IGF CultureWatch

Four years after the assassination of gay Dutch politician Pim Fortuyn, his warning of the threat posed to the rights of European gays and women by intolerant, anti-assimilationist Muslim immigrants is increasingly vindicated by events.

Muslims have migrated in large numbers to Europe, have more children than ethnic Europeans, are disproportionately involved in crime, and increasingly insist on being governed not by the prevailing civil laws but by Muslim Shari'ah law. Many Muslim clerics in Europe look to the day when Europe will become a Muslim caliphate. Scholar Bat Ye'or has dubbed that future Europe "Eurabia." Already, Muslim leaders in France, Britain, Denmark, and Belgium have declared certain Muslim neighborhoods to be under Islamic jurisdiction.

A prime target of Fortuyn's criticism was the European establishment, a mutually reinforcing collection of political, academic, and media elites who are given far more deference by the public than in America, and who are largely accountable only to themselves. A new book by gay author Bruce Bawer, While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam Is Destroying the West from Within, describes how these elites, with their lax immigration policies, welfare subsidies, politically correct suppression of dissent, and collaboration with Arab governments, have imperiled the very freedom and tolerance in whose name they deny the problem.

Bawer describes private Islamic academies, subsidized by European governments, that teach hatred of Jews and America and contempt for democracy. Muslim children are frequently sent to Qur'anic schools in their parents' home countries to cleanse them of Western ideas. Muslim girls are forced into marriages with men from the homeland, who are then allowed to immigrate, reinforcing Muslim separation from European society. Girls who date outside approved circles, stay out all night, or marry contrary to their families' wishes, are routinely murdered in so-called honor killings, as are rape victims.

A judge of the Shari'ah Court of the UK signed a death order against Terence McNally for depicting Jesus Christ (who is revered in Islam) as gay in his play Corpus Christi. Muslim gangs commit savage assaults on busy streets while crowds look on passively. Researchers don't dare gather statistics on the rise in gay-bashings lest they be seen as criticizing Muslims. Describing his awakening to the threat, Bawer wrote, "Pat Robertson just wanted to deny me marriage; the imams wanted to drop a wall on me." If current trends continue, European imams will have the votes to do it in a few generations.

Bawer writes:

Fortuyn's opponents claimed that he called for an end to immigration and the expulsion of Muslims from the Netherlands. What he proposed, in fact, was a firm policy of education, emancipation, and integration. The Dutch government, he argued, should stop issuing residency permits to imams who preached that Dutch women are whores and gay men lower than pigs….

For this, officials demonized Fortuyn as a fascist bigot, ignoring the majority of Dutch citizens who shared his concerns. Rather than face the danger portended by Moroccans in one Dutch town dancing in the streets on 9/11, and a mosque selling calendars showing the New York skyline on fire, Dutch officials pilloried Fortuyn as the dangerous one.

As Bawer reports on his blog, on February 10 in Oslo, Velbjørn Selbekk, a magazine editor who had reprinted the Muhammad cartoons from the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten, and who had withstood pressure from Muslim extremists and the Norwegian establishment for several days, suddenly appeared at a press conference beside the head of Norway's Islamic Council and abjectly apologized. In response, the Muslim leader pledged his protection, and Norway's foreign minister praised Selbekk's "integrity and courage." The death threats against him and his family had apparently taken their toll. Submissive infidels are known as dhimmis, a role tacitly embraced by those Westerners who call any criticism of Muslims racist.

Fortunately, some are refusing to surrender. On March 25 in Trafalgar Square, British gay rights activist Peter Tatchell, a self-described "left-wing Green," joined a crowd including humanists, libertarians and liberal Muslims in a rally to defend freedom of expression. The organizers stated, "The strength and survival of free society and the advance of human knowledge depend on the free exchange of ideas. All ideas are capable of giving offence…." Notwithstanding such progressive aims, the rally was denounced by many on the left.

Tatchell wrote:

Sections of the left moan that the rally is being supported [by] the right. Well, if these socialists object so strongly why don't they organise their own demo in support of free speech? The truth is that some of the left would rarely, if ever, rally to defend freedom of expression because they don't wholeheartedly believe in it. Mired in the immoral morass of cultural relativism, they no longer endorse Enlightenment values and universal human rights. Their support for free speech is now qualified by so many ifs and buts. When push comes to shove, it is more or less worthless.

Unilateral disengagement leads not to peace but to subjugation. If the Enlightenment values that made the gay rights movement possible are to be preserved and extended, the heirs of those values need to overcome their post-colonial reluctance to fight for them. We write our own destinies. Nothing is guaranteed to us. As T.E. Lawrence said blasphemously to his Arab friends 90 years ago, "Nothing is written."

Sometimes you just need to ask the right person. On April 9, 1991, three Washington activists met with Tom Williams, then director of the Country Human Rights Reports Team at State Department headquarters in Washington's Foggy Bottom. Michael Petrelis of ACT UP, Margaret Cantrell of Gay and Lesbian Watch, and Barrett Brick of the World Congress of Gay and Lesbian Jewish Organizations wanted State to include anti-gay incidents in its annual report to Congress on human rights abuses around the world.

They had done their homework, and provided Williams with evidence of incidents that should have been in the 1990 report. Williams was persuaded, and the report has included gay-related incidents ever since.

