Wednesday, June 20, 2012
What if they filed a lawsuit and nobody came?
Good morning, dear readers. I will be on vacation next week, so be prepared for exciting GLBT news to break while I am not around. It always happens. Meanwhile, I would be remiss were I not to wish you all a very merry Pride weekend! As an assimilationist at heart, I should in theory be looking forward to the day when the Pride Parade is obsolete, a silly remnant of a discriminatory past, no more meaningful than a Renaissance Festival.
But I don’t feel that way. I suspect (and hope) there will always be a GLBT community even after our civil rights are long granted. Not the self- important activists and not the libertines. But the off beat, wild and crazy krew that glides easily from the boardroom to the courtroom, from the bonfire on the beach to the Champagne breakfast at dawn. Ageless, race-less and always forgiving of those that trespass against us. We are Pride!
Now, moving on to the news, I am completely perplexed by the situation in Illinois, where no one seems willing to defend the state’s straight-only marriage law!
Lambda Legal and the American Civil Liberties Union filed coordinated state lawsuits a few weeks ago, both combining to represent something like 25 same-sex couples. It felt like a blast from the past, since our gay legal allies have been spending most of their time in federal court for the last several years.
Yet, here they were back in state court, presenting the kind of freedom-to -marry case that won us marriage rights in states like Massachusetts and Iowa.
First, we read that the Governor was on our side. Then, we heard that the Attorney General agreed. Then we learned that the Cook County Clerk, the official defendant in the cases, was also a supporter of marriage equality. Nonetheless, I assumed that the Clerk, David Orr, would be obliged to defend the Illinois marriage statute, just because.
But that was wrong. Last Thursday, Mr. Orr and his legal colleague, Cook County States Attorney Anita Alvarez, both announced their opposition to the antigay marriage law and refused to rise to its defense. Now what? Unlike the situation in California, there are no initiative proponents to take up Satan’s banner here. The law under attack was passed ages ago by lawmakers who also don’t seem inclined to fight.
According to the Chicago Sun Times and others, lawyers at the far right Thomas More Society are hard at work drafting motions to intervene on the antigay side. No judge wants a case to win by default. At the same time, it’s hard to see why a bunch of conservative hacks have standing to take part in a challenge to state law just because they’ve got their knickers in a twist and nobody else has the stomach for it.
We’ll see. I’m sure we’ll learn a lot more about Illinois state procedures while we’re at it. Don’t worry, we’ll just fly right over the boring details.
--
Mr. Hollande’s Opus
You’ll be happy to know that the socialists won a controlling majority in the French parliament, which sets the stage for passage of a marriage equality bill. I gather a law has already been drafted in anticipation of left wing victory, so it’s easy sledding from here.
Ah, remember how excited we were when the Netherlands broke ground with their marriage equality law back in the day? Now, the whole thing is vieux chapeau indeed. At least in the Euro-zone.
I’ve been reading good things about Maine, not that I trust a poll of 500 people conducted in June with a five-point hit or miss margin. That said, marriage equality is winning by 55 to 36, with an undecided group at 9 percent.
The poll asked a convoluted question that included some gratuitous lingo about protecting religious freedom. That’s annoying because no church is ever forced to conduct ceremonies that lie outside its tradition. But we’re also getting tired of having to bow and scrape before so-called religious expression which is little more than an excuse for bigotry.
Plus, the language that is now approved for Maine’s November marriage vote doesn’t even mention religious exemptions. Instead, it asks voters: “Do you want to allow same-sex couples to marry?” This sounds straight-forward enough, so to speak. But of course we do better when we soothe everyone’s baseless fears by adding nonsensical religious exclusions.
Put all of this together and who knows where Maine’s voters stand? Personally, I haven’t forgotten the breathless optimism in the run up to Question 9, a 2009 marriage repeal that we lost quite handily after everyone said we had a great chance to win.
Three years is, however, a long time in the modern fight for marriage. And the passage of time alone is worth several percentage points of the vote. By the way, while I was reading about Maine I noticed that someone caught a 27-pound lobster off Rockland. They’re going to put him back in the ocean.
The lobster was named “Rocky,” and I am wondering just why Rocky was returned to Neptune’s arms. He’s just going to wind up back in the trap like a bad penny. If not, he’ll die alone on the ocean floor and eventually get picked over by little fish and crabs. Why can’t someone eat him? If I were a lobster, that’s how I’d like to go out. Poached and sprinkled with a little lemon. Hot butter on the side and a cold bottle of Bandol Rose on ice. Oh, Rocky. What if?
--
Dale Dale! He’s Our Man!
So speaking of polls, there was also a positive poll out of Washington, where, as you well know, we will soon be defending our marriage equality law against repeal. This poll was based on over 1,000 citizens, but I still approach it with wariness. Just consider the headlines on Google:
“Same sex marriage in substantial lead: poll,” said one.
“PPP Survey: Narrow majority of Washington voters support same-sex marriage,” said another.
So which is it? A “substantial lead,” or a “narrow majority.” Turns out it’s both. A “narrow majority” of 51 percent believe same-sex marriage should be legal. On the other hand, “substantially” fewer people, 42 percent, think the reverse. The other seven percent cannot take a stand for whatever reason.
My point, however, is that gay friendly blogs and papers can’t help themselves. They invariably spin the news to our advantage rather than simply reporting the information. Why? Do GLBT reporters think we’re more likely to win if we really really hope and pray? Do they feel compelled to offer “good news” or “look on the bright side?” These are supposed to be sources of information, not cheering squads.
In another piece of news on the subject of marriage campaigns, the forces of evil in Minnesota are way behind us in fund raising. Over last year and the first months of 2012, the enemies of freedom and equality have raised about $1.4 million in support of the antigay constitutional amendment on November’s ballot.
Our side, led by handsome law professor and author Dale Carpenter, has raised $4.6 million over the same period. You go Dale! Dale is the treasurer of Minnesotans United for all Families and the author of Flagrant Conduct, the inside story of Lawrence v Texas that came out recently to rave reviews.
--
Six Secrets for A Healthier You!
