News for the Week Ended June 29, 2011
BY ANN ROSTOW
What Just Happened in New York?
Everything went right, that’s what.
We had a powerful, committed and focused leader in Andrew Cuomo. The GLBT community put aside internecine squabbles, let Cuomo lead, and attacked with unified strategic purpose. We had a bipartisan campaign, with deep-pocketed Republicans holding our right flank. And finally, we were fighting in a blue state, where polling suggested majority support for marriage equality, and where many couples had already married across the New York border and been recognized on many legal levels.
And here’s the final lesson out of the Empire State. From what I read, we lobbied lawmakers based on justice and fairness. We did not shy away from a full-throated appeal for marriage. This victory wasn’t won through horse trading or playing the victim. This was a direct plea for equality that was finally heard and answered.
Don’t get me wrong. The sad stories of gay spouses abandoned in hospitals or left with huge tax bills are important illustrations of why same-sex couples need marriage equality. But we also need equality for its own sake, period.
Healthy, well-insured couples with no kids need marriage rights just as much as anyone else. Slavery wasn’t wrong because evil masters beat their workers. It was wrong in all cases. Air-conditioned barracks, caviar for breakfast and deep tissue massages every night would not have made slavery acceptable.
Likewise, the fight for marriage is driven by our core need for equality. We have been unable to express this simple truth in our many failed ballot campaigns, and it has cost us. Not necessarily in terms of victory or defeat. Texas would not have rejected an antigay marriage amendment in 2005, and nor would the vast majority of states where such amendments passed easily in the last decade or so. But we might have won in California or Maine. And win or lose, making the case for full civil rights advances our movement. The sooner we make that case, and the more determined our voice, the faster we will go.
--
United We Win
Our competing groups of activists and various GLBT factions are often at each other’s throats. We love going back and forth between criticizing our leaders and bemoaning the fact that we can’t get it together as a community. We insist on more dialogue and transparency. And (at times) we then proceed to waste our energies in unfocused attacks on ourselves, standing in a circle with guns blazing.
This time, as the New York Times reports “[Governor] Cuomo was candid with gay rights advocates in March” when he summoned them to the capitol. “The advocates had contributed to the defeat of same-sex marriage in 2009, he told them, with their rampant infighting and disorganization.” The Times went on to describe an incoherent community two years ago when the left hand did not know what the right hand was up to. The result was a lopsided defeat for marriage equality after months of happy talk.
After Cuomo’s warning, the Times reports, five advocacy groups united under one banner, New Yorkers United for Marriage Equality, and went to work with purpose. Last weekend, we saw the results.
I’ve been joking in this column about my history of writing excited speculative reports on marriage legislation, regurgitating optimistic projections from activists, only to wind up disappointed. You know what happened in New York in 2009. Earlier that year, we failed to pass marriage in the New Jersey lame duck session, after lots of hype. And then this year, we had the whole Maryland fiasco, when marriage equality was virtually assured! Until it wasn’t.
What would have happened in New Jersey or Maryland if we had sucked it up and worked as one? More importantly, how can we learn from our success in New York and translate it into more victories down the road? True leaders don’t care about their status, their personal power-base or their title. They care about bringing people together to get results. That demands transparency and communication with the grass roots. But it also demands competence, intelligence and the ability to incorporate the input from the grass roots and others to set a course and inspire people to follow it. I know we have a lot of true leaders. We saw them in New York and let’s hope more of them will emerge around the country.
--
Reelect Obama
Here’s the President on TV. Nothing like a press conference to satisfy a news junkie. Can you wait a second until I can watch his press conference?
I’m back.
Watching a news conference like that one, which ranged from Libya to Afghanistan, to the debt ceiling, to the deficit, to payroll tax cuts, jobs, entitlements and the labor movement, I feel sort of guilty obsessing about gay rights.
But not really. I don’t believe the fight for GLBT civil rights is a political agenda item, so I don’t think it competes with the debt ceiling or jobs or the Arab spring. If we waited for world peace, budget surpluses and full unemployment before we sought equality, we’d be waiting forever.
But because of that, I also don’t care that Obama didn’t tell newsman Chuck Todd that marriage is a fundamental constitutional right. He said he thought the New York vote was a “good thing,” and that he believed in equality. He basically said he thought America was on a slow but sure path towards ending discrimination based on sexual orientation. And as Todd himself pointed out after the conference, Obama was trying to influence opinion on the debt ceiling and any news-breaking comments on marriage would have totally overwhelmed that message.
Further, I believe that what Obama did last February has been totally underappreciated by our community. At the moment, we are all pressing the man to come out publicly in support of marriage equality and to put a ton of political capital behind repealing DOMA.
Yet last February, the President did more for our community than any of us asked for or even thought of asking for. He declared that sexual orientation discrimination was presumptively unconstitutional and that his administration would not defend any antigay law in court. This policy shift wasn’t limited to the Defense of Marriage Act. As long as Obama isn’t supplanted by some Republican wingnut next year, the antigay crowd will have to find someone else to defend the dark side in any and all federal cases alleging sexual orientation bias against the U.S. government. The House of Representatives? In every case? I don’t think so.
Obama also did this under the radar, with legalese from the Attorney General’s office that caught some media fire, but not much. Most people just think he stopped defending DOMA in court. Not true. Even in this recent news conference, Obama reminded the press, to paraphrase, that ‘my administration has written a brief arguing that sexual orientation discrimination should be subjected to heightened legal scrutiny.’ But that just went right over everyone’s head as usual. What it actually means is that he is on the side of gay rights in federal court, and that’s that.
Obama will eventually support marriage equality, and he will put political capital behind the DOMA repeal whenever it looks as if that bill might have a chance to pass. That’s not now, and it’s probably not soon. Indeed, marriage equality will advance through the legislatures of states like New York and through the courts, where Obama (a constitutional lawyer) has taken his stand. I have nothing but gratitude for the man, and if you recall, that has not always been the case.
--
Back to the Past
Speaking of the courts, we have another freedom to marry case on the books, our first since I can’t remember when. Iowa? California?
Well, it’s been a long time, but Lambda is back in court in New Jersey, launching the lawsuit that has been discussed for a year or so.
We “won” a freedom to marry case at the New Jersey Supreme Court back in the day (2006?) when the justices ruled that marriage rights must be provided equally to gay and straight couples. Then they weaseled out completely, telling lawmakers that civil unions would be an acceptable alternative to marriage if it satisfied the equality requirement.
Lawmakers grabbed the life preserver, and set up a second-class status that by its very nature can never provide true equality to the Garden State’s gay couples.
A legislative commission studied the institution of civil unions for over year, determining that it fell short of marriage. Then we had the failure to pass a marriage bill, the defeat of Jon Corzine and the election of Chris Christie.
After these setbacks, Lambda went back to the New Jersey supremes and asked them to enforce their original ruling. Hey! They ruled that equality was mandatory and years later we have yet to see it. But the high court refused to act and Lambda has now gone back to square one and sued in state court for the right to marry.
I’d have to check my notes, but I think Lambda’s first New Jersey freedom to marry case was filed in 2002, nearly a decade ago. The idea of starting from scratch, particularly after we “won the case,” is frustrating. And it reflects badly on the New Jersey Supreme Court as well. That said, it’s an important move.
Meanwhile, over in Rhode Island, the compromise civil union bill now going through the legislature is so bad that even gay activists want it vetoed in its current state, arguing that its generous religious loopholes actually undermine current rights. The bill was the sad aftermath of a (yet another) failed attempt to pass marriage equality earlier this year.
--
Computer From Hell
I think we’ve been far too serious this week, and I’ve also just about given up on this lazy computer, which has simply decided to take its own sweet time about opening programs and web pages.
What? Oh, Ann. It’s you again. You want what? Rhode Island civil unions? Oh, I just noticed something, wait a second.
Yes? Ann? What is it now? Rhode Island what? Look, I’m too tired right now. And I’m cold. Freezing, freezing, frozen.
Hey! You woke me up. I was taking a nap thank you very much. Now what do you want? That Rhode Island bull shit again? I’m sorry I can’t think yet. Haven’t had my coffee, you know how it is. Let me just spin my little wheel for a second. Or two. Or three. It’s a rainbow!
You already pressed that key. Look, I was busy just now and I was going to look up that whatever civil stuff it was you wanted, but you pressed the key two or three times and I can’t handle this. It’s confusing and it’s giving me a headache. I have to rest now.
Okay, I’m done with the above computer gimmick and I actually had to use Mel’s laptop to look up the dirt on Rhode Island civil unions, because seriously. Mine is dying.
Under the circumstances, reviewing more gay news is out of the question, but I also think we’ve covered enough for one week, n’est-ce pas?
May I also say that I’m sick of hearing about this woman who killed her daughter, Casey or Corey or whoever? Snippets of her murder trial pop up on every news show at regular intervals, and it’s corrosive. It’s a horrible story. It’s not unique or unusual. And it’s getting saturation coverage. Take it off the main air streams and stick onto the crime network!
It’s depressing. Poor little Casey. The duct tape. The noxious smell of human decomposition emanating from the trunk of the car. Why are they doing this to us MSNBC viewers? Make it stop.
--
Friday, July 1, 2011
Good Riddance to Weiner
News for the Week Ended June 22, 2011
BY ANN ROSTOW
Good Riddance to Weiner
We’re not going to discuss the marriage equality bill in New York. Not Gonna. Do it. We refuse to jinx the process by writing that we are one vote away from a major breakthrough in the legislative fight for marriage rights. La la la la la la la la. Plus, the outcome is really unclear at the moment, and by the time you read this, something will have happened for good or ill so you know more than I do at this point.
Ironically, I’m in New York right now! In Cortland, just a hop, skip and a jump from Albany. I can send psychic vibrations to the state senate from here. Hold on a sec. (Bzzzzzzzzzzz Zap.) Done. Who said I’m not an activist!
While we’re on the subject of things in New York, I have been bothered by my liberal friends at MSNBC, who have lately been obsessed by the idea that Anthony Weiner was forced to resign by media and political pressure, while Louisiana Senator David Vitter and others have been allowed to wallow in scandal while keeping their seats.
I’m a loyal Democrat and love to expound on hypocrisy, but Weiner’s activities transcended your run of the mill sexcapade. The man sent photos of his junk to women he’d never met. That’s one small step removed from dropping his pants on the subway. Vitter’s prostitutes and Ensign’s affair are standard issue bad boy behavior, but Weiner’s been chugging crazy juice.
There’s something very disturbing about the man; the narcissism, the suicidal risk taking, the sexual dysfunction, the easy betrayal of his wife and the sicko nature of his offenses. Who cares if he never actually “had sex?” Would a peeping Tom be allowed to keep a seat in Congress? Answer, no. And Weiner’s closer to that category than his philandering colleagues.
--
People Who Hate Us
So this week, we’ve had an unusually high number of people being mean to gays and lesbians in public places.
We have the two disabled gay men who were kicked out of a pool in Kentucky because they were too close to each other in the water, at one point standing stomach to stomach and splashing each other.
We have the lesbians who exchanged a brief kiss at a Minnesota Twins game and were told by a security guard that the stadium enforces the Ten Commandments. By the way, which commandment bans kissing your partner when one of you is hitting the ladies room and the other is running to your seat to catch the start of the game? Must be number eleven.
Then there was the cashier at a DC Safeway who called her customers “faggots.”
And to top it off, I just read about a Southwest pilot who went on a lengthy rant about gay flight attendants that was picked up by the air traffic controllers and all the other planes.
The nice thing about these stories is that these days, the perpetrators of such nastiness are either fired, suspended or disciplined in some way, and their corporate employers rush to apologize and insist that their business is indeed the friendliest of gay friendly enterprises. So that’s all good.
Still, in the words of Rodney King, can’t we all get along?
--
Wind Up The Perry Gossip Mill
To be honest, only half my mind is on this column. The other half is on Albany, where the last thing I heard was that some of the GOP senators who are still hashing out religious amendments to the marriage bill are in a private conference. They could call a vote ten minutes from now. Or they could blow it off for the year.
Although you can’t marry in New York, the state more or less recognizes marriages from elsewhere, so for the next week, Mel and I will once again be legally married. Strangely, it makes a difference to me. If I’m hit by a bus, she’ll be able to sit sobbing beside my broken body and squeeze my hand. And vice versa! It’s reassuring somehow.
It’s interesting that so many of the marriage benefits we seek come into play when we’re dead or dying. Pensions, wills, estate taxes, hospital visitation. What fun we’ll have when we’re finally equal…and kick the bucket!
That said, those of us who are legally married somewhere, but not recognized in our own state, feel the inequity on almost a daily basis. Speaking of my own state, Texas, our governor is once again fighting those gay rumors that hit him a few years back.
Here’s what I remember from my days at the Texas Triangle, which used to be the state’s weekly gay newspaper before it sadly went out of business.
It was just after the Super Bowl, back in 2002 or 2003, I forget. The rumor had it that Rick Perry had been caught in bed with another guy by his wife, who had come home early from some trip or something. Perry’s wife, Anita, was rumored to have hired the best divorce lawyer in town, and she was (allegedly) ready to kick him out the door.
At Triangle headquarters, we had a number of men call us off the record to report other suspicious activity. One guy said Perry gave him the once over on an elevator. Another knew a guy who knew a guy who had had a fling with the governor. There was nothing we could really write about. And to this day, I have no idea whether any of this was true. I can just tell you that it went on for two or three weeks.
At any rate, the story eventually went away and Anita stuck by her man. But I gather that the memory of the possible scandal has survived enough to insert itself into Perry’s nascent presidential run. Is there a smoking gun out there? Will the guy from the elevator go on record if a tabloid pays him a hundred grand or two? Enquiring minds want to know.
--
Loathsome Scott
Moving right along, there was a good ruling Monday out of Wisconsin, where a state court judge ruled that the domestic partner law does not violate Wisconsin’s ban on marriage and similar institutions.
We’ve seen this before. Any attempt to provide a few benefits to same-sex couples in one of the states that has amended its constitution with antigay language is promptly challenged in court. In Wisconsin’s case, the infamous new governor, Scott Walker, decided not to defend the domestic partner law, leaving it up to the ACLU to make the case. And it seems, they made the case well enough for the lower court at least. We’ll see if the evil doers from Wisconsin Family Action pursue the partner law to the state appellate court.
I’m sure they will. But please. The domestic partner law contains a fraction of the many rights of marriage and cannot be considered a “similar or identical” institution. These people would sue us if the local gym gave us a family membership, or if we signed up for joint discount cards at the grocery store. As for Scott Walker, what a despicable weasel. I can’t stand that guy.
