News for the Week Ended January 19, 2011
BY ANN ROSTOW
NOM That Tune
Good morning dear Readers. I’ve just had the pleasure of listening to a conversation between Maggie Gallagher of the National Organization for Marriage and Reince Priebus, the new head of the Republican National Committee whose parents seemed to have turned his real name into an anagram before making a formal record.
Reince Priebus? I’m not in the habit of ridiculing people for their names of all things, but you could almost close your eyes, type 13 letters at random, and come up with something more, um, name-like.
Sghdbs Sjbciha? Pnsisk Fydnikd? (Actual test of above theory.)
Perhaps that was an exaggeration.
At any rate, Reince reassured Maggie that indeed he opposed same-sex marriage rights and when pressed, explained his belief that children “are better off with a mother and a father.”
I was struck, not by the fact that the new party chair follows the party line, but by the continuing disconnect between conservative talking points and the real world. Last month during the Senate hearings on Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, there was some discussion about “phasing in” a new policy, as if repealing the ban on openly gay service meant that gay men would suddenly be entering the military as brand new recruits, moving into the barracks with their two-toned persimmon bedrolls (right next to your bunk!) blasting Judy Garland from the communal CD player, and calling everyone “Girl!”
Likewise, much of the discussion on marriage laws seems to imply that gay men and lesbians would suddenly start forming committed relationships and families from scratch if policies were to change.
Does Reince Priebus believe that as long as marriage remains legally barred, gay couples will not exist, and will not have children? Does he believe that under current law, we are obliged to hand our children over to heterosexual families? Or does he believe that without the right to marry our partners, we ourselves will have no choice but to marry members of the opposite sex and raise children “with a mother and a father?”
Has he even thought through his nonsensical rationale? He also decried judges who use the Full Faith and Credit Clause to try and impose their social views on the rest of the nation, even though in nearly two decades of covering gay rights law I have never encountered such a ruling.
Anyway, I suppose he’s better than Michael Steele, who could double as an “unsub” on Criminal Minds.
--
Lesbianism, Italian Style
There are a couple of intriguing legal developments this week, but I prefer to begin the meat of this column with some news from the Daily Mail, where we learn that Silvio Berlusconi enjoyed “staged lesbian sex shows” at “whorehouse parties,” court records show.
Don’t you love court records?
The Daily Mail editors might have interceded on behalf of the lead sentence, which reads:
“Women paid to have sex with Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi dressed in nurse and police uniforms and performed stripteases at parties, it was claimed today.”
I can’t decide which image I prefer. A bevy of barely legal models in provocative costumes, or a group of women lining up with their checkbooks begging for a little sugar from a cross-dressing 74-year-old. I’m assuming that the ludicrous libertine was the one shelling out the cash, although I like the surrealism of the second interpretation.
As for the lesbian connection, the Daily Mail reports that the ladies would “dance seductively, semi-naked, lesbian style” for the statesman’s entertainment.
Have the editors of the Daily Mail been to a women’s bar lately? Personally, I think business would pick up pretty quickly at Pattie’s Pink Palace if the sisters did something more interesting than lean on the bar, play pool and smoke cigarettes on the patio. Fully clothed I might add. Come on girls! Take a lesson in the “lesbian style” from your (presumably) straight mentors in Milan.
Among the other stories available on the Daily Mail website was news of a 250-year-old wild peach tree scheduled to be axed for a new high speed rail terminal, an item about a terrier so vicious that the mailmen refuse to service his street, and a link to: “Hop on! Snake gives frog a piggy back to beat the Australian floods.” Alas, we must resist the Siren songs of these teasers and move on to the U.S. Supreme Court.
--
Plucky Frog Survives Snake Ride
I know I’m supposed to start discussing the High Court’s decision to let stand Washington DC’s human rights policy, and by extension, the capital city’s same-sex marriage law. But my imagination remains captured by the snake swimming through the floodwaters with the little frog on its back. Wasn’t there a famous conundrum along these lines? Maybe with a fox or a scorpion?
