IGF CultureWatch

After Roll Call broke the story on Monday that Republican anti-gay Sen. Larry Craig of Idaho had pled guilty to misdemeanor lewd conduct in a Minneapolis airport men's room, leading conservatives were quick to throw him overboard.

At townhall.com, Hugh Hewitt rejected Craig's denials and called for his immediate resignation. "I realize," Hewitt said, "that I did not say this about Senator [David] Vitter [R-La., who apologized in July for 'a very serious sin in my past' after his telephone number appeared on the client list of the so-called 'D.C. Madam'], but Craig's behavior is so reckless and repulsive that an immediate exit is required." On Tuesday morning, the group bloggers at National Review Online (NRO) were quick with the wisecracks. John Podhoretz said, "Couldn't Craig just have called an escort service? Oh ... wait ...." Jonah Goldberg made fun of Craig's spokesman for describing the men's room arrest as a "he said/he said misunderstanding," and suggested alternate denials like, "This is all a terrible misunderstanding. The Senator is a bus station man."

Matt Foreman, Executive Director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, used the occasion as a teaching moment. After slamming Craig's hypocrisy, he said, "There is sad irony that a United States senator from Idaho has been caught up in the same kind of thing that destroyed the lives of dozens of men in Boise in the 1950s, so tragically chronicled in 'Boys of Boise.'"

What strikes me as I watch Craig's denials is the depth of his self-deception, which apparently goes back at least to 1982 when he served in the House of Representatives. That year, he proposed to the then-Suzanne Scott six months after he responded to a scandal by publicly denying having had sex with congressional pages. Craig's arrest in June of this year, just eight months after denying gay sex charges by Mike Rogers of blogactive.com, suggests a recklessness all too familiar in the closeted and powerful.

A classic consequence of self-repression is that one's underlying nature, being unchanged, inevitably bursts out in inappropriate ways. It is no surprise that Craig would resort to sleazy restroom sex, since he is unwilling to see homosexuality in a more favorable light. As Matt Foreman observes, this is pathetic. It reminds me of Pinocchio, the wooden puppet who believes that if he prays hard enough, the Blue Fairy will make him into a real boy. Craig's own denials hint at the fairy-tale connection: twice during a contentious interview with the Idaho Statesman, he exclaimed, "Jiminy!"

Fate stepped in, as Jiminy Cricket would say, but not in the way Sen. Craig might have wished. On Aug. 27, the same day that Craig was definitively outed, another kind of conservative - prominent Washington pundit Andrew Sullivan - married his partner Aaron Tone in Provincetown. Here we have a nice juxtaposition: On one hand, a man who has consistently opposed any legal protections for gay citizens even as he engaged in furtive gay sex in restrooms. On the other hand, a self-affirming gay man who has advocated marriage equality for nearly two decades. The gods have a fine sense of irony.

We are witnessing a cultural shift: Henceforth, the Washington establishment will have in its midst a living exemplar of same-sex marriage, which just by refusing to hide will be a continual rebuke of the slander that only straight people are family. It is precisely because the public institution of marriage confers respectability and makes our relationships harder to dismiss that homophobes have sought so strenuously to cut gay couples out of the Constitution.

To be sure, cultural change does not automatically translate into victory at the polls. The latter, as Congressman Barney Frank likes to remind us, requires organizing and persuading and getting out the vote. There are still millions of Americans who would prefer that their gay children suppress their desires and choose an opposite-sex spouse. People in denial like Craig are surrounded by enablers. We may be at a turning point, but our struggle is far from over.

On another off note, this week's famous groom has made his share of enemies. But the attacks against him from left and right have been going on for years, and Andrew Sullivan is still standing. A quick search of the blogs this week turns up catty comments, salacious rumors, and entries like "Did you see the pic Aaron painted of Andrew's bottom?" I personally prefer the picture Andrew himself posted of the handsome, bearded Aaron asleep on a sofa with their two beagles.

The glare of the spotlight can be hard on any relationship, and even the most obscure of marriages can fail (though I happily note that the divorce rate is lower in Massachusetts than in the Bible Belt). Failure is a risk that we take whenever we set sail. Of course, Andrew would have to work overtime to catch up with the multiple marriages of various anti-gay politicians. All that really matters is that he and Aaron have taken the leap together.

A real marriage is not a Disney fantasy. We are not carried along by fate. We are responsible people capable of summoning forgiveness and generosity and humility to overcome our baser instincts. Like any worthy enterprise, a marriage takes devoted effort. So here's wishing Andrew and Aaron perseverance and grace to help them through the inevitable rough spots.

As for Larry Craig, whose career lies in ruins: Notwithstanding his contemptible coupling of squalid gay encounters with opposition to gay rights, he is more pitiful than anything else. In the end, the greatest victim of his lies is himself.

On July 25, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled 6-1 in Ohio v. Carswell that the anti-gay-marriage amendment to the state constitution does not invalidate Ohio's domestic violence law as it applies to unmarried couples. This was welcome as far as it went, but the amendment remains in place, even if the force of its sweeping second sentence-which goes beyond marriage to prohibit any marriage-like legal status-was narrowed. This small victory was not quite dramatic enough to set the Cuyahoga River on fire.

Lambda Legal's James Madigan said of Carswell, "The court sent a strong message to those who would attempt to use the amendment to attack health insurance benefits for families, or the relationships between children and their same-sex parents: you can't get away with this." Equality Ohio's Lynne Bowman offered a more mixed assessment: "We applaud the Court for upholding Ohio's domestic violence laws. However, this ill-conceived amendment continues to make it hard for loving same-sex partners to care for each other and their families in this state."

