Random Seattle Shots

  Jackfruit at a Vietnamese market in Seattle.  You can see them growing out of the tree trunk in a photo from Chieng Mai here.   These are big fruit! 

 The ospreys I mentioned in the previous post. (There are two)

''''

 

Ferry deck going to Bainbridge.

Forcing Social Equality on the American People

The Savannah News pinned the blame [for the Philadelphia transit strike] directly on "Mrs. Roosevelt's persistent efforts to force social equality on the American people." (p. 540)

Doris Kearns Goodwin's No Ordinary Time spends a fair number of pages on Eleanor Roosevelt's interest and work to take down barriers to equality for blacks.  I've covered some incidents in previous posts.  And here.   This post is  one more.  And given that people in Anchorage voted to deny such rights to LGBT Alaskans, it seems worth while to go back into history. The people opposing LGBT rights sound a lot like people who opposed rights for blacks back in 1944.

There had already been countless incidents of black service men in the South and southwest not being able to buy bus tickets (they had to wait in the colored line until all the whites had gotten their tickets, including people who came way after them) to get back to base, or get on buses that only had room in white sections, or being beaten, even killed if they tried to defy Jim Crow laws.  One story was of the outrage of not being allowed to eat in the white (and only) dining room, and watching German prisoners of war, eating inside.  (p. 521)

The War Department, finally in July 1944 required all military transport and facilities, including those in the South, to be accessible equally to all soldiers regardless of race.

The Fair Employment Practices Commission was set up to make sure racial equity was practiced for civilians in war needed jobs.  Mostly, Goodwin writes, they capitulated  to business, labor, and the Southern block.   They succeeded only when black workers filed complaints or businesses complied voluntarily.  (p. 537)

August 1, 1945 there was a massive transit strike in Philadelphia.  It began when a group of black workers requested the chance to compete for positions above the lowest rank.

Under duress, the company announced a new round of qualifying examinations, open to anyone, for the position of motorman.  William Barber, a young Negro who had started with the transit system as a laborer and worked his way up to a welder, was one of fifty who took the exam.  "The exam was a written test, math plus some general questions,"  Barber recalled.  "Eight of us passed.  I got a ninety-eight, one of the highest scores. . . " (p. 538)

But when Barber came to work the first day, there were no trolly cars on the street.  The white workers went out on strike with calls to keep the Negroes out and to refuse to teach them the jobs.  On the third day of the strike, FDR ordered the army to take control of the Philadelphia Transportation Company because people couldn't get to work at war related jobs, and things quickly turned around.

"The citizens of Philadelphia turned against the strikers.  "In whatever degree the PTC walkout is based on race prejudice, it is wholly indefensible and thoroughly un-American,"  the Philadelphia Inquirer editorialized.  "It represents nothing but insult and injury to millions of Philadelphians." (p. 539)

And the Savannah News chastised Mrs. Roosevelt for forcing social equity on the American people.  But blacks now could have motorman jobs.

"The first runs were tough,"  William Barber recalled. "People spit at me.  I almost lost my temper, but I said, No, I'll just take it.  I'm setting an example.  And gradually things settled down.  I remember one day a woman with a bad attitude came in.  I called her stop and she missed it.  She started screaming at me.  "Look, lady," I said.  "If you don't leave in one minute, one or the other of us is going to be meeting our maker very soon."  With that, everyone on the bus burst into cheers and the lady shut up.  (p. 540)

Change can happen.  Social change can happen.  We're a long ways past 1944, but prejudice, while affected by social, political, and economic institutions, resides ultimately in people's hearts.  And many parents have stopped inoculating their children against hate and prejudice.  But when leaders take strong stands, backed by forceful action, things change.  Even in Philadelphia in 1944, it appears that most people were not worried about having black bus drivers.  They just needed strong leaders to make it happen.  Unfortunately, we don't have enough strong leaders in Anchorage to make discrimination against LGBT folks illegal.  And there seem to be enough religious leaders who think it's their duty to keep the discrimination legal.  Even today, almost 70 years after blacks got the right to be bus drivers in Philadelphia.

But ultimately, they can only delay the inevitable.  What's going to happen when a gay serviceman or woman is refused an apartment in Anchorage?  Fortunately, most people who rent are just concerned that the tenant pays on time and keeps the place in decent shape.  But every now and then someone loses a job or an apartment or a loan because of prejudice.  And many people live in fear that it will happen.   Is that what people mean by 'fear mongering'?

Homophobic? Maybe You’re Gay

That's the title of a New York Times article today.

Here's what I wrote in 2009 in a post I recently reprinted as the topic came up again in Anchorage over Prop. 5.

When people focus so strongly on demonizing people over their sexual practices, one wonders what they themselves are trying to hide. Is the lashing out at others a way of projecting punishment for their own desires or guilt? Is it 'just a veneer?" I'm sure for some that is the case. What drives the others to such extremes?

All this made me think we could end vocal nastiness against gays if we had evidence that such behavior indicated repressed homosexuality among the strongly anti-gay.   If their vocal homophobia is a way to hide their own same-sex attractions, then exposing homophobia as a sign of homosexuality might cause them to stop taking those stands because a strong homophobic position would be simply outing yourself. 

It's nice to have one's hypotheses supported by scientific studies.  Of course, there's always the temptation to accept studies that support your beliefs without careful scrutiny. I need to read it more carefully.   Nevertheless, I'll offer a bit from this New York Times article that supports the notion that some (some, not all) homophobes have same-sex attractions themselves. You can judge for yourself.

[I'm not sure who can read the NYTimes online anymore.  They've limited how many articles non-paying subscribers can read.  But if you have an Anchorage library card you should be able to read the article through the library website.  Here's the link and title if you can't get to it this way.  "Homophobic? Maybe You’re Gay" by Richard M. Ryan and Robert S. Ryan.  April 29, 2012.]

Using this methodology we identified a subgroup of participants who, despite self-identifying as highly straight, indicated some level of same-sex attraction (that is, they associated “me” with gay-related words and pictures faster than they associated “me” with straight-related words and pictures). Over 20 percent of self-described highly straight individuals showed this discrepancy.

Notably, these “discrepant” individuals were also significantly more likely than other participants to favor anti-gay policies; to be willing to assign significantly harsher punishments to perpetrators of petty crimes if they were presumed to be homosexual; and to express greater implicit hostility toward gay subjects (also measured with the help of subliminal priming). Thus our research suggests that some who oppose homosexuality do tacitly harbor same-sex attraction.

What leads to this repression? We found that participants who reported having supportive and accepting parents were more in touch with their implicit sexual orientation and less susceptible to homophobia. Individuals whose sexual identity was at odds with their implicit sexual attraction were much more frequently raised by parents perceived to be controlling, less accepting and more prejudiced against homosexuals.

