IGF CultureWatch

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.

PARTISAN POLITICS tends to bring out the humorless side of people. The candidate you favor can do no wrong, while his/her opponents can do no right. Add to this syndrome the standard humorlessness of many gay political activists, and you have a prescription for unintentional ridiculousness.

A case in point: the response to reports of John McCain's "gaydar," as first covered in The Washington Post on January 18. During a casual chat with reporters on his campaign bus about the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy, the Republican presidential contender said he had served in the Navy with many gays who had done their job without making an issue of their orientation. Asked how he knew they were homosexual, he replied, "Well, I think we know by behavior and by attitudes. I think it's clear to some of us when some people have that lifestyle. But I didn't pursue it, and I wouldn't pursue it, and I wouldn't pursue it today."

Now, let's look at the response from gay political groups.

David Smith, communications director of the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest lesbigay political lobby, was not amused by McCain's ability to recognize gays. "He has one up on me, because I can't tell just by behavior and attitudes," he asserted. "He is clearly stereotyping based on mannerisms," asserted Smith. "This is a form of prejudice, and illustrates the struggle that gay people face." The leaders of the Human Rights Campaign, by the way, are strong supporters of Democrat Al Gore's presidential bid.

Kevin Ivers, public affairs director of the Log Cabin Republicans, the gay GOPers, had a different take. Responding to Smith's contention that all gays are indistinguishable from straights, Ivers remarked, "If there's a gay person anywhere who says they can't walk into a room and tell who some of the gay people are, they're lying." Take that, Mr. Smith.

Ivers added that the exchange showed that McCain "has been thinking about his entire life and when gay people may have played a role in it. He has reached across and said he wants to understand gay people, even though he doesn't always agree with them." The Log Cabin Republicans, by the way, have all but endorsed McCain, who (unlike GOP front-runner George Bush) has met with the group and received over $40,000 in contributions collected by Log Cabin from its members.

Then things really started to get silly. HRC's Smith, in response to Ivers, and unable to ignore the fact that many gay people freely claim to be able to spot a fellow traveler, told the Washington Blade newspaper, "Only gay people can have 'gaydar.' -- To which Ivers replied with the words "disingenuous," "political" and "ridiculous."

I must say, I'm not displeased to see HRC and LCR take off the gloves. There are real disagreements in our community, and the attempt to paper them over in the name of "unity" doesn't serve anyone's interest. By all means, let's have vigorous debate between the left, right, and centrist components of the gay community. But really, over "gaydar"?

In the Washington Post, columnist Geneva Overholser labeled the whole conundrum a "silly tempest." But clearly, she felt McCain (and his defenders) were on firmer ground. "McCain said - in answer to a dumb question - that we can sometimes tell when people are gay," she wrote. "This is so commonly understood to be true that there is a slang word for it: 'gaydar.'" She went on to note, "Unhappily for McCain, common understanding is no defense on matters homosexual - a topic on which the nation is stuck halfway toward enlightenment."

McCain is far from perfect on gay issues in the eyes of most activists. Unlike his Democratic rivals, Gore and Bradley, he has not backed federal gay-rights legislation. But of the candidates on the Republican side, McCain is the clearly the best thing going. What other GOP candidate would say he sees no reason someone openly gay couldn't be president? "I am opposed to discrimination of any kind in America," McCain said when asked about gay rights. He told Log Cabin officials he was "proud to work with you" and that "all my life I've had a visceral dislike for discrimination. ... My goal is to eliminate discrimination." And while he has supported the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy, his "gaydar" remarks were apparently meant to convey his awareness that gays and lesbians do serve honorably in the armed forces and should be allowed to do so without being subject to "pursuit." (Log Cabin hopes this is part of an evolving stance, and hints that McCain not only would work to improve things once in office but, as the only GOP veteran in the race, would actually have the clout with the military to do so.)