Petrelis, now a blogger based in San Francisco, was still on the case when State released its 2005 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices on March 8. Not only has he stayed in touch with State's Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor as well as the desk officers for individual countries, he worked with British activist Peter Tatchell last year to declare December 4-10 "Report Antigay Rights Abuses to U.S. State Dept. Week."

The success of Petrelis and his international network of collaborators is evident in the report. It includes numerous anti-gay incidents, some familiar from gay press reports:

• In Poland, gay activists braved violent counter-demonstrators to march in Warsaw and Poznan despite being denied permits; they subsequently won a Warsaw court ruling.
  
  
• In Zimbabwe, thugs again harassed Gays and Lesbians of Zimbabwe into withdrawing from an international book fair.
  
  
• In Jamaica, an AIDS activist was shot to death, and the gay rights group J-FLAG reported abuses "including police harassment, arbitrary detention, mob attacks, stabbings...."
  
  
• Under Shari'a law in many Muslim countries, homosexuality was punished by death. In Iran, a number of men, including two teenagers, were executed apparently for homosexuality though charged with other crimes.

There were also some positive developments:

• In China, "Gay men and lesbians stated that official tolerance had improved in recent years."
  
  
• In lowland areas of Laos, "there was wide and growing tolerance of homosexual practice, although societal discrimination persisted."
  
  
• In the Czech Republic, "the lower house of parliament passed a law that recognizes the legal validity of gay civil partnerships."
  
  
• In Brazil, a federal court ruling granted partner benefits to same-sex couples.

Paula Ettelbrick, executive director of the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (IGLHRC), praised the report:

State Department officials who have worked to include documentation of human rights violations against LGBT people are to be commended, as are the many global activists who brought these violations to light.

In contrast, the Human Rights Campaign used the report's release mainly as an excuse to bash the U.S. government for its recent vote against consultative status for gay organizations at the United Nations. HRC President Joe Solmonese said:

The State Department report is enlightening but it won't be effective if the U.S. government keeps siding with abusers like Iran in supporting silencing human rights watchers.

This is patently false, since the reports are used by lawyers for asylum seekers to bolster their clients' cases.

Unfortunately, some people are so fixated on their opposition to George W. Bush that they are reluctant to give credit to anyone in the federal government who might be doing something worthwhile. Last year, when Petrelis praised the 2004 report, some gays took great offense that he would say anything nice about the Bush Administration.

But the annual human rights report has value regardless of one's views of Bush. The plight of gay people in so many countries is far too dire to subordinate it to partisan political concerns. Indeed, the 1991 breakthrough by Petrelis and his colleagues occurred during the presidency of Bush's father.

I spoke with Petrelis the other day, and he wants to ensure that activists in each country are made aware of the relevant contents of the State Department report. My own local activist group is a member of the International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA), and I have pledged to make a project out of contacting as many foreign gay organizations as I can find and forwarding them the information.

When you get desperate e-mail pleas from gay people around the globe, as I occasionally do (and I am not talking about scam letters, which I also receive), it can make you feel pretty small and helpless. When I read those pleas, such as one a few years back from an Iranian in Indonesia who faced deportation back to his native country, where he would likely have been killed, I can do little more than refer the person to IGLHRC and the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), and offer some words of encouragement.

But small acts can help save lives. My Iranian correspondent found asylum in Canada. Of course, he is a drop in the ocean given the magnitude of the problem worldwide. Many cannot or do not wish to leave their countries. For them, international visibility and support are crucial.

You can play a part in helping oppressed gay people around the world. The Internet is an invaluable tool. Organizations offering online resources include IGLHRC, ILGA, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and UNHCR

As Michael Petrelis, Margaret Cantrell, Barrett Brick and Peter Tatchell have proven, individual voices can and do make a difference.

Though much will be made of it, the federal Marriage Protection Amendment (MPA) is unlikely to be the most important story on the marriage fight this year. To be sure, that constitutional atrocity must be defeated. But for most of us who are defending gay families, the fight is being fought at the state level. Given the wide range of situations from state to state, the question increasingly is how we can maintain a well-coordinated national movement with a minimum of fragmentation and internecine sniping.

• Ill-conceived lawsuits. One source of internal friction is irresponsible litigators-couples who are determined to gain their equal rights now, who are governed more by their hearts than their heads, and who press ill-advised court cases while refusing to work constructively with gay legal strategists. Such cases risk setting us back by creating bad precedents, as well as putting wind in the sails of a federal amendment by trying to force the policies of gay-welcoming states on less-welcoming ones.

Being in love, I sympathize with those who are unwilling to wait for a more conducive political climate. Unfortunately, wanting equality now does not make it so, any more than demanding my two-minute egg instantaneously will make it cook any faster. But while we remind our compatriots that our struggle is a long-term one, we must deal with the reality that some gay people will ignore us and go charging off making messes that the rest of us will have to deal with.

• Cutting slack, or being doormats? A second source of friction is disagreement over how much slack to cut politicians who are relatively gay friendly but oppose equal marriage rights. The call by some New York gays to stop giving money to Hillary Clinton is an example of this.

In races where the alternative choices are even worse, this question becomes somewhat moot, since most of us would agree that, pragmatically, we prefer the least objectionable candidate. Like President Bush dealing with the Saudis or the United Arab Emirates, we have to face the fact that imperfect alliances are necessary in a messy world. This, however, does not require us to be doormats. As Frederick Douglass said, "Power concedes nothing without a demand."

