Cheetah: RIP

GLBT Week in Review for December 28, 2011

BY ANN ROSTOW

Cheetah: RIP

Welcome to the dead zone of GLBTLMNOP news reporting, the week between Christmas and New Year’s Day when there’s very little to write about and even less enthusiasm on the part of your valiant columnist. For example, the first three items on my “news” list concern a possible gay affair between Richard Nixon and one of his cronies, Robin Williams’ gay pug, and the death of Cheetah the chimp at age 80.

I had no idea Cheetah was still alive. Nor was I aware that chimps can live that long. This double revelation led me to select this item for coverage even though it has no gay angle. But how can we be sure? Maybe Cheetah was gay, bi, or questioning. Maybe even trans. I say this because it seems as if there was a great deal about Cheetah that I didn’t know. I never thought about Cheetah at all really, which lends even more pathos to his (or her?) death.

Robin Williams has a gay pug named Leonard who has a boyfriend, breed unknown. San Francisco readers will be intrigued to learn that Leonard lives in Tiberon. Take a drive across the Golden Gate and maybe you can catch a glimpse of the snub nosed celebrity pet. Why not? It could be fun!

 As for Nixon, a new book suggests that the swarthy psycho-prez had a thing goin’ on with none other than mobster banker Bebe Rebozo. According to “Nixon’s Darkest Secrets; The inside story of America’s most troubled president,” Dick had a platonic relationship with wife Pat and was even given kissing lessons by aides in order to convincingly display spousal affection in public. Meanwhile, author Don Folsum says a Time magazine reporter picked up a fork at a Washington dinner and caught Nixon and Rebozo holding hands under the table. Suspicions were also aroused by the two men’s numerous Florida vacations, Rebozo’s White House bedroom, as well as another incident when Nixon put his arm around Bebe in a manner that one journalist called “fishy.”

So there you have it. And I must say a less attractive pair of lovebirds can hardly be conceived. Folsum also reports that Nixon was an alcoholic and a wife beater. The book won’t be released until late January, but personally I feel as if I’ve already discovered all I want to know about the man.

--

Mitten State Mania

In truth, I do have some actual news to relate. I suppose the major development last week was the passage on Thursday of an antigay bill in Michigan, which prohibits cities and schools from offering domestic partner benefits. The legislature and the governor were hoping to ban perks for state university faculty and workers as well, but it turned out that they could not override the authority of state university administrators, so that part of the law had to go. Also exempt from the ban are state government workers, for reasons I didn’t have the energy or the inclination to research.

I guess what strikes me most about this measure is its senselessness. It doesn’t save money. It brands Michigan as one of the least hospitable states in the country. It signals warnings to any employer looking to expand or relocate. It does not really win anyone political points. It’s just gratuitous gay bashing. I can understand why conservative lawmakers would want to outlaw marriage or restrict abortion. These are iconic issues that hit the hottest buttons on their consoles and satisfy their base voters. But preventing a school district from offering partner benefits? Why?

Aside from everything else, they’re asking for a lawsuit, and they’ll get one from the state branch of the American Civil Liberties Union, if not from the national legal groups.

In other state legislative news, we expect that New Hampshire lawmakers will vote to repeal the marriage equality law that was passed under friendlier folk a year or so ago. This year, Republicans in control have pledged to undo the progress of yesteryear and will likely win approval for their dastardly plan in the middle of next month.

Fortunately, Governor John Lynch has promised to veto any attempt to roll back equality, and it does not seem as if the state senate has the votes to overturn a veto. Still, it’s worrisome, and we’ll all breathe easier once the veto has withstood a final vote.

--

Our Bad!

Here’s some grist for our mill. You recall that voters in Minnesota will weigh in on an anti-marriage amendment next November. We have the GOP-run state legislature to thank for that development, and of course the leader of the state senate deserves particular credit. She is none other than Senate Majority Leader Amy Koch, who just had to resign after admitting that she cheated on her husband with a married colleague.

Gay activists in Minnesota felt badly for Koch, realizing that perhaps their selfish efforts to win marriage equality for themselves did indeed have a deleterious effect on straight couples. Who knew?

Activist John Medeiros sent Koch a letter of apology on behalf of all gays and lesbians living in the state.

“We are ashamed of ourselves for causing you to have what the media refers to as ‘an illicit affair’ with your staffer, and we also extend our deepest apologies to him and his wife.” wrote Medeiros. “These recent events have made it quite clear that gay our gay and lesbian tactics have gone too far, affecting even the most respectful of our society.”

While we’re on the subject of antigay votes, don’t forget that a bunch of lawmaking fools in North Carolina have scheduled a marriage amendment for the primary ballot on May 8, so we have that to look forward to.

On the other hand, the good guys in Maine are working on a pro-marriage referendum that would re-legalize marriage equality in the Lobster State. Maine lawmakers legalized gay unions in 2009, only to see the bill shelved pending a repeal election that November. We narrowly lost that vote, ergo the only way to recapture marriage rights Down East is through another election. So far, activists have gathered more than enough signatures to put the question of marriage rights on the November ballot.

