Author Archives: Stephen Henry Miller

10517054

by on

Change of Heart. The ACLU Lesbian & Gay Rights Project has found several former state legislators who voted for Florida's gay adoption ban 25 years ago, and who now wish to recant. Nine former Florida legislators - including a former Speaker of the State House of Representatives and a former President of the State Senate - have signed ACLU statements saying, "In 1977, we were among the state legislators who helped pass Florida's law prohibiting gay people from adopting children. We now realize that we were wrong. This discriminatory law prevents children from being adopted into loving, supportive homes - and we hope it will be overturned." This is reminiscent of a statement made by the late U.S. Supreme Court Justice Lewis "throw in the towel" Powell, who - after retiring from the bench - publicly regretted his tie-splitting vote in favor of upholding state sodomy statutes which turn same-sex partners into criminals. If nothing else, these conversions show that, ultimately, hearts and minds can be changed - perhaps by seeing more of life than by any particular argument. Better late then never, I suppose.

No Change of Heart. One person who hasn't changed his views -- despite some misleading reports, is Sen. Jesse Helms of North Carolina. Last month, at a Christian conference called Prescription for Hope, he was moved to proclaim he was "so ashamed that I"ve done so little" about the AIDS pandemic, adding that "I have been too lax too long in doing something really significant about AIDS." Just what he thinks he ought to have done is a scary thought, given that the March 6 Winston-Salem (N.C.) Journal reports that, when it asked whether he was recanting his past criticism of homosexuality, Helms was adamant that he was not. "I"d make myself sick if I did such a thing, because I don't have any idea of changing my views on that kind of activity," said the senator.

Many conservatives decry the fact that for years gay activists claimed, erroneously, that heterosexuals were equally at risk from AIDS. What's forgotten is that Helms and his cohorts had made it illegal for the government to fund any AIDS educational campaign that treated gay sex as anything less than an abomination - meaning that generalized message were the only ones that could be promoted. So, if Helm's is "ashamed" he did so little, but still hasn't changed his views about gays, what does he wish he could have done for (or to) us?

California Dreamin". As I predicted in my March 4 posting, Dick Riordan went down to defeat in California's gubernatorial primary, bested by conservative Bill Simon Jr. Riordan, a strong gay rights supporter, was thwarted by his reputation as the ultimate Republican In Name Only -- with a history of contributing to and endorsing liberal Democrats like Gov. Gray Davis and Sen. Dianne Feinstein - whom he supported over Log Cabin-endorsed Tom Campbell in 2000. How anti-Republican a Republican was Riordan? Robert Novak writes in his March 7 column that when he visited him shortly after his 1994 election as L.A.'s mayor, Riordan "pointed with sardonic pride to a campaign button bearing the letters RINO. ... That attitude led to the humiliating end of Riordan's political career Tuesday."
But what to make of Bill Simon, a devout Catholic who has made several pilgrimages to Lourdes? According to the March 7 Los Angeles Times, Simon avoided discussing social issues in the days following his primary victory - with one exception. He stated he would have vetoed a bill that Davis signed last year expanding domestic partnership rights. "I don't think it's appropriate for the government to enter into legislation that has to do with sexual orientation," Simon said. Not a promising sign. To reiterate, the long-term strategy is to find (or convert) Republicans who are in tune with the party's base on a number of issues (school choice, gun ownership) but who understand that the right to live free of discrimination perpetuated by your own government - which includes the right to have your spousal relationships legal recognized - is on a par with these liberties.

