Dave Cullen: gay-marriage

Gay penguins

Mon, 18 Oct 2004 21:17:35 GMT

Ahhhhh, The Daily Show.

Just when I'm hit my gloomiest over what feels like a tidal wave of anti-gay sentiment, including Day Five of the Mary Cheney hostage crisis*--which reveals such an undercurrent of gay hostility and apprehension I had lost sight of--and Salon's latest cover story, Homosexuals Are Hellbound! about all the anti-gay state constitutional amendments on the Nov ballot, and the horror show it's producing in Ohio, and then I flip on my Tivo for a little light viewing while I do the dishes.

It seems Samantha B (Bee?) has discovered a gaping loophole in all these amendments outlawing gay marriage. Roy and Siloh have been cohabiting together for five years. Openly. In Central Park.

They live in the zoo. They're penguins. There are three gay couples living there, among the penguins. Countless other animals.

"Just because it happens in nature, does not make it natural," Samatha Bee snapped at the zookeeper.

"Ummmmm." It took him awhile to get the words out, but eventually he responded, "I think by definition, that actually does."

She also points out the obvious dangers. Penguins are already dressed in tuxedos, just like grooms. So if kids believe penguins can be gay, then so can grooms. And then what's to stop groom and penguin marraiges?" Heeheehee. I won't even try to describe the animation, of penguin and groom joining hands.

I feel better already.

Hopefully none of these amendments will be wielded against Roy and Siloh. They will continue living blissfully onward, just as God intended.

*I stole that hostage-crisis line from Salon.

My Salon piece on Mary Cheney

Fri, 15 Oct 2004 03:48:52 GMT

The Mary Cheney controverys. Ugh.

Lynne Cheney acted disgracefully towards her daughter last night in a public political forum, and to my knowledge, no one in the mainstream press has called her on it. (Please jump in to correct me.)

Instead, they've been piling on to Kerry. Huh?

This one really got under my skin, so I wrote a piece for Salon about it and it has just posted:

John Kerry's lesbian moment

The problem seems to be a supreme lack of insight by straight people into the way gays respond to public references to their sexuality. Apparently, straight people think we cringe. That's what makes us (gays) cringe.

What's astonishing to me that none of the news organizations today seemed to check in with any gay people on this. Read the Times piece for tomorrow's paper, and you'll find the same complete failure to consider the point of view of the people they're writing about.

It has been nice to see a slew of bloggers calling the Cheney's on the hypocrisy of their charge, and Andrew Sullivan in particular has been leading the charge with a stream of dead-on entries that seek to bridge the yawning gap between straights and gays on this.

I hope my piece will too. It's a little angry in places, because I was freaking angry, but I tried to get the point across about how homos tend to look at this issue.

Update:

Thanks to Atrios for linking to the CNN poll--their front page poll, for God's sake--on this "issue," and for the hysterical "Sisters" cover. (And for the link to my story.)

So here's the CNN poll question of the day:

Do you think Sen. John Kerry went too far when he mentioned VP Dick Cheney's gay daughter in Wednesday's debate?

Huh. Did it ever occur to them to ask:

Do you think Lynne Cheney went too far when she publicly humiliated her own daughter at a campaign rally just for being a lesbian?

Amazing how they are framing this faux controversy.

Atrios also asks a crucial question:

Given the recent events, and the lack of response from Mary Cheney, our TV media should ask itself a reasonable question -- how many out gay people are regular anchors/pundits/correspondents/commentators on CBS/ABC/NBC/CNN/MSNBC/FOX?

Didn't these news outfits have just one gay person on their staff they could have asked about this? Who could have told them they had framed the entire controversy backwards?

Update 2:

One of the joys of publishing on Salon is the instant feedback--from a really intelligent pool of readers. But I don't ever remember a piece generating so many that were so moving. This issue has touched a lot of gay people more than I even realized.

And some straight people.

I got an incredible one from an actual church lady in Idaho, but I want to get her permission before posting.

No way out but the cliff?

Sat, 14 Aug 2004 03:17:34 GMT

Arianna Huffington just posted an incredible column about New Jersey Gov. Jim McGreevey coming out and resigning.

It thoughtful and articulate throughout, but it also raised an idea I had not considered, but seems so obvious in retrospect:

It's hard to resist playing armchair psychoanalyst and wondering: Did McGreevey unconsciously make certain choices -- like putting his lover on the government payroll in a high-profile position he was not qualified for -- in order to force upon himself Thursday's public announcement: "I am a gay American"?

Of course that's really dangerous, but the more I sat there pondering it, I wish she had continued that line of thought. And then I read on. And she did:

We can't, of course, know what was going on in McGreevey's psyche, but hiring his lover, Golan Cipel -- an Israeli foreign national unable to obtain a federal security clearance to be the homeland security czar of New Jersey (and at a salary of $110,000 a year, no less) -- is the height of recklessness, and only makes sense as a taxpayer-funded cry for help. Clearly no good could come of such an appointment -- unless the governor was unconsciously hoping that the appointment would eventually force his hand.

The reason this idea has such a hold of me, is because I've seen it play out that way so many times. With homosexuality in particular, and characteristics we're ashamed of in general. We just can't bring ourselves to admit them, so we force ourselves into a situation to get them out.

I know one guy whose girlfriend found some embarassing photos, and the poor little weasel--after squirming and denying awhile, finally latched onto a better idea. He suggested she talk it through with his mom, who had a similar reaction, and was the one person who could empathize. The girlfriend made the call. His mom knew nothing. Until the call. His dad drove all the way from Seattle to Denver to get him.

The things we'll do to free ourselves of the bondage. It seems so silly in retrospect, because the weight we were dragging around looks so puny now that we have unloaded it and see it for the ghost it always was. But on our backs . . .

Here's how Arianna begins to wrap it up:

By the time the curtain comes up on this drama’s Act Five we could be in the middle of a serious political scandal that may force McGreevey to step down even before Nov. 15. Or we may be in the middle of his political resurrection, looking not at a tortured politician with a secret draining away precious energy but a free man fully -- and finally -- accepting himself. Either way, he had to practically drive the car right off the cliff in order to put himself on the road to Thursday’s declaration. And that's an indictment of our society and our political culture wars.

Man, she sure knows how it feels. (Except, "practically" off the cliff? As far as his career goes, not to mention his marriage--pretty much everything he ever dreamed of, he's crashing into the jagged rocks right now. But better that than up on that horrible cliff.

Of course she gets it, her husband came out. And for every one of us, I think it feels that way: driving the car right off the cliff is the only way to get there.

Tough day for homos

Thu, 12 Aug 2004 22:34:01 GMT

First the California Supreme Court annulled all those gay marriages performed in San Francisco, now the governor of New Jersey has resigned because he was gay.

What? Resigned because he was gay? And had an affair? That one doesn't quite make sense. Surely there's more to come out. Politicians admit to affairs all the time, and I can't remember one resigning over it.

I'm not sure what the silver lining is here--another signal to straight people that there are gays hiding among us all over the place? That lots of normal people they respecte enough to elect governor are gay?

Or perhaps just one more indication for arch-conservatives trying to stamp out homosexuality--or whatever it is they think they're doing; "discouraging" it?--of what they're really accomplishing: Persuading gay men to marry our sisters and daughters. Who is being served by that?

I don't think it will sink in for the hardcore anti-gays--who will just say this guy lacked the morality or willpower to stick by the straight path he was attempting--but perhaps it will occur to some level-headed straight people in the middle.

Especially if they read the transcript. It's heartbreaking. And brief enough to read in about a minute and a half.

This part really chocked me up:

Yet, from my early days in school, until the present day, I acknowledged some feelings, a certain sense that separated me from others. But because of my resolve, and also thinking that I was doing the right thing, I forced what I thought was an acceptable reality onto myself . . .