The majority opinion by Chief Justice Thomas Moyer is not entirely convincing. He writes that the amendment's second sentence means that "the state cannot create or recognize a legal status for unmarried persons that bears all of the attributes of marriage-a marriage substitute." But that is not what the sentence says. It prohibits "a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage." As dissenting Justice Judith Lanzinger points out, the use of the disjunctive "or" means that unmarried couples are denied legal status for any one of the listed attributes of marriage, not just the list taken as a whole.

Moyer declares, "The state played no role in creating Carswell's relationship with the alleged victim. Carswell created that relationship." Lanzinger says this "misses the point. The General Assembly's classification of 'person living as a spouse' is a recognition by law of the relationship of unmarried and cohabiting individuals based solely on the similarity of that relationship to marriage."

Its shortcomings notwithstanding, Carswell effectively rebuffs the bait-and-switch tactics of cultural conservatives, who claimed a narrow purpose during the initiative campaign, then insisted on a broad interpretation after they won. Phil Burress, president of the Ohio group Citizens for Community Values (CCV), for instance, during the 2004 campaign dismissed the idea that the amendment would invalidate parts of the domestic violence law as "on its face absolutely absurd." After the amendment's passage, Burress' associate David Langdon filed legal briefs, including in Carswell, making that same "absurd" argument.

Groups like CCV insist that their intent is to protect marriage and not to harm gay people, yet they go far beyond marriage to deny same-sex couples any legal protection whatsoever. At long last, their mendacity and overreach are backfiring: By reading the Marriage Amendment narrowly to preserve protections against domestic violence for unmarried partners, Carswell sets a precedent for allowing other gay-friendly protections such as domestic partner benefits for state university employees.

Alternatively, had the Court upheld the conservatives' claim that the amendment invalidated the domestic violence law, it would have marked the amendment unconstitutional. The U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed in Lawrence v. Texas in 2003 that the state may not use traditional morality to draw distinctions in the criminal law between married and unmarried couples.

Marc Spindelman, an Ohio State University law professor and an expert in constitutional law and lesbian and gay rights, stated after the ruling, "The Court does not say so expressly, but it has effectively promised that the Marriage Amendment will be read in a way that's conditioned by reason, not inflamed by the passions of traditional morality. In this sense, Carswell may, in time, turn out to have been the beginning of the end of the Marriage Amendment itself."

Spindelman suggests that Carswell will be of greatest interest in the 13 states whose gay marriage bans are framed in a broad way like Ohio's: Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin.

Spindelman told me, "There are upsides and downsides to this ruling. On the upside, the Court gave us more than most close observers thought we could get. On the downside, the Court left us with a legal version of Jenga [the wooden block tower building game], where we need to figure out what the definition of 'all' [the attributes of marriage] is so we stay within Carswell's terms."

Spindelman criticizes Lambda Legal for focusing only on narrowing the amendment's effect instead of disputing the constitutionality of a broader interpretation, or making an affirmative case for gay couples. "It is possible to challenge the Marriage Amendment at both the retail and the wholesale level. Lambda has exclusively pursued a retail approach-in popular parlance, death by a thousand paper cuts-and I see no good reason why. It was the women's domestic violence coalition brief that tried to craft an argument on behalf of lesbian and gay victims of domestic abuse-not the Lambda brief."

Differences over strategy aside, Spindelman is upbeat. He presciently warned in Legal Times last year that Carswell would "teach cultural conservatives a lesson the anti-domestic-violence movement has been teaching abusers for years: There's a price to pay for the moral hubris it takes to treat people as pawns in your own game." And so Carswell has.

In Washington, being publicly discredited is no bar to employment for the industrious and well-connected. If you are sufficiently shameless, being a disgraced former official needn't prevent you from reincarnating as a highly paid lobbyist or think-tank pundit or deputy something-or-other. There seems to be no getting rid of some people.

A similar case is that of notorious junk science peddler Paul Cameron. He keeps generating his slanderous statistics about gay people, and uninformed reporters and editors keep eating up the stuff. The latest reminder came on July 5 as I was checking out the latest issue of Bay Windows online. Near the top of the screen, in the EDGEwire newslink box, was the headline, "Family Research Council Study: Gays Die Young."

The study in question is by Cameron and his son Kirk. While the EDGE article uses verbs like "claims" and "purports," provides "balance" by reporting contrary views, and points out the anti-gay nature of the Camerons' Family Research Institute, it respectfully cites the Camerons' Ph.Ds without mentioning that the senior Cameron was expelled by the American Psychological Association in December 1983 for using unsound methods and misrepresenting others' research.

For decades, Paul Cameron has been the favorite "expert" of anti-gay obsessives. His institute publishes pseudoscientific reports filled with false claims, such as that child molesters and sex murderers are disproportionately gay. His work has been used by syndicated columnists, members of Congress, and Pentagon officials. Therein lies the problem: Paul's preposterous pamphlets would vanish without a trace if others did not keep recycling them or if reporters were more careful about checking their sources.

Perhaps Cameron's most oft-quoted claim is that gay men have a dramatically shorter life expectancy. After Cameron disseminated brochures claiming that the average male homosexual life span was 43 years, many people repeated it in print and on television as a serious statistic. Problem is, there is no scientific basis for his claim. Cameron arrived at that figure by examining obituaries in gay newspapers during the height of the AIDS epidemic and averaging the reported ages of death.

