New Jersey LGBT Law

Astra Taylor defends homeschooling against Dana Goldstein's attacks. Taylor thinks unschooling is an arena where the left can regain ground long ago ceded to the right: 

Conservatives will continue to appear brave enough to think big, posing bold solutions to society’s problems (charter schools, eliminating teacher tenure, instituting merit pay), while progressives defend the status quo. What intrigues me about the history of radical pedagogy and the unschooling tradition is that its proponents were and are not afraid to challenge the conventional wisdom, to dream of different ways of doing things, to take seriously words like “freedom,” “autonomy,” and “choice”—inspiring and important ideals that have been all but ceded to the political right in recent decades.

Friedersdorf makes related points. Goldstein responds to critics: 

[M]y Slate piece was not about the benefits or drawbacks of homeschooling for particular families or children. Rather, my piece was about the educational needs of society at-large. To clarify my own position, I do not think homeschooling should be illegal, and I acknowledge it may be the best option for a relatively small population of disabled and special-needs kids. My own belief is that when it comes to the typical child, however, homeschooling does not comport with crucial social justice values related to investing in the common good, and so I’d urge parents concerned with social justice—both broadly and in terms of their own children’s development—to think twice about making this choice.

I wonder when these far right wingnuts are going to get the idea that there are certain rights that all people are entitled to? As court case after court case gets decided in favor of marriage equality, do you think they'll ever realize that the law is plainly unconstitutional?

How about if a George W Bush appointed judge finds in our favor? What if the judge rules that we're a protected minority group and laws against us should be held to heightened scrutiny?

Moments ago, Judge Jeffery White of the District Court for the Northern District of California ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) violates the Constitution's equal protection clause in a case brought by Karen Golinski. Golinski, represented by Lambda Legal, "was denied spousal health benefits by her employer, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco." White was appointed to the court by President George W. Bush in 2002. The decision represents a serious setback for House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), whose Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) defended DOMA after the Obama administration announced it would no longer defend the law.

With so many steps marching forward toward full marriage equality and federal courts finding laws preventing it unconstitutional, how much longer do you think it will be before gay and lesbian couples can get married nationwide? If you'd asked me just five years ago, I'd have given you a completely different answer than I would today.

Tucker Carlson thinks "Iran deserves to be annihilated." His only worry is that oil prices will go up:

Goldblog cringes:

This is the sort of rhetoric that leads to war. I have no doubt this clip will be played over and over again in Tehran by a regime eager to prove that America wants to -- to borrow a phrase -- wipe Iran off the map. It should go without saying that Iran does not "deserve" to be annihilated. 

A major ruling from U.S. District Court Judge Jeffrey White, a Bush appointee, who has ruled the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional for violating the Constitution's guarantee of equality.

Our legal expert Ari Ezra Waldman will have analysis coming up this evening. Check back with us...

Politico's Josh Gerstein:

U.S. District Court Judge Jeffrey White, who sits in San Francisco and was appointed to the bench by President George W. Bush, issued the ruling Wednesday afternoon in a case involving federal judicial law clerk Karen Golinski's request for benefits for her female spouse. White said the stated goals of DOMA, passed in 1996 and signed by President Bill Clinton, could not pass muster under a so-called "heightened scrutiny" test or even a lower "rational basis" threshhold.

"The imposition of subjective moral beliefs of a majority upon a minority cannot provide a justification for the legislation. The obligation of the Court is 'to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code,'" White wrote. "Tradition alone, however, cannot form an adequate justification for a law....The 'ancient lineage” of a classification does not render it legitimate....Instead, the government must have an interest separate and apart from the fact of tradition itself."

Check out the ruling here.

Reuters' Dan Levine adds:

White, who was appointed by President George W. Bush, a Republican, issued a permanent injunction preventing the government from further interfering with Golinski's ability to enroll her wife in the insurance program.