0 Comments

10393923

by on

Really Rosie. I have decidedly mixed feelings about Rosie O"Donnell. On the one hand, it's great that she's coming out. With her legions of television fans (her soon-to-end talkfest averages 2.8 million viewer per day), it's one more sign of the new "homonormative" world, as the queer theoristic critics of "heteronormality" might say. On the other hand, there's the hypocrisy issue -- including her fierce support for limiting legal gun ownership (excluding her own armed bodyguards, naturally). And, of course, all that insipid cooing over Tom Cruise a while back. On the other hand (yea, that's three; I can count) it's wonderful that she's speaking out against Florida's cruel and destructive ban on adoptions by gay couples -- many of whom have seen their foster children torn away from the only homes where those kids were every loved. Rosie, an adoptive (and foster) parent herself, has a home in Miami, so the issue touches her directly.
Even on the Cruise cooing, Rosie may have turned it around for me. As reported by Jeannie Williams in a Feb. 27 USA Today piece, she had this to say: ""Oh, but you were lying," the gay Nazis say. "You said you liked Tom Cruise." I said I wanted him to mow my lawn and bring me a lemonade. I never said I wanted (to perform a sex act on him)."
Hmmm. I just don't buy that Rosie's Cruisy comments per Tom Terrific weren't meant to come across as girlish infatuation of the straight kind, while her show was still aiming for Top Gun ratings. On the other hand (yeah, yeah), it was quite bold of Rosie to take on "the gay Nazis" who demand lock-step homo-uniformity, so maybe there's hope for her after all?

RINOplastic. If, as appears likely, Dick Riordan, the former Los Angeles mayor and liberal Republican, loses the California GOP gubernatorial nomination on Tuesday to more conservative stalwart Bill Simon Jr., look for the pundits to proclaim that the Republicans just couldn't bring themselves to vote for a guy who's pro-choice (on abortion, not schools) and pro-gay rights. The pundits, as usual, will be wrong. The nomination has been Riordan's to lose, and he just may, mainly because he didn't have a response as to why he would support and contribute to liberal DEMOCRATS such as current Governor Gray Davis and Senator Diane Feinstein. As the Washington Times put it on March 4, "Even Republican centrists have quipped that Mr. Riordan has more big-name Democrats he counts as friends than does National Democratic Chairman Terry McAuliffe -- and has given more in campaign contributions to left-wing Democrats."
Now, it's one thing to be a RINO (that's "Republican in Name Only"), as conservative GOPpers dub those in their party who tend to vote left of center on most issues. But it's a step beyond that to be a RINO for whom the label really isn't hyberbole. Gay Republicans risk alienating their fellows in the party by embracing anti-Republican Republicans (a la Jim Jeffords); the better, albeit more challengng strategy is to get real Republicans to be more gay-inclusive and forgoing electoral alliances with "progressives" on the left.

0 Comments

ENDA Games Begin.

by on

This past Wednesday, the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (or "HELP") held hearings on the proposed federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which seeks to ban workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Democrats are eager to use ENDA to energize lesbigay voters in this November's congressional races, although the last time their party controlled both houses of Congress as well as the presidency -- during Bill Clinton's first term -- they failed to move the legislation (it did come up later, but narrowly failed to pass the by then GOP-controlled Senate). Now, with the prospect of easy passage later this year in Tom Daschle's chamber, but blockage by the GOP's leadership in the House, or better yet, a possible presidential veto, they're happy to make it an issue.

Forgive me for sensing ulterior motives, but when the most visible sponsors are Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton, the game is firing up your base, not passing law.

Of course, the religious right is joyous over ENDA's re-emergence as well; it's more red meat for their own fundraising efforts. As reported in a Feb. 27 story on the conservative CNSNews.com headlined Kennedy, Clinton Promote Homosexual 'Rights' Bill, the Traditional Values Coalition's Lou Sheldon warned that "This will mean that homosexuals, bisexuals, transvestites, and even voyeurs could claim federal protection for their particular 'orientation.' Christians and other religious individuals will be silenced under this law." And then be fed to the lions in RFK Stadium, no doubt.

Keep the Faith. Speaking of the religious right, they're none too happy with the newest version of George Bush's "faith-based initiative" bill. The new proposal will NOT exempt religious groups getting federal money from local laws barring anti-gay discrimination, the Washington Times reported in February. Pro-family groups decried Bush's "caving" on the bill and said they "feel betrayed, unless the president gives them a guarantee he will come back after this year's elections with a bill offering religious organizations protection against 'pro-homosexual' laws," the paper reported. Don' hold your breath, Lou, Pat, and Jerry. George W. isn' going to fall into that trap again.

The Religious Left. IGF's Mike Airhart supplies the following. Writes Mike:

The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force recently concluded its annual National Religious Leadership Roundtable, a confab of bright stars from the religious left. Reps from the American Friends Service Committee, gay Muslim group Al-Fatiha, Amnesty International, More Light Presbyterians, and Reform Judaism criticized alleged excesses of the "war on terrorism"(their quotes, not mine).

