skip to main |
skip to sidebar
A videotape that had been on display at the National Portrait Gallery in D.C. for a gay portraiture exhibit by the Smithsonian but had been removed after protests from the religious right, has resurfaced in another gallery — in a trailer right next door.
The film was part of the 105-piece "Hide/Seek" exhibit that opened at the Gallery in October showing a century of art exploring gay portraiture. The 4-minute film contains 11 seconds of video of ants crawling on a crucifix. That imagery incensed some conservative politicians and the Catholic League.
The art video continues to be a point of controversy. After pressure from outside groups, the Smithsonian had pulled a video from the exhibit, outraging members of the art community. But now, that video is back on public display, literally steps away from the gallery.
The Museum of Censored Art — a mobile office trailer bearing the sign “Showing the art the Smithsonian won't” — is situated just outside the Smithsonian's National Portrait Gallery.
"The film is here," said Mike Blasenstein, one of the protesters behind the museum. "People might have to walk a few more feet to see it, but they can see the original exhibit as it played for a month in the National Portrait Gallery with zero complaints from the public."
The film is an excerpt from David Wojnarowicz's “Fire in My Belly." It's the centerpiece of the Museum of Censored Art and the reason the temporary museum exists.
“We're making him and his work visible again as close to the original site as possible,” Blasenstein said.
The film had been part of the 105-piece "Hide/Seek" exhibit that opened at the Gallery in October showing a century of art exploring gay portraiture.
Within 24-hours of their protest, the secretary of the Smithsonian had the video removed, calling it a distraction from the larger exhibit.
Some in the art community, including me, call it censorship.
"I believe that this sends ripples through the entire art world and that we're going to be sent right back to 1980s conservative realm where things like this happened all the time,” said Mike Iacovone, one of the protesters behind the Museum of Censored Art.
Eileen McClatchy said she stopped yesterday to see what she wasn't supposed to see.
"I don't know what the powers that pushed them to take it out were, but obviously some people don't want to see that truth or touch that pain," she said.
Protesters raised $6,000 and got permits to put their makeshift museum next to the gallery because, they say, it's paramount that people be able to make their own decision.
"Their purpose is to kind of facilitate that kind of learning and understanding, and if you're drawing people in for whatever reason, I don't see why that would be a bad thing,” museum visitor Carrie Garman said.
"Hide/Seek” will be at the National Portrait Gallery until Feb. 13. So will the Museum of Censored Art.
The Portrait Gallery supports the protesters' freedom of expression and hopes people who see the video will come in to see the entire exhibit.
The video also was shown at Transformer Gallery after being pulled from the Portrait Gallery.
— The Curator
There has been a barrage of activity in the past few days on the government’s third war: Barring openly gay service members from remaining in the military, or from joining its ranks.
It remains unclear what the final outcome will be, as some actions favored gay rights, but an appeal by the federal government to keep its hateful, discriminatory, homophobic “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy in place has not yet been resolved.
Because the messages were beyond mixed, a significant gay rights group advised gays, lesbians, bi-sexual and trans-gendered people who are in the military, or who are trying to join, to keep their sexual orientation private.
Today, it was expected that the Obama administration would appeal a recent federal judge's order barring the military from enforcing its ban on gays and lesbians serving openly.
Any government challenge would have to go before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, California.
Late yesterday, U.S. District Court Judge Virginia Phillips in California denied the government's request for an emergency stay of her order barring the military from expelling openly gay service members. Her ruling was a huge victory for gay-rights proponents.
The ruling came as the Pentagon has begun advising recruiting commands that they can accept openly gay and lesbian recruit candidates, according to a Pentagon spokeswoman.
The guidance from the Personnel and Readiness office was sent to recruiting commands on Friday, according to spokeswoman Cynthia Smith.
The recruiters were told that if a candidate admits he or she is openly gay, and qualify under normal recruiting guidelines, their application can be processed. Recruiters are not allowed to ask candidates if they are gay as part of the application process.
The notice also reminded recruiters that they have to "manage expectations" of applicants by informing them that a reversal of the court decision might occur, whereby the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy could be reinstated, Smith said.
Groups representing gays and lesbians have warned against coming out to the military because the policy is still being appealed in courts.
