Eurovision 2013: Where The Hell Was ABBA?!?

No matter who we are, we all have our special holidays.  Religious holidays (Yom Kippur, Easter, Ramadan), secular holidays (Thanksgiving), holidays of national identity (Independence Day), these are the days that add a little something extra to our year.  My holiday, my most sacred day, is the day of the Eurovision Song Contest.  For some time, Eurovision has been called “the gay Superbowl,” but that moniker is not exactly correct–Eurovision is a contest, but it is not so much about winners and losers so much as having a good time.  Nor is Eurovision like a Gay Pride Parade, a day that the gay community is most visible as a community.  Rather Eurovision is the one day of the year when most of Europe (and parts of Asia) embraces a gay sensibility, when they try to be like us rather than the other way around.  That is why it feels like such a betrayal when Eurovision is held in a homophobic hell hole like Russia, Serbia, or Azerbaijan.  Being openly gay in those places is as welcome as Christmas carolers in Mecca.  It is therefore a blatant slap in the face to the community that nourishes and cherishes Eurovision the most.

At least this is something that the gay community didn’t have to worry about this year in Malmö, Sweden.  Nor is it something we will have to worry about next year when the contest returns to Denmark.  Denmark, the heavy favorite, won for the first time since 2000.  Oddly enough, the 2000 contest was also in Sweden (Stockholm) following Charlotte Nilsson’s 1999 victory.  Apparently the new pattern is that the Swedes win first and then the Danes.  Hopefully it will not move back to Eastern Europe after that.

Last year, I went to my first Eurovision party at the Austrian Embassy in Washington, DC, which is not surprising given that Eurovision is not actually aired here in the US except online.  Last year was also the first time that a party like that was ever put together in the US (high-definition broadcast, big screen, food, drinks, hundreds of people, etc.).  It was a lot of fun, but in retrospect it was merely a first attempt.  This year, the House of Sweden had a whole year to plan, and they were ready.  It was one of the best parties I have ever been to.  Food, music, a trivia contest, dancing, a DJ, a drag queen,  the House of Sweden was prepared.  And also a halftime surprise, Alexander Rybak–yes, that one.

As much fun as watching Eurovision is, that is nothing compared to being around a bunch of people who also watch Eurovision.   It’s like we’re all in on a secret together, a glorious, camp secret full of in-jokes and a silly sophistication.  In fact, I was having so much fun, that I caught less of the actual contest than I would have had I watched it on my computer.

Eurovision themes are incredibly easy to mock given that they are usually banal, interchangeable platitudes about togetherness, harmony, and a brotherhood that the actual Europe does not feel in the least.  Sweden’s theme this year, “We Are One,” is no different, but at a Eurovision party in the United States, we really all did feel like one no matter who we supported.  I saw familiar faces such as the wonderful Danish lady from last year (who recognized me immediately), and I met new friends, three fellow homosexuals and a drag queen.  For a brief, shining moment, Sweden was home.

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

Eurovision contests follow certain rules, particularly with the opening.  First, last year’s winner performs last year’s winning song and then two innocuous but inane hosts (usually one man and one woman) prattle endlessly about the contest, all the while demonstrating that they have no rapport with each other or stage personality whatsoever.  The Swedes, famous for being a people who comply to the rules unthinkingly, proved to be the absolute perfect Eurovision hosts by breaking all those rules.  First, the opening song was co-written by Benny and Björn, formerly of a certain Swedish group you may have heard of (and who, to my eternal sadness, did not reunite for the competition), and the young DJ/producer Avicii.  The song “We Write the Story” was completely unmemorable, but while a choir sang it, the participants walked out across a land bridge behind their flags a la the Opening Ceremony at the Olympics.  I liked it, even if it was clearly nicked.  Very unlike Eurovision.

The second, and more impressive change that Sweden made was to the host.  Instead of two insipid choices, the Swedes went for an inspired one: Petra Mede, a Swedish comedian and television presenter who was a joy to watch, particularly her song and dance Swedish Smörgåsbord, a song which was ineligible to win the contest, but should have anyway (if for no other reason than for Carola getting blown off the stage by her own wind machine).  Petra Mede should host every year.  Forget Terry Wogan’s Graham Norton’s commentary; we want Petra.  Coincidentally, she had the single best line of the night when she told the crowd, “I know all you devoted Eurovision fans there just haven’t met the right girl yet!”  In truth, this may have been the gay-friendliest Eurovision ever (with a gay wedding and a lesbian kiss), and Petra Mede officiated it–literally, she was dressed as a priest for the gay wedding.  (Petra also made reference to the “Dancing Queens” in the audience; we know she loves the gays.)

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

It doesn’t actually matter what I think about the acts even though I took notes, which I will share (a better recap is the always amusing liveblog from the Guardian).  Please know though that 2013 is my favorite competition ever.

First a prefatory note: white seems to have become the official Eurovision color.  For the past two years now, a good portion of the contestants and/or their backup dancers have been dressed in all white.  Eurovision also seems to get more Caucasian and blonder each year.  Not coincidentally, our humble little party in DC was also incredibly white.

France and Lithuania: Being the first two performers is a thankless task.  The first two almost never win, if they ever have.   But they also usually very dull.  Neither France (first, Amandine Bourgeois, “L’enfer et moi”) or Lithuania (second, Andrius Pojavis, “Something”) broke that mold.  One of the Danish children standing in front of me very clearly said during Bourgeois’s performance, “I don’t like her.”  And I have to say, I couldn’t blame him.  Who wants to hear a lifeless French power ballad?  My notes on Lithuania say absolutely nothing of interest, so I won’t bore you with them.

Moldova:  Aliona Moon sang “O mie.”  Nice voice, boring song, all gimmick.  Her backup dancers wore white (naturally), her hair looked like Jane Jetson’s, and she stood in the middle of the stage wearing a white dress reflecting pink lighting.  Then she rose into the air as her dress got longer so she looked like a rose-colored mountain.  Then light flashed and her dress looked like a volcano.  Then the song ended and she looked like an iceberg.  The DC crowd loved it, the first time they paid attention to an act.

Finland: Krista Siegfrid sang “Marry Me.”  To understand this song, one needs to know that compared to the other Nordic countries, Finland is way behind in gay rights.  It is the only Nordic nation without marriage equality, a fact that really grates on many Finns, who are leaving their church in droves over the issue.  Through a public referendum, the Finns are forcing their parliament to debate the issue, which last year a committee refused to let go through.  Although “Marry Me” is not overtly political (it cannot be because of Eurovision rules), Krista nonetheless let it be known that she is an ardent gay rights supporter.  Her song and music video even inspired a loving gay parody (in which Krista makes a cameo appearance).  So it should not be surprising that Krista kissed one of her female dancers at the end of the song.  In DC, that moment may have gotten the loudest applause of the day.  The song was quite popular among the DC crowd, far more than with the actual voters.  Krista did not win Eurovision, but she should be a shoe-in for a GLAAD award.

