IGF CultureWatch

Originally appeared March 18, 2001, in the Los Angeles Times.

RIGHT NOW, there's a teenager somewhere in this country standing in his parents' basement holding a homemade noose. He's already tied it to one of the rafters, and he's working up the courage to hang himself. Somewhere else, maybe a mile away, maybe a thousand miles away, another kid is sitting in a closed garage in the driver's seat of her parents' SUV with the windows down and the engine running. Waiting to die. She, like the boy with the noose, is just one of thousands of American teens who will take their lives this year. Almost a third of them are gay and have been driven to this act of desperation because they think this condemns them to a lonely, miserable life on the fringes of respectable society.

As the Academy Awards approach, it might be nice to pause for a moment and remember those kids because they, like us, are watching the stars, looking to them as role models. They're looking for a signal from idols that will tell them they aren't doomed to be outcasts all their lives. This alone might give them hope enough to stay alive.

For generations, Americans have looked to celluloid celebrities to learn everything from how to fall in love to how to rebel against authority. Naturally, our obsession with the actors we see on-screen spills over into real life, making it almost impossible for Tinseltown's leading ladies and men to have anything resembling a private life. Some celebrities squawk about this, but most of them concede, good-naturedly, that they are in the business of public image-making. In exchange for fabulous wealth, worldwide fame and the public's undying adulation, they've got to put up with the paparazzi following them into the toilet. This seems a fair, if Faustian, bargain.

Given this, it's always seemed laughable that some celebrities - when asked about their sexual orientations and why they aren't explicit about them - say that their sex lives are nobody's business. This is a convenient lie. They know all too well that being a public figure makes everything about them everyone's business. Moreover, they know that their celebrity grants them great power in influencing the public on matters of political import. Hollywood stars often take great pride in being poster people for a good cause, but rarely when it might cost them something personally.

Hollywood has been tormented by homophobia for decades. Everyone knows that Ellen DeGeneres is not the only gay person in Hollywood. But most Americans would be amazed to learn just how many of the stars being held up to them as heterosexual icons are really gay. The fact that they would be amazed is exactly why it's so important that the celebrities concerned publicly acknowledge their sexual orientation. Doing so would shatter the prevailing notions of what a gay person looks like, acts like, sounds like, lives and loves like.

And there are few things that would make a bigger difference in the lives of young gay people, especially those who are driven to despair by the ingrained prejudices of their families and communities. Imagine what it meant when Rock Hudson was outted, and finally boys whose fathers had ridiculed them as sissies could point to this archetype of masculinity and say, he and I are the same.

There are also few things that could do as much to change the public's fears of and distaste for gays, especially now, when activists are pushing so hard for the right to marry, to be open about sexual orientation in the military and to be able to visit their loved ones in the hospital.

Bigotry has power only over perceived outsiders. When the myth of gays as the "other" is eradicated and when gays are seen as part of the mainstream, prejudice against them will of necessity abate.

And so I challenge any and all conscientious stars to take their same-sex lovers, companions, partners or "friends" to the Oscars this year as an act of solidarity.

Will it compromise their box office appeal? Maybe. But wouldn't it be worth it if it saved someone's life? Besides, how rich do you have to be before you'll consider it an acceptable risk to do the right thing and make a powerful statement about something as odious, rampant and downright deadly as homophobia?

C'mon Hollywood, show us you're not just limousine liberals. Do something more than wear a ribbon on your lapel. Stand up and be counted.

JUST WHEN YOU REFLECT on how bad things have been for gays in the United States, something reminds you how much worse it could be. Not long ago, a small town in Mexico barred "dogs and homosexuals" from the local beach. President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe has banned gays from his country's book fairs and publicly calls us "dogs." In some Islamic countries, homosexual acts are still punishable by death. It puts in perspective Congress' failure to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.

Now comes the Oscar-nominated film Before Night Falls to expose the horrific denial of individual rights in Cuba since Fidel Castro seized power 42 years ago. A few stalwart admirers of Castro in the U.S. have demonstrated against the film (which is, if anything, too easy on the dictator). One protestor told a newspaper that, while he hadn't actually seen the movie, he had been informed it contained "lies" about Cuba. The irony is that such unauthorized protest in Cuba itself would have landed him in jail.

Directed by Julian Schnabel, Before Night Falls chronicles the life of the gay Cuban writer Reinaldo Arenas (played superbly by Javier Bardem). Arenas, born into poverty in 1948, initially supported the Cuban revolution with its promises of free education and medical care. His first book even won a prize from Castro's cultural watchdogs.

But the romance of revolution soon died. One of the regime's first acts was to prohibit assemblies of more than three people. The news media quickly came under state control. The government recruited a network of spies in neighborhoods across the country to report dissident activity. Those who dared to criticize the government - even if they were generally sympathetic to communism - were imprisoned. Denounced as "counter-revolutionaries," some were forced to admit guilt for their political "crimes" against the state in show trials worthy of Stalin.

The Castro regime has also been ferociously anti-gay. As early as 1965, the Cuban government began sending homosexuals to prison farms and labor camps where they were brutally mistreated. According to early gay-rights activist Frank Kameny, newspaper accounts of these camps triggered the first pickets in front of the White House by gays, who held up signs asking, "Cuba persecutes gays; Is the U.S. much better?" Repression in Cuba was thus used to shame the U.S. government into treating gays more tolerantly.

