Nevada Legislature Overrides Veto To Enact DP

On Sunday the Nevada State Assembly voted 28-14 to complete the override of Republican Governor Jim Gibbons' veto of Senate Bill 283, which would establish a comprehensive domestic partnership registry in the state of Nevada.

From the Associated Press report:

The Assembly's 28-14 vote — the bare two-thirds majority needed — followed the state Senate's vote a day earlier to enact the measure into state lawbooks over the conservative Republican governor's objections.

The bill provides that domestic partners have the same rights as married couples in matters such as community property and responsibility for debts. It also prohibits discrimination against domestic partners.

Critics contended that domestic partners can sign private contracts to accomplish many of the goals of the bill, and that it conflicted with the intent of Nevadans who voted in 2002 for a constitutional amendment supporting marriage between a man and a woman.

The measure states, among other things, that no "solemnization ceremony" is required and it's "left to the dictates and conscience of partners entering into a domestic partnership" whether to have such a ceremony.

Woo hoo! Now, Washington, California, Nevada all have comprehensive domestic partnership legislation, which some on the east coast would call civil unions.

VIDEO: Prof. Tobias Wolff vs Maggie Gallagher

MadProfessah Quoted in LA TIMES on Selma March

(Spencer Weiner / Los Angeles Times)

Saturday was Meet In The Middle, a statewide rally for LGBT equality in Fresno protesting Proposition 8 and the lack of marriage rights in California. The day started with a march from Selma, CA to Fresno, CA and culminated with a huge rally at City Hall in Fresno. The choice of Selma was deliberate, but I'm not entirely convinced it was wise:

Some African American gay activists were troubled by Saturday's march from Selma to Fresno. They suggested that organizers appeared to be trying to borrow symbolism of the civil rights movement -- the 1965 marches from Selma, Ala., to Montgomery were indelible events -- while ignoring the fact that gay activists do not suffer the same kind of oppression that blacks did in 1960s Alabama.

"One needs to be careful about appearing to appropriate the symbols of the civil rights movement without fully acknowledging the significant differences as well as the similarities between the movements," said Ron Buckmire, a gay activist who is black.

The above quote is from the Los Angeles Times article on the Fresno rally and march in Sunday's paper. Do you agree with my comment?

FRENCH OPEN 2009: BOTH Defending Champions Lose

(BERTRAND GUAY/AFP/Getty Images)

(PATRICK KOVARIK/AFP/Getty Images)

OMG! World #1 Rafael Nadal has just lost in the 4th Round of the French Open to Robin Soderling, for the first time in 32 consecutive matches in Paris. The 4-time defending champion was attempting to become the first person to win Roland Garros 5 consecutive years; he had never lost at Roland Garros.

In less surprising news, 2008 French Open defending champion Ana Ivanovic lost to Victoria Azarenka.

I won't report the scores, since in the USA, we can not see either of these matches until NBC's coverage starts at 12noon PDT.

NV Senate Overrides Governor on DP Bill

The Nevada State Senate voted 14-7 to override the veto of Republican Governor Jim Gibbons of SB 283, which would establish a comprehensive domestic partnership regime in the state. The bill initially passed the Assembly 26-14 and the Senate 12-9.
From the Las Vegas Sun:

Supporters need two additional votes to get the two-thirds majority.

The bill provides such rights as community property, responsibilities for debts and the right to seek alimony in a split up between couples of the same sex or couples of opposite sex who are not married.

Parks, a gay, said he has received 1,500 e-mails. And a survey by the Legislature, 79 percent of those questioned favored the bill while 21 percent was opposed.

The bill, Parks said would establish a domestic partner registry in the Secretary of State’s Office where couples, either of the same or opposite gender, register their relationship through the state.

This bill does “not threaten the sanity of marriage,” said Parks. “SB283 does not circumvent the will of the people because Question 2 made no mention of partnerships or of denying people’s rights and privileges if they are in committed relationships.”

"Parks, a gay,"? WTF? Have the editors of the Sun not read the AP Style Guide? Do they think "a gay" is better than "a homosexual"?

If you know anyone in Nevada, ask them to call their Assemblyperson and tell them to vote in favor of a veto override. In northern Nevada: 775-684-6800; in southern Nevada: 702-486-2626.

Obama Supports Sotomayor Nomination In Weekly Address

Another Curious Incident Goes Against Black Tennis Player

(AFP)

Another Williams grand slam match, another curious incident in which the African American player is robbed of a point. Curious coincidence. Notice the pattern:

2003: In a semifinal match at Roland Garros , Justine Henin raises her hand to say she's not ready, Serena serves a fault and the referee refuses to give Serena a first serve. Serena complains and the crowd completely turns against her. Serena wins the game, but loses the match.

2004: Umpire Marina Alves calls a point CLEARLY inside the line (on the far side of the court) OUT and awarding the point to Jennifer Capriati in the US Open semifinal match against Serena. Serena loses the match. The clamor for electronic line calling grows and becomes standard within 3 years.

2004: in a 2nd round match against Karolina Sprem at Wimbledon the umpire called the SCORE incorrectly, awarding Venus' opponent a point she did not earn. Venus loses the match.

2009: in a 3rd round match against Maria Jose Martinez Sanchez, Serena nailed a ball at her opponent at the net on breakpoint down which clearly hit the Spaniard's right arm (in multiple replays) and then her racquet, to go over the net. The umpire awards the point and game to Serena's opponent, over Serena's protests. Serena wins the match.

These are just the curious incidents that I remember off the top of my head.

Do people REALLY THINK this has nothing to do with race? Why does this not happen to any other American players? Why is it just Williams sisters, and more often than not Serena especially?

What do YOU think?

UPDATE: here is a clip of the point in question, plus Serena's comments on the issue in her post-match press conference. I completely agree with her accusing her opponent of cheating.

FRENCH OPEN 2009: Monfils, Serena,Tsonga Thru To 4th Round

World #3 Venus Williams was demolished by Agnes Szavay 6-0 6-4 and lost in the 3rd round at the French Open for the 3rd consecutive year. Her sister, World #2 blew a 5-2 3rd set lead but still managed to win 4-6 6-3 6-4.

Gael Monfils and Jo-Wilfried Tsonga had an easier time of it, both winning in straight sets to make the Round of 16.

Other MadProfessah favorites Andy Roddick and Roger Federer have also made it to the 4th Round, as have Dinara Safina, Jelena Jankovic and Ana Ivanovic.

Upset were Novak Djokovic who lost 4-6 4-6 4-6 to Phillippe Kohlschreiber and Elena Dementieva who lost 3-6, 6-4, 1-6 to Samantha Stosur.

CIWMB: Where Gay Pols Get Their Reward

Laird	Kuehl	Migden

The California Integrated Waste Management Board is a time-honored resting place for former politicians. On curious notion about the CIWMB is that it currently has a majority of openly gay or lesbian politicians! The board consists of 5 members, and Sheila Kuehl, Carole Migden and John Laird all of whom are former members of the California Legislature who happen to be gay or lesbian. Each member is paid an annual salary of $132,000. There have been calls to eliminate the CIWMB.

Coincidence? I doubt it!

Celebrity Friday: David Blackwell

David Blackwell, the first African American person ever elected to the prestigious National Academy of Sciences, and possibly the most famous Black mathematician alive, turned 80 on April 24.

Happy (Belated) Birthday, Professor Blackwell!

FRENCH OPEN 2009: Monfils, Venus, Serena, Tsonga Thru To 3rd Round

Gael Monfils, Jo-Wilfried "Le Mome" Tsonga and The Williams Sisters are through to the 3rd round of the French Open.

Venus had to save a match point in her 2nd round match versus Lucie Safarova to win 6-7(5) 6-2 7-5. Serena need nine (count 'em, NINE) match points to win her first round match 6-3, 6-7 (5), 6-4 against Klara Zakopalova.

Roger Federer and Andy Roddick are also into the third round.

NOM FAIL: Ad opposes "Same same sex marriage"

The National Organization for Marriage released its latest ad opposing marriage equality in New York State and ends with an epic fail: "Say No To Same Same Sex Marriage." Giggle.

Here's the ad in all its execrable deceitfulness:

Why The Federal Lawsuit Against Prop 8 is Wrong

The day after the California Supreme Court announced its shameful ruling upholding Proposition 8, former Bush Administration Solicitor General Ted Olson and David Boies Gore's attorney in the classic Bush v. Gore announced a federal lawsuit challenging the legality of Proposition 8 under the United States Constitution.

The LGBT organizations were not amused:

The groups released a new publication, "Why the ballot box and not the courts should be the next step on marriage in California." This publication discourages people from bringing premature lawsuits based on the federal Constitution because, without more groundwork, the U.S. Supreme Court likely is not yet ready to rule that same-sex couples cannot be barred from marriage. The groups also revised "Make Change, Not Lawsuits," which was released after the California Supreme Court decision ending the ban on marriage for same-sex couples in California. This publication encourages couples who have legally married to ask friends, neighbors and institutions to honor their marriages, but discourages people from bringing lawsuits.

Pam at Pam's House Blend has posted a lengthy analysis of the implications of the federal lawsuit for the generally accepted strategy of the national LGBT civil rights organizations. She asks two Questions of the Day:

* is Boies' and Olson's rejection of the current legal strategy supported by our orgs a tactical error for the marriage equality battle? It represents a "Hail Mary" approach, polls and pols be damned, to solve the patchwork problem of uneven equality around the country all at once, taking the moral high road. But it's a chance the ball will be dropped and the setback with a loss could seriously damage the movement for marriage equality

* is pursuing equality on the path our LGBT organizations represent a sound strategy? The path of taking the state route gains rights for gay and lesbians with each success -- and it also ends at SCOTUS. However, it forces those in states with constitutional bans on marriage equality to languish without full civil rights until a favorable decision at that level at some unknown point in the future. It also relies on additional gains that can be made with the repeal of DOMA, for instance, something also promised but that we may not see any time soon.

My answer to both questions is Yes and one of the smartest legal minds in the LGBT community, University of Pennsylvania Law Professor Tobias Wolff agrees with me:

In 1972 -- 5 years after Loving v. Virginia, the anti-miscegenation case -- the Supreme Court actually did weigh in on the question of the federal constitutional argument for marriage equality. In a case called Baker v. Nelson, the Minnesota courts had denied a marriage equality claim by a gay couple. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, which responded by dismissing the appeal "for want of a substantial federal question." This is a type of action that the Court uses only infrequently -- even a lot of lawyers have not heard of it. What it basically means is that the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal without issuing any written opinion, expressing the view that there was no serious federal or constitutional issue to be decided -- in other words, it said that it could dismiss without even issuing a written opinion because the claim on appeal did not have enough merit to warrant a full explanation.

This kind of dismissal is binding on the lower federal courts. (It is not binding on state courts, though some choose to follow it anyway.) What that means is that, when the Supreme Court has spoken to a federal issue in this backhanded way, and the exact same issue comes before a lower federal court in a later case, the proper thing for the lower federal court to do is to dismiss the case because it is bound by the Supreme Court's earlier action.

[...]

What does all of this mean for the Olson / Boies lawsuit? Insofar as their lawsuit argues that marriage equality for everyone is required under the U.S. Constitution, there is a strong argument that the lower federal courts should simply dismiss and decline to hear the case because they are bound by Baker v. Nelson. If that happens, then the Supreme Court itself is the only one that could overrule its earlier precedent and actually decide the case on the merits.

