I'm just finishing up this (for me) first episode of Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, and I am just floored. Hysterical to start with, but I never expected it to be this engaging, or especially so sweet. They weren't bitchy queens after all; more like fairy godmothers with wicked tongues.

Made me cry, twice, even before the proposal. First time, when they brought him down to his Moroccan love nest, about five seconds before the straightguy did. Then I really lost it. They created such a wonderful world for him for her. They really worked with his personality, because you can tell what a romantic he was, and they helped him create the image he had in mind for his engagement, but had no idea how to produce.

And then when his girlfriend arrived and he showed her around, modeled his new looks--but humbly, blushing when she called him debonair--I could date this guy. When he spun out in the living room--and it's hard to picture a straightguy pulling that office, but picture Fred Astaire, but raised on the range--and that huge beaming grin on his face . . .

Too much. The last thing I expected from this show was tenderness an sincerity.

It wasn't a Jenny Jones makeover, it was much more turning him into the picture he was trying to be. Of course they had amazing material to start with.

This is the top story on the New York Times site at the moment, posted earlier this afternoon:

Bush Looking for Means to Prevent Gay Marriage in U.S.

President Bush said today that federal government lawyers are working on legislation that would define marriage as a union between a man and woman.

"I believe marriage is between a man and a woman, and I believe we ought to codify that one way or the other, and we have lawyers looking at the best way to do that," Mr. Bush said at a news conference in the Rose Garden.

...

Mr. Bush was responding to a question premised on the assumption that many of his political supporters believe "that homosexuality is immoral" and has been given too much cultural acceptance.

"As someone who's spoken out in strongly moral terms, what's your view on homosexuality?" a reporter asked the president.

"Yeah, I am mindful that we're all sinners," Mr. Bush replied. "And I caution those who may try to take the speck out of their neighbor's eye when they got a log in their own. I think it's very important for our society to respect each individual, to welcome those with good hearts, to be a welcoming country.

"On the other hand," Mr. Bush continued, "that does not mean that somebody like me needs to compromise on issues such as marriage. And that's really where the issue is headed here in Washington, and that is the definition of marriage. I believe in the sanctity of marriage. I believe a marriage is between a man and a woman. And I think we ought to codify that one way or the other. And we've got lawyers looking at the best way to do that."

It's hard to know how much that was indicative of a big new drive in the works, or just the bumbler's attempts to dispose of an uncomfortable question. Definitely vague. And not nearly as negative as the R's used to be. But not good.

Well I predicted Queer Eye for the Straight Guy would be ghastly, and Boy to Boy had potential. Looks like I'm ) 0 for 2. And dead wrong on both counts.

I've only watched 12 minutes of Queer Eye, and I've already laughed more--and harder--than, say, the entire season of Last Comic Standing, or even a full episode of most of the better sitcoms. (It's the episode with the hot country guy with the black goatee about to propose to Tina.)

The stereotypes are already kind of annoying, but I can live with that as long as they keep me laughing my ass off. The thing that annoys me about most bitchy queens who affect the drag-queen clever-put-down style is that they're all bitchiness and seldom clever. These bitches are hysterical. If you've got the wit, you can pull it off.

I'm not sure these lines will work in print, but my favorite exchange so far:

"Where did you get this?"

"Kmart."

Gasp. He lifts his fingers to the straightboy's lips: "Don't use that kind of language around me."

They've got the pacing just right, the music is used effectively, the right numbers of characters and the right interplay between them. And above all, what has clearly become the key ingredient in reality show success: the casting. Each one of them bears the right mix of aggressive wit and occasional warmth, just when they need to lighten up and stroke the guy. And they know exactly when to flirt with him, mercilessly.

And the straightguy is perfect too: nervous, intimidated, embarassed when they dump out his dirty underwear, frantic to stop them when they expose the wet spot under his sheets, yet earnestly eager to learn. (Earnest in a good way, not like that semi-airhead on Boy Meets Boy.) He's fun to watch.

