Grim Amusements

dumping ann coulter

Wed, 18 Aug 2010 13:05:20 -0600

It's really kind of fascinating watching how political groups eat their own young, so to speak.

Ann Coulter dumped by conservative peeps for HOMOCON speech - The Dish Rag - Zap2it

Conservative author/speaker Ann Coulter has been dumped as a keynote speaker at WorldNetDaily's upcoming "Taking America Back" national conference.

Why? Because of her plans to also speak at HOMOCON 2010, a Sept. 25th event sponsored by the homosexual Republican group GOProud....

Leaving aside the fact that I rather detest Ms. Coulter and probably all that she stands for ... I really kind of love her response to WND:

[...] Coulter responded: "That's silly, I speak to a lot of groups and do not endorse them. I speak at Harvard and I certainly don't endorse their views. I've spoken to Democratic groups and liberal Republican groups that loooove abortion. The main thing I do is speak on college campuses, which is about the equivalent of speaking at an al-Qaida conference. I'm sure I agree with GOProud more than I do with at least half of my college audiences. But in any event, giving a speech is not an endorsement of every position held by the people I'm speaking to. I was going to speak for you guys, I think you're nuts on the birther thing (though I like you otherwise!)."

So apparently, being open minded (if that's quite the right term) enough to speak to gays -- not to, you know, advocate same-sex marriage or their right to exist or something radical like that, but just to accept their money to talk at them about political issues of the day -- that is enough to get the ultra-right wing to decide that you're not ultra ultra enough and dump you.

My.

Well, now she knows how the president feels, some days.

...What? What? The shellacking he takes from the left wing doesn't remind you of this at all?

(Mind, I do think some of the left's ire is unjustified. After all, he positioned himself as a centrist from the start, so being disappointed because he hasn't fulfilled all of the liberal dreams isn't terribly realistic. That said, I wish he wasn't so prone to compromise and/or utter and abject surrender sometimes. And for a person who is as deliberative and contemplative as he seems to be, he manages to say things without thinking them through -- the recent Muslim mosque statements controversy is entirely of his own making. But then again, I never really expected much from him; after all, he came into office explicitly stating that he thought his religious principles were more important than my civil rights. And even with a start like that, the Administration's positions on LGBT issues have been, to put it politely, wildly uneven and incoherent. But I digress.)

prop. 8 ruling still on temporary hold

Thu, 12 Aug 2010 15:17:15 -0600

Gay marriage: Judge keeps California gay marriage ruling on hold - latimes.com

By Maura Dolan, Los Angeles Times

August 12, 2010|12:44 p.m.

Reporting from San Francisco —
A federal judge Thursday refused to permanently stay his ruling overturning Proposition 8 but extended a temporary hold to give supporters time to appeal the historic ruling. U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker, who overturned the measure on Aug. 4, agreed to give its sponsors until Aug. 18 to appeal his ruling to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. No new marriages can take place until then.

Walker's decision came after supporters of the same-sex marriage ban warned that they would take their case to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary to ensure that his ruling did not take effect....

Well, they're going to have to take it all the way, I should think. Or, if not them, then the plaintiffs will appeal the extension of the stay itself. Either way, the appeal of the stay itself will probably go all the way up to the Supreme Court. Depending on what's been done, the Court will then either decline to remove the stay or put it back in place -- I cannot see this Court allowing marriages to proceed while the case itself is still in the appeals process. Shouldt this Court will overturn Walker's decision -- which it might not -- then all the marriages conducted in the interim would likely be ruled invalid, as they should never have been conducted in the first place. Of course, unless the Court says as much in any resulting decision, that would take another court case, and that would be exceptionally nasty.

I have to admit, I am really fascinated to see what the Ninth does in the next week. It really would be astonishing -- and, as a commenter has said, a strong signal of where they were headed with a final decision -- if the Ninth does not continue the hold indefinitely. After all, it's likely to be six months to a year before the appeals court hears the case itself. Just imagine how many marriages could be contracted in the meantime. But there won't be any marriages conducted on or about August 18 anyway; even if the appeals court itself declines to issue an indefinite hold, I should think they would issue another temporary hold in order to allow the Supreme Court to decide whether or not to issue its own hold.

It's also going to be interesting to see what the appeal itself says. I wonder if it's going to be possible for the defendants to bring up the argument that Walker, as a man apparently in a long-term relationship with another man, should have recused himself; after all, in theory at least, the ruling could affect him directly. To the best of my knowledge, that argument was never made during the case itself, and if they didn't, as I understand it, they can't bring that issue up in appeal.

Possibly something of a side note: reportedly, MSNBC has said that there may be something about the case itself that means that the defendants other than the state of California -- which refused to defend the law and would have lost in a walkover had the other defendants not intervened -- lack the standing to appeal the hold. Unfortunately, I can't find anything that indicates why they would lack standing; it doesn't make a lot of sense, if they were allowed to attach themselves to the case as defendants, that they wouldn't be allowed to appeal their loss.

EDIT: Ah, here it is. Apparently, the other defendants have partially shot themselves in the foot with their argument for the hold. They're saying that the state will suffer irreparable harm if the hold is not extended while the decision itself is on appeal; the problem is that the state itself has said that it felt the law was indefensible in the first place, and that marriages should be allowed to proceed. Because they don't have the agreement of the state, they may not have standing to appeal in the first place. One assumes, of course, that they would appeal their lack of standing to the Supreme Court. One way or another, this case is getting all the way up there. Oddly enough, I would put the defendants' odds of winning that appeal as slightly worse than even; if they lose, the case itself never gets to the Supreme Court.

This would make for a very interesting situation. (Take the following analysis with a full mine of salt; IANAL and all that.) If the other defendants lack standing, that would mean that the only party with standing to appeal, the state of California, doesn't want to. That would mean the decision would take effect ... but only in California, because it could never get a hearing in the court of appeals on its merits, and thus couldn't go all the way to the Supreme Court. An appeal that went all the way to the Supreme Court could federalize any resulting decision; depending on the wording of the Court's decision, it could work like Lawrence v. Texas did for sodomy laws, striking down every state's ban on same-sex marriage, whether it was simply a DOMA-like law, or an actual state constitutional amendment, or if the decision was reversed, the Court could preserve them all. It does seem like that would produce a very peculiar situation, however; California would be prohibited on federal constitutional grounds from prohibiting a form of marriage banned by 47 other states. (New Mexico and New York are in the anomalous position of neither having laws banning same sex marriage, nor allowing it to proceed, because their attorneys general have stated that their constitutions require the legislature to make some affirmative or negative action regarding the process, and both state legislatures have declined to do either.)

Anyway, the video:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Questions? Comments? Etc.?

prop. 8 struck down

Wed, 04 Aug 2010 22:34:03 -0600

Judge strikes down Prop. 8 ban on same-sex marriage

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/08/04/MNQS1EOR3D.DTL&tsp=1
Bob Egelko,Demian Bulwa, Chronicle Staff Writers
Wednesday, August 4, 2010

A federal judge today struck down Proposition 8, the voter-passed November 2008 initiative that defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman. U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker found that the ban on same-sex marriage violated the constitutional due process and equal protection rights of a pair of couples - one lesbian and one gay - who sued.

The judge ordered an injunction against enforcement of Prop. 8 but issued a temporary stay until he decides whether to suspend his ruling while it is being appealed. The stay means that same-sex couples are still prohibited from marrying.

"Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license," Walker wrote in a 136-page ruling. He said the ballot measure "prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis."

