Richard J. Daley and "Da Bums"

Whether or not the electorate is getting tired of "faggot, faggot", Republican politicians are not, apparently.

Senator Wayne Allard, Republican of Colorado, confirmed that Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Republican of Tennessee, will bring the "Marriage Protection Amendment" to the floor for a vote this year, in time for the November 2006 elections: "Senator Bill Frist has indicated he will try to bring the Marriage Protection Amendment to a full vote again this year. [Senator Allard] believes that a constitutional amendment is the best way to make it crystal clear that marriage is between a man and a woman."

Well, good on you, Senator Allard. Far be it from me to suggest that your convictions have a lot more to do with cynically using queer folk as cannon fodder in the culture wars -- a religious wedge issue to fire up the Republican social conservative base -- than with "protecting marriage".

The late Mayor Richard J. Daley of Chicago used to have a term for Republicans -- "da bums".

It works for me.

A Republican breaks ranks ...

The Washington state Senate voted 25-23 Friday to pass an LGBT civil rights bill that ends a 30 year struggle by gays.

The measure passed the House last week and now moves to Gov. Chris Gregoire for signing.

The legislation adds "sexual orientation" to a state law that already bans discrimination based on race, gender, age, disability, religion and marital status.

The deciding vote was cast by Senator Bill Finkbeiner (Republican-Kirkland), the only Republican to support the bill.

Thank you, Senator Finkbeiner, for breaking with your party and voting your conscience.

It takes a set of balls to stand up to social conservatives in the Republican party these days, particularly when the rest of the politicians in your party are hewing the party line and playing "faggot, faggot".

Gays and lesbians in your district won't forget.

Bishop Thomas Gumbleton

Bishop Thomas Gumbleton, of Detroit, announced that he is resigning.

In a letter to Detroit Catholics, to be read at parishes Sunday, Bishop Gumbleton had this to say:

"On Thursday of this past week, Pope Benedict XVI accepted my resignation from the office of auxiliary bishop to Cardinal Maida. In the revised Code of Canon Law, promulgated in 1983, there is a canon directing every bishop to request permission of the Pope to resign from the Episcopal office at the age of 75. For a variety of reasons when I turned 75 last year, I wrote a letter requesting that I not resign at that time."

"During the past year I have carried on correspondence with Cardinal Giovanni Re, the head of the Congregation for Bishops, regarding this request. However, some time ago he indicated that my request to defer my resignation was not acceptable. Finally, I decided to end the discussion. On January 21, 2006, I wrote to Pope Benedict asking him to accept my resignation from my office as auxiliary bishop to Cardinal Maida."

"However, it is very important to understand what this means. It affects the canonical office of bishop only. It does not change anything as far as the sacraments of Holy Orders is concerned. I will continue to exercise my ordained ministry as a bishop as long as I am physically capable of doing so. This means that I will continue to teach, preach, celebrate sacraments and carry on my work for justice and peace wherever I am called to do so."

Nobody is surprised that the Vatican accepted Bishop Gumbleton's resignation. Bishop Gumbleton has long been a thorn in the side of conservative Catholics.

Among other things, Bishop Gumbleton worked to encourage the Church to modify its hard-line stance against homosexuals and homosexuality -- he was openly critical at times -- and that doesn't, obviously, sit well with the current regime in Rome.

Bishop Gumbleton's brother is gay, and his account of the journey of coming to terms with that fact -- which accounts for his activism on the issue within the hierarchy -- is moving.

Bishop Gumbleton spoke about his journey in a Frontline interview a few years ago. The following are excerpts:

I think I am probably typical of many people in my generation, and within the Catholic Church maybe especially, who without knowing it, developed a kind of homophobia. A very deep homophobia. ...

And so the whole idea of homosexuality very early on became a very negative thing. And a very, well, evil thing. And when I learned moral theology in my major seminary, I only learned about homosexuality as activity. Nobody made a distinction between homosexual orientation and homosexual activity. And so I never thought of it except in terms of homosexual activity. And that was condemned. Wrong. ... Because I felt ... that this was a simple choice, and like any other choice, we can choose this or choose that. And so there should be no big problem. And I would talk that way, which was not helpful to somebody who's coming out of the situation where their whole human person is moved, in regard to relationships and affective relationships, toward people of the same sex.

And so I went along with that kind of understanding, and I guess lack of understanding of homosexuality. Until suddenly in my own family I was confronted when my brother wrote a letter to my siblings and me and my mother coming out ...

And so he had gone so far as entering the seminary at one point, which is sort of a safe place for a homosexual actually because you do have male relationships, even though you could be committed to celibacy. ...

But then quickly he discovered that that was not where he should be, and so he left. But then he married. Again, in an attempt to say "No, I'm not gay." And he was married for fifteen years or so and had four children. But could never shake who he was because you can't -- it's something that is part of your person.

So when he came out, I suddenly had to deal with this in a way I never had before because it was on a very personal level. Do I reject my brother? Do I despise him because he's evil? And so on. So the first thing I had to do was deal with my own homophobia. ...

And in a very selfish way I guess it was partly--here I am a bishop, and I have a brother who's openly gay. What's that going to do, or what are people going to think about me? I mean somehow, when someone in a family comes out, the whole family's out. And so I'm involved in this. And I felt it would be an embarrassment to have to admit that I have a sibling who's gay. So I'm going through all this kind of turmoil within myself trying to deal with it. I didn't want to reject my brother and yet I somehow had this feeling I needed to. I mean, how could I be a Roman Catholic bishop, have a gay brother, and say that's OK? And so, I had to rethink a lot and re-examine why do I have such a negative reaction.

I began to look into my life and discover how I had been sort of formed in this way to be negative to homosexuals. And I began to understand that better and to understand much more about orientation. ...

But it was very troubling to my mother. ... And so one night when I was visiting she followed me to the door and we were talking. We stood there and talked for a few minutes and what she said was very direct. She said, "Is Dan going to Hell?" I knew I had to answer. And I wanted to answer honestly and to help her.

And so I did say immediately, "No, Dan's not going to Hell." And I could assure her that with great confidence because by that time I had thought it through and I realized that this is the way Dan is. And God knew this from the beginning of Dan's life. And God doesn't condemn Dan for being a homosexual. And so he's not going to Hell because of who he is. This is the way he is and God made him the way he is and in the providence of God, that's Dan's life. And so I was able to say that to her and it was very reassuring--the fact that I was a priest and a bishop, and I've helped over the years. My brother was killed and my dad died. You know, in a sense I was ministering, and within my own family.

And so this was very important to her how I felt about it. More important than any of my other siblings I'm sure. And so I was glad I could say that with conviction and with confidence. And with a calmness on my own part. And so it made it very good for her. And I'm sure it she was able, a couple years later, to die in peace. Because that problem was settled. ...

Some discomfort is present I think for me in the Church's teaching about homosexuality. That comes from something I heard a parent say--a father whose son began to realize he's homosexual. And the father says, 'how can I say to my son, you're disordered?'-- which is the words that were used in the Papal document.

I say to myself -- if I were a father I couldn't say to my son or my daughter, 'you're disordered, intrinsically disordered.' That's a terrible thing to say about your child. And I just can't believe it's true. That a person would be so essentially disordered, in this way.

So I just think those are cruel words and unjustified words and I would never expect a parent to say that to his or her child. ...

Bishop Gumbleton caused a stir recently when he talked about the fact that he had been sexually abused as a seminarian 60 years ago: "I speak out of my own experience of being exploited as a teenager through inappropriate touching by a priest ..."

Bishop Gumbleton explained that he had been abused in the 1940's, when he was studying at Detroit's Sacred Heart Seminary High School. The priest was teacher who invited Gumbleton and another teen to his cottage. "I would start wrestling with him, and he would put his hand in my pants," Gumbleton said. "It was very minor, but it was also something that was very inappropriate." Bishop Gumbleton said that the priest's behavior confused him as a young teen and that his brother had also been abused by the priest.

Bishop Gumbleton said he remained silent about it until recently and still refuses to name the priest. "The man is dead and buried and there's no way for him to speak himself, and I don't want to bring his name in. I realize mostly how badly that priest needed some help."

