IGF CultureWatch

Jorge, my super, sat on my couch the other afternoon, having tea and pie. My building's heat was out again, but this time the problem was serious: the boiler had cracked. Jorge was waiting for a mechanic of some kind to come, and so I invited him in.

"You don't have children?" he asked. I knew he had five, all of whom still live in Ecuador.

I shook my head.

"You need children for a family," he said.

"I want children," I said.

He nodded and shrugged a shoulder. "Well, it's OK," he said. "In America, it's OK. You have children at 30, at 35, older. Plenty of time here to have children," he said.

We went on to other things, but part of me has fixated on that idea since. Plenty of time to have children? Can that be true?

I never thought I would have biological clock panic, but I am, a little. Partly it's because a couple months ago my age tipped toward 40 - I'm 36. But mostly it's because

1. I really do want children and always thought I'd have them and

2. as of this month, nearly every single one of my close female friends either has children, is pregnant, is trying to get pregnant, or is trying to adopt or thinking seriously about adopting. How did this happen?

Nineteen months ago, when I moved to New York, none of my Chicago friends had children, and none of my New York friends did, either. Most of my friends with kids were college friends who lived in other states, and whom I communicated with mostly through Christmas cards or reproductions of sonograms.

In Chicago, I was living a youthful life. I played flag football. I went to performance art. I hung out with friends. Children seemed very, very far in the future.

But then, toward the end of my time there, I dated a great girl who adored her many nieces and nephews. I fell in love with them and with her simultaneously; for the first time I understood the small joys a daily life with children could bring, and the deep closeness and respect and love you can feel for someone who partners with you in raising them.

She - they - were my only Chicago regret.

Since our time together ended, I've been thinking more and more about having kids myself. And then single women I was close to started having - or trying to have - children on their own, or adopting - or beginning the process.

Now, almost every conversation I have with a friend has babies or children in it. On the one hand, I now feel very comfortable with adoption, which means Jorge is right - I do have plenty of time to have children.

On the other hand, I feel very, very ready to have them. I've got a solid career and a lot of energy and happiness. Plus - and I hope this sounds the way I mean it to - I kinda want to raise kids during the same period my friends are raising them.

I already feel like my life is revolving a bit around children. Having them (or adopting them) myself while my friends are sharing experiences and babysitting and kid's clothes and strategies seems perfect.

Yet - I don't want to be a single mother. I'm sure I can do it. My own mother did it very well, and thousands of women raise wonderful children on their own. Also, single motherhood can always happen unexpectedly, for a variety of reasons - even if I were partnered, it could happen to me. But I would rather start raising kids within a loving partnership, for my own sanity.

At the moment, I feel very, very far from such a thing, and I've realized something lately - I actually want children more than I want to be partnered. And the idea of finding a partner to have a child is just as distasteful as having a child to save a partnership.

So what will I do?

For the moment, I'm just waiting. I'm listening to my friends as they explore their options. I study various fertility processes. I flip through adoption websites. I read up on adoption law, and what would happen if I had a child first and then found a partner who wanted to adopt my child later. I advocate for full marriage rights for gays and lesbians, so that the whole process will be easier. I go on dates with women who have children, because if it worked out, that would kill two birds.

I want to raise children - I'm not particular about whether I give birth to them or not. A dear friend tells me, "You can make that happen. That will happen. You have time."

Time, she says. I have time. And Jorge, too: "Plenty of time here to have children," he said. I try to relax in the fact of that. But as I watch the children of my friends get older so quickly, time seems race by.

Though it's gotten very little attention in the gay press, an important case affecting the lives of gays and lesbians is now pending in the Supreme Court. The case challenges the constitutionality of the District of Columbia's unusually strict gun-control law, which bans handguns and effectively prevents people from possessing firearms for self-defense in their own homes.

A brief filed in the case, on which I offered some counsel, argues that the law is especially harmful to gay Americans. The brief joins a large coalition of groups, including the National Rifle Association, arguing for individual rights under the Second Amendment.

The brief was filed on behalf of Pink Pistols and Gays and Lesbians for Individual Liberty (GLIL). Pink Pistols is an international group formed a few years ago with the basic mission of advocating gun ownership and training in the proper use of firearms by gay people. GLIL is a libertarian gay group that consistently defends individual rights.

The gay gun-rights brief argues that the D.C. gun-control law violates the Second Amendment, long the forgotten and some say most "embarrassing" part of the Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment says: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Many people have long argued that the reference to "a well-regulated militia" means that the right is limited to citizens serving collectively in a modern-day military force, like the National Guard. Under this interpretation, the amendment would not protect any individual right to bear arms outside the militia context, meaning that the government can entirely ban private gun ownership, even guns needed for self-defense in the home.

