UPDATE: Michael Johnson (Black, Gay ,HIV+ Man) Released From Prison Early!

Michael Johnson (left) with Dr. Steve Thrasher

There's an exciting update in the ongoing saga of Michael Johnson (also known as "Tiger Mandingo"), a Black gay man with HIV who at the age of 23 in 2015 was sentenced to 30-years in prison for knowingly exposing several gay men to HIV (some of whom subsequently tested positive for HIV later). Johnson's case was a textbook case of HIV stigma combined with racial animus leading to a problematic criminal justice result. Happily, this conviction was overturned in 2016 and last year Johnson agreed to a 10-year Alford plea deal with the last 3 years converted to parole.

One of the key journalists and activists who raised the media profile of the Johnson case was Steve Thrasher (@thrasherxy) (seen pictured with Johnson above the day he was released from prison on July 9, 2019).

A New York Times report on Johnson's release said:

In theory, H.I.V. exposure laws are meant to encourage H.I.V.-positive individuals to disclose their status before having sex, and to practice safer sex, with the ultimate goal of preventing the spread of the virus.
But there is no evidence that these laws have reduced risky behavior or encouraged disclosure, said Catherine Hanssens, the executive director of the Center for H.I.V. Law and Policy, which provided legal support for Mr. Johnson’s case.
In the eyes of the law, an H.I.V. diagnosis is conflated with malice, she added.
“These laws effectively treat an H.I.V. diagnosis itself as evidence that the person acted with bad intentions when sex or other types of physical contact are involved in a crime,” she said.

Congratulations to everyone who worked on this case. Johnson will be moving to and living in Indiana with a friend and says he plans to continue his education and would like to share his story as part of advocacy for HIV prevention and treatment,

UPDATE: Michael Johnson a.k.a. "Tiger Mandingo" Has Jail Time Reduced From 30 Year to 6 (Plus Parole)

This blog post provides an update in the ongoing saga of how a 23-year-old Black gay man who was sentenced to 30-years for consensual sex with other men in Missouri because he is HIV-positive and did not inform his partners of that fact. The man is named Michael Johnson (although he described himself online as "Tiger Mandingo") and he became a poster child for the excesses of HIV criminalization. His trial was marred by blatant homophobia, prurient descriptions of Black male sexuality and blunt race-baiting by the prosecution. The good news is that eventually his original draconian 30-year sentence was overturned and last year he agreed to a 10-year sentence instead.

The latest update on the Johnson case is there is news that parole has been granted but that it is going to be delayed for 18 months, so in effect he will end up serving 6 years of his 10 year term since he has been in prison since 2013 and he would be released in 2019.

Steven Thrasher at Buzzfeed reports:

Last month, Johnson appeared before the Missouri Board of Probation and Parole, where his friend, Meredith Rowan, attended as his delegate in the hearing. The board did not immediately respond to an email or phone call for comment, but Rowan said Johnson called her from prison today to tell her that his parole had been granted — with a delay. 

“Michael was excited that it got approved,” Rowan told BuzzFeed News. “I have to look at it that I have a date, and it’s only 18 months away, and it’s still a lot sooner than a 30-year sentence,” Rowan said Johnson told her. If released as planned, Johnson will have served 60% of his 10-year sentence. The date is contingent upon Johnson not accruing any violations.
Johnson’s lawyers, Eric Selig and Jessica Hathaway, confirmed the terms of Johnson’s parole. ”We had some hopes, because of all the support Michael had received and a couple of other factors, that he would get out at an earlier date,” Selig said. 

Johnson will live with Rowan and her family in Indiana when he is released, Rowan said. He will be supervised by parole officers for the duration of his 10-year sentence, until 2023. 

Laws that single out HIV are widespread in the US. At least “67 laws explicitly focused on persons living with HIV had been enacted in 33 states” by 2011, according to an analysis by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and researchers from the US Department of Justice. In Missouri, where Johnson was convicted, people living with HIV can face life in prison for exposing others to HIV if they have sex without first disclosing that they have the virus.

We at this blog have been following this case from the beginning because it seemed like such an egregious example of abuse in the criminal justice system intersecting with homophobia, race and HIV stigma.

UPDATE: Michael Johnson Accepts 10-Year Plea Deal In HIV Transmission Case

There is an update in the infamous Michael Johnson case: where a 23-year-old Black gay man was sentenced to 30 years in prison under Missouri's discriminatory HIV criminalization statute after a trial influenced by homophobia and racism. Happily, the 30-year sentence was overturned last year.
The news comes that Johnson has agreed to a plea deal where he gets a 10-year prison sentence (including the 4 years he has already served). He is entering an "Alford plea" which says that he agrees that the state has enough evidence to convict him of a crime.

