Some people argue that divided government is a good thing, and that at least the Democrats will fight Bush's attempts to appoint anti-gay judges favored by the religious right. But that's not quite what's happening. Consider the nomination of Timothy Tymkovich for a seat on the 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals.
As Colorado's solicitor general, Tymkovich vigorously supported the notorious Amendment 2 to that state's constitution, which would have voided local gay rights statutes and forbidden the state from considering such protections in the future. He also went beyond his official duties when he wrote a law journal article criticizing the U.S. Supreme Court for overturning Amendment 2 in its historic Romer vs. Evans ruling, in which Justice Anthony Kennedy, a Reagan appointee, wrote that gay citizens could not be singled out as a class for special discrimination solely on the basis of popular animus.
In his article, Tymkovich argued that Romer illustrated "judicial histrionics," adding that it was "merely another example of ad hoc, activist jurisprudence without constitutional mooring." Clearly, this man does not believe equality under the law has any meaning for gays and lesbians.
So are the Democrats in the Senate threatening a filibuster?
According to The
Advocate:
None of the Democrats who questioned Tymkovich -- senators Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, and Charles Schumer of New York -- said they would oppose his appointment. Most congratulated him on his nomination, and Kennedy even noted that some of his friends have urged him to support Tymkovich.
Meanwhile, the Democrats are engaged in a filibuster against appeals court nominee Miguel Estrada, a conservative Hispanic with no anti-gay record. Worse, they've promised to vigorously oppose the nomination of Charles Pickering to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.
In 1991, Pickering sharply rebuked an attorney who tried to use a plaintiff's homosexuality in a fraud trial. "Homosexuals are as much entitled to be protected from fraud as any other human beings," Pickering instructed the jury. "The fact that the alleged victims in this case are homosexuals shall not affect your verdict in any way whatsoever." In 1994, an anti-gay citizens group in the town of Ovett, Mississippi launched a crusade to drive out Camp Sister Spirit, a lesbian community. When the group took Camp Sister Spirit to court, Judge Pickering threw their case out.
Pickering is strongly supported by the Log Cabin Republicans, but opposed by liberal groups, including the Human Rights Campaign.
The lesson: if you are conservative but not anti-gay, look for the Democrats to oppose you with everything they've got. But if you're anti-gay but not otherwise objectionable, that's just dandy. I guess the Democrats figure no matter what they do, gay liberals will keep supporting them. And, sadly, they're probably right.
Good News.
Here are some positive stories in the news.
USA Today ran a report about how gays are making strides in
family law:
Even some groups that oppose expanded rights for homosexuals acknowledge that the trend in state family courts is running against them. "It's becoming a tougher battle each day," says Peter Sprigg, senior director of cultural studies at the Family Research Council, a Washington, D.C., group that wants the law to recognize only marriages between men and women. "We're probably losing ground."
The article also notes how states that won't allow same-sex couples to adopt children are seeing some mighty productive citizens picking up roots and moving to more fair-minded jurisdictions.
Meanwhile, the Boston Globe featured a Unitarian Universalist minister who announced to his congregation at Sunday services that he wouldn't be signing Massachusetts marriage licenses anymore -- at least not until the state lets him sign them for same-sex couples as well.
A symbolic statement, but one that strikes the right chord. The prohibition against letting gay and lesbian couples wed must come to be seen as no more acceptable than laws prohibiting two adults of different races from marrying. And the struggle goes on.
Inequality Wear.
On a lighter note: So what's with the Human Rights Campaign,
which uses an equal sign as its ubiquitous symbol, sending out a
24-page catalog of "EqualityWear," with the equal sign on
everything from teddy bears to key chains, and charging extra for
the XXL items? What about equality for the differently-sized?
--Stephen H. Miller