Week In Review
November 30, 2011
BY ANN ROSTOW
Snakes In A Cash Machine!
I was reading an article about an antigay law about to be enacted in Nigeria, when I noticed a link to a headline that read: “Snake Slithers out of ATM.” Talk about the stuff of nightmares. According to Euro Weekly News, the serpent emerged from a cash machine in Liodio, Alava, Spain. A man using the ATM on his way to work managed to grab his money and call authorities, who rescued the reptile and sent it to an animal hospital. Sounds like the snake made it, in case you care about things like that.
I had a sexist reaction to the story, instantly thinking that it was a good thing that a man rather than a woman had to deal with the repellant incident. I suppose it’s nothing more than a trite gender stereotype, but really. Ladies? Would you have taken the money? Or would you have backed away and started screaming? I know how I would have handled the situation, and it would not have been a pretty sight.
And no, I don’t want to hear about all the wonderful characteristics of snakes. I’m sure they’re delightful creatures once you get to know them, much like tarantulas and large rodents.
In Nigeria, while we’re at it, a bill is pending to outlaw homosexual unions and criminalize anyone who “abets” gay couples. When I first heard the story, I understood it to be a ban on legal marriage, which was strange since Nigeria has long outlawed sodomy. But actually, it’s a ban on gay relationships in general. Not only is it illegal to have gay sex in Nigeria, but as far as I can tell, it will soon be illegal to live together or be a couple. Plus, there’s the whole abetting clause that results in a ten-year prison sentence for anyone who aids or abets a gay union, whatever that might entail.
So much for Nigeria’s fag hags. Watch out sisters!
The legislation was a deliberate slap at British Prime Minister David Cameron, who said last month that his government would consider withholding foreign aid to countries that persecute others based on faith or sexuality. Well, that covers most of the African continent, where conservative leaders condemned Cameron as a neo-Colonial meddler.
Hey guys. Just don’t take the money. Can you imagine if every major nation refused aid to countries with criminal laws against gay men and women? It would be nice, but that would not solve the core problem in places like Nigeria and Uganda, namely the depth and strength of the gay hatred that saturates their societies.
While we’re at it, I might as well tell you about a proposed law in Saint Petersburg that would fine citizens for any “public acts” that promote homosexuality. When our State Department criticized the legislation, a Russian diplomat accused the U.S. of inappropriately interfering in his country’s local politics.
--
Bye Bye Barney
You heard of course that our irascible Congressional champion, Barney Frank, is retiring at the end of this term. Frank, facing a redrawn district and fed up with the stalemate of GOP rule in the lower chamber, decided enough was enough. And at 71, with something like 30 years of lawmaking under his belt, I think the man deserves a break.
Unless some other gay candidate wins a House seat next year, Frank’s departure will leave us with Colorado’s Jared Polis and Rhode Island’s David Cicilline as our only gay members. Wisconsin’s Tammy Baldwin is running for Senate, so maybe she’ll be able to claim a place in history as the first openly GLBT Senator. But if not, she’ll be out of government for now.
We’re not the only ones with low representation on Capitol Hill. Women, Blacks and minorities in general all suffer from the same syndrome, and I suppose only time—decades of it—will raise our collective profiles. Meanwhile, we just have to hope that our white male allies stick with us as we slowly erode their massive demographic majority.
You never know. Maybe a sitting lawmaker will pop out of the closet.
--
Unfriendly Skies
It’s a slow GLBT news week. I was very close to writing a lengthy segment on an effort by nitpicking conservatives in New York to convince a judge that the state’s marriage equality law should be reversed because Governor Cuomo may have violated an open meetings law by getting together with GOP lawmakers behind closed doors. It’s not going to happen.
Then, there’s an appellate ruling out of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in a lawsuit against the City of New York’s (alleged) sting operation against gay porn patrons. Don’t want to go there. Plus, it’s a side ruling regarding immunity. The main case continues.
And speaking of legal issues that are going nowhere, the Ninth Circuit will soon hear oral arguments on whether Judge Vaughn Walker should have recused himself from the Prop 8 case because he was in a gay relationship. A lower court said no, and the Ninth Circuit will certainly agree.
The yawn factor gapes. It’s also me, personally. I can’t even get excited about the United Airlines staffer in Denver who called two guys “faggots” during an argument about whether they could use the VIP room, or whatever it’s called.
I assume the rude employee will receive his just deserts. (Note to editor: the correct spelling of the expression “just deserts” only has one “s,” not two.) Also, why would anyone want to spend airport time in the stupid VIP lounge anyway? There are really interesting stores, bars and restaurants in airports these days, so why sit around in a boring room with a few couches and some magazines? It’s not as if they have free drinks, cigarette girls or dangerous looking men arranging lines of cocaine on the counter. Now that would be worth a surcharge.
--
Republicans Mainlining Crazy Juice
In lieu of actual GLBT news, let’s dip our toes into the colorful sludge of the GOP primary race, where to widespread astonishment, Newt and Calista are now the front runners for the nomination.
It seems like yesterday I was ridiculing the chubby megalomaniac for sipping Cava at a bar next door to a suburban Tiffany’s, while Calista browsed for bling. One would think that Calista would steer clear of robin’s egg blue for the duration of the campaign given the lingering odor of “to hell with poor people” that still surrounds the Gingrichs’ half million-dollar line of Tiffany credit. But no. If their extravagance knows no bounds, it also knows no shame.
At the time, the Gingrich campaign was nothing more than a vanity tour, an excuse for Newt to strut the political stage, full of sound and fury, signifying that, as we already knew, the man’s a pompous fool. Now, I have only one question: What the hell happened?
Look, no one’s surprised that Herman Cain’s rise was followed by Herman Cain’s fall. I don’t think we expected so many sex scandals, but we did expect something to bring him down. Had he been a model husband, his rambling incoherence would have eventually eroded his support.
I suppose I thought that Perry would have eventually picked up those former Cain votes. Who knew why people liked Cain in the first place? The man was a moron, so it’s not as if people liked his positions. It seemed as if they liked his folksy style, right? So why not switch to another folksy moron like Rick Perry?
But Gingrich? Gingrich? Newt Gingrich? A thrice-married holier-than-thou mean-spirited self-indulgent crackpot with an ego the size of a Brontosaurus and a heart the size of a bedbug? This is the man who inherited the votes of the jovial Herman Cain? How? Why?
I loathe the very sight of this man, larded with complacency and bursting with self congratulation at every opportunity. The notion that Gingrich, with his bombastic historical pronouncements and disdainful political rhetoric, is some kind of “intellectual” or “genius” is ludicrous. What are they smoking over there in the GOP electorate? Have they been spending their time at my fantasy VIP airport lounge?
I guess I should be pleased at Newt’s rise to the top, given that I want Obama to win a second term. But it’s still disturbing. Who are these people, my fellow Americans, who would align themselves, first with Cain, then with Newt? I’m a good Democrat, and disagree with Republicans on the usual range of policy issues. I opposed Dole, Bush and McCain. But at least I understood why those on the other side of the aisle would nominate those men as their standard bearers.
As for Sarah Palin, once McCain made what was clearly an ill-conceived choice, Republicans had to go along. But if Republicans deliberately nominate Newt Gingrich, they will cross a line of political sanity and descend into dark waters indeed. I have to assume that when all is said and done, Romney or Huntsman will emerge victorious. That said, it’s not clear at this point how we’ll get from here to there. And I say “we” rather than “they” because a presidential nominee is in some ways an American issue regardless of party.
--
Something Will Kill You Someday
I just heard that apple juice has arsenic in it. Now that I think about it, it seems as if legal rations of things like arsenic and rat droppings are present in trace amounts in all sorts of comestibles, doesn’t it?
At some point, you just have to stop listening and stop reading. Cell phones give you brain cancer. Coffee saves you from liver cancer. Snoring leads to strokes. Apple juice has arsenic. Spinach has e-coli. The shopping cart has germs. My advice is to ignore the entire platter of health news with the exception of those pleasant surprises where you learn that something you already like or do turns out to be good for you. Drinking wine and getting eight hours of sleep are on my, relatively short, list. Oh, and dark chocolate.
--
So Sad
I see now that my space is running out, and I haven’t covered the limited amount of GLBT news on my list. But I can be forgiven here. Civil union couples in Illinois can file joint state taxes. Bisexual softball players are allowed to play in the gay softball league. People are making comments about stuff we’ve already covered and will continue to cover, like say, the effort to pass an antigay amendment in New Hampshire.
There’s also some violence, which depresses us all. And who needs that during the holidays! The governor of Massachusetts signed the trans rights bill that we wrote about last week or maybe the week before. So that’s good, but it’s not earth shattering. You get the picture. .
It’s the start of the Slow Season in GLBT news, a month-long period where the headlines turn from marriage equality legislation and gay soldiers to “Gay Man Denied Job as Elf” or “Brooklyn Lesbians Answer Children’s Letters to Santa.” Actually, we’ll probably have some news on our various DOMA cases in the next few weeks, so all is not lost. Speaking of gay soldiers, the Marine Commandant said that the repeal of Don’t Ask is going well, and while I got five emails on this exciting development, it was a non-story to me.
Meanwhile, I have recorded a half dozen episodes of my new favorite reality TV show, “Kitchen Nightmares,” which feature Chef Gordon Ramsey going around to horrible restaurants and transforming them into delightful eateries through insane ranting followed by compassionate encouragement.
I’ve already watched many of the shows, so I now find it hard to eat at a restaurant without hearing Ramsey’s voice in my ear. When some poor schmuck asks me how “everything tastes,” I have the urge to say, “it’s bland I’m afraid. Bland and mushy. Was it in a microwave?” After the shocked waiter leaves, I’d look at Mel, and simply say: “Sad.”
--
Ann’s column appears every week at sfbaytimes.com. She can be reached at arostow@aol.com
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
Prop 8 Case Back on the Fast Track
Week in Review
November 23, 2011
BY ANN ROSTOW
Prop 8 Case Back on the Fast Track
As you surely know by now, the California Supreme Court ruled Thursday that proponents of an initiative have the standing to defend their ballot measures in state court when the state declines to do so. The decision means that the Prop 8 case now returns to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, where the judges will almost certainly agree to recognize Prop 8 proponents in federal court.
The Ninth Circuit wasted no time in asking the parties to the Prop 8 case to file short (less than 20 pages) briefs on the implications of the California ruling within 14 days. In a one-paragraph order, the three-judge panel said no reply briefs or additional papers would be accepted, so it looks as if these guys are ready for quick action.
Although it’s possible that the Ninth Circuit could decide that Prop 8 proponents lack standing to appeal their lower court defeat in federal court, it’s highly unlikely. The California justices based their decision on the fact that both the governor and the attorney general refused to defend Prop 8, giving them an unofficial veto over the will of the people. In theory, the justices decided, state officials who dislike this or that ballot measure could effectively kill a measure after the fact simply by refusing to defend a court challenge.
