IGF CultureWatch

First published on September 22, 2004, in the Chicago Free Press.

It is by now pretty well known among gays and lesbians that several Jamaican reggae or "dance-hall" performers sing lyrics that are viciously homophobic.

That fact, however, seems not to have reached people in the entertainment business who sponsor and support these performers.

Recently the British gay advocacy group Outrage! mounted a campaign to induce performers such as Beenie Man, Bounty Killer, Elephant Man, Capleton, Sizzla, T.O.K., and Vybz Kartel-to stop singing those lyrics, charging that they promote homophobia and legitimize anti-gay violence.

Here are some of the lyrics. In the Jamaican patois batty means buttocks and battyman means gay or queer. Chi chi means gay or lesbian. Other translations are in parentheses.

From Beenie Man:

"Hang chi chi gal wid a long piece of rope." "I'm dreaming of a new Jamaica, come to execute all the gays." "Tek a Bazooka and kill batty-fucker." "All faggots must be killed." "We burn chi-chi man and then we burn sodomite and everybody bawl out, say, 'Dat right!'"

And from Elephant Man:

"Dance wi (we) a dance and a bun (burn) out a freaky man. ...crush out a bingi (queer) man." "Battyman fi (must be) dead! Gimme tha tec-nine (pistol), Shoot dem like bird." "Battyman fi (must be) dead! Get a shot inna yu head, inna mi big gun collide" (when meet my big gun).

From Vybz Kartel:

"Bow (blow-job) cat, sodomite, batty man fi (must) gat assassination," "Faggot fi (must) get copper (bullet) to di heart, A wet yuh up wid di Maggy" (I shoot you with the Magnum). Or T.O.K.: "From dem a drink inna chi chi man bar, Blaze di fire mek we dun (kill) dem!" And Sizzla: "Shot battyboy, my big gun-boom" and "Boom! Boom! Batty boy them fi (must be) dead."

The lyrics are no different from the murderous anti-black and anti-Semitic lyrics of underground skinhead and neo-Nazi rock groups preaching "racial holy war" and the extermination of minorities - whose CDs are for sale on the Internet. But dance clubs, concert promoters and record labels that would never sign a neo-Nazi group welcome the reggae homophobes.

The excuses vary. One agent said the lyrics were "metaphors" although he did not linger to say what lyrics about gleefully bashing, burning, shooting and hanging homosexuals might be metaphorical for.

A club hosting Capleton and Beenie Man objected that no one complained before and, anyway, it is "very difficult to understand what they are saying on stage." But then the club added, "They won't be using those lyrics when they play here." That is gratifying. But if the lyrics are really so difficult to understand, why bother assuring that they won't sing them?

A New York Times writer claimed that the violence of their anti-gay language is just a rhetorical gesture - a way to "gesture to religious and cultural injunctions against homosexuality...while also reminding listeners of their 'bad man' bona fides."

Suavely argued! But the singers seem serious. When Virgin Records issued a supposed apology for Beenie Man's homophobic lyrics, the performer's manager repudiated the apology. Another performer was identified by a witness as a participant in a Jamaican gay-bashing incident.

Perhaps the most specious defense of the lyrics is that we should tolerate them because we must preserve everyone's right to free speech. But the defense is without merit. Constitutional protections for "free speech" only guarantee that speech is safe from interference by government authorities.

Anyone can freely espouse any cause, write letters to a newspaper, post notices, distribute flyers and handbills, rent a room or lecture space and make a speech saying just about anything short of sedition and incitement to riot - and governments may not interfere.

But the Constitution does not say that people must be paid for their speech. "Free speech" does not mean that a private club, organization or lecture hall is obligated to pay someone to speak their piece or sing their songs. No agent is obligated to promote them, no lecture series or concert manager is obligated to book them. The Constitution guarantees "free speech" not "paid speech."

The only reason a dance club or commercial entertainment space engages a performer is to make money. And there are only two reasons club managers would engage a homophobic performer:

1. They agree with the homophobic views, or
2. They do not care what he says so long as people buy tickets.

In either case, others are free to try to discourage this and future exhibitions of homophobia by reducing the performer's and dance club's income. They can persuade people not to attend, picket the event in orderly fashion, pass out explanatory literature, tell their objections to newspapers, and name and shame club owners and concert managers for their complicity with inflammatory bigotry.

