Photo by alykat on Flickr

It’s been close to a year since my first at-bat for TNG. In November of last year, I penned a piece on gayborhoods. As a then-student of urban planning, I thought it would be a nice, easy way to ease into this new role of mine as a gay columnist. Boy was I wrong. I suppose the pitcher read me like a book, because I spawned an anti-column, as it were. One of TNG’s readers, Ed Jackson, wrote a thoughtful and coherent post attacking my first column as myopic and typical of the gay community.

Honestly, I couldn’t believe the controversy that the column generated, and I wondered whether I should continue. But continue I did. And Ed and I became friends. As it turned out, he lived only a few blocks away. And every once in a while – when we weren’t slaving over keyboards for TNG – we met for coffee to talk about gay topics.

When Michael first invited me to write for TNG, I was happy yet apprehensive. I’d never written about gay topics. That didn’t matter to Michael. It didn’t matter that I never have felt particularly “gay.” It only mattered that I was a gay man who was unafraid of a keyboard and an internet connection.

I didn’t know then, and I don’t know today exactly what I write that will catalyze debate. As with my first column, though, it was always the ones that I thought were tame and dull that generated the most commentary. The column of mine that generated the most comments was another seemingly innocuous set of paragraphs in which I wondered why people were upset about male circumcision. They were marching about Washington calling for a blanket ban on the practice. And after I penned Dispatches, they were marching about in TNG’s comment threads.

Several times, I told my story. I recounted being forced out of the Boy Scouts. I thought back on my own coming out experiences a few times. I told of my roommate horror story, of coming out to my parents.

I also branched out into social commentary. I criticized conservatives for attacking JK Rowling, author of the Harry Potter series, after she named hero Albus Dumbledore a closeted gay man. I wondered what the big deal was with Dr. Manhattan’s not-so-big penis in the blockbuster movie “Watchmen.”

From religion to policy to the Metro, my columns have run the gamut. I think I’ve touched on every topic except baseball, a sport referenced in my column’s name. But it doesn’t look like America’s pastime is going to make it into my portfolio anytime soon.

For Dispatches, it’s the seventh-inning stretch. I’m taking a break from this column. I don’t yet know how long this hiatus will last. In fact, it might be permanent. I’ve decided to focus my limited time on writing more in my subject area – planning. I’m also devoting increasing amounts of time to my other column here at TNG, Newsprints.

Of late, my columns here at TNG have drawn little commentary, and I often wonder whether my efforts fall on blind eyes. I’ve always found Dispatches a challenge. And I’ve always loved challenges. In my last column, I wrote a piece entirely without the letter “E.” I really enjoyed doing that, and I had hoped to give my readers a few laughs. Alas, the conundrum of writing for free is that I don’t get to see the sales figures. I never know whether my readers like what they see – at least not without comments.

I’ve always blogged with the intention to generate discussion. I don’t pontificate because I know that I know very little. I’m interested in what you think. I regard it as the highest compliment when twenty people disagree with me and with each other over what I write. Of course, I like agreement too. It feels so good when a stranger comes to my defense in a comment thread. But whether consternation or accord, comments mean that people are listening.

In recent weeks, my writings at the planning blog Greater Greater Washington have generated much discussion. These posts have made me feel more fulfilled, but have left me with less free time than ever. And so it is with regret that I enter into the dugout. Now it is time for me to rethink my place at TNG and in the blogosphere. For you, it’s time to get some popcorn and cracker jacks. And beer, because they usually stop selling it during the seventh-inning stretch.

But I can’t leave without saying thanks. Thanks for listening. Thanks for commiserating. Thanks for cheering. Thanks for being there.

Zack is known for telling us writers that we make TNG great. But really it’s you readers who make TNG great. Without you, we’d just be a bunch of blowhards on soapboxes. So it’s my turn to say thanks to you. Keep reading the work of my fellows. And please, please keep faith in the movement.

Farewell. Godspeed.

Photo by author

I blog owing to an opinion that I find it most fulfilling. To know that so many folks cotton to my thoughts is uplifting. But I can’t always talk about unhumorous and significant topics. Occasionally, it’s good to kick back a bit and unwind.

Words link us and bind us. And words bring about laughing and thinking in all of us.

In particular, I look back upon a discussion among this blog’s staff. That day saw us wrangling about Oxford Commas. An Oxford Comma sits prior to conjunctions in lists of things. As an illustration, I might say, “For lunch you’ll snack upon hot dogs, chips, and soda.” In that list, you find an Oxford Comma following ‘chips.’

Anyway, this fiasco was brought on by our own Zack, who sought to curtail our staff’s display of a suffusion of surplus commas. His command bid us to abandon forthwith our application of Oxford Commas in blog posts. I am, as far as I know, guilty in sparking a contributor mutiny. For in this onslaught of a constantly rising flood of casual grammar, Oxford Commas stand apart, a last guardian against ambiguity and lax syntax.

And so, “solidarity” I said. “Solidarity with Oxford’s Commas; stalwart guardians of fit punctuation!” And many of my blogging compatriots stood too. What was most amazing was that our communication was popular and drawn out. Its span took  us past sixty intimations. That day was full of laughing and confirms that writing is fun and invigorating.

As I look at writing in this light, it’s not surprising that I find fascinating lipograms. A difficult approach to composition, in a lipogram, an author constrains his writing by not using a symbol or group of symbols.

Not too long ago, I was lucky to alight upon a curious work known as Gadsby: Champion of Youth. It is unhappy that this book is out of print as it is a most famous lipogram. Although this publication is around fifty thousand words, you won’t find that glyph usually in fifth position in standard lists of Latin.

Notwithstanding this handicap, Gadsby is grammatically faithful and without flaw. Author Wright’s contraption follows a logical plot, narrating a town’s climb out of sloth through its youth. Town kids start following protagonist Gadsby, who having just put down roots in Branton Hills, forms an “Organization of Youth.” His toil brings spirit back to Branton Hills, soon a bustling city.

Wright’s task is inspiring as that symbol his book is known for omitting is most common in our Anglo-Saxon. It is also most common in lingo in Paris, Munich, Madrid, and Stockholm. In fact, this glyph which I am omitting has a high oscillation. In today’s Anglo-Saxon, this symbol crops up about six occasions out of fifty.

This column was difficult. But it was also fun. And that’s why I’m big on writing.

Postscript
Following finalization of this column, I saw on my monitor an apt jotting on popular blog, Stuff Caucasian Folk Fancy. Stuff Caucasian Folk Fancy’s wordsmiths posit that Caucasian Folk fancy grammar codifications. Unsurprisingly, this column whips up a shout out to Oxford Commas. It looks as if Caucasian Folk would just as soon lock horns about Oxford Commas as fit applications of “it’s.” Caucasian Folk hold that this grammarian brouhaha is “forward thinking” and highbrow.

I find that this post from Stuff Caucasian Folk Fancy is particularly congruous as I too am a Caucasian guy. I pray that I am not supporting unfair group normalizations with this column, but I worry that I am doing so. I will go out on a limb, though, and call to mind that saying, ‘if your boot fits, put it on.’

Photo by Twenty_Questions on Flickr

Due to constraints on my time, mainly resulting from my no longer being a student, Dispatches is now a bi-weekly column. As always, thanks for reading!

I’m not usually the type to listen to morning radio shows. Unless, you count Morning Edition that is. But now that I’m carpooling to the Metro with my boyfriend, I have an opportunity for a few minutes each day to listen to the juvenile antics of disc jockeys. Usually I don’t find much interesting in these shows, but occasionally, things are different.

Friday was unusual both in the length of time I had to listen to the show and the content of the episode. Instead of riding the train, we drove to Silver Spring, where we both work. On the way, my boyfriend turned on the Kane Show on local Washington station Hot 99.5. 

As we headed for the Beltway, I listened raptly to the debate. Someone called Heather had phoned into the show. She was a mother whose son was just about to go off to the adventure we call “college.” According to Heather, this occasion was (is) being marred by a frightening and dangerous circumstance: she has discovered somehow that her son’s soon-to-be roommate is gay.

Suppressing a sudden pang of schadenfreude, I listened as other callers made their opinions known. Far from being an impartial moderator, the show’s hosts strongly criticized Heather as ignorant. Heather, it seemed, believes that her son might “catch” homosexuality from his roommate. She is apparently livid that the college would be so irresponsible as to house a gay person with a non-gay person. 

I don’t know how this situation will get resolved. Perhaps Heather will have her son moved to room with a straight roommate. Perhaps she won’t succeed in changing his roommate. Regardless, her son is either gay or straight. No matter who his roommate is – gay, straight, transgender, male, or female – the son’s own orientation won’t be affected. However, his sense of what is right and wrong may be up for modification. And perhaps that’s what she fears most. Perhaps she’s really afraid that her son will learn about social behavior from someone other than her.

A gay roommate can open eyes to different circumstances and lifestyles. I believe that having a roommate different from oneself is a valuable and rewarding experience. Should Heather read this column (which I find unlikely), she’ll likely claim it as proof positive of her contagion hypothesis. But I once found myself in a position very similar to the one currently facing her son.

I grew up in a small town in rural north Georgia. By the time I finished my junior year of high school, I had never once met a person who I knew to be gay. All I had to go on were stereotypes and the few portrayals of gays in the media. But that summer, I was tapped for a prestigious honors program which brought together the brightest students in the state. The program took place just a few miles from the Florida border at Valdosta State University. During the six weeks we stayed there, we lived in the dorms vacated by university students away on break. 

When I arrived outside Langdale Hall in the scorching south Georgia heat, I had no idea of what the summer had to offer. I met my roommate, who’d already moved in, and introduced my parents. Soon after, we were left alone to meet each other. Over the next few weeks we became fast friends and after about three weeks, my roommate came out to me.

I have to admit, I was frightened and intrigued. I had never met a gay person. I didn’t know what I was supposed to do, how I was supposed to react. And in my ignorance, I came off a bit homophobic. Although I was not actually afraid of my roommate. 

I had so many questions for him, and I think I was more afraid of the answers than anything else on the planet. I knew then that I was attracted to men, but I didn’t accept these feelings. But I wasn’t an idiot. The writing was on the wall, and I could see it, but I couldn’t quite make out the message. 

About a week later, when my parents visited, I mentioned my roommate’s homosexuality to them. Their reactions will probably stick with me for the rest of my life. They were horrified. Their first reaction was to see about getting either me or him relocated. An idea which I shot down quickly. But their outright hostility to my roommate made it even harder for me when it was my time to come out.

It was three years before I finally came out to myself and others. My roommate from the summer honors program was one of the first people I told, and as he tells it, he just about fell out of his chair. My parents eventually started to come around. Now when they go on vacation, they even bring my boyfriend souvenirs. 

But it wasn’t always easy. Heather’s outright hostility may just make her son hostile toward LGBT persons. He might overcome these prejudices when he gets to college, or he might not. A gay roommate would certainly give him a new perspective. But I certainly feel for him in the case that he is indeed himself gay and closeted. His mother’s ignorance, something she’s quite unabashed about, will teach him that it’s not okay to be gay. And if he is gay, he will face a tremendous challenge.

I didn’t catch “the gay” from my first-ever roommate any more than I caught my hair color from my kindergarten classmates or my hand preference from a preschool teacher.

But let me tell you, sometimes I wish it was contagious. Our fight for rights sure would be easy if we could just infect the appropriate people in power.

Alas, it is not, though. In the course of six years worth of straight roommates in a college setting, I’ve never once managed to convert a breeder into a fruit. And I still managed to have an enriching experience. Hopefully, Heather’s son will free himself from her still-attached umbilical cord and chart his own path.

After all, college is meant to change us. If we leave college the same as when we entered it, we’ve missed the point. It’s about much, much more than learning subjects from books. It’s about finding oneself and starting a journey to seek out a place in the world. And you can’t do that without growing just a little each day.

Heather, closing your eyes to truth in the world doesn’t stop change; it just makes it harder to see where you’re going.

Photo by margolove on Flickr

As I mentioned in my last column, I’ve recently moved to a new apartment with my boyfriend. Aside from the major change of being in the suburbs, my life has been drastically altered by my contraction of ‘Nesting Syndrome.’ This acquired affliction has been presenting itself for the past few weeks, and only shows signs of intensifying. I think that I’ve either contracted it from or passed it to my boyfriend, because he is also exhibiting symptoms.

The first sign that I was coming down with this illness was sudden onset addiction to HGTV. Except for brief interludes of Family Guy and the occasional movie, our television has been constantly set to the network devoted to spreading ideas about decoration, innovation, and organization for homes. So from watching episodes of House Hunters to Color Splash and Design on a Dime, my mind has been filled with awesome (expensive) ideas for making home home.

Another clue indicating that I have the Syndrome is a craving for exotic food – Swedish Meatballs (and Lingonberry Jelly). Luckily, our new apartment is only a few exits away from that bright blue and yellow furniture marketer on the Beltway. And while it’s unfortunate that the College Park Ikea is being renovated, there has still been quite a large selection of furniture and other assorted accouterments for the new pad.

So from painting to shopping all over town for just the right things, the last few weeks have been marked with smoking credit cards and sore muscles. But the new place is starting to come together. We’ve painted and assembled, packed and unpacked, cleaned and sorted, and slowly a house is becoming a home.

But I wonder if we hold ourselves to a higher standard. We are gay after all. We have to have an apartment that reflects well upon us. And so our color coordinating senses have been working overtime. There’s plenty of work left, from frames to pillows, we have yet to complete our space.