Even assuming that the readership of those papers was representative of the entire gay community and that the obits were representative of all gay deaths - both assumptions are questionable - this method excludes everyone who did not die. That is like surveying the obituaries of soldiers killed in Iraq and concluding that the average life expectancy of soldiers is in the low 20s.

Readers of EDGE who are unfamiliar with Cameron might get the impression that he is a serious researcher, however flawed his methodology and conclusions. In actuality, as the Box Turtle Bulletin website reports, Cameron refers to homosexuals' "parasitic lives," decries equal rights as "Super Rights," accuses homosexuals of running a "shadow organization" in the U.S. military (which would come as a surprise to the more than 11,000 service members discharged under "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"), and calls homosexuals a threat to Western Civilization. The latter assertion is especially ironic considering that Cameron approvingly cites the work of the commandant of the Auschwitz death camp.

The Camerons are not the only phony experts used by irresponsible news organizations. On the same day as the EDGE story, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) issued an alert denouncing a June 21 report by The O'Reilly Factor in which Fox News Crime Analyst Rod Wheeler described a nationwide epidemic of lesbian gangs. Without citing sources, Wheeler claimed that the Washington, D.C. area alone has more than 150 lesbian gangs, that they recruit children, and that many gang members use pink-painted Glock pistols. (This last stray bullet of wild invention hit the gay gun-rights group Pink Pistols, which has nothing to do with gangs and whose name is not intended literally.)

As GLAAD reports, Detective Patrick Word, president of the Mid-Atlantic Regional Gang Investigators Network, stated, "There is no evidence whatsoever of a lesbian gang epidemic in this region … our membership reports only one lesbian gang." According to a report by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), Wheeler is a "food defense specialist" for the American Institute of Baking who was suspended by the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department in 1994 after testing positive for marijuana use.

One advantage enjoyed by phony experts is that those who interview them and report their published claims are seldom prepared to challenge either their claims or their professional credentials. At best, dissenting views are quoted, as in the EDGE story, but with little context to facilitate an informed evaluation.

When counterposed quotes from newsmakers are substituted for investigative reporting, the implication is that there are no objective facts to be ascertained. Amazingly enough, the resulting "he said, she said" standoff is treated as a reason for boasting - as with Fox News Channel's slogan, "We Report, You Decide." This gives uninformed gut reactions the same standing as specialized expertise.

We are fortunate that groups like GLAAD, Box Turtle Bulletin and SPLC are active in refuting anti-gay propaganda disguised as news, but there are far more news outlets than they can handle, in an expanding array of media. All of us who are consumers as well as subjects of the news must be vigilant. When you find a reporter giving credence to the work of an anti-gay "expert," call the reporter and the editor on it. Instead of merely berating them, use the occasion as a teaching moment. First, though, be sure to do more careful homework than the reporter.

On Friday, June 1, I called my friend Robert on his cell phone shortly before 6 p.m., when he is usually preparing to leave his office in Manhattan. This time he was in Brooklyn, approaching Lafayette Avenue Presbyterian Church for the 10th anniversary celebration of the Audre Lorde Project (ALP), which calls itself a "Community Organizing Center for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Two Spirit and Transgender People of Color." As Robert pronounced this I added, "When the Rainbow is Enuf," referring to the famously long name of Ntozake Shange's play For Colored Girls.... He laughed and said, "Yes, when does it stop?!"

Titled "Living a Legacy: Celebrating Action, Imagination and Struggle," the fundraiser was to start with food and gallery at 6 p.m., and performers and speakers at 7:30 p.m. The program included several speakers plus performances by the Lavender Light Gospel Choir and the Legendary House of Ninja (those are two separate groups, incidentally). I told Robert I had enjoyed the music of Lavender Light, a member of the Gay and Lesbian Association of Choruses and the world's first non-church-affiliated LGBT gospel choir. By then he was at the church door, and we hung up.

The next morning I returned from breakfast to find this message in Robert's rich, bass-baritone drawl:

"The goddamn thing went on - it started at six with the dinner, and lasted until ten minutes till eleven. And I have to tell you that I knew something about the Audre Lorde Project, and I laud some of the work that they do, but I owe you an apology for some of the things that I've been dismissive about that you've said about some of these groups [meaning leftists]. Some of these people are crazy.

"It's like, America's a horrible place, and we're neo-colonialist and need to open our borders and let everybody in the world come in if they want to for whatever opportunities they want, and we need to end the war on terrorism. Perhaps we need to end the war in Iraq, but why the war on terrorism? Oh, let's just be sitting ducks and let them kill us all. And how America is no longer a democracy despite the fact that you can stand up in this church and say all these things."

Experience suggests that if I were to express these views myself, I would be charged with neo-colonialism, based on the idea that as a white person I have no right to oppress people of color with my opinions. Robert, on the other hand, is African American, though I doubt it will go any better for me on this account with the professionally outraged left, who can charge me with arrogantly appropriating opinions of color. As Katharine Hepburn once said, "Never. The less."

The ALP website (at www.alp.org) includes statements on war, immigration and marriage. In each case, as Robert suggested, they take things to extremes.

ALP opposes not just the war in Iraq but the war in Afghanistan and the war on terrorism. In the case of Afghanistan, the U.S. overthrew the Taliban regime for refusing to turn over the Al Qaeda terrorists who were behind the 9/11 attacks and whom the Taliban were harboring. As to the war on terrorism, ALP throws out the anti-terrorism baby with the Bush Administration bathwater. Many of us who oppose President Bush's use of torture, warrantless wiretaps and suspension of habeas corpus nonetheless recognize the need to defend our country against Islamist extremists. Similarly, one can oppose Bush's unilateralism, military overreach and doctrine of pre-emptive strikes without ignoring the need for a strong military.

