GLBT Week in Review January 25, 2012
BY ANN ROSTOW
Nancy’s Got A Secret
Many good Democrats are torn. By rights, President Obama should waltz to reelection if Newt Gingrich becomes the GOP standard bearer. But. BUT. Giant BUT. Is it worth the risk? Is it worth the slim chance that the fates would align to catapult the porcine egomaniac into the White House? Do we not have a larger duty as American citizens to root for Romney, even though he would make our lives more difficult in the general election?
I struggle with this question.
Recently, Nancy Pelosi has been making intriguing comments, signaling that she “knows something” that will disqualify Newt from higher office, and by implication, that the secret will not withstand the scrutiny of a campaign season. Gingrich, in turn, has replied that Pelosi lives in a “San Francisco environment of strange fantasies,” which coincidentally, is familiar territory to many of my beloved Bay Times readers. I’ve spent some time in that environment myself. It’s a fun place!
I also read that Newt divorced his first wife, Jackie, in part because she lacked the youth and beauty of a future First Lady. We also heard from that Nightline interview with his second wife, that Newt believed marrying Callista would help him become President of the United States.
The two pieces of gossip suggest that the man has been imagining himself in the oval office for decades. Further, if he is so image conscious, wouldn’t it have made sense to lay off the mashed potatoes and gravy for a year or so before throwing his hat in the ring? Remember, we didn’t have television back when William Taft was elected.
Finally, I keep thinking about the New York Times magazine story a few months ago, when Gingrich told the interviewer that he found solace last summer in his wife’s children’s book character, Ellis the Elephant. During those dark days cruising the Aegean, when his campaign hopes seemed shattered, the cartoon pachyderm was a “psychological oasis” and “a ray of light.”
What kind of serious statesman says something like this? Honestly.
I’m not rejecting the notion that fictional characters can provide us with inspiration. And to be honest, I’ve never read the book in question. But it’s a children’s cartoon book. It’s not an allegory.
There’s an infantile streak in Newt Gingrich, manifest in the feeling we get that his ambition and narcissism are based in insecurity not ideals. The multiple wives, the oblivious self-aggrandizing, the hedonism implicit in his girth and jewelry store bills—this is immaturity. There’s a little boy trapped inside him, so I suppose it’s not surprising that when the going gets tough, it helps to snuggle up to a make believe elephant, who, Newt told the Times, he would describe as “happy, positive, creative, interesting.” Enough said.
--
So Tu, Barry?
Did you watch the SOTU last night? I only wrote that so I could use the somehow satisfying acronym. But of course we watched it, just as we watched the debate on Monday, as well as all the other debates and all the primary night coverage and all the Sunday talking heads and most of the pundits every other night of the week, not to mention Morning Joe every weekday and NPR on the ride home after work each day.
Yes, we are junkies. We even switch over to Fox News every now and then to relieve the tedium of hearing our own political views reverberating through our living room for the thousandth time. Sometimes, like drunks who fix a pot of coffee to recover for the next binge, we watch something off the DVR, like Kitchen Nightmares or NCIS.
“You call yourself a head chef? It’s RAW!”
At any rate, there were two gay women sitting in the VIP area during the State of the Union speech. One, an army major who will deploy shortly, and another woman who was part of a successful workplace sex discrimination suit. That’s nice.
As we all noticed, President Obama made only a passing reference to gays, but personally, the omission didn’t bother me. He made no mention of any of the so-called social issues, and indeed he basically skipped over large areas of the national agenda. Medicare, health care in general, Social Security, North Korea, crime, drugs---none of these received significant shrift.
I bet you’re wondering what “shrift” is. You probably think I know what it is because I just confidently used it in a sentence. But I confess I have no idea. Outside the context of the common phrase “short shrift,” the word is meaningless to me. Let’s look it up!
Turns out a “shrift” is a penance imposed by a priest during confession. The idea of a “short shrift” reflects the dilemma of prisoners facing imminent execution, who lack the time to carry out an extended ritual. In Richard III, Ratcliffe tells Lord Hastings: “Dispatch my lord, the Duke will be at dinner. Make a short shrift, he longs to see your head.”
As you can tell, the word shrift no longer fits neatly into the original sentence. You can’t say: “President Obama gave short shrift to discussions of entitlement programs.” In fact, since shrift is a noun, not a verb, we can’t even say “short shrift,” but should say, like Ratcliffe, “a short shrift.” Our conundrum is that the modern expression has transcended its 14th Century roots and now carries a meaning of its own, one nearly severed from its original sense.
Now we have two quandaries. Should we root for Newt? How will we employ the word “shrift” going forward? What’s a girl to do?
--
Nervous In Seattle
We have some major news this week, news so important that it should have led the column. Yet, sometimes I can only dive into this weekly effort with a topic that sings out “Lead with me! Lead with me!” For whatever reason, Newt sang to me while the imminent passage of marriage rights in Washington State hummed quietly in the corner.
Yes, it seems to be true. I say “seems to be true” having been slammed in the past by reports of imminent passage of marriage rights that failed to materialize. But this time, we seem to be in good shape. We have the votes to pass marriage rights in the state house. We just won the deciding vote for equality in the state senate. And we have the enthusiastic support of Governor Christine Gregoire. Barring calamitous political bumbling, this will happen and it will happen soon.
I would be more excited were it not for the fact that marriage equality will almost certainly be sent to the ballot box for a public vote. The citizens of the Starbuck State have already shown their rainbow colors a couple of years ago by defeating a measure that would have repealed domestic partner rights in the state. Will they stand up for us when the subject is full marriage rights? I hope so. And speaking of Starbucks, the coffee empire joined Microsoft, Google, Nike and over 100 other state corporations in supporting our unions. Thanks People.
