What’s The Matter With Gay Republicans?

GLBT Week in Review, October 31, 2012

BY ANN ROSTOW

What’s The Matter With Gay Republicans?

I’ve been through quite a few presidential elections, but I can’t recall this level of anxiety. As I write, on Wednesday, I am flooded with the good kind of anxiety, the kind that expects to win but still fears losing. That is far preferable to a couple of weeks ago when my fragile confidence was slipping towards despair. But even so, I can’t stand much more of this. Can you?

If you are a gay or lesbian voter and you plan to vote for Romney, you had better have an extraordinary reason for doing so. Many, if not most of us, don’t consider ourselves single issue voters. And frankly, even though Democrats have historically been more supportive of gay rights, there was an argument to be made in past elections that the outcome would not affect our community in fundamental ways. (Not that I would have made that argument myself.)

But this election is different.

If Romney wins, the Justice Department will abandon its support for gay rights and switch back to support for the Defense of Marriage Act. The Supreme Court, which is almost certain to evaluate DOMA this session, will no doubt delay its procedures to allow the new administration to redraft its briefs. That’s the short run fallout. The long term likely includes a conservative replacement for Justice Ginsburg, a generational setback for all our hopes and dreams.

So, my dear Republican brothers and sisters, what exactly is so important this time around? Tax policy? The defense budget? It’s certainly not the deficit. Are you against abortion rights? Do you really think the austerity program that has brought Europe to its knees is a good idea for the United States? Or is it simply the case that you cannot separate your party affiliation from your core sense of self?

Let’s not belabor the point. I still love you.

--

Windsor Case Breakthrough Changes High Court Calculus

Before we give our insatiable appetite for election stories another snack, I am pleased to announce that we have some actual news to guide us in our idle rambles through the tangled woods of Supreme Court speculation. This week, instead of stringing together our usual succession of“what ifs,” we find ourselves in a lovely clearing thanks to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Oh, and we also have adorable forest animals gathered around, eyes wide and ears perked for the new developments.

On October 18, the Second Circuit issued an impressive ruling in our favor, astonishing for its speed and breadth. Just a few weeks after hearing oral arguments in the case of New York widow Edith Windsor, the 2-1 appellate panel struck Section Three of the Defense of Marriage Act as unconstitutional. In doing so, the panel took the historic step of ruling that sexual orientation discrimination should be evaluated with heightened legal scrutiny, a standard that forces the state to show that a law is substantially related to an important public interest.

Up until now, gay rights cases at the federal appellate level have always been judged under the lowest standard of legal review, a test as easy as pie that requires the plaintiff to prove that a law bears no rational relationship to any legitimate state interest. It’s the difference between getting a GED or graduating from Yale.

Can I add that I’ve never actually made a pie, which does not seem easy at all. I’ve been particularly intimidated by the idea of taking cold chunks of butter and shoving them into a mess of flour with a wooden spoon. How do people do that? Please do not answer this question unless you have a secret, easy-as-pie, technique to share.

Driven by my earlier metaphor, I must pause while the squirrels and bunnies clap their paws together and squeak with excitement. The bluebirds emit a happy caw and the fawns do a little dance. Settle down everyone, there’s more!

On Friday, October 26, the Justice Department asked the Supreme Court to shelve the other DOMA appeal petitions and accept review of the Windsor case. As you may recall, the High Court is now sitting on two DOMA cases out of Massachusetts which have already traveled through the First Circuit. They have also been asked to take review of two other DOMA suits that have yet to be heard by the intermediate courts (Golinski in California and Pedersen in Connecticut).

Now, Windsor has finished its lower court run and stands ready to become the main vehicle for the High Court’s definitive evaluation of the horrid anti-marriage law. Court observers think the justices will wait until their November 20 conference before deciding which DOMA case or cases to review. They may also decide whether or not to review the Prop 8 ruling at that meeting.

One caveat before we move on. Although most people think the High Court will strike the Defense of Marriage Act, it’s impossible to predict how the justices will handle the question of heightened scrutiny. To us, the status of gay bias should be a no brainer. Like race and religion, sexual orientation defines a minority class with a history of persecution based on animus alone. We lack political power and while the jury may still be out on whether sexual orientation is genetic, it’s clear that one should not have to change orientation in order to avoid public discrimination.

But the Court will be wary of agreeing with the Second Circuit. Why? Because if they do, they will effectively end the legal debate over gay rights in one stroke. It’s more likely that they’ll manage to avoid a yes or no answer.

--

State Marriage Battles Down to the Wire

Now, let’s look at the four marriage ballot measures. All year long, we’ve seen strong support for equality in Washington, Maine and Maryland. Loyal readers will recall that this column has regarded the polls with a skeptic’s eye. Bruised and battered by the swing voter who comes home with a dozen roses and claims he’ll never lift a finger against us again, we will believe it when we see it.

