Wednesday, August 24, 2011
Their So-Called Earthquake
News for the Week Ended August 24, 2011
BY ANN ROSTOW
Their So-Called Earthquake
At first I was going to resist the urge to ridicule the TV coverage of our compatriots on the East Coast, who have gone bonkers over a 5.9 earthquake. After all, I gather that this is the worst earthquake to hit the mid-Atlantic in well over a century. And even in San Francisco, a 5.8 or 5.9 quake is significant. It could wake you up. Then again, you could also sleep through it.
But this is too much. Cable anchors have now spent over an hour covering the “news” despite the fact that no one was injured in any way and no damage has been reported. The coverage consists of interviewing random people and colleagues and discussing each other’s experiences. One person had to walk down three flights of stairs. Another was working when all of a sudden everything started to shake for several seconds. Someone else tells us that someone in Connecticut felt a tremor.
Who cares! I have the urge to put those two words in caps and add a few exclamation points, but I will resist as a matter of personal dignity.
There is a revolution coming to an end in Libya. Tripoli has fallen. The stock exchange is up nearly 300 points and there’s a big hurricane headed to the Bahamas. Are there no assignment editors or news producers on duty at these stations? I flipped through MSNBC, Fox, CNN and even CNBC before turning off the TV. All four of them were covering the earthquake in hushed tones.
I suppose I could have watched the station that used to be called Headline News and used to have nonstop news stories delivered by droning talking heads. At some point however, that station shifted to stories of missing tourists, trials and baby killers, So even though Headline News wasn’t covering the stupid quake, I was only given the option of learning more about the tragic death of Amy Winehouse, hearing about a boy who got stuck in a chimney or seeing a father who encountered a shark with his son.
I had to say no, even though the chimney story intrigued me. How is it, by the way, that men and ugly women never vanish during their getaways in Aruba?
--
Lock Him Up
Speaking of crime news, I think we’re approaching the final act of the Larry King murder trial in Southern California. King was the flamboyant Oxnard eighth-grader, gunned down by a deranged classmate, Brandon McInerney, in February, 2008.
For the last seven weeks, McInerney’s defense team has been trying to convince a jury that the defendant snapped under pressure, lapsed into a dissociative state and shot King. A day before the murder, McInerney had told a friend he wanted to kill King, again I’m assuming here that he was in a dissociative state when that threat was made. On the day of the shooting, McInerney started off to school, but must have entered another dissociative state, because he returned home to get a loaded gun.
The creepy killer, now 17, has an abusive meth addicted father and liked to draw swastikas. Needless to say, he was not amused by Larry, who enjoyed makeup and drag and paid for such fabulousness with his life.
According to the LA Times, McInerney was having second thoughts about shooting King, who sat in front of him in class. But when he heard King tell a friend that he was thinking of changing his name from Larry to Leticia, the violent maniac apparently reached his limit, pulled out his weapon, and shot King twice in the back of the head. Clearly, he must have again fallen into a dissociative state during this chain of events.
At any rate, the defense has rested and the prosecution is going to put on some additional evidence before sending the case to the jury. So we will soon see if Mr. McInerney is found guilty of murder, or whether his alleged trances qualify him for voluntary manslaughter.
--
Bi The Way…
There’s some good news for bisexual men in this week’s New York Times science section. Guess what bi guys? You exist! Previously, scientists believed that bisexual men were gay men who were scared to acknowledge their sexual orientation or maybe a little bit quirky. Not exactly a virile archetype.
Now, a better study has looked at a larger group of bisexual men and discovered that there is indeed a cohort of males who truly are attracted to both men and women.
Hello scientists? Was that so hard?
Apparently sexuality boffins have yet to arrive at a definitive conclusion on the nature of female bisexuals, but I’m going out on a limb to suggest that they too are figments of reality rather than imagination. And I’m not just talking about all those girl-crazy college co-eds.
I had the article right beside me a second ago, but it has vanished, much the way our old bisexual stereotypes can disappear in a flash of post-modern clarity. I recall, however, that various learned professionals reminded Times readers that sexuality, whether bi or beginning with an h, is more than a simple matter of sexual attraction etc. etc. etc. You know how those science types go on.
There’s also a fun article about flamingos in that section. Did you know that flamingos keep extra pink dye in a little sac near their butt so they can refresh their feathers from time to time? And don’t tell me that’s not a gay subject.
--
Teaching Moments
Do you think it’s wrong for a gay guy to get fired from his public school teaching position after someone finds out that he ran a porn website business for several years?
I don’t.
Sorry. I think you have to make a few choices in life. Porn star entrepreneur or kindergarten teacher? Drug dealer or nun? Stripper or fighter pilot? Okay, now that I think about it, the career world is capable of a wide embrace. But I still think the public schools can require a minimum level of prior decorum. Students should not be able to download action videos of their math teacher having a fisting party.
In other teacher news, here’s a 26-year veteran of the chalkboard from Florida, who got suspended for writing mean things about us on his Facebook page:
“I'm watching the news, eating dinner when the story about New York okaying same-sex unions came on and I almost threw up,” wrote Jerry Beull, the social studies teacher at Mount Dora High. “And now they showed two guys kissing after their announcement. If they want to call it a union, go ahead. But don't insult a man and woman's marriage by throwing it in the same cesspool of whatever. God will not be mocked. When did this sin become acceptable?”
Beull’s district requires teachers to treat the social media as if it were the classroom. In other words, they are not to post anything that would not be acceptable on campus. Buell has over 700 Facebook friends as well, and cannot argue that his posting was private.
Lastly, Buell’s lawyer pointed out that Florida’s constitution bans same-sex marriage, insisting that the teacher’s opinion conforms to the state’s majority view and its fundamental law. But Buell didn’t write that he opposed same-sex marriage. The man said gay unions made him sick and that gay couples turned the institution of marriage into a “cesspool!”
Hope he stays out of the classroom. All in all, I’d prefer porn man, even though he told a reporter that he was doing a web story on randy twins who love to touch and fondle each other. Please no. At least not during dinner.
--
Immigration For Dummies
You’ve read about Obama’s new deportation standards, I assume. Instead of tossing out illegal foreigners willy nilly, Homeland Security is going to focus their efforts on criminals and people without family ties in the U.S..
Apparently, we get to pick and choose who we deport these days. Who knew? Given my vast ignorance of the subject, I should probably do quite a bit of homework on the ins and outs of immigration policy before tackling the topic. But then again, who has time for such rigor? We have to cover everything from immigration to earthquakes and pornography. So let’s just move along, shall we?
First, I know that Obama’s administration has deported more illegal aliens than any president in history. Okay but why? Are there more around? Have we improved our capture techniques? Hired more guards? Is it due to the very existence of the Department of Homeland Security? A good reporter would answer these threshold questions but we have no time for such frivolous sideshows.
Second, it seems as if now, we are setting some “priorities” because we can’t deport everyone and we want to deport criminals and bad guys first. Well that sounds fine and dandy. But what have we been doing up until now? How exactly are we changing?
My impression is that we have a backlog of deportations and it may take one or two years, maybe more, to be deported. My impression is that instead of just letting everyone slog towards their deportation date, we will now put all our energy into deporting criminals and we will let people with U.S. family members just stay. Even though they’re illegal.
So, will we just drop their cases? I don’t think so. I think the criminals will now be deported in three months instead of three years, and the nice people will be deported in six years instead of two years. Or maybe never. Or something like that.
