The People on the Bus

As far as these three are concerned, it doesn't matter whether you are forced to sit in the back of the bus, or are forced to use a separate door to get on the bus, so long you can get on the bus and the bus goes to your destination.

I just don't get it.

Or maybe they don't.

To me, it is as plain as a goat's ass who doesn't get it.

The Debate: Through the Looking Glass

The debate offered a window into the absurdity of the same-sex marriage discussion in our country.

The American people as a whole are not yet "ready" to make the leap to embracing same-sex marriage, and will not be for a decade. The front-running Democratic presidential candidates recognize that, and hold to the conventional wisdom, right or wrong, that a national candidate who embraces same-sex marriage cannot be elected President of the United States.

So they don't. Instead, they all oppose same-sex marriage but embrace "full" civil unions.

But when asked "You say you support full equality for gays and lesbians, but you don't support equal access to civil marriage - why?", the front-running candidates in last night's debate each took us on a journey through the looking glass, the tortured logic of trying to explain away the inexplicable, without admitting the simple truth: "I'm afraid to ..."

Hillary Clinton

Hillary Clinton's explanation was no explanation, and nobody on the panel -- which had plenty of other things to ask with her about, given her record on gay and lesbian issues in the past -- pressed her for more.

The closest anyone came was Joe Solomnese, who asked the question directly, and she avoided explanation by saying "I prefer to think about it as being very positive about civil unions." and sliding into saying that she respected the "advocacy" the gay and lesbian community is "waging on behalf of marriage." Clinton then went on to say that her opposition to same-sex marriage was "personal, whatever that is supposed to mean.

Clinton, like her husband, who advised John Kerry to come out against same-sex marriage in 2004, is a political pragmatist to the core, and she will push gay and lesbian issues only when they are no longer issues -- hence repealing DADT as her "highest priority", but only after triangulating a defense of DADT itself, defending the policy as an "advance" that was badly implemented, and failed as a result..

Given Clinton's transparency, Melissa Etheridge had the right question for her: "All the great promises that were made to us [in 1992] were broken. It is many years later now. Are we going to be left behind like we were before?"

John Edwards

John Edwards was asked about his remarks, made some months ago, that his religious views had influenced his opposition to same-sex marriage.

"I shouldn't have said that. We have seen a president in the last six-plus years who has tried to impose his faith on the American people. I will not try to impose my faith belief on the American people."

Fair enough. But nobody asked the next question: "So if your religious views aren't the basis for your opposition to same-sex civil marriage, then what is?"

Edwards made it clear that he hadn't changed his position, whatever motivates him: "All I can tell you is where I am today. I believe in all these things (ending "don't ask," hate-crimes legislation, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act), but I don't support same-sex marriage."

Barack Obama

Barack Obama gave the most articulate but least coherent account of his opposition to same-sex marriage.

"I'm a strong supporter not of a weak version of civil unions, but of a strong version in which the rights that are conferred at the federal level to persons who are part of a same-sex union are compatible. Now, as a consequence, I don't think that the church should be making these determinations, when it comes to legal rights conferred by the state. I do think that individual denominations have the right to make their own decisions as to whether they recognize same-sex couples. ... Part of keeping a separation of church and state is also to make sure that churches have the right to exercise their freedom of religion. ... We should try to disentangle what has historically been the issue of the word marriage, which has religious connotations to some people, from the civil rights that are given to couples. ... I would have supported and would continue to support a civil union that provides all the benefits that are available for a legally-sanctioned marriage, and it is then up to religious denominations to make a determination as to whether they want to recognize that as marriage or not."

Now, look at this mess. Obama's answer, in a nutshell, is that because the word "marriage" has religious connotations to "some people", civil marriage is not in the cards, as far as he is concerned -- he's not willing to ruffle the feathers of religious folks who believe that they own marriage.

It is high nonsense, at best, and dangerous. It is dangerous because Obama's views give credence to the Religious Right's oft-stated view that equality under the law and religious freedom are at odds.

I thought about this today. The message is as clear as a bell: When gays and lesbians clear the way for same-sex marriage, without support from national Democrats, then Clinton, Edwards and Obama will get in back of the American people and come out in favor of marriage equality. Not a second before then.

