A Profile in Courage

A single Republican voted against the proposed amendment to ban same-sex marriage, civil unions, domestic partnerships, and any "legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals".

The Republican was Representative Gregg Underheim (Republican - Oshkosh).

Representative Underheim explained his vote during debate on the amendment:

"Constitutions protect individuals from undue intrusion into their lives by government. The right to free speech is a constitutional prohibition on governmental restriction. Freedom of religion is a restriction that says government can't prevent you from worshipping as you want. Passing this today will change the nature of the Constitution. This is anti-constiutional."

"Constitutions ought not treat gay people differently than anyone else. This ban moves us from protecting people to disenfranchising them."

"What we are doing today is wrong."

"This is an anti-constitutional act. In virtually no other area do constitutions prohibit indivduals from participating in a specific activity. We today are singling out a group of people and saying you will be restricted from engaging in a specific activity. What or who is next? We are now saying that it is acceptable that this document single out specific people. It is the wrong thing to do."

"What social policy are we going to put into the Constitution next? When the constitutions are evicerated, some college professor is going to look back, and ask, “How did this happen?” It was Republicans that decided to do that. How did that happen? The one thing the Democrats never did was this. They never wrote a constitutional amendment that ensconced social policy. The never sat down and said they were going to put social policy in the constitution."

"Today, we are crossing a line, a line the matters."

"We are crossing a line that says it is okay to put our policy preferences in the constitution for perpetuity. That is not the role of this document. We are so overstepping those bounds, it is frightening. We should not be doing this, and I hope that people on my side of the aisle will vote with a clear conscience."

It takes balls, Representative Underheim, to stand up for constitutional principles in a political party that has sold its soul to the forces of darkness, to craven, cynical manipulation of voters' fears and bigotry.

Good on you.

Utah, We Love Thee

The social conservatives are on a roll in Utah.

Last week, the Utah House passed a bill that would deny benefits to the same-sex partners of public employees, the House and Senate passed a hate crime bill but only after references to sexual orientation were removed, and the Senate passed a bill aimed at removing Gay-Straight Alliance clubs in the public schools.

In light of this frenzy, I thought it interesting that the Salt Lake City Tribune ran an Op-Ed by a young gay man, Cameron Lopez, on February 25:

I am through allowing myself to be a victim
Cameron Lopez
Salt Lake Tribune
February 25, 2005

As a high school senior two years ago, I wrote an anonymous column for this newspaper titled "Being gay and coming of age in a climate of fear." It was written with bared teeth.

In the five years since I had openly accepted my sexuality, I had been made to feel less than a second-class citizen, as if, by my very existence, I was the victimizer of every straight person in the world.

At the same time, I had allowed myself to be victimized - by politicians, my peers and my own family. I took every painful stab, every malicious word and gesture, and held it deep. I came to believe that this caustic accumulation was merely the lot of all my caste.

Here's what it boiled down to: Gays are useless, defined by their stereotypically flamboyant labels. Plus, they're perverts.

In some ways I am the same person I was in high school. I still hurt in ways that heterosexuals often don't understand. But I'm done being a victim. I am not going to ruin my own life by tenderfooting around other people's insecurities. I have other plans.

One of them is to go to the Capitol on Monday to rally peacefully against Sen. Chris Buttars' bill. I wholeheartedly support Gay/Straight Alliances in school. Teens need to talk to peers and adults who aren't intimidated by the honest questions posed by gay and straight youth alike. If teens don't face these issues now, they will do what I and many friends have done. They will come to hate themselves.

Right after I came out, my parents isolated me from "homosexuality." They said I didn't need to hang around a group of kids just because we shared sexual interests. But young people who are gay need to talk about the unique struggle of having to control body language to mimic that of heterosexuals so as not to stand out in a crowd that is largely hostile to them.

Attacks by anti-gay activists cause my heart to drop to the pit of my stomach. I have seen gay people retaliate by kissing in front of their antagonists and watched shouting contests, stalemates that can only be won by walking away. No protester will ever turn a gay kid straight, and no gay kid making out is going to change the beliefs of a protester.

I have been gaining some understanding about people. Take straight men, for example. Most of my life I avoided them. I let fear, my own insecurities and one commonly spoken sentence ruin possible friendships: "Some gay guy was just hitting on me."

At one point I was just as heterophobic as I thought they were homophobic, and I lived in isolation. I'm now able to have meaningful relationships with straight men. We have great conversations - some enlightening, some embarrassing - that have, to my great surprise, helped me to understand them in a different light.

Many people, however, are incapable of seeing past my being gay. They think they know me based on that one word. I have very little control over what people are going to think of me, and no longer am I immobilized by other people's snap judgments. I can still thrive as a successful human, writer, friend, son, sibling, and yes, homosexual.

That is true despite passage last year of Amendment 3, which bars me from getting married here in Utah. Being able to marry is very important to me. I want to know my community supports my capacity to love, and that the government freely gives me every right I deserve. I will get married one day in a place where that union is sanctioned on the same documents that sanction heterosexual marriages. I hope that one day that place is the United States.

Since my anonymous column was published I've been writing nonstop. I am an aspiring writer/director/composer with film school and Sundance on my mind. I've written a short film and am working on a feature-length screenplay I hope to enter in the Sundance Screen Writer's Workshop this spring.

Last April I led a discussion at the University of Utah in a gender and contemporary issues class that grew out of the column I had written the year before. All three of my siblings and my best friend joined the class (I flew my sister in from Las Vegas). My brother, who is two years older than me and also gay, allowed me identify him that way to the class even though he had only been out less than a year. We as a family discussed with the students what it was like having two gay siblings, and how very normal "gay" can be.

My brother and I are very different people. He was closeted for five years after I came out and made life very hard for me when I did. He went through his own personal hell and did many things with survival on his mind. He is one of my closest friends now and will be by my side tomorrow afternoon at the Capitol.

I wish that we could sometimes allow ourselves to look beyond religion in determining what is right and wrong. I wish our stories and ideas could be shared. I wish no one felt they had to live a lie because someone made them afraid of their truth. Others do things you don't agree with because it's who they are, and that's worth respecting.

May God love us. May we love each other. And may we allow each other to love as we do.

The Mormons are the driving social and political force in Utah, and the Mormons have a long history of mistreatment of gays and lesbians.

The LDS was instrumental in getting passage of Utah's anti-marriage amendment. An LDS statement published two weeks before Utah voters went to the polls, for example, asserted that marriage was reserved for straights only and that "any other sexual relations, including [those] between persons of the same gender, undermine the divinely created institution of family".

