Hoosier Daddy!
How on earth did I miss this classic Craigslist scandalabra last week? The one starring the conservative Catholic Indiana state legislator who answered an ad on the men-to-men section seeking a sugar daddy?
This one has it all. The sleazy sex for sale. The hypocritical antigay family man. The holier than thou man of God getting some sin on the side. The arrogant politician so careless that he replies to a sex ad with his own name. I mean honestly!
And the final, almost poignant, absurdity is that this 64-year-old white haired husband and father of two described himself as an “in-shape” and “fit” “married professional” who “loves getting and staying naked.” But the 20-year-old hooker wannabe who met Rep. Phillip Hinkle at an Indianapolis hotel later said he was taken aback by the sight of the lawmaker, who looked “really old.”
Whatever the reason, once inside the hotel room, sugar baby Kameryn Gibson chickened out of sex and called his sister for a ride home. At this, Hinkle allegedly grabbed Gibson’s ass and exposed himself, demanding that Gibson follow through on their email agreement, a contract for $80 plus a possible tip “for a really good time.”
According to the Indianapolis Star, Kameryn’s sister Megan arrived and threatened to expose Hinkle. The lawmaker quickly offered up his smartphone, his ipad and $100 in cash in exchange for silence.
The brother and sister left the hotel room, at which point Hinkle’s wife called the phone and Megan answered, spilling the beans. Megan proceeded to chat with an array of family members who called Hinkle’s phone demanding explanations and proof. After dropping off her brother, Megan went to meet Hinkle’s daughter to show her the emails and the phone and ipad. She even answered a call from Hinkle himself, and informed him that she had just told his wife and entire family all the details.
“You just ruined me,” he replied.
I must say that while Hinkle deserved his fate, Megan doesn’t seem like a very nice person herself. I hope her fifteen minutes of fame flash by and do not come accompanied by dollar signs.
As for young Kameryn, he later told the press that he was prompted to go public by the sheer audacity of a 60-something antigay lawmaker arranging a sex date with a stranger who purported to be a teenager. (Gambling at Rick’s Place? We are shocked, shocked!) In addition to voting in favor of an anti-marriage constitutional amendment this session, Hinkle also sponsored a bill to allow vanity license plates with the slogan “in God we trust.” Indeed, we trust that God’s got quite a sense of humor at times like these.
Sometimes, these conservative closet cases wind up rejuvenated by their public humiliation. Perhaps Mr. Hinkle will apologize to his wife and kids and start campaigning for GLBT rights. Variations on that theme have happened before.
--
Isn’t That Special?
Speaking of same-sex marriage, I see that North Carolina lawmakers will consider an antigay amendment during a special session next month after Republicans took control of the legislature last year. It was Republicans taking over Indiana that allowed Hinkle and company to pass an anti-gay amendment last session, but there, state law requires that an amendment must pass two successively elected legislatures so we have another chance. Maybe Hinkle will come around and convince all his GOP colleagues to vote no next time.
In North Carolina, lawmakers will have to amass a 60 percent supermajority in order to advance an amendment to the 2012 ballot. I was reading some article about our efforts to fight the amendment, when I was struck by the familiar refrain about how an amendment to ban marriage is “unnecessary” because state law already bans same-sex marriage.
This drives me up the wall for two reasons. First, do gay activists believe that a ban on same-sex marriage would become “necessary” in the absence of a statute to that effect? Of course not. So don’t say it.
Second, the entire premise is a lie. If you are opposed to same-sex marriage, a statute does nothing to prevent the state supreme court from legalizing marriage equality. Only a constitutional amendment can save you from the nightmare of same-sex weddings, so yes, an amendment is in fact “necessary.”
Hey, I’m all in favor of clever campaign tactics and slogans. But this is not clever. Everyone knows that an amendment is required to make sure same-sex marriage is permanently outlawed, so we just look disingenuous for trying to pretend that the existing code is sufficient. I also hate the line about how the legislature should have “better things to do” or “more important problems to deal with.” You know why I hate that line? Because it is often used to delay or finesse work on gay rights measures and because it wrongly implies that lawmaking is a linear process that works its way neatly down a list of high priorities.
Oh. Having said all that, here’s the actual quote that set me off, from the head of the Campaign for Southern Equality, Jasmine Beach-Ferrara: “Because North Carolina currently bans (same-sex) marriage, this amendment would be redundant, and we want to see our representatives working on issues that matter, like jobs and the economy, not on this redundant legislation.”
Hello? The truth is that we oppose this amendment because we are in favor of marriage equality and we want to see same-sex marriage one day legalized in North Carolina.
And there is no reason why we cannot make this argument. The year is 2011. It is not 1996 or 2000, or even 2004. We no longer have to pretend that “ho hum, we really don’t care about marriage rights. We just want to be, um, treated fairly.” We do care about marriage rights!
I’m not saying that this truth will win us any elections in North Carolina anytime soon. But neither will the ridiculous campaign strategies that have led us to defeat after defeat. And at least we’ll get credit for fighting for what we believe rather than throwing sophistries at the wall and hoping something sticks.
--
A Dog’s Life
I think, by the way, that Oregon activists might be trying to put a positive amendment on the 2012 ballot that would undo the current constitutional ban on marriage equality. That would be a refreshing electoral twist. Likewise, we are collecting names for a similar 2012 ballot measure in Maine, which would ask voters to approve marriage equality by statute. You remember that the Maine legislature legalized same-sex marriage in a bill that was signed by their former governor in 2009 and repealed by voters that same year before it could take effect. That was a narrow, but crushing defeat, so a victory in the Blueberry State would taste especially sweet.
While I was reading about that Oregon story, I noticed that two people died in their hot tub in their backyard in Portland, or maybe Salem. The water temperature was 110 and they may have passed out or something. Anyway, they both drowned. Isn’t that horrible?
I also paused to watch a Youtube video of a bulldog who can surf in the ocean and snowboard down the bunny slopes. This dog looked as if he was having so much fun that it made me feel badly as a dog owner myself. My dogs enjoy eating and sleeping and being petted. But there is nothing truly thrilling in their lives and they have no sports or hobbies. Is this my fault?
According to the video, the bulldog was given surfing lessons. Should I be providing my pugs with professional training in soccer or roller-skating or helping them develop some other entertaining canine skills? Could I teach them to read or cook?
Oh, and before I return to GLBT news, I just read that Gerard Depardieu was really drunk on a plane the other day and was trying to get out of his seat to go to the lavatory just before takeoff. The flight attendant told him to stay put, so he stood up and urinated on the floor of the plane. The plane was then delayed for two hours while the obnoxious actor and two of his traveling companions were ejected, along with their luggage. The flight was a City Jet from Paris to Dublin.
I saw a recent photo of Depardieu attached to this item and he has put on a hundred pounds in the last decade. De toute façon, il est gonflé ce mec.
--
Gay Power!
I don’t know how to put an acute accent on the “e” in “gonflé,” but while I was trying different things to solve that problem, I discovered “π.” That’s handy, don’t you think? And how about “∆©ƒ∂ç®´ß´œ?” ≤≥,” or “¬“‘≠–ºª•¶§§∞¢£™¡?” It’s like swearing in an extraterrestrial language. That said, I still can’t figure out the accented “e.” I am told you hold down the alt key and hit the number 130. But all that does is give me: “¡£º.”
It’s ®†¥¨•¶ªing frustrating. (I eventually discovered the secret.)
So yesterday I read a 50-something page legal brief by our friend Mr. Clement, the attorney who has been hired by the House Republicans to defend the Defense of Marriage Act in federal court.
Oh, my little pug is crying! She’s in the other room crying in her sleep because she has itchy skin. What a bad mistress I am. Maybe I’ll fix her a poached egg and teach her how to play the piano. I’ll make a pair of gloves that fit over her paws with attachments that can be used to make simple chords. Then I’ll fashion a special bench with stairs so she can reach the keyboard when I’m away.
She loves poached eggs.
As you may have surmised, I’m not really in the mood to talk about Clement’s brief in the Pedersen case. Pedersen is a lawsuit filed in federal court in Connecticut by the Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) on behalf of several couples and gay individuals who have been stymied by DOMA.
Much of the anti-gay filing concerned whether or not claims of sexual orientation discrimination should be subjected to added legal scrutiny, and to no one’s surprise, Clement and company think the answer to that question is no.
Gays do not have a lengthy history of discrimination. They may or may not be able to contribute to society, but when it comes to marriage, they contribute nothing. They enjoy tremendous political power, and their characteristic is nothing more than a lifestyle choice. To be honest, I quit reading at some point during the argument about political power so I’m only guessing that Clement did not think being gay or lesbian was an immutable characteristic.
Anyway, the newsworthy element is less in the text of the brief and more in the slow but steady progress of our various court cases. I won’t repeat the status of each piece of DOMA litigation. But this particular case, like the case of Edie Windsor in New York, will eventually be decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which has never ruled on the question of whether sexual orientation bias should be subjected to heightened legal scrutiny. That’s why these two cases are especially interesting.
--
Russell, We Hardly Knew You
Well, I seem to have run out of space before I could tell you about some guy I’ve never heard of who went on a homophobic rant and had to apologize to all of us, Adam Carolla? I had two Corollas and loved them both, along with my convertible Celica, may she rest in peace. I saw a white 1996 Celica in a CVS parking lot in Kansas City last week and went over and put my arms around it and kissed its little black ragtop. Mine was a 1997, but Toyota stopped making them for some unholy reason. The woman who owned the car was very gracious about the whole emotional breakdown.
And in other gay news about people I’ve never heard of, a man who committed suicide last week, Russell Armstrong, may have done so because he was gay or bisexual. Sorry, but I think you’ve got to have psychic burdens beyond your membership in our vibrant yet sometimes persecuted community in order to take your own life. Armstrong, I learned, was the husband of one of the reality TV housewives of Beverly Hills. Farewell, Russell.
--
Thursday, August 18, 2011
Beaver State Takes a Lickin’
News for the Week Ended August 10, 2011
BY ANN ROSTOW
Beaver State Takes a Lickin’
Well this has been a dismal week for First World economies, has it not? I am indeed thankful that my official topic is GLBTLMNOP news and not the global financial markets.
It’s not been that great a week for gay news either, but that’s only because it’s slow, not because the news is bad. There was one important development, however, a widely expected ruling in our favor out of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
The long running case pits transgendered inmates against the state of Wisconsin, which refused, as a matter of state law, to allow transitioning inmates to continue their hormone treatments while in prison.
Under the 2005 Sex Change Prevention Act (I kid you not) Wisconsin became the only state in the country to deny medical treatment to incarcerated transgendered men and women. The law was passed after a trans inmate sued the state, demanding that Wisconsin pay for surgery. But in addition to banning sex change surgery, it banned all other treatments, endangering the health of transitioning inmates out of sheer spite and ignorance.
Three other transwomen sued the state in 2006 and won an injunction that kept their treatments in place while the litigation made its way through federal court. Last year, Judge Charles Clevert struck down the state law in a decision that was upheld by the Seventh Circuit last Friday. One would assume that the Union Busting State would leave it at that, but if they really want to make a name for themselves they can appeal to the entire Seventh Circuit, or to the Supreme Court.
Too bad Wisconsin voters couldn’t manage to strip the GOP of their hold on the legislature on Tuesday.
--
Bringing In the Bacon
So, I was just searching for something interesting to write about when I stumbled over a controversy at Whole Foods, where some Islamaphobes got bent out of shape by the grocery chain’s Ramadan marketing campaign. The story took another twist when someone leaked an internal Whole Foods memo that appeared to distance the company from the entire promotion.
“It’s probably best that we don’t specifically call out or ‘promote’ Ramadan…” wrote a mystery executive. Whole Foods later explained that the email was not company policy and reflected the view of just one individual. So Ramadan is on!
Can you explain why a grocery store would want to promote a fasting holiday? Just asking. Yes, I know that people eat during Ramadan. I found this story, by the way, when I tried to click on “odd way to cook with bacon” and ended up linking to the Ramadan story instead. When I emerged from the business with Ramadan, I could no longer find “odd way to cook with bacon,” since it was one of those scrolling AOL headlines that came and went.
I was interested only because I can’t imagine what you could do with bacon that would be considered “odd.” Well, I suppose I can dream up some unusual applications for bacon, but not in terms of cooking.
--
No Donuts!
Moving right along, there was a story out of DC, where five lesbians were assaulted outside a nightclub on July 30 and police did nothing about it. According to the Washington Blade, the women were walking along 14th Street at some early hour of the morning when a couple of guys tried to flirt with them.
(Sing with me:“A couple of hours before dawn. When the streets belong to the cops. And the janitors with the mops. And the glow of the streetlights shining, fills the gutters with gold.”)
At any rate, the women rejected the advances, and one of them indicated that she and one of her friends were together. This enraged the men who attacked the women, punching them in the face and stomach while reportedly calling them: “dyke bitches.”
Four police cars arrived and at least seven officers went to the scene. There, they questioned one of the attackers and astonishingly, let him go. They declined to file a report or do anything at all until days later, when the mother of one of the victims demanded some action.
Speaking to a gay advocacy group, Police Chief Cathy Lanier said the officers were “lazy” and could face disciplinary action or even termination for their indifference. In a statement August 5, Lanier said she was “appalled” by the incident and pledged that the officers’ conduct will be “investigated thoroughly.” According to the Blade, there are also arrest warrants out for the two men, so justice is on the way I suppose.
