The troubling homophobia in the black community

by Steve Charing

The recent protests at Pikesville High School over "Coming Out Day" brought to light the prevailing homophobia within large segments of the African-American community. To be fair, there were white protestors—parents and students—who believe gay and lesbian children should not be coming out at school. And supporters of the Gay-Straight Alliance-run event counted African-Americans among them.

However, the youth minister of the Greater Bethlehem Church of Randallstown, a mainly African-American church from outside the school’s zone, organized the protests, while the Morgan State University radio station. WEAA, was used to bring out the protesters, approximately 20 in all. In fact, Duane Johnson, the station’s Gospel Director, led the protests and the taunts.

Why all the fuss? The GSA was promoting a gay film festival and selling rainbow wristbands. Can you spell h-o-m-o-p-h-o-b-i-a?

"The homophobia in the black community largely comes from a religious perspective," said Meredith Moise, an African-American who is a Deacon herself and field coordinator for Equality Maryland, the state’s principal lgbt advocacy group. "Unfortunately, many of these churchgoers have no idea of the biblical context of the anti-gay verses they like to throw at us. These folks use the Bible and religion as a shield for their fear of lgbt people."

And the irony is that white southern preachers had waved around the very same Bible as a weapon to be used against blacks in opposing integration, interracial marriage and civil rights. One would think, then, that African-Americans would appreciate the devastation wrought by biotry.

While a large number of church going African-Americans sincerely believe that homosexuality is a sin (as do white fundamentalist Christians, Catholics, Orthodox Jews and Muslims), there is more to it than that. The almighty dollar plays a significant role, as well.

Many sermons in black churches do, to some extent, speak of challenges within their own communities such as crime, poverty, education, HIV/AIDS, teen pregnancies, single parenting, drugs, etc. But being preached to on these issues isn’t very sexy to parishioners, as these are internal problems facing the black community. So attendance is held down to a degree.
But to beat up on other groups? That’s a different matter. It’s so much more fun to condemn the "sins" of others than to address their own. And who better to kick around than homosexuals?

"Homophobia is the last acceptable prejudice in America," wrote Cynthia Tucker, editorial page editor for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution and an African-American. "Its perpetrators comfort themselves with the thought that they are simply castigating a group of sinful sexual bohemians…mocking and vilifying the lives of people who happen to love someone of the same sex."

Fiery sermons ignite the crowds; they attack the "gay lifestyle" and its attendant sins. They condemn homosexual acts as an abomination in the eyes of God. And they recoil at the idea of "gay marriage." Hatred is often spewed from these very pulpits that once railed against hate. The folks file in, the adrenaline flows, and the collection baskets fill up.

Besides the extra cash raised in these churches stemming from the anti-gay rhetoric, African-American preachers found another source of dollars. To tow the line for the homophobic Republican Bush Administration, African-American clergy are in a classic battle of the pulpits to increase attendance and gain funding from the government. Faith-based money is a powerful lure, and the wedge issue of same-sex marriage is huge.

So how is this homophobia by blacks hurting lgbt causes? On the national stage, the anti- gay marriage faction has been motivated to vote in states that had constitutional amendments on the ballot. And although many Democrats are privately sympathetic to marriage equality, they are now too hamstrung to support marriage for same-sex couples lest they incur the wrath of influential black preachers among others who find the concept a bitter pill to swallow. They know that public pronouncements would be used against them by Republican smear operatives to divide the voters.

This homophobia among blacks is manifested at the state level, too. As I reported in this paper in March, three African-American delegates—two from districts with large lgbt populations—bucked the Democratic Party and co-sponsored a proposed state constitutional amendment that would prevent lgbt individuals from marrying in Maryland. (The effort had failed in committee during this past year’s General Assembly.) They were clearly more interested in placating the black ministers in their districts than adhere to Democratic principles of equality.

Moreover, one of the staunchest opponents of same-sex marriage at the state level is Delegate Emmett Burns, an African-American clergyman, who is repulsed by the idea of gays "sashaying up to the altar."