That's a far cry from real Republican gay bashing, such as GOP firebrand Alan Keyes's declaration that "Homosexuality is an abomination," a slander that drew less criticism than McCain's off-the-cuff observation. In labeling McCain's remarks as anti-gay defamation, gay activists in the Democratic camp were clearly trying to make a mountain out of a molehill in order to attack the one GOP candidate who isn't so bad on issues pertaining to gay folks. They were acting as Democratic activists who happen to be gay (rather than as gay activists who just happen to be Democrats). That's partisanship first and foremost, and it doesn't require "gaydar" or other intuitive powers to recognize it.

YOU'VE ALMOST GOT TO PITY the hapless organizers of the grandly named Millennium March on Washington (MMOW) for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender (GLBT) civil rights. The event, scheduled to take place in the nation's capital April 30, has been castigated since it was announced two years ago. Sometimes criticism can shed light, but in the case of the MMOW there's little real debate, and even less light, just endless polemics between the gay left and the "queer" far left. It's hard to side with the critics, but it's also difficult to support the event's organizers.

You might recall that back in February 1998, the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's biggest lesbigay lobby, and the Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches, the nation's largest lesbigay religious association, proposed a gathering on the National Mall in Washington during the millennial year. The theme would be as novel as it was straightforward: "Faith and Family." This seemed to be smart politics, meant to focus Middle America's attention on gay and lesbian partnerships, gay parenting, gay children, and so on, and to stand up to the religious right's drumbeat that gay love is both "a sin" and a threat to families.

Immediately, there was an uproar of dissent by grassroots "queer" activists. Michael Warner, one of leaders of an "anti-assimilationist" group called "Sex Panic!" proclaimed that "faith and family is an extremely exclusionary theme. ... It is a massive repudiation of the lessons of decades of gay activism" - which, in Warner's view, has presumably been about opposing faith and family (just as the religious right says).

Shortly afterwards, in spring 1998, the Ad Hoc Committee for An Open Process was formed. The network of anti-MMOW grassroots activists charged that the organizers of the march were top-down authoritarians who blithely ignored the supposedly "democratic" organizing principles that had buttressed previous gay marches in the nation's capital. "The way the Millennium March was conceived, articulated, promoted and put out there has really been an insult and a slap in the face to our own history as an l/g/b/t movement," said Leslie Cagan, a long-time New York City-based lesbian activist and member of the Ad Hoc Committee. Of course, others pointed out that what the Committee seemed angriest about was that its cadre of long-time activists, many on the political far left, hadn't been in control of the process this time round.

That's not to say that those activists who did wind up in control of the board of directors for the MMOW have done any kind of a rational job. In fact, they quickly caved into the radical critics and jettisoned the Faith and Family theme. And, as with previous marches, they have taken the admirable goal of racial diversity to an extreme, resorting to race- and gender-based quotas that border on the absurd - a requirement that their governing board be at least 50 percent people of color, regardless of who actually shows up willing to do the work. Is it churlish to note that all non-white minorities together are well under half the U.S. population (which is still 73 percent non-Hispanic white)?

Nevertheless, that wasn't enough for the critics, who are, of course, even further to the left than the MMOW board. Despite the quota, several groups representing people of color have formally distanced themselves from the march due to concerns about "non-inclusivity." As Ad Hoc Committee member Mandy Carter said recently, "One of the ongoing lines that MMOW uses is that 'we have a 50 percent people-of-color board.' When you hear that, you might make an assumption that there would be a huge people-of-color presence for the march and in issues being discussed out there. But that hasn't been the case."

No, as quota critics have long maintained, heavy-handed quota schemes don't promote true racial diversity, only politically correct tokenism. In short, rigid quotas create superficial diversity but work against the equality necessary for true community.

Also in response to charges that the march wasn't "inclusive" enough, the MMOW formally made "racial justice" one of its eight announced "priority issues" on which the march and rally will focus. By this, of course, the organizers mean support for affirmative action programs based on government-mandated racial preferences.