In other legal news, the National Center for Lesbian Rights is going to sue the state of Tennessee over their attempt to ban local governments from passing gay rights laws. You remember perhaps that the Supreme Court threw out a similar measure in 1996, ruling in Romer v Evans that Colorado voters did not have the right to deny us access to the political process. Seems as if the morons in Memphis never read the ruling, because they passed their own version of the unconstitutional law earlier this session. Now we’re going after the Hick State, and the NCLR is going to kick their little butts into the 21st Century. Go get ‘em Kate!
--
GLAAD Prez Says Goodbye
Moving along, there’s a bunch of news coming out of the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) where President Jarrett Barrios has resigned and six out of 29 board members are gone as well. How many board members do they need anyway? Shouldn’t 23 be enough?
I have been vaguely following this story, but only vaguely. I don’t care for GLAAD these days. They sound off in pompous indignation at misperceived slights to our community and spend the rest of their time holding award shows. They also raise and spend a hell of a lot of money, to no apparent advantage, although I gather that their fundraising has fallen off in the last couple of years.
The latest dustup involves GLAAD’s official support for the merger of ATT and T-Mobile, which seemed to have next to nothing to do with the LGBT community and quite a bit to do with the fact that ATT gives them money and there’s an ATT guy on the GLAAD board. GLAAD also wrote a letter to the FCC that appeared to be in opposition to net neutrality, a position shared by ATT. That letter was later revoked, and Barrios claimed someone else wrote it under his signature.
Say what? Did GLAAD have anything to say about Microsoft buying Skype? How about Pandora’s IPO? Wonder if GLAAD is picking up RIMM shares, or whether they thinks they’re too risky. I guess we’ll never know because Barrios is now history along with some of the board.
Do you care? Me neither.
--
Not Much To Tell
And now what? There’s a Methodist minister on trial for performing a gay wedding, maybe in Minnesota. Or maybe not.
Nothing’s happening in Albany, although it sounds as if we might have a vote tonight (Wednesday) or tomorrow. That makes sense since important news invariably breaks just after I’ve had to turn in my column.
I was reading about two boys in Ohio who had sex when they were 12 and 11. I’m not sure what’s going with the older one, who got in trouble. But the kid’s 16 now and he’s already been under house arrest for a year, so perhaps we could just let the whole business slide because, well, they were kids!
I also just read about a 7-year-old boy in Michigan who powered up the family car and drove 20 miles at high speeds in search of his father. His mother was at work at the time, but someone reported him and the police finally got him to stop the car. Apparently, the intrepid little fellow was standing on the pedals in order to be able to see out the windshield.
All in all, it’s turning into a slow afternoon, and I’m strongly considering bringing this column to a premature conclusion. With your consent, of course.
Thank you. I promise to make it all up to you in scintillating detail next week.
Saturday, June 18, 2011
The Bankruptcy of DOMA
News for the Week Ended June 15, 2011
BY ANN ROSTOW
The Bankruptcy of DOMA
You probably read that Judge James Ware promptly threw cold water on the idea that his predecessor, Judge Vaughn Walker, should have recused himself from presiding over the Prop 8 trial due to his sexual orientation. But you know what? That’s a non-story, a totally predictable response to a totally ridiculous suggestion from the Prop 8 proponents.
Yet my email box is filled with excited reports from various activist and media groups trumpeting this “news.“ Now, there’s nothing particularly wrong with that except for the fact that I have zero emails on a huge marriage story that broke the previous day, Monday.
Hello activists and GLBT media? Get with the program!
In a ruling joined by 19 out of 23 other federal bankruptcy judges in central California (a virtually unprecedented development) LA-based Judge Thomas B. Donovan has issued an opinion calling the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional. Bankruptcy judges don’t normally issue constitutional decisions, and their district colleagues don’t usually sign on to their opinions en masse.
But that’s not the only remarkable thing about this case, which concerns two California men who are trying to hit the financial reset button after a stretch of bad luck, medical bills and unemployment.
You know of course that the House Republicans, led by their hired gun, appellate lawyer Paul Clement, are trying to support the Defense of Marriage Act in courts around the country. In this case, they asked the court for a delay in order to consider their options. The court agreed, but heard nothing for weeks, and the case continued without their input.
Is it possible that Paul Clement and company are juggling so many DOMA cases that the balls are dropping? I think they have a dozen or so, but I can’t keep track. For example, I have no idea how many joint bankruptcy cases are flowing through the system, but I can tell you that this is the third case in recent months in which a federal bankruptcy judge has ruled in favor of same-sex couples and Paul Clement has been nowhere in sight.
Unlike Judge Donovan, the previous two bankruptcy judges did not reach a conclusion on the constitutional status of DOMA. Judge Donovan’s ruling by contrast, not only slammed DOMA, but also agreed with the Obama administration that antigay discrimination should trigger heightened legal scrutiny.
Donovan took guidance from an under-reported Ninth Circuit decision, the 2008 ruling in favor of discharged nurse Margaret Witt, which essentially required the U.S. government to show some cause when dismissing a gay or lesbian servicemember under Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. Few people noticed at the time that the brand new Obama administration declined to appeal the Witt ruling, allowing the deadline for review to expire in early 2009. That was extremely helpful!
In theory, Paul Clement’s only choice would be to appeal Judge Donovan’s ruling to, you guessed it, the aforementioned U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. But not surprisingly, a spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner told the New York Times that Clement and the House would let the ruling stand.
“Bankruptcy cases are unlikely to provide the path to the Supreme Court, where we imagine the question of constitutionality will ultimately be decided,” Brendan Buck told the Times. “Obviously, we believe the statute is constitutional in all its applications, including bankruptcy, but effectively defending it does not require the House to intervene in every case, especially when doing so would be prohibitively expensive.”
In truth, a bankruptcy case would be the perfect vehicle to bring a DOMA case to the Supreme Court, for our side that is.
When you think about marriage cases, you think of the broad theoretical constitutional arguments on equal protection and due process that pit lovely hard working same-sex couples against the stern moralists on the Christian right. You don’t think about individual bankruptcy cases, where the impact of a judge’s decision usually extends to two people and a few banks or credit card companies.
I mean, really. We’re in a generational fight for civil rights and equality here!
Yet arguably, these bankruptcy cases pinpoint the profound flaws of anti-marriage laws with a precision that eludes our grander areas of litigation.
You have a married couple, with two incomes, joint assets, a mortgage, some loans, whatever. Some in one person’s name, some in another. Both individuals want to restructure their debt. All creditors want to work out a deal. Bankruptcy after all, whatever your views on the subject, is an important lifeline for any family that falls into financial rapids, and I don’t believe anyone has argued that “bankruptcy is a God given relief for one man and one woman.”
It is virtually impossible to untangle the knotted finances of a long-term couple, require both of them to pay separate filing fees and to calculate exactly how to split their debts and assets for the purposes of bankruptcy. On the other hand, a joint filing is a routine procedure. That’s why we’ve seen three courts toss the Defense of Marriage Act in the circular file when it comes to gay bankruptcy. And it’s worth noting that they’ve been given the courage to ignore federal law by the Obama administration’s legal rejection of DOMA last February.
Hey, I’ve been ignoring bankruptcy cases personally, because, well, they seem boring compared to the Prop 8 case or the Massachusetts DOMA challenge. But I think I’ve been wrong. DOMA has been given a black eye from not just one, but 20 federal bankruptcy judges all punching back at this despicable law. And by not appealing Judge Donovan’s ruling, the House Republicans have effectively thrown in the towel on enforcing the Defense of Marriage Act in at least one legal arena.
One down, 1,038 to go. Or whatever that number might be. I always forget.
--
The Buck Stops Where?
I must say I was struck by one comment from Brendan Buck to the New York Times. What was it again? Oh yes. Defending DOMA “does not require the House to intervene in every case, especially when doing so would be prohibitively expensive.”
This brings up two other issues. First, and briefly, it’s not clear where John Boehner will acquire the half million dollars he has pledged to Paul Clement in payment for Clement and company’s DOMA work.
No, it’s not a lot of money. But it has to come from somewhere, and it has not been appropriated for the purpose of defending DOMA by a vote in the House. Boehner claims he will get the Justice Department to hand over the sum in question, but the Justice Department has flatly refused. The House lawyers have their own budget of something between one and two million dollars, but that money is already allocated to salaries.
A lot of people are keeping a close eye on this money question, so Boehner will not be able to sneak a little cash out of some slush fund. He’ll have to find a transparent and legal payment method before Clement’s first invoice hits his desk.
But here’s the more interesting question. What does the Speaker’s spokesman mean when he says the House will not “intervene in every case?”
Taking him at his word, it seems to mean that a number of DOMA challenges will go undefended. Bankruptcy cases for sure. But what else? You can’t defend DOMA in one or two instances, while federal courts around the country rack up anti-DOMA precedents. So perhaps the House plans to “let” a few federal judges rule in our favor without appeal, effectively stranding pro-gay decisions in federal court districts.
Legally it’s a dangerous game for their side, because eventually DOMA must exist or not exist as a federal policy. You can’t have gay bankruptcy legal in central California, but not central Texas. You can’t have federal marriage benefits authorized for gay couples in Oakland, but not in Chicago. Or at least common sense says that such situations are not sustainable. And if numerous cracks are allowed to develop in the wall against marriage recognition, it bodes ill for the wall rather than the cracks.
--
New York? No Way!
Okay everyone. It’s time to talk about New York.
Loyal readers recall that I have superstitiously declined to report on legislative efforts to pass marriage equality in New York state? Why? Because my optimism has been a jinx in the past. Whenever I blather on about how close we are to a marriage bill in Albany, some depressing turn of affairs derails our progress.
Earlier this year, I managed the same feat in Maryland, where marriage equality was a virtual certainty until I started crowing about in these pages and it died an ignominious and inexplicable death thanks to me.
Under the circumstances, I should just keep quiet. But I’m supposed to be telling you about the major GLBT news of the week, and one of the biggest pieces of news is the fact that we have now secured five out of the last six senate votes we need for success in New York.
The session ends sometime next week (I think. I should look it up, but it’s really soon) and a vote is expected on Friday if the Republican head of the senate decides to let the bill come to the floor. I gather the Republican caucus is having a meeting on the subject right this very minute (ie: Wednesday afternoon).
The outcome may depend on whether the marriage bill includes really strict religious exemptions. Religious exemptions, which generally mean that homophobes aren’t required by law to conduct a same-sex marriage, have never really bothered me. I mean, who wants to have their wedding in an anti-gay church with a hate-filled minister snarling vows in your face? Plus, religions have always been free to impose their own rules on marriage.
The exemptions become problematic, however, when they open the door to any and all gay-based discrimination. For example, allowing bakeries or photographers to decline gay wedding business. Then again, I wouldn’t hire a mean photographer, and I suppose I’d rather let a banquet hall decline my wedding than lose the right to have a wedding in the first place.
That said, it’s annoying that lawmakers would bend over backwards to facilitate prejudice, or um “firmly held religious beliefs” as we like to call them.
In conclusion, I think it’s really really doubtful that we’ll get the last senate vote for marriage equality in New York. It’ll never happen. No way, Jose. You read it here first. While everyone else was holding their breath with excitement at the real possibility that New York would finally become the sixth state to legalize marriage, I told you it wouldn’t happen. They probably won’t even vote on it. If they do, we’ll lose. Honestly, I don’t even care what happens over there. I’m not even following it.
--
Lesbian Men
Finally, can you believe that the “Gay Girl in Damascus” blogger turned out to be a white heterosexual middle-aged American man living in Scotland named Tom MacMasters? Say what?
No sooner had we registered our communal shock at the news, did we learn that “Paula Brooks,” the lesbian founder of Lez Get Real, was in fact a 58-year-old straight retired construction worker, Bill Graber from Ohio. Graber himself pretended at times to being “Paula’s” father, speaking for her because Paula was deaf.
There was no collusion between the two men, nor did either of them realize the other was a fellow imposter.
Bizarrely, Graber’s blog provided a forum for MacMasters, and the two fakers even had an online flirtation of sorts. Indeed, MacMasters conducted an entire online relationship with a real lesbian from Canada, who thought she was going on a romantic trip with her “gay girl” in the near future. As you know, the gay girl charade fell apart two weeks ago when MacMasters, pretending to be a fictitious cousin, announced that his alter ego had been kidnapped at gunpoint by Syrian thugs. I suppose the story was an effort to extract himself from the lie, but it only served to draw suspicion to the five-month-old website.
I’m not sure how or why Paula Brooks was exposed, but I think it had something to do with the Tom MacMasters fallout. Before she was outed, “Paula” wrote that she was “heartbroken” over MacMaster’s deception. Talk about chutzpah. Both individuals are now bleating about their good intentions, but you know what? They’re dishonest, period. Cyberspace is not an integrity-free zone.
BY ANN ROSTOW
The Bankruptcy of DOMA
You probably read that Judge James Ware promptly threw cold water on the idea that his predecessor, Judge Vaughn Walker, should have recused himself from presiding over the Prop 8 trial due to his sexual orientation. But you know what? That’s a non-story, a totally predictable response to a totally ridiculous suggestion from the Prop 8 proponents.
Yet my email box is filled with excited reports from various activist and media groups trumpeting this “news.“ Now, there’s nothing particularly wrong with that except for the fact that I have zero emails on a huge marriage story that broke the previous day, Monday.
Hello activists and GLBT media? Get with the program!
In a ruling joined by 19 out of 23 other federal bankruptcy judges in central California (a virtually unprecedented development) LA-based Judge Thomas B. Donovan has issued an opinion calling the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional. Bankruptcy judges don’t normally issue constitutional decisions, and their district colleagues don’t usually sign on to their opinions en masse.
But that’s not the only remarkable thing about this case, which concerns two California men who are trying to hit the financial reset button after a stretch of bad luck, medical bills and unemployment.
You know of course that the House Republicans, led by their hired gun, appellate lawyer Paul Clement, are trying to support the Defense of Marriage Act in courts around the country. In this case, they asked the court for a delay in order to consider their options. The court agreed, but heard nothing for weeks, and the case continued without their input.
Is it possible that Paul Clement and company are juggling so many DOMA cases that the balls are dropping? I think they have a dozen or so, but I can’t keep track. For example, I have no idea how many joint bankruptcy cases are flowing through the system, but I can tell you that this is the third case in recent months in which a federal bankruptcy judge has ruled in favor of same-sex couples and Paul Clement has been nowhere in sight.
