Laura Sjoberg informs us that she is working to form a Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgendered, Queer, and Allies  Caucus of the International Studies Association (the premier organization of academic IR scholars) in order to:

A. To promote fair and equal treatment of members of the Lesbian, Gay, Transgendered, Bisexual, and Queer and Allies (hereafter LGBTQA) community in the International Studies Association (hereafter ISA) and in the profession of international studies, in areas including but not limited to graduate school admission, financial assistance in schools, employment, tenure, and promotion.
B. To combat discrimination against and provide support for LGBTQA faculty, student, and professional members of the International Studies Association.
C. To encourage the application of the skills of scholars and students of international studies to combat discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
D. To promote the recruitment of new members to the Caucus specifically and ISA generally.

Leaving aside that the last of the four goals amounts to a self-licking ice cream cone (not that there’s anything wrong with that) how needed are these? Is there really rampant discrimination on the basis of sex in the academy these days? Homosexuality is mainstream in our broader society at this point, much less the relatively liberal halls of academe.

Do LGTBQ types face discrimination in financial aid or grad school admissions?  If so, how?  That is, how would the bureaucratic offices who make these decisions even know that the people were LGTBQ?  (One presumes, irrespective of the answer, that Allies are safe in this regard.)

I suppose that a man showing up for a job interview wearing lipstick and a dress might still be poorly received in many departments across the land.  But so might a man showing up with a mustache or blue jeans or a too-nice suit.

Beyond this, what has any of this to do with ISA?  It was “was founded in 1959 to promote research and education in international affairs.”  Its current purpose is still along those lines:

I.    Provide opportunities for communications among educators, researchers, and practitioners in order to continually share intellectual interests and meet the challenges of a changing global environment

II.    Develop contacts among specialists from all parts of the world in order to facilitate scientific and cultural change

III.    Provide channels of communication between academics and policy makers to promote a successful link between the production of knowledge and its utilization

IV.    Improve the teaching and dissemination of ideas, concepts, methods, and information in the field of International Studies

Rather than hijacking a purely scholarly organization with grievance issues, why not form a caucus within, say, the American Association of University Professors?

One possible explanation:  Sjobert is also chair of ISA’s Feminist Theory and Gender Studies section.  In April, she expressed concern that some LGTBQ members of ISA might chose not to attend the 2010 annual meeting in New Orleans on the grounds that “there is a substantial risk of a lack of equal protection of the laws in the most dire possible situations, including but not limited to critical medical emergencies.”  Apparently, this concern was not heeded and the meeting’s still on.

But, if LGTBQ activism can already take place (albeit, not successfully in this case) within the context of an existing organized section, why the need for a caucus?

A minor buzz was generated yesterday by California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s veto message to the state assembly:

It seems that, if one ignores the first two and last two paragraphs, there’s a hidden message spelled out by the first letter of the remaining sentences. If that’s too complicated, Kevin Drum has a version with the message circled in red.

Speculation is that Schwarzenegger was sending a not-so-subtle message to bill sponsor Tom Ammiano, who yelled “You lie!” at the Governator (apparently, this practice is catching on in America’s legislative bodies) and told him to “kiss my gay ass.”

The governor’s spokesman, Aaron Lear, says this was just “a weird coincidence,” noting that other veto messages “spelled out things like ’soap’ and ‘ear’” but ABC polling director Gary Langer doesn’t think so.

What are the odds? Here’s how not to figure it precisely, rather a quick and unsophisticated back-of-the-envelope calculation: If the odds of picking a particular letter at random are one in 26, doing it over seven selections (the number of letters in question) is (1/26)^7, or .0000000001245. Just about one in 10 billion.

Small odds.

This, though, admittedly is not my field. A real calculation would take into account other matters, such as the frequency with which the individual letters in question start words, the ordering odds and the chances of a line break appearing in just the right spot between the two words in question, as it does.

A reader of Taegan Goddard’s Political Wire calculates the odds at .00000000000053937610200661%.