Nevertheless, in the 1960s and 1970s Castro had his devotees among American gay civil rights activists allied with the New Left. Some even went annually to Cuba as part of the "Venceremos Brigade" (VB) to help harvest the country's sugar cane crop.

While assistance was welcome, officials openly worried about the inclusion of gay Americans in the VB. A 1972 policy statement described gay Americans as "particularly dangerous at this time because they join a cultural imperialist offensive against the Cuban revolution."

The same policy statement denounced homosexuality within the country as "a social pathology which reflects leftover bourgeois decadence" that "has no place in the formation of the New Man which Cuba is building." In other words, homosexuality was an artifact of capitalism that had to be purged.

Arenas himself felt this turn of the screws. As an associate informed him, the Castro government distrusted artists and writers because they create beauty and totalitarians cannot control beauty. Arenas' work was soon censored by authorities. He was forced to rely on literary admirers to smuggle his manuscripts out of the country for publication. Arenas and his circle of gay intellectual friends were closely watched by informers and frequently harassed by police.

Before long, Arenas was imprisoned on false charges of molesting a child. After managing to escape, he was captured and returned to prison, where he was tortured and placed in solitary confinement.

Such experiences have not been unusual for gay Cubans under Castro's rule. In 1970, an anonymous group of gay Cubans managed to sneak out a letter to gay civil rights activists in the United States. In the letter, they revealed how Cuban authorities persecuted gays through methods ranging from "physical attack to attempts to impose psychic and moral disintegration upon gay people." These facts, the letter noted, were "quite in contradiction with the success stories being told abroad" by some of Castro's left-wing gay apologists.

Of course, life for gays in the U.S. was no picnic in the 1960s and early 1970s. But the deprivations, punishments, and denials of basic liberties in Cuba went far beyond anything experienced here. As the gay Cubans' letter concluded: "If in a consumption society, run by capitalists and oligarchs, like the one you are living in, homosexuals experience suffering and limitations, in our society, labeled Marxist and revolutionary, it is worse."

Arenas tried desperately to escape his nightmarish country, once attempting unsuccessfully to float to Florida on an inner tube. Others have used makeshift rafts and even balloons for the same purpose. Arenas himself finally fled to the United States during the 1980 Mariel boat-lift along with thousands of other "criminals," including many gay Cubans, released by Castro.

So while we bemoan the remaining barriers to full equality in the U.S., we are fortunate to live in a country where the basic guarantees of free speech, free press, assembly, and due process apply even to us. As bad as it might seem sometimes, nobody is jumping on driftwood in the open seas to get out.

Originally appeared Feb. 22, 2001, in Update and other publications.

NO DOUBT ABOUT IT, white rapper Eminem has incited widespread anger among gays and lesbians of an activist bent with his anti-gay, anti-women lyrics. So, why would Elton John, the openly gay superstar and AIDS philanthropist, agree to share a song with him at the upcoming Grammy Awards show, where Eminem is nominated for four awards, including Best Album? And is the rap that the rapper, and his new duet partner, are getting deserved, or just more activist hysteria?

Before trying to answer those questions, let's take a look at the lyrics of the 28-year-old singer, who was born Marshall Bruce Mathers III, to see why the activists are so upset. From "Criminal": My words are like a dagger with a jagged edge/That'll stab you in the head/whether you're a fag or lez/Or the homosex, hermaph or trans-a-vest/Pants or dress - hate fags? The answer's 'yes.'" Another verse goes "Hey, it's me, Versace/Whoops, somebody shot me?" More ambiguously, he sings "C'mon! - Relax guy, I like gay men/Right, Ken? Give me an amen (AAA-men!)"

Then there's the song "Kill You," which goes "You faggots keep eggin' me on/til I have you at knifepoint, then you beg me to stop?/SHUT UP! Give me your hands and feet/I said SHUT UP when I'm talkin' to you/YOU HEAR ME? ANSWER ME!"

On the other hand, some defenders have interpreted support for gay marriage in these lines from "The Real Slim Shady": "But if we can hump dead animals and antelopes/then there's no reason that a man and another man can't elope." But I think that's a stretch.

So much for a quick sample of Eminem's wit. As noted, he has incurred the wrath of enraged activists. The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), along with the National Organization of Women (NOW) and a host of other acronym groups, will be protesting outside the Grammys over Eminem's nominations. Well and good - America's all about freedom of expression. But it's disconcerting to see the direction that some of the anti-Eminem activism is taking. As reported in Rolling Stone, the student union at Sheffield University in England has banned the rapper's records, claiming that they violate the school's anti-homophobia regulations. Eminem t-shirts also have been forbidden, as has reviewing his work in the school's student newspapers.

So, the students can't even pan Eminem's music; instead, they mustn't mention it at all!

Predictably, Elton John, despite his pro-gay advocacy and AIDS-relief work, is now being labeled a traitor. "By agreeing to appear on stage as back-up singer to Eminem at the Grammys, you are spitting on the grave of Matthew Shepard," writes lesbian activist Robin Tyler, who, fresh from the Stop Dr. Laura campaign, is now spearheading the Anti-Eminem Coalition. She writes, "Eminem's speech is not 'free' to those of us and/or our families who have been brutalized, beaten, murdered, and raped." She ends her "open letter" with a threat: "If you do this, despite your prior advocacy, activism and philanthropy, we will consider you a collaborator in our war against injustice. ... Your choice is clear: Resign from your commitment to appear with Eminem at the Grammys, or go down in history as a gay Uncle Tom who foolishly allowed himself to be used as a tool against 'his own' people."