Unlike Judge Donovan, the previous two bankruptcy judges did not reach a conclusion on the constitutional status of DOMA. Judge Donovan’s ruling by contrast, not only slammed DOMA, but also agreed with the Obama administration that antigay discrimination should trigger heightened legal scrutiny.
Donovan took guidance from an under-reported Ninth Circuit decision, the 2008 ruling in favor of discharged nurse Margaret Witt, which essentially required the U.S. government to show some cause when dismissing a gay or lesbian servicemember under Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. Few people noticed at the time that the brand new Obama administration declined to appeal the Witt ruling, allowing the deadline for review to expire in early 2009. That was extremely helpful!
In theory, Paul Clement’s only choice would be to appeal Judge Donovan’s ruling to, you guessed it, the aforementioned U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. But not surprisingly, a spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner told the New York Times that Clement and the House would let the ruling stand.
“Bankruptcy cases are unlikely to provide the path to the Supreme Court, where we imagine the question of constitutionality will ultimately be decided,” Brendan Buck told the Times. “Obviously, we believe the statute is constitutional in all its applications, including bankruptcy, but effectively defending it does not require the House to intervene in every case, especially when doing so would be prohibitively expensive.”
In truth, a bankruptcy case would be the perfect vehicle to bring a DOMA case to the Supreme Court, for our side that is.
When you think about marriage cases, you think of the broad theoretical constitutional arguments on equal protection and due process that pit lovely hard working same-sex couples against the stern moralists on the Christian right. You don’t think about individual bankruptcy cases, where the impact of a judge’s decision usually extends to two people and a few banks or credit card companies.
I mean, really. We’re in a generational fight for civil rights and equality here!
Yet arguably, these bankruptcy cases pinpoint the profound flaws of anti-marriage laws with a precision that eludes our grander areas of litigation.
You have a married couple, with two incomes, joint assets, a mortgage, some loans, whatever. Some in one person’s name, some in another. Both individuals want to restructure their debt. All creditors want to work out a deal. Bankruptcy after all, whatever your views on the subject, is an important lifeline for any family that falls into financial rapids, and I don’t believe anyone has argued that “bankruptcy is a God given relief for one man and one woman.”
It is virtually impossible to untangle the knotted finances of a long-term couple, require both of them to pay separate filing fees and to calculate exactly how to split their debts and assets for the purposes of bankruptcy. On the other hand, a joint filing is a routine procedure. That’s why we’ve seen three courts toss the Defense of Marriage Act in the circular file when it comes to gay bankruptcy. And it’s worth noting that they’ve been given the courage to ignore federal law by the Obama administration’s legal rejection of DOMA last February.
Hey, I’ve been ignoring bankruptcy cases personally, because, well, they seem boring compared to the Prop 8 case or the Massachusetts DOMA challenge. But I think I’ve been wrong. DOMA has been given a black eye from not just one, but 20 federal bankruptcy judges all punching back at this despicable law. And by not appealing Judge Donovan’s ruling, the House Republicans have effectively thrown in the towel on enforcing the Defense of Marriage Act in at least one legal arena.
One down, 1,038 to go. Or whatever that number might be. I always forget.
--
The Buck Stops Where?
I must say I was struck by one comment from Brendan Buck to the New York Times. What was it again? Oh yes. Defending DOMA “does not require the House to intervene in every case, especially when doing so would be prohibitively expensive.”
This brings up two other issues. First, and briefly, it’s not clear where John Boehner will acquire the half million dollars he has pledged to Paul Clement in payment for Clement and company’s DOMA work.
No, it’s not a lot of money. But it has to come from somewhere, and it has not been appropriated for the purpose of defending DOMA by a vote in the House. Boehner claims he will get the Justice Department to hand over the sum in question, but the Justice Department has flatly refused. The House lawyers have their own budget of something between one and two million dollars, but that money is already allocated to salaries.
A lot of people are keeping a close eye on this money question, so Boehner will not be able to sneak a little cash out of some slush fund. He’ll have to find a transparent and legal payment method before Clement’s first invoice hits his desk.
But here’s the more interesting question. What does the Speaker’s spokesman mean when he says the House will not “intervene in every case?”
Taking him at his word, it seems to mean that a number of DOMA challenges will go undefended. Bankruptcy cases for sure. But what else? You can’t defend DOMA in one or two instances, while federal courts around the country rack up anti-DOMA precedents. So perhaps the House plans to “let” a few federal judges rule in our favor without appeal, effectively stranding pro-gay decisions in federal court districts.
Legally it’s a dangerous game for their side, because eventually DOMA must exist or not exist as a federal policy. You can’t have gay bankruptcy legal in central California, but not central Texas. You can’t have federal marriage benefits authorized for gay couples in Oakland, but not in Chicago. Or at least common sense says that such situations are not sustainable. And if numerous cracks are allowed to develop in the wall against marriage recognition, it bodes ill for the wall rather than the cracks.
--
New York? No Way!
Okay everyone. It’s time to talk about New York.
Loyal readers recall that I have superstitiously declined to report on legislative efforts to pass marriage equality in New York state? Why? Because my optimism has been a jinx in the past. Whenever I blather on about how close we are to a marriage bill in Albany, some depressing turn of affairs derails our progress.
Earlier this year, I managed the same feat in Maryland, where marriage equality was a virtual certainty until I started crowing about in these pages and it died an ignominious and inexplicable death thanks to me.
Under the circumstances, I should just keep quiet. But I’m supposed to be telling you about the major GLBT news of the week, and one of the biggest pieces of news is the fact that we have now secured five out of the last six senate votes we need for success in New York.
The session ends sometime next week (I think. I should look it up, but it’s really soon) and a vote is expected on Friday if the Republican head of the senate decides to let the bill come to the floor. I gather the Republican caucus is having a meeting on the subject right this very minute (ie: Wednesday afternoon).
The outcome may depend on whether the marriage bill includes really strict religious exemptions. Religious exemptions, which generally mean that homophobes aren’t required by law to conduct a same-sex marriage, have never really bothered me. I mean, who wants to have their wedding in an anti-gay church with a hate-filled minister snarling vows in your face? Plus, religions have always been free to impose their own rules on marriage.
The exemptions become problematic, however, when they open the door to any and all gay-based discrimination. For example, allowing bakeries or photographers to decline gay wedding business. Then again, I wouldn’t hire a mean photographer, and I suppose I’d rather let a banquet hall decline my wedding than lose the right to have a wedding in the first place.
That said, it’s annoying that lawmakers would bend over backwards to facilitate prejudice, or um “firmly held religious beliefs” as we like to call them.
In conclusion, I think it’s really really doubtful that we’ll get the last senate vote for marriage equality in New York. It’ll never happen. No way, Jose. You read it here first. While everyone else was holding their breath with excitement at the real possibility that New York would finally become the sixth state to legalize marriage, I told you it wouldn’t happen. They probably won’t even vote on it. If they do, we’ll lose. Honestly, I don’t even care what happens over there. I’m not even following it.
--
Lesbian Men
Finally, can you believe that the “Gay Girl in Damascus” blogger turned out to be a white heterosexual middle-aged American man living in Scotland named Tom MacMasters? Say what?
No sooner had we registered our communal shock at the news, did we learn that “Paula Brooks,” the lesbian founder of Lez Get Real, was in fact a 58-year-old straight retired construction worker, Bill Graber from Ohio. Graber himself pretended at times to being “Paula’s” father, speaking for her because Paula was deaf.
There was no collusion between the two men, nor did either of them realize the other was a fellow imposter.
Bizarrely, Graber’s blog provided a forum for MacMasters, and the two fakers even had an online flirtation of sorts. Indeed, MacMasters conducted an entire online relationship with a real lesbian from Canada, who thought she was going on a romantic trip with her “gay girl” in the near future. As you know, the gay girl charade fell apart two weeks ago when MacMasters, pretending to be a fictitious cousin, announced that his alter ego had been kidnapped at gunpoint by Syrian thugs. I suppose the story was an effort to extract himself from the lie, but it only served to draw suspicion to the five-month-old website.
I’m not sure how or why Paula Brooks was exposed, but I think it had something to do with the Tom MacMasters fallout. Before she was outed, “Paula” wrote that she was “heartbroken” over MacMaster’s deception. Talk about chutzpah. Both individuals are now bleating about their good intentions, but you know what? They’re dishonest, period. Cyberspace is not an integrity-free zone.
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
Mystery Surrounds Missing Syrian Blogger
News for the Week Ended June 8, 2011
BY ANN ROSTOW
Mystery Surrounds Missing Syrian Blogger
Has the Syrian-American blogger of “Gay Girl In Damascus” been kidnapped? On Monday, the blogger’s cousin wrote that Amina Abdallah Araf had been snatched on the street, and thrown into a car by three armed men on her way to meet some activists. A month or so earlier, Amina had blogged about a confrontation between her father and some government thugs, who came to the house to arrest her but were later convinced to leave. Amina, who was allegedly born in Virginia to an American mother and a Syrian father, had been in hiding since that incident.
Yet there may be something strange going on. The photos of Amina on Facebook and elsewhere in the press are actually shots of a London-based woman named Jelena Lecic, who saw her own picture in the Guardian and called the newspaper.
Further, it seems as if no one has actually met Amina, including her close friend, a Canadian woman named Sandra Baragia, who tells the press that she and Amina have only exchanged emails. No one in the press has been able to reach a family member, or confirm the details of Amina’s abduction.
But look. Someone has been writing “Gay Girl in Damascus” since it started in February. And someone wrote Amina’s earlier blog back in 2007. Maybe Amina used Lecic’s photo for anonymity. Maybe she didn’t like her own image. Or maybe “Gay Girl in Damascus” is written by a 60-something man or an articulate ten-year-old. I’m just saying that someone wrote it, and for all we know that person was kidnapped.
Or not.
As far as I’m concerned, I’d rather believe the kidnap story and be wrong than sit around badmouthing “Amina” for the faux photo while she’s being tortured or raped by Syrian henchmen. Plus, she has a theoretical mother in Virginia, or at least from Virginia. Can someone not track this woman down and shed some light on the situation?
I just hope whoever was writing the blog is okay.
--
Men Behaving Badly
I probably read too many trashy thrillers, but there was one detail about that last story that caught my eye. Amina and Sandra were supposed to go on a trip together in the near future. Given that Amina presumably does not resemble her picture, is it possible that she disappeared rather than meet Sandra face-to-face? (Cue: First nine notes of Bach’s Tocata in D minor or whatever. You know the one.)
Before we move on to GLBTLMNOQ news, can we all agree that there are a lot of childish grown men making headlines for themselves these days? I mean, WTF?
Don’t get me wrong. Maturity is not synonymous with sober, prudent behavior. You can be mature and wild and crazy at the same time, a combination that many of us seek to perfect, like the ingredients of a fine cocktail. But sexting boyish boasts and sending pictures of your knickers to online strangers when you’re a member of Congress?
I can’t help wondering why Anthony Weiner didn’t strip off the briefs and bare all to his naughty cyber friends. Did Mr. Fancy Pants think that nudity would be “going too far” and that he should be using a little discretion? What. A. Moron.
And I’ve also been listening to earnest debates about whether or not racy correspondence counts as “cheating.”
Hello? You either have a spouse who loves you and is fundamentally honest about your marriage and your life together, or you don’t. You cannot parse profound infidelity. In some cases, extramarital sex could be nothing more than a forgivable error of judgment. In other cases, a faithful marriage of decades could be one long emotional lie. Vocabulary really doesn't enter into it.
--
‘Til Wyoming Do Us Part
In legal news this week, there was an interesting ruling out of the Wyoming Supreme Court, where justices unanimously reversed a lower court and gave the green light to a same-sex divorce. The two women seeking to end their marriage were wed in Canada in 2008. A lower court had issued the typical antigay decision, ruling that since same-sex marriage wasn’t recognized in the Cheney State, a same-sex divorce was similarly out of the question.
But Wyoming is one of those states that has yet to pass a draconian anti-marriage amendment. True, gay couples can’t get married in the state, but as the high court said in its (unanimous) five-page opinion, there’s no reason why a same-sex marriage can’t be formally severed in Wyoming, much as state courts had previously dissolved common law marriages that would not have been honored under Wyoming law.
The court made clear that its ruling would have no impact on marriage itself, only on divorce. But it’s true as well that allowing a same-sex divorce is indeed a back door way of recognizing a same-sex marriage. There’s no need for a divorce if you’re not married to begin with, right? Did I mention that the court was unanimous?
There’s also another ruling in our favor in a joint bankruptcy case. Do you remember that we talked about a joint bankruptcy case in New York a few weeks ago?
No?
Color me not surprised. These bankruptcy cases are the Tim Pawlentys of DOMA law. Still, every day that a judge takes a look at the Defense of Marriage Act and rolls his or her eyes is a good day for our side.
This time, New York law professor Art Leonard informs us, a California couple wanted to start over and had nearly completed their joint filing when the government agent filed a motion asking the bankruptcy court to stop the proceedings based on the Defense of Marriage Act. The couple, married in the 2008 window of opportunity, were not separating like the couple in the New York story which you’ve forgotten all about. So the notion of splitting them up into two legal entities and trying to mess around with the unnecessary complications that would entail did not pass muster with the court.
Bankruptcy cases don’t stir the heart like bi-national couples or sad widows. But they serve as an example of the myriad problems we encounter as a society when we try to treat a married couple, with all their intricate shared legal and personal connections, as if they were single strangers under the law.
And what the anti-marriage crusaders forget is that we are married. Even when we can’t tie a legal knot, we get married anyway, have children, share bank accounts, buy houses together, shop together, rack up debt and assets together and create a shared life that no constitutional amendment can force back into separate fields. Banning recognition of these realities doesn’t keep gay couples apart. It just makes life difficult for everyone involved, from bankruptcy judges to corporate employers to divorce courts to bank lenders, funeral homes, hospital staff, mortgage companies, school officials and who knows who else? No wonder the rest of society is getting sick of this nonsense.
--
The Ick Factor
So, did you read about the glass staircase in the new Columbus courthouse that opened this week?
Can you believe an architect would put a glass staircase in a public building? But worse, can you believe that out of the hundred or two hundred or how ever many people who checked the blueprints and approved the expense, not one of them would wonder how a woman in a dress or skirt would be able to use those stairs?
And while I was researching this provocative design feature, I couldn’t help but notice that an ice cream store in Columbia, Missouri whipped up a batch of cicada ice cream, made from insects collected by the employees in their back yards.
