On Freedom.

I've been out of town with limited computer access these past few days, which explains the lack of postings. I hope to get caught up next week. But I did want to check in and note a few passing thoughts.

On Bush's inaugural theme of freedom and liberty: It's easy to point out the obvious - he wants to deny gay couples the freedom to marry. True enough, but endorsing individual freedom as the foundation for social advancement is still worth celebrating, and Bush's rhetoric can be used to hold the GOP accountable when it attempts to use the power of the state to elevate the prejudices of the majority over the rights of all to equal treatment under the law (including the right to equal participation in the institutions created or regulated by the state). Remember, Thomas Jefferson was a slaveholder but his proclamation that "all men are created equal" nevertheless provided the inspiration to abolish slavery.

But by the same token, freedom also means free individuals may choose with whom they wish to affiliate and associate in the private sphere, and the state should not intervene even if private country clubs choose to discriminate against gays and not recognize gay families. That is simply one of the tradeoffs of freedom.

A Path Ahead?

Rich Tafel's blog reports on a local GOP event where Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie was asked, by Republican Unity Coalition founder Charles Francis, about the place of gays in an inclusive GOP. Rich writes:

Gillespie went on to explain that the GOP needed to reach out to all groups if the party is to become a majority party....My impression is that the Republican leaders are looking for opportunities to mend fences with gays in the party....For gays to move forward they'll need to educate those who don't understand us in the same way the Gillespie's father educated him about the immigration issue. It looks like there are opportunities now to build bridges between gay Republicans and the GOP.

That's a hopeful message for inauguration week, but time will tell whether the GOP's leadership is intent on becoming a big tent, or just blowing smoke.

Oprah Nation.

On Martin Luther King Day, "The Oprah Winfrey Show" focused on Nate Berkus, a regular guest who talks about interior design, and who just survived the tsunami disaster in Sri Lanka. Sadly, his partner, photographer Fernando Bengoechea, was lost in the waves. Berkus told a very moving story of fighting to stay together and cling to one another as they were both swept into the ocean, and then being pulled apart by the water's force. Many in the audience wept. It was Oprah's highest rated show of the season, and another example of how Americans from all walks are getting to know gay people and our lives.

Update: Writing in Salon, Jennifer Buckendorff's "The Oprah Way" explains why "to change people's minds on issues like gay marriage, liberals [I'd say supporters of gay equality] need to learn to tug at their heartstrings."

Civil Discourse on Civil Unions

Some of the nastiest mail I receive is not from right-wing homophobes, or even bitter ex-boyfriends, but from members of our own community who think I'm not progressive enough. For example, shortly after I argued in Second Thoughts on Civil Unions that we ought to fight for civil unions now and marriage later, I received an e-mail message with the following subject-line:

"Why are you such an Uncle Tom faggot?"

There was no text to the message, and no signature - just the subject-line. With some ambivalence, I wrote back:

"I received a message from you with the subject-line 'Why are you such an Uncle Tom faggot?' but no text. Was there supposed to be text, or did the question in the subject-line exhaust what you have to say on the issue?"

I didn't expect a response: I just wanted to remind the writer that there was a person receiving his e-mail on the other end of cyberspace. Not that it did much good: a few weeks later I received a message with a similar subject-line and a long tirade accusing me, in the most obnoxious terms possible, of selling out our rights.

That kind of attack is unfortunate for a number of reasons, not least of which that it distracts us from the productive dialogue we should be having instead. I'm the first to admit that I could be wrong in the strategy I proposed for securing equal marriage rights. But if you're going to attack that strategy, please try first to understand it. In brief, I argued that:

  1. Properly crafted civil-unions legislation could grant all of the legal incidents of marriage (albeit under a different name). I am not talking about "watered-down" civil unions here; I'm talking about the full legal enchilada.
  2. The difference between such unions and marriage, since it is not a difference in legal incidents, appears to be a difference in level of social endorsement carried by the "m-word."
  3. Our best strategy (in most states) for securing the tremendously important legal incidents is to fight for them under the name "civil unions."
  4. Our best strategy for securing the social endorsement (i.e., marriage under the name "marriage") is first to secure the legal incidents. Then people will look at our civil unions, realize that they are virtually indistinguishable from marriages, start calling them marriages, and gradually forget why they objected to doing so before. That's what happened in Scandinavia, and it's happening elsewhere in Europe.
  5. Attempts to force the social endorsement too quickly (by demanding the name "marriage" above and beyond the legal incidents) may backfire, resulting in state constitutional bans not only on gay marriage but also on civil unions. The upshot would be to delay both the legal incidents and the social endorsement.

