News for the Week Ended September 14, 2011
BY ANN ROSTOW
Prop 8 Case Lumbers Forward
Well, it looks like North Carolina voters will vote on a state constitutional amendment to ban marriage equality and domestic partnerships next May, now that both the house and the senate have voted in favor of the despicable proposal. I know that Americans’ views on gay couples are improving, but I’m not sure the trend is moving fast enough to make a difference in the Tobacco State by next spring.
Maybe we can boycott cigarettes and switch to nicotine patches or Cuban cigars. Don’t forget, we’ve also got Minnesota voting on an amendment in November of 2012. And, given my lackadaisical attitude, I might be forgetting some other state.
In other big news this week, it looks as if the California Supreme Court may be leaning towards ruling that initiative backers, such as the fools defending Prop 8, should have standing to defend their propositions in state court should the state decline to step up to the plate. At least that’s what observers concluded after listening to oral arguments in Sacramento a week ago Tuesday.
The California court will rule in 90 days, at which point a Ninth Circuit panel will decide whether or not the Prop 8 people have standing to continue their defense of the marriage ban in federal court. Everyone assumes that the Ninth Circuit will agree with whatever the California court decides. If not, why would they have asked the state court for guidance in the first place?
Personally, I’m taking a wait and see attitude. There have been a number of times in the past when California officials have declined to defend a flawed proposition, even after the voters gave it a green light. Remember the patently unconstitutional anti-immigrant measure that ruined Republican prospects in the Golden State for a generation? That got a majority of voter support, but (thankfully) died in the courts without an appeal from the state.
--
Nice Ruling Saves Arizona Partners For Now
But speaking of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, we got a short but sweet gay rights opinion out of a unanimous three-judge panel the other day. Last week, the appellate court upheld a temporary injunction against an Arizona order that cancelled domestic partner benefits for state workers.
The order, by Governor Jan Brewer, applied to both straight and gay domestic partners, and was presented under the guise of cost cutting. Lambda Legal sued the state on behalf of gay couples only, arguing that because same-sex couples could not marry, the loss of partner benefits represented a particular hardship and denied them equal protection.
A lower court agreed, and restored domestic partner benefits for same-sex couples only, leaving the straight partners in the lurch. That’s not nice, but hey. I’m one of those people who believe straight couples should marry if they want benefits. They have a choice. In Arizona and all but six other states, we don’t.
In a 13-page ruling, the Ninth Circuit agreed with the lower court, maintaining insurance for same-sex partners until the underlying litigation is complete. The panel agreed that any cash savings from the withdrawal benefits was inconsequential, and that Arizona did not have any other legitimate justification for its attack on gay couples. The court did not make any ground breaking gay rights conclusions, but the opinion was still welcome. Thanks Ninth Circuit! You’re such a cool court.
--
Let Them Eat E-Coli
I just read that the health department has decided to ban six types of “toxic” e-coli bacteria from our beef supply. How many types of “toxic” strains of e-coli are still permitted, one wonders?
I suppose the Tea Party crowd sees this initiative as another example of job killing regulations from big government. By the way, did you hear the Tea Party debate audience cheering for the idea that a healthy uninsured 30-year old who has a medical emergency should be allowed to die rather than receive subsidized care in the ICU?
When moderator Wolf Blitzer asked what would happen to an individual in such a case, Texas Congressman Ron Paul suggested that everyone is responsible for selecting their own level of risk. “Should we just let him die,” Blitzer asked? While Paul tried to hedge, several people in the crowd yelled back “yeah!”
What is going on here?
I will resist using World War II terminology against my compatriots, even those on the far right. But I will say this. As a child, I grew up with the pleasantly naïve sense that the United States stood up against Hitler because we were good people and the Nazis were bad people. Very bad.
Over time, I came to understand that there were political, social and human elements that added nuance to the historical analysis. But still. Nazi Germany was a uniquely evil phenomenon, one that could never take root in the United States.
I still believe that. But to see people cheer for capital punishment and to hear them applaud for the death of a young man under the guise of “personal responsibility” makes one sick. There is an underlying venom flowing through parts of this rightwing movement that no one seems quite willing to confront. Not just racism, but real meanness and real hatred. It’s disturbing. And it makes you wonder how large segments of our country would react if an American version of Hitler were to gain power.
By the way, did you see that Ron Paul has hired Michael Heath to run his Iowa campaign? If the name rings a bell, it’s because Michael Heath was in charge of the Christian Civic League of Maine for several years, and was considered one of the most aggressive antigay activists in the country. So much for Mr. Libertarian.
