Hate Wins in Florida.

Sadly, after running a campaign loaded with virulent gay bashing, former HUD Secretary and trial lawyer Mel Martinez has won the GOP Senate primary in Florida.

As reported by the Sun-Sentinel, Martinez accused his opponent, conservative former GOP Congressman Bill McCollum, of being "the new darling of the homosexual extremists" and "anti-family," and of trying to appease "the radical homosexual lobby" by supporting a bipartisan federal hate-crimes bill that included "sexual orientation."

In response, the St. Petersburg Times reversed its prior endorsement of Martinez, citing his campaign's "sleazy, homophobic advertisements" and saying "Martinez took his campaign into the gutter with hateful and dishonest attacks.... The Times is not willing to be associated with bigotry. As a result, we are taking the almost unprecedented step of rescinding our recommendation of Martinez."

But the editorially liberal Miami Herald shamed itself by sticking with its primary endorsement of Martinez, no doubt with an eye on the paper's large Cuban-American readership. Imagine, liberals selling out gays to appease an ethnic minority -- who could imagine!

CNN — Liberal, but Two-Faced.

CNN is refusing to air a Log Cabin Republican commercial showing anti-gay demonstrators with signs reading "God Hates Fags." This somehow crosses the line of acceptability, CNN feels (not on the bigots' part, but on LCR's!). Would CNN have refused a black civil rights message that showed hoses and dogs?

Why they Want Us to Lie

Gay columnist Michael Alvear, writing in Lavender Magazine, relates an interesting experience that reveals religious conservatives want gays to lie about our lives so we don't make them (the conservatives) feel "uncomfortable."

To Be Gay and Republican.

The Washington Post takes a look at gay GOPers and their fight for the soul of the Republican Party.

Meanwhile, anti-gay Congressman Edward Schrock (R-Va.), married and a father, is outed for allegedly trolling gay sex lines and ends his re-election bid, also reports the Post. In 2000 Schrock said when opposing gays in the military, "You're in the showers with them, you're in the bunk room with them, you're in staterooms with them. You just hope no harm would come by folks who are of that persuasion. It's a discipline thing."

Hard Partisanship at HRC.

Remember when the Human Rights Campaign used to portray itself as nonpartisan? Now, following on the heels of the group's decision to oppose the re-election of incumbent Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), one of the GOP's most consistently gay-supportive members, HRC has garnered attention for its high and unstinting praise of New Jersey Gov. James McGreevey. Unethical he may be, but he's a gay Democrat, and they're not admitting to any concerns.

And then there's the presidential race, in which HRC's involvement included a "Fahrenheit 9/11 Audience Outreach Campaign." And, at its Dupont Circle storefront in the nation's capital, HRC's placards, stickers and shirts proclaim "George W. Bush: You're Fired!" rather than much about gay issues. Moreover, HRC has hired billboard trucks to troll around New York City during the GOP convention, again promoting the same, now cliche "You're Fired" message.

HRC may bill itself as "the nation's largest gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender political organization," but it's getting harder to see any difference between the group, which in the past has made unequivocal support for abortions without restrictions and for race-based preferences into candidate "scorecard" items, and other liberal-left Democratic Party affiliates such as Moveon.org.

As noted earlier, EMILY's List may have no compunction about supporting an anti-gay rights but pro-abortion rights Senate candidate, but HRC is determined to make itself the leader of a grand coalition of the left, even as its mission of bipartisan gay advocacy gets lost along the way.

A Nightmare “Ex” Finds Her State.

The Washington Post editorializes on the latest bit of anti-gay venom to come out of the Old Dominion, where a state judge has ruled that Virginia's recently passed Marriage Affirmation Act nullifies a Vermont court's recognition of parental rights on the part of a lesbian who is now de-civil unionized from her former (and now ex-gay) partner, the child's biological parent.

Illegalities aside (you can read the Post editorial for the scoop), what a nightmare it must be not only to break up with a former spousal-equivalent with whom you've been co-parenting from the get-go, but then to have her custody jump to the most anti-gay state in the union and bring in lawyers from religious right "family" groups to ensure you can never see the child again.

