News for the Week Ended September 28, 2011
BY ANN ROSTOW
Faith Based Bull
The other day I wrote an essay on the shift in the rhetoric of antigay activists, who are switching postures from morality watchmen to victims of religious intolerance. The morality thing hasn’t been working as well as it used to. People aren’t buying the idea that the pleasant soccer moms who live down the street in (Your Suburb Here) are satanic minions in disguise. And with the exception of the bullies on the block, kids in particular cannot internalize the revulsion against gays that characterized another age.
Meanwhile, with all the progress of recent years, more cities, states and companies are requiring businesses and employees to conform to antidiscrimination codes and marriage equality laws. There remain far too many exceptions for religious groups, but in general, such laws require everyone to leave their gay bias at home when they conduct business in a progressive environment.
In the last few months, I’ve covered the New Jersey bridal shop manager who refused to sell a dress to a lesbian and the bed and breakfast in New England somewhere who refused to book a wedding for two men, In the past I’ve covered the bakery that won’t make pride cupcakes and the fertility clinic that cut off treatment for a gay woman. Today’s New York Times has a front page story (below the fold) about a clerk in upstate New York who won’t sign off on marriage licenses for same-sex couples.
The excuse is always the same. The state is making these individuals choose between their faith and these wacky gay rights laws. It’s unconstitutional! And indeed it might be if hostility towards gays had anything to do with Christianity. In fact, that kind of hostility has everything to do with conservative Christians, not Christians themselves--- many if not most of whom have no problem getting along with their GLBT customers and neighbors.
Adding to the far right’s new victim status is the notion that no one can express their antigay political views these days because the unbalanced GLBT community will harass them, start a boycott, maybe even break the windows in their cars!
It’s true there’s now a price to pay for going public with your nasty prejudice. Boycotts and outraged comments ensue. Maybe even protests. But the gay community’s reaction is just as revered under the First Amendment as is the original catalyst. And we don’t break windows.
Nonetheless, the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) is still trying to hide their donor lists in violation of election laws around the country, based on this alleged fear of retaliation. And that same straw man is at the heart of the effort to block video release or live coverage of the Prop 8 trial.
(By the way, release of the trial video was put on hold by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, pending an appeal of the decision by U.S. District Court Judge James Ware, who ruled that the show could go public.)
Now, and here’s why I’m bringing up the whole subject this week, NOM founder Maggie Gallagher is forming a new organization devoted to promoting the victimization theme. Called the “Marriage Anti-Defamation Alliance,” her group will apparently rise in defense of the downtrodden Christians who have been forced to toe the gay rights line in violation of their sacred beliefs.
The irritating thing is that until the rest of the country acknowledges that homophobia is not a legitimate tenet of religious faith, this attitude will continue to engender some sympathy. We all support freedom of religion in this country. Well, most of us at least. And as long as the First Amendment debate is seen as a conflict between two well-meaning factions, equality will be the loser.
Conservative Christians once believed that their religion dictated racial prejudice and sexism. It didn’t, anymore than it mandates sexual orientation discrimination. But although we’ve made progress, there’s still a sense in this country that prejudice and disgust against gay men and women are legitimate opinions. Misplaced perhaps, But understandable.
We don’t tolerate public racism, even as we know that many people will remain racist in their hearts and in their homes. We wouldn’t give credence to a group that defends the right of men to discriminate against women without consequence, based on a Christian belief in the subservience of the female sex. Yet even in the GLBT community, there remains a vague feeling that antigay views deserve some kind of respect when cloaked in faith-based garb. That’s nonsense.
--
You Must Remember This
In other news this week, we have the L-Word actress, Leisha Hailey, who got kicked off a Southwest plane after causing what sounds like a legitimate stink with the flight attendants. As far as I understand it, Hailey and her girlfriend Camila Grey kissed each other, causing at least one other passenger to complain. They were then given some kind of warning from one of the staff and naturally became upset. They were kicked off the plane for allegedly yelling profanities and causing a disruption, not for the kiss itself, but who among us wouldn’t cause a fuss if we were treated in that fashion?
When I first read this story, like any decent reporter, I wondered whether there was some other factor. Were they making out in a way that would disturb anyone, gay or straight? Were they drunk? Was there something else going on? Because really, what Southwest Airline attendant would handle a simple kiss that way? Southwest has no antigay reputation whatsoever.
Second, the story claimed that the attendant told the women that “this is a family airline,” another anomaly. Was this a rogue staff member? But if so, why didn’t Southwest jump into the media fray, denounce the “misunderstanding” and send Miss Thang to sensitivity training?
And yet, as the story continues, it seems to be a genuine case of severe antigay discrimination. Hailey insists that the kiss was no big deal, a simple gesture and not a make out session. She admits that she and Grey were angry, but as I said before, who wouldn’t be?
The situation is complicated by the fact that, all things being equal, every airline has the right, and possibly the obligation, to remove unruly screaming passengers. Indeed, Southwest says the women yelled obscenities and were kicked off for this reason alone.
But this is disingenuous. Once again I go back to my racial analogies and ask what would happen if a flight attendant told a mixed race couple that they were on, let’s say, “a traditional airline,” and then asked them not to touch or show affection in deference to other passengers. Would the couple then be blamed for their outrage?
I’m sure Hailey and Grey could have handled this differently. They could have displayed maturity and discretion by waiting until after the flight to blast Southwest. They could have gone the passive aggressive route and kissed the whole way to El Paso or wherever, daring the staff to stop them. They could have berated the flight attendant in no uncertain terms, using their inside voices and demanding a full apology for the entire incident. But they didn’t.
That doesn’t mean that they were not the victims of a disturbing piece of antigay prejudice that seems lost in the confusion of the story. And try as they might, Southwest can’t neatly sever the outcome from the onset of this situation. It’s all of a piece and must be evaluated in its full context.
Meanwhile, in the last few months we saw a couple of women told to behave after brief kiss in a baseball stadium and we saw two lesbians asked to stop holding hands at a San Francisco museum, of all places.
You know what this does? It makes all of us wary. Every time we unthinkingly throw our arms around our partners, take their hand, give them a kiss, a little voice in our heads chimes in to say “you’re in public! Is someone coming to get you, say something to you, give you the evil eye?” It’s just a split second. But it’s a pervasive sensation.
--
Guys: You Know Patti’s Right!
So here’s what’s on my list of GLBT stories this week.
Google has an ap to help you figure out whether your son is gay. Does he care about his skin and have a penchant for musical comedies? You know what? Some stereotypes are based on reality and if your son is sitting in front of his vanity belting out “Oh my man I love him so,” he’s gay. But did you really need an ap for that?
The millionaire matchmaker, Patti Stanger, is eating her feet this week, after telling large TV audiences that gay men can’t be monogamous and have no control over their, shall we say, baser instincts.
Hey guys, I hear you out there. “Jim and I have been together for 23 years and we have always been faithful!”
Yes, but I know your rules. Every other Tuesday, Jim can stray. You are allowed to step out, but never more than once with the same guy. Threesomes are OK as long as neither one of you sleeps with the third guy behind the other’s back. Oral sex is allowed, intercourse is not. You’re not allowed to fall in love with anyone else, but cruising is OK. When you go on vacation, each guy is allowed one fling. Anything goes on a business trip, but you can’t ever mention it to your partner. You can sleep with someone else as long as you never exchange names.
Of all my gay male friends in relationships, every one of them has enforced some weird little “monogamy” rule that would set your average lesbian couple on the road to divorce court. I love you guys, but Patti’s right, You’re not the monogamous types. That said, I’m sure there are a few monogamous gay men out there, just as there are certainly a few lesbian couples with their own special rules of the road.
The underlying problem is that Patti made a generalization about all gay men, even though that generalization only applies to, um, 90 percent of gay men. I say, give her a break.
--
Sense Us
And what else? There’s a couple of 80-something gay tortoises in a zoo somewhere. Do you care? Me neither. I read about an antigay billboard somewhere. I wrote down “billboard,” but I don’t recall the details and don’t feel like looking them up.
The census is going back and forth about how many married gay and lesbian couples might be living in the U.S.. I worked for the census last year, which was fun, but I can tell you that there’s no box for “gay.” Yes, a female head of household can list her significant other as “wife,” but you could also pick unmarried partner or roommate. Living in Texas, I almost put unmarried partner on my form even though Mel and I were married in California. I didn’t know whether the census would accept “wife” and I didn’t want our relationship to be discounted.
In other words, the census is useful, and it’s nice that same-sex couples are somewhat recognized and counted, But it remains ambiguous and fails to count gays who don’t want to tell the government they’re gay, can’t figure out the forms, or are not sure of their census status. Are there a million gay couples living together, or half a million? Who knows? Maybe somewhere in the middle. Maybe more. Does it matter? Yes and no. Civil rights do not depend on numbers. But numbers put the world in context.
I’m almost out of space, so let me get something off my chest.
I can’t stand the commercial for the gout medication that shows a guy wandering around with a large vial of green uric acid. You know the one. The vial gets smaller when he uses some drug, but it’s still visible, sloshing around in his knapsack as he checks in at the airport and heads out to the trout stream. Gross! I don’t want to see your uric acid. Just tell us about the gout and the drug, but use a different visual aid, please.
What’s next? A cancerous tumor in a little plastic bag around your neck? Congealed yellow fats hanging from your belt buckle? Can we not start a movement to keep disgusting symptoms and images off our TV commercials? That goes double for the woman who goes on and on about “bad gas,” bloating and diarrhea. Is there a “good gas?” Shut up already! And I think I’ve said enough in the past about the cartoon bears who can’t take a dump without leaving bits of toilet paper on their little butts. Take ‘em off the air.