ALP not only opposes the recent nativist hysteria on immigration, but states, "Full legalization is a nonnegotiable demand." They oppose the "path to legalization" compromise, oppose all guest worker proposals, and support "immediate access to full legalization" for all illegal aliens. I agree with their call for repeal of the HIV immigration ban; I agree that undocumented workers contribute to America's economy; and I would like family unification with my own foreign partner. But the notion that we have no right to control our borders amounts to a denial of national sovereignty, which is radical indeed. And ALP's rhetoric about dismantling the "prison-industrial complex" is designed to persuade no one.

ALP supports gay people's right to civil marriage, but also embraces the more radical principles of the "Beyond Marriage" manifesto which I criticized last year, and of which ALP's executive director, Kris Hayashi, is a signatory. As an example of the lunacy to which their Marxist-inspired, all-oppressions-are-linked philosophy leads them, they criticize gay-owned businesses that encouraged gay wedding trips to Hawai'i during that state's marriage struggle. This is because "many within the indigenous Hawai'ian sovereignty movement - who had supported same-gender marriage - consider tourism to be one of the most destructive forces impacting Native Hawai'ians and their struggle for sovereignty."

Robert had nothing but praise for one aspect of ALP's celebration: the food. "It was quite ethnically diverse. They had Caribbean food and Indian food and soul food. They served several different kinds of meat, including pork. One of my friends pulled off some pieces of fatback, and this is a guy who's a big health nut, and he went back and had a second piece."

Let's give credit: while they may charge bravely into political irrelevance, seizing the furthest margins of the national conversation, they sure can lay out a first-rate buffet.

A favorite professor of mine once spoke of the small comforts a teacher must snatch amid the stream of indifferent students, taking his satisfaction from the occasional student "stealing a spoon." Likewise, our efforts toward gay equality are wasted unless they take root in non-gay allies. Today I celebrate an ally from one of the most homophobic industries in America, the National Basketball Association. If hope lives there, it is a sturdy creature. The man who stole the spoon? Former power forward Charles Barkley, short at just under 6 feet 5 inches.

The Round Mound of Rebound is now a successful television commentator for the sport in which he is a Hall of Famer, a onetime Most Valuable Player, and an Olympic gold medalist. The 44-year-old's most recent achievement, though, was beating 67-year-old referee Dick Bavetta in a footrace on All-Star Saturday amid speculation that his training consisted of working the Vegas buffet lines. His weight has been the subject of jokes ever since he was discovered by an Auburn University scout who described "a fat guy ... who can play like the wind."

Barkley has authored a couple of books with sportswriter Michael Wilbon, talks seriously about running for governor of Alabama, and is outspoken on social and political issues. He has a certain rough-hewn eloquence, as when he phoned a politician whom he was considering supporting and said, "You aren't going to be talking no bullshit against gay people."

Sir Charles supports the civil marriage rights of same-sex couples, and is tired of politicians stoking fears of gay people to divide the public and win votes. When former player John Amaechi came out as gay, Barkley said, "I played with gay guys. I got gay friends. Only God can judge other people. I don't care if a person is gay or not. Any jock who thinks he's never played with a gay guy is sadly mistaken. Any team you've been on at some point in your life you have played with a gay guy." Tell it, brother.

In an interview last year with sportscaster Chris Meyers, he said about same-sex couples, "I think if they want to get married, God bless them. Gay marriage is probably one percent of the population, so it's not like it's going to be an epidemic." That sounds a bit patronizing, but it is significant when a star of Barkley's stature, far more famous than Amaechi, is so cool about a subject that evinces hostility from so many of his peers.

Barkley's confrontational style got him into trouble during his NBA career, as when, after being taunted with racial epithets, he spat at a heckler, accidentally hitting a little girl; or when he broke a man's nose during a post-game fight; or when he threw a man through a plate-glass window for hitting him with a glass of ice. Regretting the spitting incident (after which he became friends with the girl and her family), he said it "taught me that I was getting way too intense during the game. It let me know I wanted to win way too bad. I had to calm down ... Instead of playing the game the right way and respecting the game, I only thought about winning."

Barkley famously said in an old Nike spot: "I am not a role model. I'm not paid to be a role model. I am paid to wreak havoc on the basketball court. Parents should be role models. Just because I dunk a basketball doesn't mean I should raise your kids." That conservative message was accompanied by compelling footage of Barkley's athletic prowess. There was something paradoxical about it: if he wasn't a role model, why was his adorable masculine self giving us advice?

Somehow, his charm always comes through. In a foreword for a book by Sports Illustrated columnist Rick Reilly in 2000, Barkley wrote, "Of all the people in sports I'd like to throw through a plate glass window, Reilly's not one of them. It's a shame though, skinny white boy looks real aerodynamic."

Asked by The New Republic about people who criticize Barack Obama "for not being black enough," Barkley sounded like a more profane Bill Cosby: "Well, that's because black people are fucked up. One of the reasons that black people are not going to be successful is because of other black people. We tell black kids that if they make good grades, they are acting white. If they speak well, we tell them that they are acting white. We have a lot of demons in our own closet - in our own family - that we have to address."

In a TravelGolf.com interview last year, he said, "I was a Republican until they lost their minds." He said, "What do the Republicans run on? Against gay marriage and for a war that makes no sense. A war that was based on faulty intelligence. That's all they ever talk about. That and immigration. Another discriminatory argument for political gain." Not that he was thrilled with Democrats, who he said "have wasted the last two years going after this guy and two years from another election, we don't have a frontrunner or a plan." As he told the Associated Press earlier this year, "The Republicans are full of it. The Democrats are a little less full of it."

