Princess Cruise: Vancouver and Seattle

We drove around Vancouver and a quick tour of Stanley Park.

We had to stop to see the totem poles.

Time to head back to the United States and drive to Seattle.

Sean and I stayed with Adrian and Greg. Two days - and I didn't take one picture of the two of them. But Adrian took this picture of us.

We did a little sight-seeing. (talking about the pictures below)

Time to head to the airport. Sean eating, again. Then off to Los Angeles on Virgin America.

It was a great vacation. Relaxing on the cruise and visiting friends in Seattle. Next year?

Breathe In, Breathe Out

“We are going to have to do something different in America. You can't keep paying out $600 billion a year for oil.”

T. BOONE PICKENS, billionaire oilman, on his plans to build one of the largest wind farms in the world

Oil Executives Defend Enormous Profits Before Senat

Senators told oil executives Wednesday that high oil prices cannot be explained by supply and demand and the oil industry's concentration - and OPEC price collusion - is contributing to the costs facing consumers.

Executives of the five largest oil companies were appearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said there's an unexplained "disconnect" between prices - at nearly $130 a barrel - and legitimate supply and demand.

"We need to get prices under control.... We can only conclude that the oil markets have failed," said Sen. Herbert Kohl, D-Wis.

But Shell Oil Co. Chairman John Hofmeister said the prices can be explained, saying, "The fundamental laws of supply and demand are at work."

An Oracle of Oil Predicts $200-a-Barrel Crude

Arjun N. Murti remembers the pain of the oil shocks of the 1970s. But he is bracing for something far worse now: He foresees a “super spike” — a price surge that will soon drive crude oil to $200 a barrel.

Mr. Murti, who has a bit of a green streak, is not bothered much by the prospect of even higher oil prices, figuring it might finally prompt America to become more energy efficient.

An analyst at Goldman Sachs, Mr. Murti has become the talk of the oil market by issuing one sensational forecast after another. A few years ago, rivals scoffed when he predicted oil would breach $100 a barrel. Few are laughing now. Oil shattered yet another record on Tuesday, touching $129.60 on the New York Mercantile Exchange. Gas at $4 a gallon is arriving just in time for those long summer drives.

Mr. Murti argues that the world’s seemingly unquenchable thirst for oil means prices will keep rising from here and stay above $100 into 2011. Others disagree, arguing that prices could abruptly tumble if speculators in the market rush for the exits. But the grim calculus of Mr. Murti’s prediction, issued in March and reconfirmed two weeks ago, is enough to give anyone pause: in an America of $200 oil, gasoline could cost more than $6 a gallon.

That would be fine with Mr. Murti, who owns not one but two hybrid cars. “I’m actually fairly anti-oil,” says Mr. Murti, who grew up in New Jersey. “One of the biggest challenges our country faces is our addiction to oil.”

Report: EPA Head Reversed Stand On Greenhouse Gas After White House Interference

The head of the Environmental Protection Agency initially supported giving California and other states full or partial permission to limit tailpipe emissions - but reversed himself after hearing from the White House, a report said Monday.

The report by the Democratic staff of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee cites interviews and depositions with high-level EPA officials. It amounts to the first solid evidence of the political interference alleged by Democrats and environmentalists since Administrator Stephen Johnson denied California's waiver request in December.

Johnson's decision also blocked more than a dozen other states that wanted to follow California's lead and regulate greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks. It was applauded by the auto industry and supported by the White House, which has opposed mandatory caps on greenhouse gas emissions.

At an EPA hearing Tuesday on Capitol Hill about ozone standards, Henry Waxman got into a heated exchange with Administrator Stephen Johnson over his evasive non-answers to simple, straightforward questions about whether or not he had certain discussions with the White House about key environmental issues. It got so tense at one point that a frantically gavel-slamming Waxman threatened to have Rep Darrell Issa “physically removed” from the hearing if he continued to obstruct Waxman’s line of inquiry.

Harvey Milk Day

“You gotta give ’em hope.”

Those words were spoken more than 30 years ago by activist Harvey Milk.

Today is Harvey Milk’s birthday, and I see it only fitting to reflect on what he accomplished and what we owe this brave man.

Harvey gave hope to a generation. He blew open the closet doors in 1976 as one of the nation’s first openly lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) elected officials. He inspired people to believe that equality could be achieved by living our lives openly and honestly.

To honor the late activist and hero, the California Assembly voted to approve a bill that would establish May 22 of every year as Harvey Milk Day in California, commemorating Harvey’s birthday. Assembly Bill 2567, authored by Assemblymember Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, would encourage public schools to share Harvey’s story and his dream of a California – and nation – that embraces all of its people, without exception. The bill has passed the Assembly and is now working its way through Senate committees. If Harvey were alive today, he would be right here with us, celebrating our victory for marriage. And he would be fighting with us as anti-LGBT groups attempt to take marriage away from our families.

In 1978, Harvey led an impressive campaign to defeat an initiative that would have prevented LGBT people from teaching in public schools. It was a turning point in our movement.Once again, we are at a pivotal point in California. We need to follow in the footsteps of Harvey, who showed us that it takes an entire community to fight for, and achieve, equality.