Allies such as civil rights leaders Rep. John Lewis (D-GA), Rev. Al Sharpton, Coretta Scott King and Julian Bond and organizations like Equality Maryland and the National Black Justice Coalition have been trying to bridge the gap, which is a daunting task. The principal challenge is to have blacks accept the notion that the lgbt struggle for equality is another form of civil rights advocacy. Many African-Americans resent the comparison because lgbt individuals can better hide their identity than blacks can. Perhaps. But why should we have to?

Furthermore, it should be noted that more than a few gays and lesbians joined blacks arm-in-arm during the civil rights marches of the 1960’s. Said Coretta Scott King, "Gays and lesbians stood up for civil rights in Montgomery, Selma…and many other campaigns in the Civil Rights Movement. Many of these courageous men and women were fighting for my freedom at a time when they could find few voices of their own, and I salute their contributions."
Gay African-Americans themselves are particularly victimized.

The controversy surrounding the lack of inclusion of gay blacks in the Millions More Movement gathering, as reported in the last issue of OUTloud, is a prime example. "Homophobia in the black community is an obstacle to black unity and progress," said Meredith Moise, who received an ICON award from Baltimore Black Pride.

And this lack of acceptance of African-American gays by African-Americans has far more dangerous effects. Wrote Cynthia Tucker, "Black Americans harbor a profound homophobia that assists the spread of HIV by driving men to have sex with other men ‘on the down low.’"
Perhaps the best strategy for addressing the homophobia is for more blacks to come out and face it head on. "Black lgbt people are everywhere in the black community," said Moise. "We will continue to come out and tell our stories. Black lgbt people are no longer willing to parcel out their identities to make others comfortable. We have a vested interest in the liberation of our people and will work toward those ends as long as we have breath," she said.

Telling it Straight to Straights

Dispelling gay myths is key to getting straight people to understand our issues

By Steve Charing

History has taught us that opponents of gay rights have combined two elements to try to thwart lgbt progress: selective inflammatory religious rhetoric and promulgating myths about the lgbt population. I’ll set aside the religious angle for another day.

But the myths advanced by our straight opponents have been every bit as dangerous, and they should be dispelled. If you get the chance to speak to straight folks about these myths, consider using the arguments contained in the following:

Myth #1—Gay people choose to be gay. In discussing this issue, I would raise these questions: Why would I choose a sexual orientation that would alienate myself from my peers at school and risk the violence and isolation that bullying produce? Why would I choose to misrepresent myself in front of my family, friends, co-workers and neighbors? Why would I choose a life where would be discriminated against? And why would I choose a sexual orientation that would not allow me to biologically have children and raise a family?

To put it simply, I did not have any more of a thought process in deciding the direction of my sexual orientation as straight people do.

Myth #2—There is a gay lifestyle. There is no more likely to be a gay lifestyle than a straight one. TV footage from gay pride parades depicting the lgbt community as drag queens and leather types is an over exaggeration and totally misleading. There are far more heterosexual cross dressers and straight people engaged in leather and S&M fetishes than you would ever find in the gay community. Except you never see them on the news.

Gay people work, pay taxes—much of it going to educate straight people’s kids, eat in or dine out, watch movies, listen to music, work out, enjoy their hobbies and pets, attend social functions, watch some TV and do virtually everything that straight people do. What is so gay about that lifestyle?

Myth #3—Gays in the military would hurt morale. Gays have been in the military since Alexander the Great, and wars have been won and lost irrespective of their presence. The idea that a gay person would overtly come on to a straight soldier or sailor is not beyond possibility, but it is unlikely that such risky behavior would be undertaken by most gay and lesbian troops.
Straight people react differently around gay people depending on their experiences. But the same warnings were heard about blacks integrating in the military and our armed services survived very nicely, thank you. While a number of western nations permit gay personnel in their military, the U.S. continues to lag primarily because of its southern-based culture, for which the top commanders are afraid to change the mindsets of their subordinates. And with M-F sexual harassment proliferating in the military academies and throughout the services, the military can’t claim that gays are hurting morale. Plus there’s also that other little morale problem called Iraq.

