News for the Week Ended July 26, 2011
BY ANN ROSTOW
As Time Goes By
Here’s some sad news. Chinese physicists are telling us that time travel is impossible. I know, I know. Scientists used to think the sun revolved around the earth and leeches could cure cancer so this may not be the final word on the subject. That said, I’d prefer that modern experts leave the door open, wouldn’t you?
Of course we can’t time travel in the 21st century, but we could still receive visitors from the 31st century and maybe they could wrap us up in their time traveling cloaks and take us on a little tour. You know where I’d go? First I’d zip over to Wednesday, November 7, 2012, just to satisfy my curiosity. Then, I’d jump ahead by about a decade and spend a day watching CNBC. After that, I’d check out what the world is like in three hundred years, just to see. And finally, I’d spend a few years traveling around Europe just before the start of the first world war.
If I’m not mistaken, the 24th century Vulcan High Command also thought that time travel was impossible. And they were wrong!
--
Questioning Paul Clement
On Tuesday (as I write) New York Attorney general Eric Schneiderman filed a brief in one of the high profile federal challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act. This is the New York-based case of widow Edie Windsor, who lost her wife in 2009 and was promptly ordered to pay upwards of $300,000 in federal taxes on her own property. Obviously, Schneiderman’s brief took the position that DOMA is unconstitutional.
As you know, when a heterosexual spouse dies, his or her survivor does not pay taxes on the resulting “inheritance.” You’re not inheriting something out of the blue here. You’re inheriting your own house and assets. (Please don’t send me a list of all the exceptions to this rule, Mr. and Ms. Tax Knowitall. I’m just making a general statement.)
Edie Windsor married Thea Spyer in Canada in 2007, more than four decades since they met and fell in love. After Thea’s death and the unholy tax bill that followed, Windsor filed suit against the U.S. government in November of last year with the assistance of the American Civil Liberties Union.
This lawsuit, one of several challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act filed in federal court, was one of two cases that convinced the Obama administration to switch sides in terms of its gay rights legal policies. Had Obama decided to defend DOMA in Windsor, he would have been obliged to make a series of anti-gay arguments above and beyond the tepid rationales he had been able to use in other cases. This, the President thankfully decided, was too much to swallow.
Subsequently, the Republicans in the House of Representatives resolved to go to bat for the Defense of Marriage Act in this, and all similar cases. Speaker Boehner appointed a “bipartisan” legal advisory group, now known as BLAG. (Since BLAG includes two Democrats and three Republicans who all vote along party lines, it hardly lives up to its adjective.) BLAG, in turn, hired famed appellate attorney Paul Clement to plead their cause.
The Windsor case is now in the discovery phase where both sides are required to answer various questions and confirm undisputed facts. But while our side lived up to its obligations, Clement and company simply refused to answer our questions, dismissing all but a few of them as overly vague or suggesting that they call for a legal opinion.
Our questions include queries as simple as asking whether or not an estate tax would have been levied on Windsor had she been married to a man. We also asked a series of questions which go to the heart of whether or not gay civil rights should be subjected to heightened legal scrutiny. Questions like whether or not gays have experienced a history of discrimination or whether sexual orientation undermines one’s ability to contribute to society. We also asked the other side to explain the basis of their confidence in the Defense of Marriage Act. And we asked whether, in their view, gay parents were as competent as straight parents.
Look, I understand that it’s tough to pour unstrained homophobic prose into the black-and-white vessel of a deposition. But they’re the ones who took this case and who presumably believe that yes, being gay undermines your ability to contribute to society, and no, gay parents aren’t as good as their straight counterparts. So just say it!
On July 18, the ACLU asked the court to compel Clement to reply to the questions as required by rules of federal procedure. We’ll be watching for the next moves.
--
New York State of Mind
Moving on, let’s talk about marriage in New York. We’ve seen the happy couples and felt the excitement of new same-sex marriages several times. In Massachusetts, in Connecticut, in Vermont, Iowa, California, DC, and in New Hampshire. But there was something special about last weekend’s euphoria in the Empire State.
Maybe it had something to do with the size and influence of the state of New York. Or maybe these marriages stood out against the iconic backdrop of Manhattan. Whatever the cause, this time, the stakes seemed larger, the love seemed deeper, the ground seemed, um, more broken.
Here’s something else. I don’t know about you, but I haven’t seen any negative media coverage of the New York marriages. True, I haven’t been watching Fox News, but still. The reporting I’ve seen has been overwhelmingly positive. None of this irritating media habit of “balancing both sides of the debate” by trotting out some rightwing fanatics to represent the people who hate gays. Indeed I’ve seen less of that phenomenon in general over the last several years.
In case you were wondering, New York has a very difficult process for putting a constitutional amendment on the ballot. In order for the state to pull a Prop 8 on their gay newlyweds, the legislature would have to vote for an amendment in two successive sessions and the electorate would have to agree. Most unlikely.
You may also be reading about a lawsuit that purports to challenge the legislative process that led to New York’s marriage equality law. Rest assured that this absurd litigation is going nowhere. We’re safe.
--
Onward Christian Soldiers?
I felt a grim satisfaction when I first heard that the Norway maniac was a fundamentalist Christian. (You did too, I know.) But I just can’t go there. These mass murderers--- McVeigh, the Unabomber, the Fort Hood killer, the Columbine kids, the guy who shot Congresswoman Giffords--- they are insane, period. They might be Christian, Muslim, gay, straight, liberal or conservative. It doesn’t matter. They lack the mental and emotional clarity to form rational political views or genuinely practice a religious faith.
Put them into a straightjacket, lock them into a padded room and throw away the key. Oh, and while you’re at it, take away their pens and notebooks.
I do think that the term “terrorist” should be expanded to include these crazy individuals. Likewise, the term “lunatic nutcases” should be expanded to include 911-type terrorists, who are not simply nefarious enemies of the state but unbalanced psychopaths.
By the way, I read on Pink Paper that a heroic lesbian couple helped save as many as 40 kids stranded on Utoya Island during the shooting. Hege Dalen and Toril Hansen were camping across from the island when they heard shooting and screams. They jumped into their boat and made four trips to the embattled coast to pick up terrified victims. Sexual orientation may be irrelevant when it comes to terrorists and madmen, but I think this proves that lesbians are inherently more courageous than anyone else.
Oh, I’m just kidding. (Sort of.)
--
Potpourris
Now, where shall we go? The National Center for Lesbian Rights and others have filed a lawsuit against a Minnesota school district where a “neutral” policy on gay bashing has contributed to an epidemic of gay and gay-related suicides. “Neutral” in this context, means giving a green light to any and all bullying and name-calling on campus under the theory that parents are better equipped to teach their children how to behave. Oh, and for the record, guess who represents this district in Congress? Michelle Bachmann.
We’re still not clear on whether or not the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit will allow the legal challenge to Don’t Ask Don’t Tell to continue. On the one hand, the law will officially leave the books on September 20. On the other hand, if the entire case is declared moot, we will lose the power of a strong federal precedent. Losing that precedent means that the servicemembers who have been discharged under Don’t Ask may lose their ability to sue the government for damages.
I also read about a court ruling in New York that dissolved a Vermont civil union. But seriously, is that the most interesting GLBT news story to come out of New York in the last few weeks? I think not.
And how would you like to be the first lesbian couple to marry in India? Sounds like a nice footnote in the history books, except for the fact that all your male relatives are now trying to kill you to save the family honor. According to the Daily Telegraph, 25-year-old Savita and her 20-year-old wife Veena are under police protection and have been moved to a safe house in the days since their July 22 wedding.
--
Tea-ed Off
It’s not a gay story, but another Democratic Congressman just threw himself off Sex Pervert Falls, this time Portland, Oregon veteran David Wu who resigned after (allegedly) putting the moves on the 18-year-old daughter of a campaign contributor.
Thankfully, Congressman Wu is sticking around until the debt ceiling is raised, an elusive, albeit inevitable, prospect. I don’t know about you, but I am disgusted by the arrogant Tea Party buffoons, with their clueless self-aggrandizing pronouncements on economic matters that lie well beyond their ken.
I was just watching one woman, a freshman House member with no background in finance, who told her interviewer that her common sense feeling was that the global markets cared more about deficit reduction than whether or not we raise the debt ceiling. Hello imbecile. You. Are. Wrong. Not to mention the fact that you can raise the debt ceiling in a clean vote and tackle the deficit in future legislation. And let’s not even talk about the difference between “lowering the deficit” and “dismantling Medicare.”
--
Stereotype Busted
Enough of this subject. I have my newshound stepson Nathan to thank for news of a Discovery TV show called “One Man Army,” which pits macho Marine-types against each other in manly contests of shooting things, smashing through cement walls, and other testosterone-laced feats of derring do. In the words of the Discovery website, the show, hosted by a Special Forces veteran, is a “competition series where the toughest of the tough go head to head in events that would sideline regular contestants in an instant."
When the winner of a recent episode was asked why he never joined the military, he told the host that he believed in following the rules, and the rules don’t allow gay men to serve. Woah Nelly!
In an interview with After Elton, Jeff Bloovman told the site that producers had no idea he was gay when he signed up for the show.
“Being gay is not a tactic that I used to get on the program, nor had I planned on coming out all along,” Bloovman said. “The subject was broached after I won the competition. Mykel Hawke asked me why I hadn't served, and I responded truthfully. I told him that when I wanted to join, the military didn't want gay people. Suffice to say that he was rather surprised to hear this, which was actually a very funny moment in and of itself.
“Naturally, I won't go into details about the conversation we had, as it was private. Anyway, as it turns out, my microphone hadn't been muted, and so the network heard our discussion in its entirety. A producer subsequently approached me, asking if I'd be willing to speak about my orientation on camera. I believe, if my memory serves me correctly, my response was, -‘Yeah... fuck it.’ And the rest is history.”
--
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Thursday, July 21, 2011
Senators Discuss Marriage Equality
News for the Week Ended July 20, 2011
BY ANN ROSTOW
Senators Discuss Marriage Equality
Today, Wednesday, the Senate Judiciary Committee is hearing testimony on the Respect for Marriage Act, the measure to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act. What can we call this bill? RFMA doesn’t cut it. REMA might work. REFMA? RESMA? Oh, hell I don’t know.
Despite the fact that support for same-sex marriage is expanding at a nice accelerating rate, there’s little chance that our repeal will make headway in Congress anytime soon. The political system just doesn’t work that way these days, as illustrated by the difficulty in repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell even as something like 80 percent of the American public opposed the gay military ban.