It’s important to stress the obvious: Not all those who campaign against gay men and lesbians secretly feel same-sex attractions. But at least some who oppose homosexuality are likely to be individuals struggling against parts of themselves, having themselves been victims of oppression and lack of acceptance. The costs are great, not only for the targets of anti-gay efforts but also often for the perpetrators. We would do well to remember that all involved deserve our compassion.

My understanding is that Jerry Prevo had a very strict (ie controlling) father who certainly would not approve a gay son.   There are places, Jerry, where you can talk to people about your repressed desires.  Places where you'll be shown a compassion you have not shown to others.   And as my post cited above shows, you have plenty of brethren among homophobic clergy and politicians who have turned out to have same-sex attractions.

Man Survives Nazis and Stasi Dressed as a Woman

Brandon Demery Curtain Call

[The Nitty Gritty:  Yes the title was meant to get your attention, but it's also accurate.  "I Am My Own Wife" is one more truly amazing performance at Out North.  A Pulitzer and Tony winning play about a most unusual character, performed so extremely well, by Juneau actor  Brandon Demery.

Two more shows Saturday (today) at 3pm and 8pm.

This is one of those true gems that we in Anchorage get to see intimately in Out North's tiny theater.  The blurbs written about the play simply do not give a sense at all of what this is really about, and it's so good you shouldn't spoil it by reading the in depth reviews in advance.   You can stop reading now and just go and see this while you can.  But if you're not convinced, read on.]



This really should have played every night for the week before the Prop. 5 election.  It's one more story about a man's body holding a woman inside.  From Peter Hinton's study guide for the play:

“In an age where politicians still routinely decry homosexuality on the evening news and “fag” remains the most stinging of all playground epithets, Charlotte’s dogged insistence on her own sexuality could prove downright curative, an antidote for a community too often besieged by public condemnation and internalized self-loathing. She was a bona fide gay hero.”**

From New York Times theater reviewer, Bruce Weber,  almost ten years ago, about this play in New York,

. . . the producers of ''I Am My Own Wife'' have done theatergoers a service by giving the play a chance to be more widely seen. And it has, in fact, broader appeal than a mere description would have you believe. It is not an esoteric work, and it isn't especially kinky.

It does, however, tell a terrific story based on a real person, Charlotte von Mahlsdorf (née Lothar Berfelde), a soft-spoken but tenaciously gender-bending biological male who died in 2002 at 74. Her lifelong obsession -- Mahlsdorf preferred to be thought of as female -- was the preservation of furniture, especially pieces from the 1890's, and other household relics like Victrolas and gramophones.

The playwright is one of the main characters in the play, a resolution to the dilemma of having conflicting information about his main character - is she a hero or not? - and not knowing which version was true or how to resolve the conflicts in a person he saw as a hero.

 From the study guide about the drama:

"An exchange with a colleague at a writers’ retreat in 2000 gave Wright insight into an approach to Charlotte’s story that freed him to proceed with it: “For the first time, the play’s structure dawned on me. It wouldn’t be a straightforwsard biographical drama; it would chart my own relationship with my heroine. I would even appear as a character, a kind of detective searching for Charlotte’s true self” (Wright, p. xv.). By making his own process of discovery just as much a part of the drama as the events in the life of his enigmatic subject, Wright highlights the notion that the meaning of an individual life -- in truth as well as in fiction -- depends on who’s telling the story. No collection of stories, no matter how exhaustive it may appear, is ever enough to capture the elusive essence of individual identity; hence the provisional element in the play’s subtitle -- not “The Life of Charlotte von Mahlsdorf” but Studies for a Play About the Life of Charlotte von Mahlsdorf."

And while there were a number of characters - the Irish Film Magazine says 44 (some had very short parts) - there was only one actor playing them all.  There were a few words here and there that slipped out of his mouth that had to be retrieved quickly before proceeding, but that really didn't detract from the power of the performance.

Stage table with props

Need I say it again?  Go see this.  Take your neighbor who voted no last week.  




An additional note.  The student guide has a German vocabulary list for the play.  There is German spoken, but mostly it's translated in the play.  But there is one bit of German not on the list - probably because it was said in English.  Charlotte says something like, "I became the furniture"  "I became . . . "  In German, bekommen, means "to get."  I'm assuming the playwright was indulging in a bit of bi-lingual word play here, because the character both 'gets' these objects and in a way 'becomes' them as well. 

When Did You Decide To Be Straight?

That's still the best response I've heard to someone who says gays choose to be gay.  This post at Bent Alaska, RJ Haywood's story of growing up gay in an Anchorage Baptist Temple family, also addresses that question powerfully.


 We vote in Anchorage to be part of the 20th Century - to stop allowing people to be discriminated against in housing and work etc. simply because they are gay.  Vote Yes on Proposition 5.  

Rather than start something new, here's a post I did from June 25, 2009.

Some Context of Holier Than Thou Types

From today's Anchorage Daily News:


From today's New York Times article on Governor Sanford:

But other senior Republican strategists and leaders said they were concerned that their party’s large segment of evangelical voters makes the party more vulnerable to political damage from scandal, especially when it involves politicians like Mr. Sanford and Mr. Ensign, who had both been harshly critical of the infidelities of former President Bill Clinton and others.

From a Wiki on Republican Sex Scandals we see a long list of politicians who have been involved in sex scandals. Granted that many were involved in state and local level politics, a number on this list (without having looked at further details of each) are said to have been particularly vocal against the sexual misdeeds of others. For example:

Matthew Glavin, president and CEO of the Southeastern Legal Foundation, big player in the Clinton Impeachment, and many anti-gay jihads, has been arrested multiple times for public indecency, one time fondling the crotch of the officer who was arresting him.[102]

The link gives us a longer article that begins with another fallen angel:

It had been a tough two weeks for anti-gay Republican moralists. First, John Paulk, the leader of the bogus Ex-Gay movement was caught frolicking in a Washington, D.C. gay bar.

And then goes on to talk about Glavin:

The Atlanta Journal Constitution notes that Glavin’s Southeastern Legal Foundation has been active in anti-gay crusades as well, helping the Boy Scouts "fend off a court challenge to their anti-gay posture," and leading "a charge against an Atlanta City Hall initiative to provide insurance and other benefits to same-sex partners."

The wiki also got me to other links like this news story:

With the Mark Foley scandal still troubling Republicans, one of the nation's top evangelical leaders is now accused of paying for gay sex. Heading into Tuesday's election, when voters in eight states will decide on gay marriage bans, liberals and some conservatives are saying the party that prides itself on family values has a hypocrisy problem.

Ted Haggard, a staunch foe of gay marriage and occasional participant in White House conference calls, resigned as president of the National Association of Evangelicals and head of his Colorado church following allegations he met monthly with a gay prostitute for three years. Haggard denies having sex with the man, but admits receiving a massage and buying methamphetamine.
Five weeks ago, Foley -- a vocal advocate for exploited children -- resigned from Congress because of sexually tinged messages to male pages. Rep. Don Sherwood, R-Pa., a married father of three, has been burdened by revelations about his five-year affair with a mistress who says he physically abused her.

