Governator Eliminates LGBT Former Lawmakers' Sinecure

MadProfessah reported a few months ago about the odd fact that a majority of the California Integrated Waste Management Board are openly gay termed-out state legislators. Sheila James Kuehl, John Laird and Carole Migden all make $132,178 each year serving on the 5-member board.

In the hurly-burly of the California budget debacle it may not have been noticed that Governor Schwazrenegger signed into law Republican Assemblymember Tony Strickland's SB 63 which eliminated the only majority LGBT state board in the country.

The board, which directs a 450-member, $235 million state operation, regulates the permitting and inspections of nearly 300 landfills across the state that handle some 42 million tons of garbage annually, and has a number of recycling programs.

[...]

Schwarzenegger has said elimination of the board was at the top of his priority list. "That's on the top of the list - the most absurd one because it costs the most money because people are sitting there with $132,000, or whatever, salaries," Schwarzenegger said last month in an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle.

But others say the move is more posturing than substance, and that placing the board's functions within a new state department will cost more than it saves.

Critics note that the board's operations are covered by trash and recycling fees from the sale of new tires, tonnage fees from landfills, motor-oil sales and the sale of new TVs and computer monitors, which alone bring in about $100 million annually, and that eliminating the panel will have little or no impact on the strapped General Fund. They believe Schwarzenegger has focused on the board in part to divert attention from cuts he's supported in public education and social services, among others.

An internal government analysis of the board's elimination reviewed by Capitol Weekly showed that the elimination might save $2 million to $3 million annually in salaries and benefits for board members, among other things. "However, any savings would be lost and a fiscal impact of several million (dollars) would be observed for several years by transferring the newly created (department) from the Cal-EPA to the Natural Resources Agency."

Things that make you go hmmmm.

CIWMB: Where Gay Pols Get Their Reward

Laird	Kuehl	Migden

The California Integrated Waste Management Board is a time-honored resting place for former politicians. On curious notion about the CIWMB is that it currently has a majority of openly gay or lesbian politicians! The board consists of 5 members, and Sheila Kuehl, Carole Migden and John Laird all of whom are former members of the California Legislature who happen to be gay or lesbian. Each member is paid an annual salary of $132,000. There have been calls to eliminate the CIWMB.

Coincidence? I doubt it!

Sheila Kuehl's Brilliant Analysis Of Prop 8 Ruling

One of the smartest people in politics gay or straight, is former California State Senator Sheila James Kuehl, who sent out this brilliant analysis of the California Supreme Court Prop 8 ruling in Strauss v. Horton yesterday.

The Opinion

Today, the California Supreme Court ruled on the validity of Proposition 8, the measure adopted by California voters last November to add a new section 7.5 to Article I of the California Constitution, as follows: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California".

The measure was challenged by a coalition of organizations and individuals who favor the ability of same-sex couples to marry on three bases:

1. That the measure adopted by the voters 52% to 48% was not a simple amendment to the state Constitution, which may be adopted by a majority vote, but, rather, a revision to the Constitution, which may not. The Constitution may only be changed in one of these two ways, and, if the change is actually a revision to the Constitution, it must either be passed by a two-thirds vote of each house of the state Legislature and put to a vote of the people, or proposed through a constitutional convention and put to a vote.
2. The second challenge theorized that Prop 8 violated the separation of powers principle because it abrogated a previous Supreme Court decision which held that, under Equal Protection and Due Process principles, same sex couples had the same right to marry in California as opposite sex couples.
3. The Attorney General advanced a different theory: that the "inalienable" right articulated by the Court in the Marriage Cases could not be abrogated by a majority vote unless there was a compelling state interest in doing so.

The Court rejected all three, holding that they were required to find that the Constitution could be amended by a majority of voters in any election, even if the amendment abrogated a fundamental right previously articulated by the Court.

How Could They Say That?

The Court set out the legal principle that distinguishes an amendment from a revision: That it must change the basic governmental plan or framework of the Constitution. In deciding whether Prop 8 did, indeed, change the Constitution at such a basic level, the Court decided it did not, and, also, that it did not "entirely repeal or abrogate" the rights articulated in the Marriage Cases.

This is where the Court seriously lost its way.

Marriage is Just A Word....Not

Here's what the majority opinion said, which I think is not only seriously in error, but a cowardly about-face from their language in the Marriage Cases, which is reprinted in the next section.