The LDS also has a history of encouraging "reparative aversion therapy" (think "Latter Days") to rid gay Mormons of homosexual orientation, and proactive and unrelenting aversion to gay and lesbian equality.

So I'm not surprised to find Utah social conservatives on a roll.

But I was surprised to see the Salt Lake City Tribune publish a countering view. And I thank them.

"Utah, We Love Thee", by the way, is Utah's official "state song":

Land of the mountains high, Utah, we love thee
Land of the sunny sky, Utah, we love thee!
Far in the glorious West, Throned on the mountain's crest,
In robes of statehood dressed, Utah, we love thee!

Columbia's newest star, Utah, we love thee,
Thy lustre shines afar, Utah, we love thee!
Bright in our banner's blue, Among her sisters true,
She proudly comes to view, Utah, we love thee!

Land of the Pioneers, Utah, we love thee,
Grow with the coming years, Utah, we love thee!
With wealth and peace in store, To fame and glory soar,
Godguarded evermore, Utah, we love thee!

Inspiring, huh?

Anyone have any other questions?

The Bush administration is at it again ...

I'm not surprised to hear that the Bush administration is at it again.

No, not putting the lives and livelihoods of Americans at risk by compromising our national security through gross incompetence and then lamely trying to cover it up.

Not that, although anyone in the country who still thinks that the Bush administration is handling the "war on terror" with even marginal competence needs a clue transplant.

What I'm not surprised to hear is that the Department of Health and Human Services has caved in, once again, to political pressure from social conservatives, putting the lives of gays and lesbians at risk.

Until mid=February, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration website contained information about GLBT health and issues, with a focus on alcohol and drug use in the GLBT community -- a real problem among younger gays and lesbians, as it is among straights. The gay and lesbian health information had been posted on SAMSA's site for about six years.

In January, the Family Research Council issued a letter to HHS Secretary Michael Leavitt, complaining that the SAMSA website was “loaded with biased, politically-charged language, such as condemnations of so-called 'homophobia,' 'heterosexism,' and 'sexual prejudice'". The letter also complained that the SAMSA site had links to “pro-homosexual activist groups such as Parents, Families, and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG)".

The FRC letter requested a prompt response.

The FRC got a quick response.

The response?

A complete cave to the Religious Right.

Eleven days -- count them, eleven days -- after the FRC letter was sent, the GLBT health information -- which had been up for six years -- was entirely removed from the SAMSA website, and the HHS issued a letter responding to the HRC that the information had been removed because it was not within the mission of the HHS.

The FRC immediately sent a message to its supporters indicating that this was a "victory" -- it sure was, a complete triumph of ignorance and bias over common sense -- but whining that the FRC remained upset because “HHS became involved in promoting the unhealthy homosexual lifestyle in the first place.”

I don't suppose I should say what I'm thinking in a public forum, so I'll content myself with, "Well, f**k you!"

Anyway, thanks be to God for Wisconsin's Representative Tammy Baldwin, who promptly sent a letter to Mike Leavitt asking for an explanation for the action and calling for the information to be restored on the website. The letter is currently being circulated among her colleagues in the House for sign-on support.

We'll see where this ends up.

Off to WisCOWsin

I'll be in Wisconsin the next few days, working to organize our BlockOut Wisconsin efforts in Sauk County.

The amendment is being foisted on voters by the Republican Party leadership, which is hoping to use "faggot, faggot" as a wedge to win back the governership.

The craven and cynical use of same-sex marriage by Republicans as an election wedge became crystal clear this month, when the Republican leadership in the Assembly put off a vote on the amendment until the deadline which would require the measure to be put to voters on the April 4 ballot passes. So much for the pretense that the amendment is about "protecting marriage".

I don't suppose that Republicans have the capacity to be ashamed of themselves any more, but they should be ashamed.

Politics aside, Wisconsin's proposed amendment is one of the "substantially identical" amendments.

The amendment reads: “Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state.”

The "substantially similar" amendments have been a disaster in other states -- stripping unmarried women of domestic violence protections in Ohio and rolling back domestic partner employment benefits that have been in place for years in Michigan, for example.

Voters in the states that passed "substantially similar" amendments in 2004 are waking up, slowly, to the disaster they've created for themselves.

But they are stuck with the amendment, and that's a fact.

The "faggot, faggot" wedge is wearing out, I think, and Wisconsin voters seem to be looking for a sensible, reasonable solution to the issue. About 60% of Wisconsinites, in recent polls, favor civil unions, for example. And that's good.

Let to themselves, Wisconsinites would eventually come to a sensible, reasonable solution. The solution might take the form of civil unions or domestic partnerships, which offer many of the rights of marriage to gay and lesbian couples without granting the right to marry. Or the solution might take the form of allowing same-sex civil marriage while expressly protecting religious marriage, respecting religious organizations who oppose same-sex marriage. Or the solution might take a different form, a form not yet known.

I have no idea.

But I do know this: The amendment cuts off the political process, and strips Wisconsin citizens of a voice in the matter, now and in the future. If the amendment is passed on November 7, the matter will be closed -- permanently -- and neither Wisconsin citizens nor our legislature will have the ability to work out a solution.

My guess is that when Wisconsinites understand that, they will vote against the amendment.

So the key to defeating the amendment is to get the facts to the voters before the November election, and give them time to think about the amendment.

And that is starting to happen. Groups opposed to the amendment are organizing all over the state, and it looks like a significant number of voters will get the facts about the amendment before the election. Newspapers are starting to publish editorials opposing the amendments. And the Democrats in Wisconsin don't seem to be running scared of fighting the amendment.

So it seems to me that Wisconsin is a state where we have a real chance to defeat the amendment.

We'll see, I guess. But win or lose, I'm going to do what I can to stop the amendment. It is time for me to put my money where my mouth is, and that I intend to do.

OMG, ROTFLMAO

"Ask Amy" has a killer column in today's Chicago Tribune.

"Wondering" in Denver wrote that two gay men moved in across the street a couple of years back, transformed the ugliest and most run-down property in the neighborhood, help the neighbors, and are generally sterling citizens.

So far, so good.

But then, a month ago, the lady watched them kiss each other goodbye as they left for work.

The lady's response?

She was appalled, and drafted a letter "telling them how much we appreciate their help but asking them to refrain from that behavior in our neighborhood" and asked a few neighbors to sign it.

The problem?

"Since I delivered it, I've not been able to get them to even engage me in conversation."

Gee, I wonder why?

