Will Obama Let the Gays Marry? Heads or Tails He Loses, Says Times

Well, it’s pretty obvious that the New York Times is enjoying bringing the gay marriage issue to the political front-burner on Day 51 of President Obama’s already-exhausting term. You know, there have been some moments since the president’s inauguration that I’ve been sure the United States was undergoing some kind of political Groundhog Day back to the Clinton years, except this time the hot topic isn’t gays in the military, which was and still remains a slam-dunk issue as far as I’m concerned. (Here’s a great piece from the Huffington Post, by the way, on how Argentina and Israel, among other countries, are more intellectually and morally enlightened than America on this issue.) Frankly, anyone who doesn’t understand why “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is a horrid rule should have the word “homophobe” tattooed on their face and start acting like Mike Tyson on a really bad day. Yes, I realize that’s redundant.

Anyway, in the Times’ story today, the situation is really spelled out that awaits the president:

Just seven weeks into office, President Obama is being forced to confront one of the most sensitive social and political issues of the day: whether the government must provide health insurance benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees.

In separate, strongly worded orders, two judges of the federal appeals court in California said that employees of their court were entitled to health benefits for their same-sex partners under the program that insures millions of federal workers.

But the federal Office of Personnel Management has instructed insurers not to provide the benefits ordered by the judges, citing a 1996 law, the Defense of Marriage Act.

As a presidential candidate, Mr. Obama said he would “fight hard” for the rights of gay couples. As a senator, he sponsored legislation that would have provided health benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees.

Now, Mr. Obama is in a tough spot. If he supports the personnel office on denying benefits to the San Francisco court employees, he risks agitating liberal groups that helped him win election. If he supports the judges and challenges the marriage act, he risks alienating Republicans with whom he is seeking to work on economic, health care and numerous other matters.

But here’s the thing: Didn’t Obama alienate Republicans by becoming the duly elected president of the United States? I mean, isn’t it true that unless he’s a gun-toting, NRA-card-carrying, welfare-eliminating, Medicare-slashing, tax-destroying, anti-choice homophobe he’d be on their target list, their enemies list, no matter what? Not that I think Michael Steele is savviest lion in the lair, but when the guy deviates from Republican orthodoxy on the abortion issue, the party establishmentarians start getting hysterical, circling like vultures. Not a way to, um, broaden the big tent, methinks.

No, the Party of No really has been clear: They want Barack Obama to fail. They’ll even take down the United States of America economically or any other way to make their point. So, really, how much risk is there for him on gay issues? It’s not as if a small gulf separates the Democrats from the Republicans on this, right? It’s not as if there’s room for any kind of manuvering. And wouldn’t it be better to deal with this issue earlier in his term?

Sphere: Related Content

The L.A. Times Calls On American Idol to "Open the Closet," Then Ignores Someone

I don't usually comment on television, since there generally isn't much to comment about. But I was struck by this morning's story in the Los Angeles Times with the headline "'American Idol' needs to open the closet door." Well, that's encouraging, so I started reading. The piece focuses on Adam Lambert, who is clearly the season's front-runner and is called "flamboyant." (I have read other articles calling Lambert a "theater actor" -- you have to love industry parlance, hm?)

Well, let me help: Lambert is gay. Gay, gay, gay. La, la, la, ho, ho, ho, hee, hee, hee, ha, ha, ha, woo, woo, woo, gay, gay, gay, snap, snap, snap. There, someone said it. So now, when you read the third paragraph of the article...

There's been some joking on various websites that this year's most flamboyant front-runner, Adam Lambert, will perform Jackson's early '90s hit "In the Closet" as a response to recently leaked photographs of him kissing a man and dressed in glamour-queen drag. Jackson released the song just when his astounding musical charisma began to strain under the weight of his eccentricities.

...you can understand why Lambert might choose to sing that song.

But while we're at it -- if the writer of the story, Ann Powers, the L.A. Times' pop music critic, is going to create a lede that reads "Adam Lambert isn't the first contestant to have a back story that doesn't fit perfectly inside the homogenous whole the show tries to present," why not go all out and even acknowledge the rumors that surround the show's, um, host? I mean, come on.

Meantime, watch this (if you didn't when it aired). Paula's hysteria is pretty hysterical.

Sphere: Related Content

Will Congress Again Pass the Matthew Shepard Act?

While the Republicans are spewing hate -- at President Obama's budget and recovery plan; at their disbelief that the same free market that ushered in our economic decline cannot so readily fix it; at or toward Michael Steele or Rush Limbaugh, take your pick -- we have an actual bill in Congress that deals with some real hatred and it's time we passed it again now that we have a president who is on record as willing to sign it.

