Florida Agenda

CLIFF DUNN

Last week, this publication printed a paid political advertisement that had been provided by the Broward County chapter of the Log Cabin Republicans. The half page black and white ad depicted the late U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens, as his body was carried out of the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, in which he had died moments earlier. The national coverage on the advertisement has, correctly, focused almost entirely on the Broward LCR’s actions, and the consequences it is likely to face from its national chartering organization.

Since I had no involvement in the ad’s creation, or participation in deciding whether the ad ran, I do not want to put words into the mouths (by way of explaining what they were thinking) of either the Broward LCR chapter or of their national organization. Speaking for the latter, the Log Cabin Republicans’ national executive director, R. Clarke Cooper, has already responded in eloquent language about his organization’s outrage (see this issue’s Florida Agenda “POLITICAL DESK,” Page 11) concerning the depiction of a fallen American diplomat who died in the service of his country (regardless of the specific details of that death, both of which remain matters of national sensitivity and security), and of the use of that image to garner cheap, fear- and hate-inspired political support.

Nor will I impart my own personal feelings concerning the use of Ambassador Stevens’ portrayal in such straits, or of how such a portrayal distresses men and women of goodwill, gay and straight, Muslim and Christian, Jew and atheist, and gives aid and comfort to all enemies of decency and goodness. That sentiment must be one which is expressed individually, and I will not engage in the same tactics as did the members of the Broward LCRs who were responsible for the ad, in the interest of assuaging my own moral outrage. That would be irresponsible of me as a journalist, a keeper of our most sacred secular commandment, the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

By now, I have heard from members of the press—gay and straight, legitimate and tabloid—concerning the righteous anger and disdain that has been directed both at the Broward Log Cabin Republicans and the ad’s grotesque depiction of a fallen American who died of unnatural causes. There has likewise been concern about the decision to run the ad, in light of reports that it was declined in other publications.

I cannot speak to the reasoning behind those publications’ decision not to run the ad, other than to accept at face value their own explanations, and try to give you a window into our reasoning, one which informs our commitment to serving as a community-wide instrument to disseminate information and opinions—not all of them popular, and in this extreme case, one which tries the very fabric and tolerance of that very relevant concept, free speech and open-access to a community journal.

As I told the very capable national LGBT journalist Bil Browning of the Bilerico Project, the balance between censorship and sensitivity has more far reaching implications for the press than it does for a person sitting in your own living room. Was the Agenda free to censor a message we found repugnant? I can think of no legal constraint preventing it. But in advertising ourselves as a community publication, we have an obligation to serve the entire community.

When a lobbyist provides financial incentives to a lawmaker, he is legally buying access under a system that is as old as our Republic. That same access is afforded to both pro-life and anti-gun groups alike. It is a part of an open dialog that is likewise as old as our Republic—as is the suppression of free speech during times of national distress, which in our nation dates from the Alien and Sedition Acts of the 18th Century to the Patriot Act of the 21st.

As a journalist, my first responsibility must always be to err on the side of free speech and expression, so long as it doesn’t contradict the law.

Along with the Bill of Rights, I would offer an older, more fundamental imperative that was in play here: the Golden Rule, which demands that the same treatment be afforded the “good” among us as the “bad.” This was the point behind the admonishment, “I’d give the Devil [the] benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake,” in the 1960 play “A Man for All Seasons.”

In 1822, Denmark Vesey led one of the largest slave rebellions in pre- Civil War America. Vesey, a freed slave, purchased his own freedom sometime around 1800. He was a leader of a black church which preached the abolition of slavery in very white, very anti-abolition Charleston, S.C. Twice—and with the collusion of the authorities—white property owners shut down Vesey’s African Church, a provocation that would lead to the uprising of several thousand African-American slaves and freedmen.

Although the owners of the African Church property could have chosen to allow Vesey’s congregation to stay open, they instead decided to ignore the members’ First Amendment rights to assembly and to practice their beliefs.

Of course, as private landowners they were not actually constrained by the Bill of Rights—those Constitutional prohibitions are directed specifically at Congress—and so they were under no obligation to honor its language. But they apparently felt no obligation either to honor the Golden Rule, of doing unto others as one would have done unto them.

Doesn’t a community journal have an ethical obligation to provide a balance, offering ad space (and editorial column inches) for all political sides in a presidential election year? Would censorship have been the “high road?” I cannot in good conscience say that it would have been.

