Haters Effort To Repeal CA DREAM Act #Fail

Ha-ha! This is excellent news. The California DREAM Act was signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown last year and the racist xenophobes started circulating petitions to put a referendum on the November 2012 ballot. The CA Dream Act  allows undocumented youth to receive state financial aid and scholarships for college.

Today comes words that the haters have had a major #fail!

Opponents of the California Dream Act have failed to gather enough petition signatures to qualify an initiative for the November ballot that would have repealed the legislation, organizers said Friday. 

Volunteers and a small group of paid signature gatherers had hoped to collect more than 500,000 valid signatures by this week to stop the legislation, which gives illegal immigrants access to state financial aid at public universities and community colleges. They were able to gather nearly 450,000 signatures, Assemblyman Tim Donnelly (R-San Bernardino) said in a statement. 

Supporters of the California Dream Act have argued that many young undocumented immigrants came to the country through no fault of their own; those opposed stressed that the state should not use scarce resources on illegal immigrants.

The haters can still try and get signatures to put an initiative statute on the ballot in November but they have to collect twice as many signatures, and they have to have that done at least 150 days before the election.

I think even if the DREAM Act was up for debate on the ballot that California voters would re-affirm their commitment to equal opportunity and fairness.

Celebrity Friday: WA Gov Endorses Marriage Equality

Excellent news! Washington Governor Chris Gregoire announced this week that she will be introducing legislation to enact marriage equality in her state very soon.

Here's an excerpt from the video of the press conference where Governor Gregoire announced her endorsement of marriage equality:

GREGOIRE: Some say domestic partnerships are the same as marriage. That’s a version of the discriminatory, separate but equal argument of the past. For decades that argument was used to keep African Americans separate in schools, at their apartments, at drinking fountains. After all, the argument went, those separate places were just as good. But we, Americans knew, separate is not equal and finally the law caught up. 

[...]

We need to ask ourselves, how would it feel, how would it feel to be a child of a gay couple? How can we tell those children that their parents’ love is seen as unequal under Washington law and that their families are different? We must tell these children and their families that they’re every bit as equal and important as any other family in Washington state.

The Governor and Equal Rights Washington say they do not yet have the votes in the State Senate to pass the legislation but they expect to get them in the heavily Democratic body. After the Governor signs the legislation the heterosexual supremacists will almost definitely file a referendum to have a vote on the measure in 2012. Happily, Washington State advocates for LGBT equality are ready and experienced, having successfully defended the state's comprehensive domestic partnership law in a referendum in November 2009.

Congratulations to Washington!

Hat/tip to LGBT Think Progress

Major NH Newspaper Endorses Marriage Equality

The Concord Monitor published an editorial today ("Don't Tamper With Same-Sex Marriage Law") pointedly demolishing the ridiculous arguments that conservative Republicans in the state have been making to bolster their drive to legislatively repeal New Hampshire's marriage equality law despite the fact that vast majorities of state residents oppose their efforts in published polls.

• Marriage is between one man and one woman. This is more of a declaration than an actual argument. In fact, it's a declaration of bigotry. After all, who gets to define marriage? Those already married? Without a compelling reason to deny marriage to gay people, a statement like this is hard to take seriously.

• But marriage has been restricted to heterosexuals for thousands of years. Many traditions outlive their usefulness. Slavery was an ancient practice too, after all. So was barring women from participation in politics. Once upon a time, people with disabilities were routinely locked away in institutions. Mercifully, times change.

• Marriage is for procreation. In many cases, yes. But infertile, straight couples marry all the time. So do those uninterested in having kids. Those past their child-bearing years aren't forced to divorce. Having children isn't the only thing that brings couples together.

• Same-sex couples don't do as good a job raising children. There are all sorts of good parents and, alas, a wide variety of bad ones, too. Sexual orientation has nothing to do with it. Nor is there a legislative push to ban other sorts of truly bad parents - child molesters, bank robbers - from marrying. No doubt each of New Hampshire's 424 legislators has among his or her constituents gay couples raising children just fine. Examples that disprove this worry are easy to find.

