Jay D. Jurie : The Return of ROTC

Navy ROTC cadets from Florida's Jacksonville University. U.S.Navy photo by Spc. 2nd Class Gary Granger Jr. / 4GWar.
ROTC resurgent
Part II: ROTC's history and return to campus

When the military's 'don't ask, don't tell' policy was dropped in 2010, some institutions began to consider reestablishing their relationship with ROTC.

By Jay D. Jurie / The Rag Blog / August 18, 2011

[This is the second of a two-part series on ROTC (Reserve Officer Training Corps) -- dealing with the militant opposition to ROTC during the Vietnam War era, and with the program's recent resurgence on college campuses. In Part I , Jurie described an escalating series of demonstrations against ROTC in 1969-1970 at the University of Colorado at Boulder, where he was a student. Part II covers the history of the ROTC program, the issue of discrimination against gays, and the recent return of ROTC to a number of U.S. campuses.]

While the concerted and militant campaign against ROTC in Boulder may have been unique, it was far from the only protest against ROTC during the anti-Vietnam war era, and, in fact, there had been substantial opposition to the program prior to the War in Vietnam. Since its inception, ROTC has proven controversial.

Part of the original purpose of ROTC was found in the Morrill Land Grant Act of 1862, which gave states federal land that included a stipulation for military coursework. In 1898 the War Department attempted to clarify this by proposing military instruction be provided by officers assigned as faculty, that students in those courses be required to wear uniforms, and that this instruction be made mandatory. Enactment of the National Defense Act of 1916 formally established ROTC and extended it to private as well as public colleges.

Some have argued ROTC played an essential role in keeping the military grounded in civil society. According to Michael S. Neiberg, unlike officers trained in elite military academies,

civilian educated officers would bring to military service a wider and more rounded background. They would also bring to the military a value system more consistent with American society by virtue of having lived in a civilian environment.

On the other hand,others have argued that ROTC desensitizes the civilian population to the militarization of society and the inimical purposes that may be served by the military. According to Neiberg, the University of Washington SDS in 1969 contended that,

If the university's role in cooperating with ROTC is the production of officers, our universities have become, in part, mere extension schools of our government's military establishment... The university continues to produce the tools to make possible policies such as those which led the U.S. into war in Asia.

ROTC had become so well-established by the 1920s that John Dewey and others became sufficiently alarmed to create a Committee on Militarism and Education. Concerns over its growing presence by the 1930s caused a few educational institutions to either drop the program or change its status from mandatory to voluntary.

However, most schools that had the program retained it, usually with the requirement that two years of participation in the program were obligatory for all male students.

ROTC received a boost during World War II, but after the war the controversy returned. Motivated by the Cold War and the threat of nuclear annihilation in the late 1950s and early 1960s, ROTC sparked protest. In May 1960, protestors at Boston University picketed, leafleted, petitioned, and placed a table with a protest sign in a ROTC parade route.

As the Vietnam war heated up in the mid- and late-1960s, so did protests against ROTC. In addition to demonstrations, ROTC facilities were set on fire at Stanford, Michigan, Kent State, and the University of Colorado. There was a perception held by a number in the anti-war movement that this violence paled in comparison with, and was justified by, the widespread use of napalm and the tonnage of bombs dropped in Vietnam.

Some schools, in response to these protests, removed the mandatory requirement. Others, like the Colorado School of Mines, kept it in place into the 1970s.

Even where ROTC was no longer compulsory, such as the University of Colorado, the program became a focal point of the anti-war movement. During the late 1960s and into the early 1970s over 80 ROTC programs were dropped, mostly from the elite universities where ROTC had drawn the most opposition. While ROTC was dropped from some schools, it was established in less "controversial," mostly public university locations.

Women's ROTC in the Sixties. Photo from Fortune City / Broad Recognition (Yale).
It should be pointed out that ROTC programs were never formally banned by host institutions. In most cases, either academic credit was withdrawn, or regular faculty status was not accorded ROTC instructors. In these cases, ROTC decided to withdraw its own program. Responding to the changes that occurred during that decade, women's programs were created in ROTC beginning in 1969.

Nonetheless, a rough status quo was maintained for decades after the Vietnam war ended. During that time frame many colleges and universities enacted policies banning discrimination against gays. Because the military engaged in such discrimination, this effectively kept ROTC off campus at those schools.

Nearly two and half decades later, renewed support for ROTC grew with the passage of the Solomon Amendment. Named after Gerald Solomon (R-NY) who initially introduced the legislation in 1994, this legislation prohibited colleges and universities that received federal funding from prohibiting military recruitment on campus or dropping ROTC programs.

Several law schools combined to file a lawsuit against this prohibition. In the 2006 Rumsfeld v. FAIR decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed an appeals court ruling and upheld the constitutionality of the Solomon Amendment

When the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy was dropped in 2010, some institutions began to consider reestablishing their relationship with ROTC.

For at least two institutions of higher education, reinstatement was not seamless. At Stanford, a women's group objected that while discrimination in the military against gays had been lifted, it continued against transgender individuals. Nonetheless, on April 28, 2011, the Stanford Faculty Senate voted overwhelmingly to invite ROTC back to campus.

At Yale, a representative of a women's group wrote that discrimination and harassment against women in the military was a problem of such significance that it ought to be addressed before welcoming a return of ROTC to that campus.

Another concern has cropped up even more recently. An August 9, 2011 CNN report revealed that Air Force ROTC training has included a slide show that violates the separation of church and state. According to reporter Jennifer Rizzo, "many of the slides in the 43 page production use a Christian justification for war."

Both the ROTC and military launch officer training were developed by the Air Force's Air Education and Training Command (AETC). After 31 Air Force missile launch officers objected to this training, Mikey Weinstein of the Military Religious Foundation is quoted as saying, "they're trying to teach that, under fundamentalist Christian doctrine, war is a good thing."

Harvard, Yale, and Columbia, are among those that have brought ROTC back, and Brown has been considering the matter. ROTC has regained a certain popularity among students. Not only have the draft and the memory of Vietnam faded, but military service is seen as patriotic in the wake of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, and an employment option in a tough economy.

University of Florida ROTC cadets participate in leadership exercise April 25, 2010 at Camp Blanding, Fla. Photo by Cadet Scott Stallings / USAF / Fox News.
While the military may no longer be engaged in overt discrimination against gays, there are unresolved issues involving ROTC. Among these, the objections raised during the Vietnam eara largely remain in place. So long as the U.S. maintains an interventionist foreign policy based on resource exploitation and the containment of those at odds with elite interests, it is evident that ROTC will provide officers to serve that policy.

Sources: Allan Brick, "The Campus Protest Against ROTC," Southern Student Organizing Committee, no date; Chuck Colbert, Stanford Faculty OK ROTC Proposal, Bay Area Report, June 5, 2011; Editorial: "Reconsidering ROTC," The Brown Daily Herald; "Larry Gordon, Once a Campus Outcast, ROTC is Booming at Universities," Los Angeles Times, June 1, 2011; Tim Lange & Carol Lease, "ROTC: An Analysis," Boulder, CO: Student Peace Union, 1969; Diane H. Mazur, "The Myth of the ROTC Ban," The New York Times, October 24, 2010; Tara W. Merrigan & Zoe A.Y. Weinberg, "Harvard to Officially Recognize Naval ROTC," Harvard Crimson, March 3, 2011; Michael S. Neiberg, Making Citizen-Soldiers: ROTC and the Ideology of American Military Service, Cambridge: Harvard, 2000; Fahmida Y. Rashid, "The Return of ROTC to Columbia," The Village Voice, April 6, 2011; Emily Rappoport, "Should Yale Allow ROTC to Return to Campus?" Yale: Broad Recognition, May 3, 1011; Otis Reid, "Women's Coalition Rejects ROTC's Return to Campus," Stanford Review, March 14, 2011; Jennifer Rizzo, "Air Force's Use of Christian Messages Extends to ROTC," CNN.com, August 9, 2011.

