Worldwide JULY 19 Protests Set for 1-Year Anniversary of Iranian Gay Teen Executions

Doug Ireland, OutRage and International Day Against Homophobia are publicizing protests on Wednesday July 19th 2006 to commemorate the horrific executions of two Iranian gay teenagers Mahmoud Asgari and Ayaz Marhoni exactly one year ago, because of their homosexuality. As Doug reports:

At least 18 cities in the U.S., Europe, and Canada have already begun to organize events for July 19, the International Day of Action Against Homophobic Persecution in Iran. The original call to action for July 19 was initiated jointly by the militant British gay rights group OutRage and the Paris-based International Day Against Homophobia (IDAHO) for world-wide demonstrations on July 19, the first anniversary of the public hanging in Iran of two gay teens, Mahmoud Asgari and Ayaz Marhoni. Photos of the execution of the two boys, who were hanged in the public square of the city of Mashad last year (photo above left), created international outrage when they were widely circulated on the Internet, and focused the world’s attention on Iran’s ongoing, lethal reign of terror targeting Iranian gays.

Protests have already been scheduled for the anniversary of the teens’ execution in a number of large European cities, including London, Moscow, Frankfurt, Berlin, Marseille, Amsterdam, Vienna, Dublin, Stockholm, and Brussels. ever, the New York-based International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission which had both endorsed the call for world-wide demonstrations and had announced it ws taking the lead to organize a New York City demonstration in front of the Iranian Mission to the U.N., has withdrawn from the demonstration. The New York demonstration was also endorsed by Gay City News, New York City's largest gay weekly newspaper. Local gay groups and ad hoc committees have already scheduled U.S. events in San Francisco, San Diego, , Washington, D.C., Fort Lauderdale, and Provincetown for July 19. And there will be commemorative meetings in Toronto and Vancouver in Canada.(A list of all those demonstrations and events in the U.S. and around the world, with contacts, is at the bottom of this post).

The call for global demonstrations has also been endorsed by the Persian Gay and Lesbian Organization (PGLO), the largest Iranian gay group, which has secretariats in several European countries and Canada. “We enthusiastically support the call for demonstrations on July 19, and we are very grateful to our brothers and sisters for organizing these demonstrations for our beleaguered Iranian gay people,” Arsham Parsi (left) , human rights secretary of the PGLO, told Gay City News from his base in Toronto, where he and local gay organizations are organizing a demonstration..

The PGLO has also asked all its members in Iran to display lighted candles in their windows on July 19 in memory of the two hanged Iranian lads -- "That's about all we can ask our members in Iran to do safely without bringing down persecution on their heads from the regime's police and the homo-hating paramilitary basiji thugs who work for the ayatollahs," Parsi said.

Doug has also been reporting about the way that U.S.-based LGBT civil rights organizations have not been engaged with this story. This is summarized in an article by Rob Anderson in The New Republic entitled "How America's Gay Rights Establishment Is Failing Gay Iranians."

Angela Haynes and Serena Williams: Ghetto Fabulous

This is a picture of Angela Haynes in her "Angela Kournikova" persona at a World Team Tennis Anna Kournikova Look-Alike Contest in Cincinatti, OH last week.

Also from Cincinatti comes this quote from Serena Williams, who returns to the WTA Tour with a ranking of 140 (her sister Venus is now down to 23) at the July 17-23 Tier III Western & Southern Financial Group Women’s Open:

"I hope to get a lot of satisfaction out of my game. I hope to go out and blow the joint up. My goals — I've never said them out loud. I just expect to do what I do best, and I think I play tennis best."

Oh my!

Off To 'The Heartland'

I'll be in Indianola, Iowa for the next week starting today. Light, if non existent blogging will result. I'll be reading Robert Moses' Radical Equations and Steven J. Brams & Alan Taylor's The Win-Win Solution: Guaranteeing Fair Shares to Everybody. I'll post reviews when I return.

