Desperately Seeking Higgs

GLBT Week in Review
December 14, 20122
BY ANN ROSTOW


Desperately Seeking Higgs

Welcome to my third attempt to begin this column. Attempts one and two were rudely interrupted by a power failure to my ancient Mac, which insists upon being plugged in order to function. First, a dog unplugged it at the outlet, destroying a wonderful introductory paragraph. Subsequently, I myself disconnected the cord at the computer, sending another fine effort into oblivion.

That’s three times I’ve had to undergo the torturous startup process during which this piece of junk laboriously chugs into life, slowly filling its screen with archaic software and old files before finally offering itself up for further activity.

I was reluctant to bore you with these tedious details but I had to get the frustration out of my system. Thank you for your patience. God knows I’ve had to stretch mine to its limit.

Speaking of God, did you read that the boffins in Geneva have gotten a “glimpse” of the Higgs Boson? Yay! No, I don’t know what it is either. But I know enough to want them to find it. I gather they’ve found some evidence that might point to the decay of one of these sub-sub-atomic “God particles,” so that’s something.

At any rate, even though this is a GLBT news column, I think the discovery of universal truths should take precedence over our own personal political concerns, don’t you? Also, while I was reading about the Higgs Boson, I noticed a link to a story about some people from Saginaw, Michigan, who tried to check 150 pounds of marijuana in their airport luggage.

Say what? Of course I’ve never personally flown with contraband. But perhaps part of the reason for that is the fact that I don’t think carrying drugs through federal security screening systems is a particularly smart idea. I do have a few crafty acquaintances who have come up with smuggling schemes. But packing large amounts of cannabis under a couple of sweaters in a checked suitcase does not rise to the definition of “scheme.”
--


Hear! Hear!

Let’s start the real news with the two mini motions argued before the Prop 8 panel last Thursday, December 8. As you’ve probably read elsewhere by now, the trio of judges at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit did not seem inclined to allow the Prop 8 trial videos to be released to the public. On the other hand, the judges also did not react well to the notion that our lower court victory from last year should be thrown out because the judge in the case, Judge Vaughn Walker, is in a gay relationship. (Judge Walker has since retired.)

Our enemies in the Prop 8 marriage case have been successful so far in keeping the trial video under wraps, based on the far-fetched idea that participants in the case might be harassed by angry gay activists. Unfortunately, Judge Walker promised that the trial would not be broadcast, and the Prop 8 side now insists that the anti-marriage witnesses relied on that ruling for permanent protection.

The Prop 8 side has also argued that Judge Walker was biased because he himself might have stood to benefit from a ruling in favor of same-sex marriage. No one has taken this argument seriously, and it doesn’t sound as if the Ninth Circuit panel will be an exception to the rule. By this logic, no woman could rule on a gender-based claim and no minority judge could handle a race-based suit. Indeed, why should a straight judge be allowed to rule on a gay issue, since he or she might be “biased” in favor of the anti-gay cause? In other words, this motion is nonsensical.

Check out the editorial on the Huffington Post by National Center for Lesbian Rights chief Kate Kendell. After watching last week’s hearing, Kendell noted that perhaps the suggestion that gay activists would react violently if the trial video was released was not completely off base, since she herself had the urge to approach the Prop 8 lawyers and slap them silly.
--


What Now, Brown Cow?

The best thing about these Prop 8 hearings was the timing. They were briefed and argued on a very fast schedule, indicating to most observers that the Ninth Circuit intends to rule quickly on the main question—whether or not Prop 8 is constitutional under federal law. After nearly a year’s delay over the procedural question of standing, it’s a relief that the court will not devote additional time to more arguments or more briefs or, God help us, another side issue.

Instead, it looks as if the Ninth Circuit is making up lost time and perhaps has already drafted most of its main opinion. I mean, why not? Surely they didn’t sit around on their hands for all these months, knowing full well that they would very likely have to rule on the merits of California’s marriage ban. Assuming that some, if not most, of the work has been done, we could expect a decision basically at any time. After that, the fun begins!

I’m guessing the Ninth Circuit will grant standing to the proponents of Prop 8 to continue their appeal, uphold our lower court victory, and keep in place the stay that continues to block California marriage during the litigation. Then we’ll see whether the other side appeals to the full Ninth Circuit, or directly to the Supreme Court.

If I were in their shoes, I’d want to skip the full Ninth Circuit and proceed to the High Court. Considering the nation's growing approval of marriage equality, I'd be worried that further delay would favor same-sex couples. Then again, if I thought Republicans would win the 2012 election, I might try to stall and hope for another rightward shift on the High Court.

Finally, keep in mind that neither the full Ninth Circuit nor the Supreme Court is required to accept review of this case. I know everyone assumes Prop 8 is too important to reject. But there may be strategic reasons for either court to step aside. If both courts deny review, the three-judge Ninth Circuit panel’s opinion would be final.
--


Let’s Digress!

