IGF CultureWatch

Arafat's "Queer" Brigade. The Forward newspaper presents an even-handed account of opposing views in the gay community on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, in Gays Are Divided on Mideast Strife.The paper reports:

Emmaia Gelman, a member of Queers for Palestine, a New York-based activist group that she said has some 20 to 30 members, said gays and lesbians are disproportionately represented in leadership roles in pro-Palestinian activist groups.

"Queer activism has traditionally fought to recognize the parallels between all kinds of oppression that are based on identity and on the wish of a government or society to repress a certain kind of people, or to erase people from the public dialogue or public space whose existence is inconvenient," Gelman said. "And so in that way there are enormous parallels between the queer liberation struggle and Palestinian struggle for human rights."

Well, that's one point of view. Fortunately, reporter Daniel Treiman also interviewed IGF contributor and LA Times columnist Norah Vincent, who

said her support for Israel in its conflict with the Palestinians "has nothing really to do with being gay, it has to do with notions of freedom and democracy." She did say, however, that the relatively advanced status of women and gays in Israel is indicative of why Israel is worthy of support.

Finally, the story quotes the Village Voice's Richard Goldstein, who pens attacks on gays who are out of lockstep with the left. Goldstein called Vincent's characterization of the gay left's attitudes toward Israel "an outrageous libel" and claimed he has never heard of Queers Undermining Israeli Terrorism (QUIT) or Queers for Palestine. Does that mean he doesn't read this site?

Palestinian "Liberation": Redux The New Republic's mortifying account of the arrest and torture of gay Palestinians by Arafat's forces (summarized in my Aug. 13 posting) is now online at the magazine's website. Read it for yourself. But don't expect Arafat's "useful idiots" on the gay left to see the light. They're the ideological descendants of the same ilk that celebrated Mao, Fidel, and Uncle Ho (and before that, Uncle Joe).

Was Pim Fortuyn Right? The gay Dutch politician, assassinated while making a credible run to become that nation's prime minister, warned that unchecked immigration posed a real threat to women's rights and gay equality. For this, he was condemned as "intolerant" and called a "racist." But read Mark Steyn's commentary in Canada's National Post about the blinkers worn by multiculturalism's proponents. He notes that "even in the face of the crudest assaults on its most cherished causes -- women's rights, gay rights -- the political class turns squeamishly away." Moreover he dares to assert, "I believe Western culture -- rule of law, universal suffrage, etc. -- is preferable to Arab culture." I support immigration, but with assimilation. Without it, like a Hindu widow, we're slowly climbing on the funeral pyre of our lost empires." It's a controversial piece, to be sure, but one whose arguments cannot simply be dismissed.
--Stephen H. Miller

Super Tuesday. As you probably know by now, in Tuesday's Georgia primaries both the anti-gay right and the loony left took hits, which is a victory for sanity in the political sphere. First, Rep. Bob Barr, the thrice-married defender of family values and the lead force behind passage of the dreadful Defense of Marriage Act (which forbids federal government recognition of gay unions, among other nice things), lost to Rep. John Linder, also a conservative Republican, but one who doesn't specialize in gay-bashing (redistricting had pitted the two incumbents against each other). On the eve of the race, Barr accused Linder of "supporting the gay agenda," which was nonsense, but shows that Barr was continuing his malignant ways up till the end.

Also on Tuesday, Rep. Cynthia McKinney was soundly defeated by challenger Denise Majette. McKinney notoriously charged that the Bush administration knew of impending terrorist attacks before September 11 but did nothing to stop them, presumably because, as she added, "persons close to this administration are poised to make huge profits off America's new war." On Monday, according to Atlanta media, McKinney's father and patron, state Rep. Billy McKinney, dismissed Majette's candidacy and spelled out the reason for his daughter's tough fight: "J-E-W-S," he said on television. And on it goes. Oh, she was a supporter of gay rights, too. Big deal. Good Riddance.

We"re Everywhere! Much of the print and broadcast coverage on the guilty plea by former Enron executive Michael Kopper noted that he and his domestic partner profited from some rather shady dealings. For instance, Reuters reports that "In the "Chewco" deal that ultimately led Enron to restate its earnings to the tune of $591 million in November, Kopper and his domestic partner William Dodson earned $7 million from Enron for a $125,000 investment." The fact that Kopper is gay has been treated in a simple, straight-forward manner, as far as I can tell. But perhaps it will give the gay left another reason to condemn our "assimilation" into the mainstream!