REVIEW: John Morgan Wilson's RHAPSODY IN BLOOD

My favorite gay mystery writer John Morgan Wilson is back with a seventh Benjamin Justice novel, Rhapsody in Blood. Benjamin Justice is a 40-something, HIV+ white gay man missing one eye who lives in West Hollywood and is a disgraced former Los Angeles Times reporter who was forced to return a Pulitzer Prize after it was revealed he faked his award-winning article. Somehow he finds himself in situations where people harboring secrets frequently meet violent deaths (and he is often in mortal danger, too--when we first met Justice he was HIV- and intact). His sidekick is Alexandra Stevenson, a statuesque African American trust fund baby in her early 30s who also happens to be a star Times reporter. Other characters in the Justice series are Maurice and Fred, a 70-something gay couple who have been together for over 50 years and who rent out the room over their garage to Justice in the heart of Boystown.

The first six books in the series have also used Los Angeles (and usually West Hollywood) as a character. One of the most enjoyable features was reading Wilson's descriptions of locales around the city complete with historical nuggets of places that I can (and often do) drive by whenever I want. Initially the books in the series had the cute affectation of always including Justice in the title: Simple Justice, Revision of Justice, Justice at Risk, The Limits of Justice. Then the series took a harrowingly dark turn during the last one and continued in that vein in Blind Eye with some relief coming in Moth and Flame.

The latest installment is Rhapsody in Blood, which is not set in Los Angeles but is a classic Hollywood murder mystery. Justice and Stevenson go up to a small mountain town a few hours away from L.A. now called Haunted Springs. Fifty years ago gorgeous movie star Rebecca Fox was found murdered in one of the family-run hotel's rooms on March 15th while shooting a movie in Eternal Springs. She had recently had sex with someone and the hotel owner's teenage son claimed he had seen a black man coming out of the room. The man Ed Jones was immediately arrested by the local sherrif (who happened to be related to the hotel owner) and lynched later that same night--no murder weapon was ever found in the hotel room. Twenty-five years ago Rebecca Fox's daughter Brandy Fox checked into the same hotel room on the 25th anniversary of her mother's murder and was found dead in her room with her throat cut and the knife in her hand. The death was ruled a suicide. The name of the town was changed to Haunted Springs and the mythology of the two Hollywood deaths and the creepy hotel grew, particularly after the publication of a best-selling true crime book about the ill-fated town. Now Hollywood is filming a movie based on the Rebecca and Brandy Fox deaths at the hotel. Templeton is writing a story about the filming of the movie, which stars one of the current top female box-office stars, a very attractive up and coming male starlet and a popular rapper.

What makes the Justice novels so interesting is that even though they are firmly ensconced in the murder mystery genre the author has no qualms about including social commentary on any number of urgent comtemporary topics. In Rhapsody in Blue there are threads about race (from the DL or "down low" phenomenon, to a dissection of the psychological motivations behind the panic caused by Black male/White female couplings, lynching, among other topics), sexuality (outing, the coming out process, childhood precociousness, age-based anxieties), music (hip hop/rap, the music business, the title is a pun on Rhapsody in Blue which is a key theme throughout the book), history (who controls what the nature of 'truth' is, how the past influences the present and the future, basic historical facts about lynching in the United States), fame (it's fragility and allure, the Hollywood public relations apparatus, the extremes to which people will go to get it, gossip, etc) all weaved together in a well-crafted mosaic which provides a backdrop for a satisfying, insightful and fun read.

I can't wait for the next one!

GRADE: A.

WIMBLEDON 2006: Final Results

World #1's and Wimbledon #1 seeds Roger Federer and Amelie Mauresmo won their Wimbledon finals this weekend. Mauresmo defeated Belgian tennis dwarf Justine Henin-Hardenne 2-6, 6-4, 6-3 while Federer beat Spanish lefty phenom Rafael Nadal 6-0, 7-6(5), 6-7(2), 6-3.

Mauresmo, 27, is openly lesbian and has had a long history of questions about mental toughness. By hanging tough to beat Maria Sharapova in three sets in the semifinal I believe that the final was actually an easier match for the Frenchwoman to win. With the victory, Mauresmo is the undisputed #1 player in the World, having won 2 of the 3 major tournaments of the year to date.

Federer, 24, has now won 8 major tournaments, and 4 consecutive Wimbledon titles, joining the company of the all-time greats Pete Sampras (7 total, most ever) and Bjorn Borg (5 consecutive). By defeating the World #2 who had previously denied him the career slam, Federer cements his position at #1 similar to Mauresmo.

