IGF CultureWatch

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.

First published Nov. 22, 2000, in the Chicago Free Press.

SLOWLY, VERY SLOWLY, the pressure is building to overturn the military's "don't ask, don't tell" (DADT) policy.

"I think it's going to end."

That is Charles Moskos talking. Moskos, a professor of military sociology at Northwestern University, is generally regarded as the principal author and staunchest proponent of DADT.

Moskos told the magazine "Lingua Franca" he thinks the policy will be gone in five or ten years.

It would be easy to cite several reasons for its demise, from the increasing acceptance of gays and lesbians in civil society to the growing importance of the gay vote to both political parties.

But just as important, the arguments supporting the policy are unraveling and there is increasing awareness that its rationale is built on sand.

The reason most often cited for barring gays is "unit cohesion," the idea that the presence of openly gay or lesbian personnel would harm a unit's ability to work effectively.

But an excellent article in the October issue of "Lingua Franca" summarizes the evidence for and against the "unit cohesion" argument-and leaves the rationale in tatters.

Briefly put, the evidence shows that:

• Cohesion is a result or by-product of working together, not a pre-condition for doing so;
• Successful performance is due to agreement on the importance of the task, not social closeness or group pride;
• There is no evidence that more cohesive military units perform better in combat situations.

Surprisingly, Moskos himself seems to dismiss the "unit cohesion" argument as unimportant.

"Fuck unit cohesion. I don't care about that," he told "Lingua Franca."

Moskos' own argument is that gays and lesbians should be barred because of "modesty rights for straights." That is, people (heterosexuals) have the right not to be looked at as objects of sexual desire.

"I should not be forced to shower with a woman. I should not be forced to shower with a gay [man]," Moskos says.

During the 1993 controversy over DADT, Sen. Sam Nunn, D-Ga., appealed to the same idea in his famous televised visit to a submarine, showing the close quarters the crew lived and worked in.

But Moskos' argument seems very "Old World," prudish, and distant from the realities of recent decades.

Even if we accepted Moskos' parallel between male-female and gay-heterosexual situations:

Nowadays people of both sexes seem comfortable looking at each other's bodies and having their own bodies assessed, comfortable even being viewed as possible objects of sexual desire. They seem to welcome it.

This is an era of bikini swimsuits, Lycra sportswear, revealing underwear and lingerie ads in mainstream newspapers. Men and women both work out a health clubs with little purpose other than to look appealing, as if to say, "Hey, look at me."

But Moskos' parallel itself breaks down at crucial points.

One argument against including women fully in the military has been the fear that the mutual attraction of men and women would create problems of improper fraternization and sexual intimacy. In short, men and women might too much welcome being viewed with sexual desire rather than being offended or upset by it.

But now exactly the opposite argument is being promoted to keep gays and lesbians out: The concern that heterosexuals would not want to be viewed with desire, i.e., the desire would not be mutual. This seems inconsistent.

Another reason Moskos' parallel does not work is that in our society, as in most societies, women are much more encouraged to feel modest about their bodies than men are. Men are hardly encouraged to feel modesty at all.

On the contrary, men are generally expected to feel pride in their body and its attributes, and to welcome, even expect, being viewed with sexual desire as a validation of their attractiveness and manhood, whether they feel desire in return or not.

Thus, for instance, gay men are typically comfortable, even pleased, if a heterosexual woman finds them sexually attractive, even if they do not think of her sexually at all. So the "modesty" argument seems implausible.

Further, if the "modesty" argument had merit, women, as the more modest sex, should oppose the presence of lesbians, who might view them with desire, more than heterosexual men should oppose the presence of gay men.

But just the opposite is true. A small survey of army personnel conducted by Moskos himself in 1998 found that more than half of military women (52 percent) supported letting open gays and lesbians service. Fewer than one-fourth of the women (22 percent) actually opposed gays and lesbians serving.

So the modesty argument breaks down at the one point where it can be tested empirically.