• Same-sex marriage will start us down a slippery slope toward legalized polygamy and incest. No sign of this so far - in New Hampshire or in the places where gay marriage has a longer history. This is simply a scare tactic. In the off chance that they are actually presented with legislation proposing such notions, lawmakers could simply vote no.

• Gay relationships are immoral. Some religions do preach that. But lawmakers must represent all their constituents, not just those who share their religious beliefs. And they must not impose their own religious beliefs on their constituents. Freedom from religion is just as important as the freedom of religion.

• Same-sex marriage threatens the institution of marriage. In fact, encouraging marriage simply . . . encourages marriage. Hard to see how the gay marriage next-door threatens the straight marriage under your roof. Hard to imagine that the legalization of gay marriage is dissuading straight people from getting married or encouraging them to split up.

It should be fascinating that the two states to vote in the Presidential primary (New Hampshire and Iowa) both already have marriage equality. Hopefully this fact and the Republican candidates and the mainstream media will intersect at some point.

Hat/tip to TowleRoad.

PNP Wins Jamaican Election In Landslide

This is good news! The People's National Party (PNP) has won a landslide election victory in Jamaica, defeating the ruling Jamaica Labor Party 41 seats to 22 in the 64-seat House of Repreentatives.

This is good news fpr the LGBT community because the waning days of the election campaign were fueled by heated discussions over Jamaica's "anti-buggery" (anti-sodomy) law, which PNP Leader and now Prime Minister-elect Portia Simpson Miller said she did not support.

Looks like the new government of Jamaica will be less accommodating of homophobia than any in recent history.
It also rumored that at least one member of the LGBT community was elected.

WATCH: Trailer for 2012's The Hobbit

Ha-Ha! Author of SB-1070 Gets Recalled

Ha,ha! This was the most encouraging election result in a night full of heart-warming election results (rejecting Mississippi's zygote personhood amendment, repealing Ohio's anti-union law and rejecting Maine's voter suppression law): the xenophobic author of multiple pieces of immigrant-bashing legislation (but most notably SB 1070), Arizona State Senate President Russell Pearce was recalled by voters on Tuesday night.

KPHO reports:

Voters have ousted state Sen. Russell Pearce in an unprecedented recall election, a first for an Arizona legislator.

With a majority of the precincts reporting, the top vote-getter, Republican Jerry Lewis, steps into the District 18 legislative seat for the second year of a two-year term.

Lewis claimed victory at 9 p.m.  "Our opponent was the most powerful politician in Arizona and one who had deep-pocketed and powerful interests from outside our district backing him, as well as the entire muscle from our state Republican Party," Lewis said.

Lewis, 54, a charter school executive, has been a resident of Mesa for nearly 30 years.  His victory now forces the Senate's majority Republicans to pick a new leader for the chamber.

People on both sides of the debate said that removing Pearce would send a powerful message to the Legislature that uncompromising stances on immigration and other issues will not be tolerated by voters.

Pearce, a 64-year-old conservative Republican from Mesa, outspent his challenger by more than a 3-to-1 ratio and painted the recall advocates as liberal outsiders who targeted him because of his immigration stance.

Pearce was unabashedly racist and an asshole and it's a good riddance of bad rubbish. However, Sheriff Joe Arpaio and Governor Jan Brewer are still elected officials in Arizona and should be removed from office by voters as well.

Vermont: Marriage Equality Activist Appointed To Supreme Court

Beth Robinson, 46, was co-counsel in the landmark Baker case
which led to Vermont civil unions

Democratic Governor Pete Shumlin has appointed celebrated openly lesbian lawyer Beth Robinson to the Vermont Supreme Court.

Keen News Service reports:

“It’s a huge privilege and honor for me,” said Shumlin, in a press conference, “to be able to announce I’ve selected Beth Robinson to serve on the Vermont Supreme Court.”

“Beth has extraordinary integrity,” said Shumlin. “She is one of the most decent, fair, hard-working and bright people in this great state…. There is no one I know in Vermont who is more able to carry out justice for Vermonters, to be fair and clear, and promote the greatness of this state than Beth Robinson.”

Robinson has been serving as Shumlin’s chief legal counsel since he took office in January. Prior to that, she was a lawyer in private practice.

