IGF CultureWatch

Originally appeared in June 2001 in Update (San Diego).

Accustomed as we are to gay activists' scathing critiques of George W. Bush - some justified, others wildly overblown - it's interesting to note that a conservative group is assailing the president for being too pro-gay.

The Culture and Family Institute, an affiliate of Concerned Women for America, issued a report on June 14 titled "The Bush Administration's Republican Homosexual Agenda." They took Bush to task because he "failed to overturn a single Clinton executive order dealing with homosexuality" and "continued the Clinton policy of issuing U.S. Department of Defense regulations to combat 'anti-gay harassment.'"

Yes, that's right. In the view of the anti-gay far right, harassment against service members rumored to be gay is a good thing, and that darn Bush wants to put an end to it.

The report goes on to echo other anti-gay critics who condemned the appointment of openly gay Scott Evertz, a Wisconsin Log Cabin Republican leader, to head the White House AIDS office, and the appointment of Stephen Herbits, an openly gay man and gay rights supporter, as a temporary consultant to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.

Think that's all? Think again. The report also scolds the administration for supporting at the United Nations the "nongovernmental organization" status of the International Lesbian and Gay Association. Next, it speculates about the influence of Vice President Cheney, who has a lesbian daughter. "I think there's a personal connection," Robert Knight, longtime anti-gay activist and author of the report, ominously warned. The full report, by the way, can be found at cultureandfamily.org.

According to the Washington Post, "White House spokesman Scott McClellan rejected the report's claims."

As well he might, for everything that the anti-gay activists charge the Bush administration with is, apparently, true. These are the same actions that the Log Cabin Republicans have been praising, in fact.

A more recent development, and one that would also inflame the anti-gay right (and delight those gays and lesbians who are not inveterate Bush haters) was this underreported fact: The president opposed anti-gay Senator Jesse Helms' amendment to strip federal financing from school districts that deny Boy Scout troops access to their schools. Almost buried in a June 17 New York Times story was that "Bush told lawmakers from both parties last week that he did not support the provision," which nevertheless eked out passage in the newly Democratic-majority Senate (which wasn't supposed to happen once the Democrats were back in control, or so we were told).

So what's up? Observes gay Republican activist Rick Sincere, "The gay-bashing 'Leviticus crowd,' as [pro-gay GOP presidential adviser] Mary Matalin puts it, simply doesn't get it. They don't understand that they've lost the culture war."

Now as it happens, there was one other recent Bush action, this time widely reported in the gay presses, and used to tar the president as a "bigot": the president's decision not to issue a Gay Pride Month proclamation, unlike former President Clinton. But in the not too distant past, a conservative Republican president would have dismissed the very notion of such a proclamation, declaring that an "immoral lifestyle choice" (or something to that effect) would of course not be given official recognition, lest deviancy be defended and perversity promoted.

That, however, is not what George W. Bush said. "The president believes every person should be treated with dignity and respect but he does not believe in politicizing people's sexual orientation," said White House spokesman McClellan. A sop to religious conservatives, perhaps, but hardly a clarion call for intolerance. Not by a long shot. And no one tried to stop lesbian and gay federal employee groups within various federal departments from holding very visible pride month celebrations - despite pre-election warnings by Democrats that such activities would no longer be tolerated should the GOP prevail.

Now comes word, as reported in the New York Times of June 19, that the Agriculture Department is advertising for a "gay and lesbian program specialist" to manage its Gay and Lesbian Employment Program, which seeks to improve working conditions for the agency's gay employees. Depending on experience, the permanent position will pay anywhere from $74,697 to $97,108.

According to press accounts, federal agencies in the past have created special positions to handle issues concerning employees who are Hispanic or women, for instance. But the Agriculture Department job appears to be the first comparable position for gay workers in the federal workplace - an advancement, in the face of all the rollback predictions.

Possibly the right wing will go ballistic and the position will be dropped. We'll see. The point isn't that Bush is the best president for gay Americans that he could be, or should be, but that his administration is not nearly as bad as we were told it would be. And that's because the culture winds have shifted so thoroughly that it's now become clear to mainstream conservatives, if not yet to the "Leviticus crowd," that there's no going back.

Originally appeared May 17, 2001 in Update (San Diego).

Sometimes the anti-gay brigade can't help itself. Its activists drop their pretensions and reveal that what they're about isn't really "upholding traditional family values." Instead, it's anti-gay animus, pure and simple, that stokes their passion.

Here's an example. In Washington State, a bill aimed at curtailing bullying and harassment in public schools became stalled in the legislature after Christian conservatives complained that it amounted to a gay rights measure. How's that? The bill would have required school districts to set up policies against harassment, bullying and intimidation. It also would have mandated that districts train employees and volunteers in the prevention of bullying.

Sounds reasonable, doesn't it? To most people, perhaps, but not to the anti-gay brigade. In lobbying against the measure, Christian rightists claimed it would amount to censorship of the bullies' rights to "condemn homosexuality." The director of the Christian Coalition of Washington made a dire prediction that this sort of thing would lead to homosexual sensitivity training in schools.

The State Attorney General offered to add language to the bill making it "perfectly clear" that it would not abridge anyone's right to criticize homosexuality on moral grounds. But the anti-gay brigade would have none of it, and the bill, which had sailed through the state Senate with bipartisan support, never made it out of the House Education Committee.

"I think that people thought that this was going to give some special protections to the gay and lesbian communities," said one supporter, Rep. Dave Quall. He commented that what opponents seemed to want was not an anti-harassment bill, but a bill that "protects people's rights to be a bully" under the guise of expressing their religious convictions - as if calling someone a "faggot" in the school yard is a theological discussion.

