January 15, 2010

soldier held over child porn charges

Oh, for the love of GOD, people!

Illinois soldier held in Afghanistan over child porn charges :: CHICAGO SUN-TIMES :: Nation

GALESBURG, Ill. — An Illinois National Guard soldier in Afghanistan has been charged by the U.S. Army with possessing child pornography over pictures of a young relative his mother says she sent him. Terri Miller of Galesburg says she sent her son, Specialist Billy Miller, pictures of the little girl to help him get over his homesickness. The pictures show the child in a swimsuit playing a wading pool and sitting on a truck. In one, the girl is wearing a swim suit and part of her buttocks are exposed.

The Army says Miller will stay in Afghanistan until his court martial. His unit came home last August. Miller faces jail time, if convicted.

Terri Miller says the pictures are innocent. She says her son is close to the girl.

WQAD TV reports that the child is a relative whom the family says Billy treated as his own child when the girl was diagnosed with cancer as her father went through boot camp. Her father, the station reports, can't believe the charges, especially since they're on other family computers and on Facebook pages and no one else has been investigated.

Granted, we don't get all the facts in this story, I'm sure. And granted again, we need to protect children. I get all that, I really do. But at some point, we have to let a little sanity enter the child porn debate. Sometimes pictures of children are just pictures of children. But as it stands, this man could well lose his career over photographs that even the child's father thought were perfectly innocuous.

Frankly, assuming that the photographs are as described, this makes me wonder what exactly has been happening in our military that would lead them to jump to this conclusion based on that particular evidence. Or what else they've found that they're not talking about, because really, given what this article says, there's no there there.

dc judge rules against referendum

Interesting.

D.C. judge rules against marriage referendum

By Tim Craig
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 15, 2010; B02


A D.C. Superior Court judge ruled Thursday that same-sex marriage opponents do not have a right to call for a referendum to determine whether such unions should be legal in the District. The decision, a major victory for gay rights activists, makes it more likely that the District will begin allowing same-sex couples to marry in March. In the 23-page ruling, Judge Judith N. Macaluso affirmed a D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics decision that city law disallows the ballot proposal because it would promote discrimination against gay men and lesbians. Macaluso also concluded that previous court decisions outlawing same-sex marriage in the District are no longer valid.

[...] The election board has twice ruled that a referendum on same-sex marriage would violate a city election law prohibiting such a vote on a matter covered by the Human Rights Act, which outlaws discrimination against gays and other minority groups. Bishop Harry Jackson, pastor of Hope Christian Church in Beltsville, appealed that ruling to Superior Court. Last week, 39 members of Congress filed a brief in support of Jackson's appeal, arguing that the election board overstepped its authority in denying a public vote on whether marriage should be defined as a being between a man and a woman.

Jackson and his attorneys said Thursday that they will appeal Macaluso's ruling. They contend that that the laws in question were written in the late 1970s, long before same-sex marriage was an issue, and should not prevent a referendum. "We are fighting for justice and defending the rights of the people of the District of Columbia," Jackson said. "We have always anticipated that our quest for voting rights on the issue of marriage would end up in our higher appeals court, and today's ruling confirms that is where the issue is headed."

It's going to be interesting to see what the DC Appeals Court does with this; I would expect another dismissal, myself. And this is as high as you can get in DC without either transferring over to the appropriate circuit court of appeals or the Supreme Court itself. (And I can't imagine that the Supreme Court would touch this case. Apart from anything else, unless the lawsuit alleges a federal constitutional violation and I don't think it does, longstanding doctrine holds that a state's supreme court is the final arbiter of its state constitution. And I think the Court is going to run far and fast from this issue for as long as they can -- which is to say, until the decision comes out of the curent 9th Circuit Court of Appeals trial. If precedent holds true, the 9th Circuit will hold that Prop. 8 was, in fact, a federal constitutional violation, and then the Supreme Court will have to search far and wide for some way to slap down the 9th again. (It's one of their recreational pastimes.) But they're not likely to do anything with the DC issue, since it doesn't have wider implications in and of itself.

.....Despite opponents' plans to appeal, they are running out of time to block same-sex marriages in the District. Congress has begun the required 30-legislative-day review of the same-sex marriage law. City leaders said that, barring intervention by Congress, marriage licenses will be available to same-sex couples around the first week of March.

Well. We shall see, won't we?

