OK, OK (You Can Use a Condom, If and Only If…)
The Pope has moved a teensy bit closer to sanity, recognizing that there are cases where condom use might be part of a strategy to reduce the incidence of STDS:
Pope Benedict XVI says that condom use is acceptable “in certain cases”, notably to reduce the risk of HIV infection, in a book due out Tuesday, apparently softening his once hardline stance.
In a series of interviews published in his native German, the 83-year-old Benedict is asked whether “the Catholic Church is not fundamentally against the use of condoms.”
“It of course does not see it as a real and moral solution,” the pope replies.
“In certain cases, where the intention is to reduce the risk of infection, it can nevertheless be a first step on the way to another, more humane sexuality,” said the head of the world’s 1.1 billion Catholics.
It’s a step, but an even smaller one than first appears. Male prostitutes don’t seem especially likely to listen to the Pope. Catholics who are married or in long-term relationships might be swayed, but the advice doesn’t apply to them — at least not clearly. It still seems as though the opposition to birth control trumps all, even a commitment to basic public health.
Fruit Cake
Fred Schneider of the B-52’s now has three albums to his “credit,” while the rest of the band have produced a total of…none. What a world! Here’s a (half) celebration of a holiday favorite:
I was reminded to do this after reading Joe.My.God’s post on the new XMas album by Schneider and his latest side project, the Superions. He’s got a couple of videos there, but somehow missed this gem. And welcome to the onrushing Holiday Season!
More, Please
In this week’s 365gay column, I make the point that many of the anti-equality forces do us a favor every time they try to defend their indefensible positions.
So let them keep talking, even though it can be painful to sit through such bigotry.
Prop 8 Appellate Arguments to be Televised (Probably)
All over the gayosphere this evening was the news that oral argument on Prop 8, set for December 6, is to be televised. The Ninth Circuit issued an order allowing the full two hours of argument to be broadcast.
You’ll probably recall that the proceedings in the court below had been approved for telecast, too — until SCOTUS stepped in with some trumped-up reasons for reversing that determination (by an ominous 5-4 decision). Technically, at least, the Court’s ruling was based on the lower court’s failure to follow the rules for approving broadcasting, so assuming that these rules have now been followed (sheesh, let’s hope so!), I don’t expect the Supremes to weigh in again — at least not for now.
The two hours are to be divided equally between procedure and substance, and that’s telling all by itself. The first hour will focus on the quite serious standing issue; since the State of California has declined to appeal its loss, there’s strong Supreme Court language suggesting (though by no means stating unequivocally) that the intervenors supporting Prop 8 don’t have standing to lodge the appeal. The case might or might be complicated by the alleged interest of county officials, though. Can they defend the law even if the state won’t? It’s quite possible, for the reasons set forth in this clear, and excellent post. It’s also possible that the whole case could be thrown out on this basis: If the intervenors don’t have standing to appeal, why then did they have standing to sue? (The post also discusses this problem expertly). If the court finds no standing for this reason, then the suit would have to be refiled — but would have no defenders (since the newly elected Governor — who’s also the former AG — believe that Prop 8 should die.
OK, standing isn’t the best topic with which to debut Prop 8 Court TV, but it will get more interesting for non-lawyers from there. They will rouse themselves from a deep, coma-like sleep once the argument moves to the serious constitutional issues. I hope enough people are watching for word to spread, far and wide: The Prop 8 proponents have little to commend their position. As David Boies has memorably stated, once the issue moved out of the public square where anything can and will be said — support or logic be damned — and into the courtroom where actual arguments are needed to sustain the ban against same-sex marriages, the emperor stood revealed.
Don’t expect anything to happen soon, though. Whatever the court decides, an appeal to the court en banc (which usually means all judges on the appellate court, but is constituted by fewer judges in the Ninth Circuit given the court’s sheer size) is inevitable. Then, on to the Supreme Court, in all likelihood — whether on standing issues or substance, it’s too early to say.
But the public will get a rich sense of the injustice of the law’s exclusion of same-sex couples from the dignity and legal recognition of marriage. For that, we can thank the court’s sensible decision to allow this broadcast.
Wax-y Build-up
I spent most of Friday at St. John’s Law School in scenic Jamaica — the one in Queens, New York — participating in yet another symposium on marriage equality. The students and administrative staff did a great job in putting the event together, and the dean and faculty were welcoming and thoughtful speakers and moderators.
