I just had an idea for a book title

The Mendacity of Hope--an anti-Obama book.

Now to write the book....

Prop 8 Ruling

This is a longish post taken in large chunks from a conversation with a friend who is understandably quite upset about the news from California.

My friend takes cold comfort in the fact that existing marriages stand. To paraphrase him, why should those 18k couples have valid marriages and the rest of the GLBT community not. He has a point: it is offensive to most sensibilities of justice that some GLBT couples get "marriage' whereas the rest must settle for "separate but equal."

I say the blow to equality was dealt in November, and today's opinion merely reminded us of that problem, but didn't itself strike an additional one unless you put all your hopes onto a slim, almost impossible chance of reversal.

I have not read the full 186 page opinion, so I may still be mistaken, but it seemed that the controversies at issue were about amendment versus revision of the California State Constitution and not directly Equal Protection Jurisprudence, such a ground seemed shaky one at best, but the only one that could really assert that the "constitution is itself unconstitutional."

As for Equal Protection, although California recognizes the GLBT community as a suspect class deserving strict scrutiny (this designation allows courts more easily to overturn discriminatory laws and is why the court was able to overturn the legislative ban on same-sex marriage in the first place), currently the Federal courts do not. Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas came out our way despite this (thankfully), but in the case of marriage I fear that the opponents have arguments that can reach the very low bar of "rational basis" (which doesn't even require factually correct basis).

The fact is that Equal Protection Jurisprudence does a good job of mocking itself, and the California Supreme Court, as far as I can tell, didn't have much choice except to uphold the odious amendment. If we want to continue through the courts, the real challenge is to convince the federal courts that the GLBT community deserves "suspect class" designation. By my count, we seem to fit all the criteria: a discrete and insular minority who possess an immutable trait, share a history of discrimination and cannot adequately protect themselves via the political process.*

But, my friend reminds me, good reasoning or bad, the outcome is morally wrong.

And my firend is absolutely correct, but sadly the strength of the reasoning matters a great deal. A good result on flimsy grounds is in many ways worse than a bad result on solid ground.

A poorly reasoned result intensifies the resolve of opponents and creates the kind of legal and political minefield we have seen with regards to abortion jurisprudence. A good result on bad reasoning becomes a talisman for both sides, who perceived it as being forever vulnerable to the whimsy of the court. Therefore both sides devote resources to either upholding it or defeating it, making it difficult for the matter to be settled socially or addressed through sustainably long term means. Also, it may have the consequence of lowering the bar for both sides, meaning it becomes easier for our opponents to win their battles.

On the other hand, a bad result on good reasoning (like this) allows the losing side to accept the defeat and work to either change the circumstances of future battles (remember California still has unbelievably lax constitutional amendment procedures) or find battles within the current circumstances that are more winnable. Once we change the circumstances or the battles, battles won are much more robust than if they rested on flimsy opinions.

In a generation, Prop 8 and amendments like it will be remembered as disappointing and embarrassing hiccups on the road to true equality, if they are remembered at all.

*Update: Someone is moving forward on making the Equal Protection arguments in Federal Court (as well as Due Process arguments). Read the complaint here (PDF). Also note that the attorneys filing are the attorneys who argued each side of Bush v. Gore, and according to Ted Olson (the Republican) "This is about the rights of individuals to be treated equally and not be stigmatized." And that the two attorneys from each side side of the political spectrum "wanted to be a symbol of the fact that this not a conservative or a liberal issue. We want to send a signal that this is an important constitutional issue involving equal rights for all Americans."

No kidding, Andrew

Andrew Sullivan is starting have a little buyer's remorse.

But I have a sickeningly familiar feeling in my stomach, and the feeling deepens with every interaction with the Obama team on these issues. They want them to go away. They want us to go away.