A friend shares the following story. A Holocaust survivor was once asked what Jews had learned from Nazi persecution. He replied, "When someone says they're going to kill you, believe them."

First published on September 8, 2004, in the Chicago Free Press.

For gays and lesbians there was little to watch for during the Republican National Convention, except perhaps the presence or absence of Mary Cheney, whose visibility was as varied as a troublesome member of the Politburo in old Kremlin photographs. But as a sideshow, Illinois Republican senatorial candidate Alan Keyes, who was not a delegate and spent most of his time promoting himself to the media, almost made the whole thing worthwhile.

Interviewed by Sirius Satellite Radio host Mike Signorile, Keyes delivered the following: "If we embrace homosexuality as a proper basis for marriage, we are saying that it is possible to have a marriage state that in principle excludes procreation and is based simply on the premise of selfish hedonism."

When Signorile asked, "So Mary Cheney is a selfish hedonist, is that it?" Keyes, who never misses an opportunity to avoid being gracious, replied, "Of course she is. That goes by definition."

The next day, Keyes expatiated for the Chicago Sun-Times, "In a homosexual relationship, there is nothing implied except the self-fulfillment, contentment and satisfaction of the parties involved in the relationship. That means it is a self-centered, self-fulfilling, selfish relationship that seeks to use the organs intended for procreation for purposes of pleasure."

Although Illinois Republicans professed themselves shocked and offended by Keyes' comments, Keyes is simply stating good Catholic doctrine. In the eccentric Catholic version of "natural law" genitals are "intended" for procreation. People may enjoy the pleasures of sex only if sex runs the risk of creating a fetus. Any other use of the genitals, as with homosexual sex, constitutes misuse.

This is the same argument the Vatican uses against masturbation and artificial birth control: They allow pleasure while avoiding the risk of creating a fetus, so they involve a misuse of genitals. Of course, Catholic natural law also ought to disapprove of sex by women after menopause or a hysterectomy, but it wimps out and says, "Well, it is sex of an essentially procreative type even though it cannot procreate, so it is allowable." They try to say this with a straight face.

As for Keyes' "organs intended for procreation," he seems ignorant of female anatomy. Someone should explain to him and the boys at the Vatican that the primary source of sexual pleasure for women is the clitoris, which is not involved in reproduction. So women engaging in homosexual sex are not using, much less misusing, organs of procreation. Perhaps a human anatomy text would help.

But "natural law" is pretty much discredited nowadays. To say genitals were "intended" for procreation ignores the fact that genitals, like the rest of our bodies, evolved as they did because they were more efficient means of reproduction than other means. Nothing about their development in the random mutation and natural selection process of evolution requires or implies any "intention" - or precludes their use for other purposes. The mouth evolved as an efficient way to eat, but people also use it to talk, sing, whistle and suck venom from snakebites. The Vatican has never really come to terms with evolution.

Recall too that in the Genesis story God first intended Adam to be alone in the Garden of Eden. So God must have originally intended Adam's penis for urinating since there was no other use for it. It was only later after God created Eve that God could have added using the penis for sex, although it does seem an odd choice. And since Adam and Eve were not told to have children until they were expelled from the Garden, God must not have initially intended Adam's penis for procreation even after creating Eve. Here as so often "natural law" conflicts with the Bible.

Consider finally Keyes' claim that a homosexual relationship involves nothing but the "self-fulfillment, contentment and satisfaction of the parties involved" so it is a "self-centered, self-fulfilling, selfish relationship."

To most Americans, "self-fulfillment, contentment and satisfaction" in a relationship probably sounds pretty good. Many heterosexual couples, even ones with lots of procreation, seem unable to achieve that, as witness the divorce rate.