I know that others will debate on where a line of decency or good taste, not to mention humanity, should be drawn, and I hope to take part in that discussion. I know that I would hope that the LCRs will use a more sensitive measuring stick when they next try to influence the social message, since I think this time around they clearly went far afield. I think a long-term good will be served by that, in every sense.

The question of which good is best served by what deed puts me in mind of John Adams, who was in 1770 the lawyer selected to defend the British soldiers who took part in the Boston Massacre. Although even then a leading Patriot in the cause of American liberty, and a firm believer that the citizens of Boston had every reason to “call the action of that night a massacre,” Adams—later our country’s second president—held that not providing the British soldiers full access to the best defense “would have been as foul a stain upon this country as the executions of the Quakers or witches, anciently.”

Then as now, some things remain more indefensible than others.

By Cliff Dunn

ATLANTA, GA – On Tuesday morning, after American Family Association spokesman Bryan Fischer began propagandizing the alleged “documented” health risks of being gay, CNN anchor Carol Costello terminated the interview, offering tepid thanks for his opinions, which included the claim that a majority of Nazi Germany’s SS storm troopers were gay.

During her regular midday broadcast of “CNN Newsroom” (which airs Monday through Friday, from 9 a.m. to 11 a.m., Eastern time), Costello hosted an interview with Fischer, who serves as Director of Issues Analysis for the Tupelo, Miss.- based AFA. Their discussion opened with Fischer’s criticism of the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) “Mix It Up at Lunch Day” project, which promotes tolerance in school lunchrooms in an effort to combat the nationwide bullying epidemic.

According to Fischer, the event, which SPLC launched in 2001 and is held in 2,500 schools nationwide, is an effort by the progressive advocacy center to force students “to accept homosexuality as a normal, healthy alternative to heterosexuality.”

Fischer said that the Mix It Up initiative is “toxic” to students’ “moral health,” and compared it to “poisoned Halloween candy” that has been injected with cyanide. “The label looks fine, it looks innocuous, but once you internalize it, you realize how toxic it is.”

Costello later quoted from the transcript of an earlier radio interview with Fischer, in which he claimed that “Hitler recruited homosexuals around him to make up his storm troopers. They were his enforcers. He discovered he could not get straight soldiers to carry out his orders, but homosexual soldiers had no limit to the savagery and brutality Hitler sent them after.”

“That spells agenda to me,” remarked Costello, who noted that what Fischer was saying could be considered “hate speech.” After Fischer called SPLC—which is best known for its legal victories against white supremacist groups, and its monitoring of extremist organizations— the real “bullying group,” he claimed that “they’re the ones that want to silence any view that would criticize the normalization of homosexual behavior.”

When he added that “homosexuality has the same risks associated with it as intravenous drug use,” an exasperated Costello cut him off, noting, “That’s just not true. I’m going to end this interview now, sir, because that’s just not true.” She added: “Thanks for sharing your views, I guess.”

A series of unrelated events last week— including the first presidential debate— put me in mind of the shortcomings of both government and business, and helped clarify for me the ridiculous nature of the notion that a President of the United States equates with the CEO of a Blue Chip Corporation, along with the idea that a country should be run like a business.

There are a large number of Americans who sincerely believe that a government of, by, and for the people should function under the same conventions that govern business, and who equate the forms themselves as being interchangeable, with POTUS as the hypothetical CEO, and Congress functioning as a Board of Directors.

Even that most well-groomed Captain of Industry, Mitt Romney, doesn’t believe this analogy. The trouble with trying to run a country like a business is that the “customer” base is different for each one. In a country, we are one another’s customer (as fellow citizens), and we contribute to one another’s common welfare. That is why when a tornado strikes a town in Kansas, the federal government sends money or material aid, just as it will if a hurricane ravages South Florida. That is, as Republican Oliver Wendell Holmes said, both “the price we pay for living in a civilized society,” and its benifit.

But if that scenario played like it does in “business”—which counts “customers” as well as “investors”—there would be a profitand- loss reckoning as to how many resources went to New Orleans, versus how much was sent to South Beach: A nation with a debt (which includes all the successful ones) has the “luxury” of not having to decide between those choices (just as—when push comes to shove—we don’t have to “choose” between fighting one war or two; “sadly,” wehave the resources —in the form of deficits—to do both, something employed by both Democrats and Republicans). In a nation, we are all customers and investors.