Though she keeps a relatively low profile when it comes to publicity, Robinson has played a key role in the litigation and organization surrounding the historic achievement of the nation’s first civil unions law in Vermont in 2000, and the legislature’s passage of marriage equality nine years later.

This is incredible news! It is astonishing how the number of openly LGBT people on state supreme courts is increasing from the less-than-a-handful from a few years ago to more than a half-dozen now.

#FAIL! No Referendum On FAIR Education Act

Well, well! The heterosexual supremacists at StopSB48.com have officially admitted that they have failed to collect enough signatures to place a referendum on the enactment of the FAIR Education Act on the 2012 ballot.

This is great news because despite the hysterical pleadings of StopSB48.com and the (mostly religious) professional homophobes who supported the signature gathering campaign, all the bill would do is make sure that the contributions of LGBT citizens are included when the historical contributions of other marginalized groups are also taught. This is what our opponents call "the homosexual agenda."

Largest Private Employer In U.S. Adds Trans Protections

Well this is good news! The largest private employer in the United States (and 3rd largest in the world!) is Walmart, and they just recently announced that they have changed their discrimination policies to protect transgender employees.

According to the Windy City Times:

Big box retail giant Wal-Mart has added transgender protections to its employee non-discrimination policy.The protections include gender identity and gender expression said Phillip Keene, a company spokesperson.
Keene did not confirm when the new policy went into effect, only that the change was made "several weeks ago."
News of the new policy has not been widely publicized.
Sexual orientation protections are already a part of the company's "Discrimination and Harassment Prevention Policy."

Unless the Employment Non-Discrimination Act passes Congress and  is signed by the President , this is probably the largest expansion of job protections that will happen in  the Congressional term.

Goodwin Liu Likely To Join CA Sup Ct For Perry

2008's Proposition 8 is in court twice in the next two weeks. Last Monday, oral arguments were heard about whether the extant video tapes of testimony in the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case should be released to the public. The judge, federal district court judge James Ware announced afterwards that he would not "delay very long" in issuing a ruling. Which the heterosexual supremacists will almost certainly appeal anyway.

Next Tuesday, September 6 oral arguments will be held before the California Supreme Court in a very important case which will determine who exactly has "judicial standing" under California law to defend a voter-approved initiative (like Proposition 8) when the executive branch officers (Governor and Attorney General) have declined to do so.

Happily, Governor Brown recently nominated marriage-equality supporting University of California, Berkeley law professor Goodwin Liu to the California Supreme Court. It looks very likely that Professor Liu will join the court before Tuesday and participate in the oral arguments in the Perry v Brown case. There is no Republican neanderthal filibuster to prevent Liu from joining this court, unlike his unsuccessful path to the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Instead he just needs to get the approval of the 3-member Commission on Judicial Appointments, and then he will be up for election for a 12-year term at the next statewide general election.

CA Sup Ct Sets Prop 8 Case Oral Arguments Date: 9/6/2011

Good news! The California Supreme Court has finally set a date of September 6 at 10:00am for the oral arguments in the Perry v. Brown lawsuit (informally known as "The Proposition 8 case") in which the question at hand is a very limited one. Namely,

Whether under Article II, Section 8 of the California Constitution, or otherwise under California law, the official proponents of an initiative measure possess either a particularized interest in the initiative's validity or the authority to assert the State's interest in the initiative's validity, which would enable them to defend the constitutionality of the initiative upon its adoption or appeal a judgment invalidating the initiative, when the public officials charged with that duty refuse to do so.

Although the question is limited, the stakes are not. If the state Supreme Court rules, most likely within 90 days of oral arguments, that the heterosexual supremacists who drafted and promulgated Proposition 8 now have no legal standing to defend its constitutionality, it is very likely a 3-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will follow that decision and rule that the Proposition 8 proponents have no standing to defend the measure in federal court, either.