• Defining the cause. A third source of friction lies in how we define our cause. Some argue that since the federal Defense of Marriage Act bars federal recognition of same-sex marriages, and since more states offer civil unions, the likelihood of greater interstate portability for civil unions makes that the better way to go. Others argue that, since many states are moving to prohibit any protections for gay couples, and since we can never get what we want if we don't even ask for it, it makes more sense to go for full civil marriage-at least in the few states where that appears achievable in the next several years.

Appeals for unity are often just another way of telling people to keep their dissenting views to themselves.

As we argue over civil unions, domestic partnerships and civil marriage, it is worth remembering that our enemies want us to get nothing. But calls for unity do not resolve our differences. Appeals for unity are often just another way of telling people to keep their dissenting views to themselves. If I am convinced that my strategy will work and yours will backfire, it makes no sense for me to shut up and march off a cliff with you to show my solidarity. These disagreements are inevitable. The gay rights movement cannot expect to be any less contentious than earlier civil rights movements were.

Political reality in most states leaves us little choice but to embrace, at least for the time being, solutions that fall short of equality. But the defense strategies and pragmatic solutions of the present do not preclude longer-term efforts toward full equality. Indeed, the messages we convey in our initiative campaigns, and the legal commitments that gay couples are able to embrace in many states, can help move our society toward greater acceptance of gay families.

What is at issue here is not a mere label. The goal toward which gay people will inevitably push is civil equality, call it what you will. And equality at the state level does not confer equality at the interstate or federal level. As long as the 1,138 federal rights and responsibilities of marriage- including immigration rights-continue to be denied to all gay couples in the country, there will always be someone pushing to end this continuing injury. So whatever strategy is adopted in a given state, it will not be the final word on the subject.

Our statewide battles amount to a series of separate experiments from which all of us can learn. Rather than view our internal disputes over goals and strategies negatively, we can profit by regarding one another as laborers in different parts of the vineyard. Through all of our struggles ahead, the guiding force will not be mere abstractions but real couples seeking to redress particular inequities.

In the end, our nationwide success may depend on our ability to stand in one another's shoes. Our greatest risk may not be of a political or legal failure, but a failure of imagination. So while the passions that drive our activism are indispensable, on occasion we need to restrain them long enough to listen to one another. It is essential that we keep our networks in good working order.

The other side certainly does.

First published on January 19, 2006, in Bay Windows.

In a January 9th e-mail to members of the International Advisory Committee (IAC) of the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (IGLHRC), IGLHRC Executive Director Paula Ettelbrick and her board liaison for IAC, Adrian Coman, asked for input on whether IGLHRC should join the LGBT World Pride celebration scheduled this summer in Jerusalem. They stated that the consensus of their staff and their board's program committee was not to participate.

They explained, "While IGLHRC sees as its mandate the promotion of human rights everywhere, and would typically wish to support local organizations and activists, and participate in any world conference where the discussions and goals included LGBT rights, as a human rights organization, we do not feel it is appropriate to participate in a 'world pride' event in the middle of an occupation and in a location were our colleagues from the region could not travel to Israel to participate."

Helpfully, the e-mail, which was forwarded to me, includes a couple of Internet links for further information. One of them is to www.boycottworldpride.org, which reveals that the boycott effort is spearheaded by a group called QUIT, for Queers Undermining Israeli Terrorism.

Given IGLHRC's stated commitment to promoting human rights everywhere, you might suppose that they have also boycotted notoriously oppressive countries like China and Cuba. You would be wrong. In 1995 in Beijing, IGLHRC was represented by Julie Dorf and Rachel Rosenbloom at the United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women. And in 1998 in Havana, IGLHRC's coordinator for Latin America and the Caribbean, Alejandra Sardá presented a paper at the Third International Women's Solidarity Meeting.

So totalitarian capitals like Havana and Beijing are fine, but the sole democracy in the Middle East, which happens to be the place to which gay Arabs in the region flee, is the target of a "queer" boycott effort, essentially because it has dared to defend itself from neighbors bent on wiping it off the map and driving its Jewish inhabitants into the sea. As Barrett Brick, the former executive director of the World Congress of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Jews, observes, "I am most amused by the comment about Israel being a location to which regional colleagues could not travel. It is the Muslim countries that ban entry by Israelis and people with Israeli stamps in their passports."

Contrary to leftist propaganda, the Israeli occupation of the West Bank was not the result of expansionist greed by Zionist imperialists, but a response to an attack against Israel. The occupation is therefore entirely justified. The same cannot be said of Israeli settlements in the occupied territory, but on the other hand several democratically elected Israeli governments have sought in vain to trade land for peace with neighboring tyrants. If more Arab leaders emulated Anwar Sadat of Egypt and King Hussein of Jordan in choosing peace, the region could be the focus of rebuilding instead of destruction. But as Israeli diplomat Abba Eban said after Geneva peace talks with Arab countries in December 1973, "The Arabs never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity."

The foolishness of the queer left's boycott of Jerusalem World Pride 2006 is nothing new. In May 2002, QUIT participated in a pro-Palestinian rally at UC Berkeley. A Palestinian objected, saying, "Gay people have no place in society, whether in Palestine or in the U.S." When someone took issue with him, he replied, "You are a cultural imperialist." How's that for solidarity?

