IGF CultureWatch

Originally appeared August 30, 2000, in the Chicago Free Press.

America's most highly regarded Twentieth Century composer of classical music, Aaron Copland, was beloved for his skill at refining into art music the native sounds of America, from Shaker and Appalachian music to rodeo songs and jazz. "The secret of his wisdom," wrote critic Harold Clurman, "can be traced to his utter acceptance of himself at an early age."

---

ON NOVEMBER 14, 2000, some of us will celebrate the 100th birthday anniversary of Aaron Copland, America's best known and most highly regarded composer of modern "classical" or "serious" music.

The event is worth celebrating. Copland did more than any other single person to create and promote an authentically American sounding style of classical music and make it accessible to the general public.

The music he created was easily distinguishable from its European counterparts by its folk-style melodies, open harmonies, bright orchestral colors, and the often syncopated, jazzy rhythms. The tempo marking for one piece is "With bounce."

Although he could write complex concert pieces and chamber music, he also sought to bring American music to a wider audience by writing tuneful ballets, Hollywood film music, background music for plays and pieces for high school bands and orchestra. He even wrote a Clarinet Concerto for jazz clarinetist Benny Goodman.

And he wrote patriotic works like "A Lincoln Portrait" and the now famous "Fanfare for the Common Man," a piece which turns up on television occasionally and which he later incorporated into his optimistic and outgoing Third Symphony.

Of his 100 or so compositions, nearly a dozen are now part of the standard concert repertory. Many are fun to listen to; some are easy to whistle. Perhaps no other American composer except Samuel Barber is so often performed and recorded.

His best known works may be the three American-themed ballets "Billy the Kid," "Rodeo," and "Appalachian Spring," the ballet which popularized the old Shaker song "Simple Gifts."

Forty years ago, one foreign critic called "Appalachian Spring," "the most beautiful score to come out of America." It would be hard, even now, to think of more than two or three serious rivals.

Copland has a particular interest for us beyond the merits of his music because he was gay.

Copland's homosexuality was quietly known but little advertised during his lifetime. It has now been elaborately documented, however, in Howard Pollack's recent biography, "Aaron Copland: The Life and Work of an Uncommon Man."

Despite being born in less tolerant times, after a brief late adolescent period of discomfort Copland apparently accepted his homosexuality with equanimity.

Music critic Paul Moor, a former lover, decided, "By some miracle Aaron remained as free of neurosis as anyone I've ever known." Later Moor added that Copland was "one of the dearest, kindest, most thoughtful and fundamentally good human beings I've ever known."

Copland's friend Harold Clurman added that "The secret of his wisdom can be traced to his utter acceptance of himself at any early age. He made peace with himself and so could be at peace with the whole world."

And Composer David Del Tredici recalled, "In private he was very open about being a gay man. He'd joke about it. It was perfectly natural."

But for Copland being gay was never a political issue. Even after Stonewall (1969), when his friend composer and conductor Leonard Bernstein urged him to "come out" in some public way, Copland grinned and replied, "I think I'll leave that to you, boy."

According to Pollack, Copland had a series of relationships over the years, mostly with young artists and musicians in their early twenties whom he befriended and mentored. The young Bernstein himself apparently was one of them in the early 1940s.

Copland seemed to enjoy being a teacher and father figure, but he also clearly valued the young men's energy and enthusiasm. When David Diamond criticized one of Copland's young lovers for exploiting him, Copland responded, "He's young, he's fresh, he's a lot of fun."

In other words, Copland knew he was getting something out of it too.

The question always arises of whether any artist's homosexuality influences or is detectable in his work. For visual artists and writers, the question may be easy to answer. For composers it seems more doubtful.

Certainly a composer's sexuality can influence the texts he chooses for songs or the stories he makes into operas or writes music about. But is the homosexuality in the music itself?

Erik Johns, one of Copland's lover from the early 1950s, suggested that there might be something there:

"Aaron felt that his sexuality was there in the music ... but also that it was incidental to his major theme. He also knew that homosexual themes may be there in the music, but in a way so abstract that it is very difficult to pinpoint."

Biographer Pollack himself notes that some of Copland's works are infused with a kind of romantic tenderness and relates that once after a good-looking student walked by, Copland, who had written three symphonies remarked to a friend, "There goes my Fourth Symphony."

Finally, some writers have suggested that gay American composers wrote more conservative, accessible music than their heterosexual modernist counterparts. They point to men like Copland, Barber, Bernstein, Menotti, Virgil Thomson, Ned Rorem and others.

But there are so many heterosexual American composers of conservative, tonal music that the idea seems doubtful.

The question is probably not answerable in any very specific way. But if raising it makes us listen to any composer's music more carefully, then it serves a purpose.

In any case, Happy Birthday, Aaron, and many happy returns.

Originally appeared August 16, 2000, in the Chicago Free Press.

Two years ago Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., spoke up on behalf of those who hold "sincerely held morally based views" of an anti-gay nature, warning that it was wrong to charge them with bigotry just because of their "disdain" for homosexuality. In practice, this means that he expects us not to insist of those who publicly denounce homosexuality that they offer any rational explanation of or defense for their views. It is surprising that our gay leadership does not more vocally challenge such ground rules for debate.

---

THE FUNDAMENTAL CONTROVERTED ISSUE about homosexuality is not discrimination, hate crimes or domestic partnerships, but the morality of homosexuality.

Even if gays obtain non-discrimination laws, hate crimes law and domestic partnership benefits, those can do little to counter the underlying moral condemnation which will continue to fester beneath the law and generate hostility, fuel hate crimes, support conversion therapies, encourage gay youth suicide and inhibit the full social acceptance that is our goal.

On the other hand, if we convince people that homosexuality is fully moral then all their inclination to discriminate, engage in gay-bashing or oppose gay marriage disappears. Gay youths and adults could readily accept themselves.

So the gay movement, whether we acknowledge it or not, is not a civil rights movement, not even a sexual liberation movement, but a moral revolution aimed at changing people's view of homosexuality.