In his day, Harvey had the support of President Jimmy Carter and former Gov. Ronald Regan to defeat the discriminatory initiative that would have prevented LGBT people from teaching in our schools. Thousands of gay men and lesbians came out to their families and friends at home - and in their workplaces and churches. They knocked on doors to have important conversations about fairness. Together, they defeated the initiative.

Today, LGBT Californians also have amazing support. We have Gov. Schwarzenegger’s pledge to defeat the initiative. The leadership of the LGBT legislative caucus in Sacramento. And heroes in cities across the Golden State, including Mayors Gavin Newsom, Antonio Villaraigosa and Jerry Sanders. We are not alone.

And we have you. Moms and Dads, brothers and sisters, partners, friends and volunteers who, during the next six months, will spend hours talking to people about what marriage means to them. Your passion fuels our work.

Today, I have more than hope. I know we will defeat the anti-marriage initiative, securing a victory just like Harvey Milk helped us do in 1978.

Passionfruit Flower

The passionfruit vine just started growing on the side of the house. Each Spring, it gives me lots of flowers and even some fruit. Then in the Fall, I try to rip all of the vine out - comes back every year.

AFA: Gearing Up Against Marriage

Sen. McCain is the one person who should lead the battle to protect traditional marriage!

Sen. McCain needs to lead the way in promoting a federal marriage amendment

As you know, the California Supreme Court has legalized homosexual marriage. This happened despite the fact that voters in California passed Proposition 22 with 61.4 percent of the vote. Proposition 22 defined marriage as only between one man and one woman.

The recent 4-3 ruling, if allowed to stand, would destroy marriage as it has been known for thousands of years. It would lead to the logical conclusion of the following:
-Legalization of polygamous and other aberrant unions as "marriages"
-Legalization of marriage between an adult parent and adult child
-Legalization of group marriage
-Overturn all the marriage laws in the other 49 state

Take Action!

Sen. McCain has said in the past he supports marriage only between one man and one woman. But he voted against the federal amendment when it was voted on in the Senate. Such an amendment would override the legalization of homosexual marriage by the liberal California Supreme Court. It is time for Sen. McCain to take a stand for marriage!

Sincerely,

Donald E. Wildmon

Founder and Chairman

American Family Association

[Doesn't Don know that lying is a sin!]

CA High-Speed Rail Initiative - "If We Don't Pass This, We Will Never Have High-Speed Trains in the US"

California State Assemblywoman and Majority Whip Fiona Ma, a leading advocate for high-speed rail in California, was on hand last month at the Ecocity World Summit to talk about the $10 billion bond initiative for high-speed rail in California this November. The vote on the bond has twice been postponed, in 2004 and 2006, and could be postponed for a third time this year.

Ma, however, believes that, after 10 years of work on the initiative, this year may finally be the "perfect storm" that gets the plan approved, due to rising gas prices, road congestion, endless lines at the airports and the latest airline crisis. Japan, Ma noted, has had high-speed rail for 40 years, and France for 25. Countries all over the world are now developing high-speed rail, and California and the US are "light years behind" the rest of the world.

High-speed rail is the most environmentally-sound option for meeting California's future transport needs, and must be part of the discussion about global warming.

California is the world's 12th largest single source of carbon emissions, and emissions from transportation make up around 38% of total emissions. While Governator Schwarzenegger has committed the state to drastic reductions in greenhouse emissions over the next several decades, car-based planning has led to serious increases in automobile miles traveled in the state.

According to Ma, the proposed high-speed rail line, running from San Diego to Sacramento, with travel times of two and a half hours between LA and San Francisco, would be the most effective single investment that the state could make to lower greenhouse emissions, improve quality of life and stimulate the economy.

From Equality California

Let me get right to the point: Our historic marriage victory is at risk.

We have learned through campaign filings that our opponents have already raised more than $2 million from individuals and right-wing groups including Focus on the Family to fund their mean-spirited attempt to overturn our marriage victory at the ballot box.

And this is just a drop in the bucket compared to what they will spend between now and November.

Let's face it: As we have seen in other states, they will use every lie in their dirty trick playbook to deny us the freedom to marry and the equality we have fought so hard to finally achieve. They will be vicious in their attacks on our families and us. We can’t let their lies and attacks go unanswered. We can't let them get away with it.

www.eqca.org/issuespac/donation

Marriage for Same-Sex Couples in California: Frequently Asked Questions

Can same-sex couples marry in California?
Yes. On May 15, 2008, the California Supreme Court ruled that barring same-sex couples from marriage is unconstitutional. Beginning as soon as June 16, same-sex couples will be able to marry in California.

Can the court’s decision be appealed?
No. The California Supreme Court has the final say in cases brought under the California Constitution, like this case, and there can be no more appeals.

Does the court’s decision affect the rights of heterosexual couples?
No. The rights of heterosexual couples to marry and the rights and responsibilities of those who are married remain exactly the same. The decision simply ensures equality and fairness for same-sex couples.

Does this ruling require religious groups or clergy members to marry same-sex couples?
No. The court’s decision said the government may not discriminate against same-sex couples by barring them from civil marriage – a legal institution established and regulated by the government. Religious groups and clergy members remain free to recognize or refuse to recognize marriages within their religion as each sees fit. While some faiths do not permit same-sex couples to marry within that faith, a growing number do. As a result of the court’s decisions, same-sex couples may choose to be married by a clergy person in a welcoming community of faith or by a civil servant such as a judge or authorized deputy.