"To be sure," writes Mike, "I'm glad to see someone criticizing U.S. foreign policy. However, these progressive leaders offered no constructive alternatives to the open-ended detention of Arab immigrants and White House saber-rattling against terrorist nations. The most these religious leaders could muster were vague appeals to 'justice' and 'human rights' for all."

Mike concludes, "The left has always been good at dictating finger-wagging lists of 'do nots,' but when it comes time to offer a list of 'do's,' these folks end the discussion. At a time when terrorist cells continue to lurk across America, empty protests such as these are a disappointment, to say the very least."

Why am I not surprised?

0 Comments

10169840

by on

More on "Mind". Regarding my Feb. 23rd posting on "A Beautiful Mind" and the brouhaha over director Ron Howard's "de-gaying" of John Forbes Nash Jr., a friend writes: "I hadn't heard about the controversy, but it doesn't surprise me. Much more offensive than Opie's apparent homophobia is his looks-ism. How dare he insult people who aren't as handsome as Russell Crowe by casting him to play a man who was, at best, only mildly good-looking! Where is GLAAD on this issue? Why aren't they building alliances with our natural partners, the homely people of the world?"

The Times They Are A Changin". A nice column today by Jim Pinkerton about Paul Holm, the significant other of Mark Bingham, one of the "let's roll" heroes who died thwarting the hijackers of United Airlines Flight 93. Holm is described as "a typical 40-something Republican white male" who, atypically, happens to be gay. More to the point, "Holm's political heart is not in the leftism of the Bay Area; it's in the libertarianism of Reagan Country, and it's that cause to which he is dedicated now," Pinkerton writes. Holm has, in fact, become the national political strategist for the Republican Unity Coalition (RUC), described as "a gay-straight political organization that is well on its way to giving $1 million this year to tolerant "big tent" Republicans." Want to change the hearts and minds of the huge constituency of those who aren't hostile, just ambivalent, about gay inclusion? This is how to do it.

0 Comments

10084719

by on

Welfare Addicts. To be an advocate of gay and lesbian equality means to oppose welfare reform, according to the always dependably National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. The NGLTF Policy Institute (the group's tax-exempt arm) has just released a report titled "Leaving Our Children Behind: Welfare Reform and the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Community." The national zeitgeist may be trending toward a greater expectation of personal and familial responsibility, but the gay left is caught in a time warp. As the authors of the new report see it, the 1996 welfare reform law is rife with dangerous consequences for us GLBTers -- such as lesbian mothers who want taxpayers to support them via welfare assistance (the expectation that the biological father, when known, should be relied on to help is part of an "attack on lesbian families"). Or, as the Washington Blade reported on Feb. 22, the failure to fulfill dress code requirements under the welfare law has resulted in transgendered people being removed from welfare rolls, "forcing them to fend for themselves in the streets," in the view of the Queer Economic Justice Network.

The NGLTF report "draws parallels among attacks from right-wing conservatives on GLBT people, people of color, and women." Couldn't you guess?

Last year, then-NGLTF head Elizabeth Toledo blasted the appointment of Tommy Thompson -- one of the most gay-inclusive Republicans on the political scene -- as head of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Said Toledo, "If he punishes poor women for having too many children, how do we think he's going to treat GLBT parents who need help providing for their kids?" Not to belabor the obvious, but the assumption here is that adults need not have a plan to support any number of offspring that they might wish to bring into the world. Just why should trying to move welfare recipients into the workforce, requiring fathers to bear financial responsibility for those whom they sire, and eliminating incentives that make it profitable to have more children when you can't support the ones you already have, earn you the ire of the "GLBT community"? The ethos of the gay left, as revealed here, is that we"re all children in need of the parental state to give us our allowance, especially those who are disinclined to join the workforce. What a sorry vision of adulthood -- and of gay activism -- this all represents.

The NGLTF Policy Institute seems especially irate about the Bush administration's proposed "fatherhood initiatives" and its encouragement of marriage for welfare-dependent single mothers. There may, in fact, be legitimate issues of concern for gays and lesbians here -- but shouldn't the response be to at least try to incorporate gay marriage (or, to be pragmatic, domestic partnerships) into the vision, rather than just demanding that the state be an endless source of income for impoverished, unwed mothers, in perpetuity?