On to New York!

Arnold Leads Angelides in Latest Poll

The Los Angeles Times reports that Governor Schwarzenegger now has a net positive job approval rating of +7 (48% approve, 41% disapprove) and leads his Democratic opponent 44% to 37% in the latest poll.

LA TIMES Editorializes in Favor of HIV Liability Rule Change

The Los Angeles Times editorial page on Friday commented on the controversial California Supreme Court decision issued Monday expanding the number of people liable for civil penalties under the state's HIV transmission statute.

With this decision, California's civil statute on this issue now makes more sense than its criminal code. Unlike most other states, transmitting a disease in California is a crime only if someone knowingly passes along the virus "with the specific intent" of infecting a partner. That's so hard to prove that the law has reportedly brought only two convictions.

The California Supreme Court made the right decision in expanding the definition of liability in civil court for those who put others at unnecessary risk of contracting HIV. Hopefully, this will entice the state to update its outdated criminal penalties as well.

I find it hard to understand why the editorial page of the Times thinks it knows better than the Legislature and the state's HIV/AIDS advocates what the legal standard should be for California's HIV transmission statutes, both civil and criminal. Just last year there was a bill in the California Legislature by Republican State Senator Jeff Denham (SB 235) which would have removed the "specific intent" standard from the criminal statute but it failed to get out of committee. The California Supreme Court's decision basically made anyone who engages in unsafe sexual practices liable for civil damages regardless of whether they know their own HIV status or not. The question that comes to my mind is about the unbalanced nature of this liability, which the Times seems to support also. In any sexual act there are two (at least! ) people involved. If unsafe sex is happening in that context, why aren't both parties equally responsible for what happened?

Obviously, prior to sex both parties should be cognizant of their own HIV status and request information about the HIV status of the other partner. By putting the onus of responsibility only upon one party (the one of them who has engaged in risky sexual practices within the last six months of their most recent negative HIV test result) as the Court and the Times want to do, seems unfair to me. Even in my scenario where both partners are as forthcoming as possible there will always be "asymmetric information" (as economists like to say) and the optimal way to level this disadvantage is to choose the most pessimistic scenario: assume all sexual partners are HIV+. Clearly in that case safe sex is the only option which makes sense.

The problem with this approach is that it doesn't acknowledge reality: people who are engaging in sex can intellectually say "treat everyone as if they are HIV+" but they know that in reality obviously everyone is not. (Although, in many urban settings CDC statistics show as many as 46% of Black gay and bisexual men over the age of may be. In that case, depending on your sample size and preferences/predilections it could be very true that everyone you are having sex with actually is HIV+, and probably doesn't know it.) This is the dilemma faced by safe sex and HIV prevention advocates. It seems to me by declaring that there is more liability for all people who practice unsafe sex will decrease the resolve of people to practice safe sex, and instead use some kind of state sanction as a fallback excuse for why they can "play raw just this once." Thus the Times editorial, the Denham bill and the Supreme Court decision seem to me to make things more difficult not less for HIV prevention advocates.

WIMBLEDON 2006: Men's Final Prediction

The 2006 Gentlemen's Final has been set:

Roger Federer SUI (1) vs. Rafael Nadal ESP (2). Astonishingly, it is the same matchup as last month's Fremch Open final, which was won by Nadal in 4 sets. Nadal is one of the few players on the ATP Tour who has more wins than losses over Federer, in fact he has beaten the World #1 four times in 2006! Federer has actually only beaten Nadal once, and in that match he was two sets to love down but came back to win. However, they have never played on grass. Federer has won 47 consecutive matches on grass. The only person to beat Federer in the last 12 months is Nadal. Now, Nadal is the only person standing between Federer and a fourth consecutive Wimbledon Men's singles title, which has only been achieved by Bjorn Borg and Pete Sampras. If Nadal wins, he becomes the first male player since Borg to win the French and Wimbledon in the same year, one of the most difficult feats in tennis (Borg did it 3 years in a row!)

It is a battle of historic proportions!

WHO I THINK WILL WIN: Federer (in 4 sets, possibly 5).
WHO I WANT TO WIN: Federer.