Thursday, September 29, 2011
Friday, September 23, 2011
Hating Gays May Be Constitutionally Protected
Hating Gays May Be Constitutionally Protected
Acting On It Is Not
BY ANN ROSTOW
Here’s one of the new twists in the long running battle between the good guys (us) and the evil ones (them). Instead of simply attacking gays and lesbians as sick misfits (a strategy that is so last century) the far right has started to insist that we’re the oppressors and they’re the victims.
They can’t come forward with the names of antigay financial donors because the GLBT community might attack and harass the antigay supporters.
We can’t show the videos of the Prop 8 trial, because the anti-marriage witnesses might suffer from the ferocious gay community backlash.
What? Someone got in trouble for writing that gay marriage is a “cesspool” on their Facebook Page? That’s a violation of free speech!
Did the cute country inn refuse to host a same-sex union celebration? Why that’s just the exercise of their constitutional right to freedom of religious expression. Ditto for the Navy chaplains who don’t want to preside over a gay wedding or the Christian clerks who don’t want to handle the same-sex paperwork. How can the government force devout evangelicals to do business with creepy GLBT deviants? It’s not right! It’s not constitutional!
Here’s the easy way to untangle these apparently knotty conflicts. Just substitute Black for gay and see how far these arguments fly.
Do we allow secret contributions to White Supremacy political groups based on the fear that the Black community might react badly? No.
Can an employer sanction a staff member who writes racist screed on a public forum like Facebook? Of course they can.
Are Christians allowed to ignore civil rights laws based on a Biblical belief in the inferiority of Blacks? No.
So why is this tactic working as well as it has, when it seems so clearly flawed?
Because it has been working pretty well.
Marriage equality laws and other antidiscrimination statutes that cover sexual orientation are often riddled with religious loopholes. The faith based initiatives that allow the government to funnel public funds to do-gooders at the local church often exempt the recipients from gay rights laws.
Those Navy chaplains? They were initially given orders to treat marriage as gender neutral. But after the Christian hissy fit that followed, that order was revoked for further legal review. Then, Republicans in the House added language in the defense appropriations bill that prohibits military chaplains from conducting gay weddings, even in states where same-sex marriage is legal. That language hasn’t been included in the pending Senate version of the defense bill, but still.
Aside from specific cases like this, the underlying issue is why anyone gives credence to the notion that people who hate gays deserve some kind of special understanding and some kind of protection from the rolling tide of equality.
The answer, in part, is based on a misguided notion of freedom.
Freedom, liberty, whatever you call it it’s the iconic American philosophy. We came to these shores in pursuit of freedom, fought the British to secure it, wrote the Constitution to protect it.
And yet. What do you do when my freedom conflicts with your freedom? Or what do you do when the whole society requires that some freedom, let’s say the freedom to run through the streets naked on Saturday night, be curtailed? What do you do if you’re a public school administrator and the students want to protest the war in Iraq by wearing armbands? What if they want to wear Confederate flags on their belt buckles?
Where does the freedom to hate gays fit into our system?
Under the First Amendment, the government cannot trespass on your freedom of speech or your free exercise of religion, At least that’s the theory. But as we all know, you still can’t yell “fire” in a crowded theater. And if your so-called “religion” commands you to walk naked down Main Street every Saturday night, well you’re going to get arrested all the same. A religious belief does not trump general laws that apply to everyone and that serve a compelling secular state purpose.
Does your Native American religion require that you smoke peyote in violation of strict state drug laws? Tough luck, the Supreme Court has said. Oregon has a compelling interest in banning such drugs, so your religious belief takes a back seat to the public good. (Spoilsports.)
Schools must keep order and protect the educational environment. Confederate flag belts are a catalyst for unrest and can be banned. Armbands are a legitimate exercise of free speech and must be allowed. As for T-shirts, as long as they are not the antigay equivalent of a Confederate flag, they should not be censored regardless of what side of the fence they represent.
A private employer? That’s not the government telling you what not to post on your Facebook page. That’s your boss! If you get fired or disciplined for antigay postings or antigay speech in the workplace, don’t look to the First Amendment to help you. Company policy, in compliance with state and federal law of course, is up to the company. Does Widgets USA want a GLBT boycott because their Vice President went off on a viral Youtube homo-rant? I don’t think so. And yes, they can fire you for that.
But here’s the main battlefield: it lies in the cities and states that ban sexual orientation discrimination in public accommodation, and it pits the antigay Christian business owner against us, his or her GLBT customers.
It pits the New Jersey bridal shop owner against the lesbian dress buyer. It pits the two guys planning their wedding in New York against the Christian owned bed and breakfast. It pits the gay woman who was halfway through her complicated fertility treatment against the medical practice that cut her off at the knees when they realized her partner was a woman. It pits the antigay bakery against the clients trying to order pride cupcakes.
But But But! they cry. It’s our religion!
But it’s not their religion.
It’s not their religion, it’s their bigotry that makes them turn their backs, cancel the order, stop treatment, refuse the booking. The antidiscrimination laws on the books don’t target Christianity. There are plenty of Christian bakers, butchers and candlestick makers ready and willing to serve gay customers. Those that won’t have only themselves to blame, and if they find it hard to follow the secular rules of our progressive cities and states, then they can either suck it up and make the sale, or they can find another line of work that does not fall under the rubric of “public accommodation,” emphasis on “public.”
Freedom is not absolute. And while the freedom to hate gays will always exist, the freedom to act on that hatred will not.
--
Acting On It Is Not
BY ANN ROSTOW
Here’s one of the new twists in the long running battle between the good guys (us) and the evil ones (them). Instead of simply attacking gays and lesbians as sick misfits (a strategy that is so last century) the far right has started to insist that we’re the oppressors and they’re the victims.
They can’t come forward with the names of antigay financial donors because the GLBT community might attack and harass the antigay supporters.
We can’t show the videos of the Prop 8 trial, because the anti-marriage witnesses might suffer from the ferocious gay community backlash.
What? Someone got in trouble for writing that gay marriage is a “cesspool” on their Facebook Page? That’s a violation of free speech!
Did the cute country inn refuse to host a same-sex union celebration? Why that’s just the exercise of their constitutional right to freedom of religious expression. Ditto for the Navy chaplains who don’t want to preside over a gay wedding or the Christian clerks who don’t want to handle the same-sex paperwork. How can the government force devout evangelicals to do business with creepy GLBT deviants? It’s not right! It’s not constitutional!
Here’s the easy way to untangle these apparently knotty conflicts. Just substitute Black for gay and see how far these arguments fly.
Do we allow secret contributions to White Supremacy political groups based on the fear that the Black community might react badly? No.
Can an employer sanction a staff member who writes racist screed on a public forum like Facebook? Of course they can.
Are Christians allowed to ignore civil rights laws based on a Biblical belief in the inferiority of Blacks? No.
So why is this tactic working as well as it has, when it seems so clearly flawed?
Because it has been working pretty well.
Marriage equality laws and other antidiscrimination statutes that cover sexual orientation are often riddled with religious loopholes. The faith based initiatives that allow the government to funnel public funds to do-gooders at the local church often exempt the recipients from gay rights laws.
Those Navy chaplains? They were initially given orders to treat marriage as gender neutral. But after the Christian hissy fit that followed, that order was revoked for further legal review. Then, Republicans in the House added language in the defense appropriations bill that prohibits military chaplains from conducting gay weddings, even in states where same-sex marriage is legal. That language hasn’t been included in the pending Senate version of the defense bill, but still.
Aside from specific cases like this, the underlying issue is why anyone gives credence to the notion that people who hate gays deserve some kind of special understanding and some kind of protection from the rolling tide of equality.
The answer, in part, is based on a misguided notion of freedom.
Freedom, liberty, whatever you call it it’s the iconic American philosophy. We came to these shores in pursuit of freedom, fought the British to secure it, wrote the Constitution to protect it.
And yet. What do you do when my freedom conflicts with your freedom? Or what do you do when the whole society requires that some freedom, let’s say the freedom to run through the streets naked on Saturday night, be curtailed? What do you do if you’re a public school administrator and the students want to protest the war in Iraq by wearing armbands? What if they want to wear Confederate flags on their belt buckles?
Where does the freedom to hate gays fit into our system?
Under the First Amendment, the government cannot trespass on your freedom of speech or your free exercise of religion, At least that’s the theory. But as we all know, you still can’t yell “fire” in a crowded theater. And if your so-called “religion” commands you to walk naked down Main Street every Saturday night, well you’re going to get arrested all the same. A religious belief does not trump general laws that apply to everyone and that serve a compelling secular state purpose.
Does your Native American religion require that you smoke peyote in violation of strict state drug laws? Tough luck, the Supreme Court has said. Oregon has a compelling interest in banning such drugs, so your religious belief takes a back seat to the public good. (Spoilsports.)
Schools must keep order and protect the educational environment. Confederate flag belts are a catalyst for unrest and can be banned. Armbands are a legitimate exercise of free speech and must be allowed. As for T-shirts, as long as they are not the antigay equivalent of a Confederate flag, they should not be censored regardless of what side of the fence they represent.
A private employer? That’s not the government telling you what not to post on your Facebook page. That’s your boss! If you get fired or disciplined for antigay postings or antigay speech in the workplace, don’t look to the First Amendment to help you. Company policy, in compliance with state and federal law of course, is up to the company. Does Widgets USA want a GLBT boycott because their Vice President went off on a viral Youtube homo-rant? I don’t think so. And yes, they can fire you for that.
