Merry Christmas

She Went To the Liquor Store!

She Went To the Liquor Store!

Is it my imagination, or have the holidays snuck up on us really fast this year? Halloween was just a week or so ago. Thanksgiving came and went in a flash. And now, I seem to have arrived at the edge of Christmas without warning. Usually, I have a month or so to complain about tacky lights and irritating music. Usually, I moan and groan about stores that prematurely deck the halls and malls with fussy kitsch.

But this year, I’ve hardly noticed! The timing seems fine. The lights and decorations are perfectly appropriate with the glaring exception of a neighbor who arranged a garish display of purple and pink centered around a big peace sign. Hey buddy. Ever heard of property values? As for shopping, our efforts at thoughtful personal gifts broke down and we got all the kids bottles of Bollinger for Christmas. Yes it lacked imagination. But which would you rather have, a book? Or a bottle of excellent Champagne? So what if they’re underage!

Oh I’m joking. They’re all grown up. One thing that hasn’t dropped off my annual list of holiday peeves is the commercials for jewelry. This year, I am most appalled by the ads for diamonds that are offered in weird colors and look like they came out of a gumball machine. The worst offenders are the “chocolate” diamonds that frankly, look like, well I don’t want to say the word in a family newspaper.

You know, diamonds are judged on purity, on clarity, on the remarkable fractal glint. They are gifts from Earth, from Nature herself, forged over millennia, extracted with great effort and cut, refined and polished by master artisans. So you take this precious gem and deliberately turn it a hideous shade of brown? Sorry. Who thought of that? What’s next? A string of hand-picked pearls dyed hot pink? Blue dye in the Bollinger?

And then there’s the mild, but still annoying, sexism of the whole “he went to Jarrod” theme, as if women are dolls to be adorned with trinkets or little girls to be enchanted by a glittery bauble. A sub-theme here is the notion that the clueless guy has to be educated or else he might buy his wife a chain saw.

Let’s just say that the gender stereotypes abound during the Christmas season.  For the record, none of this rant should be interpreted to mean that I personally would reject a gift from Jarrod if Mel is inclined to wander over there. Just don’t get me colored diamonds.

--

What’s The Matter With India?

I’m sorry to toss bad news into our festive ambiance, but a couple of weird things happened earlier this month. First, the Indian Supreme Court, or whatever the highest court is called, reinstated the nation’s sodomy laws. Yes, you read that right.

Then, after several dozen same-sex couples got married in the Australian capital city of Canberra, the nation’s high court struck the local marriage equality law, declaring that marriage in Australia was a federal institution. Either the whole country legalizes marriage, or no one does. Thus died the Australian Capitol Territory marriage law that went into effect for a few days before the High Court ruled.

I can hear some of you thinking, so what? Who cares what happens in Canberra or Calcutta? There’s a part of me that also ignores news from distant lands, but still. Throughout this extraordinary last few years in the United States, our victories have arrived against a background of global progress. As we’ve celebrated marriage in Maine and Minnesota, we’ve been dimly aware that marriage has also been legalized in Uruguay, or some part of Mexico, or France or the U.K.. Gay rights may advance beneath our radar in foreign climes, but it’s still pleasant to sense the growing trend in the right direction.

All the bad things that have happened in the world seem located in Africa, or the Middle East or Russia. Subconsciously, I simply figure that these areas will catch up eventually. But India? Really?

Laws in India against unnatural sex were codified in the mid-1800s by whatever British overseers were assigned to such tasks. Like other sodomy laws, they evolved into a weapon for antigay police or officials, but it seemed they lost their teeth back in 2009, when a lower court ruled that they could not be enforced except in cases of rape or underage sex. That ruling, out of the Delhi Supreme Court, was not appealed by the federal government. But into the breach leapt a group of right wing religious types to send the issue to the nation’s top jurists.

It was universally assumed that the High Court would go along with the lower court, but instead the justices came out with their own version of Bowers v Hardwick, right down to a comment from one justice who said he doesn’t know any gay people. The Court said basically that the law is not a big deal, and that homosexuals don’t really constitute a class deserving of constitutional attention. If the law is that bad, they said, then it should be overturned through the political process.

The good news is that many of India’s parliamentary leaders were also pretty shocked by the decision, and a proposal to repeal the sodomy law will likely be presented for debate before too long. That said, who knows the inner workings of the Indian Parliament? Not me, but my impression is that it’s neither a bastion of liberalism nor a model of comity. Will the sodomy repeal languish as other issues take precedence?

The bottom line is that these two reversals, one after another, remind us that we’re not done. We’re not done in the world, and we’re not done here at home, where a setback could strike just as easily. It’s a warning against complacency.

--

Guarding Georgia

I always manage to ignore warnings against complacency, don’t you? There’s something so enjoyable and relaxing and pleasant about complacency. And what’s the alternative? Worry, anxiety, Plan B, wariness, pessimism. That’s no fun. And surely not during the holidays!

Here’s some good news. You know those antigay states that were insisting that members of their national guard could not sign up for same-sex marriage benefits unless they traveled to a federal facility? They’ve all dropped their stubborn defiance and agreed to, well, follow the law as articulated by the Supreme Court and the Defense Department.

State national guards are basically branches of the federal government, so it matters little what Georgia or Texas thinks of marriage equality. Nonetheless, these and some other states tried to sidestep recognition of same-sex marriages by refusing to process paperwork for married gay guards, despite stern warnings from Chuck Hagel and company. Bottom line: they’ve all caved. Ha!

And one of those pompous little Christian business owners got shot down by an administrative judge in Colorado, who ordered Masterpiece Cakeshop to suck it up and stop discriminating against gay wedding clientele. The Denver bakers insisted that they would be happy to make a birthday cake for a gay man or woman, but drew the line at weddings or commitment ceremonies because they did not want to violate God’s rules and regulations. (Cue: loud thunderclap)

The judge noted that the bakers operate a public establishment, subject to state antidiscrimination law, and that neither a claim of artistic free speech or religious expression could exempt them from a general, secular statute. The bakers cannot become a law under themselves; they cannot violate the rights of gay customers and parade their prejudice in the trappings of faith.

Good. I really hate this line of “defense” against gay rights laws. And I long to see other mean-spirited entrepreneurs get their comeuppance at the hands of thoughtful judges.

--

Big Deal Over Big Love

So, I have to take issue with the headline writers who have recently proclaimed that a federal judge in Utah “struck down polygamy laws.” I mean, come on! Indeed the judge ruled against a bizarre statute that banned “religious cohabitation.” As far as I understand it, you could live with six or seven roommates in Utah, but not if you considered yourselves a polygamous household. At the same time, the judge also made clear that you can only have one legal marriage. By rights, the headlines should have read: “Judge Legalizes Large Households.”

