Week In Review
October 26, 2011
BY ANN ROSTOW
Military Couples Join The Fight Against DOMA
I think I mentioned the new challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act from the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN). I just got a press release indicating that this lawsuit will be filed in federal court on Thursday, October 27, on behalf of married gay soldiers and sailors who are denied family benefits and marriage recognition.
The military litigation is a welcome addition to our current collection of six or seven major federal DOMA suits. The oldest case, pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, is the one filed by Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) on behalf of several married couples from Massachusetts. As you know, we won that case in trial court back in the Paleozoic Age and since then, we’ve been somewhat delayed while the U.S. government withdrew from the case and the House Republicans took its place.
Now, the briefing is coming to a close. GLAD is filing its last brief in the case this week, followed by some friends of the court and a final brief from the House Republicans. Oral arguments could be scheduled as early as next January.
God these federal cases take a long time. Actually, most lawsuits take a long time which is why I’m annoyed by these TV legal dramas where someone meets with the fictional lawyer one day and they all end up in court within a week or two. Before a jury no less. And how do we know that only a week has gone by? Because the side character is, I don’t know, making a Halloween costume in the first scene and trick or treating at the end of the show. It’s absurd. Absurd I tell you!
By the way, I must have missed the Rachel Maddow episode where Rachel exposed the scam behind a photo on the National Organization for Marriage website. The photo shows NOM president Brian Brown addressing a cheering crowd of thousands. In fact, the NOM people just stuck Brian into a shot of one of Obama’s 2008 campaign events.
Really? Really, NOM?
--
Fools Rush In
So, did any of you see Rick Perry’s halting speech about his tax plan? The one where he drawled on about the ten thousand pages of federal code and then pulled a postcard tax return out of his pocket as if most tax payers usually fill out thousands of pages?
True, we don’t have a postcard. But, assuming we don’t have itemized deductions, the current tax form requires ten numbers, a bunch of zeroes, and a signature. As for those people who do have deductions or have to hire lawyers and accountants to put together their return, they’re not going to switch to a postcard. The man’s an idiot.
And Herman Cain? What’s with the green fedora with the yellow rope band or whatever it is he was wearing the other day? What’s with the bizarre commercial with the cigarette and the creepy smile? Is he deliberately pushing the envelope or have his poll numbers launched him through a wormhole?
Oh, and I gather Newt’s wife Callista was seen at a Tiffany’s in a Washington suburb the other day while the candidate was having a glass of Cava at the bar next door. I kid you not. According to the Washington Post gossip blog, Gingrich ordered Champagne, but had to settle for inferior sparkles since the bar was out of the real deal. Honestly, these two self indulgent buffoons deserve their own reality show. Plus, do they really think Americans would elect a first family with names out of a Harry Potter book?
Finally, we’ve always disliked Michele Bachman for her relentless attacks on the GLBT community and her strange antics of years past. Maybe you recall the time she accused lesbians in the ladies room of assault or the time she hid from activists in some bushes. So we knew she was crazy, but we didn’t really know that she was a profoundly unpleasant person in general. Her New Hampshire staff members, who recently resigned en masse, describe the national campaign as oblivious, arrogant and cruel.
I’ve never been a fan of Mitt Romney, but the man towers above the rest of the Republican field. I still wonder whether he showers in that Mormon underwear.
--
Live Free or Die
Returning to actual news, it was disturbing to see Republicans in a New Hampshire house committee voting out a bill that would repeal marriage rights for same-sex couples and replace equality with a strange partner law. The partnerships would not be recognized as marriage, and would be available to siblings, relatives and, I don’t know, beach volleyball teammates.
I’m not going to worry too much about this bill until it advances further in the legislative process. Even if it passes both houses, Governor John Lynch has pledged a veto. Still, it’s a reminder that even in the few states where we’ve achieved victory in the fight for marriage, the battles continue.
Meanwhile, Brazil’s highest court has ruled that civil unions, available in some Brazilian states, can be treated and recognized as marriages. I know that was a cumbersome sentence, but it took me quite some time to figure out what exactly happened down there without actually boning up on the Brazilian judicial system or teaching myself Portuguese. I guess some states allow civil unions and others don’t. Two women from one of the good states went to court to have their union converted to a marriage, and now they’ve succeeded at the highest level. The ruling doesn’t mandate marriage equality, but it seems like a step in the right direction.
Also, it looks as if Denmark might legalize same-sex marriage sometime next spring. I vaguely thought Denmark had already done so, but apparently not. So much for my image of myself as an expert on all aspects of this, our seminal civil rights issue.
--
Bad Judge, No Pension!
In my GLBT web surfing yesterday, I encountered another sleazy sexcapade by some conservative family value type and stored it away as fodder for this week’s column. Now I can’t find it!
I’ll keep looking, but meanwhile, I am happy to report that former Oklahoma judge Donald D. Thompson is back in the headlines. Thompson, one of our favorite malefactors of 2002 or 2003, was the judge who was removed from office for masturbating during trials, an activity that he could not completely hide from witnesses and others who approached the bench during these intimate sessions. His Honor used a penis pump, and left incriminating tissues in his courtroom trash can.
He masturbated during trials! Not in his chambers. Not in the men’s room. Not in the empty courtroom. But in the middle of court proceedings! And he didn’t just grope himself under his robes. He employed a mechanical sex toy that actually made a little whooshing sound.
As I mentioned, Thompson was removed from office for this extraordinary and surreal breach of decorum and charged with a felony. As such, he lost most of his monthly pension of something like $7,000. He sued to get the cash reinstated, but to no avail.
“Court reporters observed the felonious exposure of Mr. Thompson's private parts, and testified to the fact during the criminal trial,” wrote the judge in this case, who presumably was not approaching orgasm at the time. “That trial resulted in conviction of felonies. Those felonies violated Mr. Thompson's oath of office.”
Sorry Donald! And I can’t seem to track down the sex scandal, which suggests that it wasn’t that big of a deal. Still, I’m disappointed. It means I have to move on to something serious, a transition that I instinctively resist.
--
Are The Kids Alright?
Today’s emails and gay headlines feature an alarming announcement about how kids of same-sex couples are more likely to live below the poverty line. I didn’t read the study, which was released Tuesday by several gay and progressive groups, but it appears that the trials and tribulations of our families track back to the Defense of Marriage Act.
We know that kids in two-parent families fare better than others as a rule. But part of that phenomenon is the security that follows from the legal embrace of government sanctioned marriage. When you sever the legal ties between two partners and leave the children with only one official parent, bad things happen.
This is also why gays and lesbians have lower incomes and poorer health outcomes. Look, I’m married to a public school teacher, and I don’t have health insurance. I have some kind of policy that I pay a lot of money for, but it doesn’t kick in until I’m three thousand dollars in the red. You can bet I’m not spending $500 to see a doctor unless my life starts flashing before my eyes. And even then, I’d wait until it flashed through the end of the last century.
Speaking of life flashing by, have you seen the AARP ads on Medicare? It’s pretty bad if an ad for protecting Medicare can annoy a staunch supporter, but I for one can’t abide the truculent 60-something man who warns lawmakers not to touch benefits because “we’ll be watching” and “we’ll be voting” come November. He’s such a jerk that it makes you want to see his benefits go down the drain with Judge Donald D. Thompson’s judicial pension.
