What’s on tap for 2012?

Court cases on both coasts will impact marriage equality, while November elections could mean continued progress legislatively — or a time of backsliding

Inside-Cover

WAITING GAME | Members of the anti-Prop 8 legal team, from left, Therese Stewart, Chad Griffin, David Boies, Ted Butros and Ted Olson, speak during a news conference after a hearing in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on Dec. 6, 2010, in San Francisco. Thirteen months later, the 9th Circuit judges are expected to issue opinions any day now on whether Prop 8 proponents have legal standing to appeal the trial court ruling, and whether Judge Vaughn Walker was correct in declaring the anti-gay-marriage amendment unconstitutional. (Eric Risberg/Associated Press)

Lisa Keen  | Keen News Service
lisakeen@mac.com
Significant events are crowding the calendar for 2012, and each promises considerable drama and suspense for the LGBT community.
Here are the 10 most important, from a national perspective, to keep an eye on:

• The next decisions on Proposition 8: A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals could release its opinions any day now. That’s “opinions,” plural.
Before the panel can rule on the constitutionality of California’s law banning marriage for same-sex couples, it must decide whether the Yes on 8 coalition has legal standing to appeal the federal court ruling that Prop 8 is unconstitutional, and it must decide whether there is any justification for Yes on 8’s request that the lower court decision be vacated.
The list of possible outcomes in Perry v. Brown — the case brought by the American Foundation for Equal Rights with famed attorneys Ted Olson and David Boies leading the charge — is mind-boggling. Whatever the results, any or all aspects could be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court immediately or they could be appealed to a full 9th Circuit bench and then to the Supreme Court.
But the panel’s decision will almost certainly have political impact, too. Not only will it affect the momentum of the marriage equality movement, it will almost certainly become fodder in the presidential campaigns.

• The decision, on appeal, in DOMA: A three-judge panel of the 1st Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals will hear oral arguments, perhaps as soon as early February, in a powerful challenge to the federal Defense of Marriage Act’s denial of federal benefits to same-sex married couples.
The challenge, referred to most often as Gill v. OPM, is actually three consolidated cases, two brought by Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) and one by the state of Massachusetts.
While there are other challenges under way to DOMA, this is the “big guns” challenge and the one most likely to reach the U.S. Supreme Court first. And while there is no deadline by which the panel must render its decision, it is likely to turn out one by year’s end.
Then, as with Proposition 8, the case could go to the full circuit court on appeal or straight to the Supreme Court. And, if the appeals court decision is rendered before the November elections, it will almost certainly provoke debate on the presidential campaign trail.

• Tammy Baldwin’s historic Senate bid: U.S. Rep. Tammy Baldwin is not the first openly gay person to run for U.S. Senate, but she’s the first who has a real chance of winning.
The daily Capital Times is already referring to her as the “likely” Democratic nominee to fill the seat being vacated by Democrat Herb Kohl. She doesn’t have a challenger for the nomination. But she will have a very tough battle against whomever the Republicans put on the ballot.
That’s because the battle will be for more than just one seat in the powerful U.S. Senate, which currently has a breakdown of 53 in the Democratic Caucus and 47 in the Republican. It will be part of a multi-state slugfest between the parties over control of the chamber, the Congress and the nation’s laws.

• The fight for the Senate: Polls at the moment indicate voters are inclined to vote for Democrats over Republicans next November. But that sentiment is not providing a large margin — one or two points —  and it’s too soon to guess who the voters will blame for what 11 months from now.
But some Senate races — in addition to Tammy Baldwin’s — could have big consequences for LGBT voters.
In Virginia, a pro-gay former governor, Tim Kaine, will likely be pitted against an anti-gay former senator, George Allen. In Massachusetts, a pro-gay challenger, Elizabeth Warren, will almost certainly be the Democrat facing incumbent Scott Brown, whose attitude toward the community has been much less friendly.
And at least seven other states are expected to have competitive races for the Senate.