Chris Geidner at MetroWeekly pulls out some key pieces:

The Court has found that DOMA unconstitutionally discriminates against same-sex married couples. Even though animus is clearly present in its legislative history, the Court, having examined that history, the arguments made in its support, and the effects of the law, is persuaded that something short of animus may have motivated DOMA’s passage:

Prejudice, we are beginning to understand, rises not from malice or hostile animus alone. It may result as well from insensitivity caused by simple want of careful, rational reflection or from some instinctive mechanism to guard against people who appear to be different in some respects from ourselves.

Board of Trustees of University of Alabama v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356, 374-75 (2001) (Kennedy, J., concurring).

Lambda Legal Staff Attorney Tara Borelli tweets: "This ruling spells doom for #DOMA."

Adds Borelli, in a press release:

"The Court recognized the clear fact that a law that denies one class of individuals the rights and benefits available to all others because of their sexual orientation violates the constitutional guarantee of equality embodied in the Fifth Amendment. The Court agreed with us that sexual orientation discrimination by the government should receive heightened scrutiny under the constitution.  It then concluded that DOMA could not meet that standard, and that there was not even a rational justification to deny Karen Golinski the same spousal health care benefits that her heterosexual co-workers receive."

And here's some extra background on the case from Lambda Legal:

Judge White's ruling is the latest victory in a battle that began in 2008, when Golinski, a 20-year employee of the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, sought to enroll her wife, Amy Cunninghis, in the employee health plan.  It is the first DOMA-related ruling since U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the Department of Justice had determined DOMA was unconstitutional and would no longer defend it, and the majority leadership of the U.S. House of Representatives hired outside counsel to defend the discriminatory statute.  A similar ruling holding DOMA unconstitutional in a separate case is on appeal in the 1st Circuit.

Golinski's struggle to enroll her spouse in the family health plan, a benefit routinely granted to her married heterosexual co-workers, travelled a torturous path, including two separate orders by Ninth Circuit Chief Judge Alex Kozinski directing that Golinski be allowed to enroll Cunninghis in the health plan, orders ignored by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM), citing DOMA.  In April 2011, Lambda Legal and Morrison & Foerster filed an amended complaint directly challenging the constitutionality of DOMA.  Judge White heard arguments on this amended complaint on December 16.

Said Golinski: "I am profoundly grateful for the thought and consideration that Judge White gave to my case. His decision acknowledges that DOMA violates the Constitution and that my marriage to Amy is equal to those marriages of my heterosexual colleagues.  This decision is a huge step toward equality."

Our legal expert Ari Ezra Waldman will have analysis coming up this evening. Check back with us...

Former Senator Alan Simpson (R-WY) tore into Rick Santorum, calling him "rigid and...homophobic" on Face to Face with Bob Schieffer, adding that he was alarmed at how Republicans are grabbing on to social issues:

"I am convinced that if you get into these social issues and just stay in there about abortion and homosexuality and even mental health they bring up, somehow they're going to take us all to Alaska and float us out in the Bering Sea or something."

Said Simpson of Santorum:

"He said, 'I want a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage,' and they said, 'Well, what about the people who are already married?' And he said, 'Well, they would be nullified.' I mean what is, what's human, what's kind about that? We're all human beings, we all know or love somebody who's gay or lesbian so what the hell is that about? To me it's startling and borders on disgust."

Watch, AFTER THE JUMP...

Simpson made similar remarks last April, in an interview with Chris Matthews:

"We have homophobes on our party. That’s disgusting to me. We’re all human beings. We’re all God’s children. Now if they’re going to get off on that stuff—Santorum has said some cruel things—cruel, cruel things—about homosexuals. Ask him about it; see if he attributes the cruelness of his remarks years ago. Foul."

Among other reasons:

Previously marginalized groups that once felt they had no other outlet now have more voices in the political process. White flight ceded whole cities – and their governments – to African Americans in the U.S. And this left neighborhood boundaries less contentious, Katz argues, eliminating one of the causes of urban friction. In the 1960s, by contrast, large numbers of African Americans were moving into the city at a time when whites had not yet left.

Conan O'Brien realizes that Indiana GOP Rep. Bob Morris was right, and the Girl Scouts really do have a pro-gay, pro-abortion, feminist agenda.

Watch, AFTER THE JUMP...

