Back and Forth

Equality struggle shifts back to Federal arena

By Steve Charing

While the lgbt community and its allies anxiously await the Maryland Court of Appeals ruling on the lawsuit that may ultimately legalize same-sex marriage here, the latest front in the struggle for equality has shifted for now back to the Federal government.

On May 3, the House of Representatives passed on to the Senate the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, (HR-1592), in a bi-partisan vote of 237 to 180. This bill covers crimes committed based on sexual orientation and identity as well as gender, race, color, national origin and religion. The Senate will be considering a similar bill called the Matthew Shepard Act to memorialize Matthew Shepard, the high profile victim of a brutal hate-filled murder in Laramie, Wyoming in 1998. It is likely to pass the measure.

Judy Shepard, Matthew’s mother and a major hate crime legislation activist, Joe Solomonese, head of the Human Rights Campaign and other interested observers were present as the historic vote was taken.

"This is a historic day that moves all Americans closer to safety from the scourge of hate violence," said Solmonese. "Today legislators sided with the 73 percent of the American people who support the expansion of hate crimes laws to include sexual orientation and gender identity."

However, President Bush, in a predictable bow to the religious right that includes a significant number of socially conservative black clergy who have applied major pressure in opposing the bill, threatened to veto the legislation. A White House statement said that state and local criminal laws already provide penalties for the crimes defined by the bill and "there has been no persuasive demonstration of any need to federalize such a potentially large range of violent crime enforcement." The bill would add resources to prosecute hate crime cases and increase sentences.

Less than two weeks prior, legislation had been introduced in the House to prohibit discrimination in employment based on sexual orientation and gender identity. The bill, Employment Non-Discrimination Act (HR-2015) or ENDA, was introduced by openly gay legislators Barney Frank (D-MA) and Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) as well as Christopher Shays (R-CT) and Deborah Pryce (R-OH).

The outlook for passage of this bill is uncertain, to be sure, but I believe it will make it through both chambers and might even survive a presidential veto if "religious" organizations are exempted.

And even before that, in February, The Military Readiness Enhancement Act (HR-1246) was reintroduced in the House of Representatives. This bill would repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and replace it with a statute banning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

While all these legislative initiatives hold some promise, and the fact that they may pass either or both houses is sign of progress, the role of the Federal sector on marriage equality is less encouraging.

True, with a Democratic controlled Congress the infamous Federal Marriage Amendment will not be brought up. But DOMA—the Defense of Marriage Act—will stay in tact for now. DOMA restricts Federal benefits to same-sex couples and offers the states the option of not recognizing same-sex couples from other states.

(Oddly, nowhere in the "Defense of Marriage Act" does it ban divorces, out-of-wedlock births, poverty, unemployment, domestic violence and myriad other factors that contribute to a successful marriage rate of only 50 percent.)

Of the 18 declared presidential candidates from both parties, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), a marginal candidate, supports same-sex marriage by saying that no state has a right to abridge basic rights to privacy. The rest of the Democratic candidates scatter from the issue as if a skunk was dropped from a tree at their feet.

The GOP contenders—and boy is that a weak field—will never support it, but Rudy Giuliani at least backed civil unions. He will have difficulty with that issue plus abortion during the Iowa and South Carolina primaries, so look out for a "conversion" or yet another flip-flop from flip-flop prone Republican candidates.

With political fright preventing even traditional supporters of lgbt rights from taking a marriage equality stand and DOMA forever likely to remain in place, where do we go to secure the same rights, benefits and responsibilities that heterosexual couples receive?

The answer may lie in chipping away at the resistance state-by-state. While many states have passed constitutional amendments, most haven’t. Some have civil union arrangements in place or marriage itself as in the case of Massachusetts. Little by little, rights can be gained at the state level and efforts can be made at the Federal level to secure benefits for same-sex couples from such agencies as the IRS and the Social Security Administration.

"Creating a change at the federal level will take some time," said Dan Furmansky, Executive Director of Equality Maryland who, along with the Maryland ACLU, is in the forefront of the quest for marriage equality locally. "A victory in Maryland for marriage equality will be a tremendous step forward nationally for the marriage equality movement, which is far from over."

He added, "The passage of relationship recognition laws in New Jersey, New Hampshire and Oregon are important steps towards marriage, and Connecticut’s judiciary committee just passed a marriage equality bill. There are baby steps, toddler steps, and giant marathon sprints. We hope Maryland will take home the gold."

The battle for equality will be an evolving process from states to the Federal government and back and forth. Historically, that is how rights are gained, and that’s why it’s important to push hard both locally and at the Federal level.

Decision Day Dawning

With a lot going on elsewhere, LGBT Maryland is quiet… but not for long

By Steve Charing
Senior Political Analyst

Our recent days have been dominated by the news of the Imus idiocy, the tragic shootings at Virginia Tech, the continued prosecution of the screwy war in Iraq, and even the elimination of the oft-chastised Sanjaya from American Idol. That is a full plate to digest in such a short time.

For the lgbt community in Maryland, things are relatively tranquil though. The late emergence of Spring-like weather has re-awakened the normally ebullient mood of the community at this time of year. People are out and about and modeling their new spring threads. They are regaining the appetite to socialize, working on their yards, riding their bikes, and eager to welcome the long-awaited arrival of summer and all that it brings.

Yes, things are normal around here and peaceful. We escaped the state’s 2007 General Assembly without hearing much of the homophobic diatribes from Delegate Donald H. Dwyer, Jr. and others who typically condemn homosexuality and gay folks’ desire for same-sex marriage. Some gains for the lgbt community were realized in this past session, but none were particularly headline grabbing, at least in the mainstream media.

But this serenity may soon end with a thud.

While it may not reach the font level of the Sun’s tabloid imitation by its screaming headline, "MASSACRE" in the wake of the Virginia Tech shootings, an imminent ruling from Maryland’s Court of Appeals—the state’s highest court—may shake some trees around here.

The case that gay activists in Maryland and around the county are keenly watching may soon reach its denouement. The Court of Appeals heard oral arguments this past December from the original plaintiffs—nine lgbt couples and a gay widower—and from the State. (Two of the plaintiffs, Gita Deane and Lisa Polyak are pictured to the right.) The State had appealed a January 2006 Baltimore Circuit Court ruling by Judge M. Brooke Murdock that Maryland’s 1973 marriage law is unconstitutional. The plaintiffs successfully argued that as written, the law violates the Maryland constitution’s guarantees of equality and due process.

While no one knows with any degree of certainty when the high court’s ruling will be handed down, many expect it to be right around the corner if past history of the appeals process is any indication.

Ken Choe, one of the Maryland ACLU attorneys involved in the lawsuit that has been also backed by Equality Maryland, said during a conference call press briefing that he does not know when the decision will be handed down. But he stated that whatever the outcome, it is final and not subject to further judicial appeal (i.e. the Supreme Court).

Observers expect the high court’s decision to take on one of three possibilities: unequivocally extending marriage rights to all gay and lesbian couples; upholding the Maryland statute (and thus overturning the lower court’s ruling) that defines marriage as solely between a man and a woman; or a combination of the above (similar to New Jersey) and throwing it back to the legislature to provide some protections like civil unions but not the full weight that marriage would bring.

