MadProfessah is on vacation July 31 to Aug 6

MadProfessah is in Costa Rica. Regular blogging will resume on Thursday August 6th.
In the interim enjoy the Eye Candy.

MOVIE REVIEW: Food, Inc.

Saw the movie Food, Inc. at the Regency Academy Theaters in Pasadena, my favorite second-run theater where matinee screenings cost $2 and all other shows are $3. For the first time I had to wait before going into the theater, because there was a significant line to get in to the theater, which I presumed was because they were also showing the new Star Trek film (see MadProfessah's review).

Food, Inc. is the most significant documentary that I have seen since two health care documentaries from 2007 called Salud and Michael Moore's Sicko.

Instead of health care, this year's amazing non-fiction film is about another of life's necessities: food.

Directed by Robert Kenner and featuring Michael Pollan and Eric Schlosser, two of the most influential talking heads on food issues in the public eye.

There are some hard to watch scenes in Food, Inc. as well as lots of very important information.

This movie will change the way you look at food, which will change the way you live your life. As with all important documentaries (and films, for that matter) the impact of spending time to watch Food, Inc. is felt for much longer durations than then event itself.

Running Time: 1 hour, 34 minutes. MPAA Rating: Rated PG for some thematic material and disturbing images.

OVERALL GRADE: A+.

ACTING: N/A.
IMAGERY: A+.
PLOT: A.
IMPACT: A+.

MA Gov Deval Patrick Speaks On Marriage Sun Aug 2

The Struggle for Marriage Equality:
What I’ve Learned on the Front Lines

Massachusetts Governor Deval L. Patrick

Sunday, August 2
2 p.m. to 4 p.m.

Home of Danny Gibson and Bill Weinberger
829 Keniston Avenue
Los Angeles

Sponsored by the Jordan/Rustin Coalition, Equality California Institute,
and the Liberty Hill Foundation

Optional contributions to the Jordan/Rustin Coalition encouraged

Dear Friend,

Please join us for a very special gathering Sunday August 2nd.

Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick will join us for reflections and discussion on the struggle for marriage equality for same-sex couples. From his first day in office, Governor Patrick put his personal reputation and political capital on the line to protect marriage equality. His leadership allowed Massachusetts to avert a referendum fight similar to the Proposition 8 battle.

As only the second African-American governor elected since Reconstruction, and as the Clinton Administration’s assistant attorney general for civil rights, Governor Patrick will offer his unique perspective on the subject.

Please RSVP to Milton Davis: Milton@eqca.org

Governor Deval Patrick—Biography

Hoping for the best and working for it, as his grandmother used to counsel him, Deval Patrick’s life has traced a trajectory from the South Side of Chicago to the U.S. Justice Department, Fortune 500 boardrooms, and now the Massachusetts State House, where he was elected Governor in 2006, one of only two African-Americans elected governor since Reconstruction.

Having grown up in poverty on the South Side of Chicago, Patrick was selected to attend boarding school at Milton Academy in Massachusetts, and then went on to Harvard, the first in his family to attend college. After spending a post-graduate year working on a United Nations youth training project in the Darfur region of Sudan, Patrick returned to Harvard where he earned his J.D. in the fall of 1979.

Following law school, Patrick served as a law clerk to a federal appellate judge before joining the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund and later the Boston law firm of Hill & Barlow. In 1994, President Clinton appointed Patrick Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, the nation's top civil rights post, where he worked on a wide range of issues, including prosecution of hate crimes and abortion clinic violence, and enforcement of employment discrimination, fair lending and disabilities rights laws. During his tenure, Patrick led the largest federal criminal investigation before September 11th, coordinating state, local and federal agencies to investigate church burnings throughout the South in the mid-1990s.

In 2001, Patrick joined The Coca-Cola Company as Executive Vice President and General Counsel. He was elected to the additional role of Corporate Secretary in 2002, and served as part of the company's senior leadership team as a member of the Executive Committee.

As governor, Deval Patrick has done more to advance equality for LGBT people than any other chief executive in the country. Immediately after his election, Governor Patrick expended tremendous political capital to persuade legislators to vote down a ballot initiative to undo marriage equality. Without his unwavering leadership, Massachusetts would have faced a referendum fight similar to the Proposition 8 battle.

In addition to marriage equality, Governor Patrick has been a pioneer on health care reform, ensuring Massachusetts’ lowest-in-the-nation rate of uninsured people. He also has championed clean energy laws; passed and implemented an historic Life Science Initiative; and extended the buffer zone to protect the safety of women seeking reproductive health services. Among the cadre of governors, Governor Patrick is one of President Barack Obama’s most trusted advisors and closest confidantes.

Diane and Deval Patrick have been married for over twenty-five years and have two adult daughters, Sarah and Katherine. In June of 2008, with her father by her side, Katherine—then 18—came out of the closet publicly. The next weekend, Deval, Diane and Katherine marched together in Boston Pride.

Governator Terminates State Office of AIDS

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a budget revision bill on Tuesday that filled a $26 billion gap and also managed to slash important services to the most vulnerable populations in California.

Assembly Speaker Karen Bass said:

“It’s a shame Governor Schwarzenegger is so eager to tear down the safety net that he appears willing to break the law to do it. I am asking Legislative Counsel for a definitive opinion on the legality of the governor’s actions. The cuts the governor made today will have catastrophic effects on children, domestic abuse victims, and seniors. The cuts the governor made today have broken the lifeline to the state’s most vulnerable and underserved. We
sent the governor budget solutions that solved the deficit. He knows
that. He knows we pledged to work with him on building up the reserve in
August. He knows all that and still chose to take punitive measures
against children and AIDS patients. It wasn’t too long ago when a 24
year old woman born with HIV pleaded with Legislators not to adopt the
Governor’s proposal to eliminate the program that provides the drugs that
keep her alive. It wasn’t too long ago when a disabled woman, needing
both the assistance of a wheel chair and oxygen, pleaded to stay out of a
nursing facility in the event her in-home assistance would be eliminated by the Governor.

AIDS Project Los Angeles said:

"More than just short-sighted, these cuts are lethal," said APLA Executive Director Craig E. Thompson. "We are now poised to reverse more than a decade of progress toward fighting AIDS in California."

The Governor's signed budget includes the elimination of state general fund support for all HIV/AIDS programs except HIV epidemiology and the AIDS Drug Assistance Program (ADAP) -- a total reduction of more than $85 million. This leaves California’s Office of AIDS with only 20 percent of its funding for programs like HIV education and prevention, HIV counseling and testing, home health and early intervention.

"If the ultimate goal is to save money, this budget fails even on that account," Thompson said. "The state will pay dearly in healthcare costs as newly and needlessly infected Californians enter a system that is incapable of providing even basic care."

"Los Angeles County has the second largest AIDS epidemic in the country," Thompson continued. "California was, until today, a model for other states nationwide in HIV/AIDS care and treatment.

"Local health jurisdictions will now be forced to slash other vital programs in order to make up for the state cuts," Thompson explained. "Food, medical transportation, home health -- everything is threatened."

"This is nothing short of a public health disaster," he added. "State leaders must go back to the table and find viable solutions that will not destabilize these vital services.

Governator Eliminates LGBT Former Lawmakers' Sinecure

MadProfessah reported a few months ago about the odd fact that a majority of the California Integrated Waste Management Board are openly gay termed-out state legislators. Sheila James Kuehl, John Laird and Carole Migden all make $132,178 each year serving on the 5-member board.

In the hurly-burly of the California budget debacle it may not have been noticed that Governor Schwazrenegger signed into law Republican Assemblymember Tony Strickland's SB 63 which eliminated the only majority LGBT state board in the country.

The board, which directs a 450-member, $235 million state operation, regulates the permitting and inspections of nearly 300 landfills across the state that handle some 42 million tons of garbage annually, and has a number of recycling programs.

[...]

Schwarzenegger has said elimination of the board was at the top of his priority list. "That's on the top of the list - the most absurd one because it costs the most money because people are sitting there with $132,000, or whatever, salaries," Schwarzenegger said last month in an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle.

But others say the move is more posturing than substance, and that placing the board's functions within a new state department will cost more than it saves.

Critics note that the board's operations are covered by trash and recycling fees from the sale of new tires, tonnage fees from landfills, motor-oil sales and the sale of new TVs and computer monitors, which alone bring in about $100 million annually, and that eliminating the panel will have little or no impact on the strapped General Fund. They believe Schwarzenegger has focused on the board in part to divert attention from cuts he's supported in public education and social services, among others.

An internal government analysis of the board's elimination reviewed by Capitol Weekly showed that the elimination might save $2 million to $3 million annually in salaries and benefits for board members, among other things. "However, any savings would be lost and a fiscal impact of several million (dollars) would be observed for several years by transferring the newly created (department) from the Cal-EPA to the Natural Resources Agency."

Things that make you go hmmmm.

Sotomayor Clears First Hurdle Easily

The United States Judiciary Committee approved the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor for consideration by the whole Senate by a vote of 13 to 6 with all 12 Democrats voting in favor and all but one of the 7 Republicans voting against the nomination. The lone Republican endorsing Sotomayor was Lindsey Graham of South Carolina.

The nomination should come to a full vote next week, before the Senate goes on a month-long summer holiday without passing a health care bill.

Interestingly, today MadProfessah will be spending some time with one of Sotomayor's rivals for the Supreme Court nomination, California Supreme Court Justice Carlos Moreno. Moreno, you will recall is the only Democrat on the state Supreme Court and was also the only vote to strike down Proposition 8 on the Court. Despite that, Justice Moreno made it to President Obama's short list to fill the David Souter vacancy.

Ocamb Reports On LGBT Leadership Summit

Reporter Karen Ocamb has posted her extensive report on what REALLY happened at the LGBT Leadership Summit on Saturday July 25th (that MadProfessah attended and was part of the Prepare To Prevail faction) to Bilerico.com and tries to set the record straight:

A blog for the San Francisco Chronicle came out fairly quickly after Saturday's statewide LGBT "Leadership Summit" in San Bernardino, California with the results of a non-binding straw poll about when the LGBT community wants to return to the ballot to repeal Prop 8: "93 people voted to go in 2010, 49 in 2012 and 20 undecided."

I was there. The count's accurate but it's far from the whole story. What really happened was that a vote was taken around 5:00pm - an hour after the meeting was supposed to end and a good number of people had left - and 93 people voted for 2010 and 69 opposed that idea. The count was justified as being taken among those who cared enough to show up in San Bernardino in late July ("sweltering" is one word that comes to mind) and stay until the bitter end.

Let's look at the demographics.

At its height, the over-heated church hall was filled with about 250 grassroots activists, mostly from the San Diego and Los Angeles area - a point loudly noted by leaders from Northern California who were receiving text messages from friends watching the Unite the Fight streaming video. Their online votes on a question just prior to the straw poll about how to best create a campaign structure had been discounted.

Additionally, before the two votes, when the room was about at 200 people, I counted the number of people of color and came up with 37. I asked both a grassroots activist and an "institutional" leader - stretching the number to 40 in case I missed a couple of people in the way back or outside - and they both independently concurred.

So while the straw poll accurately reflects the wishes of that late audience, the 162 people whose votes were counted do not necessarily reflect the wishes of the California LGBT community.

Eye Candy: Clay Williams

Clay Williams is one of the few Black models that has appeared at Queerty.com recently. You can see why I thought you all might enjoy him as today's Eye Candy model!

NY TIMES Covers 2010 vs 2012 Prop 8 Repeal Question

MadProfessah addressing the LGBT Leadership summit in San Bernadino on

Saturday July 25th on behalf of the Prepare to Prevail contingent on

why 2010 is too soon to return to the ballot to repeal Prop 8

Well, well! The New York Times has finally gotten around to covering the internal debate in the LGBT community over when a measure to repeal Proposition 8 should be on the ballot: November 2010 or November 2012?

In an article in today's paper by Jesse McKinley called "Backers of Gay Marriage Rethink California Push" several of MadProfessah's colleagues and fellow LGBT activists are quoted (Matt Foreman, Hans Johnson, Marc Solomon and John Cleary):

Marc Solomon, marriage director for Equality California, said he spent June and early July asking the opinions of nearly two dozen California political consultants and pollsters and had been surprised by the almost unanimous opinion that a 2010 race was a bad idea.

“I expected having watched the protests and the real pain that the L.G.B.T. community had experienced that there would be some real measurable remorse in the electorate,” Mr. Solomon said, referring to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. “But if you look at the poll numbers since November, they really haven’t moved at all.”

A major factor in any California balloting, of course, is money; campaigns here are remarkably expensive, with a number of costly media markets. The Proposition 8 campaign, for example, cost more than $80 million, with opponents spending some $43 million.

Sarah Callahan, chief operating officer of the Courage Campaign, a 700,000-member advocacy group in Los Angeles, told the gathering on Saturday that the two critical elements to persuade donors were organization and a winning plan. “No one is going to invest in chaos,” Ms. Callahan said, adding, “The money will come if you can show you can win.”

[...]

John M. Cleary, president of a Los Angeles group called the Stonewall Democratic Club, said many younger activists were particularly eager to fight Proposition 8. “I find the language of some of the organizations really self-defeating,” Mr. Cleary said. “And I think we have a moral obligation to overturn this.”

[..]

But some national leaders are dismissive of such arguments.

“A slapdash effort based on wishful thinking, rosy scenarios, and passion, is not enough to win on,” said Hans Johnson, a board member of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.

Under California law, language for a 2010 proposition would need to be submitted to the secretary of state by late September, and then some 700,000 signatures gathered to qualify for the ballot.

Opponents of the 2010 campaign say that window is simply too small to change the opinions of enough voters to win, including groups in which Proposition 8 was popular, like African-Americans, religious conservatives and the elderly.

