2018 US OPEN: Osaka Wins 1st Major Title, Serena Receives Controversial Penalties (Again)

In a stunning upset, 20-year-old Naomi Osaka defeated 36-year-old Serena Williams in the 2018 US Open final, 6-2 6-4 to win her first major title. Osaka became the first Japanese player to win a major title in 200 major tournaments played in the Open area. For the second consecutive grand slam,  the 23-time major champion lost in the final, which drops her record to a still-intimidating 23-8 record in major finals for her career.

HOW THE MATCH WAS WON

Osaka was simply the better player for most of the match, clearly able to play her best tennis despite her nerves which was not the case for Serena. Both players began their first service games with 0-30 holes but were then able to come through and hold serve. However in the very next game Serena fell behind on her serve and lost it on a double fault. For some reason, Serena's service percentage was well below 50% (approximately 38%) while Osaka's was around double this number and at least as fast. Despite starting at 30-0, Serena lost her service again at 1-3 and only at 5-1 down was Serena finally able to hold service again but then lost the first set 6-2. In the second set Serena was more focused, but this ended when she was awarded a code violation after the umpire Carlos Ramos claimed her coach Patrick Mouratoglou was trying to coach her from the stands by indicating Serena should approach the net. Serena broke serve and went up 3-1 but after she gave back the break Serena destroyed her racket and received a second code violation, which resulted in a point penalty. Serena continued arguing with the umpire and on the 3-4 changeover she said to Ramos "You stole a point from me, You're a thief!" he gave her a 3rd code violation which resulted in a game penalty, so instead of Osaka serving, Serena was forced to serve at 3-5. She was able to hold serve and then Osaka served out the 10th game and won the championship 6-2 6-4.

2015 HUGO AWARDS: The Puppy Slates Are Overwhelmingly Rejected!

The 2015 Hugo Awards were given out on Saturday evening in Spokane Washington and the results were eye-opening, to say the least. Because of the Puppy kerfuffle (where two different cohorts of "fans" successfully coordinated efforts to place on the final Hugo ballot works and people using criteria different from mere merit and quality) I discovered that I could register and vote for the 2015 Hugo winners myself and did so.

In the end, even though there were only a few hundred ballots to nominate works, there ended up being 5,950 voters for the award winners.

The biggest news was that in five categories where the Sad Puppies/Rabid Puppies had successfully managed to completely fill all 5 slots on the ballot, the option of NO AWARD was deployed by a significant majority of voters. In the history of the Hugo awards there had been previously been a rand total o five NO AWARD winners and in one evening that tally was matched. The categories in which this occurred were: Best Novella, Best Short Story, Best Related Work, Best Editor (Short Form), and Best Editor (Long Form).

The second biggest story was that the Best Novel was won by Cixin Liu for The Three-Body Problem, which was my vote for the winner of this most important category. This was historic, because it was the first time an Asian man had won the Best Novel AND it was the first time a translated work had received this honor. Additionally, the two nominees associated with the Puppies, Skin Game by Jim Butcher and The Dark Between The Stars by Kevin J. Anderson both ended up below NO AWARD in the final tally (which is where I had placed them on my ballot, along with the 2nd place finisher The Goblin Emperor).

Best Novel (5653 final ballots, 1827 nominating ballots, 587 entries, range 212-387)

• The Three Body Problem, Cixin Liu, Ken Liu translator (Tor Books)
• The Goblin Emperor, Katherine Addison (Sarah Monette) (Tor Books)
• Ancillary Sword, Ann Leckie (Orbit US/Orbit UK)
• No Award
• Skin Game, Jim Butcher (Orbit UK/Roc Books)
• The Dark Between the Stars, Kevin J. Anderson (Tor Books)

What lots of fans and observers are trying to figure out is exactly what are the relative sizes of the four groups who participated in the Hugo voting: Rabid Puppy supporters, Sad Puppy supporters, Anti-Puppies (like myself) or neutral voters. Right now the estimates seem to have the two Puppies groups at about 10% of the total each with the anti-Puppies roughly at 50%.