Ken Choe is optimistic that the arguments were made sufficiently for the Court to rule favorably on same-sex marriage. "I strongly believe we have met both the strict scrutiny and rational basis of review," he said during the briefing. In other words, Choe is confident the case was presented to meet all judicial tests that would sustain the argument that excluding same couples from marrying violates the state’s constitution. If the Court rules accordingly, it would render Maryland as the only other state besides Massachusetts to extend marriage benefits (statewide only) to same-sex couples.

But then the headlines will scream out, newscasts will lead with that story instead of the usual murder or car accidents and kick off a maelstrom that will dominate the political theater through late 2008.

Demagogues from both sides of the aisle, especially homophobic Republicans, conservative Democrats and politically squeamish moderates, will predictably react to the mantra, "Marriage should be defined as only between one man and one woman." No doubt there will be pressure to convene a special session of the General Assembly, which will be asked to vote on a constitutional amendment to "protect the institution of marriage." Never mind that Massachusetts, the one state with same-sex marriage on the books, has the lowest divorce rate in the country. That fact by itself ought to stifle such rhetoric.

It won’t.

"Gay marriage" remains a very politically charged issue, and with the big election year of 2008 looming, politicians are going to position themselves on this issue that will yield maximum benefits for them. For a constitutional amendment to pass in Maryland, it would need the support of 60 percent in each chamber. The Governor, regardless of the fact he does not support such an amendment, has no authority to veto the measure, but he sure can use the bully pulpit to sway politicians and the electorate—not a trivial contribution to be sure.

Should the amendment bill receive the necessary backing, it will go on the 2008 ballot as a referendum, thus uncharacteristically putting minority rights up for a popular vote. And it would mark the first time the constitution is being used in discriminatory fashion to restrict rights of individuals or a group instead of expanding them.

With all this potential enmity that could result from a favorable Court ruling, the preparation to fight back the rhetoric and venom and to educate the public on the fairness and justice aspects of the issue is essential. In anticipation of "Decision Day," Equality Maryland—the state’s principal lgbt civil rights organization—is strategizing for the potential battles ahead. A less favorable ruling will trigger a different set of battles. Visit their website at http://www.equalitymaryland.org/ to see how you can join in this fight for justice and equality.

Things are quiet right now. It doesn’t figure to last.

Not so Good-Natured

Letter Sent to TIME

I must take issue with John Poniewozik's characterization of the expression, "That's so gay!" as good-natured and not homophobic ("Who Can Say What?", April 23). To hundreds of thousands of teens in middle schools and in high schools around the country, that seemingly harmless phrase is considered very hurtful and has led to myriad problems for those on the receiving end of such a remark. To them it means "stupid" or "worthless." And it is used all too frequently. According to a 2005 study of high school students conducted by GLSEN--the national Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network--over three-fourths had heard that epithet along with "faggot" and "dyke" in the corridors and classrooms of our nation's schools. This isn't good-natured, and it is certainly not useful in creating a successful learning environment for all of our kids.

Steve Charing
Media Relations
PFLAG-Howard County (MD)

No More Smoking in Baltimore's Bars

Smoking ban sparks opposition, but it offers a fresh new beginning

By Steve Charing

Tom Mathison is the passionate owner of The Quest—a popular seven year-old neighborhood pub on Fleet Street in the Highlandtown area of Baltimore. It boasts so many loyal, regular patrons—from the very young to the very senior—that they all seem to know each other.

As is the case with all bars and restaurants in Baltimore and throughout the state, The Quest will be facing a ban on smoking early next year. Some of the patrons at The Quest welcome the ban—even smokers. They enjoy the fun too much at the bar, especially during happy hour, to bale just because of the need to light up. But the owner, a smoker, has different views and is vehemently opposed to the looming ban.

"They’re chipping away at small business more and more," Mathison protested. "We have a war in Iraq, illegal immigration—more important issues—but they have to do this. They should put this before the voters."

But if it had been voted on, no doubt a statewide ban would have been resoundingly supported by the citizens of Maryland. According to a recent Gonzalez poll, 72 percent of Marylanders back the legislation. And that is why the ban passed easily during this year’s General Assembly session after several years of failed attempts.

The effort to ban smoking here had been buoyed by a report last year from the U.S. Surgeon General stating that the public health hazards of secondhand smoke are "indisputable." And according to the Smoke Free Maryland Coalition, an advocacy group, "Secondhand smoke exposure is the third leading cause of preventable death, killing 1,000 Marylanders every year."

In addition, similar bans in several states including California, Massachusetts, Ohio and New York, plus neighboring Delaware and Washington, D.C., along with the backing of Governor O’Malley, made it more politically acceptable to defy the well-organized opposition, led primarily by the Restaurant Association of Maryland. The lobbying organization insisted the ban would keep smokers away from these establishments and force small pubs and taverns out of business.

Baltimore City passed a smoking ban late February, which also provided impetus to the state legislation. The city, whose ban takes effect next January 1, joined Charles, Howard, Montgomery and Prince George’s and Talbot counties that have prohibited smoking in restaurants and bars.

The Quest’s Tom Mathison, who generously holds benefits to support the lgbt community, doesn’t see the issue in terms of health; he sees it as a matter of choice. "What ever happened to freedom of choice," he asked. "What’s next?" He believes that owners should have the choice to allow smoking or not, and if the non-smokers do not want to come to a smoky gay bar, it is their choice not to. And the same applies to employees: they don’t have to work there. Currently three of The Quest’s four employees smoke.

The Quest, just like other affected establishments, faces the prospects of patrons standing outside in the cold and rain to smoke between drinks. "I can’t see the older customers doing that," said Mathison disconsolately. "This is going to hurt."

More than most gay bars in the city, The Quest depends heavily on locals or regulars for their clientele. Being situated distantly from Baltimore’s epicenter of gay bustle, The Quest lacks the proximity to other similar bars that exists in Mt. Vernon. Those are clustered closely enough to bar hop with ease, and patrons are drawn to Mt. Vernon in greater numbers to avail themselves of the myriad clubs, eateries, shops and cultural opportunities that the district offers.

Perhaps that difference in geography with its resulting drawing power explains the disparate reaction of two of Mt. Vernon’s bar owners from that of Tom Mathison, who must retain his customer base to stay in business.

Jay Lamont, owner of Jays on Read and a smoker himself, is not concerned about the smoking ban. "I plan to survey my customers to see if they want the ban put in place sooner," he said. Lamont indicated that many of his clientele support the ban and realizes there are a lot of potential customers ready to return to the bar scene once the ban is in effect.

Chuck Bowers, the longtime owner of the venerable Hippo and a non-smoker, is a bit more guarded with his assessment of the ban. Asked how he sees the impact of the ban on his business, Bowers replied, "It’s too soon to tell," but he added that customers were already enthusiastically welcoming an era of a smoke-free environment. He is also considering imposing the restrictions sooner than the January 1 target date.

Bowers’ main concern, however, is that if patrons decide to step out of the bar to smoke there would be issues regarding the city’s existing loitering ordinance that prohibits congregating within 100 feet of a bar. That’s going to have to be addressed, he said.