In this light, consider a disturbing speech by Senator Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., now the Democratic nominee for vice president, printed in the Congressional Record of July 10, 1998. Lieberman said:

"Many Americans continue to believe that homosexuality is immoral and not just because the Bible tells them so. ...

"... This is one of the few areas where Americans of all religious inclinations feel so strongly that they are willing to risk the tag of intolerance to express or hold to their points of view ...

"It is unfair, then, for anyone to automatically conclude that people who express moral reservations or even disdain about homosexuality are bigots, or to publicly attack them as hateful. These are sincerely held morally based views."

Lieberman does not quite say he himself regards homosexuality as immoral. He does say that people who think so and express disdain about homosexuality are not bigots.

The reason they are not bigots, Lieberman says, is that their views are sincerely held and morally based. We know that, he says, because they are willing to risk being accused of intolerance in order to express their opinion.

So if you are willing to risk the accusation of intolerance, then we know your view is sincerely held and morally based and you are not a bigot.

Another way we know a view is morally based, Lieberman says, is that although some people hold it because the Bible says so, others hold it because something else - "not just the Bible" - says so.

What is that something else? Lieberman shies away from telling us. It is just ... something else. As Ayn Rand used to say about similar evasions, "Blank Out!"

But making a moral claim, even on behalf of others, does not relieve anyone of the responsibility for explaining its basis. The test for morality is not consensus, or fervor or sincerity, but reason.

People disagree about whether many things are moral or immoral. The only way to decide which is right is by examining the reasons people offer.

But people who cannot or will not tell us what reasons support reservations about or disdain for homosexuality are refusing to engage in rational discussion.

And holding strong views without providing defensible reasons is what we usually mean by "bigotry."

There are four counter-arguments we can make.

First is the standard, boilerplate condemnation of so-called hate-speech: "All fair minded Americans and progressive thinking people will surely condemn such harmful and divisive speech," etc., etc.

This kind of talk no doubt makes self-avowed "fair minded and progressive thinking" people feel good about themselves, but it does nothing to convince people who are not already convinced, which you would hope is the main point of making a response at all.

Second is the familiar school yard rebuttal of "Well, that's just your opinion." The adult version is, "We live in a pluralistic society where people hold diverse moral views about these issues." Both versions amount to saying that all opinions are equal so the anti-gay view has no more validity than any other.

But this has the unfortunate corollary that then our own pro-gay opinion is no better than the anti-gay one, so there is no reasons for anyone to take our view more seriously than any other. To the contrary, we should be arguing that our view is better than the anti-gay view - more moral, more reasonable, more humane, etc.

A third response is to remind people of the familiar historical counter-examples where "sincerely held, morally based" views based not only on the Bible were clearly immoral and maybe even bigoted.

Slavery and racial segregation are two obvious examples. Another would be the lengthy resistance to legal and social equality for women. A fourth would be the long, painful history of anti-Semitism, something Senator Lieberman should be well aware of.

But these examples only prove that some sincerely held morally based views are wrong. They do not prove that all such views are wrong - clearly some are not - nor that they are wrong about homosexuality.

In any case, these are merely defensive maneuvers, meant only to neutralize anti-gay views. They do nothing to generate pro-gay views or encourage people to see homosexuality as moral.

So we need a fourth response, offering affirmative reasons for why our sexuality and our sexual behavior are moral. But that means our spokespeople would have to engage in moral reasoning and most seem surprisingly reluctant to do that.

If they cannot or will not, perhaps we need better leaders.

Originally appeared August 14, 2000, in The New Republic.

TONY SNOW: OK. Final: I know this is a touchy subject. Jerry Falwell puts out a comment saying that he supports you. He talks about your daughter's sexual orientation. Was that any of his business?

DICK CHENEY: My - I've got two daughters. They are fine women. I'm very proud of both of them. And I think their private lives are private, and I just firmly believe that. I'm running for public office; they're entitled to their privacy.

SNOW: Nothing like a father's love for his daughters.

CHENEY: Right.

A simple question no one seems to want to ask: If Dick Cheney loves and is proud of his openly lesbian daughter, why is he supporting a man who wants her to live under the threat of criminal sanction? It's no secret that Governor George W. Bush has publicly supported Texas's still-extant gays-only sodomy law, which makes private, consensual sex between gay adults a crime. Does Cheney agree with his running mate's position?

And what about his own public history on homosexual equality? On gay matters, Cheney's congressional record is not just bad. It's shocking. Cheney was one of only 13 representatives to vote against the landmark 1988 bill that initiated federal funding for AIDS testing and counseling - putting him to the right of even Tom DeLay and Dick Armey, both of whom voted for it. He was one of only 29 House members to vote against the 1988 Hate Crimes Statistics Act, which merely allowed the federal government to collect data on violent crimes based on race, religion, ethnicity, or sexual orientation, and he voted for an amendment that added gratuitously anti-gay language to the bill. He supported measures to cut federal AIDS research and to allow health-insurance discrimination against people with HIV in the District of Columbia. As defense secretary, despite once describing the ban on gays in the military as an "old chestnut," Cheney solidly backed the old policy of harassment of gay soldiers and their ejection, however distinguished their records, from the Armed Forces.

How does Cheney square this history with his belief that his gay daughter, Mary, is "wonderful," "decent," and "hard-working"? I don't know, because the media, which evidently still doesn't regard gay rights as central to our politics, has barely asked. ABC's Cokie Roberts, for example, only brought up the matter at the very end of her interview with Lynne Cheney, the candidate's wife, on last Sunday's "This Week" - as a way of sympathizing with Cheney's plight of having a gay daughter exposed on the campaign trail! The usually dogged Tim Russert dropped the ball entirely in an almost half-hour-long interview with the would-be veep. Fox's Tony Snow raised the issue - but only to assert that it was none of anyone's business. The New York Times, for all its pretensions to have left homophobia behind, has barely touched the subject. The Washington Post buried it.

