RIP Sarria

GLBT Fortnight In Review, August 21, 2013

BY ANN ROSTOW

 

RIP Sarria

 

I’m sure San Francisco readers have heard about the death of Jose Julio Sarria, The Widow Norton, who died of cancer in New Mexico at the age of 90 the other day. When I lived in the Bay Area in the 1990s, Sarria was considered a colorful character in our community, always good for a flamboyant laugh. But when you consider what this man did for gay rights and gay visibility at a time when we were universally despised and ridiculed, you recognize that beneath the stereotypical diva persona was a tough activist, with the type of courage a Navy SEAL could only aspire to match.

 

Luckily, none of us in younger generations need face the waves of hatred that washed over our predecessors. For all that we have to complain about (and we still have quite a bit) the world has moved far beyond those days, and we have people like Sarria to thank for that.

--

 

Land of Enchantment Stepping Up

 

And speaking of New Mexico, the Clerk of Dona Ana County has decided to offer marriage licenses to same-sex couples, even as litigation continues to move through the state court system. You may recall that a clerk in Pennsylvania did the same thing last month, triggering a lawsuit from the powers that be in the Keystone State.  In New Mexico, however, the rogue move has legal foundation in an opinion from the state Attorney General, asking the state high court to declare bans on marriage unconstitutional.

 

Recently, the New Mexico supremes refused to fast track the two marriage equality cases that are now pending in lower state court. The decision to effectively delay the cases led Clerk Lynn Ellins to determine that same-sex couples in her county should not have to wait a year or longer to tie the knot, particularly now that the Supreme Court has struck the Defense of Marriage Act.

 

The High Court’s DOMA ruling has no technical bearing on state law, since it only concerned the question of whether the federal government has the right to discriminate between gay and straight married couples. But there’s no question that its underlying support for equality has had a broad impact on public officials and other courts. And, well, let’s just say that it feels as if the High Court’s twin rulings have tipped the playing field in our direction.  

 

Hawaii, meanwhile, is the latest state to begin a hard push towards legalizing marriage by legislative action. Hawaii is, of course, the birthplace of court-ordered marriage equality, even though the pro-gay decisions of 1993 and 1996 were rebuffed by voters. But the Hawaii voters who amended their constitution in the late 1990s did not pass the usual type of marriage ban. Instead, the constitutional amendment allowed the legislature to declare that marriage was a heterosexual union. That means that the legislature can reverse itself without violating the antigay amendment, and it looks as if they will work towards that goal this fall.

--

 

My Summer Vacation

 

You know, there are other gay marriage stories floating around this week, but the plot lines remain the same. We want equality. Many people agree that equality is right and inevitable. We are making progress in courts and legislatures.

 

That said, why belabor the details? Instead, let me tell you about our trip to the Solheim Cup in Parker, Colorado last week. A couple of years ago we went on an Olivia cruise, and there were moments last week that reminded me of an Olivia cruise on land. That said, we wished Olivia had been in charge of logistics because much of the week devolved into a zoo of long lines, long waits, long walks and unnecessary mishaps.

 

We tromped around this lengthy golf course in 95 degree heat at an altitude of God knows how high until we approached cardiac arrest. We had no idea what was happening because there were very few signs. When we arrived at a green, we were quickly displaced by more aggressive fans who blocked any view of the players. When we splurged on the special bar pavilion, they stopped checking passes so the whole place was overrun and the bar lines were 45 minutes or longer.

 

We had a horrible meal at an expensive French restaurant. The next night, after one too many gin and tonics, Mel and I had one of our rare fights because I could not decide on a restaurant. She suggested I drop her off at the hotel and “go wherever I liked.” We ended up eating cheese and pouting in our hotel room. (At least it was cheaper than the French place.)

 

To top it off, as many of you golf fans are aware, the American team was quickly in the hole and wound up losing by the largest margin in the history of the Solheim Cup. Our car rental was double the expected price. The hotel pool was set at the temperature of the hot tub. And we got continually lost, even after four or five days of driving the same route. That said, there were a lot of lesbians! I love lesbians, but not even our many sisters could save this trip from near disaster.

--

 

Most Annoying State Ever

 

So, I think I read that Thailand was considering marriage equality. As I implied earlier, I’m kind of tired of endless marriage news, so I did not read carefully. Plus, I associate Thailand with child prostitution and soapy tasting lemon grass, so whatever. Still, it would be nice.

 

I suppose I must add that the New Jersey marriage lawsuit was argued in lower state court on August 15. I’m frustrated by this open-and-shut case, which continues to crawl laboriously through the Garden State courts, even as the outcome is not in dispute. As you may recall, the New Jersey Supreme Court has already ruled that gay couples must be given the same benefits as their heterosexual neighbors. The pathetic civil unions that were put in place to achieve this goal are clearly insufficient to meet the test of “equality.” And yet the state supreme court has forced us to litigate this complaint from scratch, starting with the lower courts and eventually returning to the justices.