As a non-smoker myself, I strongly believe that the ban could not have come too soon. I have frequented gay bars for well over three decades and have returned home with my clothes reeking of cigarette smoke and imagining what that must be doing to my lungs. I had helplessly watched my mother succumb to lung cancer, and I don’t wish that horror on anybody.

Less importantly, I received my share of cigarette burns to my arms and shirts from cavalier, unapologetic smokers blithely holding their cigarettes out as I try to navigate around a crowded bar.

Yes, it was my choice to patronize these bars—or was it? After being stuck in the closet for years, I decided I needed to seek gay-friendly establishments where I can freely and safely meet friends, old and new, while enjoying cocktails. I cannot understand why my partner and I as well as other non-smokers should be denied the opportunity to socialize where we are best accepted just to avoid the consequences of others smoking. So in a way it was a choice but in other ways it wasn’t.

But choices are not something all bar owners or customers have in the wake of health crises. Recall how during the peak of the AIDS epidemic certain gay bars’ back rooms, as well as bath houses (where anonymous risky sex took place) were shut down even though the clientele had the choice of entering or not prior to the ban.

Once the ban is implemented I know that many people—especially baby boomers—will re-introduce themselves to the bar scene they had abandoned years back. This will bring in new customers, and those remaining smokers may finally see this as an opportunity to cut back or quit. As for bar owners, there has been scant evidence to suggest that the bans in other states and localities have resulted in adverse effects on the bar business.

The ban here was inevitable. It is a breath of fresh air—for customers and bar employees—and for the bar owners, it presents an opportunity for a fresh new beginning.

Mixed Bag in Annapolis

Marriage amendment was thwarted but so was transgender equality legislation

Senate leadership blamed for the trans-equality defeat

By Steve Charing

Senior Political Analyst

ANNAPOLIS—The Maryland General Assembly, which had been preoccupied throughout most of the session so far with a statewide smoking ban, the death penalty, health care, ground rent, budget concerns and myriad other matters, finally addressed two of the most pressing items that concerned the lgbt community.

House Bill 919 that was authored by notorious homophobe Del. Don Dwyer (R-Anne Arundel) was rejected in the Judiciary Committee by a vote of 12-8, mostly along party lines. Two Democrats—Dels. Kevin Kelly (D-Allegany County) and Gerron Levi (D-Prince George’s County)—joined six Republicans to support the anti-marriage equality measure.

Besides proposing a constitutional amendment that would forever ban same-sex marriages in the state, the bill also included a provision that would prevent public schools from teaching about same-sex relationships.

The defeat of the measure in committee kept it from advancing to the floor of the House of Delegates where it was unlikely to be passed anyway and was opposed by Governor Martin O’Malley.

"It’s gratifying to see the demise of such a mean-spirited bill," said Dan Furmansky, Executive Director of

Equality Maryland, the state’s largest lgbt civil rights organization.

The constitutional amendment effort will probably gain new life should the state Court of Appeals rule favorably in the lawsuit that is challenging Maryland’s 1973 marriage law that defines marriage as solely between a man and a woman. The expectation is that the ruling will be handed down following the current General Assembly session, which would undoubtedly add more turbulence prior to and including the 2008 session.

"The pressure isn’t as heavy right now in the absence of a Court ruling," Furmansky told Baltimore OUTloud. "We must all vigilantly continue to build relationships with our legislators so they will steadfastly show resolve when we most need it."

Most infuriating to lgbt activists, however, was the surprising defeat of Senate Bill 516 in the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee by a vote of 6-5. The bill, sponsored by Sen. Lisa Gladden (D-Baltimore), would have prohibited discrimination on the basis of gender identity and expression in the areas of employment, housing, credit and public accommodations.

Equality Maryland had assigned passage of this legislation a high priority in its 2007 legislative agenda.

Again, two Democrats—Sen. Norm Stone of Baltimore County and Sen. C. Anthony Muse (pictured) of Prince George's County—aligned with four Republicans on the committee to kill the measure. Sen. Muse, in particular, had indicated his support to Equality Maryland lobbyists and others prior to the vote.

"Senator Muse changed his vote," Furmansky said with exasperation. "We had his vote. Clearly there were mysterious outside forces that made Senator Muse backtrack at the last minute."

Repeated phone calls seeking comments from Sen. Muse regarding his role in defeating the bill and an explanation as to why he changed his mind at the eleventh hour were not returned. His vote, consequently, turned victory into defeat. Sen. Muse’s 26th district includes the Ft. Washington-Camp Springs area.

The bill had no ostensible opposition and seemed like a sure bet to advance to the floor. But it surprisingly got bogged down in committee, which is chaired by Sen. Brian Frosh (D-Montgomery County), and was eventually doomed by the vote taken on March 23.

"Individuals told us the Senate leadership feared a filibuster on the floor," said Furmansky. "We believed [the filibuster fear] was unfounded as we spoke to several Republican Senators who saw no such problem. Plus the Democratic super-majority would have easily squelched such a tactic."

Dr. Dana Beyer, a transgendered woman from Chevy Chase who unsuccessfully ran for House of Delegates this past election, was personally disappointed in the actions of the Senate Judicial Proceedings committee that killed this bill. "We had the votes in this committee, as well as the House committee and both houses, until leadership decided to quash it," she told OUTloud.

"Leadership means standing up for and protecting the rights of those less fortunate," said Dr. Beyer. "Many in the General Assembly understand this and recognize that transgender anti-discrimination is simply a medical issue. I sincerely thank them for their time and support. We obviously have more education to do over the coming year. And I guarantee we will do it," she vowed.

Added Dan Furmansky, "We will continue our important work across Maryland to educate people on the lives of transgender individuals and the difficulties we face with discrimination on the basis of gender identity and expression. And we will return in 2008 stronger than ever to pass this long overdue measure."

A double standard on public duplicity

Letter Published in the Baltimore Sun--March 20, 2007

Words and sentences in red were cut out by the editors:

Thomas Sowell's lament over the prosecution and conviction of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby was a classic case of the double standard exhibited by himself and his fellow conservatives ("Meat-grinder politics in 'Scooter' Libby case." March 15).

He maintains that the outing of a CIA operative, Valerie Plame, was not a crime and, therefore, memory failures on the part of Mr. Libby did not merit an investigation, much less prosecution for perjury. In committing to an investigation, special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald consumed three years, and as a result, "a man's life is ruined," according to Mr. Sowell.

Yet, I don't recall Mr. Sowell protesting the lengthy, costly and fruitless investigations into the Clintons' Whitewater land deal. While conservatives gleefully cheered on special prosecutor Kenneth Starr as he pursued of evidence of wrongdoing allegedly taking place several years prior to Mr. Clinton's being elected president, he managed to stumble on Mr. Clinton's extramarital affairs.

It was President Clinton's lying under oath during a civil lawsuit brought on by one of his alleged mistresses that worked up the conservatives and had them storming the windmill with torches in a continuing effort to damage Mr. Clinton and his presidency. The ultimate result was a needless impeachment process and a severe bruising of our nation.

Ironically, Mr. Libby's deficiency in disclosing the truth (which led to his conviction on four counts) not only fails to similarly anger the disingenuous Mr. Sowell but garners his sympathy. Maybe "meat-grinder politics" are indeed at play.

