Source: San Francisco Chronicle, San Jose Mercury News, Los Angeles Times, PPIC press release

A new survey by a well-respected polling group in California shows an even closer divide on same-sex marriage than was revealed in the Nov. 5 vote for Proposition 8. The poll showed that religion along with education and income, rather than race, were the key differences among those who voted for or against Prop. 8.

Voters without a college degree (62%) were far more likely than college graduates (43%) to vote yes.

Those who identified themselves as evangelical Christians (85%) were far more likely than others (42%) to vote yes.

The poll by Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) found significantly less support for Proposition 8 among blacks than had been indicated by exit polls, San Jose Mercury News reports. But PPIC's pollsters note that the sample size of both blacks and Asians in their survey is too small to draw firm conclusions.

Election day exit polls triggered recriminations between gay rights advocates and black leaders. And now the new data indicates that 61 percent of Latinos voted for the ban, an even higher percentage than exit polls indicated on Election Day.

Latinos (61%) were more likely than whites (50%) to vote yes; and 57 percent of Latinos, Asians, and blacks combined voted yes.

Overall, fifty-two percent of voters favored the amendment at the polls, but PPIC's pollsters found a closer split on a more general question.

"When voters are asked the separate question of whether they favor or oppose same-sex marriage, they are divided, with 47 percent in favor, 48 percent opposed, and 5 percent unsure," according to the PPIC poll results statement. "[It's] a result consistent with responses in the October PPIC pre-election survey."

Most Californians who voted no on Prop. 8 (70%) say they did so because same-sex couples should be given the freedoms and rights guaranteed to everyone.

The PPIC survey, which received funding from the James Irvine Foundation, polled 2,003 California voters, who were contacted by phone November 5–16, 2008. The poll has a margin of error of 2%, perhaps more for subgroups surveyed, Los Angeles Times reports.

In a San Francisco Chronicle column, PPIC president Mark Baldassare notes that the responses in this poll have changed little from prior surveys despite the $83 million spent  to sway voters by the two sides of the Prop. 8 campaign.

"Public support for same-sex marriage rose to 46 percent in 2005 and has remained at about that level," Baldassare writes. "In surveys before and after this election, 47 percent of California voters favored gay marriage -- almost identical to the 48 percent who voted no on Prop. 8."

The margin of victory for Prop. 8 came mostly from voters who said at the start of the campaign that they opposed same-sex marriage but would nonetheless vote against a constitutional amendment designed to strip rights from a group.

"[T]here was a decisive shift in views in the final weeks before the election," Baldassare writes in the Chronicle. "Our pre-election surveys showed that a significant percentage of voters opposed to same-sex marriage were nevertheless planning to vote against Proposition 8.

"Whether this contradictory intent indicated ambivalence about supporting a constitutional ban or confusion about the meaning of a no vote, enough of these voters were persuaded to switch sides to provide a narrow victory for the measure," the pollster said. 

"Proposition 8 had highly motivated supporters and a well-funded campaign, and in the end, they prevailed," Baldassare said in the PPIC statement about the poll.

There has been talk  among opponents of Prop. 8 about bringing a measure to repeal the amendment to the California ballot in 2010. But two items in the new poll might slow down that momentum. Without majority support for the general issue of same-sex marriage, it would be difficult to pass a ballot measure to re-authorize it. More troubling, however, is a PPIC finding that those who voted in favor of Prop. 8 (74%) are far more likely than those who voted no (59%) to view the outcome of the election as "very important".

Source: Education and income were strong factors in vote against gay marriage | San Jose Mercury News 
Why the same-sex marriage ban passed | San Francisco Chronicle
Prop. 8 poll: Evangelicals, Republicans were biggest backers of gay marriage ban | Los Angeles Times
PPIC press release

Source: Deseret News, Salt Lake Tribune, Leonard Link
Salt Lake police are investigating a possible hate crime after a man was attacked while waiting for a cab outside of a gym that caters mainly to gay men.

