GLBT Week in Review, September 19, 2012
BY ANN ROSTOW
Mark Your Calendars
This is a critical week in the life of our vibrant and colorful LGBTLMNOP community. On Monday, the justices of the Supreme Court reconvene to consider their upcoming docket. On their list, they will find the several challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act, cases that they will almost certainly accept in some form or another. They may take them all, even though only one of them has been reviewed by a federal appellate court. Or they may take just one. Or they may take some combination. Hell, I don’t know.
By the way, I think of myself as well versed in grammatical structures. I graduated from college and have been writing this column for nearly twenty years. So why haven’t I figured out when to use “which” and when to use “that?” I’m almost tempted to look up the difference but the little editors in my word processing program are happy enough to correct me, so I don’t have to bother. Maybe my English teacher wife will explain it if I ask nicely.
So, you might ask, if everyone expects the High Court to review DOMA this year, why is this week so critical? It’s critical because the Court will also announce whether or not they will take the challenge to Prop 8.
Cross your fingers and hope the Court declines review. Once again, marriage will be legal in the country’s most populous state. And we will not have to spend the coming year in constant anxiety, worrying that the Court will limit marriage rights with either an antigay or a muddled plurality ruling.
The bottom line is that the Court is likely to strike DOMA, but unlikely to rule that marriage rights are fundamental for same sex couples. Ergo, we want them to accept the DOMA cases, but we want them to avoid the generic fight for marriage inherent in the Prop 8 litigation.
Oh, oh, I hear some of you saying. Why shouldn’t we go for the whole ball of wax? Why should marriage rights be denied our brothers and sisters in Montana and Georgia? The answer is that ours is a strategic legal war for equality. Striking DOMA and re-legalizing marriage in California represent two giant steps forward. Winning marriage rights at the ballot box in November (in Washington, Maine or Maryland) would advance us even further. Banking this progress will put national marriage rights within our grasp. Going for broke prematurely, by contrast, could easily break us for a generation.
--
The Undecided
Let me digress to presidential politics for a moment and confess that the current wave of bad news for Mitt Romney is making me very nervous. Obama’s numbers have been declining for the last week or so in Nate Silver’s statistical model. The Mitten seems to have survived his foreign policy stumble with little damage. He might even survive the fund raising video as well, even though many of the liberal pundits have called it a fatal gaffe. I see a lot of chickens about to hatch, but I’m afraid to count.
Given that the President didn’t suffer from last month’s job numbers, it’s tempting to embrace the common wisdom that all but a few voters have unshakeable views that won’t be swayed by political ripples. We’ll see.
But it’s actually a little worrisome to think that the election might be decided by those people who, even now, are “undecided.”
Undecided? If you bothered to register to vote, how could you be undecided at this point in time? Sometimes you see these insufferable people interviewed in some focus group, running through their confused thought processes with a self-satisfied air about them, and revealing a vast ignorance about the issues.
“Um, I just think Obama could have done more things for the middle class.”
“I guess I’m leaning towards Romney because he knows how to fix the economy.”
Get these dimwits off the air! If television producers want to give us a sense of the voters’ esprit, then pick three confident Obama supporters and three informed Romney supporters and ask them what they think. The last people we should be listening to are the morons who can’t make up their minds between two starkly different campaigns.
By the way, did you hear that the guy who hosted that Boca Raton Romney fundraiser is a private equity partner who was known for throwing orgy like summer parties at his house in the Hamptons? Not that there’s anything wrong with that!
--
Justice is Bustin’ Out All Over!
Back to the law for a moment, it’s worth noting that our gay rights lawsuits have begun to diversify. Not so long ago, our marriage suits were cookie cutter cases. We’d get a bunch of admirable same-sex couples, pick a state to the left of center and file a state court claim for marriage. Our losses did not penalize us by setting a federal precedent, and our victories won us marriage footholds in states like Massachusetts, Iowa, Connecticut and elsewhere.
Now, we’ve mostly exhausted the easy marriage states, although we have state marriage cases still going on in New Jersey, Minnesota and Illinois. There might be others that have slipped under my radar.
Obviously, we have a slew of DOMA challenges. At least half a dozen, even though the entire question will soon be answered by the High Court as mentioned earlier.
Significantly, we have filed two federal marriage suits in states that fall under the jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit. In Nevada and in Hawaii, we argue that the federal constitution does not allow the state government to discriminate against gay couples. The Hawaii litigation, which we lost thanks to a Neanderthal judge, is now under appeal to the Ninth Circuit. And the governor is on our side, for the record.
The hope, of course, is that the Ninth Circuit’s Prop 8 ruling will oblige the appellate court to uphold marriage rights throughout the west, although the Prop 8 opinion was written in such a narrow fashion that its legal reach beyond California is unclear.
Finally, now that we have opened the door to federal lawsuits, we are no longer hesitant to advocate for gay rights outside the marriage arena. In Arizona, where the legislature reversed domestic partner benefits for state employees, we went to federal court on behalf of the gay state staff and managed to win an injunction against the law from the Ninth Circuit. That ruling has been appealed to the Supreme Court by the lovely and talented Jan Brewer, but no one expects the Court to accept review. An injunction is not a ruling on the merits of the case so it would be premature for the justices to interfere.
So there you have it! Now, aren’t you glad you read that whole recap? Hold the presses. The news scroll under MSNBC is telling me that a former Yale student is under arrest for posting something about killing children on an ESPN website. And my question is: Who cares where this psychopath went to college?
--
Dumb and Dumber
In news tidbits this week, we learn that the French government will send a marriage bill to lawmakers on October 24. Vive les socialists! On the other hand, Australian politicians defeated a marriage equality bill, as was expected. Still, it’s irritating. Thanks for nothing, Mates.
I also read that Chick-fil-A has circulated an internal memo, pledging to enforce a nondiscrimination policy for gay staff and swearing off antigay political donations. The memo was reported by the Chicago-based group, The Civil Rights Agenda.