When Hurricane Katrina ravaged the Gulf Coast in 2005, the Bush Administration’s handling of the federal emergency response was unworthy of a great nation. The post- Katrina cleanup was handled like a business—one that enriched large contractors who had longstanding relationships with high-ranking officials. My purpose here is not to Bush Bash: It is to draw attention to the disastrous consequences of trying to manage a nation as a profit center.

Another dramatic example of the stark difference between the way a government and the way a business operate occurred in the hours immediately after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Following the attacks, the New York City Municipal Credit Union, which is headquartered across from ground zero, lost its computer link to the network that controls its automated teller machines. Because of this, the network had no way to check accounts to verify that sufficient funds existed to cover ATM withdrawals.

Rather than shut down its ATM operation—and looking after the interests of its 300,000 members during a time of crisis—credit union officials allowed customers to make withdrawals from their accounts without knowing if the money was there to cover them.

The Municipal Credit Union, whose members include city, state, and federal employees, as well as health care workers, is a nonprofit financial institution with $1 billion in assets. As a credit union—of, by, and for its members—it functions much like a governmental body, providing financial services to those members, who in turn contribute to a pool used by other members (yes, this smacks of communism). In the months following 9/11, $15 million dollars was looted by credit unions members, and 118 individuals were charged by prosecutors in the thefts.

Ironically, I think their bad example is the exception that proves both the rule and my point. Those members who took advantage of the goodwill of the credit union officials after 9/11 were scoundrels in their actions, and we don’t know how many honest members were helped during those months. But the fact that the “bottom line” wasn’t the bottom-line for those officials in a time of trauma is very much to their credit.

By Cliff Dunn

TALLAHASSEE – Last week, the Florida Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a child-custody case between two women who are former partners in a committed same-sex couple. The case reflects the disparity between what Florida law defines as family units, and the reality as it exists down the length of the Sunshine State.

The case concerns two women contesting parental rights to their daughter, who was conceived in 2006 by having one of the women’s eggs implanted in the womb of the other (meaning that the girl has one birth mother, but a different biological mother). After the women split in 2006, the birth mother cut off all contact with her former partner, and took the child to Australia.

In most circumstances, both state and federal law recognize parental rights in the case of a biological mother who is raising her own child. But during the original custody suit, the Brevard County trial judge said that, because egg and sperm donors relinquish their parental rights, and because Florida law defines a “couple” as “one man and one woman” he was required to classify the biological mother as an “egg donor.”

For the protection and privacy of the child, the women are identified in court records by their initials. After his ruling, the judge told the biological mother, who is identified as TMH, “If you appeal this, I hope I’m wrong.” The 5th District Court of Appeal in Daytona Beach ruled in favor of the biological mother, saying that both women have parental rights.

Experts say that at the heart of the case is a 1993 state law regulating sperm and egg donation, as well as the rights of gay people to raise children and claim equal protection under the law. (In 2010, another appeals court ruled that Florida’s ban on gay adoption was unconstitutional.)

The 5th District’s ruling led to the appeal of the birth mother—who is identified as DMT—which was heard on October 2. Her attorney, Michael B. Jones, cited the precedence of other courts recognizing a birth parent’s privileged status. “A step-parent, a grandparent, under many different kinds of circumstances, may have a relationship with the child, but when the actual parent decides that that relationship is no longer appropriate for the child, then that is terminated,” Jones said.

Justice Barbara Pariente asked Jones why the biological mother isn’t an actual parent, when a man who fathers a child out of wedlock is recognized as such if he helps to raise the child. “Is that not a situation that at least implicates equal protection of women, at least to have equal protection as men?” asked Pariente, a West Palm Beach Democrat.

Chief Justice Ricky Polston noted the definition of a “couple” under state law, and asked whether the panel could even consider such questions. “It seems like you’re asking this court to implement social policy that’s not reflected in the Florida statutes, not in the Florida Constitution or, to me, in the U.S. Constitution. But you’re asking us to make a constitutional ruling on social policy,” said Polston (who was appointed to the Florida Supreme Court in 2008 by then-Gov. Charlie Crist) to the biological mother’s attorney, Robert Segal.

Segal, said, “We’re asking the court to make a determination that appellee [the biological mother] has protected parental rights, based on the actions of the parties.” He said the biological mother wasn’t just an egg donor, that she had taken equal part in the raising of the child until she was taken away by the birth mother. Because Florida law banned gay adoption at the time of the child’s birth, the woman didn’t have the option to adopt her child. As noted above, that ban was declared unconstitutional in 2010.

