365 Gay

[1] [2] Rev. Eric Lee [3] takes LGBT organizations to task for "unconscious racism";  he thinks this is a major  stumbling block to the gay rights movement. "I believe that the cause of justice and equality also suffers when the unconscious racism of the white male-dominated LGBT community goes unchecked. I'm sad to see it appears they have not learned the lessons from the mistakes of the California Proposition 8 campaign for marriage equality." Lee, a straight ally, argues that while GLBT political organizations, specifically those working on marriage, talk good about outreach, they never really engage blacks and other people of color. His point is worth paying attention to. In all of the heat produced after the Prop 8 fallout, few examined the sad work marriage activists did to round up allies of color. Don't take my word for it. Read this interview of Latrice Johnson of the United Lesbians of African Heritage [4]. "We weren’t approached, however I did make attempts, as did many of our staff and volunteers made attempts to reach out and let them know we were certainly willing to come to the table and help out," Johnson said. "Unfortunately we were not approached. It was almost a dismissive response." Unlike Lee, I don't think the reason is just racism, unconscious or conscious. As gays and lesbians we see our experience as GLBT people through our individual races and cultures. When we use the term gay community, what we really mean are those who either look like us or come from similar social backgrounds. Nothing wrong with this, but it is disastrous of you are trying to build a diverse movement to support marriage equality. Or any other gay rights agenda. [1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rev-eric-lee/travesty-of-justice_b_696429.html [2] http://www.365gay.com/wp-content/uploads/question-mark-3-top.jpg [3] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rev-eric-lee/travesty-of-justice_b_696429.html [4] http://twodown48togo.wordpress.com/2008/11/24/prop-8-town-hall-it-was-almost-a-dismissive-response/

Equality in hospital visitation policies is not a controversial issue. That’s what seems apparent from the 427 comments received during the just ended public comment period on the proposed regulation to implement President Obama’s hospital visitation memorandum. The April 15 memorandum called for an end to discrimination against gay couples in the visitation policies of hospitals receiving federal Medicaid and Medicare funding. While the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services can provide no breakdown of how many comments were for or against the proposed change, a random search of more than 10 percent of the comments found complete support for the requirement –and considerable incredulity that it is even necessary to establish such a rule. But it is necessary, as illustrated by one commenter who told of being in a serious automobile accident just last October. He said his partner was barred from being with him, even though the partner had a health power of attorney. It was only after the partner, following a shift change in the nursing staff, identified himself as the unconscious man’s brother that he was allowed in. Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund and two other groups have made known they believe some changes are warranted in the proposed language, published in June, particularly with respect to instances where the patient is incapacitated. But there’s no guarantee HHS will adopt Lambda’s suggestions, and actual enforcement of the president’s directive is still months –and another public comment period— away. HHS’s Office of Clinical Standards and Quality will make the decision on final language of the hospital visitation rule, said Donald McLeod, an HHS spokesperson. It will do so based on the comments made by the public, he said, “but that is only a part of the process.” “We look at all available evidence,” said McLeod, noting that it can include things such as journal articles. In its August 27 letter, submitted for the hospital visitation policy comment period, Lambda, the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association (GLMA), and the National Health Law Program (NHeLP), a public interest law firm, directed HHS to a monograph produced this year by the Joint Commission. The Joint Commission is a private, not-for-profit organization that operates an accreditation service for thousands of hospitals nationwide. The Joint Commission publication suggests hospitals define “family” to “explicitly include any individual that plays a significant role in the patient’s life such as spouses, domestic partners, significant others (of both different-sex and same-sex), and other individuals not legally related to the patient.” The Commission advises hospitals to “Use this expanded definition in all hospital policies, including those addressing visitation, access to chosen support person, identification of surrogate decision-makers and advance directives.” The proposed rule that HHS published in the Federal Register with little fanfare June 28 does not currently make explicit this definition of family. Its language distinguishes between “immediate family members” and “visitors designated by the patient.” But it does make clear that the visitation privileges available to the “visitors designated by the patient” should be “no more restrictive than those that immediate family members would enjoy.” Interestingly, although the clear purpose of the president’s memorandum was to end discrimination against LGBT families in regards to hospital visitation rights, the 6,200-word proposed rule never mentions the word “gay,” mentions “same-sex domestic partner” only three times, and mentions “sexual orientation” only four times. In fact, while LGBT activists hailed the president’s directive as a dramatic step toward equal protection of the law, to the uninitiated reader, the proposed rule might very well read like an unremarkable clarification “to ensure the visitation rights of all patients,” as the summary states. One concern Lambda, GLMA, and NHeLP express is that the proposed rule allows that there may be “rare cases” in which hospitals should have the right to require a visitor to produce “written documentation,” such as durable powers of attorney and healthcare proxies, from some visitors, such as LGBT partners. “We believe that, at a minimum,” reads the proposed rule, “a hospital …may not require documentation where the patient has the capacity to speak or otherwise communicate for himself or herself; where patient representation automatically follows from a legal relationship recognized under State law (for example, a marriage, a civil union, a domestic partnership, or a parent-child relationship); or where requiring documentation would discriminate on an impermissible basis.” But Lambda and the other groups say the proposed rule needs to go further and ensure that “only in the very rarest of cases” is written documentation required. As an example, said the Lambda letter, written documentation might be warranted when more than one person claims to be a patient’s spouse. “In all other cases,” said Lambda, “verbal representation of a family relationship recognized under the law of any state should suffice—as it does currently for all incapacitated heterosexual patients whose husband, wife, parent or adult child seeks access to the hospital bedside.” The proposed rule acknowledges that it is important for patients who are incapacitated to have a representative “who is likely to be especially familiar with the patient.” But the Lambda coalition says the rules do not adequately “address this common scenario” as it relates to LGBT patients and that they “definitely should.” “The Proposed Rules are silent regarding the circumstance in which LGBT patients and their families are perhaps most vulnerable—when a patient is incapacitated and has not previously designated in writing a health care agent or representative,” said the groups. “LGBT patients far too often experience discriminatory visitation denials even when they have designated an agent in writing, and patients who have not done so—a common circumstance—are even more vulnerable.” It was this scenario that President Obama referred to when he issued his memorandum last April. He cited the experience of a Washington State couple on vacation with their children in Florida in 2007. While there, one of the women, Lisa Pond, collapsed with an aneurysm and was taken by ambulance to Jackson Memorial Hospital in Miami. When her partner, Janice Langbehn, arrived at the hospital with their children, the hospital refused to let them see Pond. The hospital continued to refuse visitation even after Langbehn had a friend fax Pond’s health proxy to the hospital. The Lambda coalition says the rules should be revised to ensure written documentation of a relationship is not required when a visitor “identifies herself or himself as the patient’s adult partner, parent, child, or as playing a significant role in the patient’s life.” And the coalition says written documentation should not be required when “patient representation automatically follows from a legal relationship recognized under the laws of any state.” The Lambda coalition submitted its 26-page comment to HHS on the last day of public comment, August 27. As of Tuesday, it was still not posted on the HHS site where the public comments can be read. (Go to www.regulations.gov, choose Public Submissions, and keyword search CMS-2010-0207.) The letter can be viewed, however, at lambdalegal.org. Now that the comment period has closed, HHS will write a “final rule” --a process that takes several months. The final rule is then published and another public comment period ensues, according to McLeod. “Finally, after a couple more months,” said McLeod, “we will post a final decision.” © 2010 by Keen News Service. All rights reserved.