--
Bay Area Men Fighting Deportation
I also read, with dismay, about a bi-national San Francisco couple who may well be separated by immigration authorities even though the man who is being deported is the caregiver for his disabled husband.
You may also have read or heard about Australian John Makk, who has been ordered to leave the United States by August 25. Makk has lived in this country for years, marrying his husband Bradford Wells in Massachusetts in 2004. Wells, who has AIDS, cannot leave this country without losing his health coverage.
According to the Advocate, Nancy Pelosi is trying to intervene in the case and Immigration Equality will also fight for the men. As you know, we have seen a number of bi-national couples avoid the worst scenarios as sympathetic judges put their cases on hold and government lawyers find ways to avoid deportation without directly violating the Defense of Marriage Act.
The Obama administration has pledged to “enforce” the Defense of Marriage Act, even as the administration has argued passionately against DOMA in federal court. In immigration cases, however, the Justice Department has suggested that officials focus their energies on criminals and other bad guys, and by implication, leave the otherwise law-abiding gay and lesbian couples alone. A last minute reprieve for Makk and Wells would be in keeping with this policy.
--
Meet Me in Manhattan
You know what? This is kind of a bad news week for gays and lesbians. Listen to this one. Lambda Legal is going to bat for a woman who was harassed and ridiculed for her gender-bending looks at a Sizzler in Queens last fall. According to Lambda’s complaint, Lisa Friedlander and her two friends experienced the Brunch From Hell at her local Sizzler one Saturday morning in September of 2010.
Friedlander, her roommate and another friend went to the restaurant, paid for the brunch buffet, and picked a table. But as Lisa was helping herself, a Sizzler employee emerged from the back and started screaming at her, calling her names, roughing her up and accusing her of not paying for the buffet. The tirade got the attention of a couple of other diners, who jumped in with their own insults, calling Lisa a“he-she,” a “fucking dyke” and even suggesting she come outside for some lessons in heterosexual sex. At one point, the complaint stated, up to ten Sizzler patrons were yelling and screaming, and several were threatening and shoving.
A call to 911 brought police and an ambulance. Lisa spent several hours at the ER recovering from shock and bruises. I’m not sure why it took so long to sue, but I’m guessing previous attempts to talk to the franchise owner were not successful.
Man. I’m thinking I’ll be avoiding Sizzlers in the future, as well as most places of public accommodation in Queens. The employee, or John Doe 1 as we like to call him, was bad enough. But what’s with the other customers? Where do people go to fill up on hate like this? More importantly, why?
--
Napkin Equality
Well speaking of hate, it looks as if we are getting closer and closer to the real fight for the GOP nomination. True, the curtain has yet to rise and the show has yet to start. But we’ve been called to our seats. The little bell has rung and we have been obliged to finish our $7 plastic glasses of sparkling rotgut.
So our friend Rick Santorum was hanging out at an Iowa food store the other day, when he showed the crowd a paper napkin and explained that he could call it a paper towel, but it would always be a paper napkin nonetheless. His point? It had something to do with marriage equality. I think our marriages were the napkins and we were pretending to be towels, or vice versa. You know what? I don’t think we’ll have Rick Santorum to kick around much longer.
So our friend Rick Santorum was hanging out at an Iowa food store the other day, when he showed the crowd a paper napkin and explained that he could call it a paper towel, but it would always be a paper napkin nonetheless. His point? It had something to do with marriage equality. I think our marriages were the napkins and we were pretending to be towels, or vice versa. You know what? I don’t think we’ll have Rick Santorum to kick around much longer.
I think we can assume by now that Sarah Palin will stay out of the arena. Newt Gingrich is hamstrung by his empty bank account, his infidelity, a strange looking wife, an erratic campaign and his inexplicable Tiffany’s bill. And Tim Pawlenty is like a little boy who wants to be President, just because.
Hey, I get it. When I was a child, I wanted to be a CIA agent, or first girl on the moon. As it turned out, those dreams required genuine drive and ambition, the discipline to pass the foreign service exam, a fascination for science, for aviation, for physics and the ability to sacrifice short term desires for long term achievement.
Oh, well. I became a news person instead. But T-Paw seems to be stuck in the schoolyard. And unfortunately for him, the American voter instinctively recognizes, and rejects, the candidate who wants the status of President rather than the power.
As for Jon Huntsman, he’s had a bizarre roll out to his campaign, don’t you think? I thought he’d stake out a fairly large territory of independents and moderate to center Republicans, but he has stalled out of the gate. It was also odd that he embraced the Ryan budget, sending a mixed message.
Michelle Bachmann is Michelle Bachmann, a woman who is running for President to make a point and burnish her tea party credentials, but who has no chance of success and probably knows it.
With apologies to the little guys, it seem as if the Republicans will be faced with a choice between Rick Perry and Mitt Romney. As a loyal Democrat, that selection would normally make my day. But standing on the brink of a possible double dip recession, which could catapult the craziest Republican to the White House, I am concerned.
Earlier this week, Romney signed a five-point anti-gay pledge, promising to support a federal amendment to define marriage in the U.S. constitution. He also pledged to defend DOMA in court, to reverse marriage equality in the District of Columbia (by allowing a public vote), to nominate anti-marriage judges to the federal bench and to establish a commission that would investigate the “discrimination” suffered by antigay activists and politicians.
Perry, meanwhile, has positioned himself not just as holier than thou, but holier than everyone else short of the saints and the apostles.
Either one of these men would be a disaster for the GLBT movement and the country, but of the two I’d take Romney over Perry in a heartbeat. Perry has dropped my state of Texas to the lowest rankings in education, lowest percentage of those with health insurance and the bottom ranks of various other categories that I don’t feel like looking up right now. He’s clever, heartless, lacks vision and seems to be a very able campaigner.
Oh, well. I became a news person instead. But T-Paw seems to be stuck in the schoolyard. And unfortunately for him, the American voter instinctively recognizes, and rejects, the candidate who wants the status of President rather than the power.
As for Jon Huntsman, he’s had a bizarre roll out to his campaign, don’t you think? I thought he’d stake out a fairly large territory of independents and moderate to center Republicans, but he has stalled out of the gate. It was also odd that he embraced the Ryan budget, sending a mixed message.
Michelle Bachmann is Michelle Bachmann, a woman who is running for President to make a point and burnish her tea party credentials, but who has no chance of success and probably knows it.
With apologies to the little guys, it seem as if the Republicans will be faced with a choice between Rick Perry and Mitt Romney. As a loyal Democrat, that selection would normally make my day. But standing on the brink of a possible double dip recession, which could catapult the craziest Republican to the White House, I am concerned.
Earlier this week, Romney signed a five-point anti-gay pledge, promising to support a federal amendment to define marriage in the U.S. constitution. He also pledged to defend DOMA in court, to reverse marriage equality in the District of Columbia (by allowing a public vote), to nominate anti-marriage judges to the federal bench and to establish a commission that would investigate the “discrimination” suffered by antigay activists and politicians.
Perry, meanwhile, has positioned himself not just as holier than thou, but holier than everyone else short of the saints and the apostles.
Either one of these men would be a disaster for the GLBT movement and the country, but of the two I’d take Romney over Perry in a heartbeat. Perry has dropped my state of Texas to the lowest rankings in education, lowest percentage of those with health insurance and the bottom ranks of various other categories that I don’t feel like looking up right now. He’s clever, heartless, lacks vision and seems to be a very able campaigner.
In an effort to lighten my mood, I just googled “fun and gay,” only to find a short porn thing about two guys on a train (which ended before anything graphic took place) and a rambling letter from a 60-something guy with diabetes who was unjustly fired from his trucking job and also broke up with his boyfriend and business partner.
There was also an inane “are you gay?” quiz, and a facebook “discussion” about whether “that’s so gay” is a slur or a harmless expression.
To sum up, there was nothing “fun” about my search, or about this week in general. Happily, a new week starts rights now and I can hear the fun train roaring down the tracks. Choo choo! Chuga chuga chuga.
Wednesday, August 3, 2011
Idiocy Reigns Across The Land
News for the Week Ended August 3, 2011
BY ANN ROSTOW
Idiocy Reigns Across The Land
Here’s the problem with cutting Medicare. Unlike cutting funds for a fighter jet or canceling a research program, even if you take the government’s checkbook out of the picture, the costs of health care will remain and someone will still have to pay for them!
Hello? Seniors will continue to have strokes and heart attacks and they will continue to undergo MRIs and CAT scans and whathaveyou. So taking away Medicare benefits simply transfers the cost of health care onto the seniors themselves and their children (assuming the kids want mom and dad to survive a few more years).
Period. It’s as simple as that.
So, fine. The big bad long-term deficit shrinks a bit. But so does the future economy as health care eats up the savings and income of Americans in all levels of society, particularly the middle class. And even if mom and dad have enough money to pay for their own care, all of that money is cash that their heirs will never see.
What these tea party jokers fail to understand is that the finances of the government and the American people are deeply interrelated. The inane analogy of the family sitting around the table to balance their budget is simplistic to the point of inaccuracy. Deficit spending is not automatically wrong or dangerous for the United States. Sure there are high levels of debt that can lead to instability. But not only are we not at that point, but the healthiest way to improve our ratio of debt to growth is to expand economic growth, something the tea party is deliberately trying to undermine both for political and ideological motives.
They want Obama out of office, and they want “smaller government” without having given the slightest thought as to what that might mean for our country’s future.
Back to health care. Given that we can’t legislate an end to sickness, we have two options. First, lower health care costs, which is exactly what Obama was trying to do in his first two years. Second, raise taxes on wealthy individuals who can afford it. Oh, sorry. I meant raise taxes on the “job creators” because we all know that the only way anyone in this country can earn seven figures or more is to run a small family business with a dozen employees. Yes, that was sarcasm. And for the record, if you do run a business, you normally keep it separate from your individual accounts. For those that don’t, give them a special tax exemption tied to their status as a direct employer.
As I said, I understand why the tea party nutcases went all in on the idea of cutting Medicare. What I don’t understand is why the media and the Democrats didn’t do a better job of explaining their position and challenging the erroneous assumptions of their counterparts. All we heard from both sides were talking points and sound bites and it became surreal.
And by the way. while we were bickering about “what the American people want,” and “saving our grandchildren,” the large percentage of Americans who hold retirement accounts just lost a trillion dollars or more over the space of--- not ten years--- but two weeks. I don’t know the exact number and it’s not entirely due to the debt ceiling debate. But the market crash is at the very least exacerbated by the specter of Washington focusing on a long-term problem and ignoring the short-term growth crisis that threatens to put us back into a recession. Yes, the roof has to be replaced ten years from now. But did you not notice the front door is off its hinges and we have five broken windows?
Sorry for another dumb analogy, but it seems as if we lack the ability to discuss the economy unless we reduce it to platitudes. On a lighter note, why don’t we ever rail against our own grandparents? Let’s blame them for putting us, their grandchildren, into this position. Think how much we could have saved without the interstate highway system or the Cold War or the space program. As for our own grandchildren, when they come into their own they can suck it up and sell a few extra 30-year T-bonds.
--
Balls of Plastic
Oops. I forgot I was writing about the LGBT community. In consideration of my primary topic, I will forgo any discussion of social security, how’s that? But before we dive nose-first into this week’s news barrel, I have the Volokh Conspiracy to thank for an interesting item indeed. According to this legal website, a woman in South Carolina is being prosecuted for sporting a pair of plastic testicles on the back of her car.
According to Palmetto law, the Conspiracy tells us, a driver can be fined for operating “a motor vehicle in this State which has affixed or attached to any part of the motor vehicle which is visible to members of the public not occupying the vehicle any sticker, decal, emblem, or other device containing obscene or indecent words, photographs, or depictions.”
My my my! It seems that the “device” or maybe the “depiction” in question is considered “indecent,” which would mean in this instance that it portrayed a part of the human body in a “patently offensive way” and lacked artistic value to boot.
Fortunately for the driver, the sages at the Conspiracy believe that South Carolina would be hard pressed to defend their plastic testicle policy under settled principles of constitutional law. The Supreme Court has ruled that “vulgarity, with no sexually arousing component,” is protected under the First Amendment, ergo, the naughty accessories dangle well above the reach of the law. We’re all assuming here that the sight of plastic testicles does, in fact, lack a “sexually arousing component,” and here, I can only speak for myself, and perhaps as well for my cohort of lesbian baby boomers.
Finally, although I’m not an advocate for smaller government as a rule, I am all in favor of keeping the meddlesome police state off our bumpers. Unless, of course, something really offensive requires state censorship. I’m thinking University of Oklahoma decals, for example. Or Missouri.
--
Dollywood is So Gay
Speaking of offending people, how about the gay woman who visited Dollywood with her family the other day, where she was ordered to remove a shirt that said: “Marriage is so gay.” Power crazed martinets at the Pigeon Forge Tennessee facility told Olivier Odom to turn her shirt inside out because Dollywood, they claimed, is “a family park.” Odom did as she was told, but she and her partner later wrote to the park asking authorities to expand their dress code to respect gay and lesbian families.
Dollywood replied at once with assurances that everyone is welcome at the park. A few days later, Dolly Parton herself issued a statement to ABC News regretting the incident, pledging further investigation, and insisting that Dollywood’s friendly policies extend to all families, including gay ones.