Spain:  El Sueño de Morfeo sang “Contigo hasta el final.”  I kind of liked it.  Noting special, but it was a nice acoustic vibe.  On the other hand, there was a lot of yellow.  Spain’s entry last year was much better, and Spain suffered in the voting this year because neither Portugal nor Andorra entered.

Belgium: Roberto Bellarosa sang “Love Kills.”  My boyfriend loved this one, which makes me a bit nervous.  Like “Marry Me,” this one had the crowd singing and dancing.  I enjoyed it at the time, although I don’t really remember it now.  It was Belgium’s best entry (and best placement in a long time).  I appreciated that Roberto Bellarosa was so happy after his performance that he cried into his hands.

Estonia:  Birgit sang “Et uus saaks alguse.”  A lot of white in this act.  Slow, slow ballad.  Not my cup of tea, but there was a large Estonian contingent at the DC party who were over the moon.

Belarus: Alyona Lanskaya sang “Solayoh.”  This was the first (only?) “true” Eurovision song of the night, in that it was a disco-inflicted gimmicky dance number (seriously, Alyona comes out of a giant disco ball).  I was not a fan, but I haven’t been a fan of a Belarus entry since Alexandra of Alexandra and Konstantin yodeled her way through “My Galileo” in 2004.

At this point, I should probably say something about the interludes between acts.  They were nice, and I appreciate that the singers were featured in them.

Malta: Gianluca sang “Tomorrow.”  But not that “Tomorrow.“  Gianluca is actually a medical doctor and part-time singer.  He’s also a very attractive guy, which makes me think I am being persuaded by something other than my musical taste when I say that I liked his song.  It’s a very happy song, and the fact that he went into the crowd only added to that.  This song is like a cute puppy.  You just feel that you have to pick it up and hug it.  Given Gianluca’s top 10 finish and Malta’s propensity to recycle singers, one has to assume he will be back.  And one day I hope to see Malta win this contest.

Russia:  Dina Garipova sang “What If.”  You can tell when Russia wants to win because the song is in English.  You also know that because of the former Soviet bloc, Russia is almost virtually guaranteed a top 5 finish every year.  The surprise this year was that the song was a happy, hippy, let’s all get along type of ballad with people holding hands.  In other words, completely not Russia.

Germany: There were a lot of Germans in the DC party, so there was a lot of excitement for Cascada’s “Glorious.”  Or someone else’s “Glorious.”  Here’s the problem with this song and with Cascada.  It’s practically a carbon copy of last year’s winner “Euphoria.”  Seriously, it almost got disqualified because of that (the song was cleared).  Listen to the two side-by-side, and you will hear how similar they are (not least the “or-ee-ah” sounds in the title words).  Except that “Euphoria” is a far superior song by a far superior singer.  Germany usually copies its own success, which is fine, but copying another nation’s success, that is bad form.  Cascada suffered in the voting for that troubling lack of judgment.

Armenia: Dorians sang “Lonely Planet”.  Don’t ask me about this act, I have no idea.  There was fire but no desire.

At this point there was an intermission that I did not pay attention to at all.  Fortunately, through the magic of YouTube, I got to see Sarah Dawn Finer do her “Lynda Woodruff” act, which is really funny.  Major props to the Swedes for not being afraid to mock  their completely humorless image.  Coincidentally, Lynda Woodruff is also a very unsubtle and hilarious swipe at the English.  (Finer would later come back sans Lynda Woodruff drag to perform ABBA’s “The Winner Takes It All.”)

The Netherlands: Anouk sang “Birds.”  This is my boyfriend’s favorite song.  He’s been singing it for a month now.  This is a very non-Eurovision song by an established singer in the Netherlands.  It is also extremely depressing, and the music video, which features a ballerina who kills herself, is enough to send a Mormon to the bottle.  The wonderful Danish lady friend loved the song, but seemed way too happy to know anything about it.  No one else seemed to like it at all.  (I think it was the strongest song of the bunch musicaly.)  For the Netherlands, which hasn’t gotten to the finals of Eurovision since the Ice Age, Anouk’s 9th place finish was quite a gift.

Romania:  Oh my.  Just oh my.  Cezar sang “It’s My Life,” but as one of my companions pointed out, it should have been called “Falsetto Dracula.”  The crowd (including me) loved it because, like most Romanian entries, it is entirely a gimmick song.  In addition to the falsetto vampire who sang the song in a long black robe which (like his less creepy Moldovan counterpart) grew and he became taller due to the miracle of technology, there were the dancers.  Three male acrobats appear from the floor dancing around in pink body paint.  Then one of them disappears and a woman in gold body paint takes his place in a spontaneous dancer sex change.  I don’t actually remember the song, but I do remember Bon Jovi’s “It’s My Life.”

United Kingdom:  The interlude prior to Bonnie Tyler’s appearance on stage was of Bonnie Tyler showing off her gold records, and reminding her audience that if they grew up in the 80′s they are now old.  But (in the words of a non-Bonnie Tyler song written by her famed collaborator Jim Steinman), tonight is what it means to be young.  Her song was called “Believe in Me,” which in retrospect is quite ironic.  While Bonnie was being held out as a hero, she was totally eclipsed in our hearts; therefore she lost in Sweden, and it’s a heartache.  (Thus end the gratuitous Bonnie Tyler jokes because I love her dearly, and she gave a mediocre song real gravity simply by being Bonnie Tyler.)  Given that last year’s entry was Englebert Humperdink, one wonders about the future of British entries.  Are George Michael and Boy George going to try for the British spot next year?  Who will be the entries in 20 or 30 years?  Lily Allen?  Adele?  One Direction?

Sweden:  Robin Stjernberg sang “You.”  Robin looks like Adam Lambert without makeup.  Clearly he was very popular in the venue (and at the DC party, where there was lots of dancing to his song), but all I remember was his extended “Yoooooooou”s, which were very fun to sing along with.  He didn’t place well, but Sweden didn’t really want to host it next year anyway.

Hungary:  ByeAlex sang “Kedvesem.”  This is the story of a hipster boy (complete with knit cap) and his guitar.  It was one of my boyfriend’s favorites of the evening.  It was good if you like that kind of thing I guess.  Given that Germany gave ByeAlex 12 points, I guess Germans like that kind of thing.

