Today is Pride is Los Angeles. BoifromTroy photoblogged the event while yours truly stayed home and took it easy. I think this is the first time in a decade that I have been in town for my local Pride festival and decided to bypass the event. In the past, I have marched in a few parades and visited the festivals, learning about the various groups at their booths, hobnobbing with friends, checking out the cute guys. 🙂
This year, well, I wasn’t in the mood for crowds.
I think the purpose of Pride has changed since the first parades of the 1970s. Back then it was a chance for gay people to be more visible. They called it “Pride” to counter the sense that, having not been open about our difference, we were ashamed of our sexuality. Today, as gay people becoming increasingly visible, it’s beginning to seem that “Pride” is passé. Pride now seems to be merely the name of the gay & lesbian street festival where people gather to have a good time one spring weekend.
I’ve always wondered about term “Pride.” I mean, I’m not proud to be gay. Nor am I ashamed to be gay. I just am gay. And maybe “Pride” is just be becoming a June celebration this one aspect of ourselves just as other groups have their spring and summer festivals to celebrate their ethnic background or their hobbies, passions or other interests.

The headline of the Human Rights Campaign‘s (HRC) press release on Monday borrows from a headline on this blog nine days previously. On Monday, June 6, 2005, HRC wrote, “NEW HRC REPORT REVEALS CORPORATE AMERICA LEADING IN PROTECTING GAY AND TRANSGENDER EMPLOYEES” while on Saturday, May 28, I had headlined a post, “Private sector leads the way in offering benefits to gays.”
It seems both HRC and this blog recognize the superiority of the private sector. According to HRC’s new report, The State of the Workplace for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Americans 2004 (download available here), at least 8,250 employers provide domestic partnership benefits while 216 of the Fortune 500 companies provide domestic partner benefits, “a tenfold increase since 1995, when only 21 did so.”
The Washington Post reports that HRC president Joe Solmonese said, “As we suspected, corporate America is well ahead of America generally in terms of extending basic rights to all people.” In addition, 410 companies in the Fortune 500 (82%) have added sexual orientation to their non-discrimination policies by the end of 2004.
[Read more…]

In a previous post, I noted that, as his nation prepared to vote on a referendum recognizing same-sex unions, a Swiss blogger wrote that the “change of attitude regarding gays and lesbians in the western world is quite extraordinary.” I became aware yet again of how extraordinary that change is when I read yesterday in the LA Times of the death at 57 of Jean O’Leary, “a pioneering lesbian activist.” When an activist described as “pioneering” dies at such a young age, we see how quickly attitudes have changed.
Not only was she the first openly gay delegate to a national party convention, the Democratic National Convention in 1976, but the following year, she was also the firstly openly gay appointee to a presidential commission. Today, barely thirty years later, there have been numerous openly gay delegates at both parties’ conventions. And presidents of both parties have appointed openly gay individuals to commissions as well as other positions of responsibility in the federal government.
It is always sad when someone dies, particularly someone as young as Ms. O’Leary. I did not know her, but reading about her here and here, sense that her activism helped pave the way for the social transformation which has made life easier for all of us. And while I may not share her politics, I do acknowledge her groundbreaking work — as well as that of many others like her on the left.
We have seen many changes for the better since Jean O’Leary organized Lesbian Feminist Liberation in 1973. As we mourn her loss, we are grateful that she had the courage to speak out when it really did take courage to speak out as a lesbian (or gay man for that matter). Let that courage be an inspiration to us all–the legacy of this pioneering activist.

