Oral Fixation

GLBT Fortnight in Review, March 20, 2013

BY ANN ROSTOW

Oral Fixation

I feel as if it’s the night before the big game. We are all obsessed with tomorrow’s match up, but there’s really nothing we can say about it. All we can do is continue the speculation. Well, why not? There’s always a little tidbit or two to feed our hunger. Here’s one: How will the fabulous latest poll on same sex marriage affect the Justices’ frames of mind?

Surely they (Kennedy and Roberts) can’t remain unmoved by the soaring appreciation for our legal unions now shared by our compatriots. In addition to an overall 58 percent support, the latest survey says some 80 percent of the under thirty crowd now believe in our right to marry. Indeed, the only generation that clings to tradition is the one over 65 years old. The gradual acceptance we’ve seen over the last decade or so has gone viral, mainly because so many people spent so much time straddling an impossible fence. Once they lost their balance, as was inevitable, there was only one side they could pick. After all, they were only on the fence to begin with because they had already rejected the antigay position in their heart of hearts and needed a way station.

In the last two weeks, Republican Senator Rob Portman has come out for marriage equality, making mention of his gay son in the process. Hillary Clinton, long our ally in word and deed, has issued a full throated public endorsement. True, a few denizens of the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) continue to deride our love. But these are the same people suggesting that slavery wasn’t so bad and that background checks for gun owners are akin to press censorship.

The Supreme Court dislikes jumping too far ahead of public opinion. But lately, it seems as if they have little to worry about in that regard. Yes, 40 states outlaw same-sex marriage. But majorities in most of those states would have it otherwise. I still doubt the Court will issue an historic condemnation of all restrictions on marriage rights. But I’m more hopeful that they will avoid a destructive “compromise” opinion that might impede our progress for years to come. It’s more likely that they will strike the Defense of Marriage Act, while sidestepping the issue of full marriage equality.

The audio broadcast of next week’s oral arguments, on Tuesday and Wednesday, will be available online the same afternoon. We’ve got March Madness, the Supreme Court, and more March Madness. Let the games begin!

--

Six Ways To Do Nothing

I was surfing for news this morning when I made a detour into the ten secrets of airline hostesses, an intriguing headline straight out of the days of Coffee, Tea or Me. As usual, I was disappointed. Hostesses hate pouring diet Coke, which takes forever to unfizz. They don’t get full pay until the door shuts, so they’re only making a couple of bucks an hour while they’re telling us to put our stuff under our seats. No wonder they’re in a hurry. I have no idea why the article was limited to female hostesses in this day and age, particularly in view of the bland revelations. But it was another reminder of my own gullibility.

I’m a sucker for anything with a list or a number. Ten foods to avoid at all costs (potato chips and margarine). Five ways to reduce stress (get more sleep and take a bath). The six worst Presidents (Buchanan and Andrew Johnson). The ones that really annoy me are the random lists of “best cities to retire” or “most fit cities” or “happiest cities.” Who picks these? The top city is always something like “Oslo” or “Greenville, Tennessee,” but there’s never a clear explanation of the analysis that produced the final rankings.

And yet, time after time, I continue to click on these tempting links. Someday I will discover that “clicking on side bars” is one of the “Top Ten Time Wasters.”

--

Lake State Moving Along

Meanwhile, perhaps you’re wondering what’s new in our valiant communal quest for civil rights. Well, not a hell of lot, which is why I digress. But still, the fight goes on as must our attempt to relay the details.

I’ve been wondering what happened to stall our marriage legislation in Illinois. You recall that the state senate passed a bill on Valentine’s Day, and a house committee followed suit a few days later. After that, nothing. Apparently, we are still short the votes for passage in the house, but we continue to lobby for the final victory.

Likewise, we’re still watching the wheels slowly turn in Rhode Island, where marriage equality passed the house in late January and will be heard by a senate committee this week. En fin! Still, lawmakers are reportedly considering language that would exempt wedding-related businesses from nondiscrimination laws in the event that marriage equality passes, an offensive, bizarre and counter intuitive strategy indeed. We’re also still hoping that the New Jersey legislature can corral a two thirds majority to override Chris Christie’s marriage veto, and we have until next January to manage that feat.

Delaware is poised to launch a marriage effort, we’ve been hearing. And now, Minnesota is emerging as the next battleground. Marriage equality has passed committees in both houses, and since Democrats control the house and the senate, we have a solid chance for success in the Land of a Thousand Lakes. Are there really a thousand lakes in Minnesota? Further, is that a lot of lakes? You can’t really tell unless you know how many lakes there might be in other states of similar size. How big is a “lake” anyway?

