Catch a Tiger by the Tail

Well, Tiger Woods is having a crappy Christmas, don't you think?

While he waits for the divorce proceedings and while we wait for the next alleged mistress to pop up on Extra, his whole embarrassing episode made me realize that our technology age has put a big dent into our ability to carry on sexual episodes - adulterous or not - with privacy.

When Tiger first crashed his car, who was first on the scene? The ambulance? Cops? Firefighters? Nope - TMZ. The gossip site's picture that brought Jazmine Sullivan's song "Bust the Windows Out Your Car" to life began the whole speculation about what went on.

Then we had the voice mail heard around the world. One of his mistresses saved a voice mail with Tiger pleading her to change her phone voice mail so his ever suspicious wife wouldn't put two and two together if she pulled up the number. And then that was released and played for everyone to hear.

I'm now waiting for the sex tape.

Yes, Tiger is famous and would be more vulnerable to being trapped in the cross hairs of a public relations nightmare than an average Joe. But our world is now set up to where privacy is receding and something we do, despite our best efforts, can come back to haunt us sooner or later.

Who's to say your next trick or dalliance isn't being secretly recorded by a Web cam or a Blackberry and will be posted on YouTube? Who's to say someone you dated won't post something embarrassing about your intimate life - or even just something personal - on Facebook or Twitter out of spite? What would you do if you couldn't help yourself and looked at your lover's cell and found friendly texts from someone you didn't know?

I have a few friends who used an online profile to find a hook-up and a third party somehow found out about their dalliances and pointed it out to other people and in one case, a friend's boyfriend.

And I've had many an occasion when I've had friends or acquaintances tell me some personal information - including HIV status - about someone with a recognizable online profile and then I've seen hat person out and about. And I'm sure he has no clue his life story is being circulated even more than his username.

We try to be careful - maybe never using names or real names, making sure people come to your place to ensure there's no funny business, setting up e-mail accounts solely for sexcapades - but something can always catch us. And all it takes is one misstep for something to be extremely public.

I wonder if that will make a lot of us just figure out more clever ways to be duplicitous or if that would make us second guess our actions the next time we cheat or do something else we feel deep down is wrong.

What is true for sure is that our technological advances have made us more communal but more vulnerable to gossip and lack of privacy. We can be so easily found out now. And we're going to have to be able to stand by our actions come what may.

Extra, Extra!

When I took a business trip recently, I scheduled a meeting with my group's higher-ups and reporters at my former newspaper. When I walked through the newsroom, it felt like a ghost town. Vacant desks, offices, and whole floors. There must have been a fifth of the staff that remained after I left several years ago.

There was a sadness to seeing a shell of a former self. I was a lot sadder when I heard about the Washington Blade, the venerable gay newspaper that was a 40-year institution, suddenly ceased production and lay the future of LGBT news in serious doubt.

Its owner Windows Media also shut down the gay newspapers in Atlanta and Miami. And for many employees, they were informed with a padlock on the door. Even here in DC, the staff was given short clipped answers that weren't answers. No reasons why, no severance, no Plan B. Some of the Blade staffers have heroically started a small paper, almost an insert really, to keep things going.

When I first heard of the closing, online in a short news item, I immediately begain to think of the hole left. Who was going to cover hates crimes, gay marriage, and legislation that affected us? With mainstream and independent publications laying off reporters, reducing coverage, closing bureaus, and eliminating beats, we can't depend on established outlets suddenly investing in resources to shine a light on our issues.

We're our own voice and the totality of that has probably been taken for granted by a lot of us until this moment. Even the lighter parts of the Blade - advice columns, arts listings and reviews, ads, home and garden tips, comics - have been sacrificed.

For now, we have the DC Agenda [http://dcagenda.com] that has admirably, and in just a week, been able to restart the former Blade's news and features coverage. They have a long way to go but they recognize the importance of the LGBT voice and have sacrificed time, work, and, undoubtedly, money to get this off the ground.

Check out the site and make a donation, if able. And remember that not many media focus on our community. We can only look out for each other.

The Institution That Dare Not Speak Its Name

Maybe the key in the gay marriage fight is actually not mentioning it by name.

Washington state's voters approved an "everything but marriage" law, expanding rights for gay domestic partners and giving them such benefits as the right to take sick leave to care for a partner, adoptions rights, and child custody and support.

Even though it's not full-fledged marriage, this marks the first time a U.S. state has granted a gay equality measure by ballot initiative, instead of through the courts or the legislature.

It seems that the difference perhaps is that because the controversial m-word wasn't included in the ballot language, voters were able to concentrate on the rights discusses as opposed to their preconceived ideas of an institution they see as only for a man and a woman.

I don't think it's a stretch to theorize that some gay marriage opponents aren't bigoted so much as fearful of change. Marriage is something that has become a religious and cultural institution for heterosexuals, laying down the foundation for family. It's not discussed or rarely evaluated in terms of rights, benefits, and equality given to its participants. But we've upset the apple cart because we've put marriage in those terms.

We've called attention to the fact that marriage laws, at least in this country, are pretty much exclusionary and discriminatory and make gays de facto second-class citizens. I imagine many straights think of the ritual - bridal gowns, nervous grooms in tuxedos, church organs, receptions - and wrinkle their nose at two men or two women adjusting that rosy, traditional picture. For them, it's like having church on Tuesday night or seeing boys playing with Barbies. It's just not how it's supposed to be

After Prop. 8 in California, Elton John remarked that what was making people uncomfortable was the actual word marriage. It seems he was prescient. Would similar wording on other ballot initiatives produce the same results? Is merely changing the framing of it all making the difference? Washington gives a strong argument for a yes.

In a way, it seems insulting. We have to parse words and not mention the unmentionable to persuade minds. Even though we're merely insisting on universal rights, we have to have hat in hand and offer careful arguments that don''t offend sensibilities. We're fighting for marriage but have to couch it in palatable terms because, after all, there are a lot more heterosexual voters than straight ones.

It may be kowtowing, but prejudices and presumptions are very strong. And sometimes the art of language makes a huge difference.

The Too Late Show

What's the difference between being a defender and an apologist? It may be easier to point you to the supporters of Roman Polanski and David Letterman.

Let's start with the Oscar-winning director first. You surely know that he fled the country more than 30 years ago rather than face sentencing for having sex with a 13-year-old girl. As a consequence, he's never stepped foot on U.S. soil since, for fear of landing in jail.

Well he landed in jail anyway, but just over a month ago in Zurich, and he and his legal team are fighting extradition back to Los Angeles.

Immediately after his arrest, some big Hollywood names - including Martin Scorsese, Woody Allen, and Harvey Weinstein - rushed to his defense. But you would have thought a saint was about to be burned at the stake. Many decried this as unfair persecution, pointing to his artistry, the grisly death of his wife to Charles Manson's followers, and his survival of the Holocaust as proof that he's suffered enough.

And then there's Letterman. A blackmail plot of a CBS producer thwarted by federal officials revealed he had several affairs with female staffers over the years. This from a man who joked for years about not getting any.

Quite a few celebrities, media commentators and fans thought there was no harm, no foul. All the sex was consensual, so who cares? And they feel that those who attack Letterman are moonlighting as moral police officers.

Well, I'm not one to shake a moral stick at anyone but I think both men's supporters are ignoring some inconvenient truths.

Let's start with Polanski. Yes, a recent documentary showed the judge in his case loved publicity and seemed ready to renege on a plea bargain. However, there's a powerful central truth. He plied a 13-year-old girl with champagne and Quaaludes and had sex with her over her protests.

The same documentary showed the same girl, all grown up, stating she forgave Polanski, has moved on and thinks everyone else should, too. But she also reminds the viewer that...Polanski had sex with a 13-year-old girl, which is illegal.

As for Letterman, a former female staffer (who did not have sexual relations with that man) recently wrote a piece exposing the environment created from Letterman's dalliances. While the staffer never witness anything she'd categorize as sexual harassment, there was indeed favoritism. Apparently, Letterman's girls, many very young and with negligible experience, got plum assignments. Some others employees were uncomfortable but felt powerless to speak up.

Plus, there's the general folly of sex in the workplace (Grey's Anatomy notwithstanding). Can a boss who chooses certain employees for sex really create a fair environment? At the very least, there's a skewed balance of power at stake. At worst, an emotional fallout could make things messy - and litigious.

Polanski may have been made into a monster by some zealots, but his supporters queasily go to the extreme in the other direction. They rhapsodize about the movie Chinatown but they easily ignore that...he had sex with a 13-year-old girl, which is illegal.

And Letterman supporters point out he's an entertainer, not a politician bound to a moral code. True. But he also crossed the sexual line on the job and humiliated his wife (who has been with him for 20 years) and the mother of his child with his unfaithfulness (Letterman himself has noted this).

The apologists need to realize that the only apologies in these cases need to come from the men who affected people's lives with their reckless actions.

Men Behaving Badly

Well, it seems our political husbands have been behaving badly lately. And it makes you wonder. Why are so many policymakers intent on blocking strides to legalize gay marriage when they’re doing such a poor job with marriage themselves?

We have John Edwards, whom I thought was as scalded as he could be in the hot water he brewed for his affair with Rielle Hunter. Remember the good old days when it was only an issue that Edwards merely had an affair with the women in charge of making videos for his presidential campaign and maybe the baby she had was really his?