But hell. I don’t know, which is why this story should take some groundwork. I do know that the foreign spouses of bi-national married gay couples will be considered people with U.S. family members for these purposes. It’s not a law. It’s not a policy. It’s not an order. It just is. And it means that a lot of bi-national married couples can breath easier for a time.
Presumably, there will be no more gay spouses evicted from the States as long as this priority thingy, whatever it’s called, remains in effect. But the way Obama’s poll numbers are dropping, it’s possible that President Perry will wind up the deportation machine come February of 2013. No no no no no no no no no no no no no no. Won’t happen.
--
Yelp Bomb Explodes On ‘Phobic Bridal Shop
Finally, I have to tell you about the bridal shop from Hell, “Here Comes the Bride” in Somers Point New Jersey, where the woman who runs it (Donna Saber) cancelled a dress order when she discovered one of her customers was a lesbian.
Donna told the client that she refused to participate in “illegal” activity, and she said other nasty things before…ooops!...the story hit the press and her store was flooded with hundreds of scathing comments on Yelp.
After over a thousand condemnations hit the website, Yelp began deleting the reactions, noting that it’s purpose is to rank businesses, not serve as a forum for political debate. Or whatever. I assume that Yelp did not delete the review from Alix Genter, the client in question, who wrote the following:
“Donna, the woman in charge at Here Comes the Bride, refused to sell me a dress because I am gay.
“After spending a day trying on dresses with my family and friends, she called me to say that she didn’t realize I was gay and would not work with me because that’s ‘wrong.’ She also said she was shocked because my family and I seemed so nice, and that my being gay is a ‘shame.’ Then, presumably to counter my accusation of discrimination, she said that what I am doing is illegal and she does not engage in illegal activity….
“Please do not support this bigot. She is a rude, judgmental, self-righteous homophobe, and from what I’ve read in other reviews, her bigotry does not stop at gay people. Her listing on Merchant Circle has complaints of racism, ageism, and other forms of degradation and harassment.”
You tell ‘em Alix.
Thursday, August 18, 2011
Hoosier Daddy!
Hoosier Daddy!
How on earth did I miss this classic Craigslist scandalabra last week? The one starring the conservative Catholic Indiana state legislator who answered an ad on the men-to-men section seeking a sugar daddy?
This one has it all. The sleazy sex for sale. The hypocritical antigay family man. The holier than thou man of God getting some sin on the side. The arrogant politician so careless that he replies to a sex ad with his own name. I mean honestly!
And the final, almost poignant, absurdity is that this 64-year-old white haired husband and father of two described himself as an “in-shape” and “fit” “married professional” who “loves getting and staying naked.” But the 20-year-old hooker wannabe who met Rep. Phillip Hinkle at an Indianapolis hotel later said he was taken aback by the sight of the lawmaker, who looked “really old.”
Whatever the reason, once inside the hotel room, sugar baby Kameryn Gibson chickened out of sex and called his sister for a ride home. At this, Hinkle allegedly grabbed Gibson’s ass and exposed himself, demanding that Gibson follow through on their email agreement, a contract for $80 plus a possible tip “for a really good time.”
According to the Indianapolis Star, Kameryn’s sister Megan arrived and threatened to expose Hinkle. The lawmaker quickly offered up his smartphone, his ipad and $100 in cash in exchange for silence.
The brother and sister left the hotel room, at which point Hinkle’s wife called the phone and Megan answered, spilling the beans. Megan proceeded to chat with an array of family members who called Hinkle’s phone demanding explanations and proof. After dropping off her brother, Megan went to meet Hinkle’s daughter to show her the emails and the phone and ipad. She even answered a call from Hinkle himself, and informed him that she had just told his wife and entire family all the details.
“You just ruined me,” he replied.
I must say that while Hinkle deserved his fate, Megan doesn’t seem like a very nice person herself. I hope her fifteen minutes of fame flash by and do not come accompanied by dollar signs.
As for young Kameryn, he later told the press that he was prompted to go public by the sheer audacity of a 60-something antigay lawmaker arranging a sex date with a stranger who purported to be a teenager. (Gambling at Rick’s Place? We are shocked, shocked!) In addition to voting in favor of an anti-marriage constitutional amendment this session, Hinkle also sponsored a bill to allow vanity license plates with the slogan “in God we trust.” Indeed, we trust that God’s got quite a sense of humor at times like these.
Sometimes, these conservative closet cases wind up rejuvenated by their public humiliation. Perhaps Mr. Hinkle will apologize to his wife and kids and start campaigning for GLBT rights. Variations on that theme have happened before.
--
Isn’t That Special?
Speaking of same-sex marriage, I see that North Carolina lawmakers will consider an antigay amendment during a special session next month after Republicans took control of the legislature last year. It was Republicans taking over Indiana that allowed Hinkle and company to pass an anti-gay amendment last session, but there, state law requires that an amendment must pass two successively elected legislatures so we have another chance. Maybe Hinkle will come around and convince all his GOP colleagues to vote no next time.
In North Carolina, lawmakers will have to amass a 60 percent supermajority in order to advance an amendment to the 2012 ballot. I was reading some article about our efforts to fight the amendment, when I was struck by the familiar refrain about how an amendment to ban marriage is “unnecessary” because state law already bans same-sex marriage.
This drives me up the wall for two reasons. First, do gay activists believe that a ban on same-sex marriage would become “necessary” in the absence of a statute to that effect? Of course not. So don’t say it.
Second, the entire premise is a lie. If you are opposed to same-sex marriage, a statute does nothing to prevent the state supreme court from legalizing marriage equality. Only a constitutional amendment can save you from the nightmare of same-sex weddings, so yes, an amendment is in fact “necessary.”
Hey, I’m all in favor of clever campaign tactics and slogans. But this is not clever. Everyone knows that an amendment is required to make sure same-sex marriage is permanently outlawed, so we just look disingenuous for trying to pretend that the existing code is sufficient. I also hate the line about how the legislature should have “better things to do” or “more important problems to deal with.” You know why I hate that line? Because it is often used to delay or finesse work on gay rights measures and because it wrongly implies that lawmaking is a linear process that works its way neatly down a list of high priorities.
Oh. Having said all that, here’s the actual quote that set me off, from the head of the Campaign for Southern Equality, Jasmine Beach-Ferrara: “Because North Carolina currently bans (same-sex) marriage, this amendment would be redundant, and we want to see our representatives working on issues that matter, like jobs and the economy, not on this redundant legislation.”
Hello? The truth is that we oppose this amendment because we are in favor of marriage equality and we want to see same-sex marriage one day legalized in North Carolina.
And there is no reason why we cannot make this argument. The year is 2011. It is not 1996 or 2000, or even 2004. We no longer have to pretend that “ho hum, we really don’t care about marriage rights. We just want to be, um, treated fairly.” We do care about marriage rights!
I’m not saying that this truth will win us any elections in North Carolina anytime soon. But neither will the ridiculous campaign strategies that have led us to defeat after defeat. And at least we’ll get credit for fighting for what we believe rather than throwing sophistries at the wall and hoping something sticks.
--
A Dog’s Life
I think, by the way, that Oregon activists might be trying to put a positive amendment on the 2012 ballot that would undo the current constitutional ban on marriage equality. That would be a refreshing electoral twist. Likewise, we are collecting names for a similar 2012 ballot measure in Maine, which would ask voters to approve marriage equality by statute. You remember that the Maine legislature legalized same-sex marriage in a bill that was signed by their former governor in 2009 and repealed by voters that same year before it could take effect. That was a narrow, but crushing defeat, so a victory in the Blueberry State would taste especially sweet.
