A rumor I heard...

So I heard this rumor, that BMW or some dealership thereof, normally has a bunch of cars in the SF Pride Parade but this year they will not. I heard from a BMW employee that this year the event's organizers had the gall to demand $10,000 (or some five number figure) for their cars' registration in the parade. Well, I was told by the BMW employee, that's absurd so there will be no BMW gay pride cars in the pride parade this year!

This BMW employee is a very nice guy, he's not a company stooge, he's totally genuine. But honestly I say Good, make BMW pay through their fucking nose to be in the parade! It would be insane not to.

Here's why.
BMW is rolling in dough, they make ROLLS ROYCES. If a company like that wants to pledge their support for gay causes by way of some primo target marketing I see no reason why they shouldn't pay for the privilege. Someone's got to pay for all the leather daddy, AIDS Awareness, and Unitarian church groups who can't afford to contribute high registration fees. Hell times are tough all over. I'd understand if this was Ford, but BMW?!? The fact that this is a deal breaker for BMW borders on the offensive! An implicit component of their refusal is the gay's aren't worth their money. Hell if I had a major company I'd pay $20,000 to have my product featured at the event that is bound to be the highest concentration of single white men with discriminating tastes in the Unite States at any one time.

Also I'm glad, hell I'm elated that there will be no BMW car section of the parade, I'll be even more pleased if there's no BMW section at all with employees marching on foot. Money and pride are a toxic combination (ever been on a date with a Harvard graduate?) BMW is not pride, Starbucks is not pride, Target is not Pride. Pride is about total self acceptance and comfort to the point of fearless self-expression. It's about a throng of social outcasts coming together to claim one day in 364 as their own. Ours. Money, of course is neccessary to fund Pride, fabulousness alone cannot rent a major sound system, event organizer, or temporary stage. But the ethos of the day should be unfettered from blatant capitalism. The focus should be more copulation and less corporation, because while Pride is about love with sex coming in a close second.

The Boys In The Bond

Hugh Jackman and Daniel Craig will be performing in a Broadway show together. IT IS NOT I REPEAT NOT A MUSICAL!
From UK's "The Mirror"

Daniel Craig and Hugh Jackman are set to co-star in a Broadway play this autumn.
The New York Post reports that the Hollywood heart throbs will appear in "A Steady Rain," a two character play about Chicago policemen "whose lifelong friendship is put to the test when they become involved in a domestic dispute in a poor neighbourhood".

Hugh, who is currently starring in X-Men film Wolverine, is no stranger to Broadway, having won a prestigious Tony award for his role in the musical The Boy From Oz. But Daniel will be making his Broadway debut.

The play will be produced by Barbara Broccoli, who is also a producer on the James Bond films.

I find it very very interesting that these two are appearing in a "straight play" where they will play cops. Presumably lots of Mametesque dialogue, macho posturing, etc etc. and not in a musical. It seems that these two beefcakes are more "metro" than recent action stars (Jackman as Peter Allen and Tony host, Craig as the first 007 to be as thoroughly objectified as his female costars as well as the first Bond to really show emotions like grief) and yet they don't seem to want to wade into a musical, an artform that seems to have taken its place alongside drag as irrecoverably gay. Maybe there's a simpler reason, maybe Craig can't sing or dance, but I wish these two could appear next season on the Great White Way and not have to hedge their appearance in American theater behind the macho character of cops.

Then again how macho can a show called "A Steady Rain" be? It sounds like a Tova Feldshuh vehicle about a dissolving marriage between a Jew and Gentile during Hitler's rise to power.

Log Cabin Obstructionist

Gay marriage could have been legal TODAY in New Hampshire if it wasn't, in part, for a gay Republican in the New Hampshire Congress.

A week ago Governor Lynch of NH made it very clear that he would sign a marriage equality bill as long as religious groups were exempted from performing same-sex marriages. In Lynch's own words:

This morning, I met with House and Senate leaders, and the sponsors of this legislation, and gave them language that will provide additional protections to religious institutions.

This new language will provide the strongest and clearest protections for religious institutions and associations, and for the individuals working with such institutions.
It will make clear that they cannot be forced to act in ways that violate their deeply held religious principles.

If the legislature passes this language, I will sign the same-sex marriage bill into law. If the legislature doesn’t pass these provisions, I will veto it.

Simple enough right?

Today the state Senate agreed and added the proposed language into the bill voting on party lines. The House however said "no." By two votes no less. Why did the Democrat-controlled House vote against the bill? Reuters has some answers:

State Representative Steve Vaillancourt, a gay Republican from Manchester, was a leading voice against the amendment securing religious liberties, saying that the House should not be "bullied" by the governor.

Vaillancourt said an earlier bill that did not provide protections to clerics or religious groups was the one that should have been passed, adding that the amended bill would allow discrimination to be written into state law.

Ok let's unpack this shall we?

1) It's not bullying for the Governor to ask for a change in a proposed bill that could otherwise cause him huge amounts of political grief. When he ran for office Lynch said he opposed gay marriage. Now he's finally doing what's right but asking for a little political coverage at the same time. Why begrudge him that?

2) The proposed gay marriage bill, even without the wording proposed by the Governor, would not compel religious institutions to perform same-sex unions, so really why fight this?

3) It's called separation of church and state! The Establishment Clause was designed not only to ensure secularity in public life, but to also ensure the government wouldn't encroach on religious liberty.

Hopefully the NH Senate and House will be able to hammer out a workable compromise in committee.

Um...about that economic case against gay marriage...

