California Supreme Court Agrees to Consider Standing Issue
Today, a month and a half after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit asked the California Supreme Court for a legal opinion on a question of standing in the Prop 8 case, the California justices formally agreed to consider the issue.
So, without delving into the arcane relationship between legal standing under state law and legal standing under federal law, let’s just say that the “fast tracked” challenge to California’s ban on same-sex marriage is now off to wander through the desert for a long long time.
After a series of briefs and counter-briefs, the California Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in September on the question of whether the Prop 8 initiative proponents have the right to represent their side from a legal standpoint under state law, given that the State of California has declined to defend the antigay position.
Did you say September?
Yep. After that it will take a month, or two, or three before the justices determine where the state law comes down on this question. Once they inform the Ninth Circuit panel, the three appellate judges will decide whether the Prop 8 proponents have standing under federal law to appeal Judge Vaughn Walker’s gay marriage decision from last August.
That should take a few more months by the way, so we’re already well into 2012 by my calculations.
Let’s say the Ninth Circuit then decides that the Prop 8 people lack standing. Well, that decision will probably be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which may or may not take review. But you can be sure that many more months will elapse before SCOTUS weighs in, and if the High Court decides to meddle in the matter, the question of standing could drag on for another half year.
Meanwhile, the underlying lawsuit and the constitutionality of Prop 8 will remain in limbo for the foreseeable future.
Hey. Anyone for a Prop 8 repeal campaign in 2012? Remember that idea? We dropped it when we thought this lawsuit would save us from an expensive and divisive foray into California electoral politics. Perhaps it’s time to dust off the plans.
On the other hand, some lower visibility federal cases are moving along at a regular clip, so we’ll see some important marriage decisions in 2011 and 2012. Just don’t hold your breath for demise of Prop 8.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
California Supreme Court About To Do Something Interesting
News for the Week Ended February 16, 2011
BY ANN ROSTOW
California Supreme Court About To Do Something Interesting
Today, we are expecting the California Supreme Court (finally!) to announce how it plans to handle the request it received from the Ninth Circuit panel reviewing the Prop 8 case.
Unfortunately, the justices care little for my deadline, and I am obliged to turn in my column without this vital information.
It’s not clear as of four central time whether the Court will issue an actual response to the Ninth Circuit’s arcane question about the legal standing under state law of the Prop 8 initiative backers. It’s also possible that the court will simply tell us whether they plan to consider the knotty question in the coming weeks or months, or alternatively, they could tell the Ninth Circuit to figure it all out for themselves.
Assuming the justices don’t address the issue in detail this afternoon, and further assuming they don’t tell the Ninth Circuit to go jump in Lake Tahoe, we have no idea how long the justices will wrestle with the relatively boring technical issue that lies between us and an actual decision on same-sex marriage. As I’ve said before, regardless of what happens today, t looks as if the “fast tracked” Prop 8 case has gone on a walkabout.
--
Arizona State Workers Fight To Keep Benefits
Now that we’ve covered the big nearly breaking story, we have a savory smorgasbord of actual news to tantalize your GLBT taste buds. There’s a big federal case about partner rights in Arizona that was just argued before a Ninth Circuit panel on Monday. (Yes, it’s true. The Ninth Circuit is the most fun federal appellate court in the country. Prop 8, the Golinski case, the Arizona case, a legal bonanza!)
There’s also a same-sex Canadian divorce case heading to the Wyoming Supreme Court, where marriage recognition law is ambiguous. And we have loads and loads of state legislative news, including a civil union bill in Hawaii that is perhaps to be finalized as I write.
But before we rush headlong into these exciting affairs, let’s go back to that Arizona case. Alert readers will wonder, hmmm. Why didn’t Ann mention this case before it managed to reach oral arguments at a judicial level one rung down from the US Supreme Court? Wasn’t there a district court ruling, an appeal, a schedule set, briefs filed? Did she just ignore a major federal gay rights case even as she blathered on and on about other trials and tribulations?
Um, yes.
Here’s what happened as far as my memory is concerned.
That idiot governor, Jan Brewer, who replaced our champion in Phoenix, Janet Napolitano, decided to “save money” by dumping domestic partners from the state workplace benefits. Brewer and her campadres in the rightwing Arizona legislature managed to save all of, I don’t know, five dollars out of the state budget, and in the process they left about 480 gay families, including 60 kids, suddenly unprotected.
Lambda filed suit in November 2009, and last July, a federal judge issued an injunction against the state, ruling that the budget rationale was not convincing and that the revised policy appeared to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. I covered all of that, but somehow, I never noticed that Arizona appealed the injunction to the Ninth Circuit. And here we are!
The case also failed to register because it’s not a classic marriage case; it’s an equal protection case, arguing that the gay state employees have been denied equal workplace benefits for no legitimate reason. Nonetheless, a ruling in our favor from the three judges on the panel (all appointed by Democrats) would be sensational. Hey, better to write about it late than never. We should see a ruling in the next three to six months if tradition holds.
--
Activia!
There’s so much actual news that I hesitate to draw your attention to the 30-something grocery clerk in Albuquerque who jacked off into a free yogurt sample at the local Sunflower Market. I don’t think he was gay, but I encountered the story at 365gay.com, so it’s sort of a gay news item. Law enforcement took possession of the suspicious dairy treat after a customer complained, and the offender was identified through DNA.
And before we sink our teeth into legislative news from around the US of A, I stumbled over another bad boy on one of my legal blogs, this one an Iowa lawyer named Clovis Bowles who lost his license for 18 months after having oral sex with a client in the law library of the Black Hawk County Courthouse. In the courthouse library? With your client? Really?
--
Merry In Maryland?
Moving right along, we are still bombarded with optimistic news out of Maryland, where it looks like marriage equality is right around the corner, sort of. There’s a senate committee vote on Thursday, and according to the Washington Post, the marriage bill could make it to the senate floor next week.
After a period of suspense, it looks as if we now have the 24 votes we need for passage, and it’s likely that we also have the 29 votes we need to stop a filibuster. (A handful of lawmakers have pledged to vote to bring the bill to the floor, even though they are opposed to the bill itself.)
The House of Delegates is expected to pass marriage should it emerge from the senate, and Governor O’Malley has pledged to sign a bill into law, making Maryland the sixth state to treat same-sex couples on par with their heterosexual counterparts. That said, a November 2012 referendum is possible if opponents rustle up enough signatures in the weeks following an O’Malley signature. So, we’ll see.
Washington lawmakers in the house and senate just introduced a marriage equality bill in the Starbuck State. A civil union bill is lurking in the Colorado legislature. I think I saw another one in Pennsylvania. And as I mentioned, Hawaii is expected to pass civil unions in the next few days, maybe today, and send that bill to a friendly governor.
New York is working on marriage, as is Rhode Island, where evildoers have also proposed a marriage ban. In Indiana, the house passed an amendment that would send a marriage ban to the voters, but not only does the senate have to confirm the plan, but both chambers have to pass the amendment again in the next session in order for the amendment to hit the voters. An antigay Indiana amendment is therefore not immanent, but the 70-26 house vote the other day was depressing nonetheless.
The attempt to roll back marriage rights in Iowa is still being held at bay by the head of the state senate, who thankfully thinks it’s a horrible idea. And even though a poll in New Hampshire showed widespread public opposition to reversing marriage rights in the Granite State, I gather than certain conservatives are still pursuing a repeal, even as Republican leaders have vowed to concentrate on the economy and whatever else is going on over there.
Oh, there’s more. But please. Haven’t we just done enough? Iowa, by the way, is also working on a bill that states that life begins at conception, a valid opinion, but since when can you legislate a point of view? What’s next? A law insisting vitamin C cures colds and swimming right after lunch is bad for your health? Never mind. I have a feeling that anything’s possible.
--
CPACman
So, the Conservative Political Action Conference is over and done with, and although the gay Republicans at GOProud were allowed to co-sponsor this year’s shenanigans, there’s talk that they won’t be welcomed next year, since the new uber conservative CPAC head honcho doesn’t seem to like us very much.
As you know, letting the gays into the CPAC tent led several groups on the religious right to boycott the confab, although most of the libertarian types didn’t seem to mind. But just because GOProud insinuated themselves into the festivities didn’t mean they were home free. Donald Trump and Tim Pawlenty distinguished themselves respectively by coming out against same-sex marriage and suggesting we reinstitute Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.
I didn’t pay particularly close attention, but I’m sure there were many others willing to articulate the far right talking points. Indeed, I think Ann Coulter said that the “Gay Left” was destroying the family. I suppose that’s us. Have you destroyed any families lately? Me neither. We’d better get cracking!
I’m not sure why this charade deserves the massive media attention it garners. I read that something like 3,700 people voted in the straw poll that named Ron Paul as the best GOP candidate for 2012. The majority of the voters were men under 25, not exactly the cohort that will decide the primary battles to come.
For some reason, I’m reminded of the sports talk radio host I was listening to in the car yesterday, a man who confessed that he has a secret addiction to Captain Crunch cereal. Several listeners called up to add their voices to the ensuing discussion, expressing relief that they were not alone in their childish passion.
One guy, who sounded like he was under 25 and possibly could support an oddball ideologue who wants to return us to the gold standard, told the audience that he gets a box of Captain Crunch, pours two thirds of it into a giant bowl, pours in milk, waits about 90 seconds for the mixture to reach his preferred consistency and, Presto! Dinner is served!
Truly a repellent mental image in so many ways.
I might add, lest you think I’m a food snob, that Captain Crunch was my personal favorite when I was a little girl, with Lucky Charms a close second. That said, my dream breakfast was sautéed Norfolk Spot, when in season.
OK OK. I’m a food snob.
--
Criminal Minds
Well, I took a little break while waiting for this damn California Supreme Court announcement, and when I came back I discovered a new piece of gay news, the horrific story of a 19-year-old from Hickory, North Carolina, who took a heavy dose of “Mucinex DM,” felt weird, and murdered his gay roommate.
According to the Advocate, Michael Anderson shot Steven Starr with a rifle, shot him again with a pistol, hacked him up with an ax, and carved words into his body. He then called 911 to report that he had butchered Starr to such an extent that the dead man was unrecognizable.
Anderson told the operator he met Starr at a gay bar, where he (Anderson) had gone to “experiment.” It seems that subsequently, Starr let Anderson stay at his place.
As Anderson explained on the 911 call:
“I met him and went to his house and he took me in and I turned straight again. And he wanted to touch me and stuff and I wouldn’t let him, and he kept trying. And I waited until he went to sleep and then I shot him three times. And I mutilated him very badly and I’m sorry, I’m sorry. Oh God, please help me.”
I was going to spin this as a cautionary tale about gay shame run amok, but actually, I think Anderson is a madman who transcends sexual orientation.
As for Mucinex DM, I don’t know whether I want to avoid it like the plague or try one “just for fun.” I know I’ll never see those TV mucus people in quite the same light. Also, a town called “Hickory, North Carolina” is just a little surrealistic. Not sure why.
Do any of you watch Criminal Minds? I love that show, although I have to lock all my doors and windows before I turn it on. However, I have a pet peeve that runs through every episode without fail.
When the team gets together to brief the local police on the profile, one team member starts talking, and then he or she stops and another one picks up the description without missing a beat, then that person stops and the next person chimes in and the vocal relay goes on until everyone has spoken.
In real life, no one butts into someone else’s presentation without some kind of pause or cue. It just doesn’t happen, and if it does, it happens once, not four or five times in succession. And once you start noticing this contrived device, it becomes really irritating. It’s just wrong!
BY ANN ROSTOW
California Supreme Court About To Do Something Interesting
Today, we are expecting the California Supreme Court (finally!) to announce how it plans to handle the request it received from the Ninth Circuit panel reviewing the Prop 8 case.
Unfortunately, the justices care little for my deadline, and I am obliged to turn in my column without this vital information.
It’s not clear as of four central time whether the Court will issue an actual response to the Ninth Circuit’s arcane question about the legal standing under state law of the Prop 8 initiative backers. It’s also possible that the court will simply tell us whether they plan to consider the knotty question in the coming weeks or months, or alternatively, they could tell the Ninth Circuit to figure it all out for themselves.
Assuming the justices don’t address the issue in detail this afternoon, and further assuming they don’t tell the Ninth Circuit to go jump in Lake Tahoe, we have no idea how long the justices will wrestle with the relatively boring technical issue that lies between us and an actual decision on same-sex marriage. As I’ve said before, regardless of what happens today, t looks as if the “fast tracked” Prop 8 case has gone on a walkabout.
--
Arizona State Workers Fight To Keep Benefits
Now that we’ve covered the big nearly breaking story, we have a savory smorgasbord of actual news to tantalize your GLBT taste buds. There’s a big federal case about partner rights in Arizona that was just argued before a Ninth Circuit panel on Monday. (Yes, it’s true. The Ninth Circuit is the most fun federal appellate court in the country. Prop 8, the Golinski case, the Arizona case, a legal bonanza!)
There’s also a same-sex Canadian divorce case heading to the Wyoming Supreme Court, where marriage recognition law is ambiguous. And we have loads and loads of state legislative news, including a civil union bill in Hawaii that is perhaps to be finalized as I write.
But before we rush headlong into these exciting affairs, let’s go back to that Arizona case. Alert readers will wonder, hmmm. Why didn’t Ann mention this case before it managed to reach oral arguments at a judicial level one rung down from the US Supreme Court? Wasn’t there a district court ruling, an appeal, a schedule set, briefs filed? Did she just ignore a major federal gay rights case even as she blathered on and on about other trials and tribulations?
Um, yes.
Here’s what happened as far as my memory is concerned.
That idiot governor, Jan Brewer, who replaced our champion in Phoenix, Janet Napolitano, decided to “save money” by dumping domestic partners from the state workplace benefits. Brewer and her campadres in the rightwing Arizona legislature managed to save all of, I don’t know, five dollars out of the state budget, and in the process they left about 480 gay families, including 60 kids, suddenly unprotected.
Lambda filed suit in November 2009, and last July, a federal judge issued an injunction against the state, ruling that the budget rationale was not convincing and that the revised policy appeared to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. I covered all of that, but somehow, I never noticed that Arizona appealed the injunction to the Ninth Circuit. And here we are!
