There's no telling exactly when Madonna will take the stage for the Half Time show, but the earliest it could possibly be is 7:30, Eastern Standard. 8:30 p.m.'s most likely, it almost certainly won't be after 9:00.

“This service is being initiated in response to requests from people who desire the church’s assistance,” Sue Bernard, spokeswoman for the diocese, said in the press release.

... “Courage offers hope and encouragement to men and women who desire to live in accordance with the church’s teaching on homosexuality — specifically that the dignity and identity of every person is not determined by their sexual attractions, but by their relationship with the Lord and their striving to live the virtues of faith, hope and charity,” Bernard said.

This is the most flowery admonition to stop sexin' and start prayin' that I've ever heard.

Identities of Courage members are kept in strict confidence, and chapter meetings are held at times and locations disclosed only to participants. The therapeutic approach is based on the 12 steps, which rather annoys Rev. Mark Doty, a Congregationalist Portland cleric and out gay man, who tells the Bangor Daily News that it's "presumptuous and wrong-headed to equate homosexuality with addictive behavior."

The Bangor Daily gives the Courage chapter a good bit of free PR, explaining the five "five goals" of participants ...

• Live chaste lives in accordance with the Roman Catholic Church’s teaching on homosexuality.

• Dedicate their lives to Christ through service to others, spiritual reading, prayer, meditation, individual spiritual direction, frequent attendance at Mass and the frequent reception of the sacraments of Reconciliation and Holy Eucharist.

• Foster a spirit of fellowship in which all may share thoughts and experiences and so ensure that no one will have to face the problems of homosexuality alone.

• Be mindful of the truth that chaste friendships are not only possible but necessary in a chaste Christian life and in doing so provide encouragement to one another in forming and sustaining them.

• Live lives that may serve as good examples to others.

... and offering the relevant contact deets for anybody who'd like to sign up. One hopes the respondents will be misguided adults, but I've got a queasy feeling they'll mostly be parents afraid for the souls of their gay kids.

UPDATE: Although the creation of the Courage chapter has been mandated by a bishop in Portland and reported upon by a paper in Bangor, I note that it's being operated by a chaplain in Augusta and is intended to serve struggling souls across Maine. I've got no idea where they'll host their meetings, and, as noted, Courage isn't saying.

3,722 people who call New Hampshire "home" — our neighbors and friends, co-workers and family members — [are] making a commitment to share their love and caring for one another in marriage. A pretty decent thing for the "Live Free or Die" state.

But there are those who want to go backward. They want to repeal marriage. And there's a myth being promoted by those who oppose marriage equality. They say it was "brought" or "pushed onto" New Hampshire by out-of-state interests. They know better, but in their advertising they feel that such an untruth (I could call it worse) is persuasive.

I can attest first-hand to the fact that no one from out-of-state — no organization or individual — asked me to introduce either the civil unions bill in 2007 or gay marriage in 2009. Nor did any organization, group or political party within the state. Those of us who love New Hampshire and wanted to stop discrimination in marriage fought for change.

New Hampshire's Republican-controlled state legislature will meet on February 17th to discuss House Bill 437, which would repeal marriage equality and invalidate the same-sex unions that have been sanctified in the state since January 1st, 2010. HB 437 isn't a matter of political expedience -- polls suggest that well over half of all New Hampshirites support equality, and that only about a fifth strongly oppose it. (Some New Hampshire legislators have gone to extraordinary lengths to alter this political reality, but so far to no avail.) Rather, HB 437 is the result of a genuine, gut-level dislike for the LGBT community, as may be divined from the image above, which is featured prominently at nhmarriage.org.

There are reasons to hope that personal repugnance will be an insufficient political motivator in 2012. The New Hampshire Republican party is itself divided on the issue of marriage equality, thanks to the state party's strong libertarian bent. Unless they pull together a veto-proof majority, Gov. John Lynch pleadges to kill any anti-marriage legislation to cross his desk.

