GLBT Fortnight in Review, February 6, 2013
BY ANN ROSTOW
Sick of the Scouts
This is one of those weeks jam-packed with moderately significant, somewhat tedious, news items of mild interest to our vibrant and colorful GLBT community. I’m not pleased about it. I far prefer a week with a big exciting story that will eat up the first half of this column in one effortless gulp. Alternatively, we all also love the weeks when cannibals or conservative Christian pedophiles dominate our discussion.
But Defense Department regulations? The Boy Scouts? Committee votes in various state legislatures? Say it ain’t so!
Alas, it is so, and I can only do my best to spice up the bland fare with a little habanero sauce, or maybe a couple shots of flaming cognac. In truth, I’ve always thought it was a waste to burn off all the alcohol in a perfectly good snifter of booze. That observation aside, I’d like to dispense with the Boy Scouts as quickly as possible. The Scouts bore me with their sanctimonious oaths and traditions, their uniforms and badges and faith-based jingoism. In the last few weeks, they’ve dominated the headlines simply by hinting that they might ease their categorical ban on gay scouts at some point in the future.
So what! I’ll believe it when I see it, which might not be for months. On Wednesday, the Scouts announced that the big decision won’t take place until May or later, after some 1,400 members of some national council get to vote on the matter. My vote? Get these jokers off the front pages of our newspapers until, or unless, they actually take some action on the matter. Meanwhile, despite my better judgment, I will continue to buy microwave popcorn from the cute little Scout across the street. My politics are skin deep in certain areas.
--
Bustin’ Out All Over
Marriage equality is poised to become law in England and France, where the lower houses of parliament both passed gay marriage rights by large margins last week. In Britain, the vote was 400-175, a large majority cobbled together despite the opposition of over half the conservative members. Good for David Cameron, a champion of justice who will pay for his support in political currency down the line. The measure now goes to the House of Lords, which looks as if it should be capitalized. I won’t even check the style guide.
In France, the assembly voted 249-97 to send marriage equality to the senate, which feels more like a lower case cohort. Lately, we’ve seen dueling protests in the streets of Paris on both sides of the debate. But the bottom line, if you believe pollsters, is that 63 percent of the French public believes in same-sex marriage rights. Bravo les mecs!
I told you the news was significant. And there’s more of the same here in the Homeland, where an Illinois senate committee advanced marriage equality to the senate floor. A senate vote is likely on February 14, after which the bill would go to the house. In other state news, Wyoming lawmakers defeated bills to ban gay discrimination and authorize civil unions. We’re supposed to be pleased that these bills made it to a floor vote to begin with, but I’m indifferent. Wake me up when the Big Sky country legislature sends a gay rights measure to the governor’s desk.
Delaware activists are convinced they can legalize marriage for gay couples this spring. And we’re still waiting for action on marriage in the Rhode Island senate, after the house approved a marriage bill a few weeks back. I also told you the news was tedious, remember?
Is there more, you ask? Possibly. But I think we’ve had enough. Oh. Here’s a little unsubstantiated tidbit. Tax records from the National Organization for Marriage reportedly indicate that NOM chief Brian Bond makes around half a million a year if you add up all his salaries and perks. That’s a lot of money for losing four state elections and a couple of court cases. I wonder if the dwindling contributors to the fight against marriage appreciate how much of their cash is finding its way into the Bond household accounts.
--
Ask and Tell, But Don’t Shop in the PX
I’d love to tell you what outgoing Defense Secretary Leon Panetta is planning on our behalf, but at press time, the details have yet to be announced. We do know that one of Panetta’s last acts will be to issue a number of directives to recognize the families of gay servicemembers. Obviously, he cannot violate the nefarious Defense of Marriage Act, which as you know prohibits the federal government from acknowledging gay spouses. On the other hand, he might be able to issue ID passes that could give gay spouses access to base services. Perhaps he can come up with some other perks. In any event, his efforts are welcome. Incoming Secretary Chuck Hagel has pledged to follow up on this initiative, assuming he is confirmed to the post.
Well, you know what? It will all become moot this summer when the High Court strikes the Defense of Marriage Act as unconstitutional. Likewise, although it’s not clear that the trials and tribulations of binational gay couples will be addressed by immigration reform, their problems will also become moot when the Supreme Court rules in our favor.
Why the confidence?
Dear readers, the Defense of Marriage Act is not just “arguably” unconstitutional. It is blatantly unconstitutional and has been struck by every federal judge and every federal appellate panel that has evaluated its miserable existence. The federal government itself is arguing against it and it simply cannot survive review. Oh, did you think you’d escape a reference to the High Court this week? Sorry. Our two Supreme Court cases form a massive black hole in the center of our news galaxy, and their gravitational pull is felt even in the slowest weeks.