Bishop Gumbleton said he felt compelled to speak out now, "because I was trying to help victims who suffer so much. People don't believe them and don't understand why it takes so long to come forward."

But Bishop Gumbleton's story is sad, but it is also disturbing.

The bottom line of the sex abuse scandal in the Catholic Church is not the behavior of the abuser-priests. A small number of men abuse children and teenagers, and the Catholic priesthood is not immune.

The bottom line is that many bishops systematically protected abuser-priests, allowing them to remain in active priesthood in parishes, shuffling them around without warning parishioners, at the expense of other children and teens.

And now we find out that Bishop Gumbleton, a good man and a man who himself was abused, protected a priest-abuser for sixty years -- and still continues to protect his identity.

I am not concerned about the latter. I was abused as a teenager, and the person who abused me is also long-since dead, and was dead when I realized the abuse. I can understand Bishop Gumbleton's sentiment that "... the man is dead and buried and there's no way for him to speak himself ..." I named my abuser to a few people who needed to know, but I've not disclosed her identity beyond a handful of people. I understand. I don't know her side of the story, and she can't tell it.

But what about all the years when Bishop Gumbleton was a bishop in the Detroit archdiocese? As a bishop, he had an obligation to make sure that this man didn't abuse others. Why didn't he speak out then?

Nothing to fear but fear itself ...

Yesterday's news brought a strange little incident to light, and got me thinking.

Michael Guinn, a student at John Brown University, a Christian college in Arkansas, claims to have been dismissed from the college for violating a pledge that, among other things:

• he would not to dress in women’s clothing;
• if he participated in sports, he would not slap other players on the butt;
• he would not hug or shake hands with other men for too long;
• he would not "broadcast" his lifestyle; and
• he would not tell other students he was gay until he got to know them well.

It seems to me that religious colleges should be free to create and enforce student guidelines consistent with their religious teaching, whatever anyone might think about that teaching, but the list of restrictions imposed on Guinn started me thinking about "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and the future of the military.

With the exception of cross-dressing -- apparently, Guinn has been known to do drag, which is a huge issue for Christians, who want to be able to tell the men and women apart, despite the Liberace-like appearance of most male televangelists -- the list is almost a parody of the behaviors gay men use to steer clear of trouble in the straight world -- don't look to obviously, don't touch too long, don't tell, don't talk, don't be obvious.

It struck me, after a snort about how silly it all was to regulate the length of a handshake -- I'm surprised that the guidelines didn't require Guinn to give a "firm, manly, handshake" -- how similar the list was to the ways in which gay military personnel are expected to behave on duty.

I served in the military for six years, in Special Forces, and the fact that a number of the men in my unit were gay was more or less an "open secret", understood and acknowledged, but unstated. Most of the men serving with them "knew", but it made no difference.

The gay men in my unit, like the straight men, acted and sounded like soldiers -- "military bearing" is a form of play-acting that operates by rules distinct from the rules of behavior applicable to civilian life, and gay men are as capable as straight men in playing the John Wayne role. As long as all of the men acted like they were supposed to, sexual orientation was not an issue.

But what of the future?

The United States will end "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" within a few years, like it or not.

The polls make that clear enough -- Americans are not going to tolerate, much longer, a military that insists on removing men and women who are essential to its mission.

And from what I can discern from reading about current military culture, the military is not, by any means, ready for the transition to open service by gays and lesbians.

I think of the issue -- I suspect accurately -- in terms of male soldiers. The focus of the ban on gays and lesbians in the military is, culturally, based largely on the perceived reluctance of straight men to serve with gay men. Straight women in the military seem to have less perceived reluctance to serve with lesbian women, possibly because "military bearing", when applied to women, favors the kind of bearing and behavior commonly attributed to lesbian women.

The ban on open service -- put in terms of "small-unit combat efficiency" -- is based on the military's perception that morale would suffer if straights were forced to serve in close contact with known gays.

And that perception, in turn, is, as far as I can tell from reading military testimony before Congress over the years, largely based on the "yuk" reaction common among straight men -- the "Sleep and shower with a gay guy? Yuk!"

And behind the "yuk" is, I think, fear.

I am a member of a recovery support group that suggests that members of the group embark on a rigorously honest moral inventory, and then share that inventory with a trusted human being who is a member of the group. The idea behind the inventory and sharing is that "we are only as sick as our secrets", and that by admitting the things that we would just as soon take to the grave with us to ourselves and to another, we deprive our secrets of their power over us. A secret is no longer a secret after it is out in the open.

Over the course my time in the group, I've heard several dozen men, at least, share their moral inventory. And I've been struck by something -- the power of early same-sex experience by straight men on the rest of their lives. The sharing sessions typically take 4-5 hours, and cover the whole gamut of male misbehavior, varying only in detail and particulars from man to man.

And almost always, somewhere near the end, after a straight man has talked about a wide range of acting out, sexual and otherwise, we get down to the "uh, err" part of the session.

The man -- and this is more true of men under 30 than men over 30, although it applies to both -- falls silent, and then, after a lot of hemming and hawing around, starts to talk about the things he did with his friends as a young teen -- grabbing, unwanted erections, jerk-off sessions, mutual masturbation, oral sex and occasionally anal sex -- with a great deal of shame and confusion.

The shame, of course, stems from our cultural biases. Straight men are not supposed to have sex with other men, ever, no matter the age.

The confusion, however, seems to stem from two more personal factors.

The first is that whatever the particulars, "It felt good, and I liked it ...", and straight men are taught that they should not. The second is the question of "What does this mean about me?", which really asks the question, "Am I gay and don't know it?"

The sessions are a two-way street -- the man sharing the moral inventory does that, and the man hearing the moral inventory often shares experiences from his own life or comments in one way or another. When we get done with the "uh, err" part of the inventory, I usually comment about two things: first, that the "uh, err" story seems to be everyone's story, in one way or another -- boys will play with boys, and that's a fact -- and second, that "It is okay for straight boys to have had experience with other boys -- it doesn't mean you're gay."

I believe both those things. But I also know that the lingering fear -- "What does this mean about me?" -- stays with straight men for a long time. The question is more acute with younger men than with older men, of course, but it festers.

And I suspect that the lingering fear has a lot to do with the "yuk" factor -- the "Sleep and shower with a gay guy? Yuk!" -- that seems to be at the heart of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell". The one thing that straight men do not want to be confronted with is anything that brings up or reopens the question, "What does this mean about me?"

We read, from time to time, about the "gay panic defense". The rationale behind the defense is that a straight man can become so offended or outraged by a sexual advance -- by being thought to be homosexual -- that he is driven temporarily insane and commits an act that would not otherwise commit. The "gay panic defense" is, although unsuccessful for legal purposes in almost all cases, the penultimate example of a straight man's discomfort with being confronted with the question "What does this mean about me?"

"Don't ask, don't tell" is designed to reduce the "yuk" factor -- which gets down to the problem of straight soldiers being confronted with the question "What does this mean about me?" -- by rendering gay soldiers invisible. Gay men can serve in the military as long as strict secrecy is maintained.

Underlying it all, I think, is the idea that gay male sexual attraction is a time bomb: if a man wants to have sex with someone, sooner or later he will try, or at least say or do something that will be unnerving to the straight soldier to whom he is attracted -- something that will raise the question "What does this mean about me?".

The fear that gay male sexual attraction is a time bomb is all born of misplaced anxiety and cultural misunderstanding, to my way of thinking.

If straight men, who are notoriously uncivilized in this regard, can learn, to keep their eyes, hands and mouths to themselves around women soldiers while in military service, why isn't that true for gay men, who have had a lot of experience and training in high school locker rooms, showers and so on?

Of course, gay men can. And gay men do, in the civilian world and in the military. Right now.

That is what needs to be understood by straight soldiers if integration of openly gay men is to succeed in the military.

Straight soldiers would learn it in time, of course, as openly gay men served and there was no trouble, and about half of them probably know it already from high school, where gay teens are often "out" and share locker rooms and showers with straight teens.