In other words, polygamy laws are alive and well in Utah, but you wouldn’t know it from the reaction by our friends on the Other Side. “We told you so! First same-sex marriage, and now…polygamy! Everyone scoffed at the idea of a slippery slope. And here we go, sliding off the cliff!” I don’t know if conservatives just haven’t bothered to look at the details of the case, or whether they’ve cynically turned it into a deceptive talking point, but it’s bothersome.

Speaking of polygamy, I read another dark warning from the Family Research Council about the threat of same-sex couples getting married twice, once to a same-sex spouse, and subsequently to an opposite-sex spouse. It seems that this might be possible under the laws of states that do not recognize gay couples, and in fact, the Attorney General of North Dakota recently wrote that a married gay spouse would have the right to enter a straight marriage in his state without getting a divorce. Since he or she would not be considered married to begin with, it would be perfectly legal to apply for a straight license and check off the box marked “single.”

I’m not sure what the writer was worried about. Did she want North Dakota to recognize the gay marriage and preclude the straight one? Is she worried that the straight couple might have problems down the road if they move to a state that recognizes the first marriage? Here again, the headline on this story read: “Legal Opinion: Same Sex Marriage Could Lead to Polygamy,” although it’s not clear how this horrific descent might be navigated.

Let’s be clear. The patchwork of marriage policies across the country will create numerous complications. At the same time, I don’t think we have to devote much attention to the many gay couples who break up and run off to the Red States with their straight paramours.

--

The Unbearable Lightness of Baker

What else. I have some news about Methodists. Spike that. And a Pennsylvania official has asked the Third Circuit to rule on whether the 1972 same-sex marriage case of Baker v Nelson is a legitimate Supreme Court precedent. Hmmm. Now that’s an interesting subject.

Oh stop. It really is. Our foes in the legal fight for marriage cling to this forty-year-old one-liner from the High Court as if to a branch that is saving them from falling into a canyon. Yes, back in the day the Supremes dismissed a marriage case from the Minnesota Supreme Court “for want of a federal issue.” In other words, the Court refused to review state marriage laws based on the idea that marriage was a state issue. The justices heard no arguments and read no briefs. The Minnesota court had of course refused to allow a same-sex marriage, so, to evoke Stein, there was no there there.

Our opponents would have you believe that this means the Supreme Court has already ruled on the issue of same-sex marriage in a binding precedent that should stand for all time. Never mind that the idea of same-sex marriage was nothing short of ludicrous back in 1972, a time when homosexuality was a psychiatric disorder and sodomy laws ruled the land. Never mind that the nation has since been transformed, that real binding gay rights precedents have since been articulated, that marriage is now legal in over a dozen states, and that there is no question that the rights of marriage are a legitimate focus for scrutiny under the federal Constitution.

Indeed, the very dispute over whether or not Baker v Nelson has judicial stature should be moot. But still, the citation pops to the surface of every antigay brief. In this case, a federal judge in one of the Pennsylvania marriage cases (there’s also a state case) ruled that the subject matter was properly in federal court, notwithstanding Baker. The state now wants to put the merits of the marriage suit on hold while it scurries up to the Third Circuit to resolve this faux question of law. Personally, I’d like to see Baker properly trashed by a federal appellate court. But it’s still absurd.

Merry Christmas!

Corporations…Corporations Who Love Corporations

GLBT Week in Review, December 4, 2013

BY ANN ROSTOW

 

Corporations…Corporations Who Love Corporations

 

Hello dear readers. The holiday GLBT news lull continues on its meandering drift towards Twelfth Night, and yet we are not completely becalmed. Indeed, the High Court has just accepted a couple of cases that may not directly involve gay rights, but will certainly have a major impact on our community’s legal position in the future. So much so, in fact, that I would have expected every GLBT newspaper, blog and website to cover this story with a rainbow blanket.

 

And yet? The blockbuster is ignored! But fear not. The San Francisco Bay Times will never shirk its duty to keep you up to date on any and all gay-significant nuances in constitutional jurisprudence, and this time, there’s more than a nuance at stake.

 

Last week, the Supreme Court agreed to decide whether or not a for-profit corporation has the same right to religious expression as a person under the First Amendment. The issue at hand is the obligation to provide insurance for the full range of contraception under Obamacare, but it could just as easily involve the duty to welcome gay customers under a state antidiscrimination law.

 

The legal underpinnings are basically identical. Under a fairly recent law (passed in the early 1990s) the state may not infringe upon our religious comings and goings without a compelling interest, and even then, the trespass must be narrowly targeted towards that interest. Think drug laws that prevent you from your favorite peyote ritual. Or maybe our recent example of laws against handling venomous snakes in church--- a policy now under court challenge in Tennessee.

 

Certainly, no state authority could force you to take contraceptives, particularly those that might prevent an egg from implanting in the uterus after fertilization. But can the state force a company to offer health insurance that includes this option? What if the company’s officers think it’s wrong? What if the company’s objections are founded on religious beliefs? If the answer is no, then surely a company also has the right to ignore gay rights laws for faith-based reasons.

 

Maybe “surely” is too strong, because there’s also a case to be made that gay bias is not a valid “religious belief,” any more than racial prejudice can be justified by scripture. But let’s just say that a Supreme Court ruling that recognizes corporate personhood for the purposes of religious expression is not an opinion any of us would welcome.

 

Many commentators have scoffed at the notion that a corporation is a person, but corporations certainly have constitutional rights, and commercial speech has always been given First Amendment protection. That said, it’s always been far less expansive than the protection accorded to an individual speaker. That limitation appeared to be, shall we say, “relaxed” under Citizens United, the ruling that allowed corporations to pour zillions of dollars into the political coffers under the guise of Free Speech.

 

Given the precedent of Citizens United, some fear the Roberts Court will be only too happy to bend the rules for conservative companies like Hobby Lobby and their likeminded buddies at some Mennonite furniture company who are also suing for religious exemption to the Affordable Care Act. At the appellate level, Hobby Lobby won their case at the Tenth Circuit, while the Mennonites lost at the Third Circuit. Or maybe the reverse. Let’s just say there was a split between the two appellate courts which probably inspired the justices to accept review.

 

The core problem with laws that purport to lift religious expression high and above the secular rules and regulations that serve society as a whole is this: who decides what specific form of religious expression deserves a transcendent status? As I implied before, the notion that “gays are evil,” is not a tenet of any religion. It’s a traditional attitude that is linked to, but not intrinsic to, various conservative faiths.

 

Likewise, when is a feature of religious expression a deal breaker, like eating kosher meals, and when is it a superficial gimmick, like wanting to wear a kitchen strainer on your head for your driver’s license because you’re a Pastafarian? Don’t get me wrong. I love the Pastafarians, who worship the Spaghetti Monster and drink beer every Friday, but can they claim First Amendment protection? Indeed, they were created to test exactly this kind of conundrum, and in at least one case they have won the right to wear strainers for their license photos. That may have been in Europe, but the question remains. Who decides these things? Who picks and chooses between the Wiccans and the peyote guys, and the Christians and the Muslims, and all the people who might define their own personal religious mandates?