Stephen Green thinks this provides “one last reason to have some small amount of like left for The Governator.”  “Juvenile? Sure. But wouldn’t you rather have elected officials playing harmless pranks on one another, than doing to us what they usually do to us?”  And, indeed, Ammiano spokesman Quintin Mecke gave “Kudos to the governor for his creative use of coincidence” adding “You certainly have to have a sense of humor in politics. Unfortunately, this humor came at the cost of the Port of San Francisco.”

I suppose.  On the other hand, this is a very bizarre thing for a governor. Not least of which because it’s rather odd that someone took the time to look for hidden messages.

Republican Bob McDonnell enjoys a rather sizable lead over Democrat Creigh Deeds in his race for Virginia’s governorship. But the Washington Post, which went after George Allen with amazing fervor in his 2006 race against longshot Jim Webb, is doing what it can to fix that. First, it ran a series of articles about a master’s thesis McDonnell wrote during the Reagan administration. With that having not done the trick, it’s digging up a new charge:

In January 2003, then-Del. Robert F. McDonnell helped gavel in one of the most extraordinary judicial reappointment hearings in Virginia history: a seven-hour, trial-like affair that led to questions about whether the future Republican gubernatorial candidate thought gays were fit to serve on the bench.

As chairman of the House Courts of Justice Committee, McDonnell sat at the head of the proceedings, with his Senate counterpart next to him and committee members on both sides. Facing them was Verbena M. Askew of Newport News, the state’s first black female Circuit Court judge, whose reappointment was in jeopardy because of allegations that she had sexually harassed a female colleague.

[...]

In comments before the hearing, McDonnell indicated that Askew’s sexual conduct was relevant, telling one newspaper that “certain homosexual conduct” could disqualify a person from being a judge because it violates the state’s crimes against nature law. The words were widely published at the time, and his remarks contributed to a lasting view that sexual orientation was at least one reason for Askew’s ouster.

[...]

McDonnell’s role in the hearing has attracted renewed scrutiny after the publication last week of a 1989 graduate school thesis in which the 14-year lawmaker and former attorney general had criticized working mothers and homosexuals and urged the promotion of traditional values through government. In one passage, McDonnell wrote: “Man’s basic nature is inclined towards evil, and when the exercise of liberty takes the shape of pornography, drug abuse, or homosexuality, the government must restrain, punish, and deter.”

[...]

McDonnell was credited by Republicans and Democrats in the Virginia General Assembly at the time for making sure witnesses supporting Askew were present at the hearing.

He also became known for telling the Daily Press of Newport News that certain homosexual activities could disqualify a person from the bench. “It certainly raises some questions about the qualifications to serve as a judge,” he said. “There is certain homosexual conduct that is in violation of the law,” McDonnell added. “I’m not telling you I would disqualify a judge per se if he said he was gay. I’m talking about their actions.”

What’s particularly rich here is that the Post is arguing that it’s own opposition research on a candidate is grounds for doing more of the same because, after all, it “attracted renewed scrutiny”!  Imagine that.  Indeed, they title the piece “After Thesis Uproar, McDonnell’s Strongly Worded Comments on Gays Resurface.”  One has to love the use of the passive voice to obscure the fact that it’s the Post itself creating the uproar and doing the resurfacing.

Like Allen, McDonnell has run numerous races, including statewide races, before.  He’s faced the scrutiny of the voters and the slings and arrows of opposition campaigns.  These issues have therefore been bandied about over and again.

In what possible sense is a twenty-year-old graduate thesis news? Or even six-year-old public hearings that were widely covered at the time?  This is a smear job, not journalism.

Lane Hudson felt justified in interupting former President Bill Clinton’s remarks at Netroots Nation to scream questions about Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and Defense of Marriage Act on the grounds that there was no Q&A session scheduled and he was therefore “being held as a captive audience.”

Julian Sanchez, also in attendance and quite sympathetic to Hudson’s views on both DADT and DOMA, demurs:

No, you spectacular dick,  you were not being “held as a captive audience”; you were voluntarily attending a talk where the speaker had declined to allot time for questions. Believe it or not, there were probably one or two other people there with strong feelings about any number of other matters. Being what we call “grown ups,” however, they were not so convinced of their righteous specialness that they imagined themselves entitled to set the speaker’s agenda like some jackass fratboy screaming “Freebird” at the band. I realize it seems shocking that some of your fellow audience members were more concerned about norms of civility than your most-important-issue-evar, but the fact that everyone has one of those is why we have norms of civility. The only reason it was possible for you to be rewarded for your boorishness by getting your question addressed is that you had the good fortune to be surrounded by people who were housebroken.