I do not believe that God tortures any person simply for its own sake. I believe that God enables all things to work for the greater good. And this, the 47th year of my life, is arguably too late to have this discussion. But it is here, and it is now.

At a point in every person's life, one has to look deeply into the mirror of one's soul and decide one's unique truth in the world, not as we may want to see it or hope to see it, but as it is.

And so my truth is that I am a gay American.

Good job timing the gay marriages during a war

Sun, 06 Jun 2004 17:55:54 GMT

I whined quite a bit last summer that it was too early, way too dangerously early to be plunging ahead into gay marriage. We had not sufficiently prepared the public, I had convinced myself.

Wrong, wrong, looks like I was dead wrong, as I have admitted here repeatedly since. But I really wasn't prepared for the big yawn out of Massacheusetts last month. No one seems to even be noticing.

I wonder how much it is the war. Quite a bit, I think. Nothing like a good national crisis to put priorities in place. Too much idle time on our hands can be a bad thing, right? Just gives all those straight people time to sit around fretting what gay marriage might do to them.

(Not to mention both discrediting the champions of the opposition, and forcing them to drop the stupid battle to take on something really imporant, like their appalling mismanagement of the war.)

And the one-two punch of a war on the heals of a troubled economy, all the better. The big question now is which will matter more in November--can the economy push the war back off center stage? I doubt it, personally, but either way, gay marriage just seem too trivial for most people to spend their time on today. Frank Rich in today's column:

But Massachusetts's wedding day proved to be the show dog that didn't bark. Americans merely shrugged, confirming polls both before and after that fateful day: voters rate same-sex marriage dead last in importance among issues in an election year dominated by a runaway real war.

(The column is hysterical, as usual, by the way, in a good way, of course.)

But I also think the San Francisco marriages helped. Get people used to it gradually. That just happened so suddenly, and as Joan Walsh wrote at the time, suddenly it seemed so inevitable: there's really no turning back after that. So those marriages may not end up standing up in the courts, but the couples have done their work for the rest of us. They pushed us all right past the what-if stage. What if men and men and women and women got married to each other, not just in their own private ceremonies, but legally, with bone fide marriage certificates issued by the actual government? Nothing, apparently. The sky didn't fall.

So when it happened again in Massacheusetts? What straight person was even going to be interested enough to watch that rerun. You can only get excited about it so many times. And the first time you see gay people kiss can be shocking--I still remember witnessing my first; I was still a straight guy, and I wasn't so much shocked as disgusted. But I got over it pretty fast. Even with all my internalized homophobia over my own situation simmering just under the surface.

Most straight people prolly weren't dialing up Nightline that night specifically to learn what was up with the homos, but if they happened to have the tube tuned to that channel they may well have sat there and watched. Or they can across the images elsewhere and will again in the future. No avoiding them, really.

Apparently I was just being a big chicken. Maybe the public was ready.

But it sure helps to have the war going on.

More than 4,000 gay couples tied the knot

Thu, 18 Mar 2004 15:18:42 GMT

Interesting stats coming from AP on all the gay marriages in San Francisco:

More than 4,000 same-sex couples obtained marriage licenses in San Francisco before the state Supreme Court shut down the practice, a study released Wednesday shows.

Of the 4,037 same-sex couples who obtained licenses in the city starting Feb. 12, more than 91 percent came from California, according to a nonscientific analysis by County Assessor Mabel Teng's office.

The rest came from 45 other states and eight foreign countries, the analysis shows.

And this is no surprise:

The analysis also found that more lesbians tied the knot than gay men: Of the 4,037 licenses issued, 2,311, or 57 percent, were granted to women, authorities concluded by reviewing the first names of the applicants.

And now, a heart-breaking comment posted on this blog a week ago by one Scott N, that I've been meaning to share here:

My friend here in SF was going to get married this Wednesday, but the California Supreme Court halted it for now. That was really frustrating. People in the department here were planning her reception, and her parents and her partner's parents were going to fly out. She's still going to file the domestice partners forms and have a party. I really don't understand people's motivation for opposing gay marriage. Why are people so adamant about denying rights and privileges to other people? It really hit home when my friend was affected by the halting of marriages. But I guess people have had to fight for the right to interracial marriage, the right to vote, and countless other rights. I guess it's just in our nature to subjugate other people when we can. Well, the struggle for equality goes on!

Well said, Scott.

Really brought it home for me. What is it that makes people want to deprive other people of what they have?

gay marriage gay marriage gay marriage

Fri, 12 Mar 2004 05:14:26 GMT

I did have two non-Survivor posts mid week, but my PC ate them. Ugh. No time to try to recreate them now.

But I was thrilled to see the gay marriage thing continue to spread, and the wonderful Seattle Stranger staying on top of it.

More this weekend, hopefully. I'm staying in Chicago, so that means and extra nine hours, roughly, not running to/from/on planes.

So I can blog! Or write. Hopefully. Notice how I disassociate the two. That's retarded.

Seattle mayor to takes baby step on gay marriage

Mon, 08 Mar 2004 15:35:09 GMT

From AP:

March 8, 2004 SEATTLE (AP) -- Seattle's mayor said Sunday the city will begin recognizing the marriages of gay employees who tie the knot elsewhere, although it will not conduct its own same-sex weddings.

Mayor Greg Nickels was to sign an executive order Monday giving same-sex spouses of city employees all the benefits of heterosexual spouses, including health insurance.

He also planned to send a proposal to the City Council that would extend that recognition to employees of city contractors and protect the rights of all same-sex married couples in Seattle.

Doesn't look like a whole lot, but at least it's a step in part two of this process, getting the rest of the country to recognize what the renegade cities our doing.

And it shows a little movement.

We need more renegades!

Seattle looks like a ripe target. The wonderful Seattle Stranger has been trying to shame Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels and King County Executive Ron Sims into doing it last week and again this week. Both have been "pro gay" for years, but neither is willing to step up to the plate at the moment of truth. Dan Savage also rips into Sims in his column this week, which appears to be all responses to last week's great column on gay marriage. More on that soon.

Meanwhile, head to FreedomToMarry.org and see what you can do to help.

We need more renegades!

Reading the public on gay marriage

Mon, 01 Mar 2004 17:09:49 GMT

The trouble with most prognosticators, blathering on about most of politics and pop culture these days, is that they never see past the latest poll or the most recent event. No matter how strongly the public speaks its collective mind, it is only speaking today's mind, not tomorrows. The question with really scary issues like gay marriage is how they will feel once the fear wears off: resigned and/or accepting, or radicalized to stomp the offenders out?

As usual, the best early take on the San Francisco gay marriages came late last week from Salon's Managing Editor Joan Walsh, who this time has the benefit of living there:

And the debate is sure to rage on: Will San Francisco's Winter of Love make it easier for Republicans to hold onto the White House next November?

No one knows for sure, but I don't think so. I feel like I have to confess upfront that my analytical skills have been warped by watching all of these weddings. You can't imagine what it's like from a distance. Straight or gay, visitors get teary when they walk inside City Hall, where the meaning of what Newsom did is huge and palpable. It's always struck me as vaguely homophobic, the insistence on how "normal" these couples are, but that really is what hits you in person. Sure, there are drag queens in the line waiting for marriage licenses, and plenty of old-fashioned flannel-shirted lesbians. But there are also 50-something men in bad suits and women in Prada; there are women in wheelchairs and interracial couples; and there are children everywhere, kids doing homework sitting on the floor as they wait for their parents' turn to get married. These are families already, and once you see them you know: There's really no going back.

No going back. I think she may have nailed it.