Meanwhile, marriage equality is also brewing in Maryland, the scene of last year’s failed effort. This time, with the help of Governor Martin O’Malley and a stronger organization, we may have a better chance of nabbing the 71 votes we need in the House of Delegates.
But as is the case in Washington, a legislative victory may well lead to a public vote in November. And although we could win such a vote in Washington, a victory in the Crab State would be more difficult.
Finally, it also looks as if marriage rights might emerge from the Garden State legislature if our side can drum up a veto proof majority. Last week, Governor Chris Christie said that if the legislature sent him a marriage bill, he would veto it in favor of a statewide vote on the issue. But lawmakers don’t seem inclined to put civil rights on the ballot, even though there’s a chance that gay couples might win one of these elusive marriage battles if given the chance in a progressive state. It seems more likely that we could override a Christie veto, but it would still be an uphill fight.
Don’t forget, we are also looking at an anti-marriage amendment vote in North Carolina this May. Then in November, Minnesota voters will try to amend their constitution to ban marriage, while Mainers may possibly take a proactive public vote on whether to approve marriage rights if activists decide to roll the dice and file for the ballot. Toss in Washington and/or Maryland and we’re in for another rousing election year. I know we have almost always lost these campaigns. But times are a changin' and we’re not going to lose them forever.
--
The King’s Speech
I have other state legislative news, including some particularly nasty stuff coming out of New Hampshire, where lawmakers want gay women over the age of 21 to be tattooed on their earlobes with the letter “L.” That way, various wedding-related businesses in the state can identify them and refuse service under a special exception to the state civil rights laws. I’m not sure about the exact details, but it’s something like that.
Let’s just say that I’ve done enough on state legislative news.
I read, by the way, about an eight-month-old baby girl in Newark who came home from day care sucking a dead mouse. Really? Really day care workers?
By the way, since we mentioned a baby, I was reminded of the VW commercial with the guy who goes through his teenaged years and into adulthood looking for fast vehicles, only to change his priority to “safety” once he becomes a father. You’ve seen it, right? Is that not the ugliest baby you’ve ever seen? Why, I wonder, did VW’s ad execs go out of their way to find an angry looking ugly baby for their TV ad? Tis a puzzlement.
Oh. And the King of the Zulus allegedly said that gays and lesbians were “rotten,” during a speech in Nquthu celebrating the 1879 Zulu victory in the battle of Isandlwana. I said “allegedly.” A tribal spokesperson said that King Goodwill Zwelithiui’s remarks were “recklessly” translated.
The battle of Isandlwana was perhaps England’s worst 19th century colonial defeat, so I cannot imagine how the subject of gays and lesbians figured into King Goodwill’s text.
--
Cruise Like A Lesbian
I’ve been saving the fun marriage ruling out of Minnesota, where a state appellate court reinstated a freedom-to-marry case and in so doing, put us back on the road to exciting legal news in the Land of a Thousand Lakes. Who knows?
The case, filed against a county clerk, now goes back to lower court and will make its way back up the ladder in the many months to come, so perhaps “exciting” is overstating the character of the litigation. But it sounds as if the unanimous three-judge panel told the court to take this case seriously, rather than blow it off by citing an old comment from the U.S. Supreme Court that was not only outdated, but also inapplicable to a state law challenge.
I fully intended to talk about that ruling at length, but I have since changed my mind. Why? Because I’m almost done with my column and it’s time to fix myself a cocktail and continue my last minute preparations for our Olivia Cruise.
I will be skipping my column next week as we bask poolside through the Caribbean, so I’m guessing that news will break out all over as it usually does as soon as my back is turned. Look for a Prop 8 ruling out of the Ninth Circuit, as well as progress from the state legislatures that we talked about earlier.
What do you think? Car IB ean? Or CARA be an? I’ll find out next week. Sea ya.
--
Ann’s column is available every week on sfbaytimes.com. You can reach her at arostow@aol.com.
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Thursday, January 19, 2012
Sometimes You Feel Like a Nut
GLBT Week in Review January 18, 2012
BY ANN ROSTOW
Sometimes You Feel Like a Nut
The television machine just told me all about Winkleman, the pet squirrel who paints abstract art using water colors with a little brush that he holds in his teeth. It’s a sad commentary on my professional mindset that Winkleman can launch me into this column at the expense of interesting marriage developments in several state legislatures as well as thought provoking court cases and Supreme Court moves.
He was adorable! And the paintings were pretty good as well. I was reminded of the elephants I saw on YouTube who also painted. The elephants could actually paint elephants, so if Winkleman ever paints a squirrel—or any other rodent for that matter---I think I’ll devote the entire column to his amazing exploit.
I wonder if Winkleman is a gay squirrel. Who knows? His artwork looks sort of gay.
Chris Christie has replaced the charming Winkleman on the small screen, which reminds me of one of our lead stories, the status of marriage equality in New Jersey.
New Jersey lawmakers are considering a marriage rights bill, and while it could actually pass, Governor Christie has previously opposed legalizing our unions. I think he said something like “I’m not a fan of same-sex marriage,” which is sort of like saying “I’m not wild about the Dream Act,” or “Hey, how about those Italian bond auctions!” Last week, however, Christie said he’d wait and see if the bill passes and then make a decision, an interesting tea leaf for obsessed speculators among the GLBT punditry.
I thought “tea leaf” was two words, but my editing software says it’s just one. What do you do when your instincts conflict with the didactic elves that program Microsoft Word? Do I really know for sure how to spell “tea leaf?” Can I be so bold? Do I dare to eat a peach? Shall we move on?
Some New Jersey activists are considering the unorthodox move of promoting a constitutional amendment that would put marriage rights to a proactive public vote. I gather marriage equality has slim majority support in the Garden State, but we all know how that can go, don’t we?