However, as even many liberal scholars now acknowledge, that interpretation makes little sense of the text and history of the amendment and of the Bill of Rights generally, which contains a series of individual rights.

The gay gun-rights brief adds an important perspective to this argument. It makes several points about the connection between firearms, gay rights, and the practical self-defense needs of gay Americans.

First, the brief argues that the right keep and bear arms is especially instrumental for a population at once subject to pervasive hate violence and inadequate police protection.

From 1995 to 2005, according to the FBI, more than 13,000 incidents of anti-gay hate violence were reported by law enforcement agencies. When you consider that fewer than half of all violent crimes are reported, it is certain that even this number seriously underestimates the problem.

Worse still, gays are often afraid to report anti-gay crimes. There is a sorry history of hostile or skeptical police response, public disclosure of the victim's sexual orientation, and even physical abuse by the police themselves. Investigative bias and lack of police training further complicate the picture. The upshot is that gays must be responsible for their own defense; they cannot rely solely on law enforcement for it.

Anti-gay hate crimes share several other characteristics that make the use of firearms for self-defense especially significant. Such crimes are unusually brutal, often involving multiple and vicious attacks. They are highly likely to involve multiple assailants. Attackers often themselves use guns, making anything short of a like defense almost completely ineffective.

Surprisingly, almost one-third of anti-gay bias crimes occur in the home, the precise location where the D.C. gun law forbids the effective possession of firearms for self-protection.

It's true that gun possession does not guarantee protection from violent crime. The gun may be incompetently used, for example. But where the Constitution itself protects an individual right, it is not for the government to say the citizen may not enjoy the right simply because she may not make effective use of it.

Second, the gay gun-rights brief points out that unless the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms, gay Americans are effectively disqualified from any exercise of the right. That's because under the current prevailing interpretation of the Constitution, the government may entirely exclude gays and lesbians from military service ("the militia").

If the Second Amendment protects only the collective right of a state's citizens to possess arms within a militia, and if gays may be excluded from that militia, then the Second Amendment is a dead letter for gay Americans. They have no rights on the subject the government is bound to respect.

I do not own a gun. Frankly, I don't much like them and have never felt I needed one for protection. But for many other gay people, especially the ones living on the margins of life in crime-prone or anti-gay areas, owning a gun is one important part of a comprehensive plan for protecting life and property.

Gun ownership might at the very least give them peace of mind. And widespread knowledge that many gays are packing might give their would-be attackers second thoughts. Gun rights are gay rights.

This week on Capitol Hill, supporters of syringe exchange programs (SEP) for HIV prevention celebrated a victory. Last year, Rep. José Serrano (D-N.Y.) led successful efforts in the House of Representatives to allow the District of Columbia to spend its own funds on syringe exchange after a nine-year ban. D.C. has the highest HIV infection rate in the country, and Congress' ban on local funding (interference not faced by the states) severely hampered prevention efforts. President Bush's 2009 budget proposal calls for reinstating the local funding ban in D.C., but that will likely be ignored by congressional Democrats.

A campaign is now underway to overturn the older nationwide ban on federal funds, dating to 1988. We came close ten years ago.

In 1998, President Clinton's Secretary of Health and Human Services, Donna Shalala, was ready to call a press conference to confirm scientific findings that SEP helped decrease HIV infections without increasing drug abuse, and to announce that federal funds could be used for the purpose. At the last minute, Clinton bowed to pressure from his drug czar, General Barry McCaffrey, who claimed syringe exchange sent the wrong message to children. In the end, Shalala had to defend continuation of the federal funding ban despite confirming the effectiveness of syringe exchange.

POZ magazine founder Sean Strub urged Secretary Shalala to resign in protest. He wrote, "Let's hope that Clinton's modestly supportive (albeit failed) initiatives on gay issues are never confused with his record on AIDS, which is one of cowardice, opportunism, callous disregard and cynical dismissal." Scott Hitt, head of Clinton's AIDS advisory panel, said, "At best this is hypocrisy. At worst, it's a lie. And no matter what, it's immoral."

For two decades, the federal government, in the name of its ill-conceived "war on drugs," has blocked funding for a program proven to save lives. The irrationality of the "Just Say No" mindset, whether pertaining to drugs or sex, has been amply criticized. What is more disturbing is the silence and even complicity of people who know better. Clinton caved so many times on so many issues that one wonders what he thought the Oval Office was for. Oh, never mind.

What about the Clinton now running for president? Sen. Hillary Clinton answered a question last April from AIDS activist Charles King about SEP by saying, "I want to look at the evidence on it." Reminded that Secretary Shalala had affirmed the effectiveness of syringe exchange but that President Clinton had refused to end the federal funding ban, Sen. Clinton cited political realities. King pointed out that she had said we need a president with spine, and she replied, "We'll have as much spine as we possibly can, under the circumstances." By contrast, Sen. Barack Obama supports lifting the federal funding ban. John McCain's Senate office did not respond to an Associated Press query, but he voted on the Senate floor against D.C. funding of SEP in 2001.