GLAAD also turned on Elton. Last year, the media group gave him their Vito Russo Award (named after the noted gay film critic and GLAAD co-founder). Now, GLAAD's director, Joan Garry, says Russo would be "appalled that John would share a stage with Eminem, whose words and actions promote hate and violence against gays and lesbians."

And what does Elton say? That he is "offering an olive branch" by asking for the duet. He also admits, "I know I'm going to get a lot of flak from various people. ... I'd rather tear down walls...than build them up. If I thought for one minute that he was a hateful bastard, I wouldn't do it."

Which brings us back to Eminem himself. Aside from his lyrics, the singer hasn't engaged in any anti-gay crusade. Some of his defenders say he's playing the role of the thug to shed light on the deranged. That's probably too charitable. But as Holly Bemiss, manager of A Different Light Bookstore in the Castro, told the San Francisco Chronicle, "If Eminem was really homophobic, would he really agree to perform with Elton?"

In an article titled "Bum Rap" that appeared in Reason magazine, Brian Doherty writes that "More than his detractors recognize, Eminem is openly torn between conflicting desires to say whatever he wants, especially if he knows it will upset all the right people, and to do the right thing and live a normal life." He adds that the singer repeatedly "recognizes his own persona's sickness," and that "Eminem presents such a grotesquely self-hating and negative image of himself that it's almost too obvious a joke when he mocks the idea that anyone would want to emulate him."

Frankly, I can't see into Eminem's soul. But to me, his lyrics are obviously cruel and dehumanizing towards gays and others, and raising a howl seems perfectly appropriate. At the same time, the righteous activists have - quel surprise - gone into such hyperbolic overdrive that it makes me want to defend Eminem's right to express himself despite the phalanx of would-be censors.

As for Elton John, if he believes that reaching out with love, rather than countering hate with hate, might be a productive effort, then he does not deserve the vilification of those who purport to speak on behalf of the entire gay and lesbian community. Didn't someone once say that to love your enemy and turn the other cheek could change the world? Guess he was just another "traitor" to the cause of zealotry, too.

Originally published February 9, 2001, in the Fredericksburg (Va.) Free Lance-Star under the title "Crimes Against Nature law allows Virginia police to target gays."

WHEN REPUBLICANS DISCUSS the proper role of government, most agree that it should be low-cost, limited in scope, and nonintrusive in the lives of citizens.

Rank-and-file Republican voters, for the most part, stand by the words of the late U.S. Sen. Barry Goldwater:

"I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed in their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden.

"I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is 'needed' before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents' 'interests,' I shall reply that I was informed their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can."

Do Virginia's Republicans live up to this Goldwaterite ideal? Not always, but the impulse remains. Evidence for this is found in a recent poll from an unlikely source on an unlikely topic.

On Jan. 16 and 18, Rasmussen Research, an independent polling organization, conducted a statewide survey to determine knowledge and attitudes about Virginia's Crimes Against Nature statute. This statute forbids certain intimate sexual activity, even in private and even for married couples. To be blunt, the law prohibits oral sex for any Virginian, whether they are gay or straight, married or single.

The law is enforced selectively. It is used to target gay men in public places who discuss having sex. It is used as a fallback when prosecutors cannot prove that a sexual assault has taken place, so the alleged perpetrator is accused and convicted of consensual sodomy instead.

And it is used as a pretext to deny child custody to gay or lesbian parents-for example, in the case of Richmonder Sharon Bottoms, which achieved nationwide infamy when the government forcibly took her son, Tyler, from her because she is a lesbian.

The Rasmussen Research poll found that, across the board, Virginians want the CAN law repealed. Large majorities in almost every conceivable category say they want to see the law eliminated, that they want their legislators to vote for repeal, and that legislators who support repeal will not be adversely affected at the ballot box.

This is true for Democrats, Republicans, and independents; it is true for men and women; it is true for whites and African?Americans.

In this random survey, Republicans showed clear consistency in their view that government should stay out of the private lives of citizens.

Asked "Should it be against the law for an unmarried man and an unmarried woman to have sex in the state of Virginia?" 67.4 percent of Republicans answered "no," compared to 71.1 percent overall.

Asked "Should it be against the law for a married couple to have oral sex in the privacy of their own home?" 78.9 percent of Republicans answered "no" (81.7 percent overall).

Asked "Currently, according to Virginia law, it is illegal for consenting adults to have oral sex in the state of Virginia; a proposal has been made to eliminate the Virginia law; should the Virginia law be eliminated?" 61.4 percent of Republicans answered "yes" (65.2 percent overall).

Now, some members of the General Assembly say privately that they would support the repeal of the CAN law, but that they would have hell to pay on Election Day if they did. This is simply not true.