The case also failed to register because it’s not a classic marriage case; it’s an equal protection case, arguing that the gay state employees have been denied equal workplace benefits for no legitimate reason. Nonetheless, a ruling in our favor from the three judges on the panel (all appointed by Democrats) would be sensational. Hey, better to write about it late than never. We should see a ruling in the next three to six months if tradition holds.
--
Activia!
There’s so much actual news that I hesitate to draw your attention to the 30-something grocery clerk in Albuquerque who jacked off into a free yogurt sample at the local Sunflower Market. I don’t think he was gay, but I encountered the story at 365gay.com, so it’s sort of a gay news item. Law enforcement took possession of the suspicious dairy treat after a customer complained, and the offender was identified through DNA.
And before we sink our teeth into legislative news from around the US of A, I stumbled over another bad boy on one of my legal blogs, this one an Iowa lawyer named Clovis Bowles who lost his license for 18 months after having oral sex with a client in the law library of the Black Hawk County Courthouse. In the courthouse library? With your client? Really?
--
Merry In Maryland?
Moving right along, we are still bombarded with optimistic news out of Maryland, where it looks like marriage equality is right around the corner, sort of. There’s a senate committee vote on Thursday, and according to the Washington Post, the marriage bill could make it to the senate floor next week.
After a period of suspense, it looks as if we now have the 24 votes we need for passage, and it’s likely that we also have the 29 votes we need to stop a filibuster. (A handful of lawmakers have pledged to vote to bring the bill to the floor, even though they are opposed to the bill itself.)
The House of Delegates is expected to pass marriage should it emerge from the senate, and Governor O’Malley has pledged to sign a bill into law, making Maryland the sixth state to treat same-sex couples on par with their heterosexual counterparts. That said, a November 2012 referendum is possible if opponents rustle up enough signatures in the weeks following an O’Malley signature. So, we’ll see.
Washington lawmakers in the house and senate just introduced a marriage equality bill in the Starbuck State. A civil union bill is lurking in the Colorado legislature. I think I saw another one in Pennsylvania. And as I mentioned, Hawaii is expected to pass civil unions in the next few days, maybe today, and send that bill to a friendly governor.
New York is working on marriage, as is Rhode Island, where evildoers have also proposed a marriage ban. In Indiana, the house passed an amendment that would send a marriage ban to the voters, but not only does the senate have to confirm the plan, but both chambers have to pass the amendment again in the next session in order for the amendment to hit the voters. An antigay Indiana amendment is therefore not immanent, but the 70-26 house vote the other day was depressing nonetheless.
The attempt to roll back marriage rights in Iowa is still being held at bay by the head of the state senate, who thankfully thinks it’s a horrible idea. And even though a poll in New Hampshire showed widespread public opposition to reversing marriage rights in the Granite State, I gather than certain conservatives are still pursuing a repeal, even as Republican leaders have vowed to concentrate on the economy and whatever else is going on over there.
Oh, there’s more. But please. Haven’t we just done enough? Iowa, by the way, is also working on a bill that states that life begins at conception, a valid opinion, but since when can you legislate a point of view? What’s next? A law insisting vitamin C cures colds and swimming right after lunch is bad for your health? Never mind. I have a feeling that anything’s possible.
--
CPACman
So, the Conservative Political Action Conference is over and done with, and although the gay Republicans at GOProud were allowed to co-sponsor this year’s shenanigans, there’s talk that they won’t be welcomed next year, since the new uber conservative CPAC head honcho doesn’t seem to like us very much.
As you know, letting the gays into the CPAC tent led several groups on the religious right to boycott the confab, although most of the libertarian types didn’t seem to mind. But just because GOProud insinuated themselves into the festivities didn’t mean they were home free. Donald Trump and Tim Pawlenty distinguished themselves respectively by coming out against same-sex marriage and suggesting we reinstitute Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.
I didn’t pay particularly close attention, but I’m sure there were many others willing to articulate the far right talking points. Indeed, I think Ann Coulter said that the “Gay Left” was destroying the family. I suppose that’s us. Have you destroyed any families lately? Me neither. We’d better get cracking!
I’m not sure why this charade deserves the massive media attention it garners. I read that something like 3,700 people voted in the straw poll that named Ron Paul as the best GOP candidate for 2012. The majority of the voters were men under 25, not exactly the cohort that will decide the primary battles to come.
For some reason, I’m reminded of the sports talk radio host I was listening to in the car yesterday, a man who confessed that he has a secret addiction to Captain Crunch cereal. Several listeners called up to add their voices to the ensuing discussion, expressing relief that they were not alone in their childish passion.
One guy, who sounded like he was under 25 and possibly could support an oddball ideologue who wants to return us to the gold standard, told the audience that he gets a box of Captain Crunch, pours two thirds of it into a giant bowl, pours in milk, waits about 90 seconds for the mixture to reach his preferred consistency and, Presto! Dinner is served!
Truly a repellent mental image in so many ways.
I might add, lest you think I’m a food snob, that Captain Crunch was my personal favorite when I was a little girl, with Lucky Charms a close second. That said, my dream breakfast was sautéed Norfolk Spot, when in season.
OK OK. I’m a food snob.
--
Criminal Minds
Well, I took a little break while waiting for this damn California Supreme Court announcement, and when I came back I discovered a new piece of gay news, the horrific story of a 19-year-old from Hickory, North Carolina, who took a heavy dose of “Mucinex DM,” felt weird, and murdered his gay roommate.
According to the Advocate, Michael Anderson shot Steven Starr with a rifle, shot him again with a pistol, hacked him up with an ax, and carved words into his body. He then called 911 to report that he had butchered Starr to such an extent that the dead man was unrecognizable.
Anderson told the operator he met Starr at a gay bar, where he (Anderson) had gone to “experiment.” It seems that subsequently, Starr let Anderson stay at his place.
As Anderson explained on the 911 call:
“I met him and went to his house and he took me in and I turned straight again. And he wanted to touch me and stuff and I wouldn’t let him, and he kept trying. And I waited until he went to sleep and then I shot him three times. And I mutilated him very badly and I’m sorry, I’m sorry. Oh God, please help me.”
I was going to spin this as a cautionary tale about gay shame run amok, but actually, I think Anderson is a madman who transcends sexual orientation.
As for Mucinex DM, I don’t know whether I want to avoid it like the plague or try one “just for fun.” I know I’ll never see those TV mucus people in quite the same light. Also, a town called “Hickory, North Carolina” is just a little surrealistic. Not sure why.
Do any of you watch Criminal Minds? I love that show, although I have to lock all my doors and windows before I turn it on. However, I have a pet peeve that runs through every episode without fail.
When the team gets together to brief the local police on the profile, one team member starts talking, and then he or she stops and another one picks up the description without missing a beat, then that person stops and the next person chimes in and the vocal relay goes on until everyone has spoken.
In real life, no one butts into someone else’s presentation without some kind of pause or cue. It just doesn’t happen, and if it does, it happens once, not four or five times in succession. And once you start noticing this contrived device, it becomes really irritating. It’s just wrong!
Maryland Marriage in a Crab Shell
News for the Week Ended February 9, 2011
BY ANN ROSTOW
Maryland Marriage in a Crab Shell
Like many of my fellow GLBT news researchers, I have long followed the career of NBA basketball star Rudy Gay. Mixed in between the random stories that pop up on our daily Google searches, we learn of Rudy’s triumphs and failures, we nod our heads at his $82 million contract with the mediocre Memphis Grizzlies, we applaud his high scoring games and give him a mental “that’s OK” when the Grizzlies lose. After all, of all the pro hoopsters, it can be argued that he has the closest connection to our community, um, namewise.
This is all to explain why I’m leading this report on marriage in Maryland with the unrelated news that Rudy is out this week with a sprained toe. Get better soon, Rudy, and go Memphis!
By virtue of the same phenomenon, we are also keeping an eye on journeyman golfer Brian Gay, and although Brian is not in the news as often as Rudy, I am pleased to report that he is 19th on the PGA tour money list at the moment. Keep it up, Brian! Our civil rights movement is rooting for you.
In our main story, the head of the Maryland Senate says he thinks we have a 60 to 70 percent chance of passing the marriage equality bill in his chamber, perhaps as early as next week.
Currently, 20 state senators have come out in favor of the bill, which was the subject of seven hours of testimony before the senate judiciary committee on Tuesday. There are six others who remain undecided, and one of the opponents just switched to undecided this morning after yesterday’s hearing, bringing the undecideds to seven. We need 24 yes votes to pass, and something like 28 to avoid a filibuster. That should be possible since several of the opponents say they will nonetheless vote to bring the bill to the floor.
The Maryland House of Delegates is thought to have the votes to pass marriage equality if it makes it through the state senate, and Governor Martin O’Malley has pledged to sign it, although he prefers civil unions in principle.
If the marriage bill becomes law, conservatives are expected to race around collecting roughly 56,000 valid signatures within 40 days of O’Malley’s signature for a 2012 ballot measure that would repeal equality. Although voters may not initiate amendments to the state constitution in Maryland, they do have the ability to petition for the repeal of a statute.
I offer no opinion on whether or not such a petition drive would be successful. As for a public vote, recent polls indicate that a small plurality of citizens support marriage equality. But small margins have a tendency to evaporate at the ballot box. That said, November of 2012 is a long way away. Public opinion is moving inexorably towards us at a rate of one to two points a year thanks to demographics. And since same-sex marriage from outside Maryland is already recognized by law in the She Crab Soup State under the Attorney General’s interpretation, the vote will simply be about whether to allow legal marriage contracts to originate in the state.
--
Blacksmith State Debates Marriage
Elsewhere, we have the usual mix of good news and bad news, although the good things have a better chance of coming to fruition than their nefarious counterparts.
Rhode Islanders are considering marriage equality, and the house judiciary committee is holding a hearing on the subject this afternoon. With openly gay Democrat Gordon Fox running the House and marriage friendly Independent Lincoln Chafee in the governor’s mansion, there is now at least some possibility that marriage could become law in the Teeny Tiny State, where a marriage bill is also pending in the senate.
Rhode Island lawmakers will also debate an antigay marriage amendment, although I haven’t encountered any reports to indicate that this idea has traction. Let’s hope that my impression is accurate and not simply a reflection of my limited attention to Rhode Island politics. But hey. If there’s a decent chance that Rhode Island could pass marriage equality, it stands to reason that there’s little chance of the exact opposite result, right?
There are quite a few other things happening, including something bad under discussion in Utah, a committee vote against our communal interests in Indiana and a mixed bag coming out of Iowa. I had actually planned to devote a significant chunk of time and space to these subjects but I’ve just returned to my column after a break and my frame of mind has been dislodged from its legislative angle.
Do you care? I promise to cover all the developments in detail in some future issue, and you won’t miss a thing! Oh, thank you readers.
Here’s something. Did you know that Lincoln Chafee worked for seven years in his youth as a “professional farrier?” I had to look him up twice. First to find out whether he had one or two “f” s in his name, and second to verify that he formally switched from Republican to Independent. In the course of this detail work, I discovered his surprising early métier, something you might understand in a westerner’s resume, but not what I would expect from a New Englander.
--
Worst Super Bowl Ad
And speaking of stereotypes, do you think that the Pepsi super bowl ad exaggerated negative impressions of Black women? I do. I’m talking about the one where the wife behaves like a harridan, physically snatching junk food away from her miserable puppy of a husband. She then finds him sneaking a Pepsi Max on a park bench and he slumps with guilt, erroneously believing that the delicious soda must be on his wife’s list of impermissible products. Turns out the diet drink is fine with her, and she even has her own can of Pepsi Max.
The husband then notices a sexy blond jogger, and smiles when she sits down on his bench. In fury, the crazy wife throws her Pepsi at him, he ducks, and the blond is knocked to the ground by the force of the can hitting her in the head. The couple runs off in a panic, with the wife apologizing to the blond as they make their escape.
The whole episode taps into society’s characterization of Black women as mean controlling matriarchs who pussy whip their husbands into submission assuming they have a husband to begin with. There’s a milder corollary for wives in general, and TV commercials are full of scenes where men hide and connive like little boys to avoid getting in trouble for making a mess, ignoring their chores, eating the wrong thing, going out with their male friends, looking at other women and violating a whole list of imperatives from their demanding spouses.
I think what put the Pepsi ad over the top was the fact that the husband was physically fit to begin with, implying that his wife was not simply concerned about his health, but sociopathic. In one scene she even caught him eating something fattening in the bathtub fully clothed, grabbed it out of his hand and gave him what looked like a bar of soap but could have been a slice of a radish or something.
And is it my imagination, or was this ad perhaps unconsciously designed to resonate with the backlash against Michele Obama’s nutrition policies, and by extension ridicule the First Lady along with every other Black woman in America?
The problem is that ironically, it’s a sexist trope. An overpowering man who berates his wife for eating junk food or spilling the ketchup would bewilder rather than amuse the television audience. The convention is compounded for Black women and men, and the stock image of the ball-breaker African American woman reinforces the double standard. Just think as well of that State Farm car insurance ad where the Black guy backs into another car and his girlfriend rips him to shreds for it. Who would deliberately attack someone they care about under such circumstances? No one! Or certainly no one that any average viewer would like.
--
Ten Million Bucks Allocated For Marriage Ads
So Freedom to Marry is holding a conference call in a few minutes, but I’m going to skip it because they already announced the big news: to wit, a $10 million public education campaign over the next three years. The group will launch the program with a sweet little ad that I saw on their website, to be aired on CNN.
So, good for them. Ten million is a lot of money and public education is a worthy activity. That said, I don’t feel like going through the whole call-in process when I can just read the press releases.
--
Prop 8 Case On The Snail Track
Meanwhile, in case you’re wondering, nothing seems to be happening with our marriage lawsuits at the moment. We are still waiting for the California Supreme Court to decide whether or not to consider the question of whether Prop 8 people would have standing under state law to represent their positions in court. A three-judge Ninth Circuit panel has made it clear that they believe the question of whether the Prop 8 people have standing under federal law depends to a large extent on the state law interpretation, so they’ve asked the California justices to weigh in on this less-than-scintillating matter.
And so far, a month or so later, the California High Court has yet to tell the Ninth Circuit what it plans to do. If the justices agree to look at the issue, at this rate we’ll be waiting around for half the year for their actual views on the subject. Only then will the Ninth Circuit (perhaps) continue their deliberations on the underlying question of whether Prop 8 is constitutional. And for all we know they’ll drop the case completely if they decide the marriage opponents lack standing. So much for the “fast track” that once defined the pace of this high profile litigation.