Here we are, in the summer of 2009, with gay servicemembers still being fired for the fact of their orientation. Here we are, with marriage rights spreading through the country and world and a president who cannot bring himself even to acknowledge these breakthroughs in civil rights, and having no plan in any distant future to do anything about it at a federal level. Here I am, facing a looming deadline to be forced to leave my American husband for good, and relocate abroad because the HIV travel and immigration ban remains in force and I have slowly run out of options (unlike
most non-Americans with HIV who have no options at all).

And what is Obama doing about any of these things? What is he even intending at some point to do about these things? So far as I can read the administration, the answer is: nada. We're firing Arab linguists? So sorry. We won't recognize in any way a tiny minority of legally married couples in several states because they're, ugh, gay? We had no idea. There's a ban on HIV-positive tourists and immigrants? Really? Thanks for letting us know. Would you like to join Joe Solmonese and John Berry for cocktails? The inside of the White House is fabulous these days.

What did you expect?

Update

Like many young transactional lawyers, I have found myself back on a very soft legal job market. But frankly this minor challenge is the only thing bad in my life right now, so over all, I am in a good place.

For those concerned about this, take heart: I was prudent enough to save considerably, and I have enough to keep my loans current (my only real obligation) for six months, and perhaps the rest of the year if I find some employment. For places to live I have several options (including the BF), and by a stroke of luck I am employed through the term of my current lease. As far as new jobs go, firms are pretty much not hiring at all, so I am looking elsewhere. I have a few leads, including doing tax work-outs or taking over the small estate planning practice of a lawyer who has grown disillusioned and is going back to school for economics. So we'll see how they pan out. I could even go the non-profit route. I have applied to the Army and Air Force JAG, but I am leaning against going full active duty, largely because in just a a year I have become rather integrated here, and I don't want to chuck that. Reserves may still be an option for extra cash flow if I go out on my own.

In the full half of the glass:

I am still with the same boy, and continue to love him very much. We basically live together in two apartments. He's still a damn, dirty Democrat, but our relationship isn't contingent on our politics. Besides, I can put up with his support of Obama so long as my boyfriend continues to let me wear his designer ties!

I have become heavily involved in my local and county Republican parties as a result of my connections through the Log Cabin Republicans. I am my State House District Secretary for the county party and my State Senate District Chairman for the state party. My county party is an urban county party and has made a concerted effort to reach out to gay Republicans. In addition to soliciting the LCR for folks to take leadership positions (which is how I got two of them), the county party is a paid member of the local gay and lesbian chamber of commerce. Last night the county chairman said, "I may be a stauch social conservative [he is], but ours is a party of the Big Tent, and those wedge issues aren't going to unify or help us here." The local young republicans meet at a restaraunt in the gay district--not necessarliy as a means of outreach, but to show that we young, urban Republicans are more interested in liberty than what some people do in the bedroom. I'd like to say this is my influence, but it isn't, and perhaps that's an even more encouraging sign.

The connections I have been making in the party may well pay off. For instance, I have some inside information on who will be running for what in 2010, including early smart money bets. I have contacted one campaign before it announced to offer my support, and the reaction I got suggests that it could turn into a job once it gets started. I'm brushing up on non-profit taxation, campaign finance, and electioneering law just in case. (P.S. this candidate has a moderate record on gay issues for a Republican. For instance, he opposed the FMA).

I'm out to more people, though none of the important ones. Mostly college friends. One was surprised, the other was just waiting for me to admit it.

More good news

Yesterday, Vermont did the right and honorable thing and LEGISLATIVELY legalized same-sex marriage by overcoming (just barely, but by still enough to matter) the Governor's veto. This is exciting news. It eviscerates the opponent's misdirection argument against "activist judges." That means if Federalist types who opposed court imposed gay marriage still oppose Vermont's gay marriage, they reveal their real animus is with the policy not the process. Of course, for some that will be no problem. For others, the only opposition to gay marriage was if the court imposed the policy and they welcome the Vermont outcome. And then there are those who much preferred to make the Federalist argument without touching the merits of gay marriage. I don't have a link for that third type because I can't be quite sure who they are just yet (I will note that the bloggers on NRO Corner had a lot more to say about Iowa on Friday than Vermont yesterday, although some of the usual suspects did chime in on both). Nonetheless a little sunlight won't hurt here.

