The Dangers of Apathy

Scores of Pride-goers bragged about being non-political. That’s not a virtue, and here’s why.

By Steve Charing

On a given night, hundreds would cram the city’s streets, some carrying a gay periodical, and patronize the dozens of gay bars, cafes, nightclubs, pornography shops, cabarets and bathhouses. Adding to the crowd was an ample supply of hustlers that was visible along the dim, nighttime corridors.

Inside the buildings, female impersonators, clad in lavish brightly colored garb, performed amidst a foggy, smoky cloud that enveloped the jammed rooms. Toe-tapping songs were played to the resounding joy of the gay and straight audiences of the packed nightclubs and cabarets with the music drifting outside into the streets.

In other establishments, men freely danced with men; women danced with women. They openly embraced. An anti-gay law on the books was seldom enforced. Gay life was colorful, free and vibrant. Gay neighborhoods were established throughout the city. It had the most active gay culture on the entire continent, and it was a sexual Mecca.

Does this scene describe New York? San Francisco? Washington, D.C.? Or even Baltimore? Not hardly.

It happens to be Berlin, Germany, just prior to the Nazis’ rise to power. Indeed, it was estimated that there were more gay establishments and periodicals in 1920 Berlin than in 1980 New York. Not only was homosexuality tolerated, it flourished.

But as the music played inside Berlin’s gay clubs, sweeping political and social change was about to unfold that would rock the world. The patrons (and owners) of these establishments were oblivious to the new political reality; they continued to dance, seek out sex partners and lived in their own secluded, care-free world, unsuspecting of the emerging satanic forces and the horror of what was about to befall them. It sneaked up on them, and when they realized what was happening, it was too late.

As fast as a snap of a whip, there was the accession of Nazism and Hitler and the enforcement of the infamous Paragraph 175 that severely criminalized homosexual behavior. All gay clubs, hotels and other similar establishments were closed down. Known homosexuals were ordered to appear at police stations and were pressured to identify other homosexuals. School children were asked to inform on teachers who were suspected of being homosexual, employers on employees, and vice-versa.

Their tragic journey had begun. Gay men in Germany were sought out and rounded up with most being shipped to concentration camps for imprisonment and extermination. They were forced to wear a pink triangle for easy identification and lived in separate blocks apart from the other prisoners. The prisoners wearing the pink triangles were brutally treated by the guards and by inmates from other categories.

Homosexuals and those supporting abortion were seen by the new government as a threat to the Nazis’ dream of world dominance. It was as much about the lack of procreation as the lack of morality. For gay men it was also about their lack of masculinity—it did not fit the Aryan paradigm. They joined Jews, gypsies, criminals, political enemies, Communists, the disabled, epileptic and other outcasts that did not conform to the Third Reich’s master plan.

Approximately 100,000 gay men were arrested, 50,000 sent to prison camps, and hundreds were castrated. All told, an estimated 10,000 to 15,000 homosexuals, mainly those who were deemed "incurable," were exterminated in the death camps. Their death rate was said to have been three to four times higher than other non-Jewish categories during the Holocaust.
As you can see, apathy can be a perilous thing, and unfortunately, it is not confined to history.
Although there were numerous political groups represented at the recent Baltimore Pride celebration, there were an astonishing and disturbing number of folks who are oblivious to politics and seemed proud of that. Randee Wilding and his partner Josh Sullivan had volunteered to steer people to the Equality Maryland table to dispense information about the organization and sign up new members. Equality Maryland is the state’s leading gay civil rights advocacy organization.

But what Wilding and Sullivan noticed was stunning. "We encountered several people, including vendors and volunteers for other organizations who said they weren't political and were reluctant to even speak to us. I was in disbelief," said Wilding. "What do people think being political means? What is it going to take to get people motivated and involved?"
Even more shocking was Wilding’s observation that "there were also a staggering amount of folks at Baltimore Pride who didn't know what the Human Rights Campaign was, or for that matter, the [name of the] Governor of Maryland."

The people who attend Baltimore Pride represent a pretty good slice of the LGBT community. There are all sorts of reasons for folks to share in the celebration, but if that lack of political interest was typical of the crowd, then the drive towards equal rights or fending off anti-gay initiatives will be problematic. And there is certainly no reason to be proud of it.
"Apathy is one of our greatest enemies," said Jay Smith Brown, spokesperson for the Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest LGBT civil rights organization. "Political issues are always personal. You need to find out the area that make individuals most passionate and reach out to them," he told Baltimore OUTloud. "Last year's battle over the Federal Marriage Amendment got more people involved than ever before."

Clearly the horrors of Nazi Germany are not likely to be repeated here. I am not suggesting we have a government that is sympathetic to such thinking. Nor am I correlating our government to the atrocities of the Nazis or diminishing the human tragedy of the Holocaust.

But it is worth taking a look at some frightening similarities: We basically have an anti-gay government at the federal and state levels that is at risk of being hijacked by religious, homophobic extremists. Gays and pro-choice people are also vilified by extreme right wing elements. There are hate groups all over the country that would like nothing else but to see gays remanded to concentration camps or exterminated. Many, in fact, have thanked God for the onset and scourge of AIDS. Hate crimes directed towards LGBT individuals are on the rise.
Who is to say for certain that some day these modern-day extremists will not come to power at a given point in time? A good barometer will be the upcoming Supreme Court battle. The gays in Berlin surely didn’t expect such terror to envelop their nation. The anti-gay, pro-life forces in this country are well funded, well motivated and well represented. That is why the LGBT community cannot afford to sit back in their own comfort zones while progress towards equality is slammed shut or worse, our rights are being beaten back.

Political apathy allowed the Nazis to rise to power, but I’m not implying that gays’ indifference alone was responsible. I’m pointing out that apathy by all segments of the population can allow for a country to be blindsided by tyranny. Gays and lesbians have a lot to lose if we’re not vigilant and active politically. Apathy is nothing to be proud of, and as history has taught us it can be dangerous.

The Essence of Pride

By Steve Charing

As we approach the annual Pride festivities and all the color and hoopla that goes along, one can easily to lose sight of the meaning of Pride. The younger generation may not fully appreciate the significance of Pride celebrations. Lucky for them, they didn’t have to endure the threats of bar raids, arrests and other oppressive tactics that permeated the gay scene prior to Stonewall in 1969. But they should try to understand the tough journey that brought us here today.

On a sultry June weekend that year, a coterie of gays, lesbians and drag queens revolted against police harassment stemming from yet another raid at the Stonewall Inn in New York’s Greenwich Village. For once, gays fought back. To many, that historic event triggered the launch of the modern gay-rights movement and planted the seeds for Pride parades and celebrations all over the world each year during the month of June.

Many see Pride as a big party, and that’s fine. Older lgbt citizens, I believe, have a keener awareness of the history and symbolism and can better assess the progress the lgbt community has made in the 36 years since the Stonewall uprising.

The parade up Charles Street sets the tone with the wide variety of lgbt and allied organizations and businesses marching and riding amidst shouts, cheers and waves from the festive crowd on the sidelines. The block party, as always, is a social carnival and a reunion of old friends and a chance to, um, bump into new ones. Entertainment on the sound stage plus the dancing in the street provides a fitting backdrop. The aroma that blends smoke, food, cologne, sweat and alcohol makes for a distinctive odoriferous cocktail. At certain points in time, moving around does not appear to be an option.

The Sunday-in-the-park event affords the opportunity for folks to trot out their dogs and for couples to stroll about the tree-shaded paths hand-in-hand. Music fans are entertained by the eclectic performers; the colorful crowd will indulge the numerous food vendors and get acquainted with the myriad lgbt organizations that are trying to make life better for all of us.
Some question the purpose of "Gay Pride." What’s to be proud about? Being gay isn’t an accomplishment like performing a heroic act or succeeding at your job. True enough. It isn’t about accomplishment so much as a self-recognition that this is who I am and that I refuse to pretend I’m somebody else. Nonetheless, there are as many ways to interpret the meaning of Pride as there are people doing it.

While the lgbt community has had to endure political setbacks and destructive divisions within the community itself during the post-Stonewall era, there were many victories, too. Through the years, our goals have evolved from tolerance to acceptance, and now our fight is for full equality in society. Pride should be about pointing to the positives. I, for one, use this occasion to reflect upon our history and the reasons to be proud:

I am proud that the climate is such that so many more people are coming out of the closet, especially at an earlier age. This helps them discover their true selves and allows the heterosexual population to get to know lgbt individuals as human beings—not some abstract stereotype.

I am proud that more and more lgbt politicians are out as well, thus giving us a voice, albeit a small one, in government at all levels. And it is heartening to see a growing number of government officials not shying away from taking a pro-gay stance on issues. However, there is much work to be done in the political arena.

I am proud of such organizations as PFLAG, Equality Maryland, GLSEN, the ALCU and other effective groups for fighting the fight for all of us. They are on the front lines and in the trenches in an effort to gain equality for the lgbt community. We should salute these groups and support them mightily in every way possible.

I am proud of the way the lesbian community rallied to help gay men in need during the AIDS crisis in the 1980s. This was inspirational in light of the fact that many gay men and lesbians had experienced an uneasy relationship up to that point.