Over in the First Circuit, the twin challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act continue on schedule, with our side’s briefs due March 1, followed by another set of arguments from the Obama administration.
And we are waiting with interest for a ruling on the question of whether the Defense of Marriage Act forbids the Ninth Circuit from offering spousal benefits to a lesbian staff attorney. That case was argued quite a while ago and with my luck, a dramatic ruling will be issued shortly after I file this column, making me look like I’m not on top of things. Nothing could be further from the truth of course.
These are not the only federal cases of interest to our attentive community, but they are the ones at the front of the pack.
And to be completely accurate, we can’t forget the federal case against Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, which is still active even though Congress has set the law’s repeal in motion. As long as DADT is still on the books, the Ninth Circuit will continue to treat the federal lawsuit against the law as a live conflict. As you know, the ban on openly gay military service won’t be officially dead until after the government certifies that its repeal will have no impact on military readiness. Once that’s done, in a few months I guess, President Obama will have to do something else--- make a proclamation or sign something or order something. I forget the exact procedure.
I am assuming that the repeal rigmarole will reach its conclusion before the lawsuit ends, making the litigation moot. Then again, allowing gay soldiers to serve does not necessarily end sexual orientation discrimination in the military, so perhaps some constitutional issue will remain in play even after the law is gone.
And there you have it, ladies and gentlemen.
BY ANN ROSTOW
Maryland Marriage in a Crab Shell
Like many of my fellow GLBT news researchers, I have long followed the career of NBA basketball star Rudy Gay. Mixed in between the random stories that pop up on our daily Google searches, we learn of Rudy’s triumphs and failures, we nod our heads at his $82 million contract with the mediocre Memphis Grizzlies, we applaud his high scoring games and give him a mental “that’s OK” when the Grizzlies lose. After all, of all the pro hoopsters, it can be argued that he has the closest connection to our community, um, namewise.
This is all to explain why I’m leading this report on marriage in Maryland with the unrelated news that Rudy is out this week with a sprained toe. Get better soon, Rudy, and go Memphis!
By virtue of the same phenomenon, we are also keeping an eye on journeyman golfer Brian Gay, and although Brian is not in the news as often as Rudy, I am pleased to report that he is 19th on the PGA tour money list at the moment. Keep it up, Brian! Our civil rights movement is rooting for you.
In our main story, the head of the Maryland Senate says he thinks we have a 60 to 70 percent chance of passing the marriage equality bill in his chamber, perhaps as early as next week.
Currently, 20 state senators have come out in favor of the bill, which was the subject of seven hours of testimony before the senate judiciary committee on Tuesday. There are six others who remain undecided, and one of the opponents just switched to undecided this morning after yesterday’s hearing, bringing the undecideds to seven. We need 24 yes votes to pass, and something like 28 to avoid a filibuster. That should be possible since several of the opponents say they will nonetheless vote to bring the bill to the floor.
The Maryland House of Delegates is thought to have the votes to pass marriage equality if it makes it through the state senate, and Governor Martin O’Malley has pledged to sign it, although he prefers civil unions in principle.
If the marriage bill becomes law, conservatives are expected to race around collecting roughly 56,000 valid signatures within 40 days of O’Malley’s signature for a 2012 ballot measure that would repeal equality. Although voters may not initiate amendments to the state constitution in Maryland, they do have the ability to petition for the repeal of a statute.
I offer no opinion on whether or not such a petition drive would be successful. As for a public vote, recent polls indicate that a small plurality of citizens support marriage equality. But small margins have a tendency to evaporate at the ballot box. That said, November of 2012 is a long way away. Public opinion is moving inexorably towards us at a rate of one to two points a year thanks to demographics. And since same-sex marriage from outside Maryland is already recognized by law in the She Crab Soup State under the Attorney General’s interpretation, the vote will simply be about whether to allow legal marriage contracts to originate in the state.
--
Blacksmith State Debates Marriage
Elsewhere, we have the usual mix of good news and bad news, although the good things have a better chance of coming to fruition than their nefarious counterparts.
Rhode Islanders are considering marriage equality, and the house judiciary committee is holding a hearing on the subject this afternoon. With openly gay Democrat Gordon Fox running the House and marriage friendly Independent Lincoln Chafee in the governor’s mansion, there is now at least some possibility that marriage could become law in the Teeny Tiny State, where a marriage bill is also pending in the senate.
Rhode Island lawmakers will also debate an antigay marriage amendment, although I haven’t encountered any reports to indicate that this idea has traction. Let’s hope that my impression is accurate and not simply a reflection of my limited attention to Rhode Island politics. But hey. If there’s a decent chance that Rhode Island could pass marriage equality, it stands to reason that there’s little chance of the exact opposite result, right?
There are quite a few other things happening, including something bad under discussion in Utah, a committee vote against our communal interests in Indiana and a mixed bag coming out of Iowa. I had actually planned to devote a significant chunk of time and space to these subjects but I’ve just returned to my column after a break and my frame of mind has been dislodged from its legislative angle.
Do you care? I promise to cover all the developments in detail in some future issue, and you won’t miss a thing! Oh, thank you readers.
Here’s something. Did you know that Lincoln Chafee worked for seven years in his youth as a “professional farrier?” I had to look him up twice. First to find out whether he had one or two “f” s in his name, and second to verify that he formally switched from Republican to Independent. In the course of this detail work, I discovered his surprising early métier, something you might understand in a westerner’s resume, but not what I would expect from a New Englander.
--
Worst Super Bowl Ad
And speaking of stereotypes, do you think that the Pepsi super bowl ad exaggerated negative impressions of Black women? I do. I’m talking about the one where the wife behaves like a harridan, physically snatching junk food away from her miserable puppy of a husband. She then finds him sneaking a Pepsi Max on a park bench and he slumps with guilt, erroneously believing that the delicious soda must be on his wife’s list of impermissible products. Turns out the diet drink is fine with her, and she even has her own can of Pepsi Max.
The husband then notices a sexy blond jogger, and smiles when she sits down on his bench. In fury, the crazy wife throws her Pepsi at him, he ducks, and the blond is knocked to the ground by the force of the can hitting her in the head. The couple runs off in a panic, with the wife apologizing to the blond as they make their escape.
The whole episode taps into society’s characterization of Black women as mean controlling matriarchs who pussy whip their husbands into submission assuming they have a husband to begin with. There’s a milder corollary for wives in general, and TV commercials are full of scenes where men hide and connive like little boys to avoid getting in trouble for making a mess, ignoring their chores, eating the wrong thing, going out with their male friends, looking at other women and violating a whole list of imperatives from their demanding spouses.
I think what put the Pepsi ad over the top was the fact that the husband was physically fit to begin with, implying that his wife was not simply concerned about his health, but sociopathic. In one scene she even caught him eating something fattening in the bathtub fully clothed, grabbed it out of his hand and gave him what looked like a bar of soap but could have been a slice of a radish or something.
And is it my imagination, or was this ad perhaps unconsciously designed to resonate with the backlash against Michele Obama’s nutrition policies, and by extension ridicule the First Lady along with every other Black woman in America?
The problem is that ironically, it’s a sexist trope. An overpowering man who berates his wife for eating junk food or spilling the ketchup would bewilder rather than amuse the television audience. The convention is compounded for Black women and men, and the stock image of the ball-breaker African American woman reinforces the double standard. Just think as well of that State Farm car insurance ad where the Black guy backs into another car and his girlfriend rips him to shreds for it. Who would deliberately attack someone they care about under such circumstances? No one! Or certainly no one that any average viewer would like.
--
Ten Million Bucks Allocated For Marriage Ads
So Freedom to Marry is holding a conference call in a few minutes, but I’m going to skip it because they already announced the big news: to wit, a $10 million public education campaign over the next three years. The group will launch the program with a sweet little ad that I saw on their website, to be aired on CNN.
So, good for them. Ten million is a lot of money and public education is a worthy activity. That said, I don’t feel like going through the whole call-in process when I can just read the press releases.
--
Prop 8 Case On The Snail Track
Meanwhile, in case you’re wondering, nothing seems to be happening with our marriage lawsuits at the moment. We are still waiting for the California Supreme Court to decide whether or not to consider the question of whether Prop 8 people would have standing under state law to represent their positions in court. A three-judge Ninth Circuit panel has made it clear that they believe the question of whether the Prop 8 people have standing under federal law depends to a large extent on the state law interpretation, so they’ve asked the California justices to weigh in on this less-than-scintillating matter.
And so far, a month or so later, the California High Court has yet to tell the Ninth Circuit what it plans to do. If the justices agree to look at the issue, at this rate we’ll be waiting around for half the year for their actual views on the subject. Only then will the Ninth Circuit (perhaps) continue their deliberations on the underlying question of whether Prop 8 is constitutional. And for all we know they’ll drop the case completely if they decide the marriage opponents lack standing. So much for the “fast track” that once defined the pace of this high profile litigation.
Over in the First Circuit, the twin challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act continue on schedule, with our side’s briefs due March 1, followed by another set of arguments from the Obama administration.
And we are waiting with interest for a ruling on the question of whether the Defense of Marriage Act forbids the Ninth Circuit from offering spousal benefits to a lesbian staff attorney. That case was argued quite a while ago and with my luck, a dramatic ruling will be issued shortly after I file this column, making me look like I’m not on top of things. Nothing could be further from the truth of course.
These are not the only federal cases of interest to our attentive community, but they are the ones at the front of the pack.
And to be completely accurate, we can’t forget the federal case against Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, which is still active even though Congress has set the law’s repeal in motion. As long as DADT is still on the books, the Ninth Circuit will continue to treat the federal lawsuit against the law as a live conflict. As you know, the ban on openly gay military service won’t be officially dead until after the government certifies that its repeal will have no impact on military readiness. Once that’s done, in a few months I guess, President Obama will have to do something else--- make a proclamation or sign something or order something. I forget the exact procedure.
I am assuming that the repeal rigmarole will reach its conclusion before the lawsuit ends, making the litigation moot. Then again, allowing gay soldiers to serve does not necessarily end sexual orientation discrimination in the military, so perhaps some constitutional issue will remain in play even after the law is gone.
And there you have it, ladies and gentlemen.
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Let's Roll
News for the Week Ended February 2, 2011
BY ANN ROSTOW
Let’s Roll
This morning, Austin’s energy mandarins are conducting rolling blackouts because, um, it’s sort of cold here and too many people are using the heat. Yes, chaos reigns in Egypt, raging blizzards paralyze the Midwest, and the GLBT community struggles as ever for society to toss small shreds of human decency its way. But my power is out!
It goes on for ten minutes every hour, just enough time for me to make a slice of toast on the last brief surge of electricity. I also checked around for interesting GLBT news and noticed that the Iowa House has passed the anti-gay amendment that could possibly send Iowa’s marriage law to a repeal vote in the next election.
As I mentioned last week, the head of the Iowa state senate has pledged to block a vote in his chamber, but it seems there may be some Machiavellian way for Republicans to circumvent his authority. I’ll have to check further during my next power window.
Or not.
--
NCLR Saves The Day At Minnesota High School
Perhaps I’ll use this state of emergency as an excuse to avoid laborious fact checking in favor of hazy snippets of remembered GLBT news items, Proust-style. I can use my delicious piece of toast as a catalyst to evoke the lost times.
Crunch. Yum. Now I remember, for example, as if it were yesterday, the story of two high school girls somewhere, who were elected by their peers as, hmmm, a royal couple of some sort in one of those odd high school traditions. The school authorities refused to let the girls join their heterosexual counterparts in the ceremonial walk down the assembly aisle (or wherever the ceremonial walk was to take place) until thankfully, the National Center for Lesbian Rights rode to the rescue with a threatened lawsuit and all was made right in the world. I think it was yesterday, actually.
Oh! The power’s on again. Quickly now. To the Internet!
The girls in the above story, Dez and Sarah, went to a school in Minnesota and were elected to the Snow Days Week Royalty Court as part of the Snow Days Week festival. (Power is gone, now.)
At first, the school announced it would cancel the parade of royal couples rather than subject the assembly to the disturbing spectacle of tux-clad lesbian teens. After ignoring a stern letter from the NCLR on Friday, the San Francisco based legal group actually did file a federal lawsuit later that afternoon, and happily, the matter was settled in a mediation session Saturday---just in time for the “Pep Fest” on Monday!
Did your high school conduct these medieval rituals? Mine didn’t, although we did have a class-versus-class Glee-type song competition. To this day, I remember most of the words to: “Kids! I don’t know what’s wrong with these kids today, etc.…” We came in second.
Speaking of mediation, I’ve seen the trailers for a new legal TV show about a woman who gives up her law practice to be a mediator. I haven’t watched it, but it sounds like it would inherently be less interesting that an actual legal drama doesn’t it? It’s like a show about an ER doctor who quits to run the local drug store’s “minute clinic.”
“Dr. Blake… oh sorry, I mean Stan. Would you mind having a look at this? I think it could be bronchitis.”
“Hmmm. You’re right Sally. Mrs. Morris, you really should call your regular doctor. You might need some antibiotics.”
--
Illinois Joins the Cool States
Moving on, the governor of Illinois (who I think might be named Pat Something) has signed the civil union bill that passed the legislature a couple of weeks ago. I just realized that it’s February 2, so whenever I’m not sure of a recent date I can just write “last month.” Well, at any rate the civil union bill passed in January.
Illinois is the sixth state to offer full civil unions that provide all the rights of marriage without the title or status. The others are California, New Jersey, Nevada, Washington and Oregon. I know Hawaii is working on a civil union bill as well, as is New Mexico (I’m pretty sure). Plus, we have our five marriage states (Massachusetts, Vermont, Iowa, New Hampshire and Connecticut), so we’re making some progress here. New York and Maryland recognize marriages from out of state as well, and both those states are addressing the legalization of marriage in their current legislative sessions.
Power back. The Illinois governor is Patrick Quinn. Thanks for signing the civil union bill Governor Quinn!
The TV popped back on in time for a warning to women about heart attacks. It seems that the symptoms for our heart attacks, like many other gender-based contrasts in this life, are more subtle than those of men. Instead of crushing chest pain and shooting agony down our right arms, we experience “dizziness,” “fatigue,” “shortness of breath” and other vague hints of imminent death. We may suffer flu-like aches and pains in the days running up to our attack. Not surprisingly, few of us actually dial 911 under these circumstances and therefore, we are more likely to die.
