Friday Gay Blogging, Friday Edition

Since I haven't blogged on anything else this week, this is sort of a coda. I may add to it later, but I have another running around day ahead.

If a preschooler can figure it out, what's wrong with Obama?* Very nice story I found in my e-mail from a friend.

* And the Pope, and the Elders of the LDS Church,and Maggie Gallagher, and Michael Heath, and all the people who have voted for constitutional amendments banning gay marriage.

I told you there would likely be more.

Andrew Sullivan has fnally had it. John Aravosis quotes it in full here. (He doesn't link to it, and my system can't handle The Atlantic very well this morning. If I'm able to get a direct link, I'll paste it in.) I decided to post the whole thing -- Aravosis is right: it can't really be excerpted.

One way to get the Obama administration's attention on civil rights is for gay people to stop funding the Democrats. That's all these people care about anyway when it comes to gays: our money. If the Democrats refuse to support us, refuse to support them. This is a start. But we need to get more creative. We need actions to highlight the administration's betrayals, postponements and boilerplate. We need to start confronting the president at his events. We need civil disobedience. We need to tell him we do not want another fricking speech where he tells us he is a fierce advocate for our rights, when that is quite plainly at this point not true. We will not tolerate another Clinton. No invites to these people for dinners or fundraisers. No cheering him at events while he does nothing to follow up on his explicit promises. Of course these things can be done. If anyone high up in the Obama administration or the Pelosi-Reid Congress gave a damn, much would have been done.

We need to swamp Pelosi with phone-calls.

We need to target Reid for his inaction. We have to pressure Barney Frank and Tammy Baldwin not to excuse the disdain that the Obama administration is showing toward gay equality, and their cynical use of our votes, money and passion to enforce real and potent discrimination against us and our families. And we have to refuse to attend White House signing ceremonies like yesterday's farce. Really: until they are serious, we should not be coopted and placated with pathetic sops. I am not a Clintonite. I worked my ass off to get this man to power. On many issues, I support him and will continue to do so.

But I am a proud, self-respecting gay man with HIV. And I am not going to take this crap for much longer on civil rights. Fight back. Act Up.

Aravosis has also posted a really good comment from one of his readers:

I believe we may have arrived at another turning point. It is still early days, but I sense there has been a shift in the mood of a significant and highly vocal segment of our community as we have made the unpleasant and highly painful realization that we have - once again - simply been strung along by the Democratic party.

Read the whole thing -- it's solid.

Not to pat myself on the back, but this is where I've been for a week, pretty much. I seem to recall that I went on record as supporting Obama with strong reservations. I'm sort of disappointed to have been right.

I'm just going to say it again: the Democrats are not our friends. They're not going to do anything for us until we make them. The only way to get them to pay attention is to make them feel pain. No money, no effort, no votes, until we see actual results.

Update:

Check out this report from CBS News. Doesn't pull any punches.

Update II:

The Stonewall Democrats are also up in arms. Ben Smith has a report at Politico. As John Aravosis notes, these are not activists, and have been the most reliable supporters of the Democrats since their founding. This is major.

Guess What

I hadn't intended to post on this today -- my outrage quotient is pretty much used up, at least I thought it was, but it just doesn't stop from these bozos.

Yeah, the much-ballyhooed "administrative memorandum" regarding government benefits for same-sex partners of government employees was just as little as we had aexpected. From NYT:

The package of domestic partnership benefits that President Obama established for federal workers on Wednesday drew the loudest protests from some of those it was intended to help, gay men and lesbians who criticized the move as too timid. . . .

But several of the nation’s most prominent gay and lesbian political leaders quickly attacked the president for failing to extend full health care benefits to the same-sex partners of federal workers, questioning the administration’s explanation that it is precluded from doing so by the Defense of Marriage Act, which Mr. Obama had vowed to repeal during his presidential campaign.

Read the article -- it's pretty obvious that the administration is trying to make something out of nothing on this -- the "administrative memorandum" (which, mind you, is not an executive order and is of limited duration) doesn't actually do anything new.

And the remarks -- ah, yes, what would an evening with the president be without more promises?

John Aravosis picks up some of the reaction. Briefly, it looks like HRC, after criticizing Obama for the DoJ motion, has jumped back on the bandwagon. SLDN points out that the memorandum does not apply to all federal employees, because of DADT (which Obama has also pledge to repeal -- someday).

Andhere's a very interesting bit from Lambda Legal on the "can't provide health benefits under existing law" bullshit:

Lambda Legal is representing Karen Golinskii, a federal employee who works for the judicial branch and who is seeking health insurance coverage for her same-sex spouse. A federal judge has already issued an administrative decision in that matter, concluding that, within the existing rules, the federal government can choose to provide health insurance for same-sex partners. We think they should, and we'll keep fighting for Karen and her spouse -- and for all federal employees.

And this, from Rep. Gerald Nadler:

Today’s announcement, while a fine first step, falls dramatically short of what federal employees need, and, of course, does not at all provide the LGBT community the recognition and equal treatment under the law that are long overdue. To many of my constituents, today’s memorandum unfortunately feels less like real progress for civil rights, and more like a reactive effort to reassure gay and lesbian Americans and their supporters who were recently angered by the Justice Department’s offensive and unnecessary arguments in a case challenging DOMA.

This is what we should be hearing from every Democrat in Congress.

Lurleen at Pam's House Blend has posted, among other things, the text of Obama's remarks. I like this especially:

Hundreds of Fortune 500 companies already offer such benefits not only because it's the right thing to do, but because they recognize that it helps them compete for and retain the best possible talent -- and we need top talent serving their country right now more than ever.

Excuse me, Mr. President? How many mission critical personnel have been drummed out of the military since you took office under DADT? You remember DADT -- another one you promised to repeal. Somehow you seem to be enforcing it zealously. Did I miss your 180 on that one?

Here's the video:

An Attempt at Clarity

Just to clear things up in my own mind, this is sort of a summary post on the administrations latest gay rights fumble (and it is only the latest).

OK -- the Obama DoJ filed a Motion to Dismiss in Smelt vs. United States that may or may not have some validity in at least some of its arguments.

Point 1: defending DOMA, which Obama has pledged to repeal (although he has done absolutely nothing about it so far) was a judgment call on the administration's part. It's not, according to most of the opinions I've read from lawyers, a requirement. (The White House's own spokespersons have moved from "we must defend" to "as is the general practice, we are defending. . . .")

Point 2: while there might be grounds to dismiss on standing and one or two other technical points, the brief as filed is a "kitchen sink" style exercise. The aim seems to have been to counter all possible constitutional challenges to DOMA. Some of the arguments offered here are, to be charitable, specious: DOMA is constitutional because the government has a legitimate interest in abridging fundamental rights that might cost money if recognized? It doesn't discriminate because gays and lesbians have the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex as heterosexuals do? Give me a break.

Point 3: the tone and language used are demeaning in the extreme. While the brief does not make specific one-on-one analogies between same-sex relationships and incest and pedophilia, who needs the lines drawn after twenty years of right-wing hyperbole? I'm just surprised DoJ didn't find some way to make reference to bestiality.

Point 4: Obama -- and the majority of the Democratic majority in Congress -- have made no effort to distance themselves from this act. For Obama, of course, the only thing that would be acceptable is to withdraw that motion.

I hate to say it, but I will, with the full admission that I have not followed Rahm Emanuel's career with any degree of closeness. He was almost, however, my congressman (I moved), and the man's a snake. I do detect his work here -- he's a past master at snubbing the gay community -- but I'm amazed that there's no one, apparently, in this administration able to counter something like this. The indicator here is that Emanuel has been running scared of the Republicans from day one, and he's not what I'd call gay-friendly.

