NEWS: Justice David Souter Retiring!

NPR is reporting that Justice David Souter, 69, has decided to retire at the end of the current United States Supreme Court in June, but will stay on until his replacement is confirmed by the United States Senate.

NPR has learned that Supreme Court Justice David Souter is planning to retire at the end of the court's current term.

The court has completed hearing oral arguments for the year and will be issuing rulings and opinions until the end of June.

Souter is expected to remain on the bench until a successor has been chosen and confirmed, which may or may not be accomplished before the court reconvenes in October.

Talk about being careful what you wish for! Most bets are on Barack nominating a female justice to fill the vacancy.

R.I.P. North East G.O.P.

kos continues his analysis of the demise of the GOP by looking more closely at the Republican representation in the state legislatures, Governors mansions and 2008 electoral votes in the North Eastern United States (CT, DE, ME, MD, MA, NY, NH, NJ, PA, RI, VT, and WV).

Presidential: 5 of 119 electoral votes

West Virginia was the only state to give its electoral votes to John McCain. The closest any of the other states came was New Hampshire, where Obama won by an easy nine points.

Senate: 3 of 24 seats

Two in Maine, one in New Hampshire. That NH seat will flip (D) in 2010. The two Maine senators, now alone in a hostile GOP, are candidates for future party switches. Especially Sen. Olympia Snowe.

House: 18 of 95 seats

Seven of those are in grossly gerrymandered Pennsylvania, and five in grossly gerrymandered New Jersey.

Governors: 3 of 12 states

Voters in liberal Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Vermont have elected Republican governors in large part as a check on the hugely Democratic state legislatures.

State Legislatures: 1 of 24 chambers, 815 out of 2,347 total seats

CT: House 114D-37R Senate 24D-12R DE: House 114D-37R Senate 25D-16R ME: House 96D-54R-1I Senate 20D-15R MD: House 104D-36R-1I Senate 33D-14R MA: House 143D-16R Senate 35D-5R NY: Assembly 107D-41R-2I Senate 32D-30R

NH: House 224D-174R Senate 14D-10R NJ: Assembly 48D-32R Senate 23D-17R PA: House 104D-98R Senate 30R-20D RI: House 69D-6R Senate 33D-4R-1I VT: House 95D-48R-7I Senate 23D-7R WV: House 71D-29R Senate 28D-8R

So of 24 chambers in the region, Republicans only hold the grossly gerrymandered Pennsylvania Senate. In fact, count all the seats in the region, and Democrats hold 1,532 total seats compared to just 815 for the GOP.

Maine Senate Passes Marriage Bill 20-15!

By a vote of 20-15, the Maine State Senate has passed the marriage equality bill, L.D. 1020.

Supporters say it would end discrimination against gays and lesbians and opponents say the proposal is an attack against the institution of marriage.

This morning’s vote means the bill has cleared its first hurdle in the Legislature. However, it still needs to pass through the House of the Representatives. And if it passes the Legislature, it will need the signature of Gov. John Baldacci, who has not yet said whether he will support it.

Joe.My.God also points out that the Senate has rejected an amendment sending the measure to the voters. A contributor to Pam's House Blend was personally phoned by Gov. Baldacci a couple days ago to discuss his position on the marriage bill after sending him an irate email calling the Governor's refusal to declare a position "craven."

Implications of Specter's Party Switch

kos has an interesting take on the implications of Senator Arlen Specter's earth-shattering news hat he will defect to the Democrats, probably giving them the 60 votes they need to a filibuster-prrof majority in the United States Senate:

Check it -- Republicans are now down to 40 senators, distributed in these
states: AK: 1, AL: 2, AZ: 2, FL: 1, GA: 2, ID: 2, IN: 1, IA: 1, KS: 2, KY: 2,
LA: 1, ME: 2, MS: 2, MO: 1, NE: 1, NH: 1, NV: 1, NC: 1, OH: 1, OK: 2, TN: 2, SC: 2, SD: 1, TX: 2, UT: 2, and WY: 2.

* Republicans are present in 26 states, which doesn't sound so bad. But it means that almost half the country doesn't have any Republican Senators. Only 14 states lack a Democratic Senator.

* Ohio, Missouri, New Hampshire, and North Carolina (and maybe even
Florida if Crist doesn't jump in for the GOP), are all top candidates for
sending two Democrats to the Senate after the 2010 elections. That would further
shrink the GOP into its deep South and Mormon Corridor strongholds.

* Of the GOP's remaining 40 senators, 17 of 24 come from the South (FL, NC, SC, AL, MS, GA, VA, TN, KY, LA, AR, TX). That's up from 15 after the 1998 election.

* Of those remaining 40 senators, only 3 of 24 come from the Northeast
(ME, VT, NY, MD, PA, CT, DE, MA, NH, RI, WV, NJ). That's down significantly from
9 after the 1998 election.

* Of those remaining 40 senators, only 10 of 26 come from the West (NM, CA, OR, WA, AK, HI, MT, ID, UT, NV, AZ, WY, CO). That's down from 16 after the 1998 election.

* Of those remaining 40 senators, only 10 of 26 come from the Midwest (IL, MN, MI, OH, WI, IA, MO, KS, IN, ND, SD, OK, NE). That's down from 14 after the 1998 election.

So check it -- there is only one region the GOP dominates, and it does so with a
solid majority. That's the South, and there's a reason it remains the only
region in the country to have a problem with our president and the Democratic majority:

Gee, and what would that reason be? *cough* race *cough*

Federal Anti-Hate Crimes Bill Passes U.S. House

The final vote tay to pass the hate crimes bill in the U.S. House was 249-175. However, the blogosphere is melting down about the North Carolina congresswoman who in speaking against the bill claimed the Mathew Shepard incident was a hoax:



As someone else said, "Fire her!"

Action on Marriage in New Hampshire and Maine

The above graphic reflects the reality of the New York Times/CBS poll MadProfessah blogged about earlier in the week. The legislative action on ending the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage moves to committees in Maine and New Hampshire.

In New Hampshire the State Senate amended the bill that passed the lower House 186-179 a few weeks ago and passed the measure 13-11 on its second reading today. After the third reading, it will go back to the House for concurrence on the amendments, which were (according to activist Lane Hudson):

1. amendment replaces entire bill
2. nothing in amendment takes out gender specific terms in marriage statute
3. section 1 includes new purpose and intent clause that makes clear that all NH citizens have a right to a civil marriage or a religious denomination, and that religion determines who they will marry.
4. each party to a marriage shall be designated as a bride, groom, or spouse.
5. clear now with new language that no one person can be married to more than one person at one time (duh!)
6. Section 2 ensures that the same rules that govern the age in which heteros can enter into marriage apply to same sex marriages
7. Section 3 makes clear that marriage in NH may be solemnized in one of two ways: civil or religious. hetero and homo will have access to both. again, religion determines if they will perform same sex ceremony.
8. section 5 makes clear how the State would address and accept civil unions from other States....they would be accepted as marriages in NH. those who got a civil union in NH would have a choice of pursuing and affirming a new marriage ceremony under this law, but by Jan 1, 2011, it would automatically become a marriage.
9. instructs sec of state and clerks to update their marriage certificates
10. NH Retirement system can interpret new marriage law the same as under the civil union law.
11. Section 9 indicates that if the bill should become effective, then civil union bill is repealed
12. Effective Date is Jan 1 2010.

NH Democratic Governor John Lynch has not indicated he would veto the marriage bill like the two Republican governors who have faced marriage bills previously(Arnold Schwarzenegger of California in 2005 and 2007 and Jim Douglas of Vermont in 2009).

In Maine, the Senate Judiciary committee approved their marriage bill by a 11-2-1 vote and sent it to a floor vote, which should occur within the next 48 hours. Maine's Democratic Governor, John Baldacci has also not stated whether he would sign the bill if it reaches his desk.

VIDEO: 100 Days of NO

Hat/tip to Oliver Willis.

Obama Names Goosby as Global AIDS Coordinator

President Obama announced Dr. Eric Goosby as his nominee for Global AIDS Coordinator at the Department of State on Monday April 27th, 2009.

Eric Goosby, Nominee for Ambassador at Large and Global AIDS Coordinator, Department of State

Eric Goosby, MD, has been CEO and Chief Medical Officer of Pangaea Global AIDS Foundation since 2001. He is also Professor of Clinical Medicine at the University of California, San Francisco. Dr. Goosby has played a key role in the development and/or implementation of HIV/AIDS national treatment scale-up plans in South Africa, Rwanda, China, and Ukraine. He focuses his expertise on the scale-up of sustainable HIV/AIDS treatment capacity, including the delivery of HIV antiretroviral drugs, within existing healthcare systems. Dr. Goosby has extensive international experience in the development of treatment guidelines for use of antiretroviral therapies, clinical mentoring and training of health professionals, and the design and implementation of local models of care for HIV/AIDS. He has worked closely with international partners on the development of successful HIV/AIDS treatment and treatment-based prevention strategies for high-risk populations. Dr. Goosby has over 25 years of experience with HIV/AIDS. His experience ranges from his early years treating patients at San Francisco General Hospital when AIDS first emerged to engagement at the highest level of policy leadership. In his role at HHS as the first director of the Ryan White Care Act, Dr. Goosby helped develop HIV/AIDS delivery systems in the United States. During the Clinton Administration he served as deputy director of the White House National AIDS Policy Office and director of the Office of HIV/AIDS Policy of the Department of Health and Human Services. Dr. Goosby has longstanding working relationships with leading multilateral organizations including UNAIDS, the Global Fund and the World Health Organization.

The reaction to the Goosby announcement has generally been positive. The Global AIDS Coordinator is the person in charge of the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (commonly known as PEPFAR), which is budgeted to spend at least $48 billion in the next five years.

President Issues Statement In Support of Hate Crimes Bill

President Barack Obama has issued a statement in favor of H.R. 1913, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009, more commonly known as "the hate crimes bill."

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

April 28, 2009

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT ON H.R. 1913, THE LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT HATE CRIMES PREVENTION ACT OF 2009

This week, the House of Representatives is expected to consider H.R. 1913, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009. I urge members on both sides of the aisle to act on this important civil rights issue by passing this legislation to protect all of our citizens from violent acts of intolerance – legislation that will enhance civil rights protections, while also protecting our freedom of speech and association. I also urge the Senate to work with my Administration to finalize this bill and to take swift action.

The hate crimes bill passed both houses of Congress last year (U.S. House 237-180 and U.S. Senate 60-39) but the measure did not become law because it was stripped from the Department of Defense authorization conference report.

H.R. 1913 will be debated on the floor of the House tomorrow. The companion Senate bill, the Matthew Shepard Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act was introduced today with main co-sponsors Senators Kennedy (D-MA), Leahy (D-VT), Snowe (R-ME) and Collins (R-ME).

You can follow the action by going to FightHateNow.org and following the tweet #FightHateNow.

NEWS: Arlen Specter (R-PA) Switches To Democrats

U.S. Senator Arlen Specter has announced that he will be switching parties from Republican to Democrat, giving the party 60 votes (when Al Franken) of Minnesota is seated in June.

Specter had faced a difficult Republican primary election in 2010 as he seeks a record 6th United States Senate term, this time as a Democrat! He has had higher approval ratings among Democrats than Republicans for quite awhile, and this confirms it.

NYT Poll On State Recognition of Same-Sex Couples

The New York Times has a new poll on Obama's 100th day in office which tries to compare beliefs of the White and Black population on multiple issues. For example, 96% of Black people approve of Obama's job as President compared to 62% of White people.

But on gay marriage, the results are even more interesting:

50. Which comes closest to your view? Gay couples should be
 allowed to legally marry OR gay couples should be allowed
 to form civil unions but not legally marry OR there should
 be no legal recognition of a gay couple's relationship?


                 Marry   Civil unions      None       DK/NA
3/10-14/04          22         33          40          6
5/20-23/04* CBS     28         29          40          3
7/11-15/04          28         31          38          3
10/28-30/04         23         34          36          7
11/18-21/04         21         32          44          3
2/24-28/05          23         34          41          2
7/29-8/2/05 CBS     27         27          43          4
10/27-31/06         28         29          38          5
3/7-11/07           28         32          35          5
5/30-6/3/08 CBS     30         28          36          6
3/12-16/09 CBS      33         27          35          5
4/22-26/09          42         25          28          5
  White             40         26          30          4
  Black             38         30          26          6              

Another point to note about this result is that the differences between the races is not that great, and that nearly two-thirds of the respondents support some form of legal recognition for same-sex couples.

