IGF CultureWatch

Originally published October 11, 2000, in the Chicago Free Press.

GAY HISTORY MONTH during October not only prompts us to learn about gays and lesbians who made notable contributions to our culture, it also makes us wonder how gays and lesbians lived in the past - how they thought about themselves, how they met and socialized with one another, how they coped with hostility.

One of the most neglected gay pioneers is the Russian writer Mikhail Kuzmin (1872-1936), poet, novelist and composer, who published the first openly gay novel of modern times, "Wings," in 1906.

Happily, there is now a handsome new illustrated biography, "Mikhail Kuzmin: A Life in Art" by John Malmstad and Nikolay Bogomolov (Harvard University Press, 1999).

Making good use of Kuzmin's extensive diary, his biographers are able to follow his daily life in St. Petersburg, his literary activity, his friendships and affairs, his role in Russia's cultural avant-garde, and his witness to the Soviet destruction of Russian modernism.

But the new biography does more. Al Malmstad notes in a recent article, "Kuzmin's diary makes clear that a gay subculture existed quite openly in Petersburg at the time."

There were, of course, no gay organizations as such, but there were "well-known cruising areas, ... taverns and cafes where gay men socialized, and bathhouses that specialized in a gay clientele."

The bathhouses, real ones, were common in large cities when many homes lacked bathing facilities. People could bathe, or be bathed by an attendant, and have something like a Finnish sauna.

Some of the baths became known as friendly to gay men and provided "attendants," who might provide sexual services for a fee. Contemporary gay slang referred to the baths in French as "pays chauds" - "warm climes," "warm regions."

Kuzmin wrote of one bathhouse visit in his diary, "In the evening I had the urge to go to a bathhouse simply to be stylish, for the fun of it, for cleanliness."

The attendant sent to him, one Alexander, was "tall, very well-built (with) ... light-colored eyes, and almost blond hair." The man was only 22, but had worked at the baths, he said, for eight years.

"Obviously, they fixed me up with a professional," Kuzmin noted. Nevertheless, Kuzmin returned to the same bathhouse several times to see him again.

At one point, Kuzmin and two friends determined to visit every bathhouse in Petersburg, but they got only part way through an initial list of 25 before their enthusiasm began to ebb.

There were other meeting places as well. "Petersburg streets and parks were no strangers to young men of uncertain profession who picked up money by hustling," Malmstad writes.

The extensive gardens behind the Tavrichesky (or Tauride) Palace was the city's most popular gay cruising area and Kuzmin visited often, seeking "escapades," as his gay friends called their encounters.

He had a brief affair with a hustler he met there and dismissed his friends' disapproval by commenting, "You don't talk, after all, about (the poet) Merezhkovsky and Nietzsche during rendez-vous and merry escapades. He is jolly, kind, and well-built, and that's that."

Nevsky Prospect, the main civic and business avenue, seems to have been a late evening cruising place for gay men as well as female prostitutes. "Several young men - professionals were strolling on Nevsky," Kuzmin once noted in his diary.

There seem to have been something like gay bars as well. The composer Tchaikovsky mentions visiting gay taverns in Moscow and no doubt similar taverns existed in Petersburg, although we lack specifics.

Cabarets, however, were a conspicuous part of the city's cultural life, and several were home to the gay-friendly cultural avant-garde.

Perhaps the best known cabaret was the "Stray Dog," (1912-1915) which offered lectures, plays, poetry readings, musicales and improvisatory "performance art." Kuzmin, who visited often, wrote and composed a considerable amount of material for presentation there.

Much of Petersburg's civic and social life, though, consisted of large numbers of private "salons" and social circles where people met regularly to read and discuss. Dostoevsky noted this particular feature of Petersburg life 60 years earlier in 1847:

"It is a well-known fact that the whole of Petersburg is nothing but a collection of an enormous number of small 'circles' each ... (with) its own rules, its own logic and its own oracle."

Some of these circles, especially those with artistic interests, often included gay men - actors, artists, musicians, poets and would-be poets, their lovers and just plain hangers-on.

The openly gay impresario Sergei Diaghilev formed one such circle around his magazine "World of Art" and it was to that group that the young Kuzmin first read "Wings" in 1905 to the excited acclaim of the substantially gay audience.

Later on he was invited to participate in another circle called "Tavern of Hafiz," named after the Persian poet of erotic lyrics. Although not quite a gay circle, it was dominated by people who were or might have been gay.

From all this, we can recognize a kind of gay community coalescing in Petersburg a century ago, perhaps on the verge of assertive visibility. But that possibility was crushed by the Soviet revolution of 1917.

Originally appeared in two parts in the Chicago Free Press, Sept. 27 and Oct. 4, 2000.

WILL THE CATHOLIC HIERARCHY ever change its position opposing homosexuality?

No doubt most gays, including Catholic gays, cheerfully ignore Vatican doctrine on the subject. But the issue is significant for all of us because the Catholic hierarchy is an important political and social pressure group. If it stopped condemning homosexuality, that would greatly help our efforts to achieve legal and social equality.

Current Vatican doctrine holds that homosexuality violates "natural law" because it involves the use of sexual organs in a way that is not open to the possibility of creating new life. Hence it is a misuse of those body parts.

For exactly the same reasons, the Vatican opposes all oral and anal sex, masturbation and the use of condoms -- because those actions also use the sexual organs in ways that cannot create life.

Or so everyone always thought. But now, astonishingly, it turns out that the Vatican allows condoms under certain circumstances.

So if the Vatican says that the "proper" use of sexual organs is not quite the moral absolute we all thought, those who wish to alter the Vatican's position on gay sex will examine the argument carefully.

Last April, Monsignor Jacques Suaudeau of the Pontifical Council for the Family published a little-noticed article in the Vatican's official newspaper L'Osservatore Romano entitled, "Prophylactics or Family Values? Stopping the Spread of HIV/AIDS."

The article came to public attention only after it was discussed in the Jesuit magazine America (Sept. 23).

In his article, Suaudeau explained, "The use of condoms had particularly good results" for halting the transmission of AIDS in Uganda generally and by prostitutes in Thailand.