This is a big black eye for Obama. (I'm sorry, but signing a presidential memorandum to extend limited benefits to the partners of gay government employees just won't cut it. And scheduling the signing and the president's "remarks" for 5:45 pm? Puh-leeze!)

Couple this with his complete inaction on any of his campaign promises (except, of course, for trying to pass the buck to Congress), and it comes back to what I said previously: we voted for a leader; what we got was a Chicago politician.

Snowball Effect

I'm rushing this morning, but check out AmericaBlog, Pam's House Blend, and The Slog for more on the Obama/DOMA debacle. It seems that the White House is finally getting a clue -- at least, a clue that one of their customary teats is drying up. People are pulling out of next week's GLBT fundraiser, so the president is going to sign a memorandum -- not an executive order mind you, a "memorandum," which will expire when he leaves office -- granting gay and lesbian government employees "some" partner benefits. That doesn't include health insurance or retirement benefits. Can you think of any other employer-provided benefits off the top of your head?

I'm also going to spend some time today writing to my congressional delegation -- none of them has let out a peep about this, and I know they're sympathetic. They need to be prodded to open their mouths. So do yours -- write them. They need to condemn that DOMA filing in the strongest possible terms, and sign on to any legislation repealing DADT and DOMA -- if none exists, tell them to introduce it themselves.

Jim Burroway (who is also pissed off, you can tell), has a brief summary.

He also notes statements from Tammy Baldwin and Jared Polis. Guess who's missing?

Update:

Here's a post from John Aravosis on the president's "employee benefits" dog and pony show, scheduled for this evening.

First off, Chuck Todd on MSNBC said that because this is only a "memorandum," as he called it, it will expire when Obama leaves office. Lovely. Second, health benefits for federal employees won't be covered. Why? Because of DOMA, so says the Advocate.

Just which benefits will gay federal employees be getting? The White House is refusing to say. But it's unlikely it's anything involving money, like Social Security, or, as we now know, health care. Which is ironic, since health care is Obama's number one issue (but not for us). Also ironic, which I wrote about earlier, is that health care reform likely won't cover us either, since they'd have to include us as "families" and "dependents" - and let's face it, they just compared us to incest and pedophilia, does anyone think this administration or this congress is going to define us as "family" in their health care package? (It's also not clear that DOMA would let health care reform provide us any benefits anyway.) In any case, Obama's inaction on DOMA, and outright defense of DOMA, is now undercutting his other efforts, meager that they are, to help us. It's all tied together.

Dan Savage, with his usual eloquence:

Could the Obama administration possibly be ANY MORE incompetent when it comes to gay issues? Let it leak that you're going "extend federal benefits" to the partners of gay federal employees, hope that this move mollifies furious gay rights organizations and activists still reeling from your DOMA betrayal, and THEN announce that—sorry!—the package of benefits doesn't include the single most important work-related benefit: health insurance.Could the Obama administration possibly be ANY MORE incompetent when it comes to gay issues? Let it leak that you're going "extend federal benefits" to the partners of gay federal employees, hope that this move mollifies furious gay rights organizations and activists still reeling from your DOMA betrayal, and THEN announce that—sorry!—the package of benefits doesn't include the single most important work-related benefit: health insurance.

And Pam Spaulding:

This administration, the Congress and the DNC need to see the LGBT ATM shut down. NOW. That June 26 LGBT DNC fundraiser is toast. No one is buying a partner benefit plan that doesn't include health insurance, for god's sake. Will he announce an effort to send Congress something to act on? Uh, keep dreaming - his DOJ just wrote up a brief that uses defenses against incest and underage marriage to claim our relationships are unworthy of equal treatment under the law.

Why do I detect the fine hand of Rahm Emanuel in this? I really can't shake the feeling that it's Emanuel who's decided to throw us to the wolves and Obama -- and remember, he's now proven himself to be just another Chicago pol -- is going along with it so that we don't interfere with his efforts to placate a bunch of losers in Congress who represent 20% of the country.

As of now, I will not support any Democrat running for anything. I'll just stay home, with the purse strings pulled tight.

Letter and Spirit

This is refreshing: a government body that actually understands what "civil rights" means. From WaPo:

The opinion states that city officials would "authorize discrimination" if they were to permit a referendum on whether to afford same-sex couples married elsewhere the same rights as opposite-sex couples.

The two-member board cited District elections law, which prohibits a vote on a matter covered by the Human Rights Act. The 1977 act outlaws discrimination against gays and lesbians and other minority groups.

"The Referendum's proposers would, in contravention of the HRA, strip same-sex couples of the rights and responsibilities of marriage that they were afforded by virtue of entering into valid marriages elsewhere," the ruling states. "Because the Referendum would authorize discrimination prohibited by the HRA, it is not a proper subject for referendum, and may not be accepted by the Board."

Opponents of equal rights for gays, of course, don't recognize the concept of "inalienable rights":

Bishop Harry Jackson, a same-sex-marriage opponent who is pushing for the vote, called the ruling an "insult." His attorneys said they plan to file an appeal today in Superior Court.

"The real human rights issue at stake in this decision is whether the people of D.C. will be given their right to vote," Jackson said. "We are not going to sit still for allowing an unelected board of bureaucrats to deny voters their rightful say on this issue and, by their action, allow the institution of marriage to be radically redefined."

I think Bishop Harry Jackson deserves a Through the Looking Glass Award for turning reality on its head.

The Big Time

This is important: the flap over the DoJ brief in Smelt has hit CBS news -- yes, the MSM, which has been blind to our concerns for how long now? Via John Aravosis, this story:

The anger from gay rights advocates toward President Obama is starting to boil over. . . .

The Clinton-era Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, mandates (1) that the federal government not recognize same-sex marriages and (2) that states not be forced to recognize same-sex marriages from other states.

Mr. Obama vowed to repeal DOMA as a presidential candidate but he has not taken any action to do so since becoming president. The Justice Department brief calls the legislation a "valid exercise of Congress' power" and says it is "reasonable and rational for Congress to maintain its longstanding policy of fostering this traditional and universally-recognized form of marriage."

And CBS starts connecting the dots:

As CBSNews.com reported earlier this month, the president has also declined to take action on the "don't ask, don't tell" policy that prohibits gays from serving openly in the military, despite campaign promises to do so. While the administration has suggested it is working with the military to repeal the policy responsibly, the Pentagon says there have not been any serious discussions along those lines.

And, from Aravosis again, Congress ain't gonna do shit. (And exactly what did you expect from Harry Reid, anyway?)

It's a scathing story, and frankly, with all the news coming out of Iran, as well as the developing fight over health-care reform, I'm surprised it got this much notice. The trick is to keep up the heat.

Aravosis also notes the lack of coverage, but has some striking news: people are starting to pull out of the Democratic fundraiser scheduled for later this month -- most significantly, David Mixner, one of the real gay power centers in this country. Aravosis' post has a lot of good information -- a must read. (Aravosis has been on top of this one.)

Update: A strong editorial from NYT that characterizes the brief as a "fumble." You can say that again.

Update II:

And, believe it or not, a story in WSJ:

A prominent gay-rights organization, long supportive of President Barack Obama, sent him a scathing letter Monday to protest the administration's recent legal backing of the Defense of Marriage Act.

The frustration, expressed in an emotional letter by the president of the Human Rights Campaign, also stems from Mr. Obama's reluctance to move on other issues on its agenda, such as allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military.