Denmark:  Emmelie de Forest sang “Only Teardrops.”  This is why I am bad at selecting Eurovision winners; I first saw this entry and thought, “Wow, Denmark picked a terrible song; it will never win.”  My boyfriend loved it, but I thought he was just biased in favor of Denmark.  Then he told me that this was the favorite, and I still dismissed it.  It was just so… generic (not that this has ever stopped a Eurovision song from winning).  I was wrong, and this is also why I hate that Eurovision entrants are released so early.  I form my best opinions at the contest itself.  I never have a good opinions of the eventual winners when I see them ahead of time, even “Euphoria” and “Satellite,” both of which I love–and “Only Teardrops” is not as good as either.  However, when I saw four adorable blond Danish children singing all the words to this song, I changed my mind.  (My recollection of the lyrics is: “How many times can you dah dah dah?  How many times can you dah dah dah between us?  Only teardrops.”)  Granted I was flying a Danish flag all night, so I might have been sending mixed messages.  So I guess it won me over, but not completely (please let me in your country, Denmark.)  The best part of the performance is the way the 20-year-old Emmelie stares at her fife player with what is supposed to be seductive, intensive eyes and what I can only assume is the implication of oral sex.  (After she won, during the repeat to end the broadcast, Emmelie’s intensive look was replaced with a happier, less suggestive, more child-friendly one.)

Iceland: Eythor Ingi sang “Ég á líf,” which, in retrospect, may be my favorite song of the night.  It was the favorite of one of my gay companions of the evening who referred to Eythor Ingi as “Nordic Jesus,” which seems about right.  Iceland, like Malta, is a tiny nation that produces a surprising amount of good Eurovision songs, none of which will ever win.  Iceland does not need your stupid song contest, Europe; Iceland produced Björk.  Bow to her genius, puny mortals!

Azerbaijan: Farid Mammadov sang “Hold Me.”  The mother of all gimmicks. I can’t do this performance justice.  Just watch it.  Really.  (None of this is to say the song is any good, but the performance was quite spectacular.  It went over really well in DC.)

Greece: Koza Mostra featuring Agathonas Iakovidis sang “Alcohol is Free.”  This was the favorite of Guardian liveblog by a mile.  I hate to admit this, but for the first time since Antique, I liked a Greek entry.  Granted this is a sort of protest song about Greece and Euro debt crisis and whatnot.  It was a ridiculous, high intensity song with crazy dancing, and it must be watched.  One can safely assume that the Greeks (and the rest of Europe) are thrilled they don’t have to host next year.

Ukraine:  Zlata Ognevych singing “Gravity.”  Like Russia, Ukraine always places highly because of the former Soviet bloc.  She was carried on stage by a giant viking, which had nothing to do with her song, but whatever.  A pretty Ukrainian girl with a Shania Twain vibe and a boring ballad-y type song are good for a top place finish but not for a memorable performance.

Italy: Marco Mengoni sang “L’essenziale.”  This is your stereotype entry right here.  Seedy-looking Italian guy singing a “Volare” type song in an expensive Italian suit.  Way to live in the present, Italy.  (On the other hand, Italy was the highest placing non-Nordic Western European nation, so what do I know?)

Norway: Margaret Berger (blond, pale, and all in white) sang “I Feed You My Love.”  I clearly have a dirty, dirty mind, because I giggle every time I hear this song.  This was the favorite of another of the gay companions.  I cannot accurately judge this song because I really cannot get past the title without laughing like a 12-year-old.

At this point I realize I have not seen any awkward green room interviews to interrupt the broadcast, and I am thankful.  This is the best Eurovision ever.

Georgia: Nodi Tatishvili and Sophie Gelovani sang “Waterfall.”  This is a carbon copy of the Azerbaijan winner from two years ago, and I refuse to acknowledge it any further, as I dislike both that song and this one.  (My boyfriend called this one “the sleeping pill.”  I disagree.  It’s more like two wailing cats keeping you awake at night.)

Ireland: Ryan Dolan sang “Only Love Survives.”  Wait a second, didn’t love kill us already this evening?  I don’t know.  There were lots of Celtic symbols, drums, and lean, hot, Celtic-tattooed drummers (Ryan Dolan knows his audience).  But this song was dead on arrival and came in last place.  Which means Ryan Dolan has the unfortunate distinction of being less popular than Jedward.  Poor Ryan Dolan.  (Also, this song too sounded a lot like “Euphoria.”)

So that’s it.  Hopefully next year, I will be watching this live from Copenhagen (please God, not Herning).  Until then, Europe, thank you for the lovely evening.  And Sweden, the next time you host, please find a way to reunite ABBA.

Get Ready For Singing!

Eurovision is almost upon us (this Saturday).  For any confused American who is new to the Eurovision experience, I humbly submit my previous Guide to the Perplexed.  A warning, some of the links may have content that has been removed, but I imagine it is very easy to find any of that removed content in another place on YouTube.

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

and my report on previous Eurovisions: 2011 and 2012

Will Portman, Matt Salmon, and Me

I fear it is a sign of advancing age that I can remember back to 1996 (and the preceding Dark Ages) when the debate over marriage equality began in earnest and only one Senator–Ron Wyden–openly spoke out in support.  Two others–Ted Kennedy and Carol Mosley-Braun–also supported marriage equality but in a more circumspect manner.  Of those original three, only Wyden still serves in the Senate.

Over the next fifteen years, support for same-sex marriage in the Senate grew slowly; before 2011 only 15 Senators, Democrats all, supported it, although LGBT activists suspected, as they did with President Obama, that many more Senators secretly supported the cause.  Understanding that a craven but Democrat-controlled Senate would be far more beneficial to the LGBT cause than a Republican-controlled Senate, LGBT organization chose not to rock the boat–often to the consternation of the larger and more impatient LGBT community.

In the past two years, and especially since last November, Senatorial support for marriage equality has exploded.  As of the time of this writing, 54 Senators–over half the Senate–support pro-marriage equality legislation.  This no doubt due to the confluence of several factors: (1) consistent polling data showing that a majority supports marriage equality; (2) President Obama’s high-profile endorsement of same-sex marriage and his subsequent reelection; (3) the embrace of marriage equality in the Democratic party platform; (4) the election of Tammy Baldwin the first openly gay Senator; and most importantly (5) the referendum victories in Maine, Maryland, Minnesota and Washington.  From hereon in, for most Democratic Senators (and all future serious Democratic Presidential candidates) it is far more dangerous to oppose same-sex marriage than to support it.*

Surprisingly, of the 54 Senators who favor marriage equality, two are Republicans.  Mark Kirk of Illinois, whose prior voting record on gay rights issues included a vote against repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, issued a very simple but powerful statement: “Same-sex couples should have the right to civil marriage.  Our time on this earth is limited, I know that better than most.  [Kirk recently recovered from a stroke.]  Life comes down to who you love and who loves you back–government has no place in the middle.”

Before Kirk announced his support though, Rob Portman of Ohio changed his mind to support same-sex marriage.  To say that his announcement was a great shock is an understatement; his voting record on LGBT rights was abysmal.  Portman, a candidate to be Mitt Romney’s running mate, announced his support for same-sex marriage in an editorial in which he explained how he came to that position.  Two years ago his son Will came out to him, and Rob Portman came to understand that by opposing marriage equality he was hurting his own son.

