV AD #4: A black minister speaks directly into the camera; "There
used to be a legal ban on blacks and Jews moving into white
neighborhoods. They used to tell us it wasn't a civil rights issue, it
was a moral issue. Yeah, right. Now they've put Prop 8 on the ballot
that would ban gay marriage. They are saying it isn't a civil rights
issue, it's just a moral issue. Uh huh. Photo montage of Barack Obama
and other Black leaders who are against Prop 8.
(Gentle female voice: 'Vote no on 8. Please don't discriminate')

No Grassroots Organization, A Weak Field Operation, Failed GOTV
Program

Rather than organizing local organizing committees across the state
for a strong locally grown grass roots operation, the campaign appeared
insular and apparently did not include or listen to those with
experience in the winning grassroots activism that has beaten back
repeated anti-gay measures during the last 3 decades. Further, they
failed to run a basic ground operation and relied upon a website that
was so bad it frequently acted as a repellent.

The Yes on 8 proponents used a traditional field operation by
personally talking to potential voters at the precinct level. In this,
there is no substitute for face-to-face campaigning. The personal
approach has proven to be the most effective and it is backed by years
of political science and empirical experience. Standard campaign
practice holds that it takes 3 personal contacts to firm up a leaning
voter. In contrast, No on 8 apparently never conducted an actual ground
operation, relying instead on a patchwork of phonebanks with limited
reach and saturation, and surrendered outlying areas likely racking up
larger losses.

Further, looking beyond ineffective media and a weak ground operation,
there was an incompetent Get Out The Vote (GOTV) strategy which likely
resulted in lower turnout of supporters in key voter rich counties. I
personally received a note from the No on 8 campaign thanking me for my
offer to volunteer for election day GOTV activities but declining
because they had no need. No need for volunteers on election day?! They
did offer, however, that I could come in to help clean their offices the
day after the election. How nice. I imagine cleaning their office the
day after the election might produce scads of new votes. Not.

As it turns out, I was not alone. Numerous volunteers, whose stories
have lit up Internet blogs, were turned away by No on 8 on election day
because there was no real GOTV strategy.

So what was their GOTV program? The weekend before the election,
volunteers were 'trained' to stand outside polling places on election
day. And if you missed the 'training' there was no use for you.

What's wrong with that approach? This is often counterproductive
because: a. it doesn't increase turnout (people are already entering the
polls); b. by this time voters generally have already made up their
minds; c. even though the law specifies a buffer around polling places
where there can be no electioneering, it can be intimidating to voters
and can turn people against; and, d. you want all available hands on
deck on election day without any artificial barriers.

A textbook GOTV program is one that focuses on actually getting your
supporters to vote: transport people to polling places, check the
polling place throughout the day to see who of your supporters hasn't
voted yet, then make efforts to get them to the polls.

What about all those voters who voted by mail? Typically, it is
crucial to have a strategy to contact these early voters at the time
mail ballots are being received, weeks before the election and outside
the reach of last minute media messages. This is where early targeted
mailers make a crucial impact. But that was not part of the strategy
either.

How could there be no mail voter strategy? Good question. It was well
known and anticipated that the use of mail ballots would be
unprecedented; in fact, more voters cast their votes by mail in this
election than at any time in state history.

The Linchpin - Los Angeles County

So where did it really go wrong? Los Angeles County. It is the single
most important County in California accounting for 25% of all votes cast
in the state, and it is where the campaign appears to have collapsed.

It seems Prop 8 was primarily lost in LA County, which due to a 2-to-1
ratio of Democrats to Republicans typically delivers enough votes to
dilute and cushion conservative votes elsewhere (primarily in Orange and
San Diego Counties, among others).

LA is essential to the electoral success of a traditionally liberal
cause. A simple party line vote in LA, given the projected turnout,
would have polled between 5-600,000 more votes against Prop 8 than it
did. Had it done so, Prop 8 would have lost. In the case of Prop 8, not
only did LA not deliver, it leaned in the wrong direction and
contributed to a state deficit of over 500,000 votes.

Could a more effective GOTV strategy have increased turnout among
supporters increasing the winning margin in supportive areas and
decreasing the margin of loss in hostile areas? That is the intended
purpose. Too often elections are won by who stays home. One signal is
that Prop 4 was successfully defeated by the identical vote margin that
passed Prop 8. So there was a clear discordance among some voter groups.
And it appears the Prop 8 campaign had both a tail wind and a head wind.

As for turnout, despite repeated media reports about record turnout in
the low 80's % the reality was slightly lower in California. As of this
writing, LA County, with about 4.1 M registered voters, reports about 3
Million votes cast for a turnout of close to 75% which is strong and
consistent with turnout of 71% statewide which will likely be revised
upward due to reporting delays. So there appears to have been some room
to increase turnout. Numbers are preliminary as votes are still being
tallied and it is likely they will continue to be revised upward into
early December.

Turnout in Orange County, with just over 1.6 M registered voters, is
reported to be lower at about 70% or 1.12 Million ballots cast as of
this writing. It is a bastion of conservative votes where John McCain
polled over 36,000 votes or a margin of 3% more than Barack Obama. Prop
8 won by 172,000 votes or by 58-42. Prop 4 won by 93,000 votes or by
54-46.

By comparison, turnout in San Francisco, with 477,651 registered
voters, is reported to be 375,000 or 78.5% with less than 1% or close to
4500 ballots still to be counted. Both Prop 8 and 4 lost by identical
margins (75-25). Still 25% of voters in SF voted yes on Prop 8. Just
think about that for a moment.

A Call to Account and for Accountability - A Losing Strategy That
Didn't Have to Be

I blame an incompetent campaign that blew through $40 Million and had
little to show for it but a losing strategy.

The Yes on 8 proponents relied on an early gusher of funding, much of
it from the Morman Church. So No on * was initially hampered and swamped
in early fundraising. No on 8 raised $15 Million before October 1 and
$25 Million after October 1; this trend was reversed for Yes on 8
proponents which earned them some strategic advantage.

No on 8 deserves huge accolades for fundraising. Although slow to
start, it was spectacular for shear volume of contributions and the
number of individual contributors. But it turns out that in the end, for
No on 8 -- the gay and lesbian community and our allies -- it wasn't a
matter of money, it turned out to be a matter of simple political
smarts. There were plenty of brilliant attorneys and managers in the
room but apparently no political or grassroots operatives to guide an
electoral strategy, those that were in the room were rebuffed.

It is painful for our community to face such a public rejection. The
dimensions of that pain from rejection are where many of us live our
lives. But it did not have to be. So this moment represents a special
time for painful introspection about a lost opportunity and a new
opportunity for profound learning.

I hereby call upon activists, community leaders and local, state and
national organizations in California and throughout the country to hold
Community Town Hall forums to account for such a momentous series of
campaign blunders. We need a transparent comprehensive campaign
post-mortem, to air concerns, share collective wisdom and to jointly
plan our future. Democracy is messy; it's inside that mess where we
regain traction.

We need to have an open two-way conversation that rectifies the
insularity of this campaign, where our diverse community is welcome at
the table and no voice is shut out. This must involve everyone: young
and old, street activists, uber-lesbigays, celebri-gays, leatherfolk,
allies, donors and leadership.

In Los Angeles County, I call for a forthright and blunt introspection
about what went wrong, without defensiveness or recrimination. There
needs to be full accountability before we can trust our leaders with
another $40 Million for a future initiative endeavor for which we are
already being called upon to support. For a future campaign to succeed,
we must be there together for the liftoff if they want us there for the
landing.

The starter for these forums should be the words, "We screwed up and
here's what we need to learn from it. What do you think?" Then those
responsible for this campaign need to listen quietly with contrition in
their hearts and an open ear as the sorrow of our anguish meets the
redemption of our ambitions.

Any good news?

What can we take from this debacle? Despite such a bungled campaign
and a loss of a 20 point lead, support still grew by 10% over 2000
Proposition 22 results narrowing the margin of loss to a slender 4%.
Imagine what we could have done with a well crafted campaign strategy.

We can learn from what went right in a County like Santa Barbara where
No on 8 succeeded 53-47 despite the state campaign strategy, not because
of it. This is a county where, due to culture and geographic isolation,
political campaigns are never won by media but by the shoe leather of
smart locally originated and implemented field operations. Unlike the
state No on 8 campaign strategy, local leaders targeted the very areas
lost to Prop 22, joined local precinct walk operations and GOTV
programs, organized the faith community, secured and publicized
important endorsements and, most importantly, they successfully
humanized the issue. It is an excellent case study since this one County
mirrors the most extreme political divisions of the state as a whole. If
you can win in a region that is evenly split between coastal progressive
voters and inland conservative voters, you can win almost anywhere in
California.

The silver lining is that shifting voter demographics reveal an
inevitable generational and historical trend toward acceptance of gay
civil rights. As previously mentioned our community deserves huge
accolades for fundraising. Impressively, half of all donations to No on
Prop 8 were in amounts less than $100 which is promising as it indicates
width of active support.

This devastating loss jolted and awakened new generations of gay,
lesbian and our outraged allies out of their slumber around the world.
It is awesome to witness the sea of humanity at our protests. When our
civil rights are ripped away, we bleed.

To mangle a saying, now we need to get angry and get organized. Let's
build upon this new energy, build a new movement, and learn the new ways
of organizing. And let's learn from our mistakes, not by making bigger
and better mistakes, but by avoiding them next time. It is time for the
elders to begin passing along the successful strategies of our struggles
to the next generations and then join in a new torch relay together.

That many of our western allies are ahead of the United States on gay
marriage offers hope that America lead by an Obama Administration,
rather than bringing up the rear, will once again reassert it's
leadership on human rights issues in the world. And it is positive the
Mormon Church has finally been publicly outted for its obsessive
anti-gay electoral activities.

So the battle and the struggle continues and it now moves back to the
Supreme Court where only last May they recognized our fundamental rights
and made an unprecedented declaration that sexual orientation is a
legally protected class from discrimination.

Judging by their sweeping ruling last May, I believe they are
expecting us...

------------------
Terry Leftgoff is the founder of the Gay and Lesbian Business
Association of Santa Barbara (GLBA) and the GLBA Scholarship Fund, an
endowed foundation that provides grants to gay and lesbian students,
many of whom face rejection due to their sexual orientation. He formerly
served as the highest ranking openly gay officer of the California
Democratic Party and oversaw numerous campaign efforts including local
unified Democratic campaigns for Bill Clinton, Dianne Feinstein, and
Barbara Boxer, among others. Leftgoff is a former political and
environmental consultant from Santa Barbara who ran both candidate and
issue campaigns which included media messaging and response. He lead
numerous regional fundraising and grassroots campaign committees against
a number of anti-gay issues including Propositions 64, 69, 96 and 102.
He is currently an Environmental, Government & Public Relations
consultant living in West Hollywood. He is single and hopes to be able
to marry someday.
--------------
1. 'Polling on Prop. 8 - California's Same Sex Marriage Ban', by Mark
DiCamillo, Director of the California Field Poll, Pollster.com, November
7,1008 . Early September Field Poll showed the opposition leading by 14
or 17%. depending on wording. Mid-September polling by Public Policy
Institute of California showed a lead of 14%. Prop 8 proponent ads began
airing mid-to-late September.
2. The term, 'Ick Factor', was coined by Eric Rofes to describe a
visceral recoil between gay men and lesbians.
3. 'The Church and the Negro', John Lewis Lund. Deseret Books.
4. CNN Exit Polling Data
5. Mulkey v. Reitman (1966) 64 Cal.2d 529, affd. sub nom.Reitman v.
Mulkey (1967) 387 U.S. 369

Although I disagree with the central thesis of the piece ("we blew it" since I actually do not think Proposition 8 was winnable unless we had reached 50% public approval on the marriage equality question) as well as the call to action to hold public forums where leaders of the campaign express contrition.

However, I do think there are numerous good points in the piece and thus are posting it here as a favor to a friend.

BREAKING NEWS: Californa High Court Agrees To Hear Prop 8

San Francisco – The California Supreme Court today denied requests to stay the enforcement or implementation of Proposition 8, and at the same time agreed to decide several issues arising out of the passage of Proposition 8.

The court’s order, issued in the first three cases that had been filed directly in the state’s highest court challenging the validity of Proposition 8, directed the parties to brief and argue three issues:

(1) Is Proposition 8 invalid because it constitutes a revision of, rather than an amendment to, the California Constitution?

(2) Does Proposition 8 violate the separation-of-powers doctrine under the California Constitution?

(3) If Proposition 8 is not unconstitutional, what is its effect, if any, on the marriages of same-sex couples performed before the adoption of Proposition 8?

The court issued its order in three cases filed on behalf of a variety of parties, including same-sex couples who seek to enter into marriage despite the passage of Proposition 8, a same-sex couple who married in California prior to the adoption of Proposition 8, and a number of cities and counties whose officials seek to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Petitioners in each of these cases seek an order directing the relevant state officials to refrain from implementing, enforcing, or applying Proposition 8.

In response to the petitions, the Attorney General filed a preliminary opposition, in which he urged the court to assume jurisdiction over these cases to decide the important legal issues presented, but also argued that the court should not stay the operation of Proposition 8 pending the court’s resolution of the issues. The proponents of Proposition 8 also responded to the petitions, seeking to intervene as formal parties in the action and also urging the court to accept the cases for decision. The court’s order granted the motion to intervene filed by the proponents of Proposition 8.

In its order, the court established an expedited briefing schedule, under which briefing will be completed in January 2009 and oral argument potentially could be held as early as March 2009.

Six justices — Chief Justice Ronald M. George, Justice Marvin R. Baxter, Justice Kathryn M. Werdegar, Justice Ming W. Chin, Justice Carlos R. Moreno, and Justice Carol A. Corrigan — signed the court’s order, although Justice Moreno indicated that he would grant the requests to stay the operation of Proposition 8 pending the court’s resolution of these matters.

Justice Joyce L. Kennard would deny these petitions without prejudice to the filing in the Supreme Court of an appropriate action to determine Proposition 8’s effect, if any, on the marriages of same-sex couples performed before Proposition 8’s adoption.

Nepal's Highest Court Issues Landmark Ruling Declaring LGBT Equality

The nation of Nepal will probably be enacting full equality for LGBT citizens before the United States. That nation's highest court just issued a ruling similar to California's In Re Marriage Cases which declares that laws that discriminate based on sexual orientation (and gender identity) violate the constitution.

It reiterates that all LGBTIs are defined as a "natural person" and their physical growth as well as sexual orientation, gender identity, expression are all part of natural growing process. Thus equal rights, identity and expression must be ensured regardless of their sex at birth.

The writ petition was filed by Blue Diamond Society and other 3 LGBTI organisations in Nepal demanding the protection and defence of the equal rights of sexual and gender minorities.

