"After careful consideration of the recent debates surrounding the Warm Sands Law Enforcement Operation, I believe this decision is in the best interest of my family, my health, the Department and the City," Dominguez said in a statement. "It has been a privilege to be the Chief of Police and work with the professional men, women and volunteers in the Police Department who are extremely dedicated to the community."Steve Pougnet, the openly gay mayor of Palm Springs, made his first statement on the controversy, saying:
"I support the decision by the police chief to retire and agree that it is in the best interest of the city and the department – to begin the healing process for the community. Yet, there remains much work to be done."The question of what the final impact will be on the 19 gay men who were arrested during the sting operation should be resolved at a hearing on January 20th.
In many areas of the country, there has long been an antagonistic relationship between law enforcement and the gay community; in fact resistance to a police action in New York City in 1969 is widely regarded as the beginning of the modern gay rights movement. This antagonism has typically not been present in Palm Springs, California, but apparently that is changing. Palm Springs is now considered to be the "gayest city" per capita in California, with an estimated 30 to 40 percent of its population openly gay and lesbian. It has had multiple openly gay Mayors and current has a majority city councilmembers who are gay pr lesbian.Last summer, Palm Springs police used undercover officers to arrest 24 men in a gay neighborhood for allegedly trying to engage the officers in sex. While few in the gay community defend anyone having public sex - whether gay or straight - the anger is over the unusual charges in the case: The men are charged under Section 290(c) of the California Penal Code, making those who are convicted register as sex offenders for life, their names added to a police database.
That charge is essentially a life sentence, defense lawyers say, and has never been used against straight couples arrested for similar activity in Palm Springs.
Adding fuel to the community anger is surveillance tape shot inside a patrol car during the sting. One officer can be heard using an anti-gay slur, while another officer laughs.
The San Diego Gay and Lesbian Times broke this story more than two months ago:
All 24 men were charged with violations of Penal Code sections 314 and 647(a).
According to the defense, the Riverside County District Attorney’s Office will only accept a guilty plea from the defendants, and even then, only to a 314 violation with its sex offender designation.
Herein lies a huge issue that is being alleged in court documents. More on that in a moment.
What is the difference between the 314 and 647(a) misdemeanors?
Penal Code section 314 - California's "indecent exposure" law - has remained virtually unchanged since its enactment in 1872, despite the fact that community moral standards have changed drastically in the 138 years that have passed since that enactment.
This law prohibits publicly "exposing" a person’s naked body or genitals with lewd intent. Typically, a conviction of "simple" misdemeanor indecent exposure under this code brings a sentence of up to six months in a county jail, a maximum fine of $1,000 and a lifetime requirement to register as a sex offender, pursuant to Penal Code 290.
Section 647(a) defines "lewd conduct" as the touching or displaying of the genitals, buttocks or female breasts with the intent of achieving sexual arousal or gratification. These acts are deemed illegal under this code when done in a lewd or lascivious manner in a public place - where a third party may be offended by its viewing. Unless there are overriding circumstances, a 647(a) conviction typically does not come with a sex offender designation.
The sex offender designation, however, can cause dire consequences for a lifetime. Those convicted have trouble keeping or finding jobs and homes, and those with green cards are usually deported.
Major allegations are being raised
The Riverside County Public Defender’s Office thinks something smells fishy about this undercover sting. As a result, court documents show that the defense is making some serious allegations:
The Palm Springs Police Department (PSPD) exclusively targeted gay men in undercover sex stings.
Heterosexual couples get a free pass on public sex in Palm Springs and throughout Riverside County.
A backroom deal was struck with the Riverside County District Attorney’s Office to force those arrested in the sting operations to plead to a harsher charge, requiring lifetime registration as a sex offender.
These contentions are being raised in a Riverside County discrimination motion going before a Superior Court judge in Indio on June 14.
On May 4, Deputy Public Defender Roger Tansey, who is the attorney for the defendants, and Public Defender Gary Windom, filed numerous documents related to this case.
Tansey told SDGLN in an exclusive interview that he believes this case is about “homophobia” and that the Palm Springs police are out to “get the gay guys.”
