IGF CultureWatch

The State of Maryland has invalidated the marriage of Georgie and Angie Mauler, just as they were about to celebrate their first anniversary around Valentine's Day, the Washington Post reports:

After pronouncing Georgie and Angie Man and Wife, the State of Maryland Found Out Otherwise. Now It's Put Their Marriage Asunder

As you might have guessed, the question of gender and marriage is again at issue. Georgie Mauler is a male-to-female transsexual who was legally wed to Angie, a woman-born-woman (Georgie had produced a birth certificate identifying Wayne George Mauler as male, and received a marriage certificate in return). Before undergoing sex-reassignment surgery, Georgie (as Wayne George) had been legally married and divorced from another woman. Although Georgie identifies now as female, Angie, interestingly, says she is not a lesbian and views Georgie as male:

"I'm never going to make you happy," Angie would tell Georgie before they exchanged rings, "because I'm not going to see you as a woman." Georgie would answer, "Then I'll go back to living as a man." Angie would shake her head. She knew Georgie's story.

When the state revoked the marriage's legality last November, "it also erased the couple's legitimacy - at least for Angie," the Post reports. A sad story. But you might also remember that last May the Kansas Supreme Court ruled that male-to-female transsexual J'Noel Gardiner was still legally a man and thus not entitled to the estate of her late husband, Marshall - in effect, invalidating the marriage after Marshall's death. If you combine the Maryland and Kansas rulings, a transsexual wouldn't be able to marry anyone!

Of course, this is all statist nonsense. If, in Maryland, Georgie could marry a woman before surgery, but not after, does this mean male paraplegics shouldn't be allowed to marry since they, too, don't have functioning male anatomy? Had Georgie remained married to the woman who was then his first wife, and subsequently had reassignment surgery, would that marriage have been invalidated after the fact? And if, in Kansas, J'Noel can't marry a man, can she marry a woman? Wouldn't that be validating a lesbian union?

Eventually, the federal courts will have to sort this out. But the obvious best solution would simply be to allow unmarried adults to marry other unmarried adults of their choosing.

Has Beens.

That gay men and lesbians (or, more to the point, men and women) have a very different experience of sexuality is highlighted by Amy Sohn in her New York Magazine piece "Bi For Now":

If the lipstick lesbian was the gay icon of the nineties, these days she's been replaced by her more controversial counterpart, the hasbian: a woman who used to date women but now dates men.

Though Anne Heche is the most prominent example, many hasbians (sometimes called LUGS: lesbians until graduation) are by-products of nineties liberal-arts educations. Caught up in the gay scene at school, they came out at 20 or 21 and now, five or ten years later, are finding themselves in the odd position of coming out all over again - as heterosexuals.

It's dangerous to overly generalize, and many lesbians are unwavering in their homosexual orientation. But it has to be acknowledged that more lesbians are sexually far more fluid in terms of which gender they're attracted to than are men. And for a significant number of women, lesbianism is an expression of feminism for a defined period of their lives, rather than a fixed aspect of identity:

Some hasbians identify as bisexual, while others say they're straight and describe their lesbianism as a meaningful but finite phase of their lives, like listening to a lot of Morrissey or campaigning for Dukakis.

(Just imagine a guy offering a similar explanation!) How this plays out in the "LGBT community" and its internal dynamics is at least something that might be discussed, but in general it isn't.
-Stephen H. Miller

Recent Postings

02/11/03 - 02/15/03

02/02/2003 - 02/08/2003

01/31/2003 - 01/26/2003

Says National Gay & Lesbian Task Force head Lorri Jean, in a press release responding to Andrew Sullivan's criticism of NGLTF's leftwing coalition building:

I doubt the organization has ever taken any stand on capitalism!

Well, consider this bit of economic analysis by Urvashi Vaid, then-director of the Policy Institute of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, in 1999:

Capitalism has worked several inversions on old values of work and old notions of industry and productivity. "capitalism has convinced us that producing and consuming are more important than doing neither, and the worst is doing nothing. What, after all, is the work and activity that most of us engage in? Producing junk that is sold for money that we use to buy more junk that someone else has produced.