[Jay D. Jurie was a student at the University of Colorado at Boulder, a member of SDS, and one of the "Boulder 18" arrested as a result of the ROTC demonstrations. Jay now teaches public administration and urban planning and lives near Orlando, Florida. Read more articles by Jay D. Jurie on The Rag Blog.]

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

[+/-] Summary only...

Harvey Wasserman : Our Gay Commander-in-Chief

President James Buchanan. Image from Encyclopedia Dickensonia.
'Mister Fancy' James Buchanan:
Our gay Commander-in-Chief

By Harvey Wasserman / The Rag Blog / December 20, 2010

As “conservatives” scream and yell about gays in the military, they might remember that in all likelihood we have already had a gay Commander-in-Chief.

His name was James Buchanan. He was the 15th President of the United States.

A Democrat from Pennsylvania, Buchanan is discreetly referred to in official texts as “our only bachelor president.”

In fact, many historians believe that he may well have been “married” to William Rufus King, a pro-slavery Democrat from Alabama who was our only bachelor Vice President.

The two men lived together for years. Andrew Jackson, never one to shy from bullhorn bigotry, was among those who variously referred to them as “Aunt Nancy” and “Mr. Fancy.” Other Washington wags called them “Mr. and Mrs. Buchanan,” and the like.

The nature of their relationship was never officially confirmed or proclaimed in public. They were widely referred to as “Siamese twins,” slang at the time for a gay couple. But there was no incriminating gap dress or heartfelt double-ring ceremony, civil or otherwise. It was not uncommon at the time for men and women of the same gender to live together and even share a bed while remaining sexually uninvolved.

Buchanan was once engaged to marry a wealthy young woman named Ann Coleman. But the complex affair ended with her mysterious, untimely death. When King became ambassador to France in 1844, Buchanan complained that “I have gone wooing to several gentlemen, but have not succeeded with any of them.”

With no Moral Majority or Bible thumping fundamentalists to plague them, the King-Buchanan liaison was generally embraced as a political and personal fact of life in a nation consumed with real issues of life and death, freedom and slavery.

In 1852 King was elected as Franklin Pierce’s Vice President. But on an official mission, King contracted a fever and died, leaving Buchanan alone and deeply distraught.

In 1856, Buchanan defeated John C. Fremont, the first presidential candidate from the new Republican Party. Buchanan did not run for reelection in 1860, when Abraham Lincoln was the victor.

Buchanan’s presidency was plagued by economic and sectional disaster. He was a “doughface” northerner with sympathies for southern slavery. Devoted to consensus and compromise, he was swept away by the intense polarization that led to Civil War.

Through his entire time in the White House, President Buchanan lived alone. His niece served as “First Lady.” He stayed unmarried, and had his personal letters burned upon his death, prompting further speculation on his sexual orientation.

Maybe it’s time those legislators who have been so fiercely opposed to gays in the military face the high likelihood that at least one Commander in Chief would probably be among them.

[Harvey Wasserman's History of the United States S is at www.harveywasserman.com, along with Passions of the Potsmoking Patriots “Thomas Paine,” which portrays George Washington as a gay potsmoker.]

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

[+/-] Summary only...

True Fiction, Dept. : San Angelo Mayor Quits to be With Gay Alien Lover

(Former) San Angelo Mayor J.W. Lown, in a photo with (and autographed by) U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson. Photo from jwloan.com
San Angelo Mayor springs a Hell of a surprise on his town
By Richard Connelly / May 21, 2009

See 'Texas Mayor Resigns To Be With Gay Lover,' by Mona Elyafi, Below.

Out there in West Texas, they know how to do things right. Like spring surprise mayoral resignations.

The mayor of San Angelo, J.W. Lown, abruptly announced his resignation just days before he was to be sworn in for his fourth term as mayor, the San Angelo Standard Times reports.

Surprise Number One: He made the announcement from Mexico, where he had suddenly bolted to.

Surprise Number Two: He was resigning because he is in a relationship with an illegal alien and they're trying to fix the alien's status.

Surprise Number Three: Both Lown and the Mexican citizen are guys. As in HE'S GAY. In San Angelo.

Lown is obviously a well-respected public servant: He won the most recent re-election with 89 percent of the vote, and stunned city council members were effusive in their praise for his work.

But it's also obvious they didn't know he was in the closet.

Lown told the paper he would come back to the city "if the people of San Angelo will welcome me back."

Let's hope they do. It could be fascinating.

Some would be troubled by the illegal-alien thing, of course. Some because he was helping someone he knew was illegal, and was mayor of the town while doing so. Others might just hate the Messkins.

But the whole gay thing, in West Texas? Hard to say. You would hope people would be open-minded, but then again we've been to West Texas.

Boy, there's a TV movie here for someone: Popular, young attractive mayor of a prairie town, torn by love, decides to go back to Mexico to help his partner get legal. He has to give up a job he also loves...and he has to come out.

J.W. Lown, get yourself an agent.

Source / Hair Balls / Houston Press

Mayor J.W. Lown and Ret. NY CRMS Chief Rosey Valez at 9/11 Memorial Ceremony. Photo from jwloan.com.

Texas Mayor Resigns To Be With Gay Lover
By Mona Elyafi / April 22, 2009

San Angelo, Texas Mayor J.W. Lown abruptly resigned from office effective immediately to be with his illegal alien gay lover, according to Perez.

Lown had just been elected to his fourth term in a landslide only a few weeks ago garnering about 89 percent of the votes.

Lown broke the news of his stepping down from Mexico where he flew to be with his partner. He tendered his resignation through a letter to City Manager Harold Dominguez.

Scheduled to take the oath of office last Tuesday for his fourth term as mayor, Lown did not appear at the event. In a telephone call late Wednesday afternoon from Mexico the Mayor explained that because he was in personal relationship with a man who does not have legal residency in the United States, he didn't see fit to take the oath of office knowing he was "aiding and assisting" someone who was not a legal citizen.

"I made the final decision when I knew it was the right decision to make for me and my partner and our future - and for the community," said Lown.

While Lown declined to provide the name of the person, he did confirm that his lover entered the United States five years ago to attend Angelo State University. Lown also said that their relationship didn't start until after March. He and his partner are currently in Mexico in a hotel awaiting a visa to legally re-enter the US territory.

"I did the best I could," Lown said. "I had to get down here and get everything in order to make a life for myself."

The 32-year-old real estate owner who has dual citizenship in both the U.S. and Mexico, said that while he wasn't sure how long it would take for his partner's visa to be granted, the couple would only come back if "the people of San Angelo will welcome (them) back."

Source / She Wired

Thanks to Jeff Jones and Harry Edwards / The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

[+/-] Summary only...