There’s also another Lambda freedom-to-marry lawsuit making its way up the state court ladder, arguing that the New Jersey Supreme Court’s ruling a few years back guaranteed equality between straight and gay couples that has not been achieved through civil unions. I’ll bet you Mitt Romney’s ten grand that we’ll win that suit, but unfortunately we’re still on the bottom rung in the lower court.
In other state legislative news, Maryland’s anti-marriage Senate President has agreed to allow a marriage equality vote, which is nice of him. Thanks, Mike Miller. That said, we have yet to round up the last five votes we need to pass marriage through the House of Delegates, which is theoretically the more liberal body. Last year, we passed marriage equality in the senate, but had to pull the bill out of the house. Surely you remember me telling you all about this last week or the week before. At any rate, that senate vote is expected sooner rather than later. And of course, Governor O’Malley is on our side.
Finally, we’re going ahead full steam in Washington State, where Governor Gregoire has had an epiphany, in part thanks to her daughters, who pushed her off the civil union fence into the marriage pasture. A marriage bill was just introduced in the senate with 23 sponsors. We need 26 votes to pass the senate, so that sounds alright. I’m not sure if we have the votes we need in the Seahawk State house, but we’re reportedly very close.
Keep in mind that success in Maryland or Washington could well unleash the usual hordes of petitioners seeking a public vote.
--
No Guts at SCOTUS?
It was disappointing to see the Supreme Court decline to review three cases involving students who got in trouble for posting stuff online. The High Court also ducked two cases of public prayer, although I didn’t have a problem with that since they left intact lower court rulings that reaffirmed the separation of church and state.
Still. I’m interested in the online cases because they test the tension between free speech and bullying. Two of the cases involved kids who made fun of the school administration on MySpace. (Yes, these cases were at least five or six years old.) Those cases were both decided at the appellate level in favor of the students.
The other case involved bullying MySpace posters who attacked another student and was decided in favor of the school district that took action.
I agree with the appellate courts in all three instances, but it still seems as if the High Court should lay out some ground rules. When does social networking have such a disruptive impact on the school environment that intervention would be justified? On the other hand, when are postings protected speech?
In the last decade, the Court has issued narrow and sometimes contradictory First Amendment rulings, and it frankly looks as if they’ve taken a pass on some major cases. Meanwhile, I can’t help but notice that they accepted a petition that seems to question whether or not the federal government was within bounds when it sent an email receipt to some guy that included the expiration date of his credit card.
OK OK. I’m not a lawyer and there may be some profound constitutional issues at the heart of this alleged security lapse. And who are we to question the decisions and priorities of the nine justices? Surely they know best.
Finally, we are approaching the anniversary of Citizens United, clearly one of the most counter productive Supreme Court rulings of recent vintage, but not without its silver linings. Even though I think it would easier for my man Barry to beat Newt than Mitten, I was still pleased to see Newt beaten back into the middle ranks thanks to Mitten’s SuperPac.
I love Stephen Colbert’s SuperPac, but I want to see him stretch the envelope even further. Why can’t some deep pocket on our side give him five million to blanket the airwaves with more insane ads like the ones that call Romney a serial killer? At present, it’s an instructive joke. But if Colbert’s SuperPac actually started to shape the GOP primary, don’t you think Congress or the courts would eventually step in?
--
Ooops
Now here’s a bizarre, and hopefully short-lived development. According to New York law professor and movie maven Art Leonard, a Canadian government lawyer has argued in court briefs that same sex marriages conducted between non-residents are legally void.
And you know what? It was short-lived since the head of the Canadian Justice Department stepped up within 24 hours to confirm that all marriages conducted in Canada are legal, period. Never mind!
Having discovered the clarification only after I wrote four or five meaty paragraphs on the subject, I must now delete this whole section and search the Internet for additional material. I can only hope there is another Winkleman-level topic lurking in the cyberwaves.
I could just drop the whole Canada story all together, but the mix up caused a major stir for a few days, so it’s worth, well, it’s worth at least one or two vegan paragraphs.
The government lawyer was making a case against the proposed divorce of a non-Canadian couple. It’s clear that you cannot divorce in Canada unless you’ve lived in the country for one year. No one disputes this, but the government lawyer went further, suggesting that because the women in question were not citizens, their Canadian marriage was never valid in the first place.
Up until this unfortunate incident, no one has ever implied that non-resident marriages were suspect in any way, so you can imagine how the thousands of American gay and lesbian couples who got hitched above the border reacted to the notion that they might not be married after all. Now, they can all breath a sigh of relief.
That said, I can’t help but wonder whether or not the House of Representatives will use this discredited legal brief to cast doubt on the status of Edith Windsor in the New York challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act. Windsor, the plaintiff in the ACLU’s DOMA suit, married her late partner in Canada and was subsequently charged $350,000 in estate taxes on her own property.
Art Leonard also writes about a ruling in favor of the women who tried to get married at a semi-public beach pavilion on the Jersey shore but were told no. My God, that was years ago. I had no idea the case was still alive. I’ve decided that because I can’t remember the details, I won’t delve into Professor Leonard’s erudite analysis. You should check out his blog yourself anyway. It’s called Leonard Link. Oh, and according to Art, we should all see “Margin Call,” but “The Artist” wasn’t that great.
--
Trans Siren Led to Tragedy?
What else? ABC has canceled the trans-phobic sitcom “Work It” due to lack of interest. We’re still sparring against tennis has-been Margaret Court, the gay bashing Australian who has inspired various fans and players to don their rainbows in solidarity at Melbourne Park this week. Gay parents may be better than straight parents, some study says, as if studies actually measure such things. I gather our kids are more open-minded than their kids, not surprisingly.
