IGF CultureWatch

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.

Originally appeared July 2000 in The Weekly News (Miami) and other publications.

WHEN I FIRST HEARD about the group Soulforce, a network of lesbian and gay (and, yes, bisexual and transgendered) activists with plans to protest homophobic doctrines and policies at various Christian denominational gatherings, I was dubious. I remembered all too well ACT-UP's 1989 protest inside New York's St. Patrick's Cathedral. Chanting "You say don't fuck, we say fuck you!" the demonstrators sought to counter the Catholic Church's anti-gay dogma - and opposition to safe-sex education - by running riot during Holy Mass. Notoriously, one protester threw a communion wafer on the floor and stamped on it. Take that, Christ.

Needless to say, no anti-gay hearts and minds were swayed that Sunday in New York. In fact, many who had originally been supportive of an action were appalled at what occurred. Members of Dignity, the gay Catholic group, had hoped for a more, well, "dignified" witnessing, rather than a raucous tantrum that only served to confirm the traditionalists' view that homosexuality and violent amoral anarchism were one and the same. Moreover, the communion-stomping incident has been cited by anti-gay conservatives over and over again in their diatribes and fund-raising appeals.

So, again, I was dubious about what the Soulforce demonstrations might be like. But I can now say, following several recent actions, that they seem to have found an appropriate form of spiritual protest, with a nod to Gandhi and King instead of the kindergarten bolshevism that too often characterizes gay acting up.

That's not so say that Soulforce doesn't lay it on the line. On July 4th, some 200 protesters planted themselves at the Episcopal Church USA's General Convention, held in Denver, for a 45-minute silent vigil. According to the activists, they "peacefully and symbolically" blocked the entrance to the convention center. Some 73 protesters were then handcuffed and arrested without resistance, in a bid to influence Episcopal Church rules regarding homosexuality. At issue: the 2.4 million-member denomination's unofficial policy of letting each diocese decide the role of gays and lesbians in the church. Conservative Episcopalians say the rule violates biblical morality and want it overturned. Some gays feel it isn't sufficiently gay-accepting.

"The time has come for you to stop the debate, open your arms and welcome all God's children in full acceptance, full inclusion," said Soulforce Chairman Jimmy Creech, a former Methodist minister who was defrocked after performing a holy union ceremony for a gay couple.

One of those arrested in Denver was retired Episcopal Bishop Otis Charles, who said, "After being true to myself and my church that I was gay, I came to understand that God loves me just as I am. There is no place I can be except with Soulforce, speaking the voice of truth about God's children."

Founded by Rev. Dr. Mel White and his partner, Gary Nixon, Soulforce is an interfaith network "determined to help change the minds and hearts of religious leaders whose anti-homosexual campaigns lead (directly or indirectly) to the suffering of God's lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered children." So says the group's website (www.soulforce.org). White detailed in his book "Stranger at the Gate" his journey from an associate of, and ghost writer, for Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and other religious rightists to a self-accepting gay Christian and minister in the predominantly gay Metropolitan Community Church.

Soulforce seeks dialogue with its adversaries. But when push comes to shove, its members are willing to follow in King's footsteps and practice nonviolent resistance. In June, Soulforce made its presence felt by submitting to an "arrest action" at the Presbyterian General Assembly in Long Beach, California, and at the Southern Baptist Convention. In November, a Soulforce delegation will conduct another civil disobedience at the meeting of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops in Washington, D.C. Participants in all direct actions are required to sign, wear, and uphold the Soulforce "pledge to nonviolence" used by Dr. King and his marchers in 1963.

While there are some signs that established lesbigay denominational groups - Integrity (Episcopalian), Lutherans Concerned, More Light Presbyterians, and the like - are sometimes uneasy with Soulforce's more aggressive though nonviolent actions, Soulforce points out that a large percentage of its delegations at its protests consist of denomination members, and that "we are people of faith coming in search of reconciliation, not conflict." They also promise they will not "disrupt, anger, or embarrass" as they hold their silent vigils and "revival and renewal" services.

And, unlike secular-political activists, Soulforce members do seem to be infused with the spirit. "I believe I experienced the presence of Jesus on the exit ramp outside the General Conference of the United Methodist Church and in the cells of the Cleveland City Jail," one member notes on the group's website. "What I felt today," writes another, "is that sometimes we need to not only insist on greater and more complete change, but we must celebrate and center ourselves in the wonder, the joy, the love and miracle that we are changing the world."

White himself states that "Unfortunately, our religious adversaries are not being changed by our current approach to activism. One-day marches, rallies or demonstrations do not convince them they are wrong. In fact, too often our public actions convince them they are right." He adds, "We no longer believe that what happens in Congress or the courts will change the minds and hearts of our adversaries nor lead to the understanding and full acceptance that we seek."

That's truer than most lesbigay activists are willing to admit. While legislative lobbying and court suits are important, in many ways they avoid the real challenge - changing attitudes by direct human encounter. As the Supreme Court's recent decision allowing the Boy Scouts of America to discriminate against gay men shows, the fight often must be waged on the level (again) of hearts and minds, appealing to the better angels of human nature, where true - and truly radical - transformation occurs, rather than simply by appeals to judicial fiat backed by state power.