They Just Won't "QUIT." More anti-Israeli lunacy from the gay left this week. According to an account on the sf.indymedia.org website:

"About 25 queer settlers descended on a downtown Berkeley Starbucks on Saturday, August 17, claiming Berkeley as "a city without people for people without a city." The group, organized by Queers Undermining Israeli Terrorism (QUIT!), posted a banner proclaiming the reclaimed caf" "Queerkeley -- A Prophecy Fulfilled." They also erected" signs reading, "It Works In Palestine, Why Not Here?" and "It's Ours Because We Say So." They erected plastic palm trees to "make the concrete bloom," and gave patrons a tract explaining their religious claim to the land as follows: "Land of fruits and nuts "" "

The report continues:

"The group selected Starbucks for the location of their first settlement in Berkeley because Starbucks founder and CEO, Howard Shultz, is a major supporter of the Israeli state and the corporation has become the prime target of an international boycott of corporations with ties to Israel."

Wow, an anti-Israel and anit-corporation demo all in one!

The "queer" left's demonizing of Israel and romanticizing of the Palestinian "liberation movement" is even more repellant given recent revelations of the arrest and brutal torture of gays by the Palestinian Authority (see the Aug. 13 posting, below).
--Stephen H. Miller

Fit to Print. The New York Times has finally decided to run gay union announcements in what will now be known as its "Weddings/Celebrations" section. Just why it took the flagship of American liberalism so long to do so is an interesting question. As a story in the Boston Globe points out, in the New England region alone the count of daily and weekly papers that publish same-sex union announcements includes the Sun-Journal of Lewiston, Maine, New Hampshire's Foster's Sunday Citizen, the Somerville Journal, and the Melrose Free Press. But the Boston Globe itself, which is owned by the New York Times Company, has yet to join their ranks. Looks like small town editors may know something about community that the liberal elites are just realizing.

Biting the Hand that Feeds "Em. AIDS service/advocacy organizations that receive federal funding are bristling at a Department of Health and Human Services investigation into whether these groups used government money to finance the shout-down of HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson at the international AIDS conference in Barcelona last month. According to the Washington Post:

"Thompson was heckled on the third day of the weeklong conference when he delivered a speech on the U.S. government's overseas AIDS activities. Protesters blew whistles, chanted 'Shame, Shame,' rhythmically jabbed their fingers and eventually surrounded Thompson on the stage. He read his address to the end but his remarks were entirely inaudible. Handouts in both English and Spanish criticized the government for not spending enough on care and treatment of people infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in poor countries. At the bottom of the flier was a list of 12 organizations."

True, the investigation was triggered by complaints from a group of conservative members of Congress who are not exactly gay friendly. Still, if you"re accepting government funds, do you really want to put on protests that such as this:

"The heckling of Thompson was especially dramatic because it occurred in a movie-theater-sized space and went on for half an hour. (The Spanish health minister was heckled into inaudibility at the conference's opening ceremony, but that protest took place in a cavernous sports arena and lasted only 10 minutes.)"

This is all too typical of the contemporary left's mode of "discourse" -- throw a tantrum and refuse to let your opponents speak at a public conference, even if they"ve helped pay for your air fare, and then become indignant at the thought that your use of the taxpayers' funds is being looked into. I guess this is what the left means by "entitlement."

Beyond the Troglodytes. I wouldn't bother alerting you to yet another analysis of gay "progressive" Richard Goldstein's attacks on gay nonlefties if I didn't think it made some interesting, and fresh, points. Here's Julian Sanchez's review of Goldstein's screed, posted on the website of Laissez Faire Books, which is itself a libertarian resource well worth becoming familiar with. In particular, Sanchez notes:

"The vagaries of America's winner-take-all first-past-the-post electoral system, and the two-party hegemony it has entrenched, have forced a distasteful coalition. Adherents of a philosophy of limited government, open markets, and equality under law were shoehorned into "the right," where they formed an uneasy realpolitik alliance with (among others) loathesome, hate-filled little troglodytes who prattle about a "gay agenda" and live in terror of the day when America recognizes that 'equal protection of the laws' is utterly inconsistent with state bans on 'sodomy' and a 'straights-only' marriage policy."

However, as things have (thankfully) begun to change, the gay left is utterly unable to adapt:

"The Republican Party has frequently been hostile to gay rights. Therefore, when a Republican candidate emerges who might begin to reverse that trend, the correct response [by the left] is not to support him, proving that Republicans have much to gain politically from sloughing off the bigots and reaching out to the gay community, but instead to rebuff him."