I’m sure you’ve heard many times that gay marriage campaigns have “always” ended in defeat for same-sex couples. You may also have been reminded in this column that we once won one of those elections, namely, a ballot measure in Arizona back in 2006.
So, it’s not true that we’ve lost 32 out of 32 of those votes. We’ve lost 32 out of 33, or maybe 31 out of 32. Whatever. This is sort of beside the point, but the minor inaccuracy infuriates me only because it’s not that hard to correct.
Oh, and let’s not forget that Washington voters refused to repeal their domestic partner law in a 53-47 vote in 2009. No, it’s not a vote on “marriage,” but it’s significant nonetheless. Put that in your pipe and smoke it, mainstream media.
At any rate, I was recently attracted to an Associated Press headline that read: “Five Reasons Gay Marriage Losing Streak may Be Over.” Was my interest perhaps tied to nearly two decades of professional focus on the subject of marriage equality?
No! I was drawn to the piece because it promised “Five Reasons.” I love stories with “Nine Tips” or “Ten Common Mistakes” or “Eight Keys.” There’s something comforting in knowing that the author has done what feels like mathematical analysis and produced a handy list to guide you in your weight loss, financial decisions or personal happiness.
The format also implies that these are the best “five” or “eight” reasons. And after you’ve digested the top entries in the category, why bother with tip number eleven or reason number seven. Who needs it? Life is tough enough.
I hope I’m not breaking any confidences when I confess I was briefly involved with a health magazine, where the wonderful publisher and I frequently invented numerical lists for the cover headline. At the time I was a self-indulgent chain smoker who started happy hour as soon as the sun was over the yardarm (in the mid-Atlantic). My publisher was equally hedonistic.
But that didn’t stop us from piously suggesting in print that readers “skip that fattening dessert and pick an apple instead!” or “next time, take the stairs instead of the elevator.”
The copy may have been trite, but the headlines would grab you by the collar and pull you in. “Ten Steps to Perfect Health!” “Lose Five Pounds with these Five Tricks!” At any rate, this is all to explain why I pulled that AP story onto my desktop. Five reasons! What could they be?
The reasons our losing streak may end are as follows:
Reason one is because the authors think we have a chance of winning in Washington, which (obviously) is a tautology.
Reason two is because Republicans are less opposed to same-sex marriage than they once were, which is basically a manifestation of the general trend in our favor.
Reason three is because polls are moving in our direction, another tautology and a rehash of Reason two.
Reason four is because the authors think we have a good chance of winning in Maine. See the comment on Reason one.
Reason five is the impact of Obama’s personal statement in support of marriage equality, which could inspire voters in Washington and Maine. Alternatively, the authors hedge, it could antagonize the opposition. Um, whatever.
I don’t know about you, but I was disappointed in the “five reasons.” But would I have bothered to read an article headlined: “Washington, Maine voters might support marriage equality in November?”
Don’t think so.
--
Case Open!
Oops. I forgot to tell you about two more recently filed federal lawsuits! Happily, it’s not too late. The American Civil Liberties Union has filed a federal suit in North Carolina, arguing that the Tobacco state’s refusal to allow gay parents to adopt their partner’s children is unconstitutional. If this just sounds like same-old same-old legalese to you, it’s really not.
Increasingly, we are going into states like California, like Nebraska, like North Carolina, and challenging state-based policies under the U.S. Constitution. It’s a new tactic in several respects. It reminds me of cartoons where the naughty animal is increasingly bombarded by an evolving variety of ammunition until he or she curls up, defeated.
In New York, meanwhile, a married lesbian has filed suit in federal court against a Catholic medical center in Westchester County, claiming that the center is hiding behind the Defense of Marriage Act in an illegal effort to withhold spousal employment benefits. Blue Cross Blue Shield is also named in the suit, which aims to become a class action case.
Had I but space enough, and time, I would expound on the potential of a distracting debate over religious freedom. Lucky for you, I have neither and I am now officially on vacation!
--
A new version of Ann’s column is available every week at sfbaytimes.com. You can reach her at arostow@aol.com.
Forgot to post June 13 column. Sorry
GLBT Week in Review, June 13, 2012
BY ANN ROSTOW
Well, I Never!
I’ve been having a tough time getting started this morning. Now, I’ve been spurred to action by an email from the far right American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), where the resident bozos are bent out of shape about a song called “God Bless the USA.”
Apparently, a kindergarten principal in New York decided the song was inappropriate for graduation. I’m not familiar with the lyrics to “God Bless the USA,” and in fact I’ve never heard of the song. But even if the song is completely innocuous in every respect, what business is it of the ACLJ?
I gather Mayor Bloomberg has stood up for the Principal, and now we’re all supposed to hop on our high horses and sign an angry letter to Hiz Honor at the behest of the krazy konservatives.
“The decision to ban ‘God Bless the USA’ is not only troubling, but insulting to many in the community still healing from the tragic events of 9/11,” the letter goes. “As one school staffer put it, ‘We were the victims of 9/11. It hit New York really hard. That song became famous because of that tragedy. Removing that song is horrific. It’s opening the wound again.’ Don't punish patriotism for the sake of political correctness. Put “God Bless the USA” back on the program.”
Okay. I still am not positive that I know this song. But I suspect it’s a country western song. It’s certainly not an official national anthem. As for 9/11, the reference leaves me shaking my head. Why should the five-year-olds be commemorating 9/11 in the first place? Because they live in New York?
It’s all insane, beginning with the very notion of a graduation ceremony for every single grade and ending with the ubiquity of outrage in our modern society, where we no longer tolerate anyone who does or says something with which we disagree.
And you might as well toss in the notion that we are “still healing” from the terror attacks of 2001. We are scarred. But we are not in a permanent state of “still healing” from a decade-old tragedy. We’re tougher than that, right?
--
Choo Chooooo! Petticoat Junction!
Now that the news train has left the station and we’re on our way to exciting GLBT destinations, let’s talk about the latest federal gay rights court victory. But, but, but Ann, you sputter. You’ve already mentioned that story. In fact, you went on and on about it last week. The First Circuit, right?