WIMBLEDON 2006: Women's Final Prediction

My semifinal predictions were correct one out of two. I picked Henin in 3 and Sharapova in 3. I'm very happy that I was wrong about that. Here is my preview and prediction of the 2006 Wimbledon Ladies Final:

Amélie Mauresmo FRA (1) vs. Justine Henin-Hardenne BEL (3). Mauresmo is in her first Wimbledon final and only 3rd Grand Slam final of her career to date. However, Henin-Hardenne is in her 3rd Grand Slam final of the year and has not lost a set winning in Paris in May and hasn't dropped a set in London. Henin-Hardenne has been in 7 finals and won 5 of them (4 of them against Kim Clijsters!) Head-to-head Henin-Hardenne leads 5-4 but the two have never played on grass. They actually have exchanged victories (they haven't lost consecutive matches to each other), and their last meeting was a beatdown by Henin-Hardenne on clay so I think that it is Mauresmo's turn to win. Lucky for her this may occur on the world's most prestigious tennis court, Wimbledon's Centre Court.

Of course, one of the very interesting storylines on Saturday will be the fact that this match is a repeat of the 2006 Australian Open. There, Mauresmo outlasted Clijsters (who retired in the third set) in the semifinals and Henin-Hardenne won a very close match against Sharapova which may have gone the other way if electronic line calling technology were in use. Then in the final, Mauresmo was leading 6-1, 2-0 when Henin-Hardenne inexplicably retired, defaulting the title to the Frenchwoman. Henin-Hardenne's toughness both mental and physical are near legendary (she required intravenous fluids after winning a three set late night thriller at the 2003 US Open over Jennifer Capriati but then came back hours later and defeated Clijsters in straight sets.

In the first set against Sharapova, Mauresmo had one unforced error, a double fault. She rather easily won that set 6-3. She was up 3-1 in the second set before "the yips" set in and she allowed Sharapova to lead 4-3 and eventually win the set 6-3. In the third set Mauresmo rushed off to a 4-0 lead and although she was broken she was always able to break back to win the set and match 6-2. If she plays similarly against Henin-Hardenne on Saturday Amélie Mauresmo will win her first Wimbledon title, becoming the first openly lesbian Wimbledon champ since Martina Navratilova in 1990 (unless Jana Novotna in 1998 counts!)
WHO I THINK WILL WIN: Mauresmo (in 3 sets).
WHO I WANT TO WIN: Mauresmo.

WIMBLEDON 2006: Men's Semifinals Predictions

I don't usually blog about men's tennis, but what the heck!

Roger Federer SUI (1) vs. Jonas Bjorkman SWE. Bjorkman has done very well to get to his second Grand Slam semifinal (1997 US Open) at the ripe old age of 34. He is one of the best doubles players in the world and has been for years. However, Federer will not be denied his 4th straight Wimbledon final.
WHO I THINK WILL WIN: Federer (in 3 sets).
WHO I WANT TO WIN: Federer.

Rafael Nadal ESP (2) vs. Marcos Baghdatis CYP (18). Amazingly, Nadal has played his last three of his five matches against fellow left-handers (Bogdanovich, Labadze and Nieminen) in this Wimbledon. However, he will face his toughest test (apologies to Mr. Graf) against the rapidly improving Cypriot, who has already been in a Grand Slam final this year. I do think that Nadal will figure out some way to win this match, but it should be a nailbiter.
WHO I THINK WILL WIN: Nadal (in 5 sets).
WHO I WANT TO WIN: Baghdatis..

Unfortunate Marriage Defeats in NY and GA

Well Rod 2.0 and The New York Times were correct: the New York Court of Appeals ruled on same-sex marriage yesterday. In a 4-2 decision, the Court declared the discriminatory marriage laws of the state constitutional, but urged the Legislature to take up the issue. Keith Boykin, an attorney and Harvard Law School graduate was particularly disappointed with the decision:

Judge George Bundy Smith, regarded as the most liberal member of the court and the only African American judge on the court, signed onto an opinion that rejected comparisons between same-sex marriage bans and interracial marriage bans. As a black gay man who has spent years fighting against homophobia in the black community, that was the most disappointing aspect of the decision, that a liberal black judge just doesn't get it.