And then there's this, from a past column by IGF contributing author Rick Rosendall:

Former National Gay and Lesbian Task Force executive director Urvashi Vaid, despite being an avowed anarcho-syndicalist, ... said that America "has taken off its ugly white hood to show its sexist, racist, anti-gay and capitalist face." When this was quoted to her, Vaid acknowledged having said it but accused her interlocutor of "McCarthyite red-baiting."

Looks like NGLTF's been caught red-handed in a two-faced bit of disingenuousness.

Passing It On.

In The Death Tax for the Other 98 Percent of Us,
David Boaz reminds us that when you shrug off your mortal coil, you can't leave your accumulated Social Security to anyone other than a legal spouse. But with privatized retirement accounts, you could leave those funds to anyone you choose. I'd say that's a good argument why private accounts are good for gays, in particular.

Make His Day.

Another unconventional view on how liberal left policies may not be quite so "pro-gay" after all, as Tom Palmer explains why allowing citizens to bear arms is in the interest of gay people, as reported by the conservative (and none-too-gay-friendly) Washington Times:

"It's unreasonable to insist that citizens put their lives in the hands of the D.C. government," said Mr. Palmer, adding that he had been assaulted and beaten several times because of his homosexuality.

Mr. Palmer, 46, a political-science researcher, said that several years ago he and a friend were chased by a group of some 20 young men at night. The men threatened to kill Mr. Palmer and his friend, telling them that their bodies would not be found. Mr. Palmer said he stymied his assailants by pulling out a 9-mm handgun.

"The presence of a weapon changes a situation dramatically, and suddenly people who are full of bravado are brought up short. It's not very fun when the prey can fight back," Mr. Palmer said.

I'm not for selling guns over the counter at 7-Eleven, but I do think there's convincing evidence that allowing licensed individuals to carry concealed weapons does, in fact, reduce violent crime, since criminals have to worry about putting themselves at risk when assaulting others. More guns, less crime, safer gays - now there's a thought to drive liberals into a frenzy!

"The ideological rift in The City's gay community led to arrests and bloodshed when police broke up a group of leftist demonstrators at a fundraiser for the new San Francisco LGBT Community Center," reports the San Francisco Examiner. According to the paper:

Sixty to 70 members of Gay Shame, a radical LGBT group that opposes the mainstreaming of the gay community, rallied outside the event. -- No matter who was to blame for the violence, it brings to the surface a simmering tension in The City's LGBT community, where politically moderate middle-class gays and more radicalized gays often are at odds on everything from homelessness policies to safe-sex issues.

Actually, the "politically moderate" of San Francisco would be considered extremely liberal in most other burgs. Only in comparison to the city's far left do they come off as centrists. Still, it was positive to see Supervisor Bevan Dufty, described by the Examiner as "a moderate gay politician," reflect that "It really seemed to me like I was in a parallel universe and I was watching a Fred Phelps demonstration."

As the nation moves in a more conservative (but not necessarily intolerant or anti-gay) direction, the hard left is becoming increasingly shrill. I expect that liberals will have to decide whether they can perpetuate coalition politics built on forming united fronts with these groups. Or whether the left will make demands that are so beyond the pale that they'll further marginalize themselves into cult-like political sects driven by anger and narcissism.

None So Blind...

In Grant Parish, Louisiana, some Christian ministers are up in arms over their discovery of a rural retreat for gay men called Manitou Woods. Reports The Town Talk website:

"We have a good, quiet community. We certainly don't want that (camp) in our community," said the Rev. Eddie Douglas of First Baptist Church in Pollock. -- The Rev. Mike Malone of Victory Baptist Church in Pollock said he is organizing a prayer vigil on March 5, coming out against the camp and the lifestyle of its visitors. -- "If you don't say something, God will hold us all accountable for our actions," Malone said. "We're standing up for the word of God."

Skip Ward, 82, has operated the rustic camp since 1995. "We've never really had any publicity for the camp around here because many of the people who come to our gatherings are not from here," he said. Now, he's receiving hate mail. According to the news story:

A local disc jockey, after using numerous sexually graphic references and expletives, wrote: "Basically, what I am saying is this 'homo-camp' you guys (and I use that term loosely) have put together is disgusting and immoral. I, nor 99 percent of my radio audience want to be, nor want our families and children to be, subject to this appalling display of filth." He ended the e-mail by saying the camp "will not happen."

