Disposal Day #121: The only story in town

STORY #1: It’s the economy . . . really

At some point very soon, like it or not, Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) will have to elaborate on “I believe that marriage is the union of one man and one woman” when asked to comment on President Obama’s support for same-sex marriage. Granted, there isn’t much room for elaboration. But people will demand to know which side of history he’d prefer to be on, as Fox News anchor Shepard Smith incisively surmised. (He may be the only incisive person there.)

I’m sure some of you are depressed that this issue is dividing anyone at all. But despite all the insistence on “traditional marriage,” the concept has been evolving for generations. People of different races can do it; people of different faiths can do it; people of the same bloodlines can’t do it (most of the time); and one gender is no longer the legal property of the other (in America). And nobody has been able to reverse the sentiment successfully. So, give it another decade or two. People will laugh at the idea that SSM was ever a matter of controversy or even debate.

STORY #2: Not in Washington, though

While Boehner’s attempts to bring the line of questioning back to jobs were pretty hilarious (PIVOTING, U R DOIN IT WRONG), the truth is that Obama’s announcement of support was mostly a symbolic move that may have no bearing on the legislative process for months, perhaps years. Witness his comments on an anticipated referendum in Washington State that would overturn their SSM law. Sure, he opposes it. But is he planning to do anything about it?

I’m not blind to the fact that being the first president to support SSM out loud is a huge step. But until he announces a constitutional amendment to illegalize sex-specific laws across the country (which I would personally support, because why wouldn’t you want to do that?), it’s just a statement. Hopefully we’ll all get back to business as usual after this week’s news cycle.

STORY #3: Inside Bristol’s brain

According to Bristol Palin, who may see more mentions here now that she’s commenting on something other than her personal life (for now), this is how to be a proper parent and president: 1. Tell your kids that their personal perspective is as valuable as Dora the Explorer. 2. Pretend society’s perspective never, ever changes. 3. “Shape their thoughts” before the kids shape their own. I’m tempted to start a Twitter campaign called #freetripp. If this is the sort of parental education he starts getting in a few years, I expect a large(r) therapy bill.

Biden’s latest gaffe becomes a BFD

Yesterday, the Internet exploded. Not because there was a Chinese cyber-attack, or because some idiot forgot to type three digits, or because Kim’s having Kanye’s baby, or any such thing. It happened because President Obama announced that he supports same-sex marriage. Now, maybe a political culture in which everyone appeases everyone else has made me (more) cynical, but I can’t help but wonder if he really does support the idea, or if it’s just politically beneficial to say so.

The interweb seems to have come to the latter conclusion; #FutureBidenGaffes was one of the first trending topics to follow the announcement. Everyone wants Vice President Biden to say he supports whatever they support, thus compelling Obama to do the same. Of course, if that panned out in real life (it won’t), people would eventually recall that Biden is an opinionated guy and isn’t afraid to bite the hand that feeds him, and that hand can giving him a swat on the rear if he gets rowdy enough.

And let’s be honest, this announcement couldn’t have come at a better time. The day before, North Carolina voters approved a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage and civil unions, which is unsurprising (although I always believed that North Carolina would be less inclined toward this sort of thing than other Southern states) but still disappointing. I comfort myself, however, with the knowledge that even constitutional amendments are capable of being overturned. Besides, LGBT couples can always just pack up and leave, and what state would drive its own citizens away unless it hadn’t thought of that possibility?

(Sidebar: Here you’ll find a serious of talking points against same-sex marriage, mostly concerning the right to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman – that’s a right? – and the protection of children. Here’s my standard counter-argument to that last one: “I defy you to show me any evidence that children suffer when they are raised by same-sex couples. DEFY.”)

If anyone is wondering where former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA) is on this, he says he has opposed same-sex marriage “from the beginning.” (Uh-huh.) That adds to my concern that Obama is just trying to placate a grumbling base; the other guy is, after all. So, celebrate as you like, as he can’t turn back now. But remember that he’s still a politician like all the others.