While I was reading about that Oregon story, I noticed that two people died in their hot tub in their backyard in Portland, or maybe Salem. The water temperature was 110 and they may have passed out or something. Anyway, they both drowned. Isn’t that horrible?
I also paused to watch a Youtube video of a bulldog who can surf in the ocean and snowboard down the bunny slopes. This dog looked as if he was having so much fun that it made me feel badly as a dog owner myself. My dogs enjoy eating and sleeping and being petted. But there is nothing truly thrilling in their lives and they have no sports or hobbies. Is this my fault?
According to the video, the bulldog was given surfing lessons. Should I be providing my pugs with professional training in soccer or roller-skating or helping them develop some other entertaining canine skills? Could I teach them to read or cook?
Oh, and before I return to GLBT news, I just read that Gerard Depardieu was really drunk on a plane the other day and was trying to get out of his seat to go to the lavatory just before takeoff. The flight attendant told him to stay put, so he stood up and urinated on the floor of the plane. The plane was then delayed for two hours while the obnoxious actor and two of his traveling companions were ejected, along with their luggage. The flight was a City Jet from Paris to Dublin.
I saw a recent photo of Depardieu attached to this item and he has put on a hundred pounds in the last decade. De toute façon, il est gonflé ce mec.
--
Gay Power!
I don’t know how to put an acute accent on the “e” in “gonflé,” but while I was trying different things to solve that problem, I discovered “π.” That’s handy, don’t you think? And how about “∆©ƒ∂ç®´ß´œ?” ≤≥,” or “¬“‘≠–ºª•¶§§∞¢£™¡?” It’s like swearing in an extraterrestrial language. That said, I still can’t figure out the accented “e.” I am told you hold down the alt key and hit the number 130. But all that does is give me: “¡£º.”
It’s ®†¥¨•¶ªing frustrating. (I eventually discovered the secret.)
So yesterday I read a 50-something page legal brief by our friend Mr. Clement, the attorney who has been hired by the House Republicans to defend the Defense of Marriage Act in federal court.
Oh, my little pug is crying! She’s in the other room crying in her sleep because she has itchy skin. What a bad mistress I am. Maybe I’ll fix her a poached egg and teach her how to play the piano. I’ll make a pair of gloves that fit over her paws with attachments that can be used to make simple chords. Then I’ll fashion a special bench with stairs so she can reach the keyboard when I’m away.
She loves poached eggs.
As you may have surmised, I’m not really in the mood to talk about Clement’s brief in the Pedersen case. Pedersen is a lawsuit filed in federal court in Connecticut by the Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) on behalf of several couples and gay individuals who have been stymied by DOMA.
Much of the anti-gay filing concerned whether or not claims of sexual orientation discrimination should be subjected to added legal scrutiny, and to no one’s surprise, Clement and company think the answer to that question is no.
Gays do not have a lengthy history of discrimination. They may or may not be able to contribute to society, but when it comes to marriage, they contribute nothing. They enjoy tremendous political power, and their characteristic is nothing more than a lifestyle choice. To be honest, I quit reading at some point during the argument about political power so I’m only guessing that Clement did not think being gay or lesbian was an immutable characteristic.
Anyway, the newsworthy element is less in the text of the brief and more in the slow but steady progress of our various court cases. I won’t repeat the status of each piece of DOMA litigation. But this particular case, like the case of Edie Windsor in New York, will eventually be decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which has never ruled on the question of whether sexual orientation bias should be subjected to heightened legal scrutiny. That’s why these two cases are especially interesting.
--
Russell, We Hardly Knew You
Well, I seem to have run out of space before I could tell you about some guy I’ve never heard of who went on a homophobic rant and had to apologize to all of us, Adam Carolla? I had two Corollas and loved them both, along with my convertible Celica, may she rest in peace. I saw a white 1996 Celica in a CVS parking lot in Kansas City last week and went over and put my arms around it and kissed its little black ragtop. Mine was a 1997, but Toyota stopped making them for some unholy reason. The woman who owned the car was very gracious about the whole emotional breakdown.
And in other gay news about people I’ve never heard of, a man who committed suicide last week, Russell Armstrong, may have done so because he was gay or bisexual. Sorry, but I think you’ve got to have psychic burdens beyond your membership in our vibrant yet sometimes persecuted community in order to take your own life. Armstrong, I learned, was the husband of one of the reality TV housewives of Beverly Hills. Farewell, Russell.
--
How on earth did I miss this classic Craigslist scandalabra last week? The one starring the conservative Catholic Indiana state legislator who answered an ad on the men-to-men section seeking a sugar daddy?
This one has it all. The sleazy sex for sale. The hypocritical antigay family man. The holier than thou man of God getting some sin on the side. The arrogant politician so careless that he replies to a sex ad with his own name. I mean honestly!
And the final, almost poignant, absurdity is that this 64-year-old white haired husband and father of two described himself as an “in-shape” and “fit” “married professional” who “loves getting and staying naked.” But the 20-year-old hooker wannabe who met Rep. Phillip Hinkle at an Indianapolis hotel later said he was taken aback by the sight of the lawmaker, who looked “really old.”
Whatever the reason, once inside the hotel room, sugar baby Kameryn Gibson chickened out of sex and called his sister for a ride home. At this, Hinkle allegedly grabbed Gibson’s ass and exposed himself, demanding that Gibson follow through on their email agreement, a contract for $80 plus a possible tip “for a really good time.”
According to the Indianapolis Star, Kameryn’s sister Megan arrived and threatened to expose Hinkle. The lawmaker quickly offered up his smartphone, his ipad and $100 in cash in exchange for silence.
The brother and sister left the hotel room, at which point Hinkle’s wife called the phone and Megan answered, spilling the beans. Megan proceeded to chat with an array of family members who called Hinkle’s phone demanding explanations and proof. After dropping off her brother, Megan went to meet Hinkle’s daughter to show her the emails and the phone and ipad. She even answered a call from Hinkle himself, and informed him that she had just told his wife and entire family all the details.
“You just ruined me,” he replied.
I must say that while Hinkle deserved his fate, Megan doesn’t seem like a very nice person herself. I hope her fifteen minutes of fame flash by and do not come accompanied by dollar signs.
As for young Kameryn, he later told the press that he was prompted to go public by the sheer audacity of a 60-something antigay lawmaker arranging a sex date with a stranger who purported to be a teenager. (Gambling at Rick’s Place? We are shocked, shocked!) In addition to voting in favor of an anti-marriage constitutional amendment this session, Hinkle also sponsored a bill to allow vanity license plates with the slogan “in God we trust.” Indeed, we trust that God’s got quite a sense of humor at times like these.
Sometimes, these conservative closet cases wind up rejuvenated by their public humiliation. Perhaps Mr. Hinkle will apologize to his wife and kids and start campaigning for GLBT rights. Variations on that theme have happened before.
--
Isn’t That Special?
Speaking of same-sex marriage, I see that North Carolina lawmakers will consider an antigay amendment during a special session next month after Republicans took control of the legislature last year. It was Republicans taking over Indiana that allowed Hinkle and company to pass an anti-gay amendment last session, but there, state law requires that an amendment must pass two successively elected legislatures so we have another chance. Maybe Hinkle will come around and convince all his GOP colleagues to vote no next time.
In North Carolina, lawmakers will have to amass a 60 percent supermajority in order to advance an amendment to the 2012 ballot. I was reading some article about our efforts to fight the amendment, when I was struck by the familiar refrain about how an amendment to ban marriage is “unnecessary” because state law already bans same-sex marriage.