0 Comments

Hollywood ‘StraightWash’?

by on

It's Oscar season, and given the multiple nominations for Ron Howard's "A Beautiful Mind," let's consider the controversy over the "de-gaying" of schizoid mathematician John Forbes Nash Jr., as played by heartthrob Russell Crowe in the flick. Could little Opie be a great, big homophobe? Yes, or so say the folks at the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation. The film is "an absolute insult" to the lesbigaytrans community," said the group's Scott Seomin, as quoted in the Washington Blade. Seomin added, for good measure, "It would be laughable and ridiculous if it was not so disrespectful to gays and lesbians" and, by way of comparison, "If Ron Howard had made [the movie] 'Ali,' there would be no black Muslims." The real Nash, though married and a father, wrote of his homosexual attractions and was once arrested in a men's room sting. But the elderly fellow is finishing his years with his wife, after all, and their relationship seems firmly rooted by deep emotional ties. In the movie's defense, Russell Crowe, who played a gay hunk in the Aussie flick "The Sum of Us" (note: must rent), told Entertainment Weekly that remaining faithful to Nash's real life risked insulting gays. "We didn't want to imply that there was any possibility that schizophrenia and homosexual are related," Crowe told the magazine. "That would be ridiculous."

"De-gaying" films about real people who had a lavender streak has been and remains a legitimate issue, and one the gay community should take seriously. But I think this was a case where Opie just wasn't gonna win. If he had left in the gay stuff, some quarters would assuredly have complained about another crazy gay guy (especially in light of the Anne Heche "I'm not a lesbian, I was just psychotic" episode). Leaving it out got him in hot water, too. Some days it doesn't pay to leave Mayberry.

On the other hand: Reading in the Feb. 4 Washington Post about how Human Rights Campaign doyenne Elizabeth Birch sucked up to Ron Howard at a charity screening of the movie (for the National Mental Health Awareness Campaign) gave me the willies. "I'm never in awe of anything in Washington," beamed Birch, "But show me a great director, and I'll swoon." Maybe Howard shouldn't be damned for choosing to excise mention of Nash's homosexual proclivities, but to genuflect over him seems a bit much, no?

0 Comments

Welcome.

by on

Welcome to “Steve Miller’s Culture Watch,” the new web log (i.e., “blog”) from the Independent Gay Forum. Steve Miller would be me (or, according to my formal byline, “Stephen H. Miller). I’ve been writing about gay politics and culture for a number of years, with a column that’s appeared off and on in several gay publications. Now IGF is giving me a chance to host their blog and to present not only my thoughts about the latest developments, but to pass along those of other IGFers as well — with the hope of getting more of you into the habit of surfing over here more often.

Briefly, I’d like to thank Mike Airhart for doing a tremendous job of redesigning the homepage to accommodate the blog, Jon Rauch for proposing the idea and moving it forward, IGF’s webmaster Walter Olson and editor Paul Varnell for their constructive suggestions, and the many others who”ve provided feedback. And David Boaz, for his ongoing support. Official disclaimer: The views and opinions to be expressed herein should not be taken as representing the “official” IGF party line. Actually, IGF wouldn’t know what to do with a party line; we’re not “party” animals, and instead prefer to question the received orthodoxy of the moment. So here goes:

Frightening stuff: The AP reported on Feb. 15 that, in awarding custody of three teen-agers to their father over their lesbian mother, the chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court wrote that homosexuality is “an inherent evil” and shouldn’t be tolerated. The case involved a Birmingham man and his ex-wife, who now lives with her same-sex partner in southern California.

Just to be sure he was making himself clear, Chief Justice Roy Moore wrote that the mother’s relationship made her an unfit parent and that homosexuality is “abhorrent, immoral, detestable, a crime against nature, and a violation of the laws of nature.”

You may recall, this is the same Judge Roy Moore who’s now the target of two federal lawsuits over his installation of a 4-foot monument of the Ten Commandments in the rotunda of the state judicial building in Montgomery, and who defends his actions by proclaiming “This is a Christian nation.”

The AP quotes David White, state coordinator for the Gay and Lesbian Alliance of Alabama, who observed “It’s unfortunate Alabama is going to be embarrassed once again by a religious fanatic in a position of power.” Clearly. John Giles, state president of the Christian Coalition, had to defend this bilge, telling the AP that Moore’s decision protected the institution of marriage and strengthened the traditional family.