A day after Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele suggested that Republicans appeal to voters' pocket books when it comes to opposing gay marriage two new studies have shown that gay marriage has been a robust boon to the Massachusetts economy in the five years since its legalization. The Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law found that gay marriage has generated $111 million in revenues for the Bay State and, in a separate study, that "young, highly educated people in same-sex relationships were 2.5 times more likely to move to Massachusetts after 2004 than before gay marriage became legal."

So hateful prick chairman Steele, I agree, let's gage the merits of civil rights based on their economic value, and based on empirical evidence it would appear that gay marriage makes the cut. Hell don't take my word for it, just listen to study co-author M.V. Lee Badgett who believes, "allowing gay couples to marry has helped businesses in tough economic times."

Then again anyone with half a brain cell could figure out that states granting formerly oppressed couples the right to partake in a ritual that is as much consumer spending orgy as it is a life-long vow of commitment would increase revenues. But again don't take my word for it, take Tina Fey's (from 2004 no less, sorry no video available):

Tina Fey: The Massachusetts court decision to allow gay marriages this week may prove to be a divisive issue in the upcoming presidential election. President Bush is likely torn because he has to protect what he sees is a sacred institution, and yet he knows gay marriage would boost the economy. ‘Cause you know those gay guys would go all out. We’re talking about designer wedding cakes, twenty-thousand-dollar sleeveless tuxedos, giant naked-man ice sculptures that pee Mojitos, they’d hire Patti LaBelle as the band, give out African parrots as party favors, it would be redonkulous. So remember, whatever your political beliefs, a vote to allow gay marriage is a vote for a fabulous economy!

Michael Steele, from hilarious diversion to hateful prick

It's all fun and games until somebody loses their civil rights.

Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele has done it again, and his most recent statement puts to shame his past often hilarious pronouncements that he would bring the Republican brand to “urban-suburban hip-hop settings,” that Rush Limbaugh is more than a mere "entertainer," and (to listeners of his radio show) that he would "empathize right on your behind." Yesterday Steele told Republicans they should OPPOSE GAY MARRIAGE ON ECONOMIC GROUNDS, from the AP:

Republicans can reach a broader base by recasting gay marriage as an issue that could dent pocketbooks as small businesses spend more on health care and other benefits, GOP Chairman Michael Steele said Saturday.

Steele said that was just an example of how the party can retool its message to appeal to young voters and minorities without sacrificing core conservative principles...'

'Now all of a sudden I've got someone who wasn't a spouse before, that I had no responsibility for, who is now getting claimed as a spouse that I now have financial responsibility for,' Steele told Republicans at the state convention in traditionally conservative Georgia. 'So how do I pay for that? Who pays for that? You just cost me money.'

This is just sickening, it's far more offensive than this week's earlier fracas when Arkansas state rep and 2010 GOP senate candidate Kim Henderson referred to Senator Chuck Schumer as "that Jew." Steele is arguing that civil equality and social justice should be halted because, you know, they cost money. What's worse he's suggesting that this shallowest of all possible reasons for opposing gay marriage now be how republicans define the issue.

Not to draw too obvious (or perhaps overly broad) parallels but imagine Dixiecrats campaigning in the Jim Crow South arguing that we can't financially afford a racially integrated society; imagine states in the 19th century, arguing women shouldn't have the right to own property because the economic ramifications would be too great; hell the South argued that the union would go bankrupt if slave labor was abolished. This is the esteemed company Steele's logic for banning same-sex marriage is keeping.

That I, a Gay American, am not worthy of the financial protection that marriage confers is even more hateful than the standard "the bible says it's a sin" argument against same-sex marriage. The sin argument comes down to a difference in religious beliefs, Michael Steele by contrast just came out and said queers aren't worth a dime. What a prick!

More evidence Giuliani is a jerk (as if more were needed)...

THIS WEEKEND, FORMER NYC MAYOR AND NOTED DRAG ENTHUSIAST RUDI GIULIANI (below with the Trump) SKIPPED THE WEDDING OF THE GAY COUPLE WHO LET HIM STAY IN THEIR APARTMENT FOR MONTHS AFTER HIS WIFE KICKED HIM OUT OF GRACY MANSION FOR HAVING AN AFFAIR!

From the NY POST :

The couple [Koeppel and Hsiao] famously let the ex-mayor crash at their luxury $2.37 million three-bedroom Manhattan apartment while he was going through a nasty divorce with Donna Hanover in 2001. Later, Giuliani married the "other woman," Judith Nathan. " Rudy and Judith were both invited with a beautiful written invitation by mail," said Koeppel. "His secretary called Thursday and said he was not able to come to the wedding and wished us all the best."

Seriously? Gulliani declined through HIS SECRETARY?

You know what? It gets WORSE...

According to Queerty the wedding wasn't some grand fete where one could easily ignore the absence of an important friend of the family, THE NUPTIALS WERE A 10 GUEST AFFAIR.

A follow-up in the POST reveals that Koeppel and Hsiao anticipated Giuliani acting like a douche:

"We're still friends,"...Koeppel said, "I danced at his wedding with [his wife] Judith [Nathan], and it would have been nice if he'd danced at mine." Hsiao said the ex-mayor's snub "did not spoil the day -- we actually didn't expect him to come." Koeppel said, "I understand why he's doing what he's doing. If he decides to run for governor . . . he's a Republican, and he's taking a Republican stand" on same-sex marriage.

WHAT A JERK!

Weekly Queer Index: 4/19/09-4/25/09

This week saw some important advances for us queers including two big leaps forward for the transgender community.