The constitutional right to marry, Walker said, "protects an individual's choice of marital partner regardless of gender." He also said domestic partnerships in California, available to same-sex couples, are a "substitute and inferior institution" that lack the social meaning and cultural status of marriage.

Gov. Schwarzenegger issued a statement saying, "For the hundreds of thousands of Californians in gay and lesbian households who are managing their day-to-day lives, this decision affirms the full legal protections and safeguards I believe everyone deserves."

Prop. 8's sponsors are planning an immediate appeal....

...Well, that's nice.

In all seriousness, that's all the enthusiasm I can muster for this. It's ... nice. But at the moment, it's only slightly more than symbolic. The judge has already stayed his order; if he decides to allow the stay to remain in place until the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rules on his decision, then nobody gets married. If he doesn't allow the stay to remain in place -- and the case that people are harmed by not being allowed to marry is at least nominally stronger than the case that they aren't, given the grounds of the decision -- then the stay, or lack thereof, itself will get express appealed through the Ninth and possibly/probably up to the Supreme Court, which is, one suspects, rather more likely to prefer a stay than otherwise, since it will give the process time to work itself out with no change in the status quo. (And in this case, unlike Prop. 8 itself which was not retroactively applied, should the Court ultimately strike down this decision, there is a very good chance that it would take any marriages performed after the stay was released, since they shouldn't have been performed in the first place.)

It's going to be fascinating to see what happens with this decision and the one out of Massachusetts that's headed to the Third (I think) Circuit Court of Appeals which struck down part of DOMA when they get to the Court. (Assuming that they do, of course. I think if the Third and the Ninth decide to strike down the relevant decisions, the Court will almost certainly refuse to hear the appeals; that said, that opinion is based on nothing more than the fact that this Court has shown every sign of ardently wishing to avoid controversial big issues when possible, and issuing strangely small decisions when they can't.) If the Court does decide to hear the cases -- and depending on timing, I would think it would hear the California case first, because the case has implications for DOMA -- then it's going to be fascinating to see what happens. In terms of the Sotomayor and Kagan (assuming she gets through) appointments, we've more or less traded liberal-to-moderate votes for the same, so I don't think those votes would change. As other articles have noted, the balance would likely rest with Justice Kennedy. And while he voted one way on Lawrence vs. Texas, he might not do the same with Perry et al vs. California et al. (What on earth is the official name of this case, anyway?) When it comes to something tied as tightly to religion as marriage is, people may not be very consistent.

The thing about Perry is that if this decision stands, logically, it takes all sorts of laws outside California down with it. (To be sure, people will need to launch court cases to get things started, but that will happen.) For example, one logical consequence ought to be to enforce the Full Faith and Credit clause specifically regarding marriage. If you strike down, on Constitutional grounds, one law that forbids same-sex marriage in one state, as with Lawrence, it takes all of the others down with it. (Virginia notwithstanding. They keep passing purely symbolic sodomy laws, because their legislature is an ass.) Moreover, logically, it also takes out the concept that states need not recognize marriages from other states that "deeply offends the public policy." After all, same-sex marriage has to be the form that said policy would find most offensive; if you're going to require states to recognize that, then allowing Michigan to refuse to recognize a first-cousin marriage performed in Illinois is beyond illogical. (Yes, that's right. Illinois refuses to allow same-sex marriage, but says that under certain circumstances, first cousin marriage is just fine and dandy! This state is sometimes very strange. But I digress.)

Honestly, what I'm going to be very curious about is what Scalia says in his dissent. Clearly, given his position in his blistering dissent in Lawrence -- that states should be allowed to make laws about what they find morally repugnant, but also that the logic of the majority position would lead inevitably to same-sex marriage being allowed -- there may be a certain amount of judicial gloating. But mostly, I expect a relentlessly entertaining, relentlessly religiously-based and relentlessly bigoted decision out of him.

There's also the not-insignificant issue that gay marriage had moved off the front burners as a political issue, and this is likely to shove it right back up there. After all, a judge -- and a gay judge, at that -- struck down a state constitutional amendment produced by a vote of the people. The Republicans and the Teabaggers (I will do the GOP the courtesy of separating them, for now) are both likely to seize on this as evidence of judicial activism, and to agitate for more states to pass anti-same-sex marriage laws, and to use this to rally supporters around more conservative candidates for the House and Senate this year. The Democrats already stand to lose a certain number of seats, simply because the party in the White House usually does during midterms; they're not being helped by the Rangel and Waters scandals, which for the moment, and quite miraculously, make them look momentarily more corrupt (and worse at it) than the Republicans. That said, no such laws are up for vote this political silly season and couldn't make it to the ballot in most states. 2012, on the other hand, is a different issue altogether, especially since that will be about the time these decisions finally wend their way to the Supreme Court.

Any road, the next three years ought to be interesting on both coasts.

Questions? Comments? Brickbats? Cigars, Cigarettes, Cigarillos?

supreme court applies second amendment to states and cities ... more or less

Mon, 28 Jun 2010 15:15:54 -0600

It's an interesting decision, I'll give it that.

Supreme Court Rules That Gun Rights Apply to Local Laws - NYTimes.com

The Second Amendment’s guarantee of an individual right to bear arms applies to state and local gun control laws, the Supreme Court ruled on Monday in a 5-to-4 decision.

The ruling came almost exactly two years after the court first ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own guns in District of Columbia v. Heller, another 5-to-4 decision. But the Heller case addressed only federal laws; it left open the question of whether Second Amendment rights protect gun owners from overreaching by state and local governments.

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., writing for the majority, said that the right to self-defense protected by the Second Amendment is fundamental to the American conception of ordered liberty. Like other provisions of the Bill of Rights that set out such fundamental protections, he said, the Second Amendment must be applied to limit not only federal power but also that of state and local governments.

The ruling is an enormous symbolic victory for supporters of gun rights, but its short-term practical effect is unclear. As in the Heller decision, the justices left for another day the question of just what kinds of gun control laws can be reconciled with Second Amendment protection. Indeed, in more than 200 pages of opinions, the court did not even decide the constitutionality of the two gun control laws that were at issue in the case, from Chicago and Oak Park, Ill. The justices returned the case to the lower courts to decide whether those exceptionally strict laws, which effectively banned the private possession of handguns, can be reconciled with the Second Amendment.

Justice Stephen G. Breyer, in dissent, said “the majority would almost certainly strike down” the Chicago law had it reached the question. The majority in the Heller decision did strike down parts of a similar federal law governing the District of Columbia.

Justice Alito, who was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy and, in large part, Clarence Thomas, acknowledged that the decision may “lead to extensive and costly litigation,” but he said that is the price of protecting constitutional freedoms.

The majority offered the lower courts little guidance about how much protection the Second Amendment affords. In a part of his opinion that Justice Thomas declined to join, Justice Alito reiterated the caveats in the Heller decision, saying the court did not mean to cast doubt on laws prohibiting possession of guns by felons and people who suffer from mental illness, laws forbidding carrying guns in sensitive places like schools and government buildings or laws regulating the commercial sale of firearms. The important point was a broad one, Justice Alito wrote: that the Second Amendment, like other provisions of the Bill of Rights guaranteeing fundamental rights, must be applied to the states under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor dissented. They said the Heller decision remained incorrect, and added that they would not have extended its protections to state and local laws even if it had been correctly decided. “Although the court’s decision in this case might be seen as a mere adjunct to Heller,” Justice Stevens wrote, “the consequences could prove far more destructive — quite literally — to out nation’s communities and to our constitution.” [...]