As a candidate for president, Mr. Obama said he would try to repeal the law known as DOMA. It prevents same-sex couples married in states where gay unions are legal from benefiting from federal benefits of marriage, such as Social Security spousal benefits.

But on Friday, the Obama administration filed a brief seeking to dismiss a lawsuit filed by Arthur Smelt and Christopher Hammer, a California couple married during the brief period when gay marriage was legal in the state, who are challenging the 1996 federal act.

This story's pretty uninflected, but the mere fact that it happens is instructive: if NYT and WSJ are starting to notice, things are really hot.

Iran

is up for grabs. See Andrew Sullivan for for ongoing reporting on the situation in the streets -- pulled mostly from Twitter.

Dday has a scathing commentary at Hullabaloo, including this bit from Robert Farley:

So, I'm trying to find out something about what's going on in Iran, and on CNN I can watch a rerun of Larry King interviewing several gentlemen without shirtsleeves who apparently assemble choppers. On Fox Mike Huckabee is trying to explain why Jesus hates credit card relief. MSNBC is rerunning something about a prison in New Mexico. CNBC is evaluating whether college students should be able to afford Chanel tote bags.

Sullivan also points out a few instances of total media fail on this.

Regular readers will have a good idea at this point of my opinion of the MSM in terms of providing actual information. This only renders it in stark tones: total failure to cover one of the most significant news stories happening right now. And most of what coverage there is seems to be doing what the media has learned to do best: acting as stenographers for those in power. This says a lot:



Sadly, the situation in Iran is not one I'm prepared to comment on -- I just don't have the information on which to base anything intelligent (and, if I rely on TV news, I never will have). I will say, though, that this looks worse than 1979. It's already nasty. It's going to get really, really bad.

I can, however, comment on the media coverage, which seems to be lacking. I've had my own run-ins with the slack-jawed complacency of the press, including an instance in which a reporter wanted to talk to me about comments I had left on a story she had done. I simply pointed out that everything I had to say I had said in the comments, that she gave her subject a free pass on some very substantive issues, that she didn't know enough about the issues even to have done the story, and she didn't even pick up on the comments by people she had quoted in opposition. She decided she didn't want to talk to me after all.

That's the free press in the U.S.

DOMA, Once Again

And, I suspect, not for the last time.

Joe Sudbay has a good, strong post on the "defenses" of the Bush -- um, I mean Obama administration's brief in support of DOMA:

Lawyers get very sanctimonious about the law, and the need to obey the law and legal precedent, above all else. But, the law can be very fluid -- and lawyers are taught in law school to find new ways to interpret words. Lawyers who craft new legal strategies and theories that sway courts are venerated in history as civil rights heroes (we even name buildings and airports after them). So, the notion that the Obama administration had only one recourse yesterday -- to file a brief in support of DOMA -- is very narrow legal thinking. Sure, the brief was a legal document, but it was also very much a political document. It had the backing of the President of the United States. And anyone who says that Republican and Democratic presidents alike don't let their politics influence their arguments before the courts is either a liar or terribly naive.

It seems to me that Sudbay shouldn't have to point this out. Any legal document comes from policy, and policy is always a political phenomenon. Laws don't exist in a hermetically sealed environment, and to maintain that they do is, to put the best face on it, naive indeed. To maintain that the administration has no choice but to defend a law that the president has vowed repeatedly to repeal is disingenuous. To maintain that Obama, in filing this brief, is upholding his promise to return us to the rule of law, as Lars Thorwald did in that ludicrous DKos post that I noted yesterday, is somewhat worse than disingenuous.

Pam Spaulding noted Sudbay's post and commented on it herself. She included this (sadly, no link):

Journalist Karen Ocamb asked Jon Davidson, Legal Director at Lambda Legal to comment on the brief and the choices the Obama DOJ had -- and decided to follow through with on this civil rights issue.

Whether or not the administration felt a need to defend, there are many ways one can defend. The administration could have rested on the first two arguments raised in their papers (jurisdiction and standing) that these plaintiffs were not entitled to sue without arguing at this point that DOMA is constitutional. Doing that would not have waived those arguments. What they need to be asked is why they gratuitously went out of their way to make the outrageous arguments they unnecessarily included such as that DOMA does not discriminate based on sexual orientation or that the right at issue is not marriage but an unestablished right to "same-sex marriage" or that DOMA is somehow justified in order to protect taxpayers who don't want their tax dollars used to support lesbian and gay couples (while it's apparently fine to make lesbians and gay men pay the same taxes but be denied the benefits provided heterosexual couples). Their public statements about the filing try to sidestep these points. They absolutely knew they did not need to make these additional arguments, especially at this time and consciously decided to do so. I am seething mad.

When will our progressive "friends" address this? We're waiting.

I think we're going to be waiting for answers on this one for a long time.

David Link has a good analysis of why the DOJ brief is such a disaster. It almost answers the questions, but I have a couple more:

The vast majority of employees at the DOJ, as with most government entities in the U.S., are civil servants protected from the political winds that blow through the top of their organizations. In that sense, every civil servant at DOJ is a Bush (and perhaps Clinton, and perhaps Bush I) holdover.

But we know that Bush was placing many of his political appointees in civil service slots in the final weeks of his residency (I can't honestly call it a "presidency" at this point). So no, they're not "insulated" from the political winds except insofar as it's much harder to get rid of them now. They're still right-wing ideologues.

But how could this derision not have been noticed by the President’s men? First, and most obviously, I can only imagine that no lesbian or gay men ever set eyes on this brief. Perhaps I am wrong, but I honestly can’t see how any self-respecting homosexual in 2009 could possibly think this brief was acceptable.

That was my next question: you mean to tell me no one in the Justice Department is gay? No one? I wish I could be as comfortable with the idea that no gay person would pass something like this, but Link obviously has not read some of the "gay conservative" sites I have. Yeah, they could do it, and likely would.

A little compare and contrast: see Jim Burroway's post on California AG Jerry Brown's response to the complaint filed in Perry vs. Schwarzenegger, the case being pursued by Olson and Boies.

Digby, as usual, nails it:

Needless to say, after so many slights, snubs and various betrayals it's pretty hard to deny that the LGBT community is being used as a pawn in the president's "outreach" to social conservatives. It's a cruel dismissal of a strong and loyal constituency on an issue of fundamental civil rights.

Once again, boys and girls: Obama is a politician, first and always.

Reviews in Brief: Shungiku Nakamura's Junjo Romantica (anime), Season Two

There's not actually all that much to say about Season Two of Junjo Romantica, except that in the main story line, Misaki, who seems to have a knack for falling into improbable situations, manages to meet both Usagi's older brother and his father -- on the train. Otherwise, it's all about resolution. But then, that's half the fun.

Aside from the family interference -- and that's of a magnitude that could only happen to Usagi and Misaki -- Misaki is getting closer and closer to finally admitting to himself that he loves Usagi. The season is worth watching just for the wonderful scene on the Ferris wheel in episode 9 (episode 21 of the complete anime), when Misaki finally lets the cat out of the bag. After watching several times, I've come to have a lot more appreciation for Misaki and understand his character better. I still want to grab him and shake him sometimes, though, particularly in a couple of scenes with Isaki and "Usagi-chichi" ((Usagi's father), who are trying to break them up. The key to understanding Misaki is that he doesn't want to make trouble for anyone -- to the extent of always putting himself last, even when it would be better not to.