• Counting the “Gay Caucus”: U.S. Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., will be starting his 40th year in Congress when the House reconvenes Jan. 17. And it will be his last.
Frank announced last year that he is retiring at the end of his term. When he does, the clique of four openly gay members of Congress — Frank, Baldwin and Reps. Jared Polis and David Cicilline — will shrink by one. If Baldwin fails to win a Senate seat, it could shrink by half.
But there are prospects for adding members. Openly gay Wisconsin Democratic Assemblymember Mark Pacon is running for Baldwin’s U.S. House seat. And there are three other openly LGBT candidates for the U.S. House this November: Marko Liias from Seattle, Mark Takano from Riverside, Calif., and Kyrsten Sinema from Phoenix.
So, the number of openly gay members of Congress could go from four to as low as two (though zero is, technically, possible) to as high as seven. But no one will have the seniority and clout that Frank has had — and has used — to advance pro-gay measures.

• On hold, and on defense, in Congress: Pro-LGBT bills — such as efforts to repeal DOMA and pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act — are not likely to see much action in 2012. But anti-gay measures might.
Why? Because it’s an election year and Republicans still control the House. And supportive Democrats will not be inclined to push controversial legislation during an election year, because it can detract from the focus on jobs and the economy, where most voters want focus right now.
Republicans, on the other hand, have often used hostile measures aimed at gays during election years as a way of putting Democrats on the spot with voters generally and gays specifically.

• Ballot battles abound: There will be important LGBT-related ballot measures before voters in several states this year.
North Carolina and Minnesota will vote on whether to ban same-sex marriage through amendments to their state constitutions. Voters in Maine will decide whether to strike down their existing ban on same-sex marriage.
LGBT activists in Washington State are gathering signatures to put a measure on that state’s ballot to gain marriage equality. A small group in California has until May 15 to gather more than 800,000 signatures to put a measure on the ballot there to repeal Proposition 8.
And the California Attorney General is expected to announce by Jan. 9 whether opponents of a new bill to include information about LGBT figures in history as part of the public school curriculum can begin circulating petitions to get a repeal measure on the ballot there.
All of these have the potential to be big, expensive and consequential battles.

• Fight for freedom of religion: The right-wing Alliance Defense Fund and others have a concerted effort under way in the courts to undermine laws prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
Their strategy is to argue that people who discriminate against LGBT people do so because their religious beliefs require them to do so. Their question to the court is, “What rules? The First Amendment guarantee of free exercise of religion or the equal protection clause that says all citizens should be treated equally under the law?”
One case has already reached the U.S. Supreme Court and failed, but other cases — many other cases — are winding their way through nearly every circuit in the country. And their outcomes have the potential to chip away at the strength of the nation’s legal mandate that all people be treated equally.

Tammy-and-Obama

U.S. Rep. Tammy Baldwin, left, President Barack Obama, right

• A fight for the White House: The difference for LGBT people between having President Barack Obama in the White House and President George W. Bush has been stark. So the consequences of November’s presidential election will also be profound.
Either Obama stays, and things continue to improve — in law and in society’s attitudes — or a new president is elected from a field of Republicans who seem, at times, to be vying for the mantle of most gay-hostile candidate.
In the latter case, LGBT people can expect progress to halt or backslide.

• Ah, the unpredictable: One of the bigger LGBT stories of 2011 happened in February, and it was one nobody expected: The Obama administration announced it considered DOMA unconstitutional and would not argue for its defense in most cases.
Another big story that no one expected: The Obama administration announced a major new diplomatic mission to push for protection of human rights for LGBT people around the world.

And given that Rep. Frank said in January 2011 he’d run for re-election in 2012, it was a surprise, in November, when he announced that he would not. As Frank pointed out, circumstances change.

Circumstances change, things change, people change. And often, they change each other.

But history marches on through time, and only in retrospect can any trajectory be certain as to where it’s going.

© 2012 by Keen News Service. All rights reserved.

This article appeared in the Dallas Voice print edition January 6, 2012.

 

—  Kevin Thomas

RCD calls for baseball to add sexual orientation protection in new contract

Now that the World Series is over, Major League Baseball is going into contract negotiations. And Rafael McDonnell, communications and advocacy manager for Resource Center Dallas, is calling on baseball Commissioner Bud Seelig to include LGBT issues in the bargaining process.

