IGF CultureWatch

Originally appeared Oct. 9, 2001, in the Manchester (N.H.) Union Leader.

IN CASE YOU'VE FORGOTTEN, a group called the Alliance for Marriage has proposed an amendment to the federal constitution. "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups." Their spokespeople freely admit they want to make same-sex marriage illegal in America.

According to its Web site, the Alliance hopes "to strengthen the institution of marriage and restore a culture of married fatherhood in American society." But outlawing same-sex marriage will not strengthen and restore marriage, nor will it erase the legal challenges gay couples face. In fact, social and religious conservatives have yet to make a persuasive case why gay couples should be denied the legal incidents that marriage provides. Marriage laws allow couples to protect their property, their representation of each other, and their dependents. And recent events show how gay couples suffer in these areas.

Property. In San Francisco, a dog mauled a woman to death. Under current law, her female partner cannot sue the dog's owners for wrongful death. Not only is she emotionally upended by this tragedy; she risks foreclosure and bankruptcy because she cannot recover the lost wages that her partner earned and that they shared. In Tampa, a policewoman is killed in the line of duty. Her partner will not receive the policewoman's pension, because such pensions go only to married surviving partners, and since the two were women, they could not marry. Throughout the nation, surviving gay partners have lost homes through estate taxes and relatives of the deceased who have the legal right to move in (figuratively and literally). And forget about transferring retirement benefits. Current law poorly protects gay couples and their property.

Representation. Near Spokane, a 35-year-old man lay comatose. His 32-year-old partner can visit him only because the man's family permits him. The hospital spokesman: "If we have a conflicting interest in patients who can't speak for themselves, we look for legal documents. We follow the state statute." And state statutes do not readily recognize the commitments these men made to each other. Most thirtysomethings know whom they want to speak for them if they are unable to speak for themselves. Many get married in anticipation of this kind of crisis. But current laws hamstring gay couples in choosing who speaks for whom -- and in making these choices stick.

Dependents. Like it or not, some gay couples have children: from previous marriages; by artificial insemination; through adoption. Gay parents, like their straight counterparts, have proven themselves fit as parents. But existing laws make it difficult -- and, in some states, impossible -- for both partners to be legal guardians of children they parent together. Not allowing gay parents to legalize their relationship jeopardizes the children when something happens to one of the parents. And the recent federal decision upholding the Florida law banning gays (couples and singles) from adopting while allowing single heterosexuals to adopt shows how laws that punish gays end up hurting children.

These are everyday examples; stories from Sept. 11 abound. Gay couples need property, representation, and dependent protections. No wonder same-sex marriage looms on the horizon.

Conservatives intent on protecting the institution of marriage ought to rethink their strategy. Rather than keeping marriage away from gay couples, the federal government should get out of the marriage business. And this is easy to do.

Enact a federal civil union law. Change the laws with property, representation, and dependent protections from "marriage" to "civil union." Eliminate penalties that keep blended families and elderly couples from getting hitched. Make civil unions available to gays and straights alike. And give marriage back to houses of worship. You want legal protections? Get a civil union. You want marriage? Go to your faith community.

This approach upholds "the sanctity of marriage." Churches, for example, determine the distribution of their holy sacraments; who wants a government official dictating who can receive communion or get baptized? But governments have a compelling interest in granting property, representation, and dependent protections to citizens who want and need them. Through court order and legislative action, governments are extending these protections to gay couples. Conservatives here can grant these protections to all couples and turn the sacrament of marriage over to professionals who regularly handle holy things.

But time is running out to make this cultural shift. When same-sex marriage comes to America, it will not be because gay activists prevailed. It will be because social and religious conservatives refused to offer all Americans a legal alternative to marriage.

IN A GAY COMMUNITY united in support of a just and necessary war against a network of mass murderers and the theocratic dictatorship shielding them, a few isolated voices have distinguished themselves by their mushy-headed disapproval. For these gay-left writers, the real enemies are not Islamic extremists who crash planes into office buildings but U.S. "militarism," gay assimilation, "unthinking patriotism," children reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, a president prone to malapropism, and American wealth.

Consider a recent article by the author Michael Bronski. Shortly after the September 11 attack, some gay activists prematurely celebrated when it was believed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" - the policy of discharging openly gay service members - might be suspended during the crisis. Yet Bronski says he is "frightened" by the possibility that gays might be allowed to serve just now. "Why," he asks, "would any gay and lesbian group be happy that 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' be lifted?"

Bronski nostalgically lauds the gay liberationists of the late 1960s and early 1970s who sought "social justice, anti-racism, [and] anti-militarism." He avers that gay liberation groups of that era would never have "advocated for the right of American homosexuals to fight in Viet Nam [sic]."

Bronski contrasts this with present-day gay-rights groups, who want the "'right' to be just like everyone else," including the right to defend the country when it's attacked. This is the familiar charge of assimilation, the worst possible offense in the liberationist catalogue.

Instead of wrapping themselves "in a flag of uncritical and unthinking patriotism," writes Bronski, gay groups ought to supply "draft counselors" to young gay men who might want to resist a future draft.

Someone should tell Bronski it's not 1968 anymore and the Vietnam war is over. September 11 was the bloodiest single day in American history, with thousands of civilians killed by a foreign enemy on American soil for the first time in 185 years. Whatever the ideological fixations of a bygone era - and Bronski is wrong as a matter of history to suggest gays in the 1960s weren't fighting to end discrimination in the military - many gay Americans today want very much to serve their country. That's true even - no, especially - when it's directly threatened.

