Happy Harvey Milk Day!

Today would be Harvey Milk Day in California -- the anniversary of the politician's birthday, and just days after the anniversary of the White Night Riots -- however, Gov. Schwarzenegger did not sign the bill this year. The Senate, again, has passed a bill designating May 22 as a day of "special significance" for Milk, and it is currently in the Assembly.

Equality California seems to believe that it will pass somewhat easily, as the focus of their site is on contacting the Governator and encouraging him to support the day.

Regardless, Happy Harvey Milk Day!

In sort of related news, check the news coming from the ACLU where a sixth grader in California was censored by not allowing to present her report on Harvey Milk without permission from all of her class mates. Apparently, talking about historically important gay figures is somehow equivalent to sex education. The school sent letters home to all the parents in the class informing them that if they gave their child permission to hear the presentation, it would be held during lunch hour. The sixth grader who made the presentation received a 49 out of 50 points on the written report.

Harvey Milk Day in California?

Thanks to QueersUnited, one of my favoritest activist blogs.

State Sen. Mark Leno (D) in California's State Senate has proposed SB 572, the official designation of May 22 as Harvey Milk Day in that state. Last year, AB2567 (warning: anti-gay website) passed both houses and was sent to Gov. Schwarzenegger, who vetoed it saying that Milk's "contributions should continue to be recognized at the local level by those who were most impacted by his contributions."

In short: he's a local hero, not a state one.

I think, considering the success of MILK and the growing national understanding that Harvey Milk had on the movement -- "you gotta give them hope" -- that it is impossible for the Guvahnator to deny his influence (even Sean Penn is now championing the cause, btw) to the nation as a whole, let alone the state of California.

Equality California has set up a convenient online form for you to email the Governor your support. The reason we repost it here? Because Harvey Milk was the first person in the world I identified as a gay hero -- he was the first person I ever knew about that had done something great as a gay man. As a young kid in South Carolina, it was enough to remember him. I think all of us, all of us queers, knew about Milk long before the movie came out, and we all have our affinities for him, or stories about how we found out about him...

...which is why it's so wonderful that all of us get the chance to return the favor and thank Mr. Milk.

In related news, make sure you check out the growing movement, nationally, led by Equality Cincinnati's Dan Drent, to have a Harvey Milk postage stamp created.

New in Gay Marriage

On the one hand, we have a Federal judge saying that DOMA may be illegal...

"The denial of federal benefits to same-sex spouses cannot be justified simply by a distaste for or disapproval of same-sex marriage or a desire to deprive same-sex spouses of benefits available to other spouses in order to discourage them from exercising a legal right afforded them by a state," [Judge Stephen] Reinhardt [of the U.S. 9th Court of Appeals] wrote.

On the other hand, we have a case that can't be brought to suit because of certain employment restrictions. So, no dice.

On the one hand, Gov. Schwarzenegger is finally speaking out and saying that we might be able to under Proposition 8.

On the other hand, gay marriage via legislative action in New York State is looking like something that will not happen until... groan... 2011.

On the one hand, Iowa will hear a same-sex marriage suit that looks likely to pass, Maine has unveiled a legislative bill to pass same-sex marriage, while New Hampshire is looking at two bills -- one to ban civil unions and one to pass gay marriage, Vermont is going to have a bill proposed this week or so, and there are several other states in the civil union/marriage fight this year...

On the other hand, we are not even sure the DP Registry in Cleveland will last the year (though it's gaining support).

Every step gained, another step behind. I'm hoping the gained steps are getting bigger, though.

ELECTION 2008: A couple of thoughts on Clinton...

...thirty hours before Super Tuesday begins.

There's always a lot of talk about "momentum" with the early primaries (IA/NH/NV/SC), but there were two possible courses that these primaries could have gone, and I suspect neither one of them would have been good for her:

a) She wins all four (or 3 of 4 -- I don't think she ever had a chance in SC). Because she then becomes the "super juggernaut" of the Democratic election, I think other people would have become more sympathetic towards Obama and would have thought "well, she's going to win anyways." Also we would have had "Clinton burnout" by the time we got to this point.

b) She wins one of four or two of four (which she did... actually, she's won four of six, but Michigan and Florida were stripped of their delegates due to moving their primaries up without permission... the GOP in both states did the same thing, but they were only penalized with half of their delegates). Clearly, this is the situation we are facing now. And she's slipped a bit in the polls. But let's point out the Super Tuesday states that she is probably gonna win: New York, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Minnesota, Arkansas, and Tennessee (no really, I'm not joking).

And the ones Obama is almost guaranteed to win in: Georgia, Illinois.

That leaves a couple open, including California, which we were all sure would be definitively Clinton. But, Cali, with ALL of its delegates (370) is going to be an interesting call. Because since it now will be a close race, regardless, each candidate will likely get the SAME number of delegates, within 10 at least, so can we really call either side a "win?"

On that note, should we really be "calling" states in the primaries? With the grand majority of states splitting the delegate count... excepting a landslide, is it fair to say that "so-and-so won the state" when, most of the time, they are only getting a portion of the delegates. In reality, if you have a third person who gets no more than 4% of the vote in each state, and one person "wins" every state by less than 2%, the whole freaking system goes out the window.

What's really funny, btw, is the Kennedy situation. So, the Kennedy's endorsed Obama because he's got that whole "young, pretty" thing going for him -- they did it, I think, so that they could still hold some influence should he be the nominee. Schwarzenegger then endorsed McCain... his wife, Maria Shriver, is a Kennedy. I told TY last night that, I though, it was likely that he did this so that the Kennedy's would have some sort of influence either direction.

That is, until Maria Shriver endorsed Obama.

What?

Regardless of what happens, I'll be at work tomorrow for Super Tuesday, so I'll have access to a computer and I can tell you what happens.

But I'll post my predictions tonight, after the final polls are run tomorrow (Kansas, btw, hasn't had a Dem poll done since May 2007, but Zogby -- I think -- has one coming out tomorrow). But I will make one prediction for today (Monday): there will be a surprise endorsement today from someone. I can't guess on the Republican side, but John Edwards (whose part of the electorate could sway the entire thing) has not endorsed anyone, nor has Bill Richardson (who is Latino, is popular amongst that population, and... guess whom he watched the Super Bowl with today? Bill Clinton... and Hillary is behind in the polls in New Mexico)