Leonard Link

Monteverdi in the Theater of Love

One finds plenty of lamentation in the musical press about the hard times suffered by the classical music recording industry, and it is certainly true that what the once-major international labels are mere shadows of themselves.  But I think despite all the challenges posed by new technologies -- downloading, in particular -- the classical CD business is quite strong, to judge by the steady stream of really innovative and excellent productions that just seem to be streaming out, mainly from smaller and independent labels. 

One of the labels that seems to come up with one great new recording after another is Virgin Classics, a division of EMI (perhaps the one of the traditional classical "majors" that has suffered the least decline), the source of a new Monteverdi program titled "Teatro d'Amore" that is truly exciting.  The idea is to put together an interesting cross-section of Claudio Monteverdi's secular music, so we have some instrumental numbers excerpted from operas, songs, arias, madrigals...  Christina Pluhar directs L'Arpeggiata, an ensemble of musicians using period instruments, and a team of singers headlined by countertenor Philippe Jaroussky, soprano Nuria Rial, and several others.  Jaroussky shows up on 8 of the 13 vocal tracks, which is fine with me, since he is one of my favorite early music singers.

What makes this program different from the recent stream of similar programs that have emerged over the past few years is that the musicians have decided to take seriously the idea that Monteverdi was not some stuffy church music director (although he was, of course, a church music director for part of his career), but rather a hot-blooded man who wrote music for popular performance and consumption as well, and in his secular mode, he wrote music that is lively and deserves extroverted performances.  Indeed, noting that Monteverdi occasionally wrote bass-lines that sound much like the "striding bass" one could find in some mid-20th century jazz, they decided to take a few of those pieces and treat them in an improvisational, "hot session" manner, with some swing to the rhythms, addition of a discrete percussion section, and occasional "licks" on the accompanying instruments.  And it works.  Purists may howl, but these tracks provide great entertainment and don't detract from the otherwise "historically correct" program.  Actually, I can't imagine anyone who really loves Monteverdi's music objecting too much to what they do with "Ohime ch'io cado", or "Zefiro torna" from the Scherzi musicali.   These are creative musicians having fun, and the fun is communicated to the listener.

This is not to take away from the other terrific Monteverdi programs that have been issued recently, especially a marvelous series that has been coming out on Chandos, but rather to say that Pluhar, Jaroussky & Company have something unique to offer here.  I wish they would record the entire Scherzi musicali book as an entity, as their work in "Damigella" and "Zefiro torna" just whets the appetite to hear what they would do with all of those wonderful musical jests.

This is "top of the list" stuff, and I quickly migrated it to my iPod!

Il Trovatore at the Metropolitan Opera

I attended today's matinee performance of Verdi's Il Trovatore at the Metropolitan Opera.  Thankfully, this was NOT a broadcast performance, so the lighting was normal and there was no distracting camera-work going on.  One could just concentrate on the opera without feeling one was in the midst of a film production.  For which I am most grateful.  I wish they could figure out a way to do the live broadcasts unobtrusively, so as not to distract the live audience.

That said, I thought this performance was musically and dramatically strong, but scenically weak.  The production is by David McVicar, with sets by Charles Edwards, costumes by Brigitte Reiffenstuel, lighting by Jennifer Tipton and choreography by Leah Hausman (I assume that includes staging the sword fights, etc.). 

McVicar decided to reset the story from its historical time period to 300 years later, in early 19th century Spain during the turmoil of the Napoleonic Wars.  No problem there, since I doubt that rendered much anachronistic -- although, come to think of it, I'm unsure why we would have sword-fighting rather than pistols at 20 paces for a duel between Count di Luna and Manrico....  As usual, no particular care is taken to make the words that are being sung match the sets or action.  So di Luna sings that he can tell that Leonora is still awake because of the light burning in her window.  Well, he sings this in front of a set that has several high window openings in it, but no light burns.  But who cares, after all - it's opera and the production designer can't be bothered to have more than a general idea of what the story is about.  This is just some provincial house, after all....  I was also not crazy about the sets, which I found really boring.  Blank high walls that swing about, providing no real evocation of any time or place.  It was virtually a "black and white" production.  I want local color.  I want a sense of some place.  I don't get it at most Met productions these days.  Is this about saving money, or is it based on some artistic vision that says that sets should be plain and ugly so as not to distract attention from the music???  But the visual is an important part of opera - these sets made you want to close your eyes and listen while imagining your own settings.  We did have in one part of the set a pit in the ground with a wooden column rising from the middle to suggest the "stake" at which Azucena's mother was burned, and some portable anvils for the anvil chorus...

But the musical production, conducted by the excellent Gianandrea Noseda, was aces in my opinion.  Although an announcement was made before the curtain went up that Dolora Zajick was singing with a respiratory complaint, I heard nothing amiss.  She was terrific as Azucena.  Perhaps at this point in her career she doesn't have the biggest, steadiest vocal production, but she was dramatically strong and the occasional intonation lapses did not bother me.  Dmitri Hvorostovsky has never let me down yet, and he didn't let me down with the Count, a really sterling rendition.  I'm not a big Marcelo Alvarez fan, although I did enjoy his performance as Rodolfo in the DVD of the Met's current Boheme production.  I thought he was fine as Manrico, certainly involved in the performance and singing quite effectively.  But to me the big star of this production was Sondra Radvanovsky as Leonora.  Wow!  Her death scene was very powerful, and all of her work was top drawer here.  The shorter supporting roles were also well taken, particularly Kwangchul Youn as Ferrando.  The Met chorus did well also, including one chorister with extraordinary muscular development playing the shirtless soldier in Act III!  The Anvil Chorus was superbly coordinated, showing that the Met has special casting calls at the nearby gym....