And it seems particularly bizarre to call a relationship in which two men or women love, nurture and care for each other "self-centered" or "selfish." Keyes might try to say that of single people, but, if anything, loving and caring for another person should be viewed as benevolent, even "selfless." Did Keyes avert his eyes from gay men who cared for partners dying of AIDS? Or will he say anything at all no matter how mendacious?

Keyes reveals once again how religious conservatives reduce even the most deep and loving gay relationship to sex. They are absolutely obsessed with sex. And even though most of them would agree that sex can deepen and enrich their own loving relationships - how many engage in sex only to have more children? - they refuse to acknowledge that the same must be true for gays and lesbians. Because that would mean we are more like them than they want to admit.

First published on August 19, 2004, in the Chicago Free Press.

Aug. 12, 2004, was a blockbuster gay news day. To recap briefly: In the morning the California Supreme Court ruled 7-0 that San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom lacked authority to issue marriage licenses to 4,000 same-sex couples this past spring.

In the afternoon New Jersey Gov. James McGreevey (D) announced "I am a gay American," said he had had an extramarital affair with a man which left him "vulnerable to rumors, false allegations and threats of disclosure," and so planned to resign in three months.

In the evening President George W. Bush appeared on "Larry King" and said it would be "great" if states want to provide legal recognition to same-sex couples. "That's up to states," Bush said. "If they want to provide legal protections for gays, that's great. That's fine."

Each of these deserves comment, but first notice the "meta-news" - the news about the news. In the 1970s there was little gay news. In the 1980s the only gay news was AIDS. But now we who wished for gay visibility are getting our wish in spades. Even the absence of gay issues at the Democratic convention was news. And it is not going to let up for decades.

Even though most of us demand the right to marry, it is hard to disagree with the California Supreme Court. Local officials cannot defy state policy. They can direct enforcement away from some laws (marijuana, commercial sex), but they cannot declare legal something that is illegal, and they lack authority to grant state entitlements.

They can justifiably break the law in token fashion to publicize an issue, as Newsom did, and as a deliberate act of civil disobedience to test the law, as Newsom did while filing suit against California's gay marriage ban. But they cannot on their own change state law.

Gratifyingly, the California court explicitly stated that its ruling did not touch the constitutionality of the California gay marriage ban. That case will not be decided for at least a year or two.

But the court's separate 5-2 vote to nullify Newsom's marriages suggests that at least two justices may already believe the state's ban on gay marriage may be unconstitutional so gay marriage will have vigorous representation in court deliberations. Some of the other five justices may well agree on the issue though not on Newsom's remedy. We need only two more for a majority.

McGreevey's coming out in the context of an extramarital affair and allegations of extortion threats or a sexual harassment suit does not send much of a message about gay pride, or perhaps pride only for married closet queens who give their partners government jobs for which they have no qualifications.

Still, it is perhaps a slight plus for people to know that there are gay government officials, and McGreevey is, at the moment, the highest ranking openly gay official. And to his credit his earlier closetedness did not lead him to don the breastplate of righteousness by being anti-gay. He did sign New Jersey's civil unions legislation.

The charges by partner Golan Cipel seem strained if not preposterous. Cipel reportedly claims that he was coerced, that McGreevey "forcibly performed oral sex on Mr. Cipel without his consent." How awful that must have been for him! But it is difficult - with a straight face - to imagine the scenario by which this would happen. And there were witnesses supposedly?

But McGreevey's integrity does not come off well either. He denied his sexual orientation throughout his career, marrying one woman he said he loved but who apparently divorced him - one wonders why - then marrying a second who he said loved him but does not say he loved. The second marriage was then a contrivance?

Bush's statement on CNN's "Larry King" show that it is fine that states can provide "legal protections for gays" should have stunned people. Had the media not already overdosed on gays that day, Bush's comment would have been major news. It is major news: The social conservative president thinks it is "great" that states are free to offer legal protections to gays. Or "great" for gays if they do. Or something.

Across America, religious right jaws dropped like William "Refrigerator" Perry on a bungee cord. No doubt the Jerry Falwells and James Dobsons gritted their teeth and muttered, "I guess he has to say stuff like that to placate those 'moderates' he needs to win."

