CELEBRITY FRIDAY: Patrick Bumatay Becomes First Openly LGBT Federal Appellate Court Judge

Openly gay, Filipino Patrick Bumatay, 41, was confirmed by the U.S. Senate by a 53-40 vote to a lifetime seat on the 9th U.S. Circuit Cort of Appeals. Bumatay is the first openly gay man to be appointed to the federal judiciary at the Circuit Court level (one rung below the U.S. Supreme Court) and is also the first Filipino to serve in that capacity. His nomination was opposed by both of California's U.S. Senators, Kamala Harris and Dianne Feinstein, which prior to the Trump administration would have doomed his candidacy. He was also opposed by basically every major LGBT and/or civil rights organization. He is Trump's 49 confirmed appointee to the circuit courts.

Cory Booker Announces 2020 Presidential Run

Cory Booker announced on Friday February 1 (the beginning of Black History Month) that he is running for the Democratic nomination for President in 2020. The 49-year-old, vegan, bachelor junior U.S. senator from New Jersey joins the most diverse presidential aspirant field ever. It already features Kamala Harris (U.S. Senator from California), Kirsten Gillibrand (U.S. Senator from New York), Elizabeth Warren (U.S. Senator from Massachusetts) and Julian Castro (former secretary of Housing and Urban Development in the Obama administration).

SATURDAY POLITICS: #AD51 California Assembly District Race Heats Up!

I am a homeowner and voter in Northeast Los Angeles and thus the last year has involved participating in numerous elections (five lat last count). Due to the 2016 election which resulted in then-Attorney General Kamala Harris going to the U.S. Senate, my congressperson Xavier Becerra was appointed to replace her and then my Assemblyperson Jimmy Gomez won a special election to replace Becerra in the 34th Congressional District. Now we are just a few weeks away from the Tuesday December 5th election to replace Gomez in the Assembly.

The two candidates for the 51st Assembly district are Luis Lopez and Wendy Carrillo. Lopez has run for this seat before (losing to Gomez in 2012) and lived in the District for decades while Carrillo moved into the district when she ran unsuccessfully in the #CA34 special election.

Interestingly, despite the carpet-bagger concerns Carrillo has been endorsed by several Democratic Party establishment figures, including now-U.S. Rep. Gomez, California Senate Majority leader Kevin De Leon (who represents the area in the California Senate) and Jose Huizar who represents sections of the assembly district in the Los Angeles City Council.

As an openly gay man running for a state legislative seat, Lopez has been endorsed by several LGBT organizations (Equality California, HONOR Pac, the Victory Fund and the California LGBT Legislative Caucus).

Lopez and Carillo have faced off in multiple debates around the district. There doesn't appear to be any public polling in the race. I have already voted for my preferred candidate by mail. The election is Tuesday December 5th.

CELEBRITY FRIDAY: Kevin de León Announces Challenge to Dianne Feinstein's Re-election Bid

Whoa! Kevin de León is my State Senator and is the head of the California State Senate. The 50-year-old Latino politician from Los Angeles is termed out of the legislature next year and many people have been wondering what higher office he would seek next. This week he announced that he is running to become a U.S. Senator from California. Currently, California's Senators are Dianne Feinstein (who was elected in 1992) and Kamala Harris, who was elected in 2016. Feinstein recently announced that she would be trying to win a 6th 6-year term in 2018.

de León has announced that he will try to stop that from happening.

Since both are Democrats and California has a top 2 primary it is very likely this race will not e decided in the primary, but almost certainly go the distance to November 2018.

SATURDAY POLITICS: Analyzing the #CA34 Special Election for Becerra's Replacement

Jimmy Gomez is my representative in the California Assembly (51st District). Xavier Becerra used to be my representative in the United States Congress (until he became Attorney General of California). I live in the 34th Congressional District of California, so now this is a rare open congressional seat.