According to the Associated Press, the staff of Sparky’s Homemade Ice Cream ripped the wings off the iconic insects, boiled the bodies and covered them in brown sugar and milk chocolate to make a base for the confection. The cicada ice cream went on sale June 1 and was quickly sold out. Public health officials issued a statement of disapproval, but stopped short of banning future production.
Sorry, that’s just gross. And yes, there are people who will eat insects. But indeed, there are people who will eat anything, now aren’t there? Does that make it right? Shave your cat and throw the fur into a stew pot with half a chicken and some carrots and people will eat it. Toss the old sponge from under the sink into the blender with some rum and orange juice and it’s party time somewhere.
Just sayin’.
--
Ware’s the Prop 8 Case?
I’ve been ignoring a hearing date in the Prop 8 case, because it’s just not an interesting story. Not like cicada ice cream or glass staircases at any rate.
Next Monday, Judge James Ware, who inherited the lower court jurisdiction for the Prop 8 case after Judge Vaughn Walker retired, will consider whether or not Judge Walker should have recused himself from hearing the Prop 8 case because he was (and is) in a gay relationship.
Newsflash! The answer is no, and there’s no way Judge Ware will come to any other conclusion. Please. Only straight judges can hear gay civil rights cases? Only men can judge women? Only whites can judge blacks?
Judge Ware will also consider a motion to bar public release of any of the video coverage of the trial. Naturally, that motion comes from the losers who reportedly looked foolish and absurd throughout the proceedings.
Suffice to say that nothing much is happening with this case. As you know, the litigation went off into the wilderness last year after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit asked the California Supreme Court to mull over a question of standing under state law for the indefinite future. Once the California court produces an opinion, the Ninth Circuit will return to its deliberations and may well end up tossing the Prop 8 appeal on technical grounds.
That would be fine with me. Prop 8 would be dead, and marriage would resume in California. As for the rest of the country, we have half a dozen direct challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act in progress. But these seem bogged down a bit as courts wait for filings from the U.,S. House of Representatives. I suppose I could look up the exact status of all these cases, but since nothing significant is happening right this week, I don’t see the point.
Mel just made me a “Southern Fly,” which consists of “spring water” and Firefly Sweet Tea Vodka with a twist. I’m not sure she actually used “spring water,” but the result is not half bad. We are officially on summer vacation, because she is a high school teacher, and we acquired a large plastic pool from Academy for $29.00 for the season. Life is good.
Now that I think about it, I’m sure she did not use “spring water.” I did not see her with a bucket, and plus, there are no “springs” in our neighborhood and as such, we rely on the kitchen sink or the refrigerator for water.
--
The End is Nigh
So let’s see what else is going on. Or, considering that this column is almost over, let’s see some of the stories we ignored this week.
The end of the military ban is slowly approaching, emphasis on slowly. The House version of the Defense Appropriations bill includes some amendments aimed at delaying the repeal of Don’t Ask, but they will probably be killed by the Senate. We are still waiting for “certification” by the President and the Defense Secretary that repeal will not interfere with military readiness. After that we will wait a couple of months more for no reason and then Don’t Ask will be dead.
Someone actually got discharged from the Air Force under Don’t Ask recently, but apparently it was a service member who was begging to leave.
The Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond pulled the rainbow flag up its official flagpole to celebrate Pride and got an earful from a conservative lawmaker. But apparently the Richmond Fed is a private operation so it was none of his business. Who knew?
And a corrections officer in SoCal asked if he could march in uniform in the West Hollywood Pride parade and was told no. Paging Gloria Allred! After the famed defense lawyer took up his cause the decision was reversed and the proud officer was free to parade to his heart’s content.
That’s enough for one week, don’t you think? We don’t want to sate our limited appetite for GLBT news in one gluttonous snarf, now do we? Better we pace ourselves.
--
BY ANN ROSTOW
Mystery Surrounds Missing Syrian Blogger
Has the Syrian-American blogger of “Gay Girl In Damascus” been kidnapped? On Monday, the blogger’s cousin wrote that Amina Abdallah Araf had been snatched on the street, and thrown into a car by three armed men on her way to meet some activists. A month or so earlier, Amina had blogged about a confrontation between her father and some government thugs, who came to the house to arrest her but were later convinced to leave. Amina, who was allegedly born in Virginia to an American mother and a Syrian father, had been in hiding since that incident.
Yet there may be something strange going on. The photos of Amina on Facebook and elsewhere in the press are actually shots of a London-based woman named Jelena Lecic, who saw her own picture in the Guardian and called the newspaper.
Further, it seems as if no one has actually met Amina, including her close friend, a Canadian woman named Sandra Baragia, who tells the press that she and Amina have only exchanged emails. No one in the press has been able to reach a family member, or confirm the details of Amina’s abduction.
But look. Someone has been writing “Gay Girl in Damascus” since it started in February. And someone wrote Amina’s earlier blog back in 2007. Maybe Amina used Lecic’s photo for anonymity. Maybe she didn’t like her own image. Or maybe “Gay Girl in Damascus” is written by a 60-something man or an articulate ten-year-old. I’m just saying that someone wrote it, and for all we know that person was kidnapped.
Or not.
As far as I’m concerned, I’d rather believe the kidnap story and be wrong than sit around badmouthing “Amina” for the faux photo while she’s being tortured or raped by Syrian henchmen. Plus, she has a theoretical mother in Virginia, or at least from Virginia. Can someone not track this woman down and shed some light on the situation?
I just hope whoever was writing the blog is okay.
--
Men Behaving Badly
I probably read too many trashy thrillers, but there was one detail about that last story that caught my eye. Amina and Sandra were supposed to go on a trip together in the near future. Given that Amina presumably does not resemble her picture, is it possible that she disappeared rather than meet Sandra face-to-face? (Cue: First nine notes of Bach’s Tocata in D minor or whatever. You know the one.)
Before we move on to GLBTLMNOQ news, can we all agree that there are a lot of childish grown men making headlines for themselves these days? I mean, WTF?
Don’t get me wrong. Maturity is not synonymous with sober, prudent behavior. You can be mature and wild and crazy at the same time, a combination that many of us seek to perfect, like the ingredients of a fine cocktail. But sexting boyish boasts and sending pictures of your knickers to online strangers when you’re a member of Congress?
I can’t help wondering why Anthony Weiner didn’t strip off the briefs and bare all to his naughty cyber friends. Did Mr. Fancy Pants think that nudity would be “going too far” and that he should be using a little discretion? What. A. Moron.
And I’ve also been listening to earnest debates about whether or not racy correspondence counts as “cheating.”
Hello? You either have a spouse who loves you and is fundamentally honest about your marriage and your life together, or you don’t. You cannot parse profound infidelity. In some cases, extramarital sex could be nothing more than a forgivable error of judgment. In other cases, a faithful marriage of decades could be one long emotional lie. Vocabulary really doesn't enter into it.
--
‘Til Wyoming Do Us Part
In legal news this week, there was an interesting ruling out of the Wyoming Supreme Court, where justices unanimously reversed a lower court and gave the green light to a same-sex divorce. The two women seeking to end their marriage were wed in Canada in 2008. A lower court had issued the typical antigay decision, ruling that since same-sex marriage wasn’t recognized in the Cheney State, a same-sex divorce was similarly out of the question.
But Wyoming is one of those states that has yet to pass a draconian anti-marriage amendment. True, gay couples can’t get married in the state, but as the high court said in its (unanimous) five-page opinion, there’s no reason why a same-sex marriage can’t be formally severed in Wyoming, much as state courts had previously dissolved common law marriages that would not have been honored under Wyoming law.
The court made clear that its ruling would have no impact on marriage itself, only on divorce. But it’s true as well that allowing a same-sex divorce is indeed a back door way of recognizing a same-sex marriage. There’s no need for a divorce if you’re not married to begin with, right? Did I mention that the court was unanimous?
There’s also another ruling in our favor in a joint bankruptcy case. Do you remember that we talked about a joint bankruptcy case in New York a few weeks ago?
No?
Color me not surprised. These bankruptcy cases are the Tim Pawlentys of DOMA law. Still, every day that a judge takes a look at the Defense of Marriage Act and rolls his or her eyes is a good day for our side.
This time, New York law professor Art Leonard informs us, a California couple wanted to start over and had nearly completed their joint filing when the government agent filed a motion asking the bankruptcy court to stop the proceedings based on the Defense of Marriage Act. The couple, married in the 2008 window of opportunity, were not separating like the couple in the New York story which you’ve forgotten all about. So the notion of splitting them up into two legal entities and trying to mess around with the unnecessary complications that would entail did not pass muster with the court.
Bankruptcy cases don’t stir the heart like bi-national couples or sad widows. But they serve as an example of the myriad problems we encounter as a society when we try to treat a married couple, with all their intricate shared legal and personal connections, as if they were single strangers under the law.
And what the anti-marriage crusaders forget is that we are married. Even when we can’t tie a legal knot, we get married anyway, have children, share bank accounts, buy houses together, shop together, rack up debt and assets together and create a shared life that no constitutional amendment can force back into separate fields. Banning recognition of these realities doesn’t keep gay couples apart. It just makes life difficult for everyone involved, from bankruptcy judges to corporate employers to divorce courts to bank lenders, funeral homes, hospital staff, mortgage companies, school officials and who knows who else? No wonder the rest of society is getting sick of this nonsense.
--
The Ick Factor
So, did you read about the glass staircase in the new Columbus courthouse that opened this week?
Can you believe an architect would put a glass staircase in a public building? But worse, can you believe that out of the hundred or two hundred or how ever many people who checked the blueprints and approved the expense, not one of them would wonder how a woman in a dress or skirt would be able to use those stairs?
And while I was researching this provocative design feature, I couldn’t help but notice that an ice cream store in Columbia, Missouri whipped up a batch of cicada ice cream, made from insects collected by the employees in their back yards.
According to the Associated Press, the staff of Sparky’s Homemade Ice Cream ripped the wings off the iconic insects, boiled the bodies and covered them in brown sugar and milk chocolate to make a base for the confection. The cicada ice cream went on sale June 1 and was quickly sold out. Public health officials issued a statement of disapproval, but stopped short of banning future production.
Sorry, that’s just gross. And yes, there are people who will eat insects. But indeed, there are people who will eat anything, now aren’t there? Does that make it right? Shave your cat and throw the fur into a stew pot with half a chicken and some carrots and people will eat it. Toss the old sponge from under the sink into the blender with some rum and orange juice and it’s party time somewhere.
Just sayin’.
--
Ware’s the Prop 8 Case?
I’ve been ignoring a hearing date in the Prop 8 case, because it’s just not an interesting story. Not like cicada ice cream or glass staircases at any rate.
Next Monday, Judge James Ware, who inherited the lower court jurisdiction for the Prop 8 case after Judge Vaughn Walker retired, will consider whether or not Judge Walker should have recused himself from hearing the Prop 8 case because he was (and is) in a gay relationship.
Newsflash! The answer is no, and there’s no way Judge Ware will come to any other conclusion. Please. Only straight judges can hear gay civil rights cases? Only men can judge women? Only whites can judge blacks?
Judge Ware will also consider a motion to bar public release of any of the video coverage of the trial. Naturally, that motion comes from the losers who reportedly looked foolish and absurd throughout the proceedings.
Suffice to say that nothing much is happening with this case. As you know, the litigation went off into the wilderness last year after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit asked the California Supreme Court to mull over a question of standing under state law for the indefinite future. Once the California court produces an opinion, the Ninth Circuit will return to its deliberations and may well end up tossing the Prop 8 appeal on technical grounds.
That would be fine with me. Prop 8 would be dead, and marriage would resume in California. As for the rest of the country, we have half a dozen direct challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act in progress. But these seem bogged down a bit as courts wait for filings from the U.,S. House of Representatives. I suppose I could look up the exact status of all these cases, but since nothing significant is happening right this week, I don’t see the point.
Mel just made me a “Southern Fly,” which consists of “spring water” and Firefly Sweet Tea Vodka with a twist. I’m not sure she actually used “spring water,” but the result is not half bad. We are officially on summer vacation, because she is a high school teacher, and we acquired a large plastic pool from Academy for $29.00 for the season. Life is good.
Now that I think about it, I’m sure she did not use “spring water.” I did not see her with a bucket, and plus, there are no “springs” in our neighborhood and as such, we rely on the kitchen sink or the refrigerator for water.
--
The End is Nigh
So let’s see what else is going on. Or, considering that this column is almost over, let’s see some of the stories we ignored this week.
The end of the military ban is slowly approaching, emphasis on slowly. The House version of the Defense Appropriations bill includes some amendments aimed at delaying the repeal of Don’t Ask, but they will probably be killed by the Senate. We are still waiting for “certification” by the President and the Defense Secretary that repeal will not interfere with military readiness. After that we will wait a couple of months more for no reason and then Don’t Ask will be dead.
Someone actually got discharged from the Air Force under Don’t Ask recently, but apparently it was a service member who was begging to leave.
The Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond pulled the rainbow flag up its official flagpole to celebrate Pride and got an earful from a conservative lawmaker. But apparently the Richmond Fed is a private operation so it was none of his business. Who knew?
And a corrections officer in SoCal asked if he could march in uniform in the West Hollywood Pride parade and was told no. Paging Gloria Allred! After the famed defense lawyer took up his cause the decision was reversed and the proud officer was free to parade to his heart’s content.
That’s enough for one week, don’t you think? We don’t want to sate our limited appetite for GLBT news in one gluttonous snarf, now do we? Better we pace ourselves.
--
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
Vive La Difference
News for the Week Ended June 1, 2011
BY ANN ROSTOW
Vive La Difference
I warn you that this is not an exciting week in the world of GLBT news. Indeed I have spent two hours surfing and checking blogs and Google-newsing for “gay” and “DOMA” and what have you. All to no avail.
We have a gay prom king somewhere and, elsewhere, a trans prom queen (Yay). The President issued a gay pride proclamation (Thanks). A court in Texas says a transwoman cannot receive her late firefighter husband’s $600,000 death payment. That money will go to the man’s ex-wife or his kids thanks to my home state’s policy of simply ignoring gender reassignments (Bastards!).
Oh, and speaking of gender, how about the Canadian parents who have decided to keep the sex of their third child, Storm, a secret? When I first heard about the story, I thought they were going to try to raise Storm as an androgynous entity, liberated from stereotypes, which I thought was quite insane. We all condemn stereotyping, transphobia, and rigid roles. But is there something wrong with the simple fact of having a sex? I don’t think so!
