GLBT Week in Review, July 25, 2012
BY ANN ROSTOW
Tripp’s a Trip
Oh my lord. I was alarmed on many levels to read that little Tripp Palin has been accused of using an antigay slur. Who exactly is Tripp Palin, for one thing? Is that Sarah’s youngest son, her older son, Bristol’s son? Strangely, it turns out that we are talking about Bristol’s son, a three-year-old, who one would think must be too young to begin both sensing and expressing hostility towards gays and lesbians.
And indeed we can all breathe a sigh of relief because his mother assures us that the toddler was misquoted. Tripp did not call his Aunt Willow a “faggot” on his new reality show, “Bristol Palin: Life’s a Tripp.” If you listen carefully, you can tell that the youngster actually called Willow a “fucker.”
The slip of the tongue came during roughly 12 months of on and off filming by Lifetime. Naughty Tripp has picked up some salty language because he is constantly surrounded by adults, Bristol explains (unlike those other three-year-olds who send their time in solitary contemplation of life’s mysteries). She feels badly about it, and admits that she’s doing “a terrible job of disciplining” the boy.
All I can is that we came a few swing states away from putting the Palin family a heartbeat from the presidency of the United States; a family with three-year-olds that lash out with f-bombs when they can’t visit the swimming pool on demand. Think about that, people.
--
Eat Les Chikin
I’m not sure exactly what’s going on with Chick-fil-A, the uber Christian chicken empire with a long history of far right activism and homophobia. A week or so ago, Chick’s president, Dan Cathy, confirmed that he opposed same-sex marriage in an interview with the Baptist Press. That was like Eric Cantor confirming that he opposes a tax raise, but nonetheless it drew a lot of press.
I guess no one had really noticed Chick-fil-A’s long history of pious gay baiting, but now they have. The mayor of Boston has banned franchises from Bean Town and Chicago Alderman Joe Moreno has pledged to block the chain from putting a store in his district. In Santa Rosa, citizens are planning to protest and boycott a restaurant planned for Mendocino Avenue. And Jim Henson’s Muppets have cancelled a product tie-in for kids’ meals.
The controversy has inspired various right wing types to urge all their friends to go out of their way to buy some fare from the foul fowl foodies, so it seems as if a boycott-buycott war is on.
I wish I could help, but since I have never eaten at Chick-fil-A in my life, I cannot make an impact on the balance of trade. But I devoutly hope that our side wins the contest. Plus, I think we have the easier task, don’t you?
The interesting thing to me is that Chick-fil-A’s corporate values, if you will, were known before the latest excitement. But I guess, they weren’t that widely known outside of our community. The reaction, not just from gays but from Muppets and politicians and celebrities, must give pause to PR executives around the country.
Salon.com just came out with a list of the five most conservative fast food outlets, led by Chick-fil-A, and also starring our old friend Tom Monaghan, the Domino’s Pizza chief who has tossed tons of cash to antigay projects.
Then there’s the late Carl Karcher of Carl’s Jr., a pro-life zealot who gave money to the (losing) 1978 proposition that would have banned gay teachers in California.
White Castle has given to Republican PACS, as has Waffle House, which just gave a six-figure donation to Karl Rove’s American Crossroads. Not on the list is Wendy’s, although its late founder Dave Thomas was a far right type as well and I’m fairly sure he did or said some anti-gay things back in the day that I can’t recall.
The point is, our community is pretty damn good at slapping down gratuitous corporate homophobia, whether it be fast food, gas stations or hotels. If, as it now seems, our battles are joined by straight allies and people with political power, we’ll be on the winning side more than not.
--
Busy Times for BLAG
It’s a tough news week. Not much going on in the legal world, or at least not much that you’d really want me to write about. I was, for example, interested in the fact that the House Republicans who are championing the Defense of Marriage Act in court (aka the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group) have appealed the Dragovich ruling out of Oakland to the Ninth Circuit.
Stop your yawnin’! This ruling, by Judge Claudia Wilken, was handed down a zillion weeks ago, but the House Republicans took no action. I mean, Judge Wilken struck DOMA as unconstitutional just like all those other federal judges, but there was no appeal. Some of us were sort of wondering about the other shoe, that’s all.
Okay. It turns out Dragovich was decided in late May. I thought it was earlier than that. But still. The House Republicans usually waste no time in appealing their defeats. Why did they wait two months in this case? Were they overwhelmed with the slew of motions to the High Court? Did they have a strategic conflict? Did they forget?
No matter, Dragavich, which upheld the right of married state employees in California to access federal long-term insurance benefits, now continues on its path towards whatever. I say whatever, because by the time Dragovich emerges from the Ninth Circuit, our other DOMA cases will likely be before the Supreme Court.
--
It’s A Crime!
I see that I wrote about Dragovich even though I had not planned to do so. I couldn’t help myself!
At any rate, the Canicula looms and I’m not in the mood to wonder in print why Scotland is waiting until 2015 before it legalizes same-sex marriage, or whether rightwing Americans are spreading a homophobic fever throughout central Africa (as is suggested by a Boston think tank called Political Research Associates).
Instead, let me tell you that Mel and I watched Rizzoli and Isles for the first time last night, simply because we have exhausted our tolerance for a succession of crime shows.
We’ve gone through phases. In no particular order, we’ve recorded and watched multiple episodes of The Closer, NCIS, CSI, CSI Miami, Mentalist and Criminal Minds. Once we start seeing the same episodes we’ve seen before, or once we get bored, we’d switch to a different series. Now, we are on Rizzoli and Isles, a show I’ve been deliberately avoiding for several reasons.
First, the two leads appear to be sort of gay, but not, an ambiguity that I find irritating. Second, the clips I’ve seen look dumb. Third, the one time I watched part of an episode, the plot was stupid.