At any rate, the lady asked Amy for suggestions about how to "explain to them that we value their contributions to the neighborhood but will not tolerate watching unnatural and disturbing behavior".

Amy's response, which is priceless, quoted in part:

"You're lucky that these gentlemen merely choose to ignore you. Your neighbors could respond to your hospitality by hosting weekly outdoor "gay pride" barbecues and inviting all of their friends to enjoy life on our quiet suburban street."

"I can hold out hope that they will choose to do this, but I'm spiteful in that way. Your neighbors sound much more kind."

OMG, ROTFLMAO

Thanks Amy.

Go read her column today and send her a note thanking her.

Amy's e-mail address is askamy@tribune.com

BTW, "OMG, ROTFLMAO" means, "Oh my God, I'm rolling on the floor laughing my ass off ..."

Time to make some noise ...

The Democratic National Committee released the Annual Grassroots Report yesterday.

The DNC's website says this about the report:

"One year ago today... Governor Howard Dean launched his plan for building a new Democratic Party. The members of the Democratic National Committee endorsed that plan unanimously when they elected him chairman, and hundreds of thousands of Democrats signed on to that plan during his first week on the job. Below are the points of that plan, and the results so far."

The DNC summary then goes on to discuss the electoral wins in Virginia and New Jersey, and other accomplishments.

But the report does not mention one result of Howard Dean's leadership -- gays and lesbians have gone missing from the report. The document does not mention any outreach to the GLBT community, or even mention GLBT Democrats at all.

The exclusion of GLBT Democrats from the report is in stark contrast to DNC reports on grassroots outreach from previous years (for example, this, from an earlier report: "Under the leadership of Chairman McAuliffe, the DNC in partnership with the Kerry campaign, embarked upon the most comprehensive GLBT pride outreach program in the history of a national political party and presidential campaign. During this election year, the DNC manned tables and marched in more than 75 gay pride events in 22 states, taking the DNC's message of equality and fairness to more than four million GLBT and allied voters. This year's DNC Convention was a historic one for the GLBT community, with a record number of GLBT delegates, standing committee members, DNC members, and staff.").

I am not surprised.

Howard Dean recently eliminated the DNC's Lesbian and Gay Outreach office.

At the time, DNC spokesmen glowed about a new program called the American Majority Partnership, which supposedly "integrates efforts to address the concerns of minorities" into all of the DNCÂ’s departments and offices:

"To ensure all voters are respected, we no longer act as a series of disconnected silos. We will never be greater than the sum of our parts or as effective as we must be to win if we maintain a series of separate operations unable to achieve integration of effort and unity of purpose. Instead, we must have an integrated, elevated and cohesive approach to working with the communities that comprise the Democratic majority. To that end, Governor Dean has insisted that every staff member at every level must be aware of the needs and priorities of all the communities the party represents, must reach out respectfully to those communities, and must build bridges between and among communities based on our shared values and priorities."

Yeah, right.

Gays and lesbians got integrated right into invisibility.

It is time to make some noise.

And time to put our money where our mouths are.

Let me suggest this: The next time the DNC asks you for money, politely and pointedly tell them that you give your time and money to political candidates who support gay and lesbian equality, not political parties who want to hide us in the closet.

And then find political candidates who support us, and be generous in your support of them. Give them as much money and time as you can afford.

But don't give a dime -- not one dime -- to the DNC until the DNC gets the message.

We are engaged in a long, hard battle for equality. We cannot afford to be in a position where our money is good enough, but our issues are not.

We need to hold the Democrats' feet to the fire.

Make some noise.

Reality

I tend, as is my nature, to discuss the gay and lesbian struggle for equality in terms of cold-blooded legal and political reality.

But I am reminded, from time to time, that there is another reality -- the reality of individual hopes and dreams -- that underlies the legal and political reality.

I got a reminder today, reading the New York Times report about the arguments before the New Jersey Supreme Court yesterday:

But one plaintiff, Cindy Meneghin of Butler, delivered one of the more memorable lines of the day, when she talked about her hopes for her partner of 31 years, Maureen Kilian, and their two children, Josh, 13, and Sarah, 11.

"I want to get married before my children do," she said.

Yup.

Live and Don't Learn

I was talking with Robert J. Beuter, S.J. yesterday while doing some volunteer work for the Lumen Christi Institute in Chicago.

Bob was the President of Lexington Catholic High School in Kentucky until a few years ago, and is widely credited with having turned the school around in the 1990's.

It doesn't surprise me. Bob is an energetic, smart man.

Bob's latest project is working on school vouchers, a proposal to redirect the flow of education funding, channeling it directly to individual families rather than to school districts. School vouchers will allow families to select the public or private schools of their choice and have all or part of the tuition paid through tax dollars.

The school voucher proposal faces a major roadblock -- the Blaine Amendment or equivalent, enacted in a majority of states, banning the use of government taxation to support religious schools.

The Blaine Amendments were born of anti-Catholic prejudice, and swept the nation in the 1870's and 1880's, much like the anti-marriage amendments of 2004.

The United States Constitution narrowly missed amendment. In 1875, the following amendment was proposed:

"No State shall make any law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; and no money raised by taxation in any State for the support of public schools, or derived from any public fund therefor, nor any public lands devoted thereto, shall ever be under the control of any religious sect; nor shall any money so raised or lands so devoted be divided between religious sects or denominations."

The amendment passed the House of Representatives 180-7, but failed to achieve the necessary two-thirds majority by four votes in the United States Senate.

The Blaine Amendments linger on, though, in state constitutions.

In the 1990's, efforts began in a number of states to repeal the Blaine Amendments.

Most of the recent repeal bids have been led by social conservatives -- a deep irony because it was conservative Protestant denominations that spearheaded the drive to pass the amendments in the first place, fearing the rising prominence of the Catholics in the United States.

The movement to strike down the Blaine Amendments is linked to school vouchers, because the amendments clearly prohibit vouchers for religious schools. Unless the amendments can be removed from state constitutions, the school voucher initiative will never go anywhere, because the question of taxpayer funding of vouchers for religious schools is not open for change, either by courts or legislatures in the states with the Blaine Amendment in place.

The Blaine Amendments are an object lesson -- measures taken out of fear and prejudice come back to bite you in the ass, sooner or later. Always.

And as it turns out, it is very hard to unamend a state constitution in the cool light of reason, a lot harder than it is to amend the constitution in the heat of prejudice. Repeal efforts have, so far, been unsuccessful, much to the frustration of social conservatives.

