GLBT Week in Review, March 28, 2012
BY ANN ROSTOW
Shocking Victory in New Hampshire
First of all, I must apologize for failing to anticipate last week’s amazing marriage vote in the New Hampshire house. Every report had indicated that the GOP majorities in the house and senate would indeed vote to repeal marriage equality in the Granite State. The big question was whether the lawmakers would subsequently be able to override a veto from Governor John Lynch.
Instead, as the last issue of the Bay Times went to press, the bill to repeal marriage failed by a large margin. I’ve been off the news grid for a week, and I still can’t determine why the outcome was so unexpected. I probably could spend a few hours trying to track back this morning, but what the hell. We won! Somehow.
--
U.S. Asks Full Ninth Circuit To Review DOMA Case
Meanwhile, the big marriage news this week is the Justice Department’s reaction to last month’s expansive trial court ruling striking the Defense of Marriage Act in the case of federal attorney Karen Golinski.
In February, San Francisco-based U.S. District Court Judge Jeffrey White not only struck DOMA as unconstitutional, but he also gave the back of his hand to (theoretically) binding Ninth Circuit precedent.
A couple of decades ago, the Ninth Circuit ruled that sexual orientation discrimination did not rise to the level of race bias or religious discrimination, and should be analyzed under the easiest legal standard. Normally, all federal judges within the jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit would be oblige to follow this reasoning in lockstep, but Judge White argued that the precedent, High Tech Gays versus Some Forgettable Government Agency, was no longer valid in the wake of Lawrence v Texas and other developments over the years.
The Justice Department agrees with Judge White, and has asked the Ninth Circuit to skip over the usual three-judge panel and proceed directly to a review by the full court, an 11-member panel. In order to toss High Tech Gays into the official dust bin of outdated jurisprudence, the entire court must agree, ergo, the government wants the Ninth Circuit to cut to the chase and schedule a quick and definitive appeal rather than let the case play out over months and months.
If the Ninth Circuit agrees, oral arguments would be heard in September, and a ruling could emerge early next year, putting this case on track for a date with the Supreme Court in their 2013-2014 session.
Woah Nelly! I hear you crying. What about the Prop 8 case? What about the challenge to DOMA coming out of the First Circuit? Will this case leapfrog the pack and jump to the front of the line?
Maybe. As you recall, we just won a ruling from a three-judge Ninth Circuit panel in the Prop 8 case, and the other side has asked the full court to hear an appeal. So, we now have not one, but two motions requesting en banc consideration of gay rights pending before the court. The cases can’t be consolidated, since they present different constitutional questions. But it will nonetheless be fascinating to see whether the court takes one, both or neither.
Over in the First Circuit, a three-judge panel will hear oral arguments next week in a challenge to DOMA brought on behalf of several Massachusetts couples. If these judges rule this summer, that case could also be appealed to the full First Circuit. Or, it could go straight to the Supreme Court.
In other words, who the hell knows which case will be the first to make it to Washington? All I can say is that these three cases are heading in the same direction, and most GLBT legal strategists want one of the DOMA cases to reach the nine justices first.
--
NOMskull Strategy
The GLBT blogosphere is lapping up the confidential strategic memo that the antigay National Organization for Marriage was required to make public for a court case the other day. As you’ve probably read, crafty NOM operatives decided to pit Democratic blacks and Hispanics against the gay community, hoping that gay activists would get really mad and trigger a race-based rift among the constituencies on the left. It’s kind of Manson-esque if you think about it.
It’s true that a social conservative thread runs through the African American church-going contingent. But first, it’s not monolithic. And second, gay activists have responded, not by screaming about bigotry, but by reaching out to other black leaders and trying to make the case for equality to everyone. So, um, the plan has not worked.
Further, the notion that NOM and others of their ilk would be grasping at straws to generate some kind of support for their hate-based views is not exactly earth shattering news. I put nothing past them, the scoundrels!
I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall when they heard the vote out of New Hampshire last week. There’s a sense of inevitability about the slow but steady advance of marriage equality around the country, so the specter of a state rolling back marriage rights was alarming.
I imagine them gleefully arranging the Champagne bottles on the conference table while monitoring the vote. Gradually their faces fall as defeat becomes apparent. What the heck happened? A surly aide opens one of the bottles in disgust, mumbling that he needs a drink. Gloom pervades the room. Delighted, I alight on a small puddle and dip my proboscis into the bubbly residue. It’s Krug!
--
New Customs
The Obama administration is preparing to (maybe) issue an historic executive order than would prevent the federal government from doing business with companies that discriminate against GLBTs. Most large employers and federal contractors already provide such protections, but according to a (UCLA) Williams Institute study, the order would improve the status of some 16 million workers who are not covered under company policies.
It’s fairly clear by now that the Employment Nondiscrimination Act is not exactly on a fast track to Congressional passage. Indeed, the idea of a stand-alone gay workplace bill is one whose time has come and gone. One of these days, we will simply add sexual orientation and gender identity to the list of categories protected against job bias under current federal law, a list that includes the usual classes of race, national origin and religion.
In this same vein, Obama is reportedly on the verge of adding sexual orientation and gender identity to the text of a 50-year-old executive order that already bans discrimination by federal contractors. It won’t end workplace bias for everyone, but it’s a significant step in the right direction.
In other steps in the right direction, the government announced that same-sex families returning from international destinations will soon no longer have to fill out separate customs forms. Yay!
It’s a small thing, but these small things are tremendously irritating. Mel and I just went through this last month. At first I decided to hand in one form, because the form said “one per family” and we were married in California back in 2008. Then, with the same courageous instinct that led me to file my federal taxes as “single,” I thought twice. Why poke a stick at the customs official? What if he or she decides to go through my stuff as punishment for our rebellious political gesture?
We filled in two forms. It’s just a form. Whatever. But it was an annoyance. A reminder that our marriage means nothing to the federal government. And now that annoyance is virtually gone. We can smuggle together!
If you care, the new policy will sidestep the Defense of Marriage Act by allowing partners who live in the same house to use a single declaration, regardless of whether they are married or not.
--
High Road for High Court
I was happy to see that the Supreme Court let stand a Seventh Circuit ruling that struck Wisconsin’s anti-trans inmate law. Wisconsin lawmakers had passed legislation denying hormone treatment to transmen and women in prison. In August, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled that the law amounted to cruel and unusual punishment, a decision that Wisconsin appealed to the Supreme Court. Last week, the justices declined review, settling the matter in favor of the transcons.
In other news, I couldn’t help but notice that the latest British budget calls for a 20 percent tax on “Cornish pasties,” some kind of only-in-England junk food that sounds pretty disgusting. At any rate, the common folk are up in arms about the class warfare, particularly after the top finance guy said he hasn’t eaten a “pasty” in ages. Talk about a snob!
Actually, I’d eat a pasty right about now if there was nothing else in the cupboard. I’m starving. I think I’ll ring for the kitchen maid.
And speaking of the National Organization for Marriage, House Speaker John Boehner has appointed one of NOM’s founders to a post on some horrible commission. I’ll look up the name, but it’s something like the International Religious Freedom Commission, and it was initiated by a 1998 law with a similar name.
The Commission, which thankfully appears to have little influence on American policy, includes members appointed by the President, as well as leaders of both parties in Congress. Speaker Boehner appears to have wasted his pick on Robert George, one of the most extreme representatives of this country’s antigay cohort.
Like everyone, I’m a big fan of religious freedom. But what will it take for people to recognize that gay rights are not an assault on “religious freedom?” I’m sure many devout people think drinking and card playing are Satanic evils, but that doesn’t mean they get to outlaw these activities for the rest of us. Likewise, if you think being gay is a sin, don’t be gay. Your viewpoint, however, does not mean that you get to set policy for the entire country. Why does anyone continue to give credence to this absurd polemic?
--
The Help
I’ve rung for Myrtille several times with no response, and finally I had to go back to the kitchen myself to see what on Earth was going on. The kitchen was empty. Cook was gone. No sign of Myrtille. I made myself a Kir Royale and found some raw almonds, but really, this is unacceptable behavior, even from a fantasy domestic staff. If they were real, I’d dismiss them on the spot with no severance--- Mitt Romney style.
Meanwhile, I was going to elaborate somewhat on the recent ruling by the European Court on Human Rights that appeared to limit the right to marry.