Should we get married now?
Marriage is a serious legal and personal commitment that should not be entered into lightly. Before getting married, couples should educate themselves about the legal consequences of marriage, in addition to other considerations.

Same-sex couples also face some additional considerations that heterosexual couples do not face, due to discrimination by the federal government as well as by a number of states. Deciding whether to marry is an important decision for everyone, gay or straight, but lesbian and gay couples have to be prepared for and be willing to take on those additional challenges.

A period of legal uncertainty is likely. For example, if you marry in California, you cannot be certain whether your marriage will be respected if you live in, travel to, or move to a state that has laws or constitutional amendments limiting marriage to heterosexual couples.

In addition, current federal law prohibits the federal government from recognizing marriages of same-sex couples for purposes of the many federal rights and benefits given to married heterosexual couples, such as the right to file joint federal income taxes and the right to social security benefits as a surviving spouse. Being excluded from these federal protections, and often state protections as well, is a serious hardship and can cause significant legal problems.

Important Note: Binational couples in which one member does not have permanent legal resident status in this country and anyone serving in the U.S. military should consult with an attorney with expertise in these areas of law before getting married.

If we’re already in a registered domestic partnership in California, do we have to dissolve our domestic partnership before we can marry?
No. The California domestic partnership statutes permit an individual to be both married and in a registered domestic partnership, so long as it is to the same person. In addition, there may be legal protections that are available through domestic partnership but not through marriage. For example, some states that will not honor marriages of same-sex couples may honor domestic partnerships.

Do you have to be a California resident to marry in California?
No. There is no residency requirement to marry in California.

If my partner and I are from another state and marry in California, will our marriage be valid in our home state?
If you live in another state and get married in California, you will be legally married. However, depending on where you live, your home state may not respect your marriage. Many states have passed discriminatory marriage laws, and in those states, state and local governments likely will not respect your California marriage. But even in those states, it is highly likely that at least some private businesses and other private third parties will respect your marriage – particularly those that already recognize same-sex couples through domestic partnership or a similar system.

Marriage is a serious legal decision, and same-sex couples face additional challenges and questions because of continuing discrimination against married same-sex couples by the federal government and many states. We urge couples who are considering getting married in California to proceed with caution. Before getting married in California, you should educate yourselves about the law in your state and, if possible, consult an attorney about the best way to protect your relationship based on your circumstances.

Can we file lawsuits if our marriages are not respected in other states or by the federal government?
If you feel you have been discriminated against, please contact one of the LGBT legal organizations listed on this document. We can help you figure out what options you have to protect your rights. Some types of unfair treatment can be the basis of a lawsuit, and other times the unfairness may not be suitable for a court to address. Even when litigation is an option, it is not the only option. It is always necessary to weigh the chances of success or failure because bad results in lawsuits can cause set backs and hurt our entire community. We want to increase the chances of winning overall, so it is critical that we work together to have a carefully planned strategy. Together, we can win!

What do we have to do to marry in California?
First you need to get a marriage license from the office of the Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk of any California county. You can get a license application from most counties’ websites and complete it in advance, or complete it in the county clerk’s office. Both of you must go together to the county office and present a government-issued picture ID and proof that you are over 18 years old. (If either or both is younger than 18, different procedures apply.) You’ll need to pay the license fee, which varies by county but generally is less than $100. The license will be valid for 90 days and your marriage can be performed anywhere in California. Neither a blood test nor a health certificate is required. Call ahead or visit the county’s website to learn the hours and locations of the county offices that issue licenses.

Who can marry us?
In California, clergy members, active and retired judges and court commissioners, and the Commissioner and Deputy Commissioners of Civil Marriages are authorized to perform legal marriages. The Commissioner and Deputy Commissioners of Civil Marriages perform marriage ceremonies by appointment at designated county offices. There is a fee, which generally is less than $50. Call ahead or visit the county website for more information.

Any couple wishing to marry can also have a friend deputized to perform their marriage ceremony through a county “Deputy Commissioner for a Day” program. If you choose this option, you will need at least two months advance notice and the person to be deputized to perform your ceremony will have to pay a fee and visit the county office in person to be sworn in. Visit the county website to see if your county has this program. If it does not, check whether a nearby county will deputize an out-of-county resident.

The person who performs your ceremony must complete and sign your marriage license after the ceremony. In addition, at least one witness 18 years old or older must sign the marriage license.

The license then becomes your marriage certificate, which has to be returned promptly to the county for filing.

What happens if we marry in California and then wish to divorce?
The only legal way to end a marriage is to get a divorce. If you marry in California and live in California, you can divorce by filing a petition with a California court. However, if you move to another state, or if you already live in another state, getting a divorce could be difficult.

Currently, the only state other than California in which same-sex married couples have an established right to divorce is Massachusetts; however, Massachusetts has a one-year residency requirement before a person can petition a Massachusetts court for a divorce. States with civil unions or comprehensive domestic partnerships, like Connecticut, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oregon, and Vermont, may also allow married same-sex couples to divorce, but those states also have one-year residency requirements. That means that at least one spouse must be a resident of the state for a year prior to the divorce.

Couples who are unable to obtain a divorce remain legally married. Therefore, being unable to divorce may cause serious legal problems and complications for same-sex couples who find themselves in this situation.

