He Just Can’t Make Up His Mind.

by on

The Washington Blade's Chris Crain says about John Kerry's pronouncements on gay marriage:

Kerry opposes the Federal Marriage Amendment backed by President Bush...but he backs those in Massachusetts and elsewhere who are amending their state constitutions to accomplish the same end.... Kerry's public support arguably gave political cover to enough swing votes to affect the exceedingly narrow vote by the Massachusetts Legislature in favor of the constitutional ban.

After Missouri voters passed a constitutional ban on gay marriage this summer, Kerry told reporters he would have voted with the majority. Later, when he was under the impression that the Missouri measure banned civil unions as well, he switched positions and said he would have opposed it. Still later, when his campaign learned that the Missouri amendment actually took no position at all on civil unions, Kerry demurred entirely....

As with his shifting stances on Iraq and other issues, Crain writes, Kerry's "congenital inability to state a clear, principled view and then stick to it is costing him dearly and may decide the election."

More Recent Postings
9/19/04 - 9/25/04

0 Comments

Too Clever by Far.

by on

The National Gay & Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF) sent out an e-mail earlier this week that read as follows:

The year is 2010. Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people have been guaranteed the rights granted every American by the Constitution of the United States. And, as predicted, the homosexuals have taken over. Old Glory's gone pink. Hedonism reigns. And ass-less chaps are standard office attire. Welcome to the United States of Gaymerica.

Click to enter:

http://ga4.org/ct/BdzNfRd1NQlI/gaymerica

The clink is to a webpage that continues the theme. Bizarre, to say the least, but it turns out this is a weird NGLTF call to vote on Nov. 2 styled as a parody of anti-gay propaganda. Unfortunately, NGLTF seems unaware of how easily its satire could be used by anti-gay wingers in real anti-gay fundraising letters proclaiming, "See, this is what gays really want."

In fact, the rightwing is still circulating a 1987 Gay Community News manifesto that declared "We shall sodomize your sons" and "Tremble, hetero swine," also said to have been meant as darkly humorous but which subsequently found its way into the Congressional Record as evidence of the "gay agenda."

Elsewhere, NGLTF is worried that, according to its press release, "Bisexuals Overlooked in the Debate on Equal Marriage Rights." It states:

when the Washington Post wrote about the first same-sex couple to marry in Massachusetts...the headline was wrong. One of the two, Robyn Ochs...emphasized her orientation as a bisexual in speaking with the reporter, [but] this was never mentioned....

As if focusing on bisexuality would help make the case for marriage equality clearer!

0 Comments

Free Speech and Hate Music

by on

First published on September 22, 2004, in the Chicago Free Press.

It is by now pretty well known among gays and lesbians that several Jamaican reggae or "dance-hall" performers sing lyrics that are viciously homophobic.

That fact, however, seems not to have reached people in the entertainment business who sponsor and support these performers.

Recently the British gay advocacy group Outrage! mounted a campaign to induce performers such as Beenie Man, Bounty Killer, Elephant Man, Capleton, Sizzla, T.O.K., and Vybz Kartel-to stop singing those lyrics, charging that they promote homophobia and legitimize anti-gay violence.

Here are some of the lyrics. In the Jamaican patois batty means buttocks and battyman means gay or queer. Chi chi means gay or lesbian. Other translations are in parentheses.

From Beenie Man:

"Hang chi chi gal wid a long piece of rope." "I'm dreaming of a new Jamaica, come to execute all the gays." "Tek a Bazooka and kill batty-fucker." "All faggots must be killed." "We burn chi-chi man and then we burn sodomite and everybody bawl out, say, 'Dat right!'"

And from Elephant Man:

"Dance wi (we) a dance and a bun (burn) out a freaky man. ...crush out a bingi (queer) man." "Battyman fi (must be) dead! Gimme tha tec-nine (pistol), Shoot dem like bird." "Battyman fi (must be) dead! Get a shot inna yu head, inna mi big gun collide" (when meet my big gun).