So we watched three shows, which I admit were entertaining. But here’s the thing--- with every new series we watch, Mel and I feel as if we have become greater experts in criminology and forensics. I was aghast to see Rizzoli pick up some “trace” (as Mel and I call it) from the crime scene without waiting for the CSIs. That’s not her job and making matters worse, she didn’t photograph the evidence. And why is Isles messing with fingerprints? Isn’t she the medical examiner? Where are the lab techs?
Hey, I feel the same professional disapproval when the Miami CSI’s go running around following up on clues and suspects as if they’re homicide detectives. Hello Callie? Stop chasing cars and get back to ballistics. And have you noticed that it’s usually a big deal when an officer is involved in a shooting? Except for Horatio on CSI Miami who shoots someone dead every other week?
I must say, the bad guys on Miami CSI don’t fare very well. Either Horatio kills them or they get shot because they got paraded out of the police headquarters in cuffs right in front of their (armed) archenemy. Is it that hard to bring the suspects out the back door?
I think perchance, I’ve been watching too many of these police procedurals. Yet they are the most popular type of show on TV, which makes me wonder whether or not criminals are going to school here. I mean really. If you decided to murder someone, would you do it in high heels and wear calves leather gloves that you bought with a credit card from some high end store in London? Or would you use disposable latex and pick up some oversized men’s loafers at the Goodwill? I know what I’d do.
--
Defense Bill Redux
Republicans in the House have added an amendment to the Defense Appropriation bill that forbids chaplains from performing same-sex marriages on military bases. Is it my imagination, or have we not gone back and forth on the Defense Appropriation bill about ten times this year? Does that bill ever actually “pass?”
The amendment is technically a ban on using defense funds to “violate the Defense of Marriage Act,” a leap of logic that only makes sense if you think the Defense of Marriage Act prohibits marriage. It does not, of course. It simply defines marriage as a heterosexual union for all purposes under federal law. That’s bad enough, but it has no impact on whether or not couples can tie the knot in the free marriage states.
Military bases in states like New York or Massachusetts are subject to state law, so DOMA does not prevent military personnel, or any federal employee, from getting married. The idea that DOMA should prevent military chaplains from officiating at a legal wedding is equally senseless, but there you are. Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) doesn’t really care, and one hopes the Senate will once again remove this little piece of nasty from the bill.
Meanwhile, ABC News announced last month that a military couple in New Jersey got “married” on an Air Force Base, even though marriage is not legal in New Jersey and therefore the two men presumably contracted a civil union. The headline read “First Military Base Same-Sex Wedding Held,” further complicating what should be a fairly simple state of affairs.
And by the way, the senior chaplain at that Air Force Base, who attended but did not conduct the aforementioned civil union, has resigned from the conservative Southern Baptist Convention. It’s not clear if Col. Timothy Wagoner was forced to leave or whether the good chaplain got sick of the moaning and whining emanating from the Baptist crybabies.
--
Closet Space
Before we leave the military, there’s another Congressional hue and cry over the decision by the Pentagon to let some troops march in uniform in the San Diego Pride parade. Normally, soldiers may not attend political rallies in uniform, a sensible policy for all concerned in my book. But the Pentagon made an exception for the San Diego parade because the organizers had requested that service members be able to celebrate their new status as openly gay troops.
Quite frankly, that doesn’t make much sense to me. What if the Crazy Conservative Kook brigade wanted stripes and bars at its big protest march? That said, it was a one-time deal, so get over it.
“This decision,” panted Virginia House member Randy Forbes “was an outrageous and blatantly political determination issued solely to advance this administration’s social agenda.”
Finally, rest in peace Sally Ride. As you know, the first woman in space died from pancreatic cancer this week at the age of 61 and came out of the closet in her obituary. Her generation and her natural Norwegian reticence led the pioneer astronaut to hide her long-term lesbian relationship from public view. Although Ride was out to her friends and family, she never identified with the gay community. But she did help write the notice of her death, which calls Tam O’Shaughnessy as her “partner of 27 years.”
Ride may have been reticent, but let’s be honest. If NASA had learned she was a lesbian back in 1983, she’d be on a rocket to the unemployment line.
--
A new version of Ann’s column is available every week at sfbaytimes.com You can reach her at arostow@aol.com.
Friday, July 27, 2012
Thursday, July 19, 2012
Scouting for Some
GLBT Week in Review July 18, 2012
BY ANN ROSTOW
Scouting for Some
What’s up with the Boy Scouts? On Tuesday, the organization announced that it will continue to discriminate against gays. I gather that the Scouts set up a committee on this subject a couple of years ago and the committee has now decided in favor of continued bigotry.
I have a confession to make. Every year I buy a big carton of microwave popcorn from the cute little neighbor boy who is raising money for his troop. I feel guilty about it, but there it is.
I don’t go to Target. I don’t give to the Salvation Army. I don’t eat at Chick-fil-A and I don’t buy Romanian wine even though I can no longer remember exactly what the Romanian wine growers did to annoy our community. But I can’t say no to the scout across the street.
At any rate, the Scouts will not say who was on the committee, nor will we learn what kind of investigation or research they undertook. All we know is that the group will continue to ban gay scouts as well as gay or lesbian leaders. You may recall that a lesbian den mother in Ohio was recently booted out of her son’s Tiger Scouts based on her sexual orientation.
I know I should be more outraged by the Scouts intransigence. And yet, I feel as if the country and the world are simply passing them by. Where once the Scouts were part of the enemy front lines, a phalanx to be overrun in our great battle for Equality, they now remind me of injured soldiers on the sidelines, slouched against the fence posts, their heads swathed in white bandages, still heckling us as we move forward.
Yeah, Scouts. You still hate gays. Whatever. We’re moving on.
--
High Court Inundated With DOMA Petitions
So, speaking of moving on, you won’t believe this but another challenge to Section Three of the Defense of Marriage Act has been sent to the Supreme Court. On July 16, the American Civil Liberties Union petitioned the Court to hear the case of New York widow Edith Windsor, she of the $350,000-plus estate tax bill, even though her case is still pending in the lower federal appellate court.
