CA-45: Pougnet Shows Strength Against Incumbent Bono

Openly gay Palm Spring Mayor Steve Pougnet is the Democratic candidate in the 45th Congressional District running to dismiss U.S. Representative Mary Bono Mack. In a tough year for Democrats Pougnet is showing his strength in the race by matching the incumbent in fundraising dollar for dollar in the 2nd quarter:

Palm Springs Mayor Steve Pougnet today announced that his campaign for Congress raised over $400,000 for the second quarter reporting period. Pougnet has raised over $1.2 million since entering the race, more than any challenger to Congresswoman Bono Mack has ever faced.

“I am incredibly humbled by the support we have received. In these very difficult times, our Congresswoman has been absent and it’s clear people are hungry for change,” Mayor Pougnet said.

“I am committed to fighting every day to create jobs here at home, fix the mess in Washington and end wasteful spending so we can balance the budget. Our region face major challenges but Congresswoman Bono Mack has failed to lead. I pledge that I will work tirelessly to address the needs of people here in the unique and special communities that make up the 45th district.”

Pougnet’s 2nd quarter fundraising puts him in the top tier of Congressional candidates across the county. His fundraising success is coupled with an aggressive grass-roots effort throughout the 45th district. Pougnet is actively engaging in grassroots campaign activity all throughout the district. The campaign has been going door to door talking to residents from Moreno Valley, Palm Desert, Hemet, Blythe, Mecca, Coachella and throughout the district.

The 45th Congressional District is a bit of a purple district, but it is a good sign that Pougnet is doing so well in the money race.

Celebrity Friday: Ronald George

Chief Justice Ronald George, 70, of the California Supreme Court announced this week that he does not want to seek another 12-year term in November 2010, after serving 19 years on the court.

George is most well-known as the author of In re Marriage Cases, which legalized same-sex marriages in 2008 as well as Strauss v. Horton the 2009 case which upheld Proposition 8, the state constitutional ban on same-sex marriage passed by voters in November 2008.

Governor Schwarzenegger will now have an opportunity to appoint another member of the Supreme Court, which can be ratified by the voters in November 2010.

Another Insider Report On Argentina Marriage Vote

More reporting from MadProfessah's Buenos Aires correspondent. They wrote this email to me today:

The debate was impressive (and broadcast live on 4 different TV channels). My favorite speaker was Daniel Filmus, a senator representing the Federal Capital (Buenos Aires is like D.C., except it has full representation in the house and
senate). Filmus is a sociologist and was a university administrator before making the leap to national politics.

Among his comments Filmus said (I paraphrase): "Some opponents observe
that only 7 other countries have approved gay marriage, so why should
Argentina? I ask how many other countries have to approve it before
Argentina does? It is to our shame that Argentina did not approve
women's sufferage until 1950, and it is a point of pride that Argentina
was the 3rd country in the world and the 1st in Latin America to put on
trial the military leaders who participated in a repressive
dictatorship. We should aim to lead, not just to follow, in the
progress toward justice, freedom, and equality. Opponents to gay
marriage also claim that gay marriage is unnatural because gay sex is
not procreative and because throughout time in all societies, families
have consisted of a mother, a father, and their children. That is not
true. There have been many different kinship systems. The nuclear
family centered on a monogamous procreative couple that the opponents
claim is natural is in fact a relatively recent invention. Also, in
addition to adoption, there are new reproductive technologies that
straight as well as gay couples use to produce children. Rather than
prohibit gay couples from marrying, we should next turn our attention to
changing our adoption and family laws to encompass these new
technologies for straight, gay, and single parents. Finally, the
opponents claim that children have a right to be raised by a mother and
a father. I'll now read from a letter signed by 500 of my colleagues at
the (Argentine) National Science Foundation. The letter observes that
every study conducted anywhere in the world over the past 40 years have
found that children raised by gay parents are not different from
children raised by heterosexual parents, except that children of gay
parents tend to be a little more tolerant and less violent." He said a
lot more, but those are some of my favorite of his comments.