Another "priority issue" announced by the MMOW is hate-crimes legislation. This goal has long been at the forefront of the HRC's political agenda. What's been obscured is that many gays and lesbians, including some activists, think that hate crime laws are a terrible idea, and that punishing a crime based on what the perpetrator was thinking is a dangerous precedent. Hate crime laws would make the penalty for bias-motivated crime more severe. But the criminal justice system has worked well in recent bias-crime cases, including the Matthew Shepard murder. What "greater sentence" than life in prison would hate-crime advocates have demanded? Certainly not the death penalty, which many progressive activists also oppose.

Before concluding, let's look back at the previous March on Washington for gay rights in 1993, which the Ad Hoc Committee has been holding up as a model of democratic organization. In fact, march organizers had mandated 50-percent minority quotas on state organizing committees. Again, if anything less than representation reflecting actual demographics constitutes discrimination (as affirmative action advocates maintain), then gay white men were discriminated against by their own rights march.

Moreover, the '93 event had come under fire for extraordinary poor execution: Due to a complicated march route thousands spent the day waiting to step off the green, and many had still not done so at the end of the day as the rally on the Mall across town was ending. Writing in the liberal "New Republic" magazine, Jacob Weisberg noted that the '93 march "was appallingly organized, failed to coordinate even a single time for a photo-op on the Mall and had as its most memorable quote a lesbian comedian's remark that Hillary Clinton was 'at last a first lady I could fuck.'"

The PC quotient at the '93 event, broadcast live on C-SPAN, was taken to bizarre extremes. The march platform made opposition to welfare reform one of its key planks. Not one speaker who wasn't squarely on the gay left was allowed to address the rally, and the scarcity of gay white male speakers at the all-day event (you could count them on one hand, literally) didn't go unnoticed by the crowd.

Back to the future. In addition to "racial justice" and "hate crimes legislation," the other "high priority" issues announced for the MMOW range from ending GLBT discrimination in the workplace (i.e., support for the proposed Employment Non-Discrimination Act) to GLBT health care issues (i.e., support for some version of nationalized health care). But shockingly, the whole issue of the right of gays to serve in the military is missing from the MMOW list. And this, despite the fact that in a poll conducted over several months by MMOW organizers and promoted as a "national ballot" that would make for a democratic agenda, that the "right to serve" took eighth place. But MMOW organizers completely dropped it from their announced listing of priority issues.

So I wouldn't hold my breath expecting this year's event in Washington to be much more "inclusive" of the entire lesbian and gay community, at least if diversity is defined as a variety of ideological viewpoints. You won't be hearing anyone from, say, the Independent Gay Forum, a group of libertarian, moderate, and conservative lesbian and gay writers. And I'd be shocked if someone from the Log Cabin Republicans were actually allowed to speak.

The MMOW's currently output of uninspiring, politically correct boilerplate was, I suppose, predictable. But what an opportunity has been missed to take a novel approach away from the politics of grievance. In fact, the MMOW had once shown some promise of originality in delivering a powerful statement for gay affirmation and equality that would have been stronger than the litany of give-me's that will now be the event's focus - and which still won't appease the critics on the left.

Maybe it's time to jettison the idea that we can all come together for one event with a common call for action. But maybe, just maybe, that in itself is a sign of progress.

Originally appeared Dec. 23, 1999, in The Weekly News (Miami), and San Diego Update.

Mary Daly, the fighting feminist professor, has created quite a stir - again. What's interesting about the latest brouhaha is the way it's exposed fault lines within the feminist movement, with implications for the lesbigay movement as well.

For those who haven't been following the story, here's a rundown. Professor Daly, now 70, is considered one of the founding mothers of the feminist movement. She is the author of seven works of feminist philosophy taught in many women's studies courses, and she herself has taught a women-only course in women's studies at Jesuit-run Boston College since 1974. On the heels of a lawsuit brought by a male student claiming that federal anti-discrimination statutes bar any college that receives federal aid from discriminating on the basis of sex, the college is demanding that she stop excluding males from her classroom - or retire. Daly is fighting back.