On tedhaggard.com, the former evangelist has a lengthy "healing overview" in which he refers to these events as "my personal crisis" or "my incongruity." The closest he comes to spelling things out is when he discusses what

...the Overseers, who were a group of 4 pastors from outside New Life Church that were given authority by the church bylaws to investigate alleged misconduct on the part of the Senior Pastor and, after their investigations, discipline or remove the Senior Pastor...

imposed on him after he "confessed my sins to them and resigned all of my positions."
Included in this list of requirements in addition to leaving the state of Colorado and other prohibitions was that he

not engage in any sexually immoral behavior.

That's as close as he gets to suggesting what his 'incongruity' was about. We have to look elsewhere to get the specifics.

Since being fired as pastor of New Life Church amid a gay-sex and drugs scandal, the Rev. Ted Haggard has discovered he's "completely heterosexual."
The Rev. Tim Ralph, senior pastor for New Covenant Fellowship in Larkspur, told The Denver Post on Monday that Haggard's homosexual activity appears to be limited to Denver male escort Mike Jones, who said he and Haggard had a three-year sexual relationship.

The fact that I can't find nearly as extensive a list of Democratic sex scandals (Top Ten Democrat Sex Scandals in Congress shows up a few times) doesn't mean that Democrats are having less extra sex I'm sure. And I can't believe that Republicans aren't capable of making lists of Democratic transgressors. I suspect it's more about Democrats being less committed to sexual purity than Republicans. For Republicans, in addition to the sex, there is often the contrast to their strong 'morality' stance.

"The attention focused on these cases will inescapably lead people to think about these people's hypocrisy," said Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. "They make a career out of defaming gay people and preaching family values, when it's clear that it's just a veneer." (from Truthout)

When people focus so strongly on demonizing people over their sexual practices, one wonders what they themselves are trying to hide. Is the lashing out at others a way of projecting punishment for their own desires or guilt? Is it 'just a veneer?" I'm sure for some that is the case. What drives the others to such extremes?

Jerry, how about a heart to heart about your gay phobia. Or is it just that you found it stirs up the fears of your flock and they open their wallets when you cry "Gay?"

Anchorage Has Another Chance to Move Out of Dark Ages

I was reminded how far behind we are in Anchorage by a story in today's LA Times.  It lists six states debating the legalization of gay marriage.  And six more states, plus the District of Columbia, where same sex marriage is legal.

But in Anchorage we're still struggling to get a law making it illegal to discriminate against gays in housing and employment and other such situations.  We would have such guarantees already had our current mayor not vetoes an ordinance passed by our Assembly just before he became mayor.

But there is a proposition on the ballot and a chance to show the world that the voters of Anchorage are not as intolerant and narrow minded as some of our politicians.

Why does this matter?  As OneAnchorage, the group behind the initiative, posts:

In Anchorage, all employees should be judged solely on their capabilities and job performance. Today, however, most – but not all – hardworking Alaskans are protected from being unfairly fired. For example, no one can be fired from a job solely because they are married or single. It is illegal to refuse to interview a job applicant because the business owner doesn’t like Christians, Jews or Muslims. You can’t be denied service in a restaurant because you’re African-American, Asian, from South America or Alaska Native. You can’t be turned down for a credit card or bank loan because you’re sight or hearing impaired.

However, these legal protections that most of us rely on everyday do NOT protect gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender workers.

But even when this initiative is passed in April, we still have a one man - one woman marriage clause that was added to our state constitution in 1998.

When I say far behind, I mean it in the way that people in the South were far behind other parts of the US when they still had legal segregation whereas Blacks had legal (if not de facto) equal rights in other parts of the country.  As behind as those people who opposed voting for women and then other rights for women.  One form of human progress is the gradual elimination of the legal props that support social prejudices against people who are different from the majority, props that give 'normal' people power over the 'other.'

AIFF 2011: An Ordinary Family - Audience Reactions

[NOTE: I'd recommend An Ordinary Family for people looking for something good to see tonight. But read more to see if this is for you.]

I'd decided to just stay at Out North after watching Give Up Tomorrow - a very compelling Filipino documentary about framed convictions on kidnap, rape, and murder.  [The film focused on one of the convicted and identified the film maker as a distant relative.  I assume the film is accurate, but I really know nothing about the case other than what I saw.]

But another festival junkie said she'd heard An Ordinary Family was one of the best films at the festival and the Out North offering was a Polish movie, Odd One Out [Nie ten człowiek], that had the word surreal in the description.  Ordinarily that would be an attraction, but I was tired and thought something I didn't have to work hard at was more appealing.

An Ordinary Family plays again tonight (Thursday).

The video has some audience reaction:




An Ordinary Family turned out to be a good, easy to watch (good characters, fairly predictable plot) film about a man coming to a family vacation with his male lover.  His brother, a minister, doesn't know they're coming.  The film's press kit (pdf) says the family has no clue about the boy friend or that Seth is gay, though it's not that clear in the movie. There are lots of ways a film can be categorized and most probably drive film makers crazy.  That said (and apologies to film maker Mike Akel, who wasn't able to make it last night) the basic theme - adjustments in people's heads to the new realities created by GLBT folks being more open and visible reminded me of the movie The Kids Are Allright without the star power of Annette Bening and Juliane Moore.  In terms of audience appeal, while The Kids, in my memory was technically better [slicker], I think this film would have a similar appeal if it had the same sort of advertising budget and its leads had the same sort of name recognition.  I suspect if you compared budgets and evaluated the two in terms of quality/cost, An Ordinary Family would come out way ahead. (One of the audience reactors  in the video said the photography was "a couple of steps above home video," I didn't notice that at all.)

I was particularly struck by the kids in the movie.  My guess is that they just left the camera running during down time and then used some of that footage of the kids just being kids. [It turns out that the son was the real son of the actor playing Thomas, Troy Schremmer.]

I'd now love to see the very same movie with the actors Troy Schremmer and Greg Wise switching roles (they played the two brothers Thomas and Seth).  It would be interesting to see how that would change the movie.  That thought just popped into my mind near the end of the film.

One question people had after the movie was:  where was it shot?  The director is from Austin, so that was suggested.  Going through the press kit, New York is mentioned several times, but I finally found a few references to the shoot being in Texas.  But nothing more specific.

Other interesting notes:  The character Thomas and his on-screen wife, are off screen husband and wife.  The actor, Troy Schremmer, is quoted making a fascinating observation in the press kit:

On working with his real-life wife on screen: “Fighting with Jonny (Janelle) is much, much more fun with a room full of cameras than it is in real life. Itʼs safer, for one thing, because of all the witnesses. Plus, weʼve got a director in the room to tell us when to stop or when weʼre getting too dull. And if we screw up and say something really out of line, we can just go back and start over again. I highly recommend it to any couple whoʼs looking for a little therapy or to spice things up a little bit”

There's a lot of interesting back story about creating the film in the press kit.
And if anyone is interested, you can get a Grandma ringtone.  (That will make sense after you see the movie.)