A COLORADO MAN BEING SENTENCED TO LIFE IN PRISON IN THE FIRST PROSECUTION OF A HATE CRIMES LAW AGAINST A TRANS PERSON IN THE COUNTRY IS: GOOD FOR THE GAYS*.

Angie Zapata was a 18 year old trans woman who had been living as a woman for at least two years. She had a loving and supportive family, often bringing home boyfriends to meet her mother and siblings. In the summer of 2008 Angie Zapata started corresponding with Allen Andrade, 32, over a social networking site. They met on July15th, spent several days together and then Andrade beat Angie to do with a fire extinguisher. He was arrested and claimed a classic "gay panic" defense, in this case a trans panic defense. But the evidence showed that his actions were not the result of some temporary insanity but came out of a deep hatred. Andrade told police that he had "killed it." In a phone call from jail to a girlfriend Andrade said, "all gay things must die...It’s not like I went up to a school teacher and shot her in the head… or like I killed a law-abiding straight citizen."
It was statements like these that lead Andrade to be charged for first degree murder and hate crimes. On Wednesday April 22nd, Andrade was found guilty on all counts, it took the jury less than two hours to deliberate and the judge sentenced him to life in prison without the possibility of parole. This the first successful conviction of defendant under a transgender hate crime statute. This is really a historic event, prosecuting murderers of transgender persons has been a notoriously difficult task. In 2002, two men were convicted of second degree murder for the death of another transgendered teen, Gwen Araujo, but were not found guilty of the "hate crime enhancements" that would have added years to their sentences. And in 1994, William Palmer was acquitted of murdering a transgender woman in Boston in what has to be one of the greatest miscarriages of justice this town has ever seen. Justice was done last week in Denver, and for that we should be hopeful. *Gay used here (as always) as an umbrella term encompassing everyone in the GLBT alphabet soup.

WASHINGTON STATE PASSING A TRANS-INCLUSIVE HATE CRIME BILL INTO LAW IS: GOOD FOR THE GAYS.
Speaking of transgender hate crime protections, the state of Washington just amended it's hate crimes statute by, "modifying the definition of "sexual orientation" for malicious harassment prosecution purposes" to include "gender expression or identity."

Washington is only the 12th state to enact trans-inclusive hate crime protections (even pinko Massachusetts hasn't secured that yet) and as the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force noted Washington is only the 7th state to enact "a clearly trans-inclusive safe schools law."As if the tragic case of Angie Zapata wasn't strong enough evidence to show how important transgender protection laws are, Joe McDermott writing on the Washington State Democrats Blog observed:

According to a recent study by the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs, reported acts of violence against LGBT people rose by 24 percent in 2007. Of the reported incidents, 16 percent were motivated by anti-transgender bias. Hate crimes against transgender men alone increased by 65 percent

And now moving onto the gay marriage front....

A MAJORITY OF NEW YORKERS SUPPORTING GAY MARRIAGE IS: GOOD FOR THE GAYS (in theory).

Last week's WQI celebrated Gov Paterson's decision to introduce a bill into the state legislature that would approve gay marriage in the state. Two recent polls of NY state residents show robust support for gay marriage. A Siena College Research Institute Poll shows a 53% to 39% approval, and a few weeks ago a Quinnipiac University poll found 41% approve of gay marriages, 33% of civil unions, and 19% for no recognition. However, the gay marriage bill is stalled in the Senate, where majority leader (and gay marriage supporter) Malcolm Smith has promised to table the bill until there are enough votes to ensure its passage (when that will be is unclear). Paterson for his part has agreed to follow the state senate's lead (or lack thereof).

So there you have it, unambiguous public support for an incredibly important civil rights issue which does not translate into effective legislative action. Queer New York activists better get a move on if they don't want to be upstaged by Iowa.

A MAJORITY OF NEW JERSIANS SUPPORTING GAY MARRIAGE IS: GOOD FOR THE GAYS (in theory).


Another Quinnipiac poll out last week shows that New Jersey residents approve of gay marriage 49% to 43%. When civil unions are thrown in as a poll option gay marriage still polls best with 42% for marriage, 30% for unions, and 20% for no recognition respectively. Only 30% of those polled believed that gay marriage was a threat to "traditional marriage." The New Jersey legislature will vote on a gay marriage bill later this year.


Did I mention this poll was taken a week AFTER N.O.M. started airing their "Gathering Storm" ad in the state.

The tides are turning.

MISS CALIFORNIA SUPPORTING "OPPOSITE MARRIAGE" AND LOOSING THE MISS USA CROWN IS: A MIXED BAG FOR THE GAYS.

It all started Sunday April 19th, when Miss California, Carrie Prejean, was asked a question by "celebrity blogger" Perez Hilton during the Miss USA pageant.

“Vermont recently became the fourth state to legalize same-sex marriage. Do you think every state should follow suit? Why or why not?”

Let's go to the tape:

Miss California lost the MISS USA Pageant but finished as a runner-up and blamed the results of the pageant on Perez.

THEN Perez Hilton made a video blog about the whole situation.


With that "dumb bitch" and the threat that he would have "smacked that tiara off her head" had she won, Perez perhaps undid all the goodwill his question had created. It's one thing to ask a contestant a contentious question, but when you pick on someone with a persecution complex or very low self-esteem (the general make-up of beauty pageant contestants and gay opposition) they fight back because they feel it validates their irrational feelings of persecution. Miss California basically said in her answer what Perez said he wanted to hear from her, she talked about personal rather than state choice, but the idea was the same. Of course Ms. Prejean sounded dumber than a barbie doll, but this is a beauty contest not Jeopardy. And it would have been totally fine for Perez Hilton to talk, post show, about how sickening it is to think of civil rights being put up to a vote. But just as it's rather sickening to turn civil rights into an electoral question, it's EQUALLY SICKENING TO TURN THE BATTLE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS INTO A CAT FIGHT.