"Reading this decision my eyes were filled with tears and I felt we are the most proud LGBTI citizens of Nepal in the world," said Sunit Pant, Nepal's only gay MP.

"A legal note of point has been raised for the new constitution of Nepal while ensuring the equal rights to individuals, like the bill of tights from South Africa, and non-discrimination provisions on the grounds of sexual orientations and gender identities must be introduced."

The Court has also issued a directive order to form a seven-member committee, with a doctor appointed by Health Ministry, one representative from National Human rights commission, the Law Ministry, one socialist appointed by government of Nepal, a representative from the Nepal police, a representative from Ministry of Population and Environment and one advocate as a representative from the LGBTI community, to conduct a study into the other countries' practice on same-sex marriage.

Based on its recommendation the government will introduce a same-sex marriage bill.

Hat/tip to PinkNews. Nepal borders China and India.
This is an amazing step forward for International LGBT human rights.

Obama-Biden Official Goals on LGBT Rights Published

The Obama-Biden Administration Transition website at change.gov has been updated with the officials goals of President Obama in the area of LGBT equal rights:

* Expand Hate Crimes Statutes: In 2004, crimes against LGBT Americans constituted the third-highest category of hate crime reported and made up more than 15 percent of such crimes. Barack Obama cosponsored legislation that would expand federal jurisdiction to include violent hate crimes perpetrated because of race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, or physical disability. As a state senator, Obama passed tough legislation that made hate crimes and conspiracy to commit them against the law.
* Fight Workplace Discrimination: Barack Obama supports the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, and believes that our anti-discrimination employment laws should be expanded to include sexual orientation and gender identity. While an increasing number of employers have extended benefits to their employees' domestic partners, discrimination based on sexual orientation in the workplace occurs with no federal legal remedy. Obama also sponsored legislation in the Illinois State Senate that would ban employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
* Support Full Civil Unions and Federal Rights for LGBT Couples: Barack Obama supports full civil unions that give same-sex couples legal rights and privileges equal to those of married couples. Obama also believes we need to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally-recognized unions. These rights and benefits include the right to assist a loved one in times of emergency, the right to equal health insurance and other employment benefits, and property rights.
* Oppose a Constitutional Ban on Same-Sex Marriage: Barack Obama voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2006 which would have defined marriage as between a man and a woman and prevented judicial extension of marriage-like rights to same-sex or other unmarried couples.
* Repeal Don't Ask-Don't Tell: Barack Obama agrees with former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff John Shalikashvili and other military experts that we need to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. The key test for military service should be patriotism, a sense of duty, and a willingness to serve. Discrimination should be prohibited. The U.S. government has spent millions of dollars replacing troops kicked out of the military because of their sexual orientation. Additionally, more than 300 language experts have been fired under this policy, including more than 50 who are fluent in Arabic. Obama will work with military leaders to repeal the current policy and ensure it helps accomplish our national defense goals.
* Expand Adoption Rights: Barack Obama believes that we must ensure adoption rights for all couples and individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation. He thinks that a child will benefit from a healthy and loving home, whether the parents are gay or not.
* Promote AIDS Prevention: In the first year of his presidency, Barack Obama will develop and begin to implement a comprehensive national HIV/AIDS strategy that includes all federal agencies. The strategy will be designed to reduce HIV infections, increase access to care and reduce HIV-related health disparities. Obama will support common sense approaches including age-appropriate sex education that includes information about contraception, combating infection within our prison population through education and contraception, and distributing contraceptives through our public health system. Obama also supports lifting the federal ban on needle exchange, which could dramatically reduce rates of infection among drug users. Obama has also been willing to confront the stigma -- too often tied to homophobia -- that continues to surround HIV/AIDS. He will continue to speak out on this issue as president.
* Empower Women to Prevent HIV/AIDS: In the United States, the percentage of women diagnosed with AIDS has quadrupled over the last 20 years. Today, women account for more than one quarter of all new HIV/AIDS diagnoses. Barack Obama introduced the Microbicide Development Act, which will accelerate the development of products that empower women in the battle against AIDS. Microbicides are a class of products currently under development that women apply topically to prevent transmission of HIV and other infections.

January 20, 2009 can't come quickly enough! (hat/tip TowleRoad)

Wanda Sykes Comes Out!

Jason Bentley To Become KCRW Music Director

One of the features of living in Los Angeles is having access to KCRW 89.9 FM, one of the largest NPR affiliates in the country and an amazing source of cutting-edge music. I have been listening to the station constantly since 1994 and usually will stream it live online when travelling, even when in other countries!

It has just been announced that the new KCRW Music Director will be Jason Bentley, following in the footsteps of Nic Harcourt, Chris Douridas and Tom Schnabel. Bentley has been the host of the program "Metropolis" which airs every weeknight from 7:30 to 10:00pm. He starts hosting the flagship program, "Morning Becomes Eclectic" (9am to 12noon weekdays) on December 1. I hope they give Garth Trinidad ("Chocolate City") or Raul Campos ("Nocturna") Jason's old early evening slot!

Detailing Partisan Shift Towards Democrats In 2008

This is an interesting post over at DailyKos.com by brownsox detailing the partisan shift towards the Democrats in the 2008 election.

    State    2004     2008    Swing    Swing Relative to Average

    USA       R+3       D+7       D+10       0   
    AL         R+26      R+22     D+4        -6     
    AK         R+25      R+22     D+6        -4  (Palin Home State)
    AZ         R+11      R+9       D+2       -8  (McCain Home State)
    AR         R+9       R+20     R+11     -21 (Clinton Home State*)
    CA         D+9       D+24    D+15      +5
    CO         R+5       D+8      D+13      +3
    CT         D+10      D+23     D+13     +3
    DE         D+7       D+23     D+16      +6  (Biden Home State)
    FL         R+5       D+2       D+7       -3
    GA         R+17      R+5      D+12      +2
    HI         D+9       D+45     D+36      +26 (Obama Home State*)
    ID         R+39      R+25     D+14      +4
    IL         D+11      D+25     D+14      +4 (Obama Home State)
    IN         R+21      D+1      D+22      +12
    IA         R+1       D+9       D+10      0
    KS         R+25      R+16     D+9       -1
    KY         R+19      R+17     D+2       -8
    LA         R+15      R+19     R+4       -14
    ME         D+9       D+17     D+8       -2
    MD         D+7       D+23     D+16     +6
    MA         D+25      D+26    D+1       -9  (Kerry Home State)
    MI         D+3       D+16     D+13      +8
    MN         D+3       D+10     D+7      -3
    MS         R+20      R+14    D+6       -4
    MO         R+7       R+1      D+6       -4
    MT         R+20      R+3      D+17      +7
    NE         R+33      R+17     D+16      +6
    NV         R+3       D+12     D+15      +5
    NH         D+1       D+9      D+8       -2
    NJ         D+8       D+15     D+7        -3
    NM         R+1       D+15     D+16       +6
    NY         D+19      D+25     D+6        -4 (Clinton Home State)
    NC         R+12      D+1      D+12       +3 (Edwards Home State)
    ND         R+27      R+8      D+19       +9
    OH         R+2       D+4      D+6        -4
    OK         R+32      R+32     None       -10
    OR         D+4       D+16     D+12       +2
    PA         D+2       D+10     D+8        -2
    RI         D+22      D+28     D+6        -4
    SC         R+17      R+9      D+8        -2
    SD         R+21      R+8      D+13       +3
    TN         R+14      R+15     R+1        -11
    TX         R+23      R+10     D+13       +3  (Bush Home State)
    UT         R+46      R+29     D+17       +7
    VT         D+20      D+35     D+15       +5
    VA         R+8       D+6      D+14       +4
    WA         D+7       D+17     D+10       0
    WV         R+13      R+13     None       -10
    WI         D+1       D+13     D+12       +2
    WY         R+40      R+32     D+8        -2 (Cheney Home State)

The home states of the major presidential candidates are noted as they are likely to be outliers. The blue-red shift image was taken from the NY TIMES.

Focus on the Family Announces More Lay Offs

One happy side of the economic downturn is

Focus on the Family is poised to announce major layoffs to its Colorado Springs-based ministry and media empire today. The cutbacks come just weeks after the group pumped more than half a million dollars into the successful effort to pass a gay-marriage ban in California.

Critics are holding up the layoffs, which come just two months after the organization's last round of dismissals, as a sad commentary on the true priorities of ministry.

[...]

In all, Focus pumped $539,000 in cash and another $83,000 worth of non-monetary support into the measure to overturn a California Supreme Court ruling that allowed gays and lesbians to marry in that state. The group was the seventh-largest donor to the effort in the country. The cash contributions are equal to the salaries of 19 Coloradans earning the 2008 per capita income of $29,133.

So after spending more than a half-million dollars to attempt to divorce me and 18,000 other same-sex couples, Focus on the Family is having to lay off employees? Couldn't happen to a bunch off better bigots.

However, note that Focus on the Family's estimated 1500 employees is more than the entire number of people working at ALL THE 50 STATEWIDE LGBT ORGANIZATIONS in the country. Despite this setback, the heterosexual supremacists are more likely to be able to out-raise, out-spend and out-organize the "good guys" for LGBT equality.

MadProfessah is Progressive Blogger of the Month for November 2008

Progressive Victory has selected MadProfessah as the Progressive Blogger of the Month for November 2008!

Buckmire, a professor of mathematics at Occidental College, is the author
The Mad Professah Lectures blog.His blog focuses on progressive politics, civil-rights law, and LGBT equality.

Buckmire has used his blog to shed light on the antigay Proposition 8 in California. He married his long-time partner Dan Elzinga, and accomplished vocalist, soon after the California Supreme Court ruling that gave committed same-sex partners the right to marry and has testified before the California State Assembly and Senate regarding Prop 8.

Buckmire belongs to an L.A.-area grassroots progressive organization, the
Jordan-Rustin Coalition (named after the late Texas Congresswoman Barbara
Jordan and labor and civil-rights organizer Bayard Rustin), and has spearheaded efforts to organize African Americans against Prop 8.

Governator Says Court Should Strike Down Prop 8 "Again"

The Governator was on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopolous and followed up his bizarre and untimely statements from last week about Proposition 8 with some more:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Proposition 8 here in California, it passed, defining marriage as exclusively for men and women. I know you've said you hope the court overturns it. Will you join Democrats who are filing a challenge in the court?

SCHWARZENEGGER: No. I mean, I have been asked to join this fight, and I had my own fight with Proposition 11, and that's what I've focused on.

But I made it very clear. I personally am -- for me, marriage is between a man and a woman. But I don't want to ever force my will on anyone.

I think that the Supreme Court was right by saying that it's unconstitutional. And that everyone should have the right, just like we had the battle in 1948 and the Supreme Court decision came down, that, you know, it was unconstitutional for blacks and whites not to be able to get married with each other, and they overturned that. And since then, that has been taken care of.

And now the Supreme Court says that it's also unconstitutional to not let gay people get married, the same-sex marriage. So to me, that is the important decision here, and everything else is not that important. So people can pass initiatives, like Proposition 187 passed under Wilson that said we should not give, you know, Latinos and those that are illegally here any educational services or any kind of medical services. The Supreme Court said, well, the people maybe had some intentions there, but it's unconstitutional.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So you think the courts should overturn Proposition 8?

SCHWARZENEGGER: The court has overturned it. And now they went back. And the people have voted for it again, against the gay marriage. So the Supreme Court, you know, I think ought to go and look at that again. And we'll go back to the same decision, basically.

STEPHANOPOULOS: And you believe they will.

SCHWARZENEGGER: I think that they will. And I think that the important thing now is to resolve this issue in that way.

SCHWARZENEGGER: In a peaceful way, rather than, you know, going out and protesting, and going out and boycotting and all those things. I think that's not the best way to go about it.

STEPHANOPOULOS: In the meantime, some legal experts have suggested that you should, if you believe that, issue an edict, a ruling, that says that the marriages that have already taken place in California are absolutely legal. Will you do that?

SCHWARZENEGGER: Well, I have to get together with Jerry Brown, our attorney general, and see what the legal opinion is, because he's my lawyer, basically. And so, we always do those things together.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But you're inclined to do it?

SCHWARZENEGGER: It's a conversation that I can have with him about the -- if that's the legal way to go.

So, he's willing to say the courts SHOULD strike down Proposition 8, but he's not willing to officially join a lawsuit declaring that position to the court, and he also denounces the largest LGBT civil rights demonstration in history at the same time! With friends like this, who needs enemies?

Djokovic Wins Masters Cup--Almost Gains World #2 Ranking

Novak Djokovic beat Nikolay Davydenko 6-1 7-5 to win his first Masters Cup title in Shanghai and is now within 10 ranking points of Roger Federer's World #2 ranking. Federer lost an epic 3-hour match 4-6 7-6 7-5 to Andy Murray for the 3rd time in 2008 on Friday, falling to a lifetime record of 2-4 against the Scottish World #4 and failing to make the Masters Cup semifinal round for the first time. Djokovic, on the other hand, dispatched Gilles Simon 4-6 6-3 7-5 in the other semifinal.

Federer's 2008 ended as it began: with disappointments. Djokovic has his sights set on becoming World #1.

Video of MadProfessah on TV Talking About Prop 8

The Top 100 Singers Of All Time

oooh, child! Thanks to kennethinthe212 I was alerted to this list compiled by Rolling Stone magazine of the 100 greatest singers of all time. Miss Aretha Franklin was #1, with only one other female in the Top 20 (Tina Turner, #17).

Now, you know the gay boys will be fighting over this list all during Thanksgiving, but did they really need to list Miss Whitney Houston at #34 and Miss Mariah Carey at #79?

Who would you put in your Top 10? This is their list:

1 Aretha Franklin by Mary J. Blige
2 Ray Charles by Billy Joel
3 Elvis Presley by Robert Plant
4 Sam Cooke by Van Morrison
5 John Lennon by Jackson Browne
6 Marvin Gaye by Alicia Keys
7 Bob Dylan by Bono
8 Otis Redding by Booker T. Jones
9 Stevie Wonder by Cee-Lo
10 James Brown by Iggy Pop

First of all, how could they forget the recently deceased Yma Sumac?

Blogger Summary of Williams Institute Forum

Blogger Todd Beeton of MyDD wrote up this summary of the UCLA Law School's Williams Institute Election Post-Mortem event which included MadProfessah as an expert panellist on Thursday. I'll include the portions which refer to me:

Ron Buckmire took it upon himself to debunk the idea that "it's African-Americans' fault." He acknowledged that majorities of black voters voted for Prop 8 and noted that they were courted to do so with an aggressive campaign of robocalls and mailers conflating Barack Obama's position on gay marriage with his position on Prop 8.

In Arkansas, he reminded us, black voters voted against the initiative preventing non-married couples from adopting or providing foster care for children. Buckmire concluded that African-Americans are no more homophobic than any other demographic group.

