Month: June 2014

“There are many homosexuals, who neither desire nor are suited for homophile marriage, that ridicule what they call the “heterosexual” institution of marriage. This is only a clever twisting. Marriage is no more a strictly heterosexual social custom than are the social customs of birthday celebrations, funerals, house-warmings, or, for that matter, sleeping, eating, and the like. I participate in those, not because they are heterosexual or homosexual things, but because I am a human being. Being homosexual does not put one out of the human race. I am a human being, male and married to another male; not because I am aping heterosexuals, but because I have discovered that that is by far the most enjoyable way of life to me. And I think that’s also the reason heterosexual men and woman marry, though some people twist things around to make it appear they are merely following convention.

After all, there must be something to marriage, else what is the reason for its great popularity? Marriage is not anybody’s “convention”. It is a way of living and is equally good for homosexuals and heterosexuals.

I think it is high time the modern homophile movement started paying more attention to homophile marriage. … Homophile marriage is not only a strictly modern idea that proves our movement today is something new in history, it is the most stable, sensible, and ethical way to live for homophiles. Our homophile movement is going to have to face, sooner or later, the problem of adopting a standard of ethics. We have got to start laying the groundwork. I can’t think of a better way to begin than by pushing homophile marriage,” – Randy Lloyd, One magazine, June 1963.

It seems to me vital to appreciate that the idea of marriage equality goes back a long, long way. It was raised as a subject worthy of a cover-story in One magazine as early as August 1953 (see cover above to the left) – although, as Jim Burroway notes, at that point it was mainly to dismiss it as a reduction in human freedom. Ten years later, you have a somewhat “conservative” case for gay marriage – and its main audience are gay men and women who obviously oppose such an idea. And it’s hard to convey to people in their twenties that, for the longest time, the strongest opposition to marriage equality came from within the gay community itself.

No one believes me any more when I recall how unpopular it was among gays to support marriage equality in the 1980s and early 1990s. Jim Burroway rightly, I think, sees the AIDS epidemic as the turning point:

In 1970, Jack Baker and James McConnell tried to get married in Minneapolis (see May 18) and sued in state and federal court when their request for a license was denied. That ended with the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the case. Most gay rights groups at that time were caught up in the broader sexual revolution rhetoric, and had little interest in pushing for something as conventional as marriage. That attitude remained through the 1970s and the 1980s. But when AIDS hit the gay community in the 1980s and partners found themselves blocked by law and relatives from caring for and properly burying their partners and remaining in the homes that they shared together, it finally dawned on a lot of people that they really were married, regardless of whether they had thought of themselves and each other that way or not. And so here we are, a half-century later, and marriage is now at the forefront of the gay rights movement. And in just a few short years, we’ve already seen it expand in ways that Randy Lloyd probably never could begin to imagine.

Somehow, he managed to omit the vital role played by Ted Olson and David Boies.

In a ruling handed down on Thursday in Alice v. CLS Bank, SCOTUS invalidated a set of software patents because the software in question only used computers to apply an abstract concept. Julie Samuels casts the ruling as a death blow to patent trolls:

Most software patents are both vague and overbroad, making it hard for anyone—lawyers, engineers, everyday inventors—to understand what they actually cover. And there are tons of them: The patent office issues approximately 40,000 every year.

So entered the patent troll. These bad actors do not usually make or sell anything. Instead they take these meaningless, low-quality (but valuable) patents to troll the companies that are inventing and producing. This problem costs our economy billions of dollars annually and should be taken seriously. But patent trolls are simply a product of our broken patent system. The root of the problem—and the troll’s weapon of choice—is the low-quality software patents that have flooded the system.

And this brings us back to the Alice v. CLS Bank ruling.

The Supreme Court did not abolish software patents—something some advocates had hoped for but was by all accounts highly unlikely—but it did significantly tighten the standard for what is and what is not patentable. This will undoubtedly lead to fewer low-quality software patents. And that is excellent news. Specifically, the court unequivocally stated that if you have an idea so abstract that it cannot be patented, simply tying it to a “generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” It also stated that tying an abstract idea to “purely functional and generic” hardware similarly would not make the idea patentable.