However flawed, Bronski's world-view is at least coherent, a charge that can't be leveled at the next nervous Nellie of the left. Matt Lum, writing in the Texas Triangle, reports it's been "disconcerting" to see "all these red, white and blue flags flapping in my face everywhere I go."

With all the self-satisfaction of someone who imagines he's just discovered a verity, he snickers: "All this talk of freedom and opportunity, the American spirit. For some."

Lum pronounces himself "suspicious" when students recite the words "One Nation, Under God" during the Pledge of Allegiance.

Next, Lum takes shots at President Bush for saying the terrorists "misunderestimated" him and for predicting a "winning victory," as if a verbal miscue matters next to the administration's widely acclaimed, adroit handling of complex diplomatic and military strategy. I suppose this elevation of form over substance - of words over policy - is what we should expect of a generation raised on Bill Clinton's politics.

After creatively observing that "this whole thing seems to be more about beef and petroleum than anything else," Lum closes: "Practice peace, people."

Guess what, Mr. Lum? You have the "freedom and opportunity" to criticize a sitting president at a time of supreme national crisis precisely because, when the need arose, your forebears had "the American spirit" at which you sneer to give their lives to defend your rights.

I guess we can't expect the same self-sacrifice of Lum, who's discombobulated by waving flags. But it's a little bit too much to admonish us to "practice peace" when we're still shoveling up the ashes of 5,000 dead.

Perhaps the most tortured reaction comes from gay-left activist Pokey Anderson, writing in Houston's OutSmart magazine. The September 11 attack, she writes, quoting a wise and knowledgeable uncle, "'is the fruit of our calloused arrogant affluence flaunted before helpless people for decades and decades of their sufferings.'"

This about a country that has given away more of its hard-earned riches than any before in history, that rebuilt Europe and Japan after World War II, that saved millions of Muslims from dictators like Hussein and Milosevic, that has donated billions of dollars in financial aid to help poor nations feed their people and build infrastructure and acquire medicine, and on and on.

If some people around the world don't grasp those facts it's not because we've been flaunting our affluence. It's because we haven't been flaunting our generosity.

Anderson urges against "blindly bombing" innocent people in a mad desire "to lash out at somebody, anybody."

She wrote those words before we began the military response, which has demonstrated beyond doubt that we're not blindly bombing Afghanistan. In fact, given the circumstances, we've been almost unbelievably restrained in our efforts not to harm innocents, even at the expense of quickly eliminating the terrorists who threaten us with every passing day.

A truly militarist nation, lashing out at anybody and blinded by flapping flags and unthinking patriotism, would have disposed of the matter with a couple of well-placed nukes.

The real question is why Anderson or anyone else might have imagined we would blindly bomb innocent people to begin with, so that she found it necessary to caution against it. The whole idea of needlessly killing people seems to me against our history. Why would anyone assume the worst about us?

The answer, I think, is this: To most Americans, including most gay Americans, this is basically a good country that sometimes does bad things. To some on the left, however, this is basically a bad country that sometimes does good things. The war has exposed that fundamental cleavage as never before.

Finally, rather than use "old methods" like "bombing and dirty tricks and saber-rattling" in response to the terrorist strikes, Anderson advises that we rethink our opposition to "numerous treaties such as the Kyoto Protocol" on global warming and attend gatherings like the recent "World Conference Against Racism," memorable mostly for its anti-Semitism.

I have some news for Anderson. Osama bin Laden and his syndicate will not be satisfied by a more equal distribution of wealth or more global warming treaties or more conferences denouncing racism. They are not motivated, as some on the left imagine, by the left's own long list of grievances against the West.

No, Mr. Bronski, Mr. Lum, and Ms. Anderson, they just want you dead. And they want you dead because you live in a strong country that defends religious pluralism and individual liberty, which they abhor.

Now would you please let the rest of us get on with the business of figuring out how to defend you against them?

Originally appeared Oct. 17, 2001, in the Chicago Free Press.

HISTORICALLY, ISLAMIC CULTURE (or better, cultures) seem to present two different faces toward homosexuality: A deeply hostile, punitive aspect rooted in religious texts and edicts and a more benign aspect ranging from bemused tolerance to open approval and celebration in literature.

We are at present learning a great deal about the most adamantly hostile strain of Islam as represented by the execution of gay men in Afghanistan and Stalinesque show-trials of gay men in Egypt.

According to the gay Muslim group Al-Fatiha, at least six Islamic nations have laws permitting capital punishment for homosexual acts and at least two have executed gays in recent years.

Just as Christian fundamentalists defend sodomy laws by citing biblical texts, Muslim governments often trace their own punitive laws to their official religion, to the Qur'an (or Koran), and the elaborate Islamic legal traditions called Shari'ah developed from it.

There seem to be about eight relevant passage in the Qur'an, all of them strongly negative. Seven refer to the ancient myth of Sodom that Muhammad borrowed from Hebrew scriptures and which apparently impressed him deeply. Here is a sampling, cited in Ibn Warraq's comprehensive "Why I Am Not a Muslim" (Prometheus Books, 1995). (Note: suras are akin to books in the Bible.)

• Sura 4:16. "If two men among you commit indecency, punish them both."
• Sura 7:80-81. "And Lot said to his people: Do you commit indecent acts that no nation has ever committed before? You lust after men in preference to women. You really are a degenerate people."
• Sura 26:165-6. "Will you fornicate with males and abandon your wives, whom God has created for you? Surely you are a people transgressing all limits. ... [The people of Lot] were utterly destroyed."
• Sura 27:55. "And tell of Lot. He said to his people: Do you commit indecency though knowing its shameful character, lusting after men instead of women."