Steve Charing
Clarksville

Check the Facts

Letter Sent but Not Published in Howard County Times

This newspaper has the responsibility and an obligation to the community to vet false claims by letter writers. Where statistical allegations are made by a writer, there ought to be a tenable source. The letter written by Thomas M. Crawford (letters, March 8) illustrates how inaccurate information cloaked as fact is an abuse of the Times' letter forum.

In expressing his views opposing same-sex marriage, Mr. Crawford (N. Laurel, MD) throws out absurd generalizations to the readers. One example was, "Recorded human history has consistently shown homosexual behavior to be detrimental both to individuals and to society at large." Before the readers buy into that nonsense, the writer should be forced to produce irrefutable data to back up such an outlandish claim.

Mr. Crawford's statement that people choose to be gay flies in the face of the growing body of medical, biological and psychological evidence that supports the contention that being gay is not something a person chooses to be-that it is innate. He should ask himself: did he choose to be straight; that he was confronted with a choice. He will find the answer there.

But the most egregious "fact" offered by Mr. Crawford was that "Literally thousands of former homosexuals and lesbians. have turned their back on their practices, and become re-oriented sexually." Really? May we please see where those numbers come from?

It is interesting that Mr. Crawford believes that marriage is a privilege and not a right "subject to societal rules and approvals." Our society allows murderers, rapists, child molesters, terrorists, drug dealers and armed robbers, among other felons to marry. Is it a privilege for them but not for law-abiding, contributing gay and lesbian members of our society? Is that the society Mr. Crawford finds solace in?

If heterosexuality is indeed the determining qualification, then Mr. Crawford clearly is homophobic and not truly concerned about protecting marriage. If he were, he would be advocating a ban on divorce.

The real fact here is that Mr. Crawford maintains reactionary views towards marriage. The institution has evolved over the centuries and has in fact been redefined. A wife was once the husband's property. It was only a few decades ago that African-Americans could not marry whites in this country. Did he oppose these changes, too? Opening up marriage to loving, committed couples does not destroy the institution; it strengthens it.

Instead, Mr. Crawford clings to world that has long since moved forward, as evidenced by his referring to Asians as Orientals.

Steve Charing

This "F-Word" Thing Could Help Us

By Steve Charing

The vile Ann Coulter, a flame-throwing, hate-filled ultra-conservative author, columnist and commentator has joined the growing parade of highly publicized verbal anti-gay bashers. And I welcome her.

The recent spate of "Mel Gibson" moments began with reports that actor Isaiah Washington called fellow Greys’ Anatomy co-star T. R. Knight a "faggot" during an altercation on the set. Then when former National Basketball Association player John Amaechi came out as gay, another retired NBA player, Tim Hardaway, said, among other derogatories, "I hate gays."

Now Ann Coulter. What a surprise!

At a Conservative Political Action Conference earlier this month, Coulter referred to presidential candidate John Edwards as a "faggot." Yes, the other "F-word!

"I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word ‘faggot,’ so I—so kind of an impasse, can't really talk about Edwards," she snorted.

Now you have to understand that this isn’t something said in the heat of the battle, such as Isaiah Washington’s epithet. Nor was it a dumb remark by Tim Hardaway who should have been wise to keep his homophobia to himself. Ann Coulter is a shock writer. She makes her living off of this very type of vitriol. She, as they say, serves up red meat to the right wing bigots and homophobes that comprise much of the conservative base of the Republican Party.

To give you an idea, Slate, an online magazine, offered examples of some Coulterisms:

"The ‘backbone of the Democratic Party’ is a ‘typical fat, implacable welfare recipient"—syndicated column, Oct. 29, 1999.’"

"To a disabled Vietnam vet: ‘People like you caused us to lose that war.’"—MSNBC, Oct. 11, 1997

"I think there should be a literacy test and a poll tax for people to vote."—Hannity & Colmes, Aug. 17, 1999

Get the picture?

Her calling Edwards, who is an obviously straight man, a "faggot" is not surprising, and we shouldn’t be dismayed by this witch (no offense to witches). But the significance of this comment and the others cited earlier is more about the action and reaction that followed.

When Isaiah Washington called T. R. Knight a "faggot," there was a major uproar led by GLAAD and other lgbt organizations. A petition drive was underway, the show’s producer rebuked his slur, and Washington’s job on the show was in peril. Following Hardaway’s comments in an interview, he was banished by the NBA from its all-star weekend festivities in February and lost an endorsement. The NBA Commissioner swiftly denounced his remarks. The Continental Basketball Association also disassociated itself from Hardaway.

Being anti-gay or saying anti-gay stuff could cost you. And that is precisely the way it ought to be.

Coulter’s offense prompted a similar backlash. Another petition drive was launched that was directed to Universal Press Syndicate, which fans out her idiocy to newspapers. At least four newspapers have since dropped Coulter's syndicated column, and a letter-writing campaign has been directed at major TV networks demanding they don’t include her commentaries. In addition, three corporations, including Verizon, stopped advertising on Coulter's web site after she made the comment.

John Edwards, who is not quite "there" yet on marriage equality for gays and lesbians, successfully exploited her slur and exceeded a goal of raising some $100,000 in "Coulter Cash" from it. Of course, other Democrats, led by Howard Dean and Senator Edward Kennedy, predictably called it hateful, and that it should not be part of the political discourse.

The leading Republican presidential hopefuls— Rudy Giuliani, Sen. John McCain and Mitt Romney—provided tepid protests, mainly characterizing her slur as "inappropriate." Other notable Republicans who attended the event, such as the equally nefarious Vice President Cheney, said nothing in response. Way to defend your daughter. Dick!

Later, she followed with a lame, flippant explanation that fortunately no one believed.

As soon as Coulter spewed her homophobic venom, there was a brief collective gasp in the audience. That was followed immediately by applause from the homophobes attending. Anyone who saw the clip on the news or on You Tube would have clearly noticed that reaction.

The first thing I thought listening to the anti-gay crowd applauding with approval Coulter’s remark is that this is going to kill the Republicans. And I think I’m right on this one.

Republican politicos scrambled to distance themselves from her—who many rightly see as an embarrassment—but she will forever be linked to Republican dogma. This will have an effect in 2008 where the independents and centrists in the country will be decisive in the national election. These folks do not care much for the homophobia that Republicans manage to use as a wedge to divide the country. They witnessed how the Rove-led campaign for George Bush in 2004 and the congressional elections of 2006 used the fear of gay marriage to win votes, and they didn’t like it.

They will recall who (conservatives, read: Republicans) applauded Coulter at the conference, which will be remembered more for Coulter’s calling Edwards a faggot than anything else that went on there. This will reinforce the GOP’s image as homophobic, no matter how often they characterize her remarks as "inappropriate."

Equally significant is the nearly universal condemnation of her epithet. The newspapers that dropped her column were refreshing. Coulter makes her living with her evil style, but sooner or later she will have truly gone too far.

Maybe America is waking up. The hope is that using the new "F-word" will be just as deleterious as using the "N-word," and hate will be costly to the haters.

