Opinion: why LGBT people should care about the contraception "debate"

Leslie J. Calman has an op-ed in the Washington Blade that I wanted to pass along, “Women should make birth control decisions”.   This is in reference to the flap of making sure that employer health insurance policies cover contraception for women (at least indirectly, as with Obama’s solution.) The writer encourages the reader to think about other applications of this kind of logic.  Employers could refuse to cover vaccines for STD’s in the future (including one for HIV if every available). Religiously affiliated hospitals could deny LGBT partners visitation rights on their own “moral” grounds, at least in states without gay marriage.

SLDN holds annual dinner for 20th year, first dinner after full repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

Well, this year I made it to the SLDN Annual Dinner, in its 20^th year, still at the National Building Museum.  In 2011, I was ill that night, unusual for me.

At the reception before the program, D.C. Swing performed jazz music, maybe some of it from "The Artist".  The Weinstein Company (and the Oscars committee) would be pleased.  Sorry, no Uggie and no Ellen!

A highlight of the evening was the presentation of the Barry Winchell Courage Award, for the plaintiffs of McLaughlin vs. U.S.

There was a lot of emphasis on “Full Military Equality”, with mention of the fact that military spouses of same-sex couples have no rights at all; for example, cannot come on to the base to use the Px or commissary (where I did detail in my own Basic training), cannot get medical care from the military.

There was also a fund raising contest by branch of service. All services made 100%, with the Coast Guard, the smallest, finishing last.  The "Allies" (other countries) were treated as a service.  

There was no negativity, no mention of a possible cloud hanging over the repeal should the "wrong" GOP candidate get nominated and actually win in Nov. 2012 (specifically, Rick Santorum).  However, more private comments around the dinner table suggested that almost any president has to move to the center to govern, no matter what his ideology.  But a "socially conservative" president would have the legal authority to reimplment the ban on his own (even with asking) if he "wanted to", even if for religious or ideological (or in Santorum's case, existential) reasons. 

Thomas Roberts was the M.C.  Valerie Jarrtt gave the keynote speech and talked about how the president never gave up on repeal.

Aubrey Sarvis, soon to leave SLDN, was honored, and was credited with pushing the standalone repeal bill that was introduced by Sen. Liebermann on Dec. 10, 2010, four days before my own mother died. I got the cell phone call (leading to her final episode in Hospice) while I was at the rally. She lived long enough to see the Repeal formally introduced. 

There was a short film video, about 5 minutes, "SLDN at 20: History in the Making", and a supplementary video (about 3 minutes) about Aubrey Sarvis.

I did make videos of the highlights of the speeches (as shown here, above).  

I am listed as an individual sponsor on the program (shown on the screen from Power Point). Technically, that comes from the Margaret Boushka Trust, my mother’s name, although it will probably be moved to my name “legally” very soon.  

The food was low-fat and tasty: an entree of smoked chicken, served in the same style as at the Westover Market in Arlington.  This time, I didn't get "the last chicken" (as the waiter once said when he served me -- that bar really does smoke all its meat -- every individual serving -- by hand outside the store.  I wonder if the menu idea came from that popular new jazz hangout in Arlington.) 

At least, it's better than the "Cornish game hen" served around 2004.  Yes, they really served that over at the Omni Sheraton. 


Cross your fingers that the country remains sane during this years elections.  Bill Maher told Piers Morgan tonight that he gave a lot of money today to Obama's campaign, because he's afraid of the zealots who have taken over the GOP.  

Maryland governor signs same-sex marriage bill in well-attended event at State House in Annapolis

Today, at about 5:05 PM EST, Maryland’s governor Martin O’Malley walked down a staircase at the Maryland State House into a broad lobby filled with several hundred people, including heavy press, and gave a brief address, here:

And continued here.

He said that American notions of equality must be carried out with respect to freedom of conscience. 

He then, after a few seconds, announced, “The bill is signed”.

No protests or demonstrations (on either side) were evident outside the State House, and security stopped at least one person from bringing a placard into the building.

I had a conversation with an NBC4 Washington reporter outside before going inside.  I actually could hear cheers from inside the building before I entered at around 4:45 PM.  (I used to work for NBC in NYC in the 1970s.) 

Same-sex marriage can go into effect in Maryland after the 2012 election (On Jan. 1, 2013), unless opponents stage a referendum (they need 55736 signatures) and the referendum to oppose gay marriage passes.

O’Malley’s carefully chosen words seemed to strike a balance with his own apparently Catholic background, and seemed to sound like an answer to arguments against same-sex marriage and equal rights recently advanced by GOP candidate Rick Santorum.  In 2004, Santorum tried to advance a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage for all states (as one man and one woman).  In his book (which I have just started) he argues that modern political theories on liberty and equality send a message to younger adults that they don’t need to take the risk of marrying and having children.  It seems that he believes you have to restrain liberty from some people so everyone would feel “incentivized”.   

The Maryland state capital is Annapolis, the same city that hosts the US Naval Academy, where Midshipman Joseph Steffan was removed just before graduating near the top of his class in 1987 for admitting he was gay. It's been a long haul. 

