News for the Week Ended January 26, 2011
BY ANN ROSTOW
Federal Judge Allows DOMA Suit To Proceed
I’m not sure how I missed this item last week, but someone managed to transport a 650-pound grand piano 200 yards off the Miami coast and leave it on a sandbar in Biscayne Bay. The piano is resting on a high point, which is not underwater. Authorities have no plans to remove it.
I love this quixotic story. I love the people who decided to put a piano on a sandbar. I love the Coast Guard and the Miami law enforcers who have decided to keep their hands off the surreal scene. All we need now is a candelabra and a thin man in tails.
I guess the man reason I chose to lead my column with this piece of news is because it shows us, once again, that anything is possible. I don’t mean that in a sugary sense. It’s possible for planes to knock down the twin towers, something we had not known ten years ago. But it’s also possible for a grand piano to appear in the middle of a bay. Dreams, like nightmares, can come true.
I’m supposed to lead my column with an actual news story, so that the first headline reads something like: “Federal Judge Allows DOMA Suit to Proceed,” rather than: “Piano Will Remain on Florida Sandbar.”
That said, a federal judge in Oakland refused to dismiss a lawsuit brought against the U.S. government and the California pension system (CalPERS) by several married gay couples. The couples, all state employees, are trying to get long-term insurance for their spouses. But CalPERS has refused, claiming it could lose federal tax advantages by recognizing same-sex marriages and thereby violating the Defense of Marriage Act.
In denying the Obama administration’s motion to dismiss the case, Judge Claudia Wilken made clear that she believes DOMA is unconstitutional. Ergo, she will presumably rule in favor of the same-sex couples once the trial is over. Meanwhile, lawyers will be back in Wilken’s court next month to try to certify the case as a class action.
--
Irrelevant Detour
This computer is running slower than a crock-pot, which makes it difficult to maintain my concentration. I mean seriously. I just spent five minutes trying to determine whether the federal judge in that DOMA case was Judge Claudia “Wilken” or “Wilkens.” In doing so, I came across several stories where she was referred to as Judge “Wilkins” “Wilkens” and “Wilkin.” Attention online news services: Editors please!
You know which pain-killer I’m going to avoid from now on? The answer is “Aleve,” which is running commercials featuring a depressing cast of dreary middle-aged nonentities who shuffle through their drab workdays taking pill after pill for their various aches and pains. In the end, they all decide to use Aleve so they can take fewer pills, and the whole scenario is narrated “Dick and Jane” style, by an annoying plodding voice over man.
“This is Steven, who decided to take Aleve, for a day free of pain.”
Hello? Do you think I want to emulate boring Steven or his sad female counterpart? No! Show me a handsome man and beautiful woman who strained their muscles moving a 650-pound piano onto a sandbar and I’ll happily buy your product.
--
Back To The Grindstone
That last section was originally supposed to focus on news from the state legislatures, but here’s the problem.
There’s nothing worse than having to cover the progress of a bill through a state legislature. First it’s introduced. Then it goes through a few committees. Then it goes to the floor of one of the chambers. Then it goes to committees in the other chamber. Then, maybe it passes and goes to the governor. But meanwhile, it could get shelved, amended, delayed, stuck in committee, whatever. Meanwhile, you and I might spend week after week watching sausage processed in the Iowa or Wyoming legislature, and in the end it all gets dumped in a vat, mixed with sawdust and sold to Taco Bell.
I’d prefer to just skip the preliminary stages and wait until the outcome is clear. But then again, my email is full of screaming headlines right now and the noise is deafening.
Take Iowa. (Please!)
Badaboom.
A house committee in the Ethanol State has approved an amendment that would roll back marriage rights and outlaw civil unions and domestic partnerships in the process. Everyone is rightly outraged at this prospect.
But you know what? The Democratic leader of the state senate has already pledged to make sure this amendment never makes it to a vote in his chamber, so as far as I’m concerned, it’s not news and it’s not worth worrying about.
In Hawaii, it looks as if the legislature will try again to pass a civil union bill. They passed one last year, but it was vetoed by Linda Lingle. Now, Linda’s out and Democrat Neil Abercrombie is in. Still, this will be more newsworthy once the bill actually reaches his desk.
Wyoming lawmakers are pushing a civil union bill, an anti-marriage amendment, and a statute that bans marriage recognition. The antigay amendment just passed a senate committee and the antigay stature just passed a house committee, but both proposals have more hearings ahead before they can advance to a floor vote. I know, I know. The specter of tedious and confusing news developments out of the Cheney State already casts a dark shadow on our future columns.
Continuing on, a marriage equality bill has a good chance to pass in Maryland over the next several weeks. I also think New York will try to pass marriage equality but I’m not clear on the chances of such an effort. There’s stuff going on in Rhode Island (bill introduced to legalize marriage). And Republicans in New Hampshire, where marriage is already legal, have indicated that they are not inclined to put much effort into repealing marriage rights, which is nice.
I’m sure there are other gay things going on in other states, but why don’t we just wait until they approach newsworthy status? What would you rather read about? Some dead-on-arrival workplace nondiscrimination bill in Virginia, where the governor hates us? Or my opinion of the Aleve commercials?
Just as I thought!
--
On The Small Screen
Here’s some news. Robert Greenblatt, a gay-friendly entertainment executive who used to work for Showtime, has moved to NBC and ordered a pilot for a lesbian show. Called “I hate that I love you,” the show focuses on two women, their straight buddies, and a pregnancy. I’m not sure what the title implies. Presumably the women are not self-loathing, but have a tempestuous relationship of some sort. I’m sure a baby will be just the thing.
Well, we’ll see. It’s all about the writing after all. I always thought that there should be comic-drama show about a GLBT newspaper or magazine with fun characters. One of the writers would be a straight woman, or man, who pretends to be gay in order to get a reporting job and has to hide her or his relationship. The publisher would be well known as a spokesperson for the community, but behind closed doors would be a pragmatic and centrist business person.
