Military Ban Must be Repealed

The homophobic ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy has been an abject failure: it doesn’t work, and it compromises national security

By Steve Charing
Senior Political Analyst

While the push for same-sex marriage has taken center stage in the lgbt community’s fight for equality, a slightly less controversial effort to repeal the Pentagon’s ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ (DADT) policy has been gaining traction.

Indeed, The Military Readiness Enhancement Act (H.R. 1059), introduced in March 2005 by Congressman Marty Meehan (D-MA) now has about 120 supporters, including 5 Republican legislators. "When this issue comes up, members who believe that gays shouldn't be in the military are now more hesitant to voice their opinion," Maryland Republican Congressman Wayne Gilchrest, a Vietnam War veteran, recently told the Washington Post. "Many of us who feel the other way have come out of the closet, so to speak."

Moreover, recent polling suggests that 80 percent of the American public support gays and lesbians serving openly in the military.

This insidious policy, implemented in 1993 as a compromise law between President Clinton’s intended executive order to lift the ban on gays and lesbians in the military and Congress’ desire to maintain the status quo with the strong backing of the military’s brass, has been a dismal calamity and needs to be overturned.

In essence, lgbt members of the armed forces may serve just so long as the person does not admit to being gay, discuss it with anybody in the service, engage in a sexual activity or appear in gay establishments. In other words, lgbt military personnel cannot act on their orientation and must keep it a secret.

For their part the military is supposedly not permitted to ask if the person is gay at the time of enlistment or pursue information about the sexual orientation of a servicemember. And there is not supposed to be harassment targeting these individuals.

Under the rules prior to DADT, military personnel were totally forbidden to serve if they were gay. As a result, many thousands of capable men and women were drummed out of the military for being gay frequently following witchhunts.

The current policy has seen little improvement over the prior ghastly regulations. A University of California study concluded that the Department of Defense has discharged more than 11,000 servicemembers since 1993 under DADT at a cost of $363 million. According to the Government Accountability Office, more than 800 of those service members were trained in skills deemed ‘mission-critical’ by the Pentagon. And others discharged included much-needed Arabic linguists—crucial personnel in the war on terrorism.

The rationale for barring lgbt people from the military was that it would compromise unit cohesion. But as Dr. Galen Grant, a retired Army Captain and licensed clinical psychologist and now a representative of the Military Community Services Network said, "The DADT policy has the opposite effect on unit cohesion. If you cannot talk to someone about your sexual orientation, how can you trust that person in battle?"

The resistance stems more from the institutionalized homophobia within the military (e.g. perpetuating the irrational fear of straight soldiers being accosted by gay men in the showers) than by individual servicemembers themselves. Yet, DADT has created a pervasive unsafe environment for lgbt service personnel. Several beatings and murders of servicemembers have taken place since the onset of the policy for being perceived as gay.

Other civilized countries do not seem to have the same hang-ups as the U.S. Over 24 industrial nations (including Great Britain, France, Australia, the Czech Republic, Italy, Canada, Germany and Israel) allow open service, and 13 have battled along side the U.S. in Afghanistan and Iraq without any gay-related problems.

People choose to serve in the Armed Forces for myriad reasons. Most are patriotic, or want to continue a family tradition and/or they may find military service to be a path towards obtaining an education or establishing a career where they may not otherwise have the opportunity. Many seek upward mobility from their current economic situation. Those in the lgbt community who sign up believe they can handle the DADT policy and continue to serve.

It’s not that easy.

Merely discussing one’s sexual orientation with another servicemember could lead to a discharge process though the level of enforcement varies with each commanding officer. And, of course, enjoying a same-sex relationship can be perilous if found out. Even corresponding with gay people out of the service could be grounds for suspicion and investigation.

Other servicemembers, gay and straight, have attempted to use DADT to deliberately get discharged to avoid deployment to Iraq. It seems that being blown up from roadside bombs in Baghdad is not appealing. Typically, military commanders disallow that tactic; they ship the soldiers off to Iraq, and if and when they return from the tour, the discharge process is then initiated after they served their country in combat. Nice.

Until there is a repeal of DADT, being kicked out is not the only problem facing lgbt servicemembers. They lack the same care and support as other servicemembers receive. Returning gay servicemembers from combat in Afghanistan and Iraq risk disclosure of their sexual orientation by participating in post-deployment peer counseling or other mental health programs offered by the military.

Recognizing these and other inequities, the aforementioned Military Community Services Network (www.mcsn.org) was formed in 2004. The Arlington-based organization is attempting to fill a void for gay servicemembers and veterans as well as their partners and families by providing a wide range of services from mental health services and peer counseling to financial and childcare related assistance. These services cannot otherwise be obtained lest the active members violate DADT.

One of MCSN’s goals is to educate the public about DADT and its impact on the lgbt community. In addition it gives training to other supportive organizations (representatives recently visited PFLAG-Howard County) as well as offering lgbt military sensitivity and peer mentor training.
While MCSN provides social and economic services, the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (www.sldn.org) offers legal services, especially to those servicemembers contesting discharges under DADT.

These organizations would like nothing better than to go out of business because of the repeal of the DADT policy. Our country has lost the talents and skills of thousands of patriotic Americans for simply being who they are.

Congress must be pressured to act to repeal this grotesque policy. Straight veterans who knew of lgbt servicemembers need to step forward and argue that no problems surfaced because their colleagues were gay.

The country did not collapse when it integrated African-Americans and women into the armed forces; it was better for it. It is time the U.S. military joins the other civilized nations in the 21st century and drop the homophobia if for nothing else, national security.

Understanding the gay marriage debacle

Same-sex marriage efforts have taken a big hit. What went wrong, and what can be done about it

by Steve Charing
Senior Political Analyst

The recent spate of unfavorable court decisions concerning the drive to achieve marriage equality for same-sex couples seemingly has thrown a wet blanket over the movement. Discouraging rulings particularly in New York and Washington—both states with liberal leanings—makes some wonder if same-sex marriage will ever exist anywhere in the U.S. except for Massachusetts (and that’s not a sure thing anymore).

Activists were hoping that the judicial branch would provide relief where the legislative and executive branches have failed us so far. But with these recent decisions in a half dozen states, same-sex marriage advocates must re-group and re-think their strategy.

Despite the fact there has been a favorable trend in recent years towards acceptance of gays by the general population, it is becoming clear why same-sex marriage did not gain the necessary momentum for widespread legalization. Here are some of the reasons:

The issue jumped out in front of the education. When the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled in February 2004 that the state’s constitution illegally discriminated against gays and lesbians by denying them marriage, the question of gay marriage was thrust into the spotlight. Before pro-marriage individuals and organizations could mobilize, opponents went on the offense and successfully framed the debate as "protecting marriage from activist judges." Marriage was a lightening rod, and the opposition was determined to make a stand.

This strategy gained traction during the 2004 presidential campaign, and constitutional amendments were placed on the ballots of 11 states to ensure that "activist judges" don’t do to their states what they did to Massachusetts. All won.

To educate the public and mitigate their reflexive opposition, same-sex marriage proponents have failed to convince the general population that marriage was more threatened by heterosexuals with their 50 percent divorce rate, adultery, children born out-of wedlock, etc. than by what gays and lesbians could ever do.

They have not sold the public that the objective was civil marriage—marriage that can be performed in city halls or by town clerks—and they were not imposing marriage rituals on religious institutions.

They have not persuaded the country that same-sex marriage was legitimate on the grounds of equality and fairness—key principles in the founding of our nation. Over 1,100 rights and benefits are being denied gay couples and families simply for being who they are.

Same-sex marriage advocates have not acceptably discredited the myth that the "one man, one woman" concept existed since the beginning of time and instead point out that the institution of marriage evolved over centuries. They failed to successfully expose those in the religious right of cherry picking biblical passages to suit their homophobic needs while they blatantly ignore or dismiss a host of other "sins" contained in Scripture.

They also haven’t sufficiently argued that marriage is not about procreation—it’s about commitment. Tens of thousands of legally married couples choose not to have children or they cannot have them. Yet their marriage licenses remain valid.

