Romney Thinks "Corporations Are People"

Romney Pledges Heterosexual Supremacy

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney signed a pledge from the National Organization of Marriage to affirm his support for heterosexual supremacy in America. This entails:

1. To support and send to the states for ratification a federal marriage amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
2. To do vigorously what President Obama has refused to do: defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court.
3. To appoint to the Supreme Court, and as his or her Attorney General, only those who support the original meaning of the Constitution and who will, therefore, not invent a right to gay marriage.
4. To establish a presidential commission to investigate the increasing reports of harassment and threats to supporters of traditional marriage.
5. And to give back to the people of D.C. the right already guaranteed in the Charter which Congress gave them: the right to vote on marriage via the referendum process.

Where to begin? I guess let's address them one at a time. The Federal Marriage Amendment didn't get out of the U.S. House of Representatives when the Republicans controlled the Presidency, the House and the Senate majority in July 2006 and popular support was below 50%. Why would anyone expect a measure to divorce the estimated 100,000 same-sex married couple in the country to be more successful in 2013? It takes a vote of 2/3rds of BOTH Houses of the Legislature and then ratification of 3/4 of the states to be enacted. In 220 years the document has been Amended 27 times, and 10 of those happened within the first 5 years. A federal marriage amendment is not going to happen!

The second item (to defend DOMA) is obvious, but by the time a Republican could become President on January 20, 2013, the Defense of Marriage Act may already have been struck down by multiple federal appellate courts and perhaps even the U.S. Supreme Court.

The fact that Romney, Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum signed the third item should mean they are immediately disqualified to serve as President. They are basically saying that they will have a particular litmus test for Supreme Court nominees (and Attorney General).

The fourth item is just sheer buffoonery. As the discriminatory position of heterosexual supremacists to envision a society in which heterosexuals have more civil rights than non-heterosexual becomes more and more a repulsive position to a greater majority of American voters, the supremacists have begun to claim that any opposition to their radical ideology in verbal or written form is "harassment" or "intolerance towards religion." The idea of a President Commission to explore harassment and threats to people who have been publicly calling for LGBT people to have less rights than other Americans is simply laughable.

The fifth item is just obnoxious. Marriage equality has been legal in the District of Columbia since March 4, 2010 after a measure was approved by a near-unanimous vote of its law-making body in December 15 2009. After filing multiple lawsuits in order to force a vote of the majority on the rights of the minority despite explicit provisions in the D.C. Charter which prevents such inimical actions, those attempts came to an ignominious end with a Supreme Court refusal to hear their appeal on January 18, 2011.

It should be interesting to see which other Republican presidential candidates are willing to sign NOM's pledge to heterosexual supremacy. I presume Rick Perry will be next in line to add his name to this foolishness.

New Poll On New York Marriage Law

There is a new poll which asks Americans nationwide whether the legalization of marriage equality in New York state on July 24th is a positive or negative development. The results show that it depends on whether you are conservative Republican (and/or white evangelical Protestant) or not. If you are, you generally oppose it, if you're not you think it's a positive development.

Democrats and Republicans react in opposite ways to the new law, each facing stark internal divisions that may present challenges to building a winning coalition in 2012. Among Democrats, the divide is between the liberal base and those with conservative or moderate stripes. Liberal Democrats view the law positively by an overwhelming 74 to 25 percent margin. A smaller 54 percent majority of moderate and conservative Democrats say the same. Among African Americans, another loyal segment of the Democratic party coalition, more than six in 10 say the law is a negative development, while roughly one in three see it positively. Republicans broadly reject the law by a 2 to 1 margin, but alignment with the tea party movement complicates political calculations concerning the issue. More than seven in 10 Republicans who support the Tea Party movement view the New York law as a negative development.

This partisan divide in the electorate about marriage equality has been a frequent topic at this blog. Many people believe that the tipping point in favor of marriage equality becoming the law of the land has already reached.