Survey participants were asked:

"Suppose your representative in the House of Delegates or the State Senate voted to eliminate the Virginia law. Would that make you more likely to vote for that person, less likely to vote for them, or would it have no impact on your vote?" Overall, 82.9 percent of Virginians said that they would either be more likely to vote for that representative, or it would have no impact on their vote; 83.5 percent of Republicans answered the same way, as did 77.5 percent of Democrats.

In other words, state legislators who vote to repeal the Crimes Against Nature law will have little or nothing to worry about in their re-election bids. The fear they cite is a red herring.

Republicans are part of a broad "leave us alone" coalition that wants the government to stop breathing down our necks. As speaker of the House of Delegates Vance Wilkins told The Washington Post, "It's simply a matter of individual liberty versus not having the government be a nanny." We don't trust the government to run our businesses, and we certainly don't trust it to run our sex lives.

The spirit of Barry Goldwater lives on in Virginia.

ONE OF THE ENDURING HOPES of my life is to find an issue about which the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force is right. But life, being a vale of tears, has confounded me. So it is that NGLTF has reacted to President Bush's proposals on education with error not matched since the group declared its solemn opposition to the Gulf War ten years ago.

Bush's education reform package includes two features designed to give parents greater choice about whether to send their children to private schools rather than to failing, violence-ridden public schools. One part of the package would give families vouchers in the form of coupons or checks to pay for attendance at private schools or better public schools. Similar vouchers are now available to 25,000 students in local school districts around the country, including in heavily Democratic cities like Cleveland and Milwaukee.

The other part of the reform package would allow parents to deduct up to $5,000 of their annual income to pay the educational expenses of each of their children attending private elementary or secondary schools. Some combination of tax deductions and/or tax credits for private schooling is now available in four states, including liberal-leaning Minnesota.

The basic idea behind these school-choice measures is simple. First, parents concerned about the quality of their children's education should have a meaningful opportunity to send their kids elsewhere. Second, because more parents will have more choice, schools will have to compete for students and for the dollars those students bring. Competition, the theory goes, brings excellence.

The jury is out on whether the theory meets the reality, in part because there have been so few school-choice experiments and in part because they have been on such a small scale. One concern is that vouchers and tax credits will have the effect of draining money and the best students away from the poorest school districts, making them even worse than they are now.

A second concern is that such experiments violate the principle of separation of church and state. Many parents, after all, will undoubtedly choose to send their children to private religious schools.

While the first concern about potentially harmful effects on public schools might be valid, I confess I am mystified by the second. How can it violate the Constitution to let parents use their own money to send their own children to schools of their own choice? We might as well say it offends the Constitution to let people drive to Sunday worship service on public roads or with government-subsidized ethanol in their fuel tanks.

Least compelling of all are the concerns about school choice expressed in a recent press release from NGLTF. "Funneling public tax dollars to private schools," the press release begins, "poses risks to gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender students and teachers as well as the children of GLBT parents." Bush's program, it hyperventilates, "threatens the safety" of gay students and gay parents and endangers the "job security" of gay teachers.

NGLTF Executive Director Elizabeth Toledo points out that vouchers will often be used to send children to religious schools that are free to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. In most states, gay students can be banned altogether from private schools and gay teachers can be fired. Toledo adds that "public schools are accountable to the public, to parents, to elected school boards and ultimately to the U.S. Constitution," whereas private schools are not.

Just where has all of this public accountability gotten us? It's true that private schools, including sectarian ones, might not be ideal for gay students, teachers, and parents. But, one always has to ask, compared to what?

Public schools in this country have not exactly been havens of tolerance and understanding for gay folks. Most public schools, even in some of the nation's largest cities, like Houston, do not forbid discrimination against gay students or openly gay teachers. Vicious taunting and teasing of kids thought to be gay are typical in public schools. Worse than that, gay kids are often pushed, hit, and spat upon. Many school districts and administrators are immune (or nearly immune) from lawsuits when they ignore anti-gay abuse, which, of course, they commonly do. A religious school that teaches the sanctity of traditional marriage but that at least guarantees the physical safety of a gay child is surely preferable to a public school where he is beaten on the way to the school library to peruse "Heather Has Two Mommies."

Private schools are accountable to a force that can be far more pervasive and powerful than government in a free society: the marketplace. Gay parents are free to withdraw their children from schools that aren't sufficiently tolerant. Parents of children being taunted or beaten for suspected homosexuality can take their money elsewhere. Schools will have to compete for the best teachers by giving them better salaries, regardless of sexual orientation. The market for private education will respond to these preferences by providing venues more hospitable to gay concerns.

It's no accident that private business has been far ahead of national, state, and local governments in barring discrimination against gays and in offering health and other benefits to gay couples. The market doesn't care much about sectarian morality. It cares about money, and money knows no sexual orientation. There's every reason to believe that a freer market for education, as Bush proposes, would provide a happier and safer environment for us all.

Originally published February 2001 in The Weekly News (Miami) and other publications.

IT'S FASCINATING TO WATCH actual, real, ideological "diversity" finally emerge within the lesbigay community. The latest outbreak: dueling press releases over President Bush's education bill, which includes a modest "school choice" proposal that might provide parents whose children attend the worst public schools with scholarships for private or parochial schools. The Log Cabin Republicans, representing gays and lesbians within the GOP, praised the idea as good for gay youth, while the left-leaning National Gay & Lesbian Task Force condemned it as "dangerously anti-gay."