The two dissenters were Chief Judge Judith Kaye and Carmen Ciparick. Victoria Graffeo concurred with the plurality opinion upholding the state marriage laws but signaled that she thought the Legislature should change them.

To add insult to injury, in an unsurprising move, the Georgia Supreme Court unanimously re-instated a same-sex marriage ban imposed by voter-passed consitutional amendment in the November 2004 election.

REVIEW: The Devil Wears Prada

All About Meryl. That's All.
I saw the The Devil Wears Prada on Saturday at the Arclight Theaters with my friends John and Marvin. The movie stars the amazing Meryl Streep, Brokeback Mountain's surprising Anne Hathaway, a convincingly fey Stanley Tucci, the very hot Daniel Sunjata and Entourage's attractive Adrian Grenier.

As expected, Streep pilfers the movie as Miranda Priestley, the powerful editor-in-chief of a fashion magazine named "Runway" right under Anne's waspy nose! Hathaway plays Andy Sachs, a recent college graduate who turned down Stanford Law School to move to New York City to be a writer. She is a fashion challenged ingenue who lives in a dumpy apartment with her adorable apprentice chef boyfriend played by Grenier.

Streep is absolutely riveting to look at for every minute she's on screen, but also delivers a nuanced performance, so that even though she is the obnoxious Devil of the title, the audience identifies and empathizes with her and her characters travails. Hathaway does a very good job of convincingly, subtly metamorphizing from fashion illiterate to fashionista.

The film is based on a best-selling novel called The Devil Wears Prada which I never read which itself was a very lightly veiled expose' based on the author's internship at Vogue magazine and experiences with that fashion magazine's powerful editor-in-chief Anna Wintour.

As Keith Boykin says in his overwhelmingly positive review, Miranda Priestley's catchphrase "That's all" is destined to be the phrase of the moment for all the children and queens to be reading each other this summer!

New York Marriage Ruling Expected Soon

The New York Times and Rod 2.0 are both predicting that the New York Court of Appeals will issue its final ruling on marriage equality today. MadProfessah has been following this issue for a long time, and this particular lawsuit also. I'll believe the decision comes down today when it is actually issues, after all activists in Washington State have been waiting for a final ruling by their state's highest court for over a year. Interestingly, a Pataki appointee to the Court has recused himself, so it will be considered by a 6-member court. This increases the probability of a favorable result, because the person who recused himself (the Times article shockingly doesn't name that justice but does name two other members) was most likely a negative vote.

Hopefully, we'll know soon.

REVIEW: Superman Returns

Not As Big As Expected
Openly gay director Bryan Singer's Superman Returns opened this weekend and I saw it at the Mann Chinese Theater at Hollywood & Highland with a friend. The movie stars the excessively pulchritudinous Brandon Routh in the title role, the ambiguously heterosexual Kevin Spacey as Superman's nemesis Lex Luthor and Kate Bosworth as Superman's main squeeze Lois Lane.

Sadly, the director seems to have shot the movie without a coherent script. Happily, this didn't really spoil my enjoyment of the movie. Singer apparently channels his intense lust for Routh into making the object of his desire breathtakingly beautiful in every shot. The special effects and production values are absolutely top knotch, and the supporting players (X-Men: The Last Stand's Cyclops James Marsden, Parker Posey, Kal Penn) are excellent, except for the doofus playing Jimmy Olson.

After the blogosphere-hyped stories about movie executives' worries about Superman's bulge being digitally altered by Warner Bros. I am happy/sad to report that they were "much ado about nothing." As you can see from the publicity still attached to this post, there are lots of things about Superman Returns which are not as big as expected.

REVIEW: B

WIMBLEDON 2006: Ladies' Semifinals Predictions

My quarterfinal predictions were correct 4 out of 4 times. The only slight blip was that I thought Dementieva would win a set against Sharapova and she didn't. Here are my predictions with the actual semifinal schedule now set:

Amélie Mauresmo FRA (1) vs. Maria Sharapova RUS (4). Mauresmo is in her fourth Wimbledon semifinal in 5 years. Sharapova is in her 3rd consecutive. Most of those times she lost to a Williams sister (as did everyone else!) although last year she lost to Davenport in a semmifinal she should have won. Sharapova played excellent tennis in her quarterfinal against Dementieva, serving impeccably. I suspect this match will be another thriller and probably the better match of the Ladies' Semifinals. Mauresmo has not done well in close, tight matches before, as her collapse against Vaidisova at the French attests. However, she has an opportunity here to show that she is indeed the #1 player in the World and that winning her first major title has strengthened her mental fortitude.
WHO I THINK WILL WIN: Sharapova (in 3 sets).
WHO I WANT TO WIN: Mauresmo.