As far as I am concerned this is an even more important victory for marriage equality than Iowa was.

Iowa

First the good news:

As most gay people in the U.S. are already aware, the Iowa Supreme Court unanimously declared Iowa's defense of marriage statute to be unconstitutional on equal protection grounds.

Further a Proposition 8 type backlash in Iowa is unlikely because Iowa has properly stringent procedural requirements to amend the state constitution. There are only two procedures, the first is that the amendment must pass both houses in two consecutive legislative sessions, and then be approved by a majority of voters in a general election. Unless the democratic Iowa legislature passes a Prop 8 type amendment in the current session, the earliest such an amendment would appear before voters would be 2012. The second is via constitutional convention. In 2010, the voters of Iowa can vote to have constitutional convention, and if they so vote, in the following session (beginning in 2011) the legislature determine when to have such a convention.

Either way, there is good amount of time for the citizens to realize that allowing gay marriage does not lead to rampant bestiality, polygamy, child abuse, and whatever else the gay marriage opponents pretend to worry about.

Now the bad news:
It is still likely to galvanize efforts in other states, perhaps making marriage equality across the nation more difficult to achieve. Outrage will be directed towards "activist courts," and states without marriage amendments are likely to see a push for such. States with marriage amendments that allow for the possibility of civil union may see a push to explicitly prohibit civil unions, perhaps even to the Virginia extreme.

This is a battle won, and an encouraging one at that, but the war continues.

W. did something good for gays

Bush signed a new law requiring employers to roll over retirement benefits to same-sex partners upon the death of the employee partner.

It would be nice to see more coverage.

[courtesy GayPatriot]

It wasn't just the Mormons

Read this post about problems with the No on Prop 8 campaign along with recommendations for the future. Rather than just throwing tantrums at Mormon Churches or Mormon-affiliated businesses, maybe we should look at how the opposition won and see what strategies we should adopt for the next fight.

Blagojaviaksuwdfgikicz and Obama

So far I think the corruption of the Illinois Governor is his own, and attempts to spread it to Obama before any facts are in look petty and are likely to be ineffective. Let O make his own mistakes and criticize him for them.

Obama Derangement Syndrome is just as unattractive as Bush Derangement Syndrome or Clinton Derangement Syndrome, which I like to think I am recovering from.

A Democrat I agree with

Jared Polis, a Democrat from Colorado (and the first member of the House elected as a freshman after running as an openly gay man) has some refreshing words about the auto bailout in today's Wall Street Journal:

If we as a society place a public premium on "saving" the automobile industry from its default reorganization under Chapter 7 or Chapter 11 bankruptcy -- which has been good enough for the steel and airline industries, among others -- then a better manner in which to express that premium might be to establish special tax consideration for those who are willing to take on the risk. One way of doing that is to provide an exemption from capital-gains taxation on all debt or equity instruments used in the next six months to invest in the troubled auto makers.

By waiving the future capital-gains tax on all investments in the automobile industry, we enhance the projected return models and therefore the likely occurrence of a privately funded "bailout." There are turnaround firms and funds, and they are experts at what needs to be done. Tax exemption for gains would certainly get their attention. It also wouldn't cost taxpayers anything because it only forgoes future government revenues that wouldn't exist absent this incentive.

And a line that I love:

At the very least, my constituents in Colorado won't find themselves as limited partners in a private equity fund run by Congress making speculative investments
in flagging automobile manufacturers and who knows what else with their taxpayer money.

Too bad Jared doesn't start until next year, and likely will be too late to vote on this bailout mess.

Staus Quo We Can Believe In

Obama is retaining Bush's current secretary of defense, Robert Gates.

On the one hand I think it's a good decision, on the other its fun to rub in the faces of everyone who voted for Obama's new direction on the war.