From Vybz Kartel:

"Bow (blow-job) cat, sodomite, batty man fi (must) gat assassination," "Faggot fi (must) get copper (bullet) to di heart, A wet yuh up wid di Maggy" (I shoot you with the Magnum). Or T.O.K.: "From dem a drink inna chi chi man bar, Blaze di fire mek we dun (kill) dem!" And Sizzla: "Shot battyboy, my big gun-boom" and "Boom! Boom! Batty boy them fi (must be) dead."

The lyrics are no different from the murderous anti-black and anti-Semitic lyrics of underground skinhead and neo-Nazi rock groups preaching "racial holy war" and the extermination of minorities - whose CDs are for sale on the Internet. But dance clubs, concert promoters and record labels that would never sign a neo-Nazi group welcome the reggae homophobes.

The excuses vary. One agent said the lyrics were "metaphors" although he did not linger to say what lyrics about gleefully bashing, burning, shooting and hanging homosexuals might be metaphorical for.

A club hosting Capleton and Beenie Man objected that no one complained before and, anyway, it is "very difficult to understand what they are saying on stage." But then the club added, "They won't be using those lyrics when they play here." That is gratifying. But if the lyrics are really so difficult to understand, why bother assuring that they won't sing them?

A New York Times writer claimed that the violence of their anti-gay language is just a rhetorical gesture - a way to "gesture to religious and cultural injunctions against homosexuality...while also reminding listeners of their 'bad man' bona fides."

Suavely argued! But the singers seem serious. When Virgin Records issued a supposed apology for Beenie Man's homophobic lyrics, the performer's manager repudiated the apology. Another performer was identified by a witness as a participant in a Jamaican gay-bashing incident.

Perhaps the most specious defense of the lyrics is that we should tolerate them because we must preserve everyone's right to free speech. But the defense is without merit. Constitutional protections for "free speech" only guarantee that speech is safe from interference by government authorities.

Anyone can freely espouse any cause, write letters to a newspaper, post notices, distribute flyers and handbills, rent a room or lecture space and make a speech saying just about anything short of sedition and incitement to riot - and governments may not interfere.

But the Constitution does not say that people must be paid for their speech. "Free speech" does not mean that a private club, organization or lecture hall is obligated to pay someone to speak their piece or sing their songs. No agent is obligated to promote them, no lecture series or concert manager is obligated to book them. The Constitution guarantees "free speech" not "paid speech."

The only reason a dance club or commercial entertainment space engages a performer is to make money. And there are only two reasons club managers would engage a homophobic performer:

  1. They agree with the homophobic views, or
  2. They do not care what he says so long as people buy tickets.

In either case, others are free to try to discourage this and future exhibitions of homophobia by reducing the performer's and dance club's income. They can persuade people not to attend, picket the event in orderly fashion, pass out explanatory literature, tell their objections to newspapers, and name and shame club owners and concert managers for their complicity with inflammatory bigotry.

A friend shares the following story. A Holocaust survivor was once asked what Jews had learned from Nazi persecution. He replied, "When someone says they're going to kill you, believe them."

0 Comments

Another Marriage Ban.

by on

On Saturday, Louisiana voters overwhelmingly approved a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages and civil unions, one of 12 such measures on ballots around the country this year. Poll watchers say it's likely anti-gay-marriage advocates will win all 12, and win most of these easily, although the proposed ban in Oregon has a shot at losing (and maybe in Michigan, too).

The Massachusetts Supreme Court's Goodridge ruling, declaring that the Bay State must recognize full same-sex marriage -- rather than civil unions with the rights associated with marriage, as in Vermont -- will be viewed as a move that went too far, too fast, and triggered a wave of state actions that actually set back the cause of marriage equality for decades (it was George Bernard Shaw, I think, who said the road to hell is paved with good intentions).

Or maybe the success of these anti-gay ballot initiatives will show that states are quite capable of stopping same-sex marriage if they want to, derailing the pressure for a federal Constitutional amendment.