Forcing the anti-gay right to support unmitigated, out-of-control, foaming-at-the-mouth homophobia is actually a good thing; no “We’re just opposed to special rights” dissembling here. Naked prejudice may still play well in a few backwaters, but it’s a huge turnoff to a growing majority. Too often, gay activists accuse the right of “hate-mongering.” But when the shoe fits.

Update: On the Feb. 20 edition of his top-rated Fox News show, Bill O’Reilly grilled the Christian Coalition’s John Giles, who was there to defend Moore’s vitriol (“a good, Christian family man” is the good Judge, after all, according to Giles). O’Reilly, no friend of the politically correct left, to be sure, declared that he was “appalled” by Judge Moore’s rant, and observed that a gay person couldn’t expect to be treated fairly in his court. O’Reilly has taken on gay activists, so it was excellent to see that he can distinguish between gay people — who can and do face real discrimination — from those who would declare themselves to be our leaders, often with their own political agendas. Conservative commentators, of course, have no problem separating women, say, from professional feminists, but too often they’ve treated the loudest — and most radical — of the “progressive gay vanguard” as representative of your average Joe Gay Guy and Jill Lesbian. Good to see that this is no longer automatically true.

The other BIG news story making the wires: As first reported in the Sacramento Bee, UC Berkeley has suspended a male sexuality class. Among the allegations, it seems a group of students chose as their final project a trip to a gay strip club, where “students watched instructors strip and have sex.” To be fair, the course was offered under the university’s “democratic education” or “de-cal” program. As such, it was sponsored but not funded by the university, and run by “student instructors” (but could still be taken for credit toward graduation). So, is it another sign of academic decadence plus Left Coast debauchery, or much ado about a little class excursion that got out of hand? Probably there’s a lot less here then the lurid headlines suggest, but it will still be fodder for the religious rights fundraising efforts.

An interesting article on Feb. 12 in the New York Times about Connecticut lawmakers debating two “gay family” bills — the first to legalize same-sex marriages (call it the “full monty” version) and the second to recognize civil unions between same-sex partners (the “Vermont compromise,” as it were). I hadn’t realized it, but the Nutmeg State has an impressively gay supportive track record. It was the third in the nation to adopt a gay rights law in 1991, and in 2000 the Co-Parent Adoption Law was passed, extending adoption rights to the same-sex partner of a child’s legal parent or guardian. Naturally, those opposed to the measures argued that the result would be to — divorced marriage from morality.” In the words of Bishop Peter Rosazza (who spoke on behalf of the Connecticut Catholic Conference), same-sex unions had not passed the test of time to be deemed successful. Moreover, “The change shouldn’t only benefit individuals, but society,” he opined.

But by that line of reasoning nothing new could ever be tried, since it would by definition not have been time tested. It’s an argument for stasis. And the good bishop’s observation that changes must benefit “society” rather than “individuals” is downright collectivistic. He manages to veer both left and right in opposing the measures — and still gets it wrong on all counts.

0 Comments

What’s Left?

by on

Originally appeared Oct. 12, 2001, in San Diego "Update" and other gay publications.

ONE OF THE MOST SIGNIFICANT developments following the Sept. 11 atrocities and America's military response has been the wedge that's arisen between reasonable liberals and the zany, anti-American, anti-capitalist left. Unfortunately, some gay leftists are still marching in lock step with the "Blame America First" crowd.

Consider what was said at one of the larger "anti-war" (or, more accurately, pro-appeasement) rallies in the nation's capital in late September. This was the gathering originally intended to attack corporations (that is, free markets) and protest globalization (that is, free trade among nations). However, in the wake of the mass murder of American citizens in New York and Washington, the protesters decided, instead, to aim their demonstration at efforts by the United States to strike back at those who would annihilate us. "Stop Your Racist War" read many signs. Someone else held a poster that read "Amerika, get a clue."

As shown in a live C-SPAN broadcast, among those who took the podium were some representatives of the lesbigay left, including a group of younger LGBT activists. "We are deeply concerned about the environment of suspicion, blame and violence fueled, in large measure, by the bellicose rhetoric which came early from the White House," read a subsequent statement from the National Youth Advocacy Coalition, a national organization dedicated to "addressing the broad range of issues facing lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth."