I don't expect anything different. Any of the three Democrats, obviously, are preferable for gays and lesbians when compared any of the Republicans running for President, because cowards though they may be, the Democrats are at least willing to lead from behind, while the Republicans are staunchly opposed to any level of meaningful equality for gays and lesbians.

So, like most gays and lesbians, I'll hold my nose and vote for whichever one wins the nomination.

But I'm not counting on any of them to lift a finger on behalf of gays and lesbians. Last night made clear once again: We will win the fight for equality, as we have won all other fights, on our own, building a consensus among the American people. It will take a while, but we'll win.

The Debate: A Shot Right Square in the Foot

New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson shot himself right square in the foot with gay and lesbian voters last night.

After talking about the importance of working for what is "achievable", and touting his support for domestic partnerships in New Mexico, Richardson was asked a simple and direct question: "If the New Mexico legislature passed a same-sex marriage bill, would you sign it?"

Richardson sat, stunned, for a few seconds, absolutely dead silent.

Then he waffled, trying to retreat to the familiar ground of domestic partnerships, spewing babble.

He was asked again. Again he waffled.

It was a simple question: If presented a same-sex marriage bill that had passed the New Mexico legislature, would he sign it into law, or would he pull a Schwarzenegger? Richardson could not, or would not, answer with a "Yes" or a "No". He seemed paralized.

Whatever chance Richardson might have had for widespread support from the gay and lesbian community, it evaporated right then and there.

Invisible

I watched the debate tonight. I'll blog more about it tomorrow or over the weekend. But a single moment stood out for me and I want to say a word about it tonight.

John Edwards said that he was moved by a visit a few weeks ago to the Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center, where he met gay and lesbian kids who were homeless because they were kicked out of their homes after coming out.

He was astonished, saying: "It can’t be that Americans think this is OK. They need to see and hear exactly what I saw. It would have a huge impact on the American people."

I was, in turn, astonished at Edwards' ignorance for a moment.

But then I thought about it a bit more. Edwards isn't unusual. I had the same reaction from a Sauk County supervisor, a Democrat and a liberal, a few weeks ago at the Sauk County Fair. I've seen it again and again as I raise this issue with straights, now that I think about it. Straights simply don't know.

The plight of these kids is well known in our community. These kids are invisible in the straight world, however, as Edwards' astonishment makes clear.

We need to change that ...

We need to change something else, too. A large number of parents "think this is OK", obviously, because it is so common.

The Sky is Falling

Matt Barber, the ex-boxer who is now the "cultural issues" policy director for Concerned Women for America, sniffed yesterday: "It's disgraceful that our nation's moral standards have now dipped so low that it's considered 'tolerant' to hold a debate organized entirely around the promotion of sexual immorality."

I'm beginning to realize that, however interesting tonight's debate might be, the fun will start when the social conservatives go into frenzy mode tomorrow, decrying with alarm and generally acting as if the world is coming to an end.

501's

Don Wildmon, head of the American Family Association, isn't doing so well lately.

His much-ballyhooed boycott of Ford Motor Company seems to have fallen on hard times, as Ford posted a $750 million second quarter profit and seems to be on the way back to fiscal health.

His boycott of Disney over gay-themed days at Disney World have had little, if any, effect, and his attacks on Wal-mart over the couple of dozen books that Wal-mart's online store carries dealing with homosexuality looks like it has fizzled out.

Wildmon need not worry, though. American companies, alert to consumer demographics, will give Wildmon plenty of new fodder for his money-machine as time goes on.

The latest is Levi Strauss & Co., which, like Ford, has begun marketing directly to the gay and lesbian community in gay-targeted media channels, like Logo.

Levi's recently began airing an ad for 501's in two versions -- one version, aired on Logo, is aimed at gay men, and the other version, aired on general audience channels, is aimed at straight men.

The two-spirit ad strategy is ingenious -- both ads are eye-catching, although the straight couple seems better matched to me than the gay couple. But more to the point, as the Ad Age video points out, Levi's two-spirit ad strategy is likely to become more and more common over time, as gay/lesbian-themed media -- television, print and online -- become increasingly used by companies to directly target gays and lesbians. The carefully coded ads of the last decade -- ads which are ostensibly straight, but which play on the subtle under-the-table symbols for the gay and lesbian community, entirely lost to the straights watching the ads -- may give way to direct advertising.