Clint Eastwood appeared on the Ellen Show and said the Republicans were “dumb” to schedule his unscripted ramble on prime time. He also said he supports same-sex marriage based on his libertarian views.
Thanks Clint, but my interest in your political attitudes has waned in the last several weeks. I also find myself repelled by the ads for Clint’s new movie. Just seeing his face annoys me, and not because he was so inane. The man was crude, dismissive and ideologically superficial.
And finally, I’m sure you read that Toronto Blue Jays shortstop Yunel Escobat was suspended for three games after writing “Tu Eras Maricon” under his eyes for unknown reasons. So I guess it means “you are a fag,” although it could mean “you are a wimp.” What an idiot. And who was he writing to?
The suspension is another sign that while professional sports may be one of the last bastions of homophobia, even the strongest redoubts are beginning to give way.
Meanwhile, there’s still much work to be done in this arena. I gather that the entire European continent is breathless about the anonymous gay soccer player who gave an online interview in Germany. Angela Merkel urged the man to come out of the closet, telling him “you need not fear.” The athlete said that the price he pays to play for Bundesliga is high. “I have to be an actor every day and go into self denial.”
--
Be Prepared For Pedophiles
So we learned this week that the Boy Scouts have covered up numerous instances of pedophilia, preferring to quietly oust offenders rather than call police and report the crime. Are we surprised? The craven indifference to damaged kids by institutions that care only for their public image has got to stop.
The Boy Scouts aren’t directly responsible for sex abuse. The Catholic Church isn’t directly to blame for child rape. Jerry Sandusky is one man, not an entire university. But when these organizations look the other way they become almost as culpable as the pedophiles they protect.
And they sink to this level in order to protect their reputations? What would you think if the Boy Scouts called law enforcement and got a child molester off the street and behind bars? Would you think, oh no, a pedophile in Boy Scouts! Or would you think, good for them. They’ve got their eyes on the ground. I’d guess the latter.
Where there are kids, there are pedophiles, period. Willie Sutton robbed banks because that’s where the money was. It’s logical to assume that the Boy Scouts would attract sexual criminals.
It’s also important to point out that pedophiles are not openly gay men. They’re deviants like the happily married Jerry Sandusky, or emotional dwarfs like the pervert priests. The Scouts are right to be vigilant. But banning gays and lesbians from their ranks diminishes the organization’s soul while doing absolutely nothing to filter out sexual predators. This new revelation just tells us that the Scouts, for all their moralizing, don’t give a damn about kids.
--
Goodnight, Mitt
Wow. I just reread this column. There’s not a lot of levity. Court cases, pedophiles, politics. Where, you might ask, are the gay serial killers? Where are the scandalous conservative lawmakers caught with their pants down in the park while their wives and kids finish dinner alone?
Some weeks are like that, I guess. I’m reminded however of a GOP politician who gave a speech this week that included sympathetic remarks for the wives of elected officials. It’s tough, he said, to stay at home and worry about the shopping and cleaning and the children when your husband is busy making law. I forget who this was, but it was pretty jaw dropping. These days, even the most hide bound traditional campaigners at least give lip service to the notion that not all politicians are men. Not this joker.
Oh, and can you believe Mitt Romney told a talk show host that he likes to sleep in “as little as possible?” You know what? Sleeping in as little as possible means sleeping in the nude. So the question is, does he sleep in the nude? Or does he sleep in his Mormon underwear?
I really don’t want to contemplate either image.
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
Thursday, September 13, 2012
Not Ready for Three AM
News For the Week Ended September 12, 2012
BY ANN ROSTOW
Not Ready for Three AM
It’s hard to focus on GLBT news when our main topic is eclipsed by international and political events. This week, there’s actually an interesting macro-gay story about the changing attitude towards civil rights in professional sports. But we’ll get to that later.
First, I was happy to hear Hilary Clinton denounce the anti-Muslim video. I haven’t seen it, but it sounds like a crude and vicious attack on an entire religion. So, while it may well be protected speech under the First Amendment, that does not mean that America must or should rise to its defense. Quite the contrary.
So here’s my point: Mitt Romney’s condemnation of Obama boils down to the idea that signaling our disapproval of anti-Muslim screeds is tantamount to “apologizing for America,” and/or disrespecting the First Amendment.
Why has this simple observation been lost in the noise? It’s not just that Romney “jumped the gun” or “injected politics into a tragedy.” The problem here is that the man misinterpreted the Constitution and stood up for a bigoted fringe group that rejects basic American principles of religious freedom. The Cairo press release was not apologizing for America. It was defending America.
The First Amendment protects your right to say something or make a video; it does not protect you from criticism. Our community is particularly sensitive to this duality as we watch our opponents pitch and twitch and itch for the First Amendment every time we take issue with their antigay blatherings. But we’re not trampling on their right to free speech. We’re objecting to their ideas. The Cairo embassy and the State Department have every right to object to religious bigotry that runs counter both to American policy and to American ideals.
Someone should just ask Romney if he’s seen the video and if so, does he support its position? If he says no to the first question, he’s not doing his homework as a presidential candidate. If he says no to the second question, then he can explain exactly why our country should not be allowed to issue a public rejection without being accused of pandering to terrorists.
As for the murder and chaos that now infuses the Arab autumn, what would The Mitten do, or what would he have done six months ago? Would he have used American influence to beat back popular democratic uprisings in order to preserve a despotic, albeit stable, status quo? If so, then tell us and let the voters evaluate the contrast between competing policies. If not, then what kind of alternative “leadership” would he have provided?
Finally, I am tired of Romney’s platitudes. He just told us he had a three-point foreign policy platform. And then he rattled off three meaningless phrases that I can’t recall off the top of my head. “Conviction in our principles,” “confidence in our convictions” and so forth. It’s like his generic economic “policies:” “balance the budget,” “create jobs,” “become energy independent.” The man’s a robotic mess of a candidate.
--
Are You Ready For Some Football?