According to a just-published essay at Rainbow Rumpus, the online magazine for the children of LGBT parents, the Golden Orchid Society was a loose association of women which existed for hundreds of years in imperial China -- according to this presentation, they tended to be involved in silk production for export -- who shunned husbands, married each other, and often adopted orphaned girls. From Rumpus:

The courtship and marriage of two women in the Golden Orchid Society was similar to other couples in China at the time. If a woman wanted to marry another woman, she would offer the woman and her family gifts, such as tea and wedding cakes. If the woman accepted the presents, then the couple was engaged. For the wedding ceremony, the women probably wore traditional red Chinese wedding veils and changed their hairstyle from long braids, which were worn by single women, to buns, which were worn by married women. During the actual ceremony, the couple not only promised to be faithful to each other, but also honored their ancestors and parents.

Once married, the women lived together and cared for each other and their families. In a journal written in 1937, a traveler describes “two women [who] dwell together, always existing as if they were one woman. They are as close as a stalk of grain coming through a stone.”

Apparently all of this info is contained in an old academic tome by Bret Hinsch, entitled Passions of the Cut Sleeve: The Male Homosexual Tradition in China. It's now been spun into a children's book called Grandpa Dragon And My Peach Tree Moms, written by Rene Ohana and illustrated by Jackie Urbanovic. Grandpa Dragon is a lovely little book written from the perspective of Bao, a young orphan girl who's raised from infancy by an aging dragon and then deposited in the home of two loving lesbian mums. If you've got kids, download the fully illustrated version here.

Now Metro Weekly has gotten its hands on a "lengthy memo," penned by The Williams Institute and The Center for American Progress, urging the president to do just that, and outlining how such an order might be implemented. The memo has apparently made it to the White House as well as the desk of Rep. Barney Frank -- the legislature's greatest ENDA champion. On January 13th, several of the memo's authors and supporters met privately with Frank's senior policy advisor, Diego Sanchez.

From Metro Weekly:

The 12-page memorandum — which Sanchez confirmed to Metro Weekly was read by Frank — lays out the case for the executive order proposal, from ongoing discrimination faced by LGBT people to the fact that ENDA will not pass in the current Congress. It goes on to detail the specific methods that could be employed to issue the protections — from expansion of an existing executive order addressing federal contractor discrimination to a new executive order that specifically would address only sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination.

Sanchez, who led the Jan. 13 meeting, tells Metro Weekly, that the meeting was held at the request of Freedom to Work founder Tico Almeida, who served as the lead counsel for ENDA in the House from 2007 through 2010.

Of the memo, Sanchez notes, "Part of what was in the memo was about the timing: allowing six months for the Department of Labor to write the recommended regulations and allow for the public comment period, so everyone in the country would be able to weigh in.

"There has to be time enough to do the regulations," Sanchez says, making the case for quick executive action in light of this November's presidential election. "You can't just have the executive order; you have to have the regulations."

The memo notes that more than half of government contractors already have workplace protections in place for LGBT employees, either because of local legislation or out of the goodness of their hearts. But according to The Williams' Institute's Brad Sears, one of the memo's co-authors, there are still "millions of employees" with no protection at all.

If the Obama administration wishes to protect the LGBT employees of government contractors, according to MetroWeekly, it has two obvious ways of doing so. President Obama could amend Executive Order 11246, which already includes protection from discrimination based on "race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." Or Obama could issue a new order altogether. From Metro Weekly:

Amending the existing executive order "would strongly signal that discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity warrants a remedy similar to that which is used to reduce discrimination based race, color, religion, sex, or national origin" but "could result in a legal challenge that attacks the entirety of EO 11246" and would raise questions, which the memo states are easily addressed, about whether the expansion would "trigger affirmative action and data collection requirements." Issuing a new executive order, the memo states, would avoid those issues but "may attract more political attention than would amending the existing order."