One group, the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, sent a statement out yesterday reiterating the concern.
"During this interim period of uncertainty, service members must not come out and recruits should use caution if choosing to sign up," SLDN Executive Director Aubrey Sarvis said in the statement. "The bottom line: if you come out now, it can be used against you in the future by the Pentagon."
Judge Phillips' ruling on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" stemmed from a lawsuit by Log Cabin Republicans, a gay rights group, challenging the policy.
Former Army Lt. Daniel Choi, an Iraq war combat veteran who challenged "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and was discharged. Also late yesterday, Choi moved to rejoin the military. "I'm here because I want to serve my country," he said.
"In the recruiting station. Apparently I'm too old for the Marines!" he said in a tweet. "Just filled out the Army application."
Choi said he told recruiters he was gay and that there was no reaction or delay in the enlistment process. He indicated he would complete his paperwork today and that he did not care what rank he would assume.
Will Rodriguez-Kennedy, president of Log Cabin Republicans' San Diego, California, office, tried yesterday afternoon to be reinstated by the Marines.
"Once a Marine, always a Marine," said Rodriguez-Kennedy, a corporal who was honorably discharged in February 2008.
He served three years of a four-year term. "It's a feeling of not having completed a full tour," he said.
Recruiters told him yesterday there were no current slots and they would call him in January, Rodriguez-Kennedy said. One option is to join another branch of the service, but Rodriguez-Kennedy said he might speak with Marine officers or get legal help.
Reinstatement would allow him to keep the corporal rank and resume benefits.
Rodriguez-Kennedy, 23, served as a provisional military police officer in Iraq in 2007. He said he was open to new responsibilities. "I love the Marine Corps," he said.
The U.S. has been tearing itself up over this issue for years, along with gay marriage. I believe that the current trend of ever-increasing anti-gay hate crimes is partly a reflection that both issues are closer to becoming reality.
I am a bi-sexual. If I wished to serve my country, who shares my bed should not enter into the equation. Period.
It truly remains a mystery to me why equal rights to the gay, lesbians, bi-sexual and trans-gendered communities is such a big deal. The Constitution is clear that such prejudice is unlawful discrimination. Sadly, the issue has become politicized by conservative religious groups and others so that the Constitution has in effect been co-opted.
Apparently, these anti-gay folks see me, and those like me, as a threat to our society. For me it is the other way round – it is their hate and bigotry that is the real threat to our democracy.
— The Curator
Most faiths and secular paths alike encourage a mindful reflection back over the past year, usually coinciding with a sharp change of season.
In my religion, that mindful reflection occurs this month. It’s a time to take an honest stock of the emotional and physical “stores” of my life; a time to release behaviors that have outlived their usefulness, and to embrace new ones to improve it, as well as those that will enrich my interactions with others.
For millions around the world, this has become an annual tradition – even a Rite of sorts – to make New Year’s resolutions. For others, there is a time of “atonement” during the year specified within their individual religious/faith paths.
Whatever practice you follow, I would like to make a suggestion: When reflecting back over the year, don’t just think about how much money you made, or how much weight you gained and want to lose. But, take some time to really think about your life in terms of intimacy and sexuality.
Did you open yourself up, honestly and completely to your partner, or did you hold back and hold on to petty arguments that are festering and growing into what will become a hard shell of bitterness that will eventually enclose your heart? If you don’t have a partner, is that by conscious choice, or is there something within you that discourages that type of closeness – is it a fear of rejection, or a fear of acceptance?
When you take time to look inward, do so in private and without using a judgmental or critical eye. Do not be hard on yourself, or blame others, either. Just try really hard to “see” yourself in as unvarnished a way as possible. Think about what you believe, how you act, and how you want to improve your life. This is not an exercise in selfishness. See your life as linked to everyone else’s – how your behavior effects not just you, but everyone else around you, too.
One of the things that fascinates me about people in general, myself included, is our capacity to hold diametrically opposed values comfortably, without any cognitive dissonance whatsoever – we simply rationalize. We say that we are honest and declare that as a core value, but then act deceitfully or even treacherously in our private, and/or work lives. We allow ourselves these contradictory behaviors by saying our partner did something to deserve our withholding the truth for lies; or that we have to participate in backstabbing workplace “politics” or gossiping to further our careers, or to establish the financial security for our families.