Many of the plots would revolve around intriguing news stories dug up by the intrepid staff. And there would have to be a deep-pocketed secret donor who could finance some of the investigative journalism. Well, of course this sort of idea occurred to me since I have long worked for GLBT papers and magazines. But I still like it.
I also like the idea of a gay All in the Family, which gently ridicules the homophobic matriarch or patriarch.
I have actually written several TV episodes along these lines, so Robert, give me a call. (Hey, you never know.)
In other TV news, Frito Lay is considering a couple of gay-themed Dorito ads for the Super Bowl. One involves a gay male couple eating chips poolside while their neighbors peer over the hedge. Somehow, the otherwise neutral dialogue confirms their view that their male neighbor is gay, but frankly I’m not sure why. Anyway, they’re eating chips.
In the other one, a white guy and a black guy are sitting naked in the sauna. The white guy glances down at the black guy’s lap (which we can’t see) and looks, well, hungry. He reaches down and in the end we see that the black guy is holding a bag of Doritos. I think it’s pretty funny, but I gather some of the sterner watchdogs in our community think the ads may rely on “stereotypes.”
For God’s sake. All ads rely on stereotypes. The housewives sigh as the clumsy husbands spill things on the counter. The husbands go to any lengths to avoid household chores. The kids are rascally. The list goes on. There’s nothing wrong with gay stereotypes. There’s something wrong with using them to denigrate gay people. I don’t see any of that in the Doritos ads. Check them out on youtube and see what you think.
--
SOTU Brutus
Did you watch the State of the Union speech last night?
I read a great piece by Wayne Beson, the activist/writer who runs Truth Wins Out and writes regular columns on the ex-gay industry and other topics. Beson noted that by passing the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, Obama let the air out of balloon of gay rage that was about to explode.
I agree with him. Even though the DADT repeal only directly affects the small minority of gays and lesbians in military service, the impact of this achievement affects us all in a profound way. I won’t rehash that subject, but in doing this one thing, Obama can no longer be seen as impotent or indifferent to gay rights.
He’s no “fierce champion,” and we still have many complaints. But the DADT repeal, along with the new regulations on hospital recognition of gay partners and some other little things he did remind us that he’s on our side to some extent.
Without the DADT repeal, I would have watched last night’s speech with mixed feelings. I admire so many things about Obama. I agree with his policies. I think he saved our economy, saved our auto industry, and has “reset” our foreign policy to use the trendy term. But for a long time I felt he had turned his back on me, tossed me aside as a pesky special interest mosquito that he couldn’t be bothered with. Now, I feel like a slightly neglected pet who was sad, but got a pat and a bone and feels better.
The pat and the bone allowed me to watch the SOTU as the networks called it without bringing my personal pique to the exercise. His speech, along with his speech in Tucson, reminded me of his intelligence and compassion. Indeed, it’s my very admiration for Obama that makes his seeming disdain for GLBT civil rights so painful. But I have some faith that he will step up to the plate in his second term. Maybe he’ll even find a way to lean towards us in his judicial strategy over the next two years.
By the way, are all of you upset by the loss of Keith Olbermann?
I’m not. I’m a yellow dog Democrat and agreed with Olbermann on every issue, but I couldn’t stand the guy. I thought he was pompous and egotistical and after several years of loyal viewing I couldn’t listen to his bombast anymore.
Lastly, did you hear that Dennis Kucinich is suing the Longworth Cafeteria for $150,000 because he got an olive pit in his wrap back in 2008? The former presidential candidate says he suffered severe and permanent damage to his teeth.
Now, if that’s true, he deserves some cash. But how do you destroy your teeth by biting into an olive pit? As soon as you encounter a foreign object you instinctively relax your bite and investigate, right? You don’t continue to crunch down. Unless Kucinich took a powerful crazy chomping bite, I don’t see how he could have done that kind of damage. Just saying.
--
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
NOM That Tune
News for the Week Ended January 19, 2011
BY ANN ROSTOW
NOM That Tune
Good morning dear Readers. I’ve just had the pleasure of listening to a conversation between Maggie Gallagher of the National Organization for Marriage and Reince Priebus, the new head of the Republican National Committee whose parents seemed to have turned his real name into an anagram before making a formal record.
Reince Priebus? I’m not in the habit of ridiculing people for their names of all things, but you could almost close your eyes, type 13 letters at random, and come up with something more, um, name-like.
Sghdbs Sjbciha? Pnsisk Fydnikd? (Actual test of above theory.)
Perhaps that was an exaggeration.
At any rate, Reince reassured Maggie that indeed he opposed same-sex marriage rights and when pressed, explained his belief that children “are better off with a mother and a father.”
I was struck, not by the fact that the new party chair follows the party line, but by the continuing disconnect between conservative talking points and the real world. Last month during the Senate hearings on Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, there was some discussion about “phasing in” a new policy, as if repealing the ban on openly gay service meant that gay men would suddenly be entering the military as brand new recruits, moving into the barracks with their two-toned persimmon bedrolls (right next to your bunk!) blasting Judy Garland from the communal CD player, and calling everyone “Girl!”
Likewise, much of the discussion on marriage laws seems to imply that gay men and lesbians would suddenly start forming committed relationships and families from scratch if policies were to change.
Does Reince Priebus believe that as long as marriage remains legally barred, gay couples will not exist, and will not have children? Does he believe that under current law, we are obliged to hand our children over to heterosexual families? Or does he believe that without the right to marry our partners, we ourselves will have no choice but to marry members of the opposite sex and raise children “with a mother and a father?”
Has he even thought through his nonsensical rationale? He also decried judges who use the Full Faith and Credit Clause to try and impose their social views on the rest of the nation, even though in nearly two decades of covering gay rights law I have never encountered such a ruling.
Anyway, I suppose he’s better than Michael Steele, who could double as an “unsub” on Criminal Minds.
--
Lesbianism, Italian Style
There are a couple of intriguing legal developments this week, but I prefer to begin the meat of this column with some news from the Daily Mail, where we learn that Silvio Berlusconi enjoyed “staged lesbian sex shows” at “whorehouse parties,” court records show.
Don’t you love court records?