For our community in particular, we have fought for decades for our right to our own gender identity and for our right to commit to same-gender relationships. Our sex, male or female (trans or at birth) is not just important to us; it’s intrinsic to our existence as a political class. Equally important is our gender style, if you want to call it that, our freedom to be masculine women or feminine men or whatever combination suits us. Thus to me, there seems to be no reason to keep the sex of your child a secret, but every reason to encourage your child to gravitate towards his or her spot on the axis of masculinity and femininity, regardless of his or her sex.
From what I read, however, I think that the parents are just going to let Storm grow out of infancy without any particular pressure. They seem fairly sane, so I assume that if little Storm turns out to be a typical boy or girl, then that will be that. I read that their other son is a bit of a non-conformist, who loves bright colors and used to like dresses, so I guess their experience with his unconventional style inspired them to give Storm a head start on gender bending if he or she was so inclined.
You know what really bugs me? The name “Storm.” It sounds like a porn name. I hope he or she is given the chance to pick another moniker around the age of 12.
--
Lions and Tigers and Bears
As I was saying, there’s a news dearth this week. Civil unions started in Illinois and we’re still six votes short of marriage equality in the New York senate. I’m sort of boycotting legislative news out of the Empire State based on the premise that if I don’t write about it, marriage equality will pass out of Albany. But if I belabor the story as I have in the past, the bill will be killed by last-minute stratagems.
Some bad things happened at Moscow Pride. Oh, and I think the Memphis Grizzlies are going to keep the injured Rudy Gay on their roster. Get better soon, Rudy. Our community is rooting for you!
Well that’s that. So what shall we talk about if we don’t care about the gays? Here’s a very annoying development. I have half an eye on the women’s French Open quarterfinals on ESPN2. The commentators just announced the final score of Sharapova’s match against Petrovic. Then they carried on a ten-minute discussion about Sharapova’s game and how well she was playing. And now they’re showing the aforementioned match from start to finish even though we know exactly how it turns out. Lunkheads.
My afternoon is going from bad to worse now that the dog disconnected my damaged laptop, which only works when it’s plugged in. I lost two good paragraphs on a planned $172 million park in Kentucky which will feature a “life sized” Noah’s Ark complete with live animals. The owners will receive some $40 million in state tax incentives, which seems a little constitutionally suspect to me. And they claim that the park display will be able to “prove” that Noah had room for all the animals.
(Will there be pugs, I wonder? When I was a child, I used to say “aminals” instead of “animals” and it took me a long time to break the habit. To this day, I feel as if “aminals” should be a word.)
At any rate, how is it possible that in our own limited lifetimes we have taken so many steps back into the dark ages of religious superstition, creationism, and insisting on the literal truth of the Bible? For God’s sake, I went to the National Cathedral School for Girls as a child, had to go to chapel every day and cathedral every week and was forced to take Bible class. But even then, and there, I was taught that the stories in the Bible were allegorical. No one considered for a minute that Jonah was eaten by a whale or that all the beasts of the world politely lined up two-by-two and marched quietly into a giant ark.
And yet, here we are.
--
Show Us The Money
While we’re in Kentucky, I was pleased to read in the New York Times the other day that the two counties that have been unsuccessfully defending their right to display the Ten Commandments in public for many years now owe $456,881 to the ACLU, mostly for legal fees. The loser of a constitutional court battle has to pay the winner’s costs and fees, a policy that allows us all to defend our constitutional rights without fear of bankruptcy. At any rate, the two counties, McCreary and Pulaski, claim they have no idea where they’ll find the dough re mi.
The county’s expenses are not covered by their insurance policies, and after all, these two local governments pursued their Decalogue cases for no apparent civic advantage through thick and thin, not even stopping after a High Court defeat. Now, guess what? The check is sitting in the middle of the table, McCreary is staring at the ceiling and Pulaski says he forgot his wallet.
Here’s a question for my fellow Star Trek Next Generation fans. Why did Beverly leave the Enterprise and get replaced by Dr. Pulaski? And then, what happened to Pulaski and why did Beverly come back? I’m sure I could look this up myself.
I also wonder why we never hear anything more about the people who stay on the Enterprise at the end of their episodes. Like the warp scientist Marista Yale or the little alien boy who kidnapped Riker.
--
The Place For Politics
Moving right along, did you hear that Ed Schultz called Laura Ingraham a “right wing slut” and was suspended without pay from his MSNBC cable show for a week? I’m not crazy about Ed, but I thought his on air apology was solid. I mean, he really apologized. None of this mealy mouthed “I’m sorry if I offended anyone.”
I’m an MSNBC addict, although as I’ve said before, Chris Matthews can be hard to take. The man is simplistic yet presents himself as some kind of political expert just because he worked for Tip O’Neill back in the day. Plus, he spits and sputters and won’t let anyone finish a thought.
Additionally, Matthews is running a “Lean Forward” commercial for his show where he stares into the camera and wonders pompously if and when one of the GOP candidates will just accept that Obama is “as Amurcan as I am.”
Chris? No one, not even the GOP candidates, is saying or implying that Obama is not an American. As for his birth certificate, which had nothing to do with citizenship per se, that subject has been closed for weeks and weeks. Is this really the only issue you can think of to draw an audience?
Speaking of presidential politics, I told you that Newt’s Tiffany bill would stick to him like glue on stamps, didn’t I? I’m currently torn between wanting to spend the next 18 months speculating on the 2012 election, and being disgusted with all this vastly premature punditry. Can we not accept that for now, none of us have the slightest idea who will wind up contesting Obama for the presidency?
No? OK! We know it’s not going to be Newt. But between now and Labor Day, anyone can stitch themselves into this crazy quilt. They don’t have to win Iowa. They just need to be in the top three with momentum. And while Newt got in trouble for calling Ryan’s budget “rightwing extremism,” that doesn’t mean that a GOP candidate must endorse the plan. On the contrary, the person who wins the nomination will be a candidate who praises Ryan, while claiming to have a different budget plan that will not destroy Medicare as we know it. (Ergo, it will not be Jon Huntsman, who jumped into bed with Ryan like a star-struck teenager.)
I’m guessing that no one who wants to run in 2016 will get into this arena. But there are a few opportunists who may see their chance in this current chaos. I bet that someone we can’t even imagine is out there right now with a phone in his ear, calling buddies and CEOs to sound them out.
As for the Tea Party, most of them are not fixed ideologues; they are Obama haters and will support the most electable man or woman in the field, specifically a deficit hawk who will not be brought down in the general election based on his or her views on Medicare.
--
Bin Laden’s Secret Gay Love!
Let’s go see if anything remotely interesting has developed in GLBT news over the last three hours. I’ll be right back.
Nothing new, but when I scrolled back in my email records, I discovered a salacious clip from blogactivist Michael Petrelis, who shared with us his copy of The Globe, and its revelations about Osama Bin Laden’s gay sex life!
Michael, we all thank you for letting us end this column with a bang rather than a whisper. And how on earth did I miss the May 30 tabloid, with its cover headline: “Government Insider Reveals: Bin Laden’s Secret Gay Life!”
According to the snippets on Michael’s blog, Petrelis Files, Bin Laden fell in love with that courier guy back when they were hiding out from American forces in caves. The two lovers stayed together for the next ten years (unnamed CIA sources suspected) and of course we know that the courier died defending the scruffy terrorist against Navy Seals.
It’s unclear how Bin Laden also managed to have five wives and at least twenty children, but other Globe sources speculated that the mass murderer might have been attempting to cover up his shameful secret.
Look, many of us tried to appear straight back before summoning the courage to come out of the closet. But five wives and twenty kids? That’s quite the cover. Still, we might expect an elaborate charade from such a devious villain, n’est-ce pas?
Bin Laden’s (alleged) sexual orientation was (reportedly) known by government insiders as far back as the 1980s, when Bin Laden and his cronies were fighting the USSR in Afghanistan (with our help). An “aide” in the Reagan Administration recalled having dinner with the young freedom fighter in Houston back in 1987.
Clean cut, in khakis and a polo sweater, Bin Laden was negotiating for some Stinger anti-aircraft missiles. At the table, the mystery aide said Bin Laden’s leg touched his own a few times, leading him to suspect that the man was making a pass. His suspicions were confirmed when Bin Laden licked his lips and fluttered his eyelashes. (!)
The aide did not succumb to Bin Laden’s charms. But he did give Bin Laden cab fare to hit a bar that Bin Laden called “Ripcord.” Indeed, Michael confirms that The Ripcord Club has been a favorite Houston leather bar for the last 25 years.
Hey. I’m convinced! Although I prefer the heroes be gay and the evildoers be straight. I really wish that one or more of those Navy Seals were gay and would come out of the closet. That might shut up a few House conservatives, don’t you think?
BY ANN ROSTOW
Vive La Difference
I warn you that this is not an exciting week in the world of GLBT news. Indeed I have spent two hours surfing and checking blogs and Google-newsing for “gay” and “DOMA” and what have you. All to no avail.
We have a gay prom king somewhere and, elsewhere, a trans prom queen (Yay). The President issued a gay pride proclamation (Thanks). A court in Texas says a transwoman cannot receive her late firefighter husband’s $600,000 death payment. That money will go to the man’s ex-wife or his kids thanks to my home state’s policy of simply ignoring gender reassignments (Bastards!).
Oh, and speaking of gender, how about the Canadian parents who have decided to keep the sex of their third child, Storm, a secret? When I first heard about the story, I thought they were going to try to raise Storm as an androgynous entity, liberated from stereotypes, which I thought was quite insane. We all condemn stereotyping, transphobia, and rigid roles. But is there something wrong with the simple fact of having a sex? I don’t think so!
For our community in particular, we have fought for decades for our right to our own gender identity and for our right to commit to same-gender relationships. Our sex, male or female (trans or at birth) is not just important to us; it’s intrinsic to our existence as a political class. Equally important is our gender style, if you want to call it that, our freedom to be masculine women or feminine men or whatever combination suits us. Thus to me, there seems to be no reason to keep the sex of your child a secret, but every reason to encourage your child to gravitate towards his or her spot on the axis of masculinity and femininity, regardless of his or her sex.
From what I read, however, I think that the parents are just going to let Storm grow out of infancy without any particular pressure. They seem fairly sane, so I assume that if little Storm turns out to be a typical boy or girl, then that will be that. I read that their other son is a bit of a non-conformist, who loves bright colors and used to like dresses, so I guess their experience with his unconventional style inspired them to give Storm a head start on gender bending if he or she was so inclined.
You know what really bugs me? The name “Storm.” It sounds like a porn name. I hope he or she is given the chance to pick another moniker around the age of 12.
--
Lions and Tigers and Bears
As I was saying, there’s a news dearth this week. Civil unions started in Illinois and we’re still six votes short of marriage equality in the New York senate. I’m sort of boycotting legislative news out of the Empire State based on the premise that if I don’t write about it, marriage equality will pass out of Albany. But if I belabor the story as I have in the past, the bill will be killed by last-minute stratagems.
Some bad things happened at Moscow Pride. Oh, and I think the Memphis Grizzlies are going to keep the injured Rudy Gay on their roster. Get better soon, Rudy. Our community is rooting for you!
Well that’s that. So what shall we talk about if we don’t care about the gays? Here’s a very annoying development. I have half an eye on the women’s French Open quarterfinals on ESPN2. The commentators just announced the final score of Sharapova’s match against Petrovic. Then they carried on a ten-minute discussion about Sharapova’s game and how well she was playing. And now they’re showing the aforementioned match from start to finish even though we know exactly how it turns out. Lunkheads.
My afternoon is going from bad to worse now that the dog disconnected my damaged laptop, which only works when it’s plugged in. I lost two good paragraphs on a planned $172 million park in Kentucky which will feature a “life sized” Noah’s Ark complete with live animals. The owners will receive some $40 million in state tax incentives, which seems a little constitutionally suspect to me. And they claim that the park display will be able to “prove” that Noah had room for all the animals.
(Will there be pugs, I wonder? When I was a child, I used to say “aminals” instead of “animals” and it took me a long time to break the habit. To this day, I feel as if “aminals” should be a word.)
At any rate, how is it possible that in our own limited lifetimes we have taken so many steps back into the dark ages of religious superstition, creationism, and insisting on the literal truth of the Bible? For God’s sake, I went to the National Cathedral School for Girls as a child, had to go to chapel every day and cathedral every week and was forced to take Bible class. But even then, and there, I was taught that the stories in the Bible were allegorical. No one considered for a minute that Jonah was eaten by a whale or that all the beasts of the world politely lined up two-by-two and marched quietly into a giant ark.
And yet, here we are.
--
Show Us The Money
While we’re in Kentucky, I was pleased to read in the New York Times the other day that the two counties that have been unsuccessfully defending their right to display the Ten Commandments in public for many years now owe $456,881 to the ACLU, mostly for legal fees. The loser of a constitutional court battle has to pay the winner’s costs and fees, a policy that allows us all to defend our constitutional rights without fear of bankruptcy. At any rate, the two counties, McCreary and Pulaski, claim they have no idea where they’ll find the dough re mi.
The county’s expenses are not covered by their insurance policies, and after all, these two local governments pursued their Decalogue cases for no apparent civic advantage through thick and thin, not even stopping after a High Court defeat. Now, guess what? The check is sitting in the middle of the table, McCreary is staring at the ceiling and Pulaski says he forgot his wallet.
Here’s a question for my fellow Star Trek Next Generation fans. Why did Beverly leave the Enterprise and get replaced by Dr. Pulaski? And then, what happened to Pulaski and why did Beverly come back? I’m sure I could look this up myself.
I also wonder why we never hear anything more about the people who stay on the Enterprise at the end of their episodes. Like the warp scientist Marista Yale or the little alien boy who kidnapped Riker.
--
The Place For Politics
Moving right along, did you hear that Ed Schultz called Laura Ingraham a “right wing slut” and was suspended without pay from his MSNBC cable show for a week? I’m not crazy about Ed, but I thought his on air apology was solid. I mean, he really apologized. None of this mealy mouthed “I’m sorry if I offended anyone.”
I’m an MSNBC addict, although as I’ve said before, Chris Matthews can be hard to take. The man is simplistic yet presents himself as some kind of political expert just because he worked for Tip O’Neill back in the day. Plus, he spits and sputters and won’t let anyone finish a thought.
Additionally, Matthews is running a “Lean Forward” commercial for his show where he stares into the camera and wonders pompously if and when one of the GOP candidates will just accept that Obama is “as Amurcan as I am.”
Chris? No one, not even the GOP candidates, is saying or implying that Obama is not an American. As for his birth certificate, which had nothing to do with citizenship per se, that subject has been closed for weeks and weeks. Is this really the only issue you can think of to draw an audience?
