Thursday, December 31, 2009

New Years Eve at Town DC; ABC soap has big gay scene

OK, this New Years Eve I did Town DC (in the Shaw section of Washington DC). The crowd really thickened around 11 PM and the upstairs filled up. The countdown screen marked down to the end of the 00 decade (with all the horrors bookending the decade). Downstairs the multimedia screen showed – you guessed it – Anderson Cooper on CNN.

But the Town had its share of its celebrities tonight – without the usual drag show. Thankfully, the morning’s ice storm was small, as this week the low pressure system stayed close. Had it tracked 100 miles further East, we would have repeated the 16 inches of snow that closed everything (including the discos) two weeks ago.

Also, on Dec. 30, “One Life to Live” (2 PM EST on ABC) aired a gay love scene, with a slow motion version from YouTube here. Since ABC owns it and didn’t supply the video, I don’t think it’s legit for me to embed it here. Note the order in which both men "get it"; it's the reverse of the usual.

The soap is rather interesting, with actor Michael Easton, and with a couple of characters transported from “Days of our Lives” (Mimi), and a subplot a few years back about a female mystery novelist whose stories get acted out in “real life” after her book is published (or perhaps posted on the Internet). I guess there’s a lesson here.

Note: Metro runs until 2 AM tonight Dec 31; on New Years Day, it runs only until 2 AM instead of 3 AM, as usual for a Friday.

Tuesday, December 22, 2009

OPM caught in a catch-22 on same-sex benefits for federal workers

Joe Davidson has been following the issue of federal benefits for same-sex partners of federal employees on “The Federal Diary” page of The Washington Post, and today he points out that the Obama administration’s justice department is caught in a catch-22: it says that it must enforce the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996, signed by President Clinton, which it would like to overturn (just like it must enforce “don’t ask don’t tell”).

Recently, as Davidson points out, the Ninth Circuit ordered the Office of Personnel Office to allow health insurance companies to provide benefits to same-sex partners of the court’s workers, and the OPM balked, saying it must enforce DOMA. What a mess.

The link is here.

Wednesday, December 16, 2009

UC Hastings Law School v. Christian Legal Society: about discrimination, or about beliefs?

Here’s an interesting editorial in the Los Angeles Times “Christian Legal Society vs. UC Hastings School of Law”, Dec. 15, 2009, link.

The Christian Legal Society, requiring its members to abstain from sex outside of heterosexual marriage, is challenging the UC Hastings refusal to give it the same recognition as other student groups. Hastings maintains that the group effective discriminates against both non-Christians and gays. But is the group really being excluded because of discrimination or because of the beliefs of its members. Is it just an abstract question? Is it a First Amendment question?

Tuesday, December 15, 2009

DC passes gay marriage in final vote, 11-2

The Washington DC City Council voted 11-2 to pass the same-sex marriage bill Tuesday Dec 15. It was the second of the two votes required to pass the bill. Mayor Fenty will sign it, and it has to pass a 30-day review in Congress, which most observers believe it will survive. The vote sounds like a needed Nationals win.

The NBCWashington (Channel 4) story by Matthew Stabley is here.

Former mayor Marion Barry voted no, as did Yvette Alexander.

Opponents, led by Rev. Jackson, still threaten litigation to force a referendum.

Monday, December 14, 2009

Houston becomes largest city with openly gay mayor

I may be later covering this, but, it’s true, Houston is the largest city (the nation’s fourth largest) to elect an openly gay mayor, Annise Parker.

I lived in Dallas from 1979-1988 mostly during the Reagan years, when AIDS erupted, in a much more conservative climate. Yet Dallas always seemed to be the more cosmopolitan of Texas’s two largest cities. Even so, in 1979 and 1980, police raids of gay bars in Dallas were common, until one defendant, a computer operator, stood up to a false charge and got a judge’s acquittal.

The media makes a lot of Parker’s win in a state that has outlawed gay marriage. But in 1982 a federal judge overturned the Texas sodomy law 21.06; the 5th Circuit would reverse in 1985. Laws like this would be upheld by Bowers v. Hardwick in 1986, but finally fall in 2003 with Lawrence v. Texas, based on 21.06.

Other cities with openly gay mayors include Portland, Ore., Providence, R.I., and Cambridge, Mass.

Here’s the Houston Chronicle's main story by Paige Hewitt.

Here’s the AP story by Monica Rhor.

Wikipedia link for USGS picture of Houston.

Sunday, December 13, 2009

Public relations firms earn ire of gay activists when hired to help anti-gay marriage referendums

Jesse McKinley has an important story on the National page of the Sunday New York Times, “In California companies, a cottage industry for fighting same-sex marriage”, link here.

There is discussion of companies like Mar/Com Services in San Francisco (link), enlisted by anti gay marriage forces in Maine, and Schubert Flint Public Affairs (link) in Sacramento, hired by Maggie Gallagher from National Organization for Marriage.

What’s disturbing to me is probably nothing new, since “public relations” has been around as a business forever. But people get paid to be biased. To earn a living they give up their rights to use their own heads. This could get more dangerous if Internet freedoms were to be clamped down upon in the future because of all the hard-to-control risks. I see this as an existential moral issue.

Friday, December 11, 2009

Lambda Rising, DC's gay bookstore, closes at the end of 2009

Lambda Rising, a gay bookstore chain in Washington DC and Rehoboth Beach DE, announced Dec. 4 that it will close at the end of 2009. The store’s own account is here.

It was founded in 1974 by Deacon Maccubbin and the founder, 66, says that it is time to “move on.” It was not totally clear why the business simply was not sold; it seemed to be holding its own despite competition from the chains and Amazon because of its specialty stock.

Just Nov. 16, the Washington Blade was closed by the bankruptcy of its holding company, although its employees have re-phoenixed it as DC Agenda. On Tues. Nov. 17 Lambda Rising was one of the first places I checked on foot to find out what was going on.

In Dallas, where I lived in the 1980s, the Crossroads Market, at Cedar Springs and Throckmorton in Oak Lawn, apparently closed in February 2009 (link)

Thursday, December 10, 2009

Marriage progress in New Jersey; shame on the DC archdiocese for taking political hostages

The New York Times has an important editorial “Uphill Toward Equality” (which sounds like a paraphrase of a Robert Bork book title that we need not repeat) about the New Jersey gay marriage vote, web link URL here. As so often, the voting seems all too partisan, with little attention to principles.