This drives me up the wall for two reasons. First, do gay activists believe that a ban on same-sex marriage would become “necessary” in the absence of a statute to that effect? Of course not. So don’t say it.
Second, the entire premise is a lie. If you are opposed to same-sex marriage, a statute does nothing to prevent the state supreme court from legalizing marriage equality. Only a constitutional amendment can save you from the nightmare of same-sex weddings, so yes, an amendment is in fact “necessary.”
Hey, I’m all in favor of clever campaign tactics and slogans. But this is not clever. Everyone knows that an amendment is required to make sure same-sex marriage is permanently outlawed, so we just look disingenuous for trying to pretend that the existing code is sufficient. I also hate the line about how the legislature should have “better things to do” or “more important problems to deal with.” You know why I hate that line? Because it is often used to delay or finesse work on gay rights measures and because it wrongly implies that lawmaking is a linear process that works its way neatly down a list of high priorities.
Oh. Having said all that, here’s the actual quote that set me off, from the head of the Campaign for Southern Equality, Jasmine Beach-Ferrara: “Because North Carolina currently bans (same-sex) marriage, this amendment would be redundant, and we want to see our representatives working on issues that matter, like jobs and the economy, not on this redundant legislation.”
Hello? The truth is that we oppose this amendment because we are in favor of marriage equality and we want to see same-sex marriage one day legalized in North Carolina.
And there is no reason why we cannot make this argument. The year is 2011. It is not 1996 or 2000, or even 2004. We no longer have to pretend that “ho hum, we really don’t care about marriage rights. We just want to be, um, treated fairly.” We do care about marriage rights!
I’m not saying that this truth will win us any elections in North Carolina anytime soon. But neither will the ridiculous campaign strategies that have led us to defeat after defeat. And at least we’ll get credit for fighting for what we believe rather than throwing sophistries at the wall and hoping something sticks.
--
A Dog’s Life
I think, by the way, that Oregon activists might be trying to put a positive amendment on the 2012 ballot that would undo the current constitutional ban on marriage equality. That would be a refreshing electoral twist. Likewise, we are collecting names for a similar 2012 ballot measure in Maine, which would ask voters to approve marriage equality by statute. You remember that the Maine legislature legalized same-sex marriage in a bill that was signed by their former governor in 2009 and repealed by voters that same year before it could take effect. That was a narrow, but crushing defeat, so a victory in the Blueberry State would taste especially sweet.
While I was reading about that Oregon story, I noticed that two people died in their hot tub in their backyard in Portland, or maybe Salem. The water temperature was 110 and they may have passed out or something. Anyway, they both drowned. Isn’t that horrible?
I also paused to watch a Youtube video of a bulldog who can surf in the ocean and snowboard down the bunny slopes. This dog looked as if he was having so much fun that it made me feel badly as a dog owner myself. My dogs enjoy eating and sleeping and being petted. But there is nothing truly thrilling in their lives and they have no sports or hobbies. Is this my fault?
According to the video, the bulldog was given surfing lessons. Should I be providing my pugs with professional training in soccer or roller-skating or helping them develop some other entertaining canine skills? Could I teach them to read or cook?
Oh, and before I return to GLBT news, I just read that Gerard Depardieu was really drunk on a plane the other day and was trying to get out of his seat to go to the lavatory just before takeoff. The flight attendant told him to stay put, so he stood up and urinated on the floor of the plane. The plane was then delayed for two hours while the obnoxious actor and two of his traveling companions were ejected, along with their luggage. The flight was a City Jet from Paris to Dublin.
I saw a recent photo of Depardieu attached to this item and he has put on a hundred pounds in the last decade. De toute façon, il est gonflé ce mec.
--
Gay Power!
I don’t know how to put an acute accent on the “e” in “gonflé,” but while I was trying different things to solve that problem, I discovered “π.” That’s handy, don’t you think? And how about “∆©ƒ∂ç®´ß´œ?” ≤≥,” or “¬“‘≠–ºª•¶§§∞¢£™¡?” It’s like swearing in an extraterrestrial language. That said, I still can’t figure out the accented “e.” I am told you hold down the alt key and hit the number 130. But all that does is give me: “¡£º.”
It’s ®†¥¨•¶ªing frustrating. (I eventually discovered the secret.)
So yesterday I read a 50-something page legal brief by our friend Mr. Clement, the attorney who has been hired by the House Republicans to defend the Defense of Marriage Act in federal court.
Oh, my little pug is crying! She’s in the other room crying in her sleep because she has itchy skin. What a bad mistress I am. Maybe I’ll fix her a poached egg and teach her how to play the piano. I’ll make a pair of gloves that fit over her paws with attachments that can be used to make simple chords. Then I’ll fashion a special bench with stairs so she can reach the keyboard when I’m away.
She loves poached eggs.
As you may have surmised, I’m not really in the mood to talk about Clement’s brief in the Pedersen case. Pedersen is a lawsuit filed in federal court in Connecticut by the Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) on behalf of several couples and gay individuals who have been stymied by DOMA.
Much of the anti-gay filing concerned whether or not claims of sexual orientation discrimination should be subjected to added legal scrutiny, and to no one’s surprise, Clement and company think the answer to that question is no.
Gays do not have a lengthy history of discrimination. They may or may not be able to contribute to society, but when it comes to marriage, they contribute nothing. They enjoy tremendous political power, and their characteristic is nothing more than a lifestyle choice. To be honest, I quit reading at some point during the argument about political power so I’m only guessing that Clement did not think being gay or lesbian was an immutable characteristic.
Anyway, the newsworthy element is less in the text of the brief and more in the slow but steady progress of our various court cases. I won’t repeat the status of each piece of DOMA litigation. But this particular case, like the case of Edie Windsor in New York, will eventually be decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which has never ruled on the question of whether sexual orientation bias should be subjected to heightened legal scrutiny. That’s why these two cases are especially interesting.
--
Russell, We Hardly Knew You
Well, I seem to have run out of space before I could tell you about some guy I’ve never heard of who went on a homophobic rant and had to apologize to all of us, Adam Carolla? I had two Corollas and loved them both, along with my convertible Celica, may she rest in peace. I saw a white 1996 Celica in a CVS parking lot in Kansas City last week and went over and put my arms around it and kissed its little black ragtop. Mine was a 1997, but Toyota stopped making them for some unholy reason. The woman who owned the car was very gracious about the whole emotional breakdown.
And in other gay news about people I’ve never heard of, a man who committed suicide last week, Russell Armstrong, may have done so because he was gay or bisexual. Sorry, but I think you’ve got to have psychic burdens beyond your membership in our vibrant yet sometimes persecuted community in order to take your own life. Armstrong, I learned, was the husband of one of the reality TV housewives of Beverly Hills. Farewell, Russell.
--
Beaver State Takes a Lickin’
News for the Week Ended August 10, 2011
BY ANN ROSTOW
Beaver State Takes a Lickin’
Well this has been a dismal week for First World economies, has it not? I am indeed thankful that my official topic is GLBTLMNOP news and not the global financial markets.
It’s not been that great a week for gay news either, but that’s only because it’s slow, not because the news is bad. There was one important development, however, a widely expected ruling in our favor out of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
The long running case pits transgendered inmates against the state of Wisconsin, which refused, as a matter of state law, to allow transitioning inmates to continue their hormone treatments while in prison.
Under the 2005 Sex Change Prevention Act (I kid you not) Wisconsin became the only state in the country to deny medical treatment to incarcerated transgendered men and women. The law was passed after a trans inmate sued the state, demanding that Wisconsin pay for surgery. But in addition to banning sex change surgery, it banned all other treatments, endangering the health of transitioning inmates out of sheer spite and ignorance.