He's a bit confused with his threat, of course, since the camp has been in business since 1995, with no negative impact on the community noted. But it's interesting how the good parsons' "hate the sin" exclusionary gospel so easily trickles down into the "hate the faggots" of the gutter bigots.

Not everyone is opposed, thankfully. Fran Demers, a spokeswoman for the local Chamber of Commerce, said:

"If it brings people to Grant Parish and those people spend money, then that is good for the economy of the parish. We can't afford to arbitrarily say who can and can't open a business in our parish. If they conduct themselves in a manner that is community-minded, I believe people need to accept it."

Yes. capitalism is the real progressive force, and always has been. But man does not live by bread alone, so not giving up on the spiritual front remains vital. As the Rev. Jim Reed of Colfax United Methodist Church told The Town Talk:

"My personal belief is that God calls every person to be in fellowship with Him," Reed said. "And that fellowship is available to every person. Anyone who excludes (homosexuals) is missing the point of the Gospel."

Which is a point worth making.

Faith or Fundamentalism

On the subject of matters of the spirit, there's a very fine letter by Jay Michaelson in Gay City News. It's in response to an interview journalist Rex Wockner conducted with David Bianco, the founder of the gay-press Q Syndicate, who announced he is selling his remaining shares of the company, no longer identifies as gay, and hopes to marry a woman because he has become an observant Orthodox Jew. Michaelson responds to Bianco, saying:

One of the most important teachings of Judaism is that everything is God. God is absolutely everywhere, here, now, in every moment, One. In loving relationships, of whatever configuration, God is especially, noticeably Present.

Let's hope love continues to win out over narrow fundamentalisms of all stripes.
--Stephen H. Miller

Recent Postings

02/02/2003 - 02/08/2003

01/31/2003 - 01/26/2003

01/23/2003 - 01/20/2003

The International Gay & Lesbian Human Rights Commission has issued a statement that's simply Orwellian. According to their release, IGLHRC Opposes Bush's Warmongering:

US actions in the war on terrorism demonstrate a disregard for international law. ... Our position is guided by our sense of solidarity with and accountability to the activists we work with all over the world, and especially those in regions which are greatly impacted by US foreign policies. The US policies of military aggression have served to render those who deviate from sexual and gender norms and people living with HIV/AIDS especially vulnerable to state-sanctioned violence and discrimination.

Just try to parse the meaning here. Not only are they defending Saddam's rule in the name of human rights (quite an obscenity, really), but they"re claiming it's U.S. policy that's responsible for the oppression of gays and lesbians (and the transgendered too, I suppose) in Saddam's Iraq and other tyrannies. This is too loopy for words.

Lies Are Truth.

But the left doesn't have a monopoly on inflammatory positions. The Liberty Legal Institute is one of the rightwing groups filing a brief in support of the Texas sodomy law in the Lawrence case now before the Supreme Court. According to a summary on the group's website:

Homosexual advocacy groups are challenging the Texas sodomy law". If the Court rules the law is unconstitutional discrimination (as they argue), all marriage laws restricting marriage to being between a man and a woman only would also be unconstitutional." LLI is also filing a brief with the Supreme Court of the United States, representing dozens of Texas legislators who are calling for the Supreme Court to uphold the sodomy law as part of the state laws protecting marriage.

Liberty Legal isn't even bothering to argue that ending sodomy laws could be a "slippery slope" toward legalizing same-sex matrimony; they simply assert that if sodomy laws are found unconstitutional, then barring gay unions will ipso facto be unconstitutional, too. Would it were so! Surely this "legal institute" knows that's ridiculous, but in the game of firing up the donor base, truth is a mere abstraction.

Muzzling versus Debate.

