Gay Families Change Gay Life

by on

The headline of the lead story in the Bay Area Reporter, San Francisco's gay newspaper of record, said it all: "Gay Families Join Easter Egg Roll."

We've come a long way from the Stonewall riot, the sexual liberationism of the 1970s, and "We're Here, We're Queer, Get Used to It." There are unmistakable signs that the emphasis on relationships and families in gay life, politics, and media is having traditionalizing effects on gay culture.

This is evident in the causes and trends that have dominated the gay movement for the past 15 years or so: serving in the military, joining the Boy Scouts, attending services at large gay-friendly churches, and above all, gay marriage.

This development can even be seen in America's capital of gay sexual liberation, San Francisco. Recent stories in the B.A.R. and the Los Angeles Times document the beginnings of a change in attitudes toward open and explicit displays of sexuality in the Castro. The change is being spurred especially by gay families with children, who want a more family-friendly environment and are chafing at a culture they see as saturated with sex.

According to a recent report in the L.A. Times:

In the Castro, restaurants oriented toward gay singles now offer child-size portions and even highchairs. One coffee shop features a hot chocolate "Castro Kids Special," a popular item during the morning rush that the owners call the "stroller hour."

At Cliff's Variety store, children shop for toy unicorns and jasmine-scented clay putty alongside cross-dressers perusing feather boas and rhinestone tiaras....

Last year, a lesbian mother of two, now 6 and 2, complained about a sadomasochistic tableau in a clothing shop window that featured a male mannequin chained to a toilet. "As an adult I find this disgusting," she wrote in an e-mail to city officials. "As a parent I find it unconscionable."

Just a couple of months ago, the B.A.R. ran several stories about a life-sized wooden statue of an aroused naked man that was displayed in a Castro storefront. Parents in the neighborhood objected that it should not be visible to children who pass by on their way to and from school. After police got involved, the owner reluctantly covered the statue's private parts.

Some business owners are sensitive to families' concerns. A lesbian mother reported to the Times that a clothing store manager helpfully warned her about taking her 12-year-old daughter into a back room where "suggestive leather outfits were displayed." With more children in the neighborhood, she predicted, "businesses that accommodate the sensibilities of families will survive, while those that are less child-friendly will not."

"Our kids need a place in the community," said July Appel, executive director of an organization for gay families and a lesbian mother of two. "The Castro is big enough for everyone. Gay cruising has its place. But so do playgrounds."

The trend is being felt beyond commercial venues, reaching into the heart of gay organizations and events. The annual gay pride parade in San Francisco, by far the largest in the country, now provides a children's area with licensed day care. This year's parade will include a float celebrating gay families, complete with children singing Village People songs.

At the gay community center, nudity is now forbidden in the hallways-requiring bondage classes to stay behind closed doors. "Twenty years ago we couldn't have had such a rule," the center's director, Thom Lynch, told the Times. "People would have fought it."

These changes in San Francisco reflect larger national trends in gay life. According to the 2000 Census, there are about 594,000 same-sex "unmarried partner" households, almost evenly split between gay male and lesbian couples. The Census figure is almost certainly an undercount since many gay couples probably reported their status as "boarders" or "roommates" rather than as "unmarried partners."

Lots of children are being raised by these gay couples. Of the reported female partners, more than a third are raising children. Of the reported male partners, more than a fifth are raising children. That's about 162,000 same-sex households in the U.S. raising children. This number, too, is almost certainly an undercount.

Once we include single gay people raising children, reasonable estimates of the total number of children in the U.S. being raised by gay parents (singles and couples) range from one million to two million kids. By all accounts, the number of gay families is growing.

The effect of all this on gay culture is inescapable. Stable relationships have a settling effect on people. Saturday nights become an opportunity to stay home with your partner watching DVD's instead of another chance for a furtive sexual encounter.

Children encourage yet more domestication. Aside from the practical and time-consuming work that goes into raising kids, which reduces one's energy and opportunities for libertinism, parents tend to be more concerned than single people about a community's moral environment. It's turning out that gay parents can be just as concerned about these matters as straight parents.

"Many gay people once referred to couples with children as 'breeders,' a term with considerable bite to it," the director of the city's gay community center observed. "It's rarely used anymore. Now many gays are breeders as well."

We're here, we're families, let the Easter Egg Roll begin.