I think we have some other pro-marriage legislative efforts ahead in Maryland. maybe in Washington, and maybe in some other places. All in all, when you take into account our marriage lawsuits, our DOMA challenges, the various elections, and the battles ahead in several state capitals, 2012 should be quite a year indeed. Bring it on, as George W Bush would say.

--

Lawrence of Houston

I’m down to an interesting state appellate court ruling on lesbian parental rights in Florida, as well as the news that John Lawrence, of Lawrence v Texas, died of a heart problem at the age of 68 on November 20. According to the New York Times, his death received no publicity until his lawyer tried to invite him to an event commemorating the 2003 Supreme Court ruling in his favor.

Lawrence was arrested in 1998 along with his friend, Tyron Garner, who died in 2006. After a jealous ex-boyfriend called 911 to (falsely) report a gunshot in Lawrence’s Houston apartment, police barged in and accused the two men of violating the Texas ban on same-sex sodomy. They spent a night in jail, pled no contest in order to preserve the case for appeal, and the rest, literally, is history. After several years of litigation, the case reached the High Court, where a 6-3 ruling eliminated anti-sodomy laws and reversed Bowers v Hardwick.

Lawrence and Garner were not ideal plaintiffs for a high profile civil rights case. Indeed, they were not even partners at the time. Nor were they particularly articulate or interested in law. In the Times article, Lawrence’s Houston-based lawyer Mitchell Katine said Lawrence may not have appreciated the constitutional issues. “He was upset about how he was treated, physically and personally, that night. The fire stayed in him. When he was vindicated in the Supreme Court, he felt he got justice.”

Next March, you can buy my handsome friend Dale Carpenter’s new book, “Flagrant Conduct: The Story of Lawrence v Texas,” which will be released by W.W. Norton. Dale teaches law at the University of Minnesota, poor devil.

 --

Say it Ain’t So, Rudy!

If you must know, I’m trying to avoid the Florida case. I don’t know why, but I’m just not in the mood. There was also a story out of Tennessee, where a woman was told that she could not visit her partner at the Rolling Hills Hospital in Franklin, because only “family members” were allowed in.

One of Obama’s small efforts to improve our lot without Congressional help was a directive that ordered any hospital that accepts federal reimbursements to treat gay and lesbian partners as family members. When the Tennessee Equality Project heard about Val Burke’s dilemma, they called the facility with a little refresher course on current law. The mandarins at Rolling Hills quickly made an about face and said Val could visit her significant other to her heart’s content.

So, Florida. Here’s the scoop derived from New York law professor Art Leonard’s blog, which I glanced at a couple of days ago and will now extract from my memory banks. The case revolves around the prototypical fighting lesbians, two women who swore lifelong allegiance, had a child, broke up, and now hate each other so much that they have made their way to Florida’s fifth district court of appeals and will no doubt extend their litigation to a higher court.

Let’s call them bio-mom and birth-mom, since bio-mom donated her egg to birth-mom, who carried their daughter to term. Barring a medical miracle, we assume that a sperm donor lurks in the background, but fortunately for our story, he is not in the picture.

After the women broke up, birth-mom grabbed the kid and went off to Australia, while bio-mom grabbed her lawyers and hit the court. A lower court ruled that bio-mom was subject to state laws governing egg donors, even though egg donors usually have no intention of raising their offspring. Although bio-mom signed a standard form that relinquishes parental rights, she did so only to comply with ironclad procedures, and everyone knew that, in fact, she was planning on being the mother of her child. The judge also noted that gays and lesbians were not eligible to become adoptive parents at the time that the baby was born, but seemed unhappy to be placed in a situation where the law dictated a result that he personally thought unfair.

Fast forward to the appellate court, where a 2-1 panel reversed the lower court, ruling that bio-mom was indeed a legal parent, and that the egg donor regulations could not trump reality under the circumstances. The panel added that adoption law was irrelevant to the case, and asked the state supreme court to clarify the law with respect to egg donors.

Oh, and Rudy Gay is back in action on the hardwoods after recovering from the shoulder injury that sidelined the Memphis Grizzly for the back half of last season. Gay led his team with 19 points on his first day, not enough to avoid a 95-82 loss to the San Antonio Spurs. Still, it’s nice to have him back, n’est-ce pas sports fans? You go, Rudy!

Speaking of Rudy, did you read that the guy who inspired the movie “Rudy” was nailed for some illegal investment scheme the other day? I watched “Rudy” one idle afternoon a year or so ago, so I remember the story of a plucky Notre Dame football fan who went to heroic lengths to win a spot on the team, even though he barely qualified for academic admittance and weighed about 100 pounds soaking wet. Now. it turns out that Rudy and his unsavory business partners raised millions for a sports drink company, but pocketed all but a fraction of the cash. Rudy recently paid a large fine to the SEC, but he may also face criminal charges.