A Surprise Recording from Thomas Meglioranza

Long-time readers of this blog may recall my great admiration for the young American baritone, Thomas Meglioranza.  I've mentioned his self-produced Schubert lieder recital disc several times, and have enthused about his concerts.  His voice records well and I wish there were more recordings, but there have so far been just a few.  So I was quite excited, while browsing at J&R Music World in lower Manhattan the other day, to discover a new one -- not an entire disc of Meglioranza, but one work performed by him as part of a series devoted to a particular composer, Charles Wuorinen.

Wuorinen is not by a long shot my favorite contemporary composer.  Indeed, as a teenager I heard some recordings of his music, took an instant dislike to it, and then conscientiously avoided it for the longest time.  Meglioranza actually brought me back into the fold.  Some time ago he listed on his blog a concert appearance in my neighborhood (Upper West Side of Manhattan) on a program of Wuorinen's music.  I couldn't pass up the opportunity -- rare in NYC -- to hear Tom Meglioranza perform, so I went, determined to stoically endure for the opportunity to hear him sing.  The program consisted of relatively short pieces for various small ensembles.  Meglioranza sang a setting of Psalm 39, in the Cranmer translation, for baritone and guitar.  And I found it quite enjoyable.  In fact, to my great surprise I found just about everything on the program to be enjoyable.

Since I specialize in collecting musical settings of the Psalms, I tried to find a recording of Wuorinen's Psalm 39, but without success until this week.  The new Albany records release in their "Charles Wuorinen Series" is titled "Duos" as each of the seven pieces on the recording involves two performers, and there in the midst of it are Meglioranza and William Anderson (guitar) performing Psalm 39.  I've listened to it several times, migrated it to my iPod, and have a growing fondness for it.  For one thing, any opportunity to hear the magical Meglioranza baritone is not to be missed, but for another I find that the music itself in combination with this text is very effective.  I can't say the same for everything else on the disc.  The other song, "Never Again the Same" with bass Wilbur Pauley and tuba player Christopher Hall (some combination!) doesn't quite do it for me, at least on first hearing, and the purely instrumental music tends towards an abstraction that I don't find all that involving, but maybe further acquaintance will stir up enthusiasm for the rest of the program.  But the disc is worth getting -- especially for Meglioranza fans -- just for Psalm 39, which runs 11-1/2 minutes.  And, having heard him do this piece, I just know that Meglioranza could make something splendid out of Stravinsky's "Abraham and Isaac," which came to mind as I was listening to this -- even though Stravinsky sets the Biblical Hebrew rather than an English translation... One can hope....

Robert Blecker Wants Me Dead - the Film

I've known Robert Blecker since 1982, when I became his colleague on the faculty of New York Law School.  And for that entire time, the central focus of his scholarly attention has been on the issue of punishment, and most particularly the death penalty.  Robert describes himself as an emotive retributivist - that is, someone who believes that in the process of meting out punishment for criminal behavior, our concern should be to see that people get their just deserts - a punishment that fits the crime - and he couples that with a belief that certain crimes merit the death penalty, and therefore it should be applied in appropriate cases.  He has advanced this view through a variety of media, but here is a new venture for him: becoming the subject of somebody else's film, subjecting himself to somebody else's vision.  And I'm not sure that he comes through it to his own satisfaction, and certainly not to mine, because the film makes him look more obsessive and at times less reasonable than I think he is.  On the other hand, I have a fundamental disagreement with him, in that I believe that even if we were to agree that certain offenses merit death, I am unwilling to impose that penalty when the system we have for determining who should die is inherently flawed and, I believe, incapable of being made certain.

For my view is that if one accepts Blecker's contention that life is infinitely valuable and precious, then we should not entrust the decision to extinguish a life to a system that is capable of getting it wrong....  I agree with his mother, who says in the film, in effect, that the execution of even one innocent person is one too many.

But to get back to the film.  I think it is a flawed film in many ways, but on the other hand it presents a compelling story, if haltingly and frustratingly at times, and it does the most important thing that art can do: it provokes the audience to think more deeply about a subject as to which it is too easy to avoid deep thought by clinging to familiar, superficial arguments. 