Without getting into the court’s wisdom, or lack of same, let’s just note that the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized initiative backers for the purpose of federal law in the past, if and when they had the right under state law to represent the state. Prior to last Thursday, it was unclear if this was the situation in California, and indeed, the California Supremes could have awarded standing under a different legal theory.
Now, however, it looks as if the question of federal standing is effectively resolved, and it doesn’t sound as if our side wants to continue the standing battle through the appellate courts. Instead, we’re hearing comments about how everyone is looking forward to decision on the merits of the case. And you have to admit, even though the standing ruling is a technical “defeat” for our side, most of us are anxious to pursue the real question of whether California voters have the (federal) constitutional right to strip gay couples of their access to marriage.
By the way, last week I wrote that the original trial ruling in our favor was handed down in August of 2009, when in fact it was August of 2010. I’m sorry. All I can say is that it seemed like such a long long long time ago, I added a year to the delay without even stopping to think about it.
But look, things are moving again! And it’s hard (for me) to calculate just how quickly our case could play out. We’ve already had oral arguments on the merits of the case before the Ninth Circuit. Those took place last January or February. I forget. So will the Ninth Circuit hold additional arguments? Or will they cut to the chase and deliver a ruling on the merits at once? After all, they’ve had nearly a year to think about it, so for all we know they might have written out their main opinion in advance.
Alternatively, they might have sat on their hands throughout the spring and summer. I don’t know. But at least we may avoid another year of determining whether or not the Prop 8 backers have standing.
Even if the Ninth Circuit rules on the merits next month, we’re still facing appeals. The loser can appeal to the full court of the Ninth Circuit, or they can appeal directly to the U.S. Supreme Court. The latter course of action could, of course, be risky for our side. While it’s quite possible that the High Court could strike the constitutionally flawed Defense of Marriage Act, it’s far less certain that five justices would strike amendments like Prop 8 and thereby legalize same-sex marriage overnight throughout the nation.
But the Prop 8 case could also be decided on narrow terms. Federal appellate courts could say that voters may not strip existing rights from a class of citizens without a compelling non-discriminatory reason, thereby limiting the impact of the ruling to California (and maybe Maine).
Oh, it’s all so complicated! And there are other complexities that I haven’t even broached. The Ninth Circuit is also going to decide whether or not Judge Vaughn Walker should have recused himself from the lower court trial because of his sexual orientation. The answer to that will be no, and this distraction has been consolidated into the main case. Then there’s the question of whether or not trial video transcripts should be made public. I think a hearing is set for early December on that issue. Also, there’s the related matter of whether or not Prop 8 proponents have a right to anonymity. The answer to that last one is also no, but I’m not getting into the details. For heaven’s sake we’ve had enough of this, don’t you think? It’s almost Thanksgiving!
--
Cain Train Off the Rails
While I was blindly groping through the Internet for Prop 8 details I encountered a comment from Herman Cain, who was asked what he would do if the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional. Herman’s reply? He said he would work to “overturn” the High Court’s decision.
Say what? Does this moron have any idea how the judicial branch operates?
And why hasn’t this latest false step garnered any media attention? I suppose the media has basically written him off and disconnected his spotlight. Frankly, I can’t argue with that decision.
I’m not in the mood for actual news today. Instead, let me tell you that I have discovered my new political home thanks to an article in my favorite newspaper. (The Grey Lady of course.)
I’m now a member of the Cocktail Party! Try Cocktails for America dot com for details. The Cocktail Party is sort of joke, of course. But sort of serious. What does a cocktail represent after all? It represents a timeless moment that marks the end of work and the beginning of the evening. It’s a social phenomenon. If you’re by yourself, you’re not going to fix a “cocktail,” let alone get out the nuts or olives. It’s a convivial moment. It represents civility and fellowship, qualities that in today’s political circus seem in short supply.
Most of all, a cocktail changes one’s perspective. Gone are the tedious details of a quotidian workday. In their place, the languorous arcs of reflection and goodwill. Won’t you join me?
--
Equality No Longer Matters
Let’s see. Do you remember the big roll out of “Equality Matters,” the GLBT offshoot of Media Matters? Looks like that’s all she wrote for the short-lived communications think tank. It’s two main leaders, Richard Socarides and Kerry Eleveld are moving on to other activities, and speaking personally, I haven’t gotten a press release from Equality Matters for months.
In other news, the bill to give partner benefits to federal workers is back in Congress. It has a long official name, which I could look up. I would if I thought the measure had any chance of more than a symbolic committee hearing. Call me cynical, but I don’t think Capitol Hill is the venue for major victories in our valiant struggle for equal rights.
And the young psychopath who murdered gay classmate Larry King has pled guilty to manslaughter and was sentenced to 21 years in prison. Brandon McIreney made the plea deal to avoid another trial after jurors deadlocked on the first trial earlier this year. McIreney, who told authorities he was enraged by King’s effeminate antics, shot King in the back of the head during computer class.
How do you pronounce “short-lived,” by the way? I was taught that “live” in this context rhymes with five, not give. But there are those who differ. Interesting, n’est-ce pas? This is the sort of thing one discusses over cocktails. Ah cocktails. Mel is home today. Perhaps she could stir something up from the bar. After all, the day before Thanksgiving is something of a holiday, so cocktail hour rules are suspended. I’ll ask her.
She said yes! She is making me a surprise. Yay!
--
Cocktails for Me
Yum. Gin and tonic with a slice of one of the pineapple oranges that we picked up from a farm stand in the Rio Grande valley on our way back from a funeral yesterday. Our friend’s mother died. We will miss her, as we miss the others in her generation who continue to slip away. The worst part for us baby boomers? We’re next.
My latest cyber surfing session alerted me to the town of Huarney, Peru, where the mayor says strontium in the tap water makes you gay. This is the explanation for the reportedly high percentage of gay men who reside in the village, although so-called scientists insist the connection is bogus. Scientists are no fun at all. Talk about thinking inside the box.
I also read that major league baseball has decided to ban sexual orientation discrimination, which is nice. Too bad we can’t ban prejudice.
And I am grateful for reader input on the issue of violence in ducks. Last week I wondered aloud why a sports team would select such a passive mascot. A duck? Really?
According to Chas Belov, male ducks are notorious for sexually assaulting their female counterparts. At Mr. Belov’s suggestion, I googled “duck rape,” only to encounter a horrific series of articles confirming the habits of what I can only now describe as a brutal species.
I also revisited the story of the necrophiliac homosexual duck from the Netherlands. In all modesty, it is a tribute to this column that we covered the necrophiliac homosexual duck six years ago, when Dutch researcher Kees Moeliker won the Ig Nobel award for his observations. But, as I’m sure you’ll agree, the incident bears repeating.
Moeliker was in his Rotterdam lab when he heard a thud against the glass. Outside the office, he discovered the body of a male mallard lying on the ground. The corpse was soon accosted by another male, who proceeded to copulate with the remains “with great force” for over an hour while Dr. Moeliker took notes. The perverse duck also pecked at his dead victim’s head throughout the encounter. Shameless!
--
A Gay Tarentella
I’m on a more exacting word count these days, and as such, I have no choice but to end this column with an extra hundred or so words of random musing. It’s not enough space to encompass a new GLBT news story, even if I had another good one up my sleeve. But it’s just enough to complain about a TV commercial, one of my favorite subjects.
The latest commercial to really annoy me is the “logistics’ ad, with the profoundly irritating theme, sung to the tune of “That’s Amore.” Here’s the root of my objection:
When you use a word, or use a song, or use an image, you have to incorporate the underlying sense and feeling into your message. This song has lyrics like: “When the moon hits your eye like a big pizza pie, that’s amore!” It’s an inherent non sequitor to use its music for a UPS ad. It’s wrong. More than that, it’s intellectually sloppy and it nags at people who are left with a vague sensation that the commercial doesn’t quite work. I say “vague” because most people don’t pay close attention to TV ads, they just know that the spot is bothersome in an ill defined way. At least, that’s how I felt until I took the time to analyze my instinctive revulsion.
And now, on to Thanksiving. I’ll start by thanking you for reading.
--
Ann’s column appears every week at sfbaytimes.com. She can be reached at arostow@aol.com
November 23, 2011
BY ANN ROSTOW
Prop 8 Case Back on the Fast Track
As you surely know by now, the California Supreme Court ruled Thursday that proponents of an initiative have the standing to defend their ballot measures in state court when the state declines to do so. The decision means that the Prop 8 case now returns to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, where the judges will almost certainly agree to recognize Prop 8 proponents in federal court.
The Ninth Circuit wasted no time in asking the parties to the Prop 8 case to file short (less than 20 pages) briefs on the implications of the California ruling within 14 days. In a one-paragraph order, the three-judge panel said no reply briefs or additional papers would be accepted, so it looks as if these guys are ready for quick action.
Although it’s possible that the Ninth Circuit could decide that Prop 8 proponents lack standing to appeal their lower court defeat in federal court, it’s highly unlikely. The California justices based their decision on the fact that both the governor and the attorney general refused to defend Prop 8, giving them an unofficial veto over the will of the people. In theory, the justices decided, state officials who dislike this or that ballot measure could effectively kill a measure after the fact simply by refusing to defend a court challenge.
Without getting into the court’s wisdom, or lack of same, let’s just note that the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized initiative backers for the purpose of federal law in the past, if and when they had the right under state law to represent the state. Prior to last Thursday, it was unclear if this was the situation in California, and indeed, the California Supremes could have awarded standing under a different legal theory.
Now, however, it looks as if the question of federal standing is effectively resolved, and it doesn’t sound as if our side wants to continue the standing battle through the appellate courts. Instead, we’re hearing comments about how everyone is looking forward to decision on the merits of the case. And you have to admit, even though the standing ruling is a technical “defeat” for our side, most of us are anxious to pursue the real question of whether California voters have the (federal) constitutional right to strip gay couples of their access to marriage.
By the way, last week I wrote that the original trial ruling in our favor was handed down in August of 2009, when in fact it was August of 2010. I’m sorry. All I can say is that it seemed like such a long long long time ago, I added a year to the delay without even stopping to think about it.
But look, things are moving again! And it’s hard (for me) to calculate just how quickly our case could play out. We’ve already had oral arguments on the merits of the case before the Ninth Circuit. Those took place last January or February. I forget. So will the Ninth Circuit hold additional arguments? Or will they cut to the chase and deliver a ruling on the merits at once? After all, they’ve had nearly a year to think about it, so for all we know they might have written out their main opinion in advance.
Alternatively, they might have sat on their hands throughout the spring and summer. I don’t know. But at least we may avoid another year of determining whether or not the Prop 8 backers have standing.