In any event, the battle for marriage equality is going to be long and hard, with many setbacks but also a few victories (Massachusetts voters may allow their same-sex marriages to stand; other states will add or beef up their domestic partnership laws; the next generation is going to be far more comfortable with gay equality than today's average voter.) Better strategies, pursued along less partisan lines and attempting to appeal to voters not already on the liberal left, could be put into play. In time, federalism allows what works to spread and exposes what's hidebound. Not today. Not tomorrow. But eventually.

More Recent Postings
9/12/04 - 9/18/04

0 Comments

Kerry Clarifies.

by on

In an interview published in the Dallas Voice, a gay paper, John Kerry says he was wrong to endorse a Missouri state constitutional amendment, recently passed by voters, that will ban same-sex marriage and civil unions in that state. Apparently, he was misinformed about the matter and only supports amending state constitutions to ban gay marriage, while civil unions are ok. Of course, this is very close to what Bush recently said, so I guess Kerry is courageously making sure he doesn't get to Bush's right on this matter -- not that gay Democratic activists would complain or anything.

Being uncharitable, one could say that Kerry has once again done a political recalculation and flip-flopped -- though this time in our favor. Can he tell religious conservatives he supported the Missouri amendment before he opposed it?

And yes, I realize Bush, unlike Kerry, supports the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would ban same-sex marriage and civil unions (though Bush, disingenuously, disputes it would nix the latter).

Also of note, Kerry's daughter, Vanessa, has told AIDS advocates her dad would double spending in that area. But it's odd that during a week in which Kerry the candidate spoke extensively about his health care agenda he didn't feel compelled to go on record with this promise himself. Maybe he's made so many promises to double spending in so many areas -- while balancing the budget, of course -- that he decided this was best delivered at a distance and below the media spotlight.

--Stephen H. Miller

0 Comments

DADT — Don’t Ask.

by on

Gay service members returning from Iraq and Afghanistan say that the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy is "meaningless and unenforceable" and "prevents gays and lesbians from bonding with their peers," according to a new survey reported by the AP.

"All the policy meant to me...was that I still had to hide," says one former soldier, who adds, "All it does it put more stress on people." Some service members told researchers they feared that confiding in doctors or chaplains would place them at risk for being discovered and discharged. Yet many said younger service members with whom they served, on learning of their orientation, typically had no problem with it, even if the military brass did.

Neither Bush nor Kerry has shown a willingness to revisit a policy that prevents brave and able men and women from serving their country without the burden of having to lie and hide. Kerry originally made promising noises, then quickly backtracked once he encountered resistance and now speaks about the importance of "unit cohesion" (but hey, he's been promised the gay vote for free by our activist "leadership," so what the heck). As for Bush, his interest now is to placate the hard religious right in search of even more evangelical votes, although it's worth remembering that Cheney did once famously deride the gay ban as "a bit of an old chestnut."

It's certain Kerry, given the need to overcome his past stinging criticism of the military, won't touch this hot potato. Bush could pull a "Nixon goes to China," but there's little to suggest he would.

0 Comments

Gay First, Republican Second

by on

The Log Cabin Republicans' decision not to endorse George W. Bush does two important things. It maintains LCR's integrity as a group dedicated to equality for gay Americans. And it may actually increase LCR's influence within the GOP.

Before discussing the decision, I should explain my own past affiliation with LCR. I was president of the group's Texas chapter for three tumultuous years in the 1990s, during which we fought precinct-level battles within the party, unsuccessfully sued the Texas GOP for refusing to honor an agreement to give us an information booth at the 1996 state convention, and staged a protest against the party for again refusing us a booth at the 1998 state convention. I also served briefly on LCR's national board. Although I have many friends in LCR, I no longer have any role in the organization.

There has long been a basic divide among gay Republicans. In one corner are the "gay-first Republicans," those who generally support traditional GOP policies on taxes, spending, and foreign affairs, but whose main purpose is to advance their passionate belief in gay equality. They are deeply distressed by the party's anti-gay attitudes. They figure that equality can never be secure until both major parties support it, and that this requires having gay advocates within the GOP. Their belief in most Republican values is genuine, but their activism in LCR is primarily strategic. It is mostly an attempt to advance gays' standing among Republicans, not to advance the GOP's standing among gays. They are gay first and Republican second.