I also figured out the show I want--not to watch, necessarily, so much as participate in: "Queer Eye for the Queer Guy." Just because you're gay doesn't mean you've earned your fag licence. Or as a friend likes to tell me, "You're not gay Dave, you're just homosexual." I'm OK with my apartment, regardless of how much those gayboys roll their eyes at this place. But I could really use some help with the hair and clothes. That's where I really feel lost without a boyfriend. (And what a Catch 22 that is: can't find a boyfriend looking like that, stuck looking like that without a boyfriend to bar the door when you try to leave the apartment that way.)

I never want to be as gay as this team, not even close, but I wouldn't mind someone gaying up the exterior a bit. Actually, I wouldn't mind being as gay as the before picture of the straightguy. Didn't look scary to me at all. (Which is, perhaps the problem.) I never would have done the belt buckle, and my apartment doesn't look like I've just been robbed (another great line: "You've heard minimalism?" Receptive nod, smile breaking out in anticipation of his first compliment ... "This is called bleak.") But overall, I thought I worked enough elements to really scream out hottie. I guess if you're a hottie, the looks will scream that out regardless of the mess you make of it. I liked when they said he had a lot of good things going, but mixed in with a lot of bad things that were blocking the good stuff. That's me. OK, where do I apply. Maybe they would do a special episode where they tackle a gayguy. Seems like the natural turn of events around episode eleven or so. OK, nobody beat me to it, OK. I really need the help.

A friend told me this weekend he's waiting for "Straight Eye for the Queer Guy," where the straight guy will teach sissies like him (and he is a sissy) to throw a football and walk with a swagger.

And he's not entirely kidding.

(If you're wondering why I haven't reviewed the show actually airing, it's because Comcast screwed me when I upgraded to digital cable. The morons there scrambled my program lineup and every time I called they gave me different answers on where the channels were and what lineup to choose on my Tivo. Infuriating. I finally figured it out without them by trial and error. I finally got Bravo last night, just in time for Boy Meets Boy. I also got two episodes of Straight Eye, which I'll get to sometime this week and respond.)

Heather Havrilesky, Salon's witty yet insightful TV critic, has a very different take on Boy Meets Boy. For her it's all about the gaydar. But it's still a fun read, and I think she latched onto why the show never had that effect on me:

But the point is, it's ridiculous to speculate about the sexual preferences of total strangers ... unless you need to because you want to sleep with them, of course. But on TV?  ...

The truth is, no matter how you feel about "Boy Meets Boy," you will not be able to watch the show without divining which team each guy is on. If you're straight, that is. If you're gay, you do this sort of shit all the time, and you'll mostly just be checking out Dan's abs.

Exactly. It's pretty old hat at this point, but it's still a lot of fun if you're thinking about sleeping with them. Or, say, if you can see that they're playing it straight with their girlfriend, and the audacity of it is just too ridiculous to behold.

But when it's guessing who's gay and who's faking gay--on TV, with guys I'll never sleep with and wouldn't want to anyway--ho hum.

Thank you. I've been waiting for someone to write this.

I advised you several times: Salon News Editor Joan Walsh only writes a story once or twice a month; anytime you see her byline, read it. Really great piece today:

The Democratic Weaselship Council
If Democratic centrists want to repeat Bill Clinton's success, they should stop attacking fellow Democrats as "far left" and concentrate on uniting the party against Bush.

July 29, 2003  |  Has Karl Rove taken over the Democratic Leadership Council? I can't think of another explanation for the centrist clique's destructive guerrilla war against fellow Democrats. Tuesday's New York Times outlines the latest assault: A DLC conference this week devoted to blasting the party's presidential hopefuls for their "far left" critique of President Bush's budget-busting tax cuts and his dishonesty in leading the nation into war. If hitting Bush on those blunders really makes Democrats unelectable, the nation is in worse trouble than the DLC thinks.

She mostly takes the DLC to task, but this ending is right on the money, and something both Dean supporters and the DLC (and the Kerry camp) should think about:

I don't know what combination of left, right and center will be necessary to beat Bush in 2004. All I know is that branding the Democrats' opposition to Bush's tax cuts and Iraq debacle "far left" does Karl Rove's work for him. For a bunch of guys whose appeal is supposed to be their smarts, that's awfully dumb politics.

