Annual News Quiz

 

It’s that time again, Dear Readers. Time to take a short stroll down memory lane and revisit the idiosyncratic bits of flotsam and jetsam that wash ashore amidst the waves of our serious and important LGBT legal and political news coverage.

Last year, conservative majorities in the New Hampshire legislature unexpectedly refused to repeal the Granite State’s marriage equality law. Fine, fine, fine. But which gay icon had an asteroid named after him? Frank Kameny, of course!

In a historic leap of progress, we legalized marriage in Washington, Maine and Maryland. Three cheers for us. But do you remember the name of the woman who lay dead for a week in her London house while her husband did drugs in the next room? It was Eva Rousing and I forget the exact details.

We won an anti-bullying consent decree against the Anoka-Hennepin school district in Minnesota. The EEOC determined that trans-bias was officially covered under Title VII’s workplace discrimination language. The Supreme Court accepted two major gay rights cases for the coming term. Yeah, yeah, yeah. But how about those TSA pranksters who taped a dildo to two gay guys’ luggage and covered it with lube? And did you hear that famed chewy candies, “Mike and Ike,” officially got divorced?  They seemed so happy.

I think you understand our priorities. So, without further introduction, let’s proceed to our annual news quiz. Good luck, everyone.

--

 

1.Three of the following reported hate crimes were fabrications. Which one actually happened? a) Joseph Baken of Missoula, Montana, was beaten up outside a gay bar, b) Charlie Rogers, a Nebraska basketball player, was overpowered and slurs were carved into her body, c) In Roanoke, Jordan Addison’s car was vandalized with antigay scratches, d) Gay Republican, Kyle Wood, was assaulted by gay Democrats for his work on a GOP campaign.

 

2.Which of these animals is openly gay? a) Winkleman, the squirrel who can paint holding a brush in his mouth, b) Leonard, a celebrity pug who lives in Tiberon, c) Tank, the Pomeranian who fell off a boat into the Chicago river but miraculously wound up at a city intersection, d) Romeo, a swan who lives in the Boston Public Gardens, e) Inca, a penguin living at the Madrid zoo.

 

3.What’s my line? Match the name with the confession: a) I thought the guy sitting next to me on the bus was an alien, so I killed him and cut off his head with a knife, b) I ran naked down McArthur Boulevard in Miami, beat up a homeless man and chewed off part of his face, c) I was captured while googling myself in a Berlin coffee shop and arrested for dismembering a student in Montreal and mailing parts of his body to Canadian politicians, d) When my 12 year old son lost the sixth grade championship basketball game, I attacked the other coach and bit off his ear, e) I bit the nose off another inmate because he was gay.

Is my name: Timothy Forbes? Luka Rocco Magnota? Vince Li? Timothy Schwartz? Rudy Eugene?

 

4.Which state decided to let school children select the official “State Insect?” Hint: almost all our states have butterflies or ladybugs or bees as their official insects. This state, by contrast, is represented by the “tarantula hawk wasp,” a venomous flying hornet that lays its eggs on a paralyzed tarantula so the baby wasps can feed off the living spider when they hatch.

 

5.Who said that? Match the quotes to six of the following twelve names.

a“Tu eras maricon”

b“I didn’t know you had families.”

c“Fucker!”

d“Ain’t no homo gonna make it to heaven.”

e“Do you think Callista’s (Gingrich) hair snaps on?”

f“If you do it (gay sex) you must know that you are wrong and it is rotten.”

Jason Alexander, the King of the Zulus, Manny Pacquiano, Brad Pitt’s mother, Dahrun Ravi, Tripp Palin, Ric Grenell, a toddler in an Indiana church, Mitt Romney, Yanel Escobat, Aaron Schock, Alan Chambers.

 

6.Which of these countries legalized same-sex marriage in 2012? a) Denmark, b) France, c) Tasmania, d) Australia, e) New Zealand, f) Israel, g) Taiwan, h) Argentina.

 

7.Who’s gay and who’s not? a) Gillian Anderson, b) Honey Boo, c) John Travolta, d) the Green Lantern, e) Kristy McNichol.

 

8.Who wins the 2012 award for Straight People Behaving Badly in our Columns? a) The professional tennis umpire who killed her 80-year-old husband with a coffee mug, b) The Florida man who severely beat his mother at the dinner table for using his taco sauce, c) Lisa Biron, the conservative Christian New Hampshire lawyer accused of transporting a teenaged girl to Canada and forcing her to have sex with some guy on video, d) The 67-year-old man who called 911 a dozen times to get a lift to the liquor store, e) The day care workers who organized “toddler fights” and recorded the events on their iphones, f) Lynn Evenchik, the straight travel agent who tried to initiate a class action lawsuit against Avis for offering discounts to a GLBT travel group.

 

9.Either/Or:

a, Which Catholic priest accidentally screened gay porn to the parents in his First Communion class? Was it Father Marcel Guarnizo, or Father Martin McVeigh?

b, Which political leader left his daughter at a bar? Was it David Cameron, or Silvio Berlusconi?

c, Which sociologist recanted his antigay research? Was it Robert Spitzer, or Mark Regenerus?

d, Which high-level (theoretically heterosexual) power woman was caught in a lesbian scandal? Was it Florida Lt. Governor Jennifer Carroll, or Immigration and Customs Enforcement Director Suzanne Barr?

e. Which word means “duck fat?” Is it schmaltz, or shrift?

 

10.How will the Supreme Court handle the two gay rights cases next June? a) They will strike the Defense of Marriage Act using the rational basis test and uphold the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning on Prop 8, b) They will deny standing to the Prop 8 organizers and strike DOMA using heightened scrutiny, c) They will deny standing to the Prop 8 organizers and also deny standing to the House Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, but will acknowledge the Justice Department and strike DOMA in a vaguely worded decision d) They will restore Prop 8 and uphold DOMA using the rational basis test, e) They will issue multiple opinions on all aspects of both cases, creating a murky senseless hodgepodge, f) They will find that gay couples have a constitutional right to marriage in a 6-3 decision authored by Roberts, g) They will produce a different variation on the above combinations.

