Mormons Support Salt Lake City Gay Rights Orginance

As Wonder Man says, "It's Ice Cold In Hell." The LDS Church not only did not oppose a proposed ordinance in Salt Lake Cty to extend civil rights protections in emloyment to the categories of sexual orientation and gender identity, but actively supported it. The ordinance passed unanimously, the Salt Lake Tribune reports:

Hours after the LDS Church announced its support Tuesday night of proposed Salt
Lake City ordinances aimed at protecting gay and transgender residents from
discrimination in housing and employment, the City Council unanimously approved
the measures.

"The church supports these ordinances," spokesman Michael
Otterson told the council, "because they are fair and reasonable and do not do violence to the institution of marriage."

They also are consistent with Mormon teachings, he said. "I believe in a church that believes in human dignity, in treating people with respect even when we disagree -- in fact, especially when we disagree."

[...]

The LDS Church's endorsement was hailed by leaders of Utah's
gay community -- some of them stunned -- who called it a historic night they
hope will set the stage for statewide legislation.

"This is a great step," said Will Carlson, director of public policy for the advocacy group Equality Utah. But, he noted, four out of five gay Utahns live outside the capital and should be afforded protection as well. "Equality Utah will continue to work for that."

The ordinance contains much more extensive language granting exceptions to the discrimination protections for religious-based organizations and practices. It will be interesting to see if the Governor of Utah, Gary Hebert, who earlier this year revealed his utter ignorance and misunderstanding of the concept of civil rights, will change his position on statewide legislation now that even the Mormons are saying that LGBT rights laws (trans-inclusive!) are "fair and reasonable."

Here's the full text of the official statement from the LDS Church on the Salt Lake City ordinance:

Good evening.

My name is Michael Otterson, and I am here tonight
officially representing The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

The nondiscrimination ordinances being reviewed by the city council concern
important questions for the people of this community.

Like most of America, our community in Salt Lake City is comprised of citizens of different faiths and values, different races and cultures, different political views and divergent demographics. Across America and around the world, diverse communities such as ours are wrestling with complex social and moral questions.

People often feel strongly about such issues. Sometimes they feel so strongly that the ways in which they relate to one another seem to strain the fabric of our society,
especially where the interests of one group seem to collide with the interests
of another.

The issues before you tonight are the right of people to have a roof over their heads and the right to work without being discriminated against.

But, importantly, the ordinances also attempt to balance vital issues of
religious freedom. In essence, the Church agrees with the approach which Mayor
Becker is taking on this matter.

In drafting these ordinances, the city has granted common-sense rights that should be available to everyone, while safeguarding the crucial rights of religious organizations, for example, in their hiring of people whose lives are in harmony with their tenets, or when providing housing for their university students and others that preserve religious requirements.

The Church supports these ordinances because they are fair and reasonable and do not do violence to the institution of marriage. They are also entirely consistent with the Church’s prior position on these matters. The Church remains unequivocally committed to defending the bedrock foundation of marriage between a man and a woman.

I represent a church that believes in human dignity, in treating others with
respect even when we disagree – in fact, especially when we disagree. The
Church’s past statements are on the public record for all to see. In these
comments and in our actions, we try to follow what Jesus Christ taught. Our
language will always be respectful and acknowledge those who differ, but will
also be clear on matters that we feel are of great consequence to our society.

Thank you.

LAPD Officers Get No Criminal Charges In 2007 May Day Melee

News You Might Have Missed: The Los Angeles Times reported on Hallloween that the Los Angeles County District Attorney has decided not to press criminal charges against any of the thirty or so officers it had investigated in the wake of the now-infamous 2007 May Day melee in Mcarthur Park.

They described the incident as "unfortunate and preventable" but said that the office was "closing our file and will take no further action in this matter."

Last year, Police Chief William J. Bratton said he planned to discipline 11 officers and called for the termination of four others for their roles in the melee in which police were accused of using excessive force to clear immigration rights demonstrators and journalists.

LAPD officers were videotaped wielding batons and shooting rubber bullets in an attempt to disperse a largely peaceful crowd. A scathing internal investigation into the incident blamed poor leadership and overly aggressive tactics by officers in the field.

Earlier this year, the Los Angeles City Council agreed to pay nearly $13 million to people injured or mistreated in the melee.

Under the settlement, the department must submit to court oversight of its crowd-control procedures -- another layer of federal involvement that comes as LAPD leaders are impatient to be free of a longstanding and more onerous monitoring program imposed after the Rampart Division corruption scandal.

Curiously, the original L.A. Now report on the D.A. decision which included the previous graphs has been modified ("updated") when the story was moved to the front page of the paper and became:

After a lengthy review, prosecutors said there is insufficient evidence to prove that any of the 30 officers who were investigated violated the law when using force, although some might have used "questionable tactics."

The melee, which occurred at the conclusion of a pro- immigration rally and received national attention, resulted from poor police training, leadership and communication, prosecutors said. Their finding echoed the Los Angeles Police Department's own scathing report on the officers' actions.

Officers were videotaped wielding batons and shooting less-than-lethal rubberized bullets in an attempt to disperse the mostly peaceful crowd after a small group of agitators confronted police. Dozens of protesters and journalists were injured as officers cleared the park.