I'd be tempted to laugh but for one thing. History is repeating itself.

The purpose of state anti-marriage amendments, in Wisconsin and otherwise, is not so much to "protect marriage" but to set in stone the prejudices of the day.

The point of the amendments is to stop the natural progression toward civil law equality for gays and lesbians -- same-sex marriage, domestic partnership or civil union -- and take the question off the table.

The point of the amendments is to remove, now and in the future, the likelihood that state legislatures might fashion a workable, sensible political solution that accommodates the needs of gay and lesbian families while protecting the legitimate needs of straights, and the likelihood that state courts, interpreting state constitutions, will find, as courts have found in Alaska, Hawaii, Massachusetts and Vermont, that "equal means equal".

The point of the amendments is to eliminate the "right to petition", now and in the future, of citizens who believe that gay and lesbian families should be entitled to protection under state law, either through marriage or civil unions or domestic partnerships.

It goes without saying, of course, that cutting off the "right to petition" cuts off a basic right of citizenship, and that the amendments cut that right off for all citizens, straight or gay/lesbian. That doesn't bother social conservatives, because that is exactly what social conservatives are trying to achieve.

But I wonder if social conservatives have considered the Blaine Amendments.

The Blaine Amendments are an object lesson -- measures taken out of fear and prejudice come back to bite you in the ass, sooner or later. Always.

I've been thinking about the battle over the anti-marriage amendment in Wisconsin of late, because the day when I'll be moving is fast approaching, and I'll be working to defeat the amendment after I move.

As I think about it today, in light of my conversation with Bob yesterday, I wonder if the strongest argument we can make against the amendment is "Measure twice, cut once."

My guess is that if the citizens of Wisconsin, a sensible and practical group, thought about the point of the proposed amendment -- to keep Wisconsin citizens from coming to ground on a fair and reasonable solution to the issue -- the amendment wouldn't stand a chance.

A kiss is just a kiss, a sigh is just a sigh.

You must remember this
A kiss is just a kiss, a sigh is just a sigh.
The fundamental things apply
As time goes by.

And when two lovers woo
They still say, "I love you."
On that you can rely
No matter what the future brings
As time goes by.

Happy Valentine's Day to all you lovers, wherever you are, from Z104 (WZEE/FM 104.1), a Madison, Wisconsin radio station.

Z104 is hosting a "Connie and Fish Kiss Off" contest at 10 am this morning.

No, Connie is not going to kiss a Walleye.

Connie and Fish, for those of you who are among the uninitiated, are the effervescent couple who are Z104's premiere purveyors of pop.

Thirty couples in all will compete for a three-night trip to Jamaica.

Contestants will lock lips until only one couple is standing and lip-locked. If more than one pair remains at 9 pm Saturday, the couples will enter into a drawing.

Well, to go back a bit, Connie and Fish decided that it would be a smashing idea to celebrate Valentine's Day by hosting a "kiss off" in front of the Boston Store at West Towne Mall. And so the ever-energetic duo announced the "Connie and Fish Kiss Off".

And then a funny thing happened -- the contest rules specified that the contestants must be male-female pairs, and the University of Wisconsin's Badger-Herald ran a story on the "kiss off", placing the blame on West Towne Mall: "According to officials at the University of Wisconsin, the mall will not allow same-sex couples to participate in the contest."

And that, apparently, swung the UW Campus Women's Center into action. The Women's Center announced a silent protest in the mall during the "Kiss Off" and started putting the strong arm on Z104.

And that's when the story got a little strange, as in Alice and Wonderland strange.

According to Women's Center Publicity Coordinator Stephanie Halfmann, Z104 had not planned to allow same-sex couples to participate in the contest. But after Halfmann called station program manager Jon Reilly on Monday to discuss the issue, Z104 did a switchback and on Wednesday told her the station had decided to change the rule to allow same-sex couples to participate. However, later that day, Z104 called Halfmann again and told her that West Towne Mall had oversight of the station and therefore decided to keep the rule as standing. According to Halfmann, “Their primary concern with allowing same sex couples to participate was the comfort level of people in the mall.”

Ohhhhh. I see. The "yuk" factor! Straight folks get uncomfortable at the thought of same-sex couples kissing. The only straights comfortable around same-sex kissing are straight men watching girl-on-girl porn. Well, okay.

I understand that, of course. I get uncomfortable around some guys kissing each other, too. Like this charming couple. The thought of them smooching away for hours is enough to put me off Viagra forever.

It all depends on the guys, you see.

Well, however much I may understand straight guy reluctance to watch same-sex couples compete in a smooch-off, my opinions didn't count.

Next, local gay rights advocate Charlie Squires got on the case. Squires called the station and spoke with Mike Ferris, FM operations manager for Clear Channel Madison. Squires said he found Ferris to be reasonable and responsive. "He disagreed with me at first, but he was very rational and respected my point of view."

And Z104 caved in once again.

So, young lovers, the "Connie and Fish Kiss Off" contest will be held at 10 am, this Valentine's Day, as scheduled. And if you listen to the station and are the 14th caller when you hear a promotion for the contest, you will be among the thiry couples selected to compete.

But it won't be held in West Towne Mall, so don't bother to go there, credit card in hand.

The contest will be held in front of Z104's studios at 2651 South Fish Hatchery Road in Fitchburg, Wisconsin.

Why the change in venue? Well, it isn't all that clear. Paul Matyas, West Towne Mall's general manager, would not say if the West Towne insisted on restricting the contest to opposite-sex couples, according to a report in the local newspaper. Matyas called it a sensitive issue, adding that West Towne is a place of commerce, open to everyone. Z104 decided to move the event on its own, according to Matyas.

Well, maybe so. Having spent more time than I'd like to admit in West Towne Mall and its companion, East Towne Mall, I can imagine the reaction of most shoppers to an hours-long, same-sex kiss right in front of Boston Store.

So. it isn't always true that "a kiss is just a kiss, a sigh is just a sigh". Not in a "Kiss Off". Then it becomes a big deal.

Watch what they do, not what they say ...

