Apparently there are no Men in Gay Marriages

Thursday the 10th Circuit Court heard the oral argument to Kitchen v. Herbert 2: If You Can't Stand the Heat. Coming this Fall.

Kitchen is the groundbreaking decision out of the District Court of Utah that was the first ruling to overturn a marriage ban after the Windsor and Perry rulings. Yes, Utah.. right? But then again the court does what the constitution wants.

After the Kitchen decision, a tsunami of lower court decision, heretofore known as the Gaydal Wave of 2013, gave deference to the 14th amendment, which of course had previously been turned down by the Burger Court in Nelson v. Baker for "want of a substantial federal question."

The post Perry/Windsor victories cropped up in Utah, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas, Michigan Kentucky, Tennessee, and Virginia, while pending cases in Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, West Virginia, Wyoming, and Wisconsin all look increasingly promising.

When going through all the material to see on a national scale what marriage looks like, I became interested in how the United States got to this point, legally speaking. Before I read Kitchen, I knew the basics of the history. The basic frame work looks like this Loving v. Virginia, Nelson v. Baker, Bowers, Romer, Lawrence v. Texas, Windsor, and Perry. 

In Kitchen there is a great section that summarizes the movement towards equality:

In 1971, two men from Minnesota brought a lawsuit in state court arguing that Minnesota was constitutionally required to allow them to marry. Baker v. Nelson, 191 N.W.2d 185, 187 (Minn. 1971). The Minnesota Supreme Court found that Minnesota's restriction of marriage to opposite-sex couples did not violate either the Equal Protection Clause or the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Id. at 186-87. On appeal, the United States Supreme Court summarily dismissed the case "for want of a substantial federal question." Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810, 810 (1972).

Utah argues that the Court's summary dismissal in Baker is binding on this court and that the present lawsuit should therefore be dismissed for lack of a substantial federal question. But the Supreme Court has stated that a summary dismissal is not binding "when doctrinal developments indicate otherwise." Hicks v. Miranda, 422 U.S. 332, 344 (1975).

Here, several doctrinal developments in the Court's analysis of both the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause as they apply to gay men and lesbians demonstrate that the Court's summary dismissal in Baker has little if any precedential effect today. Not only was Baker decided before the Supreme Court held that sex is a quasi-suspect classification, see Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190, 197 (1976); Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677, 688 (1973) (plurality op.), but also before the Court recognized that the Constitution protects individuals from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. See Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 635-36 (1996). Moreover, Baker was decided before the Supreme Court held in Lawrence v. Texas that it was unconstitutional for a state to "demean [the] existence [of gay men and lesbians] or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime." 539 U.S. 558, 578 (2003). As discussed below, the Supreme Court's decision in Lawrence removes a justification that states could formerly cite as a reason to prohibit same-sex marriage.

The State points out that, despite the doctrinal developments in these cases and others, a number of courts have found that Baker survives as controlling precedent and therefore precludes consideration of the issues in this lawsuit. See, e.g., Massachusetts v. U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 682 F.3d 1, 8 (1st Cir. 2012) (holding that Baker "limit[s] the arguments to ones that do not presume to rest on a constitutional right to same-sex marriage."); Sevcik v. Sandoval, 911 F. Supp. 2d 996, 1002-03 (D. Nev. 2012) (ruling that Baker barred the plaintiffs' equal protection claim). Other courts disagree and have decided substantially similar issues without consideration of Baker. See, e.g., Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 704 F. Supp. 2d 921 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (ruling that California's prohibition of same-sex marriage violated the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment). In any event, all of these cases were decided before the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Windsor.