 

Answers:

1: The answer is c), Jordan Addison. When Addison couldn’t afford repairs, several local businesses fixed his car for free. Joseph Baken was caught on video trying to replicate a Gabby Douglas backflip while drunk as a skunk. He subsequently blamed his head injuries on a gay bashing. Charlie turned out to be a nutcase, as did Kyle to a lesser extent.

2: The gay animals are b) d) and e), Leonard, Romeo and Inca. Winkleman and Tank have never commented on their sexual orientation, but Leonard, who belongs to Robin Williams, is openly gay. Romeo is in a long term relationship with her partner, Juliet. Inca and his partner, Rayas, recently adopted an egg.

3: a) Vince Li, b) Rudy Eugene, c) Luka Rocco Magnotta, d) Timothy Forbes, e) Timothy Schwartz.

4: It’s New Mexico, aka the Land of Enchantment. What if all policy decisions were based on a statewide vote by public school students? We might not be better off, but things could get more interesting.

5: a) Toronto Blue Jay, Yanel Escobat, who actually wrote it under his eyes, b) Mitt Romney, in a 2004 comment to the plaintiffs in the Massachusetts marriage case that came to light this year, c) Tripp Palin, age 3, to his Aunt Willow who refused to let him go swimming, d) The four-year-old at an Indiana church, who sang an antigay song to laughter and applause, e) Former gay Romney advisor Ric Grenell, who eventually resigned, f) The King of the Zulus, during an anniversary celebration of the 1879 victory against the British at the battle of Isandlwana.

For the record, Jason Alexander said cricket was a “gay sport,” Manny Pacquiano said same-sex marriage was against God’s law, and Brad Pitt’s mother wrote an antigay letter to an editor. Dahrun Ravi was sentenced to jail time for his role in the 2010 suicide of Tyler Clementi, Illinois Congressman Aaron Schock triggered gaydars around the country when he wore a pink shirt, white pants and a teal belt to a White House picnic, and Alan Chambers, the head of Exodus International, acknowledged that he still felt attracted to men.

6: It’s a), Denmark. France continues to debate the subject. Tasmania and Australia voted against marriage equality. New Zealand marriage equality passed an initial vote and might be legalized next year. Israel agreed to a gay divorce and recognizes marriage from elsewhere. Taiwan does not recognize marriage equality but a gay couple “married” in a ceremony last May. Argentina legalized marriage in 2010.

7: The correct response is e). Only Kristy, the star of “Family,” is officially gay. Gillian has had a few lesbian “flings.” Honey Boo is only seven or eight, but her Uncle Poodle is gay and likes to go “wallowing” with his husband. Travolta, well what can we say?  The Green Lantern is straight, but another Green Lantern who lives on a parallel Earth is gay, so you get partial credit for d) if you honestly picked the parallel Green Lantern rather than the regular Green Lantern.

8: The answer is c). I think we have to give the prize to Lisa, don’t you?

9: a) Martin McVeigh of Pomeroy, Ireland. Father Guarnizo was the guy who denied communion to a lesbian at her mother’s funeral in Maryland. b) David Cameron, who thought the child was in another car with his wife. c) Spitzer apologized for his 2001 work on reparative therapy. Regenerus stands by his study that compares the children of broken homes with a gay parent unfavorably to intact straight households. d) Oh My God. Jennifer Carroll was (allegedly) caught in the act having sex on her desk with a female aide. Suzanne Barr was forced to resign after (allegedly) sexually harassing various male subordinates. e) Schmaltz means duck fat. Shrift is priest-ordered penance after a confession/

10: g) One can never predict the Supreme Court, ergo it’s unlikely that anything I can think of will actually transpire.

--

 

 

December 17

GLBT Week in Review, December 17, 2012

BY ANN ROSTOW

 

Standing Down

When I first heard that the Supreme Court had accepted the Prop 8 case I felt sick to my stomach. It was probably just as well that I was not operating under a deadline, because I would not have been able to temper my deep dismay.

I mean, really. Can you think of a good reason for the Court to accept review of Prop 8? And by “good,” I mean “good for us.” Indeed, the only “good” reason would be if five members of the Court clearly wanted to rule that marriage equality is a constitutional right, legalizing marriage for all gay couples next summer. And how likely is that?

Sorry, folks. It’s not likely. Projecting the motives of the justices is a fool’s game, but of this, we’re confident: The Court has no interest in preempting debate on marriage equality and forcing some 40 states to change their statutes and/or their constitutions. This is just a fact. (Keep in mind that if the Court wanted merely to keep the Prop 8 ruling limited to California, they could have denied review and allowed California marriage to be re-legalized.)

But wait! Once the details of the Court’s announcement emerged, another plausible interpretation arose. In addition to reviewing the core question of whether a state has the right to define marriage at our expense, the justices raised the issue of whether the Prop 8 proponents have standing to appeal their case in federal court. Perhaps you recall that procedural question, which delayed the Ninth Circuit for over a year.

Under federal law, the courts have jurisdiction over actual controversies, not over hypothetical questions. Further, the parties to a federal suit must have suffered (or imposed) actual harm. They can’t simply have a philosophical beef.

In the Prop 8 case, the Ninth Circuit panel ran aground on this problem. The original lawsuit was filed against the State of California. As you may remember, the State refused to defend the proposition, leaving the job to the embattled Prop 8 campaigners. That was all well and good until the Prop 8 side lost their case in Judge Walker’s San Francisco courtroom. It was one thing for the Prop 8 proponents to defend in trial court. But did they have standing under federal law to appeal their loss to the higher courts?

What “harm” would befall them if marriage was re-legalized in the Golden State? Hurt feelings don’t count.

Oddly, because this never really made sense to me at the time, the Ninth Circuit then asked the California Supreme Court to weigh in on the question of standing under state law. The California justices raised a key issue. It’s not fair to voters if a partisan state government can overturn a plebiscite victory it dislikes simply by refusing to defend it in a court case. Ergo, the measure’s proponents should have standing to pursue a defense. For whatever reason, the Ninth Circuit panel accepted this reasoning and went forward with the Prop 8 appeal.