When asked, the Cheneys simply say the issue is private. According to Newsweek, Lynne Cheney has declared the topic off-limits: "I have just decided that the thing to do when the subject of either of my daughters comes up is to say, `They are wonderful women.'" But this is a preposterous argument. Mary Cheney is a 31-year-old out lesbian. She lives with her partner in Colorado. Her last job was at Coors Brewing Company, where she was responsible specifically for outreach to the gay and lesbian population. She has funneled corporate money into gay causes and talked about homosexuality to redneck beer distributors. In a recent interview with Girlfriends magazine, a glossy publication targeted to a lesbian audience, Mary Cheney said, "The reason I came to work here [at Coors] is because I knew several other lesbians who were very happy here." According to Salon, she introduces her girlfriend as her "life partner," and, according to Time, she came out to her parents in the early '90s. Last week on "Larry King Live," Bob Woodward revealed that her homosexuality was a central factor in Dick Cheney's decision not to run for president in 1996. If Mary Cheney's lesbianism is not a matter of public fact, then nothing is.

Unfortunately, this doesn't seem to have occurred to her parents. Lynne Cheney, for her part, went so far as to deny her daughter's lesbianism entirely. "Mary has never declared such a thing," Lynne Cheney told Roberts on "This Week." "I would like to say that I'm appalled at the media interest in one of my daughters. I have two wonderful daughters. I love them very much. They are bright; they are hard-working; they are decent. And I simply am not going to talk about their personal lives. And I'm surprised, Cokie, that even you would want to bring it up on this program." Thus, in one of her first public interviews as a potential second lady, Lynne Cheney said two things that are blatantly untrue. The first is that her daughter has never declared her lesbianism. The second is that Lynne Cheney doesn't talk about the private lives of her daughters. In fact, in almost every profile of Lynne Cheney last week, we were informed that she loves spending time with her two granddaughters, the children of her older daughter, Liz. Why is one daughter's heterosexuality a public matter while the other's homosexuality is not?

There are two possible answers to that question, and they shed more light on "compassionate conservatism" than all the klieg lights in Philadelphia. The first is that Dick and Lynne Cheney are genuinely embarrassed by and conflicted about their daughter's lesbianism. But, if this is the case, the Cheneys owe us an explanation. It may not be easy, but, when you enter public life at this level, matters that might have remained common knowledge but have rarely been discussed suddenly demand a response on a national stage. Arizona Senator John McCain had to talk about his divorce and his adopted children. Bush had to talk about his drinking and never stops talking about his faith. When they affect public officials, private matters that have a direct relationship to public concerns are routinely aired. In periods when profound social issues are being debated, this is even truer. At some point in this campaign, Dick Cheney will surely be asked about his views on homosexual equality. It's one of the few issues on which there are real differences between his party and his opponent's. He would have to be a Vulcan - or someone deeply ashamed of his own offspring - not to refer to his own daughter in responding. In a candidate putatively wedded to "compassionate conservatism," one might even hope for more - for a response that adds a human dimension to the inhuman way in which gay people's lives are routinely discussed and caricatured.

There is, however, a second possibility - that the Cheneys don't disapprove of their daughter's lesbianism at all but, for political reasons, must pretend to. After all, Jerry Falwell, one of Bush's key allies on the Christian right, has already described Cheney's daughter as "errant." The Republican platform expresses its opposition to special "rights" for homosexuals. Cheney comes from Wyoming, the state where Matthew Shepard was murdered, and had to represent his constituents in the 1980s. Perhaps he feels obliged not to break publicly with the homophobes who still dominate his party. One small piece of evidence to support this theory is the absence from both Dick Cheney's and Lynne Cheney's records of any known anti-gay slurs, despite their being surrounded by people who bait homosexuals on a regular basis. By all accounts, Cheney has treated his gay staffers decently and was deeply supportive of his Pentagon spokesman Pete Williams during his "outing" ordeal. There is no reason to doubt his affection for his gay daughter.

But, in some respects, this scenario is the more damning one. For, if Cheney personally respects gay people but supports policies that segregate and ostracize them for his own personal advancement, then he truly is contemptible. It's surely worse to oppose homosexual equality for opportunistic rather than for principled reasons. At least Pat Robertson seems to believe he is trying to save gay people from eternal damnation; but to support their continued stigmatization for the sake of a bucket of warm spit is morally pitiful.

Perhaps Cheney, like the rest of us, has grown on this subject over the years. Perhaps he now regrets his small part in making the AIDS epidemic even worse than it might otherwise have been and in casting a vote that declared that violence against gay people was not even worth recording. Perhaps his experience in overseeing the military's persecution of gay servicemembers has led him to have greater sympathy for their plight. (To his credit, he reversed the policy by which the Pentagon once sought to recoup scholarship money from gay soldiers the military had expelled.) Perhaps he has come to believe from observing his own daughter that gay relationships are not merely dysfunctional sexual compulsions akin to kleptomania (as Trent Lott holds) but human achievements of love and commitment. Perhaps he now sees that gay men and women, far from being threats to the traditional family, have always been at its heart.

But, if his views on these matters have evolved, he must say so now. And, if he doesn't, if he remains as silent as he has been, then he should not cavil at the inference that he is proud of his record and sees no problem with a Republican platform that continues to relegate his daughter to second-class citizenship. One can make some excuses for expediency in any political life. But at a certain point expediency becomes hypocrisy. And, when expediency means the civil and legal punishment of one's own child, it is, in fact, worse than hypocrisy. It is betrayal.

WHEN GEORGE W. BUSH finished his GOP acceptance speech, with its stirring proclamation, "I believe in tolerance," the first song to play was a Latin tune recently popularized by Ricky Martin. It was the perfect ending to the closet convention.

Bush never spelled out who should be tolerated or what form that tolerance should take. It wasn't a line meant for women or racial minorities, since Bush's party had already openly embraced them and it would be odd for a modern politician to say he "tolerates" women and racial minorities. That leaves gays to be tolerated. Gay Republicans welcomed yet another in a parade of subtle signs that their party wants them. Others were free to interpret it differently.