The response to Portman from the political right was–predictably enough–outrage.  The response from the left however, was more complicated.  Most of us celebrated Portman for his change of heart.  Disappointingly though, there was a lot of anger toward Portman coming from some influential corners.  Dan Savage, wrote that the true hero of the story was Will Portman, a correct enough statement, misguided in the implication that Rob Portman’s actions are somehow less than meaningful.  The argument of Portman critics such as Savage, Paul Krugman, and Matt Yglesias goes something like this:

Rob Portman, like most/all Republicans, lacks empathy.  He was able to comprehend the issues facing gay people only because his son is gay.  Therefore, if someone he loves doesn’t have that problem (such as poverty), Portman has no capacity for empathy.

I acknowledge a grain of truth to this criticism.  Will Portman will never suffer poverty or employment discrimination (the Senator still does not support ENDA), a benefit of being a Senator’s son who attends Yale.  Nevertheless, Savage, Krugman, and Yglesias are flat-out wrong.  Rob Portman changed his mind about marriage equality because someone he loves is gay, and that exemplifies exactly why the central message of the gay rights movement has been a call for gay people to come out.  Rob Portman should be celebrated; he is proof that we change our loved ones’ minds by coming out.

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

Following Portman’s announcement, Representative Matthew J. Salmon (R-AZ) commented on television that he too had  gay son, but unlike Portman, he did not support marriage equality.  Claiming his son Matt was “by far one of the most important people in my life,” Congressman Salmon said, “I love him more than I can say.  It doesn’t mean that I don’t have respect, it doesn’t mean that I don’t sympathize with some of the issues.  It just means I haven’t evolved** to that stage.”  Salmon’s statement set off a deserved wave of criticism, but one person who supported him was his son Matt.  (To avoid confusion, the father will be referred to as “Salmon” or as “the Congressman” and the son as “Matt”).

It is impossible to judge another man without walking a mile in his shoes; I acknowledge I do not know Matt’s journey.  I cannot judge him, especially about something as intimate as his relationship to his parents.  Nevertheless, it is nearly impossible to watch his gut-wrenching “It Gets Better” (IGB) video, or read the often-harrowing Phoenix New Times account of Matt and his former partner Kent Flake, and not recoil in horror from the emotional hell his family created for him.

The gay activist and writer Michelangelo Signorile wrote a scathing indictment of Salmon who, along with his wife Nancy, was actively involved in the (failed) 2006 campaign to ban legal recognition of same-sex relationships in Arizona.  Nancy headed the campaign and involved Matt.  This is after he came out to her.  (He was in reparative therapy at the time, and he voted in favor of the ballot measure.)  In his IGB video, Matt said that his mother did not get involved in the later, successful 2008 ballot measure, so I suppose that is some progress.

Signorile is a loud, abrasive, and overly opinionated writer and activist.  In this instance however, he is absolutely correct.  The damage that the Salmons did and still do to their son is incalculable whether or not he admits it (whether or not he can admit it).  Signorile writes:

Those parents who do not move on the issue, who reject their children, either by literally throwing them out of their homes or by saying, “I love you, but I don’t accept your ‘lifestyle,’” are putting themselves above their children. For young people in that situation, living as second-class citizens in their own families and fooling themselves into thinking that their parents love them (because they so much want that love from their parents) while allowing their parents to quietly condemn them each and every day, even as they grow into adulthood, the rejection eats away at their self-esteem.

For whatever reason–politics, religion, old-fashioned bigotry–the Salmons do not fully embrace their son.  The Congressman may say that Matt is “by far one of the most important people in my life,” yet his actions show that Matt is not important enough.  If a parent loves his child unconditionally, then there are just some sacrifices the parent has to make.  Belief in one’s own self-righteousness is one of them.

Recently, Matt defended his father on a local Phoenix television station and again on CNN.  He insisted that his father loved him and was not an anti-gay bigot.***  These interviews however, are far from convincing.  Despite claiming that his relationship with his father was never stronger, the hurt, young man who nearly broke down into tears on his IGB video was very much apparent.  Matt tells us that his father loves him, but his answers to reporters’ questions show a contrary picture.  He neither defends (or even explains) his father’s homophobic votes in Congress nor disputes the image of his family from the Phoenix New Times article.  In the local television interview, Matt’s real revelations were (1) a near admission that he regrets that his dad is not like Rob Portman; and (2) the lowest point in his relationship with his father was when Matt left reparative therapy–which all reputable medical and mental health associations consider insidious and harmful junk science.  Worse, when asked if his parents would come to his (theoretical) wedding, Matt said, ”I’m not going to lay that burden on them, but I hope that they do.”  That is the response of something who doesn’t want to admit the real answer is no.  Watching Matt is like watching a helpless captive.  On CNN, Mat said that in order to get his parents to respect his views, he had to respect theirs.  No, no, no!  Their views are that he is less of a person and his love is less meaningful than theirs.  That is a view worth fighting not respecting.

I am sure Matt would not want me to pity him; most likely he would resent for doing so.  Yet after watching this interview, I feel nothing but the most profound pity for him.  He does not know unconditional love, and he is clearly not in a place where he is strong enough to cope without it.  Therefore, he lets his parents emotionally batter him, his father especially so.  Matt should never have appeared before the cameras; it was his father who dragged him into it.  By talking about Matt on national television, the Congressman turned his son into a shield against completely correct charges of homophobia.  He made Matt protect him rather than the other way around.

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

Growing up gay in suburban Philadelphia was not as difficult as in some locations; I imagine I would have had a much more difficult time in places like rural Mississippi or inner-city Detroit.  Nevertheless, I did not escape unscathed.  I grew up in the era when AIDS was still “the gay cancer.”  The Defense of Marriage Act was passed and signed into law as I left high school for college.  I knew no openly gay adults, but I knew plenty of homophobes.  In those days I was in deep denial–praying every night for God to make me “normal.”  It didn’t work.

I came out at age 19, late by today’s standards but not so late in the mid-to-late 90′s.  Coming out was a traumatic experience, so much so that I could not even say “I’m gay” to the first person I told.  Being able to say the actual words for the first time happened days afterwards.  The next month I told my parents.  My father was surprised, but relatively supportive.  My mother was neither supportive nor surprised.  She told me she would never be able to reconcile herself to my being gay; a decade and a half later, she has kept her word.  We still speak, but her refusal to support me has damaged our relationship, probably irreparably.

I have a friend who recently married his long-time partner in a state where same-sex marriage is legal.  My friend’s parents knew his partner and treated him well.  When the wedding invitation arrived however, my friend’s parents wrote to him to tell him that they would not attend.  They said that although they tolerated his homosexuality, and felt they had been very good about doing so, approving of his marriage by attending was a bridge too far.  My friend was crushed by the knowledge that his parents refused to see his marriage as anything other than a “marriage.”  Their message was that they believed his relationship to be a camp spectacle–a parody of heterosexual love.  My friend stopped speaking to his parents.