Three other transwomen sued the state in 2006 and won an injunction that kept their treatments in place while the litigation made its way through federal court. Last year, Judge Charles Clevert struck down the state law in a decision that was upheld by the Seventh Circuit last Friday. One would assume that the Union Busting State would leave it at that, but if they really want to make a name for themselves they can appeal to the entire Seventh Circuit, or to the Supreme Court.
Too bad Wisconsin voters couldn’t manage to strip the GOP of their hold on the legislature on Tuesday.
--
Bringing In the Bacon
So, I was just searching for something interesting to write about when I stumbled over a controversy at Whole Foods, where some Islamaphobes got bent out of shape by the grocery chain’s Ramadan marketing campaign. The story took another twist when someone leaked an internal Whole Foods memo that appeared to distance the company from the entire promotion.
“It’s probably best that we don’t specifically call out or ‘promote’ Ramadan…” wrote a mystery executive. Whole Foods later explained that the email was not company policy and reflected the view of just one individual. So Ramadan is on!
Can you explain why a grocery store would want to promote a fasting holiday? Just asking. Yes, I know that people eat during Ramadan. I found this story, by the way, when I tried to click on “odd way to cook with bacon” and ended up linking to the Ramadan story instead. When I emerged from the business with Ramadan, I could no longer find “odd way to cook with bacon,” since it was one of those scrolling AOL headlines that came and went.
I was interested only because I can’t imagine what you could do with bacon that would be considered “odd.” Well, I suppose I can dream up some unusual applications for bacon, but not in terms of cooking.
--
No Donuts!
Moving right along, there was a story out of DC, where five lesbians were assaulted outside a nightclub on July 30 and police did nothing about it. According to the Washington Blade, the women were walking along 14th Street at some early hour of the morning when a couple of guys tried to flirt with them.
(Sing with me:“A couple of hours before dawn. When the streets belong to the cops. And the janitors with the mops. And the glow of the streetlights shining, fills the gutters with gold.”)
At any rate, the women rejected the advances, and one of them indicated that she and one of her friends were together. This enraged the men who attacked the women, punching them in the face and stomach while reportedly calling them: “dyke bitches.”
Four police cars arrived and at least seven officers went to the scene. There, they questioned one of the attackers and astonishingly, let him go. They declined to file a report or do anything at all until days later, when the mother of one of the victims demanded some action.
Speaking to a gay advocacy group, Police Chief Cathy Lanier said the officers were “lazy” and could face disciplinary action or even termination for their indifference. In a statement August 5, Lanier said she was “appalled” by the incident and pledged that the officers’ conduct will be “investigated thoroughly.” According to the Blade, there are also arrest warrants out for the two men, so justice is on the way I suppose.
--
Bay Area Men Fighting Deportation
I also read, with dismay, about a bi-national San Francisco couple who may well be separated by immigration authorities even though the man who is being deported is the caregiver for his disabled husband.
You may also have read or heard about Australian John Makk, who has been ordered to leave the United States by August 25. Makk has lived in this country for years, marrying his husband Bradford Wells in Massachusetts in 2004. Wells, who has AIDS, cannot leave this country without losing his health coverage.
According to the Advocate, Nancy Pelosi is trying to intervene in the case and Immigration Equality will also fight for the men. As you know, we have seen a number of bi-national couples avoid the worst scenarios as sympathetic judges put their cases on hold and government lawyers find ways to avoid deportation without directly violating the Defense of Marriage Act.
The Obama administration has pledged to “enforce” the Defense of Marriage Act, even as the administration has argued passionately against DOMA in federal court. In immigration cases, however, the Justice Department has suggested that officials focus their energies on criminals and other bad guys, and by implication, leave the otherwise law-abiding gay and lesbian couples alone. A last minute reprieve for Makk and Wells would be in keeping with this policy.
--
Meet Me in Manhattan
You know what? This is kind of a bad news week for gays and lesbians. Listen to this one. Lambda Legal is going to bat for a woman who was harassed and ridiculed for her gender-bending looks at a Sizzler in Queens last fall. According to Lambda’s complaint, Lisa Friedlander and her two friends experienced the Brunch From Hell at her local Sizzler one Saturday morning in September of 2010.
Friedlander, her roommate and another friend went to the restaurant, paid for the brunch buffet, and picked a table. But as Lisa was helping herself, a Sizzler employee emerged from the back and started screaming at her, calling her names, roughing her up and accusing her of not paying for the buffet. The tirade got the attention of a couple of other diners, who jumped in with their own insults, calling Lisa a“he-she,” a “fucking dyke” and even suggesting she come outside for some lessons in heterosexual sex. At one point, the complaint stated, up to ten Sizzler patrons were yelling and screaming, and several were threatening and shoving.
A call to 911 brought police and an ambulance. Lisa spent several hours at the ER recovering from shock and bruises. I’m not sure why it took so long to sue, but I’m guessing previous attempts to talk to the franchise owner were not successful.
Man. I’m thinking I’ll be avoiding Sizzlers in the future, as well as most places of public accommodation in Queens. The employee, or John Doe 1 as we like to call him, was bad enough. But what’s with the other customers? Where do people go to fill up on hate like this? More importantly, why?
--
Napkin Equality
Well speaking of hate, it looks as if we are getting closer and closer to the real fight for the GOP nomination. True, the curtain has yet to rise and the show has yet to start. But we’ve been called to our seats. The little bell has rung and we have been obliged to finish our $7 plastic glasses of sparkling rotgut.
So our friend Rick Santorum was hanging out at an Iowa food store the other day, when he showed the crowd a paper napkin and explained that he could call it a paper towel, but it would always be a paper napkin nonetheless. His point? It had something to do with marriage equality. I think our marriages were the napkins and we were pretending to be towels, or vice versa. You know what? I don’t think we’ll have Rick Santorum to kick around much longer.
So our friend Rick Santorum was hanging out at an Iowa food store the other day, when he showed the crowd a paper napkin and explained that he could call it a paper towel, but it would always be a paper napkin nonetheless. His point? It had something to do with marriage equality. I think our marriages were the napkins and we were pretending to be towels, or vice versa. You know what? I don’t think we’ll have Rick Santorum to kick around much longer.
I think we can assume by now that Sarah Palin will stay out of the arena. Newt Gingrich is hamstrung by his empty bank account, his infidelity, a strange looking wife, an erratic campaign and his inexplicable Tiffany’s bill. And Tim Pawlenty is like a little boy who wants to be President, just because.
Hey, I get it. When I was a child, I wanted to be a CIA agent, or first girl on the moon. As it turned out, those dreams required genuine drive and ambition, the discipline to pass the foreign service exam, a fascination for science, for aviation, for physics and the ability to sacrifice short term desires for long term achievement.
Oh, well. I became a news person instead. But T-Paw seems to be stuck in the schoolyard. And unfortunately for him, the American voter instinctively recognizes, and rejects, the candidate who wants the status of President rather than the power.
As for Jon Huntsman, he’s had a bizarre roll out to his campaign, don’t you think? I thought he’d stake out a fairly large territory of independents and moderate to center Republicans, but he has stalled out of the gate. It was also odd that he embraced the Ryan budget, sending a mixed message.
Michelle Bachmann is Michelle Bachmann, a woman who is running for President to make a point and burnish her tea party credentials, but who has no chance of success and probably knows it.