This, below, is some boilerplate from the Human Rights Campaign in support of the Matthew Shepard Act. (According to the Library of Congress website, there are actually four written versions of the bill -- you can see them here.) We all know the Party of No will rage against the bill, but their lack of a moral compass is their problem.

Please give this important legislation your unwavering support.

Hi,

Have you heard that the hate crimes bill is coming before Congress again?

I hope you'll join me in sending a message to Congress: we can't wait any longer for a federal law to protect lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans from violent hate crimes. Take action at: http://www.hrcactioncenter.org/campaign/pass_shepard

Ordinary people are living in fear for their safety and their lives every day, in small towns and big cities. Hate crimes against LGBT people are on the rise, but the federal government has no direct authority to investigate, prosecute or help local law enforcement crack down.

We can't let this continue. We can't let friends and neighbors become targets for violence simply because of who they are.

Congress passed the hate crimes bill in 2007, but because of George Bush's veto threat, it never became law. And now, right-wing extremists are once again making outrageous claims that the bill would criminalize preachers, end free speech, and so on.

Will you help make sure their lies aren't the only things members of Congress are hearing about this bill? Please click below to send a note urging Congress to pass the Matthew Shepard Act.

http://www.hrcactioncenter.org/campaign/pass_shepard

Thanks for your help.

Sphere: Related Content

Considering the CPAC Convention

As I was swamped with a project, I paid relatively little attention to the recent CPAC conference, although I'm sure it was chock-full of all the same self-aggrandizing, anti-Democratic hatred that we have come to expect from the party of tax-cut-and-spend and back-a-war-rationalized-by-lies.

Still, if the Democrats are ascendant at the moment, surely they won't be forever -- or knowing the history of my party, for long -- so it would be smart if we paid attention to the ways in which the right-wing is trying to get itself together because someday, somehow, it will. As you all know, I am personally sickened by the hyper-radical strain of the GOP -- the side that prays to a God it thinks it knows more intimately than you do for the failure of the current president. But I'm concerned, too, because without a strong GOP, the left is going to push the Democrats too far to the left (the GOP naturally argues that this has already occurred). What we would be left with then is a president ideally hoping to govern from the center, a Democratic party standing all too much to the left of him, and a GOP standing all too much to the right of him. As per tradition, we would have gridlock -- yes, even with 60 seats in the Senate -- and who, then, would lose? Well, the American people, of course, but also Obama himself. If the GOP can hang on and never, ever give an inch, they can deny him the opportunity to turn his attempts at compromise, at solution-building, at conciliation into the same old politics as usual, which would thereby destroy the one thing that sells him better than anything else: his brand. And you can bet the GOP is betting the house that such a tactic will work. It's party above nation, and they're the masters of it.

But at the same time, the GOP does have to take long, inward look at itself in any event -- even if my cynicism about them is completely erroneous. It's almost sad watching them go after some pseudo-cosmetic fixes that would appear to address the changing landscape of our politics in the wake of electing a biracial president without actually changing any of their own. I'm not saying Michael Steele isn't a dyed-in-the-wool conservative, but I think most people in the center and on the left would find it difficult to believe that the GOP's powerbrokers did not think about the ethnicity of Steele as they elected him the de facto leader of their party. At the same time, the CPAC convention revealed, I think, how very uncomfortable -- maybe a better word could be unfamiliar -- the powerbrokers of the GOP are when it comes to race. Take a look at this video:



That was during the campaign, when Bachmann, a representative from Minnesota, continually tiptoed right up to the line of what is acceptable political discourse. However, if you take a look at this video (up until 1:30 is what's most salient):



...Congresswoman Bachmann just spills over into whitey-trying-for-blackness territory, and the effect is just awful. I'm not saying she's a racist. I'm saying she's out of her element, she's trying desperately to figure out what is politically correct. Has she ever thought of, "Michael Steele!" -- in other words, not needing to punctuate her lauding of him without slipping into ebonics?

But the GOP really has bigger problems than this stuff. I am most intrigued by the governor of Utah, of all places, Jon Huntsman. Here's a Feb. 9 piece from the Salt Lake Tribune:

Here is a sentence you probably never expected to read: Utah's governor supports civil unions.

Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr., a spokeswoman said Monday, backs Equality Utah's Common Ground Initiative, a legislative effort that would provide some rights to gay and transgender Utahns. Even more, the Republican governor favors civil unions.