This is an important fact to understand for a number of reasons. First, as a simple matter of predicting what will happen, it's entirely possible that the Olson / Boies lawsuit will be dismissed very quickly by the lower federal courts. Second, it reinforces the point made by the LGBT groups about the importance of laying a solid groundwork before we get our one shot at litigating this issue before the Supreme Court (and, realistically, we will likely get only one shot). Baker v. Nelson prevents the lower federal courts from engaging in the ordinary process of wrestling with a contentious issue in a series of cases before the Supreme Court finally weighs in. It is therefore all the more important to develop a solid foundation of precedent in the state courts, because we may not have the opportunity to do that in the federal courts. And, with all due respect to Olson and Boies and despite my whole-hearted agreement that we should not have to wait to enjoy the rights that we deserve, the fact is that the Civil Rights Movement was the most strategic, careful and patient litigation effort that this country had ever seen, waiting decades to bring the school desegregation and anti-miscegenation cases until they knew that they had laid a sufficient groundwork to achieve a victory before the Supreme Court. I am thrilled at the outrage that these two men feel on our behalf and I welcome their input and their efforts. But they do need to learn their history.

Two more quick points. This kind of "dismissal for want of a substantial federal question" is not a good way to decide cases, and there is a strong argument that it should always be construed narrowly. So, for example, in the challenge to the federal portions of DOMA that GLAD has brought in Massachusetts federal court, Baker v. Nelson should not pose any obstacle. GLAD is raising a very different kind of claim -- that the federal government can't discriminate against couples who have already been validly married by their home state. The lower federal courts are free to decide that issue on its merits.

By the same token, if Olson and Boies had brought a much narrower challenge to Proposition 8 -- if they had argued that the particular sequence of events in California raised a unique constitutional problem because Prop 8 took marriage away from a group of people who already enjoyed equal rights under state law -- then matters would be different. Baker v. Nelson probably would not control a more carefully drafted lawsuit like that, and the dangers associated with such a lawsuit might be somewhat more contained (though there would still be serious questions about whether it represents the right approach). There are hints of that more narrow argument in the Olson / Boies complaint, but only hints -- in the end, they do not make the more careful argument but instead just go for broke.

What do you think?

MOVIE REVIEW: Star Trek

MadProfessah and the other half saw the new J.J. Abrams Star Trek movie on opening day.

Although I am a fan of science fiction and have watched many episodes of the Star Trek television series (The Next Generation, Deep Space Nine and Voyager) I wouldn't call myself a Trekkie.

The new Star Trek has been quite well-received by both critics and audiences alike. At rottentomatoes.com it has a 95% approval rating, which is similar to last summer's The Dark Knight. It has also made nearly 200 million dollars since its release on May 8.

The latest film was written by the team who brought us the television series Fringe, Alex Kurtzman and Robert Orci, who also wrote the execrable Transformers movies. However, this time the duo do an excellent job of pleasing multiple audiences who are interested in seeing the 11th Star Trek film: hard-core Trekkies, J.J. Abrams fans, general sci-fi fans, and fans of the new young castmembers like Chris Pine, John Cho, Anton Yelchin and Zachary Quinto (Sylar on Heroes).

Quinto is very good as Spock, while Pine does well with the even harder task of portraying the larger-than-life James Tiberius Kirk who was immortalized on screen by the inimitable William Shatner. Additionally, Eric Bana makes a lasting impression as the central villain Nero, a rogue Romulan who threatens both Spock's and Kirk's home planets.

The overall theatrical experience is quite enjoyable, and it's fun that Leonard Nimoy has a cameo, as does Tyler Perry. Star Trek is a great summer entertainment.

Running Time; 2 hours, 6 minutes. MPAA Rating: PG-13.

Plot: B+.
Acting: A.
Visuals: A-.
Impact: A-.

Overall Grade: A-.

NYT Analysis on Prop 8 Ruling

Justice Carlos R. Moreno

The New York Times story on the Proposition 8 ruling contains this fabulous analogy which gets to the heart of why the California Supreme Court's ruling in Strauss was so wrong:

Karl M. Manheim, a professor at Loyola Law School Los Angeles who had filed a brief with the court opposing Proposition 8, called the decision a “safe” one from justices who can be recalled by voters. The change wrought by Proposition 8 was anything but narrow, Professor Manheim said, and claiming that the word “marriage” is essentially symbolic is like telling black people that sitting in the back of the bus is not important as long as the front and the back of the bus arrive at the same time.

[...]

The sole dissenting vote in Tuesday’s decision came from Justice Carlos R. Moreno, previously mentioned as a possible choice by President Obama for the United States Supreme Court.

Justice Moreno wrote that Proposition 8 means “requiring discrimination,” which he said “strikes at the core of the promise of equality that underlies our California Constitution” and, he added, “places at risk the state constitutional rights of all disfavored minorities.”

If you are as big a fan of Justice Carlos R. Moreno as I am now, please send him a letter praising his dissent in the Prop 8 case at:

Hon. Carlos R. Moreno
California Supreme Court
350 McAllister Street
San Francisco, 94102

Moreno is up for re-appointment to the California Supreme Court before the voters in November 2010. Let's make sure he gets a full 12 year term.

VIDEO: Ad Supporting Marriage Equality in NY

Rally For Full Federal Equality with Obama

Barack Obama is in town today. LGBT activists intend to make their displeasure at the lack of progress on LGBT equality at the federal level.

Rally for LGBT Equality with President Obama
Day after the Day of Decision

BEVERLY HILLS HILTON
9876 WILSHIRE BLVD (CORNER OF SANTA MONICA BLVD)
WED MAY 27TH
6PM - Meet to rally
7PM - Program begins

President Barack Obama, the most LGBT-friendly president in history, will be at the Beverly Hilton the evening of Wednesday, May 27th, for a DNC fundraiser. Let's take this opportunity, just one day after the CA Supreme Court makes its decision on Proposition 8, to show our President our support for his daring promise to our community and to highlight the growing movement towards FULL FEDERAL EQUALITY.

Join us at a rally at 6PM in front of the Beverly Hilton on Wednesday, May 27th.

At 7PM we will be joined by Lt. Dan Choi and other LGBT servicemen & women in opposition to Don't Ask Don't Tell. They will ask for response from President Obama to the letter signed by 136,000 people asking the president not to fire Lt. Choi by ending DADT.

Regardless of what decision comes down regarding Prop 8 it is time for us all to demand equality on all fronts for all people!

See you soon,

Courage Campaign, Equality Network, Equal Roots Coalition, FAIR, Stonewall Democratic Club, White Knot

Sheila Kuehl's Brilliant Analysis Of Prop 8 Ruling

One of the smartest people in politics gay or straight, is former California State Senator Sheila James Kuehl, who sent out this brilliant analysis of the California Supreme Court Prop 8 ruling in Strauss v. Horton yesterday.

The Opinion

Today, the California Supreme Court ruled on the validity of Proposition 8, the measure adopted by California voters last November to add a new section 7.5 to Article I of the California Constitution, as follows: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California".

The measure was challenged by a coalition of organizations and individuals who favor the ability of same-sex couples to marry on three bases:

1. That the measure adopted by the voters 52% to 48% was not a simple amendment to the state Constitution, which may be adopted by a majority vote, but, rather, a revision to the Constitution, which may not. The Constitution may only be changed in one of these two ways, and, if the change is actually a revision to the Constitution, it must either be passed by a two-thirds vote of each house of the state Legislature and put to a vote of the people, or proposed through a constitutional convention and put to a vote.
2. The second challenge theorized that Prop 8 violated the separation of powers principle because it abrogated a previous Supreme Court decision which held that, under Equal Protection and Due Process principles, same sex couples had the same right to marry in California as opposite sex couples.
3. The Attorney General advanced a different theory: that the "inalienable" right articulated by the Court in the Marriage Cases could not be abrogated by a majority vote unless there was a compelling state interest in doing so.

The Court rejected all three, holding that they were required to find that the Constitution could be amended by a majority of voters in any election, even if the amendment abrogated a fundamental right previously articulated by the Court.

How Could They Say That?

The Court set out the legal principle that distinguishes an amendment from a revision: That it must change the basic governmental plan or framework of the Constitution. In deciding whether Prop 8 did, indeed, change the Constitution at such a basic level, the Court decided it did not, and, also, that it did not "entirely repeal or abrogate" the rights articulated in the Marriage Cases.

This is where the Court seriously lost its way.

Marriage is Just A Word....Not

Here's what the majority opinion said, which I think is not only seriously in error, but a cowardly about-face from their language in the Marriage Cases, which is reprinted in the next section.

First: today's decision:

"In analyzing the constitutional challenges presently before us, we first explain that the provision added to the California Constitution by Proposition 8, when considered in light of the majority opinion in the Marriage Cases, supra, 43 Cal.4th 757 (which preceded the adoption of Proposition 8), properly must be understood as having a considerably narrower scope and more limited effect than suggested by petitioners in the cases before us. Contrary to petitioners' assertion, Proposition 8 does not entirely repeal or abrogate the aspect of a same-sex couple's state constitutional right of privacy and due process that was analyzed in the majority opinion in the Marriage Cases - that is, the constitutional right of same-sex couples to "choose one's life partner and enter with that person into a committed, officially recognized, and protected family relationship that enjoys all of the constitutionally based incidents of marriage" (Marriage Cases, supra, 43 Cal.4th at p. 829). Nor does Proposition 8 fundamentally alter the meaning and substance of state constitutional equal protection principles as articulated in that opinion. Instead, the measure carves out a narrow and limited exception to these state constitutional rights, reserving the official designation of the term "marriage" for the union of opposite-sex couples as a matter of state constitutional law, but leaving undisturbed all of the other extremely significant substantive aspects of a same-sex couple's state constitutional right to establish an officially recognized and protected family relationship and the guarantee of equal protection of the laws."

In other words....what's the big deal about the word "marriage"?

As it turns out, quite a bit. Here's what the same Court said about it in the Marriage Cases:

First, it set out the principle it quotes in the new opinion:

"In responding to the Attorney General's argument, the majority opinion stated that "[w]e have no occasion in this case to determine whether the state constitutional right to marry necessarily affords all couples the constitutional right to require the state to designate their official family relationship a 'marriage,' " because "[w]hether or not the name 'marriage,' in the abstract, is considered a core element of the state constitutional right to marry, one of the core elements of this fundamental right is the right of same-sex couples to have their official family relationship accorded the same dignity, respect, and stature as that accorded to all other officially recognized family relationships.

But, then, the Court answers its own question as to the importance of the word Marriage:

"The current statutes - by drawing a distinction between the name assigned to the family relationship available to opposite-sex couples and the name assigned to the family relationship available to same-sex couples, and by reserving the historic and highly respected designation of marriage exclusively to opposite-sex couples while offering same-sex couples only the new and unfamiliar designation of domestic partnership _ pose a serious risk of denying the official family relationship of same-sex couples the equal dignity and respect that is a core element of the constitutional right to marry."

It is a distinction that makes an enormous difference and, therefore, should be seen as a revision to the state's Equal Protection and Due Process requirements.

By hanging its decision that Prop 8 was an amendment and not a revision on the slim and dishonest statement that same sex couples are not denied legal rights by denying them the "word" marriage, the Court errs.

Justice Moreno, in Dissent

Bless his heart and his mind. Here is what he says:

"The question before us is not whether the language inserted into the California Constitution by Proposition 8 discriminates against same-sex couples and denies them equal protection of the law; we already decided in the Marriage Cases that it does. The question before us today is whether such a change to one of the core values upon which our state Constitution is founded can be accomplished by amending the Constitution through an initiative measure placed upon the ballot by the signatures of 8 percent of the number of persons who voted in the last gubernatorial election and passed by a simple majority of the voters. (Cal. Const., art. II, § 8.) Or is this limitation on the scope of the equal protection clause to deny the full protection of the law to a minority group based upon a suspect classification such a fundamental change that it can only be accomplished by revising the California Constitution, either through a constitutional convention or by a measure passed by a two-thirds vote of both houses of the Legislature and approved by the voters? (Cal. Const., art. XVIII.)