If Obama takes any action at all, his job will be easier for the work done by The Williams Institute and the Center for American Progress, who have already studied at length the impact either an amendment or a new order might have on all aspects of the contracting process. Almeida tells the Metro Weekly that he's pretty sure the administration will take some action:

"I'm now sufficiently confident" that [the executive order] will be signed, Almeida tells Metro Weekly. "When he does, we want our Capitol Hill allies to be fully briefed ... to be strong advocates for the wonderful thing the president will have done at that point."

Earlier this week, the Rt. Rev. Greg Rickel, VIII Bishop of Olympia, posted the following to his blog:

It is expected that our Washington state legislators will very soon, perhaps even tomorrow begin floor deliberations on HB2516 & SB6239 with the Senate to begin.  Passage of these bills or a version of them would make same sex marriage law in our state.   Our Episcopal Church, after a long discussion about this over the years is poised to do roughly the same this summer at our General Convention.

While I am careful about wading into our legislator’s business, I would say this is the church’s business too.  I have a asked by many about my feelings on it, and I have decided to share them.  The ideas are not new,  I have shared them openly in the walk-abouts before becoming your bishop and in many venues before and since.

Christianity has held, when considering relationships of all sorts, but especially in relation to two people in marriage, fidelity to be our value.   Fidelity is the value in most all our sacraments and also in our life as Christians.

It seems to me we have held our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters in a “catch-22″.  We say they cannot live up to our value because they cannot be married, or even blessed in their union.  While many of them have begged for this, it is still not possible.    What they ask of us, the church and the government, is to put boundaries around their relationship, to hold them in the same regard and with the same respect, which would also mean that we expect the same from them.  They are not asking for special treatment.  They are asking for equal treatment.   They are asking to be accountable, as a couple, in community.  To me, this is a conservative proposal.  I am for it, and I hope we will finally make way for this to happen, not only in our society, but also in our church.

Faithfully,

The Rt. Rev. Gregory H. Rickel

As SeattlePi points out, allowing gay clergy to serve and straight clergy give voice to such opinions has cost the Episcopals buildings, lands, membership and money in the last decade. And it's still costing them -- one irate commentator on the Bishop's blog promises to ditch the church if marriage equality is enshrined in Washington law, as now looks likely.

As Andy reported, many Washington clerics are already plotting to reverse equality, should equality come. It's good to know the Rt. Rev.'s around to balance the scale.

With 10% of the results in, Romney had about 48% of the vote while Rep. Ron Paul and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich were in a tight race for second with 21% and 20% of the vote, respectively. Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, who had largely bypassed the state, had 11% of the vote. Those numbers were gathered from vote counters at caucus sites across the state.

With a win in Nevada, Romney will be the first GOP candidate in this cycle to score back-to-back wins. The former Massachusetts governor appeared to win in the Iowa caucuses but the contest was later awarded to Santorum when the vote was certified. Romney scored a big win in New Hampshire but was then stunned in South Carolina by Gingrich. Romney scored a 14-point victory over Gingrich and the rest of the field in Tuesday's Florida primary and entered Saturday's contest with a sizable lead in polls.

No surprises here. Momentum or no, Nevada's pretty Mornon.

The big news from tonight's primary, if any news from tonight's primary can be ascribed qualities of bigness, is how utterly defeated looked the massively homophobic Rick Santorum as he delivered his concession speech. He took off and signed his tie right at the beginning of his address -- it's to be auctioned off later by some improbable groupie -- and rambled on, looking sad and rumpled, for a good fifteen minutes about imperiled American freedoms and imperiled American values and the cruel vagaries of money politics before Wolf Blitzer cut him off.

Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, and Ron Paul have yet to speak. (Gingrich says he's foregoing the usual concession speech and intends to do an honest-to-goodness press conference.) If anybody says anything interesting, I'll post the speeches tomorrow.