0 Comments

Fighting Back in Colorado.

by on

I've been on the road, so blogging has been light and will remain so through the start of next week. But the ballot situation in Colorado is worth taking note of. Signatures are being collected for an array of pro- and anti-gay ballot initiatives. So, instead of just opposing (1) an anti-gay-marriage, man-woman-only state amendment and (2) a related initiative that rules out any legal status "similar to marriage" for same-sex partners, activists, backed by the Gill Foundation, have gone proactive. They're supporting (3) their own ballot initiative that says domestic partnerships are "not similar to marriage." That's important, because while a majority of voters have consistently opposed same-sex marriage, increasing numbers (and in many locales, majorities) do not oppose domestic partnerships. Plus, (4) another gay-supported ballot measure would legalize domestic partnerships.

Any combo of these could get on the ballot and pass, but even if anti-gay (1) and pro-gay (3) were to win, for instance, the situation would still be noticeably better than a simple victory for the marriage-banners.

More. Let's recall that in Nov. 2004, 11 states passed ballot initiatives banning gay marriage. That year, the Human Rights Campaign, the largest lesbigay lobby, gave only token support to opposing these referendums, and instead put its big dollars behind the Kerry/Edwards campaign. Kerry/Edwards, of course, gave their backing to passing these anti-gay amendments. We forget this bit of shameful history at our peril.
-- Stephen H. Miller

14 Comments

Their Interests, Not Ours.

by on

"Bigotry is bad for business," said Alan Hawse, vice president of information technology company Cypress Semiconductor, in remarks directed at anti-gay Gov. Ernie Fletcher of Kentucky. But I've long felt that many (most) politicos in both parties aren't primarily concerned with the general well being. Their energy is focused on themselves and the maximization of their own position and power, and so appeals to bigotry, however hurtful of economic growth, prosperity and dynamism, thus serve their primary interest.

This is evident on the left, too, with anti-globalization and pro-protectionism. Simply terrible policies, economically speaking, that nevertheless appeal to the fears and prejudices of the uninformed.

And as for some religious "leaders" organizing in favor of constitutionally banning same-sex marriage, I can only quote the Bible: "Alas for you, lawyers and Pharisees, hypocrites that ye be."

And let's not forgot our very own gay "leaders." In the Times story linked above, catch the quote from HRC's clueless Joe Solmonese, who intones that the amendment is an unwanted distraction when (among other things) "we have an economy barely hanging on." Apparently, he agrees with John Kerry that this is the worst economy since the Great Depression, but most Americans see low unemployment, moderate if slowly rising interest rates, low inflation (excepting gas), very solid economic growth and an up stock market as, well, not "barely hanging on."

More. Some commenters defend the Kerry/Solmonese/Democratic "talking points" line on the economy, but even the New York Times business section can't abide it. An April 28 report was headlined "U.S. Economic Growth Continues Its Rapid Pace; Consumers Are Upbeat," while a companion story reported that "With unemployment in March at 4.7 percent, the nation is still adding about 200,000 jobs a month-a fairly robust pace."
-- Stephen H. Miller

22 Comments

Pragmatism, Not Partisanship.

by on

In the Bay Area Reporter, Bob Roehr pens an excellent account of how the Gill Action Fund is getting it right. Set up by Denver gay entrepreneur and philanthropist Tim Gill to support results-oriented gay activism on the local level, that's just what the fund is doing.

Ted Trimpa, who advises the fund, and Rodger McFarlane, executive director of the Gill Foundation, shared their insights with Roehr, who reported:

The foundation and action fund also have learned to play both sides of the political aisle. "Part of Tim's giving strategy on the Republican side has been, let's help Republicans take their party back, rather than change them into Democrats. There are reasons they are Republican, and we have to respect that," said Trimpa.

McFarlane adds in a conspiratorial whisper, "And many of us happen to agree" with some of those reasons.

That alone gives you a clue of why the foundation has been successful. As Roehr continues:

McFarlane has joined the growing chorus of those within the LGBT community calling for "actual legislative wins," and accountability. "In the past it was we've gotta elect a Democrat, we've gotta elect a Democrat. And the Democrats haven't done very well, nor have they responded to our adversaries."

"I think they're just scared of our issues. They're stuck [back] 10 years ago and think this is a negative, when in fact, if you look at the data and if you get on the offensive, it is not a negative," McFarlane said.

"Tim has said, passing money through the Democratic Party and letting someone speak for us has not worked. We always end up as the piece that is negotiable-we always fall off the end. Bill Clinton would make speeches that would inspire you to walk across the desert, and then every time we came to getting something out of committee or actually voting on something, we were the ones that were cut," McFarlane added.

And here's another "on the money" quote:

The pair criticizes much past political spending for piddling away money to support "friends" who are going to win anyway; many of whom may vote the right way but do not exercise leadership on LGBT issues. Trimpa said money has to be concentrated for maximum impact, both "to punish the evil," and "to create an environment where there is reward for people who actually lead, who take those risks."