With apologies to the little guys, it seem as if the Republicans will be faced with a choice between Rick Perry and Mitt Romney. As a loyal Democrat, that selection would normally make my day. But standing on the brink of a possible double dip recession, which could catapult the craziest Republican to the White House, I am concerned.
Earlier this week, Romney signed a five-point anti-gay pledge, promising to support a federal amendment to define marriage in the U.S. constitution. He also pledged to defend DOMA in court, to reverse marriage equality in the District of Columbia (by allowing a public vote), to nominate anti-marriage judges to the federal bench and to establish a commission that would investigate the “discrimination” suffered by antigay activists and politicians.
Perry, meanwhile, has positioned himself not just as holier than thou, but holier than everyone else short of the saints and the apostles.
Either one of these men would be a disaster for the GLBT movement and the country, but of the two I’d take Romney over Perry in a heartbeat. Perry has dropped my state of Texas to the lowest rankings in education, lowest percentage of those with health insurance and the bottom ranks of various other categories that I don’t feel like looking up right now. He’s clever, heartless, lacks vision and seems to be a very able campaigner.
Oh, well. I became a news person instead. But T-Paw seems to be stuck in the schoolyard. And unfortunately for him, the American voter instinctively recognizes, and rejects, the candidate who wants the status of President rather than the power.
As for Jon Huntsman, he’s had a bizarre roll out to his campaign, don’t you think? I thought he’d stake out a fairly large territory of independents and moderate to center Republicans, but he has stalled out of the gate. It was also odd that he embraced the Ryan budget, sending a mixed message.
Michelle Bachmann is Michelle Bachmann, a woman who is running for President to make a point and burnish her tea party credentials, but who has no chance of success and probably knows it.
With apologies to the little guys, it seem as if the Republicans will be faced with a choice between Rick Perry and Mitt Romney. As a loyal Democrat, that selection would normally make my day. But standing on the brink of a possible double dip recession, which could catapult the craziest Republican to the White House, I am concerned.
Earlier this week, Romney signed a five-point anti-gay pledge, promising to support a federal amendment to define marriage in the U.S. constitution. He also pledged to defend DOMA in court, to reverse marriage equality in the District of Columbia (by allowing a public vote), to nominate anti-marriage judges to the federal bench and to establish a commission that would investigate the “discrimination” suffered by antigay activists and politicians.
Perry, meanwhile, has positioned himself not just as holier than thou, but holier than everyone else short of the saints and the apostles.
Either one of these men would be a disaster for the GLBT movement and the country, but of the two I’d take Romney over Perry in a heartbeat. Perry has dropped my state of Texas to the lowest rankings in education, lowest percentage of those with health insurance and the bottom ranks of various other categories that I don’t feel like looking up right now. He’s clever, heartless, lacks vision and seems to be a very able campaigner.
In an effort to lighten my mood, I just googled “fun and gay,” only to find a short porn thing about two guys on a train (which ended before anything graphic took place) and a rambling letter from a 60-something guy with diabetes who was unjustly fired from his trucking job and also broke up with his boyfriend and business partner.
There was also an inane “are you gay?” quiz, and a facebook “discussion” about whether “that’s so gay” is a slur or a harmless expression.
To sum up, there was nothing “fun” about my search, or about this week in general. Happily, a new week starts rights now and I can hear the fun train roaring down the tracks. Choo choo! Chuga chuga chuga.
Wednesday, August 3, 2011
Idiocy Reigns Across The Land
News for the Week Ended August 3, 2011
BY ANN ROSTOW
Idiocy Reigns Across The Land
Here’s the problem with cutting Medicare. Unlike cutting funds for a fighter jet or canceling a research program, even if you take the government’s checkbook out of the picture, the costs of health care will remain and someone will still have to pay for them!
Hello? Seniors will continue to have strokes and heart attacks and they will continue to undergo MRIs and CAT scans and whathaveyou. So taking away Medicare benefits simply transfers the cost of health care onto the seniors themselves and their children (assuming the kids want mom and dad to survive a few more years).
Period. It’s as simple as that.
So, fine. The big bad long-term deficit shrinks a bit. But so does the future economy as health care eats up the savings and income of Americans in all levels of society, particularly the middle class. And even if mom and dad have enough money to pay for their own care, all of that money is cash that their heirs will never see.
What these tea party jokers fail to understand is that the finances of the government and the American people are deeply interrelated. The inane analogy of the family sitting around the table to balance their budget is simplistic to the point of inaccuracy. Deficit spending is not automatically wrong or dangerous for the United States. Sure there are high levels of debt that can lead to instability. But not only are we not at that point, but the healthiest way to improve our ratio of debt to growth is to expand economic growth, something the tea party is deliberately trying to undermine both for political and ideological motives.
They want Obama out of office, and they want “smaller government” without having given the slightest thought as to what that might mean for our country’s future.
Back to health care. Given that we can’t legislate an end to sickness, we have two options. First, lower health care costs, which is exactly what Obama was trying to do in his first two years. Second, raise taxes on wealthy individuals who can afford it. Oh, sorry. I meant raise taxes on the “job creators” because we all know that the only way anyone in this country can earn seven figures or more is to run a small family business with a dozen employees. Yes, that was sarcasm. And for the record, if you do run a business, you normally keep it separate from your individual accounts. For those that don’t, give them a special tax exemption tied to their status as a direct employer.
As I said, I understand why the tea party nutcases went all in on the idea of cutting Medicare. What I don’t understand is why the media and the Democrats didn’t do a better job of explaining their position and challenging the erroneous assumptions of their counterparts. All we heard from both sides were talking points and sound bites and it became surreal.
And by the way. while we were bickering about “what the American people want,” and “saving our grandchildren,” the large percentage of Americans who hold retirement accounts just lost a trillion dollars or more over the space of--- not ten years--- but two weeks. I don’t know the exact number and it’s not entirely due to the debt ceiling debate. But the market crash is at the very least exacerbated by the specter of Washington focusing on a long-term problem and ignoring the short-term growth crisis that threatens to put us back into a recession. Yes, the roof has to be replaced ten years from now. But did you not notice the front door is off its hinges and we have five broken windows?
Sorry for another dumb analogy, but it seems as if we lack the ability to discuss the economy unless we reduce it to platitudes. On a lighter note, why don’t we ever rail against our own grandparents? Let’s blame them for putting us, their grandchildren, into this position. Think how much we could have saved without the interstate highway system or the Cold War or the space program. As for our own grandchildren, when they come into their own they can suck it up and sell a few extra 30-year T-bonds.
--
Balls of Plastic
Oops. I forgot I was writing about the LGBT community. In consideration of my primary topic, I will forgo any discussion of social security, how’s that? But before we dive nose-first into this week’s news barrel, I have the Volokh Conspiracy to thank for an interesting item indeed. According to this legal website, a woman in South Carolina is being prosecuted for sporting a pair of plastic testicles on the back of her car.
According to Palmetto law, the Conspiracy tells us, a driver can be fined for operating “a motor vehicle in this State which has affixed or attached to any part of the motor vehicle which is visible to members of the public not occupying the vehicle any sticker, decal, emblem, or other device containing obscene or indecent words, photographs, or depictions.”
My my my! It seems that the “device” or maybe the “depiction” in question is considered “indecent,” which would mean in this instance that it portrayed a part of the human body in a “patently offensive way” and lacked artistic value to boot.
Fortunately for the driver, the sages at the Conspiracy believe that South Carolina would be hard pressed to defend their plastic testicle policy under settled principles of constitutional law. The Supreme Court has ruled that “vulgarity, with no sexually arousing component,” is protected under the First Amendment, ergo, the naughty accessories dangle well above the reach of the law. We’re all assuming here that the sight of plastic testicles does, in fact, lack a “sexually arousing component,” and here, I can only speak for myself, and perhaps as well for my cohort of lesbian baby boomers.