Stimulus Bill Continues Tradition : No Funding for LGBT Arts Groups

San Francisco Lesbian/Gay Freedom Band during "christening" of the Pink Triangle on Twin Peaks in 2008. Photo by Bill Wilson © 2008 / San Francisco Sentinel>

After more than 40 years of business as usual, will the NEA be able to perpetuate its Eurocentric and anti-LGBT biases under a mixed-race President?

By Jeff Jones / The Rag Blog / March 4, 2009

SAN FRANCISCO -- The National Endowment for the Arts will receive $50 million as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 signed by President Obama on Feb. 17, 2009. Since the Robert Mapplethorpe controversy almost 20 years ago, the NEA has refused to fund out-of–the-closet LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender) arts organizations. The agency’s recently released eligibility requirements for Stimulus funding ensure that the NEA’s ongoing censorship of LGBT arts groups will continue: they exclude organizations that have not been funded by NEA during the past four years.

Since the Bush administration’s NEA did not fund LGBT arts groups and only paid lip-service to diversity, most Stimulus-funded grants are expected to be funneled to the nation’s symphonies, operas and ballets (the SOBs); these groups already receive the lion’s share of government arts funds and serve almost exclusively affluent white audiences.

While the NEA’s failure to financially support the nation’s cultural diversity stretches back to its founding during the LBJ era, the agency’s anti-LGBT zeal hit its zenith during the Clinton administration, when his appointee—Jane Alexander—personally censored every LGBT grant recommended for funding by the agency’s peer panelists. The NEA’s largest grant program “Access to Artistic Excellence” illustrates the agency’s overall Eurocentric and anti-LGBT bias: in the last two rounds of funding, this NEA category awarded 1479 grants worth more than $34,000,000, but less than 10% were awarded to arts groups rooted in communities of color and not a single grant was awarded to an out-of-the-closet LGBT arts organization.

After more than 40 years of business as usual, will the NEA be able to perpetuate its Eurocentric and anti-LGBT biases under a mixed-race President? Will the NEA’s blatantly discriminatory policies be challenged along with Don’t Ask Don’t Tell? Will the NEA continue to spend millions of dollars funding Madame Butterfly instead of supporting the hundreds of community-based arts projects taking place across the country that promote social justice? More soon on this developing story.

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

[+/-] Summary only...

Cyndi Lauper on Obama's Brand of Hope : One Size Fits All

'We as a society, LGBT or straight, can show that civil rights are important and discrimination is wrong across the board through our vote.'
By Cyndi Lauper / August 24, 2008

As I toured all over the country this summer with True Colors, I saw something in the eyes of the audience I have not seen in a very long time, it was hope. Each night as I talked about the power of voting, it was evident through their reactions that the crowd wanted to change how this country is run. That is the one good thing that President Bush has done in the past seven years, he has created a movement within the country to change how things are done in Washington DC. But, what mattered to me the most is that everyone cared enough about their own lives and the future to register and vote.

I believe we are at a crossroads and the next ten years will determine the future of this country. Like I said from the stage, this is not voting for the American Idol, it is much more important, this is voting for the American President. And now that I'm home again, and off stage, I wonder, will we become the country that respects the diversity that is our backbone or will we continue down this path of the few ruling the many? I wonder to myself are we gonna make that change in a big way and when I think about it I believe that the change can happen in the form of Senator Barack Obama.

Because, America is a quilt of many fabulous fabrics and we have a sorted history that has not always respected that. And because, for far too long groups of people have been singled out and discriminated against simply because of such things as the color of their skin, their religious beliefs or whom they love. And, that these very acts undermine the basic principles this country was founded on, the time has come to finally break down the barriers that keep America from fulfilling its destiny.

In particular, the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community is closer than ever to gaining full equality. We are teetering back and forth right now, and we need to act together to push us in the right direction. What we are asking for is only fair and right. We as a society, LGBT or straight, can show that civil rights are important and discrimination is wrong across the board through our vote. I believe by voting for Barack Obama we will do just that.

Like Obama, I grew up with a loving, hard-working single mom, in a neighborhood mixed with all races and different backgrounds. And like Obama, I knew that was our strength and not our weakness.

I see in Barack Obama a real fighter for fairness and inclusion, a person who overcame every obstacle growing up to achieve an education and to become the leader he is today. He battles against discrimination of all kinds, from race and gender to sexual orientation and gender identity. He is the most inclusive candidate who has a real chance at the White House that we ever have had. He is a true American who commands respect and more importantly respects Americans - all of us.

I believe that a President Obama would deliver on the promises that have been made to the LGBT community for so long, like inclusive workplace non-discrimination legislation, the end of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", and finally the passage of hate crimes legislation that includes everyone, not just some. It saddens me in ways I cannot begin to describe just to know that hate crimes still occur in our society. Under President Obama, the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Act will finally become law.

When I talk to young people I believe the time has come. It reminds me of my generation in the 1960's who made a promise to make the world better. The young people today have dedicated themselves as well to this goal and have truly embraced change. They are working harder than ever to elect Barack Obama President because he is a voice of a new and more imaginative generation. They are hungry for new ways of thinking, and to put away old labels, fears, prejudices and bigotries. They believe you can change the world one person at a time. And so do I.

Simply look around, and talk to every young voter you meet, and then vote because you care what happens to them and you care what happens to the world and this country. We all deserve better.

Lastly, I implore you to share your lives with the people you love and care about. Your vote is powerful, but the work cannot end there. Americans are mostly fair-minded people, but are disconnected from the everyday struggles of your life. We are one society and if we are disconnected we fall, but connected we stand tall. If you want people to understand the reality of being LGBT in society today, you need to share your story.

If you are LGBT, share with them the discrimination you still face in America, and if you are a straight ally, share with them the discrimination you have seen inflicted upon your friends and family. Explain that discrimination not only affects the one it is directed towards, but it affects us all. Show through your example what LGBT people truly are like and break down the misconceptions and stereotypes that fuel the prejudices that have plagued our community and society for far too long.

I am an example of what can happen when you share your story. When my sister Elen came out to me and told me about her life, my eyes were opened to the fact that I needed to be a part of changing this country for the LGBT community and have taken that responsibility very seriously.

So, the time has come to stand up and use your voice. It is time that we push ourselves over the edge towards full equality. It is time that we have a President who will work for us and not against us.

All my best,
Cyndi Lauper

Source / The Huffington Post

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

[+/-] Summary only...

Same Sex Marriage Affects the Whole Country

What impact will it have on the elections? Maybe not much.
By Suzi Steffen / August 22, 2008

Patchwork, partying, pessimism, politics: That's the state, so to speak, of same-sex marriage around the U.S. since same-sex couples began lining up to get married in California on the afternoon of June 16.

News of the California Supreme Court's May 15 decision, which said that denying marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples was unconstitutional, surprised some observers because it came from a Republican-appointed court -- and thrilled couples across the country because California does not have residency requirements for marriage.

At the time, Massachusetts, which began offering same-sex couples marriage licenses in 2004, had routinely been denying them to couples from other states thanks to a 1913 law intended to ensure that interracial couples from other states didn't get married in Massachusetts. That law changed at the end of July.

Many marriage equality proponents hailed California's decision as a major step forward, but one of the first reactions for some political wonks was markedly more guarded or even pessimistic.