Recently, researches at my alma mater have produced a model of conversion which indicates that when just 10% of a population has an implacable, unalterable position that view will eventually become the majority position, given enough time.

WATCH: MA Congressional Delegation "It Gets Better"

Note, it's almost the entire congressional delegation of Massachusetts. Missing is U.S. Senator Scott Brown (R-MA) who surprisingly won a special election in January 2010, thus giving the Republicans a filibuster-sustaining 41 votes in the United States Senate.

To date, not a single Republican elected official has made an It Gets Better video. Instead, the National Republican Senatorial Committee has started verbally attacking Dan Savage, who has made his feelings about Republicans known. Scott Brown explains his absence from the MA congressional delegation IGB video:

"Senator Brown believes all people regardless of sexual orientation should be treated with dignity and respect. He has been a leader in fighting for anti-bullying legislation at the state and federal level. His main focus is creating jobs and getting the economy moving again. In this case, the individual behind the video has made vile and sexually crude comments about Senator Brown. It's reprehensible for Senator Brown's opponents to associate with this person in order to score cheap political points." -- Eric Fehrnstrom, political adviser.

I'd like to hear from the Log Cabin Republicans an explanation for why not a single Republican elected official can not seem to appear in a video whose intention is to help students who are being bullied (probably because they are LGBT or are perceived to be LGBT) survive the experience and reduce teen suicide.

Who Caused The Debt: Bush or Obama?

This graphic tells the story of how we got to this point where the Republicans are holding the full faith and credit of the United States hostage to their fact-challenged disastrous policy viewpoints taxes and finances.

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.

Understanding Redistricting, Part 1

It matters how you draw the lines

Dante Atkins of Daily Kos has a very useful article on the importance of redistricting for progressives.

In most states, the decennial maps for congressional districts are redrawn and approved by state legislatures. Why does this matter? Because partisan state legislatures are likely to divvy up the districts in a way that benefits their party. How does this work in practice? At its most elementary, let's hypothesize a state with a population of nine people: five Democrats and four Republicans. And from those nine people, the Census Bureau required creating three districts with an equal number of people. If the state legislature were controlled by Democrats, they might make a map that carves the state in a way that has a majority of Democratic seats. But if Republicans were to control the legislature—something that happens from time to time in Democratic-voting states such as Minnesota—they just might pass a map with different districts that gives the GOP a majority of the seats. 

The 2010 elections will have long-lasting consequences for control of the House of Representatives. The problem isn't just that Republicans won so many seats; the larger problem is that they won them at exactly the right time. Incumbent representatives are hard to defeat, but unseating freshmen is generally an easier task. Unfortunately, having a wave election in a redistricting year allows the new majority party to take advantage of the redistricting process to shore up vulnerable members, usually by taking some friendlier territory from a safer, better-known incumbent—serving essentially to "lock in" that majority for the rest of the decade. In addition, less scrupulous legislators can use the redistricting process to consolidate the districts of opponents to force their members into either retirement or a bruising primary fight and removing them from their seats regardless—a process playing out right now to eliminate Democratic seats in states like North Carolina and Michigan. The GOP has also shown its willingness to use redistricting to ward off potential political disadvantages at the state legislative level as well: for example, Wisconsin Republicans are redrawing the state senate lines in a hurry before the recall elections, even though doing so right now would create a bureaucratic nightmare. Clearly, the GOP is willing to use redistricting as a political weapon in spite of any resulting collateral damage.

While most states have this concern, California no longer does. In 2008, voters passed Proposition 11, which created a so-called Citizens Redistricting Commission that removed the authority to draw legislative lines from the state legislature and put it into the hands of a supposedly non-partisan commission (in 2010, a second proposition was passed that put the authority to draw boundaries for congressional districts as well into the hands of this same body). The Democratic Party opposed this measure for obvious reasons: As Democrats have a substantial majority of seats, they control the redistricting process and could use it to maximize Democratic seats while ensuring no contentious primary battles among the state's delegation. (Full disclosure: I serve on the executive board of the California Democratic Party.)Furthermore, the commission's mandated structure is hardly representative of California's population: despite the fact that California is an overwhelmingly Democratic state, the commission is required to have an equal number of Democrats and Republicans serving, with absolutely no guarantee of geographic or ethnic diversity.