As discussed above, the Court's decision in Windsor does not answer the question presented here, but its reasoning is nevertheless highly relevant and is therefore a significant doctrinal development. Importantly, the Windsor Court foresaw that its ruling would precede a number of lawsuits in state and lower federal courts raising the question of a state's ability to prohibit same-sex marriage, a fact that was noted by two dissenting justices. The Honorable John Roberts wrote that the Court "may in the future have to resolve challenges to state marriage definitions affecting same-sex couples." Windsor, 133 S. Ct. at 2697 (Roberts, C.J., dissenting). And Justice Scalia even recommended how this court should interpret the Windsor decision when presented with the question that is now before it: "I do not mean to suggest disagreement . . . that lower federal courts and state courts can distinguish today's case when the issue before them is state denial of marital status to same-sex couples." Id. at 2709 (Scalia, J., dissenting). It is also notable that while the Court declined to reach the merits in Perry v. Hollingsworth because the petitioners lacked standing to pursue the appeal, the Court did not dismiss the case outright for lack of a substantial federal question. See 133 S. Ct. 2652 (2013). Given the Supreme Court's disposition of both Windsor and Perry, the court finds that there is no longer any doubt that the issue currently before the court in this lawsuit presents a substantial question of federal law.

As a result, Baker v. Nelson is no longer controlling precedent and the court proceeds to address the merits of the question presented here.

The Burger Court's denial of Certiorari in Baker v. Nelson had persistent consequences for the marriage equality movement. No court could accept a 14th Amendment argument except the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court would then have no lower court decisions to argue over. Essentially until laws fundamentally changed, any decision would have had to been de novo. 

The legal shift happened, incidentally after 3 events occurred:

1. The passage of the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 which were codified under 28 U.S.C. § 1738C and 1 U.S.C. § 7. Among other things, it allowed states to not recognize Gay some marriages. It also forbade the Federal Government from recognizing Gay some marriages.

2. State Constitutional Bans. Under the logic of Baker, the issue at hand applied to statutory bans. So a boost to the advancement of marriage equality came from those who exploited discrimination for political gain. The movement to enact state constitutional bans against same-sex marriage began in 1998 with Alaska and Hawaii amending their constitutions to prohibit gays from  getting all gay with each other, am I right fellas?  

3. Marriage equality in the various states. People were married in one state and later moved to another. The notions of full faith and credit were challenged. Furthermore marriages were not equal at the federal level, due to DOMA.

By the time the courts had reached the Perry/Windsor Era, the legal landscape of America look like the following:

Maximum States Constitutional Bans: 30
States with Marriage Equality at the Time of Perry/Windsor: 9
Maximum States to Ever Have Marriage-Lite: 16 + DC

The legal setting was in place to overturn the Baker v. Nelson precedent.

Which brings me to the oral argument for Kitchen.

Here is copy of the oral argument from the April 10th, 2014 Kitchen v. Herbert hearing. It is three straight white dudes discussing my rights as an individual, so what could be more entertaining and in no way frustratingly patronizing.

The audio file has an issue with the left audio feed, so if it sounds gargled, open your equalizer and push the feed to your right output.

A few quick comments:

What is marriage? Apparently only something that a state has one hundred percent control over (because that's what I concluded from reading Loving v. Virginia.)

According to the defendant, it's better to have all of your rights taken away than to be a second class citizen... great argument.

Why the fuck did the defendants just bring up Maggie Gallagher? Seriously. She is a pointless nobody, with zero credibility. She has no higher degree, no JD, no Phd in psychology, and no expertise. I mean for fuck-sake, why didn't they just cite me or even my mom, or fuck it why not my Westie, who can put together an argument that is more coherent and more germane to the topic than Gallagher.  What a bunch of assholes. fucking fuck fuck. I mean seriously, I am glad this douchebag quoted her, because it is on tape, and he will go down in history as the small-minded bigot who quoted Gallagher and then got his ass handed to him in court and everyone in the world pointed and laughed at his tiny dick.

"[Gay marriage] is too new" to have data on societal effects. And so it will be if we never allow gay marriage.

"The disappearance of the dad." We cannot allow gay marriage because the children won't have a dad.... right. Also did he just try to equate gay couples to single parents?

"'Traditional Marriage'" Yes nice 200 year old tradition in a 400,000 year old species. If I hear traditional marriage one more time, I am going to yak.