But the military needs to think about the question, because "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is a policy largely based on a guesstimate, accurate or not, about what the rank and file think. “Morale” is almost always the primary justification for throwing out openly gay members of the military, and barring the gate to gays who are unwilling to serve in secrecy.

If it turns out that morale won't be affected, or that straight male discomfort with the "What does this mean about me?" question can be defused, then "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is based on nothing. Conversely, if it turns out that morale will inevitably be affected, and nothing can defuse it so long as our culture remains as homophobic as it is, presently, in many of the populations from which the military draws its personnel -- the rural South and the urban African-American populations -- then the country should take that into account when considering what to do about "Don't Ask, Don't Tell".

I am not suggesting that the country should keep, or delay repeal, of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell". The policy is unworkable, destructive, and runs counter to a basic foundational principle of our country's social compact, the principle that the risks and burdens of citizenship should fall upon all equally.

But I do think that we need to consider how to implement a decision to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell".

My view is that the military needs to start a discussion within the ranks, well in advance of the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell". The discussion has to bring the fears of straight soldiers out into the open, and deal with the fears honestly and forthrightly. Straight soldiers need to know that the assumption behind "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" -- the assumption that if a gay man wants to have sex with a straight man, sooner or later he will try, or at least say or do something that will be unnerving to the straight man to whom he is attracted -- is both inaccurate and, to the extent that some gay soldiers will, of course, act out, the military can handle it.

Many thoughtful people disagree with me, I suspect.

Many believe that a top-down solution arrived at by senior officers can resolve the issues. The solution put forward by those who believe that is forced integration of openly gay service members. The argument draws upon the military's experience with racial integration, which was successfully implemented during the days of civilian segregation despite insistence that it would upset soldiers from the South.

The comparison between forced racial integration and forced integration of openly gay service members seems plausible. In both cases resistance to integration began with a “yuk” factor -- "Share my foxhole with a black man? Sleep under the torpedoes of a sub next to a gay man? Yuk."

But my view is that the forced integration of African-American soldiers is not, past a certain point, comparable to the possible forced integration of gay soldiers.

Racists who said “yuk” to sharing a meal with a black man got used to it. White soldiers who did not want to be led by black officers and noncoms got used to it. And, I suppose, straight soldiers would get used to eating, sleeping and sharing showers and bathrooms with openly gay soldiers.

But I think that there is a difference between the two integrations.

Resistance to racial integration was based almost solely upon cultural prejudice. Resistance to integration of gay soldiers is based on cultural prejudice, to be sure, but also upon fear of being confronted with the "What does this mean about me?" question.


In that sense, integrating openly gay soldiers into the military is fundamentally different than racial integration. Whites and blacks may not like each other much, but white soldiers don't fear that black soldiers will "do something". My guess is that straight soldiers do fear that gay soldiers will do something, even it if only to ask.

And, I suspect, it goes beyond just the question of "doing something". My guess is that more than a few straight men are unnerved by the idea that gays might want to do something, even if nothing is done.

I don't think that a whole lot can be done about desire, but I think that straight soldiers can come to understand that gay soldiers have had years and years of experience in "don't look, don't touch" when it comes to straight men.

I think, in short, that straight men can come to learn that they have nothing to fear but fear itself.

Canada's Election

I follow Canadian politics with more than the usual interest and fascination.

I go way back with Canada. I earned my Canadian jump wings in the 1970's, while in the military, and carried the Canadian equivalent of a "green card" for about six months while I worked on a deal in Toronto during the 1980's. My working group in Detroit for the last five years included Canadians, and I got into the habit of watching "The National" -- Canada's nightly news hour -- most nights.

I was fascinated to see our country and the world viewed through the lens of our northern, saner, neighbor.

The Conservative minority government elected Monday is of concern to gays and lesbians in Canada, because the Conservative coalition in Canada includes the Canadian equivalent of the "religious right" -- social conservatives who are focused primarily on two "moral" issues -- abortion and same-sex marriage. Gays and lesbians are concerned that same-sex marriage, hard won in the courts and legislatures, could be in danger.

As far as I can tell from looking and listening to Steven Harper, the new Prime Minister, it does not appear that same-sex marriage in Canada is in any immediate danger.

Although the Prime Minister Harper is on record as opposing same-sex marriage, Harper largely distanced himself from the social conservatives in the Conservative coalition during the election campaign.

Instead of beating the drum on abortion and same-sex marriage, Harper focused on cutting value-added taxes, getting tough on crime, turning more power over to the provinces, replacing government-funded day care with direct grants and allowing patients a limited right to opt for treatment outside the national health-care system.

Harper was conspicuously silent about so-called "social issues", other than to note that he opposed "re-opening" the abortion issue and promising that any motion to repeal same-sex marriage would be a "private" bill, not a government-sponsored bill, and a "free vote", which means that Conservative members of Parliament would not be bound to vote with the government.

Many Canadians -- including Canadians who are opposed to same-sex marriage -- would balk at any attempts to overturn rights to same-sex marriage, now that the rights have been in place and the sky has not fallen, and it is not at all certain that a bill to repeal same-sex marriage could get anything close to a majority in Parliament.

My guess is that Harper will work under the radar to keep the same-sex marriage issue off the table. Although same-sex marriage would be raised as a "private" bill -- and hence, a losing vote on the measure would not trigger a "no confidence" vote -- a vote on the issue would be disruptive to Harper's primary goal, to win the next election.

Minority governments in Canada rarely last more than 18 months and the gossamer-thin nature of Harper's administration -- it looks like he is going to build his government through a coalition with the NDP -- means there is little chance he will bow to demands from social conservatives. Instead, Harper is likely to focus on low-lying fruit -- cleaning up the corruption in Ottawa and reforming government-funded day care, to position the Conservatives for the next election.

Leading a minority government, as a Canadian friend of mine observed yesterday, is all about "picking the vote to lose" -- that is, defining the issue for the next election by having the government fall over a clearly defined issue that the party can use as an anchor for the election.

Canadian political commentary suggests that the "vote to lose" is a vote over the value-added tax structure of the country. Harper has pledged to cut the VAT by 2%, and the NDP is not in agreement. When the issue comes up, unless something changes between now and then, the Conservatives will lose the vote and the government will fall. And that is the issue that Harper wants, apparently, to take to the voters in the next election.

So don't look for Harper or his government to waste any political capital on either abortion or same-sex marriage.

By the way, Harper gave a very strong "victory" speech Monday night, saying among other things:

Our national identity was not forged by government policy. It does not flow from any one program, any one leader or any one party. Our Canada is rooted in our shared history, and in the values which have and will endure. Throughout this campaign, I have been inspired by the thousands of Canadians I met who embody those values. Individuals, families, workers, and business people trying to get ahead. Parents doing their best to teach their kids right from wrong. Immigrants discovering new opportunities in a new land, seniors seeking security, the young promoting their ideals, East and West, English and French, city and country, men and women, new Canadians and old. This is the Canada we know. In asking us to lead change, the Canadian people have asked us to pursue our priorities.

Throughout this campaign, we were crystal-clear about where we will lead. First and foremost, we will clean up Ottawa by proposing and passing the Federal Accountability Act. We will do this because shuffling the deck in Ottawa is not enough. We need to change the system. And we will change the system to strengthen our institutions and make them more accountable to you, the Canadian taxpayers.

We will reduce your tax burden, starting by cutting the GST from seven to six per cent immediately and to five per cent over our mandate. We will reform our justice system to make it stronger and to ensure that we turn back the growing plague of guns, gangs and drugs in our cities and communities. We will offer parents choice and results in child care. And we will work with our provinces to give Canadians the health care they’ve paid for by developing a patient wait times guarantee.

Perhaps most importantly, we will begin the task of rebuilding federalism in the province of Quebec. I am especially proud of the fact that both Anglophones and Francophones worked together to bring about real change in Quebec. Our government will build a new and dynamic voice for federalism in Quebec.