Let's think about this. Hurling homophobic epithets has become the prime means of harassing and humiliating any student - gay or straight - who is seen as vulnerable. Usually the victims have little choice but to put up with the constant stream of abuse, often internalizing the hate. On rare occasions, lawsuits have been brought against school administrators for their woeful failure to protect the kids in their charge, but it's hardly a viable course of action. And sometimes, in extreme cases, the victims become mentally unhinged, and seek violent revenge against their tormentors - or innocent parties.

None of this seems to concern the anti-gay brigade. If having teenage brownshirts terrorize gay youth (or those whom they perceive as gay) will ensure that homosexuals know their place (i.e., in the closet), then that's fine with them. God's in his heaven, and all is right with the world.

Need another example? In Vermont, that state's historic civil union legislation is under siege. Civil unions, passed last year, allow same-sex partners to formalize their legal relationship and to share all the benefits the state provides to married couples (as well as the same barriers to dissolution, which requires family court action - just like marriage). The anti-gay brigade is beside itself. But in Vermont, the state Supreme Court ruled that gay couples must have access to the more than 300 state rights and benefits that flow from marriage, if not the right to marriage itself.

So, if civil union can't be overturned outright, what is to be done? The solution they've hit on is to try to replace civil unions with what would be termed "reciprocal partnerships" which - get this - would allow unions between sons and mothers, brothers and sisters, and any other two people whether related by blood or not, as long as neither is currently wed to anyone else. That's to say, reciprocal partnerships would not be limited to those who now can join together in a committed and loving (and sexual) relationship, but would instead apply to any two unmarried people who want to share their health insurance, or obtain other benefits heretofore reserved traditionally for committed adult couples.

This means that in the guise of protecting traditional family values, the anti-gay brigade would like to see any two friends or blood relatives gain the special status that marriage has had in the law. You'd think that would be one of the worst possible scenarios if your goal is actually to protect marriage. But if your motivation is to see that gays don't gain equality to marriage rights and to demean gay couples who have joined together in civil unions, then by all means let's devalue the special relationship between committed couples. It's a wonder they didn't include "reciprocal relationships" between people and their pets in their bill (as long as both are otherwise unmarried).

The anti-gay brigade was hard pressed, in testimony before the state legislature, to show that there's a huge demand for reciprocal partnerships between a child and parent, siblings, or a nephew/niece and their aunt/uncle. On the other hand, many couples united in civil unions put forth a powerful case for leaving the law in place as is. "I do not want our civil union weakened by reciprocal partnerships that would equate my relationship [with her partner] to my relationship with my mother, sister, great aunt," said Deb Reed. "Those relationships are qualitatively different."

Obvious, right? Except when the anti-gay brigade is showing its true intentions, which aren't much different from the schoolyard bullies they seek to protect.

Originally appeared April 2001 in Miami Weekly News and other publications.

Imagine you're enjoying a romantic evening at home with your paramour. Suddenly, your front door is slammed open and thugs crash their way into your bedroom. But wait, these "thugs" are wearing police uniforms and they're here to arrest you for the criminal activity that you and your love mate are engaged in - so-called "sodomy."

This is not a fictional scenario. In 1998, police burst into a suburban apartment in Houston, Texas, and arrested two consenting adults - Tyrone Garner and John Geddes Lawrence. The men were charged with homosexual conduct and spent the night in jail. The cops were investigating a report of a disturbance involving armed men - a report that later turned out to be false, called in by a neighbor who appeared to have a grudge against gays. The two men, rather than simply paying a fine (the "usual" procedure), submitted to a criminal trial so as to challenge what they regard as an unfair and anachronistic statute. To date, their case is still winding its way through the hierarchy of state courts.

Hard as it is to believe, 13 states and Puerto Rico still have sodomy laws that apply to both heterosexual and homosexual couples (outlawing what used to be termed "unnatural" intercourse, generally oral and anal copulation). Five states, including Texas, target only homosexual activity. Punishments for those convicted vary from fines (it's $500 in Texas) to a theoretical maximum of 10 years in Mississippi, and 5 years to life (yes, life!) in Idaho.

Of course, these laws are rarely enforced and there would be an uproar if a state court actually were to sentence a gay couple to years of imprisonment. However, because the laws remain on the books, they can be used to justify government discrimination against gays and lesbians in a host of areas. Courts in sodomy states routinely deny a gay or lesbian parent custody of their children because he or she is openly engaging in criminal activity (that is, they are involved in a same-sex relationship). Ditto for approval of adoptions. Police departments have refused to hire lesbian and gay officers because they pursue a "lifestyle" that flouts the law.

The news, however, isn't all grim. In March, a circuit judge in Arkansas struck down that state's anti-gay sodomy law, saying it unfairly singles out homosexuals for prosecution (the state had argued that the government had an interest in criminalizing behavior that most of its citizens would find "morally inappropriate"). The decision is sure to be appealed, however, so for the time being Arkansas remains in the "sodomy law" category. In Missouri, an appellate court, adjudicating for a district including only a portion of the state, struck down the sodomy law in 1999, finding that a revision of the state's criminal code had inadvertently decriminalized consensual sodomy in the state. Anti-gay legislators had insisted on an amendment to a law reform proposal that would have maintained the sodomy statute, but apparently botched the job by producing a grammatically inept run-on sentence that was just ambiguous enough to give the court room to conclude that consent was a defense to a sodomy charge.

And in the Texas case of Garner and Lawrence, a three-judge panel of the 14th Court of Appeals ruled last June that the state's sodomy law violated the Equal Rights Amendment of the Texas Constitution by singling out homosexuals (the case is pending before the full 14th Court of Appeals). Suits are also underway in Virginia to invalidate the state's Crimes Against Nature statute. A recent poll commissioned by the gay civil rights group Virginians for Justice found that most residents think the state's sodomy law is unfair and should be eliminated. Interestingly, among male respondents, 48.8 percent said that oral sex between two men should be illegal, but only 26 percent of men felt that oral sex between two women should be prohibited.