The department's "planning, tactical and command failures" were the backdrop for the officers' actions against "both violent protesters and nonviolent protesters and media personnel," prosecutors said in their report. "The media had innocently and unwittingly positioned themselves in an area directly in the path of officers attempting to clear the park."

In the immediate aftermath, Police Chief William J. Bratton removed a deputy chief and commander from their posts. Deputy Chief Caylor "Lee" Carter retired shortly thereafter.

Bratton also said he planned to discipline several officers and called for the termination of others for their roles in the melee.

But internal disciplinary panels gave no officer more than a 20-day suspension. Some officers, however, were demoted, according to their attorney.

Earlier this year, the Los Angeles City Council agreed to pay nearly $13 million to people injured or mistreated in the May Day melee.

The Los Angeles Police Protective League is happy with the result that no more officers will be punished for their actions that day.

The LAPPL is pleased that District Attorney Steve Cooley exercised his prosecutorial independence and made the right decision to not prosecute any officers involved the May Day incident. His review sought only truth and justice, and was not influenced by any political agenda.

As the LAPPL has said all along, there needs to be a thorough review of the facts about what happened on May Day 2007 before passing judgment about officers’ actions. We are pleased and relieved at the outcome of the District Attorney’s investigation, as we were with the Board of Rights hearings in July.

We also said that the public should not be surprised by the final outcome. Removed from the political and media spotlight, the District Attorney and the Board of Rights, which included a civilian member, objectively reviewed the facts and rendered opinions of the officers’ actions based on long- standing Department policy.

The Department’s 2007 May Day report presented to the Police Commission acknowledged that the events that transpired primarily resulted from breakdowns in command structure, planning and communications, as well as training deficiencies.

The League went on record immediately after the incident pointing out the lack of continuous and updated training that partially contributed to the incident. Training is the backbone of good police work – ensuring that officers know not only what to do, but can properly implement the Department’s policies, procedures and expectations in any situation. As a result of the 2007 report, revealing the Department's ill-advised decision to abandon introductory training for new Metropolitan Division officers and to not train all officers for large tactical missions, the Department reinstated training as a fundamental priority.

We would like to point out that that there were many positive actions by officers on that day, as the Department itself has acknowledged. We commend those officers for their professionalism and restraint under difficult circumstances.

We'll see if this is really the last we hear about this incident (I doubt it).

No Vote on NY Marriage Bill Today

They don't seem to have the votes in the Democratic caucus to pass the marriage equality bill, and the Republicans aren't saying if they will vote for it or not, so the Democratic leaders are refusing to schedule a vote today.

The State Senate on Tuesday delayed a highly anticipated vote on same-sex marriage, putting off the issue indefinitely as gay rights supporters continued to lobby for additional votes.

Republicans and Democrats said that as of Tuesday afternoon the measure was still several votes short of the 32 necessary for approval. About five Democrats remained either opposed or noncommittal, meaning that Republican votes were needed to secure passage.

But not enough Republicans have committed yet to voting yes, legislators said. The Democrats have a slim 32-30 majority in the Senate

.

New York Senate May Vote On Marriage Equality Today

Or not. Today the New York Senate is in a special session called by Governor David Paterson, who has called for the body to vote on a marriage equality bill (which has already passed the State Assembly) and pass it.

Paterson himself said that he was inspired by the Maine vote last week, which rescinded marriage rights for same-sex couples in that state.

"I think that the public referendum in Maine should inspire us that there's more work to do, more persuasion to be made, more understanding to be reached, and more sensitivity to be displayed, and those of us who have been a catalyst for marriage equality have to regroup and work harder," Paterson said, in an interview with Corey Johnson and Andy Towle.

Negotiations are expected to go into the wee hours of the night tonight as Democratic lawmakers decide whether to push for a vote or not. Advocates estimate that they have 25 votes to support marriage equality. They need about six more to ensure that the marriage equality bill can pass.

The Empire State Pride Agenda is also calling for a vote today:

It is time for the New York State Senate to take up the issue of marriage equality. Millions of gay and lesbian New Yorkers and their friends and families expect and deserve a vote on this matter in the State Senate.

This should not be a partisan matter. It should be a vote of conscience that occurs as soon as possible.

There are those who want to inject politics. There are those who want to delay. There are those who say that other issues are more important.

Of course, budget matters are important. But the reality is that there have always been budget problems in Albany and probably always will be.

What we are talking about now is a matter of fundamental human rights. Are gay and lesbians in the 21st Century in the progressive state of New York equal members of society, or are they second-class citizens? That is what is at stake.

Individual senators tell us all the time that they understand this – but now is the time for them to act as if they do. Now is the time for them to stand up and be counted.

All eyes are on Albany. With a true vote of conscience, senators can rectify inequality and injustice with a vote tomorrow.

Joe.My.God has a live video stream of the New York State Senate up at his blog.

BOOK REVIEW: China Miéville's PERDIDO STREET STATION

China Miéville's Perdido Street Station is an incredible work of speculative fiction. It won the Arthur C. Clarke award and was nominated for both the Hugo and Nebula awards, the two most prestigious awards in science fiction and fantasy books.

Miéville's work is incredibly complex, weird and engrossing. It is somewhat reminiscent of the work of Octavia Butler in its singular views of alien sex, compellingly detailed depiction of complex societies and intricate plots.

Perdido Street Station is a gripping, horrifying read which epitomizes the very best of speculative fiction.