First, the good news, by the numbers. During the first month that licenses were available to same-sex and opposite-sex couples equally, counties in the Bay Area reported larger numbers of licenses granted and of ceremonies performed in clerk's offices, according to a mid-July Associated Press report.

California does not keep separate count of same-sex marriages, according to the California Department of Public Health, so those curious about the numbers must track county-by-county records or simply look at increases. The AP says that San Francisco, not surprisingly, reported a 131 percent increase in licenses granted, but Sonoma County (a romantic destination in the heart of California's wine country) also reported an increase of 160 percent, from 340 to 546, and a quadrupling of ceremonies performed in the clerk's offices. That number went down in at least one California county, however: Kern County, which includes Bakersfield, stopped performing any civil ceremonies at all, whether between opposite- or same-sex couples, on June 15. But the county clerk's office there must still grant marriage licenses to those who legally qualify.

The economic impact on a budget-constrained state has not been small. According to the AP, the 44 counties in California took in over a quarter of a million dollars more this June than last June. The UCLA School of Law's Williams Institute released a study in early June, before same-sex marriages began in California, estimating that if the state's voters didn't approve a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage on the ballot in November, the ceremonies would "boost California's economy by over $683.6 million in direct spending over the next three years."

Massachusetts hasn't ignored those findings. A study commissioned by the Executive Office of Housing and Economic Development estimated that repealing the 1913 law, which said that the state would not marry those whose marriages would be illegal in other states, could bring in at least $111 million into the state economy over the next three years. The Massachusetts Senate voted for repeal on July 15, and the House added its vote two weeks later. Bay State Governor Deval Patrick added his signature July 31. The bill repealing the old law contained an emergency preamble allowing out-of-state same-sex couples to obtain marriage licenses immediately, and reports in the New York Times indicate that New York couples took advantage of the repeal as soon as it was signed. When a reporter asked Patrick about couples coming to Massachusetts to get married from other states that expressly forbid same-sex marriages, Patrick said, "What we can do is tend our own garden and make sure that it's weeded, and I think we've weeded out a discriminatory law."

But the state of the union isn't all wine and roses, cakes decorated with two brides or grandmothers finally able to give their grandsons the heirloom china.

For one thing, in many states, same-sex couples won't see any legal benefits from getting married in California or Massachusetts. Indeed, Lambda Legal reported earlier this summer that same-sex couples from Wisconsin may face harsh legal penalties if they get hitched on one of the coasts. According to the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, the penalty for a marriage "that's prohibited or declared void in Wisconsin" can range up to a $10,000 fine and up to a nine-month prison sentence -- though Wisconsin prosecutors seem uninterested in using what one called "scarce resources" to prosecute same-sex couples. Still, the Wisconsin law (apparently passed in order to discourage underage heterosexual couples from marrying in other states) indicates one of the many concerns progressive voters felt when the California law passed.

It's not that they didn't want same sex couples to be able to marry. They were simply worried about what the New York Times reported in 2004 as an increase in conservative voters who voted for Bush at the same time they voted for state initiatives banning same sex marriage.

During the November election in 2004, 11 states -- including Oregon, Michigan and Ohio, which were considered battleground states between Republican President George W. Bush and Democratic candidate John Kerry -- passed initiatives barring state recognition of same-sex marriages (and in some states, barring state recognition of civil unions or domestic partnerships as well). Though Michigan and Oregon both passed their anti-marriage state initiatives, both states also went for Kerry.

But as you probably recall, Bush won a close election after Kerry decided not to dispute contested results in Ohio. Conventional wisdom then said that Republican strategists like Karl Rove used 2004's various gay marriage issues as a way to get out the money and get out the vote for their presidential and Congressional candidates. Some religious conservatives, including former GOP presidential candidate Gary Bauer, have since claimed that the California Supreme Court decision will likewise affect the 2008 presidential election.

Even an L.A. Times reporter who wrote about the decision weighed in, stating that the Supreme Court "tossed a highly emotional issue into the election year." Before the decision, a conservative group wrote an initiative banning same-sex marriage. It will appear on the November ballot in California.

A quick fact check, however, shows that conventional wisdom may have been wrong to begin with. Mark Mellman, a Democratic pollster, wrote in a June op-ed for TheHill.com (an online Congressional newspaper) that of the 11 states with anti-same sex marriage initiatives on the ballot, "no one could reasonably assert" that Kerry would have won eight of the states no matter what else was on the ballot. Kerry won two of the others, and, Mellman says, in Ohio, four times as many people voted on the presidential race but not on the anti-marriage initiative as voted on the initiative but not the presidential race, indicating that the race itself was the important draw. In other words, he concludes, "while casting initiatives as the secret determinant of presidential elections makes for an interesting narrative, it is largely a work of fiction."

In Oregon, an anti-civil union initiative failed to make the ballot this year, thanks in part to LGBT civil rights group Basic Rights Oregon. BRO Director Jeana Frazzini says that same-sex marriage initiatives are highly unlikely to affect the presidential election. "I think there are some pretty major issues on the minds of voters that are going to take precedence," she says. On Aug. 14, just after the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals removed any chance for the initiative to land on the Oregon ballot, Frazzini wrote to BRO supporters that the decision freed time and money to help work on other issues in Oregon -- like opposing an initiative outlawing ESL classes -- along with supporting California LGBT groups in their fight against Prop. 8.

Even in places that coastal progressives view as conservative, some politicians don't think the religious right will be able to alter the election because of same-sex marriage. Senator Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, told the rightwing news group CNSNews.com that he believes Iowa's voters "care about the economic issues and the health care issues and getting out of Iraq," not "hot-button issues" like same-sex marriage. That's important because Iowa may be one of the next same-sex marriage battleground states: In August, 2007, a district court declared Iowa's law defining marriage as between one man and one woman "the most intrusive means by the state to regulate marriage" and struck down the law. One male couple married in Iowa before the district court judge issued a stay on his ruling and sent the case to Iowa's Supreme Court, which has not yet issued a decision.

But it's not only liberals and Democrats thinking that same-sex marriage won't be an issue in 2004. Karl Rove told the L.A. Times on Aug. 14 that "the bigger issues will be the economy, terrorism, healthcare, energy." Three states now have anti-same-sex marriage initiatives on their ballots in the fall: Arizona, Republican presidential candidate John McCain's home state; California, where an Obama win seems almost certain; and Florida, the one possible swing state in the mix. The L.A. Times notes that Florida Governor Charlie Crist, a Republican, has "distanced" himself from Florida's proposition, but he recently changed his mind (he's rumored to be seeking the VP nomination) and said he supports Amendment 2, which would define marriage as between one man and one woman in Florida's constitution.

Polls on California's Proposition 8, which would overturn the California Supreme Court decision, have varied. The most recent, a Field Poll released on July 18, showed that 51 percent of likely voters said they would vote no, while 42 percent said they would vote yes. (A no vote upholds the legality of same-sex marriage.) Perhaps that's partially because of state Attorney General Jerry Brown, who altered the title of the initiative after the Supreme Court ruling -- it had been "Limit on Marriage" when same-sex marriage wasn't legal, and he changed it to "Eliminates Rights of Same-Sex Couples to Marry." Though backers of Prop. 8 challenged that change, two court rulings in Brown's favor convinced them to drop the challenge. Details of the Field Poll revealed splits that politicians and LGBT activists will no doubt take into account during the campaign: among voters who knew someone gay or lesbian, the opposition to Prop. 8 was 54 percent to 40 percent; African-Americans, Asians and white non-Hispanic voters were against the proposition and Latinos for it, both by a margin of five to four; and although Protestant voters were largely in support, Catholic voters were evenly split.