First: today's decision:

"In analyzing the constitutional challenges presently before us, we first explain that the provision added to the California Constitution by Proposition 8, when considered in light of the majority opinion in the Marriage Cases, supra, 43 Cal.4th 757 (which preceded the adoption of Proposition 8), properly must be understood as having a considerably narrower scope and more limited effect than suggested by petitioners in the cases before us. Contrary to petitioners' assertion, Proposition 8 does not entirely repeal or abrogate the aspect of a same-sex couple's state constitutional right of privacy and due process that was analyzed in the majority opinion in the Marriage Cases - that is, the constitutional right of same-sex couples to "choose one's life partner and enter with that person into a committed, officially recognized, and protected family relationship that enjoys all of the constitutionally based incidents of marriage" (Marriage Cases, supra, 43 Cal.4th at p. 829). Nor does Proposition 8 fundamentally alter the meaning and substance of state constitutional equal protection principles as articulated in that opinion. Instead, the measure carves out a narrow and limited exception to these state constitutional rights, reserving the official designation of the term "marriage" for the union of opposite-sex couples as a matter of state constitutional law, but leaving undisturbed all of the other extremely significant substantive aspects of a same-sex couple's state constitutional right to establish an officially recognized and protected family relationship and the guarantee of equal protection of the laws."

In other words....what's the big deal about the word "marriage"?

As it turns out, quite a bit. Here's what the same Court said about it in the Marriage Cases:

First, it set out the principle it quotes in the new opinion:

"In responding to the Attorney General's argument, the majority opinion stated that "[w]e have no occasion in this case to determine whether the state constitutional right to marry necessarily affords all couples the constitutional right to require the state to designate their official family relationship a 'marriage,' " because "[w]hether or not the name 'marriage,' in the abstract, is considered a core element of the state constitutional right to marry, one of the core elements of this fundamental right is the right of same-sex couples to have their official family relationship accorded the same dignity, respect, and stature as that accorded to all other officially recognized family relationships.

But, then, the Court answers its own question as to the importance of the word Marriage:

"The current statutes - by drawing a distinction between the name assigned to the family relationship available to opposite-sex couples and the name assigned to the family relationship available to same-sex couples, and by reserving the historic and highly respected designation of marriage exclusively to opposite-sex couples while offering same-sex couples only the new and unfamiliar designation of domestic partnership _ pose a serious risk of denying the official family relationship of same-sex couples the equal dignity and respect that is a core element of the constitutional right to marry."

It is a distinction that makes an enormous difference and, therefore, should be seen as a revision to the state's Equal Protection and Due Process requirements.

By hanging its decision that Prop 8 was an amendment and not a revision on the slim and dishonest statement that same sex couples are not denied legal rights by denying them the "word" marriage, the Court errs.

Justice Moreno, in Dissent

Bless his heart and his mind. Here is what he says:

"The question before us is not whether the language inserted into the California Constitution by Proposition 8 discriminates against same-sex couples and denies them equal protection of the law; we already decided in the Marriage Cases that it does. The question before us today is whether such a change to one of the core values upon which our state Constitution is founded can be accomplished by amending the Constitution through an initiative measure placed upon the ballot by the signatures of 8 percent of the number of persons who voted in the last gubernatorial election and passed by a simple majority of the voters. (Cal. Const., art. II, § 8.) Or is this limitation on the scope of the equal protection clause to deny the full protection of the law to a minority group based upon a suspect classification such a fundamental change that it can only be accomplished by revising the California Constitution, either through a constitutional convention or by a measure passed by a two-thirds vote of both houses of the Legislature and approved by the voters? (Cal. Const., art. XVIII.)

For reasons elaborated below, I conclude that requiring discrimination against a minority group on the basis of a suspect classification strikes at the core of the promise of equality that underlies our California Constitution and thus "represents such a drastic and far-reaching change in the nature and operation of our governmental structure that it must be considered a 'revision' of the state Constitution rather than a mere 'amendment' thereof." (Amador Valley Joint Union High Sch. Dist. v. State Bd. of Equalization (1978) 22 Cal.3d 208, 221 (Amador Valley).) The rule the majority crafts today not only allows same-sex couples to be stripped of the right to marry that this court recognized in the Marriage Cases, it places at risk the state constitutional rights of all disfavored minorities. It weakens the status of our state Constitution as a bulwark of fundamental rights for minorities protected from the will of the majority. I therefore dissent."

Me, too.

More Bad News For Homophobes in CA

Joe.My.God has the good (bad?) news that California heterosexual supremacists are concentrating on passing their anti-gay marriage state constitutional amendment and have given up their plans to repeal Sheila Kuehl's anti-bullying legislation (SB 777).