I really want a gay animal or lesbian behaving badly this week. The squirrel doesn’t count since we really don’t know whether he’s gay or straight. I’d even take a rightwing politician taking a ride on the wild side as some of them are wont to do. But I have nothing. Nothing!
Well, I might have something. I was going to tell you that the craven captain who beached his cruise ship off the coast of Italy was showing off for a transgender waitress on a nearby island. It’s a good story, which I learned from Mel who heard it on NPR. Unfortunately, since I was unable to confirm the tale, by rights I can’t pass it along. So, I’ll pass it along by wrongs.
According to Mel (my wife for those new to this column) the captain and the headwaiter were both enamored of this waitress. It’s not clear if they knew she was MTF, but her allure was apparently such that she inspired the fatal maneuver that sunk the giant liner and killed at least 11 people.
--
All Aboard!
I only have a couple of hundred words left, and I hate to end our weekly discussions with a serious news item. But I do feel guilty that I neglected to mention the pending vote to roll back marriage rights in New Hampshire. It was originally scheduled for January 18, but it has been postponed until February, so I decided to blow it off. Governor John Lynch has pledged to veto this horrid proposal, so the ultimate question is not whether it has the votes to pass, but whether it has the votes to override a veto, a possibility that is far too unpleasant to contemplate.
By the way, Mel and I are going on an Olivia cruise in about ten days, an extravagance justified by a birthday that ends in zero. The sky’s the limit for this festive event, which will be a first for both of us. I guess we’re supposed to put together a poster for our door that gives people in the hallway a sense of who we are. I am preparing a suitable collage using a Krug label, some shredded tobacco and a recipe for rack of lamb.
--
Ann’s column is available every week on sfbaytimes.com. You can reach her at arostow@aol.com.
BY ANN ROSTOW
Sometimes You Feel Like a Nut
The television machine just told me all about Winkleman, the pet squirrel who paints abstract art using water colors with a little brush that he holds in his teeth. It’s a sad commentary on my professional mindset that Winkleman can launch me into this column at the expense of interesting marriage developments in several state legislatures as well as thought provoking court cases and Supreme Court moves.
He was adorable! And the paintings were pretty good as well. I was reminded of the elephants I saw on YouTube who also painted. The elephants could actually paint elephants, so if Winkleman ever paints a squirrel—or any other rodent for that matter---I think I’ll devote the entire column to his amazing exploit.
I wonder if Winkleman is a gay squirrel. Who knows? His artwork looks sort of gay.
Chris Christie has replaced the charming Winkleman on the small screen, which reminds me of one of our lead stories, the status of marriage equality in New Jersey.
New Jersey lawmakers are considering a marriage rights bill, and while it could actually pass, Governor Christie has previously opposed legalizing our unions. I think he said something like “I’m not a fan of same-sex marriage,” which is sort of like saying “I’m not wild about the Dream Act,” or “Hey, how about those Italian bond auctions!” Last week, however, Christie said he’d wait and see if the bill passes and then make a decision, an interesting tea leaf for obsessed speculators among the GLBT punditry.
I thought “tea leaf” was two words, but my editing software says it’s just one. What do you do when your instincts conflict with the didactic elves that program Microsoft Word? Do I really know for sure how to spell “tea leaf?” Can I be so bold? Do I dare to eat a peach? Shall we move on?
Some New Jersey activists are considering the unorthodox move of promoting a constitutional amendment that would put marriage rights to a proactive public vote. I gather marriage equality has slim majority support in the Garden State, but we all know how that can go, don’t we?
There’s also another Lambda freedom-to-marry lawsuit making its way up the state court ladder, arguing that the New Jersey Supreme Court’s ruling a few years back guaranteed equality between straight and gay couples that has not been achieved through civil unions. I’ll bet you Mitt Romney’s ten grand that we’ll win that suit, but unfortunately we’re still on the bottom rung in the lower court.
In other state legislative news, Maryland’s anti-marriage Senate President has agreed to allow a marriage equality vote, which is nice of him. Thanks, Mike Miller. That said, we have yet to round up the last five votes we need to pass marriage through the House of Delegates, which is theoretically the more liberal body. Last year, we passed marriage equality in the senate, but had to pull the bill out of the house. Surely you remember me telling you all about this last week or the week before. At any rate, that senate vote is expected sooner rather than later. And of course, Governor O’Malley is on our side.
Finally, we’re going ahead full steam in Washington State, where Governor Gregoire has had an epiphany, in part thanks to her daughters, who pushed her off the civil union fence into the marriage pasture. A marriage bill was just introduced in the senate with 23 sponsors. We need 26 votes to pass the senate, so that sounds alright. I’m not sure if we have the votes we need in the Seahawk State house, but we’re reportedly very close.
Keep in mind that success in Maryland or Washington could well unleash the usual hordes of petitioners seeking a public vote.
--
No Guts at SCOTUS?
It was disappointing to see the Supreme Court decline to review three cases involving students who got in trouble for posting stuff online. The High Court also ducked two cases of public prayer, although I didn’t have a problem with that since they left intact lower court rulings that reaffirmed the separation of church and state.
Still. I’m interested in the online cases because they test the tension between free speech and bullying. Two of the cases involved kids who made fun of the school administration on MySpace. (Yes, these cases were at least five or six years old.) Those cases were both decided at the appellate level in favor of the students.
The other case involved bullying MySpace posters who attacked another student and was decided in favor of the school district that took action.
I agree with the appellate courts in all three instances, but it still seems as if the High Court should lay out some ground rules. When does social networking have such a disruptive impact on the school environment that intervention would be justified? On the other hand, when are postings protected speech?
In the last decade, the Court has issued narrow and sometimes contradictory First Amendment rulings, and it frankly looks as if they’ve taken a pass on some major cases. Meanwhile, I can’t help but notice that they accepted a petition that seems to question whether or not the federal government was within bounds when it sent an email receipt to some guy that included the expiration date of his credit card.
