A Same-Sex Cinderella

by on

When I was a young girl, I loved fairy tales. Especially Cinderella.

Part of it was her sparkly dress in the Disney movie version. But part of it was the feeling all children - and perhaps especially gay children - have at some point: that your family of origin doesn't understand you (and also, they make you do icky chores).

Cinderella captures that, plus the hopeful thought that someday you will fall in love and someone will fall in love with you, and they will see you for the beautiful princess you are.

I loved Cinderella as a child and I loved it as a teenager, when I read re-imagined, darker versions.

The trouble, however, with Cinderella, as with most traditional fairy tales, is that the Princess-to-be is always straight, as is the Prince. Fairy tales help children and teens imagine an adult life where they overcome adversity to find authenticity and love, but it is always straight love. And young people need to know they can find happily-ever-after with a same-sex partner, if that is what their sexual orientation turns out to be.

That's why I really appreciate books like Malinda Lo's Ash. Ash, which will be released in September, is a retelling of the Cinderella story for a young adult audience. In it, the orphaned girl, here given the nickname Ash, is forced into servitude for her stepmother and stepsisters to pay her father's debts. There is a prince, and a ball, and fairies, and a spectacular dress.

But there's something else as well.

Though Ash finds herself at first seduced by a man, she grows into a mature love with a woman who has taught her skills she needs to survive and thrive in the world. It reads the way an actual coming out can, moving from what is expected to what is true.

Ash is not just a straight fairy tale with the genders of one of the heroes switched; instead, it is fairytale told with a lesbian sensibility.

As adult gays and lesbians, we see many more representations of ourselves in the world. We're no longer limited to the limp-wristed gay best friend role in sitcoms, or the murderous lesbian in heels (or flannel) in movies. We are no longer ignored in books published by mainstream publishing houses, or pushed into the gay section in bookstores.

Instead, we are doctors, housewives, and accountants in media representations, just as we are in real life. We fall in love, we do good deeds and bad ones, we get revenge, we get jealous, we get hurt, we get hope.

Children and young adults see those images now, too, but they don't necessarily identify with them. That's why it is amazing that children's books like King & King, which tells the story of two princes who fall in love, and young adult books like Ash are starting to fill in the gaps.

Fairy tales tell archetypal stories with themes that deeply resonate with us. That's why the tales have lasted so long in so many different forms. So fairy tales creatively re-imagined with gay protagonists - fairy tales that use a familiar form to tell true gay stories - are necessary for us to help craft the narratives of our lives.

I'm grateful for Ash and King & King and all the other stories that are reassuring children and young adults who might be gay that their lives, too, will have richness and triumph and magic and love.

They need to know - really, deeply, fully know - that life may be hard. Your stepmother may lock you in the cellar. You might have to clean out the fireplace. No one may understand you. But gays and lesbians have happily-ever-afters, too.

5 Comments

The Curious Case of Boies and Olson

by on

Celebrated attorney David Boies (he led Gore's Florida recount legal team in 2000) explains in the Wall Street Journal why he and Ted Olson (who led Bush's recount effort) have now come together and brought a lawsuit asking the courts to declare unconstitutional California's Prop. 8, which limits marriage to couples of the opposite sex. Writes Boies:

"We acted together because of our mutual commitment to the importance of this cause, and to emphasize that this is not a Republican or Democratic issue, not a liberal or conservative issue, but an issue of enforcing our Constitution's guarantee of equal protection and due process to all citizens."

Meanwhile, some LGBT groups are upset that a conservative lawyer is part of an effort to strike down laws that treat gays unequally, as Mother Jones reports. Well, maybe the case is mistimed and misdirected. But it also seems clear that these groups are really upset over (1) not calling all the shots here (as this Washington Blade story suggests), and (2) the fact that a conservative (albeit a limited government one) is not playing his assigned role of anti-gay demon. Just how, they must be wondering, could that possibly aid the advancement of the greater progressive agenda under the leadership of the one true party?