Now, with the election six days away, that voter is swinging into the house demanding dinner on the table and asking why the kids’toys are cluttering the floor. Can we simply fix him a martini? Or are we about to get creamed?

In Maryland, where our support was something like 52 to 43 just a couple of weeks ago, the most recent poll said 47 percent of voters would repeal the marriage equality law, while 46 would uphold our rights. Six percent were undecided.

In Maine, polls continue to show that a majority of 52 percent to 57 percent of voters support marriage equality, but I can’t find a really recent poll to confirm the advantage.

And over in Washington, our double digit lead has narrowed to a four-point edge as of a poll released October 24. Lord knows where it might be at this moment, let alone next Tuesday.

Minnesota voters, by contrast, will not be voting to legalize same-sex marriage, but to outlaw it by constitutional amendment. Again, polls are just slightly in our favor, but I heard from one insider that we are likely to lose by a couple clicks.

Last week, the head of HRC said that even one win in these four contests would be considered a “narrative changing” event, which is true but implies a certain pessimism from our top lobbyists. But look, I’m still hoping for the best.

As a self-described “reporter,” it’s my job to avoid hopping on the cheerleading bandwagon when polls are in our favor months out from the election. But now that we may indeed see defeat snatched from the jaws of victory, I can afford to indulge my inner activist.

We will win Maine. We will win Washington. We have a good shot to win Minnesota, when you consider that blank ballots count in our favor. And as for Maryland, who knows? We have the ardent support of the state’s Democratic governor, Martin O’Malley, and we have the energy of a Democratic state. I’m not writing off the Soft Shell Crab State just yet.

I’m getting out the Hendrick’s.

--.

Bad Boy

I just don’t have the heart for anti-gay violence this week. Sometimes it’s just too much. I will, however, mention that a gay Republican, who claimed he was beaten up by Democratic campaign supporters, has been charged with filing a false police report and obstructing police.

Kyle Wood was a volunteer for GOP Congressional candidate, Chad Lee of Wisconsin. Last week, Wood claimed that he was attacked at a rally for Lee’s opponent, Madison state rep. Mark Pocan, who is gay himself. Wood ran around telling every media outlet who would listen that he was assaulted around the head and neck for being a gay Republican, and that Pocan’s husband sent him threatening texts.

Now, Madison Police Captain Joe Balles tells the press that the accusations were unfounded and that Wood will be facing criminal charges. The Lee campaign, which originally supported Wood, has now fired him, and local media have removed earlier coverage of the story from their websites. Wood reportedly also has a record for trying to attack his former boyfriend with a butcher’s knife in 2008.

Far be it for me to suggest the man was struggling with the existential tension of being a gay Republican. It’s more likely that he was simply unbalanced. For whatever reason. Nothing to do with politics.

--

Mob Justice?

Hey. I just saw on the news crawl that someone found a human skeleton inside a tree that was downed by Hurricane Sandy. Paging Dr. Temperance Brennan! I’m going to look it up.

Never mind. It was just some 19^th century gravesite. Meanwhile, I should tell you that the marriage equality law in France is still on track, but seems to be delayed until November. Oh, and a gay man was elected governor of Sicily. I kind of love that image, don’t you?

Here’s the scene I imagine in Baltimore’s Little Italy. Four men, sitting in the corner alcove at Luigi’s Pizzaria.

“Sammy. I gotta message from the home office.”

“What gives?”

“We want this Question 6 business taken care of. Know what I mean?”

“Yeah boss, but I dunno. We can’t whack every no voter in the state.”

“Just do what you have to do. Make it happen.”

Well, a girl can dream, right? Oh, of course I’m not advocating mob hits on antigay voters in Maryland! Maybe a few tire irons to the kneecaps, that’s all. Alternatively, we can win on the merits.

--

Close Calls

I just wrote a final paragraph about the election, hit one button on this unfamiliar Windows version of my word processing program, and deleted the entire column down to a single letter, “b” if you care.

I quickly saved that file under another name and reverted to this one, but still! How could that happen? On my Mac, I just have to delete the previous accident and all is restored. That solution may also exist on this computer, but it’s not obvious.

Yes, I’m happy that I saved the vast bulk of this fascinating diatribe (quick wittedly I might add). But I remain too traumatized by the experience to reconstruct my final rant against Mitt Romney. Trust me, it was eloquent indeed.

One button! That’s all it took. I didn’t select the text. I just hit something. I’m not sure where the “b” came from, but basically I experienced total reversal of circumstances, without warning, in an instant.

I can’t help but take a life lesson from the moment. Yes, it will be a stunning setback for this country if Romney is elected. But you know what? It won’t delete our entire national script. We will survive, Democrats and Republicans alike. I may have told you about the desperate search for alcohol that followed the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980, a search that culminated in the consumption of the Crème de Menthe that had lurked under my sink for several years. Next week, should the unthinkable transpire, Mel and I may finally drink the banana bread beer that my stepson and his wife bought for the household in the summer of 2011. I can only pray that fate will spare us.