In that case, the lower court's decision would go into effect and federal Judge Vaughn Walker's brilliant ruling determining that Proposition 8 violates the United States Constitution would go into effect. Of course the bad guys would probably appeal to the Suprem Court but since the case would only be about California (and California law) it is unlikely that SCOTUS would take the case. There is a possibility that SCOTUS would take the appeal to try to clarify once and for all whether proponents of state ballot measures who are not named plaintiffs in lawsuits have a right to continue appeals when the named plaintiffs fail to appeal but there's already a decision called Arizona for Official English vs Arizona in which SCOTUS basically says you need a particularized interest under state law in order to pursue a federal appeal. And it is precisely that question of whether a particularized interest exists under California law that the California Supreme Court will decided, by the end of 2011.

Another wrinkle is that the 7-member Supreme Court has recently lost its most pro-gay member, Carlos Moreno, and Governor Brown only announced his replacement, Goodwin Liu, who is probably as similarly pro-equality as Moreno, this week. If Liu is not on the court by September 6th, the court will probably name a state appellate judge to hear oral arguments and participate in the decision.

Hang on to your hats, folks, it's gonna be a bumpy ride!

POLL: CA Voters Reject "Tough On Crime" Policies

Excellent news from California! In the midst of a financial meltdown California voters are beginning to realize that they can not continue to spend billions of dollars locking up non-violent criminal offenders in more and more prisons.

The Los Angeles Times reports:

The ailing economy far outweighs crime as the top concern for most people today, the pollsters said. That, along with the court order, could help explain voters' new receptivity to changes long sought by prisoner-rights advocates:

— More than 60% of respondents, including majorities among Democrats, Republicans and those who declined to state a party preference, said they would support reducing life sentences for third strike offenders convicted of property crimes such as burglary, auto theft and shoplifting.

— Nearly 70% said they would sanction the early release of some low-level offenders whose crimes did not involve violence.

— About 80% said they approve of keeping low-level, nonviolent offenders in county custody — including jails, home detention or parole — instead of sending them to state prisons. The same percentage favors paroling inmates who are paralyzed, in comas or so debilitated by advanced disease that they no longer pose a threat to public safety.

The pollsters noted that people don't generally favor the release of convicted criminals. But "when it comes to prisons," said Linda DiVall of American Viewpoint, "voters are looking for solutions that don't raise taxes or take money from other priorities like education."

Only 12% of respondents said they'd be willing to accept less state spending on healthcare or education to pay for more prisons. And less than a quarter of voters want to pay higher taxes to build prisons or ship inmates to private lockups in other states to comply with the courts.

This year the state plans to spend $9.8 billion on prisons, making it the third-highest general fund expenditure, behind education and healthcare.

"We spend such a large portion of our budget on crime and prison systems, and we get so little for it," said Amanda Hixson, 59, a Democrat from Sacramento.

Politicians determined to burnish their law-and-order credentials try to scare the public about releasing inmates early, Hixson said, "but some guy who's got three pot busts just isn't going to be that terrifying on the street."

I look forward to voting on ballot measures in 2012 which will finally end this madness which seeks o bankrupt the state by spending ridiculous amounts on criminal justice as compared to education.

Obama Raises Record $86M In First 3 Months

President Barack Obama raised a record amount of cash in the first 3 months of his 2012 re-election effort: $86.7 million.

The Washington Post's The Fix reported:

Obama’s re-election campaign collected $47 million, while the president raised another $38 million for the DNC via a joint fundraising committee that allows donors to write a single check that is then divvied up between the two entitites.

The haul far surpasses the goal [Campaign Manager] Messina set for the campaign’s national finance committee of collecting a combined $60 million between April 1 and June 30.

[...]

Obama’s total is more than the $35 million raised this past quarter by all the Republican presidential candidates combined (although Minnesota Rep.Michele Bachmann has not yet reported her fundraising). The GOP is lagging in fundraising, a problem made more acute by Obama’s success. By this point in 2007, 10 GOP presidential hopefuls had collectively raised more than $118 million. Obama had raised $58.9 million over two quarters.

This is excellent news, but it's probably going to take a billion dollars to re-elect the president if, as predicted, unemployment is well above 8.5% on election day 2012.

NBC Loses Rights To Air Wimbledon

There is great rejoicing in the tennis blogosphere with the news that NBC has lost the rights to air Wimbledon to ESPN for the next 12 years.

