Hoosier Daddy!

Hoosier Daddy!

How on earth did I miss this classic Craigslist scandalabra last week? The one starring the conservative Catholic Indiana state legislator who answered an ad on the men-to-men section seeking a sugar daddy?

This one has it all. The sleazy sex for sale. The hypocritical antigay family man. The holier than thou man of God getting some sin on the side. The arrogant politician so careless that he replies to a sex ad with his own name. I mean honestly!

And the final, almost poignant, absurdity is that this 64-year-old white haired husband and father of two described himself as an “in-shape” and “fit” “married professional” who “loves getting and staying naked.” But the 20-year-old hooker wannabe who met Rep. Phillip Hinkle at an Indianapolis hotel later said he was taken aback by the sight of the lawmaker, who looked “really old.”

Whatever the reason, once inside the hotel room, sugar baby Kameryn Gibson chickened out of sex and called his sister for a ride home. At this, Hinkle allegedly grabbed Gibson’s ass and exposed himself, demanding that Gibson follow through on their email agreement, a contract for $80 plus a possible tip “for a really good time.”

According to the Indianapolis Star, Kameryn’s sister Megan arrived and threatened to expose Hinkle. The lawmaker quickly offered up his smartphone, his ipad and $100 in cash in exchange for silence.

The brother and sister left the hotel room, at which point Hinkle’s wife called the phone and Megan answered, spilling the beans. Megan proceeded to chat with an array of family members who called Hinkle’s phone demanding explanations and proof. After dropping off her brother, Megan went to meet Hinkle’s daughter to show her the emails and the phone and ipad. She even answered a call from Hinkle himself, and informed him that she had just told his wife and entire family all the details.

“You just ruined me,” he replied.

I must say that while Hinkle deserved his fate, Megan doesn’t seem like a very nice person herself. I hope her fifteen minutes of fame flash by and do not come accompanied by dollar signs.

As for young Kameryn, he later told the press that he was prompted to go public by the sheer audacity of a 60-something antigay lawmaker arranging a sex date with a stranger who purported to be a teenager. (Gambling at Rick’s Place? We are shocked, shocked!) In addition to voting in favor of an anti-marriage constitutional amendment this session, Hinkle also sponsored a bill to allow vanity license plates with the slogan “in God we trust.” Indeed, we trust that God’s got quite a sense of humor at times like these.

Sometimes, these conservative closet cases wind up rejuvenated by their public humiliation. Perhaps Mr. Hinkle will apologize to his wife and kids and start campaigning for GLBT rights. Variations on that theme have happened before.
--


Isn’t That Special?

Speaking of same-sex marriage, I see that North Carolina lawmakers will consider an antigay amendment during a special session next month after Republicans took control of the legislature last year. It was Republicans taking over Indiana that allowed Hinkle and company to pass an anti-gay amendment last session, but there, state law requires that an amendment must pass two successively elected legislatures so we have another chance. Maybe Hinkle will come around and convince all his GOP colleagues to vote no next time.

In North Carolina, lawmakers will have to amass a 60 percent supermajority in order to advance an amendment to the 2012 ballot. I was reading some article about our efforts to fight the amendment, when I was struck by the familiar refrain about how an amendment to ban marriage is “unnecessary” because state law already bans same-sex marriage.

This drives me up the wall for two reasons. First, do gay activists believe that a ban on same-sex marriage would become “necessary” in the absence of a statute to that effect? Of course not. So don’t say it.

Second, the entire premise is a lie. If you are opposed to same-sex marriage, a statute does nothing to prevent the state supreme court from legalizing marriage equality. Only a constitutional amendment can save you from the nightmare of same-sex weddings, so yes, an amendment is in fact “necessary.”

Hey, I’m all in favor of clever campaign tactics and slogans. But this is not clever. Everyone knows that an amendment is required to make sure same-sex marriage is permanently outlawed, so we just look disingenuous for trying to pretend that the existing code is sufficient. I also hate the line about how the legislature should have “better things to do” or “more important problems to deal with.” You know why I hate that line? Because it is often used to delay or finesse work on gay rights measures and because it wrongly implies that lawmaking is a linear process that works its way neatly down a list of high priorities.

Oh. Having said all that, here’s the actual quote that set me off, from the head of the Campaign for Southern Equality, Jasmine Beach-Ferrara: “Because North Carolina currently bans (same-sex) marriage, this amendment would be redundant, and we want to see our representatives working on issues that matter, like jobs and the economy, not on this redundant legislation.”

Hello? The truth is that we oppose this amendment because we are in favor of marriage equality and we want to see same-sex marriage one day legalized in North Carolina.

And there is no reason why we cannot make this argument. The year is 2011. It is not 1996 or 2000, or even 2004. We no longer have to pretend that “ho hum, we really don’t care about marriage rights. We just want to be, um, treated fairly.” We do care about marriage rights!