The always inflammatory gay columnist Michelangelo Signorile writes in Deflating a Gasbag that advertisers should be threatened with boycotts if they don't stop sponsoring Rush Limbaugh's popular radio show, because of Limbaugh's criticism of anti-war protestors. Signorile doesn't even have a clue as to what a perfect little McCarthyite he's become, or how all this is reminiscent of the 1950s "Red Channels" boycotts of advertisers on radio shows which featured communists (real or not).

Signorile compares boycotting Limbaugh's sponsors to the effort against advertisers of "Dr. Laura" Schlessinger's radio and (now defunct) TV shows. But "Dr. Laura" was an easier target than Rush. Advertisers are more sensitive to accusations they're sponsoring anti-gay or racial/ethnic bigotry than they'll be to a charge of supporting criticism of leftwing anti-war demonstrators.

I didn't support the "Dr. Laura" boycott (though I recognize she is a bigot), and instead urged that the response to bad speech is public argument, not attempting to silence your opponent by threatening sponsors. Targeting Limbaugh's advertisers because of his expressed political views has even less merit. It's the tactic of those who don't believe they can win in the give and take of public discourse.

Tears for Leona?

Having just defended Rush Limbaugh's right to speech, I can just imagine what my critics will make of this item. But here goes: Leona Helmsley is a sad, sick woman. But I"m not cheered by the jury verdict forcing her to pay $11 million-plus for discriminating against a gay employee. Specifically, the jury found she had subjected Charles Bell to a "hostile work environment" when he was general manager of her Park Lane Hotel (for about 5 months). Yes, it's quite possible Helmsley was a boss from hell, used the word "fag," and ultimately fired Bell. Guess what, this is the woman who made her reputation firing staff for the pettiest of reasons, real and imagined.

You take a job with the 'Queen of Mean,' you should know what you letting yourself in for. And Bell, now a restaurant manager, isn't exactly a factory laborer or short-order chef suffering privations because he was let go. Said Helmsley of her jurors, "They"re crazy -- They don't like me, I guess," and it's hard to disagree with that analysis.
--Stephen H. Miller

Attorney General John Ashcroft has authorized federal prosecutors to pursue the death penalty against a man charged with killing two women at a secluded campsite in Virginia's Shenandoah National Park -- slayings seen as an anti-gay hate crime, reports the Washington Post. Darrell Rice is charged with capital murder in the deaths of Julianne Williams and Laura "Lollie" Winans, two victims who, prosecutors have quoted Rice as saying, "deserved to die because they were lesbian whores." Since the grisly crime was committed in a national park, federal prosecution was triggered. According to the Post:

Although bias against gay people is not an aggravating factor under the terms of the federal death penalty law, prosecutors are permitted in general to seek harsher penalties in crimes that are shown to be motivated by such bias. Rice's case marks the first time that prosecutors in Virginia have invoked a 1994 law making it possible to seek the harder penalties for crimes motivated by bias against gay people.

It remains to be seen if invoking the death penalty will prove controversial. In the Matthew Shepard slaying case, some gay groups that support hate crimes legislation, which increases penalties for crimes motivated by bias, also belonged to liberal coalitions opposed to the death penalty. (See, for example, Death Penalty in Shepard Case Slammed by Activists.) Even before the Shepard trial, the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force had passed a resolution opposing the death penalty as a criminal sanction because, among other reasons, they claimed it's "disproportionately applied to poor people and people of color."

The conundrum: If the penalty for premeditated murder is either life in prison or death, and if hate crime laws bump up the penalty, you wind up with death. When progressive gays support hate crime bills but oppose capital punishment (often labeling it inherently racist), it parallels their call to let gays serve in the military while opposing U.S. military action as imperialist and (again) racist. Let's add lobbying for private-sector anti-discrimination laws but finding capitalism so objectionable that corporations are condemned, for their corrupting influence, when sponsoring floats in gay pride marches. Or demanding an AIDS Cure Now while trying to limit the incentive of drug company profits. And, of course, supporting the right of gays to wed while holding that marriage is an oppressive patriarchal institution. Somehow, they don't see that you can't have it both ways.