The race to replace Becerra has become as crowded as I expected. This is what the actual ballot looks like for the April 4, 2017 special election:

The Top 2 vote getters (as long as no one gets a majority of votes) will face off June 6, 2017. The Los Angeles Times editorial board has endorsed Maria Cabildo but the dozens of mailers I have piling up around the house show that Gomez has garnered the most impressive endorsements:  the Los Angeles County Democratic Party, Xavier Becerra, U.S. Senator Kamala Harris and Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti. However, the person who has raised the most money is Robert Lee Ahn, the only Korean American in a race for a congressional seat which contains Koreatown.

I have already voted (by absentee ballot) but watch this space for the official results in just about 11 days from now!

Saturday Politics: Race For CA-34 U.S. House Seat (Not Yet) Crowded

Cue the musical chairs! Last week California Governor Jerry Brown announced his intention to appoint U.S. Representative Xavier Becerra to replace U.S. Senator-elect Kamala Harris as California Attorney General. Becerra, 58, is currently my congressman, representing California's 34th congressional district; he would become the first Latino attorney general in the history of the state (in 2016!)

Becerra had been a rumored candidate in the race to replace Barbara Boxer that Kamala Harris ultimately won over another Latino candidate, Loretta Sanchez. Within hours of the announcement that a rare safely Democratic Los Angeles-area Congressional seat was open, former Speaker of the House John Perez announced his candidacy for the race. Soon after that, my state Assemblyman, Jimmie Gomez, also announced his intention to run for the seat. Activist Wendy Carillo has also declared she is interested. Surprisingly, my City Council person Jose Huizar has so far declined to enter the race to replace Becerra, as has fellow Councilperson Gil Cedillo. For the special election, you just need to be a resident of California (and a U.S. Citizen and over age 25).

Today comes the surprising news that Perez is withdrawing from the race, citing an unnamed health condition which is serious enough that it will prevent him from running a rigorous race in the 2017 special election, according to the Los Angeles Times.

Citing a recent diagnosis of a serious health problem, former California Assembly Speaker John A. Pérez said Saturday he is dropping out of the race to replace U.S. Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-Los Angeles).
"I've got to focus on my health right now," Pérez said in an interview. "But it was a very hard decision."
The 47-year-old Democrat declined to offer specifics about his condition, citing a desire to keep it private. But he said it was serious enough that it would keep him from waging a vigorous political campaign in 2017.
"The treatment is one that doesn’t lend itself to the intensity of a campaign that the community deserves," he said.

Almost certainly there will be other prominent (and not so prominent) Los Angeles area politicos joining the race. MadProfessah will keep you posted, since it is literally happening in my back yard!

QUEER QUOTE: Judge Rules "Sodomite Suppression Act" Patently Unconstitutional

Well, well! Score one for common sense. A violently homophobic proposed California ballot measure known as the "Sodomite Suppression Act" has been found unconstitutional by a Superior Court judge so that Attorney General Kamala Harris does not have to process it for circulation before voters. The judge's order is the source for today's QUEER QUOTE:

1. The proposed initiative titled the "Sodomite Suppression Act" (the "Act") is patently unconstitutional on its face;
2. Any preparation and official issuance of a circulating title and summary for the Act by the Attorney General would be inappropriate, waste public resources, generate unnecessary divisions among the public and tend to mislead the electorate; and
3. The Attorney General is relieved of any obligation to issue a title and summary for the Act.

Just in time for LGBT Pride month!

SATURDAY POLITICS: Molina Snags Endorsements By Villaraigosa, Boxer, Cedillo

This week former Los Angeles County Supervisor Gloria Molina announced endorsements of her race for Los Angeles City Council by three prominent Democratic politicians: U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer, former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and current Los Angeles City Councilmember Gilbert Cedillo.

The revelation of three big names at once is being viewed (by some political observers) as a misstep by Molina, since typically one unveils big-name endorsements piecemeal in order to get media attention for each one separately. However, even if that is true, it is pretty significant that Molina was able to get the endorsement of a current colleague of her opponent, incumbent City Councilman Jose Huizar. Additionally, Villaraigosa supported Huizar as his replacement back in 2005 when he ran (and won) his race for Mayor. The current Mayor, Eric Garcetti has not yet endorsed in the race.