In fact, of course, there has long been a disproportionate presence of lesbians in the military. Objections to them seldom come from heterosexual women who fear being viewed as sexually desirable. Instead the objections come from heterosexual males distressed that the lesbians do not regard them as sexually desirable.

But if gays are a threat neither to unit cohesion nor modesty, there is no rationale remaining for the gay ban except sheer homophobia. And prejudice is not a reason.

Originally published Nov. 15, 2000, in the Chicago Free Press.

REGARDLESS OF THE RESULTS of any particular election gays and lesbians seem to make ongoing progress toward legal and social equality.

The reason is simple: Politics has a limited, and declining, ability to shape society and social attitudes. Instead, it is social changes and social attitudes that shape politics.

Ultimately politics can only adjust to changes that have already taken place at deeper levels in society; politics can hasten or retard those changes a little, but it cannot alter their direction.

Politics and elections are like the froth on ocean waves. The froth bobs up and down and gets blown around a bit, but the real movement is the great currents moving slowly and inexorably far beneath the surface.

In that light, it seems useful to remind ourselves of a few of the fundamental social, cultural and economic currents that tend to encourage liberty or equality for gays.

1. Increasing gay visibility. As we notice almost every day, gays and lesbians are ever more visible as ordinary parts of society, living lives that are similar in competence and virtue to those of their heterosexual friends, neighbors and co-workers.

In addition, gays have become more visible in the mass entertainment media. This provides gay visibility even for people in conservative parts of the nation whose gay friends have yet to make themselves visible. And it provides mild encouragement for those closeted friends to make themselves visible.

The gays and lesbians people live near and see every day they tend to become used to and comfortable with, especially when they work on projects together and have to depend on one another for their successful completion.

2. Natural demographic changes. Absolutely every poll touching on gay issues shows that young people (18-29) are far more accepting of gays than are older people (65 and above).

Both inclinations are understandable. People tend to accept as normal and natural whatever they grow up experiencing. Young people have grown up in a culture where gays are visible among their friends and in the mass media (see No. 1), so they do not see our existence as a problem.

Older people are more likely to see gays as strange, new, possibly threatening element in society and to think there must be many more gays than formerly because they are seeing more now than they did when they were young.

Overall social attitudes will slowly change as the older people die and the younger people carry their gay-friendly attitudes with them into their adulthood and maturity.

3. Psychology is gay affirming. Psychologists and other therapists firmly reject the idea that homosexuality is anything to regret. Instead they now focus on helping gays accept themselves and flourish in their lives and work.

The change reflects the decline of Freud and neo-Freudian doctrines as well as realizations that "conversion therapies" do not work and that gays normally do not exhibit evidence of pathology.

But is also reflects a greater individualism in psychology - a shift from compelling the individual to adjust to the majority (always for his own good, of course) to a new focus on helping the individual achieve self-acceptance and self-actualization.

It is no accident that the new "personalist" focus owes much to the individualist psychiatrist Thomas Szasz and to the libertarian psychologist Nathaniel Branden, the "Father of the Self-Esteem Movement" and a long-time associate of novelist Ayn Rand.

4. The Protestantization of religion. There is an increasing tendency for people to make up their own minds about questions of doctrine and morality and not automatically accept traditional (and usually anti-gay) church teachings.

This tendency is visible in the growing number of (and denunciations of) "cafeteria Catholics" who pick and choose which church teachings to accept. Similarly, Taxes Baptists recently asserted their rights of individual conscience and rejected Southern Baptist attempts to impose doctrinal orthodoxy.

One reason for this is that as people become better educated they develop an increased confidence in their own ability to decide such things for themselves.

But the growing presence of a variety of religions in America and the presence of their adherents even among many people's friends also probably unsettles and weakens the unthinking dogmatism of most people's convictions.

Finally, 5. The new technology-driven economy. The current economic expansion has created increased competition for skilled workers and pressures companies to identify and develop new markets.

The competition for skilled employees not only decreases employers' propensity to discriminate (as spelled out in Gary Becker's book "The Economics of Discrimination"), it also encourages employers to offer partnership benefits and other equalizing inducements to gay and lesbian employees.