--

Ann’s column appears every week at sfbaytimes.com. She can be reached at arostow@aol.com

Let’s Get Ready to Rumble on DOMA

GLBT Week in Review
December 21, 2011
BY ANN ROSTOW


Let’s Get Ready to Rumble on DOMA

Good news everyone. We’ve finally seen some action in one of our many federal challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act. Last Friday, attorneys went to court in San Francisco to conduct a two-hour argument before U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White. And although conventional wisdom instructs us never to anticipate the ruling of a federal judge, I think it’s safe to say that Judge White is on our side.

Judge White presides over the case of Karen Golinski, a federal lawyer who has long been trying to get spousal benefits for the woman she married during California’s window of opportunity in 2008.

Golinski first tried to convince her bosses at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to extend the benefits. They agreed, but the Obama administration refused to go along, citing the Defense of Marriage Act.

Golinski then went to court, asking Judge White to force the feds to pay up. Judge White also refused, pointing out that the bureaucrats in Washington had the authority to ignore her marriage as long as DOMA remains good law. But Judge White went further, suggesting that Golinski and her Lambda lawyers might have better luck if they simply challenged the law itself instead of trying to mess around with questions of jurisdiction.

Lambda Legal got busy revising Golinski’s lawsuit and was preparing to send it back to Judge White as a DOMA case. Then last February, as you surely recall, the Obama administration reversed itself, announcing that sexual orientation discrimination should be subjected to tough legal review and that laws like DOMA should be found unconstitutional under those higher legal standards. Suddenly, instead of suing the United States, Lambda found the Justice Department had their backs.

With the Justice Department abandoning the antigay field, the House Republicans jumped into the fray to defend DOMA in several legal challenges, including the Golinski case. And in July, the Obama administration indicated that it had not simply decided “not to defend” antigay laws in court; it went much further, submitting a blistering condemnation of DOMA in a brief to Judge White.

On Friday, we saw another indication of how seriously the Justice Department views these DOMA cases. Representing the U.S. government in Judge White’s courtroom was none other than Assistant Attorney General Tony West, head of the Justice Department’s civil division and one of the administration’s biggest legal guns. It’s not quite as dramatic as seeing Eric Holder step up to address the bench, but it’s close.

As for the opposition, the House has hired former solicitor general and renowned appellate lawyer Paul Clement to defend the antigay marriage law. But Clement sent an associate to Judge White’s courtroom, and in fact, you have to wonder how much time he’ll be spending on these loser DOMA cases considering Clement is also the lead attorney fighting Obama’s health care law before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Meanwhile, Judge White made his views pretty obvious when he issued a list of questions to the attorneys a couple of days before Friday’s arguments. Not only were Judge White’s questions phrased as if our side had written them, but he also raised a key issue that thus far has been mostly ignored, and that’s this one:

Does the group defending DOMA really represent Congress?

There’s never been a legitimate vote on whether Congress wants to defend DOMA. There’s also never been a vote to authorize the million dollars or so that Congress will have to pay to Paul Clement and his law firm. I know it’s not much in terms of the budget, but still, lawmakers are not technically allowed to appropriate and spend public funds without a vote.

How did the DOMA defense come into being? Well, John Boehner appointed a “bipartisan” committee, made up of three Republicans and two Democrats. The committee then voted 3-2 to defend DOMA and contract with Clement for that purpose. There’s never been a general vote, and of course the Senate has never weighed in either. I think it’s clear that Boehner does not want to force all his members to cast an antigay vote if he doesn’t have to, but then again, does he have to?

This was the question Judge White raised. It will be interesting to see if the legal standing of the “bipartisan” committee comes under a cloud in any of the other DOMA cases.

Personally, I’d love to see Judge White or someone else deny standing to the committee and force Congress to vote on whether or not to defend the Defense of Marriage Act, wouldn’t you?

Meanwhile, we are keeping an eye on what we might call our main DOMA case, the lawsuit filed by the Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders on behalf of several married couples in Massachusetts. I call it the main case because we’ve already won this suit in federal court and are now well along in our appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. We have finished the briefing process before the First Circuit (I’m pretty sure; if not we’re close) and oral arguments for early next year should be scheduled soon.

At least four other cases are still pending in lower federal courts, but let’s avoid a rehash for now. It’s Christmas!
--


Lesbian Survivors Get Spousal Treatment in Indiana

Do you remember the tragic collapse of reviewing stands at an Indiana concert last August? Two lesbians were killed in that accident, and their partners were both recognized by the state in a settlement deal announced this week. It’s noteworthy that the Hoosier powers that be decided to treat the women as spouses even though a 2004 Indiana statute says that only a marriage between a man and a women can be recognized.