SDGLN has obtained a copy of the court document from Thomas Hughes, who was a Deputy District Attorney for Riverside County from 2007 to 2009 and who was assigned to the Indio branch. The document – which the DA is trying to get excluded from the trial -- provides an insider glimpse into how Palm Springs initiated its 2009 undercover sting operation.
Hughes describes a 2008 sting operation conducted by the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department, which provides police services to the city of Rancho Mirage. As with the Palm Springs operation, the Rancho Mirage sting was directed at men who have public sex with men, not at heterosexual couples.
Hughes said the county prosecutors settled a majority of the 2008 cases for violations of Penal Code sections 647(a) or 415. Those are much less serious misdemeanor charges than Penal Code 314, which requires lifetime registration as a sex offender.
In his document, Hughes states that he was informed that the Palm Springs Police Department (PSPD) wanted to ensure ahead of the sting operation that their cases would only settle for violations of the more serious Penal Code 314.
“I have been informed and thereon believe that during spring or summer of 2009, a meeting was therefore set up between the PSPD and the District Attorney’s Office,” Hughes states in the document.
“The DA’s Office was represented by Trisha Fransdahl, a Supervising Deputy District Attorney, who met with members of the PSPD. This meeting occurred before the sting operation took place and before anyone was arrested. At that meeting, it was agreed that all of those arrested would be charged with violations of Penal Code sections 314 and 647(a). It was also agreed that Defendants would only be allowed to plead to the 314 count. Based on my experience at the District Attorney’s Office, such a meeting, before anyone is even arrested, is unusual.”
Hughes also states that the DA’s Office decided that the Palm Springs sting cases would not be subject to negotiations or plea deals.
Bolstering the discrimination claim is this statement by Hughes: “I was also in my office when I personally heard Linda Dunn, head of the Eastern Division of the District Attorney’s Office and the supervisor of Ms. Frandahl, make homophobic remarks. This occurred when I overheard Lee Roberts, one of the District Attorneys on the Palm Springs cases, express a desire to Ms. Dunn to visit the scene of the sting.
“Several times I heard Ms. Dunn make disparaging remarks about ‘those people’ as she laughingly expressed concern for Mr. Roberts’s safety if he were to visit Palm Springs. Ms. Dunn did not want Mr. Roberts to go, stating that, ‘I don’t want you around ‘those’ people, we don’t know what they’re capable of doing. If you go, be safe.'”
A regular reader alerts me to this interesting piece in the National Journal by Jonathan Rauch. He has a fascinating review of the new book Red Families v. Blue Families: Legal Polarization and the Creation of Culture by Naomi Cahn (George Washinton University law professor) and June Carbone (University of Missouri Kansas City law professor) which explains why it it is possible to predict how a state will vote in national elections by looking at its population's average age at first marriage and childbirth.However, as Cahn and Carbone point out, times have changed, and norms in some parts of the country have changed with them.For generations, American family life was premised on two facts. First, sex makes babies. Second, low-skilled men, if they apply themselves, can expect to get a job, make a living, and support a family.
Fact 1 gave rise to a strong linkage between sexual activity, marriage, and procreation. It was (and still is) difficult for teenagers and young adults to abstain from sex, so one important norm was not to have sex before marriage. If you did have premarital sex and conceived a child, you had to marry.
Under those rules, families formed early, whether by choice or at the point of a shotgun. That was all right, however, because (Fact 2) the man could get a job and support the family, so the woman could probably stay home and raise the kids. Neither member of the couple had to have an extended education in order to succeed as spouse or parent.
True, young people often make poor marital choices. But that, too, was usually all right, at least from society's point of view, because divorce was stigmatized and fairly hard to get. Even a flawed marriage was likely to be a stable one. Over time, the spouses would grow into their responsibilities.
That is what "families form adults" means.
By analyzing the data one can see the connection to Blue and Red America:In this very different world, early family formation is often a calamity. It short-circuits skill acquisition by knocking one or both parents out of school. It carries a high penalty for immature marital judgment in the form of likely divorce. It leaves many young mothers, now bearing both the children and the cultural responsibility for pregnancy, without the option of ever marrying at all.