“I ask as an LGBT fan and on behalf of the center that you both please add sexual orientation provisions to MLB’s new CBA [collective bargaining agreement], and encourage each team owner that has previously not done so to add sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression nondiscrimination protections to their team’s employment nondiscrimination policies,” McDonnell wrote.

He points out that the National Football League added sexual orientation to its nondiscrimination policy earlier this summer. The National Hockey League has had the provision since 2005 and Major League Soccer since 2004. Also, nine teams have produced “It Gets Better” videos.

More than half of all MLB teams — including the Texas Rangers — have held LGBT fan days.

Baseball would be joining “nine of the Fortune 10 companies, 48 of 50 of the Fortune 50 and 89 percent of the Fortune 500,” McDonnell wrote.

The new NFL nondiscrimination clause reads:

There will be no discrimination in any form against any player by the Management Council, any Club or by the NFLPA because of race, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, or activity or lack of activity on behalf of the NFLPA.

That contract was written by Ted Olsen, representing the players, and David Boies, representing the owners. Olsen and Boies are better known as the attorneys who teamed up to win the Prop 8 case in Appellate Court. That decision is on hold until a ruling is made on standing by the California Supreme Court.

—  David Taffet

NFL bans anti-gay discrimination

David Boies

The new National Football League players’ contract bans discrimination based on sexual orientation.

And no one noticed.

In the NFL’s rush to save the season, a nondiscrimination clause was slipped into the final contract. Or maybe it was intentional. But no one was looking for it. No one expected it. And no one noticed it.

No one except Pete Olsen, a third-year law student who writes Wide Rights, which follows gay rights in the sports industry.

How could this have happened? Certainly it wasn’t an important agenda item for either players or owners rushing to save the season and billions of dollars. The blog suggests that New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft has been an LGBT rights supporter and may have had a hand in slipping it in. But the answer also might have to do with the attorneys.

Ted Olson

The attorney for the players was Ted Olson. The attorney for the owners was David Boies. Sound familiar? The two have opposed each other before. Olson represented President George W. Bush and Boies was Vice President Al Gore’s attorney in Bush v. Gore. But they’ve teamed up to represent same-sex couples in California who are battling Proposition 8, which ended marriage equality in that state.

Here’s what might have happened. Whoever wrote up the nondiscrimination clause simply used wording he was accustomed to using and added sexual orientation. After fighting Prop 8 so thoroughly, he probably didn’t think twice about including it. The other may have looked at the new nondiscrimination clause, said to himself, “Yup, that looks right.” End of discussion. Never was mentioned. And a month went by before anyone noticed.

 

—  David Taffet

Cast set for Dustin Lance Black’s ’8′

Dustin Lance Black

The American Foundation for Equal Rights & Broadway Impact have added actors to the lineup of Dustin Lance Black’s world premiere play 8. Bob Balaban, Larry Kramer, John Lithgow and Bradley Whitford are among the celebrities joining the staged reading, which takes place at a one-night-only event on Sept. 19. They join the previously announced cast that includes Anthony Edwards, Morgan Freeman, Cheyenne Jackson, Christine Lahti, Rob Reiner, Yeardley Smith and Marisa Tomei. They will play historical figures, including Judge Vaughn Walker, attorneys David Boies and Theodore Olson, and Evan Wolfson of Freedom to Marry.

The  play chronicles the historic trial in the federal legal challenge to Prop 8, California’s constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. It is based on the actual transcripts of the lawsuit. Black, who won an Oscar for his screenplay for Milk, has been widely active in gay rights causes.

—  Arnold Wayne Jones

Federal appeals court asked to allow same-sex marriages to resume in California

Ted Olson

The American Foundation for Equal Rights, which is challenging Proposition 8 in federal court, today asked an appeals court to lift its stay blocking same-sex marriages in California and allow them to resume immediately pending the outcome of the case.

In August, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit stayed an injunction barring enforcement of Prop 8, California’s ban on same-sex marriage. However, AFER argues in its motion filed today that due to delays in the Prop 8 case, Perry v. Schwarzenegger, the stay should be lifted.

AFER’s request is unrelated to today’s announcement by the Obama administration calling a portion of the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional and saying the Department of Justice will no longer defend DOMA in federal court.