"The use of prophylactics in these circumstances," i.e., where AIDS is widespread, "is actually a 'lesser evil'" than not using condoms and allowing a fatal disease to spread through a sexually active population.

So some moral goods override the "natural law" imperative that every sexual behavior must have the possibility of creating human life.

Is this shift, as the Scripps Howard News Service called it, "a theological U-turn"?

Oh, no, not at all, Suaudeau said; he was simply explaining his church's position.

"I don't understand why people want to interpret what I stated clearly in my article," he told the New York Times. "But there is no change in church teaching."

That's his story and he's sticking with it.

But when a committee of the National Council of Catholic Bishops proposed in 1988 that AIDS education efforts "could include accurate information about prophylactic devices ... as a means of preventing AIDS," the Vatican pounced.

Writing in L'Osservatore Romano, the office of doctrinal purity stated, "To seek the solution to the disease in the promotion of the use of prophylactics is..., above all, unacceptable from a moral point of view."

Bishop Anthony Bosco who drafted the 1988 Catholic bishops' statement said he felt vindicated by Suaudeau's article.

"This proves to me that maybe the logic that led me to that conclusion follows from sound moral principles," Bosco said.

Now if the Vatican can "explain" or "develop" its position on prophylactics in such a way as to move from prohibiting them to allowing them, can it also "explain" or "develop" its position on other issues such as homosexuality?

Of course it can. How could it do so?

We might get some clues from Catholic church historian John Noonan who published a fascinating article entitled "Development in Moral Doctrine" in the journal Theological Studies (1993).

"That the moral teachings of the Catholic Church have changed over time will, I suppose, be denied by almost no one today," Noonan states flatly.

And he undertakes a rapid historical survey of Catholic doctrine on lending money at interest (usury), marriage, slavery, and religious freedom, showing in each case how the Vatican's position changed and explaining the principles that produced the change.

For instance, lending money at interest was once regarded as a mortal sin, contrary to natural law ("money is barren") and contrary to the Gospel ("Lend freely, expecting nothing in return").

But today no one, not even the Vatican, disapproves of putting money is a savings account to earn interest.

For nearly two millennia, the Vatican taught that it was not sinful to own slaves. After all, the Apostle Paul approved of slavery ("slaves, stay with your masters") and actually returned a runaway slave named Onesimus to his master.

Barely a century ago, in 1890, Pope Leo XIII for the first time denounced slavery as immoral and incompatible "with the brotherhood that unites all men," a brotherhood that had previously escaped notice in Rome.

Similarly, the Vatican long taught that heretics had no religious liberty and governments should execute them, a position supported by Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, and words attributed to Jesus himself.

Only in 1964 was this position finally repudiated by the Second Vatican Council which announced that the freedom to believe was a sacred human right. A previously undetected right, apparently.

Using such precedents for change, the task now is to develop a strong case for certain human, moral goods such that they too override formerly inviolable Vatican doctrines about the "proper" use of sexual organs.

Clues to the nature of these analogous greater goods (or greater evils to be avoided) might be found by examining the way the Vatican was swayed to change its doctrine in the earlier instances of usury, slavery, marriage, and religious freedom.

The Vatican reversed its long-standing condemnation of lending money at interest in the 16th century when moral theologians shifted the focus of their analysis from the loan itself ("money is barren") to the significance the loan had for the people involved.

The theologians came to realize that the lender lost money on an interest-free loan because he had to forgo the opportunity for a profitable investment he could otherwise make with the money. So he deserved some payment in return for his loss: interest.

In the same way, when the Vatican decides to reverse its position on homosexuality, it will shift the focus of moral analysis from the specific acts to the people involved and the purposes, significance, and effects of the actions for them.

For instance, the Vatican will discover that gay and lesbian couples intend to express and validate their love and affection for each other in the most intense way available to them.

The theologians might even discover that the physical intimacy enhances and intensifies the couples' affection, mutual regard, bondedness and loyalty.

When the Vatican reversed its position on slavery in 1890, Pope Leo XIII said slavery was incompatible "with the brotherhood that unites all men," a brotherhood that found expression in Jesus' commands to "love one another" and "love your neighbor as yourself."

The Vatican ignored the Apostle Paul's repeated endorsements of slavery (e.g., Eph. 6:5) in favor of his observation, "There is neither slave nor free...; for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal. 3:28) which the Vatican applied more broadly than Paul himself did.

In the same way, the Vatican may decide that to accord homosexuals and their human desires equal legitimacy with heterosexuals and their desires is a further application of "the brotherhood that unites all men" and an obligation that follows from loving one's neighbor as oneself.

The Vatican could choose to ignore Paul's ignorant comments about homosexuals (in Rom. 1:18-27 he thinks all gays are pagans) in favor of his observation, "There is neither male nor female ... in Christ Jesus (Gal. 3:28), which can teach that sexual dimorphism is irrelevant in the moral evaluation of love and its expression in human relationships.

In contravention to Jesus' teaching that marriage is permanent and remarriage is adultery, the Vatican has allowed some already married people to remarry. The Apostle Paul himself allowed Christian converts to remarry if their partners did not become Christian and deserted them.

Pope Gregory XIII later allowed converted Catholic slaves to remarry if they did not know whether an absent spouse would also become Catholic. He acted "lest they not persist in their faith." So keeping Catholics "in the faith" can have primacy over a Gospel teaching.

In the same way, if and when enough gays leave Catholicism and gay couples marry in other churches, choosing love over doctrine, the Vatican will feel forced to reverse its position "lest they not persist in their faith."

This has already started. After the gay Catholic organization Dignity attracted a sizable membership, many Catholic dioceses began to establish official diocesan gay/lesbian organizations to keep gays from joining what they regarded as a heretical sect. These diocesan organizations downplay gay sinfulness where they do not ignore it entirely.

But this very effort to retain gays increases pressure on the Vatican to reverse its position. As church historian John Noonan points out, the Vatican reversed its view of usury when loans and credit became part of everyday commercial life and it was forced to examine "the experience of otherwise decent Christians who were bankers and who claimed that banking was compatible with Christianity."

In the same way, the Vatican will feel, and is now feeling, increased pressure to rethink its view of homosexuality for the same reason-the growing presence in the Catholic church of "otherwise decent Christians" who claim that homosexuality "is compatible with Christianity."