Plus, a Congressional fight over repealing DOMA is not a simple matter of progay lawmakers versus antigay lawmakers. Most politicians are in the middle and don’t care that much about our civil rights. Without an incentive to take a stand, their lethargy will be more than enough to prevent forward movement.
Here’s something interesting. My Word spelling software tells me that “antigay” is a legitimate word, correctly spelled. “Progay,” however, attracts the little red line, suggesting, perhaps, that the people who hate us have cemented themselves into the lexicon. That’s positive news! “Progay” should be assumed, a redundant expression. It’s the antigay forces who distinguish themselves from the mass of society and therefore deserve their own official adjective.
But back to the REMA hearing. The other day, President Obama endorsed the proposal to roll back DOMA, prompting all our major gay groups to issue grateful press releases.
“BREAKING. Obama endorses Respect for Marriage Act!” crowed one. “Freedom to Marry Applauds President Obama’s Endorsement of Respect for Marriage Act,” said another.
Hey, that’s fine. But Obama has been on record in opposition to the Defense of Marriage Act from the start of his 2008 campaign. In February, his administration announced that DOMA was unconstitutional. Then, two weeks ago, his Justice Department filed a 30-something page legal brief in federal court ripping DOMA into teeny tiny little shreds. I’m just saying; the President is not making news here.
--
Court Reinstates Part of Don’t Ask
The President did make news this week, however, but on the wrong side of history. In an emergency motion to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Obama and company asked the court to reinstate Don’t Ask Don’t Tell in order to allow the government to complete the repeal process on its own terms.
You remember of course (it was less than two weeks ago!) that the Ninth Circuit released its stay on a previous injunction against the military ban, effectively telling the U.S. to stop enforcing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell right this minute. The court also asked the government to explain why it continues to champion the ban, in view of the fact that the Justice Department now believes sexual orientation discrimination is unconstitutional.
In response, the Justice Department explained that while Don’t Ask may well be unconstitutional, the repeal process for Don’t Ask is perfectly legal and should be allowed to run its course over the next couple of months. Obama and company reminded the panel that Congress and the President are owed great deference from the courts, particularly when it comes to matters of national security.
The court agreed in part, temporarily restoring the stay on the injunction but ordering the U.S. to cease hunting and discharging gay soldiers while it considers its options. Given that such discharges have basically been suspended for months, the decision has little practical effect. Indeed, the whole affair is moot on many levels, as the law will be formally dissolved by September or October.
That said, it will be interesting to see if the Ninth Circuit eventually dismisses the whole case, or whether the panel pursues a ruling on the merits. It’s possible that discharged gay soldiers will have grounds for civil suits if a federal appellate court opines that Don’t Ask was unconstitutional from the start.
Moreover, the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell does not mean that gay and lesbian soldiers will be protected against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Surprised? Well, it’s true. The repeal ends the relentless investigations and witch hunts. It allows out gay individuals to join the military and be open during their service. But it does not create a structure to prevent, discourage or punish gay bias.
Nor does it allow for recognition of gay couples. Thanks to the Defense of Marriage Act, even married gay soldiers will be ineligible for benefits, and obviously unmarried gay servicemembers with partners will also be left in the lurch. I would assume that these problems will be rectified down the line, but still. How many destitute war widows or widowers will have to parade through the media and the courts before the military recognizes gay soldiers as equal? We shall see.
--
Murdoch Schmurdoch
For some reason I just can’t get excited about the Murdoch scandal, even though I usually love conservative misdeeds and tales of the powerful brought low.
Perhaps I was spoiled by the Maxwell scandal, back in the day, a sordid collection of financial shenanigans that included raiding the pension fund of the Mirror in order to fund sleazy deals and cover up shortsighted business fiascos. I worked briefly for Maxwell and found him monstrous. Murdoch, by contrast, looks like a pussycat.
I also don’t quite understand how the News of the World’s telephone hacking and bribery will “jump the pond” and undermine News Corp.’s U.S. businesses. Have reporters at the Wall Street Journal been tapping phones? Has Fox News been bribing the FBI? Maybe. Maybe not.
Of course as a good progressive Democrat, I’d love to see Fox News come crashing down. I just haven’t seen any evidence that they’ve done anything more than broadcast misleading far right polemics to the American people for the last couple of decades, not that there’s anything (criminally) wrong with that.
--
Plus Ca Change, Plus Ca Change
So, the Senate confirmed an openly gay federal judge, J. Paul Oetken, on an 80-13 vote with little comment. That’s a step in the right direction considering how an openly gay judicial nominee might have been greeted just ten years ago. Oetken is the second out gay federal judge and the first man to pass Senate inspection. And no, we’re not counting Judge Walker and all the others who may have been confirmed under the radar.
For years, New York’s Deborah Batts has held the distinction of being the only gay federal judge. Judge Batts doesn’t know it, but she and I are closely connected on the extensive web of lesbian ex-lovers that place all lesbians in this country within six degrees of separation. I’m not explaining further.
Speaking of change in the Senate, I just watched some of the hearings on the Respect for Marriage Act. I mention it only because I remember watching the 1996 hearings on the Defense of Marriage Act, and I remember cringing as HRC chief Elizabeth Birch insisted that gays did not care about marriage and that the Defense of Marriage Act was therefore “not necessary.”
That was our argument at the time, just 15 years ago. Not a plea for equality. Not a condemnation of marriage discrimination. But a weak capitulation to bigotry in the name of pragmatic politics.
I have nothing against pragmatic politics. But pragmatism never demands that we completely abandon our principles as we did back in 1996. The Human Rights Campaign exchanged a stand-alone vote on DOMA (which won) for a stand-alone vote on the Employment Nondiscrimination Act (which lost by one vote), and then proceeded to pat itself on the back for the close call on ENDA.
How nice it was today to see HRC, in the persona of Joe Solmonese, stand up for marriage rights in contrast to the sick performance of fifteen years ago. I’m not a big fan of HRC. But I am a big fan of progress.
And make no mistake about it, that progress has not been led by HRC or any other political activists. It’s been led by Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, by Lambda, by the ACLU and by the National Center for Lesbian Rights. The rest of us have tagged along for the ride behind our able lawyers.
--
Religious Freedom Upheld in Austria
So, it took him over two years, but an Austrian man has finally obtained a driving license that depicts him wearing a kitchen strainer. Niko Alm told authorities that the strainer was religious headgear and could not be prohibited on his ID shot. Alm is a Pastafarian, a member of the American-based Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
According to CotFSM beliefs, the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the Earth as it now appears a few thousand years ago. However, the FSM made it seem as if the Earth began billions of years ago and that life evolved here over time. This duality allows adherents to embrace both intelligent design and Darwinian evolution.
The earliest adherents to the Church were pirates, who were subsequently marginalized by Christians, jealous of their faith. Pastafarians have set aside Friday as a day of worship; they wear pirate gear on important religious occasions, and enjoy beer.
Although the faith has been around for “millions, if not thousands, of years,” the CotFSM gained some national prominence in 2005, when one of its leaders wrote a letter to the Kansas Board of Education wanting to make sure that the tenets of the Church would be included in any curricular discussions of intelligent design in the state public schools.
For several years I had a bumper attachment of His Noodly Appendages on my car, but I traded it in. The car, not the attachment.
--
A Jerk is a Jerk is a Jerk
The Spaghetti Monster reminded me of something interesting I just saw. The Church website includes a chart illustrating the relationship between rising global warming and the decline of worldwide pirates over the last 200 years. Note: it’s a direct correlation!
That reminded me of the chart comparing the decline in American national traffic fatalities to the increase in lemon imports from Mexico to the United States that I saw on a link from some legal website. Again, the correlation is perfect.
I mean, think about it. How many charts have you seen purporting to “prove” that phenomenon X is related, or even caused, by phenomenon Y? The fact is, we have little tolerance for complexity, gray areas, and ideas that require more than two sentences to explain. Further, we accept virtually anything as conclusive evidence without examination. Witness our national debt and deficit discussion.
Don’t worry! I’m not rehashing that subject in this issue.
Finally, I just read the amazing story of two women who were told to stop holding hands…wait for it…at a Gertrude Stein exhibit in San Francisco!
According to the Daily Mail, an eyewitness at the Contemporary Jewish Museum said the women refused to follow instructions from the apparently unbalanced security guard last Sunday. A small crowd formed to watch the goings on and shortly, the manager was called, and sanity returned.
Museum director Connie Wolf told the press later on that the guard (who worked for a private company) was reprimanded.
“Please let me be crystal clear that the CJM has a zero tolerance concerning any kind of prejudiced or racist word or action, whether it be directed at CJM visitors or staff.”
My apologies if San Francisco readers have already heard this story. But it’s worth repeating just for its surreal aspects. Also, it just proves that the British tabloids are still alive and well.
BY ANN ROSTOW
Senators Discuss Marriage Equality
Today, Wednesday, the Senate Judiciary Committee is hearing testimony on the Respect for Marriage Act, the measure to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act. What can we call this bill? RFMA doesn’t cut it. REMA might work. REFMA? RESMA? Oh, hell I don’t know.
Despite the fact that support for same-sex marriage is expanding at a nice accelerating rate, there’s little chance that our repeal will make headway in Congress anytime soon. The political system just doesn’t work that way these days, as illustrated by the difficulty in repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell even as something like 80 percent of the American public opposed the gay military ban.
Plus, a Congressional fight over repealing DOMA is not a simple matter of progay lawmakers versus antigay lawmakers. Most politicians are in the middle and don’t care that much about our civil rights. Without an incentive to take a stand, their lethargy will be more than enough to prevent forward movement.
Here’s something interesting. My Word spelling software tells me that “antigay” is a legitimate word, correctly spelled. “Progay,” however, attracts the little red line, suggesting, perhaps, that the people who hate us have cemented themselves into the lexicon. That’s positive news! “Progay” should be assumed, a redundant expression. It’s the antigay forces who distinguish themselves from the mass of society and therefore deserve their own official adjective.
But back to the REMA hearing. The other day, President Obama endorsed the proposal to roll back DOMA, prompting all our major gay groups to issue grateful press releases.
“BREAKING. Obama endorses Respect for Marriage Act!” crowed one. “Freedom to Marry Applauds President Obama’s Endorsement of Respect for Marriage Act,” said another.
