A few thoughts about what makes Pride in 2013 so particularly special, even historic.
In this last week leading up to what is Pride Weekend in so many cities across the nation, we have seen two historic rulings from the Supreme Court of the United State that dramatically affect members of the LGBT community across the United States.
The two cases, buttressed today by a third decision from a Federal District Court in Michigan today, serve not only to remind us of how far we have come as a nation, but we need only look to St. Petersburg to see how swiftly we may fall.
In the finest tradition of tyrants and socialists everywhere (and their more honest cousins, the actual communists) Putin and his cronies have found a relatively defenseless minority to demonize as the latest bogeyman and threat to his nations morality and children - thus making them fair game for violent oppression. First they must be silenced (lest they raise effective objections) and then the camps can be re-opened complete with "special showers".
We celebrate our gain even as we mourn the coming darkness in other lands, as Russia is far from alone in descending into this mire of tragedy and (impending) bloodshed. 38 of 53 African nations criminalize LGBT relationships, and the number seems to be rising.
In Western Europe, the United States, and in some Asian lands sanity is making advances but the forces of ignorance and violence stalk the land openly elsewhere. Even as we celebrate Pride this weekend, it is far from time to become complacent.
Saturday, June 29, 2013
Friday, June 28, 2013
Pride Weekend post
A few thoughts on Pride Parades & History
I first wrote this in 2008 in this blog, and have written similar
articles five or six times since 1996. I'm re-editing this a bit, and
cutting out some dated material not relevant to the present...(this post is becoming a personal tradition for Pride weekend along with my Pride Eve stroll through the bars, a practice I began back in the dawn of time when I was co-Chair of Pride... - ed., 2013)
______________________________
However, having staggered across a post in a blog I read fairly regularly (a now-vanished post) gently deriding Pride as counterproductive and continuing with the "why can't they just keep it in their bedrooms" meme, I figured it was time for another meander down History Lane.
Yeargh. Over the years, I've written this post in different words, at different times, and in different places at least five separate times, and I'm really not eager for round VI. However....
Pride didn't happen spontaneously, and it didn't originate in a grandly festive party in a world that celebrated folks of LGBT persuasion. It didn't originate among a bunch of buttoned-down straight-laced LGBT folks campaigning for incremental change - it originated in a decidedly run-down bar in New York, the Stonewall Inn - frequented by drag queens, escorts, and sundry down on their luck gay folks, and was anything but a celebration.
Things were different then. It was 1969 and the times were tumultuous - anti-war protests, the civil rights movement, race riots combined with a hot summer to leave far too many neighborhoods a roiling incendiary stew merely waiting for a spark to detonate it.
It was still common for police to raid LGBT bars and events, beating up patrons and staff before hauling them off on "infamous charges" that ended careers and destroyed lives. It was not especially uncommon for bar owners and event sponsors to pay protection to police in order to ensure they and their patrons would be either not harassed, or harassed less often.
Bashing, though it still occurs today, was far more common and more frequently lethal in those times.
Those who by their very nature ("born outside the closet with the door locked behind them") stood little chance of hiding successfully, were particularly vulnerable - and such were the patrons of the Stonewall Inn. The very existence of gay bars in New York had only been legal since 1965, prior to which the gathering of three or more gay folks in a bar was grounds for that bar to lose its' license.
Reparative therapy ("We can De-GAY you or your offspring!") had not yet been shown to be the cruel fraud that we know it today, and its' regimen of aversion therapy (or torture, if you care to be honest) still stalked the land unchallenged, with uncounted victims - suicides, nervous breakdowns, and a wide varity of otherwise damaged folks - still being abused by that abhorrent cottage industry from Hades.
Debateably relevant was the death of gay icon Judy Garland the day before, contributing to the emotional ferment in the streets. Certainly, in latter day accounts, this has been considered a factor in events.
In the midst of this flammable emotional concoction, nine officers of the NYPD (one uniformed, 8 not) began a raid of the Stonewall Inn at 3 a.m. on Saturday morning - June 28, 1969.
It did not go well. Debate continues on when and how precisely the fun began, but in almost all accounts, a flashpoint was hit inside the bar, and for the first time, the gays fought back. First, with drag queens heating pennies with lighters before flinging them at officers, and proceeding rapidly to thrown bottles and full-out brawling. Before the evening was out, the officers were barricaded inside the Stonewall Inn as it was being set alight by its patrons. Four days of rioting followed.
The LGBT community had, quite simply, had enough. The Mattachine Society, an early body of polite gay activists, was soon done and the "Gay Liberation Force" was born. The time for asking nicely was over.
Soon, in more and more cities, Pride Celebrations sprang up to commemorate Stonewall - first in protests, and then in celebration as things got better over a period of decades - there was less to protest, and more to celebrate...and it was safer to celebrate.
The theme might be said to be shifting, even today, from Twisted Sisters anthem "We're not going to take it" to "Wasn't that a Party" by the Irish Rovers, and more than once the argument for one thing or another between the LGBT community and various governmental sorts has boiled down to "Would you rather the party, or the protest?".
Many of the pioneers of the Stonewall era are still with us, rebels and protesters slightly ameliorated by age, but as a result of the AIDS epidemic blowing the guts out of an entire generation of potential community leaders, only now barely beginning to step away from the leadership roles in the community in favor of younger folks, and still possessed of a grim determination that as a community, we never want to return to the dark days of the pre-Stonewall era.
That's the history. The present reality is increasingly the community "letting it's hair down", not dissimilar to Mardi Gras or Seafair (before the bluenoses got hold of it), in a vast and mighty party of increasingly commercial nature. That it *can* is a good thing, as that means the tense protests of yore are less necessary. That it could revert to its' roots of angry protest is part of our protection as a minority community.
To address those who claim that we choose our sexuality, I'd ask - "Um, when did you choose to be heterosexual?" And continue with inquiries about what person in their right mind would choose to self-select to be harassed, discriminated against, and generally get a bonus ration of crud in far too many places in the world and our nation...
