GLBT Week in Review December 5, 2012
BY ANN ROSTOW
Justice Delayed…Again!
Before we start, I just read an article about how the sperm count of the average 35-year-old Frenchman has declined by 32 percent from 1989 to 2005. Why is this of interest? Because the article was written for Reuters Health by a guy named Andrew Seaman. Badda boom!
In case you’re wondering why it took seven years to evaluate the disturbing drop off in virility, I gather that the researchers used an existing database that was maintained during this period. And no, it’s not just the French. Apparently lighter loads are a general trend. (I’ve heard boxer shorts can help.)
Moving along, you may have noticed that the High Court discussed no less than ten gay rights petitions last Friday, November 30, and subsequently took no action whatsoever. Oh yes, actually they did do something. They rescheduled closed door debate on all ten for their next conference, December 7.
It’s like Lucy and the football. And we, the pathetically excited observers of GLBT legal history, are Charlie Brown, ever willing to line up for another dash at the elusive pigskin.
As one of the fools who’s been expecting High Court pronouncements since late September, I am tempted to turn my back on the justices and let them know that I just don’t care anymore. Go ahead, Court! Postpone the petitions for another week. Wait until after the New Year. Why not? Doesn’t matter to me either way.
You won’t find me glued to my computer next Friday afternoon when you might issue a news release. As for Monday morning at 9:30 Eastern when you announce your official orders, I’ll be too busy to check in. I think I’ll watch my pre-recorded episodes of The Hour. Maybe I’ll dye my hair or complete a dozen “challenging” ken ken puzzles. Oh, I have many many options. (Cue: “I don’t need you.”)
A quick tour through the legal blogs provides some theories on why the justices failed to move last week. It’s possible, for example, that the Court decided to reject the Prop 8 case (as many of us hope it will) but that one or more conservatives would like to write a dissent. As you may know, it takes four justices to agree to hear a case. And, although petitions are usually rejected without comment, it’s not uncommon for justices to dissent in writing if they strongly disagree with the vote.
Remember that a decision to reject Prop 8 will legalize marriage equality in California almost immediately. The Ninth Circuit would have to issue some paperwork and the insidious proposition would be history.
It’s also possible that the Court could not agree on which of the several DOMA cases should proceed. It’s fairly complicated after all. Everyone agrees that the justices have no choice but to review the status of the Defense of Marriage Act. But they’re looking at eight petitions on five different cases. Plus, Justice Kagan will probably not be allowed to consult on the three petitions out of Massachusetts since she was Solicitor General during the early litigation.
Is she even allowed to vote on those petitions? I don’t know. And what if the Court combined the Massachusetts cases with the Windsor case out of New York. Would Kagan be able to participate on a partial basis? Maybe the conservative side wants to take the Massachusetts case, while the friendly justices want to take up Windsor.
Or maybe the justices blew off the whole conference last week, made themselves a pitcher of Margaritas and watched cute animal tricks on youtube for a couple hours. Laughing. At all of us.
At any rate, it doesn’t matter because I’m completely indifferent to the entire subject.
--
Therapist, Heal Thyself
We really should take a close look at the dueling federal court rulings on California’s new law against reparative therapy. Is it a violation of First Amendment rights to tell therapists how to run their practices? Or is the law a simple matter of encoding professional standards that protect the public from rogue treatment?
Well, we’re not taking a closer look because that’s the question in a nutshell and if it fits into a nutshell, why pour it into a giant soup tureen? Last week, as you all know by now, one court ruled against the law (in an opinion that only applies to three people) and another one ruled in its favor, guaranteeing that the matter will eventually be settled by our good buddies on the Ninth Circuit.
I have to add that we’ve seen at least two courts deal with a related issue. Do you recall those Christian grad students who complained when they were ordered to keep their antigay views to themselves if they wanted to become clinical social workers or therapists or whatever? Two federal courts ruled that grad schools and professional organizations have the right to enforce nondiscrimination standards. The students can be antigay if they like. But they can’t bring that prejudice to their sessions with gay or lesbian clients.
I’m not sure where those cases stand, and don’t feel like checking. I think one of them was confirmed by an 11th Circuit panel and the other was sent back to the lower court. Anyway, the point is that it’s arguably not unconstitutional to protect gay patients from openly hostile therapists.
Looks as if we spilled out of our nutshell despite ourselves. Now that I think about it, most nutshells are destroyed by the shelling process and do not function as effective vessels to begin with.
--
Nanny For A Day
Here’s a headline that caught my attention: “Norway Princess Makes Secret Trip to Play Nanny for Same-Sex Couple.” Turns out that 39-year-old Crown Princess Mette-Marit went to India to take care of twin newborns as a favor to a gay male couple. The twins were born to a surrogate mother, but the fathers were unable to get visas on short notice, and there was no one to look after the babies. One of the men worked for the royal family and was a good friend of the Princess.
