San Francisco blogger watchdog Michael Petrelis has been pushing the head of a London-based Iraqi LGBT group, Ali Hili, for an accounting of donated money, including ten grand contributed by Colorado Congressman Jared Polis. Reading Petrelis’s hectoring email string, posted on his blog, one first feels some sympathy for the beleaguered activist at the receiving end of Michael’s incessant demands for details. In the end, however, one starts to wonder why the hell Hili can’t get it together to send even a minimal report, particularly since Petrelis and other Bay Area activists raised some money for the cause themselves at a May 17 event. Notably, Hili fired off an appreciative email on the 18th of May, asking for planning purposes how much had been raised and when he could expect the funds.

“Michael,” writes Hili on June 18, “your pushiness has gone too far. This is why i don’t want to give you any information because of your aggressive approach. Until you decide to change your approach i don’t believe i can communicate with you.”

Subsequently, Petrelis is informed that an accountant is working on a report, but that said accountant is busy with other things and that the report will take time. Another email says the accountant is waiting for some special software. Communication stops in late June, but not before Hili sends Petrelis an invitation to one of those scam photo sharing web sites, presumably an unrelated event. 

(I think those sites download your address book and send notes to everyone you know to try to rope them in. I got one from tagger or something like that and earnestly tried to find my friend’s photos until they asked for my social security number, email password and mother’s maiden name.)

I don’t know how much money this group has raised, and certainly Congressman Polis’s donation, while generous, is not an exorbitant sum. Hili was under no obligation to provide a spreadsheet. He could have just told Petrelis that he had raised, let’s say $100,000, spent $30K on securing safe houses, $20K on food and supplies, $15K on communications, or whatever! But by providing no information whatsoever, the casual observer conjures up pictures of gay activists meeting over dinner and drinks at the Cinnamon Club and letting Polis and San Francisco pick up the tab. I’m sure this isn’t the case, but why not provide a little basic information, particularly if you are still soliciting funds, as is the case?

The plight of Iraqi gay men is one of the most blood chilling situations on the planet for our community, a story of torture, terror and courage in a war-torn climate where LGBT Iraq is evidently one of the few groups trying to protect gay citizens from violent death at the hands of religious fanatics.

Hili’s group deserves our emotional and financial support, which makes his cooperation with Petrelis all the more essential.

Mea Culpa
Now I feel guilty, because the only thing I ever support in cash is the fight for gay marriage and a politician or two. And a few nonprofits. And the guy who came to my door yesterday soliciting money to pay for his granddaughter’s funeral. Oh, and homeless people. I’m good for a buck or two while walking down the street or stopped at a busy intersection, but I refuse to give a dime to anyone with “God Bless” or a fish on their sign. There’s another homeless man near me who has a sign promising not to use any alms for drugs or alcohol. This sanctimonious scrounger is off my list as well.

I also feel guilty for ignoring the horrors of Iraq and Africa and other homophobic locales while going on at length about, let’s say, the guy from the Ft. Worth bar who was manhandled by police and ended up in the ICU. But I’m basically a national columnist, commenting on the American gay rights movement. In a global context, Chad Gibson’s bump on the head was a walk in the park compared to the Iraqi man who saw his boyfriend dragged away by masked men in black. “We found his body the next day in the garbage,” he told BBC Radio 5. “His throat cut out, his genitals cut off.”

But if you operate in that horrific global context, you’re never going to bother with the story of the raid at the Rainbow Lounge, where in fact, Chad Gibson was not enjoying a walk in the park but was assaulted by 21st century uniformed cops for simply being in a gay bar. Several investigations into the June 28 raid continue.

Massachusetts Hits the Federal Courts Against DOMA
Hey. I’m going to France in a couple of weeks and will not be filing a column on the 29th of July or the 5th of August. I’ll miss you! I’m telling you this because you can expect earth-shattering events in the world of GLBT news during this period of time. It never fails. 

But speaking of earth-shattering, here’s a game changer I just learned about, a federal lawsuit filed by the State of Massachusetts against the federal government challenging Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act. I gather Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley has scheduled a news conference on the case this afternoon, and I will faithfully report whatever she tells us.

As you may know, the Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders have filed their own challenge to Section 3 in Massachusetts federal court on behalf of several gay and lesbian married couples. And in a related case, a federal judge in San Francisco just held a hearing on the challenge to Prop 8 under the U.S. Constitution lodged by the Olson/Boies team. 