This is the left's idea of gay pride: demonizing Israel, which protects gay rights, while romanticizing a homophobic Palestinian culture that teaches its children no greater aspiration than to murder people by blowing themselves up.

The justifications for various boycotts aside, I generally oppose them because they tend to hurt the wrong people, and I believe that engagement works better than disengagement. When singer Paul Simon broke the ANC cultural boycott of South Africa with his Graceland tour in the 1980s, he was widely denounced. Yet his collaboration with South Africa's Ladysmith Black Mambazo inspired millions and catapulted Ladysmith to international acclaim and success.

With the voices of Ladysmith director Joseph Shabalala and his colleagues gracing numerous television commercials, members of QUIT would no doubt say this only proves that Ladysmith has sold out to the global forces of capitalist oppression. But if you prefer the misdirected radicalism of spoiled American leftists to the enchantment of Ladysmith, you are more than tone deaf.

My own partner is a refugee from another part of Africa, and our travel budget for this year may not take us to Israel for World Pride. But I know where my heart will be, regardless of what decision the folks at IGLHRC make.

I'm going to Graceland.

First published January 27, 2005, in Bay Windows.

Back in the days of racial segregation, clubs known as "black-and-tan clubs" arose in many cities, where black and white people intermingled despite the taboos of the day. Gay people of different colors often frequented those clubs because they felt at home. The proprietor of one such club was Jack Johnson, the first black heavyweight boxing champion, who openly consorted with white women despite frequent death threats.

Johnson and those clubs came to mind as I read the recent essay "How To Survive In 2005: A Message to the LGBT Leadership" by Jasmyne Cannick. Ms. Cannick is a board member of the National Black Justice Coalition, a black gay rights group organized in 2003. I was reminded of the black-and-tan clubs because of how far away they seem amid the racial mistrust reflected by Cannick. (For a different take on Cannick's essay, see "Black Voices Needed In Gay Rights Movement.")

Don't get me wrong. Cannick's essay has much to recommend it. In 2004, she notes, "Black pastors were being used by right-wing conservatives" in the fight against same-sex marriage. I call this their search for camouflage in the culture war. As Cannick correctly states, "The LGBT community cannot push forward without gays of color and together we need to develop a strategy that works towards addressing LGBT issues in all communities."

One jarring note in Cannick's essay is the essential otherness she conveys about black gay people, such as by using "same-gender-loving" instead of "gay," which is now treated in some circles as a white cultural construct rather than simply a word for same-sex orientation. More troubling is the sweeping generalization displayed by her statement, "I don't ever want to see a white gay man stand before a camera again and equate his struggle to the Black civil-rights movement."

Since Cannick is a member of the National Association of Black Journalists, she must be familiar with journalism's five Ws: Who, What, When, Where, and Why - unless these too represent a white standard that does not apply to black people. Who exactly among the population of white gay men has equated (not just compared) gay rights with the black civil rights movement? When did they do so, and with what exact words? Doesn't the legacy of the civil rights movement belong to everyone, and isn't some comparison legitimate despite the differences between the two movements? What specific organizations have denied what specific black people "the same salary, benefits and support" as white employees, as Cannick claims? What complaints or lawsuits were filed in response to this illegal discrimination? The devil is in the details.

Is there no white person in the entire gay movement that Cannick is willing to give any credit? If not, that suggests we have made no progress despite discussing racism in the gay community for decades. If the situation is as hopeless as that, why keep bothering? In fact, however, this tactic of blaming white people works all too well. Race-baiting, and in general using the language of designated victims and designated oppressors, is effective in putting people on the defensive. But lumping all white people in the same category hardly seems conducive to racial justice.

The voices of Cannick and her same-gender-loving colleagues are very much needed in the fight against the theocratic Christian Right, particularly given the Right's attempt to hijack, in the cause of intolerance, the very churches in which the civil rights movement was organized. But the raising of those voices does not require the silencing of white ones. The national conversation that we need on gay rights is a multifaceted one crossing all of the cultural fault lines in our nation - lines that also cut across the gay community. Our inevitable mistakes can be pointed out without injecting the poison of a generalized racial suspicion that discourages conversations rather than encouraging them.

Jack Johnson's confident, taunting smile in the boxing ring, preserved on film in 1910 and featured in the new Ken Burns documentary Unforgivable Blackness, outshines all his persecutors who correctly saw his defiant excellence as a threat to white supremacy. It is that excellence, not grievances and demands, that marks the path toward overcoming racial injustice. A true leader does not merely demand respect, but commands it. When the negative and lecturing tone addressed to the demonized specter of "white gay men" - so popular with Cannick and others and so unproductive - is replaced by the assertive and confident smile of a champion, then we will know that Jack Johnson's ghost is once again in the house. And the black-and-tan club will be back in business.

Updated from the original published January 13, 2005, in Bay Windows.

The elevation of arch-conservative Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger as Pope Benedict XVI illustrates an enduring trait of the Catholic Church that was evident even in the tumultuous years of the early 1960s: the tenacity of the Roman Curia (the Vatican bureaucracy) in resisting reform. Ratzinger is the consummate Vatican operative.