As far as I can tell, some folks are born rigidly hetero; some rigidly LGBT; and most, depending on their environment, circumstances, and dumb luck fall someplace on a Bell Curve between those two extremes, coming at some point to a self-definition that "feels right/truthful" to them (or a mighty deep closet in which to wallow in guilt, self-hatred, and assorted drama).
For me, the first Pride I attended in about '90 or so was a revelation - my god, there were "other people like me", and I was not the "only one", and not everyone was "living the stereotype" - there were lots of just regular folks having a good time in a positive environment. Surely, there are excesses, but no more so than at Mardi Gras. It was as if a gorilla had climbed off my shoulders, and it was "ok to be me".
And finally, Pride isn't a collection of saints, either. It's a whole bunch of folks, almost all of whom have spent some portion of their lives hiding their identity from themselves and others, letting their hair down and celebrating in what, for a day or two, is a space we feel as our own, and safe - not surprisingly, some folks get a little enthused...but....no harm (no blood), no foul.
I have my issues with certain pride organizers, but not with Pride. It combines celebration, community safety, and the role of the canary in the proverbial coal mine (and makes for one major fundraiser for community organizations, if done right) into a single joyous package.
I continue to hope that in Seattle we again see Pride Events that support the core LGBT business community on Capitol Hill. A parade on Broadway, and a festival in Volunteer Park. But to the attendees of Pride? Enjoy...and remember.
______________________________
However, having staggered across a post in a blog I read fairly regularly (a now-vanished post) gently deriding Pride as counterproductive and continuing with the "why can't they just keep it in their bedrooms" meme, I figured it was time for another meander down History Lane.
Yeargh. Over the years, I've written this post in different words, at different times, and in different places at least five separate times, and I'm really not eager for round VI. However....
Pride didn't happen spontaneously, and it didn't originate in a grandly festive party in a world that celebrated folks of LGBT persuasion. It didn't originate among a bunch of buttoned-down straight-laced LGBT folks campaigning for incremental change - it originated in a decidedly run-down bar in New York, the Stonewall Inn - frequented by drag queens, escorts, and sundry down on their luck gay folks, and was anything but a celebration.
Things were different then. It was 1969 and the times were tumultuous - anti-war protests, the civil rights movement, race riots combined with a hot summer to leave far too many neighborhoods a roiling incendiary stew merely waiting for a spark to detonate it.
It was still common for police to raid LGBT bars and events, beating up patrons and staff before hauling them off on "infamous charges" that ended careers and destroyed lives. It was not especially uncommon for bar owners and event sponsors to pay protection to police in order to ensure they and their patrons would be either not harassed, or harassed less often.
Bashing, though it still occurs today, was far more common and more frequently lethal in those times.
Those who by their very nature ("born outside the closet with the door locked behind them") stood little chance of hiding successfully, were particularly vulnerable - and such were the patrons of the Stonewall Inn. The very existence of gay bars in New York had only been legal since 1965, prior to which the gathering of three or more gay folks in a bar was grounds for that bar to lose its' license.
Reparative therapy ("We can De-GAY you or your offspring!") had not yet been shown to be the cruel fraud that we know it today, and its' regimen of aversion therapy (or torture, if you care to be honest) still stalked the land unchallenged, with uncounted victims - suicides, nervous breakdowns, and a wide varity of otherwise damaged folks - still being abused by that abhorrent cottage industry from Hades.
Debateably relevant was the death of gay icon Judy Garland the day before, contributing to the emotional ferment in the streets. Certainly, in latter day accounts, this has been considered a factor in events.
In the midst of this flammable emotional concoction, nine officers of the NYPD (one uniformed, 8 not) began a raid of the Stonewall Inn at 3 a.m. on Saturday morning - June 28, 1969.
It did not go well. Debate continues on when and how precisely the fun began, but in almost all accounts, a flashpoint was hit inside the bar, and for the first time, the gays fought back. First, with drag queens heating pennies with lighters before flinging them at officers, and proceeding rapidly to thrown bottles and full-out brawling. Before the evening was out, the officers were barricaded inside the Stonewall Inn as it was being set alight by its patrons. Four days of rioting followed.
The LGBT community had, quite simply, had enough. The Mattachine Society, an early body of polite gay activists, was soon done and the "Gay Liberation Force" was born. The time for asking nicely was over.
Soon, in more and more cities, Pride Celebrations sprang up to commemorate Stonewall - first in protests, and then in celebration as things got better over a period of decades - there was less to protest, and more to celebrate...and it was safer to celebrate.
The theme might be said to be shifting, even today, from Twisted Sisters anthem "We're not going to take it" to "Wasn't that a Party" by the Irish Rovers, and more than once the argument for one thing or another between the LGBT community and various governmental sorts has boiled down to "Would you rather the party, or the protest?".
Many of the pioneers of the Stonewall era are still with us, rebels and protesters slightly ameliorated by age, but as a result of the AIDS epidemic blowing the guts out of an entire generation of potential community leaders, only now barely beginning to step away from the leadership roles in the community in favor of younger folks, and still possessed of a grim determination that as a community, we never want to return to the dark days of the pre-Stonewall era.
That's the history. The present reality is increasingly the community "letting it's hair down", not dissimilar to Mardi Gras or Seafair (before the bluenoses got hold of it), in a vast and mighty party of increasingly commercial nature. That it *can* is a good thing, as that means the tense protests of yore are less necessary. That it could revert to its' roots of angry protest is part of our protection as a minority community.
To address those who claim that we choose our sexuality, I'd ask - "Um, when did you choose to be heterosexual?" And continue with inquiries about what person in their right mind would choose to self-select to be harassed, discriminated against, and generally get a bonus ration of crud in far too many places in the world and our nation...
As far as I can tell, some folks are born rigidly hetero; some rigidly LGBT; and most, depending on their environment, circumstances, and dumb luck fall someplace on a Bell Curve between those two extremes, coming at some point to a self-definition that "feels right/truthful" to them (or a mighty deep closet in which to wallow in guilt, self-hatred, and assorted drama).