"Polls are notoriously unreliable," says Dan Savage, "but all the movement is in our direction." Seattleite Savage, who writes the "Savage Love" sex advice column and is a strong advocate for same-sex marriage, doesn't feel purely optimistic because of recent history -- states locking the definition of marriage into their constitutions, which is hard to undo. But, Savage says, "with gas approaching $5 a gallon and the mortgage crisis, hopefully people are less easily whipped up with bullshit social issues and right-wing fear and smear tactics."

Meanwhile, as states across the country watch what happens in California, Jeana Frazzini of Oregon says the issue has moved on from 2004's "political football." Now, she says, "the dialogue is happening on a personal level. Folks are talking about what it means for their families." Because of the 2004 ballot initiative that amended Oregon's constitution, she says that what's going on in California has a limited impact on couples in Oregon, "but it gives people that sense of hope that things are headed in the right direction."

Source / AlterNet

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

[+/-] Summary only...

Rachel Maddow's Star Continues to Rise; Hosts New Show on MSNBC

Air America star Rachel Maddow gets own show on MSNBC.
Openly gay Rhodes scholar brings smarts and humor to cable news
By Howard Kurtz / August 20, 2008

Rachel Maddow has been sounding off about politics on MSNBC so often she might as well have her own show.

And now she does.

The liberal commentator and Air America radio host, who has become a breakout star for the cable channel during the presidential campaign, is taking over the 9 p.m. slot following Keith Olbermann, whom she often subs for on "Countdown." Olbermann broke what he called a "fully authorized leak" yesterday on the left-wing Web site Daily Kos. Dan Abrams, the former MSNBC general manager who had been hosting "Verdict" at that hour, will continue as NBC's chief legal correspondent, become a "Dateline" contributor and serve as a daytime anchor for MSNBC.

With the promotion -- "The Rachel Maddow Show" begins Sept. 8 -- the 35-year-old commentator breaks into what has sometimes been derided as a boys club at the network, led by Olbermann and Chris Matthews. Hillary Clinton's campaign frequently ripped MSNBC for what it called sexist coverage during the Democratic primaries. Maddow, who lives with her girlfriend Susan Mikula in Manhattan and Northampton, Mass., may also be the first openly gay woman to host a prime-time news program.

Her appointment is certain to draw criticism that MSNBC is moving further left in an attempt to compete with Fox News from the opposite end of the spectrum. John McCain's Republican campaign has repeatedly assailed the network's campaign coverage as biased.

Maddow, who leavens her barbs with humor, is something of a heroine on the left. New York magazine recently ran an item headlined "Why We're Gay for Rachel Maddow," and a Nation article said: "Maddow didn't get here by bluster and bravado but with a combination of crisp thinking and galumphing good cheer. Remarkably, this season's discovery isn't a glossy matinee idol or a smooth-talking partisan hack but a PhD Rhodes scholar lesbian policy wonk who started as a prison AIDS activist."

Source / Washington Post

[Rachel Maddow] turned heads at MSNBC when she served as a fill-in host for Olbermann for the first time.

“By that point, we knew she was smart, articulate, just made for television,” said Griffin. Maddow clinched her solo hosting gig after she spent a full week subbing for Olbermann in July while he was pressing the flesh at the Television Critics Assn. press tour in BevHills, Griffin was sold ealed the deal.

“I was sold after that week,” Griffin said. “I knew she would get a show someday; I didn’t think it would be this quick. But Keith’s audience really connects with her.”

Cynthia Littleton / Variety / August 19, 2008

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

[+/-] Summary only...

San Antonio Baptist Church Says 'Gay Street' Not 'Baptist Way'

City Council won't change street name
By Kate X Messer / August 9, 2008

According to WOAI, the NBC affiliate in the Alamo City, San Antonio City Council has denied Second Baptist Church's request to change the name of the street on which their church resides.

As the report points out, "Gay" is the name of a community activist of significance to the surrounding community, which wants the name of the street to remain Gay Street.

We think instead that the church should move a few blocks south to the corner of Gay/Hub.

Source / Austin Chronicle

A street on the East Side is in the spotlight because a church wants to change its name. But now it looks like that won't be happening anytime soon.

News 4 looked into why this one request is getting so much attention.

It seems like a simple process. Second Baptist Church wants to change the name of the street that runs next to it, to Second Baptist Way. But it's the name they're trying to change it from that's raising some eyebrows.

If Second Baptist wanted to change Edna Street or Bob Street, most involved in the debate wouldn't bat an eye.

But the street they are trying to convert isn't just any street, it's Gay Street. Many people questioned why they wanted to change that street's name.

Second Baptist said they simply wanted to reach out to the community more by changing the street to the church name.

But Attorney Rosie Gonzales didn't buy that reasoning.

"They could reach out into the community just leaving it the way it is," said Gonzales. "I don't see how changing the name of a street is going to help their community outreach efforts whatsoever."

Those outreach efforts by the church ended right where they began on Thursday, at City Hall.

City Councilwoman Sheila McNeil requested that the name change be denied and the council agreed. By almost an unanimous vote, the name Gay Street was left as is.

McNeil said the neighbors who live around Gay Street want the name to stay.

According to neighbors, the street was actually named after a community activist. They say that's part of the reason the name has stayed and why the want it to continue.

Kim Fischer / WOAI.com / August 8, 2008

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

[+/-] Summary only...

African Anglican Leaders Call For Ouster of Gay Bishop

Rev. Gene Robinson touring stalls at Lambeth. He is not invited to the conference itself. Photo by Peter Macdiarmid / Getty Images.
'Should resign for good of the church...'
By Riazat Butt / July 22, 2008

Rev. Gene Robinson, the gay bishop of New Hampshire should resign in order to save the Anglican Communion, a senior African archbishop said today.

The call came from the Rt Rev Dr Daniel Deng, the archbishop of Sudan, and followed a strongly worded statement that accused the US Episcopal church of exposing Anglicans to ridicule and damaging their credibility in a multi-religious environment.

African bishops who signed the statement rejecting homosexual practice said they could not accept it as part of their church. They reiterated their opposition to developments in the US and Canada, where gay clergy are ordained and where same-sex relationships are blessed.

"This has not only caused deep divisions within the communion but it has seriously harmed the church's witness in Africa, opening the church to ridicule and damaging its credibility in a multi-religious environment."

The statement was endorsed by more than 150 bishops attending Lambeth, who represent 17 of the 38 provinces in the Anglican Communion.

Deng said: "He [Robinson] should resign for the sake of the church. The people who consecrated him should confess to the conference because they created an outcry in the whole Anglican world. God is not making a mistake creating Adam and Eve - he would have created two Adams if he wanted. If he was a real Christian he would resign."

There was already a breakdown in the Anglican Communion, with around 230 bishops boycotting the conference because of Robinson's election, he said.

"Can he not resign to allow the 300 bishops to come back to the house? The norms of the communion have been violated. We're asking them as Christians to keep the Anglican world intact."