Remember that the goal of the religious right is to keep gays invisible to the law. But granting partner benefits would require a state registry of gay couples and that would mean state recognition of gays as gays and gay partnerships as a legitimate entity.

And Bush must know that allowing state legislatures to extend partner benefits would collide with a Federal Marriage Amendment that prohibits any state supreme court from reading its own constitution so as to permit the granting of any "incidents of marriage" to gay couples. Bush is playing a risky game, trusting that neither moderates nor conservatives will see the contradiction and will believe whatever they hope.

First published on July 23, 2004, in the Chicago Free Press.

The furor leading up to the disposition of the Federal Marriage Amendment was a tangle of feints, posturing, mixed signals and tactical maneuvering. But the final result was almost a letdown.

In the end, anti-gay zealots and their fellow travelers were unable to get even a simple majority on a vote to close off debate, much less the 60 votes they needed and far less than the two-thirds vote necessary to pass the amendment. And the 48 votes for cloture included some Republicans such as U.S. Sens. Arlen Specter (Pa.) and John Warner (Va.) who were willing to go along with party leaders on cloture but announced their opposition to the amendment itself.

But the "debate" - mostly "end of the world" rhetoric from social conservatives - was disappointing since the issues were never joined. As with the anti-gay marriage arguments all along, no senator ever explained how marriage by gays would harm marriage, children or the country.

Co-sponsor Wayne Allard, R-Colo., claimed that "Marriage is the foundation of a free society." Wrong, bozo! The Soviet Union had marriage. Communist China has marriage. The actual foundations of a free society are - pay attention now! - private property, laws against initiating force, enforcement of contracts and limited government.

The supposedly pro-gay side was disappointing too. Anti-amendment senators argued that the amendment was unnecessary since the Defense of Marriage Act was in place. Or that the Senate should be spending its time on other issues. But no senator, even liberal senators with safe seats, ever managed to say that the amendment was bad because gay marriage was a good thing, that it would be good for gays and good for the country.

It was as if the Brave Knight rode up to a clearing where the Evil Dragon had the Innocent Damsel tied to a stake and instead of killing the dragon, the knight said to it, "Really now, this is just so inappropriate at this time! I totally sympathize with your feelings but we already have laws against unescorted damsels gadding about outside of castles and, anyway, there really are more important things dragons should spend their time on - like guarding treasure hordes. And isn't this really just a ploy to get attention, perhaps even a subconscious cry for help?"

To be sure, anti-amendment senators might say they were trying to appeal to their undecided colleagues but does anyone really think that by the time debate began any senator was really undecided? Put it down rather to politicians' long ingrained habit of anticipatory damage control, never exposing him - or herself any more than absolutely necessary.

It was particularly disappointing that U.S. Sens. John Kerry and John Edwards, touted by gay Democratic groups as "the most pro-gay presidential ticket ever" managed to be elsewhere and were the only senators not to cast a vote. To be sure, both men said they opposed the amendment and would have returned to Washington had the amendment itself been voted on.

So they said. But it cannot be encouraging for those seeking evidence of either man's willingness to pursue gay-supportive policies when faced with the risk of any political damage. Ah, someone might say, but this is just during the campaign. Once they are safely elected they will be different. Well, not necessarily. After all, a President Kerry would want to be re-elected. Seeking re-election, Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act.

Supporters of the amendment say now they never expected to win passage on the first attempt. Funny how they never said anything like that before the debate. And they say they will bring the amendment back again. Brave talk, but having lost once, and lost significantly, momentum can hardly be said to be with them. So the helium may be leaking out of their blimp. That would be for two reasons:

1. Anti-gay advocates pin their hopes on defeating senators, mostly Democrats, who opposed the amendment. "This will be a big issue in November and I think a couple of senators who we saw today won't be coming back in January," anti-gay crusader Gary Bauer said.

But gay marriage is hardly a major issue in most states and in so close an election, President George W. Bush has no electoral "coattails" to offer his party, so the GOP can expect to pick up at most two or three seats, not enough to change the dynamics of the senate. And at least one of those senators who won't be coming back is amendment co-sponsor Peter Fitzgerald, R-Ill., who will likely be replaced by Democrat Barack Obama.

