Coming To A Relationship Status Near You

You politically correct types are going to be the end of me. I swear. I know you're going win in the end, but I'm going to try and fight it as long as I can. And while I've got a lot of fight left in me, this sort of stuff really tires my ass out.

According to a Huffington Post article, Facebook is branching out and giving you more, yes, more choices for how to describe whatever your relationship status might currently be! How enlightened of them! Apparently, "Facebook has added two new relationship status options users can include in their online profiles: "in a civil union" and "in a domestic partnership." OK. So, why does this bother me? Well, you know I'm going to tell you, so what say you just calm down a minute there, Sparky? (Sorry. I'm a little cranky. Stuff like this just gives me a full head of steam.)

Before all of the enlightening, the choices were "limited" to: Single, In a relationship, Engaged, Married, It's complicated, In an open relationship, Widowed, Separated, and Divorced. OK. That's all fine and good. Are you seeing my problem with including "in a civil union" and in a domestic partnership", yet? The answer is: It seems unnecessary to me.

And it's not just the new ones that I have a problem with. How is "In an open relationship" any different from "It's complicated"? What the what is "It's complicated" supposed to mean anyway? Is it like, "I'm going to break up with him, but I'm waiting until after my birthday to see what he gets me"? Or is it "I haven't found anyone else to sleep with without emotional attachment, so I'm waiting for that first"? Or is it simply "I'm cheating on him and he doesn't know it yet"? (Did you like how in that example I made the woman the cheater instead of the man? See? I can be progressive, too!)

But back to the new options. Isn't "In a relationship" good enough? You'd think (back when the whole gay marriage debate was going on in California) that the civil union and the domestic partnership options would have been frowned upon by gay marriage proponents. Good Lord, that's all we heard about was how nothing less than a marriage would do! I mean, I guess if folks who it applies to are OK with it and everything, then I suppose it's fine. Maybe I'm just irritated that I never know what's fine and what's not with these things! It's always changing! And it's NEVER the same. Folks were absolutely militant in California about civil unions and domestic partnerships being soooo not good enough. Second-class compared to being married is what I heard a lot of. (I also heard a lot of the opposite of that. "What's next? People marrying dogs?") Which one is it?!

How come "polygamist" isn't an option? Is it because it's illegal and, therefore, doesn't have a legal status? (I'm still waiting for a reasonable explanation as to why polygamy is illegal, by the way. Two consenting adults? Seems like that's their business. I wouldn't do it, but if they're not hurting anyone and I'm not supporting their lifestyle in any sort of financial way, then why would I care? Why would anyone care?) What about "swinger"? That's a choice without a legal status, just like "In an open relationship" is a choice without legal status, right? How come "swinger" isn't on there?

Maybe they should be more specific with some of these. "Engaged to an inmate". "Looking for love". "Will screw for food." I really don't know. If you're perfectly OK with a civil union or a domestic partnership tag, well grand. I just don't know that they were needed. And I've just re-read this entire thing and it's entirely possible that I'm either overreacting (not a shocker) or wrong (not a shocker, either). But it does kind of bother me for the reasons stated and probably for a couple more that I'm not quite sure about just yet. When I figure those out, I'll let you know. Just don't hold your breath. I don't plan on devoting a whole lot of time to thinking about this ridiculousness.

Prop 8...Again

I had thought that if I heard one more word about Prop 8 in California that my head would explode. Turns out, that's not the case. Don't get me wrong; I do feel a wave of nausea come over me. But there is no cranial explosion, so that seems good. That doesn't mean that I have the stomach for some long and droning post, because I do not. That just means that I have the capacity to muse over a point that some guy who thinks his point matters is trying to make.

If you have been blissfully living under a rock or in a world where you don't have to hear about Prop 8 all the live long day, I envy you. But here's the scoop: On Friday, U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker (probably related to Jimmie Walker...Dyn-o-mite!) essentially overturned California's ban on gay marriage, aka, Prop 8. And now a one Tony Perkins, who is the head of something called the Family Research Council, says that the judge never should have stayed on the case in the first place because of the judge's own alleged gayness.