I’ve lost track of the prospects for marriage overseas. I triumphantly reported that the French and British lower houses both approved marriage equality last month, but I continue to read articles indicating that the debate continues, as do protests on both sides. Must I really track down the political status of marriage in every European country? Are we waiting for the House of Lords to return from grouse hunting in Yorkshire? Is the French senate off skiing in Val Thorens? It’s hard enough to keep up with the Rhode Island senate and the Illinois house for God’s sake.

Oh, and before I leave this subject I should mention that the Odawa Indian Tribe in Michigan has approved same-sex marriage. And lawyers in the city of Santa Fe are considering a renegade move to issue licenses to gay men and women, given the fact that there’s no specific state law on the books that forbids it.

--

He’s So Humble, He Never Thought The Song Was About Him

So, much is being made of the fact that the new Pope does not support gay rights, which is like being upset that Paul Ryan wants to turn Medicaid into a block grant. I also read an article about how Mr. Pope, whose original name I forget, urged the Argentinian government to offer civil unions instead of marriage equality, which was supposed to suggest that the man was a pragmatist. Whatever. I have nothing against the Pope, but I’m not looking to him for leadership in our fight against discrimination. And if he has any chinks in his antigay armor, they are minor dents at best. Frankly, I’m just happy that the smarmy media adulation appears to be over and done with.

And in completely unrelated news, I’m sure you read that Michelle Shocked made antigay comments at an Oakland concert, and the rest of her tour was immediately cancelled by almost all the various clubs on her schedule.

First of all, how come Michelle Shocked is still doing tours? I remember she was around a quarter of a century ago, and she wasn’t that great back then. Cher and Madonna might get away with careers that span decades, but Michelle Shocked?

But second, the fact that her tour was essentially shut down by a dozen different decision makers is the most telling sign that antigay rhetoric is approaching the social disfavor of racism. I hope the Supreme Court took notice.

And to continue my theme of unrelated items, did you hear about the organization that bought the house across from Fred Phelps and painted it in rainbow colors? The $81,000 house in Topeka, Kansas, will be dubbed the “Equality House,” used as a center to fight bullying, and finished off with a giant rainbow flag. Phelps’ daughter Shirley said she loves the new attraction, which will only serve to highlight the evils of homosexuality.

Meanwhile, two of Phelps’ grandchildren abandoned the family compound last month as they began to realize that their grandfather was insane rather than prescient. Two of Shirley’s daughters, Megan and Grace Phelps-Roper, issued a public statement apologizing for their role in various protests and pledging to “try and find a better way to live from now on.” It’s worth a search to read Megan’s articulate and touching letter.

--

NOM Gets No Love

I didn’t really follow the CPAC conference last week, but you couldn’t help stumbling over that smug video of Sarah Palin chugging a big gulp and basking in some increasingly rare attention. Poor Palin has had her fifteen hours of fame. But you know what? Her time’s been up for a few years now, and she seems to be the only one who understands this sad state of affairs.

I recommend a trip to BuzzFeed to compare the photographs of the empty room at the National Organization for Marriage’s CPAC presentation and the packed house at a panel on changing the conservative stance on gays. According to Chris Geidner, NOM’s Brian Bond spent most of his time complaining about how badly he and his fellow anti-marriage activists were being treated these days, called bigots and the like. Even at CPAC, of all places, the age of hate seems to be slowly coming to an end, the audience dwindling, the applause quieting to a smattering of claps.

Speaking of Bond and NOM, the group is planning a big protest on the national mall this Tuesday to correspond with Day One of the High Court’s marriage arguments. It will be interesting to see how many followers turn up.

--

What’s The Matter With Kansas?

Have you noticed that it’s always “Ford Truck Month?”Is it my imagination? I think not. And while we’re off the subject of LGBT-ness, what do you think of the fact that President Obama fills out his NCAA bracket in public? I think it’s a refreshing change from public figures who insist on maintaining an unbiased posture on the theory that they will anger one side if they announce a preference.

That said, as a Jayhawk by marriage, I’m pretty disgusted that the man couldn’t support Kansas beyond the first three rounds.

Finally, all credit to Tyanna Slobe at the Rocky Mountain Collegiate, who cut to the heart of the problem with the elementary school mandarins who forbid a six-year-old transgender girl from using the restroom. Stop sexualizing transgender children, wrote Slobe flatly. And she’s right. It’s not simply that trans kids deserve respect and recognition. It’s also the implicit notion that the mere fact of being in a bathroom creates some weird sexual tension and that small children contribute to this freighted ambiance. Really?

A lawyer for Eagleside Elementary told the media “I’m certain you can appreciate that as Coy grows older and his male genitals develop along with the rest of his body, at least some parents and students are likely to become uncomfortable with his continued use of the girls’ restroom.”But in fact we do not “appreciate” this speculation. Who knows how Coy will decide to deal with puberty? What we can anticipate is that Coy will continue to act and dress as the girl she is, and that rather than parade around naked in the restroom, she will use the stalls like everyone else.