So that’s that. Still, it seems as if every week there’s another incident of this ilk involving private security guards with nothing better to do than impose their anachronistic personal values on hapless gay or lesbian clients in the name of public protection. Last week it was hand holding in a San Francisco museum. A few weeks earlier, it was a kiss on the cheek at a ballpark. What’s with these pompous wannabe officers? Maybe the companies that hire them out should give them some rules and regulations before they’re unleashed on an unsuspecting crowd.
--
Prop 8 Case Back on Track
I know I have some important legal news. Oh yeah, I almost forgot. The California Supreme Court is going to hear oral arguments in the Prop 8 case on September 6, or around there. I’ll look it up.
As you recall, the California Supremes are going to tell us whether the proponents of Prop 8 would have legal standing under state law to defend their marriage ban against court challenge. This will be nice to know. But considering the Prop 8 case is being heard in federal court, not state court, the California ruling will serve only to provide a tangential legal detail to the federal appellate court.
Once California rules, within three months of next month’s hearing, then the Ninth Circuit panel will continue its own deliberations, which have been stalled for months.
Bay Times legal experts are assuming that the Ninth Circuit believes the question of federal standing turns on the question of state standing. Otherwise, why would they have sent us on this tedious legal detour?
Once the case resumes its trajectory through the federal court system, we will face one of two main outcomes. First, the Ninth Circuit may decide that the Prop 8 people lack standing to appeal their lower court defeat. If that ruling withstands further review, the appellate court would then withdraw their hold on Judge Vaughn Walker’s pro-marriage ruling and Prop 8 would be dead.
Alternatively, if the antigay side has the right to appeal, the Ninth Circuit will continue to consider the merits of the case against Prop 8. Whatever they decide may also be appealed to the full Ninth Circuit, or to the Supreme Court.
And so, on we go. Through next year and into 2013 assuming that everyone appeals every little thing. Hey, we could even have the issue of standing reviewed by the full Ninth Circuit (a year or more) and then have their decision sent to the High Court. Maybe that process will send the case back to the three-judge panel for review on the merits and we could repeat the entire trip back up on appeal. In theory, the case could take five more years!
When approached with this scenario, Bay Times legal experts threw up their hands and requested the cocktail menu.
--
Full Dockets
Meanwhile, our six major Defense of Marriage Act challenges continue apace. It’s not as if they are zinging their way through the courts, but they are all making steady progress and do not seem headed for any major tie-ups. Plus, even if some procedural matter stalls out one of these cases, there are five others trotting along on schedule.
For your review, we have the two Massachusetts cases awaiting arguments before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. We have the Golinski federal partner benefits case pending before a San Francisco federal judge. We have a demand for federal long-term care insurance now in a federal court in Oakland. We have the Edie Windsor estate tax case getting headlines in a federal court in New York. And we have another case pitting several gay and lesbian plaintiffs against DOMA in federal court in Connecticut.
It looks to me as if the Massachusetts cases, which are furthest along, will also be the first to cross the finish line. I would ask the Bay Times legal analysts about this assumption, but they’re all at the bar arguing about the level of bacteria found on lemon rind and whether or not their twists are compromised.
I wonder, however, whether the High Court will deliberately wait until several of these challenges work their way through the appellate levels in order to develop a larger body of legal analysis. That would leave the First Circuit hanging while the Ninth and the Second make up their minds.
It seems you can wash your lemon, shave off the tiniest top layer of rind, make your twist and hope that the alcohol kills any residual microbes. Alternatively, have one strong drink without a twist and then you won’t care one way or another.
Finally, there’s another big gay couples case careening towards a decision in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and I keep ignoring it simply because it’s not an official DOMA or marriage case. But it could be really big.
This is Lambda Legal’s lawsuit against the state of Arizona, where Governor Jan Brewer cut domestic partner benefits for state employees (gay and straight) as a “cost saving” move. A lower court suspended these so-called savings, which actually saved the state next to nothing. Our legal eagles insisted that the faux budget policy was little more than an excuse to discriminate against those partners who could not marry, and a three-judge panel of Democratic appointees heard arguments in February.
That means that a ruling could come down at any time. If we were to win this case, depending on how the opinion is framed, we might have another major pro-gay precedent emerge from the Ninth Circuit. That, of course, would further bolster our legal status in the western states and beyond and be a major cause for celebration. Bring on the cocktails!
BY ANN ROSTOW
Idiocy Reigns Across The Land
Here’s the problem with cutting Medicare. Unlike cutting funds for a fighter jet or canceling a research program, even if you take the government’s checkbook out of the picture, the costs of health care will remain and someone will still have to pay for them!
Hello? Seniors will continue to have strokes and heart attacks and they will continue to undergo MRIs and CAT scans and whathaveyou. So taking away Medicare benefits simply transfers the cost of health care onto the seniors themselves and their children (assuming the kids want mom and dad to survive a few more years).
Period. It’s as simple as that.
So, fine. The big bad long-term deficit shrinks a bit. But so does the future economy as health care eats up the savings and income of Americans in all levels of society, particularly the middle class. And even if mom and dad have enough money to pay for their own care, all of that money is cash that their heirs will never see.
What these tea party jokers fail to understand is that the finances of the government and the American people are deeply interrelated. The inane analogy of the family sitting around the table to balance their budget is simplistic to the point of inaccuracy. Deficit spending is not automatically wrong or dangerous for the United States. Sure there are high levels of debt that can lead to instability. But not only are we not at that point, but the healthiest way to improve our ratio of debt to growth is to expand economic growth, something the tea party is deliberately trying to undermine both for political and ideological motives.
They want Obama out of office, and they want “smaller government” without having given the slightest thought as to what that might mean for our country’s future.
Back to health care. Given that we can’t legislate an end to sickness, we have two options. First, lower health care costs, which is exactly what Obama was trying to do in his first two years. Second, raise taxes on wealthy individuals who can afford it. Oh, sorry. I meant raise taxes on the “job creators” because we all know that the only way anyone in this country can earn seven figures or more is to run a small family business with a dozen employees. Yes, that was sarcasm. And for the record, if you do run a business, you normally keep it separate from your individual accounts. For those that don’t, give them a special tax exemption tied to their status as a direct employer.
As I said, I understand why the tea party nutcases went all in on the idea of cutting Medicare. What I don’t understand is why the media and the Democrats didn’t do a better job of explaining their position and challenging the erroneous assumptions of their counterparts. All we heard from both sides were talking points and sound bites and it became surreal.
And by the way. while we were bickering about “what the American people want,” and “saving our grandchildren,” the large percentage of Americans who hold retirement accounts just lost a trillion dollars or more over the space of--- not ten years--- but two weeks. I don’t know the exact number and it’s not entirely due to the debt ceiling debate. But the market crash is at the very least exacerbated by the specter of Washington focusing on a long-term problem and ignoring the short-term growth crisis that threatens to put us back into a recession. Yes, the roof has to be replaced ten years from now. But did you not notice the front door is off its hinges and we have five broken windows?
Sorry for another dumb analogy, but it seems as if we lack the ability to discuss the economy unless we reduce it to platitudes. On a lighter note, why don’t we ever rail against our own grandparents? Let’s blame them for putting us, their grandchildren, into this position. Think how much we could have saved without the interstate highway system or the Cold War or the space program. As for our own grandchildren, when they come into their own they can suck it up and sell a few extra 30-year T-bonds.
--
Balls of Plastic
Oops. I forgot I was writing about the LGBT community. In consideration of my primary topic, I will forgo any discussion of social security, how’s that? But before we dive nose-first into this week’s news barrel, I have the Volokh Conspiracy to thank for an interesting item indeed. According to this legal website, a woman in South Carolina is being prosecuted for sporting a pair of plastic testicles on the back of her car.
According to Palmetto law, the Conspiracy tells us, a driver can be fined for operating “a motor vehicle in this State which has affixed or attached to any part of the motor vehicle which is visible to members of the public not occupying the vehicle any sticker, decal, emblem, or other device containing obscene or indecent words, photographs, or depictions.”
My my my! It seems that the “device” or maybe the “depiction” in question is considered “indecent,” which would mean in this instance that it portrayed a part of the human body in a “patently offensive way” and lacked artistic value to boot.
Fortunately for the driver, the sages at the Conspiracy believe that South Carolina would be hard pressed to defend their plastic testicle policy under settled principles of constitutional law. The Supreme Court has ruled that “vulgarity, with no sexually arousing component,” is protected under the First Amendment, ergo, the naughty accessories dangle well above the reach of the law. We’re all assuming here that the sight of plastic testicles does, in fact, lack a “sexually arousing component,” and here, I can only speak for myself, and perhaps as well for my cohort of lesbian baby boomers.
Finally, although I’m not an advocate for smaller government as a rule, I am all in favor of keeping the meddlesome police state off our bumpers. Unless, of course, something really offensive requires state censorship. I’m thinking University of Oklahoma decals, for example. Or Missouri.
--
Dollywood is So Gay
Speaking of offending people, how about the gay woman who visited Dollywood with her family the other day, where she was ordered to remove a shirt that said: “Marriage is so gay.” Power crazed martinets at the Pigeon Forge Tennessee facility told Olivier Odom to turn her shirt inside out because Dollywood, they claimed, is “a family park.” Odom did as she was told, but she and her partner later wrote to the park asking authorities to expand their dress code to respect gay and lesbian families.
Dollywood replied at once with assurances that everyone is welcome at the park. A few days later, Dolly Parton herself issued a statement to ABC News regretting the incident, pledging further investigation, and insisting that Dollywood’s friendly policies extend to all families, including gay ones.
So that’s that. Still, it seems as if every week there’s another incident of this ilk involving private security guards with nothing better to do than impose their anachronistic personal values on hapless gay or lesbian clients in the name of public protection. Last week it was hand holding in a San Francisco museum. A few weeks earlier, it was a kiss on the cheek at a ballpark. What’s with these pompous wannabe officers? Maybe the companies that hire them out should give them some rules and regulations before they’re unleashed on an unsuspecting crowd.
--
Prop 8 Case Back on Track
I know I have some important legal news. Oh yeah, I almost forgot. The California Supreme Court is going to hear oral arguments in the Prop 8 case on September 6, or around there. I’ll look it up.
As you recall, the California Supremes are going to tell us whether the proponents of Prop 8 would have legal standing under state law to defend their marriage ban against court challenge. This will be nice to know. But considering the Prop 8 case is being heard in federal court, not state court, the California ruling will serve only to provide a tangential legal detail to the federal appellate court.
Once California rules, within three months of next month’s hearing, then the Ninth Circuit panel will continue its own deliberations, which have been stalled for months.
Bay Times legal experts are assuming that the Ninth Circuit believes the question of federal standing turns on the question of state standing. Otherwise, why would they have sent us on this tedious legal detour?
Once the case resumes its trajectory through the federal court system, we will face one of two main outcomes. First, the Ninth Circuit may decide that the Prop 8 people lack standing to appeal their lower court defeat. If that ruling withstands further review, the appellate court would then withdraw their hold on Judge Vaughn Walker’s pro-marriage ruling and Prop 8 would be dead.
Alternatively, if the antigay side has the right to appeal, the Ninth Circuit will continue to consider the merits of the case against Prop 8. Whatever they decide may also be appealed to the full Ninth Circuit, or to the Supreme Court.
And so, on we go. Through next year and into 2013 assuming that everyone appeals every little thing. Hey, we could even have the issue of standing reviewed by the full Ninth Circuit (a year or more) and then have their decision sent to the High Court. Maybe that process will send the case back to the three-judge panel for review on the merits and we could repeat the entire trip back up on appeal. In theory, the case could take five more years!
When approached with this scenario, Bay Times legal experts threw up their hands and requested the cocktail menu.
--
Full Dockets
Meanwhile, our six major Defense of Marriage Act challenges continue apace. It’s not as if they are zinging their way through the courts, but they are all making steady progress and do not seem headed for any major tie-ups. Plus, even if some procedural matter stalls out one of these cases, there are five others trotting along on schedule.
For your review, we have the two Massachusetts cases awaiting arguments before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. We have the Golinski federal partner benefits case pending before a San Francisco federal judge. We have a demand for federal long-term care insurance now in a federal court in Oakland. We have the Edie Windsor estate tax case getting headlines in a federal court in New York. And we have another case pitting several gay and lesbian plaintiffs against DOMA in federal court in Connecticut.
It looks to me as if the Massachusetts cases, which are furthest along, will also be the first to cross the finish line. I would ask the Bay Times legal analysts about this assumption, but they’re all at the bar arguing about the level of bacteria found on lemon rind and whether or not their twists are compromised.
I wonder, however, whether the High Court will deliberately wait until several of these challenges work their way through the appellate levels in order to develop a larger body of legal analysis. That would leave the First Circuit hanging while the Ninth and the Second make up their minds.
It seems you can wash your lemon, shave off the tiniest top layer of rind, make your twist and hope that the alcohol kills any residual microbes. Alternatively, have one strong drink without a twist and then you won’t care one way or another.
Finally, there’s another big gay couples case careening towards a decision in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and I keep ignoring it simply because it’s not an official DOMA or marriage case. But it could be really big.
This is Lambda Legal’s lawsuit against the state of Arizona, where Governor Jan Brewer cut domestic partner benefits for state employees (gay and straight) as a “cost saving” move. A lower court suspended these so-called savings, which actually saved the state next to nothing. Our legal eagles insisted that the faux budget policy was little more than an excuse to discriminate against those partners who could not marry, and a three-judge panel of Democratic appointees heard arguments in February.