And finally, underlying all is the growing awareness by gays and theologians both of the importance and comprehensiveness of the doctrine of the primacy of individual conscience.

The Second Vatican Council (1964) reversed nearly two millennia of Catholic dogma by announcing that freedom of belief is a sacred human right that governments must not coerce. And, we can safely add, by the same token even Catholic doctrine must ultimately yield before it.

---

More recommended reading: Mark Jordan's new The Silence of Sodom and Garry Wills' Papal Sin, available from Amazon.com.

Originally appeared Sept. 13, 2000, in the Chicago Free Press.

Under pressure from conservative Christians, Idaho legislators voted to block state-owned Idaho Public Television from airing documentary programs friendly toward gay interests. The episode demonstrates the dangers of letting government insert itself into the business of subsidizing the dissemination of speech and opinion, something that cannot be done in a principled way without offending either majority or minority opinion or both.

---

LAST YEAR Idaho Public Television announced that it would broadcast "It's Elementary," a documentary film about the efforts by a few schools to teach tolerance of gays and lesbians to school children.

That's when the controversy started.

Conservative Christian groups sought to block the program. According to the Chicago Tribune account, Christian Coalition spokesman David Ferdinand said the film was "propaganda for the homosexual point of view."

"It spoke directly to the advantages of the gay lifestyle," Ferdinand claimed, "but not to the disadvantages."

It did not, of course, but Idaho Public Television decided it would be prudent to have a companion program to discuss the issues raised in "It's Elementary."

But then Nancy Bloomer, the former head of the Idaho Christian Coalition, refused to participate, saying, "Once a bell has been rung, you can't unring it."

Bloomer's claim is strange. If she meant that once a presentation has been made it is impossible to offer counter-arguments against it, she is clearly wrong. People offer counter-arguments to views presented earlier all the time.

Bloomer may have feared that once the idea of tolerance for gays is discussed it might catch on and tolerance might break out.

Or she may have meant that any program acknowledging that homosexuals even exist should not be broadcast, fearing that talk about homosexuality will plant homosexual desire in the minds of people who never felt it before.

Whatever Bloomer meant, clearly mere balance of competing viewpoints was not her goal. Her goal was to block any discussion about gays at all.

Eventually, under pressure from conservative Christian groups, the legislature passed rules banning public (government) television broadcasts that could encourage people to violate state law.

As it happens, in Idaho, sodomy, fellatio, or any other "unnatural copulation" constitute a felony carrying a penalty of up to five years in prison.

Although critics argued that the rules constituted "prior restraint" on free speech, Idaho's attorney general said the restrictions were legal since the state owned the broadcast license so it was just regulating itself.

Of course, encouraging children - or anyone - to be tolerant, even accepting, of homosexuals is not encouraging anyone to break the law. Perhaps if tolerance were widely accepted it might lead to efforts to decriminalize sodomy. But political advocacy to change the law is not against the law either.

Nevertheless, the state legislature, which allocates state income from taxes, indicated its displeasure by reducing funding to the station. And some legislators now advocate completely privatizing the station, eliminating all taxpayer support.

As state senator Mel Richard said, "The state doesn't belong in the public TV business."

Frankly, getting the government out of the broadcasting business seems like an excellent idea.

The fundamental problem with government (taxpayer) funding of any activity is that every group wants to control it for its own purposes. This is a particularly contentious issue if the government disseminates news and opinion.

The problem? What news? Which opinions?

One solution is to broadcast no controversial positions, only things that have widespread consensus support and offend no one's sensibilities. This would be pretty much limited to old movies, cooking shows and Lawrence Welk reruns.

But we do not need the government to confirm our settled views and provide bland entertainment. It would be better to let taxpayers keep their money and spend it on whatever news sources and entertainment they individually want.

A second solution is for the majority, that is, whoever is in control of the government at the moment, to broadcast the views it wants to promote. Here the majority is simply using tax money to reinforce its majority status. This is very democratic: The majority rules.

As the Christian Coalition's David Ferdinand said about "It's Elementary," "Don't use our tax dollars to support this."

But groups whose views are not represented will then claim they are not getting their tax dollar's worth, that they are suffering taxation without representation. They would be right. And they are often us.

A third solution is for the government to provide a variety of viewpoints found in the population. But then the questions arise again: How much diversity? Which viewpoints? Where do you draw lines?

There is no principled way to answer this.

There are an almost infinite number of ideas and opinions out there in the world, so there will always be viewpoints that are slighted or excluded because they are obscure or "marginal," or "fringe," or "special interest," or "unpopular," or "offensive," or "harmful" or plain wrong.

Most of us can probably think of dozens of ideas and beliefs, some of them ones we hold, that have never been addressed on tax-funded radio or television.

So the only "diverse" viewpoints to be allowed will be a fairly narrow range of "legitimate" or "well-established" or "popular" viewpoints that have a well-mobilized constituency supporting them, which is not really much diversity at all.

So leave the government out of the broadcasting and propaganda businesses. Gays, like other minorities, have a far better chance at visibility and a fair hearing in the free and competitive market of commercial broadcast and cable networks.

Originally appeared August 30, 2000, in the Chicago Free Press.

America's most highly regarded Twentieth Century composer of classical music, Aaron Copland, was beloved for his skill at refining into art music the native sounds of America, from Shaker and Appalachian music to rodeo songs and jazz. "The secret of his wisdom," wrote critic Harold Clurman, "can be traced to his utter acceptance of himself at an early age."

---

ON NOVEMBER 14, 2000, some of us will celebrate the 100th birthday anniversary of Aaron Copland, America's best known and most highly regarded composer of modern "classical" or "serious" music.

The event is worth celebrating. Copland did more than any other single person to create and promote an authentically American sounding style of classical music and make it accessible to the general public.

The music he created was easily distinguishable from its European counterparts by its folk-style melodies, open harmonies, bright orchestral colors, and the often syncopated, jazzy rhythms. The tempo marking for one piece is "With bounce."