Kim Clijsters BEL (2) vs. Justine Henin-Hardenne BEL (3). I think that the win will go to the mentally tougher player in both of these important matches. In that case, the victor would have to be the diminutive Belgian who would again deny her larger compatriot from tasting Grand Slam success. I'm not sure that I believe, like Brad Gilbert does, that losing to JHH in major tournaments is contributing to Clijsters' decision to retire from the game at the end of 2007 at the relatively spry age of 24 (8 June 1983). It's definitely possible. I do think that Kim's a fighter and will really be looking for revenge for her two most recent losses. They have never played at Wimbledon before. If Henin-Hardenne wins that will be three consecutive Grand Slam finals for the year for her, which hasn't been done since Venus and Serena (both!) did it in 2003. If Clijsters wins she will have competed for every major title (Henin-Hardenne has already reached this milestone, she lost theWimbledon final to Venus in 3-sets in 2001.)
WHO I THINK WILL WIN: Henin-Hardenne (in 3 sets).
WHO I WANT TO WIN: Clijsters..

California Supreme Court Modifies HIV Liability Rule

Yesterday, the day before the Independence Day holiday, in a contentious decision the California Supreme Court ruled 4-3 that a married individual who engages in risky sexual behavior may be forced to reveal details of his/her sexual history and be held liable for their spouses' HIV infection even if they were unaware of their HIV status at the time. Previously in March I had blogged about the "sad case" of John B. vs. Superior Court (pdf), which really involves a discovery dispute in an HIV liability lawsuit between two married individuals, named in the lawsuit as John B. and Bridget B. The court overuled the appellate court ruling by limiting the extent of the discovery questions about sexual history to a six-month window before John's August 2000 negative HIV antibody test, citing CDC data and current medical knowledge about the etiology of HIV infection that someone who is infected with HIV will develop detectable antibodies within six months.

The majority opinion, written by Justice Marvin Baxter (joined by Chief Justice Ronald George, Justice Ming Chin and 2005 Schwarzenegger appointee Justice Carol Corrigan) recognizes that this is a sensitive decision and attemps to limit the damage:

Accordingly, our conclusion that a claim of negligent transmission of HIV lies
against those who know or at least have reason to know of the disease must be
understood in the context of the allegations in this case, which involves a couple
who were engaged and subsequently married; a defendant who falsely represented
himself as monogamous and disease-free and insisted the couple stop using
condoms; and a plaintiff who agreed to stop using condoms in reliance on those
false representations. We need not consider the existence or scope of a duty for
persons whose relationship does not extend beyond the sexual encounter itself,
whose relationship does not contemplate sexual exclusivity, who have not
represented themselves as disease-free, or who have not insisted on having sex
without condoms.

In other words, "the facts of this case were very unusual, we aren't declaring a universal rule here." Compare this paragraph to the bland New York Times headline "People Who Pass On AIDS Virus May be Sued" (well, duh!) The Times does do a reasonable job of summarizing the details of the case:

Bridget B. and John B., as they are known in court papers, started dating in 1998 and married in July 2000. Bridget said that John told her he was healthy and monogamous and that he urged her to have unprotected sex with him. In October 2000, though, she tested positive for H.I.V., the virus that causes AIDS, as did he.

Bridget later learned, her lawsuit says, that John had had sex with men before and during their marriage. She seeks compensation for what she says was John's infliction of emotional distress and fraud.