Lately, I’ve been rushing to cineplexes and studying critics’ picks so that I’ll be in shape for the 84th Academy Awards show, which airs from the Kodak Theater in Los Angeles on Sunday.

People all over the world will watch as winners and losers dressed to the nines, walk the red carpet, muster up smiles for the cameras even when they haven’t won a coveted statue and try to thank everyone they’ve ever known before the music begins playing telling them to get off the stage. But for me and other LGBT viewers, this isn’t just another awards show. The Oscars are our Super Bowl. With stars glittering in glam, dazzling divas and a long homage to all things celluloid from costumes to acting, the Academy Awards packs a powerful queer quotient.

Why is our community so entwined with Tinseltown?  Because historically, movies have played a vital role in forming the images that we have of ourselves, and LGBT people in front of and behind the camera have been instrumental in creating Hollywood.

Movies have intersected with the milestones in everyone’s life (gay or straight), I’d wager.  Who hasn’t thought of a sigh, a kiss, a witty line or music from a film when falling in love, breaking up with a lover, mourning a loss or quarreling with a BFF?

This is even truer for LGBT filmgoers. Often isolated by homophobia, since the dawn of the silent pictures, we’ve turned to movies (even though many films don’t have openly queer characters) for romance, camp and beauty. For better, and until recently often for worse (in such films as “The Children’s Hour” with its stereotypical portrayal of lesbians or “Tea and Sympathy” with its “unmanly” teenage protagonist), movies have cemented cultural definitions of what LGBT people are like.  As the narrator says in the 1996 documentary “The Celluloid Closet,” Hollywood has “taught straight people what to think about gay people and gay people what to think about themselves.”

In 1974, when I was 22, after some years of timidity, I got the courage to come out after seeing the 1971 movie “Sunday, Bloody Sunday.” Though dated today, the film’s story of a love triangle involving a bisexual man and his gay and straight lovers, revealed to me that I wasn’t the only LGBT person in the universe. The movie showed me that though being open about my sexuality wouldn’t be easy, I could have a life.

Years later, reel life meeting real life, I met the love of my life at a screening of “Desert Hearts,” a lesbian romance, at a LGBT film festival.

When my (late) partner was ill, we found solace in screwball comedies from the 1930s like “Bringing Up Baby.” Even if you’re dying, it’s hard not to laugh when, in “Baby,” Cary Grant (widely believed to have been bisexual), wearing Katharine Hepburn’s bathrobe, exclaims, “I’ve gone gay!” on being asked why he’s wearing such garb.

A gay presence and sensibility have long permeated Hollywood. “Lots of gay people” worked for the studios during Hollywood’s golden age, writes Scotty Bowers in his new tell-all book “Full Service: My Adventures in Hollywood and the Secret Sex Lives of the Stars.”  “Those behind the camera could be more open,” Bowers says, “but the actors and major directors and producers had ‘morals’ clauses in their contracts, which they would have violated by being openly known as gay or bisexual.”

Though until fairly recently, openly queer characters couldn’t be portrayed in films, LGBT directors, actors, choreographers and others involved in production (including George Cukor, James Whale and Greta Garbo) infused movies from “The Bride of Frankenstein” to “Camille” to “The Gay Divorcee” with fabulous beauty, camp and wit.

True, homophobia still exists in Hollywood, and there are far too few films that accurately portray queer life.  But where would we be without the movies?  Watching the Oscars, let’s say, “Hooray for Hollywood.”

D.C. is growing larger and getting livelier.

The city’s rising population — growing faster than any state during the most recent Census Bureau annual data reporting period — will continue to alter the landscape across a broad and ever-expanding swath of the District. It will also accelerate the curtailment of the influence and power of anti-growth neighborhood nannies and anti-business Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC) members.

The number of city residents is growing throughout the city and intensifying in the Logan Circle, U Street, Shaw and Petworth neighborhoods, NoMa and the rapidly developing H Street, N.E., area, as well as the Nationals stadium and Navy Yard waterfront location. This expansion continues to be most evident along the commercial corridors of 14th and U streets.