This is a fine moment to confess that I was wrong about the Supreme Court’s schedule. Their summer vacation officially ends, not on October 1, but on September 24.
On that day, the justices will consider whether to review the First Circuit decision that struck DOMA in two consolidated Massachusetts cases. They will also decide whether to take early review of two more of our DOMA victories, the lower court decision in the case of California lawyer Karen Golinski and now, the Windsor decision. And who knows what will happen once we hear the opinion in the Pedersen case out of Connecticut, another DOMA ruling that is due any day? Maybe the Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders will toss that case into the Supreme Stew.
I realize that no one can predict what the High Court will do. But let’s jump out on a big fat sturdy limb and predict that the justices will review one, more, or all of these DOMA cases in their 2012-2013 session. They just will.
What’s less clear is what the Court will do with two other non-DOMA gay rights cases. The Prop 8 case is heading to Washington. And recently, the state of Arizona asked the Court to review a Ninth Circuit ruling in favor of gay state employees.
Will the Court take on DOMA and skip these other cases? If so, we would see marriage restored in the Golden State and a strong precedent upheld in the Arizona case. Plus, we would likely see the High Court strike DOMA.
Or will the Court take the full array of gay rights cases and possibly issue some muddled combination of rulings? I hope not. Let’s just say that this is a weird moment in the legal fight for GLBT civil rights.
--
Leaping Longhorns
Is it my imagination, or does Mitt Romney look a little bit like Gumby? At a certain angle?
So here in my hometown of Austin, we have a developing story out of the University of Texas. A few weeks back, one of UT’s sociology professors published a report suggesting that the kids of gay parents have more problems than those raised by “intact” families.
The GLBT community leapt to its feet, pulled its sharpest sword from its sheath and lost no time in poking holes in the substance, style and sponsors of Professor Mark Regnerus’ work. Not only did the good professor base his conclusions on the children of broken homes, where newly gay parents dropped out of heterosexual marriages, but his main grants were funded by right wing conservative groups. All in all, this was hardly the stuff of reputable scholarship!
Indeed it does appear that Regnerus had a not so hidden agenda, much as Professor Liberal Feminist might focus her academic lens on happy gay families where the kids are not just okay, they’re making better grades and having more fun than those other suckers! My point is that the discussion itself implies that we, the gay parents, must prove ourselves the equal of Ozzie and Harriet before we deserve equal rights.
That’s nonsense. Parents who earn six figures might raise more successful kids than poor ones. Does this mean we limit adoptions or parental rights to rich couples? Of course not.
Are there differences between the kids of gay or straight parents? Possibly. Who knows? We really haven’t had enough time to produce solid, long-term surveys. We’d have to take into account other factors; education, income, discrimination, whatever. Maybe there will be differences between gay male households and lesbian households. There are differences in every demographic and every division, and while these distinctions are interesting from an analytical perspective, we don’t have to “win” every study.
The one thing that’s pretty clear is that gay parents are basically not that much different that straight ones. That said, Professor Regnerus may well be correct that kids from broken homes, where one of the parents turned gay and left, have problems. And as long as we all agree on what we’re talking about, there may be nothing wrong with his methodology.
One way or another we will find out. This week, UT officials announced that they will investigate the Regnerus study due to a number of complaints, mostly from you know who (us!). I haven’t read his report, but maybe he did something underhanded. We’ll see.
But just as our community should not go ballistic over whether or not people can really “change,” nor should we obsess over what this or that sociologist says about our families. Civil rights do not rise or fall on science, let alone pseudo-science.
--
Black Like Jennifer
Have any of you been following the sex scandal surrounding Florida’s Republican Lt. Governor, Jennifer Carroll? Carroll is a married mother of three and former Navy veteran who has been accused of having lesbian sex in her Tallahassee office with an assistant who also deliberately started a fire in someone’s trashcan with a cigar.
Okay, I will back up if you insist.
Carletha Cole is a former aide who was arrested for some kind of illegal tape recording scheme. Last year, Cole secretly taped her boss’s chief of staff complaining about Governor Rick Scott. So there’s that.
Now, Cole is on trial, so we’re learning interesting things from various court papers and depositions and whatever. Cole is apparently pulling no punches, telling the lawyers that she walked in on the Lt. Governor enjoying certain intimate attentions from her aide, Beatriz Ramos. Believe me, the accusations were quite graphic, but I certainly would not want to offend the delicate sensibilities of my beloved readers with a detailed description of oral sex on the desk.
Cole also said that Ramos dropped a lit cigar into her (Cole’s) trashcan, deliberately starting a fire for reasons unclear. The reasons are unclear because I am not inclined to spend much time sorting them out.
Recently, Carroll denied the allegations, telling the press that “black women who look like me don’t engage in relationships like that.” Since Carroll would look right at home at any lesbian club I’ve ever spent time in, I’m not sure what she thinks she’s saying here. She also pointed out that she herself has been married for 29 years while her accuser is single. Elsewhere I read that Cole is a grandmother, so let’s just say that the inconsistencies are piling up!
To be fair, an AP report on July 15 says the Lt. Governor passed a polygraph test. But where’s the fun in that?
--
Wither Vengeance?
Here’s an interesting article. Earlier this year someone took a video of several guys beating up a gay man on a street corner in Atlanta. The victim, Brandon White, was doing nothing in particular and the guys just seemed to come out of nowhere. It was replayed on cable news a zillion times and White was interviewed. Maybe you saw it.
Now, the three attackers have been sentenced to five years in prison and five years probation. The men have apologized to White, and they all face training and community service once they get out of prison in 2017. But is five years behind bars excessive punishment for a fight, even a fight that was motivated by hatred? According to an article in Boston’s The Edge, some in the Atlanta GLBT community say yes.
Members of Project Q Atlanta wrote a letter to the Journal Constitution suggesting that there were better ways to deal with violence against gays.