The Daily Mail editors might have interceded on behalf of the lead sentence, which reads:
“Women paid to have sex with Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi dressed in nurse and police uniforms and performed stripteases at parties, it was claimed today.”
I can’t decide which image I prefer. A bevy of barely legal models in provocative costumes, or a group of women lining up with their checkbooks begging for a little sugar from a cross-dressing 74-year-old. I’m assuming that the ludicrous libertine was the one shelling out the cash, although I like the surrealism of the second interpretation.
As for the lesbian connection, the Daily Mail reports that the ladies would “dance seductively, semi-naked, lesbian style” for the statesman’s entertainment.
Have the editors of the Daily Mail been to a women’s bar lately? Personally, I think business would pick up pretty quickly at Pattie’s Pink Palace if the sisters did something more interesting than lean on the bar, play pool and smoke cigarettes on the patio. Fully clothed I might add. Come on girls! Take a lesson in the “lesbian style” from your (presumably) straight mentors in Milan.
Among the other stories available on the Daily Mail website was news of a 250-year-old wild peach tree scheduled to be axed for a new high speed rail terminal, an item about a terrier so vicious that the mailmen refuse to service his street, and a link to: “Hop on! Snake gives frog a piggy back to beat the Australian floods.” Alas, we must resist the Siren songs of these teasers and move on to the U.S. Supreme Court.
--
Plucky Frog Survives Snake Ride
I know I’m supposed to start discussing the High Court’s decision to let stand Washington DC’s human rights policy, and by extension, the capital city’s same-sex marriage law. But my imagination remains captured by the snake swimming through the floodwaters with the little frog on its back. Wasn’t there a famous conundrum along these lines? Maybe with a fox or a scorpion?
OK. I untied myself from the mast and returned to the story, where indeed the writers made reference to the fable of the frog and the scorpion:
“Real life played out backwards this time though, as the frog was the animal hitching a ride. But whereas in the fable the scorpion stings the frog, causing them both to drown, this story had a happy ending as the two plucky animals put aside old differences to fight the elements.”
There’s a photo of the touching scene as well.
Oh, and the vicious terrier’s name is “Peggy,” so he’s a she.
Moving on! Or moving back to the Supreme Court. The justices didn’t actually make a ruling. Instead, they declined, without comment, to review the question of whether Washington has the constitutional authority to ban public votes on matters of human rights. The ban on such plebiscites allowed the District to legalize same-sex marriage last year without risking a citywide referendum, and the High Court’s silence on the matter means that marriage equality will remain unchallenged in the nation’s capital.
It takes four justices to agree to take up a case, so the news indicates that at least one member of the foursome of Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito shied away from the question. Who knows? Maybe all four of them voted to reject review, since the issue wasn’t marriage per se, but would have (perhaps) obliged the nation’s top court to interfere with a local city ordinance.
Still, the decision is sort of significant. If nothing else it signals that the Court’s conservative bloc will not go to any and all lengths to undermine marriage equality. Plus, marriage opponents were disappointed and that’s always a pleasure to witness.
--
Brief Encounters
In other court news, the Obama administration filed its brief in support of section three of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) last Thursday before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
The First Circuit has combined two challenges to DOMA’s federal marriage definition out of the state of Massachusetts; one, an equal protection claim on behalf of married couples by the Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, and the other, a states rights claim under the Spending Clause and the Tenth Amendment by the state of Massachusetts itself. The lower court ruled in our favor in both lawsuits, and Obama insists he has no choice but to defend federal law on appeal, even though he also insists that he opposes DOMA on principle.
Obama is walking a fine line, and as part of this balancing act, his justice department has rejected most of the really horrible antigay arguments that others use to attack marriage rights.
Instead, the Justice Department claims that Congress has the constitutional right to “maintain the status quo,” by imposing a heterosexual definition of marriage on federal law. Obama also maintains that Congress has the right to seek “uniformity” in the federal definition of marriage, while leaving it up to the states to experiment with marriage policies during a volatile period of national debate. Blah blah blah blah.
I need an emoticon for “sticking my finger down my throat.” Maybe we can just use SMFDMT. At any rate, GLAD and Massachusetts will file their reply briefs on March 1, at which point the government will file a reply to the replies. After that, we’ll hear oral arguments and unless the First Circuit chooses to drag this out, we should see a major federal appellate ruling on a core marriage issue by the end of this year.
As for the Prop 8 case, don’t hold your breath for a Ninth Circuit ruling on the merits of the California marriage ban. As you know, the Ninth Circuit has asked the California Supreme Court for an interim ruling on a question of standing under state law. That was when, two weeks ago? The California justices have yet to respond to the Ninth Circuit, but if they agree to consider the question, which is likely, we’re probably looking at a delay of several months, perhaps many months.
Indeed, if you’re looking for high level court action on marriage rights anytime soon, circle your calendar for January 28, when France’s top constitutional court will decide whether same-sex marriage is mandated under national law. The last time this court handled a gay case, the question of adoption rights, they kicked it over to Parliament, so it’s possible they’ll do the same thing for marriage. That said, I have paid more attention to the frog and the snake in Queensland than I have to the French marriage case, so pay me no mind. I did tell you the date of the decision, however, so I’m not completely useless.
--
Good Day for Gay Dads
I just went outside and it was really beautiful. Somewhere in the low sixties. Bright sunshine. No wind, just a few wisps in the sky. I should be in the hammock with a cold bottle of Kirin rather than stuck in the dark staring at a computer screen. Maybe if I had that Kirin, I’d feel better.
Yesterday, by the way, I heard the roar of fighter jets over my house and went running outside in an excited state. What could be happening, I wondered?
Turned out that it was the inauguration of Rick Perry for his third term as governor of Texas, which made me wish that I hadn’t felt that thrill when I heard the jets. I collaborated in the irritating celebrations unwillingly through no fault of my own! I felt used. It was beautiful out yesterday as well, but I chose to watch seven episodes of The Tudors on my DVR instead of taking advantage, or perhaps researching the French marriage case.
I’m getting the Kirin.