Also, since the Hugo award administrators release the vote counts for the Top 15 nominees in each category, we can also know exactly which works and people were left off the ballot because of the Puppy slates from this winter. Author Tobias Buckell has released the list of what the Hugo ballot would have looked like without the intervention of the Puppies. Here's the alternative history Best Novel category

Best NovelAncillary Sword by Ann Leckie
The Goblin Emperor by Katherine Addison
The Three Body Problem by Liu Cixin
Lock In by John Scalzi
City of Stairs by Robert Jackson Bennet

City of Stairs is a very interesting urban fantasy novel (which I haven;t yet reviewed but I intend to, as well as rad the upcoming sequel, City of Blades when it is released in 2016.) For some reason the Puppies hate John Scalzi with the passion of a thousand dying suns (probably because he's smarter, makes more money and is more popular than any of them) so they are probably pleased they denied him another Hugo nomination. (Scalzi's win of the 2013 Hugo for Best Novel for Redshirts is often cited by some of the "head Puppies" as What Is Wrong With Science Fiction.)

Another point people have noticed is that the Puppies prevented Andy Weir, the author of the best-selling science fiction book of the year (The Martian, soon to be a major motion picture starring Matt Damon directed by Ridley Scott) from being nominated for the non-Hugo for best New Writer called the John W. Campbell award. Instead that went to my choice Wesley Chu!

There were a whole bunch of word written about the Hugo awards before they happened, K'm sure there will be a whole lot written now that they have happened. It is likely that the Puppies will try to repeat their domination of the award nominations in January 2016 but there are now nearly 6,000 people (like myself) who are empowered to make our own nominations and try to blunt their desire to blow up science fiction's most prestigious award.

Happily, it is likely that technical changes to how the nominations are calculated will go into effect for 2017 year, since two proposals were passed at the recent Worldcon business meeting that are designed to blunt the impact of slates on the Hugo nominations. But until then, the fight will go on.

However, in the fight between the forces of good and evil, Saturday's results at the Hugo awards was a big win for the good guys who support inclusion and diversity (and playing by the rules).

QUEER QUOTE: Stonewall Movie Director Responds To Negative Response To Trailer

The openly gay director of the upcoming major studio release Stonewall has taken to Facebook to respond to multiple LGBT activists and bloggers who are responding extremely negatively to the recently released trailer of his movie about one of the key catalytic moments of the LGBT equality movement that appears to diminish  the roles of marginalized elements of the LGBT community in service of a more "palatable" or mainstream entertainment.

Roland Emmerich's response to calls for a boycott of Stonewall are today's Queer Quote:

When I first learned about the Stonewall Riots through my work with the Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center, I was struck that the circumstances that lead to LGBT youth homelessness today are pretty much the same as they were 45 years ago. The courageous actions of everyone who fought against injustice in 1969 inspired me to tell a compelling, fictionalized drama of those days centering on homeless LGBT youth, specifically a young midwestern gay man who is kicked out of his home for his sexuality and comes to New York, befriending the people who are actively involved in the events leading up to the riots and the riots themselves. I understand that following the release of our trailer there have been initial concerns about how this character’s involvement is portrayed, but when this film - which is truly a labor of love for me - finally comes to theaters, audiences will see that it deeply honors the real-life activists who were there — including Marsha P. Johnson, Sylvia Rivera, and Ray Castro — and all the brave people who sparked the civil rights movement which continues to this day. We are all the same in our struggle for acceptance.

If Emmerich is sincere in his words then maybe he or the studio can release the screenplay of the film and/or schedule community previews.  he film is set to be released in about 6 weeks, so presumably a marketing strategy is prepared. I doubt that an LGBT boycott was part of what they intended or hoped to see as part of that!

QUEER QUOTE: Openly Gay Hotelier Who hosted Event For Ted Cruz Apologizes In Wake Of Backlash

The interwebs have been buzzing for the last week with the news that Texas U.S. Senator (and Republican presidential candidate) Ted Cruz attended an event hosted by two prominent openly gay hoteliers in New York City last week and in that setting seemed to tone down his virulently anti-gay rhetoric.

The New York Times broke the story of the event hosted by millionaires Mati Weiderpass and Ian Reisner and negative reaction from LGBT activists was swift.

A Facebook page calling for a boycott of The Out NYC Hotel and other properties owned by Weiderpass and Reisner had almost 7,000 likes Saturday afternoon, and at least two events have already been canceled at their properties. A protest rally is scheduled for Monday evening outside the Out NYC. 