But why? Prop 8 was a federal case and California’s top court cannot articulate federal law. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court had been vague on this question. At the time, GLBT news bloggers had been busy poring over tedious articles on federal standing under Article III. But when the Ninth Circuit restarted the case, we happily abandoned that task. Who cares about federal procedure! If the Ninth Circuit doesn’t give a damn, why should we?

When I say the High Court had been “vague,” it’s because the justices had never directly addressed the issue of standing in this context. However, they came close. In a case involving an Arizona English language-only ballot measure, the state had refused to defend the challenged proposition and the measure’s proponents had been allowed to take up the defense. Sound familiar? Although the case was dealt with on other grounds (journalist lingo for “I forget what actually happened”), Justice Ginsburg mentioned in a footnote that she had “grave doubts” about whether the ballot measure proponents had standing under Article III to bring an appeal.

So, in an era of proliferating ballot measures, is it not possible that the High Court intends to issue a definitive ruling on standing in this type of situation? I came to this conclusion even before famed SCOTUS analyst Linda Greenhouse wrote a great article on the several questions of standing now pending in our gay cases.

--

 

Whither BLAG?

In her article, which you really must look up, Greenhouse also highlighted the equally interesting standing issues surrounding the Windsor case. First, does the government have standing to appeal the Windsor ruling, given that the Justice Department argued against the Defense of Marriage Act and so technically they won the case?

In fact, this seems like an easy call. Although the Obama administration “won,” in the sense that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit struck the Defense of Marriage Act, the government is still in a bind. Unless, or until, DOMA is struck down for good, the government is bound to uphold the law. In the Windsor case, for example, the IRS is still banking over $300,000 of Edie Windsor’s tax payments on her wife’s estate, even though a straight spouse would have been exempt. Surely the government has standing to call for a definitive ruling on this law.

More interestingly, the High Court will examine whether or not the House “bipartisan” legal advisory group (BLAG) is qualified to defend DOMA under Article III. Keep in mind that BLAG is nothing more than a five-member ad hoc committee, composed of three Republicans and two Democrats. Bipartisan in name only, this obnoxious little group was quickly established after the Obama administration decided that DOMA did not pass muster under heightened legal scrutiny.

Ever since that policy shift in February, 2011, the BLAG has run around allocating money for a legal gay bashing that has never come up for a House vote. Don’t get me wrong, the House Republican majority would probably vote to fund the DOMA defense if forced to do so in a floor vote. But it would be another blot on the GOP brand, to borrow the recent meme.

The High Court has also appointed an independent advocate to brief the questions of standing in the Windsor case. I’m guessing the administration will be given the thumbs up, but who knows what will happen to BLAG? If the High Court strikes DOMA, as we all hope and pray it will, BLAG’s authority will be moot. That said, there may be other federal gay cases without an antigay champion in the future. If BLAG is compromised, it will be interesting to see who or what fills their ugly shoes.  

--

 

Morality Plays

Now, let me come to the defense of Justice Scalia, who has been roundly condemned for asking an audience of Princeton students why we can’t have laws against homosexuality given that we have laws against murder.

Woah Nelly! You should have heard the hysterics coming from our side, who quickly accused the conservative lawman of comparing gays to murderers.

Please, guys. Scalia was making a simple legal point, and it’s arguably at the core of our political and legal fight for civil rights. To wit: is there a legitimate moral argument against homosexual behavior, and by extension, to gay civil rights?

I know, I know. Of course we know the answer’s no. But that doesn’t mean that the question is settled.

I’m old enough to remember the early days of the gay rights movement, back in the late 70s, early 80s. It was only a decade after Stonewall, and AIDS had yet to devastate our brothers in arms. Gay rights back then was conflated with a general right to be free of moral disapproval. It was strange. We seemed unable to simply say that there’s nothing wrong with being gay. Instead, we had to fight any and all limits to personal sexual freedom.

Well, not all of us. I remember parading in New York City, when all the women, or at least most of us, split from the main group to protest NAMBLA. Remember them? They were pedophiles, for God’s sake! Yet they had their own pride parade group!

You can fight for gay rights without dragging along pedophiles, necrophiles or other freaky friends. I can support equality and still believe that someone convicted of bestiality might be legitimately fired or denied a public teaching job. We can and do make moral judgments in society and some of them can be enforced by law. No nudity in the middle of Main Street at noon. Fine by me. Even on Castro Street.

There are those, Scalia among them, who put homosexuality on a list that includes all sorts of bothersome proclivities. They cannot separate the sexual orientation from the act. Some believe any gay act is immoral, even marital sex. Others equate gayness with a host of negative behaviors from promiscuity to child abuse.

We may never convince those in the first category that gay equality is a civil right. But the others are beginning to realize that sexual orientation is neutral. Straight people can be pedophiles and gay people can have decades-long monogamous relationships. Sexual orientation is irrelevant. It is not a behavior. It is a status. Justice Scalia is barking up the wrong tree, not by comparing us to murderers (which he didn’t actually do) but by persisting in the notion that homosexuality is a moral issue.

Not to mention that we criminalize murderers and thieves, not because they’re “immoral,” but because they are a direct threat to life and property. Indeed, the reason that the High Court has ruled that morality alone may not justify a discriminatory law is because our moral laws are invariably based on legitimate public interests that go beyond simple judgments of good or bad.

--

 

Scrutinize This

Finally, would you like to know my greatest fear? It’s this:

I’m afraid the Court will issue a wishy-washy opinion on the most important legal issue that they face. This, of course, is the question of whether sexual orientation discrimination should be evaluated under heightened legal scrutiny, like race, religion or gender.

It’s possible that the Court could duck, ruling for example that since DOMA fails the easiest type of legal analysis there is no need to tackle the thornier question of which type of analysis should generally apply. This was how they handled equal protection in Romer v Evans, for example.

But it’s also likely that the justices won’t be able to escape so easily. The Second Circuit decision in Windsor argues for heightened scrutiny. So does the Obama administration. So does the trial court in Prop 8.