The Los Angeles County Democratic Party has endorsed Huizar. The primary election will be held March 3, 2015. If the public approves two disingenuous, dubious and dangerous charter amendments in that same election, the winner of that race will get to serve an unprecedented 5-and-a-half year term.

In other interesting political developments, Villaraigosa is making more encouraging noises about running for Boxer's Senate seat in the June 2016 primary, even though Attorney General Kamala Harris made her intentions known earlier this week and most people expected Villaraigosa to be more interested in the 2018 Governor's race, not the 2016 Senate race. Maybe the former Mayor is getting antsy at waiting, or is he afraid that he won't make the top 2 in a crowded field that will likely include Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom, Treasurer John Chiang and many more?

MadProfessah Endorsements for California November 4, 2014 General Election

Finally, the moment you have been waiting for!  Here are MadProfessah's positions on how I will be voting in the November 4 2014 California General Election, compared with endorsements from other organizations like the Los Angeles Times,  California Democratic Party, East Area Progressive Democrats and the Los Angeles County Democratic Party. For more information about judicial candidates, check out the LA County Bar Association.

Statewide Measures         MadProf   LA TIMES CA DEMS
Prop. 1 (Water Bond)       Yes       Yes      Yes
Prop. 2 (State Budget)     Yes       Yes      Yes
Prop. 45 (Health Ins.)     Yes       No       Yes
Prop. 46 (MD malpractice)  Yes       No       NEUTRAL
Prop. 47 (Sentence Reform) Yes       Yes      Yes
Prop. 48 (Indian Casinos)  Yes       Yes      Yes

Statewide Races          MadProf  LA TIMES  CA DEMS
Governor                 Brown*   Brown*     Brown*

Lieutenant Governor      Newsom*  Newsom*    Newsom*
Attorney General         Harris*  Harris*    Harris*
Secretary of State       Padilla  Peterson   Padilla
Treasurer                Chiang   Chiang     Chiang

Controller               Yee      Swearingen Yee
Insurance Commissioner   Jones*   Jones*     Jones*   
Supt. of Public Inst.    Torlakson* Tuck     Torlakson*

Bd. of Equalization, #1  NONE       ---      Parker    

Bd. of Equalization, #2  NONE       ---      Ma

Bd. of Equalization, #3  NONE       ---      Horton*

Bd. of Equalization, #4  NONE       ---      NONE

CA Sup. Court (Cuellar)  YES        YES      YES

CA Sup. Court (Liu)      YES        YES      YES

CA Sup. Court (Werdegar) YES        YES      YES

LA County Races          MadProf   LA TIMES   LA DEMS
Assessor                 Prang     Morris     Prang

Sheriff                  McDonnell McDonnell  NOT TANAKA
Supervisor, District 1   Solis     Solis      Solis
Supervisor, District 3   Kuehl     Kuehl      Kuehl
Measure P (Parks)        YES       NO         YES

Judicial Races            MadProf  LA TIMES  CA DEMS
Ct of Appeal (Rothschild) Yes      Yes       Yes 
Ct of Appeal (Johnson)    ---      Yes       Yes


Ct of Appeal (Hoffstadt)  ---      Yes       Yes

Ct of Appeal (Edmon)      Yes      Yes       Yes

Ct of Appeal (Collins)    Yes      Yes       Yes


Ct of Appeal (Manella)    Yes      Yes       Yes


Ct of Appeal (Turner)     ---      Yes       Yes


Ct of Appeal (Yegan)      ---      Yes       Yes

Ct of Appeal (Perluss)    ---      Yes       Yes


Ct of Appeal (Rubin)      ---      Yes       Yes

Ct of Appeal (Flier)      Yes      Yes       Yes


Superior Court, Office 61 Lewis    Lewis     Lewis  

Superior Court, Office 87 Stein    Stein     Stein

SATURDAY POLITICS: CA Democrats Dominating Statewide Races

Leveraging their significant edge in voter registration, Democratic candidates are dominating all statewide races in California. The latest figures show that registered voters in California are 43.4% Democrat, 28.2% Republican, 23.1% No Party Preference. The respected Field poll released their final poll before Tuesday's election and it shows how deep blue a state California is. Governor Jerry Brown is romping to an easy re-election for an unprecedented fourth term and carrying the rest of the Democratic slate of statewide candidates with him to victory.