DOMA was about states right to define marriage, that does not exclude the ability of the Federal constitution to enforce equal protection. It is not that hard to understand. We do not have any laws prohibiting poor people from getting married. Or ex-convicts. Or people named Trent. All of whom probably should be suspect parents/spouses before gay people.

Why don't conservatives get that gay people can have kids. I don't, but others do.

Why does it always come down to polygamy? A court couldn't simply allow polygamy. The polygamous marriage system wouldn't function without additional legislation to regulate how it would function. Most states have a system where each spouse owns half of the property of the marriage. How would that work in a polygamous system? Answer it wouldn't. Polygamy literally changes the definition of marriage, not who can marry.

So did Kitchen et al sue the right people?


Liam '14

The So-Called Vampire Agenda

It is my firmly held belief that many Conservative-Christian have confused gays for vampires. I have come to this conclusion based on the following arguments made by actual people.

1. Gays are Turned Gay

  

On the December 12, 2012 episode of the show The 700 Club, Pat Robertson received a letter asking for his advice... why? Who the fuck knows why anyone would ask him about anything, but it happened.

Anyway, the question reads:

Growing up, I had a best friend. We parted ways after high school. Ten years later, we got back in touch. I am really glad to see her because I've always thought of her as my sister. But recently, I invited her to meet my children. She said yes – and asked if she could bring her 'partner.' I said, 'Okay.' I know that my friend's family has shunned her because of her lifestyle, and I don't want to be like that. I want to show love – but I don't want her to think I am okay with her ways. And I don't feel comfortable having her around my children. Should I keep this friendship?

Robertson answers:

You keep love, you loved her, you were close and your influence may have something significant to her, the idea is you don’t gain anything by shunning, but at the same you don’t want your children to grow up as lesbians…

Yep, more pedophilia recruitment bullshit. Instead of biting and infecting to recruit new members, we drive Subarus, drink white wines, and shop at Bed Bath & Beyond. Anyone who witnesses this behavior becomes gayified. 

Well if you can't get them to join, you can always get them with your Aids Ring, eh? 

Asshole.

To use the parlance created by the vampire mythos, nobody has sired me. And I have sired no gaylings. I have no attraction to straight men. In fact, straight guys kind of disgust me actually.

Secondly, notice how the Asker never states that she has a daughter; she says she has "children." If they're boy children, wouldn't they become the manliest, straight-men ever butched up, simply by hanging out with Auntie U-Haul?  You know wearing flannel, playing sports, eating pussy. It seems like Pat kind of assumed on this one. And come on Pat, you know what they say about what happens when you assume.

2. Gays are Demonically Possessed

On the May 18, 2012 David Pakman Show, Gordon Klingenshit Klingenschmitt had a few pearls of wisdom he wanted to share with the world:

Anyone who’s studied biology and Punnett squares and Mendelian genetics obviously has to agree with me that homosexuality cannot be genetic, because if, say, a blond haired man and a blonde haired woman have children there's a pretty good chance that their kid might have blonde hair… and let’s say that a homosexual man mates with another homosexual man, there’s a one hundred percent chance they won’t have children. So they have to recruit the children of heterosexuals, and that’s what this whole marketing scheme for the pro-homosexual movement is all about.

Yes, and anyone who has studied 8th grade biology knows that hair color is vastly more complicated than a simple 4 squared Punnett diagram. Also I may or may not have siblings, who may or may not pass a lot of shared genes to their children, who I am a responsible uncle for possibly. Those possible nieces and/or nephews would contain enough genetic similarities as to any possible children that I would produce.  (By Klingenschmitt's logic things like Tay-Sachs and Sickle Cell Anemia shouldn't exist either. Is he saying that those are demonic too...) Also there is this study from William R. Rice, Urban Friberg, and Sergey Gavrilets published in 2012 in the University of Chicago's Quarterly Review of Biology entitled "Homosexuality as a Consequence of Epigenetically Canalized Sexual Development" So if the research is correct, then yes in part gayness is not wholly genetic, but there are epigentic factors that are naturally deterministic. Moving on.