We don’t have the numbers. The lgbt community is, in fact, a tiny minority within the U.S. population. While many gay activists claim we represent 10 per cent, we’d be lucky if the actual total amounts to half of that. Moreover, the number of lgbt people engaged in the debate is even smaller. Many gays and lesbians have not been motivated to be active on this issue because: 1) they don’t see themselves as ever being in a long-term relationship; 2) those that are in such a relationship don’t care to change the status quo; 3) a large segment of the community opposes marriage and favors lesser victories, such as civil unions; or 4) they are simply indifferent on the issue or apathetic in general.

Without a significant number of supporters butting heads against a highly energized, vocal opposition, it is easy to understand why state legislators and even governors can safely oppose any drive towards same-sex marriage. It’s all about the votes and getting elected. The numbers aren’t there for us yet. We have to exceed the 50 percent threshold of pro-same-sex marriage sentiment for elected officials to take us seriously.

Judges appear to be intimidated. The judges, especially in New York and Washington states, should have ruled favorably for the plaintiffs based on, if nothing else, equal protection. However, they used tortured, bizarre rationales to strike down the lawsuits, such as procreation and protecting the welfare of children as well as citing public opinion polls on the issue. It is becoming obvious that the "activist judges" mantra is affecting their decisions for the sake of retaining power and not doing what is normally considered right.

"The way most judges see it, though they won’t ever say it, there is no point to ‘doing the right thing’ if their decision faces a veto from the people in the form of a constitutional amendment," wrote Chris Crain, executive editor of the Washington Blade. "Not only is it pointless to risk prestige and rule one way, only to see it reversed by amendment, but their authority to rule on countless other issues, including other civil rights cases and even gay rights cases, has been irreversibly undermined."

With state after state codifying their constitutions to ban same-sex couples from marrying, the momentum for a Massachusetts-style breakthrough has been thwarted at this point. We still expect an imminent decision from New Jersey, which could end this bad streak, and the case before the Maryland Court of Appeals will be heard around December. Without a favorable ruling from at least one of these states, the push for same-sex marriage will sink deeper.

What needs to be done? As Dan Furmansky, executive director of Equality Maryland, pointed out to Baltimore OUTloud, "While we're all discouraged because of the decisions out of New York and Washington State, our social justice movement must look forward and continue our work in the judiciary, in the legislature, and in our communities."

Any such movement requires strong, enthusiastic and convincing supporters. Reaching out beyond the lgbt community and forming coalitions is crucial in getting our numbers up. Politicians tend to vote to maintain their seats. Few will buck their constituencies to do what their inner conscience tells them. Therefore, getting more allies on our side is key.

A significant group is the African-American community, whose homophobic conservative ministers have hurt the cause. They should be reminded of the pro-gay stances of Coretta Scott King, Julian Bond, Rev. Jesse Jackson and Rev. Al Sharpton for example. They should also be reminded of the strong role the lgbt community played in helping to achieve civil rights for African-Americans.

As important as reaching out is, motivating our own community is also critical. If being attacked as second-class citizens doesn’t resonate, then I don’t know what will. We need to eradicate the prevailing political apathy within the community.

Get the lgbt youth to join the fight; they’re our future. Many of these young people don’t think there should be a controversy at all. Says Dan McCarthy, a PFLAG Dad from Columbia, "It gives me great solace to hear [the younger generation] talk and see them interact because it is very clear that when their generation comes to power, they will absolutely crush this discrimination against gays and lesbians and they will poke fun at us for ever debating it."

Another step is to elect gay and gay-friendly candidates and to work hard and contribute to their campaigns. Filling the state houses and governors’ mansions with allies will be a major step towards achieving equality.

This will be accomplished by educating the public on the flaws of the opposition’s arguments and the merits of our own, as outlined earlier. Separate religion from the issue as much as possible by stressing civil recognition over the religious one. Demonstrate that the children of gay couples are being victimized by homophobic politicians and judges.

Emphasize the traditional doctrine of fairness and point out how the country grew up and witnessed interracial marriages without the feared collapse of society. Criticize the religious right as homophobic bigots, which most are. Frame the issue as a civil rights matter despite what some in the African-American community contend.

And most importantly, convince the general population that gay people are a legitimate minority, that our orientation is not a choice, and that we should not be defined by perceptions and stereotypes. This is the root cause of all the discrimination against the lgbt community.

The outlook may not be that bleak. In looking at the broader picture there are other issues in which the lgbt community is realizing gains. The repeal of the widely criticized "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" policy for one is gaining momentum. Other states and jurisdictions are extending protections for lgbt people. Corporations and universities are doing the same. Domestic partnership benefits are proliferating.

But like any other major civil rights initiative, the quest for same-sex marriage will take time, patience and lots of effort. "Every year we are seeing that the country is on a clear trajectory towards equality as more and more Americans understand that same-sex couples and their children deserve to be treated equally under our nation's Constitution, nothing more and nothing less," Brad Luna, spokesperson for the Human Rights Campaign, told OUTloud.

"Acceptance and progress won't happen overnight; it happens in small and big steps with setbacks along the way and the recent court rulings have been a speed bump along the road towards equality."

Marriage rulings may not be welcome news to GOP either

By Steve Charing
Senior Political Analyst

Same-sex marriage proponents suffered a major setback when the New York State Court of Appeals ruled that the state constitution does not provide a legal basis for members of the same sex to marry. The bizarre, almost illogical, rationale for the 4-2 majority decision made it even more frustrating.

"The Court's archaic reasoning is rooted in ignorance and completely contradicted by the facts of today," said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese in a statement. "The Court threw the expert advice of child welfare professionals and years of scientific evidence out the window with its ruling against fairness." The HRC is the largest lgbt civil rights organization in the U.S.

Court of Appeals Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye dissented on the ruling and wrote, "I am confident that future generations will look back on [this] decision as an unfortunate misstep."

At the same time, a Georgia court upheld its ban on same-sex marriages. The Georgia decision was not unexpected; to a larger degree, the New Your one was. Recent polls have shown that a majority of New Yorkers favor marriage rights for same-sex couples. The New York decision allows for the legislature to consider changing the existing law.

More recently, there were similar setbacks in Connecticut, Tennessee and Nebraska that stymied the pro-same-sex marriage movement.

These defeats prevented, at least temporarily, an opportunity to turn the corner, move forward, and establish a venue in addition to Massachusetts as a place where gays and lesbians can legally marry. Moreover, the rulings could embolden other judges to make similar decisions on pending cases. In Maryland, the Deane and Polyak v. Conaway lawsuit is headed to an appeals court to determine if the ruling by a lower court that found the state’s marriage law is discriminatory should be upheld or tossed out.

Yet as bad as these court outcomes are for the lgbt community, the Republican Party may not be whooping it up either. Sure, they got their way: the drive for the legalization of same-sex marriage hit a major speed bump. Innate homophobia that defines the religious conservative-dominated GOP drives the anti-gay sentiment.

During the 2004 election cycle following the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s ruling that legalized same-sex marriage in the Bay State, the Republicans under Karl Rove used the fear of "gay marriage" as a rallying point to dredge up and motivate otherwise apathetic religious conservatives (read: bigots) to head to the voting booths.

Republicans were successful in positioning the issue of gay marriage on the ballots of 11 states so that the people would decide its fate, not "activist judges," whom were demonized by Rove, Bush and their loyal minions. Many political observers credit this fear tactic as persuading a sufficient number of Catholics, African-Americans and evangelical Christians to vote and may have had a crucial impact in such battleground states as Ohio.

The 2006 elections, of course, do not involve a run for the presidency. But all of the members of the House of Representatives and one-third of the U. S. Senate are up for re-election. Then you have the Governors races (including Maryland) and state legislatures that are up for grabs.

The Republicans are hurting. They are beset by the low approval ratings for President Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress, the war in Iraq and other international hot spots, the economy and its burgeoning deficits, oil prices, myriad scandals and ethics issues (including the military), environmental concerns, healthcare, immigration reform, our standing in the world community, and a gaggle of other issues important to the American people.

Furthermore, Congress has been widely criticized in the media for wasting time on such peripheral issues as gay marriage, flag burning and protecting the words under God in the Pledge of Allegiance rather than tackling the more important matters.