In a June 21 email to supporters, Karen England of the Save Our Kids Campaign, the organization pushing the initiative, said the group has decided to concentrate instead on passing the so-called Marriage Amendment, which would enshrine in the state’s constitution the definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman.

“Since the start of the Save Our Kids initiative campaign, the political landscape in California has shifted significantly,” said England in the email. “The California Supreme Court's decision redefining marriage has turned the state's attention to the traditional marriage initiative on the November ballot. In the last month, our staff has worked overtime responding to the marriage decision and contemplating the future for traditional marriage in our state. After much prayer, consideration and consultation we have made the decision to suspend the Save Our Kids campaign to allow our staff and supporters to dedicate themselves to the Marriage amendment.”

Heterosexual Supremacists File Federal Lawsuit Against LGBT Student Civil Rights Law

A little-known group called "Advocates for Faith and Freedom" together with the Northern California chapter of the Alliance Defense Fund filed suit in federal district court on Tuesday to overturn SB 777, the Student Civil Rights Act, which was signed into law by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger October 12, 2007. The law, which would have gone into effect on January 11 if not for a parallel signature gathering effort to place a repeal referendum on the June 2008 primary ballot, "clarifies and reinforces existing protections currently in the state’s education code, including California’s definition of gender, which has been in place since 2000" according to its sponsor Equality California. SB 777 was written by openly gay State Senator Sheila James Kuehl, who also sponsored and wrote the original bill in 1999 which had initially placed protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity in California schools with AB 537, the California Student Safety and Violence Prevention Act of 2000.

In their lawsuit, the heterosexual supremacists claim (pdf):

The Governor of California recently signed into law Senate Bill 777, which will
take effect on January 11, 2008. Senate Bill 777, in conjunction with the California Penal Code, introduces a new definition of “gender” into the California Education Code and is part of an overall nondiscrimination scheme applicable to schools in California. Senate Bill 777 recklessly abandons the traditional understanding of biological sex in favor of an elusive definition that is unconstitutionally vague. This lawsuit facially challenges the redefinition of the term “gender” as it will be impossible for school administrators and educators to enforce this new definition.
Further, it will be impossible for administrators and educators to know whether they themselves are violating the nondiscrimination provisions of the Education Code or the Penal Code. Additionally, the special treatment intended for a select few students through the enforcement of Senate Bill 777 will result in the violation of the privacy rights of the remainder of students not targeted for special treatment under Senate Bill 777. For these reasons, Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit based upon the prohibition against vague enactments as established in the Federal Constitution and the right to privacy founded in the California Constitution.

Senator Kuehl (who happens to be a 1978 Harvard Law School graduate) responded by saying: "There's no change in the law; it was always the same. All of these truly silly claims that they make about what could happen could have been happening over the last eight years and never did," she said. "I think they know they don't have a case. I think it's purely a fundraising mechanism for them."

Controversial HIV Testing Bill Faces Crucial State Senate Hearing Today

Today Mad Professah will be in lovely Sacramento, CA attending a hearing by the California State Senate Health Committee chaired by out lesbian State Senator Sheila J. Kuehl which will be considering AB 682 (Berg), a controversial bill to drastically alter procedures for conducting HIV tests in the state of California.



Previously I blogged about the bill when a story about the battle to amend the bill hit the pages of the local LGBT media and discussed the ongoing battle of state legislatures to implement the U.S. Center for Disease Control's misguided revised recommendations on HIV testing the federal agency issued in September 2006.



The issue pits large AIDS service organizations like AIDS Project Los Angeles, AIDS Healthcare Foundation and the L.A. Gay and Lesbian Services Center against groups staunchly protective of civil rights (like the American Civil Liberties Union, Lambda Legal, etc) and smaller AIDS organizations like Being Alive Los Angeles, HIV/AIDS Legal Services Alliance and Center for Health Justice. The groups in the first camp think that an "HIV test should be just like a cholesterol test" and that "all mental barriers to HIV testing should be removed" while the groups in the second camp think that in no way does society or the law treat being HIV positive like having high cholesterol and that there is a long-standing constitutional doctrine enshrined in California jurisprudence called "informed consent" which this bill attempts to nullify. It is clear that AB 682 goes much further than Illinois' recently enacted law would go in modifying HIV testing protocols and does not conform with the CDC's recommendations themselves which stimulated the legislative activity or with the 15 guiding principles of HIV testing announced by a wide coalition of groups on national HIV Testing day as recently as 2 weeks ago.