“Our primary interest is seeing an end to the homophobia that seems to have been a dominant factor in the attack on Mr. White,” wrote the activists. “We do not believe that will be accomplished by a long sentence of imprisonment.” The letter writers thought that education was the key to getting men like these on the path to becoming contributing members of society.
Hey, I can’t help but agree, being a bleeding heart liberal in good standing. But what strikes me is a subtle shift in our communal thinking. For decades we’ve been outraged at criminals on trial who used the gay panic defense, at police who trapped men in parks, at violent attackers who got away with gay bashing for this reason or that. Lately, however, it seems as if mainstream society has had enough and is finally coming down hard on antigay aggressors. Has that shift given us the breathing space to let fury give way to compassion and thoughtfulness?
I know that many in the gay community were satisfied with the relatively light sentence imposed on the Rutgers roommate whose antics contributed to the suicide of Tyler Clementi. As disgusting as they were, we recognized that frat level pranks did not justify a decade behind bars and that no one incident leads a person to take his or her life. Likewise, five years behind bars is a lot of time for a street fight. Surely our courts can find a more creative deterrent.
--
Bad Show
Now what? There was something on TV I meant to complain about. Oh, yes. The dialogue on that Political Animals show. As fans of West Wing, Mel and I found the much ballyhooed “television event” a major disappointment. Trite dialogue, heavy-handed characters, unsophisticated plot, cumbersome direction. And why does the gay son have to be an oversexed pretty boy with a drug habit and no business sense? Why couldn’t the gay guy be engaged to be married and the straight one be hooking up with strangers and planning to open a nightclub with his parents’ money?
Just wondering. And I also read that the ex-president was based on Lyndon Johnson. Hey writers, ever heard of Robert Caro? Plus, I don’t think any good Democrat wants to tiptoe around a subliminal image of Hillary Clinton having sex with LBJ.
--
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
Scouting for Some
What’s up with the Boy Scouts? On Tuesday, the organization announced that it will continue to discriminate against gays. I gather that the Scouts set up a committee on this subject a couple of years ago and the committee has now decided in favor of continued bigotry.
I have a confession to make. Every year I buy a big carton of microwave popcorn from the cute little neighbor boy who is raising money for his troop. I feel guilty about it, but there it is.
I don’t go to Target. I don’t give to the Salvation Army. I don’t eat at Chick-fil-A and I don’t buy Romanian wine even though I can no longer remember exactly what the Romanian wine growers did to annoy our community. But I can’t say no to the scout across the street.
At any rate, the Scouts will not say who was on the committee, nor will we learn what kind of investigation or research they undertook. All we know is that the group will continue to ban gay scouts as well as gay or lesbian leaders. You may recall that a lesbian den mother in Ohio was recently booted out of her son’s Tiger Scouts based on her sexual orientation.
I know I should be more outraged by the Scouts intransigence. And yet, I feel as if the country and the world are simply passing them by. Where once the Scouts were part of the enemy front lines, a phalanx to be overrun in our great battle for Equality, they now remind me of injured soldiers on the sidelines, slouched against the fence posts, their heads swathed in white bandages, still heckling us as we move forward.
Yeah, Scouts. You still hate gays. Whatever. We’re moving on.
--
High Court Inundated With DOMA Petitions
So, speaking of moving on, you won’t believe this but another challenge to Section Three of the Defense of Marriage Act has been sent to the Supreme Court. On July 16, the American Civil Liberties Union petitioned the Court to hear the case of New York widow Edith Windsor, she of the $350,000-plus estate tax bill, even though her case is still pending in the lower federal appellate court.
This is a fine moment to confess that I was wrong about the Supreme Court’s schedule. Their summer vacation officially ends, not on October 1, but on September 24.
On that day, the justices will consider whether to review the First Circuit decision that struck DOMA in two consolidated Massachusetts cases. They will also decide whether to take early review of two more of our DOMA victories, the lower court decision in the case of California lawyer Karen Golinski and now, the Windsor decision. And who knows what will happen once we hear the opinion in the Pedersen case out of Connecticut, another DOMA ruling that is due any day? Maybe the Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders will toss that case into the Supreme Stew.
I realize that no one can predict what the High Court will do. But let’s jump out on a big fat sturdy limb and predict that the justices will review one, more, or all of these DOMA cases in their 2012-2013 session. They just will.
What’s less clear is what the Court will do with two other non-DOMA gay rights cases. The Prop 8 case is heading to Washington. And recently, the state of Arizona asked the Court to review a Ninth Circuit ruling in favor of gay state employees.
Will the Court take on DOMA and skip these other cases? If so, we would see marriage restored in the Golden State and a strong precedent upheld in the Arizona case. Plus, we would likely see the High Court strike DOMA.
Or will the Court take the full array of gay rights cases and possibly issue some muddled combination of rulings? I hope not. Let’s just say that this is a weird moment in the legal fight for GLBT civil rights.
--
Leaping Longhorns
Is it my imagination, or does Mitt Romney look a little bit like Gumby? At a certain angle?
So here in my hometown of Austin, we have a developing story out of the University of Texas. A few weeks back, one of UT’s sociology professors published a report suggesting that the kids of gay parents have more problems than those raised by “intact” families.
The GLBT community leapt to its feet, pulled its sharpest sword from its sheath and lost no time in poking holes in the substance, style and sponsors of Professor Mark Regnerus’ work. Not only did the good professor base his conclusions on the children of broken homes, where newly gay parents dropped out of heterosexual marriages, but his main grants were funded by right wing conservative groups. All in all, this was hardly the stuff of reputable scholarship!
Indeed it does appear that Regnerus had a not so hidden agenda, much as Professor Liberal Feminist might focus her academic lens on happy gay families where the kids are not just okay, they’re making better grades and having more fun than those other suckers! My point is that the discussion itself implies that we, the gay parents, must prove ourselves the equal of Ozzie and Harriet before we deserve equal rights.
That’s nonsense. Parents who earn six figures might raise more successful kids than poor ones. Does this mean we limit adoptions or parental rights to rich couples? Of course not.