Here's the trailer:


AN ORDINARY FAMILY - Official Film Trailer! from Matt Patterson on Vimeo.

US Soldier Documents Call To Dad In Alabama After Don't Ask Don't Tell Ends

The words are abstract: Don't Ask Don't Tell Ends. But this video makes it concrete and very personal. You can read more at the San Francisco Chronicle.




It also talks to the power of identity - how we see ourselves, how others see us, and what it takes to change that identity, especially in an environment that is hostile to the new identity.

Thai Gender Stories in the News

From Thai Visa, a website mainly aimed at ex-pats living in Thailand, I get regular reports of what's happening in Thailand.  There were a couple of gender-related stories - one showing progress and one showing some regression.   Below are excerpts and the headlines link to the rest of the stories.

Monks teach maleness to Thai 'ladyboys'
Feature - by Janesara Fugal

CHIANG KHONG, July 16, 2011 (AFP) - The 15-year-old aspiring "ladyboy" delicately applied a puff of talcum powder to his nose -- an act of rebellion at the Thai Buddhist temple where he is learning to "be a man".

"They have rules here that novice monks cannot use powder, make-up, or perfume, cannot run around and be girlish," said Pipop Thanajindawong, who was sent to Wat Kreung Tai Wittaya, in Chiang Khong on the Thai-Laos border, to tame his more feminine traits.

But the monks running the temple's programme to teach masculinity to boys who are "katoeys", the Thai term for transsexuals or ladyboys, have their controversial work cut out.

"Sometimes we give them money to buy snacks but he saved it up to buy mascara," headteacher Phra Pitsanu Witcharato said of Pipop. . .

. . . [Phra Pitsanu] told AFP that he hopes the teaching methods will be rolled out to other temple schools to "solve the deviant behavior in novices".

It is an attitude that enrages gay rights and diversity campaigner Natee Teerarojanapong, who said trying to alter the boys' sense of gender and sexuality was "extremely dangerous".

"These kids will become self-hating because they have been taught by respected monks that being gay is bad. That is terrible for them. They will never live happily," he told AFP.

Gay and katoey culture is visible and widely tolerated in Thailand, which has one of the largest transsexual populations in the world, and Natee said the temple's programme is "very out of date".  .  .

Female bodyguards for Thailand's next prime minister
By Budsarakham Sinlapalavan
Peeradej Tanruangporn
The Nation
 

When Yingluck Shinawatra takes up her post as leader of the new government, Thailand won't just have a female prime minister. Her bodyguards, too, are likely to be drawn from the fairer sex.

"Female bodyguards are able to remain closer to female VIPs," said Pol Lt-Colonel Korakarn Arunplod, who is among the first generation of female bodyguards in Thailand.

Korakarn started her career as a bodyguard in 1995. Among the VIPs she has taken care of are Hillary Rodham Clinton, Empress Michiko of Japan and members of the Thai Royal Family.

She suggested that PM-elect Yingluck should have both male and female bodyguards. Beyond issues of security, having bodyguards of both sexes would create the best image.

And there are more practical concerns: "It is not appropriate for male bodyguards to enter private spaces such as women's bathrooms." She added that women were better at coordinating than men, though men were generally stronger. . .


  . . . To become a bodyguard, the officers of the BPPB must be trained to protect very important persons (VIPs), he said. In addition to the usual police training, which includes guns, driving and parachuting, VIP protection training also teaches crowd-control tactics and techniques for remaining close and attending to the VIP.

Because the task is very physically demanding, requiring the person to be constantly vigilant and sometimes miss sleep, the team consists only of women aged 20 to 35, Prayoon said . .  .

Alaska Pridefest Photos and Music

By the time we got to the parkstrip, the Alaska PrideFest Festival was almost over, but there were still folks around and the music was great.   Blogging about this raises a couple of challenges for me.

First, I don't want to ignore the unfortunate accident at the beginning of the parade, but I figure that will suck up most of the media attention on this day, which many people saw as a special celebration coming on the heels of New York's decision to allow gay marriage.  My condolences go to the family and friends of James Crump. 

Second, is the question of how to handle photographs.  In November 2008 while covering an Anchorage demonstration in favor of gay marriage, I'd gone up the stairs in the parking garage across the street to get some pictures.  There was a man in the stairwell who told me he was there with his partner, but was a school teacher and didn't want to be seen at a gay protest.  So he was watching from across the street. 

Are there people who are at the festival who wouldn't want their pictures on a blog?  I've discussed at length the ethics of posting pictures of children, but what about adults who are still fearful of discrimination?  The conventional journalist response, I think that would be this is a public event.  And a lot of people at the event are openly gay and a lot of others aren't GLBT anyway.  Nevertheless, I've blurred the most obvious faces except for those who gave me permission (no one I asked said no) or were people clearly involved in the festival.  (For the dog close-up, I asked its leash holder.) This also affected how I took pictures - much more timidly than normal. 

Ms. Gay Alaska - Amber Do All Lá Chores Sawyer - explained to me the difference between Ms. and Miss Gay Alaska.  Ms is the category for lesbians and Miss for drag queens.  










I'd encountered Miss Gay Alaska - Micah Sauvageau "Vanity Affair" - at performances of  Midnight Soapscum where, as Mama Rose Mary, she narrated the show and kept the audience in line. 

Mister and Mr. Gay Alaska had left already, so no pictures. 

I've added a video - mostly with still shots - because a huge part of being there was the music.  Pictures by themselves don't capture the mood of the event. The music by Pandamonica was great and my Power Canonshot gives you a sense of it, but doesn't do it justice. 

Politics Not As Usual - Murkowski Votes To End Don't Ask Don't Tell

Sen. Lisa Murkowski was among eight Republicans to vote to repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell (DADT), staying consistent with comments she made a couple of weeks ago that she thought it was time to end the policy.   But this must have been a pretty hard decision for her, harder than probably any other of the Republicans who voted against their party position. 

Murkowski lost the Republican primary.  This vote on DADT  ensures that the rabid right of the Alaska Republican party will work hard to defeat her again in the 2016 primary.  While her write-in re-election (close to being settled now in the Alaska Supreme Court) required the support of lots of Democrats and Independents who believe she owes them votes on some critical issues, she didn't have to break ranks with most of the Republicans here.  Perhaps she believes that in six years gays in the military will be a non-issue.  A likely US Supreme Court decision on the constitutionality of California's Prop. 7 is likely to keep GLBT issues hot for the 2012 Presidential election and possibly beyond.

Plus Alaska has not been friendly to GLBT issues.  Alaskan voters amended the State Constitution to make explicit that marriage means one man and one woman.  