Myth #4—Gays can be "cured." Most legitimate mental health organizations discredit that theory and maintain that more harm than good comes from the dubious—sometimes tortuous—procedures used. Questionable organizations such as PFOX, a conservative propaganda tool set up by the religious right, argues that gays can be changed to heterosexuals. They can’t.

Myth #5—Same-sex marriage would ruin the institution. All we have to do is point to Massachusetts where marriages involving gays and lesbians have occurred since May 2004. The state continues to have the lowest divorce rate in the country. So when Lois and Susan got married, straight couples didn’t file for divorce. The institution is only threatened by heterosexuals—not gays.

Myth #6—Same-sex marriages require religious blessings. What lgbt people are seeking are civil marriages—not religious marriages. Clergy do not have to perform these services. In fact, as many couples in Maryland get civil marriages as those in a house of worship. They are validated by the state and confer the same rights as if religious marriage ceremonies took place.

Myth #7—The religious right hates the sin but loves the sinner. Not true. They hate the "sinner." They uniformly oppose marriage for same-sex couples on the basis that according to the Bible, homosexuality is a sin. But unless I am unaware that the Bible has been recently amended, murder is also a sin. But I never heard the fundamentalist Christians oppose the civil rights or marriages of murderers, or for that matter, armed robbers, child molesters, carjackers, rapists, etc. No, when we’re the sinners they hate US!

Myth #8—Children raised by same-sex parents are being hurt. Once again, multiple studies confirm that such children are no more likely to be psychologically hurt by having two moms or two dads than if there had been a mom and a dad in the household. It’s better to have two than one parent, but gender is not a factor.

Myth #9—Gays are asking for "special" rights. What lgbt folks want are the same rights as anyone else. We aren’t looking for any kind of special rights—just protections that we are treated equally and fairly under the principle "all men are created equal." It’s all about fairness. Members of gay couples should have the same rights as married couples when visiting a hospitalized partner or having the ability to make key medical decisions with respect to his or her care.

Many other unfair misrepresentations exist. I believe this covers the main ones. Dispelling these myths and telling our stories to straights will go a long way towards setting the record straight.

25 Years in the Gay Press

There have been dramatic changes but certain things remain the same

By Steve Charing

The previous issue of OUTloud recognized my 25 years as a writer in the Baltimore gay press, for which I am grateful. As I look back over these years, I find that the press has seen a radical transformation, especially in the technology needed to produce a publication. Exacto knives and hot wax has been replaced by sophisticated computer software and imaging devices. But there are several constants that time appears to have had very little effect.

Reporters and writers now, as well as then, depend on the basic tools of the trade: notepads, tape recorders and telephones. Plus we still need to possess personal traits to be successful as a journalist, such as curiosity, honesty, objectivity, ability to research, interviewing skills, persistence, and an instinct for a good story.

The subjects for stories covered over the past 25 years have varied, of course, but we still are dealing with HIV/AIDS, harassment towards lgbt, police and government relations, health, entertainment, violence, hatred, and the ongoing struggle for equal rights and acceptance. Unfortunately, some of these battles never seem to terminate.

What has changed the most is how people obtain their news. Newspapers all over the country not only have to compete with TV and radio, but also have to lock horns with arguably the most amazing modern-day revolution in the media: the Internet. In our fast-paced, ever-busy world, the Internet has been like an extra room in our home or office. Many of us are so transfixed to this boundless source of information and depend on it to such a degree, it has become a way of life. And there are as many reasons for using the Internet as there are websites. Not the least of which is obtaining news—in a hurry.

