At 1:28 in this video clip of Hillary Clinton's concession speech today, check out the ecstatic reaction of the young people in the crowd behind her when she hits "gay and straight" in her litany of supporters.
We're not baggage any more. A rising generation of voters identifies with us...and will shun politicians who shun us.
Glad I lived to see it.
At his arraignment at Gitmo on Thursday, alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed described what drives his jihad:
"I consider all American constitution" evil, he said, because it permits "same-sexual marriage and many other things that are very bad," he told the military judge, Col. Ralph Kohlmann. "Do you understand?"
Meanwhile, Dan Blatt over at Gay Patriot reports a story ignored by U.S. mainstream and gay media:
At a fashion show to promote tolerance of gay people on April 30, a national holiday in Holland, celebrating the birthday of the late Queen Juliana, a group of ten Muslim youths dragged gay model Mike Du Pree down from the catwalk, beating him up and breaking his nose. A second model who tried to help out was also attacked.
I could find no reference to this beating on any of the [U.S.] gay news web-sites I checked....
Martin Bosma, gay issues spokesman of the Dutch Party of Freedom (PVV), said..."This shows how strong the Islamic gaybashers feel they are. Even at daylight, on Queen's Day, in the heart of Amsterdam, they strike.... Either they will win, or we will win."
Or we could pretend that offering their allies tea with Obama will take care of all.
The Human Rights Campaign has now endorsed Obama for President, despite his refusal to oppose the California ballot initiative to ban same-sex marriage (as reported in the San Francisco Chronicle), and despite his stated position that marriage can only be between a man and a woman-neither of which is mentioned in HRC's gushing endorsement announcement.
As noted in the item below, the Economist reports that African-Americans overwhelmingly oppose same-sex marriage, and Obama is likely to fire up a much larger African-American turnout in California this November. So why an endorsement with no strings attached? Because HRC exists to serve the party, silly.
More. HRC even beat the Stonewall Democrats in getting out their endorsement message, showing which organization is the more effectively partisan.
Furthermore. The San Francisco Chronicle article states:
Obama ... has said repeatedly that marriage itself should be reserved for a man and a woman. With an amendment outlawing same-sex marriage on the California ballot in November, Obama will probably be called to defend his carefully nuanced position when he campaigns in the state.
Gee, maybe HRC should have gotten him to strongly, and publicly, condemn the amendment and work against its passage as a precondition for their endorsement, you think?
"Gay Pride" was created as a response to the fact that being gay was a stigmatized identity. But nearly 40 years after Stonewall is it OK to abandon the notion of gay pride? Is it all right if I just feel OK about being gay and not make a big fuss-an over-compensatory fuss, frankly-about how proud I am?
If you are young and/or newly out of the closet, you might take pride in your psychological achievement of confronting the remaining stigma and your courage in coming out. And for a few years you might need the encouragement that the notion of "gay pride" can provide. But after five or 10 years, I hope you'd find something else or something more to be proud of.
To be sure, for a long time there will be areas of hostility to gays, primarily religious or ethnic. So where those have considerable influence, "gay pride" is still a valuable (if over-simplified) message to send to young and closeted gays within those communities.
For the rest of us, it is possible to take a kind of derivative pride in the achievements of gays and lesbians in the past-and they are considerable-but it is best to feel pride in something you personally achieved in your life. If that achievement is somehow related to being gay, so much the better.
For instance, you might take pride in being a volunteer for some gay community or AIDS service organization. Or, and I am anticipating a future column here, you could be part of a gay group that provides services to the broader community; not everything has to be directed inward. I am thinking of the "Toys for Tots" projects that leather clubs used to undertake. But, no doubt, there is still plenty of work to do in our community.
The annual Pride Parade is useful, despite its occasional silliness, as the largest and most visible representation of our community to closeted gays and to the general public. It shows our range of religious and social service organizations, the range and vibrancy of gay businesses, and the level of support that large corporations increasingly provide for us. All this helps legitimize us and demonstrates that the gay community is a bustling, thriving community.
It also serves as a kind of psychological boost (however brief) for not-very-active gays. It is not unknown for some parade observer on the spur of the moment to step off the sidelines and join a marching contingent.
For those wary of the television cameras, I will share a personal anecdote. I used to live in a small university town. One year, maybe 30 years ago, during the week after the pride parade, a student I hardly knew came up to me and asked diffidently, "Were you in Chicago last weekend?" "Yes, I was." "Were you in some sort of parade?" "Yes, I was in the Gay Pride Parade." "Cool," he said. "I saw you on television." So the cachet of being on television outweighs any other response.
A few suggestions. The service organizations that depend on volunteers should strongly encourage their volunteers to march in the parade. For instance, the local community center claims "hundreds" of volunteers. If so, show us. And show the general public our level of community spirit. That might encourage others to volunteer as well.