A Long Way From Equality

Many gays see themselves as second-class citizens, but we haven’t progressed that far.

By STEVE CHARING Friday, March 02, 2007

WE’VE HEARD THE argument frequently made during the struggle for non-discrimination and civil marriage equality: “We don’t want to be treated as second-class citizens.” But are we really considered second-class citizens?

I always thought that second-class status is a category that encompassed society’s outcasts, like criminals. You know, murderers, rapists, drug dealers, armed robbers, child molesters, thieves, terrorists, illegal immigrants and so on. As disdained as that group is by America’s “first class” citizenry, those pariahs may take for granted rights that gays and lesbians haven’t yet achieved.

You see, such people have the right to marry whom they choose. As an example, the loathsome Menendez brothers, who riddled their parents in cold blood with a barrage of bullets, were legally permitted to marry their sweethearts while incarcerated. One such “ceremony” took place over the telephone, no less, which hardly conforms to traditional marriage that equality opponents love to tout.

So if these vile people — second-class citizens, if you will — can get hitched and we cannot legally marry our partners, where does that leave us?

And it doesn’t stop at marriage equality and its attendant benefits. Our standing in the military relegates us to third-class status, as well. Under the nefarious and ineffective “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, gays and lesbians may serve our country but to do so, they must conceal the essence of their sexual identity. And should they be uncovered, the military is compelled to discharge them.

The exit doors of the barracks continue to swing wide open for gays and lesbians during a time of war depriving the armed forces of critical skills and personnel thereby compromising national security. At the same time, the entrance portals are allowing some of those very folks who are members of the second-class coterie, not to mention non-U.S. citizens, to report for duty.

Leading publications like the New York Times have noted that dire recruitment needs by the military are resulting in the lowering of moral and intellectual eligibility standards to beef up the ranks.

THIS, OF COURSE, is ludicrous. The Defense Department is playing games with our national security by compromising the quality of our troops to reach desired numeric goals. The Pentagon chiefs are dead-set on keeping openly gay and lesbian volunteers from serving under the guise of maintaining unit cohesion. Yet they basically gloss over straight sexual assaults originating in the barracks as well as recruitment stations, of all places.

THE MAIN ARGUMENT against allowing openly gay and lesbian people to serve in the military is that it would negatively impact troop morale. No legitimate survey of the troops, to my knowledge, has ever been conducted to confirm that theory. But if the troops would have a problem with a gay soldier in the ranks, imagine how good the morale will be with an influx of drug addicts, arsonists and thieves. Clearly gays and lesbians are on the bottom rung.

Our assignment to third-class status is evident beyond the institutions of marriage and military. Felons, drug abusers and adulterers may participate with aplomb in the world of sports and make piles of money from it. But an out gay or lesbian athlete in a major sports league? Forget about it.

So bad is the environment for a gay man in sports that on those rare occasions that one comes out of the closet, the disclosure takes place well after his retirement. They talk of the homophobia that exists within the locker rooms and team offices and how they would be shunned by their teammates, fans and potential corporate sponsors.

And while an ex-con can blithely walk down the street holding the hand of his or her loved one, a member of a gay or lesbian couple doing the same must be mindful of a baseball bat being struck on the back of the head.

Despite the fact that most gay folks work hard, pay taxes, abide by the law, make positive contributions to the community, even help revitalize declining neighborhoods, we are still viewed as third-class citizens. We must continue to fight to by pass the second rung and get to the top where we belong.

Time to Step Up to the Plate

The climate is improving for a gay pro athlete to come out

By Steve Charing

The creaky sound of the closet door opening in pro male sports has been heard too infrequently over the past three decades. It started with pro football player David Kopay in 1975. Then the first major league baseball player to come out, Glenn Burke, did so in 1982. Ten years later another gridiron athlete, Roy Simmons, came out on the Phil Donahue Show.

Keeping the alternating leagues in tact, baseballer Billy Bean stepped out of the closet in 1999, and football player Esera Tuaolo followed suit in 2002. Of course, there was an official—not an athlete—baseball umpire Dave Pallone, who had come out in 1990.

Just a few weeks ago a new sport joined the all-too-modest line-up of pro athletes’ coming out: pro basketball in the person of John Amaechi. The reverberations beyond the creaky closet door from Amaechi’s disclosure are still being heard.

These now "out" pro sports figures—in varying degrees of celebrity and proficiency—have two things in common: they all went public after they retired, and they all announced their sexuality in advance of selling a book.

When Esera Tuaolo came out I praised him for his candor but questioned the usefulness of a retired athlete’s coming out. I said then, and others have repeated the refrain, that it would take "Jackie Robinson-like courage" for an active male player to disclose that he is gay in the testosterone-dominated arena of professional sports.

Sheryl Swoopes, an active female basketball star and three-time Most Valuable Player recipient in the WNBA, came out in 2005, which was seen as brave. The environment was more favorable for her to come out given that a significant portion of the WNBA fan base is comprised of lesbians. And while Swoopes received tremendous support from her team and fans, many gay activists were miffed when she disclosed that her sexuality was a choice.

Locker room reaction

For a male athlete to come out, however, the landscape could be more daunting. The first thing that comes to the mind of a gay athlete is the reaction in the locker room, which in the macho world of professional sports, is not likely to be gay friendly. According to John Amaechi, there are other gay players in the NBA who are terrified to come out because of their teammates’ potential backlash. You know, the shower argument.

Some pro athletes from the NBA and NHL have stated that they would support their teammates because that’s what teammates do. "Anybody who knows me knows I'm a guy who loves his teammates and if anything ever comes up like that, I don't look at that," said Miami Heat star Dwayne Wade. "I look at what guys can do for you on the court. And in the locker room you have great relationships with guys. I don't have any negative views." This was a typical of response from those supportive pros who wanted to weigh in on the record.

A Sports Illustrated survey conducted last year provides more insight. When players from the four major professional sports leagues—MLB, NFL, NBA and NHL—were asked it they would support an openly gay teammate, more than half in the NFL said they would; three out of five approved of a gay teammate in the NBA and Major League Baseball; and a whopping four out of five were supportive in the NHL. This spike in the NHL’s acceptance is most likely attributable to the fact that most of the players are Canadians and Europeans who are more apt to lack the sexual hang-ups of Americans.

Nonetheless, former NBA player Tim Hardaway was repulsed at the thought of a gay teammate and stated during an interview that, among other reasons for not wanting a gay teammate, he hates gays. He later apologized for his comments. The big question is: who more represents the locker room mindset—Wade or Hardaway?

Teammate support may be there, but what’s missing, however, is how these guys would respond when an opponent comes out. Would he be taunted, shunned, harassed, or just left alone?

Fan response
The second consideration for a gay athlete who is contemplating coming out is the reaction of fans. That is a tough one to gauge and may depend on the team’s locale and its social consciousness. On the surface a gay athlete may be better off coming out in New York than in Dallas, but no matter if a state is red or blue, every state has a mix of homophobes and progressives, thus the color purple.

Yet a gay athlete who is a strong performer and/or is popular with the fans will have a better chance of mitigating any backlash. Indeed, studies have already indicated that fans appear to be OK with an openly gay player. According to an online survey by Witeck-Combs Communications and Harris Interactive conducted in 2002, two out of three fans said they would not change their opinions of favorite male or female professional athletes should they come out.