There you have some good, plain American wisdom. Sir Charles, here's a big wet smooch.

Author Gore Vidal, who enjoys provocation, once said that God is a convenient fiction. The same can be said of "gay community." Despite the common tendency to generalize based on gay urban ghettos and prominent liberal voices, the LGBT population is distributed across all neighborhoods, professions, avocations, income levels and viewpoints.

LGBT people are on various sides of disputes over immigration, gun control, tax reform, smoking bans, gangsta rap - and presidential elections. Given the multiplicity of directions in which we are going, it is implausible to describe a particular position as "the gay position." Like the population as a whole, we are scattered across affinity groups and risk groups and political philosophies.

It is easy to lose sight of this as another presidential race heats up and various gay politicos line up behind different candidates. Once you have jumped on board a particular campaign, your job is to emphasize how wonderful your candidate is and how terrible the others are. But with no one other than comic-relief candidate Dennis Kucinich supporting civil marriage equality, and no great courage visible among generally gay-friendly candidates on issues such as gays in the military, there is no slam-dunk gay case to be made for one candidate. Non-gay considerations, therefore, are likely to be the deciding factors.

Last week, Republican front-runner Rudy Giuliani, who had previously taken a position similar to Hillary Clinton's supporting civil unions but not same-sex marriage, pulled a Mitt Romney. Reacting to New Hampshire's civil unions bill, Giuliani's campaign told the New York Sun, "In this specific case the law states same-sex civil unions are the equivalent of marriage and recognizes same-sex unions from outside states. This goes too far and Mayor Giuliani does not support it."

If Giuliani prevails in the Republican race, his continued support for the lesser alternative of domestic partnerships might still leave some opening for gay Republicans to push their party in a more gay-accepting direction. But a stronger impression from his stunning flip-flop is a sober reminder of the futility of expecting leadership from politicians on controversial social issues. The GOP will not summon what its greatest standard-bearer called the better angels of its nature until the party's voters repudiate the fanatics to whom Giuliani and Romney are pandering.

Senator Clinton's vague promise of access to a second Clinton White House does not bowl me over any more than her barren slogan, "In it to win it," but she deserves credit for being the only candidate from either major party who responded to the Human Rights Campaign's invitation to meet. And her strong performance in the April 26 Democratic candidates' debate reinforces perceptions that she is the one to beat.

Barack Obama's inspiring delivery and sophisticated responses, coupled with his strong early fundraising, suggest that he has staying power. John Edwards, Bill Richardson, Joe Biden and Chris Dodd all performed credibly on April 26, with Senators Biden and Dodd serving a useful purpose just by lending their experienced perspectives to the discussion. In a pleasant departure from the general rhetorical caution, Dodd, expressing support for civil unions, speculated that his young daughters could turn out to be lesbians. In general, the hesitance of the major candidates to address LGBT concerns shows how much work we have left to do.

What common cause can we find in the campaign free-for-all? If you are a Democrat, you may be willing to settle for any of the Democratic candidates, but that leaves out the roughly one-fourth of gay exit-poll responders who vote for Republicans. Frustrating though it may be, it makes no sense to talk of a single, cohesive LGBT movement once it sinks in that our diversity is less a value to be celebrated than a reality to be faced.

Sometimes we can best view people far from us on the political landscape as laboring in another part of the vineyard. But when that metaphor fails - when others appear from our vantage point to be pulling up the vines - then, by recognizing that we cannot police beliefs, we can perhaps make our peace with the fact that all of us are part of the social ferment which over time has led to greater opportunities and freedom.

Election decisions are easier if you use litmus tests. If you refuse to vote for any candidate who does not support marriage equality, you can give up after Kucinich loses. But for those of us intent upon making the best available choice, the presence of multiple gay-friendly candidates is more significant than their imperfections. And having a visible gay presence in multiple campaigns is more important than collectively agreeing on a candidate. It shows that we are an integral part of the body politic, which (at least for this assimilationist) is a victory in itself.

Most adults have figured out that everything is not about them. But some leading international LGBT rights activists based in the U.S. can hardly focus on our great, multifaceted global struggle without making it about their grievances against America. Take Paula Ettelbrick. Please.

Ettelbrick, executive director of the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (IGLHRC), is quoted in the March 29 Bay Area Reporter justifying her silence on the U.S. State Department's Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2006 by saying, "Who is the U.S. to issue a report on every other government in the world on its human rights activities, especially in light of Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib?"

If only the perfectly virtuous were fit to report on human rights practices, there would be no reporting. But since Ettelbrick gives the impression that the reports are simply an extension of President Bush, let's look at the State Department's description of those who did the work: "This information-gathering can be hazardous, and US Foreign Service Officers regularly go to great lengths, under trying and sometimes dangerous conditions, to investigate reports of human rights abuse, monitor elections, and come to the aid of individuals at risk...."

The work of hundreds of foreign service officers should not be reduced to a cardboard cutout of George W. Bush. My main impression from the LGBT- and HIV/AIDS-related excerpts is of the bravery and determination of LGBT people around the world in the face of often brutal repression-people who endure incredible suffering yet refuse to be victims. It is quite humbling. I see no need to interrupt it for a commercial denouncing America.