Hey, that’s fine. But Obama has been on record in opposition to the Defense of Marriage Act from the start of his 2008 campaign. In February, his administration announced that DOMA was unconstitutional. Then, two weeks ago, his Justice Department filed a 30-something page legal brief in federal court ripping DOMA into teeny tiny little shreds. I’m just saying; the President is not making news here.
--
Court Reinstates Part of Don’t Ask
The President did make news this week, however, but on the wrong side of history. In an emergency motion to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Obama and company asked the court to reinstate Don’t Ask Don’t Tell in order to allow the government to complete the repeal process on its own terms.
You remember of course (it was less than two weeks ago!) that the Ninth Circuit released its stay on a previous injunction against the military ban, effectively telling the U.S. to stop enforcing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell right this minute. The court also asked the government to explain why it continues to champion the ban, in view of the fact that the Justice Department now believes sexual orientation discrimination is unconstitutional.
In response, the Justice Department explained that while Don’t Ask may well be unconstitutional, the repeal process for Don’t Ask is perfectly legal and should be allowed to run its course over the next couple of months. Obama and company reminded the panel that Congress and the President are owed great deference from the courts, particularly when it comes to matters of national security.
The court agreed in part, temporarily restoring the stay on the injunction but ordering the U.S. to cease hunting and discharging gay soldiers while it considers its options. Given that such discharges have basically been suspended for months, the decision has little practical effect. Indeed, the whole affair is moot on many levels, as the law will be formally dissolved by September or October.
That said, it will be interesting to see if the Ninth Circuit eventually dismisses the whole case, or whether the panel pursues a ruling on the merits. It’s possible that discharged gay soldiers will have grounds for civil suits if a federal appellate court opines that Don’t Ask was unconstitutional from the start.
Moreover, the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell does not mean that gay and lesbian soldiers will be protected against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Surprised? Well, it’s true. The repeal ends the relentless investigations and witch hunts. It allows out gay individuals to join the military and be open during their service. But it does not create a structure to prevent, discourage or punish gay bias.
Nor does it allow for recognition of gay couples. Thanks to the Defense of Marriage Act, even married gay soldiers will be ineligible for benefits, and obviously unmarried gay servicemembers with partners will also be left in the lurch. I would assume that these problems will be rectified down the line, but still. How many destitute war widows or widowers will have to parade through the media and the courts before the military recognizes gay soldiers as equal? We shall see.
--
Murdoch Schmurdoch
For some reason I just can’t get excited about the Murdoch scandal, even though I usually love conservative misdeeds and tales of the powerful brought low.
Perhaps I was spoiled by the Maxwell scandal, back in the day, a sordid collection of financial shenanigans that included raiding the pension fund of the Mirror in order to fund sleazy deals and cover up shortsighted business fiascos. I worked briefly for Maxwell and found him monstrous. Murdoch, by contrast, looks like a pussycat.
I also don’t quite understand how the News of the World’s telephone hacking and bribery will “jump the pond” and undermine News Corp.’s U.S. businesses. Have reporters at the Wall Street Journal been tapping phones? Has Fox News been bribing the FBI? Maybe. Maybe not.
Of course as a good progressive Democrat, I’d love to see Fox News come crashing down. I just haven’t seen any evidence that they’ve done anything more than broadcast misleading far right polemics to the American people for the last couple of decades, not that there’s anything (criminally) wrong with that.
--
Plus Ca Change, Plus Ca Change
So, the Senate confirmed an openly gay federal judge, J. Paul Oetken, on an 80-13 vote with little comment. That’s a step in the right direction considering how an openly gay judicial nominee might have been greeted just ten years ago. Oetken is the second out gay federal judge and the first man to pass Senate inspection. And no, we’re not counting Judge Walker and all the others who may have been confirmed under the radar.
For years, New York’s Deborah Batts has held the distinction of being the only gay federal judge. Judge Batts doesn’t know it, but she and I are closely connected on the extensive web of lesbian ex-lovers that place all lesbians in this country within six degrees of separation. I’m not explaining further.
Speaking of change in the Senate, I just watched some of the hearings on the Respect for Marriage Act. I mention it only because I remember watching the 1996 hearings on the Defense of Marriage Act, and I remember cringing as HRC chief Elizabeth Birch insisted that gays did not care about marriage and that the Defense of Marriage Act was therefore “not necessary.”
That was our argument at the time, just 15 years ago. Not a plea for equality. Not a condemnation of marriage discrimination. But a weak capitulation to bigotry in the name of pragmatic politics.
I have nothing against pragmatic politics. But pragmatism never demands that we completely abandon our principles as we did back in 1996. The Human Rights Campaign exchanged a stand-alone vote on DOMA (which won) for a stand-alone vote on the Employment Nondiscrimination Act (which lost by one vote), and then proceeded to pat itself on the back for the close call on ENDA.
How nice it was today to see HRC, in the persona of Joe Solmonese, stand up for marriage rights in contrast to the sick performance of fifteen years ago. I’m not a big fan of HRC. But I am a big fan of progress.
And make no mistake about it, that progress has not been led by HRC or any other political activists. It’s been led by Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, by Lambda, by the ACLU and by the National Center for Lesbian Rights. The rest of us have tagged along for the ride behind our able lawyers.
--
Religious Freedom Upheld in Austria
So, it took him over two years, but an Austrian man has finally obtained a driving license that depicts him wearing a kitchen strainer. Niko Alm told authorities that the strainer was religious headgear and could not be prohibited on his ID shot. Alm is a Pastafarian, a member of the American-based Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
According to CotFSM beliefs, the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the Earth as it now appears a few thousand years ago. However, the FSM made it seem as if the Earth began billions of years ago and that life evolved here over time. This duality allows adherents to embrace both intelligent design and Darwinian evolution.
The earliest adherents to the Church were pirates, who were subsequently marginalized by Christians, jealous of their faith. Pastafarians have set aside Friday as a day of worship; they wear pirate gear on important religious occasions, and enjoy beer.
Although the faith has been around for “millions, if not thousands, of years,” the CotFSM gained some national prominence in 2005, when one of its leaders wrote a letter to the Kansas Board of Education wanting to make sure that the tenets of the Church would be included in any curricular discussions of intelligent design in the state public schools.
For several years I had a bumper attachment of His Noodly Appendages on my car, but I traded it in. The car, not the attachment.
--
A Jerk is a Jerk is a Jerk
The Spaghetti Monster reminded me of something interesting I just saw. The Church website includes a chart illustrating the relationship between rising global warming and the decline of worldwide pirates over the last 200 years. Note: it’s a direct correlation!
That reminded me of the chart comparing the decline in American national traffic fatalities to the increase in lemon imports from Mexico to the United States that I saw on a link from some legal website. Again, the correlation is perfect.
I mean, think about it. How many charts have you seen purporting to “prove” that phenomenon X is related, or even caused, by phenomenon Y? The fact is, we have little tolerance for complexity, gray areas, and ideas that require more than two sentences to explain. Further, we accept virtually anything as conclusive evidence without examination. Witness our national debt and deficit discussion.
Don’t worry! I’m not rehashing that subject in this issue.
Finally, I just read the amazing story of two women who were told to stop holding hands…wait for it…at a Gertrude Stein exhibit in San Francisco!
According to the Daily Mail, an eyewitness at the Contemporary Jewish Museum said the women refused to follow instructions from the apparently unbalanced security guard last Sunday. A small crowd formed to watch the goings on and shortly, the manager was called, and sanity returned.
Museum director Connie Wolf told the press later on that the guard (who worked for a private company) was reprimanded.
“Please let me be crystal clear that the CJM has a zero tolerance concerning any kind of prejudiced or racist word or action, whether it be directed at CJM visitors or staff.”
My apologies if San Francisco readers have already heard this story. But it’s worth repeating just for its surreal aspects. Also, it just proves that the British tabloids are still alive and well.