“What we’ve learned is that yes, you can change hearts and minds, but it takes time, focused energy, and money,” said Matt Foreman, the program director of the Evelyn and Walter Haas Jr. Fund, a frequent donor to gay rights causes. “And once a measure is on the ballot and the campaign begins, its almost impossible to change anyone’s mind, because people are being bombarded with lies.”

The article even quotes from the original Prepare to Prevail statement, which you read here first at MadProfessah.com over two weeks ago:

The argument against 2010 was expressed by a new coalition of groups known as Prepare to Prevail, which announced in a statement on July 13 that going back to the ballot next year “would be rushed and risky.”

“We should proceed with a costly, demanding and high-stakes electoral campaign of this sort only when we are confident we can win,” the statement read.

The issue of timing has increasingly divided gay rights advocates, with larger, more established groups seemingly favoring a more cautious approach and grass-roots groups — some of them formed since the November election — more vocal in support of a quick return to the polls.

As I told y'all on Saturday MadProfessah spent most of the day in lovely San Bernardino, where I addressed the crowd as part of a presentation of alternatives to going to to ballot in 2010 representing the Prepare to Prevail coalition. The picture at the top of this post captures me in mid-thought and is by intrepid lesbian reporter Karen Ocamb.

Amusingly, the group that wants to go forward in 2010 (regardless of what POC LGBT groups, The Task Force, the ACLU or anyone else says), and is seemingly unconcerned with what the consequences to LGBT service organizations of LGBT families and youth to waging and losing a multimillion-dollar scorched earth ballot campaign for marriage equality in the worst economic climate in nearly 75 years has been dubbed "The Coalition of the Willing."

Sound familiar?

I kid you not.

Federer's Wife Gives BIrth To Twin Girls

Myla Rose Federer and Charlene Riva Federer were born on Thursday July 23rd in Switzerland.

Rasmussen Poll: Obama Popularity Slipping

The latest Rasmussen Reports poll shows that number of people who strongly disapprove of President Obama's job performance is now 9 points greater than those who approve of the President, 30 to 39.

This number is from Saturday; Sunday's numbers have Obama at 29 to 20 (-11).

MadProfessah is in San Bernadino Today!

There's a statewide leadership summit in San Bernadino today, where the issue of when and how to go back to the ballot to restore marriage equality in California will be hotly debated.

The summit is from 10am to 4pm at:

The First Congregational United Church of Christ, San Bernardino 3041 N. Sierra Way, San Bernardino, CA 92405.

Check my Twitter feed for updates: http://www.twitter.com/madprofessah

Obama Clarifies Remarks on Gates Arrest Incident

Pam Spaulding over at the Blend has the full text of remarks the President made at the Daily Press briefing clarifying his remarks from Wednesday on the Henry Louis Gates, Jr. incident from last week:

THE PRESIDENT: If you got to do a job, do it yourself. (Laughter.)

I wanted to address you guys directly because over the last day and a half obviously there's been all sorts of controversy around the incident that happened in Cambridge with Professor Gates and the police department there.

I actually just had a conversation with Sergeant Jim Crowley, the officer involved. And I have to tell you that as I said yesterday, my impression of him was that he was a outstanding police officer and a good man, and that was confirmed in the phone conversation -- and I told him that.

And because this has been ratcheting up -- and I obviously helped to contribute ratcheting it up -- I want to make clear that in my choice of words I think I unfortunately gave an impression that I was maligning the Cambridge Police Department or Sergeant Crowley specifically -- and I could have calibrated those words differently. And I told this to Sergeant Crowley.

I continue to believe, based on what I have heard, that there was an overreaction in pulling Professor Gates out of his home to the station. I also continue to believe, based on what I heard, that Professor Gates probably overreacted as well. My sense is you've got two good people in a circumstance in which neither of them were able to resolve the incident in the way that it should have been resolved and the way they would have liked it to be resolved.

The fact that it has garnered so much attention I think is a testimony to the fact that these are issues that are still very sensitive here in America. So to the extent that my choice of words didn't illuminate, but rather contributed to more media frenzy, I think that was unfortunate.
What I'd like to do then I make sure that everybody steps back for a moment, recognizes that these are two decent people, not extrapolate too much from the facts -- but as I said at the press conference, be mindful of the fact that because of our history, because of the difficulties of the past, you know, African Americans are sensitive to these issues. And even when you've got a police officer who has a fine track record on racial sensitivity, interactions between police officers and the African American community can sometimes be fraught with misunderstanding.

My hope is, is that as a consequence of this event this ends up being what's called a "teachable moment," where all of us instead of pumping up the volume spend a little more time listening to each other and try to focus on how we can generally improve relations between police officers and minority communities, and that instead of flinging accusations we can all be a little more reflective in terms of what we can do to contribute to more unity. Lord knows we need it right now -- because over the last two days as we've discussed this issue, I don't know if you've noticed, but nobody has been paying much attention to health care. (Laughter.)

I will not use this time to spend more words on health care, although I can't guarantee that that will be true next week. I just wanted to emphasize that -- one last point I guess I would make. There are some who say that as President I shouldn't have stepped into this at all because it's a local issue. I have to tell you that that part of it I disagree with. The fact that this has become such a big issue I think is indicative of the fact that race is still a troubling aspect of our society. Whether I were black or white, I think that me commenting on this and hopefully contributing to constructive -- as opposed to negative -- understandings about the issue, is part of my portfolio.

So at the end of the conversation there was a discussion about -- my conversation with Sergeant Crowley, there was discussion about he and I and Professor Gates having a beer here in the White House. We don't know if that's scheduled yet -- (laughter) -- but we may put that together.

He also did say he wanted to find out if there was a way of getting the press off his lawn. (Laughter.) I informed him that I can't get the press off my lawn. (Laughter.) He pointed out that my lawn is bigger than his lawn. (Laughter.) But if anybody has any connections to the Boston press, as well as national press, Sergeant Crowley would be happy for you to stop trampling his grass.

All right. Thank you, guys.

Hat/tip to DailyKosTV for the video.

BREAKING NEWS: E. Lynn Harris Reportedly Dead

Rod 2.0 is reporting that the most famous Black, gay author in America, the best-selling Earl Lynn Harris, has died suddenly at age 53.

Celebrity Friday: Terrell Owens

Rod 2.0 blogged about the new reality television series by football star Terrell Owens on VH-1 on Monday called The T.O. Show. Rod 2.0 points out that the Los Angeles Times television critic Mary McNamara says that "T.O" (as he is more commonly known) appears shirtless about 60% of the time on the show.

Is that a problem for you? Not for me!

Obama Stands By Remarks On Gates Arrest

President Obama today stood by comments he made at the end of his prime time news conference yesterday where he said the Cambridge, MA police officers acted "stupidly" in arresting Harvard Professor Skip Gates in his own home a week ago and charging him with disorderly conduct.

At the end of Wednesday night's prime-time news conference that was intended to be chiefly about health care, Obama was asked about the incident, to which he responded: "I don't know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that."

But Obama went on to say, "I think it's fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry; number two, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home; and, number three, what I think we know separate and apart from this incident is that there's a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately. That's just a fact."

Obama acknowledged that Gates is a friend and that since he was not there, he cannot know exactly what role race may have played in the incident. He also acknowledged that the Cambridge police acted appropriately in initially responding to the call that a man was seen forcibly entering the Gates home

Today, President Obama was asked about the controversy arising from his remarks last night and declined to modify or withdraw them.

"I have to say I am surprised by the controversy surrounding my statement, because I think it was a pretty straightforward commentary that you probably don't need to handcuff a guy, a middle-aged man who uses a cane, who's in his own home," Obama said.

In an exclusive interview with ABC's Terry Moran to air on "Nightline" tonight, Obama said it doesn't make sense to him that the situation escalated to the point that Gates was arrested.

"I think that I have extraordinary respect for the difficulties of the job that police officers do," the president told Moran. "And my suspicion is that words were exchanged between the police officer and Mr. Gates and that everybody should have just settled down and cooler heads should have prevailed. That's my suspicion."

The president said he understands the sergeant who arrested Gates is an "outstanding police officer." But he added that with all that's going on in the country with health care and the economy and the wars abroad, "it doesn't make sense to arrest a guy in his own home if he's not causing a serious disturbance."

The Cambridge police department and Officer Joseph Crowley who teaches a class on (how to avoid) racial profiling at a a local police adacdemy appear to disagree with the President:

Asked about Obama's comment, Cambridge police commissioner Haas said that "this department is deeply pained."

"It deeply hurts the pride of this agency," he told a news conference this afternoon at city police headquarters.

"Sergeant Crowley followed proper protocol and procedures in making the arrest," said Haas, describing Crowley as a "stellar member of this department. I rely on his judgment every day."

Somehow I don't think this story is going away anytime soon.

15-Year-Old Killer of Lawrence King To Be Tried As Adult

Brandon McInerney, the person who (allegedly) shot 15-year old Lawrence King in their 8th grade class in February 2008 is going to be tried for the crime as an adult, a judge ruled on Wednesday at a preliminary hearing. The court proceedings were delayed from earlier this year when McInerney's father was found dead the day before the trial was supposed to start.

According to prosecutor Maeve Fox, McInerney faces up to 53 years in prison, if convicted.

The prosecutor has offered McInerney a plea of a reduced sentence of 25 years if he pleads guilty. McInerney's defense attorneys have said they will appeal the judge's ruling that the now-15-year-old should be tried as an adult for a crime he allegedly committed days after he turned 14.

The defense has also been criticized by LGBT organizations for attempting to use a form of the "gay panic" defense for McInerney's actions:

In the preliminary hearing, the defense suggested that McInerney had been sexually abused as a child. They said he felt threatened by King, who returned taunts from him and other boys with sexual overtures and declarations of love.

At Wednesday's hearing, McInerney attorney Robyn Bramson summed up the defense strategy. In exasperation, she asked an investigator: "What if you talked to Brandon and he said, 'I did it because this kid was sexually harassing me and I felt panicked, freaked out and uncomfortable'?"

The judge ruled the question improper, and the investigator did not have to answer.

If that's not an attempt to get "gay panic defense" admitted, then what is it?

The judge also ruled that the special circumstance of "lying in wait" be added to the charges because the crime occurred 15 to 20 minutes in to a computer class on the morning of February 12, 2008. He also agreed that the crime should be classified as a hate crime.

Skip Gates Appears on CNN To Discuss Incident

Professor Henry Louis Gates,Jr. appeared on CNN last night right after President Obama's prime time news conference to discuss the incident which ended with him being arrested on his own front porch last week.

Here's a transcript of his conversation with Soledad O'Brien:

O'BRIEN: You sort of had your own moment of truth over recent days. So I'd like to start with that. We know that you were on a lengthy trip to China and you were returning home. What exactly happened?

GATES: Well, I was filming my new documentary series for PBS called "Faces of Americans," it's about immigration. And we were filming Yo-Yo Ma's ancestral cemetery for a week in China. It was fantastic. And my daughter and I -- I took my daughter along. And we had just flown back from China.

I came from New York to Boston. And my driver picked me up. We got to my house in Harvard Square and the door was jammed. The door wouldn't open. And to make a long story short, I asked my driver just sort of to push the door through. I gave him his tip, he left.

I called Harvard Real Estate, which does the maintenance on my house because they own the house. And while I was on the phone, a Cambridge policeman showed up on my porch. I walked with the phone still active to my porch and he demanded that I step out of my house on to the porch.

That's all he said. He said, I would like to you step outside. I said, absolutely not. I said, why are you here? He said, I'm investigating a breaking and entering charge. I said, this is my house, I'm a Harvard professor, I live here.

He said, can you prove it? I said, just a minute. I turned my back. I walked into the kitchen to get my Harvard ID and my Massachusetts driver's license. He followed me without my permission. I gave him the two IDs and I demanded to know his name and his badge number.

O'BRIEN: And when you demanded that, what did he say?

GATES: He wouldn't say anything. He was just very upset. He was trying to figure out who I was. He was looking at the ID. He didn't say anything. And I said, why are you not responding to me? Are you not responding to me because you're a white police officer and I'm a black man?

He turned, walked out -- turned his back on me, walked out. I followed him on to my porch. It looked like a police convention, there were so many policemen outside. I stepped out on my porch and said, I want to know your colleague's name and his badge number.

And this officer said, thank you for accommodating my earlier request, you are under arrest. And he slapped handcuffs on me and they took me to jail.

O'BRIEN: Originally they put the handcuffs behind your back.

GATES: They put the handcuffs behind my back. And I told them that I was handicapped, I used a cane. They had a debate. There was a black officer there who was very sensitive. He persuaded them to move the handcuffs from around the back to the front. They took me to the Cambridge Police station and booked me, fingerprints, mug shot, which has now been all over the universe.

O'BRIEN: I've got to tell you, to see -- I mean, Professor Gates, I had him in college. And you know, to have that shot, your mug shot, it is quite a shock to see. What was that moment like for you?

GATES: It was terrifying. And I realized…

O'BRIEN: Were you afraid?

GATES: I knew that I was in danger but I knew, too, that as soon as my friends could get to jail, starting with Professor Charles Ogletree, who is my friend and lawyer, that eventually I would be OK.

But what it made me realize was how vulnerable all black men are, how vulnerable all people of color are and all poor people to capricious forces like a rogue policeman. And this man clearly was a rogue policeman.

O'BRIEN: The police report said he described you as behaving in a tumultuous manner.

GATES: Yes, look how tumultuous I am. I'm 5'7", I weigh 150 pounds. And my tumultuous, outrageous action, Tom, was to demand that he give me his name and his badge number. Soledad, why? Because if I had stepped out on the porch -- it is important for all people to know this about the police.

If I had stepped outside of my house, he couldn't come in my house legally without a warrant. He couldn't arrest me without a warrant. Had I stepped outside he would have slapped handcuffs on me for being under suspicion of breaking and entering because he was responding to a profile.