"I believe in tolerance" is a long rhetorical distance from Pat Buchanan's declaration of a "culture war" at the same convention just eight years ago. But there is something peculiar and halting about this new brand of GOP tolerance. It asks gays to come inside - but to sit still once there.

Tolerance doesn't hate gays. In fact, it loves them - in the closet. Despite all the hoo-ha from skeptical gay organizations and activists, that is progress.

Under Bush's tolerance, gays will not likely be arrested in their homes because the anti-gay Texas sodomy law he supports is only a "symbolic gesture," he says. The new tolerance preserves symbols of disapproval but is embarrassed to act on them.

So gays can serve in the military as long as they keep quiet. Bush and Cheney Don't Ask as long as you Don't Tell. That's the bargain the military struck with gays under President Clinton. It has written the closet into American law. And after a fashion it suits the new Republicans just fine.

The closet, often defended as a situs of "privacy," is prized real estate for both moderate homophobes and ashamed gays. It is a space in which the former may declare he's tolerant and the latter may pretend he isn't despised.

The closet is detested by true-believing gay-haters who would prefer to pursue and punish the homosexuals they find there. The military's anti-gay witchhunts are a model for this. So are strictly-enforced sodomy laws. Bush is not a true-believing gay-hater.

So Republican Jim Kolbe, the most respected and respectable openly gay member of Congress, was allowed to speak to the delegates. It was better than eight years ago, when no openly gay person spoke to the convention. It better than four years ago, when a gay person whose homosexuality was known to his friends but not to delegates, spoke.

Kolbe's speech was purchased at the price that he could not acknowledge his homosexuality, or talk about gay issues, or even use the word "gay," from the lectern. Tolerance could let an openly gay man speak under the illusion that he isn't gay. He could be out and in the closet at the same time.

So Mary Cheney, the openly gay daughter of the party's vice presidential nominee, was allowed to sit with her parents and watch the convention festivities. Gay activists, in an understandable but somehow pathetic yearning for affirmation, scoured seating charts to determine whether Mary's partner had been allowed to sit near her. She wasn't there. That would have put Mary on a par with her sister, whose heterosexuality was shamelessly paraded before TV cameras in the form of her two children. Tolerance isn't ready for equality.

Lynne Cheney, Mary's mother, announced how proud she was of her "hard-working" and "decent" daughter. But then she denied her daughter had ever publicly acknowledged her homosexuality, an assertion so contrary to the public record it had the ring of pathological self-delusion. Tolerance prefers not to acknowledge publicly what everyone knows. If it can't have the reality of the closet it will have the form.

Here's how one tolerant observer described the new ethos in a message posted to a Website: "Most of us don't care what they [gays] do in the PRIVACY of their own homes. We do care when they get in our faces about it and [we] wish they would shut the hell up and mind their own business!!!"

Here is the same idea stated more delicately: Gays should have "no standing in law." That assertion, from the Republican platform, states the doctrine perfectly. It's not really that gays should be persecuted; it's that they shouldn't be recognized at all.

The Republican Party, the organizational embodiment of conservatism in this country, has learned a valuable lesson from its two consecutive defeats in presidential elections. Homosexuals are among us and they will not be eliminated by any means acceptable to the American people. The question now is, what is to be done with them?

One option is to pursue a religious crusade against gays, arresting them in their homes, investigating them, praying for their souls when they speak, and calling them "errant," as Jerry Falwell put it. Another option is to welcome gays into the institutions of American life, like the military and marriage, connecting gays with mainstream values. Bush hinted at the latter option when he said that his "tolerance" came from, not despite, his religious faith.

For now the party has decided to rest on an unstable middle ground. Like the closet itself, it's better than some conceivable alternatives, and it's an undeniable improvement over where we were, but it's not a stopping place.

Originally appeared August 9, 2000, in the Chicago Free Press.

As the Mary Cheney affair reveals, many reporters and opinion leaders aren't sure it's right to describe anyone as gay unless they've made a "formal public statement" to that effect. Our author realizes that he's never issued such a formal public statement, and tries his hand at composing one.

---

I JUST HAVEN'T MANAGED TO GET ANY WORK done for the last few days. I've spent all my time trying to write my announcement that I am gay.

I didn't even know I needed one. You would think someone would have mentioned it before now. But then I was alerted to my oversight by former National Endowment for the Humanities chair Lynne Cheney. Mrs. Cheney's husband, you will recall, was recently nominated for Vice President by the Republican Party.

When Mrs. Cheney was interviewed on ABC's Sunday morning talk-show "This Week," reporter Cokie Roberts started to ask her about her daughter Mary: "You have a daughter who has now declared that she is openly gay."

Mrs. Cheney immediately exploded, berating Roberts for even broaching the subject:

"Mary has never declared such a thing. I would like to say that I'm appalled at the media interest in one of my daughters. I have two wonderful daughters. ... And I simply am not going to talk about their personal lives. And I am surprised, Cokie, that even you would want to bring it up on this program."

In reporting this exchange the Chicago Tribune seemed to accept this idea. "Although she has never made a public statement about her sexual orientation. ..."

So we need not just a statement but a "public statement."

The Los Angeles Times went further: "Although Mary Cheney has apparently never made a formal public statement about her sexual identity. ..."

So we need a "formal public statement" as distinguished, I suppose, from an informal public statement.

Let's see now. Mary Cheney has lived for years with a woman whom she describes to friends as her "life partner." She wears a gold wedding band on her left ring finger.

Cheney worked at Coors as their corporate advocate to the gay community. College classmate Catherine Pease told USA Today "It didn't go unnoticed that the daughter of the Secretary of Defense was a lesbian."

And just a few months ago in an interview with the lesbian magazine "Girlfriends" Cheney said, "The reason I came to work here [at Coors] is because I knew several other lesbians who were very happy here."

The Chicago Tribune quotes this very sentence just two brief paragraphs after claiming that Cheney has never made a public statement about being a lesbian.