It’s yummy! Now I want a white tuna sushi roll.
You know, something really nice happened this morning. Martin Gill formally adopted the two boys he has raised with his partner for the last six years. The foster dad successfully brought an end to Florida’s gay adoption ban after a lengthy ACLU suit that ended last year. Among other things, GLBT reporters are pleased that we no longer have to keep track of two major lawsuits with plaintiffs named “Gill.” (The other Gill case is GLAD’s DOMA challenge.)
And speaking of gay dads, the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit heard arguments Wednesday in New Orleans in the case of gay parents who are trying to get a revised birth certificate for their adopted son.
The fathers, who now live in San Diego, have been trying to get an accurate certificate since they adopted the boy as an infant in April 2006. By “accurate,” they mean a birth certificate that lists both adoptive fathers as parents rather than just one, which is all Louisiana has agreed to put on the paperwork. Amazingly, the intransigent bureaucrats in the Crawfish State have forced the men through two and now three federal courts, where they have won with the help of Lambda Legal.
They will certainly win before the full Fifth Circuit, because there is no coherent interpretation of federal law that allows a state to refuse to recognize a legal adoption from another state. Recognizing a marriage is unfortunately open to question. But an adoption is final and permanent, period. And once granted, it carries the full panoply of parental rights, including the right to a revised birth certificate, no ifs ands or buts.
So there!
--
BY ANN ROSTOW
NOM That Tune
Good morning dear Readers. I’ve just had the pleasure of listening to a conversation between Maggie Gallagher of the National Organization for Marriage and Reince Priebus, the new head of the Republican National Committee whose parents seemed to have turned his real name into an anagram before making a formal record.
Reince Priebus? I’m not in the habit of ridiculing people for their names of all things, but you could almost close your eyes, type 13 letters at random, and come up with something more, um, name-like.
Sghdbs Sjbciha? Pnsisk Fydnikd? (Actual test of above theory.)
Perhaps that was an exaggeration.
At any rate, Reince reassured Maggie that indeed he opposed same-sex marriage rights and when pressed, explained his belief that children “are better off with a mother and a father.”
I was struck, not by the fact that the new party chair follows the party line, but by the continuing disconnect between conservative talking points and the real world. Last month during the Senate hearings on Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, there was some discussion about “phasing in” a new policy, as if repealing the ban on openly gay service meant that gay men would suddenly be entering the military as brand new recruits, moving into the barracks with their two-toned persimmon bedrolls (right next to your bunk!) blasting Judy Garland from the communal CD player, and calling everyone “Girl!”
Likewise, much of the discussion on marriage laws seems to imply that gay men and lesbians would suddenly start forming committed relationships and families from scratch if policies were to change.
Does Reince Priebus believe that as long as marriage remains legally barred, gay couples will not exist, and will not have children? Does he believe that under current law, we are obliged to hand our children over to heterosexual families? Or does he believe that without the right to marry our partners, we ourselves will have no choice but to marry members of the opposite sex and raise children “with a mother and a father?”
Has he even thought through his nonsensical rationale? He also decried judges who use the Full Faith and Credit Clause to try and impose their social views on the rest of the nation, even though in nearly two decades of covering gay rights law I have never encountered such a ruling.
Anyway, I suppose he’s better than Michael Steele, who could double as an “unsub” on Criminal Minds.
--
Lesbianism, Italian Style
There are a couple of intriguing legal developments this week, but I prefer to begin the meat of this column with some news from the Daily Mail, where we learn that Silvio Berlusconi enjoyed “staged lesbian sex shows” at “whorehouse parties,” court records show.
Don’t you love court records?
The Daily Mail editors might have interceded on behalf of the lead sentence, which reads:
“Women paid to have sex with Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi dressed in nurse and police uniforms and performed stripteases at parties, it was claimed today.”
I can’t decide which image I prefer. A bevy of barely legal models in provocative costumes, or a group of women lining up with their checkbooks begging for a little sugar from a cross-dressing 74-year-old. I’m assuming that the ludicrous libertine was the one shelling out the cash, although I like the surrealism of the second interpretation.
As for the lesbian connection, the Daily Mail reports that the ladies would “dance seductively, semi-naked, lesbian style” for the statesman’s entertainment.
Have the editors of the Daily Mail been to a women’s bar lately? Personally, I think business would pick up pretty quickly at Pattie’s Pink Palace if the sisters did something more interesting than lean on the bar, play pool and smoke cigarettes on the patio. Fully clothed I might add. Come on girls! Take a lesson in the “lesbian style” from your (presumably) straight mentors in Milan.
Among the other stories available on the Daily Mail website was news of a 250-year-old wild peach tree scheduled to be axed for a new high speed rail terminal, an item about a terrier so vicious that the mailmen refuse to service his street, and a link to: “Hop on! Snake gives frog a piggy back to beat the Australian floods.” Alas, we must resist the Siren songs of these teasers and move on to the U.S. Supreme Court.
--
Plucky Frog Survives Snake Ride
I know I’m supposed to start discussing the High Court’s decision to let stand Washington DC’s human rights policy, and by extension, the capital city’s same-sex marriage law. But my imagination remains captured by the snake swimming through the floodwaters with the little frog on its back. Wasn’t there a famous conundrum along these lines? Maybe with a fox or a scorpion?
OK. I untied myself from the mast and returned to the story, where indeed the writers made reference to the fable of the frog and the scorpion:
“Real life played out backwards this time though, as the frog was the animal hitching a ride. But whereas in the fable the scorpion stings the frog, causing them both to drown, this story had a happy ending as the two plucky animals put aside old differences to fight the elements.”
There’s a photo of the touching scene as well.
Oh, and the vicious terrier’s name is “Peggy,” so he’s a she.
Moving on! Or moving back to the Supreme Court. The justices didn’t actually make a ruling. Instead, they declined, without comment, to review the question of whether Washington has the constitutional authority to ban public votes on matters of human rights. The ban on such plebiscites allowed the District to legalize same-sex marriage last year without risking a citywide referendum, and the High Court’s silence on the matter means that marriage equality will remain unchallenged in the nation’s capital.