The Court has already said (in 2004) that the European Convention on Human Rights does not mandate marriage equality, although obviously it allows it. Then, a week or so ago, the Court said that a French lesbian who was trying to adopt her partner’s daughter was not a victim of marriage discrimination. It’s not exactly groundbreaking law, although it does seem disappointingly cautious, n’est-ce pas?
I personally don’t offer benefits to my fantasy domestic staff, but I did pay for an expensive dental implant for the butler’s partner’s son. He lost a bicuspid trying to ride a bronco at last year’s rodeo, and you know what? I like the kid. I didn’t want him to go through life looking like a hillbilly and after all, it’s only money. I did dock Branson’s Christmas bonus. But that was also because, like Myrtille, Branson never comes when I ring for him.
Oh, I was going to mention that Madonna is going to St. Petersburg on tour this summer, and she has pledged to defy the city’s bizarre ban on any speech that promotes homosexuality. I think I’m going to revert to calling this city Leningrad for the indefinite future.
--
Ann’s column is available every week at sfbaytimes.com. You can reach her at arostow@aol.com.
Friday, March 30, 2012
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Live Free or Die? Really New Hampshire?
GLBT Week in Review, March 22, 2012
BY ANN ROSTOW
Live Free or Die? Really New Hampshire?
Before we get started this week, let me tell you about something I noticed on my favorite appellate law blog (Howappealing.law.com). The case in question has no bearing on our community’s historic fight for justice. I think it has something to do with laptop searches. At any rate, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit just agreed to rehear this case en banc, meaning that the previous three-judge ruling is to be tossed out, and 11 new judges will revisit the issues.
And here’s the clincher: the original decision was issued nearly a year ago! Can it really take a whole year for the full court to decide whether or not to accept review of a panel decision? Could we be waiting until next spring before the Ninth Circuit even decides whether or not to take the Prop 8 case? I mean, I knew it would take at least a couple of months before we saw the next big Prop 8 case headline, but now I’m worried.
Meanwhile, perhaps you’ve heard that the New Hampshire house will finally take a vote on repealing marriage rights. As a matter of fact, the house vote is later today and while the repeal is expected to pass both chambers, we’re all looking to see if the bad guys have a veto proof majority. Governor John Lynch has pledged to pull out the red pen, but New Hampshire has elected an awful lot of conservative Republicans since the good old days of 2010, when marriage was legalized in the Granite State.
The crafty pols over there are also planning to put some kind of non-binding marriage question to the voters, a kind of “heads you lose, tails I win” deal that amounts to nothing more than an expensive public opinion poll. This allows the antigay side to preen about putting the issue to the people, while making sure that our people can’t retain or restore marriage rights through their vote. Bastards!
I don’t know what will happen in the next few months in New Hampshire, but I know there’s a ton of antigay money flowing towards the coffers of nervous lawmakers. In another irony, the National Organization for Marriage has now come out “in favor of civil unions” for gay couples, simply because the repeal law would replace marriage equality with the pre-existing civil union law.
Finally, this scheme, if successful, exactly tracks the narrow Prop 8 scenario that was ruled unconstitutional by the Ninth Circuit. It calls for the state to strip gays and lesbians of the word “marriage,” without altering rights and benefits. As such, the only purpose to such an effort is rooted in hostility and is therefore impermissible.
--
Depose This!
Here are the things I’m sick of: The GOP primary race, Tim Tebow, Apple, the Keystone pipeline and those dorky oreo commercials that show a bunch of adults playing with cookies in order to capture their inner child. I suppose I must have a fastidious streak, but I’ve always been repelled by fellow diners who toy with their food. My biggest pet peeve is taking a spoonful of ice cream or some other soft dessert and sliding half of it into one’s mouth while leaving half of it uneaten and still on the spoon for all to see. Likewise, licking the interior of an oreo has also been a lifelong source of disgust, along with “dunking” things into coffee or milk.
Just eat it, people.
Of course, I have no problem with dipping a rough cube of sugar into a snifter of Calvados, but that’s quite different.
So, where were we? GLBT news, bien sur.
Here’s a new marriage conflict. According to New York Law Professor Art Leonard, a judge in Delaware was recently obliged to determine whether a man who married his husband in California in 2008 enjoys spousal privilege in the Corporate Tax Headquarters State.
Delaware’s civil unions went into effect last January, providing all the benefits of marriage to gay partners, and recognizing partners and spouses from out of state. But does that mean the spousal privilege began last January? Or did it begin back in 2008, when the two men were married?
After a hearing and deliberation, Judge Joseph Slights III decided that the privilege dates from the marriage itself. Although the husband can be deposed (in a workplace discrimination suit) he will not be required to answer any questions concerning his private conversations with the plaintiff after their wedding date.
I like this case because it’s another illustration of the tangled web we weave when first we practice to, um, institute a hodgepodge of different laws and policies for same-sex couples throughout the country
You’re married in one state, and not the other. You’re married as of one date in one state, and recognized as of another elsewhere. You have state pension sharing, but not federal. You file joint taxes under one law, but in order to do so, you have to create an imaginary joint federal form to calculate various numbers before filing individual federal taxes. You get married in one state, and can’t get divorced where you live.
My theory is that the more complicated it gets, the sooner the country will get around to integrating marriage equality. Oh, by the way, the Maryland high court is set to hear a lesbian divorce case. We’ll watch it for you.
--
Texas, My Texas
Meanwhile, Professor Leonard had another interesting case on his blog, this one concerning a “slanderous” attack on a man in Texas, who was accused of being gay during a public fight in a restaurant. The man, apparently straight, sued and won both in lower court and at a state appellate court. The case now goes before the Texas Supreme Court with this question at its heart: is it slanderous to call (or imply) that someone is gay?
As Leonard explains, the definition of “slander per se” is an accusation that must: “(1) impute the commission of a crime; (2) impute contraction of a loathsome disease; (3) cause injury to a person's office, business, profession, or calling; or (4) impute sexual misconduct.
Before the Supreme Court ended sodomy laws in 2003, a Texan would be able to argue slander under items one and four. But what about now? Being gay is no longer criminal, it’s not misconduct, nor is it a disease. So can you really still say that the charge itself would automatically cause injury to your profession?
And what kind of injury would that be? Note that a slanderous statement that actually costs you money or business is dealt with under a different slander law and is not necessarily “slander per se.” In other words, in order for the charge to stand, the court must believe that the very hint of homosexuality is an injury by itself regardless of whether or not one can show specific harm. I’d like to think that my state has evolved over the years, but then again, this is Texas so we’ll have to see.
Just to give you an idea, today’s Metro section in the Austin paper informs me that a major intersection at Congress and 11th will be closed to traffic today so that finalists in the Junior Market Steer Show can corral a dozen steers into some makeshift enclosure. Say what? I hadn’t planned on going downtown, but is this really necessary?
Oh, and Tim Tebow is giving a speech in one of the Austin suburbs next week at an Easter thing so officials are expecting 20,000 people to show up.
Finally, there’s a controversy over the Texas policy of shooting wild burros in a state park along the Mexican border. The state had been killing the animals because they were “hogging water.” A few years ago, the public heard about it and got mad, so Texas said that the Peaceful Valley Donkey Rescue group could take over the control of the population. After two years, the apparently incompetent Peaceful Valley Donkey people failed to rescue a single burro, so the state resumed shooting the poor beasts until the Humane Society stepped in with a plan the other day.
Hogging water? There are only 300 of these donkeys in the park to begin with! How thirsty can they be? Did Texan officials really think that shooting a few dozen hapless donkeys in Big Bend would help relieve the worst drought in state history? Actually, if memory serves, Rick Perry asked us all to pray for rain at some point last year, and he was serious. I’m surprised they didn’t hold a big rain dance. They could have closed off all of Congress Avenue and brought Tim Tebow in to lead the crowd.
--
How Much Prison Time for Ravi?
So, the other day I tossed out a comment on Rutgers cyberspy, Dharun Ravi, suggesting they toss him naked into a cell, turn on a camera and throw away the key.
Um, they didn’t go that far, but still, the sick son of a bitch is now facing ten years in prison for setting up a webcam to post videos of his gay roommate in bed with another man. As you know, the roommate, Tyler Clementi, jumped off a bridge to his death a few days later.
But ten years?