Harvey Logan: Guns or Knives?
Butch Cassidy: Neither?
Harvey Logan: Pick.
Butch Cassidy: I don't want to shoot with you Harvey.
Harvey Logan: [Draws a big knife] Anything you say, Butch.
[Butch walks over to Sundance]
Butch Cassidy: [in a low voice] Maybe there's a way to make a profit in this. Bet on Logan.
Sundance Kid: I would, but who'd bet on you?
Harvey Logan: Sundance, when we're done, and he's dead, you're welcome to stay.
Butch Cassidy: [low voice, to Sundance] Listen, I don't mean to be a sore loser, but when it's done, if I'm dead, kill him.
Sundance Kid: [low voice to Butch] Love to.
[waves to Harvey and smiles]
Butch Cassidy: No, no, not yet. Not until me and Harvey get the rules straightened out.
Harvey Logan: Rules? In a knife fight? No rules.
[Butch immediately kicks Harvey in the groin]
Butch Cassidy: Well, if there aint' going to be any rules, let's get the fight started. Someone count. 1,2,3 go.
Sundance Kid: [quickly] 1,2,3, go.
[Butch knocks Harvey out]
Flat Nose Curry: I was rooting for you all along, Butch
Butch Cassidy: Well, thank you, Flatnose. That's what sustained me in my time of trouble.
- a scene from Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid

Watch what they do, not what they say.

I remain astounded by gays and lesbians who support politicians demonstrating, by their actions, that they want no part of the gay and lesbian struggle for equality.

I find it almost impossible to fathom, for example, gays and lesbians who support Republican politicians who work to disenfranchise us by imposing state and federal anti-marriage amendments.

I listen to Republican apologists on various forums -- Steve Miller's blog at the Independent Gay Forum, for example -- and the left-handed apologetics they come up with seem lame, to say the least. Nonsensical would be the more accurate word, I suspect. I've even heard "The president has many gay friends in his personal life ...", for God's sake. Who the hell cares who President Bush has over to dinner if he actively works against us?

My view is that gays and lesbians should hold politicians' feet to the fire on the core issues of gay and lesbian equality, refusing to give time, talent or contributions to any politician, Democrat or Republican, who stands in opposition to our struggle, and making it plain to those who do support us that lip service is not enough.

I wrote to my state representative, Illinois House Majority Leader Barbara Flynn Currie, last year, in connection with the 30-year struggle to add "sexual orientation" to the Illinois anti-discrimination law. Barbara and I go way back. I was a foot soldier in her first campaign in the 1970's, and served in various capacities in her campaigns over the years. Barbara has consistently voted on the right side of issues affecting gay and lesbian equality, and she has been a good friend to gays and lesbians, despite the fact that ours is a predominantly African-American legislative district, and Barbara is under pressure to "cool it" on gay and lesbian issues.

But last year, voting right on our issues was not enough. The anti-discrimination law had been blocked over the years by conservative, downstate Democratic leadership, and it was time to put an end to it, I told Barbara, bluntly and in plain English, that she had to get off her ass on this issue and use her leadership position to make it happen. A lot of other gays and lesbians in our neighborhood did the same, in letters, phone calls and personal conversations.

I don't know whether our efforts were the deciding factor for Barbara, or whether she had finally reached the same level of frustration that we reached. But last year she used her power in the legislature to bulldoze the conservative downstaters, and sexual orientation was added to the Illinois anti-discrimination law.

Similarly, I don't give money to the state or national Democratic party organizations, and will not as long as the fund-raising letters and e-mails I get from them don't raise gay and lesbian issues. I respond to each, telling them that I was disappointed to see a long issues list with nary a word about gay and lesbian equality, and letting them know that I don't intend to contribute a cent unless and until Democrats make gay and lesbian equality a front-burner issue for the party.

I go after Republicans a lot on this blog. I go after Republicans because the Republican record -- both what they do and what they say -- is abysmal on gay and lesbian issues. Anyone who follows Republican rhetoric and action can't avoid coming to that conclusion, unless they are delusional.

The Democrats have a much better record on our core issues.

In state after state, Democrats -- in marked contrast to Republicans -- stand in opposition to the proposed anti-marriage constitutional amendments, whether or not in favor of same-sex marriage. In Wisconsin, where I live, for example, not a single Republican -- not one -- voted against the proposed anti-marriage amendment that will be on the ballot this fall. Almost all Democrats voted against it.

The contrast between the parties is marked in this respect, and makes a difference, I think.

But the bottom line is that we have to watch what they do, not what they say.

And the Democrats have just pulled a fast one on us, I think.

The Democratic National Committee recently abolished the Democratic Party’s constituent outreach desks, including the post of Director of Lesbian and Gay outreach. The constituent desks have been replaced with a a new program called the American Majority Partnership, which supposedly "integrates efforts to address the concerns of minorities" into all of the DNC’s departments and offices:

"To ensure all voters are respected, we no longer act as a series of disconnected silos. We will never be greater than the sum of our parts or as effective as we must be to win if we maintain a series of separate operations unable to achieve integration of effort and unity of purpose. Instead, we must have an integrated, elevated and cohesive approach to working with the communities that comprise the Democratic majority. To that end, Governor Dean has insisted that every staff member at every level must be aware of the needs and priorities of all the communities the party represents, must reach out respectfully to those communities, and must build bridges between and among communities based on our shared values and priorities."

I don't think so. I think that the DNC is taking us off the table.

The Lesbian and Gay Outreach office was an effective voice to -- and from -- gays and lesbians. The office coordinated the efforts of 80,000 gay and lesbian volunteers in state and national elections, and made sure that gay and lesbian issues were raised -- bluntly and in plain English -- in strategy sessions, platform committees and so on. Gay and lesbian voters turned out in high numbers in battleground states in the 2004 election, and voted heavily Democratic.

The DNC would have us believe that gay and lesbian issues will be addressed in "integrated" minority representation groups throughout the DNC.

I don't think so. I think that the DNC is taking us off the table.

while it is true that gays and lesbians have common ground with other minority groups, our issues are often at odds with the issues of other minority groups. The issue of same-sex marriage is particularly divisive within the Democratic coalition, because same-sex marriage is strongly resisted within the African-American community.

The bottom line is that gays and lesbians need a voice within the Democratic Party advocating and organizing around the issues of gay and lesbian equality, and it strains credulity to believe that our issues will be effectively raised in bureaucratic roundtables trying to balance the interests of all minority groups.

To add insult to injury, the DNC is maintaining the Gay & Lesbian Leadership Council, which raises money from gays and lesbians.

Our money is good enough, but are issues are not? Do you hear that subtext message as clearly as I do?

I think that Howard Dean is afraid. I think that he believes that issues of gay and lesbian equality hurt the Democrats politically in 2004.

I don't think so. If that is what he thinks, Howard Dean is dead wrong.