Oh, not really. But come on AARP. You’ve got a lot of money. Could you not afford to run your expensive national ad campaign through a focus group or two?
--
En Garde!
Now what? We’re not in the mood for lawsuits. We’re not in the mood for people posting mean things on Facebook. We’re not in the mood for Ugandan politics.
I suppose we can talk about the Canadian pastor in Ontario, who was taking some kids to a coffee shop when he noticed a couple that he says were making out and shoving their hands down their pants at an outside table. The pastor, who thought the couple was a young straight pair, asked the manager to ask his customers to tone it down. But when it became clear that the lovebirds were two women, the matter threatened to become a GLBT cause celebre.
According to the women, they were out having coffee with family members and merely exchanged a “peck.” Based on this scenario, activists are planning to protest at the coffee shop on Thursday, October 27.
But another news report quotes a gay man and a transwoman who say the incident has been mischaracterized in the interests of GLBT politics and threatens to undermine the community’s ability to fight real cases of homophobia.
I was reluctant to cover this item because I have no idea whether the women were wallowing in a sloppy French kiss (get a room!) or simply exchanging a harmless gesture of affection (get lost homophobe pastor!). Also, I feel as if I’ve covered half a dozen kissing or holding hands in public stories in the last month and I’m just tired of them.
But, I had to choose between the Canadian kissers or the lawmakers in Nashville who are trying to undermine the legal challenge to the recently passed statute against local gay rights rules. I think I made the right decision. I also had something on my list that read: “teachers?” I have no idea what that was about, but I suppose you could Google “gay” and “teachers” and see what comes up.
Oh yes. I think that involved a professor somewhere who told her graduate students that homosexuality was an abomination. That didn’t sit well with one of the lesbians in the class and, well, I forget the rest of the story. I think the student filed a complaint of some sort.
You know what? We should bring back duels to resolve some of the confrontations that don’t seem to rise to the level of the courtroom. Just swords of course. What do you think?
--
Ann’s column appears every week at sfbaytimes.com. She can be reached at arostow@aol.com
Thursday, October 27, 2011
Monday, October 24, 2011
Can You Pray Away the Gay? Maybe so, but who cares?
Can You Pray Away the Gay?
Maybe so, but who cares?
BY ANN ROSTOW
The question of whether sexual orientation is innate or under the control of the individual hits us both in the arena of law and on the battlefield of social debate. In our court challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act, lawyer Paul Clement and our adversaries argue that, unlike race or gender, sexual orientation is a personal choice that does not warrant special protection against prejudice. And the religious right has long pushed the notion that you can pray away the gay through faith and discipline.
All the scientists in the world, and all the gay pandas, lesbian albatrosses and bisexual monkeys can’t resolve this dilemma to anyone’s satisfaction. But the answer, actually, is right in front of us. Not only that, but people on both sides ignore that answer because it’s slightly more complicated than the black or white certainty everyone insists is true.
The answer is that no, you can’t change your sexual orientation. But yes, you can certainly decide not to act on it. Further, you can even act on the opposite sexual orientation if you put your mind to it.
Think about it. If you were in a prison camp and ordered to perform heterosexual sex on pain of death, you could do it. Well, you could at least do something sexual. Likewise, if you decided—for whatever insane reason—to turn your back on your gay self no matter what it took, you could do that too.
In theory, we human beings can do most anything. We could eat nothing but eggs and bacon for the rest of our, arguably short, lives. We could refuse to bathe or wear socks. We could learn sign language and pledge never to say another word.
Anything’s possible, and likewise, it’s possible to ignore one’s sexual orientation and act on its opposite. Straight people can do this too. Why not?
It’s therefore not surprising to see various characters pop out of the woodwork claiming to have changed their sexual orientation with God’s help.
It’s also not surprising that there are numerous gay men and women who have determined that their homosexuality is something to be prayed away if possible. They may have been raised in a strict religious environment. They may be insecure, immature or just nuts. But let’s just say that if someone wants to change their sexual orientation that badly, they can find a way to make it happen. At least for awhile.
Eventually most of these people abandon their efforts, much like former Love in Action head John Smid recently became the latest ex-gay poster boy to admit that sexual orientation is fixed, even if one’s behavior can be altered through discipline. You can indeed fit a square peg into a round hole, but in the process, you damage the peg.
This brings up the larger question of whether, in the words of the late Frank Kameny, “gay is good.” Alcoholism might be genetic, and alcoholics who give up liquor then spend their whole lives in a struggle to resist the siren call of a drink. We applaud this will power because alcohol destroys lives. But what of those who say homosexuality is a sin?
And here’s the thing. The question of whether or not homosexuality is perverse or sinful is the real question we continue to debate with those on the conservative right. They’re wrong, obviously. But this is the only relevant issue. The fight over whether sexual orientation is innate is a red herring.
As such, our efforts to insist that sexual orientation is genetic, and their insistence that it’s a “lifestyle choice,” are both beside the point. The discussion is useless. If someone proved that being gay is innate, that would make no difference to those who see homosexuality, like alcoholism, as wrong. Likewise, if we can change our gay behavior through a sustained and destructive exercise in self control, so what? That makes no difference to those who see homosexuality as a natural characteristic to be embraced.
Over in the courtrooms, the question is just as irrelevant and yet we continue to contest the issue with our equally obsessed legal foes.
It’s essential for our side to prove that sexual orientation should be a protected class under constitutional law, like race, national origin, gender and religion. A protected class, in turn, is defined as a group that has historically suffered discrimination for a feature that has no bearing on their ability to contribute to society.
The definition of a protected class has two other prongs that are considered significant, but not absolutely necessary. One is a lack of political power. The other is the notion that the class is defined by a feature that is innate.
Religious groups are protected even though you can adopt a new faith at any time. So innateness is not required for legal protection. Nonetheless, the courts believe that one should not be obliged to change one’s faith in order to avoid discrimination. Likewise, sexual orientation is a profound and inextricable aspect of individual makeup. Even if you could change your sexual orientation through some kind of superhuman effort, our advocates insist that forcing Americans to change their orientation in order to avoid systemic discrimination is, or should be, unconstitutional.
Again, as much as we argue about scientific studies and finger lengths and prenatal hormones or whatever, the question is moot. Even if sexual orientation is not innate (which few of us believe) it is an aspect of our life, like religion, which we should not be forced to change in order to fit into the round holes of social and legal norms.
Here’s the bottom line. It doesn’t matter whether sexual orientation is fixed at birth or subject to will power. There may be a gene for serial killers, but we still disapprove of mass murder. You might be able to control your sexual drive and ignore your romantic feelings, but no one should force you to do so.
The only question that counts is whether there is something morally wrong with being gay or lesbian. That’s it. That’s the whole ball of wax. As for the origin of sexual orientation, it’s interesting. But it’s a sideshow.
Maybe so, but who cares?