Ah yes, the First Circuit ruling striking the Defense of Marriage Act! And before that, there was the decision by Oakland-based U.S. District Court Judge Claudia Wilken striking DOMA as well. And before that, we had the Golinski ruling out of a federal court in Northern California to the same effect. What more could there be?
Well, my friends, there are many more cases percolating up the judicial coffee machine and we seem to be winning them all. Last week, it was Edith Windsor’s turn. Windsor is the New York widow who was assessed over $350,000 in federal taxes on her own property after the death of her wife in 2009. Since the federal government did not recognize her same-sex marriage, Windsor did not qualify for the spousal tax exemption on shared property.
Now, a federal judge has ordered the IRS to refund the dough re mi, striking DOMA in the process. Again.
Meanwhile, we’re still waiting for another DOMA ruling out of Connecticut, which, like New York, is governed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
All of these victories--- past, current and anticipated--- may be moot. As you recall, our oldest DOMA case will likely be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court within the next 90 days, and the Court will likely accept review. That scenario makes the developments in the Ninth or Second Circuit beside the point in some ways. But in other ways, we still care.
Yes, the Supreme Court will be the final word on DOMA. But we still care whether or not federal courts around the country treat sexual orientation discrimination seriously, whether they hold such discrimination to a high legal standard, and how they perceive the various High Court precedents.
--
The Walking Wounded
Speaking of marriage equality, I was just reading about a 53-year-old guy who will bike across the country in support of our right to wed. Every time I read about someone performing a time-consuming feat of this nature, I think that it would be fun and I half consider doing something like this myself.
With the right publicity, you can get people to pay you for your heroic walk or whatever it is. And it feels as if you could just sort of forget your troubles, forget your bills, forget any work or home improvement and just exist. You could just walk. You could accomplish something and get some pats on the back without actually doing anything substantive.
I would miss my wife, my pugs and my home. Not to mention you, dear readers. Plus, I don’t like being outside when it’s dark or raining. And it might get lonely. Otherwise, I’d be out there for sure. Maybe I’d walk across Texas. As for the cause, it wouldn’t really matter because in truth I’d just be doing it as a lark. But I’d come up with something worthy. Or maybe not. Maybe I’d just call it the “walk across Texas for no reason.”
Oh, and think of the weight loss and general fitness.
--
Would Gay Parents Leave Their Kids At The Bar?
Moving right along I think I read that Denmark is legalizing same-sex marriage. I know you are all thinking to yourselves that Denmark must have already done so years ago. Isn’t Denmark always the first country to put our international progressive ideas into action?
Well yes. But in this case, I believe they’ve had a kind of civil union for many years, and they are now getting rid of the separate but equal status. It was the Netherlands that led the world in legalizing marriage just over a decade ago.
“Just over a decade ago,” is a journalism term for “I don’t feel like looking up the exact year.”
I also have been reading about efforts underway to legalize marriage in Britain and Scotland. But I think I’ll simply wait until those efforts come to fruition before delving into the details.
That reminds me, however. Did you read that UK Prime Minister David Cameron left one of his daughters at a pub the other day? In truth, she was in the Ladies Room when the family left. And since they had two cars, both parents thought the missing daughter was with the other one. So it’s understandable. But still! Anyway, Cameron strongly supports marriage equality which is an interesting window into the difference between conservative politics in the U.K. and the U.S..
--
Hit Me!
Did you happen to read the long article in the New York Times about the misuse of drugs like Ritalin and Adderall by ambitious high school students?
The piece revealed that students are buying pills off the street or from classmates in order to focus on tests and homework. The various medications are usually prescribed for attention deficit disorder and they can sell for five or ten bucks a pop.
I read the entire lengthy article with interest and immediately wondered where I could obtain a fistful of Adderall. (I gather you can get it on Craigslist). It sounds fantastic. A little tablet can keep you on task for many hours at a time, working with interest and efficiency until the job is done.
As an experiment, I gave Mel the article without comment. After ten minutes or so, she put it down and remarked: “Let’s get some Adderall.” If Mel and I are any indication, the Times has unleashed a crowd of new customers for extra legal “study aids.”
Unfortunately, we have not actually pursued the Adderall idea so I’ve been obliged to write this column without a pharmaceutical crutch. I don’t even have nicotine, since Mel and I have quit smoking. But I do have some Campari on hand, which would not be out of place on a late spring afternoon in the middle of Texas. Excuse me for a minute.
--
Are the Kids Okay? Maybe Not!
Perhaps thanks to my lack of Adderall, I almost completely forgot to write about one of my main news stories of the week. Maybe it was a subconscious omission. For you see, my main story is a scientific study that suggests the children of gay-ish parents might not be as healthy wealthy and wise as the kids of married heterosexuals.
Normally, we GLBT journalists fall all over ourselves to report scientific studies that say nice things about us. However, we like to bury the bad studies, or at least ferret out reasons to mistrust the message and the messenger. Believe me when I say the GLBT blogosphere hates this new study.
Let me say a few things. First of all, this is why our community should resist running around and insisting that gay parents are best or being gay is genetic or making other simplistic assertions ostensibly in our own behalf.
Common sense tells us that nasty gay people would be bad parents and kind straight people would be better ones. And vice versa. Your sexual orientation doesn’t make you a good mother or father.
And what if it did? We could argue that parents with a lot of money raise happier kids. Maybe they do. Maybe parents with college degrees have better outcomes. Maybe we could prove that. Does that mean that low income couples with high school educations should not be allowed to marry or adopt children? Of course not.
Is being gay a choice or a genetic feature? Who cares? If I’m gay by choice, do I deserve discrimination? No!
I happen to think gay parents are no different from straight parents in the abstract. I also think sexual orientation is driven by biology. But gay people should not have to prove themselves worthy of equality. We should not have to be better parents. We should not have to be biologically determined in order to merit civil rights. Let’s stop cheering for the gay-friendly scientific reports and ranting at the others and recognize that none of them really matter.