Two recent HRC press releases show why it is better to trust the private sector than to rely on government to promote policies which benefit gay people. In releases on Wednesday, HRC noted (yet again) the growing number of companies adopting non-discrimination policies and celebrated the end of American Family Association’s boycott of Disney while noting that over 8,000 American employers offer benefits to same-sex partners of their employees.
ExxonMobil shareholders gave what HRC called “record support” to “a shareholder resolution to amend the company’s written equal employment opportunity policy to include the category of sexual orientation.” While HRC indicates that 29.4 percent of shares “were voted in favor of the policy,” HRC doesn’t indicate how many voted against.
It appears however, that this resolution is not binding on the corporation. ExxonMobil is the only Fortune 50 company not to include sexual orientation in its primary non-discrimination policy.” And therein lies the real good news about the private sector. 49 of the 50 largest companies in America have adopted policies protecting gay and lesbian employees from discrimination. HRC notes further that “414 companies in the Fortune 500 — or 83 percent — include sexual orientation in their non-discrimination policies.”
[Read more…]

While my French friend (whom I shall heretofore call “Pierre” though that is not his real name) came to visit me this past weekend, his boyfriend (also French whom I shall call “Jean-Paul” though that is not his real name) joined him. I had not previously met Jean-Paul. While it was tough accommodating guests in my small apartment, it was great having them here, not only for their company, but, well, when you have guests in LA, you do things that you keep promising yourself to do, but keep putting off because since you live in LA, it’s a hassle to get to Disneyland and it’ll still be there next week and the beach isn’t going away.
This weekend, I finally made it to Disneyland. While at this fun theme park, Jean-Paul and Pierre often walked (and conducted themselves) as lovers do, holding hands, walking with their arms around each other and even kissing in line.
It didn’t occur to me until we were in line at the Alice-in-Wonderland ride where most of the other people waiting were families with young children that, well, some people might not “approve” of such public displays of affection. But, no one said anything. One woman did roll her eyes and look away.
[Read more…]

Was just about to go to bed when I followed Glenn Reynolds‘ link to this excellent piece on politically correct attitudes toward gay-bashing by Cathy Young. Read the whole thing and, now that my guests have departed, I may have more to say on it later.

In a piece posted Friday on National Review Online, the Family Research Council‘s Jayd Henricks finds it significant that “Homosexual groups frequently advertise pro-abortion events on their websites and publications, and abortion groups often support activities promoting homosexual causes.” I find it significant that he uses the word “homosexual” to describe gay men and lesbians. It shows that he sees us only in a sexual light. He can’t bring himself to understand that maybe gay men and lesbians seek some of the same things social conservatives seek, including long-term monogamous relationships. Only we seek such relationships with individuals of the same-sex while he (and most people) seek relationships with individuals of the opposite sex.
Henricks makes much of HRC‘s appointment of former EMILY’s List CEO Joe Solmonese as its new president as EMILY’s list, a PAC whose purpose is to elect (as he puts it) “women abortion advocates to public office.” He asks why this “unlikely coalition” between “a population that by definition does not procreate” and groups which advocate “the ‘right’ to end a pregnancy” came together. Without apparently talking to any “homosexuals,” Mr. Henricks answers his own question: “Homosexuals are often strong advocates of abortion not because they need access to it but because homosexual activists are driven by the same philosophy that drives abortion rights: sex without restrictions or consequences.” No wonder he has to call us homosexuals. He thinks the only thing driving us is the pursuit of sex.
Indeed, he believe it’s “critical to recognize the ideology of absolute sexual license that drives and unites abortion and same-sex-marriage advocates.” Whoah! Now, I have faulted same-sex-marraige advocates for not talking about marriage as most Americans talk about the institution, for failing to use “such words as ‘values,’ ‘commitment’ and ‘responsibility.’” I have said repeatedly that we need to talk about monogamy an essential aspect of marriage (here for example). But, when Mr. Henricks claims same-sex-marriage advocates favor “absolute sexual license,” he becomes like Frank Rich writing about conservatives, defining his ideological adversaries by the opinions and prejudices of his ideological allies.
[Read more…]