Are there differences between the kids of gay or straight parents? Possibly. Who knows? We really haven’t had enough time to produce solid, long-term surveys. We’d have to take into account other factors; education, income, discrimination, whatever. Maybe there will be differences between gay male households and lesbian households. There are differences in every demographic and every division, and while these distinctions are interesting from an analytical perspective, we don’t have to “win” every study.
The one thing that’s pretty clear is that gay parents are basically not that much different that straight ones. That said, Professor Regnerus may well be correct that kids from broken homes, where one of the parents turned gay and left, have problems. And as long as we all agree on what we’re talking about, there may be nothing wrong with his methodology.
One way or another we will find out. This week, UT officials announced that they will investigate the Regnerus study due to a number of complaints, mostly from you know who (us!). I haven’t read his report, but maybe he did something underhanded. We’ll see.
But just as our community should not go ballistic over whether or not people can really “change,” nor should we obsess over what this or that sociologist says about our families. Civil rights do not rise or fall on science, let alone pseudo-science.
--
Black Like Jennifer
Have any of you been following the sex scandal surrounding Florida’s Republican Lt. Governor, Jennifer Carroll? Carroll is a married mother of three and former Navy veteran who has been accused of having lesbian sex in her Tallahassee office with an assistant who also deliberately started a fire in someone’s trashcan with a cigar.
Okay, I will back up if you insist.
Carletha Cole is a former aide who was arrested for some kind of illegal tape recording scheme. Last year, Cole secretly taped her boss’s chief of staff complaining about Governor Rick Scott. So there’s that.
Now, Cole is on trial, so we’re learning interesting things from various court papers and depositions and whatever. Cole is apparently pulling no punches, telling the lawyers that she walked in on the Lt. Governor enjoying certain intimate attentions from her aide, Beatriz Ramos. Believe me, the accusations were quite graphic, but I certainly would not want to offend the delicate sensibilities of my beloved readers with a detailed description of oral sex on the desk.
Cole also said that Ramos dropped a lit cigar into her (Cole’s) trashcan, deliberately starting a fire for reasons unclear. The reasons are unclear because I am not inclined to spend much time sorting them out.
Recently, Carroll denied the allegations, telling the press that “black women who look like me don’t engage in relationships like that.” Since Carroll would look right at home at any lesbian club I’ve ever spent time in, I’m not sure what she thinks she’s saying here. She also pointed out that she herself has been married for 29 years while her accuser is single. Elsewhere I read that Cole is a grandmother, so let’s just say that the inconsistencies are piling up!
To be fair, an AP report on July 15 says the Lt. Governor passed a polygraph test. But where’s the fun in that?
--
Wither Vengeance?
Here’s an interesting article. Earlier this year someone took a video of several guys beating up a gay man on a street corner in Atlanta. The victim, Brandon White, was doing nothing in particular and the guys just seemed to come out of nowhere. It was replayed on cable news a zillion times and White was interviewed. Maybe you saw it.
Now, the three attackers have been sentenced to five years in prison and five years probation. The men have apologized to White, and they all face training and community service once they get out of prison in 2017. But is five years behind bars excessive punishment for a fight, even a fight that was motivated by hatred? According to an article in Boston’s The Edge, some in the Atlanta GLBT community say yes.
Members of Project Q Atlanta wrote a letter to the Journal Constitution suggesting that there were better ways to deal with violence against gays.
“Our primary interest is seeing an end to the homophobia that seems to have been a dominant factor in the attack on Mr. White,” wrote the activists. “We do not believe that will be accomplished by a long sentence of imprisonment.” The letter writers thought that education was the key to getting men like these on the path to becoming contributing members of society.
Hey, I can’t help but agree, being a bleeding heart liberal in good standing. But what strikes me is a subtle shift in our communal thinking. For decades we’ve been outraged at criminals on trial who used the gay panic defense, at police who trapped men in parks, at violent attackers who got away with gay bashing for this reason or that. Lately, however, it seems as if mainstream society has had enough and is finally coming down hard on antigay aggressors. Has that shift given us the breathing space to let fury give way to compassion and thoughtfulness?
I know that many in the gay community were satisfied with the relatively light sentence imposed on the Rutgers roommate whose antics contributed to the suicide of Tyler Clementi. As disgusting as they were, we recognized that frat level pranks did not justify a decade behind bars and that no one incident leads a person to take his or her life. Likewise, five years behind bars is a lot of time for a street fight. Surely our courts can find a more creative deterrent.
--
Bad Show
Now what? There was something on TV I meant to complain about. Oh, yes. The dialogue on that Political Animals show. As fans of West Wing, Mel and I found the much ballyhooed “television event” a major disappointment. Trite dialogue, heavy-handed characters, unsophisticated plot, cumbersome direction. And why does the gay son have to be an oversexed pretty boy with a drug habit and no business sense? Why couldn’t the gay guy be engaged to be married and the straight one be hooking up with strangers and planning to open a nightclub with his parents’ money?
Just wondering. And I also read that the ex-president was based on Lyndon Johnson. Hey writers, ever heard of Robert Caro? Plus, I don’t think any good Democrat wants to tiptoe around a subliminal image of Hillary Clinton having sex with LBJ.
--
A new version of Ann’s column is available every week at sfbaytimes.com. You can reach her at arostow@aol.com.
Thursday, July 12, 2012
Roberts’ Rules
GLBT Week in Review July 11, 2012
BY ANN ROSTOW
Roberts’ Rules
What’s the story with Chief Justice John Roberts? By now you’ve probably read that Roberts reportedly was against the health care mandate before he was for it, changing his mind sometime in May and resisting the entreaties of his conservative colleagues.
So say the various tattle tales within the ambit of the Supreme Court, where everyone from the clerks to the secretaries was reportedly aware of the rift on the right. The most high profile reporting on the Roberts reversal came from veteran Court observer Jan Crawford via CBS News. Crawford stopped short of assigning a motive for Roberts’ flip flop, but one notion was that Roberts operates against a backdrop of history, calibrating his major moves to bolster the long-term reputation of the “Roberts Court.”