Friday, July 15, 2011
Lambda Asks Supreme Court To Review Crazy Bayou State Ruling
Lambda Asks Supreme Court To Review Crazy Bayou State Ruling
| By Ann Rostow Published: July 14, 2011 |
| Two major legal stories dominate the GLBT news this week, and yet I can’t help leading with the report about the Orange County woman who drugged her husband, tied him to the bed, cut off his penis and ran it through the garbage disposal. Ouch! Were there no divorce lawyers available? The psycho-wife called emergency services and allowed herself to be arrested without incident, telling police that her hubby “deserved it.” She was arraigned on a million dollars bail and will presumably spend a few decades behind bars for her misdeed. Interesting what human beings are capable of doing to each other. I’m sure he wasn’t the best husband in the world, but still. Guys, you’ll be particularly relieved that we are now moving on to legal news. Although the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell case in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is getting more attention, I think the Fifth Circuit birth certificate lawsuit is more significant. Why? Because Lambda Legal has appealed this very very very weird decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, and there are several reasons why the Court might accept review, putting a gay-related case on its docket for the 2011/2012 term. That’s always big news. The case involves two gay dads originally from New York but now living in California. The men adopted a baby boy, born in Louisiana, and asked the state for a revised birth certificate with both their names listed as parents. Louisiana refused, ignoring a perfectly legal adoption and arguably violating the Constitution’s guarantees of Equal Protection and Full Faith and Credit. Obviously, Louisiana should not be allowed to treat gay parents differently than straight parents. And as for Full Faith and Credit, all states are required to respect the judicial proceedings of sister states, as well as their public acts and records. An adoption, for the record, is a judicial proceeding subject to the Full Faith and Credit Clause, and no sane lawyer disagrees with this established fact save the majority of the Fifth Circuit, who may or may not fall into the category of “sane.” After Louisiana refused to produce the birth certificate, Lambda sued on behalf of the fathers, winning in lower court and later winning before a three-judge panel at the Fifth Circuit. Louisiana appealed to the entire federal appellate court, and to the astonishment of one and all, the full court ruled in favor of the state a couple of months ago. The majority came up with a far-fetched explanation of why the Full Faith and Credit Clause did not apply to the gay fathers (I will spare you the convoluted details.) They also expounded on why Louisiana’s ban on same-sex adoptions was constitutional, even though Louisiana state policy was not at issue in the case. After all, the fathers adopted their son in New York, not Louisiana. They were not seeking another adoption; they were seeking a routinely issued piece of paper recognizing the legal adoption they had already secured. The Fifth Circuit’s bizarre opinion is in direct opposition to a Full Faith and Credit ruling out of the Tenth Circuit, so it’s quite possible that the High Court will agree to hear the case in order to clarify federal law on this issue. As for the Equal Protection element, the High Court could easily sidestep the pure question of gay rights by simply ruling on Full Faith and Credit. Or, the justices could duck the entire matter. We’ll find out when the Court returns from its summer break in October and starts reviewing petitions. Ninth Circuit to Obama: Fish or Cut Bait Meanwhile, last Wednesday, a three-judge panel in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an injunction against the enforcement of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (technically, they released their stay of a previously issued injunction, but you get the picture). The two-page order noted that the Obama administration has changed its views on the constitutional status of sexual orientation, and no longer can justify its position. Further, as we all know, the ban on openly gay military service is on its way out, and should be history in a couple of months anyway. Then last Monday, the panel asked the administration to tell the court whether or not the Justice Department intends to continue the legal fight on behalf of the moribund law. If not, asked the court, will Congress be invited to intervene just as Congress was given the green light to intervene on behalf of the Defense of Marriage Act? Given that a hearing date in the case is scheduled for August 29, the administration was given just 10 days to sort out its position on the Don’t Ask case. A few months back, Obama and company had asked the Ninth Circuit to set the whole lawsuit aside and wait until the Don’t Ask repeal process had run its course. The court refused, which is why we’re seeing all these legal maneuvers going forward on this long running challenge to the military gay ban. Most of us might see this whole exchange as much ado about nothing. After all, Obama insists that the final certification required to end Don’t Ask is expected in a matter of weeks, not months. We should hope so, considering that the repeal process has already been underway for six or seven months. How long does it take to tell commanders not to discharge people for being gay, anyway? Assuming that the certification takes place this summer, there would be a 60-day waiting period (again for reasons unclear) and the law would then officially be dead. Why, under the circumstances, should the administration or anyone else be interested in a nearly moot court battle? One reason is that the case against Don’t Ask Don’t Tell raises a number of basic constitutional issues that apply to gay rights matters in general. If you believe that the panel is inclined to rule in your favor, you want the litigation to go forward, and indeed, some optimistic gay legal advocates would not be sorry to see the case continue. Then again, it’s hard to argue with a flat out victory, even when that victory comes with whimper rather than a bang. Antigay Dominos Continue To Fall Do you remember last week’s confusion over the administration’s views on joint bankruptcy for married gay couples? Well, you’ll be delighted to hear that it’s all been clarified. On Friday, a Justice Department spokesperson confirmed that the administration will no longer object to bankruptcy filings by married gay couples, even though such filings technically violate the Defense of Marriage Act. As such, the U.S. Trustee in an LA bankruptcy case withdrew a motion to appeal a gay-friendly ruling by bankruptcy judge Thomas Donovan. (in an opinion joined by 19 of his colleagues, Judge Donovan ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional). Like a train gathering steam, President Obama’s February decision to treat sexual orientation discrimination as presumptively unconstitutional is having an impact on a multitude of cases and issues. The media has been focused on the implications for the Defense of Marriage Act, which Obama’s Justice Department will no longer defend in court. But the courageous shift in legal policy extends beyond marriage. Indeed, the Ninth Circuit’s Don’t Ask Don’t Tell injunction was directly based on the February announcement. The Ninth Circuit has also asked the Justice Department to issue a revised brief on the constitutionality of excusing a lesbian from a jury based on sexual orientation. Does the Department still think that’s okay given their pronouncements on gay bias? I’d guess no. We’ve seen the Justice Department drop, shelve or delay the deportations of foreign gay spouses. We’ve seen the new stance on joint bankruptcy for gay couples. In fact, when Obama announced that he’d still “enforce” the Defense of Marriage Act (and other antigay laws), that announcement really didn’t make much sense. How do you “enforce” laws that you will not defend in court? Hey, I’m not complaining here. I’m just sayin’. The Bachmann Has No Clothes What else is new? We’ve learned in the past week that Michelle Bachmann does not seem to be a friend to our vibrant and wonderful community. Sorry everyone, I do not consider that to be breaking news of the week. Do we not remember her sustained, obsessive attempts to pass an antigay marriage amendment in Minnesota a few years ago? I mean really. Why is this woman getting a pass from the mainstream media and being treated as just another GOP candidate for president? She believes in intelligent design, thinks global warming is a hoax, thinks gay people are sexually dysfunctional and has accused Barrack Obama of being “anti-American.” She has a limited grasp on American history and on the general mechanics of finance. She stated that she preferred that the United States not participate in the global economy, as if that were a policy option. She has advocated for some kind of bill or resolution to make sure that the United States continues to use the dollar, based on her misunderstanding of the term “global reserve currency,” which she apparently believed referred to the idea of having a single world currency. She’s a nut and she is totally absolutely completely unprepared to be President of the United States. The fact that she leads the Iowa polls should by all means be a topic of media speculation. But the speculation should be on the order of WTF? As for her performance at the GOP debate a few weeks ago, the media as a whole seemed to be blown away by her poise and confidence. Say what? She looks good and she can spout talking points. But hello! We’re talking about the future leader of the free world. Is there some unwritten rule of media etiquette that forbids discussion of a presidential candidate’s nonexistent qualifications for the job? Or is that kind of criticism reserved for official pundits from the left or right, who are then promptly dismissed by viewers on the other side? Lamestream Media Indeed Well, now I’ve made myself mad. Yet I have never in my lifetime experienced the disconnect between politics and the real world that we now confront. Who are these people who think Michelle Bachmann is the best bet to represent the Republicans in the next election? Why does a majority in this country believe that it’s no big deal to default on government obligations like military pay and social security checks? Why do they blithely ignore the calamitous effect that not raising the debt ceiling would have on the world’s financial markets? Why, indeed, is this country now obsessed with deficit spending as if the United States is an average family with bills to pay and has to “cut back” in order to afford everything? Why doesn’t the media ever question this assumption? No one likes huge deficits, but the solution is economic growth and jobs. As for spending, has anyone looked at the interest rate on 30-year treasuries lately? What are they? Three percent? I haven’t checked, but the fact is we have the largest economy in the world, and the borrowing power to match it. Our overall debt is about the same as our annual GDP, which (to use the same dumb analogy) is like a family that owes a year’s income on their low interest mortgage and outstanding loans. It’s not great as a historical percentage. But for God’s sake, we’re not Greece. We’re not “going bankrupt” or running out of money. Why don’t we hear from anyone with numbers, facts and charts? Never mind that almost the entire burden stemmed from the years of Reagan and Bush 1 and 2, plus the impact of the 2008 recession. Deficits were shrugged off like so much dandruff during the W administration. Now, the Republicans are ready to slash the entire New Deal while turning their backs on job growth and infrastructure spending. Why? There can only be one reason. The craven GOP priorities that put winning the next election ahead of the country’s welfare. |
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
Ninth Circuit Ends Don’t Ask Don’t Tell Enforcement
News For the Week Ended July 6, 2011
BY ANN ROSTOW
Ninth Circuit Ends Don’t Ask Don’t Tell Enforcement
Well, here’s some welcome news that naturally arrived just after I wrote this column. Today, Wednesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reinstated an injunction against enforcing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, effectively ordering the government to halt the discharge of gay soldiers and sailors.
I know, I know. The law has been repealed in Congress and is nearing the end of a long process to kill it for good. Indeed, the administration asked this court to just shelve the whole Don’t Ask lawsuit until the certification process was finished and the President signed off on the final repeal.
The court said no, agreeing with our side that as long as the law is technically in force, the lawsuit that challenges its constitutional status should continue. Today, the court issued a two-page note, barring enforcement of Don’t Ask, noting that since the law is almost dead anyway, the injunction should not be much of a hardship for the administration.
It’s taken forever for us to finally bury Don’t Ask. We’ve had the service, the wake, the memorial, the funeral procession. For God’s sake, let’s lower the coffin. This injunction can’t hurt.
--
The Charge of the Justice Department
So, I actually have a really big story this week. I think it’s even bigger than that injunction, but I had to lead with the breaking news. You may have already read that the Obama administration filed a legal brief in our favor in one of our six or seven major federal cases against the Defense of Marriage Act. (The Golinski case in Northern California if you must know.)
So what, you ask? Didn’t they tell us six months ago that they think DOMA is unconstitutional?
Well yes, as a matter of fact they did. And they also announced that they would no longer defend the law in court. But listen! They never said they’d hop over to our side and argue forcefully against the Defense of Marriage Act before these judges! And that’s what they’ve done.
It’s as if we’ve been fighting the Christian right in the streets for years, with mounted police hitting us back. In February, the police decided to stay out of the fight and withdrew their troops. But now, suddenly, the police are back, fully armed, and leading the charge on our behalf.
It’s enough to make you almost feel sorry for the House Republicans and their hapless DOMA lawyers. Almost.
The weight of the Justice Department is substantial. So much so that when that weight was lifted from the other side of our gay rights legal debates, we got a tremendous lift. Now the power of the U.S. government has not simply been taken away from our ideological opponents. It’s been added to our own. This is really incredible news.
There’s more if you care to delve into a little legal detail.
First of all, this 31-page brief was not just “pro gay,” it was one of the most forceful briefs I’ve ever read and that includes everything produced by Lambda, the NCLR, GLAD, the ACLU and all our legal eagles.
Second, it did not just argue that DOMA is unconstitutional. It made a terse, aggressive and adamant case for the idea that all laws discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation are inherently unconstitutional, unless there’s a solid justification for the law that is not based on prejudice. Can you think of an anti-gay law that isn’t based on bias? Neither can I.
I’ve bored many of you in the past by going on at length about suspect classes, heightened legal scrutiny, blah blah blah. But basically, laws that discriminate on the basis of race, gender, and other “suspect” classifications are subjected to a more searching legal analysis. What the government is now arguing is that sexual orientation should also be a suspect classification.
This is the most fundamental gay rights argument anyone can ever make. You can win a gay rights case without winning the argument about suspect classification and heightened scrutiny. But for all practical purposes, you cannot lose a gay rights case if you win that threshold question.
Even gay friendly courts are scared to rule on heightened scrutiny for fear of setting a precedent that will force lower courts to automatically rule for our side in future cases. They solve the dilemma by ruling that we win under any standard of legal review, ergo there’s no need to go into the general issue of which standard should apply.
We’ve been happy to win cases under any standard. But still, it’s time for the bobbing, ducking and weaving to come to an end. And who’s up there demanding federal courts to reach this critical issue? The U.S. government.
As I wrote last week, anyone who is still claiming that Barack Obama has neglected our community is simply off base. He has gone far far beyond anything we could have imagined in terms of legislation or executive orders. And he’s done so, under the political radar, through his legal policy.