It takes four justices to agree to take up a case, so the news indicates that at least one member of the foursome of Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito shied away from the question. Who knows? Maybe all four of them voted to reject review, since the issue wasn’t marriage per se, but would have (perhaps) obliged the nation’s top court to interfere with a local city ordinance.
Still, the decision is sort of significant. If nothing else it signals that the Court’s conservative bloc will not go to any and all lengths to undermine marriage equality. Plus, marriage opponents were disappointed and that’s always a pleasure to witness.
--
Brief Encounters
In other court news, the Obama administration filed its brief in support of section three of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) last Thursday before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
The First Circuit has combined two challenges to DOMA’s federal marriage definition out of the state of Massachusetts; one, an equal protection claim on behalf of married couples by the Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, and the other, a states rights claim under the Spending Clause and the Tenth Amendment by the state of Massachusetts itself. The lower court ruled in our favor in both lawsuits, and Obama insists he has no choice but to defend federal law on appeal, even though he also insists that he opposes DOMA on principle.
Obama is walking a fine line, and as part of this balancing act, his justice department has rejected most of the really horrible antigay arguments that others use to attack marriage rights.
Instead, the Justice Department claims that Congress has the constitutional right to “maintain the status quo,” by imposing a heterosexual definition of marriage on federal law. Obama also maintains that Congress has the right to seek “uniformity” in the federal definition of marriage, while leaving it up to the states to experiment with marriage policies during a volatile period of national debate. Blah blah blah blah.
I need an emoticon for “sticking my finger down my throat.” Maybe we can just use SMFDMT. At any rate, GLAD and Massachusetts will file their reply briefs on March 1, at which point the government will file a reply to the replies. After that, we’ll hear oral arguments and unless the First Circuit chooses to drag this out, we should see a major federal appellate ruling on a core marriage issue by the end of this year.
As for the Prop 8 case, don’t hold your breath for a Ninth Circuit ruling on the merits of the California marriage ban. As you know, the Ninth Circuit has asked the California Supreme Court for an interim ruling on a question of standing under state law. That was when, two weeks ago? The California justices have yet to respond to the Ninth Circuit, but if they agree to consider the question, which is likely, we’re probably looking at a delay of several months, perhaps many months.
Indeed, if you’re looking for high level court action on marriage rights anytime soon, circle your calendar for January 28, when France’s top constitutional court will decide whether same-sex marriage is mandated under national law. The last time this court handled a gay case, the question of adoption rights, they kicked it over to Parliament, so it’s possible they’ll do the same thing for marriage. That said, I have paid more attention to the frog and the snake in Queensland than I have to the French marriage case, so pay me no mind. I did tell you the date of the decision, however, so I’m not completely useless.
--
Good Day for Gay Dads
I just went outside and it was really beautiful. Somewhere in the low sixties. Bright sunshine. No wind, just a few wisps in the sky. I should be in the hammock with a cold bottle of Kirin rather than stuck in the dark staring at a computer screen. Maybe if I had that Kirin, I’d feel better.
Yesterday, by the way, I heard the roar of fighter jets over my house and went running outside in an excited state. What could be happening, I wondered?
Turned out that it was the inauguration of Rick Perry for his third term as governor of Texas, which made me wish that I hadn’t felt that thrill when I heard the jets. I collaborated in the irritating celebrations unwillingly through no fault of my own! I felt used. It was beautiful out yesterday as well, but I chose to watch seven episodes of The Tudors on my DVR instead of taking advantage, or perhaps researching the French marriage case.
I’m getting the Kirin.
It’s yummy! Now I want a white tuna sushi roll.
You know, something really nice happened this morning. Martin Gill formally adopted the two boys he has raised with his partner for the last six years. The foster dad successfully brought an end to Florida’s gay adoption ban after a lengthy ACLU suit that ended last year. Among other things, GLBT reporters are pleased that we no longer have to keep track of two major lawsuits with plaintiffs named “Gill.” (The other Gill case is GLAD’s DOMA challenge.)
And speaking of gay dads, the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit heard arguments Wednesday in New Orleans in the case of gay parents who are trying to get a revised birth certificate for their adopted son.
The fathers, who now live in San Diego, have been trying to get an accurate certificate since they adopted the boy as an infant in April 2006. By “accurate,” they mean a birth certificate that lists both adoptive fathers as parents rather than just one, which is all Louisiana has agreed to put on the paperwork. Amazingly, the intransigent bureaucrats in the Crawfish State have forced the men through two and now three federal courts, where they have won with the help of Lambda Legal.
They will certainly win before the full Fifth Circuit, because there is no coherent interpretation of federal law that allows a state to refuse to recognize a legal adoption from another state. Recognizing a marriage is unfortunately open to question. But an adoption is final and permanent, period. And once granted, it carries the full panoply of parental rights, including the right to a revised birth certificate, no ifs ands or buts.
So there!
--
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
The Horror, The Horror
News for the Week Ended January 12, 2011
BY ANN ROSTOW
The Horror, The Horror
I don’t know where to start with my list of Things That Annoy The Hell Out of Me In Cable News Coverage of Major Events. Perhaps the tendency to come up with an official name, logo and musical theme for a terrible tragedy?
“And now, we return to…. The Tucson Massacre!”
Perhaps the use of the graphic “Breaking News” eight or ten hours after said news has already broken?
Certainly the incessant repetition of information, even going over the same exact facts maybe a dozen times in the space of thirty minutes.
“We do know that the Congresswoman was shot in the head, but she has been responding to simple commands.”
“Yes Bill, the doctors are encouraged by that. She was shot in the head, but the doctors say she has responded to simple commands.”
“Well usually a shot in the head is, ah, a lethal shot. But here, Tracy, the Congresswoman seems to have survived that shot. Are the doctors surprised?”
“Well, they are encouraged Bill. She was shot in the head after all. But according to the doctors, it’s a very good sign that she can respond to simple commands.”
“And those commands are like…squeeze my hand?”
“Squeeze my hand, or maybe give a thumbs up. Simple commands, Bill.”