I generally oppose hate crime laws and believe it is criminal acts that should be prosecuted, not the underlying thought of the perpetrator. As it happens, I also oppose the death penalty, but not because I think it's a tool for class oppression. In fact, I find it persuasive that executions serve some role as a deterrent. But I can't get beyond the belief in my gut that killing killers who are not currently trying to kill you is morally indefensible -- and also gives the state too much power. You may disagree with me on that, but at least my dual opposition is not inconsistent.
--Stephen H. Miller

Syndicated "Lesbian Notions" columnist Paula Martinac took both myself and IGF contributing author Dale Carpenter to task in her Jan. 24 column "Speak Out Against War." Martinac quotes me as labeling those who question American foreign policy as "extremist, infantile, America-hating whiners." What she doesn't say is that my remarks are from an essay titled "What's Left?" published one month after the Sept. 11 attacks. I was castigating ad hoc groups of leftwing gays who had taken to the streets against America's pursuit of Al Qaeda terrorists and the liberation of Afghanistan from Taliban rule. While I am also critical of gay groups that recently joined the coalition against military action in Iraq, I have not done so with language as harsh as I used to describe protestors who blamed America for Sept. 11 - a fact Martinac obscures so she can dismiss my views as anti-anti-war extremism.

Meanwhile, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, which recently announced its anti-war position, is spending time and energy defending itself against those even further to the left who accuse it of not being anti-war enough. And the Audre Lorde Project (which describes itself as a center for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Two Spirit and Transgender people of color communities) and the LGBT Programs Community Relations Unit of the American Friends Service Committee have been sending a statement around the Internet that reads in part:

we know that militarism and war rely on and promote many forms of oppression -- including homophobia, transphobia, sexism, and racism. As LGBTST people, we know what it means to be targets of hate and violence. We understand what it means to be scapegoated. -- With care and respect, we call on LGBTST organizations and communities to join national and local coalitions to struggle for peace with justice -- and actively and creatively oppose U.S. policies and actions of military/economic/political aggression and war.

You see, I don't demean, I just let the gay left speak for itself. ("Two-spirit," by the way, is what the politically correct crowd now considers acceptable labeling of Native American gay folks.)

Less Regulation, More Gay Inclusion

Back in the real world, Virginia Log Cabin spokesman David Lampo has this op-ed published in the Richmond Times-Dispatch, arguing that Virginia law hurts the state's economy by prohibiting (yes, prohibiting) private businesses from granting health insurance to anyone who isn't the spouse or child of an employee, effectively barring benefits for same-sex partners. It's another case where government isn't the solution, it's the problem, holding back a private sector that wants to move forward.

Also in a libertarian vein, IGF contributing author David Boaz has an op-ed exposing the pro-choice hypocrisy of some big-name Democrats running for president. He writes:

what question of choice -- other than abortion -- does Gephardt think should be answered "not by the state but by the individual"? Like Kerry, he opposes Social Security choice, school choice, and the right of individuals to choose what drugs they will use, either for medical or recreational purposes. He voted to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry the person they choose.

Meanwhile, our friends on the left dream of an even more intrusive regulatory state that would, of course, only do good, progressive things. Naturally.
--Stephen H. Miller

Recent Postings

01/31/2003 -- 01/26/2003

01/23/2003 -- 01/20/2003

Gloria Steinem doesn't get "The Hours." Neither do her critics. The Oscar-contender, based on the prize-winning novel by Michael Cunningham, is a meditation on Virginia Woolf's novel "Mrs. Dalloway" and, for most folks, a thought-provoking two hours of cinema -- unless you happen to be an ideologue of left or right. Writing in the Los Angeles Times on Jan. 12 (not available without a fee), all Steinem sees is feminist propaganda, which makes her glad. She's especially fond of the storyline set in the 1950s about a suicidal housewife trapped in suburbia with spouse and child (and another one on the way) -- prime Steinem territory. She writes:

"Some male moviegoers emerged bewildered about why Laura wasn't happy with just her nice house, nice marriage, and nice son -- as if they would have been."

This provoked conservative columnist Rod Dreher, writing in National Review Online to comment:

"Well, call me a caveman, but yes, I did wonder why Laura (Julianne Moore)"with a loving husband and a small boy who adores her, was made so miserable by her existence.... It's telling that Steinem"assumes that all women naturally understand Laura's decision (guess what, they don"t)."

