Hmmmm. What Shall We Talk About?

GLBT Week in Review, April 30, 2014

BY ANN ROSTOW

 

Hmmmm. What Shall We Talk About?

 

I think there are only three states left in the country that are not embroiled in a federal marriage suit, not counting the 17 states that already celebrate marriage equality of course. Many states are enjoying multiple lawsuits. And I’m not even counting the state lawsuits here and there, like the one in Texas where a local judge recently slammed the state’s anti-marriage law in the case of divorcing lesbians in San Antonio.

 

The latest twist comes out of North Carolina, where a bunch of clergy and same-sex couples are attacking a state statute that basically bans ministers from performing weddings for couples without a marriage license. The lawsuit also targets the North Carolina anti-marriage amendment, but it has been drawing headlines for its claim that the Tobacco State is trampling on religious freedom.

 

Without delving into the aforementioned statute, I’m guessing that the language in the state code was originally meant to prevent straight people from running to the altar without bothering with the bureaucracy of actually getting a license and so forth. Strangely, the law seems to put the burden on the minister, by instituting a fine, forcing a minister to check the paperwork before he or she ties the ritual knot. (Ironically, the law serves to emphasize again, that marriage is a civil status, regardless of how sacred the religious side of it might be seen by the participants.)

 

At any rate, since gay couples can’t get a license to wed in North Carolina, the church plaintiffs are insisting that their right to perform a religious ceremony of marriage is unconstitutionally subjected to criminal penalties. Hey, they have a point! This ought to be interesting.  

 

Off the top of my head, I can tell you that we have a new lawsuit in Georgia, and a full throated suit for equality in Ohio. We’ve already won a marriage recognition case in the Buckeye State, but this latest one is for all the marbles.

 

In significant related news, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has refused to consolidate the appeals of marriage cases out of Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky and Tennessee. Michigan’s attorney general had asked the entire court to go straight to an “en banc” review of marriage equality, but apparently not one judge agreed. The four cases will instead be heard by three-judge appellate panels as is the norm.

 

Keep an eye on Indiana, where arguments will be heard May 2 on whether to skip a factual trial on marriage equality and proceed to summary judgment. In the history of marriage litigation, we’ve only had three trials on the subject, mainly because the conflict is arguably a matter of law, not facts. Nonetheless, we had a trial in Hawaii in the late 1990s. We had the Prop 8 trial. And we just finished a trial in Michigan the other day. (We won them all. Yay!) I’m guessing that Indiana will skip a trial, given that the same judge recently issued a temporary restraining order against the Basketball State in favor of a lesbian couple.

 

Let’s see. A federal judge in Oregon just heard arguments the other day. Since no state authority is defending the ban on marriage in Beaverland, the National Organization for Marriage popped up at the very last minute to demand a seat at the table. NOM’s attempt to intervene will be discussed at a hearing May 14. Meanwhile, the activists at Basic Rights Oregon say they will abandon plans to force a statewide referendum on marriage if the judge rules in our favor by May 23. If that deadline passes, I’m assuming we will see a popular vote to legalize marriage this November. And I’m assuming we’ll win.

 

Next up in the news: arguments on the Virginia marriage law before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in mid-May.

--

 

Criminal Minds

 

Are my columns becoming tedious, Dear Readers? But what choice do I have? Back in the day, before hearing dates and appellate schedules overwhelmed this humble exercise, I had the space to discuss the wacky British lesbian who kidnapped her ex at knifepoint and took her on a harrowing ride down the M5. And the one who tried to poison her ex with sleeping pills and had to call emergency medical services. And the one who broke into her ex’s house and cut up her underwear. And the American woman who murdered her ex and left the body parts in boxes in the garage (carefully marked with her own name) to be discovered years later by her son-in-law.

 

Oh, I forget the details. But I do remember a time when gay news was colorful. And it wasn’t just the lesbians. Don’t forget all those gay male cannibals!