On Saturday morning, the New York City Gay Men’s Chorus abruptly canceled its annual spring fundraiser, scheduled for later in the day at Out NYC. While the chorus did not explicitly cite the controversy or the Cruz meeting, it said it “made the decision because we want to be 100% clear in our support for the LGBTQ community.”

Initially the two released statements clarifying that the event was NOT a fundraiser for Cruz and that they thought that the meeting was important for dialogue. However, today's Queer Quote is from the apology posted by Reisner to Facebook in the last twenty-four hours:

"I am shaken to my bones by the e-mails, texts, postings and phone calls of the past few days. I made a terrible mistake. I was ignorant, naive and much too quick in accepting a request to co-host a dinner with Cruz at my home without taking the time to completely understand all of his positions on gay rights. I've spent the past 24 hours reviewing videos of Cruz' statements on gay marriage and I am shocked and angry. I sincerely apologize for hurting the gay community and so many of our friends, family, allies, customers and employees. I will try my best to make up for my poor judgement. Again, I am deeply sorry."

They really thought that having a private meeting with a Republican presidential candidate who does not believe in fundamental rights for LGBT people would not be a problem? Or maybe they thought that no one would find out about it? Either way it will be very interesting to see how the GOP candidates for president negotiate their way through the minefield of LGBT equality in the next few days, especially, and all the way up to the 2016 election.

Hat/tip to Wonkette

Lambda Legal's Jenny Pizer Explains Why Indiana's New "Religious Freedom" Law Is So Wrong

This week Indiana Governor Mike Pence (R) signed into law a "license to discriminate" bill (SB 101) that proponents claimed was just aimed at clarifying protections for religious freedoms in Indiana but which LGBT activists and others had warned could open up all sorts of disfavored minorities to discrimination under the guise of protecting religion. Of course, we at MadProfessah.com have been following the recent proliferation of deceptively anti-LGBT legislation in multiple states such as Texas, Arkansas and West Virginia.

Lambda Legal's Jenny Pizer explains why Indiana's "Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA)" is so dangerous to the civil rights of LGBT people and others:

The truth is, Indiana’s RFRA is designed to allow and in some respects, invites people to disregard laws that should apply to everyone conducting a business — laws to prevent people from harming each other in the name of religion.At Lambda Legal, our top concern is religiously motivated discrimination against people already vulnerable to exclusion and mistreatment, especially the LGBT community. 

Gov. Pence, in his signing statement, said, "This bill is not about discrimination, and if I thought it legalized discrimination in any way in Indiana, I would have vetoed it. In fact, it does not even apply to disputes between private parties unless government action is involved." 

He’s wrong, or disingenuous, on both points. If this new law does not seek to facilitate discrimination, why did legislators pressing for its passage say it’s “needed” to allow businesses to turn away same-sex couples? And why did a majority of Indiana legislators then reject amendments offered to specify that these enhanced religious rights cannot be used to excuse discrimination?  

Further, about disputes between private parties, the law says explicitly, “A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding.” This language was included to allow private parties to object to following a law that otherwise would apply to them, and to assert these expanded religious rights in a dispute with another private party. 

A stark problem for LGBT Hoosiers is that unlike in other states, Indiana law does not include sexual orientation and gender identity within the state’s nondiscrimination framework. 

When antigay lawmakers say laws like this are “needed,” and they point to cases from other states where we successfully resisted use of religion to defend discrimination, they don’t acknowledge that a statewide nondiscrimination law was on the books in those places. Currently, less than half the states have such laws.

When asked about these points on national television, Gov. Pence (who previously had been mentioned as another potential Republican candidate for President in 2016) did not acquit himself well. He said that he wanted to work with the Indiana legislature to clarify that SB 101 does not include a license to discriminate but that he did not intend to include sexual orientation or gender identity in statewide nondiscrimination legislation.

