By Ann Rostow
I Get a Kick Out of You
I was just reading about the fact that Psychology Today continues to run classified ads for conversion therapists, when I clicked onto a list of 12 methods that people once employed to cure homosexuality. My favorite was a technique recommended by 19th century physician Denslow Lewis, who advised women to battle their same-sex attractions through the use of cocaine. Oh, I know that Downton Abbey is in the 20th century, but talk of this Dr. Lewis and his imaginative remedies reminds me that I read that Maggie Smith says the next season will be her last. I’m not sure that I can manage a season of Downton Abbey without the dowager countess, can you?
I was all set to be outraged by Psychology Today, but their advertising manager said that the magazine doesn’t pass judgment on this or that therapy as long as it’s legal and as long as the advertiser is not fraudulent. Well, I guess that makes sense, I thought. Then again, conversion therapy is so destructive!
Finally, I decided I didn’t really care that much and I turned instead to the intriguing click bait on the side of the screen. One early de-gayer thought bike rides would help, while another sent men to prostitutes and advised them to drink heavily. I know, I know! Nineteenth century conversion therapy sounds like a lot of fun.
It’s Magic!
Moving on, roughly two dozen protestors were arrested at the Idaho legislature March 2 during a demonstration to promote GLBT civil rights protections. Earlier this year, Spud State lawmakers considered and rejected adding sexual orientation and gender identity to statewide discrimination bans. But Monday’s protest seemed symbolic, since I don’t believe any particular measure was up for a vote.
By the way, I learned this by reading an article on MagicValley.com, where I was forced to answer a question in order to continue to the end of the piece. The question was: Which superpower would you rather have, the ability to fly, or the ability to be invisible? I actually spent several minutes considering the two options.
If you could fly, you might be very cold, depending on how high or how fast you went, and you might be shot down by a terrified witness. Particularly if you live in Texas, as I do. If you were invisible, however, it might be a very lonely sensation. I picked it anyway. I also wondered why the website would condition full access on such a random inquiry. And where the hell is Magic Valley? Some place in Idaho, I suppose. Just checked. It’s a region in Idaho.
What if you had a heart attack when you were invisible? Or what if you decided to fly only at night and you flew into some power wires? The disturbing possibilities mount.
Yet Another Marriage Deadline Ahead
So, perhaps it’s time for a little marriage equality news. You should know that a federal judge in Nebraska just struck the Cornhusker marriage amendment as unconstitutional in a decision that takes effect March 9. That means that state authorities will be off and running to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit for an extended hold on the ruling, and unlike the recent situations in Florida and Alabama, there’s reason to believe they may be successful.
Say what? Yes, yes, sad to say, but the Eighth Circuit might very well put a hold on Nebraska weddings simply because the appellate court is smack dab in the middle of evaluating marriage equality for three other states under its jurisdiction; South Dakota, Arkansas, and I forget—but I’m pretty sure there’s one more. Missouri? (Yes, Missouri.) At any rate, it’s likely the court will simply add Nebraska to the ongoing litigation or, more likely, just make them wait until the matter is decided. After all, they’d look pretty silly allowing marriages to go ahead in one state, while they deliberated on the legal situation elsewhere as if it were an open question. At any rate, oral arguments in the Eighth Circuit are scheduled for May 11, although the High Court will render anything the Eighth Circuit does moot by late June.
Earlier this year by contrast, both Florida and Alabama failed to convince the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit to postpone marriage equality in their states. Indeed, the Eleventh Circuit subsequently announced that it would put marriage litigation on hold until the U.S. Supreme Court takes action.
That seemed sensible to me. I can’t imagine why the Eighth Circuit is not deferring to higher authority as well, and I can only ascribe an egotistical motive to the court. They just want to put their stamp on the historical record.
One Lone Marriage for Lone Star State
In other marriage news, there’s a complicated situation in Texas that would normally lead me to avoid the story completely, but as it turns out, this situation is in my own hometown so I have it figured out. And I can tell you all about it!
First, a county probate judge ruled in favor of a woman in an estate case, who was arguing that her common law marriage to the dead woman should be recognized for the purposes of inheritance. As part of the ruling, the judge said the state’s antigay marriage amendment was unconstitutional. Remember that this is a county judge, and recall as well that the Texas amendment was already struck by a federal judge and appealed to the Fifth Circuit. My point is that this county ruling should not have been a big deal.