For reasons elaborated below, I conclude that requiring discrimination against a minority group on the basis of a suspect classification strikes at the core of the promise of equality that underlies our California Constitution and thus "represents such a drastic and far-reaching change in the nature and operation of our governmental structure that it must be considered a 'revision' of the state Constitution rather than a mere 'amendment' thereof." (Amador Valley Joint Union High Sch. Dist. v. State Bd. of Equalization (1978) 22 Cal.3d 208, 221 (Amador Valley).) The rule the majority crafts today not only allows same-sex couples to be stripped of the right to marry that this court recognized in the Marriage Cases, it places at risk the state constitutional rights of all disfavored minorities. It weakens the status of our state Constitution as a bulwark of fundamental rights for minorities protected from the will of the majority. I therefore dissent."

Me, too.

Pressuring Obama To Not Flip Flop on DOMA

Joe.My.God is reporting about a new way to pressure President Obama to live up to his campaign promises to the LGBT community and work hard to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act called Operation Doma Flip Flop.

The campaign's press release says:

A national grassroots effort has been released on May 18, 2009 known as the DOMA Flip Flop campaign. Endorsing organizations include Join The Impact , Change.org , Join The Impact MA , and the Cambridge Democratic City Comittee . Organizers are asking participants to print out a ‘flip flop card’ with the the statement, “President Obama, please don’t flip flop on DOMA!” on it. Participants are asked to mail the ‘flip flop card’ to the White House from now until President Obama makes his decision on the DOMA lawsuit.

A President has the authority to not defend a Congressional law that is unconstitutional on its face. Past Presidents have exercised this right ranging from Ronald Reagan in the case of INS v. Chadha (1983) to George Bush Sr. in Metro Broadcasting v. Federal Communications Commission (1990) and Bill Clinton in Dickerson v. United States (2000). There is no clearer example of a blatantly unconstitutional law than DOMA which President Obama himself has called an “abhorrent law” and that its repeal is “essential”.

“President Obama, the defense of this discriminatory and archaic law will be tantamount to nothing short of a flip flop from your previously stated intentions. We’re asking you Mr. President, to take a principled stand for equality under the law and be the bold leader that we voted into office.” said Paul Sousa, creator of the DOMA flip flop campaign.

There is also a Washington Post editorial urging President Obama to take the very same action, “President Obama is on record opposing DOMA. Although the Justice Department typically defends acts of Congress in court, Mr. Obama should ask his legal advisers to determine whether they, like the plaintiffs, believe DOMA as applied in this case is unconstitutional. If so, Mr. Obama should consider whether this is one of those rare instances where the Justice Department declines to defend a law.”

The Obama Administration has until June 22 to respond in court to GLAD's lawsuit. Many people are watching the administration's actions very closely on this and other campaign promoises to the LGBT community.

The President is in Los Angeles today attending a fundraiser for the Democratic National Committee at the Beverly Hills Hilton.

MadProfessah Statement On Prop 8 Ruling

Fan of MadProfessah.com, Lisa Derrick of La Figa interviewed me immediately after today's press conference with several of the plaintiffs in Strauss v. Horton, which I emceed in my capacity as Board President and co-founder of the Jordan/Rustin Coalition, the only Black LGBT political organization in Southern California, and posted the video:

Spanish-Language Version of Courage Campaign Ad

CA-GOV: 2010 Republican Candidates Statements on Prop 8 Ruling

There have been dozens of statements and press reactions to the California Supreme Court decision on Proposition 8 today. Two statements that I am very interested in as a Californian voter were made by the leading Republican candidates for Governor.

Current Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger made the following statement about the Proposition 8 ruling today:

"While I believe that one day either the people or courts will recognize gay marriage, as governor of California I will uphold the decision of the California Supreme Court. Regarding the 18,000 marriages that took place prior to Proposition 8's passage, the court made the right decision in keeping them intact. I also want to encourage all those responding to today's court decision to do so peacefully and lawfully.

Meg Whitman, Republican candidate for governor, today issued the following statement on the California State Supreme Court Proposition 8 ruling:

"I believe the California State Supreme Court made the right decision. Last November, the people of California passed Proposition 8, and today the Court upheld their decision. This simple yet powerful fact is the foundation of our democracy. Regardless of one’s position on the measure, this ruling gives people confidence that their vote matters and can make a difference."

California Insurance Commissioner and Republican candidate for Governor Steve Poizner issued the following statement today:

"The California Supreme Court took the appropriate action today in upholding the will of the people by affirming Proposition 8. The people of California have spoken. They voted decisively that marriage should remain between a man and a woman. That is also my personal view.

"There was much more at stake today than even the issue of gay marriage, as important and emotional as it is for so many people on both sides of the issue. If the Court had overturned Proposition 8, it would have had set a terrible legal precedent, divided Californians even further, undermined support for the judiciary and state government itself while serving as a tremendous blow to the fundamental American concept of government of the people, by the people and for the people.

"Regardless of which way the Court ruled today, a particularly shameful element of this issue has been the Attorney General's unethical abandonment of his legal responsibility to the people of California. It is no surprise that Jerry Brown politicized and abused his latest position in an unprecedented way in order to play political catch-up with Gavin Newsom.

"As Governor, Brown opposed marriage for gay Californians. As a candidate for Attorney General, Jerry Brown refused to publicly support gay marriage. But once Gavin Newsom gained the upper hand on the issue with Democratic primary votes, Brown used his office as the state's lawyer to suddenly become an advocate of gay marriage and attempt to subvert the twice expressed will of the people of California. As he enters the fifth decade of his political career, Jerry Brown seems determined to go down in history as the man who was on more sides of more issues than any other California politician."

Note that Poizner attacks both Newsom and Brown for their position on marriage equality while ignoring Antonio Villaraigosa completely. (The Los Angeles Mayor's reaction is here.) It is very clear that the Governor's race in 2010 will be a proxy fight about marriage equality.

Courage Campaign Video To Repeal Prop 8

Text of CA Supreme Court Upholding Prop 8

S168047

Publish at Scribd or explore others:

Hat/tip to Jeremy as GoodAsYou

East LA rally against Prop 8

The Latino Equality Alliance organized a rally in East LA in response
to today's decision upholding Proposition 8.

Judy Chu at East LA Prop 8 Rally

CA Supreme Court Upholds Prop 8 and My Marriage

The California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8 by a vote of 6-1 and upheld the estimated 18, 000 same-sex marriages unanimously.

MadProfessah hosted the lead press conference in Los Angeles with reactions from the plaintiffs in Strauss v. Horton, the lawsuit to strike down Proposition 8.

I'll have more on this later.

Obama Nominates First Latina To Supreme Court

President Barack Obama has chosen Sonia Sotomayor to replace retiring Justice David Souter on the US Supreme Court. From FirstRead:

She currently serves on the Second Circuit in New York and was appointed to that position by Bill Clinton. BUT she was appointed to her first federal court appointment by President George H.W. Bush… She checks lots of boxes: Woman. Hispanic. Empathy… While working for the famed Robert Morgenthau in the New York District Attorney's office in the early 1980s, she described herself as a "liberal.”… Also has drawn criticism for saying in 2005: “All of the legal defense funds out there they're looking for people with court of appeals experience because it is-- court of appeals is where policy is made." She tried to backtrack, but conservatives are already rallying to defeat her based on this. Other bio information: Child of parents born in Puerto Rico... Grew up speaking mostly Spanish... Raised in a public housing project in The South Bronx in the shadow of Yankee Stadium... Father died when she was 9... A diehard Yankees fan, she's credited as the judge who saved baseball, issuing an injunction that led the eventual settlement of the 1990s-era Major League Baseball strike... Described by the New York Times in the early 1980s as an incessant smoker… Divorced from Kevin Edward Noonan in 1983 after seven-year marriage (no children). She left the NY District Attorney's office a year later and went into private practice... Graduated summa cum laude in 1976 from Princeton after winning a scholarship to the school... Earned her law degree from Yale in 1979, where she edited the Law Review.

Big day for court reporters today. The Prop 8 ruling is coming down at 10am PDT from the California Supreme Court.

Eye Candy: Brandon Perry

Smoking hot Brandon Perry was a "gratuitous skin" model at Queerty recently. Happy Memorial Day Holiday!

Black Marine General Astronaut to Head NASA

President Barack Obama has selected Major Charles Bolden to be the Administrator of NASA. Bolden, 62, is a Brigadier General of the Marines and has also been into space four times, twice as commander of Shuttle missions, inluding the one that put the Hubble Telescope into orbit in 1990. He would be the first African American and second austronaut to head the space agency.

(Hat/tip to Maybe, it's just me)

Top 10 Movies of 2008

Last year's list of the Top 10 (MadProfessah-reviewed) movies of 2007 was release on January 1, 2008 but the year before the list of Top 10 movies for 2006 was not released until March 6, 2007, a week after the Oscars were announced. However this year I have been so busy that I didn't see all the Oscar nominated movies until mid-March and couldn't complete my best movies of 2008 until the spring semester was over!

I want my Top 10 to be of the movies released in 2008, although in general I think it is probably a better idea to probably just do a Top 10 of the movies that I saw in 2008 (that were released domestically that year). Anyway, (finally) here is my Top 10 movies for 2008:

10. Doubt / The Reader. Featuring the two best performances by female actresses in 2008, Doubt and The Reader were basically vehicles for sceneet-chewing turns by Meryl Streep and Kate Winslet, respectively. Only one of them could win, and I do believe the best woman took home the Oscar.

9. Sex and the City. Like a two-and-a-half hour long version of a Sex in the City episode. If you're a fan, this is a good thing. If you're not a fan, you won't enjoy this movie. Jennifer Hudson appears for no apparent reason, primarily as a Magic Negro. But Carrie looks fabulous throughout.

8. The Wrestler. .An absolutely shattering meditation on the unpredictability of life by former wunderkind director Darren Aronofsky (π, The Fountain) featuring an unforgettable physical transformation by Mickey Rourke who is plays a character whose life and unfortunate career arc uncomfortably mirror the actor's own life

7. The Class. A fascinating, faux documentary look at the French school system, seen through the prisms of race, immigration and class. As a professor, this film was incredibly engrossing and engagin.

6. The Visitor. This was a surprising find. I'm a huge fan of the incredibly handsome Arabic actor Haaz Sleiman who I knew was appearing in this little film written and directed by Tom McCarthy and starring the actor who played the patriarch of the Six Feet Under family in his first leading role. What I found was a heart-warming tale about immigration animated by Sleiman's 1000-watt smile.

5. The Dark Knight. Director Christopher Nolan put all the pieces of his prodigious talent together he had previously hinted at with Memento and The Prestige in this mega-blockbuster sequel that blew away critics and box-office records while containing a performance-of-a-lifetime by Heath Ledger.

4. Milk. I saw this film on opening day with a friend the day before Thanksgiving in Atlanta, Georgia and there were very few dry eyes in that (sparsely attended) matinee showing. Sean Penn's widely celebrated portrayal of the gay community's modern-day Martin Luther King, Jr. was a relevation which powered the film. However, it was Dustin Lance Black's Oscar-winning original screenplay that was the surprise, since the story of Harvey Milk's life had previously been covered in an award-winning documentary and a well-regarded book by Randy Shilts called The Mayor of Castro Street. However, Black's screenplay and Gus Van Sant's direction combined to create a masterpiece that will be long treasured.