He noted that there were 1.3 million voters who voted for Obama and against Prop 4 but were for Prop 8. "Maybe we should be blaming pro-choice Obama supporters."

[...]

One interesting moment came when Buckmire was asked why there is such a wide gap between people who were engaged before the election and people who are now. Buckmire answered, I think correctly, that complacency had set in because people thought "No on 8" was ahead. He then mentioned internal polls, which apparently consistently showed Yes on 8 ahead. So someone in the audience yelled out angrily "why didn't you tell us!?" [EQCA Executive Director Geoff] Kors responded that they sent out many emails saying not to believe the public polls, that their internal polls were showing a much tighter race and whenever they did that, they were accused of simply fear-mongering to raise money. Once there was a public poll that confirmed what their internal polls were showing, people suddenly got engaged.

I do agree that (in hindsight) it was a tactical error for the NO ON PROP 8 campaign not to share their internal polls with the public but Deputy Campaign Manager Sky Johnson told me on Thursday that even when theyshared actual internal poll data with potential funders they were being rebuffed in August and September--people thought it was just a fundraising ploy.

National Day of Protest Sat Nov 15: Join(ed) The Impact

MadProfessah attended the rally in Raleigh, NC, along with about 1400 other people. The rain was torrential, right as Senate Candidate Jim Neal spoke at the end. Very exciting, though. I will try to post pictures on Monday when I am back in Los Angeles.

UPDATE: My colleage Angela Gallegos took this picture of us in Raleigh...before the deluge. Two "mad" Math Professahs protesting Prop 8!

Terrance Explains Why Marriage Matters To Black Folks

TerranceDC, a Black gay (married) blogger and father of two, explains as eloquently(and volubly) as usual is his wont, why "Marriage Matters to Us" (where "us" is Black people) in a soon to-be widely celebrated post at Pam's House Blend.

It has been a strange couple of weeks. Just last week, I saw something that I never thought I'd see in my lifetime, and felt like I was witnessing it for all my ancestors who didn't live to see a hope fulfilled. But - with a "twoness of being" that DuBois probably didn't imagine when he coined the term - it was a deeply conflicted moment.

As a black man, in that moment I felt like more of an American than I ever had before, like a barrier to full citizenship and belonging had been raised. As a gay man with a husband and a family, however, I ended up feeling like less of an American than I ever had before; divorced from the celebrating and even the historic significance of the moment by a barrier to full citizenship and belonging that fell more firmly into place even as the previous one was raised.

Since then, my response to the events of the past week have been informed by that "twoness of being," and a conflict that demands I prioritize one part of my identity over another. It's nothing new to black gay Americans, and we often come down on different sides of that struggle. Lines are drawn, and suddenly I have to be careful of what I say. While I can't say which side anyone else should come down on, some of the rhetoric of the past week - particularly around race and marriage - is
troubling.

I'm struck, in particular by Jasmyne Cannick's assertion that marriage isn't an important issue to black gays and lesbians.

Why? Because I don't see why the right to marry should be a priority for me or other black people. Gay marriage? Please. At a time when blacks are still more likely than whites to be pulled over for no reason, more likely to be unemployed than whites, more likely to live at or below the poverty line, I was too busy trying to get black people registered to vote, period; I wasn't about to focus my attention on what couldn't help but feel like a secondary issue.

The first problem with Proposition 8 was the issue of marriage itself. The white gay community never successfully communicated to blacks why it should matter to us above everything else -- not just to me as a lesbian but to blacks generally. The way I see it, the white gay community is banging its head against the glass ceiling of a room called equality, believing that a breakthrough on marriage will bestow on it parity with heterosexuals. But the right to marry does nothing to address the problems faced by both black gays and black straights. Does someone who is homeless or suffering from HIV but has no healthcare, or newly out of prison and unemployed, really benefit from the right to marry someone of the same sex?

I will be the first to admit that marriage is not a panacea, and no substitute for the innumerable socioeconomic reforms our communities need, but as a black gay man Jasmyne Cannick does not speak for me or my family. Marriage equality would help my family, and it would definitely help any number of black gay and lesbian families, with or without children. As a black gay man raising two black sons, I'm not sure why Cannick thinks my children don't particularly need the benefits of having two parents who are married to each other.

In fact, some of the very issues Cannick brought up in her post would be impacted by marriage equality in ways that would benefit black gay and lesbian couples and families struggling with those issues. To many of them, marriage equality is not a "luxury" but a necessity in term of the benefits it would provide; starting with the economic benefits.

The economy is in a downturn, and we all know that when the rest of America catches an economic cold, our communities get pneumonia. Unfortunately, not having access to the benefits and protections of marriage leaves too many of our families out in the cold.

The National Black Justice Coalition is great source of data on this (data I imagine Cannick, Ias a former board member of the organization, would be aware of).Their joint report with the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force on Black same-sex households from the 2000 census data shows that Black same-sex couples report less annual median income than Black married opposite-sex couples, as well as a lower median income than White same-sex couples.

That means, like every other LGBT family without marriage equality, in difficult times they have to do just as much with fewer resources than their heterosexual married counterparts, because they're ineligible for benefits and protections that families afloat in crisis; like Social Security Survivor benefits, health care benefits, and workers compensation.

Figures are abstract, but they represent real families who pay a real price for inequality. Mikki Mozelle and Lisa Kebreau, a black lesbian couple - among those for whom Cannick thinks marriage equality isn't a priority - who were also one of theplaintiff couples in Maryland's marriage lawsuit, are one example of how much the lack of marriage equality can cost us. When they started their family, Kebreau and Mozelle spent upwards of $6,000 for legal documents that might offer their family at least two or three of the protections married couples take for granted, and there's no guarantee that those documents will be recognized when presented.

The piece goes on for quite awhile. It makes a coherent and cogent explanation why there are prominent Black gay activists who support marriage equality, probably better than I could. Run, DO NOT WALK, over to PHB and read it now.

India High Court To Rule On Sodomy Law

Gay blog portal TowleRoad has the deets on the possibility of a ruling soon by the India High Court on that nation's sodomy law.

The Delhi high court last Friday completed hearing arguments in the case and had reserved its judgment on a petition to deciminalise private consensual sex between adults.

The seven-year-old petition is seeking to have Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code read down to exclude oral and anal sex between adults of any biological sex although the court hearings and media coverage tend to centre around sexual relations between adult men.

New Delhi-based gay rights activist and lawyer Aditya Bondyopadhyay explained in an email to Fridae that although Section 377, which criminalises “carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal", is technically gender neutral and is equally applicable to heterosexual and homosexual sodomy, its use has been mainly to target gay sex between men.

The petition was filed in 2001 by Naz Foundation, a nongovernmental organisation working on HIV/AIDS and sexual health issues.

Gay activist and founder of NGO Humsafar afar, Ashok Row Kavi, clarified in a media report that the petition does not seek a repeal of Section 377 so that child sex offenses and male rape can continue to be prosecuted under the reinterpretation of the section, that would then exclude consensual sex between adults.

While rarely used in actual prosecutions today, the petition says that the almost 150-year-old law is used to target and harass lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered people, as well as HIV/AIDS activists and NGO workers. The law is also abused by the police to extort money and to blackmail gay men. The section, which dates back to 1860, provides for life imprisonment, a term exceeding 10 years and a fine.

It is the first time an Indian court will deliver a verdict for the section. Similar laws have been struck down since the 1980s in the US, UK, Australia, South Africa and the US. As with India, the former British Asian colonies of Bangladesh, Brunei, Malaysia, Myanmar, Pakistan, and Singapore continue to criminalise same sex relations under provisions similar to Section 377 present in each country’s penal code. Hong Kong repealed the section in 1991.

MadProfessah is always interested in advances in international LGBT rights, and in particular in countries that I have travelled to.

People of Color Groups File Lawsuit Against Prop 8

This is a very cool development.

CIVIL RIGHTS GROUPS PETITION CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT TO STOP ENACTMENT OF PROPOSITION 8

http://equaljusticesociety.org/prop8
LOS ANGELES (Nov. 14, 2008) - Civil rights groups today filed a petition with the California Supreme Court to stop the enactment of Proposition 8 because it would mandate discrimination against a minority group and did not follow the process required for fundamental revisions to the California Constitution.
In the petition, the Asian Pacific American Legal Center, Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Equal Justice Society, California NAACP and the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. argue that in order to protect the fundamental rights of all Californians, a higher standard is required to overturn the right to marry. Minority communities cannot be stripped of their fundamental rights by a simple majority vote.

"We would be making a grave mistake to view Proposition 8 as just affecting the LGBT community," said Eva Paterson, president of the Equal Justice Society. "If the Supreme Court allows Proposition 8 to take effect, it would represent a threat to the rights of people of color and all minorities."

The petition filed by Raymond C. Marshall of Bingham McCutchen and Prof. Tobias Barrington Wolff of University of Pennsylvania Law School on behalf of leading African American, Latino, and Asian American groups echo the arguments made in the November 5 lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, Lambda Legal and the National Center for Lesbian Rights: Proposition 8 prevents the courts from exercising their essential constitutional role of enforcing the equal protection rights of minorities.

The California Constitution requires that any measure attempting to revise the underlying principles of the constitution must first be approved by a two-thirds vote of the legislature before being submitted to the voters. Proposition 8 was not approved through that constitutionally required process.
"Proposition 8 contradicts the most basic protection guaranteed by the California Constitution, which is the right to equal protection of the laws," said John Trasviña, President and General Counsel of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund. "We can not allow the Constitution to sanction discrimination against one group of people."

"Direct democracy cannot override the California Constitution, which requires more than a majority vote to deprive a minority group of their fundamental rights," said John A. Payton, President and Director-Counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund.
"We cannot become a society that picks and chooses who is entitled to equal rights," said Alice A. Huffman, president of the California State NAACP. "We should include all people from all walks of life in the entitlement to all freedoms now enjoyed by the majority of our population As a civil rights advocate, we will continue the fight of eliminating roadblocks to freedom."

"Consistent with core equal protection principles, minority communities must not be stripped of their fundamental rights by bare majority rule," said Karin Wang, Vice-President of Programs for the Asian Pacific American Legal Center. "California went down this path before when the majority population chose to bar interracial marriages involving an unpopular minority: Asian immigrants. The state Constitution exists exactly for this reason - to protect the fundamental rights of minority communities."

"Let's not forget the landmark 1967 case of Loving v. Virginia, which allowed two people of different races to marry," said Paterson of the Equal Justice Society. "People then believed it was acceptable to keep Mildred Loving from marrying a white man because of their ideas of who should marry whom. We must not return to those times."

The court has precedent for invalidating an improper voter initiative. In 1990, the court overruled an initiative that would have added a provision to the California Constitution stating that the "Constitution shall not be construed by the courts to afford greater rights to criminal defendants than those afforded by the Constitution of the United States." That measure was invalid because it improperly attempted to strip California's courts of their role as independent interpreters of the state's constitution.

A copy of the writ petition filed today is available at http://equaljusticesociety.org/prop8.
The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. (naacpldf.org) was founded in 1940 under the leadership of Thurgood Marshall. Although LDF's primary purpose was to provide legal assistance to poor African Americans, its work over the years has brought greater justice to all Americans.
Founded in 1968, MALDEF (maldef.org), the nation's leading Latino legal civil rights organization, promotes and protects the rights of Latinos through litigation, advocacy, community education and outreach, leadership development, and higher education scholarships.
The Asian Pacific American Legal Center (apalc.org) is a nonprofit organization dedicated to advocating for civil rights, providing legal services and education, and building coalitions to positively influence and impact Asian Pacific Americans and to create a more equitable and harmonious society. APALC is affiliated with the Asian American Justice Center, the Asian American Institute in Chicago, and the Asian Law Caucus in San Francisco.
The Equal Justice Society (equaljusticesociety.org) is a national strategy group heightening conscious on race in the law and popular discourse. Using a three-pronged strategy of law and public policy advocacy, cross-disciplinary convenings and strategic public communications, EJS seeks to restore race equity issues to the national consciousness, build effective progressive alliances, and advance the discourse on the positive role of government.

White Gays = KKK?

This cartoon was posted by blogger Ernest Hardy in response to Dan Savage's arguably racist comments on black homophobia in the wake of Proposition 8 passing last week. Savage responds here.

I'm out of town for a few days. Y'all can discuss the semiotics of this image while I'm away. Comments that include hate speech will be removed.

Audio and Video of My NPR Appearance

MadProfessah appeared on NPR's News and Notes this morning with Dr. Gary Gates (Wiliams Institute), Patrick Sammon (Log Cabin Republicans) in my capacity as Board President of the Barbara Jordan/ Bayard Rustin Coalition.

The program is hosted by Farai Chideya, who asked thoughtful questions and seemed generally interested in the topic, as an African American woman.

The audio (and video) of the discussion can be accessed here.

MadProfessah Quoted in Washington Post

Openly gay and Black writer Kai Wright has an article at the Washington Post's political portal TheRoot.com entitled "The Prop 8 Blame Game: Why gays and blacks both need a reality check"

But first, as with all things involving race and sex, there's a whole mess of facts about the California marriage fight that must be straightened out.

Not least of these is the shaky assertion that black voters made the difference. DailyKos diarist Shanikka has gained small celebrity for her post debunking it. The fact that blacks are densely clumped in just nine out of 58 California counties makes any race-based claim in CNN's geographically random sample muddy at best. Further, the poll excludes all of the state's 3 million early votes and counts blacks as 10 percent of voters when they're less than 7 percent of the population.

Of course, you don't have to get into such devilish details to notice something weird about this blame-the-blacks narrative. Even if 70 percent truly did support the marriage ban, why single them out? So did six out of 10 people over 65. Ditto white Protestants and people with children under 18. Look at the electorate through any of these lenses and you identify a far larger share of the vote than when viewing it by race.

"The reason why people are so fascinated with the 70 percent number is Obama and this kumbaya moment that we were having," says Ron Buckmire, a leader in L.A.'s Barbara Jordan/Bayard Rustin Coalition, a black gay group. "To discover that not everyone was in the same place was really shocking and surprising for some people."

It should have been a no-brainer. The Mormon-funded, anti-gay side aggressively targeted every racial and ethnic group in California—often dishonestly. Anti-gay operatives launched a robo-call scheme directed at black voters that falsely claimed Barack Obama supported their initiative. Obama does not support gay marriage, but neither did he support Prop 8. (Not that Obama did a hell of a lot to counter the lie.) The underfunded, pro-gay side responded with too little, too late.

These shenanigans explain why many black voters supported the marriage ban. Still, that's no excuse. "I am far less concerned with a white gay backlash than I am with the need for us to have a dialogue within the African-American community about what it means to have equality," says H. Alexander Robinson, who heads the National Black Justice Coalition, a black gay rights group.

Here, here.