The Sixties began promisingly for Holy Mother Church, with Pope John XXIII and the Second Vatican Council, and the general opening of the Church to modern times. But the reformist Pope put the Curia in charge of reforming itself. The decade ended with the more repressive Pope Paul VI, an encyclical attacking "the Pill," and a crackdown on dissenting priests. After the brief tenure of the "Smiling Pope" John Paul I in 1978, Pope John Paul II took repression to a new level.

Swiss theologian Hans Küng, who as a young man influenced the agenda for Vatican II, said of John Paul II, "He is a man of what I would call the mediaeval, anti-reformation, anti-modern paradigm of the church, and he tried to convince the whole church to join him in re-establishing this mediaeval papacy." John Paul's chief enforcer in this effort was Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger.

Before his elevation, Ratzinger had been prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith since 1981 and dean of the College of Cardinals since 2002. In 1986, Ratzinger issued his notorious "Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons," stating of homosexuality that "the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder."

Also in the letter, after deploring anti-gay violence, Ratzinger justified it:

"When civil legislation is introduced to protect behavior to which no one has any conceivable right, neither the Church nor society at large should be surprised when other distorted notions and practices gain ground, and irrational and violent reactions increase."

His sympathy for violent reactions recalls the phrase in Leviticus 20:13, "their blood shall be on their own heads."

In the same letter, Ratzinger called gay rights advocacy a threat to the family.

In his July 2004 "Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Collaboration of Men and Women in the Church and in the World," Ratzinger took on feminism and connected it with the gay movement:

"The obscuring of the difference or duality of the sexes ..., intended to promote prospects for equality of women through liberation from biological determinism, has in reality inspired ideologies which, for example, call into question the family, in its natural two-parent structure of mother and father, and make homosexuality and heterosexuality virtually equivalent, in a new model of polymorphous sexuality."

Temple University professor Leonard Swidler, co-founder and president of the Association for the Rights of Catholics in the Church and a former colleague of Ratzinger's at the University of Tübingen, wrote to Ratzinger in response, "If you truly wanted a dialogue, why didn't you invite a group of the outstanding women we have in the Catholic Church to talk with you? In your Holy Office you have a whole staff of theological experts who provide you with the results of their research. As far as I can tell, none of them are women theologians - of which there is no dearth."

Küng, who in 1966 helped Ratzinger obtain his faculty position at Tübingen, suggests that Ratzinger's suspicion of liberalism dates to 1968, when he witnessed student revolts at the university. Ratzinger left the university the following year. "To the present day," Küng writes in his recently published memoirs, "Ratzinger has shown phobias about all movements 'from below', whether these are student chaplaincies, groups of priests, movements of Church people, the Iglesia popular or liberation theology."

At Tübingen, Ratzinger was appalled by what he regarded as the supplanting of religion by Marxist political ideology, and later told an interviewer, "There was an instrumentalization by ideologies that were tyrannical, brutal, and cruel." In this one sees echoes of Karol Wojtyla's fight against Soviet Communism, which he continued when he became Pope. Both men made the mistake of over-generalizing from their own experience. As they might realize if they were not acclimatized to authoritarian surroundings, not all critics of Rome are Marxists.

Ratzinger has had his moderate moments. For example, he reportedly dissuaded John Paul II from issuing "infallible" pronouncements declaring the Blessed Virgin Mary "co-redemptrix of the world" and prohibiting birth control. But this moderation appears to be motivated by tactical considerations. Given his other pronouncements, it is likely that the only reason Ratzinger did not re-institute the old Index Prohibitorum (the list of forbidden books that was abolished in Vatican II, and which at times included works by Copernicus, Machiavelli, Erasmus, and Descartes) was that he knew it would be treated as a joke, and would give excellent publicity to the condemned authors.

In one of two June 1997 letters to the Austrian Bishops Conference responding to efforts by the liberal International Movement "We Are Church," Ratzinger wrote,

"The content of these 'Petitions of the People of the Church' consists of a series of demands, several of which deny Catholic teachings and are in flagrant opposition to Church discipline. It is self-evident that such initiatives cannot be condoned by the Church in any manner."

He was not merely saying that the liberal activists were wrong, he demanded their exclusion from the Second European Ecumenical Assembly that year. He wrote,

"These groups far exceed the bounds of legitimate concerns ... they propagate among the faithful an unacceptable democratic model of the Church...."

Dissent and open discussion were simply not to be tolerated.

After the release of the letters caused a media firestorm, Ratzinger wrote a follow-up letter in March 1998 in which he appeared to backtrack:

"A dialogue that seeks to serve the well-being of humanity and the expansion of the God's Kingdom will on the one hand be open to all people of good will and recoil from no important request, but will, on the other hand, lose sight neither of the charge of being custodians of the Gospel and Tradition nor the missionary calling of the Church."

He added, "In principle, there are no objections to the carefully circumscribed participation of members of the 'We are Church' group in the events of the 'delegate day.'"

As Küng observed, "This represents a form of offensive, a maneuver to relieve pressure, rather than genuine dialogue." Not only does Ratzinger declare the We Are Church Movement out of step with Church teaching without bothering to explain why, he reminds the bishops that they are "custodians of the Gospel and Tradition" - by which he means the same Vatican dogma to which the We Are Church movement objects.