An excellent site, by the way, for news and views about current sodomy laws and efforts to repeal them, in the courts and through state legislatures, can be found at www.sodomylaws.com.

In 1987, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld state sodomy laws in its infamous Bowers v. Hardwick decision. That ruling, with a slim 5 to 4 majority, focused on Georgia's statute prohibiting sodomy among both straight and gay couples (although Michael Hardwick and his partner were gay -- the police don't arrest consenting adult heterosexuals in the privacy of their bedrooms).

Since the Texas statute applies only to same-sex couples, there may be an opening for a reversal should the Lawrence/Garner case eventually make its way up to the highest court in the land. While a national victory would be reason to rejoice, if these battles must be fought state by state, so be it.

Originally appeared Feb. 22, 2001, in Update and other publications.

NO DOUBT ABOUT IT, white rapper Eminem has incited widespread anger among gays and lesbians of an activist bent with his anti-gay, anti-women lyrics. So, why would Elton John, the openly gay superstar and AIDS philanthropist, agree to share a song with him at the upcoming Grammy Awards show, where Eminem is nominated for four awards, including Best Album? And is the rap that the rapper, and his new duet partner, are getting deserved, or just more activist hysteria?

Before trying to answer those questions, let's take a look at the lyrics of the 28-year-old singer, who was born Marshall Bruce Mathers III, to see why the activists are so upset. From "Criminal": My words are like a dagger with a jagged edge/That'll stab you in the head/whether you're a fag or lez/Or the homosex, hermaph or trans-a-vest/Pants or dress - hate fags? The answer's 'yes.'" Another verse goes "Hey, it's me, Versace/Whoops, somebody shot me?" More ambiguously, he sings "C'mon! - Relax guy, I like gay men/Right, Ken? Give me an amen (AAA-men!)"

Then there's the song "Kill You," which goes "You faggots keep eggin' me on/til I have you at knifepoint, then you beg me to stop?/SHUT UP! Give me your hands and feet/I said SHUT UP when I'm talkin' to you/YOU HEAR ME? ANSWER ME!"

On the other hand, some defenders have interpreted support for gay marriage in these lines from "The Real Slim Shady": "But if we can hump dead animals and antelopes/then there's no reason that a man and another man can't elope." But I think that's a stretch.

So much for a quick sample of Eminem's wit. As noted, he has incurred the wrath of enraged activists. The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), along with the National Organization of Women (NOW) and a host of other acronym groups, will be protesting outside the Grammys over Eminem's nominations. Well and good - America's all about freedom of expression. But it's disconcerting to see the direction that some of the anti-Eminem activism is taking. As reported in Rolling Stone, the student union at Sheffield University in England has banned the rapper's records, claiming that they violate the school's anti-homophobia regulations. Eminem t-shirts also have been forbidden, as has reviewing his work in the school's student newspapers.

So, the students can't even pan Eminem's music; instead, they mustn't mention it at all!

Predictably, Elton John, despite his pro-gay advocacy and AIDS-relief work, is now being labeled a traitor. "By agreeing to appear on stage as back-up singer to Eminem at the Grammys, you are spitting on the grave of Matthew Shepard," writes lesbian activist Robin Tyler, who, fresh from the Stop Dr. Laura campaign, is now spearheading the Anti-Eminem Coalition. She writes, "Eminem's speech is not 'free' to those of us and/or our families who have been brutalized, beaten, murdered, and raped." She ends her "open letter" with a threat: "If you do this, despite your prior advocacy, activism and philanthropy, we will consider you a collaborator in our war against injustice. ... Your choice is clear: Resign from your commitment to appear with Eminem at the Grammys, or go down in history as a gay Uncle Tom who foolishly allowed himself to be used as a tool against 'his own' people."

GLAAD also turned on Elton. Last year, the media group gave him their Vito Russo Award (named after the noted gay film critic and GLAAD co-founder). Now, GLAAD's director, Joan Garry, says Russo would be "appalled that John would share a stage with Eminem, whose words and actions promote hate and violence against gays and lesbians."

And what does Elton say? That he is "offering an olive branch" by asking for the duet. He also admits, "I know I'm going to get a lot of flak from various people. ... I'd rather tear down walls...than build them up. If I thought for one minute that he was a hateful bastard, I wouldn't do it."

Which brings us back to Eminem himself. Aside from his lyrics, the singer hasn't engaged in any anti-gay crusade. Some of his defenders say he's playing the role of the thug to shed light on the deranged. That's probably too charitable. But as Holly Bemiss, manager of A Different Light Bookstore in the Castro, told the San Francisco Chronicle, "If Eminem was really homophobic, would he really agree to perform with Elton?"

In an article titled "Bum Rap" that appeared in Reason magazine, Brian Doherty writes that "More than his detractors recognize, Eminem is openly torn between conflicting desires to say whatever he wants, especially if he knows it will upset all the right people, and to do the right thing and live a normal life." He adds that the singer repeatedly "recognizes his own persona's sickness," and that "Eminem presents such a grotesquely self-hating and negative image of himself that it's almost too obvious a joke when he mocks the idea that anyone would want to emulate him."

Frankly, I can't see into Eminem's soul. But to me, his lyrics are obviously cruel and dehumanizing towards gays and others, and raising a howl seems perfectly appropriate. At the same time, the righteous activists have - quel surprise - gone into such hyperbolic overdrive that it makes me want to defend Eminem's right to express himself despite the phalanx of would-be censors.

As for Elton John, if he believes that reaching out with love, rather than countering hate with hate, might be a productive effort, then he does not deserve the vilification of those who purport to speak on behalf of the entire gay and lesbian community. Didn't someone once say that to love your enemy and turn the other cheek could change the world? Guess he was just another "traitor" to the cause of zealotry, too.

