Federal Judge Allows DOMA Suit To Proceed

News for the Week Ended January 26, 2011
BY ANN ROSTOW


Federal Judge Allows DOMA Suit To Proceed

I’m not sure how I missed this item last week, but someone managed to transport a 650-pound grand piano 200 yards off the Miami coast and leave it on a sandbar in Biscayne Bay. The piano is resting on a high point, which is not underwater. Authorities have no plans to remove it.

I love this quixotic story. I love the people who decided to put a piano on a sandbar. I love the Coast Guard and the Miami law enforcers who have decided to keep their hands off the surreal scene. All we need now is a candelabra and a thin man in tails.

I guess the man reason I chose to lead my column with this piece of news is because it shows us, once again, that anything is possible. I don’t mean that in a sugary sense. It’s possible for planes to knock down the twin towers, something we had not known ten years ago. But it’s also possible for a grand piano to appear in the middle of a bay. Dreams, like nightmares, can come true.

I’m supposed to lead my column with an actual news story, so that the first headline reads something like: “Federal Judge Allows DOMA Suit to Proceed,” rather than: “Piano Will Remain on Florida Sandbar.” 

That said, a federal judge in Oakland refused to dismiss a lawsuit brought against the U.S. government and the California pension system (CalPERS) by several married gay couples. The couples, all state employees, are trying to get long-term insurance for their spouses. But CalPERS has refused, claiming it could lose federal tax advantages by recognizing same-sex marriages and thereby violating the Defense of Marriage Act.

In denying the Obama administration’s motion to dismiss the case, Judge Claudia Wilken made clear that she believes DOMA is unconstitutional. Ergo, she will presumably rule in favor of the same-sex couples once the trial is over. Meanwhile, lawyers will be back in Wilken’s court next month to try to certify the case as a class action.
--


Irrelevant Detour

This computer is running slower than a crock-pot, which makes it difficult to maintain my concentration. I mean seriously. I just spent five minutes trying to determine whether the federal judge in that DOMA case was Judge Claudia “Wilken” or “Wilkens.” In doing so, I came across several stories where she was referred to as Judge “Wilkins” “Wilkens” and “Wilkin.” Attention online news services: Editors please!

You know which pain-killer I’m going to avoid from now on? The answer is “Aleve,” which is running commercials featuring a depressing cast of dreary middle-aged nonentities who shuffle through their drab workdays taking pill after pill for their various aches and pains. In the end, they all decide to use Aleve so they can take fewer pills, and the whole scenario is narrated “Dick and Jane” style, by an annoying plodding voice over man.

“This is Steven, who decided to take Aleve, for a day free of pain.”

Hello? Do you think I want to emulate boring Steven or his sad female counterpart? No! Show me a handsome man and beautiful woman who strained their muscles moving a 650-pound piano onto a sandbar and I’ll happily buy your product.
--


Back To The Grindstone

That last section was originally supposed to focus on news from the state legislatures, but here’s the problem.

There’s nothing worse than having to cover the progress of a bill through a state legislature. First it’s introduced. Then it goes through a few committees. Then it goes to the floor of one of the chambers. Then it goes to committees in the other chamber. Then, maybe it passes and goes to the governor. But meanwhile, it could get shelved, amended, delayed, stuck in committee, whatever. Meanwhile, you and I might spend week after week watching sausage processed in the Iowa or Wyoming legislature, and in the end it all gets dumped in a vat, mixed with sawdust and sold to Taco Bell.

I’d prefer to just skip the preliminary stages and wait until the outcome is clear. But then again, my email is full of screaming headlines right now and the noise is deafening.

Take Iowa. (Please!)

Badaboom.

A house committee in the Ethanol State has approved an amendment that would roll back marriage rights and outlaw civil unions and domestic partnerships in the process. Everyone is rightly outraged at this prospect.

But you know what? The Democratic leader of the state senate has already pledged to make sure this amendment never makes it to a vote in his chamber, so as far as I’m concerned, it’s not news and it’s not worth worrying about.

In Hawaii, it looks as if the legislature will try again to pass a civil union bill. They passed one last year, but it was vetoed by Linda Lingle. Now, Linda’s out and Democrat Neil Abercrombie is in. Still, this will be more newsworthy once the bill actually reaches his desk.

Wyoming lawmakers are pushing a civil union bill, an anti-marriage amendment, and a statute that bans marriage recognition. The antigay amendment just passed a senate committee and the antigay stature just passed a house committee, but both proposals have more hearings ahead before they can advance to a floor vote. I know, I know. The specter of tedious and confusing news developments out of the Cheney State already casts a dark shadow on our future columns.

Continuing on, a marriage equality bill has a good chance to pass in Maryland over the next several weeks. I also think New York will try to pass marriage equality but I’m not clear on the chances of such an effort. There’s stuff going on in Rhode Island (bill introduced to legalize marriage). And Republicans in New Hampshire, where marriage is already legal, have indicated that they are not inclined to put much effort into repealing marriage rights, which is nice.