"I don't think about men," she is quoted as saying in a recent magazine interview. "I really don't care about them. I'm concerned with women's capacities, which have been infinitely diminished under patriarchy. That takes all my energy. I'm not interested in the differences between women and men. I really am totally uninterested in men's capacities."

A recent New York Times story described Daly as "a lesbian feminist battling patriarchy from within a Jesuit institution." Daly has also described herself as a "radical elemental feminist" and has said, "We're living in hell," as she listed "the horror of phallocracy, penocracy, jockocracy, cockocracy, call it whatever - patriarchy."

Some prominent feminists, including Gloria Steinem and Eleanor Smeal, have rallied to Daly's defense. But other influential feminists are distancing themselves from her. Katha Pollitt, for instance, has criticized same-sex education in general and Professor Daly in particular. The media attention Daly has received "confirms a certain stereotype about feminists, which is lesbian separatism," Pollitt disapprovingly told the Times.

In defending the exclusion of male students from her women's studies course, Daly has reflected that, minus the male element, "There's quite an intimate connection in the classroom. ... There's a circulating energy that's extremely exciting and is felt by everybody, that somehow puts me in touch with something real in women."

Here's the rub. It's easy to vilify the Mary Daly school of feminism, with its men/bad women/good ethos. On the other hand, I'll confess there's something about Daly's fighting spirit that appeals to me - especially given the triumph of so much of today's whiny "victim feminism," with its speech codes and star-chamber inquisitions (where an accusation of sexism is tantamount to a finding of guilt). I suspect Mary Daly is not the sort who would run to college authorities complaining that she had been "sexually harassed" by the "male gaze" of a student.

Leaving aside the issue of federal anti-discrimination law, and ignoring for a moment the anti-male animus within Daly's worldview, I'd argue there is, in fact, something is to be said for the maintenance of "women's space." But I'd also argue, contra feminist dogma, that there's something to be said as well for "men's space." Moreover, what is somewhat refreshing about unrepentant lesbian separatism is that it departs from the politically correct assertion that there are no significant differences between men and women.

Anthropologist Lionel Tiger wrote in his classic study "Men in Groups" that, cross-culturally, men have a deep need to bond together in all-male societies and clubs. Today, such bonding rites are often verboten by unisex authorities. Witness what's happened at many liberal arts colleges, subject of an AP story titled "Fraternities Go Underground to Defy College Ban." At colleges where single-sex social organizations have been banned and students are barred from participating in any all-male fraternity activity - even off-campus - fraternity brothers have been turned into outlaws, meeting in secret. So much for freedom of association.

Unseen is how the assault on male association doesn't just strike at our heterosexual brethren; it's also aimed at expunging the ideal of fraternity to which gay male culture once aspired - the chance to revel in the company of men. It has now become difficult in many areas to form new gay men's social organizations (aside, that is, from sex clubs), since any gay male group (a hiking club, for example) immediately faces pressure from the local lesbigay establishment to admit women. Lesbian groups and gatherings promoting an exclusive women's culture for women who love women, in contrast, have typically not faced pressure to gender integrate.

Maybe we could recognize that their is something special about same-gender socialization, and that it's not parallel, say, with racism. Then perhaps we could let people gender associate the way they want to, without making a big deal of it if some want female-only classrooms - or bars, or male-only bridge clubs.

"Iron John" author Robert Bly, an advocate of the "mythopoetic" men's movement, wrote recently in Harper's magazine that "High school girls can usually rattle off any number of reasons to feel pride in their gender, but most young men are hard put to identify any good quality of masculinity, and that is sad indeed." Hmm. Perhaps it's time for male-only courses in men's studies?