--
Standing Up
I feel it even now, as I slip inexorably towards the event horizon. Now that I think about it, the black hole metaphor is weak. It’s not bad enough to revise, but it can’t continue. Before we go on, however, may I complain about news anchors and talk show hosts who cannot read their teleprompters? I had to turn off Chuck Todd in disgust this morning after he butchered the pronunciation of two words and misread a passage of text that we could all see for ourselves. Alex Wagner just referred to “Marshall McGLUEin.” And don’t get me started on Reverend Al, who, at times, is simply incomprehensible.
“Jenny Wether, ah, Jerry Werther, Wether, Wouldn’t you agree that Republicans can’t let the fairness of it, go to the voter? Can they get away with this? Jerry, what do you say?”
“Well, Reverend. I think the attempt to disenfranchise the voters in minority districts is something that Congress has to address…”
“Look at here we have numbers to tell us. Look at this number of people who had to give up and they had 20,000, 200,000, people who just said we can’t wait. What do you say to that Jenny?”
“I think we all agree that we had a real problem in the last election…”
Hey, I love his politics but this guy cannot put together a coherent sentence. And Chuck Todd is a close second in the race to ineptitude. C’mon guys. Make an effort.
Moving on to the High Court, I gather that another zillion friend of the court briefs landed on the desks of the Supreme law clerks last week, as the bad guys’ amici filings came due. I have resisted the urge to read these horrific sounding papers, and I’m none the worse for my laziness. I have about 20 years of anti-marriage legal briefs and opinions under my belt and from what I’ve heard there’s nothing new in this latest barrage.
The big question now is whether or not the Obama administration will weigh in on the Prop 8 case. As you know, the administration is one of the petitioners in the Windsor challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act. But the federal government is not technically involved in the Prop 8 challenge to California’s marriage ban.
That said, the Justice Department is free to author a friend of the court brief in opposition to the California amendment. An opinion by the federal government always carries significant influence with a court, ergo we all would like the administration to become one of our legal “friends.” They have until February 21 to file a brief. My last column reported that the deadline was February 28, but astonishingly, I appear to have been mistaken.
In addition to the ugly antigay briefs that rained down on Washington last week, we also saw the Court-ordered brief on standing in the Windsor case from Harvard Law Professor Vickie Jackson. As the Court had requested, Jackson argued that neither the House Republican “bipartisan legal advisory committee” (BLAG), nor the U.S. Justice Department, had the right to appeal the Windsor decision to the High Court.
To make a long story short, Jackson noted that Congress had no direct stake in the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act; and even if it had, the BLAG does not represent Congress as a whole since the U.S. Senate has not agreed to its activities. As for the Justice Department, Jackson points out that the Obama administration “won” its case against DOMA in lower court, and should not by rights be able to appeal a victory. Other voices argue that since the administration is continuing to enforce DOMA, and indeed has yet to repay Edith Windsor’s unconstitutional $360,000 estate tax check, the government has a continuing controversy that qualifies for standing under Article III of the Constitution.
--
He Takes The Cake
So, if we ran a bakery, should we be required to design a cake that says “God Hates Gays?” Of course, the story in the news this week actually involves a Christian bakery in Oregon that has refused to make a cake for a lesbian wedding. But the question works both ways.
One thing that’s clear is that these cases are not a matter of “religious freedom,” as the baker bleats. Hating gay people, or blacks or anyone else, is not a matter of faith, and saying so doesn’t make it so. But it might be a First Amendment question, don’t you think?
Oregon state law, along with that of many of its sister states, forbids discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in public accommodation. That would include businesses like the Evil Cake Makers in question. But would that law oblige someone to produce a message that violates their deeply held beliefs? Would a black-owned bakery be obliged to ice an Aryan Nation cake? Would a Jewish bakery be forced to craft a swastika?
I think there’s a difference between refusing to serve a gay couple in a restaurant or clothing store, and refusing to make something that conveys an idea you despise. And for the record, there was another mean baker in Colorado, so don’t think I got the dateline wrong.
--
Super Bummed
What do I do with a 150-word shortage at the end of this column? I think I will ask my San Francisco readers to forgive me for the Super Bowl. Naturally I was rooting for the 49ers, but I also hoped that Chris Culliver would have a bad game as cosmic penance for his obnoxious comments about gay players.
Thanks to the mixed messages I was sending to the Gods of football, we gave up a big touchdown and extended the Raven’s drive in the 4th quarter with a pass interference call. I blame myself.
That said, am I the only one who thought Kaepernick could have run for a touchdown on second and goal at the end of the game? And while I’m not an expert, I was under the impression that the defender is not allowed to wrap his arms around a potential receiver and drag him off the play. One of the commentators said that it was “tough” to call holding at the end of a big game. Say what? You just throw away the rule book because it’s a “big game?” Bottom line, my friends we were robbed.
--
No comments:
Post a Comment