(Dallas) A Texas appeals court says gay couples legally married in other states cannot divorce in Texas, where same-sex marriages are banned. The 5th Texas Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday that a Dallas judge didn't have jurisdiction to grant a divorce to two Dallas men who wed in Massachusetts. The court also says Texas' same-sex marriage ban is constitutional. The state attorney general had appealed the district judge's October ruling that granted the men a divorce and found the ban violates equal rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. The Dallas men married in 2006 in Massachusetts and separated two years later. They're referred to only as J.B. and H.B. in court filings. An attorney for J.B. says they haven't decided whether to appeal to the Texas Supreme Court.

Stumped on when to send out your STDs (save-the-date announcements)? Don't know who should be invited to your rehearsal dinner? Get the answers to all your etiquette questions for your gay wedding by submitting your dilemma to etiquette@equallywed.com [1]. Q We love kids, but my partner and I don’t want them in or at our wedding—both the ceremony and the reception. We have a few reasons: We don’t want any babies wailing or children making random, distracting noises during the ceremony. We want all our guests to have fun and let loose and not have to watch their kids at the reception. We’re serving alcohol at the reception, and we don’t want to worry about the legal issues of the older children being around it. We’re inviting about 100 guests, and I’d say there are at least 15 couples with children. How do we politely tell them we don’t want their kids at our wedding? A Babies and children are a blessing and can bring a youthful innocence to a wedding day, but they can be an awfully big distraction at special events, when they’re not properly attended to. If you’d rather your guests attend to you and the celebration at hand, by all means, make it an adults-only affair. Here’s the thing about weddings. Proper wedding etiquette dictates that the people addressed on the envelope of the wedding invitation are the only ones invited. Thus, if you don’t write The Palladino Family or Mrs. and Mrs. Palladino and children, you haven’t invited any kids. Likewise, if you don’t write Kirsten Palladino and guest, but instead write Kirsten Palladino, you’ve only invited me and you’ve indicated that I shouldn’t show up with any random guest. All those rules aside, not everyone knows proper wedding etiquette. Follow the above invitation guidelines, and you’ll still get a few response cards from a parent, his partner and their full brood. And that’s where you’ll get the opportunity to say something. If you get a response card indicating that more than you invited plan to attend, call the sender and delicately explain (but don’t beat around the bush) that your wedding day is going to be an adults-only affair and you and your partner aren’t allowing children. And you hope they understand and can still make it. I’ve known people to actually have “adult-only reception to follow” printed on the bottom of their wedding invitations, but I think it can be tacky and perceived as hostile by some guests. The other way to spread the word is through strategic comments to your friends without children who talk a lot to those who do. “We’re so excited about our adults-only wedding. It’s really going to be a grand affair. I hope so-and-so doesn’t mind that we’re not inviting any children.” That kind of talk is sure to get back to your other friends—and hopefully not ruffle any feathers. You’ve probably considered by now that some of your guests with children won’t come if they can’t bring their kids. Not to make a statement, but for the simple fact that decent childcare can be hard to come by, especially if they’re traveling to another state for your wedding. If their presence is more important to you, consider hiring a nanny for your wedding to keep all the children occupied in a separate room nearby. As for the older children and booze, talk to your caterer or bartender about your concerns. If they need to check IDs to make you feel more comfortable, they’re your employees for the day. Kirsten Palladino is the editor in chief of Equally Wed, the nation’s premier same-sex wedding magazine, online at http://www.equallywed.com [2]. Equally Wed offers gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and queer couples a guide to their weddings, a social community and a marketplace of vetted LGBT-friendly wedding vendors. Follow Equally Wed on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/equallywed [3]. [1] http://www.365gay.commailto:etiquette@equallywed.com [2] http://www.equallywed.com/ [3] http://www.twitter.com/equallywed

(San Franisco) A conservative legal group is trying to force Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown to defend California's gay marriage ban in court. The Pacific Justice Institute petitioned the 3rd District Court of Appeal in Sacramento on Monday for an emergency order that would require state officials to appeal a ruling that overturned Proposition 8. Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker struck down the voter-approved measure as unconstitutional last month. Its sponsors have appealed. But doubts have been raised about whether they have authority to do so because as ordinary citizens they are not responsible for enforcing marriage laws. The state has until Sept. 11 to file an appeal. Both Brown and Schwarzenegger have said they do not plan to.

There has been a number of gay characters in comic books since Marvel Comics opened the door with Northstar in 1992.  But now a new level of acceptance has been reached--beloved comic series, Archie, is adding its first gay character. On September 1, Riverdale High will be introduced to Kevin Keller [1], the hunky gay blonde with a V-neck and perfectly coiffed hair.  Archie Comics [2] Co-CEO John Goldwater said, "The introduction of Kevin is just about keeping the world of Archie Comics current and inclusive. Archie's hometown of Riverdale has always been a safe world for everyone." Kevin will first appear in Veronica #202.  His first story line will solidify his sexuality, finding a polite way to turn down the persistent come-ons of Veronica.  Kevin even entices Jughead by challenging him to a burger eating contest at Pop’s Chocklit Shoppe.  At least we know Kevin can handle large amounts of meat. The introduction of Kevin Keller marks the first gay character in the series' 69-year history. [1] http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/arts/archie-and-the-gang-welcome-first-gay-character/article1690400/ [2] http://www.yousaytoo.com/archie-comics-welcomes-its-first-gay-character-2/379578