Although he could write complex concert pieces and chamber music, he also sought to bring American music to a wider audience by writing tuneful ballets, Hollywood film music, background music for plays and pieces for high school bands and orchestra. He even wrote a Clarinet Concerto for jazz clarinetist Benny Goodman.

And he wrote patriotic works like "A Lincoln Portrait" and the now famous "Fanfare for the Common Man," a piece which turns up on television occasionally and which he later incorporated into his optimistic and outgoing Third Symphony.

Of his 100 or so compositions, nearly a dozen are now part of the standard concert repertory. Many are fun to listen to; some are easy to whistle. Perhaps no other American composer except Samuel Barber is so often performed and recorded.

His best known works may be the three American-themed ballets "Billy the Kid," "Rodeo," and "Appalachian Spring," the ballet which popularized the old Shaker song "Simple Gifts."

Forty years ago, one foreign critic called "Appalachian Spring," "the most beautiful score to come out of America." It would be hard, even now, to think of more than two or three serious rivals.

Copland has a particular interest for us beyond the merits of his music because he was gay.

Copland's homosexuality was quietly known but little advertised during his lifetime. It has now been elaborately documented, however, in Howard Pollack's recent biography, "Aaron Copland: The Life and Work of an Uncommon Man."

Despite being born in less tolerant times, after a brief late adolescent period of discomfort Copland apparently accepted his homosexuality with equanimity.

Music critic Paul Moor, a former lover, decided, "By some miracle Aaron remained as free of neurosis as anyone I've ever known." Later Moor added that Copland was "one of the dearest, kindest, most thoughtful and fundamentally good human beings I've ever known."

Copland's friend Harold Clurman added that "The secret of his wisdom can be traced to his utter acceptance of himself at any early age. He made peace with himself and so could be at peace with the whole world."

And Composer David Del Tredici recalled, "In private he was very open about being a gay man. He'd joke about it. It was perfectly natural."

But for Copland being gay was never a political issue. Even after Stonewall (1969), when his friend composer and conductor Leonard Bernstein urged him to "come out" in some public way, Copland grinned and replied, "I think I'll leave that to you, boy."

According to Pollack, Copland had a series of relationships over the years, mostly with young artists and musicians in their early twenties whom he befriended and mentored. The young Bernstein himself apparently was one of them in the early 1940s.

Copland seemed to enjoy being a teacher and father figure, but he also clearly valued the young men's energy and enthusiasm. When David Diamond criticized one of Copland's young lovers for exploiting him, Copland responded, "He's young, he's fresh, he's a lot of fun."

In other words, Copland knew he was getting something out of it too.

The question always arises of whether any artist's homosexuality influences or is detectable in his work. For visual artists and writers, the question may be easy to answer. For composers it seems more doubtful.

Certainly a composer's sexuality can influence the texts he chooses for songs or the stories he makes into operas or writes music about. But is the homosexuality in the music itself?

Erik Johns, one of Copland's lover from the early 1950s, suggested that there might be something there:

"Aaron felt that his sexuality was there in the music ... but also that it was incidental to his major theme. He also knew that homosexual themes may be there in the music, but in a way so abstract that it is very difficult to pinpoint."

Biographer Pollack himself notes that some of Copland's works are infused with a kind of romantic tenderness and relates that once after a good-looking student walked by, Copland, who had written three symphonies remarked to a friend, "There goes my Fourth Symphony."

Finally, some writers have suggested that gay American composers wrote more conservative, accessible music than their heterosexual modernist counterparts. They point to men like Copland, Barber, Bernstein, Menotti, Virgil Thomson, Ned Rorem and others.

But there are so many heterosexual American composers of conservative, tonal music that the idea seems doubtful.

The question is probably not answerable in any very specific way. But if raising it makes us listen to any composer's music more carefully, then it serves a purpose.

In any case, Happy Birthday, Aaron, and many happy returns.

Originally appeared August 16, 2000, in the Chicago Free Press.

Two years ago Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., spoke up on behalf of those who hold "sincerely held morally based views" of an anti-gay nature, warning that it was wrong to charge them with bigotry just because of their "disdain" for homosexuality. In practice, this means that he expects us not to insist of those who publicly denounce homosexuality that they offer any rational explanation of or defense for their views. It is surprising that our gay leadership does not more vocally challenge such ground rules for debate.

---

THE FUNDAMENTAL CONTROVERTED ISSUE about homosexuality is not discrimination, hate crimes or domestic partnerships, but the morality of homosexuality.

Even if gays obtain non-discrimination laws, hate crimes law and domestic partnership benefits, those can do little to counter the underlying moral condemnation which will continue to fester beneath the law and generate hostility, fuel hate crimes, support conversion therapies, encourage gay youth suicide and inhibit the full social acceptance that is our goal.

On the other hand, if we convince people that homosexuality is fully moral then all their inclination to discriminate, engage in gay-bashing or oppose gay marriage disappears. Gay youths and adults could readily accept themselves.

So the gay movement, whether we acknowledge it or not, is not a civil rights movement, not even a sexual liberation movement, but a moral revolution aimed at changing people's view of homosexuality.

In this light, consider a disturbing speech by Senator Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., now the Democratic nominee for vice president, printed in the Congressional Record of July 10, 1998. Lieberman said:

"Many Americans continue to believe that homosexuality is immoral and not just because the Bible tells them so. ...

"... This is one of the few areas where Americans of all religious inclinations feel so strongly that they are willing to risk the tag of intolerance to express or hold to their points of view ...

"It is unfair, then, for anyone to automatically conclude that people who express moral reservations or even disdain about homosexuality are bigots, or to publicly attack them as hateful. These are sincerely held morally based views."

Lieberman does not quite say he himself regards homosexuality as immoral. He does say that people who think so and express disdain about homosexuality are not bigots.

The reason they are not bigots, Lieberman says, is that their views are sincerely held and morally based. We know that, he says, because they are willing to risk being accused of intolerance in order to express their opinion.

So if you are willing to risk the accusation of intolerance, then we know your view is sincerely held and morally based and you are not a bigot.

Another way we know a view is morally based, Lieberman says, is that although some people hold it because the Bible says so, others hold it because something else - "not just the Bible" - says so.

What is that something else? Lieberman shies away from telling us. It is just ... something else. As Ayn Rand used to say about similar evasions, "Blank Out!"