The Center for HIV Law and Public Policy issued a press release on the Johnson case:

New York, NY, September 21, 2017 – Today, in conclusion to a prosecution short on fairness and riddled with questions about racism and homophobia, Michael Johnson entered a plea in the St. Charles County Circuit Court in Missouri. Earlier this year, a state appeals court vacated his original conviction due to prosecutorial misconduct that, according to the court, made Johnson’s first trial “fundamentally unfair.” 

However, because Missouri’s HIV criminal law hinges liability on whether or not the defendant can prove he disclosed his HIV status prior to sex – a virtual impossibility in most instances – Johnson decided to accept a plea deal that credits him with time served. Under Missouri’s law, one of the harshest in the country, Johnson could have faced up to 96 years in prison if found guilty. 

“It is disturbing that Michael is not yet a free man and was not exonerated after his years-long struggle for justice, but we respect and support his decision not to risk a life behind bars,” said Mayo Schreiber, Deputy Director of the Center for HIV Law and Policy (CHLP). “It likely is the end of his case, but our work to bring an end to HIV criminal laws like Missouri’s continues.” 

Johnson, who was 21-years-old at the beginning of this case, entered a no-contest plea to charges that he had sex with partners without first advising them of his HIV status. In exchange, he has accepted a sentence of 10 years in state prison, which will include time already served since his arrest nearly four years ago.  He previously had been sentenced to 30 years in prison before the appeals court threw out the original conviction. 

Prior to his arrest in 2013, Johnson was a promising young college student and star athlete. His prosecution has drawn condemnation from state and national organizations and individuals uniformly outraged by his conviction and opposed to these fundamentally unfair laws being used to prosecute people living with HIV and, disproportionately, like all other criminal laws in the United States, people of color.

In related news, this week the California state legislature passed SB 239, which modernizes the state's laws around HIV transmission so that HIV is treated like other communicable diseases.

Hat tip to TowleRoad

QUEER QUOTE: Draconian 30-Year Sentence Overturned In HIV Criminalization Case

The case of Michael Johnson has been a cause celebre for years, an emblematic of a toxic stew of race, (homo)sexuality, homophobia, AIDSphobia and criminal justice that produces (and is produced by) HIV criminalization statutes. Johnson is a Black gay man who at age 23 was sentenced to 30 years in a Missouri court in summer 2015 because the former college wrestler did not disclose to his male partners that he  knew he was HIV-positive before they engaged in unprotected sexual activity (some of which was recorded on cellphones). This week comes the news that an appellate court has overturned that draconian sentence (conviction for 2nd degree murder would have received less jail time) and ordered a new trial.

The Washington Post reports:

During the trial, Johnson remained adamant that he informed his partners of the positive HIV test. He pleaded not guilty. The prosecution, however, impeached his testimony using three clips of cellphone conversations, recorded while Johnson was jailed. In one snippet of phone conversation, Johnson admitted he was just “pretty sure” he had informed his partners he was HIV positive. 

After slightly more than two hours of deliberation, a jury declared Johnson guilty of three crimes, all felonies under Missouri law: one count of recklessly infecting a sexual partner with HIV, one count of recklessly exposing a partner to HIV and three counts of attempting to recklessly infect a partner with HIV. In July 2015, Judge Jon A. Cunningham of the Circuit Court for St. Charles County sentenced Johnson to 30 years in prison. 

[...] 

Presiding Missouri Court of Appeals’ Eastern District Judge James M. Dowd wrote Tuesday that Johnson’s trial was rendered “fundamentally unfair” by the prosecutors; they tarried too long handing over the cellphone calls recorded while Johnson was in the county jail. “The State’s blatant discovery violation here is inexcusable,” the judges concluded.

Johnson's lawyer Lawrence Lustberg, the ACLU of Missouri and Lambda Legal celebrated this week's result. Lustberg's comment is today's Queer Quote:

"Statutes like the one used to prosecute Mr. Johnson are inherently problematic, as they promote stigma and animus towards people living with HIV in violation of their legal and constitutional rights."

The ACLU notes that the new trial is being ordered due to prosecutorial misconduct and not the underlying constitutional frailty of the criminal statute Johnson was charged and sentenced under.
MadProfessah will continue to follow this case closely and urge readers to contribute to organizations like Lambda Legal, ACLU and the Center for HIV Law and Policy.

Hat/tip to Washington Blade and Washington Post.