2. Time is on the pro-gay side. Public opinion continues to move slowly in a pro-gay direction, so as time goes on the chance of the amendment's passage dwindles. Young people moving into the ranks of voters are increasingly gay-supportive. The New York Times reported recently that the former editor of Northwestern University's conservative magazine "said his college paper had trouble finding any conservatives on campus who supported amending the constitution to ban same-sex marriage."

First published on June 23, 2004, in the Chicago Free Press.

Over the 35 years since the Stonewall events gave a welcome boost to earlier gay activism, we have seen a number of innovations in activist techniques, visibility models and message communication.

In the early years, there were "zaps" of homophobic politicians, media outlets and anti-gay businesses. The AIDS epidemic brought ACT-UP demonstrations with their careful attention to maximizing media exposure, catchy slogans and innovative physical actions like "die ins." Gay marriage brought lines of gay and lesbian couples dressed up and waiting in line for a marriage license, all the more effective a demonstration for not being intended as one.

All during this time there have been annual gay parades under their various names. But have the parades managed any real innovations? Not noticeably. They are larger - huge in some cities - more politicians attend and more businesses participate. But the point seems to have disappeared.

In the early years, parades emphasized coming out. Then there was an emphasis on civil rights laws or AIDS. But the parades don't seem to have a message any more unless it is "We're on display and isn't that fun?" It is just a gay visibility parade. It's the one day in the year the media pay attention to our lives and our movement, and we utterly fail to use it.

The international pride parade group InterPride suggestions for 2004 ran the gamut from bland to witless. The primary theme is "Vive La Difference" with alternate themes of "Stand Out, Stand Proud" or "Living the Rainbow." Who are the drooling idiots who came up with those?

We are threatened by a constitutional amendment to bar gay marriage but all InterPride can suggest is "Vive La Difference"? What difference? That heterosexuals can marry and gays cannot? Most states do not have gay civil rights laws but InterPride suggests "Living the Rainbow"? Well, you had better do it in the closet or you might get fired. "Stand up, Stand Proud"? Well, you had better not in the U.S. military.

To be sure, InterPride picks themes that will fit everywhere in the world. But that is exactly the problem. Gay movements in various states and countries are at different stages of development and have different priorities. A theme that fits everywhere sends no pointed message anywhere. Local pride organizers should choose, as smart ones already do, locally relevant themes that parade contingents can use in floats and signs - themes like "Marriage Now" or "Fight the Federal Marriage Amendment."

Then think about the political and health activist groups who carry signs along the parade route so spectators see them. But spectators probably already know their goals and agree with them. It is the politicians and government officials attending the parade who should see the signs. But if they are in the parade, too, they don't see them.

It would be more useful for the spectators to hold up signs as the politicians and political candidates drive past: "Gay Marriage," "Support Gay Civil Rights," "Military Access Now." Let the politicians know what you as gay and lesbian spectators want them to do. You are their boss. Never forget that.

It is also time to stop being nice to politicians who claim to be pro-gay but do little on our behalf. For instance, Illinois Democrats long promised that when they controlled the governor's office and the legislature they would pass a gay civil rights bill. Well, they do now and they didn't. And none of them has breathed a word about repealing the state's gay marriage ban.

So it is time to stop cheering politicians for merely turning up at our parade - that is a 1970s mentality - and start booing them for playing us for fools. If we cheer them, it only makes them believe they can keep on getting away with merely verbal support. Remember: they have an incentive not to pass pro-gay laws, because once they do, then they have nothing left to keep promising us to get our votes.

But what if some ostensibly pro-gay but non-producing politician - such as Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich - fails to turn up at the parade and take their lumps like adults? We can do what political candidates do when opponents don't attend a debate. They set out an empty chair with his name on it. So someone should be ready to chauffeur an otherwise empty convertible with a sign on it reading "Where Is ____?" to draw attention to his absence. It is time to play hardball with these knaves.

And last, since we have all seen too many unadorned beer trucks and company vans in the parade, would it be too much for our unimaginative parade committees to make a rule that parade entries have to have some gay content or theme or decoration in order to participate?