 

The dilemma is tough enough when individuals are involved, but throw in corporations and we’ll have a real nightmare. Meanwhile, I should mention that Britain’s highest court has just ruled against an inn keeper who wanted to ban gay couples from sharing a room. And I know you remember the case of the photographer in New Mexico who wanted to ignore state antidiscrimination laws and refuse service for a gay commitment ceremony. That case is on appeal to the Supreme Court, but the justices have yet to decide whether to take review. Two other cases are in various stages of litigation; a baker in Colorado and a florist in Washington. And I have no doubt that there are others on the list.

--

 

All Aboard!

 

Speaking of the High Court, I read somewhere that they have accepted even fewer cases than usual for this winter, a decline that follows a trend of accepting fewer and fewer petitions in general. I’m sure they have their reasons, but then I wonder when I learn that they have just heard oral arguments on the trenchant question of whether or not an airline can dump a “platinum” VIP club member simply because he complains incessantly about every little thing.

 

The answer may be yes. Apparently airlines have a lot of control over their customer dealings. Frankly I don’t care whether the answer is yes or no. I only care whether or not they’re making the best use of their valuable time.

 

Actually, I do care. I sort of hope the whiner gets dumped. Apparently, he’s lodged 24 official complaints against Northwest airlines over the past eight months, and tried to demand undeserved discounts and other perks that go well beyond his platinum status. I hate people like this. Litigious, arrogant, and obsessed with petty accoutrements of success. Plus, he’s a rabbi! Isn’t there something in the Torah about this kind of frivolous nitpicking?

 

And what is it with these airline categories? Have you flown recently? Have you noticed that there’s a lengthening list of people who can board first? I think the kids still go first, or maybe the First Class passengers. But then come the platinum people, followed by the gold people, followed by the priority boarding people, followed by the special club people. Now, they’ve stuck active military people into the mix at some point, as well as people without carry-on luggage.

 

Yet everyone still hangs around in a big anxious crowd, waiting for their designation to be called so they can rush into the packed jetway the very first chance they get. Why not sit back and wait until most people are gone and then board? Are people afraid someone will take their seat? The specific numbered seat that is already assigned and printed on their boarding pass?

 

I may have previously mentioned the height of boarding mania. And that is the phenomenon of Southwest passengers who obtain an “A” pass and proceed to stand in the “A” line up to an hour before the plane is scheduled. Presumably they went to great lengths to get the early seating in order to make their trip a little bit nicer. But instead of taking advantage of a guaranteed position, they impose an added and unnecessary hardship on themselves, for what reason? In order to be three rows closer to the front? Is that worth an hour on their feet?

 

Would you give up a perfectly good Bloody Mary for that? I wouldn’t. Let alone the two or three that I could down if given sixty minutes in an airport bar. (There’s something about airports that nullifies all the rules on drinking.)

--

 

Divorce, Gay Style

 

Moving right along, I see that a state court judge in Mississippi has denied a divorce to two lesbians who married in California in 2008. According to press reports, the judge seemed sympathetic to the women’s plight, but was hamstrung by the state’s antigay amendment that considers same-sex marriages void.

 

We have the same problem in Texas, where the state supreme court has recently heard arguments on two gay divorce cases, but where antigay blowhards, um, lawyers from the Attorney General’s office, insist our marriages are also void from the start. There’s another divorce case pending in Kentucky, and you may recall that Wyoming surprised everyone a couple of years ago by actually allowing a gay divorce to proceed. That said, unlike Mississippi, Texas and Kentucky, the Brokeback State has no amendment defining marriage and no statute that specifically bars recognition of same-sex marriage.  

 

There are a number of legal side streets in the fight for marriage equality that can theoretically lead us to victory, and divorce is one of them. Our main routes, of course, are to argue our constitutional rights, either to marriage under the Due Process Clause, or to equal treatment under the Equal Protection Clause. But we now have dozens of active cases around the country, and several of them target tangential issues.

 

Can we divorce? Can we sue for loss of consortium if our civil union partner died from malpractice before we had the right to marry? Even if we can’t marry in our state, can our out of state marriage be recognized? Can it be recognized for the purposes of a death certificate? How about for a death benefit from a private employer?  

 

Some of these indirect suits may turn out to be detours towards equality. But others may be shortcuts, and still others may serve to weaken marriage discrimination, even if they don’t defeat it completely. I thought it significant that long before we triumphed over Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, federal bankruptcy laws were effectively allowed to recognize same-sex couples. Why? Because the process of disentangling joint estates was simply too cumbersome for bankruptcy court and not fair to the creditors either.

 

That change flew under the radar and it’s possible that many instances of marriage recognition will fly under the radar as well. A divorce in Wyoming. A death certificate in Ohio. A death payment in Pennsylvania. A state tax form in Missouri. These things add up.

--

 

Can You Berra Nother Marriage Item?

 

Here’s a confusing situation Down Under. The Australian Capital Territory, a jurisdiction that includes the Australian capital of Canberra, approved a same-sex marriage law a couple of months ago, a law that was promptly contested by the federal government in a challenge to the highest court.

 

The six justices heard the case December 3, but the government did not request an injunction against the weddings, and none was ordered. As such, weddings are scheduled to begin December 8 under terms of the new law. Since the justices will not rule on the underlying question of marriage equality until December 12, it sounds as if gay couples in the capital will be able to get married for at least four days. There are something like 377,000 people living in the Territory, so I’d guess there could be several thousand gay couples.

 

And what will happen if the Court re-bans marriage? It’s not clear to me, ergo the use of the adjective “confusing” in the lead sentence.

 

Finally, I didn’t tell you about Croatia’s new anti-marriage law. Nor did I mention oral arguments on marriage in federal court in Utah, or a federal marriage case dismissed in Louisiana. And since my time is up, I will leave you with those intriguing bits of information. Croatia is particularly tantalizing, n’est-ce pas?

--

arostow@aol.com

 

Toot Toot! Equality Junction!

Rostow Report, November 2013
BY ANN ROSTOW


Toot Toot! Equality Junction!

Marriage is bustin’ out all over. Last month, New Jersey became the 14th state to legalize marriage (through court order), and this month we’re looking at a marriage bill cruising through the Hawaii legislature and a pending marriage opinion from the New Mexico Supreme Court.  Perhaps even in Illinios.

Meanwhile, the Oregon attorney general’s office has decided that same-sex marriages from out of state should be recognized. Although an AG opinion is usually a guidepost rather than an order, Oregon authorities quickly issued statewide directives, instructing all Beaver agencies to comply with this policy. And obviously, a decision to recognize same-sex marriages is very very close to a decision to legalize marriage.