Ratzinger and his allies have resisted any accountability to worldly authorities, even in criminal matters. For example, Ratzinger has protected the Rev. Marcial Maciel Degollado, founder of the conservative Legion of Christ, from charges that he sexually abused nine seminarians three decades ago. Ratzinger halted a canonical proceeding against Maciel in late 1999 without explanation. When ABC News' Brian Ross asked Ratzinger about Maciel in 2002, Ratzinger literally slapped Ross's hand.

Küng says of John Paul II, "I would agree that he preached the gospel for the poor, he was for human rights in the world. But all this was in blatant contradiction with what he has done in his own Church, because he repressed human rights in the Church." This is unlikely to change with John Paul II's Grand Inquisitor in the Chair of St. Peter, except perhaps to get worse.

First published, in slightly different form, December 2, 2004, in Bay Windows.

Pull yourself together, we have work to do. Despite the recent upheaval at the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) and the drubbing that same-sex marriage received at the polls in November, we need to prepare for new battles. Here are some suggestions for charting the course ahead.

Protect our hard-won gains.
Republican Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania and others want to undo four decades of court victories for privacy rights, from contraception to abortion to sodomy. The public policy question is not how one views those things morally, but whether the state should be able to intervene. While our allies in the Senate are defending our privacy rights against theocratic judicial nominees, talk to your family and friends, write a letter to the editor - and remember our allies the next time they run.

Defend the marriage equality beachhead in Massachusetts.
The U.S. Supreme Court's decision not to hear a challenge to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Council's Goodridge ruling, which required state recognition of gay marriages, is good news. The Bay State's experiment can be a powerful example, as thousands of same-sex couples embrace a legal commitment in a state with the lowest divorce rate in the country. So save some year-end money for MassEquality.

Take the long view.
The passage of all 11 anti-gay state amendments is not a sign that we should give up, but a reminder that our fight for equal marriage rights will take a long time. Other priorities will have their adherents, such as anti-discrimination and hate crime laws, which is fine. The fight against military discrimination that weakens our national defense cannot be set aside. But the fight for gay families is fundamental, and must continue.

The focus in each state will differ depending on the situation. In some states, civil unions are more feasible. In others, legal challenges to the denial of couples' contracting rights are needed. In deepest red state territory, basic organizing is still needed. Work your support networks. Statewide groups can consult one another via the Equality Federation. Litigants can consult Lambda Legal and the ACLU.

Discourage "Lone Ranger" lawsuits.
An ill-advised case in Arizona, in which plaintiffs (a Phoenix gay couple denied a marriage license) refused to take advice from gay legal experts, is a cautionary tale for other couples whose hearts are ruling their heads. It makes little sense to vent your outrage at injustice through a lawyer if the results are likely to be even worse. (In the Phoenix case, the Arizona Court of Appeals found that there is no right to marry a same-sex partner under the state or federal constitution.)

Every case is not a good test case, and bad rulings only erect new barriers. Urge your friends to take a strategic view and to cooperate rather than charging off on their own. One useful thing we can all do is tell our stories.

Learn to criticize without adopting a scornful tone.
Insults do not substitute for evidence and argument, whether we are admonishing our allies or trying to persuade new voters. It is hard to remain civil when our passions are involved, but injecting poison into our discussions is a recipe for defeat. We can only win new supporters by reaching out to people who do not already agree with us. This requires addressing their perspectives and connecting with them as human beings.

Stop the partisan double standards.
After the election, Human Rights Campaign Executive Director Cheryl Jacques renewed her snub of moderate Republican Senator Arlen Specter for his procedural vote to send the Federal Marriage Amendment to the Senate floor, even though he publicly stated that he would vote against it on the substance. Yet HRC did not similarly reject Democrat John Kerry, who supports putting discrimination into the Massachusetts and other state constitutions. This blatant double standard will not make HRC's job any easier in the 109th Congress. With Jacques out, HRC can improve its credibility as a fair-minded advocate by choosing a more savvy and less partisan new leader.

Drop the cheap slams against black-tie dinners.
We will need a lot more fundraisers before we are done. If you know a better way to raise money, do it. If you know a more deserving organization, support it.

Stand up for your own values.
Given the harm that the radical right is doing in the name of faith, flag, and family, it is inexcusable that we have let them claim the rhetorical high ground on these issues for so long. If you want to see how a winning Democrat talks about these issues, read Barack Obama. But even he needs to get some letters from gay families.

Setbacks notwithstanding, the tide of history remains with us, because our cause is just and our country is America. But we must keep our oars in the water.

First published on May 26, 2004, in Liberty Education Forum.

We are crossing a major demarcation line in the history of the gay rights movement. After May 17, 2004, gay marriages in America are a legal reality (if only in Massachusetts at first), not just a private commitment or an act of civil disobedience. To be sure, the fight will continue in courts and legislatures for many years, but that does not diminish the magnitude of this moment. The long struggle between gay liberation and integration has essentially been decided, and integration has won.

The conservative nature of this development has not been lost on the liberationists. Their anti-assimilationism is rapidly becoming obsolete, as gay couples across the country demand full inclusion in the central institution of our society.

As with all Lost Causes, some diehards resist recognizing their defeat. In an August 2003 article for The Boston Phoenix decrying the "marriage rights mania," Michael Bronski dismisses marriage rights as "crumbs." The social benefits of marriage aside, few would regard the 1,138 rights and privileges associated with marriage under federal law, or the additional hundreds under state laws, as mere crumbs.