And, oh yes, if you are thinking of cheering the inevitable contingent of "Kerry for President" enthusiasts, remember that Sen. Kerry supports a Massachusetts state constitutional amendment to prohibit gay marriage. I just thought I'd mention it.

Have a happy Pride.

First published on June 3, 2004, in the Chicago Free Press.

In his book The Broken Hearth, conservative polemicist William J. Bennett remarks that it is

"important to say publicly what most of us believe privately, namely that marriage between a man and a woman is in every way to be preferred to the marriage of two men or two women."

To which author and columnist Jonathan Rauch, who quotes Bennett's observation in his excellent new book Gay Marriage, responds:

"I have to say, if the reader will permit me a moment of exasperation, that we homosexuals get a bit tired of being assured by heterosexuals that their loves and lives and unions are 'in every way' better than ours."

Indeed. Take love, for instance. One wonders how a person loudly proclaiming his own heterosexuality could possibly know that heterosexual love is better "in every way" than love between a gay or lesbian couple. Gay love might even be better - "in every way to be preferred." But unless someone had experienced both fully he could hardly have grounds for comparison.

But psychologists and theologians have "in every way" sought to elevate heterosexual love and debase, demean, pathologize, vilify or deny love between people of the same sex-reduce it to lust, claim it is fleeting, view it as somehow incomplete, or treat it as strictly self-regarding or "narcissistic." Since these claims are seldom argued, and when "argued" usually start with the desired conclusion built into the assumptions, they smack of a desperate defense of a weak position.

If qualities of love were to be ranked, someone might offer the counter claim that same-sex love is superior to opposite sex love because the different ways that men and women experience the world through their very different bodies and hormonally influenced outlooks means they can hardly reach a degree of sympathetic understanding necessary for love.

No doubt if heterosexuals were a long-stigmatized minority, a homosexual majority would think of heterosexual "love" as based primarily on lust or a depraved desire for exotically produced orgasms ("You do what?"), as shallow and doomed to failure because the partners are "just too different to feel enduring love," as incomplete and lacking empathy, as rooted in a subconscious self-hatred or desire to identify with or become the other sex, etc., etc.

But in the end it is hard to think of any very persuasive reason why love - the emotional and erotic experience of feeling bonded to someone else - between people of the same sex should be different in nature or quality from love between people of the opposite sex. Love after all seems to be a natural human capacity and could hardly be said to differ in nature according to the sex of its object or the person who experiences it.

At its core, love seems to involve not exactly a "bonding to" another person, but a partial breakdown of the barriers between them so that each takes on the elements, concerns, the well-being of the other person and makes them part of the person's own being. Thus the empty feeling when couples separate or a long-term partner dies: part of oneself no longer exists and the person feels suddenly incomplete.

It might seem, and may be true, that gays and lesbians have an initial advantage of interpersonal empathy because of their similar bodies and social conditioning. But even for gays and lesbians it seems safe to say that love, like sex, usually requires a greater or lesser degree of difference between the two people that makes them interesting, stimulating to each other.

What is involved in attraction, and ultimately love, is a desire to incorporate or associate with or "import" the desired qualities in the other person. Those need not be qualities a person himself lacks; they may be ones he already has but admires and desires more of.

Heterosexuals and their apologists used to make two opposite (and mutually contradictory) errors about gay relationships. Mapping gay relationships onto heterosexual ones, they assumed there would be a masculine and a feminine partner. But in fact it is more logical that gay men, most of them reasonably masculine, would be attracted to other masculine gay men. Having eroticized masculinity in the first place, they would reasonably look for it in a partner.

But - and this was the opposite error - that did not mean that gay men were looking for someone exactly like themselves. Masculinity has numerous modalities or "flavors," intensities, and styles, and no man can embody more than a few. So a man may be attracted to someone who embodies other modalities, or ones close to his own but with a different personality or presentation.