The justices raised the possibility of returning the case to the original trial judge to decide upon a doctor’s informed consent form signed by the biological mother, in which she gives up all rights to the donated egg, as well as any resulting offspring.

The birth mother’s attorney argued that the case hinges upon the consent form. The biological mother’s lawyer countered that the form is not a legal contract (it wasn’t signed by both parties), and applies strictly to anonymous sperm and egg donors, not a committed couple who plan to raise children together.

CLIFF DUNN

In recent months my boyfriend has made me a fan of the “zombie” genre of horror movies. Believe me when I say, some of the more-dubious fare is well-labeled as “horror.” (Ever the snob, I prefer more “realistic” offerings, like the AMC cable network’s compelling and dramatic “The Walking Dead” series to some of the grosser, “meat”-and-potatoes productions of George Romero and his homagists.)

We often joke that if the other was to be bitten (or by some other means zombified), each would “mercifully” put the other out of his misery, with an ax, a shotgun, or whatever traditionally antiundead ordnance happened to be lying around. That’s why I listened with some amusement last week when he told me—with absolute certainty—that if we found ourselves marooned on a desert island, or lost in the frozen arctic, or otherwise in desperate straits and running out of supplies and comestibles, he was sure that I would eat him.

He said this in a tone that betrayed sleep deprivation, yes, but also surprise and disappointment mixed with an accusatory tone driven by his “discovery”—as if, having experienced the “truth” of this revelation, he would make me pay for it.

This pillow talk became more relevant when I posted something on Facebook over the weekend that was meant to garner laughter, but instead brought out the “ugly” in a friend-of-a-friend. The actor Samuel L. Jackson has lent his talent to a pro-Obama parody in which he harangues a middle class family to “Wake the F*** up!” and support the president in November. I had (and still have) no clue what my friend’s political persuasions might be, but we share a similar sense of what’s funny, so I thought he would get the humor. (WATCH THE VIDEO BELOW)

To be on the safe side—this is Facebook we’re talking about, after all, and not everyone who posts has taken their medication this morning—I added a disclaimer to the effect that, whatever your individual political beliefs, the video was funny and worth a gander. Less than a minute later—without having had the time to open the video file, much less listen to Jackson’s comedic rant—one of my friend’s friends commented that I was an “Obama Zombie.”

Clearly this person had mistaken the intent of my post, which hadn’t been meant to promote any candidate, belief, or cause—other than to stimulate the cracking of a smile, for crying out loud. But the exchange that ensued showed that—Transactional Analysis games notwithstanding—this person was determined to be “victimized” by me, whom he perceived to be a threat to him, his politics, and his worldview. At that point, I was more than happy to oblige.

So much of the national dialog these past several months has been geared up to playing the game of “gotcha” and similar efforts to be “right” rather than be helpful, that an entire industry of fact-checkers has produced a subgenre of media, with such now-familiar names as FactCheck.org and PolitiFact churning out ever-increasing examples of both sides in the presidential election playing fast and loose with the facts (never mind the “truth”).

For me, the worst part of being labeled an “Obama Zombie” (other than the assumption that I would end up one of the walking dead, something that galls my inner fanboy to no end) is that the numbskull who so labeled me had no idea who I support or don’t support, but that by my “signing off ” on the Samuel L. Jackson video I am—at best— helping to promote a pro-Obama message, and—at worst—I am actually going to vote for the— what? Muslim? Foreign national? (African American? Gay-lover?) Who’s the real zombie here?

PORTLAND, MAINE — On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal from a national anti-marriage equality group, in its bid to prevent its donor list from being released under Maine’s campaign disclosure law.

The justices refused the National Organization for Marriage’s (NOM) request, which was made in an effort to keep secret the names of contributors who helped fund the group’s $1.9 million donation to a political action committee (PAC) during the repeal of the state’s same-sex marriage law.

The state’s campaign disclosure law requires that groups which give more than $5,000 to PACs— or other efforts to influence an election—disclose their donors. Attorneys for Washington, D.C.- based NOM argued that releasing the donor list would curtail free speech and result in harassment for the donors. The group challenged the Maine law, but a lower court refused to overturn it.

In 2009, Maine voters repealed the state’s marriage equality law. That law is once more on the state ballot in the November 6 general election. NOM has donated $250,000 to the campaign opposing marriage equality. The donor list remains closed until a separate case works its way through the state courts.