The commission has had other problems, such as missed deadlines and cancellation of draft maps—and right now, the current maps are likely to face suits, especially from organizations in the Latino community who feel that the maps dilute their community's voting power and are thus illegal under the Voting Rights Act. Nevertheless, among Democrats the mood of uncertainty at the congressional level has yielded to a cautious optimism, as the commission's draft maps (should they hold) will likely result in Democratic gains of multiple seats, and defeat or retirement of several longtime Republican members. 

1st Openly Gay U.S. District Court Judge Approved By Senate

As I blogged about earlier this year, J. Paul Oetken is the first openly gay man to be nominated for a lifetime federal judgeship. On Monday, the United States Senate approved Oetken's nomination by a vote of 80-13 to a seat on the Southern District of New York, which covers New York City and is one of the busiest and prestigious federal courts in the country. Amazingly, Oetken will join the same bench that the nation's only openly lesbian federal judge sits on. Deborah Batts is an African American lesbian judge who was nominated by President Clinton and approved by the Senate in 1994. All 13 Senators voting No o Oetken's nomination were Republicans.

Chris Geidner reports:

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), who has been supporting the nomination, praised Oetken's background and experience on the Senate floor shortly before the vote, saying "His confirmation will only improve the workings of one of the best and one of the busiest courts in the country."

Of Oetken's place as the first, Schumer said, "At this moment, Paul is not just an excellent candidate, as the first openly gay man to be confirmed as a federal judge and to serve on the federal bench, he will be a symbol of how much we have achieved as a country in just the last few decades."

Before the vote began, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) -- the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee -- also announced that he would be voting for Oetken, who was born in Iowa.

When the vote did come, all Democrats voting approved the nomination, with Sen. Kay Hagan (D-N.C.) the sole Democrat not voting. Moreover, a majority of the Senate Republican caucus -- 28 members -- voted to approve the nomination, with 13 Republicans opposing the nomination and six members not voting.

The "no" votes came from Sens. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), John Boozman (R-Ark.), Thad Cochran (R-Miss.), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas), Mike Lee (R-Utah), Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), Jerry Moran (R-Kan.), James Risch (R-Idaho), Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) and Roger Wicker (R-Miss.). The Republicans not voting were Sens. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) and David Vitter (R-La.).

This is great news. Someone should ask all the Republican presidential candidates whether they would nominate an openly LGBT person to a federal judgeship. President Obama has also nominated an out lesbian, Ali Nathan, to a federal judgeship as well. That nomination is now pending on the Senate floor.

WATCH: Conservative Republicans' Ayn Rand Problem

I hope lots and lots of Republican primary voters watch this video of Ayn Rand spouting her views on religion (which I agree with). It will be interesting to see how they agree with everything he says about capitalism but reject everything she says about "God."

I have no difficulty in saying I reject everything she says about capitalism but agree with what she says about "faith."

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.

Cartoon Reveals Republicans' Plan To Win In 2012

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.

NY Marriage Equality Prospects Improve Dramatically

James Alesi is the first Republican state senator to publicly announce
 he will vote in favor of a marriage equality bill in New York State

There is finally good news out of the state of New York on the prospects of marriage equality becoming law this year. Three Democrats who voted against the measure in 2009 have publicly announced they will vote yes this time.

The New York Times reports online:

The three Democratic senators — Joseph P. Addabbo Jr. and Shirley L. Huntley of Queens and Carl Kruger of Brooklyn — all voted against the measure in 2009, when it failed by a wide margin. Their switch to the yes column leaves all but one Senate Democrat supporting same-sex marriage — and the fate of the legislation in the hands of the Republican majority in the chamber.