Robinson's election divided the communion and his exclusion was intended to appease traditionalists. However, the decision of Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, to keep Robinson away angered the Episcopal church, which until 48 hours ago was lobbying to have him brought back into the fold.

US bishops expressed their anger and hurt over his exclusion at a closed meeting. However, the leadership declined to take up the issue and an increasing number of bishops are said to be distancing themselves from the New Hampshire cleric in order to avoid conflict with conference organisers.

Officially, today was the second day of the most important gathering in the Anglican calendar. But the crucial summit is descending into farce, with bishops publicising their disputes and grievances. Robinson complained at being shut out, not only from Lambeth but also from a key US House of Bishops meeting.

On his blog, he wrote: "It really puts all of us in a lose-lose position: if I abide by their ruling, I am excluded; if I fight it or simply show up, then I'm the troublemaker and rebel. This is not a ditch I feel called to die in. I will just mourn the sadness of it, and move on."

Source / Guardian, UK

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

[+/-] Summary only...

Oops! Christian Site's Homophobia Leads to Big Faux Pas

Calls Olympian Tyson Gay 'Homosexual'

The American Family Association obviously didn't foresee the problems that might arise with its strict policy to always replace the word "gay" with "homosexual" on the Web site of its Christian news outlet, OneNewsNow. The group's automated system for changing the forbidden word wound up publishing a story about a world-class sprinter named "Tyson Homosexual" who qualified this week for the Beijing Olympics.

Tyson Gay won the men's 100 meters final in June at the U.S. Olympic Track and Field Trials. The problem: Tyson's real last name is Gay. Therefore, OneNewsNow's reliable software changed the Associated Press story about Tyson Gay's amazing Olympic qualifying trial to read this way:

“Tyson Homosexual was a blur in blue, sprinting 100 meters faster than anyone ever has. His time of 9.68 seconds at the U.S. Olympic trials Sunday doesn't count as a world record, because it was run with the help of a too-strong tailwind. Here's what does matter: Homosexual qualified for his first Summer Games team and served notice he's certainly someone to watch in Beijing. "It means a lot to me," the 25-year-old Homosexual said. "I'm glad my body could do it, because now I know I have it in me."

Source. / Fox Sports / July 3, 2008

And from the Slueth:

Contacted by the Sleuth for comment on the software mishap, American Family Association spokeswoman Cindy Roberts in Tupelo, Miss., told us, "I think it was just a fluke."

Fred Jackson, news director of OneNewsNow, tells the Sleuth his organization has now fixed the software glitch. "We took the filter out for that word," he said, without uttering the "G" word.

"We don't object to the word 'gay,'" Jackson explained, except "when it refers to people who practice a homosexual lifestyle." And the "G" word, he says, has "been co-opted by a particular group of people." (People who are g-a-y.)

The OneNewsNow story about Gay, which was spotted by blogger Ed Brayton at scienceblogs.com, as well as by gay blogs, including PageOneQ, even included these nice details about Mr. Homosexual's qualifying sprint:

Wearing a royal blue uniform with red and white diagonal stripes across the front, along with matching shoes, all in a tribute to 1936 Olympic star Jesse Owens, Homosexual dominated the competition. He started well and pulled out to a comfortable lead by the 40-meter mark. This time, he kept pumping those legs all the way through the finish line, extending his lead. In Saturday's opening heat, Homosexual pulled way up, way too soon, and nearly was caught by the field, before accelerating again and lunging in for fourth place.

Source. / Mary Ann Akers / washingtonpost.com / July 1, 2008

Other items we'd like to see on the offending web site:

Enola Homosexual Drops A-Bomb on Japan!
Typhoon Homosexual Causes Devastation
Priest and writer Jean Pierre Homosexual Is Descendant of Lord John Peter Homosexual
Memorial Day Service Commemorates Hobart R. Homosexual (1894-1983), American general, and George Homosexual(1917-1994), Naval Aviator in World War II

Travel section: Visit These Happy Locales!

Homosexual Mountain, Virginia
Homosexual Spring, Tennessee
Homosexual Farms, Virginia
Homosexual Creek, Alabama
Homosexual, Georgia, Michigan and West Virginia
Homosexualville, South Dakota
Homosexual Hollow, Texas
AND Homosexual Head, Massachusetts!

Posted by What Big Implications You Have! / the sleuth / washingtonpost.com

Thanks to Jeff Jones / The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

[+/-] Summary only...

Sarah Bird : How Gay It Would Be

I know a mother is supposed to accept her children as they are. But my son has one painful flaw -- he's straight.
By Sarah Bird / June 25, 2008

Novelist Sarah Bird lives in Austin.

I know, I know -- a mother is not supposed to have preset dreams that she expects her child to fulfill. And I tried. Believe me, for an entire 18 years of my son's life, I tried. I promised myself that I would accept my son no matter what path he chose. And since our little unit lives in Austin, blue heart of red Texas, there was always the danger that his path might take him into the Pi Kappa Alphas or the Republican Party. Still, I vowed that I would find a way to love my little Pike president of the Young Republicans. In his giant SUV. With the gun rack.

But, like so many of us, I am only human. How could I not dream of having a son who cared deeply about all the right things: fashion, musical theater, interior décor? But mostly a son who cared deeply about the most right thing of all: his mother? How could I not yearn for a son who would tell me that the bias cut emphasized my saddlebag thighs, that no one was staining concrete anymore, that the tiniest bit of white on the upper lids would open up my eyes and make me look 10 years younger? And now that California is handing out marriage licenses, what mother could resist the opportunity to micromanage a union in which both participants would obsess with her about whether the color theme celadon and peach or apple green and hot pink best expresses their love?

We all know the fate that awaits mothers of heterosexual sons. After straight boys learn how to order pizza, Mom becomes an abstraction. Straight sons sort of get that their mom is a tremendously powerful force in their lives, but, like the Federal Reserve System, they have no real understanding of or interest in how she works.

But gay men, whole other story. And that story is "Auntie Mame." Suddenly the maternal presence is a showstopping diva in chinchilla fitting a Benson Hedges into a 2-foot cigarette holder and zinging everyone in sight with one-liners, instead of Ma Kettle in a Mother Hubbard apron dishing up the possum stew and never exfoliating.

I guess I've suspected the worst for a long time. Certainly the signs were there from a fairly young age: He invariably chose "Power Rangers" over joining me in marathon viewings of the work of Stephen Sondheim. He preferred to thickly carpet his bedroom floor with castoff clothing rather than use the color-coded, padded hangers I put in his closet. Worst of all, he evinced a disturbing interest in Grace's bare, bony chest rather than concentrating on absorbing Will's snappy -- yet ultimately supportive -- patter. If he didn't pay attention, who would I have to call me "girlfriend" in my old age? How would I keep tabs on Britney, Carrie Underwood and that creepy kid from "High School Musical" without my very own Rex Reed 2.0?

I decided to put my suspicions to the test. We had just replaced all our doorknobs, so I asked my son, "What do you think of the new knobs? Do you like it that we got rid of the crappy antique brass knobs and went for the brushed nickel?"

"They're fine."

Sensing that his attention was focused more on annihilating Counter-Strike terrorists than on my knobs, I probed further. "And what do you think of the solid gold strike plates and ruby-encrusted lock sets?"