The arguments in favor of heightened scrutiny are powerful. The criteria, to be brief, is that high scrutiny should be leveled at a law that targets a distinct class of people who have suffered discrimination for a characteristic that has no bearing on their ability to contribute to society.

Although courts also take into account whether the class lacks political power or whether the characteristic is immutable, these factors are not binding on the definition. Religion, after all, is not immutable. And one can argue that women and other minorities do not lack a certain level of political power.

But if it seems obvious, there’s a reason that the High Court might hesitate to weigh in. A clear call for heightened scrutiny from the justices would profoundly shift the legal balance of power in favor of gay and lesbian plaintiffs in every future discrimination lawsuit. As a matter of fact, it would be just as powerful as legalizing marriage equality for the nation.

Let’s imagine that the Court strikes DOMA using heightened scrutiny, but rules that the Prop 8 proponents lack standing to appeal. That would leave us in limbo until another marriage rights case reaches the High Court, perhaps the two federal cases now heading to the Ninth Circuit from Hawaii and Nevada (which are being consolidated). Once those cases reached the Supreme Court, the table would be set for a national victory, a Brown v Board showdown for marriage equality.

Did I mention that predicting the Supreme Court is a fool’s game?

--

arostow@aol.com

Justice Delayed…Again!

GLBT Week in Review December 5, 2012

BY ANN ROSTOW

Justice Delayed…Again!

Before we start, I just read an article about how the sperm count of the average 35-year-old Frenchman has declined by 32 percent from 1989 to 2005. Why is this of interest? Because the article was written for Reuters Health by a guy named Andrew Seaman. Badda boom!

In case you’re wondering why it took seven years to evaluate the disturbing drop off in virility, I gather that the researchers used an existing database that was maintained during this period. And no, it’s not just the French. Apparently lighter loads are a general trend. (I’ve heard boxer shorts can help.)

Moving along, you may have noticed that the High Court discussed no less than ten gay rights petitions last Friday, November 30, and subsequently took no action whatsoever. Oh yes, actually they did do something. They rescheduled closed door debate on all ten for their next conference, December 7.

It’s like Lucy and the football. And we, the pathetically excited observers of GLBT legal history, are Charlie Brown, ever willing to line up for another dash at the elusive pigskin.

As one of the fools who’s been expecting High Court pronouncements since late September, I am tempted to turn my back on the justices and let them know that I just don’t care anymore. Go ahead, Court! Postpone the petitions for another week. Wait until after the New Year. Why not? Doesn’t matter to me either way.

You won’t find me glued to my computer next Friday afternoon when you might issue a news release. As for Monday morning at 9:30 Eastern when you announce your official orders, I’ll be too busy to check in. I think I’ll watch my pre-recorded episodes of The Hour. Maybe I’ll dye my hair or complete a dozen “challenging” ken ken puzzles. Oh, I have many many options. (Cue: “I don’t need you.”)

A quick tour through the legal blogs provides some theories on why the justices failed to move last week. It’s possible, for example, that the Court decided to reject the Prop 8 case (as many of us hope it will) but that one or more conservatives would like to write a dissent. As you may know, it takes four justices to agree to hear a case. And, although petitions are usually rejected without comment, it’s not uncommon for justices to dissent in writing if they strongly disagree with the vote.

Remember that a decision to reject Prop 8 will legalize marriage equality in California almost immediately. The Ninth Circuit would have to issue some paperwork and the insidious proposition would be history.

It’s also possible that the Court could not agree on which of the several DOMA cases should proceed. It’s fairly complicated after all. Everyone agrees that the justices have no choice but to review the status of the Defense of Marriage Act. But they’re looking at eight petitions on five different cases. Plus, Justice Kagan will probably not be allowed to consult on the three petitions out of Massachusetts since she was Solicitor General during the early litigation.

Is she even allowed to vote on those petitions? I don’t know. And what if the Court combined the Massachusetts cases with the Windsor case out of New York. Would Kagan be able to participate on a partial basis? Maybe the conservative side wants to take the Massachusetts case, while the friendly justices want to take up Windsor.

Or maybe the justices blew off the whole conference last week, made themselves a pitcher of Margaritas and watched cute animal tricks on youtube for a couple hours. Laughing. At all of us.

At any rate, it doesn’t matter because I’m completely indifferent to the entire subject.

--

Therapist, Heal Thyself

We really should take a close look at the dueling federal court rulings on California’s new law against reparative therapy. Is it a violation of First Amendment rights to tell therapists how to run their practices? Or is the law a simple matter of encoding professional standards that protect the public from rogue treatment?

Well, we’re not taking a closer look because that’s the question in a nutshell and if it fits into a nutshell, why pour it into a giant soup tureen? Last week, as you all know by now, one court ruled against the law (in an opinion that only applies to three people) and another one ruled in its favor, guaranteeing that the matter will eventually be settled by our good buddies on the Ninth Circuit.

I have to add that we’ve seen at least two courts deal with a related issue. Do you recall those Christian grad students who complained when they were ordered to keep their antigay views to themselves if they wanted to become clinical social workers or therapists or whatever? Two federal courts ruled that grad schools and professional organizations have the right to enforce nondiscrimination standards. The students can be antigay if they like. But they can’t bring that prejudice to their sessions with gay or lesbian clients.

I’m not sure where those cases stand, and don’t feel like checking. I think one of them was confirmed by an 11^th Circuit panel and the other was sent back to the lower court. Anyway, the point is that it’s arguably not unconstitutional to protect gay patients from openly hostile therapists.

Looks as if we spilled out of our nutshell despite ourselves. Now that I think about it, most nutshells are destroyed by the shelling process and do not function as effective vessels to begin with.

--

Nanny For A Day

Here’s a headline that caught my attention: “Norway Princess Makes Secret Trip to Play Nanny for Same-Sex Couple.” Turns out that 39-year-old Crown Princess Mette-Marit went to India to take care of twin newborns as a favor to a gay male couple. The twins were born to a surrogate mother, but the fathers were unable to get visas on short notice, and there was no one to look after the babies. One of the men worked for the royal family and was a good friend of the Princess.