(Grove City, Ohio) Critics of the country's largest Lutheran denomination and its more open stance toward gay clergy formed a new Lutheran church Friday at a meeting of a conservative activist group. The overwhelming voice vote by members of the Lutheran Coalition of Renewal created the North American Lutheran Church, a tiny denomination of churches formerly affiliated with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, headquartered in Chicago. As of early August, 199 congregations had cleared the hurdles to leave the ELCA for good, while 136 awaited the second vote needed to make it official. In all, there are 10,239 ELCA churches with about 4.5 million members, making it by far the largest Lutheran denomination in the U.S. The vote followed the ELCA's decision to move gay pastors into its fold, becoming the largest Protestant denomination in the U.S. to allow noncelibate gays into its ranks. The move came during Lutheran CORE's annual meeting, held this year in a Church of the Nazarene megachurch in Grove City, just south of Columbus. The gay pastor issue was the tipping point for many Lutherans, but it followed serious concerns about the ELCA's movement away from holy scriptures as the final authority for church beliefs, said Paull Spring, of State College, Pa., the new denomination's first bishop. He gave as an example the ELCA's use of inclusive language that strips male references to God — such as "Father" and "Son" — replacing them with words like "Creator" and "Savior." "The issue that really presented itself was the issue of sexuality, but back of that was the broader issue: Which is the authoritative voice of the church today?" Spring said. "Is it holy scripture, which Lutherans have always confessed, scripture alone, or is supposed to be some combination, that as well as some mood of the times?" he said. The ELCA has lost more than half a million members over the past 20 years, a decline faced by many mainline congregations struggling to keep congregants. But that decline is balanced by individual congregations that flourish, many of which hold the same views as the North American Lutheran Church, said Mark Chavez of Landisville, Pa., director of Lutheran CORE. "The average person out there who's interested in a Christian church wants the real thing," Chavez said. "They want Jesus. They want the gospel. They don't want something else." The ELCA regrets the decision of some congregations to leave for the new denomination, said ELCA spokesman John Brooks. "One of the hallmarks of the ELCA is that we reach out to other Christians in the spirit of understanding, reconciliation and unity," he said. "We pray for the unity of the whole church and its members, and we pray for those who will be leaving to join the North American Lutheran Church." St. John Lutheran in Bridgewater, Mich., has taken the first vote toward joining the new denomination, and pastor Kathleen Meyers supports the decision. But Meyers, attending the meeting in suburban Columbus, also acknowledges it's a tough choice. "I have friends who are gay — for me, it's a very personal issue," she said Friday. "But I can't set aside the authority of scripture just because I have friends that I love." Bruce Winkler of suburban Tampa, Fla., attends Christ Our Redeemer Lutheran Church, an ELCA congregation that he says will not be joining the new denomination. But Winkler, 72, a retired chemistry professor, said he supports the new group out of a concern over the loss of scriptural authority. For too many Lutherans today, "it's the gospel of acceptance, rather than the gospel of redemption — love conquers all kind of thing," he said. "You don't have to worry about obedience, or sanctification, or any of those issues — you just love everybody and that'll be fine," Winkler said.

[1] Anyone remember Omar from The Wire [2]? The gay stick-up artist uttered an astute line after a fire fight. "When you come at the king, you best not miss." Sounds like some political witticism Lyndon Johnson used when he was  Master of the Senate [3].Ruben Diaz is no king. He's just a homophobic New York politician in need of an electoral smack down. Fight Back New York wants to make this happen, but they are going have to come up with better tactics. The organization recently published 10 Truths about Ruben, [4] and the Queerty [5] people describe the list perfectly. It's dumb. Decide for yourself. 1. Ruben Diaz was investigated by the FBI 2. He was arrested for possession of heroin and marijuana 3. Ruben Diaz was only member of the New York Senate to vote against the ethics reform bill 4. He was the only Democrat in the New York Senate to vote to shut down the state government 5. Ruben Diaz refused to meet with his own constituents 6. He compared the use of stem cells for medical research to the Nazis using “the ashes of the Jews to make bars of soap.” 7. Ruben Diaz appropriated monies totaling $250,000 to an organization he founded, the Christian Community Benevolent Association 8. He also appropriated monies totaling $1,120,000 to the Hispanic Federation, of which the Christian Community Benevolent Association is a part (see #7) 9. Ruben Diaz defended former Sen. Hiram Monserrate, who was expelled from the Senate due to a conviction for misdemeanor assault against his girlfriend 10. Ruben Diaz and three other Democrats refused to support the Majority Leader, only to change their minds after he "offered them perks and committee chairmanships." The two things that put him beyond the pale are 6 and 10 (only fellow worms support Monserrate [6]).  Everything else makes Diaz an average Albany politician. That's not enough to send him packing. [1] http://www.365gay.com/wp-content/uploads/Ruben-Diaz-top.jpg [2] http://www.hbo.com/the-wire/index.html [3] http://www.amazon.com/Master-Senate-Years-Lyndon-Johnson/dp/0394528360 [4] http://truthaboutdiaz.com/truths [5] http://www.queerty.com/the-lame-dirt-fight-back-new-york-found-on-ny-sen-ruben-diaz-20100830/ [6] http://www.365gay.com/blog/031110-fighting-back-against-monserrate/