BY ANN ROSTOW
The question of whether sexual orientation is innate or under the control of the individual hits us both in the arena of law and on the battlefield of social debate. In our court challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act, lawyer Paul Clement and our adversaries argue that, unlike race or gender, sexual orientation is a personal choice that does not warrant special protection against prejudice. And the religious right has long pushed the notion that you can pray away the gay through faith and discipline.
All the scientists in the world, and all the gay pandas, lesbian albatrosses and bisexual monkeys can’t resolve this dilemma to anyone’s satisfaction. But the answer, actually, is right in front of us. Not only that, but people on both sides ignore that answer because it’s slightly more complicated than the black or white certainty everyone insists is true.
The answer is that no, you can’t change your sexual orientation. But yes, you can certainly decide not to act on it. Further, you can even act on the opposite sexual orientation if you put your mind to it.
Think about it. If you were in a prison camp and ordered to perform heterosexual sex on pain of death, you could do it. Well, you could at least do something sexual. Likewise, if you decided—for whatever insane reason—to turn your back on your gay self no matter what it took, you could do that too.
In theory, we human beings can do most anything. We could eat nothing but eggs and bacon for the rest of our, arguably short, lives. We could refuse to bathe or wear socks. We could learn sign language and pledge never to say another word.
Anything’s possible, and likewise, it’s possible to ignore one’s sexual orientation and act on its opposite. Straight people can do this too. Why not?
It’s therefore not surprising to see various characters pop out of the woodwork claiming to have changed their sexual orientation with God’s help.
It’s also not surprising that there are numerous gay men and women who have determined that their homosexuality is something to be prayed away if possible. They may have been raised in a strict religious environment. They may be insecure, immature or just nuts. But let’s just say that if someone wants to change their sexual orientation that badly, they can find a way to make it happen. At least for awhile.
Eventually most of these people abandon their efforts, much like former Love in Action head John Smid recently became the latest ex-gay poster boy to admit that sexual orientation is fixed, even if one’s behavior can be altered through discipline. You can indeed fit a square peg into a round hole, but in the process, you damage the peg.
This brings up the larger question of whether, in the words of the late Frank Kameny, “gay is good.” Alcoholism might be genetic, and alcoholics who give up liquor then spend their whole lives in a struggle to resist the siren call of a drink. We applaud this will power because alcohol destroys lives. But what of those who say homosexuality is a sin?
And here’s the thing. The question of whether or not homosexuality is perverse or sinful is the real question we continue to debate with those on the conservative right. They’re wrong, obviously. But this is the only relevant issue. The fight over whether sexual orientation is innate is a red herring.
As such, our efforts to insist that sexual orientation is genetic, and their insistence that it’s a “lifestyle choice,” are both beside the point. The discussion is useless. If someone proved that being gay is innate, that would make no difference to those who see homosexuality, like alcoholism, as wrong. Likewise, if we can change our gay behavior through a sustained and destructive exercise in self control, so what? That makes no difference to those who see homosexuality as a natural characteristic to be embraced.
Over in the courtrooms, the question is just as irrelevant and yet we continue to contest the issue with our equally obsessed legal foes.
It’s essential for our side to prove that sexual orientation should be a protected class under constitutional law, like race, national origin, gender and religion. A protected class, in turn, is defined as a group that has historically suffered discrimination for a feature that has no bearing on their ability to contribute to society.
The definition of a protected class has two other prongs that are considered significant, but not absolutely necessary. One is a lack of political power. The other is the notion that the class is defined by a feature that is innate.
Religious groups are protected even though you can adopt a new faith at any time. So innateness is not required for legal protection. Nonetheless, the courts believe that one should not be obliged to change one’s faith in order to avoid discrimination. Likewise, sexual orientation is a profound and inextricable aspect of individual makeup. Even if you could change your sexual orientation through some kind of superhuman effort, our advocates insist that forcing Americans to change their orientation in order to avoid systemic discrimination is, or should be, unconstitutional.
Again, as much as we argue about scientific studies and finger lengths and prenatal hormones or whatever, the question is moot. Even if sexual orientation is not innate (which few of us believe) it is an aspect of our life, like religion, which we should not be forced to change in order to fit into the round holes of social and legal norms.
Here’s the bottom line. It doesn’t matter whether sexual orientation is fixed at birth or subject to will power. There may be a gene for serial killers, but we still disapprove of mass murder. You might be able to control your sexual drive and ignore your romantic feelings, but no one should force you to do so.
The only question that counts is whether there is something morally wrong with being gay or lesbian. That’s it. That’s the whole ball of wax. As for the origin of sexual orientation, it’s interesting. But it’s a sideshow.
Sunday, October 16, 2011
The Bell Tolls for Kameny and Ettelbrick
This Week in GLBT News
BY ANN ROSTOW
October 12, 2011
The Bell Tolls for Kameny and Ettelbrick
Frank Kameny, who died this week at the age of 86, was not just a veteran activist. He was arguably the father of modern gay activism. He challenged his discharge from his federal job in 1957. He founded the Mattachine Society of Washington in 1961. He picketed the White House in 1965. And he led the effort to get homosexuality removed from the American Psychiatric Society’s list of mental disorders in 1973.
In other words, he forged a trail through a nearly impenetrable thicket of disdain, ridicule, hatred and prejudice and half a century later left the rest of us with a paved highway. If anyone out there thinks times are tough for GLBTs in this country, try taking a time machine back to the days before Stonewall, a time when being openly gay was an invitation to universal public disgust.
In 2009, Kameny received a formal apology from the Office of Public Management, acknowledging that his dismissal from the Army Map Service was “shameful.” Kameny sued the government at the time, taking his case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which declined to review his firing.
Kameny was found dead at his home in Washington DC on October 11, presumably of natural causes.
Two days before Kameney’s death, we lost another trail blazer, Paula Ettelbrick, who died of cancer in New York. Ettelbrick, 56, was one of the leading lawyers of the post-Stonewall gay rights movement.
Ettelbrick served as Lambda’s legal director from 1988 to 1993, and spent the next five years as legislative counsel to the Empire State Pride Agenda.
In 2003, she became head of the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission, which she ran until 2009.
“She was unflinching in her feminist vision of full inclusion and justice for all,” wrote National Center for Lesbian Rights Executive Director Kate Kendell. “Paula tirelessly and fiercely fought for the almost forgotten and often ignored. Whether it was people, or issues, Paula was always asking and challenging us to think bigger, more broadly, more expansively.
“Paula had integrity, ferocity, tenacity, and intellect,” Kendell continued. “We will miss, surely, all of that. But where I feel most diminished, is to lose her laughter, her wit, her passion. Paula knew something important about everything, and every conversation with her was a rollicking good time.”
--
SCOTUS Turns Thumbs Down on Lambda Case
The main legal news this week is a non-story of sorts. In a surprising and disappointing decision, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the case against the state of Louisiana, where bureaucrats refused to issue a revised birth certificate for two California men who adopted a baby boy in the Bayou State.
Represented by Lambda Legal, the men sued and won in federal court, and subsequently won their case before a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Those victories seemed routine at the time. After all, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit had also ruled in favor of two gay dads on the identical issue back in 2007.