At first I thought her proximity to all the marriages might be a liability, but in this case, it looks more like an early glimpse. The more gay people actually get married--either officially in San Francisco or upstate New York, or Massachusetts, or wherever else the government recognizes them, or in all the other unsanctioned services already going on around the country that gayboys are likely to quit being so damned quiet about--the likely every person on every street corner will come to know a gay married couple. Exactly the way most of the population has come to discover a gay friend or relative or three the past two decades, as more and more of us quit hiding who we were.

That simple recognition of our presence in your lives is what changed your opinions on us. It's on the much larger question of acceptance and embracing of gayguys and gaygirls where we really have seen that there's really no going back. We're here, you know we're queer, and you're already used to it. And more and more--especially the younger half of the population, which will correspond to the living population a few more decades down the road--you really couldn't care less.

Last summer I shuddered about the marriage issue breaking so soon with the impending Massachusetts decision. The further this goes, the more I think I was just chicken. Unecessarily chicken.

Sure, more time would have helped, but this could be the kick in the ass we all needed. In that piece last summer, I bemoaned the invisibility of married gay couples in the media, and pleaded with them to quit being so chicken about showing us. Not too likely to happen on its own. This should get some of them cranking out new images of us. It's finally topical, but the new accounts have also broken the taboo. Now we're actually recognized out in the culture, the little weenies at the networks and the studios won't have to feel like radicals depicting us.

It's not just the media, though, the whole freaking country--which in our case translates to the whole freaking world, to a lesser extent--is suddenly getting used to the idea.

They may not like it, but they are getting used to it.

It's looking like they may take us to the mat over a constitutional amendment--and I think people writing that off as impossible are incredibily naive; it may not happen, but it very well could happen--but if we can survive that, we will have come out of this much stronger.

We have probably already won on civil unions. That statement would have sounded ridiculous just two to three years ago. Right back there at the turn of the century, we would have been thrilled to see the civil unions realized in our lifetime. Now even Marilyn Musgrave refused to exclude them in her constitutional amendment currently before Congress, because she said it would be impossible to pass it. That's still a long ways from them actually coming into existence all across the country, but it's a good indication of where we'll end up. We're going to get at least that much.

And a lot of gays I talk to would be perfectly satisfied with that, but I think they're just plain out of their minds. They say if we can have an exact duplicate of marriage--eventually, once federal rights like social security and tax status are added--with these civil unioins, and the only hitch is we have to call it something different, what's the big deal with that? What difference does it make?

I'm hearing a whole lot of that from homos and I can barely believe my ears.

Separate but equal--what's wrong with that?

Good God. We can have something separate but equal, we just can't call our marriages marriage because ours are dirty and would defile the name of yours?

Have we not been through this once already? I supposed we can also have a perfectly good water fountain every bit as good as yours too. And youl'll put it up right next to yours so we can get to it just as easily, how could we possibly have a problem with that? And we better stay out of your swimming pools, by the way, you won't want us polluting them with all our dirty negrosity, I mean homosexuality.

They tried the very same con with the blacks 40 years ago, and boy did those whiteboys cling to the notion there was nothing wrong with what they were proposing, but even they see how ridiculous it looks from a distance. Yet here they go again with the same tired idea for us this time. And half our own self-loathing population is ready to lap it up. Sure, go ahead, brand me as unworthy and inferior, I'll praise the lord for the right to see my husband in the hospital.

Kiss my ass. I don't even have a husband on the horizon and I'm appalled at that proposition.

It's amazing how quickly all our thinking can change on this issue in such a short time once the ball gets rolling. Last summer I was first chicken about it (at the above link), then kind of dreamy about the prospect a month later. Right now I seem to be in the angry phase.

And why shouldn't I? I'm sick of being labelled inferior. And exhilarated to see our moment finally to stand up for ourselves. Exhilarated to read this conclusion to the wonderful piece by Joan Walsh, my most trusted sage:

But it's too early to know how Newsom's move will play politically, or even legally. It's still possible the courts will say he's wrong and stop the weddings. In the meantime, San Franciscans can be proud of what's going on in City Hall. I walked away last week unexpectedly happy, knowing without a doubt: This is what history looks like. This is what it feels like to do the right thing.

Fri, 27 Feb 2004 21:43:12 GMT

Gay marriage has come to New York. A Green Party mayor in the town of New Paltz, 75 miles north of New York City, has joined in the fun.

What a great time to be alive.

A few cheerful quotes from the first happy husband, from AP:

"I feel happy and joyful and peaceful," van Roestenberg said. "A little bit of peace has finally come in. I feel proud to be an American."

"Now I'm normal and equal like every one else," he said.

The fire has caught wind . . .

Fri, 20 Feb 2004 18:54:33 GMT

Man, you set something in motion, no telling where it might end up.

It started very slowly with the Hawaiian Supreme Court ruling, overturned by the populace. It was years before Vermont followed suit and the concept stuck, albeit in the greatly diminished form or "civil unions." But then Massachusetts stepped in this fall and suddenly we're off to the races. California followed Vermont's civil unions--first state to do so unprovoked by its court system--and in the boldest move, San Francisco just started issuing licences.

That may end up being the real spark that got the brushfire going. Yesterday Mayor Daley said Chicago might follow suit, but this morning, a remote little county in New Mexico beat them to the punch. Sandoval County, population 90,000, is officially the first entity outside hardcore homoland to issue marraige certificates to pairs of men or women:

From 365gay.com:

Sandoval County, a community of about 90,000 people just north of Albuquerque will issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

County Clerk Victoria Dunlap said she fears a lawsuit if she does not grant the licenses to gay couples.

Sandoval County attorney David Mathews agrees there is potential same-sex couples could sue under New Mexico law if the licenses were refused.

Man, this is wonderful news. I was thinking the usual suspects like Madison, Boulder and Berkley would be jumping in, but if little country counties outside of Albuquerque are ready to join the party, no telling how far and fast this fire could spread.

Can you picture large and small towns all over America opening up their licences to include us? Gay people getting married all across the country, lawsuits in a boatload of different states required to stop us?

I love the message it sends to the general population, too: This is not abnormal. Average, everyday county clerks all across the country think it's perfectly natural to include us.

The best thing about the New Mexico decision is that no body even demanded it. No one even asked:

Dunlap said she has not been approached by any same-sex couple seeking a license but after reading about the recent court decision in Massachusetts which has similar laws she became concerned that a refusal could end up in a lengthy and expensive court battle which the county would not win.

What a moment for the unsung county clerks across America to stand up and cause a great big stir for a great big cause.

OK, guys. Two towns have taken the plunge, now you've got cover outside San Franciso. Who's next?

My God, it's really happening

Thu, 19 Feb 2004 14:26:04 GMT

The parade of gay marriages all weekend in San Francisco has been amazing. The idea of it--the political shot over the bow--gets me exhilarated, the images of the actual people realizing a lifelong dream to marry their soulmate like a normal person makes me cry.

And the stories I keep getting from readers describing the feeling as they walk past the ecstatic couples . . . that just makes me want to be there. None of the news stories I've seen has captured it like some of these letters. I kinda wish I hadn't surrounded myself with single people--can't think of any good friends ready to hop on a plane to get done. Mostly I just wish it could be everywhere.

But it's not, it's San Francisco, and that's the big problem. This big gay wedding weekend is going to incite one hell of a legal battle--getting the ball rolling slightly ahead of MA, but on an additional track, eliminating the fluke factor, which is important in public opinion if not the courts.

But that's the other problem. San Francisco. Anything that happens there will be written off as a fluke, especially anything gay. So the big gay town of San Francisco legalized marriage for themselves, big fucking deal, that's how most of the public will read this. And the inmates at San Quentin voted themselves a blanket pardon, so what? (Is San Quentin still open? I'm afraid I'm not current on my big, important prisons.)