For me, the first Pride I attended in about '90 or so was a revelation - my god, there were "other people like me", and I was not the "only one", and not everyone was "living the stereotype" - there were lots of just regular folks having a good time in a positive environment. Surely, there are excesses, but no more so than at Mardi Gras. It was as if a gorilla had climbed off my shoulders, and it was "ok to be me".
And finally, Pride isn't a collection of saints, either. It's a whole bunch of folks, almost all of whom have spent some portion of their lives hiding their identity from themselves and others, letting their hair down and celebrating in what, for a day or two, is a space we feel as our own, and safe - not surprisingly, some folks get a little enthused...but....no harm (no blood), no foul.
I have my issues with certain pride organizers, but not with Pride. It combines celebration, community safety, and the role of the canary in the proverbial coal mine (and makes for one major fundraiser for community organizations, if done right) into a single joyous package.
I continue to hope that in Seattle we again see Pride Events that support the core LGBT business community on Capitol Hill. A parade on Broadway, and a festival in Volunteer Park. But to the attendees of Pride? Enjoy...and remember.
The missing Prop 8 comments...
Once a post gets to a certain size, mercy requires that it be ended before the readers head explodes. The DOMA post hit that limit well before any discussion of Prop 8 could take place.
California Proposition 8 and same sex marriage in California generally have a fairly convoluted history as such things go - so to a large extent I'll just skip that and leave the reader to explore the mind-bending twists of that voyage on their own. The holding in Hollingsworth v. Perry is sufficiently straightforward, technical and narrow that both the history and possibly even the subject matter of the case are largely irrelevant to the ruling - though very important to Californians wishing to legally marry their same-sex spouse.
Rather than addressing the merits of the Proposition 8 case, the Court addressed the issue of standing - whether or not a particular person or group of persons had the right, having suffered some identifiable wrong, to bring a case before the federal courts. Simply put, the Court ruled that the intervening plaintiffs in this case did not have standing to bring the case and, as a result, the Court was not required to render a decision upon the merits of the case and so would not.
A key quote in the Prop 8 decision regarding standing "In other words, for a federal court to have authority under the Constitution to settle a dispute, the party before it must seek a remedy for a personal and tangible harm" lays the ground for the final order finding the intervening plaintiffs lack standing as they cannot formulate a particular personal and tangible harm they suffer.
In terms of any enduring legal principle being set, the Prop 8 case breaks no new ground and only re-plows long-tilled judicial earth best summarized as "no standing, no case."
In terms of a practical effect on the rights of LGBT residents of the State of California, the effect is immense as a malicious initiative designed for no other purpose than to select them out from the general populace and ensure that they are reduced to a lesser "separate but equal" status when it comes to marriage rights is now decisively overturned, even if on a relatively technical point rather than the merits of the case as they might have been argued before the Court.
Summarized? A tremendous, but local, victory that does not set any sort of national precedent in terms of a Supreme Court ruling.
California Proposition 8 and same sex marriage in California generally have a fairly convoluted history as such things go - so to a large extent I'll just skip that and leave the reader to explore the mind-bending twists of that voyage on their own. The holding in Hollingsworth v. Perry is sufficiently straightforward, technical and narrow that both the history and possibly even the subject matter of the case are largely irrelevant to the ruling - though very important to Californians wishing to legally marry their same-sex spouse.
Rather than addressing the merits of the Proposition 8 case, the Court addressed the issue of standing - whether or not a particular person or group of persons had the right, having suffered some identifiable wrong, to bring a case before the federal courts. Simply put, the Court ruled that the intervening plaintiffs in this case did not have standing to bring the case and, as a result, the Court was not required to render a decision upon the merits of the case and so would not.
A key quote in the Prop 8 decision regarding standing "In other words, for a federal court to have authority under the Constitution to settle a dispute, the party before it must seek a remedy for a personal and tangible harm" lays the ground for the final order finding the intervening plaintiffs lack standing as they cannot formulate a particular personal and tangible harm they suffer.
In terms of any enduring legal principle being set, the Prop 8 case breaks no new ground and only re-plows long-tilled judicial earth best summarized as "no standing, no case."
In terms of a practical effect on the rights of LGBT residents of the State of California, the effect is immense as a malicious initiative designed for no other purpose than to select them out from the general populace and ensure that they are reduced to a lesser "separate but equal" status when it comes to marriage rights is now decisively overturned, even if on a relatively technical point rather than the merits of the case as they might have been argued before the Court.
Summarized? A tremendous, but local, victory that does not set any sort of national precedent in terms of a Supreme Court ruling.
Thursday, June 27, 2013
DOMA & Prop 8 - Victories for Civil Rights
In handing down a decision on U.S. v. Windsor (better known as the DOMA decision), the U.S. Supreme Court today hands down a historic decision in the nearly traditional format of a 5-4 majority opinion. Not surprisingly, I believe the majority was not merely morally correct in their analysis, but legally and logically as well. I strongly urge reading, with a quad mocha venti in hand to fend off jargon induced snoozing, the original opinion linked above rather than relying on second hand analysis.
That said, I'm going to do some of that analysis and a bit of opining. But first...
Moving to todays decision on DOMA, however, we see five justices adhering to the settled principles laid out in Loving v. Virginia and Lawrence v. Texas. In Loving v. Virginia we saw the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously hand down a decision invalidating restrictions on interracial marriages nation wide, holding such regulation as unconstitutional under the provisions of the first section of the 14th Amendment.
The Warren Court found race an impermissible classification upon which to deny the right to marry, finding that such a bar was odious to the Fourteenth Amendment.
In Lawrence v. Hardwick, the Court referenced a long line of cases reaching as far back as 1925 that developed the "right of privacy" as we know it today before reaching - again, under the Fourteenth Amendment - a decision ruling sodomy laws in Texas specifically (and by implication, throughout the United States) to be unconstitutional.
Feel free to skip ahead, but I think a quick review of the Courts line of cases will make clear why I associate these cases. Much like Miranda v. Arizona, the DOMA decision did not spring like a newborn unicorn in full flight leaving rainbow contrails behind it from the collective foreheads of five Justices - in each instance, the later decisions are built on a long list of prior decisions rather than originating in more fanciful realms.