But this will be no easy task. In the same week that Vermont's civil union law took effect, granting same-sex couples state recognition of the relationships, with all the rights and responsibilities the state grants married couples, the Presbyterians approved an amendment to their church's constitution forbidding ministers from conducting same-sex unions.

Religious homophobia remains the bedrock and rationale behind so much of the "secular" discrimination that gays and lesbians face in all walks of life. The curious thing is that religious denominations, if they were consistent, would support gay unions. They represent the loving commitment to maintaining stable relationships that religion otherwise upholds (which is why lesbigay cultural leftists also oppose the idea of gay marriage). Somehow, religious leaders and their flocks must be reached and addressed in the language they understand - as when Rev. White says, "We are your neighbors, and your organists, and your clergy, and your Sunday School teachers, and your deacons, and your ushers, and God's children."

Ultimately, our religious adversaries must be shown that spiritual principles do not support, but oppose, excluding God's lesbian and gay children from this flock. Soulforce could wind up making an important contribution to that effort.

Originally appeared May 18, 2000, in The Weekly News (Miami) and in other publications.

Easily observable at the recent Millennium March in Washington, D.C., was the prevalence of same-sex couples carrying toddlers or pushing baby carriages, as compared with earlier gay rights marches on the national Mall. We've grown accustomed to lesbian couples with children, but what was so striking was the abundance of gay daddies as well.

Slowly but surely, there's a baby boom taking place among gay men - a trend that is sure to escalate and reshape the face of gay America and the fight for gay rights. Lesbians, of course, have paved the way in terms of gay parenthood. That's not surprising, given that in the past many lesbians came out only after first doing what was expected - marrying and having kids. Another factor was that the technology of artificial insemination, and the rise of institutional sperm banks, lessened the barriers to lesbian parenthood (and no jokes about "turkey basters," please!).

It has only been recently that the biomedical technology has caught up for men, and much more is in development. Let me explain with a few examples from my own circle of friends and acquaintances.

A few years ago, a male couple I know in Maryland decided to have a child. Using a combination of classified ads and informal networks, they interviewed surrogate candidates over a period spanning several years. At one point they met a lesbian couple who also wanted a child, and the two couples spent the next few months getting to know one another and judging if this might work out. Eventually, it became clear that both couples wanted to be the primary parents, so it was back to square one. After a few other false starts, the gay couple found a suitable surrogate. A contract was drawn up with an attorney and signed by the parties, and one of the men contributed his sperm. Nine months later, a healthy baby girl was born and delivered to the couple. A happy ending, but one that took years of effort.

I know another gay couple in California that is currently "expecting," and it's a very different story. Primarily using the Web, they found an egg donor service they liked and, based on donor profiles, selected and purchased donor eggs (at a cost of several thousand dollars). Separately, a surrogate was hired from a professional agency, also selected through the Web. The idea of using separate egg donors and surrogates helps to clarify that the surrogate is not carrying her own child. Moreover, these agencies provide in-depth medical and psychological evaluation for surrogates, and help with the legal issues as well. Eggs were fertilized with one of the men's sperm and frozen. One at a time, an egg was then implanted into the surrogate until one took. Now, the couple is waiting the arrival of their child (and, like many expectant parents, they've chosen not to be informed of its sex). They plan to go through the same procedure again, but to have the egg fertilized by the other partner, so that both men will have biological children as part of their family.

Doing a general Web search using the terms "egg donors" and "surrogates" turns up many of the kinds of services described above. There's Creating Families, Inc. (www.creatfam.com), a center for surrogacy and egg donation that offers a database registry of 1,500-plus egg donors and surrogate mothers. According to their home page, "We assist couples, singles, and gay/lesbian couples residing throughout the world who are prepared to be loving parents." Another service, Growing Generations (www.growinggenerations.com), says its surrogates are "special women who have chosen to help the gay community realize the joys that a child can bring to life." A list of surrogacy and egg donation agencies by state can be found at www.surrogacy.com.

I should say that I also know of one other gay couple that has thought about becoming parents, but they're waiting for the next biomedical development - when the genetic code from one of the men can be artificially implanted within a donor egg, which would then be fertilized by his partner and implanted in a surrogate. They tell me they're keeping on top of the literature and believe that this option will be available sooner rather than later.

It's undeniable that a grassroots movement toward parenthood is afoot among same-sex couples, either through surrogacy for gay men, artificial insemination for lesbians, or - where legal and available - adoption. This baby (or gayby) boom will have an increasingly powerful impact on society and culture. No longer will gays feel that they must try to walk the straight and narrow path and marry against their natures in order to procreate (and I've met gay men, even in this day and age, who have tried to go straight for just that reason). Easy and available, and increasingly inexpensive, gay procreation could be the final curtain in the tragedy of married gays leading frustrated, double lives, for the sake of having kids (and if you read the recent biography of Anthony Perkins, you'll realize that's enough to drive anyone psycho).

It's true, of course, that gay marriage should not be premised on procreation. But as lesbian mothers and gay fathers become an increasingly accepted, and expected, part of the landscape, that hoary old argument against "nonprocreative" gay marriage will seem especially ridiculous.

Not all gays and lesbians want to partner-up and have kids. But a growing number do, and one way or another, will. It's part of the normalization of homosexuality that both gay militants and anti-gay zealots abhor, but that the gay grassroots is demanding. And biomedical advancements are making it all possible.