I’ve been skipping over my email headlines about various football players standing up for marriage equality even as I internalize a quick jolt of pleasure at the idea. The world of professional team sports has long been a bastion of antigay sentiment, ranging from macho slurs to the general feeling that an openly gay athlete would be run out of the locker room on a rail.
Could that be changing? Maybe.
Recently, Baltimore Ravens’ backup linebacker Brendan Ayanbadejo came out in favor of marriage equality, a big issue in a state where voters will soon decide whether to repeal the state’s gay marriage law or whether to let marriage equality go into effect.
Astonishingly, one of Maryland’s elected delegates, the state’s version of an assembly member, sent a letter to the Ravens demanding that Ayanbadejo stop speaking out on the subject as if the man was somehow under his jurisdiction or breaking some law. Say what?
Happily, the Ravens refused and the ensuing hoopla amplified the player’s message as well as the politician’s constitutional cluelessness. Then, Minnesota Vikings punter Chris Kluwe stepped in with an open letter to Delegate Emmett Burns:
“You know what having these rights will make gays?” he asked. “Full fledged American citizens just like everyone else.” Note that Minnesota voters will also be taking a stand on marriage when they decide whether or not to amend their constitution with antigay language.
Burns was eventually forced to retreat from his ill-considered request and admit that Ayanbadejo had every right to state his opinion. Meanwhile, over in North Dakota this week, a college athlete at North Dakota State College of Sciences was kicked off the football team for kissing his boyfriend. Ayanbadejo tweeted his support for the kid, which kept the underlying story alive for a few more days.
North Dakota State College of Sciences? Let’s just say that I don’t see their team on my University of Texas Longhorn’s schedule this year. As for the gay player, who is 18 years old, he reportedly kissed his 65-year-old “boyfriend” in the stands and subsequently lied about it. According to the school, he lost his place on the team for the lie, not for the kiss.
Look, I know you gay guys have your own relationship “dos and don’ts,” mostly do’s as far as I can tell. And I recognize as well that the stereotype of the heterosexual May December trophy wife romance is alive and well. But still!
At first I was wondering why the coach would question the player about a same-sex kiss in the first place. When I read the details I had second thoughts. Perhaps Coach was less concerned about gayness and more concerned about the half-century age gap that flirts with statutory rape laws. At any rate, this incident seems more complicated than the superficial headline that blared: “athlete kicked off team for gay kiss.”
Moving back to Ayanbadejo, he is an example of a straight man who has spent a lot of time with gay men and women. According to USA Today, his stepfather was in charge of the gay dorm at UC Santa Cruz for several years. There, Ayanbadejo got to know the students, and became a part of the dorm family. Here’s yet another example of the truism that knowing a gay person vastly increases one’s sympathy for gay civil rights. (As does living in Santa Cruz.)
That’s not a good omen for the far right, by the way. Long gone are the days when gay men and lesbians watched their vilification from the shadows. Gone are the days when Justice Lewis Powell could tell his closeted clerk that he’d never met a gay person and then turn around and cast the deciding vote to criminalize gay sex in Bowers v Hardwick. (Powell later said that he regretted that vote.)
According to Ayanbadejo, the atmosphere in the locker rooms has been changing along with the times. Other players are starting to agree with his gay rights sentiments, or at least respectfully agree to disagree. He hears fewer slurs.
I don’t know about you, but I’m rooting for the Ravens and the Vikings from now on. Unless they’re playing the 49ers or the Texans. Or the Redskins. And I kind of like the Saints.
--
What’s In A Name?
I just read that Levi Johnston, he of Bristol Palin fame, has become a father again. He and his girlfriend had a daughter who they named “Breeze Beretta.” Yes, the little girl was named after a gun manufacturer. I don’t know ladies and gentlemen. Call me elitist, but the whole Palin entourage makes the Beverly Hillbillies look like the Granthams of Downton Abbey. If you consider how close they came to representing our country, it makes you breathless for a moment.
Moving on, the latest polls out of Washington are looking good. We now have a 56-38 lead on marriage rights. I know that polls have often betrayed us in the past, but this is encouraging you must admit. Minnesota polls are about tied, which is ominous.
We seem to be ahead in Maine, with marriage approval in the mid to high fifties. And Maryland seems to be close but winnable.
Let’s just say, without being complacent, I will be shocked if we don’t win at least one of these four referendums. I expect to win at least two. I’ll be delighted to win three. And ecstatic to win Minnesota as well. You know, I’m sure, that we are fighting to win marriage rights in Washington, Maryland and Maine. We are fighting against an antigay marriage measure in Minnesota.
--
Family Values
Do you remember the aftermath of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s legalization of same-sex marriage? It was messy. First, the legislature tried to pass civil unions, obliging the high court to issue another decision emphasizing that marriage means marriage, not civil unions.
Governor Romney, meanwhile, tried everything to undermine the decision, in particular trying to mastermind a constitutional amendment to block the ruling.
During the gap between the ruling and the start of marriage equality in early 2004, gay couples tried to meet with the governor, who brushed them off. Now, an article in the next issue of Boston Spirit describes Romney as even more obnoxious and supercilious than we thought at the time.
According to a piece about the article on Boston.com, gay activists finally got to see Romney by demonstrating outside his office. Once inside, the governor sat mostly silently during a 20-minute appeal for equality. At onc point (and here’s what struck me about the whole story) Governor Romney remarked: “I didn’t know you had families.”
As the group left his office, lead plaintiff Julie Goodridge asked the governor what he thought she should tell her 8-year-old daughter “about why her mommy and her ma can’t get married because you, the governor of her state, are going to block our marriage.”
According to Goodridge, Romney replied: “I really don’t care what you tell your adopted daughter. Why don’t you just tell her the same thing you’ve been telling her for the last eight years?” After she left, Goodridge broke down in tears at the callousness of the man.