A homo judge?! Blasphemy! Whatever. Tony Perkins (not Anthony Perkins; that was Psycho) says that Judge Walker "...should have recused himself from the case due to his own sexuality." Perkins was apparently on CBS's Face the Nation on Sunday and said, "I think what you have is one judge who thinks he knows -- and a district level judge and an openly homosexual judge at that -- who says he knows better than not only 7 million voters in the state of California but voters in 30 states across the nation that have passed marriage amendments...This is far from over."

Now, now, Tony. Let's just calm down a little. Try and keep your homophobia in check so that you can get your facts straight (no pun intended), all right? OK, then. See, Judge Walker is not openly gay. It's a rumor, but it's not an open secret and/or fact, depending on which moniker you prefer. Usually when there's a rumor that isn't true, especially if it involves one being gay, folks tend to speak out and set the record straight (pun totally intended this time). I'm not saying that means that Judge Walker is gay. I'm just saying.

And regardless as to how I feel about Prop 8, I really do hate it when something is voted on by the people and then it is struck down by a judge. That frustrates the hell out of me. Aside from the incredible waste of time and money, the right of the people to vote is kind of an important element in this country. Having it taken away or essentially nullified by one judge could be doing more harm than good. And I realize that the people can be as dumb as a box of hair a lot of the time. That isn't up for debate. What's up for debate is when people vote for something and then they're told by a judge that they can't do that. Well, if they can't do that then don't have them vote on it in the first place. Why don't you folks get those ducks in a row and stop spending my money on rearranging your ducks?

But Tony Perkins isn't the only one with his boxers in a knot. No, according to The Huffington Post the American Family Association called the decision "outrageous and unconscionable" as well as saying that it "...should never have been allowed to happen." They insisted that "Walker...should have recused himself "because his judgment is clearly compromised by his own sexual proclivity." Hmmm. Interesting.

OK, I get their point. But the problem here is that there point is coming from their interests and from what they want. Of course they think that a gay judge is going to rule in favor of the gay side of things. But why wouldn't the same litmus test be applied to the other side of that argument? If it had been a straight judge and the straight judge had ruled in favor of Prop 8, wouldn't gay folks be saying that a straight judge should have recused himself because his judgment would have been "clearly compromised by his own sexual proclivity"? I think that's a fair argument to make.

The thing that the AFA and that Tony Perkins guy are overlooking is that Judge Walker is just that. He's a judge. It's right there in his title: Judge Walker. Part of being a judge is being impartial. That's the inherent underlying implication of being a judge. You're supposed to be impartial. I have no idea whether or not Judge Walker's alleged gayness had anything to do with his ruling. I do know that his ruling was 136 pages long and that seems a little meticulous for someone who is just flying by the seat of their pants.

But don't worry Tony Perkins and AFA folks. You're right. This isn't over yet. Of course it is going to go to a higher court. And after that court rules (and it won't matter either way because it will be appealed by the losing side) then it will inevitably end up with the Supreme Court. Is that a good idea? I don't know. I think it's poor strategy, personally. I think that the tide is slowly turning in California in regard to gay marriage. I think that there were several factors that contributed to Prop 8 being passed. And the majority of those factors could be eliminated or remedied at another election. Giving the whole thing time might have been a better way to go. This way, even though the judge has ruled Prop 8 to be a no-go, there still isn't gay marriage in California. No, it's going to be put on hold for years. Several years. And when the Supreme Court rules, there is a fifty-fifty chance that they're going to rule in favor of state's rights. And if it comes down to that, then it's done. It becomes a Roe v. Wade situation which will be highly and hotly debated for future years, but will never change.