I"m not going to give away Laura's "decision," put you get the point. Dreher, who labels the film an "apologia for evil," buys Steinem's interpretation and rejects both the film and Steinem.

But neither grasps the movie I saw. Consider the two other storylines in the film. In the earliest, Virginia Woolf (Nicole Kidman) has been free to rebel against Victorian repression with her Bloomsbury Set colleagues and a husband who is willing to sacrifice his own career to support her life of artistic self-expression. She's miserable and suicidal. In the present-day story, Clarissa (Meryl Streep) is a lesbian mother (via a sperm donor) with a loving partner (Allison Janney) and a rewarding career as a Manhattan literary editor who throws parties for the avant garde. She's miserable and suicidal.

If Laura is depressed because 1950s conformism clashes with her, as they say, lesbian tendencies, Clarissa is unhappy because, as it turns out, the true love of her life was a poet, Richard (Ed Harris), who after one blissful summer left her for a man. In sum, the film, like "Mrs. Dalloway," is a reflection on why people can't be happy, always pining for what they don't have or think they"ve lost. Ultimately, Clarissa in the movie, as with her namesake in Woolf's novel, finds that it's the small, fleeting happinesses of life that are to be treasured.

But if Gloria Steinem wants to see a feminist anthem, and if Rod Dreher wants to condemn it as such, then I hope they enjoy themselves. But they've missed out on a truly interesting film.
--Stephen H. Miller

Recent Postings

01/31/2003 -- 01/26/2003

01/23/2003 -- 01/20/2003

Much press coverage last week about the withdrawal of Jerry Thacker -- the head of a Christian right AIDS ministry who had been nominated to the presidential advisory AIDS council, and then withdrew under pressure when it came to light he had called AIDS a "gay plague" and referred to the gay "deathstyle." As reported in an article by Carolyn Lochhead in the San Francisco Chronicle:

White House spokesman Ari Fleischer quickly and adamantly disavowed Thacker's views and his nomination, saying the selection was not made at the presidential level but came instead from the Department of Health and Human Services.

Let's also point out that of the 7 new nominees to the 35-member advisory council, 4 are openly gay -- including long-time Log Cabin Republican activist David Greer.

This White House is trying to both court gays in a subtle way and still placate the religious right, and sometimes you just can't do both. But when push comes to shove, they are distancing themselves from bigotry even at the cost of upsetting religious conservatives, and that's a major development. If you think my observation na"ve, read this attack on Bush by the American Family Association, Bush White House, Clinton White House ... No Difference on Homosexuality. According to this prominent religious conservative group, the Bush Administration is accused of "having a blind spot on an issue of critical importance to Christians: the homosexual movement," as evidenced most recently by its failure to support Thacker:

presidential spokesman Ari Fleisher publicly condemned Thacker, saying his views are "far, far removed from what the president believes," that the president has a "totally opposite view," and that Bush did not choose Thacker personally.

AFA chairman and founder Don Wildmon says while he was disappointed in the turn of events, he was more surprised at how quickly they happened.

"The homosexuals raised an objection, and Mr. Thacker was gone -- and that really surprised me," he says. "I was surprised by the strong comments from the White House saying the president did not share any of the views that Mr. Thacker holds."

Wildmon says he is tired of the apparent powerful influence exercised on the president by the Log Cabin Republicans, a homosexual lobby group -- and is concerned the Thacker incident could be a signal that the Administration may cave in to demands for pro-homosexual legislation. The White House, he says, is misguided in its attempts to appease homosexuals.

More evidence of the new thinking: Last week, the Washington Post reported that Peggy Neff, the lesbian partner of a woman killed in the Sept. 11 terrorist attack on the Pentagon, has been awarded more than $500,000 from a federal fund created to compensate victims:

Unlike gay couples in New York, Neff was not eligible for state aid from Virginia. Virginia law limits the benefits to spouses, parents, grandparents, siblings and children. But the master of a federal fund established by the Department of Justice after the terrorist attacks concluded that Neff, who is in her mid-fifties, was entitled to compensation.