But making a moral claim, even on behalf of others, does not relieve anyone of the responsibility for explaining its basis. The test for morality is not consensus, or fervor or sincerity, but reason.

People disagree about whether many things are moral or immoral. The only way to decide which is right is by examining the reasons people offer.

But people who cannot or will not tell us what reasons support reservations about or disdain for homosexuality are refusing to engage in rational discussion.

And holding strong views without providing defensible reasons is what we usually mean by "bigotry."

There are four counter-arguments we can make.

First is the standard, boilerplate condemnation of so-called hate-speech: "All fair minded Americans and progressive thinking people will surely condemn such harmful and divisive speech," etc., etc.

This kind of talk no doubt makes self-avowed "fair minded and progressive thinking" people feel good about themselves, but it does nothing to convince people who are not already convinced, which you would hope is the main point of making a response at all.

Second is the familiar school yard rebuttal of "Well, that's just your opinion." The adult version is, "We live in a pluralistic society where people hold diverse moral views about these issues." Both versions amount to saying that all opinions are equal so the anti-gay view has no more validity than any other.

But this has the unfortunate corollary that then our own pro-gay opinion is no better than the anti-gay one, so there is no reasons for anyone to take our view more seriously than any other. To the contrary, we should be arguing that our view is better than the anti-gay view - more moral, more reasonable, more humane, etc.

A third response is to remind people of the familiar historical counter-examples where "sincerely held, morally based" views based not only on the Bible were clearly immoral and maybe even bigoted.

Slavery and racial segregation are two obvious examples. Another would be the lengthy resistance to legal and social equality for women. A fourth would be the long, painful history of anti-Semitism, something Senator Lieberman should be well aware of.

But these examples only prove that some sincerely held morally based views are wrong. They do not prove that all such views are wrong - clearly some are not - nor that they are wrong about homosexuality.

In any case, these are merely defensive maneuvers, meant only to neutralize anti-gay views. They do nothing to generate pro-gay views or encourage people to see homosexuality as moral.

So we need a fourth response, offering affirmative reasons for why our sexuality and our sexual behavior are moral. But that means our spokespeople would have to engage in moral reasoning and most seem surprisingly reluctant to do that.

If they cannot or will not, perhaps we need better leaders.

Originally appeared August 9, 2000, in the Chicago Free Press.

As the Mary Cheney affair reveals, many reporters and opinion leaders aren't sure it's right to describe anyone as gay unless they've made a "formal public statement" to that effect. Our author realizes that he's never issued such a formal public statement, and tries his hand at composing one.

---

I JUST HAVEN'T MANAGED TO GET ANY WORK done for the last few days. I've spent all my time trying to write my announcement that I am gay.

I didn't even know I needed one. You would think someone would have mentioned it before now. But then I was alerted to my oversight by former National Endowment for the Humanities chair Lynne Cheney. Mrs. Cheney's husband, you will recall, was recently nominated for Vice President by the Republican Party.

When Mrs. Cheney was interviewed on ABC's Sunday morning talk-show "This Week," reporter Cokie Roberts started to ask her about her daughter Mary: "You have a daughter who has now declared that she is openly gay."

Mrs. Cheney immediately exploded, berating Roberts for even broaching the subject:

"Mary has never declared such a thing. I would like to say that I'm appalled at the media interest in one of my daughters. I have two wonderful daughters. ... And I simply am not going to talk about their personal lives. And I am surprised, Cokie, that even you would want to bring it up on this program."

In reporting this exchange the Chicago Tribune seemed to accept this idea. "Although she has never made a public statement about her sexual orientation. ..."

So we need not just a statement but a "public statement."

The Los Angeles Times went further: "Although Mary Cheney has apparently never made a formal public statement about her sexual identity. ..."

So we need a "formal public statement" as distinguished, I suppose, from an informal public statement.

Let's see now. Mary Cheney has lived for years with a woman whom she describes to friends as her "life partner." She wears a gold wedding band on her left ring finger.

Cheney worked at Coors as their corporate advocate to the gay community. College classmate Catherine Pease told USA Today "It didn't go unnoticed that the daughter of the Secretary of Defense was a lesbian."

And just a few months ago in an interview with the lesbian magazine "Girlfriends" Cheney said, "The reason I came to work here [at Coors] is because I knew several other lesbians who were very happy here."

The Chicago Tribune quotes this very sentence just two brief paragraphs after claiming that Cheney has never made a public statement about being a lesbian.

So I realized that I needed to make some sort of very explicit, formal public statement. What if I died suddenly before making it? My obituary might read, "Paul Varnell. Deceased writer for gay press. Never declared if he was gay."

The Tribune might print an old photo of me holding a large sign saying "I AM GAY" with a caption reading "The late Paul Varnell, shown here maintaining his personal privacy."

And after all my efforts, too! Here I worked for a gay advocacy organization. I talked about gay issues on radio and television. I gave statements to newspapers. I walked in gay pride parades. I write for gay newspapers. I co-edit a gay website.

A few years ago on National Coming Out Day, I realized that I had no one left to come out to. So in a playful mood I called a reporter at the Sun-Times I had worked with on some gay news stories.

"Suzy, It's National Coming Out Day," I announced brightly. "So I just wanted to tell you that I'm gay."

"Oh, Paul!" she laughed, "The whole City Room knows you're gay."

So I thought I was on the right track. I thought this would be enough. But no; I was deceiving myself, living in a fool's paradise. So I began drafting my official, formal, definitive statement, per Cheney's stipulation.

"I, Paul Varnell, am gay."

Short, efficient, to the point. But it could be misunderstood. Lynne Cheney might say that I only alleged I am gay and did not actually "declare" it, to use her words. I tried again.

"I, Paul Varnell, hereby declare that I am gay."

Better, but still not sufficient. I realized this did not make clear that I am "openly" gay, which is what Roberts asked about and Cheney denied. I tried again.

"I, Paul Varnell, hereby declare that I am openly gay."

Hmm. Still not good enough. You see why this has taken me so much time? It isn't as easy as it looks. I forgot to say "publicly" that I am openly gay. I tried again.