Further, the question at hand presents a fairly straightforward matter of law. Regardless of a state’s view of joint adoption by same-sex couples, do functionaries have the right to deny a corrected birth certificate to couples who have lawfully adopted a child that was born in their state but adopted in another jurisdiction? After all, it’s not that the adoption is up for debate. It’s all about the paperwork that allows parents to enroll their kids in school or get them a passport.
In the current case, the full bench of the Fifth Circuit stepped in and overruled their colleagues earlier this year. The decision was unexpected, and the opinion itself was odd, leading Lambda and others to believe that the High Court might take the case. As usual, the Court gave no explanation for its decision to let stand the conflict between the Fifth and the Tenth circuits.
The Court is still considering another interesting case. It’s not gay, but it concerns religion in the public square. In Utah, the highway patrol has erected giant crosses along some highway to mark the spots where their comrades have fallen. When I say giant, I mean giant. I forget the exact height, but these are not little markers. They’re something like ten or twelve feet tall.
Civil libertarians sued under the Establishment Clause, and won their case in the appellate court. That ruling was stayed pending further appeal, so the giant crosses are still in place and the High Court is reportedly still considering whether or not to take review.
--
California Dreaming
So, I don’t know what’s going on at Equality California. Last week they decided not to pursue an attempt to repeal Prop 8 in 2012, effectively making that decision on behalf of the entire gay community of the Golden State. I kind of agree with this non-repeal strategy, but many others think it’s a cop out, and indeed at least one group, Love Honor Cherish, is going forward with a repeal measure of its own.
Running a statewide gay rights ballot measure without the support of the main gay rights organization will be, let’s say, tricky.
At any rate, I gather that Equality California’s brand new executive director has now resigned for vague reasons. What’s up with that? I’m going to leave it to others to figure out, but it sounds as if the gang over there isn’t shooting straight at the moment.
There are some pieces of good news coming out of state politics this week however. Governor Brown signed a trans rights bill that makes it far easier to change one’s official gender on a birth certificate or other state records.
And it looks as if the people trying to repeal the “teach about gays in high school” law have failed to get their measure on the next ballot. They will no doubt still try for 2012.
Speaking of this, I saw a Youtube video, filmed by a California activist who discovered someone collecting signatures for this repeal by implying that the gay education law encourages child molesters. Now there’s an effective strategy, don’t you think? Who’s going to vote for child molesters? Perhaps we can gather names to repeal Prop 8 using this tactic ourselves. Then, we could run the whole campaign with commercials showing sleazy perverts and headlines like: “Get Child Molesters Out of Our Schools! Repeal Prop 8!”
--
All Hat and No Cattle
As a staunch Democrat, I go back and forth between the Republican candidates for president. Part of me wants the GOP to nominate a crackpot like Rick Perry. But my patriotic side doesn’t want to take the risk.
It’s kind of like watching a football game when you dislike both teams for different reasons. Whenever one gets up, you root for the other one. At this point, Romney’s up by two touchdowns, so I’m rooting for him to stumble. I suppose that I would like them to blast Romney throughout the primary season, and then reluctantly nominate him.
Then, maybe around September or October of next year, I want some weird development to rock his campaign. Maybe we’ll learn that he keeps his Mormon underwear on when he takes a shower.
Speaking of Mormons, I didn’t understand why all the pundits last week kept pestering candidates to answer the question: “Do you think Mitt Romney is a Christian?”
Yes, I get that Pastor Whatshisname called Mormonism a “cult” and that Perry should have been more aggressive in denouncing this comment from one of his supporters. But of course Romney’s not a Christian. He’s a Mormon! Why would anyone have a problem making that distinction?
Before I drop this subject, let me say one thing about Perry. I have lived in Austin since 2001, so this buffoon has been my governor for over a decade now and I’ve watched him win no less than three gubernatorial elections. Yes, I know Texas is a Republican state, but last year, he trounced Kay Bailey Hutchinson in the primary.
So here’s my question. Why hasn’t the Texas electorate seen the dimwit that the rest of the country has been watching for the last two months? Sure, state elections are easier than national contests. But still. If Texans had seen this Rick Perry back in 2008, Hutchinson would be governor of Texas right now.
I thought he was a crafty politician with a folksy style, corporate interests in his back pocket and little interest in actually governing. I didn’t realize he was a moron as well. Actually, I did think he was a moron. But I thought that was just my liberal bias. Turns out it’s true.
--
O Canada
Have you seen some of the latest health news? Exercise leads to early menopause. Vitamins are bad for you. Salt isn’t that bad. Bring on the fries and open another bottle of wine!
Sorry, I’m just avoiding the rest of my GLBT news list. I was going to discuss the Canadian Supreme Court, where justices will examine the nation’s hate speech laws at the urging of a 40-something antigay preacher who’s been nailed for his homophobic ranting and fliers. I must say that as an American, the idea of hate speech laws is unnerving, and I have to root for the preacher. C’mon Canada. You can’t outlaw speech. Let the antigay guy do his thing and let us bring him down in the marketplace of ideas.
There’s also a Republican Congressman who’s trying to derail the defense budget because it allows chaplains to oversee same-sex marriages for military personnel. Buck McKeon, who heads the Armed Services Committee, says he’d rather see the entire budget fail than capitulate on the chaplain marriage issue. Is he out of his mind? I’m just assuming wiser heads will prevail. As for the chaplains, we’re talking about military weddings held in states where same-sex marriage is totally legal. The House had originally blocked same-sex military marriages, but the Senate stripped that language out of the overall budget.
--
Worthless Values
Well. I was going to write about the Values Voters conference, or whatever it was called, a hateful little event chock full of diatribes against gays, Muslims and the other American categories that don’t fit into the narrow band of acceptable territory in the world of Christian conservatives. That of course, was the scene of Pastor Jeffress’s cult jab at Mormonism.
But as each section of this column came to an end, I found I could not bear to rehash this annual slugfest. And now I’m at the end so I think I’ll just bag it. You know these bozos. I think Rick Santorum said something about gay soldiers getting it on in the showers. Mitt Romney condemned “poisonous language” which was nice of him I suppose. Whatever.
The classic Christian conservative is losing ground to other types of conservatives; fiscal conservatives, libertarians, tea party small government types. The religious based bigotry is still alive and well, but diluted somewhat, and you can see mainstream Republicans shifting ever so slightly away, like people at a cocktail party who suddenly realize that the popular guest has had one too many.
This country is changing. Large majorities were in support of openly gay military service. Most people think you shouldn’t be fired for being gay. And significantly, Americans are starting to come down from the fence on the side of gay couples rights.
If you’ve been in favor of “civil unions” for a decade, you are starting to realize that civil unions are a temporary compromise and you’ll have to take a stand for or against gay couples--- because American gay couples are demanding a yes or no answer from their compatriots. And as each month and year goes by, more people are saying yes, and the Christian conservatives that drive marriage opposition are diminished in turn.
BY ANN ROSTOW
October 12, 2011
The Bell Tolls for Kameny and Ettelbrick
Frank Kameny, who died this week at the age of 86, was not just a veteran activist. He was arguably the father of modern gay activism. He challenged his discharge from his federal job in 1957. He founded the Mattachine Society of Washington in 1961. He picketed the White House in 1965. And he led the effort to get homosexuality removed from the American Psychiatric Society’s list of mental disorders in 1973.
