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.

EQCA Names Roland Palencia Executive Director!

Roland Palencia, was named Executive Director of Equality California,
the state's largest LGBT political advocacy organization on Monday May 16, 2011.
(photo credit: Debra Evans)

This is amazing news! A local Southern California activist that I have known for years has been named the new Executive Director EQCA. This is incredibly encouraging news for the future of LGBT equality in California. Roland is a high-powered executive with extensive philanthropic experience who is a bilingual Guatemalan refugee who has been openly gay for years.

Here's the press release:

San Francisco – Equality California and its Board of Directors announced today that Roland Palencia, a trailblazing LGBT activist with extensive experience in leading and managing multi-million dollar non-profit organizations, will serve as the new executive director for Equality California and Equality California Institute. Palencia will begin his tenure on July 5.

“I am deeply grateful for the opportunity to serve California’s lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community and to build upon Equality California’s tremendous success,” said Palencia, who currently serves as the Community Benefits Director for L.A. Care Health Plan, a $1.2 billion public health plan. “I am committed to creating a better future for all LGBT Californians and to connecting the LGBT movement to the broader movement for socio-economic justice. Although permanently ending discrimination against LGBT people can be a daunting task, I am confident that together we will prevail. I look forward to getting to know and working with our dedicated membership, legislators and coalition partners as we strive to further Equality California’s mission to achieve full equality for all LGBT Californians.” 

With more than two decades of activism and expertise with LGBT and healthcare issues, Palencia has long worked to provide resources to underserved communities, including LGBT communities, undocumented immigrants and the uninsured. From 1992 to 1998, Palencia was the Chief of Operations and Vice President of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, an international HIV/AIDS healthcare organization where he played a key role in building the much needed medical infrastructure and financial resources to support HIV/AIDS services. Subsequently, he served as the Executive Director at Clinica Monseñor Oscar A. Romero, which primarily serves Central American and Mexican immigrants. In 2003, Palencia was appointed as the Greater Los Angeles Area Regional Director for the California Endowment, a private foundation that annually grants more than $170 million to California-based entities in the area of health. Palencia directed a multi-county department and funded dozens of community-based organizations per year.

“On behalf of the Board of Directors, we are thrilled that Roland will lead the next chapter of Equality California,” said Board Chairs Cathy Schwamberger and Clarissa Filgioun. “Roland is an inspiring leader who has done groundbreaking work for the LGBT community and beyond. His impressive track record of advancing equality and justice makes him a perfect fit for the organization.” 

Palencia was forced to leave his native Guatemala, which was ruled in the mid-1970s by a brutal military regime, after paramilitary forces assassinated his father, a small business owner and a revolutionary who fought for democratic change in Guatemala. Palencia came to California and attended UCLA where he earned a degree in history. 

“I don’t take our rights and progress for granted, as heroes like my father, Martin Luther King and Harvey Milk have made the ultimate sacrifice so we can live in a more just world,” Palencia said.

Reacting to the announcement that Palencia will head Equality California, Dolores Huerta, Equality California board member, said “Roland is an outstanding leader whose ability to build bridges with many communities will help take Equality California to the next level, enabling the organization to bring our message of equality to an even greater audience.”

Palencia is a co-founder of pioneering community-based organization, Gay and Lesbian Latinos Unidos (GLLU), the first major Latino LGBT advocacy group, which later led to the establishment of Bienestar Human Services, serving the Latino community with 11 locations. He is currently an Advisory Board Member of HONOR PAC, an LGBT Latino Political Action Committee that supported and led efforts in East Los Angeles to fight Proposition 8. 

Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa appointed Palencia to Los Angeles County’s Quality and Productivity Commission, and L.A. County Supervisor Gloria Molina appointed him to the Los Angeles County Hospitals and Healthcare Delivery Commission. He also held an advisory role to the multi-billion dollar Los Angeles County Department of Health Services. 

Palencia has received several awards recognizing his outstanding record of service to the community, including the Community Service Award given by former Los Angeles Mayor James Hahn; Outstanding Contributions to the Community Award, given by Gil Cedillo, State Assemblymember and former Chair of the California State Senate Committee on Health Access; Local Hero by Union Bank of California and KCET and the Solidarity Award, presented by the Korean Immigrant Workers Advocates.

Palencia was selected by Equality California and Equality California Institute’s Board of Directors after an extensive, national search conducted by executive search firm Morris & Berger.

Intrepid lesbian reporter Karen Ocamb has the first interview with Palencia following the news of his appointment over at LGBT POV.

Obama Approval Ratings Up Sharply

Barack Obama's approval ratings have recently moved up sharply, as indicated by the graphs shown here. Note the steep uptick starts around May 1st, which is the day that President Obama announced Osama Bin Laden was dead.

In fact, today the Washington Post is reporting that Obama's approval rating is the highest it has been in 2 years.

Overall, Obama’s approval rating is up slightly from 53 percent in March and a 47 percent low point following last fall’s midterm congressional elections, in which Republicans won control of the House and gained seats in the Senate. It was 64 percent in May 2009, just months after he was sworn into office. 

[...] 