Obama's Economic Team

So far, I am not terribly unhappy. Perhaps we were all wrong about this man. Maybe I can live with him so long as he continues this course of not bringing us the radical changes he promised.

While I strongly disapprove of the Keynsian-redux we are seeing as response to an exaggerated economic crisis, the impulse to use fiscal policy to affect the overall economy (a strategy fruitless at best and disastrous at worst) is not limited to those politicians with a D after thier names. In these times of "Change we can believe in (but not really)" I welcome centrist economic advisers because I feared something more radical. This crew could have just as likely served in the administration of a moderate Republican--like McCain. Geithner provides continuity with Paulson (the advantage here is, of course, negligible except that markets like continuity); Summers is an ardent free-trade advocate and consistent free marketeer; and Romer has written extensively about the negative effect of tax increases on investment. At least Paul Krugman isn't in the picture--yet.

Perhaps, like the Dems for the past eitght years I can hope only to grasp at straws, but unlike the Dems for the past eight years I am actually looking for straws to grasp.

Silver Linings

I can't say I am surprised that the election didn't go my way, but 2 hours in the bathroom sobbing is quite enough. It is now time for me to look for bright spots. Here are a few:

1) Regardless of his policies, it is refreshing that America can final elect a black man to be its president. Is racism out the window? No, but this is still a tremendous step forward.

2) DOMA and DADT will finally have a chance of being thrown to the dustbin of history. If so, I will rejoice that. If not, it will just prove that Democrats don't really care about gays; they just want to take our votes.

3) The Republicans got a beating they needed to whip them back to principles. They have spit on the principles of the party in the naked pursuit of power. It's time to find those principles again, AND someone who can communicate them. Being merely "Not Democrat" is not a promising strategy.

4) Hillary Clinton looks to be out of the White House game. In 2012 she would be running against an incumbent from her own party and in 2016 she'll be 69 years old. Sure she'll stay relevent, but it looks like she's lost her chance for the Oval Office.

5) When things go wrong (and they would no matter last night's results), the Democrats won't have a Republican to blame. They'll try of course, but it will sound as hollow as when Republicans try to blame Clinton for problems that arose after 2001.

6) We'll get to see just what the Democrats believe. Now that they have a Supermajority there will be no need to feign moderation anymore. If they truly are moderate, then wonderful. If they are as far left as I worry, I have confidence that the American public will not embrace them for long. This was a rejection of the kind of Republicans we have seen lately, not an acceptance of the kind of Democrats we are about to see.

7) In eight years (maybe even four) the Democrats will likely have squandered their power either from infighting or corruption much the way the GOP did. If so, it may benefit a young moderate (gay) Republican running for his first state office.

There. Oh, I just remembered that I need refill my Xanax prescription.

Personal Life Update

I am having the most marvelous experience amidst these troubling waters simply because I have found someone to weather the times with.

Back in the closet, I thought I was doomed to a loveless but conventional heterosexual marriage, where I became a worka/alcoholic and my wife became ever more bitter and depressed (and perhaps addicted to prescription drugs and alcohol in her own right). Perhaps if I could marry someone I consider a very close friend, it would mitigate the problem, but after 10-20 years of limited physical intimacy and personal repression, who knows what kind of powder keg I'd be.

Then when I came out, admittedly harboring the stereotype that gay relationships are built almost entirely on sex and little else, I was not encouraged. I still wanted picket fences, two children, and a dog.

Then I had a pseudo-boyfriend in my last year school. I was still nervous about being gay and never really opened emotionally, something that has always been difficult for me. Plus the automatic expiration date on our relationship made wonder what the point was.

Then I graduated law school, moved to a new city, and started studying for the bar. I reconnected with someone from last summer. For a while, it was a relationship based on sex, but then it was obvious that he had fallen in love with me well before I had with him (I don't know why but people seem to love me easily, even though I can be cranky, obnoxious and smug. I must be very good in bed.) I was nervous about his feelings, until one night I had realized that inexplicably and without warning my heart opened up and I was in love with him.