Quite.

Clinton does quite well handling the interruption and defending his position.  And he’s right:  In 1993, I was firmly against changing the policy on gays in the military and thought DADT was an outrageous concession to political correctness; now, I think it’s time to let gays serve openly.  Ditto, gay marriage.

While my political philosophy has no doubt evolved over the past sixteen years, it’s mostly a matter of the culture having changed through learning.  For Americans outside a handful of urban communities, gays were a theoretical construct or the object of jokes on television.  Now, they’re a small but visible part of the culture and, aside from a fringe Queer Pride element that enjoys the attention that provocativeness brings, pretty damned normal.

Soldiers are drawn from the society-at-large if not quite a microcosm of it. The military culture naturally lags the broader culture because it’s self-selected and more traditional in its values.   If the military leadership isn’t quite ready to end DADT, they soon will be.

And gay marriage will become normal, too, now that it’s taking place in several states.  The idea that gays marrying each other is somehow a threat to the marriages of heterosexuals already seems silly.  The resistance of the religious community will take longer to break down but it’ll happen.  Probably in less time than the sixteen years since DADT threatened to end the Clinton administration before it got started.

Andrew Sullivan:

The survival of my own marriage is entirely in the hands of the federal government. I have no right to stay in my own home with my own husband – just the government’s permission until they choose to revoke it. Gays do not have core constitutional rights in America. They have no right even to a secure home. And this president is in no hurry to do anything about it.

There’s no rational basis for allowing Britney Spears but not gays to get married.  And I agree that gays who got married in the handful of states that allow or allowed it but live in a state that does not are in a bizarre state of limbo.

But when was the last time that the federal government — or, for that matter, a state or local government in the United States — intervened to deny consenting adults the right to live together in the same domicile? Further, how are Andrew and his husband any less protected in that regard than Megan McArdle and Peter Suderman?

What “core rights” are being denied Andrew owing to his sexuality?  Certainly, not his freedom of expression. Or any of his other First Amendment rights.

Are there laws of which I’m unaware that make it harder for a gay man to buy a gun?  Can troops be quartered in gay homes?  Do police need a warrant to search them?  Do gays not get jury trials?  The right to an attorney?  A jury?  Are gays charged higher bails or punished more cruelly and unusually?  Can gays not vote?

Indeed, aside from the right to marry a person of the same sex — which is denied to heterosexuals as well, albeit with disparate impact — what rights, core or otherwise, are denied gays?

UPDATE: In the comments below, PD Shaw surmises that Sully is making an oblique reference to his current immigration status limbo which, Alex Knapp suggests, he would not be experiencing were he married to an American woman.  This, though, is an issue with bureaucratic discretion in enforcing an outdated and silly law, not gay rights per se.

Similarly, Steve Verdon notes that many municipalities limit the number of unrelated individuals permitted to share a domicile.  But that’s neither an anti-gay measure no even a “nanny state” issue but rather locals seeking to maintain the quality of their neighborhoods.  One doesn’t buy a single family home in the suburbs with the intent of living next door to 37 migrant workers sharing three bedrooms.

GQ has a rather weird piece about something that may or may not be a trend:  High school kids using the Internet to extort sexual favors.  This one has a twist, which I’ll lot Conor Friedersdorf summarize:

Tony Stancl, an 18 year old high school senior who created a fake female identity on Facebook, flirted with male classmates by Internet chat, and successfully encouraged hundreds of them to send along naked photographs. These he kept on his computer. The unluckiest victims were subsequently blackmailed. The made up female would threaten to release the photographs unless the boys performed oral or anal sex on “my friend Tony.” Some boys agreed, and allowed that to be photographed too.

Conor has an excellent disquisition on the culture that allows high schoolers to casually get photographed nude and send said pics to complete strangers.  It’s worth reading.