And on that note, what an opportunity this gives his opponents to say his VP can manipulate him so easily! Probably just once, but still! Who wants four more years of that after eight ridiculous ones?

The vast neutral conspiracy

Students in Anoka-Hennepin high schools must have been very confused about regional attitudes toward homosexuality in recent years. On the one hand, Minneapolis was named “Gayest City in America” last year by The Advocate. On the other, the school board’s rule that educators remain “neutral” on homosexuality often led to the idea going unspoken. Thankfully, after a shameful number of teen suicides in the area due to homophobic bullying, that rule is over.

The new rule would require teachers to encourage a respectful exchange of views on divisive topics relating to politics, religion, economics and social issues. It would also require them to “affirm the dignity and self-worth of all students” based on upbringing, culture and, yes, sexual orientation. They would not be allowed to sway students toward one particular viewpoint or another. In short, it’s the neutrality the earlier rule sought, only paired with an acknowledgement that LGBTs are functioning members of society as well.

You might hear someone say that this, in itself, is swaying students toward a particular viewpoint. I’ll just let an opponent of the rule change speak to that: “We are at a crossroads. You either cave in to the demands of the homosexual activists, an action that will make our schools unsafe for all kids, or you stand firm and protect the children.” Lady, I’d better see some proof that gay kids are harmful to other kids the next time a news service deigns to quote you.

While I do not submit that bullying, homophobia or both automatically equals suicide, it’s not difficult to look a bully using homophobic language in the eye and say “No. Unacceptable. This person’s sexual orientation doesn’t affect you. Leave them alone.” An earlier policy did stipulate zero tolerance of this sort of bullying. But that was demonstrably not enough. If you’re so much as going to try to enforce this, you have to be free to admit that different sexual orientations exist.

You’ll never be able to make all students believe homosexuality isn’t fundamentally immoral; they live with other people, after all. But one day, they will get out into the real world. There is no better way to prepare for this than by exposing them to all manner of perspectives and people. Anyone who objects is free to send them to a private school and should be free to home-school them (with the proper materials). All is not lost for parents who, for whatever reason, think the new rule is wrong.

But because this decision was made by an individual school board because of its own problems, no one will be able to trip this up on a technicality. All that’s left is to see which minds they develop on their own.

What happened to “Support our troops?”

It’s time once again for The Future American’s FAIL OF THE WEEK! Every Saturday, I name a person or group who has spent the past seven days behaving in a particularly idiotic way. Since it’s my belief that idiocy knows no politics, nobody is safe.

This week’s fail was brought to you by anyone who booed the unnamed gay soldier who asked the candidates a question at last night’s Republican presidential debate. Actually, wait – I’m not going to bother writing them up because no amount of reason has been known to satisfy anti-gay losers before. Instead, let’s go after the candidates themselves, who didn’t call anyone out on it.

Bizarrely, former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) is the only one to have mentioned it so far, and he’s the least gay-friendly candidate in the group. Of course, his response was chickenshit, so it might be a bad example regardless. I won’t bother determining if he would have heard the boos, but instead of “I would have said, ‘Don’t do that. This man is serving our country and we are to thank him for his service,” why couldn’t he just have said ”Don’t do that. This man is serving our country and we are to thank him for his service”? When did his balls begin to match his approval ratings?

Not only did the candidates’ collective failure to hand down an actual condemnation show complete disrespect for this soldier, it showed their own ignorance of a perfect soundbite opportunity. Let’s say, hypothetically, that a candidate to whom we shall refer as Shmon Shmuntsman heard the boos and said something to the effect of

Sir, before I answer your question, let me say this to everyone who thinks they’re making a worthwhile point when they boo him: This man is serving our country, and if you’re serious about voting for a party that respects our men and women in uniform, you’d better be prepared to respect ALL of them. I have no patience for any lesser treatment and I sincerely hope I don’t see it from any of you again. The military itself has managed to get past those double standards – it’s our turn to do the same. And now, sir, I thank you for your service, and you may ask your question.