In other words, he forged a trail through a nearly impenetrable thicket of disdain, ridicule, hatred and prejudice and half a century later left the rest of us with a paved highway. If anyone out there thinks times are tough for GLBTs in this country, try taking a time machine back to the days before Stonewall, a time when being openly gay was an invitation to universal public disgust.
In 2009, Kameny received a formal apology from the Office of Public Management, acknowledging that his dismissal from the Army Map Service was “shameful.” Kameny sued the government at the time, taking his case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which declined to review his firing.
Kameny was found dead at his home in Washington DC on October 11, presumably of natural causes.
Two days before Kameney’s death, we lost another trail blazer, Paula Ettelbrick, who died of cancer in New York. Ettelbrick, 56, was one of the leading lawyers of the post-Stonewall gay rights movement.
Ettelbrick served as Lambda’s legal director from 1988 to 1993, and spent the next five years as legislative counsel to the Empire State Pride Agenda.
In 2003, she became head of the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission, which she ran until 2009.
“She was unflinching in her feminist vision of full inclusion and justice for all,” wrote National Center for Lesbian Rights Executive Director Kate Kendell. “Paula tirelessly and fiercely fought for the almost forgotten and often ignored. Whether it was people, or issues, Paula was always asking and challenging us to think bigger, more broadly, more expansively.
“Paula had integrity, ferocity, tenacity, and intellect,” Kendell continued. “We will miss, surely, all of that. But where I feel most diminished, is to lose her laughter, her wit, her passion. Paula knew something important about everything, and every conversation with her was a rollicking good time.”
--
SCOTUS Turns Thumbs Down on Lambda Case
The main legal news this week is a non-story of sorts. In a surprising and disappointing decision, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the case against the state of Louisiana, where bureaucrats refused to issue a revised birth certificate for two California men who adopted a baby boy in the Bayou State.
Represented by Lambda Legal, the men sued and won in federal court, and subsequently won their case before a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Those victories seemed routine at the time. After all, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit had also ruled in favor of two gay dads on the identical issue back in 2007.
Further, the question at hand presents a fairly straightforward matter of law. Regardless of a state’s view of joint adoption by same-sex couples, do functionaries have the right to deny a corrected birth certificate to couples who have lawfully adopted a child that was born in their state but adopted in another jurisdiction? After all, it’s not that the adoption is up for debate. It’s all about the paperwork that allows parents to enroll their kids in school or get them a passport.
In the current case, the full bench of the Fifth Circuit stepped in and overruled their colleagues earlier this year. The decision was unexpected, and the opinion itself was odd, leading Lambda and others to believe that the High Court might take the case. As usual, the Court gave no explanation for its decision to let stand the conflict between the Fifth and the Tenth circuits.
The Court is still considering another interesting case. It’s not gay, but it concerns religion in the public square. In Utah, the highway patrol has erected giant crosses along some highway to mark the spots where their comrades have fallen. When I say giant, I mean giant. I forget the exact height, but these are not little markers. They’re something like ten or twelve feet tall.
Civil libertarians sued under the Establishment Clause, and won their case in the appellate court. That ruling was stayed pending further appeal, so the giant crosses are still in place and the High Court is reportedly still considering whether or not to take review.
--
California Dreaming
So, I don’t know what’s going on at Equality California. Last week they decided not to pursue an attempt to repeal Prop 8 in 2012, effectively making that decision on behalf of the entire gay community of the Golden State. I kind of agree with this non-repeal strategy, but many others think it’s a cop out, and indeed at least one group, Love Honor Cherish, is going forward with a repeal measure of its own.
Running a statewide gay rights ballot measure without the support of the main gay rights organization will be, let’s say, tricky.
At any rate, I gather that Equality California’s brand new executive director has now resigned for vague reasons. What’s up with that? I’m going to leave it to others to figure out, but it sounds as if the gang over there isn’t shooting straight at the moment.
There are some pieces of good news coming out of state politics this week however. Governor Brown signed a trans rights bill that makes it far easier to change one’s official gender on a birth certificate or other state records.
And it looks as if the people trying to repeal the “teach about gays in high school” law have failed to get their measure on the next ballot. They will no doubt still try for 2012.
Speaking of this, I saw a Youtube video, filmed by a California activist who discovered someone collecting signatures for this repeal by implying that the gay education law encourages child molesters. Now there’s an effective strategy, don’t you think? Who’s going to vote for child molesters? Perhaps we can gather names to repeal Prop 8 using this tactic ourselves. Then, we could run the whole campaign with commercials showing sleazy perverts and headlines like: “Get Child Molesters Out of Our Schools! Repeal Prop 8!”
--
All Hat and No Cattle
As a staunch Democrat, I go back and forth between the Republican candidates for president. Part of me wants the GOP to nominate a crackpot like Rick Perry. But my patriotic side doesn’t want to take the risk.
It’s kind of like watching a football game when you dislike both teams for different reasons. Whenever one gets up, you root for the other one. At this point, Romney’s up by two touchdowns, so I’m rooting for him to stumble. I suppose that I would like them to blast Romney throughout the primary season, and then reluctantly nominate him.
Then, maybe around September or October of next year, I want some weird development to rock his campaign. Maybe we’ll learn that he keeps his Mormon underwear on when he takes a shower.
Speaking of Mormons, I didn’t understand why all the pundits last week kept pestering candidates to answer the question: “Do you think Mitt Romney is a Christian?”
Yes, I get that Pastor Whatshisname called Mormonism a “cult” and that Perry should have been more aggressive in denouncing this comment from one of his supporters. But of course Romney’s not a Christian. He’s a Mormon! Why would anyone have a problem making that distinction?
Before I drop this subject, let me say one thing about Perry. I have lived in Austin since 2001, so this buffoon has been my governor for over a decade now and I’ve watched him win no less than three gubernatorial elections. Yes, I know Texas is a Republican state, but last year, he trounced Kay Bailey Hutchinson in the primary.
So here’s my question. Why hasn’t the Texas electorate seen the dimwit that the rest of the country has been watching for the last two months? Sure, state elections are easier than national contests. But still. If Texans had seen this Rick Perry back in 2008, Hutchinson would be governor of Texas right now.
I thought he was a crafty politician with a folksy style, corporate interests in his back pocket and little interest in actually governing. I didn’t realize he was a moron as well. Actually, I did think he was a moron. But I thought that was just my liberal bias. Turns out it’s true.
--
O Canada
Have you seen some of the latest health news? Exercise leads to early menopause. Vitamins are bad for you. Salt isn’t that bad. Bring on the fries and open another bottle of wine!
Sorry, I’m just avoiding the rest of my GLBT news list. I was going to discuss the Canadian Supreme Court, where justices will examine the nation’s hate speech laws at the urging of a 40-something antigay preacher who’s been nailed for his homophobic ranting and fliers. I must say that as an American, the idea of hate speech laws is unnerving, and I have to root for the preacher. C’mon Canada. You can’t outlaw speech. Let the antigay guy do his thing and let us bring him down in the marketplace of ideas.