January 14, 2010

just a gigolo

Meet America's First Legal Male Prostitute: Sex Other Releases: Details

By Ian Daly
January 13, 2010

Today, a 25 year old from Los Angeles (by way of Alabama) will become the first legal male prostitute in this country's history. "Markus" (his working name) was fresh off the Greyhound bus yesterday when he granted Details an exclusive first interview in a cottage at the Shady Lady Ranch brothel, two-and-a-half-hours northwest of Las Vegas. His story is about to become a national sensation. Read on to find out why.

Q: So you'd rather be called a gigolo than a prostitute.
A: I think for a male, if you want to be successful in this type of venture, you're not a prostitute. You're a surrogate lover. You encompass everything that's required of you—not only emotionally, physically—but psychologically. Because women are wired differently. They're much more sensitive creatures. You actually have to enjoy what you do. You can't necessarily say, "Oh, it's just a job." You actually have to say it's a passion....

...Really? A woman who goes to a brothel needs you to say that having sex with her -- and most of the other women that request you -- is a passion? Huh. Who knew?

I also thought of a gigolo as more of an ongoing gig, so to speak. And, actually, less well regarded than simple prostitution; gigolo implies a certain deception of the client. (Though, granted, if you're telling her that your job is "a passion", the deception requirement may well be fulfilled.


Q: Are there other things that qualify you for the job?
A: I've been in the adult industry—I've only done a couple of scenes, but I realize it's very cold and calculated. What I experienced was that the male was just a prop—nothing more, nothing less. In the porn world, they say it's like a menu: BJ, double penetration—that's prostitution.[...] I view myself as an artist, a performer. It's a craft, and it has to be learned.

OK. I'll give him the performance and craft aspect. After all, being a successful sex worker really does require you to develop both certain physical and interpersonal skills.

It's the bit where apparently prostitution isn't prostitution because you've developed those skills and porn performers haven't where he kind of loses me. I mean, porn is performance sex, by definition. Maybe done to a specific formula, yes, but nonetheless, still performance that requires the development of certain skills if you do it over any length of time.


...Q: How are you unique?
A: There's five things I think that separate a gigolo from the average man: number one being the psychological profile—how he was raised, his upbringing, his thought, his morality, what he views as right and wrong. He must have the heart of a saint, the mind of a philosopher, and the skills of the devil—that's the second qualification. The third one is I never refer to any woman as a bitch, ho, twat, cunt, or any of those terms. It offends me. Women don't pay for sex, they pay for experience. And luckily for me, I don't have that much experience with sex, but I have the mentality and the emotion and gumption to make them feel the way they want to feel. And if I complete that through sex, too—which I'm a very good performer in that respect, too—my mission's accomplished. The fourth thing that separates a gigolo is a gigolo knows how to cook, clean, and do the things necessary to upkeep himself. He's totally independent. He can cook a 3-course meal, and at the same time, serve wine...

But ... he works in a brothel. Maybe being a gigolo requires all those skills, and maybe it doesn't, but surely working in a brothel wouldn't let you exercise most of those skills. After all, as the middleman, the brothel is in it to make money, and time is money. You're not going to cram all that stuff plus sex into the 40 minutes for $200 that the brothel is charging for his time.


...Q: Where are you from?
A: I'm from Alabama, sir. I'm from the great county of Lawrence.

Q: What city?
A: I don't really want to divulge that because then people back in my hometown are going to be like, "Oh my God..."[...]

He's doing an interview in Details to which his photo appears to be attached -- in fact, there's a whole set of images of him with the article. Unless everyone in that town is actually physically blind, never uses the internet, never buys Details from a store or newsstand, I'm guessing that people in Alabama are going to figure things out pretty damn quick. And it appears that he's also blindsiding his family with all this, so one suspects that things will not go well on that front.

What really gets me, though, is this quote from near the beginning of the article:


I think it's the same situation as with anything that happens when you break apart a social institution. There has to be some kind of change in terminology to describe persons like myself. And it's more of a civil rights thing now. Basically this is the first time in the economy of the United States that a male has actually stood up and said, "I want to do this for a living." And be protected under law to do it. It's just the same as when Rosa Parks decided to sit at the front instead of the back. She was proclaiming her rights as a disadvantaged, African-American older woman. And I'm doing the same. I'm actually standing up now, and hopefully I can be supported by the male community and be understood as a person. This actually isn't about selling my body. This is about changing social norms....

Um ... it was about changing one line in a law in one county in Nevada.