I’m guessing Ravi won’t be sentenced to the maximum term, but I agree with New York Times op-editorialist, Emily Bazelon, that a decade behind bars does not fit the crime. Without Clementi’s suicide, the offense would be a misdemeanor. So the question is, to what extent can we tie a suicide to the bully who provided the final push?
To what extent can we prosecute the mean girls who ruthlessly target an unpopular student or the macho jocks who hurl slurs at their gay-acting teammate? Do we base our decision on the fortitude of the victim? Do we come down hard when the victim commits suicide but settle for a stern lecture when the victim simply complains and goes on with his or her life?
In truth, neither alternative seems right. The rap on the knuckles ignores the emotional violence of the offense. Yet throwing the book at the bullies who trigger a suicide overlooks the pre-existing fragility that leads a kid to that kind of despair. Whatever the bully did, his or her actions were only part of a complex history that culminated in tragedy. We can’t throw criminal charges at the many bullies who came before, but does that mean we can throw them all at the last bully in the line?
Don’t get me wrong. I believe in hate crime enhancements. I despise Dharun Ravi and others of his ilk. And I also think that bullying that leads to suicide should be treated more harshly than other abuse. But we shouldn’t have a big gap that effectively bases the punishment for an individual on the victim’s response.
--
Rock Chalk
So, what else you ask? The European Court of Human Rights issued a disturbing anti-marriage ruling the other day, which depressed me so I didn’t read it. Basically, it said ECU member states have no fundamental obligation to provide equal marriage rights.
Stop the presses! Tim Tebow is going to the Jets.
Jimmy Carter came out in favor of marriage equality, which was nice of the old POTUS. The Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders will argue before the First Circuit next week in our leading DOMA challenge. The State Department condemned some anti-gay rhetoric from Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, the Nobel Prize winning President of Liberia, also nice. Oh, and Barrack Obama came out against North Carolina’s antigay marriage amendment, which is coming up for a vote in May. This is a good development, since he’s been mute on our previous contests. I hope he speaks more forcefully as the fall elections approach.
Finally, did you happen to catch that Kansas Purdue game the other night? In our (previously mentioned) Jayhawk frenzy, we put post it notes reading “Go Kansas!” on the dogs. I think that pushed us over the top.
--
Ann’s column is available each week on sfbaytimes.com. You can reach her at arostow@aol.com.
BY ANN ROSTOW
Live Free or Die? Really New Hampshire?
Before we get started this week, let me tell you about something I noticed on my favorite appellate law blog (Howappealing.law.com). The case in question has no bearing on our community’s historic fight for justice. I think it has something to do with laptop searches. At any rate, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit just agreed to rehear this case en banc, meaning that the previous three-judge ruling is to be tossed out, and 11 new judges will revisit the issues.
And here’s the clincher: the original decision was issued nearly a year ago! Can it really take a whole year for the full court to decide whether or not to accept review of a panel decision? Could we be waiting until next spring before the Ninth Circuit even decides whether or not to take the Prop 8 case? I mean, I knew it would take at least a couple of months before we saw the next big Prop 8 case headline, but now I’m worried.
Meanwhile, perhaps you’ve heard that the New Hampshire house will finally take a vote on repealing marriage rights. As a matter of fact, the house vote is later today and while the repeal is expected to pass both chambers, we’re all looking to see if the bad guys have a veto proof majority. Governor John Lynch has pledged to pull out the red pen, but New Hampshire has elected an awful lot of conservative Republicans since the good old days of 2010, when marriage was legalized in the Granite State.
The crafty pols over there are also planning to put some kind of non-binding marriage question to the voters, a kind of “heads you lose, tails I win” deal that amounts to nothing more than an expensive public opinion poll. This allows the antigay side to preen about putting the issue to the people, while making sure that our people can’t retain or restore marriage rights through their vote. Bastards!
I don’t know what will happen in the next few months in New Hampshire, but I know there’s a ton of antigay money flowing towards the coffers of nervous lawmakers. In another irony, the National Organization for Marriage has now come out “in favor of civil unions” for gay couples, simply because the repeal law would replace marriage equality with the pre-existing civil union law.
Finally, this scheme, if successful, exactly tracks the narrow Prop 8 scenario that was ruled unconstitutional by the Ninth Circuit. It calls for the state to strip gays and lesbians of the word “marriage,” without altering rights and benefits. As such, the only purpose to such an effort is rooted in hostility and is therefore impermissible.
--
Depose This!
Here are the things I’m sick of: The GOP primary race, Tim Tebow, Apple, the Keystone pipeline and those dorky oreo commercials that show a bunch of adults playing with cookies in order to capture their inner child. I suppose I must have a fastidious streak, but I’ve always been repelled by fellow diners who toy with their food. My biggest pet peeve is taking a spoonful of ice cream or some other soft dessert and sliding half of it into one’s mouth while leaving half of it uneaten and still on the spoon for all to see. Likewise, licking the interior of an oreo has also been a lifelong source of disgust, along with “dunking” things into coffee or milk.
Just eat it, people.
Of course, I have no problem with dipping a rough cube of sugar into a snifter of Calvados, but that’s quite different.
So, where were we? GLBT news, bien sur.
Here’s a new marriage conflict. According to New York Law Professor Art Leonard, a judge in Delaware was recently obliged to determine whether a man who married his husband in California in 2008 enjoys spousal privilege in the Corporate Tax Headquarters State.
Delaware’s civil unions went into effect last January, providing all the benefits of marriage to gay partners, and recognizing partners and spouses from out of state. But does that mean the spousal privilege began last January? Or did it begin back in 2008, when the two men were married?
After a hearing and deliberation, Judge Joseph Slights III decided that the privilege dates from the marriage itself. Although the husband can be deposed (in a workplace discrimination suit) he will not be required to answer any questions concerning his private conversations with the plaintiff after their wedding date.
I like this case because it’s another illustration of the tangled web we weave when first we practice to, um, institute a hodgepodge of different laws and policies for same-sex couples throughout the country
You’re married in one state, and not the other. You’re married as of one date in one state, and recognized as of another elsewhere. You have state pension sharing, but not federal. You file joint taxes under one law, but in order to do so, you have to create an imaginary joint federal form to calculate various numbers before filing individual federal taxes. You get married in one state, and can’t get divorced where you live.
My theory is that the more complicated it gets, the sooner the country will get around to integrating marriage equality. Oh, by the way, the Maryland high court is set to hear a lesbian divorce case. We’ll watch it for you.
--
Texas, My Texas
Meanwhile, Professor Leonard had another interesting case on his blog, this one concerning a “slanderous” attack on a man in Texas, who was accused of being gay during a public fight in a restaurant. The man, apparently straight, sued and won both in lower court and at a state appellate court. The case now goes before the Texas Supreme Court with this question at its heart: is it slanderous to call (or imply) that someone is gay?
As Leonard explains, the definition of “slander per se” is an accusation that must: “(1) impute the commission of a crime; (2) impute contraction of a loathsome disease; (3) cause injury to a person's office, business, profession, or calling; or (4) impute sexual misconduct.
Before the Supreme Court ended sodomy laws in 2003, a Texan would be able to argue slander under items one and four. But what about now? Being gay is no longer criminal, it’s not misconduct, nor is it a disease. So can you really still say that the charge itself would automatically cause injury to your profession?
And what kind of injury would that be? Note that a slanderous statement that actually costs you money or business is dealt with under a different slander law and is not necessarily “slander per se.” In other words, in order for the charge to stand, the court must believe that the very hint of homosexuality is an injury by itself regardless of whether or not one can show specific harm. I’d like to think that my state has evolved over the years, but then again, this is Texas so we’ll have to see.
Just to give you an idea, today’s Metro section in the Austin paper informs me that a major intersection at Congress and 11th will be closed to traffic today so that finalists in the Junior Market Steer Show can corral a dozen steers into some makeshift enclosure. Say what? I hadn’t planned on going downtown, but is this really necessary?
Oh, and Tim Tebow is giving a speech in one of the Austin suburbs next week at an Easter thing so officials are expecting 20,000 people to show up.
Finally, there’s a controversy over the Texas policy of shooting wild burros in a state park along the Mexican border. The state had been killing the animals because they were “hogging water.” A few years ago, the public heard about it and got mad, so Texas said that the Peaceful Valley Donkey Rescue group could take over the control of the population. After two years, the apparently incompetent Peaceful Valley Donkey people failed to rescue a single burro, so the state resumed shooting the poor beasts until the Humane Society stepped in with a plan the other day.