But here’s the main battlefield: it lies in the cities and states that ban sexual orientation discrimination in public accommodation, and it pits the antigay Christian business owner against us, his or her GLBT customers.
It pits the New Jersey bridal shop owner against the lesbian dress buyer. It pits the two guys planning their wedding in New York against the Christian owned bed and breakfast. It pits the gay woman who was halfway through her complicated fertility treatment against the medical practice that cut her off at the knees when they realized her partner was a woman. It pits the antigay bakery against the clients trying to order pride cupcakes.
But But But! they cry. It’s our religion!
But it’s not their religion.
It’s not their religion, it’s their bigotry that makes them turn their backs, cancel the order, stop treatment, refuse the booking. The antidiscrimination laws on the books don’t target Christianity. There are plenty of Christian bakers, butchers and candlestick makers ready and willing to serve gay customers. Those that won’t have only themselves to blame, and if they find it hard to follow the secular rules of our progressive cities and states, then they can either suck it up and make the sale, or they can find another line of work that does not fall under the rubric of “public accommodation,” emphasis on “public.”
Freedom is not absolute. And while the freedom to hate gays will always exist, the freedom to act on that hatred will not.
--
Don’t Ask About Our Lead Story
News for the Week Ended September 21, 2011
BY ANN ROSTOW
Don’t Ask About Our Lead Story
Six out of the first seven news stories on “Google gay” this morning concern the end of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. The other one, which naturally stands out by virtue of its original content, concerns basketball star Rudy Gay, who has been injured since the end of last season.
Good news. He’s back!
After seven months of re-hab for a dislocated shoulder, the Memphis Grizzlies forward was cleared for the court on Monday. Gay played in some special tournament on Tuesday, and looked pretty good, sports writers say. I’m not going back to the article to fill in the blanks.
Oh, don’t get your knickers in a twist. Of course we’ll discuss the end of the military ban. That said, the demise of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is not “news,” per se. The news surrounding our inevitable arrival at the Sept. 20 deadline involves the happiness of gay soldiers, the relief of their families, and the overarching theme of how America can inflict injustice and then change its collective mind in the space of two decades.
For the record, the notion that ending Don’t Ask was a political victory is wrong. This law met its demise thanks to one thing, and one thing only: the pro-gay 2010 federal court ruling by U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips that lit a fire under the seats of lawmakers and military leaders alike. The repeal bill that languished throughout the first two years of Obama’s presidency suddenly came alive and burned through the Democratic majority lame duck Congress in the nick of time.
And speaking of Judge Phillips decision, one underreported side of this story is the fate of this ongoing federal lawsuit that is now pending a ruling at the U.S, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Although the administration has asked the court to drop the challenge to Don’t Ask in view of the law’s repeal, our side has insisted that the legal process continue to a conclusion, hoping for a federal constitutional precedent in our favor.
Not only would such a precedent improve our legal position in future gay rights cases, it could also support civil claims against the government by former gay servicemembers.
Moreover, nothing in the repeal of Don’t Ask prevents another Congress from reinstituting a ban, and nothing in the repeal prevents another president from issuing an antigay executive order concerning gays in the military in the future. It’s not likely, but as long as the possibility of such a reversal exists, there’s an argument to be made for the court to continue its deliberations.
Finally, don’t forget that nothing prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in the military. True, we can no longer be discharged for being gay. But in theory, we could be harassed or singled out for some kind of disfavor under current law. Cheer, by all means, for the end of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. Just make it a happy kind of cheer rather than a crazy ecstatic top-of-your-lungs kind of cheer.
--
Backwards Christian Soldiers
Moving on, I was struck by this quote in a Chicago Tribune story by a man named Mark Wathen:
“I’m a white male in my early 40s and I’d never experienced discrimination in my life. When I came up against this, I was like ‘Woah, this is not the sixties.’”
So what happened to knock Mark off the complacency perch so familiar to men of his race in this country? Turns out he and his civil union partner, Todd, decided to have a ceremony not long after Illinois signed its union bill into law last summer. But two of the wedding locations he and Todd contacted informed him that they would not host same-sex celebrations on religious grounds.
The Wathens are now planning to sue, and will file complaints against both businesses next week. At issue is the increasingly familiar idea that a constitutional right to religious freedom should translate into a right to ignore anti-discrimination laws.
Indeed, back in the day, a belief in slavery and white supremacy was once a tenet of Christian faith. But that did not allow Americans to ignore civil rights laws based on the “curse of Ham,” nor can homophobia take cover under the idea that gay bias is a mandate of Christianity. It’s not.
Yes, lawmakers have often carved out civil rights exceptions for churches and religious operations. But Ye Olde Country Inn is not a church. It’s a business, and it has to follow the law. If not, every store or restaurant in the nation could refuse service to blacks or gays based on an expansive notion of religious freedom.
--
Fighting For Marriage on Both Sides of the Ball
Hey. I’m listening to President Obama address the UN, and he just said something nice about us. Actually, I’m not “listening” but rather “hearing” his familiar monotone in the background. My ears perked up at “gays and lesbians” but I didn’t catch the context.
Anyway, thanks Mr. President.
I got a fund raising call the other day from activists in Maine, who are collecting petitions for a marriage equality ballot measure. I must say that it’s nice to be on the offense once in a while. I gave them a few bucks at the expense of both my wallet and my journalistic integrity. But you know what? When it comes to supporting generic gay activists who are fighting for generic gay rights goals, I can live with the ethical conflict. If the Maine activists get in trouble for election hanky panky, I’ll be happy to cover the story. Meanwhile, at least I’m transparent.
Speaking of going on offense, look for lawmakers in Washington, New Jersey and Maryland to get into the marriage equality fight this year or next. I’m sure there will be others, or may be others already that I can’t think of right this moment.
In short, we’re in fighting form on the marriage front, where we also have a few defensive challenges ahead. As you may recall, Minnesota has put an antigay constitutional amendment on the 2012 ballot, and North Carolina just put one on the primary ballot next May. Damn fools.
--
Iowa Marriage In Jeopardy
But the development that really struck me this week came out of Iowa, where one vote in the state senate has thus far saved us from possibly seeing our existing right to marry be stripped away in a public repeal.
Thanks to the unanimous Iowa Supreme Court, Hawkeye gays and lesbians have had the right to marry since 2009. A Democratic legislature and a Democratic governor helped protect that right up until 2010, when Republicans took over the governor’s mansion, the house and came within a vote of taking over the state senate. For good measure, voters also ousted three of the seven high court justices who voted in our favor, the only court members up for voter review last November.
Now, Republican Governor Terry Branstad has slyly appointed a Democratic state senator to some utility board or something, opening up a seat in a contested district that could go either way in next November’s special election.
Note to Senator Dandekar? Did you really have to take that job?
District 18, in suburban Cedar Rapids, is roughly split between Democrats, Republicans and Independents and could easily turn into an antigay seat just a few short weeks from now. (I’m thinking One Iowa could use a few bucks from us as well.) A defeat in District 18 could lead directly to a Prop 8-style marriage amendment that would leave current marriages intact while rolling back the right to marry for gays and lesbians in the future.
On the flip side, I think federal courts have a hard time watching a majority remove constitutional rights from an unpopular minority, particularly rights that were granted on constitutional grounds by the courts themselves. Indeed, one of the issues in the federal fight over Prop 8 is not simply whether gays and lesbians deserve marriage equality. It’s exactly this question of whether voters can circumvent the courts by amending constitutional rights after the fact to target a specific group.
And while we’re on the subject of Prop 8, you probably read that U.S. District Court Judge James Ware (who succeeded Judge Vaughn Walker) recently ruled that the digital recording of the Prop 8 trial can go public effective September 30. The Prop 8 side will appeal his decision, so you may have to wait longer for the video.
If the video record isn’t dramatic enough for you, there’s a Broadway play on the trial, called “8,” that hit the stage for a one night reading on Monday. The play is based on trial transcripts, and apparently is pretty good.
--
Other Things
Let’s see what else we can discuss. Have you read about the male bisexual deep sea squids who can’t tell the difference between boy squids and the girl squids thanks to lack of visibility and a certain, shall we say, androgynous squid physiology?
Scientists sent some equipment down there to watch these creatures, for whatever reason, and they managed to identify some females and some males using their high fallutin’ scientific techniques. To their surprise, they noticed sperm deposits on both the males and the females, suggesting that the promiscuous male squids couldn’t care less about picking a mate and were more than happy to spray their sperm deposits on whoever was at tentacle, shall we say.
There’s also a pro-gay ruling out of a state court in Alaska that has something to do with partner rights. But I’m not in the mood for Alaska. It’s so cold and far away.
By the way, why are hurricanes called “typhoons” in the Pacific? Is there a meteorological difference between the two phenomena? I just went over to look that up for our joint edification, but I forgot what I was looking for and wound up reading about some columnist associated with Fox News, who compared Chaz Bono to someone who decides he or she is really an animal of some sort, not a human, and asks a doctor to attach a tail and fur. I. Kid. You. Not. Apparently Fox anchor Megyn Kelly repudiated Dr. Keith Ablow in an on-air spot, but still.
Oh, and for all Baby Boomers out there: there’s nothing that makes us feel older than the sight of Ron Howard doing a television interview. What happened to little Opie? Yes, we all know that some time has gone by, What’s it been? Twenty years now? Ron has not aged well; that’s all I’m gonna say.