I thank my dear reader, N, for the observation that the lawyer’s name is “Kelly Dude.”

--

arostow@aol.com

The Eight State Solution

GLBT Fortnight in Review, March 6, 2013

BY ANN ROSTOW

The Eight State Solution

As the clock ticked down on the deadline to file a brief with the Supreme Court against Prop 8, Obama’s Justice Department came through with flying colors. They were not obligated to weigh on the case against California, and indeed the United States is already a party to our other big case, the challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act, so it’s not as if Obama and company have stayed on the sidelines in the marriage wars. But as the President remarked in a press conference, Obama felt that his administration had a responsibility to take a stand on a major question now pending before the High Court.

As you know, while the DOMA challenge asks only if the federal government has the right to ignore the legal marriages of gay couples in Massachusetts and the other eight marriage states, the Prop 8 case asks the deeper question of whether states can withhold marriage at all. As such, it’s the more profound piece of litigation, and to some, the more dangerous. Many activists, who recognize that things are improving quickly in this country, still wonder whether the Court is prepared to strike the laws of some 40 states next summer.

The answer to that is probably no. But the Court can define the question in more manageable terms, as did the Justice Department in its February 28 brief. Assuming that the Court actually deals with the core of the case rather than tossing it on procedural grounds (a possibility), the justices can avoid the gay marriage superhighway with one of two narrow roads.

The Ninth Circuit’s road limited the case to California, the only state that has authorized marriage equality, let it ride for six months, and then taken it away through a public vote. The 2-1 majority ruled that such a maneuver at the expense of a particular group of people was unconstitutional in any context. In a sense, that opinion did not even turn on gay rights or gay marriage.

The Justice Department has taken a more expansive route. After establishing that gay bias should be evaluated under heightened legal scrutiny, Obama and company insist that a state may not offer all the rights of marriage while reserving the word and the status for heterosexuals. Under heightened scrutiny, a state must provide a solid justification for discriminatory actions. Clearly, no important state interest is served by creating a separate terminology for no purpose other than to demean gay couples.

Significantly, the Justice Department’s rationale also condemns the laws of seven other states that offer all the rights of marriage save the name. Were the High Court to follow Obama’s lead, the states of Oregon, Illinois, Rhode Island, Hawaii, New Jersey, Delaware and Nevada would also have to upgrade to marriage. Not coincidentally, many of those states are poised to fall into the equality column on their own.

It’s likely that the High Court will allow the Solicitor General a few minutes to argue against Prop 8 at the March 26 hearing. That’s usually the procedure when the United States offers an amicus brief in a major case. And make no mistake about it, the decision to weigh in as a friend of the court will have a significant impact on the Court’s deliberations. Further, had Obama taken no action, that caution would have sent a message as well, signaling a yellow light that could have influenced the DOMA case at the same time.

Anyway, it’s good news. Don’t forget that since Obama’s day job used to be “Professor of Constitutional Law,” the Court is likely to take his briefs without salt.

The DOMA case will be argued the morning of March 27. The Court’s opinions are likely to be announced in late June.

--

Illinois on the Threshold

So, speaking of those other seven states where marriage might be just around the corner, Illinois is leading the pack with nothing but a house vote standing in our path. That’s going to be a close vote, however, and it’s not clear exactly when the measure will be brought to the floor. Soon, I think.

Over in Rhode Island, we’re just waiting for a senate vote, another iffy prospect with another vague timetable. Still, both these states are led by friendly governors with pens in hand waiting to sign a marriage equality bill.

As for the other five states on the fast track to marriage equality, Delaware activists keep talking about passing marriage rights this session, although I can’t tell you when that will happen. Last week, our side commissioned a poll that revealed a 17-point margin in favor of equality. That said, I’m not sure how the questions were phrased.

“Do you think same-sex couples should be treated with dignity and respect? Or do you think they should be branded with a triangle and thrown into a muddy pit?”

Oh, I’m sure there’s a majority in favor of marriage rights in Delaware. I’m just not sure we have a 17 percent lead.

As for Oregon, I already told you that we’re planning a 2014 campaign to overturn the state’s constitutional ban on marriage. And in New Jersey, where the legislature passed marriage equality a year or so ago, we have until January of 2014 to override Governor Christie’s 2012 veto. You may recall that Christie suggested at that time that a public vote would be a preferable way to settle the issue of marriage equality, commenting that he was sure black Americans would have preferred a public vote back in the day rather than suffering through a long and violent struggle for civil rights. I don’t have the 1950 polling data on civil rights at my fingers right this second, but if memory serves it fell just short of majority support.