My thoughts upon reading his precis, however, were not so much to the issue of the photographs per se but the fact that some significant number of high school boys allowed themselves to be blackmailed into gay sex rather than have nude photographs of themselves revealed.    Let’s just say my reaction precisely mirrored that which President Obama would have upon being told additional troops were needed in Afghanistan.

Since his departure from the Washington Times, Stacy McCain has become perhaps the most skilled attention whore in all the blogosphere.

Yeah, I just wrote that. And put it on the Internet.

In seeking to explain why Ken Layne and Andrew Sullivan seem to loathe Sarah Palin and, in particular, make sport of her Down Syndrome suffering infant son, Trig, Stacy puts forth a pop psychology theory in four part harmony involving gay psychology, the fear of spinsterdom, and tips for hunting hillbillies.

Taking Ockham’s Razor (or, in the case of certain residents of West Virginia, Ockham’s Toothbrush) to the problem, however, a simpler explanation arises:  They do it for the same reason Stacy writes posts like this one.

First, regardless of intelligence and education, people have prejudices based on their own experience and tend to judge people who don’t conform to their expectations rather harshly.  Sarah Palin does not dress, talk, or act like a governor — much less a vice presidential candidate — is supposed to.

Second, saying outrageous things that cultured people aren’t supposed to say out loud is an excellent way of attracting and sustaining attention.  Holding forth the view that Sarah Palin chose to carry Trig to term after learning that he had Down Syndrome, just like everyone assumed all along, is not going to get you many clickthroughs.

Illustration: Chris Madden Cartoons

Correction:  An earlier version of the post had Sullivan, Layne, and Ana Marie Cox pushing the Trig Palin birth origin conspiracy story.  In fact, Layne merely reprinted a cartoon involving Trig Palin. I don’t think Cox had anything to do with this at all, aside from being the original Wonkette.

“We should not allow Republicans to marry. It undercuts the entire institution of marriage.” Michael Reynolds of Sideways Mencken

Federal workers will now get benefits for their “partner” whether they are married or not, Scott Butterworth reports for WaPo’s 44 blog.

President Obama will announce tomorrow that he is extending federal benefits to include unmarried domestic partners of federal workers, including same-sex partners, White House officials said tonight.

Obama will sign an executive order implementing the change in the Oval Office, the officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity to avoid upstaging the president’s announcement.

The move would give partners of federal employees access to health care and financial benefits such as relocation fees for moves. The State Department announced a similar extension of benefits last month, with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton calling it “the right thing to do.”

The action will come as welcome news to gay-rights activists, who have voiced loud disappointment with Obama’s handling of several issues important to their community.

It’s not clear to me how he has the authority to make such a sweeping change without Congress passing a law.

Nor is it clear how one determines who is a “partner” without a marriage certificate.  Presumably, one simply declares that Person X is one’s “partner” (or, in Texas, “pardner”) and they it?  So, presumably, one could simply designate friends who are down on their luck and need health insurance as one’s “partner” on a rotating basis, “breaking up” with one’s that get insurance on their own and finding another?   Certainly, that would give whole new meaning to the phrase “friends with benefits.”

(I’m being somewhat tongue-in-cheek here.  Several municipalities implemented similar policies years ago, so I’m sure there are provisions in place to limit abuse.  But it’s got to be easier to change “partners” than spouses or whatever name one gives to those united in a civil union.)

It should be noted that Jeff Zeleny’s NYT report suggests a plan less comprehensive than Butterworth reports.

Mr. Obama will be weighing in for the first time on one of the most delicate social and political issues of the day: whether the government must provide benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees. While he will announce a list of benefits, officials said, they are not expected to include broad health insurance coverage, which could require legislation to achieve.

At any rate, this should at least assuage the gay community, which is peeved at Obama for defending current law like DOMA and DADT while not pressing to overturn them anytime soon?

Not so much.  John Aravosis reports on an embarrassing collapse of a gay fundraiser and Pam Spaulding is ripping Obama a new one for the lameness of this benefits plan and for having no master strategy to implement a gay rights agenda.

UPDATE:  Now that the announcement is made rather than speculative, it’s apparently not making anyone happy.