"I, Paul Varnell, hereby publicly declare that I am openly gay."

Now this might actually satisfy Mrs. Cheney. But of course, I have not really publicly declared anything until I send this statement to someone. But who do I send it to?

The Mayor? The Governor? Mrs. Cheney? Maybe the local papers - the Tribune and Sun Times. Maybe the New York Times and the Washington Post. Should the Associated Press and Reuters get a copy?

Maybe the Associated Press could keep a data base of all of us who file declarations of being gay. Then it could safely refer to us as gay in its articles and Mrs. Cheney wouldn't get angry.

But there is something wrong here. Nobody talks about his or her sexuality this way. Real people do not "announce" or "declare" or issue "statements," much less "public statements." People just "tell" others they are gay or "indicate" or even "let people know" they are gay.

Only inside the D.C. beltway is something not definite until it is announced in an official statement by some agency spokesperson and confirmed by an official press release on embossed letterhead stationery.

Lynne Cheney and Cokie Roberts have both been in Washington too long. Way too long.

Originally appeared in the Chicago Free Press July 26, 2000.

The considerable impact achieved by the StopDrLaura.com website campaign illustrates not only the remarkable powers of the Internet as an organizing tool, but also the ways in which the economic marketplace can be more sensitive than the political one.

---

IN 1993, DURING THE CONTROVERSY over allowing gays to serve openly in the military, congressional offices were flooded with cards, letters, faxes and telephone calls from angry voters urging that the ban be retained.

For its part, the pro-gay side managed to generate only a comparatively small number of supportive messages; some congressmen said they received virtually none at all.

Now contrast: In 2000, advertisers on "Dr. Laura" Schlessinger's projected television show and her current radio program have begun to withdraw under pressure from gays-among them Procter and Gamble, Geico Insurance, Skytel and most recently TCF Bank.

A spokeswoman for Skytel said the company had been "inundated" with messages expressing opposition to its advertising on Schlessinger's program.

What changed in the intervening seven years? What is different here?

Probably the chief factors are: the rapid spread of Internet use, particularly by gays; the one-stop shopping convenience of a dedicated anti-Schlessinger website; the fact of a small number of targets; and the pressure-sensitivity of the economic marketplace compared with an almost pressure-impervious political system.

Everyone is aware of the enormous growth of Internet use; it is one of the most remarkable social facts of our time. And no one doubts the substantial Internet use by gays. At this point, it is rare to meet any gay person who is not online at home or at work. Usually both.

Much of the opposition to Schlessinger has been generated by a website called StopDrLaura.com, founded by gay Internet consultant John Aravosis, who heads Wired Strategies.

Aravosis says that his website has received million of "hits," representing perhaps hundred of thousands of unique visitors.

Aravosis' very useful website offers a generous serving of abrasive quotations about gays from Schlessinger's own program and her interviews elsewhere.

But, more important, it also provides telephone, fax and e-mail contact information for Paramount, which is producing her television show, and for executives at some of Schlessinger's advertisers, urging people to write and express their concern.

In the old days, just a decade ago, people had to gather the facts themselves, try to compose a cogent letter, hunt down the right person and the address to mail it to. No longer. StopDrLaura.com does much of the work for them.

How far can this model of activism be generalized? Would specific websites devoted to other topics be as effective? What about StoptheScouts.com or, since no one really wants to stop the Boy Scouts, maybe DefundScouts.com? Or Gaysinmilitary.com? Or Endsodomylaws.com?

In Schlessinger's case there was one specific target so it was comparatively easy to gather the relevant information about her. And there were only a few people or companies to contact with expressions of disapproval.

It might be possible to generate, say, 20,000-30,000 messages to Paramount or "inundate" Skytel with 5,000-10,000 messages over a short period of time. Those are a lot for a medium-sized company to receive.

But if we are trying to influence a national policy such as the military gay ban, remember that there are 435 U.S. Representatives. Even 30,000 messages dispersed among 435 congressmen comes to fewer than 70 messages per congressman. Not an impressive number.

Since the Boy Scouts is not likely to change its policy in response to outside criticisms, activists would have to put pressure on the numerous United Way campaigns, corporations and foundations that support the Boy Scouts.

Determining which ones provide support, finding contact information for the right executives, and so forth would be an enormous labor, something no volunteer activists like Aravosis and his colleagues could reasonably undertake. And again, there is the problem of a multiplicity of targets, even if the total number of messages were large.

An even more important factor here is that advertisers, as actors in the economic marketplace, are more sensitive to the pressures of small change in sales and support than are politicians.

Most legislators are from so-called "safe" districts, meaning that a modest amount of pressure is not going to influence them one way or the other. They can easily risk the loss of 5 to 7 percent of the vote and still win re-election. All they need is 50 percent plus one vote.

And, of course, they risk losing an equal or larger number of votes on the other side if they alter their position, a serious disincentive for change.

By contrast, most companies would strongly prefer not to lose, or even risk losing, 5 to 7 percent of their sales or market share. That could make the difference between overall profit and loss.

And unlike politicians who risk losses on the other side if they change positions, corporations as advertisers have the option of simple neutrality, avoiding controversy entirely and choosing non-controversial venues for their advertising.

Accepting these provisos and potential limitations, the StopDrLaura.com idea is well worth trying for other purposes. Aravosis himself probably does not have the time to pursue such an endeavor, but if any of the lackluster national gay organizations were smart, they would hire him as a consultant to teach them how to reproduce his efforts.

Originally appeared July 12, 2000, in the Chicago Free Press.

SUDDENLY, for a few weeks in late spring and early summer, religious denominations became a major source of gay news.

United Methodists, Presbyterians and Episcopalians all held annual or biennial conferences during which each tried to reach some sort of consensus on issues such as gay sex, gay clergy and gay marriage or union ceremonies.

During the same period, more than 100,000 European gays attended World Pride 2000 in Rome, an event which Vatican hostility transformed from an ordinary Pride celebration into a vigorous condemnation of Vatican homophobia.

Taken together, these events demonstrate the continuing importance of religion in the lives of many gay people and underscore the role of religion in shaping public attitudes toward gays.