Indiana's largest LGBT group, Freedom Indiana immediately took the Governor to task on the lack of a real commitment to protect LGBT people from discrimination in Indiana:

Governor Pence didn't listen last week when he signed this discriminatory law into effect, and he's still not listening to the growing chorus of criticism locally and nationally. While we appreciate his recognition that he's placed our state in peril, he's obviously trying to have it both ways. You can't 'clarify' discrimination. Indiana now has billions of dollars and thousands of jobs on the line, all because the Governor wouldn't stop this dangerous bill. He has a second chance to save our reputation for Hoosier hospitality, but he has to stand up and protect LGBT Hoosiers. Discrimination is not a core Hoosier value, and we can't afford to let our state continue to suffer. 

Thousands of people attended a march protesting SB 101 in Indianapolis yesterday and major corporations are announcing that they are scuttling plans to expand or do more business in Indiana as a result of the controversy.

Already the reaction in Indiana seems to be dissuading other red states like Montana and Georgia from moving so quickly to appear to trample the civil rights of American citizens in the quest to reify religious beliefs.

FDA Proposes Reducing Lifetime Ban On Gay Blood Donors To One Year

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released a statement today which indicates that it will propose changing the current lifetime ban on blood donations from any man who has had sex with another man since 1977. The proposed policy will be that gay men who declare that they have not had sex with another man in over a year shall be allowed to donate blood.

The reaction to the proposed policy change was decidedly mixed:

Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern wrote: “…the FDA remains trapped in the 1980s—terrified of gay men and their diseased, untrustworthy ways. Perhaps in another 31 years, we’ll see the FDA move to a sensible, nondiscriminatory rule. For now, we’re stuck with this embarrassing, unscientific half-measure. 

U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) told her constituents, “Today’s announcement is a welcome step in the right direction. However, I am disappointed that low-risk gay men are still being discriminated against with this outdated policy. Healthy Americans who don’t engage in risky behavior, regardless of their sexual orientation, should have the opportunity to donate blood and help in the effort to save lives. I look forward to working with Secretary Burwell to build on the step taken today by removing this discriminatory ban while keeping our blood supply safe.”

I think my position is somewhere closer to Senator Murray's than Mark Joseph Stern's although I would agree that this is a half-measure. That being said, you can still acknowledge that a change has been made, and the change is in the right direction even if it is not as much change as one would prefer. I also agree that the proposed policy change would STILL be discriminatory and is unacceptable public policy, but it is still better than the current policy which was completely irrational and rooted in homophobia.

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.

QUEER QUOTE: Matt Foreman Opposes Federal LGBT Legislation, Says #ENDAisNOTEqual

Well, well, well! Expressing publicly thoughts which many LGBT activists (like myself) have had privately for years, Matt Foreman, former head of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force and eminence rose of the LGBT movement has said that the current "federal gay rights bill," commonly known as ENDA (which passed the United States Senate for the first time in its 40-year history last year) is a waste of time.

To be precise he said this:

"It's pathetic that four decades have gone by without Congress extending basic civil rights protections to LGBT Americans. It's even more pathetic that what's left of Bella Abzug's comprehensive legislation is ENDA - a small-bore bill that is now riddled with giveaways to anti-gay forces, including a religious exemption big enough for an 18-wheeler to cruise through. It's time to pull the plug on this essentially lifeless corpse and demand full equality under the federal civil rights statutes."

ENDA is (and has been for at least a decade) the #1 priority of HRC, the nations largest LGBT political advocacy organization. But with a Republican-controlled House of Representatives, no pro-LGBT legislation will be enacted in the near-future, since only a handful of House Republicans (well, 7) are publicly supportive of the measure. The hardest thing about banning anti-gay discrimination in federal law is that most Americans already think it is illegal (and think that it should be), which paradoxically reduces momentum for enacting such a policy into law.

I agree with Matt that ENDA should be replaced by a comprehensive civil rights bill that calls for an end to discrimination in public accommodations, employment, education and housing, basically amend the 1964 civil rights act and add "sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression" to the words where "race, color, religion, sex, or national origin" appear in the text.

However, it does seem like pushing for a more comprehensive measure will make enacting basic projections in the 23 states where you can currently be fired for being LGB even less likely to happen in the near term.

So, I disagree that ENDA should be withdrawn, I think it should be supported, IN ADDITION to a comprehensive bill.

What do you think?

The Boston Bombers Were White. Any Questions?