It is not only the feds who have allowed ideology to trump the evidence on this issue. For example, in 2006, after Massachusetts lawmakers finally passed a bill permitting the sale of hypodermic syringes without a prescription, it was vetoed by then-Gov. Mitt Romney. Fortunately, the veto was overridden. On the other hand, life-saving needle exchange programs have been limited to four Massachusetts cities (Boston, Cambridge, Northampton and Provincetown) due to local opposition. This underscores the need for federal leadership.

For now, with D.C. finally able to fund syringe exchange, there are many who deserve recognition for their leadership: Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.); D.C. Council member Jack Evans (D-Ward 2); PreventionWorks!, which in addition to operating an SEP without public funds, had to overcome police interference and community mistrust; AIDS Action; amfAR; DC Appleseed; Human Rights Campaign; The AIDS Institute and Director of Federal Affairs Carl Schmid; Washington AIDS Partnership and Executive Director Channing Wickham; and Whitman Walker Clinic and Associate Executive Director Dr. Patricia Hawkins.

On Feb. 7, National Black HIV/AIDS Awareness Day, the Harm Reduction Coalition launched a campaign with the NAACP, the National Urban League and other groups to lift the federal funding ban. African Americans are disproportionately affected by HIV, and intravenous drug use is a vector for new HIV infections. It is past time to put lives and science first; but experience shows that this requires more than a change of political party. It requires political will.

David Kinnaman has seen the handwriting on the wall: "As these new generations begin to make up a larger share of the public, homosexuals will gain greater rights and protections-and widespread acceptance-in our culture."

Kinnaman is not happy about this. Kinnaman, who heads the Barna Group, which conducts survey research on and about evangelical Christians, is the author of Unchristian: What a New Generation Really Thinks about Christianity...and Why It Matters (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2007).

Kinnaman focuses on young people 16-29, particularly those he calls "outsiders"-atheists, agnostics, adherents of other religions and the "unchurched." Those now make up 40 percent of young people, he reports. Just a decade ago Christianity had an overwhelmingly positive image among the young, including outsiders, he says. But no longer.

"Our most recent data show that young outsiders have lost much of their respect for the Christian faith." They hold several negative images of Christianity: it is judgmental (87 percent agreed), too involved in politics (75 percent), hypocritical (85 percent), and out of touch (72 percent).

But the predominant negative perception is that Christianity is "antihomosexual." Fully 91 percent of "outsiders" say Christianity is anti-gay. Remarkably, 80 percent of young churchgoers agree:

"In our research, the perception that Christians are 'against' gays and lesbians-not only objecting to their lifestyle"-i.e., sex-"but also harboring irrational fear and unmerited scorn toward them-has reached critical mass. The gay issue has become the 'big one,' the negative image most likely to be intertwined with Christianity's reputation." In short, "A new generation of adults ... now accepts homosexuality as a legitimate way of life."

Kinnaman's book is meant to warn Christians that their political influence on the issue of homosexuality will ebb and that they need to undertake a "kinder, gentler" approach to gays such as getting to know them, engaging them in conversation, showing compassion, and talking about Jesus instead of initially taking a moralistic approach.

I am not sure that "compassion" is what gays expect these days. Acceptance is what most expect. But given the reiterated condemnations of "the homosexual lifestyle" (i.e., sex) by Kinnaman and his commentators in the book, evangelical Christians cannot offer that. It is their bottom line, their obsession.

But the Jesus of the gospels said nothing to condemn homosexuality. So the Christians eventually have to stop talking about Jesus and talk about "the Bible" (including the Old Testament), or even a rather amorphous (and manipulable) "biblical perspective." Bait and switch.

So the Christians have nothing to offer gays by way of sexual relating. Kinnaman asks, as if uncertain, "Is it still true that homosexuals have deep sexual needs, just like the rest of us?" But all they offer is celibacy. As one commentator writes, "What if we could provide intimate Christ-centered community and accountability for him or her in that pursuit? We believe that community is the answer to everyone feeling loved and human." Somehow it just doesn't seem the same.

Kinnaman moves inconspicuously from inoffensive "first statements" to more offensive "repetitions." He first says Christians oppose "church-sanctioned weddings for same-sex couples," which is part of their freedom in a civil society. But later referring to legislators, he says it is important to affirm that "marriage is between one man and one woman." So he thinks that not only churches should bar gay marriage but the state as well, a very different matter.

And Kinnaman refuses to engage the strongest gay arguments. For instance, asserting that a child needs a mother and a father, he opposes gay adoption. But-putting aside the research on same-sex parenting-there are many children in foster care and innumerable orphans worldwide with no parents at all. Are they better off with no parents or with two loving gay parents? Kinnaman refuses to reply.