As a result of the recent court rulings that have impeded the drive for same-sex marriage, the GOP cannot assail "activist judges" who are undermining the so-called institution of marriage. They cannot legitimately argue that unless Republicans are elected, these judges will go wild on American values.

The scare tactics used in the past may not hold water this time around although several more states will have the ant-gay marriage amendments on their ballots. The recent court decisions, while discouraging to lgbt activists, may have quelled temporarily the urgency created by the fabrication that society is collapsing because of actions taken by Massachusetts-type judges. Accordingly, the New York and Georgia decisions may douse the right-wing crazies’ "enthusiasm" come November.

What matters most is that the GOP record is out there to be judged, and without the use of fear, they are in trouble.

Left, Right, Left: Ehrlich Marches to His Re-election Beat

By Steve Charing
Senior Political Analyst

His TV commercials say that Governor Robert L. Ehrlich, Jr. doesn’t govern from the left or the right, but from the center. But that’s not entirely true: Ehrlich actually governs from the left, the right AND the center.

As a candidate in 2002 when President Bush’s approval rating was at a gaudy 85 percent, the right-leaning former Congressman ran for governor of Maryland as a Bush-type "compassionate conservative" and became the first member of the GOP to hold such an office in Maryland in a generation.

He entered the race as an underdog and came from behind to knock off a weak candidate, Lt. Governor Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, who had the shadow of the political pariah Parris Glendenning, as well as a severe state budget deficit, cast upon her. In doing so, he attracted many moderate and conservative Democrats—a must in a state that has registered Democrats outnumbering Republicans two to one.

Through his three and a half years in office, Governor Ehrlich returned to his pro-business, right wing roots and was virtually all over the map on social issues. For example, he is pro-choice but also pro-death penalty. He publicly was an advocate of an amendment that would enshrine discrimination into the state’s constitution on the matter of same-sex marriage. Yet he signed, albeit reluctantly, a measure that allows for stem-cell research.

He vetoed a sensible and sought-after Medical Decision-Making Act during the 2005 General Assembly that would have conferred key healthcare rights to unmarried couples and families, particularly lgbt couples where marriage was not an option. He also vetoed the Transfer & Recordation Tax Exemption Bill, which would have allowed same-sex couples to transfer real estate to each other without paying recordation and transfer taxes—a privilege granted to married couples.

During the 2006 legislative session, he marched to the beat of the right-wing conservatives who insisted on a constitutional amendment barring same-sex marriage. He strongly and vocally supported the measure. That initiative failed, but the Governor has not backed off from his position.

But recently, the Governor dismissed an appointee to the Metro Transportation Board, Robert J. Smith, for characterizing gays as deviants on a talk show. And a week later he appointed an openly gay judge, Christopher Panos, to the Baltimore District Court.
These actions that seemingly go counter to Ehrlich’s earlier positions provide a glimpse into his re-election strategy. He is trying to appear moderate while still holding his conservative values.

He has no choice.

Maryland is a Democratic state. Bush’s poll numbers have sunk to the mid-thirties from the mid-eighties, and the Governor is an unabashed supporter of the President. That is not good news for a Republican with a sketchy record of accomplishment trying to renew his lease in the Governor’s mansion.

To retain those Democrats who supported him last time around, Ehrlich has no option but to move towards the middle. Even if the dismissal of Smith and the appointment of Judge Panos irked the Don Dwyer's of the world, Ehrlich knows all-too-well that they will still vote for him in November. Those right wing bozos, who still believe Iraq attacked the World Trade Center, will reliably be there for the GOP, if not enthusiastically.

His surprising choice of Kristen Cox, a legally blind woman to be his running mate, was an attempt to further burnish his moderate credentials. This selection is aimed at appealing to women, minorities and those with disabilities.

With Doug Duncan dropping from the race, Mayor Martin O’Malley emerged as the sole opponent to Ehrlich. O’Malley angered many gay activists during the debate in the General Assembly when the constitutional amendment was the issue of the day. He issued a statement in January following Judge Murdock ruling that it is unconstitutional to ban gay couples from marrying.

"I was raised to believe that marriage is between a man and a woman," the statement read. "This is a fundamental issue of the state’s public policy, and a decision that ultimately should not be made by a single trial court judge. The Court of Appeals should review this matter, and any legislative action would be premature until the court acts."

However, during the course of compiling questionnaires from the candidates on lgbt issues in advance of candidate endorsements, a source in Equality Maryland told OUTloud that O’Malley is totally opposed to an amendment and that "the lgbt community would be happy with his positions on other lgbt issues."

With Ehrlich’s campaign marching down the center lane, should the lgbt community believe that he has seen the light and will now be in our corner? Not likely. His recent gestures, while welcome, were part of a political calculation designed to present himself to be a moderate. Should he be re-elected, he will undoubtedly return to the right lane—perhaps more so—during his final term.

Mrs. Ehrlich Turns Troops Into Props

Letter published in the Baltimore Sun--7/2/2006

Most Republican elected officials are dutifully following Karl Rove's playbook by incessantly using patriotism as a means to stoke the conservative base and to bludgeon any Democratic politician who dares to disagree with GOP policies, especially on the tragic war in Iraq. The GOP also trumpets the "support the troops" mantra ad nauseum as a way of sidestepping criticism of their failed policies and to avoid substantive debate.

Whether this tactic will be successful in November is anyone's guess at this point. But Kendel Ehrlich, the wife of the Governor, sees political gain in this strategy even if the war is not the particular subject of discussion ("Critical first lady takes off the gloves," June 28).

Mrs. Ehrlich added a new page to this insidious playbook by invoking the "troops" card when discussing the Democratic effort to allow for early voting. According to the article, Mrs. Ehrlich feels "the Democratic efforts to 'mess with our franchise' makes a mockery of U.S. soldiers who are dying overseas to promote democracy."

The true mockery is using our troops, who were sent to fight and die in a war that has been proven to have no legitimate basis, as political pawns. Mrs. Ehrlich should apologize for her crass remarks in allowing our soldiers and Marines to be props in her political theater.

Steve Charing

Does the Gay Vote Matter?

Not many candidates trolled for votes at Pride, but maybe there’s a reason

By Steve Charing

Senior Political Analyst

This is a huge election year, both nationally and in Maryland. The direction of the country and the state is at stake as never before. Many tight elections are forecasted, so every vote counts. Every vote matters.

Or does it?

With huge throngs on hand at both the Pride parade-block party event and the festival at the park, a golden opportunity was afforded to local candidates to seek votes from the lgbt community and its allies. The crowds were surely large enough to troll for votes. A phone call to GLCCB executive director Craig Wiley to obtain crowd totals was not returned as of press time. The GLCCB is the producer of the Pride events.

On Saturday, I only saw U.S. Senate candidate Allan Lichtman meandering through the crowd, although Baltimore City Councilman Kieffer Mitchell was at the parade route along with Douglas Gansler, candidate for Maryland Attorney General. But the intense crowds of Saturday’s block party plus the fact most of the people are strictly there to socialize and party wasn’t conducive to normal campaigning and would be likely to be resistant to such activity.

The sultry Sunday at the park presented a better opportunity for candidates. A more laid back crowd is easier to deal with than a partying one. Hundreds of votes or contributions are to be had— just demonstrate your support for lgbt equality and not be Bush and you have a shot. But it was surprising that so few candidates for elected office took advantage of this major event.
Congressional Democratic candidates Paula C. Hollinger and Andy Barth actively worked the masses in pursuit of votes, if not name recognition. They are in a crowded field seeking the 3rd Congressional district seat currently held by Rep. Ben Cardin, who himself, is running for U.S. Senator along with Kweise Mfume, Michael Steele and the aforementioned Lichtman.

Neither Mfume nor Cardin made an appearance although volunteers from both camps handed out stickers to the festival-goers. And Steele wouldn’t dare set foot on rainbow ground; his anti-gay positions would render any campaigning at the festival as seemingly a waste of time. Mfume has been a supporter of lgbt equality and strongly opposes any attempt to enshrine discrimination in either the state or Federal constitutions, as does Lichtman. Cardin has been less forthcoming but opposed the Federal Marriage Protection Act.

