That's the opinion of John D'Emilio, a historian of gay history and professor at the University of Illinios. He was interviewed by MSNBC in their leadup to the debate:
Q: Only about four percent of the voting population is gay. Is the focus of a “gay debate” too narrow?
A: Well, four percent self-identified as gay or lesbian or bisexual. There are two points to make about that. First, there are still people who won’t self-identify, so the figure is probably a little bigger—maybe six percent. And we know that the six percent is not equally distributed around the country. Urban areas are more likely to have a higher percentage than rural ones. You’re going to have larger populations in the state of Massachusetts than you’re going to have in North Dakota. So in some states this forum might make a bigger difference than in others.
But second, I think same-sex marriage these days, and AIDS earlier in the ‘80s and ‘90s, demonstrated that lots of people have really strong feelings about gay issues. When you’re having a debate where the candidates are addressing these issues, there’s this four or five percent that are really concerned about it, but there’s also the larger population that finds it relevant. Some are concerned about it because they have family members who are gay; some are concerned because they’re religious and their religions say it’s wrong. I have no idea what the TV audience will be for this. The audience might not be large, but once it starts to circulate online and in the media, people will hear what the candidates were saying, and it will be relevant to a lot of people.
Click here to read the rest of the interview.
While I'm not going to do a play by play on the debate, I do plan to have some comments posted shortly after its over Thursday night.
August 07, 2007
Another Self-Loathing Gay Politican
Florida state representative Bob Allen has been charged with soliciting a male undercover policeman and lamely claims it happened because he was scared.
In a taped statement and other documents released last week, Allen, 48, told police that he was intimidated into offering sex.
"I certainly wasn't there to have sex with anybody and certainly wasn't there to exchange money for it," the Sentinel quoted him as saying.
Rather, he said, "this was a pretty stocky black guy, and there was nothing but other black guys around in the park," Allen said. He said he feared he "was about to be a statistic."
Titusville police told the Sentinel that they were investigating a nearby condo burglary when they saw a disheveled, unshaved man enter and leave the park restroom three times. They decided to send in Officer Danny Kavanaugh.
In a statement Kavanaugh said he was drying his hands in a stall when Allen peered—twice—over the stall door, then joined Kavanaugh inside.
"This is kind of a public place, isn't it?" Kavanaugh quoted Allen as saying, according to the Sentinel. Allen then suggested "going across the bridge; it's quieter over there."
Yeah, that's just what I would do. If I was intimidated because I was surrounded by large African-American men, the first thing I would do is offer to have sex with them. What straight man wouldn't do that?
It's one thing for someone to do something stupid, but it's even worse when he comes up with some pitiful excuse and insults everyone's intelligence in the process.
Of course, it goes without saying that he had a strong anti-gay record in the Florida legislature.
I pity someone like Rep. Allen who apparently can't be honest about, or with, themselves, but I feel even sorrier for the people he is supposed to represent.
Especially if they happen to be gay.
In a taped statement and other documents released last week, Allen, 48, told police that he was intimidated into offering sex.
"I certainly wasn't there to have sex with anybody and certainly wasn't there to exchange money for it," the Sentinel quoted him as saying.
Rather, he said, "this was a pretty stocky black guy, and there was nothing but other black guys around in the park," Allen said. He said he feared he "was about to be a statistic."
Titusville police told the Sentinel that they were investigating a nearby condo burglary when they saw a disheveled, unshaved man enter and leave the park restroom three times. They decided to send in Officer Danny Kavanaugh.
In a statement Kavanaugh said he was drying his hands in a stall when Allen peered—twice—over the stall door, then joined Kavanaugh inside.
"This is kind of a public place, isn't it?" Kavanaugh quoted Allen as saying, according to the Sentinel. Allen then suggested "going across the bridge; it's quieter over there."
Yeah, that's just what I would do. If I was intimidated because I was surrounded by large African-American men, the first thing I would do is offer to have sex with them. What straight man wouldn't do that?
It's one thing for someone to do something stupid, but it's even worse when he comes up with some pitiful excuse and insults everyone's intelligence in the process.
Of course, it goes without saying that he had a strong anti-gay record in the Florida legislature.