Another high point of the debate came at the very end in an exchange
between Liliana Negre de Alonso, the leader of the pro-Church
opposition, and Miguel Angel Pichetto, the leader of the pro-Pres.
Kirchner voting block. Negre de Alonso pleaded for her civil union bill
to be passed instead because that would avoid tearing the country apart
by providing a middle ground. Pichetto accused Negre de Alonso of being
deceitful. He observed that she never showed any interest in civil
unions for gay people until it became clear that gay marriage would be
approved. Then she slapped together a thoroughly offensive bill that
would provide a second-class alternative to marriage for gays, lesbians,
and transsexuals. Worst, the civil union bill included a clause that
would give a judge the option not to perform a civil union because of
the judge's conscientious objections to gay unions. Pichetto said that
clause, licensing judges to discriminate against a minority group,
"belongs more to Nazi Germany than to a democratic state." Negre de
Alonso responded, offended, that "here we are talking about freedom and
equality, and [Pichetto] is discriminating against me" because he only
accepts people who think the way he thinks. Pichetto observed that
disagreeing with her was not discriminating against her, and that the
opponents are the ones who do not accept people who think differently
from themselves. He observed that those in favor of gay marriage do not
discriminate against heterosexual couples, but those who are opposed to
gay marriage to discriminate against gay couples.

At the end, it was clear that the vote would be 32-32, which would leave
it to the acting president of the senate to break the tie, in favor of
gay marriage. At that point, some senators changed their votes, leading
to a final vote of 33-27 with 3 abstentions and 1 non-vote, so the
acting president did not have to weigh in. Speaking of the acting
president, I was wrong about why Vice President Cobos could not fulfill
his usual role of president of the senate (and tie-breaking vote). It
is not because Cobos is in China with President Fernández de Kirchner.
It is because Cobos is acting president of the nation while President
Fernández de Kirchner is abroad. Thus, by scheduling the vote while the
President was abroad, the President was able to ensure that her V.P.
could not be prez of the senate and vote against her, the way he did a
couple of years ago on an important farm bill.

An amazing, exciting historic time to be living in Argentina!

DC High Court Rejects Marriage Referendum By 5-4 Vote

The nation's capital's highest court, the D.C. Court of Appeals rejected (by a frighteningly close) 5-4 vote an effort by the National Organization for Marriage and other heterosexual supremacists to force a vote on that jurisdiction's recently enacted marriage law.

Law Dork Chris Geidner has the best coverage:

The D.C. Court of Appeals issued its awaited decision in Bishop Harry Jackson's appeal of the D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics's decision that his proposed marriage initiative was an improper subject of an initiative. In a 5-4 decision, the court held that the Human Rights Act limitation in District law, which prohibits initiatives or referendums that would violation the Human Rights Act, is permissible. In light of that ruling, all 9 judges agreed that the proposed marriage initiative would violate the Human Rights Act and is, thus, not permitted.

In the absence of a successful appeal, then, D.C. marriage equality, which went into effect earlier this year, cannot be subject to an iniative.

He also quotes from the decision itself (Jackson v. D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics):

In the most important conclusion to be made by the court, it held:

The Charter amendment that established the right to initiative must be read in conjunction with the Home Rule Act, which, although conferring on the Council broad legislative authority, makes clear that the legislative authority is subject to limits implied by the United States Constitution and to the enumerated limits [set out by Congress.] Since [the section defining the initiative right in the District] obviously could not and did not remove those limits, it cannot be read as expressing the entire scope of restrictions on the initiative right. Rather, [the section] does not purport to address, and is ambiguous as to, whether there are other limitations on the right to initiative (and referendum). The Human Rights Act safeguard[, which prohibits initiatives that would violate the Human Rights Act] is not inconsistent with that ambiguous language.