And I fear that until we’ve found the look for which we are searching, my Nesting Syndrome will only get worse. Why is it that us fruits feel such a compulsion to spend hours in that labyrinth of a Swedish furniture warehouse or driving from store to store looking for place mats that are just so? I suppose that’s a question to which we may never know the answer. But on the happy side, if we spend too much time at Ikea walking off our meatballs, they have some tasty cinnamon buns.

Photo by t.bischoff on Flickr.

The gay community has long had a connection to the city. Urban areas have been more open to us and have been the places of many of our civil rights struggles. From New York’s Stonewall Riots to pride festivals, in many respects the gay community has become almost synonymous with urbanity.

When I came out, I had already been living in Atlanta proper for two years. I think that living in the city, in particular close to the gay district, Midtown, helped in my coming out process. Having easy access to others who were like me and living in an area where I was accepted by others made coming to terms with my sexuality much easier.

After living in a neighborhood adjacent to Midtown for four years, it came time for me to relocate. I came to Washington mainly for career reasons, but really when it came down to choosing a city in which to live, I wanted to find an urban area where I could get around easily without a car and a place with a good urban form.

My life changed significantly upon moving to the area, however. Whereas I had been living just a few minutes on foot from gay bars and restaurants, I ended up spending my first year in Hyattsville – still urban, but also distant. But I was also busy being a graduate student, which probably accounts a bit for my getting out less. But I’m sure the primary reason was that I met a wonderful guy only three months after moving here. We’re still together, and we spend a lot of time with each other, yet neither of us really has a huge desire to go out to gay bars or clubs.

Consequently, we spent much of our time together doing “normal” things in “normal” places. So now that we’re moving in together, we’ve decided to locate just outside the Capital Beltway, in the small town of Greenbelt, Maryland.

The community works for both of us. There are still enough things to do within walking distance, which satisfies me, and it’s close to my boyfriend’s friends and family. But one of the primary reasons for living there is space we’re getting for so little money. Our orientation had virtually no impact on choosing where to live.

We just got the keys to our new apartment on Sunday, and coincidentally, the Washington Post ran a story Monday about gay couples living in the suburbs. The Post specifically tells the story of couples living in nearby Hyattsville and Mount Rainier.

With growing acceptance, gays no longer feel confined to the gayborhood or even to major cities. We are as varied in personality as our straight counterparts, and our housing choices are beginning to reflect that. In fact, in 2000, the Census determined that there were same-sex couples living in 99% of the counties in America.

Spectators at the 2009 Capital Pride Parade, photo by author

I attended my fourth Pride Festival this weekend, and like always I had a good time. But I also found myself conflicted about Pride. As a celebration of gay culture, I think it is rather limited. As a street festival, it certainly gives us a chance to take over the street as a community, at least once a year, but as a political exercise, I often wonder whether it is counter-productive.

It seems like everyone in our community comes out for the Festival. This year was no exception. The cheering throngs of spectators gay and straight alike watched everyone from drag queens to shirtless cowboys ride by on floats. We watched Harley-riding lesbians and hot underwear models go by. A plethora of organizations was represented, not only advocacy organizations like HRC and PLFAG, but gay square-dancing troops and bowling leagues. That’s certainly one of the advantages of Pride, showing us how big our community is.

But Pride also reinforces too many stereotypes. For decades, one could even suggest that for centuries, our community has been derided as being just about sex. Most observers of the parade, I think, would be hard pressed to overturn that assumption. While I didn’t see any topless women, fairly common at Atlanta’s Pride, I did see an entirely naked man painted up as the Pride Flag. There was plenty of spandex and plenty of skin.

As gay people, we know that there is more to us than our orientation. Sure, I like seeing skin as much as the next fruit, but I’m far more complex than that. In today’s world, acceptance is on the rise. While many gay people used to feel confined to the Gayborhood, these days many of us feel welcome to live throughout the region and the country because our neighbors are no longer as hostile as they once were. Similarly, we don’t feel confined to merely gay organizations.

Pride will continue to exist and will likely continue to thrive for many years to come, but I think its nature is changing. Today being “out and proud” is just as important as it always has been, yet it is different. It needn’t mean “loud,” rather it must mean “forthright”. “Out and Proud,” first and foremost, means throwing off stereotypes rather than trying to conform to them. “Out and Proud” means showing your friends and family, coworkers and clients that being gay means merely being oneself, and that your orientation is just as sexual as any straight person’s.

As a minority group, we have plenty of reasons to band together in social and political organizations, but we also have plenty of reasons to show the majority that we’re not so different from them after all. I fear that Pride jeopardizes some of our political progress. Because it over-emphasizes the sexual aspects of our culture, it makes it easier for others to criticize us. It also makes Pride somewhat dangerous for parents who might wish to bring their children in an effort to foster gay-friendliness.

Of course, a counter-argument will suggest that Pride isn’t about others, it’s about us. And that is true. Pride is about celebrating our lives, our culture, our community. But at the same time, Pride won’t mean much if we continue to be deprived of our rights, if instead of being a fully integrated minority, we continue to be marginalized and ignored.

There was a time when Pride did not exist. We were too deeply in the closet as a group to celebrate together. As acceptance grows, there may be a time when we no longer feel the need for Pride, although we’ll likely continue to celebrate it as a marker of our struggle and our lives. And it seems to me that I’ll continue to find myself conflicted over Pride for a long time to come. But I’ll probably be out there every year anyway.

Photo by laverrue on Flickr

Last week, I reflected on my newfound impatience for full rights. The recent spate of gay marriage legalizations in Iowa and New England has made me realize that while we’ve come a long way, we’ve yet a long way to go. And I now know that I can’t wait any longer for my rights to be delivered. 

A look back in time really shows how far we’ve come. 

While the struggle for gay rights goes back before Stonewall, the fight for same-sex marriage gained a foothold in the Supreme Court’s Loving Decision. The 1967 case overturned miscegenation laws in the United States. It also opined that “Marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man.’”

But the Court did not consider this to mean that marriage between same sex partners should be legal. Just a few years later, in Baker v. Nelson the Supreme Court refused to take up an appeal from Minnesota from two men denied a marriage license based solely upon their genders. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal “for want of a substantial federal question.” Gay marriage, it seemed, would be left up to the individual states. In 1972, with the Baker ruling, the Supreme Court decided that marriage between persons of the same gender was not “one of the basic civil rights of man.”

Of course, the Court does change its mind. Plessy v. Ferguson ruled that segregation (seperate but equal) was constitutional in 1896. In 1954, the Court overturned that case with Brown v. Board of Education, which opined that seperate was inherently unequal. One day, I am confident that the Court will overturn Baker. After all, only recently, the Supreme Court reversed their 1986 decision in Bowers v. Hardwick with 2003′s Lawrence v. Texas, decriminalizing sodomy.

But I fear the Court has a long way to go before it is ready to legalize same-sex marriage. After all, the court ruled in Lawrence v. Texas that the issue was not discrimination against homosexuals (Equal Protection) but the right to privacy. And just this week, the Court refused to take up a challenge to Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, apparently finding nothing uncostitutional about barring one group from the military. A challenge to bans on gay marriage could be making its way to the Court even as you read this.

Ted Olson and David Boies, famous for squaring off on opposite sides of the Bush v. Gore fight before the Supreme Court in 2000 that landed us with the first four years of Dubya, have now joined forces to launch a federal lawsuit challenging the (US) constitutionality of Proposition 8, which stripped the right of gays in California to marry. But while the reward is potentially great, should the Court rule in our favor, there is also considerable risk if they vote the other way. Many gay rights-supportive organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union fear that the Court is not yet on our side.

But federal arguments aside, we’ve been making great strides of late in several of the states. Dick Cheney, now officially more liberal than President Obama on gay marriage, last week called for gay marriage to pass on a state-by-state basis, and so far, six states have obliged. Even more have gone so far as to offer almost all of the rights and responsibilites of marriage.

Full Marriage
It has been impossible to ignore the recent court rulings and legislative votes legalizing gay marriage in a handful of states. Gay marriage goes back only five years in the United States. In May of 2004, same-sex couples began to wed in Massachusetts. Now only sixty-one months later, gay nuptuials are being performed in three states, with three more coming on board by January 2010. At present 4.28% of the US population lives in a state where gays can marry. That number will rise to 5.35% by January 1, 2010 should the people’s veto fail in Maine and no new states join the ranks.

Massachusetts
The Bay State started it all. Long known for its liberal bent, the Puritans are clearly not in charge any more. In the court decision Goodridge v. Department of Health, the state supreme court gave Massachusetts 180 days to begin marrying same-sex couples. After five years, the marriage industry is going strong here. Future status: Safe.

California
On the West Coast, California performed gay marriages from June 16, 2008 until November 4 of that year. The result of the Supreme Court decision in re Marriage Cases gave gays the rights to marry. But opponents put up a fight and narrowly won Proposition 8, which amended the state Constitution to prohibit gay marriage. Supporters of the ballot measure won by 52.24% on November 4. A court challenge to the measure was recently rejected, but other appeals are ongoing. Supporters of gay marriage have vowed to put a Repeal Prop. 8 question on the ballot in 2011. Approximately 18,000 same-sex couples remain married in California. Future Status: Uncertain.

Connecticut
After having civil unions offering limited rights to gay couples for three years, the Connecticut legislature repealed the old marriage laws specifying opposite sex couples only, and just days after Proposition 8 passed in California, gay marriages began in the Constitution State. Future Status: Safe.

Iowa
In a suprise ruling, the Iowa Supreme Court earlier this year legalized gay marriage in the Hawkeye State. Marriages there began on April 27 of this year. Because amendments to Iowa’s constitution must pass the legislature in two consecutive sessions before going to the voters, and because the leadership of the legislature has refused to introduce such an amendment, gay marriage is safe in Iowa until 2012 at the least. It would seem that if the world doesn’t end due to gay marriage by then, Iowans might not be so opposed. Future Status: Probably Safe.

Vermont
The Vermont Legislature recently voted to create gay marriages. After being the first state to create Civil Unions with basically all of the rights and responsibilities of marriage, Vermont will become the fifth to perform actual gay marriages. Gay marriages begin in the Green Mountain State on September 1. Future Status: Safe.

Maine
Following other New England states’ gay marriage laws, Maine legalized gay marriage in a vote earlier this year. While the Maine Constitution, like other East Coast constitutions, is difficult to ammend, Maine does have a “People’s Veto.” Under this system, the opponents can stay the implementation of any legislation until a statewide vote can be taken by gathering enough signatures. An effort is already underway, and should enough signatures be gathered, it is likely gay marriage will be delayed from September 14, 2009 until at least November 2010, when a vote would be taken. It’s too early to project how a vote in the Pine Tree State would go. Future Status: Uncertain.

New Hampshire
The most recent state to legalize gay marrige did so only a few days ago with Governor John Lynch’s signature. Gay marriages will begin on January 1 of next year. A poll taken in April showed that 55% of New Hampshire residents supported gay marriage, so any effort to overturn this decision will face an uphill battle. Future Status: Safe.

All-But-Marriage
Over the past decade, more and more states have been granting parternship rights to gay couples. Some states either went the Marriage route directly as described above (Massachusetts, Iowa), or first created a system of Civil Unions or Domestic Partnerships which were then converted (Vermont). Other states don’t offer “Marriage,” but do offer some scheme by which gay couples can recieve most or all of the benefits of marriage except for the name “marriage.” At present, 21% of the US population lives in a state where gay couples have marriage or “all-but-marriage” schemes. Assuming none of the following laws are overturned and no new states join the rankings, that number will rise to 24.5% by January 1, 2010 – almost a quarter.

Vermont
Beginning July 1, 2000 Vermont started issuing Civil Unions to same-sex couples. This scheme was in response to a ruling of the Vermont Supreme Court in Baker v. Vermont. Therein the court ruled that gay couples were entitled to all of the rights of opposite-sex couples. However, the court did not rule that the word “marriage” needed to be used. As a result, Vermont’s first in the nation Civil Union program created an essentially equivalent scheme for gay couples to marriage. Beginning September 1, gay couples will be able to wed in Vermont (see above).

New Jersey
The second state to institute Civil Unions mostly equivalent to marriage was New Jersey. Prior to Civil Unions, New Jersey offered Domestic Partnerships with limited rights to gay couples (and others). After a Supreme Court ruling, New Jersey began offering equivalent Civil Unions on February 19, 2007. Polls show that a majority of New Jersey residents support full same-sex marriage. Prospect of Gay Marriage soon: Likely.

New Hampshire
Beginning January 1, 2008, New Hampshire became the first state to enact Civil Unions without a court order. These unions were essentially the same as marriage, but without the name. New Hampshire will begin offering marriage licenses on January 1, 2010 (see above).

Oregon
Beginning February 4, 2008, gay couples in Oregon were able to register for Domestic Partnerships. This scheme offers virtually all of the rights of full marriage in Oregon. However, the legislature was specific in avoiding the words “marriage” and “civil union.” Oregon does have a constitutional amendment barring gay marriage, however the constitution of Oregon is very easy to amend, like California’s. Prospect of Gay Marriage soon: Less Likely.

California
California’s Domestic Partnership law originally offered only limited benefits to same-sex couples. However, by 2008 the DP law offered most of the rights offered to married couples. Marriage was briefly legal for gay couples in California and 18,000 couples remain married (see above). Prospect of Gay Marriage soon: Uncertain.

Washington (State)
Last month, Governor Chris Gregoire signed the “everything but marriage bill” which will make Domestic Partnerships in Washington state essentially equivalent to marriage on July 26 of this year. A challenge is underway by petitioners known as Referendum 71 (2009). Some 120,500 signatures must be gathered by July 25 in order to stay the legislation until a vote can be held. Recent polling of Washington citizens shows that 73% support legal recognition of same-sex relationships. Washington has a state (legislative) statute barring gay marraige. Prospect of Gay Marriage soon: Less Likely.