Thus far, Indiana is one of the few reddish states to avoid passing a constitutional amendment against marriage, but still. The decision to include these partners as survivors without a court fight is significant. One of the couples had an Illinois civil union. The other had a Hawaii domestic partnership. Both survivors will receive the same amount as the heterosexual spouses, $300,000.
--


No Gays In Restaurants Says Ron Paul Newsletter

That story was too sad to be followed up with amusing digressions. In fact, I don’t have many amusing digressions this week. Instead, I’ve got a couple of good court rulings, a new discrimination lawsuit, and some idle comments about the ludicrous lineup of GOP presidential wannabes.

For example, I was taken aback by the news of Ron Paul’s various newsletters, published in the early 1990s, which included racist and antigay statements. There was something about how AIDS is transmitted by saliva and gay people shouldn’t be allowed to eat in restaurants. Then there was a description of Blacks running off to cash welfare checks during the LA race riots. Martin Luther King Jr. was accused of beating up women and sleeping with underage boys and girls. The holiday in his name was referred to as “Hate Whitey Day.” Another letter blamed 95 percent of crime in D.C. on black males. Yet another called Barbara Jordon a “half educated victimologist,” and people with AIDS were said to enjoy the attention they received for being ill.

I know Ron Paul’s a complete nutcase who favors completely dismantling the federal government. But I didn’t know he was a stone bigot as well. Now, he claims that someone else wrote the stuff (which may well be true) and that the whole story is irrelevant because “it was twenty years ago.” Hello Ron! The newsletter was published under your name! And that kind of lack of judgment and/or neglect has no expiration date.

Twenty years is not such a long time. We’re all talking about Mitt’s Senate run and Newt’s contract with America, so why not throw Ron Paul’s nasty newsletters into the mix? By the way, Kim Young ‘un is not God’s gift to the women of North Korea. Just caught a glimpse of him on MSNBC out of the corner of my eye. Homely little bugger.

Oh, and Newt told gay voters that if same-sex marriage is an important issue in their lives, they should probably vote to reelect the President rather than support his nomination. I don’t think many of us would quibble with that analysis.
--


Thumbs Down for Georgia Counseling Student

Lambda Legal has taken up the cause of two lesbians who were turned away from a Hawaii bed and breakfast. The proprietor of the Aloha B&B reportedly said that lesbians were “despicable” and “defile our land,” leading the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission to join Lambda and the plaintiffs in a lawsuit against the inhospitable business. After all, it’s against the law to refuse service on the basis of sexual orientation in the Island State.

Then, do you remember the Christian gal who was getting her counseling degree from Augusta State University in Georgia? Jennifer Keeton made it clear that if faced with a gay client, she’d recommend reparative therapy. Keeton insisted that sexual orientation was a deliberate decision that could, and should, be reversed.

The school ordered Keeton to take a remediation course designed to help her comply with professional standards that forbid licensed counselors from bringing personal religious convictions to bear on their work with clients. When Keeton refused, she was dropped from the program and she then sued the school on religious freedom grounds.

This week, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled in favor of Augusta State, noting that that school has every right to hold students to general standards of professional behavior. No one was trying to squelch her religious beliefs. But nor were these beliefs allowed to undermine her counseling. And here’s the interesting thing. One of the three judges was William Pryor, who wrote a concurring opinion.

William Pryor is the conservative former Alabama Attorney General who we all hated back in the day when he was nominated to the bench by George W. Bush. I wrote about him just two weeks ago, when he and two of his colleagues issued an opinion in favor of a transwomen who was fired during her transition. Now, he pops up on the side of a secular university defending itself against a Christian conservative. What gives? Has Pryor undergone a sea change? Or has the law solidified in our favor to such an extent that even judges like Pryor must find in our favor?
--


Crybaby Closet Case Cracks in Court

I’m feeling badly about this column, a serious rundown of legal developments unleavened by fluff or flimflam. And I still haven’t discussed the custody ruling out of New Jersey (in favor of two gay men) or the sleazepot politico out of New York (convicted of corruption along with his secret gay lover).

How about this? I’ll skip the details of the custody suit, but I will mention the sleazepot, Democratic state Senator Carl Kruger, who apparently spent many years in Albany exchanging votes for piles of cash. At least some of the moolah was funneled through Carl’s paramour, Michael Turano, who pled guilty to a bribery charge on Tuesday. Kruger also faced the music, copping to four charges of fraud and bribery that could cost him 20 years behind bars. According to the press, both men cried through the court proceedings.

Why is this gay news? Only because Kruger has denied being gay and has even opposed same-sex marriage. The only way we know that Kruger and Turano are more than roomies is thanks to the wire taps that captured baby talk and cooing between the two. According to the Times, the men live in a “garish” Brooklyn mansion that once belonged to the Luchese crime family, which they paid for with ill-gotten gains.