I’m not saying that this truth will win us any elections in North Carolina anytime soon. But neither will the ridiculous campaign strategies that have led us to defeat after defeat. And at least we’ll get credit for fighting for what we believe rather than throwing sophistries at the wall and hoping something sticks.
--


A Dog’s Life

I think, by the way, that Oregon activists might be trying to put a positive amendment on the 2012 ballot that would undo the current constitutional ban on marriage equality. That would be a refreshing electoral twist. Likewise, we are collecting names for a similar 2012 ballot measure in Maine, which would ask voters to approve marriage equality by statute. You remember that the Maine legislature legalized same-sex marriage in a bill that was signed by their former governor in 2009 and repealed by voters that same year before it could take effect. That was a narrow, but crushing defeat, so a victory in the Blueberry State would taste especially sweet.

While I was reading about that Oregon story, I noticed that two people died in their hot tub in their backyard in Portland, or maybe Salem. The water temperature was 110 and they may have passed out or something. Anyway, they both drowned. Isn’t that horrible?

I also paused to watch a Youtube video of a bulldog who can surf in the ocean and snowboard down the bunny slopes. This dog looked as if he was having so much fun that it made me feel badly as a dog owner myself. My dogs enjoy eating and sleeping and being petted. But there is nothing truly thrilling in their lives and they have no sports or hobbies. Is this my fault?

According to the video, the bulldog was given surfing lessons. Should I be providing my pugs with professional training in soccer or roller-skating or helping them develop some other entertaining canine skills? Could I teach them to read or cook?

Oh, and before I return to GLBT news, I just read that Gerard Depardieu was really drunk on a plane the other day and was trying to get out of his seat to go to the lavatory just before takeoff. The flight attendant told him to stay put, so he stood up and urinated on the floor of the plane. The plane was then delayed for two hours while the obnoxious actor and two of his traveling companions were ejected, along with their luggage. The flight was a City Jet from Paris to Dublin.

I saw a recent photo of Depardieu attached to this item and he has put on a hundred pounds in the last decade. De toute façon, il est gonflé ce mec.
--


Gay Power!

I don’t know how to put an acute accent on the “e” in “gonflé,” but while I was trying different things to solve that problem, I discovered “π.” That’s handy, don’t you think? And how about “∆©ƒ∂ç®´ß´œ?” ≤≥,” or “¬“‘≠–ºª•¶§§∞¢£™¡?” It’s like swearing in an extraterrestrial language. That said, I still can’t figure out the accented “e.” I am told you hold down the alt key and hit the number 130. But all that does is give me: “¡£º.”

It’s ®†¥¨•¶ªing frustrating. (I eventually discovered the secret.)

So yesterday I read a 50-something page legal brief by our friend Mr. Clement, the attorney who has been hired by the House Republicans to defend the Defense of Marriage Act in federal court.

Oh, my little pug is crying! She’s in the other room crying in her sleep because she has itchy skin. What a bad mistress I am. Maybe I’ll fix her a poached egg and teach her how to play the piano. I’ll make a pair of gloves that fit over her paws with attachments that can be used to make simple chords. Then I’ll fashion a special bench with stairs so she can reach the keyboard when I’m away.

She loves poached eggs.

As you may have surmised, I’m not really in the mood to talk about Clement’s brief in the Pedersen case. Pedersen is a lawsuit filed in federal court in Connecticut by the Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) on behalf of several couples and gay individuals who have been stymied by DOMA.

Much of the anti-gay filing concerned whether or not claims of sexual orientation discrimination should be subjected to added legal scrutiny, and to no one’s surprise, Clement and company think the answer to that question is no.

Gays do not have a lengthy history of discrimination. They may or may not be able to contribute to society, but when it comes to marriage, they contribute nothing. They enjoy tremendous political power, and their characteristic is nothing more than a lifestyle choice. To be honest, I quit reading at some point during the argument about political power so I’m only guessing that Clement did not think being gay or lesbian was an immutable characteristic.

Anyway, the newsworthy element is less in the text of the brief and more in the slow but steady progress of our various court cases. I won’t repeat the status of each piece of DOMA litigation. But this particular case, like the case of Edie Windsor in New York, will eventually be decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which has never ruled on the question of whether sexual orientation bias should be subjected to heightened legal scrutiny. That’s why these two cases are especially interesting.
--


Russell, We Hardly Knew You

Well, I seem to have run out of space before I could tell you about some guy I’ve never heard of who went on a homophobic rant and had to apologize to all of us, Adam Carolla? I had two Corollas and loved them both, along with my convertible Celica, may she rest in peace. I saw a white 1996 Celica in a CVS parking lot in Kansas City last week and went over and put my arms around it and kissed its little black ragtop. Mine was a 1997, but Toyota stopped making them for some unholy reason. The woman who owned the car was very gracious about the whole emotional breakdown.

And in other gay news about people I’ve never heard of, a man who committed suicide last week, Russell Armstrong, may have done so because he was gay or bisexual. Sorry, but I think you’ve got to have psychic burdens beyond your membership in our vibrant yet sometimes persecuted community in order to take your own life. Armstrong, I learned, was the husband of one of the reality TV housewives of Beverly Hills. Farewell, Russell.
--