3. WALL-E. Another Pixar masterpiece. The first (nearly completely dialogue free) forty-five minutes is pure cinematic bliss. The story of WALL-E is universal, timeless, ageless and nearly perfect. The only flaws are the inclusion of humans into the story in the second half of the film. Still, the sheer joy of storytelling comes through loud and clear.

2. Slumdog Millionaire. The winner of the Best Picture Oscar and basically the consensus pick for the best film of the year. I have been a longtime fan of Danny Boyle's work and the director produced his best work to date with this brilliant amalgam of Bollywood and Hollywood. At its core Slumdog is a love story, but it is also an exciting, breathtaking rollercoaster ride set in India.

1. Tell No One (Ne Le Dis A Personne). The most enjoyable time I spent at the movies all year was watching this incredibly suspenseful, well-written French thriller based on the Harlan Coben novel. In fact, this was the only movie that I saw twice in theaters during the year. The script is incredibly intricate, but although the film is in French with English subtitles one is never lost and one's attention is grabbed almost instantly from the first surprising scene. Although the actors are generally unknown French actors (apart from an amusing cameo of Kristin Scott Thomas as a lesbian sister-in-law of the central character)

Honorable Mentions: Iron Man, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, Bolt.

First Black Female CEO (of Xerox) Named

This what the boss looks like

The New York Times pointed out yesterday that Ursula Burns is poised to become the first African American female chief executive of a Fortune 500 company, Xerox.

Even more interesting about Burns ascension to the top of the corporate ladder at Xerox is that it is the first time such a transition has occurred from one woman to another. The current CEO is Anne Mulcahy.

Ms. Mulcahy, 56, has spent 33 years at Xerox, working in roles that spanned sales, marketing and human resources. Ms. Burns, 50, is also a longtime Xerox veteran, having started as an engineering intern in 1980.

“They’re both insiders that sort of bleed toner, as it were,” said Steve Reynolds, an analyst with Lyra Research, which follows the printing and imaging industries.

As president, Ms. Burns has most recently been overseeing a large swath of Xerox’s operations. She has conducted meetings with investors and Wall Street analysts alongside Ms. Mulcahy as well.

You go, girl!

WA and ME Face Referenda To Repeal LGBT Rights

Both Maine and Washington state may face public votes to repeal advances in LGBT equality this fall. In Maine, the recently enacted marriage equality law is subject to a People's Veto if enough signatures (55,087) are gathered to put the following question on the ballot:

"Do you want to reject the new law that lets same-sex couples marry and allows individuals and religious groups to refuse to perform these marriages?"

In Washington, the recently enacted comprehensive domestic partnership law could be prevented from going into effect on July 26th if enough signatures are collected to support a referendum with this question:

Statement of Subject: The legislature passed Engrossed Second Substitute Senate Bill 5688 concerning rights and responsibilities of state-registered domestic partners [and voters have filed a sufficient referendum petition on this bill].

Concise Description: This bill would expand the rights, responsibilities, and obligations accorded state-registered same-sex and senior domestic partners to be equivalent to those of married spouses, except that a domestic partnership is not a marriage.

Should this bill be:

Approved ___

Rejected ___

It will be interesting to see if there is an impact on the movement to repeal Proposition 8 in 2010 oe 2012 is impacted upon these two anti-gay ballot measures that may happen in 2009.

Press Release On Tuesday May 26 News Conference

(Los Angeles, May 22, 2008) — The California Supreme Court has announced
that it will rule Tuesday, May 26, 2009, on whether Proposition 8, passed
by a slim majority of voters on November 4 and eliminating the right of
same-sex couples to marry, was a valid amendment to the California
Constitution.

At 10:30 a.m. – approximately a half-hour after the expected posting of the
ruling – attorneys for plaintiff couples and community leaders will hold a
news conference to discuss the ruling and what it means for California’s
same-sex couples and their families, communities of color, and the future
of LGBT rights in California. Clergy members will deliver an invocation
at 9:45 a.m., shortly before the ruling is announced.

WHEN: Tuesday, May 26, 2009
9:45 a.m. Clergy Invocation
10:30 a.m. News Conference

WHERE: Lucy Florence Cultural Center
3351 W. 43rd Street, L.A., CA 90008

WHO:
Ron Buckmire, Jordan Rustin Coalition
Jenny Pizer, Lambda Legal Marriage Project Director and Co-counsel, Strauss v. Horton
Mark Rosenbaum, Legal Director, ACLU of Southern California Rocky Delgadillo, City Attorney of Los Angeles
Nancy Ramirez, Western Regional Attorney, MALDEF
Rev. Eric Lee, President/CEO, Southern Christian Leadership Conference of Southern California
Marc Solomon, Equality California (organizational plaintiff in Strauss v. Horton)
Jorge Amaro, Latino Equality Alliance
Doreena Wong, API Equality
Lorri L. Jean, CEO, L.A. Gay and Lesbian Center

Gay rights groups filed Strauss v. Horton, challenging Proposition 8, on
November 5. The National Center for Lesbian Rights, Lambda Legal and the
ACLU, representing six couples and Equality California, argued that the
radical change attempted by Proposition 8 amounts to a “revision” of the
California Constitution that cannot be accomplished by a simple majority
vote of the electorate unless first approved by a two-thirds vote of both
houses of the Legislature. Civil rights groups representing people of
color and other minority groups joined the challenge because of a shared
concern about protecting the constitutional guarantee of equality.

Local couples and community leaders will be available in English, Spanish,
Chinese and Korean for one-on-one interviews.

Decision Day is Tue May 26

The California Supreme Court has issued a statement that it will be
releasing its ruling on Proposition 8 on Tuesday May 26th.

Go to htttp://www.decisionday.org for more info.

Sent from my iPhone 3G!

Celebrity Friday: Judy Shepard

Judy Shepard, the mother of Mathew Shepard, for whom S. 909, the Mathew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act is named, met with President Barack Obama in the White House on Wednesday May 20th.

The U.S. House of Representatives version of the bill, H.R. 1913, passed that body on April 29th by a vote of 249-175.

The White House released the photo and urged the Senate to act quickly on the pending legislation so the President could sign it into law.

Eye Candy: Edilson Nascimento

Hot dayum. Edilson Nascimento is probably the sexist man alive. Thank goodness, today is my birthday!

No Prop 8 Ruling Thu May 21: Only 3 Dates Left!

Joe.My.God posted this screen shot of the California Supreme Court website indicating that despiite all the rumors to the contrary, there will not be a decision in the Proposition 8 case tomorrow,

That being said, it leaves only three potential dates for what LGBT activitsts are calling DecisionDay:

 TUESDAY MAY 26TH
THURSDAY MAY 28TH
MONDAY JUNE 1ST

The Justices have until Wednesday June 3rd to release their decision, becase if they don't issue a decision within 60 days of oral argument (Thursday March 4th) then they don't get paid their salaries! (It's in the State Constitution.)

Thus there's a 2 to 1 chance that Meet in the Middle will be happening in Fresno, CA next weekend.

Why Elections Matter: Chief Justice Robert's New Yorker Profile

kos over at Daily Kos highlights this key graf from Jeffrey Toobin's profile of Chief Justice John Roberts in the latest New Yorker

After four years on the Court, however, Roberts’s record is not that of a humble moderate but, rather, that of a doctrinaire conservative. The kind of humility that Roberts favors reflects a view that the Court should almost always defer to the existing power relationships in society. In every major case since he became the nation’s seventeenth Chief Justice, Roberts has sided with the prosecution over the defendant, the state over the condemned, the executive branch over the legislative, and the corporate defendant over the individual plaintiff. Even more than Scalia, who has embodied judicial conservatism during a generation of service on the Supreme Court, Roberts has served the interests, and reflected the values, of the contemporary Republican Party.

Thanks, John Kerry! But if we didn't have Bush's second term we probably wouldn't have Obama's first term and Democratic control of the US House and Senate.

But this also highlights why Obam's choice to replace Justice David Souter is so important.

2010 or 2012? When Should We Repeal Prop 8?

Several LGBT organizations, Equality California, HONOR PAC, Marriage Equality USA as well as Courage Campaign are surveying their members to ask them whether they support going back to the ballot in 2010 or 2012 (if the California Supreme Court upholds Proposition 8).

They are asking their members to reply to the following survey by 5pm PDT Wednesday

For example, here is EQCA's email:

1. EQCA Member Survey - Input to Possible Ballot Initiative and Future Campaign

 

If the state Supreme Court upholds Proposition 8... should EQCA support going back to the ballot to restore marriage equality to California in 2010 or 2012?

Some arguments for placing a marriage equality initiative on the ballot in 2010:

:: We should take advantage of the powerful grassroots activism that has emerged following the passage of Prop 8 by going back sooner rather than later. That energy will dissipate if we wait until 2012.

:: By November 2010, we will have full marriage equality in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, and very likely in New York and New Jersey. Given these developments, Californians should not wait beyond 2010 to try and restore the right to marry.

:: In November 2010, the top of the Democratic ticket - the gubernatorial candidate - will support overturning Prop 8 and restoring the right to marry. In 2012, it's questionable whether President Obama will take that position.

Some arguments for placing a marriage equality initiative on the ballot in 2012:

:: We have hundreds of thousands of voters to convince on the issue of marriage equality. Even if we work our hardest, it will take three-plus years to do that work.

:: On this issue, time is on our side. By 2012, an even greater number of voters will have come our way. So why risk it in 2010 when we probably have a better chance in 2012.

:: We will once again need tens of millions of dollars to run a strong campaign. Given the state of today's economy and the fact that people just gave so much to the No on 8 campaign, we should wait before going right back to the ballot. 

 When do you think we should go back to the ballot box?

2010 2012 I am still not sure

Tell us more. Why did you pick date?

I voted for 2012. I am fine with either date, but I think we need to have three conditions met before our community can be assured of winning a prospective vote on marriage equality:

1. Multiple polls showing support for marriage equality above 50% taking into account the margin of error
2. Three to Five Million Dollars in the bank to support the effort on Day One
3. A detailed, written plan describing the campaign committee structure with functions clearly designated and an explicit chain of command for decision making.

Please make your thoughts known!

Voters Say NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, YES to Propositions

California voters said to the Governor and Legislature yesterday, we really, really, really don't like you, and rejected all five of the budgeting propositions and approved the one proposition which had almost no budget impact but prohibits legislative pay raises when budgets are not completed.

CA-32: Judy Chu Wins Primary Election!

MadProfessah-endorsed candidate Judy Chu won the hotly contested Primary for the Democratic Nomination for the 32nd Congressional District to represent the seat vacated by Labor Secretary Hilda Solis. With 100% of precincts reporting Chu leads Gil Cedillo by 4,124 votes, 31.9% to 23.38%, a margin which is less votes than 26-year-old Emmanuel Pleitez received (6,509).

Amusingy, Judy Chu will face Republican Betty Chu in the runoff election, set for mid July. However, in the overwhelmingly Democratic district, Judy Chu is assured to become the first Asian American Congresswoman to represent Los Angeles County.

Congrats to Judy and all my friends who worked on the campaign. Go sleep. You did good.

WA-Gov: Gregoire Statement on Signing DP Bill

Rich Roesler / The Spokesman-Review

As expected, Washington Governor Chris Gregoire signed Senate Bill 5688 into law on Monday, and released the following statement:

SEATTLE – At a ceremony in Seattle today, Gov. Chris Gregoire signed Senate Bill 5688, which ensures that under state law state-registered domestic partners are treated the same as married spouses.