11 Comments

Now He Gets It?

by on

The most that can be said about Bill Clinton's newfound (and feeble) belief in marriage equality is "Better late than never."

One would have expected the former president's change of heart to garner more media coverage than it has. Clinton is, after all, the only living ex-president to support same-sex marriage. Perhaps the lack of attention was attributable to a belated realization on the part of the media that political endorsements are overrated. Or maybe it's because the public is tired of hearing about gay marriage. Whatever the reason, I suspect that the press's woolgathering had something to do with the fact that a sizable portion of the population has finally come to the realization that most of the things that emerge from Bill Clinton's mouth are prevarications, hot air, outright lies, or some combination of the three. One can hope.

At an annual convention of liberal college activists held in Washington last week, Clinton was asked if he would publicly support efforts to enact same-sex marriage. "I'm basically in support," he answered. Asked if he personally believed in the cause, he replied "Yeah. I personally support people doing what they want to do. I think it's wrong for someone to stop someone else from doing that."

What eloquence! What moral conviction! Remember that these stirring words come from a man who, prior to the emergence of Barack Obama, was widely considered to be the greatest political communicator alive.

While few in the mainstream media seemed to care about Clinton's inarticulate and hedging announcement, it did come as news to gay activists. That's because when Clinton was last heard from on the issue in May, he said that his stance was "evolving." At least Clinton's "evolution" was faster than that of prehistoric man.

It bears repeating that the most pressing causes of the gay rights movement today - repealing the Defense of Marriage Act and "don't ask, don't tell" - are the result of problems he created as the 42nd president of the United States. And despite the manifold indignities that he inflicted upon countless gay Americans with his role in implementing these two laws, Clinton still refuses to acknowledge any wrongdoing on his part, never mind apologize.

Witness his angry and patronizing interview, so typical of his undignified behavior during the last Democratic presidential primary, with a group of college students assembled by MTV last year. Asked about his 1996 signing of DOMA, Clinton portrayed himself as some sort of hero who was actually doing gay people a favor by preventing the worse option of a constitutional amendment. But there was no talk of such an amendment in 1996, and plenty of Democrats voted against the law. If the decision that Clinton made in 1996 was so painstaking, why did he brag about it on Christian radio stations during the presidential campaign?

And Clinton has the gall to accuse Republicans of using gay issues for electoral gain!

To make his point, Clinton only mentioned the part of DOMA that allows states not to recognize marriages or civil unions performed in other states, giving credence to the specter of gays descending upon red America in search of marriage licenses. In so doing Clinton neglected to contend with the other and far more damaging aspect of DOMA, which forbids the federal government from bestowing the myriad rights and obligations (which the Government Accounting Office has estimated to number 1,138) that straight couples receive to same-sex couples.

Similarly, last January, Clinton ridiculed the notion that he shared any blame for the passage of "don't ask, don't tell" or that the statute is all that invidious.

" 'Don't ask, don't tell,' as articulated as I worked it out with Colin Powell, who was then the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, meant literally that ... that people would be free to live their lives as long as they didn't go march in gay rights parades or go to gay bars in uniform ... in uniform ... and talk about it on duty, they would be all right. Now, as soon as he [Colin Powell] left, the antigay forces in the military started using it as an excuse to kick people out.'"

Discharges of gay soldiers rose under Clinton. If he was so concerned about the way the law was being implemented, he could have done something about it.

After leaving office Clinton added insult to injury. We also know that in 2004 he advised John Kerry to support not only the many state-level constitutional amendments banning gay marriage, but also the Federal Marriage Amendment championed by President George W. Bush. Five years later, with a series of states having legalized same-sex marriage, the polls decisively showing a generational surge in support for the cause, and - most important in terms of this discussion - the definitive end of the Clinton dynasty upon us, Bill Clinton wants us to know that he "basically" supports gay marriage.

Pardon me for being cool toward the latest tergiversations of this congenital liar and shameless opportunist.