Here’s the bottom line: gay people who go to great lengths to deny or hide their sexual orientation without cause are often short of integrity in other aspects of their lives. I’m not talking about gay soldiers or uncertain teens. I’m talking about grown men and women who can’t face themselves. The parks at midnight aren’t filled with normal gay men.
--



Ann’s column appears every week at sfbaytimes.com. She can be reached at arostow@aol.com

Desperately Seeking Higgs

GLBT Week in Review
December 14, 20122
BY ANN ROSTOW


Desperately Seeking Higgs

Welcome to my third attempt to begin this column. Attempts one and two were rudely interrupted by a power failure to my ancient Mac, which insists upon being plugged in order to function. First, a dog unplugged it at the outlet, destroying a wonderful introductory paragraph. Subsequently, I myself disconnected the cord at the computer, sending another fine effort into oblivion.

That’s three times I’ve had to undergo the torturous startup process during which this piece of junk laboriously chugs into life, slowly filling its screen with archaic software and old files before finally offering itself up for further activity.

I was reluctant to bore you with these tedious details but I had to get the frustration out of my system. Thank you for your patience. God knows I’ve had to stretch mine to its limit.

Speaking of God, did you read that the boffins in Geneva have gotten a “glimpse” of the Higgs Boson? Yay! No, I don’t know what it is either. But I know enough to want them to find it. I gather they’ve found some evidence that might point to the decay of one of these sub-sub-atomic “God particles,” so that’s something.

At any rate, even though this is a GLBT news column, I think the discovery of universal truths should take precedence over our own personal political concerns, don’t you? Also, while I was reading about the Higgs Boson, I noticed a link to a story about some people from Saginaw, Michigan, who tried to check 150 pounds of marijuana in their airport luggage.

Say what? Of course I’ve never personally flown with contraband. But perhaps part of the reason for that is the fact that I don’t think carrying drugs through federal security screening systems is a particularly smart idea. I do have a few crafty acquaintances who have come up with smuggling schemes. But packing large amounts of cannabis under a couple of sweaters in a checked suitcase does not rise to the definition of “scheme.”
--


Hear! Hear!

Let’s start the real news with the two mini motions argued before the Prop 8 panel last Thursday, December 8. As you’ve probably read elsewhere by now, the trio of judges at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit did not seem inclined to allow the Prop 8 trial videos to be released to the public. On the other hand, the judges also did not react well to the notion that our lower court victory from last year should be thrown out because the judge in the case, Judge Vaughn Walker, is in a gay relationship. (Judge Walker has since retired.)

Our enemies in the Prop 8 marriage case have been successful so far in keeping the trial video under wraps, based on the far-fetched idea that participants in the case might be harassed by angry gay activists. Unfortunately, Judge Walker promised that the trial would not be broadcast, and the Prop 8 side now insists that the anti-marriage witnesses relied on that ruling for permanent protection.

The Prop 8 side has also argued that Judge Walker was biased because he himself might have stood to benefit from a ruling in favor of same-sex marriage. No one has taken this argument seriously, and it doesn’t sound as if the Ninth Circuit panel will be an exception to the rule. By this logic, no woman could rule on a gender-based claim and no minority judge could handle a race-based suit. Indeed, why should a straight judge be allowed to rule on a gay issue, since he or she might be “biased” in favor of the anti-gay cause? In other words, this motion is nonsensical.

Check out the editorial on the Huffington Post by National Center for Lesbian Rights chief Kate Kendell. After watching last week’s hearing, Kendell noted that perhaps the suggestion that gay activists would react violently if the trial video was released was not completely off base, since she herself had the urge to approach the Prop 8 lawyers and slap them silly.
--


What Now, Brown Cow?

The best thing about these Prop 8 hearings was the timing. They were briefed and argued on a very fast schedule, indicating to most observers that the Ninth Circuit intends to rule quickly on the main question—whether or not Prop 8 is constitutional under federal law. After nearly a year’s delay over the procedural question of standing, it’s a relief that the court will not devote additional time to more arguments or more briefs or, God help us, another side issue.

Instead, it looks as if the Ninth Circuit is making up lost time and perhaps has already drafted most of its main opinion. I mean, why not? Surely they didn’t sit around on their hands for all these months, knowing full well that they would very likely have to rule on the merits of California’s marriage ban. Assuming that some, if not most, of the work has been done, we could expect a decision basically at any time. After that, the fun begins!

I’m guessing the Ninth Circuit will grant standing to the proponents of Prop 8 to continue their appeal, uphold our lower court victory, and keep in place the stay that continues to block California marriage during the litigation. Then we’ll see whether the other side appeals to the full Ninth Circuit, or directly to the Supreme Court.

If I were in their shoes, I’d want to skip the full Ninth Circuit and proceed to the High Court. Considering the nation's growing approval of marriage equality, I'd be worried that further delay would favor same-sex couples. Then again, if I thought Republicans would win the 2012 election, I might try to stall and hope for another rightward shift on the High Court.

Finally, keep in mind that neither the full Ninth Circuit nor the Supreme Court is required to accept review of this case. I know everyone assumes Prop 8 is too important to reject. But there may be strategic reasons for either court to step aside. If both courts deny review, the three-judge Ninth Circuit panel’s opinion would be final.
--


Let’s Digress!