Sports Illustrated covers the story:

All England Club officials achieved their goal of having the entire tournament televised live and by the same company in the U.S. under their new 12-year contract with ESPN. Tuesday's deal ends a 43-year run on NBC. 

It had become an annual tradition with Wimbledon - complaints about NBC not showing every match live in all time zones. The network would have started airing the entire tournament live beginning in 2014 under its bid.

"There is no question the sports viewer nowadays wants to see things live,'' All England Club chief executive Ian Ritchie said on a conference call. "Therefore, as far as we're concerned, undoubtedly one of the advantages with this arrangement was to increase the amount of live coverage of Wimbledon.''

ESPN had owned the rights to extensively televise early rounds of Wimbledon since 2003, with NBC picking up coverage as the tournament progressed, culminating with the "Breakfast at Wimbledon'' broadcasts of the finals.

NBC had acknowledged Sunday it was losing one of its marquee events, saying in a statement, "while we would have liked to have continued our relationship, we were simply outbid.''

Ritchie said organizers didn't want to split the tournament between two companies anymore. NBC's bid would have used Versus, its new cable partner after the Comcast acquisition, to air additional matches once ESPN's old deal expired in two years.

"I think if you have two separate organizations telling the story, inevitably there is a danger of it being confused,'' Ritchie said. "You want some consistency to it. You want to bring a combined and coherent promotional package to it as well.''

Quarterfinal matches will air on ESPN and ESPN2 at the same time so they can all be broadcast live. ESPN3.com will continue to show online additional matches that aren't on TV.

"We're getting dangerously close to 1,000 hours of live tennis during the two weeks,'' ESPN executive vice president John Skipper said.

NBC Sports treatment of the world's most prestigious and well-known tennis tournament was simply shameful. They aired tennis matches "at the same time in all time zones" which by definition means that the vast majority must be getting taped coverage. And when two great matches were going on at the same time (i.e. like with the quarterfinals) they would often try to do show one live and then show the other one taped. I'm not a fan of ESPN's solution it used this year: the spit screen, but they were using that on early round matches which were not really that important.

Both ESPN have problems in that they use on-air talent who are not former tennis champions. It's not clear these people even know the rules of the game. It's past time they have  a dedicated "tennis anchor" on ESPN. I really don't care too much who it is (even Mary Carillo would be fine) but they should be able to talk about men's and women's tennis knowledgeably.

BREAKING: 9th Circuit Kills DADT (Again)

Wow! A (admittedly decidedly liberal) 3-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has unanimously lifted a stay against the U.S. Government from enforcing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" in the case Log Cabin Republicans v. United States.

Here's the text of the order filed today:

Filed order (ALEX KOZINSKI, KIM MCLANE WARDLAW and RICHARD A. PAEZ) The Clerk shall amend the docket to reflect that Leon E. Panetta, Secretary of Defense, is substituted for Robert M. Gates, Secretary of Defense, as an appellant/cross-appellee. See Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2). Appellee/cross-appellant’s motion to lift this court’s November 1, 2010, order granting a stay of the district court’s judgment pending appeal is granted. See Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987) (stating standard); Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1135 (9th Cir. 2011) (same). In their briefs, appellants/cross-appellees do not contend that 10 U.S.C. § 654 is constitutional. In addition, in the context of the Defense of Marriage Act, 1 U.S.C. § 7, the United States has recently taken the position that classifications based on sexual orientation should be subjected to heightened scrutiny. See Golinski v. U.S. Office of Pers. Mgmt., No. C 3:10-00257-JSW (N.D. Cal.) (Doc. 145, July 1, 2011) (“gay and lesbian individuals have suffered a long and significant history of purposeful discrimination”); Letter from Attorney General to Speaker of House of Representatives (Feb. 23, 2011) (“there is, regrettably, a significant history of purposeful discrimination against gay and lesbian people, by governmental as well as private entities”). Appellants/cross-appellees state that the process of repealing Section 654 is well underway, and the preponderance of the armed forces are expected to have been trained by mid-summer. The circumstances and balance of hardships have changed, and appellants/cross-appellees can no longer satisfy the demanding standard for issuance of a stay. Appellee/cross-appellant’s alternative request to expedite oral argument is granted. The Clerk shall calendar this case during the week of August 29, 2011, in Pasadena, California. Briefing is completed.

