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
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