Her highness was able to make it to New Delhi, using her own cash I might add. There she took care of the infants for three days until the dads arranged their own travel. The hospital staff thought she was a paid nanny, so Mette-Marit went with the assumption and stayed in the royal closet during her trip.

Surrogacy is apparently illegal in Norway, where it’s considered akin to human trafficking and an exploitation of poor women. That said, it’s not illegal to arrange for a surrogate from outside the country, a loophole that seems to me to render the policy moot. I mean come on. Norway’s not that big. At any rate, Princess Mette-Marit inadvertently stepped into that controversy, although most commentators recognized the kindness of her gesture and gave her a break. The babies have since arrived in Norway.

Don’t you love this story? Shades of Roman Holiday. I confess I’m a little jealous of these EU monarchies. I know we fought a revolution for our Democratic system, but I still think it would be fun to have a queen or a prince or a few duchesses. Or maybe I’ll stick to the vicarious appreciation of William, Kate and my new favourite, Mette-Marit.

I am hoping that William and Kate have a girl who will someday be first in line for the throne now that they’ve made the rules of succession gender neutral. I’m also hoping that Queen Elizabeth will arrange to skip over Charles and the un-queenly Camilla. I’ve never gotten over the “tampon” comment. You know what I’m talking about, right? If not, I’ll leave it to you to look up.

--

More Stuff About Marriage

A civil court in Israel just granted a same-sex divorce, which is a sign of something. I’ve never understood marriage law in the Holy Land, which seems to be governed by religious organizations. I think same-sex marriages are recognized in some way, but not affirmed by rabbinical courts. At any rate, this divorce is a positive precedent of some sort. So yay!

I think we’ve had enough marriage law for this week, so I’ll skip the full Monty on the Neanderthal federal ruling out of Nevada, where an uber-conservative judge stepped into the dark ages to deliver a ludicrous defeat to same-sex couples in a Lambda Legal marriage case. That decision will rise to the Ninth Circuit (along with a similar bad decision out of Hawaii) where we hope justice will prevail.

And conservatives are bent out of shape after two women got married in the West Point chapel, God forbid. I read a number of tirades about the ceremony, many of which bemoaned the “violation” of the Defense of Marriage Act. Say what? DOMA doesn’t ban same-sex couples from getting married. It bans federal recognition of those who do. When last I checked, West Point was in the state of New York, where same-sex marriage has been legal for quite some time.

--

Strange Goings On

What else is new, you ask? Well, I was reading about a high school principal in Mesa, Arizona, who forced two boys to sit hand-in-hand for 15 minutes as punishment for fighting. The boys were surrounded by jeering classmates, calling them gay etc., and in a photograph, you can see the anguished miscreants turned away from each other and hiding their faces with their free hands.

The photo really disturbed me. The kids were humiliated. The school used homophobia as a crucible. Plus, it was weird. Holding hands--- a sweet, sympathetic gesture--- was transformed into an ugly spectacle. It was almost like punishing gay kids by making them kiss heterosexual kids in public. And yet, it shouldn’t have been such a big deal, right? I’m confused by my own reaction. In addition to the taunting students, there’s some underlying wrongness in the incident that I can’t put my finger on.

And while we’re on the subject of vague discomfort, did you read about the Christian guy who went “undercover” for a year by pretending to be gay? The guy even lied to his conservative parents, along with everyone else he met during the year in question. After his self-taught lesson in tolerance, he wrote a book entitled: “The Cross in the Closet,” and lived happily ever after. His name is Tim Kurek and he’s 22 or 23.

I know I should read his book before rolling my eyes at this baby fundamentalist. But, still. I’ve never been particularly comfortable with the journalism of deceit. Nor do I understand why he had to make his parents go along with the scam. Surely he could have taken an extended walk on the wild side without dragging them along.

Plus, there’s something self-serving about the whole charade, beginning with the notion that the author was originally homophobic until he spent a year in the midst of our happy-go-lucky community. I don’t think anyone decides to spend a year “pretending” to be gay unless they find something intriguing about the exercise.

--

Let’s Do Lunch

Oops. I only have a hundred words left which is not enough to start a new topic. And yet, it’s too many to leave unwritten. Perhaps I’ll leave you with the tidbit that gay Star Trek icon George Takei had lunch the other day with Donald Trump. The unlikely pair discussed same-sex marriage, and I gather the deranged tycoon told Mr. Sulu that he recently attended a gay ceremony and found it “beautiful.”

This is not to say that Trump has changed his policy position. Trump once famously compared same-sex marriage to the use of the (soon to be outlawed) belly putter in golf. Like the ungainly long putter, Trump basically said that gay unions were just unattractive and made him uncomfortable. I forget exactly how he put it, and I have no idea if the “beautiful” wedding has altered his views on the matter.

The long putter, by the way, is being outlawed because the game of golf should require a player to calm his or her nerves through an act of will rather than a mechanical anchor. I agree with Trump on this issue, and this issue only.

--

arostow@aol.com

Christian Lady Lawyers Behaving Badly

GLBT Week in Review, November 28, 2012

BY ANN ROSTOW

Christian Lady Lawyers Behaving Badly

I realize that the High Court is about to confer on ten gay rights petitions, including several challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act. I know that we are poised to fight for marriage rights in a number of new states. I heard about some allegedly bad behavior by Elmo. I could tell you about delays in the French marriage law and controversy over whether marriage clerks should be bound by new equality policies.

But let’s set this all aside for now, shall we?

For one thing, I’m in a “holiday” mood; a timeless sensation that sets in from late November through the BCS championship game. My consuming interest in legal and political developments is suspended.

Right now, as I begin this week’s column for example, I am focused, not on the decision by Boeing to ignore Washington State’s new marriage law, but with the ridiculous article in the New York Times food section about how to bury a pot of beans in your back yard with a bunch of heated rocks. What next, Grey Lady? A “how to” on sun-dried mammoth jerky? More on this later, I promise.

But my main reason for leading us off on the road less travelled is the news that a 40-something female Christian conservative New Hampshire lawyer has been nabbed by the feds for running off with an underage teen girl and convincing her to have heterosexual sex with some guy on videotape. Lisa Biron is also suspected of using an array of drugs, keeping an illegal handgun and loading her computer with child pornography.