Could right-wing forces take away the freedom to marry at the ballot box in California?
Yes. Because the court based its decision on rights guaranteed by the California Constitution, right-wing groups are trying to amend our state Constitution to eliminate these fundamental constitutional protections and take away the basis for the decision.These groups, which have received significant funding from out-of-state right-wing organizations, are placing an initiative on the November 2008 ballot that will ask voters to amend the California constitution to reverse the court’s decision and deny gay and lesbian couples the freedom to marry.

Already, many state leaders are expressing their opposition to this proposed constitutional amendment. For example, in a public statement on April 11, 2008, Governor Schwarzenegger stated that an initiative to amend the California Constitution to ban gay and lesbian couples from marriage was “a waste of time,” adding “I will always be there to fight against that. It will never happen.”

We agree with Governor Schwarzenegger that these outsiders are wasting their time and money trying to turn California into a state that would use its Constitution to take away civil rights and hurt families. But it will take every one of us to stop this antifamily initiative. For more information about how to get involved, contact Equality For All at www.EqualityForAll.com.

What can we do to help preserve the freedom to marry we have just won?
We urge you to get involved today! For more information about how you can help, please contact Equality For All at www.EqualityForAll.com. Now that we have won this victory, all residents of California are better off, because strengthening any group of families makes stronger communities for everyone. All people who value families and fairness have a stake in preserving the freedom to marry for lesbian and gay couples. We cannot afford to wait, please act now.

Federal Anti-Gay Amendment Returns In Wake Of California Ruling

Republican Congressman Paul Broun has announced plans to reintroduce an amendment to the US Constitution to bar same-sex marriage.

Broun (R-Ga) said the California Supreme Court ruling recognizing same-sex marriage has made it an imperative to reign in what he called "activist judges".

[I was wondering how long it would take for the GOP and far-right to say ‘activist judges.’ The majority of the Justices on the California Supreme Court were appointed by Republicans.]

"My amendment will preserve the original intent of the drafters of the Constitution, by ensuring that no state or federal judge can take it upon themselves to suddenly discover a right to homosexual marriage within the text of the document," Broun said in a statement.
"It will also provide a defense against activist judges who seek to overturn the will of the people by manipulating state constitutions in order to impose their preferred policy position."

Conservatives in California already are organizing a proposed amendment to ban gay marriage but Broun said even if approved by voters in that state would not prevent similar ruling elsewhere in the country.

Voters in Broun's home state of Georgia approved an amendment to the state constitution outlawing same-sex marriage in 2004. "There simply is no basis for the suggestion that homosexual ‘marriage’ is a right protected by the United States Constitution," Broun said.

Republicans have been trying to amend the Constitution since 2004, as a result of; the Massachusetts high court ruling that legalized gay marriage there.

Despite GOP control of Congress and support from President Bush, a proposed amendment failed to garner enough votes to succeed in either 2004 or 2006. With Democrats now in control of both the House and Senate it is considered unlikely Broun's move to reintroduce the measure will even make it to committee.

Still, Broun said he intends to make it a key issue in his re-election campaign.

While all three presidential hopefuls oppose amending the US Constitution, Republican Sen. John McCain has said he supports proposed state amendments in his home state of Arizona and in California.

Amending the US Constitution requires approval of two-thirds of the House and Senate and then would have to pass by three-fourths of state legislatures.

Mimi - Smart Car

I brought home Mimi about a week ago.

Okay, so she gets great gas mileage. She is a convertible. The top can be raised or lowered at any speed. Leather heated seats, automatic sensing lights and windshield washers, four airbags, and 6 CD changer.

I love not having to go the gas station every week. In fact, I still haven’t put gas in her yet. The first time I will fill up the gas tank will probably be this weekend.

You can see below about the good ratings on crash tests.

I like that I am just carting around enough car for what I need on a general basis. 99% of the time it is just me in the car, so I don’t need space for 5 people, plus cargo. The United States needs to get used to the idea of smaller vehicles that get better mileage.

France To Push UN For Decriminalization Of Homosexuality

The French government will press the United Nations to pressure countries to abolish bans on homosexuality the country's minister for human rights has announced.

Homosexuality remains a crime in 75 countries. In many of those countries, including Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Nigeria it is punishable by death. Sentences in other countries range from public floggings to imprisonment.

Human Rights Minister Rama Yade told a meeting of French LGBT rights groups that his government would make its appeal to the UN when France assumes the rotating six-month EU presidency in July.

During that period France will speak for all EU member states at the UN General Assembly.
Yade's commitment came as gays in countries around the world observed International Day Against Homophobia on Saturday.

The International Day Against Homophobia was launched in 2005 and commemorates the date in 1990 when the World Health Organization removed homosexuality from its list of disorders.
Human Rights Watch used IDAHO to launch blistering attacks on Poland and Uganda.

HRW said Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni of Uganda is leading a pogrom against gays. Homosexuality under Museveni's rule is punishable by life imprisonment.

The rights group also accused Polish President Lech Kaczynski of attempting to "deny basic rights" to LGBT people.