Id. at 21. Four of the judges of the court disagreed with this conclusion, in an opinion written by Judge John Fisher. He was joined by Chief Judge Eric Washington and Judges Stephen Glickman and Kathryn Oberly.

It should be noted that all 9 judges agreed that the proposed marriage referendum (limiting marriage to between one man and one woman), like Proposition 8, would violate the D.C. Human Rights Act.

Suck it, NOM!

Argentina Enacts Marriage Equality!

After 15 hours of debate, the Argentine Senate passed the marriage equality bill 33-27 at 4:05am local time.

From the AP:

Same-sex civil unions have been legalized in Uruguay and some states in Mexico and Brazil. Colombia's Constitutional Court granted same-sex couples inheritance rights and allowed them to add their partners to health insurance plans. Mexico City went further, legalizing gay marriage and launching tourism campaigns to encourage foreigners to come and wed.

[...]

Gay activists in neighboring Chile hope Argentina's milestone will improve chances for a gay marriage lawcurrently in committee in their own Congress.

"Argentina's political class has provided a lesson to the rest of Latin America," said Rolando Jimenez in Santiago. "We hope our own countries and political parties will learn that the human rights of sexual minorities are undeniable."

Activists in Paraguay plan to propose a similar law to the senate in October, said Martin Viveros of the group Somosgay. And in Uruguay, gays unsatisfied with the partial rights that come through civil unions are preparing legislation that would replace references to "man and woman" with "spouse" throughout the civil code.

[...]

The president, who helped the law's chances by bringing two senators opposed to gay marriage with her on a state visit to China, spoke out from there against the Catholic Church's campaign and the tone she said some religious groups have taken.

"It's very worrisome to hear words like 'God's war' or 'the devil's project,' things that recall the times of the Inquisition," she said.

That may play well in Argentina's socially liberal capital, where many of the country's gays and lesbians live, but could be costly in the conservative provinces. Some opposition leaders accused Fernandez and her husband Nestor Kirchner, who lobbied hard for passage, of trying to gain votes in next year's presidential elections, when the former president is expected to run again.

Congratulations to Argentina! I may just have to change my travel plans for my 20th anniversary next January. We were thinking of visiting South Africa, but maybe we should return to South America instead!

hat/tip to Rex Wockner

BOOK REVIEW: Robert J. Sawyer's Neanderthal Trilogy

TITLE: Hominids
AUTHOR: Robert J. Sawyer
PLOT: A-.
IMAGERY: B+.
IMPACT: A-.
WRITING: B+.

OVERALL GRADE: B+/A- (3.5/4.0).

TITLE: Humans
AUTHOR: Robert J. Sawyer
PLOT: B+.
IMAGERY: A-.
IMPACT: B+.
WRITING: B.

OVERALL GRADE: B+ (3.33/4.0).

TITLE: Hybrids
AUTHOR: Robert J. Sawyer
PLOT: B+.
IMAGERY: B.
IMPACT: B.
WRITING: B-.

OVERALL GRADE: B-/C+ (3.0/4.0).

Robert J. Sawyer is probably best known now as the author of Flash Forward, on which the now-cancelled ABC television miniseries of the same name was based. However, the Canadian author is also acclaimed for his other science fiction work, which to date have won him Hugo, Nebula and Campbell Memorial awards.

Sawyer is the author of the Neanderthal Parallax, a trilogy of three books: Hominids, Humans, and Hybrids. I read these books this spring when I started watching Flash Forward. Sawyer is one of those speculative fiction authors who has really interesting ideas and is very creative. The central idea of the Neanderthal Parallax is that there are parallel universes, and in one parallel universe the Earth develops with Neanderthals (homo neanderthalis) as the dominant hominid species instead of humans (homo sapiens). When a quantum computer on one of the alternate earths malfunctions, a passage between the two societies is formed and Ponter Boddit, a neanderthal scientist, is transported into a society surrounded by creatures that were extinct on his planet.