Nevada
In late May 2009, the Nevada legislature overrode the governor’s veto of a Domestic Partnership bill granting the “exact” rights of marriage (but not the word “marriage”) to Nevadans. These Domestic Partnerships will begin on October 1, 2009. Nevada currently has an constitutional amendment barring gay marriage. Recent polling shows that only 38% of Nevadans support the recent Domestic Partnership Bill. Prospect of Gay Marriage soon: Unlikely.

Limited Partnership Rights
Several states offer limited partnership rights or recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages. The fluxuations on the chart below show that some states are moving toward greater rights for gay couples. For instance, at the end of 2007, California’s Domestic Partnerships became “all-but-marriage” so the blue line representing Limited Rights drops and is replaced by the rise of the orange line representing “All-But Marriage.”

Hawaii
The first state to offer limited partnership rights was Hawaii, beginning in 1997 with its Reciprocal Beneficiary Relationship scheme. This passed the legislature just one year before Hawaiians amended their constitution to bar same-sex marriage. The Reciprocal Beneficary Relationship offers a few of the benefits married couples recieve. Details here. Prospect of Gay Marriage soon: Less Likely. Efforts to create Civil Unions have been underway, however, but none have yet passed out of Senate committee.

California
California created limited partnership rights for gay couples in early 2000. Since that time, these rights have been expanded to an “all-but-marriage” status (see above).

District of Columbia
In 1992, the District Council and Mayor Sharon Pratt Kelly passed a limited Domestic Partnership bill. The US Congress, however, kept that bill from taking effect until the beginning of Fiscal Year 2002 (October 2001). This law offers limited rights to same-sex couples. Details here. Earlier this year, DC passed a law recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other states. Unless Congress intervenes, this bill will become law on July 6, 2009. Council members have stated that they will submit a bill legalizing gay marriage in the District. Opposition may come from Congress, which does have the power to override DC laws. However, a Democratic majority in Congress will help. Prospect of Gay Marriage soon: Likely.

New Jersey
Limited same-sex couple rights began in July 2004 in the Garden State. In February 2007, New Jersey upgraded their Domestic Partnerships to Civil Unions equivalent to Marriage (see above).

Connecticut
Beginning October 2005, citizens of Connecicut could recieve limited benefits for same-sex couples. These Civil Unions were upgraded to full marriage in November 2008 (see above).

Washington (state)
In July 2007, same-sex couples in Washington began to recieve 11 of the rights granted to married couples through limited Domestic Partnerships. A bill was recently signed into law by Governor Gregoire which will expand Domestic Partnerships to “all-but-marriage” (see above).

New York
In May 2008, Governor David Patterson directed that all state agencies should recognize same-sex marriages performed out-of-state. A bill to legalize gay marriage in New York has passed the state assembly and is stuck in the Senate. Monday’s change from Democratic to Republican control may well kill the bill for this legislative season. However, a majority of New Yorkers support gay marriage, so it can’t be too far off. Prospect of Gay Marriage soon: Likely.

Maryland
In July 2008, Maryland began to grant limited rights to same-sex couples through a Domestic Partnership program. Efforts to ammend the Maryland Constitution to bar gay marriage have thus far been unsucessful as have efforts to overturn the statute limiting marriage to a man and woman. Prospect of Gay Marriage soon: Less Likely.

Colorado
Beginning next month on July 1, same-sex couples in Colorado will be able to enter into a Designated Beneficiary Agreement. This is similar to Hawaii’s program, and offers limited benefits to the couple. Colorado passed an amendment barring same-sex marriage in 2006. Prospect of Gay Marriage soon: Unlikely.

So while we’ve definitely come a long way over the last several decades, the road is long. We have miles to go before we rest, but I’m confident that we’ll reach our goal – someday. As the trends show, the scales just might be starting to tip in our favor. And while I hope for same-sex marriage in all fifty states, it looks like Civil Unions and Domestic Partnerships can be effective stepping stones to full marriage – and they’re certainly better than nothing.

Photo by mdezemery on Flickr.

A famous senator from Arizona once said that “moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.” And while I don’t often quote Barry Goldwater, his words ring true for me. I am also reminded of the words attributed to William Gladstone, that “Justice delayed is justice denied.”

The past few weeks have been amazing in the struggle for gay rights. Six months ago, gay marriage was legal in only one state. It had just been disallowed in the most populous of our states, and many of us, myself included, were disheartened. Our new, young President-Elect promised to make changes, but even he was not a supporter of civil marriage for same-sex couples. 

But 2009 has proven to be a red-letter-year for our struggle. Now five states allow gay marriage. Connecticut became the second just days after California voters amended their constitution to make it illegal, and it has been followed by Iowa, Vermont, and Maine. It looks that New Hampshire will follow suit soon as well. 

Yet all of this activity has only sufficed to make me less content with the status quo. Six months ago, I wondered if I would ever live to see gay marriage in my home state of Georgia. Today, I am frustrated beyond all belief over Governor Lynch’s recent delay tactics in New Hampshire. I don’t live in New Hampshire, and I’ve only even been there just once, but his refusal to sign the bill because of an objection which amounts to mere semantics is frustrating. It is likely that this delay will be just that – a delay. New Hampshire will probably become the sixth state to allow gay marriage before summer is over, but I no longer count the struggle for gay rights in years. Now I regard every day as a potential game-changer. I am no longer content to wait. I have become more and more impatient.

The past few years have resulted in many advances, but these advances have not been enough. As an employee of the State of Maryland, I now have the ability to get Domestic Partner benefits, but that’s not enough. I want to have the ability to check the spouse box on my HR forms, not the Domestic Partner box. I want the ability to marry, not to civilly unify. Words matter, especially symbolic ones. There is little more symbolic in a relationship than the word “marriage.” Yet this is a word continuously denied to me. To us.

Many suggest that we should be content to accept a different word. Even if there is no legal difference, it is said, we’re not allowed to use the same word. In Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled unanimously that separate is inherently unequal. A separate word, whether it be civil union or domestic partner or supercalifragilisticexpialidocious, is not the word marriage. 

The strange thing is that even our opponents can agree to that. They claim that the sanctity of marriage is preserved so long as the word is insulated. They can see the nuance in language, and they use that to deny us a word. “What’s the big deal,” they ask, “you’re getting everything else. It’s just a word.” But if it’s just a word, why do they care so much about it? Because it’s not just a word. It is a symbol. 

And it’s a right. In a unanimous decision in 1967′s Loving Decision, the United States Supreme Court overturned Virginia’s miscegenation laws. The opinion of the court states that “Marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man,’ fundamental to our very existence and survival…” That sounds pretty darn clear to me. And I’m tired of waiting.

Of course, I don’t mean to deplore the rights we have won after hard fights. Is a domestic partnership better than an unrecognized relationship? Yes. Should we continue to fight for what rights we can achieve? Yes. But we should not settle. Not until no child in America has to fear coming out of the closet will I settle. And as long as the government insists on making prejudiced and unjust distinctions, homophobia and heterosexism will continue to thrive unabated in America. Gay children will see that some citizens are allowed to marry, but not their gay role models. Not their friends’ homosexual parents. Not those who might give them the hope and confidence necessary to deal with the coming out experience.

And while nothing short of a Supreme Court ruling will assuage my impatience, my confidence is bolstered by some recent news. Support for both civil unions and gay marriage is increasing across the United States. Additionally, more and more of the electorate is self-identifying as LGBT. I’m confident that full gay rights are only a matter of when not if, but the progress is not fast enough for me. Last week, former presidential candidate Howard Dean said that gay marriage will not even be an issue in 2010. Next year. I hope he’s right, but the tide does not seem to be moving that quickly to me.

The Light at the End of the Tunnel. Photo by author.

Yesterday, I submitted my final assignments. Tomorrow, I’ll be wearing a black robe (and peacock blue hood) while the band plays “Land of Hope and Glory.” Today, I’m meeting my parents at the airport and preparing my house for my program’s congratulatory pot luck.

I have survived a Herculean push to complete final papers and find a job, and now the earlier fears I faced have waned. For nineteen years, I have been in school. And now, I find myself hours from my final graduation, hours away from the real world. But now, the light at the end of the tunnel is too bright. What the future holds I cannot tell.

But as much as commencement is about looking toward the future, it is also by its nature about retrospection.

The world was a much different place when I first stepped across the threshold of a tiny red-brick schoolhouse. This place, though I didn’t yet know it, had been the center of my small rural community for more than a century. As it would happen, my education would outlast even this school. After over 130 years of educating young minds, my elementary school closed at the end of the 2006-07 school year. I went to the farewell celebration only a few hours after graduating from Georgia Tech.

But the close of Buffington was far away indeed when I started Kindergarten in August of 1990. It was a close-knit community and an even closer-knit student body. My entire school had fewer than 250 students in seven grades. By the time I was a freshman at Tech, my Calculus I class alone had more than that many students.

And a few short months after I finished my undergraduate degree in Public Policy, I left my home state. For the first time, I found myself living in a new state, in a new city far from the rolling foothills I had long called home. I found myself surrounded by new people, new scenes, and new experiences. And I regret nothing. But I think back on Atlanta far more fondly than I thought I would.

It seems so long ago. I’ve been in so many classrooms, taken so many notes, written so many reports, that they all seem to bleed together in my mind. But many memories are still clear. Today, all those memories are with me.

I could never have foreseen my trek from that first day in Kindergarten. I have no idea what the future holds now. But I do know that I have achieved a life-long dream. And I have no regrets. In fact, I’m quite satisfied with my life to date. And thinking back on my education brings so many smiles to my face.

But it’s also hard to believe that nineteen years of work is coming to a close. I can’t imagine life without school. Perhaps the words of the second verse of my high school alma mater can do these feelings justice:

Now the time is drawing nigh,

When we must bid adieu;

Leaving friends we dearly love,

To walk amidst the new.

Of course, I was glad to get out of high school. I’m not sure that I’m ready to leave graduate school. But I suppose I can’t stay in the ivory tower forever.

I want to thank my TNG family for sharing the last few pages of this chapter of my life. But don’t worry, although I’m starting a new chapter, Dispatches will continue. I’ll be staying right here in Washington for the foreseeable future and I hope you all will continue to share your thoughts and stories with me as I share them with you.

This week, I’m swamped with term papers and exams. So as the last of my 19 years of consecutive education comes to a close, I’ve chosen to reflect upon an adventure I made back in the summer, when it was still warm and sunny outside. 

Washington tends to be a more transient city than most in America. As a result, many of us move here from other regions with little knowledge of the ground upon which we are standing. Sometimes, however, we can find traces of the past which give us clues about what the Captial City was like long before we left our hometowns. History has long fascinated me, and I’ve always enjoyed finding little slivers of the past which remain in the urban fabric today. That’s why I was so excited to finally go on a tour of one of Washington’s most complete historic artifacts. I invite you to take the trip with me.

On August 24th of last year, I set out on my bicycle from my home in Petworth. I brought along a camera and a cue sheet. I came back with a full memory card and an empty water bottle.

All Photos in this post were taken by the author.

The rails embedded in the streets of Georgetown have long been dormant, yet they are one of the last tangible reminders of a transportation network long gone from Washington. For six and a half decades, from 1895 until 1960, trolleys plied tracks alongside the Potomac on their way to the loop at Cabin John, Maryland. Today, this line leaves much more evidence of its existence than other lines, but still only a few traces remain.

The history of the Cabin John Trolley goes back to 1892, when the Washington and Great Falls Electric Company was chartered. In August of 1895, streetcars were running from the Aqueduct Bridge in Georgetown to a loop just east of the MacArthur Boulevard bridge over Cabin John Creek.
 

Sunlight filters through the boards of the trestle over Foundry Branch near Georgetown University

A Philly PCC stands in front of the entrance to Glen Echo Park

Route 20 had the honor of serving Washington’s trolley park. Like Pittsburgh’s Kennywood and New York’s Coney Island, these early amusement parks were built to garner transit ridership. In this region, Washingtonians took the trolley out to Maryland to spend the weekend at Glen Echo Park.

Today, the notes of carousel music still drift through the trees, but the clang of trolley bells can no longer be heard. The glory days of the trolley park went the same way of the golden era of the trolley. Glen Echo Park only survived 8 years after the demise of the Cabin John trolley. Recently, a PCC streetcar was brought back to the restored park. This vehicle was a part of a fleet of streetcars running on Philadelphia’s streets, and it’s good to see this relic at the park. It’s in bad shape, though. Streetcars have been absent from Glen Echo for 48 years, but traces remain.

I went into the Potomac Valley to trace this artifact before it is forever washed away. The photographs here are the record of my adventure. The former right-of-way is easily accessible by bicycle. From Georgetown it’s a short bike ride up the Capital Crescent Trail to the tunnel under the C&O Canal at Foundry Branch. Once on the north side of the canal, a few steps up Foxhall Road leads to a vista of a rusting trestle. I continued up the C&O to Cabin John and returned along MacArthur Boulevard, which shadows the old streetcar line.

A volleyball net stretches across the ROW in Sherier Place in Northwest DC

In a few places, the ROW is visible as an extra wide median in neighborhood streets. I wonder if the residents of Brookmont realize that streetcars used to ply the center of Broad Street or if those living along Sherier Place in Northwest can remember streetcars gliding by?