“We are respectfully asking the Court to lift its stay on marriage for gay and lesbian couples because it has become apparent that the legal process is taking considerably longer than could reasonably have been anticipated,” said Theodore B. Olson, co-lead counsel for AFER. “It’s important to remember that the stay was originally ordered with the understanding that the Ninth Circuit would rule swiftly on the case before it. Now that the issue of the Proponents’ standing to appeal has been referred for analysis by the California Supreme Court, substantial additional, indefinite and unanticipated delays lie ahead. It’s unreasonable and decidedly unjust to expect California’s gay and lesbian couples to put their lives on hold and suffer daily discrimination as second class citizens while their U.S. District Court victory is debated further.”

Read the full press release after the jump.

—  John Wright

Calif. Supreme Court agrees to rule on whether Prop 8 supporters have standing to appeal

LISA KEEN | Keen News Service

The road to marriage equality in California just got a little longer.

The California Supreme Court said today it would make ruling on whether Yes on 8 proponents have authority, under California law, to appeal a federal court ruling that the initiative is unconstitutional.

The announcement, at 4:20 p.m. Central time today, means the California court will soon hear arguments in the landmark Perry v. Schwarzenegger case. But the question will be a procedural one only: whether there is any authority under California law that would provide Yes on 8 proponents with standing to defend Proposition 8 in a federal appeals court.

The court’s brief announcement said it would hear arguments on an expedited schedule and asked that the first briefs be due March 14 and that oral argument take place as early as September.

Once the California Supreme Court decides whether state law provides any right to Yes on 8 to represent voters on appeal, the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel will then make its final determination as to whether Yes on 8 has standing to appeal. And, if the 9th Circuit says Yes on 8 does have standing, it will also rule on the constitutionality of Proposition 8.

The question before the California Supreme Court was whether there is any authority under California law that would enable Yes on 8 proponents to represent voters who approved Proposition 8. The answer mattered to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals panel. Without any authority under state law, the appeals panel suggested, the group might not have any “standing” at all to appeal the decision. If a party has “standing,” they are sufficiently affected by a conflict to justify having a court hear their lawsuit or appeal on the matter.

When the legal team of Ted Olson and David Boies filed a legal challenge to California’s Proposition 8 in federal district court, the state, under Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown, had standing to defend the law. But neither provided a defense and, instead, the Yes on 8 coalition that campaigned for the initiative did so.

When the district court found Proposition 8 unconstitutional, the state officers said they would not appeal the decision, so Yes on 8 once again sought to defend the law, this time in the federal appeals court. But both Schwarzenegger and Brown urged the 9th Circuit not to accept the appeal, saying the best thing for California was to abide by the district court ruling.

So, when the 9th Circuit panel heard oral arguments on the appeal last December, one of the first and most pressing issues it had to wrestle with was whether Yes on 8 still had “standing” to bring the appeal when the state government had decided it wanted to honor the district court decision.

What bothered the panel was their belief that the state officers — Schwarzenegger and Brown — were acquiring veto power by simply refusing to defend a voter-approved law with which they disagreed.

The panel asked the California Supreme Court to say whether there might be some authority under state law that would provide Yes on 8 with standing to bring the appeal.

The legal team challenging Proposition 8, led by Ted Olson and David Boies, filed briefs with the California Supreme Court, saying the state court should not provide such a determination because the standing issue in a federal appeals court is essentially a matter of federal law.

© 2011 by Keen News Service. All rights reserved.

—  John Wright

Appeals court grants stay of Prop 8 ruling

LISA KEEN  |  Keen News Service

A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals issued an order Monday granting Yes on 8’s request for a stay of Judge Vaughn Walker’s ruling that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional. The appeals court panel also ordered, without being asked, that Yes on 8’s appeal of Walker’s ruling in Perry v. Schwarzenegger be addressed by the court on an expedited basis.

The panel said it would hear arguments on appeal during the week of Dec. 6, as well as arguments concerning whether Yes on 8 has legal standing to press the appeal.

The two-page order is a disappointment to many same-sex couples in California who were hoping that they would be able to obtain marriage licenses as soon as Judge Walker’s stay expired — at 5 p.m. Pacific time on Wednesday.