"They're fine."

"But tell me, what are your thoughts on the very best feature of all? That each knob morphs into a different, yet equally deadly, venomous snake? Asp, adder, crate, bushmaster?"

"They're fine."

My dream child would have cared. He would have had an opinion about the aesthetic desirability of brushed nickel over antique brass. You get none of that concern with the typical straight boy. And while we're on the topic of blatant stereotypes, before the entire membership of the gay Anti-Defamation League responds below to tell me what an ignorant bigot I am, working from outdated stereotypes, hang on a second. Before you write those ALL-CAP LETTERS WITH LOTS OF EXCLAMATION POINTS!!!!! informing me that you are a proud, stereotype-defying homosexual stevedore, soccer hooligan, whatever, that you are unabashedly clueless about fashion, décor and hygiene, let me just say, if that is you: Don't apply to be my gay son. I already own that model. No, please, submit a résumé only if you are an old-school homosexual with all the traditional old-school homosexual values and interests. Particularly if those interests include knowing how to add fullness to thinning, middle-aged hair.

Anyway, after the doorknob debacle, I faced my worst fear: I would be antiquing alone. And then, as if to prove that God never closes a door that he doesn't open a lilac satin-lined Louis Vuitton makeup case, my dream came true. Overnight my boy was transformed. Suddenly he lost all interest in slaughtering terrorists and wanted nothing more than to watch "Project Runway" with me and debate if a contestant had really "resolved" the skirt or not. Suddenly we were spending long evenings playing Scattergories and arguing over whether fuchsia and sandy qualified as distinct colors or just hues. Suddenly we were zipping out to be the first in line on opening day of "Sweeney Todd," then discussing Johnny Depp's performance over cups of tea and pastries. Suddenly I had the gay son I had always dreamed of. And all it took was a girlfriend.

I hadn't counted on my gay son's being delivered to me via a wonderfully winsome girlfriend with a whiff of the young Audrey Hepburn about her, yet that is what has happened. Overnight, my offspring, who believed that Oliver Twist and other plucky motherless orphans had gotten a sweet deal, became willing to do anything my heart desired. Just so long as Audrey was on board. And since Audrey adores board games, art openings, nibbling delicate sandwiches in precious cafes and hanging out with an old lady whom she reminds of the young Audrey Hepburn, that is precisely what we've been doing. Sigh.

"You do realize, don't you," my friend Rudy said, when I related this blissful state of affairs, "that you're getting to have your cake and eat it too?"

Rudy is a brilliant, handsome (and single, he would like me to add) theater director here in Austin, and he is also one of the leading candidates to be my gay son. "You get to have the closeness that you imagine you would have from having a gay son without any of the, you know, finding your son's gay porn that he downloaded from the Internet. The joke is that you can get all the fashion and musical theater and closeness without homosexuality, and that joke is on me and mine. We have to deal with a lot of 'Can't you just, you know, help me pick out my clothes without, you know, kissing in front of me or hitting on my brother?'"

Excellent point. This is exactly the kind of sensitive, informed, insightful comment I'd expect from my gay son. Thank you, Rudy, I will be moving your application to the top of the pile tout de suite. As for what goes on in my grown child's bedroom? Not my business. Unless, however, it's to confer with me about whether frosty blue and chocolate brown is a color combination for the ages. Or if that expensive duvet and sham set I'm contemplating will be dated faster than you can say "teal" and "mauve."

Before I have time to fit a Benson and Hedges into my 2-foot cigarette holder, another buzz kill arrives. This one is from my editor, who inquires, "Is your son aware that his heterosexuality has let you down? Does he care?"

I decide to check out this queerest of queries with my son, 18, and Audrey, 17, who are eating popcorn and playing Brain Quest, for Grades 1 to 6. As I enter, they are naming the planets.

"My editor would like to know how you feel about me being disappointed that you're not gay."

"I'm surprised you still believe I'm not."

"You are not helping here. What would you say to outraged readers?"

"Uh, semi-condolences? Sorry, outraged readers? Who are you writing this for anyway? Stupid People With No Sense of Humor Weekly? Yeah, help! Save me! My mother was putting me in designer diapers from the day I was born!"

Our tête-à-tête has come to an end. My son goes back to amusing Audrey with alternative pronunciations of Uranus. At this point, it's all academic anyway. You see, at just the moment when I finally have someone in my life who understands the importance of the perfect pair of red patent leather flats, it is all about to end. The cloud in this silver lining is college. My son will be leaving. The nest will be empty.

Hmm. Perhaps if my husband starts right now, by next September, he can find a girlfriend.

Source. / salon.com

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

[+/-] Summary only...

Hot Shots and Classic Takes

Photo by Bob Simmons / The Rag Blog
The Rag Blog / Posted June 19, 2008

[+/-] Read More...

[+/-] Summary only...

Del and Phyllis Tie the Knot

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, left, with Del Martin, seated, and Phyllis Lyon at San Francisco City Hall on Monday. Photo by Jim Wilson / The New York Times.
Same-Sex Marriages Begin in California
By Jesse McKinley / June 17, 2008

SAN FRANCISCO — With a series of simple “I dos,” gay couples across California inaugurated the state’s court-approved and potentially short-lived legalization of same-sex marriage on Monday, the first of what is expected to be a crush of such unions in coming weeks.

The weddings began in a handful of locations around the state at exactly 5:01 p.m., the earliest time allowed by last month’s decision by the California Supreme Court legalizing same-sex marriage. Many more ceremonies will be held on Tuesday when all 58 counties will be issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

In San Francisco, Del Martin, 87, and Phyllis Lyon, 84, longtime gay rights activists, were the first and only couple to be wed here, saying their vows in the office of Mayor Gavin Newsom, before emerging to a throng of reporters and screaming well-wishers.

Ms. Martin and Ms. Lyon, who have been together for more than 50 years, seemed touched, if a little amazed by all the attention.

“When we first got together we weren’t thinking about getting married,” Ms. Lyon said before cutting a wedding cake. “I think it’s a wonderful day.”

Outside City Hall, several hundred supporters and protesters chanted, cheered and jeered in equal measure, giving an unruly carnival feel to the scene, complete with a marching band playing wedding songs and signs reading “Homo Sex is Sin.”

In Oakland, across the bay from San Francisco, Mayor Ron Dellums presided over more than a dozen marriages in the City Council chambers, which had been transformed into a de facto wedding chapel, with stands of flowers and a standing-room-only crowd.

In Sonoma County, the wine-rich region north of here, 18 couples were scheduled to be wed on Monday, including Chris Lechman, 37, and Mark Gren, 42, who called to book their nuptials shortly after the court’s decision.

“We’ve been on pins and needles,” said Mr. Lechman, who celebrated the 15th anniversary of meeting Mr. Gren on Monday. “We are thrilled to be part of history.”

Janice Atkinson, the Sonoma County clerk, said her office would stay open late for the rest of the month to accommodate what she expected would be a heavy load of same-sex weddings.

On Sunday, Ms. Atkinson and staff members were at a gay pride celebration in Sonoma handing out applications for marriage licenses to prospective newlyweds.

“We’re expecting some very happy couples,” she said. “And a lot of media.”