Hogging water? There are only 300 of these donkeys in the park to begin with! How thirsty can they be? Did Texan officials really think that shooting a few dozen hapless donkeys in Big Bend would help relieve the worst drought in state history? Actually, if memory serves, Rick Perry asked us all to pray for rain at some point last year, and he was serious. I’m surprised they didn’t hold a big rain dance. They could have closed off all of Congress Avenue and brought Tim Tebow in to lead the crowd.
--
How Much Prison Time for Ravi?
So, the other day I tossed out a comment on Rutgers cyberspy, Dharun Ravi, suggesting they toss him naked into a cell, turn on a camera and throw away the key.
Um, they didn’t go that far, but still, the sick son of a bitch is now facing ten years in prison for setting up a webcam to post videos of his gay roommate in bed with another man. As you know, the roommate, Tyler Clementi, jumped off a bridge to his death a few days later.
But ten years?
I’m guessing Ravi won’t be sentenced to the maximum term, but I agree with New York Times op-editorialist, Emily Bazelon, that a decade behind bars does not fit the crime. Without Clementi’s suicide, the offense would be a misdemeanor. So the question is, to what extent can we tie a suicide to the bully who provided the final push?
To what extent can we prosecute the mean girls who ruthlessly target an unpopular student or the macho jocks who hurl slurs at their gay-acting teammate? Do we base our decision on the fortitude of the victim? Do we come down hard when the victim commits suicide but settle for a stern lecture when the victim simply complains and goes on with his or her life?
In truth, neither alternative seems right. The rap on the knuckles ignores the emotional violence of the offense. Yet throwing the book at the bullies who trigger a suicide overlooks the pre-existing fragility that leads a kid to that kind of despair. Whatever the bully did, his or her actions were only part of a complex history that culminated in tragedy. We can’t throw criminal charges at the many bullies who came before, but does that mean we can throw them all at the last bully in the line?
Don’t get me wrong. I believe in hate crime enhancements. I despise Dharun Ravi and others of his ilk. And I also think that bullying that leads to suicide should be treated more harshly than other abuse. But we shouldn’t have a big gap that effectively bases the punishment for an individual on the victim’s response.
--
Rock Chalk
So, what else you ask? The European Court of Human Rights issued a disturbing anti-marriage ruling the other day, which depressed me so I didn’t read it. Basically, it said ECU member states have no fundamental obligation to provide equal marriage rights.
Stop the presses! Tim Tebow is going to the Jets.
Jimmy Carter came out in favor of marriage equality, which was nice of the old POTUS. The Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders will argue before the First Circuit next week in our leading DOMA challenge. The State Department condemned some anti-gay rhetoric from Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, the Nobel Prize winning President of Liberia, also nice. Oh, and Barrack Obama came out against North Carolina’s antigay marriage amendment, which is coming up for a vote in May. This is a good development, since he’s been mute on our previous contests. I hope he speaks more forcefully as the fall elections approach.
Finally, did you happen to catch that Kansas Purdue game the other night? In our (previously mentioned) Jayhawk frenzy, we put post it notes reading “Go Kansas!” on the dogs. I think that pushed us over the top.
--
Ann’s column is available each week on sfbaytimes.com. You can reach her at arostow@aol.com.
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
Forgive Me Father, But You Have Sinned
GLBT Week in Review, March 14, 2012
BY ANN ROSTOW
Forgive Me Father, But You Have Sinned
I am pleased to report that the horrible Catholic priest I wrote about a couple of weeks ago has been suspended by his bishop for “intimidating” parishioners. The priest, Marcel Guarnizo, refused to allow lesbian Barbara Johnson to take communion during her mother’s funeral in Maryland. Father Marcel then proceeded to skip out of the service and did not show up at the graveyard.
In the course of checking up on how to spell “Guarnizo,” I discovered a video of the good father making a speech at a pro-life rally. Contrary to my mental picture of the man, he was young, thin and wearing shades. He looked like a little rodent. At any rate, he is now on forced leave and it sounds like the Johnson funeral was the last straw in a large bundle amassed by the nasty priest.
After I watched the video, I surfed a little wave of lesbian news and read about a high school in Colorado Springs where the yearbook advisor insisted that students remove a photo of two girls holding hands. The photo was part of a montage of campus couples, and the advisor allegedly told the students that either they cut the girls or the entire page would be taken out of the book. In the end, the school did remove the entire page, ostensibly because there was too much public display of affection from the featured couples. Whatever. The story hit the press so there must be something to it, right?
In other news of lesbophobic high school authorities, a student in a Boston area public school was told to remove her shirt, which read: “All the cool girls are lesbians.” As you probably know from our many thrilling T-shirt controversies of the past, our public school students do not leave their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate.
That said, schools have the right to control the learning environment, and that right includes prohibiting disruptive behavior. Are T-Shirt slogans disruptive? Unless they are racist or obscene, the answer is almost always no. The lesbian shirt may have unnerved the Vice Principal, but as the ACLU informed the school in a letter, it cannot be censored.
--
Romney’s Annoying Haircut
Now what? Did you see that our old friend Roy Moore has won the GOP nomination for Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court? Roy used to be Chief Justice down in the Red Tide State back in the day. When he first took office, he erected a gigantic Ten Commandments monument in the rotunda of the court building. He was sued, but when told to remove the two-ton constitutional offense from the premises, he refused. He refused a federal court order! While serving as Chief Justice of the state supreme court!
At any rate, he stepped down, or maybe was thrown out, I forget. And now, he’s back in the race and will have a chance to win his old job back next November. Ten-to-one this egomaniac commissions another Decalogue and engineers another Establishment Clause showdown. Did I mention that the showoff rode a horse to the polls on Tuesday? Oh, and here’s one last thing I didn’t know about Moore. I knew that he had run for governor once or twice without success, but he apparently considered a run for President last year. Il se prend pour qui, lui!
I’m watching MSNBC while I write and naturally the main topic of endless conversation is the GOP primary. I’m bringing this up only because they just showed a clip of Mittens on the hustings and I was reminded of another thing that I find greatly irritating about the man.
It’s his haircut. Mitt Romney’s stylist has deliberately crafted a little tuft of hair that comes off his forehead in an effort to give him a touch of insouciance. I can tell that the stylist used those special scissors that leave an irregular edge, so the tuft is kind of shaggy. But the thing is, this detail is obviously a product of a haircut that would put John Edwards to shame. It’s designed to make Mitt look casual, but in fact it delivers the exact opposite impression because everyone can tell that the tuft is a result of a metrosexual salon session rather than manly indifference to perfect hair.
--
Sue Lively
I did a quick gay google just now and I’m very sad to report that our favorite Memphis Grizzly, Rudy Gay, is out with a concussion. Rudy struggled with a shoulder injury last season, which was dutifully covered in this column as part of our commitment to all things gay. Get well soon, Rudy. Our community is pulling for you.
In other news, the gay rights group, Sexual Minorities Uganda, has sued antigay activist Scott Lively in federal court in Boston, accusing Lively of violating international law by inciting hatred against gays in Uganda. I didn’t know this kind of vague international suit was permitted in the U.S. courts, but apparently it is. The alien tort statute allows foreigners to use the American court system to litigate violations of international law, but I’m still not clear on whether or not one can tie Lively to actual violence or harm to Ugandan gays.
Nonetheless, I think it’s a great move. It draws attention to the horrors of African homophobia. It will complicate Mr. Lively’s life, which is a good thing. And it may discourage other American evangelicals from antigay lobbying around the globe.
Lively was the instigator of a conference on homosexuality in Uganda where he and his likeminded buddies warned local politicians and others of the dangers associated with homosexuality, including the tendency of gay men to recruit and molest children. This conference and others on the same theme inspired a Ugandan lawmaker to introduce a bill making homosexuality a capital crime, subject to the death penalty. Although that bill never made it through the legislature, there’s another one now pending that calls for heavy prison sentences for gays and lesbians.
According to the New York Times, Lively lives in Springfield, Massachusetts, where he operates a coffee shop called Holy Ground Coffee House. He is the author of several lofty titles, including: “The Pink Swastica; Homosexuality in the Nazi Party,” as well as “Seven Steps to Recruit Proof Your Child.”