 

I have to assume that our community psychopaths are still out there. But maybe the news radar is so high these days that they’re not getting the kind of coverage that would attract our attention.  

 

I just googled “gay and lesbian psychopaths,” and found a list of six clues that suggest you’re dating a psychopath. If these clues seem familiar, the advice columnist suggests you “walk away” from the relationship. I have to say, that could be a problem, right? It’s the exes that get targeted for deranged shenanigans.

 

In a related note, here’s something I don’t like to see in an advice column. The other day, someone wrote Dear Abby to make a point about kind gestures. This writer, we were informed, went out of her way to help someone. I forget what she did even though she included every detail of her considerate gesture. She then told the recipient to pass along the goodness. Her point to Abby was that self-sacrificing favors were their own reward and helped make the world a better place. Surely there was no reason for this woman to send this account off for publication other than to pat herself on the back. I can’t believe Abby played into this egomaniac, and I was officially annoyed.  

 

The other advice column letters that I hate are the pompous notes from officials asking Abby to remind everyone to check their smoke alarms or stop texting while driving or watch out for phone scammers. We read Abby and her ilk for stories about obnoxious family members and scandalous affairs, not for boring civic reminders.

--

 

The Emperor’s New Faith

 

So here’s a question. Do you think there’s a comparison to be made between Donald Sterling and Brendon Eich? Sterling, as you know, is the owner of the Clippers who was barred for life from the NBA after he was heard disparaging black men in a taped conversation with his girlfriend. Eich is the former CEO of Mozilla, who lost his job when it became known that he donated $1,000 to Prop 8. After Eich was drummed out of his job, the GLBT community began an important debate on how we should treat those who oppose marriage equality. Should we treat them as decent people with whom we disagree, or should we call them out in no uncertain terms? That debate is still going on.

 

It’s a given that Sterling is “worse” than Eich. Sterling has a history of racism, and his taped conversation revealed what we might call “pure” racism. Eich had no history of homophobia, and if Eich had been caught on tape denouncing gay men and women, I imagine no one would have suggested he stay on the job.

 

That said, Eich wasn’t banned for life from the tech industry. He had just gotten the CEO job and in the uproar over his opposition to marriage equality he was deemed a liability. What we seem to be asking ourselves is this: can there ever be a benign reason for someone to support traditional marriage? Was the uproar over Eich unfair, or misplaced? (Significantly, the uproar did not come from gay organizations, but from individuals.)

 

The answer often seems to rest on faith. Don’t we, as Americans, respect people whose faiths lead them to conclusions which we don’t share? In general, the answer is yes. But there must be a limit to this. Faith doesn’t justify racism. Why should faith be allowed to justify hostility towards gay men and women? Why do we allow religious exclusions to civil rights bills and policies? Because of Leviticus?

 

The people who insist faith commands opposition to gay rights are using the Faith Card as a stand in for tradition, for how they were raised, for their unconscious attitudes, for their instinctive dislike of homosexuality. And these are the same reasons that lead others to, let’s say, give a thousand dollars to Prop 8. There’s no call to be churlish in our reaction to our opponents. But there’s no reason to let their actions (and make no mistake, Brendon Eich took action) go unchallenged.

 

Just because Sterling is a hundred times worse than Eich doesn’t mean that both men are not guilty of the same crime. Sterling robbed a bank of a million dollars while Eich shoplifted a set of cufflinks. Still, there’s a connection.

--

 

Resting Places

 

Here’s a nasty story out of Idaho. A 74-year-old Navy veteran, Madelynn Taylor lost her wife, Jean Mixner, in 2012. After Mixner’s death, Taylor went to the state veterans’ cemetery to arrange for the two of them to be buried together when the time comes. Mixner was cremated, and Taylor also plans to be cremated, so it’s not as if the women will take up much space.

 

But, as you might have guessed by the adjective “nasty,” the Spud State authorities said no. Because this is a state facility, the cemetery poobahs refused to recognize Taylor and Mixner’s 2008 California marriage.