So I realized that I needed to make some sort of very explicit, formal public statement. What if I died suddenly before making it? My obituary might read, "Paul Varnell. Deceased writer for gay press. Never declared if he was gay."

The Tribune might print an old photo of me holding a large sign saying "I AM GAY" with a caption reading "The late Paul Varnell, shown here maintaining his personal privacy."

And after all my efforts, too! Here I worked for a gay advocacy organization. I talked about gay issues on radio and television. I gave statements to newspapers. I walked in gay pride parades. I write for gay newspapers. I co-edit a gay website.

A few years ago on National Coming Out Day, I realized that I had no one left to come out to. So in a playful mood I called a reporter at the Sun-Times I had worked with on some gay news stories.

"Suzy, It's National Coming Out Day," I announced brightly. "So I just wanted to tell you that I'm gay."

"Oh, Paul!" she laughed, "The whole City Room knows you're gay."

So I thought I was on the right track. I thought this would be enough. But no; I was deceiving myself, living in a fool's paradise. So I began drafting my official, formal, definitive statement, per Cheney's stipulation.

"I, Paul Varnell, am gay."

Short, efficient, to the point. But it could be misunderstood. Lynne Cheney might say that I only alleged I am gay and did not actually "declare" it, to use her words. I tried again.

"I, Paul Varnell, hereby declare that I am gay."

Better, but still not sufficient. I realized this did not make clear that I am "openly" gay, which is what Roberts asked about and Cheney denied. I tried again.

"I, Paul Varnell, hereby declare that I am openly gay."

Hmm. Still not good enough. You see why this has taken me so much time? It isn't as easy as it looks. I forgot to say "publicly" that I am openly gay. I tried again.

"I, Paul Varnell, hereby publicly declare that I am openly gay."

Now this might actually satisfy Mrs. Cheney. But of course, I have not really publicly declared anything until I send this statement to someone. But who do I send it to?

The Mayor? The Governor? Mrs. Cheney? Maybe the local papers - the Tribune and Sun Times. Maybe the New York Times and the Washington Post. Should the Associated Press and Reuters get a copy?

Maybe the Associated Press could keep a data base of all of us who file declarations of being gay. Then it could safely refer to us as gay in its articles and Mrs. Cheney wouldn't get angry.

But there is something wrong here. Nobody talks about his or her sexuality this way. Real people do not "announce" or "declare" or issue "statements," much less "public statements." People just "tell" others they are gay or "indicate" or even "let people know" they are gay.

Only inside the D.C. beltway is something not definite until it is announced in an official statement by some agency spokesperson and confirmed by an official press release on embossed letterhead stationery.

Lynne Cheney and Cokie Roberts have both been in Washington too long. Way too long.

Originally appeared July 2000 in The Weekly News (Miami) and other publications.

WHEN I FIRST HEARD about the group Soulforce, a network of lesbian and gay (and, yes, bisexual and transgendered) activists with plans to protest homophobic doctrines and policies at various Christian denominational gatherings, I was dubious. I remembered all too well ACT-UP's 1989 protest inside New York's St. Patrick's Cathedral. Chanting "You say don't fuck, we say fuck you!" the demonstrators sought to counter the Catholic Church's anti-gay dogma - and opposition to safe-sex education - by running riot during Holy Mass. Notoriously, one protester threw a communion wafer on the floor and stamped on it. Take that, Christ.

Needless to say, no anti-gay hearts and minds were swayed that Sunday in New York. In fact, many who had originally been supportive of an action were appalled at what occurred. Members of Dignity, the gay Catholic group, had hoped for a more, well, "dignified" witnessing, rather than a raucous tantrum that only served to confirm the traditionalists' view that homosexuality and violent amoral anarchism were one and the same. Moreover, the communion-stomping incident has been cited by anti-gay conservatives over and over again in their diatribes and fund-raising appeals.

So, again, I was dubious about what the Soulforce demonstrations might be like. But I can now say, following several recent actions, that they seem to have found an appropriate form of spiritual protest, with a nod to Gandhi and King instead of the kindergarten bolshevism that too often characterizes gay acting up.

That's not so say that Soulforce doesn't lay it on the line. On July 4th, some 200 protesters planted themselves at the Episcopal Church USA's General Convention, held in Denver, for a 45-minute silent vigil. According to the activists, they "peacefully and symbolically" blocked the entrance to the convention center. Some 73 protesters were then handcuffed and arrested without resistance, in a bid to influence Episcopal Church rules regarding homosexuality. At issue: the 2.4 million-member denomination's unofficial policy of letting each diocese decide the role of gays and lesbians in the church. Conservative Episcopalians say the rule violates biblical morality and want it overturned. Some gays feel it isn't sufficiently gay-accepting.

"The time has come for you to stop the debate, open your arms and welcome all God's children in full acceptance, full inclusion," said Soulforce Chairman Jimmy Creech, a former Methodist minister who was defrocked after performing a holy union ceremony for a gay couple.

One of those arrested in Denver was retired Episcopal Bishop Otis Charles, who said, "After being true to myself and my church that I was gay, I came to understand that God loves me just as I am. There is no place I can be except with Soulforce, speaking the voice of truth about God's children."

Founded by Rev. Dr. Mel White and his partner, Gary Nixon, Soulforce is an interfaith network "determined to help change the minds and hearts of religious leaders whose anti-homosexual campaigns lead (directly or indirectly) to the suffering of God's lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered children." So says the group's website (www.soulforce.org). White detailed in his book "Stranger at the Gate" his journey from an associate of, and ghost writer, for Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and other religious rightists to a self-accepting gay Christian and minister in the predominantly gay Metropolitan Community Church.

Soulforce seeks dialogue with its adversaries. But when push comes to shove, its members are willing to follow in King's footsteps and practice nonviolent resistance. In June, Soulforce made its presence felt by submitting to an "arrest action" at the Presbyterian General Assembly in Long Beach, California, and at the Southern Baptist Convention. In November, a Soulforce delegation will conduct another civil disobedience at the meeting of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops in Washington, D.C. Participants in all direct actions are required to sign, wear, and uphold the Soulforce "pledge to nonviolence" used by Dr. King and his marchers in 1963.