I pity someone like Rep. Allen who apparently can't be honest about, or with, themselves, but I feel even sorrier for the people he is supposed to represent.
Especially if they happen to be gay.
August 06, 2007
The Winner in Thursday Night's Debate? The GLBT Community
This article on The Huffington Post points out that what is said during Thursday night's Democratic presidential debate on the LOGO network is not nearly as important as the fact that all the candidates will be there saying it.
What's important about the Human Rights Campaign-sponsored debate is its mere occurrence. If the Dems are confident enough to tackle gay issues head-on for a full hour, it means they're no longer worried that the Republicans will throw it back in their faces. They're not afraid, and more importantly, they're betting voters aren't afraid either.
During the 2004 presidential elections George Bush was able to make a lot of headway by scaring moderate voters with the twin specters of activist judges and the impending doom of traditional marriage. The Massachusetts Supreme Court gay marriage ruling had just been handed down, and Bush, eyeing re-election, called it "arbitrary" and "undermining" to families. Nobody knew what might happen if gay partnerships were made legal -- and Republicans worked to make this unknown quantity as frightening as possible.
As real-life experiments with equal gay rights are carried out federally and locally all over the world, the GOP can no longer count on the issue to scare voters to the ballot box. It may be that the long-term results in those places are not what gay activists would hope for, but in the short term, growing familiarity with the issue is working in their favor. The Democratic presidential candidates, sensing this change, have come out of their shells to talk about the issue openly and comfortably. It will no longer be an ignored plank in their broad platforms, as it was in 2004 when John Kerry rarely addressed his support of civil unions until after Bush suggested a federal amendment banning same sex marriage.
This time around, the Democratic candidates have already been more vocal about their positions. During Thursday's HRC debate, nobody is likely to say anything shocking or new. But for supporters of gay rights and marriage equality, merely having a debate says it all.
Even four years ago, having this debate would have seemed farfetched. For people waiting year after year to gain equal rights, I understand why that may not seem like a big deal, but it is.
What's important about the Human Rights Campaign-sponsored debate is its mere occurrence. If the Dems are confident enough to tackle gay issues head-on for a full hour, it means they're no longer worried that the Republicans will throw it back in their faces. They're not afraid, and more importantly, they're betting voters aren't afraid either.
During the 2004 presidential elections George Bush was able to make a lot of headway by scaring moderate voters with the twin specters of activist judges and the impending doom of traditional marriage. The Massachusetts Supreme Court gay marriage ruling had just been handed down, and Bush, eyeing re-election, called it "arbitrary" and "undermining" to families. Nobody knew what might happen if gay partnerships were made legal -- and Republicans worked to make this unknown quantity as frightening as possible.
As real-life experiments with equal gay rights are carried out federally and locally all over the world, the GOP can no longer count on the issue to scare voters to the ballot box. It may be that the long-term results in those places are not what gay activists would hope for, but in the short term, growing familiarity with the issue is working in their favor. The Democratic presidential candidates, sensing this change, have come out of their shells to talk about the issue openly and comfortably. It will no longer be an ignored plank in their broad platforms, as it was in 2004 when John Kerry rarely addressed his support of civil unions until after Bush suggested a federal amendment banning same sex marriage.
This time around, the Democratic candidates have already been more vocal about their positions. During Thursday's HRC debate, nobody is likely to say anything shocking or new. But for supporters of gay rights and marriage equality, merely having a debate says it all.
Even four years ago, having this debate would have seemed farfetched. For people waiting year after year to gain equal rights, I understand why that may not seem like a big deal, but it is.
August 05, 2007
Verbally Abusing Gay People Un-American
If that sounds a bit extreme, check out this excerpt from an op-ed in the Kansas City Star:
People who direct this word disparagingly at someone else do so because they feel superior to that person. Whether it comes from their sense of morality, masculinity or some other reason, those who call other people “fags” feel justified because they believe their rights outweigh those of their victims.
We weren’t causing a disturbance. We weren’t breaking any laws. We were simply waiting to cross a street. Still, this stranger felt it was OK to verbally abuse us.