Well, Kai reveals his bias here. "It should have been a no-brainer"? Why?

MadProfessah To Appear on NPR's "News & Notes"

MadProfessah will appear on NPR's News & Notes on Thursday discussing Blacks and Proposition 8.

MadProfessah To Appear At UCLA's Election Post-Mortem

This should be a great panel tomorrow at UCLA Law School discussing where we are now with Proposition 8 and what the next steps will be in achieving full equality in California will be.

Election 2008: A New Administration, Proposition 8, & LGBT Vote

LOS ANGELES, CA ‹ On November 13th, The Williams Institute will bring
together nationally recognized advocates, reporters, lawyers, and legal and
policy scholars to discuss the outcome of Election 2008 and the implications
for gay rights legislation. The post-election discussion will cover
lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community reaction to the new
Administration, passage of California¹s Proposition 8, and the LGBT vote,
among other topics.

WHAT:
National experts discuss "Election 2008: A New Administration, Proposition
8, & the LGBT Vote" hosted by The Williams Institute and co-sponsored by the
Center for American Progress

WHEN: Thursday, November 13, 2008 from 6:30 PM - 8:30 PM
Reception to follow

WHERE: UCLA School of Law - Room 1347
Los Angeles, CA

Confirmed panelists include:

· Ron Buckmire, Board President, Barbara Jordan/Bayard Rustin Coalition
· Jill E. Darling, Associate Director of Polling, Los Angeles Times
· Patrick Guerriero, Executive Director, Gill Action
· Geoff Kors, Executive Director, Equality California
· Patrick Sammon, President, Log Cabin Republicans & Liberty Education Forum
· Kenneth Sherrill, Professor of Political Science, Hunter College
· Brad Sears, Executive Director, The Williams Institute
· Winnie Stachelberg, Senior Vice President for External Affairs,
Center for American Progress Action Fund
· Tobias Barrington Wolff, Professor of Law, University of Pennsylvania

For more information or to RSVP to attend, call 310- 267-4382 or email
Deseree Fontenot at williamsinstitute@law.ucla.edu. For parking information, click
here.

Hope to see you there!

Prop 8 Aftermath: Anger Into Action Declaration

The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force has sent out an email about turning "Anger Into Action" in response to the public protests about Proposition 8 passing:

I know that right now, many of you are still shocked, saddened, and extremely angry about the passage of Proposition 8 in California — and let me tell you, so are we. Losses on similar constitutional amendments in Arizona and Florida, and an adoption ban in Arkansas, are equally devastating. But we're picking ourselves back up here at the Task Force, and we're continuing the fight. And today I want to ask you to turn the anger you may feel at this moment into positive action.

Start by signing your name to our Anger into Action Declaration right now.

This declaration is about showing wide public support for the fundamental rights of LGBT people. The latest marriage amendments and adoption ban passed by our fellow citizens are built on lies and deception, and we can't stand for it. But we also refuse to fight lies with lies, or hate with hate. We will not give into our anger, and we will not unfairly lay blame for Prop. 8 passing. Instead, we are committed to channeling our energies into bringing about more positive change. I've said it before, and I will say it again: We will not rest, we will not pause in our fight for equality.

Click here to join me in signing the Anger into Action Declaration today.

After you've signed, be sure to share with your friends and family, post to your Facebook page, and get the word out. Let us have one strong, undeterred voice declaring: "We will continue the fight for full equality, and we will turn our anger into action starting NOW." Over the last week, we've been hearing from people all over the country who are doing whatever they can to keep No on Prop. 8 alive and stand in solidarity with our movement. After you sign the declaration, think about what you can be doing in your own life to keep the visibility high and voice your support for full equality. Here are a few examples of what people all around the country are doing to keep up the fight.

Cathy and Ellen, married in California after the May 2008 Supreme Court ruling, are attending a rally and march tonight, protesting discrimination being written into our state constitutions.

Madeline in New York is keeping her "No on 8" button up on her Facebook profile, in solidarity with her Californian friends and family.

A straight ally wrote us a moving e-mail, letting us know he and his wife just donated $100 in honor of their six-month-old son — in hopes that, regardless of his sexual orientation, their child would grow up with the opportunity to share his life with the partner of his choice.

Brian is writing a letter to the editor of his local newspaper in Florida, sharing his views on how discrimination persists, even in light of the progress his state saw in the presidential election.

There is no action too small, and every action — symbolic or more tangible — makes a difference. I am so proud, despite our losses, of our efforts this election season and continue to be moved by the outpouring of support from our community and our allies. We've called on you, our most loyal supporters, time and time again — to give, to knock on doors, to make phone calls, and to do everything you could to make sure that LGBT people are treated with the dignity and respect they deserve. Thank you for your ongoing commitment to equality, and thank you for taking action by adding your name to our Anger into Action Declaration today.

Sincerely,
Rea Carey, Executive Director
National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Action Fund
P.S. The grassroots protests that are popping up all over California and around the country are the first taste of activism for many LGBT people and our allies. If the injustice of writing discrimination into state constitutions has spurred you into advocacy — or if you want to ratchet up your skills — I hope you'll consider signing up for our National Conference on LGBT Equality: Creating Change that starts on January 28 in Denver.

LA TIMES op-ed falsely blames Blacks for Prop 8 passage

Tuesday's Los Angeles Times carries a misleading editorial ("Prop. 8's battle lessons") attempting to dissect why Proposition 8 passed and assign blame to various parties.

Ever since Proposition 8 passed Nov. 4, enshrining heterosexual-only marriage in the California Constitution, demonstrators from Sacramento to San Diego have staged daily marches and protests to express their anger and disappointment that homosexuals will continue to be treated as second-class citizens. It's a stirring movement, reminiscent of past civil rights struggles, but it raises a troubling question: Where were these marchers before the election?

Like nearly every aspect of the fight against Proposition 8, the recent protests come too late to make a difference. Opponents of the measure ran a disorganized campaign that consistently underestimated the strength of the other side. Apparently lulled by poll numbers that showed the initiative was likely to fail, the campaign's fundraising efforts were lackluster -- until it discovered that the Yes on 8 side was raking in millions from Mormons and members of other churches. By the time fundraising began in earnest, there wasn't time to mount a strong opposition.

Same-sex marriage advocates produced only one hard-hitting commercial, depicting a pair of Mormon missionaries ripping up the wedding license of a married gay couple, but didn't air it until election day. The campaign made little effort to reach out to the African American community, whose large turnout and overwhelming support of Proposition 8 were enough to put it over the top. And while it's nice that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger now says he hopes that the courts will overturn the initiative, he was all but invisible before Nov. 4.

The failure of leadership extends beyond the governor. If there was a public face to the No on 8 campaign, it was San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, who is (notoriously) heterosexual. Where were the gay leaders? It's hard to imagine the civil rights movement of the 1960s succeeding without Martin Luther King Jr. or Malcolm X, or to imagine the women's suffrage movement without the likes of Susan B. Anthony.

Wresting equal rights from a society reluctant to grant them isn't easy. It can take years of nonviolent resistance, passionate speeches and even in-your-face radicalism. If people who voted yes on Proposition 8 say they didn't see it as a civil rights matter, that's because until now there has been nothing resembling a civil rights crusade by the gay community. Courts can assist downtrodden groups, but they never have and never will be enough to guarantee equality on their own.

The fight for gay equality won't end with Proposition 8; it will continue until the battle is won, in California and across the nation. Supporters should take some lessons from the many mistakes made in this round.

Oh my goodness, where to begin with correcting all the fallacies in this editorial?

1. Black people DID NOT "put Proposition 8 over the top" as the op-ed false claims. The blogger shanikka has pointed out in a much-celebrated diary on DailyKos.com, there are simply not enough Black people or voters to be responsible for the margin of victory of Proposition 8, which right now is about 540,000 votes out of 11.5 million cast.
2. NO ON PROP 8 DID NOT "r[u]n a disorganized that consistently under-estimated the strength of the other side." This is simply "blame the victim" thinking. The NO ON PROP 8 campaign was pitted against both the Mormon Church AND the Catholic Church, who made passage of Proposition 8, their #1 electoral priority, more important than the Presidential election, and instructed their believers to treat it as such. Which do you think is more powerful, the LGBT community or the Vatican and Salt Lake City? The No on Prop 8 campaign did not underestimate their opponents, but they did underestimate the depths of decption the campaign would stoop to in order to enact discrimination. The No on Prop 8 campaign did the best they could, with the resources they had at the time. In late September, the Yes on 8 folks had a 5-8 million dollar advantage, and were tied or slightly ahead in public polls. It was Brad Pitt's $100k donation, followed by the Spielbergs which started turning the fundraising disadvantage around, and by the end of October the campaign was regularly raising a million dollars a day online. It should be noted the ANNUAL budget of Equality California is less than $3 million dollars. By the time the NO ON 8 side got the resources it needed, there were only a few precious weeks to election day. Did they run a perfect campaign? No. No campaign is ever perfect.
3. San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newson WAS NOT the "public face to the NO ON 8 campaign." Maybe he was the face that heterosexual people noted, but I was very much aware that Geoff Kors, Kate Kendell and Lorri Jean appeared almost everywhere in the media and online, speaking out against Proposition 8.
4. The NO ON 8 campaign DID make efforts to reach out to the African American community. As readers of this blog know, I helped manage a press conference presenting Black opposition to Proposition 8. The Barbara Jordan/ Bayard Rustin Coalition had multiple people working with it to raise awareness about why members of the Black community should vote No on Proposition 8 for the last month of the campaign. There were multiple efforts to reach out to all communities of color. Were they effective? Clearly not. Were they supported or funded directly by the NO ON 8 campaign? See Point #2 above! The campaign had limited resources until mid-to-late October! There were Black-specific materials developed but they were not actually created and distributed until the Saturday before the election. That's much too late to actually have time to influence the election. But there's a difference between not making the effort and not doing it well.

What is disturbing is that so much false information is being promulgated in the media about the battle to defeat Proposition 8, and then the affected communities are making erroneous conclusions and assertions based on that misleading reports. The Los Angeles Times (whose reporting has generally been excellent on Proposition 8 overall) did a great disservice to the community with Tuesday's editorial.

Smart Comments On Black People and Prop 8

Here is some thoughtful commentary from Professor Melissa Harris-Lacewell of Princeton University appearing on Rachel Maddow's MSNBC show last Friday speaking about why (white gay) people are reacting so negatively to the news that Black people apparently voted so disproportionately for both Barack Obama and Proposition 8.

Comparing Clinton's Win in 1992 to Obama's in 2008

Jed L has a very interesting post at DailyKos.com debunking the notion (promulgated by right wing writers such as Gerald Seib at the Wall Street Journal) that Obama's mandate is similar to Bill Clinton's in 1992. Obama's is clearly bigger.

In 1992, Democrats actually lost seats in Congress (though they gained one in the Senate), and although Bill Clinton won 370 electoral votes, as Seib noted, he didn't achieve a majority of the popular vote. (One can "blame" Perot for this, but remember that Reagan still managed a majority in 1980 despite a strong third-party bid.)

In 2008, on the other hand, Democrats have gained at least 19 seats in the House. In the Senate, they've gained at least six seats. And Barack Obama assembled the strongest Democratic presidential coalition in decades.

Roughly 28.3% of the voting age population voted for Obama, a number exceeded only by Reagan in 1984 and Nixon in 1972 in the ten elections since 18 year-olds were given the right to vote. (Bill Clinton won 23.7% of the voting age population in 1992.)

Obama's victory was marked by depth as well as breadth. If you add up the electoral votes in all the states in which he won by at least 10 points, you get 262 of the 270 EVs he would need to win re-election. (Keep in mind that the distribution of EVs will change slightly after the 2010 census.)

It would take only two additional states to get over the 270 threshold, Iowa (which he won by 9 points) and Colorado (which he won by just under 7 points).

Comparing Obama's victory to 1992, if you look at the states that Clinton won big -- by 10% or more -- he only takes in 188 EVs. Even if you just look at two-party vote (a dubious method of factoring out Ross Perot), Clinton only gets 230 EVs.

Obama's victory wasn't just impressive for its electoral geography. Obama did best among young voters, most of whom will still be able to vote in 2012. (Not to mention the influx of another four years worth of younger voters.)

At the same time, Obama did worst among the oldest voters. I hate to be this blunt, but not all of those voters will live long enough to cast ballots in 2012.

Looking at these factors, Obama has about as rock solid an electoral coalition as an incoming first-term president could have.

Combined with the returns on senatorial and congressional campaigns, the notion that Obama in 2008 is in the same political situation as Bill Clinton in 1992 is laughable on its face. Obama is in a much stronger position.

I'm looking forward to 2010 and 2012 with a smile on my face. Are you?

LA County Supervisors To Vote To Join Prop 8 Lawsuits

Now this is interesting. Los Angeles County Supervisors are going to vote tomorrow to join a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Proposition 8. Here is the text of the motion:

AGN. NO.____
MOTION BY SUPERVISORS ZEV YAROSLAVSKY AND
GLORIA MOLINA NOVEMBER 12, 2008

On Tuesday, November 4, 2008 the California electorate approved Proposition 8 by a vote of 52.5% to 47.5%. Proposition 8 eliminates the right of same-sex couples to marry, in effect overturning the California Supreme Court decision of May, 2008 which found the ban on same-sex marriages to be unconstitutional.

On Wednesday, November 5, 2008 three lawsuits were filed in the California Supreme Court seeking a writ of mandate ordering the State to refrain from enforcing Proposition 8 pending a determination by the Supreme Court of the constitutionality of the ballot measure. One of these lawsuits was filed by a group of government agencies which, like Los Angeles County, are responsible for the issuance of marriage licenses and thus face the dilemma of balancing enforcement of Proposition 8 with upholding the equal-protection rights of all citizens. All of these lawsuits seek to overturn Proposition 8 on the grounds that equal protection is such a foundational principle of the California Constitution that the right of the electorate to pass an initiative constitutional amendment does not include the right to overturn, by simple majority vote, a principle as fundamental as equal rights for all.

WE, THEREFORE, MOVE that the Board instruct County Counsel to immediately file a lawsuit, or join in an existing lawsuit, as appropriate, that will seek to uphold the equal rights of all California residents by challenging the constitutionality of Proposition 8.

According to Queerty, they Supes better hurry, because the California Supreme Court may rule on the lawsuits challenging Proposition 8 as early as this week.

Also, from Joe.My.God comes the word that over 1/3 of all California Legislators, including the Speaker of the Assembly Karen Bass and Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata have filed an amicus brief joining the lawsuits challenging Proposition 8.

There are currently three lawsuits challenging Proposition 8: one filed by a bunch of LGBT groups on behalf of Equality California and same-sex couples that want to get married, one filed by celebrity lawyer Gloria Allred on behalf of married clients Robin Tyler and Diane Olson and one filed by the City and County of San Francisco. It is the last one, that Los Angeles County and the state legislators are joining.