That means that a ruling could come down at any time. If we were to win this case, depending on how the opinion is framed, we might have another major pro-gay precedent emerge from the Ninth Circuit. That, of course, would further bolster our legal status in the western states and beyond and be a major cause for celebration. Bring on the cocktails!
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
As Time Goes By
News for the Week Ended July 26, 2011
BY ANN ROSTOW
As Time Goes By
Here’s some sad news. Chinese physicists are telling us that time travel is impossible. I know, I know. Scientists used to think the sun revolved around the earth and leeches could cure cancer so this may not be the final word on the subject. That said, I’d prefer that modern experts leave the door open, wouldn’t you?
Of course we can’t time travel in the 21st century, but we could still receive visitors from the 31st century and maybe they could wrap us up in their time traveling cloaks and take us on a little tour. You know where I’d go? First I’d zip over to Wednesday, November 7, 2012, just to satisfy my curiosity. Then, I’d jump ahead by about a decade and spend a day watching CNBC. After that, I’d check out what the world is like in three hundred years, just to see. And finally, I’d spend a few years traveling around Europe just before the start of the first world war.
If I’m not mistaken, the 24th century Vulcan High Command also thought that time travel was impossible. And they were wrong!
--
Questioning Paul Clement
On Tuesday (as I write) New York Attorney general Eric Schneiderman filed a brief in one of the high profile federal challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act. This is the New York-based case of widow Edie Windsor, who lost her wife in 2009 and was promptly ordered to pay upwards of $300,000 in federal taxes on her own property. Obviously, Schneiderman’s brief took the position that DOMA is unconstitutional.
As you know, when a heterosexual spouse dies, his or her survivor does not pay taxes on the resulting “inheritance.” You’re not inheriting something out of the blue here. You’re inheriting your own house and assets. (Please don’t send me a list of all the exceptions to this rule, Mr. and Ms. Tax Knowitall. I’m just making a general statement.)
Edie Windsor married Thea Spyer in Canada in 2007, more than four decades since they met and fell in love. After Thea’s death and the unholy tax bill that followed, Windsor filed suit against the U.S. government in November of last year with the assistance of the American Civil Liberties Union.
This lawsuit, one of several challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act filed in federal court, was one of two cases that convinced the Obama administration to switch sides in terms of its gay rights legal policies. Had Obama decided to defend DOMA in Windsor, he would have been obliged to make a series of anti-gay arguments above and beyond the tepid rationales he had been able to use in other cases. This, the President thankfully decided, was too much to swallow.
Subsequently, the Republicans in the House of Representatives resolved to go to bat for the Defense of Marriage Act in this, and all similar cases. Speaker Boehner appointed a “bipartisan” legal advisory group, now known as BLAG. (Since BLAG includes two Democrats and three Republicans who all vote along party lines, it hardly lives up to its adjective.) BLAG, in turn, hired famed appellate attorney Paul Clement to plead their cause.
The Windsor case is now in the discovery phase where both sides are required to answer various questions and confirm undisputed facts. But while our side lived up to its obligations, Clement and company simply refused to answer our questions, dismissing all but a few of them as overly vague or suggesting that they call for a legal opinion.
Our questions include queries as simple as asking whether or not an estate tax would have been levied on Windsor had she been married to a man. We also asked a series of questions which go to the heart of whether or not gay civil rights should be subjected to heightened legal scrutiny. Questions like whether or not gays have experienced a history of discrimination or whether sexual orientation undermines one’s ability to contribute to society. We also asked the other side to explain the basis of their confidence in the Defense of Marriage Act. And we asked whether, in their view, gay parents were as competent as straight parents.
Look, I understand that it’s tough to pour unstrained homophobic prose into the black-and-white vessel of a deposition. But they’re the ones who took this case and who presumably believe that yes, being gay undermines your ability to contribute to society, and no, gay parents aren’t as good as their straight counterparts. So just say it!
On July 18, the ACLU asked the court to compel Clement to reply to the questions as required by rules of federal procedure. We’ll be watching for the next moves.
--
New York State of Mind
Moving on, let’s talk about marriage in New York. We’ve seen the happy couples and felt the excitement of new same-sex marriages several times. In Massachusetts, in Connecticut, in Vermont, Iowa, California, DC, and in New Hampshire. But there was something special about last weekend’s euphoria in the Empire State.
Maybe it had something to do with the size and influence of the state of New York. Or maybe these marriages stood out against the iconic backdrop of Manhattan. Whatever the cause, this time, the stakes seemed larger, the love seemed deeper, the ground seemed, um, more broken.
Here’s something else. I don’t know about you, but I haven’t seen any negative media coverage of the New York marriages. True, I haven’t been watching Fox News, but still. The reporting I’ve seen has been overwhelmingly positive. None of this irritating media habit of “balancing both sides of the debate” by trotting out some rightwing fanatics to represent the people who hate gays. Indeed I’ve seen less of that phenomenon in general over the last several years.
In case you were wondering, New York has a very difficult process for putting a constitutional amendment on the ballot. In order for the state to pull a Prop 8 on their gay newlyweds, the legislature would have to vote for an amendment in two successive sessions and the electorate would have to agree. Most unlikely.
You may also be reading about a lawsuit that purports to challenge the legislative process that led to New York’s marriage equality law. Rest assured that this absurd litigation is going nowhere. We’re safe.
--
Onward Christian Soldiers?
I felt a grim satisfaction when I first heard that the Norway maniac was a fundamentalist Christian. (You did too, I know.) But I just can’t go there. These mass murderers--- McVeigh, the Unabomber, the Fort Hood killer, the Columbine kids, the guy who shot Congresswoman Giffords--- they are insane, period. They might be Christian, Muslim, gay, straight, liberal or conservative. It doesn’t matter. They lack the mental and emotional clarity to form rational political views or genuinely practice a religious faith.
Put them into a straightjacket, lock them into a padded room and throw away the key. Oh, and while you’re at it, take away their pens and notebooks.
I do think that the term “terrorist” should be expanded to include these crazy individuals. Likewise, the term “lunatic nutcases” should be expanded to include 911-type terrorists, who are not simply nefarious enemies of the state but unbalanced psychopaths.
By the way, I read on Pink Paper that a heroic lesbian couple helped save as many as 40 kids stranded on Utoya Island during the shooting. Hege Dalen and Toril Hansen were camping across from the island when they heard shooting and screams. They jumped into their boat and made four trips to the embattled coast to pick up terrified victims. Sexual orientation may be irrelevant when it comes to terrorists and madmen, but I think this proves that lesbians are inherently more courageous than anyone else.
Oh, I’m just kidding. (Sort of.)
--
Potpourris
Now, where shall we go? The National Center for Lesbian Rights and others have filed a lawsuit against a Minnesota school district where a “neutral” policy on gay bashing has contributed to an epidemic of gay and gay-related suicides. “Neutral” in this context, means giving a green light to any and all bullying and name-calling on campus under the theory that parents are better equipped to teach their children how to behave. Oh, and for the record, guess who represents this district in Congress? Michelle Bachmann.
We’re still not clear on whether or not the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit will allow the legal challenge to Don’t Ask Don’t Tell to continue. On the one hand, the law will officially leave the books on September 20. On the other hand, if the entire case is declared moot, we will lose the power of a strong federal precedent. Losing that precedent means that the servicemembers who have been discharged under Don’t Ask may lose their ability to sue the government for damages.
I also read about a court ruling in New York that dissolved a Vermont civil union. But seriously, is that the most interesting GLBT news story to come out of New York in the last few weeks? I think not.
And how would you like to be the first lesbian couple to marry in India? Sounds like a nice footnote in the history books, except for the fact that all your male relatives are now trying to kill you to save the family honor. According to the Daily Telegraph, 25-year-old Savita and her 20-year-old wife Veena are under police protection and have been moved to a safe house in the days since their July 22 wedding.
--
Tea-ed Off
It’s not a gay story, but another Democratic Congressman just threw himself off Sex Pervert Falls, this time Portland, Oregon veteran David Wu who resigned after (allegedly) putting the moves on the 18-year-old daughter of a campaign contributor.
Thankfully, Congressman Wu is sticking around until the debt ceiling is raised, an elusive, albeit inevitable, prospect. I don’t know about you, but I am disgusted by the arrogant Tea Party buffoons, with their clueless self-aggrandizing pronouncements on economic matters that lie well beyond their ken.
I was just watching one woman, a freshman House member with no background in finance, who told her interviewer that her common sense feeling was that the global markets cared more about deficit reduction than whether or not we raise the debt ceiling. Hello imbecile. You. Are. Wrong. Not to mention the fact that you can raise the debt ceiling in a clean vote and tackle the deficit in future legislation. And let’s not even talk about the difference between “lowering the deficit” and “dismantling Medicare.”
--
Stereotype Busted
Enough of this subject. I have my newshound stepson Nathan to thank for news of a Discovery TV show called “One Man Army,” which pits macho Marine-types against each other in manly contests of shooting things, smashing through cement walls, and other testosterone-laced feats of derring do. In the words of the Discovery website, the show, hosted by a Special Forces veteran, is a “competition series where the toughest of the tough go head to head in events that would sideline regular contestants in an instant."
When the winner of a recent episode was asked why he never joined the military, he told the host that he believed in following the rules, and the rules don’t allow gay men to serve. Woah Nelly!
In an interview with After Elton, Jeff Bloovman told the site that producers had no idea he was gay when he signed up for the show.
“Being gay is not a tactic that I used to get on the program, nor had I planned on coming out all along,” Bloovman said. “The subject was broached after I won the competition. Mykel Hawke asked me why I hadn't served, and I responded truthfully. I told him that when I wanted to join, the military didn't want gay people. Suffice to say that he was rather surprised to hear this, which was actually a very funny moment in and of itself.
“Naturally, I won't go into details about the conversation we had, as it was private. Anyway, as it turns out, my microphone hadn't been muted, and so the network heard our discussion in its entirety. A producer subsequently approached me, asking if I'd be willing to speak about my orientation on camera. I believe, if my memory serves me correctly, my response was, -‘Yeah... fuck it.’ And the rest is history.”
--
BY ANN ROSTOW
As Time Goes By
Here’s some sad news. Chinese physicists are telling us that time travel is impossible. I know, I know. Scientists used to think the sun revolved around the earth and leeches could cure cancer so this may not be the final word on the subject. That said, I’d prefer that modern experts leave the door open, wouldn’t you?
Of course we can’t time travel in the 21st century, but we could still receive visitors from the 31st century and maybe they could wrap us up in their time traveling cloaks and take us on a little tour. You know where I’d go? First I’d zip over to Wednesday, November 7, 2012, just to satisfy my curiosity. Then, I’d jump ahead by about a decade and spend a day watching CNBC. After that, I’d check out what the world is like in three hundred years, just to see. And finally, I’d spend a few years traveling around Europe just before the start of the first world war.
If I’m not mistaken, the 24th century Vulcan High Command also thought that time travel was impossible. And they were wrong!
--
Questioning Paul Clement
On Tuesday (as I write) New York Attorney general Eric Schneiderman filed a brief in one of the high profile federal challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act. This is the New York-based case of widow Edie Windsor, who lost her wife in 2009 and was promptly ordered to pay upwards of $300,000 in federal taxes on her own property. Obviously, Schneiderman’s brief took the position that DOMA is unconstitutional.
As you know, when a heterosexual spouse dies, his or her survivor does not pay taxes on the resulting “inheritance.” You’re not inheriting something out of the blue here. You’re inheriting your own house and assets. (Please don’t send me a list of all the exceptions to this rule, Mr. and Ms. Tax Knowitall. I’m just making a general statement.)
Edie Windsor married Thea Spyer in Canada in 2007, more than four decades since they met and fell in love. After Thea’s death and the unholy tax bill that followed, Windsor filed suit against the U.S. government in November of last year with the assistance of the American Civil Liberties Union.
This lawsuit, one of several challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act filed in federal court, was one of two cases that convinced the Obama administration to switch sides in terms of its gay rights legal policies. Had Obama decided to defend DOMA in Windsor, he would have been obliged to make a series of anti-gay arguments above and beyond the tepid rationales he had been able to use in other cases. This, the President thankfully decided, was too much to swallow.
Subsequently, the Republicans in the House of Representatives resolved to go to bat for the Defense of Marriage Act in this, and all similar cases. Speaker Boehner appointed a “bipartisan” legal advisory group, now known as BLAG. (Since BLAG includes two Democrats and three Republicans who all vote along party lines, it hardly lives up to its adjective.) BLAG, in turn, hired famed appellate attorney Paul Clement to plead their cause.
The Windsor case is now in the discovery phase where both sides are required to answer various questions and confirm undisputed facts. But while our side lived up to its obligations, Clement and company simply refused to answer our questions, dismissing all but a few of them as overly vague or suggesting that they call for a legal opinion.
Our questions include queries as simple as asking whether or not an estate tax would have been levied on Windsor had she been married to a man. We also asked a series of questions which go to the heart of whether or not gay civil rights should be subjected to heightened legal scrutiny. Questions like whether or not gays have experienced a history of discrimination or whether sexual orientation undermines one’s ability to contribute to society. We also asked the other side to explain the basis of their confidence in the Defense of Marriage Act. And we asked whether, in their view, gay parents were as competent as straight parents.
Look, I understand that it’s tough to pour unstrained homophobic prose into the black-and-white vessel of a deposition. But they’re the ones who took this case and who presumably believe that yes, being gay undermines your ability to contribute to society, and no, gay parents aren’t as good as their straight counterparts. So just say it!