I couldn’t resist taking a look at Chapter One of the latter publication, which argued that society’s increasingly tolerant attitude towards gays is a result of a sustained strategic effort by the gay community to recruit more gays and lesbians. (Works for me.)
“Just because you wouldn't have experimented with homosexuality, it doesn't follow that your child won't,” writes Lively. “On the other hand, if you did experiment with homosexuality and stopped because you were ashamed or were otherwise deterred by fear of social disapproval, consider what might have happened to you if you had conducted such an experiment in today's ‘gay-affirming’ climate.”
Um. I think you might have ended up being happy and gay rather than miserable and ashamed. I know it’s a trite observation, but you really have to wonder about men like Lively who seem clearly obsessed with sex and sexual orientation. I remember that one of those sessions in Uganda included a fisting film to illustrate the grotesque technicalities of gay sex. I suspect there were a lot of crossed legs after the lights went up. And let’s not forget our friend Peter LaBarbera, who spends his time investigating men’s sex clubs “under cover” as part of his research on homosexuality.
In related news, the producers of the viral video that calls attention to the brutal Ugandan warlord, Joseph Kony, are reportedly funded in part by right wing Christian groups and individuals, including some of the most generous backers of Prop 8. Recent annual reports of the non-profit group Invisible Children give thanks to prop 8 backers Terry and Barbara Caster as well as the anti-gay National Christian Foundation.
--
Reprieve for Another Binat Couple
Moving right along, an immigration judge in Houston has dismissed deportation proceedings against a Costa Rican man who is married to an American. This is the latest example of immigration authorities giving a break to same-sex couples, a result not only of the Obama administration’s decision to attack the Defense of Marriage Act in court, but also an example of the move last August to prioritize deportations of criminals and other unsavory characters.
The problem is that the foreign spouse in these cases is still barred from getting residency or working papers. Gay leaders have asked the administration to stop rejecting green card applications from same-sex spouses, but to keep the applications on hold pending the eventual demise of the Defense of Marriage Act. But the administration continues to deny these applications, walking a fine line between enforcing DOMA with one hand while trying to get it killed with the other.
We’ll see, won’t we? I think I told you last week that a binational same-sex couple has been given the go ahead by a federal judge in Illinois to sue the government for denial of equal protection.
--
Tabloids Tattle on Travolta
Let’s see. I’m really not thrilled with the rest of the news, although I did read that John Travolta hired a massage artist off Craigs List and then offered the man $200 for sex. You don’t believe me? It’s straight from the National Enquirer, where the editors made the guy take a lie detector test. It must be true.
I also saw that the actress who co-starred in the X Files admitted that she’s had a few lesbian flings. See, I told you our recruitment strategy was working.
Other than that, I’ve got a workplace discrimination suit brought by a lesbian teacher against a Texas college. There are quite a few nice polls floating around that indicate support for marriage equality is on the rise. In Washington, the Secretary of State has approved language for a ballot measure to repeal the new marriage law. I gather the language is not too bad for our side, so that’s all good. And the Omaha city council has approved something gay-related. I could look it up if you really wanted me to. I think it might be partner benefits for city staff? No. Actually the council approved a citywide antidiscrimination ordinance. And the X Files costar is Gillian Anderson.
In other words, with all respect to the city of Omaha and Ms. Anderson, the news is, quite frankly, lackluster. Happily, I am almost done with this week’s column so I can exit the gay rubric and tell you instead about the sixth grade assistant boys basketball coach in Springfield, Massachusetts (home of Scott Lively if you recall) who lost the championship game, attacked the winning coach and bit off his ear. The man fled the gymnasium, but was later caught and charged with whatever it is one charges a maniac psychopath basketball coach. The victim was rushed to the hospital, where surgeons were able to reattach his ear.
Talk about March Madness.
You should know, by the way, that I have submitted my first official NCAA bracket, which is part of an actual online group. I am nearly seven years into my relationship with my wife, a college basketball freak (let’s be honest) who has slowly but surely brought me from total indifference to looking up Belmont’s strength of schedule statistics and agonizing over whether to advance Alabama or Creighton. I went with the Tide.
Mel is not only a basketball fan, but a Jayhawk as well. These people are uber fans, and every time Kansas plays we have to put our Jayhawk flag out in the yard, wear Jayhawk shirts, wave our arms in the air like wheat during free throws, and drink shots if the game is close. When there’s less than a minute left in the game and Kansas is way ahead, we sing a droning Gregorian victory chant and have another shot.
All and all, you can see why I became a basketball fan as well.
--
Ann’s column is available every week at sfbaytimes.com. You can reach her at arostow@aol.com.
BY ANN ROSTOW
Forgive Me Father, But You Have Sinned
I am pleased to report that the horrible Catholic priest I wrote about a couple of weeks ago has been suspended by his bishop for “intimidating” parishioners. The priest, Marcel Guarnizo, refused to allow lesbian Barbara Johnson to take communion during her mother’s funeral in Maryland. Father Marcel then proceeded to skip out of the service and did not show up at the graveyard.
In the course of checking up on how to spell “Guarnizo,” I discovered a video of the good father making a speech at a pro-life rally. Contrary to my mental picture of the man, he was young, thin and wearing shades. He looked like a little rodent. At any rate, he is now on forced leave and it sounds like the Johnson funeral was the last straw in a large bundle amassed by the nasty priest.
After I watched the video, I surfed a little wave of lesbian news and read about a high school in Colorado Springs where the yearbook advisor insisted that students remove a photo of two girls holding hands. The photo was part of a montage of campus couples, and the advisor allegedly told the students that either they cut the girls or the entire page would be taken out of the book. In the end, the school did remove the entire page, ostensibly because there was too much public display of affection from the featured couples. Whatever. The story hit the press so there must be something to it, right?
In other news of lesbophobic high school authorities, a student in a Boston area public school was told to remove her shirt, which read: “All the cool girls are lesbians.” As you probably know from our many thrilling T-shirt controversies of the past, our public school students do not leave their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate.
That said, schools have the right to control the learning environment, and that right includes prohibiting disruptive behavior. Are T-Shirt slogans disruptive? Unless they are racist or obscene, the answer is almost always no. The lesbian shirt may have unnerved the Vice Principal, but as the ACLU informed the school in a letter, it cannot be censored.
--
Romney’s Annoying Haircut
Now what? Did you see that our old friend Roy Moore has won the GOP nomination for Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court? Roy used to be Chief Justice down in the Red Tide State back in the day. When he first took office, he erected a gigantic Ten Commandments monument in the rotunda of the court building. He was sued, but when told to remove the two-ton constitutional offense from the premises, he refused. He refused a federal court order! While serving as Chief Justice of the state supreme court!
At any rate, he stepped down, or maybe was thrown out, I forget. And now, he’s back in the race and will have a chance to win his old job back next November. Ten-to-one this egomaniac commissions another Decalogue and engineers another Establishment Clause showdown. Did I mention that the showoff rode a horse to the polls on Tuesday? Oh, and here’s one last thing I didn’t know about Moore. I knew that he had run for governor once or twice without success, but he apparently considered a run for President last year. Il se prend pour qui, lui!
I’m watching MSNBC while I write and naturally the main topic of endless conversation is the GOP primary. I’m bringing this up only because they just showed a clip of Mittens on the hustings and I was reminded of another thing that I find greatly irritating about the man.
It’s his haircut. Mitt Romney’s stylist has deliberately crafted a little tuft of hair that comes off his forehead in an effort to give him a touch of insouciance. I can tell that the stylist used those special scissors that leave an irregular edge, so the tuft is kind of shaggy. But the thing is, this detail is obviously a product of a haircut that would put John Edwards to shame. It’s designed to make Mitt look casual, but in fact it delivers the exact opposite impression because everyone can tell that the tuft is a result of a metrosexual salon session rather than manly indifference to perfect hair.
--
Sue Lively
I did a quick gay google just now and I’m very sad to report that our favorite Memphis Grizzly, Rudy Gay, is out with a concussion. Rudy struggled with a shoulder injury last season, which was dutifully covered in this column as part of our commitment to all things gay. Get well soon, Rudy. Our community is pulling for you.
In other news, the gay rights group, Sexual Minorities Uganda, has sued antigay activist Scott Lively in federal court in Boston, accusing Lively of violating international law by inciting hatred against gays in Uganda. I didn’t know this kind of vague international suit was permitted in the U.S. courts, but apparently it is. The alien tort statute allows foreigners to use the American court system to litigate violations of international law, but I’m still not clear on whether or not one can tie Lively to actual violence or harm to Ugandan gays.