As is the case whenever an event or incident which causes America to consider it's founding principles and self-identity, notions of race appear soon afterwards. Now that the pictures of Tamerlan and Dzokhar Tsarnaev,  the perpetrators of the first completed terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11, are ubiquitously distributed, one question being asked is: Are the Boston Bombers White?

Peter Beinart says the answer to this question is clearly yes in a thoughtful piece in The Daily Beast in which he discussed the historical shifting of racial categories in America, especially the conflation of racialization with religious affiliation.

But the bombers were white Americans. The Tsarnaev brothers had lived in the United States for more than a decade. Dzhokhar was a U.S. citizen. Tamerlan was a legal permanent resident in the process of applying for citizenship. And as countless commentators have noted, the Tsarnaevs hail from the Caucasus, and are therefore, literally, “Caucasian.” You can’t get whiter than that.

[...]

Think about American history and you can understand why. For centuries, Americans were legally segregated by race. Thus, when newcomers from the Middle East came to our shores, Americans had to decide which side of the line they were on. And in the struggle to be classified as white, Middle Eastern Christians had an advantage: Jesus. In the 1915 case Dow v. United States, a Syrian Christian successfully argued that he was white because Jesus, the original Middle Eastern Christian, was too.

[...]

Today, Americans still often link Islam and dark skin. What’s changed is which category we consider more dangerous. For much of American history, the problem with being Muslim was that you weren’t considered white. Since 9/11, by contrast, one of the problems with not being considered white is that you might be mistaken for Muslim.

[...]

You can also glimpse this conflation of religion and race in the demand, which surfaces after every terrorist attack, to single out Muslims for special scrutiny at airports and the like. Often, the politicians and pundits most eager to profile Muslims are the same folks who in the 1980s and 1990s defended the “racial profiling” of blacks. And listening to them, you sometimes get the sense that they think the process would work the same way: just look to see who the Muslims are.

You should really go read the entire piece yourself. The only part I would quibble with is that Beinart does not explicitly use language saying that race is a social construction, a figment of our society's imagination, although the notion of its fluidity is clear throughout his piece. Just saying so does not undermine the very real impact that race has on the lives of very real individuals, but acknowledging its fictional nature is important when discussing it.

What do you think?

Celebrity Friday: Bishop Eddie Long

The stories about Bishop Eddie Long have become too prominent to not comment on at this blog. He is the well-known African-American pastor and head of an Atlanta-area mega-church who was accused this week  by three young men of forcing them to have sex with him after going on long vacation trips with them.

The video above is from a press conference announcing the filing of lawsuits by two of the accusers.

According to CBS News:

In lawsuits filed this week, three men who were members of the New Birth Missionary Baptist Church claimed Long coerced them into sexual relations with gifts including cars, cash and travel when they were 17 or 18 years old. The sprawling church in Lithonia, Ga., about 18 miles outside of Atlanta, counts politicians, celebrities and the county sheriff among its members and hosted four U.S. presidents during the 2006 funeral of Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s widow, Coretta Scott King.

One of the claims in the lawsuits is that Long had sexual contact with the young men, who were enrolled in New Birth's ministry for teen boys, during trips he took them on in the U.S. and abroad. Gillen said the travel was part of a mentoring program that other young men also participated in.

Recently, pictures of Eddie Long taken by his phone which he sent to the men have surfaced, showing him wearing athletic wear or spandex. See below:

I think the pictures speak for themselves. Be prepared to become even more of a celebrity than you were before, "Bishop" Eddie Long!

Hat/tip to Wonder Man.

Courage Campaign Finally 'Comes Out' Against 2010 Prop 8 Repeal

Rumors that had been swirling for weeks about a schism between the only significant organizations that were supporting a 2010 repeal of Proposition 8 were confirmed by the Bay Area Reporter this weekend:

The chair of the statewide Courage Campaign told the Bay Area Reporter this week that he doesn’t see the governing structure and other necessary elements in place to win marriage equality.

[...]

As to whether his group’s stance on 2010 has changed, Jacobs said, “Courage Campaign has never changed our attitude or the basis on which we’re operating, which is that we have to have research that informs a path to victory, a governance structure that the progressive community and LGBT community respects, a campaign manager that is empowered to make decisions reporting to that structure, and funding, so we’ve been very, very consistent on that and remain so.”

Asked if he sees those elements in place at all, Jacobs said, “I don’t see them.”