So this story just lit my eyes up this morning. From the Chicago Sun Times:

Daley on gay marriage: 'no problem'

Mayor Daley said Wednesday he would have "no problem" with County Clerk David Orr issuing marriage licenses to gay couples -- and Orr said he's open to a San Francisco-style protest if a consensus can be built.
"They're your doctors, your lawyers, your journalists, your politicians," the mayor said. "They're someone's son or daughter. They're someone's mother or father. . . . I've seen people of the same sex adopt children, have families. [They're] great parents.
"Some people have a difference of opinion -- that only a man and a woman can get married. But in the long run, we have to understand what they're saying. They love each other just as much as anyone else.''
A devout Catholic, Daley scoffed at the suggestion that gay marriage would somehow undermine the institution of marriage between a man and a woman.
"Marriage has been undermined by divorce, so don't tell me about marriage. You're not going to lecture me about marriage. People should look at their own life and look in their own mirror. Marriage has been undermined for a number of years if you look at the facts and figures on it. Don't blame the gay and lesbian, transgender and transsexual community. Please don't blame them for it," he said.
Daley said he has no control over marriage licenses in Cook County. But if Orr wants to take that bold step, the mayor has no problem with it.
Orr said he was "game to looking at options" provided a consensus could be built.
"I'm fed up with people being discriminated against because of their sexual orientation. We can't even pass a law that eliminates discrimination against gay couples. [But] whatever you do when it comes to challenging laws, you want it to be effective and not knee-jerk," Orr said.
The clerk noted the protest that has gay couples from around the nation lining up for hours outside San Francisco's City Hall was meticulously planned.
It wasn't just "the clerk waking up one day and deciding to marry someone," Orr said. It had the support of the entire "city apparatus" in San Francisco -- from the mayor, City Council and advocacy groups on down. That's the model that would have to be followed here, Orr said.
"Whether or not, here in Cook County, we should be considering a San Francisco or other kind of protest, that is what some of us are discussing. I'm quite interested in exploring that with key players in the city and county. I'm already discussing that with a number of advocacy and key groups. I would like to discuss it with the mayor," Orr said.

Now that would be amazing. A heartland city like Chicago, a famous mayor, a devout Catholic . . .

It sounds like a long ways from a done deal, but just the business of them talking about it openly in the press could inspire officials to step forward in other cities. How far could Boulder or Madison be behind if Chicago is talking about doing it?

God, if we could really get the spigots popping open in towns and cities and states all over America, this would really be amazing. This is a wonderful thing, coming from elected officials, so it can't just be written off as liberal judges defying their authority to pass legislation from the bench.

This is either going to scare the shit out of the American people, or resign them to it as a fait acompli.

I think they were already scared shitless. The second flank could really begin changing this into a reality.

God, it's exhilarating to have been born into the late 20th century.

While I played . . .

Mon, 16 Feb 2004 02:31:19 GMT

I was so busy staying up all night all weekend, I failed to notice a dam rupturing in the gay marriage battle.

I can't believe men are marrying each other in San Francisco this weekend. Women, too. Their flooding into city hall, deputizing marriage commissioners.

Apparently the revolution can proceed without me.

If only I had something to add. I'm not sure what business I've got posting without an original thought in my head, but I can't resist the chance to gush. This is freaking exciting.

It was sweet to picture the two octagenarian lesbians finally getting legal after 51 years (fourth paragraph from the bottom). That can be a new goal for me: beat their record, married before I turn 80.

Heeheehee. Convenient how they might actually have this thing wrapped up before I'm ready to partake four decades from now. Should I be getting scared, though? The whole purpose of going gay was supposed to be escaping the whole committment thing.

Kind of personally ironic that I was out there acting terribly single through the midst of it. I gotta tell you, though, I sure did enjoy acting single this weekend. Friday night was kinda underwhelming, but Saturday was a blast. I still owe you a report on that, but I gotta warn you, this time I'll be leaving out the good stuff. It's private this time. (See, I do have boundaries.)

Back to marraige--had to smile at this line for the Washington Post piece:

There were no protesters. Someone carried a sign: "50 Percent of State Marriages End in Divorce. Are You Worried We Can Do Better."

ALL the way out into the breach

Thu, 05 Feb 2004 15:19:26 GMT

Sorry for the delay. I was elated by the news yesterday, meant to post it, but got distracted.

From this morning's New York Times:

Massachusetts Gives New Push to Gay Marriage in Strong Ruling

Massachusetts' highest court removed the state's last barrier to gay marriage on Wednesday, ruling that nothing short of full-fledged marriage would comply with the court's earlier ruling in November, and that civil unions would not pass muster.

The ruling means that starting on May 17 same-sex couples can get married in Massachusetts, making it the only state to permit gay marriage. Beyond that, the finding is certain to inflame a divisive debate in state legislatures nationwide and in this year's presidential race.

(Excerpts from the ruling here.)

Elation, is that what I should feel? Or terror?

I really want to be able to get married, but I've been pretty cautious about pushing too hard too soon. Last summer, as the Massachusetts decision was looming, I wrote passionately about waiting.

But then the sodomy ruling came (I think that was the order), and the Mass court let the cat all the way out of the bag. Maybe there's no turning back now. Or at least nothing we can do to stop events put in motion long, long ago. The court has insisted we be treated like humans, so it's now or never on claiming the right.

Sounds so freaking ridiculous that I would have to "claim" the right to be treated like any other human, to have the basic right to marry someone--the only kind of person I could possibly marry, unless you really want me to con one of your sisters or daughters into a sham marriage to ruin both our lives. But there it is. We do have to.

And now the battle is erupting and you know, it's kind of exhilarating. As much as I thought it was wiser to wait awhile longer to marshall our resources--in this case, the resource of public opinion, which was taking its usual time in getting used to us--but it sure feels liberating not to have to.

I'm ready to be a human, finally, and I can't tell you how good it feels.

(Of course of love the idea of marriage in theory. If only I had actual prospects.)

Gay marriage--my belated elation

Fri, 28 Nov 2003 20:59:38 GMT

Well, I was lost in a blog freezeout while it happened, but here's what I posted in the makeshift comment-thread-as-blog:

Gay marriage is legal! Gay marriage is legal!

I can't believe it, one of the most momentous days of my life. Hard for it even sink in.
It's a huge open question WHERE it is legal--who has to recognize it--but it's legal. For the first time ever in my country, it's legal.
Amazing.
But on a personal note, I'm horrified that it finally happened and I'm frozen out of my blog to write about it.

I'll have a lot more to say about it this weekend.

And I'll get that special gay-marriage site for the Massachesetts decision up-to-date.

In the meantime, more sources:

Margaret Cho on Morning Edition, link courtesy of Ben.
Great story in the American Prospect that really lays everything out:

What comes after the Massachusetts court's decision on gay marriage?