 

It’s not fair! Let’s imagine that I sued you for $100 and the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that you must pay. Instead of complying, you only give me $50. I go back to the Supreme Court to demand that the justices enforce the original ruling, but instead of backing me up, they make me file a new lawsuit to get the full amount. That’s exactly what has happened over the last several years in New Jersey and it’s more than infuriating. Add to that the fact that the legislature has also passed marriage equality, only to see it vetoed for no reason by Chris Christie, and you can put New Jersey at the top of the list of States That Should Have Marriage Equality But Don’t Due To Public Cowardice.

 

Christie did sign the ban on reparative therapy recently passed by the legislature the other day, but so what? Are we supposed to give him a nice pat on the back? I don’t think so.

--

 

Juliet and Juliet Sage Continues

 

Do you remember the story of Kaitlin Hunt, the teenaged Florida girl charged with some horrible sounding sex crime for having a love affair with a younger classmate? Since the girls were something like 14 and 18, the tryst violated some state law and Kaitlin found herself facing jail and sex offender status. The DA offered a deal that would have given Kaitlin a couple of years of house arrest and would not have forced her to become a sex offender, but the Hunt family declined the deal.

 

Kaitlin became a cause celebre in the GLBT community, complete with a Facebook page championing her unfair dilemma. And it was unfair. Teenagers, whether gay or straight, should not be threatened with prison for having affairs for God’s sake. It’s crazy. What should the age range be? I don’t know. Five years maybe? But in any event, we (the gay community) also felt instinctively that Kaitlin was also being targeted because she and her friend were lesbians.

 

As you may know, so-called Romeo and Juliet laws exist to make sure that innocent teens don’t suffer the same fate as older predators. In the past, we’ve seen cases where Romeo and Juliet laws don’t apply to gay teens, and at first I assumed this was the situation in Florida. But in fact, Florida’s Romeo and Juliet law applies to everyone, including Kaitlin. The law, which covers consensual affairs between kids 14 and older who are involved with someone within four years of their age, simply allows the prosecutor to offer exactly the deal that was offered to Kaitlin, to wit a period of house arrest with no sex offender status.

 

The question remained as to whether Florida had historically turned a blind eye to straight teen “offenders,” but I haven’t read anything to suggest that this was the case. Ergo, although the situation was absurd, it did not appear to be antigay.

 

But we still supported Kaitlin, because c’mon! We’ve all been there. The girls were in love, and there’s nothing like being in love when you’re a teenager. It’s insane. I remember when my first love broke up with me, I decided I would quit college, move to her house and lie outside on the street for days and nights if necessary until she changed her mind. (It never occurred to me that this course of action might render me less attractive as a potential girlfriend. And no, I did not follow through with the plan.)

 

So here’s the latest. Kaitlin, who has been waiting for the next developments in her case, has been arrested and tossed in jail for violating the court’s requirement to avoid contact with her girlfriend. Instead of keeping her head down, she has been texting and sexting hundreds of messages, news reports say. The DA has now withdrawn any and all plea deals and is charging ahead towards trial. Kaitlin, Kaitlin, Kaitlin.

 

As we mentioned, a teenager in love is not in possession of a right mind, particularly a lesbian if you’ll permit me to generalize. Asking Kaitlin to avoid contact was like asking a hungry dog to stay away from the T-bone you just placed in his dish. But still. Honey, could you have just sucked it up for a few weeks until this ordeal was behind you? As for the DA, do you really want to put this kid behind bars? Is that why you went to law school?

--

 

Young Love

 

Finally, speaking of prison, my friend and colleague Kim Corsaro inspired us to watch the first season of Orange is the New Black on Netflix. It’s one of those potato chip series, much like Homeland and House of Cards, that you can’t stop consuming from one episode to the next even as the clock strikes midnight and later.

 

It almost, and I repeat almost, made me want to go to prison myself. I can only hope that if Kaitlin is sent away, she emerges with a fabulous book or movie deal, assuming she’s a good writer. Surely Hallmark or Lifetime will consider an offer.

 

And now, I find myself with another paragraph to write. Not enough space for a new topic, and yet it’s too soon to draw this column to a close. Oh, but here’s a perfect tidbit for the Bay Area reader. In fact, maybe you already know that Steve Young and his wife are supporters of same-sex marriage, and even put a “No on Prop 8” sign on their lawn back in 2008.

 

Now, the masterful Mormon quarterback and his wife are scheduled to speak to gay Mormons at a conference in Salt Lake City, in part because Steve’s wife’s brother is gay. Did you already know that? Sorry, it takes time for these things to travel to Central Texas.

 

Hey. Speaking of Steve Young, are you ready for some football?