Hominids is primarily concerned with using Boddit as a device to compare the two planets and societies where the two different hominid species have developed. Sawyer is at his creative best when he provides us with the details of life on the Neanderthal planet, particularly the social mores and beliefs (i.e. there is no belief in a higher power or "God" in Ponter's planet) through the Neanderthal's reactions and thoughts. Hominids won the 2003 Hugo award for Best Novel and is clearly the best book of the trilogy. Hominids other central character is Mary Vaughn, a Canadian geneticist who is also an expert on neanderthals. Since Sawyer is Canadian, much of the action takes place in Canada. Vaughn is an interesting choice to be the central homo sapiens character in the book. The main deficiency in the book is Sawyer's ham-handedness in the depiction of the characters of Ponter and Mary, as well as some of the other minor characters who are generally one-dimensional in scope.

The sequel to Hominids is Humans. It was also a Hugo award finalist. It continues the brilliant story first began in Hominids but it moves more of the action to the neanderthal version of Earth. In that case, we learn more about the differences in societal structure between neanderthal and human society. Sawyer again does a good job of depicting this surprisingly foreign world but he is somewhat hamstrung because he has to use the character of Mary Vaughn as a vehicle for taking the reader through this world. Vaughn has her own psychological traumas and predilections which influences the way she interacts and experiences the neanderthal planet and its society. Sawyer stoops to some soap opera-like relationship twists that I could have done without in the second book.

The final book in the trilogy is Hybrids which, surprisingly, was also nominated for a Hugo award. It is the least interesting of the three books, and I really only read it because I was curious as to how the plots would be resolved, but by this point I didn't really care. One of the most disturbing sub-plots is resolved in a somewhat obvious manner. Sawyer gets even more heavy-handed in his political allusions to modern Earth society, which I don't disagree with, but is still somewhat annoying.

Overall, the Neanderthal Parallax trilogy is an interesting addition to the science fiction canon, but most readers can just read the first book Hominids and forgo the other two books.

An Insider's Report From Argentina on Marriage Equality Debate

A friend of mine who lives in both Argentina and the United States but who is in Buenos Aires right now sent this extensive analysis of what is going on in the country as the Senate prepares to consider marriage equality legislation:

The final debate on the same-sex marriage bill will start at 12:30 today

(8:30 am LA time), with a vote coming in the early evening.

The Argentine Senate has 72 members but 4 will be absent: 2 are in

China with the president, 1 is sick, and 1 is on leave. It's

interesting that the 2 who are with the president are both opposed to

gay marriage, while the president and her husband are the leading

proponents of gay marriage. So the president may have invited the 2

anti senators to accompany her to keep them away from the vote, or the

pro senators decided to take advantage of the 2 anti senators' absence

by calling for the vote before the party returns from China. Also, the

tie-breaking vote belongs to the VP, who is also in China with the

president, and the VP is against whatever the president is for. That

acting president of the senate is pro gay marriage. In sum, by holding

the vote while the president's party is in China, pro forces managed to

reduce the number of votes needed for passage from 37 (to avoid a tie

that would be broken in the other direction) to 34 (to achieve a tie

that would be broken in favor of gay marriage).

The pro forces claim they have 35 votes lined up, but independent

journalists count 33 in favor and 33 opposed to gay marriage, with 2

undecided or undeclared. So the pro forces need just 1 of those 2, plus

the tie-breaking vote of the acting president of the senate.

Before the vote, there will be a proposal to change the language in the

bill from "marriage" to "egalitarian family union". It's their attempt

to have it both ways. They don't want to use the word "marriage" for

fear of offending the anti forces, but they call that the "family union"

they propose "egalitarian" in order to assure the pro forces that it is

not a second-class form of marriage, and to avoid having the president

of the senate rule the proposed "invalid". That's what he did yesterday

when he ruled that the senate would not vote on the civil union bill

because it was invalid on constitutional grounds.