“Today we are strengthening Washington by strengthening families,” Gregoire said. “From the first bill I signed in 2007 to today’s bills, we have proudly made immeasurable strides on behalf of LGBT individuals and families. This represents the culmination of incredible work to treat all Washingtonians equally.”

In 2007, Substitute Senate Bill 5336 created the state domestic partnership registry. The legislation allows individuals to enter into a state domestic partnership if they meet established criteria. Some of the powers and rights of spouses were granted to domestic partnerships in that legislation.

The Legislature passed, and Gregoire signed, House Bill 3104 in 2008, which added additional rights and responsibilities relating to issues such as dissolutions, community property, estate planning, taxes, court process, conflicts of interest for public officials and guardianships.

“Many brave families have come forward to share their lives, their struggles and their moments of joy – hard-working men and women who are in committed relationships, raising children, attending their places of worship, and volunteering in their communities,” Gregoire said. “After meeting these families, people have come to know that lesbian and gay families are no different than their own. And what has naturally followed is the unsettling notion that despite the sameness of straight couples and gay and lesbian couples, there are, in fact, legal barriers that prevent the same treatment.”

This new legislation requires state agencies to ensure that all privileges, immunities, rights, benefits, or responsibilities granted to married individuals are granted to an individual who is or was in a state registered domestic partnership.

“There can be no question that the landscape of equality for gay and lesbian families is changing, here and across the nation,” said Sen. Ed Murray (D-Seattle), who sponsored the bill in the Senate. “Today, eleven years after our state established the intolerance of DOMA into law, Washington law will finally treat gay and lesbian families the same as married couples. Recently, Iowa and Vermont have legalized full marriage equality. Of course, marriage equality is the final goal for gay and lesbian families here in Washington too. We will pursue full equality, but with our full but cautious commitment.”

“This bill is about protecting families – mine and over 5,300 others in 278 cities and towns across Washington state,” said Rep. Jamie Pedersen (D-Seattle), who sponsored the bill in the House. “Making sure that all Washington families enjoy the full and equal protection of the law strengthens our whole community.”

Gregoire also signed House Bill 1445, which permits domestic partners to receive the survivor and death benefits available to spouses from the Washington State Patrol Retirement System and House Bill 1616 to provide qualified domestic partners the same pension and Public Employees’ Benefits Board reimbursement benefits available to spouses of members of Law Enforcement Officers' and Fire Fighters' Retirement System Plan 2. These include retirement and disability survivor benefits, military service credit benefits, and withdrawal and annuity benefits paid upon a member’s death.

Congratulations to Washington state!

Nevada Legislature Passes DP Bill; Gov Threatens Veto

Both houses of the Nevada legislature have passed Senate Bill 283 which would enact a relatively comprehensive domestic partnership law in the Silver State, however the Republican Governor has threatened to veto the measure.

The bill passed the Assembly 26-14 (2 votes shy of a veto proof majority) and passed the Senate 12-9 (also 2 votes shy of a veto proof majority).

Nevada amended its constitution in 2000 and 2002 to ban same-sex marriage. Equality Nevada held its first lobby day this Spring.

MadProfessah Endorses Chu, Weiss and Koretz

MadProfessah with 32nd Congressional District candidate Judy Chu

MadProfessah with Los Angeles City Attorney candidate Jack Weiss

MadProfessah with 5th District Los Angeles City Council candidate Paul Koretz

MadProfessah has already published my picks for tomorrow's special election. Basically, Chu, Weiss  and Koretz and YES on 1B, 1D and 1E.

Gregoire To Sign Comprehensive DP Bill Into Law Today

Today, Democratic Governor Chris Gregoire of Washington will sign her state's comprehensive domestic partnership bill into law today. Heterosexual supremacists led by professional homophobe Gary Randall have launched a referendum campaign to prevent SB. 5688 from becoming law and forcing a vote on the measure in November 2009.

Eye Candy: Quentin Elias

Quentin Elias is a French-Algerian model who has been featured at Queerty.com. I include him in Eye Candy to prove that "hotties" come in all colors!

International Day Against Homophobia

Today is May 17th, the International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia, which is also the anniversary of the date the Goodridge decision went into effect in Massachusetts, legalizing same-sex marriage for the first time in the United States. May 17, 1954 was the day the United States Supreme Court decision of Brown v Board of Education was released.

However, the official reason for picking May 17th by the founder and organizer ofthe day, Professor Louis-Georges Tin is that in 1992 the World Health Organization declassified homosexuality as  a mental disorder.

Today also happens to be Long Beach Pride. Happy Homophobia (and Transphobia) Day!

Federer Beats Nadal To Win Madrid Clay Masters!

Shocking almost all prognosticators World #2 Roger Federer defeated World #1 Rafael Nadal in straight sets 6-4 6-4 to win the Madrid Masters 1000 title in 86 minutes. This is the first time in 6 matches that Federer has defeated Nadal, and is only the second time in 20 matches that he has beaten the Spaniard on his best surface of clay. Their overall head-to-head score is 13-7 (in favor of Nadal).

Nadal was thwarted in his attempt to become the first man to win all three clay court Masters tournaments in a single season by his arch-nemesis, the 13-time grand slam champion.

Nadal Defeats Djokovic In Thriller; Faces Federer

Rafael Nadal saved 3 match points against Novak Djokovic to win his semifinal match in 4 hours and 2 minutes 3-6 7-6(3) 7-6(9) in front of 12,500 fans in Madrid, Spain. Federer defeated Juan Martin del Potro 6-3 6-4 to set up a 16th meeting with Nadal in a final and 20th overall. Nadal leads 9-1 on clay, has won the last 5 matches they played (including 3 consecutive Grand Slam finals in Melbourne, London and Paris) and overall has only lost 6 times to Federer in 19 matches.

Spare a thought for World #4 Novak Djokovic who showed to many that he is the world's second best player on clay by holding 3 match points against Nadal and still managed to lose due to some incredible shotmaking from World #1. Roll the tape:

The question is whether Nadal will be tired from today's match that he wll not be able to beat Federer. Honestly, I doubt that. Nadal played one of the best matches of the year against Fernando Verdasco in Australia (over 5 hours of brilliant tennis) and then just over 24 hours later beat Federer in 5-sets on hard courts. Tomorrow's match is a 3-set match on Nadal's best surface and I honestly don't see how Nadal doesn't win and extend his lead of Federer to 6 consecutive wins and 14-6.  I do HOPE that Federer plays as agressively as he can and takes it to Nadal.

MadProfessah's Prediction: Nadal in 3 sets.

Nadal, Federer, Djokovic and Del Potro in Madrid Semis

Juan Martin del Potro

Roger Federer

Novak Djokovic

Rafael Nadal

Rafael Nadal, Roger Federer, Novak Djokovic and Juan Martin del Potro will face each other in the semifinals of the (new) Madrid Masters Series clay court champoinships. Nadal will face Djokovic and Federer will face del Potro (who defeated World #3 Andy Murray).

MadProfessah prediction: Nadal defeats Djokovic in 3 sets, Federer defeats del Potro in 2 sets.

First Anniversary of CA Gay Marriage Decision

Kate Kendell, Executive Director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, one of the lead counsels for the plaintiffs in the In Re Marriage Cases lawsuit has issued a statement on the 1-year anniversary of the May 15, 2008 decision entitled "Fasten Your Seatbelts":

Today is the one year anniversary of the California Supreme Court’s groundbreaking ruling striking down the exclusion of same-sex couples from the right to marry. On the morning of May 15, 2008 I stood on the Supreme Court steps—with hundreds of others—and cheered, the Court’s ruling clasped in my hand. The sun was bright, filling San Francisco's Civic Center Plaza with warmth rivaled only by the elation spreading across the faces of the joyous crowd. I was surrounded by plaintiff couples from our marriage case and our colleagues from Lambda Legal, the ACLU, Equality California, and Our Family Coalition. But what I will always remember—more than anything else—was the profound belief that life had changed forever for every LGBT person in the nation.

We are all familiar with the events that followed: the right-wing groups gathered enough signatures to qualify Prop 8 on the ballot, our long and arduous battle against their campaign of deceit and lies, and the devastating moment when—for the first time in California’s history—voters used the initiative process to strip a fundamental right from a minority group

In the wake of that loss, the promise of lasting change, which I felt one year ago, dimmed almost to nothing. Yet now, a year and a huge setback later, our nation has undergone a sea-change in public attitudes and opinion. In the days following the passage of Prop 8, our community and allies banded together and held rallies and vigils attended by thousands; that energy has found life in new organizations and tireless new leadership. In the past few weeks we have seen a major shift as first Iowa, then Vermont, and then Maine embraced full equality and fairness. Just yesterday, Governor John Lynch of New Hampshire said that he would sign the marriage bill passed by the legislature in that state, making New Hampshire the sixth state to extend marriage rights to same-sex couples. New York and New Jersey loom on the horizon and public opinion is shifting massively in our direction.

The past year has been a glorious and crushing roller coaster—it has been a movement. A civil and human rights movement. While we do not know how the California Supreme Court will rule in our current lawsuit challenging the validity of Prop 8, we are fervently hopeful that the Court will once again embrace justice and equality for all. It is time for the insult that is Prop 8 to be struck down. California is now out of sync with the irresistible tide of awareness that it is not merely legally, but morally and socially, intolerable to relegate same-sex couples to anything less than full marriage equality.

Regardless of how the Court rules, we must all renew our commitment to finish this work—for all of us. Fasten your seatbelts. It's going to be a bumpy ride.

The California Supreme Court will be ruling on the constitutionality of Proposition 8 very soon. On every Wednesday and Friday at 10am (until June 3rd), the Court will announce whether the ruling will come out the following business day.

To stay informed of the decision, you can go to Overturn8.nclrights.org

Celebrity Friday: Wanda Sykes Is A Mommy!

Thanks to Joe.My.God I found out that Wanda Sykes is a brand new proud parent! According to People magazine, the comedian's wife gave birth to twins on April 27th:

Wanda Sykes and her wife, Alex, welcomed twins on April 27, her rep tells PEOPLE exclusively.

Daughter Olivia Lou weighed in at 6 lbs., 7 oz., and was 19-inches long. Son Lucas Claude debuted at 7 lbs., 9 oz., and was 20-inches long. The comedian's wife gave birth to the babies.

"All are happy and healthy and at home," says Sykes's rep Danica Smith.

The actress, who stars on New Adventures of Old Christine, and her wife were married on Oct. 25, 2008. The twins are the first children for the couple.

Will the Supreme Court of California divorce the parents of Olivia and Lucas by upholding Proposition 8? Stay tuned.

Text Of "Religious Freedom Amendment" To HB 436

Here is the text of the language Governor John Lynch (D-NH) has insisted must be included into that state's marriage equality bill in order for him to sign it into law:

I. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a religious organization, association, or society, or any individual who is managed, directed, or supervised by or in conjunction with a religious organization, association or society, or any nonprofit institution or organization operated, supervised or controlled by or in conjunction with a religious organization, association or society, shall not be required to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods or privileges to an individual if such request for such services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods or privileges is related to the solemnization of a marriage, the celebration of a marriage, or the promotion of marriage through religious counseling, programs, courses, retreats, or housing designated for married individuals, and such solemnization, celebration, or promotion of marriage is in violation of their religious beliefs and faith. Any refusal to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods or privileges in accordance with this section shall not create any civil claim or cause of action or result in any state action to penalize or withhold benefits from such religious organization, association or society, or any individual who is managed, directed, or supervised by or in conjunction with a religious organization, association or society, or any nonprofit institution or organization operated, supervised or controlled by or in conjunction with a religious organization, association or society.

