Discussion
  • Read More
    Rich JuzwiakRich Juzwiak
    6/23/14 6:16pm

    When watching this movie, it struck me that the tables have turned so sharply that it's the anti-gay right that behaves the most queerly. They are the ones who pushed to keep cameras out of the courtroom, ashamed of persecution like the gay men of old with their coats over their heads as they were led out of gay bars during police raids. Also, that side had the liveliest characters: the defense witness David Blankenhorn who effectively changed his anti-gay stance on the stand, and expert ignorant bigot Bill Tam who supported Prop 8 by spreading unfounded misconceptions about gays because he read them on the internet. Here are some of Tam's words:

    Because the majority of male homosexuals live an indulgent lifestyle, they suffer from AIDS and other serious illnesses, and many of them die. Therefore, there is a need to attract new blood into the ranks of the homosexuals. In addition, many homosexuals are inovled with young people and children. Therefore, attracting young people to become homosexuals has become an important method of maintaining the population…Feminine men and masculine women will become fashionable. Will our children be able to resist?"

    I think a documentary about what must have been a supreme shitshow on the side of the defense would have been a lot more fun.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Rich JuzwiakRich Juzwiak
      6/23/14 6:20pm

      And on vetting and what makes the "perfect" gay couple, here's Jonathan Capehart on Boies and Olson's new Prop 8 book, Redeeming the Dream:

      But do yourself a favor when reading Redeeming the Dream. Have Becker's Forcing the Spring close by. Reading Boies and Olson, I was struck by how breezy it is compared to the detailed, in-the-room nature of Becker's recounting. The legal odd couple present events from their victorious point of view, while Becker gives you a wider spectrum of opinions and recollections and a more complete picture of what happened.

      For instance, Boies and Olson present the selection of Perry and Stier and Katami and Zarrillo as the lead plaintiffs as a flawless operation. Instead, Becker describes in detail the "mad dash" to find the perfect clients as the clock ticked toward a ruling in Strauss v. Horton. In fact, the "dream couple—a Latina lesbian and her white partner who had been together forever"—backed out of the case. Of Perry and Stier, Becker reveals that Griffin "knew that the couple wasn't perfect" because Olson didn't want couples with children and because of concern that Stier's previous marriage to a man would complicate their argument that being gay was not a choice. "At this late date, they would do," Becker writes of Griffin's initial decision to see if Perry wanted to join the federal suit.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      RainbucketRich Juzwiak
      6/24/14 2:06pm

      Any actual legal hearing on gay marriage eventually boils down to the opponents trying to uphold their inane arguments. "It will destroy traditional marriage" (heterosexual marriages are not impacted), "Marriage is for procreation" (plenty of childless straight marriages), "A child needs a mother and father" (all studies contradict, separate issue from marriage anyway.)

      We endure this theater because the gay marriage opponents aren't willing to just say "I don't like gay people" (may be mutual, but they don't challenge your right to marry) or "butt sex is icky" (guess what straight married couples do?) or "I'm terrified I might be gay" (it gets better.) At least the Bill Tams are honest about their homophobia in embarrassing detail.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    Rich JuzwiakRich Juzwiak
    6/23/14 6:23pm

    Boies and Olson's Redeeming the Dream lists these criteria for the potential plaintiffs:

    • They must be mature adults with a strong and deep desire to be married.
    • They must be seeking to marry.
    • They must be able to handle the rejection of being turned down for a marriage license because of their sexual orientation.
    • They must be willing to put their names on the suit.
    • They must be prepared for huge amounts of attention from the press and public.
    • They must be willing to testify and undergo potentially hostile and withering cross-examination.
    • Their relationship must be stable and committed; they would have to remain together for the three to five years the process could require.
    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Paul DimitrovRich Juzwiak
      6/24/14 1:38pm

      But this is standard criteria for a case of this nature, and necessary given how high-profile the Prop. 8 challenge was bound to be.

      It really was imperative that the plaintiffs be "normal" and as white-bread-middle-American as possible.

      Why is this difficult to understand or worthy of discussion?

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      humanSuitcasePaul Dimitrov
      6/24/14 3:02pm

      Agreed. I couldn't help thinking that these were the most bland people on the face of the planet, but they were presented as unimpeachable cuz the offense always pulls out all the stops to make us look bad. I appreciated Sandy's murder boarding when the attorney dragged on Sandy's story of civil rights action only to conclude with "yet your 'About Me' Facebook entry says you 'suffer from delusions of grandeur'—rest my case!"

      Made me nod...yeah, no matter how innocent these people are, they must be Gattaca spotless. I can image the defense cross-examining:

      "Ms. Stier, have you ever written a fraudulent check?"

      "Not that I recall off the top of my head—"

      "LIAR! Your honor, I have a bank statement from 1985 saying that you bounced a $20 check at CHESS KING! Part of a lesbian check kiting ring I'm sure! Have you no shame? DEFENSE RESTS!"