During this era we also saw the passage of DOMA and several other state and federal statutes emerge with the stated goal of ensuring that LGBT persons would be continued in a state of second class citizenship, denied a broad range of rights and privileges based upon their membership in the broad class "homosexual" in the sense of the word used in Romer.
It was in this contradictory environment that the Court found United States v. Windsor (Defense of Marriage Act challenge, Section 3 - ed.) hurled at it, not unlike a stink bomb at a cotillion. Section 3 of DOMA specifically defined for all federal purposes marriage as being exclusively the union of one man with one woman with no other permissible definition - in turn modifying the meaning of over 1,000 federal statutes including such wide-ranging subjects as burial next to a spouse in a veterans cemetery, immigration, tax law and far beyond. Further, the legislative and subsequent practical history made abundantly clear that the purpose of DOMA was to set forth a class of persons to be systematically deprived of rights that would otherwise be available to them in those instances where their resident states allowed same sex marriage in a broad new assertion of federal law as superseding the historic regulation of marriage standards by the states (while not exclusive, as shown in Loving, it in the greatest part has been a state issue and could likely be argued under the Tenth Amendment even more effectively).
The decision of the court should, in light of prior decisions, not have been a surprise to anyone. While it is a dissapointment that several justices chose to cling to the reasoning of Bowers, today we celebrate a triumph for civil rights and, perhaps, the beginning of an era where the response to the announcement of ones orientation is "So?"
Much of DOMA remains standing. The provision that allegedly relieves states of the onerous burden of recognizing same sex marriages performed in other states remains active, and in my understanding similarly relieves states of the burden of recognizing same sex marriages performed in other nations.
No case has yet appeared to examine how DOMA holds up to the Full Faith & Credit clause of the Constitution, which would seem to compel states to recognize marriages performed in accordance with the laws of other states. This, however, would seem to only be a matter of time.
Windsor is a step forward, a battle won. It is not the end, and as with most decisions raises more questions that future Courts must resolve. It is, however, a major step forward in the ongoing battle against legislated bigotry and for individual rights.
Without the legalese, which consenting adults get naked with other consenting adults is increasingly simply not the business of governmental nannyism.
1This section is largely a summarized quote from Lawrence v. Texas
That said, I'm going to do some of that analysis and a bit of opining. But first...
YAY!!!!
With that out of my system, equality before the law is a consistent thread that has long run through my advocacy for both LGBT rights and Second Amendment rights - with some of the most personally challenging moments in my activist adventure being dealing with individuals in either camp that fail to see that freedom is one size fits all, and doesn't just apply to folks we like or agree with or whose lifestyles (or, when it comes to LGBT issues, drawing an especially interesting hand in the poker game of the fates).Moving to todays decision on DOMA, however, we see five justices adhering to the settled principles laid out in Loving v. Virginia and Lawrence v. Texas. In Loving v. Virginia we saw the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously hand down a decision invalidating restrictions on interracial marriages nation wide, holding such regulation as unconstitutional under the provisions of the first section of the 14th Amendment.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."Probably the best summary of the decision is found in this quote
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State."Race is an inborn (if largely irrelevant in most instances) characteristic, and the evidence increasingly supports that orientation is an equally inborn (and largely equally irrelevant) characteristic outside of a very narrow band of activities. In each instance, outside of very narrow fact sets, we see the expression of the individuals possessed of these inborn characteristics as primarily a series of acts motivated by personal history and acculturation.
The Warren Court found race an impermissible classification upon which to deny the right to marry, finding that such a bar was odious to the Fourteenth Amendment.
In Lawrence v. Hardwick, the Court referenced a long line of cases reaching as far back as 1925 that developed the "right of privacy" as we know it today before reaching - again, under the Fourteenth Amendment - a decision ruling sodomy laws in Texas specifically (and by implication, throughout the United States) to be unconstitutional.
Feel free to skip ahead, but I think a quick review of the Courts line of cases will make clear why I associate these cases. Much like Miranda v. Arizona, the DOMA decision did not spring like a newborn unicorn in full flight leaving rainbow contrails behind it from the collective foreheads of five Justices - in each instance, the later decisions are built on a long list of prior decisions rather than originating in more fanciful realms.
In Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 the Court invalidated a state law prohibiting the use of drugs or devices of contraception and counseling or aiding and abetting the use of contraceptives describing the protected interest as a right to privacy and placed emphasis on the marriage relation and the protected space of the marital bedroom.
In Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972), the Court invalidated a law prohibiting the distribution of contraceptives to unmarried persons, stating “It is true that in Griswold the right of privacy in question inhered in the marital relationship… . If the right of privacy means anything, it is the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child.” Id., at 453.
Griswold and Eisenstadt provided intellectual underpinning for Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 11(1973), the well known case that challenged the Texas law prohibiting abortions, but the laws of other States were affected as well. Roe recognized the right of a woman to make certain fundamental decisions affecting her destiny and confirmed once more that the protection of liberty under the Due Process Clause has a substantive dimension of fundamental significance in defining the rights of the person.
In Carey v. Population Services Int’l, 431 U.S. 678 (1977), the Court confronted a New York law forbidding sale or distribution of contraceptive devices to persons under 16 years of age. Although there was no single opinion for the Court, the law was invalidated. Both Eisenstadt and Carey, as well as the holding and rationale in Roe, confirmed that the reasoning of Griswold could not be confined to the protection of rights of married adults. This was the state of the law with respect to some of the most relevant cases when the Court considered Bowers v. Hardwick.
Bowers, later ruled as decided in error, had some similarities to Lawrence v. Texas. A police officer observed Hardwick, in his own bedroom, engaging in intimate sexual conduct with another adult male in violation of the Georgia sodomy statute. Hardwick alleged the criminal prohibition violated rights guaranteed to him by the Constitution. The Court sustained the Georgia law. 1
Concurrent to the later decisions in the chain above we saw early and abortive attempts to legalize same sex marriage in some states and subsequent to Lawrence, the successful passage of a variety of domestic partnership and marriage statutes accommodating same sex marriage in a number of states.Lawrence v. Texas rotates (again) around police finding two gay men rather enthusiastically in flagrante delicto in the home of one of the men, a presumptively private space. In Lawrence the court over-ruled their prior decision in Bowers and cited Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996) in a lengthy dissection in detail of the errors of Bowers. In Romer the Court struck down class-based legislation directed at homosexuals as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. Romer invalidated an amendment to Colorado’s constitution set forth homosexuals, lesbians, or bisexual either by “orientation, conduct, practices or relationships,” id., as a special class anddeprived them of protection under state anti-discrimination laws. In Lawrence, the Court held "Bowers was not correct when it was decided, and it is not correct today. It ought not to remain binding precedent. Bowers v. Hardwick should be and now is overruled."