New norms arise for this environment, norms geared to prevent premature family formation. The new paradigm prizes responsible childbearing and child-rearing far above the traditional linkage of sex, marriage, and procreation. Instead of emphasizing abstinence until marriage, it enjoins: Don't form a family until after you have finished your education and are equipped for responsibility. In other words, adults form families. Family life marks the end of the transition to adulthood, not the beginning.
And in an economic downtown, political and socio-cultural divisions become even more stark. Interesting, eh?Red norms, on the other hand, create a quandary. They shun abortion (which is blue America's ultimate weapon against premature parenthood) and emphasize abstinence over contraception. But deferring sex in today's cultural environment, with its wide acceptance of premarital sex, is hard. Deferring sex and marriage until you get a college or graduate degree -- until age 23 or 25 or beyond -- is harder still. "Even the most devout overwhelmingly do not abstain until marriage," Cahn and Carbone write.
In any case, for a lot of people, a graduate education or even a bachelor's degree is unrealistic. The injunction to delay family formation until you are 24 and finish your master's offers these people only cold comfort.
The result of this red quandary, Cahn and Carbone argue, is a self-defeating backlash. Moral traditionalism fails to prevent premarital sex and early childbirth. Births precipitate more early marriages and unwed parenthood. That, in turn, increases family breakdown while reducing education and earnings.
"The consequential sense of failure increases the demands to constrain the popular culture -- and blue family practices such as contraception and abortion -- that undermines parental efforts to instill the right moral values in children," Cahn and Carbone say. "More sex prompts more sermons and more emphasis on abstinence." The cycle repeats. Culturally, economically, and politically, blue and red families drift further apart as their fortunes diverge.
President Barack Obama filled out his census form and let The New York Times know that he completed the race portion as "Black."
MadProfessah also checked the "Black, African Am. or Negro" answer to the race question. I find it interesting that President Obama wouldn't use this opportunity to promote his multiracial heritage by including his Black and White heritage. I wonder if recent complaints from Black politicians that the President has not done enough to help African Americans through the recent financial hardships influenced the President's decision on this question.A White House spokesman confirmed that Mr. Obama, the son of a black father from Kenya and a white mother from Kansas, checked African-American on the 2010 census questionnaire.
The president, who was born in Hawaii and raised there and in Indonesia, had more than a dozen options in responding to Question 9, about race. He chose “Black, African Am., or Negro.”
[...]Mr. Obama could have checked white, checked both black and white, or checked the last category on the form, “some other race,” which he would then have been asked to identify in writing.
There is no category specifically for mixed race or biracial.
Republican State Senator Roy Ashburn was arrested 2 a.m. Wednesday morning for driving under the influence (DUI) less than a block from the well-known gay bar Faces in Sacramento. There was another man (so far, unidentified) in the car at the time of the arrest.Ashburn has been a loud opponent of LGBT rights and has organized and hosted anti-gay marriage rallies for the Traditional Values Coalition. He also has a 100% rating from the anti-gay Capitol Resource Family Impact group for voting against every LGBT rights bill during his tenure.Here is a video of a local television station's coverage of the scandal:
[...]
Ashburn is being term-limited out of office in 2010. In January he surprised supporters by announcing that he would not be running for the U.S. House or the powerful California State Tax Board, two jobs he'd publicly had his eye on for the last year. Ashburn divorced his wife in 2003.
ANTI-GAY VOTING RECORD: In March 2009, Sen. Ashburn voted against a Senate resolution declaring Proposition 8 unconstitutional. Ashburn voted three times to oppose the creation of Harvey Milk Day. In September he voted against California recognizing out of state same-sex marriages. In 2008 he voted to oppose an expansion of the state's insurance laws to include sexual orientation as a protected class.
The Supreme Court has set the oral argument date of April 28th in the closely watched case of Doe v. Reed, which is the case in which proponents of the anti-gay ballot measure Referendum 71 (which, if rejected by voters would have prevented Washington's comprehensive domestic partnership statute from going into effect) won an emergency injunction from the US Supreme Court prior to the November 2009 election barring the release of the information of those who had signed to get the question on the ballot. Referendum 71 was approved so that the anti-gay side lost their bid to use the ballot box to write their homophobic views into state law, but the question of whether Washington State's public disclosure law trumps the right of heterosexual supremacists who sign petitions to eliminate the rights of others is still a matter of judicial dispute.I believe that both the answers to these questions could be Yes (though, actually there are two questions in Question #2, the second of which is moot at this point) and Petitioners should lose their case. Respondent (the State of Washington being represented by Secretary of State Sam Reed) should rely heavily on the excellent 9th Circuit Court appellate opinion in this case.