First appeared May 4, 2000, in The Weekly News (Miami).

America is a schizoid nation, as I've commented before. But lately, the number of events indicating progress in the struggle for gay and lesbian equality - right alongside those indicating the persistence of anti-gay intransigence and backlash - has presented a startling contrast. More and more, when it comes to acceptance and support of its lesbian and gay citizens, America seems like two nations, divided and unequal. Let me show you what I mean.

Progress: On April 26, Vermont's Gov. Howard Dean signed into law a bill creating "civil unions," a legal structure parallel to marriage for gay and lesbian couples. The landmark legislation extends to same-sex couples the same state law protections and responsibilities available to spouses in a marriage. The significance of this breakthrough, I believe, has not yet been fully grasped. Over the coming years, the Vermont model will be the new benchmark in the fight for legal equality and first-class citizenship.

Backlash: 32 states, including California, have passed laws denying recognition to same-sex marriages. And the federal Defense of Marriage Act, passed with bipartisan support (including the backing of Al Gore and Bill Clinton), denies same-sex couples all benefits available to married couples under federal law in areas such as taxes, Social Security, and immigration.

Backlash: In Georgia, a mother is being held in "willful contempt" by a county judge because she lives with her same-sex partner. Jean Ann Vawter and her partner participated in a religious commitment ceremony in 1996. But last year Ms. Vawter's ex-husband charged her with violating their divorce agreement by exposing the couple's children to her lesbian relationship; a Walton County judge subsequently ruled the relationship was "unwholesome" and ordered that Ms. Vawter and her children leave the home they have shared with her partner for more than four years. The same week that Vermont's legislature approved civil unions, Ms. Vawter filed an appeal with the Supreme Court of Georgia, asking that the state allow her to keep her family intact.

Backlash: On May 3, Mississippi became the third state, after Florida and Utah, to legally ban same-sex couples from adopting children. After the Mississippi Senate gave final, unanimous approval to the anti-gay bill, Gov. Ronnie Musgrove, a Democrat, signed the measure into law, supporters said the legislation was spurred in part by Vermont's new law giving same-sex couples the benfits of marriage. Similar bans on gay adoptions are pending in other states.

Progress: Nationwide, a growing number of localities and businesses now offer some form of domestic partnership benefits, usually including health care coverage, to the same-sex partners of their employees.

Backlash: Again, the same week that Vermont approved civil unions, the Virginia Supreme Court unanimously struck down a law in Arlington County (across the river from Washington, D.C.) that gave health insurance benefits to the domestic partners of local government employees. Voting 7 to 0, the court held that, on technical grounds, the benefits plan was "not a reasonable method of implementing [the county's] applied authority." A concurring opinion signed by three justices stated that "there can be no question that Arlington County seeks to recognize, tacitly, relationships that are violative of the public policy of this commonwealth." Virginia, like several other conservative states, still has a "sodomy law" on its books that technically makes felons of consenting adults who engage in same-sex relations in the privacy of their homes.

The conservative Family Foundation, which paid for the legal challenge to the Arlington County benefits plan, celebrated its overthrow. "Obviously, this is a victory for Virginia families," crowed the group's press release. Just how denying health benefits to same-sex partners in committed relationships might strengthen Virginia families was not explained.

Progress: According to a trends report from advertising giant Young & Rubicam, "Gay men and lesbians are increasingly finding themselves the focus of savvy marketers' attention," and gay-marketing consultants are increasingly helping mainstream firms reach these consumers. Ad revenues at gay publications rose 20 percent last year. It has now become acceptable for companies to openly solicit gay consumers as a desirable market segment without fearing repercussions from anti-gay forces.

Backlash: The gay left is appalled at corporate sponsorship of gay events, including the Millennium March on Washington. In an interview with wired.com, Alexandra Chasen, author of "Selling Out," a book condemning corporate influence on the gay community, says: "People think, 'They're advertising to us, then they must like us' ... That's dangerous." David Elliot of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force complains, "When these corporations advertise, they'll most likely show only middle-class white gay men." And an article in the left-wing magazine Mother Jones frets, "Are queers subverting capitalism? Or is it the other way around?"

Progress: Corey Johnson, the co-captain of a suburban Massachusetts high school football team, let it be known that he's gay and, afterwards, found support from his teammates. His coach, with the cooperation of the school's administration, arranged for a team meeting. Johnson stood in front of his fellow athletes and told them, "Guys, I called this meeting because I have something I really want to tell all of you. ... The reason I'm telling you all is because I don't want you hearing it from somebody else. I'm coming out as an openly gay man." His teammates and classmates rallied around the popular 17-year-old. Johnson noted that the high school's Gay-Straight Alliance has been a major plus. In March, Boston's Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network bestowed its Visionary Award on Johnson and his teammates.

Backlash: The Salt Lake City School District continues to forbid students from forming a high school club to discuss gay and lesbian issues. In 1996, after students proposed a support group for gay, lesbian, and bisexual students, the Salt Lake City School District banned all "nonacademic" clubs, and in 1998 a federal judge upheld the ban. A new lawsuit has been brought by students trying to form a student club with an explicit academic tie to history, sociology, government and biology classes, since it would look at homosexual perspectives on all those subjects. The assistant superintendent in charge of approving academic clubs refused the application because, in her words, the impact, experience, and contributions of gays and lesbians are "not taught in the courses you cite," and thus the club was not adequately related to curriculum. Apparently, filling in the gaps left by teachers who can't or won't discuss gay and lesbian issues is, in Salt Lake City, not a legitimate academic purpose.