The DLC's hero Bill Clinton won two presidential elections by pulling together the party's left and right wings. If the DLC -- and Howard Dean supporters -- want to win back the White House, they've got to do the same.

It would appear that the only difference between gay and straight producers of reality bachelor shows is the budget. A fraction of the population implies a fraction of the audience, suggesting basic cable for an outlet, meaning a fraction of the budget. This thing plays out like a semester project in a junior college video production class. Worthy of at least a B+ in that arena. But you can almost picture the smirk on the Teaching Assistant's face when the producer suggests marketing his work to TV. "Cable access? Maybe. But it's gotten a lot more competitive with all the video production classes at the high school."

No limos and choppers for Boy Meets Boy. Most of the show consisted of sixteen guys sitting around somebody's backyard chatting. Charlie Rose could get away with that, but not these simpletons. What insipid chatter. Were these really the highlights, or did budget constraints also preclude an editor?

(Or sufficient tape? This entire series is being taped in a week. That means a fraction of the interaction to cull clips from. If a character on For Love of a Salesman says something interesting twice a month, they stand a chance of coming off appealing, but here they've got to spout something witty at least once an hour or two. Neither one seems like it should be that tough a requirement, yet nine out of ten characters on both shows are failing miserably.)

The suitors are nearly as lame as their straight counterparts, but the biggest problem here is the prize. He's cute and loveable, seems genuinely nice and genuine. You couldn't ask for a more earnest young man. But then he opens his mouth. So hard not to feel embarrassed for him. Maybe he's just trying to hard. He seems to approach every conversation as a job interview. Wouldn't job interview footage make invigorating television. (Actually, they would be hysterical from time to time--and Job Interview is surely in preproduction somewhere--but only with the right combination of comically mismatched interviewer and interviewee. Ninety-nine percent of the footage would be mind-numbing, as it is here.)

His first question: If you could have only one genre of music, what would it be? Oh brother. Aside from the banality of that whole line of questioning, genre? Could you possibly force the respgonses into more blandness: pop, country and western, classical. Great, that was riveting. (Those were actual answers, by the way--and what could he have expected.) At least if he asked for an artist or song, he might have gotten something more specific. Somebody could have said Warren Zevon's "Roland the Headless Thompson Gunner," Rickie Lee Jones' "On Saturday Afternoons in 1963," or Jimmy Cliff's "Sitting Here in Limbo." Now we'd be getting somewhere. Or mabye somebody would have had the balls to say, "Dude! Lame question! What job interview did you just flunk?"

And what's with all the business of EarnestMan trying to memorize all the suitors' names? It was boring the first time it happened, why the hell did they show him muddling through it three different times? Of course he's going to struggle with 15 names at once. We take that for granted, but it sure is dull to watch. When are they hiring that editor?

Then it's back to more questions. "We're all going to be stranded on a desert island, alone. What one thing would you hope would wash up on shore." Yes, he really goes with another one-thing question from the Hopeless Job Interviewer's List of Desperation Questions Handbook, and he's picked and even cornier entry than the first one. And there was not a whole lot of insightful banter in between, these two questions were actually the core of the conversation--as presented; perhaps this was just the "good" stuff. (And he really did emphasize those words I italicized--he seemed to feel the one thing idea was really, really deep.)

To make up for the missing exotic element, the producers have hired a trashy English hostess to refer to the boys incessantly as "mates." Now that does feel European.

The fake-gayboy element was the one thing this show had going for it, and they go nowhere with it. Just a lot of annoying repetition about the question as we go to each commercial break, along with some amateur effects like little picture-in-picture boxes flipping open with different characters, bouncing around and flipping about. Now that's visual excitement! But it's all teaser, no payoff.

Oh, maybe the payoff is at the end, when the castoffs are outed as straight or gay. That's the first time I felt moved to wonder. It wasn't too hard to guess. Brian seemed pretty straight once I bothered to think about it, and guessed right just before the Revelation! but so what? And what did we have to go on? This might get more interesting in the later episodes once we see more of them, and/or they're making on EarnestBoy. Great, save it for when we care.