REPORT: Racial Disparities Exist In HIV Criminalization

This will not be a surprise to anyone who has been following the story of HIV criminalization in the United States over the last few years. The Black AIDS Institute has issued a report on a new academic finding that exposes the racial disparities that exist in HIV criminalization.

Two studies—one commissioned by the Williams Institute, a think tank at the UCLA School of Law that conducts independent research on sexual-orientation and gender-identity law and public policy, and the other presented at the International AIDS Conference in Durban, South Africa, in July 2016—link the criminalization of HIV to higher rates of incarceration for PLWHA of color, and community activists confirm it.

[...]

Researchers found that while White men made up 40 percent of the people diagnosed with HIV in California, only 16 percent of them had had contact with the criminal-justice system related to their HIV status. Black men made up 16 percent of PLWHA but 19 percent of those who had contact with the criminal-justice system. They were also more likely than White men to come into contact with the system repeatedly based on their HIV status: 25 percent vs. 10 percent. Overall, White men were more likely to be released and not charged. Black women made up only 4 percent of the population of PLWHA, yet an astounding 21 percent of them had come into contact with the criminal-justice system. Researchers say that more work needs to be done to identify what is driving the racial and gender disparities. 

In July, Trevor Hoppe, Ph.D., assistant professor of sociology at the State University of New York at Albany, presented his paper "HIV: Does Race Impact Sentencing Under Criminal HIV Exposure and Disclosure Laws in the United States?" at AIDS 2016. Hoppe looked at five states—Arkansas, Florida, Michigan, Missouri and Tennessee—and found that Black men were given an average sentence of 110 months after being convicted on an HIV-specific criminal law, while White men averaged 74 months for violating the same statute. He found the greatest racial disparity in Arkansas, where Black men's sentences were double those of white men—279 vs. 140 months. "In Arkansas, Black men were sentenced to a dozen more years," says Hoppe.

There are too many examples of public policy not keeping up with the advancement of scientific knowledge about HIV transmission and, unsurprisingly, it is people of color who appear to be disproportionately impacted by this. Just ask Michael Johnson!

QUEER QUOTE: CHLP Responds To Black Gay Man's 30-Year Jail Sentence

I previously blogged about the case of the HIV+, Black, gay college wrestling champion named  Michael Johnson who was arrested, tried and convicted using Missouri's draconian HIV criminalization statute for sexual activity he engaged in with consenting adults. Yesterday I blogged this week that Johnson has now been sentenced to multiple, concurrent 30-year terms. Michael Johnson is 23-years-old and apparently had diagnosed learning disabilities while he was in college.

The Center for HIV Law and Public Policy has released a statement condemning Missouri's prosecution (and persecution) of Johnson which is today's Queer Quote:

“The criminal statute that Michael Johnson was convicted of violating was originally passed in 1988, at a time when HIV was considered a ‘death sentence.’  Today, with proper treatment, HIV is a chronic, manageable disease and those with HIV can expect to live a full, healthy life. Yet violation of the Missouri law is a class A felony, with a sentencing range of 10-30 years or life imprisonment. Other class A felonies include murder or child abandonment resulting in death.  Punishing Michael Johnson as if he is a murderer because state officials have failed to address a severely outdated, irrational criminal law is not only fundamentally unfair, it is barbaric.”

Here at MadProfessah.com we will be following this case closely!

UPDATE: Black Gay Man, 23, Sentenced To 30 YEARS Under Missouri's HIV Criminalization Law

The sentence for Michael Johnson, the former college wrestler who had unprotected sex with numerous guys that he met on the Internet and mobile hook-up apps, and was subsequently charged with (and found guility of) violating Missouri's draconian HIV criminalization statute has been released: 30 years in prison. Johnson actually received multiple sentences of 30 years but the judge said he could serve them concurrently (at the same time).

St. Charles County Circuit Judge Jon Cunningham, who issued the sentence, told Johnson he had committed "very severe" crimes. Prosecutors said he didn't tell the partners he had HIV."The main thing is the profound effect your actions have had on the victims and their families," the judge said.Johnson was given 30 years on the most serious allegation and a total of 30.5 years on the four lesser charges.  Those were the amounts of prison time recommended by the jury. Cunningham decided to have the terms on the lesser charges run concurrently with the 30-year sentence.

It should be noted that if Michael Johnson had been found guilty of second-degree murder the sentence would be between 10 and 30 years!