While working on a project to document the "soft life" that too many death rows provide to their occupants -- at least in his view -- Blecker came across a death row inmate who provoked his interest as being atypical, an apparently intelligent and very articulate man who appeared to support the idea of his own execution, but without being willing to articulate any remorse for the crime he committed -- the simultaneous murder by shotgun of his four young children.  Blecker ended up visiting him several times and exchanging correspondence with him up to the time of his execution; indeed, Blecker was his last visitor on the date of execution.   A relationship of sorts grew up between them, a relationship that would be hard to understand without seeing and hearing the film AND seeing and hearing Blecker respond to audience questions after the film.  And this is one of the flaws of the film, I think.  It doesn't do justice in communicating the full richness of Blecker's journey through this relationship.  It leaves out too much, perhaps because film is a visual medium and you can only do so much of reading correspondence out loud before you put the audience to sleep.  I doubt that documentary film is the medium to convey fully the extent and impact of this experience on Blecker and the subtle ways it has affected his position on the death penalty.  It was only in the Q&A after the showing this evening that was held as a benefit for NYLS that I felt we reached some kind of deeper understanding of how the experience affected him.

In short - I think Robert Blecker should turn this experience into a book, the medium that can do justice to the experience in all its detail....  But, in the meantime, I hope lots of people see the movie because it is important to have one's preconceptions challenged in this way.

More on N.J. Marriage Recognition Ruling

On February 8, I posted here about a decision issued on February 6 by a Mercer County Superior Court Judge, Mary Jacobson, recognizing a same-sex marriage contracted in Canada for the purpose of determining jurisdiction over a divorce petition that had been filed by one of the spouses.   I have finally obtained from one of the attorneys in the case a copy of the transcript containing the bench ruling by Judge Jacobson in Hammond v. Hammond, Docket No. FM-11-905-08-B (N.J. Super. Ct., Mercer County, Feb. 6, 2009).

Why was this a bench ruling rather than a written opinion?  Judge Jacobson heard argument on this in December 2008 and was working on a decision, but the pressing need for a ruling, due to the parlous physical condition of the plaintiff, persuaded her to deliver a bench ruling, speaking from a prepared outline, on February 6.  I suspect that if the state seeks to appeal, Judge Jacobson might accommodate with a more formal written opinion.  The bench ruling refers to various cases, but of course the citations are abbreviated in the transcript, and there are the usual misspellings from the court reporter (although the judge went to great pains to make sure they would transcribe one word correctly: "comity" instead of "comedy"!).  To help spread information about this decision, I'm going to provide a few key paragraphs here, and I'm going to take the liberty of correcting transcription errors based on my best guess of what was intended.

To provide some context, Lakia Hammond and Kinyati Hammond were married in British Columbia, Canada, then returned to the states.  Lakia is now a Mercer County resident.  She has a serious medical condition with a poor prognosis.  Her married fell apart prior to the move to New Jersey.  Her spouse lives in a different state, and has not responded to the divorce petition, although she was served with process.  Lakia has a new same-sex partner whom she would like to marry in Canada (New Jersey does not issue licenses to same-sex couples at present), but she needs to have her prior Canadian marriage terminated.  After the NJ Civil Union Act was adopted, the NJ Attorney General at that time, Stuart Rabner (now the state's Chief Justice), issued Formal Opinon No. 3-2007, taking the position that same-sex marriages contracted outside the state would be recognized in New Jersey as civil unions.  Consistent with that position, the AG's office argues in this case that Lakia may not obtain a divorce from a New Jersey court, only a "dissolution of civil union" as authorized in the Civil Union Act.  But she fears that Canadian authorities would not find this sufficient to entitle her to enter into a new marriage in Canada, that only a divorce would do, since she is not party to a civil union, but to a marriage.

Judge Jacobson concludes that Lakia is correct:

"Both sides in this case have cited the seminal New Jersey decision that led to the adoption of the civil union statute and that of course is Lewis v. Harris, 188 N.J. 415, decision of the New Jersey Supreme Court in 2006.  In that decision, the Court in a majority decision by Justice Albin authorized or directed the legislature to choose either to accord the same rights to same-sex couples as heterosexual couples by authorizing marriage for same-sex couples, or the legislature at its choice could create a parallel statutory structure to convey the same rights and benefits and burdens of marriage on same-sex couples.  The legislature chose the latter course, a parallel statutory structure.  They enacted the Civil Union statute.  Adn the Attorney General's Office has interpreted that statute to require New Jersey to treat same-sex couples whose union has been validated by a government entity, to treat all such union that are similar to civil unions or marriages as civil unions in New Jersey.  Following from that, the Attorney General argues then that the plaintiff here with her valid Canadian marriage can only obtain a dissolution of a civil union in New Jersey under the Civil Union statute and may not be granted a final judgment of divorce."

"This Court finds that the position of the Attorney General ignores important rights of comity between sovereigns, in this case international comity between New Jersey and Canada.  And I also find that the position undermines New Jersey's well established marriage recognition precedents.  And consequently, the Court will issue an order authorizing Ms. Hammond to seek a final judgment of divorce and will schedule a date for a default hearing.  I don't believe that allowing Ms. Hammond to obtain a final judgment of divorce in New Jersey undermines the legislative intent in the Civil Union statute.  I recognize that Attorney General opinions are entitled to deference, but ultimately, I had to determine whether -- weighing that deference against my analysis particularly of the comity relationship between New Jersey and Canada and the strong, very strong marriage recognition statute and process in New Jersey...  And so, I've concluded that the international comity principle is most important here and will cause me to authorize Ms. Hammond to seek a final judgment of divorce."