Scott Long, director of the LGBT Rights Program at Human Rights Watch (HRW), sent a culling from the State Department reports to activists around the world in early March, noting that "the usefulness of this will very much depend on how much or little credibility the US's own human rights record leaves its reporting in your own country or community." In a March 16 email to blogger Michael Petrelis, he wrote, "We are not going to web-post the compilation we have done without being in a position to perform a critique of its comprehensiveness and accuracy...." It is unclear why they can't simply post a disclaimer.

In a March 14 email, Long insisted "that we ... recognize the structures of power in which we are implicated...." On March 29 I accused him of post-colonial Western guilt. Long replied on March 30, "No, Rick, 'structures of power' are a fact ... and there are people who suffer and die because of them. I am sitting here in Geneva, as it happens, but surrounded by LGBT activists from the South-Argentina, Brazil, South Africa-and when I read this exchange aloud to them they alternate between anger and hilarity at the US's incomprehension of its actions and its reputation now in the world, not in some colonial past...."

Notice how glibly I am turned into a mere stand-in for the United States. Is this supposed to show how much more sophisticated people are in Geneva? If I thought things were fine in my country I would not have become an activist. My refusal to pander does not blind me to the faults of the Bush Administration; but why are only Westerners expected to recite their nations' sins?

The left loves to dwell on Western oppression without acknowledging Western reforms, which range from Britain's prohibition of the slave trade two centuries ago to the creation of global human rights structures. Treating the West as the root of all oppression infantilizes others in the world by denying their own responsibility, and gives comfort to despots like Robert Mugabe, who routinely deflects criticism with denunciations of Britain.

In his March 30 email, Long notes that the State Department's concern about homophobia in (say) Uganda means nothing to gay Ugandans when the U.S. simultaneously uses the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief to fund "evangelical churches that promote that homophobia and create a climate of violence that has endangered quite a few lives." Fair point, but I didn't say that anyone should be grateful to America. I said that the State Department reports should be recognized as a tool-not the only tool, and not perfect, but valuable nonetheless.

Consider some context. In a March 23 speech before the UN Human Rights Council, Hillel Neuer of UN Watch said, "This Council has, after all, done something. It has enacted one resolution after another condemning one single state: Israel ... The entire rest of the world-millions upon millions of victims, in 191 countries-continue to go ignored." The Council president responded by condemning Neuer's remarks, despite having thanked many others for testimony filled with slanders.

Six decades after the birth of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the UN Human Rights Council repeatedly attacks one besieged democracy while refusing to scrutinize the likes of Iran, Cuba, Myanmar and North Korea. One-sided guilt-mongering by Western leftists makes them complicit in this travesty and subordinates the global LGBT struggle to other disputes.

Petrelis blogged on March 8, "I grieve for my community and how it doesn't demand consistent quality gay advocacy on crucial global gay rights abuses from our paid advocates." The answer, as Petrelis has demonstrated, is twofold: more scrutiny and more independent organizing. This is your movement; don't be a silent partner.

Article I of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights begins, "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights." The United States was not just a party to its adoption in 1948; the key force behind its creation was Eleanor Roosevelt. While sexual orientation is not a protected category, the U.S. State Department since 1991 has included gay rights abuses and advances in its annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, tracking the status of internationally recognized human rights.

The reports for 2006, released on March 6, 2007, reflect a dramatic improvement in LGBT- and HIV-related information gathering. In the reports for 2005, I found relevant items under 105 countries. For 2006, the number has risen to 142 countries. You can view my extracts online at http://www.glaa.org/archive/2007/CountryReports2006.shtml .

Here are some highlights, organized in three broad groupings.

Negative:

• In many countries, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) reported HIV/AIDS in prisons.

• In Cambodia, "Trafficking victims, especially those trafficked for sexual exploitation, faced the risk of contracting sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV/AIDS."

• In Cameroon, "false allegations of homosexuality were used to harass enemies or to extort money."

• In Central African Republic, "An estimated 110,000 children have lost one or both parents to HIV/AIDS, and children accused of sorcery ... were often expelled from their households."

• In China, HIV/AIDS activist Hu Jia "was detained and held incommunicado for 41 days." His attorney was similarly detained.

• In Egypt, "The government ... has occasionally used emergency courts to prosecute homosexuals ...."

• In El Salvador, "There were no developments regarding the Governance Ministry's 2005 denial of legal status to En Nombre de la Rosa, a homosexual and transvestite advocacy NGO," and no developments in investigations into the 2004 killings of two transvestites.

• In Guinea, "An international NGO reported the prevalence rate of HIV/AIDS among incarcerated minor boys to be as high as 50 percent, suggesting sexual abuse."

• In Iraq, "There were several reported examples of juveniles sentenced to up to 10 years in jail for having engaged in same-sex sexual relations."

• In Jamaica, the gay rights group J-FLAG reported "police harassment, arbitrary detention, mob attacks, stabbings, harassment of homosexual patients by hospital and prison staff, and targeted shootings of homosexuals."

• In Kuwait, "police raided a party where homosexuals were allegedly celebrating a wedding," and a law was approved "to impose a fine of $3,450 and/or one year's imprisonment for those imitating the opposite sex."

• In Rwanda, "Due to the genocide and deaths from HIV/AIDS, there were numerous households headed by children, some of whom resorted to prostitution to survive."

• In Tanzania, a Muslim NGO "blocked a local restaurant's planned celebration of Freddie Mercury's birthday because the Zanzibar-born rock star was gay."

• In Zimbabwe, members of Gays and Lesbians of Zimbabwe were once again expelled from a book fair and their literature seized by unidentified men while police watched.

• Permits for gay events were denied by officials in Ghana, Latvia, Moldova, and Russia. Police in Estonia failed to protect gay rights marchers.