Obama On The Cover of NEWSWEEK and TIME

Doesn't that look nice? There are reports that these issues are selling out at newstands across the country.

UPDATE 5:14PM: To see the covers of over a 200 newspapers around the world covering Barack Obama's win, go to ArtDaily.org and run your mouse over the covers. It's quite amazing.

Eye Candy: Nick Youngquest (again!)

On Halloween I posted my first gallery of pictures of Nick Youngquest on Halloween right before election day so you might have missed them. For some reason, Queerty decided to post some more pictures of the very handsome Australian footballer today, so I decided to follow suit. Enjoy!

Ahnuld Says "Never Give Up" Fighting For Marriage Equality

In his first public comments on the passage of Proposition 8, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger took the side of the measure's opponents, saying that he hopes that the State Supreme Court would "undo" what happened on Election Day.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger today expressed hope that the California Supreme Court would overturn Proposition 8, the ballot initiative that outlawed same-sex marriage. He also predicted that the 18,000 gay and lesbian couples who have already married would not be affected by the initiative.

"It's unfortunate, obviously, but it's not the end," Schwarzenegger said in an interview on CNN this morning. "I think that we will again maybe undo that, if the court is willing to do that, and then move forward from there and again lead in that area."

With his favorable comments toward gay marriage, the governor's thinking appears to have evolved on the issue.

In past statements, he has said he personally believes marriage should be between a man and a woman and has rejected legislation authorizing same-sex marriage. Yet he has also said he would not care if same-sex marriage were legal, saying he believed that such an important societal issue should be determined by the voters or the courts.

Following that position, he publicly opposed Proposition 8, which amends the state Constitution to declare that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

Today, Schwarzenegger urged backers of gay marriage to follow the lesson he learned as a bodybuilder trying to lift weights that were too heavy for him at first. "I learned that you should never ever give up. . . . They should never give up. They should be on it and on it until they get it done."

I have highlighted particular aspects of Schwarzenegger's comments in order to respond to them. First of all, I, like the Governor, hope that the California Supreme Court will strike down Proposition 8 as unconstitutional, and I believe they will. The argument that this initiative constitutional amendment was an illegal attempt to revise and not amend our state's highest law is a compelling one to many. An even more compelling rationale for overturning Proposition 8 is defending the principle that "the civil rights of people should not be subject to a popular vote" as MadProfessah was quoted in Saturday's Los Angeles Times.

Secondly, as one of the estimated 18,000 couples who was married in the 173 days between June 16th and Election Day that same-sex marriage was legal in California, I agree with Governor Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Brown that those marriages should be unaffected by an attempt to change the law after they were recognized by the State.

My third comment is one of bemusement. Since when did Arnold Schwarzenegger become a cheerleader for marriage equality? "[N]ever give up... get it done"? California would have had marriage equality three years ago if the Governor had not vetoed Mark Leno's marriage equality bill in August 2005. It's very disingenuous for Arnold to be quoted so enthusiastically in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage 5 days AFTER the election. Where was he 5 weeks ago, or even a week ago before the election? Oh, yeah, he was campaigning for the McCain/Palin ticket, half of which wanted to amend the FEDERAL constitution to ban marriage equality. It's not just politically expedient or disingenous to vigorously oppose Proposition 8 after it passes. Schwarzenegger is revealing political cowardice which reminds me of someone. Who would that be? His predecessor: California Governor Gray Davis.

Joe.My.God has posted the video of Governator Schwarzenegger speaking with CNN's John King:

Venus Wins WTA Tour Championships

Venus Williams won the WTA Tour Championships and 1.34 million dollars on Sunday be defeating Vera Zvonareva 6-7(5) 6-0 6-2. It was Williams first year-end title and her 39th overall.

MadProfessah To Appear on KPFK 90.7 8pm PST Mon 11/10

MadProfessah will be appearing on a live call-in radio show on 90.7 FM in Los Angeles being streamed live at www.KPFK.org on Monday November 10th at 8pm after the LGBT radio show IMRU.

The Difference Between the 2004 and 2008 Elections

Kevin Drum posts the county-by-county red-blue maps from the 2004 and 2008 presidential elections. As he says, if you squint you can tell the difference between a "center-left" and a "center-right" nation. (It's the one on the right)

Venus Continues Her Decimation of the Doha Field

Venus Williams reached the final match of the season at the WTA Tour Championships in Doha, Qatar on Saturday by defeating World #1 Jelena Jankovic in a thrilling 6-2 2-6 6-3 match. She will face Vera Zvonareva, who continued her winning streak by defeating Beijing Olympics singles champion Elena Dementieva 7-6 (7) 3-6 6-3 in the other semifinal.

MadProfessah Set To Appear on TV Sun Nov 9 7am EST LIVE

Media Alert! MadProfessah has been booked to appear on "Good Morning America: Weekend" Sunday morning. In Los Angeles the show airs at 6am PST pon KABC channel 7.

I will be appearing as the Board President of the Barbara Jordan/ Bayard Rustin Coalition to discuss the aftermath of Proposition 8 and the schism between Black and Gay voters on the issue of same-sex marriage!

If anyone knows how to upload a clip of my appearance, please let me know if you have done so.

MadProfessah Quoted In Saturday's LA TIMES on Prop 8 and Race

So, today's Los Angeles Times has another quote from me in an article (starting on the front page, below the fold) entitled "Gays, Blacks divided on Proposition 8."

Ron Buckmire, who heads the Barbara Jordan/Bayard Rustin Coalition, a black gay-rights group in Los Angeles, said the vote shows that "there is a lot of work to be done in the black community."

Buckmire said the campaign should also have emphasized that, at its core, the proposition was about stripping a minority of a right that they had enjoyed. "The civil rights of people should not be put to a vote," he said. "Period. I would have thought that that message would have gotten through."

What do you think?

REVIEW: Euro Pane Bakery (Pasadena, CA)

Flourless chocolate cake

Bee sting

Almond cookie (left), chocolate chip with walnuts (right)

Euro Pane is an amazing bakery found in Pasadena (950 E Colorado Blvd, (626-577-1828) near the corner of Lake and Colorado Boulevards. It has truly delicious, European-style pastries. Sadly, the prices are pretty European also, but they are worth every centime!

MadProfessah samples their wares pretty frequently. Recently, I tried their flourless chocolate cake, bee sting, and some cookies. Everything was absolutely excellent. Europane is a great place to spend an hour or so on the weekend, basking in the lovely Southern California weather!

NO on Prop 8 Campaign Leaders Call on Community to Stand Together

This statement was issued by the leaders of the NO ON PROP 8 Campaign today:

“This has been an incredibly difficult week for Californians who are disappointed in the passage of Proposition 8, which takes away the right to marry for same-sex couples in our state. We feel a profound sense of disappointment in this defeat, but know that in order to move forward we must continue to stand together as one community in order to secure full equality in California.

“In working to defeat Prop 8, a profound coalition banded together to fight for equality. Faith leaders, labor, teachers, civil rights leaders and communities of color, Republicans, Democrats, and Independents, public officials, local school boards and city councils, parents, corporate law firms and bar associations, businesses, and people from all walks of life joined together to stand up against discrimination. We must build on this coalition in order to achieve equal rights for all Californians.

“We achieve nothing if we isolate the people who did not stand with us in this fight. We only further divide our state if we attempt to blame people of faith, African American voters, rural communities and others for this loss. We know people of all faiths, races and backgrounds stand with us in our fight to end discrimination, and will continue to do so. Now more than ever it is critical that we work together and respect our differences that make us a diverse and unique society. Only with that understanding will we achieve justice and equality for all.”

Geoff Kors, Executive Director, Equality California

Kate Kendell, Executive Director, National Center for Lesbian Rights

Lorri Jean, Executive Director, Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center

Delores Jacobs, Executive Director, San Diego Gay and Lesbian Center

LGB Voters Provided Obama's Mandate

From Professor Ken Sherrill of Hunter College Political Science Department:

Obama has won with 52% of the vote.

LGB voters accounted for 4% of the voters in the exit polls.

According to the exit polls, 70% of LGB voters voted for Obama.

70% of 4% is 2.8%.

Subtract 2.8% from 52% and you get........

No mandate.

What If?

How would Tuesday's results have been different if the races of the combatants had been switched?

Venus Beats The $&**! Out Of Serena--Serena Withdraws

7-time Grand Slam champion Venus Williams beat 9-time Grand Slam champion Serena 5-7, 6-1, 6-0 at the WTA Tour Championships in Doha on Thursday night. Serena withdrew from the Doha tournament with an injury this morning but claimed it was not a factor in her loss to her sister.

Although Serena was able to win only one game during the last two sets of her defeat by Venus on Thursday, she claimed that she only felt the problem develop after she returned to her hotel.

“I had zero pain last night, like zero pain,” Williams told reporters.

“I felt like I didn’t serve well, I had a lot of double faults. Looking back, I think maybe that’s why I was doing it, because I didn’t feel it at the time. I think I might have been overcompensating.

“But the moment I got home, I did feel pain last night. But in the match I didn’t feel pain at all. When I woke up, I was still in pain just getting out of bed. I’ve had this before, so once I felt the pain I was like red flags.”

Venus has now made the semi-finals of the event along with Elena Dementieva. In the other half, Zera Zvonareva has qualified at the top of her group with 3 wins, followed by World #1 Jelena Jankovic. The semifinals will be Venus versus Jankovic and Dementieva versus Zvonareva. The winners will face each other in the finals for the last match of the year on the WTA Tour.

Video of John Duran Speech at Prop 8 Protests

Yesterday I posted the text of John Duran's truly powerful speech (as transcribed by Karen Ocamb) at Wednesday's protest in West Hollywood on the passage of Proposition 8. Now the video is available:

California and Los Angeles Election Results Summary

Here is an update on MadProfessah's endorsements for the November 4, 2008 election. The results can be found at the Secretary of State's website.

Proposition Number (Topic)                MadProfessah      RESULT

1A (High Speed Train Bond)                YES               YES
2  (Humane Farming)                       YES               YES
3  (Children's Hospital Bond)              NO               YES    
4  (Teen Safety Initiative)                NO               NO

5  (Non-Violent Drug Offenses)             YES              NO

6  (Prison Expansion)                      NO               NO

7  (Renewable Energy Expansion)            YES              NO

8  (Eliminates Marriage Rights)            HELL NO          YES

9  (Victim Rights Amendment)               NO               YES

10 (Billionaire Renewable Energy Scam)     NO               N

11 (Republican-Favored Re-districting)     NO               YES

12 (Veterans' Housing Bond)                YES              YES

COUNTY AND CITY MEASURES

Measure A (Anti-Gang Parcel Tax Increase)  NO               NO

Measure B (Low Rent Housing Update)        NO               NO

Measure J (Community College Vond)         YES              YES

Measure Q (LAUSD School Bond)              NO               YES

Measure R (MTA Sales Tax Increase)         YES              YES

Measure U (Unincorporated County User Tax) NO               NO

State Senator Mark Ridley-Thomas easily won his run-off election with Los Angeles City Councilman Bernard Parks for the 2nd District Los Angeles County Supervisor seat.

Every judge that I endorsed lost except for Hilleri Grossman Merritt.

Eye Candy: Lucas Resende

The boys at Queerty put up these pictures of Brazilian model Lucas Resende from the terra.com.br/theboy

LAPD Brutality: It's Not Just For Black People Anymore...

Hmm, I wonder if this video will start to make Black people realize that they have something of a civil rights tradition in common with LGBT folk after all:


The video was taken at public protests over passage of Proposition 8 in Hollywood on the night of Wednesday November 5, 2008.

Speech By John Duran at Weho Protest Over PROP 8

John Duran, openly gay, HIV+ Latino former Mayor of West Hollwyood and Board President of Equality California gave the following powerful remarks last night from the stage about Proposition 8, LGBT civil rights and racism (as transcribed by lesbian reporter Karen Ocamb):

My voice has been horse almost gone but I had to get out of bed to be
here with all of you. I was so happy last night at the Music Box at
8:01 when California put Barack Obama over the line to be our next
President of the United States.

(Cheers.)

And I rejoiced watching (?) in Times Square in New York and Grant
Park, in Chicago at the Old Court House in Atlanta – all across this
country people cheering for Barack Obama as we did as a gay and
lesbian, bisexual and transgender community at the Music Box. We
shared that joy together.

And then, within 30 minutes, as the numbers started to come in – I
felt the joy being deflated by the fact that we were falling behind
on Proposition 8.

And then I was crushed when I heard that people of color were voting
against the GLBT community.

(Boos)

And I started to wonder to myself – how could this be? After all we
have struggled together as one coalition – in the Rainbow Coalition –
how could it be?

And then the stories started to come in from last night from my own
Latino culture on Santa Monica Boulevard – that there were Latino
males with Yes on 8 banners screaming “faggot” and “queer” at our
people along Santa Monica Boulevard.

(Boos)

As I heard the story of our black lesbian volunteer at a polling
place who was told by another black woman that “her kind” didn’t
deserve civil rights – how could that be?

(Boos)

My friends Alan and Jeff – who I married on Sunday – when they were
passing out No on 8 literature – had an old woman come up and spit
upon them. How could that be?

(Boos)

These were the stories I heard – so what it told me – and I get this
now – is that Yes on 8 – it was supported by black and white and
Latino and Asian and young and old people – that is true.

But the OTHER HALF of the vote was also black and white and Latino
and Asian and young and old.

(Cheers)

Never again. Never again will I assume that just because somebody is
of one race they are more likely to be supportive or opposed to me.
Or if somebody is of one religion – that he or she is more supportive
or opposed to me. Or of one political affiliation.

I need to start the same question with every person I meet,
regardless of those characteristics: Are you with the gay and lesbian
community or are you not?

(Cheers)

I completely get that the history of our country – and I completely
get the black community’s struggle against slavery and being denied
the right to vote and the lynching and the Jim Crows laws. And it
moves me with compassion when I hear those stories.

And I get the stories of Cesar Chavez and the farm Workers and the
xenophobia and what they had to fight for here in California. And it
moves me with compassion to hear about it.

And Asians being taken away to concentration camps during World War
Two. And Jews suffering in the Holocaust. I get all that.

But what about our chapter in the civil rights history? (Cheers)

(This is only partial because of the applause) If you want us to vote
for you or fight for you – then you must vote for us as well.

(Cheers)

But I am not here to compare our civil rights struggle to their civil
rights struggle. There’s no winner in the game for the bottom rung on
the ladder – we’ve all suffered. That is a no-win game.

I am here to say you must respect our same call for justice as we
respect your call for justice….
(cheers) because we too know brutality – the brutality on the
schoolyards when we were children and we know the brutality that AIDS
decimated our community over the last 25 years.