In conclusion, I expect Judge Walker's ruling to be overturned by one of the higher courts. I base that on the basis of his ruling which is something called "rational basis". He said that there was no "rational basis" for Prop 8. From what I can tell, rational basis is one of the easiest rulings to overturn. Therefore, it will be. It won't be soon, but it will likely happen. And you know what will happen then? I'm going to have to figure out how to soundproof my walled-off compound because people will never stop talking about it ever when that day comes. Maybe I need some sort of a dome. Like in The Truman Show? I'm open to suggestions. All I know is I can't take much more of the incessant debating on either side. I just want it over already.

Court Strikes Down Prop 8 + Bloomberg Defends Cordoba House

What a great piece of news: this afternoon, Judge Vaughn Walker, of the United States District Court of Northern California, issued a careful, thoughful, and earthshaking ruling in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, striking down the heinous Proposition 8, the ballot initiative that two years ago withdrew equal marriage laws in the State of California.  Walker stated in his judgment that Proposition 8 was unconstitutional "under both the due process and equal protection clauses," and ordered "entry of judgment permanently enjoining its enforcement."

The judgment was a tremendous victory for same-sex couples, who had briefly enjoyed equal marriage laws in California after the state Supreme Court ruled, in In re Marriage Cases 43 Cal.4th 757 [76 Cal.Rptr.3d 683, 183 P.3d 384], in May 2008, that California's constitution permitted them.  It was also a victory for the plaintiff's lawyers, Ted Olson, the former Solicitor General under George W. Bush, and David Boies, who had argued on opposing sides in the case representing one of the worst recent rulings by the US Supreme Court, 2000's Bush v. Gore.

California's Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, who had previously twice vetoed the state legislature's passage of marriage equality bills, hailed today's ruling as an affirmation of "the full legal protections and safeguards I believe everyone deserves."

You can read the ruling (in .pdf form) here, at GoodAsYou. 

Opponents of Judge Walker's ruling have already filed appeals, and the case will likely go to the US Supreme Court. According to the New York Times's John Schwartz, Walker's ruling will make it more difficult for the US Supreme Court to overturn on appeal, mainly because of "the careful logic and structure of Judge Vaughn R. Walker’s opinion." With the current conservative quintet, which shows little concern for precedent or legal logic, however, the outcome is unclear, but what is clear is that today's decision was a momentous one, and a huge step forward after several recent steps backward (Maine, New Jersey, New York, etc.) on the marriage equality front.

***

So Cordoba House, an Islamic cultural center (and not a "mosque," though that would have been fine in my eyes as well) is slated to be built two blocks north of the World Trade Center Ground Zero site, as the New York City Landmarks Commission voted to allow the demolition of the prior building at 45-47 Park Place in lower Manhattan.  The 13-story cultural center, which will include a prayer room and a 9/11 memorial, will rise, once its developer raises $100 million, despite the spate of hateful, misinformed rhetoric by a number of major conservatives, like current post-children and disgraced Republican politicians Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich.

Let us never forget, as we to often do, what comes out of these right-wingers' mouths, how toxic and corrosive it is, and also how this bigotry that they're currently spewing against Muslims and Islam has readily and frequently been applied throughout American history to Black Americans, women, Latinos, Asians and Asian Americans, Jewish people, Roman Catholics, immigrants in general, gays, lesbians, bisexual and transgender people (cf. above), disabled people, the poor, and on and on. They always find and target scapegoats, with destructive effects, and unless we speak out, we ratify their hate.

As others across the web have pointed out, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, of whom I'm hardly a fan, gave a marvelous, moving speech yesterday defending the Muslim cultural center and the history of immigration and the ideas of religious freedom and pluralism in the US. It was for me one of the high points of his public career, and something that far more of our political figures need to do. To the rest of the pols on the Left, center, and yes, those on the right--who believe in the Constitution and aren't gripped by xenophobia and cynicism--who've been silent, step up to the mic!

NJ Senate Marriage Equality Debate + Update

The New Jersey Senate marriage equality bill (The Freedom of Religion and Equality in Civil Marriage Act) debate is taking place right now. You can watch it live here. The legislature must vote it up and get it to departing governor Jon Corzine by next Tuesday, because it faces a certain veto by the new right-wing-Bush/Rove lackey- masquerading-as-a-moderate governor, Chris Christie.