In short, homosexual sex is indecent, degenerate, shameful, lust-driven, and must be punished.

Even apart from the specific injunction to punish homosexual sex, religious regimes have usually felt obligated to punish any "indecency" or "degeneracy" because they supposedly weaken the perpetrator's faith, corrupt his neighbors or offend gods. The allegedly gay men on trial in Egypt are not accused specifically of homosexual acts but of dishonoring Islam.

But there seems to be an ambiguity in the Qur'an. Most Westerners know that the Qur'an is surprisingly specific about the sensory, even sensual pleasures of the Islamic paradise, with food and drink and young maidens tending the needs of the faithful.

But, as Warraq points out, the Qur'an also specifies that male youths (presumably adolescents or ephebes) will also provide for the needs of the faithful:

• Sura 52:24. "And there shall wait on them young boys of their own, as fair as virgin pearls.
• Sura 56:17. "And there shall wait on them immortal youths with bowls and pitchers of water and a cup of purest wine."
• Sura 76:19. "They shall be attended by boys graced with eternal youth, who will seem like scattered pearls to the beholders."

The exact role of these youthful cup-bearers is not stated, perhaps discreetly so, although it is worth noticing the phrase "boys of their own" in Sura 52:24. Some later Islamic cultural traditions certainly assumed physical involvement.

There seems to be a tension throughout between acknowledging the attractiveness of young men, perhaps part of the native Arabic culture Muhammad was appealing to, and the idea imported from Hebrew scriptures or some other strand of earlier Arabic culture that sex with men is somehow shameful or improper.

This ongoing tension between desire and avoidance in Islamic thought seems to ratchet up anxieties and evasions about homosexuality to a high pitch, especially in the exclusively male public world in which even today many men long remain bachelors, not least because polygamy by some men drains the market of women available for marriage.

The same tension lingers after the Qur'anic compilation. According to ethnographer Jim Wafer writing in the excellent anthology "Islamic Homosexualities" (New York Univ. Press, 1997), most of the vast number of supposed statements of Muhammad (called "hadith") collected (or counterfeited) over the next centuries are deeply negative toward homosexuality.

One such hadith reads: "If you see two people who act like the people of Lot, then kill the active and the passive."

But in a few hadiths Muhammad supposedly warned Muslims against lingering glances at young men because they are so attractive. One hadith says: "Keep not company with the sons of kings, for truly souls desire them in a way they do not desire freed slave-girls."

In other words, as with the ancient Greeks, the desire for young men seemed to be completely reasonable and a natural part of the human psyche, not perverse, shameful or immoral. But for Muslims desire was to be resisted in the service of self-control, piety or "submission" ("Islam") to the god and the god's laws.

Those mixed messages were developed and altered, one side or the other gaining ascendancy, as Islam was refracted through a variety of foreign cultures in succeeding centuries.

Originally appeared Oct. 12, 2001, in San Diego "Update" and other gay publications.

ONE OF THE MOST SIGNIFICANT developments following the Sept. 11 atrocities and America's military response has been the wedge that's arisen between reasonable liberals and the zany, anti-American, anti-capitalist left. Unfortunately, some gay leftists are still marching in lock step with the "Blame America First" crowd.

Consider what was said at one of the larger "anti-war" (or, more accurately, pro-appeasement) rallies in the nation's capital in late September. This was the gathering originally intended to attack corporations (that is, free markets) and protest globalization (that is, free trade among nations). However, in the wake of the mass murder of American citizens in New York and Washington, the protesters decided, instead, to aim their demonstration at efforts by the United States to strike back at those who would annihilate us. "Stop Your Racist War" read many signs. Someone else held a poster that read "Amerika, get a clue."

As shown in a live C-SPAN broadcast, among those who took the podium were some representatives of the lesbigay left, including a group of younger LGBT activists. "We are deeply concerned about the environment of suspicion, blame and violence fueled, in large measure, by the bellicose rhetoric which came early from the White House," read a subsequent statement from the National Youth Advocacy Coalition, a national organization dedicated to "addressing the broad range of issues facing lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth."

Then, in an opinion piece that ran in late September in a number of lesbian and gay newspapers, lesbian activist Judy Gerber shared her thoughts on current events. "As President Bush prepares for a holocaust in Afghanistan and possible Iraq, it's time for gays in the military to get out, and stay out," Gerber writes. She condemns "the war machine," and declares that "certain of our movement leaders think that gays have to prove their mettle in battle to gain equality. Fighting for the right to be cannon fodder in a so-called 'war against terrorism' that doesn't even have a clear political definition gets us nowhere. If enough soldiers refuse to fight in what looks like an inevitable war, we might have a chance to change the world before it's too late. Not to mention push forward a clearer concept of just what it is our movement is working towards."

What Gerber's "movement" might be working for sounds like a grab bag ranging from Marxist collectivism to unilateral disarmament in the face of an enemy who wants to kill us - especially those of us who are gay.

This shouldn't be surprising, given that the gay left's worldview is no different from what drives their non-gay comrades in the anti-America brigades - the belief that we, as a country, are the font of all the world's ills. For them, no evil however great can exceed that of America, and America is the cause of all evil in others. "This is about the have nots attacking the haves," said a speaker at one rally. "It's a result of American oppression."