Can Murkowski win her next Republican primary?  At this point, I would expect her to have some heavy opposition.  Would she run in the primary as an independent?  Six years is a long time in politics, but she must have been thinking about these things when she voted to repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell. 

I don't see this as anything but a principled vote for what she believed was the best policy, in the face of her party's general opposition.

Looking at all eight Republicans who voted for repeal, on the surface there seem to be three key factors:

• State support of same-sex marriage or civil unions
• Collins and Snowe of Maine, Scott Brown of Massachusetts
• Gender 
• The only woman of 17 in the Senate not voting for repeal was  Kay Baily Hutchinson (R TX.)  The other three Republican women - Collins, Snowe, and Murkowski - voted for repeal.
• Age
•  Of the male Republicans who voted for repeal all but one were among the 20 youngest Senators.  The exception, George Voinovich, is retiring. 

Here's a bit more on the:

• other seven Republicans who voted to repeal DADT
• three Republicans who were absent
• one Democrat who was absent (no Democrats voted against it)

Republicans who voted for repeal


Scott Brown  (51) (R-Mass.)

Brown won the right to finish Ted Kennedy's term as US Senator, is up for reelection in the first US state to allow same-sex marriage.   


Richard M. Burr (55)  (R NC)

The National Review writes:

Burr said it was not a difficult vote to cast, despite his state’s being home to Camp Lejeune, the largest Marine Corps base on the East Coast. Gen. James Amos, commandant of the Marine Corps, had been one of the most high-profile opponents of repeal. “Hopefully we all think independently here and we listen; we don’t have to be lobbied or influenced,” he said.

Burr told reporters that he supported repeal because “this is a policy that generationally is right,” but said he “didn’t necessarily agree” with those who have characterized the issue as a civil-rights struggle.

“A majority of Americans have grown up at a time [when] they don’t think exclusion is the right thing for the United States to do,” Burr said. “It’s not the accepted practice anywhere else in our society, and it only makes sense.”

I don't know enough about North Carolina politics to know how his vote compares to Murkowski's.  He has the largest Marine Corps base in the US in his state and the Marines were the of branch of the military most strongly opposed to repealing DADT.  On the other hand he did well in the 2010 election according to Wikipedia:

Burr defeated North Carolina Secretary of State Elaine Marshall (D) on November 2nd, 2010 with 55% of the vote. He is the first Republican since Jesse Helms to be re-elected to the United States Senate from North Carolina and garnered the largest percentage of votes of any Republican candidate for U.S. Senate in North Carolina history.

Susan Collins (R-Maine) (58) and Olympia Snowe (63) (R-Maine)

Collins has been the leading Republican Senator in support of repealing DADT.  She was the only Republican Senator who voted in favor the Defense Bill that had DADT attached earlier in December.  Olympia Snowe joined her when DADT was a stand alone bill.  Both Maine's Representatives (both Democrats) in the House voted for the bill.  I haven't checked, but this is the only state I know of where the whole Congressional delegation voted for repeal.  Maine allows domestic partnerships.

Same-sex marriage in Maine was a divisive issue in 2009: a bill to allow same-sex marriages in Maine was signed into law on May 6, 2009, by Governor Baldacci following legislative approval, but opponents successfully petitioned for a referendum on the issue, putting the law on hold before it came into effect before going on to win the referendum by 300,848 to 267,828 on November 3, 2009. Maine's domestic partnership law remains in effect. [Wikipedia]

John Ensign (52) R Nevada

I'm stretching here, but Nevada seems a little looser on moral issues with long time legalized gambling and prostitution.  Liberace was an institution in Las Vegas.  

The National Review wrote: 

Before the vote, Ensign said the choice for him was a struggle between what he personally thought was the right thing to do, and the circumstantial concerns of various military chiefs.

That’s why, he explained, he had voted against taking up the measure.

But in the end, once the question on the table, it appeared personal conviction won out over political circumstance. “My personal feeling is that it should be repealed,” he’d said before the 65-to-31 vote.

Ensign left the Senate chamber quickly and quietly . . .

Mark Kirk (51) (R-Ill.)

Kirk, a Naval Reserve Officer, moved up to the Senate from the House in a special election to finish out Obama's Senate seat and start his own six year term in January.  In the House he voted "against   Constitutional marriage amendments, he supported ending job discrimination based on sexual orientation and received a favorable 75 percent rating from the Human Rights Campaign on gay rights issues."  [Huffington Post]

From The Examiner.com in Chicago

Is Sen. Kirk really in favor of allowing gays to serve openly in the military?  His past history suggests otherwise.  As a member of the House Armed Services Committee Kirk voted against a measure to repeal DADT as recently as last May.  One suspects that his slim margin of victory in November's senatorial contest may have sensitized Sen. Kirk to the realities of representing the entire state of Illinois, not just the 10th congressional district.  Once Governor Pat Quinn gets around to signing the Illinois Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act already sitting on his desk, the state of Illinois will recognize civil unions. A "no" vote on DADT would have put Mark Kirk at odds with a very large bloc of Illinois voters.  It also would have provided potent ammunition for the next Democratic challenger for his senate seat.

George Voinovich (74) (R-Ohio)

Voinovich is retiring from the Senate.  






Republicans who didn't vote

Jim Bunning (79) (R KY)

Bunning, who barely won his last election in 2004, and was named by Time Magazine as one of the five worst Senators, is retiring at the end of this term.



Judd Gregg (63)  (R (NH)

Same sex marriage became legal in New Hampshire in January 2010.

Gregg is retiring at the end of this term.


Orrin G. Hatch (76) (R UT)

Polygamy has a history in Utah, but the Mormon church has been strongly opposed to same-sex marriage and Hatch is an institution in Utah who doesn't have to worry that his absence would harm him in any way. 

The Salt Lake City Tribune reports:

Sen. Orrin Hatch was absent for the vote but registered his dissent from afar. He said November’s election should have shown that voters want Congress to focus on the economy — not try to appeal to their liberal supporters.

“Rather than take part in this cynical exercise in political charades, I am honoring a long-standing commitment I made more than a year ago to attend my grandson’s graduation in Missouri,” Hatch said.

Democrat who didn't vote

Joe Manchin III (63) (D WV) 

It appears that Manchin, newly elected to fill the seat of Sen. Robert Byrd is trying to figure out which way the wind is blowing. He's up for election again in 2012. He skipped this vote and the vote on the Dream Act. He's the only Democrat who didn't vote for repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

AIFF 2010: Elias Matar Wants You to Bond With His Zombies

The sun was pinking the mountains when I left for the 4pm showing of The Silent Accomplice.  Seeing it on the big screen made a big difference.  I've adjusted my original added this caveat to my original post and Avenue Marie wrote in the comments a very moving account of her experience with the movie. 

Then we enjoyed the world premier of 22:43.