 

You know, there are dozens of antigay news stories in any given week, but this one really takes your breath away. Taylor, who is keeping Mixner’s ashes in a closet for now, has lived in Idaho for a long time and has family in the state. “I just feel like it’s the right place for me,” she told the press. “You know, I’m a veteran. But I don’t want to be alone. I want Jean with me.”

 

Governor Butch Otter, in turn, noted in a statement that “Idaho’s Constitution does not recognize same-sex marriage. The voters spoke in 2006 by passing an amendment to our Constitution defining marriage as between a man and a woman.”  Give us a gay break, Butch. I wonder if this is really what the voters of Idaho hoped to achieve when they pulled the levers, or poked the chads, back in 2006. And when people speculate on why our movement has made so much progress, it’s because of people like Madelynn Taylor and Jean Mixner.

 

By the way, not only does Idaho have a federal lawsuit underway, but it is part of the Ninth Circuit, where a marriage case is still pending and where we are still waiting to hear whether our major sexual orientation discrimination ruling from last January will stay on the books without further review from the full court. If the ruling holds, and if the (Nevada) case goes forward, Taylor won’t have that much longer to wait before Idaho’s marriage amendment turns into mashed potatoes.

 

I can’t remember whether I’ve mentioned Mel and my plan to be cremated and mixed together. We decided to buy three tacky urns, perhaps decorated with sparkles and inlaid photos of the two of us smiling drunkenly and holding tropical cocktails. Maybe we’ll have “Mom and Ann” written in script. Anyway, we’ll give one urn to each of the three adult children with instructions to keep them on prominent display forever. Oh, maybe we’ll write “Nana and Grand Ann” and make the grandkids put the urns on the mantle. Something like that. The idea is so outrageous that it’s almost tempting.

 

Maybe we’ll write little notes and put them on the bottom under the ashes that say: “put us back in the urn this instant!”

--

 

arostow@aol.com

 

 

 

 

 

The New Black

GLBT Fortnight in Review, April 16, 2014

BY ANN ROSTOW

 

The New Black

 

Swirling through the debate over marriage and gay rights in general is a deeper American colloquy.  Is opposition to gay equality a matter of opinion to be respected? Or is it a derivative of prejudice to be condemned?

 

We’re not talking about some hostile crazy person who says gays will burn in Hell. We’re talking about someone like Brendan Eich, the head of Mozilla who was forced to resign under duress after it became known that he donated a thousand bucks to Prop 8 back in the day. We’re talking about the head of Barilla pasta, who said his company promoted traditional values and would not use gay families in its commercials. We’re talking about the photographer in New Mexico who said she’d happily serve gay clients, but balked at taking on a lesbian wedding. We’re talking about Bubba Watson, winner of two green jackets who believes gays are sinners but said he loved us anyway (and would have us over to dinner).

 

Many people, including some ardent supporters of marriage rights, have recently written about the need for comity between activists and what I guess you might call passive resistors--- otherwise decent sounding people who happen to believe in traditional values but who wish us no harm. When a computer guy loses his job because he made a political donation that we don’t like over a decade ago, don’t we look like the intolerant ones? Can’t we win our battles in a polite marketplace of ideas rather than the nasty arena of Internet petitions and politically correct screams in the media?

 

In some ways, I would love to join the crowd now calling for good manners on the battlefield of gay rights. I’ve always enjoyed sending digs in the direction of the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), who used to pop up on cue like an angry Jack in the box, all red faced due to some completely innocuous incident or remark. Not everything is a slur. Even stereotypes are sometimes accurate. Some gay men and lesbians are complete jerks. We are not perfect, nor beyond criticism.

 

But opposition to marriage equality is not a banality. Or if it is, it’s of the Hannah Arendt variety. Free speech, as we all know, does not guarantee that speech will have no consequence. It only guarantees that the State will not censor our commentaries absent some compelling reason. Indeed, Internet petitions and boycotts are exactly the sort of tools we have at our disposal to fight notions we find contemptible. And if and when someone else finds our contempt alarming, they have recourse to the same arsenal of Democracy. The marketplace of ideas is more of a street fair than a chic boutique.

