IGF CultureWatch

You Go, Girl. Rosie O"Donnell is proving impressive on some unexpected fronts. Not only is she spearheading the fight to overturn Florida's noxious ban on gay adoptions, but she's taking on some of the most bile-filled luminaries of self-righteously mean-spirited gay Left as well. In an interview with the gay website PlanetOut, she was asked, "What do you make of gay journalist Michelangelo Signorile's assertion that it was your desire to silence your gay critics that made you come out?" Responded Rosie:

But as good as she was on the viciousness of the Left, she also knows how to win hearts and minds on the Right (where the struggle MUST be won). Last Monday, O"Donnell appeared on Bill O"Reilly's Fox News Channel talkshow, and -- rather than shouting propaganda points, as many professional activists would have done -- she actually engaged in real dialogue. According to an AP story on their encounter, O"Donnell, who "went on the show against the advice of everyone close to her," began by voicing "qualified support for O'Reilly's crusade against celebrities for not making sure that donations to Sept. 11 relief funds that they pitched for quickly found their way to the intended hands." Imagine, finding something to compliment a conservative about! The AP story continues:

During the interview, O"Reilly expressed views such as "Nature dictates that it's better for a child to be in a heterosexual home, again, with good, loving, responsible parents, than a homosexual home, because nature says the best way for a child to be raised is with a mommy and a daddy. That's nature." O"Donnell stood her ground, but she also said, repeatedly, "I can understand your opinion". You grew up around the block. I know where you're coming from. I don't think you are a mean-spirited guy." That let her connect with O"Reilly (and his conservative audience), even as she disputed his views. I can't recall ever seeing a professional activist be as sincere -- and as savvy.

A postscript: The following night, O"Reilly praised O"Donnell for having the gumption to come on the show (which many liberals refuse, flatout, to do). Better yet, he noted she had no doubt changed a great many minds with her appearance, and predicted that Florida's gay adoption ban will end, that "it's only a matter of time."

The Grand Alliance. On April 20, a broad assortment of self-styled progressive groups (i.e., the hard Left) will gather in Washington to protest the war on terrorism, and to demand that "the needs of people and the planet are given top priority." Among the participating organizations are the Communist Party USA, the International Socialist Organization, the Young Communist League, and Queers for Racial & Economic Justice. Isn't inclusion grand?

And She's Not Even a Lesbian. According to an AP story, a judge in upstate New York has "ordered a smoker to stop lighting up at home or in her car if she wants continued visitation rights with her 13-year-old son." The judge's 22-page decision said the mother's puffing was not in the boy's "best interests." The father's attorney said the boy "was ashamed that his mother was a smoker," while the mother's attorney claims the boy's father and paternal granparents are behind his smoking complaints.

Dysfunctional family dynamics aside, is this the Northern PC reflection of those Southern judges who won't allow visits by gay or lesbian parents who refuse to hide their sexual orientation from the child? Or, to put it another way, has control over visitation by noncustodial parents become the latest manifestation of the cultural war between Left authoritarians and Right authoritarians?

Nash re-gayed. Advocate.com does a nifty job of going through Sylvia Naser's A Beautiful Mind, the biography of John Forbes Nash Jr. on which the Oscar winning film was based, and showing just how gay he really was -- despite recent protestations by both Nash and Naser.

O'Reilly's Two Faces. In his March 20 syndicated column, conservative talkmaster Bill O"Reilly, host of Fox News's top-rated "The O"Reilly Factor," came out in favor of gay adoptions ("Good Bill"), but also in favor of the closet ("Bad Bill"). This reveals a great deal about the muddle in the minds of many who dislike bigotry (and thus oppose outright discrimination against gays and lesbians), but still don't GET IT. For example, "Good Bill" writes:

Not bad, eh, for a darling of the right? Unfortunately, "Bad Bill" later opines:

This is obviously unfair. Madonna does make blatantly sexual presentations. But of course Rosie has not. People like "Bad Bill" think that mentioning your partner is talking about your sex life, but heterosexuals have to actually talk about their sex lives to be accused of the same thing. Mentioning your wife -- or your children -- doesn't count.

O"Reilly is not a clod. Opposing discrimination AND urging gays to keep silent about our lives is common among Americans in the middle to center-right -- a huge demographic whose support we vitally need. The good news is that if a Bill O"Reilly can come as far as he has, taking the next leap and GETTING OVER a sense of queasiness over gays having actual relationships is probably not an insurmountable hurdle.