There’s also a Republican Congressman who’s trying to derail the defense budget because it allows chaplains to oversee same-sex marriages for military personnel. Buck McKeon, who heads the Armed Services Committee, says he’d rather see the entire budget fail than capitulate on the chaplain marriage issue. Is he out of his mind? I’m just assuming wiser heads will prevail. As for the chaplains, we’re talking about military weddings held in states where same-sex marriage is totally legal. The House had originally blocked same-sex military marriages, but the Senate stripped that language out of the overall budget.
--
Worthless Values
Well. I was going to write about the Values Voters conference, or whatever it was called, a hateful little event chock full of diatribes against gays, Muslims and the other American categories that don’t fit into the narrow band of acceptable territory in the world of Christian conservatives. That of course, was the scene of Pastor Jeffress’s cult jab at Mormonism.
But as each section of this column came to an end, I found I could not bear to rehash this annual slugfest. And now I’m at the end so I think I’ll just bag it. You know these bozos. I think Rick Santorum said something about gay soldiers getting it on in the showers. Mitt Romney condemned “poisonous language” which was nice of him I suppose. Whatever.
The classic Christian conservative is losing ground to other types of conservatives; fiscal conservatives, libertarians, tea party small government types. The religious based bigotry is still alive and well, but diluted somewhat, and you can see mainstream Republicans shifting ever so slightly away, like people at a cocktail party who suddenly realize that the popular guest has had one too many.
This country is changing. Large majorities were in support of openly gay military service. Most people think you shouldn’t be fired for being gay. And significantly, Americans are starting to come down from the fence on the side of gay couples rights.
If you’ve been in favor of “civil unions” for a decade, you are starting to realize that civil unions are a temporary compromise and you’ll have to take a stand for or against gay couples--- because American gay couples are demanding a yes or no answer from their compatriots. And as each month and year goes by, more people are saying yes, and the Christian conservatives that drive marriage opposition are diminished in turn.
Thursday, October 6, 2011
No Prop 8 Repeal in 2012 For Equality California
News for the Week Ended October 5, 2011
BY ANN ROSTOW
No Prop 8 Repeal in 2012 For Equality California
So, it seems as if Equality California has decided not to go back to the ballot in an effort to repeal Prop 8 next year. The lobby group sent out an email on Wednesday unveiling an “exciting new public education project” called “The Breakthrough Conversation.” A few paragraphs into this thrilling announcement, the group mentioned that they will not be leading a repeal campaign next year. Elsewhere, Equality California cited public opinion and the economic situation as two of several reasons they nixed repeal.
A couple of years ago, as you recall, the California GLBTs were debating whether to put a Prop 8 repeal on the ballot in 2010 or 2012. As the months went by, a divided community decided not to mount a campaign in 2010. Then, as the Prop 8 lawsuit promised to solve all our Prop 8 problems without any effort on our part, everyone kind of fell back.
With the lawsuit sidetracked over the question of standing, Equality California resumed deliberations on whether a 2012 Prop 8 repeal campaign was feasible, winnable, and popular. After several town hall meetings throughout the year, the answers appear to be no.
I think they’re right. A loss at the 2012 ballot box would set us back tremendously, particularly if the margin was wider than Prop 8’s three-point win in 2008 (or whatever it was). And given that conventional wisdom tells us Republicans have more energy than Democrats heading into next year’s election, why take the chance? The Prop 8 case may be moving at a sluggish pace, but it is moving and could in theory be settled a year from now.
Plus, as Equality California points out, we might be gaining at the polls, but it’s not at all clear that a solid majority of state voters would agree to send Prop 8 into the dustbin of history. As for “The Breakthrough Conversation,” I confess I didn’t read the details. I’m sure it’s a fine idea.
--
Don’t Ask Case Dismissed As Moot
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an irritating decision last week, dismissing the challenge to Don’t Ask Don’t Tell as moot, and vacating the lower court ruling that struck the statute as unconstitutional last year. “Vacating” is a legal term for taking a magic wand and making U.S. District Court Judge Virginia Phillips’ powerful gay rights opinion disappear in a puff of smoke as if it never existed.
I know you’re wondering why the hell this makes a whit of difference, given that Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is officially off the books. But listen. There’s nothing to stop another Congress or another president from restoring some kind of military ban. A big thumbs down in the law books would serve as a deterrent, and now the prospects for that helpful precedent are gone.
What’s a “whit?” I’ll look it up in a minute. You know what else I don’t know? I don’t know what the “G” means in “3G” or “4G.” And I also don’t know how the word “props” became a synonym for “praise.” It’s short for something, but what?
I’m back. I spent far too long looking up “whit,” which is not a thing but just a word meaning teeny tiny bit. That’s disappointing. I was hoping it was a little bird or a fig seed or something. As for the “G,” it stands for “generation.” Another disappointment. And “props” is short for “propers,” which is a slang term for “proper respect” popularized in the Aretha Franklin song. Now that’s good to know, don’t you think? Did you know that? Oh, don’t be smug about it.
Returning to Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, here’s the really annoying aspect of the Ninth Circuit’s decision. Adding insult to injury, Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain penned a ten-page concurring opinion of his own, ripping the Supreme Court’s decision in Lawrence v Texas.
Lawrence, which struck sodomy laws and reversed the hideously antigay precedent of Bowers v Hardwick, was surely a high point in gay legal history. But while the decision strongly suggested that gay men and women enjoy a fundamental right to personal autonomy, Justice Kennedy never came right out and said so. As such, conservative courts have been able to dismiss Lawrence as a little more than a narrow ruling on criminal law with no consequences for gay rights cases in general.
Judge Phillips, who relied on Lawrence for much of her due process analysis, was thus subjected to withering scorn from O’Scannlain, a 70-something Reagan appointee who wrote that he would have reversed Phillips on the merits had the case continued. So who knows? Maybe instead of losing a good precedent, we dodged a bullet. Maybe we would have lost had this panel allowed the appeal to go forward.
--
Tough Break For Bi-National Couple
Speaking of precedents and Justice Kennedy, we have none other than Tony himself to thank for a 1982 Ninth Circuit opinion that says bi-national married gay couples may not sponsor their spouses for immigration. The old case was brought by a couple who somehow managed to marry in Colorado, thanks, one imagines, to ambiguous law and a friendly clerk. Regardless of whether the marriage was formally recognized, the federal appellate court ruled that a same-sex spouse did not qualify as a legal relative.
True, that was nearly 30 years ago. But no matter. All federal courts within the vast jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit are still obliged to follow along like lemmings. Nor does the passage of Defense of Marriage Act change the analysis or undermine the precedent. As such, a married California couple recently lost their attempt to avoid deportation of the foreign spouse.
Although the U.S. government refused to argue on behalf of the Defense of Marriage Act (and indeed, argued that DOMA was unconstitutional) lawyers for the House of Representative jumped into action to make sure the happy couple could still be forced to choose whether to live separately or move to some other country.
But the Obama administration wasn’t completely absent from the case. The men had also claimed that the deportation constituted sex discrimination, so the Justice Department filed their own briefs to contest that notion. Was that really necessary?
Why on earth would the Justice Department bother to bolster the case against this bi-national couple, given the Obama administration’s new legal policy on sexual orientation discrimination?