As psychologist C.A. Tripp put it in his book The Homosexual Matrix,:

"In less obvious examples, the contrast between partners may appear slight to an outside observer, but it is always there and constitutes the basis of the attraction. Notions to the effect that the homosexual is looking for some 'narcissistic' reflection of his own image are as mythical as was Narcissus himself."

First published on May 19, 2004, in the Chicago Free Press.

With all the legal impediments finally swept away, Massachusetts gay and lesbian couples are now for the first time anywhere in America being incontestably, legally wed.

And not just legally wed, but welcomed with religious marriage ceremonies by the venerable and influential Unitarian church, whose ministers almost to a man - and woman - have made themselves available to same-sex couples wishing a blessing in the religious tradition.

Politics is always with us if only because our uncomprehending opponents try to make our lives a political issue and there are always people who wish to use governments to control, to exclude and to gain preference for themselves. But let us, if only briefly, put politics out of our minds to savor these first few days of legal gay marriage, the consummation of a painful, protracted struggle for a simple acknowledgment of the dignity and virtue of our relationships.

For the rest, the sequelae will just have to play themselves out.

There is no doubt that this is an enormous defeat for religious conservatives, Catholic and evangelical both, who fought this outcome at every step with vast economic resources, religious pressure, especially from the Catholic church, and a seemingly endless series of increasingly bizarre legal arguments ending only with a cold stare from the U.S. Supreme Court itself.

This is also a serious setback for Massachusetts' Mormon governor Mitt Romney, who is reported to have higher aspirations and viewed the gay marriage issue as way to gain national prominence and conservative credentials. But he now has that most unenviable of political reputations - loser.

Further, at the last minute Romney decided to block most out-of-state gay couples from marrying by reviving enforcement of a widely ignored 1913 law designed to prohibit out-of-state interracial couples from marrying in Massachusetts if they could not marry at home. No action could have better illustrated a parallel between the black and gay movements and cemented the image of Romney as a George Wallace of the north.

At the national level, evangelical leaders are deeply discouraged. Consider this doomsday scenario from Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family:

"Barring a miracle, the family as it has been known for more than five millennia will crumble, presaging the fall of Western civilization itself. ... For more than 40 years, the homosexual activist movement has sought to implement a master plan that has had as its centerpiece the utter destruction of the family. The ... goals include universal acceptance of the gay lifestyle, discrediting of Scriptures that condemn homosexuality, muzzling of the clergy and Christian media, granting of special privileges and rights in the law, overturning laws prohibiting pedophilia, ... and securing all the legal benefits of marriage for any two or more people who claim to have homosexual tendencies."

At a soberer level of analysis, The New York Times reported that evangelical leaders are perplexed at the lack of horrified response from "people in the pews." Here is the Rev. Lou Sheldon of the Traditional Values Coalition: "I don't see any traction. The calls aren't coming in and I am not sure why."

But the obvious fact evangelical leaders are trying to ignore is that while, no doubt, a majority of Americans oppose same-sex marriage, they don't oppose it all that strongly. It is not exactly biblical, it is an unknown and it "feels" funny. But at some level they realize that contrary to conservative propaganda gay marriage will not harm them or their children personally.

So now evangelical leaders - if they can be called leaders when so few are following - are reduced to hoping against hope that the sight of gay couples marrying in Massachusetts will induce a phobic reaction in their followers. As the puritanical Richard Land, head of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, put it, "We need to do a better job of educating our base, although I don't think we can do better than Massachusetts is going to do for us."

But this is just whistling past the graveyard. Over the last decade, evangelical leaders have been relentlessly "educating our base" about the threat of gay marriage - with only modest results, apparently. And if "the people in the pews" were going to be upset by pictures of gay couples marrying, they would have long since been upset - by newspaper and television coverage of happy brides with brides and grooms with grooms in San Francisco and Portland, Oregon. It didn't happen then and it won't happen now.

To the contrary, many people will inevitably find themselves empathizing with the joy and delight they see on the faces of radiant brides and delighted grooms, leaving the Lou Sheldons and Richard Lands sputtering Groucho Marx's classic desperation plea, "Who you gonna believe - me or your own eyes?"