--
Fingers Betray Penis Size
So here’s a mystery that consumed me with curiosity all day yesterday. Do you remember that there was a great ruling out of a bankruptcy court in LA about two or three weeks ago?
I wrote about it, but you may have seen “joint bankruptcy” in the headline and skipped it. I know your type. You’ll read about penis size, but when there’s a meaty legal opinion to dissect you’re nowhere to be found.
For the record, men with a low ratio between the size of their index and ring fingers have big baskets. Check it out on your right hand. I suppose you’re looking for equal lengths, right? A low ratio would be one to one.
Ladies, we already know that a ring finger longer than our index finger means we’re gay. Seriously, this works most of the time. The whole phenomenon has something to do with hormones in the womb, although it seems weird to me that such hormones would involve themselves in the stature of specific fingers.
Getting back to the bankruptcy case (and please stay with me this time) the ruling in favor of two gay married men who wanted to file bankruptcy together was noteworthy for two reasons. First, the judge ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act (which barred them from joint filings) was unconstitutional. Normally bankruptcy judges don’t mess with constitutional issues. And second, the ruling was joined by 19 other judges in the central California district.
At the time, the House Republicans decided not to appeal the anti-DOMA decision, even though they are supposedly running around from court to court to bolster the law. Under the circumstances, I thought the case was over; a victory for destitute gay couples throughout the valley. Hurray!
Then yesterday, I noticed to my shock and horror that someone had indeed filed a five-page motion for leave to appeal this ruling in federal court. Guess who it was?
It was the Justice Department, represented by the U.S. Trustee! The U.S. Trustee is a legal term for some guy who fills some important federal role in a bankruptcy case and who works for the Justice Department.
You remember the Justice Department from our first story, right? The brave government lawyers who issued the amazing defense of gay rights and condemned the Defense of Marriage Act in brilliant legal prose? Why then, would the same people be begging to reverse an anti-DOMA ruling in another federal venue?
Was it a rogue trustee? A miscommunication? Some technicality of bankruptcy law? Was it perhaps an arm of the House Republicans reaching out to manipulate the trustee?
I still don’t know the answer, but my secret sources tell me that the request to appeal will be shortly withdrawn on direct orders from Washington. If true, that sounds like the whole thing was a misunderstanding. I’m still curious about the circumstances of the (perhaps accidental) appeal. I’ll let you know if I find out any more dirt.
--
Prop 8 In 2012?
What else shall we talk about? I feel I should apologize to Casey Anthony for describing her as “the woman who killed her daughter.” Looks like she may not have been guilty after all. Sorry Casey. I followed the Casey Anthony trial about as closely as Casey Anthony followed the Karen Golinski DOMA case, so I can be forgiven. It wasn’t hard to assume she was guilty when all I kept hearing was snippets on MSNBC about “the smell of human decomposition,” “duct tape,” “chloroform” and other disturbing sound bites. I mean, someone murdered the little girl, right?
I gather that activists in Maryland and Maine are gearing up for more marriage fights, inspired by our excellent adventure in the New York legislature.
And speaking of marriage ballot wars, are we going to put a Prop 8 repeal on the 2012 ballot in California?
Equality California is conducting town hall meetings to sound out the community, but the pros and cons seem to be evenly matched. Polls suggest there’s roughly a fifty-fifty split among voters. But if you add standard religious exemptions to the language the polls swing in our favor.
Either way, do we really want to risk another electoral defeat in California? And what would that do to our current lawsuits?
Do we have the money, energy, and organization for another statewide election? I don’t know.
The Prop 8 lawsuit is mired in technicalities for the rest of this year and into 2012. But it might be resolved late next year, or early 2013. The most likely scenarios would restore marriage rights in California and strike Prop 8 as unconstitutional. Shouldn’t we wait and see?
That said, we’re “activists,” not “sitting around to see what happenists.” A victory at the ballot box would reverberate around the country and strike a body blow to the religious right that might finally knock them cold.
Personally, I go back and forth but if pressed, I’d avoid a repeal election out of a combination of laziness and optimism for the lawsuit.
--
Annoyed By Bill Keller
Here’s something I found irritating in the Sunday edition of my beloved New York Times. Executive Editor Bill Keller wrote a clueless essay on same-sex marriage, musing about how the whole national debate would be solved if the government would issue “civil unions” and the churches would sanctify “marriage.” Keller acknowledged that such an idea is impracticable for many reasons, but wandered blithely through his proposal nonetheless, with an air of “wouldn’t it be loverly.”
First of all, Bill. You are the ten zillionth person who has suggested exactly this solution, so why are you writing this? Did you think it original? If so, you obviously don’t have much of a background in the same-sex marriage arena and perhaps you should leave it alone or check with some gay person on staff.
Second, as has been pointed out to the ten zillion people before you, this clever “solution” is no different from legalizing marriage equality. Of course the government should have a one-size fits all civil something for gays and straights alike. And of course churches should do their own thing. Under the “civil unions for all” idea, both gay and straight couples would be “married” in the church and “civil unioned” by the state. But since you can’t legislate the use of vocabulary, we would all be married, period.
The idea that the government would change a word on a piece of paper and thereby make everyone happy is ludicrous. Everyone would use the “m” word anyway and the religious right would be just as pissed off as ever.
Finally, it’s a myth that there is a sharp divide between religious and civil marriage. No one gets married in a church but doesn’t bother with a civil marriage license. Churches can’t marry people. They can solemnize a marriage, and of course, they can do so for both straight and gay couples.
Our fight for marriage equality seems at times to be a semantic dispute with traditionalists over the “m” word. But it’s actually a fight over the “e” word, equality, which the “m” word represents. So yes, giving everyone civil unions would be fine in theory. But if you do that, changing the terminology is irrelevant and needless. It’s not a lofty compromise. It’s sophistry.
I feel so much better now.
--
arostow@aol.com
Reproduction with permission only.
BY ANN ROSTOW
Ninth Circuit Ends Don’t Ask Don’t Tell Enforcement
Well, here’s some welcome news that naturally arrived just after I wrote this column. Today, Wednesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reinstated an injunction against enforcing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, effectively ordering the government to halt the discharge of gay soldiers and sailors.
I know, I know. The law has been repealed in Congress and is nearing the end of a long process to kill it for good. Indeed, the administration asked this court to just shelve the whole Don’t Ask lawsuit until the certification process was finished and the President signed off on the final repeal.
The court said no, agreeing with our side that as long as the law is technically in force, the lawsuit that challenges its constitutional status should continue. Today, the court issued a two-page note, barring enforcement of Don’t Ask, noting that since the law is almost dead anyway, the injunction should not be much of a hardship for the administration.
It’s taken forever for us to finally bury Don’t Ask. We’ve had the service, the wake, the memorial, the funeral procession. For God’s sake, let’s lower the coffin. This injunction can’t hurt.
--
The Charge of the Justice Department
So, I actually have a really big story this week. I think it’s even bigger than that injunction, but I had to lead with the breaking news. You may have already read that the Obama administration filed a legal brief in our favor in one of our six or seven major federal cases against the Defense of Marriage Act. (The Golinski case in Northern California if you must know.)
So what, you ask? Didn’t they tell us six months ago that they think DOMA is unconstitutional?
Well yes, as a matter of fact they did. And they also announced that they would no longer defend the law in court. But listen! They never said they’d hop over to our side and argue forcefully against the Defense of Marriage Act before these judges! And that’s what they’ve done.
It’s as if we’ve been fighting the Christian right in the streets for years, with mounted police hitting us back. In February, the police decided to stay out of the fight and withdrew their troops. But now, suddenly, the police are back, fully armed, and leading the charge on our behalf.
It’s enough to make you almost feel sorry for the House Republicans and their hapless DOMA lawyers. Almost.
The weight of the Justice Department is substantial. So much so that when that weight was lifted from the other side of our gay rights legal debates, we got a tremendous lift. Now the power of the U.S. government has not simply been taken away from our ideological opponents. It’s been added to our own. This is really incredible news.
There’s more if you care to delve into a little legal detail.
First of all, this 31-page brief was not just “pro gay,” it was one of the most forceful briefs I’ve ever read and that includes everything produced by Lambda, the NCLR, GLAD, the ACLU and all our legal eagles.
Second, it did not just argue that DOMA is unconstitutional. It made a terse, aggressive and adamant case for the idea that all laws discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation are inherently unconstitutional, unless there’s a solid justification for the law that is not based on prejudice. Can you think of an anti-gay law that isn’t based on bias? Neither can I.
I’ve bored many of you in the past by going on at length about suspect classes, heightened legal scrutiny, blah blah blah. But basically, laws that discriminate on the basis of race, gender, and other “suspect” classifications are subjected to a more searching legal analysis. What the government is now arguing is that sexual orientation should also be a suspect classification.
This is the most fundamental gay rights argument anyone can ever make. You can win a gay rights case without winning the argument about suspect classification and heightened scrutiny. But for all practical purposes, you cannot lose a gay rights case if you win that threshold question.
Even gay friendly courts are scared to rule on heightened scrutiny for fear of setting a precedent that will force lower courts to automatically rule for our side in future cases. They solve the dilemma by ruling that we win under any standard of legal review, ergo there’s no need to go into the general issue of which standard should apply.
We’ve been happy to win cases under any standard. But still, it’s time for the bobbing, ducking and weaving to come to an end. And who’s up there demanding federal courts to reach this critical issue? The U.S. government.
As I wrote last week, anyone who is still claiming that Barack Obama has neglected our community is simply off base. He has gone far far beyond anything we could have imagined in terms of legislation or executive orders. And he’s done so, under the political radar, through his legal policy.
--
Fingers Betray Penis Size
So here’s a mystery that consumed me with curiosity all day yesterday. Do you remember that there was a great ruling out of a bankruptcy court in LA about two or three weeks ago?
I wrote about it, but you may have seen “joint bankruptcy” in the headline and skipped it. I know your type. You’ll read about penis size, but when there’s a meaty legal opinion to dissect you’re nowhere to be found.
For the record, men with a low ratio between the size of their index and ring fingers have big baskets. Check it out on your right hand. I suppose you’re looking for equal lengths, right? A low ratio would be one to one.
Ladies, we already know that a ring finger longer than our index finger means we’re gay. Seriously, this works most of the time. The whole phenomenon has something to do with hormones in the womb, although it seems weird to me that such hormones would involve themselves in the stature of specific fingers.