So, it’s all good! That is if you don’t count the other 30 or so states that stand before us, arms crossed, defiant. Those states with beady little red eyes who proclaim that our marriages are dead to them! Dead! But you know what? Even those states will watch helplessly as the stony edifice of ignorance and hate crumbles around them and sends them tumbling into the warm embrace of equality!
--


Here’s Mud in Your Buckeye

Do any dog owners out there have a problem with daylight savings time? As I write my dogs are pacing the floor, giving me the evil eye because I am not feeding them on the precise schedule that they have managed to internalize like toddlers at snack time. I have explained about the time change, but they continue with their pained outrage.

As for marriage, we have about two zillion lawsuits floating around this country, many of them triggered by the High Court’s June ruling in Windsor that the federal government is obligated to respect the legal marriages of gay citizens.

As you know, the Windsor decision said nothing about whether marriage equality was mandated by the Constitution. But it said a lot about whether the government could ignore a marriage once issued by a state. And if the government is required to acknowledge our marriages, why shouldn’t the red state next door be compelled to do the same?

Windsor doesn’t answer that question directly, but its signals suggest we have a strong argument in favor of forced marriage recognition. Check out the lawsuit in Ohio that asks a federal court to make the state list same-sex spouses on death certificates. Ohio has an antigay marriage amendment in its constitution, but the court has already made an exception for one married man who was at death’s door (and subsequently died). If the court extends that ruling to everyone, how then can Ohio continue to ignore same-sex marriages in other respects?

And if Ohio must recognize marriage, then why not Oklahoma, or Florida? You get the picture.
--


Tip of the Icebergs

So what else is new? How about the Christian diners who left the following note for their waiter at a Carrabba’s restaurant in Overland Park, Kansas:

“Thank you for your service, it was excellent. That being said, we cannot in good conscience tip you, for your homosexual lifestyle is an affront to God. Queers do not share in the wealth of God, and you will not share in ours. We hope you will see the tip your fag choices made you lose out on, and plan accordingly. It is never too late for God's love, but none shall be spared for fags. May God have mercy on you.”

Say what? According to reports, many locals who read about the incident went out of their way to go to this restaurant, request the same guy, and leave him a nice tip to compensate for his ill treatment at the hands of these despicable customers. Note to Christian couple: check out Luke 6:24-26.
--


Dolphins Behaving Badly

I’ve also read that Jason Collins, the pro basketball player who came out of the closet to much fanfare earlier this year, has not been signed by any pro team. True, he’s a journeyman a bit past his prime. But apparently several other veterans with lesser credentials have been picked up by teams during the last six months.

The common wisdom in basketball circles is not that teams are antigay, but that teams are shying away from the media attention that would accompany the man. It’s sort of the same thing in my book.

And speaking of sports, I was sure that Miami Dolphin Jonathan Martin left the team in disgust because he was gay. After all, why would his teammates persist in relentless “bullying?”

Unfortunately I can find no evidence to support my theory. Martin, who is in his second season at Miami, reportedly walked away from the team due to constant hazing. The last straw was a maneuver straight out of Mean Girls, in which he sat down in the cafeteria and all the other men got up and took their food to another table. Clearly, if that was the last straw, there must have been a large bale of hay already on his back at the time.

But press reports suggest Martin was pressured to cough up cash to entertain more senior teammates, reportedly a routine practice among football players. He was also nicknamed “Big Weirdo,” and harassed about his Ivy League ties and his status as a Stanford grad. The Dolphins have recently suspended one guy accused of leading the charge against Martin.

Really? I still think there must be something more to this story. But who knows?
--


I See England, I See France

By the way, while we’re on the subject of football, am I the only football fan who notices that many players seem to flaunt their male attributes by letting their junk hang loose under see-through white pants?

I mean c’mon! You can see everything! And no one mentions this in the press. My wife has accused me of having an unseemly interest in this phenomenon, given that I’m a lesbian, but it’s like the Emperor’s New Clothes. It doesn’t bother me per se. It only bothers me that no one else comments on the southern exposure. If female athletes wore clothes that revealed nipples or other intimate details, we’d hear about it.

Guys? Surely you’ve noticed. Tell me I’m not alone out here. And for the record, isn’t it a little risky? Ouch.
--


Disparate Impact

Finally, Congress is considering the Employment Nondiscrimination Act as I write, a sore subject for me only because I think it would be preferable to add “sexual orientation” to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That’s the statute that protects everyone else from employment discrimination, and unlike ENDA, it comes with 50 years of solid case law. Pushing for a separate “gay” bill made sense 20 years ago. But does it still?

I suppose I will rein in my pet peeves about ENDA and root for passage. But still, Title VII already protects transgendered people (thanks to some of that case law). And ENDA is heavily patterned after Title VII to begin with so why not just go for the real thing?

Unlike Title VII, ENDA limits some money damages, it adds extra loopholes (unnecessary in my view) and it does not allow for claims of “disparate impact.”

If you were to mandate, for example, that every plant worker had a high school degree, it would not appear to violate rules against job bias. If, however, it was then shown that only 5 percent of African Americans had finished high school, and that such a degree was not necessary for the work involved, it would be illegal under Title VII. (I based that example on a mid-century case that established disparate impact, but I can’t recall the details.)

ENDA does not allow for that kind of case for a number of reasons, but it’s another example of why ENDA is a second-class law. Hey. I said I’d root for the damn thing. I’m just not happy about it.
--

arostow@aol.com

Fourteen and Counting

GLBT Fortnight in Review, October 30, 2013
BY ANN ROSTOW


Fourteen and Counting

Yay! Another free state has joined the growing list of places where American gays can tie the knot. New Jersey Governor Chris Christie basically had no choice but to abandon the fight against equality after the state supreme court refused to suspend a lower court order that legalized marriage effective October 21. In rejecting the stay, the unanimous high court noted that the arguments against marriage had little chance of succeeding on appeal should the case continue.

That said, of course Christie did have a choice. He could have easily jumped on the grand stand and insisted on a doomed effort to force the state supreme court to hear arguments and deliver a ruling on the merits of the marriage lawsuit. Yes, marriages would have continued during the appeal, but Christie could have won a great deal of street cred with social conservatives by refusing to accept reality until he saw the river card.

Assuming the man is considering a run in 2016, his decision to throw in the towel is interesting. It suggests that Christie believes a pointless crusade against marriage equality would hurt, rather than help, his chances in a general election, while a gracious concession would not doom his primary campaign. He’s betting that the GOP base has turned its obsessions away from marriage, and that the country as a whole is now willing to punish those who continue to lead the charge against same-sex couples.