Pakman then asked Klingenschmitt about gay animals, also known as gaynimals and how they aren't exposed to marketing, because, well, they're animals:

It is entirely possible — we know from the Bible, for example, when Jesus cast the devil out of Legion, he went into a herd of pigs. So, it is possible for demons or the devil to inhabit or invade animals just the same way they invade humans, and that causes the sin of lust.

Legion wasn't one being; it wasn't the Devil; it comes from Latin meaning I am hundreds... When asked to clarify his point, Klingenschmitt stated:

Marketing is related to the demonic, because the devil wants to recruit people into sin.

So being gay means, demonic possession. I think this may have been the plot to season one of Buffy the Vampire Slayer; in which case I am so definitely Spike.

3. To Cure the Gays Simply Pray Away the Gay

I am not even going to waste my time by offering up any quotes as evidence that I am not trying to build a strawman for this one. 

Yep, so go on and hold up your crosses and your bibles at Gay Pride Parades. That will definitely protect you from the gay just like it does against vampires.

Garlic and holy-water too. And my reflexion can't be capture by a mirror or a camera. That's why my blogger photo is a drawing.

4. Gays are not Natural

Sweet so I guess that makes me supernatural. Fuck Yeah! I am going to go fight crime with the power of teh gayz. Ooo ooo.. I could be the Crimson Cock. Fighting crime with my rod of justice.

Oh, wait... Unfortunately it's still a criminal statute in Virginia. It is laid out in Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-361:

Crimes against nature; penalty.

A. If any person carnally knows in any manner any brute animal, or carnally knows any male or female person by the anus or by or with the mouth, or voluntarily submits to such carnal knowledge, he or she shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony, except as provided in subsection B.

Dear Legislative body of Virginia, fix your laws, you jackasses. Ken "the Cooch" Cuccinelli lost the gubernatorial race over his defense of this statute (the statute was struck down in Lawrence v. Texas. The Cooch claimed the statute was need to prosecute rapists... in which case he should have lobbied the Legislature when he was serving Vice Lieutenant Governor for a new and more legal version of the statute. But no, he instead was a complete fuck-head. So guess what, it's been more than a decade since the Court struck down the statute, and it is still in the Code and nothing has been done, when it easily, easily could pass the legislative process... for fuck sake what is wrong with these stupid bastards. Fix your goddamn laws you goddamn idiots. That's your fucking job, you fucking incompetent asses.)   Anyway, I've digressed enough.

I am unnatural, an aberration who casts no shadow. I mean that's the only explanation, because there's no such thing as gaynimals (well except those some 4,000 documented species.) I couldn't possible exist without magic or Satan or whatever you call it.

Secondly, before any asshole mumbles, "just because animals do it doesn't make it right. Some animals practice cannibalism blah blah blah," I just want to point out I am not saying that gay sex is moral. I am answering the claim "Gays are unnatural." The question of morality is a different subject that relies on notions such as consent, damages, harm, etc. After hours of reading articles on gaynimals, I have not come across an author making the claim that because it is natural it is moral. 

As a postlogue, I would just like to point out that the arguments present by the Christianists were relatively low-hanging fruit. A simple google search will show that they are not nearly alone in their views of gay people. They seem pretty prevalent to me.

This is every gay person I know in a nutshell

Count Orlok in a speedo... why not?

Liam '14

Last Year Today...

On March 27, 2013 the United States Supreme Court heard the oral arguments for United States v. Windsor which went on to strike down portions of the Defense of Marriage Act. So today, in honor of precedent I am celebrating (on a work day. Sacre tabarnak!) with a quick refresher of the details.