What killed the Democrats in 2004 was "flip-flopping", or the perception of "flip-flopping". And the biggest "flip-flop" issue party wide was the issue of gay and lesbian rights. The Democratic Party, nationally, did what the Illinois Democratic leadership did until recently in the battle to add sexual orientation to the state's anti-discrimination laws – waffled and pandered to social conservatives.

Exit polls from the 2004 election show that voter opposition to same-sex marriage and other gay and lesbian equality issues was not a "voting issue" for Democrats and independent swing voters -- gay and lesbian issues are "voting issues" only for gays and lesbians and for a limited but vocal and politically active minority within the Republican Party.

But all voters know a "flip-flop" when they see one, and most swing voters -- according to exit polling -- who voted Republican did so because the Democratic Party was seen as rudderless, unable to define principles and stick with them. Democrats talked a good game, but voters didn't trust them to stick with the game plan. And that is why Democrats lost.

Let me suggest this: Gays and lesbians should give their time, talent and contributions to politicians who champion our issues, and let the Democratic National Committee that we are not going to play for table scraps any more. Money talks, and when the DNC is willing, once again, to listen to us, we will listen to them. But not until then.

We are engaged in a long, hard battle for equality. We cannot afford to be in a position where our money is good enough, but our issues are not. We need to hold the Democrats' feet to the fire.

Wisconsin in Action

Action Wisconsin, a GLBT advocacy organization focusing on areas of the state outside the Milwaukee metro area, has mapped its plans to fight the November anti-marriage amendment.

The organization recently appointed Michael Tate, an experienced political organizer, to lead the campaign.

Action Wisconsin's efforts so far have focused on reaching individual voters through phone calls, coffees, door-to-door canvassing and a "Speakers Network", in which about 600 volunteers speak to local organizations about the proposed amendment.

As November nears, Tate plans an all-out blitz to educate and reach the electorate via direct mail and ads on the radio and on television statewide, and internet communications.

Action Wisconsin will also continue to work with Christian organizations and the Wisconsin business community.

I'm glad to see that Action Wisconsin's efforts will be led by an experienced political organizer. The battle to over the proposed anti-marriage amendment will be won on the ground, and Wisconsin gays and lesbians are going to have to overcome a knee-jerk, cultural inertia to win this fight.

I plan to be actively involved in the campaign, in whatever capacity will be useful. I've had a wide range of experience in various political campaigns, and I'll be able to devote about twenty hours per week to the effort, from June to the election.

I e-mailed Action Wisconsin a few weeks ago asking to be put in touch with the group's Sauk County organization, and I imagine I'll hear back eventually. If not, I'll chase down the Sauk County organization when I move.

Colorado, Bloody Colorado?

In the years leading up to the War of Northern Aggression (1861-1865), "Kansas, Bloody Kansas" became something of a touchstone for the conflict, the territory where widespread conflict developed between slaveholding and abolitionist forces as a result of Stephen Douglas' principle of popular sovereignty, established via the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854.

I wonder, as I watch developments in Colorado unfold, whether Colorado might not be playing a similar proxy role in our current culture wars over gay and lesbian equality.

Colorado is, according to what I can glean, a political landscape something like that of California, without the pomegranates, in the sense that it geographically divided politically, home to both strongly liberal and reactionary social conservative elements, a state displaying the fault lines of the culture wars, with little in the way of a moderate middle.

The state's polar opposites are making for a rich soup of ballot initiatives and counter-initiatives this year in the battle over gay and lesbian equality.

It looks like two initiatives will be on the ballot.

The first, sponsored by the ill-named "Coloradans for Marriage" and uniformly backed by Colorado Republicans in the legislature, is a initiative that would ban same-sex marriage but not civil unions:

"Colorado Marriage Amendment. Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state."

The second is the "Colorado Domestic Partnership Act", which reads, in part:

""The General Assembly declares that the purpose of this act is to provide eligible same-sex couples the opportunity to obtain the same benefits and protections afforded by Colorado law to married opposite-sex couples consistent with the principles of equality under law and religious freedom embodied in both the United States Constitution and the constitution of this state."

The measure will give same-sex couples the same rights and responsibilities under state law as married couples and is backed by Colorado's Democrat leadership in the legislature.

The two initiatives, oddly, don't conflict. Both could become law, because the "Colorado Marriage Amendment" specifically does not ban civil unions, as contemplated by the "Colorado Domestic Partnership Act". The coalition pushing the marriage amendment had considered outlawing civil unions but decided against it. Coloradans for Marriage Executive Director Jon Paul said: "That's just not our battle. Our focus is on the definition of marriage."

Apparently as a response to the "Colorado Domestic Partnership Act", a third proposal from Senator Shawn Mitchell (Republican-Broomfield) would give less rights to same-sex couples than the Democratic proposal but would apply to any other two adults who live together but aren't married -- roommates, straight and gay/lesbian couples, mothers and daughters living in the same household, and so on.

Mitchell's proposal is more complicated than the others, but the legislative summary makes the purpose of the Act clear: "Authorizes the establishment of reciprocal beneficiary agreementsfor the purpose of permitting any two unmarried persons who are excluded from entering into a valid marriage under the marriage laws of this state, or who are or were related by blood, adoption, or marriage, and who meet specified requirements, to establish a reciprocal beneficiary agreement that extends specific rights and related responsibilities to each reciprocal beneficiary. Specifies the rights and related responsibilities that would extend to reciprocal beneficiaries, including but not limited to health care insurance benefits."

The point of the proposal, according to Senator Mitchell, is to give all couples who cannot or choose not to marry a level of legal protection without giving "special status" to gay and lesbian couples.

Now here's the fun part: FOCFam, in a move that surprised many, endorsed Senator Mitchell's proposal. And that started the fur flying in Colorado Springs.

Dr. Paul Cameron, Chairman of the Family Research Institute, launched a blistering attack on FOCFam's Dr. James Dobson.

Cameron said: "This is madness. Currently there is one voluntary relationship that immediately confers these benefits – marriage between a man and a woman. Married couples receive these benefits because they make substantial contributions to society. They are more economically productive, provide the best environment in which to raise children, and are the least likely to commit crimes. Homosexuals, on the other hand, are less economically productive, seldom produce children or raise them well, and are more likely to commit criminal acts. In addition, society should not reward relationships that tend to spread disease. ... Moses and St. Paul condemned homosexuality. As soon as the Church gained political power in the Roman Empire it outlawed homosexuality. Now Dobson tells society to give gays 'marriage lite’ benefits ... During the confirmation fight over Harriet Meyers, Dobson, in a somewhat ambiguous manner, told his radio audience that he was in favour of gay rights. His support of this ‘marriage lite’ bill removes the ambiguity. When the Denver Post, one of the most anti-family, anti- traditional newspapers on the planet, says it is 'pleasantly surprised' by Dobson’s support for 'expanded legal benefits for same-sex couples,' you know that a betrayal has occurred."