This smug supremacy over other people’s rights is evident in more than just calling someone a name. It’s noticeable in ongoing efforts to prevent gender and sexual orientation from being added as covered categories in the federal hate-crimes law, in discussions over whether same-sex couples should be allowed to adopt and raise children, in limiting marriage rights to only heterosexual couples, and in allowing workplaces to dismiss employees because of their sexual orientation.
When America allows someone’s personal beliefs to reign over another’s, we have handcuffed our nation’s ability to grant freedoms.
Instead, we’re limiting them. Whether it’s the freedom to walk a sidewalk without fear of ridicule or the freedom to have you and your partner’s love legally recognized, it doesn’t matter.
What matters is that we as a nation must live up to the pledge to “promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity,” as written in our Constitution.
So the next time you consider the use of the three-letter f-word, remember that it’s more than just a word. It’s a reminder that some people think their rights cancel out someone else’s.
Thanks to PageOneQ for the tip.
People who direct this word disparagingly at someone else do so because they feel superior to that person. Whether it comes from their sense of morality, masculinity or some other reason, those who call other people “fags” feel justified because they believe their rights outweigh those of their victims.
We weren’t causing a disturbance. We weren’t breaking any laws. We were simply waiting to cross a street. Still, this stranger felt it was OK to verbally abuse us.
This smug supremacy over other people’s rights is evident in more than just calling someone a name. It’s noticeable in ongoing efforts to prevent gender and sexual orientation from being added as covered categories in the federal hate-crimes law, in discussions over whether same-sex couples should be allowed to adopt and raise children, in limiting marriage rights to only heterosexual couples, and in allowing workplaces to dismiss employees because of their sexual orientation.
When America allows someone’s personal beliefs to reign over another’s, we have handcuffed our nation’s ability to grant freedoms.
Instead, we’re limiting them. Whether it’s the freedom to walk a sidewalk without fear of ridicule or the freedom to have you and your partner’s love legally recognized, it doesn’t matter.
What matters is that we as a nation must live up to the pledge to “promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity,” as written in our Constitution.
So the next time you consider the use of the three-letter f-word, remember that it’s more than just a word. It’s a reminder that some people think their rights cancel out someone else’s.
Thanks to PageOneQ for the tip.
August 04, 2007
Positive Movement in Two Key States
I'm posting about two stories here that show where the battles for GLBT equality are really being fought; on a state-by-state level. In two of those states, California and Virginia, attitudes are changing and progress could be made.
The Bay Area Reporter tells us that there was some movement from Republicans in the California state legislature toward the direction of equal rights in this year's session.
A surprising change has occurred with Republican lawmakers during this year's legislative session in Sacramento. They are voicing less dissent to LGBT legislation, and some GOP members are casting "aye" votes when it comes to certain gay rights measures.
The actions of the minority party in the state Capitol have not gone unnoticed. Last week the Assembly passed on a 70-1 vote a resolution urging Congress and President Bush to pass LGBT-inclusive federal hates crimes legislation.
Immediately afterward, Equality California, the statewide LGBT advocacy group, noted in a press release that the resolution passed with "historic bipartisan support." Joining 46 Democrats were 24 Republicans in favor of the measure, the most bipartisan support ever received in the California Legislature for a measure affecting the LGBT community, according to EQCA.
Meanwhile, the Washington Blade reports that there is some hope for a breakthrough in Virginia, a staunchly anti-gay state:
It might take five years, but Virginia could eventually see its anti-gay marriage amendment modified to clear the way for domestic partnerships or civil unions, according to a speaker at a gay rights conference here last weekend.
David Lampo, vice president of the Log Cabin Republicans of Virginia, told the Blade that improving the climate in the state for gays can be done through individual bills in a piecemeal fashion.
“I think if we can do some of these issues a baby step at a time we should get them through,” he said. “It might take longer, but hopefully in five years we can get the marriage amendment modified and at least have domestic partnerships and civil unions so we’re not constitutionally prohibited like we are now.”
Lampo said there are plenty of interim measures that could advance gay rights in the notoriously anti-gay state. One strategy is to broaden support for gay issues by reaching out to different groups, especially those that would benefit from non-discrimination policies and domestic partnership benefits, especially universities.
“If we got that accomplished it will be a great boon,” he said.