In the wake of last fall’s election when no national gay group endorsed the victor of the presidential election, when voters in eleven states approved referenda defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman, it would seem that gay leaders would be re-evaluating their organizations’ strategies. They would hold conferences to ask where they went wrong. Some leaders would resign, others would be fired. Fresh blood would be brought in. The new leaders would offer conciliatory gestures to the political party which strengthened its majority in our nation’s capital.
Yes, two gay leaders, GLAAD‘s John Garry and HRC‘s Cheryl Jacques have since left their jobs, but they left not because of policy differences, but for other reasons. It doesn’t seem that the elections of 2004 have changed anything for national gay organizations. Gay leaders continue to lash out at the president and the GOP. And they have not yet come up with a new strategy to present gay concerns to the American people.
Nothing manifests this more than NGLTF Executive Director Matt Foreman’s statement released this past week, included in the Task Force’s latest newsletter (which you can download here). He accuses those who say gay leaders need to take responsibility for last fall’s defeats as having a “blame-the-victim mentality.” Mr. Foreman got it exactly wrong. They’re not blaming the victim; they’re criticizing the strategy.
As Another Gay Republican put it so eloquently in his comment to my first post on Foreman’s letter, “Our political strategies, with minor exception, have failed spectacularly, and to say that we shouldn’t be re-evaluating those strategies and looking for ways to convice people of the rightness or morality of our cause seems outright stupid.” Exactly. Since initiatives that gay leaders opposed passed in a number of states last fall, those whom Mr. Foreman mocks are saying that gay leaders need to find new means to make their case.
[Read more…]

Because I once (as a favor to a friend) attended a fundraiser for the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF), I now regularly receive their e-mails. (If NGLTF is like HRC, they would consider me a member.) Yesterday, NGLTF sent out a Statement from its Executive Director, Matt Foreman (which appears in their Winter/Spring 2005 newsletter which you can download here).
What struck me about Foreman’s statement was not merely his angry tone, but also his claim that “it is not our job or burden to show straight people that we can be good neighbors, good parents, that gee whiz, we’re people too.” (The text in the newsletter differs slightly from that in the e-mail; I’m quoting from the newsletter.) He does want us to talk to straight people, but he seems to think that the burden of changing minds should fall onto sympathetic straights.
I disagree. It is very much our job to show straight people what kind of people we are. For one of the few times in history, gay and lesbian people are moving from the margins of society into the mainstream of society. And many well-meaning straight people don’t know yet what to make of us.
As we move into the mainstream, we must confront stereotypes which are usually wrong and often ugly. When I was involved in the Arlington (Virginia) GOP, I frequently encountered Republicans who claimed never to have talked to a gay person before. Many were surprised to learn that I sought the same things in life that they did, including a long-term monogamous relationship with one person.
Perhaps, it is too burdensome to Mr. Foreman, but the only way we can change the negative anti-gay attitudes is to make it our burden to show straight people that, by most measures, our lives are pretty much the same as theirs. If Mr. Foreman is loath to work to change societal attitudes towards gay people, what is he doing heading a gay advocacy organization?
[Read more…]

With new allegations surfacing that he offered jobs to young men he met in Internet chat rooms, Spokane Mayor Jim West announced yesterday that “he is taking a leave from office to give himself a few weeks to gather his thoughts and prepare a defense against ‘false accusations leveled against me.”
The FBI is now investigating “allegations that Spokane Mayor Jim West abused his office by offering jobs to young men he hoped to entice into sexual relationships.” The Spokane City Attorney is also investigating “West’s internship program and his use of city computers for personal business.”
West has asked that people reserve judgment on him until (as he puts it) “the newspaper is done persecuting me” and after he has had “the fair opportunity to respond to each of the allegations.”
[Read more…]

In its Mission Statement, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) claims to be “America’s largest gay and lesbian organization.” Thus, many have turned to this D.C.-based group as the voice of the gay community. But, now that we know that HRC’s has inflated its membership, we need to ask, who, if anyone, really speaks for gays?
Ted at Charging Rhino is right that HRC’s new President Joe Solmonese needs to come clean and release an accurate tally of its membership. But no matter how big that number, we can now say for certain that while HRC speaks for a large number of gays, the very fact that it fudges its numbers indicates that its base is not as large as its leaders, present and past, would like it to be.
I don’t think anybody really speaks for all gays. We do not have a leader, nor do I think we need one, to whom a majority of gay and lesbian Americans turn to for inspiration, leadership and ideas. Yet, there are a variety of gay and lesbian individuals and groups to whom many of us look for these qualities. For some, it’s Larry Kramer. Andrew Sullivan has a substantial following. A number of us get inspiration from entertainers Ellen. While others turn to organizations, including HRC. A few even turn to Log Cabin.
[Read more…]