The Washington Post Metro columnist has a stinging article about the Catholic Archdiocese by Robert McCartney, “wedded to anti-gay stand on marriage”, link. The writer says that this is a matter of “principle” for the Church, but the practical effect is to deny services to the poor. This is a well known tactic of the Left: take political hostages.

As it is, the Church will have to make a pragmatic peace, inasmuch as it has almost no requests for same-sex benefits anway, as DC goes thorugh its Congressional waiting period.

Friday, December 04, 2009

Democratic Reps want to grant gay soldiers immunity if they testify in Congress about DADT

Again, two days after The Washington Times announced its major downsizing, it has a major story, from Stephen Dinan, “Dems want temporary ‘don’t ask’ immunity”, a top-headline in the Friday print edition, link here. The headline caught my eye today as the last paper in a hospital newsstand caught my eye as I left after scheduling my own minor surgery next week.

Alcee L. Hastings, D-FL, introduced as bill in the House to grant immunity (at least for a specified time) from the provisions of the 1993 “don’t ask don’t tell” law to gay soldiers and sailors who testify on the policy before Congress. The Senate Armed Services Committee has postponed hearings on the matter until 2010, particularly after the Fort Hood tragedy (that’s ironic, as the military did not respond to warning signs about a member of its own venturing into radical Islam). The Committee, under Sam Nunn, pursued vigorous and sometimes vindictive hearings in 1993 (Nunn: “if you have stated your status, you have described your conduct”).

Mexican cardinal makes negative comments about LGBT people and afterlife

A Mexican Roman Catholic Cardinal Javier Barragan has said that gays and transsexuals cannot go to Heaven for essentially metaphysical or existential reasons, in a statement reportedly rebuked by the Vatican itself. Is it up to him to decide where people go at the end of eartlhty life? Apparently he thinks so. The story appeared in Reuters, link here. His remarks may have been fueled by the continuing controversy over gay marriage.

Barragan denies that the question of "choice" or "fault" (or immutability) matters. He claims that homosexuals have “not developed their identity during adolescence” and that they have violated St. Paul’s teachings by “going against the dignity of the body”.

Barragan reportedly put the statements on a conservative Catholic website in Italian called "Pontifex". That site is here, but I could not find the article. The Vatican does not consider opinions expressed there as (necessarily) official Church teachings.

However the news article goes on to discuss the Catechism of the Catholic Church which now says many people “have innate homosexual tendencies” and “should not be subject to discrimination.” The article claims that the Catholic Church distinguishes between homosexual orientation and homosexual acts in its official statements (rather like the US military).

Some Vatican statements from back in the 1980s (the “objective disorder” fiasco) seem to be concerned that everyone share in the “risk” or procreation (except, of course, “celibate” priests and nuns).

Wednesday, December 02, 2009

Will a federal fight over Proposition 8 put all gay equality at risk?

The December 2009 issue of The American Prospect has an important piece by Gabriel Arana, “Gay on Trial: why more than marriage is at stake on the federal legal challenge to Prop. 8”. The cover of the magazine is even more alarmist: “The Gay Gamble.” It’s worthy of note that the magazine calls itself “liberal intelligence” (maybe to go against “The Nation” or “Mother Jones”). The link for the Arana article is here.

Arana analyzes what is likely to happen in the federal challenge, especially if it goes to the Supreme Court. It’s likely to weigh heavily on traditional arguments about immutability, suspect class, and equal protection. “Suspect class” is particularly nettlesome because its use in constitutional law has become a bit unprincipled (at least in the eyes of conservatives). Sometimes religion counts and sometimes it doesn’t. Using it for sexual orientation is a more complicated intellectual challenge than for race. We know that from our experience with the military. But if “we” fail, then other issues could be affected, like rolling back employment discrimination, or overturning “don’t ask don’t tell”, maybe even issues with civilian security clearances.

I think there is a whole other area to argue, that we got through with Lawrence v. Texas, that of fundamental rights, self-expression, and still (even if a guarded notion in the Internet age) privacy. That get back to the substance of my “notorious” “do ask do tell” 1997 book.

There’s a whole “acute angle” on this that I could introduce by mentioning a script line in a recent NBC “Days of our Lives” episode, where likeable straight teenager Will (Dylan Patton) mentions his duty to protect “his little sister.” It caught my ear, even though I was busy on the computer. Why is he responsible for someone who is not his own child? It wasn’t his own voluntary act (intercourse) that created the responsibility; it was that of his parents. (In the soap, I know, it gets complicated, with Sami and so on, but back to the argument.) But think it through more. Some day, society assumes, Will should get married and have kids himself. Among his own kids, he will have the social power to expect a similar kind of loyalty and protective responsibility. (Dr. Phil has barely touched on this in his show.) But the point is, the responsibility for others (kids, and now especially elderly parents or other disabled family members) is partly a communal one, originally created by parents but passed on to others. This sounds like Hillary Clinton’s “It Takes a Village” thing.

You see how this mediates the “equality” argument? Married people get to create responsibilities that can be passed on to unmarried people. The lack of equality doesn’t just come from spousal benefits, although that matter (see my Nov. 23 posting on estates). Single people are infringed upon, as almost a direct logical consequence of special privileges for the married. No wonder libertarians want to reduce marriage to a private contract, with no special benefits (like the famous 1996 article by Gays and Lesbians for Individual Liberty, “Licensed Expired”).

Here we get into existentialism, religion, metaphysics, and Rick Warren. Yes, sometimes (within the family, or in the workplace), people without kids are expected to “sacrifice” for those who have them, and there is a rough parallel to marriage. (This is the moral mindset determined that nobody "gets out of things.") This fits the 1990s arguments from Jonathan Rauch, that sees marital privilege as a necessary thing, and that gays should partake in both the privileges and responsibilities that go with it, and get away from so much emphasis on fantasy and “Mr. Right” thinking (and perhaps lookism, as in one particular email I got in 1999 from someone directly impacted by DADT – yes, I still remember it’s tone – and I do apologize for something I had said at the DC Pride celebration that year.)

There’s something about giving (Warren style): it’s more than sacrifice, which is sometimes a perceived infringement which in reality is more like repaying a hidden debt or working off some negative personal karma.

Rauch argues in the right spirit on these matters: equality means equal responsibility as well as equal rights. Think how this could apply to overturning “don’t ask don’t tell”.

Wikipedia attribution link for picture of California capitol in Sacramento

Tuesday, December 01, 2009

Washington DC Council approves same-sex marriage bill 11-2

According to a story by Tim Craig in The Washington Post today (Dec. 1) the Washington DC City Council has voted to approve same-sex marriage in the District of Columbia. The bill will go to Mayor Adrian Fenty, who has said he will sign it. It then must survive a “Congressional review period” (30 days). The link for the story online is here. It's interesting to ponder all this in relation to the DC Home Rule debates of the 1960s.