And a surprisingly insightful piece from AP on the chances in the Massachesetts legislature. It was nearly a week ago, but just as relevant today. Excerpts:

BOSTON -- Massachusetts, land of the Kennedys, underscored its reputation this week as one of America's most liberal states when its high court legalized gay marriage. But the truth is, the Legislature is not all that liberal.
Massachusetts has a large Roman Catholic population with an archdiocese that has historically been a strong influence at the Statehouse. And lawmakers who represent blue-collar, Catholic, urban neighborhoods have tended to reflect the social conservatism of their constituents.
The issue is important because the next step in the debate over gay marriage in Massachusetts rests with the Legislature, which has been given 180 days by the Supreme Judicial Court to change the state's marriage laws for the benefit of gay couples.
Lawmakers have talked about adopting a constitutional amendment to thwart gay marriage, or passing a law that would give same-sex couples something short of marriage, such as the "civil unions" available in Vermont.
...While the state's high court has granted gay rights advocates a series of major victories over the past decade -- from adoption to visitation rights -- the Legislature has a history of resisting rights for homosexuals.
The leading representative of Democratic conservatism in Massachusetts is House Speaker Tom Finneran, a Boston Catholic considered the most powerful politician in the state. He is adamantly opposed to gay marriage and abortion rights.
Known for his iron-fisted control of the Legislature, Finneran has surrounded himself with ideological soulmates who support a constitutional ban on gay marriage and helped thwart domestic-partnership legislation.
{I don't normally paste in pieces this big, but this story is so informative--unbelievable for AP--that i'm going to keep going}:
...Massachusetts' liberal reputation is built on the legacy of the Kennedys, its party-machine Democratic politics, its status as the only state to vote for George McGovern for president in 1972, and the most overwhelmingly Democratic array of elected officials in the country.
Both U.S. senators are Democrats, as are all 11 Massachusetts members of the U.S. House. The state House and Senate are 85 percent Democratic -- the most Democratic legislature in the land.
Massachusetts is also home to Northampton and Provincetown, two towns with large gay populations that attract gay visitors from around the country.
Until recently, at least, the Catholic Church had a powerful presence on Beacon Hill, championing a law restricting abortion rights in the 1970s and lobbying vociferously against gay marriage.
While the past four governors have been Republican, those who preceded Republican Mitt Romney were more socially moderate than the House leadership, most prominently Gov. William Weld, who created the first governor's commission on gay youth in the country.
Romney, a Mormon who ran on a socially moderate platform, has consistently said he is against gay marriage and civil unions, but supports domestic partnership benefits for gay couples.

Repubs plotting to screw Dems with gay marriage

Sat, 25 Oct 2003 21:55:20 GMT

Another report on the Republican's evil schemes -- from the Washington Post / MSNBC:

Gay marriage looms as issue

WASHINGTON, Oct. 25 — Republican lawmakers and conservative activists are making plans to turn gay marriage into a major issue in next year’s elections, with some Christian groups saying that banning same-sex unions is a higher immediate priority for them than restricting abortion. . .

“It’s becoming a bigger issue by the day,” said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, a conservative group with many friends in the White House. “It’s going to have a big impact on this election cycle. And we’re going to help it become a front-burner issue at the state and national level, if it doesn’t become one on its own.”

Finally comprehending how they're heroes

Sat, 23 Aug 2003 18:43:13 GMT

I get it, finally. I get why they're heroes. For nearly three months now, I've been referring to Chip & Reichen as "our gayboy heroes," but I was never completely clear why. People keep challenging me on it: They're game show contestants who said who they are--what's so heroic about that? I knew that was a feeble response, but I was pretty bad at articulating my own rationale. "Because I sense it" was unconvincing. I knew why the role they were playing was monumental, I wrote about that in early July. But were they really more than lucky performers?

It just took one solid interview to reveal it. Thanks Bruce Steele, thanks The Advocate.

Of course I dove right for the personal stuff last night, because I'd been writing about the cultural impact for months, and I wanted to know more about these guys as humans. But what a liberating image they have of the power of their own personal liberty:

Reichen: . . . When we were getting cast on the show, we made no secret to CBS that we wanted to be portrayed as married, and they said, “Well, are you legally married?” And we said, “No, we got married in California, but it’s not legally recognized by our state, but we consider ourselves married, [as do] our family, friends—and 200 of them were there [at the ceremony]—and under God, and CBS really took that to heart. They were skeptical and said, “Well, I don’t know. We’d love to help you, but we’ll bring it up to the executives,” and when the executives approved it at CBS, I mean, everybody was thrilled when the decision came out—even the people that made the decision. It was such a fun and wonderful thing that happened, and we were just thrilled that they were going to put “married” under our names. That’s how we considered ourselves.

. . . You can get married anywhere you want. Just set up a ceremony and do it under God and wear your rings and tell everyone that you’re married. . . You know, it’s kind of saying, “Yeah, you know what? If the state isn’t going to recognize the rights that people want to have, then the people will go ahead and recognize that for the state. . .

Exactly. That's where we need to go on this marriage route. I really feel we've put the cart before the horse a bit on going to the courts demanding recognition. I applaud the men and women who stepped forward to demand that equality, but I'm a little troubled by the great throngs still hiding back in the shadows. So many gays have found the courage to come out individually the past 30 years, but it's surprising how few have come out as husband and husband. (Or wife and wife.)

We might win a few judges over in the courts, but that's a dangerous game without first winning over the reps in the legislature, and especially the voters sending them there. And more importantly the society. In the end, the laws are far less important than the attitudes of the people who create them. I don't want to be allowed to keep a job or get married in this society, I want to be embraced by this world I live in. We're not going to do that in the courts, we're going to do that at the altar--or wherever we can find someone willing to conduct our ceremonies. And we're going to do it on that great modern transmitter of our culture, TV.

The primary step is very simple: not legalize marriage, get married. (Oh, to find the freaking husband so I could put my wedding ring where my mouth is.)

What an experience, listening to these two guys talk. Reichen and Chip are not waiting around for someone else to tell them what's right or wrong, what they can or can't do. That sounds so mundane, but come on: most of us go right along with most everything our culture dictates about righteousness. As soon as things get uncomfortable, we adhere to all their major boundaries, or at best we run off and quietly get married and trot out the euphemisms and cover stories for all but our closest friends and family.

All that crap about who can and can't get married, that's all imaginary. That's other people defining your world for you, defining what your relationship to another man can or cannot be. That's all noise. And nearly everyone accedes to the noise, accepts it as the reality they live within. Chip & Reichen brushed it aside. "If you feel like you’re married, then you’re married," Reichen said. Exactly. You decide. They did.

It's interesting, the thesis of that terrified Focus on the Family op-ed this week was that if you repeat something long enough, people will come to believe it. From there they concluded that Chip & Reichen and CBS posed a mortal danger by convincing Americans of this Big Gay Lie through repetition. They're right about the power of repetition: but which lie has been perpetrated, and who has been convinced? What they never pause to consider, is that 99 percent of all gays have been convinced of the lie that they can not get married.

First and foremost, Chip & Reichen are heroes because they saw through the lie that most of the world buys into, and refused to let anyone else define their relationship for them. A lot of men and women have taken that step, but you'd be surprised how few, actually. The vast majority of gay couples still top out at getting a place together and calling each other "partner." (Partner. I despise that word. Are you in business together or married to each other?) They don't conduct a ceremony, wear the rings, or use the language. They don't claim it.

Chip & Reichen joined that first minority of gays a year and a half ago when they had their wedding. To my mind, every gay man and woman who defies the lie that has been brainwashed into them and openly proclaims their marriage is a hero.

But the unique steps Chip & Reichen took were landing in a position to broadcast their statement to 7 million people a week instead of 200, and then risking it. It was interesting to hear that CBS challenged them so vigorously. What I don't think came across was how easy it would have been to submit.

Consider their situation: you're a finalist (or semifinalist) for a reality show. The fame bug has just bitten. There's no stopping those images: picturing yourself a stAAAAAAAA. But your chances are still remote. Most of the finalists are going to be rejected. Everyone has an idea about what the producers are looking for, and everyone is working to embody it. Check out Reichen's advice to people applying for the next Race:

Walk in there, and all you want to keep saying is, “We’re gonna win,” because that’s what they want to see. They want to see people who, over everything else, just want to win because they know that’s gonna make for good TV.

People in the selection process know this. Everyone is trying to get on the show, no one is picking this moment to be a rebel. No one wants to appear too demanding. I have been stunned at my own reactions when I've been offered assignments--or especially when I've been tempted with the possibility of an assignment--at magazines I desperately wanted to work for. Vanity Fair got interested in a piece early this year, and I was ready to do anything to get in there. I would have knelt down in front of Graydon Carter and performed anything he required, that preposterous haircut of his be damned.