In another finding, 53 percent in the latest poll say Obama deserves to be re-elected, while 43 percent say he should be fired, the first time in an AP-GfK poll that more people say he should get a second term than not.

Good news!

Hat/tip to Talking Points Memo.

Brazil High Court Legalizes Civil Unions

There is good news from Brazil! The largest country in South America's highest court voted unanimously on Friday to legalize civil unions for same-sex couples.

From Reuters:

The court ruled that gay couples deserve the same legal rights as heterosexual pairs when it comes to alimony, retirement benefits of a partner who dies and inheritances, among other issues.

In Latin America, gay marriage is legal only in Argentina and Mexico City.

Same-sex civil unions granting some rights to homosexual couples are legal in Uruguay and in some states of Mexico outside the capital. Colombia's Constitutional Court has granted same-sex couples inheritance rights and allowed them to add their partners to health insurance plans.

Brazil's ruling sets a judicial precedent that must be honored by all public institutions, including notary publics where civil unions must be registered.

"This is a historic moment for all Brazilians, not just homosexuals. This judgment will change everything for us in society — and for the better," said Marcelo Cerqueira with the gay rights group Grupo Gay da Bahia. "Gays, lesbians and transsexuals will be recognized as being more human. We'll be more accepted by having our rights honored."

Very interesting! I guess I will have to bump Brazil higher on the list of the countries I want to visit. (i'm only going to countries which recognize LGBT civil rights.)

Osama Bin Laden is Dead!

Way more info at ABC on the death of Osama bin Laden, the world's most famous terrorist.

WATCH: Obama Tells The World 'Osama Is Dead'

LA TIMES Editorial Eviscerates ProtectMarriage Argument

Dismissing an argument that even heterosexual supremacists should have been ashamed to make in their increasingly desperate attempts to not lose the Perry vs. Brown lawsuit, today's Los Angeles Times op-ed titled "Prop. 8: Who's fit to judge?" eviscerated the motion to vacate filed by Protect Marriage attorney Charles Cooper on Monday:

Married judges rule on divorce cases all the time. So do single judges. And divorced ones. Their rulings aren't challenged on the grounds of their marital status; that would obviously be ridiculous.


Yet ProtectMarriage, the group that sponsored Proposition 8, is challenging last year's ruling by Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker that declared the same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional. The group's lawyers argue that because Walker has a longtime male partner, he was unfit to render a decision on Proposition 8. If one day he should want to marry, the argument goes, he might benefit from his own decision, assuming it survives the scrutiny of higher courts.


This claim is absurd on many levels, especially when you remember that ProtectMarriage's case against same-sex marriage is that it threatens the institution of heterosexual marriage. In fact, the group says, that damage gives it the legal status to challenge the initiative, because any married heterosexual is allegedly harmed by same-sex unions. But if that's the case, then by the group's own logic, married heterosexual judges would also be forced to recuse themselves; the integrity of their own marriages could be damaged by the matter before them.


According to this line of argument, former Chief Justice Ronald M. George, a married heterosexual, would not have been able to preside over the California Supreme Court case in which same-sex couples sued to overturn an earlier ban on same-sex marriage. George wrote the majority opinion setting out the reasons why the ban violated the state Constitution.


So then, perhaps, only an unmarried judge who has sworn never to wed could hear cases about same-sex marriage. Or any marriage at all. An African American judge could never hear a race-discrimination case. And no female judge could decide a lawsuit on gender discrimination. Or a male one either.


The guidelines for judicial recusal can be unclear at times, but generally the bar is a high one. The rules call for judges to disqualify themselves when their impartiality might reasonably be questioned, but they are not supposed to back away from cases because of who they are — their ethnicity, gender, marital status, affluence, political leanings or, yes, sexual orientation. It's another matter if they are directly and materially affected, or if they have previously displayed a deep-seated bias on the issue at hand. A judge who drives a gas guzzler can still hear a lawsuit against an oil company, but not if his or her spouse works for the oil company.


Had Walker been one of the activists fighting Proposition 8, or if he had repeatedly sought a marriage license and been rejected, ProtectMarriage would have valid claims of conflict of interest. The group's assertion that a gay judge in a relationship is less able than a heterosexual married judge to render a fair decision on a sexual-orientation case says more about the pervasiveness of discrimination against homosexuals than it does about Walker's fitness to hear the matter.

Clement Quits Law Firm After It Exits DOMA Defense

It's been a big news morning today. First, responding to online pressure from Human Rights Campaign and Change.org, Paul Clement's law firm of King & Spalding announced that they had filed a motion to remove the firm from representing the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representative in its defense of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in federal court.

The firm's statement:

Today the firm filed a motion to withdraw from its engagement to represent the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the House of Representatives on the constitutional issues regarding Section III of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act. Last week we worked diligently through the process required for withdrawal.

In reviewing this assignment further, I determined that the process used for vetting this engagement was inadequate. Ultimately I am responsible for any mistakes that occurred and apologize for the challenges this may have created.