Bottom line. Marriage is now legal in 14 states plus the District of Columbia, and a third of Americans now live in a state where gay men and lesbians have the right to wed.
--


Trying Our Patience in the Mitten State

In Michigan, meanwhile, a federal judge has ordered the state’s Prop 8-style lawsuit to trial, a fairly rare outcome that we have only seen twice. Back in 1996, Hawaii’s state court marriage suit went to trial, and although we won, our victory was annulled by a constitutional amendment. Second, of course we all remember the Prop 8 trial, another triumph that was put on hold for years until the U.S. Supreme Court finally let the ruling take effect.

Normally, however, federal judges don’t order trials unless material facts are in dispute. In marriage cases, the facts are usually stipulated, and the decision involves only a matter of law. Here, as in the Prop 8 case, a trial serves two purposes; it elongates the case itself, buying time for a hot button to cool somewhat, and it inoculates the court against charges that a controversial issue was decided without careful analysis.

As for the disputed “facts,” I suppose we’ll hear the usual testimony about how traditional marriage bolsters children and families, as if a ban on our families would somehow encourage the stability of our straight neighbors. (I particularly cringe at the mantra: “every child deserves a mother and a father,” as if outlawing marriage recognition would prevent gay couples from having kids.)
--


Here’s Mud in Your Buckeye

That Michigan case, by the way, evolved from a challenge to the state’s ban on joint adoption by gay couples. But after the High Court struck the core of the Defense of Marriage Act in Windsor, the plaintiffs expanded the suit into a marriage case.

I bring this up because the Windsor decision has set off a chain reaction of somewhat unusual litigation. In addition to the carefully planned strategic lawsuits filed by our legal eagles, we’ve seen court cases pop up organically as if Windsor summoned forth a rain shower on fertile ground.

Let’s take Ohio, for example. Maybe you remember that two men flew to Maryland a few months ago, got married on the tarmac, and flew back to Ohio where they asked a federal court to force the state to recognize their marriage on the death certificate of one of the husbands (who was on his last legs at the time). The men wanted to be buried together in a family plot that required kinship.

Based on Windsor, the federal judge issued an injunction against the state, (the guy died by the way), and the court is now considering the merits of the underlying principle. Since you don’t issue an injunction unless the plaintiff is likely to win, we could be looking at a breakthrough in this admittedly macabre niche of marriage recognition.

The point is, just as it’s impossible to be a little bit pregnant, the notion of recognizing marriage solely for the purpose of death certificates is hard to imagine. Remember, it is marriage recognition, not marriage itself, which was at issue in Windsor. By insisting on recognition rather than a full blown reversal of state marriage policy, this lawsuit stands on very firm ground, indeed it stands on recent Supreme Court precedent. And yet the distance between marriage recognition and marriage itself is a rather small one in practical terms.
--


Marriage Basically Legal in Oregon

Meanwhile, speaking of marriage recognition, I’m not sure quite what to make of the situation in Oregon, where all state agencies have now been directed to recognize same-sex marriages from out of state. An official memo announced the policy in mid-October, based on an opinion by the state attorney general’s office that said the state’s current policy appeared to violate the federal Constitution.

Don’t get me wrong! I think it’s great. For all practical purposes it legalizes marriage in the Pinot Blanc State. But Oregon also carries a constitutional amendment that says only a marriage between a man and woman shall be legal or recognized. Usually, and it seems these days that “usually” has been thrown under the bus, an opinion by an attorney general is a useful guidepost without force of law. “Usually” it takes a court to mandate a change in policy, particularly when that change contradicts the explicit text of the state constitution. 

But not anymore! At any rate, Oregon is also the venue for a federal lawsuit challenging the state amendment, as well as a petition drive to repeal the amendment by public vote next year. Let’s just say that Oregon’s joining our free state list in the near future, and indeed for all practical purposes it already has.
--


Next in Line: New Mexico, Hawaii

Finally, we have the rogue clerk syndrome, states where clerks have taken it upon themselves to interpret Windsor as obliging them to issue marriage licenses.

In New Mexico, rogue clerks have led the state supreme court to accept what amounts to an emergency marriage case. The justices heard arguments a week or so ago and could interpret the state’s marriage anytime now. New Mexico is the only state that does not clearly outlaw same-sex marriage either by statute or amendment, although by practice it has never allowed a same-sex marriage. For that reason, our allies had already filed suit in the Land of Enchantment, but Windsor and the clerks forced the state to put its foot on the accelerator.

Likewise, we had already filed a federal suit against Pennsylvania when a clerk took unilateral action that has led to a state court suit. As for North Carolina where we also have a federal suit in progress, a rogue clerk has issued licenses but hasn’t really processed them. I’m fuzzy on this. The NorCal clerk asked the attorney general for advice, and while the attorney general supports equality, he has agreed to defend state law.

I started this item with “finally,” not because I couldn’t spend another 1,000 words on breaking marriage news, but only because I think this is enough, don’t you? Every two weeks we have another new case, another state on the verge of equality, another this, another that. As I write, the Hawaii legislature is poised (we hope) to make marriage a reality (perhaps as soon as next month) a state of affairs that could have led this column were it not for the other equally exciting events of the fortnight. I’m not even getting into the weird lawsuit in Wisconsin (don’t ask), or the disappointing situation in Illinois (where it appears the house cannot bring marriage to a successful vote at this time).

I think I just broke a record for parenthetical remarks in one paragraph.
--

Christians Behaving Badly (Again!)

So what else is new? Can we lighten up? I read about a straight guy in Omaha who was beaten up for defending his gay pals against a basher. That was nice of him, but it’s not particularly light hearted.

Or how about the Christian diners who left the following note for their waiter at a Carrabba’s restaurant in Overland Park, Kansas:

“Thank you for your service, it was excellent. That being said, we cannot in good conscience tip you, for your homosexual lifestyle is an affront to God. Queers do not share in the wealth of God, and you will not share in ours. We hope you will see the tip your fag choices made you lose out on, and plan accordingly. It is never too late for God's love, but none shall be spared for fags. May God have mercy on you.”

Say what? According to reports, many locals who read about the incident went out of their way to go to this restaurant, request the same guy, and leave him a nice tip to compensate for his ill treatment at the hands of these despicable customers. Note to Christian couple: check out Luke 6:24-26.

And here’s something that annoys me. I keep stumbling over articles that focus on the idea that even though same-sex marriage is increasingly within our grasp, there are some gay couples who…wait for it…do not want to get married!

What next? Some women don’t bother to vote? Some African Americans don’t like rap music? Some straight men don’t watch football? How about some journalists don’t pursue platitudes? OK. Maybe that last one was a bit far fetched.
--


I Heart SCOTUS News

So here are a couple of High Court tidbits that might not involve GLBT rights, but that concern us none-the-less. First, the town of Easton, Pennsylvania has decided to appeal the “I Heart Boobie” bracelet ruling to the Supreme Court. We’ve discussed this case in the past, only because the question of whether a school district can ban kids from wearing “I Heart Boobie” bracelets is identical to the question of whether a school can ban a gay T-shirt, or an anti-gay T-shirt for that matter.