This past week, a book proposal leaked to the media from a former Edwards campaign worker who claimed that his admission of being the father of the baby was a lie to protect Edwards, the real father. Oh, and apparently Edwards told Hunter that when his cancer-stricken wife Elizabeth dies, they will get married in New York and be serenaded by the Dave Matthews Band.

And of course, you recalled South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford’s moronic dance this summer. He was found to have an Argentine mistress, whom he visited on the taxpayers’ dime. I loved how he called his mistress the love of his life but said he would try to fall in love again with his wife, who bore him four sons. Apparently, she is shopping a book of her own.

Lump those jokers in with fellow adulterous (and Republicans) David Vitter and John Ensign – and throw in Elliot Spitzer’s romp with hookers and his resignation of the New York governorship - and you have a peanut gallery of men behaving badly.

And all of this behavior has made my blood boil, as I think about the gay marriage fight, especially as Washington, DC seems poised to approve gay marriage and is bound to face legal opposition. Let’s not talk about if some members of Congress intervene to kill it.

Why don’t these anti-gay conservatives who are trying to protect the “sanctimony” of marriage throw some criticism at married, straight politicians who don’t seem too concerned about respecting their own marriages?

Inevitably, we will have policymakers at the local and national level like Sanford and Ensign who oppose gay marriage and would deny a right to citizens on “moral grounds,” even while they act immorally in their private lives.

It isn’t merely about hypocrisy. It’s the diehard American tendency to uphold ideals that we don’t always follow personally as part of this idea of creating the greater good for larger society. So even if a politician has a dalliance, he likes to think of himself as protecting the family and moral landscape for the good of the country when he votes to strike down a gay marriage initiative or inhibit a woman’s right to an abortion because it offends his vision of right and wrong.

So when there’s another inevitable scandal, I can’t wait to see if the next stooge has gone on record fighting gay marriage and otherwise preaching moral standards. And he’d better be careful walking to avoid the shards from his glass house.

The Enablers

It was supposed to be the moment that Whitney Houston achieved personal, if not career, redemption.

She sat across from Oprah in an empty theater Monday to divulge some unsavory aspects of the last decade of her life when she was at her worst under a haze of drugs and marriage to Bobby Brown. The interview may not have gone as well as Whitney hoped. People have already speculated that she wasn’t completely honest about all the drugs she did. Some thought the whole thing seemed stage-managed for both parties.

But what stayed with me is Whitney as Enabler.

When she was explaining her drug addiction, she said Bobby was the ultimate drug. She was weak with him. He was her addiction. When Oprah asked about abuse, Whitney declared that Bobby was not abusive. But when recounting their life together, she backpedaled.

It seems he “only” slapped her once and shoved her into a wall once (glad that wasn’t a habit, there). Oh and he spit on her – only once. But apparently he belittled her out of professional jealousy and painted evil eyes on their bedroom wall. If that’s not abuse, then what is? But she said everything – the drugs, the appearing very ghetto on Being Bobby Brown – was because she was being the good wife, desperately wanting to please him.

So one of the most popular and powerful women in the history of music didn’t feel empowered enough to leave a bad situation and, what’s more, felt cowed into doing things she supposedly wouldn’t do by a man with a fraction of her talent, wealth, and staying power.

This instantly reminded me of Rihanna another Enabler. After her vicious beatdown by Chris Brown, she was reportedly still seeing him and refused to say a negative thing about him publicly. And did you see Chris Brown’s lame mea culpa on Larry King last week? He was barely apologetic about what he did, refused to give any details of that night or his relationship with Rihanna, and tried to convince America the person that night was not really him.

Now that a judge has forced Chris Brown not to be in contact with Rihanna for five years, I guess she has moved on, if forcibly by law.

Are these women that weak? Are they behaving just as most of us would, convinced our partner “didn’t mean it” and must be supported? But there’s a certain point where accepting certain behavior under the hope of a change or the disillusion of loyalty makes us part of the problem, instead of part of the solution.

A few things have happened in my life personally, where I’ve examined people (formerly) close to me. It’s a battle. One action or even two doesn’t make a whole person. But it’s indicative of character. And there’s a line. Even with forgiveness, there’s a line. These women were clearly dragged over it, although both supposedly are stronger and know better. And one would think the logic they used to choose to stay with their men through the ugliness is faulty.

But I wouldn’t be surprised if it happens again to Whitney, Rihanna, or anyone else. We so easily get sucked into believing things will be better and people will be better.

But we’d better be prepared to act on our own best interests if they aren’t.

The Measure of a Man

As Bernie Madoff sits in his jail cell reflecting on his 150-year sentence, he may be feeling sorry for more than his $55 billion Ponzi scheme. He may be lamenting that his monstrous felony came from an inferiority complex for his small dick.

How do I know his is small? I don’t, at least from firsthand experience (perish the thought). But that’s a juicy truffle of information that comes from a new book written by his mistress who alleges that his insecurities, including those over his, uh, member, contributed to his reckless behavior.

Sheryl Weinstein, the former CFO of the Jewish women's volunteer organization Hadassah, details her yearlong extramarital affair with the world’s best known (and ugliest) swindler in Madoff's Other Secret: Love, Money, Bernie, and Me. She waxes on his capability of sweet romance, but that will surely be overshadowed by discussion of an un-capability.

Weinstein unapologetically declared publicly Madoff’s poor endowment created issues. (Ya think??) She said in a Time magazine article: “I started doing some research, and it can impact the psyche from a very early age. I really did feel that this was a part of Bernie's makeup, a big part of his psyche. I think it started with feelings of inadequacy, his inability to accept failure, his fear of failure.”

A lot of men, at least those under ten inches, occasionally feel a little insecure about size, probably not enough to commit massive fraud but enough to make it – shall we say – front and center We tie our sense of manhood, masculinity, and vitality in our penis, probably without thinking about it.

We joke about friends who are size queens, but we all are in a sense. Do any of us look for small dicks? No. Just like we think about bulging biceps and six packs, we like to imagine big shafts. They’re hot and desirable, and we automatically assign them sexual prowess, though reality has proven that’s not always the case.

When I look back, it’s funny how some guys I met in person from online were proven to have lied about the size they boldly advertised in their profiles. The really funny thing is that some of these guys were nine-plus inches, yet they lied about that extra inch.

Most of us believe bigger is better. The flip side of it is that if we aren’t up to par – in the eyes of ourselves or others – then we become less than. And it affects our security, self-esteem, and ultimately our relationships if we left it.

I admit I give myself the occasional inferiority complex because of my size. I’ve fallen into the thinking that I would be sexier, more desirable if I were bigger. I’ve imagined if a lover felt the least bit disappointed, especially if I thought he was comparing me to someone else who was bigger. I consider myself to have a healthy sexual self-esteem but I work at it because our culture and my insecurities try to steer me on the wrong path. The funny thing is that at the core, I know better but still.

We place so much disproportionate importance on sex and what’s below the waist to define who we are and what we can be. Women seem to be smarter at it and don't have a similar complex. I don’t think Kim Kardashian wishes she were Dolly Parton.

Somehow it’s easy to be seduced into lazy assumptions of how size translates into manhood. I can imagine that money and power boosted Madoff’s sense of masculinity, and it may have assuaged his self consciousness of what Weinstein has painstakingly detailed for Borders shoppers.

Would people not have lost millions if Madoff was happier with what he had? Maybe not. But Madoff could have been happier, and at least knew having a mistress or a big dick doesn’t make you more of a man.

The Lion in Summer

Over these next several days, the newspapers and the TV stations will talk about Ted Kennedy’s lineage, triumphs, scandals, speeches, and most certainly his loving relationship with his wife and his grand role as patriarch to America’s foremost dynasty. Very few are talking about his role as one of the LGBT community’s fiercest supporters.

I’m watching his memorial service live on CNN as we speak. Legions of leaders and celebrities have commemorated what Kennedy has done and what he’s meant. So far (and maybe I just missed it) I haven’t heard anybody talk about his extensive work and unwavering support for gays. It’s too bad that may end up being his most unsung quality.

In a moment to where our president seems to be waffling about his support of us, and when ignoramuses seem to be making a second career of quashing work done for marriage equality, someone as unwavering as Ted Kennedy feels refreshing.

The senator proved to be a brave ally way back in the 80s when he was an advocate for HIV/AIDS, a remarkable thing in a climate when many people, including his colleagues on the Hill, were antagonistic to gays and ignorant of the big disease with the little name. Since then, he repeatedly struck against those, including Jesse Helms, who disparaged gays and actively worked to discriminate against us legally.

Recently, Kennedy had mightily voiced his support Kennedy in 1996 was among 14 senators to vote on the Senate floor against the Defense of Marriage Act. When the Federal Marriage Amendment came to the Senate floor in 2004, Kennedy spoke passionately against banning same-sex marriage in the U.S. Constitution.

“Make no mistake, a vote for the federal marriage constitutional amendment is a vote against civil unions, domestic partnerships and other efforts by states to treat gays and lesbians fairly under the law,” Kennedy said. “It is a vote for imposing discrimination, plain and simple, on all 50 states.”

I met him in person very briefly over two years ago when I worked for a nonprofit that sponsored at an event where he spoke about, among other things, income inequality. He was very nice and passionate about what he believed.

He also proudly and consistently identified him as a liberal. He believed in universal health care, eradicating poverty, and equal rights for all. He frequently reached out across the aisle and was even good friends with Orren Hatch of all people. But that didn’t mean he abandoned his beliefs for political expediency or survival. That’s instructive as we watch President Obama concede large swaths of his health care proposals because of protests and GOP disapproval and refuse to curb the sweetheart deals insurers are receiving in this proposal (and receive on a daily basis).

Obama can take a cue from Kennedy over the coming months (or years?) and show us the support of LGBTs that he pledged in the campaign. The repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and gay marriage are just two topics up to bat. The president has been distressingly quiet on our issues, but he can stand to swallow down a cup of courage and prove his convictions.

The Lion of the Senate has given the Lamb of the White House a lot of lessons to learn.

For a full list of Sen. Kennedy’s leadership on LGBT issues, please visit: http://www.hrcbackstory.org/2009/08/sen-kennedys-leadership-on-lgbt-equality/

The Path of Least Resistance

Well, it’s officially been sanctioned that it’s harmful to be forced to play for the other team. But it’s not all cheering from the sidelines.

The American Psychological Association earlier this month repudiated gay-to-straight counseling in a report, stating that this reparative therapy actually led to depression and suicidal tendencies. And, by the way, it totally doesn’t work.

When I first heard the news, I let out a whoop. The whole notion of using psychology to “change” someone into something more “desirable” left a bad taste in my mouth to say the least.

Under the guise of helping people, gay-to-straight therapy introduced the patently false idea that orientation – indeed a viable identity – could just be changed for the sake of hewing to a societal norm, whatever that is these days. It also brimmed with the cruel irony that idea that steering someone from something “unnatural” was actually betraying that person’s nature.

It’s good to know that an organization that just 40-odd years ago saw homosexuality as a mental disorder is now advising its members, and implicitly all psychiatrists and psychologists, to stop getting clients to magically turn straight.

However, there’s a fly in the ointment, and it’s a buzzing, annoying one.

In addition to instructing members not to seek to change a patient's sexual orientation via therapy because there is no evidence that this is successful, the APA also issued additional guidelines advising therapists how to deal with a patient struggling with their sexual identity. And these guidelines explicitly state that it may sometimes be appropriate for a therapist to help a client deny his sexual orientation because of his faith.

Basically, if the client still believes that affirming same-sex attractions would be sinful or destructive to his faith, psychologists can help him construct an identity that rejects the power of those attractions, the APA says. That might require living celibately, learning to deflect sexual impulses or framing a life of struggle as an opportunity to grow closer to God.

Oh, yeah, that sounds lovely and fulfilling. I don’t belittle faith as I have it in abundance. But it seems to me this exception is a back door method of placing the conflicted person back in the land of shame. Sure, shrinks no more are saying they can or should change orientation, but they will facilitate making the orientation into an eternal struggle that can’t be fulfilled and is violating the person’s Maker.

So, the APA’s new report isn’t quite the progress it seems on the surface. But at least it helps that you have seen ex-ex gays decry their reparative therapy. And fresh on my mind is the Sigourney Weaver TV movie “Prayers for Bobby,” based on the true story of Mary Griffith, a gay rights crusader whose teenage son committed suicide due to her initial religious intolerance. The story painfully conveys the tragedy of shame and self-hatred of one’s sexuality.

I wonder about those gay men and women visiting their therapists who are no longer pushing the fallacy of an orientation change but aren’t encouraging them to embrace who they are. Those poor folks are in a no man’s land. They don’t even have a team of their own.

One Moment In Time

The NAACP just turned 100 and we’re at a crossroads in more ways than one.

In an address to thousands of civil rights leaders, President Obama marked the centennial of the NAACP by paying tribute to its history but calling on activists to tackle modern-day problems. One of these problems was homophobia, and Obama addressed it head on in his discussion of how the pain of inequality long felt by African Americans is felt by people everywhere.

Obama said: "By African-American women paid less for doing the same work as colleagues of a different color and gender. By Latinos made to feel unwelcome in their own country. By Muslim Americans viewed with suspicion for simply kneeling down to pray. By our gay brothers and sisters, still taunted, still attacked, still denied their rights."

Considering the historical reluctance of the African-American community to embrace gays – not to mention the inherent furor for some that gay rights can ever be mentioned along with what’s traditionally seen as “civil rights” – I can imagine that statement was met with polite applause if not a stony silence by some members of the audience.

But that tide is turning. The NAACP's LGBT Equality Task Force was unveiled at a session that spotlighted anti-gay hate crimes and discrimination in schools, employment and marriage. Even five years ago, you wouldn’t have caught me guessing that LGBT issues would be dealt with directly inside the NAACP.

And luckily there are some who are eradicating this false line between the black and gay world. As the National Black Justice Coalition's "At the Crossroads" reported, black LGBT men and women can be disproportionately hurt by government policies harming gay families because, for example, black same-sex households are nearly twice as likely as white ones to having children.

While the traditional civil rights movement is becoming more gay-friendly, it is also incumbent upon gay rights leaders to be more black-friendly. If there was one thing that the Prop. 8 debacle called attention to is that black and gay leaders were not communicating with each other.

The NAACP’s new president Benjamin Jealous seemed to throw down the gauntlet. In an interview, he said, “If gay rights groups want to change the opinion polls in the black community, they have to invest in it. It’s a long-term conversation. The battle to oppose Prop 8 could have been much better run. They came to the black community late, with the expectation that they were going to get certain results.”

Jealous clearly expects gays to mobilize African Americans instead of the other way around, and that’s not a bad idea. There will be a moment that, despite our different histories, we will see that we’re fighting some of the same battles against larger society. And we’ll remember there are those who are African-American AND gay, and we need to fully acknowledge that.

There’s no reason that moment can’t be now.

American Idle?

Well, my favorite American Idol contestant Adam Lambert lost last night. He was easily the best vocalist of the season. And even with his second-place showing, this marks the first time an openly gay contestant has made it this far….whoops! Can’t say that!

Well I kinda just did. But Adam hasn’t really said it. And he still may wait awhile, that coy son of a gun. When he was cornered by the paparazzi a couple of weeks ago and asked, “So if you win, how would it feel to be the first..?” the interviewer veered into silence and hoped Adam will fill in the oh-so-obvious blank. But Adam just smiled and pretended to be stumped. “First what?” he responded with a smirk.

On one hand, Adam’s ascension speaks volumes on how far the country has come in its attitudes on sexuality. Here’s a contestant with all the gay tropes – spiky hair, sequined jackets, super tight pants and jeans, painted fingernails and more eyeliner than Tyra Banks. Oh, and there was that picture of Adam playing tonsil hockey with another man blasted on the Internet. Yet he sailed through the competition, soon surpassing Danny Gokey to become the favorite.

It’s worth remembering that American Idol, at least until recently, was a red state show. The first five winners were from the South. The winners were solidly middle-of-the road, easy-to-root-for types with inspirational backstories. No one was ever too edgy, certainly not “theatrical,” the adjectives the judges and the media loved to use to describe Adam when they weren’t using “Broadway.”

On the other hand, his sexuality, which infuses his work, becomes something forbidden for discussion or acknowledgment. And it’s an odd and perverse step backward for us. Did Adam worry perhaps that being more out would have cost him votes and he wouldn’t have been the runner-up? Did he not want to be an instant role model? Was he already worried about how he could be marketed (You know his CD will drop in about a year, and he has a good chance of outselling Kris Allen)?

Some may think people like me who make a point about his sexual orientation are the ones stepping backward. Haven’t we come to a place where it doesn’t matter? Well, not quite.

Haven’t you noticed that American Idol goes crazy with hometown footage that mines the personal stories of his contestants? I heard 500 times that Danny lost his young wife to cancer not even a few months before his audition. I learned about Kris’ wife and church group. But Adam I learned hardly anything about. Yeah, I saw his proud parents, but everyone has those.

American Idol studiously avoided delving into Adam’s personal life. What are his friends like? Where does he go for fun? What are his hobbies? It’s like everyone was complicit in the code of silence.

If we embrace Adam, than why is there a hesitancy to embrace all of him, least of all by Adam himself? Just today at Entertainment Weekly online, a reporter directly asked Adam about his sexuality. Adam said, “Like I said, I think speculation keeps things very, very interesting.” He’s still not budging.

Some blogs have already speculated whether homophobia played a part in dark horse Kris stealing the crown. That’s not too likely. First, Kris is actually talented, very cute, and connects with the audience. And he was an underdog, and we love our underdogs. Besides, if homophobia were that rampant, Adam’s campy persona would have robbed him of votes a long while ago.

If there’s anyone holding anything back it’s Adam himself – and American Idol itself. It’s ridiculous that a talented queer singer is hiding in plain sight.

Victor/Victorious

Just last week, transgender rights took a huge step forward.

A federal judge awarded Diane Schroer of Alexandria, Va., a former Army Special Forces commander, nearly $500,000 because she was rejected from a job at the Library of Congress while transitioning from a man to a woman. When Diane applied for a terrorism analyst job, she was still a man named David Schroer. When David announced he was having surgery to change his gender, the offer was suddenly rescinded. The judge ruled that was sex discrimination and Diane was entitled to back pay and damages.

I have my own trans workplace story. And no, I didn’t used to be a “Woman About Town.” When I worked as a reporter at one of my former newspapers about a decade ago, I had my first face-to-face experience with someone who is transgendered.

S/he worked on the business side, and was a very nondescript man I barely saw or remembered. Then one day, he came up in the newsroom wearing heels, a skirt, blouse, and badly applied make-up (hey, he was a beginner). The hair was a little different, too, not that you noticed it with all of the other stuff going on.

I adjusted my eyes. Honestly, it was kind of funny, like a homemade moment from “Tootsie.” Did he lose a bet? Was he trying to be funny? What was the deal? A few of us snickered about it. But soon someone told me that he was trans, the real deal. Apparently, he felt he needed to become a woman and he aha started talking pre-surgery hormones. And he decided upon the change in dress and appearance to begin the transition.

I didn’t realize he had on-going conversations with his co-workers in his department and his boss to tell them about his decision, and how that would go medically and socially. So the downstairs folks knew, but the upstairs folks like me had to learn about it through gossipy leaks. Someone else mentioned he was formerly married with children. Someone else whispered one or more of his kids weren’t talking to him/her anymore and s/he would lose custody. I certainly wasn’t going to ask him, um, her. Why delve into his, um, her personal life when I barely knew the (wo)man before?

I did learn the new name: Amanda. (I can’t recall his former name.) One of my co-workers couldn’t resist with a joke: “Maybe he chose that because people respond, “He was really ‘a man…duh!’” Sorry, it’s reporter humor. When I went downstairs for a matter, I would notice his co-workers calmly called him Amanda and didn’t react abnormally at all. Soon, we all did that. Once we discovered what was going on, it was no biggie. Besides, he learned how to do his hair tighter, and he started wearing better ensembles.

When first confronted with the new Amanda, I was a little weirded out, puzzled and uncomfortable at first, especially not knowing what was happening in Amanda’s life. And I can imagine that’s what the Library of Congress officials felt. Soon, it wasn’t about the qualifications, it was about feeling unsettled by a change they didn’t understand.

Well, it’s too bad they ignored the transition period and let fear and discomfort morph into hostility and discrimination. Perhaps if they had the time my co-workers and I had to learn the situation and become a little educated, they could have realized being transgender didn’t have to negatively affect the job or themselves.

Because people seem to wake up when they suffer financially, perhaps this will be an alert to employers on this type of discriminatory behavior. Transgendered people have to make a living, too, and they need a modicum of respect that should be afforded to every other type of human being.

The judge’s ruling is a victory not only for Diane, but also for Amanda.

The Young and the Fearless

I didn’t go to last Saturday’s Youth Pride Day celebration at P Street Beach to join in the celebration, although I thought fleetingly about going by.

No, I’m not twinkie hunting, especially as I’m partnered. Rather, I liked the idea of seeing happy LGBT teens and young adults, already and fearlessly out and proud. I admit I’m a little jealous.
I always envied friends and exes of mine who came out early, particularly in their teens. Sure, the merciless high school caste system is hell for almost everybody who doesn’t fit into the designated norm. But I always felt like they got their “real lives” started a lot sooner.

They quickly learned who among their friends and family was a true supporter. They had open dating lives sooner and no double lives (at least as an adult). They freely participated in social or political activities in high school, college, or beyond. Crucially, their sexuality, accepted and embraced, becomes integrated in the development of their adult selves – character, personality, dreams, and goals. They don’t have to begin again, as it were.

But, with most things, there is a shadow that covers some of the brightness. Over the past couple of weeks, two kids, who never even identified as gay, killed themselves because of anti-gay bullying. Carl Joseph Walker-Hoover, an 11-year-old sixth-grader from Springfield, Mass., hanged himself with an extension cord in his family's home after being subjected to continuous anti-gay harassment at his middle school. Less than two weeks later, Jaheem Herrera, an 11-year-old fifth-grader from DeKalb County, Ga., also hanged himself at home after being the subject of anti-gay taunts from classmates.

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and questioning youth are up to four times more likely to attempt suicide than their heterosexual peers, and those who come from a rejecting family are up to nine times more likely to do so. Two of the top three reasons secondary school students said their peers were most often bullied at school were actual or perceived sexual orientation and gender expression, according to a 2005 report by GLSEN and Harris Interactive.

In the same report, more than a third of middle and high school students said that bullying, name-calling and harassment is a somewhat or very serious problem at their school. Furthermore, two-thirds of middle school students reported being assaulted or harassed in the previous year and only 41 percent said they felt safe at school.

In addition, The Trevor Project fields tens of thousands of calls from young people each year, both straight and LGBT-identified, with rejection and harassment by peers being one of the top five issues reported by callers.

The flip side of youth embracing their true nature is that there are others who are ready to quash it. My fear is that teens who are emboldened to be true to themselves become fewer in number because they may see their well-being – and very lives – are at stake. I wonder if conservative political activist Alan Keyes’ daughter Maya ever thought her father would literally throw her out on the street and cut her off financially because she was a lesbian. But he did. Luckily, she rebounded with outside financial help and attended college, ready for the world professionally and personally.

But it’s disturbing to have such a wicked dichotomy of a more modern time when gays are more accepted but homophobia, and its violent offspring, is still steady. What’s more, plenty of families still soundly reject or disown gay members.

What I hope are those young adults still find the strength to be who they are and find the support they need. Youth Pride Day is making a bold statement just in the fact that being part of the LGBT community is reason to celebrate. Now we need to work on ensuring the bright future they are positive about comes into being.

No Shelter In This Storm

Could homophobes be gasping their last breath?

If patriotism is the refuge of the scoundrel, then desperation may be the last refuge of the bigot. Case in point: This group named National Organization For Marriage has made a video clip posted on YouTube called “The Gathering Storm”: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wp76ly2_NoI

There is a multiracial group of people, all with forlorn faces, standing in front of a background of dark clouds and lightning bolts as an ominous piano bangs away. Essentially it’s a 60-second ad that sees homosexuality and gay marriage as a threat to American life just like, you know, terrorism. Several individuals each provide their biggest fear in succession:

“The winds are strong and I am afraid.”

“My freedom will be taken away.”

“I’m a California doctor who must choose between my faith and my job.”

“I am part of a New Jersey church group punished by the government because we can’t support same sex marriage.”

“I’m a Massachusetts parent helplessly watching public schools teach my son gay marriage is okay.”

“The advocates want to change the way I live.”

But then, lo and behold, the clouds dissipate as a man vows that a “rainbow coalition” (an ironic nod to Jesse Jackson or gay people?) of folks are coming together to do something about the problem. One of my biggest shocks was finding out this ad was produced and broadcast for $1.5 million, when it looks like a parody Saturday Night Live would air in its last half-hour.

This sketchy group, formed in 2007, is really a fund-raising and propaganda-spewing Web site fronted by the right-wing Princeton University professor Robert George and the columnist Maggie Gallagher, who was an architect of President Bush’s abstinence-only marriage initiatives.

The response has been swift … by people who think this ad is a total joke. First, there is a funny parody, also on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0pPEAdDn64. On Stephen Colbert’s show, a clip shows lightning from “the homo storm” striking an Arkansas teacher, turning him gay. A “New Jersey pastor” whose church has been “turned into an Abercrombie & Fitch” declares that he likes gay people, “but only as hilarious best friends in TV and movies.”

What struck me most was that this seems to be the conservative’s right most prominent response to the gay marriage victories in Iowa and Vermont. But fewer people are buying this tripe. Media stories with evangelicals decrying the marriage victories as a moral apocalypse have been scarce.

Are the homophobes losing their touch? Even Miss California’s fumbling response to gay marriage in the Miss America contest – remember how she said she had to be “Biblically correct” and declare marriage is between a man and a woman only – earned her some audience boos and public derision.

Suddenly, it seems kind of ridiculous to decry gays and gay marriage. The problem is the homophobes can never really explain what the threat is and how it will manifest. Remember when they said we were coming after their children? Didn’t happen. Well, supposedly gay marriage will destroy the family and the institution of marriage. But how? They never really say but just know it will. Sorry, but my mother was the only one in my life with whom I tolerated an answer of “Because I said so.” And that hasn’t worked in 20 years.

So this empty mantra of threat gets repeated without discerning the how and why. And, despite an ever-present homophobia in this society, the logic behind that homophobia is falling away quickly. So becoming an anti-gay spokesperson is losing its luster and effectiveness. I think some of these conservatives are seeing they have little to argue against – or for. Punchy quotes only get you so far.

Look no further than Dr. Laura – she of former “gayness as a biological error and gateway to pedophilia” thinking – recently declared on Larry King committed gay relationships as “a beautiful thing and a healthy thing.” Yes, they are and just as valid as straight relationships.

If only the National Organization For Marriage used that money for something more useful, like a donation to a food bank. Their side show is playing to smaller capacity crowds these days.

Author, Author!

I’m a writer trying to get published. I learned Monday that being a gay writer was apparently an obstacle on Amazon.com.