Twenty-five years ago, The Gay Paper was a monthly publication, so news was essentially stale by the end of a month. Today, Baltimore OUTloud is published by-weekly, as is Gay Life, which makes the news more current, but still as not up-to-date as one would like. Production and editorial costs for these free newspapers render a weekly publication impractical at this time.
Back then, everyone who worked on The Gay Paper, later the Baltimore Gay Paper, were volunteers. Virtually all had full-time jobs of their own and gave up their free time to write, edit, typeset (remember that word?) and compose the paper as volunteers so that the community can be served. No more. What was once an all-volunteer operation evolved into a pay-for-service enterprise with hardly any volunteers. This isn’t wrong necessarily as the culture has changed over time. But it is different.

There was a degree of apathy among the lgbt community early on which remains today, perhaps more so. And this apathy will not help our cause since there is a great need for grass-roots advocacy especially when our state and federal leaders have been taking on a hostile tone.
People will casually pick up the gay newspapers at gay bars, bookstores and other distribution points, as they did 25 years ago. But gone are the days when gay activist and GLCCB founder Harvey Schwartz would stand outside bars at closing and personally hand out copies of The Gay Paper to those exiting.

Despite the findings from a recent study conducted by National Gay & Lesbian Newspaper Guild that stated that more gay men read the gay press than lesbians, I believe in Baltimore the opposite is true. I find lesbians more interested in what is going on politically, more engaged, more active in lgbt causes and more likely to read gay newspapers. I observed more apathy among gay men, but I didn’t conduct a survey; these are simply my observations and experiences.

I am concerned that young lgbt individuals, who have been raised on the Internet, see no value in gay newspapers. Indeed, I notice very few picking them up. If, in fact they do have some interest in lgbt news, they probably get it from Planet Out, blogs, or some other web-based news service.

For centuries, newspapers have provided an invaluable opportunity to read what one is interested in and skip those articles and ads that do not appeal. But to be able to have news; advertisements of events, products and services; commentary; humor; features; reviews; etc. all in one location where individuals can peruse at their own pace, there is nothing better than enjoying the paper in a comfortable setting without having to move a mouse. Hopefully, it won’t take another 25 years for people to find that out.

What has remained constant over these 25 years is the fact everything I write is reviewed by my partner Bob prior to submitting to my editor. This is done not only to identify the inevitable typos, but also to "keep me out of trouble," as he puts it. Bob’s being part of the process is the one thing I do not ever want to change, even if everything else in this business is transforming.

The Folly of God's Retribution

Why do religious fanatics seem to blame gays for disasters?

By Steve Charing

Like most sensible people, I have always been dismayed and appalled at some extremist members of the religious right for blaming gays (as well as other groups anathema to them) for a range of disasters from AIDS to terrorism to hurricanes and do so under the auspices of "God’s retribution." These folks are not basing their assessments on any religious grounding; they simply hate gay people despite their hollow denials. And they hide behind God to spew their venom by cherry picking parts of Scripture to suit their needs.

Of course, the Bible has been used as a weapon against gays and lesbians forever, and punishment "in the name of God" is as convenient as it is unprovable. In modern times, however, the religious fanatics have stepped it up, as the pushing of the so-called "gay agenda" is increasingly becoming odious to them.

During the 1980s AIDS was proclaimed as God’s retribution for the homosexual lifestyle according to many fundamentalist religious zealots. While that stance has quieted down some, it hasn’t disappeared altogether from the mindset of the fringe. Nevermind that lesbians are among the least likely to encounter HIV or that tens of millions of heterosexuals around the world are inflicted. Still, to some, gays are the ones being punished by God, not to mention they were the cause of the disease.

Then there was 9/11. Rev. Jerry Falwell, in concurrence with the other member of the dubious duo, Pat (let’s "take out" a nation’s president) Robertson, included gays and lesbians among those responsible for the attacks. "I really believe that the pagans and the abortionists and the feminists and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way - all of them who have tried to secularize America - I point the finger in their face and say, ‘You helped this happen,’" said Falwell, who later clumsily apologized.

Robertson, who still maintains a large audience despite his blather, has taken credit for steering hurricane Isabel away from his headquarters in Virginia Beach, VA by the power of his prayer. He made similar claims on a number of other occasions. But his obsession with hurricanes took on a new twist: they are God’s retribution.