Well, I wouldn't have described Dr. Dobson as "ambiguous" about gays and lesbians, myself -- Dobson and FOCFam regularly rant about gays and lesbians, and not in a nice way -- but by the standards of social conservatives, endorsing a even a measure expressly designed to keep gays and lesbians from being recognized as equal citizens under the law is too much to bear, if the measure grants any rights or benefits at all to gays and lesbians, directly or indirectly. So Dr. Dobson appears to have been duped by the Friends of Dorothy.

FOCFam doesn't see it that way, of course.

Jim Pfaff, a state policy analyst for FOCFam, said that Dr. Dobson supports Senator Mitchell's because it is an alternative to the "Colorado Domestic Partnership Act". According to Pfaff, the Colorado legislature has attempted to pass special rights legislation for homosexuals in the past, but Republican Governor Bill Owens has always vetoed previous measures. The proposed amendment to Colorado’s constitution could bypass the governor and take the measure directly to the voters in November.

And that, of course, would be wrong.

Pfaff said the "Colorado Domestic Partnership Act" is discriminatory because it seeks to provide special rights for one specific group of people: “Senator Mitchell’s bill is not premised on sexual behavior” Pfaff said, but provides benefits for all couples who want to shack up, or not, as the case may be.

Pfaff provided the example of a widow who had her sister-in-law move in with her to help her raise her children, who were now fatherless. According to Pfaff, Senator Mitchell's bill would allow the widow to bestow rights and responsibilities upon the assisting sister-in-law who was now acting in a capacity which promoted the well-being of the family.

A poor widow. I'm touched.

But I'm not so touched that I've gotten touched in the head yet. Remember that FOCFam are the folk who can barely manage to discuss same-sex marriage for ten minutes in a row without bringing up animal sex, polygamy and pedophilia.

And lest we forget that FOCFam's primary motivation is not so much to allow widows to support their sisters-in-law than it is to deny gays and lesbians legal recognition, Pfaff went on to say: "There is no veiled language in the bill pertaining to homosexuals. We believe this is good public policy. We look at the substance of a measure, and ask if it matches our principles.”

And just in case there was a question about it -- I doubt that anyone except Dr. Paul Camerson suspects that Dr. James Dobson is going all warm and mushy inside about queer folk -- Pfaff strongly affirmed that FOCFam and Dobson remain completely committed to the Federal Marriage Amendment. “We will never back down from the protection of marriage.”

I'm not taking sides between Dr. Cameron and Dr. Dobson, by any means. But I like the in-fighting. In fact, I'm hoping that Pat Robertson will weigh in with one of his maniac statements, something to the effect that God will smote the Rocky Mountains and lay the perfidy of Dr. Dobson bare, and the sooner the better. Let the social conservatives' political blood flow freely, is what I say.

Update (February 7, 9pm): Dobson Denies Allegations: On today's radio broadcast, Dr. Dobson reiterated that he does not — and never has — opposed rights for homosexuals that are afforded to other American citizens, such as the right to obtain a job or housing. However, he clear that he continues to vigorously oppose homosexual marriage and other rights granted on the basis of sexual orientation: "I’ve never endorsed any bill granting gay partners legal rights currently reserved for married couples. That is sheer nonsense.”

True enough. It is sheer nonsense for Dr. Dobson to claim that he does not -- and never has -- opposed rights for homosexuals that are afforded to other American citizens. Let's take the "fundamental right" to marry, for example ...

No greater love than this ....

A coalition of social conservative "protect marriage" groups have given us a new insight into Christian "love".

Coloradans for Marriage, a coalition including Focus on the Family, Colorado Catholic Conference, National Association of Evangelicals, Rocky Mountain Family Council, Pentecostal Holiness Church, Baptist Hispanic Churches, Hispanic Assemblies of God, Hispanic Alliance of Greater Denver, Coalition of African-American Pastors, and the Church of God in Christ, started a drive to ban same-sex marriage last week.

The coalition is just dripping with Christian "love", or so they say.

The group's president, Bishop Phillip Porter Jr., Pastor of All Nations Pentecostal Center Church of God in Christ in Aurora, Colorado, and a former board chairman of Promise Keepers, said the group was acting with "the love of a mother, the gentle guidance of a caring father" to preserve marriage and protect children: "We can have it [love]. We are all called to have that love even when it hurts us, even when it hurts others. We live in a nation that wants no pain but all of the gain. We can't have it both ways."

I hope that it is not ungracious for a beneficiary of Bishop Porter's "love" to point out that the "hurt" he wishes to inflict is not visited on social conservative Christians or their children, but on "others" -- gays and lesbians and our children. He wants us to live as second-class citizens without legal protection for our families, so he and other straight social conservative Christians can continue to enjoy the privileges of full citizenship, without the discomfort of seeing us at the table. Our pain, their gain.

That's "love", all right.

Jim Crow love.

Coretta Scott King

"We have a lot more work to do in our common struggle against bigotry and discrimination. I say "common struggle" because I believe very strongly that all forms of bigotry and discrimination are equally wrong and should be opposed by right-thinking Americans everywhere. Freedom from discrimination based on sexual orientation is surely a fundamental human right in any great democracy, as much as freedom from racial, religious, gender, or ethnic discrimination." -- Coretta Scott King, remarks at Opening Plenary Session, 13th Annual Creating Change Conference of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, November 9, 2000.

Coretta Scott King will be buried tomorrow.

Mrs. King understood and did not forget that the struggle for African-American civil rights was and is tied to the struggle for civil rights by other minorities who are subject to discrimination, including gays and lesbians, even as African-Americans moved from Jim Crow segregation to equality under the law. Mrs. King understood and did not forget that "nigger" and "faggot" are a single word, pronounced differently and aimed at different out-groups, but a single word nonetheless.

Many of the beneficiaries of the African-American civil rights movement -- the generation of African-Americans now in control of "the movement" -- have forgotten that simple truth. Many of the beneficiaries of the African-American civil rights movement would rush to the front of the line to denounce Bayard Rustin, the openly gay black activist who taught the techniques of non-violent direct action to Dr. Martin Luther King and other leaders of the movement. And many of the beneficiaries of the African-American civil rights movement strongly oppose gays and lesbians in their struggle for legal equality despite similarities between the two movements.