The people on TV basically suggested that women become more alert to these warning signs and take prompt action, a ludicrous recommendation considering many of us spend most of our lives under the sway of one or more of these coronary harbingers. Fatigue, aches, and pains are among my favorite personal complaints. Throw in a pack of Winstons and a few cocktails and we can add shortness of breath and dizziness to the list. But you don’t see me running off to the hospital like a baby now, do you?
Guys, I love you. But if fatigue or flu-like symptoms were the precursors of male heart attacks, America’s ERs would be packed tighter than a sports bar on Saturday.
--
Bush Twin Comes Out For Marriage
I suppose you noticed that Barbara Bush, the twin not the FLOTUS, taped a video in favor of marriage equality as part of an HRC promotional effort to push marriage in New York. I was just about to write something slightly cynical about it when I saw a headline from OnTop that read: “Barbara Bush Gay Marriage Nod Called Irrelevant, Insincere.”
Immediately I felt myself rise to her defense and condemn the critics as mean spirited, even before reading the article. After all, Barbara Bush was under no obligation to cooperate with HRC’s marriage campaign. Surely we can use all the friends we can get and how callous of us to turn our backs on this genuine gesture of solidarity.
Turned out the headline was a bit off. The pundits in the article pointed out that George W Bush and company manipulated homophobia to his benefit during the 2004 election, even though he had no particular personal feelings one way or the other. His wife Laura, in turn, stood by silently even though she herself probably backed same-sex marriage at the time. This, kind of political calculation, said someone who I forget, is even worse than heartfelt homophobia.
I’m no fan of George Bush, but I far prefer the conservatives who don’t really hate gays and lesbians to the ones with heartfelt homophobia. I mean, please. As for the twins, they have nothing to do with this. And would you really expect the wife of a president or a candidate to publicly repudiate part of his platform? As I recall, Laura Bush always ducked gay questions, which was the best she could do under the circumstances unless she had wanted to make a courageous stand.
Was Barbara Bush’s statement “irrelevant?” Maybe. In fact that was going to be the point of my cynical comment. But you know what? For whatever reason, her endorsement is big mainstream news. I just saw it flash under the MSNBC screen for the tenth time, so good for her. The defection of GOP youth, and some seniors, from the antigay party line is significant and to be encouraged. Each Republican celebrity who joins the fight for marriage equality deepens the erosion on the other side, and it seems Barbara Bush belongs in that celebrity category.
Et tu, Jenna?
--
GLAAD Finds An Acorn
The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) is up in arms over a transphobic sketch on Saturday Night Live that purports to advertise a one-a-day estrogen pill for MTF transsexuals.
I’m usually the first to roll my eyes over GLAAD’s hair-trigger sensibilities and humorless scoldings. But the skit was amazingly nasty, a two-minute frat boy attack on transitioning women, featuring masculine looking men in moustaches and dresses and including a sophomoric scene at an airport security station. The skit’s only theme was summed up in the idea that MTF transsexuals are bizarre oddities by their very nature.
I say “amazing” because for some reason I thought Saturday Night Live operated on a higher level. Nothing is beyond humor in my book, not even gender identity. But here’s the problem. Humor, like poetry and art, is founded on common assumptions and develops from there. To the extent that the common assumptions about what it means to be gay or lesbian are becoming increasingly rich and nuanced, we see much more opportunity for humor that uses gay men or lesbians as the theme rather than an object of ridicule. Just because someone makes fun of a gay guy in a commercial doesn’t mean it’s homophobic.
The trans community is far less understood and far more vulnerable to negative stereotypes. Indeed, there’s so little common wisdom on the subject of gender identity in mainstream society that truly funny trans jokes, though not impossible, present a delicate comedic challenge. How could the SNL writers and editors not know that?
The mock commercial, designed solely for everyone else to laugh at transwomen behind their backs, was something you’d expect from a Hasty Pudding show from the 1960s. Not from the writers of our iconic national comedy hour. It’s not simply that SNL needs to apologize. These writers need to spend a weekend in the company of a dozen transgender women and be schooled in what life is like for transitioning women in this country.
--
Honoring David Kato
Finally, I gather from Michael Petrelis’s blog that Gays Without Borders is planning a vigil Thursday night in honor of murdered Ugandan gay rights activist, David Kato, a man who courageously risked his life on a daily basis to fight for respect in a country that abhors homosexuality.
Petrelis asked the Castro district merchants group for permission to lower the rainbow flag on Castro and Market to half-staff for the event, but the group said no. According to the merchants, who are in charge of the flag, there are four to eight requests to lower the flag every week. Obviously, as Steve Adams wrote Petrelis, if the group were to agree to all these requests, the flag would be permanently at half-staff. (Actually, now that I think about it, maybe the flag should be at half-staff all the time, and we could raise it on special occasions, like big court victories or Gay Pride Day).
Anyway, I can’t characterize the routine requests of which Adams writes. But Kato is a gay martyr. His life eulogized by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, his death covered in the pages of major newspapers around the world, his sacrifice marked by vigils in New York, London, San Francisco and Cape Town.
If the Castro merchants can’t lower the rainbow flag for David Kato, hammered to death after his name and address were published last October in one of the most homophobic countries in the world, who would they choose to honor with this sign of respect?
Maybe Uganda is too far away.
BY ANN ROSTOW
Let’s Roll
This morning, Austin’s energy mandarins are conducting rolling blackouts because, um, it’s sort of cold here and too many people are using the heat. Yes, chaos reigns in Egypt, raging blizzards paralyze the Midwest, and the GLBT community struggles as ever for society to toss small shreds of human decency its way. But my power is out!
It goes on for ten minutes every hour, just enough time for me to make a slice of toast on the last brief surge of electricity. I also checked around for interesting GLBT news and noticed that the Iowa House has passed the anti-gay amendment that could possibly send Iowa’s marriage law to a repeal vote in the next election.
As I mentioned last week, the head of the Iowa state senate has pledged to block a vote in his chamber, but it seems there may be some Machiavellian way for Republicans to circumvent his authority. I’ll have to check further during my next power window.
Or not.
--
NCLR Saves The Day At Minnesota High School
Perhaps I’ll use this state of emergency as an excuse to avoid laborious fact checking in favor of hazy snippets of remembered GLBT news items, Proust-style. I can use my delicious piece of toast as a catalyst to evoke the lost times.
Crunch. Yum. Now I remember, for example, as if it were yesterday, the story of two high school girls somewhere, who were elected by their peers as, hmmm, a royal couple of some sort in one of those odd high school traditions. The school authorities refused to let the girls join their heterosexual counterparts in the ceremonial walk down the assembly aisle (or wherever the ceremonial walk was to take place) until thankfully, the National Center for Lesbian Rights rode to the rescue with a threatened lawsuit and all was made right in the world. I think it was yesterday, actually.
Oh! The power’s on again. Quickly now. To the Internet!
The girls in the above story, Dez and Sarah, went to a school in Minnesota and were elected to the Snow Days Week Royalty Court as part of the Snow Days Week festival. (Power is gone, now.)
At first, the school announced it would cancel the parade of royal couples rather than subject the assembly to the disturbing spectacle of tux-clad lesbian teens. After ignoring a stern letter from the NCLR on Friday, the San Francisco based legal group actually did file a federal lawsuit later that afternoon, and happily, the matter was settled in a mediation session Saturday---just in time for the “Pep Fest” on Monday!
Did your high school conduct these medieval rituals? Mine didn’t, although we did have a class-versus-class Glee-type song competition. To this day, I remember most of the words to: “Kids! I don’t know what’s wrong with these kids today, etc.…” We came in second.
Speaking of mediation, I’ve seen the trailers for a new legal TV show about a woman who gives up her law practice to be a mediator. I haven’t watched it, but it sounds like it would inherently be less interesting that an actual legal drama doesn’t it? It’s like a show about an ER doctor who quits to run the local drug store’s “minute clinic.”
“Dr. Blake… oh sorry, I mean Stan. Would you mind having a look at this? I think it could be bronchitis.”
“Hmmm. You’re right Sally. Mrs. Morris, you really should call your regular doctor. You might need some antibiotics.”
--
Illinois Joins the Cool States
Moving on, the governor of Illinois (who I think might be named Pat Something) has signed the civil union bill that passed the legislature a couple of weeks ago. I just realized that it’s February 2, so whenever I’m not sure of a recent date I can just write “last month.” Well, at any rate the civil union bill passed in January.
Illinois is the sixth state to offer full civil unions that provide all the rights of marriage without the title or status. The others are California, New Jersey, Nevada, Washington and Oregon. I know Hawaii is working on a civil union bill as well, as is New Mexico (I’m pretty sure). Plus, we have our five marriage states (Massachusetts, Vermont, Iowa, New Hampshire and Connecticut), so we’re making some progress here. New York and Maryland recognize marriages from out of state as well, and both those states are addressing the legalization of marriage in their current legislative sessions.
Power back. The Illinois governor is Patrick Quinn. Thanks for signing the civil union bill Governor Quinn!
The TV popped back on in time for a warning to women about heart attacks. It seems that the symptoms for our heart attacks, like many other gender-based contrasts in this life, are more subtle than those of men. Instead of crushing chest pain and shooting agony down our right arms, we experience “dizziness,” “fatigue,” “shortness of breath” and other vague hints of imminent death. We may suffer flu-like aches and pains in the days running up to our attack. Not surprisingly, few of us actually dial 911 under these circumstances and therefore, we are more likely to die.
The people on TV basically suggested that women become more alert to these warning signs and take prompt action, a ludicrous recommendation considering many of us spend most of our lives under the sway of one or more of these coronary harbingers. Fatigue, aches, and pains are among my favorite personal complaints. Throw in a pack of Winstons and a few cocktails and we can add shortness of breath and dizziness to the list. But you don’t see me running off to the hospital like a baby now, do you?
Guys, I love you. But if fatigue or flu-like symptoms were the precursors of male heart attacks, America’s ERs would be packed tighter than a sports bar on Saturday.
--
Bush Twin Comes Out For Marriage
I suppose you noticed that Barbara Bush, the twin not the FLOTUS, taped a video in favor of marriage equality as part of an HRC promotional effort to push marriage in New York. I was just about to write something slightly cynical about it when I saw a headline from OnTop that read: “Barbara Bush Gay Marriage Nod Called Irrelevant, Insincere.”
Immediately I felt myself rise to her defense and condemn the critics as mean spirited, even before reading the article. After all, Barbara Bush was under no obligation to cooperate with HRC’s marriage campaign. Surely we can use all the friends we can get and how callous of us to turn our backs on this genuine gesture of solidarity.
Turned out the headline was a bit off. The pundits in the article pointed out that George W Bush and company manipulated homophobia to his benefit during the 2004 election, even though he had no particular personal feelings one way or the other. His wife Laura, in turn, stood by silently even though she herself probably backed same-sex marriage at the time. This, kind of political calculation, said someone who I forget, is even worse than heartfelt homophobia.
I’m no fan of George Bush, but I far prefer the conservatives who don’t really hate gays and lesbians to the ones with heartfelt homophobia. I mean, please. As for the twins, they have nothing to do with this. And would you really expect the wife of a president or a candidate to publicly repudiate part of his platform? As I recall, Laura Bush always ducked gay questions, which was the best she could do under the circumstances unless she had wanted to make a courageous stand.
Was Barbara Bush’s statement “irrelevant?” Maybe. In fact that was going to be the point of my cynical comment. But you know what? For whatever reason, her endorsement is big mainstream news. I just saw it flash under the MSNBC screen for the tenth time, so good for her. The defection of GOP youth, and some seniors, from the antigay party line is significant and to be encouraged. Each Republican celebrity who joins the fight for marriage equality deepens the erosion on the other side, and it seems Barbara Bush belongs in that celebrity category.
Et tu, Jenna?
--
GLAAD Finds An Acorn
The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) is up in arms over a transphobic sketch on Saturday Night Live that purports to advertise a one-a-day estrogen pill for MTF transsexuals.
I’m usually the first to roll my eyes over GLAAD’s hair-trigger sensibilities and humorless scoldings. But the skit was amazingly nasty, a two-minute frat boy attack on transitioning women, featuring masculine looking men in moustaches and dresses and including a sophomoric scene at an airport security station. The skit’s only theme was summed up in the idea that MTF transsexuals are bizarre oddities by their very nature.
I say “amazing” because for some reason I thought Saturday Night Live operated on a higher level. Nothing is beyond humor in my book, not even gender identity. But here’s the problem. Humor, like poetry and art, is founded on common assumptions and develops from there. To the extent that the common assumptions about what it means to be gay or lesbian are becoming increasingly rich and nuanced, we see much more opportunity for humor that uses gay men or lesbians as the theme rather than an object of ridicule. Just because someone makes fun of a gay guy in a commercial doesn’t mean it’s homophobic.
The trans community is far less understood and far more vulnerable to negative stereotypes. Indeed, there’s so little common wisdom on the subject of gender identity in mainstream society that truly funny trans jokes, though not impossible, present a delicate comedic challenge. How could the SNL writers and editors not know that?
The mock commercial, designed solely for everyone else to laugh at transwomen behind their backs, was something you’d expect from a Hasty Pudding show from the 1960s. Not from the writers of our iconic national comedy hour. It’s not simply that SNL needs to apologize. These writers need to spend a weekend in the company of a dozen transgender women and be schooled in what life is like for transitioning women in this country.
--
Honoring David Kato
Finally, I gather from Michael Petrelis’s blog that Gays Without Borders is planning a vigil Thursday night in honor of murdered Ugandan gay rights activist, David Kato, a man who courageously risked his life on a daily basis to fight for respect in a country that abhors homosexuality.
Petrelis asked the Castro district merchants group for permission to lower the rainbow flag on Castro and Market to half-staff for the event, but the group said no. According to the merchants, who are in charge of the flag, there are four to eight requests to lower the flag every week. Obviously, as Steve Adams wrote Petrelis, if the group were to agree to all these requests, the flag would be permanently at half-staff. (Actually, now that I think about it, maybe the flag should be at half-staff all the time, and we could raise it on special occasions, like big court victories or Gay Pride Day).
Anyway, I can’t characterize the routine requests of which Adams writes. But Kato is a gay martyr. His life eulogized by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, his death covered in the pages of major newspapers around the world, his sacrifice marked by vigils in New York, London, San Francisco and Cape Town.