Mad Professah will be attending the hearing representing Being Alive Los Angeles. We're asking that the bill be amended so that whenever a person conducts an HIV test they have to make a notation in the medical chart that the person consented to the test and the consent was informed consent (which can be done through the distribution of an information sheet about the HIV test); that protections against using HIV tests to discriminate in the provision of medical services be strengthened; that the effect of AB 682 be studied to see if it increases the percentage of people who take HIV tests and that people who test HIV-positive have their results told in person and not through any telephonic or electronic medium and are immediately counselled and linked to treatment and care. The current version of AB 682 eliminates the current state requirement for both pre- and post-test counselling when conducting HIV tests.



I'll try and report back later on today to let you know how it goes. It should be interesting to see the public health policy of the state of California determined rihgt before my eyes...

Fight Over HIV Testing in California Hits LGBT Media

Intrepid lesbian reporter Karen Ocamb has a special report in the latest edition of IN LA Magazine on the fight over what HIV testing procedures should look like in California that Mad Professah blogged about earlier this week.

In the article "Assembly Passes Controversial HIV Testing Bill" Ocamb quotes Mad Professah Ron Buckmire.

The coalition [to Amend AB 682], Buckmire wrote, “would like to amend the bill to ensure that patients receive an information sheet about HIV testing [as is provided for cancer screening], that the provider record in the medical chart whether the patient consented to or declined the test and document delivery of the information sheet, that HIV-positive test results are communicated in person, that non-discrimination protections be put in place to prevent HIV testing to screen out people with HIV/AIDS from routine health care services and that the impact of AB 682 be studied to see if it increases voluntary testing without diminishing patient’s autonomy, privacy and access to health care.”

The response from proponents of the bill was curious (and obnoxious). After quoting the odious Michael Weinstein, head of AIDS Healthcare Foundation, as claiming that the actions of the City of West Hollywood passing a resolution opposing AB 682 and supporting the proposed amendments were "sad" and would "sacrifice" lives. Gee, that's really raising the level of public policy debate! Cute and cuddly he is not.

A lobbyist for AHF was given the last word in the article, which he used to reveal some curious beliefs about HIV testing as well as a cavalier attitude about California public health policy.

“I can only think that [the City Council] misunderstands the intent of the bill. The objective of AB 682 is to remove barriers to health-care providers giving HIV tests to their patients—the only exception being our continued belief that HIV testing should be voluntary, so we’ve included a provision that maintains the patient’s right to decline the offer of a test [emphasis added]," said AHF Public Policy Coordinator Joey Terrill, who is working on the bill.

"Nearly 40,000 Californians are unaware that they are HIV-positive,” says Terrill. “The two biggest barriers to testing are: first, requiring a signature before testing, and second, the requirement of a provider to obtain informed consent. AB 682 removes the requirement of a signature and lessens the burden for obtaining consent. No more, no less. AB 682 does not remove the requirement of obtaining consent nor does it in any way affect laws regarding confidentiality."

Gee, so a Public Policy Coordinator for the largest AIDS service organization in California (and the world) has a "continued belief" that a patient has a right to decline an HIV test? Well, isn't that special. So, if in the future AHF reconsiders this belief ("that HIV testing should be voluntary") does that mean that they would be supporting mandatory HIV testing for all Californians? Because if a patient does not have a right to refuse the offer of an HIV test, how is that not mandatory testing? Also, if there is no documentation anywhere of either acceptance or refusal of an offer of an HIV test and an HIV test occurs what redress does that person who was tested have? That is the crux of the Coalition to Amend AB 682's position on the Full Employment Act for HIV Discrimination Lawyers that the current version of Assemblymember Berg's bill represents. How is a doctor having to make a notation in a medical chart that an HIV test was offered (along with a simple information sheet about the test) and what the patient's response was constitute "a psychological barrier" to testing? A barrier to the doctor or a barrier to the patient? Whose interests should California law be protecting here? Getting an HIV test can be a life-changing decision and should be a "teachable moment" for HIV prevention, at least that has been the position of AIDS educators for the last 20 years.


Note, the Coalition has not stated a position that requires that a patient give a signature before getting an HIV test, so this is simply a straw man being raised by Mr. Terrill. We believe more people should be tested for HIV, but we can not support legislation that "opens the door for coercive testing of all Californians." And neither does the CDC! The latest research shows that the way to reac the 40,000 Californians who are unaware of their HIV status is through targeted testing, not reckless universal testing with diminished patient's rights.