Another parliamentary move by the anti forces will be to try to persuade

32 senators to walk out in order to deny the pro forces the quorum

needed to have a vote. Also, the anti forces have announced that if the

same-sex marriage is defeated, they will immediately reintroduce the

civil union bill. They argue that once gay marriage is off the table,

the acting president of the senate will allow a vote to go forward on

civil unions. In sum, the opposition forces calculate that some

senators will vote against same-sex marriage if they are they have the

option of voting for same-sex civil unions or "egalitarian family

unions". And the pro forces calculate that the same senators will vote

for same-sex marriage if they do not have a weasel-ish alternative.

You can watch the live feed of the Argentine Senate debate here and here.

POLL: Support for AZ Immigration Law Hits 57%

A new CBS national poll indicates that support for the arguably racist Arizona immigration law has hit 57%.

Support for the measure increased five points since May. Since then, the Justice Department has filed suit against the law, claiming that it usurps federal authority to enforce immigration laws.

The measure in question, signed into law in April and slated to go into effect later this month, makes it a state crime for a person to be in the country illegally. It also requires local law enforcement to question a person about his or her immigration status during all "lawful stops" if there is "reasonable suspicion" that person may be in the country illegally.

Twenty-three percent of Americans think the law goes too far, according to the poll, conducted July 9 - 12. That's down five points from the 28 percent who said in May that the measure goes too far. Another 17 percent said it doesn't go far enough.

About half of Americans - 52 percent -- say states should be able to enact laws regarding illegal immigrants, while 42 percent think only the federal government should able to do so.

There is a sharp partisan divide on this question: most Democrats (58 percent) say laws covering illegal immigration should be the responsibility of the federal government only, while Republicans (64 percent) and independents (58 percent) think the states should be allowed to pass such laws.

Half of Americans think illegal immigrants take jobs that Americans don't want, while fewer - 42 percent -- say they take jobs away from Americans.

The CBS poll also indicates that public support for the health care reform legislation has dropped seven points since May 20th.

Interestingly, a poll of LGBT respondents show that they overwhelmingly oppose the Arizona law.

White House Unveils National HIV/AIDS Strategy

The White House released the National HIV/AIDS Strategy today, the first time (more than 29 years after AIDS was discovered) the United States has had a coherent, coordinated response to this public health emergency.

From the press announcement:

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

July 13, 2010

White House Announces National HIV/AIDS Strategy

$30 Million of Prevention Fund Dedicated to Implementation of Strategy

WASHINGTON, D.C. – In the United States, approximately 56,000 people become infected with HIV each year and more than 1.1 million Americans are living with HIV. To combat this growing epidemic, the White House today released the National HIV/AIDS Strategy (NHAS) and accompanying NHAS Federal Implementation Plan.

Secretary Sebelius also announced that $30 million of the Affordable Care Act’s Prevention Fund will be dedicated to the implementation of the NHAS. This funding will support the development of combination prevention interventions. It will also support improved surveillance, expanded and targeted testing, and other activities.

“We can’t afford complacency – not when in the ten minutes I’ve been talking to you, another American has just contracted HIV,” Secretary Sebelius said. “That’s why our strategy calls for aggressive efforts to educate Americans about how dangerous this disease still is and the steps they can take to protect themselves and their loved ones.”

The vision of the National HIV/AIDS Strategy is to make the United States “a place where new HIV infections are rare, and when they do occur, every person, regardless of age, gender, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender identity, or socio-economic circumstance will have unfettered access to high-quality, life-extending care, free from stigma and discrimination.”

The NHAS has three primary goals:

1) Reducing the number of new infections;

2) Increasing access to care and optimizing health outcomes for people living with HIV;

3) Reducing HIV-related health disparities;

To accomplish these goals, the NHAS calls for a more coordinated national response to the HIV epidemic and includes a NHAS Federal Implementation Plan that outlines key, short-term actions to be undertaken by the federal government to execute the outlined recommendations. Additionally, the White House issued a Presidential Memorandum directing agencies to take specific steps to implement this strategy.