The strange thing about these cases is that they didn't bother to reach the merits of the cases themselves, but only the constitutional issue. They sent the cases regarding the laws themselves back to the lower courts, which almost certainly means that they'll be back in front of the Court itself in two or three years, asking them to adjudicate the merits of the case -- do the laws of Chicago and Oak Park follow the profound lack of guidelines the Court has declined to set forth? Are they constitutional? Souter says that if the Court had bothered to decide the merits of the case, both laws would almost certainly have been struck down -- they are, after all, nearly complete bans on the possession of handguns within the city limits of both communities. You can scarcely abridge the right to bear arms more emphatically than by saying "thou shalt NOT."

Unfortunately, assuming she's confirmed, Kagan is unlikely to change the balance in decisions like these. Assuming that she lands on the moderate-to-liberal wing, she'll only replace Stevens' vote in this type of case.

In any event, for another year or two, the laws operate as they did (or didn't) as they did before, while the district and appeals courts decide what to do with them. Eventually, the Court will find itself bestirred and forced to directly strike down the laws, rather than sending them back to the lower courts to decide. And then it will be fascinating to see the conniptions and convolutions that various cities and states send themselves through to seriously restrict the right to bear arms, in accord with what will almost certainly continue to be a profound lack of guidance from the Court. And then those laws will go before the Court to be struck down repeatedly, until the states come up with a regulatory scheme that can somehow pass muster. (It's probably going to be something like "If you have more than 20-30 handguns, you got too many."

gallup and gays

Mon, 07 Jun 2010 21:50:26 -0600

How very ... interesting.

Americans' Acceptance of Gay Relations Crosses 50% Threshold

Americans' support for the moral acceptability of gay and lesbian relations crossed the symbolic 50% threshold in 2010. At the same time, the percentage calling these relations "morally wrong" dropped to 43%, the lowest in Gallup's decade-long trend

Gallup's annual Values and Beliefs survey, conducted each May, documents a gradual increase in public acceptance of gay relations since about 2006. However, the change is seen almost exclusively among men, and particularly men younger than 50.

Additionally, Gallup finds greater movement toward acceptance among independents and Democrats than among Republicans, and a big jump in acceptance among moderates. Liberals were already widely accepting of gay relations in 2006, and have remained that way, while conservatives' acceptance continues to run low.

Notably, there has been a 16-point jump in acceptance among Catholics, nearly three times the increase seen among Protestants. Acceptance among Americans with no religious identity has expanded as well.The same May 3-6 Gallup poll finds the slight majority of Americans still against legalizing gay marriage; however, at 53%, the extent of that opposition is down slightly this year.

Acceptance for the legality of gay and lesbian relations has varied over the past decade, but, at 58% today, it is near the highest Gallup has measured (60% in 2003)....

Gay? Whatever, Dude
By CHARLES M. BLOW
June 4, 2010 (nytimes.com)

Last week, while many of us were distracted by the oil belching forth from the gulf floor and the president’s ham-handed attempts to demonstrate that he was sufficiently engaged and enraged, Gallup released a stunning, and little noticed, report on Americans’ evolving views of homosexuality....

[...] There is no way to know for sure what’s driving such a radical change in men’s views on this issue because Gallup didn’t ask, but that doesn’t mean that we can’t speculate. To help me do so, I called Dr. Michael Kimmel, a professor of sociology at the State University of New York at Stony Brook and the author or editor of more than 20 books on men and masculinity, and Professor Ritch Savin-Williams, the chairman of human development at Cornell University and the author of seven books, most of which deal with adolescent development and same-sex attraction.

Here are three theories:

1. The contact hypothesis. As more men openly acknowledge that they are gay, it becomes harder for men who are not gay to discriminate against them. And as that group of openly gay men becomes more varied — including athletes, celebrities and soldiers — many of the old, derisive stereotypes lose their purchase. To that point, a Gallup poll released last May found that people who said they personally knew someone who was gay or lesbian were more likely to be accepting of gay men and lesbians in general and more supportive of their issues.

2. Men may be becoming more egalitarian in general. As Dr. Kimmel put it: “Men have gotten increasingly comfortable with the presence of, and relative equality of, ‘the other,’ and we’re becoming more accustomed to it. And most men are finding that it has not been a disaster.” The expanding sense of acceptance likely began with the feminist and civil rights movements and is now being extended to the gay rights movement. Dr. Kimmel continued, “The dire predictions for diversity have not only not come true, but, in fact, they’ve been proved the other way.”

3. Virulent homophobes are increasingly being exposed for engaging in homosexuality. Think Ted Haggard, the once fervent antigay preacher and former leader of the National Association of Evangelicals, and his male prostitute. (This week, Haggard announced that he was starting a new “inclusive” church open to “gay, straight, bi, tall, short,” but no same-sex marriages. Not “God’s ideal.” Sorry.) Or George Rekers, the founding member of the Family Research Council, and his rent boy/luggage handler. Last week, the council claimed that repealing “don’t ask, don’t tell” would lead to an explosion of “homosexual assaults” in which sleeping soldiers would be the victims of fondling and fellatio by gay predators. In fact, there is a growing body of research that supports the notion that homophobia in some men could be a reaction to their own homosexual impulses. Many heterosexual men see this, and they don’t want to be associated with it. It’s like being antigay is becoming the old gay. Not cool...

See, I think it's that last one that matters ... but not necessarily the way Mr. Blow thinks. That said, what may actually be happening might, in its own way, be just as important.

I just have this feeling that what's happening isn't so much that the attitudes themselves are changing that fast, but that the attitudes about the attitudes are changing. What I mean is, not all that long ago, being seen as savagely antigay just wasn't that big a deal. In fact, it was considred, if not precisely a good thing, then as something normal and entirely expected. (And, usually, it was A Good Thing.) What I suspect is happening is that, yes, society at large is becoming less antigay. Not as fast as this study might indicate, though. But being seen as being savagely antigay is the sort of thing that is now no longer A Good Thing. Or at least, not as good a thing. It's a really odd social desirability bias showing up in the results -- and yes, I suspect that's the case even though it's an anonymous survey, they won't have their name attached to the results, and all that. People are more honest in these types of surveys ... but that doesn't mean that they're completely honest.

Then again, there is this:

[...] As for the aversion among men, it may be softening a bit. Professor Savin-Williams says that his current research reveals that the fastest-growing group along the sexuality continuum are men who self-identify as “mostly straight” as opposed to labels like “straight,” “gay” or “bisexual.” They acknowledge some level of attraction to other men even as they say that they probably wouldn’t act on it, but ... the right guy, the right day, a few beers and who knows. As the professor points out, you would never have heard that in years past....

Given that, way back in the day, Kinsey reported that something like over a quarter of all his respondent men had had sexual contact with a man to orgasm (25%-37%, depending on how the data is corrected), it may just be that self-reporting is coming more into alignment with reality.

Which, to be fair, is something in and of itself.

surrender dorothy!

Tue, 01 Jun 2010 11:54:31 -0600

OK, not about the Wizard of Oz, but the sentiment is much the same -- including the ambiguity introduced by the punctuation, or lack thereof, come to think of it.

Judge Urges Resolution in Use of Obama Photo - ArtsBeat Blog - NYTimes.com

By DAVE ITZKOFF
nytimes.com, May 28, 2010, 5:14 pm

A federal judge on Friday encouraged the parties involved in a dispute over Shepard Fairey’s “Hope” poster of Barack Obama, which is based on an Associated Press photograph, to come to a resolution, suggesting that The A.P. was likely to prevail in court.