The story is set in New Crobuzon, a sprawling, dirty, bustling metropolis on an alien world which is probably Miéville's most signal literary achievement. New Crobuzon is a city-state as rich, diverse and powerful as ancient Rome or Athens. It is populated with various kinds of creatures, the most prominent of whom are humans, khepri (they have insectoid heads on human female bodies), cactacae (humanoid-cactus hybrids) and vodyanoi (aquatic beings with webbed feet who can manipulate water to form structures and can not survive without getting their skin wet for more than a day).

The plot is so complex it is difficult to be easily summarized (this is a common problem with Miéville's books) but the most memorable strand to me centers around common nightmares which everyone in the City starts having, which (unsurprisingly) turn out to be related to the fact that certain people are not waking up at all...

Oh, and there's a geeky mad scientist, The Devil himself and an uprising of an enslaved underclass--and those are just story elements!

Perdido Street Station is not for everyone, but I bet that almost everyone will enjoy it.

Length: 640 pages.
Publisher: Del Rey.
Date: July 29, 2003.

OVERALL GRADE: A/A+.

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

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'.

Marriage Of Kenyan Gay Couple Sparks Debate

There's an interesting article written by Makua Matua in the prominent Kenyan newspaper The Nation which demolishes the idea that "homosexuality is un-African." Ever since the couple pictured above, Daniel Chege and Charles Ngengi, got married in October in Britain, the Kenyan media has been enthralled.

Many Kenyans have been outraged that two men of Kenyan descent would get married to each other and have contacted (and threatened) the men's relatives who still live in the rural sections of their African homeland. The wedding was a public recognition of their legally registered British civil partnership, since Ngengi is a British citizen.

Now Mr. Matua, who is the Dean of the SUNY Buffalo Law School and chair of the Kenyan Human Rights Commission, has written an incisive piece of writing intended to combat the nonsensical and virulent homophobia exposed by the same-sex marriage of two gay Kenyan men:

One common – but completely false – argument is that it is un-African to be gay. This is an absurdly vacuous claim that is internally illogical and utterly ahistorical. Most Kenyans are today indoctrinated by religious institutions, cultural guardians, and the moral police to be anti-gay. Rather than find someone to love, anti-gay crusaders find it convenient to find someone innocent to hate. Why has such a hatefully primitive and backward cosmology gone unchallenged?

Let me illustrate the seriousness of the problem by giving you a short human rights history of the last 50 years. Can you imagine a credible defence today for apartheid or the view that blacks are inferior to whites, and that the former exist solely to serve the latter?

How would you like to be declared illegal – or unworthy of existence – simply because you are black or African? Would you agree that all women and girls in your life – your mother, sister, wife, girlfriend, aunt, and grandmother – are inferior beings because of their female gender?

[...]

Modern democracy is not possible without two key interrelated principles – equal protection and anti-discrimination. Understand that it is “identity” that is afforded equal protection by insulating it from discrimination.

Historically, “identity” referred to your “state of being” – colour, sex, ethnicity, race, religion, language, marital status, national origin, political opinion, disability, and wealth or other social status.

But today “identity” is understood to include sexual orientation. That is why many countries explicitly prohibit discrimination against gays in social, political, and economic life. Others regard attacks on gays a hate crime. Civilised countries recognise gay marriages.

I have heard it said that being gay is “un-African.” Some Africans, who obviously know very little about the continent, have charged that there were no gays in Africa! The historical record, however, amply demonstrates that there were – and continues to be – gay Africans.

Let's hope that lawmakers in neighboring Uganda who are considering legislation that would punish homosexuality as a capital offense will read this article in The Nation and come to their senses.

Mathematical Visualization Of U.S. Public Opinion and Policy

The above graphic is getting a lot of buzz in the blogosphere after it appeared in the New York Times Economix blog and many LGBT blogs, like Professor Nan Hunter's Hunter of Justice.

Recently on DailyKos, Steven Singiser posted this corrolary picture, showing the age democraphic split on explicit support for same-sex marriage by cohort (65+, 45-64, 30-44 and 18-29). The results are quite striking:
The point here is that by the time the 18-29 cohort is fully into the 30-44 cohort, the kulturkampf over marriage equality will probably be over. The only question is how closely public policy will follow public opinion at that time (10-15 years from now).

Details of LA Times/USC Poll on same-sex marriage

Here are the details from the Los Angeles Times/USC poll that was teased on Friday:

Q.43 Do you think that same-sex couples should be allowed to become legally married in the state of California?

Total Yes .................................................................................51 No...................................................................................43
(Don't know/refused) ....................................................... 5

Q.44 Regardless of whether you approve or disapprove of same-sex marriage, do you think it is an issue that Californians should vote on again in 2010, or would you prefer to see the issue left alone and off the ballot for a few years?

Total Vote again in 2010 ......................................................... 41
Leave it alone and off the ballot for a few years............. 56
(Don't know/refused) ....................................................... 4

In addition, here are details of the poll in graphic format:



Source: Greenberg Quinlan Rosner.

Black Gay Debate on CNN

Djokovic defeats Federer in Basel Final

This one's gotta hurt. World #4 Novak Djokovic defeated World #1 Roger Federer 6-4 4-6 6-2 in the final of Swiss Indoor championships in Federer's hometown of Basel. Djokovic won his tour-leading 71st match of the year and 4th title. Federer fell to 59-9 and lost in the deciding set in a final for the 3rd time this year (Australian Open final to Radael Nadal, U.S. Open final to Juan Martin del Potro and now to Djokovic). He was also attemptig to win his hometown tournament where he had served as a ball boy as youth for the fourth consecutive year.