That said, it kind of was about changing social norms, just a bit.

Male prostitution is Nevada's newest legal profession (latimes.com)

By Ashley Powers
January 6, 2010

Reporting from Tonopah, Nev. - Brothel owner Bobbi Davis got the go-ahead Tuesday to hire what her website cheekily calls "a few good men." Her Shady Lady Ranch is searching for "service-oriented" guys willing to become Nevada's first legal male sex workers. "I personally feel, as do the many other women who have made contact with me since I started this, that this is a service whose time has come," Davis said in a letter to Nye County officials.

A county board's vote Tuesday affirming that Davis could offer "shady men" to her clientele followed months of rancorous debate among the state's legal brothel community. The industry, in its own peculiar way, is somewhat conservative: Considered an anachronism of bawdy mining camps by some Nevada newcomers, it often balks at change.

Of course, new ideas in a business unique to Nevada (in its legal form) are a touch different. Adding porn stars to brothel lineups rankled some owners. Overturning a ban on brothel advertising, a battle Davis and the American Civil Liberties Union helped lead, also stirred up debate. Though neither change shuttered the state's 25 or so bordellos -- some would argue the publicity helped -- many owners still operate in an off-the-grid manner, wary of being shut down.

George Flint, longtime lobbyist for the Nevada Brothel Assn., has said that allowing male prostitutes could be the industry's Pearl Harbor. He has hinted that brothels possibly offering gay sex -- a choice each prostitute, as an independent contractor, would be free to make -- might sour some legislators on the entire brothel system.

Nevada lawmakers are notoriously skittish when discussing the birds and bees. The Legislature, even when severely cash-strapped, has repeatedly declined to tax the brothels (which are banned in Reno and Las Vegas) for fear of, well, legitimizing the business.

"This is the first time in the history of the world . . . that men have been licensed to sell sex," Flint said Tuesday, his voice rising. "It's never been done!" [...]

Thailand's male brothels are both legal and notorious. Until 2009, both male and female prostitution were legal in Rhode Island, under certain circumstances. As I understand it, prostitution is legal for any consenting adult in Britain, although gay brothels themselves seem to be on somewhat iffier legal ground. Brothels with males and females are legal in Australia. So, "first time in the history of the world"? No. First time in the history of Nevada, however...

It's pretty obvious that the county commissioners in Nevada had a vision of a Big Gay Brothel dancing in their heads when they went through such angst and agony over changing the law. Clearly, that's not what happened -- not yet, anyway. However, I should imagine that the idea of the women they know going to a "gigolo" in a registered brothel would not actually ease their minds substantially. In fact, I'm pretty damn sure that asserting that a woman has exactly the same right to sexual relief as a man in exactly the same way would make them really uncomfortable. So, changing social norms? Well ... yes, if perhaps not quite in the way he meant.

Though I truly wish he hadn't invoked Rosa Parks. People will get distracted by that and discount the rest of his statement, which, if inartfully put, is mostly true.

But, seriously, I really feel sorry for his family. Not because of what he's doing -- he's a grown man, he should be able to do what he wants with his own body -- but because it sounds like he didn't have a horrible relationship with them before this, and you shouldn't blindside people you care about like that.

January 12, 2010

divorce rates vs gay marriage bans

How very ... unexpected.

FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: Divorce Rates Higher in States with Gay Marriage Bans

Over the past decade or so, divorce has gradually become more uncommon in the United States. Since 2003, however, the decline in divorce rates has been largely confined to states which have not passed a state constitutional ban on gay marriage. These states saw their divorce rates decrease by an average of 8 percent between 2003 and 2008. States which had passed a same-sex marriage ban as of January 1, 2008, however, saw their divorce rates rise by about 1 percent over the same period....

Part of me wonders about the statistical validity of it all, but then, 538.com is known for making sure that its stats are tight.

Another part of me just wonders how on earth this can make any difference.

And another part of me says: Wait. Massachusetts, Rhode Island and New Mexico have the lowest divorce rates. Mass. allows gay marriage, but the other two merely haven't passed bans against it; they ceritainly don't allow it. (And both states have experienced a certain amount of kerflaffle over the issue.) It's also true that these are three of the most Catholic states in the union; in the latest American Religious Identification Survey, using religious identification data from the US Census Bureau, 46% of Rhode Island respondents identified as Catholic, as did 39% of Mass. respondents and 33% of New Mexicans . Those figures all seem to be higher than the median, which would be in the 20s somewhere. Is it possible that these factors are not coincidental? Granted that Massachusetts is ... peculiar; after all, very Catholic and very Liberal really shouldn't go together like that, and yet they do -- there and nowhere else in the country.

