The Letter, III

I had just sat down to dinner this evening when the phone rang.

I looked at the caller ID. I didn’t recognize the number, but it was from the 202 area code. I figured it was a telemarketer who wanted me to consolidate my student loans with his company.

“Hello?” I said.

“Hello, I’m looking for Jeff ——-?” he said.

“That’s me,” I said.

Telemarketers usually ask for Jeffrey.

“Is this the Jeff ——- who wrote the letter in the New York Times yesterday?”

This could be interesting.

“Yes, it is.”

“I’m calling from Ralph Nader’s office. Mr. Nader saw your letter, and he’d like to send you a book.”

Huh?

“Really? Um… wow.”

Then he recited my address and I confirmed it.

“Um, do you know what kind of book he wants to send me?”

“I don’t know, actually, but I assume it has something to do with gay rights.”

“Okay. So… Ralph Nader himself actually read my letter?”

“Yes, he did.”

“Well, I’d love to receive a book from him!”

“Great.”

“Wow. Well, please tell him ‘thank you,’ if you happen to speak to him.”

“I’ll be sure to do that.”

The call ended. And I just stood there, kind of… stunned.

And then I wondered if it was really some right-wing organization that wanted to confirm my address in order to send me a letter bomb.

So I went online and typed the caller ID number into a reverse telephone number lookup engine. Three different organizations came up — all of them organizations formed by Ralph Nader.

I figure there are several possibilities:

1) Ralph Nader read my letter and was genuinely moved by it.

2) Ralph Nader is running for president again in 2004 and wants to shore up the gay vote, homo by homo.

3) 1 and 2.

Life gets stranger and stranger.

Well-Behaved Homosexuals

It’s Gay Legal Day here at The Tin Man.

I’ve come across a New Jersey Supreme Court case from 1967 that basically legalized gay bars in the state. Technically, the court said that the state could not suspend a bar’s liquor license merely because “apparent homosexuals were permitted to congregate” there. (The case is One Eleven Wines & Liquors, Inc. v. Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control, 235 A.2d 12, for all you legal types.)

I’ve always loved the phrase “apparent homosexuals.”

What’s most entertaining, though, is the opinion of the concurring justice (there were no dissents). Here it is, in its entirety:

“PROCTOR, J. (concurring).

“Since the charges against the three taverns did not specify any particular offensive acts by the patrons, I concur with the majority opinion. However, I wish to emphasize that, although well-behaved homosexuals cannot be forbidden to patronize taverns, they may not engage in any conduct which would be offensive to public decency. In the record before us it appears that there was evidence of conduct (men kissing each other on the lips, etc.) which would form the basis for disciplinary action at least against One Eleven and Murphy’s had they properly been charged. A tavern should not provide an arena for the behavior disclosed by this record. I appreciate that the majority opinion does not say that such conduct will be tolerated, but nonetheless I am expressing my positive view that it should not be.”

Well-behaved homosexuals. Tee-hee.

Sodomy

Either next Monday or the following Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court will issue its opinion in the gay sodomy case, Lawrence v. Texas. It will probably be the second Monday, June 23, because that’s the last day of the term, which is when the justices usually like to issue their most controversial opinions, because it means they can avoid all the backlash by jumping into their cars and screeching out of the Supreme Court parking lot and heading off to France. Or this year, maybe Britain.

June is when all the Supreme Court watchers salivate.

In anticipation of the Texas decision, I’ve been reading up on the case. This page links to all the briefs and lower court decisions in the case; other good sites are here and here.

I noticed that the Supreme Court brief supporting the gay plaintiffs, Lawrence and Garner, cites a particular Virginia case.

The case is called Bottoms v. Bottoms.

I don’t think they quite get the concept of sodomy.

The middle schooler in me is laughing hysterically.