If we want to over-analyze, perhaps since I knew that he was already in love with me, I didn't have to risk rejection by opening up emotionally--whatever the reason, I did, and I am so very happy I did.

This boy is always in my mind during the day when we are at work (he has a career, not just a job, of his own--luckily it is well outside of my field so no petty professional jealousies are at risk). He's significantly older than I am, but apparently I have a personal maturity that seems to bridge that gap.

He knows I am a Republican, and respects that; he is a Democrat and I respect that.

I don't mind saying that we are an attractive couple (I rate about an 8.5 and he a 9.5 on a scale of 10) who are poised to become a local gay power couple (he is at the top of his field, and I am starting in a rather lucrative and high profile one).

He practically lives with me. Nothing official, but we spend every night together, and we have to stay at my house because I am the one with the dog. Whenever I am in his arms I feel warmth and comfort throughout my body. Being in love was always such a mysterious abstract thought, now I feel my love for this boy all over. I easily envision our long future together.

Most traumatizing perhaps is, a short time ago, I realized that being with him was the most important thing in the world to me--beyond my goals of wealth building or dreams of public office. I finally, and to my amazement, found someone I care more about than I do myself.

This is a brave new world for The Pink Elephant, and no financial crisis or Obama Presidency is going to be enough to ruin it for me. For the first time ever, I think I would describe myself as truly and deeply happy.

Now don't ask if I have introduced him to anyone in my family....

Prop 8

I'm not in California, but I'm still against it. Help support it's defeat and donate here. I did. So did my boyfriend.


Thanks Matt

so that's that

The bar exam is over. I can now purge useless legal concepts like the Rule Against Perpetuities and the elements to Common Law burglary from my memory forever.

Much has happened over the summer. For instance I now have a definite individual right to own a firearm. Clinton is not running for president anymore. All sorts of good stuff, but sadly I had to spend much of the summer among fellow bar students. The Obamania was almost oppressive. The common attitude seemed to be, with apologies to John Von Neumann, “You say you will campaign for Obama tomorrow, but I say why not today. You say you will begin campaigning today at five o’clock; I say why not one o’clock.”* Nonetheless, I tended to be fairly respectful and quickly found my single confederate. (On a personal note, I am now seeing someone rather seriously, but my parents still think that its a girl).

But rather than talk about particulars (which shall come), after such a long hiatus, I’d like to get back to foundational principles. Why on EARTH am I still a Republican?

I have a stock answer (i.e. my sexual orientation has nothing to do with my views on national security, tax policy, abortions or the environment; the party will only change with pressure from the inside). But that answers only why I am a gay Republican, not why I am a Republican in the first place.

I could go on about the same old stuff—tax & spend, national security, gun rights, abortion—but I won’t. We can talk about those things later. Rather, I am still a Republican because the Party needs me. I’ll go further, YOU need me to be a Republican. You need Mary Cheney to be a Republican. You need Bobby Jindal to be a Republican, and Hector Barreto, and anyone else who is even a little diverse.

Right now there are a few (well more than a few, actually) of us willing to take the bitter with the sweet. But by showing our fellow Republicans that diverse is not bad, and that we don’t have to agree on everything to still share the same broad values, we can slowly but effectively change the face of the party. I find Republicans (especially younger ones) more willing to accept me as gay once they know I still share most of their values (whereas few gays accepts me as Republican). That’s how we change people, by reaching out, not abandoning. I truly believe that in a decade, definitely within two decades, the GOP will embrace this diversity. When that does happen, be thankful that in hard times, some of us didn’t leave the party to the kooks, bigots, and ignorant.