Originally published February 2001 in The Weekly News (Miami) and other publications.

IT'S FASCINATING TO WATCH actual, real, ideological "diversity" finally emerge within the lesbigay community. The latest outbreak: dueling press releases over President Bush's education bill, which includes a modest "school choice" proposal that might provide parents whose children attend the worst public schools with scholarships for private or parochial schools. The Log Cabin Republicans, representing gays and lesbians within the GOP, praised the idea as good for gay youth, while the left-leaning National Gay & Lesbian Task Force condemned it as "dangerously anti-gay."

Let's begin with the Republicans: "The children of gay and lesbian parents, and gay and lesbian students in schools, are routinely subject to targeted violence and harassment," stated the Log Cabin release, "and too often school administrations do little or nothing to counter it." It noted that one such case in Wisconsin led a federal court to find a public school district liable for its repeated refusal to protect a gay student from violent anti-gay attacks and harassment over several years.

"Education reforms which empower parents with the right and means to move their children out of such schools will mean real progress for our families," the Log Cabiners continued, which is why "LCR supports school choice and education reform, and will work with President Bush and the Republican Congress to maximize parental choice to combat harassment and violence in America's schools."

Now, here's what NGLTF had to say about the same proposal: "Funneling public tax dollars to private schools in the form of school vouchers poses risks to gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (GLBT) students and teachers as well as the children of GLBT parents," said their release. "Will the curriculum be based on tolerance and inclusion?" they ask. "Will the libraries in religious voucher schools include books that reflect the reality of GLBT people?" Concludes NGLTF, "We are adamantly opposed to school vouchers because strengthening our public schools requires a commitment, and vouchers are an abrogation of that commitment."

To be fair, there are rational arguments to be made on both sides of this question. But I'd note that the Bush plan only extends to parents whose children are trapped in failing public schools that, despite repeated warnings and special funding, are still not able to do a minimal job of educating students. To compare such dysfunctional institutions unfavorably with private or parochial schools that might not offer pro-gay books in their libraries is weak. If kids can't read, pro-gay literature isn't going to help them a whole lot.

I'd also dispute that the typical public school is particularly gay inclusive, outside the most liberal burgs. And I'd wager that even if some private schools aren't particularly "pro-gay," as NGLTF would define that term, they are generally a safer environment. Here's what I mean: The Los Angeles Times noted not too long ago that teachers and administrators ignored "pervasive anti-gay abuse" in the halls of a suburban high school in the Morgan Hill Unified School District, south of San Jose, where "the words 'faggot' and 'dyke' were uttered about as often as 'hello' and 'goodbye'." Slurs were hissed at one out lesbian student in class, and "scribbled on her locker and on pornographic death threats, including a picture of a bound and gagged women with a slit throat."

I wonder if the GLBT anti-school-choice activists are glad that this student was kept trapped in the public school system.

Following Matthew Shepard's murder, a CBS poll found that nearly half of 11th graders said gay and lesbian students were abused verbally and otherwise at their public schools. At the same time, a CNN story reported that public school officials, rather than being gay supportive, used "community values" to defend their inaction. "You have to...not be so sensitive and so open that you are promoting something that certain portions of your parent population and students would be opposed to," said Paul Houston, a spokesman for the American Association of High School Administrators.

Alternatively, allowing for choice could support educational options for students - including escape to private schools that really do have gay-supportive curriculums or that allow students to organize gay-straight alliances. It could even mean that more public school districts would be willing to experiment with alternatives along the lines of New York City's Harvey Milk school, which takes openly gay, lesbian, and transgendered students who've dropped out - or fled - their local schools.

That's not a perfect solution, since some kids come from homophobic homes, or from homes where parents just don't care at all. But competition is the engine of innovation and improvement. In the long run, applying market competition to force government-funded and operated public schools to compete would provide an economic incentive to curb the worst aspects of high school hell faced by all students, gay and straight, trapped in schools that just don't give a damn.

As Log Cabin noted, a few public high school students have won lawsuits charging that their schools failed to protect them from anti-gay attacks, but that hasn't stopped other public school districts from imposing what they call "prohibition of alternative lifestyle instruction" or forbidding gay and lesbian student groups from meeting. Maybe, just maybe, private school vouchers could provide gay youth in need with a remedy, instead of being the threat that some activists fear. And wouldn't that be a better choice?

Originally appeared December 28, 2000, in Update (San Diego) and other gay publications.

A few weeks before the election, I found myself at a congressional candidates forum in Arlington, Virginia, just across the river from the nation's capital. The event was sponsored by the local Arlington Gay & Lesbian Alliance, a nonpartisan group, and the main draw was Democratic Rep. Jim Moran, who subsequently coasted to an easy victory on Nov. 7th.

Moran spoke of his support for the rights of gays and lesbians to have legally recognized unions, which everyone in the audience agreed, it goes without saying, would be a grand thing. But then someone (no, not me) asked a rather pointed question. Since it is highly unlikely (in the extreme) that the Virginia legislature will approve recognition of gay partnerships, let alone marriage-equivalent civil unions, in the foreseeable future, wouldn't some of the policies supported by Moran's Log Cabin-backed GOP opponent actually be of a more immediate benefit to gay couples? These policies, the questioner pointed out, included repeal of the estate inheritance tax, gift tax reform, and establishing private Social Security accounts.

Good points, these, but not ones that many gays and lesbians spend a lot of time pondering. But maybe we should. One of the great benefits of marriage is the exemption from federal (and state) taxes on money and property left to a surviving spouse after death, and the exemption from taxes on gifts transferred between spouses at any time. Gay and lesbian partners get left out in the cold.