Let's elevate the discourse PLEASE, there's nothing saying we can't call haters dumb or bitches, but strategically speaking, picking on beauty pageant contestants is about as useful as the pageants themselves.

WQI Total

Good: 4
Mixed: 1
Bad: 0

RIP Bea Aurthur

There are now as many surviving Beatles as Golden Girls.

Coincidence???

Three of the best Youtube clips floating around there to remember that Golden Girl of stage and screen.

BEA READING FROM PAMELA ANDERSON'S OPUS


BEA AND ROCK HUDSON SINGING ABOUT POPPERS, SPEED, AND MARY JANE


Golden Girls Bloopers - Watch more funny videos here
GOLDEN GIRL BLOOPERS

Weekly Queer Index: 4/12/09-4/18/09

If the two weeks before last were seismic events for us gays, than last week was marked less by a continued shaking than by minor aftershocks.

THE OBAMAS INVITING CHILDREN OF SAME-SEX COUPLES TO THE TRADITIONAL WHITE HOUSE EASTER EGG ROLL IS: GOOD FOR THE GAYS


The White House Easter Egg Roll is one of those supremely hokey and highly ritualized public performances that the White House has to pull out the stops for every year. As if electing someone President isn't enough, we demand to see footage of our Commander In Chief interacting with children in a competent way (the armchair shrink in me says it has something to do with us projecting onto our President a paternal role that casts the voters as the de facto children).


Anywho, traditionally tickets to the event are given out on a first-come-first-serve basis but this year special efforts were made to give blocks of tickets to GLBT organizations including: Human Rights Campaign, Family Equality Council and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. This is actually a big step beause it means the White House is going out of its way to be inclusive towards the GLBT community (inclusive though not down right progressive).

Compare this year's event to the Roll in 2006, when 100 gay families obtained a block of tickets (by camping out all night in front of the White House) to show Bush that gays and lesbians exist in real life and don't have horns and the sign of the beast tattooed onto their foreheads. At the time the Weekly Standard lamented that gays planned to, "crash the event with a 'family visibility action' to spotlight their non-traditional families. " Bear in mind this was only three years ago.

This distinction between the acts of past and current administration is important in measuring the pace of progress. As Alisa Surkis, a gay mother who took part in the 2006 "crashing" and also attended this year's Roll wrote in the HuffPo:

I've heard people complain that the invitation extended to the gay and lesbian families by the Obama administration is just a symbolic gesture, but symbols are powerful. This one sends the message that at the very highest levels, our families are acknowledged and appreciated as part of the diversity of families that make this country great...Sure, I wish that the administration was spearheading the repeal of DOMA and DADT. I wish that President Obama was speaking out in favor of marriage equality. But I think it's a bit of a chicken and egg issue. Does society change in response to the signals sent by legislative changes, or do changes in people's attitudes push forward legislation? I think it's a little bit of chicken and a little bit of egg, and this Monday is a day to celebrate the egg (roll).

Amen sister.


AMAZON.COM CAUSING A CYBERSTORM AFTER "ACCIDENTALLY" DELETING THE RANKING OF GLBT BOOKS ON THEIR SITE IS: A MIXED BAG FOR THE GAYS.


This story isn't just notable for the potentially intentional actions of Amazon, but also for the massive shit storm of cyber outrage that the so-called "glitch" incited. To sum up the events: last weekend gay author Mark Probst posted a blog entry about the mysterious disappearance of sales-rankings for gay-themed books on Amazon.com. Amazon was still selling the books in question, but because they weren't ranked they didn't show up prominently in search results. More damning was an email from Amazon to Probst explaining that the de-ranking was part of Amazon's policy of excluding "'adult' material from appearing in some searches and best seller lists."

As the outrage spread on twitter and the blogosphere it became clear that Amazon’s stated rationale didn’t hold water. The de-ranking covered a HUGE range of GLBT books from self-help: Outing Yourself: How to Come Out as Lesbian or Gay to Your Family, Friends, and Coworkers and Hello Cruel World: 101 Alternatives to Suicide for Teens, Freaks and Other Outlaws to classics like Giovanni's Room, Heather Has Two Mommies, and Brokeback Mountain. Entertainment Weekly also noted that heterosexual erotica such as, "a raunchy memoir by porn star Ron Jeremy and Playboy: The Complete Centerfolds, which includes pictures of more than 600 naked women, are still being ranked."

By last Monday Amazon had re-established rankings for the excluded books and upgraded its excuse for the debacle from a "glitch" to a "ham-fisted cataloging error ." The exact nature of what caused the rankings to be stripped is still being debated, but the most salient feature of this whole episode is the fact that within days, perhaps even hours after the glitch occurred, us queers and our allies were mobilized and putting Amazon on the defensive. This is exactly the kind of rapid response that the queer community needs if it’s going to successfully fight for its civil rights in a number of future uphill battles. This may only have been a test, but we passed with flying colors.

MCCAIN'S DAUGHTER, AND CAMPAIGN STRATEGIST COMING OUT TO SUPPORT GAY MARRIAGE IS: A MIXED BAG FOR THE GAYS.