--
Sound and Fury
One of my dogs is chewing her paw on the couch next to me, which reminds me of this article I read in Science Times about people who experience waves of rage when they hear eating sounds, like chewing or slurping. I had never heard of this bizarre disorder.
Apparently it only afflicts a small percentage of people, but these unfortunates are obliged to forgo eating with company and when they wind up at the communal table, they use earplugs or yell at their fellow diners.
I only hope the these chew-phobes do not rally together to impose sound free zones in restaurants or force the rest of us to cater to their unusual sensibilities like the perfume people. I suppose that’s selfish on my part. It does sound like a horrible way to go through life.
--
What Else is New?
Let’s see here. There was the public school teacher in San Diego who was told to remove a bunch of Christian themed blandishments from his classroom. A Ninth Circuit panel ruled a few days ago that the Poway school district was within its rights to take down banners reading: “In God We Trust,” “God Shed His Grace on Thee” and others. The court noted that employers can enforce workplace rules about signs and such without necessarily violating First Amendment rights.
And the Republican Party in Oregon has narrowly voted to revise antigay rhetoric in their platform. Language against same-sex marriage and gay parents has been deleted in the interest of winning elections in the Delicious White Wine State. (There’s nothing like a fine Willamette Valley Pinot Blanc.)
I also read about some lesbian foster parents in Australia who lost custody of their two foster kids after posting a photo of their six-year-old son wearing a dress on Facebook. I’m not clear on every detail here. Did the boy want to wear a dress? Was it a joke? A harmless political statement? Or did these women violate foster parenting rules in some other respect?
I would say this. Considering that foster children are not technically your children, and considering in turn that you could lose them to the state for a variety of reasons, why take chances with your fragile parental status for any reason? Would the women have put their son in a dress on the day that the Official Foster System Inspectors were coming over to the house to check on the family? If yes, fine. If not, they should have stayed off the social network.
--
Mad Men
I just took a lengthy break and returned to this column after a few hours. I’m telling you this because I’m in a different mood and want to explain any jarring change of tone that might strike my dear readers. I don’t like jarring changes in tone myself, so I want to apologize.
So, I was going to write about that special election in New York that Democrats lost in part due to David Weprin’s support for same-sex marriage. That subject now bores me. Plus, there was so much going on in that election that none of us can legitimately pull out a specific analytical thread. And we don’t want to!
Then, when I started looking for other topics to conclude this week’s compendium of fascinating GBLTLMNOP antics, I wound up reading the depressing account of three men who were executed for simply sodomy in Iran. Normally, Iran executes gay men for “rape” or sex with a minor, or something that sounds a bit worse than just having sex. This time, it seems as if the charge was no frills sodomy, which of course carries the death penalty in this God forsaken den of religious extremism.
As I’ve said before, I can’t handle these barbaric accounts of Muslim fundamentalism. Girls stoned to death for kissing a cousin. Whatever. It’s like pausing from a discussion of the Defense of Marriage Act to describe the Inquisition. There’s no context. Yes, gay men are put to death. But it’s not a simple “gay rights” issue when they share the gallows with a robber and a drug dealer. What happens to jaywalkers over there? Life in prison?
These people are not “homophobic.” They are merciless psychopaths, operating under the most brutal and senseless interpretation of their so-called faith. And obviously, they make our own homegrown Christian conservatives look like angels of compassion by comparison. Well, there is no comparison.
Indeed, our fight against Muslim extremists and/or Islamic terrorism is not a religious crusade. It’s a fight between reason and insanity. There’s really no place for ideas like gay rights in such a context. Madness prevails. The sad thing, of course, is that the millions of perfectly normal Muslims get stereotyped as maniacs in the crossfire.
I was starting to tell you why I didn’t want to cover the execution of all those gay guys in Iran, but it looks like I covered the subject despite myself.
I remember that I was in my early 20s during the Iranian revolution and I worked (on the 104th floor of One World Trade Center) with an Iranian-American computer guy. The violence looked bad to us on TV, but our friend was all in favor of the revolution.
It’s not as if I supported the creation of a religious state, but I remember thinking that “the Shah was bad” and my friend knew more than me on the subject. I settled on a neutral view of the revolution, even as fundamentalists took over a critical part of the world. What did I know?
Now I know this. Fundamentalism is by definition mindless, a repudiation of the doubt and mystery and compassion that is inherent in our human condition. I’ve never seen anything good come of it and I don’t think I ever will. I’ll take a secular dictator over a religious extremist, just as I’d eat a cockroach rather than a pile of human waste.
Gross. Where did that analogy come from? And just before dinner. At any rate, the Arab spring can’t hit Tehran too soon.