Clearly, same-sex couples would disproportionately benefit from abolition of the so-called "death tax," as well as raising or abolishing the tax on gifts of over $10,000. These are generally regarded as "Republican" initiatives, opposed by liberals who dismiss them as "benefiting the rich" and decreasing government revenues that could otherwise be spent by the state. That's why President Clinton twice vetoed bills that would have ended the "death tax."

Similarly, private, individual Social Security accounts would also be a major boon to same-sex couples. As the program is currently set up, a surviving husband or wife inherits his or her spouse's Social Security benefits. But gay people, regardless of how long they've been together, or how intertwined their finances, are not legally married, and so we can't pass along our retirement benefits. And if you lack a spouse (or child), your Social Security savings go right back to Uncle Sam.

But if we were allowed to invest at least a part of our Social Security taxes in our own private retirement accounts, we could bequeath them to anyone we choose (although the recipient would still have to pay the inheritance tax on larger estates, unless it's eliminated, which takes us back to point number one, above).

Now, there are, in fact, some convoluted ways that a few of these penalties can be minimized - setting up trusts and the like. But practically speaking, this isn't something that most lesbian or gay couples are going to do - it's too complex, and you still wind up without the sweeping financial benefits of marriage.

Wanted: Fresh Thinking

Many conservatives support estate and gift tax reform, as well as private Social Security accounts, because the current law often forces many estates - including small businesses and family farms - to be sold off in order to pay taxes, rather than passed on to the next generation. But need we oppose every initiative because it may enjoy conservative or "pro-family" support? Maybe it's time for some fresh thinking that challenges the "liberal alliance" view that permeates so much of gay politics. Such an argument was recently made by the Log Cabin Republicans. On the LCR's website, a post-election news release states: "We must build a truly bipartisan movement, and...reach out to a much wider spectrum of Republicans and Democrats in Congress, and build a broader consensus on issues and policies than ever attempted before. To be successful requires compromise and new approaches from all of us, opening our minds to new ideas and concepts perhaps never before considered."

Unfortunately, fresh thinking doesn't seem to be in abundant supply within the gay movement. Consider this: the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force recently published what it called "the first comprehensive report to address public policy issues facing millions of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (GLBT) seniors in the United States."

According to Elizabeth Toledo, NGLTF's executive director, "For too many years the needs of the oldest members of our community have been invisible to many of us and ignored by most institutions in our society." She goes on to claim that the report, titled "Outing Age," would serve to "shine a laser beam on these needs and offer concrete recommendations on how aging activists, policy makers and social service agencies can meet them."

While the report finds that "GLBT elders may be more likely to face poverty and economic insecurity," and even points out that "several federal programs that aim to service seniors blatantly exclude or otherwise discriminate against GLBT elders," including Social Security, it remains silent about practical solutions, such as estate tax repeal and private Social Security accounts. Instead, NGLTF comes up with generalized goals, which include "raising consciousness within the GLBT community" about ageism, and "forming partnerships with mainstream advocacy groups," such as AARP - a lobby that would rather defend the status quo as it exists for today's elderly, rather than confront the needs of tomorrow's. This is hardly a resounding agenda for so important a problem.

How about a gay political movement that tells conservatives they'll have our support for repeal of the "death tax" and for private Social Security accounts, in return for support on some of OUR civil rights issues? Now there's an original idea on building alliances that just might produce tangible benefits in the here and now.

Originally appeared December 15, 2000, in The Weekly News (Miami).

The premiere of "Queer as Folk", the sexually frank, gay-themed miniseries on Showtime, generated a flood of media attention, from Entertainment Weekly to the New York Times. The story of a group of young gay men (and one lesbian couple) clubbing and loving in Pittsburgh (yes, Pittsburgh!) is a test of Showtime's advertising slogan, "No Limits." Actual naked bods are seen only fleetingly, but the action taking place under the covers - and elsewhere - is clear and unambiguous: these men have SEX. And the fact that one of the storylines concerns a relationship between a 29-year-old professional and a 17-year-old high school student brings a new candor to television's treatment of gay youth.

"Queer as Folk" isn't the story of all of our lives - every gay person isn't an late-night clubber and one-night stander - but it is the story of some of our lives, and that story has rarely been shown on television.

What's truly fascinating, however, is the lack of effective protest from the organized, anti-gay right. Sure, the old reliable Family Research Council has a posting on its website denouncing the show. It makes for fun reading: "As parents, would you invite gay men into your home to engage in sex acts in front of children?" asks FRC's Janet Parshall, who, by the way, hadn't actually bothered to watch the show. She nevertheless continues, "In the show's preview, men were said to have kissed, fondled, and engaged in various sex acts," oh my!

Ms. Parshall goes on to lament, "Because cable TV depends on subscribers for income, they aren't subject to the same rules as the networks. Americans who pay for extra channels are excusing them from accountability. Meanwhile, on December 3rd, when pornography knocks at the door, will your kids be home?" Ding, dong, pornography calling.

But seriously, Ms. Parshall, any kids who watch Showtime at 10 p.m. on a school night already have had a thorough sexual education, at least as far as copious female nudity is concerned.

There's also a more revealing point in the FRC diatribe. The cable revolution, the Internet, and new media in general have radically limited the power of would-be censors on both the left and the right, and that's all to the good.

Consider the fate of earlier attempts at barrier-breaking portraits of how gay people actually live. Back in 1989, ABC tried to bring a dose of honesty - and a hint of sexuality - to its drama series "thirtysomething." That show introduced a relationship between two gay characters and, while no actual displays of physical affection were shown, the couple was featured in bed together, talking.

Whoa: That was just too much for the religious right, which got wind of the storyline and targeted the show's advertisers. ABC announced that advertiser pullouts resulted in a loss of about $1.5 million in revenues when several sponsor withdrew their spots from the "controversial" episode. The gay characters disappeared and the episode was never re-run. Similar advertiser pullouts occurred when other shows and TV movies tried to deal frankly with gay lives, and a chill descended over gay representations on TV.