In the other corner are the "Republican-first gays," those who consider themselves Republicans who happen to be gay. The party's anti-gay positions bother them, but not to distraction. Far more important to them are the party positions they agree with, like its foreign and economic policies. Their involvement in LCR is primarily an expression of their disgust for left-dominated gay politics and reflects a desire to bond politically and socially with like-minded gay people. They are Republican first and gay second.

There are gradations of views in between, but these poles roughly describe things. I have always been much closer to the gay-first Republicans.

It has never been accurate to charge, as some benighted people do, that either of these groups is self-hating. Neither supports anti-gay policies, which is what the slander of self-hatred implies. The gay-first Republicans are every bit as dedicated to gay equality as anyone in the gay-rights movement, but believe there is a distinct and essential role they can play in advancing it. The Republican-first gays also oppose anti-gay policies, but give a higher priority to non-gay issues like taxes, just as some gay liberals give a higher priority to non-gay issues like abortion. At worst, the gay-first Republicans can be faulted for occasional tactical errors; the Republican-first gays, for misplaced priorities. But neither group can fairly be indicted for internalized homophobia.

LCR's vote not to endorse Bush, by a 22-2 margin of the group's national directors, was primarily a gay-first Republican decision. It was a strong affirmation that LCR's basic mission is to advance gay equality within the GOP, not to support GOP candidates at all costs.

But even some Republican-first gays in LCR supported the non-endorsement. Bush's betrayal of traditional conservatism on matters like fiscal responsibility and free trade made it easier for them. Republican-first gays could also justify non-endorsement as a way to nudge the party away from extremism and thus to serve the GOP's own long-term political interests.

As long as Republican candidates are making serious progress toward supporting gay equality it makes sense for a partisan organization like LCR to endorse them, even if they're objectively worse on gay issues. LCR helps the cause by showing GOP candidates there are rewards for good behavior.

That's why LCR's endorsement of Bush in 2000 made sense from a gay-rights perspective, even though Bush was objectively worse than Al Gore on gay issues. Bush had publicly met with gay Republicans, the first time a GOP presidential nominee had ever done so, and had pronounced himself a "better man" for having met them. He was making progress.

One million gay voters backed Bush in 2000, twenty-five percent of the total gay vote. In return, Bush continued to make progress by appointing openly gay people to his administration and by maintaining a federal non-discrimination policy covering sexual orientation.

Now Bush's advisors have decided that the way to win is to gin up enthusiasm among religious conservatives. So Bush has backed, and has campaigned on, a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

That's why LCR's non-endorsement of Bush this year makes sense. Bush has taken a giant leap backward by actively supporting an amendment that is qualitatively more deadly to gay equality than anything any president has ever supported. It's a completely unnecessary and unforgivable betrayal of basic constitutional values.

If LCR had nevertheless endorsed Bush it would have ceased to be an organization devoted to gay equality. It would have become simply another obedient auxiliary of the GOP, albeit one with a twist in its martini, and above all one that Republicans could take for granted.

Thus, this very act of defiance may ultimately make LCR a more viable force in the party. If significantly fewer gays vote for Bush this year, LCR will have helped demonstrate that even among Republican voters there's a political cost to being anti-gay. In a close election, that might mean a lot.

0 Comments

Rove: A Misguided Quest?

by on

An article on The New Republic's TRN Online site (alas, subscribers only) raises some pertinent questions about Bush campaign guru Karl Rove's evangelical-vote strategy. In "Off Base," Marisa Katz notes Rove's frequently cited remark before the American Enterprise Institute, where he said:

"If you look at the model of the electorate, and you look at the model of who voted, the big discrepancy is among self-identified, white, evangelical Protestants, Pentecostals and fundamentalists. ... There should have been 19 million of them, and instead there were 15 million of them. Just over four million of them failed to turn out and vote... that you would have anticipated voting in a normal presidential election."