BY ANN ROSTOW
Prop 8 Case Lumbers Forward
Well, it looks like North Carolina voters will vote on a state constitutional amendment to ban marriage equality and domestic partnerships next May, now that both the house and the senate have voted in favor of the despicable proposal. I know that Americans’ views on gay couples are improving, but I’m not sure the trend is moving fast enough to make a difference in the Tobacco State by next spring.
Maybe we can boycott cigarettes and switch to nicotine patches or Cuban cigars. Don’t forget, we’ve also got Minnesota voting on an amendment in November of 2012. And, given my lackadaisical attitude, I might be forgetting some other state.
In other big news this week, it looks as if the California Supreme Court may be leaning towards ruling that initiative backers, such as the fools defending Prop 8, should have standing to defend their propositions in state court should the state decline to step up to the plate. At least that’s what observers concluded after listening to oral arguments in Sacramento a week ago Tuesday.
The California court will rule in 90 days, at which point a Ninth Circuit panel will decide whether or not the Prop 8 people have standing to continue their defense of the marriage ban in federal court. Everyone assumes that the Ninth Circuit will agree with whatever the California court decides. If not, why would they have asked the state court for guidance in the first place?
Personally, I’m taking a wait and see attitude. There have been a number of times in the past when California officials have declined to defend a flawed proposition, even after the voters gave it a green light. Remember the patently unconstitutional anti-immigrant measure that ruined Republican prospects in the Golden State for a generation? That got a majority of voter support, but (thankfully) died in the courts without an appeal from the state.
--
Nice Ruling Saves Arizona Partners For Now
But speaking of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, we got a short but sweet gay rights opinion out of a unanimous three-judge panel the other day. Last week, the appellate court upheld a temporary injunction against an Arizona order that cancelled domestic partner benefits for state workers.
The order, by Governor Jan Brewer, applied to both straight and gay domestic partners, and was presented under the guise of cost cutting. Lambda Legal sued the state on behalf of gay couples only, arguing that because same-sex couples could not marry, the loss of partner benefits represented a particular hardship and denied them equal protection.
A lower court agreed, and restored domestic partner benefits for same-sex couples only, leaving the straight partners in the lurch. That’s not nice, but hey. I’m one of those people who believe straight couples should marry if they want benefits. They have a choice. In Arizona and all but six other states, we don’t.
In a 13-page ruling, the Ninth Circuit agreed with the lower court, maintaining insurance for same-sex partners until the underlying litigation is complete. The panel agreed that any cash savings from the withdrawal benefits was inconsequential, and that Arizona did not have any other legitimate justification for its attack on gay couples. The court did not make any ground breaking gay rights conclusions, but the opinion was still welcome. Thanks Ninth Circuit! You’re such a cool court.
--
Let Them Eat E-Coli
I just read that the health department has decided to ban six types of “toxic” e-coli bacteria from our beef supply. How many types of “toxic” strains of e-coli are still permitted, one wonders?
I suppose the Tea Party crowd sees this initiative as another example of job killing regulations from big government. By the way, did you hear the Tea Party debate audience cheering for the idea that a healthy uninsured 30-year old who has a medical emergency should be allowed to die rather than receive subsidized care in the ICU?
When moderator Wolf Blitzer asked what would happen to an individual in such a case, Texas Congressman Ron Paul suggested that everyone is responsible for selecting their own level of risk. “Should we just let him die,” Blitzer asked? While Paul tried to hedge, several people in the crowd yelled back “yeah!”
What is going on here?
I will resist using World War II terminology against my compatriots, even those on the far right. But I will say this. As a child, I grew up with the pleasantly naïve sense that the United States stood up against Hitler because we were good people and the Nazis were bad people. Very bad.
Over time, I came to understand that there were political, social and human elements that added nuance to the historical analysis. But still. Nazi Germany was a uniquely evil phenomenon, one that could never take root in the United States.
I still believe that. But to see people cheer for capital punishment and to hear them applaud for the death of a young man under the guise of “personal responsibility” makes one sick. There is an underlying venom flowing through parts of this rightwing movement that no one seems quite willing to confront. Not just racism, but real meanness and real hatred. It’s disturbing. And it makes you wonder how large segments of our country would react if an American version of Hitler were to gain power.
By the way, did you see that Ron Paul has hired Michael Heath to run his Iowa campaign? If the name rings a bell, it’s because Michael Heath was in charge of the Christian Civic League of Maine for several years, and was considered one of the most aggressive antigay activists in the country. So much for Mr. Libertarian.