In response to his firm's decision to refuse to sign on to a legal defense which per force requires them to argue that discrimination against same-sex couples is constitutional, Paul Clement (who was reportedly paid $5 million a year by King & Spalding) resigned from the firm and joined another:

"I resign out of the firmly held belief that a representation should not be abandoned because the client's legal position is extremely unpopular in certain quarters. Defending unpopular clients is what lawyers do," Clement wrote to King & Spalding chairman Robert Hays. "I recognized from the outset that this statute implicates very sensitive issues that prompt strong views on both sides. But having undertaken the representation, I believe there is no honorable course for me but to complete it." 

Clement said he will join Bancroft PLLC, a small Washington-based firm that is home to former Bush Justice Department official Viet Dinh.

The full text of Clement's resignation letter is also available. This is probably good news for the likelihood of DOMA not surviving judicial review since Clement will be forced to defend the discriminatory law without drawing upon the resources of a huge law firm like King & Spalding.

It should be noted that the pressure to get Clement's former law firm does not violate the principle that all defendants have a right to legal representation, like the Los Angeles Times editorial board foolishly claimed. DOMA is not a person, it does not have any Miranda rights; this is not a criminal case, it is a civil case. The contract that BLAG had signed with King & Spalding prohibited all members of the firm from expressing opposition to DOMA or advocating for the repeal of the law.

Nate Silver Declares Marriage Equality Opponents In Minority

Good news! Polling guru Nate Silver has crunched the latest poll numbers (which I posted about yesterday) and has announced that he is confident that opposition to marriage equality is no longer a majority position. that fact is reflected in the graphic displayed above. It's still a bit too soon to say whether support for marriage equality is a majority or even plurality position thanks to the margin of error in the polls but the trend lines are VERY clear.

Nate ends his post at The New York Times with a cautionary note to Republicans:

But Republican candidates, who have placed less emphasis on gay marriage in recent years, probably cannot expect their opposition to it to be a net electoral positive for them except in select circumstances. If support for gay marriage were to continue accelerating as fast as it has in the past two years, supporters would outnumber opponents roughly 56-40 in the general population by November 2012. 

Past trends, of course, are no guarantee of future ones, and it’s always possible that the momentum toward increasing support for gay marriage could flatten out or even reverse itself. 

But this does put Republicans in a tricky position. Their traditional position on gay marriage is becoming less popular. But to the extent they disengage from the issue, they may lose even more ground. One way to read the trends of the past few years is that we have passed an inflection point wherein it is no longer politically advantageous for candidates to oppose same-sex marriage, which in turn softens opposition to it among the general public, creating a sort of feedback loop and accelerating the trend.

It should be interesting to see how heterosexual supremacists who are opposed to marriage equality, especially Republican presidential contenders, deal with these poll results, especially since the first two primary states, New Hampshire and Iowa, both have legalized marriage equality.

POLL: Donald Trump Leads Republican Presidential Contenders

The results of this PPP poll of Republican presidential contenders is pretty amazing:

Donald Trump (R):  26 

Mike Huckabee (R):  17 

Mitt Romney (R): 15 

Newt Gingrich (R):  11 

Sarah Palin (R):  8 

Ron Paul (R):  5 

Michele Bachmann (R):  4 

Tim Pawlenty (R):  4 

Someone else/Undecided: 10

Trump has been making the media outlet rounds declaring his fealty for birtherism, homophobia, womb control and Christ. In other words, the perfect Republican nominee. I'm pretty sure the White House is just sitting back, licking their chops.

Goodwin Liu Nomination On Senate Floor!

Goodwin Liu testifies before Senate Judiciary Committee, which reported
out his nomination to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals by a 10-8 vote

There is some good news to report on President Obama's judicial nominations. The Senate Judiciary Committee had  a hearing this week and reported out five nominees, including Goodwin Liu for the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and J. Paul Oetken, for the Southern District of New York.

These two nominations are being followed carefully by MadProfessah and other progressives around the country because Oetken is the first openly gay man ever to be nominated to a federal District Court judgeship and Liu is an Asian-American, progressive legal star, currently a professor at UC Berkeley Law School. The Oetken nomination looks like it will sail through the Senate but the Republicans are terrified that if they allow the 39-year-old Liu on the appellate court he could be nominated for the United States Supreme Court in Obama's second term and seem determine to filibuster the nomination to death.

From the Washington Times:

The Liu debate extends far beyond Capitol Hill, as liberal and conservative groups see the nomination fight as a crucial test of the president’s ability to put his stamp on the nation’s judiciary. 

Curt Levey, executive director of the conservative Committee for Justice, called Mr. Liu “the worst of Obama’s nominees at all levels of the federal courts.” 

Nan Aron, president of the liberal Alliance for Justice, in contrast called Mr. Liu “one of the finest legal minds of his generation” who deserves a swift yes vote on the Senate floor. 

Whether that vote happens, however, is uncertain. Democrats control only 53 of the Senate’s 100 seats — seven fewer than needed to guarantee an override of a Republican filibuster. A handful of moderate Democrats facing tough re-election battles also may be tempted to join a GOP filibuster of Mr. Liu.

We shall see what happens but at least there are more than 18 months until the end of this Congress so time is on Liu's side.