Report from CA Democratic Convention: Day 2 & 3

The second full day of the California Democratic Convention was a very busy affair. There were many speeches by politicians in the main hall (Jerry Brown, Gavin Newsom, Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi, etc etc).

Because I had a blogger credential, I was able to attend U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer press conference after her speech at the convention which was attended by both bloggers and members of the "old media." It was a very interesting experience. I had a question prepared, but I was too shy to ask it. My qeuestion would have been:

Senator, according to several national LGBT civil rights organizations there are currently nine United States Senators (10 if you count Al Franken) who have publicly announced their support for marriage equality. I think many of us in this room are aware of your position on this issue, but my question is would you like to use this opportunity to go on the record in favor of marriage equality, especially in light of the state Supreme Court's imminent ruling on the legality of Proposition 8 and the ongoing discussion about a future ballot measure to legalize the practice if the Court upholds the measure?

But, the other questions asked at the press conference were pretty good, if a bit focussed on the potential challenge of Carly Fiorina.

Later, in the day I went to the "Recession Reception" hosted by Attorney General Jerry Brown at the historic Governor's Mansion. At the reception I ran into the openly gay mayor of Mahattan Beach Mitch Ward who is running for the 53rd Assembly District seat currently held by Ted Lieu who is running for Attorney General. Ward is the first person of color (African American) elected to the Manhattan Beach city council in over one hundred years. Also at the reception was Ward's main rival for the seat, Betsy Butler who says she has already received the endorsement of Assembly Speaker Karen Bass.

Luis Lopez (President, HonorPAC, the Latina/o LGBT political action committee),
Hans Johnson (Board Member, NGLTF) and
Jerry Brown (CA Attorney General and Former Governor)

After the recession reception, I hung out with Luis and Hans and we ran into HonorPAC-endorsed, openly gay Long Beach city councilman Robert Garcia (who was the youngest person ever elected to that august body at the age of 31 a few weeks ago).

31-year-old openly gay Long Beach city councilman Robert Garcia with Luis Lopez

On Friday I had previously reported that I had run into openly gay, African American guy who is running for Ellen Tauscher's congressional seat in the 10th district. Here's a picture of Anthony Woods (left) with Tauren Jones, a volunteer for the African American caucus of the California Democratic Party.
(Notice the spiffy red-green-black pin on his lapel).

Same-sex couples Getting Married in Iowa Today

Today is the day that Iowa's historic (and unanimous) Varnum v. Brien decision goes into effect and same-sex couples will be allowed to start getting married.

Iowa joins Massachusetts (May 17, 2004), California (June 15, 2008) and Connecticut (November 13, 2008). California's marriages were suspended after the passage of Proposition 8 on November 4, 2008. Vermont will start allowing same-sex couples to get married on September 1, 2009.

Promo For Meet In the Middle

Eye Candy: Max Philisaire

Max Phillisaire was a "gratuitous skin" model over at Queerty awhile back. They have nearly three dozen images of this very attractive Black fitness model. Check him out!

Iceland Elects Lesbian PM To Full Term

After a snap election, Prime Minister Johanna Sigurdardottir's party has won an estimated 35 seats in the 63 member Parliament to claim a full four-year term as the first openly gay person elected to head a country.

The New York Times reports:

It would also confirm a remarkable turnaround in the political fortunes of Johanna Sigurdardottir, the 66-year-old caretaker prime minister, who is the first woman to lead Iceland’s government. Only months ago, before January’s turmoil, she was readying herself for retirement after 30 years in politics and was widely seen as too feisty, and even too left wing, to rise beyond a series of midlevel coalition cabinet appointments.

Ms. Sigurdardottir is notable, too, for being the first openly declared lesbian to lead a government in the modern world, though her sexual orientation was never a significant election issue. What Icelanders say they like about her, as much as anything, is the way in which she embodies everything the New Vikings did not: a quiet, steady personality uncomfortable with the public spotlight, who chose to stay away earlier this month from a NATO summit meeting in Europe, where she would have met President Obama and other Western leaders for the first time.

In Iceland, the storyline of the election has closely followed the growing partnership at the head of the government between Ms. Sigurdardottir, a former flight attendant, and Steingrimur Sigfusson, the 53-year-old former truck driver and geologist who leads the Left-Greens. He, too, is a combative character, though as much at ease with the hurly burly of politics as the shy Ms. Sigurdardottir is not.

MadProfessah first reported this story in January when Sigurdardottir was named as a caretaker Prime Minister and made history as the first lesbian head of state of a modern nation. It is amazing that she has made history again winning election to lead her nation of 300,000 people. 

CA-GOV: Text of Newsom Speech to CDP

The full text of Gavin Newsom's prepared remarks to the California Democratic Party convention:

Let me get to the most important business first... Art: every single Democrat owes you a debt of gratitude. Thank you is hardly sufficient. But let's start there. Thank you for being a champion for our health, for our kids, for our environment, for California.


I also want to express my appreciation to Art for something else - for that very kind introduction. I certainly enjoyed it a whole lot more than the introduction I got in a few of those TV ads last fall!


Well, whether they like it or not - my name's Gavin Newsom, and I'm here to get things started. I'm here to start taking on the big problems the Republicans want to ignore.


Because I'm with you - I've had enough of politicians who say they care about liberty and then fight to take our freedoms away. I'm done with the excuses. I'm over the finger pointing. I've seen enough of the blame game. I'm tired of California leaders promising the future and delivering the past.


This state is ready for a new direction. And this party is ready to show the way.


Let me ask you - how many times do we need to hear our leaders talk about quality health care - and then spend four years explaining why they can't get it done? How many times? Not this time!


Too many politicians are substituting words for action - confusing motion for progress. We need to stop talking about universal health care and start providing it!


How many "Years of Education" - "Decades of Education" - “Millenniums of Education" are we going to declare and then stand by while our teachers are attacked and our students ignored? It's time to stop declaring our commitment to teachers and schools and start demonstrating it!


How many times are we going to listen to politicians promise to deliver jobs and then wake up and realize all they've delivered is just another tired speech? Millions of unemployed Californians can tell you right now that the old ways of doing business just don't cut it in this tough new world.


They want our leaders to stop bickering with each other and start fighting to put people back to work.


How many times are we going to allow politicians to over promise on the environment and then under deliver when they get in office? It's time to stop testing the waters and start swimming in them!


I've seen what can happen when we stop looking back – and start looking for solutions.


In San Francisco - we're not just talking about quality health care - we're delivering it. We're the only city in America daring to offer quality health care to every single uninsured resident - regardless of pre-existing medical conditions. How can we afford it? We're proving what you already know - it's less expensive to keep people well, and to invest in their health, than it is to treat their sickness. I know what it takes to pass health care reform - because, working with many of you who are here today, we did it.


School districts throughout California are laying-off tens of thousands of teachers. But we're giving our teachers a raise, raising test scores, and protecting teachers from layoffs. How did we do it? We stopped fighting over who was going to be in charge and started working together to find solutions. We refused to blame teachers and we started supporting them.


The State of California is nearly bankrupt and our state bond rating is now the worst in the nation. We have a Governor who promised to "terminate" the state's credit cards - then went on the biggest borrowing binge of any governor of any state in history. But in San Francisco - our bond rating just went up because of our Rainy Day Reserve and sound fiscal policies. And it's because of this rainy day reserve that we were able to rescind teacher layoffs.


What's the difference? We figured out that sound fiscal policy isn't a conservative value or a progressive value … it's just plain smart for everyone.


Our economy is in trouble.


But in San Francisco, our economy is stronger because we made basic investments - in new fields like biotech and life sciences, in green technology, in digital media – in industries that pay more than a minimum wage – they pay a living wage.


We figured it out - the greatest asset we have in this state is HUMAN capital. It's people. It's time to start investing in people again. I know a thing or two about this because I've built a number of small businesses from the ground up, creating nearly one thousand jobs. And I know we can't be pro-jobs and anti-business. But we also can't be pro-jobs without investing in our workforce - our schools, our community colleges, our universities and in life-long learning. In San Francisco, we didn't blame Washington for our economic problems - we got to work solving them with exactly these kinds of smart investments.


Nearly every politician on the planet is talking about the environment. I don't think any city in America is doing more to protect it than San Francisco. We have the most aggressive local solar incentives in America. The highest recycling rates. Pioneering green building standards. Aggressive energy efficiency programs to help wean our city from carbon fuels. We've already rolled back our greenhouse gas emissions to 6% below 1990 levels. And we're putting San Franciscans, those who used to be locked out of the old industrial economy, back to work as part of this new green economy.


How do we get it done - even in tough economic times? We understand that policies that may have been cutting-edge in the past just won't cut it in the future.


We took many smart steps - like becoming the only city in California with a local Earned Income Tax credit - that allows working families to keep more of what they earn and brings in tens millions of dollars in federal tax refunds, that used to go uncollected.


And we're taking big leaps like San Francisco Promise - a pioneering new program that guarantees an opportunity for a college education for every public school child. This is going to open doors and change lives. And we got it done because we opened our minds to a new way of looking at problems.


These are difficult times. And we need bold solutions to get California out of this mess. I haven't been afraid to tackle big problems. I haven't been afraid to offer bold ideas. Because California can't afford to keep returning to the same old, tired ideas and expect a different result.


Many of you know me - you know where I stand on important issues like universal health care, fighting for our schools, creating green jobs, protecting equal rights for every person and fighting for marriage equality for every Californian. I’m not the kind of person who says one thing in private and does another in public. You will know where I stand.


If there's one thing this past year has proven - the old ways of doing business just don't work so well any more. So what are we going to do next year - will we offer the voters of California a stroll down memory lane, or a sprint into the future? Will we nominate candidates who know Sacramento - or leaders who know how to change it? Will we choose the past - or will we embrace the future?


So I am asking you to join us - on GavinNewsom.com, on Facebook, on Twitter, or at one of the many events we're holding up and down California. I hope you'll give your ideas. Share your insights. And help us shape a campaign that can do more than win an election. I hope you'll join a campaign that has set out to change California.


California has always been a land of dreamers and doers. Of entrepreneurs and innovators. We're not a state of memories. We're a state of dreams. We're Californians. We're not content to re-live history. We're going to keep making it. So let's start making a better future for California. And let's do it together.


Thank you.

Hat/tip to Karen Ocamb.

Country Approves of Obama, Republicans Don't

Below is the Pollster.com interactive graphic which shows the current approval rating for President Obama



However, Republicans feel very differently.




Hat/tip to Andrew Sullivan.

Report from CA Democratic Convention: Day 1

Day 1 at the California Democratic Covention in Sacramento was a bit of a blur.

I joined and attended the African American and the LGBT Caucuses of the CA Democratic Party, although I only voted in the former. The two were scheduled at the same time! I also attended and voted in the Progressive Caucus.

So far I have seen at close quarters:

Attorney General Jerry Brown
SF Mayor Gavin Newsom
CA Lieutentant Governor John Garamendi
SF Attorney General Kamala Harris
Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson
Speaker Karen Bass
Many state legislators...

In addition I met and spoke privately with two openly gay African American men who are both running for political office: Manhattan Beach mayor Mitch Ward (state assembly) and "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" casualty Anthony Woods who is running for the soon-to-be-open 10th Congressional district seat curretly held by Ellen Tauscher (CA-10).

That's it for now!

VIDEO: Best Tennis Point Of 2009

MadProfessah in Sacramento at the CDP

MadProfessah is attending his first California Democratic Party convention in Sacramento this weekend as an elected delegate representing the 45th Assembly District.
I'm also an official blogger at the conference so I will be tweeting and blogging about my experiences.

CA-32: Chu Endorsed By Antonio, Leads $$ Race

Multiple good news stories recently for congressional candidate Judy Chu (who has been endorsed by MadProfessah) in her attempt to win the now-vacant seat representing California's 32nd District in a May 19th special election.

Last Wednesday, financial reports were released which showed Chu outraised her nearest rival, State Senator Gil Cedillo by over $200, 000:

The breadth and strength of Judy Chu’s campaign for Congress was demonstrated again today as candidates reported their first fundraising numbers for this May 19 special election.

In the first three months of 2009, Judy Chu collected an impressive $770,167, over $200,000 more than her nearest rival, State Senator Gil Cedillo.

Judy Chu, Vice-Chair of the California State Board of Equalization, reported a strong $577,609 cash-on-hand figure at the end of the period.

Chu’s consultant, Parke Skelton, stated, “Judy Chu is well on the way towards surpassing $1 million for this race. Her fundraising reflects the enthusiastic and broad support she has attracted from throughout the 32nd District. Just over 83% of her contributions have come from individuals, not PACS. An impressive 1,567 individuals contributed to Dr. Chu’s campaign in this filing period.