Streetcars no longer glide through Brookmont in Montgomery County, but their legacy remains in this green space

Rails embedded in P Street NW in Georgetown

In Georgetown, on O & P Streets between Wisconsin and 35th, rails are still embedded in the cobblestones. Here, one can see the unique third rail conduit exclusive to DC. Congress forbade the use of overhead wires, so streetcars had to use an underground power source. The resulting trench was hard to maintain, but Washington made do.

After Georgetown, Route 20 streetcars stopped at a plow pit and changed to overhead catenary for the remainder of the trip to Cabin John.

Except for a segment through the Dalecarlia Water Treatment Plant, the right-of-way is moslty still intact. I’m not sure about the ownership, but the grading for the streetcar is clearly visible all the way to Cabin John Creek. The line is quite overgrown in places, and a few decaying bridges remain as the last vestiges of this piece of history.

 

The streetcar bridge over Foundry Branch near Georgetown

The cut for the streetcar loop at Cabin John is also quite noticeable. The outbound half of the loop is quite clear of underbrush, and seems to be in use as a walking path. The inbound part of the loop is very overgrown and is not really accessible. The loop falls entirely within the Cabin John Regional Park of Maryland’s M-NCPPC.

I think it has a lot of potential as a heritage streetcar line, but it would also be expensive–perhaps prohibitively so.

Historic pictures:
http://capitaltransit.home.comcast.net/~capitaltransit/rh/20/index.html
http://www.davesrailpix.com/dct/dc.htm

Jack Coleman as the gay Steven Carrington on 1980s series "Dynasty". Photo from Briantologist on Flickr.

My boyfriend recently introduced me to a 1980s television series known as “Dynasty.” I’ve only seen three or four episodes, but I find it quite interesting. The show ran from 1981 through 1989, and follows the oil-rich Carringtons’ fabulous, drama-logged lives. If you follow TNG’s “What We’re Listening To,” you’ve probably noticed that I have a love for the music of the Decadent Decade. As a matter of fact, I’m listening to stereotypically 80′s music as I write this. 

I also believe that some of the best film and television came out of the decade between the death of disco and the fall of the wall. While the Star Wars franchise came out of the 70s, almost everyone agrees that 1980′s Empire was best. And mention of good films from the 80s would be incomplete without mention of the timeless classic Back to the Future - a film from the year of my birth. But outstripping all other pop culture from the Eighties is my favorite television show: MacGyver. 

However, mullets and leg-warmers aside, the 1980s was a pivotal decade for the gay-rights movement. Despite the conservative swing in politics following the Malaise of the 1970s, gays began to come into recognition as a part of mainstream society. While the AIDS epidemic decimated our ranks of many leaders and created an initial stigma, other forces were at work which would set the stage for greater acceptance. These forces were more subtle than the political struggles like those of Harvey Milk which continue today. And while both overt and subtle, behind-the-scenes efforts are important in attaining our desires for equality and acceptance, the subtle efforts have helped us to win the hearts and minds of the younger generations.

So while Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson declared victory on behalf of the Moral Majority with the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980, steps were being taken which would help us win the Culture War – steps which would allow us to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. One such step was the creation of character Steven Carrington on Dynasty. 

The show thrived on the drama between characters. One of the largest sources for this drama came from the conflict between patriarch Blake Carrington and his good-looking, out-and-proud son Steven. Originally played by Al Corley, Jack Coleman –  who currently plays the unflappable Noah Bennet on NBC’s Heroes – took over the role in 1983. The role of Steven Carrington was one of the first gay characters on prime-time television. Of particular import, is that Steven seems to be the only Carrington with any ethical values. In casting this character, the writers were certainly trying to make a point about homosexuals – and they were somewhat successful. After all, these days, no one bats an eye when some fruit prances across the stage. It’s not even really a shocker when the macho captain of the football team gets caught making out with a guy under the bleachers. 

But we still had a long way to go during the 1980s. It seems that the character of Steven Carrington, while well played by Coleman (I’ve yet to see an episode with Corley), was always being modified to make him less controversial. While a self-identified homosexual, Steven has slept with more women than Quagmire, and has even married a few. While some of his trysts could realistically be chalked up to curiosity or confusion, one major reason for the character’s erratic journey to self-awareness and acceptance of his orientation was pressure from the religious right. Of course, by the end of the series, Steven is much more well-adjusted. In the reunion special, which aired in 1991, he is shown to be in a long-term relationship with another man – and finally receives acceptance from his father. 

But despite the handicapped portrayal of Steven’s sexuality, he has groundbreaking dialogue in which he offers insight into the world of homosexuality. One such instance occurred in Season 4, airing in November 1983. Unbeknownst to him, Steven has fathered a child with his wife Sammy Jo (Heather Locklear). Steven has been severely injured in an oil rig explosion, and has been presumed dead. Sammy Jo does not want to take care of baby Danny, and leaves him with Steven’s father Blake. When Steven returns to Denver, he wants to take custody, but Blake fights him on the grounds that homosexuals are not fit to be parents (sound familiar?) 

At the time of the hearing, Steven is living with his (male) lawyer, but they are not in a relationship. After taking the stand, Steven is cross-examined by his father’s counsel, Andrew Laird. I’ve transcribed a portion of the scene below.

Laird:  …The one distinctive area missing, intentional or otherwise, has been testimony shedding any light whatsoever on the one key issue in this case. And that is the sexual preferences of Steven Carrington. Now we all know that he had a male lover in New York, and we know that he lives with a male in an apartment here in Denver. And that male happens to be his attorney, Mr. Christopher Deegan, who is representing him in this case. Now Steven, will you tell us is Mr. Deegan your present lover?

Steven: I refuse to answer that. That’s nobody’s business but my own.

Judge: Please answer the question Mr. Carrington. Will you repeat the question Mr. Laird?

Laird: Yes your Honor. Is Mr. Deegan your present lover or isn’t he?

Steven: I won’t answer. What he’s asking, in essence, is if I’m guilty of being gay. Well nobody, not my Father’s lawyer, not you, not anybody in this courtroom or outside it has the right to ask that question, because there is no guilt in that issue. Everybody in this state and in this country has the right to live his own life how he wants. Provided he’s a decent human being, isn’t a man entitled to raise his own child whether he’s homosexual or not? I am and will always be Danny’s father, and a good one, no matter what my lifestyle is.

While custody issues are rarely clear cut, Steven is right in the sense that legally, there is no guilt in the gay issue. While less than four years later, the Supreme Court would rule in Bowers v. Hardwick that state sodomy laws were not unconstitutional, Colorado decriminalized homosexuality in 1972. But Steven’s statement goes deeper than the legal issue. What he is saying is that no one should feel guilty of being gay. There’s nothing wrong with homosexuals, at least nothing that derives from their orientation, and gays can be upstanding citizens too.

I think this statement was certainly ahead of its time, and at the same time, long overdue. 

To some degree, however, Steven’s moral victory on the stand was hollow. Instead of allowing the judge to rule based on the evidence, Steven elopes – with a woman – in the next episode (before the conclusion of the hearing) and the judge has no choice but to rule in Steven’s favor.

While little victories like this are easily overlooked when one considers the history of the gay rights movement, each and every one helped to further our cause. It’s easy to glance back into the depths of time and name the big victories of our culture war: the Stonewall Riots, the election of Harvey Milk, the defeat of Proposition 6, the judicial victory in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, and the legislative victory a few weeks ago in Vermont. But they are not the only skirmishes. While these high-profile victories were hard-fought and are a necessary strategy to winning the war, they would have been much harder to win without the subtle inroads made by shows like Dynasty and all of the other gay characters and role models who have appeared in media. 

Iowa Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal was recently lauded for his comments in the wake of the court decision there. He related a story from his daughter, citing it as an educational experience for him. The daughter, when at work listened to a bunch of conservative older men talking negatively about gay marriage. She said to them, “You guys don’t understand. You’ve already lost. My generation doesn’t care.” That is the victory that pop culture wins us. The big fights, the fights for marriage rights, the fights against propositions and amendments, the fights in the courtrooms and legislatures of America is a fight against a dwindling demographic. 

By all means, these fights should continue, but in reality, the War is won. We’re marching toward victory, and while the skirmishes are far from over, the Religious Right doesn’t have enough troops to hold us off indefinitely. Of course, their desperation will only lead to violent attacks on us and our “agenda,” but before too long, they will be a marginalized group whose shouts of indignation won’t even phase us while we walk down the street hand-in-hand with our lovers.

Thank you, Dynasty.

Photo by gregverdino on Flickr

Last week, the Governor of America’s second-largest state suggested that secession from the Union should be considered if “Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people.” This statement from Rick Perry came at one of the many Anti-Tax Tea Parties that happened around the nation on April 15. In an earlier speech from April 9 supporting the Tenth Amendment, Perry mentioned States’ Rights enough that I thought he might be channeling George Wallace.

The fact is, we have come to expect this sort of rhetoric from right-wing nut jobs and college Republicans, but it is a bit more noteworthy when a governor suggests leaving the Union. Of course we all know that Perry is just posturing. He wants votes. He is probably not the type to actually try to leave the America, but his voice gives license to those who do advocate a separation – a divorce of the states. Sometimes, these people can be dangerous. Rick McLaren, a leader of the separatist Republic of Texas group took hostages in 1997 resulting in a standoff with police. And just last week, the Department of Homeland Security distributed a report to law enforcement agencies warning that right-wing extremist groups may be again on the rise. 

This secessionist movement in Texas is not new in concept, but for a politician to suggest it is quite shocking. Mr. Perry asserts that the Federal Government has crossed the line. They’ve gone too far, and he’s not going to keep quiet anymore. His speeches are unclear on exactly how the government has stepped beyond its bounds, other than to mention unfunded mandates. And while I’m sure Texas resents the provisions of the Clean Air Act and Americans with Disabilities Act, most Texans still benefit. Besides, Texas really doesn’t have any room to complain about its tax dollars. It has close to a one-to-one return on its federal tax dollars. In 2005, for every dollar that Texas sent to Washington, it got 94 cents back. That six cent margin could probably be chalked up to overhead, but essentially the donor states, like Texas, are giving to states like Mississippi and New Mexico, both of whom got back over $2 for every dollar sent to Washington. The states that really should be suggesting secession are New Jersey, Nevada, and Connecticut, each of whom received less than 70 cents back on every dollar sent to the federal government in 2005.

Perry asserts that Texas reserved the right to secede when it joined the United States in 1845. This is patently false. The only unique thing about Texas’ annexation is that Congress allowed the new state to subdivide itself into four additional states of more manageable size in the future. Former Republican House Majority Leader Tom DeLay has suggested that Texas use this method to leave, after all, would Congress welcome eight more Senators from Texas? I certainly hope not.

But the question of Texas’ right to leave has been settled – twice. Once, in 1865, following armed conflict, President Lincoln asserted that states did not have the right to leave. As a matter of fact, Lincoln never considered the Confederate States to have left the Union. In 1869, the Supreme Court ruled on the matter in Texas v. White. The majority opinion ruled that the Articles of Confederation were a permanent union, and since the Constitution was intended to form “a more perfect union,” it too was perpetual. Chief Justice Chase opined that the only way states could leave the union was through revolution or through the consent of the states. 

Hypothetically, however, I wonder what effect Texas’ independence would have on the United States. Firstly, it would seemingly further gay rights, at least outside of Texas. Assuming that only Texas left the Union, the makeup of the federal legislature would change. The Senate would lose two Republicans. The House of Representatives would lose twenty Republicans and twelve Democrats. However, since its makeup is set at 435 members, the overall proportions would change. The loss of the largest Republican-leaning state would shift Congress to the left. Additionally, Republicans could count on thirty-four fewer electoral votes in presidential elections. 

With less Republican resistance in Congress and in the Electorate, gay rights (and the rest of the liberal agenda) would be in better shape. Furthermore, assuming that Texas remained a decent place to live, other right-wing nut jobs might flock there from other states. For instance, if all of the conservative anti-gay marriage people from Iowa wanted to flee the “Homo-Storm,” they could get a homestead in Texas.

Of course, there is some question about whether Texas would indeed remain a nice place to live. Legislators from Texas happily pointed out the economic growth rate in their little States’ Rights press conference, but with international frontiers involved, companies might not find Dallas and Houston quite as attractive places to locate. Besides, all the federal investment, such as the $17 Billion (yes, billion with a b) in stimulus money that Texas is set to receive would not be flowing into the Lone Star State if it were the Lone Star Republic. 

But the loss of Texas could lead to a much more disastrous outcome for the country as a whole. If Texas were to go, it could spark a wave of regionalism and secession. The Deep South would probably leave for much the same political reasons as Texas. And were a large-scale breakup of the United States to occur, I wonder what would be larger binding forces – states or regions. For instance, were Virginia and Maryland to end up on different sides of a secession battle, would NoVa choose to stay with Virginia or join Maryland and the District? Would Western Maryland stick with the liberal center or join like-minded West Virginians? The split-up of states is not all that far-fetched, after all, West Virginia only exists because it refused to secede along with the rest of Virginia. 

No, Abraham Lincoln was right when he equated secessionism with anarchy. If we let one region go, we have to let them all go. And while a time may come when the states do go their separate ways, now is not that time. Most Americans are happy being Americans. Most are also happy with the federal money they receive. And furthermore, Americans are generally happy with the current President than they were with the last guy – who just happened to be from Texas. 

And while I’m tempted to tell Texas where to get off, I know better. And so does Rick Perry. So, Texas: enjoy the party, you’re here to stay – no matter what the nut jobs out there have to say about it.