A few months ago, maybe a year, perhaps more, a college classmate e-mailed the gay and lesbian alumni of our alma mater about his Ph. D. dissertation, research on gay models and, as I recall, their effect on the coming out process. While I was delighted that he would be doing such important research, his topic struck a nerve. It reminded me of one of the greatest difficulties I had coming out.
In high school, I met a man whom I would later learn was gay. He was an arrogant self-centered man who looked down on heterosexual couples and even belittled gay men not as “cultured” as he. He did not take advantage of me sexually, yet his very presence in my life complicated the coming-out process.
This man came to mind this weekend when, on Saturday morning, instead of facing some difficult emotions I alluded to below, I attempted to escape them. Finally, I pulled myself together in the evening and ended up, on the invitation of an acquaintance, going to Trunks, a gay bar in the heart of West Hollywood.
I’m not one to frequent gay bars (or any bars for that matter). Often I claim it’s the loud music and the attitude of many of the patrons. But, I wondered Saturday night, if I have often avoided bars because, when I was in my early 20s, that man, the only older gay man I then knew, scoffed at the mere mention of gay bars. He had never been to one; he didn’t much care for the “types” who went there.
[Read more…]

Two readers e-mailed me this morning to note this post and this “WASHINGTON BLADE” article) pointing out that the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) has fudged its membership numbers. HRC has claimed that its membership shot up from 20,000 in 1990 to 650,000 today. But, according to “THE BLADE,” that’s because

HRC membership numbers include the name of every person who has ever once given at least the minimum amount — currently $1 — and provided an address, said spokesperson Steven Fisher this week.
“The GLBT movement is unique. When we come out of the closet, we commit for life,” said Fisher, defending the membership count.
“We’re an advocacy organization and our intent is to be inclusive of everyone and never let our members go uncounted or be invisible,” he said.

Give me a break, Steven. You’re including far more than is your due. Just because someone comes out of the closet and joins an advocacy organization doesn’t mean that individual continues to support the advocacy organization even if he or she becomes increasingly open about his or her sexuality.
I joined Log Cabin in the 1990s, yet left when I no longer felt the organization spoke for me. Under HRC’s “inclusive” standard, LCR would still claim me as a member.
[Read more…]

I was delighted to note just a moment ago that Dirty Harry, one of my favorite bloggers (and a conservative), called it a “dumb thing” when Gerald Allen, an Alabama Republican lawmaker, proposed censoring books by gay authors. Dirty Harry links to JunkYardBlog, another conservative blog which also called the proposed censorship “dumb.”
Fortunately, this legislator’s bill failed. JunkYardBlog is right to fault him for proposing such sweeping legislation. But, he goes on to say that this “didn’t happen in a vacuum,” suggesting that Allen is likely responding to “the long train of advocacy dressed up as education that has been going in public schools for most of the past generation.”
I recommend JunkYard’s post, especially for critics of this blog, not because I think he’s right, but because he raises a point that many conservatives–and just social conservatives–have been bringing up time and again. They fear that liberal educators are trying to push an advocacy agenda on schoolchildren. And sometimes with solid evidence.
I’m of two minds on the issue. While I would like children to be exposed to positive portrayals of gay people, I also believe in local control of education which, in many cases, would mean that some schools boards would prevent even high schools from offering such positive portrayals.
JunkYard is right that “reasonable limits on the availability of objectionable material should be expected” in school libraries. The problem here is who gets to define what’s reasonable.
-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com