The gay community has never come to terms with the true record of the Clinton White House, as was evident by the overwhelming support Hillary's primary bid received from gay men ... support so slavish and irrational that it pains me to conclude it was predicated on little else besides the woman's diva-like qualities.

Earlier this week the Freedom to Marry coalition issued a press release praising the former president. In their rush to extol him, however, gay activists should be wary. For the most important thing to know about Bill Clinton is that the man never takes a position based upon considerations of things like morality or justice. He takes positions based entirely upon a cold calculation of what will advance his political (and, of late, business) interests. If, for whatever reason, his cynical support for marriage equality gets in the way of his wife's political career or a shady business deal with an Arab oil sheik, Clinton will abandon the cause faster than he fled the 1992 campaign trail to carry out the execution of Ricky Ray Rector, a mentally retarded black prisoner who had shot himself in the head after committing a double homicide.

To provide the most succinct and accurate description of the Clintons, I defer to someone who knows them all too well and who also happens to be the richest and most powerful gay man in America: David Geffen.

Explaining his surprise support for Barack Obama in the Democratic presidential primary, the record producer told Maureen Dowd of The New York Times, "Everybody in politics lies, but [the Clintons] do it with such ease, it's troubling."

Geffen, who raised millions of dollars for the Clintons and twice slept in the Lincoln bedroom, came late to recognizing the mendaciousness of this couple.

Hopefully other gays will follow his lead. Better late than never.

1 Comment

Life Is A Campaign, Old Chum

by on

I just got back from a meeting at a Sacramento church, co-sponsored by Marriage Equality USA, on the subject of whether the community wants to go forward with a Prop. 8 repeal in 2010 or 2012 -- or even later. And I can confidently say this: the politicalization of gay marriage in California is now in full swing. Not many in the gay community wanted it this way, but California's voters decided that the only way we'll get marriage equality here is to persuade the voters we should have it, so we now have to figure out how to do just that.

The pollsters are polling and the consultants are consulting, and if the voters ever heard any of what I just did, a lot of them might want to take back their votes for Prop. 8. Experts galore are slicing and dicing their way through Caifornia's demographics with obsessive fineness. Someone developed a Weekly Workload Estimate of how many voters per week would need to have their minds changed for us to win 51% support in 2010 (7,036 per week) or 2012 (3,171 per week). We were shown some strategies for changing minds, discussed current door-to-door efforts, given tips from Gandhi and MLK on not alienating people, and shown enough statistics to gladden the hearts of the entire graduating class of the Kennedy School of Government.

It was clear, from the early mention of George Lakoff, that the left is still firmly in control of the ride, and that the rest of us should keep our arms and legs inside the conveyance. No surprise there. But the overwhelming feeling in the room wasn't leftist cant, it was raw political calculation. We were informed that we would need to change "hearts and minds" in the tone of a chemistry professor instructing students about combining elements in a beaker.

That, of course, is the way consultants and professionals know how to run campaigns. But it really brought home for me how the science and practice of politics can suck the blood out a humane, enthusiastic and honorable movement for simple fairness. That fairness was built into our state constitution, but a majority of our voters took it out. We now have to live our lives in permanent campaign mode, have to see everything and everyone in terms of political strategy, in order to restore our equality. That will be a big enough job for us, but I even feel a bit sorry for the many heterosexuals who, having had their demographics pored over, will be the "targets" of our missions. That, however, is what the voters have asked of us, and of themselves, by making marriage the subject of constitutional scope. God and Gandhi help us all.

1 Comment

None So Blind

by on

Compare Utah Rep. Jason Chaffetz's pro-family reasoning, quoted by Jon below, to that of Sen. Jeff Sessions. Chaffetz can't abide giving committed same-sex couples who work for the federal government equal employment benefits because the proposal doesn't include unmarried straight couples. In contrast, Sen. Sessions predicts the demise of Rep. Mike Honda's bill to provide recognition to the noncitizen partner in committed same-sex relationships (the recognition immigration law now automatically grants to a heterosexual spouse) because it "would be creating a special preference and benefit for a category of immigrants based on a relationship that's not recognized by federal law and overwhelmingly by most states."

