By Ann Rostrow
Tis The Season
Uh oh. It’s that time again. The holiday vortex when our GLBT news bin mysteriously empties while our obligation to GLBT readers remains binding. I don’t know why it happens, but it does. Yet this year, I assumed the endless marriage equality news would span the dead zone from Thanksgiving to early January. Surely there’s another brief to parse, another state politician to excoriate, another court to muse about?
But yes and no. In the last week, a federal court in Arkansas ruled against the Razorback antigay marriage amendment. That case will head to the Eighth Circuit. And in Mississippi, another federal judge tossed the Double Letter State’s marriage ban in a case that may now join two others before the Fifth Circuit.
The University of Arkansas has a razorback mascot named “Tusk.” Cute. I like mascots. Here in Austin, ours is “Bevo,” the huge longhorn who sits on the sidelines at Texas games. Legend has it that he was once branded with the score of a victory by our rivals, Texas A&M. The score, “13–0,” was then altered to form the name “BEVO” in order to undermine the prank. In a horrifying aside, that particular Bevo was also reportedly served as the main course at the 1920 football banquet. Seriously!
There was a time when two federal court decisions in favor of marriage equality in the space of one week would have qualified as a groundbreaking development in GLBT news. That time was less than a year ago. Now, not only has the ground been broken, but we’ve almost built the, um, Marriage Equality Tower? Indeed, many of the condominiums are under contract, and the final touches are pending in the Sky’s the Limit rooftop bar and infinity pool.
Ruth’s Crisis
I should mention that we are still waiting for a ruling from the Arkansas Supreme Court that could legalize marriage in Feral Hog Country without delay. But, as you know, the main game continues in Washington, where we have just learned that the High Court plans to consider whether or not to take up the Michigan marriage case during its January 9 conference. There are several other petitions in progress, including three others stemming from our recent losses at the Sixth Circuit. In two other cases, lawyers are planning to ask the Supreme Court to step in prior to an appellate court decision. Those are cases out of Louisiana and South Carolina. Louisiana has just replied, agreeing that the High Court should grant review. But given the fact that Michigan has gone through the lower courts, let’s assume that the Mitten State is more likely to make the docket.
That said, now that we see Deboer v Snyder on the January 9 calendar, it’s possible that some of these other appeals could be rushed into line.
I have great admiration for the octogenarian Justice Ginsburg, who survived two bouts of cancer treatment without missing a day of work. Now, she’s managed to undergo emergency heart surgery during the Thanksgiving vacation and still show up for arguments on Monday.
But can I just say that this feline ability to land on her feet is as frightening as it is admirable? Let’s get marriage on the High Court’s agenda this year, and let’s finish it up by next June before Justice Ginsburg is required to jump through any more medical hoops. After all, a four-four tie from a diminished Court goes to the winner at the lower court. Thanks to Judge Sutton at the Sixth Circuit, that is not us. So indeed, a nightmare scenario still lurks at the margins of what is possible, and delay is our enemy.
Sore Losers Keep Fighting
During a battlefield rout, the rear guard lags the retreating army to set traps and take pot shots at the advancing victors. Sure enough, we are dealing with several rear guard skirmishes as marriage sweeps over the nation.
One obvious area is Kansas, where state authorities have lost in federal court and state court. They are also operating under binding law from the Tenth Circuit, where marriage bans have been struck. Yet officials continue to nitpick, state agencies continue to reject marriage rights, and some counties continue to resist same-sex couples. The Tenth Circuit has recently denied a ridiculous request from the state to put the issue of marriage equality before the full court. (For Christ’s sake, the Supreme Court has already weighed in on this.) And the ACLU has now launched yet another lawsuit that is designed to close the imaginary loopholes that conservative Jayhawks have been trying to unravel.
In Florida, a federal ruling in favor of equality has been stayed pending review by the Eleventh Circuit, and several state rulings are also on hold. So technically, the Beach State is under no obligation to tie our knots. But listen to this one: Two men got married in New York and changed their names through the Social Security Administration. Their new, combined, name was then reflected on their New York marriage license.
Returning to Florida, one man got a new driver’s license, but his husband had problems and wound up going to another county to get his new license. When the two of them talked to the press about the needless hassle, the Florida DMV cancelled both their licenses, explaining that since Florida doesn’t recognize same-sex marriage, the New York documentation was improperly given effect.
I don’t know where to begin. First, the bureaucrat who heard about the media interview could have easily ignored it. Who cares? The issue of marriage equality has already been litigated throughout Florida and we’re all waiting for appellate review. What is gained by messing with these guys on a technicality?