That Mr. Terrill says that AB 682 "lessens the burden for obtaining consent[,] No more, no less" is simply laughable. 1) There is no requirement for documentation of consent, so as any lawyer will tell you, if there's no documentation, it didn't happen. 2) AB 682 doesn't just lessen consent, it eliminates informed consent, which is a longstanding principle in California Health law that is not clear can even be reduced, let alone eliminated due to California appellate court rulings in this area. 3) Somehow Illinois and New York state have managed to start with bills as ill-thought out and frankly dangerous as California's but Illinois' law is one the Coalition to Amend AB 682 would probably endorse and New York's is substantially better than the bill pending before the California State Senate. Hopefully intelligent legislators with longtime experience and political savvy like Gloria Romero, Sheila Kuehl and Carole Migden will be able to fix this legislation before it becomes the law of the land.



Stay Tuned. Comments welcome.

California Assembly Passes Marriage Equality Bill

Pam at The Blend reports on the passage of SB 11 (Migden) in California that Mad Professah blogged about yesterday but links it with the passage of AB 43 (Leno) the following day and the ongoing disappearance of rights for same-sex couples in Michigan.

Interestingly, yesterday's historic passage of the marriage equality bill by the State Assembly for the second time by a vote of 42-34 was far less controversial than when that body first considered the bill in Summer 2005. In fact, the bill (AB 19) failed to pass initially after four conservative members of the Democratic caucus balked and was only rescued through a controversial "gut and amend" procedure (becoming AB 849) and passed the State Senate by a vote of 21-15 first, making that body the first legislative chamber in the United States to pass a marriage equality bill on September 1, 2005. The Assembly then also passed the bill by the bare minimum of necessary votes 41-35 on September 6, 2005. Governor Arnold Schwarznegger vetoed the marriage equality bill on September 29, 2005.

The Los Angeles Times report ("Same sex unions OKd by Assembly") on the events on the Assembly floor notes that all Republican Assemblymembers voted no (so for anyone who says that "there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans" Mad Professah will point them to the respective voting records on LGBT-supportive legislation in California) and a number of Democratic Assemblymembers either voted no or abstained. "Democrats" Nicole Parra (30th District) and Wilmer Amina Carter (62nd District) voted no on Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act , while Juan Arambula, Mike Davis and Cathleen Galgiani were present but abstained. The odious Nell Soto was "ill" (not present) but would not have voted for the bill, since she did not vote for it when she was a state Senator in 2005.

Laura Richardson (who was called "homophobic" by the Dean of the California LGBT Legislative Caucus in the race for the 37th Congressional District recently) and most of the members in the Assembly of the California Legislative Black Caucus voted for the bill: Mervyn Dymally, Karen Bass and Curren Price although it is troubling to Mad Professah that Black Caucus members Mike Davis and Wilmer Carter either voted no or abstained. Here is the full roll call of the votes on AB 43:

AYES
****
Bass Beall Berg Brownley
Caballero Charles Calderon Coto De La Torre
De Leon DeSaulnier Dymally Eng
Evans Feuer Fuentes Hancock
Hayashi Hernandez Huffman Jones
Karnette Krekorian Laird Leno
Levine Lieber Lieu Ma
Mendoza Mullin Nava Portantino
Price Richardson Ruskin Salas
Saldana Solorio Swanson Torrico
Wolk Nunez

NOES
****
Adams Aghazarian Anderson Benoit
Berryhill Blakeslee Carter Cook
DeVore Duvall Emmerson Fuller
Gaines Garcia Garrick Horton
Houston Huff Jeffries Keene
La Malfa Maze Nakanishi Niello
Parra Plescia Sharon Runner Silva
Smyth Spitzer Strickland Tran
Villines Walters

ABSENT, ABSTAINING, OR NOT VOTING
*********************************
Arambula Davis Galgiani Soto

I would recommend calling your Assemblymember and giving them opinion of their vote on the marriage equality bill. I am going to call my members Anthony Portantino, Kevin DeLeon and the all members of the Black legislative Caucus.