Even if the Ninth Circuit rules on the merits next month, we’re still facing appeals. The loser can appeal to the full court of the Ninth Circuit, or they can appeal directly to the U.S. Supreme Court. The latter course of action could, of course, be risky for our side. While it’s quite possible that the High Court could strike the constitutionally flawed Defense of Marriage Act, it’s far less certain that five justices would strike amendments like Prop 8 and thereby legalize same-sex marriage overnight throughout the nation.
But the Prop 8 case could also be decided on narrow terms. Federal appellate courts could say that voters may not strip existing rights from a class of citizens without a compelling non-discriminatory reason, thereby limiting the impact of the ruling to California (and maybe Maine).
Oh, it’s all so complicated! And there are other complexities that I haven’t even broached. The Ninth Circuit is also going to decide whether or not Judge Vaughn Walker should have recused himself from the lower court trial because of his sexual orientation. The answer to that will be no, and this distraction has been consolidated into the main case. Then there’s the question of whether or not trial video transcripts should be made public. I think a hearing is set for early December on that issue. Also, there’s the related matter of whether or not Prop 8 proponents have a right to anonymity. The answer to that last one is also no, but I’m not getting into the details. For heaven’s sake we’ve had enough of this, don’t you think? It’s almost Thanksgiving!
--
Cain Train Off the Rails
While I was blindly groping through the Internet for Prop 8 details I encountered a comment from Herman Cain, who was asked what he would do if the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional. Herman’s reply? He said he would work to “overturn” the High Court’s decision.
Say what? Does this moron have any idea how the judicial branch operates?
And why hasn’t this latest false step garnered any media attention? I suppose the media has basically written him off and disconnected his spotlight. Frankly, I can’t argue with that decision.
I’m not in the mood for actual news today. Instead, let me tell you that I have discovered my new political home thanks to an article in my favorite newspaper. (The Grey Lady of course.)
I’m now a member of the Cocktail Party! Try Cocktails for America dot com for details. The Cocktail Party is sort of joke, of course. But sort of serious. What does a cocktail represent after all? It represents a timeless moment that marks the end of work and the beginning of the evening. It’s a social phenomenon. If you’re by yourself, you’re not going to fix a “cocktail,” let alone get out the nuts or olives. It’s a convivial moment. It represents civility and fellowship, qualities that in today’s political circus seem in short supply.
Most of all, a cocktail changes one’s perspective. Gone are the tedious details of a quotidian workday. In their place, the languorous arcs of reflection and goodwill. Won’t you join me?
--
Equality No Longer Matters
Let’s see. Do you remember the big roll out of “Equality Matters,” the GLBT offshoot of Media Matters? Looks like that’s all she wrote for the short-lived communications think tank. It’s two main leaders, Richard Socarides and Kerry Eleveld are moving on to other activities, and speaking personally, I haven’t gotten a press release from Equality Matters for months.
In other news, the bill to give partner benefits to federal workers is back in Congress. It has a long official name, which I could look up. I would if I thought the measure had any chance of more than a symbolic committee hearing. Call me cynical, but I don’t think Capitol Hill is the venue for major victories in our valiant struggle for equal rights.
And the young psychopath who murdered gay classmate Larry King has pled guilty to manslaughter and was sentenced to 21 years in prison. Brandon McIreney made the plea deal to avoid another trial after jurors deadlocked on the first trial earlier this year. McIreney, who told authorities he was enraged by King’s effeminate antics, shot King in the back of the head during computer class.
How do you pronounce “short-lived,” by the way? I was taught that “live” in this context rhymes with five, not give. But there are those who differ. Interesting, n’est-ce pas? This is the sort of thing one discusses over cocktails. Ah cocktails. Mel is home today. Perhaps she could stir something up from the bar. After all, the day before Thanksgiving is something of a holiday, so cocktail hour rules are suspended. I’ll ask her.
She said yes! She is making me a surprise. Yay!
--
Cocktails for Me
Yum. Gin and tonic with a slice of one of the pineapple oranges that we picked up from a farm stand in the Rio Grande valley on our way back from a funeral yesterday. Our friend’s mother died. We will miss her, as we miss the others in her generation who continue to slip away. The worst part for us baby boomers? We’re next.
My latest cyber surfing session alerted me to the town of Huarney, Peru, where the mayor says strontium in the tap water makes you gay. This is the explanation for the reportedly high percentage of gay men who reside in the village, although so-called scientists insist the connection is bogus. Scientists are no fun at all. Talk about thinking inside the box.
I also read that major league baseball has decided to ban sexual orientation discrimination, which is nice. Too bad we can’t ban prejudice.
And I am grateful for reader input on the issue of violence in ducks. Last week I wondered aloud why a sports team would select such a passive mascot. A duck? Really?
According to Chas Belov, male ducks are notorious for sexually assaulting their female counterparts. At Mr. Belov’s suggestion, I googled “duck rape,” only to encounter a horrific series of articles confirming the habits of what I can only now describe as a brutal species.
I also revisited the story of the necrophiliac homosexual duck from the Netherlands. In all modesty, it is a tribute to this column that we covered the necrophiliac homosexual duck six years ago, when Dutch researcher Kees Moeliker won the Ig Nobel award for his observations. But, as I’m sure you’ll agree, the incident bears repeating.
Moeliker was in his Rotterdam lab when he heard a thud against the glass. Outside the office, he discovered the body of a male mallard lying on the ground. The corpse was soon accosted by another male, who proceeded to copulate with the remains “with great force” for over an hour while Dr. Moeliker took notes. The perverse duck also pecked at his dead victim’s head throughout the encounter. Shameless!
--
A Gay Tarentella
I’m on a more exacting word count these days, and as such, I have no choice but to end this column with an extra hundred or so words of random musing. It’s not enough space to encompass a new GLBT news story, even if I had another good one up my sleeve. But it’s just enough to complain about a TV commercial, one of my favorite subjects.
The latest commercial to really annoy me is the “logistics’ ad, with the profoundly irritating theme, sung to the tune of “That’s Amore.” Here’s the root of my objection:
When you use a word, or use a song, or use an image, you have to incorporate the underlying sense and feeling into your message. This song has lyrics like: “When the moon hits your eye like a big pizza pie, that’s amore!” It’s an inherent non sequitor to use its music for a UPS ad. It’s wrong. More than that, it’s intellectually sloppy and it nags at people who are left with a vague sensation that the commercial doesn’t quite work. I say “vague” because most people don’t pay close attention to TV ads, they just know that the spot is bothersome in an ill defined way. At least, that’s how I felt until I took the time to analyze my instinctive revulsion.
And now, on to Thanksiving. I’ll start by thanking you for reading.
--
Ann’s column appears every week at sfbaytimes.com. She can be reached at arostow@aol.com
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
California Supremes To Rule Thursday on Prop 8 Standing
Week in Review
November 16, 2011
BY ANN ROSTOW
California Supremes To Rule Thursday on Prop 8 Standing
At last, our long trek through the wilderness is coming to an end. On Thursday November 17, the California Supreme Court will issue a decision on the technicality that has stalled the Prop 8 lawsuit for nearly a year.
In August of 2009, Judge Vaughn Walker ruled that Prop 8, the law that rolled back marriage rights for California’s same-sex couples, was unconstitutional. Perhaps you remember our excitement at the time. Or perhaps the moment has receded into the misty haze bygone days.
After Judge Walker’s ruling, the lawsuit advanced to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. But there was hitch. Since the State of California had refused to defend Prop 8 from the start, Judge Walker had allowed the initiative’s proponents to fight for their marriage ban in court.
But having lost, did these proponents have the legal standing to appeal their defeat under federal law? The Ninth Circuit wasn’t sure.
For that matter, the Ninth Circuit wasn’t sure if proponents had any standing under state law, which might shed some light on their standing under federal law. Hmmm. What to do? How about sending the whole question of standing under state law over to the California Supreme Court for an analysis? Indeed that’s what the Ninth Circuit did, and now after many months, it seems the California court is about to answer.
The good news is that whatever the outcome, the ball now returns to the Ninth Circuit’s court, where the real action takes place. The bad news is that the question of standing under federal law could, in theory, consume a great deal more time. It could even go up to the U.S. Supreme Court and back down to the Ninth Circuit before we even reach the main issue of whether Prop 8 is constitutional.
Indeed, if standing is denied we many never reach that issue through the mechanism of this particular lawsuit. We could simply see Judge Walker’s ruling finally take effect, ending marriage discrimination (again) in the Golden State.
--
Who Moved My Truffle
I suppose we should all raise a glass to the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee, who voted to advance the Respect for Marriage Act last Thursday. The bill, which repeals the Defense of Marriage Act, passed the committee by a 10-8 party line vote, but short of a miracle it will go no further.
Still, it’s preferable to make some progress on the national legislative level than none. I’ll bet dollars to dimes that DOMA will be declared unconstitutional by the courts before Congress ever takes a stand in our favor. But at least the issue is on the side burner over there.
Speaking of DOMA and the courts, there have been a ton of friend of the court briefs flying around our various lawsuits. I haven’t read any of them, but it seems as if I’m in good company. According to the New York Times, the Supreme Court justices don’t read amicus briefs either, leaving the unwieldy task to their law clerks. As Justice Scalia put it, the clerks can always recommend a brief if it contains “a hidden truffle.”
I’m not Scalia fan, but you’ve got to admit that the man can handle a metaphor.
--
RIP Barbara Grier
So, lesbian publisher Barbara Grier died of cancer the other day at 78. Baby boomer lesbians owe a debt to the founder of Naiad Press, who delivered romantic fiction that didn’t end with suicide or heartbreak.
Back in the day, in addition to regular discrimination, gay men and women endured pervasive cultural damage to the psyche delivered through the tragic gay characters in film and print. Strangely, it was some small comfort to read The Well of Loneliness or watch Boys in the Band, just for a glimpse of gay life midway through the book or movie. Then came the inevitable denouement. It came when the “heroine” came to her senses and ran off with the farmhand. Or when the “hero” turned on his friends in disgust and went back to his wife. Or maybe when the gay person just committed suicide.
Let me be clear. Every fictional account ended this way, bar none. And we all watched and read this stuff anyway! Because it was all there was. And something was better than nothing. Weird when you think about it.
Grier helped put an end to this sad, sick depiction of homosexuality. I don’t remember any particular titles, save one. She had a real best seller in “Lesbian Nuns, Breaking Silence,” which I suspect became a must read for many in the straight community as well. I mean, who doesn’t love the idea of lesbian nuns? The book, based on true accounts, was condemned by the Catholic Church and according to Grier’s obituary, sold several hundred thousand copies.