The package of domestic partnership benefits that President Obama established for federal workers on Wednesday drew the loudest protests from some of those it was intended to help, gay men and lesbians who criticized the move as too timid.

The administrative memorandum extending some partnership rights to federal workers in same-sex relationships, which Mr. Obama signed late Wednesday, allows administration personnel to take leave to care for sick partners and requires the government to recognize their partners as household members when determining overseas housing allocations for State Department employees, among other things.

But several of the nation’s most prominent gay and lesbian political leaders quickly attacked the president for failing to extend full health care benefits to the same-sex partners of federal workers, questioning the administration’s explanation that it is precluded from doing so by the Defense of Marriage Act, which Mr. Obama had vowed to repeal during his presidential campaign.

Their outcry put the administration on the defensive for an action it had hoped would help address increasing complaints from gay activists who supported Mr. Obama’s election but now say he is ignoring the issues he promised to address, like a repeal of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy on gay men and lesbians in the military. And it has tested the balance the administration has tried to strike between avoiding hot-button cultural issues that could distract it from pushing its ambitious economic agenda and avoiding angering key liberal constituencies that expect Mr. Obama to make good on campaign promises.

[...]

Speaking from the Oval Office on Wednesday, Mr. Obama said the memorandum — which represents his interpretation of existing law — represented just a start. “This is only one step,” Mr. Obama said. “Unfortunately, my administration is not authorized by existing federal law to provide same-sex couples with the full range of benefits enjoyed by heterosexual married couples.”  Mr. Obama said he would indeed work to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, calling it “discriminatory.” He also announced his support for legislation that would extend full health care benefits to federal workers, a measure whose sponsors include Senators Joseph I. Lieberman, independent of Connecticut, and Representative Tammy Baldwin, Democrat of Wisconsin, both of whom stood behind the president Wednesday afternoon.

[...]

But late Wednesday, Elaine Kaplan, general counsel for the office of personnel management, said federal statutes dictated that many vital health care benefits be conferred only to “spouses” and children of federal employees, effectively making it a benefit of marriage as defined by the marriage act. Ms. Kaplan said the new legislation the president is supporting would remedy that prohibition. In the meantime, she said, his memorandum would cover those benefits that do not fall under the more restrictive statutory language.

I’m pleased that the president has followed the law here.  I am somewhat confused, however:  Surely, benefits conferred to same-sex partners are also available for opposite-sex partners?  Otherwise, it would surely be discriminatory.

Photo by Flickr user dawnzy58 under Creative Commons license.

Since well before I thought the matter one for serious consideration, Andrew Sullivan has been making insightful, compelling arguments in favor of same-sex marriage.  This, alas, is not one of them.

A reader makes an excellent point:

One thing that struck me about the DOJ’s argument that DOMA does not violate the equal protection clause since homosexuals are still able to marry people of the opposite sex, is that this ignores the existence of same-sex marriage on the state level. If two women get married in Iowa, they can no longer enter into opposite-sex marriages, even though they still don’t have federal recognition.So right now, there exist a specific class of people (those who are married to a person of the same sex) who are totally excluded from federal marriage benefits.

Yes. That would be me and my husband. And we may be forced to separate as a result.

So . . . absent the right to marry the man he loves, Andrew would marry a chick in order to get “federal marriage benefits”?  Really?  What benefits are those, exactly?  The right to pass on half his Social Security check some decades hence to some random woman he’s not in love with?

Why would he want to do that?

The only other benefits that come to mind for someone who isn’t a military retiree, disabled veteran, or the like — which Andrew isn’t — are the right to leave property without a will and deathbed hospital visitation.  The first of those is a matter for the states and the second a matter of hospital policy; both are easily remedied.  But even if we grant artistic license here, I’m not sure what a sham marriage to an unspecified woman would accomplish.  I suppose having someone visit you in the hospital is better than no one; but it’s hardly the same as having your life’s partner there.

And this has them seriously considering abandoning their marriage?

Being unable to form a legal union with the person you love and/or being denied the benefits that traditional marriages convey is a legitimate gripe.  I’m not sure, however, that the fact that being legally married — with all attendant benefits — to that person  in one’s state denies one the right to also be married to someone one doesn’t wish to marry is a substantial additional burden.