In between movies I ran into Elias Matar, the director of Ashes, who's up here for the Saturday 10pm showing at the Bear Tooth  Out North of his 'infected origins story.'  (How do I find the film makers in the crowd?  Just look at the film maker videos and then look at the audience members videos. The visitors are usually pretty obvious.  Plus Elias was with Don Chan who's the hospitality coordinator, running out to the airport to drop people off and pick them up, and driving film makers around town in his van.  Today he took a van load out to Girdwood for some sightseeing.  I got to take Don for some sightseeing last year. After the festival he got on cross country skis for the first time.

Anyway, here's Elias:



[More on Ashes here, after I saw the film.  Keep scrolling down after you link.]

Shane and Craig over my water glass at the Bear Tooth

Then we went back into the theater for three gay themed films. It began with two shorts and both had a wedding scene - Now and Forever and Bedfellows. The long one - Holding Hands - was a strong video about a young male couple in Sydney, Australia who were attacked one night walking home holding hands. Craig got has face smashed in against the sidewalk and Shane nursed him back together while handling their boarding house business on his own. They also were willing to talk to the press and garnered lots of attention which led to getting the police department to change how they dealt with homophobic violence. The two were interviewed every couple of weeks for over a year and we watch them struggle back from this traumatic experience.

Shane's skull after the 1st, before the 2nd operation

It was a very moving film, well made, which made - how often does this point have to be made? - the point that in the end, we are all equal human beings, deserving of at the very least tolerance, but really respect.

We skipped the the party at Mad Myrna's and I was still up way too late blogging.

"He has comic timing tattooed on his genes" - Scott Schofield Performs at Out North

Scott in January

I first saw Scott Schofield last January when he introduced the Under 30 performances.  At the time I was surprised by his easy presence in front of the audience.  There was something special about him, though I didn't quite catch what he was doing here, something about being a visiting performer.  We missed his performance of Debutant Balls because we went to Juneau.

Scott after Wu Man

In July he introduced Wu Man and friends.  This time Scott was introduced as Out North's new artistic director.  Again, I was impressed.   Enough to write this as a side note to a long discussion of Wu Man and the evening's music:

His introduction Wednesday was a pleasure to listen to.  His words were good, his delivery fluent, and he effortlessly rotated to acknowledge the audience members sitting behind him on the stage. 

I'm giving all this background to just say, there was something special about this guy which I picked up from the time I first saw him.  Friday night I learned that he is an established performer who has performed all over which was brought home when in one of his pieces he mentioned that he'd 'just played to a packed house in Brussels."

So, my gut was right.  Out North has pulled a minor coup by snagging Scott as the artistic director.  He's closing in on his 30th birthday (this also came out - I think in the Q&A after the performance) and looks like he's approaching 20.  But he's been performing a long time and knows lots of people beyond Anchorage, a number of whom he's going to entice up here and introduce us to.

Friday night (and he does this again Saturday - tonight) he was on stage at Out North as a performer, though he confessed afterward that he couldn't completely get his administrator role out of his head  asking himself, as a performer and an administrator, "Is this show going to go well?  Is this going to help or hurt our future box offices?"

He didn't have to worry.  This guy is a natural story teller. He says raconteur, which I can't write unless the spell checker has it. (Phew! It did.) And his material is compelling.  The program says,

Two Truths and a Lie. . . is a collection of three autobiographical solo performances which have toured nationally to critical acclaim:  Underground Transit (2001), "Debutante Balls" (2004) and "Becoming a Man in 127 EASY Steps (2007).  

After Show Q&A

He gave the briefest of introductions - I'm not even sure what he told us.  Enough for us to know that he was born and raised as a girl and the title "Becoming a Man" meant just that, literally.  So, he had 127 steps.  Our job as the audience was to give him numbers and he'd find that particular step and perform it.  Or, as it turned out once or twice, show us the video.

I don't know a lot of people who have changed genders and the couple I can think of switched from male to female.  And it wasn't something we talked about.  I listened to Tafi's presentation focused on male Samoan children who are early identified as Fa 'afafine at UAA's Diverse Voices presentation.  I've read Middlesex.  My favorite documentary at the Anchorage International Film Festival last year was Prodigal Sons told by a woman returning to her rural home town for her 10th high school reunion who left for college after being the quarterback of his HS football team.  I'm sympathetic to the idea, but the male-female dichotomy is still one of the most rigid we have.  Homosexuality still causes many people grave distress.  The idea of being a woman and then a man or vice versa challenges our brains' flexibility.  We think it has to be either/or.

In the book - Two Truths and a Lie - Scott writes about coming up with this performance.

"Okay," my partner-in-crime S. Bear Bergman sighed as ze [sic] always does when calming me down on a late night, long distance phone call.  "So you have about 127 stories to tell and an hour in which to make sex change EASY, step-by-step."  I made notecards from memories, ruminated, and typed.  Then I found one of my old Choose Your Own Adventure books from elementary school.  Later, on tour in New York, T Cooper and Felicia Luna Lemus left Joe Meno's book The Boy Detective Fails by the couch they made up as a bed for me.  There I found the decoder ring.  With such random origins, how could I write any linear play?  The elements of chance that structured my process had to be reflected in the product.

Scott performs Two Truths and a Lie again tonight (Saturday) at 8pm at Out North.  Tickets at the door.  It will be a different performance from the one we saw because the audience isn't likely to choose the same numbers.

Now, as much as liked this, I think it could have been even better.  The lottery aspect of the audience choosing which scene he's going to play means there are a lot of missing parts and the actor doesn't know which scene is up next. 

Even with that caveat, Anchorage folks, what I'm saying here is WE'VE GOT THIS WORLD CLASS PERFORMER TELLING THIS MESMERIZING STORY AND NO ONE KNOWS IT.  So go now and see Scott.  In ten years when he's moved on and he's famous, don't kick yourself because you didn't see him 'way back when' in an intimate little theater in Anchorage before the world discovered him.

As Judith Jack Halberstam, Professor of English and Gender Studies at USC, wrote in the front of Scott's book,

Scott, it should be said up front and often, is simply a mesmerizing performer.  You could listen to his voice all night.  He has comic timing tattooed on his genes, and he can make the trip from irony to sincerity in 3 seconds flat. 

Murkowski Moves the End of Don't Ask Don't Tell Closer

From KTVA's interview with Lisa Murkowski on Thursday, November 18:

On the Don't Ask, Don't Tell vote
[Murkowski] I have said that I would work to make sure that as long as it is supported by the troops, as long as it doesn't hurt the performance or the morale, or the recruitment -- these are all things we have to take into consideration -- I think we will see that play out in this report.
If in fact don't ask don't tell is included in the Defense Authorization Act and we get to the point where we can move that bill through - I would not oppose the defense authorization act because the Don't Ask Don't Tell repeal of it is included in it.

Rachel Maddow discussed the implication of this announcement along with word of other Republican senators who are said to be willing to vote to end DADT. This is a long (ten minute) video that starts with the Murkowski story and then looks at the DADT vote overall in context of the Defense Authorization Act.  There are still a number of issues surrounding the Defense Authorization Act and how it is handled that could hold things up.  But there seem to be enough Republican senators willing to go against their party on this so that not just one can be attacked. 