I thought of my mother and my friend as I watched Matt’s interviews.  Whether Matt abandons his parents or stays but with the understanding of the limits of their love is not for anyone to judge.  Matt deserves sympathy, empathy, compassion and support.  I understand Matt Salmon’s pain because I wonder, as he must also, why I don’t deserve the love Rob Portman has for his son Will.

Footnotes:

*  I did not mention the House of Representatives, and with good reason.  Because there are 435 of them and because they represent ever-changing electoral districts, the number who support marriage equality is bound to be skewed by factors such as a redrawn (gerrymandered) Congressional map rather than a true representation of the nation.  What is important at the moment is that there are six open LGBT members of the House.

**  I hate when politicians who claim not to support same-sex marriage use the word “evolve.”  Evolution may be the slow process of adaptation to an environment, but in modern usage, to evolve to get to a more advanced (i.e. better) state of being–as in “we evolved from simple single-celled organisms to complex multicellular ones.”  Therefore, the word “evolve” actually denotes that supporting marriage equality is the morally correct position.  When President Obama said he was evolving, it was seen as a coded message, and it is now when Lisa Murkowski, the (Republican) Senator from Alaska says it.  This brings up the obvious question however: If you understand that supporting marriage equality is morally correct then why aren’t you already supporting it?

***  There are two conflated issues here that must be separated: (1) Congressman Salmon’s love for his son; and (2) Congressman Salmon’s alleged homophobia.  They are not mutually exclusive and should not be treated thus.  The Congressman may love his son more than anything in the world, but that is not a defense against blatant homophobic actions.  The entirety of the American LGBT populace suffers from his regressive votes in Congress, and that is not negated by a personal connection as Matt may want to believe.  One judges a person’s character by their actions far more than by their personal connections.

Windsor, Paul Clement, Legal Ethics, and the Folly of Originalism

As you no doubt know, this past week two major gay rights cases were argued before the United States Supreme Court.  The first of these cases, Hollingsworth v. Perry, is the case that challenged Prop 8, California’s 2008 marriage equality ban.  While there is much to say about Perry, I will save my thoughts until that case is finally decided one way or another.  Instead I would prefer to talk about United States v. Windsor, the second case that was argued, and in many ways the more important of the two.  Windsor challenges Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the part that limits federal recognition of state marriages to heterosexual couples.  Windsor is the less grand of the two cases and far less modest in terms of scope, but it a step in a well-developed legal strategy and a more likely winner.

Edie Windsor, now an octogenarian, married her long-time partner Thea Spyer in Canada in 2007 after being together for over forty years.  Because they lived in New York, their marriage was fully recognized by the state government and treated as equal.  Thea suffered from multiple sclerosis, and Edie was her caretaker.  When Thea died, Edie was assessed over $360,000 in taxes on Thea’s estate by the federal government–taxes that would not have been assessed had Thea been Theodore.  Edie Windsor won her case at trial and again on appeal.  Both lower courts declared that Section 3 of DOMA was unconstitutional.

This case (and several like it that are currently before federal courts) has an interesting twist to it.  Whenever a federal law is challenged in court, the Executive Branch (usually through the Justice Department) defends it.  This time however, the President himself declared DOMA unconstitutional and refused to defend it.  In fact, the Justice Department went so far as to argue on behalf of Edie Windsor at the Supreme Court.

While it is exceedingly rare for the President not to defend a federal law, it is also not unheard of (contrary to the impotent fit that the Court’s conservative Justices threw at oral argument).  However, if DOJ refused to defend DOMA then that put the case in an odd position.  Having won at trial, Edie Windsor could not appeal.  Which meant that someone had to appeal in order to bring the case to the Supreme Court.  This is where Congress came.  Because the House of Representatives is controlled by Republicans, the House, through its falsely named and unfortunately acronymed Bipartisan Legal Advisory Committee (BLAG), hired a high-powered, high-profile attorney named Paul Clement and paid him big money to defend DOMA.  The Senate, controlled by Democrats, did not join the challenge.

Whether BLAG is allowed to defend the case is an open question, and there is a question about whether the Justices may dismiss Windsor on standing.  Standing is legalese term for the right to be a part of a case.  Unless you are a legal nerd, this is all very dry and boring, so I won’t waste your time with it other than to say that the issue is whether BLAG is an appropriate party to represent the government on appeal.  BLAG says yes, Edie Windsor’s attorneys says yes, DOJ says yes, but the Supreme Court wasn’t sure.  They asked a Harvard law professor to argue against standing, and then tore her arguments to shreds.

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

For the purposes of this post, my focus is less about how Windsor will turn out, but rather the man who argued against it, Paul Clement.  Clement, a man whom I have written about before, is probably the most famous Supreme Court advocate working today (this is a big deal in legal circles).  He has argued over 50 cases before the Court and is a dynamic presence at the lectern.  He is smart, quick on his feet, and clearly respected by the Justices.  In the George W. Bush administration, Clement was initially the Principal Deputy Solicitor General and then in 2004 was named Solicitor General.†  (Ironically the man he succeeded, Ted Olson, was arguing on behalf the gay couples in the Prop 8 case.)  I also suspect however, that Clement is a partisan hack who lacks scruples.

Clement is not only steeped in the traditions and quirks of practicing before the Supreme Court, he has the an enviable conservative pedigree.  He graduated from Harvard Law School and was an editor of the Harvard Law Review (I believe the year that now-President Obama was in charge).  After law school, he clerked for Laurence Silberman at the DC Circuit and then Antonin Scalia at the Supreme Court–two of the most famous conservatives jurists in the country.  He was an associate at Kirkland & Ellis, then chief counsel for a subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and then became a partner at King & Spaulding.  This was before he left to go to the SG’s office where he famously argued major terrorism cases.  After returning to private practice he was the natural choice as counsel for the opponents of Obamacare.  No doubt his Federalist Society dues are paid through 2025.

Yet for someone as accomplished and respected as Clement is, he has also lost a lot of very high-profile cases–the terrorism cases and Obamacare being the most high-profile.  Infamously, while at the SG’s office, Clement told the Justices that the United States does not torture, and within a week, the Abu Ghraib pictures were released.  (It is a wonder he was allowed back in the building.)  Clement’s win-loss record though is not a knock against him; conversely, that he has appeared so many times is a sign of his talents.  What people, especially–but not exclusively–non-lawyers, tend not to understand is that the Supreme Court is a lawmaking body, same as Congress.  The Justices themselves obfuscate their role by saying stupid things like “the job of a judge is to be like an umpire and call balls and strikes.”  Or they hide their role through judicial philosophies like Originalism, the idea that the Constitution should be interpreted as the Framers would have done in 1789.  No, the Supreme Court makes law.  When it comes to Constitutional Law, they ostensibly do as little as possible out of a false humility–an unelected body that never faces the will of the populace should not make sweeping judgments (until a majority wants to make sweeping judgments).  The point is that while it is supposed to be Clement’s job to persuade a majority of the Justices to his side, the truth is that the Justices make their own decisions based on policy and politics as much as law.