Writing in New York's left-leaning Village Voice newspaper, socialist Barbara Ehrenreich lamented that "What is so heartbreaking to me as a feminist is that the strongest response to corporate globalization and U.S. military domination is based on such a violent and misogynist ideology." That's pretty close to asserting "right message, wrong tactics" on behalf of the murderers. Also writing in the Voice, black activist and author Vivian Gornick complained, "It is [race-based] reparations that are owing, not retribution."

Yes, I know that over 90 percent of Americans support our government and clearly see that nations have not just the right, but the absolute duty, to defend themselves when they suffer vicious attack. I suspect, from the number of American flags displayed in gay neighborhoods such as New York's Chelsea, Washington's Dupont Circle, and West Hollywood, that support for this just war is high in the gay community (San Francisco and the Bay Area, however, may be another story). Most gays and lesbians these days are proudly patriotic, and have been celebrating, among others, the heroism of Mark Bingham (the openly gay rugby player on United Airlines Flight 93, the plane where passengers apparently jumped their hijackers), and Father Mychal Judge, the openly gay chaplain of the New York Fire Department, who died at the World Trade Center. Never have gays, in fact, been more openly gay and openly part of mainstream America than right now.

So what is going on with the small, but vocal, left? The knee-jerk response of blaming America for provoking the attacks due to our "oppression" and our "racism" and our detested free economy that produces "inequalities" is nothing less than the epitome of the "blame the victim" syndrome. These same leftists who hold fervently that gays should never be held responsible for contracting AIDS, and that women should never be blamed for provoking rape, for example, are now doing contortions to show that Americans are at fault for making death-loving terrorists dislike us. Why, if we were only poorer, less innovative, less successful, we wouldn't have wounded their pride, don't you know.

As I noted at the start, at least we can be glad that the radical American left is showing its true colors, as ugly as they are. For too long, too many liberals, including gay liberals, flirted with this lunacy. Last year, for instance, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force endorsed demonstrations in Washington against the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. The series of street protests was viewed as a continuation of the "Battle of Seattle" against the World Trade Organization, seen as an insidious pillar of that unforgivable evil - free markets and free trade. According to the Task Force's press statement, IMF and World Bank policies "have helped degrade the environments of many developing countries," no doubt by promoting economic development.

Since the days of the Gay Liberation Front, which swore Marxist solidarity with liberation movements from Cuba to Vietnam, a knee-jerk scapegoating of capitalism, and the view that America is the font of oppression, has been a mainstay of the left edge of gay politics.

Urvashi Vaid, a former head of the Task Force and a long-time opponent of "mainstreaming" and lesbigay "assimilation" (a sellout of the radical queer cause), has written that "as more of us move into a space where we can be personally gay or lesbian...we risk being appeased." Rather than aspiring to join the mainstream, Vaid wants lesbians and gays to radicalize American society by "building a powerful, grassroots, political movement rooted in notions of Liberation and not merely Rights." Vaid never really said what she means by "Liberation," but judging from her speeches it's not hard to figure out. In a 1991 tour de force, she wailed that America "has taken off its ugly white hood to show its sexist, racist, anti-gay and capitalist face."

If the American left in general, and the gay left in particular, is now exposed as the extremist, infantile, America-hating whiners that they are, that's at least some solace in this time of national struggle.

Originally appeared Oct. 9, 2001, in the Manchester (N.H.) Union Leader.

Courts in Canada have recently ruled in favor of same-sex marriage. This summer, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court may do the same. We're heading toward a national debate on same-sex marriage that will make Vermont's civil union brawl look like cocktail conversation.

Should gay couples have the same legal rights, benefits and responsibilities as straight couples?

I focus on legal issues, because we will never agree on religious ones.

For many, marriage is fundamentally a religious institution, sanctioned first by God and supported secondarily by civil law. According to this view, marriage requires one man and one woman. We all know the bumper-sticker summary: It's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

Those who disagree with the court rulings are correct in stating that the rulings radically redefine marriage as we know it. And those who support same-sex marriage shouldn't shrink from admitting this as well.

Traditionalists also say that giving gay couples the benefits of marriage cheapens and undermines marriage. These accusations, if true, are far more serious than the fact of redefinition. Our Vermont experiment, however, suggests that they are false.

Take cheapen, for example. No one can prove that my civil union with my partner of 11 years devalues my neighbor's marriage. It's an opinion, and a silly one, for it masks a rather dim view of marriage. According to vital records reports from Vermont's Department of Health, there were fewer divorces in Vermont in 2001 (the first full year of the civil union law) than in 1999 (before there was a single civil union), but in 2000 and 2001, the number of divorces was significantly greater than the number of civil unions. Gay couples getting hitched demean marriage more than straight couples getting unhitched? I don't buy it.

As for undermining marriages, 6,056 marriages were performed in Vermont in 1999, 122 more than in 1998. In 2000, the first year civil unions were available, 6,271 marriages were performed in Vermont, 215 more than in 1999.

Then there's the 2001 report. 5,983 marriages were performed in Vermont, 288 less than in 2000. We'll have to wait for the 2002 report to see if 2001 was an anomaly (perhaps due to the terrorist attacks?) or part of a long-term trend. If the latter, traditionalists may have ammunition to argue that, as gay rights expand, marriage contracts. Still, I wager that none of the folks who got married in 2000 and 2001 feel that the civil union law weakens their marriages.

There's another interesting statistic in the reports. "The percentage of civil (marriage) ceremonies increased to 58.9 percent in 2001. This percent has increased every year since 1990 when it was 47.2 percent." More and more couples are choosing a justice of the peace or a judge instead of a minister or rabbi to get married. This is as true for first-timers as for people who are getting married for the second or third time. In 2001, for example, more first-time Vermont brides opted for civil ceremonies than for religious ones. (The flip-flop for grooms happened in 2000.)