Our Lisa has helped on at least one religious case with the Alliance Defending Freedom, nee the Alliance Defense Fund, a legal group renowned for its antigay litigation work. She also served on the board of the Mount Zion Christian Schools in Manchester for a couple of years. She is now charged with seven counts of child exploitation, including transporting a child for illegal sexual conduct, as well as manufacturing and using child pornography. Witnesses testified that they saw her in possession of cocaine, ecstasy and marijuana, and law enforcement types found a ton of ammunition in her house.

Woah, Nelly!

Don’t you love stories about Conservative Christians dropping off the straight and narrow? Me too, and particularly when there’s a twist in the tale. Usually, our bad girl stories involve lesbians, while our miscreants on the Christian right are generally male. Thank you Lisa for turning the tables on our stereotypes. Or did you? Is there something else in your metaphorical closet besides girls and guns?

--

Where’s The Editor?

Getting back to the bean pot story, I’m actually serious about this. The New York Times is our country’s paper of record. Wednesday is food section day for most major papers. And this is a time of year when many readers are hungry for new ideas for the seasonal table.

So we turn to the Times and what do we find? A lengthy cover piece on the mechanics of digging a pit, messing around with beans on the stove, lighting a fire, tossing in a bunch of rocks and burning the fire to embers, taking the pot off the stove and sticking it in the pit for eight hours, for what? For some beans that could have sat in a low oven overnight. What’s the point? Is it simply an opportunity to show off your (self-satisfied) culinary imagination to your guests? I can think of no other excuse for this pretentious “recipe.”

Nor is this the only source of recent outrage triggered by my daily newspaper reading. There’s something else that I have circled on my “news” list with an exclamation point under the ambiguous title: “Austin American Statesman story!” I’m hoping to remember the content of this provocative line item before I finish this column.

But before we delve into actual GLBT news, did any of you catch the latest episode of The Good Wife?

It’s a great law firm series, but last week’s show presented an off-the-wall scenario involving the Defense of Marriage Act. When a gay man on trial was denied the right to spousal privilege, a famed appellate attorney stepped in to undermine the man’s defense in order to set up a high level test case which would eventually lead the Supreme Court to overturn DOMA.

Who came up with this absurd idea? No famous appellate attorney would imagine that a single DOMA-related incident would be a good test case. No famous appellate attorney would intervene at the trial stage in any event, let alone to damage an individual defendant. And no famous appellate attorney would be totally unaware of the many existing challenges to DOMA. The scriptwriters included references to the government’s decision last year to stop defending the law. But they ignored all the ongoing DOMA cases. When the gay man wins his trial, the appellate lawyer tells everyone that they’ve just assured that DOMA “will continue for another decade.” Say what?

Here’s my point. If you’re going to write plots based on today’s news, you can’t botch the context to this extent. For heaven’s sake! This show aired just ten days before the High Court is going to review no less than eight DOMA petitions!

Plus, the lawyer was played by the same guy who stars as a cop on Rizzoli and Isles. I always find it jarring when TV characters pop up as unexpected guest stars on other shows. It’s hard for me, for example, to accept that the hero in Revolution is the serial killer from The Closer. And readers: who is that guy who plays the newly elected mayor on Vegas? I’ve seen him before! Maybe on Ally McBeal? Perchance I watch too much of this stuff.

--

Here We Go!

Okay Okay.I know we have rehashed the big Supreme Court story for week after week, and yet this time it’s really happening! So let’s do it one more time for the record.

On Friday, the justices will decide whether or not to accept one or more challenges to the main section of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act. Since this federal law has been struck down by not one, but two federal appellate courts, it’s a certainty that the Court will resolve the national status of the law this session.

There are technically eight DOMA petitions before the Court, but three of them involve related DOMA litigation in Massachusetts, where the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit convened the first appellate panel to strike the law. Significantly, Justice Kagan may be obliged to recuse herself from this early litigation because she served as Solicitor General while the Massachusetts cases were rising through the courts.

The most interesting DOMA case is that of New York widow Edith Windsor (two petitions) who sued the government after being forced to pay estate taxes on her own property after the death of her wife. A few weeks ago, a 2-1 panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled in her favor. Significantly, the panel ruled that sexual orientation discrimination should be evaluated with heightened scrutiny, adding a large and welcome weight to our side of the judicial scale. The Justice Department has asked the High Court to dump the other DOMA cases and focus only on Windsor, a move that would let Kagan stay on the case and would also oblige the justices to take a stand on the key issue of heightened scrutiny for gay plaintiffs.

Two other petitions involve the Pedersen case, a Connecticut case that has yet to be reviewed by an appellate court. Since Connecticut is governed by the Second Circuit, however, the Windsor decision presumably dictates Pedersen as well.

The eighth DOMA petition is another case that has not been reviewed by an appellate court, namely the Golinski case out of Northern California. As with Pedersen, the trial court ruled against DOMA. And as with Pedersen, the case was petitioned to the High Court in order to expand the Court’s DOMA menu, if you will.

So basically, we have Massachusetts, Windsor, Pedersen and Golinski. The Court could take all of them or some combination. I’ve spent too much time in print fumbling around with inept Court speculation so I think I’ll just wait and see what happens here.

Meanwhile, there are two other petitions that address gay couples, but do not challenge DOMA. Here we have no idea whether the Court will accept the cases, reject the cases, or maybe put them on ice until the justices can articulate new gay rights jurisprudence via the DOMA litigation.

Of course one of these cases is the Prop 8 case, decided narrowly in our favor by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Many of us hope the justices will reject review, legalizing marriage in California in short order. If they accept review, danger lurks.

Lastly, the Court will think about another Ninth Circuit gay rights victory, a ruling that stopped Arizona lawmakers from cutting out same-sex partner benefits for state staff for budget savings. Saving money is a fine government interest. But you can’t cut spending by, let’s say, eliminating benefits for African American employees.

So there you go. It’s possible that the Court could announce something on Friday afternoon. But it’s more likely that Monday morning will be the moment we’ve all been waiting for.