Then, in an opinion piece that ran in late September in a number of lesbian and gay newspapers, lesbian activist Judy Gerber shared her thoughts on current events. "As President Bush prepares for a holocaust in Afghanistan and possible Iraq, it's time for gays in the military to get out, and stay out," Gerber writes. She condemns "the war machine," and declares that "certain of our movement leaders think that gays have to prove their mettle in battle to gain equality. Fighting for the right to be cannon fodder in a so-called 'war against terrorism' that doesn't even have a clear political definition gets us nowhere. If enough soldiers refuse to fight in what looks like an inevitable war, we might have a chance to change the world before it's too late. Not to mention push forward a clearer concept of just what it is our movement is working towards."

What Gerber's "movement" might be working for sounds like a grab bag ranging from Marxist collectivism to unilateral disarmament in the face of an enemy who wants to kill us - especially those of us who are gay.

This shouldn't be surprising, given that the gay left's worldview is no different from what drives their non-gay comrades in the anti-America brigades - the belief that we, as a country, are the font of all the world's ills. For them, no evil however great can exceed that of America, and America is the cause of all evil in others. "This is about the have nots attacking the haves," said a speaker at one rally. "It's a result of American oppression."

Writing in New York's left-leaning Village Voice newspaper, socialist Barbara Ehrenreich lamented that "What is so heartbreaking to me as a feminist is that the strongest response to corporate globalization and U.S. military domination is based on such a violent and misogynist ideology." That's pretty close to asserting "right message, wrong tactics" on behalf of the murderers. Also writing in the Voice, black activist and author Vivian Gornick complained, "It is [race-based] reparations that are owing, not retribution."

Yes, I know that over 90 percent of Americans support our government and clearly see that nations have not just the right, but the absolute duty, to defend themselves when they suffer vicious attack. I suspect, from the number of American flags displayed in gay neighborhoods such as New York's Chelsea, Washington's Dupont Circle, and West Hollywood, that support for this just war is high in the gay community (San Francisco and the Bay Area, however, may be another story). Most gays and lesbians these days are proudly patriotic, and have been celebrating, among others, the heroism of Mark Bingham (the openly gay rugby player on United Airlines Flight 93, the plane where passengers apparently jumped their hijackers), and Father Mychal Judge, the openly gay chaplain of the New York Fire Department, who died at the World Trade Center. Never have gays, in fact, been more openly gay and openly part of mainstream America than right now.

So what is going on with the small, but vocal, left? The knee-jerk response of blaming America for provoking the attacks due to our "oppression" and our "racism" and our detested free economy that produces "inequalities" is nothing less than the epitome of the "blame the victim" syndrome. These same leftists who hold fervently that gays should never be held responsible for contracting AIDS, and that women should never be blamed for provoking rape, for example, are now doing contortions to show that Americans are at fault for making death-loving terrorists dislike us. Why, if we were only poorer, less innovative, less successful, we wouldn't have wounded their pride, don't you know.

As I noted at the start, at least we can be glad that the radical American left is showing its true colors, as ugly as they are. For too long, too many liberals, including gay liberals, flirted with this lunacy. Last year, for instance, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force endorsed demonstrations in Washington against the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. The series of street protests was viewed as a continuation of the "Battle of Seattle" against the World Trade Organization, seen as an insidious pillar of that unforgivable evil - free markets and free trade. According to the Task Force's press statement, IMF and World Bank policies "have helped degrade the environments of many developing countries," no doubt by promoting economic development.

Since the days of the Gay Liberation Front, which swore Marxist solidarity with liberation movements from Cuba to Vietnam, a knee-jerk scapegoating of capitalism, and the view that America is the font of oppression, has been a mainstay of the left edge of gay politics.

Urvashi Vaid, a former head of the Task Force and a long-time opponent of "mainstreaming" and lesbigay "assimilation" (a sellout of the radical queer cause), has written that "as more of us move into a space where we can be personally gay or lesbian...we risk being appeased." Rather than aspiring to join the mainstream, Vaid wants lesbians and gays to radicalize American society by "building a powerful, grassroots, political movement rooted in notions of Liberation and not merely Rights." Vaid never really said what she means by "Liberation," but judging from her speeches it's not hard to figure out. In a 1991 tour de force, she wailed that America "has taken off its ugly white hood to show its sexist, racist, anti-gay and capitalist face."