Since taking office, the Obama Administration has taken extraordinary steps to engage the public to evaluate what we are doing right and identify new approaches that will strengthen our response to the domestic epidemic. The Office of National AIDS Policy hosted 14 HIV/AIDS Community Discussions with thousands of Americans across the U.S. and reviewed suggestions from the public via the White House website. ONAP also organized a series of expert meetings on several HIV-specific topics, and worked with Federal and community partners who organized their own meetings to support the development of a national strategy.

Go to www.AIDS.gov and www.whitehouse.gov/onap for more information and resources.

###

As Rod 2.0 points out, many AIDS activists have immediately criticized the NHAS, particularly the odious Michael Weinstein of AIDS Healthcare Foundation, the largest AIDS/HIV organization in the country (if not the world). The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force was kinder, saying:

“Today the Obama administration unveiled the first-ever plan for a coordinated strategy to address the HIV/AIDS epidemic in the United States. Such a plan is long overdue, and implementation can’t happen fast enough. On average, someone contracts HIV in the U.S. every nine and a half minutes. Each day without action means lives are changed forever, lives that are disproportionately gay, bisexual, transgender, people of color, and the financially disadvantaged.

“This plan offers much-needed relief by focusing on high-risk communities, directing money to states with the highest need based on reported cases of HIV/AIDS, and by recognizing the unique needs of affected populations. The administration has taken a historic step today in the fight against HIV/AIDS. However, the plan doesn’t yet go far enough in ending new infections and helping those already coping with the disease to manage it. The government must make available the necessary resources and life-saving medicines for those in need. Adequate attention to and funding for implementation as well as aggressive timetables are essential to the success of this plan. This ongoing national tragedy requires an immediate, potent and cohesive federal response that is appropriately funded.”

MadProfessah applauds the Administration for actually announcing and implementing a National HIV/AIDS Strategy, something which has been needed for a long time.

WATCH: Ads Promoting Marriage Equality in Argentina

Eye Candy: Ulisses Williams

Ulisses Williams, Jr. is a 34-year-old natural bodybuilder of West Indian and West African descent (according to Black Flex) who lives and works in New York City.

World Cup Final: Spain Wins 1-0

Spain defeated the Netherlands 1-0 in over time to win that country's first World Cup. Paul the Octopus was right again, MadProfessah was not. Iniesta, above, scored the winning goal in the 116th minute of play.

World Cup Final Today: Spain v. The Netherlands

Today is the final of the 2010 World Cup in South Africa. Spain will be playing the Netherlands. Holland is undefeated in this year's tournament, while Spain has been one of the top 2 ranked teams in the world for the last three years (the other, Brazil was vanquished by the Dutch team in the quarterfinals).

One week after I watched him win his 2nd Wimbledon title, Spaniard Rafael Nadal will be in the audience to watch his team, La Furia Roja battle for their first World Cup title. Only seven countries have won the World Cup since the quadrennial competition began in 1930 (Uruguay, Italy, Germany, Brazil, England, Argentina, and France) so today history will be made.

Yesterday, 2-time defending champion Spain was eliminated from the Davis Cup by France in the semifinals. Is this a harbinger of Spain's defeat in the World Cup? The world's most famous cephalopod, Paul the Octopus has chosen Spain as the winner over the Netherlands today. He has not been wrong in all of his predictions at this year's tournament. He also correctly picked Germany to defeat Uruguay in the third place (runner's up) match. Germany won with a thrilling come-from-behind 3-2 victory to seal an all-European sweep.

MadProfessah's prediction: Netherlands (2-1)

Saturday Politics: Ballot Measure Polling

Celebrity Friday: Caster Semenya

Caster Semenya is back in the news because the International Association of Athletics Federations has finally resolved her case and decided that the gender non-conforming (and rumored intersexed) athletic track star can compete in women's events in the future.

