03/09/2010 12:00 am
POV
Brenda Feigen: Second-Class All the Way
Notes from a worn-down but still hopeful civil rights lawyer ...
Editor’s Note: Brenda Feigen is counsel to Kenoff & Machtinger, LLP, where she practices anti-discrimination and entertainment law. A graduate of Harvard Law School, she co-founded Ms. Magazine with Gloria Steinem and directed with (now Justice) Ruth Bader Ginsburg the Women’s Rights Project of the ACLU. Her memoir, Not One of the Boys: Living Life as a Feminist, was published by Alfred A. Knopf in 2000. She moved from Manhattan to Los Angeles to produce her first feature film and currently lives there with Joanne Parrent, her longtime partner and spouse.
So here I am again full of thoughts and what many might call angst. The federal district court in San Francisco is about to rule on whether the heinous Prop 8 (preventing gays and lesbians from marrying in California) violates the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Of course it does, and I’m certain the judge will agree. Then the bad guys, the ones who funded Prop 8 in the first place and bussed themselves into California, a state in which very few of them had any justifiable reason to visit, will appeal to the 9th Circuit that covers a bunch of states, including not just California, but Hawaii, Nevada, etc. My bet is that it will uphold the ruling of the lower court. The real question is whether either or both of those courts will stay their decisions until the case has run the full appeal gauntlet. Whoever loses will appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. I was originally more optimistic about what it would do but after visiting in her chambers with my old friend, Justice Ruth, I worry. Of course, she didn’t say what they’d do but she did say something like "it will be a long time, Brenda," after I’d told her how sick I was of always being some sort of second-class citizen (Jew in anti-Semitic near north side of Chicago), woman at Harvard Law School in the ’60s and now in a marriage that is painfully second-class. Joanne and I got married on July 4, 2008. Joanne and I are treated like a straight married couple in California but not by the federal government. When one of us dies, the other won’t get the social security that any widow or widower would get out of a straight marriage; we can’t transfer more than $14,000 per year of property to each other without incurring a gift tax, etc. As I said last time, I’m just positively delighted that two big straight male lawyers are fighting hard on our side, but they can only do so much. The groups that are supposedly so concerned about equality truly let us all down by going the route of fighting the initiative at the ballot box. I don’t want my (minority) rights to be determined by the (tyranny of the) majority of uninformed voters.
DOMA ("Defense of Marriage Act") is still alive and kicking, though it’s being challenged in federal court in Massachusetts. That’s the law that says it’s OK for a state not to recognize same-sex marriages performed outside that particular state and, even worse, that the U.S. government will not recognize same-sex marriage. I have no clue whose marriages are being defended by that law. Despite it being a clear violation of both the equal protection and the full faith and credit clauses of the U.S. Constitution, it remains law, put into effect by Bill Clinton, who thought he was making some sort of compromise with the devil. Of course, Obama has done nothing. In fact, he’s said that he opposes same-sex marriage, though in some twisted mental hijink, he’s also declared his opposition to Prop 8. The DOMA challenge will eventually hit the Supreme Court; again I have no idea if they’ll take that case, leaving total uncertainty about the effect of the lower federal courts’ decisions in that circuit.
- Email this Post
- login or register to post comments
131 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment
This is such a complex conversation.
On one hand it seems a no-brainer, Gays and Lesbians should be afforded the same rights as straight Americans. Yet on the other hand as a Christian nation (I know it’s not politically correct to say that, but it is a widely recognized truth) most Americans will say in the light of day they support Gay and Lesbians rights, but in private and especially in voting booths, they don’t. To do so means on some level they are condoning behavior that runs counter to what some believe the Bible teaches.
A man should be allowed to love another man, and a woman another woman. Period. I’ve said this before, I don’t understand how any woman would prefer another woman over a man, they are afterall so…..yummy. However its not about what I like and don’t like. It’s about what is fair and just.
Here’s hoping you get the recognition you deserve Brenda from Hollywood and are able to have your movie project produced. I for one would pay to see it.
Really? You honestly don’t see our country as Christian based?
The nation was also founded on the belief that "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Pull out any dollar bill and you will find In God We Trust emblazoned across it.
The First Amendment may speak to separation of church and state, however the last statistics I read indicate that almost 80% of Americans identify themselves as Christian. When Barack Obama and Mick Romney were running for President they received an overwhelming amount of flack because of their (perceived) religions. To this day millions of people have an issue with President Obama because they believe he is a Muslim. Millions of people don’t want to see you and your partner married because it runs counter to their Christian beliefs and values.
So intellectually you and I know that our country was founded on the principle of a separation of church and state. However, you are old enough to recognize that has never been the case. Politicians vote in line of their religious beliefs. People vote (partly) on the religion of the candidate. We are a nation that has blurred the line between church and state and it doesn’t appear the line is clarifying as time goes by. If anything it is becoming more blurred. Especially with fringe groups like the Tea Party who use religion as justification to be against those that are unlike themselves.
I’d love to live in your Country. Where is this "secular" United States of America you speak of?
The next time there is a vote on the ballots anywhere in America to legalize Gay marriage and it fails on the outcry of the community speaking to it being "against their Christian beliefs" - think of me so you can remind me again how we are a secular nation.
As a self defined Atheist, I wouldn’t expect you to acknowledge that there are more Christians in America than any other religion. And I take personal offense to your comment that more "bad has been done in the name of religion than good" I have the freedoms I enjoy today to a great part because of the actions of Christians and Jews who marched (and in some instances) gave their lives during the civil rights movement in the 60’s and 70’s.
I will agree with you Rita about one thing, more and more people are losing their faith in God or a higher being and choosing to be Atheists and non-believers which concerns me. I don’t want to live in a country where the majority of people are Atheists. That thought scares me to death. Unlike the author of this article we are blogging about, I find great value in religion. I may not want to affiliate myself with a specific religion and prefer spirituality instead, but that does not dismiss the value churches and synagogues provide to millions of people.
And I didn’t say all Christians choose to vote according to their religious preferences, I recognize that and know that to be true. I’m Christian and I don’t vote based on my spiritual beliefs.