The print version of the Washington Post has a Metro story by Michelle Boorstein, “Archbishop takes a reluctant turn in the spotlight, about Donald W. Wuerl. The story discusses his “use” of Catholic Charities as a “bargaining chip” in the negotiations.

Dec. 2:

The New York State sendate defeated its gay marriage bill today 38-24.

Monday, November 30, 2009

DC Agenda reports on harsh anti-gay law proposed in Uganda

I picked up the second issue of “DC Agenda” at brunch at Freddie’s in Arlington Sunday. It’s in black and white, and some of the articles continue onto the web.

One of the most striking stories (by Chris Johnson) concerned a demonstration at the Embassy of Uganda over a proposed anti-gay law that would even make it a crime to form LGBT organizations or publish pro-gay materials in the country. It could also provide the death penalty for sodomy by an HIV-infected person. Some non-democratic or third world societies really do try to pass such laws.

There is also a discussion of an interview by the Senate Armed Services Committee of Retired Marine Corps General Clifford Stanley, who would oversee the end of “don’t ask don’t tell” with a new, conduct-based policy, probably modeled somewhat after the Rand proposal of 1993.

Update: Friday Dec. 18:

Check Michael Gerson's article "Faith, folly and Uganda's anti-homosexuality bill", here in the Washington Post today.

See my International Issues blog March 11, 2010 for an updated story on the Uganda situation from ABC News.

Saturday, November 28, 2009

Some activists still want to stress civil unions

The AP has a story by Lisa Leff, Nov. 28, 2009, reiterating that some people are still focusing on the practical benefits of civil unions rather than on the use of the word “marriage.” The link is here. One point is that gays concerned about employment discrimination or bullying or attacks have more “practical” concerns that theoretical equality.

Nevertheless, the point about federal benefits (and estate, as in the last posting) is well taken. And one point of “theoretical” equality is to prevent the rights of the unmarried and childless from being expropriated for others with “families.”

John Kerry had said "civil unions" back in 2004.

Monday, November 23, 2009

UCLA Williams Institute publishes study of estate-tax and same-sex couples

The Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law has published a paper by Michael D. Steinberger, UCLA Economics Department, Pomoma College, “Federal estate tax disadvantages for same-sex couples”, link here. The paper says that the total cost to the treasury of equalizing tax treatment would be $238 million, or about 1% of gift tax revenue. “The unlimited marital deduction of assets transferred to a surviving spouse is not available to same-sex couples.” There are real issues Family-owned Farm and Closely Held Business provisions. When the decedent and child of a same-sex couple work together, the child is treated as a conventional employee.

No federal marital tax deduction existed before 1948 and it did not become unlimited until 1981.

Sunday, November 22, 2009

Are "selectivity" and "aloofness" essential "virtues" in building relationships? The "real" argument for gay marriage?

Back in the 1970s, when I was into the “polarity theory” expounded at the Ninth Street Center (in the East Village in New York City; now it is the “Paul Rosenfels Community” (link)) I took to the idea of “selectivity” in forming personal attachments and relationships. I relished the idea of feminine polarity “submission” if I idealized the person (man) that I would “submit” to. Likewise, the I understood that the masculine personality would want to cherish or value the person in his domain. In any case, the “selectivity” seemed to mean that the psychological mate, the person really “cared about” was “worthy” of such emotional devotion. The fact that one would be so selective would be a hallmark of the “unbalanced personality” (masculine objective or feminine subjective -- it was all combinatorial, like modern physics or cosmology).

I recall a book in 1989, Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, After the Ball: How America will conquer its fear and hatred of Gays in the 90’s (New York: Plume, 1989), p. 360, in the authors proposed a “self-policing social code” in which the gay man pledges “I’ll drop my search for Mr. Right and settle for what’s realistic.”

I also recall that “extreme selectivity” and penchant for spending a lot of time alone was double edged. In Dallas around 1980, I dated a Ph D clinical psychologist who claimed that his best trait was “aloofness” even though he had once been married himself. Other people see introversion and secretiveness as dangerous, a schizoid trait at best, maybe a potential terrorist at worst (in some FBI profiles online).

But in the 1970s, the key point about all this selectivity (and avoidance of unwanted intimacy) was gay life was still relatively private. In a quasi-commune where some men never ventured north of 14th Street and worked odd jobs in the village (like cleaning apartments) in order to “adapt” economically, some things would get around. Paul Rosenfels, one of the founders of the Center, thought that it was a good thing that the Center remain fairly isolated and that people’s lives be relatively contained and separate from the outside world. But that’s nothing like today, where an open Internet with trolling search engines, and a tendency for many people to cut-an-paste and transmit a lot of things marked private, and a tendency for many people to become Twitter-queens, makes one’s supposedly private standards for people suddenly very public. The whole change in our concept of both “privacy” and “fame” invokes a perturbation of our whole concept of civility, where personally held convictions about virtue stay somewhat inside when around others (especially in the workplace, especially when supervising others). Now, everything is findable and potentially public and pervasive; one has to develop intermediate policies about not mentioning one’s Internet activity at work, for example (to avoid an “anti-selection” problem).

In the 1970s, 80s, even 90s, self-development was somewhat a private matter and one’s own business. Responsibility for others came as a result of one’s choices (such having a baby). Now, the idea of responsibility has become less voluntary, more like it was in the 50s, as we find that public self-indulgence (a feminine vice) leads to a moral backlash. Now, we are reminded that a lot of people, especially in other parts of the world, don’t have the “luxury” of choosing who they will care about. Teenagers are forced to raise their siblings (created by their parents’ intimacy, not their own). Sometimes childless people wind up with custody of their sibling’s kids after a family tragedy (as in the movie “Raising Helen” or the miniseries “Summerland”) ; imagine writing a screenplay where the surviving sibling is gay and perhaps the straight sibling never “knew”. And many people have to deal with the intimacy of eldercare, as parents often live longer with disability than before, with fewer children (and grandchildren) to care for them.

We’ve gotten used to thinking of selectivity of persons for emotional intimacy as a fundamental individual right (in the workplace, not respecting it can constitute sexual harassment); yet a few generations ago, married parents had considerable power in demanding emotional blood loyalty from their descendents as one of the perks of the marital commitment. Today, we face a necessity to recognize filial responsibility as possibly legally driven (by state budget crises affecting welfare and Medicaid as well as general decency and demographics); we see responsibility for others, chosen or not, as part of “paying your dues,” and a virtue in its own right.