In this case, some middle school girls were told to take off the cheeky bracelets, which purported to make a statement against breast cancer. The school district claimed, to no avail, that the bracelets were provocative and could disrupt the educational environment. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit agreed with the girls, basically ruling that the bracelets were no big deal. Now, for reasons unclear, the school district has decided to go all the way to the top.

I can’t imagine the High Court will take this case, because the facts here are so innocuous. Still, I mention the petition, because if the Court should accept review, we’ll have to watch closely.

Second, on November 6 the High Court will hear arguments on the question of whether a small town in New York can start the vast majority of their board meetings with a Christian prayer. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has already agreed with plaintiffs that the prayers constitute an impermissible entanglement with religion, breaching the wall between church and state if you will.

So why did the High Court agree to take a look? It’s a little frightening to think that the Supremes might want to weaken the wall, but what else could they have in mind? The High Court has delivered controversial and conflicting rulings on the separation of church and state over the last decades. Most recently, in 2005, the justices threw everyone for a loop by ruling that a Ten Commandments monument on the grounds of the Texas Capitol was fine, while another one at a Kentucky courthouse (or somewhere like that) was unconstitutional.

Oh, they had their reasons. But let’s just say that the one-two combo did not result in a coherent legal rationale. In view of the existing mess, you have to wonder what they’re up to now.
--

arostow@aol.com

Bigotonni Al Pesto

GLBT Fortnight in Review, October 2, 2013
BY ANN ROSTOW



Bigotonni Al Pesto

There’s a lot to discuss this week, but first, I am sad to say that our latest GLBT boycott will require me to actually give up one of my favorite brands. Thus far, my loyal adherence to our community’s official corporate snubs has been relatively painless. Romanian wine? Off the shopping list. Coors beer? I could never really tell the difference between Coors and the others, and indeed, my Coors boycott was so ingrained for so many years that I have trouble drinking the stuff even now when it has been sold to a friendly group and we are encouraged to buy it.

What else? I had never been to a Chick Fil-A in my life and so continue to avoid the franchise with the one exception of the kiss-in at our local branch. Never liked Domino’s to begin with. As for Exxon, I must confess that I have made a few exceptions when forced to choose between political correctness and stranding my car in the middle of, let’s say, western Kansas.

(By the way, Exxon just announced it will offer benefits to the spouses of its married gay staff. A small step in the right direction, but I don’t believe it absolves the company of their decision to strip Mobil staff of domestic partner benefits and discrimination protection after the acquisition.)

Now, however, I can no longer bring myself to buy Barilla pasta. Last week, President Guido Barilla himself told the press he would never market his product to the GLBT community, and observed that gays “can always eat another brand of pasta” if we don’t agree with his views on the traditional family.

After an outraged reaction from around the world, Barilla tried to backtrack, but it’s just too late. Pick another pasta? I always go out of my way to buy Barilla, but not anymore. Never again! Bring on the one that begins with D. I don’t even know the names of Barilla rivals, but I will soon be well versed as I experiment with the competition.

Indeed, further research tells me that other pasta companies have started to take advantage of Barilla’s faux pas-ta, including Garofalo (“we don’t care with whom you cook pasta, the important thing is that you cook it al dente!”) and San Remo (“we’re totally spaghetti and gayballs!”)

Bertolli has a great new print ad with two women sharing a strand of spaghetti that has formed a heart in the middle, and Buitoni has one with various types of pasta arranged like gay symbols. Other companies on a HuffPo list of gay friendly makers include DeCecco (the one I was trying to remember before), Ronzoni, Aldiva, Delallo, al dente, Affreschi, Cipriani and Chef Boyardee. So much for Barilla. Take it off the shelves!

The strangest part of this whole incident is that I feel betrayed and almost hurt by Barilla’s cruel dismissal of my faithful custom. I suppose that because I liked Barilla, I assumed Barilla reciprocated my fondness. And yet after all the hundreds of pretty pasta boxes I’ve purchased, I’m rewarded by a slap in the face? How many more of my emotionally charged commercial relationships are built on a house of cards? I don’t want to do the research so I will simply suggest that homophobic CEOs keep their opinions to themselves in the future.
--


Jersey Licious

By rights I should have some trenchant commentary on the extreme wing of the GOP House majority, but I can’t bring myself to go there. Instead, let’s consider the possibility that New Jersey might become a free marriage state before the month is over.

On Friday, September 27, a lower court ruled that marriages must begin on October 21. As you know, New Jersey’s highest court ordered the state to give equal benefits to gay and straight couples back in 2005, but our brothers and sisters in the Garden State got stuck with civil unions instead of wedlock. These unions were never equal, but now that federal benefits are attached to marriage, they’re even less equal than before.

Chris Christie promptly asked the court to put a hold on its opinion until the state supreme court can review the case, but will it? In the past, these marriage rulings in lower courts have always been stayed as litigation continues up the ladder. But that was in the past.

Various briefings on the proposed stay will be due by Monday, and the court will decide what to do with theOctober 21 deadline shortly thereafter. Whatever the outcome, it seems clear that the high court will take up the matter sooner rather than later.

It also seems clear that the court will rule in our favor. Even before the Supreme Court ordered federal marriage recognition last June, New Jersey’s civil unions had been exposed as a second-class status. That violates the New Jersey court’s own jurisprudence and cannot stand. Throw in the facts that the state legislature has passed a marriage law (vetoed by Christie), that a majority support equality, and that most sister states on the top side of the East Coast respect our marriages, and the balance is not just tipped in our favor. We’re poised lightly on the top of the see saw, and the other side is holding down the bottom like a two-ton elephant.

The analogy pre-supposes that top is the good side and bottom is the loser. Now that I think about it, it’s not a very good analogy at all, but I’m keeping it because of my Omar Khayyam rule. The moving finger writes, and having writ, moves on….
--


Mountaineers Next On Federal Marriage List

We have another federal, Prop-8 style, marriage lawsuit to add to our growing list, in West Virginia of all places. I know you’re thinking “West Virginia? Say what?” But remember this is a federal case, and West Virginia reports to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, where I think we have a slight edge in Democratic appointments.

As you know, our state cases argue only that marriage equality must be recognized in State X. Since any state with an antigay constitutional amendment need only point to their voter-approved amendment in order to defeat such a claim, we are running out of state court cases. We’ve got the one in New Jersey, another coming to a head in New Mexico, a slightly complicated case in Pennsylvania, a suit in Illinois, and I think that’s it.

