Florida Agenda

SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS – The hypothetical election of U.S. House candidate Richard Tisei would be a collision of “firsts.” Tisei would be the first Massachusetts Republican elected to the U.S. House in 15 years. He would also be the first openly-gay Republican elected to a term in Congress.

A family scandal surrounding the incumbent, U.S. Rep. John Tierney, a Democrat, gives Republicans their first solid-shot at the House seat, which represents the state’s 6th congressional district. Tierney’s wife has pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting an illegal gambling operation run by her brothers, one of whom was convicted this summer of racketeering; the other is now a fugitive from justice. Both men claim that Tierney was aware of their illegal activities.

Tisei, who has served 26 years in the state legislature, including a stint as Senate minority leader, told NPR, “When Gov. Romney was here, I voted with him half the time, and I voted against him half the time,” adding, “I have no problem working with Nancy Pelosi. Just because she’s in the opposition, I’m not gonna poke her in the eye.” Despite that bipartisan language, U.S. House Speaker John Boehner held a fundraiser for Tisei, and the National Republican Congressional Committee has delivered close to $1 million for a TV ad campaign that targets Tierney.

PROVINCETOWN, MASSACHUSETTS – During a weekend fundraising trip to Provincetown, Massachusetts, Vice President Joseph Biden praised the LGBT community for “freeing the soul of the American people.” Added the Veep, “If I had to use one adjective to describe this community, it would be ‘courage.’ You have summoned the courage to speak out, to come out. We owe you.”

The campaign stop at Pilgrim Monument and Museum in Provincetown— which has a large permanent gay population, as well as an international LGBT tourist trade— is the latest personal outreach made by Biden to gay Americans. During an interview in May on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” the vice president beat his boss, President Obama, to the punch in coming out, as it were, in supporting marriage equality.

“I am absolutely comfortable with the fact that men marrying men, women marrying women, and heterosexual men and women marrying one another are entitled to the same exact rights, all the civil rights, all the civil liberties,” Biden said, adding, “Quite frankly, I don’t see much of a distinction beyond that.”

By Phoebe Moses

ANDOVER, MASSACHUSETTS — The elite Phillips Academy (Founded: 1778) is the scene for one of the most interesting photography exhibitions in the country, highlighting on one of the more eccentric figures of Americana of the past century. “Making a Presence: F. Holland Day in Artistic Photography” runs through July 31 at the school’s Addison Gallery of American Art. The exhibit’s subject, Fred Holland Day (1864-1933), was a photographer and publisher, and the most influential American “pictorialist”— the international style and aesthetic movement that dominated photography during the later 19th and early 20th centuries, which believed that the medium should number among the fine arts.

Pictorialist photographers used what are now seen as rudimentary techniques to manipulate otherwise straightforward photographs, to “create” an image, rather than simply record it. Day was a wealthy Boston publisher, who apparently enjoyed playing dress-up and role-playing. He utilized props and costumes, and was something of a practitioner of a “Method School” style of photography, taking self-portraits that depicted him as Jesus Christ at the Crucifixion for an 1898 pictorial series. Day’s personality was many-layered.

In 1900, art critic Sadakichi Hartmann described him as “an extraordinary, extravagant personality,” and noted that, “To pose is a necessity to him, as it is only when he believes himself something out of the ordinary that he can accomplish good work.” That “necessity” was apparent in his numerous posings for both himself and other photographers. “Making a Presence” includes examples of Day acting out this need from the many stages of his life: As a 14-yearold boy, sporting a fake mustache in one early image, on through his masquerade as painter Rembrandt, for a 1901 portrait by friend Edward Steichen.

The photographer hit his stride at the end of the 19th and start of the 20th centuries. He was a firsthand witness to two separate cultural phenomena: the Aestheticism movement (best remembered through Oscar Wilde’s famous description of “art for art’s sake”), and photographic Pictorialism. In 1902, Day was able to show his devotion to both, at a show he held in Boston, titled “Portraits by a Few Leaders in the Newer Photographic Methods.”

The exhibition consisted of 54 photographs, which had been taken by 21 photographers, all concentrating on a single subject: Day himself. “Making a Presence” displays all 54 on a single wall. Day’s love for Symbolism, and for the Arts and Crafts movement, were equaled by his devotion to Pictorialism, which captured in many ways the very essence of how Day exhibited himself: Formal, romantic, stylized, and self-conscious.

That he used the camera—the ultimate hardware for chronicling reality—to capture fantasy was part of his vision. But his flirtations with the absurd are married to an innocence—almost a sweetness—that avoids the worst of campiness, and manages to convey true artistic sensibility. Not everyone at the time was impressed. The contemporary “Photographic News” considered Day’s work that “of a diseased imagination,” and believed that the Pictorialism movement was “fostered by the ravings of a few lunatics,” who proved themselves to be both “unacademic” and “eccentric.”