Any of the above points could be debated by reasonable people, but (4) and (5), especially, merit further discussion, including careful analysis of countries where similar strategies have been attempted. But rather than providing such analysis, my critics accuse me of endorsing a "separate but equal" line akin to that espoused by racial segregationists. Why should we settle for the back of the bus?

The segregationist analogy is a poor one. First, while it is certainly objectionable that we should ride on the back of the bus, we are barely even at the bus stop yet, much less on the bus. Let us not forget that in most places in this country, our relationships have no legal recognition whatsoever.

Second, and more important, I have argued that we should fight for identical legal incidents to those of marriage. This is not the back of the bus or a different bus: it's the same bus with a different name.

Is that name difference silly? Yes, it's silly - maybe even insulting. But when health benefits are denied to committed same-sex couples, when a person can't get bereavement leave upon the death of her same-sex partner; when loving couples are split apart because one partner is a foreigner and can't get citizenship, that's far worse than silly or insulting - it's downright cruel. I contend that we have a fighting chance at ending such cruelty, and that once we do so we'll have an even better chance at ending the silly name-difference (again, see Scandinavia).

I could be wrong, but calling me nasty names doesn't show why I'm wrong. More to the point, it doesn't get us any closer to the front of the bus.

For What Purpose, HRC?

While watching Fox's "The O'Reilly Factor" Tuesday night I was surprised to see an ad from the Human Rights Campaign attacking George Bush. Was this a mistake, left over from the campaign? No, it appears that HRC is proudly blasting Bush during his inaugural week.

But just what is the purpose of buying time on Fox TV, Republican central, to let die-hard conservatives know just how much gays hate President Bush? And this, within a week of Bush's statement that his administration wouldn't be pushing the Federal Marriage Amendment (thus igniting an uproar among social conservatives)?

But HRC would rather attack Bush than in any way, shape or form try to work with the administration in power for the next four years. What a sorry state of affairs.

By the way, I was watching Bill O'Reilly because his guest was Philip Nobile discussing the "gay Lincoln" theory put forth in the new book by the late C.A. Tripp, with whom Nobile worked before a falling out. O'Reilly clearly thought Nobile would blast the theory but instead, while criticizing Tripp's work, Nobile argued that "there's more evidence for the gay-Lincoln than for the completely-straight-Lincoln theory." This did not please O'Reilly, who was clearly miffed.

At one point when Nobile pointed to accounts that Lincoln, on several occasions, had surreptitiously invited Captain David Derickson to share his bed in the White House when Mrs. Lincoln was away, O'Reilly countered that perhaps they were simply having "a pajama party."

Illinois’s Gay Rights Bill — and Other Signs of Life

First published January 19, 2005, in the Chicago Free Press.

In a vulgar and half-crazed speech delivered at New York's Cooper Union shortly after last November's presidential election, playwright and drama queen Larry Kramer pronounced the gay-rights movement "Dead." Dead. Deceased. Over. Finished.

But a funny thing happened on the way to the funeral: The state of Illinois passed a gay nondiscrimination law. It was as if the corpse suddenly sat up and started waving a cheery hello to the mourners.

On January 10, the Illinois Senate passed the bill by a vote of 30-27. It was the bare minimum necessary for passage, but winning with the minimum votes is a lot better than coming up one vote short of the minimum. In politics, as Eisenhower pointed out, there are no moral victories. You either win or lose.

The next day the Illinois House passed the bill by a vote of 65 to 51, well over the minimum votes necessary, and Governor Blagojevich, as promised, signed it expeditiously on January 21.

One might notice a few things in passing that offer lessons for other states less far along. The law represents the culmination of some 30 years of effort by successive teams of activists starting in 1974 when the Illinois Gay Rights Task Force (then so-named) was formed to work for passage of a nondiscrimination law. The bill's first sponsor was state Rep. Susan Catania, a Republican.

Passage was more or less hopeless during the '70s and '80s. The gay movement was young, desperately underfunded and understaffed. It received little support from a timid and politically passive community. And public opinion was far from taking seriously the idea of equality for gays.

