Day: May 24, 2005

What has become an annual controversy over gay pride took a new twist this year in my adopted hometown of St. Augustine, Florida. First, a little background.

The Bridge of Lions, so named for the giant marble statues at its base, flies flags from lightposts across the two-lane structure, which carries people to and from Anastasia Island. The flags – sometimes American, sometimes with the city crest, sometimes a custom design – commemorate such events as federal holidays and our city’s founding in 1565.

In recent years, flags have been flown for less historic and patriotic reasons, such as to make things look nice for Bike Week visitors from nearby Daytona, or the annual big-bucks kingfishing tournament.

For the past couple of years, gay pride organizers have petitioned the city to post rainbow flags on the bridge during June. This request triggered a long-overdue discussion of a policy for the theme of flags, determining what would or wouldn’t “fly.”

St. Augustine Record:

After two years of rejections, the gay rights activists of St. Augustine Pride thought this was their year.

Their request to fly rainbow gay pride flags on the Bridge of Lions during their pride event in June had been turned down the last two years because the city requires that “the message on the banners or flags shall relate directly to a not-for-profit event that is in direct correlation to a historical landmark or event in the City and has historical significance associated with the City.”

You want history, the group asked? We’ll give you history.

This year, their argument was based on what they call the first American hate crime, committed more than 400 years ago in this area. They contend that in 1566 a Spanish governor secretly ordered the murder of a gay French interpreter of the Guale Native language.

They attached this and several other stories of historical gay citizens and presented them with this year’s application.

Commissioners and the city’s special events coordinator, who is in charge of flags on the bridge, listened to the group’s arguments and gave the old thumbs-down yet again.

“I sincerely hope we don’t have to keep meeting like this,” said Rev. Ruth Jensen, pastor at First Coast Metropolitan Community Church, addressing the commissioners and the mayor. She was one of 11 citizens who addressed the commission on behalf of the organization.

“This is historically significant,” said Jensen. “It can not be more so.”

I know many of the participants and don’t believe homophobia is the prime motivator. Even the Super Bowl, held in nearby Jacksonville this year, was not allowed to put up its Roman numeral flags. And yes, a gay pride festival is licensed in the city’s municipal exhibit areas.

Paul Williamson, director of public affairs, said the issue is more about the rules than rights. He turned downed an application from the Super Bowl Host Committee, citing the policy that was enacted in October of 2002.

“It has to be associated with an event that has historical significance,” said Williamson. “We’re denying their flags, not the festival. I hope they’ll continue to do it because it’s a good event.”

Still, it’s hard to parse out the fine distinction here, flag-wise.

The city has approved the flying of flags on the bridge celebrating Flagler College, the Lighthouse Festival and the civil rights movement.

“They were talking about civil rights, and we, in essence, are talking about the same thing,” said Jensen.

The lawyer who handled my divorce, who is one of the city commissioners, made me proud.

Vice Mayor Susan Burk said she would like to see the decision come from citizen support, a system similar to how license plates are chosen.

“I want to change the code to allow a group like this to fly their flag,” she said…

It isn’t over yet, though.

After the decision, Jensen spoke to those who had come to support St. Augustine Pride. She promised they would still be walking flags over the bridge during the event. Their next move will be legal action, said Rev. Jensen.

“We really didn’t expect anything to be different than it had been in the last two years,” said Jensen… “We were very pleased with the diversity of our supporters and with support we’re getting from all over the country. We’re going to keep trying.”

Homophobia is alive and well in the Buffalo, New York, Jewish community, as evidenced by a local Jewish newspaper’s refusal to run an ad for a Buffalo Gay Men’s Chorus performance at Temple Beth Zion in January. As a result, the synagogue has withdrawn its weekly advertising from the “Buffalo Jewish Review.”