Am I the only one who dislikes the phenomenon of car-as-Christmas gift? Who buys someone a car as a gift, without discussion? And if such a person really exists, don’t you think it would be a rich “one-percenter” rather than the family man or the young girlfriend that we see on TV?

Not only is the very concept of car-as-gift unlikely and the scenarios on TV commercials unrealistic, but in the case of those ubiquitous Lexis ads, we’re also supposed to believe that average people are familiar with the obscure Lexis theme song, and that whenever they hear a few notes, they instantly jump to the conclusion that their significant other has bought them a $35,000 luxury car.

All these elements combine with an extra surrealistic detail in my least favorite Lexis ad, the one that takes place on an elevator. Here we have the twenty-somethings, who seem too young to afford the car. But to make the ad far worse, the Lexis theme song is played through the elevator sound system at which point the man cocks his head and smiles at the woman with a look that says: “I just heard the Lexis theme song as we’re riding in an elevator so that must mean that you bought me a $35,000 car! I love you honey!”

But how do you arrange for a special song to play the minute you get on the elevator? You don’t. Ergo, why would anyone think the elevator song has a personal significance? Even if we assume that the man recognizes the Lexis theme and might expect his wife to buy him a car, he would never connect his wife to the elevator music. So it’s senseless! Doesn’t that drive you crazy? Because someone sat down and wrote that ad and got it approved by someone else and someone in the marketing department paid for its production and apparently no one said a word!
--


Weak

Speaking of ads, you’ll be happy to know that the gay bashing ad is biting Rick Perry’s butt. Oh you saw it, I’m sure. Bumble Boy is standing in the woods somewhere telling us he’s not ashamed of his faith and explaining that something’s wrong in America when gays can serve openly in the military while school kids can’t celebrate Christmas.

It’s hard to react to something so odd, and something that’s clearly directed towards a small deranged fraction of the Iowa electorate. You almost feel as if you’ve opened the door to a private study and seen something that wasn’t meant for you. Perry on his knees, naked save an American flag wrapped around his loins and a Santa hat, kissing a cross held by an older white minister.

“Oh. Sorry Governor. I was, um, I was just looking for the ladies room. Pardon me. I’ll just be, um. Sorry.”

As for kids and Christmas, I was just reading again about an administrator somewhere in Michigan who changed the lyrics of “Deck the Halls” to “don we now our bright apparel.”

I saw this last year and found it annoying. But when I read further I mustered up some sympathy for the elementary school Principal, who said he had absolutely nothing against gays or the word gay, but that his first and second graders could not get through the original song without exploding into unstoppable gales of giggles.

Hey. I’d change it too. Moreover, whether we like it or not, the word “gay” has eclipsed its archaic definition and there is now only one overarching meaning of the word. I’ll punch the next senior who bemoans the loss of a perfectly good word, because you know what? It’s gone! Get used to it. And we all know the revelers who were decking the halls were, technically, wearing festive attire. I’m pretty sure.
--


Abby’s Got Something

So, I was looking for more details on this year’s gay apparel story when I discovered that Abby of NCIS, or Pauley Perrette if you insist, says she won’t marry her finance, Thomas Arkle, until Prop 8 is struck down. Thank you, Abby! We owe you a CafPow.

And since we can live without further details on the latest debate about giggling six-year-olds, let me share an exciting tidbit, compliments of loyal reader Nicole from New York.

This story (which supplants my cousin Penny’s scoop about the British company that is now selling condoms filled with a Viagra-like gel) involves a conservative Christian politician who once ran unsuccessfully for governor of Alabama in 2009.

Bill Johnson has reportedly spent most of this year helping with earthquake recovery in New Zealand as an employee of an American disaster relief company. His wife Kathy remained in the U.S..

In his spare time, Johnson has also been donating sperm to various lesbians through online registries, where he goes by the name of “chchbill.” According to a lengthy article by David Fisher, Johnson has offered to lend a hand to nine women, and impregnated three. Until his activities became public, wife Kathy was not aware of his efforts, let alone his pending fatherhood

Somehow, Johnson drew the attention of local authorities, who have pesky rules and regulations for sperm donations and other fertility matters. Among other things, a donor has a limit of four contacts.

Johnson explained that he has long wanted to be a biological father, but that his wife’s hysterectomy made it impossible to have children in his marriage. Kathy herself had three kids from a previous marriage, but apparently these kids weren’t enough to satisfy Bill’s paternal drive.

Johnson said he hoped the pregnant women would allow him to have a parental role in the children’s lives, a dubious fantasy unless these women are headed for the reality show circuit. It’s not clear whether any of the pregnant lesbians know, or knew, about the others. Nor is there any reason to think the couples were prepared to deal with half brothers or half sisters for their new children, let alone an egomaniac conservative father figure. Good luck with that, ladies.
--

Ann’s column appears every week at sfbaytimes.com. She can be reached at arostow@aol.com