II. The marriage laws of this state shall not be construed to affect the ability of a fraternal benefit society to determine the admission of members pursuant to RSA 418:5, and shall not require a fraternal benefit society that has been established and is operating for charitable and educational purposes and which is operated, supervised or controlled by or in connection with a religious organization to provide insurance benefits to any person if to do so would violate the fraternal benefit society's free exercise of religion as guaranteed by the first amendment of the Constitution of the United States and part 1, article 5 of the Constitution of New Hampshire.

III. Nothing in this chapter shall be deemed or construed to limit the protections and exemptions provided to religious organizations under RSA § 354-A:18.

IV. Repeal. RSA 457-A, relative to civil unions, is repealed effective January 1, 2011, except that no new civil unions shall be established after January 1, 2010.

I would like a reiteration that nothing in this statute allows discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation but, barring that, perhaps a severability clause if one part of the bill is struck down, the rest of the statute remains law.

LAPD Caught On Tape Kicking Suspect In Head

NH Gov Says He Will Sign Marriage Bill

> the Governor's statement, from his website:
>
> http://www.governor.nh.gov/news/2009/051409same.html
>
>
> "The gay marriage debate in New Hampshire has been filled with passion
> and emotion on all sides.
>
> "My personal views on the subject of marriage have been shaped by my
> own experience, tradition and upbringing. But as Governor of New
> Hampshire, I recognize that I have a responsibility to consider this
> issue through a broader lens.
>
> "In the past weeks and months, I have spoken with lawmakers, religious
> leaders and citizens. My office has received thousands of phone calls,
> letters and emails. I have studied our current marriage and civil
> union laws, the laws of other states, the bills recently passed by the
> legislature and our history and traditions.
>
> "Two years ago, we passed civil unions legislation here in New
> Hampshire. That law gave same-sex couples in civil unions the same
> rights and protections as marriage. And in typical New Hampshire
> fashion, the people of this state embraced civil unions and agreed we
> needed to continue our tradition of opposing discrimination.
>
> "At its core, HB 436 simply changes the term 'civil union' to 'civil
> marriage.' Given the cultural, historical and religious significance
> of the word marriage, this is a meaningful change.
>
> "I have heard, and I understand, the very real feelings of same-sex
> couples that a separate system is not an equal system. That a civil
> law that differentiates between their committed relationships and
> those of heterosexual couples undermines both their dignity and the
> legitimacy of their families.
>
> "I have also heard, and I understand, the concerns of our citizens who
> have equally deep feelings and genuine religious beliefs about
> marriage. They fear that this legislation would interfere with the
> ability of religious groups to freely practice their faiths.
>
> "Throughout history, our society's views of civil rights have
> constantly evolved and expanded. New Hampshire's great tradition has
> always been to come down on the side of individual liberties and
> protections.
>
> "That is what I believe we must do today.
>
> "But following that tradition means we must act to protect both the
> liberty of same-sex couples and religious liberty. In their current
> form, I do not believe these bills accomplish those goals.
>
> "The Legislature took an important step by clearly differentiating
> between civil and religious marriage, and protecting religious groups
> from having to participate in marriage ceremonies that violate their
> fundamental religious beliefs.
>
> "But the role of marriage in many faiths extends beyond the actual
> marriage ceremony.
>
> "I have examined the laws of other states, including Vermont and
> Connecticut, which have recently passed same-sex marriage laws. Both
> go further in protecting religious institutions than the current New
> Hampshire legislation.
>
> "This morning, I met with House and Senate leaders, and the sponsors
> of this legislation, and gave them language that will provide
> additional protections to religious institutions.
>
> "This new language will provide the strongest and clearest protections
> for religious institutions and associations, and for the individuals
> working with such institutions.
> It will make clear that they cannot be forced to act in ways that
> violate their deeply held religious principles.
>
> "If the legislature passes this language, I will sign the same-sex
> marriage bill into law. If the legislature doesn't pass these
> provisions, I will veto it.
>
> "We can and must treat both same-sex couples and people of certain
> religious traditions with respect and dignity.
>
> "I believe this proposed language will accomplish both of these goals
> and I urge the legislature to pass it.

Competing Marriage Equality Ads in New Hampshire

There is an air war going on in New Hampshire as Governor John Lynch decides on what he wants to do with HB 436 when it reaches his desk. He will have five days to either sign or veto the bill or it becomes law without his signature. Here are the competing videos:

First, here's the opposition from the "National Organization for Marriage":


Notice the use of the religious imagery of the yellow cross in the "marriage is between a man + a woman" even though this legislation is about civil marriage and does not impact the definition of marriage for any church, synagogue or mosque. Shameless exploitation of children, not unexpectedly (litotes!)

And now here's the New Hampshire Freedom To Marry Coalition ad


Please help NH FTM raise money to keep this ad on the air. They say they are being outspent 3 to 1 by NOM.

New York Assembly Passes Marriage Equality Bill

The New York State Assembly passed the marriage equality bill  (A.7732/O'Donnell)(S.4401/Duane) by a vote of 89 to 52 on Tuesday, about two years after it had previously done so by a vote of 85-61. However, this year the bill has a chance of passing the State Senate and becoming law:

The Pride Agenda attributes the increased margin of victory in the Assembly to two main factors: greater understanding by legislators that only civil marriage and not any other legal mechanism provides equality for same-sex couples and recognition by legislators that support for marriage equality is not politically toxic at the ballot box.

“Several legislators who are now supporters but weren’t earlier have told me their evolution on this issue is due to having a much better understanding that only a civil marriage license provides equality for our families,” said Van Capelle. “Legislators also saw that a vote for marriage equality in 2007 had absolutely no impact on who won or lost last November.”

Legalizing marriage for same-sex couples is supported by Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and Senate Majority Leader Malcolm Smith, as well as every statewide official, including Governor Paterson, Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, Comptroller Tom DiNapoli, U.S. Senators Charles Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand. A recent Siena poll showed that, by a 14-point spread, the majority of New Yorkers support making marriage legal for same-sex couples (53% - 39%).

“The only remaining barrier to ending second-class status for gay and lesbian families in New York is now the State Senate,” said Van Capelle. “To every single member of the State Senate I say this: The landscape has shifted in New York. Do you want to be on the right side or the wrong side of history when the story is written about how marriage equality came to New York? Your grandchildren will want to know how you voted on this important human rights issue. This is a legacy vote.”

The only question is when not whether all citizens in New York State will have access to the rights and responsibilities of marriage.

No (Out) Lesbians On Obama's New SCOTUS List

The names of the six people on Barack Obama's short list of potential nominees to the United States Supreme Court have been leaked and the list apparently no longer contains any known lesbians.

They are:

Diane Wood of the 7th Circuit
Solicitor General Elena Kagan
Sonia Sotomayor of the 2nd Circuit
Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano
Merrick Garland of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals

This list is very different from previous lists. The only male on the list is Garland, who is a 56-year-old white male. Change we can believe in? Hell no! Any of the others are acceptable.

However, many others will be upset that out lesbians Kathleen Sullivan and Pamela Karlan (both former Deans of Stanford Law School) are no longer on the list. However, Janet"Quacks Like A Duck" Napolitano is aparently still on the short list of 6 people who are being vetted by the White House and filling out extensive surveys.

Latina (9th Circuit Appellate Judge) Kim Wardlaw or African American (and Rod 2.0 favorite) Georgia Chief Justice Leah Ward Sears have also seemed to have dropped off.

I still have my money on Sonia Sotomayor. I think another woman on the court is essential, and having a Black man nominate a Latino person would be a great historic first.

MadProfessah Endorsements for May 19 Election

Finally, the moment you have been waiting for! Here are MadProfessah's positions on how I think you should vote in the May 19th Special Election.

Proposition Number (Topic)             MadProfessah LA TIMES  CALITICS CA DEM PARTY
1A (Budget Cap, Rainy Day Fund)            NO         YES        NO     NEUTRAL
1B (Education Funding Plan)                YES        NO         NO     YES
1C (Lottery Modernization Plan)            NO         YES        NO     YES
1D (Children's Services Funding            YES        YES        NO     NEUTRAL
1E (Mental Health Services Funding         YES        YES        NO     NEUTRAL
1F (Elected Officials Salaries)            NO         YES        NO     YES

CA-32

Additionally, if yu live in the 32nd Congressional district MadProfessah strongly endorses Judy Chu. She is an incredibly strong supporter of LGBT, Labour and people of color and a true progressive voice. It would be amazing to have her on Congress representing a portion of Los Angeles County. Judy has raised the most amount of money and received the lion's share of endorsements but is thought to be in a tough race with Gill Cedillo.

SD-26

If you live in the 26th State Senate District, MadProfessah endorses Curren Price. Assemblymember Price is a strong supporter of LGBT equality, including marriage equality. Having won the Democratic primary fairly easily in March, he should win election easily in this overwhelmingly Democratic district, replacing now-County Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas.

Los Angeles City Attorney.

This is the race that has all the political geeks' tongues wagging. Carme Trutanich and Jack Weiss have been slugging it out in the run-off election for weeks, with multiple negative television ads. I'm not sure exactly what Weiss has done to some people (but he's clearly pissed off several!) but I have met him and he makes the right noises about supporting civil rights for all people and seems to understand the power of the City Attorney's office. Weiss was running on Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's re-election ticket along with Wendy Gruel for City Controller but Weiss was the only one dragged into a run-off. Electing him would allow the Mayor to complete his sweep of the elected citywide (nonpartisan) offices. MadProfessah endorses Weiss for City Attorney.

City Council District #5. Paul Koretz is a guy who is one of the longest-serving members of the Stonewall Democratic Club. He is a true progressive, who in his too-short term-limited 6-year stint in the Assembly introduced a civil unions bill (way before it was cool!) as well as Center for Health Justice's condoms-in-prisons bill. He is also the author of the state's law prohibiting insurance discrimination on the basis of gender identity. He is running for a westside city council seat being vacated by Jack Weiss in District #5, and MadProfessah endorses Paul Koretz for LA City Council, Seat #5.

Los Angeles Community College District
Office #2: Angela Reddock. Reddock is the only African American representative on the 7-member body which represents an organization whos mission is critically important to the future well-being of generations of Black and Brown people in Los Angeles County.

Office #6: Robert Nakahiro. Nakahiro is openly gay and running against an incumbent named Nancy Pearlman who seems to take her relection for granted and was forced into a run-off, surprising everyone.

Eye Candy: Nathan Adams

Today's Eye Candy is model Nathan Adams who was featured at Queerty.com on May 6th. He has an incredible body and is very handsome, but he needs to be photographed (hopefully scantily clad) by a talented photographer. The above shots are two of the best I grabbed from the collection of over a dozen that Queerty showed.

Enjoy. MadProfessah is still at a conference in the People's Republic of Berkeley through tomorrow.

REVIEW: Blair's (Silverlake, Los Angeles)

creamed corn, $9

Belgian Abbey Ale Donuts and Toffee Sauce, $9

Coconut White Chocolate Mousse Cake, $9

Special Entree: pasta with pearl tomatoes

Idaho Trout with a ginger, fava beans
and pear tomato ragout, $23

Yellow Fin Tuna tartar with cucumber, avocado
and a spiced ginger vinaigrette, $15

After having a forgettable experience at Blair's during a lunch over the summer I approached dinner with some trepidation last fall. However, I was pleasantly surprised by the uniformly excellent quality of the food on this visit, from the appetizers, to the side dishes and entrees and ending with a decadently delicious dessert.