This statistic should concern traditionalists more than same-sex marriage.

It says that more and more straight couples are separating the legal aspects of marriage from the liturgical ones, which is precisely what the courts are doing.

Civil marriage in Vermont is now more popular than religious marriage, and I suspect that other states (and Canada) have also seen an increase in the number of civil ceremonies and a decrease in the number of religious ceremonies.

Two years ago, I wrote for the The (Manchester) Union Leader that America would do well to follow the European model and separate civil marriage from religious marriage. I suggested that we make civil unions available to all, straight and gay, and reserve marriage for religious institutions. The continued increase of civil marriages only strengthens my case for a "radical redefinition" of marriage.

Meanwhile, traditionalists need to spell out why gay couples - many of whom have children - should be denied the protections afforded to married couples.

Until they do, the refusal to offer these protections comes across as the fiery imposition of religious belief, not the cool decision of civil authority.

Adam and Eve, Adam and Steve, and Miriam and Eve all need legal protection.

A May 2003 Gallup Poll revealed that 49 percent of Americans support laws that provide such protection. California's legislature is poised to pass such a law, but it is a sad commentary on the power of religion, tradition and inertia that, so far, courts must mandate such laws that promise liberty and justice for all.

Will these rulings mean that other states and the federal government will follow Vermont's example and pass laws that support gay couples? I doubt they will. But they should.

IF JERRY FALWELL is right about the way God works, then our newly declared war on terrorism isn't looking too good for the home team. After all, there is no nation on earth less hospitable to and less accepting of gays, feminists and civil libertarians than Afghanistan.

"The Lord has protected us so wonderfully these 225 years. And since 1812, this is the first time that we've been attacked on our soil and by far the worst results." - Rev. Jerry Falwell, on the "700 Club," Sept. 13

Since the Taliban assumed control of that troubled country five years ago, they have crushed the wall separating church and state, and often quite literally on the backs of homosexuals. The punishment for sodomy in Afghanistan is to push over a stone wall on the offending sodomite, almost always resulting in his death. If the defendant somehow survives, God is considered to have commuted his sentence.

Certainly, Falwell is more likely to approve that sort of stone wall than the kind that launched a gay liberation in New York City back in 1969. That's not just being facetious. The stone walls of Afghanistan, like the burning pyres of Salem, Mass., before them, are intended to facilitate an active, angry God to decide who shall live and who shall die.

On that now-famous episode of "The 700 Club," featuring Falwell and host Pat Robertson, the two televangelists talked at length about just that philosophy, played out at the macro level. God has protected the U.S. from attack for more than two centuries, they agreed, because this country was founded as a Christian nation and has tried to adhere to Scripture.

Though both men have set track records for the speed with which they've run away from Falwell's finger-pointing diatribe, neither has renounced the theology behind it.

It was Robertson, remember, who warned the people of Orlando a few years ago that God would consider it a "poke in the eye" that they allowed Gay Pride flags to be hung from street poles. He specifically warned them to watch out for hurricanes, sent or allowed by the angered deity. (Robertson has never satisfactorily accounted for the fact that the next hurricane to hit the southeastern U.S. caused damage not in Orlando, but along the Virginia coast from which he launched his television empire.)

It's easy to dismiss Falwell as the Tinky Winky loon who no one takes seriously anymore, but consider the report in the week's Voice by Laura Douglas-Brown, on the number of like-minded Christians, including Southern Baptists, the country's largest Protestant denomination, and they're joined in those views as well by many Orthodox Jews and fundamentalist Muslims.

The next time you find yourself wondering why religious conservatives worry so much about gay rights and tolerance of homosexuality, remember the Falwell sermon about the events of Sept. 11. To him and his fellow travelers, this isn't about what we do in the privacy of our bedrooms and in our lives. These people are driven by a genuine fear of the consequences for their families and their country if God is angered by the acceptance of homosexuality, as Falwell put it, as an "alternative lifestyle."

No more 'godless Communists'

Since Sept. 11, Americans have been learning more and more about this new enemy that struck so viciously at our homeland, targeting civilians and other non-military targets like airplanes and office buildings. Much of the initial attention has focused on terrorism, but President Bush broadened that focus in his speech to Congress last week. He characterized the conflict as one of values, casting our Western style of government against the brutal repression of the Taliban in Afghanistan.

This new enemy isn't anything like the "godless Communists" of the Cold War. This time around, the bad guys are ultra God-fearing, albeit from another religious faith. And the Western values that the president says they hate and aim to destroy are not Christianity or religion - he was careful not to make this a religious war between Christians and Muslims. Instead, Bush cited democracy, religious and social tolerance and secular government as the aspects of American society that Osama bin Laden and Taliban keepers found so threatening.

It may have been subtext, but wasn't the president really criticizing these radical Muslims for acting on a theology remarkably close to that adhered to by Falwell and Robertson? Bin Laden and his followers fear God's reprisal for allowing Western culture to corrupt the Islamic world, and that reads much like the standard Falwell stump sermon, preached every Sunday at conservative Christian churches across this country.

In his speech before Congress, the president "condemned" the Taliban for limiting opportunities for women and severely restricting the liberties of the Afghan people. That sounds remarkably like those groups at the other end of Jerry Falwell's pointed finger: feminists and the ACLU.