But, does the end really justify the means when it comes to intimacy and sexuality? Is it acceptable to say anything to someone simply to get them into bed? Is it acceptable to withhold sex as a punishment in a domestic situation? Is it acceptable to have an abortion without involving the father in the decision, or even telling him about the pregnancy?
What about issues involving sexual identity. What does it do to your insides if you are bi-sexual, gay, lesbian or transgendered but are forced to live your life in the closet for fear of the emotional or physical reprisals if you disclose your true sexuality? If you are a parent, have you withdrawn your support, love and approval from your child, or even disowned them because of their sexual identity? You only have to go as far as the recent news headlines to know that homophobia has cut a swath of viciousness and hate crimes across the globe, as well as sparking suicides by victims of homophobic bullies.
Even our mainstream language reflects this growing anti-gay trend. The phrase, something’s “so gay” has been the ultimate damaging cut down, cop out and insult among teens and others in recent years, along with many others.
Science is sooo gay! Translation, "I find science boring." You are such a fag! Translation, "I think you are stupid." You queer! Translation, "You are crazy." The words gay, fag and queer fly between teenagers as insults and descriptors. However, this isn't innocent badgering, it's also building a hurtful bias of bigotry within our society that is potentially damaging self-esteem and destroying personal responsibility.
Breaking the prejudicial cycle requires immediate, intelligent parental reactions. It also requires sensitive adult reactions if you hear someone who should know better than repeat these anti-gay slurs.
A woman in Serbia commenting on the anti-gay rioting at a recent gay pride parade explained it best, "When you develop that mentality of us and them, and we hate them and we fight them, then in the end you always find somebody who is unlike you to fight."
How about you? If you are uncomfortable with a sexual identity that is not your own, can you admit that to yourself? If that level of discomfort has grown into real bigotry, can you admit that? Remember, this is not an exercise of blame, but of self-truth. No one but you will hear your answers, and no one but you can make changes if you are unhappy with them.
Then there’s sex. Are you good at giving and receiving pleasure? If not, can you tell your partner what you need, or ask them what they need and make these inquiries without recriminations or hurt feelings? It’s not about your inability or failure as a lover, it’s about honesty and achieving a level of comfort with your partner. To me, it’s about sharing your vulnerabilities, and giving each other heartfelt support.
In my experience, some women are able to give pleasure, but may have problems receiving it. It is difficult for them to let go and give themselves over completely to the sensations that their partners are creating within their bodies. If so, they may find it difficult to admit what’s going on to their partner, feeling there must be something wrong with them. As a result, the may fake orgasm, rather than talking about what’s really going on. If this is you, try to trust your partner enough to begin the discussion. And, if you are the partner hearing this issue for the first time, listen with compassion and without feeling that your love making skills are being criticized.
Some women may be unable to tell their partner what it is they like in bed, because they may not know themselves. If so, they might want to remedy that by experimenting with masturbation. Sadly, some women find masturbation even more uncomfortable to consider than being honest with their partners! I would encourage all women to explore their bodies, even if you’ve not masturbated and the mere thought of it makes you uncomfortable. If you do not know how your body works sexually, it is virtually impossible to be able to tell your partner. Masturbation would be a very positive resolution, indeed.
The lies I tell myself separate me from others, and interferes with deep, lasting intimacy with my partner. Begin your New Year with a closer relationship with everyone in your life – including yourself – by taking an unflinching look within.
— The Curator
In the wake of vicious anti-gay violence and hatred in New York, New Jersey, anti-gay rioting in Serbia, and blatant homophobic comments by a gubernatorial candidate, it seems more important than ever that today is National Coming Out Day.
So, first things first, let me be very, very clear: I’m bisexual! I’M BISEXUAL, and proclaim it again today. We need to stop the violence and hate, and the only way to do that is to foster understanding and acceptance. Gays need to stand together in solidarity, and people of all sexual persuasions need to speak out consistently and forcefully against homophobia in all of its ugly guises.
I am deeply saddened even sickened by the recent anti-gay hate crimes that have sparked headlines across the globe, and has also rocked gay rights groups as well as every person with even a shred of humanity.