On the heels of explosive population and housing growth in recent years, nearly 1,300 new housing units are either currently under construction or planned for coming months along 14th Street between Thomas Circle and Florida Avenue. Upwards of 2,000 additional residents will soon become the newest faces of this continued transformation — significantly increasing the population in the area as they quickly snatch up soon-to-be-available new housing.

Nearly all of this new construction multi-unit housing will be apartments, with several planned condominium projects having converted to rentals prior to construction. Reflecting the seemingly insatiable demand by young professionals and older singles and retired couples for housing in the area, these units are predominantly studios and one-bedrooms averaging less than 650 square feet. These contemporary light-filled residences comport with strong marketplace preferences for less space and high-end finishes for the modern life-on-the-go lived substantially outside the home.

The already unmet desires of current city residents in high demand areas for neighborhood hospitality and retail businesses — primarily places to eat, drink and socialize — will fuel intensifying demand for additional venues. On many evenings, existing restaurants and bars are insufficient to meet the demands of space and desires for a diversity of options.

These recent and new arrivals paying premium prices for their preferred urban lifestyle expect the convenience of having ready access to these social destinations. They don’t take well to suggestions by ANCs or licensing and zoning opponents that development should be restricted or amenities limited. Easily flummoxed by not being able to walk out the door and onto the street to enjoy a full complement of dining, drinking and entertainment opportunities, they will continue to drive the development of our neighborhoods in ways not yet fully recognized.

This requires only that they both overcome their astonishment at the undue influence small numbers of development-averse residents have historically wielded and are able to trust that the city government increasingly weighs economic development considerations in adjudicating such matters.

Area blogs and news reports announce on an accelerating frequency the planned opening of new restaurants, bars, lounges and other gathering spots in the immediate and surrounding areas. The reaction of most neighborhood residents is one of delighted appreciation and excitement.

Although there will be transportation, parking, infrastructure and business development pressures and conflicts for the foreseeable future as a result of this concentrated growth, the popularity of D.C. city living will dictate the growing irrelevance of those who seek to eliminate the casual cacophony of a vibrant urban life. Over time this will further enhance the District as a world-class environment and allow it to evolve from its long-held reputation as a sleepy Southern river town.

The D.C. Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs (DCRA) announced last week that the agency has extended the period for public comment on proposed regulations governing local food trucks and their operation to March 1 at 5 p.m., an extension of 12 days.

The news appears to have excited Barbara Tomlinson of Seattle, Wash., who on Feb. 19 sent a message to DCRA among her 4,005 other signed online petitions regarding a wide variety of issues from across the country available on the national petition website being utilized by the D.C. Food Truck Association (DCFTA) to gather signatures concerning this local issue.

Thank you, Ms. Tomlinson, for playing the game all the way from the American Northwest — now put away the keyboard and go get something to eat!

Mark Lee is a local small business manager and long-time community business advocate. Reach him at OurBusinessMatters@gmail.com.

What a difference a year makes. Just 11 months ago, the hopes of Maryland’s gay rights advocates were dashed when the House of Delegates yanked a bill to legalize same-sex marriage after support for the measure crumbled.

But on Friday, after a long week of testimony, amendments and emotional floor speeches, the House approved the bill by two votes and found support from a few unlikely voices.

Republican Dels. Wade Kach and Robert Costa cast votes in favor, joining fellow Republican Sen. Allan Kittleman, who voted for it last year. Then in another surprise move, Del. Tiffany Alston, who was widely criticized last year for changing her mind on the bill, changed it again. She voted against the bill in committee on Tuesday, then for it on the House floor on Friday after offering a friendly amendment that was accepted. Unfortunately, she supports a referendum on the issue. In an odd twist, Alston was indicted last year on charges that she used campaign funds to pay for expenses related to her wedding, including her dress.

Kach, from Baltimore County, switched his vote from last year and said he received threats as a result. He was shadowed by state police officers in Annapolis on Friday.

Costa announced his support in advance of the vote last week.

“I think it’s not a state function to decide who can marry,” the Annapolis Capital quoted Costa as saying. “I do what I believe is right for people. I don’t think that matters. I represent constituents and not a party.”