There were three separate dissenting opinions, by Justices Katherine Werdegar, Justice Joyce Kennard and Schwarzenegger appointee Justice Carlos Moreno. Moreno's dissent was particularly informed, incisive and (somewhat) inflammatory:

As I shall explain, the distinction between HIV and other sexually
transmitted diseases is crucial when discussing the wisdom of creating a cause of
action for negligent transmission based on constructive knowledge. Contrary to
the majority’s analysis, creation of such a tort for HIV is not a simple extension of
existing California law, nor has any other state created such a cause of action.2
It must be clearly understood, therefore, that in creating this cause of action the
majority ventures into largely uncharted waters.

[...]

Accordingly, the question before this court is whether creation of a cause of
action for negligent transmission of HIV — and not some other sexually
transmitted disease — based on a constructive knowledge standard will serve the
relevant policy considerations associated with the fight against the AIDS
epidemic. I believe the answer is no.

To begin with, the majority fails even to recognize the relevant policy
considerations associated with the AIDS epidemic because the majority assumes
that AIDS is the same as other sexually transmitted diseases and the same analytic
framework can be applied to the negligent transmission of HIV as is applied to
other sexually transmitted diseases. This is inaccurate.

[...]

The convergence of these three factors: the potential deadliness of HIV
infection, the possibility that a person may be unknowingly infected with HIV for
years and the opprobrium to which those who are infected have been subjected,
distinguishes HIV/AIDS from all other sexually transmitted diseases. Thus the
battle to contain the transmission of HIV raises complex questions of public and
public health policy not present with respect to other sexually transmitted diseases.
[...]

The majority’s rejection of an actual knowledge standard as a predicate for
imposing liability for transmitting HIV also flies in the face of the Legislature’s
adoption of an actual knowledge standard in statutes that penalize the transmission
of the virus. Health and Safety Code section 120291 makes it a felony, punishable
by up to eight years in state prison, for a person to “expose[] another to . . . [HIV]
by engaging in unprotected sexual activity when the infected person knows at the
time of the unprotected sex that he or she is infected with HIV, has not disclosed
his or her HIV-positive status, and acts with the specific intent to infect another
person with HIV.” (Health & Saf. Code, § 120291, subd. (a), italics added.)

[...]

Finally, I am concerned that the creation of this new tort is also inconsistent
with the Legislature’s policy of guarding against the conflation of transmission of
HIV with sexual orientation in a way that stigmatizes one of the populations most
vulnerable to infection.

[...]

For these reasons, I dissent from the majority’s creation of a cause of action
for negligent transmission of HIV based on a constructive knowledge standard. I
would find that civil liability for transmission of the virus must be predicated upon
actual knowledge of infection. This result would be consistent with the
Legislature’s painstaking formulation of a comprehensive policy to combat the
AIDS epidemic.

By contrast, the majority’s result is inconsistent with legislative policy.
The majority allows a person who tests HIV positive to bring an action against all
former sexual partners and attempt to ascertain not only whether they had actual
knowledge they were HIV positive when they engaged in sexual relations but also
whether they had any “reason to know” they were HIV positive.(Footnote: The majority’s suggestion that its holding applies only to “a couple whowere engaged and subsequently married” (maj. opn., ante, at p. 18) is no reallimitation given that the duty analysis that precedes this statement makes nodistinction between married couples and everyone else.) This cause of action potentially licenses invasions into the sexual privacy of all sexually active
Californians and may even invite abuse of the judicial process. One can easily
foresee a spate of “shakedown” or vengeance lawsuits brought by plaintiffs whose
motivation is not so much to discover how they contracted HIV as to force
lucrative settlements or embarrass a former sexual partner by exposing that
person’s sexual history in the guise of obtaining relevant discovery. Even without
this potential for abuse, the threat to the confidentiality of HIV test results and to
sexual privacy, the apparent absence of any scientific grounding for a constructive
knowledge standard, and the potential for stigmatization of individuals based on
their sexual orientation are powerful arguments against this novel theory of
liability for the negligent transmission of HIV. I understand that the majority is
guided by the commendable goal of preventing transmission of HIV and AIDS,
but creating this new tort is not the way to go about it. Instead, with this decision
the majority has opened a Pandora’s box. For these reasons, I respectfully but
emphatically dissent.

Wow! All I can say, Justice Moreno, is that you had me at "I dissent."