A generation ago, it was difficult to get any politicians except the most liberal from the safest districts to participate in the parade. Not any longer. The number has now grown quite large as every office holder and political aspirant wants the publicity of being in the parade. So now, in order to qualify for admission to the parade, politicians should have to sign a statement saying they support domestic partner benefits in their office and civil unions or gay marriage. If they don't, what are they doing in OUR parade?
The large corporations that enter floats should have to disclose whether they have a non-discrimination clause, whether they offer domestic partner benefits for gay and lesbian employees, whether they have and support a gay employees organization. And they should be encouraged to indicate any corporate support they have given to gay organizations. That information could be noted in the program booklet for the parade.
And finally, I wish there would be groups advocating sexual freedom in opposition to the puritanism of conservative religious sects and the present administration, a group advocating gun ownership and martial arts training for gays as means of self-defense, a gay teachers and professors group, and an artists group advocating community support for the arts. Maybe next year.
From The Economist:
Although California's major pollsters reckon the gap is closing, they have never found a majority of residents in favor of same-sex marriage. Whites are evenly divided on the subject, whereas Latinos are opposed and blacks are fiercely opposed. February's primary election suggests turnout among both minority groups will be high this November.
It's altogether possible that a huge African-American turnout for Obama (who believes marriage is only between a man and a woman, just like the wording of the ballot initiative) could doom marriage equality in the nation's most populous state. But that's a scenario you won't hear discussed by Obama's LGBT supporters.
More. Since one commenter charges that my remarks about Obama's views on same-sex marriage are wrong, here are some facts:
Obama says: "I do not support gay marriage. Marriage has religious and social connotations, and I consider marriage to be between a man and a woman." (From the Human Rights Campaign's 2008 Presidential questionnaire)
Proposed California marriage amendment says: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
Furthermore. Reader "avee" predicts:
Obama says he is against the CA marriage amendment [sic], but he also says that he is against gay marriage because marraige can only be between a man and woman. Expect his anti-gay-marriage quote to be reproduced in ads in the African-American media by amendment supporters before the election.
Actually, Obama apparently has not come out in opposition of the amendment, unlike GOP Gov. Schwarzenegger. From the San Francisco Chronicle:
Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, the likely Democratic presidential nominee, supports civil unions and equal rights for same-sex couples, but he has said repeatedly that marriage itself should be reserved for a man and a woman.
With an amendment outlawing same-sex marriage on the California ballot in November, Obama will probably be called to defend his carefully nuanced position when he campaigns in the state.
McCain, regrettably, endorsed the state amendment while continuing to oppose a federal amendment, but one would certainly expect more-much more- from Obama, who is and will be receiving droves of gay dollars and gay votes, and the adoration of LGBT activists throughout the land.
More still. It's now on the ballot. And it's unclear whether same-sex marriages performed over the next five months would be nullified if the amendment passes. Also, New York State's recent executive order instructing state agencies to recognized same-sex marriages performed elsewhere is being challenged.
When strangers stare at me across a bar, I like to imagine it's because they find me attractive. More often than not, however, it's because they recognize me from the local gay paper.
"You're John Corvino, aren't you? The Gay Moralist?"
It happened just last weekend as I was vacationing in Saugatuck, a gay-friendly resort town on Lake Michigan. I was at tea dance, and I had drunk quite a bit of tea-of the Long Island iced variety. I tend to become flirtatious when inebriated, and at the time the stranger approached, I had my arms around two very handsome fellow partygoers.
The stranger leaned in. "So you're the Gay Moralist?" He said it in an almost accusatory tone.
"Yes-that's me."
"Looks more like the Gay IMmoralist to me," he sneered, before turning and abruptly walking away.
Maybe he was jealous, I told myself. Or maybe he assumed I was cheating on my husband, who in fact was standing just a few feet away. Perhaps he just disapproved of my inebriation (though judging from his breath, he had quite a few drinks himself). In any case, his comment stuck with me. Was I setting a bad example? And why should I care?
I title my column "The Gay Moralist" because I'm an ethics professor who writes about moral subjects, not because I hold myself up as a moral exemplar. Having said that, I don't think there's anything wrong with having a good time, even one that includes drinking and flirtation. Such things-in moderation-can contribute to life's joy, and there's moral value in joy.
To say that is not to endorse hedonism. Hedonism is the view that pleasure is the ONLY moral value. I'm a pluralist about value, and I believe that there are times when pleasure (especially transitory pleasure) must be sacrificed for greater goods.
Nor is it to embrace relativism, the view that moral truth is whatever we believe it to be. Human beings can, and do, get ethics wrong sometimes, as any honest look at history (including one's personal history) should make clear.
But one way to get ethics wrong is to insist that pleasure is never a moral value, or worse yet, that it's a moral evil. Pity those cultures who think that, for example, dancing is immoral.