Nonetheless, I think it’s a great move. It draws attention to the horrors of African homophobia. It will complicate Mr. Lively’s life, which is a good thing. And it may discourage other American evangelicals from antigay lobbying around the globe.
Lively was the instigator of a conference on homosexuality in Uganda where he and his likeminded buddies warned local politicians and others of the dangers associated with homosexuality, including the tendency of gay men to recruit and molest children. This conference and others on the same theme inspired a Ugandan lawmaker to introduce a bill making homosexuality a capital crime, subject to the death penalty. Although that bill never made it through the legislature, there’s another one now pending that calls for heavy prison sentences for gays and lesbians.
According to the New York Times, Lively lives in Springfield, Massachusetts, where he operates a coffee shop called Holy Ground Coffee House. He is the author of several lofty titles, including: “The Pink Swastica; Homosexuality in the Nazi Party,” as well as “Seven Steps to Recruit Proof Your Child.”
I couldn’t resist taking a look at Chapter One of the latter publication, which argued that society’s increasingly tolerant attitude towards gays is a result of a sustained strategic effort by the gay community to recruit more gays and lesbians. (Works for me.)
“Just because you wouldn't have experimented with homosexuality, it doesn't follow that your child won't,” writes Lively. “On the other hand, if you did experiment with homosexuality and stopped because you were ashamed or were otherwise deterred by fear of social disapproval, consider what might have happened to you if you had conducted such an experiment in today's ‘gay-affirming’ climate.”
Um. I think you might have ended up being happy and gay rather than miserable and ashamed. I know it’s a trite observation, but you really have to wonder about men like Lively who seem clearly obsessed with sex and sexual orientation. I remember that one of those sessions in Uganda included a fisting film to illustrate the grotesque technicalities of gay sex. I suspect there were a lot of crossed legs after the lights went up. And let’s not forget our friend Peter LaBarbera, who spends his time investigating men’s sex clubs “under cover” as part of his research on homosexuality.
In related news, the producers of the viral video that calls attention to the brutal Ugandan warlord, Joseph Kony, are reportedly funded in part by right wing Christian groups and individuals, including some of the most generous backers of Prop 8. Recent annual reports of the non-profit group Invisible Children give thanks to prop 8 backers Terry and Barbara Caster as well as the anti-gay National Christian Foundation.
--
Reprieve for Another Binat Couple
Moving right along, an immigration judge in Houston has dismissed deportation proceedings against a Costa Rican man who is married to an American. This is the latest example of immigration authorities giving a break to same-sex couples, a result not only of the Obama administration’s decision to attack the Defense of Marriage Act in court, but also an example of the move last August to prioritize deportations of criminals and other unsavory characters.
The problem is that the foreign spouse in these cases is still barred from getting residency or working papers. Gay leaders have asked the administration to stop rejecting green card applications from same-sex spouses, but to keep the applications on hold pending the eventual demise of the Defense of Marriage Act. But the administration continues to deny these applications, walking a fine line between enforcing DOMA with one hand while trying to get it killed with the other.
We’ll see, won’t we? I think I told you last week that a binational same-sex couple has been given the go ahead by a federal judge in Illinois to sue the government for denial of equal protection.
--
Tabloids Tattle on Travolta
Let’s see. I’m really not thrilled with the rest of the news, although I did read that John Travolta hired a massage artist off Craigs List and then offered the man $200 for sex. You don’t believe me? It’s straight from the National Enquirer, where the editors made the guy take a lie detector test. It must be true.
I also saw that the actress who co-starred in the X Files admitted that she’s had a few lesbian flings. See, I told you our recruitment strategy was working.
Other than that, I’ve got a workplace discrimination suit brought by a lesbian teacher against a Texas college. There are quite a few nice polls floating around that indicate support for marriage equality is on the rise. In Washington, the Secretary of State has approved language for a ballot measure to repeal the new marriage law. I gather the language is not too bad for our side, so that’s all good. And the Omaha city council has approved something gay-related. I could look it up if you really wanted me to. I think it might be partner benefits for city staff? No. Actually the council approved a citywide antidiscrimination ordinance. And the X Files costar is Gillian Anderson.
In other words, with all respect to the city of Omaha and Ms. Anderson, the news is, quite frankly, lackluster. Happily, I am almost done with this week’s column so I can exit the gay rubric and tell you instead about the sixth grade assistant boys basketball coach in Springfield, Massachusetts (home of Scott Lively if you recall) who lost the championship game, attacked the winning coach and bit off his ear. The man fled the gymnasium, but was later caught and charged with whatever it is one charges a maniac psychopath basketball coach. The victim was rushed to the hospital, where surgeons were able to reattach his ear.
Talk about March Madness.
You should know, by the way, that I have submitted my first official NCAA bracket, which is part of an actual online group. I am nearly seven years into my relationship with my wife, a college basketball freak (let’s be honest) who has slowly but surely brought me from total indifference to looking up Belmont’s strength of schedule statistics and agonizing over whether to advance Alabama or Creighton. I went with the Tide.
Mel is not only a basketball fan, but a Jayhawk as well. These people are uber fans, and every time Kansas plays we have to put our Jayhawk flag out in the yard, wear Jayhawk shirts, wave our arms in the air like wheat during free throws, and drink shots if the game is close. When there’s less than a minute left in the game and Kansas is way ahead, we sing a droning Gregorian victory chant and have another shot.
All and all, you can see why I became a basketball fan as well.
--
Ann’s column is available every week at sfbaytimes.com. You can reach her at arostow@aol.com.
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
Arcane Tax Ruling Typical of Boring News Week
GLBT Week in Review March 7, 2012
BY ANN ROSTOW
Arcane Tax Ruling Typical of Boring News Week
I’ve been procrastinating for the last hour and a half. So far, I have made myself a steak sandwich, played with the dogs, read two newspapers and finished a crossword puzzle. I made more coffee and drank two cups. Then I watched part of an old episode of “Kitchen Nightmares” on the television machine.
Now, having exhausted the most obvious delaying tactics, I have no choice but to start this column. And yet I greet you with a certain lack of enthusiasm. There’s not a ton of news. My computer is acting up. I’m also wearing a fuzzy bathrobe that makes me feel uncomfortably hot. Finally, I’m using eyeglasses that oblige me to lean into the screen or else read through a slight blur. Under the circumstances, I’d say my continued effort is nothing short of heroic.
Just to give you some sense of what I’m up against, content wise, the lead article on my favorite GLBT legal blog (Leonard Link) is headlined: “Tax Court Affirms IRS Ruling Limiting Mortgage Interest Deductions for Unmarried Couples.” Really, Art?
If you insist, the case is about two rich guys who jointly own two houses and are trying to maximize their tax breaks based on the fact that they’re not married. Sing it with me! We’re here! We’re Queer! And we both want to take the maximum mortgage deduction even though the IRS caps deductions on the first $1 million of debt per property, not per individual!
To be fair, New York law professor Art Leonard has also posted an interesting new federal challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act filed by a bi-national couple in Illinois. And the District of Columbia City Council has voted to let married gay couples get a DC divorce even if they don’t live in the city.
Normally, I’d launch into the DOMA case, pointing out perhaps that our several federal cases bring a variety of situations to the attention of our nation’s courts. Estate tax, immigration status, spousal benefits, military wives and husbands, the list goes on and it perfectly illustrates the wide range of DOMA’s discriminatory effects. However, I’m a little burned out on marriage, and DOMA in particular, so I’ll spare you.
My email box is also full of news about another person I’ve never heard of who said mean things about our community on Piers Morgan’s show. Then I’ve got a couple stories on bullying, as well as some news about the head of New York’s Empire State Pride Agenda who got tossed out on his bum for reasons unclear.
Oh, and Barack Obama’s nanny was a transwoman who now lives in a slum and turns tricks in Indonesia.
So, shall we begin?
--
Tuesdays With Mittens
But first, how about those Republican candidates? Mitt Romney looks like an 85-year-old trapped in a 60-year-old body. His stiff, halting walk. The feeling you get that if he ever had to throw out the first pitch at a major league park he’d toss it underhand. His relaxed-fit jeans and the way he sort of giggles instead of laughs.