Note: Shouting "Bigot, bigot, go away," as the gay Left tends to do over expressions such as "Bad Bill" O"Reilly"s, achieves nothing.

Not So Beautiful. As for not talking about IT... Just in time for the Oscars, John Forbes Nash Jr. and his wife, Alicia, gave a joint interview to 60 Minutes in which the facts of John's past were, to say the least, subject to obfuscation. The man whose life was the basis for the award-winning film "A Beautiful Mind" has now been thoroughly de-gayed, at his own (and his wife"s) instigation . As I wrote in my Feb. 23 posting, Ron Howard's film came in for much criticism for omitting some of the same-sex escapades that were document in Sylvia Naser's biography (also titled "A Beautiful Mind"). In her book, Naser wrote of how Nash was arrested for a same-sex restroom come-on (thus losing his security clearance). Among several other incidents, she noted that Nash climbed into a fellow mathematician's bed and made a pass at him, and that Nash had commented about his long awaited 'gay liberation".

Now reunited with his wife and of advanced years, things are told differently. Much like Anne Heche, Nash (and wife) say he wasn't gay, that his behavior was just another symptom of his psychosis -- and he's better now. Author Naser, paid nicely for the film rights to her bio, is chiming along. She tells USA Today, "The book didn't say [Nash] was gay. I stuck to the facts I had. I don't know where people are getting all this." Maybe she should try re-reading her own work. It's another reason why you should never, ever attempt to make movies about living people.

A Wild & Crazy Guy. Richard Nixon was one of the scariest men ever to occupy 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Not widely reported, however, was his fixation with "homosexuals." According to a March 21 Washington Post story based on newly transcribed White House tapes (yes, he taped EVERYTHING -- for posterity), Tricky Dick launched into the following tirade in May of 1971, while top aides H.R. "Bob" Haldeman and John Ehrlichman laughed nervously at their bosses increasingly demented history lesson. Proclaimed Nixon:

Gosh, I guess those homos created classical civilization just so they could destroy it, huh? Nixon continues:

One gets the clear sense that Nixon actually admired the efficiency of repression in the Soviet Union, the way the commissars simply made homosexuals and other undesirables disappear. It's just those damn commie hippies in the U.S. that were the problem.

Mitt's Not Dick. Fortunately, there has been progress since the 1970s, and that includes progress within the Grand Old Party. Businessman Mitt Romney, who spearheaded the recent, very successful Winter Olympic games, is now the likely GOP candidate for governor in Massachusetts (after the hapless Jane Swift, the unelected incumbent, dropped out of the primary). Here's something positive to report, from the Log Cabin Republican's "Inclusion Wins" e-newsletter:

Sounds promising -- a hopefully non-RINO (Republican in Name Only) who also appears to be good on gays. Stay tuned.

Wedding-bell Gender Blues. Look for more legal confusion over whom a transsexual may marry, if anyone. As reported in the Kansas City Star last week, the Kansas Supreme Court ruled that male-to-female transsexual J'Noel Gardiner's marriage to her late husband, Marshall Gardiner, was invalid, thereby providing a victory to her husband's son, who successfully sought to deny J'Noel's inheritance of Marshall's $2.5 million estate. Not of particular relevance, but of salacious interest, J'Noel was 45 years junior to her 85-year-old-husband, who passed away less than a year after their nuptials (oh, what a plot fit for "Dynasty"!).

The state Supreme Court's unanimous ruling said that despite her sex change surgery and body altering treatments, J'Noel remained a man for purposes of marriage. It thus overturned a decision by the Kansas Court of Appeals, which approved the marriage as valid after finding there's more to gender than "simply what the individual's chromosomes were or were not at the time of birth."

Here's the tricky part -- various courts in other states have reached different conclusions on whether transsexuals may legally wed members of their same birth sex or not. And, according to a New York Times story posted on gaylawnet, several legal experts believe if male-to-female transsexuals are barred from marrying men, they are consequently allowed to marry women -- despite the fact that their legal identification (including, in many cases, a revised birth certificate) lists their gender as female. In fact, after a Texas court invalidated a marriage similar to the Gardiner's, at least two male-to-female transsexuals have married (other) women in that state. Are these marriages, then, legal lesbian unions? It's at least debatable.