The final pre-election Field Poll completed earlier this week finds Brown enjoying a 21-point preference advantage, 54% to 33%, over his Republican opponent Neel Kashkari. Since the June open primary in which Kashkari finished second and earned the right to challenge Brown in the November general election, Brown has maintained large double-digit leads over Kashkari ranging narrowly from 16 to 21 points. 

The latest poll also finds that in the six other partisan statewide election contests to be decided next week – Lt. Governor, Attorney General, State Controller, State Treasurer, Secretary of State and Insurance Commissioner – the Democratic candidate holds the lead over the Republican by margins ranging from seven to thirteen points.

It's nice to see that the nation's largest state and my home state has decisively rejected the Republican agenda. Sadly, it looks like the same can not be said for races happening around the country in red and purple states. 

SATURDAY POLITICS: Kamala Harris Doesn't Want To Be Holder's Replacement

California Attorney General Kamala Harris promptly took herself out of the running to be President Obama's next Attorney General this week after Eric Holder announced his resignation. Harris, 49, is running for re-election and is widely seen as a front runner for either Governor of California in 2018 when the seat will be open or she would also be competitive for either United States Senate seat.

The San Francisco Chronicle reported on Harris' demurrals:

Even before the White House officially announced Holder’s resignation Thursday,Harris, who is running for re-election as California’s attorney general, released a statement saying thanks, but no thanks.
“I am honored to even be mentioned, but intend to continue my work for the people of California as attorney general,” said the former San Francisco district attorney. “I am focused on key public safety issues including transnational gangs, truancy and recidivism.”
Harris, a longtime friend and early political backer of President Obama, has long been on the media’s short list of people the president would look at to become the country’s top prosecutor.

Obama made headlines last year when he referred to Harris as "by far the best-looking attorney general in the country."

Personally I think Harris would make a great Attorney General of the United States but an even better Governor. That's gonna be one tough (and crowded) Democratic primary in June 2018!

California Legislature Passes Bill Enshrining Marriage Equality Into Statute

California Legislature Passes Bill Enshrining the Freedom to Marry in State Statutes

(Sacramento) Senate Bill 1306, authored by Senator Mark Leno and co-sponsored by Attorney General Kamala D. Harris, Equality California and the National Center for Lesbian Rights, passed the Assembly on June 30 by a bipartisan vote of 54-16. The bill will bring California statutory law into line with the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2013 decision restoring the freedom to marry in California.

While both the California and U.S. Supreme Courts have affirmed the right for same-sex couples to marry, current state laws in many cases do not reflect that change. SB 1306 would ensure that references to “husband” and “wife” would be replaced with gender-neutral language such as “spouse” to recognize all married couples throughout the California code.

“In historic fashion one year ago, the U.S. Supreme Court restored the right of every loving couple to marry in California,” said Senator Leno, D-San Francisco. “Today we are sending a bill to the Governor’s desk ensuring that this landmark decision is clearly reflected in our state laws.”

"While we have achieved many milestones in the journey towards full equality for LGBT people – including the freedom to marry for same-sex couples – it's important that we completely erase discrimination from the books," said Rick Zbur, executive director-elect of EQCA. "This important bill does just that, ensuring that California statutes fully reflect and respect the freedom to marry for same-sex couples. We applaud Senator Leno for authoring this important legislation and are proud to be a sponsor of it."

“We are grateful for Senator Leno’s legislation that will ensure the fair and equal treatment of all married couples in California,” said National Center for Lesbian Rights Executive Director Kate Kendell. “Although there is no question that same-sex couples can marry in California, the discriminatory language that remains on the statutory books creates confusion about the rights of same-sex couples. This bill makes it clear to everyone that same-sex couples can marry and that all spouses have the exact same rights and responsibilities under the law, regardless of gender.”

The bill now moves to Gov. Brown’s desk.