“Thanks Tracy. As we’ve been reporting, Congresswoman Giffords was shot in the head this morning, here at a Safeway store in Tucson, but she is still alive at the University trauma center and doctors say that she is responding to simple commands.”
After a day or so, these irritations give way to the mindless punditry phase, where regular people with no more information than anyone else try to reduce the catastrophe to a single main cause.
One person blames violent analogies in political speech. Another blames lack of gun control. A third blames our indifference to mental illness. As if these threads weren’t inextricably knitted into the fabric of the tragedy.
And of course everyone pulls at their favorite string in order to make a point. I think I’ve already seen several emails on my GLBT news list praising the gay intern who comforted Giffords at the scene, as if sexual orientation has anything to do with such gestures. For God’s sake, what if the gunman was (or is) gay? Would we as a community come to some general conclusion about that coincidence?
Having derided pundits who have no greater insight than anyone else, I may as well join the category.
In my learned opinion, I think our national discipline has gradually eroded over recent years, and like poorly supervised children, we’ve gotten away with more and more incivility. We can bring guns to town hall meetings. We can use violent images and talk of “taking out” this or that elected official. We play murderous video games, watch unspeakable movies, and give voice to our worst thoughts anonymously over cyberspace.
Because of this, we’ve allowed a low vibration to emanate from the emotional and political fringes of the American society that is amplified by radio bombast, Internet conspiracies, and the echo chamber of the mainstream media. Most of us can tune it out, but the weakest among us become instruments of these dark rhythms, gather strength and explode before our very eyes.
I read an op-ed piece not so long ago about national resilience, pointing out that Americans can withstand terrorist attacks and should do so without panicking and revising our security laws every time we face a new scenario. That piece was talking about TSA policies but the point is valid for deranged shooters as well. The last thing we need is armed guards patrolling the “Meet Your Congressmember” event at the local mall.
What would be nice, instead, would be a powerful rumble from the silent majority. Not the silent prudes from the 1970s, but the fairly sensible and mature Americans who make up today’s silent majority, and who collectively might be able to push the fringe back to the fringe and lower the frequency of their insane buzzing. Let’s hope Tucson triggers that kind of reaction. Back to you, Bill.
“Thanks Ann, Jessica? Your thoughts?”
“I think Ann has totally missed the point here, Bill, because the fact is that without this extended magazine, the gunman would not have been able to take twenty shots into the crowd…”
--
Diabetic Coma Mistaken For Lesbian Sex Romp
So! What’s the latest GLBTLMNOP news, you’re wondering?
I wish I had something really new and exciting to tell you about. Let’s say a major court decision, or a big celebrity coming out of the closet, or a bizarre lesbian scandal complete with a failed suicide attempt, a samurai sword fight and a man wearing a penguin costume.
But sadly, I do not. Actually, skater Johnny Weir did in fact come out of the closet in a new biography. But considering that Johnny Weir’s closet was a cavernous 20,000 square feet filled with lace, sequins and toe loops, that’s not such a revelation.
Oh, but here’s an update on an old lesbian scandal that almost qualifies as “bizarre.”
Do you remember the two female teachers in Brooklyn who were caught having sex in a classroom and suspended from duty? This was a couple of years ago, November of 2009 to be exact, but for some reason one of the teachers was just fired last week and is suing to be reinstated.
According to the official reports, relayed via the Daily News, Alini Brito and Cindy Mauro started their evening with drinks at a local bar. After beers and shots with a few colleagues, the group headed back to school to watch a student songfest. At some point, Brito and Mauro snuck out and went up to Mauro’s French classroom, where they were subsequently caught in a compromising situation by a couple of handymen.
The nosy workers called for a “school safety worker” who arrived in time to find the women still in a state of undress on the floor, with one of them in the process of putting on a bra.
So here’s the latest. Alini now insists that the incident was totally innocent. According her lawyer, the Spanish teacher has diabetes and was feeling ill when Cindy suggested they go up to her office and get some sugar or candy to remedy the problem. Once there, Alini felt faint and lay on the floor, while Cindy thoughtfully elevated her legs and removed Alini’s sweater to use as a pillow during the impromptu diabetes treatment. No wonder the handymen got the wrong impression!
It’s sad, don’t you think, that people automatically jump to conclusions in these sorts of situations? I just hope Cindy gets her job back as well and doesn’t have to lose her career for being a good Samaritan. I know in the past that I’ve found myself having to administer medical services in similar contexts, and I’m just fortunate that no one interrupted these procedures and misinterpreted my actions.
Good luck to you, Ladies!
--
Terrapin State On Fast Track to Equality?
Let’s see what else is going on.
It sounds like there’s a good chance that the Maryland legislature will pass a marriage bill and forward it to Governor Martin O’Malley. I know I’ve mentioned this ever since the election, which tilted the balance of power in the state legislature towards marriage supporters. But every week there are more indications that a marriage equality bill is likely.
And this week, a Republican opponent suggested a civil union proposal as an alternative, an indication that things have really changed. Who could have imagined ten years ago that pushing civil unions would become a strategy for opponents of same-sex marriage?
Maryland’s 90-day legislative session starts today, so we’ll see what happens. But don’t bet on the civil union idea. Hard core Republicans oppose it, as do many Democrats, so I’m assuming it won’t go anywhere. Keep in mind that same-sex marriage is already virtually legal in Maryland, where the Attorney General has opined that the state is required to recognize legal marriages from Washington DC and elsewhere.
The other state where we see a real possibility to legalize marriage is Rhode Island, where marriage supporter Lincoln Chafee has just been elected governor and has just called for the legislature to send him a marriage bill. Although marriage has been debated for well over a decade in the Teeny Tiny State, it has never advanced and has faced opposition from ex-gov, Donald Carcieri—not a friend to our valiant community. This year, the marriage bill has 27 co-sponsors in the 75-member house, and seven co-sponsors in the 38-member senate.
Yay! More marriage states!
On the other hand, there is also a chance that marriage laws could be overturned by amendment drives in either Iowa or New Hampshire. But I choose to ignore these unpleasant possibilities.