I am proud of all those organizations who have given comfort to HIV/AIDS patients, those who keep trying to educate the public about the disease and those individuals conducting research to find a cure.

I am proud that lgbt businesses, newspapers, websites, resorts and other establishments have proliferated over time, which helps to weave us into the fabric of society. And it brings us an enormous amount of economic clout, as lgbt individuals typically have a higher percentage of disposable income.

I am proud that so many schools have a Gay-Straight Alliance, which presents a safe haven for lgbt youth to meet and discuss their lives without fear of intimidation. Moreover, many PFLAG chapters and community centers offer lgbt youth support groups at a time in their lives when it is critical to realize that they are not alone and it is OK to be gay.

I am proud that even the subject of same-sex marriage had entered into the dialogue, which would have been inconceivable just 5 years ago. I am also proud of the over 6,100 gay and lesbian couples who have married in Massachusetts so far—also a remarkable feat.
I am proud of our diverse community and hope that some day we will realize that we are all stronger for it.

Finally, I am proud that we have come such a long way that I’m able to openly dance with my partner at a straight wedding.

We all view Pride through the prism of one’s experiences. I see Pride as a celebration of life, of what we accomplished as a community, and how we will succeed in the coming years. Here’s to rainbows, balloons and triangles. Here’s to us all.

Ehrlich's Sharp Right Turn

The Governor’s cowardly veto of pro-gay bills solidifies his alignment with religious right

By Steve Charing

Remember over 20 years ago how the Baltimore Colts slithered their way out of Baltimore in the dead of night? In a similarly craven move, Governor Robert L. Ehrlich, Jr. chose the late Friday afternoon of Preakness weekend, where the publicity would be the most minimal, to veto two pro-gay bills as well as a series of other progressive measures.

This cowardly act establishes once and for all that Mr. Ehrlich’s self-portrayal as a moderate in a moderate state is indeed a fraud. As in the case of President Bush, Ehrlich is in bed with the extreme right wing elements of a Party that has been hijacked by self-righteous intrusive but exclusionary moralists, religious fanatics, bigots and homophobes. If the Republicans continue on this course, we should dub them the Christian Taliban.

I’m not the only one who is drawing this conclusion. Dan Furmansky, Executive Director of Equality Maryland—the largest lgbt civil rights organization in the state who worked feverishly to get the bills passed—told Baltimore OUTloud, "What makes Governor Ehrlich's vetoes truly pathetic is that he probably would have signed the bills if he had his druthers, but this man lacks integrity. He is a pawn of the far right elements of the Maryland Republican Party, who have as many moderates in the General Assembly as I can count on two hands," said Furmansky. "Unfortunately, he is a coward that is afraid to stand up to the anti-gay zealots who have officially taken over the Republican Party in this state."

One of the bills vetoed by the Governor was the hard-fought Medical Decision-Making Act that had been ultimately passed with a significant margin in both houses of the General Assembly. The other —the Transfer & Recordation Tax Exemption Bill—would have allowed same-sex couples to transfer real estate to each other without paying recordation and transfer taxes, a privilege afforded to married couples. Veto overrides next January are uncertain at this juncture, but prospects appear dim.

The Medical Decision-Making Act was designed to establish a statewide domestic partner registry so that members of all unmarried couples, both gay and straight, would be allowed to make key decisions regarding the health care of the affected partner. There were also other provisions not contained in advance directives that would have allowed benefits that are conferred upon married couples, such as hospital visitation rights, sharing an ambulance and the right to partners’ living in the same nursing home room.

However, Governor Ehrlich collapsed under the pressures from the likes of Republican extremists Delegate Donald H. Dwyer, Jr., Senator Nancy Jacobs and Senator Alex X. Mooney as well as other homophobes who, in the name of religion and morality, have captured the Governor’s ear (and soul). He vetoed the bill saying, "…the creation a new term of life partner will open the door to undermine the sanctity of traditional marriage." How visiting your sick partner in a hospital room would impact the marriage of the Governor and Kendal Ehrlich is a mystery that defies both logic and common decency.

"[The] vetoes are confirmation that the moderate wing of the Republican Party in Maryland, which the Governor is supposed to represent, has dwindled into obscurity," said openly gay Delegate Richard S. Madaleno (D-Kensington). "Truly moderate Republican Governors around the nation, like Connecticut Governor Jodi Rell and California Governor Arnold Schwarzeneggar, have lent support for far more comprehensive measures than those the Governor killed."
The vetoes surprised many who believed the Governor needed to burnish his credentials as a moderate to appeal to that large segment of the voting population that helped him get elected in the first place and are critical to his re-election chances.

But these anti-gay actions are consistent with Ehrlich’s attitudes throughout his political career towards the lgbt community. In his current term, Mr. Ehrlich declared on his favorite medium, talk radio, that he would not permit same-sex marriages "on his watch." As a member of the House of Representatives, Mr. Ehrlich was given a lowly pro-gay score of 25 out of 100 by the Human Rights Campaign—the nation’s largest lgbt advocacy organization—that was slightly better than that of the reactionary Rep. Roscoe Bartlett’s score of zero. When he was a member of Maryland’s House of Delegates, Mr. Ehrlich railed against gays and lesbians receiving "special rights."

Not only did these vetoes slap the face of the lgbt community at large, it was a strike against Mr. Ehrlich’s own chief of staff, Steven L. Kreseski—who is said to be openly gay—as well as other gay members of the Governor’s staff. On John Aravosis’ AmericaBlog.org, "John in DC" offered the following: "How interesting that Governor Ehrlich, a Republican, is worried that gays threaten the sanctity of marriage when his own chief of staff, Steve Kreseski, is openly gay and has been for the 15 years I've known him."

He continued, "It's hard to believe that Ehrlich doesn't know Steve is gay, he's been out and about in town since the early 1990s at least, and Steve even once told me years ago, when he was working for Ehrlich on the Hill, that Ehrlich knew he was gay. So the question is begged: Why does Ehrlich have an open gay chief of staff if Ehrlich claims to support the family values agenda? If gays threaten that agenda then how can he have a gay as chief of staff?"
Baltimore OUTloud attempted to reach Mr. Kreseski for comments on how the vetoes would impact the gay members of the Governor’s staff. He referred the question to the Governor’s Press Office, which did not return calls to OUTloud.

It is inconceivable how the Governor can object to a person visiting a loved one in the hospital. Just as the decision to allow same-sex marriage in Massachusetts served to mobilize the "base" for Republicans, the vetoes may produce the same outcome but in reverse. This should galvanize Maryland’s pissed off lgbt community to take action to make him a one-term governor. He posed as a moderate, but his actions show that he’s clearly a fake.

The Glass is Half Full

The latest poll on gay marriage attitudes offers rays of hope

By Steve Charing

Upon the one-year anniversary of the historic beginning of same-sex marriages in Massachusetts, we note that over 6,100 gay and lesbian couples have wed in the Bay State. The latest poll, published by the Boston Globe and conducted by the University of New Hampshire Survey Center of 760 randomly selected adults during May 4-9, showed half of Americans object to same-sex marriages and do not want their states to recognize gay marriages from Massachusetts. Thirty-seven percent approved such marriages while eleven percent were neutral. It had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.6 percent.

While the poll found that half of Americans oppose same-sex marriage, 46 percent of those surveyed indicated support for civil unions that would provide lgbt couples with "some, but not all of the legal rights of married couples." Forty-one percent were against civil unions.

Since the landmark ruling by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in November 2003, 18 states have amended their constitutions to define marriage as between a man and a woman (with more on the way), thus slamming the doors on same-sex marriage in these states pending possible court challenges. To make matters worse, President Bush on a number of occasions called for a federal constitutional amendment—the Defense of Marriage Act—that would, in effect, ban same-sex marriage. Although the proposed amendment failed to get by either chamber of Congress last year, nowhere is there a consensus among Americans that believes allowing same-sex marriage is the fair and right thing to do.

Sounds bad huh? Not really.

Poll results are always seen through the prism of one’s convictions; they can be viewed as either the glass is half full or half empty, and the numbers are always subject to interpretation and discussion. On the controversial issue of same-sex marriage, the glass is half full, but there is an enormous way to go to fill the glass to the brim.

Many lgbt equality advocates point to the experience in Massachusetts as reason for hope. "While the outside world debates how to treat its gay couples, Massachusetts sees that fire-and-brimstone predictions didn't come true," wrote Deb Price in USA Today on May 17—the one-year anniversary of the first same-sex weddings in Massachusetts. "Religious institutions haven't been forced to bless the civil marriage of any gay couple, though many have done so voluntarily." And the Globe, in an editorial, observed, "the world, unsurprisingly, has not fallen off its axis."

"The story of the last year is not just about these couples, it is also about how the radical right’s outlandish claims proved to be totally unfounded," said Patrick Guerriero, president of the Log Cabin Republicans. "Massachusetts has one of the lowest divorce rates in the country, and for most people, very little has changed over the last year."

Accordingly, the citizens of Massachusetts have done a hundred and eighty-degree turn and are overwhelmingly supportive of same-sex marriage. Another poll by the Globe taken in March shows that Bay Staters support these marriages by a 56 to 37 percent majority. In February 2004, the results indicated that more people had opposed same-sex marriage by a 53 to 35 percent margin. "People find out that when Adam and Steve marry next door, it doesn't hurt them, but it does help Adam and Steve," says pollster Bob Meadow of Decision Research.