Wildmon is likely to blow a gasket over the debate tomorrow night, in which Democratic candidates will market themselves to the gay and lesbian community on Logo, but the debate is taking place for the same reason that Levi's made the two-spirit ad.

The gay and lesbian mainstream -- folks like Michael and me, who live quietly and in harmony with our neighbors -- angered by the vicious attacks over the last decade from the likes of Wildmon, have become a empowered political demographic worth courting.

And we vote. A recent study revealed extremely high gay and lesbian voter turnout in the 2004 and 2006 elections. The study, conducted in April and May of this year by Community Marketing Inc., suggests that over 90% of gays and lesbians voted in the 2004 Presidential election and slightly over 80% voted in the 2006 mid-term Congressional elections.

That is remarkable. In comparison, media reports estimate that 64% of the general American population voted in the 2004 Presidential election and just 40% of the general population voted in the 2006 mid-term election.

Think about that ... and don't doubt for a New York minute that we mean business.

Talking the Talk

The August 9 Democratic debate sponsored by HRC and Logo ought to be interesting, and I plan to watch it. Michael and I don't subscribe to Logo, so I'll be watching the online simulcast of the debate on VisibleVote08.com.

The reason I think that the debate will be interesting is that HRC and Logo seem determined to "drill down" into a variety of issues affecting the gay and lesbian community, including federal hate crimes legislation, ENDA, DADT, same-sex marriage and health care.

And that's a good thing. Gays and lesbians already know the broad stokes of the Democratic candidates' positions on a wide range of issue, but the candidates have been, for the most part, speaking in broad generalities. The HRC/Logo debate, focused exclusively on issues of concern to gays and lesbians, might take us beyond the generalities.

Talking the Talk

Gays and lesbians have been a relatively reliable voting bloc for Democrats for a couple of decades now, since the Mondale campaign in 1984, during the height of the AIDS crisis, when President Reagan refused to acknowledge the crisis, at the cost of tens of thousands of lives. Mondale, at least, was willing to talk about AIDS.

And so it has been for the last couple of decades. Since the Mondale campaign, the Democratic Party at the national level has spoken out about gay issues and spoke to gays and lesbians. The Republicans ignored gays and lesbians during the 1980's, and then began the "culture wars" during the 1990's.

The reason gays and lesbians vote Democratic for the most part -- about 80% to 20% -- is not so much that the Democrats have delivered for gays and lesbians -- President Clinton signed an executive order banning discrimination in federal hiring and distributed grants for studies of gay and lesbian health issues, but also devised DADT and signed DOMA, for example -- but that the Republicans have done everything in their power to oppose gays and lesbians on issues of importance to them.

A Gay and Lesbian Audience?

It isn't clear what audience the Democratic presidential candidates will be addressing in the debate.

The gay and lesbian population is small -- the best guess is 4-5% -- and by itself does not constitute a strong voting bloc outside the major cities, where gays and lesbians are concentrated in high enough numbers to have political clout.

But gay and lesbian issues spill over. The Religious Right, of course, cares as passionately about gay and lesbian issues, because equality is, in their minds, a zero-sum game and each advance toward full and equal citizenship made by gays and lesbians threatens them. Beyond the Religious Right, though, there is a larger group in our population -- families and friends of gays and lesbians -- that is interested in gay and lesbian issues.

So far, most of the Democratic presidential candidates have addressed gay and lesbian issues in broad, generic terms that apply to the population as a whole, instead of answering the specific questions put to them in earlier debates.

It will be interesting to see what happens when the moderator hones in on their answers, with follow up questions. Put on the spot, I suspect that some will waffle and some will not, but all will try to walk a fine line -- not waffling enough to lose gay and lesbian support while waffling enough to keep from providing damaging sound bites to the Republicans.

In any event, we'll have the best opportunity in twenty years to see what each of the candidates is thinking and what, if anything, they are likely to do if elected.

The Republicans

HRC and Logo invited Republican presidential candidates to a similar debate. True to form, none was interested. Romney declined, and Giuliani and McCain never got back to HRC and Logo. So the Republicans won't be talking to gays and lesbians in 2008, once again.

It makes sense, I guess. The Republicans, at present, have little reason to want to talk to gays and lesbians.