It's not gays and our civil rights movement that can be perceived on the wrong side this time. It's the Taliban, and their Shiite enemies who govern in Iran, that are the type of repressive religious rulers that will now be viewed as "un-American" and the antithesis of our ideals.

If Falwell and Robertson did not enjoy squirming and spinning out of harm's way the last two weeks, consider the future that lies ahead of them. If we gays and feminists and card-carrying members of the ACLU do our job well, this country will unite behind the very ideals of America that hold so much promise for us and our families.

Gay and lesbian Americans should rally around the president alongside our fellow citizens, and fight for a future that is free from the shackles of outdated fears and legislated morality. That is the Taliban way, not the American way.

Originally appeared Sept. 26, 2001, in the Chicago Free Press.

MOST OF US WHO ARE gay or lesbian Americans wish our nation well in trying to disable and eliminate the terrorist networks responsible for the Sept 11 attacks. Not only are we Americans as much as gays and lesbians, but that effort will directly benefit us.

The fundamentalist terrorists are hostile not just to America's basic institutions of personal freedom, individualism and tolerance, they are especially hostile to the variety of lives those values allow. Specifically, they view homosexuality and tolerance of it as prime examples of Western irreligion and cultural decadence.

So too in the U.S. Some Arab cab drivers have told me they like working Chicago's Halsted St. gay bar strip because "the money is good and gays don't cause problems." But they say some conservative Muslim drivers keep away from Halsted because they want to avoid contact with homosexuals. (Note to those cab drivers: You can do this in America; It's a free country.)

Despite widespread calls for national unity, however, gays and lesbians still have the unfinished project of achieving full social acceptance, so it seems neither wise nor necessary to suspend our own advocacy efforts.

But we need to consider how best to shape our strategy and articulate our goals in the altered political climate. For one thing, in the presence of a threat that affects us all, it seems prudent to avoid any suggestion of divisiveness or sectarian partisanship.

The perils of conspicuous partisanship and agenda-mongering in the present climate quickly became obvious when Rev. Jerry Falwell publicly blamed gays, abortion advocates, civil libertarians, and secularists for helping the terrorist attack happen.

Falwell was stunned to find himself denounced, even vilified, by almost everyone-in newspapers, on television, at the office water cooler. Even President Bush said he disagreed with Falwell, an unprecedented presidential condemnation of a prominent religious figure's religious views.

We can use three related approaches in promoting our goals without being accused of untimely partisanship:

• Emphasize our commonality with all Americans;
• Emphasize that some of us also sustained losses in the terrorist attacks;
• Emphasize our desire to make a positive contribution and our (sometimes untapped) capacity to do so.

Here are a few specific examples.

1. We can collect and publicize stories of the gays and lesbians who were killed and injured in the attacks, so we can show Americans that gays are everywhere, working jobs and living their lives along with other victims.

2. We can point to specific cases of same-sex couples one of whose partners was killed in the attacks. We can point out that married partners are allowed automatic inheritance, taxation, and Social Security benefits, while the gay and lesbian partners are not. That may help Americans see that different outcomes from equal devastation is unfair.

3. We must publicize the stories of gays and lesbians who made contributions during and after the attacks. The story of Mark Bingham who may have helped fight terrorists aboard the flight that crashed in Pennsylvania is now well known.

But there are doubtless stories of others who helped - and will help in the future, for there will likely be more attacks: The story of the gay policemen, the gay firefighters, the gays and lesbians who helped rescue people, who fought terrorists or who warned about them.

4. Gays and lesbians who feel moved to join the military could try to enlist at the local recruiting office, taking along a photographer from the mainstream press to publicize their desire to contribute.

If, as expected, the military issues a "stop-loss" order permitting the retention of avowed gays, we need to point out that supposed concerns about "unit cohesion" prove to have no significance at a time of mobilization, when you would think they would be most important for military effectiveness.

5. Gay men are not permitted to donate blood, but lesbians can. Every lesbian group might consider inviting its members to donate blood as a group: lesbian singing groups, lesbian police officers, cancer projects, social clubs, softball and volleyball teams. Take along a photographer from a mainstream newspaper: Remember the aim is to get publicity for helping.

6. Al-Fatiha, the national gay and lesbian Muslim group, has an unprecedented opportunity to recruit new members and promote itself among moderate Muslims by vigorously condemning terrorism and publicizing passages from the Koran and Muslim tradition urging peace, tolerance, and civility.

7. Many bars and businesses in gay enclaves are displaying American flags. We should draw attention to this spontaneous display of patriotism so Americans can see we have the same feelings they do. Next June we could remember to include American flags along with rainbow flags during Gay Pride parades.

8. Finally, this is an unparalleled opportunity for gays and lesbians to step forward and respond to fundamentalist terrorists by explaining and defending the values of personal freedom, individualism and tolerance that are the foundation of our own existence as a people and a community.

By doing this in the public sphere - and this is the whole purpose - we present ourselves to our fellow citizens as paradigmatic Americans to whom they might well be grateful for rising to the defense of American principles they believe deeply but too often inchoately.

Originally published September 21, 2001, on PlanetOut.

WAR CHANGES EVERYTHING. If there are lessons we can learn from history, this is one of them. And, above everything else, war changes the home front. It churns us all up, it scrambles social norms and makes what was once unthinkable possible. So the First World War was the critical moment for the breakthrough of the movement for women's equality, especially in Europe. The Second World War in America was perhaps the most racially integrating event in this country's history - it is no accident that only three years after it ended, racial segregation was abolished in the armed forces. And the Vietnam war also clearly turned this country's social order upside down, before it regained equilibrium.