All of this said, let’s put this study in perspective. The author compared parents who had had a relationship with a member of the same sex with those who had not. Right there we’re not comparing apples to apples, since the former category is far more likely to include broken homes. Also, there’s a big difference between a “normal” gay household, with two committed parents and a stable environment, and a family with straight partners who are experimenting with gay sex on the side and possibly breaking up the household.
I don’t know. As I said, there are bad parents of all stripes and good ones as well. The notion that sexual orientation should define such a complicated status for good or ill is senseless.
I see here that my space is almost up. I have nothing more to say about the parenting study, so let me talk about my addiction to CSI-type TV shows.
Lately, I’ve found myself scrutinizing other crime shows where the characters seem to be ignoring the correct forensic procedures that I have learned from the CSI shows.
It’s so irritating. The Mentalist guy will pick something up without gloves and before it’s been photographed. Tony and Ziva will go crashing around a crime scene, ignoring many opportunities to collect DNA or prints. And may I ask why the coroner on Body of Evidence is always running around town like a detective, interviewing people and such? Shouldn’t she stay in the morgue like all the other coroners on TV? Just sayin’.
--
A new version of Ann’s column is available every week at sfbaytimes.com. You can reach her at arostow@aol.com.
BY ANN ROSTOW
Well, I Never!
I’ve been having a tough time getting started this morning. Now, I’ve been spurred to action by an email from the far right American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), where the resident bozos are bent out of shape about a song called “God Bless the USA.”
Apparently, a kindergarten principal in New York decided the song was inappropriate for graduation. I’m not familiar with the lyrics to “God Bless the USA,” and in fact I’ve never heard of the song. But even if the song is completely innocuous in every respect, what business is it of the ACLJ?
I gather Mayor Bloomberg has stood up for the Principal, and now we’re all supposed to hop on our high horses and sign an angry letter to Hiz Honor at the behest of the krazy konservatives.
“The decision to ban ‘God Bless the USA’ is not only troubling, but insulting to many in the community still healing from the tragic events of 9/11,” the letter goes. “As one school staffer put it, ‘We were the victims of 9/11. It hit New York really hard. That song became famous because of that tragedy. Removing that song is horrific. It’s opening the wound again.’ Don't punish patriotism for the sake of political correctness. Put “God Bless the USA” back on the program.”
Okay. I still am not positive that I know this song. But I suspect it’s a country western song. It’s certainly not an official national anthem. As for 9/11, the reference leaves me shaking my head. Why should the five-year-olds be commemorating 9/11 in the first place? Because they live in New York?
It’s all insane, beginning with the very notion of a graduation ceremony for every single grade and ending with the ubiquity of outrage in our modern society, where we no longer tolerate anyone who does or says something with which we disagree.
And you might as well toss in the notion that we are “still healing” from the terror attacks of 2001. We are scarred. But we are not in a permanent state of “still healing” from a decade-old tragedy. We’re tougher than that, right?
--
Choo Chooooo! Petticoat Junction!
Now that the news train has left the station and we’re on our way to exciting GLBT destinations, let’s talk about the latest federal gay rights court victory. But, but, but Ann, you sputter. You’ve already mentioned that story. In fact, you went on and on about it last week. The First Circuit, right?
Ah yes, the First Circuit ruling striking the Defense of Marriage Act! And before that, there was the decision by Oakland-based U.S. District Court Judge Claudia Wilken striking DOMA as well. And before that, we had the Golinski ruling out of a federal court in Northern California to the same effect. What more could there be?
Well, my friends, there are many more cases percolating up the judicial coffee machine and we seem to be winning them all. Last week, it was Edith Windsor’s turn. Windsor is the New York widow who was assessed over $350,000 in federal taxes on her own property after the death of her wife in 2009. Since the federal government did not recognize her same-sex marriage, Windsor did not qualify for the spousal tax exemption on shared property.
Now, a federal judge has ordered the IRS to refund the dough re mi, striking DOMA in the process. Again.
Meanwhile, we’re still waiting for another DOMA ruling out of Connecticut, which, like New York, is governed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
All of these victories--- past, current and anticipated--- may be moot. As you recall, our oldest DOMA case will likely be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court within the next 90 days, and the Court will likely accept review. That scenario makes the developments in the Ninth or Second Circuit beside the point in some ways. But in other ways, we still care.
Yes, the Supreme Court will be the final word on DOMA. But we still care whether or not federal courts around the country treat sexual orientation discrimination seriously, whether they hold such discrimination to a high legal standard, and how they perceive the various High Court precedents.
--
The Walking Wounded
Speaking of marriage equality, I was just reading about a 53-year-old guy who will bike across the country in support of our right to wed. Every time I read about someone performing a time-consuming feat of this nature, I think that it would be fun and I half consider doing something like this myself.
With the right publicity, you can get people to pay you for your heroic walk or whatever it is. And it feels as if you could just sort of forget your troubles, forget your bills, forget any work or home improvement and just exist. You could just walk. You could accomplish something and get some pats on the back without actually doing anything substantive.
I would miss my wife, my pugs and my home. Not to mention you, dear readers. Plus, I don’t like being outside when it’s dark or raining. And it might get lonely. Otherwise, I’d be out there for sure. Maybe I’d walk across Texas. As for the cause, it wouldn’t really matter because in truth I’d just be doing it as a lark. But I’d come up with something worthy. Or maybe not. Maybe I’d just call it the “walk across Texas for no reason.”
Oh, and think of the weight loss and general fitness.
--
Would Gay Parents Leave Their Kids At The Bar?
Moving right along I think I read that Denmark is legalizing same-sex marriage. I know you are all thinking to yourselves that Denmark must have already done so years ago. Isn’t Denmark always the first country to put our international progressive ideas into action?
Well yes. But in this case, I believe they’ve had a kind of civil union for many years, and they are now getting rid of the separate but equal status. It was the Netherlands that led the world in legalizing marriage just over a decade ago.
“Just over a decade ago,” is a journalism term for “I don’t feel like looking up the exact year.”
I also have been reading about efforts underway to legalize marriage in Britain and Scotland. But I think I’ll simply wait until those efforts come to fruition before delving into the details.