Can't argue with that.
--Stephen H. Miller

5 Comments

Loss for Anti-Speech Activists.

by on

The Houston Voice reports (scroll down) that in Saskatchewan, Canada, gay activists are worried about "gay bashing" following a decision by the province's highest court:

The complaint pitted religious freedom of expression against the rights of gays to protection against hatred and ridicule. On April 13, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeals ruled Hugh Owns did not violate the Human Rights Code when he placed an ad in the Star-Phoenix in June 1997 that reflected his anti-gay views. The ad cited the Bible verses condemning homosexuality.

And here's how one of the gay activists responded:

"Im very disappointed," said Gens Hellquist, one of three Saskatoon gay activists who initiated [the] human rights complaint against [Owen].

Could there be a better example of how illiberal and censorious some activists are? And of course, the Christian right is making hay of it all. As the Mission News Network puts it (again, scroll down):

It is debatable whether Mr. Owen's ads were an appropriate means of communicating the Biblical teaching on homosexuality. What makes the [earlier, now overturned] Saskatchewan ruling so disturbing, however, is that the adjudicator, Ms. Watson, concluded that it was the Bible verses that pushed the advertisement over the line that separates questionable judgement from intolerance.

The Christian rightists couldn't have hoped for a better example to buttress their own claim of being the party that's victimized (by gays).

Relatedly. Beth Elliot weighs a 9th Circuit Court of Appeal decision upholding the high school disciplinary action against a senior who wore "a snarky, gay-dissing t-shirt." On this, I'd agree that freedom of expression for students on school grounds is expected to be restricted, to a degree.

Still more. Hans Bader of the Competitive Enterprise Institute says "no one has a right not to be offended." But James Taranto of the WSJ writes (scroll down):

This is one of those situations in which everyone involved is wrong. The school should have concentrated on reading, math and the like and not gotten involved in issues of sexual orientation. If Harper insisted on protesting, he should have done so in a less obnoxious way. When he failed to do so, school officials should have shown some tolerance and let it go.

The U.S. Supreme Court should not have ruled, in Tinker v. Des Moines School District (1969), that minors have a First Amendment right to engage in political speech at school. But since that is the law, the Ninth Circuit should not have carved out an exception for, as Judge Stephen Reinhardt put it, "speech that attacks high school students who are members of minority groups that have historically been oppressed, subjected to verbal and physical abuse, and made to feel inferior."

I agree that Tinker was one of those '60s "power to the students" rulings that led to constitutional contortions in matters such as restraining students from wearing offensive T-shirts to school. High school kids are not adults, and public schools are not public squares. But school choice would be a better option, giving parents more say in the sort of school envirnment (protective or permissive) their kids are suited for.
-- Stephen H. Miller

13 Comments

Defending Our Gay Warriors

by on

"I am not feeling safe at all now and seek legal advice on what the possibilities are and where I can get help."

I received this plea a few days ago from a bisexual in the U.S. military. Fortunately for him, there is more help available today than when Frank Kameny, a combat veteran of the Second World War, began fighting against the military gay ban in the early 1960s. Back then, anti-gay U.S. Government policies covered civil service and security clearances as well as military service. In about 1962, Kameny posted leaflets in the State Department and many other places with the message, "Say nothing. Sign nothing. Get counsel. Fight back." Today there is the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, so I was able to tell my troubled correspondent, "Say nothing. Sign nothing. Call SLDN."

While victories have since been won on civil service and security clearances, the anti-gay military policy remains stubbornly in place. Although it became statutory in 1993, the basic policy is much older. "I encountered it," Kameny recalls, "when I enlisted in the Army on May 18,1943, three days before my 18th birthday. I was asked whether I had homosexual tendencies, and I said no. I have resented for 63 years that I had to lie to serve my country."

One of the resources at www.sldn.org is SLDN's "Survival Guide" to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Pursue, Don't Harass." It emphasizes the legal rights that service members have under Article 31 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and the importance of getting an experienced attorney: "A wrong word can mean the difference between staying in or getting kicked out, saving pension or educational benefits versus forfeiting them, even freedom or prison. Signing the wrong thing could mean a waiver ... of legal rights."

The guide includes some sobering observations: "Service members confide in military chaplains at their own risk." "The government considers itself free to introduce illegally-obtained evidence in discharge cases and there is no way to keep that evidence out." "There is no doctor-patient confidentiality in the military."

With considerable understatement, SLDN writes, "On July 19, 1993, former President Clinton proclaimed that 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' would put an end to witch hunts. Nevertheless, witch hunts continue in some commands." Well, yes. In this election year, it is important to remember that the execrable law Clinton signed was a bipartisan affair.