--
Generation Ick
I was just dutifully reading about Catholic bishops and their argument that religious exemptions need to be attached to gay rights laws when my concentration lapsed and I caught a glimpse of a headline reading: “Vodka soaked tampons are everywhere!”
I’m ashamed to say that I immediately stopped reading about the bishops and clicked onto the revelatory link. They’re everywhere? Who knew? Kids these days!
Apparently, a super tampon can soak up a whole shot of vodka, which one can then “enjoy” if that’s the right word for it, without risking the scent of alcohol on one’s breath. There’s a guys’ version of this unusual delivery system called “butt chugging.” Hmmmm. The news story indicated that urban legend researchers have been checking to see if this is a real phenomenon, and the results are “inconclusive.” But a CBS report out of Arizona, which said it had “jaws dropping throughout our newsroom,” quoted some school and medical officials confirming the trend.
The “danger” is that you can overdose on alcohol without knowing it in this fashion, but come on, you’d have to have a dozen tampons right? So surely, you’d know that you might get caught. And teenagers are wily, if I recall my own high school days.
Everything kids do is possibly dangerous, which is why these early years comprise a crucible of teaching moments which we look back on with a mixture of fondness and astonishment at our own idiocy. Why should this generation be any different?
It may not have occurred to us to soak tampons in alcohol, but we did take fistfuls of caffeine pills for a speedy thrill, and I remember when Nanette Navarre sprained her arm and wound up with a prescription for some mega painkillers that we all shared. Then there was the time my friends and I went through my parents’ medicine cabinet and just tried a few items at random to see what happened. For your information, gout remedies and estrogen supplements have no effect in small quantities. Hell, it was worth a try.
Mainly, we just drank and smoked stuff and chewed pine needles to disguise our breath. Old fashioned perhaps. More fun than butt chugging for sure.
--
Bad Lesbians, No Cake
Where were we? The Catholic bishops? Let’s all pause for a group sigh. My plan was to launch another essay on the perils of religious exemptions to civil rights laws. For example, you’ll be pleased to know that the Michigan lawmakers have dropped the egregious loophole that they tore out of a proposed bullying law. The loophole would have allowed harassers to drive truckloads of bigotry through the concept of protecting kids, simply by announcing that their conduct was based on a sincere (religious) belief that the victim was, um, a sinful pervert. Please.
Then, I also had an antigay bakery out of Iowa where the owner refused to make a wedding cake for two women based on her “Christian” beliefs. You know the story. This particular do-gooder insisted that she was not against gay people and loved everyone. Nonetheless, her faith demanded that she refuse to do business with a lesbian couple. Huh? How can you say that with a straight face?
Good news, if you’ll excuse the expression. I just deleted several paragraphs about the false connection between faith and gay bias because I think we’ve discussed this ad nauseum.
--
From Sea to Shining Sea
Let’s see what else. It looks as if state lawmakers in Washington plan to go for a marriage equality bill in 2012. It may or may not have the votes to pass the state senate, but they’re giving it a shot.
I already told you that activists in Maine are putting a marriage equality measure on the 2012 ballot. And things are looking up in Maryland, where the conventional wisdom said that our side bungled the unsuccessful attempt to pass marriage equality earlier this year. The head of Equality Maryland resigned under a cloud at the time, but they’ve just installed a new director, veteran state activist Carrie Evans, who says “the stars are aligned” for a marriage bill to pass next year.
Meanwhile, on Wednesday, Marylanders for Marriage Equality, the umbrella group fighting for same-sex couples, announced it has hired Democratic Party activist Travis Tazelaar to oversee the field operations for the upcoming effort.
While we’re at it, Basic Oregon has determined that they lack the support and resources to fight for marriage at the ballot box, so the Duck State will stay out of the limelight next year.
Why name a sports team after a non-violent water fowl? And why a “duck” in particular, which conjures up a cowardly effort to avoid injury?
--
Trans Progress
Before we discuss the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, I have a friend, who shall go unnamed, to thank for news that sex with animals can double your chances of getting penis cancer.
The story was illustrated with a close up of a very sweet looking cow, which made me feel bad. Poor cow. If not headed for rape, then probably off to the slaughterhouse. It’s a good thing for most of us that we can compartmentalize our love for steaks and don’t have to confront the adorable animals who give their lives for a nice rare bone-in ribeye.
But I digress. Reading closely, I noted that the “study,” published in the Journal of Sexual Medicine, was based on a survey of 118 men with penis cancer and 374 healthy ones. So exactly how many of these men actually had sex with an animal? One? Three?
Guys? Play it safe, OK?
Shaun Donovan, the aforementioned HUD Secretary, delivered a great speech at the National Center for Transgender Equality dinner confirming the administration’s commitment to trans rights, in addition to LGBT rights in general.
Donovan highlighted new proposed regulations that would make sure transpeople and transgender couples will be eligible for public housing voucher programs without having to jump through hoops. One woman, Donovan said, tried to add her transman partner to her housing voucher only to be flatly denied. The housing authority told her to apply instead to a neighborhood organization, because they accept everyone, “even Martians.”
There’s some good news as well in Massachusetts, where a trans rights bill is one small step away from becoming law. The bill has one more pro-forma vote in the legislature, and Governor Deval Patrick has pledged to sign it.
And in North Carolina, a transwoman has won a lengthy fight with her insurance company, with the help of the Transgender Legal Defense and Education Fund. Lina Kok, 47, was denied salary compensation for a short medical leave based on the notion that her facial reconstruction surgery was a cosmetic procedure. After several appeals, the company finally acknowledged that the surgery was indeed a crucial part of her medical transition.
Finally, I was about to indulge in a little Bachmann bashing to end this column, but I have run out of space and can’t tell you about how Marcus Bachmann (Michele’s hubby) called up a gay activist to threaten him about an unpaid bill at the family’s Christian counseling clinic. Check out the Truth Wins Out website for the details. Me? I’m going to fix myself a gin and tonic tampon.
November 16, 2011
BY ANN ROSTOW
California Supremes To Rule Thursday on Prop 8 Standing
At last, our long trek through the wilderness is coming to an end. On Thursday November 17, the California Supreme Court will issue a decision on the technicality that has stalled the Prop 8 lawsuit for nearly a year.
In August of 2009, Judge Vaughn Walker ruled that Prop 8, the law that rolled back marriage rights for California’s same-sex couples, was unconstitutional. Perhaps you remember our excitement at the time. Or perhaps the moment has receded into the misty haze bygone days.
After Judge Walker’s ruling, the lawsuit advanced to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. But there was hitch. Since the State of California had refused to defend Prop 8 from the start, Judge Walker had allowed the initiative’s proponents to fight for their marriage ban in court.
But having lost, did these proponents have the legal standing to appeal their defeat under federal law? The Ninth Circuit wasn’t sure.
For that matter, the Ninth Circuit wasn’t sure if proponents had any standing under state law, which might shed some light on their standing under federal law. Hmmm. What to do? How about sending the whole question of standing under state law over to the California Supreme Court for an analysis? Indeed that’s what the Ninth Circuit did, and now after many months, it seems the California court is about to answer.
The good news is that whatever the outcome, the ball now returns to the Ninth Circuit’s court, where the real action takes place. The bad news is that the question of standing under federal law could, in theory, consume a great deal more time. It could even go up to the U.S. Supreme Court and back down to the Ninth Circuit before we even reach the main issue of whether Prop 8 is constitutional.
Indeed, if standing is denied we many never reach that issue through the mechanism of this particular lawsuit. We could simply see Judge Walker’s ruling finally take effect, ending marriage discrimination (again) in the Golden State.
--
Who Moved My Truffle
I suppose we should all raise a glass to the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee, who voted to advance the Respect for Marriage Act last Thursday. The bill, which repeals the Defense of Marriage Act, passed the committee by a 10-8 party line vote, but short of a miracle it will go no further.
Still, it’s preferable to make some progress on the national legislative level than none. I’ll bet dollars to dimes that DOMA will be declared unconstitutional by the courts before Congress ever takes a stand in our favor. But at least the issue is on the side burner over there.
Speaking of DOMA and the courts, there have been a ton of friend of the court briefs flying around our various lawsuits. I haven’t read any of them, but it seems as if I’m in good company. According to the New York Times, the Supreme Court justices don’t read amicus briefs either, leaving the unwieldy task to their law clerks. As Justice Scalia put it, the clerks can always recommend a brief if it contains “a hidden truffle.”
I’m not Scalia fan, but you’ve got to admit that the man can handle a metaphor.
--
RIP Barbara Grier
So, lesbian publisher Barbara Grier died of cancer the other day at 78. Baby boomer lesbians owe a debt to the founder of Naiad Press, who delivered romantic fiction that didn’t end with suicide or heartbreak.
Back in the day, in addition to regular discrimination, gay men and women endured pervasive cultural damage to the psyche delivered through the tragic gay characters in film and print. Strangely, it was some small comfort to read The Well of Loneliness or watch Boys in the Band, just for a glimpse of gay life midway through the book or movie. Then came the inevitable denouement. It came when the “heroine” came to her senses and ran off with the farmhand. Or when the “hero” turned on his friends in disgust and went back to his wife. Or maybe when the gay person just committed suicide.
Let me be clear. Every fictional account ended this way, bar none. And we all watched and read this stuff anyway! Because it was all there was. And something was better than nothing. Weird when you think about it.
Grier helped put an end to this sad, sick depiction of homosexuality. I don’t remember any particular titles, save one. She had a real best seller in “Lesbian Nuns, Breaking Silence,” which I suspect became a must read for many in the straight community as well. I mean, who doesn’t love the idea of lesbian nuns? The book, based on true accounts, was condemned by the Catholic Church and according to Grier’s obituary, sold several hundred thousand copies.
--
Generation Ick
I was just dutifully reading about Catholic bishops and their argument that religious exemptions need to be attached to gay rights laws when my concentration lapsed and I caught a glimpse of a headline reading: “Vodka soaked tampons are everywhere!”
I’m ashamed to say that I immediately stopped reading about the bishops and clicked onto the revelatory link. They’re everywhere? Who knew? Kids these days!
Apparently, a super tampon can soak up a whole shot of vodka, which one can then “enjoy” if that’s the right word for it, without risking the scent of alcohol on one’s breath. There’s a guys’ version of this unusual delivery system called “butt chugging.” Hmmmm. The news story indicated that urban legend researchers have been checking to see if this is a real phenomenon, and the results are “inconclusive.” But a CBS report out of Arizona, which said it had “jaws dropping throughout our newsroom,” quoted some school and medical officials confirming the trend.
The “danger” is that you can overdose on alcohol without knowing it in this fashion, but come on, you’d have to have a dozen tampons right? So surely, you’d know that you might get caught. And teenagers are wily, if I recall my own high school days.