I am also appalled at homophobic remarks made yesterday by New York Republican gubernatorial candidate Carl Paladino who actually read from a prepared statement saying that homosexuality isn't an "equally successful or valid option" to heterosexuality.
Paladino, who has gotten support from the Tea Party movement, spoke at a campaign appearance in the Williamsburg section of the Borough of Brooklyn to a gathering of religiously and socially conservative Hasidic Jews.
The Republican was trying to draw contrasts with his opponent, Democrat Andrew Cuomo, New York State's Attorney General. Sadly, Paladino used his deep opposition to gay marriage as one area of difference. Shockingly, Paladino went much further than that saying:
“...We must stop pandering to the pornographers and the perverts who seek to target our children and destroy their lives.
I didn't march in the gay parade this year, gay pride parade this year. My opponent did. And that's not the example that we should be showing our children. Certainly not in our schools.
And don't misquote me as wanting to hurt homosexual people in any way. That would be a dastardly lie. My approach is live and let live.
I just think my children and your children would be much better off and more successful getting married and raising a family. And I don't want them to be brainwashed into thinking that homosexuality is an equally valid or successful option.”
At another point in his prepared remarks, Paladino verbally cuffed Cuomo for bringing his daughters to the gay pride parade.
Meanwhile, several news sources reported that Paladino's speech as written contained even more anti-gay language that he apparently decided not to deliver.
Whew. Clearly, Paladino’s idiotic and harmful language does more than just "hurt homosexual people in any way."
His comments underscore the current of homophobia (bigotry) that if left unabated can eventually build into a tsunami of hatred that destroys and even kills innocent people simply because of their sexuality.
Guess what, Mr. Paladino? Gays don’t “brainwash” the innocent into a cult of perversion, it’s ignorant bigots like you who do that. Your hate-talk, just like all blatant prejudice, sends a very clear message that anti-gay behavior and speech is OK, accepted and even encouraged. Shame on you, Mr. Paladino, and shame on everyone agrees, but is smart enough not to articulate it.
Even our mainstream language reflects this growing anti-gay trend. The phrase, something’s “so gay” has been the ultimate damaging cut down, cop out and insult among teens and others in recent years, along with many others.
Science is sooo gay! Translation, "I find science boring." You are such a fag! Translation, "I think you are stupid." You queer! Translation, "You are crazy." The words gay, fag and queer fly between teenagers as insults and descriptors. However, this isn't innocent badgering, it's also building a hurtful bias of bigotry within our society that is potentially damaging self-esteem and destroying personal responsibility.
Breaking the prejudicial cycle requires immediate, intelligent parent reaction. It also requires sensitive adult reaction if you hear someone who should know better repeat the anti-gay slurs.
A woman in Serbia commenting on the anti-gay rioting at a gay pride parade explained it best, "When you develop that mentality of us and them, and we hate them and we fight them, then in the end you always find somebody who is unlike you to fight."
I find it astounding that I actually have to present a roundup of recent anti-gay atrocities because there have been so many:
— The most violent of the incidents occurred in the Bronx, when a group of Hispanic gang members of the Latin King Goonies allegedly tortured two teenage boys and a man in anti-gay attacks earlier in the month.
Yesterday, eight teenage and adult males were arraigned in Bronx Criminal Court on a range of charges including sexual assault, robbery, unlawful imprisonment, intimidation and hate crimes. Two were held in lieu of $100,000 bond, and the others were held without bond. Police said a ninth member of the gang was still at large.
Police said the attack happened Oct. 3 after the gang members heard a rumor that one of their recruits was gay. They allegedly found the teen, stripped him, and beat and sodomized him with a plunger handle until he confessed to having had sex with a 30-year-old local man in the neighborhood.
The gang members next allegedly hunted down a second teen they suspected was gay and also tortured him, police said. Then they allegedly lured the 30-year-old man to an abandoned house by inviting him to a party there. The suspected allegedly burned, beat and tortured him for hours, and sodomized him with a miniature baseball bat, police said.
The man, a gay Hispanic immigrant known in his Bronx neighborhood as "la Reina" Spanish for "the Queen,” was the most severely brutalized of the three victims.