OK OK. I’m not a lawyer and there may be some profound constitutional issues at the heart of this alleged security lapse. And who are we to question the decisions and priorities of the nine justices? Surely they know best.
Finally, we are approaching the anniversary of Citizens United, clearly one of the most counter productive Supreme Court rulings of recent vintage, but not without its silver linings. Even though I think it would easier for my man Barry to beat Newt than Mitten, I was still pleased to see Newt beaten back into the middle ranks thanks to Mitten’s SuperPac.
I love Stephen Colbert’s SuperPac, but I want to see him stretch the envelope even further. Why can’t some deep pocket on our side give him five million to blanket the airwaves with more insane ads like the ones that call Romney a serial killer? At present, it’s an instructive joke. But if Colbert’s SuperPac actually started to shape the GOP primary, don’t you think Congress or the courts would eventually step in?
--
Ooops
Now here’s a bizarre, and hopefully short-lived development. According to New York law professor and movie maven Art Leonard, a Canadian government lawyer has argued in court briefs that same sex marriages conducted between non-residents are legally void.
And you know what? It was short-lived since the head of the Canadian Justice Department stepped up within 24 hours to confirm that all marriages conducted in Canada are legal, period. Never mind!
Having discovered the clarification only after I wrote four or five meaty paragraphs on the subject, I must now delete this whole section and search the Internet for additional material. I can only hope there is another Winkleman-level topic lurking in the cyberwaves.
I could just drop the whole Canada story all together, but the mix up caused a major stir for a few days, so it’s worth, well, it’s worth at least one or two vegan paragraphs.
The government lawyer was making a case against the proposed divorce of a non-Canadian couple. It’s clear that you cannot divorce in Canada unless you’ve lived in the country for one year. No one disputes this, but the government lawyer went further, suggesting that because the women in question were not citizens, their Canadian marriage was never valid in the first place.
Up until this unfortunate incident, no one has ever implied that non-resident marriages were suspect in any way, so you can imagine how the thousands of American gay and lesbian couples who got hitched above the border reacted to the notion that they might not be married after all. Now, they can all breath a sigh of relief.
That said, I can’t help but wonder whether or not the House of Representatives will use this discredited legal brief to cast doubt on the status of Edith Windsor in the New York challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act. Windsor, the plaintiff in the ACLU’s DOMA suit, married her late partner in Canada and was subsequently charged $350,000 in estate taxes on her own property.
Art Leonard also writes about a ruling in favor of the women who tried to get married at a semi-public beach pavilion on the Jersey shore but were told no. My God, that was years ago. I had no idea the case was still alive. I’ve decided that because I can’t remember the details, I won’t delve into Professor Leonard’s erudite analysis. You should check out his blog yourself anyway. It’s called Leonard Link. Oh, and according to Art, we should all see “Margin Call,” but “The Artist” wasn’t that great.
--
Trans Siren Led to Tragedy?
What else? ABC has canceled the trans-phobic sitcom “Work It” due to lack of interest. We’re still sparring against tennis has-been Margaret Court, the gay bashing Australian who has inspired various fans and players to don their rainbows in solidarity at Melbourne Park this week. Gay parents may be better than straight parents, some study says, as if studies actually measure such things. I gather our kids are more open-minded than their kids, not surprisingly.
I really want a gay animal or lesbian behaving badly this week. The squirrel doesn’t count since we really don’t know whether he’s gay or straight. I’d even take a rightwing politician taking a ride on the wild side as some of them are wont to do. But I have nothing. Nothing!
Well, I might have something. I was going to tell you that the craven captain who beached his cruise ship off the coast of Italy was showing off for a transgender waitress on a nearby island. It’s a good story, which I learned from Mel who heard it on NPR. Unfortunately, since I was unable to confirm the tale, by rights I can’t pass it along. So, I’ll pass it along by wrongs.
According to Mel (my wife for those new to this column) the captain and the headwaiter were both enamored of this waitress. It’s not clear if they knew she was MTF, but her allure was apparently such that she inspired the fatal maneuver that sunk the giant liner and killed at least 11 people.
--
All Aboard!
I only have a couple of hundred words left, and I hate to end our weekly discussions with a serious news item. But I do feel guilty that I neglected to mention the pending vote to roll back marriage rights in New Hampshire. It was originally scheduled for January 18, but it has been postponed until February, so I decided to blow it off. Governor John Lynch has pledged to veto this horrid proposal, so the ultimate question is not whether it has the votes to pass, but whether it has the votes to override a veto, a possibility that is far too unpleasant to contemplate.
By the way, Mel and I are going on an Olivia cruise in about ten days, an extravagance justified by a birthday that ends in zero. The sky’s the limit for this festive event, which will be a first for both of us. I guess we’re supposed to put together a poster for our door that gives people in the hallway a sense of who we are. I am preparing a suitable collage using a Krug label, some shredded tobacco and a recipe for rack of lamb.
--
Ann’s column is available every week on sfbaytimes.com. You can reach her at arostow@aol.com.
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
Granite State Yawn Fest
GLBT Week In Review for January 11, 2012
BY ANN ROSTOW
Granite State Yawn Fest
So, it seems as if the die is cast and Mittens will be our electoral opponent this year. That said, we have seen several bizarre twists and turns in the GOP primary race, so who knows what lies ahead? Personally, I’m rooting for a bunch of creepy third party candidates to crawl out of the woodwork this spring and summer. Maybe Trump. Maybe Buddy Roemer. It’s too much to hope that Ron Paul or Sarah Palin will join the fray, but one can dream.