To refresh your memory, that policy essentially says that sexual orientation discrimination is presumptively unconstitutional. So, although it may be true that “sex discrimination” is not really at the heart of the discrimination faced by this bi-national couple, it’s certainly true that the unfair treatment of married gay immigrants amounts to the type of discrimination that Obama and company have formally denounced.
It’s as if Obama told me his administration would defend to the death my right to ride an Arabian stallion naked down the streets of Austin, but then sided with the prosecution when I was arrested for riding a motorcycle in a bikini. What gives?
I know that’s not a perfect analogy, but I wasted fifteen minutes trying to come up with something, and time is not waiting for me. Plus, it’s a pretty good analogy. Sometimes life forces you to abandon the perfect for the pretty good lest life itself pass you by. Not to mention that I already typed it in, and as loyal readers know, I follow the Omar Khayyam rule. The moving finger writes, and having writ, moves on. Nor all thy piety nor wit shall lure it back to cancel half a line.
Speaking of Obama, you probably heard that the POTUS spoke for twenty minutes at the Human Rights Campaign national dinner last Saturday. I read his remarks. It seemed like a good speech, and it was nice of him to drop in on our community. Other than that, there’s not much to say. I don’t have particular propers for the prez, but nor do any criticisms come to mind.
--
Breaking News! Republicans Don’t Like Us
What else is new? I gather that we are communally incensed at Herman Cain, who recently said being gay is a “choice.” I’m sorry, but I don’t really care what Mr. Cain has to say on this or any other subject. Plus, why is this worse than a pompous egotistical gasbag named Newt Gingrich, who told an audience in Iowa that same-sex marriage is a “temporary aberration that will dissipate,” and which “fundamentally goes against everything we know.”
It’s not as if I care what Newt says any more than I listen to Herman. It’s just that Newt bothers me to a far greater extent. His lazy campaign style. His self-importance. The fact that he dismisses marriage equality for gay couples after cheating on two of his three wives and divorcing one of them during her cancer treatment. His hypocritical holier-than-thou attacks on Bill Clinton while he himself was having an affair with an aide. His half million dollar Tiffany line of credit that he shrugs off like Marie Antoinette. His grandiose narcissism. I must say I feel a little frisson of happiness every time I see his poll numbers.
Hey. It’s not as if any of these Republican candidates have expansive views of gay rights. I suppose Jon Huntsman ranks at the top due to his support for some partner rights when he was governor of Utah. As for everyone else, they’d be happy to put us in shrink wrap like old sweaters and send us to the back of the closet.
--
Will SCOTUS Take Gay Case?
My buddies at Lambda tell me that the Supreme Court may consider their petition to review a Louisiana birth certificate case at their October 11 meeting. This is a strange and fascinating case that pits two out-of-state men who jointly adopted a baby boy against state bureaucrats who spitefully refuse to issue a revised birth certificate.
States routinely issue new birth certificates to adoptive parents, a key document that allows the parents to enroll the kid in school, get him or her a passport, travel together, and whatever else you can think of that requires official papers. But because Louisiana doesn’t like gay adoptions, they won’t put both fathers on the certificate. They’ll put one man on, but not two.
The men sued, and the state lost twice in federal court. Then, in a bizarre opinion that touched on unrelated issues and misread the Full Faith and Credit Clause, the full Fifth Circuit overturned the rulings and came down in favor of Louisiana. Lambda then asked the High Court to take review.
Although the Supremes reject most petitions that come their way, they might just take this one. Why? Because another federal appellate court ruled in favor of gay parents in a similar case, creating a division in the circuit courts which often forces the High Court to take a stand.
We’ll see. I hope they accept review because that Fifth Circuit opinion was twisted. I can’t imagine any of the justices agreeing with its reasoning save the incomprehensible Sam Alito, the man who makes Thomas and Scalia look good.
--
Pigging Out
I don’t have the space to go into another story, so I’ll complain, if I may, about the New York Times Sunday Magazine, which featured a pretentious section on food.
Among the snippets was a man telling us how to make a good cup of coffee, a ludicrous exercise that involved spending hundreds on a high tech grinder, using special fresh beans and throwing away any old ground coffee that might have been ground yesterday rather than two minutes ago.
Then there was the fellow who waxed dreamily about the morning he went with his farmer friend to kill a pig and drink the warm arterial blood. Something about being close to nature and sensing vitality and participating in the slaughter of ones food. Spare me.
Poor pig. As for me, I can only eat bacon and ribs if I do not contemplate the pain and butchery that brought them to my plate. Fortunately, I can do that!
BY ANN ROSTOW
No Prop 8 Repeal in 2012 For Equality California
So, it seems as if Equality California has decided not to go back to the ballot in an effort to repeal Prop 8 next year. The lobby group sent out an email on Wednesday unveiling an “exciting new public education project” called “The Breakthrough Conversation.” A few paragraphs into this thrilling announcement, the group mentioned that they will not be leading a repeal campaign next year. Elsewhere, Equality California cited public opinion and the economic situation as two of several reasons they nixed repeal.
A couple of years ago, as you recall, the California GLBTs were debating whether to put a Prop 8 repeal on the ballot in 2010 or 2012. As the months went by, a divided community decided not to mount a campaign in 2010. Then, as the Prop 8 lawsuit promised to solve all our Prop 8 problems without any effort on our part, everyone kind of fell back.
With the lawsuit sidetracked over the question of standing, Equality California resumed deliberations on whether a 2012 Prop 8 repeal campaign was feasible, winnable, and popular. After several town hall meetings throughout the year, the answers appear to be no.
I think they’re right. A loss at the 2012 ballot box would set us back tremendously, particularly if the margin was wider than Prop 8’s three-point win in 2008 (or whatever it was). And given that conventional wisdom tells us Republicans have more energy than Democrats heading into next year’s election, why take the chance? The Prop 8 case may be moving at a sluggish pace, but it is moving and could in theory be settled a year from now.
Plus, as Equality California points out, we might be gaining at the polls, but it’s not at all clear that a solid majority of state voters would agree to send Prop 8 into the dustbin of history. As for “The Breakthrough Conversation,” I confess I didn’t read the details. I’m sure it’s a fine idea.
--
Don’t Ask Case Dismissed As Moot
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an irritating decision last week, dismissing the challenge to Don’t Ask Don’t Tell as moot, and vacating the lower court ruling that struck the statute as unconstitutional last year. “Vacating” is a legal term for taking a magic wand and making U.S. District Court Judge Virginia Phillips’ powerful gay rights opinion disappear in a puff of smoke as if it never existed.
I know you’re wondering why the hell this makes a whit of difference, given that Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is officially off the books. But listen. There’s nothing to stop another Congress or another president from restoring some kind of military ban. A big thumbs down in the law books would serve as a deterrent, and now the prospects for that helpful precedent are gone.
What’s a “whit?” I’ll look it up in a minute. You know what else I don’t know? I don’t know what the “G” means in “3G” or “4G.” And I also don’t know how the word “props” became a synonym for “praise.” It’s short for something, but what?