Rove has made capturing those "missing" 4 million evangelical votes the centerpiece of his campaign strategy, advising Bush, it's widely believed, to push for a Federal Marriage Amendment. But it seems no one is quite sure where Rove's numbers come from. Writes Katz:

Rove has never disclosed his sources or explained his methodology, and even the most respected analysts of evangelical opinion can't divine the origin of his statistics. "Whether the four million is the right number is unclear for me, and it's always been unclear for me since the first day I heard it," said John Green, a University of Akron political scientist who has been studying the U.S. evangelical community for 30 years. "That's a figure [Rove]'s been throwing around for several years, and I don't know what he's talking about," agreed Furman University political scientist James Guth, who has an equally long history of evangelical scholarship.

And upon this, Rove - and Bush - decided to sacrifice a verified (by Voter News Service exit polling) 1.1 million gay GOP votes (here are the figures).

Just a Thought

Groups like the Human Rights Campaign should more honestly define themselves as outreach organizations that mobilize gays and lesbians to support liberal issues and vote for Democrats -- rather than as lobbyists seeking to pressure Democrats (and Republicans) on behalf of gays and lesbians.

More Recent Postings
9/05/04 - 9/11/04

0 Comments

My Own Non-Endorsement.

by on

Theweddingparty.org, a pro-gay marriage site, runs an excellent news digest of gay-marriage-related items and links. Recently posted: an AP story on Howard Dean's forthcoming book, which includes this interesting tidbit:

Dean recounts that one of the people Clinton called was a Dean supporter who described how the former president said that Dean "had forfeited his right to run for president." That was because, Dean writes, he had signed a law creating civil unions for gay and lesbian couples and Clinton believed Dean couldn't be elected as a result.

Not so surprising, given Clinton's history of supporting, signing, and ballyhooing (on ads that ran in the South) his support for the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which bars the federal government from recognizing same-sex nuptials. Interestingly, Log Cabin refused to endorse George W. Bush owing to his support of the anti-gay Federal Marriage Amendment, while the Human Rights Campaign and lesbigay liberals gave orgiastic support to Bill Clinton despite DOMA.

Speaking for myself and not on behalf of our heterodox IGF fellowship, I wish I could support Bush, since I'm in his camp on a wide range of issues (the War on Terror, entitlement and tort reform, pro-investment tax cuts). But I can't. He's sold my vote to the religious right.

Yet I won't be voting for Kerry, with whom I disagree on most foreign and domestic policies, not to mention his wishy-washy position on topic G (he opposes gay marriage and supports state amendments to ban 'em, but claims he also opposes the Federal Marriage Amendment - just not enough to vote against it).

Addendum: I should also have noted that when asked about the military gay ban, Kerry equivocates and talks about "unit cohesion." But to those gays who are first and foremost liberal Democratic Party activists, it matters not.

0 Comments

In Sickness and in Health…

by on

Here's a moving piece from the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, titled What Threat to Marriage? by Bill Hetland, about caring for his life partner, Phil Anderson, who is paralyzed. Hetland writes:

It isn't so much about having the same rights as straight couples -- although that would be nice. Rather, I'm angry with those who demonize gays and think that loving gay couples like us somehow threaten that sanctity. We have been together for almost 16 years and have survived incredible challenges during the past three and one-half years.

Phil was paralyzed from the waist down in a February 2001 auto accident and has since been hospitalized for femur reconstruction, lung surgery, a stroke, gallbladder surgery, multiple seizures, chronic pain and numerous other health problems. Last September, during a celebration of our 15 years together, I presented Phil with a framed "Certificate of Survival" in recognition of his incredible courage. ...

Like Phil, I'm a veteran, having served in Vietnam. We have both served our country honorably and have been honorable in our commitment to each other. Yet there are still folks who see gay couples like us as a threat to the sanctity of marriage.

How small and mean-spirited our opponents seem in the face of testimony like this.

0 Comments