Joyce L. Arnold, Liberally Independent, Queer Talk, equality activist, writer.

Lots of queer talking in the last week, including from the California courts, to the United Nations, to the “how low can he go” Rick Perry campaign.

Beginning with the ongoing court battles regarding California’s Proposition 8, a voter initiative which banned “same-sex” marriage. Via American Foundation for Equal Rights:

Today (December 8), plaintiffs in Perry v. Brown, the landmark federal constitutional challenge to California’s Proposition 8, presented oral arguments before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit explaining why videotapes of the Proposition 8 trial should be publicly accessible and why Proponents’ motion to vacate judgment is meritless.

This will likely be the final hearing before the Ninth Circuit issues a ruling on the U.S. District Court’s August 2010 decision that struck down Proposition 8.

Earlier this year, Plaintiffs moved to unseal the trial video recording in the district court … . On September 19, 2011, U.S. District Chief Judge James Ware agreed with Plaintiffs … . ’

Too simplistically, but the Proponents of Prop 8 appealed that decision – they don’t want the video shown which includes their earlier arguments in favor of Prop 8 – adding to their reasoning that because Judge Ware came out as gay, with a partner (following his ruling, and after he retired), he should have recused himself. Because, you see, a gay judge must be biased toward gays.

‘What Proponents insist on today is nothing short of a double standard within the federal judiciary; one that applies to gay judges but not to their straight colleagues,’ said plaintiffs’ lead co-counsel David Boies.

The judges had their own questions, as reported by Keen News:

What if a gay judge was not in a relationship. Should he or she have to disclose his or her intentions to marry? Would a straight judge have to reveal his or her intentions for marriage? Would a married judge have to recuse himself from presiding over a divorce case? What if a straight judge had a desire to maintain the definition of marriage as one man-one woman, would he or she have to disclose that?

The expectations are that whoever loses will appeal either to the full 9th Circuit, or to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The story that got the most attention, of course, was the two fold Obama administration decision regarding LGBT rights, worldwide. Multiple LGBT organizations issued positive statements, similar to the below from NGLTF:

The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force … applaud(s) President Obama and U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for their outspoken commitment to ending abuses and discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people worldwide. BOLD The White House today issued a presidential memorandum directing all federal agencies engaged abroad to ensure that U.S. diplomacy and foreign assistance promote and protect the human rights of LGBT people.

Shortly afterward, Clinton made a historic human rights speech commemorating International Human Rights Day delivered at the United Nations in Geneva, Switzerland. The secretary made it clear that the fair and equal treatment of LGBT people worldwide is a moral imperative, and a priority and legitimate concern in U.S. foreign policy. …

While largely met with praise, there were some who questioned how these actions by the administration can be made to fit with an apparently still “evolving” position on marriage equality, as one example. Others raised cautionary notes, in terms of the potential for LGBTs to become scapegoats or targets if a country is denied financial aid based on its LGBT rights record.

In Rick Perry-land, the administration’s announcement and Clinton’s speech were further proof of Obama’s “war on religion.” Someone was at least smart enough to use “religion” and “faith,” and not just “Christianity.” Perry wasn’t alone in his quick condemnation. BOLD From Keen News:

Perry said such an initiative was ‘not in America’s interest’ and that it was, in fact, ‘the most recent example’ of Obama’s ‘war with people of faith in this country.’
Another GOP long-shot, former Senator Rick Santorum, said the Obama initiative is part of the president’s gay agenda–‘not just in the military, not just in our society, but now around the world with taxpayer dollars.’

On a gay roll, the Perry campaign released an ad in Iowa that was widely condemned, and became something of a joke, as the anti-LGBT ad, criticizing the repeal of DADT, pictures Perry dressed in a coat very similar to the one worn by Heath Ledger in “Brokeback Mountain.” More substantively, via Huffington:

The spot … features the governor questioning why soldiers can serve openly in the military while children ‘can’t openly celebrate Christmas or pray in school.’

Although the ad used “people of faith” and “religion,” Perry, of course, is less than shy in proclaiming his Christian faith, and his intentions to govern accordingly. Others on the Right side of such proclamations jumped in. From Pam’s Houseblend:

Peter LaBarbera:

Homosexuality — once widely regarded as a Crime Against Nature — is no more a ‘fundamental human right’ than any other sexual sin.

Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council:

It is startling that President Obama is prepared to throw the full weight and reputation of the United States behind the promotion overseas of the radical ideology of the sexual revolution.

Matt Barber of the Liberty Counsel and radio show host Janet Mefferd:

Mefferd: … In all the stories I was reading yesterday about this directive, in none of them did I see any break down of statistics on the number of homosexuals and transgenders worldwide who are being tortured, persecuted and killed for being gay, have you seen any statistics like that?

Barber: Of course not, it’s nonsense.

Actually, none of these people probably have “seen any statistics like that,” since it’s unlikely they’d be reading anything that provided, you know, facts. Or just didn’t fit their preconceived “truths.”

(Photo via AFER)