--

arostow@aol.com

The Heat Is On

GLBT Fortnight in Review, August 7, 2013

BY ANN ROSTOW

 

The Heat Is On

 

August in Central Texas is not a happy time. You know those scenes in horror movies where the scientists are working at the South Pole and have to plod from one metal building to the next in order to confer with a colleague? The laborious hundred yard trek takes forever. Their breath freezes. Their faces and beards are covered with ice. And their colleague has been half eaten by a mutant Arctic spider, so the whole errand was pointless in the first place. Austin in deep summer is just the same except in reverse and (as a rule) without the mutant spiders.

 

But at least I have the small solace of being able to enjoy my annual use of the word “canicula,” which is one of those words that becomes pretentious if tossed out more than once or twice a year. (Mentioning the word itself outside of its use in context doesn’t count.) I haven’t decided whether to use it this week or in the next column. We’ll see where it might apply. But I know it’s available, just waiting for me. The pleasure is akin to writing about an event that destroyed 10 percent of some population and being able to use the verb “decimate” with complete accuracy even as it defies its common definition.

 

Normally, the torpor that settles into the depth of the canicula saps the energy from our GLBT news, leaving us with a desiccated hull of old stories and dry statistics. But not this year. The High Court’s gay rights decisions in late June have flowered into many blossoms of new court cases, new legislative optimism, and new attitudes across a range of public forums. The twin victories have strewn a potent fertilizer on GLBT issues across the land, and it seems as if every case and controversy is taken seriously and/or reviewed in our favor. If I can extricate myself from this labored analogy, I’ll compile some examples.

 

For one thing, it feels as if we are winning the sort of legal disputes that used to be aborted by the first court that took a look. You may remember the two Ohio men, who convinced a judge to order the state to recognize their Maryland marriage on an impending death certificate last month. (One of the men is dying.) This month, a federal court in Pennsylvania has ordered a law firm to pay a death benefit to the widow of one of their lawyers who died of cancer. Previously, that death benefit of about $50,000 was earmarked for the dead woman’s parents, who disapproved of her same-sex marriage.

 

The House Republicans who defended the Defense of Marriage Act across the board have now abandoned any and all legal activities, period. They have withdrawn from all pending cases even though they could theoretically have developed alternative anti-marriage arguments in the wake of the Windsor ruling.

 

Public support of gay rights and marriage equality is growing or holding steady in the aftermath of the decisions. Politicians are either jumping on the marriage bandwagon, ducking the subject, or issuing vague remarks that would have been hailed a decade ago as a sign of progress. A raft of new lawsuits have been filed by our legal eagles, as well as another handful by individuals acting on their own. A county official in the Philadelphia area has begun offering marriage licenses in defiance of state law, and although that action is heading for the courts, the move feels less like a symbolic gesture ala San Francisco in 2004 and more like a harbinger of future state policy.

 

Is a backlash, or a mini-backlash in our future? I don’t think so. Instead of two steps forward and one step back, we seem to be moving ten steps forward and six inches back, an encouraging pace indeed.

--

 

There Oughta Be a Law

 

The sheriff of East Baton Rouge has apologized for a prolonged park sting operation in which a dozen or so men were arrested for soliciting a felony under the Louisiana sodomy law. After the High Court struck sodomy laws as unconstitutional, they still remained on the books in states, like Louisiana and Texas, where lawmakers simply refused to repeal them on principle. Of course the sodomy statutes were unconstitutional. But apparently, that didn’t stop the Yahoos in East Baton Rouge from sending undercover cops into the park for a two-year sting fest.

 

Once the men were arrested, the charges were subsequently dropped by district attorneys familiar with the notion that unconstitutional statutes no longer carry penalties. But they were arrested nonetheless! Not a pleasant process, I’m sure.    

 

In an even stranger case, the distasteful Virginia Attorney General and gubernatorial candidate, Ken Cuccinelli, is trying to restore a version of his state’s flat ban on anal and oral sex that would only apply to 16 and 17 year olds.

 

Let’s back up for a minute. The Virginia sodomy ban, which applied to everyone, was effectively struck by the High Court along with all the other state bans on consensual non-commercial sex. But naturally, it remained on the books as a symbol of the Loving State’s commitment to, ah, traditional intercourse.

 

Along comes a 47-year-old guy, who sounds like a bit of a sleazebag frankly, who tried to convince a 17-year-old girl to give him a blow job. Since the age of consent is 15, the man broke no law in his efforts. Nonetheless, he was charged under a law that makes it a felony to solicit a minor to commit a felony. The girl was a minor, but the suggested underlying felony was based on the technically defunct sodomy law. Nevertheless, he spent a year in jail and had to register as a sex offender.