Am I the only one who dislikes the phenomenon of car-as-Christmas gift? Who buys someone a car as a gift, without discussion? And if such a person really exists, don’t you think it would be a rich “one-percenter” rather than the family man or the young girlfriend that we see on TV?

Not only is the very concept of car-as-gift unlikely and the scenarios on TV commercials unrealistic, but in the case of those ubiquitous Lexis ads, we’re also supposed to believe that average people are familiar with the obscure Lexis theme song, and that whenever they hear a few notes, they instantly jump to the conclusion that their significant other has bought them a $35,000 luxury car.

All these elements combine with an extra surrealistic detail in my least favorite Lexis ad, the one that takes place on an elevator. Here we have the twenty-somethings, who seem too young to afford the car. But to make the ad far worse, the Lexis theme song is played through the elevator sound system at which point the man cocks his head and smiles at the woman with a look that says: “I just heard the Lexis theme song as we’re riding in an elevator so that must mean that you bought me a $35,000 car! I love you honey!”

But how do you arrange for a special song to play the minute you get on the elevator? You don’t. Ergo, why would anyone think the elevator song has a personal significance? Even if we assume that the man recognizes the Lexis theme and might expect his wife to buy him a car, he would never connect his wife to the elevator music. So it’s senseless! Doesn’t that drive you crazy? Because someone sat down and wrote that ad and got it approved by someone else and someone in the marketing department paid for its production and apparently no one said a word!
--


Weak

Speaking of ads, you’ll be happy to know that the gay bashing ad is biting Rick Perry’s butt. Oh you saw it, I’m sure. Bumble Boy is standing in the woods somewhere telling us he’s not ashamed of his faith and explaining that something’s wrong in America when gays can serve openly in the military while school kids can’t celebrate Christmas.

It’s hard to react to something so odd, and something that’s clearly directed towards a small deranged fraction of the Iowa electorate. You almost feel as if you’ve opened the door to a private study and seen something that wasn’t meant for you. Perry on his knees, naked save an American flag wrapped around his loins and a Santa hat, kissing a cross held by an older white minister.

“Oh. Sorry Governor. I was, um, I was just looking for the ladies room. Pardon me. I’ll just be, um. Sorry.”

As for kids and Christmas, I was just reading again about an administrator somewhere in Michigan who changed the lyrics of “Deck the Halls” to “don we now our bright apparel.”

I saw this last year and found it annoying. But when I read further I mustered up some sympathy for the elementary school Principal, who said he had absolutely nothing against gays or the word gay, but that his first and second graders could not get through the original song without exploding into unstoppable gales of giggles.

Hey. I’d change it too. Moreover, whether we like it or not, the word “gay” has eclipsed its archaic definition and there is now only one overarching meaning of the word. I’ll punch the next senior who bemoans the loss of a perfectly good word, because you know what? It’s gone! Get used to it. And we all know the revelers who were decking the halls were, technically, wearing festive attire. I’m pretty sure.
--


Abby’s Got Something

So, I was looking for more details on this year’s gay apparel story when I discovered that Abby of NCIS, or Pauley Perrette if you insist, says she won’t marry her finance, Thomas Arkle, until Prop 8 is struck down. Thank you, Abby! We owe you a CafPow.

And since we can live without further details on the latest debate about giggling six-year-olds, let me share an exciting tidbit, compliments of loyal reader Nicole from New York.

This story (which supplants my cousin Penny’s scoop about the British company that is now selling condoms filled with a Viagra-like gel) involves a conservative Christian politician who once ran unsuccessfully for governor of Alabama in 2009.

Bill Johnson has reportedly spent most of this year helping with earthquake recovery in New Zealand as an employee of an American disaster relief company. His wife Kathy remained in the U.S..

In his spare time, Johnson has also been donating sperm to various lesbians through online registries, where he goes by the name of “chchbill.” According to a lengthy article by David Fisher, Johnson has offered to lend a hand to nine women, and impregnated three. Until his activities became public, wife Kathy was not aware of his efforts, let alone his pending fatherhood

Somehow, Johnson drew the attention of local authorities, who have pesky rules and regulations for sperm donations and other fertility matters. Among other things, a donor has a limit of four contacts.

Johnson explained that he has long wanted to be a biological father, but that his wife’s hysterectomy made it impossible to have children in his marriage. Kathy herself had three kids from a previous marriage, but apparently these kids weren’t enough to satisfy Bill’s paternal drive.

Johnson said he hoped the pregnant women would allow him to have a parental role in the children’s lives, a dubious fantasy unless these women are headed for the reality show circuit. It’s not clear whether any of the pregnant lesbians know, or knew, about the others. Nor is there any reason to think the couples were prepared to deal with half brothers or half sisters for their new children, let alone an egomaniac conservative father figure. Good luck with that, ladies.
--

Ann’s column appears every week at sfbaytimes.com. She can be reached at arostow@aol.com

Watch Out Uganda! US Announces Pro Gay Foreign Policy

GLBT Week in Review
December 7, 2011
BY ANN ROSTOW



Watch Out Uganda! US Announces Pro Gay Foreign Policy

On Tuesday, Secretary Clinton announced a new commitment to GBLT rights, clarifying that our country’s promotion of human rights around the world includes, and may now even emphasize, gay rights. In a speech to the UN’s Human Rights Council in Geneva, Clinton said gay rights and human rights were “one and the same.” A White House memo on the subject echoed the theme, and I really should read the damn thing, which is sitting in my email inbox along with a gazillion other messages on the same subject. (I read it. It’s pretty great.)