Photo by author

Growing up in the United Methodist Church was certainly good for me. The UMC places a strong emphasis on the social work of the Church, which appeals to the (very) liberal in me. It also places a good deal of emphasis on making your own journey to God, to put things in my terms, which appeals to my independent nature and overly-analytical mind. But the Church has not yet taken the step to accept gays.

I had the fortune of attending a Reconciling Congregation when I came out, and while I was unaware of this until I came out, my congregation welcomed me with what amounted to “ok, so you’re gay, so what.” I’ve never been closer to a Church nor further from organized religion than I was after I came out. And while that probably sounds paridoxical, I never found it to be so.

The act of coming out made me reexamine many aspects of my life, and one of those aspects was religion. Primarily because I had learned what it meant to be a Methodist during my first two years of college, I was unable to blindly reject faith, as many gays do. Instead, I decided to learn more about spirituality and theology. I read up on the subject, including books which looked at where Christian traditions came from. I also continued to support the social work of the Church through volunteering.

But one fundamental thing did change. I decided to take the Inverse of Pascal’s Wager and become agnostic. If God (Yaweh) was arbitrary and vengful and would cast me into Hell merely because I didn’t believe, but otherwise lived a good and just life, then this was not a god I was willing to worship. If, on the other hand, God (Elohim) was kind and forgiving, belief (in God) would not matter were there to be a judgment. Motive is everything. Someone who does good merely out of fear of punishment or hope of reward is not truly honorable. I therefore, reject the idea of punishment or reward after death, and live as honorably as I can anyway. That is how I define the Inverse of Pascal’s Wager.

In that regard I became agnostic, but that word should not be considered to mean apathetic in my case. I stopped thinking of “Christ” and started thinking of “Jesus.” In my opinion, he was an honorable man and historic figure, but he wasn’t the son of God in the traditional sense. Moreover, I saw his social agenda being lost on fundamentalists who were only concerned with his divinity. My feelings are summed up succinctly by Barbara Ehrenreich, author of “Nickel and Dimed,” who in her book on low-wage workers, reflects on a revival she visited. “Jesus makes his appearance here only as a corpse; the living man, the wine-guzzling vagrant and precocious socialist, is never once mentioned, nor anything he ever had to say. Christ crucified rules, and it may be that the true business of modern Christianity is to crucify him again and again so that he can never get a word out of his mouth.” (Pages 68-69) Or, to put it more simply, take a listen to Jackson Browne’s “The Rebel Jesus,” in which he says of Christmastime, “perhaps we give a little to the poor, if the generosity should sieze us. But if any one of us should interfere in the business of why there are poor, they get the same as the Rebel Jesus.”

Coming out was the best thing that could have happened to me in regard to religion. I don’t know what I’ve become. Whether it be agnostic or humanist; whether it be existentialist or universalist. I reject labels, especially when it comes to religion. What upsets me most about religion today are those who read the Gospel of Luke without knowing what the Great Reversal is. What upsets me is voters who vote on ‘Christian Values’ without knowing what the Jubilee is, and who think that Jesus would have cut taxes on the upper income brackets, would have condemed ‘welfare queens’, would have supported F16 contracts. No, when I hear things like this, I think we must be talking about different Jesuses.

Image by PictFactory on Flickr

Last week I was downtown, but I missed the throngs of protesters marching between the White House and the Capitol. I’m kind of bummed too, because it would have been an interesting thing to see. According to the Washington Post, these “Intactivists” – around fifty of them – were out in defense of the most controversial part of the male anatomy: the foreskin. Their goal is to convince Congress and the President that a federal ban on male circumcision should be enacted. In fact, two of the group’s members, both twenty-one, are on a hunger strike until they achieve their ends. 

According to the Post’s article, the young men are devoted to saving others from their plight. They claim that their circumcisions have caused them to miss out on “entire realms of exquisite feeling.” Instead of experiencing what’s left of their sensation, they’ve decided to sit in front of the Capitol Building until they starve or a ban is enacted. They are certainly committed to their side of the issue.

It’s an issue which I had no idea was so controversial. To hear this group talk, it seems like Congress is asleep at the wheel in letting this barbaric practice continue. But others argue in quite the opposite vein. Male circumcision, some say, is safe, promotes better hygiene, and has no negative impact. In fact, the removal of the foreskin has been practiced since Egyptian times. Yet the pruning of the male genitalia varies widely from region to region today. Across Europe, Asia, and Oceania, circumcision is relatively uncommon. In the Middle East, on the other hand, the World Health Organization reports that it is a nearly universal practice. In other parts of the world, including Northern Africa and the United States, circumcision is fairly common. 

While the WHO estimates that 30% of males worldwide are sans foreskin, studies show that some 79% of American males are cut. Rates have dropped from their highs during the 1960s and 70s, but compared with the rest of the western world, are still very high. In the 1970s, the rate of circumcision was 91%, a number which had dropped to 83% by the following decade. 

Today, the American Academy of Pediatrics makes the following policy statement regarding neonatal circumcision: “existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In the case of circumcision, in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child’s current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child.” This statement contrasts with other western medical professional organizations, like the Canadian Pediatric Society, which recommends that “circumcision of newborns should not routinely be performed.”

It is clear that the debate has strong points on both sides. Proponents of circumcision mainly cite better hygiene as the reasoning behind the procedure. In fact, germ theory is probably one of the main reasons that circumcision is so common in the United States. In the early 1900s, circumcision was thought to decrease disease transmission rates. Studies show that circumcised males are less likely to contract HIV from penile-vaginal intercourse, as well. Of course, circumcision is not the only way to prevent the transmission of sexually-transmitted diseases. 

Other proponents of circumcision base their decisions on religious grounds. Neonatal circumcision is almost universal in Judaism and Islam. Jewish families traditionally have their male children circumcised on the eighth day after their birth, a ritual which welcomes infant males into the covenant between God and the Children of Israel. And while circumcision in Islam is not explicitly mandated in the Qur’an, it is considered a sign of belonging to the Islamic community. 

But opponents disagree. In addition to the pain and trauma inflicted during infant circumcision, they cite permanent psychological damage. They also claim that circumcision creates a loss of sexual stimulation and can lead to dysfunction in the bedroom. Their arguments also assert that as a method of reducing STD transmission, it’s less effective than other methods, such as condoms.

While there certainly are valid points on both sides of the issue, I don’t really see what all the fuss is about. I know that the intactivists believe that circumcision is barbaric and obsolete, but I honestly can’t relate. I don’t miss my foreskin. I really don’t. I don’t remember having one, I don’t remember having it removed, and so far as I can tell, I turned out all right without one. 

I wondered, when I read the Post article, how the hunger-strikers knew they were missing “entire realms of exquisite feeling.” How do they know? They’re clearly used their penises without foreskins and experienced the sensation. What isn’t as clear is whether they had the opportunity to take their wangs out on a test drive with foreskins – my guess is probably not. In that case, how do they know they’re missing out?

The aforementioned article includes a funny exchange between an intactivist and a spectator along Pennsylvania Avenue. In response to a sign about circumcision’s relationship to lessened sensation, he cries “Circumcision increases sensation.” To which the protesters reply: “it causes premature ejaculation.”

Of course, no evidence has been offered to suggest that premature ejaculation is indeed caused by circumcision. After all, if almost 80% of American men are circumcised, I would think that 80% of American males would have problems in that area, and that does not seem to be the case.

At any rate, it seems that the loss of ones foreskin is essentially water under the bridge. I don’t see how it’s traumatic, especially if done when in infancy. When administered by a medical professional, pain relief can be easily administered keeping the potential for psychological damage low. And since male nudity is so rare in American society, children can be quite old before they realize that anything was even removed. In my case, having my wisdom teeth removed was a far more traumatic event in my life than the removal of my foreskin, but having four fewer teeth really isn’t all that relevant either. 

Circumcision is neither medically necessary nor harmful to circumcisees. A federal ban would certainly increase the number of foreskins in America, but it might also increase HIV transmission rates. Civil libertarians would charge the federal government with sticking its nose where it doesn’t belong, and I have to agree. It would probably also violate freedom of religion in many peoples’ eyes. Regardless, though, no matter how long a federal ban is in coming, it won’t give these protesters their foreskins back – although the article does point out that one of the protesters has invented an apparatus which claims to do so.

I find the ruckus over this tiny part of the male body – this little strip of skin – quite outrageous. What it boils down to in my eyes is pure foreskin envy. It seems to me that the feelings of inadequacy that these anti-circumcisers claim probably comes not from the loss of their foreskins but from some other part of their psyche. Their circumcisions, however, offer them a convenient excuse.  That’s no reason, however, to trample on parents’ rights to make medical decisions for their children.

Main Street in Matt's conservative hometown

My Junior year in college turned out to be quite an adventure for me. Having returned from a summer living in the former East Germany, I found myself entering what would turn out to be the better half of my collegiate career. I was over halfway done with my academics, but I wasn’t close to being halfway through with my emotional growth.

I was living in an on-campus apartment with three male roommates and an almost-live-in girlfriend (not mine). One of my roommates, let’s call him “V”, I had known since middle school. We were best friends and had been virtually inseparable for years. But there was a growing specter on the horizon. I had come out to myself and was starting to come to terms with this. All of my roommates identified as fundamentalist Christians and I was somewhat worried about being out in that situation. Of course, I was generally worried about being out period.

I grew up in a small town in North Georgia. Gay was not a topic that ever came up. No one even talked about homosexuals, at least not as a group that existed where I grew up. They always were somewhere else, being un-American or doing anything sinister. In fact, I only first met a gay person the summer before I stared my senior year at high school. But at that time, I was still too far in the closet to do much more than ask a few ignorant questions.

But after having spent two years living in (relatively) cosmopolitan Atlanta plus a few months in Germany, I felt less clueless. Of course, I was also afraid to step out of the familiar old closet. Not only was I afraid of the reaction of my friends and family, I really felt like I had no idea “how” to be gay.

But there came a time when I could keep it in no longer. I needed some help dealing with my emotions and I needed to tell someone. But I also felt the need to control the situation. I was very afraid that my roommates would find out for two reasons. Foremost, “V” knew my parents, and he would tell them were he to find out. Secondly, I was concerned that he and my other roommates would react poorly. So as I started to come out to close friends, I did not come out to “V,” my so-called best friend. It’s sad, but I couldn’t trust him with this.

Gays were one of his favorite soapboxes. Their agenda, their destruction of family values, their general debauchery. And every time he spoke about them, I cringed and felt salt in an open wound. He and one of my other roommates, “H,” loved to badmouth gays and could often be overheard talking about the subject, especially if they were watching Fox News, as they were wont to do.

Now, I’ve never considered myself particularly “fruity”, but I have always been less macho than other guys. I was apparently gayer than I had thought, because upon coming out to several of my friends they replied by saying that they had known for years. I found this funny because I didn’t feel like I had known for years. In fact, I had been so repressed as a teenager that despite having crushes on several guys in school, the thought of being gay never crossed my mind.

After coming out to my parents (recounted here), I finally felt secure enough to broach the subject with my roommates. I tried dropping hints at first, mainly because I was still too afraid to just come right out and say it. I think the live-in-girlfriend, “T”, who stayed with “B” picked up pretty quickly, but the others were slow on the uptake. Finally I told “V,” the person I had shared everything with for eight years. He didn’t take it well.

Besides alerting the rest of the apartment, he came back with a Bible and with fellow evangelist “H” in tow. Voices were raised, and not wanting to deal with all of this, I kicked “V” and “H” out of my room. I was very upset. It was at least as bad as I had feared. While “V” and “H” continued to try and communicate through my locked door, “T” came to my rescue. “Leave him alone,” she said. “It’s none of your business.” I was elated. The couple, “T” and “B” often came to my defense, and the next several weeks was much better for it.

But all was not well. While “B” and “T” were social with me, my relationship to “V” and “H” continued to sour. “H” refused to stay in the same room with me unless he was preaching. And while at first, I was okay with this, it eventually came to be quite unnerving. “T” explained to me that “H” though “the Gay” (as he called it) was contagious, and he wasn’t about to catch it. He was literally afraid to be in the same room as me. No matter what he was doing, he’d get up and leave if I came in. And as hilarious as this is in the telling, it was not productive for anyone.

“V” became increasingly hostile because he saw my open gayness as a betrayal. To some degree, I can understand his feelings; however that does not excuse his actions. He felt that if I had come to him first, he could have helped me – by which he meant that he could have kept me straight. But more to the point, as his best friend, he couldn’t understand why he was one of the last people to find out. Didn’t I trust him, he wanted to know. Things are never that simple, though. I had correctly predicted his reaction, and early on in the coming out process, I was not ready to deal with the kind of resistance he generated. I wasn’t really ready even when I did come out to him.

He did confide in me that his sister was a lesbian. This, unfortunately, had not made him sensitive toward gays. In fact, it probably contributed to the rabid nature of his homophobic feelings. He and his family strongly disapprove of her orientation, and as far as I can tell, ignore it altogether. But “V” only told me this to establish his credibility in dealing with the subject. His conversations became increasingly aggressive and he really only spoke to me when trying to convince me that I had made a poor choice.

Because my home life was causing me increased stress and interfering with my studies, I went to the Resident Assistant. He assured me that the Housing Department could move me, but I was so fearful at this point that I would find a similar situation, that I moved off campus during the middle of the Spring Semester. It is one of the best decisions I have ever made. Two of my close friends were looking for a new place, and needed a third for an apartment they were looking at a few blocks off campus. It was much healthier to live with true friends again.