A confluence of factors brought about this historic outcome, from the aggressive support of Gov. Martin O’Malley, to the passage of similar laws in New York last year and Washington and New Jersey earlier this month. Even former Vice President Dick Cheney got involved in the Maryland fight, placing calls to fence-sitting Republicans asking them to vote for the bill, according to a Baltimore Sun report. That little gem puts President Obama in an awkward position — to the right of Cheney on marriage.

Another little noticed development came during a town hall-style meeting with O’Malley sponsored by the Baltimore Sun last week. During the meeting, O’Malley acknowledged that he sacrificed his private support for marriage for political gain.

“I was mayor of the city of Baltimore then and my political advisers and friends went absolutely nuts and said ‘There is no such term as civil marriage’ … if you use the term ‘civil marriage’ you are going to jeopardize whatever hope we have to defeat the current officeholder and make the sort of strides, in any number of areas, that [then-Gov. Robert Ehrlich Jr. is] opposed to on these things,” O’Malley said.

It was a stunningly candid admission, though a fact that most of us assumed. Like so many other politicians — Democrats and Republicans alike — O’Malley privately supported same-sex marriage all along but was afraid to say so publicly. It’s the same position Obama finds himself in now. No one believes that Obama opposes marriage equality and he’ll certainly express his support after the November election. Kudos to O’Malley for finally going public and for his important testimony in support of the bill and his staff’s behind-the-scenes lobbying that helped bring about the positive outcome Friday.

There are many others who deserve credit and our gratitude for the House vote: Kittleman for demonstrating that this isn’t a partisan issue; the Assembly’s openly gay and lesbian members for their visibility and passion; the supportive clergy who went public and testified for the bill; Equality Maryland staffers and board members past and present for never giving up; the Marylanders for Marriage Equality coalition led by HRC; and the couples who sued unsuccessfully for marriage rights in a case that culminated in 2007.

One of those couples, Lisa Polyak and Gita Deane, has remained a key part of the fight ever since. Polyak serves as board chair for Equality Maryland, an organization that was on the verge of total collapse when she took over last year. Since then, thanks in large part to her smart leadership, the statewide LGBT advocacy group is back on its feet with a capable new executive director in Carrie Evans. Polyak and Deane bravely put their family in the public spotlight in the name of equality and justice. It’s a scary thing to do when you have children and Maryland’s LGBT residents owe them a huge debt of gratitude for their sacrifice and courage.

The news, of course, isn’t all good. In all the seesawing that went on with the marriage debate, no one proved more disappointing than freshman Del. Sam Arora, a Democrat from progressive Montgomery County, who campaigned in support of marriage equality and took LGBT votes and money as a result, then stabbed his constituents in the back by changing his position. He is a slimy, two-faced politician of the worst order who should quietly slink away from public life when his term expires. If not, the challengers are already lining up to take him out. One and done for Sam Arora.

And the fight goes on, first to the Senate, which is expected to pass the bill as it did last year, then to state voters in a likely November referendum. No matter the outcome of that referendum, the tide has turned in Maryland and marriage equality for state residents is a matter of when, not if. Supporters should celebrate this historic moment, confident that we are on the right side of history.

Benjamin Dueholm ponders Ash Wednesday:

Not that long ago, contemplating mortality and feeling contrition for grave failings were considered noble pursuits. They were the themes of great literature and popular music alike. In our culture we have come, more often, to view these same experiences as neuroses. Grief is edging closer to being defined as a species of depression. Anxiety over the inevitability of death has become something to be resolved through a process ending in "acceptance," as though being sundered from everyone and everything one loves is the sort of thing one can become good at. 

(Photo: A young woman prays during an Ash Wednesday Mass at the Cathedral of Saint Matthew the Apostle February 17, 2010 in Washington, DC. By Win McNamee/Getty Images)

This has been stuck in my head all day! And now it's your turn.