NYT Op-Ed in Favor of NY and NJ Marriage Equality

The New York Times has published an op-ed calling for the Governors of New York and New Jersey to act on marriage equality bills in light of last week's elections:

Voters in Washington State approved a ballot measure endorsing a new law granting gay and lesbian couples the same state-provided benefits that heterosexual couples have.

In other good news, voters in Kalamazoo, Mich., declined to overturn a new law barring discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity in housing, employment and public accommodations. Voters elected their first openly gay City Council members in St. Petersburg, Fla., and Detroit. Chapel Hill, N.C., elected its first openly gay mayor.

By sad contrast, voters in Maine — by a slim margin, and following an aggressive, narrow-minded campaign led by the forces of the religious right — repealed the state’s new law extending the freedom to marry to same-sex couples.

[...]

The big battlegrounds now are New York and New Jersey. New York’s governor, David Paterson, has called the Legislature back to Albany. The budget crisis heads the agenda, but gay rights must be there, too. The Assembly has already approved legislation giving same-sex couples the freedom to marry. Democratic leaders need to allow debate to proceed, and rally the Senate’s 62 members to follow suit.

In New Jersey, Gov. Jon Corzine’s loss to Christopher Christie means that the Legislature must move urgently to approve marriage equality. Mr. Corzine has said he would sign the bill. Mr. Christie has said he would veto it. Legislators must act before Jan. 19, when the government changes hands.

Health Care Reform Debate in U.S. House Today

Congressman Steve King (R-Iowa) said today on the House floor: "All Americans have health care."

Unbelievable. Do all Americans have Ferraris and mansions, too?

Joint Statement from 32 LGBT Groups on Hate Crimes Act

A joint statement was released last week on the occasion of President Barack Obama signing hate crimes legislation into law:

History in the Making

It took much too long, more than a decade. And it came at too great a price: the brutal killings of Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. are just two among the thousands of crimes motivated by hate and bigotry.

But this week, the president put pen to paper and fulfilled a campaign promise, the signing of the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, extending the federal hate crimes statute to include sexual orientation and gender identity along with race, religion, gender, national origin and disability. Our deepest hope and strong belief is that this new law will save lives. Now, lawmakers and the president have made an imperative statement to the country and the world: Our nation will no longer tolerate hate-motivated violence against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people.

We have worked long and hard for this and its passage is historic.

According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program, there are nearly 8,000 hate crime-related incidents annually, and more than 1,200 of those incidents involve violence based on sexual orientation or gender identity. And even more alarming, while the overall occurrence of hate crimes is declining nationally, hate crimes against LGBT people have been increasing. This year alone, we saw hate crimes trials in the brutal killings of two transgender women, Angie Zapata and Lateisha Green.

As a result of this legislation, if local jurisdictions are unable or unwilling to investigate or prosecute hate crimes based on sexual orientation or gender identity, the Justice Department can now step in. And that’s why the LGBT community never stopped working for this historic day.

This legislation not only has practical value, but is a symbol of our progress. It is the first time in the nation’s history that Congress has passed explicit protections on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. We could not have reached this moment without the powerful support of our allies who stood with us every step of the way. We are deeply grateful to civil rights, civic, faith and disability rights groups, as well as law enforcement and district attorney organizations that worked side by side with the LGBT advocates. We are equally thankful to Congress, President Obama and members of his administration for passing and signing this bill into law.

While today we celebrate this marker of progress, we must recognize it as only one of the building blocks to full equality and demand that it be just a first step toward equal treatment under federal law in all areas of our lives. And we must focus on the next step.

The passage of the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act provides us with an opportunity. We must use this moment to educate and keep the momentum going so that we can continue to make progress on the local, state and federal levels. Yes, legislation takes a long time — often years of work. Yet, our community is on the cusp of passing much-needed protections.

This week, we call upon lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, families and allies to take this opportunity of increased media and public attention on hate crimes to educate co-workers, classmates, neighbors, family members and friends about our lives, and about why we need not only their friendship and love, but their vocal support for a more just and equal America for LGBT people. If your members of Congress voted in support of hate crimes legislation, call them and thank them. Then ask them to be there for us again when the vote turns to workplace nondiscrimination, military service and partnership rights.

With your help and our collective pressure, equality is within reach.

When talking about the need for hate crimes legislation, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said: “The time for debate is over.”

She was right.

Just as the time has finally come for stronger hate crime protections, it is also time to pass an inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act, repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and the so-called Defense of Marriage Act, and ensure that health care, economic policy and immigration reform incorporate the needs of LGBT people.

The time for debate is over.