The Log Cabin Republicans were also cited in the story about progress in the California GOP. A while back I asked how a gay person could be active in the Republican party, and I received some thoughtful responses that express the view that working for change from within was a viable option that could make a difference.
While I am still somewhat sceptical of that approach, these are two examples of where it might actually be working that way.
The Bay Area Reporter tells us that there was some movement from Republicans in the California state legislature toward the direction of equal rights in this year's session.
A surprising change has occurred with Republican lawmakers during this year's legislative session in Sacramento. They are voicing less dissent to LGBT legislation, and some GOP members are casting "aye" votes when it comes to certain gay rights measures.
The actions of the minority party in the state Capitol have not gone unnoticed. Last week the Assembly passed on a 70-1 vote a resolution urging Congress and President Bush to pass LGBT-inclusive federal hates crimes legislation.
Immediately afterward, Equality California, the statewide LGBT advocacy group, noted in a press release that the resolution passed with "historic bipartisan support." Joining 46 Democrats were 24 Republicans in favor of the measure, the most bipartisan support ever received in the California Legislature for a measure affecting the LGBT community, according to EQCA.
Meanwhile, the Washington Blade reports that there is some hope for a breakthrough in Virginia, a staunchly anti-gay state:
It might take five years, but Virginia could eventually see its anti-gay marriage amendment modified to clear the way for domestic partnerships or civil unions, according to a speaker at a gay rights conference here last weekend.
David Lampo, vice president of the Log Cabin Republicans of Virginia, told the Blade that improving the climate in the state for gays can be done through individual bills in a piecemeal fashion.
“I think if we can do some of these issues a baby step at a time we should get them through,” he said. “It might take longer, but hopefully in five years we can get the marriage amendment modified and at least have domestic partnerships and civil unions so we’re not constitutionally prohibited like we are now.”
Lampo said there are plenty of interim measures that could advance gay rights in the notoriously anti-gay state. One strategy is to broaden support for gay issues by reaching out to different groups, especially those that would benefit from non-discrimination policies and domestic partnership benefits, especially universities.
“If we got that accomplished it will be a great boon,” he said.
The Log Cabin Republicans were also cited in the story about progress in the California GOP. A while back I asked how a gay person could be active in the Republican party, and I received some thoughtful responses that express the view that working for change from within was a viable option that could make a difference.
While I am still somewhat sceptical of that approach, these are two examples of where it might actually be working that way.
August 03, 2007
Democratic Movement on Gay Rights
Yesterday I wrote about how viable Democratic (and, of course Republican) presidential candidates are sidestepping the issue of same-sex marriage. However, this article from The Politico (a political newspaper in Washington, DC) indicates that the Democrats are stepping up to the plate on other GLBT issues:
The Democrats' apparent newfound confidence on gay issues -- a confidence, to be fair, that hasn't yet been tested by general election pressures -- has two sources. There's a broad cultural shift, indicated by polling, toward public support for gay rights.
And the shift comes as Democrats feel confident that Republicans -- weakened and tied to an unpopular war in Iraq -- will be unable to turn gay rights into the high-profile wedge issue it was in 2004.
"It's a very different time four years later," said the president of Human Rights Campaign, Joe Solmonese, whose group also sponsored a debate in 2003 that was attended by all the leading candidates other than then-Sen. John Edwards.
"It's the American people and these candidates being in a more enlightened place on (gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender) issues. And it's an emboldened view that the electorate is not going to let this field stray away from what really matters to the American people."
It will be interesting to see how far the candidates will go during the HRC/Logo Network televised debate on Thursday, August 9th. It will be even more interesting to see, if one of them is elected, how they then back it up with action.
There is a spirited debate going on tagged to The Politico article that is worth checking out and participating in.
The Democrats' apparent newfound confidence on gay issues -- a confidence, to be fair, that hasn't yet been tested by general election pressures -- has two sources. There's a broad cultural shift, indicated by polling, toward public support for gay rights.
And the shift comes as Democrats feel confident that Republicans -- weakened and tied to an unpopular war in Iraq -- will be unable to turn gay rights into the high-profile wedge issue it was in 2004.