Just a few days ago, writer Mark Probst began a nationwide furor after he posted on his blog that he'd noticed the sales rankings on hundreds of gay and lesbian books -- including the newly released Transgressions by Erastes and False Colors by Alex Beecroft -- had suddenly disappeared on Amazon.com. Even established and distinguished writers, including Gore Vidal, Annie Proulx and E.M. Forster, suddenly lost their best-seller ranking, which is the number that Amazon uses to show how well one title sells compared with another.

The rankings often help produce more sales. In response to a note Probst sent the online retailer, an Amazon.com representative said, "In consideration of our entire customer base, we exclude 'adult' material from appearing in some searches and best seller lists."

Apparently, it was found that this "adult" tag was also being given to Heather Has Two Mommies (remember that one??) and Ellen DeGeneres' autobiography. If you’ve ever seen DeGeneres’ writings, concerts, films, and of course TV talk show, you know the woman hovers under PG-13. And get this. The explicit memoir by porn star Ron Jeremy and Playboy: The Complete Centerfolds, which includes pictures of more than 600 naked women, are still being ranked like nothing ever happened.

There was much wailing and gnashing of teeth by me. As it is, online retailers and bookstores often marginalize LGBT literature, and literature by authors of color for that matter. We often have a small section in a store or on a site apart from everyone else. Something like this makes it worse.

It hit home with me because I’m in the middle of efforts to self-publish my first novel, and it will likely involve a print on demand option, whereby my novel would be available online and link to sites like Amazon.com for exposure. I imagined someone acquainted with me looking for my book or other books b y gay authors and not finding them.

Amazon.com later came out with a statement declaring the tag was a search error that has been resolved, adding that it also affected books in the area of erotica, health, and medicine. There apparently was no deliberate effort to shot out LGBT-themed work. I’m a little skeptical. How could Playboy: The Complete Centerfolds not have been tagged in the erotica category? I’m not even going to talk about Mr. Jeremy.

This was tantamount to an electronic, if temporary, ban of sorts. Even if there was an error, someone had to program certain key words into the system in the first place. And it makes me wonder why words like “gay” and “lesbian” – and apparently the sexual orientation of authors – became some sort of red flag that banished literary works into the forbidden category.

Would this have been corrected if no one had raised a ruckus about it? I have my doubts. I’m very concerned because amazon.com is the #1 portal for not just books, but other products online. You have to wonder if other sites that sell literature, movies, or anything else could do the same thing to censor gay content.

When it’s my turn to get out there, I don’t want to be blocked or censored. It’s enough for any writer these days just to win and maintain an audience.

Married to the Idea

Geez, my mourning over the Prop. 8 debacle had barely subsided when, all of the sudden, gay marriage opportunities seem to be popping up over the place. Like just this past week.

I know President Obama ushered in change but April is proving to be a watershed for us at a ridiculous speed. First, the Iowa Supreme Court approved gay marriage. Then on Tuesday, Vermont's lawmakers defied Governor Jim Douglas with a veto override, making their state the nation's first to establish gay marriage by a vote rather than by judicial decree. That same day here in Washington, D.C., the city council chose to give legal recognition to gay and lesbian residents who have been married elsewhere, similar to New York state’s current policy.

All of that news was good to hear and I smiled at each development I heard. Being a DC resident, it felt like marriage rights were within grasp. But I have a bucket of lukewarm water to throw. On a federal level, we’re still behind and may never catch up in our lifetime.

Let’s not forget about the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the federal law that makes it illegal for the U.S. government — as opposed to individual states — to recognize gay couples as married regardless of the marriage or civil union laws of a particular state. Even talk of federally recognized civil unions is meaningless until DOMA is repealed, since the act also prohibits the appearance of marriage, no matter what the relationship is called.

Remember, even in Massachusetts, we can't enjoy the tax benefits that straight couples do. For example, when one half of a gay couple who live together and co-own their house dies, the survivor still has to pay an inheritance tax. Spouses of gay federal employees cannot be covered by government health plans.

And federal immigration laws can still force couples apart with deportation regardless of marital or civil union status I just read an article in the San Francisco Chronicle about a lesbian couple – registered as domestic partner for 23 years - with twin 12-year-olds. But one of them, who is not a U.S. citizen, will have to be deported to the Philippines in a couple of weeks. Can you imagine a situation of being plucked from your partner and family suddenly and being deposited in another continent?

But that’s the rub, and that’s why these recent marital victories are short-lived when you put them under the glare of the big picture. It’s like getting 65% of your rights.

Considering that Obama and many members of Congress have pledged support for civil unions as an alternative to gay marriage, it’s difficult to imagine who would champion gay marriage as at the federal level. And let’s not forget many federal judges, including a few Supreme Court justices, are conservatives put into power by President Bush. A national gay marriage victory is very unlikely if a case goes to the higher courts.

So while we may have won a few battles, we are hardly winning the war. It will take a long time for truly full and equal rights, I suspect. Perhaps I should be more joyful about celebrating what we have earned. Some prominent evangelicals interviewed concede they feel the ground shifting beneath their feet. Could we truly be reaching a new era?

This is an instance to where I hope I’m proved wrong and it all will be in our grasp. Cool. I can have fun imagining being registered at Bed, bath & Beyond.

Guerrilla Warfare

Are the breeders trying to take over?

A note from a columnist of Out Magazine, in its latest April edition, struck me as funny. The writer Jesse Archer nearly snapped his neck with whiplash when he entered a gay bar and saw a man and a woman kissing. He went on to fret about how straights, perhaps out of curiosity or a sense of rebelliousness, are invading our gay spots. According to Archer, the straights’ “insistent, increasing appearance on the gay scene is cause for global concern.”

With a nod to interesting timing, Metro Weekly’s latest cover features the trio behind the Guerrilla Queer Bar. The group organizes outings where a bunch of gay men and women descend on a straight bar or restaurant unannounced, kind of a triangle invasion on the breeders’ territory. The whole idea is to promote social integration between the orientations, as it were.

Well, Jesse, there is no homosexual apocalypse on the horizon. In fact, your fears are unwarranted and your thinking is perpetuating a segregation philosophy we don’t need.

First, after bar and club hopping at numerous cities over my lifetime, I can safely say the percentage of straights present – minus the requisite fag hags – has always been very small. It’s more likely that Canada will take over China than straights will take over a gay hangout.

Anyway, I thought Archer’s response, though partly tongue-in-cheek, failed to look at the other side of the coin. How would he respond if a gay couple showed some sign of affection in a place mainly populated by straights, and a few of them gave the couple the stink eye. Surely, he would be appalled at such a negative reaction. We get in trouble often when we have an attitude of someone “not belonging.” Where do we draw the line? Class? Race? Gender?

I get feeling territorial about our hangouts. In sheer numbers, there are more bars and clubs dedicated for straights. So we feel like any perceived encroachment is war. It’s ludicrous to think straights can take us over socially. Besides, our culture often sets trends so it’s no wonder curiosity is sparked.

But I side more with the attitude of the Guerrilla Queer Bar. Groups have their own needs and desires to get together with their own. But people will, and need to, mix sometimes. It’s healthy. Besides, how can we hope to spread tolerance of gays when we steadfastly remove ourselves from the wider world and straights don’t get to know all of who we are?

Sadly, Guerrilla’s current trio of coordinators is stepping down so there’s a big question mark of it will continue. Even if the group becomes no more, I hope the sentiment remains.

It's A Wrap

Next time you reach for that pack of Trojans, just remember the pope is somewhere shaking his head at you in disapproval.

You may have heard Pope Benedict XVI, on a recent trip to Cameroon, told reporters on his plane that when it came to the AIDS crisis, "You can't resolve it with the distribution of condoms. On the contrary, it increases the problem."

That statement was rather ironic, considering he was making a goodwill trip to sub-Saharan Africa, where three-quarters of all AIDS deaths worldwide in 2007 occurred. The region is also where some 22 million people are infected with HIV — accounting for two-thirds of the world's infections, according to UNAIDS.

At the risk of not being invited to the next party thrown by one of my Catholic friends, I think the pope’s message is downright dangerous and he deserves all the condemnation he’s been getting and will get. France and the United Nations are only two entities that have been critical of the pope’s statement over the past week.

And I side with them. How does using something that has been proven to reduce transmission of the HIV virus increase the problem? It appears His Not-So-Excellency is using his ideology as a blunt force instrument. I get that as a strict Catholic, he frowns on premarital sex, birth control, and such. But when you have a health crisis, pragmatism — not religious dogma — needs to be in the driver’s seat.

Senior Vatican officials have advocated fidelity in marriage and abstinence from premarital sex as key weapons in the fight against AIDS. Fine. But don’t also exclude and condemn something that is a proven measure to prevent HIV infections. If the pope is serious about HIV, he should focus on promoting wide access to condoms and spreading information on how to use them. Like with any major dilemma, there needs to be a multi-faceted approach.

The pope’s message reminds me of the Bush administration officials and conservative forces who pushed for abstinence-only sex education in schools. In their world, everything would be perfect if we were all heterosexual, got married at 25, and only then proceeded to have sex. Well, the world isn’t – and never really has been – like that. Even those who go to mass and church service regularly have sex outside of marriage regularly. Are we going to let a religious ideal be the guiding light in getting through this?

The facts don’t support the abstinence-only supporters. Study after study has found abstinence-only efforts are not effective in fully educating young adults, reducing teen birth rates, or slowing the spread of STDs. In fact, a news article I read found that polls suggest a vast majority of parents want comprehensive sex education, which would include an abstinence component.

Even some priests and nuns working with those infected with the AIDS virus question the church's opposition to condoms amid the pandemic ravaging Africa. So do ordinary Africans.

My fear is that regardless of what some may feel about the pope and the Vatican as a whole, the words of Pope Benedict XVI carry a lot of weight and influence. Africa, for example, is the fastest-growing region for the Catholic Church. It’s not ridiculous to assume that some followers will take the pope’s words at face values and not use condoms, to the detriment of their health and others.

The pope also said last week he intends to make an appeal for "international solidarity" for Africa in the face of the global economic downturn. He said while the church does not propose specific economic solutions, it can give "spiritual and moral" suggestions.

Well, the condom thing is one suggestion that needs to be shelved. Forever.

Solitary Man

Do you remember that screechy treacle of a song from the 1970s “All By Myself” that Celine Dion had the misjudgment to remake in the 90s? That song made me laugh when director Gus Van Sant used it in his satire “To Die For.” Nicole Kidman’s character, at the funeral of her husband, turned on a boom box to play it during the service and telegraph her sadness.

The song, or really the mere title, popped into my head when I chatted with a friend and asked him if he was dating someone. He merely shook his head. Then he added very calmly that he no longer plans his life assuming it will be shared by a significant other. He said not everyone’s lot in life is to have a partner into your twilight years.

It made total sense. Yet that idea is scary to a lot of us. Being alone. Straight or gay, friends and relatives needle single people about their status. “When are you going to settle down?” “When are you going to get partnered, or married?” “Everyone needs someone.” “I’m worried about you.” “What if you get old and there’s no one to take care of you?”

It’s like a reflex with people. I heard some of that in my single periods in between relationships, and I got sick and tired of the supposedly sympathetic gestures. I was never scared of being unattached. Let’s face it. Independence, freedom, and variety can be fun and good. I had to convince people I was fine with singledom, and even then, some thought I was just saying something out of pride.

Yet, I can be a culprit too. When I talk to my single friends, one of the first few questions will likely be if they are dating someone. It’s almost an inborn reaction. I don’t react negatively if they say no, but yet why is it such a priority when there are a thousand other things to talk about?

It may be something innate within us that sees being single as unnatural and even tragic. Look at the Metro Weekly “Coverboy Confidential” section. Over half of the responses to the question of greatest fear are being alone. If a man or woman has friends, family, and financial stability, is not having a boyfriend, girlfriend, or spouse a really big void to fill? Ideally, you are a happy person without a relationship, and the other person only adds to your blessings.

It’s rather silly a lot of us are troubled by singledom when all of us have been through it and will face it. After all, unless you’re Jennifer Lopez, you have had space – weeks, months, or even years – between relationships. Who hasn’t had a break-up for a divorce? And even if you are partnered now and it lasts 30, 40 years, one of you will die eventually, and you or the other will be alone. Everyone experiences singledom. So why do we insist on making it scary and daunting?

And isn’t it funny that “alone” is used only in context of a romantic relationship? Is an unpartnered man or woman with a good job, friends and loving family really alone? No, he or she is single or unmarried. Perhaps someone with a fervent goal of a partner and perhaps a family does see being single as an unhappy state because it represents an important goal that’s unfulfilled. That’s fair. Hopefully, that person is not seen as a failure of an ideal.

But people like my friend shouldn’t be pitied in the least. He’s made peace that happiness comes in various ways and if he’s meant to have a mister, it will happen eventually. Until then, he’ll be a happy bachelor and we will talk about a lot more than dating.

Abuse of Power

Well, it seems Rihanna has reconciled with Chris Brown. Pause to let my eyes finish rolling.

Unless you’ve read so much about Octomom that you forgot the original story, Brown allegedly battered Rihanna last month, sparking so much chatter some of us forgot we were in a recession. Well, Rihanna took him back, perhaps giving up her self-respect in the process.

Almost everyone I talked to about it just couldn’t believe a young, pretty, talented, and wealthy woman would go back to someone who physically abused her, no matter if the man is a heartthrob. Okay, forgiveness is a good thing. So is atonement if it’s sincere. But is their reconciliation sending a bad message that physical abuse can be tolerated?

As straights are debating this, it makes me wonder how big of a problem abuse is in the LGBT community. I suspect it’s largely a silent problem. It’s funny that reflecting on anecdotal evidence, I only can think of two LGBT people who were in physically abusive relationships. One was an ex and one was a friend of a friend. Both stayed with the significant other for awhile afterward.

Reliable statistics about domestic violence among same-sex couples are hard to come by, experts say. According to the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs, there were 3,534 reported incidents of domestic violence against lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgender persons in 2006, the most recent statistics available. The data, however, is taken from major cities where anti-violence programs are found, such as Chicago, New York, San Francisco and Houston. Imagine if rural and outer areas were included.

The Campus Violence Prevent Project, affiliated with the University of Wisconsin, assembled some statistics in 2006 from national surveys done a few years earlier. They concluded:

· The prevalence of domestic violence among Gay and Lesbian couples is approximately 25 - 33%.
· Each year, between 50,000 and 100,000 Lesbian women and as many as 500,000 Gay men are battered.
· While same-sex battering mirrors heterosexual battering both in type and prevalence, its victims receive fewer protections.
· Seven states define domestic violence in a way that excludes same-sex victims; 21 states have sodomy laws that may require same-sex victims to confess to a crime in order to prove they are in a domestic relationship.

So it seems we can neither get married legally (in most places) nor get fair legal protection for domestic violence. Great. If we don’t feel the law gives us a fair shake, I imagine some LGBT abuse victims would never seek help in the first place.

Also I suspect there are many silent sufferers of abuse. And having a same-sex dynamic complicates things. I imagine some men and women are too ashamed to go to anybody if they’ve ever been abused by someone of the same gender, primarily because society gives us a snicker instead of sympathy. People think a man should be able to protect himself from another man, and so on. Traditional gender roles can interfere with abuse being taken seriously and being dealt with swiftly.

I hope no LGBT friend or family member has been an abuse victim and is remaining quiet. If the Rihanna situation at least has brought domestic violence to the forefront – at least for a moment – let’s hope the questions of how we need to deal with this linger long after the next tabloid fixation.

Morals Clause

When does a gay event involving sex warrant a protest? Or warrant a warrant?

Last month during Mid-Atlantic Leather Weekend (which kinda got overshadowed by the inauguration that same weekend), a religious group that believes homosexuality is “evil” tried to keep a leather S&M party from happening at the Doubletree Hotel in Arlington.

The head of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, a group “dedicated to exposing the homosexual activist agenda,” tried to stop a “play party” because such an event in a hotel conference room is “illegal and a public health concern.” Oh, and it’s also immoral.

From what I’ve been able to gather, the party went on as scheduled. It seems Truth wanted to protect our sense of morals, but it’s a very selective set of morals.

First, think about just how wrong the president’s statement was. What exactly is illegal? Unless money exchanged hands, there’s no prostitution. And the last time I checked, people were allowed to have consensual sex in a private room. (Perhaps there’s a whip-brandishing prohibition in the state legislature that we overlooked). And the hotel allowed a private suite for this. At midnight. Impressionable youngsters would hardly be ambling into the room for the shock of their lives.

As far as a health concern, I don’t see an added risk different than straight couple or groups getting together (and don’t for a second think that doesn’t happen). Maybe Truth assumed everyone at the party would be doing it raw, but somehow I don’t think the group was fixated on condoms and safe sex.

The real reason is the “moral” issue, but it seems to be more about finding gay sexuality threatening and trying to shut it down. This is a city full of gentleman’s clubs and little flyers tucked under windshield wipers with pictures of half-naked women for clubs, parties, or whatever. And since when is S&M a strictly gay concept?

I would have more respect for this Truth organization if they flew to Los Angels and showed up at the Playboy Mansion to protest Hugh Hefner and beseech him to close down his bunny den of iniquity. After all, people don’t go there just for the champagne. Hell, some of Hefner’s playmates have their own reality show on VH1 – indicative of a kind of middle-America acceptance.

But something that advertises “pig sex” seems to be the final straw for some moralists. The already grim view they hold on gays becomes stretched to the breaking point. They may not be crazy about the Playboy Mansion, but because heterosexuality is their idea of the only “normal” orientation, Hugh and Co. are relatively forgivable. But men in leather who dare to fly their freak flag are sick bastards.

I think people like Truth members don’t pick up on the inequity of their moral focus. It reminds me of straights I have met who castigate homosexuality but have sex and/or live together outside of marriage. The virtue of being straight makes something seem not as bad as, you know, the other people.

Perhaps Truth needs to ask itself who and what it is fighting for, and to what end. It’s almost funny to have moral saviors try to rescue people who don’t need to be saved.

Going for the Gold

The Oscars are Sunday and curiously few of my gay friends are mentioning any parties for the night. I thought we were supposed to flock to the TV like texting teens do to American Idol.