Speaking of presidential politics, I told you that Newt’s Tiffany bill would stick to him like glue on stamps, didn’t I? I’m currently torn between wanting to spend the next 18 months speculating on the 2012 election, and being disgusted with all this vastly premature punditry. Can we not accept that for now, none of us have the slightest idea who will wind up contesting Obama for the presidency?
No? OK! We know it’s not going to be Newt. But between now and Labor Day, anyone can stitch themselves into this crazy quilt. They don’t have to win Iowa. They just need to be in the top three with momentum. And while Newt got in trouble for calling Ryan’s budget “rightwing extremism,” that doesn’t mean that a GOP candidate must endorse the plan. On the contrary, the person who wins the nomination will be a candidate who praises Ryan, while claiming to have a different budget plan that will not destroy Medicare as we know it. (Ergo, it will not be Jon Huntsman, who jumped into bed with Ryan like a star-struck teenager.)
I’m guessing that no one who wants to run in 2016 will get into this arena. But there are a few opportunists who may see their chance in this current chaos. I bet that someone we can’t even imagine is out there right now with a phone in his ear, calling buddies and CEOs to sound them out.
As for the Tea Party, most of them are not fixed ideologues; they are Obama haters and will support the most electable man or woman in the field, specifically a deficit hawk who will not be brought down in the general election based on his or her views on Medicare.
--
Bin Laden’s Secret Gay Love!
Let’s go see if anything remotely interesting has developed in GLBT news over the last three hours. I’ll be right back.
Nothing new, but when I scrolled back in my email records, I discovered a salacious clip from blogactivist Michael Petrelis, who shared with us his copy of The Globe, and its revelations about Osama Bin Laden’s gay sex life!
Michael, we all thank you for letting us end this column with a bang rather than a whisper. And how on earth did I miss the May 30 tabloid, with its cover headline: “Government Insider Reveals: Bin Laden’s Secret Gay Life!”
According to the snippets on Michael’s blog, Petrelis Files, Bin Laden fell in love with that courier guy back when they were hiding out from American forces in caves. The two lovers stayed together for the next ten years (unnamed CIA sources suspected) and of course we know that the courier died defending the scruffy terrorist against Navy Seals.
It’s unclear how Bin Laden also managed to have five wives and at least twenty children, but other Globe sources speculated that the mass murderer might have been attempting to cover up his shameful secret.
Look, many of us tried to appear straight back before summoning the courage to come out of the closet. But five wives and twenty kids? That’s quite the cover. Still, we might expect an elaborate charade from such a devious villain, n’est-ce pas?
Bin Laden’s (alleged) sexual orientation was (reportedly) known by government insiders as far back as the 1980s, when Bin Laden and his cronies were fighting the USSR in Afghanistan (with our help). An “aide” in the Reagan Administration recalled having dinner with the young freedom fighter in Houston back in 1987.
Clean cut, in khakis and a polo sweater, Bin Laden was negotiating for some Stinger anti-aircraft missiles. At the table, the mystery aide said Bin Laden’s leg touched his own a few times, leading him to suspect that the man was making a pass. His suspicions were confirmed when Bin Laden licked his lips and fluttered his eyelashes. (!)
The aide did not succumb to Bin Laden’s charms. But he did give Bin Laden cab fare to hit a bar that Bin Laden called “Ripcord.” Indeed, Michael confirms that The Ripcord Club has been a favorite Houston leather bar for the last 25 years.
Hey. I’m convinced! Although I prefer the heroes be gay and the evildoers be straight. I really wish that one or more of those Navy Seals were gay and would come out of the closet. That might shut up a few House conservatives, don’t you think?
Thursday, May 26, 2011
So-Called Compromise Advances in Rhode Island
News for the Week Ended May 25, 2011
BY ANN ROSTOW
So-Called Compromise Advances in Rhode Island
I’ll begin this week with a correction from last week’s discussion of legislative machinations in Rhode Island. A well-informed reader noted that the senate president, M. Theresa Paiva Weed, is in fact a Democrat, not a Republican. Silly me.
Paiva Weed’s opposition to the marriage equality bill on the senate side led openly gay house speaker Gordon Fox to drop the bill rather than bringing it to a vote. Ergo, I assumed she was a Republican.
Meanwhile, a compromise civil union bill passed the house last Friday night and is en route to the senate shortly. From what I gather, the bill is riddled with so many exceptions and caveats, that it just may make things worse for Rhode Island’s same-sex couples.
According to Kathy Loewy, senior staff attorney at Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, the religious exemption is “unprecedented.”
The exemption, she said in a statement “means a civil union spouse could be denied the ability to make medical decisions for her spouse in a hospital; it means that a math teacher at a religiously-based school could not get the same health insurance for his legally recognized partner that all other teachers receive. This exemption actually diminishes nondiscrimination protections in public accommodations and employment that Rhode Island employers and institutions have successfully lived with since 1995. It just inflicts gratuitous harm on Rhode Island’s gay and lesbian families.”
Hmmm. Doesn’t sound good, does it?
In other state news, Nevada has enacted trans workplace protections, signed into law by Governor Brian Sandoval this week. As of today, Sandoval is also looking at trans rights laws covering housing and public accommodations sitting on his desk for consideration. Sign ‘em, Sandy!
As for Tennessee, Governor Bill Haslam signed a bitch of a bill that bans cities and counties from adopting GLBT discrimination protections. The bill effectively rolls back Nashville’s equal access ordinance, a measure that restricted city contracts to companies with GLBT protections. Bay Times legal analysts say the bill sounds suspiciously unconstitutional under Romer v Evans. Then again, none of the Bay Times legal analysts ever graduated from law school so what do they know?
It was nice to see a bunch of major companies lining up against the law, along with the Tennessee Chamber of Commerce and Industry, which switched sides to oppose it. I’m looking forward to the day when some huge mega-corporation moves its headquarters out of one of these gratuitously antigay states.
--
Tornado!
Tiresome subjects, n’est-ce pas?
Did you watch those tornadoes rolling through the Midwest? Mel (my wife) grew up in western Kansas and remembers a day when the sirens were going off and she went outside with friends to watch (Hello?) and they got up on a haystack to look around and they couldn’t any tornadoes in sight.
Until they looked right above their heads where a huge twister was descending.
She got goose bumps just remembering the incident. They ran to the shelter in time by the way.
Mel and I drive from Austin to Kansas a couple of times a year and have become very familiar with these recent tornado targets; Joplin, Norman, Guthrie (where they don’t serve alcohol). I never gave tornadoes a thought before, but next month, I will be conducting extensive weather research prior to our trip.
After watching those F-4s, I don’t think I could drive through Oklahoma or Kansas in a violent storm without panicking. It’s like swimming in the ocean after you’ve seen Jaws. Something you took for granted and even enjoyed has become suffused with terror.
Yesterday, one of the monsters was heading right towards the Prairie Dunes Casino, where we have dropped quite a bit of cash on our frequent excursions. I could picture the announcements over the loud speakers, the gamblers huddling together in the VIP slot room. Then, the sound of the freight train and the cavernous gaming rooms filling with flying debris. It’s pitch black. We are screaming and suddenly there’s a noise like an explosion and we are tossed into the air like rag dolls, hurled into the last violent seconds of our lives.
Ahhhhhhh!
--
Conservative Politician Loses Finger in Sexcapade
So, I read a federal court ruling yesterday in a challenge to a voter-approved measure out of El Paso that basically repealed the city’s domestic partner benefit program.
Wait wait! Don’t skip this item! I even gamed the headline to draw you in (and it worked). It’s not the usual boring legal discussion from that humorless scribe that takes control of my mind every now and then and fulminates over a dry judicial opinion. (I hate her!)
No, this is different. It’s quirky! And quirky means fun!
At any rate, you need some background. In 2009, El Paso city leaders instituted a domestic partner program, and various traditional values types immediately put forward a repeal measure for the 2010 ballot. The repeal language limited health benefits to city staff, their legal spouses and dependent children. It passed, 55 to 45.
It turned out, however, that El Paso had been offering health benefits not just to city employees, but also to retirees, elected officials, and certain city contractors. All these people were suddenly dropped from the insurance rolls thanks to the repeal language. Ooops.
So everyone got together, gays, retirees, elected officials, and they all sued to have the repeal measure declared unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause. (They had another cause of action which The Scribe wants to talk about, but don’t worry. I have her under control and it’s just not relevant.)
The litigation was transferred to federal court, and on Friday, the judge ruled that the repeal measure will stand and that it did not violate equal protection guarantees under the Constitution. Why? Because it didn’t single out gays!
Even though the repeal authors admitted that they had no intention of messing with the other groups, the retirees and so forth, the fact is that their measure did just that. It didn’t specifically target gay men and women. It wiped out four distinct categories of insured beneficiaries! The judge said that his hands were tied. And he strongly implied that if gays had been the only affected workers, his equal protection analysis would have been quite different.
I suppose the outcome isn’t exactly “fun” for those involved. But I assume the case is not over and will continue to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The Fifth Circuit hasn’t been our friend in recent weeks. (Remember that en banc decision denying a birth certificate to the son of two gay men?) We’ll keep an eye out for future developments nonetheless.
--
The Beaten Earth
I’m watching the French Open, by the way. I have spent even more time at Roland Garros than I have at the Prairie Dunes Casino, seven years in attendance! Long time readers may recall my insufferable nostalgic tangents every year around this time. Drinking Kronenbourgs behind Court 11. Watching those pre-tiebreaker matches when every set could theoretically run to twenty games or more. Parking on the secret dirt road known only to a handful. Stalking Martina Navratilova.
(Cue: Those were the days, my friend! I thought they’d never end!)
Enough. I like these days just as much as those, although I don’t think I’ll be reminiscing in print about sitting out on the screen porch reading The Pale King, drinking pinot blanc, and watching the pugs parade along the fence line. In truth, I’ve only been able to read about ten pages of The Pale King, but I thought I’d try to impress you.
I’m, waiting until my word count hits 1300 before I start on the next actual news story which is why you’ve been forced to read filler for the last two paragraphs. But now, you’re patience is about to be rewarded. We’re going back to the news!
--
Back To The Future?
I’ve been reading about Equality California’s dog and pony show, a series of community meetings to assess our willingness to put a Prop 8 repeal measure on the 2012 ballot. There was a time of course, when everyone thought the Prop 8 lawsuit would be successfully concluded well before November of next year. But since the federal litigation has taken what looks to be a year-long detour through the California Supreme Court, it’s possible that Prop 8 will be with us for several years to come.
Does that mean we should try to vote it away next year? After all, another campaign requires a great deal of community time, money and energy; resources that to some extent will be lost to other goals.
It’s also possible that the California court, and the Ninth Circuit panel will both decide that our lawsuit opponents lack standing to appeal Judge Walker’s 2009 decision and that Prop 8 will be dead by late next year, rendering the repeal effort moot.
Do you think we could win in 2012? Polls say yes. But we need a five to ten point polling advantage to win at the ballot box. When you ask people their views on marriage equality, about five percent flat out lie, telling pollsters they approve, but voting against us in the privacy of their booth. Bastards!
Oh! I have an idea.
Let’s get the signatures and put a repeal on the ballot.
Then, we’ll do next to nothing but make a big stink in the press and force all the Mormons to spend tens of millions of dollars bashing us.
With luck, we’ll win just on demographic changes. If we lose, it just reinforces our lack of political power to the courts. (Oh my. A tennis woman is being hauled off on a stretcher in hysterical tears! Gender stereotypes vindicated once again.) Anyway, we can just repeat the process every year until we win. As long as we don’t spend money or exhaust ourselves campaigning we have nothing to lose, and we can drain the opposition.
Meanwhile, here’s an interesting marriage development I read on Lisa Keen’s news service.
Turns out you have to have Congressional approval to spend taxpayer funds on things like, um, outside legal counsel. As you know, the House Republicans have signed famed appellate lawyer Paul Clement to a $500,000 contract to champion the Defense of Marriage Act on their behalf.
Speaker Boehner arranged this by nominating a “bi-partisan” five-member committee, which promptly took a 3-2 “bi-partisan” vote in favor of hiring outside counsel. No other member of Congress was obliged to weigh in on the sticky question of whether to spend money on this antigay crusade, and apparently that means the funds are not authorized and cannot legally be used for this nefarious purpose.
I would love to see the House Republicans forced into a divisive vote on whether or not to pay Clement’s salary. Plus, consider that the $500,000 is a limit, which can be increased under the contract. Given that there are up to a dozen DOMA cases of one sort or another, Clement and company are sure to hit the DOMA ceiling in no time at all. Would Congress have to take another vote on the extra funds?
Interesting that the DOMA defense, at least in its initial stage, costs the same as Newt Gingrich’s Tiffany bills.
--
Let’s Not Be Schmucks
Finally, did any of you read the New York Times op-ed by a gay writer who pompously announced that he would no longer attend his straight friends’ weddings and urged us all to follow suit?
Rich Benjamin implied (with no evidence whatsoever) that straight couples are oblivious to our love and see our fight for marriage as a play for political and financial advancement. Then, bizarrely, he compared attending a straight wedding to a “vegan going to a summer pig roast” or an evangelical “crashing a couple-swapping party.”
Say what? Since when are our goals antithetical to those of our straight friends? Since when are our allies our enemies? I don’t mind pledging not to go to the weddings of straight people who hate gays and oppose marriage equality. But that’s not what Benjamin suggests. He’s dissing his college roommate!
Indeed, anyone who would turn their back on a friend and skip a wedding in a fit of political pique deserves to have their motivations questioned. And the notion that any the rest of us would follow his mean-spirited and petulant example is misplaced.
BY ANN ROSTOW
So-Called Compromise Advances in Rhode Island
I’ll begin this week with a correction from last week’s discussion of legislative machinations in Rhode Island. A well-informed reader noted that the senate president, M. Theresa Paiva Weed, is in fact a Democrat, not a Republican. Silly me.
Paiva Weed’s opposition to the marriage equality bill on the senate side led openly gay house speaker Gordon Fox to drop the bill rather than bringing it to a vote. Ergo, I assumed she was a Republican.
Meanwhile, a compromise civil union bill passed the house last Friday night and is en route to the senate shortly. From what I gather, the bill is riddled with so many exceptions and caveats, that it just may make things worse for Rhode Island’s same-sex couples.
According to Kathy Loewy, senior staff attorney at Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, the religious exemption is “unprecedented.”