The initiative follows recent comments by David Cameron, who said Britain might take gay rights into account when dispensing foreign aid. Like Cameron, Clinton implied that foreign aid might be used as a weapon to combat antigay policies in other countries, but neither the U.K. nor the U.S. is actually going to cut aid to nasty homophobic nations at the moment.

Still, it’s nice, don’t you think? Rick Perry popped out of his box to complain about how Obama “has once again mistaken America’s tolerance for different lifestyles with an endorsement of those lifestyles. I will not make that mistake.”

Oh Ricky. The poor schmuck has turned himself into a joke here in Texas, where the vast majorities that repeatedly elected him are now staring at each other, jaws dropped in disbelief, wondering why they never saw the fumbling goofball in the man. Even the Democrats among us have been taken aback by his ineptitude. We never liked him, but we flattered ourselves that he was a sharp campaigner. Now, we have no excuse for losing the last three governor’s races.

At least we suspect there won’t be a fourth. Come on, people.
--


Trojan Horse Manure

Speaking of Texas, perhaps you read about our stifling summer heat, when weather records that stretched back to Harding and Coolidge were immolated in the relentless sun. Many of us told ourselves that our reward would be a balmy winter. After all, since we beat the average temperatures by double digits from May to September, can’t we expect 70s and 80s in December and January?

Apparently not. Now our temperature is ten degrees below normal! Instead of 50s and 60s, we have 30s and 40s. WTF? This is simply wrong. As I write, I am clad in fuzzy pajamas and a Santa hat because I don’t want to blow up my heating bill.

Did you read, by the way, that we discovered a planet with an average temperature of 72 degrees about 600 light years down the space-time highway? In general, like most people, I am happy to have lived at my particular moment. But sometimes I feel sad that I probably won’t live long enough to watch the world discover intelligent extraterrestrial life. And no, Ancient Aliens don’t count. I want, at the very least, to be around when our scientists receive broadcasts of prime numbers coming from another star system. Can you imagine the impact?

Hmmm. I have accidentally written an entire section without mentioning GLBT news. Ooops, as Rick might say. I will tack on a nugget and use it for the headline in order to distract readers from the lapse.

The new Tea Party mayor of Troy, Michigan, has apologized for an old antigay Facebook post that recently came to light. “I think I’m going to throw away my I Love NY carrying bag now that queers can get married there,” Janice Daniels wrote last June. Mayor Daniels, who has since deleted her FB page, assured activists that she regrets making the comment.
--


Mean Kids

There’s an amazing Youtube video making the rounds in recent months. Recorded by eighth grader Jonah Mowry using flash cards, the video shows Jonah quietly crying as he describes the torment of a lifetime of being bullied. I’m not sure why Jonah’s video is only now going viral, but maybe it’s because there’s another angle to the story. Recently, Jonah made another video, laughing with a friend and insisting that everyone in school loves him.

Apparently, some critics now insist that Jonah was “lying” in the original video, as if the ups and downs of a struggling 14-year-old can be reduced to truth versus falsehood. What’s clear to anyone watching both pieces is that Jonah’s profound distress is genuine and haunting; his lighthearted follow up is, well, whatever. He’s a kid, and hopefully the upbeat version reflects a real improvement in his life.

Mowry’s video has had over five million hits and he has received hundreds of replies, flash card-style, from young adults expressing support. From what I read, I gather there have been some horrendously nasty comments as well, a phenomenon that just stuns you. For someone to watch this kid write about his pain with tears streaming down his face, and for that reader to react with venom rather than sympathy is mind boggling.

How do people so young turn monstrous? Perhaps you remember the boy in Buffalo, New York, Jamey Rodemeyer, who killed himself a few months back. This week, police concluded an investigation into the bullies who triggered his suicide, but did not find enough concrete evidence to file any criminal charges. Instead, several students were suspended from school. What struck me about the story, however, was that Jamey’s sister was harassed by these same kids after his death, and that some of them had not only urged Jamey to kill himself, but expressed satisfaction afterwards.

These aren’t just bullies, they’re sociopaths. But how is it that so many of these malevolent adolescents now roam the hallways? Have they always been there? I don’t think so.
--


Good For Macy’s

Here’s another case of “religious freedom” run amok, a clerk in a San Antonio Macy’s who refused to let a transwoman into the dressing room because to do so would violate her Christian beliefs. The clerk, Natalie Johnson, was fired following the Thanksgiving incident.