Second, this name change was linked to a marriage, but a name change in itself is not a feature of marriage. You can change your name for any reason. You can get married and keep your name. The fact that these guys went through a federal agency seems like it should be enough for a state DMV.
It’s just petty, nasty and mean. It’s infuriating when public officials behave like bullies, and the men are already suing the officials at Motor Vehicles to get their credentials restored. One man re-filed for his license under his own name, while the other has decided to walk and ride busses until the matter is resolved.
Elsewhere, conservative gadflies are trying to convince gullible clerks that they can stand their ground and refuse to issue marriage licenses to gay couples based on religious objections. But, hello! These people work for a government office. County officials? If you want to defend a federal lawsuit, go ahead and tell your clerks to pick and choose just whom they deem worthy of official paperwork. If not, tell them to serve the citizens on an equal basis.
The Welcome Mat
Oh, there are lots of other snipers in the bushes. And I’m sure we’ll have our fill of recalcitrant florists and bakers before our story is finished. Speaking of having our fill, we are just beginning the annual barrage of Christmas commercials. As usual, to my annoyance, we’re seeing a lot of the old commercials being recycled for another year. Like the red and white cars that Santa is sending to the naughty and nice people on his list. Like the grotesque “chocolate” diamonds. (Why not battleship grey rubies, or olive green sapphires?) Soon we’ll get the guy who can’t ice skate very well who proposes to his girlfriend. Eventually, we’ll probably even get the company that produces floor mats for cars openly suggesting that we send rubber mats to the special loved ones on our Christmas lists. Surely you remember that from last year?
Can you imagine the scene around the tree on Christmas morning? Everyone in their pajamas. The kids pulling wrapping paper off as fast as they can rip.
“Dad! This one’s for you!”
“My my. Thanks Timmy! What could this be?”
“Open it, Dad! It’s from Mom!”
“Um. I’m not sure…”
“What is it Dad?!”
“Darling, I was just tired of the mess in the Camry…”
“Floor mats?”
“What is it, Dad?”
“I read that these are the best mats on the market…Don? Come back and join the family!”
I remember one Christmas when my brother was in his early 20s. He sent us all an official Christmas list consisting mostly of auto parts. When I asked if there was a) anything other that auto parts or b) anything less than $100 on his wish list, he said no, better just skip a Christmas present altogether. I think I split the cost of a tire with my father.
What the Helsinki?
So, it seems marriage is legal in Finland. Somehow, I thought it was already legal in Finland. Not only that, but I also vaguely thought that marriage was legalized in Finland some time ago, and I thought that I thought at that time that marriage was already legal in Finland. What’s going on! (Cue: Theme from X Files.)
I think the truth must be that I have been ignoring Finland, allowing quick headlines to flit in and out of my brain on occasion, but lumping the country in with Scandinavia as a general rule. Now, I read that the parliament put Finland on the equality map with a 105–92 vote, making the country the twelfth in Europe to offer marriage rights.
Roughly 8,000 people reportedly quit the Lutheran church in protest after the head of the church came out in favor of marriage rights as November came to a close. I gather the Lutheran church is the main religion in the country and depends on member contributions for revenue. So, that’s not great for the church.
Did any of you see Babette’s Feast? That’s my image of Finland. Quiet, cold and still. Salted dried fish hanging in the kitchen. Nothing to do unless you win the lottery.
I just tried to name the other 11 countries in Europe that allow marriage equality. I couldn’t do it! Okay, the Netherlands and Belgium are easy, because they were the first. Then you have the three other Scandinavian countries: Sweden, Denmark and Norway. So that’s five. (I think I was confusing Norway and Finland earlier. Hvem byr seg!) We also remember Britain and France, because those were a big deal at the time. Seven.
It’s not too hard to visualize a map and realize that, of course, Spain and Portugal are also on the list. Nine. But eleven? Turns out you have to add Lichtenstein. Is that a country? Fine. And, naturally, Iceland counts as “Europe,” even though it sounds far far away.
I Vant To Donate Your Blood
Let’s see what else. A major league baseball umpire came out of the closet the other day. Good call, Dale Scott. And I guess gay men will soon be allowed to give blood under a new FDA proposal under consideration. Of course, I decry discrimination in any and all its forms, but I’ve never quite understand the campaign for the right to give blood. Color me squeamish.
To be clear, the category of men banned from giving blood is not “gay men,” but men who have had sex with another man within a year, or something like that. I gather that this definition bans a lot more people, assuming they are honest in their blood interviews. The bottom line is that we’ll have more blood available, which is good, and I’m guessing that there will be less call for middle-aged lesbians to report to the blood bank.
arostow@aol.com
Recent Comments