The concurrent pressure to target new domestic markets can encourage corporations to seek our patronage as an identifiable "niche market." Part of that includes offering support to gay non-profits and doing nothing to offend us or to aid the opponents of gay equality.

Originally appeared November 8, 2000, in the Chicago Free Press.

RALPH BLAIR dates the beginning of Evangelicals Concerned to almost exactly a quarter century ago, Nov. 2, 1975, the first time he seriously considered creating an organization for evangelical Christians who are gay or lesbian.

Blair tells the story this way. In 1971, after obtaining his doctoral degree, he established the Homosexual Community Counseling Center in New York to offer counseling and therapy for gays and lesbians who were having difficulty accepting or coping with their homosexuality.

Since Blair had also become known in evangelical Christian circles as one of the few people who argued that one could be gay or lesbian and a faithful Christian, the president of one of the major evangelical institutions and a leader in the evangelical movement suggested they have dinner to discuss Blair's "work with homosexuals."

Blair expected the man to try to dissuade him from his view on homosexuality. But to his surprise, during dinner the man told Blair that he too was gay, but married, deeply closeted and able to express his desires only on business trips away from home.

Blair says he realized the man was typical of many gay people in evangelical churches who live in isolation, confused and conflicted over their same-sex attractions but not knowing how to put their desires together with a committed Christian faith.

"During that dinner" Blair writes, "he and I discussed the need for an evangelical Christian ministry for gay men and lesbians, one that would affirm their sexuality and be a "ministry of reconciliation" for gay evangelicals as well as "for gay men and lesbians who could not hear the gospel from those who could not hear them."

Blair says he also recalled that in the early 1960s one gay activist, himself an atheist, said he thought gays were more concerned with feelings of religious guilt than with difficulties with discriminatory legal statutes.

Less than four months later, Blair held a founding meeting of Evangelicals Concerned in a hotel across the street from where the National Association of Evangelicals was holding its own convention. He distributed flyers during the NAE convention, much to the displeasure of the evangelicals.

In the nearly quarter century since then, EC (as it is usually called) has become an important if inconspicuous presence among gay Christians.

Each summer EC holds well-attended conferences on both coasts. Blair invites prominent gay-supportive evangelicals to speak on themes related to Christian discipleship and other biblical issues. Although the speakers are gay-affirming they do not have to address gay issues at any length.

"I have insisted all along that EC be an organization of evangelical Christians who happen to be gay or lesbian rather than an organization of gays and lesbians who happen to come from evangelical Christian backgrounds," Blair explains. He also helps organize local Bible study groups if people are interested.

Each quarter Blair writes a newsletter about current developments in issues of religion and homosexuality and sends it to his 2,000 subscribers at no cost. He pays particular attention to gay supportive theological shifts, the growing understanding of sexuality and the repeated failures of the "ex-gay" ministries.

Each quarter too Blair also writes a critical analysis of some recent book or article dealing with homosexuality and religion. And he publishes pamphlets containing his annual "connECtions" lectures.

Blair says that his most popular pamphlet though is a single sheet of paper folded in half. On the cover it says, "What Jesus Christ Said About Homosexuality." On the inside it is totally blank. Then on the back cover it says, "That's right. He said absolutely nothing about it."

That, in a way, is the heart of Blair's message both to gays and lesbians and to his fellow evangelicals.

Contrary to the general view, evangelicals are not necessarily fundamentalists. Although evangelicals tend to be conservative theologically, they also tend to stress the priority of the New Testament, particularly Jesus' (and God's) unconditional love and acceptance of all of God's children.

Blair recalls that as a gay youth in high school and college he came to understand Christian ethics to be summed up and lived out as the call to love one another as Jesus loved all humankind.

He says that even as a youth he realized that the New Testament promise that "everything is possible with God" included, as he says, "even God's love of a boy who has crushes on other boys."

Evangelicals Concerned may have little appeal for people from liberal religious backgrounds, for those who doubt the historicity of the bible or are skeptics and atheists.