The gubernatorial race is hot and is likely to get hotter. But only Martin O’Malley bothered to come to the festival and made brief remarks, which were amply ignored or not heard by the largely politically apathetic crowd. Neither Doug Duncan nor Governor Ehrlich was there, although no one would have expected the latter’s appearance. This despite the startling firing by Ehrlich of an appointee, Robert Smith, from the Metro Transit Board for characterizing homosexuality as deviant behavior.

According to a statement released by Governor Ehlrich, "Robert Smith's comments were highly inappropriate, insensitive and unacceptable. They are in direct conflict to my administration's commitment to inclusion, tolerance and opportunity." The Governor’s memory is short or has an unusual definition of "inclusion;" he fully supports an amendment to the state’s constitution that would ban same-sex couples from marrying. And "tolerance" is not where we want to be. We are seeking full equality.

Ehrlich’s firing of Smith may have appealed to some in the lgbt community and to moderates, while pissing off such conservative bigoted organizations as the American Family Association, which condemned the governor.

To my knowledge, besides O’Malley and perhaps Hollinger, no major candidate bothered to press flesh with the gay voters attending the Pride events. It may not have been a snub though. It was Father’s Day, and other events could have been scheduled as well. Candidates and their staffs must prioritize and allocate their available time.

Given the degree of political apathy that characterizes our community, I believe the other candidates made a calculation that attending the event and working the crowd would not be productive. O’Malley needed to be there to at least try to mend fences with the community for his "marriage is between only a man and a woman" comment. The others probably saw little value to show up in person.

It wasn't that long ago when fiery, passionate political speeches and activism dominated the Pride speakers'stage at various cities. Alas, it’s all about entertainment now, which caters to this community. Perhaps politicians are beginning to take notice of that.

Pride of Baltimore: This is Our Time

By Steve Charing
Senior Political Analyst

Another year has gone by where our community has been under attack by the religious right and by those politicians who are owned by these bigots. Another year of enduring the diatribes denouncing lgbt folks as second-class citizens worthy of discrimination has passed. President Bush and his GOP cohorts in Congress are again pushing a divisive Constitutional amendment to discriminate against gay and lesbian couples.

Massachusetts remains the only state in the U.S. where same-sex marriage is legal. Openly gay and lesbian members of the armed forces still cannot serve their country although convicted criminals can. And members of the same sex cannot hold hands in public lest they get harassed, beat up or more. We continue to be verbally and physically bludgeoned for being who we are.

Many of us are angered; many simply do not care. But our spirits will not be shaken. For it is June—Pride month—and now it’s our time to stand up and be heard as one: gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered, black, white, Latino, Asian, old, young, single, coupled, rich, poor, activist, apathetic, you name it. This is our time, and we will celebrate.

And we will do so right here in Baltimore.

A large majority of the people who will be watching and participating in the parade up Charles Street, jamming Eager Street and Charles for the traditional block party (June 17), and/or attending the festival at Druid Park (June 18) were born after 1969 when the Stonewall riots took place.

That historic movement-altering weekend in late June to which most gays all over the world credit as the start of the modern gay rights movement began as another intrusive police raid of the Stonewall Inn—a gay bar in New York’s Greenwich Village. The forceful resistance by the bar’s patrons, consisting largely of drag queens, sparked a small riot outside the establishment over the weekend and sent the message that "enough was enough."

The uprising received little notice initially, but then word of the incident spread rapidly in New York and other gay conclaves throughout the U.S. Starting in 1970 and continuing today, the celebration of this uprising had sprung up in hundreds of cities and towns globally. Even an attempt to march, albeit thwarted by police and right wing opposition, was launched in Moscow recently.

But these younger people today who were not around for this epic event or are shamefully unaware of it, probably have not experienced the trauma of a police raid and its arrests or at least the fear of such an incident.

Nonetheless, despite not knowing the basis of Pride celebrations or the rationale, these folks will still show up at the block party and parade and bring their dogs, partners, friends, or just themselves to the festival in the park. Rainbows, balloons and confetti will abound, as will food, beverages, books, jewelry, literature from myriad lgbt and supportive organizations, music and camaraderie. They will party and run into old friends and make new ones, perhaps oblivious to the symbolic significance of the occasion.

And that is just fine, because this is our time.

Regardless of our ages, gender, race, interests, agendas, or even fetishes, this community can rightly celebrate pride in ourselves. We are who we are, and we shall continue to live our lives the way they were meant to be and not pretend to be somebody else. We should be proud of our own individual accomplishments and what our community has achieved over the years. We will be ourselves this glorious weekend, undeterred by what others may think.

Let’s come out and show our pride. Let’s understand the meaning of the events. And let’s enjoy ourselves. Happy Pride, Baltimore! This is our time.

Mary Cheney breaks silence too little, too late

By Steve Charing
Senior Political Analyst

Mary Cheney is a sham.
Just thought that you should know,
When we needed her to speak the most,
She was mum ‘til book dough made her crow.

Mary Cheney, openly lesbian daughter of Vice President Dick Cheney is well known throughout the informed wing of the gay community. She had been out to her parents for a long time, was the gay liaison for Coors, and has a partner of 14 years. Right wing extremist goofball Alan Keyes had dubbed her a "selfish hedonist."

Recently Mary Cheney has been hitting the talk show circuit promoting her book, "Now it’s My Turn: A Daughter’s Chronicle of Political Life." I have not read it, nor would I ever consider it. I have seen and heard reports, however, that her book discloses her coming out issues including her brush with personal destruction, her family, and well as GOP politics and her father’s election campaigns.

Forgive me if I sound so loathsome towards Mary Cheney and her clan; that’s only because I am.

I took it personally when her father’s GOP, led by the rat named Rove, saw fit to label gays and lesbians as second-class citizens. They did this during the 2004 election campaign when Karl Rove managed to secure anti-gay marriage amendments on the ballots of 11 states to draw out so-called social conservatives (bigots) so they could tip the election towards the Bush-Cheney ticket. It worked, and I hate it.

But the lesbian daughter of Cheney quietly helped with the campaign while the President, conservative talk-show radio jocks, GOP surrogates, right-wing religious leaders and others vilified the gay community, some equating us with animals, incest, rape and polygamy.
An opportunity to defend herself and other lgbt individuals and to express strong opposition to this divisive tactic withered into eerie silence. So absent was Mary throughout these attacks that her photo was mockingly placed on a "Mary Cheney Missing" milk carton. Incensed gay advocates circulated the image around the Internet.

Now she is talking. The one million dollars she has received on her book advance obviously lured her out of the closet of silence. While she opines that the Republican-led effort to write discrimination into the Constitution is wrong, she ostensibly never explained why she didn’t speak out against it in 2004 or why her father couldn’t exert his vast, boundless influence to thwart the effort.

Even more disingenuous was her claim that she was piqued when John Kerry brought up her sexual orientation during the third presidential debate of the 2004 campaign She called his comments "a cheap and blatant political ploy," and that he tried "to make political points over my personal life."

Perhaps, but this faux outrage is coming from an openly gay woman whose Republican party used the wedge issue of "gay marriage" during the campaign to divide Americans. That certainly was a cheap political ploy, and its goal was to make political points. But it was carried out at the expense of millions of gay and lesbian Americans and their families.

Her repugnant mother Lynne ranted as well, calling Kerry "tawdry." Mary (and Mom) seemed to have forgotten that two weeks before Kerry’s comments, her father literally thanked John Edwards during the vice-presidential debate for his "kind words," which were similar to Kerry’s. What a family!

"I struggled with my decision to stay on the 2004 campaign," Cheney told ABC’s "Primetime." following President Bush’s statement that the nation must defend the sanctity of marriage. But instead of making a statement of her own, she remained on the staff and continued to receive her $100,000 salary from it.

More big bucks from her book advance coaxed Mary Cheney to finally speak out. The timing is right, however, since the dreaded second attempt of passing the Federal Marriage Protection Amendment is underway. But when it was needed most, her voice was silent. This time, it’s too little, too late.