Students across the country are venturing into classrooms for the 2010-11 school year. Some began their new studies in mid-August. Others will begin their new studies post-Labor Day. Many students, along with their parents and teachers, received some kind of orientation about how to make this new year a successful, safe, fun year. In a sampling of notices from some Florida school districts in recent weeks, I found advice for students and parents on getting a sound sleep, the role of nutrition in learning, backpack safety, school bus safety, immunization, dress codes, the relationship between exercise and self-esteem, how to say “no” to drugs, the dangers of food allergens in the cafeteria and even a warning about children walking past swimming pools on their way to and from school. What I didn’t find in the survey sample was any message about the consequences of bullying or the availability of school safety zones. A caution about absences noted the most common reasons children miss school are colds, stomach flu, ear infections, pink eye and sore throat. But the caution omitted another reason children miss school: bullying, the taunting, intimidation, harassment and assault that can lead a child to fake a cold or develop a stomach ache to avoid going to class. Some facts from the U.S. Health and Human Services Department: • Studies show that 15-25 percent of U.S. students are bullied with some frequency. • Studies show that 15-20 percent of U.S. students reported they bullied others with some frequency. • As many as 160,000 students may stay home on any given day because they’re afraid of being bullied. • Studies show that children who bully are more likely to get into fights, vandalize property and drop out of school. About 60 percent of boys who were bullies in middle school had at least one criminal conviction by the age of 24, according to one study. Some more facts from the Safe Schools Coalition and the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network: • Anti-LGBT bullying is one of the most pervasive forms of bullying and often the weapon of choice for bullies, regardless of the bullied student’s sexual orientation. • Among students who identified as LGBT, 90 percent had been bullied in a given year. Of those, 66 percent had been verbally abused, 16 percent physically harassed and 8 percent had been assaulted. • Students who have been bullied at school because of their gender are more likely than their peers to have carried a gun to school. • Students who have been bullied at school because of their gender are more likely than their peers to attempt suicide. • Students who have been bullied at school because of their gender are more likely than their peers to skip school. One more fact from the Safe Schools Coalition: School districts and individual schools that are pro-active in dealing with bullying and harassment see diminished truancy and far fewer violent incidents. So it’s troublesome that any districts are starting another school year skirting or downplaying this issue. Anti-bullying notices should be going out in the back-to-school orientation packets with new school bus schedules, school lunch applications and class assignments. At a federal summit on the subject just a few weeks ago, Education Secretary Arne Duncan said too often bullying gets shrugged off. “You have heard all the excuses,” Duncan told an assembly of educators, therapists and government officials. “You have heard the lineup of reasons to minimize the gravity of bullying and to dismiss the potential of effective programs to reduce it. ‘What can you do?’ people say, “bullying has been going on forever. Kids are mean.’ Or ‘she just made a bad joke.’ ‘He didn’t mean to hurt anyone.’ ‘It was just a one-time thing.’ ‘Bullying may be wrong. But it really isn’t an educational issue.’ At the heart of this minimization of bullying, is a core belief that bullying is an elusive concept that can’t really be defined.” But bullying is definable, as Duncan said. And incidents of bullying should not be shrugged off, nor should districts shrug off the responsibility to warn students, parents and teachers that bullying will not be tolerated. Back to school for a child should not mean back to being bullied, nor should it mean back to bullying. For more information about bullying prevention, go to http://www.stopbullyingnow.hrsa.gov/kids/ [1] [1] http://www.stopbullyingnow.hrsa.gov/kids/

The Billings Gazette [1]is reporting that the two men who are suing for gay marriage in Wyoming [2] have troubling backgrounds. The couple, who are representing themselves, may not have actually applied for a marriage license; LezGetReal says they may not, in fact be gay, [3]though it's not clear what benefit they'd get from pretending to be, or from filing this suit. From the Gazette: For one thing, there’s a dispute over the basic facts of the case. In the suit, Shupe-Roderick and Dupree allege that they went to the Laramie County Clerk’s office on Aug. 9 to apply for a marriage license, only to be turned down because they were a same-sex couple. In a subsequent media interview, Shupe-Roderick said they went to the clerk’s office two additional times and spoke with Laramie County Clerk Debbie Lathrop. However, Lathrop, a defendant in the lawsuit, said neither she nor any of her staff has any recollection of the couple applying for a marriage license from her office. Then there is the shady background of David Shupe-Roderick: Gay-rights proponents are also concerned that the plaintiffs aren’t exactly a poster couple for their cause – especially David Shupe-Roderick, a convicted felon with a history of mental illness. Shupe-Roderick, 25, served 4 years in the Wyoming State Penitentiary after he, his brother, and their two girlfriends left Cheyenne in a rental car in January 2004. When they didn’t return the rental car on time, the rental company contacted police. Two days later, Shupe-Roderick – then known as Gerald Shupe — was arrested in Arkansas after being pulled over for an illegal lane change. After being sentenced, Shupe-Roderick unsuccessfully requested a reduction in his prison sentence on the grounds that he had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder and wasn’t taking his prescribed medication when he took the rental car. Shupe-Roderick is currently being prosecuted for falsifying state documents. Last October, he applied to become a notary public, and he allegedly certified on his application form that he wasn’t a convicted felon. The lawsuit also alleges Shupe-Roderick used a fake same-sex union certificate from Massachusetts to obtain a Wyoming driver’s license. Shupe-Roderick has also been a plaintiff in court as frequently as he has been a defendant. Besides the gay marriage case, he’s filed five other lawsuits in the past three years. In one, he accused prison guards of sexual misconduct, and in another, he accused a would-be business client of assault and breach of contract. He has also sought $16,398 in loans and debts from his former employers/roommates and asserted that Bank of America unlawfully refused to release $5,107 from his bank account. All of those cases were eventually dropped or dismissed. The Gazette says that Shupe-Roderick expected this to be a quiet lawsuit and has been surprised at the attention it has received. Do you live in Wyoming? Do you have more information on the couple? Let us know in the comments... [1] http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/wyoming/article_a332e284-b329-11df-90b4-001cc4c002e0.html [2] http://www.365gay.com/wp-admin/post.php?action=edit&post=16514 [3] http://lezgetreal.com/2010/08/wyoming-gay-couple-con-exposed-by-lezgetreal/comment-page-1/

UPDATE: Crist's office emailed to say that he supports a ban on gay marriage in the Florida constitution, not in the US Constitution. His statement: "In an interview that aired today, I was not discussing an amendment to the U.S. Constitution banning same-sex marriage, which I do not support, but rather reaffirming my position regarding Florida's constitutional ban that I articulated while running for Governor. In fact, the interviewer's question reflected just that.  I am fully supportive of civil unions and will continue to be as a United States Senator, but believe marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman." U. S. Senate candidate - and Florida governor - Charlie Crist told CNN he supports a constitutional ban on gay marriage. Then he described himself as a "live and let live kind of guy" - when it comes to gay partners living together [1], according to The State. This is not the Florida state constitution we're talking about - it's the US Constitution. Crist, as you may have heard, is suspected to be gay and was outed in the Kirby Dick film Outrage. Full CNN quote: CRIST: I feel the same way, yes, because I feel that marriage is a sacred institution, if you will. But I do believe in tolerance. I'm a live and let live kind of guy, and while I feel that way about marriage, I think if partners want to have the opportunity to live together, I don't have a problem with that. And I think that's where most of America is. So I think that you know, you have to speak from the heart about these issues. They are very personal. They have a significant impact on an awful lot of people and the less the government is telling people what to do, the better off we're all going to be. But when it comes to marriage, I think it is a sacred institution. I believe it is between a man and woman, but partners living together, I don't have a problem with. [1] http://www.thestatecolumn.com/blog/2010/08/gov-charlie-crist-on-gay-marriage-and-stimulus-bill/