And so this war could also do something similar. In fact, it already has. This is the first major war in which the open visible presence of gay and lesbian Americans cannot be denied. Already, the military has suspended its discharges of homosexual servicemembers, because in a war, we cannot afford the waste of resources such pointless persecution incurs. Openly gay soldiers will now fight for our freedom in a way never seen before.

Now is not the time to argue for immediate changes in policy. We have a war to win. But it is a time to keep our eyes and ears open and see what these brave gay and lesbian warriors are all about. When and if this ends, we must remember them; and ensure that, when they return, they are not treated with contempt or ingratitude. The ban must not merely be suspended for the duration of this war. It must never be reinstated - and that must be a non-negotiable demand from all of us.

On the homefront, we already have heroes. These are not gay heroes. They are American heroes - who are also gay. That is the promise of this integrative moment. Let us remember Mark Bingham, a 6' 5" burly, ballsy rugby player, one of the men who, in all likelihood, wrestled a plane to the ground in Pennsylvania. He saved this country from what might have been a terrible assault on the capital. His power and courage and physical strength - his masculine virtue - did more than destroy the purpose of evil men. His valor also destroyed a stereotype in the process. Every jock in America needs to know that a brawny gay rugger player helped save this country from a calamity. No argument from anyone could be as eloquent.

Then there is Father Mychal Judge, an openly gay Catholic priest who served the men and women of New York's Fire Department. Revered by a macho subulture, fearless and strong, a man of faith and fervor, Father Mychal died in the flames of the World Trade Center doing what he has always done - tending to his flock in need. He is not a gay hero. He is an American hero who was also gay. And when this is over, let those in the Church who have done so much to create pain and hurt among good gay men and women who love their faith and serve their world, let them take stock and change their hearts. May they see that there is no contradiction between being gay and Catholic; in fact, may the Church hierarchy finally see that such people are now and always have been an integral pillar of faith and hope in the world. Father Mychal was a giant among them. We shall remember him as well.

For of all wars, this is surely one in which gay America can take a proud and central part. The men who have launched a war on this country see the freedom that gay people have here as one of the central reasons for their hatred. In their twisted perversion of Islam, these monsters believe that gay men and women deserve to be tortured and executed in hideous fashion. They murder and muzzle women; they despise and murder Jews; they demonize gays.

We have rightly seen how Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson have destroyed themselves by their hatred in this moment - and we can take solace that America has repudiated their poison. But let us also remember that the men who committed this atrocity make Falwell and Robertson look mild in comparison. They are the Religious Ultra-Right, and they have already murdered us. Given the chance, they would wipe gay people from the face of the earth.

To respond to that threat by cautioning peace or surrender or equivocation is to appease men who would destroy every last vestige of gay America if they could. Gay Americans should not merely support this war as a matter of patriotism and pride; they should support it because the enemy sees us as one of their first targets for destruction. These maniacs despise our freedom; they loathe our diversity; they have contempt for our culture. There is no gray here. There is simply a choice: to cower and run in fear of these monsters or to stand up with every other segment of this country - of every race and creed and gender and sexual orientation - and defeat these messengers of hate in the hope of a brighter, integrated day.

Originally appeared September 19, 2001, in the Chicago Free Press.

THE SEPTEMBER 11 attacks on New York's World Trade Center and the Pentagon in Washington, D.C., constitute, and were clearly intended as, very serious assaults against international capitalism and free trade, U.S. economic influence, U.S. military power and the whole of America as a symbol of whatever it symbolizes to the perpetrators.

And what does the U.S. symbolize to the fundamentalist Muslims who are the chief suspects in the attacks? Secularism, rationalism, humanism, individualism, personal rights, capitalism. In short: modernity - modern society in all its aspects.

Capitalism? Especially capitalism. A friend sent me part of Iran's Tehran Times Sept. 12 story about the attacks which begins: "Yesterday the United States of America woke up to living terror when the landmarks of the capit alist world were rocked by a series of huge explosions."

If we want to better understand conservative Islam and the attitudes of many Arab Muslims toward the modern Western world, we cannot do better than turn to the useful guidebook, Seyyed Hossein Nasr's "Young Muslim's Guide to the Modern World" (Chicago, 1994).

Describing the moral decay of modern Western society which young Muslims must resist and oppose, Nasr explains that the modern world is rooted in a "false view of man and of his society."

That false view includes "individualism, humanism, rationalism, ... rebellion against authority, ... the atomization of the family and the reduction of society to simply the quantitative sum of atomized individuals" - i.e., individualism (p. 245).

And Nasr denounces "Western capitalism and democracy" among the "various ideologies" with which modern society has been indoctrinated (p. 212).

Should anyone have doubts, Nasr regards homosexuality and all proposals for legal and social equality for gay and lesbians as key aspects of this modern, false view of society.

"Moreover, the new styles of living ... demonstrate the disintegration of (Western) society. ... To an even greater extent especially in big cities ... various forms of homosexuality have become more and more prevalent during the last generation" (p. 230-1).

"Even the meaning of the family ... is under severe attack." ... "There are now even those who attempt to break the traditional meaning of marriage as being between the opposite sexes and try to give a new meaning to marriage as being any bond between two human beings even of the same sex as long as they want to live together" (p. 201)

These are not the words of some fanatical Taliban leader in Afghanistan. They are by Prof. Seyyed Hossein Nasr, a University Professor of Islamic Studies at George Washington University.