A 50-year-old man had left 14th Street Gym near downtown just after 12:30 am Wednesday and called a cab to pick him up. While waiting for the cab, another man approached the victim from behind, swore at him, used a slur related to sexual orientation, then hit him in the head with a bottle, said Salt Lake police detective Dennis McGowan, according to Deseret News.

The attacker ran off. Police said the victim showed signs of intoxication and was not able to give officers an accurate description of his attacker, Salt Lake Tribune reports.

The victim was bleeding profusely when the cab driver arrived. The cabbie called 911. The victim was taken to a local hospital in critical condition, McGowan said.

14th Street Gym "operates as a social club catering to gay males, and its facilities include workout rooms, two television lounges, a locker room, a hot tub, and a steam room," according to a description of it contained in an earlier lawsuit.

In April, the club prevailed in its long-running challenge to a city order that attempted to revoke its business license due to alleged sexual activity going on in its steam room.

An appeals-court judge ruled in April that there was no evidence that gym management was aware of the sexual activity allegedly observed in the club's steam room by the undercover cops during stings in 2003, 2004, and again in 2005, according to Leonard Link, a legal-issues blog. 

The Utah Court of Appeals ruled that that the club could not be held accountable for activity it did not know about or encourage.

Source: Attack on man outside gym-lounge may be hate crime | Salt Lake Tribune
Police investigating possible hate crime at gym | Deseret News 
Gay Gym Wins Appeal in License Revocation Dispute | Leonard Link

Source: Christian Science Monitor, New York Times, BBC, Wall Street Journal
Quincy, Ill. -- The long-running but slow rending to the "Anglican Communion" -- a loose confederation of national churches that trace their heritage to the Church of England -- got another tug today, when conservatives in the US and Canada formed a rival Anglican province in North America.

On Wednesday, a network of dissident clerics, parishes, and dioceses from the United States and Canada unveiled a draft constitution in Quincy, Ill. for what they say will be a unified entity that they hope will be recognized by Anglicans elsewhere in the world.

The provocative bid to form a new province runs against Anglican tradition. "This is contrary to both the traditions of the church as well as recent pronouncements of the Anglican Communion," says the Rev. Ian Douglas of the Episcopal Divinity School in Cambridge, Mass, according to CS Monitor.

The proposed new province, called the "Anglican Church in North America", will have about 100,000 members and lays disputed claim to four Episcopal dioceses and dozens of parishes in the United States and Canada that recently voted to leave the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada.

"There is room within the Episcopal Church for people with different views, and we regret that some have felt the need to depart from the diversity of our common life in Christ," a spokesman for the Episcopal church said in its only statement on the matter, according to Wall Street Journal.

The dissidents claim that the US and Canadian churches have broken with traditional Christianity in many ways, but the development that precipitated their departure was the decision to ordain an openly gay bishop and to bless gay unions, New York Times reports.

Although title to several church properties is disputed by the Episcopal church, the Anglican Church in North America will include members of parishes and dioceses who recently left the 2 million-member Episcopal Church, as well as several splinter groups that left US and Canadian churches in earlier periods.

Some see this move as the biggest challenge yet to the authority of a church that has faced an unending series of challenges over the past several years in a battle over a number of issues of theology, tradition, and geography.

But Jim Naughton, a spokesman for the Episcopal Diocese of Washington in Seattle, said "this is not a split. It's a splinter. It's not an overwhelmingly large group of people.

The attempt to create an overlapping jurisdiction on the continent is unprecedented, Christian Science Monitor reports. The Communion is a family of Anglican churches in 38 geographical "provinces" around the world. The churches have a longstanding practice of not interfering in each other's areas.

That practice was abandoned two years ago as bishops from Africa and from South America began welcoming dissident US parishes into their provinces. Starting this summer, the break became even more stark as four US dioceses (collections of parishes with a common bishop) formally broke ties with the Episcopal church to align themselves with the Province of the Southern Cone in South America, run by Archbishop Gregory Venables.

In November, conventions in two Episcopal dioceses – Quincy in Illinois and Fort Worth in Texas – voted to leave and align themselves temporarily with the conservative archbishop of the Southern Cone. Two dioceses -- San Joaquin in California, and Pittsburgh -- had earlier done the same.