“We are very gratified that the Ninth Circuit has recognized the importance and pressing nature of this case and the need to resolve it as quickly as possible by issuing this extremely expedited briefing schedule,” said Ted Olson, one of the lead attorneys for plaintiffs challenging Proposition 8.

Olson, one of the most prominent conservative attorneys in the country, launched the high-profile challenge of California’s voter-approved constitutional ban on same-sex marriage with liberal attorney icon David Boies. Walker, chief judge of the U.S. District Court for Northern California (San Francisco), heard three weeks of testimony by the plaintiffs and Proposition 8 supporters in January.

In a dramatic 136-page ruling on Aug. 4, Walker declared the same-sex marriage ban in the state constitution violates the U.S. Constitution’s guarantees of equal protection and due process. Walker agreed to stay — or delay enforcement — of his decision until Aug. 18, giving the 9th Circuit time to decide whether to grant a more extended appeal.

Evan Wolfson, who was a lead attorney on the first same-sex marriage case — in Hawaii in 1996 — called the 9th Circuit panel’s decision to continue Walker’s stay “disappointing.”

“But there are many twists in the road to justice,” said Wolfson, “and we are encouraged by the court’s setting a fast pace for the appeal, revealing that the judges understand how important a quick end to the exclusion from marriage is to gay couples, their loved ones, and all Americans who believe in equality under the law.”

The 9th Circuit panel includes two Clinton appointees — Judges Sidney Thomas and Michael Hawkins — and one Reagan appointee, Edward Leavey.

The panel set Sept. 17 as the date Yes on 8’s initial argument brief is due.

The response brief from the Ted Olson-David Boies legal team challenging Proposition 8 is due Oct. 18. And Yes on 8 may reply to plaintiffs’ brief by Nov. 1.

Monday’s order means the same-sex marriage ban will stay intact at least until December, when the 9th Circuit will hear arguments on both the issue of Yes on 8’s standing to appeal and, perhaps, on the merits of Walker’s decision.

Meanwhile, on the East Coast, where U.S. District Court Judge Joseph Tauro ruled — in two separate cases — July 9 that the ban on federal benefits to same-sex couples is unconstitutional, the clock is still ticking down the 60 days the U.S. Department of Justice has to appeal the decisions to the 1st Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals.

© 2010 by Keen News Service. All rights reserved.

—  John Wright

AG Brown, couples urge speedy return to gay marriages

PAUL ELIAS and LISA LEFF  |  Associated Press

SAN FRANCISCO — The attorneys who successfully sued to strike down California’s same-sex marriage ban have joined state Attorney General Jerry Brown in urging a federal appeals court to quickly allow gay marriages to resume in the state.

Theodore Olson and David Boies, the high-profile lawyers representing two couples, told the appeals court that same-sex couples are being hurt every day Proposition 8 is enforced and should not be denied their civil rights while the ban’s sponsors pursue an appeal of this month’s decision overturning the 2008 measure that was approved in a referendum.

“Indeed, the only harm at issue here is that suffered by Plaintiffs and other gay and lesbian Californians each day that Proposition 8′s discriminatory and irrational deprivation of their constitutional rights remains in force,” the lawyers argued in a filing late Friday, Aug. 13.

Brown, who is the Democratic nominee for governor, said in a separate filing that there was no reason for the 9th Circuit to grant the emergency stay request because state and local agencies would suffer no harm by being required to sanction same-sex marriages. County clerks across the state already are gearing up to do so next week, he said.

The swiftly drafted legal papers came in response to efforts by same-sex marriage opponents to get the 9th U.S. Court of Appeals to block a lower court judge’s ruling striking down Proposition 8 as unconstitutional from taking effect this week. If the 9th Circuit refuses to intervene, it would clear the way for same-sex couples to marry starting after the close of business Wednesday, Aug. 18.

Protect Marriage, the coalition of religious and conservative groups that sponsored Proposition 8, has appealed U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker’s Aug. 4 ruling that found the voter-approved law unconstitutional. After Walker said on Thursday, Aug. 12 that he planned to finalize his ruling on Wednesday at 5 p.m., the group’s lawyers asked the 9th Circuit to prevent any gay marriages while the appeal is pending.

They argued the appeals court should grant an emergency stay “to avoid the confusion and irreparable injury that would flow from the creation of a class of purported same-sex marriages.”