For Shmon Shmuntsman, that would have been one of the absolute best moments in a presidential debate in recent history. No party, candidate or law can stop participants in a political event from being obnoxious in public. However, if they knew the important invitees were taking notice and didn’t appreciate it, they might at least consider that they really are being obnoxious.

Disposal Day #79: The ministry of silly bans

STORY #1: Our blood is boiling

This would be funny if it weren’t so sad: Aaron Pace of Gary, Indiana, was turned away from a local blood-donation center not because he was gay (the Food and Drug Administration [FDA] still has a policy preventing gay men from donating), but because he seemed gay. Do they automatically toss out men who wear pastels or have effeminate voices? What exactly are the criteria for gaylikeness?

I don’t normally support individual litigation, but I would have no problem with Pace suing the asses off this center for being that stupid. But I suppose we should thank them for reminding us that this policy, designed to keep the AIDS virus out of transfusions, is blatantly discriminatory and unnecessary. If American medicine cannot detect HIV in any given pint of blood by now – and I’m sure it can – you might as well ban transfusions altogether, because nobody could be trusted under such circumstances.

STORY #2: Little mosque in the Smokies

This isn’t LGBT-related at all, but it’s still a silly ban: GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain (R-GA) thinks local governments should have the right to ban mosques. Because of zoning issues? No, because they might be spreading Sharia law. Because that’s what your average mosque in Tennessee would have the sense to do. Watching Cain try to dig his way out of this hole is kind of like watching this.

Using Cain’s logic, I can argue that local governments should also have the right to ban evangelical churches in which pastors have an unfortunate habit of agitating for right-wing social causes; the right to ban synagogues in which rabbis encourage unwavering support for Israel; and the right to ban Jain temples in which priests promote vegetarianism. If this man wants to remind people that he’s actually pretty smart, he’ll shut up about Islam for a few months.

STORY #3: Protect the porn!

Flying in the face of everything we know about the First Amendment, multiple GOP candidates have signed a pledge that would commit them to banning porn. Not gay porn, not even child porn, but porn in general. This would be a bit of a relief to me because it would free up two-thirds of the Internet for the rest of us. But can we please see to it that line items on candidates’ pledges would be constitutional, if nothing else?

Disposal Day #68: Same-sex, same crap

STORY #1: Thank God for Steve Simon

You can’t bank on a video going viral, as PR specialists know. But Minnesota state Rep. Steve Simon (DFL-St. Louis Park) is very fortunate that his speech against a constitutional same-sex marriage ban did. It’s truly inspired, mainly because he argued on a religious basis. He’s speaking the language of most of the ban’s backers; he’s just using it against them. Brilliant.

A number of commenters say government shouldn’t be involved in providing marriage licenses at all, leaving it up to houses of worship. I’m starting to come around to that view myself. I know of at least one church in the Twin Cities where same-sex weddings are officiated; they certainly didn’t need anyone’s permission. If any constitutional amendment should go on next year’s ballot, it should bar the government from passing legislation relating to personal relationships between consenting adults.

STORY #2:  Sanctum Santorum

The rule of speaking someone’s language especially applies when you’re giving an interview to a media outlet with an agenda. So we can ease off on Karen Santorum, wife of presidential candidate and former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA), for claiming the 2012 election will be about “defending God’s truth in the world.” Except when you consider job numbers, the deficit and debt, recent events in the Middle East, health care and the environment . . . it won’t. At least not to the majority of voters.

In particular, she lists “defending the secredness (sic) of marriage” as a truth to be defended. (The spelling error is that of the Atlantic Wire writer, not Karen.) You can pretty much guess how Santorum himself would approach that. Based on the popularity of the above noted video, I expect that the odds will tip in favor of those who believe God loves homosexuals enough to let them marry each other. These two had better come up with a Plan B.

STORY #3: Sue would be proud

Now this is just ridiculous: The Fox affiliate in Houston devoted an entire segment to the question of whether or not Glee was turning kids gay or forcing them to accept homosexuality as normal. Actually, most of us come around to that view on our own during high school. And the real question should be, “Is Glee turning kids into whiny, self-absorbed attention whores with delusions of musical grandeur?” Answer: Probably.