Nevada and Hawaii are not on the brink of legalizing marriage equality, but they are both in the middle of an interesting federal lawsuit. Our legal eagles filed Prop 8-type lawsuits in federal court against both states, and in both cases, we lost at trial. Those suits have been consolidated on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and there they sit for the moment as the High Court reviews the very same issues. If the Supremes rule on the merits of Prop 8, they will no doubt settle Nevada and Hawaii cases at the same time.

But here’s a big “if:” Let’s imagine that the High Court dispenses with the Prop 8 case on standing issues and never reviews the meat of the matter. Guess which case moves up to the top of our list of groundbreaking marriage equality litigation? This one. It’s running under the news radar for the moment, but the Hawaii/Nevada case could wind up in the history books as the Brown v Board of gay rights.

--

With Friends Like These

So, the Obama brief was the top headline in marriage news this week. But running a close second were the briefs filed by many of the largest corporations in the United States in favor of marriage equality. One brief, filed as a friend of the court in the DOMA case, included nearly 250 big companies, arguing that the rift between state and federal marriage policies hurts their ability to attract and compensate top talent. The other one, filed in the Prop 8 case and signed by 100 corporations, also focused on employment and steered clear of constitutional issues.

It’s unusual for the business community to weigh in before the Court on a so-called social issue. And it’s unprecedented for the nation’s big employers to take a unilateral stand. There were no corporate briefs for the other side in either case, and although some conservative religious business owners surely oppose marriage equality, the pragmatic arguments in favor of seamless equal rights across state lines are compelling. Just as one example, imagine that one of your top Vice Presidents is married to a gay spouse in New York and you want to transfer him to Texas. You know what? He’s likely not happy about that, and as a boss, you really can’t ask him to give up his marriage for his job.

Will it have an impact on the Court? I think so. I also think the brief filed by dozens of notable Republicans in favor of marriage rights will make a little dent. Obviously, the justices pay more attention to the legal arguments and the official briefs written by the parties themselves. But even though the friends of the court are standing on the sidelines, you can’t help but notice that all of America is standing by our side, while the riff raff and the far right stand alone in their little corner.

--

Yum, Not

Before we go on, I just took a break to read the paper this morning only to discover an irritating article about how to adjust your snacking habits in order to lose weight and improve your health. Here’s the direct quote that I found most annoying:

“Enjoy high protein snacks such as a cup of fat-free, no sugar added plain Greek yogurt and six walnut halves; 3 ounces of grilled chicken breast (no skin); a hard-boiled egg; or one tablespoon of peanut butter on a celery stick.”

First of all, the verb “enjoy” does not belong at the beginning of that list. Second, none of the aforementioned suggestions qualifies as a “snack.”

When you “enjoy” a “snack,” you’re reheating the last slice of last night’s pizza, you’re not boiling up an egg or pulling the plain fat-free yogurt out of the fridge. Indeed, the plain yogurt is meant to be left on the back shelf for several months and then thrown out with the rest of the unpleasant but healthy foods that you bought on a whim (thanks to articles like this one) and subsequently rejected. The other day I threw out a year-old bag of raw flax seed that fell under this category.

Back in my youth, I used to diet simply by limiting my calories. Ten raw oysters and a vodka gimlet or two for lunch. A couple of snifters of cognac for dinner. Throw in a dozen cups of black coffee and a pack of cigarettes and the day was a success. I actually know this because I recently found a little book I used to track my calories when I was in my mid-twenties. The previous entry was marked with three stars because it was under 1,000. Bravo! Oh, and for the record, this system worked.

--

Mystery Surrounds Murdered Gay Pol

What else is new, you wonder? Well, I keep stumbling over an article about two men who got kicked out of a mall somewhere for kissing. Then, there’s the news that several potential NFL rookies were asked about their sexual orientation during the recent pro football tryouts.

But the most disturbing development concerns the murder of openly gay mayoral candidate Marco McMillian, 34, whose body was found in a levee near his hometown of Clarkesdale, Mississippi, last week. Although the media has suggested that McMillian’s body was beaten and burned, the New York Times reports that the cause of death is still unclear. According to the coroner, the Times reports, McMillian had a black eye and a few small burn marks, but none of his injuries would have killed him.

Was it a hate crime? It’s possible that the answer could be no. After all, gay men and women can get murdered just as randomly as anyone else. Still, it makes you wonder when a public figure of sorts gets killed in a small conservative town. Police have arrested 22-year-old Lawrence Reed, who was found driving McMillian’s SUV, but they seem to think the murder was “personal.” According to reports, McMillian and Reed had been seeing each other for a short time.

The National Black Justice Coalition has asked the U.S. Justice Department to investigate the murder as a hate crime, either racial or gay. Since both men are African American, it seems more likely that the killing could have been a case of gay panic. In any event, the GLBT community has lost a rising political star from a part of the country where gay leaders are few and far between.

--

arostow@aol.com