When Clement was hired by BLAG, he was a partner at King & Spaulding, Atlanta’s major law firm.  The hue and cry that rose up against King & Spaulding for taking the case however, was nothing that the firm had prepared for.  Corporate America, which surprisingly has been at the vanguard of gay rights, was quite vocal.  The rumors (denied by all but probably true) were that Coca-Cola threatened to withdraw as a client of King & Spaulding if the firm continued defending DOMA.  No matter how big King & Spaulding is; an Atlanta firm that loses Coca-Cola may as well sign its own death warrant.  As a result, Clement left the firm for Bancroft, a litigation boutique with a strong conservative presence.  For his decision to leave his law firm to continue defending his client, Clement was lauded as a hero.  That is one way to look at the story but I offer another.

Most likely, Edie Windsor will win her case, and Section 3 of DOMA will be struck down, probably 5-4.  There are no guarantees that the Justices’ opinion will do much to help the LGBT rights movement in the next case, but all signs point to Section 3 being dead (yes, the common wisdom is that one can never tell from oral argument, but Obamacare aside, that is not actually true).  This has been the writing on the wall for some time.  The federal courts that have heard Section 3 cases have been near unanimous in finding for gay plaintiffs.  The House Republicans may want to defend DOMA, but that does not make it a winner.   Everyone deserves representation, but that representation does not mean a day in court–it means that the lawyer has to give his client the best advice possible.  There are several issues with Windsor that make BLAG’s side the loser: (1) standing; (2) constitutionality; and (3) defensibility.

I mentioned the standing issue above.  As for constitutionality, Section 3 is flat-out unconstitutional whether it be on Equal Protection grounds or federalism grounds.*  Finally there is the lack of defensibility.  Clement abandoned the usual defense, the infamous “parade of horribles” which compares gay relationships to pedophilia, polygamy, and perversions.  This was not done out of the kindness of his heart; the Supreme Court has made it clear that this argument will not win the day.  Without it however, Clement lacked the most potent weapon in his arsenal.  As a response, he came up with two new arguments: (1) Congressional intent in creating DOMA was not discrimination, it was for uniformity; and (2) gay couples don’t need marriage because they cannot accidentally get pregnant.  In other words, in this latter argument, gay people are too responsible, whereas those irresponsible heterosexuals need added protections (taxes, Social Security, etc.) because otherwise they will not protect the many accidental babies they irresponsibly produce.  This latter argument is so ridiculous that I cannot even remember if it was brought up in Court.  The former argument is an outright lie.  Congress was not only open about its discriminatory intent in creating DOMA, Congress was proud of it.  I have never heard Paul Clement reduced to such babbling as when Justice Kagan ambushed him with the actual Congressional Record that stated that in creating DOMA, “Congress decided to reflect and honor collective moral judgment and to express moral disapproval of homosexuality.”  How he was unprepared for that attack is beyond me; even a bad or inexperienced lawyer would have been aware of it.

Clement’s performance at oral argument betrayed his dishonesty and that of his side.  Sticking to the idea that DOMA was purely a marriage uniformity act, Clement argued, “We don’t want somebody, if they are going to be transferred in the military from West Point to Fort Sill in Oklahoma, to resist the transfer because they are going to lose some benefits.”  The gall of this argument is infuriating.  First of all, there is the obvious question: why shouldn’t someone resist a transfer to a place that treats his or her marriage as invalid?  Besides which, these are not merely “some benefits” that a gay couple will lose, but in fact quite substantial ones.  Moreover, his argument is entirely disingenuous.  In 1996 when DOMA was passed, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell was still effect–meaning that if a gay or lesbian person in the military asked for federal marriage benefits, he or she risked certain discharge.   In 1996 this would be especially risky–the first civil unions were not enacted until 2000 and the first same-sex marriages did not begin until 2004, and all previous attempts to attain legally recognized same-sex unions failed spectacularly.  (Furthermore, DOMA has no sunset provisions; Congress never expected it to end and had to plans to reevaluate it.)  Finally there is the converse uniformity question: if Congress was so concerned about uniformity why not declare that a legally recognized same-sex union must be recognized by every state (the complete opposite of DOMA)?  The answer is that uniformity was clearly not the motivating factor, animus was.  And animus as a motivating factor does not pass even the Supreme Court’s most lax standard of review.

So given that there is a standing issue, two issues of constitutionality, and no legitimate defense, why would Clement take the case to court rather than counseling BLAG to drop it?  Well, there are two answers.  The first is that I do not believe there is a conservative, reactionary cause that Clement will not gleefully defend.  For all his acumen, he is at heart as much a hack as any politician.  The second, and probably more important reason is that Congress has spent millions on this case.  Clement’s hourly rate is not cheap, and any case that goes to the Supreme Court will have a very large legal bill–which is why the Supreme Court takes on a very large number of cases involving multinational corporations.  Unlike corporate cases though, the DOMA defense is footed by the taxpayer.  While the millions Clement’s firm is currently earning is a mere drop in the fiscal bucket, to spend so much on an unwinnable battle comes across as rank hypocrisy from the party that fashions itself as the one of fiscal responsibility.

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

Having torn apart Clement for a lack of scruples, I again acknowledge that the Supreme Court is a lawmaking body not truly bound by anything (or as I heard one respected lawyer say, “The law is all crap.”)  Ergo, even though the law seemingly demands that the Court overturn Section 3, that is no guarantee.  But even with the most conservative-leaning Court since the early New Deal days, it is still hard to imagine that Section 3 will survive.  If for no other reason, very few Justices want to go down as the next Roger Taney or James McReynolds, Justices remembered (if at all) for being on the wrong side of history.

Then there is Antonin Scalia.  In the stately, staid world of the Supreme Court, Scalia has been throughout his term the spark plug.  He is vocal, acerbic, witty, and he takes his one-man show outside of the Court’s marble temple (i.e. speaking engagements).  His written opinions are equally acidic and are written to play to the gallery.  Scalia is smart, and he wants people to know it.  In the past few years however, his act has become embarrassing–he publicly called out the Obama Administration for its role in the political realm, which is practically unheard of.  He called the Voting Rights Act “a racial entitlement“–as though the right to vote was not the fundamental guarantee of a democratic country.  And we must not forget the ridiculous “Broccoli Horrible.”  But aside from perhaps abortion, the cases that seem to make Scalia the angriest have been gay rights cases.  Quite frankly, Scalia is homophobic and exhibits it with every comment he makes.  (Rachel Maddow’s comparison of him to an Internet troll is mean but quite correct.)