Gay marriage is steadily gaining Republican backing, says an article in the Washington Post, thanks to the support of people under 30 and (surprise!) the Tea Party movement. A February Washington Post poll said that 6 in 10 people under 30 support equal marriage rights for gays and lesbians. The Tea Party movement focuses more on the economy and less on social issues - and also has a strong streak of individualism. The shift is also clear in the chatter of Republican leaders, the Post said: "Beck, a tea party favorite, recently told fellow Fox talk show host Bill O'Reilly that gay marriage was not "a threat to the country" and that marriage is a religious, not a governmental, issue. A number of prominent Republicans have been more outspoken, stating that they support same-sex marriage rights. They include Meghan McCain, daughter of Sen. John McCain (Ariz.); "The View" commentator Elizabeth Hasselbeck; former first lady Laura Bush and former vice president Dick Cheney. Read the full Washington Post story on gay marriage [1]. [1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/27/AR2010082705614.html

[1] [2] [3] [4] “Make sure you get everything down.” Glenn Beck has taken the podium to begin his speech and I, dutiful reporter, start taking notes. Colleague Ali Davis [5] isn’t worried about my reporting skills. Turn to the right, look down, and standing next to me is Melinda from central Pennsylvania. The retired school teacher is staring, the tops of her glasses protected by the brim of a brown hat. A smart move for her considering her pale skin would fry under the Washington, DC sun. “I will,” I respond with a smile. She continues to stare, unsatisfied, but soon takes to Ali and me. Well more Ali actually. Melinda loves her some Beck. Even tells us about a book the Fox News host endorses (The 5000 Year Leap [6]). Says if she had three hours she could prove everything in the Bible is true. Almost took her up on the challenge. She shared everything. Nephews in prison, crime overtaking her town, children raped. These problems never existed when she was a child and they could all be removed if there were a return to God. Hers of course. Beck’s Saturday affair only makes sense if you are a certain kind of believer. It was a religious revival, filled with exhortations to return to something pure that has been lost or forgetten.   Such calls are always riddled with contradictions, as our history rarely is the Garden of Eden we make it. The novelist Cormac McCarthy elegantly makes the point in Blood Meridian [7]: “Men's memories are uncertain and the past that was differs little from the past that was not." Literary musings about the slipperiness of memory were nowhere to be found on Saturday. Beck’s speech (which strangely echoed the words spoken by Minister Louis Farrakhan at the Million Man March [8]) called for listeners to reach some higher ground when it comes to spiritual and political disagreements. Funny coming from a guy who suffers from Nazi Tourette syndrome [9].  We also had a long conversation with Tim from Tennessee.  We focused on everything (he’s convinced Obama is a socialist). We even got a small crowd and some attention from the police. They wanted to make sure they were not going to have to break up some brawl later on. Like Beck, Tim wants to return to some old time faith. This came out when the topic turned to gay marriage. “I have to follow the Bible. And it say it’s an abomination,” Tim offered. Yet he quickly turned on a dime and pointed to his wife (who had nothing to say during the entire conversation). According to Tim, she has been instrumental in his revaluation about gays and lesbians. Gay sexuality is a sin, but it’s no different from any other (including his sins). If he’s going to be a good Christian he can't be guided by hate. This was unexpected. Most of Beck's followers are not going to hit the streets for same-sex marriage, but the rancor against gays was minimal. Sure we got a few hard stares when people read 365Gay on our badges, but there was a willingness to engage about the rights of gay citizens, minus the vitirol offered by the Family Research Council. One even firmly placed herself as a gay ally. Ann is from Virginia, married to a husband who listens to Beck 24/7 (poor fellow). When a coworker told her he was gay she shrugged. “You were the same guy after you told me,” she said. A religious revival where gays and lesbians are not scapegoats? Even implicitly?  Never heard of that before. [1] http://www.365gay.com/wp-content/uploads/Glenn-Beck1-top.jpg [2] http://www.365gay.com/wp-content/uploads/Glenn-Beck2-top.jpg [3] http://www.365gay.com/wp-content/uploads/Glenn-Beck5-top.jpg [4] http://www.365gay.com/wp-content/uploads/IMG_0540.jpg [5] http://www.365gay.com/topics/news_politics/fear-and-learning-at-the-glenn-beck-rally/ [6] http://www.amazon.com/5000-Year-Leap-Original-Authorized/dp/0880801484 [7] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_Meridian [8] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Million_Man_March [9] http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-may-12-2010/back-in-black---glenn-beck-s-nazi-tourette-s

(San Francisco) A retired Presbyterian minister was found guilty of misconduct Friday by a church court for officiating the weddings of 16 gay couples when same-sex marriage was legal in California. A regional commission of the Presbyterian Church (USA) ruled 4-2 that the Rev. Jane Spahr of San Francisco "persisted in a pattern or practice of disobedience" by performing the weddings in 2008 before Proposition 8 banned the unions in the state. The church's highest court has held that Presbyterian ministers may bless same-sex unions as long as they do "not state, imply, or represent that a same-sex ceremony is a marriage." By willfully challenging that holding, Spahr broke her ordination vows, the commission said in its majority opinion. At the same time, however, the tribunal devoted most of its 2 1/2-page ruling to praising the 68-year-old pastor, a lesbian who founded a church group in the early 1990s for gay Presbyterians. Spahr was acknowledged "for her prophetic ministry" and "faithful compassion. The commissioners called on the broader church to use her example "to re-examine our own fear and ignorance." "In the reality in which we live today, marriage can be between same gender as well as opposite gender persons, and we, as a church, need to be able to respond to this reality as Dr. Jane Spahr has done with faithfulness and compassion," the ruling stated. The six-member commission representing 54 Northern California churches censured Spahr with a rebuke as punishment. Spahr said she was disappointed by the verdict and would appeal to a midlevel church court. "If you agree with me, then say yes," Spahr told The Associated Press. "It's like, 'Janie, we want this to happen and we affirm your ministry and we sustain the charges. The mixed message of that is the thing that people hear. We want the message of the Gospel, which is God's love is for all." The decision followed a three-day trial in which Spahr's lawyers argued that her actions were inspired by Presbyterian teachings on diversity and inclusion. It was the second time the regional Presbytery of the Redwoods convened a court to consider charges against Spahr for sanctioning same-sex relationships. In 2006, a church court composed of different members ruled that she had acted within her rights as an ordained minister when she married two lesbian couples in 2004 and 2005.