Day became famous for his photographic portraiture of nude male subjects, and his work shows especial attention to African-American males. The homoeroticism in his work is crystal clear, and people can draw their own conclusions from his association with such contemporary figures as socialist philosopher, Fabian Society founding member, and early gay rights activist Edward Carpenter. Day’s assistance was likewise invaluable in helping another artist achieve lasting fame and cultural pride-of-place: Khalil Gibran, whom Day photographed in 1898, and who would become the third best-selling poet of all time (behind Shakespeare and Lao-Tzu).

Nearly 80 years after his death, Day has been largely forgotten. This was partly because he was eclipsed by his rival, photographer Alfred Stieglitz. The art world’s shift towards early Modernism also took its toll, as pictorial and symbolist photographic style went out of fashion. Too, the fact that 2,000 of his prints and negatives were lost in a 1904 fire didn’t help the legacy of this charming, and in some ways naïve, boy-man of a lost artistic form. “Making a Presence” runs through July 31.

WASHINGTON, D.C. – After Massachusetts congressman Barney Frank announced that he will not seek reelection next year, American Family Association (AFA) spokesman Bryan Fischer decided to celebrate Frank’s retirement by attacking the congressman for being gay.

According to Right Wing Watch, on “Focal Point,” Fischer claimed that Frank may have used his prominent position to “influence” other men into becoming gay who may have later contracted AIDS. “This is a dangerous, risky, immoral, unhealthy lifestyle, and Barney Frank has been an open practitioner of a lifestyle that is condemning one young man after another to an early grave,” Fischer said. “This is not somebody to admire, this is not somebody to honor.” Fischer went on to say that Frank “modeled a lifestyle which is really a death-style,” wondering, “Who knows how many people were drawn or encouraged in some way by Barney Frank’s example to dabble in a lifestyle that eventually cost them their health and maybe even cost them their lives.”

BOSTON, MA – Barbara A. Lenk has become the first openly gay justice on the Massachusetts Supreme Court. Previously, Lenk had been sitting on the state’s appeals court.

The Governor’s Council confirmed Lenk on a 5-3 vote. She is Governor Deval Patrick’s fourth appointment to the seven-member court which issued the landmark 2003 ruling that made Massachusetts the first state to legalize same-sex marriage.

Two Steps Forward, One and a Half Steps Back

By BOB KESCKEMETY

Perhaps no state more than California expresses the confusion over the topic of marriage equality in the United States.

The status of same-sex marriage in California is unique among the 50 U.S. states, in that the state formerly granted marriage licenses to same-sex couples, but has discontinued doing so. The period of granting such licenses began on June 16, 2008, due to a ruling by the Supreme Court of California based on an equal protection argument and ended November 5, 2008, due to the passage of Proposition 8, an amendment to the California Constitution that limited marriages to those between one man and one woman. Before the passage of Proposition 8, California was only the second state to allow same-sex marriage. Marriages performed prior to the passage of Prop 8 remain legally recognized and retain full state-level marriage rights.

On August 4, 2010, federal judge Vaughn R. Walker, a conservative judge appointed to the federal bench by President H.W. Bush, declared the ban unconstitutional but temporarily stayed his ruling. On August 6, 2010, both sides submitted legal briefs to Judge Walker arguing for or against a long-term stay of the ruling. On August 12, 2010, Judge Walker had scheduled to lift his stay. On August 16, 2010, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals granted the motion to stay, ordered expedited briefing on the merits of the appeal, and directed the parties to brief the issue of why the appeal should not be dismissed for lack of standing. On August 17, 2010, the same Ninth Circuit panel ordered appeals calendared for oral argument during the week of December 6, 2010, in San Francisco. The Ninth Circuit has now requested the California Supreme Court to rule on an issue related to whether the Ninth Circuit has jurisdiction to hear the case.

Same-sex marriage remains a contentious issue within the state, with samesex marriage supporters trying to get another ballot initiative in the 2012 election to return the state to granting marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Currently, five states (Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont) and the District of Columbia do allow same sex unions.. However, the U.S. government does not recognize these marriages on a federal level. The states of New York, New Jersey, Maryland, and Rhode Island do not permit same-sex marriages, but do recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.

California, Oregon, Nevada, Washington, Illinois, Colorado, Wisconsin, Maryland and Maine have bans on same-sex marriage but permit, on a state-by-state basis, certain rights such as limited rights or civil union rights. Thirty-one states have constitutional bans on same-sex marriage and/or civil unions of any kind, including Florida.

This year, there has been some movement along the lines of marriage equality:

RHODE ISLAND – The Rhode Island State House Judiciary Committee recently held hearings on a bill to permit same-sex marriage in that state.

The hearings on the bill included public statements: 137 people spoke in favor of the bill, 60 against. The next step is for the committee of vote on the bill which expected to pass which would then be passed on to the entire State House for discussion and vote.

HAWAII – The governor of Hawaii is expected to sign into law this week a civil unions law granting its residents full rights and privileges of marriage without actually using the term “marriage”. This bill will take effect January 1, 2012. In 1997, Hawaii was the first state to offer Reciprocal Beneficiaries which permitted same-sex couples access to a limited number of rights and benefits on a state level.