Perhaps the most offensive Christian claim is that, as one commentator says, "There is not a special judgment for homosexuals (nor) ... a special righteousness for heterosexuals." Or as a pastor Kinnaman quotes puts it, "The struggle of gays in being attracted to the same sex is not different than my struggle in being attracted to the opposite sex."

What effrontery! All Christians know that loving heterosexual sex within marriage is perfectly legitimate and has a "righteousness" according to their God (Gen. 1:28). The unnamed pastor's attraction to his wife-a member of the opposite sex-has a legitimate mode of sexual expression, so the desire ("temptation") can be acted on. But his doctrine allows nothing for gays. Ultimately, one has to doubt these people's honesty or their intelligence.

No one was surprised when the Phelpses announced plans to protest Heath Ledger's memorial services. Known for their "God Hates Fags" message and their obnoxious funeral pickets-they now demonstrate against fallen American soldiers for defending our "doomed, fag-loving nation"-the Phelpses are nothing if not attention whores. What's surprising is how much the Phelpses can tell us about ourselves.

Let's admit it: deranged people, like car wrecks, are fascinating to watch. While everyone would be better off ignoring the Phelpses, doing so is hard sometimes. (I feel the same way about Britney, Paris, and Lindsay-my willpower against media "junk food" is only so strong.) So it was that I recently found myself listening to Shirley Phelps-Roper-daughter of Fred, who founded the infamous Westboro Baptist Church-when she appeared on a Washington D.C. radio station.

Phelps-Roper condemned Ledger for Brokeback Mountain, in which he plays a cowboy who falls in love with another man. Ledger is in hell because he mocked God's law, she claimed, and "if you follow his example, you will go to hell with him."

Predictably, the show's callers attacked Phelps-Roper; sadly, they often made little sense. One insisted that, according to the bible, God doesn't judge anyone. Say what? Phelps-Roper's reading of the bible may be selective, but apparently, so is everyone else's: it doesn't take much searching to find a judgmental, even wrathful God in the bible.

The show's host then attacked Phelps-Roper for her picket signs, which often thank God for disasters: "Thank God for 9/11." "Thank God for maimed soldiers." "Thank God for Hurricane Katrina." and so on. Phelps-Roper had a ready comeback:

"Exactly. You better thank him for all of his judgments because the scripture says that God is known by the judgment that he executes in this Earth, so you thank him for everything."

This answer is interesting, and not as bizarre as it might first appear. Theologians have long pondered the problem of evil-if God is all-knowing, all-good, and all-powerful, why does he allow evil in the world?-and some quite respectable ones have concluded that evil doesn't really exist. From our limited human perspective, things may look bad, but that's just because our minds are too feeble to comprehend God's design: ultimately, everything is just as God planned it.

The problem is that, pushed to its limits, this position quickly yields practical contradictions. By this logic, we ought to thank God for Heath Ledger's death; but by the same logic, we ought to thank God for Brokeback Mountain's box-office success. We ought to thank God for Hurricane Katrina; yet we ought also to thank him for sparing the (delightfully debaucherous) French Quarter. We ought to thank God for AIDS, yet also for protease inhibitors. If God should be thanked for everything, then God should be thanked for EVERYTHING.

Yet somehow I don't expect to see the Phelpses with signs thanking God for same-sex marriage in Massachusetts, or the passage of ENDA, or the increasing acceptance of GLBT people. If I were on a radio program with Shirley Phelps-Roper, I'd want to ask her "Why not?" If all of God's judgments are "perfect," why not these?

My guess is that she'd answer that these events result from human free will rather than divine will. But then how do we distinguish them from 9/11? Was it God's will for Islamic extremists to fly planes into buildings? If so, do they escape hell, since they were only doing God's will? If not, then why are we thanking God, rather than blaming the extremists?

I wouldn't expect a satisfying answer to these questions, but that's not because Phelps-Roper is deranged (which she is) or stupid (which she isn't, as far as I can tell). It's because centuries of philosophical theology have failed to produce satisfying answers to the problem of evil. Instead, we pick and choose: even though God is supposed to be responsible for everything, we thank him for the things we like and call the rest a mystery. In this respect Phelps-Roper resembles most biblical believers: she just happens to "like" rather different things than sane folks do.

A talented and likable actor dies in his prime. The Phelpses thank God, while mainstream believers declare God's will a mystery. Had the paramedics saved him, mainstream believers would thank God while the Phelpses declared God's will a mystery. In either case, divine providence remains unquestioned. Heads, God wins. Tails, God wins.

If there's a mystery here, it's why believers seem to have lower expectations of God than they do of local weather forecasters. That, and why a loving God lets the Phelpses continue to spew hate in his name.