Bishops leading the shift say the dioceses are moving with them. Episcopal leaders say that's not the case.

"Individuals can always leave the church, but dioceses and parishes cannot," says the Rev. Charles Robertson, canon for Episcopal Presiding Bishop Katherine Jefferts Schori. "The diocese is a constituent part of something larger."

Some see the new province as a bid to eventually replace TEC as the recognized US church; others say it's a means to prevent a schism in the Communion.

"Better to have two Anglican jurisdictions rather than to have a shattered Communion," says Archbishop Peter Jensen of Sydney, Australia, a leader among the global conservatives.

But doubts remain as to whether or how the new alliance will be recognized by the wider Anglican Communion, BBC reports.

The Communion's Secretary General, Canon Kenneth Kearon, has told the BBC that it is entering what he called uncharted waters, and he is calling on the leaders of the new Church to act in accordance with the Communion's existing regulations.

"The issue as I see it is whether in fact this body, or province as they're calling it, wishes to be recognized as a province of the Anglican Communion," he said.

"And I think if they do, there are clear procedures by which that might be explored. And I do urge those involved to address the structures of the Communion."

But some of those leading the new grouping appear to have little patience for such lectures from English priests like Kearon.

Those supporting the new North American Church believe that Anglicanism's structures have been unable to safeguard the Church's unity, and they now look to leadership from a group of largely African leaders.

Bishop Minns, a priest who led his large, historic church in Virginia out of the Episcopal Church two years ago and was subsequently ordained a bishop by the Anglican Archbishop of Nigeria, told the New York Times: "One of the questions a number of the primates are asking is why do we still need to be operating under the rules of an English charity, which is what the Anglican Consultative Council does. Why is England still considered the center of the universe?"

Naughton, canon for communications and advancement in the Episcopal Diocese of Washington, and a liberal who frequently blogs on Anglican affairs, said he doubted that a rival Anglican province could grow much larger.

“I think this organization does not have much of a future because there are already a lot of churches in the United States for people who don’t want to worship with gays and lesbians,” he said. “That’s not a market niche that is underserved.”

Source: Conservatives Expected to Split Episcopal Church | New York Times
Conservative bishops propose a competing North American Anglican church | Christian Science Monitor 
North American Anglicans to split | BBC 
Episcopals Form Rival Church | Wall Street Journal

         ::   An executive at Cincinnati Christian University is the latest in a long string of victims of morals stings that found the man in a position that compromises his stated beliefs. The school's chief financial officer was arrested Saturday during a sex sting at a park, and accused of "sexual imposition" after he responded to a no-doubt beckoning undercover officer, got into the cop's car, and touched "his genitals" (whether said genitals belong to the cop or the CFO is unclear from from the report). The CFO entered a written plea of not guilty Monday, but was suspended by the school, whose president said he was "shocked and dismayed by the news" and called the incident "personal tragedy for him and for his family."

         ::   It is what I believe Variety still calls "boffo"  box office: Milk has already brought in 1.9 million dollars since it opened on Wednesday. Jack Foley, the head of the film's distributor, Focus Features, called the opening "spectacular". "It's a record opening for a film opening in this many theaters, and there were lots of sellouts wherever it was playing." Milk opened in 36 theaters, and will be brought to 60 more come Friday. Sean Penn has been getting rave reviews and Oscar buzz for his portrayal of Harvey Milk. Meanwhile, ABC News, uses the release to ask the perennial question: Why no gay actors in the very gay movie?

         ::   Among the cross-country fallout from California's Prop. 8 vote: Chances now appear slim that New York's legislature will vote this year on a marriage equality bill. The expected vote is victim of continuing leadership disputes among the Senate's new, but razor-thin, Democratic majority. A vote on full marriage equality is also unlikely this year in DC. But in conservative Indiana, an oft-repeated move to add a marriage discrimination amendment on the ballot appears to have died out. To put a proposed constitutional amendment on the ballot there, the state legislature must first vote for it in two consecutive sessions. The GOP-controlled Senate has passed a measure to define marriage as an exclusive man/woman right three times since 2005, only to see it fail in the House. Backers of the amendment say they're unlikely to try again this year.