It's a position that runs counter to his political party and against the majority of Utahns -- 70 percent of whom oppose civil unions, according to a recent Salt Lake Tribune poll.

"He's long supported many of the ideas that are presented within the Common Ground Initiative," said Lisa Roskelley, the governor's spokeswoman, noting her boss waits to endorse specific bills officially until presented to him in final form. "He supports civil unions."

It's doubtful Huntsman's backing will lead to civil unions getting past the conservative Legislature. And it may not help the rest of this year's gay-rights legislative push, which already has shrunk from four bills to two.

On Day Two of the 2009 Legislature, a measure died in committee that would have allowed financial dependents -- besides spouses, parents and children -- to sue in the event of a breadwinner's wrongful death.

And last week, Rep. Jackie Biskupski, D-Salt Lake City, ditched her proposal, which would have sought the Legislature's and voters' approval to erase the second part of Amendment 3 -- Utah's constitutional gay-marriage ban -- that forbids civil unions.

Huntsman, who endorsed Amendment 3 when he ran for governor in 2004, now favors repealing that portion, Roskelley said.

She said the governor was unavailable to comment Monday.

Jeff Reynolds, spokesman for the conservative Salt Lake City-based Sutherland Institute think tank, which opposes the Common Ground Initiative, said he's "not surprised" by Huntsman's softened stand.

"He had to be dragged to the altar of Amendment 3," Reynolds said in an e-mail, "and everyone has known since then that Governor Huntsman would rather be nice than right."

Notice that last line of what I quoted -- that Gov. Huntsman would "rather be nice than right." To turn that around, the social-issue ultra-conservatives that have driven the GOP would rather preach hate than accept that a majority of the nation does not stand with them. Curiously, by the way, notice how one of the party's not-so-scary new darlings, Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia, deftly deals with the question of how to make the GOP more inclusive, even if it means acceding to the center on the question of gay rights:



As for Rush, feh. There's nothing I can add to the discussion of him except to say that I hope his oxycontin supplier keeps him happy.

Sphere: Related Content

Is the Radical Right Itching for an (Un)Civil War?

Short post on this, but Joe Solmonese, President of the Human Rights Campaign, is correctly crowing this morning after the HRC generated a national action alert against a TV station in Michigan that was planning to air a virulently antigay propaganda program. The TV station has backed down, but it has me thinking, especially in light of the probabilty that the GOP will vote in lockstep against the stimulus, thus further cementing its status as the national movement of "no."

First, should we indulge ourselves into thinking that hate programming such as this is not a part of a larger campaign to come, directed toward all those on the center or the left? I say that this is but the tip of the Obama-era iceberg.

Second, what's the game plan for the left and center? Why are we forever positioned as reactive, not proactive? (It seems that way to me, anyway.)

Below is the press release that is also now on the HRC website.

Michigan Television Station Pulls Misleading AFA Program Following Announcement of National Action Alert By Human Rights Campaign

Station manager releases statement: "The Offer is now off the table."

2/11/2009

WASHINGTON – The Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender civil rights organization, today issued a national action alert against the American Family Association's (AFA) one-hour television special called "Speechless: Silencing Christians," which is promoted to "reveal the truth about the radical homosexual agenda and its impact on the family, the nation and religious freedom." Within an hour of that action alert announcement, the Grand Rapids, MI station which had planned to air the deceptive programming rescinded that offer.

WOOD-TV General Manager Diane Kniowski posted the following announcement just before 4 p.m. saying it would not run the AFA paid 60-minute program on Saturday as planned:
"We made a gesture of the 2-3 p.m. Saturday time period. It's been 24 hours and we had no response," Kniowski said. "Our station is being bombarded with calls and messages, and we find ourselves in the middle of someone else's fight. Ours was a fair offer and we are removing ourselves from this matter."

The HRC alert urged members to contact the station and ask that they pull the scheduled program and instead air a fair discussion or debate on both the issues and pending legislation.

"I am so proud of our members who answered the lies and distortions of the AFA and stopped this campaign of hate and deception," said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese. "Our community stood up and would not let those lies stand."

"This should be our wake up call. We are poised to make real progress, for the first time, for millions of LGBT Americans. We know it and so do our opponents," added Solmonese. "We must stand guard and not allow them to stop these overdue, basic protections by rolling out the same, tired script albeit in new packaging. Today's action proves we have the voices and the power to demand a fair fight and a fair debate."