— Those horrible attacks came on the heels of another anti-gay beating that also occurred on Oct. 3. A D.C. gay man was attacked in New York’s at Stonewall Inn, site of the historic 1969 protests that many credit for launching the modern gay rights movement.
Ben Carver, a Shaw resident who works in communications, was in New York for a weekend of leisure with his boyfriend. He was allegedly harassed by two straight men in the restroom who asked him for money, called him a faggot and struck him multiple times. He fought back and was able to get away. Carver’s boyfriend called 911 and chased the attackers as they fled the bar. They were apprehended a short time later.
New York police have charged 21-year-old Matthew Francis, and 17-year-old Christopher Orlando, both of Staten Island, in the attack. They face charges of third-degree assault as a hate crime and attempted robbery.
— There have also been a string of suicides attributed to anti-gay bullying, including a New Jersey college student's Sept. 22 plunge off the George Washington Bridge in New York after his sexual encounter with a man in his dorm room was secretly streamed live online by his dorm roommate.
The body of Rutgers University freshman, Tyler Clementi, was recovered from the Hudson River. Clementi, only 18, was also an accomplished violinist.
Police charged his roommate, Dharun Ravi, 18, with privacy violations and related offenses, for using "the camera to view and transmit a live image." Ravi allegedly activated his camcorder that captured Clementi and an unnamed man from another computer in the Rutger’s dorm room of a friend of Ravi’s, Michelle “Molly” Wei, whose room was across the hall. Wei, 18, has also been charged with the same spying offenses. They may also be charged with hate crime offenses.
— Two days before Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's visit to Belgrade, the city erupted in a wave of violence yesterday.
Thousands of homophobic bigots tried to break up a gay pride march, clashing with anti-riot police. More than 110 officers were injured and more than 200 rioters arrested in what was a test for the Serbian government to show it can protect human rights.
Running battles lasted hours, as the protesters and nationalist right-wingers hurled Molotov cocktails and bricks at police. Cars were set on fire, shops were looted and a mobile breast cancer detection unit was destroyed.
Roughly 5,600 policemen were deployed in four concentric cordons to keep marchers far away from rioters who were chanting "Death to Homosexuals!"
Throughout the Balkans, it is an understatement that societies have been slow in accepting gay rights.
As gay supporters with rainbow peace flags gathered, lawyer Mrko Tipkovic could not hide his disgust for homosexuality.
"It is highly morbid," Tipkovic said. "Medicine says so, psychologists and psychiatrists say it is morbid. New age is total catastrophe."
Interior Minister Ivica Davic said it's very worrisome that among the 6,000 well-organized rioters, more than one half were under 18 years of age.
Radmila Stojanovic, who came to show her solidarity with the marchers, said violence is a legacy of strongman Slobodan Milosevic.
"This country has been at war hating this nation, that nation, this group, that it perpetuates itself," Stojanovic said. "When you develop that mentality of us and them, and we hate them and we fight them, then in the end you always find somebody who is unlike you to fight."
Under intense security, some 1,000 gay pride marchers were ushered into a park. There was a large contingent of foreigners, western diplomats and journalists.
Many gays stayed home for fear of being recognized by their neighbors and employers.
Ivana Howard of the Washington-based National Endowment for Democracy says there are several factors that encourage homophobia: "Violent politicians who themselves use hate speech. The church is playing a very negative role portraying homosexuality as a disease, so it is hard to expect of an average citizen to understand why this is important and why these citizens have equal rights like everyone else."
A woman who goes by the name of Kosmogina wore a T-shirt reading: "Nobody Knows I'm A Lesbian."
"It is very difficult to show feelings, relationships," Kosmogina said. "Just holding hands, kissing, it is dangerous here in Serbia, it is dangerous."
Cheering and blowing whistles, marchers took a brief walk around government buildings on empty streets secured by thousands of police flanked by armored vehicles.
Dutch gay activist Frank Van Dalen helped organize this first Serbian gay pride event in nine years. In 2001, police stood by as hooligans beat many marchers to a pulp.
"This is a small step," Van Dalen said. "But it will take many years before every single gay and lesbian in this country can be out and open in the pride."