--

Fight For Marriage Crosses New State Borders

Ladies and Gentlemen, we are not going to bask in our Election Day marriage victories. Instead, we’re going on offense. Or so I read and hope. What states are on our new target list? Quite a few it seems.

You may remember that New Jersey lawmakers passed a marriage equality bill last year, at which point Chris Christie took out his red pen and scratched our hearts out. Nonetheless, we still have a few months to override his veto if we can pull out a few more votes. Plus, we have a lawsuit working its way through the Garden State courts, and I suppose we can pass marriage in the next legislative session and hope Christie thinks twice about the subject.

We won control of state legislatures in Colorado and Minnesota, where new seeds for marriage laws now blossom. Rhode Island, Hawaii and Delaware are also considered fertile ground. Oregon activists are considering a ballot measure in 2014, and progress looks possible in Illinois. I also read about something maybe happening in Nevada, but look. You get the picture. A lovely landscape overflowing with pleasant imagery. Something out of the Hudson River School perhaps.

Indeed, the very idea of more marriage equality states fills me with such good feelings that I am loathe to write about the antigay law in Uganda, or the Alabama lesbian who was beaten to a pulp over Thanksgiving by her girlfriend’s brother.

For one thing, we’ve been talking about this damned Uganda law for years and it still hasn’t passed. As for the lesbian, she looks like she’s been to Hell and back. But it also sounds as if the brother might simply be a violent maniac rather than a homophobe.

--

If the Shoe Fits

Speaking of homophobes, the style mavens at the Associated Press are questioning whether the term “homophobia” is appropriate, given that dislike of gay people is more a prejudice than a fear. But I agree with those who point out that the term applies to those who hate out of ignorance, and yes, out of mindless fear.

Look. I’m an arachnophobe even though I’m intellectually aware that, let’s say, tarantulas are perfectly harmless and an important part of Nature’s plan.

That said, would I let a tarantula climb up my arm? No. Would I support civil rights for tarantulas? No. And why is that? Because of atavistic and unreasoned fear! An instinctive revulsion that cedes nothing to logic, science or reality itself.

So when we talk about true homophobes, we use the word accurately. We’re not talking about Chris Christie, much as we reject his political posturing. We’re talking about Tony Perkins, Ugandan lawmakers, Pat Robertson, the Alliance Defense Fund, Peter LaBarbera, and others of this ilk. The obsessed ones.

What’s The Matter With Gay Republicans?

GLBT Week in Review, October 31, 2012

BY ANN ROSTOW

What’s The Matter With Gay Republicans?

I’ve been through quite a few presidential elections, but I can’t recall this level of anxiety. As I write, on Wednesday, I am flooded with the good kind of anxiety, the kind that expects to win but still fears losing. That is far preferable to a couple of weeks ago when my fragile confidence was slipping towards despair. But even so, I can’t stand much more of this. Can you?

If you are a gay or lesbian voter and you plan to vote for Romney, you had better have an extraordinary reason for doing so. Many, if not most of us, don’t consider ourselves single issue voters. And frankly, even though Democrats have historically been more supportive of gay rights, there was an argument to be made in past elections that the outcome would not affect our community in fundamental ways. (Not that I would have made that argument myself.)

But this election is different.

If Romney wins, the Justice Department will abandon its support for gay rights and switch back to support for the Defense of Marriage Act. The Supreme Court, which is almost certain to evaluate DOMA this session, will no doubt delay its procedures to allow the new administration to redraft its briefs. That’s the short run fallout. The long term likely includes a conservative replacement for Justice Ginsburg, a generational setback for all our hopes and dreams.

So, my dear Republican brothers and sisters, what exactly is so important this time around? Tax policy? The defense budget? It’s certainly not the deficit. Are you against abortion rights? Do you really think the austerity program that has brought Europe to its knees is a good idea for the United States? Or is it simply the case that you cannot separate your party affiliation from your core sense of self?

Let’s not belabor the point. I still love you.

--

Windsor Case Breakthrough Changes High Court Calculus

Before we give our insatiable appetite for election stories another snack, I am pleased to announce that we have some actual news to guide us in our idle rambles through the tangled woods of Supreme Court speculation. This week, instead of stringing together our usual succession of“what ifs,” we find ourselves in a lovely clearing thanks to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Oh, and we also have adorable forest animals gathered around, eyes wide and ears perked for the new developments.

On October 18, the Second Circuit issued an impressive ruling in our favor, astonishing for its speed and breadth. Just a few weeks after hearing oral arguments in the case of New York widow Edith Windsor, the 2-1 appellate panel struck Section Three of the Defense of Marriage Act as unconstitutional. In doing so, the panel took the historic step of ruling that sexual orientation discrimination should be evaluated with heightened legal scrutiny, a standard that forces the state to show that a law is substantially related to an important public interest.

Up until now, gay rights cases at the federal appellate level have always been judged under the lowest standard of legal review, a test as easy as pie that requires the plaintiff to prove that a law bears no rational relationship to any legitimate state interest. It’s the difference between getting a GED or graduating from Yale.

Can I add that I’ve never actually made a pie, which does not seem easy at all. I’ve been particularly intimidated by the idea of taking cold chunks of butter and shoving them into a mess of flour with a wooden spoon. How do people do that? Please do not answer this question unless you have a secret, easy-as-pie, technique to share.

Driven by my earlier metaphor, I must pause while the squirrels and bunnies clap their paws together and squeak with excitement. The bluebirds emit a happy caw and the fawns do a little dance. Settle down everyone, there’s more!

On Friday, October 26, the Justice Department asked the Supreme Court to shelve the other DOMA appeal petitions and accept review of the Windsor case. As you may recall, the High Court is now sitting on two DOMA cases out of Massachusetts which have already traveled through the First Circuit. They have also been asked to take review of two other DOMA suits that have yet to be heard by the intermediate courts (Golinski in California and Pedersen in Connecticut).

Now, Windsor has finished its lower court run and stands ready to become the main vehicle for the High Court’s definitive evaluation of the horrid anti-marriage law. Court observers think the justices will wait until their November 20 conference before deciding which DOMA case or cases to review. They may also decide whether or not to review the Prop 8 ruling at that meeting.