Desperate GOP Trotting Out an Old Favorite

To cling to power, Republicans dredge up ‘gay marriage’ again

By Steve Charing
Senior Political Analyst

Take your pick: Iraq, soaring gas prices, Katrina, no-bid contracts, immigration, Iran, Dubai ports, unprecedented deficits, Dafur, CIA leaks, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, the Abramoff scandals, ethical behavior, secrecy, Big Oil, Haliburton, Tom DeLay, the Harriet Meyers debacle, insufficient health care, Teri Schiavo, global warming. Oh, did I mention George W. Bush?

These are not happy times for Republicans, and with good reason. Most, if not all, of these problems have the Republican finger prints all over them. All the errors in judgement, all the deceit, all the arrogance, all the incompetence was made in GOPland and attributed to their leaders.

Finally, finally the voting public has taken notice. Around three-fourths of those polled in a recent survey said the country is on the wrong track—a politically ominous sign. President Bush’s approval rating is in the low thirty percent area (it makes you question the sanity of the third of the country who still believe he is doing a good job) and Republicans significantly trail Democrats nationwide as to whom people would prefer running Congress.

The two principal concerns—Iraq and gas prices—are going to be the leading factors in what appears to be at the moment a major shift in the political winds. The "throw the scoundrels out" mantra is starting to be heard loud and clear, and Democrats hope that it will be reverberating in November.

Noticeable improvement in the tragic war in Iraq is unlikely to be realized by then. Gas prices will continue to trend upward. For the GOP dark clouds loom on the horizon because there is no upside potential for this administration, and we haven’t had the 2006 hurricane season yet! The revolving door of press secretaries and CIA directors will not stop the bleeding.

Republican strategists admit they have given up on trying to increase their hold on both houses in Congress; they are content to play defense and try to maintain what they have so that they may continue to control all three branches of government. They will use this strategy by reinvigorating their base, especially cultural conservatives.

The GOP is rightfully scared. So when a rat (named Rove) is cornered, it becomes mean and dangerous. What is the course of action? Appeal to the dark side of humanity, whip up the bigoted base and trot out gay marriage.

Why not? It worked in all 11 states in 2004 where a ban on same-sex marriage was on the ballot. President Bush was the beneficiary having won the swing state of Ohio, which many political analysts credit that issue as the tipping point in that state.

Retiring homophobic Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) will attempt to launch his presidential bid by bringing up once again a federal constitutional amendment that would define marriage as between a man and a woman. The hearings for this endeavor begin June 5. It is likely to fail, but it offers crumbs to the "base."

These crumbs are needed to hold the base together. The latest AP-Ipsos poll indicates that many conservatives may sit out November’s elections because, among other reasons, Bush isn’t doing enough about ‘gay marriage.’ Despite all the problems facing this country—economically, politically, environmentally and socially—this is what some are obsessed about. What is wrong with these people? They were handed the Supreme Court, for heaven’s sake.

I predict the ‘gay marriage’ gambit will not pay off this time. Even some conservatives are opposed to a federal constitutional amendment that would infringe upon states’ rights. Former Missouri Republican Senator John Danforth, now an Episcopalian minister, calls such an action "silly."

When a person is paying $75 to fill up his gas-guzzler and American bodies keep coming back from Iraq, less worry outside the reddest of districts will be aimed at the marriage aspirations of Adam and Steve down the street.

GOP still knows how to scare the voters

Letter Published in the Baltimore Sun

May 9,2006

I had to do a double-take to make sure I was correctly reading the name "Cal Thomas" as the author of "Republicans run out of gas" (Opinion • Commentary, May 3).

Mr. Thomas, a conservative, wrote a rare indictment of many Republican elected officials "who seem to care less about change than perpetuating themselves in office." He also cites faulty leadership in the White House as a major blemish on the party.

While I agree with Mr. Thomas that the GOP has applied the brakes on any good ideas for the sake of power and made a detour on traditional Republican values, I disagree with his claim that "Democrats are better at scaring voters than Republicans."

Mr. Thomas should recall how the GOP scared Americans into re-electing President Bush in 2004 on the basis of frequently hyped, color-coded terror alerts during the campaign to convince voters that only Mr. Bush was capable of protecting the American people.

They also scared many African-American, evangelical and Catholic voters in key swing states into believing that gay marriage would lead to the demise of society.

The Republicans may have run out of gas on fresh ideas and sound governance, but they seem to always have a reserve in their tank when it comes to scaring voters.

Steve Charing

Clarksville

Everwood’s Coming Out Scene Hits the Mark

By Steve Charing

If you are reading this column, you would most likely appreciate how traumatic the coming out process can be—even if your personal experience was event-free. For most lgbt people this significant step is fraught with all kinds of potential downsides: alienating the person you’re talking to is prominent among them. It is especially dicey if you are divulging your sexual orientation to a family member or perhaps to your best friend and mentor.

The latter was the case during a recent TV episode of Everwood, a family drama series shown locally on the WB54. The character of Kyle (played by Steven R. McQueen—grandson of actor Steve McQueen) is a 15 year-old moody, talented, piano-playing loner who was taken under the wing of series regular Ephram Brown—also moody and about age 19 (played by Gregory Smith, pictured). Ephram sees himself in Kyle when he was that age, and offers to tutor the boy for free to help him get into Julliard.

During the episode, Kyle was resistant to attending a school dance and also blew off one of the school’s hottest girls. His initial lack of interest prompted Ephram to discuss the situation with his gym-obsessed roommate Reid (played by the hunky Justin Baldoni) who suggested that Kyle may be gay.

Ephram was disturbed by that prospect, but was quick to tell Reid he is not a homophobe. He just doesn’t want the boy to be even more alienated. To test the hypothesis that he may be gay Ephram pressed Kyle hard to attend the dance and offered to chauffeur him back and forth. He was hoping, of course, that Kyle would have a great time and have a babe on each arm. Reluctantly Kyle attended, and one would think he was heading to death row by his negative demeanor.

When Kyle left the dance early, alone and angry, Ephram saw the pain Kyle was experiencing and felt guilty for pushing him into this situation. By now the audience has assumed Kyle had to be gay; he may as well have worn the rainbow flag on his shirt. But wary of the gay tease that was put forth in the case of Reid earlier this season, I was wondering if this was yet another maneuver by the writers.

The denouement occurred whereby Ephram confronted a teary-eyed Kyle in the boy’s bedroom following the traumatic dance experience. Before Kyle could finish the sentence that made the admission, Ephram helped him out by saying the g-word: "There’s absolutely nothing wrong with being… gay."

Kyle then questioned, "Why do I have to be something I don’t want to be? Why can’t I pretend it’s not there?"

Ephram responded, "Then you’d be lying to yourself and denying to yourself the entire life you deserve. For what?"

He went on, "Listen to me. The sooner you can accept who you are, to be okay with it, the better off you’re gonna be, the happier you’re gonna be."

When Kyle admitted that he doesn't want to give people "another reason to hate me," Ephram assured him, "Right now, you're the only one that hates you."

OK, this is fiction, so what is the significance of this story line? First off, the show’s creator Greg Berlanti is openly gay. Through the four years of Everwood’s run, very few plot lines have touched on lgbt issues. Perhaps this one was near and dear to Berlanti’s heart; maybe he related Kyle’s experience to his own. It could be that Berlanti wanted this included, as this could be the final season for Everwood. The merger between UPN and the WB could spell doom for many of the current series.

Secondly, the show is viewed by a predominantly young audience—mainly teens and those in their twenties watch this critically acclaimed drama.

"Kyle’s coming out on Everwood will have a great impact on young people," Damon Romine, Entertainment Media Director of GLAAD told OUTloud. "Gay teens need to see that they are not alone, which is why our visibility is so important." He added, "Kyle's feelings of isolation and confusion are something many gay teens experience, but Ephram stepping up to be an ally and a friend sends a great message to straight and gay viewers alike."

Indeed, for young gays and their allies, this episode hit the mark.

Is ‘Immigration’ the GOP’s ‘Gay Marriage’?

By Steve Charing

The thing about election wedge issues is that they don’t always have to originate from opponents. They can be self-inflicted, as is the case with the smoldering issue of immigration.

‘Gay marriage’ was a wedge issue imposed on the Democrats during the 2004 presidential campaign. The Karl Rove-designed Republican game plan was to drive a wedge among the Democratic voters, primarily splitting African-American and Catholic Democrats from other socially progressive voters in the party by diverting the main issues of the day to the fear of ‘gay marriage.’ The scare tactic was used in states that had constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage on the ballot and was fostered in churches to help arouse anti-gay sentiment. It was most evident and crucial in the battleground state of Ohio.