(Something of a side note: the takeaway from the American Religious Identification Survey is that the US as a nation is becoming less religious -- or less willing to identify as such, which isn't quite the same thing. And it's happening with surprising speed. That would explain why religious conservatives have gotten so very LOUD of late, wouldn't it? A way of life may be passing.)

December 16, 2009

dc says yea ... for now

D.C. Council approves same-sex marriage bill

By Tim Craig
Wednesday, December 16, 2009; A01 (washingtonpost.com)

The District was on the verge Tuesday of becoming the sixth place in the country to legalize same-sex marriage after the council gave final approval to its bill allowing the unions. The legislation would allow gay couples from anywhere in the country to marry in the city. Those couples who live in the District would be entitled to all rights afforded to heterosexual married couples under District laws. Although a final signature on the bill by Mayor Adrian M. Fenty (D) could come by the end of the week, same-sex marriage opponents vowed to step up their effort to get Congress or a court to block the initiative during the 30-day congressional review period.

The 11 to 2 council decision, which caps a nearly year-long debate, set off a wave of excitement across the gay community, both locally and nationally. "In many ways, this is the final prize," said council member Jim Graham (D-Ward 1), one of two people on the council who are openly gay.

According to an analysis by the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, more than 10,000 same-sex couples from across the country could get married in the District over the next three years if the measure becomes law. The analysis, created in the weeks leading up to Tuesday's historic council vote, estimates that 2,000 gay couples who live in the District will marry shortly after the law takes effect. But the bulk of the weddings, which could pump millions of dollars into the regional economy, would probably be out-of-state couples unable to marry in their own states, according to the analysis, a copy of which was obtained by The Washington Post. It concludes that at least $5 million, and perhaps as much as $22 million, would be generated by same-sex weddings in the District over the next three years.

Local and national gay rights leaders note that opponents face a difficult fight: Both the Democratic-controlled House and Senate and President Obama would all have to block the legislation, which is unlikely. But council member David A. Catania (I-At Large), the bill's sponsor and the other openly gay member on the council, cautioned that Congress also could unravel the measure through budget maneuvers in future years. "There is no question: We are going to have to be defending it and defending it and defending it until the other side realizes they are losing more votes by being tethered to the past," Catania said.

Several opponents of same-sex marriage warned that the celebrations were premature. They are seeking a public vote on the issue, and some are meeting with members of Congress on Wednesday. "God's war has just started," Bob King, a community activist who lives in Northeast, said a few minutes after the vote. "Shame on them. We're going to get to the ballot box through either the courts or the Congress. So tell everyone: Don't let the marriage licenses start flowing." [...]

"God's war". Hmm. One would think that we lived in a theocratic state, wouldn't one? Apparently, we turned into Iran when we weren't looking.

As far as bringing things up for a vote is concerned, the DC Council's position is that marriage is a part of the Human Rights section of DC law, and as such, can't be brought up for a vote. It will be interesting to see what happens when this goes to federal court. Home rule is one thing, but as a federal district, I would think that DC wouldn't be allowed to do things that sharply at variance with federal law. I don't understand how DOMA doesn't trump DC home rule, but I suppose that will all be fought out in the courts.

The really fascinating thing is going to be seeing what the Supreme Court does with this. As I understand it, decisions out of DC's court, since DC is more or less a federal city-state, can be appealed directly to the Supreme Court, though they may also go through the Court of Appeals that includes Virginia and Maryland -- the Third Circuit, I think. In any event, I would expect that, if it makes it to the Supreme Court, they'll probably rule very narrowly on the issue of whether or not this can be brought up for a vote, at first. And then in a few years, they'll get the question of the actual law itself. They're going to be spending several years doing a delicate tapdance around this issue, is what I'm saying. It seems fairly clear that this is the type of thing they want no part of, at least right now.

In any event, as the opponents say, nothing is likely to really change for a while. The law will almost certainly be enjoined during all of the various challenges, one way and another. In 3-5 years, if all goes well and people are lucky, you may actually get universal marriage in DC.

Probably not, though.

Copyright © 1999 - January 2010 Iain Jackson, after-words.org

? chicago blogs ?

Listed on BlogShares

 


Valid CSS!