We all knew Romney was opposed to same-sex marriage and governed as a conservative. Still, I assumed that his antigay attitudes were a feature, not of his personal views, but of his political ambitions. After all, he campaigned as a gay rights supporter in his earlier senate race. And he even solicited votes by making fliers available at a gay pride celebration.
So I just thought that deep down he really didn’t care one way or another. For him to say: “I didn’t know you had families,” is pretty incredible, particularly after the benchmark marriage litigation that went down right under his nose. Either he meant it, which suggests an extraordinary lack of awareness. Or he decided to deliberately insult the people in his office, which suggests an extraordinary streak of cruelty.
Finally, you’ll forgive me for skipping a couple of murders involving gay participants. Just because a gay person gets involved in a crime story doesn’t make the event a “gay news” story. But it’s usually interesting nonetheless. We love crime in our household!
These were sort of boring though. And one of the murders took place in India, which is very far away. So. No crime this week. Next time.
--
arostow@aol.com
BY ANN ROSTOW
Not Ready for Three AM
It’s hard to focus on GLBT news when our main topic is eclipsed by international and political events. This week, there’s actually an interesting macro-gay story about the changing attitude towards civil rights in professional sports. But we’ll get to that later.
First, I was happy to hear Hilary Clinton denounce the anti-Muslim video. I haven’t seen it, but it sounds like a crude and vicious attack on an entire religion. So, while it may well be protected speech under the First Amendment, that does not mean that America must or should rise to its defense. Quite the contrary.
So here’s my point: Mitt Romney’s condemnation of Obama boils down to the idea that signaling our disapproval of anti-Muslim screeds is tantamount to “apologizing for America,” and/or disrespecting the First Amendment.
Why has this simple observation been lost in the noise? It’s not just that Romney “jumped the gun” or “injected politics into a tragedy.” The problem here is that the man misinterpreted the Constitution and stood up for a bigoted fringe group that rejects basic American principles of religious freedom. The Cairo press release was not apologizing for America. It was defending America.
The First Amendment protects your right to say something or make a video; it does not protect you from criticism. Our community is particularly sensitive to this duality as we watch our opponents pitch and twitch and itch for the First Amendment every time we take issue with their antigay blatherings. But we’re not trampling on their right to free speech. We’re objecting to their ideas. The Cairo embassy and the State Department have every right to object to religious bigotry that runs counter both to American policy and to American ideals.
Someone should just ask Romney if he’s seen the video and if so, does he support its position? If he says no to the first question, he’s not doing his homework as a presidential candidate. If he says no to the second question, then he can explain exactly why our country should not be allowed to issue a public rejection without being accused of pandering to terrorists.
As for the murder and chaos that now infuses the Arab autumn, what would The Mitten do, or what would he have done six months ago? Would he have used American influence to beat back popular democratic uprisings in order to preserve a despotic, albeit stable, status quo? If so, then tell us and let the voters evaluate the contrast between competing policies. If not, then what kind of alternative “leadership” would he have provided?
Finally, I am tired of Romney’s platitudes. He just told us he had a three-point foreign policy platform. And then he rattled off three meaningless phrases that I can’t recall off the top of my head. “Conviction in our principles,” “confidence in our convictions” and so forth. It’s like his generic economic “policies:” “balance the budget,” “create jobs,” “become energy independent.” The man’s a robotic mess of a candidate.
--
Are You Ready For Some Football?
I’ve been skipping over my email headlines about various football players standing up for marriage equality even as I internalize a quick jolt of pleasure at the idea. The world of professional team sports has long been a bastion of antigay sentiment, ranging from macho slurs to the general feeling that an openly gay athlete would be run out of the locker room on a rail.
Could that be changing? Maybe.
Recently, Baltimore Ravens’ backup linebacker Brendan Ayanbadejo came out in favor of marriage equality, a big issue in a state where voters will soon decide whether to repeal the state’s gay marriage law or whether to let marriage equality go into effect.
Astonishingly, one of Maryland’s elected delegates, the state’s version of an assembly member, sent a letter to the Ravens demanding that Ayanbadejo stop speaking out on the subject as if the man was somehow under his jurisdiction or breaking some law. Say what?
Happily, the Ravens refused and the ensuing hoopla amplified the player’s message as well as the politician’s constitutional cluelessness. Then, Minnesota Vikings punter Chris Kluwe stepped in with an open letter to Delegate Emmett Burns:
“You know what having these rights will make gays?” he asked. “Full fledged American citizens just like everyone else.” Note that Minnesota voters will also be taking a stand on marriage when they decide whether or not to amend their constitution with antigay language.
Burns was eventually forced to retreat from his ill-considered request and admit that Ayanbadejo had every right to state his opinion. Meanwhile, over in North Dakota this week, a college athlete at North Dakota State College of Sciences was kicked off the football team for kissing his boyfriend. Ayanbadejo tweeted his support for the kid, which kept the underlying story alive for a few more days.
North Dakota State College of Sciences? Let’s just say that I don’t see their team on my University of Texas Longhorn’s schedule this year. As for the gay player, who is 18 years old, he reportedly kissed his 65-year-old “boyfriend” in the stands and subsequently lied about it. According to the school, he lost his place on the team for the lie, not for the kiss.
Look, I know you gay guys have your own relationship “dos and don’ts,” mostly do’s as far as I can tell. And I recognize as well that the stereotype of the heterosexual May December trophy wife romance is alive and well. But still!
At first I was wondering why the coach would question the player about a same-sex kiss in the first place. When I read the details I had second thoughts. Perhaps Coach was less concerned about gayness and more concerned about the half-century age gap that flirts with statutory rape laws. At any rate, this incident seems more complicated than the superficial headline that blared: “athlete kicked off team for gay kiss.”
Moving back to Ayanbadejo, he is an example of a straight man who has spent a lot of time with gay men and women. According to USA Today, his stepfather was in charge of the gay dorm at UC Santa Cruz for several years. There, Ayanbadejo got to know the students, and became a part of the dorm family. Here’s yet another example of the truism that knowing a gay person vastly increases one’s sympathy for gay civil rights. (As does living in Santa Cruz.)