If the Castro merchants can’t lower the rainbow flag for David Kato, hammered to death after his name and address were published last October in one of the most homophobic countries in the world, who would they choose to honor with this sign of respect?
Maybe Uganda is too far away.
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Federal Judge Allows DOMA Suit To Proceed
News for the Week Ended January 26, 2011
BY ANN ROSTOW
Federal Judge Allows DOMA Suit To Proceed
I’m not sure how I missed this item last week, but someone managed to transport a 650-pound grand piano 200 yards off the Miami coast and leave it on a sandbar in Biscayne Bay. The piano is resting on a high point, which is not underwater. Authorities have no plans to remove it.
I love this quixotic story. I love the people who decided to put a piano on a sandbar. I love the Coast Guard and the Miami law enforcers who have decided to keep their hands off the surreal scene. All we need now is a candelabra and a thin man in tails.
I guess the man reason I chose to lead my column with this piece of news is because it shows us, once again, that anything is possible. I don’t mean that in a sugary sense. It’s possible for planes to knock down the twin towers, something we had not known ten years ago. But it’s also possible for a grand piano to appear in the middle of a bay. Dreams, like nightmares, can come true.
I’m supposed to lead my column with an actual news story, so that the first headline reads something like: “Federal Judge Allows DOMA Suit to Proceed,” rather than: “Piano Will Remain on Florida Sandbar.”
That said, a federal judge in Oakland refused to dismiss a lawsuit brought against the U.S. government and the California pension system (CalPERS) by several married gay couples. The couples, all state employees, are trying to get long-term insurance for their spouses. But CalPERS has refused, claiming it could lose federal tax advantages by recognizing same-sex marriages and thereby violating the Defense of Marriage Act.
In denying the Obama administration’s motion to dismiss the case, Judge Claudia Wilken made clear that she believes DOMA is unconstitutional. Ergo, she will presumably rule in favor of the same-sex couples once the trial is over. Meanwhile, lawyers will be back in Wilken’s court next month to try to certify the case as a class action.
--
Irrelevant Detour
This computer is running slower than a crock-pot, which makes it difficult to maintain my concentration. I mean seriously. I just spent five minutes trying to determine whether the federal judge in that DOMA case was Judge Claudia “Wilken” or “Wilkens.” In doing so, I came across several stories where she was referred to as Judge “Wilkins” “Wilkens” and “Wilkin.” Attention online news services: Editors please!
You know which pain-killer I’m going to avoid from now on? The answer is “Aleve,” which is running commercials featuring a depressing cast of dreary middle-aged nonentities who shuffle through their drab workdays taking pill after pill for their various aches and pains. In the end, they all decide to use Aleve so they can take fewer pills, and the whole scenario is narrated “Dick and Jane” style, by an annoying plodding voice over man.
“This is Steven, who decided to take Aleve, for a day free of pain.”
Hello? Do you think I want to emulate boring Steven or his sad female counterpart? No! Show me a handsome man and beautiful woman who strained their muscles moving a 650-pound piano onto a sandbar and I’ll happily buy your product.
--
Back To The Grindstone
That last section was originally supposed to focus on news from the state legislatures, but here’s the problem.
There’s nothing worse than having to cover the progress of a bill through a state legislature. First it’s introduced. Then it goes through a few committees. Then it goes to the floor of one of the chambers. Then it goes to committees in the other chamber. Then, maybe it passes and goes to the governor. But meanwhile, it could get shelved, amended, delayed, stuck in committee, whatever. Meanwhile, you and I might spend week after week watching sausage processed in the Iowa or Wyoming legislature, and in the end it all gets dumped in a vat, mixed with sawdust and sold to Taco Bell.
I’d prefer to just skip the preliminary stages and wait until the outcome is clear. But then again, my email is full of screaming headlines right now and the noise is deafening.
Take Iowa. (Please!)
Badaboom.
A house committee in the Ethanol State has approved an amendment that would roll back marriage rights and outlaw civil unions and domestic partnerships in the process. Everyone is rightly outraged at this prospect.
But you know what? The Democratic leader of the state senate has already pledged to make sure this amendment never makes it to a vote in his chamber, so as far as I’m concerned, it’s not news and it’s not worth worrying about.
In Hawaii, it looks as if the legislature will try again to pass a civil union bill. They passed one last year, but it was vetoed by Linda Lingle. Now, Linda’s out and Democrat Neil Abercrombie is in. Still, this will be more newsworthy once the bill actually reaches his desk.
Wyoming lawmakers are pushing a civil union bill, an anti-marriage amendment, and a statute that bans marriage recognition. The antigay amendment just passed a senate committee and the antigay stature just passed a house committee, but both proposals have more hearings ahead before they can advance to a floor vote. I know, I know. The specter of tedious and confusing news developments out of the Cheney State already casts a dark shadow on our future columns.
Continuing on, a marriage equality bill has a good chance to pass in Maryland over the next several weeks. I also think New York will try to pass marriage equality but I’m not clear on the chances of such an effort. There’s stuff going on in Rhode Island (bill introduced to legalize marriage). And Republicans in New Hampshire, where marriage is already legal, have indicated that they are not inclined to put much effort into repealing marriage rights, which is nice.
I’m sure there are other gay things going on in other states, but why don’t we just wait until they approach newsworthy status? What would you rather read about? Some dead-on-arrival workplace nondiscrimination bill in Virginia, where the governor hates us? Or my opinion of the Aleve commercials?
Just as I thought!
--
On The Small Screen
Here’s some news. Robert Greenblatt, a gay-friendly entertainment executive who used to work for Showtime, has moved to NBC and ordered a pilot for a lesbian show. Called “I hate that I love you,” the show focuses on two women, their straight buddies, and a pregnancy. I’m not sure what the title implies. Presumably the women are not self-loathing, but have a tempestuous relationship of some sort. I’m sure a baby will be just the thing.
Well, we’ll see. It’s all about the writing after all. I always thought that there should be comic-drama show about a GLBT newspaper or magazine with fun characters. One of the writers would be a straight woman, or man, who pretends to be gay in order to get a reporting job and has to hide her or his relationship. The publisher would be well known as a spokesperson for the community, but behind closed doors would be a pragmatic and centrist business person.
Many of the plots would revolve around intriguing news stories dug up by the intrepid staff. And there would have to be a deep-pocketed secret donor who could finance some of the investigative journalism. Well, of course this sort of idea occurred to me since I have long worked for GLBT papers and magazines. But I still like it.
I also like the idea of a gay All in the Family, which gently ridicules the homophobic matriarch or patriarch.
I have actually written several TV episodes along these lines, so Robert, give me a call. (Hey, you never know.)
In other TV news, Frito Lay is considering a couple of gay-themed Dorito ads for the Super Bowl. One involves a gay male couple eating chips poolside while their neighbors peer over the hedge. Somehow, the otherwise neutral dialogue confirms their view that their male neighbor is gay, but frankly I’m not sure why. Anyway, they’re eating chips.
In the other one, a white guy and a black guy are sitting naked in the sauna. The white guy glances down at the black guy’s lap (which we can’t see) and looks, well, hungry. He reaches down and in the end we see that the black guy is holding a bag of Doritos. I think it’s pretty funny, but I gather some of the sterner watchdogs in our community think the ads may rely on “stereotypes.”
For God’s sake. All ads rely on stereotypes. The housewives sigh as the clumsy husbands spill things on the counter. The husbands go to any lengths to avoid household chores. The kids are rascally. The list goes on. There’s nothing wrong with gay stereotypes. There’s something wrong with using them to denigrate gay people. I don’t see any of that in the Doritos ads. Check them out on youtube and see what you think.
--
SOTU Brutus
Did you watch the State of the Union speech last night?
I read a great piece by Wayne Beson, the activist/writer who runs Truth Wins Out and writes regular columns on the ex-gay industry and other topics. Beson noted that by passing the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, Obama let the air out of balloon of gay rage that was about to explode.
I agree with him. Even though the DADT repeal only directly affects the small minority of gays and lesbians in military service, the impact of this achievement affects us all in a profound way. I won’t rehash that subject, but in doing this one thing, Obama can no longer be seen as impotent or indifferent to gay rights.
He’s no “fierce champion,” and we still have many complaints. But the DADT repeal, along with the new regulations on hospital recognition of gay partners and some other little things he did remind us that he’s on our side to some extent.
Without the DADT repeal, I would have watched last night’s speech with mixed feelings. I admire so many things about Obama. I agree with his policies. I think he saved our economy, saved our auto industry, and has “reset” our foreign policy to use the trendy term. But for a long time I felt he had turned his back on me, tossed me aside as a pesky special interest mosquito that he couldn’t be bothered with. Now, I feel like a slightly neglected pet who was sad, but got a pat and a bone and feels better.
The pat and the bone allowed me to watch the SOTU as the networks called it without bringing my personal pique to the exercise. His speech, along with his speech in Tucson, reminded me of his intelligence and compassion. Indeed, it’s my very admiration for Obama that makes his seeming disdain for GLBT civil rights so painful. But I have some faith that he will step up to the plate in his second term. Maybe he’ll even find a way to lean towards us in his judicial strategy over the next two years.
By the way, are all of you upset by the loss of Keith Olbermann?
I’m not. I’m a yellow dog Democrat and agreed with Olbermann on every issue, but I couldn’t stand the guy. I thought he was pompous and egotistical and after several years of loyal viewing I couldn’t listen to his bombast anymore.
Lastly, did you hear that Dennis Kucinich is suing the Longworth Cafeteria for $150,000 because he got an olive pit in his wrap back in 2008? The former presidential candidate says he suffered severe and permanent damage to his teeth.
Now, if that’s true, he deserves some cash. But how do you destroy your teeth by biting into an olive pit? As soon as you encounter a foreign object you instinctively relax your bite and investigate, right? You don’t continue to crunch down. Unless Kucinich took a powerful crazy chomping bite, I don’t see how he could have done that kind of damage. Just saying.
--
BY ANN ROSTOW
Federal Judge Allows DOMA Suit To Proceed
I’m not sure how I missed this item last week, but someone managed to transport a 650-pound grand piano 200 yards off the Miami coast and leave it on a sandbar in Biscayne Bay. The piano is resting on a high point, which is not underwater. Authorities have no plans to remove it.
I love this quixotic story. I love the people who decided to put a piano on a sandbar. I love the Coast Guard and the Miami law enforcers who have decided to keep their hands off the surreal scene. All we need now is a candelabra and a thin man in tails.
I guess the man reason I chose to lead my column with this piece of news is because it shows us, once again, that anything is possible. I don’t mean that in a sugary sense. It’s possible for planes to knock down the twin towers, something we had not known ten years ago. But it’s also possible for a grand piano to appear in the middle of a bay. Dreams, like nightmares, can come true.
I’m supposed to lead my column with an actual news story, so that the first headline reads something like: “Federal Judge Allows DOMA Suit to Proceed,” rather than: “Piano Will Remain on Florida Sandbar.”
That said, a federal judge in Oakland refused to dismiss a lawsuit brought against the U.S. government and the California pension system (CalPERS) by several married gay couples. The couples, all state employees, are trying to get long-term insurance for their spouses. But CalPERS has refused, claiming it could lose federal tax advantages by recognizing same-sex marriages and thereby violating the Defense of Marriage Act.
In denying the Obama administration’s motion to dismiss the case, Judge Claudia Wilken made clear that she believes DOMA is unconstitutional. Ergo, she will presumably rule in favor of the same-sex couples once the trial is over. Meanwhile, lawyers will be back in Wilken’s court next month to try to certify the case as a class action.
--
Irrelevant Detour
This computer is running slower than a crock-pot, which makes it difficult to maintain my concentration. I mean seriously. I just spent five minutes trying to determine whether the federal judge in that DOMA case was Judge Claudia “Wilken” or “Wilkens.” In doing so, I came across several stories where she was referred to as Judge “Wilkins” “Wilkens” and “Wilkin.” Attention online news services: Editors please!
You know which pain-killer I’m going to avoid from now on? The answer is “Aleve,” which is running commercials featuring a depressing cast of dreary middle-aged nonentities who shuffle through their drab workdays taking pill after pill for their various aches and pains. In the end, they all decide to use Aleve so they can take fewer pills, and the whole scenario is narrated “Dick and Jane” style, by an annoying plodding voice over man.
“This is Steven, who decided to take Aleve, for a day free of pain.”
Hello? Do you think I want to emulate boring Steven or his sad female counterpart? No! Show me a handsome man and beautiful woman who strained their muscles moving a 650-pound piano onto a sandbar and I’ll happily buy your product.
--
Back To The Grindstone
That last section was originally supposed to focus on news from the state legislatures, but here’s the problem.
There’s nothing worse than having to cover the progress of a bill through a state legislature. First it’s introduced. Then it goes through a few committees. Then it goes to the floor of one of the chambers. Then it goes to committees in the other chamber. Then, maybe it passes and goes to the governor. But meanwhile, it could get shelved, amended, delayed, stuck in committee, whatever. Meanwhile, you and I might spend week after week watching sausage processed in the Iowa or Wyoming legislature, and in the end it all gets dumped in a vat, mixed with sawdust and sold to Taco Bell.
I’d prefer to just skip the preliminary stages and wait until the outcome is clear. But then again, my email is full of screaming headlines right now and the noise is deafening.
Take Iowa. (Please!)
Badaboom.
A house committee in the Ethanol State has approved an amendment that would roll back marriage rights and outlaw civil unions and domestic partnerships in the process. Everyone is rightly outraged at this prospect.
But you know what? The Democratic leader of the state senate has already pledged to make sure this amendment never makes it to a vote in his chamber, so as far as I’m concerned, it’s not news and it’s not worth worrying about.
In Hawaii, it looks as if the legislature will try again to pass a civil union bill. They passed one last year, but it was vetoed by Linda Lingle. Now, Linda’s out and Democrat Neil Abercrombie is in. Still, this will be more newsworthy once the bill actually reaches his desk.
Wyoming lawmakers are pushing a civil union bill, an anti-marriage amendment, and a statute that bans marriage recognition. The antigay amendment just passed a senate committee and the antigay stature just passed a house committee, but both proposals have more hearings ahead before they can advance to a floor vote. I know, I know. The specter of tedious and confusing news developments out of the Cheney State already casts a dark shadow on our future columns.