“I believe that votes will be there for marriage equality if the vote happens,” Mr. Cuomo, a first-term Democrat who has made same-sex marriage a top priority, told reporters at the Capitol Monday afternoon.

[...]

Mr. Cuomo spoke to reporters along with all three of the Democratic senators, who explained why they were changing their positions on the marriage issue. Each of them said that the sentiment in their New York City districts has changed over the last several years, and that they have changed along with their constituents.

“What we’re about to do is redefine what the American family is,” Mr. Kruger said. “And that’s a good thing. The world around us evolves.”

Mr. Addabbo said that just two years ago, 73 percent of the constituents who contacted his office opposed same-sex marriage. But this year, he said, he had heard from 6,015 people in his district, of whom 4,839 wanted him to vote for same-sex marriage.

“In the end, that is my vote,” Mr. Addabbo said

It should be noted that the 2009 marriage equalitybill failed by a vote fo 24-38 even though Democrats held a 32-30 advantage at that time. Now Republicans hold a 32-30 advantage but 29 of 30 Democrats have publicly announced they will vote for the bill (only the religious extremist, heterosexual supremacist, rabidly homophobic Rev. Ruben Diaz, Sr. is voting against).

And as I was writing this blog post the first Republican member of the New York State Senate, James Alesi has announced he will vote in favor of the marriage equality bill, leaving the measure a scant two votes short of a declared majority of 32 votes in the 62-member body. These must come from the Republican caucus.

The Times-Union reports online:

Sen. Jim Alesi, emerging from a meeting with Gov. Andrew Cuomo and Lt. Gov. Bob Duffy, said he will vote for same-sex marriage.

“It was very liberating,” Alesi said, describing how “anguishing” it was to vote against the bill in 2009. “If you live in America, and you expect equality and freedom for yourself, you have to extend it to others.”

He is the first sitting Republican senator to declare his support for the same-sex marriage. He joins three Democratsin the chamber who committed to support the as-yet-introduced measure Monday, bringing the total number of committed yes votes to 30. (Thirty-two votes are needed for passage.)

The current tally of Senators to contact are (courtesy Adam Bink at Prop8TrialTracker.com):

Joe Addabbo (15, Queens) (518) 455-2322

James Alesi (55, Rochester suburbs) (518) 455-2015

Greg Ball (40, Putnam County) (518) 455-3111

Joe Griffo (47, Utica) (518) 455-3334

Mark Grisanti (60, Buffalo, Grand Island, Niagara Falls) (518) 455-3240

Shirley Huntley (10, Queens) (518) 455-3531

Carl Kruger (27, Brooklyn) (518) 455-2460

Andrew Lanza (24, Staten Island) (518) 455-3215

Betty Little (45, North Country stretching from Plattsburgh to Glens Falls) (518) 455-2811

Jack Martins (7, Nassau County/Garden City) 518-455-3265

Roy McDonald (43, north and east of Albany: Troy, Saratoga Springs, Clifton Park) (518) 455-2381

Interestingly, I used to live in Troy, New York for 8 years (1986-1994) when the odious State Senator Joseph Bruno was my representative and Republican Majority Leader did his best to bottle up and kill the New York gay rights bill (SONDA) for a decade or more. Happily, he was indicted and convicted of corruption.

The current Republican majority leader of the state senate is Dean Skelos and had said that he would allow a vote on a marriage equality bill prior to the Republicans winning a majority last November.

Governor Andrew Cuomo says he intends to introduce a marriage equality bill on Tuesday, so it would seem the votes are there on the Senate floor for final passage by the end of the week. The question is will the majority leader allow it. With nearly 60% of the adult public approving of marriage equality in New York in multiple polls it would be a truly anti-Democratic (is that the definition of Republican?) move to make to prevent a bill from becoming law when the votes are there. Do you really want to be the Governor Wallace of your generation?