So much for the commercial networks, but public television didn't fare much better, and proved, if anything, more susceptible to the censors. In 1994, when PBS aired a series based on Armistead Maupin's "Tales of the City," the uproar was fast and furious. Although the series garnered critical praise and high ratings, the organized protests cowed ABC into dropping plans to finance and air the sequel, "More Tales of the City," which had been in development.

In a later interview with the New York Times, Maupin lamented that "by running scared, PBS not only yielded to the pressure of a relatively small number of people but also ended up proving a frequent criticism of public television: that government financing could lead to government control." But then, shouldn't that have been obvious?

It wasn't until 1998 that "More Tales" was seen - on Showtime, which had picked up the project abandoned by PBS. The new tales were even more sexually explicit than the original series had been, but because the show was on a subscription-based cable network rather than PBS, there was almost no political debate about it.

Responding to the cable challenge, and the increased acceptance of gays in society, commercial TV inched its way back to gay content, and eventually we had Ellen's famous same-sex kiss. But the broadcast networks still tend to make gays secondary characters. And even when we are the focus of attention, we're usually sexless, or ridiculous. Can you say "Will & Grace"?

Writing recently in the New York Times, critic Caryn James praises "Queer as Folk" for breaking new ground, "not in what it shows but in the point of view it adopts." She adds that this is a show that doesn't cater to straight sensibilities, or spoon-feed gay experiences through the eyes of a heterosexual (as even "Tales" and "More Tales" tended to do, via protagonist Mary Ann Singleton).

But with cable, you don't have to be all things to all people. Showtime promoted "Queer as Folk" particularly heavily in predominantly gay areas, and CNN reported that cable operators in San Francisco and Los Angeles ended up with jammed phone lines from callers who wanted Showtime so they could catch the first episode. That promotion paid off: the premiere scored Showtime's best ratings in three years.

As cable channels proliferate in the brave new world of digital and broadband, the power of the censors will continue to diminish. It won't all be high quality, and much of it may be sensational and even exploitive. But one thing is certain - the age in which self-appointed cultural commissars could censor gay characters is over. And since political change in America follows cultural change, that's good news for all us folk.

Originally published October 19, 2000, in The Weekly News (Miami).

Recently, I wrote that the surest sign that progress is being made comes when the more conservative party, in America the GOP, takes its own tentative steps towards acceptance of gays and lesbians. I had been referring to such small signs as providing an openly gay speaker - Arizona Congressman Jim Kolbe - with a prime time speaking slot at the Republican National Convention, as well as George W. Bush's decision to finally meet with a group of openly gay and lesbian Republicans.

But there has now been a much more significant sign of GOP progress, as the neck and neck race between George W. and Al Gore hits its final leg. I'm referring, of course, to statements by GOP vice presidential candidate Dick Cheney that reverse a long-standing Republican antipathy toward recognizing gay relationships.

"My own personal view is that people ought to have the right to enter into any kind of relationship they want to enter into. With respect to how that's affected or regulated by the state, those are state decisions. Different states are likely to make different decisions based upon their own wishes and desire of the people of the state, and that's perfectly acceptable." So said Cheney to the Rutland (Vermont) Herald on September 8. Remarkably, this statement got little attention - despite its clear break with GOP dogma that had heretofore disdained the idea of government granting any recognition to same-sex unions and the opposition of many (but not all) Republicans to Vermont's recently enacted civil unions bill.

But then Cheney, whose daughter, Mary, is both openly lesbian and in a long-term relationship, went even further. In his televised debate with Democratic veep nominee Joe Lieberman, the candidates were asked by moderator Bernard Shaw whether "a male who loves a male and a female who loves a female" should have the same constitutional rights as others. Lieberman said that while he supported "the traditional notion of marriage as being limited to a heterosexual couple," his mind was open to doing something to address the unfairness experienced by gay couples.

For his part, Cheney expanded on his own earlier statement: "We live in a free society, and freedom means freedom for everybody," he said. "We shouldn't be able to choose and say, 'You get to live free and you don't.' That means people should be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to enter into."

Then he dropped the bombshell: "Like Joe, I'm also wrestling with the extent to which there ought to be legal sanction of those relationships. I think we ought to do everything we can to tolerate and accommodate whatever kind of relationships people want to enter into." Not just tolerate, mind you, but accommodate the type of relationships that the religious right condemns as inherently immoral.

Republican Party Chairman Jim Nicholson said after the debate that Bush and Cheney recognize that the civil unions question was "complicated."

"We're a tolerant party," Nicholson said. "We don't support discrimination of any kind."

Well, not quite. Many Republicans (and Democrats) have long supported discriminating against gays in the military, while passing (again, with bipartisan support) a so-called Defense of Marriage Act that forbid the federal government from recognizing gay unions, even if states granted such recognition. Cheney's comments suggested that if states want to recognize gay unions of any stripe, that's up to them and fine with him.

Winnie Stachelberg of the Human Rights Campaign, who rarely has anything pleasant to say about Republicans, announced that Cheney "has taken a big step forward by breaking ranks with the extreme right in the GOP by recognizing that gay and lesbian families have a place in America and that these relationships should be respected."

And American voters seem to agree. An overnight ABC News poll following the vice presidential debate showed that the Bush-Cheney ticket jumped from 49 percent to 51 percent. Of voters who watched the debate, 43 percent thought Cheney had "won" compared with 24 percent who thought Lieberman had carried the day and 27 percent who judged their performance a tie.

Nevertheless, Republican reactionaries howled with displeasure - and disbelief. Gary Bauer accused Cheney of "fuzzy morality" that's "out of step with the beliefs of the many Americans who consider marriage to be a God-ordained institution between a man and a woman." Kenneth Connor, head of the anti-gay Family Research Council, complained that Cheney's views were surely "heartening to those in the gay community who want to redefine marriage to include homosexual unions." And Jerry Falwell declared, "I disagree with Mr. Cheney on his suggestion that the states should be allowed to sanction any relationships they want," suggesting that, in his view, states should be forbidden from doing so.