READ Gill v. OPM Decision Striking Down DOMA

A big day for supporters of marriage equality today! A federal judge struck down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act in two cases, Gill v. OPM and Massachusetts v. DHHS today. The first case was filed by Gay & Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) on behalf of seven same-sex couples who are married in Massachusetts and would like the federal government to recognize that status. The second case was filed by former Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley.

Here's the text of the Gill decision:

2010-07-08 Gill v. OPM Case Striking Down DOMA Sec. 3

Here's the text of the Massachusetts v. Department of Health and Human Services case:

DOMA decision in Mass AG case

Mehserle Found Guilty of Involuntary Manslaughter

2 to 4 years in jail for killing a Black man. 28-year-old Johannes Mehserle was found guilty (by a jury with no Black members) of involuntary manslaughter for shooting Oscar Grant.

Alameda County Deputy Dist. Atty. David R. Stein rejected the idea that the shooting was a mistake, telling jurors that Mehserle's holster was specially designed to prevent easy release of his firearm. The prosecutor contrasted the light, bright yellow Taser gun with the heavier black Sig Sauer handgun that Mehserle fired.

"He let his aggression dictate his conduct," Stein told jurors.

The prosecutor urged jurors to find Mehserle guilty of second-degree murder, pointing out that the officer never told his colleagues that night that the shooting was an accident.

Prosecutors in Los Angeles have not won a murder conviction in a police shooting case since 1983.

DOMA Section 3 Struck Down By Federal Judge

GLAD is tweeting it has won its case in Gill v. Office of Personnel Management:

http://twitter.com/GLADLaw/status/18060773570

Great news! U.S. District Court held that #DOMA "violates ... equal
protection principles." Decision will be posted shortly. Please
retweet!

More later....

Emmy Nominations For Lost, Glee and Modern Family

The 2010 Emmy nominations were announced this morning and some of my favorite shows ended up with nominations.

OUTSTANDING COMEDY
Glee
Modern Family
Curb Your Enthusiasm
Nurse Jackie
30 Rock
The Office

OUTSTANDING DRAMA
Lost
Breaking Bad
Dexter
Mad Men
True Blood
The Good Wife

The shows in bold are the ones that I watch regularly. I've seen Curb Your Enthusiasm, The Office (just took it out of the DVR this season) and watched the first 6 episodes of Nurse Jackie for the flight from London to Los Angeles this week. Glee doesn't need any more hype so I would vote for Modern Family.

As for drama, I am very happy that the final season of Lost was acknowledged, along with True Blood. I have never seen a single episode of Mad Men, The Good Wife or Breaking Bad. I've seen Dexter but it is just too weird for me. In this category I'd vote for Lost but I wouldn't be upset with a win by True Blood.

On the acting front, Matthew Fox, the main lead of Lost finally got nominated for Outstanding Actor, as did Michael Emerson (Ben) and Terry O'Quinn (Locke) for Outstanding Supporting Actor in a drama (both have won for their amazing work on the show before). Elizabeth Mitchell (Juliet) also got nominated as Outstanding Guest Actress for the final episode "The End."

Not too surprisingly, in the comedy section Glee performers Jane Lynch, Lea Michele, Matthew Morrison and Chris Colfer all were nominated, as were Neil Patrick Harris and Kristin Chenoweth in Outstanding Guest roles. Modern Family cleaned up in the supporting categories as Jesse Tyler Ferguson, Eric Stonestreet and Ty Burrel got nominated for Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Comedy Series and Julie Bowen and Sofia Vergara got nominated in the corresponding actress category. Basically every single adult character in the show was nominated except for Ed O'Neill who plays the husband of Vergara and the father of Ferguson and Bowen. Both members of the gay couple played by Stonestreet and Ferguson were nominated. Colfer's character in Glee is another gay character that was nominated.