 

In March, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled in favor of Mr. Blowjob and told Virginia to shove its sodomy law where the sun don’t shine, Cuccinelli has appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that the state law could survive the Lawrence decision if it applied only to minors under 17, but above the age of consent. Following this line of thinking to its logical conclusion, Cuccinelli’s Virginia would allow a high school junior to have intercourse, but not oral sex--- regardless of sexual orientation by the way.

 

I can’t imagine that the justices would bother with Cuccinelli’s appeal, but still! The man’s a freak. Keep an eye on the election this November and hope that Terry McAuliffe can pull out a win. Last month, the Democrat led Cuccinelli by a few points.

--

 

Cold War

 

The biggest GLBT news story this week is one that we will be talking about for the next six or seven months. I am sort of sidestepping the discussion only because I know it will be a major topic of debate for the near term.

 

I’m talking, of course, about the Winter Olympics in Russia, where just a few months ago, the country instituted a nationwide ban on pro-gay “propaganda,” a law that prohibits pride demonstrations, gay civil rights statements or writings, rainbow flags, or anything else you can think of.

 

What do we do about this? It feels too late to change the location. And we know from experience that Olympic boycotts are problematic. Olympic rules, in turn, forbid political statements at the games, so athletes who protest might run into sanctions. Or would they? Although the Olympic officials have been dithering around, I would think that in this situation they could simply turn a blind eye to any athlete who wears a rainbow pin or defies the law in a gesture of solidarity.

 

Meanwhile, the International Olympic Committee claims that Russian officials have assured them that the law will not be enforced against visiting athletes. Really? The St. Petersburg politician who authored the first “no promo homo” law in his own city insists that the law’s the law and no one can ignore it. That said, he might just be a rightwing blow hard with no influence on the situation.

 

Some are calling for a boycott of Russian vodka, Stoli in particular. The brand is owned by a Luxembourg-based parent company, but the ingredients are still Russian and hey, it’s a matter of principle. We’re also boycotting Russian products in general, so you can say goodbye to the little nesting dolls and go buy your caviar from Iran.

--

 

I Heart Uruguay

 

So, Uruguay did legalize marriage equality the other day. I was confused about that, but the news is good. And the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has ruled that the middle school girls who were disciplined for wearing plastic bracelets reading “I (heart) boobies” can continue sending their coy breast cancer message.

 

The school in question argued that the bracelets were too provocative for middle school and could lead to other, more salacious bracelets, operating under cover of the First Amendment. Schools do have the power to regulate disruptive clothing to an extent, but the courts have determined that the booby bracelets are simply not that big of a deal. Further, the Third Circuit judges ruled, the school is not allowed to prohibit a political statement based on the fear that some other sexier manifestation might arise. Presumably, if an “I (heart) big dicks” bracelet were to circulate, the school could take action at that time.

 

The news is interesting to us, obviously, because the tension between schools and First Amendment rights so often rises to the surface in gay cases. This time it’s a breast cancer bracelet. Next time, it could be another gay rights T-shirt and a school that claims erroneously that such shirts bring sex into the classroom.

 

Oh, and how about this little vignette? Apparently, back in late June, the driver of an airport shuttle in Albuquerque made a gay couple go sit in the back of the bus because they were holding hands and singing. The owner of the shuttle company suspended the driver and apologized to the men, and the mayor has called the driver’s behavior “inappropriate.” See? It’s just as I was saying at the start of this column. This sort of incident would have been ignored or laughed off a few years ago. Now, even the mayor feels obliged to speak out.

--

 

Christians Behaving Badly

 

While we’re in New Mexico, keep an eye out for a key state supreme court ruling on whether a wedding photographer has the right to refuse a lesbian client under the state’s antidiscrimination law. Oral arguments were heard in March, so a ruling could emerge any day. And as you know, this is far from the only instance of a Christian business owner claiming immunity from state laws based on religious freedom.

 

For example, there’s another case pending in a lower court in Washington, where a florist refused service to one of her regular customers, a gay man who was getting married. Again, the florist claimed that supplying a gay wedding would violate her religious beliefs. This case has been combined with a complaint brought by the state attorney general against the florist, so the florist faces both her rejected client and the state government itself.

 

I will save my usual rant over misplaced religious freedom for another column, but I did read recently that most Americans believe small businesses should be allowed to refuse service to gays on religious grounds. Interestingly, the same survey noted that most Americans do not believe that atheists should be allowed to refuse service to Christians.

 

Think about this for a minute. It shows that no matter how far we have come, we still fall far short of winning the hearts and minds of our heterosexual fellow Americans. You cannot simply “believe” that disapproval of gays is a religious commandment any more than you can “believe” that racism is based on scripture and protected by the First Amendment. Well, I should say that you can believe anything you like, but such a belief should not be given automatic credence when a court of law examines your claims. I mean, really. Could the florist deny service to a Muslim? Answer, no.

--

arostow@aol.com