Two black men with backpacks were breaking and entering into my home. And when he see me, he just presumed that one of them was me.

O'BRIEN: A neighbor called 911. I mean, it was a neighbor of yours who said that description, two black men breaking into your house. Are you angry with your neighbor?

GATES: No. In fact I hope right now that if someone is breaking into my house this nice lady is calling the police. I have a lot of valuable art and books in that house. And in fact, I think I'm going to send this person some flowers. I hope she is watching. I know that she must be intimidated and she must think that I'm very angry.

It wasn't her fault. It was the fault of the policeman who couldn't understand a black man standing up for his rights right in his space. And that's what I did. And I would do the same thing exactly again.

O'BRIEN: The charges were dropped.

GATES: Charges were dropped and the mayor of Cambridge, God bless her, called me and apologized to me. And my lawyers and I are considering what further action. Because this is…

O'BRIEN: What does that mean? Does that mean lawsuit?

GATES: Perhaps. Because this is not about me. This is about the vulnerability of black men in America.

The latest news from the police officer Joseph Crowley is that he refuses to apologize and claims that he gave Professor Gates his identification information three times:

Though he harbors no “ill feelings toward the professor,” a calm, resolute Crowley said no mea culpa will be forthcoming.

“I just have nothing to apologize for,” he said. “It will never happen.”

Attorney Charles Ogletree, Gates’ close friend and fellow Harvard savant, told the Herald, “It’s regrettable and unfortunate that the officer feels that way, and I do hope that some progress will be made in healing this wound.”

What do you think should happen next?

CA-10: Victory Fund and HRC Endorse Anthony Woods

The nation's largest LGBT advocacy organization, Human Rights Campaign, has endorsed Anthony Woods in the Tuesday September 1 primary election for the 10th Congressional district of California.

The Victory Fund has also endorsed Woods, as has MadProfessah.

From the press release (courtesy Pam's House Blend):

"The Human Rights Campaign is proud to endorse Anthony Woods, a veteran of the Iraq war and steadfast advocate for our community, to become the next U.S. Congressman from California's 10th district," said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese. "Anthony hasn't just shown his support on issues of LGBT equality, he's lived them -- especially the repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell.' Anthony's support of marriage equality will also be important as we work to repeal Proposition 8, which stripped marriage rights away for California's same-sex couples. There is no doubt that Anthony will be a role model for LGBT youth, and we applaud his continuing service to our country."

"Anthony Woods is an exciting candidate with a tremendous record of accomplishment. He's also running an impressive campaign. Anthony has assembled a solid campaign team that understands what it will take to win this extremely competitive race. We need more leaders like Anthony Woods in the U.S. Congress, so we are proud to endorse him," said Chuck Wolfe, president of the Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund. "His will be an authentic voice not only for the people of California's 10th Congressional District, but for the millions of Americans for whom the promise of equality remains unfulfilled."

"I am honored and proud to earn the support of Human Rights Campaign and the Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund," said Anthony Woods, candidate for California's 10th Congressional District. "They're working to make sure America lives up to its promise of equality under the law, which is something I'll fight for in Congress."

Barack Obama Wants You To Watch Him Tonight!

Dear Friend,

As you read this, we are closer than ever to passing comprehensive health insurance reform that benefits American families and small businesses. Despite all the back and forth in the news right now, it is important to understand just how far we've come in this challenging process.

That's why I'm holding a press conference tonight at 8pm ET, and writing to let everyone know where we are, what's ahead, and why health insurance reform is so important.

Let me be clear: although Congress is still debating parts of the legislation we have achieved critical consensus on several key areas:

If you already have health insurance: reform will provide you with more security and stability. It will limit your own out of pocket costs and prevent your insurance company from dropping your coverage if you get too sick. You'll also have affordable insurance options if you lose or change your job. And it will cover preventive care like check-ups and mammograms that save lives and money.

If you don't have health insurance: you will finally have guaranteed access to quality, affordable health care, and you can choose the plan that best suits your family's needs. And no insurance company will be allowed to deny you coverage because of a pre-existing medical condition.

Now, I realize that the last few miles of any race are the hardest to run, but we can't stop now. There's no dispute about it: we cannot control our long-term fiscal health as a nation without health insurance reform. American families and small businesses understand that the health insurance status quo is taking away those things that they value most about health care. The stability and security that comes with knowing that you can get the treatment you need, when you need it. Without reform, we are consigning our children to a future of skyrocketing premiums and crushing deficits.

We have to seize this opportunity and pass health insurance reform this year. You can help by forwarding this email to your family and friends and letting them know what's at stake in this debate.

Thank you,
Barack Obama

P.S. Tune in to tonight's press conference on health insurance reform at 8pm ET on WhiteHouse.gov.

All Charges Dropped Against Professah Gates

What do you call a Black man with a Ph.D.?

Yesterday it was announced that all charges resulting from a bizarre incident in which he was arrested after being accused of breaking into his own house have been dropped against Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr.

However the aftermath of the incident is reverberating all over The Darker Nation, as Yale Law Professor Stephen Carter has named Black America.

Gates himself is speaking out, threatening a lawsuit against the city and offering free tutoring on the history of racism in America in exchange for an apology from the white police offer Joseph Crowley.

VIDEO: Longest Eclipse of the 21st Century

Hat/tip TowleRoad

Lesbian Couple Celebrates 70(!) Years Together

This is an incredible story. The Sun Sentinel is reporting that Caroline Leto and Venera Magazzu are a lesbian couple that have been together for 70 years:

"We're not going to have a party," said Magazzu, 97, insisting they are too old for such things.

"Oh yes we are," responded Leto, 96, who noted the two can still polka. "This is a big one."

Indeed. A party celebrating 70 years together is a big deal for any pair. But a celebration of this couple's love takes on special meaning, considering they had to keep silent about it for decades.

"You just couldn't tell everyone we were lovers," said Leto. "You tell people we're friends, and some thought we were sisters."

Leto and Magazzu downplay their pioneering role in the gay and lesbian community. But many of their friends and relatives talk it up anyway, marveling at how their love was able to transcend a lifetime's worth of obstacles.

To mark their Aug. 17 milestone, members of Etz Chaim, a gay and lesbian congregation in Wilton Manors, are planning a party. They hope Leto and Magazzu will attend and show everyone how to do the polka.

Amazing.

EQCA Releases Political Consultant Reports on 2010 vs 2012

Last week, in response to Prepare To Prevail: Why We Must Wait In Order To Win, Marc Solomon, Marriage Director for Equality California asked the following question of some of the top political consultants in California:

Based on the research and data that is presently available, when do you recommend returning to the ballot to try to overturn Proposition 8: 2010, 2012, or other? On what do you base your conclusion?

What do you believe are the most important steps that the LGBT community and its allies must take to prepare to return to the ballot?

The consultants asked were

• Mark Armour
• Sue Burnside
• Rick Claussen
• Jill Darling
• Dave Fleischer
• Gale Kaufman
• Richie Ross

None of the consultants advised moving forward in 2010 with a ballot measure to legalize gay marriage in California. You can read their full, multiple-page reports by clicking on their names highlighted above.

Here are some excerpts:

Gale Kaufman

Many may feel that the environment is ripe because of the backlash that occurred after Prop 8 passed. I don’t want to discount this because I know the backlash was real. But we need the atmospherics to change quite a bit to secure a victory. By atmospherics I mean the external environment. We need to harness talent, draft the correct messaging, get all players together in one fluid group and ensure that the public is ready and willing and open to our cause before launching a campaign. I don’t see enough evidence of that at this point. If 2012 is the agreed upon target, there is time to
set a much more careful stage, there is the time to put the best possible organization in place and there is the time to do all of the incredible outreach it will take to build and hold the margin we will need.

I would not discount what is happening around us. The victories occurring in other states are a tremendous help to a future California win. Shouldn’t we be organizing financial support for the fight in Maine; sending donations and other resources to make sure that we help secure a victory and learn all the lessons there that can help us moving forward?

Finally, at the moment the California electorate is in a collective horrible mood. The last time I saw polling numbers on “Is California going in the right direction?” the Yes number was under 10%. Going to the ballot with a Yes campaign of any kind right now – while voters have been inundated with initiatives – especially on a subject that they have recently voted on – is a particular risk.

David Fleischer

There are 66 weeks between July 25, 2009 and November 2, 2010.

66 weeks is a very brief time to raise $40-50 million. Based on my experience fundraising, and looking at the remarkable fundraising success of the No on 8 campaign, I think the minimum immediate fundraising goals to be ready for 2010 – to see if we can get on track to raise $40-50 million -- would be $2 million by October 1, 2009, and $5 million by December 1, 2009. This represents roughly the cost of qualifying for the ballot and beginning to set up a campaign. This is much less than the average weekly amount we would need to raise over the 66 weeks ($600-700,000 each week, every week). But it would cover start-up costs and demonstrate some of the breadth of support necessary to assure donors we could get to the level reached in No on 8, and hopefully beyond it.

In most of these ballot measure campaigns on marriage, our community is put in a financially brutal position by our opposition, because they control the timetable. But we control the timetable now. Let’s use that advantage, and return to the ballot when we’re financially ready.

Richie Ross "does the math"

Since the latest research shows 60%-23% support for marriage equality among voters under-30 years of age, how many more of them will be “Likely Voters” in 2012?

In 2008…

170,734 of 18/19-year-olds voted.
189,735 of 20-year-olds voted.
181,363 of 21-year-olds voted.

In 2012, we will have a new batch of 18, 19, 20, and 21-year-olds that will add 515,875 new likely voters. If 60% of them vote with us and half of the “swing” voters join them, we can expect 353,374 NEW supporters among likely voters.

Our net growth (new voters with us minus new voters against us) will be 162,501.

At the same time, records indicate that about 110,000 older voters die each year. In 2012, 440,000 of the 2008 voters will have died. If we again apply the poll to that raw number, our natural opposition will shrink by 101,200 of total likely voters.

Mark Armour

III. The Need for Time to Conduct Outreach and Persuasion
As the Binder/Simon poll shows, with so few voters persuadable, victory in the next initiative will also require the persuasion of soft opponents and “conflicted voters” instead of just undecided voters. That requires a coordinated field and outreach program that reaches hundreds of thousands of voters. In particular, as the Binder/Simon polling found, important targets are moderates, Democrats and Independents, and also Latinos, African-Americans, and Asian Pacific Islanders who are not evangelical/born-again and who attend church once a month or less. Moving conflicted voters
won’t happen overnight, and outreach to ethnic communities will be more successful over a three year period than over an abbreviated one year period.

IV. What needs to be done
So what needs to be done?
1. A decision needs to be made on moving forward on a specific ballot, and a campaign plan and team need to be put in
place.
2. Fundraising must begin for initial outreach and education as well as for the campaign.
3. Outreach to soft, conflicted voters and ethnic communities must begin.
4. Media should be used to educate and reach out to voters in the time before the election. Based on the Binder/Simon polling, messages should show that gay and lesbian couples and their children have the same hopes and dreams as everyone else and that it is unfair to deprive them or their children of dignity, responsibility and security of marriage.

Sue Burnside

• The majority of California voters do not support same sex marriage. No ballot initiative has walked into Election Day without a 50% positive polling number and won in California.
• The California electorate is angry about the budget crisis and worried about the direction the country and state are headed. In this political climate, people tend to vote NO on ballot measures. We have to get a Yes vote!
• Given the national economy, California’s deep recession and the fact that few major donors have agreed to pledge large funds to an immediate rematch, it’s hard to see how we raise the $30-$40 million it would cost to run and win this campaign.
• The Governor’s race will be the top of the ballot in 2010. Some argue that all the Democratic candidates will favor marriage equality. But in a statewide run off in November, the Democrat nominee might not be an outspoken supporter, given that we only won 13 of 58 counties.
• Anti gay-marriage forces can get more people to vote in a low turnout environment than we can. If you look at the voters by age likely to vote in a 2010 election, people over 60 represent 37% of likely voters versus 27% in a 2012 general election. Our strength lies in getting young people to vote – in November 2012 voters under 30 will represent 20% of the electorate but in 2010 they will only represent 7% of the electorate. By 2012 there will be 776,000 new voters under 21 years old added to the voter rolls (our best group). On the other end of the age spectrum, there will be fewer older voters – more than 122,000 voters will die (the opposition’s most reliable voting bloc) Take a look at historic spreadsheet below.
• We would need to be prepared to get on the ballot in just two months (the deadline to submit language for the initiative is September 25, 2009 and have the full 150 days to circulate the petition). Any ballot campaign expert will tell you that having the exact right ballot language is often the difference between winning and losing. With just two months until the deadline for submitting ballot language, we may not have time to develop the strongest possible language.
• The current poll models a 2012 electorate as it stands today, but not fully reflecting where things will be in November 2012. You cannot poll future voters if they are not on the voter file. The 2% increase suggested by the polling is nothing to be laughed at but I believe given the inability to accurately gauge the real number without using the above information (new young voters and dying old voters), the increase would be closer to 4% for a 2012 election.
• Prop 8 lost in Los Angeles, the largest urban base. Our state map looks worse than the map that recalled Governor Gray Davis (Davis got 80% in SF County but we only got 75% -- this trend continues for all urban areas in the state). This highlights that urban areas have more people of color voters and we need to do organizing in order to get a larger percentage of the vote.
  

Rick Claussen

We recommend a multi-year campaign that culminates in an election when the time is right – when the numbers have moved enough to give you some assurance of success.

If you do UNSUCCESSFULLY undertake this issue at the ballot in 2010, this will further erode public support on the issue and make it harder for future efforts to succeed. And rather than looking at a 2012 fight, you may be forced to look at 2014, 2016 or beyond before a ballot victory would become viable. For these reasons, we recommend spending time and resources to lay the groundwork for a successful reversal of Proposition 8 when conditions are right.