--
Sound and Fury
One of my dogs is chewing her paw on the couch next to me, which reminds me of this article I read in Science Times about people who experience waves of rage when they hear eating sounds, like chewing or slurping. I had never heard of this bizarre disorder.
Apparently it only afflicts a small percentage of people, but these unfortunates are obliged to forgo eating with company and when they wind up at the communal table, they use earplugs or yell at their fellow diners.
I only hope the these chew-phobes do not rally together to impose sound free zones in restaurants or force the rest of us to cater to their unusual sensibilities like the perfume people. I suppose that’s selfish on my part. It does sound like a horrible way to go through life.
--
What Else is New?
Let’s see here. There was the public school teacher in San Diego who was told to remove a bunch of Christian themed blandishments from his classroom. A Ninth Circuit panel ruled a few days ago that the Poway school district was within its rights to take down banners reading: “In God We Trust,” “God Shed His Grace on Thee” and others. The court noted that employers can enforce workplace rules about signs and such without necessarily violating First Amendment rights.
And the Republican Party in Oregon has narrowly voted to revise antigay rhetoric in their platform. Language against same-sex marriage and gay parents has been deleted in the interest of winning elections in the Delicious White Wine State. (There’s nothing like a fine Willamette Valley Pinot Blanc.)
I also read about some lesbian foster parents in Australia who lost custody of their two foster kids after posting a photo of their six-year-old son wearing a dress on Facebook. I’m not clear on every detail here. Did the boy want to wear a dress? Was it a joke? A harmless political statement? Or did these women violate foster parenting rules in some other respect?
I would say this. Considering that foster children are not technically your children, and considering in turn that you could lose them to the state for a variety of reasons, why take chances with your fragile parental status for any reason? Would the women have put their son in a dress on the day that the Official Foster System Inspectors were coming over to the house to check on the family? If yes, fine. If not, they should have stayed off the social network.
--
Mad Men
I just took a lengthy break and returned to this column after a few hours. I’m telling you this because I’m in a different mood and want to explain any jarring change of tone that might strike my dear readers. I don’t like jarring changes in tone myself, so I want to apologize.
So, I was going to write about that special election in New York that Democrats lost in part due to David Weprin’s support for same-sex marriage. That subject now bores me. Plus, there was so much going on in that election that none of us can legitimately pull out a specific analytical thread. And we don’t want to!
Then, when I started looking for other topics to conclude this week’s compendium of fascinating GBLTLMNOP antics, I wound up reading the depressing account of three men who were executed for simply sodomy in Iran. Normally, Iran executes gay men for “rape” or sex with a minor, or something that sounds a bit worse than just having sex. This time, it seems as if the charge was no frills sodomy, which of course carries the death penalty in this God forsaken den of religious extremism.
As I’ve said before, I can’t handle these barbaric accounts of Muslim fundamentalism. Girls stoned to death for kissing a cousin. Whatever. It’s like pausing from a discussion of the Defense of Marriage Act to describe the Inquisition. There’s no context. Yes, gay men are put to death. But it’s not a simple “gay rights” issue when they share the gallows with a robber and a drug dealer. What happens to jaywalkers over there? Life in prison?
These people are not “homophobic.” They are merciless psychopaths, operating under the most brutal and senseless interpretation of their so-called faith. And obviously, they make our own homegrown Christian conservatives look like angels of compassion by comparison. Well, there is no comparison.
Indeed, our fight against Muslim extremists and/or Islamic terrorism is not a religious crusade. It’s a fight between reason and insanity. There’s really no place for ideas like gay rights in such a context. Madness prevails. The sad thing, of course, is that the millions of perfectly normal Muslims get stereotyped as maniacs in the crossfire.
I was starting to tell you why I didn’t want to cover the execution of all those gay guys in Iran, but it looks like I covered the subject despite myself.
I remember that I was in my early 20s during the Iranian revolution and I worked (on the 104th floor of One World Trade Center) with an Iranian-American computer guy. The violence looked bad to us on TV, but our friend was all in favor of the revolution.
It’s not as if I supported the creation of a religious state, but I remember thinking that “the Shah was bad” and my friend knew more than me on the subject. I settled on a neutral view of the revolution, even as fundamentalists took over a critical part of the world. What did I know?
Now I know this. Fundamentalism is by definition mindless, a repudiation of the doubt and mystery and compassion that is inherent in our human condition. I’ve never seen anything good come of it and I don’t think I ever will. I’ll take a secular dictator over a religious extremist, just as I’d eat a cockroach rather than a pile of human waste.
Gross. Where did that analogy come from? And just before dinner. At any rate, the Arab spring can’t hit Tehran too soon.
No comments:
Post a Comment