On July 18, the ACLU asked the court to compel Clement to reply to the questions as required by rules of federal procedure. We’ll be watching for the next moves.
--
New York State of Mind
Moving on, let’s talk about marriage in New York. We’ve seen the happy couples and felt the excitement of new same-sex marriages several times. In Massachusetts, in Connecticut, in Vermont, Iowa, California, DC, and in New Hampshire. But there was something special about last weekend’s euphoria in the Empire State.
Maybe it had something to do with the size and influence of the state of New York. Or maybe these marriages stood out against the iconic backdrop of Manhattan. Whatever the cause, this time, the stakes seemed larger, the love seemed deeper, the ground seemed, um, more broken.
Here’s something else. I don’t know about you, but I haven’t seen any negative media coverage of the New York marriages. True, I haven’t been watching Fox News, but still. The reporting I’ve seen has been overwhelmingly positive. None of this irritating media habit of “balancing both sides of the debate” by trotting out some rightwing fanatics to represent the people who hate gays. Indeed I’ve seen less of that phenomenon in general over the last several years.
In case you were wondering, New York has a very difficult process for putting a constitutional amendment on the ballot. In order for the state to pull a Prop 8 on their gay newlyweds, the legislature would have to vote for an amendment in two successive sessions and the electorate would have to agree. Most unlikely.
You may also be reading about a lawsuit that purports to challenge the legislative process that led to New York’s marriage equality law. Rest assured that this absurd litigation is going nowhere. We’re safe.
--
Onward Christian Soldiers?
I felt a grim satisfaction when I first heard that the Norway maniac was a fundamentalist Christian. (You did too, I know.) But I just can’t go there. These mass murderers--- McVeigh, the Unabomber, the Fort Hood killer, the Columbine kids, the guy who shot Congresswoman Giffords--- they are insane, period. They might be Christian, Muslim, gay, straight, liberal or conservative. It doesn’t matter. They lack the mental and emotional clarity to form rational political views or genuinely practice a religious faith.
Put them into a straightjacket, lock them into a padded room and throw away the key. Oh, and while you’re at it, take away their pens and notebooks.
I do think that the term “terrorist” should be expanded to include these crazy individuals. Likewise, the term “lunatic nutcases” should be expanded to include 911-type terrorists, who are not simply nefarious enemies of the state but unbalanced psychopaths.
By the way, I read on Pink Paper that a heroic lesbian couple helped save as many as 40 kids stranded on Utoya Island during the shooting. Hege Dalen and Toril Hansen were camping across from the island when they heard shooting and screams. They jumped into their boat and made four trips to the embattled coast to pick up terrified victims. Sexual orientation may be irrelevant when it comes to terrorists and madmen, but I think this proves that lesbians are inherently more courageous than anyone else.
Oh, I’m just kidding. (Sort of.)
--
Potpourris
Now, where shall we go? The National Center for Lesbian Rights and others have filed a lawsuit against a Minnesota school district where a “neutral” policy on gay bashing has contributed to an epidemic of gay and gay-related suicides. “Neutral” in this context, means giving a green light to any and all bullying and name-calling on campus under the theory that parents are better equipped to teach their children how to behave. Oh, and for the record, guess who represents this district in Congress? Michelle Bachmann.
We’re still not clear on whether or not the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit will allow the legal challenge to Don’t Ask Don’t Tell to continue. On the one hand, the law will officially leave the books on September 20. On the other hand, if the entire case is declared moot, we will lose the power of a strong federal precedent. Losing that precedent means that the servicemembers who have been discharged under Don’t Ask may lose their ability to sue the government for damages.
I also read about a court ruling in New York that dissolved a Vermont civil union. But seriously, is that the most interesting GLBT news story to come out of New York in the last few weeks? I think not.
And how would you like to be the first lesbian couple to marry in India? Sounds like a nice footnote in the history books, except for the fact that all your male relatives are now trying to kill you to save the family honor. According to the Daily Telegraph, 25-year-old Savita and her 20-year-old wife Veena are under police protection and have been moved to a safe house in the days since their July 22 wedding.
--
Tea-ed Off
It’s not a gay story, but another Democratic Congressman just threw himself off Sex Pervert Falls, this time Portland, Oregon veteran David Wu who resigned after (allegedly) putting the moves on the 18-year-old daughter of a campaign contributor.
Thankfully, Congressman Wu is sticking around until the debt ceiling is raised, an elusive, albeit inevitable, prospect. I don’t know about you, but I am disgusted by the arrogant Tea Party buffoons, with their clueless self-aggrandizing pronouncements on economic matters that lie well beyond their ken.
I was just watching one woman, a freshman House member with no background in finance, who told her interviewer that her common sense feeling was that the global markets cared more about deficit reduction than whether or not we raise the debt ceiling. Hello imbecile. You. Are. Wrong. Not to mention the fact that you can raise the debt ceiling in a clean vote and tackle the deficit in future legislation. And let’s not even talk about the difference between “lowering the deficit” and “dismantling Medicare.”
--
Stereotype Busted
Enough of this subject. I have my newshound stepson Nathan to thank for news of a Discovery TV show called “One Man Army,” which pits macho Marine-types against each other in manly contests of shooting things, smashing through cement walls, and other testosterone-laced feats of derring do. In the words of the Discovery website, the show, hosted by a Special Forces veteran, is a “competition series where the toughest of the tough go head to head in events that would sideline regular contestants in an instant."
When the winner of a recent episode was asked why he never joined the military, he told the host that he believed in following the rules, and the rules don’t allow gay men to serve. Woah Nelly!
In an interview with After Elton, Jeff Bloovman told the site that producers had no idea he was gay when he signed up for the show.
“Being gay is not a tactic that I used to get on the program, nor had I planned on coming out all along,” Bloovman said. “The subject was broached after I won the competition. Mykel Hawke asked me why I hadn't served, and I responded truthfully. I told him that when I wanted to join, the military didn't want gay people. Suffice to say that he was rather surprised to hear this, which was actually a very funny moment in and of itself.
“Naturally, I won't go into details about the conversation we had, as it was private. Anyway, as it turns out, my microphone hadn't been muted, and so the network heard our discussion in its entirety. A producer subsequently approached me, asking if I'd be willing to speak about my orientation on camera. I believe, if my memory serves me correctly, my response was, -‘Yeah... fuck it.’ And the rest is history.”
--
Thursday, July 21, 2011
Senators Discuss Marriage Equality
News for the Week Ended July 20, 2011
BY ANN ROSTOW
Senators Discuss Marriage Equality
Today, Wednesday, the Senate Judiciary Committee is hearing testimony on the Respect for Marriage Act, the measure to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act. What can we call this bill? RFMA doesn’t cut it. REMA might work. REFMA? RESMA? Oh, hell I don’t know.
Despite the fact that support for same-sex marriage is expanding at a nice accelerating rate, there’s little chance that our repeal will make headway in Congress anytime soon. The political system just doesn’t work that way these days, as illustrated by the difficulty in repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell even as something like 80 percent of the American public opposed the gay military ban.
Plus, a Congressional fight over repealing DOMA is not a simple matter of progay lawmakers versus antigay lawmakers. Most politicians are in the middle and don’t care that much about our civil rights. Without an incentive to take a stand, their lethargy will be more than enough to prevent forward movement.
Here’s something interesting. My Word spelling software tells me that “antigay” is a legitimate word, correctly spelled. “Progay,” however, attracts the little red line, suggesting, perhaps, that the people who hate us have cemented themselves into the lexicon. That’s positive news! “Progay” should be assumed, a redundant expression. It’s the antigay forces who distinguish themselves from the mass of society and therefore deserve their own official adjective.
But back to the REMA hearing. The other day, President Obama endorsed the proposal to roll back DOMA, prompting all our major gay groups to issue grateful press releases.
“BREAKING. Obama endorses Respect for Marriage Act!” crowed one. “Freedom to Marry Applauds President Obama’s Endorsement of Respect for Marriage Act,” said another.
Hey, that’s fine. But Obama has been on record in opposition to the Defense of Marriage Act from the start of his 2008 campaign. In February, his administration announced that DOMA was unconstitutional. Then, two weeks ago, his Justice Department filed a 30-something page legal brief in federal court ripping DOMA into teeny tiny little shreds. I’m just saying; the President is not making news here.
--
Court Reinstates Part of Don’t Ask
The President did make news this week, however, but on the wrong side of history. In an emergency motion to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Obama and company asked the court to reinstate Don’t Ask Don’t Tell in order to allow the government to complete the repeal process on its own terms.
You remember of course (it was less than two weeks ago!) that the Ninth Circuit released its stay on a previous injunction against the military ban, effectively telling the U.S. to stop enforcing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell right this minute. The court also asked the government to explain why it continues to champion the ban, in view of the fact that the Justice Department now believes sexual orientation discrimination is unconstitutional.
In response, the Justice Department explained that while Don’t Ask may well be unconstitutional, the repeal process for Don’t Ask is perfectly legal and should be allowed to run its course over the next couple of months. Obama and company reminded the panel that Congress and the President are owed great deference from the courts, particularly when it comes to matters of national security.
The court agreed in part, temporarily restoring the stay on the injunction but ordering the U.S. to cease hunting and discharging gay soldiers while it considers its options. Given that such discharges have basically been suspended for months, the decision has little practical effect. Indeed, the whole affair is moot on many levels, as the law will be formally dissolved by September or October.
That said, it will be interesting to see if the Ninth Circuit eventually dismisses the whole case, or whether the panel pursues a ruling on the merits. It’s possible that discharged gay soldiers will have grounds for civil suits if a federal appellate court opines that Don’t Ask was unconstitutional from the start.
Moreover, the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell does not mean that gay and lesbian soldiers will be protected against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Surprised? Well, it’s true. The repeal ends the relentless investigations and witch hunts. It allows out gay individuals to join the military and be open during their service. But it does not create a structure to prevent, discourage or punish gay bias.
Nor does it allow for recognition of gay couples. Thanks to the Defense of Marriage Act, even married gay soldiers will be ineligible for benefits, and obviously unmarried gay servicemembers with partners will also be left in the lurch. I would assume that these problems will be rectified down the line, but still. How many destitute war widows or widowers will have to parade through the media and the courts before the military recognizes gay soldiers as equal? We shall see.
--
Murdoch Schmurdoch
For some reason I just can’t get excited about the Murdoch scandal, even though I usually love conservative misdeeds and tales of the powerful brought low.
Perhaps I was spoiled by the Maxwell scandal, back in the day, a sordid collection of financial shenanigans that included raiding the pension fund of the Mirror in order to fund sleazy deals and cover up shortsighted business fiascos. I worked briefly for Maxwell and found him monstrous. Murdoch, by contrast, looks like a pussycat.
I also don’t quite understand how the News of the World’s telephone hacking and bribery will “jump the pond” and undermine News Corp.’s U.S. businesses. Have reporters at the Wall Street Journal been tapping phones? Has Fox News been bribing the FBI? Maybe. Maybe not.
Of course as a good progressive Democrat, I’d love to see Fox News come crashing down. I just haven’t seen any evidence that they’ve done anything more than broadcast misleading far right polemics to the American people for the last couple of decades, not that there’s anything (criminally) wrong with that.
--
Plus Ca Change, Plus Ca Change
So, the Senate confirmed an openly gay federal judge, J. Paul Oetken, on an 80-13 vote with little comment. That’s a step in the right direction considering how an openly gay judicial nominee might have been greeted just ten years ago. Oetken is the second out gay federal judge and the first man to pass Senate inspection. And no, we’re not counting Judge Walker and all the others who may have been confirmed under the radar.
For years, New York’s Deborah Batts has held the distinction of being the only gay federal judge. Judge Batts doesn’t know it, but she and I are closely connected on the extensive web of lesbian ex-lovers that place all lesbians in this country within six degrees of separation. I’m not explaining further.
Speaking of change in the Senate, I just watched some of the hearings on the Respect for Marriage Act. I mention it only because I remember watching the 1996 hearings on the Defense of Marriage Act, and I remember cringing as HRC chief Elizabeth Birch insisted that gays did not care about marriage and that the Defense of Marriage Act was therefore “not necessary.”
That was our argument at the time, just 15 years ago. Not a plea for equality. Not a condemnation of marriage discrimination. But a weak capitulation to bigotry in the name of pragmatic politics.
I have nothing against pragmatic politics. But pragmatism never demands that we completely abandon our principles as we did back in 1996. The Human Rights Campaign exchanged a stand-alone vote on DOMA (which won) for a stand-alone vote on the Employment Nondiscrimination Act (which lost by one vote), and then proceeded to pat itself on the back for the close call on ENDA.
How nice it was today to see HRC, in the persona of Joe Solmonese, stand up for marriage rights in contrast to the sick performance of fifteen years ago. I’m not a big fan of HRC. But I am a big fan of progress.
And make no mistake about it, that progress has not been led by HRC or any other political activists. It’s been led by Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, by Lambda, by the ACLU and by the National Center for Lesbian Rights. The rest of us have tagged along for the ride behind our able lawyers.
--
Religious Freedom Upheld in Austria
So, it took him over two years, but an Austrian man has finally obtained a driving license that depicts him wearing a kitchen strainer. Niko Alm told authorities that the strainer was religious headgear and could not be prohibited on his ID shot. Alm is a Pastafarian, a member of the American-based Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
According to CotFSM beliefs, the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the Earth as it now appears a few thousand years ago. However, the FSM made it seem as if the Earth began billions of years ago and that life evolved here over time. This duality allows adherents to embrace both intelligent design and Darwinian evolution.