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

If, in fact, Murkowski's conditions are met and she votes to end Don't Ask Don't Tell, this would be one clear example of the difference between a vote for Murkowski and a vote for Miller.

"A PRIVATE MORAL VIEW THAT SAME-SEX COUPLES ARE INFERIOR TO OPPOSITE-SEX COUPLES IS NOT A PROPER BASIS FOR LEGISLATION"

That seems to be a major reason why US District Court Chief Judge Vaughn Walker ruled today that Proposition 8, the initiative approved by voters in November 2008 to outlaw same-sex marriages in California, is unconstitutional.   I'm not an attorney and I haven't yet read all of the decision carefully, but that seems to be the underlying theme.

Most people only know about major court rulings from bumper sticker-like headlines and soundbites.  The people with the loudest opinions are often people who haven’t read the court decisions.  And it’s not always easy to do that.  But the internet today makes finding them a cinch.  Reading through them is a little harder.

So, I’m going to post some excerpts from the conclusions of law from today's ruling.  
[Other sites have posted the conclusion.]  Specifically where the judge goes through the Prop 8 proponents’ arguments for why the State of California had a compelling interest to ban same-sex marriage.  In each case he says something like “the evidence shows beyond debate” or “These purported interests fail as a matter of law”. 

There's little doubt this case will be appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (which includes Alaska) and then to the US Supreme Court. 

[Note:  People daily hear terms they recognize, but have no real grasp of what they mean, like, an acre.  I've made links to two terms above - US District Court and 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.  If you can't write down a description of, or orally explain, how they relate to each other and to the State and Federal Constitutions, you probably should stop reading this and go look them up so you understand the whole context of this.]

First, here’s the table of contents of the ruling:

TABLE OF CONTENTS

BACKGROUND TO PROPOSITION 8.............…………………...1

PROCEDURAL HISTORY OF THIS ACTION..........……………. 3

PLAINTIFFS’ CASE AGAINST PROPOSITION 8........…………. 5

PROPONENTS’ DEFENSE OF PROPOSITION 8.........………...... 6

TRIAL PROCEEDINGS AND SUMMARY OF TESTIMONY...…10

CREDIBILITY DETERMINATIONS...............…………………….25

PLAINTIFFS’ WITNESSES...............……………………………....25

PROPONENTS’ WITNESSES...............…………………………....35

FINDINGS OF FACT....................…………………………………..54

THE PARTIES....................……………………………………….....54

WHETHER ANY EVIDENCE SUPPORTS CALIFORNIA’S
REFUSAL TO RECOGNIZE MARRIAGE BETWEEN TWO
PEOPLE BECAUSE OF THEIR SEX……………………………....60

WHETHER ANY EVIDENCE SHOWS CALIFORNIA HAS
AN INTEREST IN DIFFERENTIATING BETWEEN SAME-SEX
AND OPPOSITE-SEX UNIONS…………………………………....71

WHETHER THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT PROPOSITION 8
ENACTEDA PRIVATE MORAL VIEW WITHOUT ADVANCING
A LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENT INTEREST................………….85

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW...................………………………….... 109
    DUE PROCESS....................………………………………….....109
    EQUAL PROTECTION..................... ………………………..…117
CONCLUSION.......................… ………………………………...,. 135
REMEDIES........................... ……………………………………....136

The excerpts  (the . . . indicate that the text continues on) are from pages 123 - 131 of the ruling.  This comes after the finding of facts and at the end of the conclusions of law, just before the conclusions.

Again, this is the section where the judge analyzes each argument made by the proponents of Prop 8 for why the State of California has a compelling reason to outlaw same-sex marriage: 

PURPORTED INTEREST #1: RESERVING MARRIAGE AS A UNION BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN AND EXCLUDING ANY OTHER RELATIONSHIP 

Proponents first argue that Proposition 8 is rational because it preserves: (1) “the traditional institution of marriage as the union of a man and a woman”; (2) “the traditional social and legal purposes, functions, and structure of marriage”; and (3) “the traditional meaning of marriage as it has always been defined in the English language.” Doc #605 at 12-13. These interests relate to maintaining the definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman for its own sake.

Tradition alone, however, cannot form a rational basis for a law. Williams v Illinois, 399 US 235, 239 (1970). The “ancient lineage” of a classification does not make it rational. Heller, 509 US at 327. Rather, the state must have an interest apart from the fact of the tradition itself.

The evidence shows that . . .


PURPORTED INTEREST #2: PROCEEDING WITH CAUTION WHEN IMPLEMENTING SOCIAL CHANGES

Proponents next argue that Proposition 8 is related to state interests in: (1) “[a]cting incrementally and with caution when considering a radical transformation to the fundamental nature of a bedrock social institution”; (2) “[d]ecreasing the probability of weakening the institution of marriage”; (3) “[d]ecreasing the probability of adverse consequences that could result from weakening the institution of marriage”; and (4) “[d]ecreasing the probability of the potential adverse consequences of same-sex
marriage.” Doc #605 at 13-14.

Plaintiffs presented evidence at trial sufficient to rebut any claim that marriage for same-sex couples amounts to a sweeping social change. See FF 55. Instead, the evidence shows beyond debate that allowing same-sex couples to marry has at least a neutral, if not a positive, effect on the institution of marriage and that same-sex couples’ marriages would benefit the state. . .



PURPORTED INTEREST #3: PROMOTING OPPOSITE-SEX PARENTING OVER SAME-SEX PARENTING

Proponents’ largest group of purported state interests relates to opposite-sex parents. Proponents argue Proposition 8:  1) promotes “stability and responsibility in naturally procreative relationships”; (2) promotes “enduring and stable family structures
 for the responsible raising and care of children by their biological parents”; (3) increases “the probability that natural procreation will occur within stable, enduring, and supporting 
family structures”; (4) promotes “the natural and mutually beneficial bond between parents and their biological children”; (5) increases “the probability that each child will be raised by both of his or her biological parents”; (6) increases “the probability that each child will be raised by both a father and a mother”; and (7) increases “the probability that each child will have a legally recognized father and mother.” Doc #605 at 13-14.

The evidence supports two points which together show Proposition 8 does not advance any of the identified interests: (1) same-sex parents and opposite-sex parents are of equal quality, FF 69-73, and (2) Proposition 8 does not make it more likely that 
opposite-sex couples will marry and raise offspring biologically related to both parents, FF 43, 46, 51. . .


PURPORTED INTEREST #4: PROTECTING THE FREEDOM OF THOSE WHO OPPOSE MARRIAGE FOR SAME-SEX COUPLES

Proponents next argue that Proposition 8 protects the First Amendment freedom of those who disagree with allowing marriage for couples of the same sex. Proponents argue that Proposition 8: (1) preserves “the prerogative and responsibility of parents to provide for the ethical and moral development and education of their own children”; and (2) accommodates “the First Amendment rights of individuals and institutions that oppose same-sex marriage on religious or moral grounds.” Doc #605 at 14.