Let's begin with the Republicans: "The children of gay and lesbian parents, and gay and lesbian students in schools, are routinely subject to targeted violence and harassment," stated the Log Cabin release, "and too often school administrations do little or nothing to counter it." It noted that one such case in Wisconsin led a federal court to find a public school district liable for its repeated refusal to protect a gay student from violent anti-gay attacks and harassment over several years.

"Education reforms which empower parents with the right and means to move their children out of such schools will mean real progress for our families," the Log Cabiners continued, which is why "LCR supports school choice and education reform, and will work with President Bush and the Republican Congress to maximize parental choice to combat harassment and violence in America's schools."

Now, here's what NGLTF had to say about the same proposal: "Funneling public tax dollars to private schools in the form of school vouchers poses risks to gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (GLBT) students and teachers as well as the children of GLBT parents," said their release. "Will the curriculum be based on tolerance and inclusion?" they ask. "Will the libraries in religious voucher schools include books that reflect the reality of GLBT people?" Concludes NGLTF, "We are adamantly opposed to school vouchers because strengthening our public schools requires a commitment, and vouchers are an abrogation of that commitment."

To be fair, there are rational arguments to be made on both sides of this question. But I'd note that the Bush plan only extends to parents whose children are trapped in failing public schools that, despite repeated warnings and special funding, are still not able to do a minimal job of educating students. To compare such dysfunctional institutions unfavorably with private or parochial schools that might not offer pro-gay books in their libraries is weak. If kids can't read, pro-gay literature isn't going to help them a whole lot.

I'd also dispute that the typical public school is particularly gay inclusive, outside the most liberal burgs. And I'd wager that even if some private schools aren't particularly "pro-gay," as NGLTF would define that term, they are generally a safer environment. Here's what I mean: The Los Angeles Times noted not too long ago that teachers and administrators ignored "pervasive anti-gay abuse" in the halls of a suburban high school in the Morgan Hill Unified School District, south of San Jose, where "the words 'faggot' and 'dyke' were uttered about as often as 'hello' and 'goodbye'." Slurs were hissed at one out lesbian student in class, and "scribbled on her locker and on pornographic death threats, including a picture of a bound and gagged women with a slit throat."

I wonder if the GLBT anti-school-choice activists are glad that this student was kept trapped in the public school system.

Following Matthew Shepard's murder, a CBS poll found that nearly half of 11th graders said gay and lesbian students were abused verbally and otherwise at their public schools. At the same time, a CNN story reported that public school officials, rather than being gay supportive, used "community values" to defend their inaction. "You have to...not be so sensitive and so open that you are promoting something that certain portions of your parent population and students would be opposed to," said Paul Houston, a spokesman for the American Association of High School Administrators.

Alternatively, allowing for choice could support educational options for students - including escape to private schools that really do have gay-supportive curriculums or that allow students to organize gay-straight alliances. It could even mean that more public school districts would be willing to experiment with alternatives along the lines of New York City's Harvey Milk school, which takes openly gay, lesbian, and transgendered students who've dropped out - or fled - their local schools.

That's not a perfect solution, since some kids come from homophobic homes, or from homes where parents just don't care at all. But competition is the engine of innovation and improvement. In the long run, applying market competition to force government-funded and operated public schools to compete would provide an economic incentive to curb the worst aspects of high school hell faced by all students, gay and straight, trapped in schools that just don't give a damn.

As Log Cabin noted, a few public high school students have won lawsuits charging that their schools failed to protect them from anti-gay attacks, but that hasn't stopped other public school districts from imposing what they call "prohibition of alternative lifestyle instruction" or forbidding gay and lesbian student groups from meeting. Maybe, just maybe, private school vouchers could provide gay youth in need with a remedy, instead of being the threat that some activists fear. And wouldn't that be a better choice?

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

One of the recurring concerns for those of us who want to promote liberty and equality for gays is the well-attested fact of popular ignorance about politics, public policy and political issues.

Writing in a special issue of Critical Review devoted to "Public Ignorance" (Fall, 1998), editor Jeffrey Friedman pointed out:

"That the public is overwhelmingly ignorant when it comes to politics ... is a discovery that has been replicated unfailingly by political scientists; indeed, it is one of the strongest findings that have been produced by any social science - possibly the strongest."

Most people do not follow public policy debates, do not know politicians' positions on issues and misstate them when asked. For instance, the vast majority of Americans had never heard of the 1994 "Contract with America" that supposedly won Congress for the Republicans.

Rather, Friedman says, "Most people's political opinions are based not on attention to high-flown political debate, but instead on extremely ill-informed judgments about 'the nature of the times' (prosperity? peace?) and about the interests of the group with which they identify."

If so, then most people are similarly unaware of the reasons we offer to insisting that we be treated as citizens with equal rights and dignity.

But what does it mean for us if, despite our best efforts, the general public does not hear or does not pay attention to our arguments, our concerns and our legitimate claims?

This is particularly troubling for those of us who follow public discussion and try to contribute to it by formulating thoughtful arguments in favor of gay equality.

There is no easy reply, but here are three considerations.

One is that writing and making our arguments may have some effect on the "intellectuals," the few people who do take arguments seriously and have some sense of when an argument is reasonable and when it is not.