 

Mr. Eich lost his job not because of an organized campaign from gay activists, but because of several factors: a web site made a big deal about it, an online petition of complaint generated 70,000 names (not such a big number), and Mozilla staffers were upset. It was bad publicity for a firm in a very competitive and youth oriented field. Many other corporate chiefs with unpleasant views have survived.

 

Much of the reaction against those who don’t favor marriage equality now comes---not from the GLBT community—but from the rest of America, particularly young America. We are the new Black. We are the new Correct. This is the side effect of widespread change in America’s view of sexual orientation.

 

Is it sportsmanlike? Gentlemanly? Perhaps not. The LGBT community and our allies aren’t running around looking for adversaries to put to the sword. But nor are we letting people off the hook when they maintain that they have nothing against us, save a harmless desire to stick with tradition. The tradition of relegating gays and lesbians to second class status or worse is exactly what we have been fighting for decades, and there’s nothing harmless about it.

 

I can’t help but suspect that those in and out of the gay community who wring their hands at our inability to be “gracious in victory,” are themselves a product of their times. Baby boomers like me who are so relieved and happy at the amazing progress they’ve experienced that they are inclined to settle for a tolerant society rather than an equal one. But equal is equal. Nothing short of it is acceptable, period. Everyone remains free to maintain their views, but opposition to marriage equality, or any equality, will never go unchallenged as long as the gay rights movement runs forward.

 

We’ve always been fighting for equality. But we’ve been so far away that it’s been sort of a rhetorical goal. Equality, yes. But first, can we remove ourselves from the list of psychiatric disorders? First, can we repeal criminal statutes against gay relationships? Can we serve in the military? Can we keep our job, our housing? Can our partners see us in the hospital, inherit our assets?

 

Equality has only become visible in the last few years. Now it seems reachable. And now we have to make our case to exactly the sort of people who protest that they have nothing against gays save a difference of opinion or faith. It’s exactly that difference of “opinion” that we have been trying to reconcile for half a century. Are we equal or not? For those people who still insist “not,” even those well-meaning nice people, we must continue to express our disapproval. We can’t be gracious in victory until we’ve reached victory to begin with.

--

 

Tenth Circuit Redux

 

So here’s an interesting situation. One week ago, a three-judge panel on the Tenth Circuit heard arguments in the Utah marriage case, specifically the appeal of a federal ruling that struck down marriage discrimination in the Beehive State.

 

Tomorrow  (from my perspective that’s April 17) the exact same panel will hear arguments in the virtually identical Oklahoma marriage case. Are the judges going to ask different questions? Are they going to drill down on some of the issues raised the week before? Will they play devil’s advocate? Will the Okie lawyers take a different tack than the Utes?

 

Last week’s headlines were full of ambiguity, but the general theme was “judges seem split on marriage.”  It sounded, as we expected, that our Democratic appointee, Carlos Lucero, was on our side. Our conservative judge, Paul Kelly, seemed wary. And our middle of the road guy, Judge Jerome Holmes, could go our way if we’re lucky.

 

Much of the discussion revolved around the level of legal scrutiny to be applied to gay marriage and/or sexual orientation discrimination. Unfortunately, the Tenth Circuit recently ruled that sexual orientation bias does not deserve heightened scrutiny (in a 2008 case). On the other hand, the denial of fundamental rights like marriage should also trigger heightened scrutiny when denied. Some judges avoid this conclusion by deciding that, even though “marriage” is a fundamental right, the “right to marry a same-sex partner,” is not fundamental after all. I gather everyone went back and forth over this ground.