But Timothy Lee argues that the distinction the ruling makes between abstract and less abstract software is meaningless, because “at root, software is nothing more than a sequence of mathematical operations.” He makes the case for throwing out software patents altogether:

In practice, the courts have only allowed patents that claim complicated mathematical algorithms. For example, in a 2011 decision the Federal Circuit approved a patent because the mathematical algorithm it claimed “required the manipulation of computer data structures.” Of course, a “computer data structure” is just the way a computer organizes numbers and symbols. …

If a patent claims a mathematical formula simple enough for a judge to understand how it works, she is likely to recognize that the patent claims a mathematical formula and invalidate it. But if the formula is too complex for her to understand, then she concludes that it’s something more than a mathematical algorithm and uphold it.

But this makes the law highly unpredictable, since it effectively depends on the mathematical sophistication of the judge who happens to take the case. And it’s also logically incoherent. The courts originally excluded algorithms from patent protection because they are basic building blocks for innovation — that’s as true of complex algorithms like data compression as of simple ones.

The latest move by the administration:

The United States on Thursday cut aid to Uganda, imposed visa restrictions and canceled a regional military exercise in response to a Ugandan law that imposes harsh penalties on homosexuality.

Kim Yi Dionne weighs the risks:

Some analysts raise concerns that punitive measures by Western governments will generate a backlash that will “have the unintended effect of emboldening homophobic rhetoric that links aid and LGBT rights to neocolonial intervention,” and could further endanger the lives of sexual minorities. The anti-homosexuality act in Uganda has already yielded an increase in human rights violations.

But the answer might be different if we draw from University of Florida political scientist Conor O’Dwyer‘s study of gay rights in Poland. Prior to Poland’s accession to the European Union, the European Parliament warned it would block accession of any country that violated the rights of sexual minorities. Initially, the EU restrictions generated a political backlash against sexual minorities in Poland. But the political backlash against same-sex rights in Poland can be partially credited with mobilizing same-sex rights activists.

Tim Fernholz puts the plummeting of Uganda’s currency in context:

Since passing laws mandating the life in prison for “homosexual acts” in February, Uganda has seen its currency weaken considerably, with US dollars now costing nearly 6% more since the day the law was signed. (In the same period, the euro has weakened against the dollar by less than 1%.)

It’s not that markets are moral. The latest sell-off comes after the United States announced Friday that it would cancel aid programs and military exercises with Uganda; other Western countries are doing the same, including Norway, Denmark and Sweden. Threats to enact responses like these helped kill an earlier version of Uganda’s anti-gay bill that included the death penalty for some violations, but the country’s president, Yoweri Museveni, went ahead with the new version anyhow.

Foreign aid makes up about 4% of Uganda’s gross national income, and is equal to more than a third of government revenues. If its volume continues to decrease significantly, that’s going to be noticeable—already, local traders are predicting dollar shortages.

Previous Dish on the issue here.

In his memoir Life, Animated, Ron Suskind recounts raising a son, Owen, who was diagnosed with autism as a toddler. In a review of the book, Rachel Adams describes how the family stumbled into a surprising form of therapy:

The only time Owen seems calm and relaxed is while he’s watching Disney videos. One afternoon, there is a breakthrough. The entire family is watching The Little Mermaid when they make an exciting discovery: the seemingly meaningless phrase Owen has been muttering for the past few weeks, which sounds to them like “juicervose,” is actually a stanza from the film’s last song, “just your voice.” Some of Owen’s therapists dismiss his vocalizations as echolalia, an autistic tendency to repeat sounds without understanding. But the Suskinds are convinced that Owen’s words represent a genuine effort at communication. Soon after the “juicervose” episode the family visits Disney World, where Owen is transformed. Surrounded by beloved characters and themes, he is more focused and receptive than he has been since the onset of his symptoms. The Suskinds become convinced that Disney may be the key to recovering their son’s ability to express himself.

Back in April, Hanna Rosin talked to the Suskinds and Dan Griffin, Owen’s therapist, about how the Disney treatment took hold: