Sometimes Hate Can be an Ally

By Steve Charing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good Riddance to a Homophobe

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

By Steve Charing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There's Nothing Right About the Religious Wrong

By Steve Charing

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

It just seems that way.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gay or questioning youth find safe haven in Howard County group

By Steve Charing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bush, The Vatican, and the heterosexual agenda

By Steve Charing

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

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

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

Screw them!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

America Shrugs as Gays Marry in Massachusetts

By Steve Charing

As bad as the disgraceful abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq has been for our country and humankind in general, it was a blessing in disguise for the lgbt community. Because on May 17, when gays and lesbians were legally entitled to marry in Massachusetts, the word of this historic breakthrough, while extremely significant to us, was overshadowed by other news. This prevented an immediate backlash from determined and bitter opponents.

Not only was “Prison-gate” (as I choose to dub it) a major distraction in the media, but the 50th anniversary of another civil rights victory—the Supreme Court’s ruling in Brown v. Board of Education that “separate but equal” status is unconstitutional in the U.S.—also made the headlines.

These events, in some strange way, formed a nexus in that they all involved either the abuse of human rights or advancing the equalization of civil rights. The rights of an individual swept away by maltreatment at the hands of American guards and other military personnel, or commemorating the de-segregation of public schools across the country, or elevating gays and lesbians from second-class status to equality (at least in Massachusetts) all intersected on May 17.

Many gay activists would have preferred that the onset of legal nuptials in the Bay State be story number one; that there be no clatter from other news to compete with what is arguably the most astounding development in the history of the gay civil rights movement, perhaps more so than the Stonewall uprising 35 years ago. That’s understandable.

May 17 can conceivably be our Independence Day. It could be marked by annual celebrations similar to those for Gay Pride, normally held in June to coincide with Stonewall. For on this day, the legalization of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts was indeed historic. In this world, in this 21st century only Belgium, the Netherlands and parts of Canada allowed gay and lesbian couples to be legally married and conferred all the rights of married heterosexuals. On this day—a day filled with tears and joy from those who participated and the good folks who worked so hard to accomplish this unlikely feat—gays and lesbians can assume equal standing with their heterosexual counterparts.

So why is it a good thing that this landmark event be overshadowed by others? The answer is that the less hoopla attached to this occasion, the less likely the heterosexual population would be turned off. This dynamic is extremely vital in the quest for not only preserving same-sex marriage in Massachusetts but also to broaden this right and to allow recognition from other states.
The road to full equality is expected to be treacherous, with numerous potholes and landmines to navigate around.

President Bush steadfastly opposes same-sex marriage. “Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman,” Bush said. “If activist judges insist on re-defining marriage by court order, the only alternative will be the constitutional process. We must do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage.” Consequently, the President has endorsed, and is encouraging, a federal constitutional amendment aimed at prohibiting gays and lesbians from ever marrying legally and thus, relegating the lgbt community to second-class status. If successful, such action would for the first time enshrine discrimination into the nation’s most hallowed document.

Moreover, the issue in Massachusetts is far from settled. In an effort to undo the court’s decision, the legislature, during an acrimonious session, passed a state constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman. It must successfully pass a similar amendment next year, and the people will vote by referendum in 2006. It is therefore possible that all these marriages have begun one minute after midnight on May 17 in Cambridge and continuing on throughout the state may be voided, and no further same-sex couples will be legally permitted to marry.

In addition, many other states are seeking similar measures to prevent same-sex marriages. Some in “battleground” states will be placing the issue right smack on the ballot in November—a cynical attempt by Republicans to force the question and bring out those pesky religious fundamentalists to the polls. Other states are scrambling to ensure that same-sex marriages performed in Massachusetts would not be recognized in their own backyards.

Most polls taken since the now famous ruling by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court last summer and reaffirmed in February indicate that, when asked, approximately three out of five in the U.S. oppose same-sex marriage. That’s the result when people are confronted with the issue directly. However, I believe the data is skewed negatively in this particular matter.

With steadily rising gasoline prices, an incredibly horrific turn of events in Iraq, an economic recovery muted by declining consumer confidence, the loss of jobs, our prestige abroad all but eliminated, not to mention legitimate concerns for their own marriages and families, it is highly unlikely that same-sex marriage is a prominent issue around the dinner tables in heterosexual households.

When the news hit on May 17 that “gay marriages” were taking place, some of the potential incendiary rhetoric was muffled by the other weighty stories. At the various courthouses in Massachusetts that day, there were a few disorganized and ineffective demonstrations from the “God Hates Fags” crowd. Although TV stations were careful to include the voices of gay rights opponents as part of their coverage, these demonstrators too had to take a back seat to the other news of the day.

Having these marriages take place is crucial. It is somewhat more difficult politically and morally to remove rights once they are obtained. The country must see once and for all that the world will not come to an end now that lesbians and gay men are allowed to marry. As one happy member of a newly-married couple put it, “I can’t see how the world would shake if two middle-aged women opened up a checking account together.”

That is the message that must flow from this historic day. The nation’s problems will be there, same-sex marriages or not. The good things in life will be there, same-sex marriages or not. There are larger problems facing most Americans.

So when hundreds of ecstatic gay and lesbian couples received marriage certificates, America merely shrugged. And that’s the way it should be.