"Why is comity so important here?  New Jersey has long recognized that a marriage valid under the laws of the country or state where the marriage takes place is valid in this state as long as the marriage is not void as against public policy, such as if a marriage was based on polygamy, or incest, or between close relatives, or involved somebody who was underage.  Where there's a strong public policy, if you're married in another jurisdiction, that won't be accepted here.  But, virtually all other marriages are accepted here as long as they are valid under the laws of the country or state where the marriage takes place.  And there are a number of opinions in New Jersey that recognize this important principle.  One of them is McMorrow v. Schweiker, 561 F. Supp. 584 (D.N.J. 1982), and there are a number of other cases that reiterate this: Bucca v. State of New Jersey, 43 N.J. Super. 322 (Ch. Div. 1957), Innes v. Carrascosa, 391 N.J. Super. 453 (2007).  And one of the earlier cases that was cited was that of Smith v. Smith, 52 NJL 207 (1889)...."

"So this has been the established law not only in New Jersey, but it's essentially a basis for family law throughout the country.  And of course the same principle has been incorporated into the Restatement (2nd) of Conflicts of Law, as reflected in Section 283, comment B, that recognizes the importance of comity and to promote justice to individuals and to produce friendly intercourse between the sovereignties to which they belong.  And I also wanted to note Restatement (2nd) of Conflicts of Law, Section 283, which specifically says, 'A marriage which satisfies the requirements of teh state where the marriage was contracted will everywhere be recognized as valid unless it violates the strong public policy of another state which had the most significant relationship to the spouses and the marriage at the time of the marriage.'  It's the fact that that's been the rule for so long, it's just ingrained in how we practice in family court, day in and day out, that it one of the things that was so persuasive to me in reviewing the issues in this case.  That marriage recognition principle is, as I said, an underpinning of the family court day in and day out.  Every week here in Mercer County we have approximately 20 to 25 divorces.  And many of them are based upon marriages that were done in other jurisdictions, and often in other countries. So, the principles of comity underline what we don on a daily basis and are extremely important."

"When people come to get divorced in a typical family court proceeding, obviously when you come with a marriage, a valid marriage, you leave with a divorce.  If you come with a civil union, you leave with a dissolution of a civil union.  And here, we have Lakia Hammond coming with a valid Canadian marriage and the State suggests that she can only leave with a dissolution of a civil union. . .  we have Lakia Hammond coming to New Jersey which has a civil union statute but does not issue marriage licenses for same-sex couples.  And she's seeking a divorce for her Canadian marriage.  And so it seems to me that what she needs, having a valid marriage, is a divorce or, as anyone coming with a civil union before the Court would get a dissolution of a civil uion, and that the essence of comity is to recognize that other states and other countries have different laws governing things as important to society as marriage and that we give full faith and credit to their laws as long as there is no good reason not to."

Judge Jacobson notes that N.J., unlike other jurisdictions, has not adopted a version of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, so there is no formal statutory proscription on recognizing a foreign same-sex marriage in New Jersey, leading her to conclude that "to grant the divorce here is not against public policy.  It's consistent with the strong marriage recognition principles that have been recognized by the New Jersey courts since the 1800s that are the underpinnings for the practice day in and day out in New Jersey Courts issuing divorces and recognizing marriages that are valid elsewhere."   She also noted that the legislature did not specifically address this issue in the Civil Union Act, "so I don't see how granting a divorce here is inconsistent with the legislature's intent because the legislature did not address the specific issue and the legislature did not adopt the Defense of Marriage Act."

 Judge Jacobson also took note of the NY case of Martinez v. County of Monroe as providing analogous reasoning.

She did emphasize the narrowness of her ruling:  "And so I think to recognize the Canadian marriage is valid to the extent of saying it should be ended by granting a divorce, which is all that I'm saying here.  I think it recognizes Canada's law and their right to make decisions about important issues such as marriage.  But, I don't believe it does anything to undercut the different policy judgment made by the New Jersey legislature.  I'm also concerned here that if the plaintiff wants to remarry in Canada that the way her union with Kinyati Hammond is ended has impact outside the State of New Jersey.  She says in her certification, and I accept it as true, it's undisputed that she plans to return to Canada to be remarried.  And if she goes with a document that says dissolution of a civil union and what she had was a valid marriage in Canada, I think she has a valid concern that there could be issues raised in Canada." 

"I just want to note that this is a very narrow decision based upon the principles of comity.  And comity is not a mandatory doctrine, but is one that has strong policy reasons itself that have been recognized by the New Jersey Courts in many cases, one which is Sensient Colors, Inc. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 193 N.J. 373 (2008).  And in this world, where people move around from one place to another frequently, I think comity is very important in this area, and serves not only the plaintiff here well, but also any governmental entity that she will come in contact with as she moves on from here, once she continues to seek the ending of her legal relationship with Kinyati Hammond."

The judge also thanked the parties for the "excellent legal materials" that they submitted.  So I will close this posting with a list of the attorneys who appeared in the case:  For the plaintiff: Stephen Hyland, Ed Barocas (ACLU), and Lawrence Lustberg.  For the AG, Melissa Raksa.