To the people of the West, let me say one thing and let me be clear: the West is now in. Canada will work for all of us. To people in Atlantic Canada - the very different provinces of Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, and New Brunswick and Nova Scotia - we know that made-in-Ottawa solutions are not the answer. We will work to give you more control over your resources because I know that, for my ancestral home, the best is yet to come. To the people of the North - including the Yukon, Nunavut and the Northwest Territories - I say, we see your potential and we look forward to helping you achieve your dreams.

And finally, Ontario. Thank you for your increased support, and your confidence. A strong Canada requires a strong Ontario, and our government will keep our economic heartland moving forward. To those around the world who have followed the campaign, our message is the same - the result tonight signals a change of government, not a change of country. We will stay the course of balanced budgets, low inflation, debt repayment, and economic stability. We will continue to help defend our values and democratic ideals around the globe, as so courageously demonstrated by those young Canadian soldiers who are serving, and who have sacrificed, in Afghanistan.

While always charting a path in the best interests of Canada, we will seek to work co-operatively with our friends and allies, and constructively with all nations of the world. Tonight, although Canadians have voted for change, they have not given any one party a majority in the House of Commons. They have asked us to co-operate, to work together, and to get on with tackling the real issues that matter to ordinary working people and their families. I look forward to working with all of the parties and all members of Parliament to build consensus and move Canada forward.

Not a word -- not a word -- about "social issues".

Goosed Parrot

My mother, when confronted with something that she didn't want to hear, would stick her fingers in her ears and make a noise that I can't quite describe -- it was made by trilling her tongue, and it sounded a bit like what I would imagine a goosed parrot must sound like.

Media Matters ran an article over the weekend that reminded me of my mother's endearing refusal to deal with unpleasant realities.

Social conservatives, it seems, are in full throat about "Brokeback Mountain", but for all the howling, few of them have actually seen the movie. The bottom line, it would seem, is that the movie treats two homosexual men and their wives, children and parents, in a way that is sympathetic, and that is more than social conservatives can bear.

So they, like my mother, are sounding like goosed parrots.

The following are excerpts from talk show statements by a variety of social conservatives about "Brokeback Mountain", quoted in the Media Matters article:

From the December 15 edition of MSNBC's Scarborough County, in an interview with William Donahue, President of The Catholic League:

DONOHUE: Well, I heard that from other people that it is, artistically, a good movie. So, I haven't -- going to see it. Gay cowboy doesn't interest me. I am going to go see King Kong. I suspect the people who make these kind of movies, though -- like gay cowboy -- would go to see a movie called 'The Gay Gorilla'. But that's the difference between Hollywood and mainstream.


From the January 17 edition of CNN's Larry King Live, featuring conservative radio talk show host Janet Parshall and Albert Mohler, Jr., President of the Southern Baptist Tehological Seminary:

PARSHALL: No, I didn't see the film and I'm not at all surprised that out of seven [Golden Globe] nominations Brokeback walked away with four -- and some might say that's an indication of what the Oscar ceremonies might look like later on this year.

KING: Why would you comment on it if you haven't seen it?

PARSHALL: Well, I'm interested in all of the buzz around the film. I'm not the least bit surprised that we're hearing so much chatter. After all, I think what we're witnessing, Larry, is the homosexualizing of America.

[...]

MOHLER: I've not seen the movie, Larry, and that's a matter of decision, not just a matter of chance. Like others, I don't feel any need to see the movie. I have read the screenplay. I know the short story and, of course, I know what the movie is about because it's out there so much in the media.

That's the main issue. I am not a movie critic. I really can't speak to the cinematography. I can just speak to what the cultural meaning of this film is and why I see it as a great challenge.

KING: Didn't the short story move you at all?

MOHLER: Well, no, actually --

KING: For example, you're a reverend. Didn't you have some compassion for what happened to the younger one of the two?

MOHLER: Well, absolutely. You have to feel compassion when anyone feels pain and when anyone goes through that kind of struggle. But, you know, I really am horrified to think about where that story ended.

You know, my main concern, Larry, is not with the gospel of heterosexuality -- even though I think that's very important -- it's with the gospel of Jesus Christ, and what I find lacking in the movie, the screenplay, and in the short story is any resolution that really brings these persons to know why they were created and how God really intends them to live, and how they would find their greatest satisfaction in living just as God had intended them for his glory.


From the December 17 edition of Fox News Watch, with media writer Neal Gabler interviewing conservative columnist Cal Thomas:

GABLER: Well, on the one side, Hollywood is going to say, "It's a litmus test for tolerance toward - toward homosexuals." And on the right-wing side, if indeed they take the bait, they're going to attack the movie and say, "This is another way of -- of advancing the so-called homosexual agenda."

THOMAS: Well, let me take the bait. But I won't go in the direction you're thinking of.

I've been reading the reviews on this, and they're really interesting. You compare this movie with, for example, [The Chronicles of Narnia:] The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, [Walt Disney Pictures and Walden Media, 2005] which just premiered two weeks ago, took in $67 million in its first weekend. Now, we were treated prior to the release of the Narnia movie to all kinds of columns, including by Peter Steinfeld's in The New York Times and other mainstream venues, that this had a subliminal religious message. Lock up your children! They might see Jesus! Oh my goodness, it's terrible what's going on out there. And that's the kind of coverage and reviews that they got.

This thing -- breaking new ground, a love story -- you should go see it. So the difference has an agenda attached to it.

[...]

With the way Hollywood covers religion, it is stereotypical and outrageous. The movie Saved! [MGM/United Artists Studios, 2004] was about a hypocritical, oversexed, (inaudible) kids in high school; an unbelievable bigoted thing. This thing is a -- is a wet kiss, you should pardon the expression, to the gay community.


From the December 14 broadcast of Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly:

O'REILLY: Okay. You know, it's interesting because the polls show that Americans are going back to church in greater numbers than they were 10 years ago. But I believe that there's a segment of Americans that have -- are rebelling against the no boundaries deal, and they're so fed up that they said, "You know, maybe there's another way," and that's why that's happening.

But in popular culture, things are getting worse. You know, I can give you -- I could sit here and give you examples all day. Let me just give you this example, and this is a controversial example. This gay cowboy movie -- and it's going to win, you know, a lot of awards all over -- and their -- the media is pushing this like crazy. And I couldn't care less about it, to tell you the truth.

I probably will not go to see it, you know, just because I don't care about gay cowboys. I mean, it's -- to be quite frank. If it were straight cowboys, I probably wouldn't go to see it. I saw a lot of cowboys when I was a little kid, I loved the cowboys then. Right now, cowboys don't really mean much to me. So, probably not going to go and see it.

But you're going to see, over the next month, this movie being pushed and pushed and pushed by every media you can imagine. Why? Because they want to mainstream homosexual conduct. That's the goal.


And from the January 17 broadcast of The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly:

O'REILLY: And I get a kick out of Brokeback Mountain. I get a kick -- I'm not going to go see it, because people have seen it. [Legal analyst] Lis Wiehl said it was boring. But if it were -- you know -- if I had gotten good reviews from the people I know who have seen it, I'd go. But, you know, I'm not really interested in sheep herders. They got two sheep herders and two guys, and they're in Montana. I like Montana. Or Wyoming. Maybe, they cross the border here and there. I don't know.

But they're in the tent together rolling around. It's not -- you know, to me -- I want to watch ESPN. OK. I'm not -- the pup tent rolling around -- I want to watch the highlights of the game, not the pup tent. Just me. You want to go? Go. All right.


And the January 2 edition of The Big Story with John Gibson:

GIBSON: My Word. I've been getting no small amount of grief about the fact that I've been making fun of Brokeback Mountain, the gay cowboy movie. I've been making fun of it because it seems to me to be a movie in defiance of its audience.

I don't think it's going to be a box office hit. It will make no money, at least in Hollywood terms. I'm sure it will be a critical hit. Hollywood may, in fact, want to give every Oscar it can find to the first gay cowboy movie.

But I think most people do not want to go into a darkened room with a tub of popcorn and munch away watching two guys get it on. I just don't.

I had one prominent writer say he wouldn't come on my radio show because I made hate-encouraging speech when I said I couldn't figure out which was going to be harder to watch, the guys smooching in Brokeback or Bob Bear getting his fingernails ripped out in Syriana.