Wow, that was fast! It took 20 minutes to call them all and say "I'd like to thank the Assemblymember for voting yes on AB 43 yesterday." In the case of Mike Davis, Nicole Parra and Wilmer Carter I said "I'd like to express my displeasure at the Assemblymember's vote(abstention) on AB 43 yesterday." Everyone was very polite, and Wilmer Carter's capitol staff was especially solicitous. Maybe you'd like to call or email them also:

Email:
Wilmer.Carter@asm.ca.gov

Capitol Office:
State Capitol
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0062
Tel: (916) 319-2062
Fax: (916) 319-2162

District Office:
335 N. Riverside Ave.
Rialto, CA 92376
Tel: (909) 820-5008
Fax: (909) 820-5098

Email:
Nicole.Parra@asm.ca,gov

Capitol Office
State Capitol
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0030
(916) 319 - 2030
(916) 319 - 2130 Fax

Bakersfield Office
601 24th St., Suite A
Bakersfield, CA 93301
(661) 334 - 3745
(661) 334 - 3796 Fax

Hanford Office
321 N. Douty St., Suite B
Hanford, CA 93230
(559) 585 - 7170
(559) 585 - 7175 Fax

Email:
Mike.Davis@asm.ca.gov

Capitol Office:
State Capitol
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0048
Tel: (916) 319-2048
Fax: (916) 319-2148

District Office:
700 State Drive
Los Angeles, CA 90037-1210
Tel: (213) 744-2111
Fax: (213) 744-2122

Be Nice, Do Good.

Race to Replace Millender-McDonald Heats Up

The Los Angeles Times reports that the filing deadline has passed for the 37th Congressional district special election to fill the seat of recently deceased U.S. Representative Juanita Millender-McDonald and a slew of people have taken up the offer.

Nineteen candidates have filed nomination papers to be on the ballot in a June 26 special election in the 37th Congressional District.

[...]

State Sen. Jenny Oropeza (D-Long Beach), Assemblywoman Laura Richardson (D-Long Beach) and Valerie McDonald, Millender-McDonald's daughter, are considered the front-runners in the race to represent the district that encompasses Compton, Carson, much of Long Beach and parts of South L.A.

The other candidates are Democrats Lee Davis, Mervin Evans, Felicia Ford, Bill Francisco Grisolia, Peter Mathews, George A. Parmer Jr., Jeffrey S. Price and Ed Wilson; Republicans Leroy Joseph "L.J." Guillory, John M. Kanaley, Jeffrey "Lincoln" Leavitt, Gwen Patrick and Teri Ramirez; Daniel Abraham Brezenoff of the Green Party; Herb Peters, a Libertarian; and Al Salehi Agassi, an Independent.

A final list of candidates will be released after the Los Angeles County registrar-recorder verifies signatures submitted by candidates. Each candidate is required to submit 40 valid signatures. If no candidate gets more than 50% of the vote, a runoff between the top candidates in each party will be held Aug. 21.

However today the leading candidate Richardson was blasted as being homophobic by openly gay State Senator Sheila J. Kuehl who has endorsed her colleague State Senator Jenny Oropeza for the open congressional seat. Kuehl is referring to an unfortunate incident in 1996 when Richardson was running against openly lesbian Gerrie Schipske for a Long Beach area State Assembly seat and sent a mailer during her losing campaign for the Democratic nomination in which she claimed that Schipske was "committed to the radical gay agenda" and "strongly backed by ultra-liberal Santa Monica Assemblymember Sheila Kuehl, the Assembly's only openly gay member." Schipske decided over the weekend NOT to enter the race for the 37th district Congressional seat.

Jasmyne Cannick was quoted in the Capitol Weekly article ("Kuehl slams Richardson in 37th C.D; Schipske out") saying "Richardson is not homophobic. Ten years ago was 10 years ago, and a lot can happen in that span of time, including education and new sense of right and wrong. Ten years ago, Richardson looked at things differently as it related to the gay community and in that 10 years, she's changed."

As far as MadProfessah can discern, Richardson is not a co-sponsor of any of the California LGBT community's major legislative priorities in the State Legislature: Mark Leno's AB 43 (Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act) or Kuehl's SB 777 (Student Civil Rights Act) or John Laird's AB 14 (Civil Rights Act of 2007). A lack of such sponsorship does not mean that she's homophobic, but since most of the Democratic caucus is signed on to all or at least one of these pieces of legislation it is significant that Richardson's name is nowhere to be seen, especially considering she represents a district which is putting on the third largest gay and lesbian pride celebration in the country this weekend.

Today, Cannick posted multiple pictures of Richardson appearing with Black LGBT activists as well as a picture of Kuehl herself appearing with Richardson from 2006. It appears as if Richardson AND Kuehl have some "splainin" to do. So far silent in the dispute is State Senator Jenny Oropeza, who may be waiting to see how the dispute between the African American and LGBT communities shakes out and hope that bolsters her candidacy.