OK. I untied myself from the mast and returned to the story, where indeed the writers made reference to the fable of the frog and the scorpion:
“Real life played out backwards this time though, as the frog was the animal hitching a ride. But whereas in the fable the scorpion stings the frog, causing them both to drown, this story had a happy ending as the two plucky animals put aside old differences to fight the elements.”
There’s a photo of the touching scene as well.
Oh, and the vicious terrier’s name is “Peggy,” so he’s a she.
Moving on! Or moving back to the Supreme Court. The justices didn’t actually make a ruling. Instead, they declined, without comment, to review the question of whether Washington has the constitutional authority to ban public votes on matters of human rights. The ban on such plebiscites allowed the District to legalize same-sex marriage last year without risking a citywide referendum, and the High Court’s silence on the matter means that marriage equality will remain unchallenged in the nation’s capital.
It takes four justices to agree to take up a case, so the news indicates that at least one member of the foursome of Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito shied away from the question. Who knows? Maybe all four of them voted to reject review, since the issue wasn’t marriage per se, but would have (perhaps) obliged the nation’s top court to interfere with a local city ordinance.
Still, the decision is sort of significant. If nothing else it signals that the Court’s conservative bloc will not go to any and all lengths to undermine marriage equality. Plus, marriage opponents were disappointed and that’s always a pleasure to witness.
--
Brief Encounters
In other court news, the Obama administration filed its brief in support of section three of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) last Thursday before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
The First Circuit has combined two challenges to DOMA’s federal marriage definition out of the state of Massachusetts; one, an equal protection claim on behalf of married couples by the Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, and the other, a states rights claim under the Spending Clause and the Tenth Amendment by the state of Massachusetts itself. The lower court ruled in our favor in both lawsuits, and Obama insists he has no choice but to defend federal law on appeal, even though he also insists that he opposes DOMA on principle.
Obama is walking a fine line, and as part of this balancing act, his justice department has rejected most of the really horrible antigay arguments that others use to attack marriage rights.
Instead, the Justice Department claims that Congress has the constitutional right to “maintain the status quo,” by imposing a heterosexual definition of marriage on federal law. Obama also maintains that Congress has the right to seek “uniformity” in the federal definition of marriage, while leaving it up to the states to experiment with marriage policies during a volatile period of national debate. Blah blah blah blah.
I need an emoticon for “sticking my finger down my throat.” Maybe we can just use SMFDMT. At any rate, GLAD and Massachusetts will file their reply briefs on March 1, at which point the government will file a reply to the replies. After that, we’ll hear oral arguments and unless the First Circuit chooses to drag this out, we should see a major federal appellate ruling on a core marriage issue by the end of this year.
As for the Prop 8 case, don’t hold your breath for a Ninth Circuit ruling on the merits of the California marriage ban. As you know, the Ninth Circuit has asked the California Supreme Court for an interim ruling on a question of standing under state law. That was when, two weeks ago? The California justices have yet to respond to the Ninth Circuit, but if they agree to consider the question, which is likely, we’re probably looking at a delay of several months, perhaps many months.
Indeed, if you’re looking for high level court action on marriage rights anytime soon, circle your calendar for January 28, when France’s top constitutional court will decide whether same-sex marriage is mandated under national law. The last time this court handled a gay case, the question of adoption rights, they kicked it over to Parliament, so it’s possible they’ll do the same thing for marriage. That said, I have paid more attention to the frog and the snake in Queensland than I have to the French marriage case, so pay me no mind. I did tell you the date of the decision, however, so I’m not completely useless.
--
Good Day for Gay Dads
I just went outside and it was really beautiful. Somewhere in the low sixties. Bright sunshine. No wind, just a few wisps in the sky. I should be in the hammock with a cold bottle of Kirin rather than stuck in the dark staring at a computer screen. Maybe if I had that Kirin, I’d feel better.