While there are some signs that established lesbigay denominational groups - Integrity (Episcopalian), Lutherans Concerned, More Light Presbyterians, and the like - are sometimes uneasy with Soulforce's more aggressive though nonviolent actions, Soulforce points out that a large percentage of its delegations at its protests consist of denomination members, and that "we are people of faith coming in search of reconciliation, not conflict." They also promise they will not "disrupt, anger, or embarrass" as they hold their silent vigils and "revival and renewal" services.

And, unlike secular-political activists, Soulforce members do seem to be infused with the spirit. "I believe I experienced the presence of Jesus on the exit ramp outside the General Conference of the United Methodist Church and in the cells of the Cleveland City Jail," one member notes on the group's website. "What I felt today," writes another, "is that sometimes we need to not only insist on greater and more complete change, but we must celebrate and center ourselves in the wonder, the joy, the love and miracle that we are changing the world."

White himself states that "Unfortunately, our religious adversaries are not being changed by our current approach to activism. One-day marches, rallies or demonstrations do not convince them they are wrong. In fact, too often our public actions convince them they are right." He adds, "We no longer believe that what happens in Congress or the courts will change the minds and hearts of our adversaries nor lead to the understanding and full acceptance that we seek."

That's truer than most lesbigay activists are willing to admit. While legislative lobbying and court suits are important, in many ways they avoid the real challenge - changing attitudes by direct human encounter. As the Supreme Court's recent decision allowing the Boy Scouts of America to discriminate against gay men shows, the fight often must be waged on the level (again) of hearts and minds, appealing to the better angels of human nature, where true - and truly radical - transformation occurs, rather than simply by appeals to judicial fiat backed by state power.

But this will be no easy task. In the same week that Vermont's civil union law took effect, granting same-sex couples state recognition of the relationships, with all the rights and responsibilities the state grants married couples, the Presbyterians approved an amendment to their church's constitution forbidding ministers from conducting same-sex unions.

Religious homophobia remains the bedrock and rationale behind so much of the "secular" discrimination that gays and lesbians face in all walks of life. The curious thing is that religious denominations, if they were consistent, would support gay unions. They represent the loving commitment to maintaining stable relationships that religion otherwise upholds (which is why lesbigay cultural leftists also oppose the idea of gay marriage). Somehow, religious leaders and their flocks must be reached and addressed in the language they understand - as when Rev. White says, "We are your neighbors, and your organists, and your clergy, and your Sunday School teachers, and your deacons, and your ushers, and God's children."

Ultimately, our religious adversaries must be shown that spiritual principles do not support, but oppose, excluding God's lesbian and gay children from this flock. Soulforce could wind up making an important contribution to that effort.

Originally appeared in the Chicago Free Press July 26, 2000.

The considerable impact achieved by the StopDrLaura.com website campaign illustrates not only the remarkable powers of the Internet as an organizing tool, but also the ways in which the economic marketplace can be more sensitive than the political one.

---

IN 1993, DURING THE CONTROVERSY over allowing gays to serve openly in the military, congressional offices were flooded with cards, letters, faxes and telephone calls from angry voters urging that the ban be retained.

For its part, the pro-gay side managed to generate only a comparatively small number of supportive messages; some congressmen said they received virtually none at all.

Now contrast: In 2000, advertisers on "Dr. Laura" Schlessinger's projected television show and her current radio program have begun to withdraw under pressure from gays-among them Procter and Gamble, Geico Insurance, Skytel and most recently TCF Bank.

A spokeswoman for Skytel said the company had been "inundated" with messages expressing opposition to its advertising on Schlessinger's program.

What changed in the intervening seven years? What is different here?

Probably the chief factors are: the rapid spread of Internet use, particularly by gays; the one-stop shopping convenience of a dedicated anti-Schlessinger website; the fact of a small number of targets; and the pressure-sensitivity of the economic marketplace compared with an almost pressure-impervious political system.

Everyone is aware of the enormous growth of Internet use; it is one of the most remarkable social facts of our time. And no one doubts the substantial Internet use by gays. At this point, it is rare to meet any gay person who is not online at home or at work. Usually both.

Much of the opposition to Schlessinger has been generated by a website called StopDrLaura.com, founded by gay Internet consultant John Aravosis, who heads Wired Strategies.

Aravosis says that his website has received million of "hits," representing perhaps hundred of thousands of unique visitors.

Aravosis' very useful website offers a generous serving of abrasive quotations about gays from Schlessinger's own program and her interviews elsewhere.

But, more important, it also provides telephone, fax and e-mail contact information for Paramount, which is producing her television show, and for executives at some of Schlessinger's advertisers, urging people to write and express their concern.

In the old days, just a decade ago, people had to gather the facts themselves, try to compose a cogent letter, hunt down the right person and the address to mail it to. No longer. StopDrLaura.com does much of the work for them.

How far can this model of activism be generalized? Would specific websites devoted to other topics be as effective? What about StoptheScouts.com or, since no one really wants to stop the Boy Scouts, maybe DefundScouts.com? Or Gaysinmilitary.com? Or Endsodomylaws.com?

In Schlessinger's case there was one specific target so it was comparatively easy to gather the relevant information about her. And there were only a few people or companies to contact with expressions of disapproval.

It might be possible to generate, say, 20,000-30,000 messages to Paramount or "inundate" Skytel with 5,000-10,000 messages over a short period of time. Those are a lot for a medium-sized company to receive.

But if we are trying to influence a national policy such as the military gay ban, remember that there are 435 U.S. Representatives. Even 30,000 messages dispersed among 435 congressmen comes to fewer than 70 messages per congressman. Not an impressive number.

Since the Boy Scouts is not likely to change its policy in response to outside criticisms, activists would have to put pressure on the numerous United Way campaigns, corporations and foundations that support the Boy Scouts.