[...]

Courage Campaign has been doing research on repealing Prop 8 for months.

Jacobs said that some summaries of the research will be available “I would think sometime in December.”

After the B.A.R story, Rick Jacobs posted a lengthy statement on Facebook clarifying Courage Campaign's position on a 2010 repeal of Proposition 8:

First, I hope everyone had a happy Thanksgiving. Second, I invite those interested here to read the blog post that the BAR put up. No where in it does it mesh with their controversy-grabbing headline: neither I nor Courage criticized the leadership of the 2010 effort. Read the story. What I do say is what we have been saying since late July. Nothing we have said has changed.

Second, I would be very interested in knowing more about the supposed meeting we had with EQCA. I will tell you that since June, Courage has sought such a meeting, has sought to improve relations in the community and we hope and expect to meet and talk soon. We look forward to working with everyone so that we stop duplicating efforts and better coordinate/share information.

Courage has a specific view of the means by which training and organizing should occur. That's why we have so many Equality Teams, all of which are led by volunteers who are, in turn, led by Deputy Field Organizers (all volunteers) with the professional leadership of a small, smart and highly motivated field staff (Hope, Arisha, Anthony and Caitlin) who in turn benefit from the leadership and experience of Sarah Callahan. ... See More

We are learning from our research and applying lessons at every turn. We try to integrate online and offline and we try as hard as we can to build on ideas and leadership of our members and volunteers. We have had some remarkable results from the ideas and work of many, many of those teams and others. The recent meeting Derrick and others held at Lucy Florence Coffee House about homophobia in the Black community is just one such example. No one person or organization can think of or do everything. We are all made more powerful by the manifold talents and ideas of others. Our job at Courage is to magnify those where we can.

Our model is to build a permanent volunteer infrastructure using the Obama Campaign as the jumping off point. We believe firmly that LGBT rights are part of the larger progressive movement. All of our work is informed by that.

In that context, it's important to look around. Last week, for the first time in years, we saw major demonstrations and non-violent civil disobedience on multiple UC campuses. Why? "Fees" (which is California French for tuition) increased 32% at UCs, resulting in a three-fold increase in ten years. Cal States are set to reject 50,000 or more eligible students because of budget cutbacks. Community colleges and Cal States are the traditional routes for advancement for those in our society least able financially to afford higher education. They are the backbone of California's once upwardly mobile workforce, the only mechanism by which we as a state can grow our way out of this economic mess. The once model California education system that took every Californian from kindergarten to post-doctoral work, is in shambles--unless you are white and rich (or in some cases just rich).

And in 2010, next month, the state's $70 billion general fund budget faces a $25 billion shortfall, plus a further debt to special funds which could effectively mean we have a $40 billion deficit. Forty billion out of $70 billion. And you thought 2009 was bad.
Think about it: our state cannot print money to get out of deficit (as can a sovereign nation) and the right wing has convinced the entire country that all government is bad. We have Meg Whitman, a billionaire who has not voted for "twenty or thirty years" saying that we have to lower taxes and spend more on higher ed. Maybe she can do that kind of voodoo math on E-Bay, but it does not work in government. If that's the ethos for 2010, we are in a whole heap of trouble. Well, we're in trouble anyway, but I and Courage are not about to sit around and wait for candidates to talk nonsense, get elected and just make things worse. We're done with that.

Now is the time for the LGBT community to stand up together and rebuild our state. Now is the time for us to stand together to lead. More about this in coming weeks and months, but clearly LGBT people, along with everyone else, are hurt when colleges are unaffordable or entrance closed, healthcare is decimated, unemployment (and underemployment) rise to over 20%. We're all in this together. As Derrick has pointed out so eloquently in what he and RENEWL do, we win equality by lending a hand, leading in a fight for all of us and showing that together we are all stronger.

As to the current effort to put an initiative on the ballot, while organizationally we will not participate for the reasons above, we do not now, nor have we ever, attempted in any way to interfere with the efforts of others to win equality as they see fit. I and Courage greatly respect that there are different paths to victory. As we have seen all too well, no one path is "correct." What we do know from Maine and our research to date is that we have a lot more to learn.

I look forward to working with everyone to win equality--economic and social--for our state and nation. And clearly it is going to take all of us.