- Whether the First Amendment right to privacy in political speech, association, and belief requires strict scrutiny when a state compels public release of identifying information about petition signers.
- Whether compelled public disclosure of identifying information about petition signers is narrowly tailored to a compelling interest, and whether Petitioners met all the elements required for a preliminary injunction.
President Obama announced his intent to nominate the follow individuals [March 3rd]:
John Berry, Nominee for Director of the Office of Personnel Management
John began his Federal career as a Legislative Director for U.S. Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD), a major leader on all issues affecting the Civil Service. John was responsible for overseeing Hoyer's work Federal employees, and was the primary craftsman behind the locality pay reform, among many other issues affecting pay and benefits of employees and retirees.
John began his management career at the Department of Treasury, where he served as Deputy Assistant Secretary and acting Assistant Secretary for Law Enforcement. Later in the Clinton administration, John was appointed Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and Budget, where he focused on employee partnerships, worklife issues for employees and reversing years of decline by achieving one of the largest budgetary increases in the Department's 150 year history.
As Director of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, John worked with Interior Inspector General, Earl Devaney, to reconcile 20 years of financial records, establish sound management practices, while also conserving over 3 million acres of wildlife habitat through innovative public-private partnerships.
Most recently, John was hired to turn around the National Zoo, which was laboring under continual reports of issues and problems. In its Accreditation approval last year it was noted that "It is good to see the National Zoo worthy of its name again." John has completed a strategic plan, a mangement[sic] reorganization, and a 20 year capital master plan. John also recognized a critical weakness in the absence of fire protection at the Zoo and has secured the funding (35 million) to replace the Zoo's water main and install sprinklers throughout the Zoo, while also launching the renovation of the 1930 elephant house and seal and Sea Lion exhibits.
Julius Genachowski, Nominee for Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission
Genachowski is a technology executive and entrepreneur with strong experience in both the private sector and public service. He is Cofounder and Managing Director of LaunchBox Digital and Rock Creek Ventures, and a Special Advisor at General Atlantic. He was a senior executive for eight years at IAC/InterActiveCorp, where his positions included Chief of Business Operations and General Counsel.
[...]
Genachowski received a J.D in 1991 from Harvard Law School (magna cum laude), where he was co-Notes Editor of the Harvard Law Review, and a B.A. in 1985 from Columbia College (magna cum laude). Genachowski was raised in New York, and now resides in Washington DC. He is married to Rachel Goslins and has three children, Jacob, Lilah and Aaron.
Queerty and Joe.My.God are among several blogs that are reporting about a major Religious Identification study which reports that the number of Americans who respond "none" when asked their religion is up to 15%.Fifteen percent of respondents said they had no religion, an increase from 14.2 percent in 2001 and 8.2 percent in 1990, according to the American Religious Identification Survey.Of course, the impact that an increase in the percentage of people who do not believe in ancient homophobic religious dictates is good news for the LGBT rights movement, as a Queerty analysis shows. New England (Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont) contains the states that are the most progressive on LGBT rights in the United States and just happens to be the least religious section of the country, with 34% if Vermonters saying that they have no religion while CT and MA both have marriage equality already and VT and NH have civil unions. In 2009, all 4 states in New England that do not have civil marriage for same-sex couples will be considering bills to legalize the practice--more than half are expected to pass their respective legislatures.
Northern New England surpassed the Pacific Northwest as the least religious region, with Vermont reporting the highest share of those claiming no religion, at 34 percent. Still, the study found that the numbers of Americans with no religion rose in every state.
“No other religious bloc has kept such a pace in every state,” the study’s authors said.
Here's a quiz:
1) Name 10 openly LGBT elected (or appointed) officials.
2) What are the names of the 10 largest LGBT civil rights groups in the country (by budget).