“People ask me all the time, ‘Can the Afghan National Security Forces hold what we’ve got and maintain security?’ ” General Toolan told me. “I say, absolutely: they’re better-trained, better-equipped and better-liked than the insurgency. They can do it. However, what is important is their will. Their will is a function of their leadership. And their leadership is oftentimes susceptible to corruption.” This perhaps would be the greatest tragedy of all: if the gains earned in Helmand by the coalition since 2006 were lost because of a lack of will. For what would the British and Americans have sacrificed so much? To what end would we be able to say 821 of them gave their lives?

Before I left Sangin, I attended a memorial service for two marines who were killed a week earlier by an I.E.D. The centerpiece of any memorial for a marine is the formal construction of his battle cross. The rifle stuck bayonet down, the helmet set atop the butt stock, the dog tags draped on the pistol grip, the boots placed on the ground. The end result is a movingly personlike assemblage of the dead man’s essential gear. What holds it all together is the rifle. Clearly, the rifle is meant to symbolize a kind of linchpin — the singularly vital thing. Yet somehow, it is the boots, their laces neatly looped and tied, that are most affecting. It is the boots, not the rifle, that most evoke an absence.

What are dying people's top five regrets?

Journalistic ethics: Should gay cruises be called gay cruises?

Miley Cyrus supports marriage equality, suffers Christian backlash:

... Cyrus reveals the threats and hate mail she received in 2010 after she tweeted a photo of a tattoo on her finger, which with the message "all love is equal" demonstrated her support for same-sex marriage. Cyrus writes that she was mocked by some fans, adding "They said, 'What happened to you? You used to be a Christian girl!' And I said, 'Well, if you were a true Christian, you would have your facts straight. Christianity is about love.'"

Is this conservative Christian's discussion of moral relativism a straw-man argument, or is there something to it?

The Advocate on "The Wit, Wisdom, and Rage of of Gran Fury."

Love finds a way! Incarcerated Swedish cannibal finds love with incarcerated Swedish vampire:

He killed mother-of-five Helle Christensen - his girlfriend at the time - by cutting her head off, eating parts of her body and then boasting about it on the Internet.

She stabbed a single father to death and then drank his blood - posing in a picture online, before her arrest, with blood dripping from her lips, holding a power saw and a knife.

... the diabolical duo live in hope. Gustafsson posted on the Internet this week: 'We want to live together at some point, have dogs and pursue our hobbies: piercing and tattoos. '

Her cannibal fiance added: 'I love Michelle. Have never met anyone like her. I want to live a non-criminal life.'

Georgia judge decides that Obama is a natural born citizen and can therefore be President of The United States. Obama's lawyer never bothered to show at the hearing. Some people are really upset:

Obama’s action, he said, “amounts to no less than a declaration of total dictatorial authority. Such declaration cannot go without response from this court. Failure to respond to the defendant’s contumacious conduct would amount to an admission that this court and the judicial branch as a whole do not have the authority granted to them under articles III and IV of the Constitution.”

The controversy over Obama’s eligibility dates to before his election in 2008. Some contend he was not born in Hawaii and that the birth documentation the White House released in April is a forgery.

Others say it doesn’t matter where he was born, as his father never was a U.S. citizen.

The Constitution requires presidents to be “natural-born citizens,” and experts say that the Founders regarded it as the offspring of two U.S. citizens.

... Top constitutional expert Herb Titus contends that a “natural-born citizen” is born of parents who were U.S. citizens at the time of the birth. The argument also is supported by a 19th-century U.S. Supreme Court decision, Minor vs. Happersett in 1875. The case includes one of very few references in the nation’s archives that addresses the definition of “natural-born citizen.”

That case states: “The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”

Stump for marriage equality with your license plate in South Carolina.

(HT to Jezebel.) Everyone's saying this is a rap battle between a 17-year-old named Blizzard and his teacher. That's probably not true, but I wish it was. Because if it was -- wow! What an education! The battle starts around 1:25. Check it out AFTER THE JUMP ...