In that context, this theory goes, Roberts feared stepping out on a legal limb in order to strike a breakthrough piece of legislation with a ruling that could be considered cravenly political.
Another theory was that the Chief so values the notion of judicial restraint that he twisted himself into knots in order to defer to Congress.
For the sake of argument, let’s assume that the Chief Justice is indeed concerned with the opinions of future legal scholars. So, what would this mean for gay rights cases? The answer is pretty obvious.
As Richard Socarides points out in a recent New Yorker article. Roberts will likely be around for a few more decades. And if he cares about his place in history, he will hardly want to go down as the recalcitrant naysayer who voted against gay rights in a decision that was overturned 20 years later by his own Court. It’s pretty clear how History will judge the battle for same-sex marriage and gay rights in general. If Roberts is indeed protecting his Court’s good name, it could be counter productive to set back our inevitable triumph with a gay version of Dred Scott.
Or so we hope at any rate.
As for the theory that Roberts will do anything to avoid striking federal law, let’s hope that his judicial restraint does not extend to the Defense of Marriage Act. If Roberts sees himself as a plate umpire, let's hope he sees DOMA as a wild pitch.
--
Arizona Asks High Court To Rule On Partner Benefits
As if we weren’t already assured that the High Court will accept review of at least one Major Gay Rights Case next term, we now have yet another petition heading towards the justices. Oh, keep reading! This won’t take long and it’s important.
Earlier this year, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit slapped Arizona for cutting off partner benefits to the gay staff of state government. The benefits had been authorized by former Governor Janet Napolitano, but revoked as a “cost cutting” move once the GOP and Governor Jan Brewer took power. Even though the benefits were stripped from both gay and straight unmarried couples, Lambda Legal argued successfully that the move discriminated against same-sex couples who could not marry. Further, there was so little money involved that the policy could not be justified as a serious budget cut.
Now, after the full Ninth Circuit refused to revisit the case, Governor Brewer has petitioned the Supreme Court to take review, bringing the number of gay petitions before the High Court to five. When the justices return from vacation on October 1, they will decide whether to hear the two Massachusetts DOMA challenges, the Prop 8 marriage rights case, the Golinski DOMA case out of California and now, the Arizona benefits case.
Why is this news? Well, it’s been years since the High Court has considered a gay rights case and now they’ve got five big ones all at once, that’s why!
--
Asteroid Pride
Before we continue, I have yet another bone to pick with the creators of the most recent Cialis ad campaign. Why should we detour into this irrelevant topic? Only because I was wondering what to write about next when I saw one of these annoying commercials, that’s why.
The ads in question are the ones in which the aging husbands are reminded of why they fell in love with their wives. In each case, the Proustian trigger is a girlish habit. She twirls her hair with her finger! She sings aloud! She likes to dance in the rain! And once again, stereotypes reign on Madison Avenue where the fond husband shakes his manly head and smiles with paternal affection as his wife beams back with childlike innocence.
Why do these and other smarmy tropes from decades ago still permeate the world of advertising, even as they fade from modern social consciousness? It’s an important question, don’t you think?
No? Well, fine. We’ll move on to some feel-good news.
The late gay rights pioneer Frank Kameny has been honored by astronomers who named an asteroid after him.
Kameny was an astronomer himself, something I did not know. According to the Huffington Post (which also described Kameny as a “pioneer”…cue theme from X Files!) Canadian amateur astronomer Gary Billings read about Kameny in his obituary last year. Billings had discovered an asteroid, ne Minor Planet 40463, and under astronomy rules, he retained the right to name the space rock. After consulting with others, the asteroid was officially dubbed “frankkameny” on July 3.
Frankkameny is located between Mars and Jupiter.
Oh, and for the record, why do you guys have so many male-oriented products anyway? You’ve got “low T” problems. Of course you have your vast array of erectile dysfunction medications. And now there’s some kind of androgen stuff on the market.
I don’t see people pushing estrogen tablets on prime time. Yes, we women can and do use hormone therapy but we haven’t turned it into a source of genderwide angst now, have we? No.
--
Church Stuff
I just took a short break and now I can’t locate my news list. I know that I was going to mention the Episcopal Church, which came up with language for a gay wedding blessing. Also, the Presbyterians fell a few votes short of changing the definition of marriage to a union of two people. Maybe next year. Or whenever. I really don’t care.
Mel and I were driving through a shopping center the other day and we passed a store called “Christian Books” or something like that. You know what? The “Christian” brand is so tarnished from three decades of hatred and venom that the store might as well be called “Klan Books.” There’s nothing wrong with Christians per se. But when the word “Christian” is used as a descriptor, that’s when the warning bells start ringing and the lights start flashing.
How long will it take, I wonder, before some of the old luster is restored to the adjective “Christian?” It used to mean “kind” and “charitable.” Remember those days? No, you’re too young.
--
Alan Chambers, Man of Mystery
So, speaking of Christians, there is much ado this week over remarks by Alan Chambers, President of Exodus International.
Exodus International of course is one of the better known pray-away-the-gay operations that promotes a “cure” for the disease of homosexuality. Chambers, 40, is an ex-gay who claims to be happily married and sort of straight. Lately, he’s been backing away from the party line, however, and last week he acknowledged that you can’t really change your sexual orientation.
Say what!
Last year, Chambers came out in support of the “It Gets Better” Youtube campaign, a collection of encouraging videos directed at suicidal LGBT teens. Now, Chambers appears to be trying to present a “complex” view of sexual orientation, furthering a muddled position that simultaneously enrages his colleagues to the right and exasperates his adversaries on the left.
Exodus, Chambers told a TV host the other day, is designed to help those people who have a conflict between their sexuality and their faith. As far as I could understand, the man is offering some kind of helping hand to religious people who I guess want to live miserable lives of denial. As for happy gays, Chambers told MSNBC that he has nothing against them. Huh?