The African-American civil rights movement lost its soul over the years as the binds of legal and economic discrimination were removed. The movement, if the words and actions of current leadership are an indication, has become more an inward-looking movement to protect entitlements than a movement with the outward-looking vision to see beyond the boundaries of African-American cultural prejudice toward gays and lesbians.

I do not know how Mrs. King felt -- personally -- about gays and lesbians. I don't know whether she had gay and lesbian friends. I don't know whether she considered gay and lesbian sex sinful. I don't know any of that, and I don't think that Mrs. King spoke publicly about her personal views.

But Mrs. King did not lose her soul, or forget the soul of the movement.

Mrs. King did not forget that hundreds and hundreds of white Jews and Catholics could see beyond their cultural prejudices of the time to embrace the African-American civil rights struggle as their struggle, too. Mrs. King did not forget that justice for all means justice for everyone.

Mrs. King understood and did not forget that the words "All men are created equal ..." are not limited to straight Americans, any more than the words were limited to male Americans, or white Americans, or Protestant Americans.

And for that, Mrs. King, for keeping alive the broad vision of equality under the law that I learned as a young man, thank you.

Barney comes to Washington ...

Well, I'll be damned.

No, I'm not suggesting that I agree with Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, James Dobson or Fred Phelps about my fate on Judgement Day.

I'll be damned because the Republicans in Washington are taking a page right out Barney.

The Republicans, ever since taking over both House and Senate years past, have exercised a "take-no-prisoners" style of political hardball.

But all of a sudden, as it dawned on Republican political strategists that the vast unwashed -- read voters -- are aghast at the rampant corruption in Washington and blaming Republicans for much of the bitter partisan atmosphere that has poisoned our political process, Republicans have turned a new leaf, it seems.

President Bush practically drooled with talk of bipartisanship during the State of the Union address earlier in the week, and yesterday, House Republicans elected John Boehner of Ohio as House majority leader.

Boehner's election was a surprise. Roy Blunt, the Republican whip under Tom Delay and acting majority leader, was widely expected to win. But Boehner -- who is no stranger to lobbyists but not close to Delay or Blunt -- positioned himself as a "reform" candidate with a softer, gentler way about him.

And that, apparently, was what Republican house members wanted in a difficult election year.

Barney or not, though, one thing won't change.

We can expect the Republicans to play "faggot, faggot" right into the ground. Boehner is a sponsor of the House version of the Protect Marriage Amendment, and an outspoken opponent of equal rights -- any rights, actually -- for gays and lesbians.

Apparently,

I love you
You love me
We're a happy family
With a great big hug
And a kiss from me to you
Won't you say you love me too?

doesn't apply to us queer folk.

So I guess President Bush and all his friends won't be blowing any kisses my way this year.

Unless, maybe, Barney the Poof Dog whispers a little something in his ear.

So, how about it, Barney the Poof Dog? I'll lay off with making fun of you if you can get him to lay off us ...

A cure worse than the disease ...

The odious Fred Phelps has provoked legislators in at least five states to consider legislation to ban protests at funerals.

You will recall that Phelps and members of his Westboro Baptist Church have been protesting at funerals of Iraq war dead all around the country for months, contending that American soldiers are being killed in Iraq as vengeance from God for protecting a country that harbors gays and lesbians, rather than putting us to death.

Legislators in Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Missouri and Oklahoma are considering bills to ban protests close to and/or within close time proximity to funerals.

I am a veteran. While I agree that our war dead should be buried with honor, and in peace, I am very strongly opposed to bills limiting Phelps' protests.

The United States is based on the principle that free debate of ideas is critical to democracy, so at least when it comes to political speech -- that is, speech about ideas -- every citizen should be allowed to say anything, however outrageous, with impunity.

Free speech is a lot more important than peace of mind, even for families who have lost sons and daughters in military service.

If we, as a country, criminalize Fred Phelps' right to free speech, symbolic speech included, then we diminish the right to free speech of all citizens.

I hope that legislators in the five states will come to their senses. The point of fighting -- and dying -- for freedom is to ensure that we live in freedom. And that includes the freedom to trash mouth gays and lesbians, our country, and even our honored military dead.

Oh, Christ ...

The American Family Association is after "Will & Grace" now, turning its wrath on an episode in which Britney Spears -- the 55-hour wonder -- will appear as a guest.

According to the AFA "Special Alert", the episode will mock Christ: "On the April 13 edition of NBC's Will and Grace , Britney Spears will appear as a Christian conservative sidekick to Sean Hayes' homosexual character, Jack, who hosts his own talk show. Jack's fictional network, Out TV, is bought by a Christian TV network, leading to Spears contributing a cooking segment called "Cruci-fixin's." To further denigrate Christianity, NBC chose to air it the night before Good Friday."

NBC countered that the dispute stems from an inaccurate press release that went out without being properly vetted, according to the AP: "Some erroneous information was mistakenly included in a press release describing an upcoming episode of 'Will & Grace,' which in fact has yet to be written."

Well, who knows? I don't think I'd place a bet on truth-telling between NBC and the AFA.

I don't watch "Will & Grace". The show is insipid, and that is reason enough not to waste my time. And I won't tune in just because Don Wildmon is an egregious, queer-baiting jackass.

But if Wildmon's constant alarms were about wolves rather than queers, I think that the lesson would be obvious by now ...

When at first you don't succeed ...

The Florida Division of Elections confirmed today that backers of a proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage failed to get enough signatures to have the issue placed on the November ballot.

Florida4Marriage turned in 455,730 signatures, well short of the 611,009 required.

John Stemberger, chairman of Florida4Marriage, said: "The sheer volume of communicating with three-quarters of a million people is quite an undertaking, much more than I expected."

Lame.

However, Stemberger vowed that the fight is only delayed and not over. He said that Florida4Marriage will continue to collect names and try to put the amendment on the 2008 ballot.

No doubt.

The delay must have come as a disappointment to Florida Republicans.

An investigation by the St. Petersburg Times into funding for the Florida4Marriage found that the group was a Republican front, pretty much. The paper reported that over 75% of Florida4Marriage's funds came from a single donor -- the Florida Republican Party -- in a single $150,000 check on November 25.

Florida Republicans, like Republicans around the country, were trying to use the anti-marriage amendment initiative to whip of the social conservative base for the November 2006 election.

It didn't work. Too bad for them.

I won't wish them better luck next time.

But I will say this: "When at first you don't succeed, try finding someone with some experience to run things the second time around ..."

It will save you another surprise.