Bronski treats marriage as if it hasn't changed in 50 years. In fact, legalized contraception and abortion, no-fault divorce, and the rise of marriage as an equal partnership have left the institution far different from the oppressive patriarchal tool he portrays. His grim portrait, including his unsubstantiated claim of an "ongoing epidemic of domestic violence among straight and gay couples," reads more like Peter Pan appealing to Wendy to stay in Never Never Land than a serious discussion of real families.

To hear some gay radicals tell it, this wedding season sounds more like a funeral. By adopting the strictures of marriage, so their thinking goes, our community will give up its freedom and lose its fabulousness. Many such qualms are reported by Michael Powell in a March 31, 2004 article in The Washington Post.

These lamentations remind me of the Lena Wertmuller film Swept Away…, in which a desert island is the only place where love can flower for the socially mismatched protagonists. Once they are rescued, their love is doomed. While I honor our movement's pioneers, I do not share this romantic view of our historic social isolation. Just as with the demise of the old Chitlin Circuit, which nurtured many great black performers before mainstream venues were desegregated four decades ago, few will reject the new freedom because it brings challenges along with opportunities.

For years, when faced with gay opponents of marriage, I have argued that their personal aversion was one thing, and opposing my right to choose for myself was quite another. Ten years ago, when I tried to persuade a gay-friendly D.C. mayoral candidate to endorse equal marriage rights, she pointed out that the gay community itself was divided on the issue. Indeed, Evan Wolfson, one of the earliest and staunchest gay marriage advocates, was often subjected to blistering verbal abuse by gay people who resented his rocking the boat for something they didn't even want.

The climate has now irrevocably changed. There is no longer any serious division in our community on the question of civil marriage rights. From coast to coast and across the political spectrum, we were thrilled by the rush of city hall weddings set off by San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom in February. The allure of alienation is melting away amid the joyous nuptials; the politics of victimhood is losing its grip even amid the anti-gay backlash; and gay families are adjusting their expectations upward. There is a growing recognition that, while the victory is far from won, the tide of history is with us.

It is only natural that such a change would take some adjusting. I can understand the nostalgia that some feel for the early years after Stonewall, when life at the margins of society brought with it a certain freedom. During the gay community's first "out" years, the lack of institutional signposts provided endless opportunities for creativity. But that was the freedom of people roaming uncharted territory. Thirty years ago, the bar scene was one of the few social options. There were no gay choruses, no gay film festivals, no gay chambers of commerce. The idea of openly gay politicians was outlandish even in the most liberal cities. Other than a few classical allusions, gay literature mostly consisted of lurid paperbacks and a magazine that was kept behind the counter at the newsstand.

Today, the number and variety of gay organizations and services is vastly greater. Whatever your interest or need, you're a quick Google search away from finding someone to share it or fill it. The truth is that we are infinitely more free than we were in the "good old days," simply by having more choices.

Twenty years ago, playwright Harvey Fierstein talked about the "perpetual adolescence" of the urban gay milieu, in which sowing one's wild oats became for many a lifetime occupation. The tragedy of AIDS forced our community to grow up, leaving us stronger and more responsible. Marriage is the next step - not just for particular couples as a legal option, but for our community as a social norm and aspiration.

Marriage isn't for everyone, of course. This is as true for gay people as for heterosexuals. But simply by becoming a realistic goal and part of the social landscape in which gay children grow up, it will give them the freedom to color with all the crayons in the box, as gay children before them never could. Imagine being a child again, and being able to blurt out your foolish dreams unselfconsciously, the same as your siblings and playmates. Imagine receiving encouragement for those dreams, and taking that encouragement for granted. Imagine the wondrous ways a child may grow if properly nurtured. That's a radical enough vision for me, and making it come true will be pretty fabulous.

First published December 2003 in Huriyah, an online magazine for gay Muslims. Some names have been changed to protect the subjects' privacy.

Joseph is the sort of man who takes your breath away just to look at him, and makes your heart skip a beat when he gives a smile of recognition. He is a young black schoolteacher, which reminds me of a hunky physics teacher I had a crush on in high school. Ah, the fantasies that must swirl through his classroom! I met Joseph because we were both regulars at a neighborhood restaurant. He is troubled over his homosexuality, and wants to be straight.

Joseph is not the first man I have seen at war with his own nature. In 1990 I met Ahmed, a devout Muslim from Southeast Asia. On our first date, when I ordered a pork dish, he said that if I ate it he couldn't kiss me later, so I quickly ordered something else. It occurred to me that gay sex was at least as forbidden by his religion as pork, but I wasn't about to quibble. After passionate lovemaking, he whispered in great anguish, "You made me sin." It was heartbreaking. I wanted to throttle the religious teachers who had made this sweet and thoughtful man so miserable.

Over the next few years, I strove to help Ahmed overcome his guilt. We read the troublesome passages in the Qur'an together. I tried to put him in touch with other gay Muslims, but he resisted. I told him that Allah's most precious gift to him was his brain, and that using it to think for himself could not be a sin.

I quoted Galileo's argument that the book of the heavens is the direct handiwork of God, as opposed to the holy book which was taken down by human hands. Shall we not trust the direct handiwork of God before the indirect? I told Ahmed that he and his desire were the direct handiwork of God, and that the evidence of his own nature should trump that of any book.