During this era we also saw the passage of DOMA and several other state and federal statutes emerge with the stated goal of ensuring that LGBT persons would be continued in a state of second class citizenship, denied a broad range of rights and privileges based upon their membership in the broad class "homosexual" in the sense of the word used in Romer.
It was in this contradictory environment that the Court found United States v. Windsor (Defense of Marriage Act challenge, Section 3 - ed.) hurled at it, not unlike a stink bomb at a cotillion. Section 3 of DOMA specifically defined for all federal purposes marriage as being exclusively the union of one man with one woman with no other permissible definition - in turn modifying the meaning of over 1,000 federal statutes including such wide-ranging subjects as burial next to a spouse in a veterans cemetery, immigration, tax law and far beyond. Further, the legislative and subsequent practical history made abundantly clear that the purpose of DOMA was to set forth a class of persons to be systematically deprived of rights that would otherwise be available to them in those instances where their resident states allowed same sex marriage in a broad new assertion of federal law as superseding the historic regulation of marriage standards by the states (while not exclusive, as shown in Loving, it in the greatest part has been a state issue and could likely be argued under the Tenth Amendment even more effectively).
The decision of the court should, in light of prior decisions, not have been a surprise to anyone. While it is a dissapointment that several justices chose to cling to the reasoning of Bowers, today we celebrate a triumph for civil rights and, perhaps, the beginning of an era where the response to the announcement of ones orientation is "So?"
Much of DOMA remains standing. The provision that allegedly relieves states of the onerous burden of recognizing same sex marriages performed in other states remains active, and in my understanding similarly relieves states of the burden of recognizing same sex marriages performed in other nations.
No case has yet appeared to examine how DOMA holds up to the Full Faith & Credit clause of the Constitution, which would seem to compel states to recognize marriages performed in accordance with the laws of other states. This, however, would seem to only be a matter of time.
Windsor is a step forward, a battle won. It is not the end, and as with most decisions raises more questions that future Courts must resolve. It is, however, a major step forward in the ongoing battle against legislated bigotry and for individual rights.
Without the legalese, which consenting adults get naked with other consenting adults is increasingly simply not the business of governmental nannyism.
1This section is largely a summarized quote from Lawrence v. Texas
Tuesday, June 11, 2013
New "Background Check" Gun Control Initiative in WA
Micro-Summary:Universal Background Checks, end of private sales, gun registration, unlimited dealer transfer fees, criminalization of exchange of firearms between friends on informal ranges, lengthens waiting period to 10 days, removes CPL exemption from waiting period, eliminates eligibility of holder of "temporary emergency CPL" to purchase or receive a firearm...
- Lay review, not legal opinion. For legal analysis, talk to an attorney...
Ok, the nimrods from the elitist Seattle anti-gun crowd have, having founded a bright shiny new anti-gun group (Washingtonians for Gun Responsibility) and already managed to raise a million bucks, are setting forth to try and buy a shiny new law by way of a peculiar Washington institution known as a "Initiative to the Legislature."
It seems Washington doesn't have just one way to do an initiative, but instead has two - the "Initiative to the People" (what all of us peons think of when the word "initiative" comes up) and the "Initiative to the Legislature." The second one is far less common and works a bit differently.
With the Initiative to the people you pay your $250, submit your proposal, get a title approved and an initiative number assigned, and then go steaming off to try for enough qualified signatures to get your dream on the ballot. No muss, no fuss.
The Initiative to the Legislature takes a detour. Initiatives to the Legislature , if certified, are submitted to the Legislature at its regular session each January. Once submitted, the Legislature must take one of the following three actions:
• The Legislature can adopt the initiative as proposed, in which case it becomes law without a vote of the people;
• The Legislature can reject or refuse to act on the pro - posed initiative, in which case the initiative must be placed on the ballot at the next state general election; or
• The Legislature can propose a different measure dealing with the same subject, in which case both measures must be placed on the next state General Election ballot.
We face an Initiative to the Legislature. What follows is a lay persons breakdown of what this thing would do if it gets enough signatures (and with Bloomberg messing with his billions at the state level, it seems a fair bet that enough petition gatherers - and thus, likely signatures - can be bought to at least get this thing on the ballot).
Micro-Summary:Universal Background Checks, end of private sales, gun registration, unlimited dealer transfer fees, criminalization of exchange of firearms between friends on informal ranges, lengthens waiting period to 10 days, removes CPL exemption from waiting period, eliminates eligibility of holder of "temporary emergency CPL" to purchase or receive a firearm...
__________________________________________________________________________________
Longer Summary (yet likely still incomplete)...
1) Requires a background check all sales or transfers, including but not limited to sales and transfers through a licensed dealer, at gun shows, online, and between unlicensed persons outside of specific exemptions.
2) Requires all sales or transfers of firearms to be processed through an FFL. No limit on fee for such service is created. In person to person transactions, FFL must log firearm in and out as if it were a purchase from a wholesaler and sale to a consumer - creating a transaction record (registration).
3) NICS checks for all private sales or transfers, including gifts or loans (however transitory) - i.e., liability is created when handing a gun to a friend at the range for them to try out.