Photo: Australian News and Information Bureau

Gays looking to get the Supreme Court’s help in being allowed to openly serve in the military have been rebuffed.

The Supreme Court on Monday turned down a challenge to the Pentagon policy forbidding gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military, granting a request by the Obama administration.  The court said it will not hear an appeal from former Army Capt. James Pietrangelo II, who was dismissed under the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.

[...]

In court papers, the administration said the appeals court ruled correctly in this case when it found that “don’t ask, don’t tell” is “rationally related to the government’s legitimate interest in military discipline and cohesion.”

During last year’s campaign, President Barack Obama indicated he supported the eventual repeal of the policy, but he has made no specific move to do so since taking office in January. Meanwhile, the White House has said it won’t stop gays and lesbians from being dismissed from the military.

@anamariecox is miffed but this is hardly surprising.  It has been settled law for generations that the military has a “good order and discipline” interest that allows it to do things that other government entities can’t.  The homosexual exclusion policy has been tested time and again and been deemed consistent with that goal.  There was no basis for taking this case and ruling differently.

Ultimately, this is a policy decision that Congress will make.  Given the trendlines on this, it’s only a matter of time.  For example, a Gallup poll released June 5th:

The movement in favor of gays serving has been positive among all demographics, with more than two-thirds overal and even a sizable majority of self-identified conservatives in favor.    No group gave less than 58 percent approval.

President Obama has clearly decided not to make Bill Clinton’s mistake of sparking a distrating controversy by tackling this early.  With an economic crisis and two wars to deal with, that’s wise if not particularly courageous.

New Hampshire has become the 6th state where gays can marry and the 2nd to make this change through the legislative process.

Traditionally conservative New Hampshire today became the sixth state in the nation — and the fifth state in New England — where same-sex couples will be allowed to marry.

“Today we’re standing up for the liberties of same-sex couples by making clear they will receive the same rights, responsibilities, and respect under New Hampshire law,” Governor John Lynch said before signing the legislation in a State House ceremony at about 5:20 p.m. Lynch said it was a New Hampshire tradition “to come down on the side of individual liberties and protections, and that tradition continues today.” The room, filled by scores of the bill’s supporters, resounded with applause as he signed.

[...]

Gay marriage is now legal in Vermont, Maine, New Hampshire, Connecticut, and Massachusetts — all of the new England states, except for Rhode Island. Gay marriage is also legal in Iowa.

Technically, the bill doesn’t take effect until January 1st.  As Tom Fahey reports for the Union Leader, the process was a bit more complicated than Lynch’s signing statement would indicate.

HB 73, compromise legislation demanded by the governor, was passed by a vote of 14-10 in the Senate and 198-176 in the House today. HB 73 (text), was an add-on to the gay marriage bill itself, HB 436 (text), and to HB 310 (text), which made technical changes to the main bill. HB 73 clarifies the rights of religious organizations and their employees to refuse to participate in same-sex marriage ceremonies or celebrations. It states that religious groups have exclusive control over doctrine, teaching and beliefs on who can marry within their faiths.

The House refused to go along with the Lynch language protecting religion two weeks ago, failing to pass the measure by a single vote.  Some who voted against it at the time said the House was being asked to agree to changes without being given enough time to examine them.

House opponents aired the same complaints today, but the tide had shifted. “The House has always taken the time to consider the unintended consequences of any bill,” said Rep. Betsey Patten, R-Moultonborough.

Supporters of the bill said the new language protects religious beliefs and individual rights. “Let’s vote this one last time. Church and state should be separate,” said Rep. Anthony DiFruscia, R-Windham, who helped craft the final compromise language. In the Senate, Judiciary Committee chair Sen. Deborah Reynolds, D-Plymouth, said the language in the amendment strikes a balance that provides “equal rights for all and the right to religious freedom.”

AP’s Norma Love gives more information on the compromise:

Lynch, a Democrat, had promised a veto if the law didn’t clearly spell out that churches and religious groups would not be forced to officiate at gay marriages or provide other services. Legislators made the changes.

[...]