Ironically, Scalia provided the "so called Homosexual Agenda" (dun-duh dah!) a pathway for future judicial victories by writing dicta in his dissent:

In my opinion, however, the view that this Court will take of state prohibition of same-sex marriage is indicated beyond mistaking by today's opinion. As I have said, the real rationale of today's opinion, whatever disappearing trail of its legalistic argle-bargle one chooses to follow, is that DOMA is motivated by "`bare ... desire to harm'" couples in same-sex marriages. Supra, at 2691. How easy it is, indeed how inevitable, to reach the same conclusion with regard to state laws denying same-sex couples marital status. Consider how easy (inevitable) it is to make the following substitutions in a passage from today's opinion ante, at 2694

Thanks! I'm guessing Scalia popped an anger boner when he saw his quote magically appear in Kitchen v. Herbert:

The Constitution’s protection of the individual rights of gay and lesbian citizens is equally dispositive whether this protection requires a court to respect a state law, as in Windsor, or strike down a state law, as the Plaintiffs ask the court to do here. In his dissenting opinion, the Honorable Antonin Scalia recognized that this result was the logical outcome of the Court’s ruling in Windsor:

In my opinion, however, the view that this Court will take of state prohibition of same-sex marriage is indicated beyond mistaking by today’s opinion. As I have said, the real rationale of today’s opinion . . . is that DOMA is motivated by “bare . . . desire to harm” couples in same-sex marriages. How easy it is, indeed how inevitable, to reach the same conclusion with regard to state laws denying same- sex couples marital status.

133 S. Ct. at 2709 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). The court agrees with Justice Scalia’s interpretation of Windsor and finds that the important federalism concerns at issue here are nevertheless insufficient to save a state-law prohibition that denies the Plaintiffs their rights to due process and equal protection under the law. 

Of course Utah wasn't the only jurisdiction to recognize marriage equality since last year.

Marriage After Windsor

I'm out of time. So just imagine that there is something more clever in the map... like sloppy gay sex scenes superimposed in the background.

Since Windsor, there have been legislative victories in the following States:

Rhode Island

Delaware

Minnesota

New Jersey

Illinois
Hawaii

More importantly court victories in these States:

California

Utah

New Mexico

Oklahoma 

Texas
Virginia

Kentucky

Michigan

And more to come...  But as for me, it's now time for beer then bed.

Liam '14

Joy Division

Bad news. Vernita Gray died on Tuesday March 18, 2014 in her home in Chicago after succumbing to cancer. Ms. Gray made national headlines late last November when she married Pat Ewert becoming the first couple to get gay married in Illinois, even though marriage equality was to be promulgated on June 1, 2014.

In an article by Carla K. Johnson for ABC News, the circumstances are explained:

Gray's failing health and her wish to marry persuaded a federal judge to order that an expedited marriage license be granted to the couple ahead of the June 1 effective date of the state's gay marriage law. A subsequent judge's ruling then paved the way for more same-sex couples to marry early in some Illinois counties.

Gray worked for gay rights for decades, advocating for same-sex marriage long before many other activists saw it as a possibility, Bennett said. To win over conservatives, she made the case that her Social Security survivor benefits should go to her partner, and her knack for working with people across the political spectrum "made everyone feel that they had a unique contribution to move us forward," Bennett said.

A former restaurant owner, Gray worked for the Cook County state's attorney's office for 18 years, assisting crime victims and witnesses. 

Please, please read the rest of the article.

An important piece to the marriage debate that never seems to be answered is "What is marriage?" A few miles north of Chicago, the State of Wisconsin defines it through Wis. Stat. § 765.01.:

Marriage, so far as its validity at law is concerned, is a civil contract, to which the consent of the parties capable in law of contracting is essential, and which creates the legal status of husband and wife.

Marriage is a contract.

Like all contracts, the purpose of marriage is to end disputes. When two people cannot agree about anything else (the sky is blue; NO it’s azure!) they must agree to predetermined terms and conditions as prescribed by state statute.

When life is going well, there is no real need for marriage. It doesn’t take the state to determine who takes the trash out on Tuesday or who cooks dinner on Wednesday. It’s not a document that means forever and ever puppy dog love. If you want one of those, go buy a box of crayons and doodle on a piece of printer paper, then send it off to your preferred spiritual leader to blow smoke up your ass, since that’s not marriage.