And to some, the tide appears to be turning nationwide. "We have withstood a huge gay bashing assault and still 4 out of 10 people think [same-sex] marriage is OK, 11 percent could care less, and only 50 percent of the country is against gay marriage," said Kevin Jordan, co-chair of the PFLAG-Howard County Advocacy Committee, referring to the latest poll results. "Half the country is not on the side of [the opponents of marriage equality]. This is huge."

Jordan is correct. During the entire presidential election campaign, the question of same-sex marriage was mixed in along with terrorism, the economy and the war in Iraq as issues that mattered most to voters. Despite Senator John Kerry’s public opposition to same-sex marriage, the Republicans saw fit to bludgeon him over the head with the issue and may have contributed to higher GOP Evangelical-Christian voter turnout in the pivotal state of Ohio, thereby tipping the election towards Mr. Bush. And with constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage on the ballots of 11 states during the election cycle, the anti-gay marriage rhetoric filled the air like a poisonous dense fog.

The scare tactics that were designed by Karl Rove and his fear and smear machine and employed by the anti-gay Republicans were manifested in inflammatory sermons at churches (including African-American churches), divisive and often false radio messages and other under-the-radar negative advertising. Adding to the woes was the fact there were no major leaders in either Party advocating same-sex marriage. If they didn’t oppose it outright, they chose to run away from the issue; therefore, no pro-gay voices were heard to offset the vitriol.

Moreover, opposition to the federal constitutional amendment question was framed more around the appropriateness or lack thereof, of using the Constitution to encroach upon states’ rights regarding marriage policy. The fairness argument was mute.

Having withstood the barrage of anti-gay marriage messages with virtually no clear voice to counter them, the public’s attitudes appear to be moving ever so slowly towards the more positive side. "Public acceptance is growing, and polling data and trends show we’re gaining ground," Jay Smith, spokesman for the Human Rights Campaign told Baltimore OUTloud. "People more and more see same-sex marriage as a matter of fairness."

This is especially true in Massachusetts, where the citizens have witnessed these marriages without the threatened Armageddon. What we need now are more states like Massachusetts to help top off that half-full glass.

Steele Factory

The forging of Michael Steele into the GOP’s rising star should be a concern for gays

By Steve Charing

Lt. Governor Michael S. Steele will be the Republican candidate for Senator to fill Sen. Paul Sarbanes’ vacant seat in 2006. You can take that to the bank. He hasn’t announced his candidacy yet; he’s mulling over his options, which would include his desire to be governor in the future, his teaming up with Gov. Ehrlich for a re-election bid in 2006, as well as his own family considerations, but he will accept the GOP nomination for Senator. Count on it.

Mr. Steele is clearly the most prominent African-American Republican in the state, and he was the first ever African-American to hold the position of Lieutenant Governor in Maryland. Since last summer, the national GOP has anointed him as a potential "rising star" in the Party. That, in itself, is rather odd because Mr. Steele, 46, never held an elected office prior to his being teamed up with Governor Ehrlich and, therefore, is not a proven vote getter. But Republican strategists view Mr. Steele as the best chance in decades to win Sen. Sarbanes’ seat.

Spotlight on Steele
The former chairman of the state’s Republican Party—and the nation’s only African-American to hold such a post—was given a high profile speaking slot during the Republican National Convention. To select the Lieutenant Governor over a sitting governor of the same party speaks volumes as to how Mr. Steele is perceived by the GOP power brokers and election strategists. Following the Convention he went on and campaigned tirelessly for the President’s re-election in places outside of Maryland—especially in the pivotal state of Ohio—amassing valuable IOUs.
Moreover, President Bush selected Mr. Steele to be part of a three-man delegation to represent him and the country in attending the installation of Pope Benedict XVI. A devout Catholic and former seminarian, Lt. Governor Steele was a natural choice. But it was yet another opportunity to elevate his profile and to remind Maryland’s largely Catholic voters of his religious affiliation.

A key component of the GOP strategy
To a Party that is yearning for African-American support and believes it is trending in that direction, Michael Steele is the Messiah, or so it seems. His being an African-American would be the cornerstone of the Republican strategy of attracting conservative blacks to help bolster the GOP agenda. (Another strategy is doling out faith-based initiative money to black churches to promote opposition to same-sex marriage, abortion and other pet conservative issues.)
And for the Republicans and the President, a GOP Senate win in Maryland would be tantamount to the Orioles winning the World Series. It would represent a major, unexpected victory that would embolden Republicans as they fervently seek a filibuster-proof 60-seat majority.

To further the point, Ken Mehlman, the head of the Republican National Committee, named Michael Steele to the Party’s newly formed, highly visible African-American Advisory Committee. In discussing a possible Steele run for the Senate, "The lieutenant governor is an incredibly strong candidate," Mehlman said at a fundraiser in Baltimore County last month. "Whatever he decides to do, he's going to be successful." In addition, Karl Rove, the GOP’s strategy wizard, has approached him to run. And if Michael Steele is to be the nominee (and he will), he would receive significant RNC backing. Translation: tons of money, volunteers on the ground and organizational help.

Governor or Senator?
Although it has been reported Mr. Steele would eye the Governor’s Mansion in 2010, a run for the Senate, with a reasonable chance for winning, would bring out the GOP base and help Governor Ehrlich’s re-election chances, which appear, at this point, sketchy at best. After witnessing the turmoil that the Governor has experienced especially in the General Assembly, Mr. Steele would find it far less stressful in the U.S. Senate chamber where he would hold a very prestigious, influential position on a national stage. It would be too tempting to brush aside this golden opportunity. Besides, since the Republican power brokers want him to run, he may not want to rebuke their pleas lest he lose similarly strong support in future election efforts.

Steele and the lgbt community: a tough read
While Governor Ehrlich strategically ponders the fate of four pro-gay bills recently passed in the General Assembly, neither he nor Mr. Steele publicly expressed a position one way or the other.
In Annapolis late January Michael Steele "represented" the governor by speaking briefly at a virulently anti-gay "Defend Marriage Rally" consisting of religious conservatives who were demanding a superfluous amendment to the state’s Constitution reiterating that marriage should only be allowed between a man and a woman. He backed the traditional union but did not publicly support a constitutional amendment to prevent gays from marrying. "We are here to affirm that marriage is only between a man and a woman," Mr. Steele said. "We need to make it clear where Maryland stands."

Michael Steele hasn’t provided many clues on his attitude towards the lgbt community mainly because of the political reality that he (and the governor) must retain support from moderates to succeed in Maryland. That explains the reticence by Ehrlich and Steele concerning the recent legislation. Many analysts familiar with statewide politics believe that both would prefer the measures be part of a 2006 referendum so that neither would have their fingerprints on the bills and risk offending conservatives and moderates alike.

Precious little evidence is available, however, that would put Michael Steele in the gay-friendly category. "I am sure Michael Steele is not a homophobe," Joe Zuber, the former president of the Maryland Chapter of the Log Cabin Republicans told me. "I consider [Steele] a friend and that he knows I’m an openly gay man. We’ve hugged."

Real Time confusion
There was hope in gaining some clarity as to Michael Steele’s thoughts on gay issues during a recent appearance on HBO’s Real Time with Bill Maher. That did not happen. While he essentially stood his ground against a combative panel and moderator (Maher) and a rather hostile audience, he didn’t shed much light on these issues. Part of this was attributable to his vague stances; most was due to the frequent interruptions by his co-panelists. However, in addressing the charge of homophobia within the black community, he did argue that "the other side of the coin" is that one must respect the "values" (there’s that word again) taught by others or had been read in the Bible by those who believe that homosexuality is wrong. When Maher asked him if in fact he’s tolerating intolerance, Mr. Steele replied "No, I’m not. I’m not." He was never given the chance to complete his point.

"Senator" Steele could hurt gays
The prospect of a Steele Senate victory could be troublesome for Maryland’s lgbt citizens. This is obviously not based on any fiery anti-gay rhetoric spewing from his lips or clearly defined positions that undermine the lgbt community. But he is a social conservative, tied to his religious beliefs. I believe he is sensitive to homophobic African-American ministers and their congregations because this is a coveted constituency by the GOP. Perhaps that is why he spoke at January’s rabid anti-gay rally and not at Equality Maryland’s Lobby Day gathering held the next month at the same location.

"Our community would have a lot to be concerned about if we lost Paul Sarbanes' vacant Senate seat to Lt. Governor Michael Steele," said Dan Furmansky, Executive Director of Equality Maryland, the state’s largest lgbt advocacy group. "Sen. Sarbanes has been a staunch supporter of lgbt rights, while our Lt. Governor has gone so far as to speak at that anti-gay rally in Annapolis organized by Del. Don Dwyer, the most extreme member of the Maryland Republican Party."