But there is nothing about being gay that requires a disbelief in gods, even the Christian God.

So for gays and lesbian who have a strong religious background but feel rejected by their earlier faith community, or for gays who have not been religious but seek a deeper self-understanding in a firmly religious context, EC may provide a sort of guidance and a context for spiritual growth and self-awareness.

The website for Evangelicals Concerned is www.ecinc.org. The street address is Evangelicals Concerned, Inc., Suite 1-G, 311 East 72nd St., New York, N.Y. 10021.

Originally published October 19, 2000, in The Weekly News (Miami).

Recently, I wrote that the surest sign that progress is being made comes when the more conservative party, in America the GOP, takes its own tentative steps towards acceptance of gays and lesbians. I had been referring to such small signs as providing an openly gay speaker - Arizona Congressman Jim Kolbe - with a prime time speaking slot at the Republican National Convention, as well as George W. Bush's decision to finally meet with a group of openly gay and lesbian Republicans.

But there has now been a much more significant sign of GOP progress, as the neck and neck race between George W. and Al Gore hits its final leg. I'm referring, of course, to statements by GOP vice presidential candidate Dick Cheney that reverse a long-standing Republican antipathy toward recognizing gay relationships.

"My own personal view is that people ought to have the right to enter into any kind of relationship they want to enter into. With respect to how that's affected or regulated by the state, those are state decisions. Different states are likely to make different decisions based upon their own wishes and desire of the people of the state, and that's perfectly acceptable." So said Cheney to the Rutland (Vermont) Herald on September 8. Remarkably, this statement got little attention - despite its clear break with GOP dogma that had heretofore disdained the idea of government granting any recognition to same-sex unions and the opposition of many (but not all) Republicans to Vermont's recently enacted civil unions bill.

But then Cheney, whose daughter, Mary, is both openly lesbian and in a long-term relationship, went even further. In his televised debate with Democratic veep nominee Joe Lieberman, the candidates were asked by moderator Bernard Shaw whether "a male who loves a male and a female who loves a female" should have the same constitutional rights as others. Lieberman said that while he supported "the traditional notion of marriage as being limited to a heterosexual couple," his mind was open to doing something to address the unfairness experienced by gay couples.

For his part, Cheney expanded on his own earlier statement: "We live in a free society, and freedom means freedom for everybody," he said. "We shouldn't be able to choose and say, 'You get to live free and you don't.' That means people should be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to enter into."

Then he dropped the bombshell: "Like Joe, I'm also wrestling with the extent to which there ought to be legal sanction of those relationships. I think we ought to do everything we can to tolerate and accommodate whatever kind of relationships people want to enter into." Not just tolerate, mind you, but accommodate the type of relationships that the religious right condemns as inherently immoral.

Republican Party Chairman Jim Nicholson said after the debate that Bush and Cheney recognize that the civil unions question was "complicated."

"We're a tolerant party," Nicholson said. "We don't support discrimination of any kind."

Well, not quite. Many Republicans (and Democrats) have long supported discriminating against gays in the military, while passing (again, with bipartisan support) a so-called Defense of Marriage Act that forbid the federal government from recognizing gay unions, even if states granted such recognition. Cheney's comments suggested that if states want to recognize gay unions of any stripe, that's up to them and fine with him.

Winnie Stachelberg of the Human Rights Campaign, who rarely has anything pleasant to say about Republicans, announced that Cheney "has taken a big step forward by breaking ranks with the extreme right in the GOP by recognizing that gay and lesbian families have a place in America and that these relationships should be respected."

And American voters seem to agree. An overnight ABC News poll following the vice presidential debate showed that the Bush-Cheney ticket jumped from 49 percent to 51 percent. Of voters who watched the debate, 43 percent thought Cheney had "won" compared with 24 percent who thought Lieberman had carried the day and 27 percent who judged their performance a tie.