So Sen. Sessions views gay equality as a "special preference" while Chaffetz doesn't see gay equality at all, only straight equality.

Let's review the bidding, then. Same-sex couples can't have their relationships recognized by the federal government because of DOMA, and shouldn't be asking for any "special" rights, such as treatment equal (or even roughly equal) to what heterosexuals expect. And if gays do ask for any benefits for their relationships, heterosexuals should expect, not only the benefits they now recieve for being married, but benefits for not being married, so that they'll be treated equally to a group that any reasonable person can see are now treated unequally.

All of this arises because of the GOP's fundamental inability to aknowledge that same-sex couples are not treated equally, or fairly, under current federal law. That increasingly obvious blind spot leads to all of their incoherence.

0 Comments

Those Pro-Family Republicans

by on

National Journal has a story (online for subscribers only) on legislation, now moving in Congress and supported by the Obama Administration, "that would give gay and lesbian federal employees the same benefits now offered to married heterosexual workers"-a bill which Republican Rep. Jason Chaffetz of Utah opposes.

Why? Well, partly "because it excludes unmarried heterosexual couples.... Chaffetz said in an interview that if unmarried heterosexual couples were included in the legislation, 'I'd look at it very differently.' "

Right. If the bill included heterosexual couples, it would be using federal dollars and prestige to encourage straight couples to cohabit. Which apparently is better than encouraging gay couples to form stable and committed unions.

There is nothing pro-family about being anti-gay. Thanks, of a sort, to Rep. Chaffetz for helping prove the point.

0 Comments

2010 Foresight

by on

I don't exactly disagree with Dale's conclusion in his post below on when California should move to repeal Prop. 8. I'm still not convinced one way or the other.

But one of the arguments being articulated misstates a very important point. Prepare to Prevail says this:

Any successful "vote-yes" campaign will require generous support from pro-LGBT institutional donors. These donors give based on evidence of likely success, which for 2010 is filled with grave doubts. It is unlikely that we will be able to raise the necessary funds to undertake an effective electoral campaign until after 2010. . . .

Remember, the original estimates for Prop. 8 spending, in total, were in the range of about $40 million -- for both sides combined. Particularly during extremely heated and close campaigns, people and institutions find resources they wouldn't otherwise have identified. That happened far beyond anyone's expectations during Prop. 8.

It may or may not happen again, whether it's in 2010 or 2012 (I am not waiting for 2014). But whenever it does happen, the campaign will be an extraordinary event. Unless something momentous happens in another state, I expect California will be the first to actually have the voters repeal a constitutional amendment they, themselves, passed banning same-sex marriage. That will certainly draw resources from a lot of places. But I don't think anybody could reasonably be putting that funding into place prior to the election itself -- at least not in the amounts spent during Prop. 8.

Prepare to Prevail's argument strikes me more as an excuse to delay, rather than a sound argument. There are some good reasons to wait until 2012. This isn't one of them.

7 Comments

Can the 2010 Train Be Stopped?

by on

It appears that some gay activists in California are starting to doubt the wisdom of pushing to repeal Prop 8 in 2010. One group outlines some considerations that make a lot of sense, including these:

Over $81 million was raised and spent by both sides in the Proposition 8 campaign, more than in any previous anti-gay ballot initiative. Many of the LGBT nonprofit organizations doing critical work for our communities have suffered layoffs and cutbacks in services. . . . Major donors, including foundations that provided funding for critical educational campaigns, have endured hits to their portfolios, and many are exercising caution. Any successful "vote-yes" campaign will require generous support from pro-LGBT institutional donors. These donors give based on evidence of likely success, which for 2010 is filled with grave doubts. It is unlikely that we will be able to raise the necessary funds to undertake an effective electoral campaign until after 2010. . . .