In 1998 Robertson said on his TV show, The 700 Club in reaction to Disney’s Gay Days, "I would warn Orlando that you're right in the way of some serious hurricanes, and I don't think I'd be waving those flags in God's face if I were you." The predicted hurricane sidestepped Orlando without comments from Robertson or a religious-based explanation. The TV preacher also said the widespread practice of homosexuality "will bring about terrorist bombs, it'll bring earthquakes, tornadoes and possibly a meteor."

To think this whacko ran for President of the United States!

Hurricane Katrina, which is arguably the most destructive natural U.S. disaster on record—bringing misery to millions of people and killing perhaps thousands—has been seen as a different form of retribution. Wrote one blogger, "Since Pat Robertson likes to use Hurricanes as punishment for sins - like Florida and the homosexuals at Disney World - I'm going to ‘spin’ it too. God is punishing ALL RED states surrounding the coastlines for voting for that stupid moron in the White House!" Agree or not, it is truly an extension of Robertson’s logic that God punishes the wicked amongst us.

And right on cue, a fundamentalist Christian group called Repent America blamed Katrina on New Orleans’ planned but cancelled gay extravaganza, Southern Decadence that had been scheduled for Labor Day weekend. "From 'Girls Gone Wild’ to ‘Southern Decadence,’ New Orleans was a city that had its doors wide open to the public celebration of sin. May it never be the same," said the group’s director Michael Marcavage. "May this act of God cause us all to think about what we tolerate in our city limits, and bring us trembling before the throne of Almighty God," he said. I suppose the ravaged Biloxi, MS must have had a gay event planned; we just didn’t know about it.

By the grace of God, when will this nonsense end?

Some OUTrages to Ponder

By Steve Charing

THE CINDY SHEEHAN DEMONSTRATION was successful in finally getting the anti-war movement off its haunches. But the Bush supporters who also showed up in Crawford, TX remembered how to use the GOP playbook by demonizing gays at every opportunity. This time a counter-protester commented about Sheehan’s demonstration by pointing out on national TV that Crawford isn’t San Francisco.

This was a not-so-subtle slam at San Francisco (read: gays). Mention lightening rod words like "San Francisco," "Hillary," "gay marriage," etc. and the Bush people know how to stoke the base. Recall how Senator Mikulski and others had been labeled "San Francisco-style Democrats" (implying that they’re gay or very sympathetic to gay causes) during previous GOP presidential conventions. Therefore, the linking of Sheehan’s movement with "aging hippies"—another target—and "San Francisco" is aimed at marginalizing the anti-Iraq war protestors and dismissing them as far leftist gays. Way to unite us, Mr. Wartime President and his brainwashed supporters!

Now they’re also trotting out the tired and worn, "if you oppose the war you’re giving comfort to the enemy" line. No room for dissent in this administration. If you do, you’re a traitor or a faggot or both. I still scratch my head wondering why gays and lesbians would ever want to serve in the military on behalf of this corrupt, deceitful administration. Which leads me to…

THE U.S. MILITARY IS WHINING THAT THEY cannot meet recruitment objectives to help fight the war in Iraq. Gee, I can’t understand why. It seems like such a nice, tidy war. And as they complain about the shortages as well as the double rotations required to staff the war and with casualties continuing to mount, gays and lesbians are still being discharged under "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell."

Yet according to data released by the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN), based on 2000 census figures, a total of 41,000 new recruits would come into the armed forces if the policy would be dropped. The study concluded, "the armed forces could significantly close its recruiting gap – or even eliminate it – by welcoming openly gay troops to the services."
"The ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ law hangs like a ‘Gays Not Welcome’ sign outside the Pentagon’s front door," said Sharra E. Greer, director of law and policy for SLDN. "Thousands of lesbian and gay Americans are ready to answer our nation’s call to service, but are turned away because of federally sanctioned discrimination. Now, more than ever, our country needs the talent of these patriotic Americans. We can make our homeland more secure by repealing ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ once and for all."