3) Name 5 people who have led one (or more) of the groups listed in your answer to (2).
4) MULTIPLE CHOICE. "Homosexual" Sodomy between consulting adults has been legal everywhere in the United States for:
(a) 10 years (b) 5 years (c) never (d) Always
5) TRUE OR FALSE. "A majority of citizens live under the jurisdiction of sexual orientation inclusive non-discrimination statutes in the USA."
Stephen L. Carter's New England White is the sequel to his The Emperor of Ocean Park (see MadProfessah's review), which was a delightfully amusing and densely plotted murder mystery containing trenchant social commentary on academia, race, law and political correctness.
TerranceDC has a great post over at Pam's House Blend about Major Alan Rogers, a Black gay soldier who was killed in Iraq on January 27, 2008 at the age of 40. He was awarded the Purple Heart and Bronze Star for sacrificing his life to save two of his fellow soldiers and his funeral occurred in March right before the the 5-year Iraq War milestone.If someone who was obviously this out that this many people knew about his sexual orientation (hello, 40 years old in the military and "unmarried and childless"!) dies in a newsworthy fashion what will it take to get the media to report fairly about the sexual orientation of someone who where the issue was not so clear cut.
For The Post, Rogers's death raised an unanswerable question: Would he have wanted to be identified as gay? Friends also struggled with that question but decided to tell The Post that he was because, they said, he wanted the military's "don't ask, don't tell" rule repealed. Yet a cousin and a close friend felt that his sexual orientation was not important; his immediate family members are deceased.
The Post story would have made any soldier proud. It quoted his commanding officer: "As God would have it . . . he shielded two men who probably would have been killed if Alan had not been there." Rogers was "an exceptional, brilliant person -- just well-spoken and instantly could relate to anyone."
[...]Shay Hill, his beneficiary and University of Florida roommate, said that he and Rogers were "like brothers" and that he knew Rogers was gay. "He worked to change the system from within. You don't out yourself to make a point. Just because he's gay should have no more relevance than I'm straight. It's not fair to make a bigger deal out of this than it needs to be."
Other friends felt differently. James A. "Tony" Smith of Alexandria, an Air Force veteran, knew Rogers through AVER. He said that Rogers "was very open about being gay. It was a major part of his life. It does a disservice to his memory" not to mention it.
Rogers abided by "don't ask, don't tell" only because "he wanted to stay a soldier," Smith said. "He was first and foremost a soldier, and he loved serving his country." Rogers's ties to the veterans group were "widely and publicly known." Austin Rooke, Rogers's friend and a former Army captain, said, "He was among the most open active-duty military people I've ever met. I can't imagine him not wanting people to know."
[...]The Post was right to be cautious, but there was enough evidence -- particularly of Rogers's feelings about "don't ask, don't tell" -- to warrant quoting his friends and adding that dimension to the story of his life. The story would have been richer for it.
" The division lies at the intersection of sex and drugs in a country
that doesn't have a clue how to deal with them. So you have become
comfortable walking around with a target on your back. You all should be
very proud of the work you do under the conditions you do it."
"I am sorry to report that over the last 5 years, we have had less and
less money available for new projects each year. We have had to cut some
ongoing projects. We can't do everything even if everything is a high
priority. At this point, we only do high priority work and when we cut,
we cut the lowest of the high priorities."
"Challenge assumptions. New opportunities are likely to be coming with a
new administration. Be ready! I want you to think carefully about needle
exchange. While it might seem right to overturn the ban on the use of
federal dollars, the ban has forced local jurisdictions to put their
dollars into HIV prevention. If the ban is lifted, I am concerned that
the local dollars will dry up. Then, which federal dollars will be
shifted to replace the loss of those local dollars?"
"One of the things I have learned over my many years at CDC is that
Leadership matters. And CDC has not always been blessed with great
leadership. Great leadership is imperceptible. You don't even know that
it is there. But bad leadership is always evident. You trip all over it.
Things don't work, nothing gets done or what gets done is ineffective.
Expect excellent leadership; demand it."