But, wait, there's more!

EL SERENO - The Mayor of Los Angeles, Antonio Villaraigosa, will be joined by his counterparts from Azusa, West Covina, South El Monte, Duarte and scores of other San Gabriel Valley elected officials on Wednesday as he officially announces his endorsement of Judy Chu in the race for the 32nd Congressional District seat recently vacated by Labor Secretary Hilda Solis.

The event, which will include just a fraction of the more than 75 elected officials from the San Gabriel Valley who have already endorsed Judy Chu, will feature statements from Mayor Villaraigosa and other mayors and mayors pro tem from the San Gabriel Valley.

There is video of the endorsement available on YouTube.

CT Legislature Passes Bill Codifying Marriage Ruling

Joe.My.God is reporting that the state legislature of Connecticut has completed action on a bill to codify that state's landmark Kerrigan ruling that the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage by the availability of civil unions was unconstitutional. Republican governor Jodi Rell has said that she will sign the bill once it reaches her desk.

Interestingly, the bill that was passed in Connecticut Wednesday night was similar to a bill enacted by the Vermont legislature a mere two weeks ago by overriding the veto of that state's Republican governor Jim Douglas.

According to The Day:

”Public opinion has rapidly surpassed the position that many legislators hold,” said Sen. Andrew McDonald, D-Stamford, the co-chairman of the Judiciary Committee and an architect of the codification bill. “There's no doubt that the vast majority of Connecticut citizens are more than comfortable with equal rights for same-sex couples, and it doesn't undermine their lives.”

And even some of the fiercest opponents of the marriage bill were expressing satisfaction with the exemptions it carves out for churches and religious groups, like the Knights of Columbus and Catholic Charities, which sought to preserve the right to refuse to serve gay couples hoping to reserve wedding facilities or to arrange adoptions.

[...]

Religious groups warned that the bill would infringe on religious freedom and did win a late bipartisan compromise, as sponsors agreed to modify the proposal to more explicitly exempt church-affiliated groups from some provisions. The language closely mirrors that in a bill recently passed in Vermont, overriding a gubernatorial veto to legalize same-sex marriage in that state. The language expressly permits churches and related organizations - including church-owned venues and adoption agencies - to continue to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation as long as the specific services that discriminate do not receive funding from the state or federal government.

When raving homophobe Maggie Gallagher from the National Organization for Marriage debated Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese on CNN after the Vermont bill was enacted and the hilarious NOM-sponsored "Gathering Storm" ad was released she tried to get Solmonese to agree to support the "religious exemption provisions in the Vermont statute" and he demurred.

I was initially suspicious of these "religious exemption" but if they really just apply to specific services that do not receive state or federal funding then I am probably okay with that.

The problem is that the opponents of marriage equality often try to blur the difference between civil marriage and religious marriage (Dennis Prager appeared on CNN earlier this week and did exactly that while debating Perez Hilton), going as far to say insane things like if gay marriage passes preachers will be forced to marry gay people in their churches and other nonsense.

As Maine and New Hampshire continue their legislative debates of marriage bills it should be interesting to see where they land on this religious exemption question.

Happy Earth Day!

Hat/tip to Derrick's Window.

Multiple Polls Show NY Support for Marriage

Hat/tip to Latino blogger Blabbeando who posted the above graphic (courtesy of "poll maven" Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight.com) and analyzed two recent polls showing mjority support for marriage equality in New York state.

A Siena poll of 624 registered voters found that 53% of those polled supported Governor David Paterson's push for a marriage equality bill, while 39% opposed it.

A SurveyUSA poll of 500 registered voters sponsored by WABC-TV had a 49% to 44% margin of support.

[...]

Note to Reverend Ruben Diaz, Sr. and Luis Tellez: Among registered voters in both polls, Latinos in New York State support marriage equality by an overwhelming margin.

The Siena poll puts Latino support at 57% to 31% (a difference of 26 percentage points) while the SurveyUSA poll puts it at 53% to 38% (a difference of 15 percentage points).

I am struck not only by the fact that in both polls Latino support for the bill is not only higher than that of whites but that the negative numbers are so low.

I am heartened for my New York brothers and sisters that there is such supportive polling for marriage equality (and even happier that the Empire State does not have California's insane initiative process). I am also e

As I have said before, what is striking about these numbers is not the Black-white disparity in those who oppose marriage equality, it is the disparity between Republicans and Democrats.

However, I would note that this data should further put a nail in the coffin of the zombie meme that Blacks overwhelmingly oppose marriage equality. The average numbers in the latest polling data are 54 percent oppose, 39 percent in favor which is in line with more accurate analyses of Black public opinion (in the wake of California's Proposition 8) on this question has shown.

According to the numbers an average of 62 percent of Republican oppose marriage equality while a mere 58 percent of Democrats support it, barely different from Independents.

Also striking (as many people have pointed out previously) is the age disparity between those who oppose and support marriage equality. In this recent data, an average of 63 percent of those aged 18-34 support equal marriage rights (while only 29 percent oppose).

Now that is overwhelming support for equality and a harbinger of future gains.

CA-GOV: Newsom Announces Gubernatorial Candidacy

Eye Candy: Blatino

I found this guy on a blog called "Blatino Sexy Dudes." I have been having a discussion with one of my friends about the term "blatino." He claims that blatino is a sexualized term, primarily used in porn and highly sexual spaces online to indicate a level of hypersexuality which combines both of the typical meanings assigned to Black men ("big back dick")  and Latino men ("passionate lover") simultaneously.

My position is that "Blatino" simply means a Latino guy who is also Black (i.e. of African descent). While I agree the term is often sexualized, it doesn't have to always have sexual connotations.

The Urban Dictionary seems to agree with me. Here is their definition of "blatino."

blatino
1. An abbreviation for "black & Latino" used most commonly by young urban gay men of color; 2. A person, place,or thing that is Afro-Latino.

Yo, there was some hot blatino papis at the club last night!
by platanoluva Jul 25, 2003 share this

2. blatino
A sexy ass black/latino papi

nicca is a mix with latino
by ladymay Aug 3, 2003 share this

3. blatino
Term for a young male of black and latin heritage - popularized by the thug homosexual community.

I realized why my ass was sore when I remembered I went home with a blatino last night.
by Benutty Mar 8, 2008 share this

What do you think?

Regardless, the guy above is definitely eye candy, whether he is Black, Latino, both or "blatino."

POLL: Majority of New Yorkers Support Marriage Equality

The latest Siena College poll of New Yorkers shows majority support for marriage equality in the Empire State.

Alan van Cappelle, head of the Pride Agenda, released a statement on the poll which highlights the historic nature of the latest results:

Not only are a majority in favor of legalizing marriage for our families, these new numbers establish a clear trend of increasing support, year after year, every time Siena asks about this issue. In the past three years, Siena polling has shown support for marriage equality growing from 43% in 2007 to 46% last year to 53% this year and opposition dropping from 47% in 2007 to 40% last year to just 39% now.

Talking Points Memo DC analyzes the cross-tabs:

The numbers: 53% favor, 39% oppose, with a ±3.8% margin of error. The internals show all regions of the state (New York City, the suburbs and Upstate) support it by various margins.

Among religious sub-groups, only 41% of Protestants favor it to 53% against, Jews favor it 64%-32% -- and Catholics favor it by a 49%-41% plurality. In the racial cross-tabs, Whites are in favor 56%-36%, Latinos are for it 57%-31%, and African-Americans oppose it with 44% in favor to 49% against.

These numbers clearly support Governor David Paterson's efforts to have the New York State Legislature pass a bill ending the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage.

IGLHRC Condems Execution and Torture of Iraqi LGBTs

The new Executive Director of IGLHRC, Cary Johnson, just sent out an action alert regarding the execution and torture of Iraqi LGBTs which is chilling to read.

The above picture is taken from a report on the Arab news netweork Al-Arabiya (the translation is available here):

A prominent Iraqi human rights activist says that Iraqi militia have deployed a painful form of torture against homosexuals by closing their anuses using "Iranian gum." ... Yina Mohammad told Alarabiya.net that, "Iraqi militias have deployed an unprecedented form of torture against homosexuals by using a very strong glue that will close their anus."

According to her, the new substance "is known as the American hum, which is an Iranian-manufactured glue that if applied to the skin, sticks to it and can only be removed by surgery. After they glue the anuses of homosexuals, they give them a drink that causes diarrhea. Since the anus is closed, the diarrhea causes death. Videos of this form of torture are being distributed on mobile cellphones in Iraq."

According to this human rights activist, for the past 3 weeks a crackdown on homosexuals has been going on based on a religious decree that demands their death; dozens have been targeted. She says that the persecution of homosexuals is not confined to the Shiite clerics. Some Sunni leaders have also declared the death penalty for sodomy on satellite channels."

63 People Tortured

According to Hassan from the Iraqi LGBT group in London, attacks against homosexuals have been abundant in Shiite neighborhoods, especially poor regions and remote areas such as the southern provinces and the Hurriya, Sho'la and Sadr neighborhoods in Baghdad. So far, 63 members of the group have been tortured.

Hassan also confirmed the use of "Iranian Gum" in the torture process, adding that, "I talked to many young men who have been tortured by this method. They went to the hospital for treatment and in some cases they were refused treatment." According to Hassan, "all religous leaders, whether Sunni or Shiite, call for the eradication of homosexuals, but the Shiittes are the ones who are most involved in these attacks."

Vigilante Groups

According to newspaper reports from local news sources in Sadr City in East Baghdad, a previously unknown group "Ahl al-Haq (the followers of Truth) have stepped up the persecution of Iraqi homosexuals after the murder of a number of them in the past few days. The news sources say that, "3 lists, each with the name of 10 gay men were circulated in Sadr City for a few hours." The lists included a quote saying, "You, prostitutes, we will punish you!"

7 Bodies in Bagdad's Morgue

The Alarabiya reporter, visited the Baghdad Morgue in Bab-al-Moazaam in central Baghdad, where the Neman Mohsen, the medical examiner, confirmed that they have the bodies of 7 homosexuals in the morgue. He said, "We were not able to identify the culprits who dumped the bodies in front of the morgue and fled, without being seen."

He explained, "There were bodies with gunshots in the head and chest and the rest of the body without any obvious causes of death."

Khalaf Abdul Hussein, from the Legal Affairs Office at the Police Station in Sadr City, told Alarabiya: "the extra-judicial killing of any citizen is a crime punishable by law. No one has the right to become a substitute for judicial authorities or executive authorities, and if there are complaints against individuals, there is law and there are police and there are government agencies. No group or class has the authority to punish people instead of the state."

He said: "We, like everyone else, have heard rumors about these cases, but we can't comment on something that is not evidence, and there is no evidence for these crimes either in terms of motivation or in terms of the nature of the criminal acts. We do not know the motives of the killers and we do not know the intentions of those killed."

"Son of a Bitch"

Officials and tribal leaders in Sadr City are reluctant to provide details about the murder of homosexuals. However, Sheikh Hashem Mokhani, one of the tribal elders in the city, said: "The people refer to these sexual perverts as 'son of a bitch,' but most of the victims were not residents of Sadr City. They used to hang out in a [gay] cafe, on Palestine Street in Baghdad."

Sheik Salal Al-kaabi, one of the elders of Sadr City says: "we have heard that the tribes, to whom these perverts belonged, declared their lives worthless and allowed their death, but we have also heard that an organization calling itself the followers of Truth (ahl-al Haq) are reponsible for the murders and have written on the chest of victim a sentence that reads: This is the fate of a son of a bitch."

IGLHRC's response to the report is to send the following letter:

April 17, 2009
Her Excellency Wijdan Mikhail Salim
Minister of Human Rights
Unios (Naqabat) St. Mansour
Baghdad, Iraq
Fax: +964-1-5372017
minister@humanrights.gov.iq
info@humanrights.gov.iq

Your Excellency:

On behalf of the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (IGLHRC), I am writing to express deep concern about an alarming increase in violence based on sexual orientation and/or gender identity in Iraq over the past few weeks. Iraqi officials have recently confirmed the murder of six men whose bodies were found in the Sadr City neighborhood of Baghdad. The Iraqi authorities unearthed the bodies of 4 men killed by gunshots on March 25, 2009. On April 2, Iraqi police found the bodies of two additional men who were reportedly killed by members of their tribe to restore their family honor. Media reports suggest that vigilantes killed these men because of their perceived sexual orientation.