Chambers himself admits that he still is attracted to men, while also claiming that he adores his wife of 15 years and is only attracted to her. The whole thing makes no sense.
Nonetheless, the media is always enthralled with the ideological leader who has a change of heart, ergo we are covering this story like the sheep that we are. Bah bah bah.
Oh, speaking of media stories about people who change their mind, I just saw a TV piece about a 13-year-old boy who gave a speech to some conservative crowd four years ago, and who has now changed his mind and decided he is no longer a conservative. Hello? The kid is 17 years old. Why does anyone care what he thinks about anything?
There are few things more irritating than a precocious child parroting grownup ideas to an adult audience. And one of those few more irritating things might be to subsequently hear the aforementioned child explain pretentiously how his or her political views have “matured” over the last year or so.
--
Pitt Bull!
I have a few more GLBT items. Brad Pitt’s mother said something mean about us. And a group of power lesbians have started a Super Pac. You go girlz!
But I was really kind of intrigued by a non-gay story, the death of the billionaire Eva Rausing, who may have been lying dead in her house in London for a week while her husband hung out and did drugs!
Or it’s something like that anyway. I gather as well that this woman walked into the American Embassy in London with a bunch of crack a few years ago and was caught by security. That’s not particularly smart, but what struck me was that authorities then searched her house, discovered tons more drugs, and then issued a “warning” to the couple.
A warning? For 50 grams of cocaine plus pills and other stuff? A few years ago I served on a Grand Jury in Texas where we indicted quite a number of our hapless fellow citizens who were caught with miniscule amounts of banned substances. For the record, we had little choice under the jury rules but to indict the ham sandwiches presented by the DA’s office. But still, even our liberal jury would have thrown the book at Richie Rich and the missus under those circumstances. It makes you wonder if she’d be alive today had she only been sent to the clink for a month or so back in the day.
This couple ranks right up there with the very bizarre duo profiled last Sunday in the New York Times magazine. I’m thinking of the con artist who married a woman 40 years his senior and managed to attract Washington movers and shakers to a salon in his Georgetown basement. Did you read about that? This guy’s wife also wound up dead under mysterious circumstances.
Ah the world is indeed a surreal place and truth is stranger than fiction. I was done with this column, by the way, but I made a major edit and I’m now back to add a few words. You’ll be pleased to know that I deleted a lengthy section on whether Justice Kagan is likely to step aside from considering the Massachusetts DOMA case.
Some people think she might. But many others see no reason for her to recuse herself even though she was Solicitor General up until mid-2010. Anyway, I managed to cough up half a dozen boring paragraphs on this subject even though one mildly boring paragraph pretty much sums it up.
You’re most welcome!
--
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
Roberts’ Rules
What’s the story with Chief Justice John Roberts? By now you’ve probably read that Roberts reportedly was against the health care mandate before he was for it, changing his mind sometime in May and resisting the entreaties of his conservative colleagues.
So say the various tattle tales within the ambit of the Supreme Court, where everyone from the clerks to the secretaries was reportedly aware of the rift on the right. The most high profile reporting on the Roberts reversal came from veteran Court observer Jan Crawford via CBS News. Crawford stopped short of assigning a motive for Roberts’ flip flop, but one notion was that Roberts operates against a backdrop of history, calibrating his major moves to bolster the long-term reputation of the “Roberts Court.”
In that context, this theory goes, Roberts feared stepping out on a legal limb in order to strike a breakthrough piece of legislation with a ruling that could be considered cravenly political.
Another theory was that the Chief so values the notion of judicial restraint that he twisted himself into knots in order to defer to Congress.
For the sake of argument, let’s assume that the Chief Justice is indeed concerned with the opinions of future legal scholars. So, what would this mean for gay rights cases? The answer is pretty obvious.
As Richard Socarides points out in a recent New Yorker article. Roberts will likely be around for a few more decades. And if he cares about his place in history, he will hardly want to go down as the recalcitrant naysayer who voted against gay rights in a decision that was overturned 20 years later by his own Court. It’s pretty clear how History will judge the battle for same-sex marriage and gay rights in general. If Roberts is indeed protecting his Court’s good name, it could be counter productive to set back our inevitable triumph with a gay version of Dred Scott.
Or so we hope at any rate.
As for the theory that Roberts will do anything to avoid striking federal law, let’s hope that his judicial restraint does not extend to the Defense of Marriage Act. If Roberts sees himself as a plate umpire, let's hope he sees DOMA as a wild pitch.
--
Arizona Asks High Court To Rule On Partner Benefits
As if we weren’t already assured that the High Court will accept review of at least one Major Gay Rights Case next term, we now have yet another petition heading towards the justices. Oh, keep reading! This won’t take long and it’s important.
Earlier this year, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit slapped Arizona for cutting off partner benefits to the gay staff of state government. The benefits had been authorized by former Governor Janet Napolitano, but revoked as a “cost cutting” move once the GOP and Governor Jan Brewer took power. Even though the benefits were stripped from both gay and straight unmarried couples, Lambda Legal argued successfully that the move discriminated against same-sex couples who could not marry. Further, there was so little money involved that the policy could not be justified as a serious budget cut.
Now, after the full Ninth Circuit refused to revisit the case, Governor Brewer has petitioned the Supreme Court to take review, bringing the number of gay petitions before the High Court to five. When the justices return from vacation on October 1, they will decide whether to hear the two Massachusetts DOMA challenges, the Prop 8 marriage rights case, the Golinski DOMA case out of California and now, the Arizona benefits case.
Why is this news? Well, it’s been years since the High Court has considered a gay rights case and now they’ve got five big ones all at once, that’s why!
--
Asteroid Pride
Before we continue, I have yet another bone to pick with the creators of the most recent Cialis ad campaign. Why should we detour into this irrelevant topic? Only because I was wondering what to write about next when I saw one of these annoying commercials, that’s why.