Saturday Politics: Will San Diego's Next Mayor Be Gay?

Interesting news out of San Diego. There are numerous candidates lining up to replace Jerry Sanders as Mayor of San Diego, and several of them are openly gay. The most prominent of these is openly lesbian Bonnie Dumanis, a Republican who is currently District Attorney and has been endorsed by Sanders as his successor. Other openly gay candidates are Democratic State Senator Christine Kehoeand Republican City Councilman Carl DeMaio. Also running for the mayoral position appears to be U.S. Representative Bob Filner (D-51) and Republican State Assemblymember Nathan Fletcher.

SurveyUSA has a new poll out of the non-partisan race:

City Council Member Carl DeMaio today gets 22% of the vote, and begins the campaign with notable advantages among demographic groups that tend to break for more conservative candidates. DeMaio, one of 5 Republicans running in this non-partisan race, leads today among men, whites, Asians, Republicans, independents, conservatives, and higher-income voters. Among the oldest and traditionally most reliable voters, DeMaio leads by 11 points. Among the small number of San Diego voters who identify themselves as Tea Party members, DeMaio leads his nearest rival 4:1. 

San Diego County District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis gets 15%, slightly edging DeMaio among women, but not leading among any other group. 

Bob Filner, currently serving his 10th term in the US House of Representatives as a Democrat, gets 14% today, and leads among the youngest and traditionally least reliable voters and among San Diego's relatively small number of African American voters. 

Democratic State Senator Christine Kehoe gets 12%, leading Filner and Dumanis among Democrats, and is significantly ahead among liberals. 

3 other named candidates combine to take 17% of the vote; 6% say they would vote for some other, unnamed candidate. 14% of registered voters today are undecided.

This should be  a very interesting race to lead California's 3rd largest city. The primary election is June 5, 2012 and November 6, 2012.

SHOCKER! Alabama Passes Racist Immigration Law

Following up on the controversial passage of Arizona's SB 1070 last year and Republican's assuming control of state houses after the midterm elections, several states have attempted to pass even stricter legislation to "regulate immigration." On Thursday, Alabama's Republican governor Robert Bentley signed what he promises is the nation's toughest anti-immigration law.

The PBS News Hour described some of the more prominent provisions:

In addition to allowing law enforcement officers to arrest and detain anyone they suspect of being in the country illegally, Alabama’s measure introduces new rules for educators, would-be landlords, and businesses.


"This signals real momentum on the side of immigration hawks," said Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, a think tank in favor of stricter enforcement. Among the provisions of the new law:

• Public schools will have to confirm students’ legal residency status through birth certificates or sworn affidavits.
• Illegal immigrants are banned from attending state colleges. 
• Transporting, harboring, or renting property to undocumented immigrants will be illegal.

The housing aspect is one that Ali Noorani of the immigrant-rights group the National Immigration Forum finds troubling: “This is of special concern to mixed status families – children could be arrested for transporting their undocumented parents, for example. It can also impact churches who are ‘transporting’ immigrants to church or are providing any services that may be considered as ‘harboring.'"

Georgia and Utah have also passed anti-immigration laws this year. Utah's law has already been enjoined in court. Arizona's SB 1070 has also been enjoined and has been appealed to the United States Supreme Court.

Alabama's Latino population has doubled to a high of 3.9% from 2000 to 2010. I wonder how many white people will be arrested by Alabama police in order to have their immigration status tested?

Americans United Sends Letter To Perry Over Prayer Event

The organization Americans United for Separation of Church and State has sent a letter to Governor Rick Perry complaining about his official participation in a religious event with the American Family Association on August 6, 2011 which purports to pray for America.

Letter to Gov Perry From Americans United

Herman Cain Says Homosexuality Is A Sin and A Choice

MadProfessah first blogged about Black republican presidential candidate Herman Cain way back in April, noting then that he was once a mathematics major.