Nowaki and Hiroki, in "Junjo Egoist," have their own problems, as always stemming from their seemingly complete inability to communicate with each other. The draw here is in watching Hiroki as he finally starts to get it: he's dense enough that he has to be beaten over the head with Nowaki's insecurity before it finally dawns on him that it's a problem for them. "Dense" and "grouchy" sort of summarize Hiroki, but there is some movement here.

The final installment of "Junjo Terrorist" (Episode 8 [20]) is just wonderful. This is the episode that won me over to Miyagi: we get a good look at his history and some good depth in his character, and a couple of great scenes for Shinobu, who really comes to life here. Another one that makes it worth watching the season.

I'm one who likes to see relationships and character develop, so there's no question that I'm very fond of this anime. There's enough here that you start wishing for a Season Three -- I do, at least. (And just to refresh your memory, here's the RiB for Season One.) I can't find an American distributor listed anyplace, so this may not be out on DVD for a while. (It hit Japanese TV last fall, from what I can dig up.)



Staff:

Director: Chiaki Kon
Script: Michiko Yokote (ep 2, 4, 8, 10), Rika Nakase (ep 1, 6, 9, 12), Yoshiko Nakamura (ep 3, 5, 7, 11)
Original creator: Shungiku Nakamura
Character Design: Yoko Kikuchi
Art director: Junichi Higashi, Junko Shimizu
Sound director: Hozumi Gôda
Theme Song Performance: pigstar (OP)

Cast:

Isshin Chiba as Keiichi Sumi
Ai Hayasaka as Female student (ep 5), TV newscaster (ep 10)
Aiko Aihashi as TV anchorwoman (ep 4)
Asumi Kodama as Woman (ep 7)
Daisuke Kishio as Takatsuki Shinobu
Hatsumi Takada as Child (ep 6)
Hikaru Hanada as Usami Akihiko
Hiroka Nishizawa as Announcer (ep 6), Reporter (ep 10)
Hiroshi Yamamoto as Guest (ep 5) , Man (ep 11)
Hitomi Harada as Woman (ep 3)
Hozumi Gôda as Kyou Ijuuin (ep 12)
Juurouta Kosugi as Usami Fuyuhiko
Kazuhiko Inoue as Miyagi You
Kazutaka Ishii as Student (ep 5)
Kenta Miyake as Tanaka (ep 3, 11)
Kentarou Itou as Kamijyou Hiroki
Kishô Taniyama as Takahashi Takahiro
Kousuke Toriumi as Usami Haruhiko
Mayumi Asano as Risako Takatsuki (ep 8)
Miki Suga as Female student (ep 5), Nurse (ep 6)
Nami Mizuno as Child (ep 6)
Nana Mizuki as Kaoruko Usami (ep 10)
Nobutoshi Canna as Kusama Nowaki
Noriko Namiki as Aikawa Eri
Reiko Sasakawa as Sensei's mother (ep 8)
Ryotaro Okiayu as Asahina Kaoru
Saori Seto as Maid (ep 3)
Susumu Chiba as Tsumori
Takahiro Sakurai as Takahashi Misaki
Tetsya Kakihara as Shinobu's friend (ep 8)
Toshiyuki Morikawa as Isaka Ryuuichirou
Yuki Masuda as Sensei (ep 8)
Yukito Souma as Editor (ep 12)
Yuuko Nishihara as Woman (ep 3, 7)

A Defense of Obama, and a Roundup

Lars Thorwald defends the DOJ's brief in Smelt on the basis that Obama is keeping his promise to uphold the laws. Andrew Sullivan buys it. I don't.

I want to address the brief filed in support of the Defense of Marriage Act. That Act preceded Obama. He inherited that law. It was on the books when he came into office, and because it has been challenged, he and his DOJ have an obligation to defend the law if there is a legal basis to defend it.

Thorwald slides past the big question here: is DOMA actually legally defensible? There are serious questions about that, which he doesn't address. The arguments presented in that brief are, to be kind, tenuous -- DOMA doesn't violate our rights under the Constitution because we're free to marry, as long as it's to someone we can't love and don't want to marry? It's constitutional because it saves the government money? No precedent recognizing marriage as a fundamental right or recognizing the right of citizens to form intimate relationships without government interference has relevance? If these are legitimate legal defenses, we are in serious trouble in this country. (Dale Carpenter has some observations on the quality of the arguments advanced:

It's identical in form to the defense of Texas's Homosexual Conduct law in Lawrence v. Texas: a law banning only gay sex doesn't discriminate against gays because it equally forbids homosexuals and heterosexuals to have homosexual sex and because it equally allows homosexuals and heterosexuals to have heterosexual sex. This sort of formalism has incited howls of laughter over the years when made by religious conservatives. Now it's the official constitutional position of the Obama administration.

The interesting thing is that Carpenter says that much of the brief seems defensible to him, and then proceeds to what is, in my reading, a complete take-down.)

Thorwald also makes the flat assertion that John Aravosis is wrong is saying that the administration is not obligated to defend the law in court, but offers no real support for that. We all know that I don't buy argument by assertion here. Aravosis is a lawyer, too, and he's not an idiot. Volatile, but not an idiot.

And Thorwald ignores the tone and language of the brief, which is what is fueling most of the outrage.

It seems that DKos has become the official blog of the Obama administration. (This isn't the first time in recent days that the gay community has been told on the blog to cool it.)

Here's another defense, from one of Sullivan's readers, that I find more persuasive. However, Sullivan picks up on the same point I did above:

But the zealous defense of DOMA - including repeating countless spurious and unnecessary slurs against gay people - need not be a lawyer's duty. It is a choice by his political superiors. It is not the fact of this brief, it is its contents and rhetoric that sting. They did not have to go this far.

In trying to understand why the Obama administration would seek to go to such lengths to make arguments embraced by James Dobson I tried to give them the benefit of the doubt. I was probably wrong. The more I learn the clearer it is that this was a conscious decision by Obama's DOJ to use evey conceivable argument to kill any constitutional attack on DOMA. At the same time, they are clearly committed to doing nothing in the foreseeable future to enact any redress for those couples currently denied their civil rights. On top of this, they obviously did nothing to prepare gay couples or any gay leaders for this swipe at them. Why? Are relations that broken? Some judicious explanation ahead of time would surely have been in everyone's interest. But again, one gets the impression that for the Obama administration, gay people are a burden, a distraction and a bore. (Emphasis mine)

Jim Burroway has another roundup of reactions.

Tojaso

It seems I wasn't prone to conspiracy thinking after all. Aravosis has unearthed this tidbit:

Andrew Sullivan discovered that one of the three Obama Justice Department attorneys who wrote and filed the anti-gay DOMA brief last night is W. Scott Simpson, a Mormon Bush holdover who was awarded by Alberto Gonzales for his defense of the Partial Birth Abortion act.

Sullivan raises the questions I want answers to:

So who signed off on this brief? Who is responsible for this mess? Or are gays that low a priority for DOJ?

I think we all know that answer to that last one.

Another Black-Tie Event

Maybe they can get the Log Cabin Republicans to attend.

.

Update to "Ballistic"

I've had a chance to think about this one a little, and I think that my initial suggestion may have more to it than it might seem at first. I don't think this is the product of the Obama administration. This is not a case that would be under the direct scrutiny of any of Obama's high-level appointees, as nearly as I can figure, and the whole tone of the brief just reeks of Bush loyalists. Lest I be accused of conspiracy thinking on this, remember, that's exactly what Bush was doing in his final weeks in office, especially at Justice, which was the most heavily politicized department of his government. If you want to screw up the country forever, what better way to do it than stuff the part of the government charged directly with enforcing the laws with right-wing ideologues? Particularly if it's going to make clowns out of the Democrats (not that they need much help). (John Aravosis has another with some of the reaction from the blogosphpere that makes me think I'm on the right track here: the language and arguments are so completely out of the Focus on the Family hymnal that I don't see how a progressive could have written this brief.)