In 2003, Clinton wrote to SLDN, "When I proposed lifting the ban on gays in the military, I met strong political opposition. In fact, the Senate voted against my policy with a veto-proof majority." If that statement is not an outright lie, it is at least a lie by omission, because a proposed measure that would have given the President the authority to determine the policy was defeated by less than veto-proof numbers. Thus Clinton could have forced a compromise had he stuck to his guns. Here we see the formerly powerful revising the record to make himself look like a better leader than he was.

The longer the war on terrorism lasts, and the more gay veterans come out, the more untenable the current exclusionary policy is. Similar bans have been abandoned by virtually all of our allies, leaving America increasingly isolated in its backward stance. Not only does the current policy impede military readiness, it places prejudice ahead of our national security. How else can one explain the forcible discharge of several gay Arabic interpreters despite the dire need for their skills?

If gays harm unit cohesion and morale, then why have gay-related discharges decreased since 2001? As SLDN says, "Honor is a Core Value in the military. The policy's requirement that lesbian, gay or bisexual service members live in the closet, lying daily, evading, dissembling and hiding their sexual orientation from peers, superiors and subordinates, directly conflicts with the Service's basic values." Approximately 10,000 gay American patriots have been discharged since 1993. At a time of war, when our volunteer forces are stretched so thin that stop-loss orders are issued, it makes no sense that we have kicked out 10,000 highly skilled and motivated warriors. Whose side are the brass and the policymakers on? Indeed, barring the services of so many with much to offer gives aid and comfort to our enemies, which is one of the definitions of treason in Article III, Section 3, of the Constitution.

Speaking of whose side people are on, our gay service members do not need false allies who use the gay ban merely as an excuse to bash a military that they despise in any case. Years ago, at the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force's annual Creating Change Conference, lesbian comedian Kate Clinton included this line in her comedy routine: "They say that gays will harm the military. Good!" She got whoops and applause from the crowd. The interests of gays in uniform can hardly be served by people who so gleefully throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Our gay brothers and sisters in military service, in addition to the normal risks of their profession, face threats to their lives and careers from within their own ranks and at the hands of their own government. Those of us who truly respect their service and their sacrifice owe it to them to keep our voices raised against this insane policy, and to support those like SLDN who help them.

5 Comments

CVS Not “Anti-Sex.”

by on

Are drugstores that keep condoms behind the counter in high-crime areas enforcing "puritanism" in an attempt to "stigmatize safe sex"? Is this another sign of "America's terrifyingly conservative climate"? David Boaz says no.
-- Stephen H. Miller

6 Comments

An Emerging Anti-Gay-Marriage Coalition?

by on

The constitutional amendment to nationalize marriage law by forbidding states from recognizing same-sex matrimony (whether by judicial decree or legislative vote) won't win the necessary supermajority in the Senate this year. But the Republican leadership will likely bring it back before every election. That may be politically advantageous for now, at least in terms of keeping the GOP "base" of social conservatives well stoked. But as more Americans become more comfortable with spousal rights for gays, being on the side of reaction won't bode well for the party.

The conservative Washington Times reports that amendment supporters are courting "liberals," by which they mean African-American and Hispanic religious organizations typically on the left regarding wealth redistribution and big-government pork-barrel spending. That's called being "progressive" on the left. But it's in fact reactionary support for the dysfunctional status quo. Add in homophobia and you've got a very bad political mixture all round.

More. In the D.C. neighborhood of Shaw, African-American parishioners oppose allowing a gay bar to open near their Scripture Cathedral. "Don't they understand that there is a day-care center in the church?" asks one woman.
-- Stephen H. Miller

12 Comments

Hip, Hip, Hoppin’

by on

Gay families exercised their right to partake of the White House Easter Egg Roll, wearing rainbow leis to identify themselves. Given that this is a government-sponsored event, and the government in question hasn't shown much concern about the needs of gay families, I think the egg rollers scored some points in a positive way.
--Stephen H. Miller

71 Comments

Identity and Orientation, Again.

by on

As the Washington Blade reports, a new study by an associate of controversial researcher Michael Bailey claims, in Bailey-like fashion, that same-sex sexual orientation is an outgrowth of gender confusion at an early age. Other researchers dispute this as a causal factor, while still others find there may be an association in some instances but not enough to form a general rule. Confusion reigns; though many believe homosexuality is hard wired in the brain (pick your cause-genetics or hormones in the womb).

Interestingly, many simply ignore effeminate but clearly heterosexual men, and masculine but clearly heterosexual women. Such factors tend to mess up perfectly clear theorizing.
-- Stephen H. Miller

7 Comments