Continuing on, a marriage equality bill has a good chance to pass in Maryland over the next several weeks. I also think New York will try to pass marriage equality but I’m not clear on the chances of such an effort. There’s stuff going on in Rhode Island (bill introduced to legalize marriage). And Republicans in New Hampshire, where marriage is already legal, have indicated that they are not inclined to put much effort into repealing marriage rights, which is nice.
I’m sure there are other gay things going on in other states, but why don’t we just wait until they approach newsworthy status? What would you rather read about? Some dead-on-arrival workplace nondiscrimination bill in Virginia, where the governor hates us? Or my opinion of the Aleve commercials?
Just as I thought!
--
On The Small Screen
Here’s some news. Robert Greenblatt, a gay-friendly entertainment executive who used to work for Showtime, has moved to NBC and ordered a pilot for a lesbian show. Called “I hate that I love you,” the show focuses on two women, their straight buddies, and a pregnancy. I’m not sure what the title implies. Presumably the women are not self-loathing, but have a tempestuous relationship of some sort. I’m sure a baby will be just the thing.
Well, we’ll see. It’s all about the writing after all. I always thought that there should be comic-drama show about a GLBT newspaper or magazine with fun characters. One of the writers would be a straight woman, or man, who pretends to be gay in order to get a reporting job and has to hide her or his relationship. The publisher would be well known as a spokesperson for the community, but behind closed doors would be a pragmatic and centrist business person.
Many of the plots would revolve around intriguing news stories dug up by the intrepid staff. And there would have to be a deep-pocketed secret donor who could finance some of the investigative journalism. Well, of course this sort of idea occurred to me since I have long worked for GLBT papers and magazines. But I still like it.
I also like the idea of a gay All in the Family, which gently ridicules the homophobic matriarch or patriarch.
I have actually written several TV episodes along these lines, so Robert, give me a call. (Hey, you never know.)
In other TV news, Frito Lay is considering a couple of gay-themed Dorito ads for the Super Bowl. One involves a gay male couple eating chips poolside while their neighbors peer over the hedge. Somehow, the otherwise neutral dialogue confirms their view that their male neighbor is gay, but frankly I’m not sure why. Anyway, they’re eating chips.
In the other one, a white guy and a black guy are sitting naked in the sauna. The white guy glances down at the black guy’s lap (which we can’t see) and looks, well, hungry. He reaches down and in the end we see that the black guy is holding a bag of Doritos. I think it’s pretty funny, but I gather some of the sterner watchdogs in our community think the ads may rely on “stereotypes.”
For God’s sake. All ads rely on stereotypes. The housewives sigh as the clumsy husbands spill things on the counter. The husbands go to any lengths to avoid household chores. The kids are rascally. The list goes on. There’s nothing wrong with gay stereotypes. There’s something wrong with using them to denigrate gay people. I don’t see any of that in the Doritos ads. Check them out on youtube and see what you think.
--
SOTU Brutus
Did you watch the State of the Union speech last night?
I read a great piece by Wayne Beson, the activist/writer who runs Truth Wins Out and writes regular columns on the ex-gay industry and other topics. Beson noted that by passing the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, Obama let the air out of balloon of gay rage that was about to explode.
I agree with him. Even though the DADT repeal only directly affects the small minority of gays and lesbians in military service, the impact of this achievement affects us all in a profound way. I won’t rehash that subject, but in doing this one thing, Obama can no longer be seen as impotent or indifferent to gay rights.
He’s no “fierce champion,” and we still have many complaints. But the DADT repeal, along with the new regulations on hospital recognition of gay partners and some other little things he did remind us that he’s on our side to some extent.
Without the DADT repeal, I would have watched last night’s speech with mixed feelings. I admire so many things about Obama. I agree with his policies. I think he saved our economy, saved our auto industry, and has “reset” our foreign policy to use the trendy term. But for a long time I felt he had turned his back on me, tossed me aside as a pesky special interest mosquito that he couldn’t be bothered with. Now, I feel like a slightly neglected pet who was sad, but got a pat and a bone and feels better.
The pat and the bone allowed me to watch the SOTU as the networks called it without bringing my personal pique to the exercise. His speech, along with his speech in Tucson, reminded me of his intelligence and compassion. Indeed, it’s my very admiration for Obama that makes his seeming disdain for GLBT civil rights so painful. But I have some faith that he will step up to the plate in his second term. Maybe he’ll even find a way to lean towards us in his judicial strategy over the next two years.
By the way, are all of you upset by the loss of Keith Olbermann?
I’m not. I’m a yellow dog Democrat and agreed with Olbermann on every issue, but I couldn’t stand the guy. I thought he was pompous and egotistical and after several years of loyal viewing I couldn’t listen to his bombast anymore.
Lastly, did you hear that Dennis Kucinich is suing the Longworth Cafeteria for $150,000 because he got an olive pit in his wrap back in 2008? The former presidential candidate says he suffered severe and permanent damage to his teeth.
Now, if that’s true, he deserves some cash. But how do you destroy your teeth by biting into an olive pit? As soon as you encounter a foreign object you instinctively relax your bite and investigate, right? You don’t continue to crunch down. Unless Kucinich took a powerful crazy chomping bite, I don’t see how he could have done that kind of damage. Just saying.
--
NOM That Tune
News for the Week Ended January 19, 2011
BY ANN ROSTOW
NOM That Tune
Good morning dear Readers. I’ve just had the pleasure of listening to a conversation between Maggie Gallagher of the National Organization for Marriage and Reince Priebus, the new head of the Republican National Committee whose parents seemed to have turned his real name into an anagram before making a formal record.
Reince Priebus? I’m not in the habit of ridiculing people for their names of all things, but you could almost close your eyes, type 13 letters at random, and come up with something more, um, name-like.
Sghdbs Sjbciha? Pnsisk Fydnikd? (Actual test of above theory.)
Perhaps that was an exaggeration.
At any rate, Reince reassured Maggie that indeed he opposed same-sex marriage rights and when pressed, explained his belief that children “are better off with a mother and a father.”
I was struck, not by the fact that the new party chair follows the party line, but by the continuing disconnect between conservative talking points and the real world. Last month during the Senate hearings on Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, there was some discussion about “phasing in” a new policy, as if repealing the ban on openly gay service meant that gay men would suddenly be entering the military as brand new recruits, moving into the barracks with their two-toned persimmon bedrolls (right next to your bunk!) blasting Judy Garland from the communal CD player, and calling everyone “Girl!”
Likewise, much of the discussion on marriage laws seems to imply that gay men and lesbians would suddenly start forming committed relationships and families from scratch if policies were to change.
Does Reince Priebus believe that as long as marriage remains legally barred, gay couples will not exist, and will not have children? Does he believe that under current law, we are obliged to hand our children over to heterosexual families? Or does he believe that without the right to marry our partners, we ourselves will have no choice but to marry members of the opposite sex and raise children “with a mother and a father?”
Has he even thought through his nonsensical rationale? He also decried judges who use the Full Faith and Credit Clause to try and impose their social views on the rest of the nation, even though in nearly two decades of covering gay rights law I have never encountered such a ruling.
Anyway, I suppose he’s better than Michael Steele, who could double as an “unsub” on Criminal Minds.
--
Lesbianism, Italian Style
There are a couple of intriguing legal developments this week, but I prefer to begin the meat of this column with some news from the Daily Mail, where we learn that Silvio Berlusconi enjoyed “staged lesbian sex shows” at “whorehouse parties,” court records show.
Don’t you love court records?
The Daily Mail editors might have interceded on behalf of the lead sentence, which reads:
“Women paid to have sex with Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi dressed in nurse and police uniforms and performed stripteases at parties, it was claimed today.”
I can’t decide which image I prefer. A bevy of barely legal models in provocative costumes, or a group of women lining up with their checkbooks begging for a little sugar from a cross-dressing 74-year-old. I’m assuming that the ludicrous libertine was the one shelling out the cash, although I like the surrealism of the second interpretation.
As for the lesbian connection, the Daily Mail reports that the ladies would “dance seductively, semi-naked, lesbian style” for the statesman’s entertainment.
Have the editors of the Daily Mail been to a women’s bar lately? Personally, I think business would pick up pretty quickly at Pattie’s Pink Palace if the sisters did something more interesting than lean on the bar, play pool and smoke cigarettes on the patio. Fully clothed I might add. Come on girls! Take a lesson in the “lesbian style” from your (presumably) straight mentors in Milan.
Among the other stories available on the Daily Mail website was news of a 250-year-old wild peach tree scheduled to be axed for a new high speed rail terminal, an item about a terrier so vicious that the mailmen refuse to service his street, and a link to: “Hop on! Snake gives frog a piggy back to beat the Australian floods.” Alas, we must resist the Siren songs of these teasers and move on to the U.S. Supreme Court.
--
Plucky Frog Survives Snake Ride
I know I’m supposed to start discussing the High Court’s decision to let stand Washington DC’s human rights policy, and by extension, the capital city’s same-sex marriage law. But my imagination remains captured by the snake swimming through the floodwaters with the little frog on its back. Wasn’t there a famous conundrum along these lines? Maybe with a fox or a scorpion?
OK. I untied myself from the mast and returned to the story, where indeed the writers made reference to the fable of the frog and the scorpion:
“Real life played out backwards this time though, as the frog was the animal hitching a ride. But whereas in the fable the scorpion stings the frog, causing them both to drown, this story had a happy ending as the two plucky animals put aside old differences to fight the elements.”
There’s a photo of the touching scene as well.
Oh, and the vicious terrier’s name is “Peggy,” so he’s a she.
Moving on! Or moving back to the Supreme Court. The justices didn’t actually make a ruling. Instead, they declined, without comment, to review the question of whether Washington has the constitutional authority to ban public votes on matters of human rights. The ban on such plebiscites allowed the District to legalize same-sex marriage last year without risking a citywide referendum, and the High Court’s silence on the matter means that marriage equality will remain unchallenged in the nation’s capital.
It takes four justices to agree to take up a case, so the news indicates that at least one member of the foursome of Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito shied away from the question. Who knows? Maybe all four of them voted to reject review, since the issue wasn’t marriage per se, but would have (perhaps) obliged the nation’s top court to interfere with a local city ordinance.
Still, the decision is sort of significant. If nothing else it signals that the Court’s conservative bloc will not go to any and all lengths to undermine marriage equality. Plus, marriage opponents were disappointed and that’s always a pleasure to witness.
--
Brief Encounters
In other court news, the Obama administration filed its brief in support of section three of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) last Thursday before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
The First Circuit has combined two challenges to DOMA’s federal marriage definition out of the state of Massachusetts; one, an equal protection claim on behalf of married couples by the Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, and the other, a states rights claim under the Spending Clause and the Tenth Amendment by the state of Massachusetts itself. The lower court ruled in our favor in both lawsuits, and Obama insists he has no choice but to defend federal law on appeal, even though he also insists that he opposes DOMA on principle.
Obama is walking a fine line, and as part of this balancing act, his justice department has rejected most of the really horrible antigay arguments that others use to attack marriage rights.
Instead, the Justice Department claims that Congress has the constitutional right to “maintain the status quo,” by imposing a heterosexual definition of marriage on federal law. Obama also maintains that Congress has the right to seek “uniformity” in the federal definition of marriage, while leaving it up to the states to experiment with marriage policies during a volatile period of national debate. Blah blah blah blah.
I need an emoticon for “sticking my finger down my throat.” Maybe we can just use SMFDMT. At any rate, GLAD and Massachusetts will file their reply briefs on March 1, at which point the government will file a reply to the replies. After that, we’ll hear oral arguments and unless the First Circuit chooses to drag this out, we should see a major federal appellate ruling on a core marriage issue by the end of this year.
As for the Prop 8 case, don’t hold your breath for a Ninth Circuit ruling on the merits of the California marriage ban. As you know, the Ninth Circuit has asked the California Supreme Court for an interim ruling on a question of standing under state law. That was when, two weeks ago? The California justices have yet to respond to the Ninth Circuit, but if they agree to consider the question, which is likely, we’re probably looking at a delay of several months, perhaps many months.
Indeed, if you’re looking for high level court action on marriage rights anytime soon, circle your calendar for January 28, when France’s top constitutional court will decide whether same-sex marriage is mandated under national law. The last time this court handled a gay case, the question of adoption rights, they kicked it over to Parliament, so it’s possible they’ll do the same thing for marriage. That said, I have paid more attention to the frog and the snake in Queensland than I have to the French marriage case, so pay me no mind. I did tell you the date of the decision, however, so I’m not completely useless.
--
Good Day for Gay Dads
I just went outside and it was really beautiful. Somewhere in the low sixties. Bright sunshine. No wind, just a few wisps in the sky. I should be in the hammock with a cold bottle of Kirin rather than stuck in the dark staring at a computer screen. Maybe if I had that Kirin, I’d feel better.
Yesterday, by the way, I heard the roar of fighter jets over my house and went running outside in an excited state. What could be happening, I wondered?
Turned out that it was the inauguration of Rick Perry for his third term as governor of Texas, which made me wish that I hadn’t felt that thrill when I heard the jets. I collaborated in the irritating celebrations unwillingly through no fault of my own! I felt used. It was beautiful out yesterday as well, but I chose to watch seven episodes of The Tudors on my DVR instead of taking advantage, or perhaps researching the French marriage case.
I’m getting the Kirin.
It’s yummy! Now I want a white tuna sushi roll.
You know, something really nice happened this morning. Martin Gill formally adopted the two boys he has raised with his partner for the last six years. The foster dad successfully brought an end to Florida’s gay adoption ban after a lengthy ACLU suit that ended last year. Among other things, GLBT reporters are pleased that we no longer have to keep track of two major lawsuits with plaintiffs named “Gill.” (The other Gill case is GLAD’s DOMA challenge.)
And speaking of gay dads, the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit heard arguments Wednesday in New Orleans in the case of gay parents who are trying to get a revised birth certificate for their adopted son.
The fathers, who now live in San Diego, have been trying to get an accurate certificate since they adopted the boy as an infant in April 2006. By “accurate,” they mean a birth certificate that lists both adoptive fathers as parents rather than just one, which is all Louisiana has agreed to put on the paperwork. Amazingly, the intransigent bureaucrats in the Crawfish State have forced the men through two and now three federal courts, where they have won with the help of Lambda Legal.