Gays last week got a purely symbolic boost from what can only be described as the "centrist fringe" of the Republican party as both Steve Schmidt, McCain's former campaign strategist, and Meghan McCain, his daughter (and "blogger") both came out in support of gay marriage. Sure, it's always good to have more people on our side, but within the GOP these are the last people anyone is going to listen to. The McCain campaign isn't thought of very highly (think how the left feels about Kerry and his campaign), and when it comes to campaign strategy, Mr. Schidt's domain, the consensus has been negative across the aisle. Weeks before the presidential race was even decided in November, the NYTimes magazine ran a scathing article entitled "The Making (and Remaking and Remaking) of the Candidate"showing just how inept the McCain campaign (and especially Steve Schmidt) was at selling a long serving senator, decorated war-hero, and the loving father of several children (including one adopted from Mother Teresa's orphanage no less) as a winning presidential candidate. The failure (and anger) towards McCain, Schmidt, and Co. in the eyes of the right is even greater when one considers that from their perspective McCain's opponent was a largely unknown, bi-racial, first-term senator whom a tenth of the electorate stupidly believe is a Muslim.

Schmidt, who has a gay sister, gave his endorsement for gay marriage at a Log Cabin Republican Convention last Friday. Even his verbal support for gay marriage came in the form of a backhanded compliment:

I know mine is a minority view among Republicans, and I don’t honestly expect our party will reverse in the very near term its opposition to same sex marriage. Nor do I yet see support for it from a strong majority of the general public. And, I do believe that such a highly charged political question such as this should be settled by the freely expressed will of the people, and not by the courts.

Apparently one can be for gay marriage and feed the right talking points at the same time. Glad to see Mr. Schmidt has overcome his messaging problems.

As for Meghan McCain, she's fast morphing into a savvy blogger more than any sort of political figure. Sensing a vacancy of young GOP contrarians, Ms. McCain has lambasted Ann Coulter as well as Karl Rove, and in a blog post on the Daily Beast last week confusingly declared herself a "pro-life, pro-gay-marriage Republican." Might I suggest the slogan: Government, out of our bedroom, into our exam rooms? She also gave a speech at the Log Cabin Republican's Convention that was curiously almost completely devoid of any mention of sexual orientation.

The biggest problem for queers with these endorsements is that the Republicans could siphon even more gay votes away from the Democrats. Last election more queers voted for McCain than voted for Bush in 2004, we were the only demographic to move more to the right. The Democrats talk a good game but outside of invites to the White House Easter Egg Roll, actual action on a federal level by the Dems for gay rights has been consistantly nill. If the GOP splits the gay vote it will be because they'll be able to talk the talk like the Dems, but neither party will be walking the walk, and that will benefit no one. Still nice to see the sane among the GOP are raising their voices.

WASHINGTON STATE'S LEGISLATURE EXPANDING RIGHTS COVERED UNDER CIVIL UNIONS IS: A MIXED BAG FOR THE GAYS
Last week the Washington State Legislature approved a bill that would extend the benefits from an earlier civil unions law passed two years ago, to include all the rights currently enjoyed by heterosexual married couples in the state. All rights and benefits save marriage itself. Governor Chris Gregoire has promised to sign the bill into law. The bill was hotly debated but passed with a two-thirds majority. Despite being home to Seattle, the second gayest city in the country, Washington state has a Defense of Marriage Act that was passed in 1998. The state Supreme Court refused to overturn the DOMA three years ago citing the legislature's right to, "further the State's legitimate interests in procreation and the well-being of children." Pardon me while I gag.

On the one hand, civil unions seem like a great compromise, except that if you recall last week's WQI, Nate Silver made the astonishing prediction that support for anti-gay marriage amendments would become a minority opinion in all states by 2024. Washington State was among the states that Silver predicts already has an anti-gay marriage minority. So it's disheartening to see progress in the state manifest itself through what is essentially the final piece of a a civil rights installment plan that grants same-sex couples "everything but marriage." Will passing a civil unions law today kick the fight for full marriage down the road? Only time will tell.

NY GOV PATERSON PLANNING TO INTRODUCE A BILL TO THE LEGISLATURE TO APPROVE GAY MARRIAGE IS: GOOD FOR THE GAYS.

New York, which has no civil unions or domestic partnership laws, could become the fifth state in the union to allow gay marriage.

Two years ago, then Gov Elliot Spitzer promised to introduce a bill to allow gay marriage in the state. Then Spitzer decided to spend more time with his family (ahem). His successor, Paterson, had a grand introduction onto the queer stage months after taking office by marching in the NYC gay pride parade, the first Governor in the state to do so.

The legislation is far from a sure thing though. According to Gothamist:

The State Assembly has previously passed a gay marriage bill in 2007, but it stalled in the Republican-controlled Senate. Though the Senate is now controlled by Democrats, the majority is fractured and Senate Majority leader Smith's spokesperson said last week, "Currently, there are not sufficient votes in the Senate to pass the marriage equality bill.

NEVADA'S GOV PROMISING TO VETO A DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP LAW IS: BAD FOR THE GAYS AND ABSOLUTELY INSANE.
So, suppose you're the Governor of a state that invented the drive-thru wedding, the quickie divorce (once referred to as a "Reno Divorce"), has legalized prostitution, and who's primary tourist attraction is advertised as a haven for bad behavior. Now suppose your legislature sends you a bill that would set-up domestic partnerships in your state, a law you don't want to sign for some stupid reason. You can't argue that signing the bill would detract from the institution of marriage because eroding the sanctity of marriage is big business for your state. You can't argue that the bill would encourage deviant behavior because that too turns a profit in your state. But you have to give SOME reason for vetoing the bill so you merely say, "I just don't believe in it."