Had Michael Johnson been convicted of second-degree murder in Missouri, the sentence would have been between 10 and 30 years.  Forcible rape: no less than 5 years; Forcible rape if a weapon is used or serious physical injury results, it could be as little as 15 years.  Forcible rape of a child under the age of 12 has a mandatory 30 years, the same sentence Michael Johnson got today.  First degree statutory rape of a child under the age of 12 could get as little as 10 years.

The primary organization I know that is doing something about such unfair actions is the Center for HIV Law and Policy.

23-Year-Old Black Gay HIV+ Man Faces 60 Years In Prison After Being Found Guilty In Missouri

Michael Johnson is a 23-year-old Black gay man who was known on social media as "Tiger Mandingo" and was a champion college wrestler who allegedly had sex with multiple partners in Missouri without disclosing his HIV-positive status (which he knew about). Atleast one of those partners later tested positive for HIV and Johnson was found guilty of under Missouri's HIV criminalization statue this week of "recklessly infecting" a partner with HIV as well as "recklessly exposing a partner to HIV" and is subject to a punishment that could extend to life in prison.

The case, despite being a case of "he said, he said" was complicated by the fact that Johnson made as many as 30 videos of himself having unprotected oral and anal sex with partners, which since he was diagnosed by the state of Missouri as being HIV-positive on January 8, 2013 are evidence of illegal activity.

Buzzfeed notes:

Johnson was specifically charged on six counts: transmitting HIV to Lemons and to Charles Pfoutz through anal sex (both Class A felonies); one Class B felony for attempting to expose HIV to Montell Moore through anal sex without transmission; and three additional Class B felonies for exposing Christian Green, Filip Cukovic, and Andrew Tryon to HIV. Johnson was convicted on all counts, except the one involving Pfoutz, which was added by the prosecution just last month.  

All six of Johnson’s accusers testified that Johnson did not disclose his HIV status. Multiple medical professionals testified that they had informed Johnson of his status and advised him it was a felony to fail to disclose.

Johnson for his part testified that he had disclosed his HIV status to all six of his sexual partners before they had sex.

The case has become a cause celebre in Black gay circles, with a public letter to Johnson signed by 89 prominent Black gay men being circulated in response to the trial. Here's an excerpt:

HIV should be treated as a public health issue not as a criminal one. Legally requiring disclosure privileges the lives of White people not living with HIV over Black people who are living with HIV.
These laws feed into stereotypes that assume Black gay men are irresponsible and hypersexual. For you, your accusers saw your Black and masculine body as a site of ultimate sexual pleasure, until they had to deal with you as a whole person. At that moment you became a problem and were disposable to them.
HIV criminalization laws burden people living with HIV to take on the sole responsibility of sexual encounters. Regardless of intention or disclosure, there is a shared responsibility among sexual partners. Opening up about your HIV status is a personal decision that should not be mandated or enforced. Disclosing your HIV-status should be about self-reflection and speaking your truth. Disclosure should not be about protecting people who are not living with HIV from transmission. And disclosure should not be about punishing people living with HIV who do not disclose.
We do not care about whether or not you disclosed, or any intention you may or may not have had. We care about you—your life matters. HIV is not a crime and you should not be in prison.

What do you think?

Hat/tip to Fusion

Killer Cop Darren Wilson Resigns From #Ferguson Police Department

Darren Wilson, the police officer whose fatal shooting of an unarmed 18-year-old African-American man named Michael Brown  in Ferguson, MO in August 2014 has been the subject of protests around the country, has released a public letter of resignation less than a week after a grand jury refused to indict him on any criminal charges relating to his actions that resulted in the death of Brown.

"I, Darren Wilson, hereby resign my commission as a police officer with the City of Ferguson effective immediately. I have been told that my continued employment may put the residents and police officers of the City of Ferguson at risk, which is a circumstance that I cannot allow. For obvious reasons, I wanted to wait until the grand jury made their decision before I officially made my decision to resign. It was my hope to continue in police work, but the safety of other police officers and the community are of paramount importance to me. It is my hope that my resignation will allow the community to heal. I would like to thank all of my supporters and fellow officers throughout this process."

Wilson's actions and words have raised the profile of racial differences in the country, in particular as they relate to police relations with minority communities.

Hat/tip to Wonder Man

POLL: Americans See Michael Brown Shooting Very Differently By Race and Party

Not TOO surprisingly there are stark racial differences in how Americans of different racial backgrounds view the shooting of Michael Brown, a poll by Huffington Post reveals.

As YouGov puts it:

There is a massive racial divide between white and black Americans about whether Darren Wilson should face punishment for killing Michael Brown. While only 22% of whites say that wilson was at fault and should be punished, just under two-thirds (64%) of black Americans want the officer to be punished. 30% of whites, and 11% of blacks, say that the shooting was a tragic accident. 29% of whites say that officer Wilson was fully justified in shooting Brown, something only 4% of black Americans agree with.