Progress: For the first time, a major GOP presidential contender - John McCain - actively courted gay voters. Even the party establishment's nominee - George W. - finally agreed to meet with a dozen openly gay supporters and said he was a "better person" for listening to their stories. Nationwide, the number of lesbians and gay men holding elective office continues to advance, from school boards up to the US Congress, where Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), Barney Frank (D-Mass.), and Jim Kolbe (R-Ariz.) are "out." The mayors of Tempe, Ariz., and Plattsburgh, N.Y., are openly gay men (and Republicans!).

Backlash: A gay-bashing Republican National Committee fundraising letter warned, "If a liberal Democrat is elected president and has a liberal majority in Congress, you can also bet our government will be endorsing the homosexual lifestyle before too long." The letter arrived in mailboxes the same day Bush told Republican gays, "I welcome gay Americans into my campaign."

Schizoid nation, indeed! Perhaps it will ultimately prove a good thing to fight the thousands of small fights for legal equality county by county, district by district, and state by state. That's how hearts and minds are turned, after all. So, in one sense, the gains that gays have made in some jurisdictions represent a triumph for pluralism and diversity, and for localities acting as "laboratories of democracy."

But there's a darker side as well. What does it do to a nation's sense of itself when one state grants spousal rights, while another forbids same-sex adoption or stops a county from granting partner's benefits? Or when students in one state are protected against anti-gay harassment and supported by administrators, while another state won't even tolerate the existence of a gay-straight alliance? How long can a house divided stand?

Here's hoping that sooner, rather than later, something's got to give.

Ours is a diverse movement. No, I'm not just referring to the standard boilerplate of gender, gender-identification, nationality, race, ethnicity, sub-ethnicity, ad infinitum. While those categories are important, our strength also lies in ideological diversity.

Consider the merry band of gay men and lesbians who follow the beat of a libertarian drummer. They've been garnering attention over the past several months by staking out unconventional positions - opposing hate crime laws, for example, because they penalize thoughts (motivation) rather than simply actions. Such arguments haven't endeared gay libertarians to the more mainstream activist community. And now, in the matter of whether the Boy Scouts of America should be forced by judicial decree to drop a ban on gay scoutmasters, the libertarians are being just as unorthodox as ever.

As you may recall, last August New Jersey's Supreme Court ruled that the Boy Scouts could not exclude James Dale, a former Eagle Scout, from serving as a scoutmaster simply because he is an out gay man. Dale's cause had been taken up by the Lambda Legal Defense Fund, which successfully argued on his behalf before the New Jersey court. The Boy Scouts appealed, claiming that as a private organization they have a right to decide on their membership and what message they want to put out - including the message that homosexuality is not an acceptable lifestyle. The case was accepted by the U.S. Supreme Court, where it will be argued on April 26, with a ruling expected by the end of June.

Among the many "friend of the court" briefs submitted to the Supreme Court by various pro-gay and anti-gay advocates, the most unusual was filed by Gays and Lesbians for Individual Liberty (GLIL), a lesbigay group that favors the Boy Scouts' position (that's right, the Boy Scouts position).

The GLIL brief argues that the Boy Scouts of America have a constitutional right to set their own standards for membership and leadership positions, even if that means excluding openly gay Scout leaders from participation. Not, mind you, that they think the Scouts are doing the right thing. "Our brief emphasizes our disagreement with the Boy Scouts' policy of excluding gay members and leaders," writes Richard Sincere, president of GLIL and a former Boy Scout. "But if government forces the Boy Scouts to change that policy, the constitutional rights of all of us - not just the Scouts, but everyone, gay or straight - will be diminished."

Sincere continues, "Freedom does not belong only to those with whom we agree. Gay men and lesbians have suffered when freedom of association has not been respected. We benefit when freedom of speech and freedom of association are vigorously protected. A Supreme Court ruling against the Boy Scouts will have the perverse effect of hurting gay and lesbian Americans."

The GLIL brief argues that the inclusion of gays in all facets of life is profoundly desirable because it sends "a message of tolerance and acceptance." But when a private association is involved, the First Amendment requires that "this message must not be communicated due to government coercion." GLIL points out that, as the Supreme Court has said in the past, freedom of association "plainly presupposes a freedom not to associate." Warning against "creeping infringement" on the freedom of association, GLIL notes that gay organizations often seek to maintain "gay environments," including clubs, retreats, vacations and professional and alumni organizations. Decreeing that the Boy Scouts cannot exclude on the basis of sexual orientation could mean that gay associations could be prohibited from excluding - or even just not welcoming - heterosexuals.

The brief, available at www.gayliberty.org, contains a lengthy history of how in the past the U.S. government has tried to deny gays the right of association - a right that GLIL says we must protect, even at the cost of allowing others to discriminate.

Cutting the Public Purse Strings

Now admittedly, the Boy Scouts case is something of a sticky wicket. Many opposing the Boy Scouts anti-gay stance feel that the Scouts really are not a private membership organization at all, but should be considered a "public" accommodation because of their close relationship with government - particularly the sponsorship of many individual Scouting units by local governments. I've seen strong constitutional arguments on both sides of this issue, which often comes down to debating the degree of the state's involvement in Scouting.

