Brewer Vetoes Discrimination

By now, I'm sure you've heard the good news:  Arizona Governor Jan Brewer has vetoed legislation that would have allowed business owners, based on their religious beliefs, to refuse service to LGBT people.

Although she has made some terrible moves, such as passing a law that denies drivers' licenses and other public benefits to undocumented immigrants, she at least showed that she has, somewhere deep in her, a sense of justice.  In essence, she realized that signing SB 1062 would have given a lot of people lots of power to discriminate in all sorts of ways.  For example, a Muslim taxi driver in Tucson could refuse to pick up a woman who's traveling alone.

Plus, I think she's a sensible enough person to realize that, well, someone whom you think is gay or Muslim or whatever may, in fact, not be.  I know personally people about whom you would "never guess" their sexual orientation or religion, or even race or nationality.  (Not many people think, in looking at me, that most of my heritage is Italian---Sicilian at that!  And I know a black man who looks just about as white as I do.) Any business owner who discriminates on the basis of mistaken identity is practically setting him or her self up for a lawsuit.

Furthermore, she surely realized that signing SB 1062 would be bad for business in The Grand Canyon State.  The Hispanic National Bar Association had already announced that it cancelled plans to hold its annual convention--which around 2000 would have attended--in the state next year, in part as a response to the bill.  And the National Football League--not exactly known as a bastion of gay-rights advocacy--said it was exploring plans to move the Super Bowl, which is to be held in the state next year, to a different venue had Brewer signed the bill into law.

Finally, I think she may have had a personal motivation (i.e., guilt) for signing SB 1062.  In 2007, one of her sons died of cancer and HIV-related illnesses.  Various accounts say that she disowned him when he "came out" and, at the time of his death, hadn't spoken to him in years.  Perhaps she is doing in his memory what she didn't do for him during his life.  

Not Welcome In Arizona

What rights does--or doesn't--religion confer?

Nearly everyone (at least, everyone I know) thinks that no matter how you interpret Islam, it doesn't give you the right to hijack a plane and fly it into the side of a skyscraper.  And almost nobody in the Christian world thinks that the Inquision or the Crusades were positive developments.

Perhaps being refused service on the basis of your sexual orientation doesn't compare to such tragedies.  Still, I am guessing that almost any first-year law student or seminarian would tell you that if religion doesn't confer the right to commit murder, it also shouldn't allow discrimination.

Apparently, that's not how legislators in Arizona see it.  They've passed a bill that would allow businesses and other establishments to refuse service to LGBT people.  

So, for example, it would be perfectly legal for a baker to refuse to make a cake for a gay couple's wedding.  Or a photographer could decide he didn't want to record a same-sex ceremony.

The two examples I've cited have actually occurred in other states.  Now Governor Jan Brewer, on whose desk the bill sits, must decide whether she'll allow such things in her state. Given her record on civil rights issues, I'm not optimistic that she'll veto it.

A Double Bind For "The Pregnant Man."

What if Franz Kafka wrote about transgender people and same-sex marriage?

One possible answer to that question is not a work of fiction.  It's a current news story unfolding in the State of Arizona.

There, Thomas Beatie--who made headlines a few years ago as the "pregnant man", lived with Nancy, the woman he married in Hawaii in 2003. Now he is trying to dissolve that union because, he says, she is violent and has even punched him in the crotch in front of their children.  He is willing to pay child support to keep his children in his life.

Now, even in most states that don't allow same-sex unions, a person who legally "changes" his or her sex can marry someone of the opposite sex. The problem is that states do not all define gender in the same way.  For example, in New York, I was considered female as soon as I had letters from my doctor and therapist saying that I was taking hormones and living as a woman in anticipation of gender-reassignment surgery.  However, at the time (2003-2004), most states and the Federal government required the surgery as a condition of recognizing a person's gender change.  That meant my New York State ID had an "F" in the "Gender" box, but my passport bore the "M" and Social Security still identified me as male.  

(Actually, I was able to get a one-year passport in the female gender when I first transitioned, and I was able to renew it twice before more restrictive policies were enacted. So I was able to take a trip to France and another to Turkey before I had to get the male passport I had until my surgery.)

Apparently, Hawaii's policies were more like New York's when Mr. Beatie got married.  Apparently, Arizona is more restrictive in the way it defines gender.  Or, at least, that's how Judge Douglas Gerlach interprets the law, or what he believes it to be.

He refused to grant a divorce because, he said, the Beaties weren't married in the first place: The Copper State doesn't allow or recognize same-sex marriage.  According to the judge, there isn't "sufficient evidence" to show that Thomas Beatie was indeed a man when he got married.  The esteemed jurist cited the interruption in Beatie's hormone treatments and said that the couple hadn't provided records to fully explain what Thomas had and hadn't done to become a man by the time he and Nancy wed in Honolulu.

Now, I'm not any sort of legal scholar, but if there is indeed a "lack of evidence," I can understand how Judge Gerlach would rule that, under Arizona law, would rule that the Beaties were never married.  After all, as judge, it is his job to adjudicate according to the laws of his state.  On the other hand, his ruling begs the question of what, exactly, constitutes a legal change in gender identity in Arizona, and why it or any other state would not recognize a marriage that was perfectly legal in another.

So now Thomas Beatie is in a double bind:  Because a judge in Arizona doesn't recognize his marriage, he can't get a divorce.  That means he can't leave his wife without, in essence, deserting her and their children.  Of course, his willingness to pay child support shows he doesn't want to do that. And, on top of everything, he can't marry his new girlfriend in either Arizona or Hawaii--or, for that matter, in any other state that recognizes his marriage.  While Arizona (and, probably, many other states) wouldn't allow or recognize such a union, in Hawaii he would be guilty of bigamy.  And he'd still wouldn't have custody of his kids.