Views of the Ferguson incident are not only bifurcated by racial identity but also by party identification:

Democrats were also three times more likely than Republicans to say Wilson was at fault, and to fear that he would be punished too leniently. 

Perhaps the biggest divide, however, was on whether the shooting represented an isolated incident or part of a broader pattern in how black men are treated by the police. While Americans overall were split, 74 percent of black Americans and 57 percent of Democrats, compared with 31 percent of whites and 18 percent of Republicans, saw the shooting as part of a larger pattern.

Despite this being an incident that involves a white cop and  a Black victim I would be interested in seeing data about how other racial groups (especially Latino and Asians) view the Michael Brown situation. Race in America is far more complicated than just Black and white.

Same-Sex Couples Getting Married In Missouri After Court Ruling

Missouri joined the ranks of marriage equality states today when a state judge struck down the Show Me state's ban on same-sex couples being issued marriage licenses and no stay was issued on the effect of the decision.

The Attorney General of Missouri issued this statement in response to the decision in State of Missouri v. Jennifer Florida:

We have appealed the ruling to the Missouri Supreme Court. The constitutional challenge to Missouri's historically recognized right to define marriage must be presented to and resolved by the state's highest court. Following decisions in Idaho and Alaska, the United States Supreme Court has refused to grant stays on identical facts. We will not seek a stay of this court’s order when the United States Supreme Court has ruled none should be granted.

Hopefully the state Supreme Court will issue a speedy ruling on the issue. Missouri is in the 8th circuit, which is one of the few federal appellate circuits which has not ruled on the question of whether state bans on marriage equality violate the federal constitution. The current case is in the state system but presumably there are parallel legal avenues ongoing in the federal system.

President Obama Makes Statement About Disturbing Police Activity In Ferguson, MO

President Obama has made an appearance where he uses the term "excessive force" in describing the disturbing situation in Ferguson, MO. Obama where the police have been using aggressively militaristic tactics like tear gas, firing rubber bullets at protesters and arresting journalists to "maintain order" in response to community protests about the fatal shooting of 18-year-old Michael Brown, an unarmed African American male, on Saturday August 9.

QUEER QUOTE: LGBT Groups Issue Statement On Michael Brown Killing

The fatal shooting of an unarmed 18-year-old Black man named Michael Brown by a police officer in Ferguson, Missouri (just outside St. Louis) has been roiling the internets since it happened on Saturday August 9.

LGBT groups are often criticized by other progressive groups, especially African American civil rights organizations for a lack of reciprocity when it comes to coalition work but today comes word of a joint statement from numerous LGBT groups about the heinous Michael Brown killing:

When communities experience fear, harassment and brutality simply because of who they are or how they look, we are failing as a nation. In light of the recent events in Missouri, it is clearer than ever that there is something profoundly wrong in our country. The lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community cannot be silent at this moment, because LGBT people come from all races, creeds, faiths and backgrounds, and because all movements of equality are deeply connected. We are all part of the fabric of this nation and the promise of liberty and justice for all is yet to be fulfilled. 

The LGBT community stands with the family of Michael Brown, who was gunned down in Ferguson, Missouri. We stand with the mothers and fathers of young Black men and women who fear for the safety of their children each time they leave their homes. We call on the national and local media to be responsible and steadfast in their coverage of this story and others like it--racialized killings that have marred this nation since the beginning of its history. We call on policy makers on all levels of American government not to shrink from action, and we are deeply grateful to Attorney General Eric Holder and the Department of Justice for their immediate commitment to a thorough investigation. At this moment, we are inspired by the words of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.: “In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies … but the silence of our friends." 

ACLUCenter for Black Equity, Inc.Equality FederationGay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD)GMHCHuman Rights CampaignNational Black Justice CoalitionNational Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR)National Center for Transgender EqualityNational Gay and Lesbian Task ForceNational Minority AIDS CouncilNational Queer Asian Pacific Islander Alliance (NQAPIA)PFLAG NationalPride at Work, AFL-CIOSoulforceSoutherners on New Ground (SONG)United AIDS

Good work!

Even while on vacation, President Barack Obama has also commented on the shooting, calling it "heartbreaking."

College Football Star Comes Out; Likely To Become 1st Openly Gay NFL Player

Michael Sam has become the first player expected to be in the NFL draft to come out as openly gay. Sam, 24, graduated from the University of Missouri last December and was named the 2013 SEC Defensive Player of the Year. He is 6-foot-3 and 260 pounds.