This wave of violence coincides with an arson attack against a Sadr City coffee house that was popular among gay men. IGLHRC has also received reports of official persecution—abduction, torture, trial without due process, and execution—of Iraqis who the government believes to have been part of a gay organization. In addition, IGLHRC learned today that an Iraqi group known as "Fazilat" (Virtue) has circulated flyers around Sadr City threatening gay men with death and listing the names of their potential targets.

As a signatory to international treaties that assure the right to privacy, liberty and security of the person and the right to non-discrimination, it is Iraq’s obligation to protect its citizens and ensure that human rights violations are fully investigated and that perpetrators are brought to justice.

The new Iraqi Constitution protects the equality of all citizens before the law (Article 14), guarantees everyone’s right to enjoy “life, freedom, and security” (Article 15) and reiterates the right of all Iraqis to live “in freedom and with dignity” (Article 35). The mob murder of men perceived to be gay also violates the Iraqi Constitution, since the law protects the private lives of all citizens (Article 17), makes any kind of violence against family members a crime (Article 29) and prohibits extra-judicial punishment (Article 19, Section 2). Despite the legal obligations of the Iraqi government to protect all citizens, crimes committed against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) Iraqis and those believed to be homosexual are not properly investigated or prosecuted.

In accordance with Article 2 of the Charter of the Ministry of Human Rights (CMHR), which was passed by the Iraqi parliament as law number 60 in 2006, it is the responsibility of your ministry to “promote …and secure the implementation of…. the culture of human rights and personal freedom in accordance with international treaties that Iraq has entered... and prevent its violation.”

To fulfill this mandate, we request that your ministry take the following steps:


Actively and thoroughly document cases of human rights abuses against LGBT people and include this information in your annual report on the status of human rights in Iraq for submission to parliament and the cabinet. (Article 3, Section 2, CMHR)

Prepare a comprehensive report on state, community and family violence based on sexual orientation with concrete recommendations on how to stop such human rights violations. (Article 3, Section 3, CMHR)

Launch an investigation into the Iraqi legal system—including police, judiciary, and penal systems—to assure the full enjoyment of human rights principles by all people, regardless of their real or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity.

Promote a culture of tolerance and respect for the rights of LGBT people at the tribal level and within the larger Iraqi society. (Article 3, Section 11, CMHR)
IGLHRC is ready to support the efforts of the Iraqi government to secure the rights of its same-sex practicing citizens through training, consultation and information exchange.

We trust that you will give this matter due attention.

Yours sincerely,

Cary Alan Johnson
Executive Director
International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission

And people are talking about a boycott of Jamaica while insanely horrific of murders of LGBT individuals are occurring RIGHT NOW in Iraq, a country in which we currently have tens of thousands of United States military servicepeople? Please!

Frank Rich Demolishes The NOM Ad

Columnist Frank Rich demolished the now universally-mocked National Organization for Marriage's "A Storm Is Coming" ad campaign opposed to marriage equality in an op-ed published in Sunday's New York Times.

As the polls attest, the majority of Americans who support civil unions for gay couples has been steadily growing. Younger voters are fine with marriage. Generational changeover will seal the deal. Crunching all the numbers, the poll maven Nate Silver sees same-sex marriage achieving majority support “at some point in the 2010s.”

Iowa and Vermont were the tipping point because they struck down the right’s two major arguments against marriage equality. The unanimous ruling of the seven-member Iowa Supreme Court proved that the issue is not merely a bicoastal fad. The decision, written by Mark Cady, a Republican appointee, was particularly articulate in explaining that a state’s legalization of same-sex marriage has no effect on marriage as practiced by religions. “The only difference,” the judge wrote, is that “civil marriage will now take on a new meaning that reflects a more complete understanding of equal protection of the law.”

[...]

In 2008, 60 percent of Iowa’s Republican caucus voters were evangelical Christians. Mike Huckabee won. That’s the hurdle facing the party’s contenders in 2012, which is why Romney, Palin and Gingrich are now all more vehement anti-same-sex-marriage activists than Rick Warren. Palin even broke with John McCain on the issue during their campaign, supporting the federal marriage amendment that he rejects. This month, even as the father of Palin’s out-of-wedlock grandson challenged her own family values and veracity, she nominated as Alaskan attorney general a man who has called gay people “degenerates.” Such homophobia didn’t even play in Alaska — the State Legislature voted the nominee down — and will doom Republicans like Palin in national elections.

One G.O.P. politician who understands this is the McCain-Palin 2008 campaign strategist, Steve Schmidt, who on Friday urged his party to join him in endorsing same-sex marriage. Another is Jon Huntsman Jr., the governor of Utah, who in February endorsed civil unions for gay couples, a position seemingly indistinguishable from Obama’s. Huntsman is not some left-coast Hollywood Republican. He’s a Mormon presiding over what Gallup ranks as the reddest state in the country.

[...]

As marital equality haltingly but inexorably spreads state by state for gay Americans in the years to come, Utah will hardly be in the lead to follow Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa and Vermont. But the fact that it too is taking its first steps down that road is extraordinary. It is justice, not a storm, that is gathering. Only those who have spread the poisons of bigotry and fear have any reason to be afraid.

Pow!

BOOK REVIEW: Junot Diaz' THE BRIEF WONDROUS LIFE OF OSCAR WAO

Junot Diaz's The Brief Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao is an amazing first novel which won the 2008 Pulitzer Prize for Fiction.

Mad Professah read the book during my trip to Italy in January 2008.

As readers of this blog may know, I follow the winners of the Hugo and Nebula awards pretty closely. These are the awards for speculative fiction, which is a great pastime of mine.

The Brief Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao is not a science fiction or fantasy book, but it is about the people who read those kinds of books and will especially resonate more intensely with people familiar with the classics of those genres.

The story follows Oscar, a 300-plus pound Dominican "nerd" who is obsessed with science fiction and fantasy as well as unlucky in love.


However, the book also weaves in the story of Oscar's family, especially his mother and sister, and in so doing vividly depicts life on the island of Santo Domingo as well as the barrios of New Jersey. In a somewhat controversial stylistic choice, the author uses footnotes to includes fascinating historical details on the Dominican Republic as well as the liberal inclusion of several Spanish words throughout the text which he does not translate, but leaves to the reader to obtain their meaning from the context (which is usually possible). I imagine that a Spanish speaker would have an even more resonant experience with the work.

I was completely enchanted with this book. Not only is it enjoyable by people familiar with Hobbits, Star Trek, Star Wars and other science fiction tropes but I would also recommended it to people with an immigrant or bicultural background, who have enjoyed the works of Jhumpa Lahiri (whose The Namesake was one of my favoite books in 2006).


One aspect of writing reviews of book for this blog that I have noticed is that books that I really, really like often take the longest for me to sit down and complete an official review. The Brief Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao is definitely in that category, but it is a book I think about often even though I finished it nearly 16 months ago. And how many books (or, really works of art, period) can one say that about?

PLOT: A.
IMAGERY: A.
IMPACT: A+.
WRITING: A+.

OVERALL GRADE: A/A+.

Nadal Wins 5th Consecutive Monte Carlo AMS Title

World #1 Rafael Nadal defeated World #3 Novak Djokovic in a hard-fought, high-quality, 3-set match 6-3, 2-6, 6-1 to claim his 5th consecutive Monte Carlo Masters Series title. Every year since 2005 that Nadal has won Monte Carlo, he has also won the French Open. That is, 5 years in a row. For the last two years he had faced former World #1 Roger Federer in the final of Monte Carlo as well as facing him in the Roland Garros final and had been victorious (in both settings) every time.

However, Djokovic (and earlier, World #4 Andy Murray) showed this week that they are closing the distance between Nadal on clay.

With his win today, Nadal now ties Federer in second position behind Andre Agassi's 17 masters series titles with 14 AMS titles each. There are two more clay Masters Series titles this season (Rome and Hamburg Madrid) before the clay Grand Slam at Roland Garros in Paris at the end of May.

It looks to me very likely that Nadal will end the year with the most Masters Series titles of all time.

Celebrity Sunday: Andy Roddick Got Married!

World #6 Andy Roddick, 26, married his girlfriend of two years Brooklyn Decker, 22 in a small private ceremony in Austin, Texas attended by Andre Agassi and Steffi Graf on Friday.

Roddick got married one week after World #2 Roger Federer got married.

CA-32: Judy Chu wins official CDP nod

I attended the California Democratic Party endorsement meeting in
Rosemead today at Garvey High School to cast a proxy vote for the
Congresswoman from the 32nd District, Judy Chu.

Hundreds of people turned out and lined up in the hot midday Sun.
Here's a shot of the candidate herself with some supporters:

Colbert Has Best NOM Parody Video

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
The Colbert Coalition's Anti-Gay Marriage Ad
colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor NASA Name Contest

NY Gov. Paterson Introduces Marriage Equality Bill

On Thursday New YorkGovernor David Paterson announced his introduction of a bill to end the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage at a press conference attended by openly lesbian New York City Council Speaker Christine Quinn, New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg, openly gay Assemblyman David O'Donnell and openly gay (and HIV+) State Senator Tom Duane.

Although Democrats control both house of the state legislature, there are a number of conservative Democrats that oppose marriage equality and do not support the legislation.

WA Domestic Partnership Bill Passes Legislature

A comprehensive domestic partnership bill passed the Washington state legislature's lower house Wednesday by a vote of 62-35.

Previously, the bill had passed the upper house by a vote of 30-18.

Democratic Governor Christine Gregoire has announced that she will happily sign the measure into law.

Two year ago, Governor Gregoire signed another domestic partner bill into law which conveyed limited benefits to the 5,712 couples that have registered in the interim. The new comprehensive bill provides all rights and responsibilities that state law affords to married couples to registered domestic partners.

Washington will join California, Oregon, Connecticut, Vermont, New Jersey, New Hampshire and the District of Columbia with significant recognition of same-sex couples. Subsequently, Connecticut and Vermont have enacted marriage equality for same-sex couples.

Maine, Colorado, Hawaii and Maryland have limited domestic partnership laws in effect also.

Jamaican LGBT Activist Opposes Jamaican Boycott

There's a large debate going on in LGBT activist circles about the call by three white gay male activists (Wayne Besen, Jim Burroway and Michael Petrelis) calling for a boycott of Jamaica due to the rampant, state-sanctioned homophobia on the Caribbean island nation.

However, local LGBT activists on the ground in Jamaica and expatriate Jamaican activists have released statements opposing the move by the Americans. Last night, after the Boycott Jamaica folks had a "rum dump" at the Stonewall Inn in New York City, former spokesperson for the Jamaican LGBT group (called J-FLAG) Gareth Henry released a statement:

END THE CALL TO BOYCOTT JAMAICA

I think it is disingenuous of Michael Petrelis and the group in San Francisco to use my release of last year to support your boycott issues of this year.

I was part of the Canada-based attempts at a boycott last year. We learned numerous lessons from that attempt, not least among which is the fact that the lives of LGBT persons in Jamaica are at risk. I have therefore changed my strategy and will do nothing without the inclusion of my colleagues in Jamaica. I implore you to do the same and do not support your present efforts.

The struggle to gain rights and freedoms for the LGBT community in Jamaica will never be won by groups acting independently, but through a coordinated effort of selfless persons, groups and organizations, both locally and internationally.

This call for a boycott of Jamaica is outrageous and counter productive. The attack on Red Stripe is appalling and unacceptable; of all the corporate organizations in Jamaica, they were the ones who were willing to stand out and denounce violence against any group of persons.

This self-seeking effort/campaign of the group in San Francisco needs to end now. JFLAG has stated they do not support the boycott and that needs to be respected. If the community that you claim that this boycott will benefit is not in support, what is your purpose of continuing?

It is only when we work together we will make the difference.

Gareth Henry
Former Co-Chair and Program Manager
Jamaica Forum for Lesbians All-Sexuals and Gays

Boycotts are difficult to pull off at the best of times, but generally the first rule of doing international LGBT activism is to "First do no harm" and it is always important to get the support of the local activists in the country in question. It looks like the "Boycott Jamaica" folks are either uninterested or deliberately dismissive of the opinions of actual Jamaican LGBT people on their proposed actions.

Hat/tip to Alex Blaze at Bilerico for the text of the Gareth Henry statement.

Federer Loses To Wawrinka in Monte Carlo

Only days after getting married, Roger Federer lost to fellow countryman Stanislas Wawrinka in the 3rd round of the Monte Carlo Masters Series tournament 6-4 7-5. Federer had lost the last three Monte Carlo finals to Rafael Nadal.