The revised bill added a sentence specifying that all religious organizations, associations or societies have exclusive control over their religious doctrines, policies, teachings and beliefs on marriage. It also clarified that church-related organizations that serve charitable or educational purposes are exempt from having to provide insurance and other benefits to same-sex spouses of employees.

Messier and likely more complicated than a dictate handed down from a court.  But much more likely to be accepted as legitimate because it was made by the people’s representatives.   This is interesting, too:

The law will establish civil and religious marriage licenses and allow each party to the marriage to be identified as bride, groom or spouse. Same-sex couples already in civil unions will automatically be assumed to have a “civil marriage.”

Regardless, the tide is clearly turning on this subject.  The New England states are more liberal than most, of course, but they’re modeling the change.  As it becomes clear that marriage isn’t collapsing as an institution among heterosexuals and society isn’t collapsing — not a single reported case of anyone being turned into a pillar of salt, for example — this will be normalized.   It may take twenty years for gays to be able to marry in Mississippi and Alabama but it’ll happen in due time.

Photo: Jim Cole/AP

The YahooNews headline “Openly gay teen voted prom queen at LA high school” did its intended task of enticing me to click to read the AP story:

An openly gay teen was voted prom queen at Los Angeles’ Fairfax High School in a campaign that began as a stunt but ended up spurring discussion on the campus about gender roles and teen popularity. Sergio Garcia, 18, was crowned queen Saturday night at the Hollywood Roosevelt Hotel.

“I feel invincible,” Garcia said in his tiara and charcoal-gray tuxedo.

A few days earlier, he gave a speech that won over some cynics and led to an ovation and his unlikely victory.  “At one time, prom may have been a big popularity contest where the best-looking guy or girl were crowned king and queen. Things have changed and it’s no longer just about who has the most friends or who wears the coolest clothes,” Garcia told a gymnasium full of seniors. “I’m not your typical prom queen candidate. There’s more to me than meets the eye.”

Garcia assured the crowd he wouldn’t wear a dress on prom night. “I will be wearing a suit,” he said. “But don’t be fooled, deep down I am a queen.”

I’m not sure what to think of this.  On the one hand, the kid wanted to be prom queen and the other students voted for him, whether out of solidarity, jest, or some combination of factors.   On the other, this just seems weird. Doesn’t the school have some bylaws specifying that prom queens should be chicks and prom kings dudes?

For that matter, while I recognize that different subcultures have variation within them, this wouldn’t seem to be helping convey the message that gay males are otherwise perfectly normal men who simply prefer having sex with other men rather than the customary opposite sex.

UPDATE: Commenter PD Shaw suggests the question should be “Why isn’t he the King?”  Quite.   The kid isn’t transgendered; he’s homosexual.

Photos: Cindy Casares

In a 6-1 decision, the California Supreme Court “upheld a voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage” but it “also decided that the estimated 18,000 gay couples who tied the knot before the law took effect will stay wed,” Lisa Leff reports for AP.

People wait in line for a decision from the California State Supreme Court on the legality of a voter-approved ban on same-sex unions, Tuesday, May 26, 2009, in San Francisco. (AP Photo/Paul Sakuma)

The 6-1 decision written by Chief Justice Ron George rejected an argument by gay rights activists that the ban revised the California Constitution’s equal protection clause to such a dramatic degree that it first needed the Legislature’s approval.

The court said the Californians have a right, through the ballot box, to change their constitution. “In a sense, petitioners’ and the attorney general’s complaint is that it is just too easy to amend the California Constitution through the initiative process. But it is not a proper function of this court to curtail that process; we are constitutionally bound to uphold it,” the ruling said.

[...]

The court said it is well-established legal principle that an amendment is not retroactive unless it is clear that the voters intended it to apply retroactively, and there was no such clear indication in Proposition 8.  That provided some relief for the 18,000 gay couples who married in the brief time same-sex marriage was legal last year but that wasn’t enough to dull the anger over the ruling that banned gay marriage.

My Twitter feed has spawned some good quips on the subject:

@anamariecox retweets  @TeresaKopec: “Odd: My marriage doesn’t feel any stronger than it did this morning. But I’m a lot more smug about it!”