Finally, although I’m not an advocate for smaller government as a rule, I am all in favor of keeping the meddlesome police state off our bumpers. Unless, of course, something really offensive requires state censorship. I’m thinking University of Oklahoma decals, for example. Or Missouri.
--
Dollywood is So Gay
Speaking of offending people, how about the gay woman who visited Dollywood with her family the other day, where she was ordered to remove a shirt that said: “Marriage is so gay.” Power crazed martinets at the Pigeon Forge Tennessee facility told Olivier Odom to turn her shirt inside out because Dollywood, they claimed, is “a family park.” Odom did as she was told, but she and her partner later wrote to the park asking authorities to expand their dress code to respect gay and lesbian families.
Dollywood replied at once with assurances that everyone is welcome at the park. A few days later, Dolly Parton herself issued a statement to ABC News regretting the incident, pledging further investigation, and insisting that Dollywood’s friendly policies extend to all families, including gay ones.
So that’s that. Still, it seems as if every week there’s another incident of this ilk involving private security guards with nothing better to do than impose their anachronistic personal values on hapless gay or lesbian clients in the name of public protection. Last week it was hand holding in a San Francisco museum. A few weeks earlier, it was a kiss on the cheek at a ballpark. What’s with these pompous wannabe officers? Maybe the companies that hire them out should give them some rules and regulations before they’re unleashed on an unsuspecting crowd.
--
Prop 8 Case Back on Track
I know I have some important legal news. Oh yeah, I almost forgot. The California Supreme Court is going to hear oral arguments in the Prop 8 case on September 6, or around there. I’ll look it up.
As you recall, the California Supremes are going to tell us whether the proponents of Prop 8 would have legal standing under state law to defend their marriage ban against court challenge. This will be nice to know. But considering the Prop 8 case is being heard in federal court, not state court, the California ruling will serve only to provide a tangential legal detail to the federal appellate court.
Once California rules, within three months of next month’s hearing, then the Ninth Circuit panel will continue its own deliberations, which have been stalled for months.
Bay Times legal experts are assuming that the Ninth Circuit believes the question of federal standing turns on the question of state standing. Otherwise, why would they have sent us on this tedious legal detour?
Once the case resumes its trajectory through the federal court system, we will face one of two main outcomes. First, the Ninth Circuit may decide that the Prop 8 people lack standing to appeal their lower court defeat. If that ruling withstands further review, the appellate court would then withdraw their hold on Judge Vaughn Walker’s pro-marriage ruling and Prop 8 would be dead.
Alternatively, if the antigay side has the right to appeal, the Ninth Circuit will continue to consider the merits of the case against Prop 8. Whatever they decide may also be appealed to the full Ninth Circuit, or to the Supreme Court.
And so, on we go. Through next year and into 2013 assuming that everyone appeals every little thing. Hey, we could even have the issue of standing reviewed by the full Ninth Circuit (a year or more) and then have their decision sent to the High Court. Maybe that process will send the case back to the three-judge panel for review on the merits and we could repeat the entire trip back up on appeal. In theory, the case could take five more years!
When approached with this scenario, Bay Times legal experts threw up their hands and requested the cocktail menu.
--
Full Dockets
Meanwhile, our six major Defense of Marriage Act challenges continue apace. It’s not as if they are zinging their way through the courts, but they are all making steady progress and do not seem headed for any major tie-ups. Plus, even if some procedural matter stalls out one of these cases, there are five others trotting along on schedule.
For your review, we have the two Massachusetts cases awaiting arguments before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. We have the Golinski federal partner benefits case pending before a San Francisco federal judge. We have a demand for federal long-term care insurance now in a federal court in Oakland. We have the Edie Windsor estate tax case getting headlines in a federal court in New York. And we have another case pitting several gay and lesbian plaintiffs against DOMA in federal court in Connecticut.
It looks to me as if the Massachusetts cases, which are furthest along, will also be the first to cross the finish line. I would ask the Bay Times legal analysts about this assumption, but they’re all at the bar arguing about the level of bacteria found on lemon rind and whether or not their twists are compromised.
I wonder, however, whether the High Court will deliberately wait until several of these challenges work their way through the appellate levels in order to develop a larger body of legal analysis. That would leave the First Circuit hanging while the Ninth and the Second make up their minds.
It seems you can wash your lemon, shave off the tiniest top layer of rind, make your twist and hope that the alcohol kills any residual microbes. Alternatively, have one strong drink without a twist and then you won’t care one way or another.
Finally, there’s another big gay couples case careening towards a decision in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and I keep ignoring it simply because it’s not an official DOMA or marriage case. But it could be really big.
This is Lambda Legal’s lawsuit against the state of Arizona, where Governor Jan Brewer cut domestic partner benefits for state employees (gay and straight) as a “cost saving” move. A lower court suspended these so-called savings, which actually saved the state next to nothing. Our legal eagles insisted that the faux budget policy was little more than an excuse to discriminate against those partners who could not marry, and a three-judge panel of Democratic appointees heard arguments in February.
That means that a ruling could come down at any time. If we were to win this case, depending on how the opinion is framed, we might have another major pro-gay precedent emerge from the Ninth Circuit. That, of course, would further bolster our legal status in the western states and beyond and be a major cause for celebration. Bring on the cocktails!
BY ANN ROSTOW
Idiocy Reigns Across The Land
Here’s the problem with cutting Medicare. Unlike cutting funds for a fighter jet or canceling a research program, even if you take the government’s checkbook out of the picture, the costs of health care will remain and someone will still have to pay for them!
Hello? Seniors will continue to have strokes and heart attacks and they will continue to undergo MRIs and CAT scans and whathaveyou. So taking away Medicare benefits simply transfers the cost of health care onto the seniors themselves and their children (assuming the kids want mom and dad to survive a few more years).
Period. It’s as simple as that.
So, fine. The big bad long-term deficit shrinks a bit. But so does the future economy as health care eats up the savings and income of Americans in all levels of society, particularly the middle class. And even if mom and dad have enough money to pay for their own care, all of that money is cash that their heirs will never see.
What these tea party jokers fail to understand is that the finances of the government and the American people are deeply interrelated. The inane analogy of the family sitting around the table to balance their budget is simplistic to the point of inaccuracy. Deficit spending is not automatically wrong or dangerous for the United States. Sure there are high levels of debt that can lead to instability. But not only are we not at that point, but the healthiest way to improve our ratio of debt to growth is to expand economic growth, something the tea party is deliberately trying to undermine both for political and ideological motives.
They want Obama out of office, and they want “smaller government” without having given the slightest thought as to what that might mean for our country’s future.
Back to health care. Given that we can’t legislate an end to sickness, we have two options. First, lower health care costs, which is exactly what Obama was trying to do in his first two years. Second, raise taxes on wealthy individuals who can afford it. Oh, sorry. I meant raise taxes on the “job creators” because we all know that the only way anyone in this country can earn seven figures or more is to run a small family business with a dozen employees. Yes, that was sarcasm. And for the record, if you do run a business, you normally keep it separate from your individual accounts. For those that don’t, give them a special tax exemption tied to their status as a direct employer.
As I said, I understand why the tea party nutcases went all in on the idea of cutting Medicare. What I don’t understand is why the media and the Democrats didn’t do a better job of explaining their position and challenging the erroneous assumptions of their counterparts. All we heard from both sides were talking points and sound bites and it became surreal.