I’m sure there are other gay things going on in other states, but why don’t we just wait until they approach newsworthy status? What would you rather read about? Some dead-on-arrival workplace nondiscrimination bill in Virginia, where the governor hates us? Or my opinion of the Aleve commercials?

Just as I thought!
--


On The Small Screen

Here’s some news. Robert Greenblatt, a gay-friendly entertainment executive who used to work for Showtime, has moved to NBC and ordered a pilot for a lesbian show. Called “I hate that I love you,” the show focuses on two women, their straight buddies, and a pregnancy. I’m not sure what the title implies. Presumably the women are not self-loathing, but have a tempestuous relationship of some sort. I’m sure a baby will be just the thing.

Well, we’ll see. It’s all about the writing after all. I always thought that there should be comic-drama show about a GLBT newspaper or magazine with fun characters. One of the writers would be a straight woman, or man, who pretends to be gay in order to get a reporting job and has to hide her or his relationship. The publisher would be well known as a spokesperson for the community, but behind closed doors would be a pragmatic and centrist business person.

Many of the plots would revolve around intriguing news stories dug up by the intrepid staff. And there would have to be a deep-pocketed secret donor who could finance some of the investigative journalism. Well, of course this sort of idea occurred to me since I have long worked for GLBT papers and magazines. But I still like it.

I also like the idea of a gay All in the Family, which gently ridicules the homophobic matriarch or patriarch.

I have actually written several TV episodes along these lines, so Robert, give me a call. (Hey, you never know.)

In other TV news, Frito Lay is considering a couple of gay-themed Dorito ads for the Super Bowl. One involves a gay male couple eating chips poolside while their neighbors peer over the hedge. Somehow, the otherwise neutral dialogue confirms their view that their male neighbor is gay, but frankly I’m not sure why. Anyway, they’re eating chips.

In the other one, a white guy and a black guy are sitting naked in the sauna. The white guy glances down at the black guy’s lap (which we can’t see) and looks, well, hungry. He reaches down and in the end we see that the black guy is holding a bag of Doritos. I think it’s pretty funny, but I gather some of the sterner watchdogs in our community think the ads may rely on “stereotypes.”

For God’s sake. All ads rely on stereotypes. The housewives sigh as the clumsy husbands spill things on the counter. The husbands go to any lengths to avoid household chores. The kids are rascally. The list goes on. There’s nothing wrong with gay stereotypes. There’s something wrong with using them to denigrate gay people. I don’t see any of that in the Doritos ads. Check them out on youtube and see what you think.
--


SOTU Brutus

Did you watch the State of the Union speech last night?

I read a great piece by Wayne Beson, the activist/writer who runs Truth Wins Out and writes regular columns on the ex-gay industry and other topics. Beson noted that by passing the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, Obama let the air out of balloon of gay rage that was about to explode.

I agree with him. Even though the DADT repeal only directly affects the small minority of gays and lesbians in military service, the impact of this achievement affects us all in a profound way. I won’t rehash that subject, but in doing this one thing, Obama can no longer be seen as impotent or indifferent to gay rights.

He’s no “fierce champion,” and we still have many complaints. But the DADT repeal, along with the new regulations on hospital recognition of gay partners and some other little things he did remind us that he’s on our side to some extent.

Without the DADT repeal, I would have watched last night’s speech with mixed feelings. I admire so many things about Obama. I agree with his policies. I think he saved our economy, saved our auto industry, and has “reset” our foreign policy to use the trendy term. But for a long time I felt he had turned his back on me, tossed me aside as a pesky special interest mosquito that he couldn’t be bothered with. Now, I feel like a slightly neglected pet who was sad, but got a pat and a bone and feels better.

The pat and the bone allowed me to watch the SOTU as the networks called it without bringing my personal pique to the exercise. His speech, along with his speech in Tucson, reminded me of his intelligence and compassion. Indeed, it’s my very admiration for Obama that makes his seeming disdain for GLBT civil rights so painful. But I have some faith that he will step up to the plate in his second term. Maybe he’ll even find a way to lean towards us in his judicial strategy over the next two years.

By the way, are all of you upset by the loss of Keith Olbermann?

I’m not. I’m a yellow dog Democrat and agreed with Olbermann on every issue, but I couldn’t stand the guy. I thought he was pompous and egotistical and after several years of loyal viewing I couldn’t listen to his bombast anymore.

Lastly, did you hear that Dennis Kucinich is suing the Longworth Cafeteria for $150,000 because he got an olive pit in his wrap back in 2008? The former presidential candidate says he suffered severe and permanent damage to his teeth.

Now, if that’s true, he deserves some cash. But how do you destroy your teeth by biting into an olive pit? As soon as you encounter a foreign object you instinctively relax your bite and investigate, right? You don’t continue to crunch down. Unless Kucinich took a powerful crazy chomping bite, I don’t see how he could have done that kind of damage. Just saying.
--