And we know the indecency now of not only being called threat to
children – as if we are a threat to our own children – but now to be
told indecently – we don’t have the right to marry the person we love.

That is not right in this America.

(Cheers)

So our stories are a call for justice – the same tonight. Remember
these dates: remember this night because this night is a new page in
the history our gay and lesbian community’s struggle. This week – we
will remember it from this time forward – just like October 11, 1987
when ACT UP was formed in Washington DC during the March on Washington.

And just like September 30, 1991 when we rushed into the streets when
Gov. Peter Wilson vetoed AB 101.

This night is our decade’s call to action…(much screaming and cheers)
– God Bless you all….

Wow. Channeling Harvey Milk. Remember the date: November5, 2008.

NO ON PROP 8 Concedes Defeat

In an e-mail titled "We Will Not Give Up" to its supports and contributors, the campaign to defeat Proposition 8, Equality For All, has conceded defeat:

We had hoped never to have to write this email.

Sadly, fueled by misinformation, distortions and lies, millions of voters went to the polls yesterday and said YES to bigotry, YES to discrimination, YES to second-class status for same-sex couples.

And while the election was close, and millions of votes still remain uncounted, it has become apparent that we lost.

There is no question this defeat is hard.

Thousands of people have poured their talents, their time, their resources and their hearts into this struggle for freedom and this fight to have their relationships treated equally. Much has been sacrificed in this struggle.

While we knew the odds for success were not with us, we believed Californians could be the first in the nation to defeat the injustice of discriminatory measures like Proposition 8.

And while victory is not ours this day, we know that because of the work done here, freedom, fairness and equality will be ours someday. Just look at how far we have come in a few decades.

Up until 1974 same-sex intimacy was a crime in California. There wasn't a single law recognizing the relationships of same-sex couples until 1984 -- passed by the Berkeley School District. San Francisco did not pass domestic-partner protections until 1990; the state of California followed in 2005. And in 2000, Proposition 22 passed with a 23% majority.

Today, we fought to retain our right to marry and millions of Californians stood with us. Over the course of this campaign everyday Californians and their friends, neighbors and families built a civil rights campaign unequalled in California history.

You raised more money than anyone believed possible for an LGBT civil rights campaign.

You reached out to family and friends in record numbers -- helping hundreds of thousands of Californians understand what the LGBT civil rights struggle is really about.

You built the largest grassroots and volunteer network that has ever been built -- a coalition that will continue to fight until all people are equal.

And you made the case to the people of California and to the rest of the world that discrimination -- in any form -- is unfair and wrong.

We are humbled by the courage, dignity and commitment displayed by all who fought this historic battle.

Victory was not ours today. But the struggle for equality is not over.

Because of the struggle fought here in California -- fought so incredibly well by the people in this state who love freedom and justice -- our fight for full civil rights will continue.

Activist and writer Anne Lamott writes, "Hope begins in the dark, the stubborn hope that if you just show up and try to do the right thing, the dawn will come. You wait and watch and work: you don't give up."

We stand together, knowing... our dawn will come.

Dr. Delores A. Jacobs CEO Center Advocacy Project

Lorri L. Jean CEO L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center

Kate Kendell Executive Director National Center for Lesbian Rights

Geoff Kors Executive Director Equality California

Venus To Meet Serena in Doha Today

Venus Williams will meet her sister Serena for the eighteenth time on the WTA Tour at the Tour Championships in Doha, Qatar on Thursday. Venus has won her first two matches, with Elena Dementieva and Dinara Safina, respectively, and a win over Serena will clinch Venus' place her into the semifinals. In the other half of the draw, unheralded Vera Zvonareva has surprisingly won her first two matches, over Ana Ivanovic and Svetlana Kuznetsova.

It is likely the four semifinalists will be Venus Williams versus Jelena Jankovic and Serena Williams versus Vera Zvonareva. Here's hoping for a Williams-Williams final for the last match of the 2008 WTA Tour!

Why We Lost Prop 8: Blame "Pro-choice Obama-Democrats"

Kevin Roderick at the LA Observed blog answers a question that I have been having about Tuesday's mixed election results for progressive Democrats. Namely, how the heck did Obama win California by 20+ points and Proposition 4 (abortion parental notification) fail easily while Proposition 8 (elimination of gay marriage) passed?

Californians who voted:

For Barack Obama: 6,194,012
Against parental notification before teen abortion: 5,071,449
To retain same-sex marriage: 4,806,595

Proposition 8 to define marriage as only between a man and woman got 52.2% (5,240,930 votes, with 96.8 precincts reporting, pending challenges.) If there's any consolation for the thousands of couples who got married in recent months, and other supporters, the last time California voted to ban gay marriage the initiative got 61.4% of the vote.

That shows that there were over 1.3 million more people who were willing to vote for the first Black president than were willing to protect our state constitution from eliminating rights instead of protecting them. Clearly, the lies on the weekend before the election from the YES ON 8 folks about Obama's position on their discriminatory amendment fed into that.



That 1.3 million gap is much more than the 200,000+ voters who are staunchly pro-choice but not staunchly pro-equality. It is also more than the roughly 200,000 votes from the African American electorate if they had voted similarly to the white electorate in California on Proposition 8.

It was fickle "progressive" Democrats that caused Proposition 8 to pass. I have been saying for weeks that if Democrats were only opposing Proposition 8 in the mid-60s while Republicans were supporting it in the high 70s then we would lose.

The revised exit polls posted by CNN show that Democrats (42% of sample) opposed Prop 8 64%-36%, while Republicans (29%) supported it 85%-15% and Independents (28%) opposed discrimination 54%-46%. Stop blaming Black people and the illusory "Obama effect" for Proposition 8's passage!

I do agree that it is troubling that 70% of Black people voted for Proposition 8 in exit polls and that shows just how much work needs to be done in the Black community to combat decades of homophobic indoctrination by the conservative religious community. It does not mean that Black people are inherently more homophobic than other communities.

I would like progressive Democrats (especially LGBT ones) who are currently blaming Black and brown people for Proposition 8's failure to look at the numbers and then look in the mirror as they consider the reasons Californians failed to reject Proposition 8's promise of discrimination and prolonged heterosexual privilege on Tuesday while they were electing the first Black man to the Presidency of the United States.

Black LGBT Calls Prop 8 "Shameful and Wrong"

The Barbara Jordan/Bayard Rustin Coalition sends out a press release denouncing the passage of Proposition 8.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
November 5, 2008

CONTACT:
Ron Buckmire
PHONE: 323-314-2949

Jordan/Rustin Coalition expresses dismay at passage of proposition 8
Black LGBT group calls it a “shameful and wrong” act and vows to
continue working for full equality under the law

(Los Angeles, CA, November 5, 2008) The Barbara Jordan / Bayard Rustin Coalition
(known as the Jordan/Rustin Coalition), the primary organization devoted to organizing African Americans for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender equality in Southern California expressed dismay at the impending passage of Proposition 8 by California voters and described it as a shameful and wrong act. With over 99% of the vote counted, the state constitutional amendment to declare marriages of same-sex couples as neither “valid or recognized in California” is leading (52% YES to 48% NO) by over 400,000 votes out of nearly 10 million cast and is almost certain to pass.

"It is shameful and wrong that the people of California have apparently voted to eliminate a fundamental right of a single group of Californians while at the same time electing the first African American president," said Jordan Rustin Coalition board president Ron Buckmire. "We call upon the Supreme Court of California to declare this amendment unconstitutional under either the State or Federal Constitution. Our system of laws does not allow the rights of a minority to be decided by the whims or biases of the majority of the electorate."

In 1992 Colorado voters passed Amendment 2 which would have amended that state’s constitution to prohibit any legislative body in the state from enacting anti-discrimination laws based on sexual orientation. That ballot measure was immediately enjoined from going into effect and was found unconstitutional by every court that examined it. Finally, in 1996, Colorado’s Amendment 2 was declared unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court in a 6-3 landmark decision named Romer v. Evans. Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority, declared
“that Amendment 2 classifies homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else. This Colorado cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws.”


California’s Proposition 8 is attempting to make legally married same-sex couples strangers to its laws. This California can not do.

Exit polls from CNN indicate that African Americans made up nearly 10% of the California electorate on the historic day that an African American man was first elected President of the United States. African Americans make up about 6% of the California population, according to 2006 figures from the U.S. Census. 74% of Black women and 64% of Black men voted for Proposition 8, according to CNN's exit polls. These exit polls also show that in California 5% of voters were lesbian, gay or bisexual and that nationwide 4% of all presidential voters were lesbian, gay or bisexual and voted for Barack Obama over John McCain by a 70% to 27% margin.

In 2000, Proposition 22 passed by a margin of over 22 percentage points, while yesterday Proposition 8 has passed by less than 5 points. Clearly, Californian voters are becoming more accepting of marriage equality as time goes by. The election results also show that we face challenges in convincing our fellow Black brothers and sisters of the righteousness of the idea of equal access to civil marriage for all Americans. The Jordan/Rustin Coalition will continue to work in the African American community to promote ``equal standing for all” under the laws of California and the United States of America.

###

ABOUT the Barbara Jordan / Bayard Rustin Coalition

The mission of the Barbara Jordan / Bayard Rustin Coalition (or Jordan
Rustin Coalition) is to empower Black same-gender loving, lesbian, gay,
bisexual and transgender individuals and families in Greater Los Angeles, to
promote equal marriage rights and to advocate for fair treatment of everyone
without regard to race, sexual orientation and gender identity or expression.

Rally in Weho To Protest Prop 8 at 7pm Today!

Jeff Prang, The Mayor of West Hollywood, the Los Angeles County's most predominantly LGBT neighborhood, sent out this annou ncement about a public reaction to Proposition 8's passage:

As deeply disappointed as we all are that California voters passed
Proposition 8, we must not allow that disappointment to linger. This
vote is a temporary defeat in the long march toward equal rights for
all citizens in America.

Please join me for a protest rally tonight at 7 pm on San Vicente Blvd
between West Hollywood Park and the Pacific Design Center (647 N. San
Vicente Blvd. West Hollywood CA 90069) as we move forward towards
restoring equality for all in California.

San Vicente Blvd, between Santa Monica Blvd and Melrose Avenue will be
closed tonight starting at 6 pm. San Vicente south-bound traffic will
be directed to make left or right at Santa Monica Blvd. Signs have
already been posted to help divert traffic.

For more information about tonight's rally, please contact (323) 848-6460.

Lawsuit Against Prop 8 Filed

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
November 5, 2008

Media Contacts:
Jason Howe
Public Information Officer
Lambda Legal
213.382.7600 x247
Mobile: 415.595.9245
jhowe@lambdalegal.org

Laura Saponara
Communications Director
ACLU of Northern California
415.621.2493
lsapanora@aclunc.org


Legal Groups File Lawsuit Challenging Proposition 8,
Should It Pass

Legal Papers Claim Initiative Procedure Cannot Be Used To Undermine the
Constitution’s Core Commitment To Equality For Everyone


SAN FRANCISCO – The American Civil Liberties Union, Lambda Legal and the National Center for Lesbian Rights filed a writ petition before the California Supreme Court today urging the court to invalidate Proposition 8 if it passes. The petition charges that Proposition 8 is invalid because the initiative process was improperly used in an attempt to undo the constitution’s core commitment to equality for everyone by eliminating a fundamental right from just one group – lesbian and gay Californians. Proposition 8 also improperly attempts to prevent the courts from exercising their essential constitutional role of protecting the equal protection rights of minorities. According to the California Constitution, such radical changes to the organizing principles of state government cannot be made by simple majority vote through the initiative process, but instead must, at a minimum, go through the state legislature first.

The California Constitution itself sets out two ways to alter the document that sets the most basic rules about how state government works. Through the initiative process, voters can make relatively small changes to the constitution. But any measure that would change the underlying principles of the constitution must first be approved by the legislature before being submitted to the voters. That didn’t happen with Proposition 8, and that’s why it’s invalid.

“If the voters approved an initiative that took the right to free speech away from women, but not from men, everyone would agree that such a measure conflicts with the basic ideals of equality enshrined in our constitution. Proposition 8 suffers from the same flaw – it removes a protected constitutional right – here, the right to marry – not from all Californians, but just from one group of us,” said Jenny Pizer, a staff attorney with Lambda Legal. “That’s too big a change in the principles of our constitution to be made just by a bare majority of voters.”

“A major purpose of the constitution is to protect minorities from majorities. Because changing that principle is a fundamental change to the organizing principles of the constitution itself, only the legislature can initiate such revisions to the constitution,” added Elizabeth Gill, a staff attorney with the ACLU of Northern California.

The lawsuit was filed today in the California Supreme Court on behalf of Equality California and 6 same-sex couples who did not marry before Tuesday’s election but would like to be able to marry now.

The groups filed a writ petition in the California Supreme Court before the elections presenting similar arguments because they believed the initiative should not have appeared on the ballot, but the court dismissed that petition without addressing its merits. That earlier order is not precedent here.

“Historically, courts are reluctant to get involved in disputes if they can avoid doing so,” said Shannon Minter, Legal Director of NCLR. “It is not uncommon for the court to wait to see what happens at the polls before considering these legal arguments. However, now that Prop 8 may pass, the courts will have to weigh in and we believe they will agree that Prop 8 should never have been on the ballot in the first place.”

This would not be the first time the court has struck down an improper voter initiative. In 1990, the court stuck down an initiative that would have added a provision to the California Constitution stating that the “Constitution shall not be construed by the courts to afford greater rights to criminal defendants than those afforded by the Constitution of the United States.” That measure was invalid because it improperly attempted to strip California’s courts of their role as independent interpreters of the state’s constitution.

In a statement issued earlier today, the groups stated their conviction, which is shared by the California Attorney General, that the state will continue to honor the marriages of the 18,000 lesbian and gay couples who have already married in California. A copy of the statement as well as the writ petition filed today is available a www.aclu.org/lgbt, www.lambdalegal.org, and www.nclrights.org.

In addition to the ACLU, Lambda Legal and NCLR, the legal team bringing the writ also includes the Law Office of David C. Codell; Munger Tolles & Olson, LLP; and Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP.

###

The National Center for Lesbian Rights is a national legal organization committed to advancing the civil and human rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people and their families through litigation, public policy advocacy, and public education. www.nclrights.org

Lambda Legal is a national organization committed to achieving full recognition of the civil rights of lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, transgender people and those with HIV through impact litigation, education and public policy work. www.lambdalegal.org

The American Civil Liberties Union is America’s foremost advocate of individual rights. It fights discrimination and moves public opinion on LGBT rights through the courts, legislatures and public education. www.aclu.org

Founded in 1998, Equality California celebrates its 10th anniversary in 2008, commemorating a decade of building a state of equality in California. EQCA is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, grassroots-based, statewide advocacy organization whose mission is to achieve equality and civil rights of all lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) Californians. www.eqca.org

No On Prop 8 Refuses To Concede

This is the response of the NO ON PROP 8 campaign to multiple news organizations calling Proposition 8 as having passed:

Results Status

Roughly 400,000 votes separate yes from no on Prop 8 - out of 10 million votes tallied.