A common thread which I encounter with people from my hometown is the idea that my homosexuality is somehow external. I left the nest, went off to the big city, and got corrupted. If I’d had the good sense to go to the community college a few miles outside of town, they imply, I’d be a-okay. Personally, I don’t feel this gives me enough credit. I certainly didn’t choose my orientation, but I did choose to open my eyes and get out of the bubble that surrounds the rural south. This bubble is somewhat responsible for the “corruption” theory. In my experience, Southerners are naturally distrustful of anything urban. Most corrupting happens in cities, it seems, and the world would be a better place without them.

After my junior year, I really severed most of my connections with my hometown. I still visited my parents occassionally, but I felt so cut off from my old friends and so out of my habitat, that most visits were as short as possible. By and large, my coming out experience was fine. It happened over about a three-month period, and almost all of my friends at college were fine with it. My parents took it well enough, although not as well as I’d hoped. I only lost a few friends over it, but that hurt a lot. Eventually, I stopped speaking to “V”. I finally snapped when he said homosexuality was a mental defect. I told him that if he didn’t have anything nice to say, he could go f**k himself.

That was probably not the best move on my part, but I was at my rope’s end. I didn’t have a conversation with him again until after my graduation. I was bitter. He felt betrayed because I hadn’t told him sooner, but I felt betrayed because of how he treated me when he found out. I knew I should forgive him, for my sake, but I just couldn’t do it. Honestly, when I was hurting so badly, it felt good to hurt him back. I encountered him once on a campus bus. I got on and saw him sitting in the back. We hadn’t spoken for a few weeks at this point. As I made eye contact, he raised his hand to wave me over. Instead, I turned around and stood facing the front of the bus. I got off at the next stop and walked.

Eventually, I grew emotionally. My armor didn’t need to be as thick once I was more sure of myself. I forgave “V” for his actions. By then it felt good to do so. I also apologized for not reacting more maturely. That felt good too. Forgiveness is good for both parties, as it turns out. And even though the bad blood between us is gone, we could never have a friendship the way we once did. I’m sorry that my sexuality got in the way, but I’m not sorry I’m gay.

As for my other roommates, I never see or hear from “H” anymore, but I recently heard that he now shares an apartment with “V”. “B” and “T” have split up, but I keep in touch with both of them. I’ll never forget their kindness and support when I needed it most.

Over all, I don’t have regrets about coming out. I would never go back in the closet. Coming out was not easy, but staying in was harder. I don’t think I figured that out until I got out. I think that we gays have a good thing going. Coming out teaches you a lot of things, one of the things you find out is who your real friends are. But more importantly, I think that coming out gives one an insight about oneSelf that straights never get. I also value the re-evaluation I did on just about everything when I came out. I suppose my only wish is that I had been able to go through this process sooner, despite the pain involved. I grew more in my junior year than I had grown in the decade prior, and you know, I don’t think I’d fit in the closet anymore.

Views peer into the depths of the column to watch a video of a gay couple in perpetual embrace

The column stands alone amongst the trees. People come from thousands of miles to make pilgrimage to its nearby peers, but this object is easily overlooked. Unfortunately, the plight that it represents also went unrecognized for forty years. The gray pillar is less than a year old, but the controversy surrounding it goes back decades.

Over two thousand concrete stelae rise in a wavy, undulating pattern steps from the Brandenburg Gate. Meant to create a sense of uneasiness and to show a system fraught with disorder, Germany’s Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe was completed in 2004. It’s often referred to as the Holocaust Memorial, but that name is not accurate. Officially, it only memorializes the Jewish victims of the Nazis.

The stelae of the Jewish Holocaust Memorial rise and fall with Potsdamer Platz in the background

Less than a year ago, Germany completed one more column. This one memorializes the approximately 15,000 homosexuals who died in concentration camps during Germany’s darkest hours. Gays sent to the work camps faced some of the worst survival rates, with approximately sixty percent perishing. They faced persecution not only from their guards, but also from their fellow prisoners.

A plaque at the entrance to the memorial says, in part:

In Nazi Germany, homosexuality was persecuted to a degree unprecedented in history. In 1935, the National Socialists issued an order making all male homosexuality a crime; the provisions governing homosexual behaviour in Section 175 of the Criminal Code were significantly expanded and made stricter. A kiss was enough reason to prosecute. There were more than 50,000 convictions. Under Section 175, the punishment was imprisonment, in some cases, convicted offenders were castrated. Thousands of men were sent to concentration camps for being gay; many of them died there. They died of hunger, disease and abuse or were the victims of targeted killings….
For many years, the homosexual victims of National Socialism were not included in public commemorations – neither in the Federal Republic of Germany nor in the German Democratic Republic. In both East and West Germany, homosexuality continued to be prosecuted for many years. In the Federal Republic, Section 175 remained in force without amendment until 1969.

Because of its history, Germany has a special responsibility to oppose the violation of gay mens’ and lesbians’ human rights. In many parts of the world, people continue to be persecuted for their sexuality, homosexual love remains illegal and a kiss can be dangerous….

Unfortunately the inscription does not tell the entire story. Gays were not recognized as victims of the Holocaust by the German government until 1985 – forty years after Germany’s defeat in the Second World War. But far worse, is the fact that while Jews and other prisoners in concentration camps were freed by the arriving Allies, homosexuals were reimprisoned, often without credit for time served in the work camps.

East Germany decriminalized homosexuality between consenting adults in 1957. However, the country continued to discourage public gatherings of any kind, and as such frowned upon gay bars and other social activities. The Volkskammer removed all reference to homosexuality in its criminal code in May 1989.

In the West, the Federal Republic 50,000 gay men were imprisoned for homosexuality in the twenty-four years following the end of World War Two. In 1969, twelve years after their communist counterparts, West Germany decriminalized homosexuality between consensual adults over age twenty-one. In 1994, after having absorbed East Germany, the Federal Republic finally removed reference to homosexuality from its criminal code.

In 2002, the gay victims of the Holocaust finally received a long overdue apology from the German government. On May 17th of that year, they overturned all convictions for homosexuality made during the Nazi era. However, convictions made under the exact same legislation (Absatz 175) in the post-war era were not.

While Germany certainly has lots of baggage dating back to the Second World War, they have been working to address much of it. The construction of the Gay Memorial in Berlin’s Tiergarten was an excellent step to addressing the injustices from the past.

The concrete column stands aloof from those stelae representing the Jewish victims of the Holocaust. I think this positioning is appropriate. Most of the Gays killed by the Nazis were ostracized by the other victims being held in concentration camps. At the same time, I wonder why some victims, including gays, the Roma, and political prisoners are not memorialized at the main site. Most people consider the site of the 2,700 stelae as the “Holocaust Memorial” despite only representing Jews killed by National Socialism.

The memorial itself is an austere gray-black column, rising approximately twelve feet from the grassy floor of the Tiergarten. It leans slightly, as do the stelae at the main site. Unlike those columns, however, the Gay Memorial includes a window for viewing a looped film of a gay couple locked in an ongoing kiss.

The column stands on the edge of the Tiergarten, with the video visible through the glass window

I’m somewhat conflicted by this portrayal. Fellow TNG contributor Ed Jackson pointed out that the movement for gay rights needs to take place in the living room – not the bedroom. I agree. Gays want the right to marry not because of some sexual aspect, but rather because of all the other aspects of relationships. A gay couple locked in perpetual embrace over-sexualizes our fight and makes it more difficult for some to recognize our struggle. At the same time, the film shows images of love and caring, characteristic of homosexual and heterosexual relationships alike. It also makes it patently clear who is being memorialized – a demographic frequently omitted from recognition as victims of the Nazis and a demographic frequently oppressed around the world.

This long-awaited memorial is one step on Germany’s road to healing. And while gays in Germany and in Europe have more rights (as couples) than do their American counterparts, much work remains to be done. The violence against the memorial demonstrates that as much as the continued denial of our rights.

Perhaps this reminder of persecution, within sight of Germany’s Reichstag, will show Germany’s leaders what’s at stake. Remembering the often dark past will help to keep us from repeating its mistakes. But Germany has not dealt with the oppression heaped upon gays in the Post-War era. Remembering the victims of the Nazis is not the equivalent of remembering the same people as victims of the democratic state that followed. So as much as this memorial is about remembering, it is also about forgetting.

The author took the photos included in this column.

On March 23, 2000, I walked into a room in a church outside Woodstock, Georgia. When I walked out, I was an Eagle Scout. My Board of Review had been successful. All the hard work I had put forth so far in scouting was recognized. But if I thought at the time that I had reached the highest point in my Scouting career, I was wrong. Scouting and I still had several years together before our estrangement would begin.

But our estrangement would come, all too soon it would seem. It was a fait accompli, our paths were to draw apart and little could be done to stop the separation. Even today, the wound that the organization inflicted upon me is painful. It throbs with the disappointment of missed opportunities and lost friendships. But mostly, its the ache of unfairness and discrimination that keeps the balm from my scar.

As I’m sure you’re aware, the Boy Scouts of America takes a strong stance against homosexuality. Their position is stronger than the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. In fact I have heard of cases where mere suspicion has led to expulsion. No one, neither adult nor youth, is permitted to participate in Scouting activities if they are gay.

Scouting had been a part of my life for many years. Since 1992 the organization had taught me leadership and outdoor skills. As I grew more mature, I began to take a larger leadership role, not only in my troop, but in the district. Eventually, I was on the host committee for a regional Order of the Arrow conclave. In college, I helped to found a Venture Crew on campus.

My Venture Crew drew me ever closer to Scouting and my brothers in the organization. The Crew did its share of outdoorsy things, from camping to rafting. But I got the most fulfillment out of the service we did. One of the activities I looked forward to was working with Operation Scoutreach. This program reaches out to underprivileged kids in the inner city. Scoutreach Weekend offered these youngsters the ability to spend the weekend camping at a scout reservation east of Atlanta. In my conversations with some of them, I discovered that many had never been outside the Atlanta Perimeter (Beltway) before, let alone camping. It was fundamentally good for me to give back to the community and the organization that had given so much to me.

In fact, one of the landmark moments of my collegiate career occurred while I was working on a service project with my Venture Crew. We were volunteering for Trees Atlanta, planting trees in poverty-stricken neighborhoods on the South Side. I was just a freshman. I had never seen such poverty, and it was right here in the United States. It was within sight of the gleaming skyscrapers downtown, but it was far from the eyes of those who worked in them. I had already resolved to go into planning, but until that moment, I had not known the urgency. From that day forward, my focus on planning became far more liberal. I became an advocate of environmental justice and of using the urban form to solve social problems.

But one day the inevitable became undeniable. I came out to myself. Soon, I was outing myself to select others. Despite being enrolled at Georgia’s fourth largest public university, the campus community was small. I needed to come out to the Crew. But this would be the end of my Scouting career. There would be no more hikes with my brothers in the green mountains of North Georgia. There would be no more nights around the campfire, no more tree plantings, no more Scoutreaches. Perhaps, I feared, there would be fewer friends in my circle.

It was cold in more ways than one on that dark Sunday in November. Across the field, a campfire flickered. The faces of my peers, my friends, my brothers surrounded the orange tongues of flame. How would they react, I wondered. How would I survive? Scouting had not been some after school activity for me. It had been an integral part of my life for almost fourteen years. I lay in the deep grass and looked skyward. Wispy clouds swept across the heavens, driven by some unheard wind. The walls of the valley rose steeply on either side, hemming me in. Was there any way out of this quandary? A chill swept through my limbs, but it wasn’t the kind brought on by the cool Tennessee air. Tears flowed down my cheeks as fond memories of my Scouting past flickered through my mind. This was to be my last outing as a Scout.

At our regular meeting the following week, I came out to my Crew. None of them disowned me. Occasionally I was able to participate in non-scouting events like service opportunities; however, I’m not sure I ever really got over being severed from the Boy Scouts. Even with their discrimination, I think that Scouting is one of the best youth organizations in the country. Personally, I never faced homophobia within scouting, other than being kicked out. And as painful as that was, I don’t regret one moment of the time I spent in Scouting.

The policy comes down from the National Council, but it does not mean that Scouting is dominated by homophobes. Some of the kindest, most loyal, most service oriented people I know I met in Scouts. But the organization clearly has some deficiencies. Discrimination is one of them. In fact, I know plenty of gay former Scouts. They are all admirable people. Coming out is an experience that teaches one introspection and self respect in a way few other experiences can. Gay individuals have plenty to offer Scouting and its members. Our dedication and insight should be valued by this organization; instead we are shunned.

A Scout is trustworthy, but National Council’s anti-gay policy perpetuates lies about gays which it knows are false. A Scout is loyal, but the policy betrays faithful members. A Scout is helpful and friendly, but this policy is hurtful and bigoted. A Scout is courteous, but Scouting’s policy encourages its members to blindly reject others. A Scout is kind, but the policy is hateful. A Scout is obedient, but Scouting demands prejudice from its members. A Scout is cheerful, but Scouting’s directive denies the ability of gays to accept themselves openly. A Scout is thrifty, but Scouting is ridding itself of many excellent resources based on shortsighted and false preconceptions. A Scout is brave, but Scouting’s policy refuses to recognize the courage that it takes to be openly gay in an often heterosexist society. A Scout is clean, but in this decision Scouting’s hands are covered with the slime of bigotry and hate. A Scout is reverent, but Scouting’s anti-gay policy will not recognize the beauty of all of God’s creations, including those of us who, although gay, are also made in his image. It is time that the Boy Scouts of America decides to return to the values it espouses to have.

No, the Boy Scouts of America’s policy excluding gays does not espouse the values of Scouting. It is quite antithetical to the moral teachings which have created so many upstanding citizens.