Consequently, four out of five said other fans would have a problem.

Over the past several years, there have been "gay night" events at several baseball parks recognizing the significance of the gay dollar and that being inclusive is good business. And just recently, there was a landmark Pride Night with the Atlanta Thrashers of the NHL.

Endorsement concerns
The third consideration is the potential loss of endorsements if a player comes out, especially when corporations are under extreme pressure from so-called morality groups. But when Sheryl Swoopes came out, Nike did not drop an existing endorsement deal, and she picked up another one as well.

While some see a risk, others see a windfall. "From a marketing perspective, if you're a player who happens to be gay and you want to be incredibly rich, then you should come out, because it would be the best thing that ever happened to you from a marketing and an endorsement perspective," said the NBA’s Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban. "You would be an absolute hero to more Americans than you can ever possibly be as an athlete, and that'll put money in your pocket. On the flip side, if you're the idiot who condemns somebody because they're gay, then you're going to be ostracized, you're going to be picketed and you're going to ruin whatever marketing endorsements you have."

The times, they are a-changin’
The world has evolved dramatically since the day Jackie Robinson endured taunts and death threats from fans and ostracism by teammates and opponents alike. The country wasn’t ready for integration during Robinson’s gallant breaking of the color barrier 60 years ago. Attitude towards gay acceptance is improving albeit slowly. Cultural exposure to gays and lesbians, including more positive portrayals of gays in television and movies, and political debates that push for equality, have contributed to the positive trends.

But the best evidence of a more accepting sports world occurred following Tim Hardaway’s homophobic remarks. Swiftly and unequivocally, NBA Commissioner David Stern rebuked Hardaway and cancelled Hardaway’s representing the NBA during the all-star weekend, and he lost an endorsement, too. Moreover, the Continental Basketball Association terminated Hardaway’s role with the league. These actions sent a powerful message that homophobia—not homosexuality—is a taboo.

Coming out in the world of sports may be a struggle. But the outcome is likely to be successful given that times are changing and intolerance will not be tolerated.

Seek Support Group

Letter published inUSA Today--2/15/2007

Steve Charing, media relations, PFLAG-Howard County - Clarksville, Md.

USA TODAY's cover story "Gay teens coming out earlier to peers and family" presented an accurate overview of the issues surrounding gay and lesbian teens' acknowledgement of their sexual orientation at an earlier age than previous generations did.

But while several key support groups were identified, one of the leading gay and lesbian support groups for parents and gay individuals was omitted: PFLAG, or Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (News, Feb. 8).

This venerable organization has been a valuable source of support to families for more than three decades. PFLAG's goal is to keep families together, and with the help of parents who have experienced their child's coming out, PFLAG members offer guidance and support to other parents in a similar situation. Many chapters provide support to the teens as well.

The article discusses how problematic it could be for teens and their parents in rural areas. PFLAG has grown to more than 500 chapters nationwide, and its reach extends into all areas of the country.

Parents who are trying to come to terms with their child's sexual orientation would be well advised to visit www.pflag.org to locate a chapter in their area. Nobody should feel that they are alone.

Lobby Day Draws Statewide Activists, Politicans

LGBT, allies push for transgender equality; oppose marriage amendment

By Steve Charing

ANNAPOLIS—A couple of hundred lgbt activists from all over the state braved the brisk, misty air to attend Equality Maryland’s 4th annual Lobby Day on February 12. The crowd, while significantly smaller than at previous Lobby Day rallies at Lawyers Mall, was enthusiastic and vociferous and represented a broad segment of Maryland’s lgbt community and its allies.

"We want to show the legislature that we have wide and diverse support for lgbt equality," Sara Ryan, Equality Maryland’s field organizer told Baltimore OUTloud. "We have here gay and straight people, people of faith, non-religious people, union, non-union, all kinds of people."

Gita Deane and Lisa Polyak, two of the original plaintiffs in the Deane and Polyak v. Conaway lawsuit, emceed the rally. The lawsuit is challenging Maryland’s 1973 marriage law that restricts the definition of marriage to be one man and woman and is currently under deliberation by the Maryland Court of Appeals.

Dr. Dana Beyer, a transgendered person who unsuccessfully ran for the House of Delegates, set the tone by arguing for transgender equality. She offered examples of how transgendered individuals are discriminated against; how she—a physician—could lose her job; and how the transgendered are often victims of violence and hate. One of Equality Maryland’s main legislative initiatives this General Assembly will be to add transgendered individuals to the state’s anti-discrimination law.

Delegate Victor Ramirez, a Prince Georges Democrat further fired up the crowd. "[Marriage equality] is a critical issue for all of us, not just some," he exhorted. "This will define us as a state." Del. Ramirez, a strong advocate for immigration rights added, "To those who bring us issues to divide us—shame on you!" He plans to champion a pro-marriage bill in the House of Delegates.

Senator Gwendolyn Britt, another Democrat from Prince Georges County was next by relating the struggle for lgbt equality to that of the civil rights movement. She was a major activist against segregation, having been jailed for her protests.

According to a statement from Equality Maryland, "if the high court in Maryland does not unequivocally rule to end discrimination in civil marriage, [Sen. Britt] will sponsor and shepherd a marriage equality bill in the Maryland Senate."

"I fought against segregation, and I’m equality compelled to speak out for your equal rights in Maryland and in the U.S.," she said to the cheering crowd. "For civil marriage, the time is now."

Other speakers included Fred Mason, Executive Director, Metro DC AFL-CIO with son, Fred Mason III and his son's husband, Philip Lovett. Pro-gay equality supporters in the legislature were sighted at the event, including Sen. Rich Madaleno (D-Montgomery County), the highest elected openly gay person in the state and Del. Elizabeth Bobo (D-Columbia).

A few in the crowd complained that neither Governor O’Malley nor Lt. Governor Brown was present at the rally, which would have signaled a new pro-gay rights climate in Annapolis. However, Equality Maryland’s Sara Ryan confirmed to OUTloud that they had not been invited.

During and after the rally, groups of lgbt folks, supporters, friends and families proceeded to visit with their district delegates and senators. They pressed for an end to transgender discrimination, promoted domestic partner benefits for state employees and other initiatives to ease some financial burdens on Maryland’s lgbt citizens. In addition, they sought to avert yet another attempt by both houses in the General Assembly to amend the state’s constitution that would permanently confine marriage to one man and one woman.

People presented their personal stories to legislators, which always seems to be the most effective strategy. One transgendered person told a receptive delegate of being homeless because she was transgendered. Another teenager said he had hugged his brother who attended the same school and the other kids taunted them with anti-gay jeers.

And in a touching moment, a young married woman explained to a senator how she was raised by her biological father and his male partner since she had been very young and brought in family photographs to show how stable and beneficial her upbringing was.

Some seemed moved by these and other stories; others, such as Gail Bates (R-Howard County) was reported to have said she is "never going to change her mind."

Lobby Day is an important event and may be critical this year. A decision by the Maryland Court of Appeals on the marriage lawsuit is imminent and has the potential for driving the political agenda during this and future General Assembly sessions. Bills that will enshrine discrimination into the state’s constitution have been filed and will be considered by lawmakers.