4) Carves out narrow exemptions for:
a. Transfers to spouses, domestic partners, parents, children, siblings, grandparents,
grandchildren, nieces, nephews, first cousins, aunts, and uncles, that is a bona fide gift.
b. The sale or transfer of an antique firearm;
c. A temporary transfer of possession of a firearm if such transfer is necessary to prevent
imminent death or great bodily harm to the person to whom the firearm is transferred if
(i) The temporary transfer only lasts as long as immediately necessary to prevent such
imminent death or great bodily harm; and
(ii) The person to whom the firearm is transferred is not prohibited from possessing firearms
under state or federal law.
d. Law Enforcement
e. Federally Licensed gunsmiths
f. The temporary transfer of a firearm
(i) between spouses or domestic partners;
(ii) if the temporary transfer occurs, and the firearm is kept at all times, at an established
shooting range authorized by the governing body of the jurisdiction in which such range
is located;
(iii) if the temporary transfer occurs and the transferee’s possession of the firearm is
exclusively at a lawful organized competition involving the use of a firearm, or while
participating in or practicing for a performance by an organized group that uses firearms
as a part of the performance;
(iv) to a person who is under eighteen years of age for lawful hunting, sporting, or
educational purposes while under the direct supervision and control of a responsible
adult who is not prohibited from possessing firearms; or
(v) while hunting if the hunting is legal in all places where the person to whom the firearm is
transferred possesses the firearm and the person to whom the firearm is transferred has
completed all training and holds all licenses or permits required for such hunting.
Provided that any temporary transfer allowed by this subsection is permitted only if the
person to whom the firearm is transferred is not prohibited from possessing firearms
under state or federal law; or
g. A person who (i) acquired a firearm other than a pistol by operation of law upon the death
of the former owner of the firearm or (ii) acquired a pistol by operation of law upon the
death of the former owner of the pistol within the preceding 60 days. At the end of the
60-day period, the person must either have lawfully transferred the pistol or must have
contacted the Department of Licensing to notify the Department that he or she has
possession of the pistol and intends to retain possession of the pistol, in compliance with all
federal and state laws.
Monday, June 3, 2013
Gun Blogger Rendezvous - 94 Days and Counting....
 |
| Maybe this? |
(a surprise courtesy of GBR's friends at Gun Auction, local conditions permitting). |
| Or this? |
All GBR funds beyond immediate event expenses go to support Project Valor IT, and all GBR organizers are unpaid volunteers. GBR raised roughly $6,000 for Project Valour-IT in 2012 and hopes to do even better this year.
 |
| Or maybe... |
Courtesy of GBRs generous sponsors, attendees go home with door prizes ranging from firearms to books and more. Past sponsors include Ruger, Gunbroker.com, Cabelas, MKSSupply/HiPoint, Crimson Trace, Comp-Tac, Springfield Armory, Dillon Precision, Brownells, National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the NRA, the Second Amendment Foundation...
Depending on those local conditions, the GunAuction surprise will be announced in a few days or weeks....
Sign up now to find out for sure - hope to see you there!!
It's a heck of a deal for $30....
Wednesday, May 29, 2013
Oh, Gov. Huckabee, no....
Mike, I'm pro-gun and pro-freedom.
But if you don't want to take the GOP down the rat-hole in the name of purity - refuse as a minister and as a church leader (if that is your belief regarding Gods will) to perform same-sex or interracial marriages - some may find your action vile but you are true to yourself and your faith.
HOWEVER, as a political leader recognize that marriage is none of the business of the *federal* government and only doubtfully and in a limited fashion that of the state governments. Within broad limits, what consenting adults want to formalize their relationship with other consenting adults is....the business of those consenting adults.
After all, Luke 6:42. And then I might suggest that this is an issue that is between God and the participants in such unions (and He is fully capable of issuing any congratulations or condemnations necessary).
Pragmatically, it is just not logistically possible to deport the entire population unlawfully present in the U.S. to their various homelands - and when something is physically not possible, one doesn't need to argue about its other facets. Further, continuing to drive a wedge between the GOP and immigrants is not in the best interests of the nation or the party. Secure the border - then lets talk about how to reform immigration policy.
Regarding abortion (life) find me a logically and factually supportable position on when life begins (heartbeat? pain perception? or?) and perhaps we have something to talk about - but neither "always good and a right" nor "always bad and never a right" are reasonable positions.
In today's world the GOP can either be theologically pure (and scare off many folks of Tea Party, moderate, or libertarian bent) OR the GOP can start winning. Not both.
Given that you appear to suggest hanging a lead life jacket about the neck of the GOP...and the alternative is the Democratic party as led by the Obama faction - I really can't support your efforts at a pragmatic level as a man who wishes his nation well.
As a gay man with hopes of achieving equality before the law in this lifetime, I have some small issues with your stance on same sex marriage and am thus prevented from supporting you at yet another level.
But if you don't want to take the GOP down the rat-hole in the name of purity - refuse as a minister and as a church leader (if that is your belief regarding Gods will) to perform same-sex or interracial marriages - some may find your action vile but you are true to yourself and your faith.
HOWEVER, as a political leader recognize that marriage is none of the business of the *federal* government and only doubtfully and in a limited fashion that of the state governments. Within broad limits, what consenting adults want to formalize their relationship with other consenting adults is....the business of those consenting adults.
After all, Luke 6:42. And then I might suggest that this is an issue that is between God and the participants in such unions (and He is fully capable of issuing any congratulations or condemnations necessary).
Pragmatically, it is just not logistically possible to deport the entire population unlawfully present in the U.S. to their various homelands - and when something is physically not possible, one doesn't need to argue about its other facets. Further, continuing to drive a wedge between the GOP and immigrants is not in the best interests of the nation or the party. Secure the border - then lets talk about how to reform immigration policy.
Regarding abortion (life) find me a logically and factually supportable position on when life begins (heartbeat? pain perception? or?) and perhaps we have something to talk about - but neither "always good and a right" nor "always bad and never a right" are reasonable positions.
In today's world the GOP can either be theologically pure (and scare off many folks of Tea Party, moderate, or libertarian bent) OR the GOP can start winning. Not both.
Given that you appear to suggest hanging a lead life jacket about the neck of the GOP...and the alternative is the Democratic party as led by the Obama faction - I really can't support your efforts at a pragmatic level as a man who wishes his nation well.
As a gay man with hopes of achieving equality before the law in this lifetime, I have some small issues with your stance on same sex marriage and am thus prevented from supporting you at yet another level.