If the American left in general, and the gay left in particular, is now exposed as the extremist, infantile, America-hating whiners that they are, that's at least some solace in this time of national struggle.

0 Comments

Targeted: The Modern World

by on

Originally appeared Sept. 14, 2001, in San Diego Update and other publications.

WHAT CAN I POSSIBLY SAY about the horror inflicted on our country? Nothing can compare with the terrifying, heartrending firsthand accounts of the September 11 attack and its aftermath. But if you will allow me, I'd like to share a few conjectures on what I see as the larger context, and what that might mean for us as gay people, and as a free people.

Looking into the motivation of the alleged suspects and their backers, this attack wasn't just against the U.S. for our aid to Israel, or for our support of conservative (as opposed to radical fundamentalist) Islamic regimes. No, the attack was even more insidious, more evil, if you will. It was meant as part of an ongoing war against Western civilization, against the Enlightenment and the modern, secularized world it has bequeathed to us, by fundamentalists who despise the U.S. as the epitome of this very modernity. In a wider sense, it is modernism and rationalism and progress and individualism that provoked the attack, launched by those who favor an unthinking adherence to theocratic dogma.

Capitalism, globalization, Hollywood, Coca-Cola - they hate it all. But those aspects of the West's modernism that are particularly despised relate to the development of gender equality, sexual freedom, and gay rights -all of which fall into the catchall category of "Western decadence."

Now, we are so accustomed to hearing about how little our rights as gay people are recognized by our own government that we sometimes take for granted how revolutionary it is, in the history of the world, to have obtained the individual liberty that we enjoy. In most theocratic states, for example, being gay is a crime that is severely punished. Attempts by gay people to have any kind of open association are strictly repressed.

Even in Egypt, one of the less extreme Islamic states, recent news stories have reported on the trial of 52 "suspected homosexuals" accused of sexual immorality and "forming a group that propagated extremist ideas and denigrated Islam." There have been reports that the defendants were tortured. Prosecutor Ashraf Helal reportedly told the court, "Egypt has not and will not be a den for the corruption of manhood, and homosexual groups will not establish themselves here."

The defendants' real crime: taking the first steps to socialize openly as gay men.

Egypt, in relative terms, has been less closed to modern currents than the more theocratic states of the Middle East, but progress often breeds reaction and repression, especially in the absence of a democratic tradition. In the states where Islamic fundamentalists hold complete sway, even tentative attempts to publicly associate as gay men would be beyond consideration (and lesbians are even more invisible in countries where all women are banned from the public sphere and forced into head-to-toe veils).

In Afghanistan, noted a recent New York Times report, "the world's purest Islamic state" is premised on "controlling social behavior." It's a land where "freedom" has bowed to religious totalitarianism."

Of course, Islamic fundamentalists aren't the only ones who hold anti-gay views. Within the West itself, there are those who share the revolt against modernism (albeit without the glorification of mass murder/suicide as the key to paradise). But really, how tame our own Christian fundamentalists appear in contrast to what's happening on other parts of the world. Still, imagine the nightmare scenario of Fred Phelps with an air force.

Both Christian and Islamic fundies pine for a time when people simply believed because Scripture told them to do so, when gender roles were rigidly enforced, sexual expression was strictly contained, and homosexuality severely repressed. But it bares repeating: the usual dose of religious and political homophobia here in the land of the free is nothing in comparison with what the real forces of religious fascism look like. And this week, we've been tragically reminded of how precious, and vulnerable, our lives and liberty are.

Let's hope and pray that Western civilization prevails, and that we have the fortitude to stand up to the barbarians who would vanquish modernity and replace it with a new Dark Age.

0 Comments

Royal Lessons on Wedded Rights

by on

Originally appeared in the Sept. 6, 2001, issue of Update (San Diego).

LAST MONTH, Reuters reported on the growing speculation that Britain's Prince Charles would, at long last, be permitted to marry his longtime lover, Mrs. Camilla Parker-Bowles. The story, making its way round Fleet Street, is that Queen Elizabeth has "grudgingly" accepted that the couple should be free to wed, perhaps after next year's Golden Jubilee celebrating her 50-year reign.