It certainly seems that after 40 years of developing and repeating gay-affirming arguments, we have largely convinced most serious intellectuals of the legitimacy of our claims to equality,

Even if most of the public do not follow the details of public issues from year to year, there is some reason to think that over time, as the intellectuals go about their work, there is some "trickle down" effect from their generally supportive attitudes.

No doubt, our ideas do not get transmitted except in the coarsest form - gays feel aggrieved, gays are treated unequally, gays are not going to change - but a generally more positive attitude toward gays does get transmitted: Gays are not so bad, there are lots of gays, gays are not going to change. That in itself is a gain.

A second possibility is that by taking every possible opportunity to present our views, no matter what we say, we at least make ourselves visible to more people. That helps people get used to us and helps counter hostility based on fear and ignorance.

Many years ago, a lesbian and I used to give talks to college classes for a gay student group. We would do a 50 minutes routine full of fascinating facts about the gay community, rigorous arguments for gay normality and insightful analyses of homophobia. We did more than 100 of these.

One time after a class ended, an athletic looking young man came up and announced, "I have a question." "Sure," I said, bracing myself for hostile assumptions. "You look like you work out," he said. "How much can you bench?"

I am convinced now that little we said had any effect. What did have an effect was that we were real, live gay people. The students were not listening to what we said; they were watching us to see what sort of people we were, whether we were likable, whether they could relate to us. The young man had found a way.

Marshall McLuhan became famous for his slogan "The Medium is the Message." I would say instead that often "The Messenger is the Message." But we would never have been invited to classes if we had not had interesting, cogent, intellectually solid ideas to present.

A third reason for trying to offer arguments in the face of thoroughgoing "public ignorance," at least for those of us in the gay press, is that we hope to give readers the information and tools to become more effective advocates for themselves.

One of our goals is to give readers some sense of the value of their lives and the moral legitimacy of their political and social claims to help them resist the solar wind of deprecation that blows unceasingly against most gays and lesbians.

This task includes setting out the rationale for our various ethical, political and social claims as well as examining and explaining the flaws in the various anti-gay views readers are likely to encounter in their lives.

The person who reads these analyses may not remember them in detail, but may at least remember whether the argument seemed convincing at the time and it may help him avoid being hurt or inhibited by anti-gay hostility.

These may be modest results for the use of reason in public discussion, but perhaps they are not without value.

Originally published January 3, 2001, in the Chicago Free Press.

Many gays fear that with the accession of a Republican administration chances for passing hate-crimes and anti-discrimination laws are greatly decreased.

That would not be much of a loss. And instead of spinning our wheels trying to work for them fruitlessly, we would be wiser to begin working for policy changes that would have far more benefit for us: Specifically, gay marriage and military access. (And, of course, sodomy law repeal in states where sodomy laws are still in force.)

Hate crimes laws, after all, do not benefit most of us. Few gay men and even fewer lesbians are ever victims of hate crimes. Nor is there any reliable evidence that hate crimes laws, where they exist, have any deterrent effect on would-be perpetrators.

Nor do non-discrimination laws do much good. Few of us are ever likely to experience overt job discrimination. In our current tight labor market, discrimination against gays is melting faster than the Wicked Witch of the West.

Jurisdictions that have non-discrimination laws find that few claims of discrimination are brought to their attention. To the contrary, almost every week, more companies announce that they will offer domestic partner benefits to attract and retain gay employees.

So hate crimes laws have almost no real impact and non-discrimination laws are a solution to a rapidly disappearing problem.

Continuing advocacy of those laws shows only how locked in gay advocacy groups are to an outmoded "civil rights" model of activism. They are fighting battles that were live issues 20 years ago, but not in 2001.

The right to marry, on the other hand, would constitute a real gain for every gay man and lesbian, all 20 million of us or however many there are.

Gay marriage would provide gay couples with all those social security, tax, inheritance, adoption, and scores of other advantages that heterosexual married couples take for granted.

And gay marriage would be an acknowledgment that gay relationships have the same significance, dignity, and depth of emotional commitment for the people involved that we assume is true for married heterosexuals. In other words, we and our relationships are equally important to society.

The most demeaning religious right argument against gay marriage is that gay and lesbian couples are nothing more than "friends who have sex." Most married heterosexuals would be deeply offended if they were described as "friends who have sex."

Even feminist lesbians who reject the idea of marriage would gain from the legalization of gay marriage because not marrying would then become a moral choice, a statement of their values, rather than an involuntary status forced on them by society.

The other major goal, the right to serve in the military, would also be an immediate benefit to many thousands of gays and lesbians, and in indirect benefit to all the rest of us.

The military is the nation's largest employer, offering job training and job security to its members.

For many young gays who want to or are forced to leave home when they come out, the military would provide a refuge, a social structure and surrogate family much as it currently does for young heterosexuals who want to escape a stultifying home life or community.

Then too, odd as it may seem to the religious right, many young gays and lesbians are sincerely patriotic and might welcome the opportunity to serve their country.

Even gays and lesbians who do not join the military gain in dignity by being deemed capable of contributing usefully to our vital institutions and our national defense.

Some advocates of hate crimes and non-discrimination laws admit that they have little real impact. But they argue that they have important symbolic value. They send the message that gays should be treated decently and with respect.