It’s well to ponder how the “involuntary” nature of a lot of relationships, sometimes taken on by LGBT people, could drive the argument for same-sex marriage. Equality is about a lot more than just equal benefits for domestic or marital partners. It’s about how singletons, those who didn’t “settle for what’s realistic” fare, too. Maybe aloofness and solitude aren’t such unquestionable virtues after all.

Friday, November 20, 2009

DCAgenda officially launches, replacing the Blade

The new “DC Agenda” has launched. Here is the official website, with several articles. The prevailing color is one of long wavelengths, red.

There is also a second site, “Save the Blade”, (link by publisher Lynne Brown. It says “We Did It”.

The most pressing problem may be getting the archives back.

Update: November 22

Kevin Naff has an op-ed in the Washington Post (in the "all opinions are local" page), "Why we need the Washington Blade," here.

Thursday, November 19, 2009

DC group will sue DC Council over denying gay marriage referendum

Well, it's back to the grind on reporting the usual LGBT political issues.

Tim Craig and Keith L. Alexander have an important story in the Washington Post Nov. 19, “Gay-marriage opponents sue to force referendum: Congress members grill D.C. officials on decision to block ballot initiative”, link here. The City Council maintains that a referendum would violate Washington DC’s Human Rights Act. But gay marriage opponents plan to sue to overturn the City Council’s ruling to deny a referendum.

Republican congressmen seem to be trying to mix up the gay marriage vote issue with the long controversial Home Rule and more recently DC statehood issue, with racial overtones, which may be less important now than they were a few decades ago. Nevertheless, African American pastors in the District and nearby suburbs (like Bishop Harry Jackson) on the theory that the nuclear family, as previously “understood”, is very important for socialization especially in the African American community. This isn’t just a matter of equality for gay couples; it affects how people not in martial relationships at all are treated, when expected to sacrifice for other family members.

The “Washington Blade” in its last issue (before becoming “DC Agenda”) had reported that the DC Council would vote on gay marriage December 1.

At the same time, Joe Davidson’s Federal Diary reports on progress in a bill to extend benefits to same –sex domestic partners of federal employees, here.

Wednesday, November 18, 2009

"DC Agenda" (replacing Washington Blade) plans first issue Friday Nov. 20

The “new” “Washington Blade” (in quotes) will be called “DC Agenda” and will have a first edition Friday, Nov. 20, Kevin Naff said at the gathering of the faithful tonight at Hard Rock CafĂ© in downtown Washington, on the second floor. Hors d’oeuvres were served, and at least twice the number of people as were former employees (probably many more) attended. Please follow the tweets in the “DCAgenda” Twitter account blog for up-to-date details. (Yes, if you’re a host at CNN, please follow them.)

The new name of the resurrected company seems to call to mind the gay marriage agenda before the DC City Council. It reminds me of Chris Crain’s former editorial in March 2004, “Piddle Twiddle and Resolve” (Twitter didn’t exist then), a “take no prisoners” (not even Spanish prisoners of the Steve Martin genome) on the need for full equality in gay marriage.

The gathering took place a half block from the Landmark Theater, where my “so far imaginary” movie (“Do Ask Do Tell”) would premier some day (hopefully in Auditorium 1 or 4) if I can ever pull it off.

The paper is still concerned about gaining access to its archives, as pointed out by the Washington Post. It’s hard to imagine any reason why a creditor of WindowMedia would object. What came to mind for me (when Kevin mentioned the archive issue) was an occasion in 1989 when the tiny consulting company I worked for was sold to a “white knight” and I had to go down to Richmond and bring the database (all mainframe tapes) back up I-95 in my own car, securing the company’s future (after copying them carefully). DC Agenda should talk to IP attorneys (as at Electronic Frontier Foundation) about this.

The circumstances of the collapse of the holding company remain a mystery. Normally on Wall Street you sell off the pieces of a conglomerate to pay off a debt. That’s Business Day 101 in the New York Times, every day. Maybe there is some irony. But the publishing business gets trickier all the time. I’ve covered a lot of scenarios and issues in journalism on my main blog.

According to Metro Weekly, web content for DCAgenda should show up at that name (.com) very soon (story here). I would suggest that the paper start a blog by that name on Blogger (there is none now). Other media companies do this, for example theatrical distribution company Roadside Attractions (

Bay Windows has an interesting take on the Window-Media implosion, here. It writes (“What does the death of the Washington Blade mean to Bay Windows readers? “) “When our community is viewed as a marketing demographic rather than a movement, the result should not be surprising. The death of Window Media was self-inflicted.”

If you have a paper copy of the "Friday the 13th" issue of the Washington Blade, hold it; there's a bounty on it.

Advocate reports on Blade, military ban, HIV blood donation issue

Well, for right now, I’m turning to The Advocate for leading edge news.

Three stories are at issue:

First, Julie Bolcer has an article “Newspaper Owner: I tried to save The Blade”, an account of Nicholas F. Benton, owner of the Falls Church News-Press to reorganize the (holding) company according to normal Chapter 11 procedures and keep the Blade and other newspapers operating. The link is here.

The November 2009 issue has a story on p 54 by Michael Joseph Gross, “Straight Guys Tell”, in which he does some on-foot reporting from Fort Lewis Washington, where he describes how homophobia used to be used as a bonding tool, but younger soldiers generally don’t find that semi-open homosexuality interferes with the esprit de corps that military unit cohesion requires, especially after early training. There is also an interview with Rep. Patrick Murphy, himself an Iraq war veteran.

On p 50 there is an article by Steven W. Trasher, “Blood, Sex and the FDA: Despite recent policy changes in other countries and technological advances in screening for HIV in donated blood, the FDA stands firm: Gay men pose far too great a risk to give blood. Will we ever be allowed to donate again?” The last words are in a red box. The window after exposure until antigen tests can reliably detect infection is down to less than one month. There are calculations and simulations, and legitimate questions as to the results of comparisons to other high-risk behaviors from heterosexuals. There are also hypothetical concerns about as yet undetected or undiscovered infectious agents, an argument that NBC science reporter Robert Bazell had made back in the 1980s.

Tuesday, November 17, 2009

Washington Blade rebirth seems to be shaping up quickly; meeting on Wed. night

For those who want to get the latest on the new gay paper in Washington DC, here is the Twitter address (link). Some staffers learned of the demise Monday through Twitter. The latest news (updated late Tuesday) is here. “Hope to see you 6 p.m. Wednesday at Hard Rock Cafe (999 E St, NW). We promise to make it worth the trip.” That is about one block from Landmark’s E Street Theater, which has hosted many films for Reel Affirmations.