The incendiary anti-gay rhetoric spewed from these pulpits led to increased higher voter turnout by religious conservatives. This strategy worked sufficiently, many believe, to help George W. Bush carry Ohio and ultimately the election. And, of course, America, if not the world, is paying the price.

The newest wedge issue is immigration reform. This time, it wasn’t one party driving a wedge into the opposition’s faithful. The Republicans are doing it to themselves and are deeply divided on the best way to handle the immigration “problem” with a significant number parting ways with the President himself.

For business owners, many of whom identify with the GOP, undocumented workers (illegal immigrants) provide a ready pool of cheap labor that allows businesses to increase profit margins. These immigrants frequently work on jobs that Americans have no desire to perform—especially at low wages. They include low-skill agricultural jobs, custodial services, child-care, hotel and restaurant services, landscaping and other necessary but financially unrewarding jobs. Supporters argue they are essential for economic growth and keeping inflation in check.

Social conservatives (read: bigots who prefer America to be white, Christian, immigrant-free, English-speaking, and heterosexual), want to deport the approximately 11 million illegal immigrants already here in the name of security. They complain the undocumented workers are changing the identity of America, taking jobs away from Americans, and holding down wages. These conservatives are overwhelmingly Republican.

The House of Representatives passed a harsh bill that would not only sanction detainment and deportation of illegals and authorize the building of a wall along the Mexican-U/S. border but would also penalize anybody, including medical providers, who had offered assistance or services to these new “criminals.”

President Bush assumed a middle-of-the-road position for once and supports the enforcement of border security as well as to institute a guest worker program for those immigrants who are already here in order to pave the way for ultimate citizenship. The Democrats, for their part, are more closely aligned to the President’s plan than to the House’s severe version.

Following a debate in the Judiciary Committee, the Senate then took up the highly controversial question and attempted to pass a bipartisan compromise agreement that virtually mirrors the President’s position. However, it collapsed and failed under the weight of procedural and other amendments, which had been originally disallowed based on the earlier agreement.

Both sides pointed fingers at each other for the failure to enact immigration reform prior to recess with Bush, who is rapidly losing credibility among America’s citizens, blaming the Democrats. Many political observers believe that the matter won’t be taken up again before the mid-term congressional elections in November.

Regardless of which version eventually passes and is signed into law, it will likely cause hardships for gay immigrants. According to an article appearing in the Washington Blade, “many immigrants who are wading through the lengthy documentation process, including those … who overstayed a visa or asylum seekers who lack proper identification documents, are detained in county jails and immigration detention centers.”

Immigrant rights advocates reported widespread abuses and humiliation at these facilities that are directed towards gay immigrants, especially those with HIV, or transgendered individuals. Increased problems will arise if more detainees are thrown into the mix, which would happen under the proposed bills. Unfortunately, a solution is not on the horizon, and only 16 countries offer immigration to same-sex couples—the U.S. is not among them.

From a political perspective this will be yet another hot-button issue with which Republicans must grapple. Amidst steadily declining poll numbers that are causing normally cocky Republicans to be extremely nervous, many are already splitting up over the war in Iraq, the Administration’s failure to exercise fiscal restraint, the Dubai ports deal, the CIA leak, the DeLay ethics probes and the Abramhoff scandals. Now along comes immigration reform to further exacerbate the divide—not just between Congress and the White House, but within the GOP per se.

Millions of illegal immigrants poured through the streets throughout America to protest expulsion. These are stirring images and invoke strong emotions from those who want to show compassion to a group that has been productive in the workforce and those on the opposite side of the chasm who would rather send them all home.

The Republicans have touted the recent inroads they have made with the Hispanic community. But this issue will likely scar the GOP, not only because Latinos will see the Republican hard liners as anti-Latino, but will also incur the wrath from moderates and independents who are wondering where the compassion went from ‘compassionate conservative.’

The opposition to strict reforms is oddly diverse, as strange bedfellows have been formed when Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA) and evangelical Christians were aligned in forgiving current illegal immigrants. This forgiveness is the wedge itself: the A-word—Amnesty.

‘Gay marriage’ was a successful tactic to divide Democratic voters in selected states. But immigration—a wedge issue that the GOP must cope with—is broader and deeper. A recent AP-Ipsos poll shows that Americans are as much concerned about the immigration dilemma as the economy.

The growing concern over illegal immigration and the fate of the 11 million men, women and children already here will not wane as a result of Congress’ trepidation to address reforms until after the election. The Republican-led Congress, although split over this issue, cannot duck the controversy because the public demands a solution. And with such polarization within the GOP itself, politically this is their ‘gay marriage’ and deservedly so.

DeLay's departure won't save the GOP

Letter Published in the Baltimore Sun--April 10

The Republicans are whistling in the graveyard if they actually believe that Rep. Tom DeLay's bowing out from Congress prior to the election will mitigate the Democrats' assault on the "culture of corruption" that embroils the GOP ("DeLay's decision fuels GOP concerns," April 5).

Mr. DeLay's public explanation for his departure was tinged with his signature bitter partisanship. The fact remains that he is leaving Congress because of a tightening noose that will undoubtedly strangle him as the legal process unfolds.

The Democrats will and should highlight the hypocrisy and corruption of Mr. DeLay, as well as other affected self-righteous Republicans who were hellbent on impeaching President Bill Clinton.

Yes, politics is local, as GOP leaders like to point out. But one hopes that the electorate will clean house this year and in 2008, as they correctly come to their senses and realize enough is enough.

Steve Charing
Clarksville

Crossing the Red Line

Why the NHL may be the first major league to embrace a gay male player

By Steve Charing

Philadelphia Flyers goon Donald Brashears perhaps said it best: "This game is gay now." Of course, his absurd comment was in response to penalties, a fine and suspension levied against him in response to a punching incident. But was his comment that farfetched? Could hockey be the first major male team sport that is, um, gay?

Other sports don’t seem to hold out immediate promise. We have heard the rumors and innuendoes (and wishful thinking), as well as the vehement denials concerning major league baseball players. Precious few have come out but only after their careers ended. The same could be said for pro football. And with public homophobic denunciations through the years by hoop players, it is more unlikely that one would come out in the NBA.

No active player possessing Jackie Robinson-like courage has stepped out onto the field of play in uniform as an openly gay man. No man thus far has been willing to battle the potential distractions, threats and shunning from teammates, opponents and fans to weather the storm.
For gay men, this has been a daunting barrier. The epitome of the macho culture in organized sports does not create a hospitable setting for an openly gay athlete. This paradigm needs to be broken, but where?

Why not hockey. Brashears already provided the opening. And with the Stanley Cup playoffs are on the horizon, a coming out story would add more spice to the sport that is still reeling from last year’s lockout. So, has anyone considered ice hockey as a fertile area for a gay man to come out?

You can be forgiven if you are shaking your head about now. After all, which sport is more macho than hockey, and which sport can boast more macho players? If you had ever seen Eric Lindros without a shirt you can swear the NHL oozes testosterone along the ice sheet.

Some of the hottest male athletes are hockey players if you discount those with more stitches than teeth and those whose noses resemble San Francisco’s Lombard Street.

But it’s not a stretch to suggest that hockey can handle an outwardly gay player. For one thing, look around the NHL and see where some of the franchises are located: Vancouver, San Jose (a spit away from San Francisco), Los Angeles, Sunrise (Miami-Ft. Lauderdale area), Tampa, Atlanta, Washington, DC, Philadelphia, Columbus, Minneapolis-St. Paul, Chicago, three in the New York area, Boston, Montreal and Toronto. Think of it: every one of these venues has a large, viable gay population and a fabulous gay scene. The gay fans would raise their sticks in jubilation if they had a gay hockey hero to worship.

These are happening cities, and they showcase hot ice skaters, albeit padded and helmeted, with long hard sticks in their hands banging each other against the boards and shouting. "Get the puck outta here!" Some even get called for "charging"—a gay retail habit. As for endorsements, what can be more appealing than a gay hockey player touting an Armani scarf in Boston? Or modeling Speedos in Sunrise?