Sam led the SEC with 11.5 sacks, and 19 tackles for a loss. Most NFL draft projections see him as a likely mid-round pick, with some saying Sam could go as high as the third round, with a possible position switch to outside linebacker. He is rated as the 12th-best outside pass rusher in the draft by ESPN Scouts Inc.

"I just want to go to the team who drafts me," he said, "because that team knows about me, knows that I'm gay, and also knows that I work hard. That's the team I want to go to."

Sam said that despite some comments from current players, he doesn't anticipate difficulty gaining acceptance in an NFL locker room.

"Hopefully it will be the same like my locker room," he said. "It's a workplace. if you've ever been in a Division I or pro locker room, it's a business place. You want to act professional."

Sam rejects the appalling slanders that sometimes have been hurled at gay men.

"I mean, people will talk about the stereotype of gays being in the locker room ... to me, I think that it's a little stereotyped that gay people are predators. It's just very offensive."

The New York Times has a video interview with Sam:


Sam apparently came out to his teammates last year and there were no issues. This will probably become a pretty big news story in the next few days and weeks! OutSports has more coverage of the story.
Hat/tip to Joe.My.God

MISSOURI: Heterosexual Supremacists Sue To Prevent Same-Sex Couples From Filing Joint Tax Returns

Well, well! One of the pressing questions in the year after the Supreme Court's landmark ruling in United States v. Windsor invalidating Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and the subsequent decision by the federal government to generally recognize same-sex marriages for benefits purposes is how will the states deal with legal same-sex marriages from other states. Missouri distinguished itself when Gov. Jay Nixon (D) announced that he would issue an executive order that would allow same-sex couples to file joint tax returns despite the presence of a mini-DOMA in its constitution.

The idea that same-sex couples would have the same rights as opposite-sex couples in the area of filing state tax returns has rubbed some heterosexual supremacists the wrong way and they are filing a lawsuit to overturn Gov. Nixon's executive order.

The lawsuit asks Nixon's order be declared unconstitutional. It was filed by officials from the Missouri Baptist Convention Christian Life Commission and the Missouri Family Policy Council. 

Missouri's tax code is tied to the federal code. Nixon said couples who file joint federal returns must file state taxes jointly. Federal officials determined legally married same-sex couples would be treated as married regardless of where they live.

PROMO, Missouri's LGBT advocacy group issued a statement responding to the lawsuit whose sole purpose is to deny an equal benefit to a class of people from people who already enjoy that benefit.

"Gov. Nixon's pragmatic and reasonable order ensures that Missouri income tax law continues to mirror the Federal Treasury and IRS. This order gives clear and equal guidance to all legally married couples in Missouri about how to complete their state income tax returns. The plaintiffs have no grounds to file this case, the Governor's order should stand." 

Apparently there is another lawsuit in Kansas challenging that state's decision to not allow same-sex couples who are married to file joint state tax returns.

This is an issue that affects me directly. Since I lived in Virginia intermittently for the last two years while I worked for the federal government I have to file a Virginia tax return. But Virginia is refusing to recognize the (married filing jointly) tax return I filed with the United States and California. Virginia claims I owe tax on income that my husband earned in California! My tax professional is in communication with Virginia but things do not look good.

Stay tuned...

Missouri To Recognize Marriage Equality For Tax Purposes

Missouri Governor Jay Nixon (D) announced this week that he supports marriage equality as a matter of public policy and issued an executive order that would allow legally married same-sex couples who file taxes in Missouri to do so jointly, despite the existence of a state constitutional amendment passed in 2004 which said that "to be valid and recognized in this state, a marriage shall exist only between a man and a woman."

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports

Nixon said he was making the change because state tax law is linked to federal tax law. 

After the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated part of the Defense of Marriage Act in June, the IRS ruled that legally married same-sex couples will be treated as married for federal tax purposes, no matter where they live. 

At a news conference in his Capitol office, Nixon told reporters he will issue an executive order today telling the Missouri Department of Revenue to accept the couples’ joint state returns if they file joint federal returns.

Think Progress explains how the legal situation for same-sex couples has changed since the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Windsor:

When the Supreme Court overturned the Defense of Marriage Act, it opened up the possibility for same-sex couples to file their federal tax returns jointly for the first time. In the past, such couples living in states that recognized their marriages could file jointly at the state level but had to file separately at the federal level. The situation is now switched, so any couple who legally married in one state but then moved to another that didn’t recognize their union can file jointly for federal taxes, but will still have to file separately for state taxes. Missouri will become the first exception to this. 