 

According to reports, there was also some discussion on the irritating subject of whether gay men and women are good parents. I won’t go into a full rant today, but I have to note (again) that gay men and women will be parents whether or not they are legally married. Further, the Supreme Court has expressly upheld the right to marry for deadbeat dads and incarcerated prisoners. No one questions that the “right to marry a convicted felon,” or the “right to marry a deadbeat who doesn’t pay child support,” is indeed “fundamental.” But the “right to marry a same-sex partner” is somehow unthinkable? It’s only a matter of time before the semantic strings that are holding up this dangling constitutional construction are frayed beyond repair, and I have to hope that this time has come.

 

In other federal marriage news, a judge in Ohio has ruled that the state must recognize same-sex marriages from elsewhere, a decision that flowed directly from December’s federal ruling on recognizing same-sex partners on death certificates in the Buckeye State. The judge stayed his opinion for Ohioans in general, but left it in effect for the plaintiff couples in the case.

 

The Ohio ruling, along with federal marriage victories in Tennessee, Kentucky and Michigan, will be headed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit later this year. The Michigan attorney general has asked that instead of assigning one or more three-judge panels, the full court will review all these cases “en banc.” Of the 15 active judges on the Sixth Circuit, 10 are GOP appointees and five are Democratically named. If you do the math, you can see why an opponent of marriage equality would want the entire bench to get together and hash it out. Even though many GOP judges have ruled in our favor over the last year, those odds are daunting for marriage activists.

 

Don’t forget that the Fourth Circuit will take up the Virginia marriage case next month, so we’ll have plenty of action in store. Plus, we are waiting for lower federal court rulings in a zillion other states. In fact, of the 33 states where marriage is not legal, only five are not party to legal action.

--

 

Georgia On My Mind

 

I could have gone on with marriage news, but we have to limit our intake. Otherwise, we wouldn’t have time to register our disappointment that Blubba won the Masters (it’s not just his Biblical literalism, but must he button his polo shirt up to the neck? I hate that.). Nor would we find the space to mention that Our Gay Bishop Gene Robinson is to give the Easter prayer at the White House, or that some airport cab drivers in Cleveland are refusing to drive taxis with Gay Games ads on the side.

 

Hey. How about the Chicago man, Kelvin Matthews, who was arguing with a Sprint customer care representative about an account that was supposed to be closed. When Sprint sent him an email to confirm whatever arrangements they made, he noticed it was addressed to: “Sissyboy Kelvin Gay Matthews.” Say what? Sprint offered him a free iphone and two months of service, but Kelvin refused and cancelled. Matthews is straight and married, not that there’s anything wrong with that.

 

The story reminds me of the convenience store that was in the news this week because the manager put up a sign that told clients to pull up their pants. Tired of the baggy look, the Georgia man wrote: “Only “FAGS” like to keep their pants down. Pull your pants up or be proud to be a FAG.”

 

“It really offends me by them coming in, pants down,” Anil Patel told the press. “So it is not that I’m against them, gay people or anything like that, but just trying to prove a point. If you are going to come in my store, make sure you have your pants on.”

 

You know. It’s hard enough to fight stereotypes. And indeed, as I mentioned earlier, some stereotypes are real. But coming up with completely erroneous generalizations about our community adds surrealism to insult. Readers? Have you ever seen a gay man running around gangsta-style with his pants around his hips in public? Emphasis on “public?” Oh, and notice that Mr. Patel “has nothing against us,” a mitigating aside that has become a de rigeur preface to even the most horrific antigay remark.

 

And finally, keeping the previous item in mind, I recently read an essay (in the New York Times, bien sur) that questioned why the media tiptoes around words like “fag” when used in a news context. Why say that Mr. Patel “used a gay slur” or that someone “told the press to go away using language that cannot be repeated in this newspaper?”

 

Why not say “fag,” or “fuck off,” if that’s what was said or written? It’s not as if the media itself has deliberately selected a slur or an obscenity. It’s part of the news story. I don’t know how many times I’ve had to look up a story ten times before I can figure out exactly what “slur” or “term of denigration” was employed in some situation that I’m trying to describe. We’re all grownups here. If the guy said it, report it.

--

arostow@aol.com