Getting back to the bankruptcy case (and please stay with me this time) the ruling in favor of two gay married men who wanted to file bankruptcy together was noteworthy for two reasons. First, the judge ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act (which barred them from joint filings) was unconstitutional. Normally bankruptcy judges don’t mess with constitutional issues. And second, the ruling was joined by 19 other judges in the central California district.
At the time, the House Republicans decided not to appeal the anti-DOMA decision, even though they are supposedly running around from court to court to bolster the law. Under the circumstances, I thought the case was over; a victory for destitute gay couples throughout the valley. Hurray!
Then yesterday, I noticed to my shock and horror that someone had indeed filed a five-page motion for leave to appeal this ruling in federal court. Guess who it was?
It was the Justice Department, represented by the U.S. Trustee! The U.S. Trustee is a legal term for some guy who fills some important federal role in a bankruptcy case and who works for the Justice Department.
You remember the Justice Department from our first story, right? The brave government lawyers who issued the amazing defense of gay rights and condemned the Defense of Marriage Act in brilliant legal prose? Why then, would the same people be begging to reverse an anti-DOMA ruling in another federal venue?
Was it a rogue trustee? A miscommunication? Some technicality of bankruptcy law? Was it perhaps an arm of the House Republicans reaching out to manipulate the trustee?
I still don’t know the answer, but my secret sources tell me that the request to appeal will be shortly withdrawn on direct orders from Washington. If true, that sounds like the whole thing was a misunderstanding. I’m still curious about the circumstances of the (perhaps accidental) appeal. I’ll let you know if I find out any more dirt.
--
Prop 8 In 2012?
What else shall we talk about? I feel I should apologize to Casey Anthony for describing her as “the woman who killed her daughter.” Looks like she may not have been guilty after all. Sorry Casey. I followed the Casey Anthony trial about as closely as Casey Anthony followed the Karen Golinski DOMA case, so I can be forgiven. It wasn’t hard to assume she was guilty when all I kept hearing was snippets on MSNBC about “the smell of human decomposition,” “duct tape,” “chloroform” and other disturbing sound bites. I mean, someone murdered the little girl, right?
I gather that activists in Maryland and Maine are gearing up for more marriage fights, inspired by our excellent adventure in the New York legislature.
And speaking of marriage ballot wars, are we going to put a Prop 8 repeal on the 2012 ballot in California?
Equality California is conducting town hall meetings to sound out the community, but the pros and cons seem to be evenly matched. Polls suggest there’s roughly a fifty-fifty split among voters. But if you add standard religious exemptions to the language the polls swing in our favor.
Either way, do we really want to risk another electoral defeat in California? And what would that do to our current lawsuits?
Do we have the money, energy, and organization for another statewide election? I don’t know.
The Prop 8 lawsuit is mired in technicalities for the rest of this year and into 2012. But it might be resolved late next year, or early 2013. The most likely scenarios would restore marriage rights in California and strike Prop 8 as unconstitutional. Shouldn’t we wait and see?
That said, we’re “activists,” not “sitting around to see what happenists.” A victory at the ballot box would reverberate around the country and strike a body blow to the religious right that might finally knock them cold.
Personally, I go back and forth but if pressed, I’d avoid a repeal election out of a combination of laziness and optimism for the lawsuit.
--
Annoyed By Bill Keller
Here’s something I found irritating in the Sunday edition of my beloved New York Times. Executive Editor Bill Keller wrote a clueless essay on same-sex marriage, musing about how the whole national debate would be solved if the government would issue “civil unions” and the churches would sanctify “marriage.” Keller acknowledged that such an idea is impracticable for many reasons, but wandered blithely through his proposal nonetheless, with an air of “wouldn’t it be loverly.”
First of all, Bill. You are the ten zillionth person who has suggested exactly this solution, so why are you writing this? Did you think it original? If so, you obviously don’t have much of a background in the same-sex marriage arena and perhaps you should leave it alone or check with some gay person on staff.
Second, as has been pointed out to the ten zillion people before you, this clever “solution” is no different from legalizing marriage equality. Of course the government should have a one-size fits all civil something for gays and straights alike. And of course churches should do their own thing. Under the “civil unions for all” idea, both gay and straight couples would be “married” in the church and “civil unioned” by the state. But since you can’t legislate the use of vocabulary, we would all be married, period.
The idea that the government would change a word on a piece of paper and thereby make everyone happy is ludicrous. Everyone would use the “m” word anyway and the religious right would be just as pissed off as ever.
Finally, it’s a myth that there is a sharp divide between religious and civil marriage. No one gets married in a church but doesn’t bother with a civil marriage license. Churches can’t marry people. They can solemnize a marriage, and of course, they can do so for both straight and gay couples.
Our fight for marriage equality seems at times to be a semantic dispute with traditionalists over the “m” word. But it’s actually a fight over the “e” word, equality, which the “m” word represents. So yes, giving everyone civil unions would be fine in theory. But if you do that, changing the terminology is irrelevant and needless. It’s not a lofty compromise. It’s sophistry.
I feel so much better now.
--
arostow@aol.com
Reproduction with permission only.
Friday, July 1, 2011
What Just Happened in New York?
News for the Week Ended June 29, 2011
BY ANN ROSTOW
What Just Happened in New York?
Everything went right, that’s what.
We had a powerful, committed and focused leader in Andrew Cuomo. The GLBT community put aside internecine squabbles, let Cuomo lead, and attacked with unified strategic purpose. We had a bipartisan campaign, with deep-pocketed Republicans holding our right flank. And finally, we were fighting in a blue state, where polling suggested majority support for marriage equality, and where many couples had already married across the New York border and been recognized on many legal levels.
And here’s the final lesson out of the Empire State. From what I read, we lobbied lawmakers based on justice and fairness. We did not shy away from a full-throated appeal for marriage. This victory wasn’t won through horse trading or playing the victim. This was a direct plea for equality that was finally heard and answered.
Don’t get me wrong. The sad stories of gay spouses abandoned in hospitals or left with huge tax bills are important illustrations of why same-sex couples need marriage equality. But we also need equality for its own sake, period.
Healthy, well-insured couples with no kids need marriage rights just as much as anyone else. Slavery wasn’t wrong because evil masters beat their workers. It was wrong in all cases. Air-conditioned barracks, caviar for breakfast and deep tissue massages every night would not have made slavery acceptable.
Likewise, the fight for marriage is driven by our core need for equality. We have been unable to express this simple truth in our many failed ballot campaigns, and it has cost us. Not necessarily in terms of victory or defeat. Texas would not have rejected an antigay marriage amendment in 2005, and nor would the vast majority of states where such amendments passed easily in the last decade or so. But we might have won in California or Maine. And win or lose, making the case for full civil rights advances our movement. The sooner we make that case, and the more determined our voice, the faster we will go.
--
United We Win
Our competing groups of activists and various GLBT factions are often at each other’s throats. We love going back and forth between criticizing our leaders and bemoaning the fact that we can’t get it together as a community. We insist on more dialogue and transparency. And (at times) we then proceed to waste our energies in unfocused attacks on ourselves, standing in a circle with guns blazing.
This time, as the New York Times reports “[Governor] Cuomo was candid with gay rights advocates in March” when he summoned them to the capitol. “The advocates had contributed to the defeat of same-sex marriage in 2009, he told them, with their rampant infighting and disorganization.” The Times went on to describe an incoherent community two years ago when the left hand did not know what the right hand was up to. The result was a lopsided defeat for marriage equality after months of happy talk.
After Cuomo’s warning, the Times reports, five advocacy groups united under one banner, New Yorkers United for Marriage Equality, and went to work with purpose. Last weekend, we saw the results.
I’ve been joking in this column about my history of writing excited speculative reports on marriage legislation, regurgitating optimistic projections from activists, only to wind up disappointed. You know what happened in New York in 2009. Earlier that year, we failed to pass marriage in the New Jersey lame duck session, after lots of hype. And then this year, we had the whole Maryland fiasco, when marriage equality was virtually assured! Until it wasn’t.
What would have happened in New Jersey or Maryland if we had sucked it up and worked as one? More importantly, how can we learn from our success in New York and translate it into more victories down the road? True leaders don’t care about their status, their personal power-base or their title. They care about bringing people together to get results. That demands transparency and communication with the grass roots. But it also demands competence, intelligence and the ability to incorporate the input from the grass roots and others to set a course and inspire people to follow it. I know we have a lot of true leaders. We saw them in New York and let’s hope more of them will emerge around the country.
--
Reelect Obama
Here’s the President on TV. Nothing like a press conference to satisfy a news junkie. Can you wait a second until I can watch his press conference?
I’m back.
Watching a news conference like that one, which ranged from Libya to Afghanistan, to the debt ceiling, to the deficit, to payroll tax cuts, jobs, entitlements and the labor movement, I feel sort of guilty obsessing about gay rights.
But not really. I don’t believe the fight for GLBT civil rights is a political agenda item, so I don’t think it competes with the debt ceiling or jobs or the Arab spring. If we waited for world peace, budget surpluses and full unemployment before we sought equality, we’d be waiting forever.
But because of that, I also don’t care that Obama didn’t tell newsman Chuck Todd that marriage is a fundamental constitutional right. He said he thought the New York vote was a “good thing,” and that he believed in equality. He basically said he thought America was on a slow but sure path towards ending discrimination based on sexual orientation. And as Todd himself pointed out after the conference, Obama was trying to influence opinion on the debt ceiling and any news-breaking comments on marriage would have totally overwhelmed that message.
Further, I believe that what Obama did last February has been totally underappreciated by our community. At the moment, we are all pressing the man to come out publicly in support of marriage equality and to put a ton of political capital behind repealing DOMA.
Yet last February, the President did more for our community than any of us asked for or even thought of asking for. He declared that sexual orientation discrimination was presumptively unconstitutional and that his administration would not defend any antigay law in court. This policy shift wasn’t limited to the Defense of Marriage Act. As long as Obama isn’t supplanted by some Republican wingnut next year, the antigay crowd will have to find someone else to defend the dark side in any and all federal cases alleging sexual orientation bias against the U.S. government. The House of Representatives? In every case? I don’t think so.
Obama also did this under the radar, with legalese from the Attorney General’s office that caught some media fire, but not much. Most people just think he stopped defending DOMA in court. Not true. Even in this recent news conference, Obama reminded the press, to paraphrase, that ‘my administration has written a brief arguing that sexual orientation discrimination should be subjected to heightened legal scrutiny.’ But that just went right over everyone’s head as usual. What it actually means is that he is on the side of gay rights in federal court, and that’s that.
