With oral arguments over in Obergefell v. Hodges, we can hope this will be the last time the Supreme Court will have to look at this issue. The case was consolidated by the court with three other same-sex marriage cases challenging both a state’s refusal to recognize same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions and a state’s refusal to license same-sex marriages, or both. The plaintiff’s case was argued by Mary Bonauto, the lawyer for the seven gay and lesbian couples in Massachusetts who in 2003 won their case and made it the first state in the nation to allow same-sex couples to wed. It is fitting she is the attorney of record in this case that could finally declare same-sex marriage legal nationwide.
As oral arguments were made on Tuesday, many went in with high hopes the court will decide both issues at once. The complexity and uncertainty caused when 37 states and the District of Columbia recognize same-sex marriage but those marriages are not recognized in the other 14 states is untenable. The confusion is unacceptable and continues to deprive people of their full civil and human rights.
The court has seemed reluctant to tackle same-sex marriage, as it generally doesn’t like to move ahead of public opinion and developments in states. But now with more than 60 percent of the population supporting same-sex marriage according to recent polls, the court needn’t worry about that.
As oral arguments began, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said he “had looked up definitions of marriage and had been unable to find one written before a dozen years ago that did not define it as between a man and a woman, and continued saying to the plaintiffs if you succeed, that definition will not be operable.” He went on to say “You are not seeking to join the institution. You are seeking to change the institution.”
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy also spoke as the advocates for marriage equality made their case. He said, “The definition of marriage has been with us for millennia and it’s very difficult for the court to say, ‘Oh, we know better.” While that statement was disappointing he also said his sense was that “a principal purpose of marriage was to afford dignity to the couples, which is denied to same-sex couples.” At another point in responding to an argument Kennedy said, “Noting that the ‘societal’ or ‘cultural’ definitions of marriage that had lasted millennia were just that, and not necessarily the same as the governmentally sanctioned institution of marriage.” So trying to guess on which side of these issues he will vote is difficult.
Adam Liptak in the New York Times reported, “When the lawyer for the opponents of gay marriage began arguing, Justice Stephen G. Breyer forcefully questioned why states should be able to exclude gay people from marriage. Marriage is open to vast numbers of people, he said, adding that same-sex couples have no possibility to participate in that fundamental liberty. And so we ask why.”
In cases such as this where the conservative and liberal Justices come from such different points of view it is always difficult to anticipate what they will do. The consensus is that Alito, Thomas (the silent justice), Scalia and Roberts will come down on the side saying same-sex marriage is not a constitutional right. Breyer, Sotomayor, Ginsburg and Kagan will vote to say it is. That leaves Justice Kennedy who has been pragmatic in these cases and said in Windsor it was a case of dignity. In this case where he may feel the same, the question will be whether he agrees it is the court’s right to make the decision.
Those who have fought this battle for years think the time has come for it to be decided in our favor. However even if we win the LGBT community must recognize our fight for civil and human rights is not over. You may marry but in nearly half the states the next day you could lose your job and be discriminated against in housing and other areas. Whatever the decision, the fight for our rights must go on.
Peter Rosenstein is a longtime LGBT and Democratic Party activist. He’s a regular contributor to the Blade.
The future of lesbian bars
Resolve to support our queer spaces in 2022
This New Year, I hope you wish for more lesbian bars across the country. The story of lesbian bars in the U.S. has been slightly tragic of late: as of January 2021, there were only 15 clubs or bars dedicated to queer women across the country.
That’s right—only 15. Across all 50 states.
In Washington, D.C., my hometown, A League of Her Own stands out as the only lesbian bar in the city, dedicated to queer women. Located in Adams Morgan, A League of Her Own, also known as ALOHO, is a small mecca for queer ladies to pass through, socialize, and flirt. ALOHO is a chic gathering point for all queer folk, with posters of softball players dotting the walls and gender neutral signs lying about.
Several years ago, another lesbian bar called Phase 1 existed in Southeast, where queer women could slam eight balls in pool games and engage in raunchy yet ever-so-hot jello wrestling competitions.
Unfortunately, Phase 1 shut its doors in 2016.
So what explains the closure of so many lesbian bars, while bars for gay men continue to flourish? Perhaps many queer women view gay bars as a space for their own as well, whereas gay men view lesbian bars as less of a place for them to socialize.
Either way, we need to give support to lesbian bars now more than ever. Tokens of support can take many forms.