The festivities were abruptly cut short when police ordered an immediate evacuation.
Dozens of police vans — usually used to transport prisoners — were put at marchers' disposal. Locked inside, in complete darkness, they were escorted to safety.
— The Curator
I routinely visit the doctor for ongoing treatment of Lupus, but I got way more than I bargained for last week when I got into it with a group of patients in the waiting room.
The issue that brought about the mini-skirmish was homosexuality in general, and gay marriage in particular.
Guess I’d better explain. When I arrived, my doctor was running late (don’t they always?), so I found a seat in the small and very crowded waiting room. A TV was blaring a Jerry Springer-like program in the corner. I’d brought a book to read, so I sat as far from the set as possible, which sadly put me facing the group of eager TV viewers.
These folks included more than 20 mixed race people, a little older than a normal cross-section of the public because the doctor we were waiting for is a rheumatologist. The key “player” in what turned out to be my personal drama was a man in his 30’s who had driven his elderly mother to her appointment and was waiting with her. He was quite handsome: tall, fit – cut even – with a stylish shaven head, but a less-than-stylish toothpick sticking out of the corner of his mouth. He was wearing expensive summer shorts and a blue polo shirt. He was also very loud.
At some point on the TV program, a homosexual man and his partner were picked out of the audience. They said they were planning to wed when/if it ever became legal in their home state. Immediately, the handsome man I was sitting across from began making unpleasant remarks about the gay couple on the TV. He loudly expressed how disgusting, etc. the whole thing was, prompting the bulk of the remainder of those in the waiting room to chime in their complete agreement. The handsome man, egged on by the obviously appreciative crowd and vise-versa, began to laugh derisively at the men on the TV. The handsome man and several others in the waiting room continued to express and utter a lot of vicious gay-bashing insults, and similar remarks that I will not dignify by repeating here.
As the whole thing unfolded, I literally felt sick to my stomach. I am bisexual, but even if I was straight, I would have been deeply offended by the terrible hate-talk.
After a few minutes, I found that I had almost involuntarily put my book down and was facing all of them. Quite abruptly, as if I was looking down on myself from some place high and hovering just below the ceiling, I interrupted this room of average Americans. At that point, almost all of them were laughing merrily – very happily bashing homosexuals, the handsome man at the center of it all, his eyes absolutely twinkling with cruel delight.
With as level a voice as I could manage, I softly asked them if they, “did not like gay people?”
An African-American woman who appeared to be in her 50’s answered without hesitation, “No,” prompting the majority of the group to all nod in agreement. The handsome man laughed again, and the others joined him.
She went on to proclaim that she was Christian, and that nowhere in the Bible did it say that homosexuality was anything but a sin, or that “those awful, awful people could marry.”
Another woman, who was white and said she was Italian-American and Catholic, said she agreed completely, proclaiming that, “those sick people will all go to hell, and this country will be better off without them in it.”
I told them that I couldn’t understand that view at all, that I tried to judge each person as an individual, and not to stereotype them. I said that I had thought that Christianity promoted that very approach. I also noted that the Bible also fails to condemn slavery, while actually providing instructions to slave owners. As a result, I suggested to the African-American woman that perhaps her citing it as support for an anti-homosexuality argument wasn’t the best choice under the circumstances.
For some reason, I kept talking. I noted calmly that many of those who were speaking out against homosexuals in the room were of different races. I told them that to me, “gay-bashing is just another form of bigotry – a different flavor of prejudice.”
The handsome man, who happened to be African-American, had suddenly become very, very, angry. He sharply and loudly criticized me for “daring” to speak out “in favor of those fags,” and for horribly comparing it to racial bigotry. He said I was "full of shit,” and that he had a right to his opinion.
I told him I agreed completely that he had the right to believe anything and everything that he chose. Swallowing my now palpable fear, I unwisely added, “but you’re in a public place, laughing at and insulting a group of people simply because of their sexuality. I really see it as bigotry. Your conversation and behavior are very offensive to me, and I would appreciate it if you would stop.”
An immediate and deep-as-a-ravine silence followed in which the only sound I could hear was my own heart thudding wildly in my chest like it was trying to jump completely out of my body, along with the constant drone of the TV.