Everything kids do is possibly dangerous, which is why these early years comprise a crucible of teaching moments which we look back on with a mixture of fondness and astonishment at our own idiocy. Why should this generation be any different?
It may not have occurred to us to soak tampons in alcohol, but we did take fistfuls of caffeine pills for a speedy thrill, and I remember when Nanette Navarre sprained her arm and wound up with a prescription for some mega painkillers that we all shared. Then there was the time my friends and I went through my parents’ medicine cabinet and just tried a few items at random to see what happened. For your information, gout remedies and estrogen supplements have no effect in small quantities. Hell, it was worth a try.
Mainly, we just drank and smoked stuff and chewed pine needles to disguise our breath. Old fashioned perhaps. More fun than butt chugging for sure.
--
Bad Lesbians, No Cake
Where were we? The Catholic bishops? Let’s all pause for a group sigh. My plan was to launch another essay on the perils of religious exemptions to civil rights laws. For example, you’ll be pleased to know that the Michigan lawmakers have dropped the egregious loophole that they tore out of a proposed bullying law. The loophole would have allowed harassers to drive truckloads of bigotry through the concept of protecting kids, simply by announcing that their conduct was based on a sincere (religious) belief that the victim was, um, a sinful pervert. Please.
Then, I also had an antigay bakery out of Iowa where the owner refused to make a wedding cake for two women based on her “Christian” beliefs. You know the story. This particular do-gooder insisted that she was not against gay people and loved everyone. Nonetheless, her faith demanded that she refuse to do business with a lesbian couple. Huh? How can you say that with a straight face?
Good news, if you’ll excuse the expression. I just deleted several paragraphs about the false connection between faith and gay bias because I think we’ve discussed this ad nauseum.
--
From Sea to Shining Sea
Let’s see what else. It looks as if state lawmakers in Washington plan to go for a marriage equality bill in 2012. It may or may not have the votes to pass the state senate, but they’re giving it a shot.
I already told you that activists in Maine are putting a marriage equality measure on the 2012 ballot. And things are looking up in Maryland, where the conventional wisdom said that our side bungled the unsuccessful attempt to pass marriage equality earlier this year. The head of Equality Maryland resigned under a cloud at the time, but they’ve just installed a new director, veteran state activist Carrie Evans, who says “the stars are aligned” for a marriage bill to pass next year.
Meanwhile, on Wednesday, Marylanders for Marriage Equality, the umbrella group fighting for same-sex couples, announced it has hired Democratic Party activist Travis Tazelaar to oversee the field operations for the upcoming effort.
While we’re at it, Basic Oregon has determined that they lack the support and resources to fight for marriage at the ballot box, so the Duck State will stay out of the limelight next year.
Why name a sports team after a non-violent water fowl? And why a “duck” in particular, which conjures up a cowardly effort to avoid injury?
--
Trans Progress
Before we discuss the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, I have a friend, who shall go unnamed, to thank for news that sex with animals can double your chances of getting penis cancer.
The story was illustrated with a close up of a very sweet looking cow, which made me feel bad. Poor cow. If not headed for rape, then probably off to the slaughterhouse. It’s a good thing for most of us that we can compartmentalize our love for steaks and don’t have to confront the adorable animals who give their lives for a nice rare bone-in ribeye.
But I digress. Reading closely, I noted that the “study,” published in the Journal of Sexual Medicine, was based on a survey of 118 men with penis cancer and 374 healthy ones. So exactly how many of these men actually had sex with an animal? One? Three?
Guys? Play it safe, OK?
Shaun Donovan, the aforementioned HUD Secretary, delivered a great speech at the National Center for Transgender Equality dinner confirming the administration’s commitment to trans rights, in addition to LGBT rights in general.
Donovan highlighted new proposed regulations that would make sure transpeople and transgender couples will be eligible for public housing voucher programs without having to jump through hoops. One woman, Donovan said, tried to add her transman partner to her housing voucher only to be flatly denied. The housing authority told her to apply instead to a neighborhood organization, because they accept everyone, “even Martians.”
There’s some good news as well in Massachusetts, where a trans rights bill is one small step away from becoming law. The bill has one more pro-forma vote in the legislature, and Governor Deval Patrick has pledged to sign it.
And in North Carolina, a transwoman has won a lengthy fight with her insurance company, with the help of the Transgender Legal Defense and Education Fund. Lina Kok, 47, was denied salary compensation for a short medical leave based on the notion that her facial reconstruction surgery was a cosmetic procedure. After several appeals, the company finally acknowledged that the surgery was indeed a crucial part of her medical transition.
Finally, I was about to indulge in a little Bachmann bashing to end this column, but I have run out of space and can’t tell you about how Marcus Bachmann (Michele’s hubby) called up a gay activist to threaten him about an unpaid bill at the family’s Christian counseling clinic. Check out the Truth Wins Out website for the details. Me? I’m going to fix myself a gin and tonic tampon.
Thursday, November 10, 2011
Victory in Iowa May Have Saved Marriage
Week In Review
November 9, 2011
BY ANN ROSTOW
Victory in Iowa May Have Saved Marriage
Great news everyone. The Iowa state senate remains in Democratic hands, ergo, marriage equality is safe in the Caucus State for the near term. Liz Mathis won the special election for an empty seat that could have tied the state senate and led to an antigay marriage amendment down the road. Yay!
But speaking of marriage equality and Iowa, two married women are now fighting the state for the simple right to have both their names entered on their daughter’s birth certificate.
I know we’ve covered a number of birth certificate cases in the past, but this one is different. It’s not the usual matter of trying to get a revised certificate for an adopted child, something that’s done routinely for straight adoptive parents. This is a married couple having a child. I think we can assume that the non-birth mother did not make a genetic contribution to the baby’s makeup, but so what? Husbands get added to the birth certificate automatically, even in situations where the man is infertile, and no one questions the assumption that a married couple are the legal parents of their own child regardless of how he or she was conceived.
In Iowa, obviously, same-sex marriage is legal and the high court has mandated equal treatment for gay and straight couples. So why leave the second Mom’s name off the child’s first and most significant legal document? Lambda Legal argued the case on behalf of Melissa and Heather Gartner last Monday.
--
The Gay Place
I dutifully watched Glee last night to see the big sex scene. Tastefully done in my opinion. I’m a little over Glee frankly. Too much singing. Weird plot lines. And I don’t like the smarmy teacher who runs the club, or his wimpy girlfriend. My favorite character is the butchy, but straight, female football coach. And Jane Lynch of course.
To be honest, after swearing that I would watch Glee, I forgot all about it. Mel and I went out to dinner instead and stopped by Austin’s signature gay bar for a nightcap. There, we found about ten guys sitting on stools watching a bank of TV sets all showing Glee with the sound on, nursing exotic cocktails and singing along with West Side Story.
Did you watch it? There was a scene in which the boys acquired fake IDs and went dancing at a dimly lit gay bar. I couldn’t help but look around at my own gay bar where instead of dancing and cruising, we were all watching a sit com. Ah reality.
Sing with me: “Make of our hearts, one heart…”
--
Respect!
So, I suppose the big news this week is that the Senate Judiciary Committee is going to take on the Respect For Marriage Act on Thursday. RESMA, as I have decided to call it, would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, and is expected to advance to an uncertain fate on the Senate floor at some point.
Over in the House, as you know, John Boehner and his GOP colleagues are busy defending DOMA in court, so we know for a fact that RESMA has zero chance of emerging from this, or any other GOP-led, Congress. Still, it’s always nice to see our issues get a brief turn in the legislative spotlight on Capitol Hill.
That said, I have little interest in symbolic developments. How many times has my inbox been filled with breathless announcements about the Employment Nondiscrimination Act coming up for a hearing or a mark up or whatever? A zillion times. I counted. Whatever happened to ENDA anyway? I haven’t heard a peep lately, which I guess is good. As I’ve written before, I hate ENDA and think our activists should drop the useless anachronism and try instead to add sexual orientation to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
--
Stroke Away the Straight
Moving on, I’ve just been reading about a straight man from Wales who had a traumatic brain accident and woke up gay. It’s true! I thought it was a joke, but apparently it’s not. Chris Birch, 26, was an 18-stone rugby player who worked for a bank and was about to get married when he tried, and failed, to show off to his “mates” with a back flip. If memory serves, a stone is 14 pounds, so you can do the math.
Upon recovery from his mangled acrobatics, Birch decided he hated his old life. He dumped his fiancé, quit the bank, trained to be a hairdresser, lost eight stone, and hooked up with a 19-year-old boyfriend.
Doctors can’t say whether Birch was gay to begin with or whether the accident triggered a shift, but well, the brain is a mysterious thing. His injury is described as a “stroke,” although it’s also clear that he broke his neck during the missed flip. I suppose the broken neck cut circulation to his brain or something.
Hmmm. I thought gayness was hormonal, didn’t you?
I found the gay stroke victim while I was searching for details on a ruling out of New Jersey on Lambda’s latest marriage lawsuit. Happily for most readers, I could not locate the text of the judge’s opinion, but the bottom line is that she refused to dismiss the suit, allowing Lambda to continue its challenge to the Garden State’s pathetic civil union law. Lambda is trying to prove that civil unions are not equal to marriage. As such, they do not satisfy the New Jersey Supreme Court’s 2005 ruling that mandated equality for same-sex couples.
--
More Gay Penguins
I’m hungry and thirsty and not interested in bullying or drivers licenses or nondiscrimination laws that may or may not be instituted in Topeka. Checking my news list, it seems I could also discuss gay penguins about to be cruelly separated by mean zookeepers. Or, I can tell you that the IRS has decided to allow a deduction for sex reassignment treatment.
But I’d rather have a nice lunch, a la francaise, sitting outside at a table under an umbrella in Trouville. I’d have mussels, a baguette and a bottle of Muscadet sur lies. With a tarte tatin and a Calva for dessert. I’d sit and watch the Channel traffic, leaving behind all the trials and tribulations of the GLBT community. After lunch, I’d wander down the street and play some blackjack. Then, I’d take a nap.
I do have frozen mussels and a bottle of sauvignon blanc. I could have that with some sandwich bread, look at my back yard for awhile and then play internet poker. But it’s not quite what I had in mind.
The gay penguins, by the way, are part of an endangered sub-species and are being encouraged to procreate at the Toronto Zoo. It’s sad, but I suppose all of us would suck it up and do our duty if the survival of the human race were at stake. Plus, the good news is that Pedro and Buddy will be reunited once their critical assignments are complete.
As for the bullying story, it seems that the Michigan state legislature is intent on passing a law that will discourage school harassment, unless the harasser is acting out of a sincerely held religious belief.