Passage took years of painstaking lobbying in the legislature, public advocacy in the mass media, and a vastly increased number of gay people coming out. Over the years gays were significantly aided by conscientious reporters and supportive columnists in the print media such as Jean Latz Griffin and Eric Zorn at the Chicago Tribune, and Tom Brune, Howard Wolinsky and Neil Steinberg at the Sun-Times - and unnamed editorial writers at both papers.

But even more, passage required a well-funded and fully staffed political organization created by Equality Illinois, able to help legislators win primaries and elections, able to create political obligations, able to generate multiple thousands of letters, calls and e-mails to legislators. Politics, we are reminded, has little to do with what is right and everything to do with political power.

In the end, the law was passed in the first legislative session in which Democrats controlled both chambers of the legislature and the governorship. Although earlier GOP governors, moderates all, had said they would sign the bill, conservative legislative leaders kept the measure bottled up.

And the bill was approved after the November election, not before, so legislators felt less vulnerable. Three GOP senators and 12 GOP House members joined the majority of Democrats in voting for the bill. Without mentioning any names, it actually helped to have a crazed loony or two on the other side.

But someone might object that one swallow does not make a summer. Well, I hate to sound like Little Mary Sunshine. Gloom and doom always seem so much more profound. And alarm always sells well to people whose egos depend on the feeling that they are significant because they are threatened. But here, more briefly, are other signs of gay progress in January alone.

  • The publication of the late C. A. Tripp's long-awaited book The Intimate World of Abraham Lincoln, arguing that Lincoln was predominantly homosexual in orientation, even if it does not convince everyone nevertheless decisively alters the landscape by raising the issue in a thoroughgoing way. Reviewing the book for the New York Times, conservative National Review senior editor Richard Brookhiser seemed to accept the general thrust of Tripp's argument. Consider the impact of the book on high school students doing reports on Lincoln or projects on the Civil War.
  • Responding to the urging of New York City Comptroller William C. Thompson, Jr., who acted on the basis of stocks held by the city's pension funds, six more Fortune 500 companies indicated that they would include sexual orientation in their nondiscrimination codes - United States Steel, Alcoa, AllTel, Harrah's Entertainment, Owens-Illinois and Coventry Healthcare.
  • Bishops of the Episcopal Church of America, responding to theologically untutored, fundamentalist Anglicans in third world countries, said they "deeply regret" not, mind you, having consecrated an openly gay bishop, but the fact that their doing so caused "pain" to some people. In other words, "We're sorry if you are upset." Clearly they felt they were in a strong theological and institutional position and, unlike feckless Anglicans in Britain, were unwilling to back down.
  • A study panel of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, with an eye to the controversies embroiling Episcopalians, recommended that their church maintain its current policy forbidding same-sex union ceremonies and non-celibate gay clergy, but should "tolerate" (i.e., allow) churches and pastors that practice otherwise. In effect, this gives a green light to speeded up "doctrinal change from below."

This column honors the memory of Al Wardell, valued friend and long-time head of the Illinois Gay and Lesbian Rights Task Force.

Suffer the Children.

Libertarian-minded columnist Steve Chapman looks at the Florida adoption gay ban and rolls his eyes, noting that "The original impulse, it turns out, was not to protect children but to penalize gays." And it still is.

LCR: Right Steps.

I've ragged on the national leadership of the Log Cabin Republicans quite a bit lately. That's because LCR's mission is so critical. We need to be a presence in both major parties, so when LCR last year looked like it was starting to morph into HRC - evidenced, for instance, by the group's silence when Bush made accepting comments about civil unions - then it seemed as if no one was trying to get a seat at the GOP table.

But it may be that LCR is catching on. Last week they noted (if not quite praised) President Bush's statement suggesting that the Federal Marriage Amendment wouldn't be pushed by the administration. LCR has also proclaimed support for GOP Social Security and tax reform initiatives, something that until now has been less than prominent on the group's website.

There are those who say we shouldn't work with the GOP till they come round on our issues. But unless gay conservatives work with the GOP on issues of mutual interest (such as Social Security and tax reform), those bridges will never be built.

Price of “Unity.”

The so-called "unity statement" that the Log Cabin Republicans signed with the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force, the Human Rights Campaign and 18 other national gay groups is a mixed bag. The statement endorses the basic agenda of most gay activists, including support for hate crime laws (which add penalties on the basis of anti-gay motivation), and federal and state laws to outlaw job-related anti-gay discrimination.