Way to go Governor! Las Vegas is feeling the financial crunch and you're turning down domestic partnerships when you should be pushing for gay marriages to prop up your economy. Don't let the door hit you on your way out of office.

This Week's Totals
GOOD: 2
MIXED: 3
BAD (and insane): 1

Weekly Queer Index: You guys just don't understand, you've all ready loast addition.

The cavalcade of homosexual progress continues unabated after another week of stellar news. Not only have the last week's events in Vermont and Iowa indeed proved good for the gays, but new events are rekindling an excitement and momentum in the community that seemed lost following the passage of Prop 8. Let's review this week's news items:

IOWA LAWMAKERS REFUSING TO ACT ON A MOTION TO INTRODUCE LEGISLATION TO BAN GAY MARRIAGE IS: GOOD FOR THE GAYS.


As was noted in last week's WQI, Iowa's Supreme Court ruled the state could not forbid same-sex couples to marry; a move that when coupled with Iowa's arguous system for approving constitutional ammendments, all but gaurenteed a permanent win for gays in the state. All but gaurenteed as long as the Iowa Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal stayed true to his word and blocked attempts to introduce legislation that would ammend the state constitution. Well Gronstall did more than just deliver on his promise, in rejecting a colleague's attempts to introduce a bill to ammend the constitution, Gronstal made a quietly impassioned speech for gay marriage (you MUST watch the video of it). Among the choice quotes from his speech:

One of my daughters was in the workplace...and there were a whole bunch of conservative older men, and those guys were talking about gay marriage. They were talking about discussions going on across the country. And my daughter Kate, after listening to it for about 20 minutes, said to them, "you guys don't understand, you've already lost. My generation doesn't care." I think I learned something from my daughter the other day.

With that observation Gronstal ensured gay marriage's safety in Iowa until at least 2014, by which time it's doubtful Iowans will vote to overturn the court ruling.

The generational divide on the issue of gay marriage became something more than a talking point (or blog leitmotif) this week following news of our next item.

NATE SILVER ANALYZING DEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS TO PREDICT GAY MARRIAGE WILL BE UNOPPOSED IN THE US WITHIN 25 YEARS IS: GOOD FOR THE GAYS.

Nate Silver and his blog fivethirtyeight.com is the closest thing we in America have to Nostrodamus. While many pollsters make grand claims on scant evidence, Silver's methodology is based on a careful readings of statistics and is startlingly accurate. His statistical models sucessfully predicted the outcome of every settled senate race in the 08 elections, the breakdown of the 08 presidential popular vote (within tenths of a precentage point), and the unlikely resurgance of the Tampa Devilrays last season.
He' also really cute.

In a post this week examining the likelihood of Iowa banning gay marriage, Silver made an astonishing claim: a marked downward trend of support to ban gay marriage of roughly two points a year.

Silver created a suprisingly accurate model of state-by-state rejection of marriage protectionism through regression analysis of three variables:

1. The year in which the amendment [to ban gay marriage] was voted upon [by a state];
2. The percentage of adults in 2008 Gallup tracking surveys who said that religion was an important part of their daily lives;
3. The percentage of white evangelicals in the state.

According to his predictions the last state to have enough of an electoral opposition to gay marriage would be Mississippi, which would itself be demographically pro-gay marriage by 2024.

If this seems oddly rosy even Silver himself acknowledges the many problems his model faces (public backlash around increasing gay rights for one). Also not having enough votes to block gay marriage doesn't necessarily mean there are enough votes to pass it.

In a follow-up post from last Thursday, Silver reiterated that the crux of his arguement is about generational differences:

Support for gay marriage, however, is strongly generational. In a CBS news poll conducted last month, 64 percent of voters aged 18-45 supported either gay marriage or civil unions, but only 45 percent of voters aged 65 and up did. Civil unions have already achieved the support of an outright majority of Americans, and as those older voters are replaced by younger ones, the smart money is that gay marriage will reach majority status too at some point in the 2010's.

After a week like this though it does seem possible that gay marriage could be legal everywhere in the next twenty years. The next item perfectly captures the bredth of the momentum.

THE VERMONT LEGISLATURE VOTING FOR GAY MARRIAGE AND OVERRIDING A GUBERNATORIAL VETO AGAINST IT IS: GOOD FOR THE GAYS.

The fact that the Vermont legislature passed this law, and that it passed it with a super-majority (two-thirds) of its elected officials truly makes this a watershed event: the first state to legalize same-sex marriage through legislation. The override vote was a squeaker, passing by a single vote, but again this was a super-majority of the legislature. In the past, conservatives arguing against gay marriage (in CA, MA, and CT) used court actions as a large part of their argument. They contended that this reversal of past norms was being ordered by court fiat, and that only voters and legislators should have the right to make this kind of policy decision. Vermont did just what the conservatives demanded; any petition in the future to ban gay marriage will have to be opposed to gay marriage on it's own terms and not use "activist judges" as an excuse.

Also, this is only the 7th overide of a Govenor's veto in the state's history.