They will certainly win before the full Fifth Circuit, because there is no coherent interpretation of federal law that allows a state to refuse to recognize a legal adoption from another state. Recognizing a marriage is unfortunately open to question. But an adoption is final and permanent, period. And once granted, it carries the full panoply of parental rights, including the right to a revised birth certificate, no ifs ands or buts.
So there!
--
BY ANN ROSTOW
NOM That Tune
Good morning dear Readers. I’ve just had the pleasure of listening to a conversation between Maggie Gallagher of the National Organization for Marriage and Reince Priebus, the new head of the Republican National Committee whose parents seemed to have turned his real name into an anagram before making a formal record.
Reince Priebus? I’m not in the habit of ridiculing people for their names of all things, but you could almost close your eyes, type 13 letters at random, and come up with something more, um, name-like.
Sghdbs Sjbciha? Pnsisk Fydnikd? (Actual test of above theory.)
Perhaps that was an exaggeration.
At any rate, Reince reassured Maggie that indeed he opposed same-sex marriage rights and when pressed, explained his belief that children “are better off with a mother and a father.”
I was struck, not by the fact that the new party chair follows the party line, but by the continuing disconnect between conservative talking points and the real world. Last month during the Senate hearings on Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, there was some discussion about “phasing in” a new policy, as if repealing the ban on openly gay service meant that gay men would suddenly be entering the military as brand new recruits, moving into the barracks with their two-toned persimmon bedrolls (right next to your bunk!) blasting Judy Garland from the communal CD player, and calling everyone “Girl!”
Likewise, much of the discussion on marriage laws seems to imply that gay men and lesbians would suddenly start forming committed relationships and families from scratch if policies were to change.
Does Reince Priebus believe that as long as marriage remains legally barred, gay couples will not exist, and will not have children? Does he believe that under current law, we are obliged to hand our children over to heterosexual families? Or does he believe that without the right to marry our partners, we ourselves will have no choice but to marry members of the opposite sex and raise children “with a mother and a father?”
Has he even thought through his nonsensical rationale? He also decried judges who use the Full Faith and Credit Clause to try and impose their social views on the rest of the nation, even though in nearly two decades of covering gay rights law I have never encountered such a ruling.
Anyway, I suppose he’s better than Michael Steele, who could double as an “unsub” on Criminal Minds.
--
Lesbianism, Italian Style
There are a couple of intriguing legal developments this week, but I prefer to begin the meat of this column with some news from the Daily Mail, where we learn that Silvio Berlusconi enjoyed “staged lesbian sex shows” at “whorehouse parties,” court records show.
Don’t you love court records?
The Daily Mail editors might have interceded on behalf of the lead sentence, which reads:
“Women paid to have sex with Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi dressed in nurse and police uniforms and performed stripteases at parties, it was claimed today.”
I can’t decide which image I prefer. A bevy of barely legal models in provocative costumes, or a group of women lining up with their checkbooks begging for a little sugar from a cross-dressing 74-year-old. I’m assuming that the ludicrous libertine was the one shelling out the cash, although I like the surrealism of the second interpretation.
As for the lesbian connection, the Daily Mail reports that the ladies would “dance seductively, semi-naked, lesbian style” for the statesman’s entertainment.
Have the editors of the Daily Mail been to a women’s bar lately? Personally, I think business would pick up pretty quickly at Pattie’s Pink Palace if the sisters did something more interesting than lean on the bar, play pool and smoke cigarettes on the patio. Fully clothed I might add. Come on girls! Take a lesson in the “lesbian style” from your (presumably) straight mentors in Milan.
Among the other stories available on the Daily Mail website was news of a 250-year-old wild peach tree scheduled to be axed for a new high speed rail terminal, an item about a terrier so vicious that the mailmen refuse to service his street, and a link to: “Hop on! Snake gives frog a piggy back to beat the Australian floods.” Alas, we must resist the Siren songs of these teasers and move on to the U.S. Supreme Court.
--
Plucky Frog Survives Snake Ride
I know I’m supposed to start discussing the High Court’s decision to let stand Washington DC’s human rights policy, and by extension, the capital city’s same-sex marriage law. But my imagination remains captured by the snake swimming through the floodwaters with the little frog on its back. Wasn’t there a famous conundrum along these lines? Maybe with a fox or a scorpion?
OK. I untied myself from the mast and returned to the story, where indeed the writers made reference to the fable of the frog and the scorpion:
“Real life played out backwards this time though, as the frog was the animal hitching a ride. But whereas in the fable the scorpion stings the frog, causing them both to drown, this story had a happy ending as the two plucky animals put aside old differences to fight the elements.”
There’s a photo of the touching scene as well.
Oh, and the vicious terrier’s name is “Peggy,” so he’s a she.
Moving on! Or moving back to the Supreme Court. The justices didn’t actually make a ruling. Instead, they declined, without comment, to review the question of whether Washington has the constitutional authority to ban public votes on matters of human rights. The ban on such plebiscites allowed the District to legalize same-sex marriage last year without risking a citywide referendum, and the High Court’s silence on the matter means that marriage equality will remain unchallenged in the nation’s capital.
It takes four justices to agree to take up a case, so the news indicates that at least one member of the foursome of Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito shied away from the question. Who knows? Maybe all four of them voted to reject review, since the issue wasn’t marriage per se, but would have (perhaps) obliged the nation’s top court to interfere with a local city ordinance.
Still, the decision is sort of significant. If nothing else it signals that the Court’s conservative bloc will not go to any and all lengths to undermine marriage equality. Plus, marriage opponents were disappointed and that’s always a pleasure to witness.
--
Brief Encounters
In other court news, the Obama administration filed its brief in support of section three of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) last Thursday before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
The First Circuit has combined two challenges to DOMA’s federal marriage definition out of the state of Massachusetts; one, an equal protection claim on behalf of married couples by the Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, and the other, a states rights claim under the Spending Clause and the Tenth Amendment by the state of Massachusetts itself. The lower court ruled in our favor in both lawsuits, and Obama insists he has no choice but to defend federal law on appeal, even though he also insists that he opposes DOMA on principle.
Obama is walking a fine line, and as part of this balancing act, his justice department has rejected most of the really horrible antigay arguments that others use to attack marriage rights.
Instead, the Justice Department claims that Congress has the constitutional right to “maintain the status quo,” by imposing a heterosexual definition of marriage on federal law. Obama also maintains that Congress has the right to seek “uniformity” in the federal definition of marriage, while leaving it up to the states to experiment with marriage policies during a volatile period of national debate. Blah blah blah blah.
I need an emoticon for “sticking my finger down my throat.” Maybe we can just use SMFDMT. At any rate, GLAD and Massachusetts will file their reply briefs on March 1, at which point the government will file a reply to the replies. After that, we’ll hear oral arguments and unless the First Circuit chooses to drag this out, we should see a major federal appellate ruling on a core marriage issue by the end of this year.
As for the Prop 8 case, don’t hold your breath for a Ninth Circuit ruling on the merits of the California marriage ban. As you know, the Ninth Circuit has asked the California Supreme Court for an interim ruling on a question of standing under state law. That was when, two weeks ago? The California justices have yet to respond to the Ninth Circuit, but if they agree to consider the question, which is likely, we’re probably looking at a delay of several months, perhaps many months.
Indeed, if you’re looking for high level court action on marriage rights anytime soon, circle your calendar for January 28, when France’s top constitutional court will decide whether same-sex marriage is mandated under national law. The last time this court handled a gay case, the question of adoption rights, they kicked it over to Parliament, so it’s possible they’ll do the same thing for marriage. That said, I have paid more attention to the frog and the snake in Queensland than I have to the French marriage case, so pay me no mind. I did tell you the date of the decision, however, so I’m not completely useless.
--
Good Day for Gay Dads
I just went outside and it was really beautiful. Somewhere in the low sixties. Bright sunshine. No wind, just a few wisps in the sky. I should be in the hammock with a cold bottle of Kirin rather than stuck in the dark staring at a computer screen. Maybe if I had that Kirin, I’d feel better.
Yesterday, by the way, I heard the roar of fighter jets over my house and went running outside in an excited state. What could be happening, I wondered?
Turned out that it was the inauguration of Rick Perry for his third term as governor of Texas, which made me wish that I hadn’t felt that thrill when I heard the jets. I collaborated in the irritating celebrations unwillingly through no fault of my own! I felt used. It was beautiful out yesterday as well, but I chose to watch seven episodes of The Tudors on my DVR instead of taking advantage, or perhaps researching the French marriage case.
I’m getting the Kirin.
It’s yummy! Now I want a white tuna sushi roll.
You know, something really nice happened this morning. Martin Gill formally adopted the two boys he has raised with his partner for the last six years. The foster dad successfully brought an end to Florida’s gay adoption ban after a lengthy ACLU suit that ended last year. Among other things, GLBT reporters are pleased that we no longer have to keep track of two major lawsuits with plaintiffs named “Gill.” (The other Gill case is GLAD’s DOMA challenge.)
And speaking of gay dads, the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit heard arguments Wednesday in New Orleans in the case of gay parents who are trying to get a revised birth certificate for their adopted son.
The fathers, who now live in San Diego, have been trying to get an accurate certificate since they adopted the boy as an infant in April 2006. By “accurate,” they mean a birth certificate that lists both adoptive fathers as parents rather than just one, which is all Louisiana has agreed to put on the paperwork. Amazingly, the intransigent bureaucrats in the Crawfish State have forced the men through two and now three federal courts, where they have won with the help of Lambda Legal.
They will certainly win before the full Fifth Circuit, because there is no coherent interpretation of federal law that allows a state to refuse to recognize a legal adoption from another state. Recognizing a marriage is unfortunately open to question. But an adoption is final and permanent, period. And once granted, it carries the full panoply of parental rights, including the right to a revised birth certificate, no ifs ands or buts.
So there!
--
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
The Horror, The Horror
News for the Week Ended January 12, 2011
BY ANN ROSTOW
The Horror, The Horror
I don’t know where to start with my list of Things That Annoy The Hell Out of Me In Cable News Coverage of Major Events. Perhaps the tendency to come up with an official name, logo and musical theme for a terrible tragedy?
“And now, we return to…. The Tucson Massacre!”
Perhaps the use of the graphic “Breaking News” eight or ten hours after said news has already broken?
Certainly the incessant repetition of information, even going over the same exact facts maybe a dozen times in the space of thirty minutes.
“We do know that the Congresswoman was shot in the head, but she has been responding to simple commands.”
“Yes Bill, the doctors are encouraged by that. She was shot in the head, but the doctors say she has responded to simple commands.”
“Well usually a shot in the head is, ah, a lethal shot. But here, Tracy, the Congresswoman seems to have survived that shot. Are the doctors surprised?”
“Well, they are encouraged Bill. She was shot in the head after all. But according to the doctors, it’s a very good sign that she can respond to simple commands.”
“And those commands are like…squeeze my hand?”
“Squeeze my hand, or maybe give a thumbs up. Simple commands, Bill.”
“Thanks Tracy. As we’ve been reporting, Congresswoman Giffords was shot in the head this morning, here at a Safeway store in Tucson, but she is still alive at the University trauma center and doctors say that she is responding to simple commands.”
After a day or so, these irritations give way to the mindless punditry phase, where regular people with no more information than anyone else try to reduce the catastrophe to a single main cause.
One person blames violent analogies in political speech. Another blames lack of gun control. A third blames our indifference to mental illness. As if these threads weren’t inextricably knitted into the fabric of the tragedy.
And of course everyone pulls at their favorite string in order to make a point. I think I’ve already seen several emails on my GLBT news list praising the gay intern who comforted Giffords at the scene, as if sexual orientation has anything to do with such gestures. For God’s sake, what if the gunman was (or is) gay? Would we as a community come to some general conclusion about that coincidence?
Having derided pundits who have no greater insight than anyone else, I may as well join the category.
In my learned opinion, I think our national discipline has gradually eroded over recent years, and like poorly supervised children, we’ve gotten away with more and more incivility. We can bring guns to town hall meetings. We can use violent images and talk of “taking out” this or that elected official. We play murderous video games, watch unspeakable movies, and give voice to our worst thoughts anonymously over cyberspace.
Because of this, we’ve allowed a low vibration to emanate from the emotional and political fringes of the American society that is amplified by radio bombast, Internet conspiracies, and the echo chamber of the mainstream media. Most of us can tune it out, but the weakest among us become instruments of these dark rhythms, gather strength and explode before our very eyes.
I read an op-ed piece not so long ago about national resilience, pointing out that Americans can withstand terrorist attacks and should do so without panicking and revising our security laws every time we face a new scenario. That piece was talking about TSA policies but the point is valid for deranged shooters as well. The last thing we need is armed guards patrolling the “Meet Your Congressmember” event at the local mall.
What would be nice, instead, would be a powerful rumble from the silent majority. Not the silent prudes from the 1970s, but the fairly sensible and mature Americans who make up today’s silent majority, and who collectively might be able to push the fringe back to the fringe and lower the frequency of their insane buzzing. Let’s hope Tucson triggers that kind of reaction. Back to you, Bill.
“Thanks Ann, Jessica? Your thoughts?”
“I think Ann has totally missed the point here, Bill, because the fact is that without this extended magazine, the gunman would not have been able to take twenty shots into the crowd…”
--
Diabetic Coma Mistaken For Lesbian Sex Romp
So! What’s the latest GLBTLMNOP news, you’re wondering?
I wish I had something really new and exciting to tell you about. Let’s say a major court decision, or a big celebrity coming out of the closet, or a bizarre lesbian scandal complete with a failed suicide attempt, a samurai sword fight and a man wearing a penguin costume.
But sadly, I do not. Actually, skater Johnny Weir did in fact come out of the closet in a new biography. But considering that Johnny Weir’s closet was a cavernous 20,000 square feet filled with lace, sequins and toe loops, that’s not such a revelation.
Oh, but here’s an update on an old lesbian scandal that almost qualifies as “bizarre.”
Do you remember the two female teachers in Brooklyn who were caught having sex in a classroom and suspended from duty? This was a couple of years ago, November of 2009 to be exact, but for some reason one of the teachers was just fired last week and is suing to be reinstated.
According to the official reports, relayed via the Daily News, Alini Brito and Cindy Mauro started their evening with drinks at a local bar. After beers and shots with a few colleagues, the group headed back to school to watch a student songfest. At some point, Brito and Mauro snuck out and went up to Mauro’s French classroom, where they were subsequently caught in a compromising situation by a couple of handymen.