Nevertheless, Republican reactionaries howled with displeasure - and disbelief. Gary Bauer accused Cheney of "fuzzy morality" that's "out of step with the beliefs of the many Americans who consider marriage to be a God-ordained institution between a man and a woman." Kenneth Connor, head of the anti-gay Family Research Council, complained that Cheney's views were surely "heartening to those in the gay community who want to redefine marriage to include homosexual unions." And Jerry Falwell declared, "I disagree with Mr. Cheney on his suggestion that the states should be allowed to sanction any relationships they want," suggesting that, in his view, states should be forbidden from doing so.

When Chris Matthews of CNBC asked Falwell if he thought it better that gays be promiscuous rather than offer official recognition that could reinforce same-sex partnerships, Falwell could only blather that homosexuality in all forms was wrong. Increasingly, this view comes across as ridiculous.

Cheney remained unmoved by all the sniping, holding that his "position is unchanged" and that he had answered the question about gay unions "truthfully and accurately." About the criticism, Cheney replied, "I don't pay any attention."

Subsequently, George W. affirmed his opposition to gay marriage. And during the second presidential debate, Bush engaged in blather about "equal rights, not special rights" without ever defining what these "special rights" gays supposedly seek might be. True enough, although Bush didn't refute Cheney's comments when asked about them, nor did he take the opportunity to condemn Vermont-style civil unions. It's a start.

All in all, the simple fact is this. The Republican candidate for vice president said something more "tolerant" and more "accommodating" about equality for gay people than any prominent Republican has ever said. And he boldly stood by his remarks to the point of scorning the anti-gay bigwigs in his party, a flank that is increasingly being diminished. The presidential standard bearing himself isn't willing to go nearly as far, but seems content to let dual messages emerge from his campaign on this hottest of hot-button topics.

That would not have happened if a seismic shift weren't taking place within the GOP. And that's what political progress is about.

Originally published October 11, 2000, in the Chicago Free Press.

GAY HISTORY MONTH during October not only prompts us to learn about gays and lesbians who made notable contributions to our culture, it also makes us wonder how gays and lesbians lived in the past - how they thought about themselves, how they met and socialized with one another, how they coped with hostility.

One of the most neglected gay pioneers is the Russian writer Mikhail Kuzmin (1872-1936), poet, novelist and composer, who published the first openly gay novel of modern times, "Wings," in 1906.

Happily, there is now a handsome new illustrated biography, "Mikhail Kuzmin: A Life in Art" by John Malmstad and Nikolay Bogomolov (Harvard University Press, 1999).

Making good use of Kuzmin's extensive diary, his biographers are able to follow his daily life in St. Petersburg, his literary activity, his friendships and affairs, his role in Russia's cultural avant-garde, and his witness to the Soviet destruction of Russian modernism.

But the new biography does more. Al Malmstad notes in a recent article, "Kuzmin's diary makes clear that a gay subculture existed quite openly in Petersburg at the time."

There were, of course, no gay organizations as such, but there were "well-known cruising areas, ... taverns and cafes where gay men socialized, and bathhouses that specialized in a gay clientele."

The bathhouses, real ones, were common in large cities when many homes lacked bathing facilities. People could bathe, or be bathed by an attendant, and have something like a Finnish sauna.

Some of the baths became known as friendly to gay men and provided "attendants," who might provide sexual services for a fee. Contemporary gay slang referred to the baths in French as "pays chauds" - "warm climes," "warm regions."

Kuzmin wrote of one bathhouse visit in his diary, "In the evening I had the urge to go to a bathhouse simply to be stylish, for the fun of it, for cleanliness."

The attendant sent to him, one Alexander, was "tall, very well-built (with) ... light-colored eyes, and almost blond hair." The man was only 22, but had worked at the baths, he said, for eight years.

"Obviously, they fixed me up with a professional," Kuzmin noted. Nevertheless, Kuzmin returned to the same bathhouse several times to see him again.

At one point, Kuzmin and two friends determined to visit every bathhouse in Petersburg, but they got only part way through an initial list of 25 before their enthusiasm began to ebb.