The earliest adherents to the Church were pirates, who were subsequently marginalized by Christians, jealous of their faith. Pastafarians have set aside Friday as a day of worship; they wear pirate gear on important religious occasions, and enjoy beer.
Although the faith has been around for “millions, if not thousands, of years,” the CotFSM gained some national prominence in 2005, when one of its leaders wrote a letter to the Kansas Board of Education wanting to make sure that the tenets of the Church would be included in any curricular discussions of intelligent design in the state public schools.
For several years I had a bumper attachment of His Noodly Appendages on my car, but I traded it in. The car, not the attachment.
--
A Jerk is a Jerk is a Jerk
The Spaghetti Monster reminded me of something interesting I just saw. The Church website includes a chart illustrating the relationship between rising global warming and the decline of worldwide pirates over the last 200 years. Note: it’s a direct correlation!
That reminded me of the chart comparing the decline in American national traffic fatalities to the increase in lemon imports from Mexico to the United States that I saw on a link from some legal website. Again, the correlation is perfect.
I mean, think about it. How many charts have you seen purporting to “prove” that phenomenon X is related, or even caused, by phenomenon Y? The fact is, we have little tolerance for complexity, gray areas, and ideas that require more than two sentences to explain. Further, we accept virtually anything as conclusive evidence without examination. Witness our national debt and deficit discussion.
Don’t worry! I’m not rehashing that subject in this issue.
Finally, I just read the amazing story of two women who were told to stop holding hands…wait for it…at a Gertrude Stein exhibit in San Francisco!
According to the Daily Mail, an eyewitness at the Contemporary Jewish Museum said the women refused to follow instructions from the apparently unbalanced security guard last Sunday. A small crowd formed to watch the goings on and shortly, the manager was called, and sanity returned.
Museum director Connie Wolf told the press later on that the guard (who worked for a private company) was reprimanded.
“Please let me be crystal clear that the CJM has a zero tolerance concerning any kind of prejudiced or racist word or action, whether it be directed at CJM visitors or staff.”
My apologies if San Francisco readers have already heard this story. But it’s worth repeating just for its surreal aspects. Also, it just proves that the British tabloids are still alive and well.
BY ANN ROSTOW
Senators Discuss Marriage Equality
Today, Wednesday, the Senate Judiciary Committee is hearing testimony on the Respect for Marriage Act, the measure to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act. What can we call this bill? RFMA doesn’t cut it. REMA might work. REFMA? RESMA? Oh, hell I don’t know.
Despite the fact that support for same-sex marriage is expanding at a nice accelerating rate, there’s little chance that our repeal will make headway in Congress anytime soon. The political system just doesn’t work that way these days, as illustrated by the difficulty in repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell even as something like 80 percent of the American public opposed the gay military ban.
Plus, a Congressional fight over repealing DOMA is not a simple matter of progay lawmakers versus antigay lawmakers. Most politicians are in the middle and don’t care that much about our civil rights. Without an incentive to take a stand, their lethargy will be more than enough to prevent forward movement.
Here’s something interesting. My Word spelling software tells me that “antigay” is a legitimate word, correctly spelled. “Progay,” however, attracts the little red line, suggesting, perhaps, that the people who hate us have cemented themselves into the lexicon. That’s positive news! “Progay” should be assumed, a redundant expression. It’s the antigay forces who distinguish themselves from the mass of society and therefore deserve their own official adjective.
But back to the REMA hearing. The other day, President Obama endorsed the proposal to roll back DOMA, prompting all our major gay groups to issue grateful press releases.
“BREAKING. Obama endorses Respect for Marriage Act!” crowed one. “Freedom to Marry Applauds President Obama’s Endorsement of Respect for Marriage Act,” said another.
Hey, that’s fine. But Obama has been on record in opposition to the Defense of Marriage Act from the start of his 2008 campaign. In February, his administration announced that DOMA was unconstitutional. Then, two weeks ago, his Justice Department filed a 30-something page legal brief in federal court ripping DOMA into teeny tiny little shreds. I’m just saying; the President is not making news here.
--
Court Reinstates Part of Don’t Ask
The President did make news this week, however, but on the wrong side of history. In an emergency motion to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Obama and company asked the court to reinstate Don’t Ask Don’t Tell in order to allow the government to complete the repeal process on its own terms.
You remember of course (it was less than two weeks ago!) that the Ninth Circuit released its stay on a previous injunction against the military ban, effectively telling the U.S. to stop enforcing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell right this minute. The court also asked the government to explain why it continues to champion the ban, in view of the fact that the Justice Department now believes sexual orientation discrimination is unconstitutional.
In response, the Justice Department explained that while Don’t Ask may well be unconstitutional, the repeal process for Don’t Ask is perfectly legal and should be allowed to run its course over the next couple of months. Obama and company reminded the panel that Congress and the President are owed great deference from the courts, particularly when it comes to matters of national security.
The court agreed in part, temporarily restoring the stay on the injunction but ordering the U.S. to cease hunting and discharging gay soldiers while it considers its options. Given that such discharges have basically been suspended for months, the decision has little practical effect. Indeed, the whole affair is moot on many levels, as the law will be formally dissolved by September or October.
That said, it will be interesting to see if the Ninth Circuit eventually dismisses the whole case, or whether the panel pursues a ruling on the merits. It’s possible that discharged gay soldiers will have grounds for civil suits if a federal appellate court opines that Don’t Ask was unconstitutional from the start.
Moreover, the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell does not mean that gay and lesbian soldiers will be protected against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Surprised? Well, it’s true. The repeal ends the relentless investigations and witch hunts. It allows out gay individuals to join the military and be open during their service. But it does not create a structure to prevent, discourage or punish gay bias.
Nor does it allow for recognition of gay couples. Thanks to the Defense of Marriage Act, even married gay soldiers will be ineligible for benefits, and obviously unmarried gay servicemembers with partners will also be left in the lurch. I would assume that these problems will be rectified down the line, but still. How many destitute war widows or widowers will have to parade through the media and the courts before the military recognizes gay soldiers as equal? We shall see.
--
Murdoch Schmurdoch
For some reason I just can’t get excited about the Murdoch scandal, even though I usually love conservative misdeeds and tales of the powerful brought low.
Perhaps I was spoiled by the Maxwell scandal, back in the day, a sordid collection of financial shenanigans that included raiding the pension fund of the Mirror in order to fund sleazy deals and cover up shortsighted business fiascos. I worked briefly for Maxwell and found him monstrous. Murdoch, by contrast, looks like a pussycat.
I also don’t quite understand how the News of the World’s telephone hacking and bribery will “jump the pond” and undermine News Corp.’s U.S. businesses. Have reporters at the Wall Street Journal been tapping phones? Has Fox News been bribing the FBI? Maybe. Maybe not.
Of course as a good progressive Democrat, I’d love to see Fox News come crashing down. I just haven’t seen any evidence that they’ve done anything more than broadcast misleading far right polemics to the American people for the last couple of decades, not that there’s anything (criminally) wrong with that.
--
Plus Ca Change, Plus Ca Change
So, the Senate confirmed an openly gay federal judge, J. Paul Oetken, on an 80-13 vote with little comment. That’s a step in the right direction considering how an openly gay judicial nominee might have been greeted just ten years ago. Oetken is the second out gay federal judge and the first man to pass Senate inspection. And no, we’re not counting Judge Walker and all the others who may have been confirmed under the radar.
For years, New York’s Deborah Batts has held the distinction of being the only gay federal judge. Judge Batts doesn’t know it, but she and I are closely connected on the extensive web of lesbian ex-lovers that place all lesbians in this country within six degrees of separation. I’m not explaining further.
Speaking of change in the Senate, I just watched some of the hearings on the Respect for Marriage Act. I mention it only because I remember watching the 1996 hearings on the Defense of Marriage Act, and I remember cringing as HRC chief Elizabeth Birch insisted that gays did not care about marriage and that the Defense of Marriage Act was therefore “not necessary.”
That was our argument at the time, just 15 years ago. Not a plea for equality. Not a condemnation of marriage discrimination. But a weak capitulation to bigotry in the name of pragmatic politics.
I have nothing against pragmatic politics. But pragmatism never demands that we completely abandon our principles as we did back in 1996. The Human Rights Campaign exchanged a stand-alone vote on DOMA (which won) for a stand-alone vote on the Employment Nondiscrimination Act (which lost by one vote), and then proceeded to pat itself on the back for the close call on ENDA.
How nice it was today to see HRC, in the persona of Joe Solmonese, stand up for marriage rights in contrast to the sick performance of fifteen years ago. I’m not a big fan of HRC. But I am a big fan of progress.
And make no mistake about it, that progress has not been led by HRC or any other political activists. It’s been led by Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, by Lambda, by the ACLU and by the National Center for Lesbian Rights. The rest of us have tagged along for the ride behind our able lawyers.
--
Religious Freedom Upheld in Austria
So, it took him over two years, but an Austrian man has finally obtained a driving license that depicts him wearing a kitchen strainer. Niko Alm told authorities that the strainer was religious headgear and could not be prohibited on his ID shot. Alm is a Pastafarian, a member of the American-based Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
According to CotFSM beliefs, the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the Earth as it now appears a few thousand years ago. However, the FSM made it seem as if the Earth began billions of years ago and that life evolved here over time. This duality allows adherents to embrace both intelligent design and Darwinian evolution.
The earliest adherents to the Church were pirates, who were subsequently marginalized by Christians, jealous of their faith. Pastafarians have set aside Friday as a day of worship; they wear pirate gear on important religious occasions, and enjoy beer.
Although the faith has been around for “millions, if not thousands, of years,” the CotFSM gained some national prominence in 2005, when one of its leaders wrote a letter to the Kansas Board of Education wanting to make sure that the tenets of the Church would be included in any curricular discussions of intelligent design in the state public schools.
For several years I had a bumper attachment of His Noodly Appendages on my car, but I traded it in. The car, not the attachment.
--
A Jerk is a Jerk is a Jerk
The Spaghetti Monster reminded me of something interesting I just saw. The Church website includes a chart illustrating the relationship between rising global warming and the decline of worldwide pirates over the last 200 years. Note: it’s a direct correlation!
That reminded me of the chart comparing the decline in American national traffic fatalities to the increase in lemon imports from Mexico to the United States that I saw on a link from some legal website. Again, the correlation is perfect.
I mean, think about it. How many charts have you seen purporting to “prove” that phenomenon X is related, or even caused, by phenomenon Y? The fact is, we have little tolerance for complexity, gray areas, and ideas that require more than two sentences to explain. Further, we accept virtually anything as conclusive evidence without examination. Witness our national debt and deficit discussion.
Don’t worry! I’m not rehashing that subject in this issue.
Finally, I just read the amazing story of two women who were told to stop holding hands…wait for it…at a Gertrude Stein exhibit in San Francisco!
According to the Daily Mail, an eyewitness at the Contemporary Jewish Museum said the women refused to follow instructions from the apparently unbalanced security guard last Sunday. A small crowd formed to watch the goings on and shortly, the manager was called, and sanity returned.
Museum director Connie Wolf told the press later on that the guard (who worked for a private company) was reprimanded.
“Please let me be crystal clear that the CJM has a zero tolerance concerning any kind of prejudiced or racist word or action, whether it be directed at CJM visitors or staff.”
My apologies if San Francisco readers have already heard this story. But it’s worth repeating just for its surreal aspects. Also, it just proves that the British tabloids are still alive and well.