In light of this fact, some libertarians in GLIL have advanced an alternative proposal. They hold that even though the Scouts do receive taxpayer-funded government support and privileges, including those afforded to no other civilian nonprofit organization (such as the right to hold their national Jamboree on military property), the best response isn't to further extend the arm of the state over the Scouts, but to prohibit all instances of that very government patronage. If the Scouts claim a moral imperative to discriminate, perhaps we should treat them like a religious organization and impose a wall of separation between Scouts and state. No more Scout meetings at city halls, fire stations, or public libraries.

It's an intriguing idea, and it would certainly be interesting to see if (or, more likely, when) the loss of government largess would bring about a self-interested change of heart on the part of the Scout's leadership.

Under such a dispensation, if local, state, or federal government continued to directly or indirectly support Scouting activities, they could then be sued. In fact, the American Civil Liberties Union and American United for Separation of Church and State recently filed a lawsuit against the Commonwealth of Kentucky for contracting with Kentucky Baptist Homes for Children, an organization with a religious policy against hiring gay men and lesbians. It's a more cumbersome solution, to be sure, but one that might avoid pitting the rights of gays to equal protection against the First Amendment's freedom of association.

Newfound Allies

Constitutional issues aside, there's another development related to the GLIL brief that deserves to be noted - the way in which these gay libertarians have been acclaimed by notable conservatives who haven't heretofore been sympathetic to any gay group. George Will recently wrote a column headlined "The Boy Scouts' Unlikely Friends," in which he applauds GLIL and highlights its argument that protecting freedom of association is good for gay folks, too. "America needs a livelier understanding of the ... rights that GLIL understands," writes Will.

Similarly, conservative columnist James J. Kilpatrick wrote in his syndicated column, "Remarkably, the most eloquent brief comes from Gays and Lesbians for Individual Liberty. It says, 'The New Jersey Supreme Court's decision restricting the ability of the Boy Scouts of America to choose its own leaders and define its own membership criteria dangerously erodes the freedom of all Americans, including gay Americans, and should be reversed.'" Concludes Kilpatrick, "I find myself in complete sympathy with that point of view, too."

Of course, hard-core gay-bashers are still wailing that homosexuality is inherently immoral and thus gay people aren't entitled to any "special rights" (including, it often seems, equality under the law). But think about the way that Will and Kilpatrick used the GLIL brief to position themselves as supporting the Boy Scouts without attacking gays per se. In one sense, GLIL has given conservatives a way to spin their opposition to anti-discrimination provisions; on the other hand, conservatives weren't going to support court-ordered gay inclusion in private associations in any event, so at least the GLIL brief provided a way for them to do what they would have done, while eschewing outright homophobia.

And the fact that more and more mainstream conservatives feel a need to eschew outright homophobia is, to my mind, a rather significant cultural indicator - and a reason to cheer on our ideologically diverse community.

Backers of California's so-called Knight Initiative, a local Defense of Marriage Act that would forbid the state from recognizing same-sex matrimony, are reviving the old argument that gay unions will open the floodgates to all sorts of alternative arrangements, including polygamy.

The initiative, which will be put before California voters next March, counts among its supporters Ron Unz, a Silicon Valley entrepreneur who ran for California governor as the conservative alternative to then-governor Pete Wilson, and who is expected to run for the Senate in 2000. In a recent opinion column in the San Francisco Chronicle, Unz warned that "Legalizing gay marriages today means legalizing polygamy or group marriages tomorrow." He reasons that if same-sex unions become legal, "How can one then deny the right of two men and three women to achieve personal fulfillment by entering into a legally valid group marriage?" Moreover, "If our common legal structures were to be bent or stretched to accommodate one [nontraditional arrangement], they must be made to accommodate others as well."

Just how great is the polygamous threat in today's America? It turns out there is, in fact, an ongoing debate about polygamy, but it's not between conservatives and progressives. Instead, the polygamy debate highlights a division among religious conservatives themselves. This is most obvious within the Mormon community.

Last year, Utah Gov. Mike Leavitt suggested that the practice, with roots in early Mormon doctrine, might be protected under the First Amendment. Although polygamy was officially abandoned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints in 1890, officials estimate that anywhere between 30,000 to 40,000 dissident traditionalist Mormons still practice it despite the risk of excommunication by their church and the lack of state sanction for their (illegal) relationships.

But don't think that polygamists are our allies. For while gay rights activists (and a great many feminists) often claim that same-sex unions are a good thing but polygamy isn't, those in the pro-polygamy camp argue that polygamy is a good thing, but homosexual unions are not. Gayle Ruzicka, president of the conservative Utah Eagle Forum, told the Salt Lake Tribune in September 1998 that "For polygamous folks, it is a religious belief and at least through their religious ceremonies they think they are married before God. Homosexuality is not part of somebody's religion." She added, following the brouhaha unleashed by Gov. Leavitt's suggestion of polygamy tolerance, "These people out there living polygamous lives are not bothering anybody."

Not everyone, of course, was so accommodating toward plural matrimony. In reaction to Gov. Leavitt's stance, a group of self-described "former polygamists" held a news conference outside his office and demanded that the state's constitutional ban on polygamy be enforced. Sound familiar?