          ::   Zac Taylor, represented by Future Models, got one of  the best kick-starts any aspiring male model can have when he was chosen to for A&F's Summer 2007 campaign, shot -- as always -- by Bruce Webber. And he hasn't slowed down since. (He's also not a Husker QB with whom he shares the name.) "Definition of a Man" has a great collection of B&W's that show a more brooding, James-Dean-y character. (Not positive since the photog isn't named in this post, but I believe the B&Ws are part of a set by Joe Lally.)

Source: Sacramento Bee, San Francisco Chronicle 
Sacramento -- The  gay and lesbian caucus of California's legislature and Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg Tuesday introduced a resolutions in both the Senate and Assembly opposing Proposition 8.

While the resolutions have no force of law, they would put the state's lawmakers on record in support of legal arguments, made by gay rights activists and officials from San Francisco and several other cities, that the measure was a revision of the state Constitution and not a simple amendment.

The resolutions say Prop. 8 changes the underlying principles of the Constitution.

The state Supreme Court has agreed to consider that argument, and a ruling is expected by next June.

"It is very simply the difference between a constitutional democracy and the tyranny of the majority," said Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, who introduced the Senate resolution with Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, according to San Francisco Chronicle.

Leno, sworn into office with other lawmakers Monday as the first openly gay man elected to the state Senate, said Prop. 8 puts the rights of all minorities at risk.

"It's important to put ourselves on record (and) that we not remain silent," Leno said at a Capitol news conference where he was joined by other members of the LGBT Legislative Caucus, Sacramento Bee reports.

Steinberg, D-Sacramento, said the Legislature should not give any ground "when it comes to civil rights."

"The battle for civil and human rights will continue until equal protection under the law is applied," Steinberg said, calling Proposition 8 a "temporary setback."

Several state lawmakers have already weighed in on the legal challenges, sending a letter last month asking the justices to hear the case and making much the same arguments as those in the resolutions, San Francisco Chronicle reports.

So far, 44 lawmakers have signed on.

Legal experts said the resolutions are unlikely to sway the justices, according to the Chronicle.

"This is the court's decision, not the Legislature's, just as whether you balance the budget is the Legislature's decision and not the court's," said Jesse Choper, the Earl Warren Professor of Public Law at UC Berkeley's School of Law.

Source: California Legislature's gay caucus introduces anti-Prop. 8 resolution | Sacramento Bee 
State lawmakers weigh in on Prop. 8 | San Francisco Chronicle

Source: BBC, Voice of America
International media watchdog groups are calling for the release of an Iraqi journalist was jailed for writing a story about homosexuality which prosecutors said violated a public decency law.

Adel Hussein was sentenced last week to a six months in by a court in Irbil, in the country's northern Kurdish region.

Hussein was charged with for violating public decency laws by writing an article for Hawlati, an independent weekly which detailed the physical effects of gay sex, according to BBC.

Two groups campaigning for Hussein's release -- Reporters Without Borders and the Committee to Protect Journalists -- argue that the jailing of Hussein violates the Kurdish region's own press law, BBC reports.

"We are astonished to learn that a press case has been tried under the criminal code. What was the point of adopting - and then liberalizing - a press code in the Kurdistan region if people who contribute to the news media are still tried under more repressive laws?" asked a Reporters Without Borders statement.

Hussein's lawyer is appealing the ruling, saying the sentence is based on an outdated 1969 Iraqi penal code. A new law that took effect in October does not recognize a violation of public decency, also known as "public custom," as an offense, Voice of America reports.

Hussein's publisher also said a representative of the region's Journalist Syndicate did not attend the trial, which is required under the new law, accoring to VOA.

Publishers of Hawlati say the article was about sexual health and education, so should not in any case have been tried under public decency laws, BBC reports.

Source: Anger as Iraqi reporter is jailed | BBC
Coalition Forces Detain 2 Terror Suspects in Iraq | Voice of America

Source: Playbill, Los Angeles Times
Proposition 8 gets star-studded treatment in a web video conceived and written by Hairspray Tony winner Marc Shaiman who also plays the piano in the three-minute satire staged as though it were an awkward community theater production.