Marriage is a contract. A contract to settle disputes over property and responsibilities.

Anyone dumb enough to say the state should be removed from the marriage business should wrap their dick in tinfoil and stick it in an electric outlet. The government is the arbiter of contracts; therefore it is necessarily needed to be involved in contracts. And as polygamy is not legal in the United States (nor is there a structural basis for it), it is necessary to have marriage license to verify the marriage as being valid.

Marriage is what happens to the house when one spouse dies. Wis. Stat. § 766.605.:

A homestead acquired after the determination date which, when acquired, is held exclusively between spouses with no 3rd party is survivorship marital property if no intent to the contrary is expressed on the instrument of transfer or in a marital property agreement. A homestead may be reclassified under s. 766.31 (10).

Marriage is what happens when the husband kidnaps the children and flees across state lines. Wis. Stat. § 767.105(3)(a).:

Except as provided in par. (b), a party who violates any provision of sub. (1) may be proceeded against under ch. 785 for contempt of court.

Marriage is what happens when a wife’s sole proprietorship collapses into debt. Wis. Stat. § 766.55.:

(1)   An obligation incurred by a spouse during marriage, including one attributable to an act or omission during marriage, is presumed to be incurred in the interest of the marriage or the family. A statement separately signed by the obligated or incurring spouse at or before the time the obligation is incurred stating that the obligation is or will be incurred in the interest of the marriage or the family is conclusive evidence that the obligation to which the statement refers is an obligation in the interest of the marriage or family, except that the existence of that statement does not affect any interspousal right or remedy.

(2)(a) An obligation incurred by a spouse in the interest of the marriage or the family may be satisfied only from all marital property and all other property of the incurring spouse.

Taking the state out of marriage removes widows out of deceased spouses’ homes. It makes dividing property in divorce even more unbearable. It takes away a creditors ability to collect on debts.

Gays will get sick. I myself will die one day. Being a misanthrope I don’t give a shit what happens to my possessions, but I respect others to make up their minds. Gays go bankrupt. Gays get divorced and need to divide shared property.

Gays need marriage. Now.

Liam ‘14

Our Inheritance

I have inherited a shared history that does not come from my mother or my father. It is a rich culture with a devastating history of genocide, discrimination, and an undying animus aimed against it.  If evolution is descent with modification, gay history is more similar to Prokaryotic Horizontal Gene Transfer. It is not a history taught by parents to gaylings but one that is acquired later through life, either by discussion or literacy or life experience.

It is an understanding that gay men of certain age have lost nearly all of their friends to a virus. It’s realizing that governments have and will continue to round up people like myself and executing them in cruel and humiliating ways. It’s understanding the struggle just simply to avoid being arrested by the police for simply existing. It’s knowing that simply existing is a political statement.

It’s sitting down and devouring Christopher and His Kind. It’s pretending you’re dating Frank O’Hara every time you crack open Meditation’s in an Emergency. It’s empathy for men similar to yourself and the desire to learn about them. It’s wondering why same-sex marriage is still not permit in many states.

It’s in this vein of anaphora that I found the cases germane to Perry v. Hollingsworth and United States v. Windsor.

Perhaps one of the most famous legal cases in LGBT history is Baker v. Nelson. Claire Bowes with the BBC wrote a wonderful piece describing the background of the case. Here is a brief background into the case:

Going public about your sexual orientation could cost you your home, your job and your family.

Baker and McConnell didn't fit the stereotype. Both in their late 20s - clean cut and with short, neat hair - Baker was a law student and McConnell a librarian. They'd been together for four years when they first applied for a marriage licence in 1970.

This was rejected - on the grounds that they were both men. But the couple decided to fight. They appealed, and kept on appealing until the case reached the US Supreme Court. It was the first time the court had been asked to rule on gay marriage - but it refused to hear the case "for want of a substantial federal question".