Our main litigation strategy has now shifted to federal cases, the ones (like the Prop 8 suit) arguing that state amendments violate the United States constitution. If another one of these cases reaches the Supreme Court and resolves in our favor, marriage equality will become the law of the land.

It was this happy outcome that the High Court ducked last June when it dismissed Prop 8 on a technicality. Hey, we were pleased that Prop 8 died in the process, but we are still looking for the big win that will bring equality to Texas and Mississippi as well as Massachusetts and California.

Now, I’ve lost track of the number of federal cases we’ve filed. There are two in Virginia. There’s one in Pennsylvania (in addition to a state lawsuit contesting the power of a clerk to offer licenses). We’re suing in North Carolina, Ohio, Michigan and in a host of other states where individuals have taken action on their own.

But our most advanced federal lawsuits are claims against Hawaii and Nevada that are both pending before the Ninth Circuit. We lost both in lower courts, and our appeals were delayed during the High Court’s deliberations earlier this year. Now, the combined cases are back on track and should be briefed by the end of next month.

Let’s give the Ninth Circuit a few months to schedule and hear oral arguments, and a few more months to deliberate. In theory, we should have an appellate ruling on marriage by next summer. Remember that the Ninth Circuit has already sort of ruled in our favor in the Prop 8 case. That said, the decision was cramped to say the least. Still, our position is promising and the big question is this:

If the Ninth Circuit delivers a more coherent gay marriage victory next year, will the High Court accept review? Or will they simply allow marriage equality to sweep throughout the western states that fall under the Ninth Circuit and sit on their hands until another circuit rules? If the High Court decides to dither, one of these other federal lawsuits will rise to prominence. At any rate, it feels as if the High Court will have to take the gay version of Loving v Virginia before the decade’s end.

If that seems like a long time to you, look back to what you were doing in the year 2006. It was just yesterday.
--


Free Speech has a Pricetag

Oh. I read that Jodie Foster was going out with Ellen’s ex-girlfriend, Alexandra Hedison. I think she’s an actress, or maybe a photographer. Do you care? What ever happened to the DeeJay she was seeing?

And I have to thank newshound Lisa Keen (who runs a great GLBT news service) for the heads up on an interesting case that may or not arrive on the High Court docket this session.

I was astonished that this case is still around since it stems from an incident long in the past, when Crystal Dixon, an HR director at the University of Toledo, took to the op-ed pages of her local paper to decry the false comparison between gay and black civil rights. You know how everyone bleats about “free speech” the minute someone else objects to their latest diatribe? Well, Dixon, who was fired for her opinions, was no exception.

Indeed, Dixon has the right to proclaim any opinion she likes, and the government or the state cannot stop her. But they can certainly fire her if her opinions clash with her job performance. So can a private employer for that matter. In this case, the university had a non-discrimination ordinance and some other gay friendly policies, and the powers that be decided it was inappropriate for a top hiring executive to make public antigay statements. Dixon sued, but she’s lost at the lower court levels and is now trying to get the High Court to take her case.

I’m not sure they will. But it will be interesting if they do. If you work for the IRS, you can be fired for announcing that the income tax is unconstitutional. If you work for a butcher, you cannot claim your religious views prevent you from touching a cow. If Crystal hates gays so much, she can go work for Barilla Pasta. No one’s forcing her to work for a public university pledged to fight bias. And no one forced her write an op-ed for that matter. Now, she wants to have her cake and eat it too.

Speaking of analogies earlier in this column, I have never understood that cake expression. Why can’t you just eat half the cake and save the other half? Wouldn’t that be having your cake and eating it too?

Wikipedia has provided the translations for this core idea as expressed in foreign proverbs. From Switzerland: “You can’t have the five cent coin and the Swiss bread roll.” From the Persian: “You can’t have the donkey and the sugar dates.” From the Portuguese: “You can’t have the sun shining on the threshing floor while it rains on the turnips.” From the Danish: “You can’t both blow and have flour in your mouth.” And my favorite, from France: “You can’t have the butter and a smile on the face of the girl who makes the butter.”

I have the same problem with the French version as the American. Why can’t you have the butter and the smile?
--

arostow@aol.com

Discrimination: The Next Big Deal

GLBT Fortnight in Review, September 4, 2013

BY ANN ROSTOW

 

Discrimination: The Next Big Deal

 

It sure looks as if we will eventually win the right to marry, and that we’ll do so with the support of most Americans. Even our opponents have switched strategies, and no longer attack gay men and women as deviant. Instead, they promote traditional values and string out a tenuous argument on behalf of children. Those rationales aren’t going very far, however, since marriage equality has no impact on the kids of straight couples, while our kids suffer in its absence.

 

But there’s another dialogue building decibels around the country. That’s the insistence on the Christian right that gay equality poses a threat to religious freedom, particularly the freedom of Christian business owners to deny service to GLBT clients. Even as we hail the new majorities that back our right to marry, we overlook to some extent the even larger majorities that unthinkingly support the “right” of a Christian entrepreneur to close his or her doors to gay customers.

 

It seems only fair, right? After all, would you expect a Jewish merchant to serve a Nazi? Would you demand that an African American caterer host a Klan wedding? And why would a gay couple want a hostile photographer hanging around muttering under her breath while taking deliberately bad photos of their wedding?

 

First of all, you don’t compare the gay client to the Klansman or the Nazi. I mean, come on. Quite frankly, I’m not sure if or how a Jewish photographer could refuse to serve a Nazi bride, but unlike gays, Nazis are not protected under antidiscrimination law. But apart from that, the analogies have to be presented in reverse. Can the Klansman refuse the African American? Can the Nazi refuse the Jew? We are not the evil death squads here, folks. We are the minorities under attack. We have not spent our history hanging Christians from tree limbs or tossing them in gas chambers and yet we hear these outrageous comparisons tossed into the public square whenever a Christian merchant feels threatened.

 

I had to get that beef out of the way, but more profoundly, Americans have a deep respect for religion, and an even deeper respect for the Constitutional principles that protect our right to practice our faith. We instinctively, and rightly, believe that the government may never compel a citizen to act against his or her deeply held religious beliefs. No wonder that so many of our gay rights bills have included loopholes for churches and religious organizations.

 

But where do we draw the line between legitimate religious principles and illegal bias? Can someone just “announce” their faith requires them to discriminate? We would not accept that in a racial context. Why does everyone accept this idea where we’re concerned?

 

The answer is that up until recently, a religious denunciation of homosexuality was accepted, normal and taken for granted. The assumption that disapproval of gays is part and parcel of Christianity has not been seriously disputed, even as this attitude has been relegated to the far right as mainstream Christianity rethinks its stance. Meanwhile, over 80 percent of Americans (you read that right) still believe a Christian business should be allowed to discriminate.