Jill Darling

Binder and Simon provided models of their findings based on projections of electorates in a gubernatorial election like 2010 and found marriage equality behind by four points (46% to 50%). In a presidential electorate projection for 2012, voters would split 47% favor to 48% opposed. If we allocate them using the exit poll estimates for late deciders, support for marriage equality could be at 48% right now among a 2010 electorate and 49% among voters in 2012. In other words, support for marriage equality is almost exactly where it was
a year and a half ago no matter how you model it, and opposition remains nearly as strong as it was last November, despite a hard-fought campaign and the emotional and intellectual discussion and media coverage in the aftermath of our loss.

Binder and Simon remind us that their models show what future elections could look like, if nothing other than electorate composition were different than it is now. The researchers pointed out in their Get Engaged presentation materials that other ballot measures and the top-of-ticket races have impact on voter turnout as well as on the composition of the electorate. From my own history of exit and pre-election polling I know that voter turnout
and the composition of the electorate are variables that we can model but cannot truly predict and there are other things that effect elections as well. Few would have foreseen Obama’s candidacy and its effect on the demographics of the electorate, on turnout, or on the issues that were being discussed, for example.

While thinking about this, I wondered what the vote on Proposition 8 might have been in an electorate that looked more like the voters of 2004. So I used demographics from the 2008 exit poll, PPIC’s 2008 December survey of general election voters, and demographics from the 2004 Los Angeles Times exit poll to put together a quick model. It shows that if voter turnout and demographic makeup had been more like it was in 2004 but the vote in
those demographic groups remained the same, support for Proposition 8 could have run two points higher.

The overall summary is that we need to start the work NOW to win marriage equality once and for all, as soon as we can.

A DIFFERENT Mad Professah Gets Arrested

Oh lawdy! Henry Louis "Skip" Gates, Jr., one of the most prominent African American professors in the United States, was arrested by Cambridge Police last week for allegedly breaking and entering into his own house.

From the Boston Globe's coverage:

The scene - two black men on the porch of a stately home on a tree-lined Cambridge street in the middle of the day - triggered events that were at turns dramatic and bizarre, a confrontation between one of the nation’s foremost African-American scholars and a police sergeant responding to a call that someone was breaking into the house.

It ended when Gates, 58, was arrested on charges of disorderly conduct in allegedly shouting at the officer; he was eventually taken away in handcuffs.

But the encounter is anything but over. Some of Gates’s outraged colleagues said the run-in proves that even in a liberal enclave like Harvard Square, even with someone of Gates’s accomplishments, a black man is a suspect before he is a resident.

“It’s unbelievable,’’ said Lawrence Bobo, a Harvard sociologist who visited Gates at the police station last Thursday and drove him home after Gates posted the $40 bail. “I felt as if I were in some kind of surreal moment, like ‘The Twilight Zone.’ I was mortified. . . . This is a humiliating thing and a pretty profound violation of the kind of trust we all take for granted.’’

Neither Gates - who was named one of Time magazine’s most influential Americans in 1997 and now directs the W.E.B. Du Bois Institute for African and African American Research at Harvard - nor police would comment on the incident yesterday.

Gates’s lawyer and Harvard colleague, Charles Ogletree, said what angered his client was that the police officer stepped inside Gates’s Ware Street house, uninvited, to demand identification and question him.

Gates showed his Harvard identification and Massachusetts drivers license with his home address, Ogletree said, adding, “Even after presentation of ID, the officer was still questioning his presence.’’

Said Bobo: “The whole interaction should have ended right there, but I guess that wasn’t enough. The officer felt he hadn’t been deferred to sufficiently.’’

The Cambridge police report describes a chaotic scene in which the police sergeant stood at Gates’s door, demanded identification, and radioed for assistance from Harvard University police when Gates presented him with a Harvard ID. A visibly upset Gates responded to the officer’s assertion that he was responding to a report of a break-in with, “Why, because I’m a black man in America?’’

“Gates then turned to me and told me that I had no idea who I was ‘messing’ with and that I had not heard the last of it,’’ the report said. “While I was led to believe that Gates was lawfully in the residence, I was quite surprised and confused with the behavior he exhibited toward me.’’

When the officer repeatedly told Gates he would speak with him outside, the normally mild-mannered professor shouted, “Ya, I’ll speak with your mama outside,’’ according to the report.

Gates was arrested after “exhibiting loud and tumultuous behavior’’ toward the officer who questioned him, the report said.

Professor Gates has released a short statement through his lawyer, Harvard law professor Charles Ogletree.

As he was talking to the Harvard Real Estate office on his portable phone in his house, he observed a uniformed officer on his front porch. When Professor Gates opened the door, the officer immediately asked him to step outside. Professor Gates remained inside his home and asked the officer why he was there. The officer indicated that he was responding to a 911 call about a breaking and entering in progress at this address. Professor Gates informed the officer that he lived there and was a faculty member at Harvard University. The officer then asked Professor Gates whether he could prove that he lived there and taught at Harvard. Professor Gates said that he could, and turned to walk into his kitchen, where he had left his wallet. The officer followed him. Professor Gates handed both his Harvard University identification and his valid Massachusetts driver’s license to the officer. Both include Professor Gates’ photograph, and the license includes his address.

Professor Gates then asked the police officer if he would give him his name and his badge number. He made this request several times. The officer did not produce any identification nor did he respond to Professor Gates’ request for this information. After an additional request by Professor Gates for the officer’s name and badge number, the officer then turned and left the kitchen of Professor Gates’ home without ever acknowledging who he was or if there were charges against Professor Gates. As Professor Gates followed the officer to his own front door, he was astonished to see several police officers gathered on his front porch. Professor Gates asked the officer’s colleagues for his name and badge number. As Professor Gates stepped onto his front porch, the officer who had been inside and who had examined his identification, said to him, “Thank you for accommodating my earlier request,” and then placed Professor Gates under arrest. He was handcuffed on his own front porch.

Professor Gates was taken to the Cambridge Police Station where he remained for approximately 4 hours before being released that evening. Professor Gates’ counsel has been cooperating with the Middlesex District Attorneys Office, and the City of Cambridge, and is hopeful that this matter will be resolved promptly. Professor Gates will not be making any other statements concerning this matter at this time.

What do you think should have happened?

David Boies WSJ Op-Ed On Prop 8 Lawsuit

David Boies, of the infamous Olson-Boies federal lawsuit against Proposition 8, has published a powerful op-ed in the Wall Street Journal today called "Gay Marriage and the Constitution" arguing for full constitutional equality based on sexual orientation.

Here's an excerpt:

The occasional suggestion that marriages between people of different sexes may somehow be threatened by marriages of people of the same sex does not withstand discussion. It is difficult to the point of impossibility to envision two love-struck heterosexuals contemplating marriage to decide against it because gays and lesbians also have the right to marry; it is equally hard to envision a couple whose marriage is troubled basing the decision of whether to divorce on whether their gay neighbors are married or living in a domestic partnership. And even if depriving lesbians of the right to marry each other could force them into marrying someone they do not love but who happens to be of the opposite sex, it is impossible to see how that could be thought to be as likely to lead to a stable, loving relationship as a marriage to the person they do love.

Moreover, there is no longer any credible contention that depriving gays and lesbians of basic rights will cause them to change their sexual orientation. Even if there was, the attempt would be constitutionally defective. But, in fact, the sexual orientation of gays and lesbians is as much a God-given characteristic as the color of their skin or the sexual orientation of their straight brothers and sisters. It is also a condition that, like race, has historically been subject to abusive and often violent discrimination. It is precisely where a minority's basic human rights are abridged that our Constitution's promise of due process and equal protection is most vital.

Countries as Catholic as Spain, as different as Sweden and South Africa, and as near as Canada have embraced gay and lesbian marriage without any noticeable effect -- except the increase in human happiness and social stability that comes from permitting people to marry for love. Several states -- including Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont -- have individually repealed their bans on same-sex marriage as inconsistent with a decent respect for human rights and a rational view of the communal value of marriage for all individuals. But basic constitutional rights cannot depend on the willingness of the electorate in any given state to end discrimination. If we were prepared to consign minority rights to a majority vote, there would be no need for a constitution.

It's really quite good. Go read the whole thing!

Task Force Releases Statement in favor of Prepare to Prevail

Last Thursday the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force became the first national organization to release a statement in support of the now-famous Prepare To Prevail: Why We Must Wait In Order To Win;a joint statement from the leading people of color LGBT groups API Equality LA, HONOR PAC and Jordan Rustin Coalition. The statement cautions against a return to the ballot in 2010 unless several benchmarks are met.

Here's the statement from The Task Force:

"As a state that has often served as a political and cultural trendsetter for the rest of the country, what happens in California has national significance for the LGBT movement. That's why for well over five years the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force has devoted significant human and financial resources to winning the freedom to marry in California. This commitment remains steadfast as we continue to work on the ground in California with the Vote for Equality Project of the L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center and Equality California to build effective models of person-to-person voter persuasion about marriage equality.

"We support the soonest possible return to the ballot box to repeal Prop. 8 that gives the LGBT community a fighting chance to win. The priorities expressed in 'Prepare to Prevail' are about the hard work it will take at the grassroots to move towards a solid victory, and we look forward to continued work with our partners in California to build a strong, diverse and successful campaign for marriage equality."

Before returning to the ballot, the Task Force believes it’s important to:

• Build solid majority support for the freedom to marry before returning to the ballot. Multiple polls have shown that support for marriage equality has remained flat since November 2008. The LGBT community will be in a stronger position to win if we’re defending, and not attempting to create in the midst of a campaign, majority support at the ballot box for the freedom to marry.

• Demonstrate a proven ability to move former Yes on 8 voters to support marriage equality. Both polling and real-world testing door-to-door have shown that following the public debate over Prop 8, many voters’ positions have hardened; consequently, few voters remain undecided about whether same-sex couples should be allowed to marry.

• Develop persuasive messaging capable of moving former Yes voters that can also withstand vigorous campaigning from the opposition.

• Build a campaign infrastructure that’s able to raise the significant amount of money and recruit the army of volunteers needed to prevail. The LGBT community could measure its readiness to return to the ballot by establishing a set of benchmarks to be met, over time starting from now, for fundraising, volunteer recruitment and other campaign infrastructure goals.

More about the Task Force’s commitment to California

For more than five years, the Task Force Foundation and its sister organization, the Task Force Action Fund, have invested heavily toward winning the freedom to marry in California.

Throughout this period, the Task Force Foundation:

• Contributed combined grants of more than $130,000 to state and local lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) advocacy organizations, including Equality California and the L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center, to launch statewide public education efforts in support of the freedom to marry.

• Held two Power Summits in California, one in 2005 and one in 2007, which trained more than 170 leaders and volunteers in fundraising, volunteer recruitment and speaking persuasively to promote the freedom to marry in California.

• Worked closely with Equality California to assist in assembling a coalition of more than 45 national, statewide and local organizations to support a statewide public education campaign promoting the freedom to marry known as Let California Ring.

• Continued our five-year partnership with the Vote for Equality Project of the L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center in early 2009 to provide ongoing support and technical assistance for its door-to-door canvass program promoting the freedom to marry. Task Force staffers are continuing to work with the project to organize a robust door-to-door canvassing program focused on persuading former Yes on 8 voters to support the freedom to marry. Additional staff are working with Equality California’s field director to recruit, hire and train several organizers to launch similar persuasion canvasses statewide.

Throughout this period, the Task Force Action Fund:

• Dedicated all Task Force Organizing & Training staff to work on the ground in California within the No on 8 campaign's field operation last year. The Task Force team assumed vital leadership roles by directing statewide, regional or local field offices.

• Organized the "Equality Calls" project in 2006, which recruited hundreds of volunteers across the state to call thousands of members of LGBT groups and progressive allies and educate them about the importance of the freedom to marry.

This Saturday in San Bernardino there will be a statewide meeting at which attendees will be deciding on a process by which a decision will be made on whether to go to the ballot in 2010. According to the Secretary of State, the deadline for submission of proposed ballot language is September 25, 2009 in order to make it to the November 2010 election.

CA-SEN: Boxer Has $4.6M Cash on Hand

California's junior United States Senator Barbara Boxer announced recently that she has nearly $5 million in cash on hand more than a year in advance of her 2010 re-election battle. Her only official announced Republican challenger is Chuck De Vore, although former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina has made noises about challenging Boxer for the Senate seat. Fiorina is best known for being given a "golden parachute" of 21 million dollars to leave her job immediately plus another 21 million dollars in stock options and pension benefits.

One of Boxer's key strategies for fending off interested challengers has been to raise money early in the cycle. As of March 31, the Boxer campaign had $4.6 million on hand, to a paltry $350,000 raised by DeVore at press time.

Fiorina, if she runs, could potentially match Boxer financially from her own deep pockets. As for the governor, Schwarzenegger once had the star power to match Boxer's draw, but apparently he lacks the will following several years of bruising budget fights in Sacramento.

The polls are also leaning heavily in Boxer's favor. The Field Poll in early March found Boxer leading Schwarzenegger 54 to 30 percent, up from an October 2007 survey from the same polling firm that had Boxer trailing, 43 to 44 percent.

Against Fiorina, the numbers are even better for the incumbent. Boxer lead Fiorina 55 percent to 25 percent in the March Field Poll.

MadProfessah endorses Barbara Boxer for re-election in 2010.

Obama's First Term Is 1/8 Over!