DC CITY COUNCIL VOTING UNANIMOUSLY TO RECOGNIZE SAME-SE WEDDINGS PERFORMED IN OTHER STATES IS: GOOD FOR THE GAYS

This bit of news is a bit of a sticky wicket. First off it's worth noting that the DC Council did not vote to start performing gay marriages, but only to start recognizing gay marriages performed in other states. Also this was a preliminary vote, a final vote is needed next month before this can become law. Perhaps one of the reasons the council chose not to vote on performing gay marriage directly is that the US Congress has to approve all decisions made by the DC Council. If the council had voted to approve gay marriage, the nation's legislative branch would essentially have to weigh in on the issue. And no one wants this congress weighing in on gay marriage just yet. Approving recognition of gay marriages performed in other states is an easier pill for the congress to swallow. It's also a usefull canary in the coalmine of this issue. But even if the congress decides to turn the DC Council vote into political red meat it might not play well, as Nate Silver also pointed out this week:

Considering that (i) there is some opportunity cost involved to the Republicans in attempting to attack on the gay marriage issue (ii) the issue is the almost literal embodiment of the Rovian politics that the public appeared to have rejected in 2006 and 2008, and that (iii) liberals, following the passage of Proposition 8, may for the first time be at least as energized on the issue as are conservatives, it is less than obvious that a debate over gay marriage is the way back to the promised land for the GOP.

ADAM LAMBERT GETTING A STANDING OVATION FROM SIMON ON AMERICAN IDOL IS: GOOD FOR THE GAYS

I'm not a big Idol watcher, it's just too much advertising for me (the whole show is essentially a giant focus group for a new product owned by Simon Cowell) but it is a cultural phenomena, and so respect must be paid. This season's favorite Adam Lambert has (apparently) cultivated an ambiguously gay persona (or perhaps is merely in the closet and everyone can tell.) Photos were leaked a couple week ago on line of Lambert making out with other guys, while he was in drag no less:

See, what happens at Burning Man doesn't necessarily stay at Burning Man.

This prompted Bill O'Reilly to devote a whole segment to his show on how this wil harm his chances on the show (his two guests totally disagreed).

Of course O'Reilly is part of the generation that doesn't understand its all ready lost, my generation doesn't care.

And as if to prove the young don't give a hoot about sexuality, Lambert performed a viruoso cover of Tears For Fear's "Mad World" to a standing ovation from Mr. Cowel. Of course sexually ambiguous singers are nothing new, and the first winner of "Pop Idol" the original British version of American Id0l was an openly gay man. What's important here is the distinct generational reaction to the cultural event: O'Reilly raised eye brows and the younger generation merely plucked their eyebrows to look more like Lambert.

INEPT OPPOSITION IS: GOOD FOR THE GAYS.

Last week was not a good week to be a gay marriage opponent. Not only were they delivered judicial AND legislative defeats, but two of their big initiatives intended to revamp their campaigns backfired. First the National Organization for Marriage released an incredibly hokey and melodramatic anti-gay marriage ad only to have the audition tape for the commercial (filled with awkward stumbling "actors" trying to read the lines believably) leaked by the Human Rights Campaign. It's hard to convince people that real people are being hurt by gay marriage when audtioners for the commercial could barely buy it. The indominable Rachel Maddow tackled the fracas on her show with the usual wit and wisdom (she starts talking about the commercial at 2:28)

Then THE SAME anti-gay marriage organization released a new campaign named "2 Million for Traditional Marriage" or "2M4M" in an attempt to be all 21st Century and text saavy. Had the National Organization for Marriage actually been savvy at all (or had anyone from my generation in their organization) they would have realized their abbreviation is also the abreviation men use when they're cruising online for sex with other men.
This should quiet any fears that those in the gay right's movement had about a formidable, well-organized opposition, a fear that was talked about ad naseum after Prop 8. To be fair, all liberals believe the opposition is unbeatable when they loose. Remember when everyone thought Karl Rove was an invicible evil genius after he somehow managed to defeat the UNSTOPPABLE JOHN KERRY?
Let's just admit it, conservatives and their cultural warriors are just as inept as progressives. It's an even playing field and after the past two weeks we're still winning.


A POLISH POLITICIAN DENOUNCING A GAY ELEPHANT IS: BAD FOR THE POLES.

A city councilman in the polish city of Ponznan raged against the elephant his city had bough for the zoo because he refuses to mate with other female elephants. According to the Reuters story the councilman, Michal Grzes said, "We didn't pay 37 million zlotys ($11 million) for the largest elephant house in Europe to have a gay elephant live there." The same article gets a reaction from the city zoo-keeper who assures the reporter than because the elephant is four years shy of reaching sexual maturity it's impossible to say the elephant has a preference for one sex over another.

I'm part Polish so let me be the first to say that we don't need the country of Copernicus and Chopin being sullied by idiots who keep adding fodder to (admittedly hilarious) Polish jokes.

WQI TOTALS

GOOD FOR THE GAYS: 6

MIXED NUTS FOR THE GAYS: 0

BAD FOR THE GAYS: 0

BAD FOR THE POLES: 1

More eloquence from Iowa

via savage at slog

What is it about Iowa that its leaders are able to so succinctly, calmly, and eloquently address the issue of gay marriage? Above is a clip of Iowa Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal blocking a bill that would have gotten the ball rolling on an amendment to ban gay marriage. This means that gay marriage is safe in Iowa until 2014. But most impressive of all is the substance of Gronstal's impassioned response (it's so earnest and so devoid a bombast one can hardly call it a speech).

GAY MARRIAGE SCORES A DOUBLE

VERMONT OVERRIDES GOV'S VETO, APPROVES GAY MARRIAGE

First civil unions
Now gay marriage.
Next comes Gov Douglas in a baby carriage.

It passed by one vote.

Vermont is now the first state in the country to pass gay marriage legislation, all other states that allow (or allowed) gay marriage do so as a result of court rulings.

This is only the 7th legislative override of a gubernatorial veto in all of Vermont's history and the first in 20 years!

AND as if that wasn't enough of a lavender laurel for one day:
THE WASHINGTON DC COUNCIL VOTED TODAY TO RECOGNIZE SAME-SEX MARRIAGES APPROVED IN OTHER STATES.