Friday, July 15, 2011
Lambda Asks Supreme Court To Review Crazy Bayou State Ruling
Lambda Asks Supreme Court To Review Crazy Bayou State Ruling
| By Ann Rostow Published: July 14, 2011 |
| Two major legal stories dominate the GLBT news this week, and yet I can’t help leading with the report about the Orange County woman who drugged her husband, tied him to the bed, cut off his penis and ran it through the garbage disposal. Ouch! Were there no divorce lawyers available? The psycho-wife called emergency services and allowed herself to be arrested without incident, telling police that her hubby “deserved it.” She was arraigned on a million dollars bail and will presumably spend a few decades behind bars for her misdeed. Interesting what human beings are capable of doing to each other. I’m sure he wasn’t the best husband in the world, but still. Guys, you’ll be particularly relieved that we are now moving on to legal news. Although the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell case in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is getting more attention, I think the Fifth Circuit birth certificate lawsuit is more significant. Why? Because Lambda Legal has appealed this very very very weird decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, and there are several reasons why the Court might accept review, putting a gay-related case on its docket for the 2011/2012 term. That’s always big news. The case involves two gay dads originally from New York but now living in California. The men adopted a baby boy, born in Louisiana, and asked the state for a revised birth certificate with both their names listed as parents. Louisiana refused, ignoring a perfectly legal adoption and arguably violating the Constitution’s guarantees of Equal Protection and Full Faith and Credit. Obviously, Louisiana should not be allowed to treat gay parents differently than straight parents. And as for Full Faith and Credit, all states are required to respect the judicial proceedings of sister states, as well as their public acts and records. An adoption, for the record, is a judicial proceeding subject to the Full Faith and Credit Clause, and no sane lawyer disagrees with this established fact save the majority of the Fifth Circuit, who may or may not fall into the category of “sane.” After Louisiana refused to produce the birth certificate, Lambda sued on behalf of the fathers, winning in lower court and later winning before a three-judge panel at the Fifth Circuit. Louisiana appealed to the entire federal appellate court, and to the astonishment of one and all, the full court ruled in favor of the state a couple of months ago. The majority came up with a far-fetched explanation of why the Full Faith and Credit Clause did not apply to the gay fathers (I will spare you the convoluted details.) They also expounded on why Louisiana’s ban on same-sex adoptions was constitutional, even though Louisiana state policy was not at issue in the case. After all, the fathers adopted their son in New York, not Louisiana. They were not seeking another adoption; they were seeking a routinely issued piece of paper recognizing the legal adoption they had already secured. The Fifth Circuit’s bizarre opinion is in direct opposition to a Full Faith and Credit ruling out of the Tenth Circuit, so it’s quite possible that the High Court will agree to hear the case in order to clarify federal law on this issue. As for the Equal Protection element, the High Court could easily sidestep the pure question of gay rights by simply ruling on Full Faith and Credit. Or, the justices could duck the entire matter. We’ll find out when the Court returns from its summer break in October and starts reviewing petitions. Ninth Circuit to Obama: Fish or Cut Bait Meanwhile, last Wednesday, a three-judge panel in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an injunction against the enforcement of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (technically, they released their stay of a previously issued injunction, but you get the picture). The two-page order noted that the Obama administration has changed its views on the constitutional status of sexual orientation, and no longer can justify its position. Further, as we all know, the ban on openly gay military service is on its way out, and should be history in a couple of months anyway. Then last Monday, the panel asked the administration to tell the court whether or not the Justice Department intends to continue the legal fight on behalf of the moribund law. If not, asked the court, will Congress be invited to intervene just as Congress was given the green light to intervene on behalf of the Defense of Marriage Act? Given that a hearing date in the case is scheduled for August 29, the administration was given just 10 days to sort out its position on the Don’t Ask case. A few months back, Obama and company had asked the Ninth Circuit to set the whole lawsuit aside and wait until the Don’t Ask repeal process had run its course. The court refused, which is why we’re seeing all these legal maneuvers going forward on this long running challenge to the military gay ban. Most of us might see this whole exchange as much ado about nothing. After all, Obama insists that the final certification required to end Don’t Ask is expected in a matter of weeks, not months. We should hope so, considering that the repeal process has already been underway for six or seven months. How long does it take to tell commanders not to discharge people for being gay, anyway? Assuming that the certification takes place this summer, there would be a 60-day waiting period (again for reasons unclear) and the law would then officially be dead. Why, under the circumstances, should the administration or anyone else be interested in a nearly moot court battle? One reason is that the case against Don’t Ask Don’t Tell raises a number of basic constitutional issues that apply to gay rights matters in general. If you believe that the panel is inclined to rule in your favor, you want the litigation to go forward, and indeed, some optimistic gay legal advocates would not be sorry to see the case continue. Then again, it’s hard to argue with a flat out victory, even when that victory comes with whimper rather than a bang. Antigay Dominos Continue To Fall Do you remember last week’s confusion over the administration’s views on joint bankruptcy for married gay couples? Well, you’ll be delighted to hear that it’s all been clarified. On Friday, a Justice Department spokesperson confirmed that the administration will no longer object to bankruptcy filings by married gay couples, even though such filings technically violate the Defense of Marriage Act. As such, the U.S. Trustee in an LA bankruptcy case withdrew a motion to appeal a gay-friendly ruling by bankruptcy judge Thomas Donovan. (in an opinion joined by 19 of his colleagues, Judge Donovan ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional). Like a train gathering steam, President Obama’s February decision to treat sexual orientation discrimination as presumptively unconstitutional is having an impact on a multitude of cases and issues. The media has been focused on the implications for the Defense of Marriage Act, which Obama’s Justice Department will no longer defend in court. But the courageous shift in legal policy extends beyond marriage. Indeed, the Ninth Circuit’s Don’t Ask Don’t Tell injunction was directly based on the February announcement. The Ninth Circuit has also asked the Justice Department to issue a revised brief on the constitutionality of excusing a lesbian from a jury based on sexual orientation. Does the Department still think that’s okay given their pronouncements on gay bias? I’d guess no. We’ve seen the Justice Department drop, shelve or delay the deportations of foreign gay spouses. We’ve seen the new stance on joint bankruptcy for gay couples. In fact, when Obama announced that he’d still “enforce” the Defense of Marriage Act (and other antigay laws), that announcement really didn’t make much sense. How do you “enforce” laws that you will not defend in court? Hey, I’m not complaining here. I’m just sayin’. The Bachmann Has No Clothes What else is new? We’ve learned in the past week that Michelle Bachmann does not seem to be a friend to our vibrant and wonderful community. Sorry everyone, I do not consider that to be breaking news of the week. Do we not remember her sustained, obsessive attempts to pass an antigay marriage amendment in Minnesota a few years ago? I mean really. Why is this woman getting a pass from the mainstream media and being treated as just another GOP candidate for president? She believes in intelligent design, thinks global warming is a hoax, thinks gay people are sexually dysfunctional and has accused Barrack Obama of being “anti-American.” She has a limited grasp on American history and on the general mechanics of finance. She stated that she preferred that the United States not participate in the global economy, as if that were a policy option. She has advocated for some kind of bill or resolution to make sure that the United States continues to use the dollar, based on her misunderstanding of the term “global reserve currency,” which she apparently believed referred to the idea of having a single world currency. She’s a nut and she is totally absolutely completely unprepared to be President of the United States. The fact that she leads the Iowa polls should by all means be a topic of media speculation. But the speculation should be on the order of WTF? As for her performance at the GOP debate a few weeks ago, the media as a whole seemed to be blown away by her poise and confidence. Say what? She looks good and she can spout talking points. But hello! We’re talking about the future leader of the free world. Is there some unwritten rule of media etiquette that forbids discussion of a presidential candidate’s nonexistent qualifications for the job? Or is that kind of criticism reserved for official pundits from the left or right, who are then promptly dismissed by viewers on the other side? Lamestream Media Indeed Well, now I’ve made myself mad. Yet I have never in my lifetime experienced the disconnect between politics and the real world that we now confront. Who are these people who think Michelle Bachmann is the best bet to represent the Republicans in the next election? Why does a majority in this country believe that it’s no big deal to default on government obligations like military pay and social security checks? Why do they blithely ignore the calamitous effect that not raising the debt ceiling would have on the world’s financial markets? Why, indeed, is this country now obsessed with deficit spending as if the United States is an average family with bills to pay and has to “cut back” in order to afford everything? Why doesn’t the media ever question this assumption? No one likes huge deficits, but the solution is economic growth and jobs. As for spending, has anyone looked at the interest rate on 30-year treasuries lately? What are they? Three percent? I haven’t checked, but the fact is we have the largest economy in the world, and the borrowing power to match it. Our overall debt is about the same as our annual GDP, which (to use the same dumb analogy) is like a family that owes a year’s income on their low interest mortgage and outstanding loans. It’s not great as a historical percentage. But for God’s sake, we’re not Greece. We’re not “going bankrupt” or running out of money. Why don’t we hear from anyone with numbers, facts and charts? Never mind that almost the entire burden stemmed from the years of Reagan and Bush 1 and 2, plus the impact of the 2008 recession. Deficits were shrugged off like so much dandruff during the W administration. Now, the Republicans are ready to slash the entire New Deal while turning their backs on job growth and infrastructure spending. Why? There can only be one reason. The craven GOP priorities that put winning the next election ahead of the country’s welfare. |
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
Ninth Circuit Ends Don’t Ask Don’t Tell Enforcement
News For the Week Ended July 6, 2011
BY ANN ROSTOW
Ninth Circuit Ends Don’t Ask Don’t Tell Enforcement
Well, here’s some welcome news that naturally arrived just after I wrote this column. Today, Wednesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reinstated an injunction against enforcing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, effectively ordering the government to halt the discharge of gay soldiers and sailors.
I know, I know. The law has been repealed in Congress and is nearing the end of a long process to kill it for good. Indeed, the administration asked this court to just shelve the whole Don’t Ask lawsuit until the certification process was finished and the President signed off on the final repeal.
The court said no, agreeing with our side that as long as the law is technically in force, the lawsuit that challenges its constitutional status should continue. Today, the court issued a two-page note, barring enforcement of Don’t Ask, noting that since the law is almost dead anyway, the injunction should not be much of a hardship for the administration.
It’s taken forever for us to finally bury Don’t Ask. We’ve had the service, the wake, the memorial, the funeral procession. For God’s sake, let’s lower the coffin. This injunction can’t hurt.
--
The Charge of the Justice Department
So, I actually have a really big story this week. I think it’s even bigger than that injunction, but I had to lead with the breaking news. You may have already read that the Obama administration filed a legal brief in our favor in one of our six or seven major federal cases against the Defense of Marriage Act. (The Golinski case in Northern California if you must know.)
So what, you ask? Didn’t they tell us six months ago that they think DOMA is unconstitutional?
Well yes, as a matter of fact they did. And they also announced that they would no longer defend the law in court. But listen! They never said they’d hop over to our side and argue forcefully against the Defense of Marriage Act before these judges! And that’s what they’ve done.
It’s as if we’ve been fighting the Christian right in the streets for years, with mounted police hitting us back. In February, the police decided to stay out of the fight and withdrew their troops. But now, suddenly, the police are back, fully armed, and leading the charge on our behalf.
It’s enough to make you almost feel sorry for the House Republicans and their hapless DOMA lawyers. Almost.
The weight of the Justice Department is substantial. So much so that when that weight was lifted from the other side of our gay rights legal debates, we got a tremendous lift. Now the power of the U.S. government has not simply been taken away from our ideological opponents. It’s been added to our own. This is really incredible news.
There’s more if you care to delve into a little legal detail.
First of all, this 31-page brief was not just “pro gay,” it was one of the most forceful briefs I’ve ever read and that includes everything produced by Lambda, the NCLR, GLAD, the ACLU and all our legal eagles.
Second, it did not just argue that DOMA is unconstitutional. It made a terse, aggressive and adamant case for the idea that all laws discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation are inherently unconstitutional, unless there’s a solid justification for the law that is not based on prejudice. Can you think of an anti-gay law that isn’t based on bias? Neither can I.
I’ve bored many of you in the past by going on at length about suspect classes, heightened legal scrutiny, blah blah blah. But basically, laws that discriminate on the basis of race, gender, and other “suspect” classifications are subjected to a more searching legal analysis. What the government is now arguing is that sexual orientation should also be a suspect classification.
This is the most fundamental gay rights argument anyone can ever make. You can win a gay rights case without winning the argument about suspect classification and heightened scrutiny. But for all practical purposes, you cannot lose a gay rights case if you win that threshold question.
Even gay friendly courts are scared to rule on heightened scrutiny for fear of setting a precedent that will force lower courts to automatically rule for our side in future cases. They solve the dilemma by ruling that we win under any standard of legal review, ergo there’s no need to go into the general issue of which standard should apply.
We’ve been happy to win cases under any standard. But still, it’s time for the bobbing, ducking and weaving to come to an end. And who’s up there demanding federal courts to reach this critical issue? The U.S. government.
As I wrote last week, anyone who is still claiming that Barack Obama has neglected our community is simply off base. He has gone far far beyond anything we could have imagined in terms of legislation or executive orders. And he’s done so, under the political radar, through his legal policy.
--
Fingers Betray Penis Size
So here’s a mystery that consumed me with curiosity all day yesterday. Do you remember that there was a great ruling out of a bankruptcy court in LA about two or three weeks ago?
I wrote about it, but you may have seen “joint bankruptcy” in the headline and skipped it. I know your type. You’ll read about penis size, but when there’s a meaty legal opinion to dissect you’re nowhere to be found.
For the record, men with a low ratio between the size of their index and ring fingers have big baskets. Check it out on your right hand. I suppose you’re looking for equal lengths, right? A low ratio would be one to one.
Ladies, we already know that a ring finger longer than our index finger means we’re gay. Seriously, this works most of the time. The whole phenomenon has something to do with hormones in the womb, although it seems weird to me that such hormones would involve themselves in the stature of specific fingers.
Getting back to the bankruptcy case (and please stay with me this time) the ruling in favor of two gay married men who wanted to file bankruptcy together was noteworthy for two reasons. First, the judge ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act (which barred them from joint filings) was unconstitutional. Normally bankruptcy judges don’t mess with constitutional issues. And second, the ruling was joined by 19 other judges in the central California district.
At the time, the House Republicans decided not to appeal the anti-DOMA decision, even though they are supposedly running around from court to court to bolster the law. Under the circumstances, I thought the case was over; a victory for destitute gay couples throughout the valley. Hurray!
Then yesterday, I noticed to my shock and horror that someone had indeed filed a five-page motion for leave to appeal this ruling in federal court. Guess who it was?
It was the Justice Department, represented by the U.S. Trustee! The U.S. Trustee is a legal term for some guy who fills some important federal role in a bankruptcy case and who works for the Justice Department.
You remember the Justice Department from our first story, right? The brave government lawyers who issued the amazing defense of gay rights and condemned the Defense of Marriage Act in brilliant legal prose? Why then, would the same people be begging to reverse an anti-DOMA ruling in another federal venue?