Former Memphis Tenn. Police officer Bridges McRae [1], who brutally attacked the late Duanna Johnson [2], was set to undergo a retrial for the excessive force charges in September. After his first trial in April resulted in a hung jury, McRae and his lawyers reached a plea bargain.  Facing 10 years in jail if convicted by a jury, McRae’s guilty plea leaves him with only a two-year sentence. Duanna Johnson Bridges McRae plead guilty to using excessive force against Duanna Johnson, a transgender woman, while booking her into the Shelby County Jail in June 2008 on a prostitution charge.  The incident began when McRae used derogatory comments to refer to Johnson while in police custody. The attack was caught on police surveillance cameras, McRae punched Johnson several times in the head while another officer held her shoulders back. McRae then spayed Johnson with mace when she attempted to defend herself. McRae was fired shortly after the incident.  Months after the brutality, Johnson was shot and killed in Memphis;her murder remains unsolved. [1] http://www.southfloridagaynews.com/news/national-news/306-transgender-bashing-cop.html [2] http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=5825

Props for Pennsylvania.  Earlier this week, PennDot and Equity Pennsylvania announced a settlement that makes it easier for people to change their gender on their driver’s license.  The Philadelphia Inquirer [1] reports that, now, Penn. residents can “change the gender on their licenses if they are living full-time in their new gender and it can be verified by a licensed medical or psychological caregiver.” Previously, proof of sexual reassignment surgery was needed to make the gender change.  Pennsylvaina is a large state most of which tends to fall on the conservative side, so this is defiantly a welcome step toward acceptance.  To learn more about small town living in Pennsylvania watch Out in Silence [2]. The blue Power Ranger reveals all.  For most of us who grew up in the 1990s, ‘The Mighty Morphing Power Rangers’ ruled our existence. The Japanese import was a huge franchise in the 90s, and actor David Yost [3] played Billy the Blue Ranger—a favorite among the multi-colored crime fighters—from 1993 to 1996. In a tell-all interview with “No Pink Spandex [4],” Yost revealed that he is gay. Even more shocking and disturbing than a gay man in blue spandex is Yost’s departure from the show: it was caused by homophobia on set.  [5] Yost said, "I was called 'f*ggot' one too many times [by the show's] creators, producers, writers, directors." After spending several years out of the limelight, Yost is again perusing an acting career. Johnny Weir reveals nothing.  26-year-old Olympic figure skater Johnny Weir spoke to ‘New York Magazine [6]’ about his “very specific philosophy about gay, straight, married, sex, partnership.” Weir refuses to speak explicitly about his own sexuality, and keeps us guessing with controversial acts.  He said, “I’m completely self-sufficient. I don’t need anyone for anything. I can have sex with myself, I can love myself, I can do all those things myself. The importance that people place on me not having another half even if it’s just for sex, it’s irrelevant to me. It’s very old-school. When you put people in boxes, you take away a lot of who that person is. How many gay men do we know who are completely straight-acting, who don’t even seem gay but they get classified in the same box as somebody who’s a drag queen? It’s void. It’s not real. I filled out my census form and I wrote down that I was a Pacific Islander because yes, I’m white, but why is that important? Why is anything important? You don’t need to have labels. I would marry a woman. I very well could. People laugh at me, but why is that so funny? I love women. My whole stance is that I just want people to react to who I am, I don’t want people to react to what I am.” [7] His interview cleared up nothing and I loved it.  Stay queer Jonny Weir. Family Research Council attacks Harry Reid.  The Family Research Council has released a television ad that targets Harry Reid [8] for pushing the repeal of ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’ Ameriblog’s Joe Sudbay reports his suspicions on FRC’s scare tactics, “My guess is that, given the timing, FRC's ad is not so much about the Senate campaign. It's more about trying to make Reid delay consideration of the Defense Authorization bill, which currently includes the DADT repeal legislation.” [9] Of course the ad fails to consider the thousands of gay and lesbian soldiers who have served in silence because of fear. [1] http://www.philly.com/inquirer/local/20100826_Transgender_rules_on_driver_s_licenses_changed.html [2] http://wpsu.org/outinthesilence [3] http://www.tmz.com/2010/08/26/blue-power-ranger-mighty-morphin-power-rangers-david-yost-gay-harassment-quit/ [4] http://www.cinemablend.com/television/Blue-Power-Ranger-David-Yost-Was-Driven-Off-The-Show-Because-He-s-Gay-26639.html [5] http://www.365gay.com/wp-content/uploads/news-blue-power-ranger-top.jpg [6] http://nymag.com/fashion/10/fall/67510/index1.html [7] http://www.365gay.com/wp-content/uploads/news-johnny-weir.jpg [8] http://gay.americablog.com/2010/08/family-research-council-has-really-bad.html [9] http://www.365gay.com/wp-content/uploads/news-FRC-harry-reid-top.jpg

With the Pentagon’s family survey now in the field, Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN), a national, legal services and policy organization dedicated to ending "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT), will release a letter each day this week from family members and spouses of former service members impacted by DADT.  As the Pentagon reaches out to 150,000 straight couples on how their lives are impacted, these letters will share the perspective of those forced to serve under this law alongside their loved ones. SLDN is urging supporters of repeal to call, write, and schedule in-district meetings with both their senators as the defense budget, which contains the repeal amendment, moves to the floor just weeks from now. www.sldn.org/action [1]. August 27, 2010   Hon. Jeh C. Johnson General Counsel, U.S. Department of Defense Co-Chair, Comprehensive Review Working Group   General Carter F. Ham Commanding General, U.S. Army Europe Co-Chair, Comprehensive Review Working Group     Dear Mr. Johnson and General Ham:   My name is Angela Trumbauer.  I am an Air Force enlisted veteran.  I was born and raised in a family of 8 children by my father, a retired Air Force officer (deceased 1979), and my widowed mother, a former Air Force officer, who just turned 78 years young this month.  I am married to a retired Air Force Senior Master Sergeant.  My stepson is an active-duty Air Force Technical Sergeant.  My brother is Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach, a highly decorated 19-year Air Force officer.  I hail from the “military family” in every sense.   Over Victor’s military career, our family had limited opportunities to see and spend time with him.  He came home to Ohio for visits once or twice a year, usually over the Thanksgiving or Christmas holidays.  I took my kids to visit him at his assigned Air Force Bases a few times over the years.  We prepared and sent him care packages when he was deployed to Iraq.  Vic sent me care packages when I was stationed in Greece years ago, while he was still a high school student.  Reflecting back, I never gave much thought to his short 2-3 day trips home or the seemingly strained nature of the visits.  All that changed in May, 2009, however, when my brother was forced to reach out and seek our family’s support in the most difficult battle of his life – fighting against his discharge under “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.”   The revelations that have come to light and emotions evoked throughout the past year have brought a great sense of loss and heartache to our family, not unlike that experienced in grief and death.  It saddened me deeply to realize that my single, younger brother could never enjoy a close personal relationship, free from fear of persecution or harassment, throughout his near 20-years serving.  His family back home was free to enjoy wonderful family relationships with their spouses and children, but Vic was never to experience that same freedom and privilege while in uniform.  I often wonder how alone or lonely he must have felt all those years, especially when he couldn’t even share his personal struggles with his very own family.    I recently took the opportunity to ask my brother who he would like us to notify in the event of an emergency or upon his death, after I realized he had no one else to confide in.   Most soldiers and airmen have a support system in place, where their spouses or immediate family members are aware of their dying wishes and will share urgent news or handle the appropriate notifications with those closest to their loved one.  In my brother’s case, I just figured the military would let us know if something happened to him and that no one else aside from his family members needed to be notified, since he was single and has no children.   Under “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell,” the Fehrenbach family has been robbed of truly knowing and loving our brother for who he is for nearly two decades.  He chose to serve in silence to protect his own family – the only family he can legally call his own – from potential exposure to investigation under DADT.  We can never get those years back.  Nor can we accept the damage to and destruction of our family’s long-standing military history that will result from Lt. Col. Fehrenbach’s discharge under this discriminatory and unjust law.  Our family legacy goes back generations, in which our father, mother, grandfathers, spouses, children, uncles and cousins have all answered the call to serve.   Despite all the suffering that Don’t Ask Don’t Tell has caused my brother and our family, we have reaped a benefit far greater than words can measure.   Since I’ve come to know and understand my brother’s true identity, and because he no longer has to hide any part of himself from me, our relationship has become much closer and deeper, where we laugh and share more than ever before.  Vic can now be completely open and honest with me – an element that was clearly missing in our lives and relationship in the past.  I can’t express the immense pleasure I’ve experienced in getting to know my baby brother  --- “Uncle Baldy” as some of our 17 nieces and nephews call him.    In light of the infinite family gains that the repeal of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” will yield, I sincerely believe that allowing open service is necessary, right, and just in every sense.  Each and every service member deserves the FULL love and support of their family and friends, without fear of persecution, discrimination and harassment.  A strong sense of support and love is essential for our troops at all times.  It only stands to reason that overall military performance is enhanced and the resolve to accomplish the mission is strengthened by complete and unhindered family bonds.     Sincerely,   Angela Trumbauer [1] http://www.sldn.org/action