When Chris Matthews of CNBC asked Falwell if he thought it better that gays be promiscuous rather than offer official recognition that could reinforce same-sex partnerships, Falwell could only blather that homosexuality in all forms was wrong. Increasingly, this view comes across as ridiculous.

Cheney remained unmoved by all the sniping, holding that his "position is unchanged" and that he had answered the question about gay unions "truthfully and accurately." About the criticism, Cheney replied, "I don't pay any attention."

Subsequently, George W. affirmed his opposition to gay marriage. And during the second presidential debate, Bush engaged in blather about "equal rights, not special rights" without ever defining what these "special rights" gays supposedly seek might be. True enough, although Bush didn't refute Cheney's comments when asked about them, nor did he take the opportunity to condemn Vermont-style civil unions. It's a start.

All in all, the simple fact is this. The Republican candidate for vice president said something more "tolerant" and more "accommodating" about equality for gay people than any prominent Republican has ever said. And he boldly stood by his remarks to the point of scorning the anti-gay bigwigs in his party, a flank that is increasingly being diminished. The presidential standard bearing himself isn't willing to go nearly as far, but seems content to let dual messages emerge from his campaign on this hottest of hot-button topics.

That would not have happened if a seismic shift weren't taking place within the GOP. And that's what political progress is about.

Originally appeared Oct. 5, 2000, in The Weekly News (Miami).

In the struggle for dignity, and equality, victory over our adversaries is not always swift. And the fight isn't always morally unambiguous and controversy-free. The current campaign against the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) for barring gay men from serving as troop leaders - as well as for their policies of excluding self-identifying gay youth and professed atheists from being Scouts - raises some complex issues about the value of Scouting activities that some activists would rather ignore.

Some background, first. For those who had hoped that a single Supreme Court ruling would put an end to the anti-gay discrimination championed by the Scouts' Texas-based national headquarters, the eventual ruling in favor of the BSA's right as a private association to exclude gay men (the sole issue before the court) was a keen disappointment. Yet, in the weeks and months following the ruling, battles have begun erupting in locality after locality, as gay rights advocates try to cut government, charitable, and corporate funding for local Scout troops in an effort to pressure the BSA's leaders to stop discriminating. Not all of these efforts have been successful to date, but cumulatively, there's a major move afoot.

Consider some recent battles over funding the Scouts. In Florida, the United Way of Palm Beach County warned local Boy Scouts to prepare to lose $118,000 in contributions in two years if the organization doesn't alter its policy against admitting gays. Miami Beach's city commissioners voted to expand the city's human rights ordinance to deny the waiver of rental fees for municipal facilities to organizations that discriminate. In California, the Glendale Human Relations Coalition asked the city council to stop giving federal block grant funds to groups that discriminate based on sexual orientation and related criteria. The schools chief of Framingham, Mass., announced that the Scouts will no longer be allowed to recruit or distribute material inside the city's schools.

In Chicago, the United Way of Evanston decided to drop its funding for the local Scouts for the 2001-2002 fiscal year. And cities including Chicago, San Francisco and San Jose, Calif., have told local Scout troops that they can no longer use parks, schools and other municipal sites. Connecticut has banned contributions to the Scouts by state employees through a state-run charity.

But local governments that have taken action sometimes face a backlash. Fort Lauderdale commissioners voted to yank $4,167 in city funds that would have gone to the Scouts, and then came under withering attack at a council meeting where the audience was filled with vocal Scout supporters. According to a report in The Miami Herald, several speakers launched blistering attacks at the meeting, and some even clamed gays seek to infiltrate the Boy Scouts to molest children. Fort Lauderdale Mayor Jim Naugle, the lone dissenter in a 3-1 vote to deny funds to the Scouts, said he was "ashamed" of his city commission for taking action against the Scouts.

In Washington, the GOP-controlled Congress has, expectedly, affirmed the Scouts' special congressional charter. But the Democrats have done no better. President Clinton continues to serve as an honorary Scout leader, and Scouts were trotted out onto the platform at the Democratic National Convention for a patriotic moment (to the boos of a few gay delegates). Recently, Attorney General Janet Reno ruled that the federal government need not sever its ties to the Scouts, such as Jamborees on military property (they're the only private group afforded such a privilege). Responded Scott Cozza, a co-founder of Scouting for All, a group critical of the Scout policy, "Janet Reno appears to be saying yes. ... The Ku Klux Klan could use federal facilities under her reasoning."

Private companies are also facing "the Scouting question." Several well-known firms, including Knight Ridder Inc., announced that in keeping with their own anti-discrimination policies they could no longer fund the Scouts. At first, there were reports that Chase Manhattan Bank was doing the same. But Chase then announced it had only been 'reviewing' its giving criteria. "We temporarily suspended new funding commitments while we conducted our review," stated an official release from the company. "Chase has now completed its review and will continue to fund Scout programs. At the end of the day, we do not want to withdraw funding from those programs because doing so would be harmful to thousands of children who benefit significantly from them. We intend to continue working with the Scouts on this evolving issue."

Some gay rights supporters, understandably, consider this a cop-out. They contend that defunding the Scouts is necessary to end the group's discriminatory behavior - and to send a message that gays are not morally suspect, second-class citizens. "We have to decide, Are we aiding and abetting someone that discriminates?" C. Joan Parker, assistant counsel to the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights, told the New York Times. In Seattle, where the United Way of King County decided it will no longer support Scout programs, a spokesperson said, "We would like to continue a funding relationship and provide services to kids in this community, but those services have to be provided in accordance with our nondiscrimination policy."