The ads in question are the ones in which the aging husbands are reminded of why they fell in love with their wives. In each case, the Proustian trigger is a girlish habit. She twirls her hair with her finger! She sings aloud! She likes to dance in the rain! And once again, stereotypes reign on Madison Avenue where the fond husband shakes his manly head and smiles with paternal affection as his wife beams back with childlike innocence.
Why do these and other smarmy tropes from decades ago still permeate the world of advertising, even as they fade from modern social consciousness? It’s an important question, don’t you think?
No? Well, fine. We’ll move on to some feel-good news.
The late gay rights pioneer Frank Kameny has been honored by astronomers who named an asteroid after him.
Kameny was an astronomer himself, something I did not know. According to the Huffington Post (which also described Kameny as a “pioneer”…cue theme from X Files!) Canadian amateur astronomer Gary Billings read about Kameny in his obituary last year. Billings had discovered an asteroid, ne Minor Planet 40463, and under astronomy rules, he retained the right to name the space rock. After consulting with others, the asteroid was officially dubbed “frankkameny” on July 3.
Frankkameny is located between Mars and Jupiter.
Oh, and for the record, why do you guys have so many male-oriented products anyway? You’ve got “low T” problems. Of course you have your vast array of erectile dysfunction medications. And now there’s some kind of androgen stuff on the market.
I don’t see people pushing estrogen tablets on prime time. Yes, we women can and do use hormone therapy but we haven’t turned it into a source of genderwide angst now, have we? No.
--
Church Stuff
I just took a short break and now I can’t locate my news list. I know that I was going to mention the Episcopal Church, which came up with language for a gay wedding blessing. Also, the Presbyterians fell a few votes short of changing the definition of marriage to a union of two people. Maybe next year. Or whenever. I really don’t care.
Mel and I were driving through a shopping center the other day and we passed a store called “Christian Books” or something like that. You know what? The “Christian” brand is so tarnished from three decades of hatred and venom that the store might as well be called “Klan Books.” There’s nothing wrong with Christians per se. But when the word “Christian” is used as a descriptor, that’s when the warning bells start ringing and the lights start flashing.
How long will it take, I wonder, before some of the old luster is restored to the adjective “Christian?” It used to mean “kind” and “charitable.” Remember those days? No, you’re too young.
--
Alan Chambers, Man of Mystery
So, speaking of Christians, there is much ado this week over remarks by Alan Chambers, President of Exodus International.
Exodus International of course is one of the better known pray-away-the-gay operations that promotes a “cure” for the disease of homosexuality. Chambers, 40, is an ex-gay who claims to be happily married and sort of straight. Lately, he’s been backing away from the party line, however, and last week he acknowledged that you can’t really change your sexual orientation.
Say what!
Last year, Chambers came out in support of the “It Gets Better” Youtube campaign, a collection of encouraging videos directed at suicidal LGBT teens. Now, Chambers appears to be trying to present a “complex” view of sexual orientation, furthering a muddled position that simultaneously enrages his colleagues to the right and exasperates his adversaries on the left.
Exodus, Chambers told a TV host the other day, is designed to help those people who have a conflict between their sexuality and their faith. As far as I could understand, the man is offering some kind of helping hand to religious people who I guess want to live miserable lives of denial. As for happy gays, Chambers told MSNBC that he has nothing against them. Huh?
Chambers himself admits that he still is attracted to men, while also claiming that he adores his wife of 15 years and is only attracted to her. The whole thing makes no sense.
Nonetheless, the media is always enthralled with the ideological leader who has a change of heart, ergo we are covering this story like the sheep that we are. Bah bah bah.
Oh, speaking of media stories about people who change their mind, I just saw a TV piece about a 13-year-old boy who gave a speech to some conservative crowd four years ago, and who has now changed his mind and decided he is no longer a conservative. Hello? The kid is 17 years old. Why does anyone care what he thinks about anything?
There are few things more irritating than a precocious child parroting grownup ideas to an adult audience. And one of those few more irritating things might be to subsequently hear the aforementioned child explain pretentiously how his or her political views have “matured” over the last year or so.
--
Pitt Bull!
I have a few more GLBT items. Brad Pitt’s mother said something mean about us. And a group of power lesbians have started a Super Pac. You go girlz!
But I was really kind of intrigued by a non-gay story, the death of the billionaire Eva Rausing, who may have been lying dead in her house in London for a week while her husband hung out and did drugs!
Or it’s something like that anyway. I gather as well that this woman walked into the American Embassy in London with a bunch of crack a few years ago and was caught by security. That’s not particularly smart, but what struck me was that authorities then searched her house, discovered tons more drugs, and then issued a “warning” to the couple.
A warning? For 50 grams of cocaine plus pills and other stuff? A few years ago I served on a Grand Jury in Texas where we indicted quite a number of our hapless fellow citizens who were caught with miniscule amounts of banned substances. For the record, we had little choice under the jury rules but to indict the ham sandwiches presented by the DA’s office. But still, even our liberal jury would have thrown the book at Richie Rich and the missus under those circumstances. It makes you wonder if she’d be alive today had she only been sent to the clink for a month or so back in the day.
This couple ranks right up there with the very bizarre duo profiled last Sunday in the New York Times magazine. I’m thinking of the con artist who married a woman 40 years his senior and managed to attract Washington movers and shakers to a salon in his Georgetown basement. Did you read about that? This guy’s wife also wound up dead under mysterious circumstances.
Ah the world is indeed a surreal place and truth is stranger than fiction. I was done with this column, by the way, but I made a major edit and I’m now back to add a few words. You’ll be pleased to know that I deleted a lengthy section on whether Justice Kagan is likely to step aside from considering the Massachusetts DOMA case.
Some people think she might. But many others see no reason for her to recuse herself even though she was Solicitor General up until mid-2010. Anyway, I managed to cough up half a dozen boring paragraphs on this subject even though one mildly boring paragraph pretty much sums it up.
You’re most welcome!
--
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)