I also should tell you about the two gay women who died when the grandstand blew over in Indiana a few weeks ago. Their partners are now trying to sue the authorities for negligence and wrongful death. But unlike the husbands and wives who lost spouses, these partners are not considered legally entitled to file suit. Yet another inequity of marriage discrimination, an infuriating sideshow to the heartbreak these women are suffering.
Finally, there’s a nasty bill to ban domestic partner benefits for Michigan’s unmarried public employees. That one passed the house the other day on a party line vote and now heads to the state senate. The situation is complicated by competing provisions that give power over employment policy to the state’s universities and the Michigan Civil Service Commission.
Frankly, I haven’t examined these nuances and I’m hoping that the bill will die in the state senate so that I won’t have to delve into the tedious ins and outs of the Mitten State’s internal regulations. But I also must point out that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently overturned a very similar attempt by the state of Arizona to cut such benefits in order to “save money.” Cost cutting is also the rationale for the Michigan move, even though savings are negligible.
Can you believe those squid? You know what they used to say. What happens at the bottom of the sea stays at the bottom of the sea. Guess those nosy scientists took care of that.
--
BY ANN ROSTOW
Don’t Ask About Our Lead Story
Six out of the first seven news stories on “Google gay” this morning concern the end of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. The other one, which naturally stands out by virtue of its original content, concerns basketball star Rudy Gay, who has been injured since the end of last season.
Good news. He’s back!
After seven months of re-hab for a dislocated shoulder, the Memphis Grizzlies forward was cleared for the court on Monday. Gay played in some special tournament on Tuesday, and looked pretty good, sports writers say. I’m not going back to the article to fill in the blanks.
Oh, don’t get your knickers in a twist. Of course we’ll discuss the end of the military ban. That said, the demise of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is not “news,” per se. The news surrounding our inevitable arrival at the Sept. 20 deadline involves the happiness of gay soldiers, the relief of their families, and the overarching theme of how America can inflict injustice and then change its collective mind in the space of two decades.
For the record, the notion that ending Don’t Ask was a political victory is wrong. This law met its demise thanks to one thing, and one thing only: the pro-gay 2010 federal court ruling by U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips that lit a fire under the seats of lawmakers and military leaders alike. The repeal bill that languished throughout the first two years of Obama’s presidency suddenly came alive and burned through the Democratic majority lame duck Congress in the nick of time.
And speaking of Judge Phillips decision, one underreported side of this story is the fate of this ongoing federal lawsuit that is now pending a ruling at the U.S, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Although the administration has asked the court to drop the challenge to Don’t Ask in view of the law’s repeal, our side has insisted that the legal process continue to a conclusion, hoping for a federal constitutional precedent in our favor.
Not only would such a precedent improve our legal position in future gay rights cases, it could also support civil claims against the government by former gay servicemembers.
Moreover, nothing in the repeal of Don’t Ask prevents another Congress from reinstituting a ban, and nothing in the repeal prevents another president from issuing an antigay executive order concerning gays in the military in the future. It’s not likely, but as long as the possibility of such a reversal exists, there’s an argument to be made for the court to continue its deliberations.
Finally, don’t forget that nothing prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in the military. True, we can no longer be discharged for being gay. But in theory, we could be harassed or singled out for some kind of disfavor under current law. Cheer, by all means, for the end of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. Just make it a happy kind of cheer rather than a crazy ecstatic top-of-your-lungs kind of cheer.
--
Backwards Christian Soldiers
Moving on, I was struck by this quote in a Chicago Tribune story by a man named Mark Wathen:
“I’m a white male in my early 40s and I’d never experienced discrimination in my life. When I came up against this, I was like ‘Woah, this is not the sixties.’”
So what happened to knock Mark off the complacency perch so familiar to men of his race in this country? Turns out he and his civil union partner, Todd, decided to have a ceremony not long after Illinois signed its union bill into law last summer. But two of the wedding locations he and Todd contacted informed him that they would not host same-sex celebrations on religious grounds.
The Wathens are now planning to sue, and will file complaints against both businesses next week. At issue is the increasingly familiar idea that a constitutional right to religious freedom should translate into a right to ignore anti-discrimination laws.
Indeed, back in the day, a belief in slavery and white supremacy was once a tenet of Christian faith. But that did not allow Americans to ignore civil rights laws based on the “curse of Ham,” nor can homophobia take cover under the idea that gay bias is a mandate of Christianity. It’s not.
Yes, lawmakers have often carved out civil rights exceptions for churches and religious operations. But Ye Olde Country Inn is not a church. It’s a business, and it has to follow the law. If not, every store or restaurant in the nation could refuse service to blacks or gays based on an expansive notion of religious freedom.
--
Fighting For Marriage on Both Sides of the Ball
Hey. I’m listening to President Obama address the UN, and he just said something nice about us. Actually, I’m not “listening” but rather “hearing” his familiar monotone in the background. My ears perked up at “gays and lesbians” but I didn’t catch the context.
Anyway, thanks Mr. President.
I got a fund raising call the other day from activists in Maine, who are collecting petitions for a marriage equality ballot measure. I must say that it’s nice to be on the offense once in a while. I gave them a few bucks at the expense of both my wallet and my journalistic integrity. But you know what? When it comes to supporting generic gay activists who are fighting for generic gay rights goals, I can live with the ethical conflict. If the Maine activists get in trouble for election hanky panky, I’ll be happy to cover the story. Meanwhile, at least I’m transparent.
Speaking of going on offense, look for lawmakers in Washington, New Jersey and Maryland to get into the marriage equality fight this year or next. I’m sure there will be others, or may be others already that I can’t think of right this moment.
In short, we’re in fighting form on the marriage front, where we also have a few defensive challenges ahead. As you may recall, Minnesota has put an antigay constitutional amendment on the 2012 ballot, and North Carolina just put one on the primary ballot next May. Damn fools.
--
Iowa Marriage In Jeopardy
But the development that really struck me this week came out of Iowa, where one vote in the state senate has thus far saved us from possibly seeing our existing right to marry be stripped away in a public repeal.
Thanks to the unanimous Iowa Supreme Court, Hawkeye gays and lesbians have had the right to marry since 2009. A Democratic legislature and a Democratic governor helped protect that right up until 2010, when Republicans took over the governor’s mansion, the house and came within a vote of taking over the state senate. For good measure, voters also ousted three of the seven high court justices who voted in our favor, the only court members up for voter review last November.
Now, Republican Governor Terry Branstad has slyly appointed a Democratic state senator to some utility board or something, opening up a seat in a contested district that could go either way in next November’s special election.
Note to Senator Dandekar? Did you really have to take that job?
District 18, in suburban Cedar Rapids, is roughly split between Democrats, Republicans and Independents and could easily turn into an antigay seat just a few short weeks from now. (I’m thinking One Iowa could use a few bucks from us as well.) A defeat in District 18 could lead directly to a Prop 8-style marriage amendment that would leave current marriages intact while rolling back the right to marry for gays and lesbians in the future.
On the flip side, I think federal courts have a hard time watching a majority remove constitutional rights from an unpopular minority, particularly rights that were granted on constitutional grounds by the courts themselves. Indeed, one of the issues in the federal fight over Prop 8 is not simply whether gays and lesbians deserve marriage equality. It’s exactly this question of whether voters can circumvent the courts by amending constitutional rights after the fact to target a specific group.
And while we’re on the subject of Prop 8, you probably read that U.S. District Court Judge James Ware (who succeeded Judge Vaughn Walker) recently ruled that the digital recording of the Prop 8 trial can go public effective September 30. The Prop 8 side will appeal his decision, so you may have to wait longer for the video.
If the video record isn’t dramatic enough for you, there’s a Broadway play on the trial, called “8,” that hit the stage for a one night reading on Monday. The play is based on trial transcripts, and apparently is pretty good.
--
Other Things
Let’s see what else we can discuss. Have you read about the male bisexual deep sea squids who can’t tell the difference between boy squids and the girl squids thanks to lack of visibility and a certain, shall we say, androgynous squid physiology?
Scientists sent some equipment down there to watch these creatures, for whatever reason, and they managed to identify some females and some males using their high fallutin’ scientific techniques. To their surprise, they noticed sperm deposits on both the males and the females, suggesting that the promiscuous male squids couldn’t care less about picking a mate and were more than happy to spray their sperm deposits on whoever was at tentacle, shall we say.
There’s also a pro-gay ruling out of a state court in Alaska that has something to do with partner rights. But I’m not in the mood for Alaska. It’s so cold and far away.
By the way, why are hurricanes called “typhoons” in the Pacific? Is there a meteorological difference between the two phenomena? I just went over to look that up for our joint edification, but I forgot what I was looking for and wound up reading about some columnist associated with Fox News, who compared Chaz Bono to someone who decides he or she is really an animal of some sort, not a human, and asks a doctor to attach a tail and fur. I. Kid. You. Not. Apparently Fox anchor Megyn Kelly repudiated Dr. Keith Ablow in an on-air spot, but still.
Oh, and for all Baby Boomers out there: there’s nothing that makes us feel older than the sight of Ron Howard doing a television interview. What happened to little Opie? Yes, we all know that some time has gone by, What’s it been? Twenty years now? Ron has not aged well; that’s all I’m gonna say.
I also should tell you about the two gay women who died when the grandstand blew over in Indiana a few weeks ago. Their partners are now trying to sue the authorities for negligence and wrongful death. But unlike the husbands and wives who lost spouses, these partners are not considered legally entitled to file suit. Yet another inequity of marriage discrimination, an infuriating sideshow to the heartbreak these women are suffering.
Finally, there’s a nasty bill to ban domestic partner benefits for Michigan’s unmarried public employees. That one passed the house the other day on a party line vote and now heads to the state senate. The situation is complicated by competing provisions that give power over employment policy to the state’s universities and the Michigan Civil Service Commission.