I said, hey, I know people who are gay. I have nothing against them, but I don't want to see this movie.


From the January 17 edition of MSNBC's The Situation with Tucker Carlson, which featured radio host Rachel Maddow:

CARLSON: I'm not attacking any of these pictures or shows on artistic merit. I haven't seen Brokeback Mountain, but I've heard it's good. But the point is: Isn't it about time that art was made for art's sake? A; B: Is it not true that Hollywood does have completely different values than most of the rest of America and seeks to use its art to shove those values down the throats of the rest of America? That's just true, whether you agree with the values or not.

MADDOW: How is Brokeback Mountain not art for art's sake? You're saying that it was driven by a political agenda and it's -- therefore, that overwhelms its artistic achievements?

CARLSON: No, I'm actually not saying that. I haven't seen it, and I've heard its artistic achievements are impressive.

MADDOW: Right.

CARLSON: And so, you can -- I think you can enjoy it for its own sake. I am merely saying it is used by people with a political agenda -- in this case, its own director -- to make a political point. And it just seems to me, at some point, Hollywood should give up its mission as a kind of, you know, evangelist for a political persuasion and just shut up and make the movie.

Well, I guess all I have to say about this is "Hi Mom ..."

In a related vein, a friend who follows such things reports that the Office for Film and Broadcasting of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops initially gave "Brokeback Mountain" an "A III - Adults" rating, while saying that the film was artistically noteworthy, but under pressure from conservative Catholics, changed the rating to "O - Offensive".

The following is an excerpt from the current O-rated review:

" Ang Lee directs with a sure sense of time and place and he doesn’t dwell on the carnal interaction between the two men. Except for the initial scene in the tent and brief sexual encounters between the men and their (fleetingly bare-breasted) wives, there's no sexually related nudity at all. Some outdoor shots of the men washing and skinny-dipping are side-view, long-shot or out-of-focus images.

The performances are superb. Australian Ledger may be the one to beat at Oscar time, and his Western accent sounds wonderfully authentic. Gyllenhaal is no less accomplished as the seemingly less nuanced Jack, while Williams and Hathaway (the latter, a far cry from "The Princess Diaries," giving her most mature work to date) are very fine.

Use of the film as an advocacy vehicle to promote a morally objectionable message that homosexuality is equivalent to and as acceptable as heterosexuality does a disservice to its genuine complexity. While the actions taken by Ennis and Jack cannot be endorsed, the universal themes of love and loss ring true. The film creates characters of flesh and blood - not just the protagonists, but the wives, girlfriends, parents, and children -- who give the film its artful substance.

However, the physicality of the men’s relationship and the film’s inherent sanctioning of their affair necessitate an O rating.

The film contains tacit approval of same-sex relationships, adultery, two short male sex scenes without nudity, two brief heterosexual encounters with upper female nudity, shadowy rear nudity, other implied sexual situations, profanity, rough and crude expressions, irreligious remarks, alcohol and brief drug use, fleeting violent images, a gruesome description of a murder, some fisticuffs and brief domestic violence. The USCCB Office for Film & Broadcasting classification is O -- morally offensive. "

At least the reviewer for the Office of Film and Broadcasting saw the movie, which is more than you can say for a lot of social conservatives.

The Great Easter War

I think we've just heard the opening shots in the "War on Easter".

The Family Pride Coalition, a consortium of family-oriented GLBT groups, has quietly announced plans to encourage gay and lesbian families to participate in the 2006 White House Easter Egg Roll on Monday April 17, 2006.

The Coalition's statement says this: "[T]his is a celebration of our families. We want to give our fellow citizens the opportunity to see us as real families, participating in a great American tradition on the White House lawn, rather than protesting from the sidelines."



The White House Easter Egg Roll is a tradition started by President Rutherford Hayes in 1878, and has long been a treasured activity for Washington families. People line up at the National Park Service to get tickets, and the line forms the night before the tickets are issued.

The Easter Egg Roll has become more and more of an elaborate event over the years, complete with costumes befitting Mardi Gras as much as the Easter Vigil.

It looks like, this year, the first in line might be gay and lesbian families, if the Family Pride Coalition and a host of other gay and lesbian groups -- Metropolitan Community Church, PFGLAG, Soulforce, COLAGE (Children of Lesbians and Gays Everywhere, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, Love Makes a Family, BLGT Office of the Unitarian Universalists and many local LGBT parenting groups and organizations -- have anything to say about it.

Bill Kristol's Weekly Standard picked up the story yesterday, and my guess is that we can expect the fur to start flying shortly.

The Weekly Standard is, I gather, a "must read" outlet in Washington, so you can bet everyone in Washington knows about it by now.

President Bush's press secretary, Scott McClellan, who has a reputation as something of a bunny himself, was asked about it at yesterday's press conference, and evaded the controversy for now:

Q Scott, a two-part. There's been extensive reporting of a homosexual group, Soulforce, calling on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transsexual and trans-gender Americans to be the first in line at this year's White House Easter Egg Roll on April 17th, as a way to show the nation their so-called families. And my question: Will the President take any measures to prevent these activists from using this non-political event as a way to push their agenda on the rest of us?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, this event is a time to celebrate Easter and to have a good family celebration here at the White House. And in terms of any other details about it, I think it's still a few months off, so we'll talk about it as we get closer. I've seen a couple of reports about it; I don't know how extensive that reporting has been. But this has been a family event for a long time and the President always looks forward to this event.

But now is now. Wait a week.

But you can bet that Fox News will pick it up today, and then we are going to be treated to Bill O'Reilly claiming that western civilization is about to end if any gay or lesbian families are allowed to set foot on the White House grounds.

And we'll hear the usual denunciations from the social conservative megaphones, James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Don Wildmon and the rest of the motley crew, frothing festering away about gay and lesbian plots to destroy the family by being families.

James Dobson will probably call for the House and Senate to withhold funding from the National Park Service.

Jerry Falwell will probably discover that the Easter Bunny is gay, and denounce Easter.

Don Wildmon will probably call for a boycott of the event, and a boycott of donations to the Republican Party.

If the Easter Egg Roll is rained out, as sometimes happens, you can bet that Pat Robertson will claim that God sent the rain to smote gay and lesbian parents.

The interesting question is what the White House will be badgered into doing, after the usual evasions, misstatements and vain attempts to defuse the uproar?

Will the White House finally get to the point where it, too, decides that enough is enough, and goes forward with the event, letting the chips fall where they may?

Will the White House denounce the "politization" of the Easter Egg Roll, entirely ignoring the fact that last year the White House had the kids recite the Pledge of Allegiance?

Will the White House make the event an "invitation only" event, adding heterosexuality to the vetting of those allowed at White House events?

Will the White House find a reason -- Osama Bin Laden's latest threats, for example -- to cancel the event outright?

Who knows?

But I know one thing: The fact that we are still at a point in our country where gay and lesbian families need to make a point of attending a family-oriented event at the White House, where Bill Kristol makes a big deal out of it, and where we can expect a political uproar over a few hundred gay and lesbian families rolling eggs on the White House lawn, makes clear beyond all doubt how far we have to go to make our country's promise of "freedom and liberty for all" a reality.

All of the bunnies pictured above, by the way, are White House staffers dressed in bunny suits, according to the White House website:

"The White House Easter Bunny, usually a White House staffer dressed in a special White House rabbit suit, was introduced by Pat Nixon, wife of President Richard Nixon, in 1969. Strict guidelines prohibit the bunny from being seen without his costume head, but the identity of the staffer inside is revealed every once in a while. Perhaps the most famous bunny of all was the wife of President Reagan's Attorney General Edwin Meese III. Ursula Meese so enjoyed the role that she performed for six seasons, earning her the nickname "The Meester Bunny."

Good God.

Rabbits, you might recall, are not entirely unknown to make mischief around Presidents.

Jimmy Carter was attacked by a killer rabbit while fishing near his home in Plains, Georgia, and the story took on a life of its own, much to the embarrassment of the President, the Secret Service and the entire Free World.