Robert F. Kennedy once told us that “Few are willing to brave the disapproval of their fellows, the censure of their colleagues, the wrath of their society. Moral courage is a rarer commodity than bravery in battle or great intelligence.” This is the message of Scouting. We are indeed disciples of a moral code which is rarely easy to uphold, but that is our message. No Scout should be taught to stand by during times of injustice.

Scouting teaches many things; foremost among is honor. There is nothing honorable in discrimination. Until Scouting rights this wrong, its image will be tarnished. That stain hurts me far more than my estrangement from the organization. My pain is especially sharp on this ninth anniversary of the night I became an Eagle Scout. But I have faith that the organization will one day reverse this unjust policy and once again welcome her long-sundered children.

Picture at top by Bruce Andersen.

I went to see the new film Watchmen on Friday. I thought the film was well done for the most part, but it seems that many critics have trouble moving past the penises. One of the main characters of the film, Dr. Manhattan, is quite the nudist. At first, viewers are shown this with brief shots of his nude hindquarters and shots of his calves. Later the camera reveals his muscled upper-body with no indication of garments where a waistband should be.

But then suddenly, without prelude, Dr. Manhattan appears in all of his blue-shaded glory. The sudden onslaught of full-frontal, computer-generated male nudity sent a giggle and a nervous gasp rippling through the audience.

I think that this is indicative of the American uncomfortableness with male nudity. We seem to have little compunction about showing actresses parading around the set with their breasts exposed. When it comes to men, however, don’t let us see anything interesting. When I was in high school, my friend suggested that someone should invent “L” shaped sheets for movies, since there is clearly a double standard for nudity. In movies, the more nude actresses are, the larger the fan base, whereas the more naked the actors, the more uncomfortable the audience.

At some level, I think we’re conditioned to associate penises in the media with sinfulness. America’s puritan roots, while loosened by the sexual revolution of the 1960s, still have a strong hold on us. Europeans are not nearly as up tight when it comes to nudity in advertising and the media. Censorship might play a part in keeping mainstream America uncomfortable with nudity, but I think it goes deeper. I think it is bound up in our national psyche.

Watchmen certainly pushes the envelope. American films mostly limit male nudity to bare buns and those views are usually brief. This movie not only includes the penis, it shows it frequently and in long scenes. No attempt is made to camouflage or hide his genitalia. It hangs around like a wallflower at the prom, not really participating, but visible nonetheless. Honestly, I’ve seen straight porn with less penis screen time.

The display of Dr. Manhattan’s penis in Watchmen actually has nothing to do with sex. The character is just nude. When it comes down to filming, the director could shoot around Dr. Manhattan’s implied nudity, which is the typical response, or he could shoot the film as if the nudity didn’t matter – as it doesn’t to the characters. Since Watchmen was filmed using the latter technique, the audience faces some discomfort, but the director didn’t sacrifice the nudity of Dr. Manhattan called for in the graphic novel.

Regardless of what the FCC thinks, nudity occurs everyday. It is as much a part of our story as other things commonly portrayed in movies without objection. Films portray life, they portray stories of fiction and truth, they portray struggles to understand things beyond our comprehension. These portrayals have to deal with the same things we do in life in order to make them relevant. One of those things is nudity. To pretend that it doesn’t exist is dishonest, but to overrepresent it runs the risk of being gratuitous.

Honestly, I’m not sure if Watchmen is too gratuitous or not, but I am sure that they didn’t dodge the issue. I hope that this represents an improvement the typical knee-jerk reaction to male nudity in the media. But America just needs to get over it. It’s just a penis. Half the population has one and just about everyone over age 18 has seen one. Films shouldn’t pretend they don’t exist. And Americans shouldn’t freak out when they are shown on the silver screen.

Last week, the Senate voted on the DC House Voting Rights Act of 2009, approving it with a filibuster-proof 61 votes. The House is expected to follow suit shortly on their version. Voting rights for the District is closer than it has ever been. This legislation will give the almost 600,000 residents of the Federal City voting representation in the United States House of Representatives. As a resident of the District, I find this prospect exciting and long overdue.

The Founding Fathers never intended for the creation of the District of Columbia to cause American citizens to be deprived of their “inalienable rights.” They envisioned the District as an area carved out of other states (so as to be free of their influence) which would be large enough to provide for the defense of the federal government. I don’t think the Founders predicted that a permanent population would reside in Washington. Nonetheless, the District has grown to a cosmopolitan metropolis, home to hundreds of thousands of citizens. Their disenfranchisement is a civil rights issue and is a blemish on our great republic.

There are two related issues at stake. The primary issue is, of course, the lack of full representation in all three branches of the federal government. But another gap in the rights of citizens of the District is the lack of home rule. While both issues are pressing, right now Congress seems intent on solving only one – and only part of that one to boot.

A Vote in the House
The values upon which this country is based transcend politics. These principles, according to the Founding Fathers, transcended all time and culture and no outside entity has the right or ability to remove them. But politics has often kept the vote far from the reach of Washingtonians.

In the Senate’s version of the DC Voting Rights Bill, Republicans attached a provision which would strip DC of its ability to regulate guns. The conference committee’s compromise might eliminate this amendment, but the fact that some legislator thought it appropriate to make a civil rights issue into a political issue is offensive to me.

The gun issue is merely an indicator of a larger agenda. The Republicans are often found opposing DC enfranchisement, ostensibly on the grounds that it’s not a state. The real issue, however, is that any representatives or senators from the District will be Democratic for the foreseeable future. The DC Voting Rights Bill attempts to balance this issue by granting ultra-conservative Utah an extra seat in the House. However, any American citizen who is truly a patriot should unconditionally support DC voting rights. There is nothing more American than the power to shape one’s government through the vote.

While it is true that residents of the District of Columbia have been able to vote for President since the election of 1964, they still have no voting Representatives or Senators. The nearly 600,000 residents of Washington cannot write their Senator, cannot visit their Representative, cannot be given the full rights guaranteed under the United States Constitution, even though they many are natural born citizens. And in the system of checks and balances set forth by the Framers, the lack of a vote in any of the branches is the lack of a vote in all of the branches.

Until the District has representation in both houses, the work of the Framers is not yet done. A voting Representative in the House is a step in the right direction but it is not the end of the journey. The Senate, for instance, confirms executive appointments and signs treaties. The residents of the District have no say in this process now and won’t even under the proposed DC Voting Rights Act. A letter to the editor in today’s Washington Post wondered if getting half a loaf now might keep us from ever getting the rest of the loaf. I wonder about that too.

We are the only republic in the world that does not allow citizens of its capital the rights given to all other citizens. This egregious injustice must be righted. And any attempt to block or compromise the granting of this sacred right with amendments is blasphemous to the very foundations of this nation.

Last month, a Republican Congressman from Texas, Louie Gohmert, announced that he was a convert. He had previously opposed granting voting rights to the District, but now he was for it. However he thinks that giving DC a Representative is unconstitutional because it is not a state. As a stopgap, he has proposed exempting District residents from the federal income tax. Our license plates, it seems, have gotten to him. But it seems something was lost in translation. Because while the cry of both colonists and Washingtonians was “no taxation without representation,” what was (and is) really meant was “let us govern ourselves.” Mr. Gohmert does not understand that while taxation without representation runs afoul of the founding principles of America, so does legislation without representation.

Local Government
The Founders gave Congress sole jurisdiction over the affairs of the District when they wrote the Constitution. This clause creates a truly unjust situation for the citizens of the District. Even though citizens of the District vote for a Mayor and Council, Congress still has to approve all legislation. They even have the power to remove (as in abolish the offices of) the Mayor and Council without asking the voters of the District.

No other jurisdiction in the country is forced to pass the federal bar for every piece of local legislation. From budget bills to the most inconsequential ordinances, every action taken by the District Council is subject to review and revision. Today, conservatives are especially concerned about the gun issue. While this time they attached it as an amendment to a voting rights bill, they often try even more dastardly things.

Nothing is more of an affront to local government than having legislation written for it. In every other city in the nation, no matter how big or small, city councils decide through the democratic process what is best for citizens. But in Washington, legislators, none of whom represent the District, decide what is best. They are completely unaccountable for their actions. Their constituents are often hundreds or thousands of miles away and hold different values than we here in Washington. So sometimes, all too frequently, it seems, politicos try and score points at the expense of District residents.

Last summer, Mark Souder, a Republican Congressman from Indiana, tried to write the District’s gun laws on behalf of the District. The 580,000 residents of Washington would have no say in how this legislation was crafted, but the citizens of the other states would. But the needs of Indiana and California and Alaska are far different than our needs. Our voice, it
seems, does not matter. Once again, legislators here in Washington have decided to play politics with our rights. The gun amendment to the DC Voting Rights Act of 2009 will strip DC’s ability to legislate gun control. No other state or jurisdiction in the United States must face such federal interference.

This proposed amendment, along with other Congressional overrides of the local government of the District smacks of the tyranny inherent in the reviled Massachusetts Government Act. This government, one made of the People, by the People, and for the People, is supposed to stand for something. It is supposed to be a shining city on a hill, a beacon of hope in a world without freedom. But here, in the very shadow of the Capitol’s Dome, that light is dimmed. And the lack of home-rule makes it still darker here.

In 1963, 10 years before the city of Washington would receive a locally elected mayor and council, President John F. Kennedy travelled to an island of democracy in Eastern Europe. There, standing in front of Rathaus Schöneberg, standing in the shadow of the Wall, he said that the proudest boast in a world of freedom is “Ich bin ein Berliner.” This phrase, said Kennedy, is the boast of “all free men, wherever they may live.”

Oh, how I long to say that phrase.

Berlin was an island of freedom in a sea of totalitarianism. Washington is surrounded by the lapping waves of freedom, and while they haven’t built a wall to keep us in, they haven’t given us the vote either.

But we’re closer than ever. I hope that the good men in Washington will do what is right. Giving us a Representative is yet one more step along the path to Freedom. But until we also have the right to chart our own course, until we have the right to write our own laws, until we have the right to full representation in the government we help to uphold, we will not be able to add the light of our candles to the beacon of Freedom.

The picture at top was taken by the author.

“Every block of stone has a statue inside it and it is the task of the sculptor to discover it.”
–Michelangelo

“The virtue of the camera is not the power it has to transform the photographer into an artist, but the impulse it gives him to keep on looking.”–Brooks Atkinson

The photograph has played an integral role in the creation of our world. They decorate our homes, fill museums, and permeate the media. From our walls to our wallets, we have pictures of our loved ones, of our past, and of places we’ve been. They are sometimes a way to tell a story, sometimes a way to hold on to our memories, and they are sometimes a way to express ourselves. Photographs evoke emotion and trace the narrative of the human race.

Each moment is fleeting, and with an infinite number of images available only for a split second never again able to be captured by a camera, those of us who are shutterbugs are constantly in search of the shot. We search for something that will capture the power of emotion or frailty of humanity or the majesty of nature. We are hunters, oft on the trail of a picture that will capture what we see and what we want to show. We look through the lens of our eyes and see juxtaposition, we see a kaleidoscope of colors, we see the mixture of races and peoples; we see the amalgam of cultures.

But some are insistent on keeping our apertures closed. In this day and age, photography is becoming more and more taboo. And while property owners have always had the ability to bar picture taking on their land, the line between the public and private realms is seemingly becoming less clear. In the summer of 2007, an innocent photographer capturing the vibrant street life along Silver Spring’s Ellsworth Drive, was accosted by security guards and ordered not to take pictures. As it happens, Ellsworth Drive, despite massive amounts of public funding for redevelopment, is in private hands. But protests and complaints from community leaders helped to change the mind of the property owners.

Similarly, a few stops away on the Metro, stands one of Washington’s most ornate buildings. Designed as the grand foyer, the entryplace to Washington, Union Station is a breathtaking way to enter the Capital. Legally, it belongs to the federal government, but it’s leased to a firm responsible for its day-to-day operations (this does not include the Amtrak-owned railroad terminal at the rear of the station). The federal government says that it’s okay to take pictures in the station, but that hasn’t stopped security guards from hassling tourists, travelers, and fans of truly great architecture. They even stopped a news crew from filming a story about the harassment of photographers in the station.

Believe it or not, when the Bill of Rights was signed, the camera already existed. It was not much of a device back then, but it was a technology that would soon change the world. Still, the Founding Fathers probably had no idea about the existence of this invention. They set out to ensure that the rights of Americans would not be infringed on by the government. Among the rights which they elaborated was freedom of expression. But you’d better not get caught with a camera in the subway station steps away from where the document was signed. That’s because Philadelphia’s transit operator, SEPTA, is one of many systems that has made using a camera illegal, even on semi-public property, like a train platform.

These bans on photography presume that there are no images worth capturing in these places where we live our lives. For some of us, the subway or the shopping mall are daily parts of our lives. Things happen there worthy of film. Whether only the act of commuting or children visiting Santa Claus, sometimes seemingly innocuous scenes can capture the mundane in a way which touches and inspires us.

The sun rising over the Capitol, a clear blue sky behind the snow-capped Rockies, a herd of bison sweeping majestically across the amber tinted prairie, these are all images we can accept as moving. But to photograph the sunset as a backdrop to the sweeping architectural masterpiece of the terminal at Dulles is to become the definition of suspicious. To see through the lens the Empire Builder winding through Glacier National Park casts unwanted doubt upon the best of intentions.

Some places are more accepting than others. Washington’s subway operator does not restrict photography and when New York’s MTA tried to in 2004, the outcry was loud and swift. As the zeitgeist surrounding September 11 begins to fade, clearer heads are beginning to prevail. Sacramento’s transit operator advises customers to report suspicious activity: photographers taking pictures of areas not of general interest to the public, for instance. This is certainly a good approach. Instead of a blanket indictment of shutterbugs, people who are merely getting a shot of a train in front of the State House are no longer as suspect.