"This is a huge step forward for the federal government," said Jennifer Middleton, an attorney for the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, which represented Neff.

Under a GOP administration, the federal government is increasingly recognizing that gays deserve to be given equal treatment. Much remains to be done, of course (the military and partnership recognition/marriage being the biggest hurdles), but the whines of our opponents are warranted; we"re continuing to move forward at a pace many activists had doubted was possible.

California attorney David Link, an IGF contributing author, emailed to support Lambda Legal Defense's brief in the Lawrence sodomy law case (after I had taken Lambda to task for citing Roe v. Wade as a precedent). David writes, in part:

Amicus briefs can (and should) be much more focused than the briefs of the parties, which have an obligation to address all the legal issues in the case. ... [T]he substantive due process issue is necessarily implicated if we want to have the court overturn Hardwick -- since it was based on substantive due process.... The court could distinguish Lawrence from Hardwick on equal protection grounds, leaving Hardwick standing, but applying to all sodomy laws as long as they treat all citizens equally irrespective of sexual orientation. That's one way to go.

But some think the better approach is to have the court overturn Hardwick entirely, and that requires addressing the question of constitutional privacy. (Unless, of course, the court were to strike off on some completely novel direction, like a more narrow focus on constitutional liberty, which, I think, is unlikely from this court). Thus, Lambda had a responsibility to brief the right to privacy, and that logically includes Roe. It would be possible to cite all the other privacy precedents, from Griswold v. Connecticut on, skipping over Roe, but that would be disingenuous. I think I'm safe in saying that the members of the US Supreme Court would probably be smart enough to notice the elephant that isn't in the room.

Well stated, but as a non-attorney court-watcher I still have doubts. I replied as follows:

It's been said that the majority in Hardwick delivered the opinion they wished they could have given to overturn Roe. If anything, Roe's reasoning is held to be even more suspect by the court majority today. So it sure seems like an extremely bad tactical move -- and really, for what end?

O"Connor and Kennedy may not want to unleash the furies by overturning Roe, but they certainly hold its reasoning in disdain and don't want to grant Roe any added credibility. And the response from Thomas, who some felt was reachable with limited-government-intrusion arguments (as in the Institute for Justice amicus brief, which argues for overturning Hardwick without staking a claim to the elusive "privacy right") would be likely to react even more negatively. So from this layman's perspective, it was a firecracker that shouldn't have been tossed.

I realize the folks at Lambda are extremely dedicated and hardworking. But their staff attorneys, with only a few exceptions, are from the liberal to left side of the spectrum, as they too often demonstrate. Wooing the center-right justices should have been the obvious goal, but one that may have clashed with their cultural milieu (i.e., NARAL and pals), so I stand by my criticism.

By the way, Lambda Legal Defense's website now includes its brief as well as all supporting amicus briefs.

To tell the truth, I couldn't bear to read what the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, National Center for Lesbian Rights, Human Rights Campaign, People for the American Way, Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, AFL-CIO, and other activists on the liberal left had to say to the court, but I doubt they've presented arguments that might effectively convince conservative justices to find sodomy laws unconstitutional. Far more likely, they"ve compiled legal theorizing that's anathema to the center-right swing votes on the court, but red meat to their own members and donors.
--Stephen H. Miller

The defense brief filed by the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, as counsel in Lawrence v. Texas (the anti-sodomy law case now before the U.S. Supreme Court) is online. While I haven't studied the brief in detail, I"m extremely disappointed to see that Roe v. Wade was cited in three instances as a precedent. No, it's not the heart of Lambda's argument, but it's certainly sure to rankle the conservatives.

Sixteen years ago in Bowers v. Hardwick, a sodomy law case not argued by Lambda (as I previously misstated), a Supreme Court whose majority no longer considered Roe's "privacy rights" argument to be persuasive voted to uphold sodomy laws. Roe's stature has only declined since. Citing it is something you"d expect of liberal attorneys who would rather uphold the pro-abortion party line than try to win over the swing conservatives. As described below, let's hope the amicus briefs filed by the Cato Institute, the Institute for Justice, the Liberty Education Forum, and the Republican Unity Coalition can undo some of the damage.