Cain has started making headlines because he is starting to appear in the middle or at the top of polling lists in early Presidential primary states, with more support than media darlings like Jon Huntsman and Tim Pawlenty.

Openly gay Miami Herald blogger Steve Rothaus has the transcript:

"I believe homosexuality is a sin because I'm a Bible-believing Christian, I believe it's a sin," he said. "But I know that some people make that choice. That's their choice." 

Cain was asked: "So you believe it's a choice?" 

"I believe it is a choice," he responded.

I wonder if Mr. Cain believes in the Golden Rule?

Hat/tip to Rod 2.0

New TV Ad For Marriage Equality in New York

Since I lived in New York State for 8 years I stll pay careful attention to politics (especially LGBT politics) there. The battle to pass legislation to enact marriage equality in New York when the Governor, the lower House and as much as 58% of the general public support is fascinating to me. Republicans control the State Senate and they seem adamant about not allowing legislation to move forward. There are two weeks left of this legislative session, which ends JUne 20.

New Yorkers United for Marriage has released a second television ad which will start airing this week around the state.

Elections Have Consequences Voters Starting To Realize

In November 2010, voters elected Republican governors with Republican legislative majorities in Ohio, Florida, Michigan, Wisconsin and Georgia.

Think Progress has created a fun graphic which shows that in all of those states, if voters could have a "do-over" election today, they would vote for the Democratic candidate instead. Currently, signatures are being gathered in Michigan to begin the process of being recalling Governor Vic Snyder, and Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker may face one next year.

Clockwise from left to right: Scott Walker (R-Wisconsin)
Chris Christie (R-New Jersey), Rick Scott (R-Florida) and Vic Snyder (R-Michigan)

One of these governors is the most unpopular state chief executive in the country. The question is, which one?

Florida's Rick Scott and Ohio's John Kasich are currently the leading contenders for the title of the most unpopular governor in America, according to a recent Public Policy Polling (PPP) survey. (A mere 32 percent of respondents approve of Scott, while just 33 percent support Kasich. A separate Quinnipiac poll puts Scott's approval even lower, at 29 percent.) Michigan's Rick Snyder is struggling with a 33 percent approval rating, and in Wisconsin, 43 percentapprove of Scott Walker, PPP found—down 3 points from February and 9 from Election Day 2010. Only 41 percent of respondents gave Iowa's Terry Branstad a thumb's up. Even New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, a darling of the GOP, has seen his approval plummet in recent weeks, according to a recent PublicMind released by Fairleigh Dickinson University.

Talking Points Memo makes the point that these unpopular governors are heads of states which may be swing states in the 2012 presidential election, thus aiding President Obama's re-election:

A Quinnipiac poll released last week found that just 29% of voters approved of Scott's job performance, while a 57% majority disapproved. At the same time, Obama's approval rating rebounded from a negative 44% to 52% split in April to a positive 51% to 43% in May, and he increased his leads over each of several high-profile 2012 GOP contenders. Certainly some of that Obama bump is wholly unrelated to Scott -- the killing of Osama bin Laden, for one -- but Scott's unpopularity is sure to be a weight on his party's candidates next year if his standing doesn't improve.

In Ohio, a similar scenario has unfolded, where union-busting Gov. John Kasich is now so unpopular that a recent PPP poll showed him losing a do-over election by an astounding 25-point margin. In that same poll, just 33% of voters gave Kasich positive marks on his job performance, compared to 56% who said the opposite, tying Kasich with Rick Scott as the most unpopular of 38 governors PPP has surveyed.

Meanwhile, Obama posted comfortable leads against each Republican challenger pitted against him in 2012 contests in that state, despite posting a middling approval rating, with 46% of voters giving him a thumbs up versus 49% who gave him a thumbs down. In releasing those findings, PPP's Tom Jensen credited voter discontent with Kasich for helping put Obama over the top.

Why would anyone vote for a Republican, ever?

WATCH: Family Research Council Exposed As Hate Group (With Their Own Words)