When I first heard of the “controversy” ovwe Microsoft’s stand on “gay rights,” I immediately assumed the company, one of the first companies to extend benefits to gay employees was cutting or eliminating these benefits. After all, some gay rights’ activists felt Microsoft “betrayed” them. One gay group even asked Microsoft to return an award it had given the company four years ago. Using such strong language, it seemed activists were concerned that Microsoft was no longer treating its employees fairly.
But, this company had not, as I initially feared, changed any of its internal policies regarding gay employees, it had merely withdrawn its support for “a [Washington] state bill that would have barred discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.” Some activists contend that Microsoft withdrew its support for the bill because of pressure from social conservatives. Ken Hutchinson, “pastor of Antioch Bible Church, who has organized several rallies against gay marriage in Washington State and Washington, D.C., said he had threatened in those meetings [with Microsoft executives] to organize a national boycott of Microsoft products.”
Last week, the bill failed by one vote to clear the state Senate.
Microsoft’s own explanation makes more sense to me (a Microsoft shareholder):

They simply examined their legislative priorities and decided that because they already offer extensive benefits to gay employees and that King County, where Microsoft is located, already prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, with a law as stringent as what the state bill proposed, they were focusing on other legislative matters.

It thus seems natural to me that a corporation would want to narrow its legislative focus to “a shorter list of issues,” to put great emphasis on bills which more directly concern the corporation.
[Read more…]

When former President Clinton referred to an openly gay Republican political consultant as “self-loathing,” he merely repeated a term used so often by the left to describe gay conservatives that it has become a clich?. Some may use the term “self-hating,” but few who do have any real psychological insight into the gay men and lesbians they are attempting to describe. These name-callers lack the imagination to understand individuals whose political beliefs (at least on the surface) don’t seem to correspond to their sexual orientation.
So often do those on the left brand us gay conservatives “self-loathing” that it seems to be the “default” reaction of liberals to a gay person who does not fit into the liberal view of what a gay person should be. In reality, all they’re doing is fixing a label on something they refuse to understand.
In my life, I have met a number of people who have struck me as “self-loathing.” And a few of them have been gays on the right. One man lived with his boyfriend, yet went out of his way to socialize with social conservatives, some of whom repeatedly bashed gays–even in his presence. This man was, however, one of the few conservative gays who appeared (to me at least) to be self-hating. Others who struck me as self-hating, including many gays, did not share his (or my) basic political philosophy. A number indeed were very liberal (often vocally so) in their politics.
[Read more…]

In 1989, the year I moved to Washington to look for a political job, I had, after just over a year “out of the closet,” gone back in. In the short period when I initially accepted my homosexuality, I did not meet a single gay person who believed same-sex relationships where possible. It was all about the quick hook-up with no possibility of an enduring connection. I felt more out of place in the gay world than I had in the Republican world which I had left shortly before graduating from college a few years earlier.
In D.C., as I looked for a job in the first Bush White House and in various Republican and conservative organizations, I was petrified that someone might find out I had recently lived openly as a gay man in Paris.
As part of my networking, a former colleague introduced me to a woman a few years my senior then working at the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) where I had interned in college. This woman invited me to a party where I met a lanky, energetic man, Greg Stevens. Somehow I knew he was gay. And while I was trying to convince myself that I would one day end up with a woman, I wanted Greg to know about my “secret.” I never said anything to him. I did run into him a couple of times when I was over at HUD, but lost touch when I landed a job downtown.
Over the years, as I heard his name, I wondered how I could reconnect with him. When I did come out, his name came up once at a gathering of gay Republicans, but I can no longer remember in what context. I’m sure I asked about his sexuality, just don’t recall the response I got.
This morning, chills ran down my spine when I read this piece in the New York Times about his death in Carrie Fisher’s Hollywood home. (Hat tip to David Ehrenstein for alerting me to the article). The Times identified him as gay, confirming my sense back in 1989. My first thought was, would Greg still be alive had I, back in 1989, had the guts to approach him with my “secret.”
[Read more…]