There is, in fact, no better advertisement for gay marriage than gay marriages, which, of course, is exactly why religious conservatives fought so hard to block them from happening anywhere.

It is our moment. Enjoy!

First published on May 7, 2004, in the Chicago Free Press.

In the middle of April, Vice President Dick Cheney addressed the National Rifle Association to endorse preservation of the Second Amendment, which asserts - in case you've forgotten - "the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

Even before Cheney had spoken a word, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation rushed to issue a press release pointing to what it said was an inconsistency in the Bush administration's position: "As the administration appears to support the Second Amendment, on the one hand, it is attempting to deface the Constitution by promoting an anti-gay Federal Marriage Amendment on the other hand, forever enshrining second-class citizen status for LGBT people."

Fair enough. Wanting to preserve a constitutional right does not seem quite consistent with wanting to add an amendment to inhibit a right. But GLAAD did not stop there. It went on to quote spokespeople for various gay groups attacking the NRA, firearms, and firearm ownership. For instance:

• Gay Men of African Descent: "The NRA and its members represent the devaluation of human life on a number of levels. The organization perpetuates a culture of violence that in no small way affects vulnerable communities (i.e., communities of color and the LGBT community)."
• Mano A Mano: "It sends a very clear message to those that would suffer under the policies that the NRA advocates that this administration does not care about us or the issues that daily (affect) our lives."
• The National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs: "Firearms are America's true 'weapons of mass destruction.'...Firearms are increasingly used in anti-LGBT hate crimes and have long been the scourge of urban and other communities."

GLAAD itself does not argue that guns and gun-ownership are bad. But by quoting exclusively and extensively the anti-gun positions of other groups, GLAAD clearly indicates which side it is on. And thereby it also demonstrates that it is not really worried about inconsistencies.

Each of the groups GLAAD quotes seem to believe personal gun ownership should be banned or regulated into meaninglessness - negating the Second Amendment - but the Constitution should not ban gays from marrying. In other words, they are saying that it is right to be inconsistent but the administration has the wrong inconsistency.

So GLAAD is not being honest here. If it were really concerned about inconsistency, the way to remove the inconsistency is to say, "Yes, we fully support people's right to own guns and we support the right of gays to marry. We don't want to take away rights from anybody and neither should the administration." Did GLAAD breathe a word of that? Not a peep.

But there are quite a number of gays and lesbians who hold exactly that view. Among them, the libertarian Gays and Lesbians for Individual Liberty, most Log Cabin Republican clubs, and, most conspicuously, the members of the more than 40 Pink Pistols clubs - gays and lesbians who meet regularly to train in firearm use and practice target shooting. Did GLAAD quote any of them? Don't be silly.

Since its inception GLAAD has demanded "fair, accurate and inclusive" coverage of gays from the mainstream media. But GLAAD seems to feel itself under no obligation to be "fair, accurate and inclusive." It is perfectly willing to promote a highly distorted impression of the range of opinion in the gay community, perfectly willing to include and exclude according to its preference. How convenient.

When I asked GLAAD about their one-sided approach their reply was, more or less, that they included the groups they wanted to include and they can do whatever they want, thank you very much, good-bye.

But it is a great shame that GLAAD rejected an excellent opportunity to show the large number of Americans who support personal gun ownership that gays are not their enemy, that we share their concern for personal rights, and that just as our regard for consistency leads us to support their rights the same regard for consistency could lead them to support ours as well as their own.

And, of course, GLAAD could also have made the excellent point that some gays not only support gun ownership out of a regard for philosophical consistency but own guns themselves out of a concern for personal safety or because, like other gun owners, they find target shooting enjoyable recreation.

But no. GLAAD knows how to create and reinforce divisions, not break them down. It knows how to make enemies. It does not know how to reach out and make new friends, though we certainly need some at this point.

It is striking that GLAAD, here as so often, portrays gays only as victims, unable or unwilling to take measures to prevent physical assaults, instead of men and women capable of taking responsibility for their own safety and doing something proactive to protect themselves. So GLAAD certainly knows how to promote outdated stereotypes about gays.

And, of course, send welcome news to gay bashers.