Razib Kahn warns against them:

[B]ad metaphors can do a great disservice to the public understanding of science. The idea of the "evolutionary ladder" perpetuates the myth that evolution is about a steady linear march towards complexity. The militaristic metaphor of the "war on cancer" threatens to undervalue achievements in treatment that fall short of a total cure. The idea of the brain as a computer creates all sorts of misconceptions about how different parts of the brain work, how memories are stored and whether we will ever be able to download or upload our minds. In a field where complex ideas must be conveyed simply but accurately, it couldn’t be more important for science writers to pick the right metaphors.

A reader writes:

Here's a joyful video of a rollercoaster with no tracks swooping through Buenos Aires. Obviously not real, but smile-inducing all the same.

Update from another reader:

Anybody else find it bit incongruous watching a roller-coaster swooping through Buenos Aires amidst headlines of a horrendous, deadly train derailment in that city today?

We had no idea. We subsequently replaced the MHB, out of respect for the victims, but you can watch the original here if you wish.

I'm on Michael Medved's radio talk show for the next hour. You can listen here.

Noah Kristula-Green dissects Heritage VP Michael Franc's recent claim that the organization likes "having a coherent world view":

Heritage wants to unify the social conservatives, foreign policy hawks, and free marketers. In politics, there are inevitably issues that divide that coalition (Franc cited immigration as an example). When a tough policy issue comes up, how does Heritage deal with the arguments that may arise? Simple, don't have the arguments (publicly) at all! Work out what the unified position is and stick to it. Whatever you do, don't allow people who may have different points of view to publish papers that disagree with each other, think about how that would make the marketing department's job harder!

And if one of your employees wants to think out loud, fire him!

The Williams Institute's Executive Director Brad Sears and Distinguished Scholar Gary Gates (Photo by Karen Ocamb)

The issue of marriage rights for same sex couples has dominated our national conversation since Karl Rove used antigay initiatives to drive evangelicals to the ballot box for George W. Bush's re-election in 2004. The Prop 8 wars and the recent victories and ballot referendums in a number of states since then have lead many to believe that marriage equality is the top priority for LGBT people.

The reality is that the top priority for many LGBT Americans is finding and securing a job, especially one with discrimination protections based on gender identity, as well as sexual orientation. The question about the status of the languishing Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) surfaced in early January when the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) won a $155,000 settlement against DynCorp International LLC, a military contractor and aircraft maintenance company, based in a sex-based workplace discrimination case. After considerable pressure lead by Tico Almeida, a civil rights attorney and founder of Freedom to Work who started the petition signed by 50,000 people on Change.org, DynCorp added sexual orientation and gender identity to its workplace non-discrimination policies.

"It's terrific that DynCorp has moved to protect its LGBT employees, but let's also remember that dozens of other government contractors do not protect their workers from anti-LGBT harassment and discrimination," Almeida said in a press release. "An executive order outlawing discrimination at federal contractors on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity is sitting at the White House. President Obama should take this opportunity, in the wake of DynCorp's decision, to make sure that no government contractor uses taxpayer money to fund anti-LGBT harassment or discrimination."

The news that an ENDA-like bill was "sitting at the White House" prompted a new petition to Obama – and a number of stories: I criticized Obama for not including the need for ENDA in his State of the Union address; Chris Geidner at Metro Weekly wrote “From Partner Benefits to Affirmative Action, Proposed Contractor Executive Order Specifics Discussed;” and The Williams Institute's M.V. Lee Badgett wrote an op-ed for the New York Times: "What Obama Should Do About Workplace Discrimination."

Wednesday night, Feb. 22, from 6:15-8:00pm The Williams Institute and the City of West Hollywood are presenting an important panel discussion on the topic: "What Happened to the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA)” in the Community Room at the New West Hollywood Library, 625 N. San Vicente Boulevard. (Free validated parking at the parking structure on El Tovar Place off Robertson Boulevard in between Melrose Avenue and Santa Monica Blvd).

Continue reading "What Happened to ENDA?"...

Bill to reinstate 'DADT' in Oklahoma National Guard is shelved.

Kellogg's creates 'Totes Amazeballs' cereal for Twitter user.

Adam Levine joins the contraception debate, endorses the withdrawal method.