CLIFF DUNN

Galehouse and Wachholtz Were Drugged, Dismembered

By Cliff Dunn

TAMPA – On September 20, an indictment was handed down in the 2003 torture and murder of two gay Tampa Bay-area men. Although he was charged with other related crimes, and was sentenced to 40 years in federal prison for his part in the grisly murders, Scott Paul Schweickert was never held accountable for the greater crime. The indictment, handed down by the Hillsborough County Grand Jury, charges Schweicke r t , 47, with two counts of First Degree Murder, in the deaths of Jason Galehouse and Michael Wachholtz. In December 2003, Schweickert— who had come to the Gulf Coast from Illinois—admitted that he and Stephen Lorenzo, a Tampa man, met Galehouse at the popular Club 2606, and lured him back to Lorenzo’s home.

Schweickert claims that he and Lorenzo, 53, drugged, tortured, and killed Galehouse, 26, then dismembered him and dumped his remains in trash bins around Tampa. The next night, they subjected Wachholtz—who was also 26 years old—to a similar fate. A search for the missing young men went on for weeks. The remains of Wachholtz were eventually found in his Jeep Cherokee, but investigators never found Galehouse. Authorities also found other men who had survived their encounters with Lorenzo and Schweickert.X

Lorenzo was charged with drugging nine men, while Schweickert was charged with drugging Galehouse, and for conspiring with Lorenzo. During Schweickert’s 2005 grand jury testimony, he described giving the victims Gamma-Hydroxybutyric acid (GHB), an intoxicant which can be employed as a daterape drug. He also testified to watching Lorenzo choke the men, and said he held Galehouse’s arms and legs while Lorenzo sawed them off. Lorenzo is currently serving 200 years in prison.

The Hillsborough County State Attorney’s Office hasn’t said why it sought an indictment almost a decade after the murders, but experts cite a possible Miranda rights issue during the investigation as one possible explanation.

Defense attorneys said that Schweickert was never offered legal counsel during questioning, but investigators r e a s o n e d that because S chwe i c k e r t wasn’t in custody, he did not need to be read his rights.

In 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court found that Miranda rights must be read during “in-custody interrogations,” when a suspect is not free to leave. That wasn’t the case for Schweickert.

Since neither Lorenzo nor Schweickert faced murder charges, prosecutors could not previously pursue the death penalty. The new charges may put capital punishment back on the table.

CLIFF DUNN

This week, I took the arguably drastic step of “de-friending” some people on Facebook who I felt had taken the whole “post whatever is on your mind” thing a bit too far. (I have seen some doozies, believe me, including someone who, moments before I forever “blocked” them, had posted an image of their most recent—I am not making this up—bowel movement.)

I’m all in favor of free speech and free expression, which is convenient, since I’m a writer by trade and my boyfriend is a talented sketch artist, but there’s a time and a place for everything, including bowel movements. This isn’t to say that I don’t support your “right” to broadcast your bodily functions, just not while my laptop is open to that page (the reason I likewise support Facebook’s right to remove particularly egregious violators).

In the case of this past week, it was the irresponsible use of free speech that caused me—with sincere regret—to “block” these individuals, at least until the Cessation of Hostilities (in this case, November 7, the day after the general election).

The angry political rhetoric of this year’s Silly Season (so-called because apparently there is nothing too ridiculous, unfathomable, or out-of-bounds about any given candidate or cause that some— uh, fellow citizen wouldn’t give credence to: Obama is a Muslim. Obama is a foreigner. Obama is a communist. (Or, as Hank Williams, Jr. so eloquently put it, “We’ve got a Muslim for a President who hates cowboys, hates cowgirls, hates fishing, hates farming, loves gays, and we hate him!”)

“Collectively, these hatemongers form a global industry of outrage, working feverishly to give and take offense, frequently over religion, and to ignite the combustible mix of ignorance and suspicion that exists,” said an article in Time last week. Interestingly, the writer was speaking about the powder keg of the Middle East, in an analysis of the causes of the rioting that led to the death in Libya of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens. But he could just as easily been referring to the loutish and loud who are every bit as hateful as the extremists they are decrying.

Honestly, I am a patriot who loves my country and who believes— without the flurry and flourish of rattling sabers or beating breasts— that America is an exceptional country, because of its people and the principles and values for which we at least think we believe we stand. But I would—I’m serious—be challenged as to whom I would call a greater enemy to American values: Rush Limbaugh, or some ignorant teenager learning how to hate the U.S. in a Muslim madrasa. Neither of these types shares anything of my own personal feelings for my country or countrymen, and each (I am pretty certain) thinks in his own way that the world would be a better place without me.