So I thought, as a good way to close, I'd post a picture of another kind of "killer rabbit", this one off the White House website:



I ask, with people like this prancing around on the White House lawn, who is going to notice a few hundred gay and lesbian families?

And how could they tell?

"Faggot, Faggot" Fatigue?

I don't know if the difficulty that social conservatives seem to be having gathering anti-marriage signatures in California, Florida and Illinois are a trend -- a sign that ordinary folk are getting tired of the "faggot, faggot" tactics of social conservatives and Republican tacticians -- but I suspect so.

I think that is the case in Illinois, where voters were treated to social conservative madness in full throat during the 2004 elections, in the person of Alan Keyes.

Alan Keyes is a prominent social conservative who is a perennial candidate for office.

After a popular social conservative, Jack Ryan, was embarrassed out of the Illinois 2004 Senate race against Barack Obama, by the revelation that Ryan had pressured his wife to have on-stage intercourse with him in a private sex club, social conservatives forced the hand of Illinois Republicans, and Alan Keyes was called in to provide a "moral conservative" voice.

Social conservatives in the state were ecstatic, and claimed that Keyes would sweep the state.

And Keyes did sweep the state, in a sense. He made a complete fool of himself.

He promptly went on the attack against gays and lesbians, Keyes opined that children of gay parents will live in families where "incest becomes inevitable", denounced Mary Cheney as a "selfish hedonist", argued that "Christ would not vote for Barack Obama because Barack Obama has voted to behave in a way that it is inconceivable for Christ to have behaved", and eventually kicked his lesbian daughter, Maya, out of the house.

The final bit of pre-election madness came during the last Obama-Keyes debate.

Obama criticized Keyes's argument that the children of gay couples, if born from artificial means and kept in the dark about their biological parents, could later end up unknowingly having sex with a relative. Calling it "a vicious attack." Keyes accused Obama of denying his logic because he didn't like the conclusion. "If you can't know who your sisters and brothers are, there is no way you could avoid having sexual relations with them. I know that Senator Obama sometimes has a hard time getting from A to B." Keyes reiterated his position that gay couples should not marry because same-sex couples cannot conceive children naturally and that children born or adopted into gay families would "inevitably" be subject to incest.

The end result was that even Republicans couldn't stomach Keyes and his "moral conservative" voice, and Obama defeated Keyes handily, carrying every county in Illinois except for a few rural counties downstate.

Oddly enough, Keyes maintains his election website, which includes an article "How and why Dr. Keyes won in Illinois". A more sensible person would move on.

Nothing focuses the mind like a good hanging, and Illinois Republicans had seen enough of "moral conservatism" in a state that had, until the social conservatives hijacked the party, a roughly 50-50 split in party affiliation and voting patterns, and a long line of moderate conservative Republican elected officials.

Illinois has an election coming up in 2006, and the Republicans have a good chance of defeating Governor Rod Blagojevich, who has fumbled badly, if the party nominates an electable candidate.

And it looks like Republican voters will do just that in the March 21 primary.

A recent GOP poll shows Illinois Treasurer Judy Baar Topinka with a commanding lead over her four potential Republican rivals for the gubernatorial nomination. The statewide poll shows Topinka with a 39-12 lead over her primary rival, dairy magnate Jim Oberweis. Other Republicans trailed far behind -- Steve Rauschenberger (6%), Ron Gidwitz and Bill Brady (3% each). And the poll shows that Topinka, if nominated, might beat Blagojevich -- the poll shows her leading 39-35.

Topinka will have nothing to do with the "faggot, faggot" game.

Topinka is supportive of gay and lesbian rights in Illinois, and appeared in Chicago's 2005 Gay Pride Parade, riding on the Log Cabin Republican float. She supported passage of SB 3186, the bill that expanded anti-discrimination law in Illinois to include sexual orientation, and she supports civil unions.

She has taken a lot of flack from social conservatives about this, but the fact that the Republican party in Illinois appears to be returning to rationality seems to me to signal the end of the "faggot, faggot" game in Illinois.

I'm not sure, but I suspect that "faggot, faggot" is coming to a well-deserved end elsewhere as well, and that voters are simply fatigued with queer-bashing as an election tactic by Republicans.

WE'll see, I guess, as the November elections come closer.

The Republican party in Wisconsin is playing "faggot, faggot" this year, maneuvering an anti-marriage amendment onto the November 2006 ballot in a blatant attempt to scare voters into voting against Democrats.

And ballot initiatives are pending in a few other states, as well.

I'll be very curious to see if the "faggot, faggot" turns out to be a flawed strategy. Polls indicate that opposition to same-sex marriage is losing steam as time goes on and Americans have experience with same-sex marriages, civil unions and domestic partnerships in several states. It might well be that the Republicans are throwing a party to which few voters will elect to come.

Alan Keyes, by way of update, is not running out of steam. Or at least hot air.

Keyes' latest gambit is to join the crowd calling for a national boycott of NBC and some of its advertisers over the airing of the series "The Book of Daniel". His political action website RenewAmerica, calls the program "repugnant": "This show insults all groups of decent Americans and crosses all party and religious bounds. NBC knows no shame. The network has the audacity to say that "The Book of Daniel" is a serious drama about Christian people and the Christian faith. They insult your intelligence. This issue is of great importance to you because it is another attempt to legitimize the homosexual lifestyle and ridicule the Christian faith."

The show, if the fifteen minutes I've seen of it is any indication, is terrible, and will sink from sight in its own right quickly. NBC has committed to only eight episodes and ratings have been deservedly poor. No "Brokeback Mountain", this show.

Boring is what it is.

But Keyes and the American Family Association will no doubt claim a great victory over the forces of darkness when the show tanks in a few months.

Petitions, Petitions, Petitions

Florida's social conservatives aren't the only anti-gay tub-thumpers having problems finding enough petition signatures these days.

Protect Marriage Illinois, the anti-marriage affiliate of the Illinois Family Institute, has been working since last June to gather petition signature calling for an advisory referendum on a constitutional amendment to "protect marriage".

So far, the group has come up with less than 100,000 of the 283,000 signatures it needs by the April 20 deadline. The group has a goal of 500,000 signatures.

The group's lack of success may be a reflection of the attitude of Illinois voters. A Glengariff Group poll last summer found that about 70% of Illinois voters opposed amending the federal and state constitutions to ban same-sex marriage. The range was from a high of 77% in Cook County (Chicago) opposing the amendment to a low 60% in southern areas of the state.

Come on the Florida Orange Juice Tree

When Republicans gear up for a tough election, you can count on them, as surely as the sun shines on Florida orange groves, to drag out us queer folk and start wailing.

"The homosexuals have a "secret homosexual agenda" to take over America. The faggots are out to destroy marriage. The faggots want to adopt [recruit] children, since they can't have any of their own. The faggots want the top bunks in the Army barracks. We've got to stop them cold."

And so it goes. The idea is that queer-baiting motivates the Christian vote, which would otherwise sit on its hands and watch Pat Robertson reveal who God is smoting this week.

So it wasn't exactly surprising to see Florida Republicans go into full flit, hawking a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, civil unions, domestic partnerships and same-sex benefits,

And it wasn't surprising to listen to the Republican gubernatorial candidates toss red meat back and forth about who was the biggest, roughest, queer-hater in the land. Tom Gallagher, the state's CFO, has made it clear that he'd reinstitute the Salem witch trials if he could figure out how to do it, and his opponent, Charlie Crist, hopped on the bandwagon,and started bellowing.

In a word, everything is on track for November 2006.

But a funny thing seems to be happening in Florida.

Amendment backers aren't finding all that much support out amongst the orange groves. The group organizing the petition drive to get the amendment on the November 2006 ballot, just in time for the elections, is short on signatures -- a lot short, as it turns out.

And the more level-headed Republicans in the state seem to be sensing that Florida voters might be getting tired of the "faggot, faggot" routine.

Governor Jeb Bush, for example, had this to say: "Gay marriages are banned in our state, and if I could be convinced there are looming court cases that will undermine that statute, or the [federal] law . . . then I would consider being supportive of it. But I have not been convinced of it."