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-23159390

Read the rest of the article. Here is how the background is described by J. Peterson writing for the Minnesota State Supreme Court in Baker v. Nelson, 191 N.W.2d 185 (Minn. 1971):

Petitioners, Richard John Baker and James Michael McConnell, both adult male persons, made application to respondent, Gerald R. Nelson, clerk of Hennepin County District Court, for a marriage license, pursuant to Minn.St. 517.08. Respondent declined to issue the license on the sole ground that petitioners were of the same sex, it being undisputed that there were otherwise no statutory impediments to a heterosexual marriage by either petitioner.

The trial court, quashing an alternative writ of mandamus, ruled that respondent was not required to issue a marriage license to petitioners and specifically directed that a marriage license not be issued to them. This appeal is from those orders. We affirm.

While the Baker case is an interesting read, I feel like it has been discussed and analyzed and dissected so many times that I cannot add much to it.  I have posted a copy of the Minnesota SupremeCourt decision on my website. It is actually a short document that is fairly easy to understand without much legal reasoning. Most of the decision is quite familiar. To me it is frustrating but not overly offensive in tone.

If I ever write on Baker again, it will probably be more about how the US Supreme Court denied certiorari, and how the right wing lost the legal battle by campaigning for anti-gay state amendments.    

What I am more interested is in the companion case.

McConnell v.Anderson, 451 F.2d 193, 196 (8th Cir. 1971)

Jack Baker’s husband, Michael McConnell, was scheduled to become a librarian for the University of Minnesota. Then he had the audacity to get married… to a man… I mean can you imagine what temerity and political grandstandingness it takes to be an outspoken radical by getting married to a consenting human being… I mean seriously, the balls it takes, and did Mr. McConnell just think the University would sit there and allow one of its soon to be employees to get married. I mean for fuck sake who gets married besides communist radicals? So they shit-canned his ass just like what any Good Christian Institute would do, right. Because there’s nothing that’ll butch up a limped wristed Nancy quite like taking away any means of feeding themselves.

All this joking around has inadvertently made me physically angry about this case and the severe injustice of it all. I know that it happened 40 years ago and everything worked out for Mr. McConnell and Mr. Baker but still.  I’m going to go drink a beer and come back when I don’t want to anger-puke anymore over the background of the case. I mean for fuck sake, getting fired over getting married uggh what the verdammtes Arschloch… du  Arschbackengesicht… idoitische… blöder Scheißkerl.. kannst mich im Goethe lecken.

Ok. back. sorry.

The U.S. 8^th Circuit Court of Appeals decide McConnell v. Anderson on October 18, 1971 and is penned by Judge Stephenson.

In addition to the allegations above, his complaint asserted that he was a homosexual and that the Board's resolution not to approve his employment application was premised on the fact of his homosexuality and upon his desire, as exemplified by the marriage license incident, specifically to publicly profess his "earnest" belief that homosexuals are entitled to privileges equal to those afforded heterosexuals.

Umm.. aren't we though. Entitlement to privileges isn't a bad thing; it’s kinda what America is centered around; that is freedom. I don’t know why there has to be a use of scare quotes here with his earnest belief. And furthermore, if you are trying to say UMN acted properly and in accordance to the law, shouldn't the Court be saying McConnell wrongly believes that homosexuals are entitled to fewer privileges. Because the way it is stated, it seems that the Court is suggesting that gays are entitled to fewer privileges and so what. It’s not like we have a 14^th amendment or an Article IV or anything. 

It suffices merely to stress, by way of summary, that McConnell apparently is well-educated and otherwise able, possessing both an academic degree and a master's degree;

Well this is a hot way to start off. Mr. McConnell is well-educated. That is a fact. It is not subjective. It is demonstrated by his master’s degree.The use of apparently is just a teenesy bit offensive in this circumstance.