That reminds me, however. Did you read that UK Prime Minister David Cameron left one of his daughters at a pub the other day? In truth, she was in the Ladies Room when the family left. And since they had two cars, both parents thought the missing daughter was with the other one. So it’s understandable. But still! Anyway, Cameron strongly supports marriage equality which is an interesting window into the difference between conservative politics in the U.K. and the U.S..
--
Hit Me!
Did you happen to read the long article in the New York Times about the misuse of drugs like Ritalin and Adderall by ambitious high school students?
The piece revealed that students are buying pills off the street or from classmates in order to focus on tests and homework. The various medications are usually prescribed for attention deficit disorder and they can sell for five or ten bucks a pop.
I read the entire lengthy article with interest and immediately wondered where I could obtain a fistful of Adderall. (I gather you can get it on Craigslist). It sounds fantastic. A little tablet can keep you on task for many hours at a time, working with interest and efficiency until the job is done.
As an experiment, I gave Mel the article without comment. After ten minutes or so, she put it down and remarked: “Let’s get some Adderall.” If Mel and I are any indication, the Times has unleashed a crowd of new customers for extra legal “study aids.”
Unfortunately, we have not actually pursued the Adderall idea so I’ve been obliged to write this column without a pharmaceutical crutch. I don’t even have nicotine, since Mel and I have quit smoking. But I do have some Campari on hand, which would not be out of place on a late spring afternoon in the middle of Texas. Excuse me for a minute.
--
Are the Kids Okay? Maybe Not!
Perhaps thanks to my lack of Adderall, I almost completely forgot to write about one of my main news stories of the week. Maybe it was a subconscious omission. For you see, my main story is a scientific study that suggests the children of gay-ish parents might not be as healthy wealthy and wise as the kids of married heterosexuals.
Normally, we GLBT journalists fall all over ourselves to report scientific studies that say nice things about us. However, we like to bury the bad studies, or at least ferret out reasons to mistrust the message and the messenger. Believe me when I say the GLBT blogosphere hates this new study.
Let me say a few things. First of all, this is why our community should resist running around and insisting that gay parents are best or being gay is genetic or making other simplistic assertions ostensibly in our own behalf.
Common sense tells us that nasty gay people would be bad parents and kind straight people would be better ones. And vice versa. Your sexual orientation doesn’t make you a good mother or father.
And what if it did? We could argue that parents with a lot of money raise happier kids. Maybe they do. Maybe parents with college degrees have better outcomes. Maybe we could prove that. Does that mean that low income couples with high school educations should not be allowed to marry or adopt children? Of course not.
Is being gay a choice or a genetic feature? Who cares? If I’m gay by choice, do I deserve discrimination? No!
I happen to think gay parents are no different from straight parents in the abstract. I also think sexual orientation is driven by biology. But gay people should not have to prove themselves worthy of equality. We should not have to be better parents. We should not have to be biologically determined in order to merit civil rights. Let’s stop cheering for the gay-friendly scientific reports and ranting at the others and recognize that none of them really matter.
All of this said, let’s put this study in perspective. The author compared parents who had had a relationship with a member of the same sex with those who had not. Right there we’re not comparing apples to apples, since the former category is far more likely to include broken homes. Also, there’s a big difference between a “normal” gay household, with two committed parents and a stable environment, and a family with straight partners who are experimenting with gay sex on the side and possibly breaking up the household.
I don’t know. As I said, there are bad parents of all stripes and good ones as well. The notion that sexual orientation should define such a complicated status for good or ill is senseless.
I see here that my space is almost up. I have nothing more to say about the parenting study, so let me talk about my addiction to CSI-type TV shows.
Lately, I’ve found myself scrutinizing other crime shows where the characters seem to be ignoring the correct forensic procedures that I have learned from the CSI shows.
It’s so irritating. The Mentalist guy will pick something up without gloves and before it’s been photographed. Tony and Ziva will go crashing around a crime scene, ignoring many opportunities to collect DNA or prints. And may I ask why the coroner on Body of Evidence is always running around town like a detective, interviewing people and such? Shouldn’t she stay in the morgue like all the other coroners on TV? Just sayin’.
--
A new version of Ann’s column is available every week at sfbaytimes.com. You can reach her at arostow@aol.com.
Saturday, June 9, 2012
Supreme Court or Bust
GLBT Week in Review June 6, 2012
BY ANN ROSTOW
Supreme Court or Bust
Amazingly, our two most significant federal gay rights lawsuits have now both exhausted their runs through the lower courts and will be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court within the next 90 days.
Woah Nelly!
It’s true! Last Thursday, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit unanimously struck the Defense of Marriage Act as unconstitutional. With only five active judges on the First Circuit, the House Republicans are expected to appeal to the High Court within the mandatory three-month window.
Then on Tuesday, the full Ninth Circuit declined to review our Prop 8 victory, forcing the Prop 8 proponents to look to Washington as well. Several conservatives on the appellate court joined a frustrated dissent, bemoaning the foreclosure of judicial dialogue on the subject of California marriage equality. Sorry guys. Your role in the case is over.
These two marriage cases are quite different. The first, filed by the Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders on behalf of several married couples in Massachusetts, demands only that the federal government treat gay and straight marriages the same. The second, filed by opponents of Prop 8, can be construed to demand marriage equality throughout the United States.
In light of the all-or-nothing potential of the Prop 8 case, many GLBT strategists would prefer that the Supreme Court hear the DOMA challenge and decline the Prop 8 petition. Yes, the Supreme Court will eventually decide whether or not marriage is a fundamental right for same-sex couples along with everyone else. But if such a question is posed prematurely, the answer might set us all back for decades.
Interestingly, our legal friends, Ted Olson and David Boies, now agree with this conventional communal wisdom, announcing that they will oppose any petition to send the Prop 8 case to the nine justices. You may remember that our Prop 8 team originally wanted the case to hit the High Court as soon as possible, much to the concern of the Gay Law cohort.