Today is the 6th month anniversary of the beginning of the Obama administration. There is a Politifact website run by the St. Petersburg Times which tracks the 515 promises Barack Obama made during his campaign for the presidency. Here is a summary of what they call the "Obameter":

The Obameter Scorecard

• Promise Kept 32
• Compromise 10
• Promise Broken 7
• Stalled 12
• In the Works 78
• No Action 376
  

There have still been absolutely no legislative accomplishments on the LGBT rights agenda, although the Mathew Shepard Hate Crimes Act has passed both the House and Senate.

Eye Candy: Tom Duer

Tom Duer is a smoking hot fitness model who was featured at Queerty.com on July 8, 2009.

VIDEO: Obama Calls Out Black Homophobia in NAACP Speech

VIDEO: NY Sen. Tom Duane's Speech on HIV/AIDS

Things That Make You Go Hmmmm

Look at this post from Talking Points Memo:

Remember this?

President George W. Bush signed into law Thursday the first major piece of legislation of his presidency, a $1.35 trillion tax cut over 10 years.

Of the six senators begging President Obama to slow down health care reform, four of them -- Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Ben Nelson (D-NE), Olympia Snowe (R-ME), and Susan Collins (R-ME) -- voted for those huge Bush tax cuts.

Their votes were cast on May 26, 2001. Bush signed the tax cuts into law on June 7, 2001. Here we are in mid-July, eight years later, struggling to get health care reform passed by the end of the year.

So whatever these four foot-draggers are saying about why they want health care reform slowed down (and Nelson, for one, was all over the place yesterday warning against "rushing into this"), it's not really about wanting to be more deliberative or avoid ballooning the deficit. All you have to do is look back to 2001. Their records speak for themselves.

VIDEO: Episcopalians Take Pro-LGBT Positions

Maine Heterosexual Supremacists Claim Enough Signatures For

Joe.My.God reported last week that the Maine organization "Stand For Marriage" is claiming that they have enough signatures to place a referendum on the November 2009 ballot as to whether the marriage equality bill Governor John Baldacci signed into law on May 6th should go into effect after all.

"In just four weeks, we've gathered more than 55,000 signatures from Mainers who believe they, not the legislature and governor, should have the final say on the definition of marriage," said Marc Mutty, Chairman of the coalition. "There has been an extraordinary outpouring of support from voters across the state. This response gives us momentum that will lift us over the first hurdle of putting the issue before the people and, ultimately, carry us to victory in November."

All signatures must be certified by the Secretary of State for validity. Once certified, the issue is cleared to appear on the November 2009 ballot.

"The fact that we've gathered all these signatures in just a month to proceed with the People's Veto suggests that the people of Maine, like those in 43 other states, want to restore marriage to its historical and time-honored definition as between a man and a woman," said Bob Emrich, founder of the Maine Jeremiah Project and an Executive Committee member of Stand for Marriage Maine. ÒWe look forward to submitting the measure for certification and engaging Mainers in a vigorous defense of marriage. Traditional marriage has never lost on the ballot in any state. We expect it to prevail in Maine."

The exact text of the question that will appear on the Tuesday November 3rd ballot will be:

"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?"

The correct answer is NO. So, again, if you are in FAVOR of marriage equality, one needs to vote NO on the ballot question, a very similarly confusing situation like 2008's Proposition 8.

The main organization fighting the referendum is Maine Freedom to Marry, which has recently relaunched their website. Please support them!

Celebrity Friday (Extra): Whitney Houston

Thanks to Maybe, it's me for the pic. Whitney houston's new album is called I Look To You and will be out in the fall (September).

Celebrity Friday: Jill Scott Has A New Baby (and Ex)

One of MadProfessah's favorite singers Jill Scott delivered her son Jett Hamilton Roberts on April 20th at 4:20pm. He weighed 7 and a half pounds at birth. Gee, I wonder if they will give him the nickname "Weed"? The father was her then-fiancé Lil Jon Roberts, a drummer she had been dating since 2007 (pictured above). The two have since broken up.

She tells Essence magazine, "He (Roberts) was there (for the birth) and for a couple of days afterwards while I stayed in the hospital, but John and I are no longer together.

"When you have a baby you're dealing with a lot of emotions and I don't know how much of it had to do with us breaking up, but it happens.

"We definitely love our son and we are co-parenting and working on being friends. I have hopes for (Jett) and I'm sure his father will do his part as well."

However, Scott admits she sympathises with other single mothers, especially youngsters who find themselves bringing up kids on their own.

She adds, "My heart and prayers go out to all single mums because it's tough, and I can't imagine any teenager dealing with a baby and all those hormones raging. I can afford to have this child at 37 because I have a support system... but I don't understand how any mother does it alone.

Jill has been starring in HBO's television series The No.1 Ladies Detective Agency (based on the best-selling books by Alexander McCall Smith) which is set in Botswana (and shot on location). She has done such a good job she was widely thought to be in line for an Emmy nomination, but alas only CCH Pounder received a nomination as a guest star.

MOVIE REVIEW: Away We Go

Saw the latest movie directed by Sam Mendes called Away We Go starring Jonathan Krasinski (The Office) and Maya Rudolph (Saturday Night Live) written by the noted novelist Dave Eggers and Vendela Vida.

Although it is not the most highly rated film of the summer, it has recieved reasonably good reviews.

The Other Half and I saw the film at the Laemmle Colorado Theaters in Pasadena over the July 4th weekend and quite enjoyed it.

Krasinski and Rudolph play Burt and Verona, a couple of "possible f*ck-ups" (in their own words) who are clearly in love but also about 6 months pregnant.

Eggers & Vida's script has a very distinct format; it is split into numerous different segments, which take place in Phoenix, Tucson, Madison, Montreal and Miami.

The most successful of these are the Phoenix and Tucson segments thanks to some inspired cameos by Allison Janney (of the West Wing and Juno) and Maggie Gyllenhaal (The Dark Knight) as two completely insane mothers. Gyllenhaal plays an über-Earth mother who is terrified that strollers will emotionally scar her child. Janney plays a mom who has absolutely no sense of boundaries with her children or anyone else--she is constantly talking at the top of her voice in public about completely inappropriate topics.

Krasinski and Rudolph are have great chemistry together. The nature of Rudolph's racial identity as a very light-skinned biracial person is brought up in a typically abrupt (but amusing) way, towards the beginning of the film, and race doesn't play much of a role throughout the film.
Krasinski, wearing owlish glasses and a faux hipster beard to distance himself from his widely known "cute guy in the office" role on The Office, does well to play against the audience's presumptions of his previous TV and roles. Rudolph is of course most well-known for her apearances on Saturday Night Live and although Away We Go is definitely a comedy, it is also a drama, and she has some fine acting moments, especially the final scene, in the "Home" segment.

The theme of the film is that it is a journey into how couples lead their lives and realize their dreams. By showing us five different views on how life can be for different couples the movie makes a profound statement which the audience can relate to and reflect on long after the movie is over.

Running Time: 1 hour, 38 minutes. MPAA Rating: Rated R for language and some sexual content.

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

Overall Grade: B/B+.

Obama Says He Wants To "Change" Don't Ask, Don't Tell

The President sat down with Anderson Cooper over the weekend and talked about the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy on gays in the military:

In the interview, CNN's Anderson Cooper pressed Obama as to why his administration had not moved on a key promise it made to the gay rights community -- that it would overturn the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy crafted during the Clinton years.

"Look," the president replied, "I've had conversations with [Defense Secretary] Bob Gates as well as Admiral [Mike] Mullen about the fact that I want to see this law change. I also want to make sure that we are not simply ignoring a congressional law. If Congress passes a law that is constitutionally valid, then it's not appropriate for the Executive Branch simply to say we will not enforce a law. It is our duty to enforce laws.

"But look, the bottom line is, I want to see this changed," Obama added, "and we've already contacted congressional allies. I want to make sure that it's changed in a way that ultimately works well for our military and for the outstanding gay and lesbian soldiers that are both currently enlisted or would like to enlist."

"Do you personally have a timetable in your mind of when you would like to see [the law] changed?" Cooper interjected.

"I'd like to see it done sooner rather than later," Obama replied. "And we've got a process to not only work it through Congress, but also to make sure that the Pentagon has thought through all the ramifications of how this would be most effective."

VIDEO: WH Asked About Obama's Position on Marriage

As I reported earlier this week, Bill Clinton now supports marriage equality. Since the previous Democratic president changed his position on this crucial question, it was reasonable to find out whether the current Democratic president had a reaction to this development.

Watch White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs respond:

Obama Names Regina Benjamin U.S. Surgeon General

Regina Benjamin is an African American doctor (who graduated from Morehouse School of Medicine) who won a $500,000 McCarthu genius grant in 2008 and was nominated by President Obama to become Surgeon General of the United States on July 13, 2009.

Dr. Benjamin first came to national attention as the first Black woman to be elected to the Board of Governors of the American Medical Association in 1995. She was also in the media when her Alabama-based health clinic was destroyed by Hurricane Katrina in 2005.

Rod 2.0 notes that in her speech where Obama nominated her, Dr. Benjamin mentioned that her only sibling, an older brother died of HIV-related complications at age 44:

Public health issues are very personal to me. My father died with diabetes and hypertension. My older brother, and only sibling, died at age 44 of HIV-related illness. My mother died of lung cancer, because as a young girl, she wanted to smoke just like her twin brother could. My Uncle Buddy, my mother's twin, who's one of the few surviving black World War II prisoners of war, is at home right now, on oxygen, struggling for each breath because of the years of smoking.

As MadProfessah.com has noted multiple times, AIDS is a huge issue in the Black community and it is significant that Obama's Surgeon General nominee has a personal understanfing of the impact of HIV/AIDS on African Americans.

EQCA Responds To 2010 vs 2012 Controversy (Sorta)

Equality California's Marriage Director Marc Solomon responded to both Jordan Rustin Coalition's Prepare to Prevail statement and Love Honor Cherish's response with a carefully written post on EQCA's California Ripple Effect blog which includes explicit benchmarks for when the LGBT community should return to the ballot to win marriage equality once and for all:

n late May, we told the community that, preliminarily, based on all we knew at the time, we believed we should return to the ballot in 2010. We also promised that we would not go back to the ballot on our own, but only together with coalition partners. And we said that, before we concluded what the right timing was, we would perform extensive “due diligence,” speaking with and listening to our coalition partners, volunteers in the field, donors, political consultants, pollsters, and many others. As we said in late May, a roadmap to victory includes:

• A realistic and executable fundraising plan. We must be able to raise between $25 and $50 million, with a good portion of that coming early on in the campaign when much of the persuasion work needs to be done.

• A governance structure that works. We need a campaign structure that engenders the confidence of the community and balances the need for inclusive representation with the need to act decisively and quickly.

• A winnable campaign plan. Polling shows that we have approximately the same level of support for marriage equality as we did when Proposition 8 passed. We need to know that if we can raise the funds and have a solid governance structure, we have a well-thought out program of how we are going to prevail.

• A commitment to doing the hard work. In order to move enough people to win, we must be out speaking to voters who are not yet with us, relentlessly. Tomorrow we will report on the results of our field efforts to date.
  

Our threshold has always been that we want to go back to the ballot at the earliest time that we have a strong chance of prevailing.

This is not inconsistent with what the POC groups are saying. One main goal in releasing Prepare to Prevail is to push the community to use data and facts to inform a decision on when to go to the ballot instead of desire and feelings.

I know that EQCA can not take an official position on 2010 versus 2012 until their next board meeting which is not until August 2, the day of their Los Angeles Equality Awards featuring (Massachusetts Governor) Deval Patick, (West Hollywood City Councilman) John Duran and (Congresswoman-elect) Judy Chu.

What do you think EQCA should do, and when do you think an initiative constitutional amendment to replace (and repeal) Proposition 8 should be on the ballot? 2010? 2012? 2014?

Serena Williams Meets President Obama

Reigning U.S. Open, Australian Open and Wimbledon champion Serena Williams met President Barack Obama at the White House on Tuesday night before her match with the Washington Kastles and his attendance at the All-Star Game.

"It was amazing," Williams said before her World Team Tennis match with the Washington Kastles. "I love President Obama; he has such an unbelievable presence, and he seems to be so normal -- and he noticed my shoes. I think that was the highlight of the whole day, was he liked my shoes."

Williams said she was wearing five-inch heels for the presidential visit.

"He asked me, 'Should I be wearing high heels?' So I thought that was kind of funny because he may have been right," Williams said. "Because it is a job hazard for me, but I insist on wearing them."

Williams got to meet Michelle Obama and the rest of the first family.

"I didn't know she had such an amazing personality," Williams said. "She had me cracking up and laughing. I knew she was a great person, but now I really understand how important this first family is to the United States. And the kids were just so cute and sweet, and the dog was nice."

No official White House photo of Serena and Barack yet, but I was able to find this picture of Serena's outfit (sadly, not showing the 5-inch Fendis rocked while meeting POTUS) on Flickr.

President Clinton Supports Marriage Equality!

The Nation is reporting that former President Bill Clinton has stated publicly his support for same-sex marriage:

Asked if he would commit his support for same-sex marriage, Clinton responded, "I'm basically in support."

This spring, same-sex marriage was legalized in Iowa, Vermont, Connecticut, Maine and New Hampshire. In his most recent remarks on the subject, Clinton said, "I think all these states that do it should do it." The former president, however, added that he does not believe that same-sex marriage is "a federal question."

Asked if he personally supported same-sex marriage, Clinton replied, "Yeah." "I personally support people doing what they want to do," Clinton said. "I think it's wrong for someone to stop someone else from doing that [same-sex marriage]."

The former president joins a string of prominent Democrats who have recently switched their position on the issue, including former Democratic National Committee chair Howard Dean, New York Senator Charles E. Schumer, New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine and Connecticut Senator Christopher Dodd.