I’m watching political TV this morning, the day after the tedious New Hampshire primary. I was banking on a little more drama, weren’t you? Maybe a tie for second or a controversial speech. I did appreciate Jon Huntsman’s weird rambling set of remarks. It’s kind of hard to rally the troops after spending half a year campaigning in New Hampshire and ending up with 17 percent of the vote. But Huntsman made it look even harder, sounding like a nervous high school kid auditioning for the school play in a forced monotone.
“I think we’re in the hunt!”
“We’ve got a ticket to South Carolina!”
I’m surprised he didn’t pull an imaginary train whistle, make a tooting sound and tell everyone to “hop on board the train to victory!” Good luck on that journey, Governor. I used to sort of like Huntsman, but he got a little self-righteous at the end, and none of us appreciated his pretentious use of Mandarin phrases. Show off.
--
Sausage Factories Up and Running
But enough of that. It’s time to don our gay attire and dig into the GLBT news barrel! I’m wearing a green plaid pajama top and rainbow Capri pants. You? Oh for God’s sake. What if someone comes to the door?
First, we have new fire in our bellies to pass marriage equality in various legislative sessions. In New Jersey, our side has already introduced a marriage bill, which actually has a decent shot at passing. The question is: what will Chris Christie do if or when the law arrives on his desk? In the past, the plus-sized governor has been against marriage equality, and I’m not sure anything good befalls ambitious Republicans who sign gay rights bills so I’m rather pessimistic. Still, I suppose we’ll climb that mountain when we get to it.
Over in Washington, Governor Gregoire has announced her unequivocal support for full marriage rights after a history of wishy washing. Yay! We’ve had trouble getting majority support for marriage rights in the Starbuck State legislature in the past, but that’s no reason to hold back in the current session, which ends in early March.
We’re also going to give Maryland another shot. You may recall that last year, we came so close to a marriage bill that we could read the four-point type on the bottom of the page without our reading glasses. We passed marriage through the crucible of the state senate but subsequently bungled our chance in the house of delegates, which was supposed to be a cakewalk. In the end, our side shelved the bill without a vote in order to preserve our future chances.
And that future has arrived!
I’m not sure exactly what we did wrong last time around. But I certainly hope we’ve learned our lesson and don’t do that dumb thing again. In Maryland, where the session ends in April, we have a friendly governor, Martin O’Malley, so that’s good. Exciting even. Can you feel it?
--
GLAD Tidings
I recently got an email from the Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) informing me that oral arguments in our big challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act will not be held before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit until April.
April!
I was counting on this case for news fodder starting in a few weeks, and now we have to twiddle our toes for another three months. Could these federal appellate courts operate any slower? It must take them an hour to boil a three-minute egg.
GLAD also mentioned that they are expecting a lower court decision in the Connecticut-based Pedersen case shortly, maybe in February. Pedersen is one of two DOMA challenges filed in federal courts that fall under the jurisdiction of the Second Circuit. The other one is an ACLU case, lodged on behalf of New York widow Edith Windsor, who was forced to pay $350,000 in estate taxes on her own property after the death of her legal wife. I think Windsor will be decided pretty soon as well since both cases were filed on the same day.
But what do I know? Maybe I’ll actually check up on that (later).
--
Blast From the Past
I was just searching for more scintillating GLBT news on Google, when I noticed several stories listed under the “gay” archives, specifically three articles from 1914, 1944, and 1966. Interested? Of course you are!
Turns out that the Belgian troops near the front lines in Louvain remained in high spirits in August of 1914, even as the Germans advanced from the north. The little town was quite gay, with soldiers drinking beer at the sidewalk cafes and milliners’ shops displaying the latest hats for the late summer tourists they would never see.
The intrepid reporter noted, however, that farmers were burning their mature wheat crops and booby trapping the forests in anticipation of the encroaching armies. A German plane appeared on the horizon and flew over the town square without incident, causing drinkers and retailers alike to hold their breaths in fear for a moment before the, ah, gaiety resumed.
Fast forward 30 years and it was the mood in Paris that turned gay as allied forces continued their months-long breakout from the Norman beachheads. The rumble of gunfire was heard for the first time outside the French capital as the allies approached, led by the free French. In the city, transportation services were halted, fuel supplies were unavailable and the police were on strike. The Germans were retreating, the churches were filled to capacity, and concerts were playing at the Palais Royale.
And in 1966, 33-year-old Gay Brewer outlasted Bruce Devlin and Jackie Cupit to win the Pensacola Open by three shots at 16 under par. The victory netted him $10,000. You go, Gay!
--
Buddy Didn’t Fool Us for a Minute
So, what else is new, you ask? I can tell you that Kristy McNichol has come out of the closet. She was Buddy, the teenaged tomboy on the serial drama “Family” if memory serves. You remember, right? Sada Thompson was the mother and Buddy may as well have had “baby dyke” written on her forehead. McNichol was also in “Empty Nest,” and has been with the same partner for 20 years. Hmmm. Has she actually been in the closet all these years? Or did her celebrity card lapse to the point that no one was pressing the point. Either way, welcome to our world Kristy!
I also read about a ruling by an Iowa state judge, who told the state to issue an accurate birth certificate to the child of two married woman. Oddly, the Ethanol State bureaucrats had named only the biological mother, even though Mom was legally married to the woman who should have been listed as parent number two. True, the wife did not make a genetic contribution to the little one, but genetic ties are not mandated for husbands, who are legally designated as fathers when their wives give birth. The same respect is due the wife of a new mother, said the court. So there!