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    Cam/ronRich Juzwiak
    6/24/14 1:09pm

    I'll never forget the moment when I spoke with a young Mormon woman who just left a polling place after voting for Prop 8. She told me that she has gay friends and she dearly loves them BUT she opposes gay marriage. What got me was her nervous laughter - a sign that she realized how ridiculous and self-contradictory her statement was.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      okiedokieokieCam/ron
      6/24/14 1:39pm

      I just don't buy that people who do those sorts of things have gay friends. They may know some gay people that they are friendly with, but they most certainly are not friends with them. That girl may get a surprising response if she tells her "friends" how she really feels about them.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      Cam/ronokiedokieokie
      6/24/14 1:50pm

      It boils down to the old Christian ethic of "Hate the sin, love the sinner."

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    A House In VirginiaRich Juzwiak
    6/24/14 1:09pm

    #impressed. Really well-written.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      the actual bajmahalA House In Virginia
      6/24/14 1:38pm

      I'll second this. Good job, Rich.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    sizor_sisterRich Juzwiak
    6/24/14 1:55pm

    I think its very telling that so many straight people have jumped on the gay marriage bandwagon. There is something very lucrative for straight people when it comes to advocating for gay marriage. During European colonialism, there was an effort to "domesticate" the Other by the European colonizers. Meaning, that the Other became "normal" and acceptable to European colonizers through the domestic (house, family, relationship, etc.) space. The Other had to prove their normalness through the domestic sphere so be respected by the colonizers. So really much of the discourse around gay marriage is an attempt to "domesticate" gays and lesbians and make them more palpable to the broader public. What gay marriage ultimately does is it reaffirms the "normalness" of straight people by saying "We gays and lesbians want to be just like you."

    The issue with gay marriage is that it focuses too much (and almost exclusively) on individual rights at the expensive of collective rights. This is a significant shift from older campaigns by queer people that sought more collective rights, especially for those considered Other. When we notice how the call for gay marriage is nominated by straight people and middle/upper class gays and lesbians, we see how it reflects a certain perspective.

    Instead of of being outside of the "norm" which so much of previous ideas of queerness was based on, gays and lesbians are right in the fold of the norm (and state) because the state now recognizes and legitimizes gay/lesbian relationships. There hasn't actually been any significant change in how the state interacts with people. So we're left we two things; 1) There has been no actual critique of state and heterosexual power or of how the state oppresses the Other, and 2) That non-normalized queers are still left out where they were before. Some queers just think that we should be focusing more broadly instead of on one individual (and at times oppressive) right.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      zxdesizor_sister
      6/24/14 2:53pm

      You're correct for the most part. But I don't think the straight person at the pride parade as thought things through that much. It's just an easy way for them to present a progressive image.

      As long as our idea of "equality" is admitting one group at a time to the normal group, we are getting no closer to actual equality.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      Not just an amateur asshole. Professional.sizor_sister
      6/24/14 3:00pm

      I don't think those queers are interested at all in changing the fact that they are "oppressed" by the state. Some people just want to be the "other". What, exactly, do you propose? Changing the norm to include the "other" makes the "other" disappear. You can't be an outlaw when you're legal.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    Official Witch of Los AngelesRich Juzwiak
    6/24/14 2:51pm

    Boyfriend and I tried watching this last night, but turned it off about halfway through. Maybe it's because we knew what would happen, or maybe because a documentary that talks about planning a legal argument isn't the most thrilling subject — but I actually found the whole thing extremely boring. I had high school textbooks that were more dynamic and interesting than this. The couples were very "safe," too — but, like you mention, the case kinda demanded the most vanilla gays possible.

    As a lifelong Californian, bi/queer chick, it's not like I didn't have any investment in the subject. It was just too damn boring. And I like documentaries a lot!

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Zachary BosRich Juzwiak
      8/25/14 5:26pm

      "The burden to behave and act like good gays to be treated like equal citizens only reinforces how intensely unequal things remain."

      People of all kinds are subject to the pressure of innumerable social norms, though that pressure falls in proportion to a person's privilege and empowerment.

      What would equal look like?

      Reply
      <
      • Read More
        DJ ROOMBARich Juzwiak
        6/24/14 5:58pm

        It seems for these really cookie-cutter types the goal was always:

        1. Being normal (Check!)

        2. Marriage (Check!)

        And then... nothing. Intersectional troubles? Acceptance of "obviously gay" people? Homeless queer youth? Trans rights??? Eh. Who cares, right? We got what we need. They can figure out the rest.

        Reply
        <
        • Read More
          FitzyDayRich Juzwiak
          6/24/14 3:10pm

          (Stier was married to a man for several years before she met Perry in her mid-30's and realized that she's a lesbian), have a Brady Bunch-style family (both have to biological sons).

          **two

          Reply
          <
          • Read More
            CapriciousSonRich Juzwiak
            6/24/14 4:30pm

            This is why I have no interest in marriage "equality." I'm all for everyone being able to get married, but I will not sacrifice my queerness for your homonormativity.

            Reply
            <