"I want to finish up by saying that I am concerned that the scale of
what you are doing is inadequate to make the impact on the epidemic that
you must make. It is a huge challenge to guide programs to hit an 80%
target when they are only funded at 20%. While the testing
recommendations and the community mobilization among African Americans
can help reduce stigma, HIV prevention programs and addressing issues
such as housing, poverty, substance abuse, racism, homophobia, and child
abuse will take much, much more. In 2002, in my CPLS address, I pointed
out that AIDS advocates had shifted their focus from the United States
to Africa and they succeeded in garnering real money for Africa. With
the new PEPFAR reauthorization being considered this month at $30 to $50
billion, I am concerned that America has forgotten her own. Here at
home, resources do not meet the need."
Rank Name Firm Name 2007 Earnings*
1 John Paulson Paulson & Co. $3.7 billion
2 George Soros Soros Fund Management 2.9 billion
3 James Simons Renaissance Technologies Corp. 2.8 billion
4 Philip Falcone Harbinger Capital Partners 1.7 billion
5 Kenneth Griffin Citadel Investment Group 1.5 billion
6 Steven Cohen SAC Capital Advisors 900 million
7 Timothy Barakett Atticus Capital 750 million
8 Stephen Mandel Jr. Lone Pine Capital 710 million
9 John Griffin Blue Ridge Capital 625 million
10 O. Andreas Halvorsen Viking Global Investors 520 million
[...]
To my dearest compatriots, who have recently honored me so much by electing me a member of the Parliament where so many agreements should be adopted of utmost importance to the destiny of our Revolution, I am saying that I will neither aspire to nor accept, I repeat, I will neither aspire to nor accept the positions of President of the State Council and Commander in Chief.
[...]The path will always be difficult and require from everyone's intelligent effort ... The adversary to be defeated is extremely strong; however, we have been able to keep it at bay for half a century.
This is not my farewell to you. My only wish is to fight as a soldier in the battle of ideas. I shall continue to write under the heading of 'Reflections by comrade Fidel.' It will be just another weapon you can count on. Perhaps my voice will be heard. I shall be careful.
Thanks.
Fidel Castro Ruz
Last spring, Congressman Barney Frank introduced HR 2015, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which prevents employers from discriminating against workers based on sexual orientation or gender identity. After much discussion, House leadership determined that Congress did not have the political will to pass HR 2015, and has decided to move forward with a narrower ENDA bill, HR 3685, that prevents discrimination based only on sexual orientation. While it is not the inclusive bill we wanted, if passed by the House, HR 3685 would be the largest and most prominent step Congress has ever taken in protecting gay rights.
While the bill Congress is set to vote on a non-inclusive ENDA is not what we wanted, the Human Rights Campaign decided to stay at the table with Congress to fight for the best bill possible, and because passage of this legislation is a first and absolutely necessary step toward preventing discrimination based on gender identity.
Throughout this entire struggle, the Human Rights Campaign has been guided by the principle of equality for all. We’ve also been guided by the need to navigate potential roadblocks in order to achieve that equality and we’ve tried not to get ourselves boxed into a corner -- especially if that corner opposes progress.
We believe that staying at the table and negotiating in support of the best possible bill is better than simply walking away. It isn’t right and it’s a disappointing reality of how politics works but if we are going to win we can’t ever be disillusioned by letting the perfect get in the way of the good. But, without a doubt, the only path to achieving a bill protecting our whole community is by achieving a successful House vote tomorrow. A defeat of ENDA tomorrow would set back the possibility of an inclusive bill for many, many years.
Moral and principled advocates for equality can disagree on strategies but we should never question each others commitment to the common goal of equality we all share. We hope that our partners in the ongoing fight for equality will join with us in this step forward and not seek to divide us.
The Family Research Council, Traditional Values Coalition and their allies would like nothing more than for our movement to fail, and for ENDA to die in this Congress. To stand idly by and let that happen would constitute ceding ground.
Once it was clear that HR 3685 was heading to the House floor for debate and a vote, HRC joined the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights (LCCR) and other civil rights groups on a letter asking Members of Congress to vote for H.R. 3685. All of these groups agree, defeat of a major civil rights bill on the House floor would set back the movement many years.
Last night the bill was reported out of the Rules Committee. As of now, all indicators suggest that the ENDA will brought to the House floor for debate and a vote on Wednesday.