Moreover:

"As we've seen with attacks on black conservatives, dissenting views must be explained away as signs of inauthentic identity, even as affronts to the relevant identity. For Goldstein, politics and sexual identity have so blurred together that this comes very easily. If being a progressive is just one necessary aspect of that identity, after all, then an attack on progressivism is an attack on the identity."

Turns out, in fearing change, Goldstein's really the one who's the "conservative."
--Stephen H. Miller

Liberate Palestine?A harrowing article appears in the Aug 19-26 issue of The New Republic on the persecution of gays in the territories under the control of the Palestinian Authority. "Refugee Status" by Yossi Klein Halevi (unfortunately, not posted online at the magazine's website) discusses the arrest and torture of suspected gays. Several stories are recounted, including that of a 21-year-old Gazan whom the author calls Tayseer (a pseudonym):

[A] young man he didn't know invited Tayseer into an orange grove. The next day he received a police summons. At the station Tayseer was told that his sex partner was in fact a police agent whose job is to ferret out homosexuals. If Tayseer wanted to avoid prison, he too would have to become an undercover sex agent, luring gays into orchards and turning them over to the police. Tayseer refused to implicate others. He was arrested and hung by his arms from the ceiling"

Months of horrifying torture followed. After his release, Tayseer crossed into Israel, where he now lives illegally. His dream is to move to Tel Aviv. According to Halevi, in the last few years hundreds of gay Palestinians have fled to Israel. Think about this if you should happen across a pro-Palestinian Authority demonstration, especially one in which gay left groups such as QUIT ("Queers Undermining Israeli Terrorism") are taking part.

Capitalism Liberates! Some 92% of major U.S. companies now have nondiscrimination policies that included sexual orientation, and more than two-thirds also offered domestic partnership benefits for the partners of their gay or lesbian employees, according to a new survey by the Human Rights Campaign. Think about that the next time yet another GLBT "progressive" labels corporations, free markets, and trade as the enemies of "social justice."

Addendum: Unlikely Heroes? Here's the AP story on the new survey of gay-friendly corporations. Notice how corporate America is easily outpacing both state and federal governments, which overwhelming do not protect gays from workplace discrimination, or extend partner benefits to gay government workers.

Notice, too, Human Rights Campaign leader Elizabeth Birch's comment, "The truth is it's corporate America that has been the unlikely hero in the movement for equality for gay and lesbian Americans"" Why unlikely? Typically, shareholder-owned companies are driven to both attract the best personnel they can, and to market their products to as wide a customer base as they can appeal to. It's government that is more likely to cut deals among narrow interests in order to rough out an electoral plurality. As HRC's Kim Mills says at the end of the AP story, "Most successful companies know discrimination is bad for business."

For politicos, pitting group against group is an electoral strategy.

2-4-6-8, We Will Not Assimilate! Many gay left activists are adamant in their rejection of "assimilation" into mainstream society, seeing it as a threat to "progressive" identity politics, and even to their "queer" identities. Consider the following attack on gay assimilation in Richard Goldstein's notorious Fight the Gay Right essay in the June 14 issue of The Nation:

"It's a painful, warping performance"And for the large contingent of gay people who were middle class before they were queer, acceptance even on these stilted terms is a seductive offer. The gay right is a broker of this deal. It provides a training manual in assimilation". Homocons abet this recruitment drive by urging gay people to qualify for membership in an assimilated elite, and that means leaving the tribe behind. By pitting personal ambition against communal values, they hope to wean gay people from the institution that has played a major part in their rise. The queer community still ties its members to the left, which is why it has been targeted by homocons."

Ironically, a similar anti-assimilation view is held by anti-gay Muslim fundamentalists. For example, here's how Sheikh Abu Hamza, the Egyptian imam of London's Finsbury Park Mosque and head of the Ansar Al-Shari'ah organization, views cultural assimilation (from an interview with the Arabic daily Al-Hayat, posted by the Middle East Media Research Center):

Q: "Do you consider yourself British?"

Abu Hamza: "I consider myself British to the extent that I use my British documents to move around.... I live here and I hold a passport. It is a superficial identity; real identity is in the heart and in the mind, and this is the [identity] that drives a man. This [identity] is Islam..."

But while gay leftists reject assimilation as a threat to the gay "tribe" and its "communal values," Islamists reject the mainstream in part because of its very acceptance of gay folks and others:

Q: "But in Britain you are respected as a person."