The show plunged lowest right at the opening, as we learned Brian's true identity: "I guarantee you, a lot of people that were watching the show would have thought I was gay based on either what I was wearing, or just who I was sitting next to." Editor!

But I guess they think he redeemed himself with this closer: ". . . and it really doesn't matter. So love everyone for who they are. Bottom line. As human beings." Blaach! (Someone help me on that spelling.) I thought only Queer As Folk screenwriters could produce dialogue so ham-handed and preachy.

Of course it could have all been worth it for the gayboy audience they were shooting for if they just packed the swimming pool with hotties. There area a few cute faces scattered among them, but nothing good enough to tune in for, especially after you've heard the drivel sputtering out of their mouths. Dan I would definitely sleep with once, if he was too drunk to talk or I was too drunk to hear. But I'd have to make a quick escape in the morning. What an asshole. And the last straw against EarnestBoy came at the end when he picked Dan, and kept a straight face when he said, "You're very real."

Besides, he's straight. That's the easiest call on the show. Nice to know us gayboys won't have to take ownership of that dick.

I always thought it would be hard, but could NBC really not lure a single funny person for Last Comic Standing? Cory Kahaney did make me smile several times, but those were scattered in amongst a bunch of annoying duds, and the rest of the lineup was like watching a high school variety show lineup. (And what drag queen got ahold of her hair and makeup?)

Poor Dat Phan. Turns out his inspired opening bit pretending to be a hapless Vietnamese who stumbled onto the stage really was all he had. He had to go without it last night, and never said one remotely funny thing. I bet somebody else gave him the idea for that. He was great on the delivery of it, though. Maybe he will get a sitcom out of it.

The most appalling performance, though, came from the big fat guy, who's been milking his one obvious attribute of obesity relentlessly. Until now, it was clear the guy was full of himself, but oddly, for a show about standup comic's we had very little opportunity to see if he was funny. No sir! He worked the same idiotic bit his entire five minutes. No humor, no creativity, no clue about the difference between a joke and an act, and totally pandering and despicable to boot. One loathsome creature. No wonder he hates himself.

AP picked up on the USAToday/Gallup poll published Monday, and this morning every news outlet in the country seems to be running it (page after page of them right now on GoogleNews).

The story is short, so I'm going to post the whole thing in:

Polls Show Growing Opposition To Homosexual Acts

WASHINGTON -- A new poll taken since the Supreme Court struck down state sodomy laws shows growing opposition to homosexual behavior.

In a CNN-USA Today Gallup poll taken Friday through Sunday, 48 percent said homosexual acts should be legal and 46 percent said they shouldn't.

That's a significant change from early May, when 60 percent said that such activity should be legal and 35 percent said it should not.

Two separate Gallup polls this month detected a shift against gay rights, and found that those who recently changed their views tended to be conservatives, moderates and people who attend church.

The Supreme Court decision has raised prospects for legalization of gay marriage, which opponents hope to block with a constitutional amendment that they say has 75 sponsors in the U.S. House.

Not surprising, really. Equality and fairness sound like good ideas in the abstract, but start getting court rulings where people wake up and say, "Hmmmmm. Things are actually changing." And a lot of them start to get nervous. No doubt they see momentum picking up and change not stopping there. And they're probably right.

Some of the backlash will be short-lived, as people adjust to the new reality. But too much too fast and we could drive some moderates away and radicalize some others to action.

And here I was starting to secretly hope the MA court ruled in our favor. I was all set to throw caution to the wind and just charge ahead without regard to the longterm consequences. Now I'm shifting back. (Luckily, I have no say in the matter, so I don't have to take responsibility either way.) Part of me feels like a weenie for being the voice of caution, because I'm so unused to playing that role.

But this is a long struggle, and here's what I've been saying for years I've been looking for: I want to go to a Rockies game at Coors field with my boyfriend and walk up the steps holding hands without even thinking about it, or with anyone even noticing, just like the hundreds to thousands of other couples there doing the same thing. (Last time I went, my boyfriend wouldn't let me go near his hand, and their were straight people doing it everywhere in sight.)

That's it. I just want to be able to act naturally. And have no one care or even notice. Including me or my boyfriend.