There are philosophical traditions which teach-foolishly-that pleasure never constitutes a reason for action. They then get themselves in a twist over seemingly easy questions such as whether chewing gum is permissible apart from its teeth-cleaning tendencies. Relax, guys. Have a freakin' cookie.
Certainly there are pleasures-such as drinking and flirting-that can easily get out of hand. Maybe that's why we tend to think of them as "naughty," even when indulged in moderation. Or perhaps we've inherited the puritanism of our forebears. In any case, I freely admit that I've had moments of excess, amply earning my other, unofficial nickname, "The Naughty Professor." (Given human nature, that column might attract even more readers than "The Gay Moralist.") As Aristotle said, "Moderation in all things-even moderation itself."
Aristotle understood that while moderation is crucial, it is important to guard against slipping from a reasonable caution into an unhealthy-and morally undesirable-puritanism. It is especially important for gays to do so, since so many in the world would deny us pleasure-including some important pleasures related to human intimacy.
There are those who caricature gays as being obsessed with pleasure. No doubt some are. Perhaps they're overreacting to being denied certain pleasures for too long, or perhaps, having been rejected by "normal" society, they lack appropriate social restraints. Everyone needs a moral community, for both its positive and negative injunctions.
But the proper alternative to excessive indulgence is not puritanism; it's moderation. Our opponents believe that there is never an appropriate context for homoerotic pleasure, so they present us with dilemma: you can either embrace gayness or embrace morality, but not both. It's a false dilemma, and we ought to denounce it. Put another way, we can reject their bad moralizing without rejecting moralizing altogether.
The fact is that we are all moralists, since we all must decide what to endorse, what to tolerate, and what to forbid. As "The Gay Moralist," I just happen to write about such things.
In Wednesday's Los Angeles Times, Macy's ran a full-page ad for its wedding registry that says, "First comes love. Then comes marriage. And now it's a milestone every couple in California can celebrate."
A while back, Paul Varnell looked at the positive side of gays being (oh, the horror!) a target market.
The Macy's ad also brought to mind the article Capitalism and the Family, written last year by Steven Horwitz, a professor of economics at St. Lawrence University, who noted that:
One final result of capitalism's effects on economic growth and the rise of the love-based marriage is perhaps the most controversial cultural issue of the early 21st century: the demand for the legalization of same-sex marriage. ...
Although leftist historians...at least recognize the ways in which capitalism has made gay identity and thus the demand for same-sex marriage possible, they still go out of their way to note that this does not mean that capitalism is actually good.
Conservatives, however, seem unaware of the connection. They continue to pay lip service to the great things capitalism provides and often understand correctly the ways in which its economic effects cannot be controlled, yet they complain about the cultural dynamism that is the direct result of the dynamism of the market.
That sums it up nicely.
More. David Boaz, as it happens, has a Wall Street Journal op-ed this week about capitalism and its political discontents, taking aim at presidential candidates (and, I'd add, their media cheerleaders) who hypocritically disparage the "money culture" of traders, entrepreneurs and manufacturers. States Boaz, in rebuttal: "You have a right to live it as you choose, to follow your bliss. You have a right to seek satisfaction in accomplishment. And if you chase after the almighty dollar, you just might find that you are led, as if by an invisible hand, to do things that improve the lives of others."
"Marriage," the minister said, "is a going forth, a bold step into the future; it is risking what we are for the sake of what we can be."
Marriage is a risk.
We forget that, I think.
It seems very mainstream, this marriage thing, it IS mainstream, it's something that has been part of the culture for thousands of years.
It is so ordinary, that there are some gay people who look at the fight for equal marriage and shake their heads. "But what is the REASON you want to get married" they say. It's a patriarchal institution, it's anti-queer, it restricts freedom. It has a mean and sordid history, marked by the memory of women treated like property, of miscegenation, of contracts between families of power. It's more progressive, they say, to not get married. Marriage will ruin the gay community, they say, blur its edges, make us the same as everyone else.
Maybe. It's definitely traditional, marriage. Indeed, many of the things we're fighting for - the right to marry, the right to serve openly in the military, the right to not be harassed at a job - really, all of these things are the same thing. We are fighting for the right to be ordinary.
But being ordinary doesn't mean not being brave. You can be both traditional and risky.
My friends Cid and Glenda got married last weekend. It was my first lesbian wedding - I'd been to civil union ceremonies before, and had a domestic partnership ceremony myself years ago. But this was the first lesbian wedding I went to that was legal, the first one I attended where the minister concluded by saying, "By the power invested in me by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts . . ."
Everyone was crying in the congregation when the Rev. Elea Kemler said that. It moved us, to hear a public acknowledgement of the love of two women - to hear a state acknowledging the love of two women. To hear an entire congregation stand up and say, "We do," when the minister asked "Do you who know Cid and Glenda give them your blessings now as they enter into marriage?" being a witness, that was moving.