The other side of the argument is being made by the Scouts' defenders, who range from outright homophobes to those who may or may not agree with the BSA's policy, but feel that children should not be penalized because of it. This debate is being waged in editorials, opinion columns, and - especially - letters to the editor of newspapers and news magazines. "Don't punish children in need," is the refrain.

It is not enough for gays and lesbians to dismiss such concerns out of hand, especially since it is true that Scouting programs are of particular benefit to disadvantaged boys. To gay rights advocates, it's better that some boys do without Scouting if it will hasten the day when we truly have "Scouting for All."

This would be an easier case to make if the Scouts were, as some of the more adamant anti-Scouts now paint them, more akin to the Hitler Youth (or, if there were such a thing, the Junior Klan), than a racially integrated organization whose national leaders have yet to come to terms with the dynamic cultural changes of the past 20 years.

With some reservations, however, I come down on the side of the activists on this one. I think Scouting is of great value to boys of all races and classes, but the message that gays need not apply is too big a bite of bile for me to swallow. I certainly don't think the government - local, state, or national - should be funding them or giving them special privileges. And I don't mind asking the United Way to give its money to more inclusive youth causes. But most of all, I hope that soon, very soon, the Scouts' national leaders will wake up to the fact that it's the 21st century.

Originally appeared in The Weekly News (Miami) on August 31, 2000.

I'M OFTEN AMAZED by the lack of historical memory, even among people who should know better. Nowhere is this phenomenon more apparent than in our attitudes toward the two political parties.

To hear some people talk, you would never realize that the Democrats were once the party of slaveholders, and then the party of Jim Crow segregationists. Clearly, things change. The Democrats found a majority constituency that supported equal rights for African Americans and then rode it to power, leaving the Republicans to play catch-up.

That's why I hold out hope that the GOP's glacial moves this year toward gay "tolerance" and "accommodation" might indicate a gradual but real movement that will escalate into support for gay equality. The reason won't just be that they've discovered the error of their ways, but that they're smart enough to realize which way the winds of popular opinion are blowing. After all, politicians are notorious for realigning their most deeply felt views in order to achieve their supreme goal - victory.

If that sounds both harsh, consider a few recent transformations in the American political scene. Just four years ago, Green Party presidential candidate Ralph Nader refused to denounce the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that forbade the federal government from recognizing gay unions. As the bill was snaking its way through Congress, Nader infamously dismissed concern for the rights of gays as mere "gonadal politics" that would be beneath his dignity as a true progressive to comment upon. Today, however, he claims that supporters of gay rights would have no stronger advocate in the White House than himself should he be elected. Dream on, Ralphie boy.

Or take Al Gore, perhaps the ultimate finger-in-the-wind politico. At the outset of his Congressional career in 1976, Gore called homosexuality "abnormal." In 1980 he voted for an amendment prohibiting the Legal Services Corp. from assisting homosexuals whose rights were denied because of their sexual orientation. As a senator, Gore repeatedly backed anti-gay measures devised by Jesse Helms that sought to deny legal protections for gay people, and supported an amendment to use HIV tests to discriminate against immigrants and people seeking health insurance. Even worse, Gore voted with Helms to restore the anti-gay sodomy law in the District of Columbia after the local city council tried to repeal it.

Gore presumably repudiates these positions these days, but even now he stands behind his support of DOMA - while contradictorily saying he opposed California's statewide version of DOMA that passed in a voter referendum last fall. Gore's opposition, of course, was announced only after Bill Bradley spoke against the California initiative, putting into play lots of gay voters in the state's Democratic primary. But for now, he still is opposed to gay marriage (as are Hillary Clinton and other top Democrats). No doubt if and when public opinion shifts nationally on gay unions, Gore will discover he's in our court on that issue, too.

And then there's Joe Lieberman, who prior to winning the veepstakes had supported school choice and privately held social security accounts, and opposed some types of racial preferences, but who is now backtracking on these issues quicker than a ballerina can pirouette. As columnist Hastings Wyman reported, Lieberman has also had his share of anti-gay votes. In 1993, he, too, voted to prohibit HIV positive people from immigrating to the United States and to kill a domestic partners law that had passed in the District of Columbia. And, going back to 1989, he voted to prevent schools from using educational materials that "promote homosexuality" or portray homosexuality as "normal, natural, or healthy."

My point is not to argue that, in 2000, Democrats aren't clearly more supportive of gay equality than Republicans. Rather, it's to question the attitude that Democrats have always been better, and the corollary that they always will be better. In fact, if you can characterize the Democrats as the party of expansive government and the Republicans as the party of freedom from government and for individual liberty, then a GOP not tethered to anti-gay reactionaries could have much to offer gay Americans - and not only in terms of gay rights. We're not there yet, but I suspect it's where the wind is blowing.

And if so, perhaps we need to call into question our movement's policy of making gays into a Democratic Party caucus. That strategy was exemplified by the Human Rights Campaign, the big Washington-based lesbigay lobby, which endorsed Al Gore for president before the GOP had even nominated a candidate - and at a time when John McCain was actively soliciting gay support in his maverick GOP bid.

The bellwether of progress, let's remember, isn't how warmly our current friends and allies embrace us, but the tentative steps toward acceptance taken by our traditional adversaries. And as long as we have a two-party system, gaining equality for gays and lesbians will require support not only from liberal Democrats, but from the more conservative party as well.

From the end of the Civil War until the 1940s, African-Americans were solidly in the Republican camp. Of course, they usually couldn't vote in the South because Southern Democrats had repealed Reconstruction-era civil rights reforms and actively promoted anti-black discrimination. How strange that now seems. But politics is about change, and as gay assimilation into the mainstream grows, the GOP, with a little encouragement, will come along on gay issues, too. It's blowing in the wind.