So what about the meantime? Does that mean I give my votes and cash and time to support the totally unsavory to curry favor so I can have a chance to change tomorrow? Not exactly. It does mean I retain credibility within the party by emphasizing what I do agree with and picking my battles. Understand, I have no intention of voting for or otherwise supporting the likes of Sally Kern (which is easy since I don’t live in her district). Yet, if I replace Republicans like her with Democrats, I win on gay issues, but lose on many others just as important to me. No, I want to replace them with better Republicans. Since I don’t have a giant political machine at my disposal I have to support the best of the lot and try to make the next lot even better. So I am content, for now, with Republicans who get maybe a C-/D+ on gay issues instead of a D-/F. I support These are steps, albeit a very small one, in the right direction.

*John von Neumann, one of the 20^th Century’s greatest mathematicians, a principal member of the Manhattan Project, and part inspiration for Dr. Strangelove, was, however, talking about preemptive nuclear strike on the Soviet Union and not anything as frivolous as a political campaign.

One more week

This is awful. One more week, then I can relax.

Just letting you know I am still alive

Hiatus

Because this summer is dedicated to the exciting task of studying for and taking the bar exam, I will not be able to take myself away from the fun long enough post here. Since I don't post terribly regularly anyway, this likely won't be a significant difference.

See you in August.

Women

It's strange, I think that I have come to terms with my homosexuality personally. I may not be ready to tell some people, but I have accepted that I like men. Nonetheless, every so often I catch myself thinking about being married to a woman. Part of me rather misses the idea of having the picture perfect suburban life.

I know I can still find a partner, move to an upper middle class suburb, adopt a couple kids and have an enjoyable and satisfying life. Perhaps it's an internalized prejudice, but secretly it feels like a consolation prize. Maybe that's why I am not gung ho about my current relationship (I'm going to break it off, though I may pin the blame on graduation and "going in different directions" blah blah blah).

Occasionally I'll see a woman I think would make a "good wife." She's lovely (but not model beautiful), Southern (not redneck) in dress and manners, with an upbeat personality and a wry, sometimes sarcastic sense of humor. Indeed, I had just the girl picked out in undergrad. She was all those things plus my best friend. Add a cock and she'd have been perfect.

I wonder if these hang-ups come from being closeted to my family. Perhaps when I'm out to them, I'll be more comfortable. Even so, life would be a lot easier if I were straight.

On a personal note

I think I am going to take a break from slaughtering manatees, shooting homeless people, and other traditional Republican recreations and talk a little bit about my personal life.

I am only a short way from graduation, and at school I have gone from being deeply in the closet to being out at school. Indeed, straight people now ask me questions as though I some kind of ambassador from the gays (I know, I wouldn't have chosen me to be the gay ambassador either!). Somehow when people find out you are gay, you become everyone's shopping consultant--though honestly I am hard pressed to think of anything less consequential to my life than women's fashion. Nonetheless I do my best to help my friends. Don't worry, boys, I am not sharing any real secrets with breeders; that thing we do with rabbit fur and coke bottles will stay within the community.

I am still not out to anyone in my family. My mom has very obviously given me opportunities to come out, but I am not going to come out to her out of exasperation over the phone. Further, graduation doesn't seem like an appropriate time, basically because the whole family will be here and I see no reason to come out to my grandparents at all. So for the near future, that is probably not going to change.

I am still dating someone, although I feel like I am merely going through the motions (enjoyable as those motions may be). I'm not terribly emotionally invested. Whether it's because I am still uncomfortable with being gay and dating a boy, or I actually am just not that in to him, I leave to only God to know for sure.

Within a month I will be moving to a brand new city--an actual city!!!--to study for the bar and eventually begin my career. It's strange, I still feel too young for this. People's dads are lawyers, not people my age. Naturally I'm nervous, but I'm also excited.

I've been drinking less. I found that I was a bored drinker, and that just seems dangerous. I'm not going completely abstinent, but I am just being careful to be a more moderate consumer of alcohol.

So that's just a little of going on with me that doesn't involve words like "entitlement" or "energy policy" or people I don't know personally but still have strong opinions about.