Regardless of what is in his heart, he will almost certainly, as senator, tow the Republican line. This is true especially if he has any dreams of gaining a position on a coveted committee or even a window office. And the Republican line is anti-gay for no other reason is that it taps into the country’s homophobes, religious zealots and bigots—all proven GOP voters.
Accordingly, he would be inclined to vote for a U.S. Constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage should it come before him then. He would not favor the end of the insanely counterproductive "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" policy in the military. And he would most likely not support ENDA—the measure that would add "sexual orientation" to federal anti-discrimination laws.

But most importantly, the election of Michael Steele to the Senate would bring the Republicans one step closer to complete dominance in all branches of government. A filibuster-proof majority in the Senate would allow Bush’s extreme right-wing judicial nominations to sail through. That’s not a good thing for gays and their families.

Is he or isn't he?

The question of "outing" anti-gay politicians or staffers divides community

By Steve Charing

Once again the debate involving the outing of suspected gay politicians whose policies and actions appear harmful to the lgbt community is upon us. Since the early 1980s the tactic of outing has been employed by gay activists and has achieved varying degrees of success.

Some targets have come out of the closet and admitted their homosexuality (Rep. Robert Baumann [R-MD]). Some have vehemently denied it and/or attacked back (Mark Foley [R-FL]). Some have remained silent (Rep. David Dreier [R-CA] and Sen. Barbara Mikulski [D-MD]). And others have resigned from their posts, most recently Rep. Ed Schrock (R-VA).

Simply put, if an elected official (or a staff member to an official) has advocated policies that would negatively affect gays and that person is suspected of being gay, activists attempt to discredit the individual by outing him or her. The goal is to create damage by exposing the individual as a hypocrite. This process usually involves prying into the personal lives of the target individuals. It may include questioning known associates, friends or other contacts; observations of the individual attending a gay event or venue like a gay club; gleaning from loosely tossed around information over the Internet or other sources.

The latest flap surrounds the newly anointed chairman of the Republican National Committee, Baltimore native Ken Mehlman. As you probably know, Mehlman was a chief strategist for the Bush-Cheney campaign prior to his being the leader of the RNC. Al Hunt of CNN characterized Mehlman’s importance to Bush by saying, "If Karl Rove was the architect of that impressive reelection campaign, then Ken Mehlman was the general contractor."

There is a large segment of the lbgt community who would love nothing more than to drag out of the closet one of the leading operatives of an administration who successfully used the wedge issue of "gay marriage" to win votes especially in closely contested battleground states like Ohio. The administration is also reviled for supporting an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that forever bans same-sex marriage. And now, as head of the RNC, Mehlman leads and represents a Party that officially considers same-sex marriage, and by extension gays, to be a threat to society.

Ken Mehlman, a 38 year-old bachelor, has been rumored to be gay for about a year. Word of this suspicion has been spreading around the Net mainly through blogs, and as far as I can determine, there is no solid evidence—no smoking gun—to support the rumors. Yet they persist.
Mehlman, himself, fanned the flames concerning his rumored sexual orientation by dodging the basic question, "Are you gay?" According to the Gay People’s Chronicle, a northern Ohio lgbt newspaper, he responded to that very question by a reporter following a speech in Akron, OH on March 19 by saying, "[You] have asked a question people shouldn’t have to answer." Shockingly, Mehlman, if he was indeed heterosexual, did not affirm that. Straight men aren’t likely to eschew proclaiming their heterosexuality.

His silence was deafening, but the blogs got very noisy.

Because of Ken Mehlman’s leadership role in the Bush campaign and his prominence in the Party, he has indeed become target number one among militant gay activists. Activist-blogger John Arovosis says Mehlman should be outed if he is gay because "Mehlman has already said publicly that the gay issue is fair game for politics. If it is fair game, then the same rules apply to him."

"The GOP has made it perfectly clear that gays and lesbians and their relationships are a threat to the fabric of American society," wrote Arovosis. "As American citizens and voters, we have the right to know if Ken Mehlman’s so-far-undisclosed relationships are posing such a threat or not."

And those suspected of inhibiting the outing of Mehlman are also under the gun. Chris Crain, the editorial director of the Washington Blade, was accused by several bloggers of "spiking" a story that Blade reporters had prepared which would have outed Mehlman. Critics cited Crain’s previous friendship with Mehlman (they both attended Harvard Law School and were colleagues on the conservative Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy) as the principal reason he prevented the release of the story.

But in an editorial responding to the attacks, Crain wrote, "On the subject of sexual orientation, we cannot report that Ken Mehlman is gay unless he says so himself. Absent that proof, the press can and should ask him ‘the question’ and print his response." He denied any knowledge of Mehlman’s sexual orientation, and as a journalist, there was no verifiable, credible information to justify publishing a news item depicting Mehlman as gay.

Nonetheless, Chris Crain is not averse to publishing such information under certain conditions. He explained to Baltimore OUTloud, "I think it is justified to report public information about someone’s sexual orientation that suggests they’re gay, even if they claim to be straight or won’t answer the question, if they are in a position to influence public policy and appear to be doing so in a way that is harmful to gays. The question of hypocrisy is what makes this information newsworthy."

Public information, according to Crain, would include, "showing up at gay bars and parties, appearing in public with a date of the same gender; telling others that they are gay, etc."
As for Ken Mehlman specifically, Crain says, "His refusal to answer the question is very powerful evidence for readers to consider, since no heterosexual in memory has similarly refused to answer the question, especially one whose party considers heterosexual
marriage and ‘traditional values’ to be bedrock principles."

Some leading lgbt organizations and many individuals are opposed to outing closeted individuals regardless of their record or policies towards gays. For example, the Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest lgbt group, is against outing. "We don’t think that sexual orientation or gender identity should be used as a weapon," HRC spokesman Jay Smith Brown told OUTloud. "We judge politicians on how they vote."

Opponents of outing offer the invasion of privacy and the cynical use of existing homophobia as reasons to rebuke such tactics. "Whatever closeted elected officials' excuse, outing is a Pyrrhic tactic," says writer Stentor Danielson. "It gains its effectiveness from the harsh attitudes many in our society hold toward homosexuality. By outing politicians, gay rights activists are using homophobia for their own ends. Nobody deserves politically-motivated prying into their personal life, and nobody deserves to feel the wrath of homophobes."

Equality Maryland, the state’s principal lgbt civil rights organization, had just completed a successful effort during this year’s General Assembly session. It, too, does not endorse outing of politicians or staffers. "Equality Maryland is focused on achieving social change and legislative gains without bringing legislators' sexual orientation into the dialogue," said the organization’s executive director Dan Furmansky. "We feel our efforts are best served by changing people's hearts and minds about our right to equality."

In the long run, that seems to be the best strategy. While the threat and fear of outing may provide gratification and revenge to some, it cannot be relied upon to influence the overwhelming majority of government officials and voters who happen to be straight. Worse, it could cause a backlash instead.

Let’s hear what you think.

Come Out and Play Ball!!

The distracting steroid scandal presents a golden opportunity for a gay baseball player to come out of the closet

By Steve Charing

(published in Baltimore OUTloud and OUTSPORTS.com)

The greening of the grass and the budding on the trees, the talkative birds and the emergence of hibernating daffodils all signal the start of new baseball season. But the run-up to the first pitch ceremonies has been dominated by the revelations that major leaguers in uncertain numbers have used steroids.

The House Committee on Government Oversight did their thing with a theatrical hearing, which gave the appearance that if baseball doesn’t fix the steroid problem, Congress would act. Following the testimonies by the current and former players as well as representatives of Major League Baseball and the Players Association, it is assured that the cloud of steroids is going to hover over the baseball season that is about to launch.

With all the distraction of the steroids problem, it would seem that now may be the right time for one of the gay major leaguers to come out of the closet and, well, be a man. You ask why add more controversy to a season that will be remembered more for finger pointing and suspicion than any home run chase? Why upset the nation’s fans who are already disappointed in their heroes?

The answer is simple: being gay, being true to yourself, and being up front about it is in no way comparable to players who cheated using illegal substances to achieve individual records and then had become the beneficiaries of more lucrative contracts.

By contrasting the self-outing of a gay ballplayer with one who has been found to have used anabolic steroids, the outcome for the gay player in terms of acceptance appears to have a reasonable chance for success. Which is worse, a baseball player sleeping with another man when he goes home at night following a game or one who injects another’s butt with an illegal, banished and dangerous substance that artificially gives a player an advantage over the "play-by-the rules types"? Will the gay player "steal" the home run title simply for being gay? No. (But it would be nice though.)

Let’s be clear about it, there are gay players in the major leagues. Mark McGwire basically said as much during his sobbing testimony when he proudly proclaimed his own indifference to "sexual preference." Why would he make such a remark unless he knows of players whose sexual "preference" needs to be, um, ignored?

Set aside for a moment the controversial political discourse surrounding same-sex marriage, red states, blue states, religious extremists, etc. A professional athlete who openly admits he’s gay would send a colossal message to the denizens of the U.S. that it is OK to be gay and that he can perform in his job effectively. It would also set the stage for other athletes to do likewise.

As I’ve opined before, it would take Jackie Robinson-like courage to make such a move—as it was Robinson who broke the barrier of baseball’s institutional racism in 1947. Robinson specifically had the make-up in his heart and soul, not to mention guts, to withstand the threats and the taunts of teammates, opponents and fans all over. He not only endured he became a Hall of Famer.