McConnell and a friend referred to in the record as "Jack Baker" encountered Dr. Hopp and informed him of their intention to obtain a license to marry; that during this conversation Dr. Hopp expressed concern that such an occurrence might well jeopardize favorable consideration of McConnell's employment application; that about three hours later on the same day, McConnell and Jack Baker appeared at the Hennepin County Clerk's office and made formal application for the license;

Well, I for one am glad that you cleared up how Mr. Baker and Mr. McConnell are associated. There is nothing condescending or douchey about calling a person’s husband just a “Friend.” Secondly, McConnell was a librarian, not a stripper at some Podunk nudy-bar. Getting married is his prerogative. Well according to Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967): “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. Marriage is one of the `basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival.” It would appear under this logic that denial of employment from a State Actor would be arbitrary and capricious. But what did the Warren Court know about the Constitution.

It is McConnell's position that the Board's decision not to approve his employment application reflects "a clear example of the unreasoning prejudice and revulsion some people feel when confronted by a homosexual." That being so, he argues that the Board's action was arbitrary and capricious and thus violative of his constitutional rights. We do not agree.

Thanks asshole. Would you care to elaborate on how the Board of Asshats Regents’ decision wasn't based on discrimination:

It is, instead, a case in which something more than remunerative employment is sought; a case in which the applicant seeks employment on his own terms; a case in which the prospective employee demands, as shown both by the allegations of the complaint and by the marriage license incident as well, the right to pursue an activist role in implementing his unconventional ideas concerning the societal status to be accorded homosexuals and, thereby, to foist tacit approval of this socially repugnant concept upon his employer, who is, in this instance, an institution of higher learning.

Once again fired for getting married. Apparently getting married is socially repugnant… who knew. Also how was Mr. McConnell seeking employment on his own terms? What a fucking asshole, what happened did Judge Stephenson forget to up his Klan membership or something so he had to compensate. I have poured through many cases, but few have dripped so deeply with contempt and bigotry.

We know of no constitutional fiat or binding principle of decisional law which requires an employer to accede to such extravagant demands.[8] We are therefore unable fairly to categorize the Board's action here as arbitrary, unreasonable or capricious.

Once again man gets married. Man gets fired for getting married. How is that an extravagant demand? After reading this case, I think I may have been transported to an alternate dimension. I think it’s call the Planet of the Douchebags. It’s an upside down world where Douchebags rule men.

Anyway, I want to say congratulations to Mr. Baker and Mr. McConnell. It only took them 40 years to become the first legally married gay couple in America.

Liam '14

Reboot

If Spider-Man can reboot then so can I.

But first a brief update while I do the laundry. Since my last post (1.5 years ago) I have moved 5 times. So yes, I have had almost no time to write (well beside that one book that I wrote that will never be published.)

But excused are like butts, everyone has one and they're really fun to play with... I mean the buck stops here or some other cliche. My plan for now is to write a post a week as I am currently working 11 hours a day (well 9 hours and 2 hours of commuting time).  I am also locked down with a NCC that I signed, so I probably won't be moving in the near time (not that it would necessarily be enforceable).


Liam '14

Cartoon of the Day

Here's a cartoon on debates in America. Enjoy.

Blah Blah Blah, Chick-Fil-A, Blah Blah Blah, Fox News Radio, Blah Blah Blah Heterophobic Blah. Anyway that's what I think about that. The word 'heterophobic' bothers me for two reasons. First it is an incorrect use of the word, Hetero means the opposite (sex), and Phobia means afraid. So heterophobia should mean a gay person's fear of straight people. And trust me gay people have plenty to fear from the straight community. But in this case it means hatred. See gays are supposed to scare the heteros because the gayzez hate the straight people because of AIDS or some bullshit. Secondly it generates a false dichotomy. Demanding equality is not a sign of disdain for the hetero community. Push back from the gay community looks very different than the anti-gay violence from homophobes.  Furthermore it pushes a wedge between the communities, not all straight people are opposed to gay rights. It implies that the gays are trying to take something away from the straight community, when in reality, it is a select few homophobes who are trying to keep civil rights away from the gay community.

Liam '12

Freedom Just For Me