Then I think back on my first attempt to get on the first Survivor. It was seven months before the show aired, and most people had never heard of it, no one knew if this reality television thing was going to splash big or bomb, but I desperately wanted to get on that island, and I would have agreed to anything. That's what I thought when I applied. I had no idea. I made the first cut, and the elation ended when the contract arrived. They did want me to agree to anything. Use of my name, my likeness and virtual control of my life for three years. No chance whatsoever to write about it (for three years), which of course was a primary instinct for me.

I wasn't mesmerized by the money or the television exposure initially, that came later. I was desperate for the experience, and then of course, what I do with experience is write about it. Nope, gotta sign that right away. That one felt particularly emasculating, but fine, I'll take it, just get me onto that island. Then the contract got to injury, disease, and death. That scared the shit out of me. It went on about 20 pages and got quite graphic about the real possibility that I could be maimed for life, exposed to tropical diseases without cure or even killed. Pretty sobering stuff. Twenty-five people had been selected from my region for an interview with producers at the Denver CBS affiliate's studio. I wondered how many would accept all the demands--not to mention scheduling a comprehensive physical at our expense (which cost me over 200 bucks) and jumping through a bunch of other hoops in about two weeks' time. Twenty five.

And you should have seen that group in the green room. I thought I knew aggressive and hyperactive people--this crowd was bouncing off the walls. And everyone was buzzing about what the producers wanted and how to be sure to present it.

That was before anyone really knew what was at stake. I can only imagine the process years later. Most people in Chip & Reichen's position would have buckled at anything the producers asked for: Married, partners, whatever. We just want to be on the show.

And most of us would rationalize that the platform is more important: compromise where you have to to get there, then you can tell the world anything you want. Sometimes that works. If your group has never gotten a platform, and compromise seems the only way to get an opening, it may be a pragmatic approach. But Chip & Reichen pushed for more, and the producers pushed back; and then our boys pushed harder, and for the first time ever someone with a monumental platform like CBS handed it over.

And that's why those two boys are the biggest heroes in my life at this moment.

The strongest conservative argument FOR gay marriage

Thu, 21 Aug 2003 23:11:49 GMT

Earlier today, I wrote about Focus on the Family's fear of Chip & Reichen in the longterm gay-marriage struggle. Mike Haley's piece takes a wierd and ironic turn at the end, which I would like to address separately, to avoid muddying my essay with a last-minute switcheroo the way he did.

At the last moment Haley lurches from Chip & Reichen to Boy Meets Boy, and complains that, "There has been no mention of the lack of monogamy so prevalent in the gay culture." Funny he should bring up the monogamy problem in the midst of an entreaty to ban gay marriage. Oblivious to the contradiction? Apparently. His team is doing everything possible to stop gays from participating in the main institution bolstering monogamy, then complains in the same breath we're not sufficiently monogamous. Has he noticed how many single straight people are having sex? If he forced them to stay single all their lives--and blocked their bility to have children as well--does he think they would all turn monogamous anyway?

(I won't pretend marriage is the only reason monogamy is much lower among gay men. The more fundamental "problem" is that they're men. But that conveniently excludes the women. In a burst of blatant dishonesty or ignorance about his subject, Haley extrapolates data from half the gay population to the whole, then indicts the imaginary result. May I repeat the oldest gay joke in the world: What does a lesbian bring to the second date? A U-haul. Lesbians tend to mate for life. Their divorce rates would shame any evangelical Christian (whose rates are no lower than the national average, currently around 50%.)

Any homo knows that monogamy is low among gay men, high among gay women--just like the straights. Gay men already have two strikes against them in a long-term relationship: two men. But some of them are making the effort anyway. You want them to be less promiscuous and this is your response? Refuse to recognize their tenuous arrangement as a marriage, refuse to grant them the standard rights or bind them with the responsibilities, refuse to allow children into the mix to provide external incentive to stay together, and what would you expect to happen? More and more monogamy? Encouraging the gayguys to settle down into monogamous relationships like good little adults is the strongest conservative argument for gay marriage.

Our best hope on the gay-marriage amendment: hardcore conservatives

Thu, 21 Aug 2003 23:02:09 GMT

Hardline Republicans like Bob Barr may prove our most potent weapon against the proposed constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Barr is so conservative he couldn't even get re-elected to the House from Georgia last election. He authored The Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, when it sailed through Congress and was signed by Bill Clinton. But he came out quickly against the new amendment, and he's taken an active role in the battle. Today he published an op-ed in the Washington Post outlining his opposition:

Marriage is a quintessential state issue. The Defense of Marriage Act goes as far as is necessary in codifying the federal legal status and parameters of marriage. A constitutional amendment is both unnecessary and needlessly intrusive and punitive.

Wow. I'm thrilled to have him fighting this amendment, but I'm almost as thrilled to hear some of his rhetoric. Coming from a man who tends to make my blood boil, I'm stunned to hear phrases like "needlessly intrusive and punitive." One fundamental element really has changed in the gay struggle for equal rights. You don't hear people openly vilifying us anymore, they're not using words like evil very often. And we're finally hearing phrases demonstrating a flicker of compassion in their conservatism. Bob Barr did not need to say that to win the hearts of the crowd he's preaching to. If anything, it will hurt him. It's hard not to believe that some men like Barr have actually been hearing from their consciences, and are really starting to feel a distaste for people in power picking on gays. He's not about to embrace us, but he's actually standing up against needless punishment against us. Hey, it's a start. Now back to him on the amendment:

The 1996 act, for purposes of federal benefits, defines "marriage" as a union between a man and a woman, and then allows states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. As any good federalist should recognize, this law leaves states the appropriate amount of wiggle room to decide their own definitions of marriage or other similar social compacts, free of federal meddling.

Following the Defense of Marriage Act, 37 states prohibit same-sex marriage and refuse to recognize any performed in other states, while a handful of states recognize domestic partnerships, one state authorizes civil unions, and a couple of others may have marriage on the horizon. In the best conservative tradition, each state should make its own decision without federal government interference.

Make no mistake, I do not support same-sex marriages. But I also am a firm believer that the Constitution is no place for forcing social policies on states, especially in this case, where states must have the latitude to do as their citizens see fit.

I love his ending best of all, because it puts the lie--the rather obvious but still powerful lie--to the chief argument coming from his kindred pushing the gay-marriage ban:

I agree that the kernel of basic morality in America -- the two-parent nuclear family -- has eroded under the influence of the "me" generation, which has left us with an astronomical divorce rate and a tragic number of hurting families across the country.

Restoring stability to these families is a tough problem, and requires careful, thoughtful and, yes, tough solutions. But homosexual couples seeking to marry did not cause this problem, and the Federal Marriage Amendment cannot be the solution.

Focus on the Family running scared from Chip & Reichen

Thu, 21 Aug 2003 20:09:11 GMT

Don't think Focus on the Family haven't noticed a gay married couple beating back the straights on The Amazing Race. From today's issue of their online magazine:

A homosexual couple that refers to themselves as "married" could be crowned the winners in tonight's finale of the CBS reality series 'The Amazing Race.' And that's just what the gay activists are hoping for.

Yup. Those Ffammers are scared to death of Chip & Reichen. Not just the pair of them alone, but the army of Chip & Reichens they fear will follow. Unlike many gay activists, the Ffammers realize the television is mighter than the Senate.

". . . the more Americans hear something, even when what they're hearing is a lie, the more likely they are to believe it," author Mike Haley writes. Exactly. Except for that dishonesty about the "lie." Anything Mike doesn't believe in or doesn't agree with is now a lie? Please Mike, you haven't made pope yet. Even he hasn't spoken ex cathedra on gay marriage. (And the Bishop of Rome is also out of his mind thinking he can really speak infallibly anyway, even on matters of faith and morals.)