Windsor presents an added irritant to Scalia; it lays bare that his judicial philosophy of Originalism is merely a personal opinion with delusions of historicity.**  (This critique also applies to Clarence Thomas’s similar but more extreme original intent philosophy.)  Even if one accepted Originalism, the Framers of the Constitution (putting aside the revulsion they would feel about homosexuality) would perceive DOMA as blatantly unconstitutional.  In the Framers’ days, there was a limit to the federal government’s power, the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states, and the Commerce Clause was really about commerce.  DOMA would have been (and still is) an unjustifiable incursion onto the authority of the states.***  I have no difficulty however, believing that Scalia and Thomas will both abandon their slavish devotion to original intent, and instead vote to uphold arguably the most blatant Congressional overreach of my lifetime.

That Supreme Court is a political body, and I suppose no one should be surprised that the Justices and the advocates who come before them are political creatures.

Footnotes: 

† The Solicitor General (SG) is the lawyer who represents the United States before the Supreme Court.  The office of the SG is full of brilliant, talented, and ambitious attorneys who come from and are practically guaranteed to return to high paying jobs at enormous law firms.  Like Supreme Court clerks–which many of these attorneys once were–lawyers in the SG’s office are the cream of the cream of the crop and are highly prized commodities.  They are also ridiculously ritualized, something the Supreme Court Justices play into, not least by calling the SG “General” at oral argument (it’s a weird quirk, given that the “General” in Solicitor General is an adjective so the appropriate title should be Mr./Madam Solicitor General).  The most ridiculous of these rituals is the morning coat, which the SG traditionally wears when arguing before the Court.  (Former SG and current Associate Justice Elena Kagan opted against wearing it.)

* The federalism issue is that marriage has historically been defined by states and the federal government has historically honored that.  DOMA forbids federal recognition which means the state’s ability to define marriage is infringed upon.

** While Scalia pretends to care deeply about the original intent of the (deeply divided) Framers of the Constitution, he gives little heed to the (near unanimous agreement of the) Framers of the Civil War Amendments, which remade both document and country.  Nor does he care at all about the intent of modern legislators and legislative history when deciding about how to interpret of the constitutionality of modern legislation.  Perhaps it is because the Congressional Record is a very thorough legislative report whereas the information we have today about the Constitutional Convention is sparse and generally one-sided.

*** For my own part, I do not buy into a federalism argument.  To me this is about Equal Protection.

It’s That Time Again!

Eurovision fever has broken.  Continuing the tradition of sending in faded stars, the UK’s entry this year will be… Bonnie Tyler.  Yes, get out your bad jokes and puns now.

It’s actually not a great song (definitely not on the level of Israel’s awesome entry), but… BONNIE TYLER!!!!!!!!!

Random Historical Aside

Today, while bored, I looked at the 1940 Census, and at some point I became curious as to whether Franklin Delano Roosevelt had an entry.  As it turns out, he and his household were included in the Census and the address was (naturally) 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.  And his occupation was listed as “President of U.S.A.” [sic].  What disappointed me though is that Eleanor was listed as having no occupation.  So a question to my readers.  Do you think First Lady should be considered an occupation?

FIFA Oscars 2013: ¡Messi! ¡Messi! ¡Messi! ¡Messi!

Ah the annual pageant of the Ballon d’Or.  Every year the spectacle becomes ever more bloated, which means that every year I appreciate it all the more as a camp spectacle, or more accurately, only as a camp spectacle.  Like the real Oscars, the FIFA Oscars are less about the awards themselves and more about big names vying for media attention.  It’s so tacky, that one can only laugh at it.  Which is why Lionel Messi’s polka dot tuxedo (he apparently gets his fashion tips from El Diego) may represent the epitome of the ridiculousness that is the Ballon d’Or.

As with any year, there are a whole bunch of little awards that FIFA wants me to care about, but I don’t.  I feel like FIFA keeps adding awards just to stay relevant–if you can consider giving an award to Franz Beckenbauer, a man who has not kicked a ball competitively in decades, relevance.  And of course there is the annual Puskas award for best goal, which never seems to go to the most interesting goal, but rather to a long ball volley from a player who either plays in or for Turkey.  If you want to know about those other awards, the Guardian has a nice live blog.  Otherwise you are on your own.

Women’s Player of the Year

Every year I wonder whether people who vote for these awards actually watch women’s football.  This year is no exception.  Given that the US team won the Olympics, the only important international competition in 2012, it is no surprise that two US players–Abby Wambach and Alex Morgan–were nominated.  What is something of a shock (if you follow women’s football, that is) is that the third player in the final three was Brazil’s Marta.  I am a big fan of Marta, as I have made clear numerous times on this blog.  I have called her possibly the greatest individual player the women’s game has ever seen (or second behind Michelle Akers), but this year was not a particularly good year for Marta.  Last year when she was also somewhat surprisingly a top three finalist, at least it made sense because of her good club season and because she played well at the World Cup was stellar (if her team did not).  But this year?  By Marta’s standards it was pretty mediocre.  Nevertheless, Marta is a name and a known international commodity while the person who should have been in the top three in her stead, Canada’s Christine Sinclair, is not.  (One might also suggest that FIFA look beyond the international game into the club game where Lyon won a second Champions League in a row, but that may be asking too much.)

I have no complaints about Abby Wambach winning.  She is certainly deserving.  Over the past two years, the US got to the finals of the World Cup and the Olympics almost sheerly by Wambach’s will alone.  But for Homare Sawa’s incredible World Cup performance last year, Wambach probably would have deserved last year’s award too.  Alex Morgan arguably had the more spectacular year, but Wambach is very close to breaking Mia Hamm’s international goal record, one that I thought would stand forever.  Therefore, there is a certain symmetry to Wambach being the first American winner since Hamm.  Alex Morgan will probably win next year because FIFA will not pay attention to women’s football until the 2015 World Cup, and Morgan is the new star.

Women’s Coach of the Year

Unlike Wambach’s win, which was not easy to predict, there was no doubt that Pia Sundhage would win the women’s coach of the year.  And being Pia Sundhage, she sung when accepting the award.  Like with the player of the year, there were two candidates who deserved to be there, Sundhage and Japan’s Norio Sasake, and one candidate who was a complete head scratcher, France’s Bruno Bini.  FIFA’s website says that he was nominated because:

Semi-finalists at the FIFA Women’s World Cup 2011™, Les Bleues continued their excellent run of form at the Olympic Football Tournament by again finishing fourth, a few months after their success at the Cyprus Cup. The credit for this new consistency in reaching the semi-finals of major competitions must go to Bruno Bini, who has been coach of the French women’s national team since February 2007.