I don't know if domain names and trademarks go away with a Chapter 7 liquidation. In this circumstance it sounds counterproductive. I wonder if it is possible for the paper to use the same name and domain after all, since there would be no business entity competing with it (by the very definition of Chapter 7 bankruptcy; it seems like a paradox).

The Washington City Paper has a photo account of the last day at the Blade, here.

The paper will not be able to use the old name, apparently. A new name has not yet been decided. But it sounds likely there will be some kind of new issue shortly after Thanksgiving.

The Washington paper did make a profit, but not enough to save the holding company.

From a financial perspective, this sort of problem was common in the late 1980s with leveraged buyouts on Wall Streets, where profitable operating companies were treated poorly to pay of the leverage of their owners. I went through that when I worked for Chilton, which was acquired by Borg-Warner and then “taken private.” But usually public companies can be carved up into “pieces” and resold. With LLC’s and private companies there is a lot more danger.

Nov. 18

Check the Washington Post editorial today "The Blade's hard times: A Washington paper provided a critical voice", link here. The editorial mentions the Blade's archives, which technically the bankruptcy judge could impound. Hopefully the court will release the archvies to the public immediately.

At least I keep all my own archives totally separately. I think I "really" do own them! Bloggers, learn a lesson from this.

The Twitter Account for the Blade changed to "DCAgenda" (it was "WashingtonBlade" before the paper closed). Again, it seems to me that the courts ought to allow them to continue using the name "Washington Blade". From a normal trademark perspective, the name is not valuable to the creditors at all. Attorneys could be working on this.

Monday, November 16, 2009

Company that owns Washington Blade, and some other gay papers, shuts down

Television station WJLA, ABC affiliate in Washington DC, reports at noon Monday Nov. 16, 2009 that the company that owns the Washington Blade is shutting down immediately. That company is Window-Media (link, no relation to Microsoft's product); and as of noon today none of the links to papers that the company owns were working; all were timing out.

The WJLA story appears to have come from the AP (by Dorie Turner) and the web url link is here.

The Washington Blade had operated since 1969, when it opened with a one-page entry.

No details are available yet as to the reasons for the shutdown, but they could well be economic.

It would sound plausible – I would say likely -- that the local papers would be able to restructure locally and continue and resume operating. That would include the Washington Blade, which is very important to the LGBT community. I will monitor this and see what I can find out, or if I could do anything about it. I’d have to get down to Lambda Rising in DC and see what is going on.

If the Blade cannot continue operations, that leaves Metro Weekly web url (link) as the major LGBT paper in the Washington DC area. As of noon Monday it did not have this news yet.

Here is a more detailed account on She-Wired, with discussion of SBA issues, by Laura Vess.

NBC Washington has a story "Washington Blade Suddenly Shuts Down; Blade's Parent Company Closes," by Jim Iovino and Abbey Lee, link here. The story predicts a new employee-owned paper.

Update: Nov. 17

The Washington Post has a front page story by Paul Schwartzman "Gay weekly Washington Blade closes: Storied 40-year-old paper among sister publications abruptly shuttered", link here.
WindowMedia's equity holder, Avalon Equity Partners, had been placed into receivershio by the Small Business Administration, and WindowMedia was forced into Chapter 7 liquidation to attempt to pay off creditors. In such sudden circumstances, a publication can be closed immediately because its physical assets are seized. That can make it even harder for employees to reopen a publication, althouugh new digital assets are much less expensive today to purchase new. It is possible for publications to close suddenly because of various kinds of legally binding events. The Window-Media website was not functioning Tuesday morning.

Thursday, November 12, 2009

Catholic Archdiocese might cut social service contract with Washington DC if gay marriage bill passes

The Washington Post has an important front pages story (from its "On Faith" series) Thursday Nov. 12 by Tim Craig and Michelle Boorstein about the proposed same-sex marriage law for Washington DC. It is titled “Catholic Church gives D.C. ultimatum: Same-sex marriage bill, as written, called a threat to social service contracts”, with link here.

Although the bill does not require churches to perform same-sex weddings against their will, it does require faith-based social service agencies with contracts with the City, such as the Catholic Archdiocese’s Catholic Charities, to practice non-discrimination in employment and in partner benefits. The Archdiocese says it would have abandon its social service contracts. Here employment and marriage discrimination merge, in a sense. It’s not clear if the law on the books now (regarding out-of-state marriage recognition) could create similar problems.

Back in 1980, Catholic Charities in Dallas, where I lived at the time, ran a placement program for Cuban refugees, but would not accept gay men as sponsors. I recall that from a personal conversation at the Charity.

Update: Nov. 13

Metro columnist Petula Dvorak writes "Catholic officials shouldn't forsake D.C.'s poor in gay marriage fight", link here. She writes "Charities are telling our city's most vulnerable people -- homeless families, sick children, low-income mothers -- that they are willing to throw them on the table as a bargaining chip."

I recall that conversation with a representative at Catholic Charities in Dallas in 1980. He said, "the fact that you say you are gay ends the discussion." It seems that "don't ask don't tell" in other areas has been around for a long time, especially in the charitable organization world. What was the Salvation Army like in the old days?

Monday, November 09, 2009

Would legalizing gay marriage prevent gay men from trying straight marriages?

Theresa Vargas has an interesting perspective on gay marriage in the Sunday Nov. 8 Washington Post, “A quiet voice for gay marriage: legalization could avert doomed relationships, straight ex-spouses say”, link here.

The anecdotes here may be exemplified or exaggerated by the story of former New Jersey governor Jim McGreevey, who wrote up his own experience in a book named “The Confession” (2006), while his ex-wife wrote “Silent Partner: A Memoir of My Marriage” (2007).

ABC 20/20 had a story about three years ago to the effect that “this is happening to millions”. But back around 2003, before the Massachusetts decision in 2004, some commentators opposed both gay marriage and civil unions so that “existing marriages [with gay spouses] had a chance,” as if legalization would encourage the breakup of existing marriages.

Of course, one is left with the debate: often gay men have children in traditional marriages, for whom they remain responsible after divorce. But some people believe that everybody has a moral duty to have children if possible! Look at the Philip Longman crowd!