Just as the conservative Muslim worldview replicates Soviet Communism's hostility to Western individualism, personal autonomy, civil liberties, capitalism, economic freedom, sexual and artistic freedom, so it also finds a parallel in the conservative Christian opposition to secularism, individualism, personal autonomy, civil liberties, gender equality, sexual and artistic freedom.

As evidence, we need only recall Rev. Jerry Falwell's now notorious comments on Pat Robertson's "700 Club" in which he blamed the Sept. 11 attacks in part on feminists, secularists, civil liberties advocates, and homosexuals, saying they helped it happen.

Or, as the Christian fundamentalist Family Research Council said in its own denunciation of individualism and personal autonomy following the attacks, "Americans need that strength that comes from placing God first, others second, and self last. Let there be an end to the idolatry of self."

In short, the group is more important than the individual. And most important of all is making the individual subservient to religious authorities who claim to speak for their gods.

Whatever military response the U.S. government decides to make, it will necessarily be inadequate. What is needed is a new "culture war" - or if "war" is the wrong metaphor, then a new cultural advocacy effort.

Modernity has powerful influence, but it does not explain itself well, does not offer its own articulation and justification. We who approve of Modernity and benefit from it - as gays and lesbians have found liberation in modern individualism - must make a much more persuasive case for the value of Modernity than we have so far.

Modernity with its individualism, capitalism, rationality and undermining of religious dominance has more or less invaded an Arabic Muslim culture which is literally in its 1400s, and no doubt feels strange, foreign, threatening, rather as if the same institutions had suddenly appeared in Europe in the 1400s.

Muslim countries have had no Machiavelli or Hobbes or Spinoza to question religion and its texts, no Locke to defend self-ownership and individual rights, no Adam Smith to explain the value of economic freedom and its necessity for prosperity, no John Stuart Mill to defend free speech and discussion, no Karl Popper or Friedrich Hayek to explain why a free and open society has social value for everyone.

This cultural advocacy necessarily includes assisting Islamic religious figures who find a way to make peace with Modernity, promoting greater economic development so people in the Arab world benefit directly from it rather than from graft or government largess, and seeking ways to generate and sustain an Islamic version of the western Humanist Renaissance and Enlightenment they have never yet had.

Originally appeared Sept. 14, 2001, in San Diego Update and other publications.

WHAT CAN I POSSIBLY SAY about the horror inflicted on our country? Nothing can compare with the terrifying, heartrending firsthand accounts of the September 11 attack and its aftermath. But if you will allow me, I'd like to share a few conjectures on what I see as the larger context, and what that might mean for us as gay people, and as a free people.

Looking into the motivation of the alleged suspects and their backers, this attack wasn't just against the U.S. for our aid to Israel, or for our support of conservative (as opposed to radical fundamentalist) Islamic regimes. No, the attack was even more insidious, more evil, if you will. It was meant as part of an ongoing war against Western civilization, against the Enlightenment and the modern, secularized world it has bequeathed to us, by fundamentalists who despise the U.S. as the epitome of this very modernity. In a wider sense, it is modernism and rationalism and progress and individualism that provoked the attack, launched by those who favor an unthinking adherence to theocratic dogma.

Capitalism, globalization, Hollywood, Coca-Cola - they hate it all. But those aspects of the West's modernism that are particularly despised relate to the development of gender equality, sexual freedom, and gay rights -all of which fall into the catchall category of "Western decadence."

Now, we are so accustomed to hearing about how little our rights as gay people are recognized by our own government that we sometimes take for granted how revolutionary it is, in the history of the world, to have obtained the individual liberty that we enjoy. In most theocratic states, for example, being gay is a crime that is severely punished. Attempts by gay people to have any kind of open association are strictly repressed.

Even in Egypt, one of the less extreme Islamic states, recent news stories have reported on the trial of 52 "suspected homosexuals" accused of sexual immorality and "forming a group that propagated extremist ideas and denigrated Islam." There have been reports that the defendants were tortured. Prosecutor Ashraf Helal reportedly told the court, "Egypt has not and will not be a den for the corruption of manhood, and homosexual groups will not establish themselves here."

The defendants' real crime: taking the first steps to socialize openly as gay men.

Egypt, in relative terms, has been less closed to modern currents than the more theocratic states of the Middle East, but progress often breeds reaction and repression, especially in the absence of a democratic tradition. In the states where Islamic fundamentalists hold complete sway, even tentative attempts to publicly associate as gay men would be beyond consideration (and lesbians are even more invisible in countries where all women are banned from the public sphere and forced into head-to-toe veils).

In Afghanistan, noted a recent New York Times report, "the world's purest Islamic state" is premised on "controlling social behavior." It's a land where "freedom" has bowed to religious totalitarianism."

Of course, Islamic fundamentalists aren't the only ones who hold anti-gay views. Within the West itself, there are those who share the revolt against modernism (albeit without the glorification of mass murder/suicide as the key to paradise). But really, how tame our own Christian fundamentalists appear in contrast to what's happening on other parts of the world. Still, imagine the nightmare scenario of Fred Phelps with an air force.

Both Christian and Islamic fundies pine for a time when people simply believed because Scripture told them to do so, when gender roles were rigidly enforced, sexual expression was strictly contained, and homosexuality severely repressed. But it bares repeating: the usual dose of religious and political homophobia here in the land of the free is nothing in comparison with what the real forces of religious fascism look like. And this week, we've been tragically reminded of how precious, and vulnerable, our lives and liberty are.

Let's hope and pray that Western civilization prevails, and that we have the fortitude to stand up to the barbarians who would vanquish modernity and replace it with a new Dark Age.