Q: Here's the deal: While I was on vacation this summer, I met this guy on the beach. That night, we bumped into each other at the local bar, had a couple of drinks, went back to his place and had great sex. Period. End of story. Or so I thought.  As I was leaving, he asked me for my number so that we could "get together again." I thought he understood this was a one-night stand. I just said, "I'll see you when I see you." I felt like I didn¹t handle the situation properly, but did I do anything wrong? A: Not really, no. It just sounds like one or both of you could have been more explicit ahead of time. But it's a tricky situation. Unless you're having sex at a club or in a backroom, it's easy to misunderstand what another person's intentions are. Then, in the throes of passion, it may not feel quite right to say, "I only want to have sex with you and then you've got to go."  But what about saying something direct like this before your clothes are shed: "I need to be asleep in an hour because my roommate will be back from dancing" or even,  "I'm just looking for a quickie tonight." If he's looking for something more than a quick hook-up, he'll know to look elsewhere.  Once the deed is done, it's wise to avoid getting into a lot of post-coital chitchat since that could lead your guest to think you're extending his invitation. Instead, offer him a glass of water, the use of the bathroom, and then start to tidy up.  If he's not taking the hint, you could say after a short while: "Hey, thanks for coming over."  That's definitely a cue that it's time to exit. As for guests, be sure not overstay your welcome and when you leave, be sure to take all your belongings. A non-committal goodbye sounds like, "That was fun," with a parting hug.  And if your guest expresses interest in getting together again (as yours did), be gentle and say: "Sorry, I'm not looking to date right now."  Of course, if you've changed your mind, exchange cell numbers - or invite him to stay for breakfast.  And remember, what happens on the beach, stays on the beach. [How do you make sure you're on the same page before you have a sex hook-up? What problems have you encountered? Let me know in the comments.] Steven Petrow can be found online at www.gaymanners.com [1].  He's the author of "The Essential Guide to Gay Manners & Etiquette"  and blogs regularly on Huffington Post. [1] http://www.gaymanners.com/

(Washington) Glenn Beck's rally on the anniversary and at the site of Martin Luther King Jr.'s famous "I Have a Dream" speech is drawing criticism, protests and questions about his intentions. Beck insists the event Saturday at the Lincoln Memorial is not about politics, even though Beck and former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, a potential 2012 presidential candidate, will attend. But the rally is drawing a strong reaction - and several counter-rallies - as the nation looks toward November's elections. Beck, a popular figure among tea party activists and a polarizing Fox News Channel personality, has said it is merely a coincidence that the event is taking place on the 47th anniversary of King's plea for racial equality. Beck has called President Barack Obama a racist. The event's website says the "Restoring Honor" rally is to pay tribute to America's military personnel and others "who embody our nation's founding principles of integrity, truth and honor." It urges citizens to attend and "help us restore the values that founded this great nation." "This is going to be an iconic event," Beck says. "This is going to be a moment that you'll never be able to paint people as haters, racists, none of it. This is a moment, quite honestly, that I think we reclaim the civil rights movement. It has been so distorted and so turned upside down. It is an abomination." The rally also is to promote the Special Operations Warrior Foundation, which provides scholarships and services to family members of military members. Beck's critics dismissed his claims that the event will not be political. "When we heard about Glenn Beck, it was puzzling," the Rev. Al Sharpton said. "Because if you read Dr. King's speech, it just doesn't gel with what Mr. Beck or Mrs. Palin are representing." Beck has called Obama "a guy who has a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture." "I'm not saying he doesn't like white people. I'm saying he has a problem," Beck said. "This guy is, I believe, a racist." Palin has defended radio personality Laura Schlessinger, who announced this month she was ending her "Dr. Laura" program after using a racial epithet repeatedly on the air during a discussion with a caller about racism. Schlessinger later apologized but said her free speech rights were being violated by those urging station affiliates and sponsors to drop her program. "Dr.Laura:don't retreat...reload!" Palin tweeted. She called Dr. Laura "even more powerful & effective w/out the shackles, so watch out Constitutional obstructionists. And b thankful 4 her voice,America!" "The 8-28 rally is supposedly is about 'reclaiming the civil rights movement,' but it is being led by someone whose idea of a racist is the president of the United States," said Jess Levin, a spokesman for the liberal Media Matters for America, an organization that has targeted Beck, Fox News Channel and Schlessinger. "This rally is about one thing and one thing only. And that's promoting Beck's political agenda." Elsewhere in Washington, civil rights activists planned to mark Saturday's anniversary of the landmark 1963 speech with rallies and demonstrations, some ending on the National Mall. One group planned a four-story sculpture in honor of King near the Washington Monument. Others planned to meet at a Washington school. Sharpton's National Action Network plans a "Reclaim the Dream" rally that will feature Education Secretary Arne Duncan, National Urban League president Marc Morial and Martin Luther King III. In an opinion piece for The Washington Post, King said of Beck's event that it's "commendable that this rally will honor the brave men and women of our armed forces who serve our country with phenomenal dedication." But he also said it was clear the organizers were invoking his father's work. "My father championed free speech. He would be the first to say that those participating in Beck's rally have the right to express their views," King wrote Wednesday. "But his dream rejected hateful rhetoric and all forms of bigotry or discrimination, whether directed at race, faith, nationality, sexual orientation or political beliefs." Organizers of Saturday's rally advise attendees not to bring signs, "as they may deter from the peaceful message we are bringing to Washington." Signs at some tea party events have included pictures of Obama embellished with a Hitler-style mustache, racial epithets and threats to Democratic officials. They gave tea party critics grounds to claim the loose organization of activists was motivated by racism against the nation's first black president. "Dr. King never had to ask anyone to leave their signs and guns at home," said Benjamin Todd Jealous, president of the NAACP. "To say to your followers, don't bring your signs - it's like saying don't open your mouth." In the 47 years since King's speech, it has become a staple of civil rights history. "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character," he said on Aug. 28, 1963. On Wednesday, Beck again sought to play down comparisons to the slain civil rights leader. "I know that people are going to hammer because they're going to say, 'It's no Martin Luther King speech,'" Beck told his radio listeners on Wednesday. "Of course it's not Martin Luther King. You think I'm Martin Luther King?" Civil rights leaders, too, hoped Beck wouldn't exploit the King legacy at the spot. But the imagery - a packed lawn listening to a speaker standing in the shadow of Lincoln - was certain to draw comparisons. "I hope that's not what he's trying to do. I hope that this is a coincidence," Jealous said. "But more than anything, I hope that he, having chosen this day and this locations, pushes himself to really honor the unifying legacy of Dr. King."