I write the 29th Amendment

I admit, I was very happy when U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips struck down “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” and even more so when a federal ruling in Massachusetts declared the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA, circa 1996) unconstitutional. But that’s rarely the end of the battle, merely round two. (The first round usually means convincing the government to bother talking about it.) Sadly for GLBT activists, the government is virtually obligated to oppose these rulings, strictly on procedural grounds.

Generally speaking, the U.S. prefers to keep its judiciary branch weaker than its executive and legislative branches. Otherwise, a single judge from one state would have authority over the federal law in question, often without having to answer to the electorate. Also, if the laws do not explicitly violate the Constitution, the White House considers it incumbent upon itself to dispatch its Solicitor General to challenge the law. (Sidebar: Neal Katyal is the Acting Solicitor General following the appointment of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court.)

Remember the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA)? Most arguments for it have been made in the context of sexual discrimination against women. A battery of other laws have made this catch-all law almost unnecessary to help that cause. We cannot say the same for discrimination against GLBTs. Therefore, it is time for the movement to revive the fight for the ERA, for a new purpose this time. (Yes, Phyllis Schlafly, the ERA may just lead to homosexual marriage. And that’s OK.)

For those who are not aware, Section 1 of the ERA reads as follows:

Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

. . . followed by the usual shiz about Congress having the power to enforce it, blah blah blah. That’s a good start. But I would add another amendment, one that protects people in all states from such utterly offensive and intrusive laws as DOMA:

Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of marital and sexual relations between consenting persons over the age of consent as defined by the States.

Or something like that. I doubt it would be easy to misinterpret an amendment worded as above. “But, Jess,” you ask, “wouldn’t that make polygamy constitutional?” Yes. We’ve been over that one.

All that’s left to do is to find a member of Congress with the stones to propose these amendments in public. Which one of you is willing to do it? You don’t even have to give me any credit. In public, anyway.

You can’t always legislate what you want

The staff at post-secondary institutions fundamentally have far less sight over students than high schools and below do, not to mention most workplaces, and these students are mostly over 18. So while Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) may be well-intentioned in planning to put forth a bill requiring colleges to establish these policies, would it really accomplish anything? My guess is most already have offices providing anti-harassment resources. What more can they do?

The impetus for this bill, as you can probably guess, is the suicide of Rutgers University student Tyler Clementi, committed after his degenerate of a roommate, Dharun Ravi, and his co-degenerate, Molly Wei, posted a video of Clementi having sex with a man online. They have both been charged with invasion of privacy, and authorities are looking into a hate crime charge. You know how I feel about that – a crime is a crime is a crime – so we’ll move on.

The other impetus of this bill was the suicide of Seth Walsh, a high school student who consistently endured taunting for being gay. This is where I see the real problem: I don’t know if there’s been an actual numerical rise in bullying-oriented teen suicides, but we have been hearing more about them in the last couple of years. If these well-publicized cases don’t get high school administrations to start paying some damn attention, what will? Any time I see a kid being bullied, make no mistake, I’ll start boxing some ears.

As for the Clementi case, everything seems to be going according to plan. The lowlifes have been punished for their actual crime (so far) and preventative measures are entering the discussion stage. My hope is that, at some point, they will get to how to keep roommates and others from exposing each other online in such a fashion. This act is completely without justification. It’s user-driven entertainment for human scum.

Lautenberg’s bill will probably die out, sad as it is. Remember that college students are almost all adults – and in the case of these meatbags, I use the term lightly – and it’s standard procedure for professors and admins to be hands-off until asked. This sort of thing has no legislative quick fix.

The only truly preventative measure for both of these cases is to eliminate the idea that it’s constantly open season on homosexuals. No “family” organization can convince me that one or two Bible verses makes this acceptable; more important tenets of Christianity include loving thy neighbor and turning the other cheek. Acceptance, not tolerance, needs a way to capture the culture back from bullies direct and indirect. This may take years or more, but it must happen for there to be real change.