Her highness was able to make it to New Delhi, using her own cash I might add. There she took care of the infants for three days until the dads arranged their own travel. The hospital staff thought she was a paid nanny, so Mette-Marit went with the assumption and stayed in the royal closet during her trip.
Surrogacy is apparently illegal in Norway, where it’s considered akin to human trafficking and an exploitation of poor women. That said, it’s not illegal to arrange for a surrogate from outside the country, a loophole that seems to me to render the policy moot. I mean come on. Norway’s not that big. At any rate, Princess Mette-Marit inadvertently stepped into that controversy, although most commentators recognized the kindness of her gesture and gave her a break. The babies have since arrived in Norway.
Don’t you love this story? Shades of Roman Holiday. I confess I’m a little jealous of these EU monarchies. I know we fought a revolution for our Democratic system, but I still think it would be fun to have a queen or a prince or a few duchesses. Or maybe I’ll stick to the vicarious appreciation of William, Kate and my new favourite, Mette-Marit.
I am hoping that William and Kate have a girl who will someday be first in line for the throne now that they’ve made the rules of succession gender neutral. I’m also hoping that Queen Elizabeth will arrange to skip over Charles and the un-queenly Camilla. I’ve never gotten over the “tampon” comment. You know what I’m talking about, right? If not, I’ll leave it to you to look up.
--
More Stuff About Marriage
A civil court in Israel just granted a same-sex divorce, which is a sign of something. I’ve never understood marriage law in the Holy Land, which seems to be governed by religious organizations. I think same-sex marriages are recognized in some way, but not affirmed by rabbinical courts. At any rate, this divorce is a positive precedent of some sort. So yay!
I think we’ve had enough marriage law for this week, so I’ll skip the full Monty on the Neanderthal federal ruling out of Nevada, where an uber-conservative judge stepped into the dark ages to deliver a ludicrous defeat to same-sex couples in a Lambda Legal marriage case. That decision will rise to the Ninth Circuit (along with a similar bad decision out of Hawaii) where we hope justice will prevail.
And conservatives are bent out of shape after two women got married in the West Point chapel, God forbid. I read a number of tirades about the ceremony, many of which bemoaned the “violation” of the Defense of Marriage Act. Say what? DOMA doesn’t ban same-sex couples from getting married. It bans federal recognition of those who do. When last I checked, West Point was in the state of New York, where same-sex marriage has been legal for quite some time.
--
Strange Goings On
What else is new, you ask? Well, I was reading about a high school principal in Mesa, Arizona, who forced two boys to sit hand-in-hand for 15 minutes as punishment for fighting. The boys were surrounded by jeering classmates, calling them gay etc., and in a photograph, you can see the anguished miscreants turned away from each other and hiding their faces with their free hands.
The photo really disturbed me. The kids were humiliated. The school used homophobia as a crucible. Plus, it was weird. Holding hands--- a sweet, sympathetic gesture--- was transformed into an ugly spectacle. It was almost like punishing gay kids by making them kiss heterosexual kids in public. And yet, it shouldn’t have been such a big deal, right? I’m confused by my own reaction. In addition to the taunting students, there’s some underlying wrongness in the incident that I can’t put my finger on.
And while we’re on the subject of vague discomfort, did you read about the Christian guy who went “undercover” for a year by pretending to be gay? The guy even lied to his conservative parents, along with everyone else he met during the year in question. After his self-taught lesson in tolerance, he wrote a book entitled: “The Cross in the Closet,” and lived happily ever after. His name is Tim Kurek and he’s 22 or 23.
I know I should read his book before rolling my eyes at this baby fundamentalist. But, still. I’ve never been particularly comfortable with the journalism of deceit. Nor do I understand why he had to make his parents go along with the scam. Surely he could have taken an extended walk on the wild side without dragging them along.
Plus, there’s something self-serving about the whole charade, beginning with the notion that the author was originally homophobic until he spent a year in the midst of our happy-go-lucky community. I don’t think anyone decides to spend a year “pretending” to be gay unless they find something intriguing about the exercise.
--
Let’s Do Lunch
Oops. I only have a hundred words left which is not enough to start a new topic. And yet, it’s too many to leave unwritten. Perhaps I’ll leave you with the tidbit that gay Star Trek icon George Takei had lunch the other day with Donald Trump. The unlikely pair discussed same-sex marriage, and I gather the deranged tycoon told Mr. Sulu that he recently attended a gay ceremony and found it “beautiful.”
This is not to say that Trump has changed his policy position. Trump once famously compared same-sex marriage to the use of the (soon to be outlawed) belly putter in golf. Like the ungainly long putter, Trump basically said that gay unions were just unattractive and made him uncomfortable. I forget exactly how he put it, and I have no idea if the “beautiful” wedding has altered his views on the matter.
The long putter, by the way, is being outlawed because the game of golf should require a player to calm his or her nerves through an act of will rather than a mechanical anchor. I agree with Trump on this issue, and this issue only.
--
arostow@aol.com
No comments:
Post a Comment