ILLINOIS – The governor of Illinois has signed a civil union law which will take effect June 1, 2011 giving its residents the full rights of marriage. Though there has been a momentum toward same-sex civil unions, there has also been movement against:

IOWA – Republican members of the Iowa House have proposed an amendment to the state’s constitution to say that “marriage between one man and one woman shall be the only legal union valid or recognized in this state.” Iowa already permits same-sex marriage. With a 60-40 Republican majority in the House, the amendment is considered certain to pass. However, it faces long odds in the Democratic-controlled Senate, where the leadership has consistently said they will never allow it to come up for a vote.

INDIANA – Republican lawmakers in Indiana have resumed pushing for a constitutional amendment that would shore up an existing state law banning gay marriage. A GOP-ruled House committee voted 8-4 along party lines recently to advance the proposal, which now moves to the full House for consideration. The amendment states that only marriage between one man and one woman is valid in Indiana, and prohibits civil unions by stating that a legal status “substantially similar” to marriage for unmarried people is not valid.

Bob Kecskemety is the News
Editor of the Florida Agenda.
Bob can be readed at
editor@FloridaAgenda.com

Courts Decision Could Aid in Same-Sex Marriage Fights all Across the Country

By DMITRY RASHNITSOV

(Photo: Courtesy of queertoday.com)

A U.S. judge issued a ruling last week that states that the federal ban on same-sex marriages is unconstitutional because it interferes with a state’s right to define marriage.

U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro’s ruling after two separate challenges to the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, known as DOMA.

“Today the court simply affirmed that our country won’t tolerate second-class marriages,” said Mary Bonauto, civil rights project director for the Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders.  “I’m pleased that Judge Tauro recognized that married same-sex couples and surviving spouses have been seriously harmed by DOMA and that the plaintiffs deserve the same opportunities to care and provide for each other and for their children that other families enjoy.”

The State of Massachusetts said the law denied benefits such as Medicaid to gay married couples in the state, where same-sex unions have been legal since 2004.

The judge agreed, saying the act “plainly encroaches” upon the right of

the state to determine marriage.

In a second case, Tauro ruled that the act violates the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Although his rulings apply only to Massachusetts, they could have broader implications for other states in which same-sex marriage is legal if they are upheld on appeal.

“Today’s decision is a confirmation of what every lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender American knows to be a basic truth – we, and our families, are equal,” said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese. “This is an important step forward, but there is a long path ahead before we see this discriminatory law consigned to the dustbin of history.”

Several groups who oppose same-sex marriage said they are not worried about the judge’s decision and believe the rulings will be overturned on appeal.

“It’s not surprising that this judge got it wrong, because a sham defense was put up by the Obama Justice Department,” said Maggie Gallagher, chairman of the National Organization for Marriage, a group vehemently opposed to same-sex marriages.

Congress initially enacted DOMA in 1996 after Hawaii became the first state to legalize same-sex unions. If the law is overturned same-sex couples could argue they qualify for federal marriage benefits, which would have wide-ranging implications in such areas as immigration.

Under federal rules, there is an automatic 14-day stay of judgments in civil cases, so same-sex couples in Massachusetts won’t be able to file for benefits immediately, said Gary Buseck, legal director of Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders. If the Justice Department appeals Tauro’s rulings, the court would likely grant a stay while the appeal is pending, he said.

During his campaign President Barack Obama had said repeatedly that he would like to see DOMA, repealed. But the Justice Department has defended the constitutionality of the law, which it is required to do.

Neither Obama, nor his spokespeople or the justice department would comment on the rulings.

Many Obama voters, particularly among gays, will push for the administration not to appeal Tauro’s rulings, said former Assistant Attorney General Robert Raben. But the administration could set a dangerous precedent if it does not continue to defend the law, he said.

“You want the Department of Justice to stop because you won a case; I understand that,” said Raben, who worked at the department during the administration of President Bill Clinton, who signed DOMA into law.

“But you could have a conservative Department of Justice that won’t enforce hate crimes, that won’t enforce employment nondiscrimination acts, that won’t enforce the Ryan White Act, that won’t enforce all kinds of new protections for gays and lesbians because the attorney general doesn’t agree with them. That’s not a regime you want to live in.”

Not only did the judge’s ruling affect same-sex marriage, but it took a broad stance about the type of control the federal government can have over sovereign states.

“The Constitution isn’t about political ideology,” said Michael Boldin, the founder of the Tenth Amendment Center, a group based in Los Angeles. “It’s about liberty, and limiting the government to certain divisive issues — I applaud what I consider a very rare ruling from the judiciary.”

Others, like Steve V. Moon, a software programmer and founder of States-rights.org, a group founded in Utah in 2008, said the judge’s decision was both right and wrong.

“It’s unconstitutional for the federal government to pass laws superseding state authority — and the judge did affirm states’ rights in this area,” he said. “But I personally believe in the sanctity of marriage between a man and woman and support any state passing laws affirming the sanctity of marriage.”