Mr. Fairey filed suit against The A.P. last year seeking a judge’s declaration that his poster was protected from copyright infringement claims. The A.P. then filed an infringement suit against Mr. Fairey, who has acknowledged the poster was based on a photograph of Mr. Obama taken in 2006 by Mannie Garcia, a freelance photographer.

On Friday, Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York said in a hearing that “whether it’s sooner or later, The Associated Press is going to win” the case....

You know ... perhaps it's just me, but doesn't coming out and saying, "You know, that party is going to win", especially when it's the party with the much deeper pockets, pretty much argue against there being a settlement? I mean, apart from the cost of the trial -- which will be borne by Mr. Fairey, should he lose -- and the costs of their lawyers -- who are undoubtedly on retainer -- what incentive does this give AP to settle? Why would they bother? The article indicates that Fairey has tried to settle -- as well he should, given that he's essentially conceded almost every issue during the pretrial period -- but that AP isn't interested. I can't see this making them more interested; the only thing to be afraid of would be a judge pissed off because they're wasting his time. (Which, to be sure, is something they should be afraid of, but I suspect they're much more interested in making an example of Mr Fairey -- that is, pummeling him into the fiscal turf.)

the only openly gay male athlete

Wed, 28 Apr 2010 14:35:13 -0600

Gareth Thomas ... The Only Openly Gay Male Athlete - 05.03.10 - SI Vault
GARY SMITH (sportsillustrated.cnn.com)

He's 6'3" and 225 pounds of muscle. He's broken his nose five times, fractured both shoulders and lost eight teeth. He's drunk his mates under the table and brawled by their side. He's been named to the Welsh national rugby team more times than any other man. And, among active players in major professional team sports, he's ...

Wot, butt?You come to this tiny village in this tiny country and tell me that I'm the only gay man in a major team sport who's out of the closet?

The man was missing eight teeth. Sometimes he would slip out his false teeth when you weren't looking and deposit them in your pint of ale.

All the diversity in America, and no one there has done this?

His blue eyes twinkled and his laughter was infectious and his body was a riot of muscles and he'd been known, if he suspected someone in the pub was talking about him, to rise from his table and drop him.

America's the pioneer, butt! Am I right?

He plays professional rugby. No, he has dominated it, been selected to play for his national team more times than anyone else in his country's history.

America's at the top of the table in everything! So why...?

His sport has broken his nose five times, fractured both of his shoulders and his hip and his forearm and his palate and his thumb, and concussed him, on average, three times a year.

A rugby team ... in Wales. A country of coal miners. I thought THAT would be the harshest environment for a man to come out in, but no....

Rugby for pussies: That's what he and his teammates call American football.

Why has America created an environment that's not open to gay sportsmen, butt?

No helmets, no pads, just balls: That's how he describes his own sport.

So tell me, butt. I really want to f---in' know what's going on in America!

Sometimes you have to go far away to see yourself. Sometimes you have to go to a land where people use different words and have different rituals and sing different songs. Sometimes you have to watch people play an unfamiliar game to see your games.

So how do we answer Gareth Thomas? Where is our pioneer? Why hasn't one gay male athlete in a major professional team sport in our country—one who's still playing, not one retired—ever come out?

Even the U.S. military is preparing to cross the line that 25 other countries' armies already have. Will team sports be the last place in the U.S. where a gay man feels he must hide and lie? [...]

Yes. Yes, it probably will. For quite some time to come, too.

[...] Finally, as 2009 drew to a close, a now-or-never feeling gripped his chest. He was 35, his international career finished, and he trusted his Cardiff Blues teammates and coaches. He could wait until he retired to come clean and salvage some shred of authenticity for the rest of his life, but if he did it now, its impact would multiply tenfold, and if just one young man could be saved from what he'd endured, wouldn't his long horror suddenly have worth?

He got his parents' blessing. He went to his grandparents' graves and talked it out with them. He vowed to spill the secret, chickened out, vowed again. At last he took a deep breath and told his agent to contact London's conservative Daily Mail, his father's newspaper, and he made his declaration. On Dec. 18—two months after an Irish hurler named Dónal Óg Cusack had outed himself—Alf warned teammates as they flew to a game in France that the story was going to break the next day, and he barely slept that night.

By chance they were playing his old team, Toulouse. He waited till the last possible moment to take the field, but when his name was announced, the roar that went up overwhelmed him. When the team's plane returned to Cardiff that night, he headed straight to his parents' house, and they popped a bottle of champagne.

"What are we toasting?" he asked.

"The start of the rest of your life," said his mother.

Alf lifted his glass, drank ... and awaited the anvil. On the street he pulled his wool beanie low or his hood up. At home he Googled feverishly, scouring every thread of the Web to see what happened when millions of people came into collision with their conception of what a man is.

The brotherhood, of course, counted most in the public trial of Alfie Thomas. His cellphone blazed with congratulatory texts from old teammates. His current mates rejoiced that Alf's preferences finally were fodder. They teased him about the pink jerseys that Cardiff wore against Toulouse: "Oh, they knew you were coming out today, Alf?" They pointed to the music video on the team bus—Freddie Mercury of Queen, dressed as a miniskirted maid, vacuuming a house and singing I Want to Break Free—and hooted, "Oh, look, Alf's on the telly!" Coach David Young growled, "C'mon, boys, you're playing like a bunch of fairies!" and started to cringe at his word choice, only to see Alf giggling hardest of all. Now Alf could take the mick on his hotel roommates, claiming that Gareth Cooper had spent the whole night in Toulouse sleeping with one eye open and his back to the wall.

"We probably love him even more now because of how hard we know it's been for him," says Lee Byrne, a former national teammate.

"For me, he was the most ungay person who ever was," says Trevor Brennan, a former Toulouse teammate. "Our coach would point to him and say, 'There's an example of a real man.' I don't make gay jokes anymore since I found out about Alf." [...]

Well ... that might happen. Might. Judging from what Esera Tuaolo was told after he'd retired and come out ... probably not.

A Gay Football Player, 'Alone in the Trenches': Excerpt from 'Alone in the Trenches' (npr.org)

by Esera Tuaolo

[...] The National Football League is the number one entertainment in the world, and the Super Bowl is its showcase event. Media from all over — places like Japan and Lebanon, where they don't even play football — report on the spectacle. The Super Bowl is the biggest event that happens every year in the United States.

What if one of those billion people watching recognized me as the stranger he had picked up in a gay bar? All he had to do was out me to the press and the story would be all over the headlines: "Gay Man Makes Final Tackle in Super Bowl." My football career would be finished.

No more Super Bowls, no more Sundays playing ball. No more paychecks, no more financial security. No more locker-room banter, no more camaraderie with the guys. I would be banished from the NFL fraternity.

During my nine years in the NFL, I lived that close to the edge of destruction. My success tormented me. The better I did, the more exposure I received. The more exposure, the greater the chance of someone discovering my secret. A secret that a man who plays the most macho of team sports is not supposed to have. The stress nearly killed me...

[...] The dream to succeed in the NFL and achieve all that football had to offer was at times a nightmare. I struggled to survive the combative, macho world dominated by a culture that despised who I really am. Had opponents and teammates known I was gay, they would have mocked me the way I heard them ridicule others with sexual slurs. More than likely — as several former teammates admitted — they would have tried to injure me so that they would not have been viewed as guilty by association.

In other words, they would have taken me out so that their own masculinity would not be questioned for playing alongside a sissy. It's rough down in the trenches, where linemen weighing more than three-hundred pounds hurl themselves at one another in brutal hand-to-hand combat, but it is nothing compared to the pain I kept buried inside so I could play out my dream....