MadProfessah started with the tuna tartare appetizer and had the creamed corn side along with the special pasta entree (which had mushrooms, pearl tomatoes, some kind of special sausage and cranberries, I believe). The Other Half had the Idaho Trout whihc he enjoyed immensely and then ordered donuts for dessert. My selection, coconut white chocolate mousse cake sounded good (I love cooconut, white chocolate and mousse!) but the donuts were surprisingly good, warm and soft and had a caramel dipping sauce. The word orgasmic comes to mind.

Anyway, overall Blair's was a great time and I look forward to eating there again soon. Along with Glendale's Palate Restaurant (see MadProfessah's review) it is great to have high-end excellent dining in north east Los Angeles.

OVERALL: A-.

AMBIANCE: B+.
SERVICE: A-.
VALUE: A-.
FOOD: A.

MadProfessah is in Berkeley

Eye Candy: Ced Williams

Queerty has been increasing the number of black models they have been featuring on their site recently. Ced Williams was one of the recent ones that caught my eye. Go to Queerty and check out the rest of his portfolio.

MadProfessah is currently visiting the Bay Area, giving an invited talk at the Mathematical Sciences Research Institute's "Teaching Undergraduates Mathematics" conference this week on the campus of UC Berkeley, so blogging  may be light through Wednesday.

I'll be sure to have some eye candy for you, so keep coming back!

Happy Mother's Day!

AD-53: Hot Race Beginning To Get Coverage

Kate Anderson

Nick Karno

Al Muratsuchi

Mitch Ward

Betsy Butler

The Daily Breeze printed an article on the race to replace Ted Lieu (who is termed out in 2010 and is running for Attorney General) inthe 53rd Assembly District. At the California Democratic Convention in Sacramento last month MadProfessah was able to run into some of the major candidates in this (currently below-the-radar) electoral battle.

Here's an excerpt:

When the seat was last open, after the death of incumbent Mike Gordon in 2005, Democrats held a six-point registration advantage in the district. That advantage has since doubled to 12 points.

[...]

Perhaps the most formidable candidate at this early stage is Betsy Butler, who has secured several major endorsements despite being virtually unknown in the 53rd District.

Butler is the top fundraiser for Consumer Attorneys of California, a lobbying group for trial lawyers. Butler, 45, says she splits her time between her job in Sacramento and her home in Marina del Rey.

[...]

Lieu is staying neutral, at least for now.

The other candidates may have stronger ties to the local community, but they will have to struggle to compete financially.

Among them is Mitch Ward, who is the first black councilman ever elected in Manhattan Beach. Ward, 48, has the backing of his fellow council members, but he will have to introduce himself to the rest of the district, which extends from Venice to Torrance and Lomita.

Additionally, Nick Karno (deputy city attorney in Los Angeles and Venice Neighborhood Council member, 39), Al Muratsuchi (deputy State Attorney General and Torrance School Board member,44) and Kate Anderson (former aide to U.S. Rep. Waxman and lawyer, 37) are also considered in the article.

MadProfessah is interested in the race because if (as expected) Ward and Butler become the two top candidates in the race, as an elected delegate I will be voting on which one should receive the official nomination of the California Democratic Party at next Spring's convention in Southern California.

For LGBT People of Color this decision may be a difficult one because although Ward would become the first African American LGBT person ever elected to the California legislature. However, Butler is a longtime member of the board of directors of Equality California, the state's largest LGBT political advocacy organization and a very strong LGBT ally who is positioning herself as the more "viable" candidate.

It's almost like a mini-reprise of the Ragnarök battle between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination in 2008. Hopefully (for Ward) this battle turns out the same way.

Safina Routs Sveta 6-3 6-2 To Win Italian Open

World #1 Dinara Safina won the Italian Open on Sunday by defeating fellow Russian Svetlana Kuznetsova 6-3 6-2. It was Safina's first title since becoming #1.

President of Morehouse Addresses Homophobia

Robert Franklin was named the 10th President of Morehouse College about two years ago. Morehouse is an all-male, predominantly African-American, Historically Black College in Atlanta, Georgia. Morehouse is also known in Black LGBT circles for its virulently homophobic atmosphere. MadProfessah has noted this subject before.

However, President Franklin seems to be taking another tack:

"As an all-male institution with the explicit mission of educating men with disciplined minds," said Franklin, "the great challenge of this moment in history is our diversity of sexual orientation."

"Why don't we," he asked the students, "use this opportunity to model something our community needs?"

"Straight men," Franklin said, "should learn more about the outlooks and contributions of gay men. Read a book by a gay author. Have an intelligent conversation with a gay neighbor." Franklin reminded the Morehouse students: "At a time when it was truly scandalous to have homosexual friends or associates, Dr. King looked to Bayard Rustin, a black gay man, as a trusted adviser. And, Malcolm X regarded James Baldwin, a black gay man, as a brilliant chronicler of the black experience."

"To my straight brothers," he said, "diversity at Morehouse is an opportunity that can enrich your education if you are courageous enough to seize the opportunity. We cannot force you, but we invite you to learn from your environment."

Hat/tip to Craig Hickman.

Venus Loses Semi To Safina; Rises To World #3

Venus Williams lost to World #1 Dinara Safina in a tough 3-set clay court match 6-7(3) 6-3 6-4 in the semifinals of the Italian Open. Despite losing, Venus will rise to World #3, right behind her sister Serena Williams at World #2.

Safina will play World #6 Svetlana Kuznetsova on Sunday in the final.

CNN Story on Obama Inaction on LGBT Rights

Celebrity Friday: Michelle Obama

Michelle Obama was in New York City this week (looking fabulous in a black Michael Kors gown!) attending an event at which Time magazine's 100 most influential people in the world were celebrated.

Hat/tip to Americablog.

New Map Of Marriage Rights Throughout The U.S.

The above graphic appeared in today's Los Angeles Times accompanying an article by Jessica Garrison and Maura Dolan about the increasing momentum for a Proposition 8 "re-do" on the 2010 statewide elections.

Here's an excerpt:

The recent run of states legalizing gay marriage -- punctuated Wednesday by Maine becoming the fifth state to do so -- has increased the likelihood that California voters will face another ballot measure on the issue as early as next year, according to strategists on both sides.

The California Supreme Court is expected to uphold Proposition 8, November's ballot measure banning same-sex marriage, with a decision coming in the next few weeks. Both sides are already gearing up for another political campaign likely to come in 2010.

As recently as a few months ago, some gay activists feared 2010 would be too soon. But the fact that same-sex marriage is now legal in five states, with New York, New Jersey and New Hampshire poised to follow, has changed the political climate, they say.

What's really going on here is maneuvering by Courage Campaign and Equality California for which organization will be "the lead" in the next ballot fight over marriage equality in California.

Courage Campaign launched the fight with much publicized statements by people involved with that organization that they would be leading the fight in 2010. EQCA has now responded with articles in the Los Angeles Times and New York Times as well as the announcement of a new grassroots campaign called Win Marriage Back: Make it Real!

New Hamphire Marriage Bill On Gov Lynch's Desk

Yesterday, the New Hampshire legislature put the final touches on a marriage bill when the House passed the amended version of HB 436 by a vote of 178-167 and sent it to Governor John Lynch (D) who can sign it, veto it or allowing it to become law through inaction.

TowleRoad reports that Lynch made a comment on the bill yesterday:

"I'm going to talk to legislators and I'm going to talk to the people of New Hampshire and ultimately make the best decision I can for the people of New Hampshire."

Governor Lynch wants to hear from you! Won't you contact him?

Office of the Governor
State House
25 Capitol Street
Concord, NH 03301
(603)271-2121
(603)271-7680 (fax)

VIDEO: Trailer for "Outrage"

The movie "Outrage" directed by Kirby Dick is being released nationally tomorrow. It is about outing closeted politicians who are secretly gay but support anti-gay policies and legislation. MadProfessah has been a longtime supporter of outing, way back in the days of Michelangelo Signorile and Michael Goff and OutWeek magazine from the early 1990s.

Picture of Baldacci Signing Marriage Bill Into Law

Craig Hickman has this picture of the first governor ever to sign a marriage equality bill into law at his blog, which is what Italian Catholic Jim Baldacci did Wednesday May 6 in Augusta, Maine.

Maine Gov Signs Marriage Bill Into Law!!

Pam's House Blend is reporting that Governor Jim Baldacci, Democrat of Maine, has signed LD 1020 into law, making Maine the 5th state in the United States to end the exclusion of same-sex couples from civil marriage. Maine becomes the third state this year (after Iowa and Vermont) to enact same-sex marriage, with New Hampshire, New Jersey and even New York expected to follow by the end of the year.

Here's Baldacci's statement on why he signed Maine's marriage equality bill into law:

“I have followed closely the debate on this issue. I have listened to both sides, as they have presented their arguments during the public hearing and on the floor of the Maine Senate and the House of Representatives. I have read many of the notes and letters sent to my office, and I have weighed my decision carefully,” Governor Baldacci said. “I did not come to this decision lightly or in haste.”

“I appreciate the tone brought to this debate by both sides of the issue,” Governor Baldacci said. “This is an emotional issue that touches deeply many of our most important ideals and traditions. There are good, earnest and honest people on both sides of the question.”

“In the past, I opposed gay marriage while supporting the idea of civil unions,” Governor Baldacci said. “I have come to believe that this is a question of fairness and of equal protection under the law, and that a civil union is not equal to civil marriage.”

“Article I in the Maine Constitution states that ‘no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor be denied the equal protection of the laws, nor be denied the enjoyment of that person’s civil rights or be discriminated against.’”

“This new law does not force any religion to recognize a marriage that falls outside of its beliefs. It does not require the church to perform any ceremony with which it disagrees. Instead, it reaffirms the separation of Church and State,” Governor Baldacci said.

“It guarantees that Maine citizens will be treated equally under Maine’s civil marriage laws, and that is the responsibility of government.”

“Even as I sign this important legislation into law, I recognize that this may not be the final word,” Governor Baldacci said. “Just as the Maine Constitution demands that all people are treated equally under the law, it also guarantees that the ultimate political power in the State belongs to the people.”

“While the good and just people of Maine may determine this issue, my responsibility is to uphold the Constitution and do, as best as possible, what is right. I believe that signing this legislation is the right thing to do,” Governor Baldacci said.

From your mouth to California Chief Justice Ronald George's ears. The California Supreme Court is expected to rule on the constitutionality of Proposition 8 by June 3, and it rumored that it may announce its decision as soon as Thursday May 7th or Monday May 11th. MadProfessah has his money on Thursday May 21.

Maine House Passes Marriage bill 89-58

The Maine House of Representatives passed LD 1020 by a vote of 89-58 on Tuesday. Previously, the State Senate had passed the bill last week by a vote of 21-14.

The bill needs to go back to the Senate for a final vote on Wednesday, and after that it will be sent to Maine Democratic Governor John Baldacci for his veto or signature.

The Governor has so far refused to indicate what he will do to the legislation when it reaches his desk.

MadProfessah spent a little time in both New Hampshire and Maine less than 4 weeks ago and now both state legislatures are expected to pass marriage equality legislation. Coincidence?

Serena Loses To Schnyder Day After Boasting To Be #1

Pride goeth before a fall. Playing her first clay court match of 2009, the 2002 French Open champion and reigning U.S. and Australian Open champion Serena Williams lost 6-2 2-6 6-1 to crafty lefty veteran Patty Schnyder at nearly 1am local time in Rome late Tuesday night.

On Monday, Serena said this:

"We all know who the real number one is. Quite frankly, I'm the best in the world."