Santorum has managed to reverse his momentum with Rick Perry-like alacrity, transforming himself from handsome conservative former Senator to creepy moralizing snipe in a matter of days. There was that nasty edge to his voice when he called Obama a “snob” for encouraging kids to go to college. And what exactly was his point? No one says college is for everyone, but Santorum almost suggested that a university education was a bad temptation to be resisted.
And as for Newt, well what can I say? Did the man not notice that he came in a distant third in virtually every primary save his home state on Super Tuesday? Is he so egotistical that he believes he can lumber down the slow road to Tampa like a “tortoise” while the “bunnies” hop all the way to Tallahassee and pause for a carrot break? What’s he talking about? Tortoises and bunnies indeed.
--
New York Activist Unplugged
My trenchant campaign analysis was interrupted by a computer black out, engineered by a pug who tripped over an essential wire and turned off the machine. Not only did I lose my train of thought, but I was forced to spend many long minutes participating in the irritating start up process. After six or seven years, this device has collected more junk than a hoarder and when you turn it on, it takes forever to sort itself into a productive state. For some reason, I have to wait for “Skype” to assemble, even though I don’t use Skype because I have no webcam on this computer.
The important thing, of course, is that I’m back. While I was waiting for the useless Skype program, I learned that a symposium on Ancestral Health is scheduled for later this month in Austin. Among the topics are “running barefoot,” and a diet that does not include grains, dairy, legumes or “refined oils.” You may know that our city motto is “Keep Austin Weird,” and I believe the organizers of the Ancestral Health conference are living up to our eccentric standards. Bring on the raw bison, by all means.
So as I told you earlier, the board of the Empire State Pride Agenda has fired Executive Director Ross Levi after nearly two years, and placed his deputy in the top job for the time being. I gather that Levi was given the opportunity to resign quietly, presumably with one of those suspicious press releases about “new directions” or “personal reasons.” But Levi refused to accept a confidentiality agreement, so the news of his departure made clear that the decision was not his.
No one has coughed up the dirt as yet, but it seems as if the board thought Levi allowed New York’s leading gay rights group to take a back seat to the Human Rights Campaign and other agencies in the state’s successful fight for marriage equality. Further, Levi was reportedly a weak fundraiser and short on the vision thing, as George H. W. Bush calls it. Before taking over the ED post in May of 2010, Levi spent a decade working for ESPA in other capacities.
With nothing else to go on, I harken back to the Peter Principle, the idea that people climb the ladder of success until they reach their level of incompetence, where they either stick around ineffectively or get fired. The theory is simple. When people are competent and good at their jobs, they will win promotions. Eventually, they will rise to a position that they can’t handle, at which point the promotions will stop.
Maybe Levi was a great legislative director, but couldn’t rise to the demands of the corner office. After all, there’s a big difference between arguing policy and drafting legislation on one hand, and sweet-talking big donors and planning black tie dinners on the other.
--
Bully By The Horns
Grinding along, it’s time to talk about bullies. Actually, this is a major story, a settlement between the Anoka-Hennepin district just north of Minneapolis, and several student plaintiffs.
I confess I’ve given these lawsuits a short shrift in the past, in part based on my inability to remember the name “Anoka-Hennepin.” Unlike many of my other recurring stories, I am unable to write about the Anoka-Hennepin school district off the top of my head, and must pause to look up the correct spelling, a time-consuming extra step that is easily avoided by writing about something else.
Oh, I’m just kidding. You may remember this district from a period about a year or so ago when everyone in the country suddenly noticed that gay kids commit suicide, particularly when bullied. Although stories of suicides came from around the country, this particular district saw six kids kill themselves in the space of just two years, most of them gay or seemingly so.
Last summer, with the help of the National Center for Lesbian Rights and the Southern Poverty Law Center, six students challenged the district’s laissez faire attitude, exemplified by a counterproductive Don’t Say Gay policy that required teachers and administrators to “remain neutral” on sexual orientation by never mentioning the subject. Obviously such a policy is anything but neutral, and instead nurtures fertile ground for antigay hostility.
The previous November, the Justice Department’s civil rights unit launched an investigation into the district’s response to antigay bullying and sexual harassment, concluding this week that the district had allowed a hostile environment to emerge in its schools that contributed to the bullying of 10 students, two of whom committed suicide.
On Tuesday, the district settled the two student lawsuits and adopted far reaching standards in a consent decree to satisfy the Justice Department. In addition to a money settlement of $270,000 to the student plaintiffs, the district will also put into place a proactive program to target hot spots, create an anti-bullying committee of parents, students and teachers, institute training and improve supervision. The Don’t Say Gay policy was reversed earlier this year.
This was not the first school district to face a federal lawsuit for its indifference to peer sexual harassment or gay bashing on its campuses. But the participation of the Justice Department was a novelty we haven’t seen in past administrations. Announcing the consent decree that codified the district’s anti-bullying program, Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez gave a conference call audience a rundown of the Department’s several interventions in pursuit of safe schools, and called the Anoka-Hennepin program a cost effective model for other districts around the country.
The other bullying story on my list was one you’ve probably encountered by now, the trial of the slug in New Jersey who drove his gay roommate to suicide by videotaping his intimate moments. I don’t see why we care about the details of his date with justice. Just put a camera in his cell, take away all his clothes and throw away the key.
--
The Moving Keyboard Writes And Having Writ, Moves On
Our weekly journey is almost at an end, but my mind is attempting to depart prematurely, wandering off on its own like a bored toddler in a grocery store. As soon as I compose the basic structure of a short final section on, I don’t know, a gay bashing in Chile or the latest big name to sign on to the marriage plank in the Democratic party platform, I look around and there’s my mind, pulling a box of Captain Crunch off the bottom shelf, and stuffing a fistful of empty calories into its mouth.
Did you hear about the Florida husband and wife in who beat up the man’s mother for using “his” taco sauce at dinner? The woman escaped from the house, walked to her husband’s workplace and called police. Her son was arrested for domestic battery.
Have you seen the “ATM machine” that dispenses cupcakes? I don’t get it. I’ve seen this thing presented on various cable news shows as if it’s somehow bizarre or surrealistic, but basically, it’s a vending machine of sorts that sells cupcakes, right? Why does this contraption merit repeated national television coverage?
And here’s a headline to take us to the finish line: “Columbia Decries Barnard’s Dumb, Man-Stealing, Lesbian Sluts.” What could possibly have provoked such a tempestuous response?
Here’s the deal. President Obama has decided to give the commencement address at Barnard, and now, Columbia students are all bent out of shape and complaining on the university’s message board. I always thought that Barnard was the women’s side of Columbia, but since women can apply directly to Columbia, I just learned through this article that the Columbia students have developed a superiority complex vis a vis the scholars at their sister school, and the adjectives in the headline are typical expressions of their ill will.
I suppose the Columbia students will grow out of this childish competition for elite status in due time. Those who can't achieve that level of maturity should remember that Yale is, and will always remain, the top college in the Ivy League.
--
Ann’s column is available every week at sfbaytimes.com. You can reach her at arostow@aol.com.
BY ANN ROSTOW
Arcane Tax Ruling Typical of Boring News Week
I’ve been procrastinating for the last hour and a half. So far, I have made myself a steak sandwich, played with the dogs, read two newspapers and finished a crossword puzzle. I made more coffee and drank two cups. Then I watched part of an old episode of “Kitchen Nightmares” on the television machine.
Now, having exhausted the most obvious delaying tactics, I have no choice but to start this column. And yet I greet you with a certain lack of enthusiasm. There’s not a ton of news. My computer is acting up. I’m also wearing a fuzzy bathrobe that makes me feel uncomfortably hot. Finally, I’m using eyeglasses that oblige me to lean into the screen or else read through a slight blur. Under the circumstances, I’d say my continued effort is nothing short of heroic.
Just to give you some sense of what I’m up against, content wise, the lead article on my favorite GLBT legal blog (Leonard Link) is headlined: “Tax Court Affirms IRS Ruling Limiting Mortgage Interest Deductions for Unmarried Couples.” Really, Art?
If you insist, the case is about two rich guys who jointly own two houses and are trying to maximize their tax breaks based on the fact that they’re not married. Sing it with me! We’re here! We’re Queer! And we both want to take the maximum mortgage deduction even though the IRS caps deductions on the first $1 million of debt per property, not per individual!