And here's Legal Eagle Chris Geidner explaining what it means:

DADT cannot be enforced, per the order, unless the government gets a stay of the order from either the Ninth Circuit of the U.S. Supreme Court pending an appeal of today's decision.

Cynthia Smith, a Department of Defense spokeswoman, tells Metro Weekly that Pentagon officials "are studying the ruling with the Department of Justice" but added, "We will of course comply with orders of the court, and are taking immediate steps to inform the field of this order." 

The three-judge panel -- Judges Alex Kozinski, Kim Wardlaw and Richard Paez -- based the decision to lift the appellate court's earlier stay of Phillips's order pending the appeal of the LCRcase is based, the judges write, because, "The circumstances and balance of hardships have changed, and appellants/cross-appellees can no longer satisfy the demanding standard for issuance of a stay."

Among the citations by the court is the July 1 filing in Karen Golinski's federal case seeking health insurance benefits for her wife and the related Feb. 23 letter from Attorney General Eric Holder declaring that he and President Barack Obama had decided that heightened scrutiny applies to classifications -- such as DADT.

The judges also note that "the process of repealing Section 654 [-- the DADT law --] is well underway, and the preponderance of the armed forces are expected to have been trained by mid-summer." Smith echoed this fact, writing to Metro Weekly, "[I]mplementation of the DADT repeal voted by the Congress and signed in to law by the President last December is proceeding smoothly, is well underway, and certification is just weeks away."

You will recal DADT was also not in effect worldwide or 8 days last fall when the Log Cabin Republicans first won an injunction against the government from federal judge Virginia Phillips. Now they have won at the appellate level as well on the question of the stay. The oral arguments about the merits of the case will be heard on August 29th. The government can ask for an en banc panel (11-judge panel) of the 9th Circuit or ask the US Supreme Court for a stay on the latest injunction against the enforcement of DADT..

It will be interesting to see what they do because the statute in question should be moot in a few weeks anyway when the DAT repeal is certified. However, there are some questions about whether sexual orientation will be a category of non-discrimination (which the lawsuit asks for but the legislation does not contain) and also whether the Uniform Code of Military Justice will include consensual sodomy (there is legislation in this year's Defense Authorization bill to repeal the UCMJ sodomy language).

US Applies Crack Sentencing Reform Retroactively

News you might have missed over the weekend: The U.S. Sentencing Commission has decided (unanimously!) to follow the lead of Congressional action in reducing the penalty disparity between powder cocaine and crack cocaine from 100:1 to 18:1 (still not what it should be which is 1:1) and apply these lesser penalties retroactively to (primarily Black and Brown) people who are currently serving excessive time in jail for crimes involving crack:

The Los Angeles Times has the story:

About 12,000 federal prisoners nationwide may soon be going home, some as much as three years early, under a U.S. Sentencing Commission decision to allow retroactive reductions in prison terms for inmates convicted of crack cocaine offenses.
The commission voted unanimously Thursday to bring "unfairly long sentences" for crack offenders, mostly African Americans, more in line with the shorter terms given to powder cocaine offenders, often white and sometimes affluent.

Patti B. Saris, the panel's chairwoman, said that when Congress passed the Fair Sentencing Act last year, it "recognized the fundamental unfairness of federal cocaine sentencing policy," and the commission sought to bridge the disparity between the two prison sentences.
"Justice demands this result," added Ketanji Brown Jackson, the commission's vice chairman.
When the reductions go into effect in November, the average crack sentence will be cut by about 37 months, and the federal Bureau of Prisoners said the reductions could save more than $200 million in the next five years. Nearly 6% of the federal inmate population would be released.
The reductions are not automatic. Prisoners must file a petition, and will be required to show they are no longer a risk to society. Inmates who used weapons in their crimes or have lengthy criminal histories may not be eligible.
The commission's mail, about 43,500 letters and emails, ran overwhelmingly in favor of the reductions. The Sentencing Project, a Washington group that pushes for reform in sentencing laws, also strongly encouraged approval of the reductions.
Kara Gotsch, director of advocacy for the Sentencing Project, said the panel's vote "confirms that fairness and equal treatment under the law are fundamental principles of our criminal justice system."
But Republicans, most notably Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, opposed the reductions. He had lobbied the commission not to grant the early releases, warning it "merely gets criminals back into action faster."