The exemption, she said in a statement “means a civil union spouse could be denied the ability to make medical decisions for her spouse in a hospital; it means that a math teacher at a religiously-based school could not get the same health insurance for his legally recognized partner that all other teachers receive. This exemption actually diminishes nondiscrimination protections in public accommodations and employment that Rhode Island employers and institutions have successfully lived with since 1995. It just inflicts gratuitous harm on Rhode Island’s gay and lesbian families.”
Hmmm. Doesn’t sound good, does it?
In other state news, Nevada has enacted trans workplace protections, signed into law by Governor Brian Sandoval this week. As of today, Sandoval is also looking at trans rights laws covering housing and public accommodations sitting on his desk for consideration. Sign ‘em, Sandy!
As for Tennessee, Governor Bill Haslam signed a bitch of a bill that bans cities and counties from adopting GLBT discrimination protections. The bill effectively rolls back Nashville’s equal access ordinance, a measure that restricted city contracts to companies with GLBT protections. Bay Times legal analysts say the bill sounds suspiciously unconstitutional under Romer v Evans. Then again, none of the Bay Times legal analysts ever graduated from law school so what do they know?
It was nice to see a bunch of major companies lining up against the law, along with the Tennessee Chamber of Commerce and Industry, which switched sides to oppose it. I’m looking forward to the day when some huge mega-corporation moves its headquarters out of one of these gratuitously antigay states.
--
Tornado!
Tiresome subjects, n’est-ce pas?
Did you watch those tornadoes rolling through the Midwest? Mel (my wife) grew up in western Kansas and remembers a day when the sirens were going off and she went outside with friends to watch (Hello?) and they got up on a haystack to look around and they couldn’t any tornadoes in sight.
Until they looked right above their heads where a huge twister was descending.
She got goose bumps just remembering the incident. They ran to the shelter in time by the way.
Mel and I drive from Austin to Kansas a couple of times a year and have become very familiar with these recent tornado targets; Joplin, Norman, Guthrie (where they don’t serve alcohol). I never gave tornadoes a thought before, but next month, I will be conducting extensive weather research prior to our trip.
After watching those F-4s, I don’t think I could drive through Oklahoma or Kansas in a violent storm without panicking. It’s like swimming in the ocean after you’ve seen Jaws. Something you took for granted and even enjoyed has become suffused with terror.
Yesterday, one of the monsters was heading right towards the Prairie Dunes Casino, where we have dropped quite a bit of cash on our frequent excursions. I could picture the announcements over the loud speakers, the gamblers huddling together in the VIP slot room. Then, the sound of the freight train and the cavernous gaming rooms filling with flying debris. It’s pitch black. We are screaming and suddenly there’s a noise like an explosion and we are tossed into the air like rag dolls, hurled into the last violent seconds of our lives.
Ahhhhhhh!
--
Conservative Politician Loses Finger in Sexcapade
So, I read a federal court ruling yesterday in a challenge to a voter-approved measure out of El Paso that basically repealed the city’s domestic partner benefit program.
Wait wait! Don’t skip this item! I even gamed the headline to draw you in (and it worked). It’s not the usual boring legal discussion from that humorless scribe that takes control of my mind every now and then and fulminates over a dry judicial opinion. (I hate her!)
No, this is different. It’s quirky! And quirky means fun!
At any rate, you need some background. In 2009, El Paso city leaders instituted a domestic partner program, and various traditional values types immediately put forward a repeal measure for the 2010 ballot. The repeal language limited health benefits to city staff, their legal spouses and dependent children. It passed, 55 to 45.
It turned out, however, that El Paso had been offering health benefits not just to city employees, but also to retirees, elected officials, and certain city contractors. All these people were suddenly dropped from the insurance rolls thanks to the repeal language. Ooops.
So everyone got together, gays, retirees, elected officials, and they all sued to have the repeal measure declared unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause. (They had another cause of action which The Scribe wants to talk about, but don’t worry. I have her under control and it’s just not relevant.)
The litigation was transferred to federal court, and on Friday, the judge ruled that the repeal measure will stand and that it did not violate equal protection guarantees under the Constitution. Why? Because it didn’t single out gays!
Even though the repeal authors admitted that they had no intention of messing with the other groups, the retirees and so forth, the fact is that their measure did just that. It didn’t specifically target gay men and women. It wiped out four distinct categories of insured beneficiaries! The judge said that his hands were tied. And he strongly implied that if gays had been the only affected workers, his equal protection analysis would have been quite different.
I suppose the outcome isn’t exactly “fun” for those involved. But I assume the case is not over and will continue to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The Fifth Circuit hasn’t been our friend in recent weeks. (Remember that en banc decision denying a birth certificate to the son of two gay men?) We’ll keep an eye out for future developments nonetheless.
--
The Beaten Earth
I’m watching the French Open, by the way. I have spent even more time at Roland Garros than I have at the Prairie Dunes Casino, seven years in attendance! Long time readers may recall my insufferable nostalgic tangents every year around this time. Drinking Kronenbourgs behind Court 11. Watching those pre-tiebreaker matches when every set could theoretically run to twenty games or more. Parking on the secret dirt road known only to a handful. Stalking Martina Navratilova.
(Cue: Those were the days, my friend! I thought they’d never end!)
Enough. I like these days just as much as those, although I don’t think I’ll be reminiscing in print about sitting out on the screen porch reading The Pale King, drinking pinot blanc, and watching the pugs parade along the fence line. In truth, I’ve only been able to read about ten pages of The Pale King, but I thought I’d try to impress you.
I’m, waiting until my word count hits 1300 before I start on the next actual news story which is why you’ve been forced to read filler for the last two paragraphs. But now, you’re patience is about to be rewarded. We’re going back to the news!
--
Back To The Future?
I’ve been reading about Equality California’s dog and pony show, a series of community meetings to assess our willingness to put a Prop 8 repeal measure on the 2012 ballot. There was a time of course, when everyone thought the Prop 8 lawsuit would be successfully concluded well before November of next year. But since the federal litigation has taken what looks to be a year-long detour through the California Supreme Court, it’s possible that Prop 8 will be with us for several years to come.
Does that mean we should try to vote it away next year? After all, another campaign requires a great deal of community time, money and energy; resources that to some extent will be lost to other goals.
It’s also possible that the California court, and the Ninth Circuit panel will both decide that our lawsuit opponents lack standing to appeal Judge Walker’s 2009 decision and that Prop 8 will be dead by late next year, rendering the repeal effort moot.
Do you think we could win in 2012? Polls say yes. But we need a five to ten point polling advantage to win at the ballot box. When you ask people their views on marriage equality, about five percent flat out lie, telling pollsters they approve, but voting against us in the privacy of their booth. Bastards!
Oh! I have an idea.
Let’s get the signatures and put a repeal on the ballot.
Then, we’ll do next to nothing but make a big stink in the press and force all the Mormons to spend tens of millions of dollars bashing us.
With luck, we’ll win just on demographic changes. If we lose, it just reinforces our lack of political power to the courts. (Oh my. A tennis woman is being hauled off on a stretcher in hysterical tears! Gender stereotypes vindicated once again.) Anyway, we can just repeat the process every year until we win. As long as we don’t spend money or exhaust ourselves campaigning we have nothing to lose, and we can drain the opposition.
Meanwhile, here’s an interesting marriage development I read on Lisa Keen’s news service.
Turns out you have to have Congressional approval to spend taxpayer funds on things like, um, outside legal counsel. As you know, the House Republicans have signed famed appellate lawyer Paul Clement to a $500,000 contract to champion the Defense of Marriage Act on their behalf.
Speaker Boehner arranged this by nominating a “bi-partisan” five-member committee, which promptly took a 3-2 “bi-partisan” vote in favor of hiring outside counsel. No other member of Congress was obliged to weigh in on the sticky question of whether to spend money on this antigay crusade, and apparently that means the funds are not authorized and cannot legally be used for this nefarious purpose.
I would love to see the House Republicans forced into a divisive vote on whether or not to pay Clement’s salary. Plus, consider that the $500,000 is a limit, which can be increased under the contract. Given that there are up to a dozen DOMA cases of one sort or another, Clement and company are sure to hit the DOMA ceiling in no time at all. Would Congress have to take another vote on the extra funds?
Interesting that the DOMA defense, at least in its initial stage, costs the same as Newt Gingrich’s Tiffany bills.
--
Let’s Not Be Schmucks
Finally, did any of you read the New York Times op-ed by a gay writer who pompously announced that he would no longer attend his straight friends’ weddings and urged us all to follow suit?
Rich Benjamin implied (with no evidence whatsoever) that straight couples are oblivious to our love and see our fight for marriage as a play for political and financial advancement. Then, bizarrely, he compared attending a straight wedding to a “vegan going to a summer pig roast” or an evangelical “crashing a couple-swapping party.”
Say what? Since when are our goals antithetical to those of our straight friends? Since when are our allies our enemies? I don’t mind pledging not to go to the weddings of straight people who hate gays and oppose marriage equality. But that’s not what Benjamin suggests. He’s dissing his college roommate!
Indeed, anyone who would turn their back on a friend and skip a wedding in a fit of political pique deserves to have their motivations questioned. And the notion that any the rest of us would follow his mean-spirited and petulant example is misplaced.
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
States of Play
News for the Week Ended May 18, 2011
BY ANN ROSTOW
States of Play
I have come to the reluctant conclusion that state legislative news cannot be avoided this week. First, there’s not a great deal of exciting alternative topics. Second, it looks like things are happening around the states that might actually be somewhat important.
In Minnesota this week, we will probably see an anti-marriage constitutional amendment placed on the 2012 ballot. A house committee sent it to a floor vote with a 13-12 margin of approval, and since the session ends Monday, the chamber will probably take a vote in the next few days. I gather from some article that I don’t feel like looking up that we would need three more votes to defeat the measure. If not, the die is cast, since the senate already advanced the pernicious amendment earlier this month.
The good news is there are not a whole lot of states that are likely to hold anti-gay amendment elections of the sort that rolled over the country over the last decade. Most have already voted, about 30 or so. Then we have about a dozen friendly states, Massachusetts and Vermont, etc.. And that leaves only a handful unaccounted for. Indiana is one of these outliers, but there, lawmakers have to pass an amendment in two consecutive sessions, so the Hoosiers are looking to 2014 at the earliest. And over in North Carolina, lawmakers need to win a 60 percent majority in order to advance constitutional measures, so it’s possible they could hit that bar but I’m not sure that they will.
In 2010, North Carolina, Indiana and Minnesota lost the Democratic majorities that had previously blocked amendments. And as soon as Republicans gained control, the urge to preclude same-sex marriage rose through their loins like a Viagra overdose. So here we are.
Did you know that one out of every 200 men in the world are related to Genghis Kahn?
I’m not sure that’s true, but I have decided to splice my column with interesting tidbits from cable TV news.
--
New York State of Mind
Returning to our main subject, the gay Speaker of the Rhode Island house, Gordon Fox, is under fire for dropping the attempt to pass marriage equality and embracing a civil union bill instead. No one is happy with the pragmatic political compromise. Gay activists call it a half measure, and of course the anti-gay crowd don’t like anything that recognizes same-sex couples, and would probably vote against a bill that gave us the right to get a joint account at Home Depot.
Yet arguably, Fox was left with little choice when it became clear a couple weeks back that the votes weren’t there for marriage equality. The GOP head of the senate, who opposed marriage, has said that she would support civil unions, so it looks like the civil union bill will pass. I think it gets a house vote on Thursday and then goes to the senate.
I really hate to write about New York, one of the states that burned me the last time they were on the verge of passing marriage equality (for weeks and weeks) before finally tossing the measure in history’s dustbin of rejected legislation.
I must have written fifty updates on the ins and outs of Albany politics at the time. You may remember that a Democratic senator switched parties at one point, throwing the leadership to the Republicans. Then all the other Democrats refused to come to work. A bunch of lawmakers were locked out. The party switcher switched back. Someone else was indicted for attacking his girlfriend with a broken glass. Another guy was drowning in corruption charges. I forget all the details.
Suffice to say that I vowed never again to fall in love with the New York legislature, no matter how many roses or bottles of Champagne they sent my way. And when the Republicans took back control last November, I figured marriage was out of reach for the next two years, regardless of any optimistic statements to the contrary.
So I’ve been ignoring the money pouring in to the fight for marriage. I blew off the interesting Times article about support for marriage equality from deep-pocketed GOP donors. I deleted the endless emails about famous celebrities coming out for equality in HRC’s statewide media campaign. I rolled my eyes at Governor Cuomo’s commitment and Mayor Bloomberg’s upstate lobbying trip.
And yet. Over the last month or so, a little spark of hope has started to blossom in my heart. It’s not a flame quite yet, but I can’t help thinking that we might win over more New York Republican senators than I would have thought possible a year or so ago. After all, the majority of New Yorkers support marriage, and the state effectively recognizes marriages from its New England neighbors. Would it really be that hard for the state senate to find the half-dozen votes it needs to make our dreams come true?
The 2011 session ends on June 20, and I have to assume a just-introduced marriage equality bill will pass the assembly this year, simply because the assembly has passed a marriage bill three times in the past. So the question is, what will the senate do if and when an equality bill is introduced in the upper chamber? Governor Cuomo has suggested to the press that he does not want to see the senate take a vote unless victory is assured, so we’ll see, won’t we?
Sing with me. Whenever you call me, I’ll be there. Whenever you want me, I’ll be there.
--
Victory For Same-Sex Bankruptcy
In related New York news, a federal judge in New York’s southern district has decided to finesse the Defense of Marriage Act and allow two women to file joint bankruptcy. The women were married in Vermont, and although federal law would technically require them to untangle their assets and file separately, the fact is that virtually all their finances and debts are co-owned.
I read about the case on New York Law School professor Art Leonard’s blog, the source of many under-reported gay legal cases, and talk about under the radar, I could only find two other references to the ruling, which was announced May 13.
The story is significant because federal courts are not in the habit of ignoring the clear meaning of federal law. And DOMA is pretty clear, as you well know. Section three defines marriage for all federal purposes as a union of one man and one woman, so there’s not a lot of leeway in the text.
So what we have here is yet another example of the impact of President Obama’s February decision to treat sexual orientation as a constitutionally protected status. That decision led the administration to abandon its defense of DOMA in court, although Attorney General Eric Holder insisted that everyone would follow the law until a court ruled it unconstitutional down the road.
Um, well. That tightrope now seems more difficult to navigate than one would think. We have seen government officials back down in several deportation cases involving bi-national couples, taking a wait and see approach rather than expel the foreign spouse of a gay American under these circumstances.