Positive:

• In Brazil, which prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation, "The Secretariat of State Security in Rio de Janeiro State in partnership with NGOs operated a hot line and offered professional counseling services to victims of antihomosexual crimes."

• In Bulgaria, the gay rights group Gemini won three gay-related discrimination cases.

• In the Czech Republic, "parliament passed registered domestic partnership legislation."

• In Israel, "the High Court issued a ruling requiring the government to recognize same-sex marriages legally performed in foreign jurisdictions."

• In Mexico, Mexico City passed a civil unions bill.

• In Mozambique, "a major newspaper published, for the first time, an article arguing in favor of homosexual rights."

• In Singapore, "the government approved a gay and lesbian festival that included movie showings, book signings, and theater performances."

• South Africa legalized same-sex marriage.

Mixed:

• In Burma, despite widespread human rights abuses including anti-gay discrimination, "homosexuals had a certain degree of protection through societal traditions. Transgender performers commonly provided entertainment at traditional observances."

• In Germany, "authorities in Baden‑Wuerttemberg required residents seeking naturalization to complete a questionnaire concerning their political and moral beliefs and their adherence to the constitution. ... Critics viewed the questionnaire, which included questions on attitudes toward women's and gay rights ... as discriminating against Muslim immigrants."

• In Romania, a gay pride parade "was marred by violent physical and verbal attacks by onlookers" who "hurled bottles, food, and buckets of water" and were egged on by Orthodox priests and seminarians. On the other hand, "police were reportedly alerted in advance to the planned attacks and dispatched a highly organized force to protect the marchers."

• In Saudi Arabia, while sodomy is punishable by death or flogging, there was regular discussion in the media of homosexuality (previously taboo), and a case was dismissed against a journalist charged with promoting homosexuality for suggesting that homosexuality has a genetic cause.

• In Sweden, "The government allocated extra funding to combat honor-related violence [by Muslim immigrants] against young women and men (including homosexuals)."

As I searched through the immense document for the LGBT- and HIV-related portions, it was hard not to be overwhelmed by all the brutality and inhumanity; but gradually I became inspired by the realization that LGBT people are organizing everywhere from Mali to Fiji. Great things grow from small seeds.

Given that just for expressing my own opinions I am often accused of trying to silence people, I should probably avoid saying, "Oh, shut up" in response to those who are wringing their hands over the use of a procedural vote to defeat an anti-gay constitutional amendment. I certainly should avoid telling them bluntly what I think of them. Very well then, like Auntie Em I will be a Good Christian Woman and I won't say it.

As the Massachusetts Constitutional Convention on Nov. 9 deliberated whether to amend the state constitution to deny the protections, benefits and obligations of civil marriage to same-sex couples, I followed developments from afar via Bay Windows's ConCon blog. I was glad to see the serious lobbying at the State House complemented by people holding signs like "Go Home, You Look Haggard," and the satirical "Keep marriage straight, white and pure!" Considering that gay marriage has been blamed for everything but the problems with the Big Dig, a generous portion of humor was needed just to clear the air.

There was plenty of noxious gas to clear. Some of the bad air came last summer from David Kravitz of the Blue Mass Group blog, who wrote that "if the amendment isn't allowed to come up for a vote, it's a good day for Kerry Healey, and a bad day for the democratic process." Concerning the need for a vote, state Rep. David Linksy posted on Nov. 10, "I have voted on same-sex marriage sixteen times, consistently on the side of supporting same-sex marriage rights. My constituents know how I stand on the issue. My votes have been public and well-publicized and I have consistently made my views known to anyone who asked." In fact, the Nov. 7 election was a bad day for Kerry Healey and a good day for the most pro-gay governor-elect in American history.

After the ConCon recessed, the unhappy outgoing governor promised to "explore any other alternatives that may exist to protect the constitutional rights of our citizens." By that Mitt Romney apparently meant the right of the mob to attack a minority group whenever some demagogue chooses to provoke it.

Dan Kennedy of the Media Nation blog observes, "The customary procedures of the Legislature allow for members to call for a recess, and such a motion need only pass by a simple majority.... Proponents of a constitutional amendment need to get 25 percent by following the rules, not by having some outside authority put its thumb on the scale by suspending the rules."

On November 10, Andrew Sullivan blogged, "Yes, in some respects, civil rights should not be up for a vote. But many opponents of equality in marriage do not accept the premise that civil marriage is a civil right for gays. I think they're wrong; but it's an honest disagreement." Pardon me, but it is hardly an honest disagreement when marriage opponents repeatedly conflate civil and religious law and act as if their religious dogma should be binding on the rest of the population. And what does it mean to say that civil rights should not be up for a vote in some respects? Is marriage a fundamental right or not? Are gay people equal citizens or not?

Sullivan wrote that opponents of marriage equality are "not wrong that equality in civil marriage is also a social change that should have democratic input. To prevent such input by parliamentary maneuvers taints the victory." Who does he think has been denied input? What issue under the sun has had more public discussion?

This is a strange run-around. When we go to the courts we are told it is undemocratic because the legislature must decide. But when we went to the legislature in California, Governor Schwarzenegger said no, the courts must decide. And now in Massachusetts, having gone both to the courts and the legislature, we are told we are undemocratic because the people must decide directly. How many times are we expected to placidly watch the goalposts being moved?

Sullivan lamented, "I think we would have won the vote in 2008. I'm sorry we won't now get the chance to prove it." It is easy to say that he thinks we would have won such a plebiscite, but he doesn't know.