Apres Mitt, Le Deluge

GLBT Week in Review, October 17, 2012
BY ANN ROSTOW



Apres Mitt, Le Deluge

Buzzfeed’s Chris Geidner, the best reporter on GLBT legal issues, has a good piece on the impact of a Romney victory on our challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act now pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. To paraphrase, if Romney wins, we’re screwed.

Oh, not totally. It’s still possible that the High Court could strike the Defense of Marriage Act even if the Justice Department changes the official position of the United States government. But it’s somewhat less likely, don’t you think?

You recall that the Obama administration has refused to defend the Defense of Marriage Act based on a conviction that sexual orientation discrimination should be held to a tough legal standard like cases of race or faith-based bias. But that policy, which puts the power of the Justice Department on our side, will simply be reversed if Romney wins the presidency.

Further, since the High Court is apparently waiting until after November 6 to decide whether or not to take review of one or more DOMA cases, it’s pretty clear that the justices would delay the whole process if Romney were to win.

Even though Obama would remain in office until late January, the Court would surely ask the incoming Justice Department to present their views. Likewise, the status of the House Republicans who are currently defending DOMA would come into play. If the Justice Department reverts to defending DOMA, there’s no need for the House to continue in its current role. Well, just read Geidner’s post. It’s complicated. Or as Ming Ming of the Wonder Pets would say: “This. Is. Sewious.”

Here in our own trenchant review of GLBT law and politics, we have often harped on the strangely underappreciated impact of Obama’s decision two years ago to put the country’s legal stamp on the notion that gay bias is presumptively unconstitutional.

Remember when everyone was all hot under the collar because Obama had yet to officially come out in favor of marriage equality? Hey, it was great that he did, but in all the hoopla surrounding that symbolic statement, we seemed oblivious to the fact that he had already put his money where his mouth had yet to go. Obama has exceeded our community’s hopes and dreams for a leader, and he has done so, under the radar, using the most effective tactic under his command--- constitutional law. (Recall that I bashed Obama on his lackadaisical approach to gay rights for a full two years prior to February 2011, so I’m not a natural sycophant.)
--


Long Island Railroad

The vast majority of GLBT voters are Democrats or leaning left, but back in 2000, 25 percent of the gay vote went to George W Bush. You can attribute Bush’s victory to the dice or slice of any demographic, but the fact is, GLBT Republicans made the difference. Please gay Republicans, don’t do it this time around. You can tack back to the right at the midterms, but stick with the larger community just this once.

I’m guessing, and hoping, that four years from now, not even a Republican administration will be comfortable leading an antigay charge. But as far as we’ve come, we’re still poised on the cusp of equality and now is not the moment to take a step back.

Under these circumstances, it was with profound relief that I watched Obama crush Romney in last night’s debate. I know my biased reaction is not universal, but it’s important that Obama fans like me viewed the debate as a TKO. That means that mild supporters thought he won, and Romney voters felt at least a frisson of disappointment.

Their man was hectoring. He stumbled on issues. His T was way too high. He looked petulant. The “act of terror” vignette was like the pick six late in the fourth quarter that puts your team up by two touchdowns. And Obama’s last answer put the game away for good.

As for the “binders full of women,” Ladies, let’s give Romney a break. We’ve all been there.
--



Wallowing Out of the Closet

Moving on, you may or may not have noticed that the annual Coming Out Day has come and gone. Once a critical strategy for advancing public opinion in our direction, “coming out” has served its purpose and is drifting into the pages of history. No longer do middle-aged or thirty-something men and women creep out of closets. It’s something you do in your teens, and it’s not even a closet anymore.

Of course, there are exceptions, and I’m not trying to minimize the difficulty of being gay in many areas of the country or in many conservative enclaves. But things have changed. And to prove it, I’ve just learned that Honey Boo Boo’s uncle is a proud, openly gay man, who lives with his partner in rural Georgia.

Say what? You’ve never heard of Honey Boo Boo? She is the 7-year-old reality star who recently came out in favor of same-sex marriage. Now, we learn that Uncle Poodle may have had a hand in keeping his niece real. Honey Boo Boo reportedly heard someone calling a gay man a “poodle.” Her uncle explained that it was a gay slur, but encouraged Boo Boo to use it as an affectionate nickname.

“Make no mistake,” Uncle Poodle told the Georgia Voice, “I am still as redneck as I can get. My husband and I live in Milledgeville because we want to be out in the country, because we want to be somewhere we can fish and jump on a four wheeler, go hog wallowing.”