And by the way. while we were bickering about “what the American people want,” and “saving our grandchildren,” the large percentage of Americans who hold retirement accounts just lost a trillion dollars or more over the space of--- not ten years--- but two weeks. I don’t know the exact number and it’s not entirely due to the debt ceiling debate. But the market crash is at the very least exacerbated by the specter of Washington focusing on a long-term problem and ignoring the short-term growth crisis that threatens to put us back into a recession. Yes, the roof has to be replaced ten years from now. But did you not notice the front door is off its hinges and we have five broken windows?
Sorry for another dumb analogy, but it seems as if we lack the ability to discuss the economy unless we reduce it to platitudes. On a lighter note, why don’t we ever rail against our own grandparents? Let’s blame them for putting us, their grandchildren, into this position. Think how much we could have saved without the interstate highway system or the Cold War or the space program. As for our own grandchildren, when they come into their own they can suck it up and sell a few extra 30-year T-bonds.
--
Balls of Plastic
Oops. I forgot I was writing about the LGBT community. In consideration of my primary topic, I will forgo any discussion of social security, how’s that? But before we dive nose-first into this week’s news barrel, I have the Volokh Conspiracy to thank for an interesting item indeed. According to this legal website, a woman in South Carolina is being prosecuted for sporting a pair of plastic testicles on the back of her car.
According to Palmetto law, the Conspiracy tells us, a driver can be fined for operating “a motor vehicle in this State which has affixed or attached to any part of the motor vehicle which is visible to members of the public not occupying the vehicle any sticker, decal, emblem, or other device containing obscene or indecent words, photographs, or depictions.”
My my my! It seems that the “device” or maybe the “depiction” in question is considered “indecent,” which would mean in this instance that it portrayed a part of the human body in a “patently offensive way” and lacked artistic value to boot.
Fortunately for the driver, the sages at the Conspiracy believe that South Carolina would be hard pressed to defend their plastic testicle policy under settled principles of constitutional law. The Supreme Court has ruled that “vulgarity, with no sexually arousing component,” is protected under the First Amendment, ergo, the naughty accessories dangle well above the reach of the law. We’re all assuming here that the sight of plastic testicles does, in fact, lack a “sexually arousing component,” and here, I can only speak for myself, and perhaps as well for my cohort of lesbian baby boomers.
Finally, although I’m not an advocate for smaller government as a rule, I am all in favor of keeping the meddlesome police state off our bumpers. Unless, of course, something really offensive requires state censorship. I’m thinking University of Oklahoma decals, for example. Or Missouri.
--
Dollywood is So Gay
Speaking of offending people, how about the gay woman who visited Dollywood with her family the other day, where she was ordered to remove a shirt that said: “Marriage is so gay.” Power crazed martinets at the Pigeon Forge Tennessee facility told Olivier Odom to turn her shirt inside out because Dollywood, they claimed, is “a family park.” Odom did as she was told, but she and her partner later wrote to the park asking authorities to expand their dress code to respect gay and lesbian families.
Dollywood replied at once with assurances that everyone is welcome at the park. A few days later, Dolly Parton herself issued a statement to ABC News regretting the incident, pledging further investigation, and insisting that Dollywood’s friendly policies extend to all families, including gay ones.
So that’s that. Still, it seems as if every week there’s another incident of this ilk involving private security guards with nothing better to do than impose their anachronistic personal values on hapless gay or lesbian clients in the name of public protection. Last week it was hand holding in a San Francisco museum. A few weeks earlier, it was a kiss on the cheek at a ballpark. What’s with these pompous wannabe officers? Maybe the companies that hire them out should give them some rules and regulations before they’re unleashed on an unsuspecting crowd.
--
Prop 8 Case Back on Track
I know I have some important legal news. Oh yeah, I almost forgot. The California Supreme Court is going to hear oral arguments in the Prop 8 case on September 6, or around there. I’ll look it up.
As you recall, the California Supremes are going to tell us whether the proponents of Prop 8 would have legal standing under state law to defend their marriage ban against court challenge. This will be nice to know. But considering the Prop 8 case is being heard in federal court, not state court, the California ruling will serve only to provide a tangential legal detail to the federal appellate court.
Once California rules, within three months of next month’s hearing, then the Ninth Circuit panel will continue its own deliberations, which have been stalled for months.
Bay Times legal experts are assuming that the Ninth Circuit believes the question of federal standing turns on the question of state standing. Otherwise, why would they have sent us on this tedious legal detour?
Once the case resumes its trajectory through the federal court system, we will face one of two main outcomes. First, the Ninth Circuit may decide that the Prop 8 people lack standing to appeal their lower court defeat. If that ruling withstands further review, the appellate court would then withdraw their hold on Judge Vaughn Walker’s pro-marriage ruling and Prop 8 would be dead.
Alternatively, if the antigay side has the right to appeal, the Ninth Circuit will continue to consider the merits of the case against Prop 8. Whatever they decide may also be appealed to the full Ninth Circuit, or to the Supreme Court.
And so, on we go. Through next year and into 2013 assuming that everyone appeals every little thing. Hey, we could even have the issue of standing reviewed by the full Ninth Circuit (a year or more) and then have their decision sent to the High Court. Maybe that process will send the case back to the three-judge panel for review on the merits and we could repeat the entire trip back up on appeal. In theory, the case could take five more years!
When approached with this scenario, Bay Times legal experts threw up their hands and requested the cocktail menu.
--
Full Dockets
Meanwhile, our six major Defense of Marriage Act challenges continue apace. It’s not as if they are zinging their way through the courts, but they are all making steady progress and do not seem headed for any major tie-ups. Plus, even if some procedural matter stalls out one of these cases, there are five others trotting along on schedule.
For your review, we have the two Massachusetts cases awaiting arguments before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. We have the Golinski federal partner benefits case pending before a San Francisco federal judge. We have a demand for federal long-term care insurance now in a federal court in Oakland. We have the Edie Windsor estate tax case getting headlines in a federal court in New York. And we have another case pitting several gay and lesbian plaintiffs against DOMA in federal court in Connecticut.
It looks to me as if the Massachusetts cases, which are furthest along, will also be the first to cross the finish line. I would ask the Bay Times legal analysts about this assumption, but they’re all at the bar arguing about the level of bacteria found on lemon rind and whether or not their twists are compromised.
I wonder, however, whether the High Court will deliberately wait until several of these challenges work their way through the appellate levels in order to develop a larger body of legal analysis. That would leave the First Circuit hanging while the Ninth and the Second make up their minds.
It seems you can wash your lemon, shave off the tiniest top layer of rind, make your twist and hope that the alcohol kills any residual microbes. Alternatively, have one strong drink without a twist and then you won’t care one way or another.
Finally, there’s another big gay couples case careening towards a decision in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and I keep ignoring it simply because it’s not an official DOMA or marriage case. But it could be really big.
This is Lambda Legal’s lawsuit against the state of Arizona, where Governor Jan Brewer cut domestic partner benefits for state employees (gay and straight) as a “cost saving” move. A lower court suspended these so-called savings, which actually saved the state next to nothing. Our legal eagles insisted that the faux budget policy was little more than an excuse to discriminate against those partners who could not marry, and a three-judge panel of Democratic appointees heard arguments in February.
That means that a ruling could come down at any time. If we were to win this case, depending on how the opinion is framed, we might have another major pro-gay precedent emerge from the Ninth Circuit. That, of course, would further bolster our legal status in the western states and beyond and be a major cause for celebration. Bring on the cocktails!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)