That’s not a good omen for the far right, by the way. Long gone are the days when gay men and lesbians watched their vilification from the shadows. Gone are the days when Justice Lewis Powell could tell his closeted clerk that he’d never met a gay person and then turn around and cast the deciding vote to criminalize gay sex in Bowers v Hardwick. (Powell later said that he regretted that vote.)
According to Ayanbadejo, the atmosphere in the locker rooms has been changing along with the times. Other players are starting to agree with his gay rights sentiments, or at least respectfully agree to disagree. He hears fewer slurs.
I don’t know about you, but I’m rooting for the Ravens and the Vikings from now on. Unless they’re playing the 49ers or the Texans. Or the Redskins. And I kind of like the Saints.
--
What’s In A Name?
I just read that Levi Johnston, he of Bristol Palin fame, has become a father again. He and his girlfriend had a daughter who they named “Breeze Beretta.” Yes, the little girl was named after a gun manufacturer. I don’t know ladies and gentlemen. Call me elitist, but the whole Palin entourage makes the Beverly Hillbillies look like the Granthams of Downton Abbey. If you consider how close they came to representing our country, it makes you breathless for a moment.
Moving on, the latest polls out of Washington are looking good. We now have a 56-38 lead on marriage rights. I know that polls have often betrayed us in the past, but this is encouraging you must admit. Minnesota polls are about tied, which is ominous.
We seem to be ahead in Maine, with marriage approval in the mid to high fifties. And Maryland seems to be close but winnable.
Let’s just say, without being complacent, I will be shocked if we don’t win at least one of these four referendums. I expect to win at least two. I’ll be delighted to win three. And ecstatic to win Minnesota as well. You know, I’m sure, that we are fighting to win marriage rights in Washington, Maryland and Maine. We are fighting against an antigay marriage measure in Minnesota.
--
Family Values
Do you remember the aftermath of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s legalization of same-sex marriage? It was messy. First, the legislature tried to pass civil unions, obliging the high court to issue another decision emphasizing that marriage means marriage, not civil unions.
Governor Romney, meanwhile, tried everything to undermine the decision, in particular trying to mastermind a constitutional amendment to block the ruling.
During the gap between the ruling and the start of marriage equality in early 2004, gay couples tried to meet with the governor, who brushed them off. Now, an article in the next issue of Boston Spirit describes Romney as even more obnoxious and supercilious than we thought at the time.
According to a piece about the article on Boston.com, gay activists finally got to see Romney by demonstrating outside his office. Once inside, the governor sat mostly silently during a 20-minute appeal for equality. At onc point (and here’s what struck me about the whole story) Governor Romney remarked: “I didn’t know you had families.”
As the group left his office, lead plaintiff Julie Goodridge asked the governor what he thought she should tell her 8-year-old daughter “about why her mommy and her ma can’t get married because you, the governor of her state, are going to block our marriage.”
According to Goodridge, Romney replied: “I really don’t care what you tell your adopted daughter. Why don’t you just tell her the same thing you’ve been telling her for the last eight years?” After she left, Goodridge broke down in tears at the callousness of the man.
We all knew Romney was opposed to same-sex marriage and governed as a conservative. Still, I assumed that his antigay attitudes were a feature, not of his personal views, but of his political ambitions. After all, he campaigned as a gay rights supporter in his earlier senate race. And he even solicited votes by making fliers available at a gay pride celebration.
So I just thought that deep down he really didn’t care one way or another. For him to say: “I didn’t know you had families,” is pretty incredible, particularly after the benchmark marriage litigation that went down right under his nose. Either he meant it, which suggests an extraordinary lack of awareness. Or he decided to deliberately insult the people in his office, which suggests an extraordinary streak of cruelty.
Finally, you’ll forgive me for skipping a couple of murders involving gay participants. Just because a gay person gets involved in a crime story doesn’t make the event a “gay news” story. But it’s usually interesting nonetheless. We love crime in our household!
These were sort of boring though. And one of the murders took place in India, which is very far away. So. No crime this week. Next time.
--
arostow@aol.com
How Many Republicans Does it Take…
GLBT Week in Review, September 5, 2012
BY ANN ROSTOW
How Many Republicans Does it Take…
Of all the disturbing images that struck me during my reluctant but obsessive viewing of the Republican convention, the one that haunts me came from the Thursday night Romney video. You know the one. The otherwise touching presentation of the candidate that was shoved off the networks by the people who decided Clint Eastwood’s deranged monologue would make a better impression on undecided voters.
The video was just fine. I’ve always been a little seduced by scenes of Mitt Romney’s family life. His obvious love for his wife and sons. His jocularity and fun loving spirit. I’m not fan of his candidacy of course, but this is his best side.
That said, there was a small, but significant, vignette that the pundits have overlooked. One of Mitt’s indistinguishable sons is shown puttering around the house, and pointing out one of Dad’s loveable attempts to play handyman. Seems the bulb went out above the stove, and instead of replacing it with a similar working bulb, Mitt grabbed the first thing that came to hand and screwed in a circular globe bulb that was much too large.
The globe worked fine, but since it was not a standard bulb, it stuck out, and blinded anyone working in the area. Mitt responded to this new kitchen dilemma by duct-taping a strip of aluminum foil over the offending light to shield the cook. The foil hung down several inches from the stove’s vent system.
The Romney Son displayed this example of Dad’s handiwork with an affectionate laugh. And we all would have laughed with him, except… Except that this is the man who’s only claim to the presidency is his businesslike approach to problem solving!
If this is how Mitt Romney handles a dead bulb, how will Mitt Romney handle Syria, Iran, American education policy, the European debt crisis, unemployment, the continuing housing crisis?
And it’s not just his inclination to solve the problem with the most convenient temporary solution, even when that solution doesn’t quite work. It’s the idea that when the solution is clearly proven wrong, and indeed creates new problems, that rather than take out the globe bulb and put in the correct size--- which he should have done in the first place--- his instinct is to devise a new solution to the new problem that leaves the original infirmity in place.