"No Homo" video parody

Hat/tip to Rod 2.0

CA-32: Cedillo's Lavish Lifestyle Exposed

So while I was in Maine last week, the news erupted about State Senator Gil Cedillo's "lavish lifestyle." Don't take it from me, it was in the Los Angeles Times:

Gil Cedillo, a Los Angeles state senator running for Congress, has spent more than $125,000 gathered from campaign donors over the last six years on shopping excursions, gourmet meals, entertainment and upscale hotels around the globe, public records show.

At Patina, the haute cuisine restaurant at Walt Disney Concert Hall, Cedillo paid $1,203 for dinner. He dropped $289 at Nic's Martini Lounge in Beverly Hills. At the Standard, a downtown hotel known for its hip rooftop bar and swimming pool, Cedillo and his staff spent $5,705 over the course of 26 visits.

In Mumbai, India, Cedillo's stay at the Four Seasons came to $829; his tab at the Bar des Arts in Sao Paulo, Brazil, $229; his hotel and dining charges on a jaunt to Rome and Florence, $1,969.

[...]

But the scale of Cedillo's spending was on par with that of former Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez, whose worldwide travel and shopping at retailers such as Louis Vuitton in Paris led the state to tighten campaign disclosure rules last summer.

Cedillo's spending, detailed in reports he filed with the secretary of state, contrasts with the frugal record of Judy Chu, his chief rival for the San Gabriel Valley congressional seat. A former Monterey Park assemblywoman elected to the state Board of Equalization in 2006, Chu has spent no campaign money on shopping or entertainment, and less than $5,000 on meals and travel over six years.

MadProfessah has endorsed Judy Chu in this race to represent the 32nd Congressional District of California. The election on Tuesday May 19th!

NY Gov Introduces Marriage Bill Thursday

New York Governor David Paterson is trying to ameliorate his appallingly low approval ratings by pushing the ball forward on marriage equality in the Empire State. Tomorrow Paterson will be re-introducing a marriage equality bill that passed the State Assembly in Summer 2007 but never received a vote in the then Republican-controlled State Senate.

According to TowleRoad:

Paterson said in radio interviews last Thursday that he wants public debate on the issue: "I’m going to put the bill out and just let people fight it out. If it loses, it loses. And let the parties on both sides have their say. Inevitably, the inertia is that the public will accept this."

Alan van Capelle of the Empire State Pride Agenda, whose Equality & Justice lobby day at the state capitol is coming up later this month, expressed concern about Paterson's strategy: "Why would you want people to vote on something that you knew wasn’t going to get passed? We’re not interested in making statements."

MadProfessah respectfully disagrees. It's not about making statements, it's about finding out exactly where every legislator stands on the issue. They can SAY that they support the bill in private to LGBT activists and accept campaign money from progressive forces but until they actually have to publicly reveal their position on actual legislation, we won't know the actual level of support for marriage equality in the New York State Senate.

A bill that passes the Assembly again (with more votes) and goes down in the Senate will show the momentum of the movement for equality. If Senate Majority Leader Malcolm Smith really supports marriage equality, he will bring up the bill again, until it passes.

Obama Administration Lifts Some Cuba Travel Restrictions

The Obama Administration has announced that they are making some minor changes to the current restrictions on contacts with the Communist island nation of Cuba. According to the Huffington Post:

In a measured break with a half-century of U.S. policy toward communist Cuba, the Obama administration lifted restrictions Monday on Cuban-Americans who want to travel and send money to their island homeland.

In a further gesture of openness, U.S. telecommunications firms were freed to seek business there, too. But the broader U.S. trade embargo remained in place.

The White House portrayed its changes, which fulfilled one of President Barack Obama's campaign promises, as a path to promoting personal freedom in one of the few remaining communist nations. They also marked another major step away from the foreign policy priorities of the Bush administration.

But the moves fell far short of the more drastic policy adjustments that some _ including Republican Sen. Richard Lugar _ have argued are required to promote U.S. interests in Latin America and to bring about change in Cuba. For most Americans, Cuba remains the only country in the world their government prohibits them from visiting _ a barrier to potential travelers as well as to the Cuban tourist industry that would like to see them.

Washington Note blogger Steve Clemons was not impressed.

So, applause for the Cuban-American oriented efforts. Better than nothing -- but not nearly enough. And the precedent is worrisome and disconcerting.

We did not open up relations with Vietnam by restricting travel to Vietnamese-Americans. We really should not be doing this with Cuba either.

What is happening is that Barack Obama has started the ball moving forward -- and is opening up something he knows many will find completely unacceptable and discriminatory.

Separate is not equal -- and that is what Barack Obama's team has just moved forward.

[...]

Obama has also eased up restrictions on humanitarian gifts and packages to Cuba -- which was really needed after the recent devastating hurricanes this past year. Humanitarian relief has been something we should have eased long ago -- and this was a good step.

Now, my hunch is that Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod see that they have "done enough" to check off the boxes for what they have promised the right wing, moderates, and even left wing of the Cuban-American community that felt collectively strangled by the tightness of the Bush administration restrictions.

As one of the few Americans who have visited Cuba on an academic travel waiver to participate in a conference and do research on the teaching of mathematics in secondary schools I completely agree with Steve Clemons, who is a well-known foreign policy expert on Latin America and the Caribbean.

Interestingly, the policy was announced just days before President Obama travels to Trinidad and Tobago for the 5th Summit of the Americas (in which Cuba is not allowed to participate) this weekend.

Pushback Project Launched To Develop Pro-Marriage Videos

The L.A. Gay and Lesbian Center has launched a new contest to allow anyone to develop videos that promote marriage equality, called Project: Pushback. The winning video will be decided on by apublic web-based vote and the winner could get $2500! The submission deadline is May 18th and the voting is from May 19-June 1. The Center as even posted some helpful tips for crafting your message as well as the full contest rules and guidelines and a FAQ.

Project: Pushback isn’t about a specific election but about building support for the freedom to marry.

The best messages will both persuade voters and motivate people who are already supportive to get involved.

Be strategic and creative. Consider how to blunt the impact of the right wing’s scare tactics such as the “I can marry a princess” and "Gathering Storm" ads.

Your video should be suitable for a general audience. Videos with inappropriate content will not be approved for broadcast on the Center’s channel.

There's more information at the Project: Pushback website. Good luck!

Eye Candy: Justin Thomas Clyne

Just geting back into the swing of things after my trip to Brunswick, Maine this weekend where I gave a talk at Bowdoin College called "Gay is not the New Black!" and saw a great talk by African American female Genius grant winner Majora Carter.  Enjoy these shots (courtesy of Queerty) of smoking hot Justin Thomas Clyne while I catch up with queer news around the blogosphere.

NYT Op-Ed: Make NY The Next Gay Marriage State

For the second time in a week, the New York Times has editorialized in favor of passing legislation ending same-sex couples exclusion from marriage in New York State:

A Mission for Gov. Paterson

Gay men and lesbians across the country have had plenty to celebrate in recent days. Last week, the Iowa Supreme Court granted same-sex couples the right to marry. Days later, the Vermont Legislature agreed that that state should sanction same-sex marriage. Now, Gov. David Paterson of New York has restated his promise to push for this decent and important change in the marriage laws of New York State.

This is a basic civil right that has been denied to New York’s gay residents for too long. Many have been forced to go to Connecticut or Massachusetts for an official marriage certificate. If that is not enough of an argument for Mr. Paterson, it could also give him a much-needed political, as well as moral, win. The governor’s poll numbers are at historic lows, in part because people worry that he does not have enough discipline and backbone to succeed at Albany’s tough politics.

Mr. Paterson seemed to back into the subject of same-sex marriage, at first. Instead of a major news conference, which would have been fully justified given the importance of the moment, he mentioned his decision on a radio show as he was touring the state handing out stimulus money. He did, however, restate his view the next day while making it clear that it was time for his fellow Democrats in the State Senate to stop stalling and to prepare to put the issue to the floor — to be debated and then voted up or down.

This is a radical idea in Albany where a bill rarely gets to the floor unless its passage is assured. As Mr. Paterson noted in Rochester this week: “It’s like professional wrestling. You know who’s going to win before the match starts.” For that reason, some gay-rights advocates have expressed alarm about letting such an important bill get to the Senate floor before being assured that it would pass. They should take heart from what happened in 2007 when the Assembly did exactly that.

The same-sex marriage bill went to the Assembly floor that June with few predictions that it would pass. That brought out members, the press and staff members to watch one of the best and most pointed debates in recent memory. At one point, Assemblywoman Teresa Sayward, a Republican and devout Catholic from upstate, spoke of how she and her son had struggled with his identity as a gay man and how she had finally told him to be who he is, not who people wanted him to be.

Her story helped carry the vote, 85-to-61. This year, the Assembly is expected to pass a same-sex marriage bill by an even wider margin.

So far, Senate Majority Leader Malcolm Smith, who also supports same-sex marriage, has not warmed to the idea of a free debate and open vote on the issue. He needs all 32 Democratic votes and one Democrat — Senator Rubén Díaz Sr. of the Bronx — openly opposes the bill. But there are undoubtedly some Republicans who would favor such progress for the state. Mr. Smith’s spokesman has dismissed the idea of an open vote as “empty rhetoric.”

That is alarmingly backward. Mr. Paterson and Mr. Smith could both enhance their standing by getting this bill to the Senate floor and by encouraging a full public debate that should make New York the next state to legalize same-sex marriage.

I completely agree that one does not always have to wait until passage of legislation is assured before having the legislative vote and debate. That is the clear sign of a dysfunctional system.

Celebrity Saturday: Federer Got Married!

Roger Federer married his longtime girlfriend Mirka (and mother of his child) in Basel, Switzerland today.

Hat/tip Craig Hickman.

Eye Candy: Alex Rodriguez

These pictures of Yankee baseball player Alex Rodriguez that appeared in Details magazine caused a firestorm of comments on the blogosphere.

MadProfessah at Bowdoin in Maine

Gay Is NOT 'the New Black'!

Here is a brief preview of my talk entitled Gay Is Not The New Black, prepared for delivery at Bowdoin College in Maine on Friday April 10 2009 at 3:30pm in Beam Auditorium.

Gay Is NOT The New Black! OR "My Bad, Is The President Still White?"

Last year's campaign to amend the California constitution to say that “Only a marriage between a man and a woman shall be valid or recognized” was the nation’s most expensive ballot measure fight on a social issue in history: a combined 83 million dollars was spent on both sides. Proposition 8 passed by 600,000 votes out of 13.4 million cast, 52.3% to 47.7%, on November 4th 2008, the very same day that Barack Obama was elected the very first African American President of the United States. Early exit polls indicated that 70% of African American voters had voted Yes on Proposition 8. Later analysis revised this number down to 58% of African Americans voters supporting a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, but a racially tinged firestorm in the LGBT community had already been ignited. On November 15th hundreds of thousands of Americans marched in parades protesting the passage of Proposition 8 in dozens of cities. Many of these protesters correctly (and incorrectly) made analogies between their actions and the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s, carrying signs with slogans like “Gay is the new Black.” As one of the 18,000 couples who were married while the practice was legal last summer and one of the leaders of the only Black LGBT political advocacy organization in Los Angeles County, I have a unique perspective on how issues of race and sexual orientation are portrayed and debated in the wake of the passage of Proposition 8 and will use this piece to discuss why I think Gay is NOT the new Black.

When (predominantly white) gay people say that "Gay is the new Black" they are invoking a common saying from the fashion world to send the message that discrimination against gay people is the same as discrimination against Black people. This is such a thoughtless exaggeration that it enrages African Americans and increases the divide between the two groups, causing people like myself who are both Black and Gay to become even more invisible. It is natural for LGBT activists to want to associate themselves with the successful Black civil rights movement and it is true there clearly are parallels between some of the legal discriminations that African Americans faced in the past (federal ban on serving in the military, state bans against marrying interracially, no laws banning employment or housing discrimination, et cetera). However gay people were never enslaved or murdered openly without legal recourse in great numbers and it is simply frivolous to attempt to equate the two experiences of being Black in America to being Gay in America.

The multiple reasons why electing a non-white American President resonated with so much of the country (and the world) was that such an important break from the past reveals how far the country has come from its shameful mistreatment of people of color. Barack Obama's success eloquently illustrates that race is still a central dividing line in American life while Proposition 8's passage is simply another example that the rights of minorities should never be subject to the whims of a tyrannical majority.

MadProfessah will probably not be posting oo much this weekend as I enjoy the pleasures of Maine.

NYT Prods NJ and NJ Towards Marriage Equality

Yesterday, the New York Times editorialized in favor of the bills pending in the two states (NY and NJ) in the Tri-State area with Democratic governors waiting to sign them into law.