Don’t hold your breath. Based on our military and government leaders’ positions, our national security is not as important as keeping gays out of the military or safely tucked away in the closet.

I WAS SAD THAT CORETTA SCOTT KING, widow of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. had recently suffered a stroke. She is among a small number of African-American leaders in this country who have spoken out for lgbt rights. If there ever is to be a Hall of Fame for the lgbt community, Coretta Scott King definitely needs to be enshrined. "I still hear people say that I should not be talking about the rights of lesbian and gay people and I should stick to the issue of racial justice," Mrs. King once said. "But I hasten to remind them that Martin Luther King Jr. said, ‘Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.’" "I appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream to make room at the table of brother- and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people," she said.

Mrs. King is also an outspoken supporter for marriage for same-sex couples, calling it a civil right. "Gay and lesbian people have families, and their families should have legal protection, whether by marriage or civil union," she said. "A constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages is a form of gay bashing and it would do nothing at all to protect traditional marriages."

Her son Martin Luther King III and daughter Yolanda are supportive of lgbt rights and said their father would have been, too. Unfortunately, the youngest daughter, Rev. Bernice King, didn’t inherit her parents’ gene that contains compassion: she participated in a demonstration that included opposing same-sex marriage as part of the agenda.

JOHN ROBERTS’ NOMINATION TO THE SUPREME COURT will likely pass the Senate and be confirmed. Too bad. Even though he doesn’t have a track record on gay rights cases as a judge, and as an attorney he supported a gay rights case in litigation, there is reason for suspicion. His work as an attorney on that case is irrelevant. Attorneys typically hold their noses and defend clients whom they don’t like. That’s the nature of the profession. It’s his view of the role of the court and his views towards privacy sends chills. He would likely support repealing Lawrence vs. Texas—the suit that struck down sodomy laws.

Major lgbt organizations like the HRC, PFLAG, NCLR and the NGLTF have mobilized to oppose the nomination. "For his entire adult life, John Roberts has been a disciple of and promoted a political and legal ideology that is antithetical to an America that embraces all, including lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people," said Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. "He has denigrated the nature and scope of the constitutional rights to privacy, equal protection and due process as well as federal government's role in confronting injustice. I have no doubt he's an accomplished lawyer and an affable dinner companion, but that doesn't make him any less a mortal danger to equal rights for gay people, reproductive freedom and affirmation action."

For my money, if Bush wants him then I’m automatically opposed. We all know that the religious right has hijacked the Republican Party and this president. The election cycles of 2000 and 2004 were all about the filling of Supreme Court vacancies. That’s why these anti-gay, self-righteous folks came out and voted for Bush and they are well aware that they own him. That Bush nominated Roberts, look out.

Marriage vs. Civil Unions

The fight for marriage equality is more than just words.

By Steve Charing

During a recent conversation I had with a straight Republican, I had asked him how he would feel if two gay people on his block would get married. "I don’t care what these people do," he replied. "Just don’t call it marriage."

That appears to be the sentiment found across straight America. Indeed, poll after poll confirms that a much larger percentage of the population would approve a civil union-type arrangement for lesbians and gays than they would marriage. Many within the LGBT community also believe that there would be far greater support from heterosexuals for "gay rights" if we advocated civil unions rather than marriage.

The term "gay marriage" or "same-sex marriage" ignites a fire under the anti-gay, anti-choice, anti-separation of church and state forces that, with unlimited resources and venom, have been influencing a growing number of elected officials. Governor Robert L. Ehrlich, Jr., for example, caught in the web of these religious extremists, vetoed the recent Medical Decision-Making Act and justified his action by falsely declaring, "…the creation a new term of life partner will open the door to undermine the sanctity of traditional marriage."