Determining which ones provide support, finding contact information for the right executives, and so forth would be an enormous labor, something no volunteer activists like Aravosis and his colleagues could reasonably undertake. And again, there is the problem of a multiplicity of targets, even if the total number of messages were large.

An even more important factor here is that advertisers, as actors in the economic marketplace, are more sensitive to the pressures of small change in sales and support than are politicians.

Most legislators are from so-called "safe" districts, meaning that a modest amount of pressure is not going to influence them one way or the other. They can easily risk the loss of 5 to 7 percent of the vote and still win re-election. All they need is 50 percent plus one vote.

And, of course, they risk losing an equal or larger number of votes on the other side if they alter their position, a serious disincentive for change.

By contrast, most companies would strongly prefer not to lose, or even risk losing, 5 to 7 percent of their sales or market share. That could make the difference between overall profit and loss.

And unlike politicians who risk losses on the other side if they change positions, corporations as advertisers have the option of simple neutrality, avoiding controversy entirely and choosing non-controversial venues for their advertising.

Accepting these provisos and potential limitations, the StopDrLaura.com idea is well worth trying for other purposes. Aravosis himself probably does not have the time to pursue such an endeavor, but if any of the lackluster national gay organizations were smart, they would hire him as a consultant to teach them how to reproduce his efforts.

SEVERAL YEARS AGO, one of the religious right organizations produced and distributed a film called The Gay Agenda. The 20-minute video featured lurid scenes from a San Francisco gay pride march and interviews with doctors who had less than enlightened views about gay men and women. I can't say I remember much from that video other than the image of a leather-clad, bare-chested, sweaty man licking the front tire of his motorcycle. But that image is enough to remind me how enraged I was at the time by the crude attempt to tap into the basest fears many people have about those of us who are gay.

The Gay Agenda was intended to scare Americans into believing that if they didn't do something - and do it fast - these outrageous, devil-worshipping, motorcycle-licking hedonists would be moving in next door, invading their children's classrooms and dismantling the very foundation on which our society was built.

Well, that hasn't happened. What happened instead, as evidenced by the video images coming out of Vermont these past couple of weeks, is that the two lesbians who already live next door and have done so without creating a fuss for the past 2 1/2 decades decided to get married. Because they live in Vermont, they went to a justice of the peace and legally tied the knot by getting a "civil union." And as far as I can tell, the ground beneath our feet hasn't yet given way. Yes, gay people want to get married. This shouldn't shock anyone any more than the fact that some gay people behave outrageously - just as some heterosexual people behave outrageously (have you ever been to a football game?). As most of us have been saying for a long time, we gay folks are human beings with the same feelings, desires, weaknesses and strengths as everyone else.

When my significant other and I decided to have a commitment ceremony four years ago, our goal wasn't to undermine society, to destroy the American family or to recruit children into sinful behavior. Our goals were much the same as any two people in our society who love each other and plan to spend their lives together. We wanted to share our happiness with friends and family and to state publicly our commitment to one another, and we wanted our loved ones to know that we considered each other partners for life. Not incidentally, they have treated us this way ever since. To them, we are a couple like any other married couple, with one big exception: Our relationship isn't legal. We live in New York, where we don't have the option of doing anything about that.

Vermont has taken a monumental step in the right direction by giving gay and lesbian couples the rights and privileges they need to care for one another and their families. But Vermont's civil unions, which are not yet recognized outside the state of Vermont or by the federal government, are just the beginning. Gay men and lesbians won't be satisfied with anything less than the same legal rights that non-gay married people take for granted in every state in the union. So if you're already tired of hearing about gay marriage, brace yourselves.

When the day finally comes - and I'm confident it will - that gay and lesbian Americans have the same rights and privileges as everyone else, including the right to legally marry, you won't hear much from us anymore. We'll go about our business and live as conventionally or outrageously as the average Joe and Jane.

And as disappointing as it may be to those who claim that gay men and women are up to no good, given the choice, most of us will opt for legal marriage over tire-licking any day.

WHEN THE SUPREME COURT held that the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) may exclude openly gay scoutmasters, many gay civil rights advocates howled. One writer said the result "lent legitimacy to the bigotry of ... institutions all over America." That's one way to describe the function of the First Amendment. I prefer to think of it as something free people should cherish.

The First Amendment protects people, like me, who say and believe good things. It also protects people, like the BSA, who say and believe some bad things. It guarantees freedom of speech, and the concomitant freedom to choose your friends and associates in order to promote your views. It doesn't say, "You have freedom of speech - unless a majority of a legislature in some state can be persuaded otherwise." It doesn't "lend legitimacy" to any belief. Only we, as a people, can do that, through our own words and actions.

Why would we protect a freedom to say and believe bad things? It's not because there's no difference between saying and believing bad things and saying and believing good things. One reason we protect people who say and believe bad things is that we're not very confident about our ability to distinguish between good things and bad things for all time. We should pause when we reflect that, as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once wrote, "time has upset many fighting faiths." Ideas once thought unassailable are now heretical.

Here's an example: New Jersey once had a law forbidding private, consensual gay sex. It was considered a good thing. But because of the First Amendment, those who disagreed were able to persuade New Jersey that the law was wrong. Now the old state sodomy law is considered bad, even terrible.

In fact, New Jersey has stood the old sodomy law on its head, forbidding discrimination against the very people it was once confident were criminals. It is that anti-discrimination law that brought the Scouts to the Supreme Court.

The BSA disagrees with New Jersey's new, improved view of gays. It also disagrees with New Jersey's egalitarian views about females and atheists because it doesn't welcome them, either.

If the Constitution is to protect us, it must protect people we don't like, too. Otherwise, its protections are a lunchtime snack for democratic majorities.

There's self-interest in this high-minded devotion to the BSA's right to discriminate against us. In the past century, democratic majorities have given us sodomy laws, a ban on military service, gay marriage bans, anti-gay adoption laws and much else. With a nod from those same majorities, the police have used their power to raid gay bars, censor gay publications, and harass law-abiding citizens for dressing the wrong way.