Notably, France won neither semifinal.  Moreover, I would argue that the teams achieved those two fourth place finishes despite Bini not because of him.  If anything, France is largely made up of players from Lyon, and I would think that Bini’s spot should have gone to Lyon’s manager (according to Wikipedia, it is Patrice Lair, who placed fourth in the voting).  But that would mean paying attention to women’s club football.  Notably, the person who placed 5th in the voting was Germany’s Silvia Neid, whose team did not even qualify for the Olympics.  Le sigh.

Another person sadly overlooked was John Herdman (6th).  This was a man who took a shattered Big Red from last place at the World Cup to third at the Olympics–almost to the final round, barely losing the sport’s best ever match. Probably Herdman’s and Sinclair’s omissions had less to do with merit and more to do with the way they bitterly (and not completely unfairly) complained about the refereeing after their semifinal loss to the US.  Probably the fact that Canada is Jan Brady to the US’s Marsha had something to do with it too.

Men’s Coach of the Year

Vicente del Bosque won the award he should have gotten two years ago for the World Cup.  This year it was for the Euro, the first time a nation won two in a row, and the first time any nation ever won three major tournaments in a row.  Really though the award was for the 4-0 annihilation of Italy, as before that magical match Spain’s performance was yeoman-like at best.  No matter how you slice it, he accomplished something bigger than any other coach, certainly a bigger accomplishment than that of the two runners-up, Pep Guardiola and Jose Mourinho.  Why those two men were nominated given that neither the Champions League?  I have no idea.  Mourinho didn’t even show up to the ceremony because he knew he wasn’t going to win.  For anyone else, I could respect that decision, but the Surly One such a bad sport at everything he does, that it is hard not to call him a sore loser in this case too.  Here is the truth about Mourinho–he is incredibly insecure because he knows his wins had less to do with his coaching abilities and more to do with major financial backing of rich clubs and some very lucky breaks.  Now he is self-destructing at Real Madrid as I predicted he would.  Madrid is too big a club with too proud a tradition of winning and too many big names to put up with his insecurity-driven ego.

FIFA XI

If I were a suspicious person, I would think that FIFA was sending a message to everyone, the English especially: “Be like Spain.”  Not only were all three coach finalists and all three Ballon d’Or finalists either Spanish or plying their trade in La Liga (or both), all 11 players of the World XI play for either Real Madrid (Iker Casillas, Sergio Ramos, Marcelo, Xabi Alonso, Cristiano Ronaldo), Barcelona, (Messi, Xavi, Andres Iniesta, Gerard Pique, Dani Alves), or Atletico Madrid (Radamel Falcao).  Whether or not those are the most deserving 11 is some matter of debate (but the answer is “no”), but FIFA has firmly jumped on the Spain bandwagon is not getting off yet.

Ballon d’Or

Five months ago, I was unsure who would win this award.  It was pretty clear that it would be either Messi (best player in the world, possibly ever, who smashed all sorts of scoring records this year), Cristiano Ronaldo (second best in the world, won La Liga), or Iniesta (hero of the Euro).  In fact, I leaned toward Iniesta, who really deserves major recognition.  As of December 2012, I knew it would be Messi.  And all because of a sort-of meaningless statistic–91 goals in a calendar year.

To be fair, Messi was probably going to win all along.  No asks who is the “next Maradona” anymore because of Messi, sub-par World Cup be damned.  The real question is about where his place in history is (the summit) rather than where he is in the hierarchy of today’s players.  Sometimes I like to imagine that Cristiano Ronaldo goes home at night and screams his own name in front of a mirror with a picture Messi taped to it.  He so desperately wants to be the best, and that will forever be a frustrated ambition despite the best efforts of Marca, AS, and certain British tabloid jingoists who cannot fathom that this generation’s great player will never have played in the Premier League.

And yet Messi’s win, while not as baffling as that of two years ago, is still somewhat confusing because it raises a fundamental question about the Ballon d’Or.  What exactly are the criteria for the winner?  Is it for the most accomplished player of the season or the best player in the world.  If the latter, then Messi should win it for the next five years or so.  If the former, then certainly Iniesta would have a better claim to it, since international play trumps club play according to FIFA.  Yet Messi won the votes of a majority of the first place votes of captains, coaches, and journalists–the three groups that vote for the Ballon d’Or.  It was his record-breaking fourth title, which means that Messi has now won more titles than the following players:  Di Stefano, Ronaldo (both), Platini, Zidane, Cruyff, and Beckenbauer (Pele and Maradona were ineligible).  Certainly there is a very solid argument that he is a better player than all of them, but it makes the next few years kind of predictable, especially if Barcelona does to Europe what it is doing to La Liga this year.

And this is why the Ballon d’Or is such a ridiculous spectacle.  I hope that next year Messi take his sartorial sensibilities to its logical conclusion and goes for full-out clown outfit complete with make-up, red horn nose, and oversize shoes.  I cannot imagine a better mascot for the FIFA Oscars.

New Year’s Resolution

I know I have fallen behind in my blogging over the past few months. My resolution for the new year (well, one of them) is to write more. Thank you for your loyalty.

A Question

Shootings like the horrific and tragic one from two days ago in the elementary school in Connecticut have been happening with alarming frequency as of late.  Of the many questions that come to mind one stands out from among the rest.  Why do we not consider these to be acts of terrorism?

What’s Important

This year is the first that I have ever donated to a political cause, and it has been for the marriage equality campaigns in Maryland, Maine, Washington, and Minnesota. Obviously, marriage equality is extremely important to and personal for me, but it goes well beyond my own personal beliefs and wishes. Same-sex couples are routinely denied entitlements which heterosexual couples take for granted, including (but not limited to) hospital visitation, joint adoption of children, survivors’ benefits, and even simple recognition from one’s community. The equality laws in Maine, Maryland, and Washington guarantee that, at least at the state level, those benefits will be bestowed; the Minnesota amendment ensures that they will be denied.

For two years I lived in Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts, and during those two years I watched the struggle for marriage equality in that state very closely. I saw both the brightest side of humanity and the darkest. I also witnessed Mitt Romney’s craven and despicable actions. I will never forgive him for the evil that he did. He was defeated then, but this is the man who thinks he should be President.

The anti-equality forces are so desperately trying to portray their position as not bigoted, because they know they know that it is. Marriage, as the law defines it, is a governmental institution. Like it or not, agree or disagree with whether the state should be involved, that is the reality of the situation, full stop. Without laws guaranteeing marriage equality, unions between same-sex couples are permitted to be treated as inferior. The anti-equality forces may want to portray their opposition as something other than bigotry, but that is smoke and mirrors. Their opposition is prejudice, it is homophobia, and it is hatred. It is the doing of actual harm to people who have never harmed others only because of who they are.

If we truly believe that liberty and equality are virtue guaranteed to all souls, then there should be no question how to vote on marriage equality. I so want to believe that the better angels of our nature will finally win out.

Vote for equality in Maine, Maryland, and Washington. Vote against bigotry in Minnesota.

Yes it’s time, but it’s more than that. It’s time long overdue.