The selection of Ms. Martin and Ms. Lyon as San Francisco’s first same-sex couple was symbolic; the couple wed here in 2004, when the city broke state law by issuing more than 4,000 marriage licenses and conducting weddings in City Hall. Those marriages were later invalidated by the state Supreme Court.

On May 15, however, the same court struck down the two California laws that prohibited such unions, opening the door for California to becomes the second, and largest, American state to legalize same-sex marriage. Massachusetts did so in 2004, and more than 10,500 couples have wed there.

Same-sex marriage has been hotly contested nationwide and state by state in the courts and at the ballot box, and California is no exception.

Voters in the state will decide a ballot measure in November that would effectively overturn the court’s decision by defining marriage as “between a man and a woman.”

Forty-four states already have some sort of legal barrier — either a law or constitutional amendment — barring such unions. In 2004 alone, 13 states passed ballot measures banning same-sex marriage.

This year, however, supporters have found encouragement in both the California Supreme Court decision and in a subsequent order by Gov. David A. Paterson of New York to force his state agencies to recognize same-sex marriages from elsewhere. The California court has also rebuffed several challenges to its May 15 decision made by two conservative legal groups and Republican attorneys general who fear that the marriages will cause legal challenges to be brought in their own states.

One legal challenge was filed last week by the Liberty Counsel, a group based in Florida that wants the California Court of Appeal to halt the weddings to allow the State Legislature time to work out discrepancies in marriage law created by the state Supreme Court’s decision.

Mathew D. Staver, the founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, said Monday’s ceremonies “make a mockery of marriage.”

“Marriage has traditionally been known, across continents and all geographical regions, as between a man and a woman,” said Mr. Staver, who is 51 and married. “Marriage between the same sex may be some sort of union, but it’s certainly not marriage.”

There has also been some local opposition to the ceremonies. In rural Kern County, north of Los Angeles, the county clerk has canceled all weddings performed by her office, a position she took after consulting with the Alliance Defense Fund, an Arizona legal group that argues against marriage for gay men and lesbians. Weddings at the county clerk’s office — long an affordable, no-frills option for couples — have also been called off in Butte County, north of Sacramento, the state capital.

In more liberal parts of the state, however, the weddings were being warmly embraced.

In Beverly Hills, Robin Tyler and Diane Olson also married, saying their vows under a chuppah on the steps of the city’s courthouse. The ceremony was solemnized by a rabbi, Denise Eger.

“Great floods cannot dampen your love,” Rabbi Eger said. “Your courage brought you here today.”

Carolyn Marshall contributed reporting from San Francisco and Oakland, and Rebecca Cathcart from Beverly Hills.

Source. / New York Times

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

[+/-] Summary only...

Austin Diversity Shows It's Colors

Diversity cowboys. Photos by Jamie Josephs and Caroline Crocker / The Rag Blog.
Austin Gay Pride: 2008
By Jamie Josephs / The Rag Blog / June 16, 2008

It was hot and sweaty but the Austin Pride 08 Festival at Auditorium Shores was a great success and seemed to come off without a hitch thanks to the Equality Texas organizers, lots of wonderful volunteers and Micah King, the main man.

Thousands of people from Austin, Texas and the world paid $15 at the gate to attend Austin's Gay Pride festival. Approximately 130 vendors attended with variety ranging from BookWoman to Norml to Hawaiin Smoothies. Lots of good food, interesting music and a sense of family made everyone seem emotionally bouyant at this 7th annual Gay Pride Festival.

Quite a few non-profits had booths with lots of educational info and freebies. The music was as diverse as the gender preferences of the crowd in attendance. The Austin Pride Festival, as opposed to others including San Francisco's, is a family event. All vendors and organizations involved agree to keeping all activity and demeanor family-friendly with no ludeness tolerated.

The people who wandered into my Peace Peddler booth were friendly, charming and quite conversant. An incredible parade followed the musical headliner's performance which ended at 7pm. Mechell Ndegeocello, 7 time Grammy nominated bass player/vocalist brought down the house at the end of the day. If you didn't attend you should plan to next year. Its a wonderful slice of Austin culture and being there renewed some of my faith that tolerance to diversity really can exist.

Thong man with cat.

Whether on foot, bicycle, motorcycle or convertible, droves of people in colorful outfits marched from Auditorium Shores to Fourth Street, many playing dance music and tossing out candy to a crowd that stretched up the South First Street bridge and into downtown.

"We're just letting people know we're here, and this is who we are," said Dale Atkinson, a marcher and volunteer with AIDS Services of Austin.

Dressed in cowboy boots and a dress partially made of Hershey bar wrappers, Heath Riddles rode in a pickup covered in blue plastic, streamers and purses.

Austin American-Statesman / June 15, 2008

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

[+/-] Summary only...

Even If You Die, They Pretend You Were Straight

Majour Alan Rogers
Media and military closets gay soldier killed in Iraq
By Pam Spaulding / March 28, 2008

This should present an interesting opportunity for discussion. Maj. Alan Rogers, 40, died in January from wounds from an IED while he was on patrol. He was an intelligence office there to train Iraqi soldiers. The Army posthumously awarded a Purple Heart and a second Bronze Star to Rogers.

He was also gay. How did the media handle it? (Washington Blade):

Mainstream media coverage of Rogers' death coincided with the grim milestone of 4,000 U.S. service members killed in Iraq and the five-year anniversary of the invasion. But the media reports about Rogers' death omitted any mention of his sexual orientation. The Washington Post, National Public Radio and the Gainesville Sun, the local newspaper in his hometown of Hampton, Fla., made no mention of his sexual orientation or his involvement with a group that works to overturn "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

Lynn Medford, Metro editor for the Post, said the newspaper debated whether or not to disclose Rogers' sexual orientation and ultimately decided not to include such information as a matter of ethics. Rogers to some degree "kept his orientation private" and outing him after his death would "take a decision out of his hands," she said. Rogers had no partner and no immediate family to consult with to determine what his wishes would be, Medford noted.

Tony Smith, a friend of Rogers', described him as "very positive" and "very outgoing." Smith and Rogers worked together in the D.C. chapter of American Veterans for Equal Rights, a group that works to change military policy toward gays. Rogers was out to friends in the Washington area, but "had to obviously be careful [about being out] to too many people because he was active duty military," Smith said.

Rogers wasn't exactly closeted, as he went out to public clubs in DC with friends, and even served for a time as treasurer for American Veterans for Equal Rights. Chris Johnson of the Washington Blade contacted several reporters and officials and the replies were interesting.

* Shari Lawrence, spokesperson for Army human resources: did not return calls seeking comment.

* Steve Inskeep of National Public Radio: did not return calls seeking comment.

* Ombudsman for the WaPo, Deborah Howell: editors decided there was no proof Rogers was gay and no evidence Rogers would want to be publicly known as gay after death. Ironically, the WaPo's official policy on "outing" is that it isn't done "unless it is germane to the story." Wait. Isn't DADT, and the fact that Rogers could have been discharged -- something he was actively working to change -- relevant to a story about the military?

* I love this one -- Donna St. George of the WaPo received an e-mail from an Army casualty officer describing that the deceased's family was "nervous" about how Rogers' life was going to be reported -- not mention the word "gay" or the phrase "sexual orientation" in the e-mail.

Rogers had no immediate family members to ostensibly be embarrassed by an outing (both of his parents are deceased).

Source

[+/-] Read More...

[+/-] Summary only...