Monday, May 20, 2013
So you say Gun-Blogging is dying/irrelevant....
I do believe the bloggers below would beg to disagree...
A Geek with Guns
Recoil Magazine
The Armed Lutheran
Derek Ward Commentary & Wordsmithery
A Geek with Guns
Recoil Magazine
The Armed Lutheran
Derek Ward Commentary & Wordsmithery
Wednesday, May 15, 2013
Springtime in the Northwest
Spring this year is a tad random. Sun, rain, wind, a bit more sun, some hail, more rain, and more.
Monday was, shall we say, no exception.
I woke up to overcast skies, drove over to a glorious sunny Monday morning on the East side, and about noon the wind came up and the thunder boomers moved in. It helps to understand that the NW is just a little bit wooded - where there isn't old or medium growth evergreen there's more than likely some decorative tree or another or the ever present water weed, alder (which, coincidentally, a dandy wood to smoke things over). And this isn't just out in the countryside - it's in the cities, too.
When it gets more than slightly windy around here, things tend to get a little more exciting than in less forested environments. Boom in the night is not limited to high explosives and ruptured gas lines - a 140' Douglas Fir makes a real impression when it decides to come visit at ground level. We can usually count on a few houses crunched, the occasional crushed car, and usually at least one tale of high drama involving falling trees, power lines, and either people or livestock.
Monday wasn't an exception. A portion of I-5 was closed north of Seattle because some of those forest giants had decided to take a little lie-down across the lanes during rush hour. The main drag near the house had the top half of a citified deciduous tree of some kind strewn across it. Yet all was well, and I was thinking of grabbing the chain saw and going out into the neighborhood to be helpful as I made my way home.
That is, right about till the time I pulled up in front of the house. About a third of the tree in front had snapped off and dumped in the front yard, barely missing taking out windows, siding, or people. Fun.
Fortunately I now have a plug-in electric chainsaw (it's not gas, but I don't use a chainsaw often enough to justify that). About two hours later...
Of course, this means this weekend I have some new activities planned as the center trunk of the tree is now held up by about 4" of wood.....
Anyone need some wood?
Monday was, shall we say, no exception.
I woke up to overcast skies, drove over to a glorious sunny Monday morning on the East side, and about noon the wind came up and the thunder boomers moved in. It helps to understand that the NW is just a little bit wooded - where there isn't old or medium growth evergreen there's more than likely some decorative tree or another or the ever present water weed, alder (which, coincidentally, a dandy wood to smoke things over). And this isn't just out in the countryside - it's in the cities, too.
When it gets more than slightly windy around here, things tend to get a little more exciting than in less forested environments. Boom in the night is not limited to high explosives and ruptured gas lines - a 140' Douglas Fir makes a real impression when it decides to come visit at ground level. We can usually count on a few houses crunched, the occasional crushed car, and usually at least one tale of high drama involving falling trees, power lines, and either people or livestock.
Monday wasn't an exception. A portion of I-5 was closed north of Seattle because some of those forest giants had decided to take a little lie-down across the lanes during rush hour. The main drag near the house had the top half of a citified deciduous tree of some kind strewn across it. Yet all was well, and I was thinking of grabbing the chain saw and going out into the neighborhood to be helpful as I made my way home.
That is, right about till the time I pulled up in front of the house. About a third of the tree in front had snapped off and dumped in the front yard, barely missing taking out windows, siding, or people. Fun.
Fortunately I now have a plug-in electric chainsaw (it's not gas, but I don't use a chainsaw often enough to justify that). About two hours later...
Anyone need some wood?
Tuesday, May 14, 2013
Looking ahead...
As I continue to recover from NRA (a pallet finally landed back in WA this afternoon) and continue to bask in the glow of happy memories from that frenzied fest of networking and fun - and perhaps a wee bit of sheer exhaustion. That significantly senior colleagues snapped back rather faster than a couple of us younger sorts seems distinctly unfair, but amongst us whippersnappers we're theorizing that they are simply in far better training for this kind of adventure than we are as comparatively travel amateurs. Still not fair, but more likely than the mutant alien theory.
That said, I'm already looking forward to upcoming events. I want to hit Phlegmfest but between dollars and timing, I have doubts of my success - I haven't given up, but a Friday night flight out of Seattle for DFW puts me in at 0500 and fairly wrecked before the festivities even begin...and only a month after NRAAM, the wallet has yet to properly recover. Grrr. Others, more local, may have rather better luck.
Gun Blogger Rendezvous in Reno (September 5-8) planned by the ever-meticulous Mr. Completely promises to be another opportunity for networking, sharing, and exploring the direction things are going on gun issues, gun blogging, and technology - all while supporting Project Valor-IT.
The Gun Rights Policy Conference in Houston (Sept 27-29) looks a fair amount more promising - I'm anticipating that it'll be even more frantic than NRAAM (this will be my first time attending both) with speakers and the opportunity to meet and break bread with a folks ranging from the leaders of the firearms rights community and on to manufacturers, bloggers, grass roots activists, legal experts, historians, economists and more.
Then, to buoy my spirits before the holidays, comes Blogorado - a wee private gathering of Gun Bloggers and associates in an odd corner of the universe known only to a lucky few. I'd say a good portion of the camaraderie found among gun bloggers today originates in this little gathering and Gun Blogger Rendezvous, and at similar events around the country.
NE Bloggershoot in August is on the list of "things I'd like to do" but given what September and early October look like, when considered in light of "20 was a long time back", I think wisdom and fiscal prudence dictate that I think of it in terms of 2014.
That said, I'm already looking forward to upcoming events. I want to hit Phlegmfest but between dollars and timing, I have doubts of my success - I haven't given up, but a Friday night flight out of Seattle for DFW puts me in at 0500 and fairly wrecked before the festivities even begin...and only a month after NRAAM, the wallet has yet to properly recover. Grrr. Others, more local, may have rather better luck.
Gun Blogger Rendezvous in Reno (September 5-8) planned by the ever-meticulous Mr. Completely promises to be another opportunity for networking, sharing, and exploring the direction things are going on gun issues, gun blogging, and technology - all while supporting Project Valor-IT.