The vote gave Vermont another important first. Although three other states — Massachusetts, Connecticut and Iowa — now allow same-sex marriage, the new Vermont law, which goes into effect on Sept. 1, made Vermont the only state to achieve that progress through legislative action rather than a court ruling.

Coming less than a week after the crucial ruling by the Iowa Supreme Court that extended same-sex marriage to a state in the nation’s heartland, and with bills to follow suit under consideration in several other state capitals, the welcome move by the Vermont Legislature adds a vital sense of momentum and democratic duty to this civil rights struggle.

Lawmakers in New York and New Jersey, in particular, have marriage bills pending and Democratic governors ready to sign them. There should be no further delay in enacting these measures.

Emphasis added by MadProfessah. I particularly like the use of the words "this civil rights struggle" in the context of marriage equality.

G-A-Y Response to NOM fear-mongering video

Jeremy Hooper from Good As You already has made a response video to the National Organization for Marriage video released today that claimed marriage equality will affect the lives of people who are opposed to it.

Heterosexual Supremacists Fight Back On Marriage

The heterosexual supremacists have noticed that the good guys are starting to win the battle for marriage equality and have launched a 1.5 million dollar ad campaign in New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Iowa and New Hampshire. There are currently marriage bills pending in New Jersey, New York, Maine, New Hampshire and Rhode Island.

The ones most likely to be adopted this year are (in order of likelihood): New Hampshire, Maine, New Jersey, Rhode Island and New York.

Iowa Governor Does Not Support Amending Constitution

Iowa Governor, Democrat Chet Culver finally released a statement on his reaction to Varnum v. Brien, the unanimous Iowa State Supreme Court case that ended the exclusion of same-sex coupels from marriage which was released on Friday April 3rd.

Here it is:

DES MOINES – Governor Chet Culver today issued the following statement after reviewing the Iowa Supreme Court’s decision in Varnum v. Brien:

“I have carefully reviewed the Iowa Supreme Court's unanimous decision on civil marriage and discussed it with the Attorney General.

“Let me begin by saying that I recognize that the issue of same-gender civil marriage is one that evokes strongly held beliefs and strong emotions both for and against. These beliefs and feelings need to be respected. I hope that the views of those on all sides will be treated respectfully and will not be subjected to name-calling or fear-mongering, but instead will lead to rational discussion.

“At the outset, I want to emphasize that the question before the Iowa Supreme Court was one of civil marriage only – a state-recognized legal status constituting a civil contract. Civil marriage always has been, and will continue to be, separate from religious marriage that takes place in churches and places of worship.

“As I have stated before, I personally believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. This is a tenet of my personal faith. The Iowa Supreme Court’s decision has, in fact, reaffirmed that churches across Iowa will continue to have the right to recognize the sanctity of religious marriage in accordance with their own traditions and church doctrines. The Supreme Court’s decision does not require that churches recognize marriages between persons of the same gender or officiate over such unions. The Court does not have, nor should any court ever have, that kind of power over our religious lives. Our churches and places of worship are free to decide for themselves, as they were before, who may enter the sacred covenant of marriage. As the Supreme Court’s decision states, ‘The sanctity of all religious marriages celebrated in the future will have the same meaning as those celebrated in the past.’

“Yet, the Supreme Court of Iowa, in a unanimous decision, has clearly stated that the Constitution of our state, which guarantees equal protection of the law to all Iowans, requires the State of Iowa to recognize the civil marriage contract of two people of the same gender. The Court also concluded that the denial of this right constitutes discrimination. Therefore, after careful consideration and a thorough reading of the Court’s decision, I am reluctant to support amending the Iowa Constitution to add a provision that our Supreme Court has said is unlawful and discriminatory.

“As Governor, I must respect the authority of the Iowa Supreme Court, and have a duty to uphold the Constitution of the State of Iowa. I also fully respect the right of all Iowans to live under the full protection of Iowa’s Constitution.

“I urge Iowans who hold beliefs on all sides of this issue to exhibit respect and good will. Our state faces many serious challenges. We are in the midst of a serious economic recession. Tens of thousands of our fellow Iowans are without work. We have suffered the worst natural disasters and most difficult recovery our state has ever faced. We must join together and redouble our efforts to work toward solutions that will help Iowans in this time of uncertainty. That is where, I believe, my focus and energies should lie.

“Let us not lose sight of the fact that we are all Iowans, all neighbors, united in the promise and faith of a brighter future for our state. Let us all work together toward that common goal.”

That's how ya do it!

DC Votes To Recognize Marriages From Other States

When it rains, it pours! And it is April on the East Coast. I wonder what may flowers all this LGBT legislative activity will bring?

Just hours after the Democratically-controlled Vermont legislature voted to enact a gender-neutral marriage bill over the veto of a Republican governor, the District of Columbia City Council voted 12-0 to recognize gender-neutral marriages from other jurisdictions. Coverage from the Washington Post:

Domestic partnerships are already legal in the nation's capital, and gay couples married in other states are recognized as domestic partners when they move to the city. But today's legislation, billed as an important milestone in gay rights, explicitly recognizes them as married couples.

The initial vote was 12-0. The unanimous vote sets the stage for future debate on legalizing same-sex marriage in the District and a clash with Congress, which approves the city's laws under Home Rule. The council is expected to take a final vote on the legislation next month.

Council member Jim Graham (D-Ward 1), who is gay, called the amendment a matter of "basic fairness."

[...]

Council member David A. Catania (I-At Large), who is also gay, predicted it was only a matter of time before the council also takes up a bill to legalize same-sex marriage in the District. "It's no secret that I have been working on legislation that would take us further," he said. "This is the march toward human rights and equality. This is not the march toward special rights. This is the equal march and that march is coming here."

New Hampshire? Maine? Rhode Island? Wazzzzzzzup?

Responses To VT's Historic Action on Marriage

HRC is the first out of the gate with a press release following the historic first enactment of marriage equality by a legislature in Vermont:

WASHINGTON – The Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) civil rights organization, applauded the Vermont legislature for voting today to recognize marriage for lesbian and gay couples. The state Senate voted 23-5 and the House of Representatives voted 100-49 to override Gov. Jim Douglas’s veto, making Vermont the first state to recognize marriage for committed lesbian and gay couples through the legislative process. The Vermont legislation goes into effect September 1.



“This historic vote in the Vermont legislature reminds us of the incredible progress being made toward equality. Less than five years ago, lesbian and gay couples began marrying in Massachusetts. Now, with the Iowa court decision last Friday and today’s vote in Vermont, there will be four states recognizing the right to marry for loving, committed lesbian and gay couples,” said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese. “We congratulate Senate President Pro Tem Peter Shumlin, Speaker of the House Shap Smith, the other legislators who voted for marriage, the Vermont Freedom to Marry Task Force, and MassEquality for ensuring that all couples will now enjoy the freedom to marry in Vermont. This is a law that will strengthen families and give meaning to the promise of equal rights for all.”



“The struggle for equal rights is never easy. I was proud to be President of the Senate nine years ago when Vermont created civil unions,” said Vermont Senate President Pro Tem Shumlin. “Today we have overridden the Governor's veto. I have never felt more proud of Vermont as we become the first state in the country to enact marriage equality not as the result of a court order, but because it is the right thing to do.”



The Human Rights Campaign mobilized its members in Vermont to support this legislation. National Field Director Marty Rouse, a former Vermont resident, was in Vermont since Monday working with legislators and activists to build support for the override votes.



Vermont becomes the first state to recognize marriage equality for lesbian and gay couples through legislation. California’s legislature has twice passed similar legislation that was vetoed and not enacted into law. Vermont is the fourth state, after Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Iowa, to extend marriage equality to committed lesbian and gay couples. Iowa’s state supreme court unanimously ruled on April 3, 2009 that the state constitution guarantees lesbian and gay couples the equal right to marry.

New York recognizes marriages by lesbian and gay couples legally entered into in another jurisdiction. California recognized marriage by lesbian and gay couples between June and November of 2008, before voters approved Proposition 8, which purports to amend the state constitution to prohibit marriage equality. The Proposition 8 vote has been challenged in court; a decision by the state supreme court is expected by June.

Lesbian and gay couples do not receive federal rights and responsibilities in any state. To learn more about state by state legislation, visit: www.hrc.org/state_laws.

Vermont Now Has Marriage Equality!!

The Vermont House voted 100-49 to override the veto of the Governor, following the State Senate voting 23-5.

The bill is adopted.

There are now four states in which marriage is gender neutral: Vermont (April 7, 2009 September 1, 2009), Iowa (April 24, 2009), Connecticut (2008) and Massachusetts (2004).

California Supreme Court Justice Ron George--which side of history do you want to be on?

Vermont State Senate Overrides Marriage Veto!

The Vermont State Senate has just voted to override Governor Douglas' veto ofthe  marriage equality bill S.115 by a vote of 23 Yes, 5 No, 2 Abstentions!

The debate is now streaming live in the Vermont House starting at 10:30am EDT.

VT Govenor Vetoes Marriage Bill; Override Vote Set For 9am

As expected Vermont Governor Jim Douglas has vetoed S. 115, the marriage equality bill after the State Senate agreed to the changes made to the bill by the House and sent it to the Republican Governor for his signature or veto.

The State Legislature has set debate on the motion to override the Governor's veto at 9am EDT Tuesday.

The Vermont State Senate is expected to override the veto (S.115 passed 26-4 last week) but in the Vermont House of Representatives the measure passed 95-52 which is 5 votes short of the 100 votes necessary in the 150 member body.

Here's the Governor's Veto Message:

Pursuant to Chapter II, Section 11 of the Vermont Constitution, I am returning S.115, An Act Relating to Civil Marriage, without my signature because of my objections described herein. I do so recognizing that this is an issue that is intensely personal, with strongly held beliefs and convictions on both sides. But I am charged by our Constitution to act on this legislation and by its return, I have fulfilled that responsibility.

The question of same sex marriage is an issue that does not break cleanly as Republican or Democrat, rural or urban, religious or atheist. The decision to support or oppose is informed by an amalgam of experience, conviction and faith. These beliefs are deeply held, passionately expressed and, for many legislators, infinitely more complex than the ultimate 'yea' or 'nay' required to fulfill the duty of their office.

On such an intensely personal issue as this, all members must do as their individual conscience dictates, with the best interest of their districts in mind. It is for those reasons that I have not sought to lobby members of my own party, or asked opponents to sustain my veto.

This legislation does not address the inequalities espoused by proponents. Regardless of whether the term marriage is applied, federal benefits will still be denied to same sex couples in Vermont. And states that do not recognize same sex marriage or civil unions will also deny state rights and responsibilities to same sex couples in Vermont. This bill will not change that fact.

Vermont's civil union law has afforded the same state rights, responsibilities and benefits of marriage to same sex couples. Our civil union law serves Vermont well and I would support congressional action to extend those benefits at the federal level to states that recognize same sex unions. But I believe that marriage should remain between a man and a woman.

Separate but equal, much?

Predicting The Future Of Marriage Equality in the U.S.

A blogger by the name of Map Scroll has taken über-geek Nate Silver's soon-to-be famous post presenting a model predicting when a public vote on marriage equality will be favorable for the forces of equality and put it in the form of an easy-to-digest map of the United States.

Silver came to prominence with his shockingly accurate predictions in the 2008 election season and continues to provide fascinating examples of applying mathematics to what the general public generally believes are non-mathematical topics, such as whether anti-gay marriage ballot measures will pass or fail in the future:

I looked at the 30 instances in which a state has attempted to pass a constitutional ban on gay marriage by voter initiative. The list includes Arizona twice, which voted on different versions of such an amendment in 2006 and 2008, and excludes Hawaii, which voted to permit the legislature to ban gay marriage but did not actually alter the state's constitution. I then built a regression model that looked at a series of political and demographic variables in each of these states and attempted to predict the percentage of the vote that the marriage ban would receive.

It turns out that you can build a very effective model by including just three variables:

1. The year in which the amendment was voted upon;

2. The percentage of adults in 2008 Gallup tracking surveys who said that religion was an important part of their daily lives;

3. The percentage of white evangelicals in the state.

These variables collectively account for about three-quarters of the variance in the performance of marriage bans in different states. The model predicts, for example, that a marriage ban in California in 2008 would have passed with 52.1 percent of the vote, almost exactly the fraction actually received by Proposition 8.

Unsurprisingly, there is a very strong correspondence between the religiosity of a state and its propensity to ban gay marriage, with a particular "bonus" effect depending on the number of white evangelicals in the state.

Marriage bans, however, are losing ground at a rate of slightly less than 2 points per year. So, for example, we'd project that a state in which a marriage ban passed with 60 percent of the vote last year would only have 58 percent of its voters approve the ban this year.