But while most gays may support these goals, many libertarian and conservative-minded gays don't, believing that equal treatment is all gays should demand from the state; that violent acts, not violent thoughts, should be criminalized; and that private employers have a right to hire and fire whomever they please. But gay libertarians and conservatives are outside the framework of this unity.

The statement also follows the litany of proclaiming we're all part of a "lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community," leading to a call, for instance, to end "the military's discriminatory anti-LGBT ban," meaning that cross-dressers, too, be allowed to enlist. But demanding a transgender-inclusive military (no discharge for Corporal Klinger) will set back efforts to let gays serve openly and honorably.

Also problematic, the statement declares, "We must continue to expose the radical right's efforts to advance a culture of prejudice and intolerance, and we must fight their attempts to enshrine anti-gay bigotry in our state and federal laws and constitutions." The problem here? While many anti-gay activists are bigots, not all are. Many misguidedly fear that same-sex matrimony will destabilize, rather than strengthen, marriage. They're wrong, but labeling them "bigots" who are part of the "radical right," when they are neither, does nothing to bring them around.

There are, however, some pluses. I was glad to see a positive remark from President Bush is used to help advance the cause, rather than eliciting knee-jerk condemnation. From the unity statement:

In December, People magazine asked President and Mrs. Bush about civil unions. "Is a couple joined by that kind of legal arrangement as much of a family as, say, you two are a family?" "Of course," President Bush replied.

Bush's acknowledgement (despite his support for an anti-gay constitutional amendment) has set an important new minimum standard for future dialog surrounding same-sex couples and families..."

That's progress, since during the campaign when Bush criticized his own party's platform for opposing state-recognized civil unions, the Log Cabiners were silent and NGLTF and HRC actually condemned Bush's remarks. So the unity statement shows some headway here.

A final point: Patrick Guerriero, executive director of the Log Cabin Republicans, said the statement's was intended "to send a message...that we share a common vision." But while LCR is clearly intent on finding unity with liberal gays, it appears less concerned about finding unity with Republicans, or even gays who might support equal treatment but not hate crimes, job laws and the rest of the agenda. That's LCR's prerogative, of course, but it's worth noting that it does leave a block of gays outside the bounds of "unity."

More Recent Postings
1/09/05 - 1/15/05

No Camp Follower.

Writing in Friday's Wall Street Journal (online for WSJ subscribers only), cultural critic Bret Stephens links together both the legacy of crypto-lesbian Susan Sontag and C.A. Tripp's outing of Lincoln. Well, someone had to do it, right?

Referencing Sontag's (in)famous "Notes on Camp," Stephens calls it:

...basically a manifesto, masquerading as an analysis, of one type of homosexual sensibility. Camp, she wrote, was disengaged, apolitical, ironic, lighthearted, extravagant, a "solvent of morality," the antithesis of tragedy. "The whole point of Camp is to dethrone the serious," wrote Ms. Sontag. "One can be serious about the frivolous, frivolous about the serious." In other words, gay.

Then, turning to Tripp, Stephens writes:

Mr. Tripp's book treads a well-worn path of various social and political movements in America that have claimed Lincoln as one of their own: Christian evangelicals, temperance societies, progressives, socialists. The historical claims made on Lincoln were almost always false, but the spirit animating them was usually decent. By contrast, the worst political movements in America have been the ones that rejected Lincoln's legacy, such as Southern segregationists and the Black Power movement, and the trends that ignored his legacy altogether - like Camp.

Which brings me back to Ms. Sontag. Though she presented herself as the consummate voice of intellectual seriousness, she was, in fact, a popularizer of her generation's worst ideas, a champion of all its wrong impulses. And these ideas and impulses were ones that, sadly, characterized much of the gay movement for almost 40 years. Mr. Tripp is wrong to insist that Lincoln was gay. But gays are right to insist that Lincoln belongs to them as much as to anyone else.

Now some may find Stephens' critique of camp a slap against gays, but I've come round to a similar view of this particular aspect of gay culture. For what set me off most recently, see below.

Will & Graceless.

The apotheosis of mass media campiness has got to be NBC's "Will & Grace." Take last Thursday's episode, in which Will's police officer boyfriend recounts how he got fired. The "hilarious" setup: a Saks clerk was shot during a robbery because the cop/boyfriend, sent to disarm the thief, on entering the store spots a pair of fancy gloves and just has to stop and try them on (we never learn if the clerk survived or not, the matter of his life or death being wholly irrelevant). Camp as the "solvent of morality," indeed!