Action on "Don't Say Gay" bill delayed for amendment: "The House Education Committee put off discussion of a measure meant to curb discussions about homosexuality in elementary and middle school for a week so new language can be added specifically protecting some talks between students and their teachers, school nurses and guidance counselors."

Chace Crawford plays shirtless football, poses for paparazzi in Cabo San Lucas.

Mark Ronson talks about his work on the new Rufus Wainwright album. "It has a sort of really warm, mid '70s T Rex, Young Americans, Lauren Canyon kind of vibe to it."

Serbia to open first shelter for gays: "Dusica Davidovic, an official in the southern city of Nis, about 120 miles (200 kilometers) south of Belgrade, says the city needs a "safe house" where gays from the area could seek protection. A 19-year-old Serbian man was kicked out of his home last year after he publicly said he was gay. Stefan Radovic says his family has cut all ties with him and he has nowhere to live."

Nicki Minaj goes Smurf blue.

10 members of Congress pose for the NOH8 Campaign.

Amazing Race advance producer Jeff Rice poisoned in Uganda after attempted shakedown. "Details are sketchy, but the source said that after refusing to give in to the demands of local thugs, Rice and another facilitator ended up very sick with poisoning of some kind."

LOGO announces 2012 slate of shows, veers away from gay-specific programming: “These new projects are anchored by stories that go deep into today’s world: Wanting to start a family is a universal desire, no matter who you love. Families in business together during a recession could be the ultimate drama. Pets are now surrogate children for a lot of people—who go to great length to celebrate them.” Check out the new offerings here.

VIDEO: Justin Theroux breakdances for Ellen DeGeneres.

S.C.U.M. Manifesto: Andy Warhol shooter annotated her own book in the NY Public Library.

Andy Warhol died 25 years ago today.

Scientists discover steamy "water world" planet.

UK serial killer of gay men dies in prison: "He made a New Year’s Resolution on January 1, 1993 to become a serial killer and over the next six months killed five men he met at the Colherne pub in Earls Court. It was reported at the time he went back to his victim’s homes, got them to agree to be tied up, tortured and suffocated them."

Opening statements could begin today in Tyler Clementi roommate case: "Jury selection in 19-year-old Dharun Ravi's trial began Tuesday in New Brunswick, N.J., where Ravi faces charges of bias intimidation, in addition to invasion of privacy. Because the two bias intimidation charges are considered hate crimes, each carries a potential prison term of 10 years.  "

Ryan McGee wonders if the channel commonly credited with ushering in TV's "Golden Age" has actually damaged the medium:

HBO has shifted its model to produce televised novels, in which chapters unfold as part and parcel of a larger whole rather than serving the individual piece itself.  Here’s the problem: A television show is not a novel. That’s not to put one above the other. It’s simply meant to illuminate that each piece of art has to accomplish different things. HBO’s apparent lack of awareness of this difference has filtered into its product, and also filtered into the product of nearly every other network as well. 

James Poniewozik counters:

It’s true that a TV series is not a novel. But it’s also not a movie. Every medium works best when it takes advantage of what’s distinctive about it. TV is linear and cumulative, allowing a story to unfold over weeks, months or years. There were good business reasons to structure TV stories that began and ended within one episode, and many of them are still best told that way, but the ability to spread a story out is part of what makes TV TV.

Jason Mittell and Kathryn VanArendonk pile on McGee.

Tanya Ditty, a Georgia schoolteacher and the state director of Georgia's branch of the extremist wingnut group Concerned Women for America, testified against a bill that would ban discrimination against the state’s LGBT employees before a House panel on Tuesday, Project Q Atlanta reports.

Ditty warned that approving the bill would allow gay people, who according to Ditty are pedophiles and necrophiliacs (she has a whole list), to get jobs as teachers or janitors and prey on students. She also tells a personal story about her 'shocking' encounter with a transgender person in the restroom.

Whether her hateful testimony was influential or not, the panel effectively killed the bill by tabling it  in a 3-2 vote.

Watch Ditty's disgusting rant, AFTER THE JUMP...