Hockey, more than any of the "big four" professional sports, has an international flavor. To be sure, baseball is signing Asians and Latinos in increasing numbers, and basketball has ventured into the European and African continents to lure human high-rises to the league. But the NHL has the largest percentage of non-Americans playing. And this is a good thing, especially if a gay player chooses to come out.

Canadians and Swedes, for example, are far more progressive than Americans are when it comes to accepting gays. Several European countries (and Canada) have legalized same-sex marriage, and many have established equal rights for gays. All those who had been liberated form Russia, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and other Eastern European nations who play hockey in the NHL know all too well the shackles of oppression. It can extend to gay oppression. These players appreciate their newly found freedom. Only in America is there a hang-up when two men kiss as a greeting.

Moreover, hockey players are better equipped to withstand any possible harassment from coming out because they generally give as well as receive. Players of this ilk are not easily intimidated.

A recent Sports Illustrated poll indicates that hockey players are for more willing than their counterparts in the other major sports to embrace an openly gay teammate. Just about 80 percent of 346 surveyed said they would—nearly 20 percent higher than baseball players.
Assuming the poll is reliable, that’s a huge statement regarding the attitudes of hockey players.

Baseball, football, basketball—those sports have balls but the players don’t. At least not in coming out of the closet. Maybe in hockey the puck will stop here.

Homophobia before 'The Dance'

Duke’s J.J. Redick shrugs off fans’ taunts with class and courage

By Steve Charing

As the college basketball spectacle called "The Big Dance" winds its way through March and edges into early April, we are reminded that the darkness of homophobia in male athletics can cast a shadow over such a shining event. Prior to his fourth NCAA tournament, J.J. Redick, Duke University’s standout senior all-American guard, had been a frequent target of homophobic taunts and jeers while playing on the road.

Taunting isn’t a new phenomenon in the world of men’s college basketball by any stretch. Opposition arenas and gymnasiums have had a long history of being hell for visiting players. And if you don’t think the tactic of employing derisive chants, name-calling, and boos is effective, compare the home vs. road records of NCAA teams.

It seems that each venue has its own style of intimidating the visiting team’s players in some fashion. Locally the University of Maryland’s Comcast Centre, for one, is notorious for mocking the opposition. Sometimes the spirit goes too far as loud curse words are audible over national TV microphones and debris is sometimes launched at the visiting benches.

Most taunting, however, is usually accomplished through chants directed towards the targeted player’s personal physical characteristics (as Duke fans derided the supposed homeliness of former Maryland Terp Steve Blake), or as has been the case of Maryland’s D.J Strawberry in other arenas, his controversial father, Darryl Strawberry. Even a player’s family’s political leanings are in bounds it seems. Duke fans hurled catcalls at Maryland Terp Nik Caner-Medley by shouting that his parents are "Liberal!" Gasp!

Among the iniquitous forms of ridicule that are flung at a young visiting player, however, is his perceived sexual orientation. Again, this isn’t new. It doesn’t matter if a player is gay or not, fans know this is how to get inside his head. This is what J.J. Redick has been experiencing throughout his career.

Undaunted, Redick, who was born in Tennessee in June 1984 as Jonathan Clay Redick (his older twin sisters nicknamed him J.J.), has proven to be arguably one of the very best collegiate basketball players of all time and is a leading candidate for the National Player of the Year. He has amassed myriad offensive records for Duke, the Atlantic Coast Conference and the NCAA.

The 6-foot 4-inch senior is a prolific scorer with a deadly three-point shot and is virtually automatic from the foul line. (Alas, his Duke career ended earlier than expected during The Dance’s Sweet Sixteen.)

Because of his accomplishments and the Blue Devils’ perennial success, he is hated by opponents’ fans. It’s hard to comprehend why though. He is not a trash talker nor does he show up his opponents. He just plays to win.

No matter where he performed away from the friendly, cramped confines of Cameron Indoor Stadium, J.J. Redick had to endure a wide array of catcalls from the home team’s spectators. Some mocked the fact he loves to write poetry while others harassed him for being gay, or so they thought.

Outsports.com columnist Jim Buzinski pointed out how anti-gay taunts are intended to demean opponents. He mentioned a well-documented slur from NC State guard Scooter Sherrill last year that was aimed at Redick. " [Redick] has a little bit of cockiness to him," Sherrill said. Referring to the fact that the Duke star holds his hand in the follow-through position after making a shot while dropping back on defense, he said, "You see him hit a 3, and he's running down the court hollering. He's got his hand up like he's gay or something." He later half-heartedly apologized for the comment and admitted he was trying to agitate Redick.

For his part, Redick let it slide. "It's just the nature of sports," Redick told the Durham (NC) Herald-Sun. "Not just with me but with anybody—they're going to try to find ways to get an edge." It seems to motivate Redick more. Following the remarks, Redick outscored Sherrill 28-11 head-to-head, albeit in a losing effort.

This wasn’t an isolated homophobic incident in the chronicle of male college sports. According to a published article in the Daily Illini, the University of Hawaii changed the name and logo of its football team from the Rainbow Warriors to just the Warriors in 2000 because of the association with the gay rainbow flag. And the University of Southern California marching band reportedly taunted UCLA by playing the notes F, A and G in successive order at football games also as recently as 2000.

For J.J. Redick, the advent of "Brokeback Mountain" added more fuel to the fire. Opposing fans have been chanting "Brokeback Redick" or pasted his likeness on Brokeback posters and hoisted them up. The "gay cowboy" film had also prompted Gonzaga fans to tease opponents by chanting "Brokeback, Brokeback." School and team officials asked fans to cease the verbal homophobia.

In Redick’s case, it’s just another day at the office. Outsports.com co-founder Cyd Zeigler, Jr. gave Redick his props for at least addressing the issue when he could have simply ducked it. While noting Redick is most likely not gay, Zeigler comments, "It warmed my heart to hear a college basketball player, one of the nation's best this year, talk so openly about his sexual orientation being a topic of discussion."

He continued showing his poise in the midst of the NCAA’s Big Dance during an interview on Fox Sports’ "Best Damn Sports Show." Just a couple of days prior to the number one ranked Blue Devils’ shocking elimination that ended his collegiate career, Redick again owned up to his being jeered without hesitation.

Redick matter-of-factly acknowledged to the former jocks who were interviewing him, specifically Rob Dibble, the anti-gay slurs he received during the season. He courageously mentioned the Brokeback-themed chants, and did so with his engaging smile. He didn’t use the platform to gay-bash, or yuck it up about gays, which could have been a convenient strategy to help mitigate the taunts. Instead, he shrugged it off—no big deal.

It would have been ideal if Redick had taken the opportunity then to pronounce his heterosexuality but at the same time speak out against the homophobia that is so rampant among those who jeer. But it would have been hardly plausible in the macho culture of big time sports and probably a major distraction during the tournament.

What is unclear is J.J. Redick’s attitudes are towards gays and lesbians. A devout young man, he recently got a tattoo with the number 19 inscribed to denote Joshua 1:9, his favorite verse. It says, in part, "Be strong and of good courage; do not be afraid, nor be dismayed, for the Lord is with you wherever you go."

Clearly his faith helped him deal with the taunting so he was able to focus on his game performance. His inner character helped him discuss it with class and courage.

The Military's Double Standard

Letter Published in Washington Post

Monday, March 20, 2006; Page A14

I commend the March 7 editorial "Now Repeal the Ban," which assailed the Pentagon's policy of barring openly gay and lesbian citizens from military service. The editorial correctly attributed the ban to "bigotry and inertia."

The front-page article the same day about the Supreme Court decision upholding the right of the military to recruit on the campuses of law schools that accept federal funding quoted one of the staunchest supporters of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.), as saying, "This decision will ensure that the military will continue to be comprised of our nation's finest -- men and women who know how to defend our country in a manner consistent with our values and principles."

The values and principles Mr. Cornyn heralds are being compromised more by the Pentagon's lowering of standards to allow convicted felons and drug addicts into the armed forces to meet enlistment quotas than by gays and lesbians who refuse to deny or hide their true selves.
For example, Pentagon records indicate that at least 88 gay and lesbian language specialists were discharged between 1998 and 2004, of whom 20 were proficient in Arabic. These linguists would have been useful in gathering intelligence in the war on terrorism.