Left unsaid is the fact that the bad solution to the problem that was caused by the original bad solution has caused a new problem that we haven’t even addressed. Namely, the kitchen looks horrible. You have an ugly piece of foil taped to the top of the stove. Who lives with that? No one. Now, although it went beyond the scope of the video, someone will have to solve the problem of the hideous foil, and I’m guessing it will be someone who decides to go to the hardware store and buy a regular sized bulb.
Will that be Mitt? I doubt it.
--
Conventional Wisdom
Republicans? I’ll call your Marco Rubio and raise you the twin Castro brothers. I’ll call your Ann Romney and raise you Michelle Obama. I’ll call your obnoxious and self-serving New Jersey governor and raise you Massachusetts’ Deval Patrick, who had the conventioneers on their feet, screaming as one.
Since I’m writing on Wednesday, I only have one Democratic day to compare against the three days of the Republicans. But from what I‘ve seen, we’d win the match up even if we quit right now. My only complaint from Tuesday night was our friend and champion, Martin O’Malley, the governor of Maryland, who delivered his prime time speech with a moronic grin, looking like a TV game show host on speed.
Most of all, I’ll call your platform’s antigay amendment to the U.S, Constitution, and raise you our platform’s commitment to equal marriage rights for same-sex couples.
Unlike the Republicans, who ignored horrific details from their platform (personhood for fertilized eggs, unlimited bullet magazines, no abortion rights for rape victims) the Democrats walked the plank. Their historic commitment to marriage equality wasn’t a bone thrown to the GLBT community, never to be mentioned outside the fine print of the convention paperwork. Almost every speaker I heard made mention of the right to love who you love.
Indeed, this formulation emerged as the official gay rights lingo. Instead of just adding “LGBT” to the familiar list of categories, instead of simply tossing in “gay or straight” to the sing song: “black or white, Jewish or Catholic, old or young, rich or poor,” instead of turning our community into just another protected category, the speakers cut to the heart of why we’re in a special category to begin with. Not because of our sex lives, but because of our love lives.
I hate to use the trite term “tipping point.” We’ve been talking about “tipping points” for a decade now, and although we’re making great progress, I don’t feel as if we’ve officially “tipped.”
But in terms of the Democratic convention, the words fit. We’ve gone from outsiders, to sideliners, to headliners. We’ve tipped into the mainstream of the Democratic Party, where eight percent of the party’s delegates are LGBT. I gather Barney Frank is on the stage this evening (Wednesday) and although I find the cantankerous grouch irritating to watch, I appreciate the significance of his speaking spot. Even more interesting might be Wisconsin Senate candidate, lesbian Tammy Baldwin, on the schedule for Thursday night.
--
Kind Punishment
By popular request, I will explain to the best of my ability why a federal judge in Boston ordered the state to perform sex reassignment surgery on a transwoman who is serving time for murder.
Basically, the state cannot double down on punishment by denying appropriate medical treatment to a prisoner. None of us like murderers. But we don’t deny them a stent or a cast or an MRI or an artificial limb or a knee replacement. We can’t say, well so-and-so killed his wife, so who cares whether or not he has blurry vision? No cataract surgery for you buddy!
What’s changed in recent years is the medical and psychiatric view of gender dysphoria. Universal ridicule has given way to an understanding that untreated transgender men and women are dealing with a debilitating handicap. As such, the eighth amendment rights of transgender prisoners are taken seriously by most courts.
Not too long ago, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ordered the state of Wisconsin to provide hormone therapy to trans inmates, overturning a legislative attempt to outlaw such treatment. And it’s also noteworthy that the IRS has determined that reassignment surgery and treatment is now a deductible medical expense. It used to be considered elective or cosmetic surgery.
Trans discrimination in the workplace has also been beaten back by judges on both sides of the political aisle, who have begun in the last decade or so to put some steel into Title VII’s ban on gender stereotyping. And lawmakers are adding transgender protections to the antidiscrimination statutes in cities, counties and states around the country.
So getting back to Boston, the question of whether to perform an inmate’s sex change is not dissimilar to the question of whether to prescribe antibiotics to a prisoner with strep throat. Standard medical treatments are required for murderers behind bars along with the rest of us.
--
Preacher Is As Preacher Does
So here’s something. Nine “preachers” were arrested in New Orleans over the weekend and charged with violating a ban on people or groups that disseminate social, political or religious messages on Bourbon Street between sunset and dawn. The men were bothering the partygoers at Southern Decadence by spouting antigay commentary.
Hmmm. I’m not sure on what basis the news media has designated these men as “preachers.” A few of them are in their early 20s, which seems a little young for the term. Plus, what exactly is a “preacher?” It implies a religious status, but in truth I suppose anyone could make the claim, right?
But also, since when can New Orleans ban political speech on a particular street at a particular time? Maybe the city has a legitimate interest in preserving the atmosphere in the French Quarter for the lucrative tourist trade. Maybe the ordinance is more of a check on disturbing the peace. Maybe the ban is constitutional since a person could just go over one block and evangelize to their heart’s content. Whatever. The bottom line is that a bunch of loud young men were yelling slurs at the gay participants in the annual event. Eight were arrested for violating the city code and another man, or “preacher,” was charged with punching a police officer.
--
Straight Men Don’t Wear Teal
In other news, I’m seeing a lot of new headlines about John Travolta’s alleged gay lover. I haven’t clicked on them, because…oh just because. Does anyone doubt that Mr. Saturday Night likes to walk on the wild side? More importantly, does anyone care?
Far more interesting to me is the idea that Illinois Congressman Aaron Schock might be gay. Why? Because the Republican Schock has an antigay voting record and insists he’s as straight as an arrow. How delicious it would be to open the closet door and catch Mr. Schock cowering behind a pair of black leather pants and a sequined cowboy shirt!