"Bill Clinton joins other important public figures in stepping solidly into the twenty-first century in support of same-sex marriage equality," said the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force's executive director Rea Carey. "We certainly hope other elected officials, including President Obama, join him in clearly stating their support for equality in this country. Same-sex couples should not have to experience second-class citizenship."

Clinton's reversal is the highest-profile one to date. It may also have political implications for the future of the Defense of Marriage Act. President Obama has pledged to repeal the law, but in June, the Justice Department filed a brief in federal court defending the law's constitutionality.

A recent Gallup poll found that a majority of Democrats favor same-sex marriage.

Notice that Big Dog can't actually say the words "same-sex marriage." It should also be interesting to see what happens when the media asks Secretary of State Hillary Clinton whether her position on same-sex marriage has changed.

CA-GOV: Whitman Donates $15M To Own Campaign

Former eBay CEO and Republican gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman announced that she is donating 15 million dollars of her own money to her campaign to be California governor.

Whitman has now self-funded her campaign to the tune of $19 million, raising $6.7 million by June 30th.

Whitman's main Republican rival for the gubernatorial nomination (State Insurance Commisioner) Steve Poizner has raised $1.2 million and given his own campaign $4.2 million.

Courage Campaign Sticks To 2010; Task Force Says No

There are more developments in the intra-community debate over whether there should be an attempt to repeal Proposition 8 in 2010 or later. Rick Jacobs of the Courage Campaign has issued a statement re-iterating its support for going forward in 2010:

"We welcome the 'Prepare to Prevail' letter from API Equality, HONOR PAC, the Jordan Rustin Coalition and so many others as an honest, open contribution to the deliberations through which the community is participating.

"The 'Prepare to Prevail' letter, along with Love Honor Cherish's compelling statement on moving forward in 2010, is part of a healthy, vigorous debate that should help to inform the community as we begin the process of choosing the best path to victory.

"We encourage everyone engaged in this movement to put forward their portions of the road map to victory so that together, we can all win.

"Back in May, we asked our members to vote on which year -- 2010 or 2012 -- the Courage Campaign should support going back to the ballot to restore marriage equality. The response was overwhelming -- 82.5% expressed support for a 2010 ballot measure.

"The Courage Campaign is doing its part by helping to build an electoral road map to victory, as are several other organizations that are laying the groundwork necessary to win back marriage equality. It is our responsibility to our members, who overwhelmingly told us that they want to go to the ballot in 2010, and it is our responsibility to the marriage equality community."

"That's why the Courage Campaign announced support for a 2010 initiative in May. While we respect other organizations discussing and deliberating this very important question, we have been building the infrastructure to win marriage equality rights at the ballot box sooner, rather than later. Our members are ready to do the hard work needed to win.

"Since January, the Courage Campaign has been training and empowering marriage equality activists across the state at 'Camp Courage' training events as well as building 44 "Equality Teams" in 23 counties across California -- serving the organizations and individuals that are fueling the movement toward marriage equality.

Meanwhile, several other organizations that were actually involved with trying to defeat Proposition 8 in 2008 have joined the Prepare to Prevail statement.

Three California chapters of the ACLU have released a statement opposing 2010 and today the first national LGBT organization, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force has signed on.

LA TIMES Covers POC LGBT Groups 2010 Reluctance

Today's Los Angeles Times covers yesterday's release of the Prepare To Prevail: Why We Must Wait In Order To Win statement in an article entitled "Gay-rights coalition urges measured pace on same-sex marriage amendment."

MadProfessah is quoted at the end, explaining the main reason why several people of color LGBT groups do not feel we will be ready in 2010 to repeal Proposition 8. "Do the math!"

In the days after Proposition 8 banned same-sex marriage in California last fall, many grass-roots activists almost immediately began planning to get the question back on the ballot. In the spring, as states such as Iowa and Vermont legalized gay marriage, gay and lesbian activists said momentum was on their side.

But now many activists say they are trying to make the political calculations necessary to ensure victory -- which means enough money to wage a campaign and enough voter outreach to persuade some who voted against gay and lesbian unions to change their minds.

"We initially said we believe 2010 was the right time to go back to the ballot," said Marc Solomon, marriage director for Equality California, one of the state's biggest gay rights groups. But he added: "We've also made it very clear we will only move forward if we have a clear road map to victory. . . . The last thing we want to do is go back to the ballot and lose."

He said his group has sought advice from political consultants and polling experts and would present it publicly later this month.

Ron Buckmire, president of the Barbara Jordan/Bayard Rustin Coalition, one of the groups that signed the statement issued Monday, said the need for more time was made clear to him this weekend when his group went door to door to talk to voters about same-sex marriage in South Los Angeles.

"It was a huge success. We had 70 volunteers, working for five hours, knocked on 1,200 doors," he said. But after all that, they identified only 50 voters who moved in their direction.

"We have to move 300,000 voters," he said. "Do the math."

Let me be more specific. If it takes JRC working in coalition with Equality California and Vote for Equality 350 volunteer-hours (not including staff time, or travel time for the volunteers) to change 50 votes (from against marriage equality to undecided, or from undecided to in favor of marriage equality) and we have 6,000 times that many votes to move in 2010, then we will need 2.1 million volunteer-hours of effort to achieve that.

People who say that we can do that by November 2, 2010 (which is exactly 477 days away from today) need to demonstrate a plan for how they intend to pay for, lead and plan this work in that time frame, in the worst economy California and the United States have seen since the Great Depression.

Do the Math.

POC LGBT Groups Issue Statement Opposing 2010 Prop 8 Repeal

Jordan Rustin Coalition, HONOR PAC and API Equality LA released a joint statement today endorsed by several other organizations called "Prepare To Prevail: Why We Must Wait In Order To Win" which counsels caution on rushing to the ballot in 2010 to attempt to repeal Proposition 8 with an affirmative ballot proposition to end the ban on same-sex marriage.

Prepare to Prevail:
Why We Must Wait In Order to Win

A public statement on how to win back marriage equality in California

July 13, 2009

Issued by: API Equality-LA, HONOR PAC, Jordan Rustin Coalition

www.apiequalityla.org | www.honorpac.org | www.jordanrustincoalition.org

Unlike Proposition 8 in 2008, any upcoming electoral campaign for marriage equality would be one of choice, not one of necessity in fending off an attack from religious-right foes. Timing is ours to determine. Going back to the ballot to remove the voter-imposed ban on same-sex marriage from the state constitution in 2010 would be rushed and risky. We should proceed with a costly, demanding, and high-stakes electoral campaign of this sort only when we are confident we can win. We should choose to Prepare to Prevail.

We have much work to do before we proceed to the ballot. Many of us, which includes lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) organizations and progressive allies, have been doing critical educational and organizing work for years, intensified it during the Prop. 8 campaign in 2008, and have continued to communicate with key constituencies after the election. We vow to intensify our efforts until we win back marriage equality in California. We invite all groups and individual leaders to sign on to this statement and join us in building a solid battle plan for equality. We must step up our work, collectively and in concert, as soon as possible.
Prepare to Prevail requires making progress on the following before proceeding to the ballot:

1) Winning requires full LGBT community support and a broad coalition of allies. Only a few segments of the LGBT community have announced their intention to pursue a “vote-yes” campaign next year. Energy and passion are a necessary prerequisite for any effective campaign but are not a sufficient substitute for a broad coalition with a clear strategy backed by ample resources. For California to win back marriage equality, broad segments of the LGBT and progressive community including critically important people- of-color groups, LGBT families, and other allies need to pull together. We should proceed when we have a unified strategy and a massive coalition of progressive non-LGBT allies ready to act in unison. Anything short of a broad coalition of allies would place our campaign in a strategic disadvantage from the onset.

2) We need to build strong majority support before placing the issue before voters. Popular support for marriage equality for same-sex couples has not changed since the last election. Today, California voters’ opinions on a constitutional amendment to overturn the voter-imposed elimination of marriage equality remain evenly split, according to all recent polls. In order to seek major investments of time and money from key stakeholders and allies in an affirmative ballot-measure campaign seeking a “yes” vote from voters, seasoned campaign experts advise against proceeding to the ballot without evidence of a strong majority in favor of the measure. Failure to begin with a sizable majority puts sponsors in a more likely position to lose. More than two-thirds of all ballot initiatives fail to pass on Election Day. Moreover, polls can overstate actual public support for LGBT rights because respondents may be reluctant to reveal their bias to pollsters. In 2008, some polls indicated majority support for marriage equality and against Proposition 8, which was not the result on Election Day. This was also true for Proposition 22, when opponents of the measure thought there was more support for marriage equality than the final vote demonstrated. In Washington State in 1997, some gay-rights activists pushed forward with a pro-active ballot measure aimed at outlawing antigay discrimination in the state. Despite having public opinion narrowly on their side, they lost 60 to 40 at the polls on the measure. It took nine more years for LGBT rights supporters to secure passage of a nondiscrimination law by the Washington state legislature. Proceeding with campaigns seeking a “yes” vote without support from a strong majority of voters holds foreseeable danger.

3) Campaign donors will be constrained given the current unprecedented economic downturn. Over $81 million was raised and spent by both sides in the Proposition 8 campaign, more than in any previous anti-gay ballot initiative. Many of the LGBT nonprofit organizations doing critical work for our communities have suffered layoffs and cutbacks in services. The current economic downturn has also reduced the capacity of campaigns both educational and electoral to amass multi-million-dollar war chests from small, large, and institutional donors. The scope of anxiety and human need in California means that individual donors are making hard choices about charitable dollars. Major donors, including foundations that provided funding for critical educational campaigns, have endured hits to their portfolios, and many are exercising caution. Any successful “vote-yes” campaign will require generous support from pro-LGBT institutional donors. These donors give=2 0based on evidence of likely success, which for 2010 is filled with grave doubts. It is unlikely that we will be able to raise the necessary funds to undertake an effective electoral campaign until after 2010.

4) Educational, voter-ID (not electoral) campaigns with specific goals should begin immediately. To reach a threshold of support for marriage equality suitable to begin an electoral campaign, supporters need a voter-ID campaign aimed at moving an identifiable subset of California voters. Vote-no campaigns typically seek to plant doubts and promote confusion among voters about measures. Several arguments used to pass Proposition 8 have not been widely rebutted and thus retain their appeal as attack strategies with particular currency as part of a vote-no campaign. A campaign of changing hearts and minds of selected groups of voters requires time, diligent research, and targeting of specific communities. The worst time to attempt to educate voters is in the midst of a heated campaign, which makes it difficult to rebut lies and fear-mongering. The voter-ID campaign should precede the electoral campaign aimed at mobilizing support to remove from the state constitution the discriminatory language already approved by voters.

5) We need time to build a coordinated data infrastructure that can support a winning campaign. We need time to establish robust get-out-the-vote (GOTV) data systems and a statewide online voter contact database to make and measure contacts with California voters in a coordinated fashion with participation from the many pro-marriage stakeholder groups across the state. Unlike narrow special interests, our cause is a broad-based movement that will require coordinated data collection among multiple groups working in concert. Many individual groups have started this work, but winning will require buy-in and participation in a singular statewide and coordinated data system. Agreements and accountabilities need to be worked out and trust needs to be rebuilt. Time and true collaboration are vital to developing organizational partnerships and the data systems needed to tap and deploy our grassroots network and measure our progress toward specific voter-contacts goals.

6) Time and greater effort is needed to build trust and relationships in communities that represent the full diversity of California voters, including limited-English-speaking voters and voters of diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds. The 2008 campaign against Prop 8 did not adequately reach non-English-speaking vot ers and failed to engage or empower allied groups poised to communicate with millions of such voters. The Yes-on-8 campaign, in taking its victory laps, bragged about the many tongues into which it translated its materials and the diverse congregations whom it mobilized. This lapse must be overcome in a future campaign to win back marriage equality. We must learn from our mistakes made during the last campaign and not repeat them. Doing so will require deepened relationships with partner organizations and leaders who can reach diverse racial, ethnic, and non-English-speaking communities. It will require working to increase the ability of LGBT parents and caregivers with children across these communities to effectively communicate the impact of marriage equality on their children. We must establish the communications capacity needed to achieve cultural competency as well as fluency in persuading immigrant, people-of-color, an d non-English-speaking communities to support marriage equality. Most of all, it requires time to build trust and relationships in targeted communities in order to succeed.

7) Labor, religious allies and communities of color are indispensable to winning. More time is needed to convert general support into full organizational backing to secure increased grassroots engagement, resources, and votes. Coordinate d outreach with labor and religious institutions remains crucial to building a strong majority for marriage equality in California. Forging lasting collaboration with and among these organizations must be a top priority for both the education and electoral campaigns. In addition to traditional civil-rights and community groups, as well as entertainment and sports celebrities, the same labor and religious organizations already highlighted will be critical in mobilizing people of color voters to support marriage equality. Rather than simply asking for support from allies, a winning campaign must be prepared to welcome these entities to the planning table and demonstrate reciprocity with them in the course of the long campaign to regain marriage equality. Winning a majority of “yes” votes on a future ballot measure will not be easy. But it will be impossible if we work in isolation or avoid competent and fluent communication with California’s diverse voters.

8) More time means more “yes” votes for marriage equality. The demographics of opinion on marriage equality indicate that natural changes in the state electorate, with new and younger voters replacing older voters, contributes over time to increased support for marriage equality. In weighing the options of presenting a ballot measure on statewide ballots either next year, in 2010, or in a future year, the latterp ortends a much greater capacity by marriage equality supporters to leverage and benefit from the natural shift in voter opinion.

THE UNDERSIGNED COMMIT to PREPARE to PREVAIL. Evidence and data should guide political strategy. Running and winning a statewide ballot-measure for a “yes” vote on marriage equality depends not on haste, but on preparation. Expanding public support and developing the infrastructure to mobilize our communities should be our top priorities. We commit to continuing the hard work of identifying the partnerships, commitments, and resources to launch necessary public education campaigns and setting the foundation for a solid and winning campaign. We call on all interested organizations to join in a collective body to coordinate the critical educational work that we must do. When we go back to the ballot, we intend to be active players to ensure its success just as we have always participated i n the fight for marriage equality. Please join us in winning back marriage equality in California.