I’m back. I spent far too long looking up “whit,” which is not a thing but just a word meaning teeny tiny bit. That’s disappointing. I was hoping it was a little bird or a fig seed or something. As for the “G,” it stands for “generation.” Another disappointment. And “props” is short for “propers,” which is a slang term for “proper respect” popularized in the Aretha Franklin song. Now that’s good to know, don’t you think? Did you know that? Oh, don’t be smug about it.
Returning to Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, here’s the really annoying aspect of the Ninth Circuit’s decision. Adding insult to injury, Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain penned a ten-page concurring opinion of his own, ripping the Supreme Court’s decision in Lawrence v Texas.
Lawrence, which struck sodomy laws and reversed the hideously antigay precedent of Bowers v Hardwick, was surely a high point in gay legal history. But while the decision strongly suggested that gay men and women enjoy a fundamental right to personal autonomy, Justice Kennedy never came right out and said so. As such, conservative courts have been able to dismiss Lawrence as a little more than a narrow ruling on criminal law with no consequences for gay rights cases in general.
Judge Phillips, who relied on Lawrence for much of her due process analysis, was thus subjected to withering scorn from O’Scannlain, a 70-something Reagan appointee who wrote that he would have reversed Phillips on the merits had the case continued. So who knows? Maybe instead of losing a good precedent, we dodged a bullet. Maybe we would have lost had this panel allowed the appeal to go forward.
--
Tough Break For Bi-National Couple
Speaking of precedents and Justice Kennedy, we have none other than Tony himself to thank for a 1982 Ninth Circuit opinion that says bi-national married gay couples may not sponsor their spouses for immigration. The old case was brought by a couple who somehow managed to marry in Colorado, thanks, one imagines, to ambiguous law and a friendly clerk. Regardless of whether the marriage was formally recognized, the federal appellate court ruled that a same-sex spouse did not qualify as a legal relative.
True, that was nearly 30 years ago. But no matter. All federal courts within the vast jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit are still obliged to follow along like lemmings. Nor does the passage of Defense of Marriage Act change the analysis or undermine the precedent. As such, a married California couple recently lost their attempt to avoid deportation of the foreign spouse.
Although the U.S. government refused to argue on behalf of the Defense of Marriage Act (and indeed, argued that DOMA was unconstitutional) lawyers for the House of Representative jumped into action to make sure the happy couple could still be forced to choose whether to live separately or move to some other country.
But the Obama administration wasn’t completely absent from the case. The men had also claimed that the deportation constituted sex discrimination, so the Justice Department filed their own briefs to contest that notion. Was that really necessary?
Why on earth would the Justice Department bother to bolster the case against this bi-national couple, given the Obama administration’s new legal policy on sexual orientation discrimination?
To refresh your memory, that policy essentially says that sexual orientation discrimination is presumptively unconstitutional. So, although it may be true that “sex discrimination” is not really at the heart of the discrimination faced by this bi-national couple, it’s certainly true that the unfair treatment of married gay immigrants amounts to the type of discrimination that Obama and company have formally denounced.
It’s as if Obama told me his administration would defend to the death my right to ride an Arabian stallion naked down the streets of Austin, but then sided with the prosecution when I was arrested for riding a motorcycle in a bikini. What gives?
I know that’s not a perfect analogy, but I wasted fifteen minutes trying to come up with something, and time is not waiting for me. Plus, it’s a pretty good analogy. Sometimes life forces you to abandon the perfect for the pretty good lest life itself pass you by. Not to mention that I already typed it in, and as loyal readers know, I follow the Omar Khayyam rule. The moving finger writes, and having writ, moves on. Nor all thy piety nor wit shall lure it back to cancel half a line.
Speaking of Obama, you probably heard that the POTUS spoke for twenty minutes at the Human Rights Campaign national dinner last Saturday. I read his remarks. It seemed like a good speech, and it was nice of him to drop in on our community. Other than that, there’s not much to say. I don’t have particular propers for the prez, but nor do any criticisms come to mind.
--
Breaking News! Republicans Don’t Like Us
What else is new? I gather that we are communally incensed at Herman Cain, who recently said being gay is a “choice.” I’m sorry, but I don’t really care what Mr. Cain has to say on this or any other subject. Plus, why is this worse than a pompous egotistical gasbag named Newt Gingrich, who told an audience in Iowa that same-sex marriage is a “temporary aberration that will dissipate,” and which “fundamentally goes against everything we know.”
It’s not as if I care what Newt says any more than I listen to Herman. It’s just that Newt bothers me to a far greater extent. His lazy campaign style. His self-importance. The fact that he dismisses marriage equality for gay couples after cheating on two of his three wives and divorcing one of them during her cancer treatment. His hypocritical holier-than-thou attacks on Bill Clinton while he himself was having an affair with an aide. His half million dollar Tiffany line of credit that he shrugs off like Marie Antoinette. His grandiose narcissism. I must say I feel a little frisson of happiness every time I see his poll numbers.
Hey. It’s not as if any of these Republican candidates have expansive views of gay rights. I suppose Jon Huntsman ranks at the top due to his support for some partner rights when he was governor of Utah. As for everyone else, they’d be happy to put us in shrink wrap like old sweaters and send us to the back of the closet.
--
Will SCOTUS Take Gay Case?
My buddies at Lambda tell me that the Supreme Court may consider their petition to review a Louisiana birth certificate case at their October 11 meeting. This is a strange and fascinating case that pits two out-of-state men who jointly adopted a baby boy against state bureaucrats who spitefully refuse to issue a revised birth certificate.
States routinely issue new birth certificates to adoptive parents, a key document that allows the parents to enroll the kid in school, get him or her a passport, travel together, and whatever else you can think of that requires official papers. But because Louisiana doesn’t like gay adoptions, they won’t put both fathers on the certificate. They’ll put one man on, but not two.
The men sued, and the state lost twice in federal court. Then, in a bizarre opinion that touched on unrelated issues and misread the Full Faith and Credit Clause, the full Fifth Circuit overturned the rulings and came down in favor of Louisiana. Lambda then asked the High Court to take review.
Although the Supremes reject most petitions that come their way, they might just take this one. Why? Because another federal appellate court ruled in favor of gay parents in a similar case, creating a division in the circuit courts which often forces the High Court to take a stand.
We’ll see. I hope they accept review because that Fifth Circuit opinion was twisted. I can’t imagine any of the justices agreeing with its reasoning save the incomprehensible Sam Alito, the man who makes Thomas and Scalia look good.
--
Pigging Out
I don’t have the space to go into another story, so I’ll complain, if I may, about the New York Times Sunday Magazine, which featured a pretentious section on food.
Among the snippets was a man telling us how to make a good cup of coffee, a ludicrous exercise that involved spending hundreds on a high tech grinder, using special fresh beans and throwing away any old ground coffee that might have been ground yesterday rather than two minutes ago.
Then there was the fellow who waxed dreamily about the morning he went with his farmer friend to kill a pig and drink the warm arterial blood. Something about being close to nature and sensing vitality and participating in the slaughter of ones food. Spare me.
Poor pig. As for me, I can only eat bacon and ribs if I do not contemplate the pain and butchery that brought them to my plate. Fortunately, I can do that!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)