So let’s call these the Massachusetts case, the GLAD case and the Olson case, OK? The first two would seem to me to be headed towards a merger, much as California state courts coordinated the marriage equality claims advanced by the City of San Francisco, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, and other private plaintiffs. The law under attack is the same in both cases, and both cases are filed in the same jurisdiction. Section 3 of DOMA is the part that prohibits the federal government from recognizing legal same-sex marriages contracted under state law or abroad, and it lies at the heart of the damaging statute. (Section one is the name of the law. Section two is the part that allows every state to determine their own marriage policy in isolation.)
I’m guessing too that the entry of the state itself as a plaintiff against the federal government adds no small weight to the litigation. Was this coordinated?

In a statement, GLAD said they “applauded” the Commonwealth’s decision to enter the fray, but there’s no indication that a joint venture is afoot.

GLAD’s case, by the way, was scheduled to be briefed around this time, but the deadlines were extended by a couple of months. That saved us from another one of those Defense of DOMA briefs by the Obama Justice Department, and possibly gives the administration time to develop a more nuanced and/or courageous strategy. 

You remember last month’s fiasco, when the Obama administration filed a gratuitously anti-gay brief in an insignificant DOMA case out of California? At the time, many wondered how the administration would answer the serious DOMA challenges on the horizon, specifically the looming GLAD case.  In an interview with newshound Rex Wockner (see cover story), Obama’s former campaign aide Steve Hildebrand said he had spoken one-on-one with the President, and learned that Obama had not read the brief before its publication, but that once he did read the damned thing he was “not happy at all with both the direction as well as the language that was used.” That’s encouraging.

As for the Olson case, the administration is not the defendant. This lawsuit is attacking a state measure, Prop 8, and the defendant is the State of California. Happily, both the governor and the attorney general have come down on the side of gay rights, so the mantle of the opposition has been handed to the groups that supported Prop 8. 

Once the Olson case heads up the ladder of the federal appellate courts, the U.S. government has every right to file a brief as well. But at this point, it looks as if the case will stay at the trial court level, an unusual but probably beneficial development.

Olson and company asked the court for an injunction against Prop 8. Normally one expects the lower court to say yes or no, at which point the issue of the injunction zips quickly up to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and perhaps to the U.S. Supreme Court. Injunctions are ordered when there is ongoing harm to the plaintiff that must be quickly quelled while the merits of the case are considered, so questions of injunctions get an accelerated ride through the courts.

But instead of giving a flat no, Judge Vaughn Walker ordered a speedy trial on the merits of the case against Prop 8 in order to create a full record for the higher courts. In view of this strategy, he denied the injunction. Yet he did so in a way that discourages an appeal, that puts the case on a much slower route to the High Court, that keeps the United States out of the mix, and that will likely produce a powerful record in support of equal protection for future judicial examiners. To my knowledge, this will be only the second major trial on the question of marriage rights, after the Baehr case in Hawaii. All the other marriage freedom cases have been decided on purely legal grounds by appellate courts.

Bottom line? The next time we hear from the Obama justice department on DOMA will be in the GLAD case in a couple of months, and if Hildebrand is correct, the administration’s position will at the very least be approved by Obama beforehand. For all we know the schedule will be changed again and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts may join the plaintiffs, making the United States’ response all the more significant.

Marriage To the Polls Again
In other marriage news, it looks as if Maine voters will decide the fate of marriage rights at the polls this November. Foes of the recent marriage equality law insist they have gathered enough signatures to put the law on hold until a public referendum can be held. 

Over in our nation’s capital, the new measure recognizing out of state marriages went into effect this week, so that’s good news for DC-ites. I gather there was a Congressional hearing on the Domestic Partner Benefits and Obligations Act today, so progress is apace for the law that would equalize benefits for federal employees. All in all, I’m happy for gay federal employees and the gay residents of Washington, D.C., but I’m also jealous. 

I’m in my fifties and I can’t go to a doctor! Here’s what happened the last time I went. I saw the doctor for something related to a hyperactive thyroid.

There went $125 for a ten-minute visit. I got a blood test. Ca Ching, another hundred. I was supposed to go back to the doctor but I didn’t want to pay another hundred for that so I called to ask what the test said and the office wouldn’t tell me. Neither would the blood lab. Then I just blew the whole thing off and that was two years ago. And yes, I have insurance but I also have a $2,000 deductible. Not to bore you with such stories, but it’s infuriating, particularly since I am legally married to a public employee. 

I guess life could be worse, right? I could be married to a gay man in Iraq. Oh, and Jill. Happy Birthday tomorrow!

-arostow@aol.com