According to the Houston Chronicle, the scene led to an “altercation” involving the shopper, a trans-friendly manager, and other shoppers. Now, we learn, the antigay Liberty Counsel has insinuated itself into the mix, and presumably will help Johnson in a losing battle to win back her job or punish Macy’s in some way.

I say “losing” because Macy’s has every right to impose its own policies, and employees are paid to follow the rules. Plus, aren’t we all a little tired of Christians waving the Bible to justify every mean spirited notion that lodges in their hard little hearts? What if Natalie decided that her “faith” dictated that no one should buy flimsy lingerie? Maybe she disapproves of immigrants and refuses to serve anyone with an accent, on religious grounds. The possibilities are endless which is why religious freedom is freedom from government interference in faith, not a workplace mandate.

Actually, employers are bound to make accommodations for religious faith if and when doing so does not place an onerous burden on the boss. But as we’ve said, Christianity does not encompass trans bias. The duty to accommodate faith applies to days off for Jewish holidays and the like. It is not a green light to flout company rules based on personal moral judgments.
--


Federal Appellate Court Rules For Transwoman

Speaking of trans rights, there was a unanimous decision out of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit this week, an excellent opinion in favor of a Georgia transwoman who was fired from her editorial job in the Georgia Assembly’s Office of Legislative Counsel after she transitioned during her tenure. The December 6 ruling upholds a lower court determination that her dismissal was an Equal Protection violation.

Vandiver Elizabeth Glenn was hired in 2005 when she was still operating as a male during the workday. She informed her supervisor that she would eventually start working as a woman, and she wore a dress to the 2006 Halloween party. The head of the Office, Sewell Brumby, told Glenn her appearance at the party was inappropriate and made her leave. A year later, when Glenn was about to begin living as a woman full time, Brumby gave her the ax.

Unfortunately for Brumby, his actions amounted to sex discrimination, one form of which is gender stereotyping. As my favorite law blogger Arthur Leonard notes, the ruling was swift, handed down just weeks after oral arguments. And here’s the other noteworthy oddity; one of the three judges on the panel was none other than William Pryor, a conservative jurist that People Like Us spent months trying to block from the court. George W Bush sneakily appointed Pryor to the 11th Circuit when Congress was out of session and the former Alabama Attorney General promptly cast the deciding vote to uphold Florida’s antigay adoption ban.

As Attorney General of the Peach State, Pryor had filed a friend of the court brief in favor of sodomy laws as the High Court prepared to review Lawrence v Texas. All in all, he was one of the most seemingly dangerous court appointments of the Bush era, and now here he is, ruling in favor of transrights with his two liberal colleagues on the panel. Has Pryor softened his views? Perhaps. But it’s more likely that the constitutional and statutory bans on gender stereotyping in the workplace have become settled issues of law.
--


Prenda Prego!

You know how excited we all get when some Senate panel holds a hearing on some gay bill that’s been sitting around for a decade or so? Here’s news. We’re the only ones who notice. I know this because I just learned that a House committee held hearings the other day on the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act (PRENDA), a bill to prohibit abortions based on gender or race.

Ever heard of PRENDA? Me neither. But even though it’s championed by the far right, I’m all in favor of it. In fact, I don’t know why we don’t get together with Focus on the Family and the gang and amend PRENDA to add “sexual orientation.” Surely not even Focus on the Family would condone an abortion based on the discovery of a gay gene, right? Right? Let me check.

I’m back. It turns out that the far right believes abortions are targeted at minorities, particularly the Black community, ergo pro-choice groups are secretly plotting genocide. As for gender bias, that’s coming from those crazy Asians and other foreign folk who hate girls. And it seems they can’t add sexual orientation to PRENDA without admitting that a gay gene might exist. So that’s out.

At ant rate, now you know all about PRENDA. I like the sound it makes on the page. I have the impression that there’s a country somewhere out there where you can wave your hand, yell “PRENDA!” and someone will bring you a cocktail.
--


Prop 8 Panel Delves Into Side Issues This Week

So here’s what I have skipped over this week. Most importantly, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit will hear oral arguments Thursday on two issues. First, they’ll discuss whether Judge Vaughn Walker’s sexual orientation compromised his neutrality during the Pro 8 trial. Second, the lawyers will argue for and against releasing the trial tapes. Since I’m writing this column on Wednesday, my only option would be to rehash these two questions. None of us want or need such a review.

Second, the Australian Labor Party has voted to add marriage equality to its platform, which is very nice indeed. If and when we see a marriage vote in the Australian parliament, however, it will likely fail. Check out the terrific TV commercial from Get Up Australia, which will make you wish whoever’s in charge of our various ads had more guts and imagination.

And speaking of guts and imagination in television ads, have you seen Morning Joe’s hysterical politically incorrect promotional ads? Well, if you watch Morning Joe you couldn’t miss them, although one wonders why the show advertises to people who are already tuned in.

I almost forgot! There’s a gay man running Belgium now! Yay! Find your own details please. I have no more space.