No other male professional athlete has come out of the closet while he is actively playing. A couple of former baseball and football players have come out once they retired. Billy Bean (pictured) was the most recent baseball player who came out after his playing days ended. He remains a gay activist.

Baseball is ripe for it; it’s essentially a non-contact sport that focuses more on individual skills than teamwork. One can be gay and play shortstop while his homophobic left fielder can only look in on him with wonder between pitches. And hyped up fears of sexual assaults in the locker room and showers are pure nonsense, and most everyone knows that. Athletes aren’t that stupid.

Still, each baseball club undoubtedly has a John Rocker-type homophobe or three in its midst. That’s a problem that needs to be addressed by the team’s management and the other teammates. Cities such as Philadelphia and Toronto have already held "Gay Community Nights" at their ballparks, which is an excellent signal that they are interested in marketing and attracting gay and lesbian fans. Don’t expect similar events in the homophobic NBA though.

I used to believe that the risk of losing prospective endorsements would be a major impediment to a gay player’s coming out. I think differently now. Not that many players actually have major endorsement deals. Locally, we see the ubiquitous Cal Ripken pitching everything in sight. Of course, Rafael Palmiero (one of those accused of using steroids in the infamous Jose Canseco tell-all), had a national Viagra deal going. I believe he would have stood a greater chance of losing his endorsement contract if it came out that he used steroids than if he came out as gay. (That is not meant to imply he is gay; it is merely to demonstrate the point that certain advertisers would be more sensitive to drug abuse than sexual orientation—especially if the sponsor is Viagra.)

Most other ballplayers don’t have local endorsements in tow. Has anyone seen the telegenic Javy Lopez in many commercials? Or Larry Bigbie or Brian Roberts? Not hardly. Therefore, with such a low percentage of baseball players with endorsement deals, a player’s coming out of the closet would probably not affect his traditional endorsement prospects since it would be unlikely he would have been offered a deal even if he remained in the closet. Conversely, many gay-friendly companies like Ikea, Pier 1, or Southwest Airlines would literally jump at the chance to have an openly gay player push their products or services.

The main challenge would be dealing with the media and fans. Someone who is tough enough to withstand the taunting and threats would be the ideal candidate. It would also require someone who would have to be, at some level, at peace with himself that coming out would actually be a good thing for him. If he weren’t a star player to begin with—an icon—perhaps this revelation would cause people to look up at him. Clearly this would be a big leap—for the player and for the sport. While it is true that many Americans have problems with gays and lesbians, relatively few lack awareness thanks to the emergence of gay characters in our culture and other sources of information. It would not appear so alien as it might have in years past.

The time is right for a ballplayer to come out of the dugout and declare his true self to one and all. The pain baseball is experiencing because of the steroid scandal is far more acute than a player revealing a heretofore hidden part of his persona. The focus will not be on him because the steroids issue is a far greater threat to the game.

Come out and play ball!

Hate Crimes Against Gays Remain a Growing Threat

By Steve Charing

At a recent meeting I attended, a gay man disputed the proposition that gay people aren’t safe on the streets. "I think violence against gays is over-inflated," he claimed with a straight face. "My friends never mention any attacks on gays." He tried to reason, "You go to Fells Point and people are always being beaten and robbed there. They’re drunk and vulnerable. It’s not against gays."

The sounds in the room immediately following these nutty pronouncements were the sounds of eyes rolling back, heads being scratched and just plain groans. I knew that if glbt folks don’t see the dangers, how could we expect our straight legislators to add language that cover murders, assaults, vandalism and other criminal offenses directed towards the glbt community in the Hate Crimes Bill now before the General Assembly?

This gentleman failed to understand that hate crimes are those targeting a community at large with no motive other than hatred. An individual’s being attacked simply for being gay or being perceived to be gay is a hate crime. It is accomplished with venom: repeated kicks, punches, swings of a baseball bat rendering the victim unrecognizable, multiple knife stab wounds, every bullet in a shooter’s gun is discharged. "This is for all you faggots out there!" Those are hate crimes! A drunken slob being robbed outside a Fells Point pub is completely different. How can you compare?

Clearly, there’s some educating that needs to be done.

Hate crimes have existed since man realized other people were different, and then he learned how to hate. These acts are carried out because of revulsion towards a victim’s race, religion, national origin, gender, age, political affiliation and yes, sexual orientation.

Matthew Sheppard’s brutal beating murder outside Laramie, WY in 1998 put a human face on hate crimes that victimize glbt individuals. Immediately following this tragedy and owing in no small measure to the extraordinary work of Matthew’s mother, Judy Sheppard, who addressed the Lobby Day rally in Annapolis last month, there was a groundswell of momentum building to add gays and lesbians to existing federal and statewide hate crime statutes. By covering this group, penalties to the perpetrators would be increased. The inclusion of gays and lesbians in the federal Hate Crime bill is still dangling in Congress.

However, the Maryland General Assembly (House Bill 692 and Senate Bill 578) is considering such action in the current session after it died last year thanks to the maneuvering of homophobic Senator Alex X. Mooney (R-Frederick). Moreover, the bills will also attempt to include "gender identity" since the transgender community is a more vulnerable target and more frequently fail to report such crimes. As reported in the Washington Blade, Sergeant Brett Parson, of the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Police Department's Gay and Lesbian Liaison Unit said, "There is just no protection for transgender people. It's not right, but that's a fact."

This past November the FBI released hate crime statistics compiled for 2003, the latest year such numbers were available. It shows that hate crimes directed towards gays and lesbians accounted for over 16 percent of the total, which ranked second only to race of all criminal offenses motivated by hate. Previously such crimes against gays and lesbians had ranked third—just behind religion. In 2003, there were over 1,400 offenses that targeted gays and lesbians reported with 20 in Maryland alone.

"The new statistics only offer a glimpse of the problem," Cheryl Jacques, former president of the Human Rights Campaign pointed out. "Reporting these crimes is voluntary for local jurisdictions, and hate crimes often go unreported by victims due to fear and stigmatization." And they don’t include transgender people.

With venomous anti-gay oratory polluting the air following the Massachusetts same-sex marriage ruling, a further rise in hate crimes against the glbt community is to be expected. Church leaders and extreme right wing conservative politicians and others have defiled gays in such a way as to promote hatred and violence, although they will deny that’s their intent. There are thugs out there who will use the Bible and the fiery rhetoric from their religious and political leaders as their justification to slit a gay man’s throat.

Equality Maryland, the state’s largest civil rights organization for the lgbt community, is fighting hard to gain passage of a strong hate crimes bill. "Violent crime throughout the United States has been declining in recent years, yet hate crimes against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people continue to rise–and are underreported," said Dan Furmansky, Executive Director of Equality Maryland. "Hate crimes laws are important law enforcement and prosecutorial tools which help to address the actions of the perpetrator and prosecute accordingly. An effective response to hate violence by public officials and law enforcement authorities can play an essential role in deterring and preventing these crimes."

To read more about hate crimes and let your representatives know where you stand, visit www.equalitymaryland.org and click on Legislative Center. One can only hope that the fellow from the meeting will take a look and realize that he is also at risk of being a victim whether he is in Fells Point or elsewhere.

Gavin Newsom Rises Above the Rest

SF mayor is a rare politician fighting for gay rights

By Steve Charing

To be sure, Gavin Newsom has Hollywood-style great looks. But that doesn’t matter at all. He could look like Quasimoto, and he’d still be a cut above the rest. For Gavin Newsom, the straight 37 year-old Democratic mayor of San Francisco is as courageous as he is eye candy and one of the few politicians willing to risk his career to support the notion that gays and lesbians have the same right to marry as do heterosexuals.

As you recall, last February Mayor Newsom defied conventional wisdom as well as the California Constitution and began authorizing marriage licenses to 4,000 same-sex couples during a four-week period known as the "Winter of Love" before the California Supreme Court ended it and invalidated the licenses. Clearly the repeated scenes of same-sex couples receiving marriage licenses were emotionally and politically gratifying to millions of gays and lesbians throughout the world. History was being made, albeit for a short period.

However, this act of defiance, along with the ruling from the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court that declared the banning of same-sex marriages was illegal in the state, sparked a major backlash. Political pundits across the board and politicians, such as Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) who characterized the acts of disobedience and the push for same-sex marriage as "too much, too fast, too soon," believed that this played a significant role in the re-election of President George W. Bush.

Many people agree.

Amendments to 11 state constitutions banning same-sex marriages passed easily in November, and the number of such states has climbed to 17. Besides these amendments, the so-called "gay marriage" issue stoked by the President’s desire to amend the U.S. Constitution in the same way brought out millions of Evangelicals who otherwise would not have bothered to vote. A vast majority of their votes went to Bush. Therefore, the controversial steps taken by Mayor Newsom and county clerks and officials in a few other states may have had an impact on the November elections.

But what Mayor Newsom did was something that was unprecedented and remarkable especially in comparison with other politicians. When the U.S. Constitution amendment debates took place in Congress, very few argued against it other than on the grounds that the Constitution was not a suitable vehicle to define marriage. Hardly anywhere to be seen or heard were opponents of the amendment arguing that gays and lesbians deserve equal rights—to be allowed to form unions whereby the same benefits and rights would be conferred upon them as heterosexuals. Instead, to the disappointment of gay activists, they merely debated the wisdom of using the Constitution in this manner. Alas, such is the nature of politics.