As I have been saying, we are running out of blue states to make advances in marriage equality and the next frontier in ending discrimination against LGBT people will be occurring in conservative red states. The only remaining blue states that do not have marriage or civil unions are Virginia, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida. It's curious that these are some of the most populous states in the country and currently all of them (except Virginia) have Republican governors but have gubernatorial elections in 2014. Virginia is the location of a high profile federal marriage lawsuit, and there are active lawsuits in many of the other states as well. Blue states which are expected to have enacted marriage equality in the foreseeable future are New Mexico, Oregon, Colorado and Nevada.

Saturday Politics: Only 9 (D) Senators Not For Marriage Equality

Sen. Tom Carper of Delaware

Last week's Supreme Court arguments in two marriage equality cases forced a number of Democratc senators gave a number of Democratic senators the opportunity to clarify their position on support for marriage equality for same-sex couples. In addition to Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO), her colleagues Mark Begich (D-AK), Kay Hagan (D-NC), Jon Tester (D-MT), Mark Warner (D-VA) from red (Alaska, North Carolina, Montana) or purple states (Virginia).

There are still nine members of the Democratic caucus in the United States Senate who still have not endorsed marriage equality:

• Sen. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania. Up for reelection in 2018.
• Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia. Up for reelection in 2018.
• Sen. Bill Nelson of Florida. Up for reelection in 2018.
• Sen. Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota. Up for reelection in 2018.
• Sen. Tom Carper of Delaware. Up for reelection in 2018.
• Sen. Joe Donnelly of Indiana. Up for reelection in 2018.
• Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana. Up for reelection in 2014.
• Sen. Mark Pryor of Arkansas. Up for reelection in 2014.
• Sen. Tim Johnson of South Dakota. Won't run for reelection in 2014.
  

There are three Senators from blue states who have are on this list: Casey of Pennsylvania (who is anti-choice, so is known to be an outlier on social issues in the Democratic party), Nelson of Florida, and Carper of Delaware. The most curious of these is Tom Carper because not only is Delaware a blue state, but recent polls have shown that a majority of respondents in Delaware support marriage equality 54% to 37%. Two-thirds of Democratic voters nationwide support marriage equality so it is very curious why a Democratic senator from a Democratic state would not announce his support for marriage, especially when he does not have to face the voters for 5 more years?

Inquiring minds want to know!

Celebrity Friday: Sen. McCaskill Supports Marriage Equality

Claire McCaskill, a Democratic United States Senator from a reliably red (Republican) state, has come out publicly in favor of marriage equality, albeit using lower profile social media venues to communicate her position.

On her Tumblr page, Sen. McCaskill says:

The question of marriage equality is a great American debate. Many people, some with strong religious faith, believe that marriage can only exist between a man and a woman. Other people, many of whom also have strong religious faith, believe that our country should not limit the commitment of marriage to some, but rather all Americans, gay and straight should be allowed to fully participate in the most basic of family values.

I have come to the conclusion that our government should not limit the right to marry based on who you love. While churches should never be required to conduct marriages outside of their religious beliefs, neither should the government tell people who they have a right to marry.

My views on this subject have changed over time, but as many of my gay and lesbian friends, colleagues and staff embrace long term committed relationships, I find myself unable to look them in the eye without honestly confronting this uncomfortable inequality. Supporting marriage equality for gay and lesbian couples is simply the right thing to do for our country, a country founded on the principals of liberty and equality.

Hat/tip to Chris Geidner of Buzzfeed

Godless Wednesday: MO Passes Right To Pray Amendment

Atheist and progressive circles are buzzing about the overwhelming (82.8% yes) passage of a ballot measure  in Missouri on Tuesday August 7th which purports to inscribe (and "defend") the right to pray in that state's constitution.

The measure was formally known as State Constitutional Amendment 2 but was informally known as the "right to pray" amendment. Here is the actual text of the Amendment (which did not appear on the ballot that voters saw)