There were other meeting places as well. "Petersburg streets and parks were no strangers to young men of uncertain profession who picked up money by hustling," Malmstad writes.

The extensive gardens behind the Tavrichesky (or Tauride) Palace was the city's most popular gay cruising area and Kuzmin visited often, seeking "escapades," as his gay friends called their encounters.

He had a brief affair with a hustler he met there and dismissed his friends' disapproval by commenting, "You don't talk, after all, about (the poet) Merezhkovsky and Nietzsche during rendez-vous and merry escapades. He is jolly, kind, and well-built, and that's that."

Nevsky Prospect, the main civic and business avenue, seems to have been a late evening cruising place for gay men as well as female prostitutes. "Several young men - professionals were strolling on Nevsky," Kuzmin once noted in his diary.

There seem to have been something like gay bars as well. The composer Tchaikovsky mentions visiting gay taverns in Moscow and no doubt similar taverns existed in Petersburg, although we lack specifics.

Cabarets, however, were a conspicuous part of the city's cultural life, and several were home to the gay-friendly cultural avant-garde.

Perhaps the best known cabaret was the "Stray Dog," (1912-1915) which offered lectures, plays, poetry readings, musicales and improvisatory "performance art." Kuzmin, who visited often, wrote and composed a considerable amount of material for presentation there.

Much of Petersburg's civic and social life, though, consisted of large numbers of private "salons" and social circles where people met regularly to read and discuss. Dostoevsky noted this particular feature of Petersburg life 60 years earlier in 1847:

"It is a well-known fact that the whole of Petersburg is nothing but a collection of an enormous number of small 'circles' each ... (with) its own rules, its own logic and its own oracle."

Some of these circles, especially those with artistic interests, often included gay men - actors, artists, musicians, poets and would-be poets, their lovers and just plain hangers-on.

The openly gay impresario Sergei Diaghilev formed one such circle around his magazine "World of Art" and it was to that group that the young Kuzmin first read "Wings" in 1905 to the excited acclaim of the substantially gay audience.

Later on he was invited to participate in another circle called "Tavern of Hafiz," named after the Persian poet of erotic lyrics. Although not quite a gay circle, it was dominated by people who were or might have been gay.

From all this, we can recognize a kind of gay community coalescing in Petersburg a century ago, perhaps on the verge of assertive visibility. But that possibility was crushed by the Soviet revolution of 1917.

Originally appeared Oct. 5, 2000, in The Weekly News (Miami).

In the struggle for dignity, and equality, victory over our adversaries is not always swift. And the fight isn't always morally unambiguous and controversy-free. The current campaign against the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) for barring gay men from serving as troop leaders - as well as for their policies of excluding self-identifying gay youth and professed atheists from being Scouts - raises some complex issues about the value of Scouting activities that some activists would rather ignore.

Some background, first. For those who had hoped that a single Supreme Court ruling would put an end to the anti-gay discrimination championed by the Scouts' Texas-based national headquarters, the eventual ruling in favor of the BSA's right as a private association to exclude gay men (the sole issue before the court) was a keen disappointment. Yet, in the weeks and months following the ruling, battles have begun erupting in locality after locality, as gay rights advocates try to cut government, charitable, and corporate funding for local Scout troops in an effort to pressure the BSA's leaders to stop discriminating. Not all of these efforts have been successful to date, but cumulatively, there's a major move afoot.

Consider some recent battles over funding the Scouts. In Florida, the United Way of Palm Beach County warned local Boy Scouts to prepare to lose $118,000 in contributions in two years if the organization doesn't alter its policy against admitting gays. Miami Beach's city commissioners voted to expand the city's human rights ordinance to deny the waiver of rental fees for municipal facilities to organizations that discriminate. In California, the Glendale Human Relations Coalition asked the city council to stop giving federal block grant funds to groups that discriminate based on sexual orientation and related criteria. The schools chief of Framingham, Mass., announced that the Scouts will no longer be allowed to recruit or distribute material inside the city's schools.