Ricky Martin didn't like the segment so much, and neither did GLAAD. Immediately after the spot aired, Ricky tweeted “El heterosexual nace o se hace?” -- were you born straight or not? And last night, GLAAD took Univision to task for giving short shrift to the overwhelming evidence that degayification therapies are generally harmful and ineffective, not to mention unnecessary. From GLAAD's release:

The [Univision] segment essentially applauded a man who claimed he "successfully became straight," and interviewed at length a so-called expert therapist who was allowed to make false claims about success in changing sexual orientation. Although sparked by reports of hundreds of clinics in Ecuador that attempted to change their victims’ orientation, sometimes with torture tactics, the show neglected to appropriately include victims of “conversion therapies.” The segment also neglected to report that organizations like Exodus are often not licensed and have been discredited by major mainstream psychological associations.

The American Psychiatric Association states that “The potential risks of ‘reparative therapy’ are great, including depression, anxiety and self destructive behavior, since therapist alignment with societal prejudices against homosexuality may reinforce self-hatred already experienced by the patient” (from its position statement on Psychiatric Treatment and Sexual Orientation). The Ecuadorian government has discredited and declared illegal these so-called treatments, and has affirmed its commitment to investigate any centers that offer them.

Watch the original Univision broadcast AFTER THE JUMP ...

Well -- worry no more for the unabiding spirit of Mr. Davies, for he has now been un-Baptized. On television. By Bill Maher. Watch AFTER THE JUMP ...

LaBarbera and Wooden read that, and hashed over it in an interview in which they discuss, in all seriousness, how much happier Pam will be once she discovers God, motherhood, and penises:

Dr. Wooden: Pam needs Jesus. And, and when Pam meets the Lord that yearning for a member of the same sex will change, and uh, you know what? She’d probably make a fantastic mother, and would enjoy having a husband who was born male -- no Chaz Bono business -- born male – and meet her man, and rock her world. In the name of the Lord!

Pete LaBarbera: She's uh, you know, you're right about the hatrd. You expect the hatred to come. This is a perversion movement, folks.

First, of course, Dr. Wooden made a great show of explaining how much he loved Pam and how much he'd like to take her to lunch. Because that's how one demonstrates love for strangers, isn't it? Tell them what to put in their vaginas, and then offer to demonstrate your groovy paternalism over sandwiches and Cokes? 

You can read a lengthy transcript from the interview at Pam's House Blend, as well as Pam's very funny commentary. You can also listen to four minutes of the interview AFTER THE JUMP ...

RightWingWatch recorded this cornball radio address from Family Research Council president Tony Perkins:

There's more than coffee brewing at Starbucks. There's controversy too. Hello, I'm Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council in Washington, D.C. Starbucks is stirring the pot all right, but with a liberal agenda that's got customers shaking their heads. In the fight over marriage in Washington State, the Seattle company is picking sides. Last week, the chain announced it'll join the attack on marriage and endorse homosexual unions. Spokesman Karen Holmes said, "This important legislation is aligned with Starbucks business practices... It is core to who we are and what we value as a company." Well, it may be at the core of who Starbucks is, but it's not at the core of who America is. Voters overwhelmingly believe in man-woman marriage--and they've passed 30 straight amendments to prove it. If Starbucks thinks people like their radical agenda, I hate to spill the beans. But people can get their caffeine fix anywhere. So if Starbucks wants to focus on politics, then its profits are on dangerous grounds.

... and HuffPo directs readers to this press release from USA Christian Ministries, entitled "Christians Boycott Starbucks -- Because Romans 1 Explains Starbucks Hate God," which reads, in part:

... There is an 80% Christian majority in the USA and 1-2% homosexuals.

“Christians are upset with Starbucks for turning against God, but we are glad to know that Starbucks doesn’t pretend to be for Christians,” said Pastor Steven Andrew, who is president of USA Christian Ministries. He calls every Christian and church to boycott Starbucks. Leviticus 18:22 says, “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.”