Signed by:

Jo Kenny, AFL-CIO Pride at Work
Terry Stone, Centerlink: The Community of LGBT Centers
Gabe Javier & Debbie Bazarsky, Consortium of Higher Education LGBT Resource Professionals
Marianne Duddy-Burke, DignityUSA
Toni Broaddus, Equality Federation
Jennifer Chrisler, Family Equality Council
Evan Wolfson, Freedom to Marry
Lee Swislow, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders
Jarrett Barrios, Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation
Rebecca Allison, M.D., Gay & Lesbian Medical Association
Eliza Byard, Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network
Chuck Wolfe, Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund
Marjorie Hill, Gay Men’s Health Crisis
Joe Solmonese, Human Rights Campaign
Rachel Tiven, Immigration Equality
Earl Fowlkes, International Federation of Black Prides
Kevin M. Cathcart, Lambda Legal
Leslie Calman, Mautner Project: The National Lesbian Health Organization
Sharon Lettman, National Black Justice Coalition
Kate Kendell, National Center for Lesbian Rights
Mara Keisling, National Center for Transgender Equality
Sharon Stapel, National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs
Rebecca Fox, National Coalition for LGBT Health
Justin Nelson, National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce
Rea Carey, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force
Paul Kawata, National Minority AIDS Council
Kyle Bailey, National Stonewall Democrats
Greg Varnum, National Youth Advocacy Coalition
Selisse Berry, Out & Equal Workplace Advocates
Jody Michael Huckaby, PFLAG National
Michael Adams, Services and Advocacy for GLBT Elders (SAGE)
Aubrey Sarvis, Servicemembers Legal Defense Network
Lisbeth Melendez Rivera, UNID@S

–30–

POLL: CA Voters Support Marriage Equality; Oppose 2010 Prop 8 Repeal

The Los Angeles Times is reporting on its website that a new poll shows that a slim majority of Californians supports marriage equality but also opposed voting on a repeal of Proposition 8 in 2010. The main result is that 51% of respondents supported marriage for same-sex couples while only 43% were opposed. I would note that this is quite a high number relative to recent polls, but NOT OUTSIDE THE MARGIN OF ERROR.

The California findings come from a new Los Angeles Times/University of Southern California College of Letters, Arts & Sciences poll. The survey, which interviewed 1,500 registered voters from Oct. 27 through Nov. 3, was conducted for the Times and USC by two nationally prominent polling firms, the Democratic firm Greenberg Quinlan Rosner, and the Republican firm Public Opinion Strategies. The results have a margin of error of +/-2.6 percentage points. Full results of the poll, including the status of the campaigns for governor and the U.S. Senate, will be published Sunday in the Times and on latimes.com.

The survey showed that same-sex marriage continues to reverberate differently along race and generational lines. Just over half of whites backed it, while just under half of African Americans and Latinos did.

All three groups, however, opposed having to vote on it in 2010. (Asians were questioned by the poll and included in the overall sample, but their numbers were statistically too small to isolate.) Young voters continued to be far more supportive of gay marriage rights than their elders.

Among those ages 18-29, 71% said they supported same-sex marriage; among those 65 and older, only 37% favored it. Younger voters were also one of the few groups who backedputting it on the 2010 ballot, which will be dominated by the races for governor and U.S. Senate.

The full results will be published in Sunday's paper but they seem to bolster what MadProfessah and others have been arguing for: 2012 is the earliest year that we should attempt to place an affirmative marriage equality ballot measure before voters.

Maine Question 1 Money Total: Over $9m

Joe.My.God has the details of the more than 9 million dollars that was spent to support and oppose Maine's Question 1, which was passed by voters on Tuesday and repealed LD-1020, which would have legalized civil marriage for same-sex couples in that state.

Proponents

The committees that supported Question 1 got their funding almost entirely from churches and conservative Christian organizations and their employees, who gave $3 million, which is 89 percent of the proponents' total. Almost half of proponents' contributions came from the National Organization for Marriage, a conservative Christian group based in New Jersey, which gave $1.6 million. Focus on the Family gave $179,500. The Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland, another large donor, gave $285,988—all to its own ballot committee. In total, dioceses and churches provided $578,904. Out-of-state churches sent in $269,650. Out-of state donors from 45 other states gave $2.1 million to support the measure. New Jersey topped the list at $1.6 million. In a distant second place, Colorado donors gave $143,070, and those from the District of Columbia gave $75,275.

Opponents

The committees that opposed Question 1 relied less on the support of a few major organizations. Opponents of the measure raised money from over 10,000 donors—12 times more than proponents reported. Gay-rights groups and their employees gave $1.8 million, or 31 percent of the total raised by opponents. The Human Rights Campaign topped the list, giving $367,067. The Gill Foundation contributed $275,000. Freedom to Marry gave $200,000 and another $30,000 came from the Vermont affiliate. The National Gay & Lesbian Task Force gave $159,056, and EqualityMaine gave $152,151. Out-of-state donors contributed $3.3 million to oppose to the measure. Donations came from all 50 states; the top locations were New York ($761,498), Massachusetts ($653,889), and the District of Columbia ($619,566).

I suppose it is progress that the donors for supporting the denial of fundamental rights to a minority group are not coming from large groups of people, but only a small cadre of religiously motivated heterosexual supremacists.

Celebrity Friday: Evan Wolfson

Evan Wolfson is the founder and executive director of Freedom to Marry, the national organization devoted to fighting for marriage equality, and he appeared on CNN's Anderson Cooper show to debate the odious Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council about the aftermath of Maine's vote to sustain a people's veto of their marriage equality bill LD 1020.

Hat/tip Joe.My.God

Referendum 71 Update: Victory Mathematically Certain

The latest tallies on Referendum 71 from the Washington State Secretary of State election results page show that the good guys are ahead 593,956 (51.65%) Approve to 556,090 (48.35%) Reject with 394,282 ballots still to be counted! However, mathematically there is almost no chance that Referendum 71 will be rejected when all the votes are tallied.