N.J. Trial Judge Deems Same-Sex Couple a "Family Unit" in Custody Dispute

A New Jersey Superior Court judge, recognizing two gay men who have not entered into a civil union as a "family unit," has ruled that the ex-wife of one of the men may not disparage the other to their young son. The February 13 ruling culminated a lengthy proceeding that made its way through at least five Camden County trial judges before the case was resolved, and an appeal by the ex-wife is still possible. Judge Deborah Silverman-Katz ordered a liberal visitation schedule with the child for the father and his same-sex partner. Attorney Lauren H. Kane represents the father.

The parties will be referred to here by initials to preserve their confidentiality. Father E and Mother C were married in Cherry Hill, N.J., on September 25, 2003. Father E, a bisexual man, had a prior relationship with a man, S, before becoming involved with and marrying C. C became pregnant within weeks after the wedding, but E and C separated about six months after marrying. The child, J, was born in mid-August of 2004. After the separation, E tried unsuccessfully to find an affordable apartment near his son, but having nowhere else to live, ultimately returned to live with S in New York.

C sued for divorce. In January 2006, the Camden County Court issued a custody and parenting order giving joint legal custody to the two biological parents, but residential custody to the mother. In what may be an action without precedent, Judge Lee A. Solomon approved C’s demand to condition E’s visitation rights on father and his partner S moving from New York to New Jersey in reasonably close proximity to mother’s residence. C claimed that E was not capable of handling the child on his own, and needed to have S present to assist.

After S and E acquired a residence nearby in Camden County, C nonetheless resisted allowing visitation, claiming that S had not really taken up residence there. A neutral expert was assigned by the court to investigate, and he reported that S had indeed moved into the nearby house, so overnight visitation began. However, things did not run smoothly, and E filed an application for a change to give him sole custody of the child, which Judge Solomon denied in July 2007, while granting E’s request that the neutral expert, a child psychologist, be permitted to re-enter the case to render a new opinion on the custodial arrangements. However, Judge Solomon’s order was vague as to the authority and responsibility of the neutral expert, who asked E’s attorney to seek clarification from the court.

When the parties appeared back in court in November 2007, they discovered the case had been reassigned to Judge Angelo DiCamillo, who refused the request to clarify Judge Solomon’s order, asserted that all "experts" were biased, claiming that he did not need the assistance of child psychologists to make his decisions, and also said that he took evidence only on paper, not at live hearings.

By the spring of 2008, E and S became concerned that an unrelated man, who turned out to be a boyfriend of one of C’s adult children, was living with C and the child, and apparently the child was being left in this man’s custody when the mother was at work during the day. They hired an investigator, who determined that the man had a criminal record and maintained a website with disturbing graphics, including a photo of Hitler, a Confederate flag, and photos showing the man, hereafter identified as H, point a gun at somebody’s head as well as a photo showing him holding a gun with the barrel in his own mouth.

Alarmed that his son was being left in the custody of this individual, E filed an order seeking to have the child removed from C’s residence and placed with him. Judge DiCamillo expressed hostility to hearing the motion, saying if he had know in advance what it was about, he would have notified C’s attorney to appear. In referring to H, he said that "the poor man is not here to defend himself," and when E asked for an order of protection, the judge said that the court was "kind of closed right now." The judge did agree to schedule a hearing in July and ordered E’s attorney to notify C’s attorney of the hearing.

S, who is an attorney and a former prosecutor in New York City, wrote to the court asking the judge to withdraw from the case due to his conduct of the November 2007 and June 2008 hearings, and notified the judge that he would be filing a disciplinary complaint against him. The judge’s apparent response was to avoid scheduling the promised hearing and contacting C’s attorney to tell him the matter would not be heard. S then wrote to the chief judge of the county, who ordered Judge DiCamillo to schedule the hearing. E and his attorney requested that the judge withdraw before beginning the hearing, but he refused and, after a hearing at which H did not appear (an affidavit was submitted by C’s attorney instead, which understated H’s criminal record), the judge denied all of E’s motions, including a renewed motion for sole immediate temporary custody, pending a full hearing and final order, but made a variety of rulings on the record, some favorable to E.

However, E’s attempt to get a written order or a transcript of the hearing was unavailing. An attempt to appeal Judge DiCamillo’s August 8 ruling was held up as it took months for his attorney to obtain a transcript from the hearing, and when the transcript arrived, the rulings that had been made in favor of E’s position were mysteriously missing and S noticed other changes from what had been said by the judge during the hearing.

S had filed a complaint against C’s attorney with the Ethics Committee concerning improper communications between the attorney and the judge, as well as the submission of apparently perjured testimony. The attorney’s answer to the Ethics complaint attached what was purported to be a copy of the transcript of that August 8, 2008, hearing. When S reviewed the transcript, he noted that it differed in many respects from the transcript that had been provided to E’s attorney, and at least one of the transcripts appeared to have been backdated and done by different court reporters from two different reporting services, although both transcripts were "certified" as being accurate transcriptions of the taped hearing. S immediately notified both the Commission on Judicial Conduct and the Attorney General’s office about this discrepancy. Meanwhile, Judge DiCamillo was removed from the case and reassigned to a different court, and the disciplinary charge against him was resolved with a private sanction by the Ethics committee.