I would like to get married, but I'd also like to be normal. And we've got a long, long way to go on that one, and it's going to take a lifetime to get there, and I'd hate to see us set back significantly for failing to grasp the concept of timing.

But, too late.

______-

UPDATES:

Thanks to Ben, longer version of the story here.

W Post media "critic" Howie Kurtz just posted a long piece called "Are Gays Facing a Backlash?" that actually sheds some light on things, which is somewhat uncharacteristic of him. Seems the McPaper reversed its take from Monday to Tuesday because of two different polls. Kurtz also has this to say, which I think is pretty accurate:

In a world in which homosexuality is an increasingly open fact of life, and gays are frequently portrayed on TV and in movies, a majority of Americans has taken a live-and-let-live attitude. As more companies granted benefits to same-sex couples, it became increasingly hard to argue against such a move. The flash points -- involving, say, teachers or the Boy Scouts or adoption -- tended to involve children or a perceived encroachment on the rights of others.

Along comes the Supreme Court and reverses a 17-year-old decision that gay sodomy is criminal conduct. But that ruling, coupled with Canada's decision to allow gay marriage, sparks a debate about the traditional family and just how far gay rights should go.

That may be making some people nervous. Marriage is an emotional issue, a cultural touchstone, and some folks may feel that their way of life is being encroached upon.

And Maggie Gallagher, hits it more succinctly in the Weekly Standard:

Gay marriage is no longer a theoretical issue. Canada has it. Massachusetts is expected to get it any day.

Finally, Republican gay Congressman Jim Kolbe is predicting the R's will generally steer clear of the fight, although he then hedges:

"I suppose it will become much more of a case if Massachusetts were to rule, but I think the Supreme Court there is going to try to find any way there is to make it a very narrow ruling or avoid ruling," he said.

So you must be positively puzzled by my silence on our favorite gayboys, Chip and Reichen, all week. Busy week, had to get some other stuff off my chest. Did have a few thoughts on last week's show--and the virgins' performance on The Early Show the next morning--but since it's taken this long, I'll just wait till tomorrow, when we all get the fever for the next impending installment.

But I'm pretty sure it's going to be a non-elimination round, so don't get too excited.

And a new site called "All about RC" is up. Looks like they're just getting started, but they do have one pic I haven't posted there (of Reichen in front of the sleek billboard of himself in West Hollywood), and I imagine they'll have more pics and commentary soon.

All my recent Reichen & Chip posts here.

The "men of God" are suing to keep the ban on gay marriage in Canada. Nice, guys.

Bishops take gay-marriage issue to court
`Keep traditional definition,' Catholics say

Will ask Supreme Court for right to press their case

VALERIE LAWTON
OTTAWA BUREAU

OTTAWA—Catholic bishops campaigning to protect the long-standing definition of marriage will go to Canada's top court in a bid to stop gays and lesbians from tying the knot.

"Our position is: Keep the traditional definition of marriage. It has served society well and it will serve society in the future," said Monsignor Peter Schonenbach, general secretary of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops.

The conference decided yesterday it will ask the Supreme Court of Canada for permission to argue its case during a hearing on a draft federal bill to allow same-sex couples to wed.

What's going to happen to these bishops when they die?

I haven't wanted to post every freaking poll blip--you can find that any time in my Dean News Clearinghouse page if you're interested--but a trend is definitely underway here. (I'm I really want to be balanced here, and not just come off like a Dean booster, but the momentum has all been moving his way the past month.)

Each NH poll has shown Dean creeping closer and closer to Dean, and the last two have him ahead. The NY Post, of all places, put it very succinctly this morning:

July 30, 2003 -- WASHINGTON - A second poll in two days has anti-war Democratic presidential contender Howard Dean holding a slim lead over rival Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry in the key state of New Hampshire.

Both polls are statistical ties, but they're the first to suggest the former Vermont governor may be edging ahead in a must-win state for Kerry. Dean had 22 percent to 21 for Kerry in a July 20-24 poll released yesterday by Franklin Pierce College, one day after a Boston Herald poll put Dean at 28 percent to 25 for Kerry. No one else was close.