Lesbian in Maryland denied communion at her mother's funeral service

There was a flap over the way a woman was treated at her mother’s funeral at a Catholic church (St. John Neumann Catholic Church) in Gaithersburg, MD. The woman, Barbara Johnson, was denied communion by Rev. Marvin Garizino, after he found out she was a lesbian. “I cannot give you communion because you were with a woman, and that is a sin.” 

The archdiocese of Washington apologized to the woman and says it treat this as a “personnel issue”.

It strikes me that the teachings of the Church would mean that a woman is in sin if she will not give herself to a man or take a vow of poverty.  

I looked through some more literature for rationalization of this sort of thinking, and the first thing that popped up was a paper (Andrew J. Sodegren) that doesn’t deny immutability (in fact, it welcomes the notion that immutability of many situations is a necessary part of creation) but goes back to “original sin” to justify all individual hardships and challenges, link here. In Vatican thinking there seems to be a notion that everyone must accept the sacrifices that come from the hand that he or she is dealt,, so as to show that he or she “needs God”.   (I didn't see the Santorum-like argument about society's "future" here that I would have expected.) One could make more of the argument that one needs a social context and identification for one’s life, because at the individual granular level, life is “unfair”.   

The WJLA news story is here. 

My own mother died in December 2010, and in my protestant practice there was no communion at the memorial service.  There were testimonials and music.  

DC LGBT film group holds Oscar party ("The Artist" wins Best Picture)

I did attend One-in-Ten's (and Reel Affirmation's) Oscar's Party at the L2 Lounge in Georgetown, Washington DC, tonight, near the Key Bridge, closer to the Rosslyn Metro in Arlington than to Foggy Bottom at GWU.

If  "you" haven't heard, "The Artist" won Best Picture (LA Times has a typical story here.)  Personally, I wonder if that wonderful scene where Uggie (the pooch) finds a policeman and brings him back to the fire won the prize for the film. Uggie needs a feline companion.

The party was fairly quiet, but fun.  There were plenty of hors d'oeuvres, although one of them leaked on my sweater!  Comcast Xfinity had some connectivity problems in the early evening.

Two "models" or "actors" were painted gold as Oscar statues, with shaved bodies and skin that looked chafed when viewed close up.  One of them said that the latex paint just washes off with water afterward.  I said, I would never allow that to be done to my body (especially when younger), and he asked "Why not?"  What if I had been an actor?  Look at what John Travolta did for "Staying Alive" or Robin Williams did for "Mrs. Doubtfire".  I guess you have to go to Tribunals first. (Actually, a character does that in Oliver Stone's "JFK", the character David Ferrie, played by Joe Pesci).

I got someone to take my picture holding a small toy Oscar, because I plan to make my "Do Ask Do Tell" film (with a layer, sci-fi format) and win Best Picture.

A photographer was there from The Washington Blade.  (I didn't see Metro Weekly).  There was an amorous male couple on the other side of the room in the lounge that attracted the photographer's attention (and mine, but no pictures).  You don't always need a dance floor!

Gingrich says its OK if the people of a state vote for gay marriage; Santorum talks about "dilution of marriage"

The Washington Times has reprinted an AP story by Brian Bakst, “Gingrich: Washington same-sex law the right way”, link here.  Gingrinch says he would accept what a legislature decides if the voters at least have a chance at referendum, even if he would personally vote no.  Gingrich thinks this should be left to states (but DOMA really did that).

But Santorum claims that there should be a federal definition of marriage for all purposes.  (Does this mean he opposes civil unions?  It sounds like it, if he opposes Lawrence v. Texas.)  He says that allowing gay relationships legal recognition dilutes the “meaning” of marriage to the point that many people will either not form marriages in the first place, or be able to keep the ones they have.  (That would be like Sami’s blaming Will for her infidelity on “Days of our Lives”.)  I could put this in very crude terms (use imagination).  This sounds something like this: “I will enter into and keep a relationship that involves giving something up of myself if I know that everyone else will or has to, or will not be allowed to compete with me without doing so.”    It also sounds like “If I make the sacrifices to raise a family, my kids have to make the same sacrifices to carry the “lineage” of my marital relationship forward into eternity.”  (Until the Sun, or Melancholia, swallows up the Earth.)  Yet, in older tribal societies, or in societies that feel threatened as to survival, such arguments carry weight. 

Santorum's language on the collective nature of marriage sounds like the concept of "trademark dilution".  

The link is here. 

Federal judge in California holds DOMA unconstitutional

The 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), signed by President Clinton, has been declared unconstitutional by a district court judge (Jeffrey White), in Golinski vs. US Office of Personnel Management, with the Lambda Legal copy of the opinion (expandable PDF) here.

You can save the PDF on your own computer by the icon at the bottom.

Golinski, an employee of the Ninth Circuit, had attempted to enroll her partner into the federal health plan.

The ruling was made under the Equal Protection Clause if the Fifth Amendment, along with rational basis analysis (p. 43 of the PDF). 

Wikipedia summarizes the provisions of DOMA near the beginning of its entry here. The main provisions had been to except from usual “full faith and credit” analysis any state gay marriage law, and to deny same-sex marriage at a federal level (for federal benefits or federal employees), as a “federal definition of marriage”.  The law appears to allow or encourage states to do as they please within their own borders.  There are some who wanted to do this at a constitutional level, since a statute could not legally define concept like this definitively.  An attempt amend the US constitution this way failed in 2004.

The original govtrack issue from 1995 is here.