Frankly, I haven’t examined these nuances and I’m hoping that the bill will die in the state senate so that I won’t have to delve into the tedious ins and outs of the Mitten State’s internal regulations. But I also must point out that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently overturned a very similar attempt by the state of Arizona to cut such benefits in order to “save money.” Cost cutting is also the rationale for the Michigan move, even though savings are negligible.
Can you believe those squid? You know what they used to say. What happens at the bottom of the sea stays at the bottom of the sea. Guess those nosy scientists took care of that.
--
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Prop 8 Case Lumbers Forward
News for the Week Ended September 14, 2011
BY ANN ROSTOW
Prop 8 Case Lumbers Forward
Well, it looks like North Carolina voters will vote on a state constitutional amendment to ban marriage equality and domestic partnerships next May, now that both the house and the senate have voted in favor of the despicable proposal. I know that Americans’ views on gay couples are improving, but I’m not sure the trend is moving fast enough to make a difference in the Tobacco State by next spring.
Maybe we can boycott cigarettes and switch to nicotine patches or Cuban cigars. Don’t forget, we’ve also got Minnesota voting on an amendment in November of 2012. And, given my lackadaisical attitude, I might be forgetting some other state.
In other big news this week, it looks as if the California Supreme Court may be leaning towards ruling that initiative backers, such as the fools defending Prop 8, should have standing to defend their propositions in state court should the state decline to step up to the plate. At least that’s what observers concluded after listening to oral arguments in Sacramento a week ago Tuesday.
The California court will rule in 90 days, at which point a Ninth Circuit panel will decide whether or not the Prop 8 people have standing to continue their defense of the marriage ban in federal court. Everyone assumes that the Ninth Circuit will agree with whatever the California court decides. If not, why would they have asked the state court for guidance in the first place?
Personally, I’m taking a wait and see attitude. There have been a number of times in the past when California officials have declined to defend a flawed proposition, even after the voters gave it a green light. Remember the patently unconstitutional anti-immigrant measure that ruined Republican prospects in the Golden State for a generation? That got a majority of voter support, but (thankfully) died in the courts without an appeal from the state.
--
Nice Ruling Saves Arizona Partners For Now
But speaking of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, we got a short but sweet gay rights opinion out of a unanimous three-judge panel the other day. Last week, the appellate court upheld a temporary injunction against an Arizona order that cancelled domestic partner benefits for state workers.
The order, by Governor Jan Brewer, applied to both straight and gay domestic partners, and was presented under the guise of cost cutting. Lambda Legal sued the state on behalf of gay couples only, arguing that because same-sex couples could not marry, the loss of partner benefits represented a particular hardship and denied them equal protection.
A lower court agreed, and restored domestic partner benefits for same-sex couples only, leaving the straight partners in the lurch. That’s not nice, but hey. I’m one of those people who believe straight couples should marry if they want benefits. They have a choice. In Arizona and all but six other states, we don’t.
In a 13-page ruling, the Ninth Circuit agreed with the lower court, maintaining insurance for same-sex partners until the underlying litigation is complete. The panel agreed that any cash savings from the withdrawal benefits was inconsequential, and that Arizona did not have any other legitimate justification for its attack on gay couples. The court did not make any ground breaking gay rights conclusions, but the opinion was still welcome. Thanks Ninth Circuit! You’re such a cool court.
--
Let Them Eat E-Coli
I just read that the health department has decided to ban six types of “toxic” e-coli bacteria from our beef supply. How many types of “toxic” strains of e-coli are still permitted, one wonders?
I suppose the Tea Party crowd sees this initiative as another example of job killing regulations from big government. By the way, did you hear the Tea Party debate audience cheering for the idea that a healthy uninsured 30-year old who has a medical emergency should be allowed to die rather than receive subsidized care in the ICU?
When moderator Wolf Blitzer asked what would happen to an individual in such a case, Texas Congressman Ron Paul suggested that everyone is responsible for selecting their own level of risk. “Should we just let him die,” Blitzer asked? While Paul tried to hedge, several people in the crowd yelled back “yeah!”
What is going on here?
I will resist using World War II terminology against my compatriots, even those on the far right. But I will say this. As a child, I grew up with the pleasantly naïve sense that the United States stood up against Hitler because we were good people and the Nazis were bad people. Very bad.
Over time, I came to understand that there were political, social and human elements that added nuance to the historical analysis. But still. Nazi Germany was a uniquely evil phenomenon, one that could never take root in the United States.
I still believe that. But to see people cheer for capital punishment and to hear them applaud for the death of a young man under the guise of “personal responsibility” makes one sick. There is an underlying venom flowing through parts of this rightwing movement that no one seems quite willing to confront. Not just racism, but real meanness and real hatred. It’s disturbing. And it makes you wonder how large segments of our country would react if an American version of Hitler were to gain power.
By the way, did you see that Ron Paul has hired Michael Heath to run his Iowa campaign? If the name rings a bell, it’s because Michael Heath was in charge of the Christian Civic League of Maine for several years, and was considered one of the most aggressive antigay activists in the country. So much for Mr. Libertarian.
--
Sound and Fury
One of my dogs is chewing her paw on the couch next to me, which reminds me of this article I read in Science Times about people who experience waves of rage when they hear eating sounds, like chewing or slurping. I had never heard of this bizarre disorder.
Apparently it only afflicts a small percentage of people, but these unfortunates are obliged to forgo eating with company and when they wind up at the communal table, they use earplugs or yell at their fellow diners.
I only hope the these chew-phobes do not rally together to impose sound free zones in restaurants or force the rest of us to cater to their unusual sensibilities like the perfume people. I suppose that’s selfish on my part. It does sound like a horrible way to go through life.
--
What Else is New?
Let’s see here. There was the public school teacher in San Diego who was told to remove a bunch of Christian themed blandishments from his classroom. A Ninth Circuit panel ruled a few days ago that the Poway school district was within its rights to take down banners reading: “In God We Trust,” “God Shed His Grace on Thee” and others. The court noted that employers can enforce workplace rules about signs and such without necessarily violating First Amendment rights.
And the Republican Party in Oregon has narrowly voted to revise antigay rhetoric in their platform. Language against same-sex marriage and gay parents has been deleted in the interest of winning elections in the Delicious White Wine State. (There’s nothing like a fine Willamette Valley Pinot Blanc.)
I also read about some lesbian foster parents in Australia who lost custody of their two foster kids after posting a photo of their six-year-old son wearing a dress on Facebook. I’m not clear on every detail here. Did the boy want to wear a dress? Was it a joke? A harmless political statement? Or did these women violate foster parenting rules in some other respect?
I would say this. Considering that foster children are not technically your children, and considering in turn that you could lose them to the state for a variety of reasons, why take chances with your fragile parental status for any reason? Would the women have put their son in a dress on the day that the Official Foster System Inspectors were coming over to the house to check on the family? If yes, fine. If not, they should have stayed off the social network.
--
Mad Men
I just took a lengthy break and returned to this column after a few hours. I’m telling you this because I’m in a different mood and want to explain any jarring change of tone that might strike my dear readers. I don’t like jarring changes in tone myself, so I want to apologize.
So, I was going to write about that special election in New York that Democrats lost in part due to David Weprin’s support for same-sex marriage. That subject now bores me. Plus, there was so much going on in that election that none of us can legitimately pull out a specific analytical thread. And we don’t want to!
Then, when I started looking for other topics to conclude this week’s compendium of fascinating GBLTLMNOP antics, I wound up reading the depressing account of three men who were executed for simply sodomy in Iran. Normally, Iran executes gay men for “rape” or sex with a minor, or something that sounds a bit worse than just having sex. This time, it seems as if the charge was no frills sodomy, which of course carries the death penalty in this God forsaken den of religious extremism.
As I’ve said before, I can’t handle these barbaric accounts of Muslim fundamentalism. Girls stoned to death for kissing a cousin. Whatever. It’s like pausing from a discussion of the Defense of Marriage Act to describe the Inquisition. There’s no context. Yes, gay men are put to death. But it’s not a simple “gay rights” issue when they share the gallows with a robber and a drug dealer. What happens to jaywalkers over there? Life in prison?
These people are not “homophobic.” They are merciless psychopaths, operating under the most brutal and senseless interpretation of their so-called faith. And obviously, they make our own homegrown Christian conservatives look like angels of compassion by comparison. Well, there is no comparison.
Indeed, our fight against Muslim extremists and/or Islamic terrorism is not a religious crusade. It’s a fight between reason and insanity. There’s really no place for ideas like gay rights in such a context. Madness prevails. The sad thing, of course, is that the millions of perfectly normal Muslims get stereotyped as maniacs in the crossfire.
I was starting to tell you why I didn’t want to cover the execution of all those gay guys in Iran, but it looks like I covered the subject despite myself.
I remember that I was in my early 20s during the Iranian revolution and I worked (on the 104th floor of One World Trade Center) with an Iranian-American computer guy. The violence looked bad to us on TV, but our friend was all in favor of the revolution.
It’s not as if I supported the creation of a religious state, but I remember thinking that “the Shah was bad” and my friend knew more than me on the subject. I settled on a neutral view of the revolution, even as fundamentalists took over a critical part of the world. What did I know?
Now I know this. Fundamentalism is by definition mindless, a repudiation of the doubt and mystery and compassion that is inherent in our human condition. I’ve never seen anything good come of it and I don’t think I ever will. I’ll take a secular dictator over a religious extremist, just as I’d eat a cockroach rather than a pile of human waste.