Given the timing, the High Court will probably consider these petitions at the start of their next session in October. If they accept one or both, the rulings would be expected about a year from now, at the end of their 2012/2013 term.
At this point, I have to admit that all my Supreme Court speculation has been wrong. Were I the type to do such a thing, I would insert a frowny face emoticon at this moment.
First, I thought the full Ninth Circuit would agree to review the Prop 8 opinion, adding a year or so to that litigation. Wrong.
Second, I thought the House Republicans defending DOMA would ask the full First Circuit to rehear the Massachusetts case. Not only wrong, but uninformed. Apparently, the First Circuit only has six active judgeships, of which one is vacant, so the very concept of the full First Circuit is a bit of an oxymoron. Who knew? Actual lawyers I suppose. Bully for them.
But here’s my point. I’ve been assuming that the bad guys want to delay these cases as much as possible, hoping that Mitt Romney is elected and subsequently gets a High Court pick in his first year or two. Now we know that, barring unforeseen events, this is the Court that will decide our near-term fate. That’s good for us.
--
On a Roll
Here’s what else is good for us. It’s been a long time since we’ve lost a major gay rights case (knock on wood) whether it’s been in federal court, or state court. Three lower federal courts have struck the Defense of Marriage Act. Another has struck Prop 8. And now, two federal appellate courts have ruled in our favor.
Meanwhile, we’ve won all sorts of other victories. Bankruptcy judges have ruled that DOMA should not prohibit joint bankruptcies. State courts have allowed same-sex divorces in states without marriage equality. We’ve won discrimination and parenting cases around the country. This week, a New Mexico court ruled against a wedding photographer who refused to work for a same-sex couple on religious grounds. Every week there are state cases that I don’t even bother to cover now that gay and trans rights victories have become routine.
Add to that the legislative victories for marriage this year in Washington, Maryland and New Jersey. The first two must survive repeal votes this fall. The last one was vetoed by Chris Christie.
Finally, don’t underestimate the impact of President Obama’s decision last year to treat sexual orientation discrimination as presumptively unconstitutional. His personal statement in favor of marriage equality was nice as well, but his legal policy has been a phenomenal, and under appreciated, ace in the hole for GLBT lawyers.
So we head to the Supreme Court with a powerful wind at our back. As you probably know, it takes four justices to agree to hear a case. To simplify the situation, the four left-leaning justices will vote in favor of a petition if they think Justice Kennedy is on their side, and vice versa.
I read that Justice Kagan might have to step aside for the DOMA case due to her participation in the matter back in the day when she was Solicitor General. But other analysts don’t think she has any real obligation to do so. And even if she does recuse herself, a four-four tie in that case would uphold the lower court victory.
Keep in mind that several other DOMA lawsuits lurk just behind the Massachusetts case and will see rulings this year. I had also speculated that the Supreme Court might wait for some of these other circuits to weigh in on DOMA before accepting review, but our victory removes that option. That said, strong opinions in the other cases would add tremendous weight to our High Court arguments.
I haven’t mentioned the companion to the Massachusetts case, a DOMA suit brought by the State of Massachusetts that has been argued at the same time. This case, which we also won last week, brings up states’ rights issues of law that don’t fall squarely into the rubric of same-sex marriage. Still, the more defeats for DOMA, the better.
--
With Enemies Like These, Who Needs Friends?
As if all this excitement isn’t enough, we have an interesting development in Illinois, where Lambda and the ACLU filed two separate freedom-to-marry lawsuits in state court last week.
Over the weekend, Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan announced that she would intervene in the cases… on behalf of the same-sex couples. Thanks Lisa!
Meanwhile, the official defendant, Cook County Clerk David Orr, said in a statement that he hoped the lawsuits would result in “equal marriage rights for all.”
Hello? Who is going to defend the state’s statutory ban on same-sex marriage? I suppose Clerk Orr will have to do so, although as a supporter of marriage equality he’d be a reluctant champion. But what if he refuses?
Unlike the Prop 8 lawsuit, where courts gave the initiative proponents the right to defend their marriage ban, there’s no proposition or amendment here to defend. There is only an act of the legislature. Would a handful of conservative lawmakers seek permission to take the antigay side? Could they win standing to jump into the case? We will see.
--
Dead Cat Bounce
You know, I think I owe all readers an apology for my scanty reporting on the latest gay cannibal, Canadian porn star Luka Rocco Magnotta, who was captured this week googling himself in a Berlin coffee house.
The 29-year-old psychopath allegedly murdered his Chinese lover, Jun Lin, in Montreal last month. Magnotta carved up his victim, ate some of his corpse, performed some acts of necrophilia, and sent chunks of the remains to Canadian politicians.
Magnotta then reportedly skipped town, and spent a couple of days in Paris before winding up in Germany.
And here’s an update that makes me feel even worse about my lackluster cannibal coverage. I accidentally lost my news screen on the Magnotta story, and when I googled “cannibal” in order to get it back I ended up reading about a different maniac, Rudy Eugene, who has also been scarfing down manflesh in his spare time.
Eugene, aka the “Miami Zombie,” beat a 65-year-old homeless man, Ronald Poppo, and began eating Poppo’s face before he was shot by police over Memorial Day weekend. Eugene was naked during the 20-minute daylight attack, which was witnessed by everyone who was driving down the MacArthur Causeway at the time.
One of his girlfriends told the press that Eugene was a “sweet loving gentleman” who must have been on drugs, or alternatively, under a voodoo curse.
For the record, Poppo is recovering but faces months of reconstructive treatment.
Returning to Magnotta, briefly, I read here (in the Daily Beast) that the man also posted videos of himself on the Internet killing kittens. For some reason, I am more horrified by the kittens than the cannibalistic murder. I’m not proud of this.
Indeed, the kittens exhausted my tolerance for this gruesome subject and I clicked on a sidebar headline that read: “The 30 Fattest Birds on the Planet.” There, aside from a bunch of really fat birds with their little beaks barely discernable amidst the bird blubber, I found a whole new set of intriguing sidebar headlines.