Despite the blame heaped on him, Mayor Newsom hasn’t tempered his earnest belief that gays and lesbians should be allowed to marry. "I've never felt more resolved. I've never felt more passion. I've never felt a greater sense of purpose –but beyond anything else, an obligation to finish this job," he said on February 12 to thunderous applause from the same-sex couples and supporters who filled three floors worth of balconies inside San Francisco’s City Hall to hear a speech marking the one-year anniversary of the "Winter of Love." "We will not back up. I have no regrets."

During this speech, Mayor Newsom declared it was time "to hold our elected officials accountable" for supporting gay marriage as a condition for receiving their community's support. "It is no longer acceptable for politicians to come to you every election cycle and ask for money and then say, 'It's too much, too soon,’" the Mayor said in reference to Senator Feinstein’s remark. "Separate is not equal."

Gavin Newsom put his promising career on the line with his courageous, if controversial, stance. Contrast that with New York’s Republican Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who had been a supporter of gay marriage but has recently challenged a court decision allowing it. Mayor Newsom chastised fellow Democrats for not taking a bolder stance on gay marriage during a speech at Harvard and criticized Mayor Bloomberg for his seemingly duplicitous positions.

Agree with him or not, this is why Gavin Newsom rises above the rest—why he has emerged as the leader among the proponents of same-sex marriage. He is fearlessly eager to take on all opponents of same-sex marriage as well as those allies who do not speak out on its behalf. He’s even willing to lock horns with the President. "Don't give up the fight. Don't feel discouraged. Don't listen to the president of the United States," he said to those 3,000 gathered at the commemoration ceremony. Then he led the crowd in a chant of "Shame on you, George Bush."

Mark Leno, a California Assemblyman who has introduced legislation to lift the ban on same-sex marriage in the state, summed it up about Newsom, "No one can be certain how this plays out for him. "What is certain is his demonstration of leadership."

That’s something to which we can all agree.

Sometimes Hate Can be an Ally

By Steve Charing

Hate has been a human emotion since the beginning of civilization and will always be there. It’s been the root cause of much violence that is directed towards people and nations on religious, political, racial and ethnic grounds. Nothing can eliminate it. The only thing that can be done is to try to contain it so it doesn’t lead to tragic destruction. Sometimes that has worked, sometimes it hasn’t.

Hate has also led to violence directed at lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgendered individuals. The LGBT community, since the murder of Matthew Sheppard, has sought to include crimes against lesbians and gays in hate crime legislation pending in the U.S. Congress and here in Maryland. These laws would tack on additional penalties to perpetrators of such crimes. In attempting to achieve this as well as other gay rights advances, one of the key allies in the struggle has been, ironically, hate itself.

When Matthew Sheppard was brutally murdered in Laramie, WY in 1998, the issue of hate was thrust into the world’s collective consciousness. To that point there had been untold numbers of gay bashings in the U.S. (and many since). But none struck a chord like the murder of Matthew Sheppard.

Here was a tiny waif of a guy, a 21 year-old college student, who barely cracked 100 pounds, who was pistol-whipped and beaten senselessly by two young thugs just for being gay. With this highly publicized tragedy hate entered the national dialogue, and law-abiding citizens saw in real and dramatic terms and images the results that destructive, pointless emotions run amok can produce.

It took Matthew Sheppard’s slaughter to add clarity to a nation that was by and large indifferent to such events. Shocked and sensitized by this horrific act, people actually began to notice the tragic consequences directed towards gays and lesbians for being who they were. Helping the cause unwittingly was the psycho Rev. Fred Phelps and his band of hatemongers from Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, KS (www.GodHatesFags.com).

Toting signs proclaiming God’s hatred towards Matthew Sheppard and all faggots in general, Phelps and his cohorts had the indignity of showing up at Matthew’s funeral—in the presence of his grieving family and friends as well as an observing and saddened public—to add more salt to the never-to-be-healed wounds. For those who didn’t see the murder on its own as a reason to pause, this macabre theater staged by Phelps and his fellow extremists in spitting into the grave of a young man who was rendered unrecognizable by his assailants, may have won a few more allies to the LGBT cause.

Not only does this group hate gays, but they also hate America. They have thanked God for the tragedy of September 11, dragged the American flag along the ground, and referred to Laura Bush as a "gay pimp" among other absurdities.

A few hundred miles southeast in a story that was covered by Anne Hull of the Washington Post and recently carried by Nightline, an 18 year-old named Michael Shackelford from Sand Springs, Oklahoma, decided to come out to his mother and sister. Eventually the folks in the rural town just seven miles outside Tulsa, but which culturally seemed like a thousand miles away, got wind of this anomaly in the "Buckle of the Bible Belt." His mother desperately wanted him to change lest they would not be in Heaven together. The preacher in the local church also tried to publicly impart the "truth" to Michael about homosexuality, but to no avail.

Although he was a huge Merle Haggard fan and passionately loved his truck—not the typical gay stereotype—Michael was harassed in school and refused to go to the bathroom all day to avoid being cornered and beaten by his schoolmates. It was a rough go for young Michael. In the town he was known as the "gay kid," "the queer."

Then came the ubiquitous Rev. Phelps to the rescue. Upon learning of this gay kid in Oklahoma from the Washington Post series, he brought his fellow cronies and picketed the church because the pastor failed to cast him from the flock.

Fliers from Phelps began appearing on fax machines all over Sand Springs. "God hates Michael Shackelford" and "God is not mocked! God Hates Fags & Fag Enablers!" According to Dan Morris, producer of the Nightline program, "the faxes were like a bomb being dropped in the middle of town. The community felt under siege. Fear, anger and apprehension blanketed the town. Suddenly the topic no one cared to talk about could not be avoided. What transpired was remarkable and surprising, not least to Michael Shackelford."

What happened is that the town confronted Phelps and the picketers and shouted back for them to go home. Hate was not welcome in Sand Springs. In the reddest part of a red state, the citizens supported one of their own and repelled the outside interference by an extremist group promoting hate. A counter-sign read, "Don’t mess with our homos."

Rev. Phelps may not make it out here on January 27, when a sizable group of local ministers and others sharing his intense bigotry will be demonstrating in Annapolis against same-sex unions. Their goal is to show our state legislators that gays are sinners and deserve no rights.

The kind of hatred manifested by Phelps and his ilk is the perfect ally in trying to convince the public how much more needs to be done to achieve equality for the LGBT community. We can only hope that this extremism and hatred will expose them as the fringe of our society and that the legislators will not be swayed by their assault on fairness and justice.

Good Riddance to a Homophobe

The sports world may have mourned the death of Reggie White but the gay community lost an enemy

By Steve Charing

I admit that I wasn’t exactly mournful concerning the demise of former pro football great Reggie White, who died suddenly of a respiratory failure the day after Christmas at the age of 43. The former defensive end, who retired in 2000, had set the NFL record for sacks of a quarterback (later surpassed) during his career that spanned 15 years with 3 teams, most notably the Green Bay Packers.

That he was one of the most dominating defensive players in the game is indisputable. His sudden death brought sadness to those who follow the game—players, fans and sports journalists who were quick to remind people of his character and involvement off the field. He was also an ordained minister and had been dubbed the "Minister of Defense."

I had watched Reggie White play a lot through the years; he was a star in a game that so effectively showcases its stars. His speed, power and determination were admirable, and he was the consummate team player. But when I think of Reggie White, I didn’t see a giant of a man clad in green and gold sporting number 92 swooping in on a hapless, vulnerable quarterback. Instead I saw quite a different image that was incredibly disturbing. So when he died, I felt no sense of loss as many others did.

For what I saw was a bigoted homophobe, and to me, that overrides his on- or off-field accomplishments.

Being a celebrity brings its rewards: money, fame and a platform from which to speak. Many children look up to their sports heroes and cling to their every word. As a successful pro athlete, Reggie White also attracted the attention of corporate sponsors believing his endorsements of their products would encourage others to spend money on them and thus increase their profits. So when Reggie White addressed the Wisconsin state legislature in March 1998 on a variety of subjects, his words weren’t as innocuous as most others who stepped before the microphone. In that chamber, and echoed in subsequent interviews, he spoke the words softly, but they rang out loud and clear.

On that fateful day of March 25, 1998, Reggie White accused the U.S. of going away from God by allowing homosexuality to "run rampant." He said, "Sometimes when people talk about this sin they've been accused of being racist. I'm offended that homosexuals will say that homosexuals deserve rights. Any man in America deserves rights, but homosexuals are trying to compare their plight with the plight of black men or black people. In the process of history, homosexuals have never been castrated, millions of them never died. Homosexuality is a decision. It's not a race." White went on, "People from all different ethnic backgrounds live in this lifestyle. But people from all different ethnic backgrounds also are liars and cheaters and malicious and back-stabbing."

White explained that God had created different races for different reasons. In a shocking display of racial stereotyping he said, blacks are gifted at worship and celebration, while whites are good at organization. "Hispanics were gifted in family structure, and you can see a Hispanic person, and they can put 20, 30 people in one home," he said, adding that the Japanese and other Asians are inventive and "can turn a television into a watch."