Despite the clear need to advance pro-lgbt causes, the crowd turnout was disappointing. Many more signed up with Equality Maryland than showed up, which could be explained by the chilly weather and looming forecast. One observer quipped, "I would have been happier if all the gays who attended ‘Wicked’ showed up today. It would have been some rally!"

Even if you did not attend, you can still express your views to your legislators. Visit www.equalitymaryland.org to find out how.

Homophobia Knows No Race

By Steve Charing

Senior Political Analyst

The recent brouhaha stemming from Grey’s Anatomy star Isaiah Washington’s calling fellow co-star T.R. Knight a "faggot" (or the media’s dubbing it as "F-word") during an on-set confrontation spawned criticism over the protests. Several African-American columnists and pundits are questioning the virulent reaction by the lgbt community and some of its organizations by suggesting that the race of Mr. Washington was a primary motivator in the backlash.

They offer that the hostile reaction among gays towards Mr. Washington represents a prevailing perception that African-Americans are more homophobic than whites and, therefore, his use of the "F-Word" is somewhat expected. Implied here is that that the protests by whites within the lgbt community would be less intense if the "F-word" user were white and the calls for his firing would not be so evident.

I disagree.

The unfortunate use of the "F-word" is deplorable whether the individual who said it was black, white Asian, Latino or whatever. The same goes for the target of the insult.

I would be equally outraged, as I am sure most in the lgbt community and its allies would be, no matter what the ethnic background of the person who delivered the slur was or who the recipient of the offense might be. The protests would have been similarly justified had white co-star Patrick Dempsey called T.R. Knight a "faggot."

Homophobia knows no race.

To be sure, there is considerable homophobia among African-Americans. But for every black preacher who condemns homosexuality there are many more white ministers and other religious leaders doing the same. Moreover, there is widespread homophobia among the Latino and Asian communities, not to mention among white socially conservative folks. Consequently, no one particular race or ethnic group corners the market on homophobia or is exempt from it. Perhaps blacks conceal it less, therefore, contributing to the perception.

Not that Latinos and Asians haven’t been discriminated against, but many in the lgbt community feel more disappointed at African-Americans for their homophobia. The main reason is that black preachers use the same Bible that white racists waved against blacks to justify segregation, discrimination and violence. They sermonize from the same pulpits where they previously once stood to condemn past racial injustices, presenting a double standard.

These preachers are aware of the pain and suffering that discrimination brings, and gays believe that African-Americans should be more compassionate as a result of their own tragic experiences. Plus, gays and lesbians had been traditional allies during the peak of the civil rights movement, a fact that fuels more disappointment.

But these writers who speculated there was a more concerted outcry from whites in the gay community over Isaiah Washington’s comments simply because of his race leads me to the world of sports to reject that theory.

The late Reggie White, an African-American professional football star, was a first-rate homophobe. On a number of occasions he made blistering comments about gays. For example, he once said, "I'm offended that homosexuals will say that homosexuals deserve rights." He also accused the U.S. of going away from God by allowing homosexuality to "run rampant" and compared gays to liars and cheaters and those who are malicious. Get the picture? But any protests were relatively tepid.

An uproar did occur when former baseball pitcher John Rocker, a white Southerner, railed against gays and foreigners during an anti-minority, stereotype-laced diatribe while being interviewed for a sports magazine. For his comments, Rocker was vilified for many weeks. The furor forced the Atlanta Braves organization to discredit his comments and pressured Rocker to recant. But his apology was aimed at his racist remarks, not the homophobic part.

He was ostracized in virtually every ballpark the following season and eventually, aided by injuries, ended his once promising career. Rocker will always be defined and remembered by his rant about the eclectic assortment of passengers, including "some queer with AIDS," on New York’s No. 7 subway train.

A correspondingly potent backlash was launched against New York Giants tight end Jeremy Shockey, a white man, for anti-gay comments on the Howard Stern Show and later apologized under pressure.

While Reggie White went on and on publicly for an extended period of time—years, not minutes, as in Rocker’s or Shockey’s case—about how sinful gays are, not so much as a peep was heard from the lgbt community or its African-American components, much less the NFL. Although he did receive rebukes from GLAAD and the media, he was never forced—only requested—to apologize for his anti-gay venom. Yet Rocker and Shockey were broadly condemned for their brief but hurtful tirades.

Therefore, I disagree with those who opined that the reaction against Isaiah Washington was motivated by his race. Reggie White, a black man, more or less received a pass for his ongoing anti-gay comments and was elected to the Hall of Fame. John Rocker, a white man, was shamed out of baseball (and rightly so), and Jeremy Shockey had to eat his words.

Hate is hate, and it must be eradicated. So should racism and homophobia regardless of the source. Isaiah Washington deserved the hostile reaction he received. It was not about race; it was about homophobia. People should be called out for using anti-gay slurs regardless of their race. Nobody should get a free pass when making homophobic comments.

Homophobia knows no race.

Democrat Bumper Stickers

I didn't come up with these, but they are great. I'm not sure why some numbers are missing:

1) (On an infant's shirt) Already Smarter than Bush.
2) 1/20/09: End of an Error
3) That's OK, I Wasn't Using My Civil Liberties Anyway
4) Let's Fix Democracy in This Country First
5) If You Want a Nation Ruled By Religion, Move to Iran
6) Bush. Like a Rock. Only Dumber.
7) You Can't Be Pro-War and Pro-Life At the Same Time
8) If You Can Read This, You're Not Our President
9) Of Course It Hurts: You're Getting Screwed by an Elephant
10) Hey, Bush Supporters: Embarrassed Yet?
11) George Bush: Creating the Terrorists Our kids Will Have to Fight
12) Impeachment: It's Not Just for Blowjobs Anymore
14) America : One Nation, Under Surveillance
15) They Call Him "W" So He Can Spell It
16) Which God Do You Kill For?
17) Cheney/Satan '08
18) Jail to the Chief
19) Who Would Jesus Torture?
20) No, Seriously, Why Did We Invade?
21) Bush: God's Way of Proving Intelligent Design is Full Of Crap
22) Bad president! No Banana.
23) We Need a President Who's Fluent In At Least One Language
24) We're Making Enemies Faster Than We Can Kill Them
26) Rich Man's War, Poor Man's Blood
27) Is It Vietnam Yet?
28) Bush Doesn't Care About White People, Either
29) Where Are We Going? And Why Are We in This Hand-basket?
30) You Elected Him. You Deserve Him.
32) Impeach Cheney First
34) When Bush Took Office, Gas Was $1.46
35) The Republican Party: Our Bridge to the 11th Century

Do Gay Men Really Want Marriage?

By Steve Charing

While the Maryland Court of Appeals deliberates on the constitutionality of the state’s 1973 law, which restricts marriage to between a man and a woman, it is a good time to examine if marriage between a man and a man is what gay men want.

Based on an accumulation of conversations over the past year or two with all age groups —both personal and via the Internet—as well as blogs and other data, I feel comfortable about offering my thoughts pertaining to gay men and same-sex marriage. But I will make this qualification: my comments are not intended to be generalizations or absolute facts nor are they the results of any broad-sample scientific survey. Instead, these points reflect trends and tendencies that I believe portray an accurate picture of many gay men vis-à-vis their attitudes towards same-sex marriage.