“We’ll stop – but not because of you, because we’re finished talking,” he said, twisting his handsome features into an honest-to-God sneer. Then he leaned way forward in his chair and actually jabbed a finger out directly at me, reaching very close to where I was sitting. “Change the subject, or this is going to get very ugly for you – right here, right now.”
Look, I'm almost twice his age and disabled. I’m a 54-year-old white woman who can only walk with the use of two canes.
Somehow, I managed to look directly and deeply into his now hate-filled and threatening eyes. I knew in that instant that if I said a single other thing to him – anything – he really might strike me. And, if he did, I also knew he’d never suffer a pang of conscience, even though any blow from him would injure me quite badly.
“No problem. I have my book,” I replied, my mouth suddenly very dry. As I looked away from him, not one person in the waiting room made eye contact with me. Turning to my book still on my lap, I found that my hands were shaking uncontrollably.
No one spoke the rest of the time we were pressed together. When it was finally my turn to see the doctor and we were alone in an examination room, she asked if I was OK. The receptionists, all women, had heard everything and had told her because they were upset. Despite how they had felt, not one of them had tried to stop the gay-bashing.
Even so, the doctor thanked me for speaking out. She said that, "a lone voice against hate and intolerance does make a difference." She said it puts a different energy into the minds of everyone present. She said she thought it was fear that had stopped some to speak up who probably had agreed with me; some that felt gay marriage was OK; or others who believed that homosexuality was nothing to be made fun of, and that gays should not be abused.
I found out later that the oh-so-thoroughly-furious-handsome man was...wait for it...a police officer! Just what we need, not only another homophobic-bigoted man – but one with a badge and a gun.
— The Curator
In a victory for same-sex marriage backers, a federal judge in California cleared the way for a January trial surrounding the voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage that garnered international attention.
On Wednesday, the judge ordered a trial on whether the measure denies fundamental rights to gays and lesbians, and is therefore unconstitutional and should be struck down. Specifically, the suit alleges that the measure violates the federal Constitution's guarantees of equal protection and due process.
U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker refused to dismiss the constitutional challenge to Proposition 8 by gay rights advocates, ruling instead that a trial was required to resolve legal and factual disputes.
While the ruling was expected based on prior remarks by the judge, the breadth of his decision was a boost for gay rights advocates, who argue that Proposition 8 unconstitutionally discriminates against gays; is rooted in anti-homosexual bias; and violates the right to marry the partner of one's choice.
Walker left all those issues on the table, rejecting arguments by Proposition 8's sponsors that higher courts had already resolved them. Among the questions to be answered, he said from the bench, is "whether Proposition 8 was passed with discriminatory intent."
Lawyers for Protect Marriage, the religious conservative coalition that campaigned for the November constitutional amendment, say the measure had a clear purpose – to restore the traditional male-female definition of marriage. They say opponents' claims of a hidden anti-gay agenda are both unfounded and legally irrelevant.
"Voters who passed Prop. 8 are essentially on trial in this case, accused of being irrational and bigoted," Andrew Pugno, a lawyer for the sponsors, said after the hearing.
Protect Marriage is challenging Walker's order that the sponsors must disclose internal campaign strategy documents, which opponents hope will reveal plans to appeal to voter prejudice against gays.
A federal appeals court's decision to review that order would delay this trial, now scheduled to start Jan. 11. It will be the nation's first trial on the validity of a law against same-sex marriage.
Proposition 8, passed by 52.3% of voters, amended the California Constitution to define marriage as the union between a man and a woman, overturning a May 2008 state Supreme Court ruling that allowed gay and lesbian couples to marry. The state's high court upheld the measure in May while allowing 18,000 same-sex couples who married before the election to remain legally wed.
The court's ruling Wednesday was based on state law and did not address any U.S. constitutional issues. Plaintiffs in the federal case – two same-sex couples, a gay-rights group and the city of San Francisco – claim Proposition 8 discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation and gender and interferes with the right to marry one's chosen partner.
The initiative's sponsors argued that the U.S. Supreme Court validated bans on same-sex unions in 1972 by rejecting a challenge to a Minnesota law defining marriage as being between a man and a woman. The court did not spell out its reasoning but issued a brief order that said opponents had not raised any substantial federal questions.