Unlike many similar events, though, this one featured quite a number of speakers from the right — far right — side of the spectrum. That the event was called Legal, Secular, and Religious Perspectives on Marriage Equality/Marriage Protection/Same-Sex Marriage was in itself telling. Let’s make sure every perspective is represented even if doing so requires a tongue-tying title. (Even that wasn’t enough for the angry Jane Adolphe of Ave Maria Law School though, who opined that same-sex marriage should be placed in ironic quotes since it “can’t exist.”)
Balance is good. But I always find odd and more than a little off-putting that most of the anger in these debates comes from the right — you know, the side without the immediate personal stake. As fellow panelist Courtney Joslin told me during a break, it had “been a long time” since she’d been around so many people who thought that she was worth less than they were. And they’re not shy about that sentiment.
In the first of what will likely be a series of posts on the conference, I’d like to focus on the very offensive scattershot of arguments spewed forth by Penn law professor Amy Wax. She’s better known for her insidiously racist book Race, Wrongs and Remedies,1 in which she cheerily relieves government of the obligation to do much of anything about the effects of the centuries-long political and social subordination of African-Americans. She also suggests that efforts to improve their lot might have limited effect even with the sort of good ol’ self-help she prescribes, because (citing IQ tests) “blacks have lower cognitive ability than whites or Asians.” Continuing in this essentializing mode, she then writes that “[a]t this point it is not known whether different groups are equally endowed with all the abilities that make for success in modern technological societies.”
Biology is (mostly) all that matters and there’s no use trying to do much about it. This is the underpinning of Wax’s simplistic world view, and it suffused her presentation on Friday in which she savaged the marriage equality movement. In a bizarre and undertheorized version of the natural law argument, she seemed to ground her opposition in an idiosyncratic version of the procreation argument: Gay or lesbian couples can’t procreate without outside assistance (I wonder what her response would be to a change in that fact), and since biology matters, well, QED.
That view was centrally on display in Wax’s neo-eugenic view of families, which exist in a “hierarchy,” with opposite-sex couples with their own bio children ensconced permanently at the top of the pyramid. Yes, she said, she’d be “somewhat disappointed” if one of her three kids turned out to be gay because that would mean they wouldn’t be able to produce their own biological children.
When I suggested, during Q&A, that it might turn out that having a gay offspring who adopted a child might turn out to be a gift rather than a “disappointment,” Wax began her response by acknowledging the heroism of adoptive parents, but then added the non-responsive and obvious point that an adoption also involved a loss at the other end of the adoptive pipeline — the birth parents. Well, duh. That doesn’t explain why her kid’s hypothetical act of heroism wouldn’t take him or her out of the disappointment category. Based on her worldview, I’d suggest that the intractable problem is that the adoptive kid — who might, after all, not have the same cognitive ability as a mini-Wax — wasn’t as good as a bio offspring would have been. (Adoption, she said, was “second best.”) “I stand by what I said,” she offered, without further elaboration.
Wax also decried the constitutionalization of the marriage issue, stated that sexual orientation classifications were no different from discriminations based on looks or intelligence, and accused the other side of being interested only in rights and not in the normative meaning of marriage. Oh, and she also said that “gays hate the polygamy analogy,” a comparison she finds persuasive.
I have neither time nor stomach for addressing these latter points here, but may do so in a subsequent post.
For now, let me end with this: Like Maggie Gallagher, Wax ends up doing marriage equality a favor. Sitting next to me during the jaw-dropping presentation was an attorney who told me that, because of her Catholicism, she was “struggling” with the idea that same-sex couples might be allowed to marry. (She was unequivocally in favor of civil unions.) She was there to listen and to learn. But as she listened to Wax’s uncharitable presentation, she became increasingly agitated. The part about adopted kids really offended her.
Yesterday, this thoughtful and undecided woman — and, I’d guess, many others in the audience — moved a step closer toward the pro-equality camp. The bigotry she was hearing had made her realize the need to protect and strengthen GLBT families — families that exhibit the very humanity that Wax denigrates.
- This is the correct title. I had originally misnamed the book “Rights, Wrongs, and Remedies”. Professor Wax called the error to my attention and was very gracious in doing so. ↩
Post-2010: Get Ready for the Backlash
In this week’s column at 365gay.com, I offer some predictions on legal developments relating to LGBT rights. While it’s certainly not a pretty picture, it’s not uniformly disastrous.
Feingold’s Out, But This Guy’s Still In
No, it’s not a joke — at least not intentionally. Pity those of us who live in “the lesser states.”