But the "message" they actually send is ambiguous. The message, however unintentional, is also that gays are weak, likely to be victimized and need help to achieve equality.

And the idea that gays and lesbians need protective legislation is, after all, uncomfortably close to the idea that gays need "special rights."

We can always point out that those laws refer neutrally to "sexual orientation" so they cover heterosexuals too. But we all know the intent is to protect gays.

(No one seriously thinks heterosexuals are likely to be beaten up by rampaging gay gangs, or that most gay employers are likely to fire a person discovered to be heterosexual.)

By contrast, gay marriage and military access, besides having substantial benefits for many gays, would constitute a much more potent and unambiguous symbol that our lives, our relationships, and our ability to contribute to the common good are fully equal to those of heterosexuals.

They send the message, if messages are to be sent, that gays only want the government to treat them equally, to stop putting "special impediments" in their way. Gays only want to be included as equal participants in the civic life of the nation.

Call this the "civic inclusion" model of gay advocacy to distinguish it from the "civil rights" model: Given an equal starting point, gays and lesbians can prove themselves without any specific protections.

Originally appeared December 28, 2000, in Update (San Diego) and other gay publications.

A few weeks before the election, I found myself at a congressional candidates forum in Arlington, Virginia, just across the river from the nation's capital. The event was sponsored by the local Arlington Gay & Lesbian Alliance, a nonpartisan group, and the main draw was Democratic Rep. Jim Moran, who subsequently coasted to an easy victory on Nov. 7th.

Moran spoke of his support for the rights of gays and lesbians to have legally recognized unions, which everyone in the audience agreed, it goes without saying, would be a grand thing. But then someone (no, not me) asked a rather pointed question. Since it is highly unlikely (in the extreme) that the Virginia legislature will approve recognition of gay partnerships, let alone marriage-equivalent civil unions, in the foreseeable future, wouldn't some of the policies supported by Moran's Log Cabin-backed GOP opponent actually be of a more immediate benefit to gay couples? These policies, the questioner pointed out, included repeal of the estate inheritance tax, gift tax reform, and establishing private Social Security accounts.

Good points, these, but not ones that many gays and lesbians spend a lot of time pondering. But maybe we should. One of the great benefits of marriage is the exemption from federal (and state) taxes on money and property left to a surviving spouse after death, and the exemption from taxes on gifts transferred between spouses at any time. Gay and lesbian partners get left out in the cold.

Clearly, same-sex couples would disproportionately benefit from abolition of the so-called "death tax," as well as raising or abolishing the tax on gifts of over $10,000. These are generally regarded as "Republican" initiatives, opposed by liberals who dismiss them as "benefiting the rich" and decreasing government revenues that could otherwise be spent by the state. That's why President Clinton twice vetoed bills that would have ended the "death tax."

Similarly, private, individual Social Security accounts would also be a major boon to same-sex couples. As the program is currently set up, a surviving husband or wife inherits his or her spouse's Social Security benefits. But gay people, regardless of how long they've been together, or how intertwined their finances, are not legally married, and so we can't pass along our retirement benefits. And if you lack a spouse (or child), your Social Security savings go right back to Uncle Sam.

But if we were allowed to invest at least a part of our Social Security taxes in our own private retirement accounts, we could bequeath them to anyone we choose (although the recipient would still have to pay the inheritance tax on larger estates, unless it's eliminated, which takes us back to point number one, above).

Now, there are, in fact, some convoluted ways that a few of these penalties can be minimized - setting up trusts and the like. But practically speaking, this isn't something that most lesbian or gay couples are going to do - it's too complex, and you still wind up without the sweeping financial benefits of marriage.

Wanted: Fresh Thinking

Many conservatives support estate and gift tax reform, as well as private Social Security accounts, because the current law often forces many estates - including small businesses and family farms - to be sold off in order to pay taxes, rather than passed on to the next generation. But need we oppose every initiative because it may enjoy conservative or "pro-family" support? Maybe it's time for some fresh thinking that challenges the "liberal alliance" view that permeates so much of gay politics. Such an argument was recently made by the Log Cabin Republicans. On the LCR's website, a post-election news release states: "We must build a truly bipartisan movement, and...reach out to a much wider spectrum of Republicans and Democrats in Congress, and build a broader consensus on issues and policies than ever attempted before. To be successful requires compromise and new approaches from all of us, opening our minds to new ideas and concepts perhaps never before considered."

Unfortunately, fresh thinking doesn't seem to be in abundant supply within the gay movement. Consider this: the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force recently published what it called "the first comprehensive report to address public policy issues facing millions of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (GLBT) seniors in the United States."

According to Elizabeth Toledo, NGLTF's executive director, "For too many years the needs of the oldest members of our community have been invisible to many of us and ignored by most institutions in our society." She goes on to claim that the report, titled "Outing Age," would serve to "shine a laser beam on these needs and offer concrete recommendations on how aging activists, policy makers and social service agencies can meet them."

While the report finds that "GLBT elders may be more likely to face poverty and economic insecurity," and even points out that "several federal programs that aim to service seniors blatantly exclude or otherwise discriminate against GLBT elders," including Social Security, it remains silent about practical solutions, such as estate tax repeal and private Social Security accounts. Instead, NGLTF comes up with generalized goals, which include "raising consciousness within the GLBT community" about ageism, and "forming partnerships with mainstream advocacy groups," such as AARP - a lobby that would rather defend the status quo as it exists for today's elderly, rather than confront the needs of tomorrow's. This is hardly a resounding agenda for so important a problem.