Gay equality advocates, as we have learned repeatedly from painful experience, are not often in firm control of the outcomes of democratic decision making. We may have our way today, but tomorrow the barbarians will be back at the gates pressing in.

The remedy for this uncertainty is to withdraw from democratic decision makers certain spheres of private life they have no business regulating. So commercial establishments, as public accommodations that have always been regulated by law, may properly be told not to discriminate. But non-commercial private membership organizations - like the BSA, or the HRC, or the NGLTF - should be allowed to further their missions as they see fit without state interference.

What's most culturally interesting about the case is that the BSA sought constitutional protection from the proponents of gay equality. The constitutional shoe is on the other foot. It's not gays seeking protection from raiding police officers now; it's homophobes seeking protection from raiding gay rights laws.

We should never confuse having a right with what is right, however. People should have the right to burn an American flag as political protest, but I don't think it's ever right to do so. The BSA may have a right to discriminate against gays, but that does not make their discrimination right.

As in the controversy over Dr. Laura, it's the role of conscientious people to expose bigotry. In fact, it's their right to do so. Just as we may urge sponsors not to subsidize a television program we think is wrong, we may urge local governments and charities not to sponsor a private membership organization that has fought tenaciously to discriminate against us.

In the short run, the BSA won't likely fold under such pressure. The group's membership is up and withdrawing sponsors have so far been replaced by new ones. There are probably still more parents out there who would prefer BSA to keep its anti-gay policy because they fear their children will be molested by gay scoutmasters than there are parents who think that fear is irrational and don't want their children to be taught to prejudge.

But, as even the supposedly anti-gay majority Supreme Court decision recognizes, "the public perception of homosexuality in this country has changed" in the direction of "greater societal acceptance." If we keep exercising our rights, our First Amendment rights, to move the country our way, the BSA won't be turning to courts to keep us out - they'll be turning to us to keep them around.

Originally appeared July 12, 2000, in the Chicago Free Press.

SUDDENLY, for a few weeks in late spring and early summer, religious denominations became a major source of gay news.

United Methodists, Presbyterians and Episcopalians all held annual or biennial conferences during which each tried to reach some sort of consensus on issues such as gay sex, gay clergy and gay marriage or union ceremonies.

During the same period, more than 100,000 European gays attended World Pride 2000 in Rome, an event which Vatican hostility transformed from an ordinary Pride celebration into a vigorous condemnation of Vatican homophobia.

Taken together, these events demonstrate the continuing importance of religion in the lives of many gay people and underscore the role of religion in shaping public attitudes toward gays.

Since many people associate their moral and ethical views with some religious doctrine or other, trying to alter their views of homosexuality requires an empathetic understanding of their religious views and a search for ways to encourage them to re-examine their thinking.

For some people, of course, religions merely provide a rationale, a rationalization, a justification for attitudes they absorb from their social surroundings. Religions may even be just a support for attitudes generated by people's psychological and emotional needs, insecurities and conflicts. For them we can do little.

But a substantial number of decent men and women, particularly those active in religious denominations, remain engaged in trying to develop reasonable and thoughtful moral valuations. These are people it is worthwhile trying to reach.

Just prior to the United Methodists' general conference, the church's publishing house Abingdon Press issued a valuable little book titled "Where the Spirit Leads" by former Indiana University sociology professor James Rutland Wood. The subtitle is "The Evolving Views of United Methodists on Homosexuality."

Barely 135 pages long, the book sets out a traditional Methodist basis for openness to fresh understanding of scripture and several factors that might lead Methodists to a fuller appreciation of gays and lesbians.

Although Wood writes about Methodists, one need not be a Methodist to learn from his book. Presbyterians and Episcopalians will find much of value. Many Catholics and Southern Baptists could learn from it as well.

Wood begins by pointing out that Christian churches must be open to theological and social diversity, as the early church was, and discuss those differences that are based on people's own experience and their thoughtful reflection on it. (Vatican please note.)

Methodists must remain aware, Wood says, of the culture-boundedness of the ancient writers and be open to new formulations of earlier ideas. Wood refers to this as "loving God with our minds" rather than letting controversial issues evoke an ideological response.

"God cannot," he explains, "at any given time reveal all truth to any particular culture. New capacities (or incapacities) to comprehend truth and new situations to apply it may emerge with each new generation or each new society." (Southern Baptists please note.)

And Wood especially urges Methodists to enlarge their networks of personal relationships in accord with the ancient gospel's mandate "to widen our circles of caring and concern. As we do so," he adds, "we often find our ideas and behavior profoundly change." (All religions please note.)

One of the book's greatest contributions is the responses Wood offers from 1996 General Conference delegates about what influenced or changed their views of gays and lesbians. Some said they changed their views at the conference itself.

A conservative delegate said the "general tone of homosexual interaction made me more accepting of homosexuals." Another conservative said the "(personal) witness event was very powerful. It made me rethink and hear other people's pain."

Yet another said his anti-gay attitude "softened" after he read a position paper that traced the biblical history of homosexuality. And a fourth said she "moderated" her position after talking with delegates who had gay and lesbian ministries in their congregations.

A number of other delegates suggested how change would come about within the church generally. Most emphasized personal contact and friendship with gays.

One woman said, "When more of us get to know marginalized people more personally, our prejudices are challenged."

A male delegate said "as more and more United Methodists 'discover' homosexuality among their family members, close friends and church members, this problem will go away."

Another man said that "sharing personal stories (and) struggles is important and life changing."

Throughout the book Wood cites surveys that show a growing acceptance of gays, gay marriage and gay ordination among Methodists. He points out that Methodists, like other Americans, are becoming more comfortable with gays.

More specifically, he notes that women are generally more gay supportive than men and that women are becoming a larger proportion of delegates to Methodist conferences.

In the same way, younger conference delegates and younger Methodists generally are more gay supportive than older Methodists, so as they take their place in church leadership, the church will become increasingly gay affirming.

Since many of these same factors - theological, pastoral, and social - are at work in other churches as well, the lessons to be learned from the Methodists have far wider application.