 

And here is the new hook that our adversaries are starting to emphasize in their continuing and losing battle against our progress. Gay rights and marriage equality are a threat to religious freedom, they say. Gays are no longer the butt of discrimination. Now the real victims are Christian businesses like Elane Photography, the company that has been battling the state of New Mexico for the right to refuse a job at a lesbian wedding.

 

In Washington, it’s a florist who is fighting to deny service to two men. In Oregon, an antigay bakery has just closed its shop over the same issue. We’ve read about biased bridal shops, country inns and caterers. And each of these cases is trumpeted throughout the far right as a fund raising alert. Your rights are being taken away!

 

The legal principles, meanwhile, are simple. Governments may not pass or enforce laws that target religions. But they can pass a law that has a general and legitimate purpose, even if a religious practice is inadvertently affected in the process. For example, a law against drug use that prohibits religious peyote rituals can stand. Likewise, a statute that prohibits discrimination in public accommodation, even if it includes sexual orientation, is a general law that serves an important public purpose. If you don’t like gays and lesbians, fine. But you still have to do business with them, just as a racist restaurant owner has to accept all comers.

 

In New Mexico last week, the state Supreme Court issued a powerful ruling upholding this basic premise. Photography business owners Elaine and Jonathan Huguenin made a range of arguments, to no avail. In his masterful concurring opinion, Justice Richard C. Bosson was more forgiving than I, acknowledging that Elaine Huguenin and her husband “are now compelled by law to compromise the very religious beliefs that inspire their lives. Though the rule of law requires it, the result is sobering. It will no doubt leave a tangible mark on the Huguenins and others of similar views.

 

“On a larger scale,” he continued, “this case provokes reflection on what this nation is all about, its promise of fairness, liberty, equality of opportunity, and justice. At its heart, this case teaches that at some point in our lives, all of us must compromise, if only a little, to accommodate the contrasting values of others….The Huguenins are free to think, to say, to believe as they wish; they may pray to the God of their choice and follow those commandments in their personal lives wherever they lead. The Constitutional protects the Huguenins in that respect and much more. But there is a price, one that we all have to pay somewhere in our civic life.

 

“In the smaller, more focused world of the marketplace, of commerce, of public accommodation, the Huguenins have to channel their conduct, not their beliefs, so as to leave space for other Americans who believe something different. That compromise is part of the glue that holds us together as a nation, the tolerance that lubricates the varied moving parts of us as a people. That sense of respect we owe others, whether or not we believe as they do, illuminates this country, setting it apart from the discord that afflicts much of the rest of the world. In short, I would say to the Huguenins, it is the price of citizenship.”

 

 

Believe me when I tell you that this case has fired up the religious right, indeed an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court is possible. Among other things, some people (including my favorite Republican lawyer Dale Carpenter) have argued that a photography business has a particular claim to freedom of expression that would not be the case for a florist or baker. That said, not only do I disagree, but I don’t see why a florist or baker would not be able to make a similar appeal to artistry, but this is a side issue. This case is the first of many that may make headlines in the near term, and although it has nothing to do with marriage equality, there’s still a connection. As I said, the far right is starting to use the avenue of antidiscrimination law as a new route to flank our troops. And for obvious reasons, wedding businesses have emerged at the forefront of these faith based complaints.

 

I have another point to make. I was moved by what Justice Bosson had to say about the Huguenins. I have no patience for the idea that Christianity compels an antigay attitude. But you know what? If you truly believe that your faith rejects homosexuality, if you truly believe this regardless of how wrong you are, I can understand why you would go to any lengths to avoid being forced to effectively support what you see as a crime against God.

 

As I said before, our movement has been fast and furious. Left behind by the pace have been millions of Christians who have been raised on the notion that our relationships are sinful. They have spent years immersed in this fact of faith. Not everyone can change overnight. And twenty years from now, there will be no excuse for the Huguenins of this world. But right now there is. They are wrong, but I understand where they’re coming from, and I agree with Justice Bosson that it is sobering to require them and their like-minded cohorts to act against their faith. I also agree with Bosson that this is the price of doing business in our remarkable country.

 

I have always found it useful to imagine myself in the shoes of our adversaries. If you truly believe homosexuality is a sin, a perversion, a gross mutation of nature, then of course you oppose marriage equality. Of course you recoil at gays on TV. You wouldn’t want a gay man or lesbian teaching your kids, or even driving the school bus. So what do we say? Do we argue that gay men and women should marry and teach? Well yes, of course. But in the long run, we argue that homosexuality is not sinful, that gay relationships are not perverted, that these embedded ideas are wrong, that our adversaries should rethink--- not their political views--- but their underlying assumptions.

 

The good news is that our national debate is getting to this crucial stage, the stage where we wrangle with the root cause of homophobia that lies beneath our policy confrontations. This is where the debate over discrimination lies, and this of course is the only debate that really matters.

--

 

The Taxman Cometh

 

Well, you have to forgive that long essay in a column that purports to summarize the news of the last two weeks. Personally, I thought that New Mexico ruling eclipsed the other GLBT news, so there you go. But you may disagree.

 

You may think, for example, that the top story is the news that the IRS will recognize all married couples, even if they live in a state that bans gay weddings. I have to agree, that’s pretty big news, and now, Mel and I will file a joint return.

 

I don’t care if we pay more. I only care that the IRS loves us and respects our marriage! Furthermore, it’s a sharp stick in the eye of Texas. Instead of Mel and me being the rebellious married couple, now it’s Texas that rebels against federal policy by refusing to acknowledge us. The tables are turned, which albeit symbolic, feels huge to me. Plus, now we can stuff all our tax stuff in one box and my tax problems will be hers as well.

 

You should also know that a foreign butter substitute called Flora has managed to annoy the international gay community with what Unilever insists was an unauthorized commercial. The ad showed a kid coming out to his parents, which sent a bullet heading to the father’s heart. The upshot was that the father was advised to use Flora as a heart healthy shield against the various cardiac threats that life might send his way. Unilever promptly apologized and pulled the ad, which was running in South Africa.

 

Again, the moral of the story is that corporations can no longer get away with the slightest slight to our community, which is a good thing.

 

Finally, Mel and I were going to go see The Butler last night, but instead we stayed home and became hooked on a rerun of Sharknado, which is quickly becoming a cult classic. I’m not sure you can call it a classic, since it was first aired this summer. But honestly, you have to see it. Not since The Legend of Boggy Creek have I enjoyed a movie for its sheer absurdity. Sorry for the spoiler, but the scene where the hero gets eaten by a shark but fights his way out of the shark’s stomach with a chain saw was unforgettable.

 

That said, it’s been years since I saw the Legend of Boggy Creek, but I highly recommend it. My favorite scene is the montage of the changing seasons that illustrates the heartbreaking loneliness of the deadly swamp creature.

--

 

arostow@aol.com