For one, make sure to socialize in spaces dedicated to queer ladies. There are three lesbian bars in New York City: Cubbyhole (281 W. 12th St.), Gingers in Brooklyn (363 5th Ave.), and Henrietta Hudson (438 Hudson St.). Next time you visit the Big Apple, make sure to give these three spots some love. Maybe drag your experimenting bi friend to these locations. Or your pansexual roommate.
Back in D.C., you can buy unisex shirts in A League of Her Own’s merchandise store, available online.
Proceeds will go toward funding the bar, and making sure it stays afloat, especially during this COVID economy.
Most of all, I hope you encourage your queer lady friends to keep on frequenting queer lady destinations. After all, there is only one thing that will keep lesbian bars afloat—and that is attendance.
I, for one, will be frequenting many lesbian destinations this new year.
Isaac Amend is a Yale graduate and participated in National Geographic’s ‘Gender Revolution’ documentary. He also is a member of the LGBT Democrats of Virginia, and contributes regularly to the Blade. Follow him on Twitter and Instagram at @isaacamend.
Breaking barriers as an out trans ‘Jeopardy’ champion
Amy Schneider’s run inspires us all
“When was the last time anybody said ‘wow!’” a friend asked me.
I couldn’t remember the last time anyone I know (including me) had any “Wow!” moments. Until I heard about trans woman and software engineering manager Amy Schneider’s 29-game winning streak on “Jeopardy.”
You wouldn’t think anything could dispel our COVID exhaustion and political divisiveness. Yet, news about a champion on “Jeopardy,” a quiz show that has been on TV since 1964, has broken through our gloom.
In our culture, there are few things that everyone loves. But, “Jeopardy” is beloved by many, from theater geeks to 80-year-old sports nuts. A progressive friend was over the moon when his brother was a “Jeopardy” contestant. A buddy, a hetero (non-Trump) Republican, is a “Jeopardy” fanatic and a gay librarian pal is a “Jeopardy” freak.
Many of us daydream about being on “Jeopardy.” But we know that we wouldn’t have a chance on this legendary quiz show with its deceptively simple format: You give the answer to the (often incredibly hard) clues in the form of a question. You have to have a strategic military commander’s and a world-class athlete’s coordination: so you can press the buzzer to answer the clue.
The game’s categories run the gamut from opera to mountain ranges. Most of us, mere mortals, would be lucky to know even one category in the first round of the game. Let alone in the “Double Jeopardy” round or the “Final Jeopardy” clue. I might jump on clues about Katharine Hepburn movies or M&Ms. But that would be it for me.
It’s exciting to watch a “Jeopardy” contestant become a long-running champion. You marvel at the player’s intelligence, endurance, and nerve. It’s thrilling when the contestant on a winning-streak is part of your community.
Many of us LGBTQ “Jeopardy” fans are thrilled by Schneider’s record-setting winning streak. As I write this, Schneider has won more than $1 million in 29 games of “Jeopardy.” She is the fifth millionaire in “Jeopardy” history, and only the fourth player to reach this milestone in the regular season. She has won more than any other female “Jeopardy” contestant.
Schneider, like so many of us, doesn’t want to be defined by her gender identity or sexuality. Schneider’s life is multi-faceted; she has many interests. Schneider lives with her girlfriend Genevieve. They have a cat named Meep.
Yet, Schneider doesn’t want to hide that she’s trans. On “Jeopardy,” Schneider brilliantly dealt with this dilemma. She didn’t make a big deal about being out. She just wore the trans Pride flag pin.
“It was something that I wanted to get out there and to show my pride in while not making it the focus of what I was doing there,” Schneider told the New York Times. “Because I was just there to answer trivia questions and win money.”
As a cisgender lesbian, I can’t speak to how Schneider’s record-setting “Jeopardy” streak feels to transgender people.
But, as a trans ally, I’m cheering for Schneider. Kudos for her bravery! At a time when many states are passing anti-trans laws, it takes guts to be out on TV and the Internet.
Few things are as mainstream as “Jeopardy.” I bet that many “Jeopardy” viewers who are frightened at the idea of trans people, will become more comfortable with transgender people after watching Schneider on the popular quiz show. Because folks on TV come into our living and bedrooms and we feel as if we know them after watching them for a while.
“Amy looks like everybody else,” my neighbor said when I told her Schneider was trans. “She doesn’t act odd. She’s not strange.”
Transgender people encounter violence and discrimination in everything from housing to health care to employment.
I know Schneider’s “Jeopardy” triumph won’t end transphobia. But her winning streak will go a long way toward jumpstarting a change in hearts and minds.
Kathi Wolfe, a writer and a poet, is a regular contributor to the Blade.