So, do we have any evidence to suggest that Schock is deceiving his public? I’ll let you be the judge. According to the reports I’ve read, Schock once attended a White House picnic in white jeans, a hot pink gingham shirt and a teal belt. He also posed shirtless on the cover of Men’s Health, looking for all the world like a devoted gym rat. Oh, and he’s single.
I don’t know about you, but for me, the teal belt clinches it. The hot pink shirt? That could easily be a simple case of metrosexual style. But a teal belt? Sorry folks, the man’s either a professional golfer or he’s gay. Maybe Mr. Schock hasn’t yet recognized where his own heart lies. We have!
--
Do I Dare To Drink A Gin and Tonic?
I only have room for one more news item, but there’s nothing out there that screams for coverage. There are only whispers.
“Ann?” I hear a soft murmur.
“Do you know how horrible they are to gays in Liberia?”
I pause and listen more closely. Was that my imagination? Were the trees rustling? But there it is again.
“Hank Williams Jr. is a homophobe…gay days in Vegas…shhhhh…doctor in Australia did something bad… hate crime in southern California.” The voices drift lightly on the wind in a soft chorus of GLBT news. Nearly inaudible. I can’t quite catch them.
Perhaps there’s a reason for what can only be described as my disinterest in the ebb and flow of gay things happening around the globe. Perhaps instead of detailing our communal trials and tribulations, I should be sitting by our round kiddy pool, basking in the Texas heat with a biography of Antonin Careme and a tall glass of gin and Fever-Tree ™ bitter lemon over ice. With a touch of Compari and a twist. Not just any ice, but the square cubes that I use only for cocktails.
Yes, dear readers, it is September. But the summer lingers. It lingers through the week after Labor Day, which is always one of the most beautiful weekends of the season. School has started and the summer people have left the beach. But the summer isn’t done. One last glorious weekend, made perfect by nostalgia, by death in the air, by timelessness.
Oh, I’m not talking to you, San Francisco. I know it’s still 60 degrees just like it was three months ago. I’m talking to you, New York. Cheers!
--
You can reach Ann at arostow@aol.com.
BY ANN ROSTOW
How Many Republicans Does it Take…
Of all the disturbing images that struck me during my reluctant but obsessive viewing of the Republican convention, the one that haunts me came from the Thursday night Romney video. You know the one. The otherwise touching presentation of the candidate that was shoved off the networks by the people who decided Clint Eastwood’s deranged monologue would make a better impression on undecided voters.
The video was just fine. I’ve always been a little seduced by scenes of Mitt Romney’s family life. His obvious love for his wife and sons. His jocularity and fun loving spirit. I’m not fan of his candidacy of course, but this is his best side.
That said, there was a small, but significant, vignette that the pundits have overlooked. One of Mitt’s indistinguishable sons is shown puttering around the house, and pointing out one of Dad’s loveable attempts to play handyman. Seems the bulb went out above the stove, and instead of replacing it with a similar working bulb, Mitt grabbed the first thing that came to hand and screwed in a circular globe bulb that was much too large.
The globe worked fine, but since it was not a standard bulb, it stuck out, and blinded anyone working in the area. Mitt responded to this new kitchen dilemma by duct-taping a strip of aluminum foil over the offending light to shield the cook. The foil hung down several inches from the stove’s vent system.
The Romney Son displayed this example of Dad’s handiwork with an affectionate laugh. And we all would have laughed with him, except… Except that this is the man who’s only claim to the presidency is his businesslike approach to problem solving!
If this is how Mitt Romney handles a dead bulb, how will Mitt Romney handle Syria, Iran, American education policy, the European debt crisis, unemployment, the continuing housing crisis?
And it’s not just his inclination to solve the problem with the most convenient temporary solution, even when that solution doesn’t quite work. It’s the idea that when the solution is clearly proven wrong, and indeed creates new problems, that rather than take out the globe bulb and put in the correct size--- which he should have done in the first place--- his instinct is to devise a new solution to the new problem that leaves the original infirmity in place.
Left unsaid is the fact that the bad solution to the problem that was caused by the original bad solution has caused a new problem that we haven’t even addressed. Namely, the kitchen looks horrible. You have an ugly piece of foil taped to the top of the stove. Who lives with that? No one. Now, although it went beyond the scope of the video, someone will have to solve the problem of the hideous foil, and I’m guessing it will be someone who decides to go to the hardware store and buy a regular sized bulb.
Will that be Mitt? I doubt it.
--
Conventional Wisdom
Republicans? I’ll call your Marco Rubio and raise you the twin Castro brothers. I’ll call your Ann Romney and raise you Michelle Obama. I’ll call your obnoxious and self-serving New Jersey governor and raise you Massachusetts’ Deval Patrick, who had the conventioneers on their feet, screaming as one.
Since I’m writing on Wednesday, I only have one Democratic day to compare against the three days of the Republicans. But from what I‘ve seen, we’d win the match up even if we quit right now. My only complaint from Tuesday night was our friend and champion, Martin O’Malley, the governor of Maryland, who delivered his prime time speech with a moronic grin, looking like a TV game show host on speed.
Most of all, I’ll call your platform’s antigay amendment to the U.S, Constitution, and raise you our platform’s commitment to equal marriage rights for same-sex couples.
Unlike the Republicans, who ignored horrific details from their platform (personhood for fertilized eggs, unlimited bullet magazines, no abortion rights for rape victims) the Democrats walked the plank. Their historic commitment to marriage equality wasn’t a bone thrown to the GLBT community, never to be mentioned outside the fine print of the convention paperwork. Almost every speaker I heard made mention of the right to love who you love.
Indeed, this formulation emerged as the official gay rights lingo. Instead of just adding “LGBT” to the familiar list of categories, instead of simply tossing in “gay or straight” to the sing song: “black or white, Jewish or Catholic, old or young, rich or poor,” instead of turning our community into just another protected category, the speakers cut to the heart of why we’re in a special category to begin with. Not because of our sex lives, but because of our love lives.