Jim Burroway initially had a take close to mine: take another look, after he noted some of the more colorful reactions from the blogosphere. (I'm not going to get into the incest/pedophilia argument here, except to note that, as Burroway says, it's not a direct comparison, but at this point it's a conditioned response: say the words, particularly in relation to gays, and two decades of right-wing, homophobic bullshit come right back to you. They don't need to make a direct link -- it's already in people's minds.) His most recent post highights some of the "official" reactions from the major advocacy and lobbying groups. Andrew Sullivan has a short, sharp rejoinder to what he calls "the most egregoius line." Frankly, I'm hard put to pick out my own most egregious -- the brief seems to have been written by a committee headed by Maggie Gallagher and Rick Warren. John Aravosis has a follow-up post demolishing some of the rational for filing this brief. I think Aravosis is on solid ground here -- the precedents he cites are convincing, and there are probably more.

I'm not letting Obama off the hook on this. If lawyers in his DOJ prepared and filed something like this without review by someone senior enough to quash it, then it's his fault. Cases challenging DOMA, DADT, and any other gay-related legislation should be automatic red flags to this administration.

Look at it this way: this is a win/win for the Republicans:

1. It further marginalizes the gay community;

2. It erodes support for the Obama administration (What's the reaction of any minority going to be when something like this sinks in?). (Sullivan twigged to this one in a follow-up.) ;

3. It may very well serve to derail gay civils rights (I'm not so nearly convinced of that as Aravosis is, but I don't think it can be completely discounted), or at least make it harder to effect changes on a state level, which is where the real battle is happening. It's becoming more and more apparent that any action at the federal level will happen in spite of Obama.

Here's the brief:

Obama's Motion to Dismiss Marriage case

Publish at Scribd or explore others: obama doma

Ballistic

Trying not to go there, but it's hard when faced with stories like this one.

Aravosis makes it sound pretty awful, and it is. I do want to point out one thing though, before I go into my own diatribe:

We just got the brief from reader Lavi Soloway. It's pretty despicable, and gratuitously homophobic. It reads as if it were written by one of George Bush's top political appointees.

It probably was. Remember, Bush not only stacked the Justice Department with ideologues, he put them all in civil service jobs before he left so they wouldn't have to resign when the new administration took office. Odds on this all comes out of a Bush holdover, or a group of them, with their own agenda, which is not going to be gay-friendly -- the reasoning has that sort of John Yoo flavor to it, after all.

However, my next bet is that Obama does nothing to repudiate this brief. Then I will go ballistic.

Friday Gay Blogging: Patience

In terms of our civil rights and some display of leadership by that "fierce advocate" in the White House, I've run out of it.

Three things:

First, Jennifer Vanasco, in a piece titled "Another Shrug from Obama":

Obama has been mostly silent on our issues since taking office. Insiders tell us that he will keep his promises. They tell us to be patient. They tell us to wait.

Maybe they're right. Maybe not. Maybe the Obama Administration really is working like crazy behind the scenes to dismantle DOMA and Don’t Ask, to support the Employment Non—Discrimination Act and the Uniting American Families Act. Maybe they're just hoping if they placate us enough, we’ll go away.

All we know for sure when it comes to this Administration is that hope is not enough. Promises of "change" are not enough. We supported Obama with our dollars and our labor, and it is time he supports us in return.

But until he does, the good people of Illinois — like good people all over the country — have to wait for their rights.

And then, Dale Carpenter, who counsels patience:

The problem is that losing has consequences beyond the immediate loss. Initiatives -- from gathering the needed signatures to running an effective campaign to winning -- require a huge investment of money, people, and time. Such resources are finite. The $60 million or more that will be spent in 2010 could go to other things, like state and congressional elections or fighting a possible SSM repeal (Maine? Iowa?) or amendment ban in another state. Those volunteers and organizers could be doing other productive things with their time. And losing in 2010, especially if the margin is greater than in 2008, will be deflating. It will harm morale. It will scare off legislators elsewhere. And it will be taken (incorrectly) as a sign that the tide is beginning to turn against SSM, with numerous political consequences in the short term. Losing doesn't mean you start from scratch the next time you try. It means you start from scratch with a bigger political, psychological, and financial burden. Waiting until 2012 would be better, in this sense, than losing in 2010 and trying again in 2012.

I have a fundamental disagreement with Carpenter on this, aside from the fact that he seems almost gleeful at the prospect of losing a repeal effort in 2010. I don't think waiting is a viable strategy, if it ever was (and I'm not convinced on that score: waiting has gotten us exactly what?). We need to be at least as determined and dogged as our opponents, who will keep trying again and again until they get what they want. The difference is that if we keep trying, we reach out to people. People come to know who we are, and that's to our advantage, win or lose.

We made progress on civil rights when we were yelling and screaming. Then we decided to be prudent. Know what? People aren't impressed with how responsible you're being. They're impressed with the emotional reality that you bring to your cause: when they see your face, hear your words, know who you are, that changes them. Sitting on the sidelines being prudent doesn't change anything. It just means you've been co-opted. (See above, re: "fierce advocate.")

As for the perception that a defeat in California will give the impression that marriage is now a losing proposition, let me point out a sequence of events:

Proposition 8 adopted in California
Iowa legalizes same-sex marriage
Vermont legalizes same-sex marriage, overriding the governor's veto
Maine legalizes same-sex marriage
Prop 8 upheld by California Supreme Court
New Hampshire legalizes same-sex marriage

And let me point out that Prop 8 was No on 8's election to lose, and they did it -- by being prudent.

Finally, via Andrew Sullivan, from Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.:

I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.” Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

It occurs to me, reading this passage, that those potential "supporters" who are going to be repulsed by confrontational tactics maybe aren't supporters at all. They are "more devoted to 'order' than to justice" and will support our reach for civil rights as long as it doesn't actually impinge on their reality. They are also the very people who will turn around and vote to take away those rights in the next election. They're not our friends. The most that can be said for them is that they're not crazy.

(I'm rushing this morning. I may come back and clean this up a bit, but I wanted to get these thoughts at least sketched out.)

Even-Handed

Pam Spaulding has a good, strong post on blow-back from the left over criticism of Obama's complete inaction on gay civil rights issues. (I mean, the best he can do is a proclamation for GLBT etc., etc., Pride Month? That's all?)

Call this one "required reading."

Identity

Another one of those posts from Andrew Sullivan that sparked a few thoughts of my own. I've probably taken issue with Sullivan on this before -- he spends a lot of time decrying "identity politics," particularly when engaged in by people he doesn't identify with -- but I have to hand it to him: he does spark some thinking from time to time. I'm not researching this one -- I'm just following the thoughts to see where they lead.

He says something that once again betrays a lack of depth in his thinking:

As to the broader issue, it is undeniable that our identity forms us; but it is still important in my view to aspire to something beyond it.

My question is, does he honestly think that people have only one "identity"? I'm positing this in full realization that his use of the term is fluid: there is any individual's identity, which is composed of any number of facets, and then there is the group identity that is generally being referred to in discussions of "identity politics." But these group identities are never monolithic.