Welcome to the Prepare to Prevail team, Mr. Jacobs!

How Much Does Obama Hate You? The Gays Count The Ways...

John Aravosis and Joe Sudbay over at AmericaBlog are launching a boycott of the Democratic National Committee, Organizing for America and the Obama re-election campaign until "the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) is passed, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (DADT) is repealed, and the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is repealed."

The boycott has been endorsed by such progressive luminaries as Daily Kos, Jane Hamsher of FireDogLake, Dan Savage, Michelangelo Signorile, David Mixner, Andy Towle and Michael Goff of Towle Road, Paul Sousa (Founder of Equal Rep in Boston), Pam Spaulding, Robin Tyler (ED of the Equality Campaign, Inc.), Bil Browning for the Bilerico Project, among others.

Here is a list of their "beefs" with the Democrats in general and President Obama in particular:

Can you give examples of how the President and Democrats have not been fierce advocates for the civil rights of gay and lesbian Americans?

1. Asking a religious right activist who claims to have been “cured” of his homosexuality to headline campaign events in South Carolina. Then letting the anti-gay bigot spend half an hour, on stage, haranguing gays at the Obama event.
2. Refusing for months to interview with LGBT newspapers during the campaign, while his opponent did repeatedly.
3. Flubbing question on whether gays are immoral.
4. Inviting anti-gay activist Rick Warren, who helped pass Prop 8 in California, to give the invocation at the inaugural.
5. Inviting a gay bishop to the inaugural festivities, then not beginning the TV broadcast until the gay bishop has finished and left.
6. Refusing to appoint an openly gay Cabinet member.
7. Abolishing the LGBT outreach position at the DNC and never reinstating it.
8. Refusing to re-establish the White House Office of LGBT Outreach and the White House LGBT Liaison (which was a Special Assistant to the President at one point).
9. Continuing to discharge two gay servicemembers a day, even though he could stop it immediately by issuing a stop-loss order immediately.
10. Asking for a study on “whether” repealing DADT would hurt national security, rather than a study on how to repeal it, as promised.
11. Deleting his gay civil rights promise from the White House Web site.
12. Changing his commitment to “repeal” Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, to “changing DADT it in a sensible manner.”
13. Repeatedly defending DOMA in court, including just a few weeks ago, even though he didn’t have to.
14. Making jokes about marriage equality, which President Obama claims he doesn't support, even though he once did.
15. Comparing gay relationships to incest and pedophilia in a Justice Department brief.
16. Joking about gay protesters upset about the DOMA brief.
17. Refusing to provide health care benefits to the partners of gay employees, and then claiming that DOMA precludes it, when it does not.
18. Refusing to meet with gay legal groups to discuss how to provide such health benefits within the confines of DOMA.
19. Claiming that health benefits for partners of federal employees were new, then being caught in a lie.
20. Showing visible discomfort when asked about gay civil rights.
21. Suggesting he won’t get to DADT, DOMA or ENDA until his second term, if ever.
22. Refusing to suspend implementation of anti-gay laws, like DADT and DOMA, while suspending laws that hurt others.
23. White House staffers worked against amendment proposed by Rep. Alcee Hasting (D-FL) to defund Don't Ask, Don't Tell investigations
24. Saying won’t repeal DADT until wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have finished.
25. Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid had to beg President Obama to help on DADT repeal.
26. A White House official referring to gay civil rights advocates, marching on Washington, as part of “the Internet left fringe” whose opinions don’t matter.
27. Saying he won’t touch DOMA in his first term.
28. Refusing to release list of gay attendees at hate crimes reception.
29. Refusing to mention Maine or Washington state, or anything of substance, in his speech to the Human Rights Campaign dinner.
30. Saying gays are “naïve” for wanting the president to keep his promise.
31. Refusing to issue a statement specifically opposing anti-gay ballot measures in Maine and Washington state.
32. Attorney General Eric Holders flubs question on Maine, twice -- once while in Maine.
33. DNC/OFA emailed supporters in Maine and Washington state, but didn't ask them to vote against anti-gay ballot measures, then lied about it.
34. Senator Durbin (D-IL), a very close ally of Obama, says Senate probably won’t repeal DADT in 2010, as promised.
35. Senior DNC official accuses gays and lesbians of “helping Republicans” by simply asking Democrats to keep their gay civil rights promise.
36. Refusing to publicly endorse marriage equality for gays.
37. Continuing to dawdle over DADT.
38. Refusing to this day to interview with the gay press.
39. Refusing to apologize for any of these slights.

