IGF CultureWatch

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.

"We are one people." It is easy to say, but we have struggled over it for 232 years. The charismatic speaker, who once wrestled with his biracial identity and found his footing as a community organizer in south Chicago, brings a conviction that gives people goose bumps. It is a vision that clashes with the hard truth voiced by Bruce Springsteen: "No secret my friend / You can get killed just for living in / Your American skin." Barack Obama knows it is hard, and includes LGBT Americans in his call to action.

Sen. John Kerry points out that Martin Luther King was 34 when he said, "I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.'" Thomas Jefferson was 33 when he drafted that creed. If Obama wins, he will be 47 at his inauguration-a year older than Bill Clinton, four years older than Jack Kennedy, five years older than Teddy Roosevelt. His toughness is evident in his remarkable coolness in the face of smears by the Clintons.

To be sure, Obama has fought back against those attacks. Former President Clinton, who switches between charming elder statesman and eager practitioner of win-at-any-cost politics, blamed the divisiveness on Obama and the media, and used civil rights veterans John Lewis and Andrew Young as trump cards instead of addressing charges that he was behaving like the late GOP operative Lee Atwater. Those who fault Obama for fighting back must have admired Kerry's month of silence after the "swift boat" attacks in 2004.

Obama notes that the Clintons' attacks began only after he started rising in the polls. One of his central messages is, "Change doesn't come from the top down, but from the bottom up." By contrast, Hillary Clinton implicitly compared herself to Lyndon Johnson, emphasizing his key role in passing civil rights legislation. What was patronizing about that comment was the implication that change chiefly depends on Washington politicians.

Obama raised a stronger vision of leadership on Jan. 20 at King's own Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, with a speech of rare grace and power. At one point, after saying "none of our hands are entirely clean," he admonished his audience: "We have scorned our gay brothers and sisters instead of embracing them. The scourge of anti-Semitism has, at times, revealed itself in our community. For too long, some of us have seen immigrants as competitors for jobs instead of companions in the fight for opportunity." This was not pandering.

Obama challenges gay people as well by refusing to respond to opponents of gay equality with boycotts. As he wrote in response to the controversy over a campaign appearance by antigay gospel singer Donnie McClurkin, "We will not secure full equality for all LGBT Americans until we learn how to address that deep disagreement and move beyond it." He understands that our cause requires many painful discussions, not demands for silence from those whose views offend us. He shows the way by talking to churches and ministers about homophobia.

As Obama told The Advocate in October, "on issues from 'don't ask, don't tell' to DOMA to the gay marriage amendment to the human rights ordinance in Illinois that is the equivalent of what we've been attempting to do at the federal level and that I was a chief cosponsor of and then passed-there has not been a stronger and more consistent advocate on LGBT issues than I have been." Like Clinton and John Edwards, he opposes same-sex civil marriage, but he supports giving same-sex couples the 1,138 federal rights and responsibilities accorded married couples. Needless to say, this is less than I want; but it would be a giant step toward the goal. The next few years will not bring final victory, but are an opportunity to push the debate crucially forward.

If you are not careful, life can beat the hope out of you. Some activists I know, old enough to remember the Sixties, support Hillary. They have pictures of King and Bobby Kennedy on their walls, yet now back someone more reminiscent of Richard Nixon. Instead of supporting a leader who can inspire a broad spectrum of Americans, they support someone whose idea of the presidency is managing the bureaucracy, and whose idea of bipartisanship is cosponsoring a measure against flag burning.

Some claim that Obama lacks detailed policy proposals. They should visit BarackObama.com, including barackobama.com/pdf/lgbt.pdf. Others hesitate to support him because they worry about what might happen to him. But if we are governed by our fears, we are defeating ourselves.

The times call for a leader who offers more than a continuation of the scorched-earth politics of the past two decades-someone who will do more than triangulate and outmaneuver partisans on the other side. Once again a gifted man from Illinois has come forth who understands that a nation divided against itself cannot stand, who exhorts us to summon the best in ourselves to continue the work of building our nation. I will not lower my sights because the work is hard. That is why I support Barack Obama for President.