The current margin of victory is 37,876 votes. However, 129,000 of the outstanding ballots are from King county which is approving Referendum 71 at a 66%-34% rate that will be a net gain of another 42,000 votes. The rest of the state will not be able to overcome that margin unless they sustain a margin of 58% Reject for ALL of the non King County votes. In order to actually surpass the boost from the uncounted King County ballots combined with the current lead of 37,876 the outstanding non-King county 265,000 ballots would have to be rejecting Referendum 71 at a rate of 65%.

That simply is NOT going to happen. We won!!

Having a statewide vote to approve a comprehensive domestic partnership bill affirmatively is a huge leap forward for the LGBT equality movement. I would note that the last time LGBTs won a statewide vote it was in 2006 when Arizonan's defeated an anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment so homophobic it would also have outlawed domestic partnerships. That initiative was rejected in 2006 and then a marriage-only measure was approved by voters in 2008.

I think this makes it clear that states that have anti-marriage constitutional amendments or do not have marriage equality yet should move forward in enacting comprehensive domestic partnership statutes and not be afraid of facing the voters.

CA-10: Garamendi Elected To Congress

Lieutenant Governor John Garamendi has won the special election to replace U.S. Rep Ellen Tauscher in California's congressional district. You may recall this district because this was the race in which Black, openly gay Iraq vet Anthony Woods was a candidate, although with much greater name recognition and money, Garamendi placed first in the primary on September 1, 2009.

Despite all the chatter about Republican gains in Tuesday's elections, the Democrats in Congress have two more votes in Congress after the election than they did before the election.

And that's two more votes for health care reform.

World Chess Championship Set: Anand v. Topalov in April '10

In Sunday's Chess column in the Los Angeles Times International master Jack Peters revealed the dates and location of next year's World Chess Championship match between defending champ Viswanathan Anand and Veselin Topalov.

The World Chess Federation (FIDE) announced that the 12-game world championship match between champion Viswanathan Anand of India and challenger Veselin Topalov of Bulgaria would take place in Sofia, Bulgaria. Tentative dates are April 5 through 24.

The Bulgarian prime minister, Boiko Borisov, promised that the Bulgarian his government would pay the prize fund of 2 million Euros (about $2.96 million) and organizational costs. He assured that "neutrality would be guaranteed."

It is somewhat curious that the match would occur in the home country of one of the combatants, and even odder that India did not bid to host the event.

Next Step in Marriage Equality Fight: New Jersey

There is a very good chance that the District of Columbia, New Jersey and New York will pass marriage equality bills through their legislatures in the next few weeks (definitely before the end of the year).

First up is the Garden State, with now lame-duck Governor Jon Corzine widely expected to sign the bill into law if it passes the legislature before a Republican Governor is sworn in in January.

To support the New Jersey effort, watch the videos above, and go to Garden State Equality's website to support their effort to pass marriage equality in the next six weeks.

Thoughts On Maine: We Will Prevail (Eventually)

Yesterday's election results are in and it is becoming pretty clear that Maine voters have voted to prevent their state's marriage equality law passed by the Legislature and signed by the Governor from going into effect.

With 96% of precints voting, Question 1 is passing:

Yes	296289	52.79%
No	264970	47.21%

As my fellow blogger Greta Christina says, I hope that people looking at these results will give up the fiction that Proposition 8 passed last year because of the No On 8's alleged incompetency (or Black voters' alleged homophobia). Everyone agrees that Maine's No On 1 ran an excellent campaign and most rational people understand that religiosity not race is the most significant factor in voters' position on marriage equality. And she also makes the point that people who are gunning to return to the ballot in 2010 might want to reconsider that notion:

It could well be that Prop 8 won in California because the No on 8 campaign made mistakes. But it could also be that Prop 8 won in California because same-sex marriage has never, ever won at the ballot box in the U.S. It could be that Prop 8 won because same-sex marriage is just a really hard sell right now. I do think time is on our side... but when it comes to the ballot box, it isn't on our side yet.

Two: I hope the people who want to put same-sex marriage back on the ballot in California in 2010 take a long, hard look at whether that's really a good idea, and whether the timing is right.

Same-sex marriage is just really hard to win at the ballot right now. I think we need to accept that. We stand a much better chance of winning in 2012 than we do in 2010. To be blunt about it: Support for same-sex marriage skews, more than with almost any other demographic, according to age. The younger people are, the more likely they are to support it. To be brutally blunt: As more old people die, and as more young people become old enough to vote, the odds skew more and more in our favor. Also, the economy in California truly and profoundly sucks right now, and people just won't be able to donate the kind of money to a political campaign that they did in 2008. And 2012 is a Presidential election year, when voter turnout is always higher -- and high voter turnout almost always means more young voters, and almost always favors liberal candidates and causes.

I bolded the key sentences in the excerpt above. Greta Christina is just saying what MadProfessah and others have been saying since July: 2012 is the earliest Californian's should consider returning to the ballot to restore marriage rights to same-sex couples.