A friend recently referred to the members of the Occupy Wall Street movement as “traitors.” I find this sort of anachronistic speech amusing in my own paternalistic way—until I realize this is the same rhetoric that was voiced against Jews in some of the most “enlightened” places in the world, including Paris, Vienna, London, and Washington, D.C., through the modern era. How can a free citizen in a nation of laws that protects the right of assembly and the right of expression be considered a “traitor?”

I take comfort that this kind of dangerous rhetoric has been preached and practiced in the Republic since its inception, with Jeffersonians accusing Washington (the actual George, in this case) of being pro-English and anti- American, and Hamiltonians and Adamsites in turn calling Jeffersonians the worst name they could think of: “Democrats” (the word had a different context in early-19th Century, post-French Revolution America, although Rush, Sean Hannity, and Company are having just as much fun with it).

My dislike of Limbaugh, Michael Savage, and the Bloviating Class (which doesn’t translate to a disdain for commentator Bill O’Reilly, incidentally, because he dislikes the hypocrisy against Obama as much as I do) often takes the form of imagining them as my “opponents” in some of the mindless video games my boyfriend and I sometimes play while we’re cooking (“Bloons Tower Defense,” anyone?), watching them explode in a whirl of hot air—and hotter gas—when my game avatar “pops” a balloon opponent.

A part of me thinks it’s not in some of the mindless video games my boyfriend and I sometimes play while we’re cooking (“Bloons Tower
Defense,” anyone?), watching them explode in a whirl of hot air—and hotter gas—when my game avatar “pops” a balloon opponent. A part of me thinks it’s not very “patriotic” of me to imagine my fellow countrymen in such straits, but another part recognizes that in today’s political climate, it  is very “American.”

CLIFF DUNN

Along with who will be receiving his mail at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. come January, one of the most compelling political questions about 2013 is what, if anything, the U.S. Supreme Court will “do” about the volatile and divisive issue of same-sex marriage.

High Court watchers say that the justices were expected to privately discuss marriage equality on Monday past, and at press time for the Florida Agenda there was speculation they could decide as early as yesterday, September 25, as to whether they would take up the constitutional challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the 1996 federal law that denies financial benefits to gay couples, and possibly a second case relating to California’s Proposition 8.

Although oral arguments and a legal decision by the Supremes wouldn’t be handed down until next year (if at all), the justices are well aware of the political consequences—to both major parties—of even ruminating on the topic six weeks from a presidential election.

The legal “balls” in the air for the court to consider, should they so choose, concern whether the U.S. Constitution’s guarantees of equal protection nullify the California statute, as well as DOMA, which defines marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman.

In New York State, a woman challenged the federal law, saying it selectively and unfairly treats same-gender couples who have been lawfully married in their own states. In a separate but related item, the justices could also decide the constitutionality of Prop. 8.

In the case of the DOMA appeal, Edith Windsor had lived with her partner, Thea Spyer, as a couple in New York since 1967. They married out of state in 2007, at a time when New York State didn’t recognize same-sex marriage. When Spyer died three years ago, she left her estate to Windsor, who was required to pay around $360,000 in federal taxes on the inheritance, because the feds don’t acknowledge her “legal” status—even though New York now permits gay marriage.

Although a federal judge ruled in Windsor’s favor, her attorneys have asked the justices to hear the case now, leapfrogging the standard appeals process. “Edie Windsor, who recently celebrated her 83rd birthday, suffers from a serious heart condition,” said her lawyer, Roberta Kaplan. “Edie cannot yet receive a refund of the unconstitutional estate tax that she was forced to pay simply for being gay. The constitutional injury inflicted on Edie should be remedied within her lifetime.”

Last spring, a Boston-based federal appeals court struck down a key part of DOMA. The court ruled that the federal government cannot deny benefits to same-sex couples who were married in states where gay marriage is legal.

Enacted in 1996 by a Republican Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton, a Democrat, DOMA prohibits federal recognition of marriage equality, and says that states cannot be compelled to recognize such marriages contracted in other jurisdictions.