Let me offer a few observations regarding the sacredness of the people's right to decide: 1. We have a republic, not a government by town-hall meetings. 2. In recent elections in Massachusetts, opponents of marriage equality were the ones sent packing, not supporters. 3. Several other amendments have been dispatched by the same method in the past, and the Supreme Judicial Court has not ruled it improper. 4. Let our allies who have cold feet about this tell us which of their own basic rights they are prepared to ask their neighbors' permission to exercise.

My hometown of Washington is not in the same position as Massachusetts. Our special constitutional relationship to Congress makes us ill-suited to lead the marriage fight. You in the Bay State are carrying the dreams of a lot of people. You may be joined by a few other states before too long, but you are the first, and it is hard being the first. Please know that many of your compatriots around the country are proud of the determination with which you have defended this precious toehold on civil marriage equality. Keep fighting any way you can within the law, and Godspeed.

Election Week 2006 marked a turning point in the gay civil rights movement. Our battles are far from ended, but the same midterm correction that reaffirmed the wisdom of our nation's founders has confirmed that the tide of history is with our cause of equality under the law. Several anti-gay politicians were defeated. We won our first statewide marriage initiative. The amendment to write gay families out of the U.S. Constitution is gone with the Republican majority. And marriage equality is reaffirmed in Massachusetts. Let the naysayers grumble all they like. It's time for Thanksgiving.

It is also a time for taking stock. Although we lost 7 of 8 state initiative battles, the fact that the anti-gay vote was held to less than 60 percent in Colorado, South Dakota, Virginia and Wisconsin indicates public opinion is shifting toward us, and we can win given sufficient resources. The improved numbers are partly due to increased professionalism. Arizona Together, which led the successful effort to defeat anti-gay Proposition 107, spent $200,000 on voter research, and ultimately raised $2.1 million for their successful campaign.

Key to the Arizona victory was message discipline, which meant not allowing the anti-gay side to control the framing of the debate. While it is easy to fault leaders on our side for not emphasizing the rights of gay couples, our challenge in these ballot fights is to win votes in a particular electoral context with necessarily brief campaign messages. Educating the public about gay families is a crucial ongoing project for our statewide groups (and for each of us), but initiative campaigns must be carefully geared toward the likely voters here and now. Knowing that most Arizonans oppose same-sex marriage, Arizona Together focused its messages instead on the adverse effect the initiative's provision outlawing domestic partnerships would have on many heterosexual couples.

I myself have been a client of Lake Research Partners, the voter research firm used by Arizona Together, and I learned a lot thanks to the sophistication and experience that went into their polling design. It is expensive to hire first-rate consultants, but such research is indispensable in providing the framework for campaign messaging.

In addition to solid research and messaging, hard work made the difference. A Nov. 8 press release from Arizona Together stated, "With a coalition of more than 18,000 volunteers, outreach and education spanned the spectrum including the placement and distribution of more than 3,000 signs statewide; distribution of more than 100,000 pieces of literature through events and door knocking; tens of thousands of phone calls; one million pieces of mailed literature; and a three-week run on TV."

Several who lost their initiative fights said that their states were better organized as a result of the experience, and they might have won had they been able to reach more voters with their message. The state-by-state fight in the years ahead will take a great deal of coordination and identification of new funding sources. National GLBT and allied groups, working with the Equality Federation of statewide groups, have made a good start with grants, field organizing and training.

Fair Wisconsin stated after the election that their get-out-the-vote efforts helped defeat several anti-gay state legislators. South Dakotans Against Discrimination pointed out that, while they lost, they won 48 percent of the vote compared with the 24 percent to 33 percent shown in polls last January. Colorado's referendum to approve domestic partnerships came agonizingly close, winning 47 percent of the vote.

In the long run, the only people who can defeat us in our drive toward equality are ourselves. Claire Guthrie Gastañaga of Virginia's pro-gay Commonwealth Coalition stated, "One of our biggest obstacles in this campaign was that many thought the outcome was a foregone conclusion and were afraid or unwilling to invest themselves in this effort."

Virginians did provide the finest irony of the election. The Washington Times reported on Nov. 1 that Virginia's anti-gay amendment, designed to help Sen. George Allen's re-election bid by rousing conservative voters, appeared to be backfiring. This was because black voters, while they supported the amendment by more than 60 percent according to polls, overwhelmingly favored Allen's Democratic challenger, Jim Webb. Additionally, the Commonwealth Coalition spent nearly $1 million and gained a million "no" voters, who also broke for Webb. Thus, demonizing gay people arguably cost Republicans the Senate.

Tim Wildmon of the American Family Association crowed after the election that "only one [state] voted against traditional marriage." I wonder if Mr. Wildmon considers the higher divorce rate in the Bible Belt a part of traditional marriage. The endless hectoring by these hypocritical busybodies is like an inveterate slob criticizing someone else's personal hygiene. If the tormented closet cases and parents in denial about their own gay children were purged from the leadership of the anti-gay movement, it would virtually disappear. Our adversaries' poll numbers are declining because their position depends on defamation and self-delusion.

The Arizona victory was no thanks to Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), who taped two television spots for Prop. 107. In Tennessee, Democratic Senate candidate Rep. Harold Ford Jr. joined his Republican opponent, Bob Corker, in supporting that state's anti-gay amendment. Ford also attacked the October 25 New Jersey Supreme Court decision on marriage, and boasted of having voted twice for the anti-gay federal marriage amendment. The Tennessee ballot measure won 81 percent of the vote, but Ford was defeated. How must it feel to sell your soul, only to leave empty-handed?