I hate to use the trite term “tipping point.” We’ve been talking about “tipping points” for a decade now, and although we’re making great progress, I don’t feel as if we’ve officially “tipped.”
But in terms of the Democratic convention, the words fit. We’ve gone from outsiders, to sideliners, to headliners. We’ve tipped into the mainstream of the Democratic Party, where eight percent of the party’s delegates are LGBT. I gather Barney Frank is on the stage this evening (Wednesday) and although I find the cantankerous grouch irritating to watch, I appreciate the significance of his speaking spot. Even more interesting might be Wisconsin Senate candidate, lesbian Tammy Baldwin, on the schedule for Thursday night.
--
Kind Punishment
By popular request, I will explain to the best of my ability why a federal judge in Boston ordered the state to perform sex reassignment surgery on a transwoman who is serving time for murder.
Basically, the state cannot double down on punishment by denying appropriate medical treatment to a prisoner. None of us like murderers. But we don’t deny them a stent or a cast or an MRI or an artificial limb or a knee replacement. We can’t say, well so-and-so killed his wife, so who cares whether or not he has blurry vision? No cataract surgery for you buddy!
What’s changed in recent years is the medical and psychiatric view of gender dysphoria. Universal ridicule has given way to an understanding that untreated transgender men and women are dealing with a debilitating handicap. As such, the eighth amendment rights of transgender prisoners are taken seriously by most courts.
Not too long ago, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ordered the state of Wisconsin to provide hormone therapy to trans inmates, overturning a legislative attempt to outlaw such treatment. And it’s also noteworthy that the IRS has determined that reassignment surgery and treatment is now a deductible medical expense. It used to be considered elective or cosmetic surgery.
Trans discrimination in the workplace has also been beaten back by judges on both sides of the political aisle, who have begun in the last decade or so to put some steel into Title VII’s ban on gender stereotyping. And lawmakers are adding transgender protections to the antidiscrimination statutes in cities, counties and states around the country.
So getting back to Boston, the question of whether to perform an inmate’s sex change is not dissimilar to the question of whether to prescribe antibiotics to a prisoner with strep throat. Standard medical treatments are required for murderers behind bars along with the rest of us.
--
Preacher Is As Preacher Does
So here’s something. Nine “preachers” were arrested in New Orleans over the weekend and charged with violating a ban on people or groups that disseminate social, political or religious messages on Bourbon Street between sunset and dawn. The men were bothering the partygoers at Southern Decadence by spouting antigay commentary.
Hmmm. I’m not sure on what basis the news media has designated these men as “preachers.” A few of them are in their early 20s, which seems a little young for the term. Plus, what exactly is a “preacher?” It implies a religious status, but in truth I suppose anyone could make the claim, right?
But also, since when can New Orleans ban political speech on a particular street at a particular time? Maybe the city has a legitimate interest in preserving the atmosphere in the French Quarter for the lucrative tourist trade. Maybe the ordinance is more of a check on disturbing the peace. Maybe the ban is constitutional since a person could just go over one block and evangelize to their heart’s content. Whatever. The bottom line is that a bunch of loud young men were yelling slurs at the gay participants in the annual event. Eight were arrested for violating the city code and another man, or “preacher,” was charged with punching a police officer.
--
Straight Men Don’t Wear Teal
In other news, I’m seeing a lot of new headlines about John Travolta’s alleged gay lover. I haven’t clicked on them, because…oh just because. Does anyone doubt that Mr. Saturday Night likes to walk on the wild side? More importantly, does anyone care?
Far more interesting to me is the idea that Illinois Congressman Aaron Schock might be gay. Why? Because the Republican Schock has an antigay voting record and insists he’s as straight as an arrow. How delicious it would be to open the closet door and catch Mr. Schock cowering behind a pair of black leather pants and a sequined cowboy shirt!
So, do we have any evidence to suggest that Schock is deceiving his public? I’ll let you be the judge. According to the reports I’ve read, Schock once attended a White House picnic in white jeans, a hot pink gingham shirt and a teal belt. He also posed shirtless on the cover of Men’s Health, looking for all the world like a devoted gym rat. Oh, and he’s single.
I don’t know about you, but for me, the teal belt clinches it. The hot pink shirt? That could easily be a simple case of metrosexual style. But a teal belt? Sorry folks, the man’s either a professional golfer or he’s gay. Maybe Mr. Schock hasn’t yet recognized where his own heart lies. We have!
--
Do I Dare To Drink A Gin and Tonic?
I only have room for one more news item, but there’s nothing out there that screams for coverage. There are only whispers.
“Ann?” I hear a soft murmur.
“Do you know how horrible they are to gays in Liberia?”
I pause and listen more closely. Was that my imagination? Were the trees rustling? But there it is again.
“Hank Williams Jr. is a homophobe…gay days in Vegas…shhhhh…doctor in Australia did something bad… hate crime in southern California.” The voices drift lightly on the wind in a soft chorus of GLBT news. Nearly inaudible. I can’t quite catch them.
Perhaps there’s a reason for what can only be described as my disinterest in the ebb and flow of gay things happening around the globe. Perhaps instead of detailing our communal trials and tribulations, I should be sitting by our round kiddy pool, basking in the Texas heat with a biography of Antonin Careme and a tall glass of gin and Fever-Tree ™ bitter lemon over ice. With a touch of Compari and a twist. Not just any ice, but the square cubes that I use only for cocktails.
Yes, dear readers, it is September. But the summer lingers. It lingers through the week after Labor Day, which is always one of the most beautiful weekends of the season. School has started and the summer people have left the beach. But the summer isn’t done. One last glorious weekend, made perfect by nostalgia, by death in the air, by timelessness.
Oh, I’m not talking to you, San Francisco. I know it’s still 60 degrees just like it was three months ago. I’m talking to you, New York. Cheers!
--
You can reach Ann at arostow@aol.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)