Abu Hamza: "And who said that we do not respect a person?! But must we respect a person even when he wants to be an animal?!...There is a difference between a man of intelligence and a man who is crazy or a pervert; [there is a difference between] a natural man and a criminal man... Must we respect someone who boasts of his bestiality? This is inconceivable. This is incompatible with Islamic religious law, or with reason.... Every man... [can choose] whether to be a human being or an ape. For example, if a man wears clothes, he is respected; but if he takes them off, he should not be respected. An adulterer should not be respected. Anyone who attacks little children should not be respected. Anyone who tries to turn himself into a half-man, half-woman should not be respected..."

If the mainstream is a bulwark against the enemies of gay equality (or, let's face it, of the "right" of gay people to even exist), then that seems all the more reason to embrace and defend it, while still working to expand the arena of personal liberty.

Left, Right, and (Mostly) In-Between. Last Sunday's Washington Post presented an intriguing look at the governor's race in Minnesota. As a microcosm for national political trends, this race shows voters rejecting both the Democratic and Republican parties as captives of special interests, a point which the traditional parties simply won't grasp -- thus creating a real opening for the independent candidate, Tim Penny. Write reporters David Von Drehle and Dan Balz:

As elsewhere, the deciding votes belong to cultural moderates. -- The [Democratic-Farm-Labor] nominee for governor, meanwhile, gives scarcely a nod to the idea of reaching out beyond his base. Instead, Roger Moe -- majority leader of the state Senate for an incredible 22 years -- describes a by-the-book campaign strategy based on accumulating slivers of the population. In a three-way race"Moe says, "it's going to take 34 or 35 points to win. It won't take 40 points. So you get ducks where the ducks are." Finding enough ducks will be a matter of "narrowcasting rather than broadcasting," targeting the "distinct, small groups" that Moe says constitute the base of the DFL.

But such "narrowcasting," whether practiced by Democrats reaching out to minorities and gays, or Republicans targeting religious conservatives, won't heal the rifts in the social fabric or nourish a sustainable and growing political foundation. Politicians who don't see the need for attracting broad-based majorities by growing their base, rather than relying on narrow pluralities, are dooming their parties to eventual extinction. Republicans and Democrats should both pay attention.

Not a "Commie." A nice piece by David Harsanyi is now posted at FrontPageMagazine.com, responding to gay "progressive" (and attacker of gay moderates) Richard Goldstein's rebuke to all who would call him a communist. I particularly like Haranyi's remark:

"Classifying himself a "liberationist" who fought "bitter battle with Marxists who regarded sexism and homophobia as a distraction from the class struggle," Goldstein seems to have less of a problem with Marxism's all-encompassing tyrannical dehumanization than he does with totalitarian views on sexual persuasion. Communism's 100-million plus victims are not as damaging a crime to him as a fellow traveler's lukewarm support for the local same-sex prom."

Which brings to mind Urvashi Vaid, the former long-time head of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, who took umbrage at being called a Marxist, noting, instead, that she was an "anarcho-syndicalist." Oh.

Republicans, Nazis, Whatever. In Orange County, Florida, where openly gay Republican Patrick Howell is running for the state legislature, the leader of the county's Democratic Party asserted that a gay person voting for Howell would be like "a Jew voting for Hitler." Responds the leader of the Orange County Republican Party, writing in the Orlando Sentinel:

"Comparing any candidate to Hitler is so extreme, so vulgar and so desperate that it begs for a reaction of indignant outrage"[H]ow can a party chairman regard any voting block as exclusively Republican or Democrat? Voters do not belong to me or to my party, like distinct herds of cattle. How terribly presumptuous, not to mention condescending"to Democratic voters, gay and otherwise."

How indeed, except that this mentality is par for the course, and expressed in somewhat less vulgar terms by Democratic Congressman Barney Frank, among others. Consider Frank's remark, "I guess if you're gay but you're also rich, and you like to pollute, and you don't like black people, then you vote Republican."

The Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund, which has endorsed Howell, chimed in with a condemnation of the Hitler comparison, although one that doesn't go much further than belaboring the obvious. "There is no comparison between a man who's participating in the democratic process and a totalitarian responsible for the slaughter of millions of innocent people, including Jews and gay," says the Victory Fund statement.