These purported interests fail as a matter of law. Proposition 8 does not affect any First Amendment right or responsibility of parents to educate their children. See In re
Marriage Cases, 183 P3d at 451-452. Californians are prevented from distinguishing between same-sex partners and opposite-sex spouses in public accommodations, as California antidiscrimination law requires identical treatment for same-sex unions and opposite-sex marriages. . .


PURPORTED INTEREST #5: TREATING SAME-SEX COUPLES DIFFERENTLY FROM OPPOSITE-SEX COUPLES

Proponents argue that Proposition 8 advances a state interest in treating same-sex couples differently from opposite-sex couples by: (1) “[u]sing different names for different things”; (2) “[m]aintaining the flexibility to separately address the needs of
different types of relationships”; (3) “[e]nsuring that California marriages are recognized in other jurisdictions”; and (4) “[c]onforming California’s definition of marriage to federal law.” Doc #605 at 14.

Here, proponents assume a premise that the evidence thoroughly rebutted: rather than being different, same-sex and opposite-sex unions are, for all purposes relevant to California law, exactly the same. FF 47-50. The evidence shows conclusively that moral and religious views form the only basis for a belief that same-sex couples are different from opposite-sex couples.



PURPORTED INTEREST #6: THE CATCHALL INTEREST

Finally, proponents assert that Proposition 8 advances “[a]ny other conceivable legitimate interests identified by the parties, amici, or the court at any stage of the proceedings.” Doc #605 at 15. But proponents, amici and the court, despite ample
opportunity and a full trial, have failed to identify any rational basis Proposition 8 could conceivably advance. Proponents, represented by able and energetic counsel, developed a full trial record in support of Proposition 8. The resulting evidence shows
that Proposition 8 simply conflicts with the guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Many of the purported interests identified by proponents are nothing more than a fear or unarticulated dislike of same-sex couples. Those interests that are legitimate are unrelated to the classification drawn by Proposition 8. The evidence shows that, by
every available metric, opposite-sex couples are not better than their same-sex counterparts; instead, as partners, parents and citizens, opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples are equal. FF 47-50. Proposition 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause because it does not treat them equally. . .

Finally, before going on to the conclusion, which you can read here at Henkimaa, the judge seems to make the point that you can't use personal opinions as the basis of legislation that discriminates against a class of people.

A PRIVATE MORAL VIEW THAT SAME-SEX COUPLES ARE INFERIOR TO OPPOSITE-SEX COUPLES IS NOT A PROPER BASIS FOR LEGISLATION

In the absence of a rational basis, what remains of proponents’ case is an inference, amply supported by evidence in the record, that Proposition 8 was premised on the belief that same-sex couples simply are not as good as opposite-sex couples.
FF 78-80. Whether that belief is based on moral disapproval of homosexuality, animus towards gays and lesbians or simply a belief that a relationship between a man and a woman is inherently better than a relationship between two men or two women, this belief is not a proper basis on which to legislate. See Romer, 517 US at 633; Moreno, 413 US at 534; Palmore v Sidoti, 466 US 429, 433 (1984) (“[T]he Constitution cannot control [private biases] but neither can it tolerate them.”).

Here's how it's listed:


KRISTIN M PERRY, SANDRA B STIER,
  PAUL T KATAMI and JEFFREY J
ZARRILLO,

Plaintiffs,

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,


Plaintiff-Intervenor,

v

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, in his
 official capacity as Governor of 
California; EDMUND G BROWN JR, in
 his official capacity as Attorney
General of California;
MARK B
 HORTON, in his official capacity
 as Director of the California 
Department of Public Health and
 State Registrar of Vital
 Statistics;
LINETTE SCOTT, in her 
official capacity as Deputy 
Director of Health Information &
 Strategic Planning for the 
California Department of Public 
Health;
PATRICK O’CONNELL, in his 
official capacity as Clerk-
Recorder of the County of
 Alameda; and
DEAN C LOGAN, in hi s
official capacity as Registrar-
Recorder/County Clerk for the 
County of Los Angeles,

Defendants,

DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH, GAIL J 
KNIGHT, MARTIN F GUTIERREZ, HAK-
SHING WILLIAM TAM, MARK A 
JANSSON and PROTECTMARRIAGE.COM –
YES ON 8, A PROJECT OF CALIFORNIA
 RENEWAL, as official proponents 
of Proposition 8,

Defendant-Intervenors.

The Human Toll From Our National Obsession and Ignorance about Sexuality

What is it about our inability as a nation to deal with sex in an adult way?  Despite the excessive use of sex in marketing of nearly every product, many US citizens aren't able to talk frankly, with knowledge, and without embarrassment about sexuality.

One side effect is politicians (we'll leave other professions for another day)  disgraced by the public disclosure of their sexual conduct.  Because of our cultural obsession with publicly denying real human sexuality in favor of  happily ever after fairy tales, these politicians  resort to twisted lies (from Clinton's "I didn't have sex with that woman" to South Carolina's Gov. Sanford's Appalachian trail story) rather than tell the truth.   In most cases, the deception becomes more problematic than the behavior.  

Here's an example from,  until recently, closeted gay California Republican state senator Roy Ashburn, who, apparently to cover his own sexuality, has voted his whole career against the rights of GLBT citizens. 

The following is a guest commentary by Sen. Roy Ashburn

Startled by the blurry reality of a red light glaring in my rear-view mirror at 2 am on the morning of March, 4, 2010, I knew my life was about to change.  The California Highway Patrol stopped me as I was driving drunk after leaving a gay club in Sacramento, California’s capital.   With my arrest and the media inquiry that followed, my deeply-held secret was no longer my own business.  My private life as a closeted gay man was now the public’s business, and I had a lot of explaining to do. [You can read the rest of the commentary by this 26 year Republican politician at GayPolitics which I found through BentAlaska.]

While his apology (you have to click on the link to get the whole thing) is welcomed by all who believe in equal rights, it only came after he was outed.  

The internet has made knowledge about sexuality and all its myriad variations (sort of like all the different flowers and birds and bugs in nature) much more accessible, and possibly more of our population has a more realistic picture of human sexuality than my generation grew up with.  But on the one hand,  the many misogynist lyrics and movies suggest  a lot of people may know more mechanics of sex than about the art of relationships.  On the other hand the denial of the many faces of human sexuality, most often by religious zealots,  suggests ignorance is thriving too.  Somewhere in the middle there must be a healthy mental and physical balance.

Fortunately, people like Dan Savage offer accessible and frank (and sometimes over the top) discussions of sexuality and relationships that were completely  unimaginable 26 years ago when Sen. Ashburn was first elected.  If he could have read columns like Savage's as a young man how different and more honest his life might have been.