How about a gay political movement that tells conservatives they'll have our support for repeal of the "death tax" and for private Social Security accounts, in return for support on some of OUR civil rights issues? Now there's an original idea on building alliances that just might produce tangible benefits in the here and now.

Originally appeared December 15, 2000, in The Weekly News (Miami).

The premiere of "Queer as Folk", the sexually frank, gay-themed miniseries on Showtime, generated a flood of media attention, from Entertainment Weekly to the New York Times. The story of a group of young gay men (and one lesbian couple) clubbing and loving in Pittsburgh (yes, Pittsburgh!) is a test of Showtime's advertising slogan, "No Limits." Actual naked bods are seen only fleetingly, but the action taking place under the covers - and elsewhere - is clear and unambiguous: these men have SEX. And the fact that one of the storylines concerns a relationship between a 29-year-old professional and a 17-year-old high school student brings a new candor to television's treatment of gay youth.

"Queer as Folk" isn't the story of all of our lives - every gay person isn't an late-night clubber and one-night stander - but it is the story of some of our lives, and that story has rarely been shown on television.

What's truly fascinating, however, is the lack of effective protest from the organized, anti-gay right. Sure, the old reliable Family Research Council has a posting on its website denouncing the show. It makes for fun reading: "As parents, would you invite gay men into your home to engage in sex acts in front of children?" asks FRC's Janet Parshall, who, by the way, hadn't actually bothered to watch the show. She nevertheless continues, "In the show's preview, men were said to have kissed, fondled, and engaged in various sex acts," oh my!

Ms. Parshall goes on to lament, "Because cable TV depends on subscribers for income, they aren't subject to the same rules as the networks. Americans who pay for extra channels are excusing them from accountability. Meanwhile, on December 3rd, when pornography knocks at the door, will your kids be home?" Ding, dong, pornography calling.

But seriously, Ms. Parshall, any kids who watch Showtime at 10 p.m. on a school night already have had a thorough sexual education, at least as far as copious female nudity is concerned.

There's also a more revealing point in the FRC diatribe. The cable revolution, the Internet, and new media in general have radically limited the power of would-be censors on both the left and the right, and that's all to the good.

Consider the fate of earlier attempts at barrier-breaking portraits of how gay people actually live. Back in 1989, ABC tried to bring a dose of honesty - and a hint of sexuality - to its drama series "thirtysomething." That show introduced a relationship between two gay characters and, while no actual displays of physical affection were shown, the couple was featured in bed together, talking.

Whoa: That was just too much for the religious right, which got wind of the storyline and targeted the show's advertisers. ABC announced that advertiser pullouts resulted in a loss of about $1.5 million in revenues when several sponsor withdrew their spots from the "controversial" episode. The gay characters disappeared and the episode was never re-run. Similar advertiser pullouts occurred when other shows and TV movies tried to deal frankly with gay lives, and a chill descended over gay representations on TV.

So much for the commercial networks, but public television didn't fare much better, and proved, if anything, more susceptible to the censors. In 1994, when PBS aired a series based on Armistead Maupin's "Tales of the City," the uproar was fast and furious. Although the series garnered critical praise and high ratings, the organized protests cowed ABC into dropping plans to finance and air the sequel, "More Tales of the City," which had been in development.

In a later interview with the New York Times, Maupin lamented that "by running scared, PBS not only yielded to the pressure of a relatively small number of people but also ended up proving a frequent criticism of public television: that government financing could lead to government control." But then, shouldn't that have been obvious?

It wasn't until 1998 that "More Tales" was seen - on Showtime, which had picked up the project abandoned by PBS. The new tales were even more sexually explicit than the original series had been, but because the show was on a subscription-based cable network rather than PBS, there was almost no political debate about it.

Responding to the cable challenge, and the increased acceptance of gays in society, commercial TV inched its way back to gay content, and eventually we had Ellen's famous same-sex kiss. But the broadcast networks still tend to make gays secondary characters. And even when we are the focus of attention, we're usually sexless, or ridiculous. Can you say "Will & Grace"?

Writing recently in the New York Times, critic Caryn James praises "Queer as Folk" for breaking new ground, "not in what it shows but in the point of view it adopts." She adds that this is a show that doesn't cater to straight sensibilities, or spoon-feed gay experiences through the eyes of a heterosexual (as even "Tales" and "More Tales" tended to do, via protagonist Mary Ann Singleton).

But with cable, you don't have to be all things to all people. Showtime promoted "Queer as Folk" particularly heavily in predominantly gay areas, and CNN reported that cable operators in San Francisco and Los Angeles ended up with jammed phone lines from callers who wanted Showtime so they could catch the first episode. That promotion paid off: the premiere scored Showtime's best ratings in three years.

As cable channels proliferate in the brave new world of digital and broadband, the power of the censors will continue to diminish. It won't all be high quality, and much of it may be sensational and even exploitive. But one thing is certain - the age in which self-appointed cultural commissars could censor gay characters is over. And since political change in America follows cultural change, that's good news for all us folk.