WE CHOOSE to PREPARE to PREVAIL

ACLU of Northern California

ACLU of San Diego and Imperial County

ACLU of Southern California

API Equality-LA

API Equality-Northern California

Asian Pacific AIDS Intervention Team

Asian Pacific American Legal Center

Asian/Pacific Islander Queer Women/Transgender Activists (AQWA)

Ballot Initiative Strategy Center Foundation

Chinese Rainbow Association

Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles (CHIRLA)

Elections Committee of the County of Orange (ECCO-PAC)

Equality Action Project (Santa Cruz)

Gamba Adisa Quilombo

Gay-Straight Alliance Network

Harvey Milk Stonewall Democrats of Orange County

HONOR PAC

Imperial Court of Los Angeles and Hollywood

Inland Counties Stonewall Democrats

Jordan Rustin Coalition

Martin-Lyon Leadership Institute

Office & Professional Employees International Union (OPEIU), AFL-CIO

Our Family Coalition

SATRANG, South Asian LGBT Organization

Robert Chacanaca, President, Monterey Bay Central Labor Council, AFL-CIO*

Kerry Chaplin, Interfaith Organizing Director, California Faith For Equality*

Rev. Dr. Jonipher Kwong, Interfaith Organizer, California Faith For Equality *

Jerry Sloan, President Emeritus, Lambda Community Fund, Sacramento*

-list in formation-
*affiliation listed for identification purposes only.

WIMBLEDON 2009: Men's Final Highest TV Ratings Since 99

The win by Roger Federer over Andy Roddick was the most watched Wimbledon final in over a decade:

Roger Federer and Andy Roddick’s epic Wimbledon final last Sunday was the most-viewed men’s final at the All England Club in 10 years.

NBC said Thursday that an average of 5.71 million people tuned in to watch Federer win his record-setting 15th Grand Slam title. The number was the highest since Pete Sampras beat Andre Agassi in the 1999 final, attracting 5.85 million viewers.

The 3.8 rating and 10 share was the best for a men’s final since Sampras defeated Patrick Rafter in 2000, and surpassed last year’s classic between Federer and Rafael Nadal by 9 percent.

Federer beat Roddick 5-7, 7-6 (6), 7-6 (5), 3-6, 16-14 in a match that lasted 4 hours, 16 minutes. The fifth set was the longest in major final history.

VIDEO: Serena Williams on Letterman

BOOK REVIEW: Joe Haldeman's CAMOUFLAGE

Joe Haldeman is one of science fiction's most honored writers. His book, Camouflage, won the 2005 Nebula Award for Best Science Fiction Novel, beating out the more celebrated debut novel from Susanna Clarke, Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell, which won the Hugo Award for that year.

Haldeman also has the rare honor of publishing two novels which have won the Nebula and the Hugo Award for Best Science Fiction novel of the year: The Forever War and Forever Peace.

Haldeman has a very readable, simplistic style of writing which makes his work easy to underestimate but very easy to consume.

The plot of Camouflage is quite clever; it involves following the lives of two alien creatures that are living among us: the chameleon and the changeling.

The chameleon is the "bad alien." It is able to mimic any humanoid form and appears to have an innate desire to kill humans. The changeling is able to change its shape more completely, even into non-humanoid forms (like a shark), although the process is painful.
It seems to have innate desire for knowledge and earns multiple degrees at Harvard.

The plot is sparked by the discovery of an artifact deep in the Pacific Ocean which appears impermeable to human instruments. Both the changeling and chameleon are attracted to the artifact.

Haldeman has an engrossing, very readable, somewhat simplistic writing style that makes his books fun to read and Camouflage is no exception.

OVERALL GRADE: A-.

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

Busy Day For JRC Today

Today is a busy day for the Jordan Rustin Coalition, the leading Black LGBT advocacy organization in Southern California that MadProfessah heads.

JRC is serving as community collaborators for a movie called "Rivers Wash Over Me" at OutFest today at 1:30pm at the Directors Guild of America, and at exactly the same time (from 10am to 3pm) JRC will be participating in a voter canvass with Equality California, Vote For Equality, Equal Roots and others. The idea is to talk (and listen) to voters in South Los Angeles (Ladera Heights, Leimert Park and View Park, mostly) to find out what their views are on LGBT people, same-sex marriage and homophobia in general.

India Supreme Court Agrees To Hear Sodomy Appeal

Joe.My.God is reporting that the India Supreme Court has agreed to hear an appeal of the recent landmark decision by the New Delhi High Court which decriminalized homosexuality in the Country.

While there was no major outcry against the ruling, some conservative religious groups made it clear they would fight it. Among those was Kaushal, a Hindu astrologer, who filed the first petition with the Supreme Court. Leaders of religious groups are also contemplating filing petitions.

The Supreme Court said it will hear Kaushal’s petition on July 20 to decide whether it has merit, said Anand Grover, the lawyer for Naz Foundation, a gay rights group that filed the original petition against Section 377 eight years ago.

The Supreme Court also asked the Indian government and the Naz Foundation to appear before it to hear their views.

After listening to all parties, the court will decide whether to temporarily suspend the Delhi High Court order while Kaushal’s petition is heard. The Supreme Court ruling will be binding nationally.

The person appealing the ruling is an astrologer named Sushil Kumar Kaushal who said that "If such abnormality is permitted, then tomorrow people might seek permission for having sex with animals.”

Massachusetts Sues U.S. Over DOMA

On Tuesday Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of her state's estimated 16, 000 married same-sex couples who are denied any recognition of their legally married status by the federal government due to 1996's odious Defense of Marriage Act.

According to TowleRoad:

The suit states that DOMA, termed "overreaching and discriminatory," interferes with the state's "sovereign authority to define and regulate marriage."

"We view all married persons equally," Coakley said at a press conference [Tuesday].

The basis for the suit is the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Section 8 of the Constitution. Along with the United States itself, defendants include the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the U.S. Department of Veterans' Affairs.

Massachusetts' lawsuit is another legal attack on DOMA, following a similar lawsuit filed by Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders earlier this year. Both lawsuits just challenge Section 3 of DOMA, which prohibits the United States from allowing any federal benefit, right or responsibility to be bestowed on any married couple in which the parties do not consist of a man and a woman:

SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE.
(a) IN GENERAL- Chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`Sec. 7. Definition of `marriage' and `spouse'

`In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word `marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word `spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.'.

(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 6 the following new item:

`7. Definition of `marriage' and `spouse'.'.

This is not to be confused with the other recent federal lawsuit which challenges the constitutionality of Proposition 8 and the denial of marriage rights to same-sex couples as a matter of federal law.

CA-10: Woods Raises $100k from over 800 donors

From the press release:

Woods Raises More than $100K for Congressional Campaign

Two Tour Iraq War Veteran Cements position as Grassroots Candidate in CD 10 Race, Recruits more than 800 Donors in two months

FAIRFIELD: For the fundraising quarter that ended on June 30th, two tour Iraq War Veteran Anthony Woods raised more than $100,000, and recruited more than 800 donors for the recently scheduled Special Election in California’s 10th Congressional District.

“This has been a genuine grassroots effort,” said Woods. “We’re offering everyday people like the chance to join a campaign that understands what it’s like to walk in their shoes--and the response has been overwhelming.”

In the first two months of his first campaign, Anthony Woods has recruited more than twice the number of donors as Lt. Governor John Garamendi, according to numbers released by the Garamendi campaign last week. This is notable considering that Garamendi has been campaigning for offices across California for more than 30 years.

Woods’ campaign is also leading his CD 10 competitors in online fundraising and online organizing. According to ActBlue.com, Woods is far outpacing the two other Sacramento politicians in the race--State Senator Mark Desaulnier and Assemblywoman Joan Buchanan—in internet fundraising, and Woods has organized more supporters on Facebook (more than 4,700) than every other CD 10 candidate combined.

“Last year, a junior Senator from Illinois won the Presidency against a group of better known politicians by using new media tools to build a grassroots army and interact directly with voters looking for new leadership to change Washington,” said Woods Campaign Director Todd Stenhouse. “In the CD 10 Special Election a similar contrast exists, and Anthony Woods is emerging as the clear grassroots candidate offering real change.”

Anthony Woods is a graduate of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point and Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government. He is a veteran of two combat tours in Iraq, and was awarded both the Bronze Star and Army Commendation Medal for his service. Woods is a native of Fairfield, CA, and is campaigning for the Special Election to replace Former Representative Ellen Tauscher in California’s 10th District.

BOOK REVIEW: Connie Willis' DOOMSDAY BOOK

I typically spend my summers reading science fiction books that have won both the prestigious Hugo and Nebula awards.

By far, the most harrowing of the books that have won both awards that I have previously not read is Connie Willis' Doomsday Book.

It is almost impossible to put down. I started it on a Saturday afternoon last summer and I could not stop reading it until I finished it after 3 a.m. that night.

The story revolves around a time machine that allows historians to do "real time study" of important historical events.

In Christmas 2054, Oxford history professor James Dunworthy agrees to send his favorite graduate student Kivrin Engle to the Middle Ages, 1320 to be precise, to do field work for her thesis on this highly dangerous but fascinating era of human history.

Through an unfortunate incident Kivrin gets sent back to 1348 when the Black Plague was raging through the British countryside. Simultaneously, a suspiciously similar deadly epidemic is coursing through 2054 Oxford, complicating efforts for Dunworthy to rescue his trusted charge.

The parallel storytelling is incredibly gripping.

The writing is also hysterically funny.

Willis has a writing style that includes an impressive attention to detail combined with a subtle ear for dialogue.

I had never heard of her or her work before seeing her Doomsday Book on the list of Hugo-Nebula winners. Since then I have also read To Say Nothing Of The Dog which has a similar profile of a time-travel story combined with historical detail and impeccable comic timing, in this case bordering on farce.

Doomsday Book is an incredible read and a very enjoyable (but nerve-wracking) experience.

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

OVERALL GRADE: A.

Eye Candy: Jevon Williams

Found these pictures of this hottie while poking around Photobucket. I believe his name is Jevon Williams but I am sure he deserves to be Eye Candy!

Federer Regains World #1 Tennis Ranking

Roger Federer

The new ATP rankings were released on Monday and Roger Federer returns to the World #1 position fresh off his 6th Wimbledon championship win on Sunday:

1   Roger Federer    11,220
2  Rafael Nadal          10,735
3  Andy Murray          9,450
4  Novak Djokovic          8,150
5  Juan Martin Del Potro  5,705
6  Andy Roddick          5,440
7  Gilles Simon          4,000
8  Jo-Wilfried Tsonga  3,600
9  Fernando Verdasco  3,500
10  Fernando Gonzalez  3,185

CA-10: Special Election Day is September 1

The special election to replace Ellen Tauscher in the 10th Congressional District of California has been set by Governor Schwarzenegger for September 1. Of special interest to MadProfessah.com readers is the candidacy of Anthony Woods, a 28-year-old Black gay Harvard-educated Iraq veteran who was discharged under the Department of Defense's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.

MadProfessah met Anthony at the Sacramento Democratic Convention in April and has endorsed his candidacy. The frontrunners for the seat are California Lieutenant Governor John Garamendi and State Senator Mark DeSaulnier.

However LGBT blogs and groups are starting to pay attention to Woods.

You can find out more information about supporting Anthony Woods for Congress here.

The Marriage Equality Flag

Taking a page out of the leaf of the women's suffragist movement of the 19th century, marriage equality activists have placed stars to represent the state's in which same-sex marriage is (or will be soon) legal.

The states on the flag are usually read from right to left (and top to bottom) in the order that they entered the Union, so they are: Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Vermont, Maine, and Iowa.

2009 Point Foundation Scholars

After attending an event in Hancock Park supporting the Point Foundation I am now on their mailing list. I was very excited to see the above picture of the 2009 Point Foundation Scholars. The Black guy on the top right, George Aumoithe, organized the talk "Gay Is Not The New Black" I gave at Bowdoin College in April.

WIMBLEDON 2009: Federer's "Unbelievable" Win

Unbelievable.

That's the word that Roger Federer used over and over again in his on-court interview with Sue Barker of the BBC moments after he had won his 6th Wimbledon singles title in 7 years, and record 15th major overall to seal his place in history as the greatest tennis player of his generation, possibly of all time.

He used the word "unbelievable" to describe the play of his opponent Andy Roddick (as well as the "guy" himself) in the match he had just won minutes before, to describe the ending of the match itself, to describe this moment in his career, to describe the assembled crowd watching the match and, lastly, to describe his loss to Rafael Nadal in the 2009 Australian Open men's final after which the then 13-time major champion had dissolved into tears at the awards ceremony.

Roger Federer speaks four different languages, Swiss-German (first language), German, French and English.

The word "unbelievable" in French is incroyable and unglaublich in German. My first language is English but my husband is a professional opera singer who speaks English and Spanish fluently, and understands German, Italian, French (to name just a few languages) well enough to sing in them frequently. Consulting with him, I believe that when Federer is using the word "unbelievable" in English he is using the word that he thinks is closest to the word unglaublich in German. In both French and German the word is used more as an exclamation, not an actual adjective. Federer is almost definitely not using the word in its literal sense that he believes what he is describing can not be conceived of or believed to have happened.

Because it did. We all saw it happen and could not believe our eyes.