I think most of the above list is petty and trivial. However, while I don't disagree with the motive behind launching the boycott (and I may even endorse it if someone asks me nicely!), I do think the point to emphasize here are the legislative results we seek: ENDA, DADT and DOMA.

I don't give a rat's *ss about Donnie McLurkin (Point #1) or who attended the LGBT Hate Crimes reception at the White House (Point #28). I do think that there should be an official Liaison to the LGBT Community for the White House (Point #8) and Democratic National Committee (Point #7).

As a practical matter, if the Administration does not take action on ENDA, DADT and DOMA before the 2012 election, they will not be getting donations from the LGBT community. I definitely won't be donating to Obama's re-election if ENDA is not law and bills to repeal DADT and DOMA have not made significant legislative traction before the next election.

However, this does not mean that I endorse or want to encourage privileged LGBT activists screaming hysterically at the White House over every perceived or imagined slight. LGBT rights are NOT the most important thing on the agenda right now. Health care reform is. That being said, I do think that the President can do more than one thing at a time and I do think some of the most egregious slights have been happening in the Department of Justice. Jus' sayin'.

Black Same-Sex (Trans) Couple Gets Married in NY

According to TowleRoad, a couple with names Hakim (Kimah) Nelson and Jason Stenson were issued a marriage licence and married by a city clerk in New York City on May 26. Of course, the journalist-challenged New York Post is on the case:

After The Post's inquiries, the city's marriage bureau stopped two more people with male names from marrying Friday, requesting birth certificates.

Stenson, who has two children by his former domestic partner, does not consider himself gay. He sees his new spouse as a woman.

Experts say the marriage is not legal.

"Gay marriage is not lawful here in New York, so they're technically not married," said matrimonial attorney Raoul Felder.

Evan Wolfson, head of Freedom to Marry, a local advocacy group devoted to legalizing gay marriage, saw the Stenson/Nelson example as "one more illustration of why the New York Senate needs to move quickly to pass the marriage bill and end this discrimination in New York."

The "newlyweds," meanwhile, have already run into trouble. They took their new license to the Adult Family Intake Center in Manhattan hoping to qualify for couples' housing. But Nelson's name immediately drew suspicion.

"Are you a man or a woman?" the intake officer demanded.

"I'm a transsexual," he lied.

For now, the pair is living as a married couple in a Brooklyn shelter.

"People in Albany can say, 'Look, it's already happened, so let's just make it legal,' " Stenson said. "We're all human beings. What makes me and my wife different?"

What do YOU think? Will this help or hurt the fight to get marriage for same-sex couples legalized in New York?

VIDEO: Obama On Marriage Equality Before Becoming POTUS

British PM Condemns Prop 8 As "Unacceptable"

The BBC is reporting that British Prime Minister Gordon Brown who was visiting the United States (and President Barack Obama earlier this week) has condemned Proposition 8 as "unacceptable" and urged his suporters to be vigilant against all forms of discrimination.

Mr Brown made the comments at a reception in Downing Street for leading figure from the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community.

[...]

Mr Brown said "this attempt to undo good that has been done is unacceptable". He added: "This shows why we have always got to be vigilant, always got to fight homophobic behaviour and any form of discrimination."

He also praised equality campaigners in the UK for "changing opinion" about same-sex unions.

"You have shown how the legislative process, by your pressure, can respond," he said.

It should be noted that since 2005 Britian has had registered partnerships which give all the rights and responsibilities but not the name as marriages in the United Kingdom. This basically what California has now with the passage of Proposition 8.

However there are two interesting aspects of this story (which has been picked up by Pam Spaulding and other bloggers). First, Prime Minister Brown is the first world leader to condemn the passage of Proposition 8 (perhaps the lesbian Prime Minister of Iceland might be next?) and secondly, the leader wa speaking to a Presidential Reception for members of the LGBT ommunity during an LGBT History celebration. This definitely raises the bar for what we will be expecting President Obama to do this June!