Depending on how the 9th Circuit rules, same-sex couples could get married in California as early as next week or they would have to wait while the appeal works its way through the court and potentially the U.S. Supreme Court as well.

Walker, however, has expressed doubts over whether Protect Marriage has the right to challenge his ruling if neither the attorney general nor the governor elect to do so. Both officials refused to defend Proposition 8 in Walker’s court and have since said they see no reason why gay couples should not be able to get married now.

Although he allowed the group to intervene in the trial, the judge said the appellate court would have to make its own determination that same-sex marriage opponents would be injured if gay couples could wed, a claim Walker explicitly dismissed in his decision invalidating Proposition 8.

The ban’s backers addressed the potential for such a roadblock in their emergency stay request, saying California’s strong citizen initiative law permits ballot measure proponents to defend their interests if state officials will not.

“Proponents may directly assert the state’s interest in defending the constitutionality of its laws, an interest that is indisputably sufficient to confer appellate standing,” they said.

Theodore Boutrous, a lawyer with the legal team representing same-sex couples, said that keeping Protect Marriage from moving forward with an appeal was not necessarily the top priority of the plaintiffs.

“We believe that Chief Judge Walker’s ruling last week on the merits provides a powerful record on appeal, and we want the appellate courts to address the merits of Proposition 8,” Boutrous said. “The standing issue that Chief Judge Walker identified provides another potential weapon in our arsenal that will be part of the appellate arguments.”

California voters passed Proposition 8 as a state constitutional amendment in November 2008, five months after the California Supreme Court legalized same-sex unions and an estimated 18,000 same-sex couples already had married.

Five states — Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire and Iowa — and the District of Columbia have legalized same-sex marriage. New York and Maryland recognize those marriages even though same-sex couples can’t wed within their borders. However, the federal government doesn’t recognize same-sex marriage, nor do the vast majority of states.

—  John Wright

ABA agrees with Judge Walker’s ruling

David Boies

This week, the American Bar Association agreed with Judge Vaughn Walker. Gays and lesbians should have the right to civil marriage. They said marriage should be legal in all 50 states.

Only one person spoke against the policy, which passed overwhelmingly on a voice vote by the ABA’s House of Delegates. This is the first endorsement of the Prop 8 ruling by a national organization.

David Boies, one of the attorneys who argued the California case, called the endorsement significant.

“The ABA obviously is the most respected legal organization in the United States, and probably the world, and its opinion will be listened to by legislators and courts,” he said.

—  David Taffet

Time's 100 most influential

Mayor Annise Parker

Mayor Annise Parker

Time magazine wants to know who its readers think are the 100 most influential people in the world. The gays (and the lesbians and the allies) are doing quite well.

In spot number 83 (as of this writing) is Houston Mayor Annise Parker. This is her first appearance on the list. Parker won election in January making Houston the largest city in the United States with an openly gay or lesbian mayor and the largest city in the world with a lesbian mayor. (Only Berlin, which is slightly larger than Houston, is a larger city with a gay mayor).

Before becoming mayor, Parker served three terms on the city council and three terms as city controller. Before entering elective office, she headed Houston’s Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus.

To vote, go to her page, click on the rating, move it up or down and enter the capture words that prevent spam.

Other interesting choices:

Adam Lambert is in fifth place.

Neil Patrick Harris is #12, two spots ahead of Barack Obama.

Ellen Degeneres is 39th.

Also in the running are David Boies and Ted Olsen. They are the attorneys in the Prop 8 case in California representing the dump-the-ban side. They are currently at #114.

Bristol Palin is at 162. Her mom, Sarah, is at #29. Levi Johnston doesn’t show up.

And in the top spot? Most influential person in the world? Really??

At the time of this writing, Lady Gaga is in the top spot. As a native of Yonkers, I have to campaign against her. Love her music, but she’s been going around denying she’s from Yonkers, without revealing where she’s from. New York City? Well, just say it, then. Us Yonkersites are a proud bunch. I’ve called Dallas home for more than 30 years, Gaga, but I don’t deny my Roosevelt High School-Nathan’s Famous-P.S. 28-Colonial Heights roots.

—  David Taffet