Gross. Where did that analogy come from? And just before dinner. At any rate, the Arab spring can’t hit Tehran too soon.
BY ANN ROSTOW
Prop 8 Case Lumbers Forward
Well, it looks like North Carolina voters will vote on a state constitutional amendment to ban marriage equality and domestic partnerships next May, now that both the house and the senate have voted in favor of the despicable proposal. I know that Americans’ views on gay couples are improving, but I’m not sure the trend is moving fast enough to make a difference in the Tobacco State by next spring.
Maybe we can boycott cigarettes and switch to nicotine patches or Cuban cigars. Don’t forget, we’ve also got Minnesota voting on an amendment in November of 2012. And, given my lackadaisical attitude, I might be forgetting some other state.
In other big news this week, it looks as if the California Supreme Court may be leaning towards ruling that initiative backers, such as the fools defending Prop 8, should have standing to defend their propositions in state court should the state decline to step up to the plate. At least that’s what observers concluded after listening to oral arguments in Sacramento a week ago Tuesday.
The California court will rule in 90 days, at which point a Ninth Circuit panel will decide whether or not the Prop 8 people have standing to continue their defense of the marriage ban in federal court. Everyone assumes that the Ninth Circuit will agree with whatever the California court decides. If not, why would they have asked the state court for guidance in the first place?
Personally, I’m taking a wait and see attitude. There have been a number of times in the past when California officials have declined to defend a flawed proposition, even after the voters gave it a green light. Remember the patently unconstitutional anti-immigrant measure that ruined Republican prospects in the Golden State for a generation? That got a majority of voter support, but (thankfully) died in the courts without an appeal from the state.
--
Nice Ruling Saves Arizona Partners For Now
But speaking of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, we got a short but sweet gay rights opinion out of a unanimous three-judge panel the other day. Last week, the appellate court upheld a temporary injunction against an Arizona order that cancelled domestic partner benefits for state workers.
The order, by Governor Jan Brewer, applied to both straight and gay domestic partners, and was presented under the guise of cost cutting. Lambda Legal sued the state on behalf of gay couples only, arguing that because same-sex couples could not marry, the loss of partner benefits represented a particular hardship and denied them equal protection.
A lower court agreed, and restored domestic partner benefits for same-sex couples only, leaving the straight partners in the lurch. That’s not nice, but hey. I’m one of those people who believe straight couples should marry if they want benefits. They have a choice. In Arizona and all but six other states, we don’t.
In a 13-page ruling, the Ninth Circuit agreed with the lower court, maintaining insurance for same-sex partners until the underlying litigation is complete. The panel agreed that any cash savings from the withdrawal benefits was inconsequential, and that Arizona did not have any other legitimate justification for its attack on gay couples. The court did not make any ground breaking gay rights conclusions, but the opinion was still welcome. Thanks Ninth Circuit! You’re such a cool court.
--
Let Them Eat E-Coli
I just read that the health department has decided to ban six types of “toxic” e-coli bacteria from our beef supply. How many types of “toxic” strains of e-coli are still permitted, one wonders?
I suppose the Tea Party crowd sees this initiative as another example of job killing regulations from big government. By the way, did you hear the Tea Party debate audience cheering for the idea that a healthy uninsured 30-year old who has a medical emergency should be allowed to die rather than receive subsidized care in the ICU?
When moderator Wolf Blitzer asked what would happen to an individual in such a case, Texas Congressman Ron Paul suggested that everyone is responsible for selecting their own level of risk. “Should we just let him die,” Blitzer asked? While Paul tried to hedge, several people in the crowd yelled back “yeah!”
What is going on here?
I will resist using World War II terminology against my compatriots, even those on the far right. But I will say this. As a child, I grew up with the pleasantly naïve sense that the United States stood up against Hitler because we were good people and the Nazis were bad people. Very bad.
Over time, I came to understand that there were political, social and human elements that added nuance to the historical analysis. But still. Nazi Germany was a uniquely evil phenomenon, one that could never take root in the United States.
I still believe that. But to see people cheer for capital punishment and to hear them applaud for the death of a young man under the guise of “personal responsibility” makes one sick. There is an underlying venom flowing through parts of this rightwing movement that no one seems quite willing to confront. Not just racism, but real meanness and real hatred. It’s disturbing. And it makes you wonder how large segments of our country would react if an American version of Hitler were to gain power.
By the way, did you see that Ron Paul has hired Michael Heath to run his Iowa campaign? If the name rings a bell, it’s because Michael Heath was in charge of the Christian Civic League of Maine for several years, and was considered one of the most aggressive antigay activists in the country. So much for Mr. Libertarian.
--
Sound and Fury
One of my dogs is chewing her paw on the couch next to me, which reminds me of this article I read in Science Times about people who experience waves of rage when they hear eating sounds, like chewing or slurping. I had never heard of this bizarre disorder.
Apparently it only afflicts a small percentage of people, but these unfortunates are obliged to forgo eating with company and when they wind up at the communal table, they use earplugs or yell at their fellow diners.
I only hope the these chew-phobes do not rally together to impose sound free zones in restaurants or force the rest of us to cater to their unusual sensibilities like the perfume people. I suppose that’s selfish on my part. It does sound like a horrible way to go through life.
--
What Else is New?
Let’s see here. There was the public school teacher in San Diego who was told to remove a bunch of Christian themed blandishments from his classroom. A Ninth Circuit panel ruled a few days ago that the Poway school district was within its rights to take down banners reading: “In God We Trust,” “God Shed His Grace on Thee” and others. The court noted that employers can enforce workplace rules about signs and such without necessarily violating First Amendment rights.
And the Republican Party in Oregon has narrowly voted to revise antigay rhetoric in their platform. Language against same-sex marriage and gay parents has been deleted in the interest of winning elections in the Delicious White Wine State. (There’s nothing like a fine Willamette Valley Pinot Blanc.)
I also read about some lesbian foster parents in Australia who lost custody of their two foster kids after posting a photo of their six-year-old son wearing a dress on Facebook. I’m not clear on every detail here. Did the boy want to wear a dress? Was it a joke? A harmless political statement? Or did these women violate foster parenting rules in some other respect?
I would say this. Considering that foster children are not technically your children, and considering in turn that you could lose them to the state for a variety of reasons, why take chances with your fragile parental status for any reason? Would the women have put their son in a dress on the day that the Official Foster System Inspectors were coming over to the house to check on the family? If yes, fine. If not, they should have stayed off the social network.
--
Mad Men
I just took a lengthy break and returned to this column after a few hours. I’m telling you this because I’m in a different mood and want to explain any jarring change of tone that might strike my dear readers. I don’t like jarring changes in tone myself, so I want to apologize.
So, I was going to write about that special election in New York that Democrats lost in part due to David Weprin’s support for same-sex marriage. That subject now bores me. Plus, there was so much going on in that election that none of us can legitimately pull out a specific analytical thread. And we don’t want to!
Then, when I started looking for other topics to conclude this week’s compendium of fascinating GBLTLMNOP antics, I wound up reading the depressing account of three men who were executed for simply sodomy in Iran. Normally, Iran executes gay men for “rape” or sex with a minor, or something that sounds a bit worse than just having sex. This time, it seems as if the charge was no frills sodomy, which of course carries the death penalty in this God forsaken den of religious extremism.
As I’ve said before, I can’t handle these barbaric accounts of Muslim fundamentalism. Girls stoned to death for kissing a cousin. Whatever. It’s like pausing from a discussion of the Defense of Marriage Act to describe the Inquisition. There’s no context. Yes, gay men are put to death. But it’s not a simple “gay rights” issue when they share the gallows with a robber and a drug dealer. What happens to jaywalkers over there? Life in prison?
These people are not “homophobic.” They are merciless psychopaths, operating under the most brutal and senseless interpretation of their so-called faith. And obviously, they make our own homegrown Christian conservatives look like angels of compassion by comparison. Well, there is no comparison.
Indeed, our fight against Muslim extremists and/or Islamic terrorism is not a religious crusade. It’s a fight between reason and insanity. There’s really no place for ideas like gay rights in such a context. Madness prevails. The sad thing, of course, is that the millions of perfectly normal Muslims get stereotyped as maniacs in the crossfire.
I was starting to tell you why I didn’t want to cover the execution of all those gay guys in Iran, but it looks like I covered the subject despite myself.
I remember that I was in my early 20s during the Iranian revolution and I worked (on the 104th floor of One World Trade Center) with an Iranian-American computer guy. The violence looked bad to us on TV, but our friend was all in favor of the revolution.
It’s not as if I supported the creation of a religious state, but I remember thinking that “the Shah was bad” and my friend knew more than me on the subject. I settled on a neutral view of the revolution, even as fundamentalists took over a critical part of the world. What did I know?
Now I know this. Fundamentalism is by definition mindless, a repudiation of the doubt and mystery and compassion that is inherent in our human condition. I’ve never seen anything good come of it and I don’t think I ever will. I’ll take a secular dictator over a religious extremist, just as I’d eat a cockroach rather than a pile of human waste.
Gross. Where did that analogy come from? And just before dinner. At any rate, the Arab spring can’t hit Tehran too soon.
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
Prop 8 Ball Finally Back in Play
News for the Week Ended September 6, 2011
BY ANN ROSTOW
Prop 8 Ball Finally Back in Play
By Ann Rostow
At long last this morning (Tuesday) the California Supreme Court will hear arguments on whether Prop 8 proponents have standing under state law to appeal their federal court defeat from August 2009.
I know I sound like a broken record by rehashing this whole thing, but after all, today is a legitimate news day. An oral argument in an actual court! This is the first real action we’ve seen in this case for months and months..
By the way, can we still refer to “broken records”? The ones that used to skip over the same three notes over and over again? I thought the rise of CDs would bring us flawless music, and yet when those things fail they’re worse than the old scratched LPs. The skips were irritating. But those fuzzy screeching gaps in a bad CD are horrible and seemingly irreparable. And obviously, you can’t use the broken CD experience as an analogy for repeating yourself over and over. The sound of a broken CD is otherwordly and insane, so I’m not sure whether “broken CD” will ever find its way into English phraseology. But I digress.
The challenge to Prop 8 was originally filed in federal court against the State of California. When neither the governor nor the attorney general rose to defend the noxious marriage ban in court, the antigay gang that proposed the damn thing was given permission to make their case before U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker. They lost.
When they tried to appeal, however, they were stymied. They weren’t the original defendants in the case, and they were not technically “harmed” by the outcome. So instead of considering the core issue of whether Prop 8 was constitutional, the Ninth Circuit focused on whether or not initiative proponents could defend their policies in federal court when state officials declined to act.
Instead of ruling on this technicality, the Ninth Circuit announced that it would be helpful to know whether or not initiative proponents would have standing under state law. Since the California court had never ruled directly on this point, the appellate judges asked them to consider the matter. After some time, the California court agreed to take on the issue of standing, and after many more months have elapsed, they are finally holding a hearing. We can expect a few more months to go by before they decide, at which point the whole ball of wax will land back in the Ninth Circuit for further examination.
Naturally, if the Ninth Circuit rejects the Prop 8 proponents, they will appeal to the full Ninth Circuit or to the Supreme Court. Here I’d like to cut to a visual image of pages of the calendar flying off and drifting into space. We can also add an image of a snow covered orchard. See it turn to spring. Now the trees are full and green. And now the colors change. Add a soundtrack if you like. Repeat as necessary.
This case is going somewhere slowly. But as I said, it’s the only game in town this week, so we might as well give it some ink. I gather there’s a sit-down protest this morning in front of the courthouse, but I’m not sure what we’re protesting. Marriage discrimination? Federal rules of procedure? Whatever it is, I am in solidarity.
Can’t Keep that Closet Closed
Can you believe we have another antigay GOP lawmaker caught with his pants down in man-on-man cyberspace? No, I’m not talking about Phil Hinkle, the married Indiana house member who set up a date with a guy on Craigslist. Hinkle, 64, later explained to the press that he was not gay, and did not really know what was going on his mind when he exchanged several emails with a teenage boy and arranged for a paid sex date in a hotel.
But as I said, Hinkle is not our guy. Hinkle is so last week. This week, we are following the antics of Puerto Rico senator Roberto Arango, another Republican who dutifully cast his votes against gay rights on several recent occasions. Frankly, I didn’t even realize there were any gay measures up for debate in San Juan this year, but I gather there was something about gay marriage and something about adoption rights. No and no, said Roberto.
Arango recently published a self-portrait on Grindr, a naked shot of his rear end taken on all fours through some kind of contortion. Arango resigned a few days later, telling the press that he could not recall if he took the picture, but conceded that it was possible. The lawmaker said he’d been on a diet and lost some weight, so much so that he’d been taking photos of his new physique. This might have been one of them.
He actually said that!
Grindr, of course, is an all male smart phone app that is used mainly for hooking up. Perhaps there are few guys out there using Grindr to meet new friends and exchange movie or book reviews. But those rare Grindr users are not posting close-ups of their nude posteriors on the site.
Well, I hardly know what to say. This is getting to be old hat. And as I’ve said before, the real question is not, “Why the hypocrisy?” It’s, “What are they thinking?” These are not online avatars. They are relatively public men who somehow think they can expose themselves and solicit sex on the Internet without anyone noticing. Are they stupid? Arrogant? Unhinged? Trying to get caught?
And finally, they’re such cowards. Why can’t they just tell the truth and accept the consequences? But like the toddler alone in the living room who insists he didn’t break the lamp that crashed to the ground five seconds earlier, these adult men roll their eyes to the heavens and expect us to believe that their evil imaginary twin Timmy was the one soliciting online sex.
Tinkering With the First Amendment
So, I have a public school T-Shirt lawsuit. You know. The student is told to remove his or her pro-gay or anti-gay shirt, and promptly threatens a First Amendment challenge. The school says that it is only acting in order to maintain order on campus. Lawyers note that kids do not leave their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate. In general, the T-Shirt wins.
I generally root for the T-Shirt, gay or straight, as long as the slogan isn’t mean or obscene. And, luckily for me this time, the shirt was worn by one of the good gals, a sophomore at Hoover High in Alabama named Sara Couvillon, who proclaimed: “Gay? Fine by me!” Sara had worn the shirt several times without incident, but this time, for whatever reason, she was told to take it off “for her own safety.”
It’s true that a public school’s obligation to maintain order gives administrators the power to shut down highly provocative speech. But “Gay? Fine by me!” hardly qualifies. Even if a fellow student were to react to the sentiment with violence, the school’s duty would be to take the violent student off the campus, not give him or her the proverbial heckler’s veto over Sara’s speech.
In a letter to the Hoover officials, a lawyer for the Southern Poverty Law Center’s LGBT office offered this High Court citation from history’s most famous high school speech case, Tinker v Des Moines:
“Any departure from absolute regimentation may cause trouble. Any variation from the majority’s opinion may inspire fear. Any word spoken, in class, in the lunchroom, or on the campus that deviates from the views of another person may start an argument or cause a disturbance. But our Constitution says we must take this risk. [It is] this sort of hazardous freedom - this kind of openness - that is the basis of our national strength and of the independence and the vigor of Americans who grow up and live in this relatively permissive, often disputatious, society.”
Happily, the school seemed impressed with the SPLC’s reasoning. A couple of days later, Hoover authorities reversed themselves, noting that since Sara’s shirt did not actually pose a disruption, she could continue to sport the gay friendly expression. I suppose that’s a step in the right direction.
King’s Killer Not Convicted
Meanwhile, you probably read that Brandon McInerney won a mistrial as jurors in Southern California could not agree on a verdict for the eighth grade killer. Brandon shot his gay classmate, Larry King in the middle of the school day back in February of 2010. His defense attorneys were trying to win a verdict of voluntary manslaughter, while the prosecutor called it murder. The jury split 7-5 in favor of manslaughter, sending the case into limbo.
Prosecutors will now have to decide whether to retry the 17-year-old, and if so, they will have to decide whether to retry him as an adult even though he was only 14 at the time of the murder (or slaughter, if you insist). Usually I’m not in favor of trying kids as adults, but I really can’t drum up much sympathy for this nasty little bully with a penchant for swastikas. Call me hard hearted.
Top Chef
As for the other GLBT news, it keeps slipping out of my head. Usually I keep about five stories at the front of my mind while I write, but this week they are dissolving as quickly as I can look them up. The new CEO of Apple is gay. But I’m not sure that’s a big story. I mean, what can you say? Good luck, Tim!
Oh, and some people are upset that Chaz Bono is going to be on Dancing With the Stars because he’s a transman. Really? Since when does a slot on Dancing With the Stars require a jump through 1950s All American hoops?
Not that Dancing With the Stars should set the bar for trans-inclusion. Far from it. But please.
There is also a gay cannibal in the news, but I’ll have to look him up. Here it is, from six days ago: “Russian Cannibal Ate Gay Date,” off the GlobalPost website.
Seems the 21-year old chef, Ivan L, lured his 32-year-old buddy to his Murmansk flat, stabbed him to death, cut off his feet and head, and fashioned meatballs out of the torso. He also uploaded video of the gruesome stovetop scenes onto the Internet. According to a different source, the Independent, the murder took place in the bathtub. After killing his victim, Ivan ran warm water to soften up the corpse for butchering. Oh, and he also made sausages as well as meatballs.
Here’s the kicker. According to the Independent, Ivan faces 15 years in prison, assuming he is found competent to stand trial. Fifteen years? For eating someone? Seems a bit lenient to me. Ivan explained to police that he wanted to try human flesh. He picked his victim from a gay website because gay men are easier to manipulate and more private than other people. Guys, be careful out there. Particularly when cruising around the Arctic Circle.
Goodbye Summer
Summer’s ending, if you didn’t notice. First we hit “September 1,” which is still summer but doesn’t sound like it anymore. Then comes the end of the Labor Day weekend, when I can no longer wear white shoes or pants without hearing my mother’s voice call out from the afterlife to point out the fashion faux pas.
And yet. We all remember that some of the best summer weekends were always the weekends right after Labor Day. The finals of the U.S. Open are on. The tourists are gone from the New England beaches. The renters are off Long Island. Those are beautiful weekends. Still hot. Still summery. But nostalgic and timeless. Caught between seasons.
After that weekend’s done, I always remind myself that it’s still technically summer until September 20 or 21. Whenever. That’s the final “last day of summer” and there’s really nothing else around the corner. By that time, the Halloween stuff is all over the grocery store, the retail world’s decoration parade has begun, and it won’t stop until Easter.
Pumpkins, Turkeys, Santa, New Years, Hearts, Bunnies. One set of iconic images following the next like clockwork. And then finally, the first of the several “first days of summer.” Easter Monday. Let the grim procession through winter begin. And speaking of the US Open, is Serena on steroids?
BY ANN ROSTOW
Prop 8 Ball Finally Back in Play
By Ann Rostow
At long last this morning (Tuesday) the California Supreme Court will hear arguments on whether Prop 8 proponents have standing under state law to appeal their federal court defeat from August 2009.
I know I sound like a broken record by rehashing this whole thing, but after all, today is a legitimate news day. An oral argument in an actual court! This is the first real action we’ve seen in this case for months and months..
By the way, can we still refer to “broken records”? The ones that used to skip over the same three notes over and over again? I thought the rise of CDs would bring us flawless music, and yet when those things fail they’re worse than the old scratched LPs. The skips were irritating. But those fuzzy screeching gaps in a bad CD are horrible and seemingly irreparable. And obviously, you can’t use the broken CD experience as an analogy for repeating yourself over and over. The sound of a broken CD is otherwordly and insane, so I’m not sure whether “broken CD” will ever find its way into English phraseology. But I digress.
The challenge to Prop 8 was originally filed in federal court against the State of California. When neither the governor nor the attorney general rose to defend the noxious marriage ban in court, the antigay gang that proposed the damn thing was given permission to make their case before U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker. They lost.
When they tried to appeal, however, they were stymied. They weren’t the original defendants in the case, and they were not technically “harmed” by the outcome. So instead of considering the core issue of whether Prop 8 was constitutional, the Ninth Circuit focused on whether or not initiative proponents could defend their policies in federal court when state officials declined to act.
Instead of ruling on this technicality, the Ninth Circuit announced that it would be helpful to know whether or not initiative proponents would have standing under state law. Since the California court had never ruled directly on this point, the appellate judges asked them to consider the matter. After some time, the California court agreed to take on the issue of standing, and after many more months have elapsed, they are finally holding a hearing. We can expect a few more months to go by before they decide, at which point the whole ball of wax will land back in the Ninth Circuit for further examination.
Naturally, if the Ninth Circuit rejects the Prop 8 proponents, they will appeal to the full Ninth Circuit or to the Supreme Court. Here I’d like to cut to a visual image of pages of the calendar flying off and drifting into space. We can also add an image of a snow covered orchard. See it turn to spring. Now the trees are full and green. And now the colors change. Add a soundtrack if you like. Repeat as necessary.
This case is going somewhere slowly. But as I said, it’s the only game in town this week, so we might as well give it some ink. I gather there’s a sit-down protest this morning in front of the courthouse, but I’m not sure what we’re protesting. Marriage discrimination? Federal rules of procedure? Whatever it is, I am in solidarity.
Can’t Keep that Closet Closed
Can you believe we have another antigay GOP lawmaker caught with his pants down in man-on-man cyberspace? No, I’m not talking about Phil Hinkle, the married Indiana house member who set up a date with a guy on Craigslist. Hinkle, 64, later explained to the press that he was not gay, and did not really know what was going on his mind when he exchanged several emails with a teenage boy and arranged for a paid sex date in a hotel.
But as I said, Hinkle is not our guy. Hinkle is so last week. This week, we are following the antics of Puerto Rico senator Roberto Arango, another Republican who dutifully cast his votes against gay rights on several recent occasions. Frankly, I didn’t even realize there were any gay measures up for debate in San Juan this year, but I gather there was something about gay marriage and something about adoption rights. No and no, said Roberto.
Arango recently published a self-portrait on Grindr, a naked shot of his rear end taken on all fours through some kind of contortion. Arango resigned a few days later, telling the press that he could not recall if he took the picture, but conceded that it was possible. The lawmaker said he’d been on a diet and lost some weight, so much so that he’d been taking photos of his new physique. This might have been one of them.
He actually said that!
Grindr, of course, is an all male smart phone app that is used mainly for hooking up. Perhaps there are few guys out there using Grindr to meet new friends and exchange movie or book reviews. But those rare Grindr users are not posting close-ups of their nude posteriors on the site.
Well, I hardly know what to say. This is getting to be old hat. And as I’ve said before, the real question is not, “Why the hypocrisy?” It’s, “What are they thinking?” These are not online avatars. They are relatively public men who somehow think they can expose themselves and solicit sex on the Internet without anyone noticing. Are they stupid? Arrogant? Unhinged? Trying to get caught?
And finally, they’re such cowards. Why can’t they just tell the truth and accept the consequences? But like the toddler alone in the living room who insists he didn’t break the lamp that crashed to the ground five seconds earlier, these adult men roll their eyes to the heavens and expect us to believe that their evil imaginary twin Timmy was the one soliciting online sex.
Tinkering With the First Amendment
So, I have a public school T-Shirt lawsuit. You know. The student is told to remove his or her pro-gay or anti-gay shirt, and promptly threatens a First Amendment challenge. The school says that it is only acting in order to maintain order on campus. Lawyers note that kids do not leave their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate. In general, the T-Shirt wins.
I generally root for the T-Shirt, gay or straight, as long as the slogan isn’t mean or obscene. And, luckily for me this time, the shirt was worn by one of the good gals, a sophomore at Hoover High in Alabama named Sara Couvillon, who proclaimed: “Gay? Fine by me!” Sara had worn the shirt several times without incident, but this time, for whatever reason, she was told to take it off “for her own safety.”
It’s true that a public school’s obligation to maintain order gives administrators the power to shut down highly provocative speech. But “Gay? Fine by me!” hardly qualifies. Even if a fellow student were to react to the sentiment with violence, the school’s duty would be to take the violent student off the campus, not give him or her the proverbial heckler’s veto over Sara’s speech.
In a letter to the Hoover officials, a lawyer for the Southern Poverty Law Center’s LGBT office offered this High Court citation from history’s most famous high school speech case, Tinker v Des Moines:
“Any departure from absolute regimentation may cause trouble. Any variation from the majority’s opinion may inspire fear. Any word spoken, in class, in the lunchroom, or on the campus that deviates from the views of another person may start an argument or cause a disturbance. But our Constitution says we must take this risk. [It is] this sort of hazardous freedom - this kind of openness - that is the basis of our national strength and of the independence and the vigor of Americans who grow up and live in this relatively permissive, often disputatious, society.”
Happily, the school seemed impressed with the SPLC’s reasoning. A couple of days later, Hoover authorities reversed themselves, noting that since Sara’s shirt did not actually pose a disruption, she could continue to sport the gay friendly expression. I suppose that’s a step in the right direction.
King’s Killer Not Convicted
Meanwhile, you probably read that Brandon McInerney won a mistrial as jurors in Southern California could not agree on a verdict for the eighth grade killer. Brandon shot his gay classmate, Larry King in the middle of the school day back in February of 2010. His defense attorneys were trying to win a verdict of voluntary manslaughter, while the prosecutor called it murder. The jury split 7-5 in favor of manslaughter, sending the case into limbo.
Prosecutors will now have to decide whether to retry the 17-year-old, and if so, they will have to decide whether to retry him as an adult even though he was only 14 at the time of the murder (or slaughter, if you insist). Usually I’m not in favor of trying kids as adults, but I really can’t drum up much sympathy for this nasty little bully with a penchant for swastikas. Call me hard hearted.
Top Chef
As for the other GLBT news, it keeps slipping out of my head. Usually I keep about five stories at the front of my mind while I write, but this week they are dissolving as quickly as I can look them up. The new CEO of Apple is gay. But I’m not sure that’s a big story. I mean, what can you say? Good luck, Tim!
Oh, and some people are upset that Chaz Bono is going to be on Dancing With the Stars because he’s a transman. Really? Since when does a slot on Dancing With the Stars require a jump through 1950s All American hoops?
Not that Dancing With the Stars should set the bar for trans-inclusion. Far from it. But please.
There is also a gay cannibal in the news, but I’ll have to look him up. Here it is, from six days ago: “Russian Cannibal Ate Gay Date,” off the GlobalPost website.
Seems the 21-year old chef, Ivan L, lured his 32-year-old buddy to his Murmansk flat, stabbed him to death, cut off his feet and head, and fashioned meatballs out of the torso. He also uploaded video of the gruesome stovetop scenes onto the Internet. According to a different source, the Independent, the murder took place in the bathtub. After killing his victim, Ivan ran warm water to soften up the corpse for butchering. Oh, and he also made sausages as well as meatballs.
Here’s the kicker. According to the Independent, Ivan faces 15 years in prison, assuming he is found competent to stand trial. Fifteen years? For eating someone? Seems a bit lenient to me. Ivan explained to police that he wanted to try human flesh. He picked his victim from a gay website because gay men are easier to manipulate and more private than other people. Guys, be careful out there. Particularly when cruising around the Arctic Circle.
Goodbye Summer
Summer’s ending, if you didn’t notice. First we hit “September 1,” which is still summer but doesn’t sound like it anymore. Then comes the end of the Labor Day weekend, when I can no longer wear white shoes or pants without hearing my mother’s voice call out from the afterlife to point out the fashion faux pas.
And yet. We all remember that some of the best summer weekends were always the weekends right after Labor Day. The finals of the U.S. Open are on. The tourists are gone from the New England beaches. The renters are off Long Island. Those are beautiful weekends. Still hot. Still summery. But nostalgic and timeless. Caught between seasons.
After that weekend’s done, I always remind myself that it’s still technically summer until September 20 or 21. Whenever. That’s the final “last day of summer” and there’s really nothing else around the corner. By that time, the Halloween stuff is all over the grocery store, the retail world’s decoration parade has begun, and it won’t stop until Easter.
Pumpkins, Turkeys, Santa, New Years, Hearts, Bunnies. One set of iconic images following the next like clockwork. And then finally, the first of the several “first days of summer.” Easter Monday. Let the grim procession through winter begin. And speaking of the US Open, is Serena on steroids?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)