Months of discussions between the temple and the newspaper resulted in Temple Beth Zion Rabbi Harry Rosenfeld and board president Stuart G. Lerman sending a letter of explanation to members May 10:

“The reason given was that the paper did not want to condone homosexual behavior,” they wrote. “The editor made it clear that, in her opinion, publishing the ad would offend subscribers.”

Rosenfeld and Lerman also said that “to exclude or oppress members of our community because of their sexual orientation would be denying their humanity.”

But the really interesting stuff comes from the owners of the newspaper, Rita and Arnold Weiss.

The Weisses said they chose not to publish the ad because it might encourage young people to experiment with a sexual lifestyle that could be harmful to their health.

“On a very practical basis,” [Rita Weiss] said, “there is the possibility of influencing some young people whose sexual development is not yet complete. They could get AIDS. They could try out a lifestyle that is life-threatening.”

In addition to AIDS, Weiss said, she is also concerned about “the perpetuation of the Jewish people” in the face of demographic trends, including young Jews who stay in the gay lifestyle.

“They can’t produce children,” she said. “And you can’t build a people with adoption.”

Weiss said Jews everywhere are concerned about assimilation and the demographic numbers that show a decline in the growth of the Jewish community outside Israel.

“All of the Jewish organizations are concerned,” she said, “because we’re going to need support in the future for all of the needs of our aging population. There are so many ramifications — there won’t be support for old people or for our institutions or for the State of Israel.”

Message: Intolerance is okay if it’s for a higher purpose, like supporting old Jewish people or the Israeli police state.

Yesterday I made the point that the GOP Senate leadership was pursuing the nuclear option because President Bush (a.ka. Karl Rove) wanted it done.

By ending the filibuster, President Bush meant to clear the way to pack the Supreme Court with wingnuts who will rule against privacy rights and in favor of corporate interests – and thus overturn democracy in the United States. Viewed from this perspective, the compromise last night by 14 so-called moderates in the Senate was not a win for the President. As a loss, however, it would appear to represent merely a bump in the road.

Or does it?

When Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist retires this summer, Bush/Rove will nominate Justice Antonin Scalia, right, to take his place. The Democrats in the Senate will probably pass on filibustering Scalia – the argument being that he has already been through the nomination process so is off limits for rigorous debate – so we should all start learning to live with the fact that one of the most celebrated Neanderthal political thinkers in the country as the head of highest court in the land.

With Scalia installed, the President will then put up a nominee as odious as Scalia to take his place. At this point, we may see the return of Janice (“New Deal = Socialism”) Rogers Brown or Priscilla (“Enron”) Owens. This nomination will almost undoubtedly be filibustered by Reid & co. Or at least I hope so.

What’s key here is that even when a Scalia clone is installed on the court, the zero-sum game among the Supremes remains status quo. Two seats held by ultra-rightwing justices will still be held by ultra-rightwing justices.

The time required to install these two new judges could put us into early 2006 – especially if the second nominee is filibustered by the Dems. It is unlikely that Bush will want to undertake a third nomination in the run-up to the Congressional elections in the fall. Since the third justice seat to be fill will likely be that of swing-voter Sandra Day O’Connor, there is at least the possibility that Bush can be stopped from replacing her with an ultra-right jurist.

How? If the poll numbers for Bush and the GOP Congress remain as low as they are now, there is a strong chance that control of the Senate could change from GOP to the Dems. With Majority Leader Harry Reid to contend with, the then-chastened, lame duck Bush will not want to pick a fight over his next Supreme Court nominee.

Why? Because he will have his own ass to worry about. With the Dems in charge of the Senate, Bush will, for the first time, face serious investigations into the lies he told in the run-up to the war, the way the energy bill was crafted, his lies about the Medicaid bill, and on and on and on.

With the truth finally exposed, believe it or not, George W. Bush could be faced with the Nixon gambit – a car load of GOP leaders making their way up Pennsylvania Avenue to the White House to tell him that the truth is out, and he should resign or surely he’ll face impeachment.

Hey, I can dream, can’t I?