Thursday, November 05, 2009

The US Army does have a document stating the official version of "don't ask don't tell" for recruiters

In researching a story related to the general lowering of fitness of recruits into the US military, I tracked down the US Army’s own statements about its requirements for eligibility to enlist, and I did find this link. This leads to a dynamic PDF file load whose URL cannot be saved, but the file can be converted to text and saved on one’s home or office computer.

Section 8 (that sounds like a pun, doesn’t it) in this PDF file (or as converted to text) does discuss the issue of homosexuals in the military. The wording of the policy is clever and bears repeating here in a long quote. (Yup, it’s in the public domain, so it’s not copyright infringement to reproduce it.) Notice that the policy (written in early 1994, after Congress codified “don’t ask don’t tell” into law in late November 1993 as part of a Defense Authorization bill; much of the language comes directly from the statute) tries to have it both ways. Sexual orientation as an abstract matter has no effect on service entry or retention, but the occurrence of “homosexual conduct” does normally lead to denial of entry or to discharge, even if the conduct occurs “off duty” with consenting adult civilians. (A soldier is “on duty” at “all times and all places”, even according to President Clinton (1993 speech), despite Barney Frank’s suggestion to the contrary.) Notice that the wording here makes a lot of the word “propensity” which it says is more than an abstract interest, it is a credible likelihood that acts will occur. The best comparison to “propensity” would be an insurance concept called “anti-selection”. Certain behaviors or statements, to an insurance company, lead to the concern that an unfavorable event is really likely to occur. “Volunteering” one’s orientation in a military setting is normally regarded by the military as such a statement. Unfortunately, some commanders have interpreted this concept as an excuse to go out on witch-hunts, which the policy, as written, seems to discourage.

The other curious feature of the policy is the mention of gay marriage, all the way back in 1993, before it was legal anywhere (it was started to get litigated in Hawaii then, and later Vermont would have a civil union law).

Still one other curious sequence of words , near the end, where a statement will not result in discharge if it is made for the “purpose of avoiding military service.” That could refer to an attempt to get out of an enlistment contract, but it also could anticipate a political environment where the draft (conscription) has been reinstated by Congress—the environment in which my own service took place in the late 1960s. There is also a “queen for a day” rule, where discharge does not occur if the conduct is not part of a person’s usual deportment.

It's useful to review the Army's own words and keep them as a reference. Here follows the quotation of the policy as in the Army PDF:

"8. Provision Related to Homosexual Conduct :

a. Sexual orientation is considered a personal and private matter, and homosexual orientation is not a bar to service entry or continued service unless manifested by homosexual conduct. Applicants for enlistment, appointment, or induction shall not be asked or required to reveal their sexual orientation. Applicants also will not be asked or required to reveal whether they have engaged in homosexual conduct, unless independent evidence is received indicating that an applicant engaged in such conduct or unless the applicant volunteers a statement that he or she is a homosexual or bisexual, or words to that effect. Applicants will be informed of separation policy. (Section 654 of reference (a)).

b. Homosexual conduct may be grounds for barring entry into the Armed Forces. Homosexual conduct is a homosexual act, a statement by the applicant that demonstrates a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts, or a homosexual marriage or attempted marriage. Propensity to engage in acts means more than an abstract preference or desire to engage in homosexual acts; it indicates a likelihood that a Person engages in or will engage in homosexual acts.

(1) An applicant shall be rejected for entry into the Armed Forces if, in the course of the accession process, evidence is received demonstrating that the applicant engaged in, attempted to engage in, or solicited another to engage in a homosexual act or acts, unless there is a further determination that:

(a) Such acts are a departure from the applicant's usual and customary behavior;

(b) Such acts, under all the circumstances, are unlikely to recur;

(c) Such acts were not accomplished by use of force, coercion, or intimidation, and;

(d) The applicant does not have a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts.

Such a determination will be made in the course of the normal accession process. A homosexual act means (i) any bodily contact, actively undertaken or passively permitted, between members of the same sex for the purpose of satisfying sexual desires, and (ii) any bodily contact that a reasonable person would understand to demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in an act described in subparagraph (i).

(2) An applicant shall be rejected for entry if he or she makes a statement that he or she is a homosexual or bisexual, or words effect, unless there is a further determination that the applicant has demonstrated that he or she is not a person who engages in, attempts to engage in, has a propensity to engage in, or intends to engage in homosexual acts. Such a determination will be made in the course of the normal accession process.

(3) An applicant shall be rejected for entry if, in the course of the accession process, evidence is received demonstrating that an applicant has married or attempted to marry a person known to be of the same biological sex (as evidenced by the external anatomy of the persons involved).
c. Nothing in thes
e procedures requires rejection for entry into the Armed Forces when the relevant Military Service Command authority determines:

(1) That an applicant or inductee made a statement, engaged in acts, or married or attempted to marry a person of the same sex for the purpose of avoiding military service, and

(2) Rejection of the applicant or inductee would not be in the best interest of the Armed Forces."

Wednesday, November 04, 2009

Gay marriage loses in ME; MI and WA returns appear good; VA elects two anti-gay GOP candidates to state office

Tuesday, Nov. 3 was not a particularly rewarding day for equal rights for gays. In Maine, voters passed Proposition 1 to nullify the state’s law permitting gay marriage. The AP story appears on the Washington Blade here. Actually, project Maine Equality raised more money than did opponents of gay marriage.

Kalamazoo MI voters approved a law protecting LGBT people from discrimination in most areas.

However, in Washington State it appears that Referendum 71, giving domestic partnerships “everything but marriage” was probably going to pass; Seattle Times story here. (Lormet Turnbull, Janet I. Tu, Susan Kelleher authors). We’ll have to check back on this one.

In Virginia, voters swept in GOP candidates Bob McDonnell for governor and Ken Cuccinelli for state attorney general. McDonnell is controversial for having written in a thesis twenty years ago that women who work outside the home undermine the family, and Cuccinelli, as the Washington Post pointed out, views homosexuality as against “natural law”, that is, both candidates look at homosexuality in existential as well as religious terms. Cuccinelli even hinted at a “don’t ask don’t tell” policy for officials in his department (Oliver North once said that in the 1990s about his own employees on his radio talk show); but he can surf the Internet as well as anyone for applicants.

Tuesday, November 03, 2009

Major votes on gay marriage, other rights in six states take place today!

A strong editorial in The New York Times Monday Nov. 2 came out for the principle of LGBT equality, as it covers the issues in six places: New York, New Jersey and Washington DC, which it characterizes as “tantalizingly close to securing legislative approval for measures ending the hurtful and unjustifiable exclusion of same-sex couples from civil marriage.” At the same time, voters in Maine, Washington State and Kalamazoo, MI may be close to revoking advances, with the Michigan problem dealing with the more basic problem of individual discrimination in housing and employment, a kind of battle known since Anita Bryant’s heyday in the 1970s.