One caveat before we move on. Although most people think the High Court will strike the Defense of Marriage Act, it’s impossible to predict how the justices will handle the question of heightened scrutiny. To us, the status of gay bias should be a no brainer. Like race and religion, sexual orientation defines a minority class with a history of persecution based on animus alone. We lack political power and while the jury may still be out on whether sexual orientation is genetic, it’s clear that one should not have to change orientation in order to avoid public discrimination.

But the Court will be wary of agreeing with the Second Circuit. Why? Because if they do, they will effectively end the legal debate over gay rights in one stroke. It’s more likely that they’ll manage to avoid a yes or no answer.

--

State Marriage Battles Down to the Wire

Now, let’s look at the four marriage ballot measures. All year long, we’ve seen strong support for equality in Washington, Maine and Maryland. Loyal readers will recall that this column has regarded the polls with a skeptic’s eye. Bruised and battered by the swing voter who comes home with a dozen roses and claims he’ll never lift a finger against us again, we will believe it when we see it.

Now, with the election six days away, that voter is swinging into the house demanding dinner on the table and asking why the kids’toys are cluttering the floor. Can we simply fix him a martini? Or are we about to get creamed?

In Maryland, where our support was something like 52 to 43 just a couple of weeks ago, the most recent poll said 47 percent of voters would repeal the marriage equality law, while 46 would uphold our rights. Six percent were undecided.

In Maine, polls continue to show that a majority of 52 percent to 57 percent of voters support marriage equality, but I can’t find a really recent poll to confirm the advantage.

And over in Washington, our double digit lead has narrowed to a four-point edge as of a poll released October 24. Lord knows where it might be at this moment, let alone next Tuesday.

Minnesota voters, by contrast, will not be voting to legalize same-sex marriage, but to outlaw it by constitutional amendment. Again, polls are just slightly in our favor, but I heard from one insider that we are likely to lose by a couple clicks.

Last week, the head of HRC said that even one win in these four contests would be considered a “narrative changing” event, which is true but implies a certain pessimism from our top lobbyists. But look, I’m still hoping for the best.

As a self-described “reporter,” it’s my job to avoid hopping on the cheerleading bandwagon when polls are in our favor months out from the election. But now that we may indeed see defeat snatched from the jaws of victory, I can afford to indulge my inner activist.

We will win Maine. We will win Washington. We have a good shot to win Minnesota, when you consider that blank ballots count in our favor. And as for Maryland, who knows? We have the ardent support of the state’s Democratic governor, Martin O’Malley, and we have the energy of a Democratic state. I’m not writing off the Soft Shell Crab State just yet.

I’m getting out the Hendrick’s.

--.

Bad Boy

I just don’t have the heart for anti-gay violence this week. Sometimes it’s just too much. I will, however, mention that a gay Republican, who claimed he was beaten up by Democratic campaign supporters, has been charged with filing a false police report and obstructing police.

Kyle Wood was a volunteer for GOP Congressional candidate, Chad Lee of Wisconsin. Last week, Wood claimed that he was attacked at a rally for Lee’s opponent, Madison state rep. Mark Pocan, who is gay himself. Wood ran around telling every media outlet who would listen that he was assaulted around the head and neck for being a gay Republican, and that Pocan’s husband sent him threatening texts.

Now, Madison Police Captain Joe Balles tells the press that the accusations were unfounded and that Wood will be facing criminal charges. The Lee campaign, which originally supported Wood, has now fired him, and local media have removed earlier coverage of the story from their websites. Wood reportedly also has a record for trying to attack his former boyfriend with a butcher’s knife in 2008.

Far be it for me to suggest the man was struggling with the existential tension of being a gay Republican. It’s more likely that he was simply unbalanced. For whatever reason. Nothing to do with politics.

--

Mob Justice?

Hey. I just saw on the news crawl that someone found a human skeleton inside a tree that was downed by Hurricane Sandy. Paging Dr. Temperance Brennan! I’m going to look it up.

Never mind. It was just some 19^th century gravesite. Meanwhile, I should tell you that the marriage equality law in France is still on track, but seems to be delayed until November. Oh, and a gay man was elected governor of Sicily. I kind of love that image, don’t you?

Here’s the scene I imagine in Baltimore’s Little Italy. Four men, sitting in the corner alcove at Luigi’s Pizzaria.

“Sammy. I gotta message from the home office.”

“What gives?”

“We want this Question 6 business taken care of. Know what I mean?”

“Yeah boss, but I dunno. We can’t whack every no voter in the state.”

“Just do what you have to do. Make it happen.”

Well, a girl can dream, right? Oh, of course I’m not advocating mob hits on antigay voters in Maryland! Maybe a few tire irons to the kneecaps, that’s all. Alternatively, we can win on the merits.

--

Close Calls

I just wrote a final paragraph about the election, hit one button on this unfamiliar Windows version of my word processing program, and deleted the entire column down to a single letter, “b” if you care.

I quickly saved that file under another name and reverted to this one, but still! How could that happen? On my Mac, I just have to delete the previous accident and all is restored. That solution may also exist on this computer, but it’s not obvious.

Yes, I’m happy that I saved the vast bulk of this fascinating diatribe (quick wittedly I might add). But I remain too traumatized by the experience to reconstruct my final rant against Mitt Romney. Trust me, it was eloquent indeed.

One button! That’s all it took. I didn’t select the text. I just hit something. I’m not sure where the “b” came from, but basically I experienced total reversal of circumstances, without warning, in an instant.

I can’t help but take a life lesson from the moment. Yes, it will be a stunning setback for this country if Romney is elected. But you know what? It won’t delete our entire national script. We will survive, Democrats and Republicans alike. I may have told you about the desperate search for alcohol that followed the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980, a search that culminated in the consumption of the Crème de Menthe that had lurked under my sink for several years. Next week, should the unthinkable transpire, Mel and I may finally drink the banana bread beer that my stepson and his wife bought for the household in the summer of 2011. I can only pray that fate will spare us.