Republican State Senator Gerald Cardinale just called marriage equality "violence against marriage." Seriously. Two people of the same sex marrying is "violence," but the actions of Larry Craig, David Vitter, Mark Sanford, John Ensign, Tiger Woods, Eliot Spitzer (I did support him), etc., are not? He also just described a woman in a polygamous marriage as a "gal," and is comparing polygamy to same-sex marriage. Another senator, the markedly effeminate Republican Sean Kean, began his defense of bigotry and his no vote by noting that gay people had "gentrified" poor neighborhoods in his district, which was to be commended. Mumble-mouthed Democrat John Girgenti of Hawthorne added that he thought a referendum was the way to go, and was voting no to defend "traditional values." That my tax dollars fund these bigots is beyond disgusting.

Thankfully Democratic Senator Nia Gill, one of the original potential replacements for Corzine's US Senate seat, delivered an impassioned, historically sound argument on the history of marriage in the US in order to appeal for marriage equality.

UPDATE: The forces of bigotry win out again, at least for now, as the NJ State Senate defeated the bill 20-14. (Roll call here.) 21 votes were required for passage. 1 GOPer, Bill Baroni, joined 19 Democrats, including my local state senator, Sandra Bolden Cunningham, in voting "Yes," while 6 Democrats joined 14 Republicans to vote against marriage equality. 3 Democrats, including the incoming Senate president, and 2 Republicans did not vote.

California Rules + RIP Reginald Lockett & Robert Rauschenberg

I'm traveling this weekend, so I'm only able to post intermittently, but I just wanted to note the California Supreme Court's recemt ruling, which validated the possibility of same-sex marriage in the Golden State. Or, to quote the Los Angeles Times,

The 4-3 ruling declared that the state Constitution protects a fundamental "right to marry" that extends equally to same-sex couples. It tossed a highly emotional issue into the election year while opening the way for tens of thousands of gay people to wed in California, starting as early as mid-June.

This is huge news. With a population larger than many countries and a history as a pacesetter (cf. Massachusetts as well), the California ruling, if ratified by the legislature and citizenry, may have a huge impact on the fortunes of same-sex marriage in this country. One thing I'd also note is that now that New York's highest state court has ruled that the Empire State can recognize same-sex marriages from other venues, New York could soon be full of same-sex couples as well, and Governor Paterson would probably sign same-sex marriage legislation, so....

***

I just learned that poet Reginald Lockett has just passed away. For years I only knew him based on his poem "Die Black Pervert," from his early Black Arts Days, which left a bad taste in my mouth, but I later got to know his work more broadly through Cave Canem, and even met him personally two years ago at the Harlem Book Fair.

Reading his work and his messages to the listserv, and seeing what he was up to in with his art, I came to admire him a great deal.

I'm very sorry to hear that he's no longer with us. RIP, Reginald.


Reginald Lockett, at the Harlem Book Fair, Summer 2006

***
Chris called to ask if I'd heard Robert Rauschenberg passed away. I saw the New York Times's obituary, as well as a few others, and realized that an era had passed. He was one of those icons of post-Abstract Expressionist, pre-Pop art, a signal figure of the 1950s and 1960s, and one of the great exemplars of negative capability, an experimentalist whose wide-ranging work sometimes pushed to the very limits of the banal while often achieving something novel and remarkable. And, in the deep sense of the term, post-modern.

From his monochromes to his combines to the iconic Bed to the rubbings to works such as Rebus, he was also an important leader in cementing the centrality of American art in global art world, as well as in the queering of visual, sculptural and performance art's possibilities in the post-war American art scene, along with John Cage, Merce Cunningham, and his former partner, Jasper Johns. He kept at it until relatively recently, and passed away at his home in Captiva, Florida. RIP, Robert Rauschenberg.

***

Part of downtown North Adams, Massachusetts, with Mass MOCA in the background