As Craig Hickman says, "Serena, next time keep your tongue tied."

VIDEO: New Hampshire Marriage Equality Ad

DC Council Passes Bill Recognizing Gay Marriages

The Washington D.C. City Council voted unanimously (and then voted again with only Marion Barry opposed) to recognize gay marriages from other jurisdictions where it is legal.

This means that U.S. couples married in California (between June and November 2008) Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa and Vermont (after September 1, 2009) will have their relationships recognized if they move to the District of Columbia.

CA-32: Race Starts Heating Up

The election for the 32nd Congressional district seat is exactly two weeks away but the race between State Board of Equalization Member Judy Chu and State Senator Gil Cedillo is heating up.

The Los Angeles Times covered the back and forth between the two camps:

Among Judy Chu's slew of mostly positive mailers was one that featured a front-page Los Angeles Times article on state Sen. Gil Cedillo's spending more than $125,000 of his legislative campaign money on expensive dinners, hotels and gifts. The mailer reprinted the April 11 article in full and highlighted two paragraphs contrasting Chu's "frugal record" with a summary of Cedillo's spending.

Cedillo, in two separate pieces that arrived in mailboxes in recent days, used newspaper articles to try to bolster his charge that Chu, a state Board of Equalization member, gave "tax breaks and contracts" to her corporate campaign contributors.

The language used as headlines on the Cedillo mailers, however, came from articles having nothing to do with Chu. One, "This Is an Outrage!" appeared as a quote in a March 16 Los Angeles Times article about anger over bonuses given to executives of AIG, one of the struggling corporations given federal financial aid. Another, "Political Malfeasance and the Financial Meltdown," ran above a syndicated George Will column March 25 in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune.

Good job of the Times to make it clear that although there are charges and cross-charges from both camps, it does not mean that both parties are equally responsible. Clearly, as the picture above makes clear, Cedillo is not telling the truth.

Eye Candy: Rome Coop

Marriage Equality Opponents Acknowledge Inevitability

As the inevitability of marriage equality becomes more obvious to everyone, even the heterosexual supremacists who will say anything to attempt to  stop the practice are starting to shift their arguments from the desirability of marriage equality to the consequences of marriage equality. 

From the killer ad in the debate during the Proposition 8 which claimed that if the constitutional amendment did not pass then kindergarteners would be forced to learn about same-sex marriage to the hilarious National Organization for Marriage ad which claimed that there was a gathering storm of threats to religious liberty in the form of marriage equality, opponents to same-sex marriage are trying to shift discussion from whether same-sex couples should get marriage licences from the state to how marriage equality will affect everyone's lives. 

In Sunday's Los Angeles Times Washington and Lee University Law Professor Robin Wilson has an op-ed in this vein, entitled "The flip-side of same-sex marriage."

So what should states do to respond to these clashes between same-sex relationships and religious liberty?

What they should not do is what New Hampshire's Senate did last week: pay lip-service to religious freedom while enacting meaningless protections. New Hampshire's bill provides that "members of the clergy ... shall not be obligated ... to officiate at any particular civil marriage or religious rite of marriage in violation of their right to free exercise of religion." But this is a hollow guarantee: The 1st Amendment already provides such protection.

Last month, Connecticut and Vermont became the first states to pass conscience protection for religious dissenters in their same-sex marriage laws. Both states provide that religious groups "shall not be required to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods or privileges to an individual if the request ... is related to the solemnization of a marriage or celebration of a marriage." Both also bar civil suits by people denied such wedding-related services.

Connecticut went even further. In that state, a "religious organization" providing adoption services may continue to place children only with heterosexual married couples as long as it gets no government money. Thus, in Connecticut, unlike in Massachusetts, Catholic Charities will not have to close its doors or face litigation threats.

As important as these exemptions for organizations are, states still weighing same-sex marriage should do better. Wedding advisors, photographers, bakers, caterers and other service providers who prefer to step aside from same-sex ceremonies for religious reasons also need explicit protection.

Some have argued that gay-marriage laws do not need such guarantees because they don't require religious objectors to do any particular thing. But new laws are interpreted in light of existing statutes, and Vermont and Connecticut -- as well as all six states still considering same-sex marriage -- have laws on the books prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

Because of those laws, many people could have to choose between conscience and livelihood. In Massachusetts, individuals violating the non-discrimination statute can be fined up to $50,000. In Connecticut, business owners can be sentenced to 30 days in jail.

Conscience protections are a thoroughly American idea. Since Colonial times, legislatures have exempted religious minorities from laws inconsistent with their faith. Such exemptions allow Americans with radically different views on moral questions to live in peace and equality in the same society.

Connecticut and Vermont have gone part of the way toward recognizing that the rights of same-sex couples should not come at the expense of the religious people who believe that marriage means a husband and a wife.

Now, New York, Illinois, New Hampshire, Maine, Rhode Island and the District of Columbia should take the time to get same-sex marriage right.

I find it fascinating that the debate over same-sex marriage is now shifting from whether it will happen or should happen but to a debate over what the consequences will be when it does happen.

This is progress, folks!

I'm actully reasonably favorably inclined to agree to strong religious exemptions from non-discrimination provisions as a result of governmental recognition of same-sex marriage if 1) such exemptions are public record and only apply to organizations which receive no federal or state funds (i.e. I want to know who are the caterers, florists, etc who want to say "we don't serve your kind!") and 2) they agree to work to repeal the current federal and state bans on state recognition of same-sex relationships (i.e. DOMA and the 30 states which have banned same-sex marriage by voter intiative) and 3) they do not oppose future legislation to legalize same-sex marriage if it contains these agreed upon religious exemptions.

Additionally, I don't quite see why someone's religious beliefs allow them to discriminate on the basis of any characteristic. Were there religious exemptions for discrimination on the basis of race in the 1960s?

It's not clear to me why current public accomodations jurisprudence can't be used to settle this question. Generally, if you offer services to the public, you don't get to choose a protected class to discriminate against in the provision of this public service. However, I am willing to offer the exemption under the agreement of the three conditions I stated earlier.

Analysis Of Recent Marriage Polling Data

Poll maven Nate Silver at fivethirtyeight.com put together a list of the public polls released since election day in 2008 and shows that support for state recognition of same-sex couples has shifted dramatically since Proposition 8 passed in November 2008.

Kuznetsova Ends Title Dought By Defeating Safina

Svetlana Kuznetsova defeated World #1 Dinara Safina 6-4 6-3 at the Porsche Grand Prix open in Stuttgart to win her first title since September 2007 despite reaching 6 finals in that period. 

Safina was playing in her first tournament after becoming World #1 two weeks ago after Serena Williams lost points after pulling out of a clay court tournament. 

Nadal Wins Record 4th Rome Title over Djokovic

World #1 Rafael Nadal defeated World #3 Novak Djokovic 7-6(2) 6-2 to win his record fourth title in Rome and his 15th ATP Masters shield. Nadal now has one more shield than Roger Federer and just two less than the all-time leader, Andre Agassi.

Djokovic Beats Federer in Rome; Faces Nadal in Final

World #3 Novak Djokovic battled back from 4-6, 0-2 down to beat World #2 Roger Federer 4-6 6-3 6-3 in the semifinals of the Rome Masters tournament on Saturday. In the other semifinal defending champion World #1 Rafael Nadal beat Fernando Gonzalez 6-3 6-3.

13-time Grand Slam champion Federer has now not won a single ATP tour title in seven months, since the 2008 U.S. Open. Djokovic has beaten him the last two times they played in 2009, in what Craig Hickman calls "awful" matches.

Obama DOJ Supports Cocaine Sentencing Reform

Elections have (good) consequences! The Washington Post is reporting that the Department of Justice has decided to (finally) support legislation to reform the drastic inequities in sentencing for possession and trafficking of different forms of cocaine.

"Now is the time for us to reexamine federal cocaine sentencing policy, from the perspective of both fundamental fairness and safety," Breuer told the subcommittee on crime and drugs. He said the issues would be among those considered by a Justice Department panel that within six months is to develop recommendations on an array of topics related to charging, sentencing and prisoner treatment.

Bipartisan groups of lawmakers in the House and Senate have introduced measures to equalize sentences, but the proposals have stalled in the past.

The sentencing inequality has come to be known as the "100 to 1" ratio, in which possession of five grams of crack, the weight of two small sugar cubes, triggers a mandatory five-year prison term, while a person carrying 500 grams of powder cocaine would receive the same sentence.

Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), who chairs the subcommittee, noted that more than half of federal inmates are locked up for drug-related crimes, including high ratios of African American offenders. In 2007, Durbin said, 82 percent of people convicted on crack possession charges were black, and 9 percent were white. (emphasis added)

This is another good sign that the "War on Drugs" is losing saliency as a political football. In New York, the Rockefeller drug laws have recently been repealed under Governor David Paterson.

Obama on Souter Retirement

President Obama has issued a statement on the expected retirement of Associate Justice David Souter in June 2009:

THE PRESIDENT: I just got off the telephone with Justice Souter. And so I would like to say a few words about his decision to retire from the Supreme Court.

Throughout his two decades on the Supreme Court, Justice Souter has shown what it means to be a fair-minded and independent judge. He came to the bench with no particular ideology. He never sought to promote a political agenda. And he consistently defied labels and rejected absolutes, focusing instead on just one task -- reaching a just result in the case that was before him.

He approached judging as he approaches life, with a feverish work ethic and a good sense of humor, with integrity, equanimity and compassion -- the hallmark of not just being a good judge, but of being a good person.

I am incredibly grateful for his dedicated service. I told him as much when we spoke. I spoke on behalf of the American people thanking him for his service. And I wish him safe travels on his journey home to his beloved New Hampshire and on the road ahead.

Now, the process of selecting someone to replace Justice Souter is among my most serious responsibilities as President. So I will seek somebody with a sharp and independent mind and a record of excellence and integrity. I will seek someone who understands that justice isn't about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a case book. It is also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people's lives -- whether they can make a living and care for their families; whether they feel safe in their homes and welcome in their own nation.

I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people's hopes and struggles as an essential ingredient for arriving as just decisions and outcomes. I will seek somebody who is dedicated to the rule of law, who honors our constitutional traditions, who respects the integrity of the judicial process and the appropriate limits of the judicial role. I will seek somebody who shares my respect for constitutional values on which this nation was founded, and who brings a thoughtful understanding of how to apply them in our time.

As I make this decision, I intend to consult with members of both parties across the political spectrum. And it is my hope that we can swear in our new Supreme Court Justice in time for him or her to be seated by the first Monday in October when the Court's new term begins.

Friend of  theMadProfessah blog Rod 2.0 has a nice piece up on Georgia Supreme Court Chief Justice Leah Ward Sears, an African American woman who has been mentioned as a possible choice for Obama and who is very supportive of LGBT equality.

MadProfessah at Weho Gay Men's Forum SAT MAY 2

MadProfessah will be appearing at a panel on queer politics at the West Hollywood Gay Men's Forum on Saturday May 2nd.

The Gay Men's Forum is free, all-day event being held in Fiesta Hall at Plummer Park, 7377 Santa Monica Boulevard, West Hollywood. The theme of the event is "Where We've Been. Where We Are. Where We're Heading." The particular panel on which I will be appearing, with John Cleary (President of Stonewall Democratic Club), Michael Colorge (CSU Northridge LGBA leader) and moderated by Josh Kurpies (Deputy to West HOllywood Mayor Jeffrey Prang).

The title of the session at which I will be appearing is "Politicizing the Gay Community: Activism Past, Present and Future" and starts at 1:30pm.

Hope to see you there!