Anyway, I could end up watching Sean Penn stroll to the podium to take the Academy Award as Best Actor for Milk. I would be pleased as I thought he did a phenomenal job and it would be kind of a rebuke to a post-Prop. 8 country. A Penn victory would also make me wonder how far we’ve really come in the LGBT community as a whole.

Sounds strange but give me a minute. Penn would be the latest line of straight actors getting Oscar gold for playing gay. Think about Tom Hanks in Philadelphia, Phillip Seymour Hoffman in Capote, and Charlize Theron in Monster, for example. And remember Sunday’s lock for a win – the dearly departed Heath Ledger aka “The Joker”, who was Oscar-nominated for his turn as a closeted cowboy in Brokeback Mountain.

I don’t want to take anything away from these great performances, but they reveal a double standard that plays into how we’re still viewed in society. Straights playing gay even now are lauded for being “brave” and “daring.” Wow, look at how they fiercely portray a gay man or lesbian, risking their image and the rumors that are sure to circulate.

What the hell? They are just playing other human beings. Hollywood is quantifying their celluloid leap as controversial and giving them unbridled praise because, in part, they are playing “the other.” That’s what we still are in many minds, even in Hollywood, even in 2009.

Why is it that few out gay actors are given gay roles in major movies? Is it a fear of typecasting on the actors’ part? Will the audience assume a gay man playing a gay role is not acting? And will Hollywood not cast openly gay actors in straight roles because they assume the audience will never believe them in those roles? Hardly seems fair it never goes the other way around.

When we see major gay portrayals on screen, it’s largely as the comic relief and/or the trusted fag hag to Julia Roberts, Reese Witherspoon, Anne Hathaway, etc. Those roles are broad and non-threatening. They don’t penetrate the surface and get under the skin of movie goers. They don’t illuminate the gay experience so much as pick a few superficial traits to flaunt. So we can be Jack on Will and Grace, but not Harvey Milk. We can’t tell our own stories in the studio films.

Are we still in a space to where an entertainer who comes out has to worry about his or her career? It seems so. Think about major figures whose sexual orientation has long been questioned: Anderson Cooper, Kenny Chesney, Tom Cruise, Kevin Spacey, and the list goes on.

As Hollywood (and other big media) embraces gay portrayals, why do some of its native gay sons still feel the need to stay in the closet? In my above list, I’d bet my life at least two of them are 100% gay, and I’m sure there are many others.

I hear people sympathize with celebrities with double lives because they still think coming out is a career killer. Is that just paranoia or are we just feeding off the vibes we get from larger society, many of whose members still experience a discomfort of gayness? Will we be in 2039 and having gay actors still afraid to come out and having plum gay parts going to straight actors who can make it clear that it’s just a role and they’re not really…you know? Will we still be imagining ourselves as a more tolerant society despite evidence to the contrary?

I just read that Jim Carrey will star in a new movie called I Love You, Phillip Morris and play a gay character, based on a real-life conman who falls in love with his cellmate in prison. The movie played at Sundance and already it’s getting raves, and some are praising Carrey “for daring” to play gay.

Carrey doesn’t help matters as he freely admitted it was “scary” to have to kiss his co-star Ewan McGregor. (But darnit, someone has to do it!) This feeds into the ass-backward Hollywood double-standard of praising our stories (portrayed by straights) while tacitly following the common thinking of being gay as “shocking” or some other life form altogether.

By the way, isn’t it funny that no one ever asked Anthony Hopkins if playing a cannibal in Silence of the Lambs would ruin his career? Well, I guess it’s just a role, right?

Haggard Faces

Lately, I’ve been trying to figure out who’s been making the biggest media tour of self-promotion under the guise of justice and truth-telling – Ted Haggard or Rod Blagojevich?

Since Blago is a pompous windbag who was impeached and is really yesterday’s news, let’s go to the Colorado pastor who famously was evicted from his flock after revelations of gay affairs that he insist do not make him gay. See, isn’t that more fun?

In case you don’t own a television, Haggard has been on Oprah, Larry King, and other news outlets on the heels of an HBO documentary on his life directed by Nancy Pelosi’s daughter. The married evangelical is openly calling himself a liar and a hypocrite for anti-gay declarations and fighting gay marriage when it turns out he had sex with men.

In 2006, Haggard confessed to a money-for-sex relationship with former escort Mike Jones, from whom he also purchased crystal meth. Haggard was forced out of New Life Church in Colorado Springs, Colo., and the National Association of Evangelicals. Meanwhile, it was recently revealed that Haggard was sexually involved with former church member Grant Haas.

It’s interesting that Haggard’s self-flagellation doesn’t extend to his admitting that he’s anything near gay. Instead, he has gone one to say that he is “heterosexual with homosexual attachments” or “heterosexual with complications.” Coy? Oy!

Haggard reminds me of presumably straight men who sleep with men but don’t see themselves as gay. For them, dalliances with men are just sex and not any point of identity. The irony is that they almost totally define gay men by their sexuality.

Gay critics (deservedly) have scorched Haggard with fire-breathing criticisms. I despise his character too, but I’m going to go out on a limb and say I feel sorry for him.

I don’t mean sorry as in I would give him a hug and say everything will be alright. I mean pity that he’s in deep denial and contorting his true nature to where his insides are more of a puzzle than his replies to interviewers’ questions. He’s creating his own Dante’s inferno without the Dante.

Even while Haggard praises his wife and makes pains to say he has a happy marriage and still wants his wife sexually, he still admits he’ s attracted to men – but he is no longer acting on it or trying not to, anyway. Perhaps the years in a religious environment that is virulently anti-gay, he morphed into a homophobic crusader even as the elephant in the room grew louder. Or maybe he thought any life without wife and kids seemed not normal and unspeakable.

However free he may sound, I know he in anguish. Those “feelings” won’t go away because they are a part of who he is. Haggard is just one soldier in an army of men who lead double lives and for whatever reason, can’t bring themselves to acknowledge and embrace gayness they have. For them, sexuality is never free because it’s bound by doubt and shame. He’s not overcoming anything so much as supplanting everything.

Some people are angry that the documentary seems to paint him in a sympathetic light. It does to a large degree. But it also gives us the picture of a man perpetually in conflict, trying in vain to convince people – maybe more so himself – that he’s not “really gay.”

So he can get a six-figure book deal, a talk show, and maybe a new church. But he doesn’t really win. As long as he tries to cocoon himself in a façade of heterosexuality, he will continue to break his own heart every day.

A May-December Affair To Remember

The rising politician gets felled by sex scandal when his affair with a young intern comes to light and makes headlines, followed by calls for his resignation.

No, you’re not in caught in one of those Lost time warps, landing back in 1998 to watch the Bill-Monica fiasco. You’re watching the nation’s most prominent gay mayor – Sam Adams of Portland, Ore. – sweating in the spotlight after he copped to romancing an 18-year-old intern and then lying about the relationship before his election last November.

Adams, 45, last month publicly acknowledged that as a city commissioner he grew interested in Beau Breedlove, then 17, and had sex with him after he turned 18, the legal age of consent in Oregon. Adams has admitted lying about the relationship in 2007 as he was considering a run for mayor and asking Breedlove to lie about it, too.

The state’s attorney general is investigating to see if a crime was committed, namely third-degree sex abuse. What, you say? Well, twinkie Breedlove admitted that they kissed at least twice while he was 17, including a “lingering” smooch in a City Hall bathroom (I was ready to guess near the lockers after algebra class).

All this mess has made me wonder if Adams (and by extension Breedlove) will be treated differently because he’s gay. I suspect so.

Because sexuality is our most defining trait, fair or unfair, in the public mind, matters involving sex then take a disproportionately larger role in people’s perception of us. So some people wanting to bury Adams are motivated in part by their disapproval and disgust of homosexuality and gay sex.

Too much of a leap? Critics, including reporters, bloggers, officials and local residents, have already taken to calling Adams a "predator" and a "pedophile." It’s worth noting many of these criticisms came when all intimacy between the two was thought to occur after Breedlove’s 18th birthday – when both were consenting adults in the eyes of the law.

It would be one thing if these criticisms emphasized the unequal balance of power in this relationship, which I think is a key point of concern. When someone is technically your boss, are the boundaries completely set? Can you really go to 100% professional mode from 9-5, and freakydink mode at night, and no issues of control and power ever come into play? I doubt it. That was a legitimate issue with Clinton, Leader of the Free World, and Lewinsky, flirtatious Valley girl.

The bigger problem is that Adams lied about it and asked his former lover to lie. If he did nothing wrong in his mind, why cover it up? And there is the age difference. Breedlove claimed that he knew the full ramifications of what he was doing even when he first met his “mentor” Adams – more than twice his age – before the hanky-panky. Yeah, I thought I knew everything when I was 17 and 18, too.

But most of the current flack really comes from the idea of Adams as chicken hawk swooping down on boy Breedlove. The “pedophile” tag comes out of hoary stereotypes linking homosexuality with child abuse.

Unless this investigation does determine laws were broken, I don’t think Adams should lose his job, just like I didn’t think Clinton should have lost his. That’s not to say Adams did nothing wrong. He behaved inappropriately in his capacity as a local lawmaker. If he had a hankering for barely legal things, he could have gone to Portland’s version of Apex on Thursday nights instead of City Hall. Just like Clinton shouldn’t have been blown in the Oval Office while waiting for Yasser Arafat’s phone call.