Pro and con advocates on same-sex marriages, of course, are having their say. In the gaylawnet article, Jennifer Middleton of the Lambda Legal Defense Fund asks, "How much of what we think of as appropriate for a woman or a man is biologically determined versus socially constructed?" However, I'm not sure the premise that sexuality is a social construct is going to win the day outside of the academy. On the other side, as quoted in the Kansas City Star, Bill Duncan of the Catholic University of America's Marriage Law Project declares, "We have a mission to reaffirm the legal definition of marriage as a man and a woman," noting, "but we haven't thought that much about what makes a man a man and a woman a woman." And with transsexuals, squaring that circle ain't so easy. The solution, of course, would be to allow any two consenting adults who are not incestuously related to wed -- but, apparently, that's TOO easy.

Too Much Choice! There are those PC types who feel it's wrong to let McDonald's set up outlets in developing nations because "the people" might be seduced into eating there, and thus become victims of globalized exploitation. Similarly, some of the arguments those on the Left are making against the proposed new 24-hour gay cable channel (a joint venture between Showtime and MTV) seem to imply with trepidation that gay people might, well, choose to watch it. Take Rick Whitaker's opinion piece, We've Come to Far to Be Reduced to the Small Screen, in the March 17 Washington Post. Of the new channel, and television in general, he writes: -- "the words 'lowest common denominator' come to mind -- along with 'corporate exploitation' and 'crass commercialism'." Want more? How about this bit of history:

But here's the gist of his opposition:

Whew. It seems those conniving capitalists are (shudder) out to MAKE MONEY, and not to advance the Left's political agenda. And they've come up with yet another evil scheme -- creating a gay cable channel that gay folks might watch and enjoy, thus feeding the greed machine. Why, it's the new opium of the people!

Now there are, in fact, some reasonable arguments for questioning whether an all-gay channel would promote cultural integration or be a new sort of media ghetto. But can't this be debated without resulting to knee-jerk attacks against the very free market/consumer choice system that's been the engine not only of Western prosperity, but of our open and, yes, increasingly tolerant society to boot?

Everything's Coming Up Rosie. No question, Rosie O"Donnell is the Next Big [Gay] Thing, following her much publicized, nationally televised coming out last Thursday in a mega-interview with ABC-TV's Diane Sawyer. As I wrote previously ("Really Rosie", March 4), I"ve had issues with O"Donnell, but her current crusade on behalf of overturning Florida's odious ban on gay-parent adoptions is a noble crusade. As ACLU rep Eric Ferrero told the Ft. Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel, "Twenty-five years ago, celebrity helped get support for the gay adoption ban," referring to singer/anti-gay rights activist Anita Bryant's push to pass the law in 1977. "If the power of celebrity can now help turn that around, that's fine."

When a spokeswoman for Florida Gov. Jeb Bush was asked for a comment, she would only say that "the state of Florida is complying with current law." Jeb's gonna have to do better than that -- either he"ll be forced to defend a hateful and hurtful law that nevertheless may be supported by most of the state's GOP establishment, or he'll rise to the occasion and take a principled stand -- for the controversial position that gays and lesbians deserve equality under the state's laws.

Frozen in Time? My partner just received a mailing from the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force inviting him to become a new member. What's interesting is that this could have been mailed 10 years ago. The big draw is a photo and quote from Jerry Falwell. Sure, he's still saying nasty things, but get real -- he no longer has any measurable political influence. The mailing dredges up Lou Sheldon as well, as if the RADICAL RIGHT were about to storm the gates, take over the nation, and send us all to the camps.

Also of interest: I didn't see the word "gay" used anywhere in the 4 pager other than in the organization's own name. It's all "GLBT people." That may be standard activistspeak these days, but what do Gary Gay Guy and Laurie Lesbian make of it?

Changing Times. Last week, the White House's Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS held a wine-and-cheese reception in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building and invited members of AIDS Action, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), and other AIDS advocacy groups so that, according to an official memo, "members of the community might meet members of the Council and so that members of the Council might get better acquainted with each other." Scott Evertz, head of the White House Office of National AIDS Policy (and the former head of the Wisconsin chapter of the Log Cabin Republicans) was also at the meeting. OK, no big deal. Except that this is the sort of routine interaction that we were told would NEVER, EVER happen if George W. were elected -- a sentiment expressed during the campaign by many of those relaxing and shmoozing with top Administration AIDS-policy officials last week.