Based on turnout estimates reported yesterday, we expect that there are more than 3 million and possibly as many as 4 million absentee and provisional ballots yet to be counted.

Given that fundamental rights are at stake, we must wait to hear from the Secretary of State tomorrow how many votes are yet to be counted as well as where they are from.

It is clearly a very close election and we monitored the results all evening and this morning.

As of this point, the election is too close to call.

Because Prop 8 involves the sensitive matter of individual rights, we believe it is important to wait until we receive further information about the outcome.

Geoff Kors
Executive Committee
NO on Prop 8

Kate Kendell
Executive Committee
NO on Prop 8

If there were 4 million outstanding votes, Proposition 8 would have to be opposed by more than 55% of those voters to have a chance of overcoming the current deficit.

That's Not Going To Happen.

It's on to the courts, people.

More Obama Newspaper Covers

Obama's Win Around The World

Joe.My.God has this great collage of front pages of newspapers around the world announcing Obama's electoral victory last night.

2008 Weblog Awards Begin Today

Joe.My.God notes that Pam Spaulding has announced that nominations have begun for the 2008 Weblog Awards. I like both PHB (2005 and 2006 Best LGBT Blog) and JMG (2007 Best LGBT Blog) but I think that Rod 2.0 deserves to win Best LGBT Blog for 2008. His coverage of the implosion of Black Gay Pride in New York City over the summer was nothing less than first-class journalism. Also, his coverage of the incredibly long emocratic primary was excellent and nuanced. My second choice would be JMG.


There are lots of categories to vote for this year, including Best Blog, Best LGBT Blog, Best Individual Blogger, Best Sports Blog, and Best Liberal Blog. Just letting my readers know :)

Proposition 8 UPDATE: 52% YES 48% NO

Here is an early morning update on California ballot measures:

91% reporting (as of 5:32 a.m.)

Prop 1A (high-speed rail)
Yes: 52.3%
No: 47.7%

Prop 2 (farm animals)
Yes: 63.3%
No: 36.7%

Prop 3 (children's hospitals)
Yes: 54.7%
No: 45.3%

Prop 4 (parental notification)
Yes: 47.4%
No: 52.6%

Prop 5 (nonviolent drug offenses)
Yes: 40.2%
No: 59.8%

Prop 6 (law enforcement funding)
Yes: 30.3%
No: 69.7%

Prop 7 (renewable energy generation)
Yes: 34.9%
No: 65.1%

Prop 8 (same-sex marriage elimination)
Yes: 51.9%
No: 48.1%

Prop 9 (victims' rights)
Yes: 53.1%
No: 46.9%

Prop 10 (alternative fuel bonds)
Yes: 40.0%
No: 60.0%

Prop 11 (redistricting)
Yes: 50.5%
No: 49.5%

Prop 12 (veterans' bond)
Yes: 63.5%
No: 36.5%

Prop 8 Latest Results 54.2% Yes 45.8% No (12% In)

Latest results (9:12pm):
Available here (SECRETARY OF STATE), here (LA TIMES)and here (SF GATE).

Proposition 8 Same-Sex Marriage Ban
Choice Votes %
Yes 1,778,601 54.2%
No 1,501,622 45.8%

Marriage bans in Florida and Arizona have been approved. Connecticut will not have a constitutional convention, so marriage equality will be safe in that state for the foreseeable future, and goes into effect next Monday November 10.

Obama Wins!!

Obama Is President-Elect!

Final Field Polls on all 12 CA Propositions

The Field Poll is the most accurate pollster in California history. They released their polls on all 12 statewide propositions on Tuesday's ballot over the weekend:

Proposition 1A (high-speed rail bonds)
Yes: 47%
No: 42%

Proposition 2 (farm animal confinement)
Yes: 60%
No: 27%

Proposition 3 (children's hospital bonds)
Yes: 54%
No: 35%

Proposition 4 (parental notification for teen abortion)
Yes: 45%
No: 43%

Proposition 7 (renewable energy generation)
Yes: 39%
No: 43%

Proposition 8 (ban on same-sex marriage)
Yes: 44%
No: 49%

Proposition 10 (alternative fuel vehicles bonds)
Yes: 49%
No: 39%

Proposition 11 (redistricting)
Yes: 45%
No: 30%

Proposition 12 (veterans bonds)
Yes: 58%
No: 29%

You can see MadProfessah's positions on all these ballot measures here. VOTE!

Pollster.com Average for Prop 8: 50% No 45.4% Yes

Fight For Equality In California Surpasses $73 Million!

The cost of the campaign to eliminate the right to marry for same-sex couples in California has now exceeded 73,692,704 dollars. This is more than twice the amount of money that was spent on the first twenty-seven anti-gay ballot measures combined. It should be noted that the forces of equality have previously won only one those 27 races (Arizona's Proposition 107 in 2006). The two other anti-gay ballot measures this year are in Arizona (again!) and Florida. The total amount of money spent in both of those races is less than $10 million.

The Proposition 8 ballot measure fight is now the most expensive electoral ballot in the history of social issue initiative campaigns.

I want to thank MadProfessah.com readers for donating more than our $1,000 dollar goal to NO ON PROP 8. But we need you to do more.

I am posting the amount for people to realize exactly how serious this battle is. The polls have consistently shown this race within the margin of error and it will be won or lost in the turnout
of who shows up to vote. Regardless of what happens in the Presidential election, we must encourage everyone who is registered to vote to come out to vote and vote NO ON PROP 8. It's unfair and wrong for the Mormon church to impose their religious view on marriage on all Californians by amending our state Constitution.

Please tell all your friends, families and neighbors to vote No on Proposition 8, and if you can, please volunteer to get the word out to voters on Election Day.

VOTE! We CAN Do This, "Yes WE CAN!"

Obama Final Polling Lead 51.1 to 44.1

Tremayne at OpenLeft.com summarizes the final national polling the day before the election. Folks, it's not going to be close.

More Mormon Activity To Promote Prop 8 Exposed Online

The Mormon Church is not happy about the above web video from the Courage Campaign showing Mormon missionaries invadfing the home of a lesbian couple to find and destroy their California marriage licence. Local CBS television affiliate KUTV in Utah has run multiple stories about the activities of the grassroots to inform voters of the deep involvement the Mormon Church has with the attempt to write discrimination into the state constitution of California. Here is an except from their coverage:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not happy with the tactics used in this commercial.

Scott Trotter with the Church released this statement,

“The Church has joined a broad-based coalition in defense of traditional marriage. While we feel this is important to all of society, we have always emphasized that respect be given to those who feel differently on this issue. It is unfortunate that some who oppose this proposition have not given the Church this same courtesy.”

If they don't like that video, I'm sure they aren't going to be pleased by this front page post on DailyKos which reveals the Mormon Church has been planning an anti-gay marriage amendment since 1997 , especially when that website is probably receiving 1-2 million unique visits per day.

YES! I HAVE Already Voted! Vote Like ME

Woo hoo! I checked the website of the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder and my vote was recorded 11/1/2008.

The full list of what I voted for is here but here, again is the list of MadProfessah.com positions on the statewide propositions:

Proposition Number (Topic)       MadProfessah
1A (High Speed Train Bond)             YES
2 (Humane Farming)                     YES
3 (Children's Hospital Bond)           NO
4 (Teen Safety Initiative)             NO
5 (Non-Violent Drug Offenses)          YES
6 (Prison Expansion)                   NO
7 (Renewable Energy Expansion)         YES
8 (Eliminates Marriage Rights)         HELL NO
9 (Victim Rights Amendment)            NO
10 (Billionaire Renewable Energy Scam) NO
11 (Republican-Favored Re-districting) NO
12 (Veterans' Housing Bond)            YES

Obama Talks About Prop 8 With MTV

MTV Shows

WTA Tour Championships Begin; Jankovic Clinches #1

Jelena Jankovic has clinched the year-ending #1 spot on the WTA Tour regardless of who wins this week's Year End WTA Tour Championships in Doha, Qatar.

The draw for the event is here (pdf), with competitors being placed into two groups, where they play a round-robin and the top two finishers in each group go forward to the semi-finals.

WHITE GROUP
1. Jelena Jankovic (SRB)
4. Ana Ivanovic (SRB)
6. Svetlana Kuznetsova (RUS)
8. Vera Zvonareva (RUS)

MAROON GROUP
2. Dinara Safina (RUS)
3. Serena Williams (USA)
5. Elena Dementieva (RUS)
7. Venus Williams (USA)

Four Russians, two Serbians and two Williams! Venus and Serena are in the same half, which is actually a good thing, because the semifinals are #1 in Maroon group plays #2 in White group and #2 in Maroon group plays #1 in White group. If the sisters win both of their matches against Safina and Dementieva then the match they play against each other would be meaningless, and they would not be meeting in the semifinal, but possibly in the finals.

Eye Candy: David Williams

Kenneth in the 212 alerted me to this scaldingly hot picture of Australian model David Williams. (hat/tip Oh La La Mag)

27 Million Votes Already Cast, 100M To Go!

The Associated Press is reporting that there have been 27 million votes already cast (out of an estimated total of 125 million expected votes) and that Democrats have vastly outnumbered Republicans in early voting states.

Indeed, Election Day is becoming a misnomer. About 27 million absentee and early votes were cast in 30 states as of Saturday night, more than ever. Democrats outnumbered Republicans in pre-Election Day voting in key states.

That has Democrats — and even some Republicans — privately questioning whether McCain can overtake Obama, even if GOP loyalists turn out in droves on Tuesday. Obama may already have too big of a head start in critical states like Nevada and Iowa, which Bush won four years ago.

Previous polls have shown that Obama is leading by anywhere from 10 to 15 points among those who voted early this year.

Is My Vote Lost In The Mail?

MadProfessah voted by mail on Monday night, dropping off my ballot (and the other half's) at the El Sereno Post Office in Los Angeles on Tuesday October 28th. The Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder's website at http://www.lavote.net/ shows his vote being received on October 30th, but it's November 2 and my vote has yet to be recorded! You can check the status of your Absentee Ballot here.

I heard the head of the county Registrar-Recorder's office, Dean Logan, say that if the lavote.net website does not show your vote being received by election day, go to your regular polling place and ask to vote a provisional ballot, so unless something changes on Monday, that's what I'll be doing on Tuesday!

STAY TUNED.

Viral Video On Why Parents Oppose Prop 8

LA TIMES harshly condemns Proposition 8

Sunday's Los Angeles Times harshly condemns the campaign to pass Proposition 8 in a strongly worded editorial repeating their endorsement of NO ON PROP 8:

Clever magicians practice the art of misdirection -- distracting the eyes of the audience to something attention-grabbing but irrelevant so that no one notices what the magician is really doing. Look over at that fuchsia scarf, up this sleeve, at anything besides the actual trick.

The campaign promoting Proposition 8, which proposes to amend the state Constitution to ban same-sex marriages, has masterfully misdirected its audience, California voters. Look at the first-graders in San Francisco, attending their lesbian teacher's wedding! Look at Catholic Charities, halting its adoption services in Massachusetts, where same-sex marriage is legal! Look at the church that lost its tax exemption over gay marriage! Look at anything except what Proposition 8 is actually about: a group of people who are trying to impose on the state their belief that homosexuality is immoral and that gays and lesbians are not entitled to be treated equally under the law.

That truth would never sell in tolerant, live-and-let-live California, and so it has been hidden behind a series of misleading half-truths. Once the sleight of hand is revealed, though, the campaign's illusions fall away.

Take the story of Catholic Charities. The service arm of the Roman Catholic Church closed its adoption program in Massachusetts not because of the state's gay marriage law but because of a gay anti-discrimination law passed many years earlier. In fact, the charity had voluntarily placed older foster children in gay and lesbian households -- among those most willing to take hard-to-place children -- until the church hierarchy was alerted and demanded that adoptions conform to the church's religious teaching, which was in conflict with state law. The Proposition 8 campaign, funded in large part by Mormons who were urged to do so by their church, does not mention that the Mormon church's adoption arm in Massachusetts is still operating, even though it does not place children in gay and lesbian households.

How can this be? It's a matter of public accountability, not infringement on religion. Catholic Charities acted as a state contractor, receiving state and federal money to find homes for special-needs children who were wards of the state, and it faced the loss of public funding if it did not comply with the anti-discrimination law. In contrast, LDS (for Latter-day Saints) Family Services runs a private adoption service without public funding. Its work, and its ability to follow its religious teachings, have not been altered.

That San Francisco field trip? The children who attended the wedding had their parents' signed permission, as law requires. A year ago, with the same permission, they could have traveled to their teacher's domestic-partnership ceremony. Proposition 8 does not change the rules about what children are exposed to in school. The state Education Code does not allow schools to teach comprehensive sex education -- which includes instruction about marriage -- to children whose parents object.

Another "Yes on 8" canard is that the continuation of same-sex marriage will force churches and other religious groups to perform such marriages or face losing their tax-exempt status. Proponents point to a case in New Jersey, where a Methodist-based nonprofit owned seaside land that included a boardwalk pavilion. It obtained an exemption from state property tax for the land on the grounds that it was open for public use and access. Events such as weddings -- of any religion -- could be held in the pavilion by reservation. But when a lesbian couple sought to book the pavilion for a commitment ceremony, the nonprofit balked, saying this went against its religious beliefs.

The court ruled against the nonprofit, not because gay rights trump religious rights but because public land has to be open to everyone or it's not public. The ruling does not affect churches' religious tax exemptions or their freedom to marry whom they please on their private property, just as Catholic priests do not have to perform marriages for divorced people and Orthodox synagogues can refuse to provide space for the weddings of interfaith couples. And Proposition 8 has no bearing on the issue; note that the New Jersey case wasn't about a wedding ceremony.

Much has been made about same-sex marriage changing the traditional definition of marriage. But marriage has evolved for thousands of years, from polygamous structures in which brides were so much chattel to today's idealized love matches. In seeking to add a sentence to California's Constitution that says, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized," Proposition 8 supporters seek to enforce adherence to their own religious or personal definition. The traditional makeup of families has changed too, in ways that many religious people find immoral. Single parents raise their children; couples divorce and blend families. Yet same-sex marriage is the only departure from tradition that has been targeted for constitutional eradication.

Religions and their believers are free to define marriage as they please; they are free to consider homosexuality a sin. But they are not free to impose their definitions of morality on the state. Proposition 8 proponents know this, which is why they have misdirected the debate with highly colored illusions about homosexuals trying to take away the rights of religious Californians. Since May, when the state Supreme Court overturned a proposed ban on same-sex marriage as unconstitutional, more than 16,000 devoted gay and lesbian couples have celebrated the creation of stable, loving households, of equal legal stature with other households. Their happiness in no way diminishes the rights or happiness of others.