Now, we have a federal judge, who writes that were it not for DOMA, the women would qualify for a joint bankruptcy. “In this case,” she continues, “the United States Trustee… appears to defend the law and yet has offered nothing more than a restatement of the language of DOMA. The mere existence of DOMA is not sufficient to remove the duty imposed on this Court by sec. 707(a) to find 'cause' prior to dismissing the case.”
Citing the “extenuating circumstances” of the Obama administration’s new stance on DOMA, as well as the cumbersome costs and time involved in separating the women’s claims, the judge rejected the government’s motion to apply DOMA to the case.
The judge did not delve into DOMA’s constitutional status, but her ruling adds to the growing sense that the law will not survive the myriad challenges it now faces in federal courts around the country.
It also illustrates the complexity of the litigation faced by Republicans in the House of Representatives in their efforts to defend the law. Bankruptcy law over here. Immigration law over there. Federal benefits in one case. Estate tax issues in another. The list goes on, and as you know, the legal burden now rests on the shoulders of famed appellate lawyer Paul Clement and a small team of conservative partners hired by the House to champion their anti-gay cause.
Here, for example, Clement and company will probably be obliged to appeal the ruling in order to bolster DOMA’s status. Meanwhile, they are facing deadlines in two cases before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, one in trial court in New York, another in Connecticut, two in California, plus all the deportation cases. Plus all the cases I can’t name off the top of my head and all the cases that will surely be filed in coming months.
Interesting, don’t you think?
--
Catholic Tastes
Someone has submitted a “prayer request” to a Catholic church in Florida for Osama Bin Laden. Hmmm. I suppose it would be churlish to put the terrorist maniac on a “no pray” list. But then again, I wouldn’t be praying very hard, would you? Call us churlish!
Oh, and speaking of Catholics, a 300-page, five-year $1.8 million dollar investigation into the root causes of sex abuse by Catholic priests blames the phenomenon on the changing sexual mores of the 1960s and 70s. Really? How come other subgroups went through the period without resorting to groping and rape? I don’t remember the denizens of Haight Ashbury seducing children, do you?
Let me look up the details.
Turns out the report was commissioned by the Church itself, and researched at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York. I guess it makes sense now that I read more details.
The researchers found that abuse spiked in the freewheeling sixties and seventies as ill-equipped priests found themselves unable to handle the sexual revolution. Gay priests were no more likely to abuse kids than heterosexual priests, said the researchers. And many cases of male on male abuse were based on the proximity of young boys rather than the sexual orientation of the abuser.
Most of the abuse was focused on people over the age of ten, which frankly doesn’t say much. Why on Earth would anyone pick “ten” as a cutoff age for this kind of analysis?
I’m not sure why celibacy was ruled out as a contributing factor. I’ve only read reports about the report. And the researchers blamed the decades-long cover up on the tendency for large institutions to avoid scandal and controversy. The Catholic Church, said researchers, had their own version of the “thin blue line” that protects police officers from accusations of brutality.
Well, whatever. I’m sure this story will have legs for awhile as everyone starts to scour the details.
--
J’Accuse!
And now, I don’t know whether to end with Newt Gingrich or Dominique Strauss-Kahn. The chubby egotist, or the louche, and possibly violent, financier? Maybe we’ll have room for both.
There’s something particularly offensive about true narcissists in the public square. Everyone is talking about Newt’s bungled performance on Meet The Press when he seemed to criticize his “very close friend” Paul Ryan and support an individual health care mandate. Oops! And in gay news, Newt was also the victim of a glitter attack by a gay activist who sprinkled him and Callista during a book signing.
But what really gets me about Newt is this half-million dollar line of credit at Tiffany’s, which was revealed in one of Callista’s financial statements. It’s not clear whether this is an unpaid obligation or a revolving loan. But what is clear is that it never occurred to Newt that his ongoing business relationship with Tiffany & Co. might become public and that an electorate in the middle of an economic recovery and a Republican party obsessed with fiscal restraint might find his bling habit alarming.
Half a million dollars in jewelry purchases? And this is the man who actually thinks he could win the presidential nomination of a party that is prepared to put an end to medical subsidies for seniors in order to balance the budget?
As for DSK, I suppose I was truly shocked by the outraged pronouncements of people like Bernard-Henri Levy and Ben Stein, pompously wondering aloud why a man of Strauss-Kahn’s stature should be arrested in public, arraigned with common criminals and jailed on Riker’s Island as if, as if, I guess as if he’d been charged with rape. As for Strauss-Kahn himself, if found guilty I’d like to seem him tossed into the general population of some horrible American federal prison. Wouldn’t you?
Two egos, each the size of the Hindenburg and perhaps heading for the same fate.
--
arostow@aol.com
BY ANN ROSTOW
States of Play
I have come to the reluctant conclusion that state legislative news cannot be avoided this week. First, there’s not a great deal of exciting alternative topics. Second, it looks like things are happening around the states that might actually be somewhat important.
In Minnesota this week, we will probably see an anti-marriage constitutional amendment placed on the 2012 ballot. A house committee sent it to a floor vote with a 13-12 margin of approval, and since the session ends Monday, the chamber will probably take a vote in the next few days. I gather from some article that I don’t feel like looking up that we would need three more votes to defeat the measure. If not, the die is cast, since the senate already advanced the pernicious amendment earlier this month.
The good news is there are not a whole lot of states that are likely to hold anti-gay amendment elections of the sort that rolled over the country over the last decade. Most have already voted, about 30 or so. Then we have about a dozen friendly states, Massachusetts and Vermont, etc.. And that leaves only a handful unaccounted for. Indiana is one of these outliers, but there, lawmakers have to pass an amendment in two consecutive sessions, so the Hoosiers are looking to 2014 at the earliest. And over in North Carolina, lawmakers need to win a 60 percent majority in order to advance constitutional measures, so it’s possible they could hit that bar but I’m not sure that they will.
In 2010, North Carolina, Indiana and Minnesota lost the Democratic majorities that had previously blocked amendments. And as soon as Republicans gained control, the urge to preclude same-sex marriage rose through their loins like a Viagra overdose. So here we are.
Did you know that one out of every 200 men in the world are related to Genghis Kahn?
I’m not sure that’s true, but I have decided to splice my column with interesting tidbits from cable TV news.
--
New York State of Mind
Returning to our main subject, the gay Speaker of the Rhode Island house, Gordon Fox, is under fire for dropping the attempt to pass marriage equality and embracing a civil union bill instead. No one is happy with the pragmatic political compromise. Gay activists call it a half measure, and of course the anti-gay crowd don’t like anything that recognizes same-sex couples, and would probably vote against a bill that gave us the right to get a joint account at Home Depot.
Yet arguably, Fox was left with little choice when it became clear a couple weeks back that the votes weren’t there for marriage equality. The GOP head of the senate, who opposed marriage, has said that she would support civil unions, so it looks like the civil union bill will pass. I think it gets a house vote on Thursday and then goes to the senate.
I really hate to write about New York, one of the states that burned me the last time they were on the verge of passing marriage equality (for weeks and weeks) before finally tossing the measure in history’s dustbin of rejected legislation.
I must have written fifty updates on the ins and outs of Albany politics at the time. You may remember that a Democratic senator switched parties at one point, throwing the leadership to the Republicans. Then all the other Democrats refused to come to work. A bunch of lawmakers were locked out. The party switcher switched back. Someone else was indicted for attacking his girlfriend with a broken glass. Another guy was drowning in corruption charges. I forget all the details.
Suffice to say that I vowed never again to fall in love with the New York legislature, no matter how many roses or bottles of Champagne they sent my way. And when the Republicans took back control last November, I figured marriage was out of reach for the next two years, regardless of any optimistic statements to the contrary.
So I’ve been ignoring the money pouring in to the fight for marriage. I blew off the interesting Times article about support for marriage equality from deep-pocketed GOP donors. I deleted the endless emails about famous celebrities coming out for equality in HRC’s statewide media campaign. I rolled my eyes at Governor Cuomo’s commitment and Mayor Bloomberg’s upstate lobbying trip.
And yet. Over the last month or so, a little spark of hope has started to blossom in my heart. It’s not a flame quite yet, but I can’t help thinking that we might win over more New York Republican senators than I would have thought possible a year or so ago. After all, the majority of New Yorkers support marriage, and the state effectively recognizes marriages from its New England neighbors. Would it really be that hard for the state senate to find the half-dozen votes it needs to make our dreams come true?
The 2011 session ends on June 20, and I have to assume a just-introduced marriage equality bill will pass the assembly this year, simply because the assembly has passed a marriage bill three times in the past. So the question is, what will the senate do if and when an equality bill is introduced in the upper chamber? Governor Cuomo has suggested to the press that he does not want to see the senate take a vote unless victory is assured, so we’ll see, won’t we?
Sing with me. Whenever you call me, I’ll be there. Whenever you want me, I’ll be there.
--
Victory For Same-Sex Bankruptcy
In related New York news, a federal judge in New York’s southern district has decided to finesse the Defense of Marriage Act and allow two women to file joint bankruptcy. The women were married in Vermont, and although federal law would technically require them to untangle their assets and file separately, the fact is that virtually all their finances and debts are co-owned.
I read about the case on New York Law School professor Art Leonard’s blog, the source of many under-reported gay legal cases, and talk about under the radar, I could only find two other references to the ruling, which was announced May 13.
The story is significant because federal courts are not in the habit of ignoring the clear meaning of federal law. And DOMA is pretty clear, as you well know. Section three defines marriage for all federal purposes as a union of one man and one woman, so there’s not a lot of leeway in the text.
So what we have here is yet another example of the impact of President Obama’s February decision to treat sexual orientation as a constitutionally protected status. That decision led the administration to abandon its defense of DOMA in court, although Attorney General Eric Holder insisted that everyone would follow the law until a court ruled it unconstitutional down the road.
Um, well. That tightrope now seems more difficult to navigate than one would think. We have seen government officials back down in several deportation cases involving bi-national couples, taking a wait and see approach rather than expel the foreign spouse of a gay American under these circumstances.
Now, we have a federal judge, who writes that were it not for DOMA, the women would qualify for a joint bankruptcy. “In this case,” she continues, “the United States Trustee… appears to defend the law and yet has offered nothing more than a restatement of the language of DOMA. The mere existence of DOMA is not sufficient to remove the duty imposed on this Court by sec. 707(a) to find 'cause' prior to dismissing the case.”
Citing the “extenuating circumstances” of the Obama administration’s new stance on DOMA, as well as the cumbersome costs and time involved in separating the women’s claims, the judge rejected the government’s motion to apply DOMA to the case.
The judge did not delve into DOMA’s constitutional status, but her ruling adds to the growing sense that the law will not survive the myriad challenges it now faces in federal courts around the country.
It also illustrates the complexity of the litigation faced by Republicans in the House of Representatives in their efforts to defend the law. Bankruptcy law over here. Immigration law over there. Federal benefits in one case. Estate tax issues in another. The list goes on, and as you know, the legal burden now rests on the shoulders of famed appellate lawyer Paul Clement and a small team of conservative partners hired by the House to champion their anti-gay cause.
Here, for example, Clement and company will probably be obliged to appeal the ruling in order to bolster DOMA’s status. Meanwhile, they are facing deadlines in two cases before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, one in trial court in New York, another in Connecticut, two in California, plus all the deportation cases. Plus all the cases I can’t name off the top of my head and all the cases that will surely be filed in coming months.
Interesting, don’t you think?
--
Catholic Tastes
Someone has submitted a “prayer request” to a Catholic church in Florida for Osama Bin Laden. Hmmm. I suppose it would be churlish to put the terrorist maniac on a “no pray” list. But then again, I wouldn’t be praying very hard, would you? Call us churlish!
Oh, and speaking of Catholics, a 300-page, five-year $1.8 million dollar investigation into the root causes of sex abuse by Catholic priests blames the phenomenon on the changing sexual mores of the 1960s and 70s. Really? How come other subgroups went through the period without resorting to groping and rape? I don’t remember the denizens of Haight Ashbury seducing children, do you?
Let me look up the details.
Turns out the report was commissioned by the Church itself, and researched at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York. I guess it makes sense now that I read more details.
The researchers found that abuse spiked in the freewheeling sixties and seventies as ill-equipped priests found themselves unable to handle the sexual revolution. Gay priests were no more likely to abuse kids than heterosexual priests, said the researchers. And many cases of male on male abuse were based on the proximity of young boys rather than the sexual orientation of the abuser.
Most of the abuse was focused on people over the age of ten, which frankly doesn’t say much. Why on Earth would anyone pick “ten” as a cutoff age for this kind of analysis?
I’m not sure why celibacy was ruled out as a contributing factor. I’ve only read reports about the report. And the researchers blamed the decades-long cover up on the tendency for large institutions to avoid scandal and controversy. The Catholic Church, said researchers, had their own version of the “thin blue line” that protects police officers from accusations of brutality.
Well, whatever. I’m sure this story will have legs for awhile as everyone starts to scour the details.
--
J’Accuse!
And now, I don’t know whether to end with Newt Gingrich or Dominique Strauss-Kahn. The chubby egotist, or the louche, and possibly violent, financier? Maybe we’ll have room for both.
There’s something particularly offensive about true narcissists in the public square. Everyone is talking about Newt’s bungled performance on Meet The Press when he seemed to criticize his “very close friend” Paul Ryan and support an individual health care mandate. Oops! And in gay news, Newt was also the victim of a glitter attack by a gay activist who sprinkled him and Callista during a book signing.
But what really gets me about Newt is this half-million dollar line of credit at Tiffany’s, which was revealed in one of Callista’s financial statements. It’s not clear whether this is an unpaid obligation or a revolving loan. But what is clear is that it never occurred to Newt that his ongoing business relationship with Tiffany & Co. might become public and that an electorate in the middle of an economic recovery and a Republican party obsessed with fiscal restraint might find his bling habit alarming.
Half a million dollars in jewelry purchases? And this is the man who actually thinks he could win the presidential nomination of a party that is prepared to put an end to medical subsidies for seniors in order to balance the budget?
As for DSK, I suppose I was truly shocked by the outraged pronouncements of people like Bernard-Henri Levy and Ben Stein, pompously wondering aloud why a man of Strauss-Kahn’s stature should be arrested in public, arraigned with common criminals and jailed on Riker’s Island as if, as if, I guess as if he’d been charged with rape. As for Strauss-Kahn himself, if found guilty I’d like to seem him tossed into the general population of some horrible American federal prison. Wouldn’t you?
Two egos, each the size of the Hindenburg and perhaps heading for the same fate.
--
arostow@aol.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)