Arkansas Supreme Court Unanimously Rules In Favor of Gay Rights

Wow! As Pam Spaulding has been covering, this week the Arkansas Supreme Court struck down it's state legislature's attempt to ban on gay and lesbian couples as foster parents, rejecting "any correlation between the health, welfare and safety of foster children and the blanket exclusion of any individual who is a homosexual or who resides in a household with a homosexual."

Of course, the state's lame duck governor (Mick Huckabee, who is running for President) is asking for a state constitutional amendment to enshrine discrimination in Arkansas. You'd think that politicians in the South would think twice about taking extreme stands on civil rights legislation!

WIMBLEDON 2006: Ladies Quarterfinals Set

My original quarterfinal predictions were 5 out of 8 correct due to Venus Williams losing in the 3rd round, amazing French qualifier Severine Bremond continuing her unlikely run and the Chinese player Na Li outlasting big hitting Czech youngster Nicole Vaidisova. Here are my predictions with the actual quarterfinal schedule now set:

Amélie Mauresmo FRA (1) vs. Venus Williams USA (11) Anastasia Myskina RUS (9). Myskina is playing excellent tennis, but Mauresmo has made 3 semi-finals at Wimbledon and is it is her destiny to win this title. Myskina took Henin-Hardenne to a 3rd set tiebreak at Eastbourne in the grass court warm up tournament but lost. I suspect this match will be another thriller and probably the best match of the Ladies' Quarterfinals. The good news for Myskina is that there's no final set tie break at Wimbledon. But the Frenchwoman's destiny will not be denied.
PREDICTION: Mauresmo in 3 sets.

Maria Sharapova RUS (4) vs. Elena Dementieva RUS (7) . When the Russians play each other there is always extra tension (and often not very good tennis). Sharapova's game is well-suited to the grass. Although Dementieva's serve has improved, her two great strengths: mental toughness/fighting spirit and powerful ground strokes are matched, if not surpassed by Sharapova. PREDICTION: Sharapova in 3 sets.

Ai Sugiyama JPN (18) Severine Bremond FRA (QUALIFIER) vs. Justine Henin-Hardenne BEL (3). Brad Gilbert of ESPN has predicted Henin-Hardenne will win this title without dropping a set. She is playing excellently, but perhaps if anyone can stop the "Belgian Express" it is an unknown French qualifier playing with absolutely nothing to lose. PREDICTION: Henin-Hardenne in 2 sets.

Kim Clijsters BEL (2) vs. Nicole Vaidisova CZE (10) Na Li CHN (27). Na Li becomes the first Chinese player to make a Grand Slam quarterfinal. Vaidisova would have given Clijsters a run for her money, but I believe Kim will be very eager to get to a semifinal against Justine to get revenge for her loss to her countrywoman at the semifinals of the French and Eastbourne. The "Belgian sisters" are now tied 11-11 head to head. Na Li does not have enough game to prevent an all Belgian semifinal. PREDICTION: Clijsters in 2 sets.

Black Tennis Report for July

Black Tennis Report July 2006

Shenay Perry is the only American player, male or female, to make the fourth round of Wimbledon 2006! She plays Elena Dementieva on Monday for her first Grand Slam quarterfinal berth. If Shenay continues her attacking, serve-and-volley game she has a decent chance against the Russian 7th seed.

Defending champion Venus Williams was knocked out of the tournament by dangerous Serbian Jelena Jankovic. Serena Williams did not enter the French or Wimbledon but is slated to return to the tour in August for the US Open Series.

James Blake extended his career streak to nine consecutive 5-set match losses by losing to Max Mirnyi 6-4, 3-6, 4-6, 6-1, 6-0 in the third round.

French phenom who made it to the fourth round of his country's Grand Slam with a thrilling 5-set win over James Blake 6-2, 6-7 (2), 7-6 (1), 5-7, 6-4 last month, lost in the first round of Wimbledon.

Jamea Jackson and Mashona Washington lost a close second round Wimbledon matches to Daniela Hantuchova and Dinara Safina, respectively.

Ron Oden Concedes Primary Defeat By 89-Votes

Ouch! Openly gay mayor of Palm Springs Ron Oden was defeated by Steve Clute for the Democratic nomination for the 80th District State Assembly seat held by Republican Bonnie Garcia by a shockingly close total of 89 votes out of over 13,000 cast this week.