"It's a very different time four years later," said the president of Human Rights Campaign, Joe Solmonese, whose group also sponsored a debate in 2003 that was attended by all the leading candidates other than then-Sen. John Edwards.
"It's the American people and these candidates being in a more enlightened place on (gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender) issues. And it's an emboldened view that the electorate is not going to let this field stray away from what really matters to the American people."
It will be interesting to see how far the candidates will go during the HRC/Logo Network televised debate on Thursday, August 9th. It will be even more interesting to see, if one of them is elected, how they then back it up with action.
There is a spirited debate going on tagged to The Politico article that is worth checking out and participating in.
August 02, 2007
Calling Out the Presidential Candidates
That's what Matt Foreman, Executive Director of the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force, did in this post on the Task Force's blog, OutSpoken. Here are some excerpts.
The Democratic candidates for president, as a group and individually, express more support for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) issues and legislative and policy initiatives to improve our lives than any prior set of presidential candidates in the history of American politics. These new standards of support for LGBT people are worthy of our applause, our appreciation and our accolades.
Since 1980, we have suffered the gross indignities of defamations and slanders from a ravenous and rapacious right-wing anti-gay movement, a veritable industry churning out anti-LGBT propaganda at every turn. We endured the AIDS epidemic and the Reagan administration’s cruel indifference while our people fell to illness and then to death. We saw the U.S. Supreme Court uphold state laws that branded us criminals for our sexuality. We have been clubbed by an onslaught of ballot questions that put our lives up to popular vote. Time and again, we’vebeen thrown under the political bus by politicians either in the White House or those who want to get there.
All of this misery has been exacerbated exponentially by the spinelessness or unwillingness of all but a few national leaders to take a stand for us and denounce the animus unleashed on us. Many of our “friends” have simply looked the other way.
We bear our scars and yet remain unbowed. But, we are still waiting for the country’s political leadership to defend our right to live and thrive as a matter of principle, not parse our dreams as a matter of misguided political calculation.
We deserve and we must demand from the Democratic 2008 presidential candidates the simple and straightforward statement that our humanity requires full respect and fair treatment by all and, further, an equally simple and straightforward condemnation of those who seek to use our lives for political gain. This needs to be said in front of all audiences — not just in front of us.
We need leadership. We need strength of vision. And we need to know that the promises of reform come from the candidates' understanding of LGBT people as inseparable from the national community in which we live. There can be no more equivocating or silence about the goodness of our personhood, our families, our relationships. Period.
The Democratic candidates for president, as a group and individually, express more support for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) issues and legislative and policy initiatives to improve our lives than any prior set of presidential candidates in the history of American politics. These new standards of support for LGBT people are worthy of our applause, our appreciation and our accolades.
Since 1980, we have suffered the gross indignities of defamations and slanders from a ravenous and rapacious right-wing anti-gay movement, a veritable industry churning out anti-LGBT propaganda at every turn. We endured the AIDS epidemic and the Reagan administration’s cruel indifference while our people fell to illness and then to death. We saw the U.S. Supreme Court uphold state laws that branded us criminals for our sexuality. We have been clubbed by an onslaught of ballot questions that put our lives up to popular vote. Time and again, we’vebeen thrown under the political bus by politicians either in the White House or those who want to get there.
All of this misery has been exacerbated exponentially by the spinelessness or unwillingness of all but a few national leaders to take a stand for us and denounce the animus unleashed on us. Many of our “friends” have simply looked the other way.
We bear our scars and yet remain unbowed. But, we are still waiting for the country’s political leadership to defend our right to live and thrive as a matter of principle, not parse our dreams as a matter of misguided political calculation.
We deserve and we must demand from the Democratic 2008 presidential candidates the simple and straightforward statement that our humanity requires full respect and fair treatment by all and, further, an equally simple and straightforward condemnation of those who seek to use our lives for political gain. This needs to be said in front of all audiences — not just in front of us.
We need leadership. We need strength of vision. And we need to know that the promises of reform come from the candidates' understanding of LGBT people as inseparable from the national community in which we live. There can be no more equivocating or silence about the goodness of our personhood, our families, our relationships. Period.