Thanks but no thanks, says the GLBT community in the Mitten State. For God’s sake! It’s better to have no law at all than a statute that specifically exonerates faith-based bullying. I recently wrote a brilliant essay on the subject of religious exceptions to civil rights laws, but I can’t remember if I already rehashed those observations in this column, and if so, I don’t want to repeat myself.
Let’s just say that there’s no legitimate “religious belief” that justifies gay bashing, period. And we’re sick of bending over backwards to accommodate the notion that Christianity mandates homophobia. It doesn’t.
--
Below Average Joe
Did you hear the “news” the other day that investors made more money in the first two years of Obama’s administration than they did in all eight years under George Bush?
This factoid makes perfect sense considering the markets tanked at the end of the Bush years and regained most of their losses over the next two years. I mean in essence, investors made 5 gazillion dollars, lost four gazillion dollars and then made three gazillion dollars. Broken down along the lines of who was in office, they made one gazillion under Bush and three gazillion under Obama’s first two years.
But no one pointed this out! Instead, the analysis was all about whether Obama’s policies were more aligned with Wall Street than those of Bush. I’m not just talking about one or two anchors or pundits. I’m talking about every one of them. Who pays these TV experts? Why do we watch them?
Oh, you don’t watch them? Never mind.
It’s true that I have a bad addiction to cable news, and as such, I’ve been listening to people shake their heads sadly over the resignation of Penn State football coach Joe Paterno, who did next to nothing after hearing that one of his coaches, Jerry Sandusky, was observed having sex with a ten-year-old in the shower.
Say what? I heard the story a few days ago, but I had no idea that the “incident” was not some vague suspicious-looking hanky panky. No. This man was having actual sex in the shower with a ten-year-old. And someone saw him, specifically a graduate assistant, who when I first heard the story, sounded like a responsible person who didn’t hesitate to report the bad behavior to an authority.
But hello? This is like “observing” a murder or an assault, and telling someone about it the following day. Who wouldn’t intervene in the rape of a child? And who would wait a day and consult with family before deciding to report this event to higher ups?
As for Paterno, he claims that he wasn’t told about the “graphic nature” of the attack, so what exactly did the graduate assistant tell him? And even if the description of the event was sugarcoated in the reporting, how do you basically ignore it? This great football coaching legend doesn’t deserve a sentimental goodbye. He’s despicable, as is the graduate assistant.
--
As Maine Goes
Here’s some good news. Equality Maine used Election Day to gather enough signatures to put them over the top for a marriage vote next year. The activists picked up 35,000 names, bringing their total to 100,000, more than enough to qualify a marriage equality ballot measure for 2012.
I hope it’s good news. Maine repealed a marriage equality law by about four points in 2009. Now, surveys say the state has a slight majority in favor of equality, but you and I know what happens to small pro-gay majorities when people actually arrive at the ballot box. That said, Maine voters are known for independent thought, and this wouldn’t be the first time that they reversed themselves after an antigay vote.
I’m not covering the man who had to quit his gig to produce the Oscars after telling an interviewer that “rehearsals are for fags.” I forget his name, but you know what? How stupid do you have to be to use the “f” or “n” word in public these days? Plus, how stupid do you have to be to condemn rehearsing when you’re a Hollywood producer? His name is Brett Ratner, and I guess Eddie Murphy has quit as host in sympathy.
Speaking of stupid, did you hear that Sarkozi and Obama were caught dissing Netanyahu on an open mike? “I can’t stand him,” the French president told Obama. “Well, I have to deal with him every day,” Obama replied dryly. It’s no surprise that these guys dislike the intransigent Israeli leader. But have they not learned to beware of hot mikes?
And don’t they sound sort of like High School mean girls? What next? “Angela could lose a few pounds.” “Did you see her back fat in that dress last night? Oh my God!”
--
Ann’s column appears every week at sfbaytimes.com. She can be reached at arostow@aol.com
November 9, 2011
BY ANN ROSTOW
Victory in Iowa May Have Saved Marriage
Great news everyone. The Iowa state senate remains in Democratic hands, ergo, marriage equality is safe in the Caucus State for the near term. Liz Mathis won the special election for an empty seat that could have tied the state senate and led to an antigay marriage amendment down the road. Yay!
But speaking of marriage equality and Iowa, two married women are now fighting the state for the simple right to have both their names entered on their daughter’s birth certificate.
I know we’ve covered a number of birth certificate cases in the past, but this one is different. It’s not the usual matter of trying to get a revised certificate for an adopted child, something that’s done routinely for straight adoptive parents. This is a married couple having a child. I think we can assume that the non-birth mother did not make a genetic contribution to the baby’s makeup, but so what? Husbands get added to the birth certificate automatically, even in situations where the man is infertile, and no one questions the assumption that a married couple are the legal parents of their own child regardless of how he or she was conceived.
In Iowa, obviously, same-sex marriage is legal and the high court has mandated equal treatment for gay and straight couples. So why leave the second Mom’s name off the child’s first and most significant legal document? Lambda Legal argued the case on behalf of Melissa and Heather Gartner last Monday.
--
The Gay Place
I dutifully watched Glee last night to see the big sex scene. Tastefully done in my opinion. I’m a little over Glee frankly. Too much singing. Weird plot lines. And I don’t like the smarmy teacher who runs the club, or his wimpy girlfriend. My favorite character is the butchy, but straight, female football coach. And Jane Lynch of course.
To be honest, after swearing that I would watch Glee, I forgot all about it. Mel and I went out to dinner instead and stopped by Austin’s signature gay bar for a nightcap. There, we found about ten guys sitting on stools watching a bank of TV sets all showing Glee with the sound on, nursing exotic cocktails and singing along with West Side Story.
Did you watch it? There was a scene in which the boys acquired fake IDs and went dancing at a dimly lit gay bar. I couldn’t help but look around at my own gay bar where instead of dancing and cruising, we were all watching a sit com. Ah reality.
Sing with me: “Make of our hearts, one heart…”
--
Respect!
So, I suppose the big news this week is that the Senate Judiciary Committee is going to take on the Respect For Marriage Act on Thursday. RESMA, as I have decided to call it, would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, and is expected to advance to an uncertain fate on the Senate floor at some point.
Over in the House, as you know, John Boehner and his GOP colleagues are busy defending DOMA in court, so we know for a fact that RESMA has zero chance of emerging from this, or any other GOP-led, Congress. Still, it’s always nice to see our issues get a brief turn in the legislative spotlight on Capitol Hill.
That said, I have little interest in symbolic developments. How many times has my inbox been filled with breathless announcements about the Employment Nondiscrimination Act coming up for a hearing or a mark up or whatever? A zillion times. I counted. Whatever happened to ENDA anyway? I haven’t heard a peep lately, which I guess is good. As I’ve written before, I hate ENDA and think our activists should drop the useless anachronism and try instead to add sexual orientation to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
--
Stroke Away the Straight
Moving on, I’ve just been reading about a straight man from Wales who had a traumatic brain accident and woke up gay. It’s true! I thought it was a joke, but apparently it’s not. Chris Birch, 26, was an 18-stone rugby player who worked for a bank and was about to get married when he tried, and failed, to show off to his “mates” with a back flip. If memory serves, a stone is 14 pounds, so you can do the math.
Upon recovery from his mangled acrobatics, Birch decided he hated his old life. He dumped his fiancé, quit the bank, trained to be a hairdresser, lost eight stone, and hooked up with a 19-year-old boyfriend.
Doctors can’t say whether Birch was gay to begin with or whether the accident triggered a shift, but well, the brain is a mysterious thing. His injury is described as a “stroke,” although it’s also clear that he broke his neck during the missed flip. I suppose the broken neck cut circulation to his brain or something.
Hmmm. I thought gayness was hormonal, didn’t you?
I found the gay stroke victim while I was searching for details on a ruling out of New Jersey on Lambda’s latest marriage lawsuit. Happily for most readers, I could not locate the text of the judge’s opinion, but the bottom line is that she refused to dismiss the suit, allowing Lambda to continue its challenge to the Garden State’s pathetic civil union law. Lambda is trying to prove that civil unions are not equal to marriage. As such, they do not satisfy the New Jersey Supreme Court’s 2005 ruling that mandated equality for same-sex couples.
--
More Gay Penguins
I’m hungry and thirsty and not interested in bullying or drivers licenses or nondiscrimination laws that may or may not be instituted in Topeka. Checking my news list, it seems I could also discuss gay penguins about to be cruelly separated by mean zookeepers. Or, I can tell you that the IRS has decided to allow a deduction for sex reassignment treatment.
But I’d rather have a nice lunch, a la francaise, sitting outside at a table under an umbrella in Trouville. I’d have mussels, a baguette and a bottle of Muscadet sur lies. With a tarte tatin and a Calva for dessert. I’d sit and watch the Channel traffic, leaving behind all the trials and tribulations of the GLBT community. After lunch, I’d wander down the street and play some blackjack. Then, I’d take a nap.
I do have frozen mussels and a bottle of sauvignon blanc. I could have that with some sandwich bread, look at my back yard for awhile and then play internet poker. But it’s not quite what I had in mind.
The gay penguins, by the way, are part of an endangered sub-species and are being encouraged to procreate at the Toronto Zoo. It’s sad, but I suppose all of us would suck it up and do our duty if the survival of the human race were at stake. Plus, the good news is that Pedro and Buddy will be reunited once their critical assignments are complete.
As for the bullying story, it seems that the Michigan state legislature is intent on passing a law that will discourage school harassment, unless the harasser is acting out of a sincerely held religious belief.
Thanks but no thanks, says the GLBT community in the Mitten State. For God’s sake! It’s better to have no law at all than a statute that specifically exonerates faith-based bullying. I recently wrote a brilliant essay on the subject of religious exceptions to civil rights laws, but I can’t remember if I already rehashed those observations in this column, and if so, I don’t want to repeat myself.
Let’s just say that there’s no legitimate “religious belief” that justifies gay bashing, period. And we’re sick of bending over backwards to accommodate the notion that Christianity mandates homophobia. It doesn’t.
--
Below Average Joe
Did you hear the “news” the other day that investors made more money in the first two years of Obama’s administration than they did in all eight years under George Bush?
This factoid makes perfect sense considering the markets tanked at the end of the Bush years and regained most of their losses over the next two years. I mean in essence, investors made 5 gazillion dollars, lost four gazillion dollars and then made three gazillion dollars. Broken down along the lines of who was in office, they made one gazillion under Bush and three gazillion under Obama’s first two years.
But no one pointed this out! Instead, the analysis was all about whether Obama’s policies were more aligned with Wall Street than those of Bush. I’m not just talking about one or two anchors or pundits. I’m talking about every one of them. Who pays these TV experts? Why do we watch them?
Oh, you don’t watch them? Never mind.