Gambian President Announces Plans to Behead All Gays

Gambian President Yahya Jammeh yesterdayissued a stern warning to gays and those who befriend them:

"Gambian President Yahya Jammeh says he will 'cut off the head' of any homosexual caught in his country. Addressing supporters at the end of his meet the farmers tour Sunday, Jammeh also ordered any hotel or motel housing homosexuals to close down, adding that owners of such facilities would also be in trouble. He said the Gambia was a country of believers, indicating that no sinful and immoral act as homosexual would be tolerated in the country. He warned all homosexuals in the country to leave, noting that a legislation 'stricter than those in Iran' concerning the vice would be introduced soon.”

In February, it was reported that gays were fleeing to The Gambia from surrounding Senegal, to avoid persecution from that government.

California gay-marriage fight could propel issue to U.S. Supreme Court

It was 1964. Conservative groups across California, angered by a new law aimed at discriminatory housing practices, mobilized to wipe the law off the books by amending the state constitution.

The initiative was a hit at the ballot box. Two-thirds of the state's voters approved the change in the constitution. But the new law didn't stick - both the California Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court struck it down, finding that it violated federal equal protection rights.

More than four decades later, that scenario could unfold again in California. This time, however, the issue is gay marriage, and California - because of its situation - may end up being the battleground that ultimately propels this modern day civil rights battle into the U.S. Supreme Court.

With social and religious conservatives moving to erase Thursday's California Supreme Court decision to legalize gay marriage with a fall ballot initiative, California is in a unique position. While dozens of states have enacted gay-marriage bans, none has done so after a state Supreme Court found a legal right for gay couples to wed.
"We'd be in uncharted legal territory," said Shannon Minter, legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, a lead attorney in challenging the gay-marriage ban.

The 4-3 state Supreme Court ruling found the state's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional, and declared that gay couples have the same legal right to marry as heterosexual couples.

Constitution, but the constitution would be amended if opponents succeed in getting an initiative passed that would outlaw same-sex marriage. Backers have gathered more than 1 million signatures, with just under 700,000 verified signatures needed to put it on the ballot.

A decision on whether it will reach the ballot is expected in June, about the same time gay couples can begin getting marriage licenses under the Supreme Court ruling.

There's little doubt that the California Supreme Court's ruling would be trumped if the measure passes, legal experts say. It would not only reinstate a gay-marriage ban but also place a legal cloud over the marriages of the thousands of same-sex couples who decide to wed in the coming months.

"The California Supreme Court needs to follow the California Constitution, and that is what the majority did on Thursday," said Jennifer Rothman, a Loyola University law professor. "So if a state constitutional amendment passed banning same-sex marriage, the court would have to honor that, at least as a state law matter. That doesn't mean that's the end of the story."

Civil rights groups say they would argue that any initiative, if passed, would not apply retroactively to gay couples who have already married. More important, they would also argue that the initiative violates the federal Constitution because same-sex couples are guaranteed rights under the Constitution's equal protection language. Therefore not only would the issue likely go back to the California Supreme Court, but possibly shift to the U.S. Supreme Court because federal constitutional questions would be raised.

For gay and lesbian couples who wed in the coming months, the legal uncertainty could put them in a precarious position if the ballot measure passes. The proposed measure does not specifically address same-sex couples who are already married, but reads: "Only a marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

Glen Lavy, a lawyer for the conservative Alliance Defense Fund, said his organization would argue any gay marriages would be invalid. He also said the state Supreme Court should put this week's ruling on hold until after the November election to avoid that confusion.

But civil rights lawyers plan to fight for any marriages that take place from June until the election in November.
"Our position certainly would be that once somebody is legally married, you can't undo that," Minter said.
The broader question is whether the ballot initiative would withstand another legal challenge similar to the one mounted against the laws struck down Thursday by the state Supreme Court. This time, federal constitutional rights to equal treatment would be at stake.

Lavy said he is confident the ban would hold up under federal law.

"The federal constitution does not provide for same-sex couples to be included in marriage," he said.
In this week's ruling, the California Supreme Court rejected the argument that it should follow the "will of the people" if a ballot initiative violates a constitutional right.

The court cited the legal challenge over the 1964 housing law, a constitutional amendment that allowed real estate agents and landlords in California to reject home buyers or tenants of their choice, even if it might be based on racial discrimination.

That law, Proposition 14, was struck down in 1967 by the state Supreme Court and, a year later, by the U.S. Supreme Court. The circumstances are different in that there was no state Supreme Court ruling in place when voters approved the housing law - but it nevertheless demonstrates that a constitutional amendment such as one banning gay marriage is not etched in legal stone.

Legal experts are divided over how the U.S. Supreme Court would deal with a gay-marriage case if it reaches their docket - not a foregone conclusion given the twists that could take place - but there is general agreement that civil rights lawyers would have an uphill fight with the current conservative majority.

"The federal courts would be looking at what all the states have done," said Vikram Amar, a University of California-Davis law professor. "California is still an outlier."

California Assembly Passes Harvey Milk Day Bill

The California Assembly has passed legislation honoring slain LGBT civil rights pioneer Harvey Milk. The bill, designating May 22 each year as Harvey Milk Day, now moves to the state Senate where it is expected to encounter little difficulty.

May 22 is Milk's birth date. He would have been 78 this year.

Milk was elected to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors in 1977 and shot to death a year later, along with Mayor George Moscone, by fellow supervisor Dan White. White was convicted of manslaughter, and served a little more than three years in prison before committing suicide.
In the years since his death, Milk has become the most recognizable martyr of the gay rights movement.