Was it a rogue trustee? A miscommunication? Some technicality of bankruptcy law? Was it perhaps an arm of the House Republicans reaching out to manipulate the trustee?
I still don’t know the answer, but my secret sources tell me that the request to appeal will be shortly withdrawn on direct orders from Washington. If true, that sounds like the whole thing was a misunderstanding. I’m still curious about the circumstances of the (perhaps accidental) appeal. I’ll let you know if I find out any more dirt.
--
Prop 8 In 2012?
What else shall we talk about? I feel I should apologize to Casey Anthony for describing her as “the woman who killed her daughter.” Looks like she may not have been guilty after all. Sorry Casey. I followed the Casey Anthony trial about as closely as Casey Anthony followed the Karen Golinski DOMA case, so I can be forgiven. It wasn’t hard to assume she was guilty when all I kept hearing was snippets on MSNBC about “the smell of human decomposition,” “duct tape,” “chloroform” and other disturbing sound bites. I mean, someone murdered the little girl, right?
I gather that activists in Maryland and Maine are gearing up for more marriage fights, inspired by our excellent adventure in the New York legislature.
And speaking of marriage ballot wars, are we going to put a Prop 8 repeal on the 2012 ballot in California?
Equality California is conducting town hall meetings to sound out the community, but the pros and cons seem to be evenly matched. Polls suggest there’s roughly a fifty-fifty split among voters. But if you add standard religious exemptions to the language the polls swing in our favor.
Either way, do we really want to risk another electoral defeat in California? And what would that do to our current lawsuits?
Do we have the money, energy, and organization for another statewide election? I don’t know.
The Prop 8 lawsuit is mired in technicalities for the rest of this year and into 2012. But it might be resolved late next year, or early 2013. The most likely scenarios would restore marriage rights in California and strike Prop 8 as unconstitutional. Shouldn’t we wait and see?
That said, we’re “activists,” not “sitting around to see what happenists.” A victory at the ballot box would reverberate around the country and strike a body blow to the religious right that might finally knock them cold.
Personally, I go back and forth but if pressed, I’d avoid a repeal election out of a combination of laziness and optimism for the lawsuit.
--
Annoyed By Bill Keller
Here’s something I found irritating in the Sunday edition of my beloved New York Times. Executive Editor Bill Keller wrote a clueless essay on same-sex marriage, musing about how the whole national debate would be solved if the government would issue “civil unions” and the churches would sanctify “marriage.” Keller acknowledged that such an idea is impracticable for many reasons, but wandered blithely through his proposal nonetheless, with an air of “wouldn’t it be loverly.”
First of all, Bill. You are the ten zillionth person who has suggested exactly this solution, so why are you writing this? Did you think it original? If so, you obviously don’t have much of a background in the same-sex marriage arena and perhaps you should leave it alone or check with some gay person on staff.
Second, as has been pointed out to the ten zillion people before you, this clever “solution” is no different from legalizing marriage equality. Of course the government should have a one-size fits all civil something for gays and straights alike. And of course churches should do their own thing. Under the “civil unions for all” idea, both gay and straight couples would be “married” in the church and “civil unioned” by the state. But since you can’t legislate the use of vocabulary, we would all be married, period.
The idea that the government would change a word on a piece of paper and thereby make everyone happy is ludicrous. Everyone would use the “m” word anyway and the religious right would be just as pissed off as ever.
Finally, it’s a myth that there is a sharp divide between religious and civil marriage. No one gets married in a church but doesn’t bother with a civil marriage license. Churches can’t marry people. They can solemnize a marriage, and of course, they can do so for both straight and gay couples.
Our fight for marriage equality seems at times to be a semantic dispute with traditionalists over the “m” word. But it’s actually a fight over the “e” word, equality, which the “m” word represents. So yes, giving everyone civil unions would be fine in theory. But if you do that, changing the terminology is irrelevant and needless. It’s not a lofty compromise. It’s sophistry.
I feel so much better now.
--
arostow@aol.com
Reproduction with permission only.
BY ANN ROSTOW
Ninth Circuit Ends Don’t Ask Don’t Tell Enforcement
Well, here’s some welcome news that naturally arrived just after I wrote this column. Today, Wednesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reinstated an injunction against enforcing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, effectively ordering the government to halt the discharge of gay soldiers and sailors.
I know, I know. The law has been repealed in Congress and is nearing the end of a long process to kill it for good. Indeed, the administration asked this court to just shelve the whole Don’t Ask lawsuit until the certification process was finished and the President signed off on the final repeal.
The court said no, agreeing with our side that as long as the law is technically in force, the lawsuit that challenges its constitutional status should continue. Today, the court issued a two-page note, barring enforcement of Don’t Ask, noting that since the law is almost dead anyway, the injunction should not be much of a hardship for the administration.
It’s taken forever for us to finally bury Don’t Ask. We’ve had the service, the wake, the memorial, the funeral procession. For God’s sake, let’s lower the coffin. This injunction can’t hurt.
--
The Charge of the Justice Department
So, I actually have a really big story this week. I think it’s even bigger than that injunction, but I had to lead with the breaking news. You may have already read that the Obama administration filed a legal brief in our favor in one of our six or seven major federal cases against the Defense of Marriage Act. (The Golinski case in Northern California if you must know.)
So what, you ask? Didn’t they tell us six months ago that they think DOMA is unconstitutional?
Well yes, as a matter of fact they did. And they also announced that they would no longer defend the law in court. But listen! They never said they’d hop over to our side and argue forcefully against the Defense of Marriage Act before these judges! And that’s what they’ve done.
It’s as if we’ve been fighting the Christian right in the streets for years, with mounted police hitting us back. In February, the police decided to stay out of the fight and withdrew their troops. But now, suddenly, the police are back, fully armed, and leading the charge on our behalf.
It’s enough to make you almost feel sorry for the House Republicans and their hapless DOMA lawyers. Almost.
The weight of the Justice Department is substantial. So much so that when that weight was lifted from the other side of our gay rights legal debates, we got a tremendous lift. Now the power of the U.S. government has not simply been taken away from our ideological opponents. It’s been added to our own. This is really incredible news.
There’s more if you care to delve into a little legal detail.
First of all, this 31-page brief was not just “pro gay,” it was one of the most forceful briefs I’ve ever read and that includes everything produced by Lambda, the NCLR, GLAD, the ACLU and all our legal eagles.
Second, it did not just argue that DOMA is unconstitutional. It made a terse, aggressive and adamant case for the idea that all laws discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation are inherently unconstitutional, unless there’s a solid justification for the law that is not based on prejudice. Can you think of an anti-gay law that isn’t based on bias? Neither can I.
I’ve bored many of you in the past by going on at length about suspect classes, heightened legal scrutiny, blah blah blah. But basically, laws that discriminate on the basis of race, gender, and other “suspect” classifications are subjected to a more searching legal analysis. What the government is now arguing is that sexual orientation should also be a suspect classification.
This is the most fundamental gay rights argument anyone can ever make. You can win a gay rights case without winning the argument about suspect classification and heightened scrutiny. But for all practical purposes, you cannot lose a gay rights case if you win that threshold question.
Even gay friendly courts are scared to rule on heightened scrutiny for fear of setting a precedent that will force lower courts to automatically rule for our side in future cases. They solve the dilemma by ruling that we win under any standard of legal review, ergo there’s no need to go into the general issue of which standard should apply.
We’ve been happy to win cases under any standard. But still, it’s time for the bobbing, ducking and weaving to come to an end. And who’s up there demanding federal courts to reach this critical issue? The U.S. government.
As I wrote last week, anyone who is still claiming that Barack Obama has neglected our community is simply off base. He has gone far far beyond anything we could have imagined in terms of legislation or executive orders. And he’s done so, under the political radar, through his legal policy.
--
Fingers Betray Penis Size
So here’s a mystery that consumed me with curiosity all day yesterday. Do you remember that there was a great ruling out of a bankruptcy court in LA about two or three weeks ago?
I wrote about it, but you may have seen “joint bankruptcy” in the headline and skipped it. I know your type. You’ll read about penis size, but when there’s a meaty legal opinion to dissect you’re nowhere to be found.
For the record, men with a low ratio between the size of their index and ring fingers have big baskets. Check it out on your right hand. I suppose you’re looking for equal lengths, right? A low ratio would be one to one.
Ladies, we already know that a ring finger longer than our index finger means we’re gay. Seriously, this works most of the time. The whole phenomenon has something to do with hormones in the womb, although it seems weird to me that such hormones would involve themselves in the stature of specific fingers.
Getting back to the bankruptcy case (and please stay with me this time) the ruling in favor of two gay married men who wanted to file bankruptcy together was noteworthy for two reasons. First, the judge ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act (which barred them from joint filings) was unconstitutional. Normally bankruptcy judges don’t mess with constitutional issues. And second, the ruling was joined by 19 other judges in the central California district.
At the time, the House Republicans decided not to appeal the anti-DOMA decision, even though they are supposedly running around from court to court to bolster the law. Under the circumstances, I thought the case was over; a victory for destitute gay couples throughout the valley. Hurray!
Then yesterday, I noticed to my shock and horror that someone had indeed filed a five-page motion for leave to appeal this ruling in federal court. Guess who it was?
It was the Justice Department, represented by the U.S. Trustee! The U.S. Trustee is a legal term for some guy who fills some important federal role in a bankruptcy case and who works for the Justice Department.
You remember the Justice Department from our first story, right? The brave government lawyers who issued the amazing defense of gay rights and condemned the Defense of Marriage Act in brilliant legal prose? Why then, would the same people be begging to reverse an anti-DOMA ruling in another federal venue?
Was it a rogue trustee? A miscommunication? Some technicality of bankruptcy law? Was it perhaps an arm of the House Republicans reaching out to manipulate the trustee?
I still don’t know the answer, but my secret sources tell me that the request to appeal will be shortly withdrawn on direct orders from Washington. If true, that sounds like the whole thing was a misunderstanding. I’m still curious about the circumstances of the (perhaps accidental) appeal. I’ll let you know if I find out any more dirt.
--
Prop 8 In 2012?
What else shall we talk about? I feel I should apologize to Casey Anthony for describing her as “the woman who killed her daughter.” Looks like she may not have been guilty after all. Sorry Casey. I followed the Casey Anthony trial about as closely as Casey Anthony followed the Karen Golinski DOMA case, so I can be forgiven. It wasn’t hard to assume she was guilty when all I kept hearing was snippets on MSNBC about “the smell of human decomposition,” “duct tape,” “chloroform” and other disturbing sound bites. I mean, someone murdered the little girl, right?
I gather that activists in Maryland and Maine are gearing up for more marriage fights, inspired by our excellent adventure in the New York legislature.
And speaking of marriage ballot wars, are we going to put a Prop 8 repeal on the 2012 ballot in California?
Equality California is conducting town hall meetings to sound out the community, but the pros and cons seem to be evenly matched. Polls suggest there’s roughly a fifty-fifty split among voters. But if you add standard religious exemptions to the language the polls swing in our favor.
Either way, do we really want to risk another electoral defeat in California? And what would that do to our current lawsuits?
Do we have the money, energy, and organization for another statewide election? I don’t know.
The Prop 8 lawsuit is mired in technicalities for the rest of this year and into 2012. But it might be resolved late next year, or early 2013. The most likely scenarios would restore marriage rights in California and strike Prop 8 as unconstitutional. Shouldn’t we wait and see?
That said, we’re “activists,” not “sitting around to see what happenists.” A victory at the ballot box would reverberate around the country and strike a body blow to the religious right that might finally knock them cold.
Personally, I go back and forth but if pressed, I’d avoid a repeal election out of a combination of laziness and optimism for the lawsuit.
--
Annoyed By Bill Keller
Here’s something I found irritating in the Sunday edition of my beloved New York Times. Executive Editor Bill Keller wrote a clueless essay on same-sex marriage, musing about how the whole national debate would be solved if the government would issue “civil unions” and the churches would sanctify “marriage.” Keller acknowledged that such an idea is impracticable for many reasons, but wandered blithely through his proposal nonetheless, with an air of “wouldn’t it be loverly.”
First of all, Bill. You are the ten zillionth person who has suggested exactly this solution, so why are you writing this? Did you think it original? If so, you obviously don’t have much of a background in the same-sex marriage arena and perhaps you should leave it alone or check with some gay person on staff.
Second, as has been pointed out to the ten zillion people before you, this clever “solution” is no different from legalizing marriage equality. Of course the government should have a one-size fits all civil something for gays and straights alike. And of course churches should do their own thing. Under the “civil unions for all” idea, both gay and straight couples would be “married” in the church and “civil unioned” by the state. But since you can’t legislate the use of vocabulary, we would all be married, period.
The idea that the government would change a word on a piece of paper and thereby make everyone happy is ludicrous. Everyone would use the “m” word anyway and the religious right would be just as pissed off as ever.
Finally, it’s a myth that there is a sharp divide between religious and civil marriage. No one gets married in a church but doesn’t bother with a civil marriage license. Churches can’t marry people. They can solemnize a marriage, and of course, they can do so for both straight and gay couples.
Our fight for marriage equality seems at times to be a semantic dispute with traditionalists over the “m” word. But it’s actually a fight over the “e” word, equality, which the “m” word represents. So yes, giving everyone civil unions would be fine in theory. But if you do that, changing the terminology is irrelevant and needless. It’s not a lofty compromise. It’s sophistry.
I feel so much better now.
--
arostow@aol.com
Reproduction with permission only.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)