Obama will eventually support marriage equality, and he will put political capital behind the DOMA repeal whenever it looks as if that bill might have a chance to pass. That’s not now, and it’s probably not soon. Indeed, marriage equality will advance through the legislatures of states like New York and through the courts, where Obama (a constitutional lawyer) has taken his stand. I have nothing but gratitude for the man, and if you recall, that has not always been the case.
--
Back to the Past
Speaking of the courts, we have another freedom to marry case on the books, our first since I can’t remember when. Iowa? California?
Well, it’s been a long time, but Lambda is back in court in New Jersey, launching the lawsuit that has been discussed for a year or so.
We “won” a freedom to marry case at the New Jersey Supreme Court back in the day (2006?) when the justices ruled that marriage rights must be provided equally to gay and straight couples. Then they weaseled out completely, telling lawmakers that civil unions would be an acceptable alternative to marriage if it satisfied the equality requirement.
Lawmakers grabbed the life preserver, and set up a second-class status that by its very nature can never provide true equality to the Garden State’s gay couples.
A legislative commission studied the institution of civil unions for over year, determining that it fell short of marriage. Then we had the failure to pass a marriage bill, the defeat of Jon Corzine and the election of Chris Christie.
After these setbacks, Lambda went back to the New Jersey supremes and asked them to enforce their original ruling. Hey! They ruled that equality was mandatory and years later we have yet to see it. But the high court refused to act and Lambda has now gone back to square one and sued in state court for the right to marry.
I’d have to check my notes, but I think Lambda’s first New Jersey freedom to marry case was filed in 2002, nearly a decade ago. The idea of starting from scratch, particularly after we “won the case,” is frustrating. And it reflects badly on the New Jersey Supreme Court as well. That said, it’s an important move.
Meanwhile, over in Rhode Island, the compromise civil union bill now going through the legislature is so bad that even gay activists want it vetoed in its current state, arguing that its generous religious loopholes actually undermine current rights. The bill was the sad aftermath of a (yet another) failed attempt to pass marriage equality earlier this year.
--
Computer From Hell
I think we’ve been far too serious this week, and I’ve also just about given up on this lazy computer, which has simply decided to take its own sweet time about opening programs and web pages.
What? Oh, Ann. It’s you again. You want what? Rhode Island civil unions? Oh, I just noticed something, wait a second.
Yes? Ann? What is it now? Rhode Island what? Look, I’m too tired right now. And I’m cold. Freezing, freezing, frozen.
Hey! You woke me up. I was taking a nap thank you very much. Now what do you want? That Rhode Island bull shit again? I’m sorry I can’t think yet. Haven’t had my coffee, you know how it is. Let me just spin my little wheel for a second. Or two. Or three. It’s a rainbow!
You already pressed that key. Look, I was busy just now and I was going to look up that whatever civil stuff it was you wanted, but you pressed the key two or three times and I can’t handle this. It’s confusing and it’s giving me a headache. I have to rest now.
Okay, I’m done with the above computer gimmick and I actually had to use Mel’s laptop to look up the dirt on Rhode Island civil unions, because seriously. Mine is dying.
Under the circumstances, reviewing more gay news is out of the question, but I also think we’ve covered enough for one week, n’est-ce pas?
May I also say that I’m sick of hearing about this woman who killed her daughter, Casey or Corey or whoever? Snippets of her murder trial pop up on every news show at regular intervals, and it’s corrosive. It’s a horrible story. It’s not unique or unusual. And it’s getting saturation coverage. Take it off the main air streams and stick onto the crime network!
It’s depressing. Poor little Casey. The duct tape. The noxious smell of human decomposition emanating from the trunk of the car. Why are they doing this to us MSNBC viewers? Make it stop.
--
BY ANN ROSTOW
What Just Happened in New York?
Everything went right, that’s what.
We had a powerful, committed and focused leader in Andrew Cuomo. The GLBT community put aside internecine squabbles, let Cuomo lead, and attacked with unified strategic purpose. We had a bipartisan campaign, with deep-pocketed Republicans holding our right flank. And finally, we were fighting in a blue state, where polling suggested majority support for marriage equality, and where many couples had already married across the New York border and been recognized on many legal levels.
And here’s the final lesson out of the Empire State. From what I read, we lobbied lawmakers based on justice and fairness. We did not shy away from a full-throated appeal for marriage. This victory wasn’t won through horse trading or playing the victim. This was a direct plea for equality that was finally heard and answered.
Don’t get me wrong. The sad stories of gay spouses abandoned in hospitals or left with huge tax bills are important illustrations of why same-sex couples need marriage equality. But we also need equality for its own sake, period.
Healthy, well-insured couples with no kids need marriage rights just as much as anyone else. Slavery wasn’t wrong because evil masters beat their workers. It was wrong in all cases. Air-conditioned barracks, caviar for breakfast and deep tissue massages every night would not have made slavery acceptable.
Likewise, the fight for marriage is driven by our core need for equality. We have been unable to express this simple truth in our many failed ballot campaigns, and it has cost us. Not necessarily in terms of victory or defeat. Texas would not have rejected an antigay marriage amendment in 2005, and nor would the vast majority of states where such amendments passed easily in the last decade or so. But we might have won in California or Maine. And win or lose, making the case for full civil rights advances our movement. The sooner we make that case, and the more determined our voice, the faster we will go.
--
United We Win
Our competing groups of activists and various GLBT factions are often at each other’s throats. We love going back and forth between criticizing our leaders and bemoaning the fact that we can’t get it together as a community. We insist on more dialogue and transparency. And (at times) we then proceed to waste our energies in unfocused attacks on ourselves, standing in a circle with guns blazing.
This time, as the New York Times reports “[Governor] Cuomo was candid with gay rights advocates in March” when he summoned them to the capitol. “The advocates had contributed to the defeat of same-sex marriage in 2009, he told them, with their rampant infighting and disorganization.” The Times went on to describe an incoherent community two years ago when the left hand did not know what the right hand was up to. The result was a lopsided defeat for marriage equality after months of happy talk.
After Cuomo’s warning, the Times reports, five advocacy groups united under one banner, New Yorkers United for Marriage Equality, and went to work with purpose. Last weekend, we saw the results.
I’ve been joking in this column about my history of writing excited speculative reports on marriage legislation, regurgitating optimistic projections from activists, only to wind up disappointed. You know what happened in New York in 2009. Earlier that year, we failed to pass marriage in the New Jersey lame duck session, after lots of hype. And then this year, we had the whole Maryland fiasco, when marriage equality was virtually assured! Until it wasn’t.
What would have happened in New Jersey or Maryland if we had sucked it up and worked as one? More importantly, how can we learn from our success in New York and translate it into more victories down the road? True leaders don’t care about their status, their personal power-base or their title. They care about bringing people together to get results. That demands transparency and communication with the grass roots. But it also demands competence, intelligence and the ability to incorporate the input from the grass roots and others to set a course and inspire people to follow it. I know we have a lot of true leaders. We saw them in New York and let’s hope more of them will emerge around the country.
--
Reelect Obama
Here’s the President on TV. Nothing like a press conference to satisfy a news junkie. Can you wait a second until I can watch his press conference?
I’m back.
Watching a news conference like that one, which ranged from Libya to Afghanistan, to the debt ceiling, to the deficit, to payroll tax cuts, jobs, entitlements and the labor movement, I feel sort of guilty obsessing about gay rights.
But not really. I don’t believe the fight for GLBT civil rights is a political agenda item, so I don’t think it competes with the debt ceiling or jobs or the Arab spring. If we waited for world peace, budget surpluses and full unemployment before we sought equality, we’d be waiting forever.
But because of that, I also don’t care that Obama didn’t tell newsman Chuck Todd that marriage is a fundamental constitutional right. He said he thought the New York vote was a “good thing,” and that he believed in equality. He basically said he thought America was on a slow but sure path towards ending discrimination based on sexual orientation. And as Todd himself pointed out after the conference, Obama was trying to influence opinion on the debt ceiling and any news-breaking comments on marriage would have totally overwhelmed that message.
Further, I believe that what Obama did last February has been totally underappreciated by our community. At the moment, we are all pressing the man to come out publicly in support of marriage equality and to put a ton of political capital behind repealing DOMA.
Yet last February, the President did more for our community than any of us asked for or even thought of asking for. He declared that sexual orientation discrimination was presumptively unconstitutional and that his administration would not defend any antigay law in court. This policy shift wasn’t limited to the Defense of Marriage Act. As long as Obama isn’t supplanted by some Republican wingnut next year, the antigay crowd will have to find someone else to defend the dark side in any and all federal cases alleging sexual orientation bias against the U.S. government. The House of Representatives? In every case? I don’t think so.
Obama also did this under the radar, with legalese from the Attorney General’s office that caught some media fire, but not much. Most people just think he stopped defending DOMA in court. Not true. Even in this recent news conference, Obama reminded the press, to paraphrase, that ‘my administration has written a brief arguing that sexual orientation discrimination should be subjected to heightened legal scrutiny.’ But that just went right over everyone’s head as usual. What it actually means is that he is on the side of gay rights in federal court, and that’s that.
Obama will eventually support marriage equality, and he will put political capital behind the DOMA repeal whenever it looks as if that bill might have a chance to pass. That’s not now, and it’s probably not soon. Indeed, marriage equality will advance through the legislatures of states like New York and through the courts, where Obama (a constitutional lawyer) has taken his stand. I have nothing but gratitude for the man, and if you recall, that has not always been the case.
--
Back to the Past
Speaking of the courts, we have another freedom to marry case on the books, our first since I can’t remember when. Iowa? California?
Well, it’s been a long time, but Lambda is back in court in New Jersey, launching the lawsuit that has been discussed for a year or so.
We “won” a freedom to marry case at the New Jersey Supreme Court back in the day (2006?) when the justices ruled that marriage rights must be provided equally to gay and straight couples. Then they weaseled out completely, telling lawmakers that civil unions would be an acceptable alternative to marriage if it satisfied the equality requirement.
Lawmakers grabbed the life preserver, and set up a second-class status that by its very nature can never provide true equality to the Garden State’s gay couples.
A legislative commission studied the institution of civil unions for over year, determining that it fell short of marriage. Then we had the failure to pass a marriage bill, the defeat of Jon Corzine and the election of Chris Christie.
After these setbacks, Lambda went back to the New Jersey supremes and asked them to enforce their original ruling. Hey! They ruled that equality was mandatory and years later we have yet to see it. But the high court refused to act and Lambda has now gone back to square one and sued in state court for the right to marry.