When love is gone, it's gone.

More Recent Postings
8/22/04 - 8/28/04

No “Naked Boys Singing” — or Equality — for the GOP.

At the request of the Republican National Committee, New York City's tourist bureau has pulled the off-Broadway show "Naked Boys Singing" from a list of discounted offerings to visiting Republican delegates, the AP reports. The gay-themed musical revue "celebrates the splendors of male nudity in comedy, song and dance." But the Republican bluenoses complained after about a dozen people, presumably delegates, had purchased tickets using the special code offered on the tourist bureau's Web site.

Meanwhile, the Log Cabin Republicans note, the GOP platform committee was busily at work making sure that, contrary to recent remarks by the president and veep, not only gay marriage but civil unions and domestic partner benefits would be condemned in the party's official platform. Red meat to the hard-right social conservatives upset over the moderate lineup of convention speakers, but just the sort of reactionary obtuseness that drives away fair-minded swing voters.

A Kinder, Gentler Conservatism?

As the San Francisco Chronicle reports, "Vice President Dick Cheney, whose daughter Mary is a lesbian, drew criticism from both proponents and foes of gay marriage Tuesday after he distanced himself from President Bush's call for a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage." Cheney said:

"Lynne and I have a gay daughter, so it's an issue our family is very familiar with. With respect to the question of relationships, my general view is freedom means freedom for everyone ... People ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to.

"The question that comes up with the issue of marriage is what kind of official sanction or approval is going to be granted by government? Historically, that's been a relationship that has been handled by the states. The states have made that fundamental decision of what constitutes a marriage."

Having made it clear he, personally, doesn't support federalizing marriage, as the failed anti-gay Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) sought to do, Cheney went on to provide some cover to President Bush, a strong FMA supporter, remarking:

"I think his [Bush's] perception was that the courts, in effect, were beginning to change, without allowing the people to be involved. The courts were making the judgment for the entire country."

As the Chronicle notes, Cheney's comments drew a rebuke from the religious right's Family Research Council, while doing little to mollify anti-Bush activists, such as the Human Rights Campaign.

But it's significant, I think, that Cheney's remarks follow on the heels of Bush's own, under-reported statement earlier this month that regarding civil unions, "That's up to states. If they want to provide legal protections for gays, that's great. That's fine. But I do not want to change the definition of marriage."

It sure looks like the administration is moderating its stance, trying to recapture some of the gay/gay friendly votes in the all-important swing states. And while it doesn't, and can't, make up for unleashing the FMA in the first place, it's certainly a welcome change of tone -- especially as the Kerry camp moves in the other direction, denouncing gay marriage and backtracking on gays in the military.

Not Just a Right — a Rite

First published August 25, 2004, in the Chicago Free Press.

When I visited Toronto recently with friends we did all the usual things: marveled at Lake Ontario, bought soap at Lush, gazed up at the CN Tower.

And checked out places to get married.

My straight friends were giddy about the idea. They loved being on a quest. They listed possible wedding spots: churches, gardens, lakefront parks, a one-room school house where guests sit at children's desks. Toronto seems to be a paradise for those about to be wed.

My friends drove me by this location or that one. I snapped grainy pictures on my cell phone to show the girlfriend later.

The girlfriend doesn't really know we're getting married. Well, she kind of does. We've talked about it. We've talked vaguely about how a year from September might be good. But even though we've known each other for four years, we haven't really been girlfriends that long, so a year might be pressing it.

But gays and lesbians can get married in Toronto. And unlike in Massachusetts a couple doesn't need to be residents there. So the idea of "Oh, we could get married in Toronto" quickly changed into, "I'm getting married in Toronto!"

Which meant I announced my engagement to everyone I met. And everyone I met seemed just as giddy as the friends I was traveling with.

"Ooooh," said Amy and Michael, the friends of the friends I had gone to visit. I had never met them before but the couple was instantly smitten by the idea of a wedding. "How about the Carlu? There's a round Art Deco room with a fountain in the center."

The fountain sold me. I ignored the dollar-a-minute rate my cell phone company charges to call across the border and rang my girl.