However, this was not any county, but Travis County, the little blue circle in the center of Texas that you see surrounded by an ocean of red after every presidential election. Our county clerk has been itching to marry someone, but unfortunately, as she told the press, she could do nothing on the strength of this estate ruling. A few days later, another judge gave two women a Temporary Restraining Order, preventing the clerk from enforcing the marriage ban. The women, Sarah Goodfriend and Suzanne Bryant, have been together for over 30 years, and Goodfriend is fighting cancer.
With the waiting period waived, the women promptly got married, at which point newly elected Attorney General Ken Paxton begged the Texas Supreme Court to undo the marriage. On that same day, February 19, the court put a hold on any future marriages, but that was not enough for Paxton, who on Friday the 20th asked the Texas court to void the Goodfriend/Bryant marriage.
I did not read Paxton’s 50-plus page brief on the subject, but one of his objections centered on the fact that his office was not notified in advance of a constitutional challenge. Normally, the AG’s office must be informed of such a challenge so that the office can contest the outcome. But, here’s the thing! Remember the estate case that started the ball rolling here? That judge did indeed inform the AG’s office, which replied at the time that it had no interest in getting involved with the case. So there.
Finally, I come to the most colorful aspect of this sidewinding trip down the back alleys of America’s journey towards marriage equality. One of our brand new rookie state legislators, a Tea Party representative from the Dallas area, has filed a complaint against the judge who issued the TRO on behalf of the two women.
This representative, Tony Tinderholt, scrawled the complaint in childish hand on a form, erroneously accusing Judge Wahlberg of issuing a constitutional judgment without informing the AG’s office. He then had his staff call the press, and wave the ridiculous “complaint” around as if it had merit. (Judge Wahlberg’s TRO did not require any notification, and, as I mentioned earlier, the estate judge did indeed inform the AG’s office.) The last straw for the press, however, lay in the fact that the 40-something Tinderholt has himself been married five times. Yes, you read that correctly. In no time, Tinderholt’s irresistible combination of ineptitude and hypocrisy took flight, turning him from outraged champion of traditional values to media laughingstock.
(Scary footnote: Just a tiny bit of extra reading reveals the fact that Mr. Tinderholt is not simply a figure of fun. He’s a xenophobic lunatic.)
Get Me Started
My attention span is refusing to settle on the next topic for our review, and instead it bounces like a pinball from one shining light to the next pinging bell, interested in everything and nothing. How about the California lawyer who wants to qualify an initiative to make gay sex punishable by death? The guy is obviously seeking publicity. Why provide it?
Then there’s a reporter who went to the Conservative Political Action Conference, switched on his Grindr app and interviewed a bunch of gay guys, some closeted, some not. That was kinda cool. Emphasis on “kinda.” Next?
How about the big headlines claiming: “Gay rights activist faked his abduction?” Well, that sure sounds intriguing, except the “gay rights activist” is an obviously troubled 20-year-old boy, not an official “activist.” I’m not sure exactly what it means to be an activist, but when used in a headline, it should at least signify someone who organizes or leads gay rights demonstrations or political efforts. This fellow reportedly works for “Support Marriage Equality Ohio,” but I’ve never heard of such a group and can’t find it online. There is a Facebook page by that name. Maybe our hero helped with the page.
Joe Biden’s going to speak at the HRC dinner. Yawn. The California Republican Party has decided to recognize the (gay GOP) Log Cabin Club. Are we supposed to stand and applaud? There was a nice article in the New York Times about the first lesbian chaplain of the New York Fire Department. Go read it, by all means!
Oh. And here’s a strange little reflection on our GLBT community. A group in Florida has written a cease and desist letter to an organization in California that was planning an Easter event called “Cathedral City Gay Days.” Turns out the Florida party company, Gay Days Inc., owns the trademark to the expression “Gay Days,” and won’t let anyone else use it. C’mon guys! The California organizers were forced to change their title to “Cathedral City LGBT Days,” which, let’s face it, does not roll off the tongue.
I mean, really. What’s next? Trademarks on “Pride Parade,” “Pride Fest,” “Gay Parade,” and “Rainbow
Recent Comments