All of the other variables that I looked at -- race, education levels, party registration, etc. -- either did not appear to matter at all, or became redundant once we accounted for religiosity. Nor does it appear to make a significant difference whether the ban affected marriage only, or both marriage and civil unions.

This would tend to support the position of Love Honor Cherish and other grassroots marriage equality organizations about going back to Califonia voters in 2010 or waiting until 2012 to repeal Proposition 8. Most of the "grasstops" organizations like the L.A. Gay and Lesbian Center and (tacitly) Equality California and the National Center for Lesbian Rights seemed to endorse the later date at the recently Town Hall on Marriage Equality MadProfessah was invited to appear at last week.

My position is that we should go back to the ballot (in November 2010) and if we lose there be prepared to go back in November 2012 also.

Silver is good, but he isn't perfect. His attempt at predicting the Oscar results this year was pretty laughable.

Eye Candy: Santiago Peralta (reprise)

Earlier in the year Santiago Peralta caught my eye when he was featured at Queerty. He clearly has what it takes to be part of MadProfessah's Eye Candy. Thanks to Made in Brazil here are some more shots of this smoking hot Argentinian model.

Murray Wins 3rd Masters Title in Miami Over Djokovic

World #4 Andy Muray defeated World #3 Novak Djokovic 6-2 7-5 in Miami to win his third ATP Masters Series title and 11th ATP Tour title overall. The 21-year-old Scot has now defeated the 2008 Australian Open winner three consecutive times after losing their first four matchups.

Murray was the first Brit to make the final of what is often called "the fifth Slam" and the first to win it, despite being down 2-5 in the second set. Two weeks ago, Murray was demolished 6-1 6-2 by World #1 Rafael Nadal in the finals of the ATP Masters Series tournament at Indian Wells.

However other commenators have pointed out that since Wimbledon, Murray is 57-6 the best of any of the Top 4 players which include Roger Federer. The question is, what is the order of the Top 4 players in the world? The rankings say Nadal, Federer, Djokovic, Murray. Year-to-date results say something different....

Indeed, year to date, Murray is tied at 21-2 with Nadal, with them both having won two titles. However, the clay court season is about to start where the Spaniard will most likely re-assert his dominance on the field.

Openly Gay Man Confirmed To Head OPM

John Berry was confirmed unanimously by the United States Senate very early Friday morning to be the head of the agency in charge of the nearly 2-million strong workforce of the United States government. The Office of Personnel Management used to be the agency responsible for firing known homosexuals will now have an openly gay man at its helm.

From The Advocate's coverage:

“I will do my best to ensure that our policies are inclusive and fair for all,” Berry said. “That is something that I believe will produce benefit not only for LGBT people, but essentially for every community of interest, whether it be disability, African-Americans, Hispanics, Latinos -- all the communities that need to be represented at fairer levels in our government.

“We need to draw upon the strength and diversity of our nation,” he continued, “and we need to treat and accord fairly each and every one of them with benefits, and training, and with promotional opportunities that are second to none. I will strive to accomplish that for all Americans.”

Berry will take his oath and step into his new role on Monday, April 13. He said he plans to invite Frank Kameny -- a gay rights icon who was fired by the federal government for his sexual orientation in 1957 -- to his formal swearing-in ceremony, which has yet to be scheduled.

I am glad to see that despite the reluctance of either the nominee or the Administration to be out front acknowledging Berry's open homosexuality, the OPM Director seems perfectly willing to address LGBT issues in the federal workplace.

Victoria Azarenka defeats Serena in Miami Final

2-time defending champion World #1 Serena Williams with a heavily wrapped left thigh and knee lost to 19-year-old World #10 Victoria Azarenka from Belarus in the Sony Ericsson Open final 6-3 6-1. 

White House Responds To Iowa Decision

Washington correspondent for The Advocate Kerry Eleveld posted the official White House response to the Iowa marriage ruling:

"The President respects the decision of the Iowa Supreme Court, and
continues to believe that states should make their own decisions when it
comes to the issue of marriage. Although President Obama supports civil
unions rather than same-sex marriage, he believes that committed gay and
lesbian couples should receive protection under the law."

Pam Spaulding was quick to note the deficiencies of this statement:

So, let's see...it should be left to the states so that as gay couples travel across state lines, they are married, not married, civil unioned, domestic partnered...yeah that sounds like equal protection under the law. Oh wait -- the press release didn't use the word EQUAL, did it?

Can the President elaborate on this position with reasoning that excludes anything related to "God is in the mix"? The Iowa Supreme Court brilliantly torched using religion as an excuse to discriminate, so our Constitutional scholar president needs to come up with a better sham excuse. And as massaged as you know that short paragraph was, the omission of the word equal was purposeful.

I hope some enterprising reporter asks the President whether he believes gay and lesbian couples deserve equal protection of the laws of the United States and the state in which they reside.

A few hours later, they sent a new statement which includes the world "equal."

"The President respects the decision of the Iowa Supreme Court, and continues to believe that states should make their own decisions when it comes to the issue of marriage. Although President Obama supports civil unions rather than same-sex marriage, he believes that committed gay and lesbian couples should receive equal rights under the law."

Now that's more like it! But does he really mean it?

Best Analysis of IOWA Marriage Decision

Art Leonard over at Leonard Link and for New York City's Gay City News analyzes the Iowa Marriage case in a brilliant (if not concise!) fashion:

This is the first time that a state supreme court has unanimously concluded that same-sex couples have an equal right with different-sex couples to marry as a matter of state constitutional law. Prior same-sex marriage victories have all come from closely divided courts, as have the defeats.

Since the Polk County Recorder was the defendant in this case, it was that county's attorney, not the Iowa attorney general, who argued the state's position.

The beautifully and clearly written opinion by Justice Mark Cady stands as a strong rebuke to the bizarre plurality opinion produced by Judge Robert Smith of the New York Court of Appeals in the 2006 ruling in Hernandez v. Robles, which rejected the right of same-sex couples to marry here.

Cady's opinion also built on the important 2008 opinions from California Chief Justice Ronald George and Connecticut Justice Richard N. Palmer. Cady cited and quoted from George and Palmer, but made many important contributions in helping to explain why the court reached its decision.

The court decided to treat this as an equal protection case concerning a statute that discriminates based on sexual orientation. The plaintiffs had challenged on both gender and sexual orientation discrimination grounds, and the trial judge had seen this as a gender discrimination case, but the court decided to cut through the semantics and get to the heart of the matter: the challenged law, enacted as part of the surge in state so-called Defense of Marriage Acts during the 1990s, was intended to exclude gay people from marrying.

Cady opened his opinion with a brief civics lesson on the three branches of government fundamental to American constitutional law and the role of the courts in dealing with claims that statutes are unconstitutional. He reviewed highlights of Iowa equal protection precedents, including rulings recognizing the equality rights of black people more than two decades before the Civil War, an 1873 decision questioning the constitutionality of racial segregation -- more than 80 years before the US Supreme Court came to that point in Brown v. Board of Education -- and Iowa's distinction as the first state in the nation to strike down the exclusion of women from the legal profession, in 1869.

Getting to the nub of the marriage equality question, he wrote, "This issue comes to us with the same importance as our landmark cases of the past. The same-sex-marriage debate waged in this case is part of a strong national dialogue centered on a fundamental, deep-seated, traditional institution that has excluded, by state action, a particular class of Iowans. This class of people asks a simple and direct question: How can a state premised on the constitutional principle of equal protection justify exclusion of a class of Iowans from civil marriage?"

[...]

This reasoning is a direct rejection of the methodology used by state courts that have embraced the "channeling procreation" theory as a justification for providing marriage only to different-sex couples -- especially the absurd contention by New York Court of Appeals Judge Robert Smith that because same-sex couples can only have children through "intentional actions" (such as donor insemination, surrogacy, or adoption), there is no need to dangle the benefits of marriage in front of them in order to "channel" their procreative activities. Different-sex couples, in contrast, according to Smith's argument, often bear children with no planning, and so need to be steered toward a stable family structure.

Given the Iowa court's framing of the issue, Polk County's case collapsed like a house of cards, since none of the justifications it offered could possibly meet the test of substantially advancing a legitimate governmental objective. Cady quickly demolished the county's argument that maintaining or preserving traditional marriage could qualify as the necessary justification.

"A specific tradition sought to be maintained cannot be an important governmental objective for equal protection purposes," he wrote, "when the tradition is nothing more than the historical classification currently expressed in the statute being challenged. When a certain tradition is used as both the governmental objective and the classification to further that objective, the equal protection analysis is transformed into the circular question of whether the classification accomplishes the governmental objective, which objective is to maintain the classification."

[...]

Iowa's court was not ready to embrace the halfway measures suggested by the New Jersey and Vermont Supreme Courts, which led to the enactment of civil union laws in those states.

"A new distinction based on sexual orientation," Cody wrote, "would be equally suspect and difficult to square with the fundamental principles of equal protection embodied in our constitution."

Accordingly, the portion of the Iowa Code "limiting civil marriage to a man and a woman must be stricken from the statute, and the remaining statutory language must be interpreted and applied in a manner allowing gay and lesbian people full access to the institution of civil marriage."

This is just an excerpt. You should really do yourself a favor and read the whole thing yourself.

Celebrity Friday (Bonus): The Obama and QE2

The First Couple meets Queen Elizabeth II of Great Britain. (hat/tip Joe.My.God)

Now There Are 3: Iowa Court Unanimously Rules For Marriage

The blogosphere is all a-Twitter with the news that the Iowa Supreme Court has ruled unanimously that the state's marriage laws are unconstitutional!

Pam Spaulding has the full text of the decision in Varnum v. Brien, which will go into effect on Friday April 24.

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Robert B. Hanson, Judge.

Defendant appeals from district court summary judgment ruling holding state statute limiting civil marriage to a union between a man and a woman unconstitutional. AFFIRMED.

Roger J. Kuhle and Michael B. O'Meara, Assistant County Attorneys, for appellant.

Dennis W. Johnson of Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Des Moines, and Camilla B. Taylor and Kenneth D. Upton, Jr. of Lambda Legal Defense & Education Fund, Inc., Chicago, Illinois, for appellees.

...CADY, Justice.

In this case, we must decide if our state statute limiting civil marriage to a union between a man and a woman violates the Iowa Constitution, as the district court ruled. On our review, we hold the Iowa marriage statute violates the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution. Therefore, we affirm the decision of the district court.

[...]

The plaintiffs produced evidence to demonstrate sexual orientation and gender have no effect on children raised by same-sex couples, and same-sex couples can raise children as well as opposite-sex couples. They also submitted evidence to show that most scientific research has repudiated the commonly assumed notion that children need opposite-sex parents or biological parents to grow into well-adjusted adults. Many leading organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the National Association of Social Workers, and the Child Welfare League of America, weighed the available research and supported the conclusion that gay and lesbian parents are as effective as heterosexual parents in raising children.

[...]

When individuals invoke the Iowa Constitution's guarantees of freedom and equality, courts are bound to interpret those guarantees. In carrying out this fundamental and vital role, "we must never forget that it is a constitution we are expounding." M'Culloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316, 407, 4 L. Ed. 579, 602 (1819). It speaks with principle, as we, in turn, must also. See State v. Wheeler, 34 P.3d 799, 807 (Wash. 2001) (Sanders, J., dissenting).

Let's hope that Chief Justice Ronald George doesn't want to be seen as head of a court less progressive than Iowa's! The California Supreme Court is still considering it's decision on whether Proposition 8 is an unconstitutional revision of the Califirnia constitution.

It is very clear now where the historical trend on same-sex marriage is going. Last night the 150 member State House of Representatives of Vermont voted 95-52 (5 votes shy of a veto-proof majority) to approve a marriage equality bill that had passed the State Senate 26-4. As Evan Wolfson wrote recently, which side of history do you want to be on?

Never before has the Court allowed a fundamental right to be voted away from a targeted minority. Never before has the Court taken the invitation of a lawyer, such as Prop 8's Ken Starr, to set a precedent that, as Starr repeatedly conceded, would put no state constitutional limitation on a future majority's ability to vote away protections against race or sex discrimination or cherished freedoms such as speech, worship, or, yes, the freedom to marry — the "essence" of which, the California Supreme Court explained in 1948 when it became the first court in the U.S. with the courage to strike down race restrictions on marriage, is the right "to join in marriage with the person of one's choice," the person who to you may be "irreplaceable." Imagine what California and our country would look like today had that court flinched in the face of the 90% disapproval of the then-majority. Imagine what the Constitution would look like if a mere majority could always cement inequality or a selective denial of fundamental rights into it, without even the procedural protection of the deliberative revision process the people themselves set forth.