But any community theater director would faint to have a cast like the one Shaiman and director Adam Shankman put together for this web production. (Shankman also directed the Hairspray movie musical.)

Jack Black plays Jesus Christ in Prop 8 -- The Musical. The satirical video also features Neil Patrick Harris is a Very Smart Fellow who manages to give the brief story its happy flag-waving ending.

[video clip below. Distributed exclusively by Funny or Die.]

The musical begins with the gay marriage supporters singing about "a brand new bright Obama day.... Happy days for the gays." The anti forces then move in, singing: "Nobody's looking, let's spread the hate ... Proposition 8!"

The "Proposition 8'ers and The People That Follow Them" include John C. Reilly as Prop 8 Leader; Allison Janney as Prop 8 Leader's #1 Wife; Kathy Najimy as Prop 8 Leader's #2 Wife; Jenifer Lewis as Riffing Prop 8'er; Craig Robinson as A Preacher; and Rashida Jones, Lake Bell and Sarah Chalke as "Scary Catholic School Girls From Hell", according to Playbill.

The video also boasts an array of theatre and stage stars: The "California Gays and The People That Love Them" are played by Jordan Ballard, Margaret Cho, Barrett Foa, J.B. Ghuman, John Hill, Andy Richter, Maya Rudolph, Rashad Naylor and Nicole Parker.

The "Frightened Villagers" are played by Katharine "Kooks" Leonard, Seth Morris, Denise "Esi!" Piane, Lucian Piane, Richard Read, Seth Redford, Quinton Strack and Tate Taylor, according to Playbill.

Source: Playbill News: Cho, Foa, Reilly, Janney, Harris and More Featured in Shaiman's Prop 8—The Musical Video | Playbill 
Proposition 8 inspires star-studded musical | Los Angeles Times

Source: Thaindian News, Daily News & Analysis, Indian Express
NEW DELHI -- An extended legal debate over an Indian statute that makes gay sex illegal took a new twist this week as lawyers for the government's ruling coalition argued that Delhi High Court, which has been hearing a challenge to the statute, has no authority to overturn it.

The court should refrain from passing any judgment on the issue because it might encroach upon legislative functions, the Center -- India's ruling coalition -- said in its reply to the petitions being heard by the court.

At present, gay sex is an offence in the country. Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) provides a punishment up to life imprisonment for indulging in such an act.

Gay rights activists contended that the government, by not decriminalizing homosexual acts, was infringing on their fundamental right to equality.

"The Constitution gives fundamental right to equality and prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex. But the rights of 25 lakh homosexuals in the country are violated," they said

But the government said in earlier hearings, "Homosexuals are men of perverse mind and perverse thinking."

On November 7, the judges reserved judgement on the issue, giving parties time to submit their written submissions.

Sometimes frustrated justices have repeatedly asked the government's counsel to submit evidence to back up his assertions.

But he submitted a new argument this week rather than responding to the court's request for scientific reports to back up the government's contention that repealing the would the anti-gay portion of section 377 would be a health and moral hazard.

"The court is not the authority to decide what should be the law or what should not be the law. These are the functions of the Parliament and the will of Parliament is represented by its members," additional solicitor general PP Malhotra argued in response to a petition filed by gay rights activists seeking court’s direction for legalizing gay sex among consenting adults, according to Daily News & Analysis.

"They (lawmakers) know the will of the people, the difficulties of the people," Malhotra told a bench of chief justice AP Shah and Justice S Muralidhar.

"It may not be proper for the court to assume the role and will of the people or to act as a Parliament to change the law," the government said in its 100-page written submission.

Malhotra had previously opposed the petition by asserting that if consenting adults are permitted to have same-sex relations, it would affect the health of other citizens who could be exposed to risk.

Source: India - Govt ups ante on homosexuality - Daily News & Analysis
Parliament, not court, can decide on homosexuality: counsel | Thaindian News
Section 377: Centre says courts can’t make laws | Indian Express