In the District of Columbia and six states—Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire and New York— marriage between two persons of the same gender is legal. In Washington state and Maryland, similar laws have been enacted, but voters have a chance to affirm or reject these measures in ballot initiatives this November (see the related story in this issue’s POLITICAL DESK, Page 11).

Five states—Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Rhode Island—have legalized civil unions. Four—California, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington state—have established domestic partnerships, which provide many of the same rights as marriage, although in the last instance, lawmakers passed a full marriage law which is the subject of a November voter referendum (see above).

Wisconsin provides limited benefits under domestic partnership laws, and Maine voters will decide in November whether to maintain similar benefits, or go for the Full Monty for such couples (see POLITICAL DESK story, Page 11).

The remaining 33 states, including Florida, offer no such provisions. There are three other appeals that challenge the 1996 federal law, including 17 married or widowed men and women who are suing for their federal benefits and recognition. The high court could decide to wait until the appeals process has been exhausted before allowing a full review by the justices.

The two eggs in the Supremes’ basket concern separate, bi-coastal cases. In August, a federal appeals court ruled against the California prohibition of same-sex marriage, arguing that it unfairly—and unconstitutionally—singles-out gays. The three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Proposition 8 “works a meaningful harm to gays and lesbians” and violates their 14th Amendment protections.

In 2008, the California Supreme Court ruled that gay marriages were legal, opening the floodgates for 18,000 gay couples to obtain marriage licenses. A subsequent ballot initiative that passed by 52 percent of voters put the kibosh on further same-sex weddings. It also put California in the position of being the only state to first permit, and then prohibit, marriage equality. The three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit didn’t decide whether or not gays have the right to marry, they ruled on the voters’ right to make such calls.

Which brings us to the larger question: What will the U.S. Supreme Court do? The justices may decide that a fundamental constitutional right is threatened, and strike down the laws of states that only permit one-man one- woman matrimony. Or they might determine that states must recognize same-gender nuptials performed in other jurisdictions, while letting them keep their own laws intact. They may also wait out the full process of judicial appellate review (which lessens the likelihood of a final ruling in the Windsor decision during Edith Windsor’s natural lifespan).

The Supremes may also decide to wait out the demographic clock, under the assumption that the law will eventually “right” itself, with theoretical passage of the Respect for Marriage Act overturning DOMA, and obviating the necessity of a high court ruling.

What is certain is that both sides will have the first Monday in October—when the court returns from its summer recess—clearly marked on their own calendars.

By Cliff Dunn

FORT LAUDERDALE – On September 19, the School Board of Broward County unanimously passed a resolution in support of LGBT History Month, which takes place October 2012. The school district is the nation’s first to issue such a resolution, which states: “The School Board of Broward County, Florida appreciates and recognizes the importance of LGBT History Month as an effective means of educating and calling to action the citizens of Broward County to work together to promote equal protection of all Broward County students and staff, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.”

“The Broward School Board is to be commended,” said Malcolm Lazin, Executive Director of the Equality Forum, and founder of LGBT History Month. “They have broken the cocoon of invisibility, affirmed the important role of [LGBT] Americans and taken a pioneering step in embracing diversity, inclusion, and respect.”

An early LGBT History Month was commemorated in 1994 by Missouri highschool history class. Broward County, which has the nation’s sixth largest school district, is the first to support it since, although the Los Angeles Unified School District may also be considering passage of a similar measure.

The Philadelphia-based Equality Forum, which serves as the “guardian” and repository of the officially-designated LGBT History Month, have helped establish the monthlong event as a national and international commemoration of the struggle and incremental attainment of LGBT civil rights with an educational focus. To this end, it produces documentary films, undertakes initiatives and presents annually the largest national and international LGBT civil rights summit, held in Philadelphia.

During each day of October’s LGBT History Month, a historic LGBT person (or Icon) is featured with a video, biography, bibliography, downloadable images and other educational resources provided without charge (available at lgbtHistoryMonth.com). In 2006, there were 31 Icons, while this year 217 Icons are posted, with resources archived on the site. The federal government recognized the event in 2010 in a formal ceremony presided over by Education Secretary Arne Duncan, and last year, U.S House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-California) issued a proclamation for LGBT History Month.

Broward School district Vice Chair Laurie Rich Levinson told the Florida Agenda that eight out of 10 LGBT students report being harassed, because of their sexual orientation.

“As elected officials, we have a responsibility to provide an environment that is safe for learning, regardless of a student’s race, color, sexual orientation, religion, or any other factor,” Rich Levinson told the Agenda.