A Measure of Progress. The U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has dismissed a lawsuit brought by a Wisconsin public school teacher, Tommy Schroeder, who claimed he suffered years of crude anti-gay heckling by elementary and middle-school students. Schroeder sued the school board, charging it had refused to require sensitivity training and did not adequately punish harassers (the board claimed it did punish students who could be identified, and that Schroeder exaggerated the problem).
I don't necessarily agree that the suit lacked merit, but I found it significant that one of the judges who ruled with the majority opinion to dismiss, Reagan appointee Richard A. Posner, wrote the following:

For a conservative federal judge to be moved to affirm that the law protects gays -- even if finding that in this instance a gay claimant had no case -- is a sign that, despite a few neanderthal state judges, we"re making irrefutable progress toward achieving equality under the law.

Unqueer. Keith Boykin is a black gay writer/activist and a man "of the left." Still, I enjoyed reading his recent article "Queer as White Folk" in which he takes on the use of the Q word. "Despite the claim that "queer" is more inclusive than "gay" and simpler than "LGBT," the word "queer" is just as white as the television show that bears its name," Boykin writes. "It does not represent the vast majority of black homosexuals and bisexuals." He concludes, ""progressive activists should think twice before promoting the term "queer" as inclusive language, especially to blacks." I hope that ruffles a few feathers on the "more correct than thou" gay academic left, and helps derail once and for all the "call us queer" bandwagon.

A Defense Worth Making. Bravo to the Log Cabin Republicans for their strong declaration of support for embattled Judge Charles W. Pickering, nominated by President Bush to fill a long vacant slot on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Judge Pickering has been a victim of the ugliest kind of character assassination by Democrats who control the Senate Judiciary Committee and their allies, who've twisted and contorted his history so as to support their allegations of "racial insensitivity" -- an inflammatory tactic aimed at mobilizing voting blocks on the Left. Those who've looked into the matter know better, of course; Judge Pickering has a long and distinguished civil rights record that includes bravely testifying for the prosecution in a criminal hate-murder case against the Ku Klux Klan. What I didn't know is that he holds strong beliefs that gays and lesbians should be treated equally under the law. According to LCR, in 1991 Pickering sharply rebuked an attorney who tried to use a plaintiff's homosexuality in a fraud trial, saying "Homosexuals are as much entitled to be protected [under the law] as any other human beings." And in 1994 he stopped an anti-gay citizens group in the town of Ovett, Mississippi, from using the courts to harass Camp Sister Spirit, a lesbian community.
"The judge who threw out the anti-Camp Sister Spirit case and rebuked homophobia from the bench in the Deep South over ten years ago deserves a promotion," said LCR's Rich Tafel, who spoke with Judge Pickering at length. I'd add that the political demagogues who believe distortion, lies, and vilification are just dandy if they serve to advance their goals ought to be ashamed of themselves (but they won't be).

"The O'Reilly Factor" on Fox News aired a segment recently about Providence, R.I. firefighters who say they were required by the city government to ride in a gay pride parade last year, despite some of the firefighters religious and moral objections (Firefighters Protest Appearance in Gay Pride Parade). Three of the firefighters are threatening to sue unless officials make participation in future gay parades optional. On the show, an ACLU rep sided with the firefighters on free speech grounds. But Wayne Besen of the Human Rights Campaign, the largest Washington-based lesbigay lobby, felt forced participation was a good thing. As justification, Besen used the case of Tyra Hunter, a pre-operative transsexual in Washington, DC who died after reportedly being mocked and denied treatment by District paramedics following a car accident (Hunter's family subsequently received a settlement of $1.75 million from the DC government).

This did not go over well with one viewer - Rick Rosendall, vice president for political affairs of the Gay and Lesbian Activists Alliance of Washington, DC (www.glaa.org), who shares his letter to host Bill O'Reilly (and it's a good one). Rick writes:

Well said, Rick.

Ramblings of a Confused Mind. I can't get over an interview that the Winston-Salem (N.C.) Journal conducted with our fav demented legislative homophobe, Sen. Jesse Helms, (and which I first wrote about in a March 7 posting, below). Some context: Helms spoke at a Prescription for Hope conference organized by an international Christian organization led by the Rev. Franklin Graham, who had called for a worldwide campaign against AIDS. In his remarks, Helms seemed to be on board, saying he was "so ashamed that I've done so little" about AIDS. But in his subsequent interview with Journal reporters Kevin Begos and John Railey, published March 6, he delivers the following statement, which is well worth parsing:

Now, at first, Helms seems to describe his questioning of AIDS funding as a "sin," which would gel with his being "ashamed that I did so little." But as he goes on to describe why he opposed the funding, he gets caught up in his own hateful rhetoric ("dumping funds on AIDS"), and winds up reaffirming his opposition to AIDS funding as "reasonable" after all. Amazing.