But it’s not quite the same, is it? It’s hard to assume if Breedlove were female that Adams would be seen as a threat to all impressionable young women, like he’s seen as now with impressionable young men. Clinton, and other straight politicians (think John Edwards, David Vitter) caught up in sex scandals, are rascally and tacky skirt chasers. Gay politicians, or those caught up in a gay scandal (think Larry Craig), have a deeper shadow cast on them. They become “sick,” “disgusting” or “predatory.” There's an exaggerated sense of shock and titillation perpetuated by the media.

Maybe that’s why Adams lied. He knows there are different standards and perceptions. And once the haze of romance cleared and the reporters started sniffing around because of the affair rumors, he knew he’d be dead meat if he was honest. Unfortunately for Adams, that may happen anyway.

A Whiter Shade of Pale

Two good friends attended last week’s “Out For Equality” Inaugural Ball, hosted by the Human Rights Campaign.

When I asked one of them the day after what he thought of the event, I was expecting tales about noshing on shrimp with Melissa Etheridge and getting Thelma Houston to sing the hook of “Don’t Leave Me This Way.” Instead, they were kind of bummed because the Mayflower room hardly had any people of color. Apparently, it was whiter than the population of Maine.

Here we were, ushering in the nation’s first African-American president and the diversity didn’t extend to the gayest event in the city. I don’t blame organizers because, well, they con’t populate the hotel with a greater racial mix if that mix isn’t already in the gay power structure.

And that’s the bottom line. The Mayflower that night reflects a reality and a constant problem that the gay movement is still embarrassingly un-diverse. And it will continue to cost us.

Exhibit A: Prop. 8. The voter turnout – with a majority of African-Americans and Latinos voting for the anti-gay marriage measure – and the postmortem analysis by gay activists revealed a lack of outreach efforts by gays to minority groups on this issue. There was an arrogant assumption that one minority should always be in the corner of another minority.

What it also showed is that increasing diversity from the grassroots level to the big financial and political players is not a priority. Things may be a little better that ten years ago, but there is still a startling lack of people of color in gay activism. For example, can you name three non-white leaders or spokespeople of mainstream gay groups or interests? I’ll wait.

Now part of the problem may be a Catch-22. An organization or group that is vastly white may make an effort to recruit members of color. But gay minorities, suspicious there aren’t very many people like them, may demur because they are uncomfortable with the lack of diversity. So two well-meaning sides can’t meet in the middle.

The time has come to not assume every LGBT person is progressive and knows to be inclusive within our community. Look at how many gay DC residents willingly segregate themselves on racial terms when they socialize. Look at how some gays and lesbians scorn, or are uncomfortable with, transgendered people.

It only benefits the greater cause when the gay movement becomes more integrated, incorporates different points of view, and amasses a bigger collective of people that can change the world as much as President Obama likely will.

Sadly, the fact that we are discriminated against by heterosexuals doesn’t seem to lend itself to us being conscientious about our own prejudices.

Below the Surface

Since e-Harmony doesn’t want us, perhaps it’s time more of us who are relationship-oriented and seeking potential partners took the law of romance into our own hands.

That’s what psychotherapist Ken Page did over four years ago. The New Yorker led retreats on personal growth and wondered if there was a less superficial way for gay men and women to meet.

Out of the Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Community Center in Manhattan, he led a workshop called “Deeper Dating” one day in 2004. Just like the format that endures to this day, the event started with a talk on sexuality, intimacy, and spirituality and then led to social exercises where participants mingle and share personal feelings and insights with others. Each attendee was allowed to give a paper with a name and phone number to 10 other people, who had to accept the contact information but were not obligated to have to go out with that person.

Some 100 gay men attended the original workshop. On average, Page says, 50 people monthly turn out now for Deeper Dating in New York, which is always led by a trained clinician. (Page stopped leading the exercises but oversees the program.)

“It’s like speed dating with soul,” Page said. “I thought I’d do it once but people didn’t want to leave. People just don’t realize there’s a gentler way to do this.”

Deeper Dating (http://www.deeperdating.com/) promotes the idea that a desire for a substantial relationship also entails having deeper personal values, such as a sense of community. And unless we choose lovers – and friends for that matter – with similar values, Page believes, we will feel out of place and possibly lose a shot at happiness.

So far Deeper Dating is also in Provincetown, Boston, and New Jersey. (There have also been versions created for straights, lesbians, and bears at last count.) DC may be on the list sometime in the future. I think a lot of Washingtonians would welcome it.

Offhand, the premise of Deeper Dating may sound too Oprah-ish and feel-good for some folks. Values? Feelings? In some ways that flies against the currency of the gay modern dating world where cynicism and superficiality often muscle each other out for first place.

But there are plenty of us who have grown tired of what the dating and club scene has to offer. And from what I’ve been hearing anecdotally, match.com – which allows gay and lesbian online dating profiles unlike e-Harmony – hasn’t seemed to be the golden ticket for some subscribers.

Page said the idea for Deeper Dating percolated after a talk with his best friend on the travails of relationships, which made him realize that dating wouldn’t work with men whose values he didn’t share. So he set to work on designing a dating forum that would put emphasis on personality, feelings and values, what Page fancies as “re-learning dating skills.” He also feels Deeper Dating helps people avoid the tendency to create an “airbrushed” version of who they really are to try to impress people.

Sessions, for example, focus on not just going after others you find attractive, but conversing with someone who may not be your physical ideal, yet who shapes up to be interesting and inspiring. Attendees answer questions such as which faraway friend or family member is very important to their lives and why, so others get a better sense of their priorities and thoughts.

“The conventional wisdom is that you have to improve yourself, like lose weight,” he said. “The task is not to improve ourselves but be ourselves.”

Page, who has an adopted son and is still single, said this emphasis on relationships has helped him in his dating life. He is much braver about approaching people, and less afraid to let men know he’s interested.

“The people I date now are so much better people,” he said. “I wanted an event where people show the best part of themselves.”

Silent Prayer

Next Tuesday, I’m braving a crowd of millions, cold weather, and a wickedly high people-Porta Potty ratio to see Barack Obama sworn in as our next President. Yes, I’ll be huddling on the Mall with my partner and possibly a few friends watching the ceremony from a JumboTron screen if truth be told, but I’ll be there.

I’ve been asked how I’ll react when Rev. Rick Warren steps to the podium to deliver the invocation. In case you’ve been living under a rock, Obama’s pick of Warren to open the ceremony in prayer caused a furor from the LGBT community because of his vigorous support of Prop. 8 and his past remarks comparing gay marriage to incest, pedophilia and polygamy. And until just last month in fact, his Saddleback Church in California had language on its Web site stating gay people would not be accepted as members.

When Obama announced his pick of Warren, I was truly disappointed. If he wanted a massively popular evangelist to prove he was reaching out to the other side of the aisle, why not someone like Joel Osteen? At least from what I’ve seen on his recent “60 Minutes” profile, Osteen is all about extolling the positive qualities of Christianity, not the divisive ones. He avoids politics and “those people” talk.

But I won’t boo or hiss Tuesday morning. I’ll listen to what Warren will have to say, albeit without applause. I’ve learned over these few weeks, though, not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Despite being a lackluster choice, I don’t think it reflects Obama’s character or the progress we will enjoy with him in the Oval Office.

First, if Warren’s opposition to gay marriage is a sore spot, then that inauguration platform would be mostly empty. Remember, even Obama (yet) doesn’t endorse full gay marriage. And not very many pastors, even those who are affirming, do.

Yes, Warren is ignorant about homosexuality, despite professing that he loves us and he had a very nice talk with Melissa Etheridge at some event. (I had a nice talk with my calculus professor freshman year, but he still gave me a C.) But here’s why Warren’s presence fades when the big picture arises:

1. Obama chose Rev. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire, an openly gay bishop who advises him on gay issues, to open the inaugural festivities Sunday at the Lincoln Memorial. The Episcopal bishop said he was not asked in reaction to the furor over Warren. "They made it very clear with me, and I certainly do believe them, that this was in the works for some time," Robinson told USA TODAY.

2. The families accompanying Obama on a train ride to DC from Philadelphia on Sunday include a lesbian couple.

3. Obama has recently made several gay appointments. Nancy Sutley, a Los Angeles deputy mayor, has been named to head the White House Council on Environmental Quality. Gay advocates say they believe more gay appointments are in the offing. Fred Hochberg will head the Export-Import Bank, and Brian Bond will be deputy director of public liaison.

4. Incoming White House spokesman Robert Gibbs recently declared that Obama plans to end the "don't ask, don't tell" policy that requires gay members of the military to hide their sexual orientation.

Obama fancies himself showcasing different voices, even ones that offend, and encouraging reconciliation and that in of itself is not a bad goal. It’s worth noting that when Robinson’s role was announced, the Christian right started making declarations that Obama was remiss for selecting someone whose views offend some Americans (sound familiar?). And let’s not forget the ceremony will be closed out in prayer by Black minister and civil rights leader Joseph Lowery.

The bottom line is that Obama can and, I believe, will do more for gay rights and gay equality than any previous president, or any leading politician for that matter. So when Warren does his thing, I will quickly forget about him and think about the man who will later place his hand on the Bible, take his oath, and lead our country out of this mess.