The stellar illustration of that last observation is the gay movement: What started off once upon a time as "LGB" is now "LGBTQ" and growing. (I've seen extenstions of that one that stagger the imagination, but I've forgotten all the initials.) This is identity politics carried to the point where it no longer has a coherent identity, and no longer has any effectiveness as a mode of operation. If you don't believe me, just look at the overwhelming success of the national movement organizations in the past decade or so. Right.

Sullivan's use of the term is inevitably pejorative. It seems that no one who discusses movements and interest groups in those terms is in favor -- except of course, for their own movement and interest groups, which are by definition not based on "identity." (I'm sorry, but I can't resist: Does this mean that old, white, straight Christian guys don't have identities?) I mean, once again, what we're dealing with here is lazy thinking, this time apparently focused on Sonia Sotomayor, and I have to say that I'm amazed at Sullivan, or nearly: you have figure that if the far-right noise machine is saying it, it can't possibly be true. (This is based on empirical evidence, so is subject to change as new evidence becomes available. I'm not holding my breath.)

My problem with Sullivan's statement is that people, and even groups, do aspire to something beyond -- not only aspire, but achieve, regularly, and as a matter of course. Not to acknowledge that is not only lazy, but sloppy. You're going to come to the right conclusions only by accident because you've set artificial parameters for a discussion of real phenomena.

I'm not saying that identity politics is not real -- look at the alphabet soup that's the gay movement, or any one of a number of blogs that hew to the party line (whatever the party happens to be, and whatever the reality of the subject under discussion). In most cases that's a natural outgrowth of the demands of the situation: there's an issue at stake, and most issues do not affect 100% of the population. Those that do don't affect everyon the same way. Identity becomes a viable rallying point for a point of view.

This is sort of interesting:

I have long struggled to achieve a balance in writing about homosexuality - objective and subjective - and haven't always succeeded. But the point was trying. On this blog, I write passionately about the subject but I hope I do not do so out of a sense of victimhood or in a way that doesn't assume that heterosexuals can easily grasp and agree with what I'm saying.

As to Sullivan's "balance in writing" about homosexuality, why? I make no bones about the fact that I'm an advocate. Otherwise, I wouldn't be blogging. Frankly, I think that's pretty much the case across the board on the blogosphere. I'm a lot more fair than many bloggers (which regularly gets me trashed from both directions, when anyone bothers to notice), but I'm not at all reticent about my agenda.

My basis is different: I'm not apologizing. (And frankly, that surprises me in one regard: not that I'm unapologetic, but that Sullivan, who is substantially younger than I, is bending over backwards to make himself acceptable to non-gays. I guess it's not purely a generational thing after all.) I'm putting the shoe on the other foot: anyone who is going to be critical of me solely because of my sexual orientation has to prove to me that their opinion is acceptable and deserves attention.

That may very well be using identity as a club, but in a different way than is the usual case when discussing "identity politics." Sure, my politics, at least on social issues, particularly on the issue of gay rights, stems from my identity as a gay man. To be honest, I've never been very good at being a victim -- I'm just too damned ornery for that, and I don't have much patience for it in anyone else. My feeling is that if you're a victim, chances are you've been cooperating. (Don't take this as an absolute: there are certainly situations in which someone is a victim without any influence on their situation. Interestingly enough, those people don't seem to spend much time playing the victim card. They tend to sue.)

To loop back around to Sullivan's remarks and my objections to them, where this is leading seems to be one more blast at Sullivan for dismissing a perfectly legitimate strategic basis for activiy by what is a perfectly circular argument: the arguments are invalid because they are based on identity politics, and identiy politics are by definition suspect. (Full disclosure: as I noted at the beginning of this post, I don't know the circumstances that prompted Sullivan's post, but he seems to have jumped on the "affirmative action" bandwagon with regard to Sotomayor's career, which he now admits was wrong. "Affirmative action" is simply one of the mechanisms of identity politics.) In this case, the argument -- Sonia Sotomayor's successful career, and consequently her qualifications as a Supreme Court nominee -- has been given a suspect pedigree -- identity politics -- in order to carry out a radical right-wing agenda. I'm sort of surprised at Sullivan for being a party to it, but at the same time I'm not: it's Beltway thinking, after all.

The News

is just too gruesome. The commentary is even more gruesome. I'm sitting here trying to think of something a little more upbeat to post -- let's see: something nice to look at, a little light-hearted (or a lot), cheery and optimistic.

Aha!



In spite of the bit at the very beginning, this one's relentlessly upbeat. (But pay attention -- those flashbacks are really important.) I've done a Review in Brief of it here, and it's become one of my favorite things to watch when I'm really tired and need just to relax a bit.

If you want to watch the whole thing, it's available at Aarinfantasy (you have to join the forums and have BitTorrent or equivalent software to download anime) and it's on YouTube.

Another Pro-Marriage Video

From Louise at Pam's House Blend: short, sweet, and simple:

Keep Pushing

From Pam's House Blend, a note that Rachel Maddow does it again: nailing Obama on DADT:



I like the contrast with his campaign speeches. From November 29, 2007:



Unfortunately, instead of leadership, what we're getting from this commander-in-chief is headlong retreat. I like Maddow's comment: "I wonder what his [Obama's] record would be like so far if he weren't a fierce advocate for gay rights."

Add in this story about the Supreme Court refusing certiori on a DADT case -- at the administration's request -- and you start to see why I'm not real happy: I don't like the picture that's emerging here at all.

In the "don't ask, don't tell" case, the Supreme Court sided with the Obama administration, which had urged the justices not to hear the appeal against the policy, even though Obama is on record as opposing it. The court thus spared the administration from having to defend in court a policy that the president eventually wants to abolish pending a review by the Pentagon.

But the administration doesn't have to defend the policy -- it can elect not to. In fact, Obama has all sorts of options here that are not being explored.

I sort of wonder how much of Rahm Emanuel's influence we're seeing here? Somehow, having Mr. Republican-Lite as WH chief of staff doesn't reassure me a great deal. Whatever the cause, we voted for a leader, but got a Chicago politician.

"Disordered Appetites"

Ran across another anti-gay screed, this one from a Catholic, at Andrew Sullivan. (It says something that Sullivan has become a Place.) At the risk of boring you, I just want to point out once more the intellectual and logical poverty in these sorts of things. Here's just the first bit of the quote from Sullivan. (I'm not going to link to the article; Sullivan has a link and you can follow it if you want, but I've read it, it's the same sort of self-referential junk we'd expect, completely lacking any contact with objective reality.)

Some maintain that same sex attraction is a genetic predisposition. This is disputed. Even if it were the case, that does not give homosexual activity any more of a claim to being given a special civil rights status. Should we really give disordered appetites civil rights status under the law?

OK: four sentences, two huge holes.

1. The genetic basis of homosexuality is disputed. That doesn't mean it's wrong. The question is, who is disputing it, and on what basis? Granted, this is an opinion piece -- it would have to be, since I doubt that the author, Keith Fournier, could find any factual basis for anything he says, outside of Catholic dogma. The problem remains: opinions based on junk are worthless.

2. Disordered appetites. Another completely subjective and self-referential piece of garbage. (Sorry, but I don't feel like being any nicer about Fournier's ideas than he is being about me and my "appetites." You should all know by now what I think of the Catholic Church's hypocrisy when it comes to moral dicta, and especially the double-talk surrounding the Churcn's position on homosexuality, and frankly, to call a bit of doctrine "Natural Law" when it has nothing to do with nature is more than a little arrogant.)