In Chicago, the United Way of Evanston decided to drop its funding for the local Scouts for the 2001-2002 fiscal year. And cities including Chicago, San Francisco and San Jose, Calif., have told local Scout troops that they can no longer use parks, schools and other municipal sites. Connecticut has banned contributions to the Scouts by state employees through a state-run charity.

But local governments that have taken action sometimes face a backlash. Fort Lauderdale commissioners voted to yank $4,167 in city funds that would have gone to the Scouts, and then came under withering attack at a council meeting where the audience was filled with vocal Scout supporters. According to a report in The Miami Herald, several speakers launched blistering attacks at the meeting, and some even clamed gays seek to infiltrate the Boy Scouts to molest children. Fort Lauderdale Mayor Jim Naugle, the lone dissenter in a 3-1 vote to deny funds to the Scouts, said he was "ashamed" of his city commission for taking action against the Scouts.

In Washington, the GOP-controlled Congress has, expectedly, affirmed the Scouts' special congressional charter. But the Democrats have done no better. President Clinton continues to serve as an honorary Scout leader, and Scouts were trotted out onto the platform at the Democratic National Convention for a patriotic moment (to the boos of a few gay delegates). Recently, Attorney General Janet Reno ruled that the federal government need not sever its ties to the Scouts, such as Jamborees on military property (they're the only private group afforded such a privilege). Responded Scott Cozza, a co-founder of Scouting for All, a group critical of the Scout policy, "Janet Reno appears to be saying yes. ... The Ku Klux Klan could use federal facilities under her reasoning."

Private companies are also facing "the Scouting question." Several well-known firms, including Knight Ridder Inc., announced that in keeping with their own anti-discrimination policies they could no longer fund the Scouts. At first, there were reports that Chase Manhattan Bank was doing the same. But Chase then announced it had only been 'reviewing' its giving criteria. "We temporarily suspended new funding commitments while we conducted our review," stated an official release from the company. "Chase has now completed its review and will continue to fund Scout programs. At the end of the day, we do not want to withdraw funding from those programs because doing so would be harmful to thousands of children who benefit significantly from them. We intend to continue working with the Scouts on this evolving issue."

Some gay rights supporters, understandably, consider this a cop-out. They contend that defunding the Scouts is necessary to end the group's discriminatory behavior - and to send a message that gays are not morally suspect, second-class citizens. "We have to decide, Are we aiding and abetting someone that discriminates?" C. Joan Parker, assistant counsel to the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights, told the New York Times. In Seattle, where the United Way of King County decided it will no longer support Scout programs, a spokesperson said, "We would like to continue a funding relationship and provide services to kids in this community, but those services have to be provided in accordance with our nondiscrimination policy."

The other side of the argument is being made by the Scouts' defenders, who range from outright homophobes to those who may or may not agree with the BSA's policy, but feel that children should not be penalized because of it. This debate is being waged in editorials, opinion columns, and - especially - letters to the editor of newspapers and news magazines. "Don't punish children in need," is the refrain.

It is not enough for gays and lesbians to dismiss such concerns out of hand, especially since it is true that Scouting programs are of particular benefit to disadvantaged boys. To gay rights advocates, it's better that some boys do without Scouting if it will hasten the day when we truly have "Scouting for All."

This would be an easier case to make if the Scouts were, as some of the more adamant anti-Scouts now paint them, more akin to the Hitler Youth (or, if there were such a thing, the Junior Klan), than a racially integrated organization whose national leaders have yet to come to terms with the dynamic cultural changes of the past 20 years.

With some reservations, however, I come down on the side of the activists on this one. I think Scouting is of great value to boys of all races and classes, but the message that gays need not apply is too big a bite of bile for me to swallow. I certainly don't think the government - local, state, or national - should be funding them or giving them special privileges. And I don't mind asking the United Way to give its money to more inclusive youth causes. But most of all, I hope that soon, very soon, the Scouts' national leaders will wake up to the fact that it's the 21st century.

Originally distributed September 29, 2000, by Scripps Howard News Service.