“This boycott is important because God blesses those who obey Him and judges those who don’t obey Him (2 Chronicles 19:2),” he adds.

Don’t expect to hear sermons with “grab your Starbucks” or to see Starbucks served at churches. “Starbucks is no longer fashionable. If your church still uses Starbucks, then your pastor is a friend of the world,” he adds. God calls those who oppose Him “haters of God” (Romans 1:30).

It is hoped that Christians will quickly share this boycott with their church.

A curious point: As HuffPo points out, Starbucks is joined in supporting marriage equality by Microsoft and Google. Why aren't Rev. Andrew and Tony Perkins calling for a boycott of those companies? Too inconvenient? You know, once upon a time, the True Believers could build arks and part seas and roam the desert with naught to eat but manna from heaven. If nowadays they can't even abide a few months without operating systems and search engines, I say they're not very serious about this whole "faith" thing at all. 

The one and only at one of many film premieres for W.E.

BY NATHANIEL ROGERS  

MADONNA ROUNDTABLE INTERVIEW
The room freezes in place. She's the first person to speak after her entrance

"Hi," she says casually, like it's Nothing. But she must know it's not. This is most definitely Something.   

"Hi everyone. It's Madonna," her publicist adds redundantly as they near the table of journalists. As if She could possibly be anyone else. Madonna shakes all of our hands (omnipresent black gloves: Check!). She repeats all of our names back to us. Madonna saying your name back to you is a strangely surreal experience, both utterly mundane and impossible. 

She has entered 'The (Mostly) Gay Room' as its been dubbed to discuss her new film W.E., since most of the journalists are with gay publications. "Cool." is her monosyllabic response. She's promised we'll put her in a good mood for the rest of the day. "Let's start with levity," she says though it sounds more hopeful than bossy.  We're all squished round a table with recorders on. Normally roundtable press functions are ruthless and noisy. The stars are barely allowed to take a breath, without someone shouting another question for fear of missing a window. This room, The (Mostly) Gay Room, is reverent. Madonna takes her time. Rarely does anyone step over her words. She answers each question methodically and slowly.

Unless she doesn't want to. 

"Please don't throw those tired clichés at me," she says when one guy dares to begin his question with 'Queen of Reinvention'. Though, once the room laughs, she does answer his question. 

MADONNA ON CHILD REARING AND "W.E." AFTER THE JUMP...

Andrea Riseborough and James D'Arcy as the Duke and Duchess of Windsor in W.E.

"Not that this has anything to do with my film," she begins, humoring the only truly off topic question which she deems interesting. How does she approach parenting when her kids are obviously growing up in entirely different circumstances than she did? "My parents raised me in a very conventional way and I rebelled against it. Now my children come to me and they often want to do things because everybody else does them and I say to them 'That's just the worst reason i've ever heard for doing something' and I encourage them to question things,to take responsibility for their behavior, to think outside the box. They will have a different set of challenges. They will be compared to me. I will be some kind of benchmark that they have to live with and deal with... We are all born into our challenges. I don't think for a second that life is going to be simple and easy for them."

She's wearing a bracelet that's much like the one Wallis Simpson (Andrea Riseborough) wears in the film. "Cartier made two bracelets -- for the film not me. They recreated them for Andrea to wear. I asked if I could have one at the end and they said 'No.'" she says, with a self-deprecating laugh. (Yes, there are people that tell Madonna 'No.') "They made this for me as a consolation prize. I got four crosses, one for each of my children. Better than nothing." 

Madonna and Riseborough on the set of W.E.

Her passion for the story of Wallis Simpson, the woman for whom  the King of England abdicated his throne, is evident in every answer. She has a very clear point of view and wants to counter decades of stories which always focus on what the King lost and not what Wallis herself went through. "The thing i discovered the most about Wallis Simpson was really how much she tried to avoid the actual marriage taking place. How she saw the writing on the wall. And how she tried her best to get Edward/David to see the writing on the wall and see what they were both in store for. Obviously she couldn't talk him into her point of view. He was just c**t-struck as they say in England." 