Since many people associate their moral and ethical views with some religious doctrine or other, trying to alter their views of homosexuality requires an empathetic understanding of their religious views and a search for ways to encourage them to re-examine their thinking.

For some people, of course, religions merely provide a rationale, a rationalization, a justification for attitudes they absorb from their social surroundings. Religions may even be just a support for attitudes generated by people's psychological and emotional needs, insecurities and conflicts. For them we can do little.

But a substantial number of decent men and women, particularly those active in religious denominations, remain engaged in trying to develop reasonable and thoughtful moral valuations. These are people it is worthwhile trying to reach.

Just prior to the United Methodists' general conference, the church's publishing house Abingdon Press issued a valuable little book titled "Where the Spirit Leads" by former Indiana University sociology professor James Rutland Wood. The subtitle is "The Evolving Views of United Methodists on Homosexuality."

Barely 135 pages long, the book sets out a traditional Methodist basis for openness to fresh understanding of scripture and several factors that might lead Methodists to a fuller appreciation of gays and lesbians.

Although Wood writes about Methodists, one need not be a Methodist to learn from his book. Presbyterians and Episcopalians will find much of value. Many Catholics and Southern Baptists could learn from it as well.

Wood begins by pointing out that Christian churches must be open to theological and social diversity, as the early church was, and discuss those differences that are based on people's own experience and their thoughtful reflection on it. (Vatican please note.)

Methodists must remain aware, Wood says, of the culture-boundedness of the ancient writers and be open to new formulations of earlier ideas. Wood refers to this as "loving God with our minds" rather than letting controversial issues evoke an ideological response.

"God cannot," he explains, "at any given time reveal all truth to any particular culture. New capacities (or incapacities) to comprehend truth and new situations to apply it may emerge with each new generation or each new society." (Southern Baptists please note.)

And Wood especially urges Methodists to enlarge their networks of personal relationships in accord with the ancient gospel's mandate "to widen our circles of caring and concern. As we do so," he adds, "we often find our ideas and behavior profoundly change." (All religions please note.)

One of the book's greatest contributions is the responses Wood offers from 1996 General Conference delegates about what influenced or changed their views of gays and lesbians. Some said they changed their views at the conference itself.

A conservative delegate said the "general tone of homosexual interaction made me more accepting of homosexuals." Another conservative said the "(personal) witness event was very powerful. It made me rethink and hear other people's pain."

Yet another said his anti-gay attitude "softened" after he read a position paper that traced the biblical history of homosexuality. And a fourth said she "moderated" her position after talking with delegates who had gay and lesbian ministries in their congregations.

A number of other delegates suggested how change would come about within the church generally. Most emphasized personal contact and friendship with gays.

One woman said, "When more of us get to know marginalized people more personally, our prejudices are challenged."

A male delegate said "as more and more United Methodists 'discover' homosexuality among their family members, close friends and church members, this problem will go away."

Another man said that "sharing personal stories (and) struggles is important and life changing."

Throughout the book Wood cites surveys that show a growing acceptance of gays, gay marriage and gay ordination among Methodists. He points out that Methodists, like other Americans, are becoming more comfortable with gays.

More specifically, he notes that women are generally more gay supportive than men and that women are becoming a larger proportion of delegates to Methodist conferences.

In the same way, younger conference delegates and younger Methodists generally are more gay supportive than older Methodists, so as they take their place in church leadership, the church will become increasingly gay affirming.

Since many of these same factors - theological, pastoral, and social - are at work in other churches as well, the lessons to be learned from the Methodists have far wider application.

Originally published July 5, 2000, in the Chicago Free Press.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the Boy Scouts of America's right to exclude gays, but in so doing it strengthened a right - that of "expressive association" - which benefits us all. And gays are well situated to win the forthcoming Scouts battle where it should be won - in the court of public opinion, rather than the courts of law. What positive actions can gays take?

---

THE BOY SCOUTS WON? Only seemingly. It would be better to say that the Boy Scouts prevailed with a good constitutional argument, supported by weak evidence, craven apprehensions and unthinking hostility.

And gays lost? Not quite. It would be better to say that gays failed to compromise important constitutional principles they themselves depend on and should now concentrate on the effort to prevail, as they deserve to, in the court of public opinion.

Begin at the beginning. The U. S. Constitution enshrines, says the U. S. Supreme Court, a principle of "expressive association," a sort of hybrid of free speech and free association.

Just as we have free speech to express our opinion, and freedom of association to associate with people we like (and exclude people we do not like), so we have a right to implicitly express our views by the very fact of whom we choose to associate with and exclude.

Each of these principles is important for all of us, gays included.

Early in the gay rights movement, the constitutional right of free association was the basis for legal challenges to states that refused to allow gay organizations to incorporate and colleges that sought to bar campus gay organizations.

Had there been no guarantee of free association, most of those groups would never have been allowed to exist.

Expressive association is the principle that allows gays to exclude homophobes from gay organizations such as gay political advocacy groups or gay counseling services.

It also allows gays to exclude neo-Nazi and Klan groups from gay Pride parades. For that matter, expressive association is also the basis for excluding pederast and pedophile groups such as NAMBLA from gay parades.

No thoughtful person should want to see these constitutional principles seriously compromised.

In the case of the Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, the question was whether the Scouts had defensible reasons for arguing that including gay scout leaders (and, implicitly, gay scouts), was contrary to its principles and its associational message.

The Boy Scouts arguments were tenuous. It tried to argue, for instance, that "morally straight" excluded homosexuality. Today "straight" is indeed a kind of slang for "heterosexual." But the word was not used that way more than 80 years ago when the scout oath was written. "Straight" then meant virtuous, decent, law abiding.

Even less likely, the Boy Scouts said "clean" in the scout law excluded homosexuality. But most scouts have always assumed that "clean" refers to taking regular baths or showers. Even if the word has an overtone of moral purity, it is far from clear what it would include.

Nevertheless, the Boy Scouts had a defensible point. The Boy Scouts had always accepted the traditional religious view of sexual morality which includes the idea that homosexuality is improper, immoral, wrong.

If anyone had asked a scout or scout leader 80 years ago if the Boy Scouts viewed homosexuality as moral behavior, they would have emphatically said, "No." The reaction would have been the same 50 years ago or 30 years ago. Most American citizens would have reacted the same way.