The rationale for discharging gays and lesbians from the military is that their acknowledged sexual orientation would hurt the morale of the troops. Does the recruitment of criminals boost troop morale?

STEVE CHARING
Clarksville

Speech to River Hill HS (Columbia, MD) National Honor Society--3/15/06

Character: Human rights and social conscience…

The Declaration of Independence proclaims: "We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal."

Gaping holes in this essential principle have been patched up throughout our history by amending the Constitution. That process extended rights to African-Americans, women and other minorities whereas before they were non-existent.

However, the sad truth is that for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered individuals, there remains some unfinished business when it comes to equality and human rights.

The current controversy, as you are probably aware, surrounds marriage equality for same-sex couples.

What gays are seeking are the same rights, benefits and responsibilities that are conferred upon heterosexual couples. They would include the financial security and medical decision-making rights that heterosexual couples take for granted.

We’re not asking for religious blessings. We’re not attempting to force churches, synagogues or mosques to sanctify a union. The Constitution’s First Amendment protects these institutions from that. Civil marriages can take place in county clerk offices or city halls. In fact, 4 in 10 marriages in Maryland occur in such venues.

When Britney Spears went through that fake marriage a couple of years ago, in those short 48 hours she was entitled to some 1,100 rights and benefits. Yet my partner and I, who have been in a committed relationship for over 26 years, do not have a single one.

Our opponents say that if we were allowed to get married, it would threaten the institution of marriage.

Ask your parents…ask them if my partner and I were legally permitted to marry, would they storm off to a lawyer to seek a divorce as a result?

In Massachusetts where same-sex marriage has been in effect for nearly 2 years, the divorce rate is the lowest in the country. The sky did not fall.

Our opponents say homosexuality is a sin according to the Bible. Well, so is murder a sin according to the same Bible, but murderers can get married. So can thieves and other criminals. So can men who shave or women who wear blended fabrics or people who ever talked back to their parents, or eat bacon. These are all sins, but the individuals who commit them are not barred from marrying.

The religious extremists cherry-pick passages from Scripture and had used the same arguments to justify racism and to prevent interracial marriages. And they do it to justify their homophobia. Our social conscience cannot allow a repeat of that type of bigotry.

It is clear the opposition is not concerned about protecting marriage because if they were they would rail against divorce, adultery, out-of-wedlock births, poverty, and domestic violence—all of which threaten the stability of marriage. Divorce alone accounts for the destruction of half of all marriages.

It’s not about protecting marriage at all. It’s all about homophobia. These people are opposed to anything that provides gays with equal status. To them, we are second-class citizens, and they want us back into the closet or as was advocated recently by one candidate for Senate in Ohio—the death penalty.

Folks, sad to say, extremism is very much alive in this country.

The political and religious rhetoric and bigotry that is unleashed as a result of homophobia is a human rights threat, a threat to our character, and a threat to the fabric of our society. Homophobia is very much a threat…Equality isn’t.

You Don't Have to be Coupled to Want Marriage

By Steve Charing

Senior Political Analyst

Many, if not most, in the lgbt community are not involved in long-term relationships at any given point. Some have foregone any notion of having a boyfriend or girlfriend, much less a committed partner. They either cannot find someone to their liking or they don’t want to bother. There are those who have had bad experiences and are apprehensive about entering into another relationship. Then there are folks who enjoy the freedom of being single. Regardless of the reasons, a large number of lgbt people are single, and some may even remain that way.

Setting aside the pros and cons arguments of such a status, one thing is very clear: supporting same-sex marriage, or at the very least, opposing the opposition, is in every lgbt individual’s best interest.

Those of you who find marriage to a partner to be the furthest thing from your mind, the push for marriage equality will benefit you as well. "Marriage and marriage equality is not directly applicable to my life right now," said 19 year-old college student Stephen McCarthy. "But I understand the importance of it in our community's struggle for equality and respect and the specific opportunity it may offer me someday in the future."

If lgbt couples were legally recognized as married, they would enjoy about 1,100 benefits and rights, including medical decision making rights, that are conferred upon their heterosexual counterparts. These would add to financial and emotional stability and security to themselves and their families—areas whose importance cannot be overstated. And most people, I believe, still aspire some day to be involved in a long-term relationship. In that situation, they would materially gain from these added rights.

But the quest for same-sex marriage isn’t only about securing benefits that heterosexuals take for granted. It is about equality.

The opposition folks in the General Assembly and in the Governor’s Mansion have reared their ugly heads in the wake of the Baltimore Circuit Court decision in January (the ruling was stayed pending appeal) that said the existing marriage law in Maryland is unconstitutional. They are mobilizing to amend the Constitution so that marriage would be limited to heterosexuals. After such a move failed in the House, the effort is still alive (albeit on life support) in the Senate with SB 690.

These vile people want the issue of our rights put up for a popular vote in November. If minority rights were routinely voted on by the majority, do you think the equal rights of African-Americans, women, the disabled and other minorities would exist today?

And with the GOP floundering right now and Republican officeholders scurrying like rats on a sinking ship to escape the Bush effect, don’t be surprised if "gay marriage" is again injected into the fall congressional (and Maryland) election campaigns as a distraction from their pitiful records and to re-energize their bigoted base.

As I have written numerous times in this space, the opposition isn’t about marriage; it is about homophobia. Why else would some state constitutional amendments (including the original one proposed here by homophobic Delegate Don H. Dwyer, Jr.) go beyond marriage in their scope and try to eliminate domestic partnerships and civil unions as well? Their intent is to prevent lgbt individuals from reaching any equal status with heterosexuals.

This opposition transcends both political parties as even most Democrats are loathe to address the issue, let alone stand up for marriage equality. Democrats fear the political consequences of such courage produced by the GOP smear machinery that attaches "anti-family" labels to their candidacy.

They further understand the issue has been framed as "gay marriage," which embraces all the religious associations and trappings as opposed to civil marriage equality for same-sex couples with no obligation on the part of religious institutions to sanctify the union. In fact, approximately four marriages in ten in Maryland take place at county clerk offices or city halls. The electorate is probably not be aware of that.

When they diss gays and lesbians as they are wont to do, they are slamming all lgbt people—not just those in relationships. Single people, and even those who have no intention of marrying if the opportunity existed, are also being told they are inferior to our straight counterparts.
Didn’t we hear that enough when we were growing up?

Don’t they defend the horrendous "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" policy in the military by saying we’re not worthy enough to defend our country? (Never mind that they have kicked out key gay and lesbian Arabic linguists who would have been significant in the war on terror.)

Don’t they tell us that we are immoral perverts and should not be teaching in schools? (Never mind we are paying taxes to educate other people’s kids.)

Don’t we hear all the jokes and homophobic subtext concerning "Brokeback"? (The poor, poor religious right saw their comfort zone shattered by non-stereotypical gay characters in a multiple award winning film that is experiencing a huge box office bonanza.)

The last thing the homophobes want is for lgbt people to achieve equal status. Same-sex marriage would do just that. Their arguments are increasingly less compelling. Even the use of the Bible is being discredited more and more as passages are conveniently selected to support their bigotry. Resentment is steadily building against those who are forcing their archaic religious beliefs on others while a broadening theocracy is taking hold in our government.

Columnist Leonard Pitts, Jr. also sees the transparency of some of these so-called people of faith. He wrote, "They're so panicked at the thought that somebody accidentally might treat gay people like people. They run around Chicken Little-like, screaming, 'Th' homosex'shals is comin'! Th' homosex'shals is comin'!’ Meantime, people are ignorant in Appalachia, strung out in Miami, starving in Niger, sex slaves in India, mass-murdered in Darfur. Where is the Christian outrage about that?"

The assault on same-sex marriage is an assault on all lgbt individuals. Even if one does not want to be married, it is difficult to imagine why one doesn’t want at least to have the option.
There is no shame in receiving the same rights and benefits as others; we should all strive for equal footing. We should NOT accept being looked upon as inferior as we’re NOT less than anybody else.

And that applies to single and coupled lgbt individuals alike.