The bill requires the Governor to proclaim May 22 as Harvey Milk Day, and designates it as a "day of special significance" in California, encouraging schools to conduct suitable commemorative exercises on his life and contributions to the state.

The Assembly voted 45 to 23 to pass the bill, authored by Assemblyman Mark Leno (D).
"Harvey would be proud to know that his legacy continues to teach us to believe in ourselves and our dreams," said Leno in a statement following the vote. "Given the alarming rates of suicide, depression, substance abuse, bullying and violence against LGBT youth in our schools, the bill aims to give LGBT and straight students alike a positive representative of who LGBT people are that inspires pride and self-esteem rather than fear and shame. That is what Harvey was all about," he said.

Human Rights Watch Names Three Leaders to 'Hall of Shame'

Homophobia Threatens Lives and Families

The president of Poland, the leader of Uganda, and the UK Home Office are making prejudicial policies and public statements that deny people's dignity and endanger their lives, Human Rights Watch said today in its annual "Hall of Shame" to mark the International Day Against Homophobia.

On May 17, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) groups in dozens of countries will commemorate the International Day Against Homophobia, an initiative launched in 2005 that commemorates the day in 1990 when the World Health Organization removed homosexuality from its roster of disorders.

"Homophobia allows political leaders to smear loving relationships, smash the doors of houses, and slam the doors of a safe haven that should welcome refugees," said Scott Long, director of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Rights Program at Human Rights Watch. "Where prejudice trumps privacy and intolerance stifles intimacy, no one's rights are safe and no one's place is secure."

Inductees to the 'Hall of Shame'

Human Rights Watch named three leaders to the "Hall of Shame" for their actions in the past year in endangering LGBT people's dignity, families, and safety:

President Lech Kaczynski of Poland: for denying people respect for their family. Kaczynski and his allies -- including his brother, the former prime minister -- have campaigned for years to deny basic rights to Poland's LGBT people. In March 2008, in a nationally televised speech, Kaczynski railed against ratifying the European Union Reform Treaty, which would adopt the European Charter of Fundamental Rights. He claimed that provisions in the charter prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation would force legal recognition of same-sex relationships. He used film clips of the Canadian marriage ceremony of the US couple Brendan Fay and Thomas Moulton to warn of the "dangers" of legalizing same-sex marriage.

Fay and Moulton spoke out against how the president exploited their relationship. Eventually, they visited Poland to send a message that their marriage was a promise and affirmation, not a threat to others. Kaczynski is only one among many public figures worldwide who attack LGBT people's families for political ends. In Guatemala in 2007, Congress debated a bill to eliminate single-parent or other non-nuclear families from the definition of "family," and bar same-sex couples from any form of legal recognition. A proposed measure in Romania would define heterosexual marriage as the basis of the family, depriving many Romanian families of basic civil rights. In the name of protecting a particular model of the family, such measures deny innumerable families desperately needed protections.


President Yoweri Museveni of Uganda: for denying people privacy and security. In August 2007, after a coalition of LGBT organizations in Uganda launched a campaign called "Let Us Live in Peace," the government showed it had no intention of doing so. Ethics and Integrity Minister James Nsaba Buturo publicly called homosexuality "unnatural"; while dismissing claims that police harassed LGBT people, he warned, "We know them, we have details of who they are." The deputy attorney general called for the arrest of gays and lesbians, "because homosexuality is an offense under the laws of Uganda."

LGBT Ugandans have faced official harassment for years. In 2005, authorities raided the home of human rights defender Juliet Victor Mukasa and forced her into hiding. Government officials have censored media discussions of homosexuality and threatened to respond to any advocacy for LGBT rights with prison terms.

A colonial-era sodomy law in Uganda punishes homosexual conduct with life imprisonment. Worldwide, over 85 countries criminalize consensual homosexual conduct. Such laws give governments like Uganda's a pretext to invade people's private lives and deny them an essential right: to live in peace.

Home Office, United Kingdom: for denying people protection. People fleeing countries where they face abuses based on sexual orientation and gender identity often face asylum systems that fail to recognize the reality of their persecution, despite clear legal obligations not to deport individuals to countries where they are at risk of torture and abuse. The recent ordeal of the Iranian asylum-seeker Mehdi Kazemi, who in 2007 faced deportation from the United Kingdom to Iran -- despite laws imposing torture and the death penalty for homosexual conduct in Iran -- points to how the UK Home Office is failing to implement its human rights responsibilities. In 2008, Lord West of Spithead, Home Office minister in the UK House of Lords, said: "We are not aware of any individual who has been executed in Iran in recent years solely on the grounds of homosexuality, and we do not consider that there is systematic persecution of gay men in Iran."

"An asylum system where only the dead are found deserving is an asylum system that does not work," said Long. "Human rights law demands that those who face persecution be given protection, but persecution does not require corpses to prove it."

Human rights law forbids deporting people -- including LGBT people -- to places where they risk torture and serious abuse.

Recent Progress in LGBT Rights

Human Rights Watch has also pointed to three areas where advances in human rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people have given reason for hope.

In Colombia, the nation's Constitutional Court has handed down landmark decisions protecting LGBT people's rights in the sphere of relationship and family. It extended health care benefits and pension benefits to same-sex partners on a basis equal to those enjoyed in heterosexual relationships, and condemned the lack of legal protection for same-sex relationships. The decisions cited human dignity, personal autonomy, and equality as the core principles behind these decisions. The court has shown leadership to the country's Congress, which has debated at least six legislative initiatives to protect LGBT people's families in the last decade, without enacting any of them into law.