And Bush is not exactly a pansy when it comes to queer-bashing. He strongly supports a Florida law that allows homseless, neglected kids to grow up in the state's child welfare system, which is, by almost all accounts, even worse than most, rather than allowing gays and lesbians to adopt them.

And then, just to make things really interesting, Jack Majeske, the president of a South Florida chapter of the Log County Republicans said Friday that he will file a grievance against the Republican Party of Florida, after learning that the state GOP contributed $150,000 to "Floridamarriage.org", the group sponsoring a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.

That's rubbing their pointy little heads in it, Jack. Good for you.

A spokeswoman for the Republican Party declined to comment because she had not yet reviewed the grievance.

I am SO relieved to hear this ...

Police dropped charges against Sam Brown, a drunk university student who, on his way home after a night of partying with friends, allegedly approached a mounted police officer and said: "Excuse me, do you realize your horse is gay?"

Brown refused to pay a fine of about $140 and the Crown Prosecutor prepared for trial.
But Wednesday in court, the charges were dropped. Both sides apparently agreed that Sam was, well, drunk, and didn't mean to call demean the horse by implying that he was a homo-horse.

The horse continued its "No snicker ..." policy and had nothing to say about the matter.

Not me, though.

And speaking of horses ...

... uh, ass ends, Pat Robertson finally got around to apologizing to Israeli Prime Minister Sharon's family and the Israeli people for his hateful and disgusting comments last week.

Robertson sent a letter of apology to Sharon's son Wednesday.

In his letter, Robertson wrote: "I ask your forgiveness and the forgiveness of the people of Israel for remarks I made at the time concerning the writing of the holy prophet Joel and his view of the inviolate nature of the lane of Israel. I pray for the future security of your country and, when I speak, it is always as a friend."

Yeah, sure, with friends like Robertson, who the hell needs enemies?

And, as Damien Scott pointed out on his blog, Robertson knows about as much about "the holy prophet Joel" as frogs know about rocket science.

Robertson isn't just the ass end of a horse, he's an ignorant ass end of a horse.

And while we are at it ...

... talking about wildly disingenuous and absurd statements, Massachusetts State Senator Philip Travis (Republican - Rehoboth) announced that he would introduce legislation to provide hospital visitation and other rights to gay couples. The bill is meant to counter claims that banning same-sex marriage would deny certain rights to gay couples.

Under the "Benefits Fairness Act," couples unable to legally wed would be able to enter a legal arrangement which provides rights for hospital visitation, after-death decisions, inheritance and estate designation and mental health decisions.

Travis is a big old 'phobe who is a leader in the movement to amend the state Constitution to outlaw same-sex civil marriage.

Travis' bill would apply to gay and lesbian couples, and other family relationships such as siblings or cousins living together.

Hell, I thought siblings and cousins living together could get married. Or is that just in Arkansas?

Cosmic Irony

In what amounts to cosmic irony, the Lonnie Latham prosecution could turn out to be a budding Lawrence case, a constitutional challenge to state efforts to use the law to harass and suppress gays and lesbians.

Latham, the just-resigned pastor of the South Tulsa Baptist Church, was, until his arrest, a leading light in the Southern Baptist Convention. He was also outspokenly anti-gay.

Latham was arrested last week for propositioning a male police office for oral sex. Latham invited the officer to his room in a gay resort hotel in Oklahoma City for private, consensual sex.

Oklahoma County District Attorney Wes Lane said, in an interview concerning the Latham prosecution, that Oklahoma law prohibits a person from offering to engage in a lewd act "regardless of whether money is sought for or engaged." If convicted, Latham will face up to one year in jail and a fine of up to $2,500.

However, because of the nature of Oklahoma City's law, the case presents an almost perfect venue for challenging the common practice of using "lewd and lascivious" statutes to achieve what sodomy laws no longer can do since the Lawrence decision, which is to suppress gay and lesbian private, consensual sex.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Oklahoma, bless them, has issued a statement on the case, making clear that Latham never should have been arrested, given Lawrence: "Reverend Latham appears to have done nothing more than to invite someone to a hotel with him for consensual sex. That's not a crime. The Supreme Court has made it clear that consenting adults are free to do what they wish in the privacy of their own homes. If you follow the logic of the Oklahoma City police, everyone who tries to pick someone up at a bar is a criminal."

It appears that Latham's attorney, Mark Martin of Oklahoma City, might be willing to fight the case: "I have grave legal concerns relating to the validity of any charges based on the facts as I'm aware of them."

I hope so.

Although the battleground has shifted from the Sexual Outlaws to same-sex marriage in recent years, putting us all on the firing line, getting rid of the "lewd and lascivious" laws remains an important fight in the battle for legal equality for gays and lesbians.

And so, although it is an example of cosmic irony, I hope that the Latham prosecution is the case that serves as the challenge needed to expand the ruling in Lawrence to rid our country of selective prosecution of the "Sexual Outlaws".

And good for the ACLU of Oklahoma.

I don't suppose it will happen. But God moves in mysterious ways, and seems to routinely pick out the most unlikely candidates to do his work on this earth. After all, if a slave trader could be moved to write "Amazing Grace", conversion of heart and mind is not out of the question in Lonnie Latham's case.

Civil Unions Unmasked

A year or so ago, civil unions became popular among conservatives as an "anything but ..." alternative to same-sex civil marriage.

At the time, so-called "moderate" conservatives, including a number of gay and lesbian conservatives and a many in positions of GLBT "leadership", conducted a romance with the idea of "incrementalism" -- the idea that abandoning the push for civil marriage and instead pushing for civil unions would defuse social conservative backlash against gay and lesbian equality.

Twin fears, I think, led to the romance with incrementalism.

On the one hand, gay and lesbian "leadership", feared that gays and lesbians would lose much of what had already been gained -- anti-discrimination legislation, a level of civil rights in a few states, and equality in the workplace among Fortune 500 companies -- in a wild and angry backlash by social conservatives, were looking for a way to "defuse" the backlash,

On the other hand, "moderate" conservatives, beginning to wake up to the fact that the social conservative backlash against gays and lesbians was a losing battle in the long run -- as certain to end up on the trash heap of history as segregation -- feared that traditional conservative values would be lost, as Americans turned their backs on the hatred and venom of the social conservative movement, and were also looking for a way to "defuse" the push for gay and lesbian civil marriage,

The romance was short-lived,as it turned out.

Social conservatives were not fooled by the "anything but ..." alternative, and quickly incorporated a ban on civil unions and domestic partnerships in anti-gay marriage amendment propositions, throwing down an "my way or the highway" gauntlet to both gays and lesbians and "moderate" conservatives.

A recent OpEd, "Same-sex 'civil unions' are merely a foot in the door", by Charles H. Darrell, the communications director for Minnesota for Marriage/Minnesota Family Council, in the Minneapolis Star Tribune, provides an insight into current social conservative thinking on the issue of civil unions and domestic partnerships:

Some call them "civil unions." The Star Tribune calls them "civil partnerships." No matter what they're called, where civil unions have become law the marriage debate remains unresolved. Even so, the Dec. 28 Star Tribune editorial "Can gay cowboys find true equality?" posits that the state "should leave marriage to religion and get into the business of civil partnerships" as a means to satisfy both sides in the marriage debate.

Thanks to the blunder in Connecticut, same-sex civil unions have been exposed as a bait-and-switch scheme, designed to obtain homosexual marriage via an incremental approach and to forestall efforts that would allow the people to vote on the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman.

In April the governor of Connecticut signed a civil union bill that granted same-sex couples all the benefits of marriage, and, as a nod to conservatives, protected marriage as between one man and one woman. However, rather than satisfying both sides, the bill has done just the opposite. Instead of closure, civil unions have put same-sex marriage supporters one step closer to achieving same-sex marriage -- exactly what the legislators and the voters meant to avoid.

Immediately, Connecticut same-sex marriage supporters declared the bill was a "down payment on same-sex marriage" and announced their determination to fight on for full-fledged marriage rights.