Here’s the thing. We are all out now. Not just the single men living in the Castro or the committed lesbians living in Park Slope. The slogan “we are everywhere” used to suggest to the average citizen that his or her doctor or butcher or candlestick maker might secretly be gay. Now the phrase can be taken literally.

I am reminded of the dramatic scene at the New Hampshire diner back before the primary. Mitt Romney approached a grizzled veteran, wearing a flannel shirt and a hat that indicated he had served in Vietnam. “Ah. A Vietnam vet,” chortled the candidate. When the man asked what Romney thought of gay marriage, Mitt proudly announced that marriage was between a man and a woman, smugly assuming that his position would meet with the man’s approval.

But then, the man asked why the same-sex spouse of a veteran should be denied benefits. Romney’s aides picked up on possible trouble and whisked Mittens to safety with a cursory goodbye. At once, the press descended on 63-year-old Bob Garon, asking why he cared about the issue.

“Because I’m gay, alright?” Garon growled. “And I happen to love a man just like you probably love your wife. Alright? And I think that he or she or whatever are entitled to the same rights that I have. I fought for my country, I did my thing, and I think that my spouse should be entitled to the same entitlements as if I was married to a woman.” (Find this on you tube.)

Bottom line? The community of openly gay men and women is not confined to florists and PE teachers anymore. We are your mechanics, your veterans, your bankers, your grocers and we can hog wallow with the best of you.
--


Don’t Bite Me, Bro

My news list this week includes the cryptic entry: “nose inmate,” a reference to a gay prisoner who got into a fight with a homophobe who chomped off his nose. Man alive! I’d look up the details for you but I think this item transcends the general theme of antigay violence.

First of all, let’s just stipulate that weird and horrible things happen to people in prison. You get stabbed with sharpened toothbrushes, sexually assaulted in the shower, sold to the guy in the next cell for a pack of smokes. Whatever. It seems like a hellish place. But second, anyone who would bite off someone’s nose is a psychopath. Does it matter if a psychopath is also “antigay?” Isn’t that sort of like objecting to the anti-Semitic views of a serial killer?

I also have a story about a Christian man who went “undercover” into the gay community and emerged (cue violins) with a deeper understanding of the trials and tribulations we take for granted. Oh, and a Greek TV censor killed a same-sex kiss on Downton Abbey. Hmmm. Even in the midst of economic, financial and societal crisis, we can still drill down to unearth a nugget of GLBT news out of Greece. Also, why haven’t we seen this same-sex kiss? I’ll check.

Turns out we did see it, although I missed the episode. Apparently Thomas, the scheming footman, kissed a visiting duke.
--


The Eyes Have It

Here’s something. I was just reading about a 10-year-old girl in Burien, Washington, who checked out a Japanese comic book from the local public library. Her uncle, clearly not a Poodle type, was appalled to discover that the publication featured detailed scenes of rough gay sex. (Guys who would like to follow up on this story can search for “Hero Heel” by Makoto Tateno, second volume.)

Honestly, I think society should make it extremely difficult for 10-year-olds to obtain graphic pornography, whether it be gay or straight. It’s reprehensible for a public library to isolate a gay family book like “Heather has Two Mommies,” a book that was expressly written for kids. But it’s quite reasonable to tuck volume two of “Hero Heel” in the back shelves of the adults-only Manga porn section. C’mon. If the pre-pubescent set really wants to get their hands on this sort of content, let them sneak around like every other generation.

In unrelated vaguely Japanese news, I’d like to point out that Paul Ryan has “sanpaku” eyes, the kind that show a lot of white underneath the iris. According to ancient lore, the characteristic presages an untimely death. Both John Kennedy and Abraham Lincoln were afflicted, as were Julius Caesar, Adolf Hitler, Marilyn Monroe and Princess Diana.

I’m also reading that people with sanpaku eyes may be in poor physical or mental health and/or may be under a great deal of stress.

Interesting, don’t you think? I also just learned that Paul Ryan’s wife went to my tiny high school outside of Austin, Texas. I know you couldn’t care less, dear Readers, but it was an odd shock to my system. I gather the wannabe veep is holding a $1,000-a-plate lunch here in Austin tomorrow. I forget Ryan’s wife’s name, but I think we were told that she grew up in Oklahoma somewhere, and that Paul enjoys visiting her hometown where he can noodle catfish.

There was a time when I’d assume Ryan was tossing out these anecdotes in an effort to curry favor with a certain rightwing country cohort. Now, I don’t know what to think. How many gay men were hunkering down with Paul beside the creek with their arm down the throat of a fat catfish? Could Paul even tell?

Don’t get me wrong. I’m happy to let go of my gay stereotypes and embrace my gay brothers in the mud flats and the crawfish ponds. It will take some time, that’s all. I may have to go through a transition period where I imagine these big fellas singing a few old show tunes in harmony in between noodles and wallows. Oklahoma would be most appropriate.
--


arostow@aol.com