It’s true that I have a bad addiction to cable news, and as such, I’ve been listening to people shake their heads sadly over the resignation of Penn State football coach Joe Paterno, who did next to nothing after hearing that one of his coaches, Jerry Sandusky, was observed having sex with a ten-year-old in the shower.
Say what? I heard the story a few days ago, but I had no idea that the “incident” was not some vague suspicious-looking hanky panky. No. This man was having actual sex in the shower with a ten-year-old. And someone saw him, specifically a graduate assistant, who when I first heard the story, sounded like a responsible person who didn’t hesitate to report the bad behavior to an authority.
But hello? This is like “observing” a murder or an assault, and telling someone about it the following day. Who wouldn’t intervene in the rape of a child? And who would wait a day and consult with family before deciding to report this event to higher ups?
As for Paterno, he claims that he wasn’t told about the “graphic nature” of the attack, so what exactly did the graduate assistant tell him? And even if the description of the event was sugarcoated in the reporting, how do you basically ignore it? This great football coaching legend doesn’t deserve a sentimental goodbye. He’s despicable, as is the graduate assistant.
--
As Maine Goes
Here’s some good news. Equality Maine used Election Day to gather enough signatures to put them over the top for a marriage vote next year. The activists picked up 35,000 names, bringing their total to 100,000, more than enough to qualify a marriage equality ballot measure for 2012.
I hope it’s good news. Maine repealed a marriage equality law by about four points in 2009. Now, surveys say the state has a slight majority in favor of equality, but you and I know what happens to small pro-gay majorities when people actually arrive at the ballot box. That said, Maine voters are known for independent thought, and this wouldn’t be the first time that they reversed themselves after an antigay vote.
I’m not covering the man who had to quit his gig to produce the Oscars after telling an interviewer that “rehearsals are for fags.” I forget his name, but you know what? How stupid do you have to be to use the “f” or “n” word in public these days? Plus, how stupid do you have to be to condemn rehearsing when you’re a Hollywood producer? His name is Brett Ratner, and I guess Eddie Murphy has quit as host in sympathy.
Speaking of stupid, did you hear that Sarkozi and Obama were caught dissing Netanyahu on an open mike? “I can’t stand him,” the French president told Obama. “Well, I have to deal with him every day,” Obama replied dryly. It’s no surprise that these guys dislike the intransigent Israeli leader. But have they not learned to beware of hot mikes?
And don’t they sound sort of like High School mean girls? What next? “Angela could lose a few pounds.” “Did you see her back fat in that dress last night? Oh my God!”
--
Ann’s column appears every week at sfbaytimes.com. She can be reached at arostow@aol.com
Friday, November 4, 2011
Friends Don’t Let Friends Write Amicus Briefs
Week In Review
November 3, 2011
BY ANN ROSTOW
Friends Don’t Let Friends Write Amicus Briefs
The Prop 8 panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit just accepted a friend of the court brief on same-sex marriage written by a 20-something conservative recent law school graduate named Gage Raley. Mr. Raley insists that he has found an original constitutional argument to support bans on same-sex marriage, and he seems awfully proud of himself.
His idea closely tracks the main objection to same-sex marriage, specifically the notion that the state should favor heterosexual marriages since men and women can have children together. Raley notes that the presumption of paternity accorded a married father under current law would not apply to same-sex couples. (Cue trumpet fanfare.)
Raley spends about 60 pages isolating this minor element of the already flawed anti-marriage argument, seemingly convinced that he alone has discovered the key legal distinction between gay and straight couples. The court accepted his brief after both sides had no objection, which makes you wonder just how easy it is to load up a federal appellate panel with friendly advice. Could you and I have submitted an amicus brief?
Perhaps we could have employed Mr. Raley’s own argument, by pointing out that although heterosexual paternity is easily determined by DNA tests, same-sex couples need marriage rights in order to make sure that their children have two legally recognized parents. Or why not go out on a limb? Maybe ancient aliens encouraged same sex couples to make monogamous commitments back in pre-history. Maybe they’ll be back to make sure humankind followed their instructions. I’m sure there are some runic texts on the subject.
Do you ever watch “Ancient Aliens” on the History Channel?
I have to confess a dark secret. I don’t believe in para-normality as a rule, but I’m half convinced by these TV episodes. How else could the (insert old civilization here) have moved all those 100-ton boulders up to the top of the giant mountain? And why else did the old cave painters draw all those astronauts, complete with space helmets? The only thing that gives me pause is the Greek “expert” on the subject with the crazy mop of black hair. He doesn’t seem quite sane to me.
--
Brothers and Sisters
Speaking of marriage, the bad guys in New Hampshire have decided to focus all their energy on repealing the same-sex marriage statute, and abandon the idea of a passing an antigay constitutional amendment.
I suppose this is good news, but honestly I don’t think an amendment had a snowball’s chance in Texas to pass. Not only do Granite State citizens oppose reversing marriage rights, but you need a two-thirds majority to ratify an amendment in New Hampshire.
However, the repeal bill is almost as bad as an amendment. It ends marriage rights for same-sex couples and institutes a bizarre civil union that could include siblings and, well, whoever. I’m assuming that the measure will not pass, and that if indeed it manages to slither out of the legislature, it will not survive a promised veto from Governor John Lynch.
Meanwhile, do not forget about Iowa next week! I know I’ve crunched this story into ort-ville over the last month or two, but it is still underreported in the GLBT press.
On the off chance that some of you have not been faithful readers, I’ll remind you that marriage equality in the Ethanol State may hang on next week’s special election for a state senate seat. Democrats now hold a two-vote edge in the upper body, an edge that has allowed us to beat back efforts to put an antigay amendment on the ballot. Iowa has been one of the six states to offer marriage equality ever since the state supreme court ordered the change in 2009.
If Democrats lose next week, if the tie in the state senate leads to power sharing, if the legislature votes for an amendment in two successive sessions, if the Iowa voters roll back marriage in 2014 or whenever--- well that will be that. I know there are a lot of “ifs” in that sentence, but still. How much easier it would be to just win the seat and avoid the cascade of possible setbacks in the first place.
Plus, Election Day is always a thrill. But if you don’t live in San Francisco, or in some other city where a mayoral seat is up for grabs, next week’s showdown is pretty lame stuff. At least Iowa gives the rest of us something to root for.
Aside from Iowa, I’ll be watching Mississippi’s vote on whether or not a fertilized egg is a legal human being. Hello! What next? Are we going to recognize the innate value of sperm? Watch out gentlemen. Remember Onan!
I know that here in Texas, we tried to pass a law that would have forced women not simply to have an ultrasound before getting an abortion, but to have that ultrasound narrated by the technician. Actually, the law was passed, but struck by a court as were similar statutes around the country.
So let’s cut to the chase. You know those computer programs that let you figure out how a six-year-old kidnap victim would look at age 20? Why not mandate that women who seek abortions be presented with a family photo illustrating what she and the unborn fetus will look like at his or her college graduation? I made this suggestion many years ago in this column, but it deserves repeating.
--
Bad Mayor, No Donut
It’s a slow news week for our community, so bear with me while I ramble down roads normally not taken. For example, I’m delighted to report that reader Mark Liolios sent me two links to the GOP sexcapade story that I couldn’t remember last week.
The star of the show was Chris Myers, the 40-something Republican mayor of Medford, New Jersey. Married with kids, Myers is accused of hiring a guy to hook up with him during a trip to California last year. The mayor allegedly promised to help his paid companion with some gifts or a car or something, but Myers failed to come through, provoking Rent Boy to take the tryst public.
Myers ducked a question about his sexual orientation from a local newspaper the other day, but he denied the gist of the story and pledged not to resign.
I almost feel sorry for these guys, many of whom must have recognized that they were gay, but made a conscious decision to marry and live their lives in the closet. Now they’re hitting middle age and realizing that years of living a lie erodes your character like decades of smoking blackens your lungs. Time for the Chantax. Chantex?
--
Poor Eric
Let’s rip to shreds a few TV commercials shall we? First, the sophomoric ad for the electric car, where the nasty little boy accuses the driver of stopping at the gas station only to use the bathroom. The boy’s obnoxious. What business is it of his why the guy came to the gas station? Maybe he was buying gum. Who cares if he has to use the bathroom? Is that shameful? And, assuming it’s not, why is the driver slightly embarrassed? What ad executive came up with this ludicrous scenario anyway?
Second, I’ve been meaning to object in print to the smart phone ad that revolves around a taco party in the office. To begin with, I’ve spent years working in offices, and no one’s ever thrown a lunch party in the hallway outside someone’s office door. But the most offensive thing about this commercial is the horrendously rude treatment of “Eric,” one of the staff members who received a timely invitation to the party (thanks, one assumes, to his choice of cell phone).
.
“You invited Eric?” asks the dimwit with the ineffective phone. “I thought Eric gave you the creeps.”
What a thing to say in front of Eric! Who would do that? Not only is Eric hurt and insulted, but the other workers are now suspected of talking behind his back. Let’s just say that cordial professional relationships between Eric and the rest of the group are deeply undermined thanks to Mr. Slow Phone’s big mouth. Personally, I would not be inviting this jerk to any future taco parties.
I have several more opinions, but it’s time to move on. But before we attempt to scrape up other bits of GLBT news from the bottom of the barrel, I must comment on Herman Cain, who is apparently unaware that China has had nuclear capability since the 1960s.
Look. Who cares whether he harassed someone? Well, we do care of course. But the media is all over that story like rats on cheese, while the man’s total ignorance of world affairs is just an afterthought to the press. If you were forced to choose between a candidate who harassed someone, but who knew what was going on in the world, and a perfect husband who could not define “neoconservative,” who never heard of the Palestinian right of return, and who worried about China developing nuclear weapons, who would you pick?
As for Rick Perry, did you see his over-the-top antics at that dinner the other night? I know they say he wasn’t drinking, but he looked looped to me, cackling and smirking like an upperclassman at a frat party.
I’d say these candidates were living on another planet, but frankly I think aliens would be better presidential prospects. After all, they helped us build all those beautiful temples. They didn’t have to do that. They could have just mined all our gold, but instead they pitched in and made a cultural contribution. Thanks Ancient Aliens!
--
Say It Ain’t So Kim!
So, I just read that former NFL Commissioner Paul Tagliabue and his wife Chandler just gave $5 million to Georgetown University. One million of that sum has been set aside to fund the Tagliabue Initiative for LGBT Life; Fostering Formation and Transformation, a program to be run by Georgetown’s LGBTQ Resource Center.
Pretty impressive. Georgetown, by the way, was the first Catholic university to organize a gay center, which was established in 2008. In related information, my stepson Matthew just got his PhD from Georgetown.