Good ol' boy Lamar Smith of Texas, always willing to stand up and demonstrate why people should never vote for Republicans. Thanks!

The main take-away is that this move is a move in the right direction towards adding some sanity to what is our insane "War on drugs" public policy.

Roy McDonald Is 31st Public Vote for Marriage Equality

State Senator Roy McDonald (R-Rensselaer)

This is amazing news! I used to live in Troy, New York in upstate New York for 8 years while I was amassing my three degrees in mathematics at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute from 1986-1994. Anywho, then my state senator was the notoriously homophobic (and corrupt) but very powerful Joseph Bruno who was the Republican Majority Leader and represented the "Capital District Tri-Cities" area of Schenectady, Albany and Troy. Bruno was indicted and convicted of corruption and replaced by State Senator Roy McDonald.

McDonald became the 31st State Senator (and 2nd Republican) to publicly announce his intention to vote Yes on marriage equality legislation pending before the New York state legislature.

The Times-Union has the deets:

Senator Roy McDonald, R-Saratoga, told the Times UnionTuesday that he will back a bill legalizing same-sex marriage. He becomes the 31st senator to proclaim his public support for the bill. It needs 32 votes to pass the Senate.

“I’m trying to do the right thing,” he said. “Rather than wait I worked with the governor…I’m not out to alienate anybody. This is driven by compassion.”

“My lifestyle is my lifestyle — I don’t want anyone telling me or my children what to do,” he said. “We’ve got 20 million people in this state…we can’t be paralyzed by social issues.”

“It’s my own evolution,” he said. “I think there’s going to be a vote on Friday.”

McDonald has been the subject of much lobbying on the issue of same-sex marriage, including a billboard on I-787 calling for his support. While he voted against the bill in 2009 and while an Assemblyman in 2007, he had hedged his position this year, as talk of legalizing same-sex marriage has once again intensified.

31 down, 1 to go! The still-undecided state Senators are:

 Stephen Saland  845-463-0840;
  Andrew Lanza  718-984-4073; 
  Greg Ball  845-279-3773;
  Kemp Hannon  516-739-1700;
  Charles Fuschillo  516-882-0630;
  Betty Little  518-743-0968  

It should be noted that these remaining undeclared State Senators signaled they were interested in voting for marriage equality (off-the-record) on Monday but are also all Catholic and will probably be targeted by religious extremists who do not understand that the Governor's proposed legislation is about civil marriage and has explicit exemptions for religious entities and individuals who do not want to sanction or solemnize same-sex civil marriages.

Another Poll Confirms Supermajority For NY Marriage Equality

Another poll (Quinnipiac) has confirmed that there is a large majority of support for marriage equality in New York:

Support for legislation allowing same-sex couples to marry is 58 - 36 percent, higher than ever while statistically unchanged from 56 - 38 percent April 14. Support is 72 - 23 percent among Democrats and 58 - 34 percent among independent voters, while Republicans are opposed 64 - 34 percent. There is little gender gap: men support same-sex marriage 58 - 37 percent, while women back it 59 - 34 percent. 

The poll also illustrates the trendlines for support for equality have been increasing over time:

TREND: Would Do you support or oppose a law that would allow same-sex couples to get married?

SUPPORT... High Low Jun 02 Apr 14 Feb 24 Jan 27 Dec 16 Jun 02 Apr 15 2011 2011 2011 2011 2009 2011 2004 Support 58 56 54 56 47 58 37 Oppose 36 38 39 37 46 36 66 DK/NA 6 5 7 7 7 6 8

The question for State Senate Republicans is what side of history do they want to be on?

HBO's Game Of Thrones Renewed For Season 2!