MadProfessah Endorsements for June 3, 2014 Primary Election

Finally, the moment you have been waiting for!  Here are MadProfessah's positions on how I will be voting in the June 3 2014 Statewide Primary Election, compared with endorsements from other organizations like the Los Angeles Times,  California Democratic Party, East Area Progressive Democrats and the Los Angeles County Democratic Party. For more information about judicial candidates, check out the LA County Bar Association.

Statewide Measures        MadProf   LA TIMES DEMOCRATS
Prop. 41 (Homeless Vets)  Yes       Yes      Yes
Prop. 41 (Open Meetings)  Yes       Yes      Yes

Statewide Races          MadProf  LA TIMES DEMOCRATS
Governor                 Brown*   Brown*     Brown*

Lieutenant Governor      Newsom*  Newsom*    Newsom*
Attorney General         Harris*  Harris*    Harris*
Secretary of State       Padilla  Peterson   NONE
Treasurer                Chiang   Chiang     Chiang

Controller               Perez    Swearingen NONE
Insurance Commissioner   Jones*   Jones*     Jones*   
Supt. of Public Inst.    Torlakson* Tuck      Torlakson*

Bd. of Equalization, #1  NONE       ---      Parker    

Bd. of Equalization, #2  Ma         ---      Ma

Bd. of Equalization, #3  NONE       ---      Horton*

Bd. of Equalization, #4  NONE       ---      NONE

LA County Races          MadProf  LA TIMES   DEMOCRATS
Assessor                 Prang    Morris     Prang

Sheriff                  Hellmold McDonnell  NONE
Supervisor, District 1   Solis    Solis      Solis
Supervisor, District 3   Kuehl    Duran      Kuehl

Judicial Races           MadProf    LA TIMES  DEMOCRATS
Superior Ct, Office 22   Matsumoto  Matsumoto   Matsumoto
Superior Ct, Office 48   NONE       Calderon    NONE


Superior Ct, Office 54   Losnick    Losnick   Losnick


Superior Ct, Office 61   Lewis      Lewis      Lewis


Superior Ct, Office 72   NONE       NONE       NONE


Superior Ct, Office 76   Kim        Estrada     Kim


Superior Ct, Office 82   NONE       NONE        NONE


Superior Ct, Office 87   Stein      Stein       Stein


Superior Ct, Office 90   NONE       NONE         NONE

Superior Ct, Office 97   Armstead   Armstead     NONE




Superior Ct, Office 107  Castro     Castro       Castro


Superior Ct, Office 113  NONE       Wiese        NONE


Superior Ct, Office 117  NONE       Pierce*      NONE


Superior Ct, Office 138  NONE       Armstrong    NONE


Superior Ct, Office 157  Mednick    Cooper       NONE

Candidates* with an asterisk are incumbents. Openly LGBT candidates are in italics.

Opponents Of CA Trans Student Bill File Suit To Get On 2014 Ballot

Hmmm, some people just don't seem to want to follow the rules. After filing fewer signatures than they had initially claimed they would have and failing to qualify their anti-LGBT ballot measure by nearly 20,000 signatures, the organization Privacy For All is now suing the Secretary of State to have their measure qualified anyway.

A group seeking to overturn California’s law allowing transgender students access to programs and facilities based on the gender they identify as, rather than the sex they were born into, is continuing the fight by serving Secretary of State Debra Bowen and other officials, the group announced Tuesday. 

“We have served the Secretary of State with another legal action asking her to qualify the referendum and we have served county officials across the state with a demand for the documents to prove the abuse of discretion in rejecting more than 131,000 signatures,” Gina Gleason, director of faith and public policy at Calvary Chapel Chino Hills, wrote in a press release issued Tuesday morning. 

Gleason is one of the proponents listed on a proposed referendum that would repeal Assembly Bill 1266, which was signed into law last September by Gov. Jerry Brown, and took effect on Jan. 1. 

Opponents say the law will allow curious teens to ogle members of the opposite sex while at their most vulnerable, and for male students to game the system by dominating female sports teams. But officials in school districts where such policies have already been in effect — including Los Angeles and San Francisco unified school districts — have said those issues haven’t emerged in practice.