The public acknowledgement of our relationships and our lives is important to us as gay people. We crave it, because we have been so long hidden in the dark.
That is part of the risk, of course. Two women who get married are taking a public risk, opening themselves up to the hatred, disgust and criticism from those on the right who do not want to understand.
But even braver than that public risk is the private risk.
We don't think about it much, because marriage is in fact such an ordinary thing. We are at the beginning of wedding season now, and brides are everywhere in their white dresses, posing for pictures in gardens amid the flowers of their bridesmaids.
Marriage is a thing straight couples progress into as a matter of course.
But marriage is so new to us still - official only in Massachusetts and now, joyfully, California- that before we marry, we still think hard about it. Our families are likely not pressing for our marriage. It's not expected. It's certainly not required.
And yet marriage is risky. That's why not everyone does it. It asks for a leap of faith, a commitment to loving and supporting someone you can never fully know. Half of all marriages fail. What other venture to people dare to try with a 50 percent failure rate? Would you go to college if you knew that you were as likely to drop out as stay in? Get a job if you knew that there was an even chance you'd be fired?
Marriage is a risk. It is brave. When we fight for the right to marry, we are asking for a chance to be challenged. We are not taking the easy way out. We are saying that in spite of the odds, despite the large possibility of failure, we are willing to live in hope.
"So it is not to lofty words, or institutions even, that we appeal at this hour of commitment," the minister said. "But rather to the resources which you two draw from deep within yourselves - the deep well of human need, united and loving, forgiven and forgiving, whole and complete before a broken and imperfect world."
Marriage is a risk. Let us celebrate those like Cid and Glenda who take it.
A report in LA Weekly, California GOP: The Queer Enablers of Gay Marriage, highlights why the "all LGBT eggs (and votes, and money) in the Democratic Party basket" (or else you must be a "self-loathing" rich white gay jerk) is and always was partisanship gone wild:
[GOP Gov. Pete Wilson] appointed Judge Ronald M. George to the California State Supreme Court. Nearly 17 years later, the moderate Republican jurist would become a national gay hero. Last Thursday, it was George's carefully written majority opinion that legalized same-sex marriage in California. By nightfall...gay activists stood on a stage and publicly lauded the judge as "courageous." Speaker after speaker also praised another Republican, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, for promising to "fight" against a November ballot measure that could still outlaw gay marriage in the Golden State. ...
When Robin Tyler, a plaintiff in last week's historic case and a gay-rights advocate for more than 40 years, realized many months ago that the California State Supreme Court was jammed with Republicans, she was anything but fearful. "I was thrilled," she says. "I thought we'd stand more of a chance. I think a Democratic court might have shied away because of the issue of the (presidential) election."
As I never tire of pointing out, our national LGBT groups are largely staffed by activists with close ties to the Democratic Party, and much of their top leadership ranks flow back and forth from positions within the party itself (with an eye kept on possible low to mid-level positions in the next Democratic administration). That would be fine if these groups presented themselves as partisans targeting LBGT money and votes on their party's behalf, but they don't.
Yep, It's Groundbreaking
Semi-related, Laura Bush and daughter Jenna last week taped a segment on The Ellen DeGeneres Show (expected to air this coming Wednesday), discussing their new book. Ellen is a California resident, and following the California Supreme Court's marriage ruling she announced her engagement to longtime girlfriend Portia de Rossi.
Ponder
that for a moment: A conservative Republican First Lady going on a
chat show with a famous lesbian who's just announced she's going to
get married?
And now, this just in: The AP reports that "President Bush's newly married daughter, Jenna Hager, seemed to offer her family's Texas ranch to Ellen DeGeneres as a wedding location."
I think this is just another sign that the religious right is losing on all fronts, and that their initiatives to ban marriage are just last stands in their retreat -last stands that may stay in state constitutions for a generation, alas, but still part of a general losing effort.
From the Los Angeles Times: "Among registered voters in California, 54 percent support a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages, and 35 percent oppose it.... Of those who said they didn't know a gay person, 70 percent support the amendment..."
The Times tries to give the findings a positive spin as a "narrow margin" for the amendment's passage, but actually, I'm told, pre-vote polls on state anti-gay amendments have undercounted the support for banning same-sex unions by an average of 10% - amendment backers don't feel comfortable giving their real views, it seems, perhaps fearing that the pollster will think they're bigots.
Equality California's PAC is the right place to donate, I'm told.
If the anti-gay marriage amendment fails (as did a similar effort in Arizona two years ago), it will mark an historic turning point. If the amendment passes, marriage equality will be delayed in the nation's most populous state for perhaps a generation - which demonstrates both the promise and real risks of pursing a judicial strategy.