Another thing that appealed to her about the story is that each of the four principal characters are outsiders in their own worlds, their romances don't fit societal expectations, something gay audiences can surely relate to. "I think a lot of us feel like we don't fit in, strangely enough, that we don't fit into the conventional norm or what society expects of us. I think more and more and more people are redefining what makes a family, what makes a couple, what makes love, what makes romance, what are soulmates. All of these things we are reinventing this because family is what you make it." 

She researched the story for three years while writing the screenplay and though the project has wrapped people are still bringing her bits and bobs. "I'm still discovering things about her and I'm sure I will for the rest of my life. I was actually going through my papers and boxes and my files the other day and I found an astrological reading that someone had done for me 30 years ago and I was reading it and the woman was talking about some aspect of my personality and she quoted Wallis simpson. So i thought how weird. She was already part of my life. You know what I mean? That was a little foreshadowing." It's a quote she actually used in the film "all for love and the world well lost".  

Even when the questions in the room stay close to the film, it's clear the questions are also about Madonna. She's prepared for a question about the similarities between Wallis Simpson and Eva Peron, another fashionable historical icon who she'll forever be associated with.

"What they have in common is what many people have in common who are public figures who become iconic and who have some kind of historical impact. Especially strong women. I think people have a tendency to feel intimidated by the strength of these women. In order to deal with them a lot of people who write history books and humanity in general have a tendency to diminish women or undermine their accomplishments or try to portray them as heretical, evil, in possession of some kind of sorcery, to undermine their strength or accomplishments or their intelligence." Even before she's done answering the question you can see Madonna bracing for the follow up. Has she ever felt this way?

"Well, yeah sure. Of course." 

So we're back to Madonna again. The Super Bowl is coming, her new album MDNA, W.E. is playing in movie theaters. How would she define this era in her career?

"Busy," she blurts out bluntly to the delight of the room. Most questions get full paragraph answers but she knows when one word will do. She's always been a savvy entertainer.

She's soon whisked away from us, for the next room of reporters though she pauses first, momentarily confused that we're not the ones leaving the room now that we've paid our respects. All we have left of her is our memory of that iconic face, and her voice on our electronic devices, which is not unlike what she's always left us with if you stop to think about it. This time, though, we also have a story we'll be telling until our dying day, no matter how mundane the actual specifics. "I met Madonna."  Impossible but true.

****

Nathaniel Rogers would live in the movie theater but for the poor internet reception. He blogs daily at the Film Experience. Follow him on Twitter @nathanielr.

Well -- if you're a Muslim, hold your tongue. According to the AFP, a Muslim businessman in Canada was recently arrested and briefly imprisoned after authorities intercepted a text message in which he told his sales staff to "blow away" the competition at a New York trade show.

From the AFP:

Moroccan-born Saad Allami, who works as a telecommunications company sales manager, was arrested three days after he sent the message in January 2011 and detained while police searched his home, said the Muslim Council of Montreal.

"The whole time, the officers kept repeating to the plaintiff's wife that her husband was a terrorist," said court filings in a lawsuit filed by Allami, cited by local media. Allami was released after four hours of questioning.

Mr. Allami's colleagues were reportedly detained at the border en route to New York.

Mr. Allami's not taking this treatment lying down. He's not seeking over $100,000 in damages from the Quebec provincial police. His day in the Quebec Superior Court arrives in early March.

At a campaign stop in Fulton, Missouri today, a gay man asked Rick Santorum, "Who are you to tell me that I don't have the same rights as anyone else in this country?"

Santorum told the man that he's entitled "like any other person to equal treatment under the law" but not "special treatment" and that marriage is "for the purposes of having children and continuing...civilization," Think Progress LGBT reports.

"It is an intrinsic good…And as a result of that, we extend a privilege. We extend certain privileges to people who do that because we want to encourage that behavior..."

Watch, AFTER THE JUMP...