Californians must cast a clear eye on Proposition 8's real intentions. It seeks to change the state Constitution in a rare and terrible way, to impose a single moral belief on everyone and to deprive a targeted group of people of civil rights that are now guaranteed. This is something that no Californian, of any religious belief, should accept. Vote no to the bigotry of Proposition 8.

Wow. Tell us what you really feel :-) No go and vote or volunteer to defeat Proposition 8.

Another Statistical Study Indicates LAPD Racial Profiling

Last Thursday's Los Angeles Times printed an op-ed by Yale Law Professor Ian Ayres that presents the details of a statistical analysis of more than 700,000 interactions between LAPD officers and pedestrians and motorists between June 2003 and June 2004. The results of the study were revealed at a press conference by the ACLU of Southern California on Monday.

We found persistent and statistically significant racial disparities in policing that raise grave concerns that African Americans and Latinos in Los Angeles are, as we put it in the report, "over-stopped, over-frisked, over-searched and over-arrested." After controlling for violent crime rates and property crime rates in specific neighborhoods, as well as a host of other variables, we found the following:

For every 10,000 residents, about 3,400 more black people are stopped than whites, and 360 more Latinos are stopped than whites. Stopped blacks are 127% more likely to be frisked -- and stopped Latinos are 43% more likely to be frisked -- than stopped whites.

Stopped blacks are 76% more likely to be searched, and stopped Latinos are 16% more likely to be searched than stopped whites.

Stopped blacks are 29% more likely to be arrested, and stopped Latinos are 32% more likely to be arrested than stopped whites.

Now consider this: Although stopped blacks were 127% more likely to be frisked than stopped whites, they were 42.3% less likely to be found with a weapon after they were frisked, 25% less likely to be found with drugs and 33% less likely to be found with other contraband. We found similar patterns for Latinos.

Not only did we find that African Americans and Latinos were subjected to more stops, frisks, searches and arrests than whites, we also found that these additional police actions aren't because of the fact that people of color live in higher-crime areas or because they more often carry drugs or weapons, or any other legitimate reason that we can discern from the rich set of data we examined.

The LAPD's response was typically weak. Police Chief Bill Bratton complained that the study used data that was more than four years old, but the LAPD itself has not made the latest data of its traffic stops available. Bratton also complained that the study hadn't considered the effect of the race of the officers involved. But Professor Ayres had a reply:

When testing for unjustified racial disparities in who is stopped by the police in cars and on the street, it's inappropriate to control for the race of either of the officers. The likelihood of being stopped, frisked or arrested shouldn't turn on whether a black, Latino or white officer was involved.

As an ancillary test -- after we'd calculated the general disparities -- we did look at the officers involved, and we found that the racial disparities in the likelihood of arrest were substantially lower when at least one of the stopping officers was the same race as the suspect.

For example, we found that the black arrest disparity was 9 percentage points lower when at least one of the stopping officers was black. Bratton should be troubled that there is less disparity when the officer is the same race as the person stopped, as that result adds credibility to the idea that the disparities in different-race interactions may be because of racial bias.

The Los Angeles Times editorial board noticed Bratton's smackdown and came to his rescue on Saturday, gingerly.

That being said, the LAPD does have a history of profiling, but it is in statistical denial of that fact. Not one of the 320 profiling complaints filed last year was validated by the department, nor were any of those filed in the five previous years. Blacks and Latinos are stopped and searched more frequently than whites, and few would deny the probability that some of those stops are unwarranted. After all, this is a relationship on the mend, not one that has fully healed.

The real problem seems to be that for all its efforts, the LAPD does not yet know how to detect and quantify disparate treatment. Ian Ayres, the professor who prepared the ACLU report, says he can help, and the department should take him up on his offer. The truth surely lies somewhere between the spotless image claimed by the department and the sullied one implied by the report.

Ball's in your court, Bill.

Tsonga Defeats Nallbandian For Paris Masters Title

23-year-old Black Frenchman Jo-Wilfried Tsonga defeated defending Champion David Nalbandian of Argentina 6-3 4-6 6-4 in a tight final of the Paris ATP Masters Series tournament, clinching the final slot in the 8-man ATP Tour championships in Shanghai starting next Sunday. This was Tsonga's first ATP Masters Series final and he won it in the same year he lost his first major final at the Australian Open in Melbourne to Novak Djokovic. Since then, Tsonga has beaten Djokovic twice this year, including at this tournament. He also had to beat Andy Roddick and James Blake before dispatching the defending champion to become the first Frenchman to win this Masters series tournament since Sebastien Grosjean in 2001.

SurveyUSA Poll Shows PROP 8 Losing 50% No, 47% Yes

The latest SurveyUSA poll was released yesterday and shows a dramatic shift towards NO ON PROPOSITION 8, with a majority of voters now opposing the measure 50% with 47% favoring discrimination. Previously, the October 17th SurveyUSA poll showed Proposition 8 favored by 48% and opposed by 45% with a margin of error of +/- 3 percentage points. The latest poll was conducted October 29-31 among 800 people, with 719 registered to vote and 673
being determined as having already voted or likely to vote. People who say they have already voted make up 42% of the sample.

Generally SurveyUSA is a horrible pollster, so I don't put much stock in this poll (or the three previous polls). I would lso note that the lead for the forces of equality is within the margin of error. However, it does feel better to be in the lead rather than behind!

Interestingly, the internals now show that the African-American vote is now tied at 45%-45% with 9% undecided (a very different picture from the 58% Yes-38% No which so excited conservative gay blogger Andrew Sullivan and who MadProfessah debunked a few weeks ago). Again, the sample size is 7% of the total and thus has a huge margin of error. According to SurveyUSA, the Latino community is now favoring Proposition 8 by a margin of 50% Yes to 46% No. They make up 22% of the latest sample. The API/"other" community now oppose Proposition 8 by a 20 point margin, 59% to 39% but they make up 12% of the sample.

Asian/Other (12%): 59% No, 39% Yes

Latino Voters (22%): 50% Yes, 46% No

Black Voters (7%): 45% No, 45%Yes

Smart People Oppose Prop 8

Some of the smartest people in the world work in Silicon Valley, at places like Google, Yahoo, Apple, Facebook and Cisco. Now comes word that the leaders of the technology revolution have joined together to oppose Proposition 8.

As Silicon Valley leaders, we are committed to equality and fairness. We are opposed to Proposition 8 because it would change our state constitution to take away rights from one group of people. It would set our state, and our country, back in the fight for fundamental fairness and equal rights.

Please join us by reaching out to friends and neighbors and asking them to stand for fairness: Vote No on Proposition 8 on November 4th.

Silicon Valley Leaders Say NO on Proposition 8
(titles are for identification purposes only)

HONORARY CO-CHAIRS
Sergey Brin, Founder, Google, Inc.
Bill Campbell, Chairman, Intuit Inc.
David Filo, Founder, Yahoo! Inc.
Chuck Geschke, Founder & Chairman, Adobe Systems, Inc.
John Morgridge, Former CEO & Chairman, Cisco Systems, Inc.
Pierre Omidyar, Founder and Chairman, eBay Inc., Founding Partner, Omidyar Network
Sheryl Sandberg, COO, Facebook
Eric Schmidt, CEO, Google, Inc.
Jerry Yang, Founder, Yahoo! Inc.

LEADERS (partial list)
Deborah Barber, Principal, Jackson Hole Group
John Battelle, Chairman & CEO, Federated Media
Larry Birenbaum, Former Senior Vice President, Cisco Systems, Inc.
Lorna Borenstein, President, Move, Inc.
Larry Brilliant, Executive Director, Google.org
Owen Byrd, President, Byrd Development
John Chisholm, Chairman & CEO, CustomerSat, Inc.
Barry Cinnamon, CEO, Akeena Solar
Tod Cohen, Director of Government Affairs, eBay Inc.
LaDoris Cordell, Administrator, Stanford University
Sue Decker, President, Yahoo! Inc.
Jack Dorsey, Chairman, Twitter
David Drummond, SVP, Corporate Development & Chief Legal Officer, Google, Inc.
Donna Dubinsky, CEO, Numenta, Inc.
Alan Eustace, SVP, Engineering and Research, Google, Inc.
Naomi Fine, President & CEO, Pro-Tec Data, Inc.
Rachel Glaser COO/CFO, Reunion.com
Carl Guardino, President & CEO, Silicon Valley Leadership Group
Andre Haddad, CEO, Shopping.com
Jeff Hawkins, co-Founder Palm, Handspring, and Numenta
David Karnstedt, Investor
Scott Kaspick, Managing Director, Kaspick & Co.
Steve Kirsch, Serial Entrepreneur
John Koza, CEO, Third Millennium
Ross LaJeunesse, Head of State Policy Western US, Google, Inc.
Gary Lauder, Managing Partner, Lauder Partners Venture Capital
Laura Lauder, General Partner, Lauder Partners Venture Capital
Len Lehman, Investor
John Luongo, Former CEO, Vantive Corporation
Roger McNamee, Managing Director & co-Founder, Elevation Partners
Ken McNeely, President, AT&T California
Michael Moritz, Partner, Sequoia Capital
Susan Packard Orr, CEO, Telosa Software, Inc.
Randy Pond, Executive Vice President, Cisco Systems, Inc.
Amy Rao, Founder & CEO, Integrated Archive Systems
Jana Rich, Managing Director, Russell Reynolds
Miriam Rivera, Former Vice President and Deputy General Counsel, Google, Inc.
Dan Rosensweig, Investor
Dan Rubin, Partner, Alloy Ventures
Hilary Schneider, Executive Vice President US Region, Yahoo! Inc.
Len Shustek, Chairman, Computer History Museum
Jeff Skoll, Former President, eBay Inc.
Stephanie Tilenius, SVP, eBay North America
Joy Weiss, President & CEO, Dust Networks
Steve Westly, former California State Controller & former SVP eBay Inc.
Evan Williams, CEO, Twitter

Previously, Google and Apple had announced their official corporate opposition to Proposition 8, and donated money.

Obama Appears in Latest NO ON PROP 8 Ad

After yesterday's false advertisement by the heterosexual supremacist proponents of Proposition 8 implying that Barack Obama agreed with them, the Obama for America has authorized the NO ON PROP 8 campaign to include the Democratic Presidential candidate in their latest ad, which also features Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Senator Dianne Feinstein.

It's quite strong, and includes the effective music in the background.

In addition, the NO ON PROP 8 campaign has announced that it has indeed raised 3 million dollars in 3 days as of November 1, and according to the Los Angeles Times the opponents of Proposition 8 have raised more money.

I think we're gonna win this thing!

Federer, Nadal Withdraw; Tsonga, Nalbandian in Paris Masters Final

David Nalbandian

Jo-Wilfried Tsonga

At the Paris ATP Masters tournament top seeds Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer withdrew with injuries before their quarterfinal matchups with James Blake and Nikolay Davydenko, who both lost their semifinal matches to Jo-Wilfried Tsonga and David Nalbandian. Federer's injury was a bad back, and Nadal was "sharp pain" in his knee. Nalbandian is the defending champion, and Tsonga, this year's Australian Open finalist, is in his first ATP Masters Series final, which happens to be in his hometown of Bercy, France. Tsonga took three hours to defeat Andy Roddick in his quarterfinal match 5-7 6-4 7-6(5) on Thursday. By defeating Blake, Tsonga dashed the American's chances of qualifying for the year-end tour championships in Shanghai in two weeks. Whoever wins the final on Saturday will clinch the eighth slot. The other qualifiers are:

1. Rafael Nadal
2. Roger Federer
3. Novak Djokovic
4. Andy Murray
5. Nikolay Davydenko
6. Andy Roddick
7. Juan Martin del Potro

Go Tsonga!

Bill Clinton Asks Millions Of California To Vote NO ON PROP 8

Got home on Friday night to a phone message on the machine from none other than William Jefferson Clinton, the most recent (before Tuesday!) Democrat elected President of the United States, urging a NO vote on Proposition 8:

"This is Bill Clinton calling to ask you to vote NO on Proposition 8 on Tuesday, November 4th. Proposition 8 would use state law to single out one group of Californians to be treated differently -- discriminating against members of our family, our friends and our co-workers.

"If I know one thing about California, I know that is not what you're about. That is not what America is about. Please vote NO on 8. It's unfair and it's wrong. Thank you."

That's pretty cool. In order to defeat Proposition 8, we will need Democratic voters to oppose it as vehemently as Republicans are passionately supporting it. "Big Dog's" robocall could make the difference.

Yes on 8 Sends Mailer To Black Voters with Obama's Image

Unsurprisingly, 4 days before the election the heterosexual supremacists behind Proposition 8 have stooped to outright deception to try to trick African Americans into supporting a constitutional amendment to eliminate fundamental rights for gay and lesbian couples. They have sent out a mailer featuring a picture of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama combined with quotes featuring Obama's opposition to marriage equality and implying that he supports a YES vote on Proposition 8.

Of course, this is simply a lie. Another misrepresentation of fact and outright lie by the proponents of Proposition 8 as they get more desperate to force their Mormon-inspired view of marriage upon all Californians. Obama has previously said:

"As the Democratic nominee for President, I am proud to join with and support the LGBT community in an effort to set our nation on a course that recognizes LGBT Americans with full equality under the law...And that is why I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution, and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or those of other states. For too long, issues of LGBT rights have been exploited by those seeking to divide us. It's time to move beyond polarization and live up to our founding promise of equality by treating all our citizens with dignity and respect. This is no less than a core issue about who we are as Democrats and as Americans.”

Tonight, in response to the mailer, the Obama campaign released the following statement:

"Senators Obama and Biden have made clear their commitment to fighting for equal rights for all Americans whether it's by granting LGBT Americans all the civil rights and benefits available to heterosexual couples, or repealing 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell," said a statement issued by campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt. "Senator Obama has already announced that the Obama-Biden ticket opposes Proposition 8 and similar discriminatory constitutional amendments that could roll back the civil rights he and Senator Biden strongly believe should be afforded to all Americans."

Boo yah! From the NO ON PROP 8 website: http://www.noonprop8.com/obama

Anand Draws 11th Game To Retain World Chess Championship

Vishy Anand drew the 12th game of his 12-game match with Vladimir Kramnik, securing a championship match win by earning 6.5 points (+2) to the challenger's 4.5. Anand was the reigning World Champion, having won the title by winning the World Championship Tournament in 2007. However, in chess when a champion loses the title, they generally get a chance to win the title back, so basically if a challenger wins they have to beat the former champion in two consecutive matches. Anand has done that and is guaranteed to own the title of World Chess Champion until at least late 2009.