In Ireland, the High Court finally ended a transgender woman's 10-year legal struggle for state recognition, by ruling that the government had to grant her identity papers corresponding to the gender she lived in. The decision marked the first time that the High Court had ever found an Irish law incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. The "Yogyakarta Principles on the Application of International Law in Relation to Issues of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity," which spell out international legal standards for protecting against violence and discrimination, state that: "Each person's self-defined sexual orientation and gender identity is integral to their personality and is one of the most basic aspects of self-determination, dignity and freedom."

In Nepal, after years of civil war accompanied by violence targeting lesbians, gays, and transgender people, the Supreme Court on December 17, 2007, mandated legal and constitutional protections for sexual orientation and gender identity. The landmark decision requires that LGBT people's human rights be addressed in the process of reconciliation and reform, and may make Nepal a regional leader in addressing discrimination.

"In each of these cases, dedicated judges have upheld rights and the rule of law in the face of prejudice," said Long. "Their commitment to principle should be an example to political leaders."

2007 Hall of Shame

"This ‘hall of shame’ does not claim to include the worst offenders, but it highlights leaders who have lent their authority to denying basic human rights. Bush and Pope Benedict both speak of human dignity, but their homophobic words and actions undermine families and endanger health."

Last year's losers are Pope Benedict XVI, US President George W. Bush, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Polish Minister of Education Roman Giertych, and Philippine Chair of the House Committee on Civil, Political and Human Rights Bienvenido Abante.

From 'gay plague' to global tragedy: An AIDS anniversary

The campaign against AIDS marks an important anniversary this week, bringing to mind victories of science and the human spirit but also defeats, stigma and ignorance in a combat that has claimed more lives than World War I.

On May 20 1983, in a paper published in the US journal Science, a team from France's Pasteur Institute, led by Luc Montagnier, described a suspect virus found in a patient who had died of AIDS.

Montagnier's groundbreaking work led to the determination by US researcher Robert Gallo that the virus was indeed the cause of acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS).

At last, a key had been found to understanding the mysterious immune-ravaging disease -- the "gay plague" as British tabloids smugly called it -- which had surfaced among American homosexuals two years earlier.

It took another three years to resolve a spat over the pair's rival claims to be first to discover the AIDS virus, enabling the duo to share equally in the glory.

The mood was upbeat.

Never had a new, killer pathogen been identified so quickly.

Stoked by the success of antibiotics and the polio vaccine, optimism was brimming that this threat would now be stopped in its tracks.

"Today's discovery represents the triumph of science over a dreaded disease," the then US health secretary Margaret Heckler declared, when Gallo staked his claim on the virus discovery in April 1984.

"We hope to have a vaccine ready for testing in about two years."

Few promises have been so tragically premature.

When Heckler uttered those words, the tally of known cases of AIDS was less than 3,000.
Today, the number stands at 25 million dead, heterosexual and homosexual alike, and another 33 million infected.

The scale of human misery, though, is incalculable. A ragged army of more than 11 million children have lost one or both parents to the disease.

So what happened?

"In the field of AIDS, a huge number of mistakes have been made over the past 25 years," sighs a leading French researcher, Olivier Schwartz.

On the plus side, the men and women in lab coats made good headway against HIV.
They provided an arsenal of drugs that, with the advent of the triple "cocktail" of antiretrovirals in the mid-1990s, have helped turn HIV from a death sentence to a manageable disease.

But there is still no vaccine, for the virus has turned out to be an unimaginably slippery, mutating foe -- quite possibly the most elusive pathogen to have emerged in human history.

The Real McCain

Smart car gets highest score in crash tests

Unlike most cars on the road, the pint-sized 2008 Smart fortwo evokes a simple question at first glance: “How safe is it?”

The micro car, the smallest car for sale in the U.S. market, offers a good level of safety, according to new crash tests conducted by the insurance industry.

The 8-foot, 8-inch vehicle received the highest rating of good in front-end and side-impact testing by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, helping address some concerns that consumers may be more vulnerable in the tiny two-seater.The tests, released Wednesday, show how well vehicles stack up against others of similar size and weight. The institute noted that the front-end test scores can’t be compared across weight classes, meaning a small car that earns a good rating isn’t considered safer than a large car that did not earn the highest rating.Adrian Lund, the institute’s president, said a small car may be more practical in congested urban areas where serious, high-speed crashes are less likely. The institute conducted the crash test to help guide consumers who want a small car that can give them good protection.“All things being equal in safety, bigger and heavier is always better. But among the smallest cars, the engineers of the Smart did their homework and designed a high level of safety into a very small package,” Lund said.The institute’s frontal crash test simulates a 40 mile per hour crash with a similar vehicle. The side crash simulates what would happen if the vehicle was struck in the side by a sport utility vehicle at 31 mph.In a test that assessed the vehicle’s protection in rear crashes, the fortwo received the second-highest rating of acceptable.