 In some circles, Ken Mehlman’s coming out as gay [1]this week was about as shocking as Rosie O’Donnell’s coming out in 2002, or Ricky Martin’s coming out earlier this year. Others were quite surprised. Still others asked, “Who’s Ken Mehlman?” Answer: Ken Mehlman is, according to the Atlantic piece that broke the story [2], “the most powerful Republican in history to identify as gay.” He’s the former chair of the Republican National Committee, and he was George W. Bush’s campaign manager in 2004. Which means that Mehlman, 43, has spent a good chunk of his adult life contributing to a party and to campaigns that engaged in explicit gay-baiting. Recall that during the November 2004 presidential election, anti-gay marriage amendments passed in 11 states—part of Karl Rove’s strategy to draw out conservative evangelical voters.  Does Mehlman regret his role in all that?  Sort of, it seems. The Atlantic piece claims that Mehlman tried to scale back the marriage-equality attacks in “private discussions” with senior Republicans, and that he acknowledges that his coming out sooner might have mitigated some of his party’s homophobia.  But the quotations from Mehlman suggest that he doesn’t fully grasp his complicity. From the Atlantic piece:  "What I do regret, and think a lot about, is that one of the things I talked a lot about in politics was how I tried to expand the party into neighborhoods where the message wasn't always heard. I didn't do this in the gay community at all."  He said that he "really wished" he had come to terms with his sexual orientation earlier, "so I could have worked against [the Federal Marriage Amendment]" and "reached out to the gay community in the way I reached out to African Americans."  Here, Mehlman sounds at least as concerned (or more) about his failure to educate gays about Republican values as he does about his failure to educate Republicans (including himself) about gays.  In the interview, Mehlman also claims that former President Bush is “no homophobe,” which is true if by homophobe you mean someone viscerally uncomfortable with gay people. I lived in Austin when Bush was Texas Governor, and I knew people who knew him well. Gays were part of the Bushes’ social circle for years.  But homophobia doesn’t always come with open disgust, any more than racism always comes with hoods and pitchforks. Publicly, Bush, Rove, and Mehlman treated homosexuality as at best unspeakable, and at worst a threat to family and civilization. In doing so, they perpetuated the notion that gayness is a dirty little secret, something shameful and unholy.  Such homophobia is far more insidious—its damage far more pervasive—than any “God Hates Fags” rally. As someone who has experienced the closet firsthand, Mehlman ought now to understand that.  The reason that LGBT people are angry at Mehlman is that he was a key player in an organization that fostered and exploited such homophobia. The Republican party’s gay-baiting in 2004 didn’t just lead to a wave of discriminatory amendments: it also drove countless LGBT youth into the shaming closet that Mehlman is now gratefully escaping.  That’s what I want to see front and center on his regret list.  Which doesn’t mean I’m going to join the pile-on of those who say that there’s absolutely nothing that Mehlman could ever do to redeem himself. Quite the contrary.  Mehlman can’t change his past; no one can.  But if we want people to make better choices in the future, we hardly encourage their reform by telling them that they’re beyond redemption—as various bloggers have suggested regarding Mehlman.  Mehlman could easily have spent his life, as do many closeted Republicans (and Democrats, and Independents), covertly seeking romance with people who either don’t know or don’t care about his past. He has plenty of money; he could have afforded a nice closet.  By coming out in The Atlantic he has rejected that path. Good for him.  Instead, he wants to devote his energy to the fight for marriage rights. He has become actively involved in the American Foundation for Equal Rights, which is working to overturn California’s Prop. 8. His professional history puts him in a unique position to reach out to Republicans and others traditionally opposed to marriage equality.  If he continues these efforts—if he uses his strategic know-how to win political battles for equality, if he goes behind “enemy lines” to fight the homophobia that his party so deftly exploited, if he works to dismantle the crippling shame of the closet—then he should be congratulated, not shunned.  It won’t erase his past. But it’s a start at a much better future. I wish him well. John Corvino, Ph.D. is an author, speaker, and philosophy professor at Wayne State University in Detroit. His column “The Gay Moralist” appears Fridays at 365gay.com.  To learn more about John or see clips from his DVD, visit www.johncorvino.com. [1] http://www.365gay.com/news/former-rnc-chair-ken-mehlman-is-coming-out/ [2] http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/08/bush-campaign-chief-and-former-rnc-chair-ken-mehlman-im-gay/62065/