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: there are only a couple of ways that a male athlete in a major sport in this country will come out.

First, there might be someone who comes out in high school or early in college, who is so spectacular a player that a pro team will finally decide, "Oh, what the hell" and take a risk on them. And, yes, he will get the crap beaten out of him on a regular basis by his pro teammates and competitors for a while. But if it's someone who's always been open coming out of college, then they'll have a history. There'll be less to react to, and it may last a shorter time, especially if they can survive the hazing to gain some professional respect.

Either that, or it will be someone caught doing something terribly ordinary -- like living with a male partner -- or something so mindbendingly stupid and desperate that they can't deny it -- like almost anything George Michael (granted, neither an athlete nor closeted) seems to do in public these days. And they will be so wildly successful and talented -- something like maybe winning the Super Bowl three times in a row, or being the star player on a team that wins a few World Series or NBA titles -- that the idea that the team would or could get rid of them for something like that will be utterly inconceivable, because you don't give away titles that easily. It is possible, although not probable, that if it happens while David Stern is head of the NBA, that he might issue some sort of brief, supportive statement, based on his reaction to Tim Hardaway's "I hate gay people" remark. More likely, it would be something extremely brief and noncommittal. The NFL and MLB would officially take a position of studied silence, while probably condemning -- and possibly disciplining -- the vociferously anti-gay remarks that would come from their players and coaches and some of the owners.

And then, of course, opposing players and several of his teammates would come up with inventive ways to humiliate and physically maul him.

Thing is, it's not just team sports, although it's probably going to be more difficult there. According to the Outsports.com Out Athletes list, there have been five openly gay golfers, all women -- and one of those so designated may not have been. There are seven tennis players, five women and two men. Of the two men, one is dead and wasn't known to be gay during his active time as a player -- and being discovered to be such by getting arrested for propositioning a couple of teenagers has resulted in Bill Tilden getting as thoroughly erased from tennis history as they can manage while still acknowledging that he existed -- and the other a coach, and not active on the pro tour. While most of the five women were out while they were active, Navratilova has said, repeatedly, that being out cost her quite a lot of income and major sponsorships. Given that even today, there's less prize money and less lucrative sponsorships on the women's tour than on the men's, imagine what could be at stake for the man who dares to come out? He'd pretty much need to be independently wealthy, because unless he was a top flight player, making semi-finals and finals and winning all the time, he'd find it very difficult just to get to and enter tournaments, let alone train, maintain form, and win. A journeyman player -- which, really, is most of the players on tour outside the top 20 or so -- would have an unspeakably difficult time. And tennis and golf, let us remember, are international sports, not something as parochial as the NFL or NBA or MLB.

It might have happened sometime soon in the National Hockey League. But then...

'We love you, this won't change a thing'

By John Buccigross
ESPN.com
Updated: December 2, 2009, 6:42 PM ET

"I hope the day comes, and soon, when this is not a story." -- Maple Leafs GM Brian Burke

[...] "I had a million good reasons to love and admire Brendan. This news didn't alter any of them.

I would prefer Brendan hadn't decided to discuss this issue in this very public manner. There will be a great deal of reaction, and I fear a large portion will be negative. But this takes guts, and I admire Brendan greatly, and happily march arm in arm with him on this.

There are gay men in professional hockey. We would be fools to think otherwise. And it's sad that they feel the need to conceal this. I understand why they do so, however.

Can a gay man advance in professional hockey? He can if he works for the Toronto Maple Leafs! Or for Miami University Hockey. God bless Rico Blasi! And I am certain these two organizations are not alone here.

I wish this burden would fall on someone else's shoulders, not Brendan's. Pioneers are often misunderstood and mistrusted. But since he wishes to blaze this trail, I stand beside him with an axe! I simply could not be more proud of Brendan than I am, and I love him as much as I admire him." -- Brian Burke...

[...] "Brendan is a great guy, personable and caring. As student manager, he is involved in a lot of things for us -- video, stats and community service, to name a few of his duties.

To my knowledge, there has been nothing negative [since he came out to us]. I think it goes along the lines that Brendan is part of our family. Everyone respects Brendan, and that's all that really matters.

The players are awesome. They are very sensitive to language and how we talk in the locker room. Again, it goes back to our culture and working on relationships and behaviors.

[As far as whether a player could come out and be able to function like a normal college player], that's a tough one and I don't want to speak for any other program. As far as Miami is concerned, we are about the person. I believe we would be accepting and honestly not even think twice about it.

I think having Brendan as part of our program has been a blessing. We are much more aware of what you say and how we say it. I am guilty as anyone. We need to be reminded that respect is not a label, but something you earn by the way you live your life." -- Miami University hockey coach Enrico Blasi...

[...] "He's incredibly brave. He went back to our all-boys high school and gave a speech about the struggles gay teenagers go through and got a standing ovation from 200 kids who spend half their time insulting anyone different than them.

In so many ways, I look up to him for who he is and what he does.

Obviously, there are gay players in hockey right now, just no openly gay ones. And there are gay people in management, whether they're scouts or front-office people or coaches. We just don't have any openly gay ones right now. I think it will be a challenge for the first person that comes out, because they'll be putting themselves under a microscope.

The scary thing for me is that it might be Brendan, if he chooses to go into hockey. I don't think it's fair the face of homosexuality in hockey should be a 20-year-old college kid, but Brendan is more than willing to be the guy, which awes me. I think it's a matter of when, not if, players and management start coming out." -- Patrick Burke...

[...] "Imagine if I was in the opposite situation, with a family that wouldn't accept me, working for a sports team where I knew I couldn't come out because I'd be fired or ostracized. People in that situation deserve to know that they can feel safe, that sports isn't all homophobic and that there are plenty of people in sports who accept people for who they are." -- Brendan Burke.

Brendan Burke, 21; raised awareness by coming out as young, gay athlete

By Emma Stickgold
Globe Correspondent / February 8, 2010

He grew up on the ice, wore skates at 3, and hung out in the locker rooms of National Hockey League teams. Brendan Burke’s life revolved around hockey, the sport of his father, Brian.

Mr. Burke was considering following in his father’s footsteps in sports team management but had also toyed with the idea of becoming a politician, and interned last summer for US Representative William D. Delahunt.

Mr. Burke’s name was well known in hockey circles after he came out as a gay man. In an ESPN.com column written by John Buccigross last year, Mr. Burke described what it was like to be a young, gay athlete, struggling to come to terms with his sexuality in a culture in which homophobic slurs are common.

He returned each year to Xaverian Brothers High School in Westwood, his alma mater, to talk to students at the all-boys Catholic school about his saga, and how his father, the general manager of the Toronto Maple Leafs and the United States men’s Olympic hockey team, was among his biggest supporters.

Mr. Burke, 21, a senior at Miami University in Ohio, died Friday in a car accident in Indiana. His friend Mark A. Reedy, 18, a first-year student at Michigan State University, also died in the crash, after the 2004 Jeep Grand Cherokee Mr. Burke was driving spun out of control and into traffic on US Route 35. They were heading east in Wayne County, and the local sheriff’s department said snowy and icy road conditions were factors in the accident.

“The National Hockey League grieves tonight for the family and friends of Brendan Burke, a young man of courage and character,’’ Gary Bettman, the NHL’s commissioner, said in a statement....

So, yes, it may happen someday. We may see an active gay male player in a major sport.

Just don't expect it in this country any time soon.

just what is the RDA of gay, anyway?

Sat, 24 Apr 2010 23:41:19 -0600

It's really fascinating, in a very strange way, watching people be both hypocritical and alarmingly stupid.at the same time.