Disposal Day #30: Sanity is gay

STORY #1: Y’know how I know you’re gay? You follow the Constitution

Oh, this is so very, very mature. Not a week after he overturned California’s same-sex marriage ban for constitutional reasons, Chief U.S. Judge Vaughn Walker is being accused of homosexuality himself. Among those demanding to know about his personal life are Maggie Gallagher, president of the National Organization for Marriage (one kind of it, anyway), and Notre Dame professor Gerard Bradley, who blames the media for not asking this utterly meaningless question enough.

The personal may have been political once, but this is 2010. We ought to have evolved past the days in which people vote solely for their own interests as opposed to basic fairness. If this is especially evident within the judiciary, so much the better. Walker should not feel compelled to prove himself to any of these dingbats.

STORY #2: And within the executive?

Actually, nowhere is the above more evident than in the Oval Office itself. President Obama has affirmed his personal opposition to same-sex marriage more than once, but always follows that up with a promise not to use political or legal means to restrict it. Politico reports that he may at least have to say something in order to clarify whose side he’s on, which puts his strategy of “relegating divisive social issues to the back burner” (an excellent idea under the circumstances) at risk. OK, that kind of sucks.

I would be very interested to know why Obama is so reluctant to endorse same-sex marriage itself. It might be that he shares the opinion of my mom, who is all for rights and shiz but says stuff like “I just don’t think it’s marriage, you know?” And it’s been legal in Canada for five years. (Memo to opponents: Nothing has happened. Seriously, nothing. We’re all doing just fine.)

STORY #3: Whose people?

The above link also mentions the particularly thorny issue of Proposition 8 being directly voted on by the citizens of California. Should a federal judge have the authority to overturn such a vote? My answer: If it can be deemed unconstitutional, yes, a federal judge would be the best person to determine this without going straight to the Supreme Court itself.

We’ve heard a lot of talk about “patchwork” policies over the past while; it would be the worst thing if it were applied to civil rights. This ruling makes it clear that the rights of people across the country will soon supersede the rights of people in one state for good.

The last temptation of Hastings

If there’s one thing I enjoy writing about as much as U.S. federal and state politics, it’s North American campus politics. At the University of California, a new battle over campus group status has gone all the way to the Supreme Court – much like something else involving Californians, gay people, and Christians. I think it’s becoming a trend.

The U of C’s Hastings College of the Law (based in San Francisco, natch) is home to a chapter of a nationwide group for law students known as the Christian Legal Society. (Nothing could be a worse idea than basing legal decisions on religion, but that’s another column.) They were denied status as a student group on this campus in particular because of their refusal to let gays join. Or, as they put it,

CLS interprets the Statement of Faith to include the belief that Christians should not engage in sexual conduct outside of a marriage between a man and a woman.

Not that they’d find out if any of their members did this, unless their membership cards or whatever included some sort of homing device, in which case we’d really have a constitutional problem. But this statement also seems to me to bar students who engage in any premarital sex. That’ll be one tiny group if they ever get official status.

So the question now before the Supreme Court is, was the First Amendment right of the CLS to “freedom of speech, religion and association” violated? I don’t think it entirely unreasonable to expect many homosexuals on that campus to want to join this group. It is clearly committed to social and legal conservatism in a Christian context and even more clearly unwilling to alter this.

But is it not possible that a homosexual person could be committed to the same thing? Despite what the occasional non-biologist claims, you can’t change your sexual orientation at the drop of a hat, nor can you do this with your political and/or religious beliefs. But homosexuality and conservative Christianity are not mutually exclusive. If an applicant has the latter in common with the group, why should they care about the former?

So my decision would be to scrap that rule, for the sake of having a few extra minds in the room. But if you want a real problem with campus groups, come on down to U. Winnipeg. We’ll meet in the Womyn’s Centre, where womyn do little more than study and talk. Of course, you can’t cross the threshold if you’re male, but I’m sure I can work something out.