The Gun Rights Policy Conference in Houston (Sept 27-29) looks a fair amount more promising - I'm anticipating that it'll be even more frantic than NRAAM (this will be my first time attending both) with speakers and the opportunity to meet and break bread with a folks ranging from the leaders of the firearms rights community and on to manufacturers, bloggers, grass roots activists, legal experts, historians, economists and more.
Then, to buoy my spirits before the holidays, comes Blogorado - a wee private gathering of Gun Bloggers and associates in an odd corner of the universe known only to a lucky few. I'd say a good portion of the camaraderie found among gun bloggers today originates in this little gathering and Gun Blogger Rendezvous, and at similar events around the country.
NE Bloggershoot in August is on the list of "things I'd like to do" but given what September and early October look like, when considered in light of "20 was a long time back", I think wisdom and fiscal prudence dictate that I think of it in terms of 2014.
Friday, May 10, 2013
NRAAM 2013
BLLLAAARGH!
After a few days to catch my breath, a some ruminations.
Houston is a really neat town with some amazing food, particularly barbecue (decent barbecue is a bit hard to find in Seattle). The service was pretty but slow at Papa's barbecue, but once it arrived the food was yummy - and that was just one night.
Gun Bloggers are good people. I had the opportunity to meet friends new and old, to hang out with folks I'd only ever chatted with online, and to both teach and to learn - as well as shoot the bull till the wee hours with folks that I'd consider family gladly. Now, if I could just find a way to fit *sleep* in there someplace...
The NRA Annual Meeting show floor is big. If Houston is about average, it's about (for my WA readers) half again to twice the size of the WAC Show in Puyallup. Ended up walking the whole thing 8-10 times each day meeting up with one person or another and trying to do a little business here and there.
Related to that last - bring good walking shoes to 2014. REALLY good walking shoes. I'm thinking losing the boots in favor of a good pair of Ecco's. I've been recovering since Monday and only today are things starting to feel vaguely normal in terms of foot pain.
Getting your group all into the same hotel is a good thing. This is what I call "lesson learned." More on that much later.
Drunken South Africans who've learned their notions of both gun owners and Americans generally from bigoted anti-American media (all too much of it based in the United States) are tiresome but educable. And in general, every time you educate a bigot you make the world just that little bit less stupid.
The NRA convention is one of the friendliest and most polite events I've been to, with folks from all over the world showing up from every path of life - almost all of them polite, and an awful lot of them with similar giggle buttons. There is a distinct sense of "I AM AMONG MY PEOPLE" that only grows stronger when I hang out with the bloggers.
Blogorado will, not surprisingly, always have first place in my heart - however, NRAAM is well worth attending if you find yourself nearby.
After a few days to catch my breath, a some ruminations.
Houston is a really neat town with some amazing food, particularly barbecue (decent barbecue is a bit hard to find in Seattle). The service was pretty but slow at Papa's barbecue, but once it arrived the food was yummy - and that was just one night.
Gun Bloggers are good people. I had the opportunity to meet friends new and old, to hang out with folks I'd only ever chatted with online, and to both teach and to learn - as well as shoot the bull till the wee hours with folks that I'd consider family gladly. Now, if I could just find a way to fit *sleep* in there someplace...
The NRA Annual Meeting show floor is big. If Houston is about average, it's about (for my WA readers) half again to twice the size of the WAC Show in Puyallup. Ended up walking the whole thing 8-10 times each day meeting up with one person or another and trying to do a little business here and there.
Related to that last - bring good walking shoes to 2014. REALLY good walking shoes. I'm thinking losing the boots in favor of a good pair of Ecco's. I've been recovering since Monday and only today are things starting to feel vaguely normal in terms of foot pain.
Getting your group all into the same hotel is a good thing. This is what I call "lesson learned." More on that much later.
Drunken South Africans who've learned their notions of both gun owners and Americans generally from bigoted anti-American media (all too much of it based in the United States) are tiresome but educable. And in general, every time you educate a bigot you make the world just that little bit less stupid.
The NRA convention is one of the friendliest and most polite events I've been to, with folks from all over the world showing up from every path of life - almost all of them polite, and an awful lot of them with similar giggle buttons. There is a distinct sense of "I AM AMONG MY PEOPLE" that only grows stronger when I hang out with the bloggers.
Blogorado will, not surprisingly, always have first place in my heart - however, NRAAM is well worth attending if you find yourself nearby.
Monday, May 6, 2013
A Return To Blogging
Hey! Good to see y'all!
I'm sorry I've been away - I've been busy, mostly with fairly good stuff, but the whole "work/sleep/work" thing has kept me a bit busy/exhausted this last little bit. I'll try and do better.
GC
I'm sorry I've been away - I've been busy, mostly with fairly good stuff, but the whole "work/sleep/work" thing has kept me a bit busy/exhausted this last little bit. I'll try and do better.
GC
Thursday, January 17, 2013
The Barrett Initiative in Action
Back in 2002 Ronnie Barrett of Barrett Firearms took a stand - that if private citizens couldn't buy his firearms in California, that neither could any California government agency. Barrett would neither sell to nor service such customers.
He and his company have held to that stand to this day, as shown in the Barrett 2013 Catalog.
Today, the fine writers of No Lawyers - Only Guns and Money inform us all of another instance of courage and effective resistance. Old Grouch Military Surplus seems to have set the Barrett Initiative into action while displaying a certain panache.
He and his company have held to that stand to this day, as shown in the Barrett 2013 Catalog.
"The California Legislature has banned the .50 BMG from its good citizens, violating their rights and the constitution of our republic. Therefore, Barrett will not sell to or service any California government agencies."
Today, the fine writers of No Lawyers - Only Guns and Money inform us all of another instance of courage and effective resistance. Old Grouch Military Surplus seems to have set the Barrett Initiative into action while displaying a certain panache.
Congratulations on what I hope will be a new trend. Now, who is going to help build economic incentive packages to help those poor souls with gun related factories in NY move their facilities to a civilized state?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)