The nosy workers called for a “school safety worker” who arrived in time to find the women still in a state of undress on the floor, with one of them in the process of putting on a bra.
So here’s the latest. Alini now insists that the incident was totally innocent. According her lawyer, the Spanish teacher has diabetes and was feeling ill when Cindy suggested they go up to her office and get some sugar or candy to remedy the problem. Once there, Alini felt faint and lay on the floor, while Cindy thoughtfully elevated her legs and removed Alini’s sweater to use as a pillow during the impromptu diabetes treatment. No wonder the handymen got the wrong impression!
It’s sad, don’t you think, that people automatically jump to conclusions in these sorts of situations? I just hope Cindy gets her job back as well and doesn’t have to lose her career for being a good Samaritan. I know in the past that I’ve found myself having to administer medical services in similar contexts, and I’m just fortunate that no one interrupted these procedures and misinterpreted my actions.
Good luck to you, Ladies!
--
Terrapin State On Fast Track to Equality?
Let’s see what else is going on.
It sounds like there’s a good chance that the Maryland legislature will pass a marriage bill and forward it to Governor Martin O’Malley. I know I’ve mentioned this ever since the election, which tilted the balance of power in the state legislature towards marriage supporters. But every week there are more indications that a marriage equality bill is likely.
And this week, a Republican opponent suggested a civil union proposal as an alternative, an indication that things have really changed. Who could have imagined ten years ago that pushing civil unions would become a strategy for opponents of same-sex marriage?
Maryland’s 90-day legislative session starts today, so we’ll see what happens. But don’t bet on the civil union idea. Hard core Republicans oppose it, as do many Democrats, so I’m assuming it won’t go anywhere. Keep in mind that same-sex marriage is already virtually legal in Maryland, where the Attorney General has opined that the state is required to recognize legal marriages from Washington DC and elsewhere.
The other state where we see a real possibility to legalize marriage is Rhode Island, where marriage supporter Lincoln Chafee has just been elected governor and has just called for the legislature to send him a marriage bill. Although marriage has been debated for well over a decade in the Teeny Tiny State, it has never advanced and has faced opposition from ex-gov, Donald Carcieri—not a friend to our valiant community. This year, the marriage bill has 27 co-sponsors in the 75-member house, and seven co-sponsors in the 38-member senate.
Yay! More marriage states!
On the other hand, there is also a chance that marriage laws could be overturned by amendment drives in either Iowa or New Hampshire. But I choose to ignore these unpleasant possibilities.
--
We’re In Good Form!
I gather we’ve made an advance of some kind in the area of… wait for it… passport applications!
Specifically, the applications will no longer ask for a person’s “mother and father,” but will also include the options “parent one and parent two.” The nod to families headed by same-sex couples is a welcome step forward and at long last puts an end to this painful instance of bureaucratic discrimination.
Oh, you know what? It may seem inconsequential, but if you think about it, it actually is an important development. As we fight for marriage rights or workplace protections or whatever, we are also fighting for a change in basic assumptions. Some families have two mothers or two fathers. Some women have wives. Some men have husbands. For this to be recognized in something as generic as a federal application sends a message now, doesn’t it?
A wonderful message of inclusion and warmth! I would rush out to apply for a passport this minute except I actually did have a mother and a father. Also, I have a passport. But still!
It’s worth mentioning as well that recognition of gay families by the federal government is a rare and valuable thing. The more of it we get, the better off we are and that includes passport applications.
--
Divorce, Texas Style
Our extended discussion of the recent advancement in passport forms reflects the fact that there’s just not a whole hell of a lot of news this week. We have another one of those Texas divorce cases making headlines, but don’t be fooled. Texas is going to be one of that last places to do anything nice for gay couples, and if Texas had a passport application, you can bet that “Parent One” and “Parent Two” would not be found in its pages.
At any rate, one Texas divorce has already been reversed by an appellate court. But this week, a different appellate court ruled that Attorney General Greg Abbot did not have the authority to intervene in a divorce after the fact.
The difference between the two cases was pretty clear. In the first case, a judge had actually ruled that the state’s ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. In the most recent case, however, the judge simply granted a divorce while making no mention of the underlying marriage laws. Both cases involved couples who married in Massachusetts but lived in Dallas and Austin, respectively.
Abbot will probably appeal the latest ruling to the full Third District appellate court here in Travis County (from whence I write you today!). Or, he may appeal to the Texas Supreme Court. At issue, aside from the standing of the Attorney General, is whether a state’s ban on marriage recognition inherently includes a ban on divorce.
Since Mel and I were married in California and live in Austin, I would heartily endorse any Texas court ruling that recognized some feature of marriage from out of state. My last pick for which aspect that might be, however, would not be “the right to divorce.” Still, I’ll take any tiny crack in the anti-gay statutory edifice that has been erected around us in this otherwise great state.
Are we done yet?
Yes!
--
arostow@aol.com
BY ANN ROSTOW
The Horror, The Horror
I don’t know where to start with my list of Things That Annoy The Hell Out of Me In Cable News Coverage of Major Events. Perhaps the tendency to come up with an official name, logo and musical theme for a terrible tragedy?
“And now, we return to…. The Tucson Massacre!”
Perhaps the use of the graphic “Breaking News” eight or ten hours after said news has already broken?
Certainly the incessant repetition of information, even going over the same exact facts maybe a dozen times in the space of thirty minutes.
“We do know that the Congresswoman was shot in the head, but she has been responding to simple commands.”
“Yes Bill, the doctors are encouraged by that. She was shot in the head, but the doctors say she has responded to simple commands.”
“Well usually a shot in the head is, ah, a lethal shot. But here, Tracy, the Congresswoman seems to have survived that shot. Are the doctors surprised?”
“Well, they are encouraged Bill. She was shot in the head after all. But according to the doctors, it’s a very good sign that she can respond to simple commands.”
“And those commands are like…squeeze my hand?”
“Squeeze my hand, or maybe give a thumbs up. Simple commands, Bill.”
“Thanks Tracy. As we’ve been reporting, Congresswoman Giffords was shot in the head this morning, here at a Safeway store in Tucson, but she is still alive at the University trauma center and doctors say that she is responding to simple commands.”
After a day or so, these irritations give way to the mindless punditry phase, where regular people with no more information than anyone else try to reduce the catastrophe to a single main cause.
One person blames violent analogies in political speech. Another blames lack of gun control. A third blames our indifference to mental illness. As if these threads weren’t inextricably knitted into the fabric of the tragedy.
And of course everyone pulls at their favorite string in order to make a point. I think I’ve already seen several emails on my GLBT news list praising the gay intern who comforted Giffords at the scene, as if sexual orientation has anything to do with such gestures. For God’s sake, what if the gunman was (or is) gay? Would we as a community come to some general conclusion about that coincidence?
Having derided pundits who have no greater insight than anyone else, I may as well join the category.
In my learned opinion, I think our national discipline has gradually eroded over recent years, and like poorly supervised children, we’ve gotten away with more and more incivility. We can bring guns to town hall meetings. We can use violent images and talk of “taking out” this or that elected official. We play murderous video games, watch unspeakable movies, and give voice to our worst thoughts anonymously over cyberspace.
Because of this, we’ve allowed a low vibration to emanate from the emotional and political fringes of the American society that is amplified by radio bombast, Internet conspiracies, and the echo chamber of the mainstream media. Most of us can tune it out, but the weakest among us become instruments of these dark rhythms, gather strength and explode before our very eyes.
I read an op-ed piece not so long ago about national resilience, pointing out that Americans can withstand terrorist attacks and should do so without panicking and revising our security laws every time we face a new scenario. That piece was talking about TSA policies but the point is valid for deranged shooters as well. The last thing we need is armed guards patrolling the “Meet Your Congressmember” event at the local mall.
What would be nice, instead, would be a powerful rumble from the silent majority. Not the silent prudes from the 1970s, but the fairly sensible and mature Americans who make up today’s silent majority, and who collectively might be able to push the fringe back to the fringe and lower the frequency of their insane buzzing. Let’s hope Tucson triggers that kind of reaction. Back to you, Bill.
“Thanks Ann, Jessica? Your thoughts?”
“I think Ann has totally missed the point here, Bill, because the fact is that without this extended magazine, the gunman would not have been able to take twenty shots into the crowd…”
--
Diabetic Coma Mistaken For Lesbian Sex Romp
So! What’s the latest GLBTLMNOP news, you’re wondering?
I wish I had something really new and exciting to tell you about. Let’s say a major court decision, or a big celebrity coming out of the closet, or a bizarre lesbian scandal complete with a failed suicide attempt, a samurai sword fight and a man wearing a penguin costume.
But sadly, I do not. Actually, skater Johnny Weir did in fact come out of the closet in a new biography. But considering that Johnny Weir’s closet was a cavernous 20,000 square feet filled with lace, sequins and toe loops, that’s not such a revelation.
Oh, but here’s an update on an old lesbian scandal that almost qualifies as “bizarre.”
Do you remember the two female teachers in Brooklyn who were caught having sex in a classroom and suspended from duty? This was a couple of years ago, November of 2009 to be exact, but for some reason one of the teachers was just fired last week and is suing to be reinstated.
According to the official reports, relayed via the Daily News, Alini Brito and Cindy Mauro started their evening with drinks at a local bar. After beers and shots with a few colleagues, the group headed back to school to watch a student songfest. At some point, Brito and Mauro snuck out and went up to Mauro’s French classroom, where they were subsequently caught in a compromising situation by a couple of handymen.
The nosy workers called for a “school safety worker” who arrived in time to find the women still in a state of undress on the floor, with one of them in the process of putting on a bra.
So here’s the latest. Alini now insists that the incident was totally innocent. According her lawyer, the Spanish teacher has diabetes and was feeling ill when Cindy suggested they go up to her office and get some sugar or candy to remedy the problem. Once there, Alini felt faint and lay on the floor, while Cindy thoughtfully elevated her legs and removed Alini’s sweater to use as a pillow during the impromptu diabetes treatment. No wonder the handymen got the wrong impression!
It’s sad, don’t you think, that people automatically jump to conclusions in these sorts of situations? I just hope Cindy gets her job back as well and doesn’t have to lose her career for being a good Samaritan. I know in the past that I’ve found myself having to administer medical services in similar contexts, and I’m just fortunate that no one interrupted these procedures and misinterpreted my actions.
Good luck to you, Ladies!
--
Terrapin State On Fast Track to Equality?
Let’s see what else is going on.
It sounds like there’s a good chance that the Maryland legislature will pass a marriage bill and forward it to Governor Martin O’Malley. I know I’ve mentioned this ever since the election, which tilted the balance of power in the state legislature towards marriage supporters. But every week there are more indications that a marriage equality bill is likely.
And this week, a Republican opponent suggested a civil union proposal as an alternative, an indication that things have really changed. Who could have imagined ten years ago that pushing civil unions would become a strategy for opponents of same-sex marriage?
Maryland’s 90-day legislative session starts today, so we’ll see what happens. But don’t bet on the civil union idea. Hard core Republicans oppose it, as do many Democrats, so I’m assuming it won’t go anywhere. Keep in mind that same-sex marriage is already virtually legal in Maryland, where the Attorney General has opined that the state is required to recognize legal marriages from Washington DC and elsewhere.
The other state where we see a real possibility to legalize marriage is Rhode Island, where marriage supporter Lincoln Chafee has just been elected governor and has just called for the legislature to send him a marriage bill. Although marriage has been debated for well over a decade in the Teeny Tiny State, it has never advanced and has faced opposition from ex-gov, Donald Carcieri—not a friend to our valiant community. This year, the marriage bill has 27 co-sponsors in the 75-member house, and seven co-sponsors in the 38-member senate.
Yay! More marriage states!
On the other hand, there is also a chance that marriage laws could be overturned by amendment drives in either Iowa or New Hampshire. But I choose to ignore these unpleasant possibilities.
--
We’re In Good Form!
I gather we’ve made an advance of some kind in the area of… wait for it… passport applications!
Specifically, the applications will no longer ask for a person’s “mother and father,” but will also include the options “parent one and parent two.” The nod to families headed by same-sex couples is a welcome step forward and at long last puts an end to this painful instance of bureaucratic discrimination.
Oh, you know what? It may seem inconsequential, but if you think about it, it actually is an important development. As we fight for marriage rights or workplace protections or whatever, we are also fighting for a change in basic assumptions. Some families have two mothers or two fathers. Some women have wives. Some men have husbands. For this to be recognized in something as generic as a federal application sends a message now, doesn’t it?
A wonderful message of inclusion and warmth! I would rush out to apply for a passport this minute except I actually did have a mother and a father. Also, I have a passport. But still!
It’s worth mentioning as well that recognition of gay families by the federal government is a rare and valuable thing. The more of it we get, the better off we are and that includes passport applications.
--
Divorce, Texas Style
Our extended discussion of the recent advancement in passport forms reflects the fact that there’s just not a whole hell of a lot of news this week. We have another one of those Texas divorce cases making headlines, but don’t be fooled. Texas is going to be one of that last places to do anything nice for gay couples, and if Texas had a passport application, you can bet that “Parent One” and “Parent Two” would not be found in its pages.
At any rate, one Texas divorce has already been reversed by an appellate court. But this week, a different appellate court ruled that Attorney General Greg Abbot did not have the authority to intervene in a divorce after the fact.
The difference between the two cases was pretty clear. In the first case, a judge had actually ruled that the state’s ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. In the most recent case, however, the judge simply granted a divorce while making no mention of the underlying marriage laws. Both cases involved couples who married in Massachusetts but lived in Dallas and Austin, respectively.
Abbot will probably appeal the latest ruling to the full Third District appellate court here in Travis County (from whence I write you today!). Or, he may appeal to the Texas Supreme Court. At issue, aside from the standing of the Attorney General, is whether a state’s ban on marriage recognition inherently includes a ban on divorce.
Since Mel and I were married in California and live in Austin, I would heartily endorse any Texas court ruling that recognized some feature of marriage from out of state. My last pick for which aspect that might be, however, would not be “the right to divorce.” Still, I’ll take any tiny crack in the anti-gay statutory edifice that has been erected around us in this otherwise great state.
Are we done yet?
Yes!
--
arostow@aol.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)