The demographics of opinion on marriage equality indicate that natural changes in the state electorate, with new and younger voters replacing older voters, contributes over time to increased support for marriage equality. In weighing the options of presenting a ballot measure on statewide ballots either next year, in 2010, or in a future year, the latter portends a much greater capacity by marriage equality supporters to leverage and benefit from the natural shift in voter opinion.

Some ACLU leaders, including Matt Coles, think even 2012 is too soon (and they may be right). Equality California, which indicated preliminary support for 2010 back in May, is now (re)considering the issue.

The reality of having to get our act together -- in raising money, strategizing, volunteering, campaigning, and winning -- for an election less than a year and a half away is starting to settle in. At least, that's what I'm hoping.

2 Comments

Fear Itself

by on

Plenty of people have weighed in on former President Bill Clinton's newfound support for same-sex marriage, but little can be added to Jamie Kirchick's piece in the Advocate, ripping Clinton a new one -- not that Clinton needs a new one.

In response to Clinton's stirring reply to the question of whether he personally believed in equal marriage rights for same-sex couples: ""Yeah. I personally support people doing what they want to do. I think it's wrong for someone to stop someone else from doing that," Jamie is in fine form:

What eloquence! What moral conviction! Remember that these stirring words come from a man who, prior to the emergence of Barack Obama, was widely considered to be the greatest political communicator alive.

What is it about our equality that reduces the likes of Clinton, and even Obama, to Bush-like grunts and circumlocutions? Even in retirement, is Clinton still so shell-shocked from the nation's last hurricane of homophobia? That was 15 years ago, which is about 45 in gay rights years. Does Obama really believe that any reaction today to his leadership on repeal of Clinton's signature achievements on gay equality, DADT and DOMA, would be worse than what he faced during the campaign over Rev. Jeremiah Wright, palling around with terrorists, or people clinging to guns and religion?

The rhetorical scraps we get from these mighty orators should be compared to the simple eloquence of Meghan McCain, who has no trouble saying, "No matter how politically charged the discussions about marriage equality may get, the question is really a simple one: Do the rights and privileges we offer citizens include everyone in our country, or only some of us?"

McCain isn't a politician, and can articulate her true feelings with more liberty than an elected official. But Rep. Patrick Murphy is sure in politics, and he, too, leaves both Clinton and Obama in the dust when it comes to us. Watch how easily and authoritatively he responds to the charge that open gays in the military would destroy unit cohesion by saying the very notion is an insult to him and to the military.

The lesson here was stated best by a president who didn't have to deal with gay equality. President Clinton, President Obama, when it comes to gay rights, the only thing you have to fear is fear itself.

4 Comments

Gay Marriage in Ten Years?

by on

The epoch of the cultural wedge issue is ending, says Democratic political analyst Ruy Teixeira, in his new report, "The Coming End of the Culture Wars" (PDF). And gay marriage will soon lose its political potency. It's baked in the demographic cake.

That's because of generational change, as culturally progressive Millennial voters surge into the electorate. It's also, more immediately, because of the decline in the number of white working-class voters. And the fastest growing religious group is not evangelicals but seculars, who tend to be very culturally progressive.

Of course, this does not mean that conflicts over gay marriage will die out overnight. There will continue to be attempts on the state level to keep gay marriage illegal through the initiative process. Such initiatives have met with considerable success, including the recent passage of Proposition 8 in the progressive state of California. Yet a simple regression model developed by Nate Silver suggests that such initiatives have been losing support at the rate of roughly 2 percentage points a year. This time trend, combined with a couple of other variables on state religiosity, indicates that California would fail to support such an initiative by next year and only a handful of Deep South states should be expected to support gay marriage bans by 2016.

Fights will continue on the gay marriage issue, but the outcome of these struggles is not really in doubt looking 10 years or so down the road. And neither is the decreasing usefulness of this issue to the conservative culture warriors.

1 Comment