The matter was reassigned to Judge Silverman-Katz, whose February 13 ruling, embodied in a three-page handwritten order, settles a host of issues between the parties, requires C to consult with E on decisions concerning the child, provides for liberal visitation rights for E, and, as noted, treats E and S as a "family unit." The judge denied C’s request for attorneys fees, but partially granted E’s request for fees, apparently considering him the prevailing party on issues decided by the judge. Both parties are warned not to make disparaging remarks about each other or S in the child’s presence. At this hearing, C claimed that H was no longer living in her house.

The case is not over yet, because E is still appealing Judge DiCamillo’s refusal of his petition for immediate transfer of residential as well as sole legal custody. At the same time, it is possible that C will try to appeal parts of Judge Silverman-Katz’s order, as her attorney has already represented that she will refuse to comply with the fee award.

Defying Inequality

Raising money for non-profit and political causes has become difficult in the current economic downturn.  At least with a non-profit charitable fundraiser, the attendants get a tax deduction, but for a political event, there is no tax deduction, just the feeling of doing good and advancing a cause.  Which makes it all the more remarkable that the Gershwin Theater on Broadway was actually packed last night as hundreds of theater and music professionals donated their night off for "Defying Inequality," a musical review to raise money to fight for marriage equality for LGBT people. 

This was an extraordinary night!  And it took all night, starting around 8:15 and running to midnight with just one brief intermission.  There was no list of numbers in the program, probably because it just kept growing and growing as more people volunteered.  It seemed like just about every chorus boy and girl now working the Broadway stage was there, and lots of stars from major shows were doing their thing.  There was music and comedy and political speeches.  Keith Olbermann came on and did a re-creation of his famous on-air commentary about the passage of Prop 8.  Jane Fonda was there, and Cyndi Lauper.  Stephen Schwartz accompanied himself at the piano.  A famous youtube anti-Prop 8 spoof was re-enacted, with Nathan Lane as Jesus (it was Jack Black in the youtube version).  It just seemed to go on and on and on, until presenters started joking about the show that started on Monday and ended on Tuesday. 

But most importantly, there was that incredible feeling of being part of an enormous, charged-up audience, comprised mainly of gay folk, that was hysterically happy about everybody who was up there on the stage, and performers feeling a special charge -- the electricity generated by a turned-on house -- and giving their very best.  No feeling of amateur night, whatsoever - these were pros showing off their very best work.

So it was truly a night to remember -  and a reminder that the theater commmunity is a truly progressive bunch.  Thanks to the people of "Wicked" -- the musical that regularly occupies that space -- for donating their theater and many of their players, and to the enormous sea of talented people who donated their services, and to everybody who showed up.  It was wild.

Postscript:  Who was responsible for this awesome evening?  The producers were Anthony Galde, Di Ana Pisarri, Jen Waldman, and Schele Williams.  Production Supervisor: Chris Jamros.  Line Producer: Susan Sampliner.  And an entire page of production credits in the program.

The beneficiary organizations: Family Equality Council, Empire State Pride Agenda, Equality California, Garden State Equality, Vermont Freedom to Marry Task Force.

And another postscript - This morning, the NY Times called editorially for advance of the same-sex marriage bill now pending in the Rhode Island legislature.  Actually, it is silly for Rhode Island legislators to refrain from passing it as a practical matter, since the two adjacent states -- Connecticut and Massachusetts -- both issue marriage licenses to non-resident same-sex couples, so it is easy for residents of tiny R.I. to go next door to get married, and silly to forfeit the marriage business as a practical matter.  But, of course, the main reason to vote for a same-sex marriage bill is to DO THE RIGHT THING!    

Lighting Up a Gloomy Day - Mozart in Carnegie Hall with St. Luke's

Today was one of those dismal days we occasionally get in New York City in the winter.  Gloomy, overcast skies, chilly, dripping rain mixed with occasional snowflakes...  Grim all around.  So I was glad I had a ticket to attend the all-Mozart concert offered by the Orchestra of St. Luke's at Carnegie Hall. And that they chose major-key Mozart - no doom and gloom there.  Roberto Abbado was the guest conductor for the occasion, and Andreas Heafliger the piano soloist.  The program began and ended with symphonies -- Nos. 35 and 41 -- with the 15th Piano Concerto before the intermission. 

St. Luke's is a virtuosic bunch, but I thought just a little underpowered in the upper string sections for Symphony No. 35, known as the Haffner symphony because it was concocted by Mozart out of a serenade he had written for a Haffner family event.  Those fast scalar passages sounded rather thin at times, easily drowned out by the wind chords accompanying them, at least from my perspective in the front of the balcony.  Abbado (nephew of the more well-known Claudio Abbado) is a "fast" conductor in Mozart, so there was plenty of energy in the outer movements, but I thought too much energy in the Andante.  The entire symphony is a bit short by the standards of Mozart's maturity, and playing the andante briskly makes it even shorter, but makes that lovely movement seem a bit superficial and breathless.  Or so it seemed to me on this occasion.