Alas, I had no more luck with that argument than Galileo. Ahmed could not, or would not, overcome the homophobia of his upbringing and his culture. I even tried a more practical approach and suggested that if he was going to hell he might as well at least enjoy the ride, but that didn't work either. He was like William Faulkner's Emily, who clung "to that which had robbed her, as people will." He channeled his repressed passion into workouts and bicycle rides.

When I told Joseph about Ahmed, he told me that it was his story as well. He said that while his family loved him, as a black gay man he lacked community support mechanisms. It is hard to understand how someone so thoughtful and decent could look in the mirror and see wickedness. He has been celibate for two years, and if you saw the dashing lover he has withheld sex from - a successful black entrepreneur - you would join me in wanting to slap him out of it.

Joseph wanted to get married and have children, but his fundamental decency made him pause. He broke up with the woman he was dating, because he didn't want to marry her for the wrong reasons, and he knew he was still gay. Even though he has moved away, he remains inseparable from his former lover, who when I encountered him recently in the restaurant was on his cell phone with Joseph.

I had dinner with Joseph before he left town, and I told him the same things I had once told Ahmed: God did not make a mistake. You have a hard road to follow, but you cannot escape who you are. Be true to yourself. You have people who love you. You will not be alone.

Of course, the most heartfelt conversations cannot overcome a lifetime of having one's love denied and devalued. In the end, Joseph must choose within his own mind and heart where no one else can follow. Against the voices assuring him that gay is good clash those of anti-gay ministers and reparative therapists, the hopes and expectations of his family, and the continuing taboo against homosexuality in his community.

When I think of Ahmed and Joseph and so many others, I know the stakes. We must fight for our friends and lovers against the forces of invisibility and intolerance. Sometimes we will fail, and the frustrations will be great. Love makes us fight on - reason enough to give thanks in a dark season.

First published in an earlier version on August 22, 2003, in Letters from CAMP Rehoboth.

Forty years ago, when Bayard Rustin was organizing the 1963 March on Washington, his homosexuality was highly scandalous, so he took the title of "deputy director" to downplay his own importance. Yet Strom Thurmond still denounced him on the floor of the Senate as a communist, draft-dodger, and homosexual.

It was thus especially fitting when planners of the 40th Anniversary rally on August 23 in Washington reached out to the gay community. This year, The Human Rights Campaign, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, and PFLAG were listed as conveners. Gay speakers Matt Foreman of NGLTF and Mandy Carter of Southerners on New Ground paid tribute to Rustin. Martin Luther King III said, "Homophobia has no place in the Beloved Community." That was nice, but what other messages were gays asked to endorse? The calls for unity and talk of "the cause" concealed the fact that many decent people do not agree with all the organizers' proposals.

The rally saw much talk of the Beloved Community, but it became clear that only progressive Democrats are welcome as residents. For example, Damu Smith of Black Voices for Peace attacked Condoleeza Rice, Clarence Thomas, Colin Powell, and affirmative action foe Ward Connerly, describing President Bush as "their master." Even as speakers condemned Republican demonizing of people, they committed the same offense. This reminded me of gays who condemn Bush's opposition to gay marriage while conveniently forgetting President Clinton's ads on Christian radio stations touting his signature on the Defense of Marriage Act.

The march's demands included no gay issues other than bills on hate crimes and job discrimination. It is odd that a fundamental issue like marriage, which is on everyone's lips and in all the news, was too hot for a civil rights march, while the official demands included normalizing relations with Cuba, opposing ROTC programs, and denouncing U.S. imperialism. If the marchers had time to adopt a foreign policy, surely they had time to defend gay families. But wait: one of the organizers, Rev. Walter Fauntroy, is a prominent supporter of the anti-gay Federal Marriage Amendment.

Several speakers attacked Bush's Middle East policies. Mahdi Bray of the Muslim American Society referred to "this modern-day Pharaoh on Pennsylvania Avenue." James Zogby of the Arab American Institute said, "We promised to liberate Iraq, but we brought them untold pain and chaos." He ignored the tyrant we defeated who gassed Kurds, tortured children, and filled mass graves.

Honoring Rustin and Martin Luther King, Jr. does not prevent us from thinking for ourselves. I shared King's opposition to the Vietnam War, and disagreed with Rustin's opposition to World War II. Sometimes defending freedom requires you to fight, as with terrorists and those who harbor them. Coretta Scott King, though a great friend of gay people, revealed hopeless naivete about the world when she said, "Non-violence must become the basis of America's foreign policy."

Just as all wars are not the same, non-violent resistance is not universally effective. It worked for Gandhi and King because the people of Britain and America truly believed that their nations stood for something better than the brutal suppression their news organizations reported. Had television cameras not been present at the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama on March 7, 1965, the Bloody Sunday attacks by police against peaceful marchers would not have been seen by millions of Americans, and we would not have gotten the Voting Rights Act that year.

It does not honor King and Rustin to misapply their lessons or to use their memories as a political truncheon with which to beat up the current President for taking our national security problems seriously.

So while I appreciate the gay outreach, the protest still left me feeling like an outsider. And that was fine. The Mall sees many rallies, but moments of transcendence are few.

My own commemoration was late at night, when the crowds were gone and I could stand on the very spot at the Lincoln Memorial where Dr. King stood forty years ago and hear his majestic, ministerial cadences in my mind's ear: "It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal." Those words still challenge even civil rights workers.