Well, duh. Memo to the Victory Fund: It's not like the Democrats in Orange County just got slightly confused about the difference between Nazis and openly gay Republicans, you know. The Democratic party is dependent on its core constituencies -- blacks and Hispanics, trial lawyers, unionized government workers, and gays and lesbians. The trial lawyers and government workers aren't going anywhere as long as the Democrats continue to oppose tort reform and support bigger government. But the Democrats will fight tooth and nail to maintain their high percentage of minority and gay votes. That's why GOP efforts to reach out to Hispanics, blacks, and gays and lesbians are viewed as such a threat. And, in fact, the Orange County Democratic leader aimed his remark at a black gay Democrat who was helping Howell circulate petitions. Gays and blacks voting Republican -- no wonder the Democratic leader went apoplectic.

Still More on Goldstein. If you"ve been following my earlier postings on gay "progressive" Richard Goldstein's attacks on gay moderates in The Nation and elsewhere over the past few months, you might want to take a look at the letters published in the current issue of The Nation. In addition to the response from IGF contributor Andrew Sullivan (one of Goldstein's prime targets), what's surprising is how many ordinary readers of this left-of-liberal mag wrote to take umbrage at Goldstein. For some of them, perhaps cocooned on the left since they came out, Goldstein's screed may have at least enlightened them to the existence of gays who are challenging left-wing orthodoxy. As the communists like to say, "To be attacked by your enemy is a good thing." Well, sometimes.

Hypocrisy and Hysteria Alert. Big Brothers-Big Sisters of America Inc. (BBBSA) finds itself at the center of a storm over its new rule requiring all 500 U.S. affiliates to allow gays and lesbians to serve as mentors to children. Funny how all the right-wing groups that argued that the Boys Scouts of America, as a private organization, had a right to order its local chapters to exclude gay men from serving as volunteers, suddenly feel justified in condemning the gay-inclusive decision of a different child-mentoring organization.

According to the Culture and Family Institute:

Children who are involved in BBBSA programs are primarily from single-parent homes. Many of these kids are emotionally fragile and desperate for attention and affirmation from an adult of their own gender. "While gay activists insist that there is no connection between homosexuality and the sexual abuse of children, the evidence indicates that a substantial number of gay men seek adolescent males or boys as sexual partners.

The alert from the American Family Association is, if you can believe it, even worse, leading off with a purported threat by gay activists to "sodomize your sons."

Increasingly, this level of discourse can only appeal to the true hard-core fanatics. So, in a sense, it's a sign that these anti-gay groups have given up trying to move broad public opinion and instead are focusing exclusively on feeding red meat to, and soliciting funds from, their base. But it's still ugly to behold.

Censorship or Civility? The AP reports in a July 30 story that a recent graduate of an Ann Arbor high school is claiming "censorship" because she wasn't allowed to oppose equal rights for gays and lesbians during her speech for the school's "Diversity Week" program. And a conservative legal foundation is bringing a federal lawsuit on her behalf. The school, for its part, says it merely asked the girl to reconsider the critical paragraph of her remarks.

The problem with events such as "Diversity Week" is that if you"re a religious conservative and you believe homosexuality is a sin, you don't want the school telling your kid otherwise. On the other hand, public schools don't let kids from racist or anti-Semitic homes express their opinions. The difference, alas, is that opposition to homosexuality still carries religious weight, whereas racism and anti-Semitic views are nearly universally condemned in today's America.

The AP story doesn't make clear what the diversity folks were saying about gay people. Possibly it was just a bland exhortation against prejudice and discrimination. Maybe something more, and maybe something less. The school says during an "open mike" students were free to express any opinion. And some student organizers of the event said the "views of people who oppose homosexuality are often heard, and therefore they sought panelists who supported homosexuality," the AP reports.

A public school is an institution you are forced to attend (unless your parents can afford the price of a private alternative). School officials can search you locker, test your urine (under certain circumstances), and make you get naked and shower publicly. Which is to say, public schools are not a great respecter of personal rights. While the purpose of education should be to work through competing ideas, all schools have certain values that they impart as part of the educational package. Which is why the "gay" issue (and, for that matter, the "God" issue) provokes such heat.

Let's hope that in this little microcosm of the culture wars the legal brouhaha will at least prove educational, as the parties try to adjudicate where, as far as public schools are concerned, civility ends and censorship begins.