Excellent news! HB0 has announced they have renewed their new fantasy series Game of Thrones for a second season. Game of Thrones is an adaptation of George R.R. Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire series, which is a planned 7-book fantasy series in set in the fictional land of Westeros where seasons can last years and civilization is basically at the Bronze Age of medieval times.

The plan is for each season of the HBO show to be based on each of the books. The first book in the series is called A Game of Thrones (click to see MadProfessah review). The second book (which is even better than the first) is called A Clash of Kings (click to see MadProfessah review) and immediately follows the events of the first book.

Overall, I have been very impressed with HBO's television adaptation of George R.R. Martin's work, for the most part. The books depict the fight for control of the Seven Kingdoms of Westeros between members of several major houses. Martin analyzes many topics in thee very long books, among them the nature of gender in a feudal society, the irrationality of hereditary government, and especially the meanings of political power in a society where everyone carries a sword and "might makes right" is a generally accepted ethos.

The TV series has done an excellent job of animating these concepts by actually improving on Martin's plotting by adding scenes and interactions between characters which do not appear in the original text.
What the TV series has not done well is depict people of color. There is an important subplot in the series which involves action on a far-away continent (across the Narrow Sea from Westeros) called Essos where the Dothraki people like. The Dothraki are a war-like, nomadic people who have "copper skin and almond eyes." In the books, Martin is able to fully explain their specific cultural traditions and motivate their harsh and violent actions. In the HBO series the head of the Dothraki Khal Drogo is portrayed by a massively buff Jason Momoa who speaks in a  rough guttural tongue. The Dothraki are depicted as wild-eyed savages for the most part, without the  descriptive context the book supplies them. This is unfortunate, because the chapters of the books which involve the Dothraki and the blonde refugee from Westeros named Daenerys Targaryen who becomes their Queen (Khaleesi) are some of the best sections of the story. Martin won a Hugo award for a novella about Daenerys.

In the series there are some epic scenes involving Daenerys, the Dothraki and her dragon eggs which, if depicted badly, could ruin the entire series for me. Daenerys and the Dothraki are incredibly important characters, and it is disturbing that, so far, they have not been depicted as effectively as the other, predominantly white, characters. It's no coincidence that the upcoming fifth book is called, A Dance with Dragons. Hopefully, the series will make that far.

VERMONT: Democrats Enact Single-Payer Health Care!

Peter Shumlin is the Democratic Governor of Vermont

Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, individual states have the opportunity to enact their own health care reform policies which suit each individual state. In Vermont, Democrats control the state legislature and the governorship for the first time in a long time. When Republicans gain legislative control they use their power for evil, in Minnesota (putting an anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment on the 2012 ballot), in Wisconsin and Michigan (to eviscerate unions and disempower working families), in Ohio and Florida (disenfranchise elderly and minority voters) and in South Carolina and Tennessee (legislatively bully LGBT citizens and deny them equal access to constitutional rights).

Democrats, however, use their power for good, like in Vermont where they are ensuring that all state citizens will have access to health care.

Amy Goodman of TruthDig reports:

Vermont hired Harvard economist William Hsiao to come up with three alternatives to the current system. The single-payer system, Hsiao wrote, “will produce savings of 24.3 percent of total health expenditure between 2015 and 2024.” An analysis by Don McCanne, M.D., of Physicians for a National Health Program pointed out that “these plans would cover everyone without any increase in spending since the single payer efficiencies would be enough to pay for those currently uninsured or underinsured. So this is the really good news—single payer works.”

Vermont Gov. Peter Shumlin explained to me his intention to sign the bill into law: “Here’s our challenge. Our premiums go up 10, 15, 20 percent a year. This is true in the rest of the country as well. They are killing small business. They’re killing middle class Americans, who have been kicked in the teeth over the last several years. What our plan will do is create a single pool, get the insurance company profits, the pharmaceutical company profits, the other folks that are mining the system to make a lot of money on the backs of our illnesses, and ensure that we’re using those dollars to make Vermonters healthy.”

Governor Peter Shumlin did indeed sign the bill into law. 1 state down, 49 to go. California also has a single-payer health care bill pending in the legislature. MadProfessah has endorsed this legislation.