--
We’re In Good Form!
I gather we’ve made an advance of some kind in the area of… wait for it… passport applications!
Specifically, the applications will no longer ask for a person’s “mother and father,” but will also include the options “parent one and parent two.” The nod to families headed by same-sex couples is a welcome step forward and at long last puts an end to this painful instance of bureaucratic discrimination.
Oh, you know what? It may seem inconsequential, but if you think about it, it actually is an important development. As we fight for marriage rights or workplace protections or whatever, we are also fighting for a change in basic assumptions. Some families have two mothers or two fathers. Some women have wives. Some men have husbands. For this to be recognized in something as generic as a federal application sends a message now, doesn’t it?
A wonderful message of inclusion and warmth! I would rush out to apply for a passport this minute except I actually did have a mother and a father. Also, I have a passport. But still!
It’s worth mentioning as well that recognition of gay families by the federal government is a rare and valuable thing. The more of it we get, the better off we are and that includes passport applications.
--
Divorce, Texas Style
Our extended discussion of the recent advancement in passport forms reflects the fact that there’s just not a whole hell of a lot of news this week. We have another one of those Texas divorce cases making headlines, but don’t be fooled. Texas is going to be one of that last places to do anything nice for gay couples, and if Texas had a passport application, you can bet that “Parent One” and “Parent Two” would not be found in its pages.
At any rate, one Texas divorce has already been reversed by an appellate court. But this week, a different appellate court ruled that Attorney General Greg Abbot did not have the authority to intervene in a divorce after the fact.
The difference between the two cases was pretty clear. In the first case, a judge had actually ruled that the state’s ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. In the most recent case, however, the judge simply granted a divorce while making no mention of the underlying marriage laws. Both cases involved couples who married in Massachusetts but lived in Dallas and Austin, respectively.
Abbot will probably appeal the latest ruling to the full Third District appellate court here in Travis County (from whence I write you today!). Or, he may appeal to the Texas Supreme Court. At issue, aside from the standing of the Attorney General, is whether a state’s ban on marriage recognition inherently includes a ban on divorce.
Since Mel and I were married in California and live in Austin, I would heartily endorse any Texas court ruling that recognized some feature of marriage from out of state. My last pick for which aspect that might be, however, would not be “the right to divorce.” Still, I’ll take any tiny crack in the anti-gay statutory edifice that has been erected around us in this otherwise great state.
Are we done yet?
Yes!
--
arostow@aol.com
BY ANN ROSTOW
The Horror, The Horror
I don’t know where to start with my list of Things That Annoy The Hell Out of Me In Cable News Coverage of Major Events. Perhaps the tendency to come up with an official name, logo and musical theme for a terrible tragedy?
“And now, we return to…. The Tucson Massacre!”
Perhaps the use of the graphic “Breaking News” eight or ten hours after said news has already broken?
Certainly the incessant repetition of information, even going over the same exact facts maybe a dozen times in the space of thirty minutes.
“We do know that the Congresswoman was shot in the head, but she has been responding to simple commands.”
“Yes Bill, the doctors are encouraged by that. She was shot in the head, but the doctors say she has responded to simple commands.”
“Well usually a shot in the head is, ah, a lethal shot. But here, Tracy, the Congresswoman seems to have survived that shot. Are the doctors surprised?”
“Well, they are encouraged Bill. She was shot in the head after all. But according to the doctors, it’s a very good sign that she can respond to simple commands.”
“And those commands are like…squeeze my hand?”
“Squeeze my hand, or maybe give a thumbs up. Simple commands, Bill.”
“Thanks Tracy. As we’ve been reporting, Congresswoman Giffords was shot in the head this morning, here at a Safeway store in Tucson, but she is still alive at the University trauma center and doctors say that she is responding to simple commands.”
After a day or so, these irritations give way to the mindless punditry phase, where regular people with no more information than anyone else try to reduce the catastrophe to a single main cause.
One person blames violent analogies in political speech. Another blames lack of gun control. A third blames our indifference to mental illness. As if these threads weren’t inextricably knitted into the fabric of the tragedy.
And of course everyone pulls at their favorite string in order to make a point. I think I’ve already seen several emails on my GLBT news list praising the gay intern who comforted Giffords at the scene, as if sexual orientation has anything to do with such gestures. For God’s sake, what if the gunman was (or is) gay? Would we as a community come to some general conclusion about that coincidence?
Having derided pundits who have no greater insight than anyone else, I may as well join the category.
In my learned opinion, I think our national discipline has gradually eroded over recent years, and like poorly supervised children, we’ve gotten away with more and more incivility. We can bring guns to town hall meetings. We can use violent images and talk of “taking out” this or that elected official. We play murderous video games, watch unspeakable movies, and give voice to our worst thoughts anonymously over cyberspace.
Because of this, we’ve allowed a low vibration to emanate from the emotional and political fringes of the American society that is amplified by radio bombast, Internet conspiracies, and the echo chamber of the mainstream media. Most of us can tune it out, but the weakest among us become instruments of these dark rhythms, gather strength and explode before our very eyes.
I read an op-ed piece not so long ago about national resilience, pointing out that Americans can withstand terrorist attacks and should do so without panicking and revising our security laws every time we face a new scenario. That piece was talking about TSA policies but the point is valid for deranged shooters as well. The last thing we need is armed guards patrolling the “Meet Your Congressmember” event at the local mall.
What would be nice, instead, would be a powerful rumble from the silent majority. Not the silent prudes from the 1970s, but the fairly sensible and mature Americans who make up today’s silent majority, and who collectively might be able to push the fringe back to the fringe and lower the frequency of their insane buzzing. Let’s hope Tucson triggers that kind of reaction. Back to you, Bill.
“Thanks Ann, Jessica? Your thoughts?”
“I think Ann has totally missed the point here, Bill, because the fact is that without this extended magazine, the gunman would not have been able to take twenty shots into the crowd…”
--
Diabetic Coma Mistaken For Lesbian Sex Romp
So! What’s the latest GLBTLMNOP news, you’re wondering?