I'd also like to point out that I don't particularly agree with the idea that we must prove that same-sex attraction is innate before we are worthy of full citizenship. Sorry -- the overwhelming majority of us, like the overwhelming majority of any other group, are responsible, law-abiding, normal people who basically want to be left alone to play the hand we've been dealt as best we can. Frankly, no one ever gave me a choice on who I was going to be drawn to and who I was going to love. That's just the way it is, and frankly, as far as my civil rights go, it should be irrelevant.

It's another piece of drivel, beginning with the almost-required declaration of victimhood and citing the words of a man who facilitated child molesters for decades as moral authority.

Empty noise.

The "Legislative Process" Argument

I've long criticized Andrew Sullivan and Chris Crain and others who insist that legalizing same-sex marriage by legislation rather than "judicial fiat" is the best way to go. One of Ed Brayton's readers at Dispatches from the Culture Wars pointed out something that, I'm ashamed to say, I never thought of:

I'm happy to see this progress, but in some ways it worries me. What voters give they can just as easily take away; think about that before you start crowing too loudly about the superiority of legislative to judicial redress. Jim Crow laws and the tax laws restricting marijuana use, growth, and sale all passed with wide margins and even wider public support. The whole value of the Bill of Rights is that it states that those rights outlined, and many more not mentioned, are inherent to the individual; if the individual's rights are to be determined by legislative fiat, how secure are they really?

That's it, really. The point that the legislative process faction misses is that legislators are in theory accountable for their actions, but only in theory. We've seen too readily recently how voters will blindly follow what they're told rather than what they can see, and when that ideal comes up against reality -- well, it ain't pretty.

Let's face it -- most of us don't know what our representatives are up to on a day-to-day basis, and would probably be appalled to find out. And it's never a straight up vote on the merits -- it's always deal-making and horse-trading. Add in lobbyists and pressure groups, and you've got quite a mix, no?

It's odd to me that someone can rail against lawmakers' susceptibility to special interests (especially special interests with lots of cash) and still maintain that the legislature is the way to go on issues affecting fundamental rights.

Huh?

Health Care

A couple of good posts over at Crooks and Liars. First, John Amato on the single payer plan we're not hearing about. Second, Susie Madrak on efforts to kill any real reform.

From my own view, insurance -- the medical industry as a whole -- is a racket at this point. I've had my share of run-ins with insurance (one that still sticks in my mind is the "nurse's panel" suddenly deciding that a bite plate the insurance had covered for years was not "medically necessary"). The idea of having someone you've never seen nor ever had any contact with deciding what treatment you get is not one that sits well with me. And let's face it, health insurance, like journalism, is something that should never become a for-profit endeavor.

I Was Really Worried

I feel better now. And we could all use some good news:

The Earth could be habitable for another 2.3 billion years, extending previous estimates of life’s horizon by more than 1 billion years.

Giverny

What happens when a great artist designs a garden:



And here's some of the ways Monet saw it:









I've never been to Giverny. My one trip to Paris, there just wasn't time (and the gardens had not yet been refurbished). I did, however, see the water lily rooms at the Orangerie in the Tuileries Gardens. They were mesmerizing: it was like being there, completely surrounded by the pools and the flowers. Immense canvses mounted on the walls of two oval rooms. They were a gift by Monet to the French Republic.

And I live in Chicago. The Art Institute has what are probably the strongest holdings of Monet outside of France -- and its collection arguably rivals most of those in France. At one point they had a gallery at the top of the main stair devoted entirely to Monet, set up chronologically. Just the smaller canvases, of course. The large "Irises" and "Water Lilies" were still installed in the Impressionist galleries. But still.

Thanks to Chris in Paris at AmericaBlog for the video.

Reviews in Brief: Momoko Tenzen's The Paradise on the Hill

I find it hard to believe that I haven't noted this title here, since it's become one of my very favorite BL manga. The Paradise on the Hill is a romantic comedy by the creator of Seven, and it's just as spare and elliptical -- and even more unexpected -- than that one.

Kijima is a language teacher at an all girls high school that sits perched atop a hill above the city. He is reserved, quiet, and serious, although he's also a terrible tease. Ono is the new gym teacher, six years younger, tall, good-looking, and somewhat shy. He seeks Kijima's advice after Kijima witnesses a student confessing her love to the younger man. The two become friends, and then start reaching for something more.

This is a wonderful, charming comedy, completely motivated by the characters of the two men. The courtship is so tentative, awkward, and unsure that, under normal circumstances I'd get pretty thoroughly fed up, but Tenzen has handled it in such a way that not only are we captivated, but we find ourselves rooting for them. Each confesses to the other that he has feelings for someone, and it turns out that someone also has feelings for someone, and given the reticence of the two, we can see that circularity going on forever, if it weren't for the intervention of Tsuda, a fellow teacher who realizes she has no chance with either of them and gives things a nudge in the right direction just when they're about to come apart completely.

There is a side story, "Summer Rain," that is one of Tenzen's more serious efforts. Motomi Takase fell in love when he was eighteen, with an older man who had a wife and child. Their love was deep and intense, but Takase couldn't take responsibility for breaking up the man's family and fled. Ten years later, he is now back in town and has received a letter signed Hiroyuki Kasahara, his lover from long before, asking to meet. It begins to rain as Takase approaches the coffee shop where the meeting is to take place; there is only one other customer, a young man who's little more than a boy. They begin talking, which eventually leads to some serious revelations.

Underneath Tenzen's stories is what I'm coming to see as her ongoing theme: the price of happiness. It's always, it seems, involved with taking risks. In the case of Ono and Kijima, the fear of rejection almost destroys what they've been building. Takase's story is a study in the much greater cost of running away, of being afraid to pay the price. (And that story is quietly devastating.)

The drawing is up to the standard of Seven, although I still consider that one her best work to date (and by comparison with this one, that's only just barely). Graphically, Paradise is superb, not only in the character designs and renderings, but in the page layouts and visual flow, and especially in her variations in tone and shading, which add body and depth to her spare, evocative style. It's a pleasure just to look at the pages.

Another one from Juné.

Prop 8 Feedback

Got the following from reader PietB. I'm going to come back and comment on it, and really should have posted it before now (my bad). Piet's remarks seem to be right on point, and I think I may agree with him -- even though it means I may have been wrong in my previous comments. Well, it happens. (And unlike many, I'll admit it.)

The argument that was supposed to be being considered in this case was whether Prop. 8 was an amendment or a revision, not whether it pertained to a definition. The majority opinion stated and re-stated that the decision only restricted the word marriage to male-female couples, but in fact that assertion is the only way the opinion could be said to be doing that because nowhere in the reasoning did the Chief Justice actually discuss whether they were talking about a defining restriction, and the case wasn't about that. An amendment to the California Constitution is supposed to be about something like restricting the perch catch in the Delta in alternate months; a revision is used when a fundamental organizing principle of government is involved. If the Justices had actually been reasoning around that difference, they would have had to find that Prop. 8 was a revision because it does fundamentally change the way the State government operates by placing a restriction on the activities of the Justices of the Peace and County governments in general as to who may or may not receive a marriage license. In In re Marriage Cases, the Court properly found that the Constitution guarantees equal rights in all things to all State residents. The Court in that case made law by interpretation of the Constitution, which is what the Court is supposed to do.