SCARY: Tucker Carlson now the conscience of GOP
Cruz bows down, kisses ring of Fox host
The Republican Party has sunk to a new low, hard to do, when a sleazebag like Tucker Carlson is now their conscience. Seeing Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) groveling before him is laughable, disgusting, and frightening all at the same time.
As reported in Rolling Stone, Cruz said, “We are approaching a solemn anniversary this week. It is an anniversary of a violent terrorist attack on the Capitol where we saw the men and women of law enforcement demonstrate incredible courage, incredible bravery, risk their lives to defend the men and women who serve in this Capitol.” Then “Cruz was lambasted by Tucker Carlson that night, prompting him to hop on Carlson’s show Thursday and beg for forgiveness. “The way I phrased things yesterday, it was sloppy and it was frankly dumb,” Cruz said before Carlson cut him off and said he didn’t believe him. Cruz took it up a notch, stammering through an absurd bit about how he wasn’t talking about the “patriots across the country supporting President Trump,” only those who assaulted police officers, and that he’s always described anyone who assaults a cop as a terrorist.
Carlson has made a career of being a pompous commentator. Interestingly he worked at CNN, PBS, and MSNBC, before finally landing at Fox in 2009. According to his Wikipedia page he went to Trinity College where he earned a bachelor’s degree and Carlson’s Trinity yearbook describes him as a member of the “Dan White Society,” an apparent reference to the American political assassin who murdered San Francisco Mayor George Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk. After college, Carlson tried to join the CIA, but his application was denied, after which he decided to pursue a career in journalism with the encouragement of his father, who advised him that “they’ll take anybody.” Reading this clearly raised my opinion of the CIA and based on what we see in some media today I agree with Carlson’s father on his view of journalism.
When you have a moment of silence in the House of Representatives to honor those who lost their lives on Jan. 6 and only two Republicans show up, Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) and her father Dick Cheney, the former vice president, one understands the influence Carlson has on the GOP. The rest were afraid of being criticized on-air by him or lambasted by Trump.
Dick Cheney remarked on the GOP, “It’s not a leadership that resembles any of the folks I knew when I was here for 10 years.” He spoke to ABC News saying, “I’m deeply disappointed we don’t have better leadership in the Republican Party to restore the Constitution.”
There is a leadership void in the Republican Party today. Their so-called leaders are afraid to say what they think if it differs in any way from Trumpism or Carlson’s view of the world, which requires total fealty to Trump. He found a home on Fox where he can lie with impunity and have millions believe his lies.
President Biden said, in what many think was the best speech of his presidency so far, these people are “holding a dagger to the neck of democracy.” He went on to say, “For the first time in our history, a president not just lost an election, he tried to prevent the peaceful transfer of power as a violent mob breached the Capitol.”
Tucker Carlson and his ilk have never bothered to answer a question the president threw at them, which is how they can accept all their down ballot victories, governors, and members of Congress, which occurred on the same ballots, cast by the same people, on the same day, as those for president. Of course, Carlson has no need to make sense, tell the truth, or speak rationally because of his platform on Fox, which doesn’t require that.
My question is whether Carlson is as dumb as he makes himself sound or is he brilliant and this is all a big act? Either way the acolytes that follow Trump don’t seem to care and are bowing down to Carlson’s big audience. It’s as if he can tell any Republican senator or congressperson, or Republican candidate for those jobs, to just ‘bend over and take it’ and they do. All we can do is mourn for the GOP of Lincoln and Eisenhower. Non-Trumpers will have to work hard and speak out if they ever want to resurrect a GOP that can be respected.
Peter Rosenstein is a longtime LGBTQ rights and Democratic Party activist. He writes regularly for the Blade.
Jim Obergefell announces bid for seat in Ohio state legislature
FDA-funded blood donation study recruiting gay, bi men
Loudoun County removes LGBTQ book from school libraries
Va. bill would restrict transgender students access to school bathrooms
Una ‘besada’ inesperada en La Habana: El activismo LGBTQ independiente sale en defensa del Código de las Familias
Sign Up for Blade eBlasts
Opinions6 days ago
Breaking barriers as an out trans ‘Jeopardy’ champion
World1 day ago
Polish House passes bill echoing Russia “gay propaganda” law
News6 days ago
Grenell emails reveal internal talk on Trump era policy against Pride flag
World6 days ago
Kenya bill seeks to ban gays from having children via surrogate
District of Columbia7 days ago
ANC postpones decision on license for Capitol Hill queer bar
Local5 days ago
Anti-LGBTQ Fairfax school board member named to Youngkin administration
Local5 days ago
The kink must go on
Opinions3 days ago
The future of lesbian bars