The only reason the Boy Scouts never made opposition to homosexuality an explicit part of its "core" message was that there was never any doubt about the moral status of homosexuality, so it did not need to. Only in recent years has the moral status of homosexuality become a matter of dispute in our society.

None of this means that the Boy Scouts' position is written in stone. The Boy Scouts will eventually change on its own, but probably only after most Americans have changed.

The Boy Scouts, after all, has a strong organizational incentive not to lead social change on the issue. So long as it has a quasi-custodial role over young people, it has to take into account the views and concerns of parents.

Even if Boy Scout officials viewed homosexuality as morally neutral, they would feel a need to accede to the sizable number of parents who think otherwise. And so long as some parents fear their children might be "recruited" by gay scout leaders, officials will feel a need to take that fear into account.

What can gays do then?

We can encourage gay scouts and former scouts to come out and put a wholesome public face on gays in scouting in order to hasten a shift in public opinion.

Gay adults, especially former Boy Scouts, could help form scout-like boys clubs to give young gays-and any other interested youths-some of the same experiences the Boy Scouts offers exclusively by and for heterosexuals. The troops could explore affiliating with the Canadian Scouts, which now accepts gays.

We can begin a concentrated effort to persuade United Way campaigns to exclude local Boy Scout troops as funding recipients.

We can lobby corporations that include gays in their non-discrimination statements to stop supporting the Boy Scouts or apply pressure on the group to change its policy.

We can try to persuade churches that sponsor Boy Scout troops to protest the exclusion of gays and re-evaluate whether to continue sponsoring troops. Gay-supportive troops could march in the gay Pride parades.

We can sue to prevent governmental entities (cities, park districts, schools, police and fire departments) from sponsoring or subsiding Boy Scout troops or permitting the use of government facilities not open to other religious groups.

Change will come when the Boy Scouts sees it as necessary.

Originally appeared June 28, 2000, in the Chicago Free Press.

We go through this every year. The annual Gay Pride parade brings on the same old chest pounding, breast beating, or tub thumping about diversity, normalization, inclusion, representativeness, self-expression, flamboyance, and much more.

Even as gays and lesbians make economic and social progress in society at large, we seem to make no progress in our internal arguments or rhetoric. Most gays just tune it out - probably rightly.

A favorite current target for the socio-cultural left is the menace of gay "assimilation." "Sex Panic" founder Michael Warner has written of "the trouble with normal." Activist Urvashi Vaid has written of the hostility she feels for bourgeois gay men.

Many other have gleaned in this same field. The latest to add his voice is Mattachine Society co-founder Harry Hay who told the San Francisco Chronicle, "The assimilationist movement is running us into the ground. Most gay people want to be like everyone else."

Hay thinks this is A Bad Thing.

But it is not very clear what Hay means by the "assimilationist movement." There is no organized movement telling gays and lesbians to move, say, to the suburbs and behave like heterosexuals. Besides, that is not really what is happening.

And who is this "us" Hay refers to? It cannot be gays because they are the ones doing it. Hay himself says "most gays" want to be like everyone else.

The point Hay is missing is that it is false to say that gays want to be like everyone else. Gays are already pretty much like everyone else. And this is what Hay, Warner, Vaid and so many others on the cultural left are really unhappy about. And it is why they constantly denounce most of the actually existing gay community.

Their disappointment probably derives ultimately from the ancient Marxist beliefs that the proletariat was the natural vehicle of revolution.

Since the gay left views gays as marginalized and oppressed in the same way classical Marxist thought the proletariat was, they have the same expectations for gays. So when gays do not live up to those expectations, they denounce gays as traitors to, uh, well, the expectations of the gay left.

(The proletariat similarly disappointed classical Marxists: It turned out to be the most conservative social class of all. The workers did not want a revolution; they wanted higher wages and shorter hours.)

The gay left assumed (or hoped) that coming out was a politically transformative act that would somehow (it was never quite clear why) transform torpid, bourgeois closeted gays into zealous out-of-the-closet social radicals. Their message was not simply "Come out" but rather: "Come out and adopt our beliefs and act the way we think you should."

It turned out, of course, that coming out was a transformative process, but psychologically transformative, not politically transformative. Coming out acted along vectors of increased self-esteem, enhanced personal integrity, and a sense of individual empowerment.

Gays who came out of the closet were the very last people willing to be told what to do with their lives. On the contrary, most of them felt more capable of self-determination than they had ever felt before. Trying to tell gays how to act out their liberation just does not work.

There are plenty of ironies here. Harry Hay, long a member of the American Communist Party during its most Stalinist phrase, says he has always been seeking brotherhood.

Referring to a 1930s labor strike he participated in (on Party orders) he told the Chronicle, "The brotherhood was intense. You couldn't be a part of that and not have your life changed."

Hay apparently hoped to find something similar among gays. But as a leader of Mattachine, Hay apparently carried over the Communist Party tendency to be directive and controlling. He claimed to be seeking universal brotherhood, but there are hints he did not always get along so well with actually existing individuals.

If so, it need not be surprising. It is a common enough syndrome among highly ideological people. If you have specific aims and expectations for how people should be, most people are going to disappoint your expectations and turn out to be unworthy. And if they fail to move toward your dream then, of course, they are traitors.

This seems to be the source of Hay's current animus as well as that of the others.

Most gays and lesbians, it seems, want to live happy, healthy, prosperous, fulfilled lives, pretty much the way their friends, relatives, and neighbors do. This perfectly reasonable desire is what is denounced as "assimilation."

But the word "assimilation" is somewhat disingenuous if it is meant to imply that gays are thereby sacrificing something that is part of their natural character or essential nature. No one is urging gays to sacrifice anything inherent in or natural to being gay or lesbian, and clearly gays do not see themselves as doing that.

Much the opposite, in fact. More and more gays are insisting that they be accepted for who they are wherever they happen to be and however they want to live.

Better words for this process might be "inclusion" or "integration" - words that suggest that a person is regarded and treated equally at the same time he remains fully himself. Whatever you call this, it would seem to be not a betrayal of the gay movement, but its triumph.