There's plenty more to read in the full blog entry. It's time for the Deomcratic party to stop taking the GLBT vote for granted and earn it. It's also time for someone, anyone with even the slimest chance of getting elected (sorry, Dennis Kucinich, that leaves you out) to take a stand based on what's right, not what polls the best.
They would have my vote and enthusiastic endorsement. At this point, I'm waiting but not holding my breath.
August 01, 2007
Is the Church Producing Athiests?
That's the concern raised in this piece from the Christian Post.
"...some of the recurring questions young adults struggle with but churches often fail to address include the formation and development of the Bible, the presence of evil and suffering in the world, and the question of inspiration and inerrancy.
“In large part, it happens when the church leadership is completely unaware that their members – and not necessarily just the young members – have questions at all,” explained Horvath to The Christian Post. “And [they] continue merrily along thinking that to retain the youth they just need to be entertained.”
Young people question whether they should trust the Bible since it “is so old,” and are not satisfied with the simple answer that they should trust it because God wrote it. Horvath explains that though they understand that to be the Christian position, they want to know how they can be sure of that.
I'm sure one of the more challenging questions young people are asking is why does the church hate homosexuals. As most readers here know, there isn't much of an answer except to cherry pick a few isolated scripture verses, and even then it presents an arguement that doesn't go much beyond "God says so, and so do we."
What I think is an even tougher issue for young people to reconcile is the hypocrisy of church leaders preaching love while they practice bigotry and discrimination, preaching peace while supporting a president who promotes a senseless war, and preaching giving while idolizing material possessions.
If that's all I had to go on, I'd probably have trouble believing there really was a God myself, at least the one the church would be trying to shove down my throat while reaching for my checkbook at the same time.
Fortunately, the God in the Bible doesn't discriminate. He truly loves peace, and he is not materialistic. Christians who understand that need to set an example to support what God truly is. We need to let people see Him through how we live our lives; imperfectly to be sure, but still demonstrating the goodness of Jesus, the New Testament God. We all have the opportunity to live under that covenant.
In today's society, it's no wonder young people don't find the Old Testament God all that appealing. There are churches, and I'm proud to belong to one of them, Believers Covenant Fellowship, that preaches about Jesus and encourages people to go out into the world and live like Him. That way we can help lead people through all that smoke most of the larger demoninations are blowing and show them how to reach out to our true Lord and Savior.
"...some of the recurring questions young adults struggle with but churches often fail to address include the formation and development of the Bible, the presence of evil and suffering in the world, and the question of inspiration and inerrancy.
“In large part, it happens when the church leadership is completely unaware that their members – and not necessarily just the young members – have questions at all,” explained Horvath to The Christian Post. “And [they] continue merrily along thinking that to retain the youth they just need to be entertained.”
Young people question whether they should trust the Bible since it “is so old,” and are not satisfied with the simple answer that they should trust it because God wrote it. Horvath explains that though they understand that to be the Christian position, they want to know how they can be sure of that.
I'm sure one of the more challenging questions young people are asking is why does the church hate homosexuals. As most readers here know, there isn't much of an answer except to cherry pick a few isolated scripture verses, and even then it presents an arguement that doesn't go much beyond "God says so, and so do we."
What I think is an even tougher issue for young people to reconcile is the hypocrisy of church leaders preaching love while they practice bigotry and discrimination, preaching peace while supporting a president who promotes a senseless war, and preaching giving while idolizing material possessions.
If that's all I had to go on, I'd probably have trouble believing there really was a God myself, at least the one the church would be trying to shove down my throat while reaching for my checkbook at the same time.
Fortunately, the God in the Bible doesn't discriminate. He truly loves peace, and he is not materialistic. Christians who understand that need to set an example to support what God truly is. We need to let people see Him through how we live our lives; imperfectly to be sure, but still demonstrating the goodness of Jesus, the New Testament God. We all have the opportunity to live under that covenant.
In today's society, it's no wonder young people don't find the Old Testament God all that appealing. There are churches, and I'm proud to belong to one of them, Believers Covenant Fellowship, that preaches about Jesus and encourages people to go out into the world and live like Him. That way we can help lead people through all that smoke most of the larger demoninations are blowing and show them how to reach out to our true Lord and Savior.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