Then today, Nov. 3, Cheryl Wetzstein has a piece on p A16 of The Washington Times, “Polls show turn to civil unions”, link here. She traces the increase in public acceptance, or at least “tolerance”, of the manually processed rights for same sex couples in a civil union. Only a few years ago, John Kerry thought he sounded progressive when he favored “civil unions” rather than gay marriage. But, then, remember Chris Crain’s absolutist piece in the Washington Blade in March 2004, “Piddle, Twiddle and Resolve.”

Monday, November 02, 2009

Marine Corps Commandant publicly opposes lifting military gay ban

Well, after the merriment and spectacle of a public defrocking (or “tribunal”) on All Hallows Eve, when the “holiday” falls on a Saturday, guess the Monday morning (Nov. 2) greetings of The Washington Times, in a “supra-headline,” catching your (or my, anyway) vision as you walk into a suburban DC 7-11 store and scope the news racks.

It’s “Marine leads ‘don’t ask, don’t tell” fight,” in an exclusive story to the Washington Times by Rowan Scarborough, link here. The Marine in question is Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James T. Conway, who has spoken out against lifting the ban, while other members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, out of respect to the President’s wishes for the moment, have remained silent.

There’s an issue of perspective and terminology here. Back in 1993, “don’t ask don’t tell”, as Bill Clinton had argued it at Fort McNair in July, was an “honorable compromise”, an “advance”, sort of lifting the ban in private. Now, “don’t ask don’t tell” has become synonymous, in the public’s thinking, with The Ban itself. Legally, that’s not quite true. But the legal bridge is built with nebulous concepts like “propensity” and “rebuttable presumption” that set dangerous precedents for civilians in other areas and with respect to other issues. Does Conway want to go back to “asking”? The article doesn’t say, but Newt Gingrich had blurted something like that out back around 1995.

It’s becoming more apparent in this Internet age that the whole problem is more than conduct as we usually view it: it seems to delve deeply into the area of self-concept, the internal contradiction in the phrase of “An Army of One.” People whose social bearings depend on the group (as is usually the case in the military – but in today’s high tech world, by no means always) feel they are being “scoped” by those who seem themselves as standing alone. Yup, that does bear on the unit cohesion argument. The verb “scope” seems apt here – it comes from some clever writing of a WB Smallville episode a few years back, where the analogy between having secret extraterrestrial origin with observational “powers”, and homosexuality seems clever and clear.

Nevertheless, we have an individualistic society where notions of equality (as in the gay marriage debate, playing out now in Washington DC over a Council law -- TV station WJLA reported today that long lines were forming for the debate where 150 people will speak -- check this story "Council Takes Up Same-sex Marriage Bill in 2nd Public Hearing") cut on both sides: equal rights, and equal responsibilities. If you don’t share risk or uncertainty equitably, someone else has to. The whole question of national service and the possibility of restoring the draft forms the other side of this debate.

Note, also, a gay marriage vote in Maine tomorrow, as well as hearings on benefits in Montgoemery County MD today. More news will come.

Saturday, October 31, 2009

Halloween 2009 in DC (17th St this time)

Well, Halloween is lively on the DC Metro, with about two-third of passengers in costumes. On 17th Street in DC, not as many patrons were in costume as the "general population." Cobalt upstairs disco floor was pretty full by about 11 PM, and the liveliest dance moves went on right in the middle of the floor, not on the stage. Curiously, the DJ cut off the music suddenly, as if it had failed, to announce the start of the costume contest, and then resumed the music.

Someone wearing an SLDN "Lift the Ban" shirt got me admitted without a cover charge.

JR's wasn't quite as packed as I expected, but the drag retreat seemed to live on the upstairs landing.

Back at Farragut West Metro, a large crowd assembled, as if to watch an alien autopsy. The costumes tonight included Santa Claus (in October), and a gay male couple with one of the men in the "Reds" hammer and scycle.

So much for All Hallows Eve. All Saints Day must follow. I love that hymn "For all the saints."

Friday, October 30, 2009

Washington Post hammers VA GOP attorney general candidate on anti-gay "natural law" stance

The Washington Post has an important editorial Friday Oct. 30 about the GOP candidate (Kenneth Cuccinelli) for Attorney General in the Commonwealth of Virginia, “Mr. Cuccinelli’s Bigotry: as attorney general, he would be an embarrassment for Virginia”, link here.

The editorial quotes Cuccinelli’s past comments to the effect (I speak here in the subjunctive mood, as does the editorial) that “homosexual acts are intrinsically wrong … because they don’t comport with ‘natural law’.” He thinks that America is a “natural law-based country”.

This sounds a bit like Vatican theology, that sexuality must always be willing to risk the responsibilities that come with procreation – hence it is owned by traditional marriage.

I do look back upon my own upbringing in the 50s, and remember a component of our thinking then. Life was a gift to you, and you owe your loyalty to your family and your community before you decide on your own course in life and speak up for yourself. Among other things, that meant you helped take care of the family your parents created and you didn’t claim full adulthood until you were able and ready to continue the family by forming one of your own. Speech and rebellion were seen as denial that you had any obligations to others, and homosexuality (especially in men) was seen as a "rejection" of your own family and the social structure that your family provided for others besides you in your family of origin. Society had regarded the family as an essential social "grabularity" and had not yet supported the idea that everyone go out and prove himself away from home. But, ironically, wartime needs (migrating into the Cold War) had made the individual intellect and special talent more valuable in its own right. Starting in the 1960s (even before Stonewall) we started to see the individual as sovereign, and look at harmlessness, rather than familial and community obligation, as a basic moral principle. This would develop into a libertarian political outlook that would become increasingly visible in the 1980s and beyond. (Reagan, ironically, was part of the libertarian trend, even though many LGBT activists don’t see that.)

Cuccinelli, however, brings back the idea of the 50s with his encapsulating phrase “natural law”. The Post did well to remind us of the dangers of our past.

Wednesday, October 28, 2009

Metro Weekly interviews Daniel Choi, discharged under DADT

West Point Graduate and Arabic linguist 2Lt Daniel Choi, discharged under "don't ask don't tell", gives the Metro Weekly and interview with Sean Bugg in last weekend's issue here. The Feature Story is titled "Daniel's Choice: Faced with a decision between living with integrity or living a lie, this West Point grad chose honesty."