Yesterday, by the way, I heard the roar of fighter jets over my house and went running outside in an excited state. What could be happening, I wondered?
Turned out that it was the inauguration of Rick Perry for his third term as governor of Texas, which made me wish that I hadn’t felt that thrill when I heard the jets. I collaborated in the irritating celebrations unwillingly through no fault of my own! I felt used. It was beautiful out yesterday as well, but I chose to watch seven episodes of The Tudors on my DVR instead of taking advantage, or perhaps researching the French marriage case.
I’m getting the Kirin.
It’s yummy! Now I want a white tuna sushi roll.
You know, something really nice happened this morning. Martin Gill formally adopted the two boys he has raised with his partner for the last six years. The foster dad successfully brought an end to Florida’s gay adoption ban after a lengthy ACLU suit that ended last year. Among other things, GLBT reporters are pleased that we no longer have to keep track of two major lawsuits with plaintiffs named “Gill.” (The other Gill case is GLAD’s DOMA challenge.)
And speaking of gay dads, the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit heard arguments Wednesday in New Orleans in the case of gay parents who are trying to get a revised birth certificate for their adopted son.
The fathers, who now live in San Diego, have been trying to get an accurate certificate since they adopted the boy as an infant in April 2006. By “accurate,” they mean a birth certificate that lists both adoptive fathers as parents rather than just one, which is all Louisiana has agreed to put on the paperwork. Amazingly, the intransigent bureaucrats in the Crawfish State have forced the men through two and now three federal courts, where they have won with the help of Lambda Legal.
They will certainly win before the full Fifth Circuit, because there is no coherent interpretation of federal law that allows a state to refuse to recognize a legal adoption from another state. Recognizing a marriage is unfortunately open to question. But an adoption is final and permanent, period. And once granted, it carries the full panoply of parental rights, including the right to a revised birth certificate, no ifs ands or buts.
So there!
--
BY ANN ROSTOW
NOM That Tune
Good morning dear Readers. I’ve just had the pleasure of listening to a conversation between Maggie Gallagher of the National Organization for Marriage and Reince Priebus, the new head of the Republican National Committee whose parents seemed to have turned his real name into an anagram before making a formal record.
Reince Priebus? I’m not in the habit of ridiculing people for their names of all things, but you could almost close your eyes, type 13 letters at random, and come up with something more, um, name-like.
Sghdbs Sjbciha? Pnsisk Fydnikd? (Actual test of above theory.)
Perhaps that was an exaggeration.
At any rate, Reince reassured Maggie that indeed he opposed same-sex marriage rights and when pressed, explained his belief that children “are better off with a mother and a father.”
I was struck, not by the fact that the new party chair follows the party line, but by the continuing disconnect between conservative talking points and the real world. Last month during the Senate hearings on Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, there was some discussion about “phasing in” a new policy, as if repealing the ban on openly gay service meant that gay men would suddenly be entering the military as brand new recruits, moving into the barracks with their two-toned persimmon bedrolls (right next to your bunk!) blasting Judy Garland from the communal CD player, and calling everyone “Girl!”
Likewise, much of the discussion on marriage laws seems to imply that gay men and lesbians would suddenly start forming committed relationships and families from scratch if policies were to change.
Does Reince Priebus believe that as long as marriage remains legally barred, gay couples will not exist, and will not have children? Does he believe that under current law, we are obliged to hand our children over to heterosexual families? Or does he believe that without the right to marry our partners, we ourselves will have no choice but to marry members of the opposite sex and raise children “with a mother and a father?”
Has he even thought through his nonsensical rationale? He also decried judges who use the Full Faith and Credit Clause to try and impose their social views on the rest of the nation, even though in nearly two decades of covering gay rights law I have never encountered such a ruling.
Anyway, I suppose he’s better than Michael Steele, who could double as an “unsub” on Criminal Minds.