I was torn between “Some Guy Turned His Dead Cat Into a Helicopter” and “36 Animals That Are Kinda Sexually Attracted To You.” Choosing the former, I was at once back where I started (sad things about cats) and quickly switched to “20 Sloth Smiles, Revealed!” Now, after a few minutes of looking at really sweet, happy sloths, I feel somewhat better about myself and the world in general.
--
It’s All So Gay
I’m watching the French Open and feeling glum about the other news stories on my list. There’s nothing bad about them. They just don’t thrill me considering the blockbuster events of the week.
I mean, really. Someone else says John Travolta is gay. The ACLU is going to bat for a high school kid who was told to take off an antigay T-Shirt, illustrating once again the civil libertarians’ even-handed focus on the First Amendment.
Obama issued a Pride statement. Jason Alexander had to apologize for saying that cricket is a “gay sport.” Personally, I think he has a point. The white summer suits with the ties tucked under the third button. The jaunty straw hats. The neatly trimmed grass. The handsome boys watching from the sidelines. Gin and tonics between, um, let’s call them innings. It’s an elegant sport, a languorous diversion for a timeless British afternoon. Like most Americans, I still don’t understand how it’s played, but I think it’s sort of gay anyway.
What else? I think a water polo coach who was fired from a California school for being gay has sued, and some library in Utah removed a book about lesbian families.
Oh, and a New York appellate court ruled that calling someone “gay” is not an act of defamation, which requires that the name-caller make an accusation that is generally considered a bad thing. If someone calls me a “thief,” I can sue. If they call me a “vegetarian,” I can’t. Saying someone is “gay” is now more like the latter than the former, which is a good thing.
Finally, we have a gay super hero, Green Lantern. This Green Lantern is from a parallel Earth, so he’s not the old Green Lantern we know and loved, who remains straight.
To be honest, I have no knowledge of either version. Some quick research tells me that the Green Lantern is a member of the Justice League of America, and has a special ring that gives him power. The ring has to be recharged by a special lantern, hence the name. I’m unclear on why the gay Green Lantern has to be from a different Earth, but I lack the patience for further study.
Maybe we can discuss it next week, if nothing more interesting comes up.
--
A new version of Ann’s column is available every week at sfbaytimes.com. You can reach her at arostow@aol.com.
BY ANN ROSTOW
Supreme Court or Bust
Amazingly, our two most significant federal gay rights lawsuits have now both exhausted their runs through the lower courts and will be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court within the next 90 days.
Woah Nelly!
It’s true! Last Thursday, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit unanimously struck the Defense of Marriage Act as unconstitutional. With only five active judges on the First Circuit, the House Republicans are expected to appeal to the High Court within the mandatory three-month window.
Then on Tuesday, the full Ninth Circuit declined to review our Prop 8 victory, forcing the Prop 8 proponents to look to Washington as well. Several conservatives on the appellate court joined a frustrated dissent, bemoaning the foreclosure of judicial dialogue on the subject of California marriage equality. Sorry guys. Your role in the case is over.
These two marriage cases are quite different. The first, filed by the Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders on behalf of several married couples in Massachusetts, demands only that the federal government treat gay and straight marriages the same. The second, filed by opponents of Prop 8, can be construed to demand marriage equality throughout the United States.
In light of the all-or-nothing potential of the Prop 8 case, many GLBT strategists would prefer that the Supreme Court hear the DOMA challenge and decline the Prop 8 petition. Yes, the Supreme Court will eventually decide whether or not marriage is a fundamental right for same-sex couples along with everyone else. But if such a question is posed prematurely, the answer might set us all back for decades.
Interestingly, our legal friends, Ted Olson and David Boies, now agree with this conventional communal wisdom, announcing that they will oppose any petition to send the Prop 8 case to the nine justices. You may remember that our Prop 8 team originally wanted the case to hit the High Court as soon as possible, much to the concern of the Gay Law cohort.
Given the timing, the High Court will probably consider these petitions at the start of their next session in October. If they accept one or both, the rulings would be expected about a year from now, at the end of their 2012/2013 term.
At this point, I have to admit that all my Supreme Court speculation has been wrong. Were I the type to do such a thing, I would insert a frowny face emoticon at this moment.
First, I thought the full Ninth Circuit would agree to review the Prop 8 opinion, adding a year or so to that litigation. Wrong.
Second, I thought the House Republicans defending DOMA would ask the full First Circuit to rehear the Massachusetts case. Not only wrong, but uninformed. Apparently, the First Circuit only has six active judgeships, of which one is vacant, so the very concept of the full First Circuit is a bit of an oxymoron. Who knew? Actual lawyers I suppose. Bully for them.
But here’s my point. I’ve been assuming that the bad guys want to delay these cases as much as possible, hoping that Mitt Romney is elected and subsequently gets a High Court pick in his first year or two. Now we know that, barring unforeseen events, this is the Court that will decide our near-term fate. That’s good for us.
--
On a Roll
Here’s what else is good for us. It’s been a long time since we’ve lost a major gay rights case (knock on wood) whether it’s been in federal court, or state court. Three lower federal courts have struck the Defense of Marriage Act. Another has struck Prop 8. And now, two federal appellate courts have ruled in our favor.
Meanwhile, we’ve won all sorts of other victories. Bankruptcy judges have ruled that DOMA should not prohibit joint bankruptcies. State courts have allowed same-sex divorces in states without marriage equality. We’ve won discrimination and parenting cases around the country. This week, a New Mexico court ruled against a wedding photographer who refused to work for a same-sex couple on religious grounds. Every week there are state cases that I don’t even bother to cover now that gay and trans rights victories have become routine.
Add to that the legislative victories for marriage this year in Washington, Maryland and New Jersey. The first two must survive repeal votes this fall. The last one was vetoed by Chris Christie.
Finally, don’t underestimate the impact of President Obama’s decision last year to treat sexual orientation discrimination as presumptively unconstitutional. His personal statement in favor of marriage equality was nice as well, but his legal policy has been a phenomenal, and under appreciated, ace in the hole for GLBT lawyers.