To be fair, New York law professor Art Leonard has also posted an interesting new federal challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act filed by a bi-national couple in Illinois. And the District of Columbia City Council has voted to let married gay couples get a DC divorce even if they don’t live in the city.
Normally, I’d launch into the DOMA case, pointing out perhaps that our several federal cases bring a variety of situations to the attention of our nation’s courts. Estate tax, immigration status, spousal benefits, military wives and husbands, the list goes on and it perfectly illustrates the wide range of DOMA’s discriminatory effects. However, I’m a little burned out on marriage, and DOMA in particular, so I’ll spare you.
My email box is also full of news about another person I’ve never heard of who said mean things about our community on Piers Morgan’s show. Then I’ve got a couple stories on bullying, as well as some news about the head of New York’s Empire State Pride Agenda who got tossed out on his bum for reasons unclear.
Oh, and Barack Obama’s nanny was a transwoman who now lives in a slum and turns tricks in Indonesia.
So, shall we begin?
--
Tuesdays With Mittens
But first, how about those Republican candidates? Mitt Romney looks like an 85-year-old trapped in a 60-year-old body. His stiff, halting walk. The feeling you get that if he ever had to throw out the first pitch at a major league park he’d toss it underhand. His relaxed-fit jeans and the way he sort of giggles instead of laughs.
Santorum has managed to reverse his momentum with Rick Perry-like alacrity, transforming himself from handsome conservative former Senator to creepy moralizing snipe in a matter of days. There was that nasty edge to his voice when he called Obama a “snob” for encouraging kids to go to college. And what exactly was his point? No one says college is for everyone, but Santorum almost suggested that a university education was a bad temptation to be resisted.
And as for Newt, well what can I say? Did the man not notice that he came in a distant third in virtually every primary save his home state on Super Tuesday? Is he so egotistical that he believes he can lumber down the slow road to Tampa like a “tortoise” while the “bunnies” hop all the way to Tallahassee and pause for a carrot break? What’s he talking about? Tortoises and bunnies indeed.
--
New York Activist Unplugged
My trenchant campaign analysis was interrupted by a computer black out, engineered by a pug who tripped over an essential wire and turned off the machine. Not only did I lose my train of thought, but I was forced to spend many long minutes participating in the irritating start up process. After six or seven years, this device has collected more junk than a hoarder and when you turn it on, it takes forever to sort itself into a productive state. For some reason, I have to wait for “Skype” to assemble, even though I don’t use Skype because I have no webcam on this computer.
The important thing, of course, is that I’m back. While I was waiting for the useless Skype program, I learned that a symposium on Ancestral Health is scheduled for later this month in Austin. Among the topics are “running barefoot,” and a diet that does not include grains, dairy, legumes or “refined oils.” You may know that our city motto is “Keep Austin Weird,” and I believe the organizers of the Ancestral Health conference are living up to our eccentric standards. Bring on the raw bison, by all means.
So as I told you earlier, the board of the Empire State Pride Agenda has fired Executive Director Ross Levi after nearly two years, and placed his deputy in the top job for the time being. I gather that Levi was given the opportunity to resign quietly, presumably with one of those suspicious press releases about “new directions” or “personal reasons.” But Levi refused to accept a confidentiality agreement, so the news of his departure made clear that the decision was not his.
No one has coughed up the dirt as yet, but it seems as if the board thought Levi allowed New York’s leading gay rights group to take a back seat to the Human Rights Campaign and other agencies in the state’s successful fight for marriage equality. Further, Levi was reportedly a weak fundraiser and short on the vision thing, as George H. W. Bush calls it. Before taking over the ED post in May of 2010, Levi spent a decade working for ESPA in other capacities.
With nothing else to go on, I harken back to the Peter Principle, the idea that people climb the ladder of success until they reach their level of incompetence, where they either stick around ineffectively or get fired. The theory is simple. When people are competent and good at their jobs, they will win promotions. Eventually, they will rise to a position that they can’t handle, at which point the promotions will stop.
Maybe Levi was a great legislative director, but couldn’t rise to the demands of the corner office. After all, there’s a big difference between arguing policy and drafting legislation on one hand, and sweet-talking big donors and planning black tie dinners on the other.
--
Bully By The Horns
Grinding along, it’s time to talk about bullies. Actually, this is a major story, a settlement between the Anoka-Hennepin district just north of Minneapolis, and several student plaintiffs.
I confess I’ve given these lawsuits a short shrift in the past, in part based on my inability to remember the name “Anoka-Hennepin.” Unlike many of my other recurring stories, I am unable to write about the Anoka-Hennepin school district off the top of my head, and must pause to look up the correct spelling, a time-consuming extra step that is easily avoided by writing about something else.
Oh, I’m just kidding. You may remember this district from a period about a year or so ago when everyone in the country suddenly noticed that gay kids commit suicide, particularly when bullied. Although stories of suicides came from around the country, this particular district saw six kids kill themselves in the space of just two years, most of them gay or seemingly so.
Last summer, with the help of the National Center for Lesbian Rights and the Southern Poverty Law Center, six students challenged the district’s laissez faire attitude, exemplified by a counterproductive Don’t Say Gay policy that required teachers and administrators to “remain neutral” on sexual orientation by never mentioning the subject. Obviously such a policy is anything but neutral, and instead nurtures fertile ground for antigay hostility.
The previous November, the Justice Department’s civil rights unit launched an investigation into the district’s response to antigay bullying and sexual harassment, concluding this week that the district had allowed a hostile environment to emerge in its schools that contributed to the bullying of 10 students, two of whom committed suicide.
On Tuesday, the district settled the two student lawsuits and adopted far reaching standards in a consent decree to satisfy the Justice Department. In addition to a money settlement of $270,000 to the student plaintiffs, the district will also put into place a proactive program to target hot spots, create an anti-bullying committee of parents, students and teachers, institute training and improve supervision. The Don’t Say Gay policy was reversed earlier this year.
This was not the first school district to face a federal lawsuit for its indifference to peer sexual harassment or gay bashing on its campuses. But the participation of the Justice Department was a novelty we haven’t seen in past administrations. Announcing the consent decree that codified the district’s anti-bullying program, Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez gave a conference call audience a rundown of the Department’s several interventions in pursuit of safe schools, and called the Anoka-Hennepin program a cost effective model for other districts around the country.
The other bullying story on my list was one you’ve probably encountered by now, the trial of the slug in New Jersey who drove his gay roommate to suicide by videotaping his intimate moments. I don’t see why we care about the details of his date with justice. Just put a camera in his cell, take away all his clothes and throw away the key.
--
The Moving Keyboard Writes And Having Writ, Moves On
Our weekly journey is almost at an end, but my mind is attempting to depart prematurely, wandering off on its own like a bored toddler in a grocery store. As soon as I compose the basic structure of a short final section on, I don’t know, a gay bashing in Chile or the latest big name to sign on to the marriage plank in the Democratic party platform, I look around and there’s my mind, pulling a box of Captain Crunch off the bottom shelf, and stuffing a fistful of empty calories into its mouth.
Did you hear about the Florida husband and wife in who beat up the man’s mother for using “his” taco sauce at dinner? The woman escaped from the house, walked to her husband’s workplace and called police. Her son was arrested for domestic battery.
Have you seen the “ATM machine” that dispenses cupcakes? I don’t get it. I’ve seen this thing presented on various cable news shows as if it’s somehow bizarre or surrealistic, but basically, it’s a vending machine of sorts that sells cupcakes, right? Why does this contraption merit repeated national television coverage?
And here’s a headline to take us to the finish line: “Columbia Decries Barnard’s Dumb, Man-Stealing, Lesbian Sluts.” What could possibly have provoked such a tempestuous response?
Here’s the deal. President Obama has decided to give the commencement address at Barnard, and now, Columbia students are all bent out of shape and complaining on the university’s message board. I always thought that Barnard was the women’s side of Columbia, but since women can apply directly to Columbia, I just learned through this article that the Columbia students have developed a superiority complex vis a vis the scholars at their sister school, and the adjectives in the headline are typical expressions of their ill will.
I suppose the Columbia students will grow out of this childish competition for elite status in due time. Those who can't achieve that level of maturity should remember that Yale is, and will always remain, the top college in the Ivy League.
--
Ann’s column is available every week at sfbaytimes.com. You can reach her at arostow@aol.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)