But Walker said prevailing legal doctrine has changed since 1972. He cited Supreme Court rulings since then that condemned discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender and overturned state laws against homosexual conduct.
Another central issue is whether Proposition 8 should be judged like laws that discriminate against historically persecuted groups. Courts generally overturn such laws unless government can show a compelling need for them.
Walker ruled after nearly two hours of argument in San Francisco, rejecting arguments by Proposition 8 proponents that precedent and tradition clearly showed last November's ballot measure was permissible under the U.S. Constitution.
During Wednesday’s hearing, Charles Cooper, representing the Proposition 8 campaign, argued that marriage historically has been reserved for unions between a man and a woman because only opposite-sex couples can procreate "naturally."
Walker, however, noted that not all married couples can procreate.
"Just last month," Walker said, "I performed a wedding in which the groom was 95 and the bride was 83. I did not demand that they prove they would engage in procreation."
Cooper, lead attorney for Protect Marriage, noted that the Supreme Court has never categorized gays and lesbians as a persecuted group, entitled to the same legal protection as racial and religious minorities. That means Propostion 8 must be upheld if voters had any rational basis for approving it, he said.
In addition to the ability of men and women couples to “naturally” conceive, Cooper cited two other grounds for such a finding – the traditional definition of marriage, and the voters' decision to wait and see how same-sex marriages work out in other states before allowing them in California.
But Walker said federal courts haven't resolved the standard for judging laws that treat heterosexuals and homosexuals differently. The answer, he said, could be determined by testimony on such topics as how much political power gays and lesbians hold and to what degree they are discriminated against.
Even if it's rational for the state to promote marriage among opposite-sex couples, the judge asked Cooper, how would that goal be impeded by allowing same-sex couples to wed?
"The answer is, I don't know," the attorney replied. But he said it doesn't matter, because it's up to Proposition 8's opponents to show that the law is irrational.
Proposition 8 backers also argued that precedent required Walker to uphold the measure as constitutional. They cited a 1972 case involving a Minnesota law that limited marriage to unions between a man and a woman.
The Minnesota Supreme Court had rejected an equal protection challenge of that law, and the U.S. Supreme Court, without issuing a full-blown opinion, declined to hear an appeal.
"We can't put much stock in that case, can we?" Walker told the lawyers. He described the case as "old," "very limited" and "not a considered decision of the Supreme Court."
In his ruling, Walker also noted that Proposition 8 stripped gays and lesbians of the right to marry, which they had been given six months earlier in a historic 4-3 ruling by the California Supreme Court.
"Potentially, Proposition 8 may be invalid given the history in California, while similar actions in another state...may not be constitutionally infirm," Walker said.
The judge previously ordered the Proposition 8 campaign to disclose its internal strategy memorandums and communications, an order the campaign is appealing to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on 1st Amendment grounds.
Theodore Olson, representing same-sex couples in the case, told Walker that if the appeal delays the trial, he may ask for a preliminary injunction to suspend Proposition 8.
"If the case should hang up on a discovery (the information disclosures) issue," Walker acknowledged, "that does change the equation."
A ruling on a preliminary injunction could be appealed, and higher courts could resolve Proposition 8's constitutionality without a trial. Walker said he thought it would be "unfortunate to short-circuit the process" that way.
Walker also ordered written arguments on a request by the Proposition 8 campaign to remove Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown as a defendant and make him a plaintiff in the case. Brown, who was sued in his position as the state's chief law enforcement officer, has said in court papers that he agrees with plaintiffs that the ballot measure was unconstitutional.
Brown, a former California governor, and the plaintiffs oppose the potential realignment.
(I emphatically believe that Preposition 8 in California should be struck down on constitutional grounds. It is also the only ethical, moral choice to be made. Each human being has the inherent right to love and link their life with another person of their choice. To deny that, hurts each and every member of this society and has the effect, intended or unintended, of promoting homophobia nationwide. Proposition 8 passed because members of the right waged a terror and hate campaign against gays. In an age when a country with a very near-history of slavery can evolve enough to elect a president of color, then we can certainly embrace the rainbow and ensure people who are not heterosexual have basic human rights.)