Smart, a division of Daimler AG’s Mercedes-Benz brand, has arrived in U.S. showrooms this year as consumers deal with rising fuel prices. The vehicle, which had sold 6,159 units through the end of April, gets 33 miles per gallon in the city and 41 mpg on the highway. The fortwo is more than 3 feet shorter and nearly 700 pounds lighter than a Mini Cooper.

In earlier crash tests conducted by the government, Smart received the top score of five stars in side testing but the driver door unlatched during the test and opened. While it did not affect the vehicle’s test score, government regulators said the incident required them to note a safety concern for the vehicle which will appear on window stickers at dealerships.

The concern was warranted because the unlatching of the door could increase the likelihood of a driver or passenger being ejected from the vehicle, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said.

When the IIHS conducted its side test, the driver door also became unlatched. But the institute said the injury measurements on the test dummy were low and the opening didn’t affect the dummy’s movement.

The 1,800-pound car has a steel safety cage and four standard air bags, including two in front and two on the sides to protect the head and abdomen. It also has standard electronic stability control, which is designed to stop vehicles from swerving off the road.
“America has never seen a car this size before and their first question usually isn’t about (fuel) economy, it’s about safety,” said Dave Schembri, president of Smart USA. “And that’s why we think these results are so very important.”

Oil crosses $129 for first time, heads for $130

Oil prices spiked to a new trading high Tuesday, sweeping toward $130 a barrel as supply concerns intensified the momentum buying that has lifted crude deeper into record territory.

The June contract for light, sweet crude traded as high as $129.58 on the New York Mercantile Exchange before settling back to $129.12, up $2.07. The imminent expiration of the June contract created additional volatility in the market, and raised the very real possibility that crude could hit $130 before the end of the day, when the contract was ending.

Oil's trek toward $130 coincided with the Labor Department's report of an unexpectedly sharp rise in wholesale inflation last month. The combination raised fears that inflation will slice into Americans' discretionary spending, and that sent stocks falling sharply on Wall Street.

Jim Ritterbusch, president of Ritterbusch & Associates in Galena, Ill., said prices were being supported by strong demand for diesel fuel in Asia, and a weakening of the U.S. dollar against the euro, which makes oil cheaper for some investors overseas.

"We're getting a combination of two price drivers this morning," he said.

Oil prices are now about twice as high as they were just a year ago. Prices have been propelled by a number of factors, including supply concerns, soaring global demand and a sliding dollar.

This latest surge comes after OPEC's president was quoted as saying his organization won't increase its output before its next meeting in September, adding to lingering worries about global supply.

Ellen DeGeneres' Marriage Announcement

Here's the clip of Ellen Degeneres announcing she’s getting married on her show today. Ellen's partner, Portia de Rossi was in the audience.

Said Ellen: "Yesterday, the California Supreme Court overturned the ban on gay marriage. So I would like to say right now, for the first time, I am announcing that I am getting married...I’m so excited. It’s something that we’ve, of course, wanted to do, and we’ve wanted to be legal, and we’re very very excited."


Actor George Takei announced that he'll be taking advantage of the new California same-sex marriage law and wedding his partner and business manager Brad Altman.

Takei and Altman have been together for over 21 years. In his message, which discusses their relationship as well as his experience as a Japanese American: Takei says:

"As a Japanese American, I am keenly mindful of the subtle and not so subtle discrimination that the law can impose. During World War II, I grew up imprisoned behind the barbed wire fences of U.S. internment camps. Pearl Harbor had been bombed and Japanese Americans were rounded up and incarcerated simply because we happened to look like the people who bombed Pearl Harbor. Fear and war hysteria swept the nation. A Presidential Executive Order directed the internment of Japanese Americans as a matter of national security. Now, with the passage of time, we look back and see it as a shameful chapter of American history...With time, I know the opposition to same sex marriage, too, will be seen as an antique and discreditable part of our history..."

“Our California dream is reality. Brad Altman and I can now marry. We are overjoyed! At long last, the barrier to full marriage rights for same-sex couples has been torn down. We are equal with all citizens of our state!

The California Supreme Court has ruled that all Californians have a fundamental right to marry the person he or she loves. Brad and I have shared our lives together for over 21 years. We've worked in partnership; he manages the business side of my career and I do the performing. We've traveled the world together from Europe to Asia to Australia. We've shared the good times as well as struggled through the bad. He helped me care for my ailing mother who lived with us for the last years of her life. He is my love and I can't imagine life without him. Now, we can have the dignity, as well as all the responsibilities, of marriage. We embrace it all heartily…For now, Brad and I are enjoying the delicious dilemma of deciding where, when, and how we will be married. Marriage equality took a long time, but, like fine wine, its bouquet is simply exquisite.”

Senator Optimistic Maryland Will Legalize Gay Marriage

A state senator said this week’s California Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage gives him reason to be optimistic that same-sex couples will gain the right to marry in Maryland.

Sen. Richard Madaleno notes that California was the first state to allow interracial couples to marry. And he told WBAL radio that he is pleased it will be the second to legalize gay marriage.

Legislation to allow gay marriage in Maryland hasn’t made it out of committee. This year, Gov. Martin O’Malley is considering signing two bills that would extend some benefits to same-sex partners that are available only to married couples. The bills would become law without O’Malley’s signature if he doesn’t take action by May 27. Madaleno, who is openly gay, said it’s important for the government to recognize same-sex marriage, rather than just the clergy, because half the marriages in Maryland are performed in civil ceremonies.