What else is new? Michigan lawmakers are hard at work trying to withdraw domestic partner benefits from public employees, including faculty and staff at the Mitten State’s public universities. The bill, which saves a few million bucks, has passed the house and is pending in the state senate. We’ve already seen the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit strike a similar partner benefit rollback out of Arizona, so we’ll see what happens here. Regardless, it’s amazing to see a state with the economic problems of Michigan take steps to make its public sector and state universities even less competitive.
And did you see that Kim Kardashian is getting a divorce just 72 days after hosting a $10 million televised wedding? Of course you saw that. Kardashian, who insists she did indeed “marry for love,” is citing irreconcilable differences. She is now, of course, this year’s poster girl for the absurdity of marriage laws, which allow Brittney Spears to get married and divorced in 48 hours, while denying the institution to life partners with decades of shared partnership under their belts.
I should mention, before I go, that the U.S. Supreme Court has decided not to review that case out of Utah where the highway patrol has erected gigantic crosses to mark spots on the highway where officers have lost their lives. The Ninth Circuit ordered the crosses removed, so conservatives were hoping that the High Court would pick them up. Sorry conservatives. That’s not happening. The Court didn’t explain itself, but Justice Thomas wrote a stern dissent.
Listen. There’s nothing wrong with the state marking the spot and acknowledging the sacrifice of these men and women. But you can’t select a specific religious faith and use its main symbol for that purpose. C’mon people!
--
Ann’s column appears every week at sfbaytimes.com. She can be reached at arostow@aol.com
November 3, 2011
BY ANN ROSTOW
Friends Don’t Let Friends Write Amicus Briefs
The Prop 8 panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit just accepted a friend of the court brief on same-sex marriage written by a 20-something conservative recent law school graduate named Gage Raley. Mr. Raley insists that he has found an original constitutional argument to support bans on same-sex marriage, and he seems awfully proud of himself.
His idea closely tracks the main objection to same-sex marriage, specifically the notion that the state should favor heterosexual marriages since men and women can have children together. Raley notes that the presumption of paternity accorded a married father under current law would not apply to same-sex couples. (Cue trumpet fanfare.)
Raley spends about 60 pages isolating this minor element of the already flawed anti-marriage argument, seemingly convinced that he alone has discovered the key legal distinction between gay and straight couples. The court accepted his brief after both sides had no objection, which makes you wonder just how easy it is to load up a federal appellate panel with friendly advice. Could you and I have submitted an amicus brief?
Perhaps we could have employed Mr. Raley’s own argument, by pointing out that although heterosexual paternity is easily determined by DNA tests, same-sex couples need marriage rights in order to make sure that their children have two legally recognized parents. Or why not go out on a limb? Maybe ancient aliens encouraged same sex couples to make monogamous commitments back in pre-history. Maybe they’ll be back to make sure humankind followed their instructions. I’m sure there are some runic texts on the subject.
Do you ever watch “Ancient Aliens” on the History Channel?
I have to confess a dark secret. I don’t believe in para-normality as a rule, but I’m half convinced by these TV episodes. How else could the (insert old civilization here) have moved all those 100-ton boulders up to the top of the giant mountain? And why else did the old cave painters draw all those astronauts, complete with space helmets? The only thing that gives me pause is the Greek “expert” on the subject with the crazy mop of black hair. He doesn’t seem quite sane to me.
--
Brothers and Sisters
Speaking of marriage, the bad guys in New Hampshire have decided to focus all their energy on repealing the same-sex marriage statute, and abandon the idea of a passing an antigay constitutional amendment.
I suppose this is good news, but honestly I don’t think an amendment had a snowball’s chance in Texas to pass. Not only do Granite State citizens oppose reversing marriage rights, but you need a two-thirds majority to ratify an amendment in New Hampshire.
However, the repeal bill is almost as bad as an amendment. It ends marriage rights for same-sex couples and institutes a bizarre civil union that could include siblings and, well, whoever. I’m assuming that the measure will not pass, and that if indeed it manages to slither out of the legislature, it will not survive a promised veto from Governor John Lynch.
Meanwhile, do not forget about Iowa next week! I know I’ve crunched this story into ort-ville over the last month or two, but it is still underreported in the GLBT press.
On the off chance that some of you have not been faithful readers, I’ll remind you that marriage equality in the Ethanol State may hang on next week’s special election for a state senate seat. Democrats now hold a two-vote edge in the upper body, an edge that has allowed us to beat back efforts to put an antigay amendment on the ballot. Iowa has been one of the six states to offer marriage equality ever since the state supreme court ordered the change in 2009.
If Democrats lose next week, if the tie in the state senate leads to power sharing, if the legislature votes for an amendment in two successive sessions, if the Iowa voters roll back marriage in 2014 or whenever--- well that will be that. I know there are a lot of “ifs” in that sentence, but still. How much easier it would be to just win the seat and avoid the cascade of possible setbacks in the first place.
Plus, Election Day is always a thrill. But if you don’t live in San Francisco, or in some other city where a mayoral seat is up for grabs, next week’s showdown is pretty lame stuff. At least Iowa gives the rest of us something to root for.
Aside from Iowa, I’ll be watching Mississippi’s vote on whether or not a fertilized egg is a legal human being. Hello! What next? Are we going to recognize the innate value of sperm? Watch out gentlemen. Remember Onan!
I know that here in Texas, we tried to pass a law that would have forced women not simply to have an ultrasound before getting an abortion, but to have that ultrasound narrated by the technician. Actually, the law was passed, but struck by a court as were similar statutes around the country.
So let’s cut to the chase. You know those computer programs that let you figure out how a six-year-old kidnap victim would look at age 20? Why not mandate that women who seek abortions be presented with a family photo illustrating what she and the unborn fetus will look like at his or her college graduation? I made this suggestion many years ago in this column, but it deserves repeating.
--
Bad Mayor, No Donut
It’s a slow news week for our community, so bear with me while I ramble down roads normally not taken. For example, I’m delighted to report that reader Mark Liolios sent me two links to the GOP sexcapade story that I couldn’t remember last week.
The star of the show was Chris Myers, the 40-something Republican mayor of Medford, New Jersey. Married with kids, Myers is accused of hiring a guy to hook up with him during a trip to California last year. The mayor allegedly promised to help his paid companion with some gifts or a car or something, but Myers failed to come through, provoking Rent Boy to take the tryst public.
Myers ducked a question about his sexual orientation from a local newspaper the other day, but he denied the gist of the story and pledged not to resign.
I almost feel sorry for these guys, many of whom must have recognized that they were gay, but made a conscious decision to marry and live their lives in the closet. Now they’re hitting middle age and realizing that years of living a lie erodes your character like decades of smoking blackens your lungs. Time for the Chantax. Chantex?
--
Poor Eric
Let’s rip to shreds a few TV commercials shall we? First, the sophomoric ad for the electric car, where the nasty little boy accuses the driver of stopping at the gas station only to use the bathroom. The boy’s obnoxious. What business is it of his why the guy came to the gas station? Maybe he was buying gum. Who cares if he has to use the bathroom? Is that shameful? And, assuming it’s not, why is the driver slightly embarrassed? What ad executive came up with this ludicrous scenario anyway?
Second, I’ve been meaning to object in print to the smart phone ad that revolves around a taco party in the office. To begin with, I’ve spent years working in offices, and no one’s ever thrown a lunch party in the hallway outside someone’s office door. But the most offensive thing about this commercial is the horrendously rude treatment of “Eric,” one of the staff members who received a timely invitation to the party (thanks, one assumes, to his choice of cell phone).
.
“You invited Eric?” asks the dimwit with the ineffective phone. “I thought Eric gave you the creeps.”
What a thing to say in front of Eric! Who would do that? Not only is Eric hurt and insulted, but the other workers are now suspected of talking behind his back. Let’s just say that cordial professional relationships between Eric and the rest of the group are deeply undermined thanks to Mr. Slow Phone’s big mouth. Personally, I would not be inviting this jerk to any future taco parties.
I have several more opinions, but it’s time to move on. But before we attempt to scrape up other bits of GLBT news from the bottom of the barrel, I must comment on Herman Cain, who is apparently unaware that China has had nuclear capability since the 1960s.
Look. Who cares whether he harassed someone? Well, we do care of course. But the media is all over that story like rats on cheese, while the man’s total ignorance of world affairs is just an afterthought to the press. If you were forced to choose between a candidate who harassed someone, but who knew what was going on in the world, and a perfect husband who could not define “neoconservative,” who never heard of the Palestinian right of return, and who worried about China developing nuclear weapons, who would you pick?
As for Rick Perry, did you see his over-the-top antics at that dinner the other night? I know they say he wasn’t drinking, but he looked looped to me, cackling and smirking like an upperclassman at a frat party.
I’d say these candidates were living on another planet, but frankly I think aliens would be better presidential prospects. After all, they helped us build all those beautiful temples. They didn’t have to do that. They could have just mined all our gold, but instead they pitched in and made a cultural contribution. Thanks Ancient Aliens!
--
Say It Ain’t So Kim!
So, I just read that former NFL Commissioner Paul Tagliabue and his wife Chandler just gave $5 million to Georgetown University. One million of that sum has been set aside to fund the Tagliabue Initiative for LGBT Life; Fostering Formation and Transformation, a program to be run by Georgetown’s LGBTQ Resource Center.
Pretty impressive. Georgetown, by the way, was the first Catholic university to organize a gay center, which was established in 2008. In related information, my stepson Matthew just got his PhD from Georgetown.
What else is new? Michigan lawmakers are hard at work trying to withdraw domestic partner benefits from public employees, including faculty and staff at the Mitten State’s public universities. The bill, which saves a few million bucks, has passed the house and is pending in the state senate. We’ve already seen the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit strike a similar partner benefit rollback out of Arizona, so we’ll see what happens here. Regardless, it’s amazing to see a state with the economic problems of Michigan take steps to make its public sector and state universities even less competitive.
And did you see that Kim Kardashian is getting a divorce just 72 days after hosting a $10 million televised wedding? Of course you saw that. Kardashian, who insists she did indeed “marry for love,” is citing irreconcilable differences. She is now, of course, this year’s poster girl for the absurdity of marriage laws, which allow Brittney Spears to get married and divorced in 48 hours, while denying the institution to life partners with decades of shared partnership under their belts.
I should mention, before I go, that the U.S. Supreme Court has decided not to review that case out of Utah where the highway patrol has erected gigantic crosses to mark spots on the highway where officers have lost their lives. The Ninth Circuit ordered the crosses removed, so conservatives were hoping that the High Court would pick them up. Sorry conservatives. That’s not happening. The Court didn’t explain itself, but Justice Thomas wrote a stern dissent.
Listen. There’s nothing wrong with the state marking the spot and acknowledging the sacrifice of these men and women. But you can’t select a specific religious faith and use its main symbol for that purpose. C’mon people!
--
Ann’s column appears every week at sfbaytimes.com. She can be reached at arostow@aol.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)