@EdMorrissey: “CA Supremes get Solomonic in upholding Prop”

@mldemmons (Michael Demmons):  “Prayers of California gays answered! ‘No!’ says God.”

@La_Shawn (LaShawn Barber) retweets @Blogcritics “Cal Supreme Ct goes the “Missouri Compromise” route on same-sex marriage http://xrl.us/bet8mq”

More substantively, Eugene Volokh proclaims, “court’s reasoning is quite correct” and cites relevant passages from the decision. Gabriel Malor agrees that the judges split the decision exactly right according to the law and thus demonstrates that “Our laws and constitutions are not meaningless. And our courts are not so broken as people claim. The justice system works and works well most of the time.”

In a separate post, Volokh observes,

[T]t seems to me that the California Supreme Court’s cases (1) recognizing a right to same-sex marriage under the California Constitution, and (2) today, recognizing that Proposition 8 validly amended the Constitution and thus abrogated the right are excellent examples for any discussion — in class or otherwise — about popular sovereignty.

Three Justices reached a result different from the one that they had initially reached, based on their judgment that the people’s views prevail over the Justices’. And they rebutted (in my view persuasively, but in any event clearly and informatively) the arguments to the contrary, both arguments focused on the revision vs. amendment question and arguments focused on the people’s supposed legal inability to alter supposedly “fundamental” or “inalienable” rights. On the other side, there was able briefing to the contrary, plus Justice Moreno’s partial dissent (which I’ve only skimmed at this point, though I’ll read it later today). Put together, this seems to me a great case study of the recurring debates about popular sovereignty, constitutionalism, the role of courts, and more broadly the mixed majoritarian and antimajoritarian nature of American constitutions.

These issues are extraordinarily difficult and, as Malor notes, there’s nothing “activist” about judges honestly trying to ferret out where the lines are drawn.  There’s no bright line, obvious to a layman, distinguishing “revising” the constitution, and thus requiring a 2/3 supermajority, and merely “amending” it, which California allows to be achieved by majority plebiscite.  It’s something that requires lawyers and money (but thankfully, not guns) to sort out.

That doesn’t make the process any less frustrating, of course.  Gay marriage supporters are understandably angry that the Supremes didn’t rule their way while opponents are apoplectic that Prop 8 was left standing yet not made retroactive.  Alas, that’s where an honest reading of the law led 6 of the 7 judges.

Kevin Drum’s right that “it might soon be moot anyway.  Prop 8 passed by only a bare majority, and public sentiment is continuing to change.  An initiative to legalize gay marriage might well pass in 2010, and if it doesn’t it certainly will by 2012 or 2014 at the latest.”

Andrew Sullivan gives Quote For the Day honors to gay Army 1st Lieutenant Dan Choi for this excerpt from his Open Letter to President Obama and Every Member of Congress:

I have learned many lessons in the ten years since I first raised my right hand at the United States Military Academy at West Point and committed to fighting for my country. The lessons of courage, integrity, honesty and selfless service are some of the most important.

At West Point, I recited the Cadet Prayer every Sunday. It taught us to “choose the harder right over the easier wrong” and to “never be content with a half truth when the whole can be won.” The Cadet Honor Code demanded truthfulness and honesty. It imposed a zero-tolerance policy against deception, or hiding behind comfort.

Following the Honor Code never bowed to comfortable timing or popularity. Honor and integrity are 24-hour values. That is why I refuse to lie about my identity.

Keeping one’s sexuality to onesself is not a lie in any ordinary sense of the word.  If it were, however, Choi has been lying for at least a decade by complying with the “Don’t Tell” part of the infamous “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” compromise. Why, suddenly, was he compelled to “be honest” by outing himself?

That said, Choi has clearly demonstrated that he can serve in uniform without upsetting “good order and discipline.”  Judging from his uniform photo above, he excelled at West Point where, unless things have changed drastically in recent years, he bunked with other male cadets and shared communal showers with them.  I take him at his word that his soldiers, raised in an era where being gay is about as noteworthy as being a redhead, continue to accept him as their leader.

It’s time to change the policy.  But Choi knew what the policy was when he signed up and when he went on television and announced he was gay.