Delegate Marshall T. Goodwin, who represents the 40th legislative district from Baltimore, was one of three Democrats who had co-sponsored the failed attempt to pass a constitutional amendment during the 2005 General Assembly session that would restrict marriage as a union between a man and a woman. In an interview with Baltimore OUTloud in February, he explained his stance by saying "I’m against [same-sex marriage] from a moral and religious perspective." Del. Goodwin pointed out that the word "marriage" is what riles African-American ministers with whom he has ties and that he would "consider" another form of gay union.
Based on these examples, many would argue that a more pragmatic, politically acceptable approach would be to advocate civil unions and not push for marriage equality. A partial victory is better than no victory. A half a loaf is better than nothing.

I disagree.

Like many other LGBT activists, I believe that the fight for marriage equality is a civil rights issue. Religious bigots also opposed marriage rights for African-Americans and until fairly recently, marriage for interracial couples. It required court decisions to remedy this blatant form of discrimination.

Our opponents have used the religious angle to scare the population into believing the "sanctity" of marriage would be destroyed if same-sex couples were permitted to marry. The fact is, marriage is a civil contract between two parties—not necessarily a religious pact. Nearly half the marriages that take place in the U.S. and a larger percentage in Maryland eschew a religious ceremony. And nobody could force a religious institution to marry individuals counter to their beliefs.

Civil unions, while a good first step, affords separate but unequal standing. Although such arrangements allow same-sex couples limited benefits within the border of a particular state (only Vermont and Connecticut have such arrangements on the books), these benefits do not extend to other states.

Marriages, on the other hand, are recognized in all the states, and bring with it sweeping legal protections, medical decision-making rights, federal benefits and yes, divorce. There are a total of 1,138 rights and benefits, including those protections contained in IRS, Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid and Immigration laws, that are accorded to married couples.
Separate but unequal experimentation had failed in America as evidenced in the Jim Crow South, which mandated that blacks use separate drinking fountains, rest rooms, hotels, etc. Relegating LGBT couples to civil unions rather than marriage would similarly assign us to second-class citizenship. Only integration and equality helped overcome the prejudice and hatred that existed. The same should apply to gays and lesbians.

Dan McCarthy, a father of a gay son and is the co-chairman of the PFLAG-Howard County’s Advocacy Committee, reminds us that "gays and lesbians, as citizens of the United States of America are full and equal participants in this great country. Their right to equal treatment is guaranteed by the 14th Amendment's ‘equal protection’ clause."

He adds, "Since the 2003 Supreme Court decision Lawrence v. Texas established that the expression of their relationships could not be criminalized, no reasonable argument remains for withholding of this stabilizing and vital societal institution. As it stands currently, heterosexual couples are getting a ‘special benefit’ that is being denied gay and lesbian couples. This is situation is fundamentally un-American."

Obviously the struggle to win marriage equality will be long, hard and painful. A favorable ruling in the ACLU-Equality Maryland-filed lawsuit Deane and Polyak v. Conaway, which charges that excluding same-sex couples from marriage violates the state constitution’s guarantees of equality, will set off a major backlash against the LGBT community. Oral arguments are now set for August 30 at the Baltimore District Court, so in the fall expect a decision to be handed down.

Brace yourself for a homophobic tsunami. We must endure the hits that will continue to be levied against us by the religious right and the politicians who are beholden to them. No fight is worth it unless there are legitimate outcomes. Marriage equality is a legitimate outcome—not some form of civil union, which is merely window dressing and restrictive at that. Even the terminology is clumsy: what does someone say, "we just got civil unionized"?

Words definitely have significance. In his excellent book, Why Marriage Matters: America, Equality and Gay People’s Right to Marry, Evan Wolfson dislikes the terms "gay marriage" or "same-sex marriage" because they implies that same-sex couples are seeking rights and privileges that married couples don’t have. "We don’t want ‘gay marriage,’" writes Wolfson. "We want marriage—the same freedom to marry, with the same duties, dignity, security, and expression of love and equality as our non-gay bothers and sisters have."

We’re not asking for anything more, and we shouldn’t settle for anything less.

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.