Not gay enough - softball players sue (sfgate.com)

Henry K. Lee, Chronicle Staff Writer
Thursday, April 22, 2010

All Steven Apilado, LaRon Charles and Jon Russ wanted to do was to win the championship game at the Gay Softball World Series for their amateur San Francisco team.

Instead, they were marched one by one into a conference room at the tournament in suburban Seattle and asked about their "private sexual attractions and desires," and their team was stripped of its second-place finish after the men were determined to be "non-gay," they said in a lawsuit accusing a national gay sports organization of discrimination.

The suit, filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Seattle, pits the National Center for Lesbian Rights, a San Francisco group backing the men, against the North American Gay Amateur Athletic Alliance, which prides itself on barring discrimination based on sexual orientation. At issue is whether the gay sports alliance violated Washington state's public accommodations laws by enforcing a rule limiting to two the number of heterosexuals who can play on a team.

Apilado, Charles and Russ were members of D2, a team that was part of the San Francisco Gay Softball League. The squad made it to the championship game at the August 2008 tournament in Kent, Wash. But another team, the Atlanta Mudcats, which had lost to D2 in a semifinal game, complained that the San Francisco team had too many straights. D2 ultimately lost the championship to a team from Los Angeles. Afterward, Apilado, Charles and Russ were called separately into a conference room in front of 25 people for a hearing to determine whether they were heterosexual or gay, the suit said. They were asked "very intrusive, sexual questions," including what their sexual interests and preferences were, Suzanne Thomas, a Seattle attorney for the plaintiffs, said Wednesday.

Charles, who was D2's manager, asked whether he could say he was bisexual and was told, "This is the Gay World Series, not the Bisexual World Series," the suit said. According to Charles' Facebook profile, he is married to a woman.In a statement, Charles said, "When you play softball, you never expect for anyone to corner you and ask you personal questions about who you are and what you do. It was emotional for me as a coach to go in there and not only get grilled, but watch my team be put in this situation."

The alliance ultimately determined that the three men were "non-gay" and that D2 had broken the rules. The alliance placed the San Francisco Gay Softball League on probation, "with the consequence that if a San Francisco team is found to have too many 'non-gay' players on its roster again," the league will be expelled, the suit said. [...]

So.

The NAGAAA decided to enforce the minimum gayly requirement (or to be more specific, the maximum straight requirement) by conducting the sort of inquisition carried out by the government under the auspices of "don't ask, don't tell." Because imitating your oppressors is the sincerest form of flattery! Well done, NAGAAA, well done!

But wait! it gets better!

Bi African-American Ballplayers Sue Gay Softball Organization For Discrimination
Filed by: Monica Roberts (Bilerico Project, bilerico.com)
April 22, 2010 5:00 PM

If the GLBT community wants their rights and humanity respected, protected and codified under the law, it is imperative for them to remember and realize that they must do the same thing for others inside and outside the GLBT community. [...] When the game was over, five D2 players, Apilado, Charles, Russ and two white teammates were immediately summoned to a conference room for a protest hearing,

Each player was forced to answer intrusive questions about his sexual orientation and his private life in front of a room of over 25 people, most of whom the players did not know. The players were forced to answer whether they were "predominantly attracted to men" or "predominantly attracted to women," without the option of answering that they were attracted to both.

After each player was interrogated, a panel voted on whether he was "gay" or "non-gay." NAGAAA's committee refused to entertain the possibility that the players could be bisexual. In response to a player's statement that he was attracted to both men and women, a NAGAAA member responded, "This is the Gay World Series, not the Bisexual World Series."

Ultimately, the predominantly-white committee voted that all the men of color, Charles, Russ, and Apilado, were not gay. The committee voted multiple times on at least one player. The committee also declared that the other two players, both white--one of whom had given precisely the same answers as Russ--were gay. [...]

NAGAAA is being represented by Beth Allen, a Portland, OR based attorney who specializes in LGBT-related legal issues. She said that NAGAAA "agrees that if they were a public accommodation, they could not limit players on the basis of sexual orientation. But they're a private organization, seeking to provide a forum for gay and lesbian athletes, or those who would like to become athletes, to play ball together in an environment where they don't face any type of discrimination. ... It is not an unusual situation to have a softball league that is organized by principle on a protected class."

Allen was quoted in Advocate.com as saying that she found the suit brought by NCLR to be "very disheartening."

"Certainly I've seen infighting in the community. Anyone who's worked for our rights has seen infighting, because we're all human," Allen said. "But as I've told [NCLR executive director] Kate Kendell, it baffles me why they've taken on this case. Why is the National Center for Lesbian Rights asserting this claim on behalf of three poor beleaguered straight men? I don't get it."

Kendell said the suit "makes very clear that the core issue in the case is that sexual orientation discrimination is harmful, demeaning, and stigmatizing. What these players were subjected to in terms of inquiry about their private sexual lives was a violation, not only of the softball association's own rules but also Washington state law."

"[Allen's] response is what's baffling," Kendell added.

NAGAAA, the organizer of the Gay Softball World Series, has refused to change the discriminatory rule that excludes players based on sexual orientation, to apologize to Apilado, Charles, and Russ for the traumatic and humiliating public interrogation they endured, or to disavow the practice of interrogating players about their sexual orientations in protest hearings....

....And it was somewhere in in the middle of all this that my head exploded.

So.

Let's leave aside the question of racism, for now. Let's even leave aside the outrageous inquisition into the sex lives of these men that NAGAAA conducted. Let's just look at that lawsuit, shall we? Let's shall.

The plain fact is, NAGAAA cannot afford to win this lawsuit.

Why is that, you might ask?

Because NAGAAA is using precisely the same argument that the Boy Scouts of America used in trying to eject a gay scoutleader: that they were a private organization, and that as such, they were not required to follow state nondiscrimination laws that were binding on public organizations. And, after many years and appeals, the Supreme Court agreed with them. And the net result?

The Boy Scouts were summarily stripped of access to all sorts of public facilities in many cities and states. San Diego and Philadelphia have launched lawsuits to take back the local headquarters buildings, which were donated by the cities involved under the assumption tha the scouts were a public organization.

If NAGAAA ultimately wins this lawsuit, they will be blocked from access to facilities in Washington state, Washington DC, California, Chicago, New York, and all sorts of other places. Now, I'm sure that there are private baseball and softball fields out there that they can use -- though it's worth noting that the majority of those will probably belong to private schools, colleges, and universities, and in this country, the majority of those have some sort of religious affiliation, which could prove ... problematic, to put it mildly. I suppose they can try going to states which don't have nondiscrimination laws; they would certainly have sufficient public facilities. Of course, many of those might also be rather ... hostile to the very concept of a bevy of gay(ish) softball teams camping out in their towns.

In short, if NAGAAA actually wins this suit, they're likely to find themselves barred from being able to play in the locations where they'd most like to play.

Oh, but wait: it gets even better!

NAGAAA can't afford to lose this lawsuit, either.

If NAGAAA loses, they will almost certainly lose the right to restrict teams according to their perceived level of gayness. They will certainly lose the ability to conduct inquisitions into the sex lives of the players -- indeed, I hope they lose that privilege, whether they win or lose. Regardless, if they lose the lawsuit, they lose the ability to define themselves and competing teams by virtue of that factor most important to them. On the other hand, if they lose, they'll keep access to fields in the most desired locations.