That all men and women have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences; that no human authority can control or interfere with the rights of conscience; that no person shall, on account of his or her religious persuasion or belief, be rendered ineligible to any public office or trust or profit in this state, be disqualified from testifying or serving as a juror, or be molested in his or her person or estate; that to secure a citizen's right to acknowledge Almighty God according to the dictates of his or her own conscience, neither the state nor any of its political subdivisions shall establish any official religion, nor shall a citizen's right to pray or express his or her religious beliefs be infringed; that the state shall not coerce any person to participate in any prayer or other religious activity, but shall ensure that any person shall have the right to pray individually or corporately in a private or public setting so long as such prayer does not result in disturbance of the peace or disruption of a public meeting or assembly; that citizens as well as elected officials and employees of the state of Missouri and its political subdivisions shall have the right to pray on government premises and public property so long as such prayers abide within the same parameters placed upon any other free speech under similar circumstances; that the General Assembly and the governing bodies of political subdivisions may extend to ministers, clergypersons, and other individuals the privilege to offer invocations or other prayers at meetings or sessions of the General Assembly or governing bodies; that students may express their beliefs about religion in written and oral assignments free from discrimination based on the religious content of their work; that no student shall be compelled to perform or participate in academic assignments or educational presentations that violate his or her religious beliefs; that the state shall ensure public school students their right to free exercise of religious expression without interference, as long as such prayer or other expression is private and voluntary, whether individually or corporately, and in a manner that is not disruptive and as long as such prayers or expressions abide within the same parameters placed upon any other free speech under similar circumstances; and, to emphasize the right to free exercise of religious expression, that all free public schools receiving state appropriations shall display, in a conspicuous and legible manner, the text of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of the United States; but this section shall not be construed toexpand the rights of prisoners in state or local custody beyond those afforded by the laws of the United States, excuse acts of licentiousness, nor to justify practices inconsistent with the good order, peace or safety of the state, or with the rights of others.

What voters actually saw on their ballot was:

Official Ballot Title:Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to ensure:

• That the right of Missouri citizens to express their religious beliefs shall not be infringed;

• That school children have the right to pray and acknowledge God voluntarily in their schools; and

• That all public schools shall display the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution.

It is estimated this proposal will result in little or no costs or savings for state and local governmental entities.

Fair Ballot Language:A "yes" vote will amend the Missouri Constitution to provide that neither the state nor political subdivisions shall establish any official religion. The amendment further provides that a citizen's right to express their religious beliefs regardless of their religion shall not be infringed and that the right to worship includes prayer in private or public settings, on government premises, on public property, and in all public schools. The amendment also requires public schools to display the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution. 

A "no" vote will not change the current constitutional provisions protecting freedom of religion.
If passed, this measure will have no impact on taxes.

The measure passed by 780,044 to 162,497 votes. One of the provision [that I bolded above] allows school children to not participate in school assignments which violate their religious beliefs. As melanie at the Friendly Atheist remarks, this looks like a "get-out-of-science-class-free card."

The ACLU is suing over the provision which actually reduces the rights of religious expression of those incarcerated in Missouri jails and prisons. Of course, it is truly doubtful that proponents of this measure were willing to support the expansion of religious rights for all people of faith in Missouri. It will be interesting to see how certain disfavored religions like Muslims, Sikhs and Scientologists uses these provisions, assuming some enlightened federal judge doesn't strike down the entire kit and caboodle first!

The 7 Most Anti-Gay Republican Congressmembers

LGBT Think Progress has produced a list of the seven most anti-gay Republican Members of Congress by noting which of them have sponsored multiple pieces of anti-gay legislation from the following list:

H.R. 337, the Restore Military Readiness Act

H.R. 875, the Marriage Protection Act of 2011

H.R. 958, the We the People Act

H.R. 3828, the Military Religious Freedom Protection Act

H.J.RES. 45, proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage

H.RES. 143, directing the Speaker, or his designee, to take any and all actions necessary to assert the standing of the House to defend the Defense of Marriage Act

H.CON.RES. 25, expressing the sense of Congress with respect to the Obama administration’s discontinuing to defend the Defense of Marriage Act

H.AMDT. 573 to H.R.2219, to prohibit the use of funds to enforce the directive of allowing chaplains to perform same-sex marriages on Navy bases regardless of any applicable State law requirements

H.AMDT. 546 to H.R. 2219, to prohibit the use of funds in contravention of section 7 of title 1, United States Code (the Defense of Marriage Act)

and H.AMDT.1096 to H.R.5326, to prohibit the use of funds to be used in contravention of the Defense of Marriage Act

The most anti-gay members of Congress is Tim Huelskamp (R-KS) who sponsored 6 of the above pieces of legislation (while authoring 3 of them). There are six Republicans who have co-sponsored 5 of the anti-gay bills and resolutions: Dan Burton (R-IN), Phil Gingrey (R-GA), W. Todd Akin (R-MO), Vicky Harzler (R-MO), Doug Lamborn (R-CO) and Donald Manzullo (R-IL). There are fourteen other Republican congressmembers who sponsored at least 4 of the pieces of legislation from the list.