Although I count many lesbians as friends, I’m not going to pretend that I can offer any insight regarding the mindset of lesbians other than the fact I strongly believe that they are far more willing to enter the realm of same-sex marriage than gay men are.

Statistics support that theory. In Massachusetts, the only state where same-sex marriage is legal, even though it is believed there are more gay men than lesbians in the state, lesbian marriages outnumbered gay male marriages from May 17, 2004 through November 9, 2006 by a count of 5,642 to 3,122. That’s nearly a 2 to 1 ratio. The following analysis, however, is focused on the male issues surrounding marriage, which may explain, in part, why the Massachusetts experience is what it is.

Gay men are very similar to straight men. Why not? They’re men! Males, being the hunters they are (and that’s the case in virtually all species), seem to relish the conquest. Straight men marry for a variety of reasons, and most have families to keep them together. But we all know—and I’ve been told by a good number of married men—that many still have attraction issues with other women. Nonetheless, those who stick to their marriage (nearly half don’t for a variety of reasons) still wander, if only with their eyes.

But for these married men, a split-up could be both painful and financially draining. The laws are structured that way. They can lose their children and have to pay unseemly sums in alimony and child support. Therefore, divorce isn’t a good option unless it’s better for the family than unhappily remaining together. So while half of marriages disintegrate, imagine how many more would as well if it weren’t for children, divorce laws and their attendant penalties.

Gay men, except the married ones in Massachusetts, generally have the independence that so many straight men can only fantasize about. And the sexual freedom it brings is a major impediment to same-sex marriage. For one thing, there are large numbers of gay men—mostly younger—who eschew long-term relationships, much less marriage, to preserve to some degree their sexual sovereignty. The trend seems to be that the younger one is, the less inclination there is in forming a long-term relationship.

While many claim they want boyfriends, there is significant trepidation, especially among the younger guys, about settling down. And sexual freedom is not the only factor that thwarts a desire for a long-term relationship.

"Being single (or just dating) is very liberating," said one guy in his early thirties. "You don't have to plan your life around someone else's wants or needs. You can do what you want to do, go where you want to go, see who you want to see. Nobody to answer to."

He added that the independence that single life brings reduces dependency on others. "When you're single, there is nobody there to let you down. Less disappointment that way."

Others just don’t trust gay men sufficiently to settle down. Numerous gays are constantly fearful that their partner will cheat on them (a legitimate concern) and impact the relationship and its accompanying emotional investment. "I’ve given everything of myself to my boyfriend, and one day I find out he’s out with another dude," said one twenty-three year-old. "I can’t trust men. They’re ass-----."

And many other men are involved in "open relationships" or engage in "threesomes" to try to have it both ways—a boyfriend and a variety of sexual contacts.

For these men, marriage, if allowed, would clearly not seem to be a desirable or recommended option at this point in their lives.

But there is a different side of the equation. "It's nice to know there is someone out there who is looking forward to seeing you, who misses you, who is thinking about you, who loves you," said one single man in his thirties. "Life feels a little less scary when you know you don't have to shoulder the burden of doing everything by yourself. When you are in a long-term relationship, both partners have each other to fall back on, be it emotionally, physically or economically."

Relationships can also help eliminate some of the games experienced in dating different guys. One tries to put on his best side to impress his would-be partner for fear that anything less desirable would cause an early exit. As one man put it, "When you're in a long-term relationship, most likely you've both seen each other at your worst, and you're still together, so you don't have to pretend anymore. You can just be yourself...as good or as nasty as that is."

Once you truly fall in love with a person and can deal with any foibles, that is the signal to think in terms of a serious relationship. It does take commitment, communication and work. The security and dependability, as well as the elimination of the "games" involved in dating, are strong inducements for long-term-relationships.

Another is family, and that’s where marriage would be paramount. "Marriage is important to us because we're a family just like everyone else, and we deserve the same rights as everyone else," said a member of a gay couple in their late twenties who have adopted a baby boy. "The rights marriage gives us allow our son to be protected if something should happen to us."

When you see gay men in long-term relationships, most appear to be older and have probably experienced enough emotional trauma and drama that are frequently associated with the single life. They are ready to settle down. I know of couples who have been together 20, 30, 40 years. Mine has lasted 27 wonderful years, and I am as happy today as when I first met my partner.

There are also many younger established couples, and marriage would be beneficial and secure for them as well. The over 1,100 rights and benefits that marriage would accrue would only strengthen their partnership and family.

Nonetheless, being in a long-term relationship doesn’t necessarily translate into a desire for marriage. The same issues that beset heterosexual married men could also surface, and men (and women) are mindful of that. And there are financial and other considerations that could preclude marriage.

So, to the question, do gay men really want marriage, it depends on each individual’s circumstance and priorities, as well as his desire to get serious about sharing his life with someone he loves through thick and thin.

If Only He Said Those Two Key Words

Letter published in Washington Blade--1/26/07: "O'Malley's inaugural speech disappoints Maryland gays"

When I saw the clip on the evening news that reported Governor O’Malley’s inaugural speech earlier that afternoon, my heart raced. I heard the new governor of Maryland say, "I take responsibility as one leader for never trying to divide our people by race, class, religion or region." I waited to hear the two words that would have made that statement complete. But, alas, Governor O'Malley shifted abruptly to a different theme of taking responsibility for setting a tone of mutual respect.

Drats! Those two words were never spoken; the speech was not whole. An opportunity lost. I felt unfulfilled.

For when he uttered the phrase "never trying to divide the people," my first impulse was recalling how President Bush, in dutifully complying with the win-at-all cost tactics of Karl Rove, did just that. They divided the people during the 2004 presidential campaign by driving a wedge among America's voters and a stake through the gay community's collective hearts on the matter of "gay marriage."

"Gay marriage is morally wrong." "We need to protect the sanctity of marriage." "Marriage should be defined only as a union between a man and a woman." It divided the nation.
So when Martin O'Malley laid out how he had no intention to divide the people, my fervent hope was that he was going to include those two key words among the others. And those would be "sexual orientation."

What a wonderful message that would have made! If nothing else, it would have sent a clear signal to such homophobic Maryland legislators as Del. Don Dwyer, Del. Emmet Burns, Sen. Janet Greenip, Sen. Alex X. Mooney, Sen. Nancy Jacobs and others: any attempt to amend the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage would certainly not receive any moral backing from this governor, unlike his predecessor, former Governor Robert L. Ehrlich, Jr., who lent his support to such an egregious notion.

What would have been wrong by including "sexual orientation" in the text of that otherwise commendable promise? The state now has laws on the books prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation. This isn't new; those battles seem to be behind us. They survived theconservative Mr. Ehrlich who, some believed, would have sought to overturn the protections, given his shoddy record on LGBT issues.

But Governor O'Malley did not utter those words. It was either an oversight or political calculation; we may never know. It would have been momentous if he had, but given the recent political environment when it comes to gays regardless of Party, it is not surprising. Just disappointing.