I wonder if there's going to be some fallout of this, aside from the ugly publicity. One would hope that most of the teams would depart this association and form another one, with rules an regulations barring such inquiry into people's lives and affections. One would hope ... but that will never happen. After all, people have the memory of gnats, and they want things to be as easy as possible. And for the time being, the easiest thing to do would be to go along to get along. (Besides, serves those pesky straight people right for trying to pass. Who do they think they are?.... and so forth.)

Really, it's in their best interests to find some way to make this lawsuit go away as quickly and quietly as possible. That said, if I were one of the men who'd been subjected to the gay orthodox version of "Do Ask, Do Tell, and we won't believe you anyway (possibly especially if you're black)", I wouldn't let them out of this without the most abject public apology they could possibly compose.

us supreme court justice stevens to retire

Fri, 09 Apr 2010 10:44:37 -0600

This is going to make for an interesting summer.

Justice John Paul Stevens to retire from court in June

By Robert Barnes
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, April 9, 2010; 11:19 AM

Justice John Paul Stevens, the longest-serving member of the current Supreme Court and the leader of its liberal wing, announced his retirement Friday, giving President Obama his second chance to make a mark on the nation's highest court. Stevens, who will turn 90 on April 20, said in a letter to "My dear Mr. President" that he will leave the court at the conclusion of the current term at the end of June. Stevens said he was announcing his retirement now so that the president would have time to make a nomination and the Senate to confirm in time for the start of the court's new term next October.

A senior administration official confirmed that Stevens informed the White House that he will step down this summer. Obama was notified of Stevens's decision while traveling on Air Force One on his way back to Washington from Prague, a White House aide said.

Stevens was appointed by President Gerald R. Ford and joined the court on Dec. 19, 1975.

His retirement is not a surprise, and the White House has been preparing for another opening. Aides and Democrats close to the process named three people as likely front-runners for the job: Solicitor General Elena Kagan, whom Obama appointed as the first woman to hold the post, and two appellate court judges, Diane Wood of Chicago and Merrick Garland of Washington. [...] Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, [...] whose committee will conduct confirmation hearings for Stevens's replacement, urged senators of both parties to "make this process a thoughtful and civil discourse" and to "give fair and thorough consideration to Justice Stevens' successor."

"A thoughtful and civil discourse". Over a Supreme Court justice replacement. In this lunkheaded, spineless Congress. Headed into the political silly season, when there will be all sorts of rhetorical points to be scored by railing against whoever Obama selects, or railing against those who rail against the selection.

Pardon me; I'll just be over in the corner, laughing myself sick until I cry at the very notion that our current politicians are even capable of "thoughtful and civil discourse."

The selection and confirmation process will be interesting -- in the Chinese curse sense of "interesting". It will be "interesting", for example, to see what sort of justice Obama picks to replace this liberal lion. (Basically, there's Stevens, there's Ginsburg, there's Breyer -- sort of -- and that's about it for the liberal wing these days.) And it will be "interesting", in what I suspect will be an intensely unpleasant sort of way, to see what it's like to have a genuinely conservative court, which we haven't had during my lifetime. (Kennedy plays a pivot point between liberal and conservative now, when the court is divided 4-4 between the conservative and liberal/moderate wing. Once Stevens is replaced by a more conservative justice, Kennedy is no longer the balance point; there simply won't be one.) After all, anyone who thinks that Obama would choose a genuine liberal to replace a genuine liberal hasn't been paying even the slightest attention. For all that conservatives go after his liberality, he really, genuinely isn't one. He's a centrist moderate, he keeps telling us that he's a centrist moderate, with the occasional meaningless liberal flourish. Just enough for liberals and moderates to hope that he does something that they'll actually, you know, like. But I promise you, the best thing we'll be able to say about this next appointment, from a liberal point of view, will be "Well, it could be worse." (There's also the question of whether he might nominate someone genuinely very liberal as a sacrificial lamb, so that when the nomination gets withdrawn because the nominee gets tired of being used as a brickbat, he can do someone perhaps a bit more liberal than he might otherwise have gotten away with. That would be a terribly risky strategy, however, since there's every chance that conservatives would then decide that their best and strongest campaign strategy would be to block all nominations, and then to condemn the president and the Democrats for not nominating someone more "acceptable."

As I say, it's going to be an "interesting' summer.

massa and his parting "gift"

Mon, 15 Mar 2010 02:06:34 -0600

Former Navy officers who served with Rep. Eric Massa say he 'groped' subordinates on ship

BY Richard Sisk
DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU

Sunday, March 14th 2010, 4:00 AM

WASHINGTON - Eric Massa left behind several political gifts for Republicans in his loopy exit from the House, including a line of attack for opponents of gays serving openly in the military. Rep. Massa, an upstate Democrat, resigned his seat after admitting to "inappropriate" behavior with young male aides - groping and unwanted advances, the complaints alleged - that he described as a carry-over from his days as a career Navy officer. Then former shipmates emerged last week with stories that Massa tried to grope, "snorkel" and ogle those of lesser rank.

"It's a cautionary tale" of a superior officer allegedly seeking to prey upon subordinates that argues against repeal of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, said Elaine Donnelly, head of the anti-repeal Center for Military Readiness. "That kind of abuse would become far more frequent" if gays were allowed to serve openly, Donnelly said....

You know ... it would be nice if people making arguments against DADT would give us credit for having SOME sense. And it would be nice if they made arguments that used some of that ... you know, what's it called? Oh, yes. Logic.

I mean, think on it: Massa sexually harrassed people while he was serving, and under a regime even more restrictive than DADT. Making it possible for gays to serve openly isn't gong to open straight guys up to more abuse. Apart from anything else, if recent military history is anything to go by, right before DADT falls -- assuming for the sake of argument that it does, and I don't think it will -- the military will embark on an antigay program the likes of which hasn't been seen in some time. It's more or less what happened when DADT itself was implemented, after all. For some time before and after, discharges of gay personnel actually increased. If the people opposed see this as their last chance to get these people out before they're stuck with them, they're going to take it.

Understand: I'm not saying that most military are opposed to having gays serve openly. I don't think most military personnel care all that much. However, judging from recent comments, many of the upper echelons of the military are fairly strongly opposed. The idea that they wouldn't take the opportunity is kind of laughable. And once that purge is done, there will be extremely few gay people left to come out, and those who are left will likely be intimidated into silence.

To be sure, while Massa was a particular gift to the people opposed to DADT repeal, it's an argument that they'd likely be making anyway. After all, they can point to the behavior of many of the military when women were allowed to serve -- the issues with rape that the academies have had, the issues with rape that they've had among serving personnel, etc. Which, honestly, actually makes the argument that perhaps straight men should not be allowed to serve, since they clearly can't be trusted to restrain themselves. ... what's that you say? It's only a small minority of straight men who seem to be criminally inclined? That most manage to serve with women and respect them, or at the very least simply leave them alone? Really?

My, imagine that.

news of the gay

Thu, 04 Mar 2010 15:55:23 -0600

What a very ... INteresting day it's been.

Senators: Lift lifetime ban on gay men donating blood - chicagotribune.com

The time has come to change a policy that imposes a lifetime ban on donating blood for any man who has had gay sex since 1977, 18 senators said Thursday. "Not a single piece of scientific evidence supports the ban," said Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., who joined 16 other Democrats and independent Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont in writing Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Margaret Hamburg.

The lawmakers stressed that the science has changed dramatically since the ban was established in 1983 at the advent of the HIV-AIDS crisis. Today donated blood must undergo two different, highly accurate tests that make the risk of tainted blood entering the blood supply virtually zero, they said. The senators said that while hospitals and emergency rooms are in urgent need of blood products, "healthy blood donors are turned away every day due to an antiquated policy and our blood supply is not necessarily any safer for it."