More on the Next Gayby Boom
In last week’s 365gay column, I looked at recent scientific advances that might soon enable same-sex couples to have their own biological children. Many, many comments have been generated by readers who feel strongly about whether this science should be used, even if available.
This week, I dig more deeply into the bioethical and legal questions that would surface, encourage debate on the subject now, and call for a debate on the value of having one’s own bio kids in the first place. Some incisive comments are already coming in.
My Law and Public Health Book
Just about an hour ago, I received my ten advance copies of the book I’ve edited and contributed to, entitled:
Reconsidering Law and Policy Debates: A Public Health Perspective (Cambridge University Press 2011). If you click on the link, you’ll be e-whisked away to the on-line catalogue page, which describes the book and lets you click on an excerpt, which is the Introduction (which I wrote).
I’ll have more to say about this when officially published (although you can order it now; just saying….), but here’s the description:
This book offers fresh approaches to a variety of social and political issues that have become highly polarized and resistant to compromise by examining them through a population-based public health perspective. The topics included are some of the most contentious: abortion and reproductive rights; end-of-life issues, including the right to die and the treatment of pain; the connection between racism and poor health outcomes for African-Americans; the right of same-sex couples to marry; the toll of gun violence and how to reduce it; domestic violence and how the criminal justice model fails to deal with it effectively; and how tort compensation and punitive damages can further public health goals. People at every point along the political spectrum will find the book enlightening and informative.
Written by ten authors, all of whom have cross-disciplinary expertise, this book shifts the focus away from the point of view of rights, politics, or morality and examines the effect of laws and policies from the perspective of public health and welfare.
As you might guess, I wrote the chapter on marriage equality.
This is my first book (well, sort of mine), and I’m very excited. (To buy at a discount, enter code: F10CULHANE; the discount is available for a limited time.) As I said, I’ll write more when the book is officially published.
Elena Dementieva: An Appreciation
Today, perennial world top ten tennis player Elena Dementieva abruptly announced her retirement from the sport. She’s 29 years old, and I guess the passion to keep running around the court and hitting all of those screaming line drives just wasn’t there any more.
I read the news just before I was scheduled to pick up the kids, and it took me by surprise — and I was further surprised to discover that I had an emotional reaction to her departure. I’m a rabid tennis fan, but why will I miss her, in particular?
This wonderful piece on the tennis.com site sums up my feelings pretty well. (Read some of the comments to see how much hard-core tennis fans love her.) Dementieva has (had?) a relentless ground game, with her sturdy legs as often unbreachable foundation. Gifted with astonishing speed, timing, and athleticism, she could stand toe-to-toe with anyone, as her titanic battle with Serena Williams at 2009 Wimbledon showed. Running Williams all over the court, Dementieva was a match point away from sending the iron-willed American crashing out of the tournament she eventually won. As was too-typical of Dementieva, she’d given the sport a great match (probably the best of the year) but fallen just short.
Indeed, except for the Olympics — a gold medal in a 2008 and a mostly forgotten silver medal from 2000 — Dementieva’s career is already being summed up as “almost.” Because she had made it to two Grand Slam finals, seven semifinals and a few more quarterfinals, most of us kept waiting for her to bag one. (Please, just one!) She had one last chance this year, with a relatively weak trio of women standing between her and a French Open championship, but she was forced to retire with an injury during her semifinal against eventual tournament winner Francesca Schiavone.
She was the classic underdog, and that status was given epic stature by the one shocking weakness in her game: her serve. For years, it was, well…it was terrible. I can recall watching a U.S. Open semifinal she played against Jennifer Capriati where her second serves were floating in — or out — at a speed that would have embarrassed some weekend players (not me, though). People were actually laughing. Yet she won that match, and developed the amazing ability to shrug off the worst kind of serving woes — including numerous double faults, many at the most crucial times — and soldier on. Her ability to thrive in such a competitive environment without the most reliable weapon — the only shot the player completely controls — was the subject of endless fascination, and tended to humanize her in a way rare for top athletes.
She won’t make the Hall of Fame. No Grand Slam titles (tennis snobs don’t care much about the Olympics), and a career-high ranking of three aren’t quite good enough. Yet she’ll leave a void. As she announced her retirement at the year-end tournament followed only by real tennis nuts, all of her top fellow players stood on the court — and cried. So did the two women in the broadcast booth, Lindsey Davenport and Corina Morariu, who’d played against her and watched her long and impressive career. A more honest, intelligent, and likable player you won’t find.
Tennis will miss her, and so will I. Let’s end on an Olympic high note (her victory screech is so heartfelt):