More Gay Political Rashomon. Here's another example of how different sides have very different views of the same gay political development. Last week, the Bush administration announced that Scott Evertz, the openly gay director of the White House Office of National AIDS Policy (i.e., the "AIDS Czar"), was moving to the Department of Heath & Human Services, where he will coordinate the government's global AIDS program. The new domestic "AIDS Czar" is Dr. Joseph O"Neill, an openly gay physician who treated AIDS patients before entering public service. He is currently chief of the AIDS policy office at HHS.

According to a statement from Rich Tafel, leader of the Log Cabin Republicans (the gay GOPers), this is a welcome expansion of the AIDS policy team, with the addition of another high-level openly gay appointee. "With Scott Evertz and Joe O'Neill, we have two of the best qualified people in the nation on the President's team fighting the AIDS epidemic both at home and abroad," writes Tafel.

On the other hand, the liberal/progressive Human Rights Campaign views the action with some suspicion, as they do with all administration moves. Says HRC Political Director Winnie Stachelberg:

"While this shake-up has caused much speculation and uncertainty, we are cautiously hoping that these moves will reinvigorate the Bush administration's efforts".This is an opportunity for the administration to reverse course, take this life-and-death issue off the backburner and reassert American leadership. We hope they are up to the daunting task at hand."

The HRC release goes on to say that "There has been speculation that Evertz may have been forced out of his position by conservatives upset with Evertz's close association with gay groups and his support of condom usage as an effective means to stop transmission of HIV."

Meanwhile, the anti-gay Family Research Counsel weighs in with a statement of concern:

"FRC opposed the appointment of Scott Evertz last year because he had no public health qualifications and as a gay political activist had espoused policies at odds with the president's position, such as needle exchanges to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS.... It remains to be seen whether the new appointee will pursue policies more closely aligned with the President."

Finally, the Juy 24 issue of LCR's e-newsletter, "Inclusion Wins" (not yet online), took aim at both the HRC and FRC responses, saying:

"This past week the gay left and the far right once again joined forces in spinning a story -- and both sides got it wrong. -- Leaders of the Family Research Council"claimed that [Scott Evertz] was pushed out of his position because he was too liberal, "too gay." -- Within a few hours, HRC put out their press release giving the far right exactly what they needed. HRC and FRC put out identical stories that Scott was "shoved" and it was a victory for the anti-gay right. Both organizations -- FRC and HRC -- have been looking for every chance to attack the Bush administration and make the same case to each of their donor bases -- the far right has influence in the White House. HRC wants to scare people into giving. FRC wants to appear powerful. They were a perfect match.

The LCR newsletter continues:

"The AIDS establishment has been schizophrenic.... They've attacked the Bush Administration for not doing enough on global AIDS, attacking [HHS Secretary Tommy] Thompson and hounding him off the stage at the recent Barcelona AIDS conference. But then Secretary Thompson stated he was working to address these concerns, and the same AIDS activists criticized him for not doing enough at home and focusing too much on the global problem."

Looks like you just can't win with some people, I guess.

Whatever the truth may be, the fact is that the administration has now appointed openly gay men to oversee both its domestic and global AIDS policy. That's the real story here -- and one that both the gay left AND the anti-gay right thought could never, and would never, happen.

Joined for Life? Here's a good example of the trouble with civil unions as "marriage lite." According to this AP report, Gary Roengarten and Peter Downes entered into a civil union in Vermont, but their relationship has since soured. Now, they find that they can't legally dissolve their union via a court in Connecticut, where they reside, because that state (like the other 49 outside of Vermont) doesn't recognize civil unions in the first place. A Vermont court could dissolve their legal union (the equivalent of granting a divorce), but only if one of the men were a Vermont resident.

Rosengarten's attorney said his client wants a formal dissolution to protect the inheritance of his three adult children. "These are two very private people who want to have this resolved with dignity and discretion," he explained.

Opinion Journal, on the Wall Street Journal website, has some fun with this (scroll all the way down to the item titled Marriage Plus), opining:

"Unlike today's marriages, a civil union is really for life."Though anyone can get a civil union license in Vermont, state law requires at least one party be a legal resident before the family courts will rule on a dissolution. Oh well, maybe this will provide Rosengarten and Downes with the impetus to patch things up."

But it's no joke to those who discover themselves legally bound together with no way out. Consigned to the realm of halfway measures and semi-equality, same-sex couples may find this sort of legal limbo becoming more familiar. Sooner or later, the other 49 and their courts, and eventually the U.S. Supreme Court, will have to come to terms with what has happened in Vermont. Or, much better still, realize that barring gay and lesbian couples from marrying in the standard manner is not a tenable situation.