Choi came out publicly after the California Proposition 8 battle, and talks to the Metro about his experience in the National Equality March, which he says was necessary to support lobbyists and politician on the Hill. He also discusses the "denial" by his Korean parents.

Tuesday, October 27, 2009

DC: gay marriage opponents drag DOMA into court fight over referendum; ME: Gov urgers voters not to repeal gay marriagr

The Washington Post reports on Tuesday Oct. 27 (story by Tim Craig) that opponents of same-sex marriage will start of court fight to overturn DC’s law (recognizing out of state gay marriages) and force a referendum, and that the court arguments will invoke the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), link here.

And in Maine, Democratic governor John Baldacci encouraged voters not to overturn the right of gays to marry in a referendum in November, according to an AP story. The link is here. In the past, Baldacci has opposed same-sex marriagr.

NBC polls now report that 41% of the population supports same-sex marriage, as opposed to less than 30% a few years ago.

Monday, October 26, 2009

Senate will solicit comments from Pentagon on ending DADT; AF nurse challenges policy, testing Obama administration

Top Pentagon brass, including the Joint Chiefs of Staff, are being consulted about how to end “don’t ask don’t tell” according to a story in the Washington Blade Oct. 23, link here.

Senator Mark Udall (D-CO) , from the Armed Services Committee, is leading the effort to obtain comments. Udall says that the president and Democratic leadership in Congress are committed to finding a constructive way to end the discriminatory policy.

In the meantime, Air Force Major Margaret Witt is preparing a new challenge to the DADT law, with hearings due in Sept. 2010, putting the Obama administration in the cumbersome position of defending the constitutionality of the 1993 law (signed by Clinton) in court while trying to end DADT politically. Levi Pulkkinen has a story in the Seattle paper here. The president says that he does not have the executive authority to end the policy without Congress, despite some legal scholars who say that he does.

Sunday, October 25, 2009

DC closes "social club" for zoning violations: a "libertarian" issue?

The Washington Blade has a front page story Oct. 23, 2009 by Lou Chibbaro, Jr., “D.C. Court closes Men’s Parties following death: Attorney general says gatherings occurred without a business license,” link here.

I attended one of these parties in the 1990s, and I seem to recall that at one time there was an age limit. You called a phone number to get the location. The entity says that it is a “non-profit gathering” but the District of Columbia says that is a “business.” So the case is turning into an example-setter of concern to libertarians, about zoning laws. Zoning concerns do affect the operation of gay bars and gay clubs as a whole. This has been an issue of particular interest to libertarians.

Saturday, October 24, 2009

DC Reel Affirmations holds closing night party: a second chance to see "The Big Gay Musical"

Tonight I made it to the Reel Affirmations LGBT film festival in Washington DC closing night party, but not until after a five-hour power outage at home in Arlington. It seems that Dominion Power skimps on maintenance, so that customers lose out anytime there is even a slight storm. The party took place on the second floor pavilion of the Harman Center of the Shakespeare Theater Company at 6th and F in Washington DC, near the Verizon Center. The space was small compared to venues of the past (an open tent behind the Lincoln Theater in Cardozo). But some of the cast was there.

I got to see most of the film “The Big Gay Musical”, directed by Casper Andreas and Fred M. Caruso, on the plasma screens at the party, but have not heard the music yet. I could tell that the story had to do with beating back the ex-gay stuff. There was a lot of “intimacy”, and it seemed that the grand total count (SQL function!) of body hairs of the male cast was zero, so there must have been a lot of waxing or epilation of the cast—it looked a bit artificial. The website for the film is here. “When you try to be the person you’re not…”

I’ll review in full when I can find/buy a DVD or watch on Logo (haven’t checked Logo yet). I’ve heard it will be in theaters in February 2010 (TLA? Strand Releasing?)

Afterwards, at Town DC in Cardozo (neae the Lincoln Theater, the site for Reel Affirmations in previous years) a lean guy from the audience really "got it" from the drag queens (forced shirt removal) on stage, and what followed was a replay of Baltimore's White Party. The crowd builds up there once the Saturday night college football games finish at nearby Nellie's sports bar. It's all strange bedfellows.

Update:  There is a review on my movies blog of "The Big Gay Musical" Aug. 17, 2011; the film is now available from Netflix.

Thursday, October 22, 2009

Senate passes hate crimes bill

The United States Senate has passed the bill protecting gays from hate crimes, according to a Baltimore Sun story by James Oliphant, link here. The bill is named for Matthew Shepard, but some Senate Republicans didn’t like its being tied to the defense bill. The vote was 68-29. The story was featured in Google headline news to its account members.

October 28, 2009

President Obama signed the hate crimes law today, link to AP story by Ben Feller here.

Saturday, October 17, 2009

Conservative paper criticizes Obama's safe schools czar on glbt education

The Washington Times has an unkind, ungentle editorial Friday on our schools, “More dangerous ideas from Obama’s ‘safe schools’ czar”, link here.

The editorial discusses Kevin Jennings, author of a 1998 book “Queering Elementary Education: Advancing the Dialogue about Sexualities and Schooling (Curriculum, Cultures, and (Homo)Sexualities,” published by Rowman and Littlefield.

I had a contribution on this topic in high schools published in Greenhaven’s “Opposing Viewpoints” series, link here.

To me, grade school sounds a bit early for a social agenda like this. But I think high school students can be taught the “existential” problems with the “family values” debate in social studies courses. Some high schools offer sociology as a social studies elective, and that sounds like an appropriate place.

Thursday, October 15, 2009

218 votes in House needed to overturn "don't ask don't tell"

Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN) now reports that there are 180 cosponsors of legislation to end “don’t ask don’t tell” in the House of Representatives. The desired number is 218, and SLDN has a map “The Road to 218” here. Again, the bill is HR 1283 with govtrack reference web URL here.

Yet, Cal Thomas had an op-ed in The Washington Times on Thursday Oct. 15, “Don’t Ask, Tell or Legitamize: mission is national defense, not experimental psychology”, link here. He says he is sympathetic to Joseph Rocha, the gay sailor who was taunted by fellow sailors for his supposed lack of interest in girls. Then he does a military about face (remember Drill and Ceremonies?) and says that anecdote is the wrong place to start the argument. Ultimately, his whole point is existential. This is about the welfare of the group, not about fairness to or “equality among” individuals, he says.

But “equality” works both ways. If people can’t take equal responsibility or share risks equitably because of supposed “character defects”, then society will expropriate their lives in other ways.