Here's some history: When the federal government finally succeeded in pressuring the Mormons to abandon polygamy -- in exchange for Utah statehood -- many traditionalists refused to go along and faced arrest for their now-outlawed marriages. Others lost custody of their children, who were forcibly removed from their loving, multiple parents as surely as contemporary courts took away Sharon Bottoms' son from her "unfit" lesbian home.

The debate in Utah is still underway. Just last month, the Salt Lake Tribune reported that a Republican lawmaker wants the state to apologize to polygamists for staging raids to enforce anti-bigamy laws in the 1940s and 50s. Representative David Zolman from Taylorsville, Utah, says a state apology would erect a so-called "peace bridge" to isolated fundamentalist Mormon communities.

However the argument about polygamy isn't limited to the Mormons. At the 1998 world conference of Anglican (Episcopalian) bishops in Lambeth, England, conservative African bishops spearheaded a resolution condemning homosexuality as sinful. On the other hand, the same conservative bishops succeeded in preventing a resolution against polygamy from appearing on the final agenda -- thereby preventing polygamy from being condemned as unchristian, the way homosexuality was. This shouldn't be surprising. The practice of African polygamy remains common.

Throughout most of human history, in fact, polygamy has been the norm, and its prevalence in the world of the Old Testament Hebrews was hardly an oddity. There is no biblical prohibition against a man taking two or more wives. If the patriarchs had multiple spouses, why shouldn't we? Just who are the biblical fundamentalists in this debate? Moreover, if gay marriage poses a "slippery slope" that could lead to polygamy, why didn't polygamy ever lead to same-sex marriage?

These questions aside, when addressing religious hypocrisy the Mormons clearly are in the forefront. Despite the bitter persecution they faced over their own unconventional (by modern standards) form of marriage, their official church today is adamantly supporting the anti-gay marriage Knight initiative, which defines marriage as a one-man, one-woman relationship. Recently the San Francisco board of supervisors called for an investigation of the Mormon Church's tax-exempt status, citing evidence that the church has established a quota for member donations to support the anti-gay initiative. Maybe today's Mormon elders fear that gay marriage will be the "slippery slope" that will lead to the re-establishment of marriages like those of their revered great grandparents.

Or, more likely, the official Mormon leadership is using the Knight initiative to wage war against their own renegade, polygamist brethren.

Polygamy and same-sex marriages are not the same, but I'm enough of a libertarian to think that individuals should be free to enter into the type of matrimonial relationships that seem to suit them best. Nevertheless, I'm no fool. Arguing that the state should recognize polygamy and its variants can only be a losing political argument, and I'm not advocating that we do so.

But maybe the question ought not to be what sort of marriages the state should recognize. Maybe, instead, we should ask whether the state should ultimately be in the marriage recognition business to begin with. Suppose Washington stopped using the tax code's marriage benefits for social engineering. Then if, as some libertarians argue, the government allowed individuals to freely contract for the type of marriage arrangement they desired and left it up to religious institutions to support and solemnize those marriages which their particular flocks wished to sanction, it wouldn't be necessary to fight over whose relationships get the state's seal of approval. That, anyway, is something to think about.

The outsized victory of California's antigay marriage initiative, Proposition 22, again raises the question of whether the demand for same-sex civil marriage is going anywhere, or at least anywhere anytime soon. After all, the California vote wasn't remotely close - 61 percent supported the proposition that only marriages between one man and one woman will be valid or legally recognized by the state.

Moreover, California isn't an anomaly. In the words of a Janet Parshall, a spokeswoman for the antigay Family Research Council, "If the liberal states of Hawaii, Alaska, and now California can do it, then the 19 other states without 'statutory protection for marriage' can and must do it."

By "statutory protection for marriage," of course, she means states that would legally bar recognition of same-sex marriages should such unions ever become legal in any other state (no state currently grants legitimacy to same-sex marriages, and the national Defense of Marriage Act, passed with overwhelming bipartisan support and signed by Bill Clinton, bars the federal government from recognizing such unions).

Sadly, the homophobes may have a point - but, conversely, only up to a point. True, voters in both Hawaii and Alaska recently approved measures to oppose legal recognition of same-sex marriages. In Hawaii, gay activists had thought court-ordered recognition of gay matrimony was a good bet to make the aloha state the first to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples, but voters short-circuited our hopes by passing a constitutional amendment against gay marriage by a vote of 60 to 29 percent. In Alaska, it was 68 to 32 percent against.

And national Gallup poll finds 62 percent against and 34 percent for same-sex marriage (results that virtually mirrored the California and Hawaii election result).

But then, on March 16, history was made in Vermont, where the state's House voted by 76-69 to adopt a bill allowing same-sex couples to form "civil unions."

According to the Associated Press story, "the bill provides for unions that amount to marriage in everything but name. Partners could apply for a license from town clerks and have their civil union 'certified' by a justice of the peace, a judge or member of the clergy." Moreover, same-sex couples would be entitled to some 300 state benefits and privileges available to married couples in such areas as inheritance, property transfers, medical decisions, insurance and taxes.

The constraints of marriage are also paralleled in civil unions. Partners who want to go their separate ways would have to go through "dissolution" proceedings in Family Court, just as married couples have to pursue a divorce. And partners would assume each other's debts - again, just like married couples.