To Chip & Reichen and a lot of other homos it's a lie or a distortion or a degrading euphemism not to call what they have a marriage. They know they're married and they believe God recognizes them as married, so they say their married. But you're right Mike, repetition is the key to acceptance--if what you're talking about is acceptable.

He cites a powerful example to demonstrate his case:

Gay lobbyists have used this strategy well through the years. You've heard, no doubt, that 10 percent of the population is gay or lesbian, right? A fabrication born when a study by sex researcher Alfred Kinsey was misquoted. In fact, in a brief filed in the U.S. Supreme Court case Lawrence v. Texas, a challenge to the state's sodomy law, a coalition of 31 pro-gay groups admitted that "the most widely accepted study of sexual practices in the United States," the National Health and Social Life Survey, "found that 2.8% of the male, and 1.4% of the female, population identify themselves as gay, lesbian, or bisexual."

Of course Mike is acting blatantly dishonest again--such a pattern of dishonesty from a group purporting to speak for God. Aside from slipping in that "admitted" to connote confession of a previous lie, Mike compares a claim of how many people are gay to a number of how many identify as gay. Crucial distinction. By now any fool knows that plenty of gays don't come out to themselves until their 30s, 40s, 60s. None of those still in the closet are being counted. Others will quietly admit their sexuality to themselves, but never on earth to another human being, especially some stranger taking a poll. And no one has a clue how many latent homos are out there, still cringing in their closet for life, terrified to come out even to themselves.

But aside from Mike's opportunistic attempt to begin repeating a new, lower, but equally unreliable estimate of the size of the homosexual population, his initial point is correct: the 10 percent figure is highly questionable, yet any average person in the public is likely to quote it. Because it was repeated for decades. And, Mike fails to grasp, because it seems reasonable. It jives with the rest of available evidence and with common sense.

Call the sky green until the sun fuses and turns it scorching red and then permanently black, and no one outside an institution is going to join you. But straight people have always been aware that a large number of gays mingled among them. We were a lot harder to pin down before we marched down the street at gay pride parades or even walked erectly from the parking lot to an easily-identifiable gay bar, but straights still understood we were out there. They were never sure just how many, but one in ten seemed like a reasonable number based on the evidence all around them, even in 1948.

Gay marriage will only become acceptable once straight people get used to the idea. Not just by hearing about it, but living next door to it, working among married colleagues, and most important in the short run, watching it on TV. Television is crucial because it is ubiquitous. The problem with the living-next-door scenario is that so many of us gays have barricaded ourselves inside these urban gay ghettos. Not a whole lot of gay married couples living beside the breeders out there in the suburbs. Even fewer in Topeka, and you can bet they're calling themselves roommates if they are.

But Mike has nothing to worry about from repetition alone. Gay marriage gay marriage gay marriage gay marriage. Convinced yet? Repeating it will only work if straight people gradually get used to the idea, let go of their natural resistance to jarring change, mull it over for awhile and decide, Yeah, of course they should be allowed to marry. I'm ashamed at my parents for banning them all those generations. And I'm pretty sure they will, which is why Mike's kids have everything to worry about. If only they were to think like Mike. What Mike really needs to start worrying about is the shame his kids are going to harbor against him once they get used to the idea and decide for themselves how immoral this ban has been.

The bad news for us gayguys is we're not going to be alive to see gay marriage fully embraced. Maybe a gentle hug when we're old and weary if we're really lucky. Don't delude yourselves though gay folks: it's their kids were going to win over in real numbers.

We already have. Look back at last month's Gallup poll indicating a majority of Americans not only opposed gay marriage, ready to change the constitution to stop us (50% to 45%). The good news in those depressing figures were the radical disparity by age (missing from the mainstream coverage, but included in the Washington Blade report.) Only 22% of senior citizens favored granting us the right. They're going to die fighting us, but God love them, they're going to be dead in 20 to 30 years. Even the thirty- and forty-year-olds could only muster 37% support. But things changed dramatically under 30. The 18- to 29-year-olds who grew up with The Real World and Will and Grace and living breathing gayguys and lesbians among them supported gay marriage by a whopping 61 percent.

And if you think that's just the folly of youth talking, that they'll wise up and turn against gays like their forefathers before them when they hit 30, think again. In March 1996, 41 percent of that demo thought gay marriage should be legal. More than half that unwelcoming group has sinced moved into the 30-49 bracket, where the acceptance rate is a comparable 37% (dragged down below the 41 percent by the older folks in the age category with a still lower acceptance level). Clearly, this is a not a matter of people turning against gays as they age, but a new crop of youngsters growing up in a world that doesn't despise us. It just kind of dislikes us.

That's our target audience people, the people who grew up with us. That's who is finally going to support us in ending this immoral ban. We need to win over more of the slightly-older crowd to stop them from tightening the screws on us, but those people grew up in a different world and they'll never feel completely comfortable. The biggest thing we can do to get them all used to the idea is get them used to the idea. By getting married out in the open, displaying our names in the papers like everyone else, leaving that wedding band on at the office and not constructing a cover story to explain it, introducing ourselves as husbands or wives everywhere we go like everybody else, and for God's sake showing up married on TV.

Focus on the Family knows exactly what they need to be most afraid of. Chip & Reichen. And the army of Chips & Reichens out there ready to follow. Hopefully ready. Are you ready boys? Ready girls? We need you badly right now. If I ever find myself a man to marry I'll be lined up right there alongside you.

Arizona considering gay marriage too

Wed, 20 Aug 2003 16:28:05 GMT

One more state court considering the plunge. From AP:

PHOENIX - A state court is considering whether Arizona's ban on marriage for same-sex couples is a denial of a fundamental right or a reasonable attempt to protect children by promoting family.

A three-judge panel yesterday heard arguments and agreed to decide the challenge filed by two Phoenix men.
Harold Donald Standhardt and Tod Alan Keltner want the Court of Appeals to overturn Arizona's same-sex marriage ban as unconstitutional and to order a court clerk to give them a marriage license.

The story ends with a note on timing:

At the hearing's conclusion, Presiding Judge Ann Scott Timmer, said the panel would rule as soon as possible. "We know it's an important decision," she said.

Perhaps some lawyer out there could let us know whether that is likely to mean weeks, months or years.

Ahead of ourselves on Gay Marriage, and bringing the Dems down with us

Mon, 18 Aug 2003 19:53:41 GMT

Another poll, another disturbing round in the gay-marriage backlash.

From AP:

WASHINGTON - More than half of Americans favor a law barring gay marriage and specifying wedlock be between a man and a woman, an Associated Press poll found.

The survey also found presidential candidates could face a backlash if they support gay marriage or civil unions, which provide gay couples the legal rights and benefits of marriage.

And for the moment, the hope that civil unions are more palatable is a pipe dream:

About four in 10 - 41 percent - support allowing civil unions, roughly the same level found in an AP poll three years ago. But 53 percent now say they oppose civil unions, up from 46 percent in the earlier survey.

The increase came largely from people who previously were undecided, the polls suggested.

Personally, I think the differing views between "marriage" and "civil unions" will re-emerge once the shock wears off, but people really are in shock, and they're not differentiating, they're just shaking their heads shouting no no no! For once one of those ultra-right gadflies has her finger right on the pulse when she says, "The public clearly draws the line at gay marriage. . . There's often a bit of rethinking" on an issue "after a big development like a Supreme Court decision."

That's for sure. I know a lot of you out there have felt the surge of excitement from the big gay summer. You're tired of waiting and you're all charged up to charge recklessly into the fight. But we've gotten ahead of ourselves. Way ahead. The public is not even close to ready for this.

I have found myself in the unlikely role of nervous nelly all summer, but I'm feeling more and more vindicated about playing (her?). I understand why no one in the homo camp has wanted to hear that kind of talk; what little I've heard of it has been entirely drowned out by the elation. Our elation was highly premature, and I hope that's becoming evident.