He persisted with his onslaught against gays in interviews following his speech. And he joined other anti-gay radical religious groups to repeal a nondiscrimination ordinance, which protected gay people from being fired or thrown out of their homes for being gay. White appeared in anti-gay ads in the Washington Times and USA Today wearing the Packers uniform, which violated league rules.

Reggie White’s comments drew rebukes from many in the media, prominent civil rights leaders such as Rev. Jesse Jackson and Coretta Scott King as well as glbt organizations.

"White's stardom gives him influence over millions of youth and adult fans," said Joan M. Garry, then Executive Director of GLAAD—Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation. "I am shocked that he would irresponsibly use his voice in such a damaging manner. White's assertion that being lesbian or gay is a malicious ‘lifestyle’ akin to dishonesty and cruelty is bizarre, wrong-headed and factually inaccurate."

His statements probably cost him a sports analyst position with CBS for which he had been under consideration.

Although White later attempted to apologize for the ethnic stereotyping remarks, he did not back off from his anti-gay comments. According to the Associated Press regarding a 20/20 interview, "White said he stands by his remarks regarding gays. ‘I am going to speak the truth and I am going to speak out against things that's hurting our children, that's killing off our people,’ White said. ‘If people think that's a contradiction and that's hate, they need to take them up with God, not with Reggie White.’"

Reggie White also said that there is no place for homosexuals in professional football; that it would diminish the "manliness" of the game. This type of rhetoric has fostered homophobia in sports at a time when the glbt community was hoping for a breakthrough where a notable athlete would come out and open the closet doors for others gays and lesbians.

Esera Tuaolo, who also wore a Green Bay Packers uniform in addition to several other teams but was not a teammate of White’s, was one of three gay NFLers to come out of the closet—after hanging up their pads. All felt they would have been hated by teammates had they chose to come out during their playing days. Reggie White’s outspoken rhetoric all but assured the closet doors will remain closed in the near future.

The power of celebrity can be awesome. Sadly, Reggie White’s fans, including so many children who looked up to him, were influenced by his venom. He poisoned the atmosphere that may have allowed a gay athlete to come out of the closet. He reinforced the myth and stereotype that gays and lesbians make a "decision" to be homosexual. He spoke as if God spoke directly to him; that same-sex marriage was an affront to God. He was the classic homophobe, only larger in stature and celebrity.

Football and its fans mourned Reggie White’s passing. But his death was their loss, not ours.

There's Nothing Right About the Religious Wrong

By Steve Charing

Religious fundamentalists have been attacking gays and lesbians since, well, the times of The Old Testament. It didn’t just begin when the Supreme Judicial Court in Massachusetts handed down its historic and controversial decision whereby it ruled that gays and lesbians cannot be prohibited from marrying in that state.

It just seems that way.

President Bush has derided the ruling by "activist judges" in Massachusetts and the ensuing maverick marriages in San Francisco, Portland, and towns in New Mexico and New York State. Since then, gays and lesbians have been in the crosshairs of relentless attacks — both covert and overt — by the religious right. This was manifested during the recent elections when voters in 11 states overwhelmingly voted for amendments to their constitutions banning same-sex marriages. Moreover, many political observers concluded that in the pivotal state of Ohio where such a measure was on the ballot, the increase in voter turnout helped President Bush. This is due to the fact that among those voters, "moral issues" (abortion, gay marriage, etc.) were paramount in their minds.

The tactics used by Republican activists during the campaign were of the scare variety: inserts, leaflets, whispered sermons in churches, as well as misleading radio ads in largely African-American populated areas. Most propaganda asked the same inflammatory question in one form or another: "Do you want two men who live down the street kissing each other in front of your children?"

Emboldened by the final election results, the religious right sees an opening for an all-out attack on gay people in the legislatures in the form of prospective appointments to the federal courts and the Supreme Court. They also see President Bush as owing them and therefore an instrument to achieve their goals.

The first post-election shots have already been fired. Fueled by these anti-gay victories, around 70 pastors announced they are planning to stage a large demonstration in Annapolis to ensure that same-sex marriage is never permitted in the Free State. Why this vitriol? It’s all about the sin of homosexuality in the minds of these religious fundamentalists.

To be sure, the Bible, and Leviticus 18:22 in particular, calls homosexuality an abomination, which makes it a sin. But so are a lot of other practices in Leviticus. A woman wrote a letter in The Baltimore Sun denouncing the pastors’ proposed demonstration by saying, "On a recent Sunday, my husband had bacon for breakfast. He trimmed his beard, pulled on a sweater made from wool and nylon blend, and went outside to rake leaves. Typical weekend activities? Yes—and they are all forbidden in Leviticus." She went on to point out that people in Maryland enjoy eating crabs, planting more than one kind of seed in the garden, getting tattoos, and marrying women who aren’t virgins. These are also "forbidden" activities.

Let’s be clear: The religious right’s opposition to same-sex marriage or other aspects of the "homosexual agenda" is based on bigotry, pure and simple. The Leviticus reference to homosexuality is merely an exercise in cherry-picking scripture to suit bigoted impulses. Though they will deny it, most of these Bible thumpers intensely hate gays and deplore any validation of the "gay lifestyle," whatever that may be. Their revulsion is so deeply rooted that they consistently oppose hate crime legislation, measures to ban bullying in schools and other actions to protect gays. If they had their way, they’d have us locked up in camps. Some are outwardly advocating killing gay people. The Internet is full of such commentary; check out GodHatesFags.com for example.

The religious right is too close-minded and intent on destroying progress for lesbians and gays if they cannot actually eliminate them. It will be nearly impossible to convince followers of the right otherwise. One hardly ever hears these fanatical hypocrites condemn the other practices prohibited in Leviticus. The Bible thumpers must have winced when slavery was done away with as the Bible was never "amended" to reflect God’s "new views."

Why don’t we stone adulterers while we’re at it? Probably it is because they’re heterosexual.
Why is it that Jesus never uttered a disparaging word about homosexuals, let alone stoning them? Perhaps these fundamentalist Christians should pay more attention to the teachings of Jesus.

Aside from their general contempt for homosexuality, the religious right’s arguments against same-sex marriage largely center on the tradition of marriage of being between one man and one woman. That had not always been the case in some civilizations. Yet they erroneously believe the prospects of same-sex marriage would ultimately destroy it as an institution. They ignore the fact that heterosexuals themselves are destroying the institution as more than half of all marriages fail.

On the other hand, all gay people are trying to do is fortify marriage by showing they want to be a part of it. In Massachusetts, where same-sex marriages have been occurring since May, not a single heterosexual divorce in that state has been attributed to gay and lesbian weddings.
Disappointingly, we cannot count on the very group of people whom we helped forge civil rights victories decades ago to be amenable to equality for lesbians and gays. Many culturally conservative African-American ministers are joining hands with the same religious right who had used Scripture to endorse slavery. It is shameful that a group whose people who had been subjected to so much discrimination in the name of God would, itself, promote bigotry against others.

I cannot think of one factor that undermines the institution of marriage more than the proliferation of out-of-wedlock births. People who produce these children side-step marriage and procreate anyway, leaving single mothers to cope with the daunting responsibility of raising children by themselves. According to the Brookings Institution, each year about one million more children are born into fatherless families. Of these, approximately two-thirds are African-American — a decidedly higher proportion than the general population.

If they are sincerely concerned about the durability of marriage, instead of condemning gays, why don’t these black ministers rail against out-of-wedlock births? Why don’t they protest the economic conditions that make marriage a poor option for many African-American males? Why do they disenfranchise so many gay African-Americans thereby contributing to the "down-low" problem? Why don’t they use their pulpits to correct some of the social wrongs in their own communities instead of demonstrating, as these ministers plan to do, against gay people from marrying?

The answer is homophobia. They teach it in the churches and they teach it at home. With the Bible being waved around and passages used selectively to defend bigotry, it is a formidable task to persuade the religious right that they are wrong.

Gay or questioning youth find safe haven in Howard County group

By Steve Charing

The coming out process has always been a life-altering experience. But for a teenager or young adult, it can be even more traumatic. Besides coping with the potentially devastating backlash from family members and friends, young people must also endure the reactions from classmates, teachers and school administrators. This is a very tricky and sometimes risky period for gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered or questioning youth.

Despite noble efforts to improve the situation, the world is still not completely safe for GLBTQ youth. Family members occasionally reject these young people out of hand. Harassment and bullying, notwithstanding emerging policies to halt that behavior, still occur in the corridors of schools. Friends may abandon them.

Many of these young people—confused, frightened and alone—are under great stress. Some let their schoolwork slide. Some drop out. Some turn to drugs. Some, tragically, try to take their lives.

Most, however, prevail during this struggle. They gain the love and respect from their families, friends and classmates. They endure and go on with their lives with a major burden lifted from their shoulders. They’re the lucky ones; not all are that triumphant.