In Strauss, the Court was supposed to be deciding the validity of the Proposition, not defining or re-defining the word "marriage". They assert that they are narrowly defining "marriage" in their decision, but in fact that wasn't presented for their deliberations. Nowhere do they substantively discuss the governmental effects of Proposition 8. And the wording of the proposition itself does not lead to considering it as a definition amendment; what it says is the only a marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized. It doesn't say, "but a civil union between two adults of the same sex is valid and recognized", and it doesn't present any remedy for the discrimination implicit in the ballot language. Kenneth Starr of evil memory argued for the proponents of Prop. 8 and an oilier performance I never have seen in a court of law. Under questioning, he cheerfully agreed that Prop. 8 set up two classes of citizens, but declined to agree that setting up two classes of citizens would affect how the government did its business. Justice Kennard, whose judicial history seemed to point to better sense than she displayed, insisted in her line of questioning that if a proposition were going to substantially affect how the government works it must have a quantity of language in direct proportion to the amount of effect, and implied that Prop. 8's few words (only fourteen) meant it had little effect. I sat down and wrote out several highly discriminatory ballot propositions that would have profoundly affected the way government works but had even fewer words that Prop. 8. The one restricting the vote to white male property owners had twelve words, two fewer than Prop. 8 but of course with much more profound effect on how the government would operate.

The "logic" in the opinions (both the majority opinion and the two concurring opinions) was so strained that I thought someone must surely have developed a hernia. When I say "shame on the Court", it's not because of the decision itself, it's for the intellectual dishonesty displayed in the opinions. The only one who seems to have considered the actual cause of the suit was the dissenter, Justice Moreno. Two of the Justices are up for re-election next year; if they have any personal integrity they won't run, but if they do I intend to work to remove them from the bench. I've spent all but six months of my life as a second-class citizen and I'm sick and tired of it.

As I say, I'll have to come back to this -- on deadline for music reviews (and be sure to check out the June 14 edition of Green Man Review -- major piece on Mahler coming up) and I really want to get this stuff off my desk.

What Kind of Person

Sends a wedding message like this?



This is what Jeremy Hooper got from Peter LaBarbera in honor of his wedding.

Which do you think best describes the giver?

1. Arrogant;
2. Self-Absorbed;
3. Tenuous grasp on reality;
4. Does not play well with others;
5. Rude and discourteous;
6. Probably has severe personality conflicts.

Note to Jeremy: While LaBarbera is a joke nationwide, his reputation at home in Illinois is even lower: he's known not only as a part of the lunatic fringe, but a total loser. He was booted out of the Illinois Family Institute (which, if I'm not mistaken, he founded) because he was completely ineffective -- not that they've done any better since. And neither has he.

Friday Gay Blogging: On-the-Run Edition

A quick one for today, and I'll probably come back with more over the weekend. This one pisses me off:

From an interview of President Barack Obama by Brian Williams of NBC, in response to William's question: "Do gay and lesbian couples who wish to marry have a friend in the White House?"



"I think gays and lesbians have a friend in the White House because I've consistently committed myself to civil unions, making sure that they have to visit each other in hospitals, that they are able to access benefits, that they have a whole host of legal rights that they currently do not have. I don't think it makes sense for the federal government to get in the business of determining what marriage is. That isn't traditionally the federal government's role."

As Pam Spaulding notes, the short translation is "No." This answer, from a constitutional scholar, is so full of holes that you could make cheese with it -- except the holes are too big.

First, he's endorsing once again second-class status for same-sex couples. Second, the federal government is already in the business of determining what marriage is: have you heard of DOMA, Mr. President? The law that you pledged to repeal and so far have done nothing about? And I mean nothing.

And note how he hems and haws his way through this one -- as though the question caught him flat. After the grillings that everyone in the administration in a position to make a comment on gay issues have been going through in recent weeks, how is that possible?

It's deja vu all over again: ask a simple question, and the president doesn't have an answer.

New Hampshire Makes Six

Yesterday's news, but I'm running a little behind (deadline time again).

From AP:

New Hampshire's governor has signed legislation making the state the sixth to allow gay marriage.

Gov. John Lynch was Surrounded by cheering supporters of the move as he signed the three bills about an hour after the key vote on the legislation in the House.

The law will take effect in January, exactly two years after the state legalized civil unions. New Hampshire joins Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maine, Vermont and Iowa in recognizing same-sex marriages, though opponents hope to overturn Maine's law with a public vote.

Apparently he's satisfied with the "protections" for religious organizations. I haven't seen the compromise language, but I sure hope it's more specific than his original proposal.

Marriage Videos

Blender Louise has been sharing these over at Pam's House Blend. Keep an eye out -- I'll try to get them here as well.

Here's the latest.

Terminology

This post by Waymon Hudson caught my eye over at Pam's House Blend.

I find myself cringing when I hear the word "homosexual."

Yes, I know it is a scientific term and meant to be clinical. And I know it is odd that this word bothers me when I embrace other words like queer, which is horribly offensive to some.

I know this may be in my mind, but I still have a guttural reaction when I hear the word. To me, it seems that more and more the word "homosexual" is becoming the new "faggot." It is being used by the religious right, conservatives, the media, and just about everyone else as a fill-in for a derogatory term.

I have pretty much the same reaction, tinged by a healthy dose of rage, but I have an easy answer for you, Waymon:

It's not the name we chose for ourselves. It's not the name by which we've asked to be known. To continue using it after that is indicative of, at the very least, lack of minimal respect for us as human beings. I won't go so far as to brand all who use that very clinical term with "hater," because I know many of them are not. They just don't know any better.

You're right that it's at least in part a generational thing, but perhaps not in the way you think. I'm thinking specifically of older friends of mine who are unsure as to what is correct. I try to steer them right, but we're talking about people in their 70s and older who have a lifetime habit to break -- and considering the word they are using, it's a lifetime habit of being nice about it, and they are trying.

Let's be very clear about it: the use of the term "homosexual" by the bigots you're referring to is deliberate and meant to be insulting. They do know better. You won't catch any of them referring to African Americans as "Negroes" -- at least, not in public. Their use of the term "homosexual" when referring to people is a deliberate insult, and they know it. It's a refusal to acknowledge that we have any say in our own role in society, and it's a deliberate attempt to diminish our humanity. And that's the compassionate part of their philosophy.

So, we keep educating those who can be educated, and fight the others. What else can we do?

Back Burner

Ran across this this open letter from Robin Tyler at AmericaBlog this morning, and I think I agree. It's getting to the point at which the national gay rights organizations, which Andrew Sullivan with some justification called appendages of the Democratic party, are bearing a more than passing resemblance to the Log Cabin Republicans.

It's not that I expected everything to be a done deal within the first hundred days, but I had hoped for some leadership. What we're getting from Obama and the Democrats is a headlong retreat from confronting gay issues. and I'm fed up. You can't be a leader if you won't even acknowledge events.

Interim

Sorry for the silence here, but I'm swamped, and I've only got this morning free. Whether that's going to result in an actual post I don't know. The three stories I've been following:

Prop 8/Marriage: I have a very strong and thoughtful e-mail from a reader that merits attention, and there is breaking news in New Hampshire. Irony of the day: Dick Cheney is to the left of Barack Obama on same-sex marriage. Pam's House Blend has had some decent coverage, but this one got buried by the next two.

George Tiller: It's sort of fun watching the demagogues on the right trying to get out from under this one, especially O'Reilly. Andrew Sullivan has been focusing on this one -- go back a couple of days.

Sonia Sotomayor: Once again, it looks as though the right insists on shooting itself in the foot, which is all to the good: the sooner the Republican party collapses completely, the sooner they can rebuild it into something worth having. Hilzoy and Digby have been giving this one good coverage.

Maybe by this weekend.