Anne Stanback, president of an advocacy group called Love Makes a Family, said the conversation isn't over: "Today we celebrate this step forward. Tomorrow we begin again to work towards the day when there are not two lines at town hall."

Stanback's statement seems prescient, as Connecticut applications for civil unions are practically non-existent and town clerks don't expect demand to rise.

Carrie Evans of the Human Rights Campaign believes many same-sex couples may be waiting for full marriage status. Connecticut is an example of what gay activists call an incremental approach to obtaining same-sex marriage. In the "Independent Gay Forum," gay activist Dale Carpenter proposes that homosexuals use the California Model, described as "Spousal Rights by Increments."

"Adopting civil unions will add a strong weapon to the arsenal of arguments for gay marriage," he concludes.

To their credit, some gay activists believe civil unions cheapen traditional marriage by reducing it to little more than a legal contract between two people. This "marriage-lite," says Jonathan Rauch in his latest book, is the real "slippery slope to the end of the family as we know it." Like his opponents, who warn that homosexual marriage will open the door to polygamy, pederasty and group marriage, Rauch states, "To whatever extent gay marriage gives polygamists a foot in the front door, the alternatives [civil unions] give them a whole leg in the back door."

Despite these warnings, the Star Tribune chooses to hide in a celluloid fantasyland of movies rather than deal with the failure, lack of consensus -- and interest -- for civil unions in other parts of the country.

The reality is that a civil union is just marriage by another name; and leaving the "marriage business" and getting into the "civil partnerships business" is just a bait-and-switch scheme designed to force one form of morality upon another. The only business the state should "get into" is representing the will of the people by allowing them to vote on the definition of marriage.

The question, to my mind, of whether gays and lesbians are well-served by an incremental approach, is settled.

Gays and lesbians are not well-served by an incremental approach.

Nobody is fooled by the idea that civil unions are something different than civil marriage -- civil marriage under another name, separate but equal.

Certainly not the social conservatives. And that, I think, is why social conservatives are including civil unions in the anti-marriage amendments.

The idea that gays and lesbians can somehow move to civil marriage in "increments" by appearing to give up the fight for full equality is an idea that has been tested, now, and proven false.

The idea that civil unions are more acceptable to social conservatives than civil marriage is preposterous.

And, frankly, the idea that civil unions are "civil marriage by another name" is equally preposterous.

Civil unions became the "compromise of choice" only because of fear, and "separate but equal" is inherently unequal. And that is the heart of the civil union compromise -- civil unions are a "solution" only because they are inherently unequal.

But social conservatives aren't buying into the civil union compromise. Social conservatives are no more willing to see civil unions and domestic partnerships become a fact on the ground than they are willing to see civil marriage become a fact on the ground.

Anyone who thinks that civil unions are worth fighting for is, in my view, deluding themselves.

It is this simple: If gays and lesbians want be "tolerated", then gays and lesbians should be "sensible" and ask to be "tolerated", accepting something less than full citizenship. If, on the other hand, gays and lesbians want to be treated as every other American citizen is treated, then gays and lesbians have no choice but to demand equality and risk being clobbered.

Wisconsin

I'll be Wisconsin for a few days, watching my house get built. I will not be posting until Thursday, at the earliest.

Demented

The following is a transcript of remarks by the Reverend Pat Robertson from the January 5 edition of CBN's The 700 Club:

"I have said last year that Israel was entering into the most dangerous period of its entire existence as a nation. That is intensifying this year with the loss of Sharon."

"Sharon was personally a very likeable person. I am sad to see him in this condition. But I think we need to look at the Bible and the Book of Joel. The prophet Joel makes it very clear that God has enmity against those who, quote, 'divide my land.' God considers this land to be his. You read the Bible, he says, 'This is my land.' And for any prime minister of Israel who decides he going carve it up and give it away, God says, 'No. This is mine.'"

"And the same thing -- I had a wonderful meeting with Yitzhak Rabin in 1974. He was tragically assassinated, and it was terrible thing that happened, but nevertheless, he was dead."

"And now Ariel Sharon, who was again a very likeable person, a delightful person to be with. I prayed with him personally. But here he is at the point of death. He was dividing God's land, and I would say woe unto any prime minister of Israel who takes a similar course to appease the EU, the United Nations or United States of America. God said, 'This land belongs to me, you better leave it alone.'"

Well, Pat Robertson is not a "very likeable person", in my view.

Robertson is a son-of-a-bitch who thinks nothing of using Israel as a pawn in his demented version of the divine script.

And he is a dangerous son-of-a-bitch, too, because he has the ear of the President of the United States.

Along similar lines, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying he was hoping for Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's death: "Hopefully, the news that the criminal of Sabra and Shatila has joined his ancestors is final" the semi-official news agency ISNA quoted him as telling a group of Shiite clerics in the holy city of Qom.

The United States quickly responded, blasting the comment as "hateful and disgusting." State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said: "This is a man who wraps himself in the cloak of a peaceful religion, Islam, and yet you hear remarks like this coming from him. I can only say that those remarks are hateful and disgusting. And I think that it is, again, a window into the true nature of this particular Iranian Government."

The administration has not, however, commented on Pat Robertson's hateful and disgusting remarks, despite the fact that his remarks are a window into the true nature of his religious madness.

I guess the administration knows that Iranians don't vote Republican.

Honesty, Gentlemen?

It is getting to the point where it is almost predictable -- keep an eye on a social conservative who is obsessed with trashing gays and lesbians and wait -- sooner or later the closet door is yanked open in a scandal.

The most recent is the Reverend Lonnie Latham, senior pastor of the South Tulsa Baptist Church and a member of the Southern Baptist Convention Executive Committee. Pastor Latham holds the oft-stated position that homosexuals can become heterosexual if "they accept Jesus Christ as their saviour and reject their sinful, destructive lifestyle." And, of course, he opposes same-sex marriage, gay and lesbian civil rights, and all the other anti-gay extremism of social conservatives.

Pastor Latham was arrested by Oklahoma City police yesterday after asking an undercover officer posing as a male prostitute to join him in his hotel room for oral sex. He was booked into an Oklahoma County jail and released on $500 bail.

Pastor Latham was cruising the parking lots of the Habana Inn, which bills itself as "The Southwest's Largest Gay Resort Hotel" in his 2005 Mercedes, which was impounded.

Pastor Latham is being charged with offering to "engage in an act of lewdness".

A local television statement quotes Latham as saying, upon his release: "I was set up. I was in the area pastoring to police."

Yeah, well, maybe so.

The Habana Inn is in the heart Oklahoma City’s “gay district”, and features 175 rooms, 2 pools, 2 clubs, a piano bar, a restaurant and an adult shop called "Jungle Red" that caters to gay clientele.

If Pastor Latham had a room in the Habana, it was no honest mistake on his part.

And "pastoring" does not usually involve asking a man for oral sex in an area known for gay cruising, so that claim doesn't seem to ring true. And if Pastor Latham really was wanting sex for money, then "ministering" doesn't really work, either -- a prostitute might claim to be "ministering", but the John can hardly make that claim.

"On the Down Low" might be a better way of putting it, Pastor Latham.

I don't feel too sorry for Pastor Latham and the rest of the homophobic crowd that has been "outed" as hypocritical schmucks in the last couple of years, but the story exposes an ugly side of gay and lesbian life.

It may well be that the police side of the story -- the police were working a "sting" operation on male prostitution in the area, and nothing more -- is accurate. It is almost certainly more accurate than Pastor Latham's claim of innocence.

But it smells of entrapment. Police all over the country use "lewdness" statutes to entrap gays and lesbians looking to hook up, and prostitution usually has nothing to do with it. I would not be suprised if if the “prostitution” claim is bogus and Pator Latham just thought he was picking up another man with no promise of cash involved.

It’s hard to believe that the police were in the parking lot “protecting” gay men from male prostitutes, in short.

More likely, the police were engaged in an harassment operation, a tactic that is something of a tradition in states like Oklahoma.

My read: Neither Pastor Latham nor the police are telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

But that’s par for the course when it comes to both social conservatives and police harassment of gays and lesbians.