Brian Moulton, chief legislative counsel for the Human Rights Campaign,the nation's largest gay rights group, said they are hopeful that the policy, last reviewed in 2006, will change under President Barack Obama, "who is interested in looking at all the policies that have a discriminatory effect." The goal, he said, is "to have policies in place that are based on the science" rather than "any discriminatory idea about our community." [...]

DC Begins licensing same-sex marriages
By Keith L. Alexander and Ann E. Marimow
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, March 4, 2010; A01

Just sitting down at a desk at the marriage bureau at D.C. Superior Court on Wednesday was too much for Angelisa Young. She cried so hard that she eventually had to bury her face in her fiancee's chest. About a half-hour later, Young and her partner, Sinjoyla Townsend, who met 13 years ago in a Constitutional Law class at the University of the District of Columbia, became the first same-sex couple to apply to be married in the District as the city officially joined five states in allowing gay marriage. "I'm just so happy. We're whole now. We will actually be a true family like everyone else," Young, 47, said as Townsend, 41, used her thumb to wipe away her soon-to-be wife's tears. After the couple from Southeast Washington rose from the desk, couples in line behind them broke into spontaneous applause and cheers.

For Young, Townsend and the cheering masses, being there, in the tiny and usually sleepy marriage bureau, on the very first day meant everything. There was the history of it all, but mostly it was about having the nation's capital validate their relationships and their families.

For the couples in line Wednesday and those who follow, it was the culmination of a three-decade struggle for equality. Advocates had long known that the D.C. Council would approve same-sex marriage. But the timing had to be right. Congress and the White House could have killed the bill, which had to clear a congressional review period, so advocates waited for a president and legislature sympathetic to gay rights and home rule. In the meantime, the gay community picked up important rights in the District, including a domestic partnership law, before the council passed the same-sex marriage bill in December.

Still, there were no white wedding dresses or tuxedos among the gay couples Wednesday because they won't be able to marry until Tuesday, at the earliest. Gay or straight, the District requires a three-day waiting period from the day you get your license. Young and Townsend plan to marry that day at the Human Rights Campaign headquarters as part of a ceremony involving other same-sex couples.

The line to get into the marriage bureau was composed of racially diverse couples of all generations and appeared to include more women than men. By the end of the day, 151 couples had filed to be married, far surpassing the dozen or so applications the bureau typically collects on a single day. Some brought their children or spoke of the importance of their change in status to their sons and daughters. "It's a great source of pride for her and, deep down, a source of relief and stability," said Silver Spring resident Deborah Weiner, referring to her 15-year-old daughter. Weiner stood in line with her partner of 24 years, Janne Harrelson....

Democrats vow quick end to 'don't ask, don't tell' as Senate bill is introduced
By Ed O'Keefe
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, March 4, 2010

Leading Senate Democrats pledged Wednesday to move quickly to repeal the ban on gays serving openly in the armed forces rather than wait, as the Pentagon has requested, for the military to complete a lengthy review.

Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) introduced the Military Readiness Enhancement Act, legislation that would lift the ban and prohibit discrimination against gay service members. Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.) said he expects his panel to take up the measure in May as part of the annual defense authorization bill.

"Gays are serving successfully in our military right now -- this legislation would allow them to serve with integrity," Levin said.

Lieberman said: "If Americans want to serve, they ought to have the right to be considered for that service regardless of characteristics such as race, religion, gender or sexual orientation."

The Pentagon and congressional Republicans have urged Democrats to allow the military to first complete its study of the policy and the impact of a potential repeal. The study is expected to be completed by Dec. 1.

"We need to know more than we know now about what the potential impact would be," Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell told reporters Wednesday. "And we need to be armed with that information so that we could work with the Congress to help inform the process that they undertake, if they undertake it." [...]

Of course, the interesting part of all of this is that none of this is irrevocable, or even guaranteed that it will move forward. One can count on obstructionist conservative Democrats and pretty much each and every Republican to fight the blood-donation ban. Senator Levin, into whose committee DADT repeal must first go, is already on record as saying that he recommends merely that enforcement of the policy be suspended, rather than a full repeal. (And in a wonderfully entertaining aspect, the military officers assigned to do the research on the topic have stated that they plan to speak to currently-serving gay officers and enlisted about the ban and how they feel. Since identifying themselves as gay for the purpose of this study would be a direct violation of DADT and lead to their immediate dismissal from service, how the researchers plan to do this is entirely unclear. Moreover, there's more than a hint, in the comments floating around, that anyone surveyed on these issues will be, shall we say, Strongly Encouraged to say that they would be uncomfortable serving with openly gay personnel.

And as far as the DC marriages go, there's an attempt going forward to get the courts to overturn that section of the DC charter prohibiting votes on the Human Rights section as unconstitutional. Apparently, some people feel that the DC city council's position, that allowing majorities to vote on the rights of minorities is in and of itself unconstitutional, does not allow them to vote on their moral repugnance at the very idea of treating gays and lesbians as though they have the same human rights as anyone else, and they're trying to get that overturned. But all that said, for now, DC couples will be able to marry by Tuesday.

So, as I said, a very interesting day it's been.

liberalism, athiesm, monogamy and IQ

Tue, 02 Mar 2010 11:29:26 -0600

Liberalism, atheism, male sexual exclusivity linked to IQ - CNN.com

Political, religious and sexual behaviors may be reflections of intelligence, a new study finds.

Evolutionary psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa at the the London School of Economics and Political Science correlated data on these behaviors with IQ from a large national U.S. sample and found that, on average, people who identified as liberal and atheist had higher IQs. This applied also to sexual exclusivity in men, but not in women. The findings will be published in the March 2010 issue of Social Psychology Quarterly.

The IQ differences, while statistically significant, are not stunning -- on the order of 6 to 11 points -- and the data should not be used to stereotype or make assumptions about people, experts say. But they show how certain patterns of identifying with particular ideologies develop, and how some people's behaviors come to be.

The reasoning is that sexual exclusivity in men, liberalism and atheism all go against what would be expected given humans' evolutionary past. In other words, none of these traits would have benefited our early human ancestors, but higher intelligence may be associated with them.

"The adoption of some evolutionarily novel ideas makes some sense in terms of moving the species forward," said George Washington University leadership professor James Bailey, who was not involved in the study. "It also makes perfect sense that more intelligent people -- people with, sort of, more intellectual firepower -- are likely to be the ones to do that." [...]

I don't know ... call me a skeptic, I suppose, but it seems profoundly counterintuitive that an "evolutionarily novel" idea such as monogamy should be an indicator of higher intelligence. After all, as the professor himself notes, it's actually a counter-evolutionary tendency for males.

...Religion, the current theory goes, did not help people survive or reproduce necessarily, but goes along the lines of helping people to be paranoid, Kanazawa said. Assuming that, for example, a noise in the distance is a signal of a threat helped early humans to prepare in case of danger. "It helps life to be paranoid, and because humans are paranoid, they become more religious, and they see the hands of God everywhere," Kanazawa said. [...]

My, I'll bet Professor Kanazawa gets some ... INteresting mail and messages after this. Effectively defining religion as organized paranoia and an evolutionary strategy is not really going to go over well in some quarters.

The comments thread on the above article is already vastly entertaining.

soldier held over child porn charges

Fri, 15 Jan 2010 16:13:09 -0600

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

Fri, 15 Jan 2010 12:52:18 -0600

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?

just a gigolo

Thu, 14 Jan 2010 23:22:03 -0600

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.