--
Lesbianism, Italian Style
There are a couple of intriguing legal developments this week, but I prefer to begin the meat of this column with some news from the Daily Mail, where we learn that Silvio Berlusconi enjoyed “staged lesbian sex shows” at “whorehouse parties,” court records show.
Don’t you love court records?
The Daily Mail editors might have interceded on behalf of the lead sentence, which reads:
“Women paid to have sex with Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi dressed in nurse and police uniforms and performed stripteases at parties, it was claimed today.”
I can’t decide which image I prefer. A bevy of barely legal models in provocative costumes, or a group of women lining up with their checkbooks begging for a little sugar from a cross-dressing 74-year-old. I’m assuming that the ludicrous libertine was the one shelling out the cash, although I like the surrealism of the second interpretation.
As for the lesbian connection, the Daily Mail reports that the ladies would “dance seductively, semi-naked, lesbian style” for the statesman’s entertainment.
Have the editors of the Daily Mail been to a women’s bar lately? Personally, I think business would pick up pretty quickly at Pattie’s Pink Palace if the sisters did something more interesting than lean on the bar, play pool and smoke cigarettes on the patio. Fully clothed I might add. Come on girls! Take a lesson in the “lesbian style” from your (presumably) straight mentors in Milan.
Among the other stories available on the Daily Mail website was news of a 250-year-old wild peach tree scheduled to be axed for a new high speed rail terminal, an item about a terrier so vicious that the mailmen refuse to service his street, and a link to: “Hop on! Snake gives frog a piggy back to beat the Australian floods.” Alas, we must resist the Siren songs of these teasers and move on to the U.S. Supreme Court.
--
Plucky Frog Survives Snake Ride
I know I’m supposed to start discussing the High Court’s decision to let stand Washington DC’s human rights policy, and by extension, the capital city’s same-sex marriage law. But my imagination remains captured by the snake swimming through the floodwaters with the little frog on its back. Wasn’t there a famous conundrum along these lines? Maybe with a fox or a scorpion?
OK. I untied myself from the mast and returned to the story, where indeed the writers made reference to the fable of the frog and the scorpion:
“Real life played out backwards this time though, as the frog was the animal hitching a ride. But whereas in the fable the scorpion stings the frog, causing them both to drown, this story had a happy ending as the two plucky animals put aside old differences to fight the elements.”
There’s a photo of the touching scene as well.
Oh, and the vicious terrier’s name is “Peggy,” so he’s a she.
Moving on! Or moving back to the Supreme Court. The justices didn’t actually make a ruling. Instead, they declined, without comment, to review the question of whether Washington has the constitutional authority to ban public votes on matters of human rights. The ban on such plebiscites allowed the District to legalize same-sex marriage last year without risking a citywide referendum, and the High Court’s silence on the matter means that marriage equality will remain unchallenged in the nation’s capital.
It takes four justices to agree to take up a case, so the news indicates that at least one member of the foursome of Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito shied away from the question. Who knows? Maybe all four of them voted to reject review, since the issue wasn’t marriage per se, but would have (perhaps) obliged the nation’s top court to interfere with a local city ordinance.
Still, the decision is sort of significant. If nothing else it signals that the Court’s conservative bloc will not go to any and all lengths to undermine marriage equality. Plus, marriage opponents were disappointed and that’s always a pleasure to witness.
--
Brief Encounters
In other court news, the Obama administration filed its brief in support of section three of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) last Thursday before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
The First Circuit has combined two challenges to DOMA’s federal marriage definition out of the state of Massachusetts; one, an equal protection claim on behalf of married couples by the Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, and the other, a states rights claim under the Spending Clause and the Tenth Amendment by the state of Massachusetts itself. The lower court ruled in our favor in both lawsuits, and Obama insists he has no choice but to defend federal law on appeal, even though he also insists that he opposes DOMA on principle.