The biggest difference between actual civil marriage and same-sex civil unions is that the federal government (and probably other states) wouldn't recognize the latter. So when it comes to immigration rights, Social Security, and joint returns to the IRS, same-sex partners would remain single in Washington's eyes.

Given the votes against gay marriage in California, Hawaii, and elsewhere, as well as the historic step forward for civil unions in Vermont, where do we go from here?

Let's keep in mind that even in Vermont, where the states highest court had ruled that gay couples could not be denied "the benefits" afforded to married couples, polls show overwhelming opposition to full same-sex marriage, which is why state legislators decided not to grant gays the right to wed. Instead, they drafted a comprehensive "alternative track" package to satisfy the court's decree.

A Strategic Question: What Is to Be Done?

Some activists argue that the well-funded Washington-based lobbies (principally, the Human Rights Campaign) have been too timid in not campaigning outright for actual gay wedlock. Most of the ads opposing the antigay marriage ballot measures have gingerly labeled the initiatives as "divisive" or "unnecessary" since no state currently recognizes gay marriages anyhow. One ad that ran in California told voters, "Most people don't support gay marriage, but we do support keeping government out of people's private lives," meaning you don't have to favor equality for gays to vote against this.

Mike Marshall, campaign manager for the No on 22 campaign, went so far as to say, "This is a campaign to defeat Proposition 22, not a campaign to legalize gay marriage. ... It would be disingenuous to run a pro gay-marriage ad." But while the intent may have been to bring semi-tolerant voters to our side, clearly this has not proved to be a winning strategy.

More militant voices have argued that the message should have been simply and unequivocally pro-gay marriage, putting committed gay and lesbian couples at the forefront. That might not have carried the day, either, but, say the critics, it could hardly have done worse, and in the long run the only hope is to make the case for gay marriage over time, rather than continually dancing around the issue.

Post Prop. 22, some are calling for a more militant fight. Eric Rofes, a longtime gay radical voice, is urging direct action and civil disobedience. "Activists may take their struggle directly to the people," he writes, "building on rich traditions of militant organizing inspired most recently by ACT-UP."

Others, however, see a renewed focus on substantive domestic partnership benefits as the best step toward spousal equality. After the California vote, Brian Perry of Log Cabin Los Angeles remarked, "There are probably more people willing to accept equal treatment under a different name, such as domestic partnerships. So it might be worth it to create a 'separate but equal' recognition of our relationships and just not use the 'm' word."

Such talk is anathema to the hard-core gay marriage advocates, for whom "separate but equal" means "the back of the bus" - an unacceptable denigration of gay people and our relationships. They may have a point, but I've never liked facile similes. The back of the bus was the back of the bus, literally, thanks to Jim Crow laws. Would a distinct category for same-sex unions, even one that conveyed all the statutory benefits of state-sanctioned matrimony, likewise make us second-class citizens unworthy of the "normal" marriage that any miscreant heterosexual is entitled to ("Who wants to marriage a heterosexual moron?")?

What's in a Name?

As much as I side emotionally with the militants, I'm not so sure. In the northern European countries such as Denmark that have comprehensive partnership recognition, reports are that gay partners consider themselves "married," and that others refer to them as married. Traditionalists, including religious conservatives, are somewhat placated by the fact that the partnerships are a parallel institution that reserves "traditional marriage" for opposite sexers. It doesn't seem to be a big deal.

This, in fact, is what the "best solution" in Vermont might turn out to be - should the bill passed by Vermont's House survive in the state Senate. While civil unions for same-sex couples are not marriages, the are undeniably a significant advance over the weak domestic partner registries that exist in some jurisdictions.

So, metaphorically speaking, would strong domestic partnerships along the lines of civil unions still be "the back of the bus," or would it be more appropriate to say "a rose by any name would smell as sweet"? Like many others, I'm looking forward to seeing what happens in Vermont, and judging the results with an open - but optimistic - mind.

What is to be done about "Dr." Laura Schlessinger, radio's top-rated "moral warrior" with a listening audience estimated at 18 million? The good doctor (actually a physiologist, not an M.D.) has called homosexuality "deviant" and referred to gays and lesbians as "biological errors." She seems to believe that homosexuality is a "curable" affliction, and cheers on the ex-gay movement. And now Dr. Laura is about to make the jump from the radio to the boob tube, courtesy of a show this fall from Paramount Television.

Dr. Laura's ascendancy puts a spotlight on an old issue: should gay activists seek to prevent voices opposing gay rights from gaining media exposure? Or, put another way, is opposition to gay equality a form of hate like racism, or is it something different, calling for a different response?

The folks over at the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) have pursued different tactics at various times on this question, and even spoken with contrary voices about Dr. Laura. According to media accounts, Cathy Renna of GLAAD's National Capital Area office (that's Washington, DC) told a lesbian and gay conference last October that "We're going to go after the media outlets, the radio stations that run her, and get her off."

But GLAAD Executive Director Joan Garry declares on GLAAD's Web site, "We are not in the business of trying to shut down opposing points of view." And, after a recent meeting with Paramount, GLAAD announced what it regards as a substantial victory. While Dr. Laura will have her TV show, the format will ensure that she includes viewpoints contrary to her traditional views on sexual morality (specifics, however, were vague).