The Log Cabin crowd votes Republican because gay and lesbian issues are not as important to them as pocketbook issues, and that's no surprise. Outside the Religious Right, the level of acceptance of gays and lesbians is high enough that if you are well-educated and affluent, and have no interest in actually serving in the military as opposed to talking the talk, you can largely insulate yourself from the worst of the discrimination that exists in our laws.

What, after all would the Republican candidates say in a debate targeting a gay and lesbian audience? Nothing, it would seem, that would be likely to attract gays and lesbians to the Republican camp.

Few gays and lesbians are turned on by the rhetoric that marriage equality threatens the bedrock of our nation, that the only hate crimes are illusory future crimes concocted by the Religious Right, that job discrimination doesn't matter if you were born with a trust fund, and that the armed services are better off recruiting felons than gays and lesbians.

The Religious Right is turned on by those issues -- tossed into a frenzy of hyper-caffeinated, sugar-induced ecstasy at raw meat faggot-baiting -- but the Religious Right doesn't watch Logo, except with the closet door firmly closed.

Nonetheless, I think that it is too bad that the Republicans are running away, once again, from talking to gays and lesbians. My view is that the Republicans owe it to talk to us, given the way that they've used us to ride into office on the horseback of fear-mongering. We are, whether they like it or not, citizens of the United States, and we intend to keep our citizenship, and anyone running for president should be addressing us.

Will the Debate Play in Peoria?

The gay and lesbian press will cover the debate in depth, of course, and the debate is expected to attract a large gay and lesbian audience online and on Logo.

I'll be curious, though, to see how the debate plays, if at all, in the mainstream media. My guess is that it will not get a lot of coverage until the Republicans -- Romney, Brownback and Huckabee, in particular -- start using what is said as political fodder. When they do, the debate will get its fifteen seconds of fame in the mainstream.

It is all interesting, to say the least.

I guess if "faggot, faggot" doesn't work, try ...

... playing the race fear card.

The Orlando Sentinel reported yesterday that Florida State Representative Bob Allen (Republican - Merritt Island), who was arrested July 11 in a public restroom at Veterans Memorial Park after an undercover officer suggested that Allen give him a blow job and $20, and Allen apparently agreed, claims that he did it because he was intimidated.

"I certainly wasn't there to have sex with anybody and certainly wasn't there to exchange money for it. This was a pretty stocky black guy, and there was nothing but other black guys around in the park." Allen said he feared he "was about to be a statistic" and would have said anything just to get away.

Or maybe, said anything to get off, both before and after.

According to reports released by the Brevard-Seminole State Attorney's Office, three undercover officers were staking out a nearby condo hoping to catch a burglar when Allen entered a park bathroom at about 3:30 p.m. The officers, who didn't recognize Allen, thought Allen was behaving suspiciously and looking for a sexual partner.

According to the reports, Officer Danny Kavanaugh recalled entering the restroom twice and said he was drying his hands in a stall when Allen peered over the stall door. After peering over the stall a second time, Allen pushed open the door and joined Kavanaugh inside. Allen muttered "Hi" and then said, "this is kind of a public place, isn't it". The officer said he asked Allen about going somewhere else and that the legislator suggested going "across the bridge, it's quieter over there."

"Well look, man, I'm trying to make some money; you think you can hook me up with 20 bucks?" Kavanaugh asked Allen. The officer said Allen responded, "Sure, I can do that, but this place is too public. Then Kavanaugh said he told Allen, "I wanna know what I gotta do for 20 bucks before we leave." He said Allen replied: "I don't know what you're into."

According to Kavanaugh's statement, the officer said, "do you want just [oral sex]?" and Allen replied, "I was thinking you would want one." The officer said he then asked Allen, "but you'll still give me the 20 bucks for that ..." and Allen replied "Yeah, I wouldn't argue with that."

Allen, like a number of other social conservative luminaries caught in similar situations, is a "family values" guy. When caught, these guys come up with all kinds of weird excuses -- "I was just ministering to them ..." or "I'm straight as an arrow, but the devil made me do it ...". But this is a real first: "I went into a bathroom stall in a public restroom and offered to pay a guy to give him a blow job because there were all these black people around."

That one's ingenious. Allen is right up there with the straight guy who once wrote in to Dan Savage asking for advice because he got all helpless when his masseur stick his thumb up his ass.