I'm glad the article notes that Los Angeles and San Francisco already have the transgender-inclusive policies of AB 1266 in effect regardless of the legislation, and would continue to have them regardless of whether a ballot measure repealed AB 1266.  In addition, New York City just issued guidelines recently about how it is adopting its transgender-inclusive policies in schools.

But this is not about "privacy" and "safety" for students. This is about a group that has specific ideas about the way that all people should display and conduct their gender identity, in a way that only conforms to a heterosexist ideal. Since they know they are losing badly in the kulturkampf on marriage equality and civil rights based on sexual orientation they are trying to make progress on an issue which has less salience with the public: transgender issues.

Hopefully Attorney General Kamala Harris will defend the state of California and point out that 504, 760 valid signatures means 504, 760 valid signatures, not 484,484!

Oregon Becomes 6th State Where Attorney General Won't Defend Marriage Ban

Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum has announced that she will no longer defend that state's constitutional marriage ban in light of the recent 9th Circuit ruling in GlaxoSmithKline v Abbott that declared sexual orientation is a suspect class that requires the government to provide increased justification for laws that discriminate against LGBT people. Rosenblum said in a filing in the lawsuit Rummel v. Kitzhaber that:

State Defendants will not defend the Oregon ban on same-sex marriage in this litigation. Rather, they will take the position in their summary judgment briefing that the ban cannot withstand a federal constitutional challenge under any standard of review. In the meantime, as the State Defendants are legally obligated to enforce the Oregon Constitution’s ban on same-sex marriage, they will continue to do so unless and until this Court grants the relief sought by the plaintiffs.

Interestingly, Rosenblum joins at least 5 other attorneys-general who have refused to defend their state's laws banning marriage equality. California's Jerry Brown was one of the most prominent (and significant) to do so way back in December 2008 and the election of Kamala Harris in 2010 insured that California's attorney general would continue to support marriage equality. Others have been Illinois's Lisa Madigan in June 2012, Pennsylvania's Kathleen Kane in July 2013, Virginia's Mark Herring in January 2014 and Nevada's Catherina Cortez Masto in February 2014.

Oregon is an interesting case because signatures have been collected to go back to the ballot but the attorney general's switch, the state of law in the 9th circuit and the fact that the case is being heard before openly gay federal judge Michael McShane makes it likely marriage equality will come to Oregon sooner rather than later and that the ballot fight might not be necessary. Signatures do not have to be submitted until July 2014 for the November election.

In fact, Mike Marshall the campaign manager for Oregon United for Marriage issued a  statement responding to AG Rosenblum's action:

"If we get marriage (from the federal court) in the spring and nobody appeals and marriage licenses are being issued, nobody has any hunger for a ballot measure we don't need."

It should be noted that every federal judge who has ruled on a marriage equality lawsuit since last year's United States v. Windsor Supreme Court ruling has found in favor of equality, and this has often been under a rational basis level of review and not the heightened scrutiny required in the 9th circuit.

California Supreme Court Denies Attempt To Revive Prop. 8

As expected, the California Supreme Court has denied requests from heterosexual supremacists to revive Proposition 8 and halt civil marriages by same-sex couples in the Golden state. In a terse order issued on Wednesday afternoon, the Court ended any last remaining legal challenge to marriage equality in California.

The Los Angeles Times explains why marriage equality is here to stay in California:

A federal judge in San Francisco declared Proposition 8 unconstitutional in 2010, and state officials refused to appeal. ProtectMarriage did appeal, but the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June that initiative sponsors have no right to defend their measures in federal court. The decision left in place the ruling by retired Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker.

In its challenge before the state’s highest court,  ProtectMarriage argued that a single judge lacked the authority to overturn a state constitutional amendment.  The group also contended that Walker’s injunction applied to two counties at most and that state officials had overstepped their authority by ordering county clerks throughout California to issue same-sex marriage licenses.