[...]

At various civil rights moments in American history, the courts' vital role in enforcing equal protection, and judges themselves, have come under tremendous pressure. Recall, for instance, the "Impeach Earl Warren" billboards following Brown v. Board of Education, the vitriol against the California Supreme Court when it had to strike down a 1964 constitutional change that undermined protections against race-discrimination, and the Rovian campaign of intimidation waged against so-called "activist judges" these past 8 Bush years. Its shining moment in standing up against such intimidation, in addition to its right result on marriage and equal citizenship for lesbian and gay Americans, was why I and millions cheered the Court's courage and clarity in 2008. In Marriage Cases, we saw a court do its job, and do it right.

Unlike right-wing opponents of equality, who denounce and seek to punish courts for doing their job, I criticize only when they flinch or fail to do it. If the Court, and if this Chief Justice, vote to uphold Prop 8's damaging blow to American constitutional principles, it will be a terrible mistake, failing their obligation under and to the California Constitution. If in so doing, they compound that mistake by selling short, or sidling away from, the truths set forth so powerfully in Chief Justice George's 2008 ruling — the fundamental nature of the freedom to marry, the way in which exclusion from marriage itself denies equality and imposes the stigma of second-class citizenship — they will do a powerful disservice to the people, to the Constitution, and to history, which for the moment still ranks them alongside the judges who struck down race discrimination and the subordination of women in marriage in the face of the passions of the moment, and were vindicated. Failure of judgment and duty now will tarnish their own legacy, wreak real harm on gay people and their loved ones, and shatter the faith of millions in the courts and their legitimate and crucial role in our constitutional system.

Please don't divorce us!

Celebrity Friday: Kathy Griffin Speaks Up For LGBTs

How much do the gays love comedienne Kathy Griffin? And the feeling is mutual! She appeared at a rally in favor of marriage equality at the State Capitol in Sacramento yesterday:

I've got a few questions for those who supported Proposition 8. My question is a very profound one. What the fuck is it to you?...Why are people in this state, when we have so many things on our plate, we have a fiscal disaster going on, why does anyone even wasting their time with this issue? Why does anyone even care if gay people get married?...You would never in a million years go up to a person of color and say 'well, you know I hear that Black people want to get married now. I mean, it's fine if they live together." You would cringe, would you not? 'I hear that Mexicans want to vote! There goes the neighborhood!' Right? It would sound absolutely silly. And yet, across the state, people are having dinner conversations saying, 'well, do gay people really have the right to get married?' Yes! Domestic union, domestic partnership is not the same."

Hat/tip to TowleRoad.

2009 Hugo and Nebula Award Nominations Announced

As frequent readers of this blog know, I read a fair amount of science fiction and fantasy books. I tend to follow the nominees and usually try to read the Best Novel winners of the most prestigious awards in these genres, the Hugo Awards and the Nebula Awards.

The Hugo Award nominations are:

Anathem by Neal Stephenson (Morrow; Atlantic UK)
The Graveyard Book by Neil Gaiman (HarperCollins; Bloomsbury UK)
Little Brother by Cory Doctorow (Tor Teen; HarperVoyager UK)
Saturn’s Children by Charles Stross (Ace; Orbit UK)
Zoe’s Tale by John Scalzi (Tor)

The Nebula Award nominations are:

Little Brother by Cory Doctorow (Tor, Apr08)
Powers by Ursula K. Le Guin (Harcourt, Sep07)
Cauldron - Jack McDevitt (Ace, Nov07)
Brasyl - Ian McDonald (Pyr, May07)
Making Money - Terry Pratchett (Harper, Sep07)
Superpowers - David J. Schwartz (Three Rivers Press, Jun08)

Last year's winner of both the Hugo and Nebula award for Best Novel was The Yiddish Policeman's Union by Michael Chabon. Unfortunately, I found it absolutely unreadable.

Neil Gaiman's The Graveyard Book has already won the very prestigious Newberry Medal, which is given to the best work in children's literature published in the last year.

Neal Stephenson's Anathem is probably the book to beat this year. I have previously read his cyberpunk novel Snow Crash (read MadProfessah review) and enjoyed it quite a bit. Stephenson is known for his huge novels and Anathem is no different. I have borrowed it from the library but there's no way I'm going to get through the whole thing before I need to return it.

I'm curious if other people have read any of the nominees and what they think about them, especially Neal Stephenson's Anathem.

Venus v. Serena XX: 2009 Sony Ericsson Open Semi

Venus Williams and Serena Williams will face each other for the 20th time on the WTA Tour tonight (6pm PDT, 9pm EDT) in the semifinals at the Sony Ericsson Open following a repeat showdown of the leading contender for Best Match of 2009 between Fernando Verdasco and Rafael Nadal.

Venus leads the head-to-head between the sisters 10 to 9 but if Venus wins she will become #3 in the world and Serena will fall to #1, giving Dinara Safina the #1 ranking. If Serena wins she will retain her #1 ranking, since she has won the tournament for the last two consecutive years.

The last time they played was a few weeks ago at an exhibition in Madison Square Garden, which Serena won, but the last two tour matches they played Venus has won in 3 sets, after losing one of the best matches of 2008 in the US Open quarterfinals. Venus bagelled Serena at the Tour Championships in Doha in Decmber and won a tight 3rd set tiebreaker in Dubai in January. It's hard to predict who will win today, but I think I will give an edge to Venus. I do know that Serena does NOT like losing three times in a row to anyone, and also doesn't want to give up the #1 ranking. It should be a scorcher, hopefully it will be broadcast on the Tennis Channel, eventually!

PREDICTION: Venus in 3 sets.

Iowa Supreme Court Marriage Ruling on Friday

Exciting news! The Iowa Supreme Court has announced that it will issue its decision in Varnum v. Brien on Friday April 3 at 8:30am CDT. Last December, the court heard oral arguments in the case challenging the constitutionality of the midwest state's law limiting civil marriage to one man and one woman.

The case, Varnum vs. Brien, involves six same-sex Iowa couples who sued Polk County Recorder Timothy Brien in 2005, after his office denied them marriage licenses. Polk County District Judge Robert Hanson sided with the couples in a ruling last year, but he suspended his decision until the high court speaks.

The case would have consequences outside the state's borders. Iowa would become the first Midwestern state to allow same-sex marriage and the fourth in the nation if the court sides with the gay couples. Legal experts say such a decision would echo across the country and strengthen the gay rights movement.

Advocates say allowing same-sex unions is a matter of civil rights that would better allow gays and lesbians and their families protections for such matters as retirement, taxes and in medical decisions.

The United States General Accounting office in has listed more than 1,100 benefits the government provides to legally married couples. People in committed relationships but unable to marry are denied most of those benefits.

Lambda Legal is co-counsel in the case and generally I have heard that legal experts are somewhat confident of a positive ruling. Then again, in 2006 we were confident of positive rulings in Washington and New York and lost both of those cases by one vote.

Iowa is the last state in which marriage rights are expected to be won by a court challenge, the current procedure (in states like Vermont, Maine and New Hampshire) is legislative.

Sweden Becomes 7th Country To Legalize Marriage Equality

On May 1, 2009 Sweden will become the seventh country in the world in which marriage is a gender-neutral contract between two individuals after a vote in the Swedish Parliament on Wednesday. The vote in the Riksdag was 261 to 22 with 66 abstentions.

From The Advocate's website:

Gender-neutral marriage licenses will begin to be issued starting May 1, replacing a civil union option that has been offered since 1995. Religious institutions will not be compelled to perform ceremonies for gay and lesbian couples. A majority of bishops in the Church of Sweden said that churches should not be allowed the task of handling legal registrations of marriages.

The Netherlands (2001), Norway (2008), Belgium (2003), Spain (2005), Canada (2005), and South Africa (2006) already allow same-sex marriage.

Hmmmm, as evidenced in the links above I notice that 5 of the 7 countries which have legalized gender-neutral marriage have done so since this blog came into existence in January 2005. Coincidence or cause and effect?

BREAKING NEWS: Scalia Supports Gay Marriage!

Hat/tip Good As You.

Married Same-Sex Couples in NY Threatened With Divorce

The New York Court of Appeals (the name of that state's highest court) has agreed to hear two cases that would determine whether same-sex couples who have been married in other jurisdictions can have those marriages recognized in New York. Previously, two lower court rulings and a directive by New York Governor David Paterson had made it clear that despite New York law preventing same-sex couples from getting married in their home state, if the couple got married in a jurisdiction in which it is currently legal (Canada, Connecticut and Massachusetts are all neighboring jurisdictions where same-sex civil marriage is currently legal) then those marriages would be "valid and recognized" in New York.

Law professor and fellow blogger Art Leonard of New York Law School took advantage of this "peculiar situation" in the law to get married on Monday March 30th:

This morning, my partner of 30 years, Tim Nenno, and I were joined in marriage at the Town Hall in Greenwich, CT. We were taking advantage of this peculiar situation now pertaining in our state of residence - New York. Same-sex couples cannot GET married in New York (see Hernandez v. Robles and the the failure of the State Senate to get with the program in 2007 after the Assembly passed the marriage bill), but we can BE married in New York (see Martinez v. County of Monroe and Governor David Paterson's directive to state agencies to recognize same-sex marriages lawfully contracted out of state).

Since the Connecticut Supreme Court (Kerrigan v. State) made it possible to get married within easy commuter rail traffic of New York City, we decided to take advantage of this opportunity in our 30th anniversary month. And it feels good to be able to refer to my partner of so many years as my "husband" and "spouse." Somehow it feels more accurate.

Additionally, Chair of Hunter College's Political Science Department Ken Sherrill and his partner Gerald Otte got married in Toronto, Ontario in 2006. They have been together since 1972 but their marriage and thousands of others are now threatened by the New York Court of Appeals decision to hear the appeal by the homophobic Alliance Defense Fund.

One case, Godfrey v. Spano, stems from the Westchester County executive’s 2006 decision to begin officially honoring out-of-state marriage licenses for gay couples the same way it did for heterosexual couples.

The other case, Lewis v. New York State Department of Civil Service, was filed after the department agreed in 2007 to begin recognizing out-of-state, same-sex marriages for the purpose of extending health insurance to spouses of public employees.

Brian Raum, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, said Tuesday that the group believed that the Court of Appeals would reverse the lower courts in both cases.

“We’re confident that we’re on the right side of the law,” he said. “The law in New York states it will not recognize marriages that conflict with public policy in New York. Since New York only recognizes marriage between one man and one woman, for any court to recognize same-sex marriage would be to recognize marriages that run contrary to New York law.”

Seems like this is a good place to watch the Fidelity video from the Courage Campaign's Don't Divorce Us campaign.

MOVIE REVIEW: Frost/Nixon

Director Ron Howard's Frost/Nixon is widely considered one of the best films of 2008 and was nominated for Best Picture, Best Actor, Best Director, Best Adapted Screenplay and Best Editing at the 81st Annual Academy Awards. It lost all of them on Sunday February 22.


MadProfessah finally saw the movie on the big screen, at the cheapest movie theater in town, the Regency Academy 6 Theaters in Pasadena a few weeks ago.


Written by Peter Morgan, the Oscar-nominated and Golden Globe-winning author of The Queen, the screenplay is a brilliant depiction of a television interview as a pugilistic verbal battle. The pacing, set-up and unspooling of the film is similar to a boxing movie.


However, in addition to the familiar pacing and visuals of a sporting movie, we also have the insider view of a behind-the-scenes look at how a television show gets made as well as a somewhat voyeuristic perspective on two world-class celebrities: Richard Nixon and David Frost.

Surprisingly, Ron Howard's direction, as showy as one would expect from a previous Best Director winner, is actually a strong point of the film, as is Peter Morgan's very clever adapted screenplay of his own very successful play of the same name. The two combine forces well to depict the theatrical battle of will and dialogue into an engrossing film.


Frank Langella's portrayal of Nixon was widely celebrated but it was the amazing Michael Sheen, who dazzled as a somewhat clueless Tony Blair in Peter Morgan's previous film The Queen who really made an impact on me in the film long after it was over. The film simply does not work without Sheen's performance at the center. Sadly, AMPAS has not seen fit to recognize his previous work, but hopefullly Hollywood casting agents (and big-name directors) will be more discerning in the future.

Running time: 2 hours, 2 minutes. MPAA Rating: R.

IMAGERY: B+.
PLOT: A-.
ACTING: A.
IMPACT: B.

OVERALL GRADE: B+.