The AFA program which is still viewable online and may run in other markets, is hosted by controversial talk show host Janet Parshall, who in 2006, suggested Matthew Shepard's lifestyle was responsible for his murder and called gay adoption "state-sanctioned child abuse." (CNN's Larry King Live, Jan. 17, 2006) In the new AFA program, the AFA and its allies purposely promote lies and distortions, including the following:

1. Lie: If hate crimes laws are passed, pastors will be prosecuted for preaching what the Bible says about homosexuality.
Truth: Pastors will not be held liable for hate crimes based on preaching anti-gay sermons. The First Amendment protects a preacher from being charged as an accessory to a hate crime simply because of their speech. The Matthew Shepard Act only punishes violent crimes, not a person's speech, beliefs or thoughts. In fact, the legislation contains language specifically protecting free speech.

2. Lie: Legislation that will provide employment protection based on sexual orientation or gender identity will force churches to hire homosexuals.
Truth: The federal legislation contains language exempting the vast majority of religious corporations, associations and educational institutions, and permits all religious organizations to condition employment on compliance with its significant tenets, including ones barring LGBT employees.

3. Lie: Homosexual acts have a key role to play in the spread of all STDs and HIV/AIDS.
Truth: HIV and STDs don't distinguish by gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity or any other characteristic. Statements such as those made by the AFA in this video hamper efforts to prevent the spread of sexually-transmitted diseases by spreading ignorance and misinformation.

4. Lie: Allowing the government to redefine marriage hurts children because studies show children need a mother and father to do well in life.
Truth: All scientifically reputable studies on the subject of same-sex parenting show that the sexual orientation of a child's parent does not affect a child. Furthermore, all leading children's welfare and rights organizations conclude that there is no measurable difference between children raised by loving lesbian and gay families and those raised by different-sex couples.

Sphere: Related Content

Looking for Sources on Gay Marriage Story

Sorry to have abandoned the blogosphere for two days -- it's been a little hectic. Yesterday I was on The Strategy Room again (briefly with Gov. Mike Huckabee), then I had to interview Jeff Jarvis for Metromix.com/AM New York on the occasion of the release of his book, What Would Google Do? Then it was home to do some work -- and see and review Ragtime last night here in the 'hood, at the Astoria Performing Arts Center. Today I had some networking meetings and had to finish a long Q&A with Michael Cerveris for an upcoming issue of The Sondheim Review.

I still have my review of Ragtime to write, but I'm also working on an idea for a non-arts-related story at the moment and I'm looking to develop some sources. I've put out the APB on Facebook and I've twittered, tweetered and twitted, but I wanted to put this up in case anyone hasn't a clue what I mean what I write that.

Here's what I've been using in my search for potential sources. I've eliminated all use of names to protect my friends' identity:

Friends of ours are together 19 years. They planned to marry in Massachusetts this fall on their 20th anniversary. One was recently downsized from his company.

This person, of course, can use COBRA for his health insurance. His partner, meanwhile, who is still employed, asked his HR for its policy on gay marriage and was first told he could not cover his partner under health insurance even if they married legally in Massachusetts. As the cost of covering a spouse on health insurance turns out to be cheaper than COBRA, some pressure was applied to the employed partner's company, which eventually modified their position. So now they head to Massachusetts to get married next week.

To be sure, these guys unquestionably love each other. They own property together; they have spent most of their lives together. But the deteriorating economy forced their hand -- to marry on a schedule partly dictated by fiscal necessity.

I aim to identify other gay couples in New York State who are also marrying, in part, due to fiscal concerns. Not just for these reasons, but those for whom it exists as a factor.

I also seek clarification regarding New York State's view of the following: If you marry in Massachusetts, New York State now recognizes that marriage. Can a private company doing business in New York State that permits heterosexual employees to cover spouses with health insurance also gay spouses that privilege? Are there examples of this? Is there any case law on this? Indeed, if this is the case, what are the gay-rights organizations doing about it?

Please send ideas and/or sources as soon as possible. Thanks!

Sphere: Related Content

Does Jill Dobson Think Harvey Milk Was Just a Politician?

A lot of people are talking about this.

And I've had the privilege and opportunity to appear on The Strategy Room a few times with Jill Dobson, and I'm not sure I can join the gravy train of people attacking her for being unclear that Milk isn't just about a 1970s politician, but, in fact, the seminal gay pol of the 20th century. True, it's a dumb omission. I just think she blanked or spazzed. As for whether her performance in this clip is some antigay Fox-driven snowjob, please, you can find that elsewhere on TV, not here.

But hey, I report, you decide.

Sphere: Related Content