VIDEO: WH Asked About Obama's Position on Marriage

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

Watch White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs respond:

Obama Names Regina Benjamin U.S. Surgeon General

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

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

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

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

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

EQCA Responds To 2010 vs 2012 Controversy (Sorta)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Serena Williams Meets President Obama

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

President Clinton Supports Marriage Equality!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Courage Campaign Sticks To 2010; Task Force Says No

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LA TIMES Covers POC LGBT Groups 2010 Reluctance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do the Math.

POC LGBT Groups Issue Statement Opposing 2010 Prop 8 Repeal

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

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

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

July 13, 2009

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WE CHOOSE to PREPARE to PREVAIL

ACLU of Northern California

ACLU of San Diego and Imperial County

ACLU of Southern California

API Equality-LA

API Equality-Northern California

Asian Pacific AIDS Intervention Team

Asian Pacific American Legal Center

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

Ballot Initiative Strategy Center Foundation

Chinese Rainbow Association

Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles (CHIRLA)

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

Equality Action Project (Santa Cruz)

Gamba Adisa Quilombo

Gay-Straight Alliance Network

Harvey Milk Stonewall Democrats of Orange County

HONOR PAC

Imperial Court of Los Angeles and Hollywood

Inland Counties Stonewall Democrats

Jordan Rustin Coalition

Martin-Lyon Leadership Institute

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

Our Family Coalition

SATRANG, South Asian LGBT Organization

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

VIDEO: Serena Williams on Letterman

BOOK REVIEW: Joe Haldeman's CAMOUFLAGE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OVERALL GRADE: A-.

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

Busy Day For JRC Today

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

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

India Supreme Court Agrees To Hear Sodomy Appeal

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

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

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

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

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

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

Massachusetts Sues U.S. Over DOMA

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

According to TowleRoad:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From the press release:

Woods Raises More than $100K for Congressional Campaign

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BOOK REVIEW: Connie Willis' DOOMSDAY BOOK

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

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

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

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

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

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

The parallel storytelling is incredibly gripping.

The writing is also hysterically funny.

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

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

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

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

OVERALL GRADE: A.

Eye Candy: Yusuf Myers

Found these pictures of this hottie while poking around Photobucket. I am not that sure about his name; I thought it was Jevon Williams but I have since discovered it is Yusuf Myers. I am sure he deserves to be Eye Candy!

Federer Regains World #1 Tennis Ranking

Roger Federer

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

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

CA-10: Special Election Day is September 1

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

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

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

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

The Marriage Equality Flag

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

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

2009 Point Foundation Scholars

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

WIMBLEDON 2009: Federer's "Unbelievable" Win

Unbelievable.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But Roger Federer could not believe it.

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

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

This was a Roddick who believed he could win.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unbelievable.

WIMBLEDON 2009: Federer Wins Record 15th Major

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

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

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

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

WIMBLEDON 2009: Venus and Serena Win Doubles

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

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

VIDEO: Palin's (Insane) Resignation Announcement

WIMBLEDON 2009: Serena Beats Venus to win 11th major

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

WIMBLEDON 2009: Women's Final Prediction

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

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

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

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

MadProfessah's pick: Venus Williams in 3 sets.

Palin Announces Resignation As Alaska Governor

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

Critics are not impressed.

WIMBLEDON 2009: Men's Semifinals

The Wimbledon Men's semifinals are set:

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

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

WIMBLEDON 2009: Venus Demolishes Safina; Serena Guts Past Dementieva

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

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

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

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

Anti-Gay Groups Form Mega Hate Coalition

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

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

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

Their "Declaration of American Values" is

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delhi Court Strikes Decriminalizes Gay Sex

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

India High Court Ruling On Sodomy Law Tomorrow

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

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

Agreed.

And Franken Makes 60...

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

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

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

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

GLAAD Head Jarrett Barrios on CNN

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

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