It is an odd choice of words for someone who must have believed that he would win this match and this tournament, since he walked on the court with a custom-made jacket which not only included the attractively stylized RF monogram but also the number 15, for the number of majors the bearer would own. Some people have indicated that they could not believe Federer would act so crassly, and see this as a measure of Federer's obeisance to his sponsors and an indication of the lack of regard he had for his opponent (or his opponent's feelings). To me it seems very natural for competitors who are going to pass a historic milestone if they achieve a certain victory that they have prepared for and worked years to achieve, to prepare beforehand also for how to commemorate that significant moment. It is as surprising to me that Federer would wear a piece of clothing with the number 15 on it within 5 minutes of winning his 15th major as it would be that the Los Angeles Lakers' Kobe Bryant would appear in a post-game interview wearing a NBA Champions t-shirt.

However, in tennis "belief" is what is often at the heart of what transpires on the court.

I believe, that for the first time in a Grand Slam tennis match Andy Roddick believed he could beat Roger Federer, despite losing to him 18 times out of the 20 times the two have played and the 7 consecutives losses (3 times at Wimbledon, twice in New York and twice in Melbourne) in Grand Slam tournaments.

But Roger Federer could not believe it.

In the first set, after going up break point four times in the eleventh game of the final I believed (and am sure so did Federer) that he would win one of those points. In fact, on two of those points he missed the baseline by fractions of millimeters. What was unbelievable then was in the 12th game, facing his first break point on his own serve, Federer attempted an unbelievable forehand down-the-line pass that fell inches wide to suddenly lose the first set against the American in over three years at a Grand Slam (the second set of the 2006 U.S. Open final). Even then Federer did not lose his belief, after all in the 2004 Wimbledon Final, Federer had lost the first set 4-6 to Roddick and had won the match in four very close sets.

However, what Federer had not realized yet was that this was not the Roddick of the 2004 Wimbledon final or the 2006 U.S. Open final or even the January 2009 Australian Open semifinal. This was the newlywed Roddick who (thanks to a mostly uncredited Jimmy Connors and the excellent work of current coach Larry Stefanki) had toughened his physique, flattened out his two-handed backhand and stiffened his mental resolve.

This was a Roddick who believed he could win.

Even when he shanked a backhand volley meters wide of the doubles alley up 6-5 in the second set tiebreaker to lose his 4th consecutive set point, Roddick still believed he could win.

And he played like it. Despite losing the third set in another tiebreaker Roddick continued to hold his serve selfishly, despite facing a barrage of Federer aces, which eventually reached Karlovician proportions of 50 for the match. He relentlessly attacked Federer's serve and out-hit him from the baseline on both the forehand and backhand wings, finally earning another break in the 4th game of the 4th set. Federer saved his first breakpoint but lost the second and Roddick had his second and final break of the match.

And still Roddick believed he could win the match, especially in the fifth set, which lasted longer and contained more games than the entire Women's Final played the day before.

And why shouldn't he believe that he cold win the match? He had yet to be broken after four sets and nearly 3 hours of play.

So he served like it. 38 times Roddick held serve in the match, saving six break points of the seven he faced. Federer saved only three break points of the five he faced, but two of those saves were in the crucial fifth sets (when effectively those break points were match points) in the 17th game of that (seemingly) interminable contest.

Then, in the 77th game of the match, the 39th game he was serving, the tenth consecutive "sudden death" game in which he had to hold serve in order to stay in the match, Roddick faced his 7th break point of the match, which had the misfortune of also being a championship point for Federer in the 30th(!) game of the 5th set, hit a forehand on a bad bounce in the dirt that sailed yards beyond the other baseline and the match was over. The only break point he lost in over fours hours of play was also set point and match point. Game, set and match.

Unbelievable.

WIMBLEDON 2009: Federer Wins Record 15th Major

Roger Federer defeated Andy Roddick 5-7 7-6(6) 7-6(5) 3-6 16-14 to win his 6th Wimbledon title and 15th major title overall.

WIMBLEDON 2009: Roddick and Federer 10-10 in the 5th

The score in the Men's Final between Roger Federer and Andy Roddick is currently 5-7 7-6(6) 7-6(5) 3-6 10-10.

Federer has beaten Roddick 18 times of the 20 matches they have played. Federer is playing for his 15th career major (most ever) while Roddick is playing for his second major and first Wimbledon title. Federer is in his seventh consecutive Wimbledon final, having won 5 of them, losing for the first time last year to Rafael Nadal.

WIMBLEDON 2009: Venus and Serena Win Doubles

Hours after playing each other for the fourth time in the Wimbledon singles final (Serena winning for the third time this year), Venus and Serena Williams won the Wimbledon doubles title by defeating Rennae Stubbs and Samantha Stosur 7-6(4) 6-4.

UPDATE 4:47PM PDT
This is the fourth Wimbledon doubles title for the Williams sisters. They also won the doubles in 2000, 2002 and 2008. (hat/tip to the Women's Tennis Blog.)

VIDEO: Palin's (Insane) Resignation Announcement

WIMBLEDON 2009: Serena Beats Venus to win 11th major

Serena Williams beat Venus Williams 7-6(3) 6-2 to win her 3rd Wimbledon title, her first here since 2003, and 11th major title overall. Serena is now the reigning champion of Wimbledon, Australian and U.S. Open major titles.

WIMBLEDON 2009: Women's Final Prediction

Venus Williams USA (3) v. Serena Williams USA (2).

The 2009 Wimbledon Women's Final is set, and for the fourth time this decade, it will feature Venus and Serena Williams playing each other. Venus will be appearing in the final for the eighth time, having won 5-times (losing twice to Serena in 2002 and 2003) including the last two years in 2007 and 2008.

So far I have correctly predicted the last 6 matches of the Women's draw with only the final remaining. In my bracket selection at the beginning of the tournament I picked Serena to defeat Venus, primarily because the younger sister is currently the defending champion at two of the four majors and has 10 majors overall to Venus' 7 major titles.

However, after seeing each of their matches, including Serena's instant classic semifinal 6-7(4) 7-5 8-6 win against Elena Dementieva on Thursday, I now think that Venus will be able to win her 6th Wimbledon title by defeating her sister for the second consecutive year. Although it is hard to compare how well they played in their respective semifinals since Venus' opponent Dinara Safina didn't give her an opportunity to show how well the 5-time champion's game shines on grass in her 6-1 6-0 demolition of the World #1.

MadProfessah's pick: Venus Williams in 3 sets.

Palin Announces Resignation As Alaska Governor

Hmmm, on the Friday before July 4th, 2008 Republican Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin announces that she will not complete her first term as Governor of Alaska, because she will be resigning her office effective July 25th, 2009.

Critics are not impressed.

WIMBLEDON 2009: Men's Semifinals

The Wimbledon Men's semifinals are set:

Andy Roddick USA (6) versus Andy Murray GBR (3)
Tommy Haas GER (24) versus Roger Federer SUI (2)

Federer should win in 3 sets. Andy Murray will have a much harder time but he will come through in either 4 or 5 sets.

WIMBLEDON 2009: Venus Demolishes Safina; Serena Guts Past Dementieva

5-time (and current) Wimbledon champion World #3 Venus Williams routed World #1 Dinara Safina 6-1 6-0 in well under and hour to reach the Wimbledon final for the third consecutive year (and the eighth of her career).

This followed an epic three-hour slugfest between 10-time major (and reigning Australian and US Open) champion Serena Williams and World #4 Elena Dementieva which the younger Williams sister won 6-7(4) 7-5 8-6.

So, for the fourth time Serena will play Venus in the finals of Wimbledon. Serena leads that series 2-1, losing for the first time (in straight sets) last year. Head-to-head the two are tied, 10-10 overall including 2-2 on grass, but Serena leads 5-2 in major finals overall.

At the beginning of the tournament, I predicted an all-Williams final (again!) on the fourth of July, and gave Serena the edge, but I need to review both matches before I make my final prediction.

Anti-Gay Groups Form Mega Hate Coalition

This is not good news. Twenty-six heterosexual supremacist organizations have banded together to form a coalition called the Freedom Federation. The group's members are:

The Freedom Federation is a new and unique federation of some of the largest multi-ethnic and transgenerational faith-based organizations in the country committed to plan, strategize, and work together on common interests within the Judeo-Christian tradition to mobilize their grassroots constituencies and to communicate faith and values to the religious, social, cultural, and policymaking institutions.

-- American Association of Christian Counselors
-- American Family Association
-- Americans for Prosperity
-- Brotherhood Organization of a New Destiny (BOND)
-- Campaign for Working Families
-- Catholic Online
-- Concerned Women for America
-- Conservative Action Project
-- Eagle Forum
-- Exodus International
-- Faith and Action
-- Family Research Council
-- High Impact Leadership
-- Liberty Alliance Action
-- Liberty Counsel
-- Liberty University
-- Life Education and Resource Network (LEARN)
-- Marc Nuttle
-- Morning Star Ministries
-- National Clergy Council
-- National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference
-- Renewing American Leadership
-- Strang Communications
-- Teen Mania
-- The Call to Action
-- Traditional Values Coalition
-- Vision America

Their "Declaration of American Values" is

We the people of the United States of America, at this crucial time in history, do hereby affirm the core consensus values which form the basis of America’s greatness, that all men and women from every race and ethnicity are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We adhere to the rule of law embodied in the Constitution of the United States and to the principles of liberty on which America was founded. In order to maintain the blessings of liberty and justice for ourselves and our posterity, and recognizing that personal responsibility is the basis of our self-governing Nation, we declare our allegiance –

1. To secure the sanctity of human life by affirming the dignity of and right to life for the disabled, the ill, the aged, the poor, the disadvantaged, and for the unborn from the moment of conception. Every person is made in the image of God, and it is the responsibility and duty of all individuals and communities of faith to extend the hand of loving compassion to care for those in poverty and distress.

2. To secure our national interest in the institution of marriage and family by embracing the union of one man and one woman as the sole form of legitimate marriage and the proper basis of family.

3. To secure the fundamental rights of parents to the care, custody, and control of their children regarding their upbringing and education.

4. To secure the free exercise of religion for all people, including the freedom to acknowledge God through our public institutions and other modes of public expression and the freedom of religious conscience without coercion by penalty or force of law.

5. To secure the moral dignity of each person, acknowledging that obscenity, pornography, and indecency debase our communities, harm our families, and undermine morality and respect. Therefore, we promote enactment and enforcement of laws to protect decency and morality.

6. To secure the right to own, possess and manage private property without arbitrary interference from government, while acknowledging the necessity of maintaining a proper and balanced care and stewardship of the environment and natural resources for the health and safety of our families.

7. To secure the individual right to own, possess, and use firearms as central to the preservation of peace and liberty.

8. To secure a system of checks and balances between the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches within both state and federal governments, so that no one branch – particularly the judiciary – usurps the authority of the other two, and to maintain the constitutional principles of federalism which divide power between the state and federal governments.

9. To secure our national sovereignty and domestic tranquility by maintaining a strong military; establishing and maintaining secure national borders; participating in international and diplomatic affairs without ceding authority to foreign powers that diminish or interfere with our unalienable rights; and being mindful of our history as a nation of immigrants, promoting immigration policies that observe the rule of law and are just, fair, swift, and foster national unity.

10. To secure a system of fair taxes that are not punitive against the institution of marriage or family and are not progressive in nature, and within a limited government framework, to encourage economic opportunity, free enterprise, and free market competition.

We hereby pledge our Names, our Lives and our Sacred Honor to this Declaration of American Values.

Hat/tip to Right Wing Watch and Pam's House Blend.

Delhi Court Strikes Decriminalizes Gay Sex

Tens of millions of gay men in India are no longer presumed to be criminals.

IN A major relief to the gay and homosexual community, the Delhi High Court on Thursday (July2), said that consensual sex between two adults is legal and cannot be punished.

The verdict of the Delhi High court also decriminalised homosexuality by striking down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The court, however, made it clear that Section 377 was applicable in cases of Sodomy.

A bench of chief justice Ajit Prakash Shah and Justice S Muralidhar, said that Section 377 of IPC needed amendment as otherwise it would violate Article 21 of the Indian constitution.

Section 377 states that homosexuality and 'unnatural sex' is a criminal act.

The decision of the Delhi High Court will now make it easier for the Union government to come out clear on Section 377. The government had given hints that it was not opposed to amending the law but had to take into account religious sentiments of different sections of the society.

The ruling came out just a few days after the second ever gay pride parade was held in New Delhi on Sunday. Congratulations!

India High Court Ruling On Sodomy Law Tomorrow

Intrepid gay reporter Rex Wockner is reporting that the New Delhi High Court will issue a ruling on the fate of India's sodomy law at 10:30am Thursday July 2nd, local time.

Keep your fingers crossed. As Rex puts it, "India is the world second-most-populous nation: 17.22% of all humans live there. That's 1,165,760,000 people. You should care about them and this."

Agreed.

And Franken Makes 60...

Al Franken was officially declared the winner of the November 2008 Minnesota Senate race on Tuesday by 312 votes, after that state's supreme court unanimously rejected Norm Coleman's lawsuit.

The win means that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) will now have the votes of 60 people caucusing with the Democrats, although this includes two independents (Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and Bernie Sanders of Vermont) as well as Republican-turned-Democrat Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania.

Since it takes 60 votes to end debate and proceed to a majority vote in the 100-member Senate, many Democrats are celebrating Franken's win of the Minnesota seat after a long 8 months. However, the Democrats have had 59 votes since January and still they have not been able to pass truly progressive legislation.

It can't hurt the attempt to pass LGBT legislation, but I think the significance of the "60 vote barrier" has been overstated.

GLAAD Head Jarrett Barrios on CNN

Almost two decades ago Jarrett and I were involved in an organization called North East Lesbian Gay Bisexual Students Association and he let me sleep on his Harvard dorm floor with like three other guys.

Nice to see him at work now as the youngest executive director of a national LGBT organization, following a notable career as a State Senator in Massachusetts.