I wish I had something really new and exciting to tell you about. Let’s say a major court decision, or a big celebrity coming out of the closet, or a bizarre lesbian scandal complete with a failed suicide attempt, a samurai sword fight and a man wearing a penguin costume.
But sadly, I do not. Actually, skater Johnny Weir did in fact come out of the closet in a new biography. But considering that Johnny Weir’s closet was a cavernous 20,000 square feet filled with lace, sequins and toe loops, that’s not such a revelation.
Oh, but here’s an update on an old lesbian scandal that almost qualifies as “bizarre.”
Do you remember the two female teachers in Brooklyn who were caught having sex in a classroom and suspended from duty? This was a couple of years ago, November of 2009 to be exact, but for some reason one of the teachers was just fired last week and is suing to be reinstated.
According to the official reports, relayed via the Daily News, Alini Brito and Cindy Mauro started their evening with drinks at a local bar. After beers and shots with a few colleagues, the group headed back to school to watch a student songfest. At some point, Brito and Mauro snuck out and went up to Mauro’s French classroom, where they were subsequently caught in a compromising situation by a couple of handymen.
The nosy workers called for a “school safety worker” who arrived in time to find the women still in a state of undress on the floor, with one of them in the process of putting on a bra.
So here’s the latest. Alini now insists that the incident was totally innocent. According her lawyer, the Spanish teacher has diabetes and was feeling ill when Cindy suggested they go up to her office and get some sugar or candy to remedy the problem. Once there, Alini felt faint and lay on the floor, while Cindy thoughtfully elevated her legs and removed Alini’s sweater to use as a pillow during the impromptu diabetes treatment. No wonder the handymen got the wrong impression!
It’s sad, don’t you think, that people automatically jump to conclusions in these sorts of situations? I just hope Cindy gets her job back as well and doesn’t have to lose her career for being a good Samaritan. I know in the past that I’ve found myself having to administer medical services in similar contexts, and I’m just fortunate that no one interrupted these procedures and misinterpreted my actions.
Good luck to you, Ladies!
--
Terrapin State On Fast Track to Equality?
Let’s see what else is going on.
It sounds like there’s a good chance that the Maryland legislature will pass a marriage bill and forward it to Governor Martin O’Malley. I know I’ve mentioned this ever since the election, which tilted the balance of power in the state legislature towards marriage supporters. But every week there are more indications that a marriage equality bill is likely.
And this week, a Republican opponent suggested a civil union proposal as an alternative, an indication that things have really changed. Who could have imagined ten years ago that pushing civil unions would become a strategy for opponents of same-sex marriage?
Maryland’s 90-day legislative session starts today, so we’ll see what happens. But don’t bet on the civil union idea. Hard core Republicans oppose it, as do many Democrats, so I’m assuming it won’t go anywhere. Keep in mind that same-sex marriage is already virtually legal in Maryland, where the Attorney General has opined that the state is required to recognize legal marriages from Washington DC and elsewhere.
The other state where we see a real possibility to legalize marriage is Rhode Island, where marriage supporter Lincoln Chafee has just been elected governor and has just called for the legislature to send him a marriage bill. Although marriage has been debated for well over a decade in the Teeny Tiny State, it has never advanced and has faced opposition from ex-gov, Donald Carcieri—not a friend to our valiant community. This year, the marriage bill has 27 co-sponsors in the 75-member house, and seven co-sponsors in the 38-member senate.
Yay! More marriage states!
On the other hand, there is also a chance that marriage laws could be overturned by amendment drives in either Iowa or New Hampshire. But I choose to ignore these unpleasant possibilities.
--
We’re In Good Form!
I gather we’ve made an advance of some kind in the area of… wait for it… passport applications!
Specifically, the applications will no longer ask for a person’s “mother and father,” but will also include the options “parent one and parent two.” The nod to families headed by same-sex couples is a welcome step forward and at long last puts an end to this painful instance of bureaucratic discrimination.
Oh, you know what? It may seem inconsequential, but if you think about it, it actually is an important development. As we fight for marriage rights or workplace protections or whatever, we are also fighting for a change in basic assumptions. Some families have two mothers or two fathers. Some women have wives. Some men have husbands. For this to be recognized in something as generic as a federal application sends a message now, doesn’t it?
A wonderful message of inclusion and warmth! I would rush out to apply for a passport this minute except I actually did have a mother and a father. Also, I have a passport. But still!
It’s worth mentioning as well that recognition of gay families by the federal government is a rare and valuable thing. The more of it we get, the better off we are and that includes passport applications.
--
Divorce, Texas Style
Our extended discussion of the recent advancement in passport forms reflects the fact that there’s just not a whole hell of a lot of news this week. We have another one of those Texas divorce cases making headlines, but don’t be fooled. Texas is going to be one of that last places to do anything nice for gay couples, and if Texas had a passport application, you can bet that “Parent One” and “Parent Two” would not be found in its pages.
At any rate, one Texas divorce has already been reversed by an appellate court. But this week, a different appellate court ruled that Attorney General Greg Abbot did not have the authority to intervene in a divorce after the fact.
The difference between the two cases was pretty clear. In the first case, a judge had actually ruled that the state’s ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. In the most recent case, however, the judge simply granted a divorce while making no mention of the underlying marriage laws. Both cases involved couples who married in Massachusetts but lived in Dallas and Austin, respectively.
Abbot will probably appeal the latest ruling to the full Third District appellate court here in Travis County (from whence I write you today!). Or, he may appeal to the Texas Supreme Court. At issue, aside from the standing of the Attorney General, is whether a state’s ban on marriage recognition inherently includes a ban on divorce.
Since Mel and I were married in California and live in Austin, I would heartily endorse any Texas court ruling that recognized some feature of marriage from out of state. My last pick for which aspect that might be, however, would not be “the right to divorce.” Still, I’ll take any tiny crack in the anti-gay statutory edifice that has been erected around us in this otherwise great state.
Are we done yet?
Yes!
--
arostow@aol.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)