Obama is walking a fine line, and as part of this balancing act, his justice department has rejected most of the really horrible antigay arguments that others use to attack marriage rights.
Instead, the Justice Department claims that Congress has the constitutional right to “maintain the status quo,” by imposing a heterosexual definition of marriage on federal law. Obama also maintains that Congress has the right to seek “uniformity” in the federal definition of marriage, while leaving it up to the states to experiment with marriage policies during a volatile period of national debate. Blah blah blah blah.
I need an emoticon for “sticking my finger down my throat.” Maybe we can just use SMFDMT. At any rate, GLAD and Massachusetts will file their reply briefs on March 1, at which point the government will file a reply to the replies. After that, we’ll hear oral arguments and unless the First Circuit chooses to drag this out, we should see a major federal appellate ruling on a core marriage issue by the end of this year.
As for the Prop 8 case, don’t hold your breath for a Ninth Circuit ruling on the merits of the California marriage ban. As you know, the Ninth Circuit has asked the California Supreme Court for an interim ruling on a question of standing under state law. That was when, two weeks ago? The California justices have yet to respond to the Ninth Circuit, but if they agree to consider the question, which is likely, we’re probably looking at a delay of several months, perhaps many months.
Indeed, if you’re looking for high level court action on marriage rights anytime soon, circle your calendar for January 28, when France’s top constitutional court will decide whether same-sex marriage is mandated under national law. The last time this court handled a gay case, the question of adoption rights, they kicked it over to Parliament, so it’s possible they’ll do the same thing for marriage. That said, I have paid more attention to the frog and the snake in Queensland than I have to the French marriage case, so pay me no mind. I did tell you the date of the decision, however, so I’m not completely useless.
--
Good Day for Gay Dads
I just went outside and it was really beautiful. Somewhere in the low sixties. Bright sunshine. No wind, just a few wisps in the sky. I should be in the hammock with a cold bottle of Kirin rather than stuck in the dark staring at a computer screen. Maybe if I had that Kirin, I’d feel better.
Yesterday, by the way, I heard the roar of fighter jets over my house and went running outside in an excited state. What could be happening, I wondered?
Turned out that it was the inauguration of Rick Perry for his third term as governor of Texas, which made me wish that I hadn’t felt that thrill when I heard the jets. I collaborated in the irritating celebrations unwillingly through no fault of my own! I felt used. It was beautiful out yesterday as well, but I chose to watch seven episodes of The Tudors on my DVR instead of taking advantage, or perhaps researching the French marriage case.
I’m getting the Kirin.
It’s yummy! Now I want a white tuna sushi roll.
You know, something really nice happened this morning. Martin Gill formally adopted the two boys he has raised with his partner for the last six years. The foster dad successfully brought an end to Florida’s gay adoption ban after a lengthy ACLU suit that ended last year. Among other things, GLBT reporters are pleased that we no longer have to keep track of two major lawsuits with plaintiffs named “Gill.” (The other Gill case is GLAD’s DOMA challenge.)
And speaking of gay dads, the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit heard arguments Wednesday in New Orleans in the case of gay parents who are trying to get a revised birth certificate for their adopted son.
The fathers, who now live in San Diego, have been trying to get an accurate certificate since they adopted the boy as an infant in April 2006. By “accurate,” they mean a birth certificate that lists both adoptive fathers as parents rather than just one, which is all Louisiana has agreed to put on the paperwork. Amazingly, the intransigent bureaucrats in the Crawfish State have forced the men through two and now three federal courts, where they have won with the help of Lambda Legal.
They will certainly win before the full Fifth Circuit, because there is no coherent interpretation of federal law that allows a state to refuse to recognize a legal adoption from another state. Recognizing a marriage is unfortunately open to question. But an adoption is final and permanent, period. And once granted, it carries the full panoply of parental rights, including the right to a revised birth certificate, no ifs ands or buts.
So there!
--
No comments:
Post a Comment