I’d have to check my notes, but I think Lambda’s first New Jersey freedom to marry case was filed in 2002, nearly a decade ago. The idea of starting from scratch, particularly after we “won the case,” is frustrating. And it reflects badly on the New Jersey Supreme Court as well. That said, it’s an important move.
Meanwhile, over in Rhode Island, the compromise civil union bill now going through the legislature is so bad that even gay activists want it vetoed in its current state, arguing that its generous religious loopholes actually undermine current rights. The bill was the sad aftermath of a (yet another) failed attempt to pass marriage equality earlier this year.
--
Computer From Hell
I think we’ve been far too serious this week, and I’ve also just about given up on this lazy computer, which has simply decided to take its own sweet time about opening programs and web pages.
What? Oh, Ann. It’s you again. You want what? Rhode Island civil unions? Oh, I just noticed something, wait a second.
Yes? Ann? What is it now? Rhode Island what? Look, I’m too tired right now. And I’m cold. Freezing, freezing, frozen.
Hey! You woke me up. I was taking a nap thank you very much. Now what do you want? That Rhode Island bull shit again? I’m sorry I can’t think yet. Haven’t had my coffee, you know how it is. Let me just spin my little wheel for a second. Or two. Or three. It’s a rainbow!
You already pressed that key. Look, I was busy just now and I was going to look up that whatever civil stuff it was you wanted, but you pressed the key two or three times and I can’t handle this. It’s confusing and it’s giving me a headache. I have to rest now.
Okay, I’m done with the above computer gimmick and I actually had to use Mel’s laptop to look up the dirt on Rhode Island civil unions, because seriously. Mine is dying.
Under the circumstances, reviewing more gay news is out of the question, but I also think we’ve covered enough for one week, n’est-ce pas?
May I also say that I’m sick of hearing about this woman who killed her daughter, Casey or Corey or whoever? Snippets of her murder trial pop up on every news show at regular intervals, and it’s corrosive. It’s a horrible story. It’s not unique or unusual. And it’s getting saturation coverage. Take it off the main air streams and stick onto the crime network!
It’s depressing. Poor little Casey. The duct tape. The noxious smell of human decomposition emanating from the trunk of the car. Why are they doing this to us MSNBC viewers? Make it stop.
--
Good Riddance to Weiner
News for the Week Ended June 22, 2011
BY ANN ROSTOW
Good Riddance to Weiner
We’re not going to discuss the marriage equality bill in New York. Not Gonna. Do it. We refuse to jinx the process by writing that we are one vote away from a major breakthrough in the legislative fight for marriage rights. La la la la la la la la. Plus, the outcome is really unclear at the moment, and by the time you read this, something will have happened for good or ill so you know more than I do at this point.
Ironically, I’m in New York right now! In Cortland, just a hop, skip and a jump from Albany. I can send psychic vibrations to the state senate from here. Hold on a sec. (Bzzzzzzzzzzz Zap.) Done. Who said I’m not an activist!
While we’re on the subject of things in New York, I have been bothered by my liberal friends at MSNBC, who have lately been obsessed by the idea that Anthony Weiner was forced to resign by media and political pressure, while Louisiana Senator David Vitter and others have been allowed to wallow in scandal while keeping their seats.
I’m a loyal Democrat and love to expound on hypocrisy, but Weiner’s activities transcended your run of the mill sexcapade. The man sent photos of his junk to women he’d never met. That’s one small step removed from dropping his pants on the subway. Vitter’s prostitutes and Ensign’s affair are standard issue bad boy behavior, but Weiner’s been chugging crazy juice.
There’s something very disturbing about the man; the narcissism, the suicidal risk taking, the sexual dysfunction, the easy betrayal of his wife and the sicko nature of his offenses. Who cares if he never actually “had sex?” Would a peeping Tom be allowed to keep a seat in Congress? Answer, no. And Weiner’s closer to that category than his philandering colleagues.
--
People Who Hate Us
So this week, we’ve had an unusually high number of people being mean to gays and lesbians in public places.
We have the two disabled gay men who were kicked out of a pool in Kentucky because they were too close to each other in the water, at one point standing stomach to stomach and splashing each other.
We have the lesbians who exchanged a brief kiss at a Minnesota Twins game and were told by a security guard that the stadium enforces the Ten Commandments. By the way, which commandment bans kissing your partner when one of you is hitting the ladies room and the other is running to your seat to catch the start of the game? Must be number eleven.
Then there was the cashier at a DC Safeway who called her customers “faggots.”
And to top it off, I just read about a Southwest pilot who went on a lengthy rant about gay flight attendants that was picked up by the air traffic controllers and all the other planes.
The nice thing about these stories is that these days, the perpetrators of such nastiness are either fired, suspended or disciplined in some way, and their corporate employers rush to apologize and insist that their business is indeed the friendliest of gay friendly enterprises. So that’s all good.
Still, in the words of Rodney King, can’t we all get along?
--
Wind Up The Perry Gossip Mill
To be honest, only half my mind is on this column. The other half is on Albany, where the last thing I heard was that some of the GOP senators who are still hashing out religious amendments to the marriage bill are in a private conference. They could call a vote ten minutes from now. Or they could blow it off for the year.
Although you can’t marry in New York, the state more or less recognizes marriages from elsewhere, so for the next week, Mel and I will once again be legally married. Strangely, it makes a difference to me. If I’m hit by a bus, she’ll be able to sit sobbing beside my broken body and squeeze my hand. And vice versa! It’s reassuring somehow.
It’s interesting that so many of the marriage benefits we seek come into play when we’re dead or dying. Pensions, wills, estate taxes, hospital visitation. What fun we’ll have when we’re finally equal…and kick the bucket!
That said, those of us who are legally married somewhere, but not recognized in our own state, feel the inequity on almost a daily basis. Speaking of my own state, Texas, our governor is once again fighting those gay rumors that hit him a few years back.
Here’s what I remember from my days at the Texas Triangle, which used to be the state’s weekly gay newspaper before it sadly went out of business.
It was just after the Super Bowl, back in 2002 or 2003, I forget. The rumor had it that Rick Perry had been caught in bed with another guy by his wife, who had come home early from some trip or something. Perry’s wife, Anita, was rumored to have hired the best divorce lawyer in town, and she was (allegedly) ready to kick him out the door.
At Triangle headquarters, we had a number of men call us off the record to report other suspicious activity. One guy said Perry gave him the once over on an elevator. Another knew a guy who knew a guy who had had a fling with the governor. There was nothing we could really write about. And to this day, I have no idea whether any of this was true. I can just tell you that it went on for two or three weeks.
At any rate, the story eventually went away and Anita stuck by her man. But I gather that the memory of the possible scandal has survived enough to insert itself into Perry’s nascent presidential run. Is there a smoking gun out there? Will the guy from the elevator go on record if a tabloid pays him a hundred grand or two? Enquiring minds want to know.
--
Loathsome Scott
Moving right along, there was a good ruling Monday out of Wisconsin, where a state court judge ruled that the domestic partner law does not violate Wisconsin’s ban on marriage and similar institutions.
We’ve seen this before. Any attempt to provide a few benefits to same-sex couples in one of the states that has amended its constitution with antigay language is promptly challenged in court. In Wisconsin’s case, the infamous new governor, Scott Walker, decided not to defend the domestic partner law, leaving it up to the ACLU to make the case. And it seems, they made the case well enough for the lower court at least. We’ll see if the evil doers from Wisconsin Family Action pursue the partner law to the state appellate court.
I’m sure they will. But please. The domestic partner law contains a fraction of the many rights of marriage and cannot be considered a “similar or identical” institution. These people would sue us if the local gym gave us a family membership, or if we signed up for joint discount cards at the grocery store. As for Scott Walker, what a despicable weasel. I can’t stand that guy.
In other legal news, the National Center for Lesbian Rights is going to sue the state of Tennessee over their attempt to ban local governments from passing gay rights laws. You remember perhaps that the Supreme Court threw out a similar measure in 1996, ruling in Romer v Evans that Colorado voters did not have the right to deny us access to the political process. Seems as if the morons in Memphis never read the ruling, because they passed their own version of the unconstitutional law earlier this session. Now we’re going after the Hick State, and the NCLR is going to kick their little butts into the 21st Century. Go get ‘em Kate!
--
GLAAD Prez Says Goodbye
Moving along, there’s a bunch of news coming out of the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) where President Jarrett Barrios has resigned and six out of 29 board members are gone as well. How many board members do they need anyway? Shouldn’t 23 be enough?
I have been vaguely following this story, but only vaguely. I don’t care for GLAAD these days. They sound off in pompous indignation at misperceived slights to our community and spend the rest of their time holding award shows. They also raise and spend a hell of a lot of money, to no apparent advantage, although I gather that their fundraising has fallen off in the last couple of years.
The latest dustup involves GLAAD’s official support for the merger of ATT and T-Mobile, which seemed to have next to nothing to do with the LGBT community and quite a bit to do with the fact that ATT gives them money and there’s an ATT guy on the GLAAD board. GLAAD also wrote a letter to the FCC that appeared to be in opposition to net neutrality, a position shared by ATT. That letter was later revoked, and Barrios claimed someone else wrote it under his signature.
Say what? Did GLAAD have anything to say about Microsoft buying Skype? How about Pandora’s IPO? Wonder if GLAAD is picking up RIMM shares, or whether they thinks they’re too risky. I guess we’ll never know because Barrios is now history along with some of the board.
Do you care? Me neither.
--
Not Much To Tell
And now what? There’s a Methodist minister on trial for performing a gay wedding, maybe in Minnesota. Or maybe not.
Nothing’s happening in Albany, although it sounds as if we might have a vote tonight (Wednesday) or tomorrow. That makes sense since important news invariably breaks just after I’ve had to turn in my column.
I was reading about two boys in Ohio who had sex when they were 12 and 11. I’m not sure what’s going with the older one, who got in trouble. But the kid’s 16 now and he’s already been under house arrest for a year, so perhaps we could just let the whole business slide because, well, they were kids!
I also just read about a 7-year-old boy in Michigan who powered up the family car and drove 20 miles at high speeds in search of his father. His mother was at work at the time, but someone reported him and the police finally got him to stop the car. Apparently, the intrepid little fellow was standing on the pedals in order to be able to see out the windshield.
All in all, it’s turning into a slow afternoon, and I’m strongly considering bringing this column to a premature conclusion. With your consent, of course.
Thank you. I promise to make it all up to you in scintillating detail next week.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)