The thing that struck me the most about the Unity Statement this past January of 22 gay groups was its absence of vision, its failure to get beyond policy prescriptions and address the ultimate goal of the gay movement. Like so many documents coming out of Washington, D.C., it was long on self-congratulation and stock phrases, but short on what the president’s father once called “the vision thing.”
Too many gay activists and leaders, it seems, have failed to ask themselves what they, through their activism and lobbying, ultimately seek to accomplish. They focus too much on passing this or that piece of legislation, securing this or that “right,” pushing for “equality” and “fairness,” yet, in the end, they rarely articulate what all these things mean in our lives today.
To be sure, it’s not all that easy to articulate that vision. When I attempt to do so, I find myself telling stories rather than outlining a list of specific goals. I respond that what we seek is what I experienced just over six years ago, the first time I brought a date home for Thanksgiving. My family treated this man as they would the different-sex schweetie (i.e., significant other) of any one of my (straight) siblings. My Dad recognized him in his toast at dinner, welcoming him into the family.
A few weeks later, this man invited me to his office’s holiday dinner where I received a welcome similar to that he received in my family.
The stories seem to articulate the better part of our “ultimate goal,” that our families, our friends, our professional colleagues include our “schweeties” with us in their lives. Add into a few other things, such as state recognition of our unions, repeal of the Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell (DADT) policy and general acceptance of the normality of homosexuality and you pretty much have it.
[Read more…]

The Connecticut House has passed a civil unions bill, but with a gratuitous provision defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The Republican governor has said that should this bill clear the Senate, she will sign in.
The Oregon Supreme Court nullified nearly 3,000 marriage licenses issued to same-sex couples by Multonah County, holding that the both state law and the state constitution had limited marriage to opposite sex couples. The Democratic governor said he would push for a law recognizing same-sex civil unions.
Several readers, including Eva Young, have e-mailed me that Paul Koering, a Republican State Senator in Minnesota, came out as gay and voted against putting a state constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman (and ruling out same-sex civil unions) on the ballot. Eva notes that the reaction to his coming out has been generally supportive, though a handful of Republicans are not pleased.
And on this tax day, Log Cabin follows up its praise yesterday of the vote in the U.S. House to repeal the Death Tax with a release calling for comprehensive tax reform, pointing out that the “current tax system severely disadvantages gay and lesbian familes.”
In general, it seems that things are looking up for gay people, but with a few dark clouds on the horizon. Hopefully, once I file my taxes, I’ll be able to resume regular blogging and comment on these developments at length.

It seems everyone wants me to blog on Bill Clinton’s latest attack on a Republican. This time, the former has accused an openly gay GOP campaign consultant of being “self-loathing.” Two people mentioned it in comments to my last post. A guy I’ve been dating e-mailed me the same link that a reader sent me. A couple people commenting to my last post were eager to hear my thoughts. Naturally, I was flattered by the interest in my ideas. 🙂
So, instead of giving my brain a rest after much studying, writing and reading, I’ll share my thoughts with you. Once again, we see Clinton returning to his basic campaign tactic, what I call, the “reverse-offense defense,” where he attacks those who criticize him. As he recycles his old standard, I am reminded of the words Ronald Reagan used in his debate with Jimmy Carter in 1980. “There you go again.” There Bill goes again, taking the low road. Engaging in invective instead of answering the charges.
Except in his case, no charges have yet been leveled against his wife. All that’s happened is after marrying his longtime partner in Massachusetts, political consultant Arthur Finkelstein has launched the “Stop Her Now” campaign, a “527” advocacy group (like those which raised millions to defeat our man W), reportedly raising $10 to prevent Hillary Clinton’s reelection to the U.S. Senate. Perhaps, the former president should note that his wife, the Senator Finkelstein is working to defeat, opposes gay marriage.
It’s comedic watching Clinton — of all people — tar a gay man as self-loathing, Clinton who made promises to gay people as a candidate that he didn’t keep as president because keeping them would have hurt him politically. Will any gay group criticize this man for calling an openly gay man self-loathing?
Well, one has. Log Cabin Political Director Chris Barron shows how this Democrat has always put politics ahead of gay interests, noting that Clinton is

the same President who signed the Defense of Marriage Act, implemented the military’s discriminatory ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy, and encouraged John Kerry to support anti-gay state Constitutional amendments, thinks he has any credibility passing judgment on the life of Arthur Finkelstein or any other gay and lesbian American.

To think that some gay activists see this man as a hero is beyond me.
[Read more…]