Fortunately, there are support and educational groups to help youth trying to come to terms with their sexual orientation. Locally some excellent resources exist. Baltimore has SAIM—Sufficient as I Am, a program run by the Gay and Lesbian Community Center of Baltimore. Montgomery County has PRYSM—Protecting the Rights of Young Sexual Minorities, which was founded as the student chapter of the Safe Schools Coalition of Montgomery County. In Washington, DC there is SMYAL—the Sexual Minority Youth Assistance League.
Howard County has its own successful group: the Rainbow Youth Alliance. Founded in 1998 by Colette Roberts who also founded and still heads the Howard County Chapter of PFLAG—Parents, Families & Friends of Lesbians and Gays—the RYA is the only youth oriented gay group in Howard County for GLBTQ youth ages 14-22.

The well-organized and well-run group, which is affiliated with PFLAG-Howard County, usually has between 10 and 20 young people involved at any one time. They meet on the 2nd and 4th Tuesdays each month at the Owen Brown Interfaith Center, 7426 Cradlerock Way, in Columbia and have two facilitators, Erin Foley and Barbara Trimmer.

The meetings are held in an atmosphere of confidentiality and are designed to discuss school issues, coming out to parents and friends, teacher attitudes, healthy relationships, dealing with opposition and all the concerns faced by gay youth. According to PFLAG Chair Colette Roberts, "Our Rainbow Youth Alliance is the only safe place in Howard County for GLBTQ youth and their friends. We are determined to provide these young people with support, encouragement and social interaction."

Through the use of speakers, films, authors and invited guests, the meetings present a forum for interactive discussions on a variety of topics of interest and importance to the young participants. Says Ms. Roberts, "With RYA they can meet other young people with the same or similar concerns, and learn how to cope with parents, school, and even how to deal with any hostility they might encounter."

Given that there is an age range from 14 to 22, it may be challenging to find topics that can be of interest to such a broad spectrum of young adults. Facilitator Erin Foley feels that the RYA programs can bridge the gap. "We try to keep the discussion topics and activities universal to GLBTQ youth, that is, gay marriage, safe sex and health topics, GLBTQ culture and popular media, school/work issues, coming out etc."

On June 8, several members of the group made their own presentation during the monthly PFLAG-Howard County chapter meeting. A diverse panel from ages 16 to 22 offered their own coming out experiences. They also explained the contrast of being closeted vs. coming out at school or work and spoke of transgender issues (by one of the members). In addition, a guidance counselor from a Howard County high school discussed school administration issues and added his perspective.

While few on the panel experienced negative consequences during the coming out process, most related very positive and uplifting stories. Nonetheless, there are GLBTQ youth who have had a difficult time in coming to terms with their sexuality.

Ms. Foley points out, "We do have members of the group that are not out to their families or who do not support them as a GLBT person, although not many." To address the needs of those in that situation, she explains, "We try to reach out by providing them a safe place to talk and socialize with their peers, which helps them know that they are not alone. If they are in need of professional attention, we have a referral list of therapists that specialize (or gay affirmative) working with the GLBT community."

The kids drew rave reviews from those who attended the PFLAG meeting. Colette Roberts was among those who were impressed by the strength of the youth. "I was thrilled to see so many kids and to hear the eloquence of the panel—they were wonderful."

Sexual orientation has long been a factor in many suicides among young males. With more positive visibility, society’s growing acceptance of homosexuality and support groups like the Rainbow Youth Alliance, it is no surprise that the Center of Disease Control reports a 25 percent reduction in these suicides over the past decade.

Ms. Roberts beams at the success of the Rainbow Youth Alliance. "We work hard at educating them on issues like HIV/AIDS and other care, but we also give them a place to relax and have fun. Most of all, we want them to be proud of who they are—we are definitely proud of them!"
Meetings are confidential, safe, free and open to all. For more information about the Rainbow Youth Alliance and PFLAG-Howard County, you may visit their website at www.pflagmd.org.

{NOTE: Since the publication of this article, Ray Sheets has joined Erin Foley as co-facilitator.}

When it comes to marriage, what are the straights so afraid of?

Bush, The Vatican, and the heterosexual agenda

By Steve Charing

On the heels of recent major developments in the history of gay civil rights, the buzz continues to focus on (the fear of) same-sex marriages. From the Pope to President Bush, many leaders are scurrying to quell what they dread as inevitable: two gay men or two lesbians at the altar, taking their vows, and gaining the multitude of benefits that would accrue.

The threat of a Constitutional amendment by Republicans, a decree by the Vatican and a discernible backlash towards gays by the public are hurdles that are well nigh impossible to leap at this time. Our only hope is the Democratic Party, but the leading presidential candidates including the darling of the rainbows, Howard Dean, are opposed to same-sex marriages, albeit some form of “civil union” has been deemed acceptable. Only the three underdog candidates support the legalization of gay marriages, but, alas, they’re not likely to be around past the New Hampshire primary.

Initially, I believed such legalization would be a likely outcome following recent progressive victories on sodomy, the confirmation of a gay Episcopalian bishop and the ruling on same-sex marriages in Canada. However, it is becoming more and more apparent that this important step is still a ways off in the U.S. of A. There is no doubt there is a backlash; the polling data are all showing slippage in heterosexual support for gay rights and same-sex marriage in particular. And as long as the public is not supporting same-sex marriage, neither will the politicians.
Make no mistake about it, in this country if you are single - gay or straight - you are just this side of being a pariah. If you don’t believe me, review the latest ill-timed tax cuts that President Bush bullied through Congress and signed. Besides his fat cat contributors, who else benefited? Married people and those with kids (at $400 a pop) reaped the harvest the most. Single people?

Screw them!

This is unfairness in the grossest form. A man can pick up a woman in a drunken stupor in a bar and get a quickie marriage the next day and enjoy all the social and economic advantages that accompany it. But two men or two women who love each other and have done so for 3, 5, 10, 20, even 30 years get to watch married people and their kiddies receive government handouts in the mail. While a member of a heterosexual couple can enjoy visitation rights at a hospital and make decisions when the other partner is incapacitated, neither member of a gay couple is legally permitted to do so unless provisions are made in a will.

It is mind-boggling that heterosexuals condemn gays and lesbians for wanting to form a marriage bond as a natural extension of love. For so many years, the lgbt community has been chastised for fostering transient, unstable and promiscuous relationships. Yet, when we try to succeed at something heterosexual America has largely failed, it’s a no-go.

Openly gay Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA) perhaps said it best: “Incredibly, Mr. Bush is trying to persuade the country that instead of persistent high unemployment, one trillion dollars in new federal debt over the next two years, continued American deaths in Iraq, unhindered progress towards a North Korean nuclear capacity and a bogging down on his agenda in Congress, Americans should be seriously worried about the prospect that two men who love each other might be allowed to become legally and financially responsible for each other.”

If a gay man wants to marry another gay man and two lesbians want to do the same, what are straights so afraid of? Are we really wrecking their marriages? Can anybody cite a single instance when a heterosexual marriage disintegrated because of gay coupling by others?

There are two major factors that serve as the basis for straight opposition. The first, of course, is on religious grounds. The Bible makes it abundantly clear that homosexuality is a sin. Assuming one believes in that doctrine, should only non-sinners be allowed to marry? Anyone who eats pork or shellfish is committing a sin. Anyone who commits adultery or has sex outside marriage is committing a sin.

President Bush acknowledged that everyone sins, but why is it that homosexual “sin” is selectively more egregious than the other “sins”? Nearly 60 percent of all single college students living away from home admit to an active sex life (and I believe that’s underreported). A whole new generation of “sinners,” therefore, is being harvested in the nation’s dorms. More to the point, as “sinners,” why should these young men and women be permitted to marry when gays can’t? Even convicted felons can marry.

The other rationale for straight opposition to same-sex marriage is that it would somehow cause the erosion of the traditional man-woman marriage - you know, tearing the fabric of society. Oh, really? I think the heterosexuals of America have done a fairly decent job of that on their own..

When virtually all marriage vows conclude with “until death do us part,” do you think the intent was that it would be violated in every other instance? To be sure, heterosexual marriages fail at an alarming 50 percent clip. And I venture to guess that at least half of the remaining fools are clinging to unhappy, unfulfilling, loveless, sexless marriages probably because of concern for their kids or a reluctance to divvy up their capital. Three quarters of divorcees simply re-marry and the cycle of unstable families goes on.

Heterosexuals continue their assault on marriage by trivializing it in so-called TV reality shows. When an anonymous audience chooses your supposed lifetime mate or when you get to select your spouse from a group of 15 chosen by a TV producer, or the children decide on who’s best for Pop, or the parents choose a child’s spouse, you’re not going to tell me that marriage isn’t being marginalized. Straight people apparently delight in making a mockery of marriage, but gay marriages would demean theirs. Go figure.

The argument that same-sex marriages will hurt the traditional institution is bogus. To the best of my knowledge, marriages aren’t falling apart in the Netherlands, Denmark, France, Germany, Britain, Switzerland, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Spain, Croatia, Iceland, Belgium and Canada since same-sex marriages or civil unions have been recognized there.

But in the United States, where gays have forever been vilified for promiscuous, unhealthy sex and at the same time berated for wanting a legally-based union, one can see how backward and screwed up this nation and its leaders really are.You can join the fight to prevent a Constitutional amendment from outlawing same-sex marriages by visiting www.millionformarriage.org.