WHEN NOT SERVING Arizona as a Republican state representative, Steve May serves his country. As an Army Reserve First Lieutenant, 28-year-old May has led 200 soldiers in fuel-transport and logistical tasks. He has trained troops to protect themselves from nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. He even won the Silver Dolphin Award after spending 63 days underwater on the USS Ohio, a Trident missile submarine.

"Lt. May is an intelligent and effective officer," his August 1999 performance evaluation declares. "Put in company command as soon as possible."

So what has the Army done for him lately? A three-colonel panel dismissed May with an honorable discharge on Sept. 17. His offense? He publicly acknowledged his homosexuality, thus negating his record of exemplary conduct.

May is among the 6,000-plus combatants sacked since 1993 for failing to live in a military-strength state of denial called Don't Ask, Don't Tell. The Defense Department, meanwhile, still winks at heterosexuals whose improprieties undermine national security.

Steve May was accused not of conduct but of comments unbecoming a soldier. Army officials objected to his statements during a February 1999 legislative debate on a domestic partnership measure. May objected to, among other things, Republican State Rep. Karen Johnson's remark that gays operate "at the lower end of the behavioral spectrum."

"This legislature takes my gay tax dollars," May replied, "and my gay tax dollars spend the same as your straight tax dollars. If you're not going to treat me fairly, stop taking my tax dollars."

May spoke as a civilian, between completion of active duty in 1995 and reactivation in April 1999 during the Balkan War. Despite articles about his sexuality published during his first campaign in 1996, the Army invoked May's House floor speech and subsequent interviews to pry him from his uniform.

The Army never called May disruptive. "Under the Don't Ask, Don't Tell law, Army officials don't have to prove that I caused a problem with morale or cohesion," May says by phone. "They just have to prove that I said I'm gay."

Indeed, Capt. Stephen Sherbondy, May's then-commander, explained in August 1999 that "the vast majority of personnel" in May's unit knew of his homosexuality, but "such knowledge has in no way affected morale in his platoon or the other platoons. In fact, the HQ section is functioning better than it has for my past tenure as commander."

Ironically, May says, "I have seen a dozen serious problems of a sexual nature between heterosexual soldiers." In 1995, at Ft. Irwin, Calif., May recalls confronting a male and a female who booted three colleagues from an armored personnel carrier, then had sex in the locked vehicle while their fellow soldiers waited outside. The offending GIs received reprimands and counseling, but eventually were promoted.

May also says that "animosity developed down to the enlisted-man level" when a male soldier in his unit began sleeping with the wife of a GI in another company. Tensions erupted when one company's officers and troops accused their counterparts in the other unit of not restraining the two adulterers.

"All I did was say that I'm gay, and they kicked me out," May complains, "whereas these people who committed violations involving heterosexual conduct were forgiven and promoted."

May has plenty of company. Don't Ask, Don't Tell has accelerated dismissals of gay service men and women. In 1989, President Bush's first year in office, 997 GIs were discharged for homosexuality. In 1993, when Bill Clinton and Albert Gore assumed power, 682 were ejected. By 1998, gay expulsions climbed 71 percent to 1,163 before slipping to 1,046 last year. Through 1999, the Clinton-Gore administration had ousted 6,157 gay men and women in uniform, according to the Washington-based Servicemembers Legal Defense Network.

"Sexual orientation has nothing to do with duty performance," retired Army Maj. Gen. Vance Coleman told me. "What is being done now is not just and fair."

Washington should stop policing the private sex lives of those who protect America's freedoms. Jettisoning gay troops who act professionally is as bigoted as banning all openly heterosexual GIs because a relative few have become pregnant at sea or sexually harassed others at Tailhook and Aberdeen. Instead, the Pentagon should impose a simple, universal standard. If soldiers can capture enemy territory, they stay. If they conquer their fellow GIs, they go.

While he was defense secretary, Republican vice presidential nominee Dick Cheney accurately called the ban on avowedly gay soldiers "an old chestnut." It's past time to roast this policy on an open fire.