HI Gov Lingle (R) Vetoes Civil Unions Bill

I just got back in the country and one of the first news stories I hear is that Republican Governor of Linda Lingle of Hawaii, who has been divorced twice, has vetoed her state's civil union bill.

Joe.My.God has posted the video of Lingle's statement and also has great coverage of reactions from LGBT organizations.

Here is the full text of her statement:

After months of listening to Hawaii’s citizens express to me in writing and in person their deeply held beliefs and heartfelt reasons for supporting or opposing the Civil Unions Bill, I have made the decision to veto HB 444.

I have been open and consistent in my opposition to same gender marriage and find that HB 444 is essentially marriage by another name. However, I want to be clear that my personal opinion is not the basis for my decision against allowing this legislation to become law. Neither is my veto based on my religious beliefs or on the political impact it might have on me or anyone else of either political party in some future election.

I am vetoing this bill because I have become convinced that this issue is of such significant societal importance that it deserves to be decided directly by all the people of Hawaii.

The subject of this legislation has touched the hearts and minds of our citizens as no other social issue of our day. It would be a mistake to allow a decision of this magnitude to be made by one individual or a small group of elected officials. And while ours is a system of representative government it also is one that recognizes that, from time to time, there are issues that require the reflection, collective wisdom and consent of the people and reserves to them the right to directly decide those matters. This is one such issue.

The legislative maneuvering that brought HB 444 to an 11th hour vote, on the final day of the session, via a suspension of the rules, after legislators lead the public to believe that the bill was dead, was wrong and unfair to the public they represent. After eight years of observing members of the Majority Party manipulate the legislative process when it suits them, I initially accepted their actions as business as usual. That was wrong too.

There has not been a bill I have contemplated more or an issue I have thought more deeply about during my nearly eight years as governor than HB 444 and the institution of marriage. After listening to those both for and against HB 444 I have gained a new appreciation for just how deeply people of all ages and backgrounds feel on this matter, and how significantly they believe the issue will affect their lives.

Few could be unmoved by the poignant story told to me in my office by a young, Big Island man who recounted the journey he had taken to bring himself to tell his very traditional parents that he was gay. I was similarly touched by the mother who in the same office expressed anguish at the prospect of the public schools teaching her children that a same gender marriage was equivalent to their mother and father’s marriage.

In addition to meeting in person with citizens of differing opinions, I have read legal memos on both sides of the issue, some urging me to veto the bill because of unintended consequences and guaranteed years of court battles while others urged support for what they consider a legally sound bill that grants long overdue civil rights. But in the end, it wasn’t the persuasiveness of public debates, the soundness of legal arguments, or the volume of letters and emails that convinced me to reach this decision. It was the depth of emotion felt by those on both sides of the issue that revealed to me how fundamental the institution of marriage is to our community. It is as fundamental to those who support marriage between two people of the same gender as it is to those who support marriage only between one man and one woman.

This is a decision that should not be made by one person sitting in her office or by members of the Majority Party behind closed doors in a legislative caucus, but by all the people of Hawaii behind the curtain of the voting booth.

As difficult as the past few weeks have been, I am comfortable with my decision while knowing full well that many will be disappointed by it. And while some will disagree with my decision to veto this bill, I hope most will agree that the flawed process legislators used does not reflect the dignity this issue deserves, and that a vote by all the people of Hawaii is the best and fairest way to address an issue that elicits such deeply felt emotion by those both for and against.

I have done my very best to reach a reasoned decision in a manner that brings honor to the political process and that I hope a majority of people believe reflects the values of Hawaii.

Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom To Marry and previoulsyco-counsel in the landmark 1993 Hawaii marriage case Baehr v. Lewin called Lingle's statement "profoundly disingenuous" and called for the state legislature to over-ride the veto of HB444. Other groups announced plans to sue Hawaii (again).