So what happens in Vermont, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Iowa doesn't necessarily stay there.

Now if you'll excuse me, time for a little reveling:

Quote of the day

"We are firmly convinced the exclusion of gay and lesbian people from the institution of civil marriage does not substantially further any important governmental objective. The legislature excluded a historically disfavored class of persons from a supremely important civil institution without a constitutionally sufficient justification."

--Iowa Supreme Court, ruling a state law which defines marriage between one man and one woman is unconstitutional.

Has the legal case for gay marriage ever been phrased so eloquently?

Weekly Queer Index

Last week's news was rife with homosexuality. Even if you believes that the mainstream media is a bunch of commie homo-coddling abortionists, last week's parade of big gay news stories made it feel like Pride Week arrived early! But are all these events positive? Let's measure shall we...

Vermont's legislature battling the Governor to update civil unions to civil marriage is: GOOD FOR THE GAYS

The state that gave us our first New York-born Jewish Democratic-Socialist Senator is looking to also grab the title of the first state to pass gay marriage into law without a court's say so. Massachusetts and Connecticut have gay marriage (and California did until prop 8) but all had court rulings as their impetus for change. Of course Vermont was the first state to even consider anything close to marriage for gay couples when it passed its civil unions legislation in 2000. It's a sign of how fast gay marriage is gaining traction in our national discourse, that only nine years later, what was once considered landmark legislation is looking more like a stop-gap measure toward full equality rather than a great leap for real social justice

As for the chances of gay marriage passing in Vermont, it looks like a legislative override of a Gubernatorial veto will be a squeaker of a vote (though here's a solid argument that the override is within one vote of passing), Gov. Douglas's assertion that the gay marriage debate is "diverting attention from our most pressing issues" and that his veto was "an easy decision to make from the get-go" will surely help galvanize those who want full marriage equality. In fact it already has, according this AP report:

Douglas spokeswoman Dennise Casey said before Douglas' announcement [that he would veto a bill legalizing gay marriage], the letters and e-mails on gay marriage were running about 70 percent against the bill to legalize it... Since the announcement, supporters of same-sex marriage have been outnumbering opponents, with 60 percent of the letters and e-mails received speaking in favor it and 40 percent against.

The Iowa State Supreme Court joining Supreme Courts in Massachusetts, California, and Connecticut in ruling gays cannot be denied the right to marry is: SOOOO GOOD FOR THE GAYS

Iowa is about to get a whole lot hipper. Pushing aside it's hick heartland neighbors, Iowa will be hanging out with the cool kids from the Northeastern elite states. Within a month same sex couples will be able to marry and it'll be a long time before anyone can do anything about it. To reverse the court's decision, opponent of gay marriage will need to get a constitutional amendment approved that would redefine marriage as between a man and a woman. However Iowa's law requires any amendment to the constitution to pass in two consecutive general assemblies of the legislature (of two years duration each) PLUS a simple majority vote on a statewide ballot. The AP reported yesterday that:

Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal, a Democrat, said state lawmakers were unlikely to consider gay marriage legislation in this legislative session, which is expected to end within weeks. Gronstal also said he's "not inclined" to propose a constitutional amendment during next year's session. Without a vote by the Legislature this year or next, the soonest gay marriage could be repealed would be 2014.

In five years time it's extremely doubtful that a state with a history of being on the vanguard of social change will vote for an amendment banning gay marriage. Moreover the populations of self-considered liberal states such as New York and California may feel that if a heartland mid-western state can offer gay marriage why can't they, and push for action on the issue.


Don't ask Don't Tell "being kicked down the road" by Defense Secretary Robert Gates and President Obama is: BAD FOR THE GAYS


The Sunday before last, Defense Secretary Robert Gates revealed that plans to overturn Don't Ask Don't Tell are pretty much off the table. "...The president and I feel like we've got a lot on our plates right now and let's push that one down the road a little bit." Adding, "that dialogue, though, has really not progressed very far at this point in the administration."

This news is all the more shocking coming on the heels of several very promising developments that seemed to indicate real momentum in overturning DADT. Several months ago Obama spokesperson Robert Gibbs expressed unambiguous support on the president's behalf for overturning the ban. Then in March, the White House released a statement saying the president had begun to meet with advisers to determine how to lift DADT, a statement that while vague was a direct response to Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-California) introducing a bill into congress that would lift the ban. Also adding to the feeling that DADT's demise was imminent was the formation three weeks ago of Knights Out, a GLBT alumni association for West Point grads. Adding insult to injury, Gates made his comments on Fox News Sunday. Apparently our Defense Secretary doesn't have the cojones to make such an announcement on say Rachel Maddow's show.



The release of the trailer for Sasha Baron Cohen's new movie following gay Euro fashionista Bruno through a Borat-esque trip across America is: BAD FOR THE GAYS.


First of all, let's recognize that the "real" people Bruno interacts with in this movie get their worst fears and prejudices of homosexuality confirmed. And then let's recognize that not everyone seeing this movie is going to be in on the joke, and that this audience segment will not be disposed to look favorably on the gays after watching this prancing, shallow, dildo waving creature that Cohen is enacting. Also, I fail to see how Bruno's character shows the homophobia inherent in our society. A gay character who acts like an asshole to unsuspecting people until these get pissed off and react really just shows how people in a society react to an asshole. In many ways this is just another version of "Jackass," except "Jackass" is gayer (and hotter) then "Bruno" could ever hope to be.

That said I can't wait to see "Bruno".

WQI Score
GOOD: 2
MIXED:0
BAD: 2