There are now 32 states where voters have been faced with the question of whether to be pro-gay or anti-gay with regards to relationship recognition for same-sex couples. The anti-gay side has won 31 times and lost twice (Arizona voters defeated a ballot measure that would have banned marriage for same-sex couples AND domestic partnerships in 2006 but then approved an initiative that only banned same-sex marriage in 2008. In 2009 it looks like we are winning Referendum 71 in Washington State).

On the question of marriage equality itself without domestic partnership or civil unions in the picture LGBTs have lost 31 statewide elections.

Do we really want to make it 32 in 2010?

Protect Main Equality/ No On 1 Concedes Defeat

Jesse Connolly the campaign manager of Protect Maine Equality/No On 1 released the following statement:

Tonight, hundreds of thousands of Maine voters stood for equality, but in the end, it wasn't enough.

I am proud of the thousands of Mainers who knocked on doors, made phone calls and talked to their family, friends and neighbors about the basic premise of treating all Maine families equally.

And I'm proud of this campaign because the stories we told and the images we shared were of real Mainers -- parents who stood up for their children, and couples who simply wanted to marry the person they love.

We're in this for the long haul. For next week, and next month, and next year-- until all Maine families are treated equally. Because in the end, this has always been about love and family and that will always be something worth fighting for.

2009 Election Results: Maine Bad, Washngton Good

The New York Times website ends up coming through...

Maine: Reject Gay Marriage Law

Do you want to reject the new law that lets same-sex couples marry and allows individuals and religious groups to refuse to perform these marriages?

50% reporting Washington: Domestic Partnerships

Maine: Reject Gay Marriage Law

Answer	Party	Votes	Pct.
Yes	—	240,647	52.4%
No	—	218,478	47.6

Washington: Domestic Partnerships

Answer	Party	Votes	Pct.
Approve	—	506,936	51.1%
Reject	—	484,567	48.9

Maine Question 1 Very Very Close

Best results are at:

http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/

http://www.wmtw.com/politics/feature.html

http://www.openleft.com/diary/15830/maine-election-results-thread-2

Or Twitter: Follow @madprofessah

Latest result is

REJECT SAME-SEX MARRIAGE LAW
No	125399	50.12%
Yes	124774	49.88%

Winner of the LAPD Chiefstakes: Charlie Beck

Multiple media sources are reporting that Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa has selected Deputy Chief Charlie Beck to be his nominee for the next Chief of the Los Angeles Police Department.

Beck, 56, was previously reported to be on the Mayor's short list of three finalists (all white and male) to replace outgoing LAPD head William Bratton, who left his post on October 31st. The other two finalists were Deputy Chief Michel Moore and First Assistant Chief Jim McDonnell.

The Mayor will appear at three public forums with his nominee this week. The LGBT community is explicitly invited:

Tuesday, November 3, 2009
at the EXPO Center 3980 South Menlo Ave.,
Los Angeles CA 90037
at 4:00 PM Doors Open at 3:00 PM

Wed. November 4, 2009
6:00 - 7 :30 PM
Van Nuys City Hall
14410 Sylvan Street
Van Nuys, CA

Thursday November 5, 2009
6:00 - 7:30 PM
El Sereno Senior Center at
4818 Klamath Place
Los Angeles, CA

You might want to ask the Mayor and Chief Charlie Beck about whether they will cut ties with the Boy Scouts-linked, anti-gay Explorers program once and for all.

TV coverage of DC Council Hearings on Marriage

Hat/tip to Joe.My.God

Nate Silver Analyzes Maine Polls, Predicts NO ON 1 Win

Today at FiveThirtyEight.com Nate Silver analyzes the latest PPP poll (which shows Question 1 passing and lead to a NO ON 1 FUNDRAISING RED ALERT) but still gives the forces for equality 5:2 odds of prevailing on election day tomorrow.

Maine -- Question 1 -- "Do you want to reject the new law that lets same-sex couples marry and allows individuals and religious groups to refuse to perform these marriages?" .

The Positions: A 'Yes' vote overturns same-sex marriage, which the state legislature approved in May. A 'No' vote preserves same-sex marriage.

The Polls: As in the other elections this cycle, recent polling shows somewhat contradictory results. A Research 2000 / Daily Kos poll shows Question 1 losing by one point. A Pan Atlantic SMS poll shows the initiative losing by 11 points. But a fresh PPP poll shows it passing by 4 points. The Research 2000 and Pan Atlantic polls showed slight movement toward the 'No' side from their previous surveys, while the PPP poll showed movement toward the 'Yes' side. The only other pollster to have surveyed the race is Democracy Corps, which had shown Question 1 losing by 9 points among both registered and likely voters, although that poll is now five weeks old.

Analysis: All the polls show a very low number of undecideds, so like most close elections, it's a question of turnout. And the pollsters have different opinions about what turnout is liable to be. PPP has people under 45 representing about 38 percent of the electorate, whereas Research 2000 has them at 51 percent of the electorate. PPP's figures are a closer match for Maine's 2006 electorate, when 36 percent of voters were 45 or under.

On the other hand, PPP shows conservatives outnumbering liberals 36-23, whereas those numbers have been about evenly split in exit polling of Maine's elections in 2004, 2006 and 2008. Were the liberal-conservative split to match 2006, for example, when Maine's electorate was 26 percent liberal, 26 percent conservative, and 48 percent moderate, then Question 1 would fail 46-53, according to PPP's internals.

[...]