Oh, and here’s something else that pops to mind. I left my news list on a table and don’t feel like getting up and checking it, but I do remember reading that gay activists in Australia are planning to protest the annual appearance of uber-homophobe Margaret Court at the Australian Open later this month. Margaret Court, of course. is one of the greatest female tennis players ever to grace the Rebound Ace, and one of the most vicious anti-gay commentators I can think of in the world of has-been athletes. Her hostility towards gays and lesbians (and I assume towards bisexuals and transgenders) is based on extreme fundamentalist religious views. At any rate, our mates down under plan to do something to manifest their displeasure with the woman, as well as the tennis court that bears her name in Melbourne Park.
Speaking of Australia, marriage equality is going nowhere in the Aussie Parliament even though the Labour Party officially endorsed our cause a few weeks ago. The lack of action was expected, but I thought I’d mention it just in case you were dying of curiosity.
--
Straight Weirdo Sues Avis for Gay Group Discount
I’m not sure this next story is true. It comes from the Courthouse News Service, which looks legit, and concerns a mad Arizona woman who has decided to sue Avis because she did not qualify for the car rental company’s International Gay and Lesbian Travel Association discount during a trip to San Diego.
Lynn Evenchik is filing a class action suit in federal court in southern California, claiming she (and others similarly situated) have been discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation by not receiving the bargain rates. The unfair treatment, says Evenchik, violates her civil rights under California’s Unruh Act.
Hello? Did I mention that Evenchik is not a member of either the International Gay and Lesbian Travel Association or the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce (which also gets a discount)? I’m not a member of either group myself, and I am assuming that even though I am gay, like Evenchik I do not qualify for the special rate. Is Evenchik suggesting through her litigation that Avis should not be allowed to include GLBT groups among its discount programs? That would seem to be the only coherent argument to emerge from the facts.
A little digging confirms that Ms. Evenchik does indeed exist, and she has recently filed a lawsuit in California’s southern district. She is a fifty-something travel agent, and I’m sorry to say her father died a few months back. Our condolences for that.
I suppose Lynn herself is not to blame for an astounding ignorance of the law, but what can you say about her attorney? It seems as if she has hired a securities fraud expert named Eric Benink to represent her. Does he not realize that offering a discount to a professional group does not constitute “discrimination” against those who are not members of said group?
I could read the complaint if I subscribed to “PACER,”whatever that may be. But I don’t have the energy to figure it out, and I can only hope one of my lawyer readers will follow up on this obsessed individual, who is also seeking a jury trial and claiming personal injury.
The story intrigues me because I wonder what triggered the profound level of outrage required to pursue this incident into the court system? I mean, think of the thousands of GLBTs who encounter real discrimination every day without literally making a federal case out of it. And yet here we have a possibly disturbed woman who discovers that members of a gay professional association are saving 20 percent on their Avis rentals, and she goes ballistic. Is she a self-loathing lesbian? A fundamentalist? A simple whack job? Enquiring minds want to know!
Note to the under-50 generation: if Evenchik succeeds here, you can all sue Hertz for their discriminatory age-based AARP deals. Mr. Benink will take your case.
--
Ann’s column appears every week at sfbaytimes.com. She can be reached at arostow@aol.com
The 2011 Annual GLBT “News” Quiz
The 2011 Annual GLBT “News” Quiz
BY ANN ROSTOW
It’s that time of year again, the time of year we look back fondly on the exciting ups and downs of our community roller coaster ride to full equality and universal respect. But how closely were you following the whacky world of gay and lesbian civil rights and wrongs? Our test will reveal your diligence, or lack thereof.
As always, it was hard to isolate the most important areas for examination. The year was full of mean business people, trying to undermine our wedding days. We had the New Jersey store that refused to sell us a wedding dress, the nasty New York clerk who wouldn’t issue our marriage license, the country inn wouldn’t host the ceremony and the Iowa bakery that declined to bake our cake. The list went on.
Then, there were the harassers. Thumbs down for the guard at the Minnesota Twins ballpark, who scolded us for kissing. To hell with the Safeway clerk who used the “F” word, and the Macy’s saleswoman who wouldn’t let us use the ladies fitting room. Boos and hisses to the rude waiter at the Sizzler, the obnoxious staffer at Dollyworld, and the swimming pool manager who evicted us for touching. And let’s not forget a sneer for the security guy at the San Francisco museum who told us to stop holding hands…at a Gertrude Stein exhibit.
So, how about our naughty, and dumb, straight politicians? Who can forget the Puerto Rican senator who sent a shot of his rear end out on Grindr because he had been “dieting” and wanted to show off his new physique? How about Phillip Hinkle, the married Indiana state rep who hustled a teenager off Craigslist for a hotel tryst, using his own name? Then there was Chris Myers, the mayor of Medford, New Jersey, who promised money to a rent boy during a business trip and never followed through. The rent boy went public.
Finally, I would like to raise a glass to a few people who didn’t make it into our quiz, but deserve a nod nonetheless. Let’s toast the woman who fought the state of South Carolina for the right to dangle plastic testicles from her bumper. Let’s cheer the New York teachers, who explained that they were lying half dressed in a classroom during an evening event because one of them diabetic and they were looking for candy. And bravo for the man won the right to pose for his Austrian driving license while wearing a kitchen strainer as religious headgear, in tribute to the Flying Spaghetti Monster god. Finally, God love those teenage girls, who invented the technique of soaking tampons in vodka to avoid being caught with alcohol on their breath.
Now, without further introduction, here’s our quiz!
1.Chris Birch was noteworthy for:
a)a) Hitting his ex-lover with his car while texting: “Ha ha!”
b)b) Turning from straight to gay after breaking his neck with a back flip and recovering from a coma.
c)c) Killing his roommate after overdosing on Mucinex DM
d)d) Losing his high school teaching job after authorities discovered his past as a porn star.