State officials countered that the challenge was a veiled attempt to persuade a state court to interfere with a federal judge’s order in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

Same-sex couples began marrying in California in late June after a federal appeals court lifted a hold on Walker’s injunction. ProtectMarriage went back to the U.S. Supreme Court the following day, arguing the appeals court acted prematurely because the high court’s decision was not even final. The Supreme Court refused to intervene.

Then the group went to the state Supreme Court, asking the justices to halt the marriages immediately while considering the legal arguments. The seven-member court unanimously rejected the request for a “stay” or hold.

California Attorney General Kamala Harris issued a statement reacting to the news of Proposition 8's demise:

“Once again, equality and freedom triumph in California. The California Supreme Court has denied the Proposition 8 proponents’ latest attempt to deny same-sex couples their constitutional right to marry. I applaud the Court’s decision and my office will continue to defend the civil rights of all Californians.”

Hat/tip to Chris Geidner of BuzzFeed.

San Diego County Clerk Files Suit To Revive Prop 8

The heterosexual supremacists are taking the return of marriage equality to California pretty badly. The Proponents of Proposition 8 have been rebuffed by the U.S. Supreme Court and the California Supreme Court so far.

Now it is a county clerk from San Diego County named Ernest Dronenburg (the level of government which actually is responsible for the issuance of marriage licenses in California) filing a petition before the California Supreme Court asking the Court to issue an immediate stay to prevent him (and all county clerks) from continuing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

As I said before, there is some truth to what the heterosexual supremacists say about the state of marriage equality in California right now. The text of Proposition 8 is still contained in the California Constitution. But it is also true that two couples filed a federal lawsuit and won an injunction against the enforcement of Proposition 8 in Alameda and Los Angeles Counties by the Attorney General and the Governor. This federal injunction is now in force.

Attorney General Kamala Harris (love her!) issued a statement in response to the San Diego County Clerk's lawsuit:

"The filing offers no new arguments that could deny same-sex couples their constitutionally protected civil rights. The federal injunction is still in effect, and it requires all 58 counties to perform same-sex marriages. No exceptions."

At some point the California Supreme Court is going to have to make a definitive decision on the merits on what legal effect Proposition 8 has now that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that no one who supports Proposition8 has standing to appeal its loss in federal court, or the people of California need to vote to remove the discriminatory language from the sate's founding document in an election. There happens to be two statewide general election next year, in June 2014 and November 2014. I say, go for it!

Hat/tip to Joe.My.God

Cal. Sup. Ct. Denies Order To Revive Prop 8, But...

Whoa, nelly! On Monday, the California Supreme Court denied another desperate attempt by the heterosexual supremacists at ProtectMarriage.com (a.k.a. the proponents of Proposition 8 who lost at the United States Supreme Court three weeks ago) to stop county clerks from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. That was expected.

However, what was somewhat unexpected was that the state Supreme Court also agreed to hear the merits of the case Hollingsworth v. O'Connell filed by marriage equality opponents last Friday that Proposition 8 is still the law of the land for the 56 counties in California that they claim were not covered by Judge Vaughn Walker's injunction against it.

They are expediting their consideration of the case with opposing briefs (from the good guys, California Attorney General Kamala Harris and Governor Jerry Brown) due on Monday July 22 and then reply briefs from the homophobes on Thursday August 1.

SCOTUSblog summarizes the state of play:

Some uncertainty hangs over gay and lesbian marriage rights in the nation’s largest state nearly three weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court had appeared to clear the way for those couples to wed, with its decision in Hollingsworth v. Perry.  A series of legal maneuvers by the “Proposition 8″ supporters has put the issue back before the state’s highest court, which has given signs that it intends to act speedily.

At this point, the seven-judge tribunal that sits in San Francisco has sharply conflicting arguments before it: a claim by state officials that marriage equality is now fully established throughout California’s fifty-eight counties and that the state court will only get into conflict with the federal courts and put county clerks at legal risk if it acts now to stop such marriages, and a rival claim by “Proposition 8″ backers that the right to marry is in effect in, at most, two counties, and that the state court has the authority and a legal duty to order the continued enforcement of that ban in the other fifty-six counties.