Haefliger sounded like a pianist who takes seriously Mozart's injunction that his allegro movements should "flow like oil."  Everything was presented very smoothly, rippling scales and arpeggios and the like.  I found it a little bland, perhaps, and more restrained in dynamic range than I would have preferred.  The 15th Concerto (K. 450, in Bb Major) has lots of show-off stuff, and a pleasant theme-and-variations middle movement.  The tempi were more to my liking than in the opening symphony, but I did not find the performance completely successful.  Nothing to fault technically from pianist and orchestra, but I found the performance short on drama.

After the intermission, however, things were quite different.  Abbado took lots of repeats, which turns this final numbered Mozart Symphony No. 41 into a big affair, comparable in length to Beethoven's first two symphonies, and having a breadth of utterance putting it in that league as well.  Certainly, it is in many ways closer to the romantic ideal of the symphony that was to emerge early in the 19th century than the series of symphonies that Haydn wrote after Mozart had died.  Abbado led a powerful performance.  Although there were no more strings than I saw in the first half (10-8-6-5-3), somehow the sound of the violins was bigger, the accents sharper, the dynamic range wider -- the first movement was even stormy at times, and drama was served.  The entire symphony got a great work-out, not least due to the forceful timpani-playing of Maya Gunji (who was great fun to watch) and the excellent, assertive trumpets and horns.  Despite the chamber-size string ensemble, this sounded like good old big-band Mozart that would have been heard from a major symphony orchestra before they started to misguidedly cut down to chamber size for this composer.  (I say misguidedly because by all reports Mozart was always asking for more strings, and was delighted whenever he could have an expanded string section for an orchestral performance.  I think he would have been delighted by the NY Philharmonic string section at full strength, and would have found it appropriate for all the symphonies he wrote after moving to Vienna from Salzburg.)

So, the concert ended in a blaze of glory and fired up our spirits before venturing out into the late afternoon rainy gloom ...

Michigan Appeals Court Orders Respect for Second-Parent Adoption from Illinois

In an unpublished opinion released on February 19, the Court of Appeals of Michigan has reversed a trial judge from Berrien County Circuit Court and ordered a hearing to determine whether Diane Lorraine Giancaspro should be entitled to custody and visiting time with children she and her former partner, Lisa Ann Congleton, had adopted in Illinois.  Giancaspro v. Congleton, 2009 Westlaw 416301. 

Actually, the story is more complex than the paragraph above suggests.  The women went to China to adopt some children.  China does not allow same-sex partners to adopt jointly, so Congleton was the adoptive parent. They brought the children back to Illinois and petitioned for a joint adoption, which was approved.   There is some dispute whether the Illinois adoption was a joint adoption or a second parent adoption, but in either case, assuming the truth of allegations in the suit papers, each of the women is an adoptive parent of all the children.  The court's decision is not written with an eye to easy chronology, but somehow they found themselves in Michigan, the relationship of the women deteriorated, and Giancaspro sued in Berrion County Circuit Court for custody, support and parenting time.  Congleton moved to dismiss, arguing that the relief was contrary to federal and state public policy.  The trial judge ruled that the full faith and credit clause of the constitution required recognizing the validity of the Illinois adoptions, but that Michigan's Child Custody Act was not applicable to the case.  According to the trial judge, since both women are adoptive parents, "they are co-parents with equal right as it stands currently.  There are no other existing orders."  The court granted summary judgment to Congleton.

Which left Giancaspro in limbo. Now that the women are separated, a judicial statement concerning custody, support and visitation in Michigan would be helpful in clarifying the rights of the parents and the children, and responsibilities as to support.

On appeal, the three-judge panel ruled that the case should go back to the trial court for further proceedings.  Two members of the court, citing as persuasive the 10th Circuit's ruling in Finstuen v. Crutcher, 496 F.3d 1139 (2007), found that the Full Faith and Credit Clause would require recognizing the Illinois adoption, and thus treating both women as parents for purposes of the Michigan Child Custody Act.  Under that Act, said the majority, Giancaspro has a right to litigate the same way as any parent does after a relationship breaks down.  The trial court was stymied by the lack of a legal relationship between the women; under the Act, the court's jurisdiction is invoked to adjudicate between parents when a marriage is being terminated, and here there is no legally -recognized relationship being terminated.

But, said the court of appeals, this isn't about the relationship between the women; it is about the relationship between each woman and the children, and each woman is entitled to be treated as a legal mother of the children.  In that circumstance, where two legal parents are contesting issues of custody, support and visitation, the role of the court is to determine what will be in the best interest of the children.  As between two legal parents, there is no presumption in favor of one or the other.

Said the court, "the question is really whether Michigan's legal framework for protecting and promoting the best interests and welfare of children within its jurisdiction excludes children with a parent or parents who could not have adopted them under Michigan law.  We conclude that it does not."  Thus, whether the women could have jointly adopted the children in Michigan is irrelevant to this action, since the FFC Clause requires the court to recognize both adoptions, assuming proper documentation of those adoptions is provided to the court.

A dissenting judge was disturbed that the complaint filed in the case was not accompanied by an authenticated copy of the adoption papers, asserting that this would be a prerequisite to jurisdiction of the court.  The dissent does not state any disagreement substantively with the majority's reasoning - indeed, does not even engage with it - but instead concludes that the plaintiff, Giancaspro, failed to establish her right to bring the action by failing to present the requisite documentation to establish her parental status.