2.Which of the following rumors was reported in the press last year?
a)a) Richard Nixon slept with H.R. Haldeman in the Lincoln bedroom.
b)b) Gandhi had a sex session with several legal associates on a train trip to Calcutta.
c)c) Osama Bin Laden asked a CIA agent how to get to Ripcord, a gay bar in Houston.
d)d) Rick Perry spent a suspicious weekend alone in a mountain cabin with Dallas Cowboy quarterback Troy Aikman.
3.“Elton and David” were:
a)a) Love sick monkeys who received Valentine treats from their keepers last February.
b)b) Penguins in the Toronto zoo who were forced to go straight to help save their sub-species.
c)c) Deep sea squid who were observed inseminating each other because it was too dark to discern gender.
d)d) Gay cavemen unearthed and nicknamed by archeologists in Prague who determined their sexual orientation through analyzing burial rituals.
4.Find the false statement:
a)a) Hawaii, Delaware, Illinois and Rhode Island all passed civil union laws last year.
b)b) Legal activists are suing to block a Tennessee law that bans local gay rights ordinances.
c)c) Gay leaders in Maryland were blamed for bungling the effort to pass marriage equality, which was set to pass before being pulled off the floor at the last minute due to a shortage of votes.
d)d) Michigan lawmakers voted to outlaw domestic partner benefits for all state employees.
5.Historians will say that the high point of 2011 for GLBT rights was:
a)a) Passage of marriage rights in New York in June.
b)b) Obama’s decision to treat sexual orientation as a protected class in litigating gay legal issues in February.
c)c) The official end of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell in September.
d)d) The State Department’s decision to tie U.S. foreign policy to respect for GLBT rights, announced by Hillary Clinton in December.
6.Rick Santorum told a crowd in Iowa that:
a)a) Gays saying they’re married is like saying a paper towel is a paper napkin. It doesn’t make it so.
b)b) Paintings of women in Tahiti by Gaugin give him the creeps.
c)c) Gay marriages are like belly putters. They just don’t seem right.
d)d) He had a gay friend once, but he couldn’t stand the sound he made when he chewed.
7.A Southwest airline pilot was accused of:
a)a) Talking trash about gay flight attendants over the traffic control airwaves.
b)b) Having a fight with French actor Gerard Depardieu, who peed in the aisle.
c)c) Telling “The L Word” actress, Leisha Hailey, to stop kissing her girlfriend.
d)d) Using the “F” word to two men who insisted on free drinks.
8.The “Top Chef” award for last year goes to:
a)a) Zambian natives who eat dead mice as appetizers, and use the dried tails to stir their cocktails.
b)b) The folks in Columbus, Missouri, who sold ice cream made of chocolate and dead locusts from their back yards.
c)c) The Russian cannibal who butchered a man in his tub and made sausages and meatballs from his torso.
d)d) The Indiana grocery store clerk who ejaculated into the free yogurt samples.
9.Notable federal appellate court victories last year included which of the following?
a)a) A 7th Circuit ruling in favor of Walmart, who fired a homophobic employee.
b)b) An 11th Circuit ruling in favor of a Georgia transwoman, who was fired for transitioning on the job.
c)c) A 9th Circuit ruling in favor of Arizona gay state employees, who lost benefits in a so-called “cost cutting” move.
d)d) A 5th Circuit ruling in favor of two men who required a revised birth certificate for their adopted son.
10.Which of the following facts from last year’s columns is inaccurate?
a)a) One out of every 200 men alive today is related to Ghengis Kahn.
b)b) Wisconsin governor Scott Walker once worked as a farrier.
c)c) Flamingos carry a small amount of pink dye for feather touchups in a little sac near their anuses.
d)d) Lesbians earn 6 percent more than their straight sisters.
Answers:
1.b) Chris, who dropped weight and became a hairdresser after the accident, is not to be confused with stalker Craig Munro of Ipswich, a Brisbane suburb, who nailed his ex in a parking lot. The Mucinex killer was Michael Anderson of Hickory, North Carolina, and I forget the name of the Florida porn entrepreneur who lost his public school job when his XXX background came to light.
2.c) Actually, it was a “Reagan aide” who was having dinner with the late terrorist, not a CIA agent. As for Nixon, he allegedly had something going with mob banker Bebe Rebozo, while a Gandhi bio was condemned for implying that the iconic civil rights leader did, um, something bad. I made up the bit about Perry and Aikman. Although, you never know.
3.a) These spider monkeys live in Staffordshire, I think. The Toronto penguins were named Pedro and Buddy. The omnisexual squid never had names that we knew of. And there was only one gay caveman, not two.
4.d) Michigan’s law did not apply to all state government or university employees, just every city and county public worker as well as teachers. All the other examples are factual.
5.b) Absolutely, no contest. This list goes to show that it was a pretty incredible year. But people still underestimate the power of having the federal government essentially announce that it will back GLB rights in every constitutional case, period. This decision will be a turning point in GLBT history for sure.
6.a) Maybe it was vice versa with the napkins and towels. There was a woman who attacked a Gauguin painting in homophobic fury. Donald Trump made the comment about the belly putter. And I read a Science Times article that said some people hate chewing noises.
7.a) I think he had to apologize. Depardieu peed during a City Jet flight from Paris to Dublin. Leisha Hailey and her GF were told that Southwest is a “family” airline and proceeded to have a justifiable fit. And two guys were called fags by a United staffer who wouldn’t let them in the VIP lounge.
8.d) I think you have to give it to the grocery clerk, but I suppose any answer can be considered correct.
9.a)b)c) The full 5th Circuit ruled against us in the birth certificate case and the Supreme Court refused to take review. The three victories are a few of many excellent state and federal court decisions in our favor last year.
10.b) It was actually Rhode Island governor Lincoln Chafee who once worked as a farrier. Interesting. Sort of. It’s a blacksmith, Silly. Don’t you love the flamingo sac concept?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)