So we head to the Supreme Court with a powerful wind at our back. As you probably know, it takes four justices to agree to hear a case. To simplify the situation, the four left-leaning justices will vote in favor of a petition if they think Justice Kennedy is on their side, and vice versa.
I read that Justice Kagan might have to step aside for the DOMA case due to her participation in the matter back in the day when she was Solicitor General. But other analysts don’t think she has any real obligation to do so. And even if she does recuse herself, a four-four tie in that case would uphold the lower court victory.
Keep in mind that several other DOMA lawsuits lurk just behind the Massachusetts case and will see rulings this year. I had also speculated that the Supreme Court might wait for some of these other circuits to weigh in on DOMA before accepting review, but our victory removes that option. That said, strong opinions in the other cases would add tremendous weight to our High Court arguments.
I haven’t mentioned the companion to the Massachusetts case, a DOMA suit brought by the State of Massachusetts that has been argued at the same time. This case, which we also won last week, brings up states’ rights issues of law that don’t fall squarely into the rubric of same-sex marriage. Still, the more defeats for DOMA, the better.
--
With Enemies Like These, Who Needs Friends?
As if all this excitement isn’t enough, we have an interesting development in Illinois, where Lambda and the ACLU filed two separate freedom-to-marry lawsuits in state court last week.
Over the weekend, Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan announced that she would intervene in the cases… on behalf of the same-sex couples. Thanks Lisa!
Meanwhile, the official defendant, Cook County Clerk David Orr, said in a statement that he hoped the lawsuits would result in “equal marriage rights for all.”
Hello? Who is going to defend the state’s statutory ban on same-sex marriage? I suppose Clerk Orr will have to do so, although as a supporter of marriage equality he’d be a reluctant champion. But what if he refuses?
Unlike the Prop 8 lawsuit, where courts gave the initiative proponents the right to defend their marriage ban, there’s no proposition or amendment here to defend. There is only an act of the legislature. Would a handful of conservative lawmakers seek permission to take the antigay side? Could they win standing to jump into the case? We will see.
--
Dead Cat Bounce
You know, I think I owe all readers an apology for my scanty reporting on the latest gay cannibal, Canadian porn star Luka Rocco Magnotta, who was captured this week googling himself in a Berlin coffee house.
The 29-year-old psychopath allegedly murdered his Chinese lover, Jun Lin, in Montreal last month. Magnotta carved up his victim, ate some of his corpse, performed some acts of necrophilia, and sent chunks of the remains to Canadian politicians.
Magnotta then reportedly skipped town, and spent a couple of days in Paris before winding up in Germany.
And here’s an update that makes me feel even worse about my lackluster cannibal coverage. I accidentally lost my news screen on the Magnotta story, and when I googled “cannibal” in order to get it back I ended up reading about a different maniac, Rudy Eugene, who has also been scarfing down manflesh in his spare time.
Eugene, aka the “Miami Zombie,” beat a 65-year-old homeless man, Ronald Poppo, and began eating Poppo’s face before he was shot by police over Memorial Day weekend. Eugene was naked during the 20-minute daylight attack, which was witnessed by everyone who was driving down the MacArthur Causeway at the time.
One of his girlfriends told the press that Eugene was a “sweet loving gentleman” who must have been on drugs, or alternatively, under a voodoo curse.
For the record, Poppo is recovering but faces months of reconstructive treatment.
Returning to Magnotta, briefly, I read here (in the Daily Beast) that the man also posted videos of himself on the Internet killing kittens. For some reason, I am more horrified by the kittens than the cannibalistic murder. I’m not proud of this.
Indeed, the kittens exhausted my tolerance for this gruesome subject and I clicked on a sidebar headline that read: “The 30 Fattest Birds on the Planet.” There, aside from a bunch of really fat birds with their little beaks barely discernable amidst the bird blubber, I found a whole new set of intriguing sidebar headlines.
I was torn between “Some Guy Turned His Dead Cat Into a Helicopter” and “36 Animals That Are Kinda Sexually Attracted To You.” Choosing the former, I was at once back where I started (sad things about cats) and quickly switched to “20 Sloth Smiles, Revealed!” Now, after a few minutes of looking at really sweet, happy sloths, I feel somewhat better about myself and the world in general.
--
It’s All So Gay
I’m watching the French Open and feeling glum about the other news stories on my list. There’s nothing bad about them. They just don’t thrill me considering the blockbuster events of the week.
I mean, really. Someone else says John Travolta is gay. The ACLU is going to bat for a high school kid who was told to take off an antigay T-Shirt, illustrating once again the civil libertarians’ even-handed focus on the First Amendment.
Obama issued a Pride statement. Jason Alexander had to apologize for saying that cricket is a “gay sport.” Personally, I think he has a point. The white summer suits with the ties tucked under the third button. The jaunty straw hats. The neatly trimmed grass. The handsome boys watching from the sidelines. Gin and tonics between, um, let’s call them innings. It’s an elegant sport, a languorous diversion for a timeless British afternoon. Like most Americans, I still don’t understand how it’s played, but I think it’s sort of gay anyway.
What else? I think a water polo coach who was fired from a California school for being gay has sued, and some library in Utah removed a book about lesbian families.
Oh, and a New York appellate court ruled that calling someone “gay” is not an act of defamation, which requires that the name-caller make an accusation that is generally considered a bad thing. If someone calls me a “thief,” I can sue. If they call me a “vegetarian,” I can’t. Saying someone is “gay” is now more like the latter than the former, which is a good thing.
Finally, we have a gay super hero, Green Lantern. This Green Lantern is from a parallel Earth, so he’s not the old Green Lantern we know and loved, who remains straight.
To be honest, I have no knowledge of either version. Some quick research tells me that the Green Lantern is a member of the Justice League of America, and has a special ring that gives him power. The ring has to be recharged by a special lantern, hence the name. I’m unclear on why the gay Green Lantern has to be from a different Earth, but I lack the patience for further study.
Maybe we can discuss it next week, if nothing more interesting comes up.
--
A new version of Ann’s column is available every week at sfbaytimes.com. You can reach her at arostow@aol.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)