Surprise, surprise. This tentative settlement has not been enough for more militant factions. Lesbian activist Robin Tyler, for instance, issued a statement on February 25 that read in part, "GLAAD's position on keeping `a place at the Paramount table' is wrong. No other civil rights movement would allow a hate monger to spew their viciousness on their own show on national television. This community needs to circumvent GLAAD's decision and effectively not support anything that Paramount does until they cancel the show. This includes, but is not limited to picketing every television station that has signed on to carry the show, and not going to movies produced by Paramount."

That strikes me as a bit of activist hyperbole. Aside from the fact that boycotts are notoriously ineffectual (shall we stop watching Paramount's "Star Trek Voyager"?), the view that homosexuality can be "cured," no matter how wrong-headed, is not the same as urging that gay people be lynched or put into ovens. It's counterproductive to ignore that difference.

GLAAD's Garry seems to recognize this, and she responded to Tyler's challenge with this statement: "With those who argue that GLAAD should have been advocating 'pulling the plug' on the Dr. Laura television show from the start, we respectfully disagree. Our plan has been intentional from day one. We have always believed that there were series of cards to play and that it has been our responsibility to play each of them. We are working toward the same end - to ensure that Dr. Laura does not spew her homophobic rhetoric to a television audience and that media professionals are held accountable for portraying the reality of our lives."

Tyler's response: "Our only acceptable position is not 'the freedom to publicly debate with homophobes', but an end to the kind of spewed, continued hatred that reinforces, not just the violence against us, but our youth's high suicide rate. Words are as damaging as deeds."

Adds Alan Klein, a spokesperson for the website/coalition StopDrLaura.com., "We're not about to let her spew her defamatory pseudo-science on national television." (Which all adds up to a lot of strong condemnation of "spewing.")

For her part, Schlessinger told the Associated Press, "I've made anti-gay activist agenda commentaries, but I"ve never made anti-gay commentary." She said that critics who claim her rhetoric creates an environment that leads to harassment and violence are guilty of "the worst kind of intellectual dishonesty." Moreover, she wrote in an August newspaper column that "homosexual activist groups...contact sponsors and call me homophobic, hateful, dangerous and a voice for promoting violence. Why? Because I believe that homosexual behavior is deviant." She went on to claim, "I never have advocated hate or hostility toward homosexuals on or off my program. ... Maintaining an opposing point of view to many aspects of the liberal agenda is terribly difficult because of the hate slung at you." She offered that one sponsor, when contacted by a critic of the show, "asked how shutting me down because I simply had an opposing viewpoint would further the cause of free speech."

What do I make of all of this? No one is more angered by stupid, backward, anti-gay viewpoints such as Dr. Laura's than I am. As a former GLAAD activist and long-ago board member myself, I, too, met with radio and TV station general managers to self-righteously demand that they cease and desist from broadcasting those we deemed unacceptable (including a meeting with WABC in New York City over a then-emergent windbag named Rush Limbaugh).

It was not unusual that the stations would agree to tell the host not to use slurs or confuse homosexuality with pedophilia - a small victory. And typically, we wound up negotiating some sort of "balance," such as more time for talk shows with pro-gay hosts.

However, the problem with demands that the media "silence all dissent" on gay matters is that it comes across as politically correct censorship. Whatever merit there might have been to muffling anti-gay perspectives when there were few pro-gay viewpoints expressed in the media, it's increasingly hard to justify that demand when this season saw some 30 gay or lesbian characters on prime time TV (including on shows from Paramount) and pro-gay themes dominant in theater and Academy Award nominated films, not to mention broadcast on "Oprah" and most other TV talk shows.

All of which is to say that I actually felt GLAAD did the more or less reasonable thing this time round. As a community, we need to distinguish between someone who says "I hate gays" and someone who says "homosexuality is a deviance that can be overcome, for the good of homosexuals." Yes, it's an attitutde that we believe is wrong on all counts, and it's not a positive message for those coming to terms with their sexuality - especially gay kids. But it's not equivalent to the Klan, either.

If we attempt to deny those with a religion-based opposition to homosexuality any mass media forum, where do you then draw the line? If you oppose (as I do) "progressive" students who steal all the copies of conservative campus newspapers and burn them (because the papers advocated "fascistic" viewpoints like opposing affirmative action preferences), than you have to concede that liberal-left activists sometimes wind up promoting censorship. At GLAAD, we tried to block the filming of "Basic Instinct," which in retrospect is a rather benign film (and whose star, Sharon Stone, is now a darling of progressive gays, go figure).

I suspect that in the glare of the TV lights, Dr. Laura's backward views will be seen for what they are, a reactionary response to enlightened social change, and she'll slink back into the smaller niche of talk radio-land. Those offended by Dr. Laura are free to criticize Paramount Television for giving her a show, and in fact www.stopDrLaura.com has been set up for just that purpose. Moreover, it seems fair that GLAAD should seek to negotiate a means of response to her most egregious declarations.

Yet trying to silence Dr. Laura completely, even if it were doable, would only make her a martyr to her followers. With apologies to Robin Tyler, words are NOT as damaging as deeds, and such an assertion is an affront not just to the First Amendment but to the entire liberal tradition. If we truly believe that our cause is just, we should have no fear of subjecting them to public debate.