The Odds: A statistical analysis I conducted last month, which was based on the results from previous gay marriage referenda in other states, gave the Yes on 1 side just an 11 percent chance of prevailing, although the fraction rises to 32 percent after an ad-hoc adjustment for the fact that this is an off-year election. In spite of the PPP poll, I'm not especially persuaded to deviate substantially from those numbers: the polling average still favors the 'No' side, albeit narrowly; the 'No' side seems to have run the superior campaign, and the cellphone issue may be worth a point or two. The tight polling, certainly, should keep everybody on their toes, and gay marriage could quite easily be overturned. But I'd still put the Yes on 1 side as about a 5-to-2 underdog.

VIDEO: New Trailer for James Cameron's "Avatar"

Support MadProfessah Advertiser ALAN GRAYSON's MONEY BOMB

Florida Congressman Alan Grayson scares the %$*^!! out of Republicans because he is an outspoken progressive who says out loud exactly what most of you are thinking.

Some choice quotes from Rep. Grayson:

"The Republican health care plan is this: 'Don't get sick, and if you do get sick, die quickly.'"



"I have trouble listening to what [Dick Cheney] says sometimes because of the blood that drips from his teeth when he's talking."

Because of this, Republicans have recruited a Latino Republican named Armando Gutierrez to run against Grayson and targeted him wth a website mycongressmanisnuts.com, which is a response to Grayson's congressmanwithguts.com.
Grayson says his re-election race in 2010 will probably cost $2 million dollars thanks to the national profile and the targeting that he will receive from the Republican National Committee.

Today Monday November 2nd Grayson is doing a money bomb where he is trying to raise four hundred thousand dollars online from progressives nationally. I am hoping that a significant number of MadProfessah readers will click on the Alan Grayson Money Bomb ad in the top right corner of this blog, and kick in $10 via Actblue. I'm hoping that we can raise $100 to support his moneybomb. Please click on the ad and donate now!

New Maine Poll (51 Yes, 47 No): Marriage Equality Could Lose Tuesday

The new Maine poll from Public Policy Poll has supporters of marriage equality peeing in our pants since, for the first time, polling shows a majority deciding NOT to allow same-sex marriages.

At 51-47 it’s within the margin of error but there has been slight movement in support of the question since a PPP poll two weeks ago showed it knotted up at 48.

The measure’s fate could be determined by the age composition of the electorate on Tuesday. Senior citizens support it by a 59-40 margin while voters under 30 oppose it 51-48. Last year exit polls showed more voters under 30 turning out for the Presidential election than ones over 65 but we expect seniors to turn out at a much higher rate than younger voters this year, as is often the case in off year elections. If the electorate ends up being younger than we anticipate the fight could be even closer.

Independents support the measure 52-46. There are slightly more Democrats (27%) in favor of it than there are Republicans (22%) opposed to it. Men support it by a 56-42 margin, women are opposed 52-46. It’s just going to come down to which side does the better job of getting its people out.

Protect Maine Equality / No On 1 has sent out a RED ALERT to try and raise $50,000 to counter this hateful new radio ad the heterosexual supremacists have backed with $25,000. Please click on the thermometer on this page and kick in at least $31 since this will be the 31st statewide vote on marriage equality and could be the first one that the good guys will win!

How To Choose Your Religion: A Helpful Flow Chart

This chart is pretty helpful for those of you who are deciding on which religion to follow. (Hat/tip Holy Taco)

What We'll See If Question 1 Fails in Maine on Tuesday

Serena Beats Venus To Win Year-End Championship

Serena Williams defeated Venus Williams 6-2 7-6(4) to win the Year-End Championships in Doha, Qatar. She becomes the first player to win $6 million in a year and takes the lead in her career head-to-head match-up with Venus to 13-10, having beaten her sister three consecutive times.

MOVIE REVIEW: Ponyo

Saw Hayao Miyazaki's Ponyo recently before it left movie theaters late this summer. Miyazaki is the acclaimed Japanese filmmaker who created Spirited Away, which won an Oscar for Best Animated Feature in 2003.

Ponyo is not the director's best work, but it is an interesting diversion.

The main problem is the (feebleness of the) plot and (lack of) character development. It's mildly amusing to identify the voices of the famous celebrities who add their voices to the cast: Matt Damon, Liam Neeson, Cate Blanchett, Betty White, Cloris Leachman, Lily Tomlin and Tina Fey.

The story is about Ponyo, who is both the daughter of the sea god and goldfish. One day, a 5-year-old boy named Sosuke finds the goldfish and takes it home but loses the goldfish back in the ocean. Ponyo uses her father's magic to transform herself from a goldfish to a little girl and returns to land to live with Sosuke. However, the magic unleashes a terrible storm and huge storm tide which floods the area where Sosuke and his mom live. Ponyo and Sosuke have to work together to find his mom and save the world from the increasingly dangerous effects of the rising tide.

The synopsis doesn't really do the plot justice, but as with most of Miyazaki's movies the point of the film is more about the emotional connection the filmmaker is able to make with the audience, and not the story, per se.

In films like Spirited Away and Howl's Moving Castle the magical moments can overwhelm any defects in the plot. Sadly, Ponyo is not one of those films.

Running Time: 1 hour, 40 minutes. MPAA Rating: Rated G for general audiences.

OVERALL GRADE: B.

ACTING: N/A.
IMAGERY: A-.
PLOT: B.
IMPACT: B.