What does this bit of British gossip have to do with us? On a superficial level, not much. But I find in the tangled tale of the frustrated prince who, against all convention, yearns to marry his mistress, a (gasp!) divorced woman, a reflection of our larger, and more important, struggle for the right to marry the partners we share our lives with. Both the predicament of the prince, and the fight being waged by gays and lesbians to wed, point toward a common cultural shift. And that is society's realization that allowing a mindless regard for "tradition" to stand in the way of happiness is not, after all, a good thing.

Readers above a certain age will realize just what a departure this would be for Britain and its royals. Was it really a mere half century ago that Princess Margaret, the queen's younger and more rebellious sister, yearned to marry a divorced man, and was told, in no uncertain terms (and by Elizabeth herself, it is said) "No"? She went on to a loveless, but respectable, union that ended, wouldn't you know it, in divorce - making her a bit of an outcast herself.

And a bit earlier still, King Edward, the Duke of Windsor to be, was famously forced to renounce his throne in order "to marry the woman I love," Mrs. Wallis Simpson, also a divorcee.

What has happened in the meantime, of course, has been a sea change in the way we think about divorce. With each of Elizabeth's children save one divorced themselves, it just doesn't seem right to bar poor Charles, the royal heir (divorced and widowed), from remarrying.

According to the Reuters article, which quotes Britain's Spectator magazine, royal courtiers have been "in despair about the religious, legal, and constitutional difficulties of a marriage between Prince Charles and Mrs. Parker-Bowles." Religion is an obstacle due to the royal family's links to the Church of England, of which Charles is due one day to become supreme governor and "protector of the faith." The Anglican Church, despite the break with Roman Catholicism - that business with Henry VIII and his six (count 'em, six) wives, who kept losing their heads - doesn't consider divorce to be, well, "respectable."

In Charles' case, carrying out a long-term clandestine affair with a divorcee could be countenanced, but taking it public and demanding that society recognize and celebrate his "nontraditional" relationship was asking too much. Just like religious conservatives in the good old U.S. of A. would rather see gays living secretive, even promiscuous lives than allow us to marry. The view that it's better to sin secretly (oh, like everyone doesn't know) than to live honestly could apply to both. Hypocrisy triumphant.

But, said the Reuters article, more recently these same royal courtiers who were aghast at the thought of a Charles-Camilla union have become aware that "it is both cruel and absurd that the prince and Mrs. Parker-Bowles should be forced to contemplate old age deprived of the benefits and comfort of marriage." And, as noted earlier, the queen is said to have come around, slowly, to accept this as well.

At the risk of belaboring the comparison, the same, of course, could be said of gays and lesbians who are breaking down society's resistance to our coupledoms.

And here's another parallel - the prince and his consort have been waging an ongoing campaign for acceptance by slowly but steadily "going public" with their affection for one another. No, I don't mean the purloined tapes of phone calls during the past unpleasantness with the late Princess of Wales, in which Charles was caught pining to be a "pair of knickers" on his lady love. No, I mean something far more prosaic. This past June, Charles and Camilla sealed their relationship with their first public kiss. That sensational kiss, Reuters noted, "was heralded by royal-watchers as a milestone," and "underlined Prince Charles' determination that Mrs. Parker-Bowles be publicly accepted as his partner."

Not exactly a "kiss in," but still a calculated move to use a heretofore shocking public display of affection with the clear message of "we're here, we're dear, get used to it."

Reuters continues, "in what has been seen as a carefully orchestrated campaign by Prince Charles' aides, the couple has gradually increased the frequency and profile of engagements they attend together." No going back in the closet for these two.

Eventually, the walls of resistance began to crumble. For we are informed, at the end of the Reuters report, that "Mrs. Parker-Bowles met Queen Elizabeth for the first time last year at a birthday party for former King Constantine of Greece," who is some sort of distant cousin to the British royals.

So there you have it. Even the queen is caving, and letting the notorious divorcee/mistress attend her party out in the open for all to see. Symbolically speaking, Camilla is now becoming part of the family. Just like the first time the folks accepted your lover when you brought him to cousin Ralph's birthday bash? Well, kind of.

0 Comments