There is also a direct conflict over what the two sides say the state court should do at this point: state officials have said it should refuse to get involved at all, and should deny immediately all of the claims of the ban’s supporters, while the “Proposition 8″ legal team has said that the court should act now to put everything on hold until it can rule finally on the legal status of the ban under California law.

State officials are relying on their interpretation of a ruling in August 2010 by a federal district judge in San Francisco, striking down “Proposition 8″ under the federal Constitution.  There is nothing left that the California Supreme Court can do, they assert.  The ballot measure’s defenders are relying on a provision in the state constitution that says that state officials must continue to enforce state law until a definitive court ruling invalidates it.  That, they said, has not yet been done completely under the terms of the state constitution.

So, basically the CASC denied the emergency motion but is still considering the separate question of whether (or which counties) Proposition 8 is in effect.

Stay tuned!

SATURDAY POLITICS: CA Republicans Nearly Extinct

Party	Feb 1999	January 2008	January 2012
Democratic	46.72%	42.71%	43.63%
Republican	35.27%	33.45%	30.36%
NPP	12.89%	19.38%	21.24%

 
Check out these new statsistsics about party registration in California just released by Secretary of State Debra Bowen. Democrats now have a 13 percentage-point advantage in party registration (43% to 30%) over Republicans with No Particular Party (i.e. "Independents") at "21%. This is an increase of the already-overwhelming advantage Democrats enjoyed four years ago in January 2008 when the advantage was a mere 9 percentage points (42% to 33%).

You may recall that Democrats went on to win every single statewide race in November 2010. The current results bode well for these officials re-election chances in November 2014, as well as Barack Obama's likelihood of winning the state's 55 electoral votes for president this November, and probably U.S. Dianne Feinstein's re-election as well (although I will not be voting for her).

Hat/tip to Calitics.

1st Anti-Gay Ballot Measure (To Repeal SB48) Ready To Go

Bad news about SB 48, the FAIR Education Act Governor Brown signed into law on July 14, 2011. The heterosexual supremacists who brough California Proposition 8 have filed a referendum challenge to the law and received approval from Attorney General Kamala Harris to start circulating petitions in order to gather the 504,000 valid signatures to submit to Secretary of State Debra Bowen to place the question of the measure's legality on the June 2012 ballot.

Karen Ocamb of LGBTPOV has the scoop:

Referendum to Overturn Non-Discrimination Requirements for School Instruction.

Summary Date: 07/25/11 | Circulation Deadline: 10/12/11 | Signatures Required: 504,760

Proponent: Paulo E. Sibaja (909) 996-9391

If signed by the required number of registered voters and filed with the Secretary of State, this petition will place on the statewide ballot a challenge to a state law previously approved by the Legislature and Governor. The law must then be approved by a majority of voters at the next statewide election to go into effect. The law would require school instructional materials to recognize societal contributions of various groups; and would prohibit school instructional materials that reflect adversely on persons based on their ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation and other characteristics. (11-0023.) (Full Text)

By a referendum, all passage of the measure would do is take back the laws of California to the way they were prior to July 14, 2011. LGBT people and the disability community would not be required to be included in instructional materials. Previously the law mandated the teaching of many other groups, mainly racial and ethnic minorities and Equality California and Mark Leno sponsored legislation to add LGBT and people with disabilities to the list (and change American Indian to Native American and Asian Pacific to Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders).

This is basically a proxy fight over gay rights the right wing is hoping to use to increase conservative turnout in the June 2012 election which will be an incredibly important election (maybe more important than the Presidential election in California) as (almost) every single district-based political office in California will be up for election for the first time in a redrawn district.

I've also heard rumors of a second anti-gay ballot measure which would attempt to divorce the 18,000 same-sex couples that got married in California prior to Proposition 8 and preempt any positive decision striking down Proposition 8 as violating the federal constitution. This second measure seems like even more folly because any measure seeking to replicate or even out do Proposition 8 in anti-gay fervor would clearly also be subject to a similar lawsuit which will probably nullify that measure.