It's time to pull our oars out of the water and rethink our strategy. Fast. We need to back off our demands--to the extent we can--and match that move with an aggressive campaign to win the public's hearts which does not FEEL aggressive to them. Certainly not in their face. We're way past that stage.

Unfortunately, and ironically, the MA supreme court may deck us with a powerful blow to the head designed to help us. If they do legalize gay marriage in MA, we need to resist the urge to run dancing topless in the streets, and use the opportunity to sound reassuring. I don't know how the hell we're going to reassure the straight people, but we sure as hell have to try.

Otherwise we may soon be looking down the barrell of a constitutional amendment. Everyone on the left poo-poos the idea of that getting enacted, but it's not 2/3 and 3/4 of the public needing to vote for it, it's those fractions of weasely politicians reading this public mood:

The poll found 54 percent favor a constitutional amendment that gay marriage only be between a man and a woman, while 42 percent oppose it.

And with or without the amendment, we desperately need gay-friendly forces in the legislatures and white house, in or out of our closet. If we're not careful, we'll bring our Dem supporters down with us:

Close to half those surveyed said they would be less likely to support a presidential candidate who backs civil unions (44 percent) or gay marriage (49 percent), while only around 10 percent said they would be more likely.

The other "marriage" front

Mon, 18 Aug 2003 02:41:01 GMT

As the threat of gay marriage continues unhinge the spines of many a traditionalist, gay "marriage" is making significant headway. So far just one state recognizes gay "civil unions," and it's one of the smallest and least influential, and it was forced to do it by the court.

Now the largest and most influential is close to joining them, of its own free will.

From today's SF Chronicle:

Gov. Gray Davis pledged Saturday to sign a domestic-partners bill that would give thousands of same-sex couples many of the same rights as married couples -- including community property, child support and access to divorce court -- and would thrust California to the forefront of the national debate over gay rights.
The bill would put registered domestic partners in California on a par with members of civil unions in Vermont, the only other state with a comparable law ... the bill by Assemblywoman Jackie Goldberg, D-Los Angeles, passed the Assembly in June on a 41-32 vote, the bare majority needed, and is pending in the Democratic-controlled state Senate, where passage is likely.

It doesn't say whether the likely passage is likely to come before Davis is likely thrown out, but Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante has also endorsed it and Conan has generally supported gay rights.

The law could not provide important federal benefits, like filing joint tax returns, collecting a spouse's Social Security benefits, or equal health insurance coverage (though the last one is gradually taking hold in companies voluntarily).

Hopefully other states would follow CA's lead, as they tend to. It would be very nice to see movement down this parallel track toward gay marriage, where straight people can get used to the idea, see us "married" without freaking out over it and gradually realize the different name is kinda silly. If I had my druthers we would have gotten further down this road before we scared the shit out of them with the whole thing, so it's nice to see movement in such a key state.

Support gay marriage & gays in the military

Fri, 15 Aug 2003 06:59:57 GMT

I don't often push petitions, but these two are crucial.

1. A month ago HRC (the Human Rights Campagin) launched its Million for Marriage drive. They are trying to garner a million signatures backing gay marriage. Click to add your name and/or find out more information. They announced today that 131,396 people had signed the petition for civil marriage equality in the first month. We can do better than that. They're also urging you to pass the message on, and to write letters to the editor of your local paper. Think about it.

2. On July 21, SLDN--Servicemember's Legal Defense Network, the main group supporting gay soldiers/sailors/airmen, and advocating the end to Don't Ask, Don't Tell--launched its "Lift The Ban" campaign. Please add your name and check out their organization at LiftTheBan.org.

Gay backlash picking up steam

Thu, 14 Aug 2003 01:28:22 GMT

Crap. Two sobering reports today: a Washington Post poll to be published in tomorrow's paper shows more people turning against gay civil unions, and a new round of press reports today that, "An all-out legal war is being declared by religious conservatives to enact a constitutional ban on same-sex marriages."

Great. So much for my nascent optimism of a few hours ago. First let's talk about the poll, since whatever happens there will determine the strength of the constitutional amendment. It's not like those jellyfish are going to be voting their conscience.

The poll indicates support for gay marriage/civil unions continues to drop, after years of trending up. We had finally reached a 49-49 tie for civil unions in May, and after the big gay summer, it's down to 37-58. We already heard about it taking a big hit after the Supreme Court decision. The slide is not over yet. Another 3 points down in the past two weeks.

Sad. But reality. Consider the backlash, people. (And so much for my

I'm quite sure the TV coverage is helping us, especially in the long run, but the public is clearly in shock about the reality of gay marriage. Between the Canadian move, the Supreme decision legalizing homosexuality, the impending MA decision and the constant coverage that gay marriage is upon us, they're suddenly scared shitless. The terror stage had to happen, and it might not be pleasant to live with, but it's a necessary phase. I do not think it's the appropriate phase for the last big push to the alter, but that's in the courts' hands, isn't it.

Full poll results, with comparison to earlier results here.

But it gets worse. The WP story actually leads with a different angle:

A strong majority of the public disapproves of the Episcopal Church's decision to recognize the blessing of same-sex unions, and a larger share of churchgoing Americans would object if their own faith adopted a similar practice, according to a new Washington Post poll.

So broad and deep is this opposition that half of all Americans who regularly attend worship services say they would leave their current church if their minister blessed gay couples -- even if their denomination officially approved those ceremonies.

... "Americans are saying, 'We're willing to move pretty far on this issue, we're much more tolerant than we used to be, but don't mix it up with religion and God,' " said Boston College political scientist Alan Wolfe, director of the Boisi Center for Religion and American Public Life.

Good lord. Meanwhile, the "Christians" see their moment and are pouncing. From today's San Francisco Chronicle:

Religious conservatives pledge an all-out drive to enshrine a ban on same-sex marriage in the U.S. Constitution, calling it the last line of defense against an inevitable court-led destruction of a fundamental social institution.

Their Federal Marriage Amendment, after dying with no action in the last Congress, has been reintroduced, this time with 75 House co-sponsors. Senate hearings are scheduled for September, and the proposed amendment has the blessing of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn.
Gay groups and opponents of the anti-gay-marriage amendment in Congress say they take it seriously and, privately, express considerable alarm.
"I think you've got this panic on both sides," said an activist who talks to religious conservatives and gay rights groups. "The groups concerned about the gay agenda need to come up with a line in the sand that works, and gay marriage might. The gay groups don't mind politicians being against gay marriage, as long as it's not written into the Constitution. They figure they can come back in 10 years when things have calmed down and revisit it."

That's what I'm afraid of: another Don't Ask, Don't Tell. The situation was shitty before, but it wasn't written into law/constitution (that time law, this time, the constitution). But we pushed them too far too soon without laying the social groundwork first, and now there's a law against gays in the military, and we're going to have to wait until support is so strong for us that half of each house and the pres are ready to stick their necks out and pass a bill to let us in. That's much worse than where we started.

A constitutional amendment will be much harder to pass, with 2/3 of each house and 3/4 of the state legislatures. (Some analysis of its chances here from DailyKos, though I think he's being optimistic.) But if they do, boy are we in trouble. It could be decades before we can reach the same numbers to repeal it. We are going to have to get our act together so fast on this one. And we sure need all the breeders out there willing to support us. One thing is for sure: There will never be enough homos like me to stop this, no matter how many toaster ovens we hand out.

Here's the one glimmer of hope I saw in the Post story:

In other telephone interviews, many religious Americans acknowledged that they were torn by feelings of sympathy toward gay couples and what they understood to be the teachings of their church.

That's progress. Ten years ago, most straight people wouldn't have felt anything for us except disgust. At least they're finally conflicted.

---

For much more on gay marriage, see my special site.

When news breaks on the MA decision, I'll have full coverage here. Bookmark it now.