"Hey," I said casually. "How about the Carlu for our wedding? I'm e-mailing you the link."

There was a pause. "I like it," she said. "It's perfect. But, um, I don't quite remember setting a date..."

Oh yeah. That.

But there's something about being somewhere where lesbian weddings are possible that makes one leap over the interim steps. Like living in the same city. Or actually agreeing to be married.

Nevertheless, I soldiered on.

When the toddler with us reached toward sparkly dresses in a boutique window on Queen's Street, we wandered in. The designer's flirty, elegant, floor-length shifts seemed like they'd be ideal for - oh, I don't know - wedding dresses. I almost started jumping up and down.

I tried on a simple gold sheath with a deep red overdress embroidered in gold. Wearing it, I felt like a chic medieval princess. All I needed was a tiara.

"That's lovely on you," the saleswoman cooed.

"I'm thinking about it for my wedding," I said. "But it needs alterations. Do you have a store in Chicago?"

"No, this is it. But Chicago's not that far."

I tossed my head blithely. "Oh, I'm getting married in Toronto anyway. So maybe it wouldn't be a big deal."

She nodded, arranging the bottom of the deep red fabric so that it swirled around my ankles like a train. "Why Toronto?"

"Because I'm a lesbian," I said. "And we can here."

She nodded as if to say, "That makes sense." There was no surprise on her face at all.

I thought back to how Amy and Michael hadn't registered surprise, either, when they found out that I was a lesbian and thus thinking about Toronto as a place to get married. Mostly they were enthusiastic about the idea of a wedding.

And that's when I realized something about weddings that I hadn't quite understood before.

Getting married is not just an entrance to legal equality and government benefits. And it's not just a public witnessing of love and commitment.

Getting married is a cultural rite of passage that validates membership in society - it welcomes you into the club of child-rearing adults, whether or not that's your intention.

When a couple marries, they validate every other marriage that came before, because they are implicitly saying that this is an institution worth perpetuating. And their own new marriage reminds others who married long ago about the hope and joy undergirding their wedding day and about the promises they made to each other.

The enlightened people I met in Toronto understand that. It is less important to them that I'm a lesbian than that I am joining their club by getting married. They can relate to the experience of planning a wedding - or wanting to plan a wedding - whether or not they can relate to my lesbianism. It gives us something to talk about that we can all understand and appreciate. It makes us and them the same.

This is why the argument that gay marriage destroys straight marriage is completely idiotic. Because the opposite is true. Merely by marrying we strengthen marriage. We validate the institution at the same time it validates us.

I didn't buy the dress I saw that day in Toronto, but I did grab a business card and snap a picture. Two steps out of the store, I called my girl.

"I found a wedding dress," I said. "It's perfect."

She laughed. "You know, somehow just you talking about all this wedding stuff gets me excited about it. Maybe we should set a date."

I smiled. "Have I mentioned that the Carlu has a fountain?"

Why Pay for What You Get for Free?

The fight over same-sex marriage has so overwhelmed other gay issues that neither the gay activists' surrender over ENDA nor John Kerry's retreat on gays in the military has gotten much attention. On the latter, the Washington Blade takes a closer look in a report headlined "Kerry hedges on ending 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell': Senator expresses concerns over 'unit cohesion' -- This puts into context the Kerry campaign's decision earlier this month to delete any reference to ending the gay ban from the candidate's website, wherein all manner of promises are made to groups that Kerry actually thinks he needs to bother with.

The "gay votes for free" card that LGBT politicos and activists gave Kerry will come back to haunt them.

No Solidarity: Cherokees Ban Gay Marriage.

The Cherokee National Tribal Council voted to define marriage as only between a man and a woman, reports the AP. "If we don't address this, we'll have a flood of same-sex marriages," an advocate of the ban asserted, adding that same-sex matrimony would otherwise "be a black eye on the Cherokee Nation. Even the state of Oklahoma doesn't allow same-sex marriage."

Nope, not even gonna attempt to parse those comments. But I did refrain from heading this item "Anti-Gay Cherokees on the Warpath."
--Stephen H. Miller