Since Michigan is a state that does not allow joint adoptions by same-sex partners, and has a constitutional amendment banning recognition of same-sex marriages or civil unions, the ruling is an important recognition of the primacy of the best interest of children under family law, regardless of the relationships their parents might have with each other.  Lambda Legal and the ACLU of Michigan represent Giancaspro on this appeal.

33 Variations by Moises Kaufman with Jane Fonda

The big draw for the new production of Moises Kaufman's play "33 Variations" now in previews at the Eugene O'Neill Theatre on Broadway is supposed to be Jane Fonda in the leading role, but to me the big draw is experiencing what one of our most interesting playwrights has conjured up about the great mystery of Ludwig van Beethoven's 33 Variations on a Waltz by Anton Diabelli, one of the great master's most puzzling creations.

Anton Diabelli, a Viennese music publisher and amateur composer, looking for a way to pump up his lagging company, hit upon a great promotional scheme.  He would devise a simple little waltz tune and send it to the top 50 composers in Vienna (by his reckoning, of course, there being no public opinion polls in those days upon which to base a judgment as to who were the "top 50"), with an invitation to write one piano variation and participate in the publication of an album presenting Diabelli's little waltz followed by variations by all the leading composers.  Diabelli figured this would be a big seller and would bring great attention to his company.  Most of the invited composers quickly complied with his request, but Ludwig van Beethoven at first refused, then proposed writing his own set of variations for a set advance fee, then failed to finish his variations on time but, having become obsessed with the little waltz tune, ended up taking years over the project and writing a set of 33 variations in all -  one more variation than J.S. Bach wrote for his famous Goldberg Variations.  Diabelli eventually published his album without Beethoven's contribution, and a separate volumn entirely devoted to Beethoven.  Today, nobody plays the first volume -- most of whose composers have never been heard from again -- but Beethoven's volume is solidly in the core repertory of concert pianists.

The mystery?  Why did Beethoven, out of all those Viennese composers, become so obsessed with this little tune that he made it the basis for such a massive undertaking?  Kaufman uses this bit of arcane music history to construct a drama (which has been produced several times elsewhere since its first performance in D.C. in 2007) centered around a dying female musicologist, her prickly relationship with her daughter, and the relationships they have with a male nurse who gets involved with them and a female archivist in Bonn at the Beethoven Archive who assists with her research on the variations.  The other three characters are Diabelli, Beethoven, and Beethoven's assistant and posthumous biographer, Anton Schindler, who appear in flashback episodes.

So, Fonda plays the musicologist, but her performance at the preview I saw yesterday seemed much a work in progress and not too convincing yet.  She looks too healthy to be an ALS sufferer.  She even looks healthy in her wheelchair towards the end.  I was actually more enthusiastic about some of the supporting players.  I thought Erik Steele as Anton Schindler was wonderful.  Zach Grenier's Beethoven is a fun impersonation - right up there with Frank Langella's impersonation of Richard Nixon in Frost/Nixon.  Indeed, not so much an "impersonation" as an inspired recreation.  Don Amendolia as Diabelli is also fun to watch.

But the real focus of dramatic attention for most of the play are Samantha Mathis, who plays the musicologist's fractious daughter, and Colin Hanks, the male nurse who cares for her mother and falls head over heels for her.  Hanks, son of actor Tom Hanks, is really, really, good in this role.  In some ways, he is the most sympathetic character in the whole piece.  Susan Kellerman, as the German archivist, is also quite fine, if a bit stereotyped.

And -- a real bonus -- pianist Diane Walsh, some of whose recordings grace my collection, provides live excerpts from Beethoven's masterwork at various points during the performance.  This is quite an unusual gig for a classical pianist - to show up every night and several afternoons to play the same snippets of Beethoven over and over and over, in full view of the audience (piano at the far left of the auditorium with a spotlight on it).  Usually a producer would resort to taped excerpts, or use of a player piano mechanism if live sound was preferred... but to have a real live virtuoso pianists on call is exceptional.  (Her own complete recording of the piece is, of course, peddled in the theater.  My recommendation for this work is the magnificent recording by Piotr Anderszewski on Virgin Records, or better yet, Anderszewski's DVD documentary in which he discusses the piece as well as playing it.  But those desiring a specific souvenir of the production will probably be quite satisfied with Walsh's recording.  She's an estimable pianist, especially known for her work on 20th century repertory.)

So, I found the show interesting, not all the characterizations fully settled yet during the preview period, but anyone with an interest in Beethoven will love it, and the drama holds your attention -- more in the second act than the first, as per the norm.  The production is very skillful in jumping back and forth between modern NYC and Bonn, Germany, and early 19th century Vienna.  I was fascinated by how Kaufman closes the first act, in the way that Mozart would close the first acts of his operas.  Most scenes in a play are monologues, duets, or trios (spoken, not sung, that is), but the closing scene of the act concludes with a sextet - three pairs of actors reciting interweaving lines in an attempt to do what Mozart insisted only music could - provide interrelated but independent lines of thought simultaneously expressed.  They already have the rhythm down pretty well, and it provides a bravuro conclusion to the act. 

I will be curious to see how the critics react when it finally opens.