When I was living in Atlanta, MARTA decided to ban all photography from the system. I have seen customers hassled by staff just for taking pictures of friends while on trains or in stations. Not only does this do little to increase security on the system – indeed, it wastes resources chasing teenagers with camera phones – it also antagonizes customers who see no reason for the attention. Perhaps understanding this some MARTA leaders are moving to overturn or at least lessen the ban.

But, as I elaborated before, these bans extend beyond transit agencies. As an urban planning student, I constantly look for good examples of urbanism. When I see one, I like to take a picture or two (or three). They’re particularly helpful when you blog. Instead of typing at length, I can just insert a picture and voilà. But many instances of good urbanism are, like the aforementioned Ellsworth Drive, opposed to photography. Atlantic Station is a mix of public and private spaces, but the private spaces are not well-delineated. Private streets look just like public ones, but despite the public funding for the project, the developer reserves the right to regulate seemingly harmless behavior – like photography. So when I visit the sprawling metropolis of Atlanta, I’m barred from taking pictures of this new quarter, nationally renown for its good design.

Recently an ironic event took place to demonstrate the extremes our paranoia has reached. A railfan taking pictures at New York’s Penn Station was taking pictures when he was arrested by Amtrak’s police. The interesting part is that he was taking pictures for Amtrak’s photo contest. And since he was a tick
eted passenger on a train platform, he wasn’t engaging in anything illegal. Except taking pictures, apparently. But an Amtrak spokesperson says that Amtrak does not have a photo ban. This story is so convoluted that even Steven Colbert picked it up.

The pendulum of security is beginning to swing back toward freedom. One of our Framers, Benjamin Franklin, tells us that “those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.” While Franklin probably couldn’t have imagined photography in its current form, but he was certainly able to imagine freedom. I suspect that were he alive today, he would have lodged an objection with SEPTA by now. Or perhaps not. It’s impossible to determine what the Founding Fathers would have done if confronted with a world of constant electronic communication and global terrorism. But I’d like to think that they’d stand by their beliefs – their unalienable truths.

All photos in this post were taken by the author.

I’m a huge fan of Harry Potter. I read the books for the first time in August of 2007, a time of turmoil for me. I had uprooted myself from my home of four years and was moving to a new state for the first time. During this period, my companions were the friendly students at Hogwarts .

Shortly after having finished reading the series for the second time, I traveled to Philadelphia with a friend of mine from my hometown. I was surprised to see Harry Potter making headlines on the television, but after figuring out what it was all about, I understood. I wrote the following reflections for my personal blog in October 2007.

I was very surprised to see the caption “Dumbledore Gay” on a news broadcast while I ate breakfast at my hotel in Philadelphia on Sunday. I was not surprised to see the coverage of the fundamentalists who are quite upset by this revelation. Since mid August, I have read the entire 7-book series twice. As I said, I was quite surprised, because nowhere in the entire series does Dumbledore out himself. Instead the public and posthumous outing of this esteemed Hogwarts official was made by author J.K. Rowling, quoted as saying “Dumbledore is gay, actually” at a recent Q&A session in New York.

This news tidbit has been reported in the muggle media as well as in the Daily Prophet. The Quibbler is reporting record sales of its issue reportedly exposing Dumbledore’s old flames. Officials in the newly instated Shacklebolt Administration have refused comment, saying that “the personal lives of our fellow witches and wizards is none of the Ministry’s concern.” The Daily Prophet interviewed several bar-goers at Merlin’s Beard, a popular hangout for witches of a certain persuasion in Hogsmeade’s fabulous Horizont Alley. One witch, quoted on the condition of anonymity, reported that she is “proud to hear that Dumbledore’s sexuality is finally out in the open.” She says that “it is time for the Ministry of Magic to recognize that witches and wizards represent a broad spectrum of individuals” and “that it is time for the discrimination to stop.” Another patron “doesn’t see what all the fuss is about.” He says that since “Dumbledore wasn’t exactly a Hippogriff Hawk and only made the occasional appearance at Showtunes Tuesday, it shouldn’t matter who he slept with.” If nothing else can be said about this revelation, it is that the owls will surely be flying for some time. No comment was made available by Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry by press time.

I applaud Rowling’s characterization of one of the pillars of the Hogwarts community. When I originally read the Harry Potter books, I was dismayed at the lack of openly gay characters. It seemed to me that the gay community deserved representation in this modern take on the struggle between good and evil. Still, I thought to myself that since the books were geared to a younger audience, it might not be an appropriate venue for this particular battle against evil. Of course, there are good ways of exposing children to diversity, and I had hoped at some level that Rowling would be able to work it into this series.

Of course, now that Professor Dumbledore has stepped out of the proverbial broom closet, fundamentalists are coming out of the woodwork. I’m not particularly sure how this affects their children since they already wouldn’t allow them to read the books (see my earlier post). Of course from all the commotion that they are making, one would think that the books have Dumbledore skipping classes to go to circuit parties or being seen at less-than-reputable Hogsmeade establishments in drag. The fact that Dumbledore seeks for the other Quidditch team has little bearing on the well-being of the readers of the acclaimed series because Dumbledore spends his entire tenure at Hogwarts in the closet.

I’m not sure what upsets the fundamentalists more, the fact that Rowling recognizes that there are such things as gay people or that she portrays a good person as homosexual. Maybe it’s just a misunderstanding. It could be that the fundamentalist community is rallying against what they see as a historical inaccuracy. By their (convoluted) logic, in the great battle of good against evil, surely all of the homosexuals would have been on the side of Mr. Voldemort.

What is really at stake here, however, is something far simpler than a battle over children’s books and gay rights. Fundamentalism’s take on literature and symbolism seems to be based on a tenuous dichotomy wherein literature can reflect Truth or is meaningless. Meaningless, however, does not mean harmless from the zealot’s viewpoint. From their perspective, revelations like Rowling’s make their struggle harder by empowering free thought. For fundamentalism, any viewpoint of reality which allows symbolism to dilute the Word through interpretation is dangerous. Rowling’s books offer a non-Christian interpretation on the struggle which fundamentalism claims to have a monopoly on: good versus evil. By attempting to reflect some semblance of reality in her books, Rowling has attempted what the fundamentalist community sees as a deliberate and offensive assault on their version of reality, which does not leave room for empowered women or openly gay persons.

The fact of the matter is that the Harry Potter books are true to form. In real life, we interact with gay people every day. Many of us have gay mentors and friends. Not all of those people live publicly gay lives, and like Dumbledore carry the burden of the closet in silence. This newly established battle over Dumbledore’s legacy demonstrates how entrenched anti-homosexual feelings are in today’s world. It is a shame that Dumbledore must symbolize the truth that many people live every day of their lives. I commend Ms. Rowling for her symbolism and her advocacy on behalf of those of us who find ourselves in yet one more alienated minority group.

Image at top by bibicall at Flickr.

I look at this column as a challenge every week, because while I am gay and I like to write, I don’t see myself as a gay writer. I don’t see a contradiction in that either. Yet, each week as I pen Dispatches I am writing to a (I assume) mostly gay audience. I have to be careful to write about issues that are interesting to the LGBT community, but at the same time your tastes vary wildly. So I wonder how one does write to the gay community.

Of course, it’s obvious that some topics automatically apply. When one writes about specific events in the gay historical consciousness or about events that directly affect homosexuals, one clearly speaks to that audience. But on other issues the connection is not so neatly drawn. And yet, we are interested in far more subjects than anything regarding the gay part of our lives.

An interesting comment on last week’s staff survey helps to illustrate my point. The comment, by Ben64, in response to gay stereotypes, says, in part,

I make a distinction between sexual orientation (i.e. homosexual) and cultural identity (i.e. “Gay”). Therefore I do not equate homosexuality with Gayness….Therefore, while homosexuality may be foundational to one’s identity “Gay” (as a culturally learned set of behaviors) is not.

Gay identity has never been formed outside of oppression. Consequently much of it is a defensive reaction-formation to hostility and persecution. While that response has been necessary and empowering in past decades it is, nonetheless, an accommodation to homophobia. I’m not sure any of us know what “Gay” is outside that confining space. I think it is very important for us all to have a discussion about whether or not that is “false consciousness”.

If Ben is right, and I agree that he is, then the very idea of “gay” is only temporary–not only in the larger, societal sense, but also, and more importantly, in oneself. Of course, the two concepts are tied–even though I believe I’ve moved past the part of my life where I let stereotypes define what I should be, even though I consider the homosexual part of me to be only a minor part of my Self, I still refer to myself as “gay,” although it is not my defining characteristic.

So what does the concept of “gay” mean to us? It seems to mean little to me. I am certainly homosexual, but other than the stuff I do with my boyfriend, homosexuality plays a very small role in my consciousness. When it comes to writing, I typically write about policy, planning, or transportation, places where I’m in my element. As I pointed out last week, I don’t fit many stereotypes, but that’s alright because I’m just being myself.

The basic premise of The New Gay is that gay stereotypes don’t represent us. We are much more than the society makes us out to be. But if “gay” really is just a social construct designed to explain or name or identify people of the one gender who are attracted to people of the same gender, then I wonder if it’s even possible to really write to our demographic. I mean, clearly people are reading posts here at TNG (mine included, I hope), but these are posts about our life stories or our ideas. They’re here because they represent one of us as a gay individual or they espouse an idea important to the gay community. I assume that the largest portion of our readership self identifies as gay.

But why do we read about this subject? Even though many of us probably have reached the stage of acceptance where being gay means no more to us than our left- or right-handedness, we still seek out others with similar stories because they are also homosexual. I think this indicates that there is something that binds us together as a community. Perhaps there is something to “gay” that is beyond a social construct developed to cope with oppression. Honestly, I’m not sure which it is, and that is one reason it’s often so difficult to churn out Dispatches.

It is clear that our common homosexuality binds us as a community just as race and religion can, but less clear is the relationship between our image of “gay” and our image of ourselves. Honestly, I’m not feeling it, when it comes to gayness. I like ABBA as much as the next fruit, but it’s not because I’m gay, it’s because they made good music. But I don’t feel gay in any other sense than my attraction to men. I gather that I am not alone in this sensation, however, I still can’t quite wrap my mind around this separation between homosexuality and gayness – even though in my gut, I believe it to be right.

Picture at top by wallyg on Flickr.

I grew up in a small town in rural North Georgia. I think it’s safe to say that opinions, especially about sexuality were (are) not particularly enlightened there. Despite the proximity to the gay mecca of Atlanta people in my hometown very much pretend that homosexuality is something that doesn’t exist outside of large urban areas. As a consequence, when I was in high school, there weren’t even any rumors about gay students. It was something that no one talked about, period. “Gay,” where I grew up, was simply a stand-in for the word “lame.”

So, until the summer before my senior year of high school, I had never even met an out gay person. All I had to go on about homosexuality were my stereotypes – those shaped by the religious right, ignorant rednecks, and the media. And despite having crushes on all the hot guys in school, I didn’t think of myself as gay. I suppose my journey to understanding mySelf began in the summer of 2002. That year, I was selected to attend a summer honors program which brought together Georgia’s top high school students for a six-week stay at Valdosta State University.

As luck would have it, my roommate was gay–although he didn’t come out to me for some time. Years later, when I came out to him (over instant messenger), he says he fell out of his chair in surprise. Apparently, I had come across to him as a touch homophobic that summer, although I really wasn’t. I was just ill-informed and confused. I also desperately wanted him to make a case for homosexuality that I could buy into, something he never did, probably not wanting to antagonize me. And despite the fact that I was still deep in denial at the end of the summer, there were now cracks in the foundation.

There’s not too much to tell about the rest of high school or even the first couple of years of college. Not being attracted to girls, and unable to accept my homosexuality, I essentially withdrew from trying at relationships or dealing with my sexuality. Until my Junior year, at least. After returning from a summer living in Germany, I felt like I was finally prepared to deal with my gayness. I don’t know exactly when it was, but at some point over the summer, I admitted to myself that, yes, ich bin schwul–I am gay. Perhaps it was the openness of Germans toward homosexualität or just being outside of my normal comfort zone, but whatever the reason I was ready to out myself.

There was just one problem. I didn’t know how. It’s, of course, easy to just tell someone – which I did on October 5, 2005 – but dealing with it took more control. Besides, I couldn’t let my parents find out before I was ready to tell them, something I talked about last week. I also didn’t really know what being gay meant for me. I ended up in counseling, which really helped me come to terms with myself. I was initially scared when I first started going to Pride Alliance meetings, not really knowing what I was getting myself into, but I eventually settled in, despite being stalked by a crazy graduate student.

But after coming out, I felt the need to conform to stereotypes. I suppose I was just trying to assert to myself and others that I was gay, but the result was that I changed a lot about myself, from my haircut to the way I dressed. I gather that this is not all that uncommon in newly-out persons, but I still felt incomplete. It was a fun time in my life, finally free of the repression of the Closet, finally free to explore my sexuality, finally free to discover mySelf. But I suppose that on my trek to find myself, I took the scenic route. In trying to fit stereotypes, I only lengthened my journey to discovery.

In actuality, I traveled thousands of miles to figure out something I should have seen years before – and without even leaving Atlanta. But I was blinded by stereotypes and curiosity. So I went on a pilgrimage. Sort of. I was visiting potential grad schools on the West Coast and saw my chance to visit San Francisco (I was applying to Berkeley). So a 13 hour trip on the Coast Starlight from Portland brought me into the Bay Area. And a few hours later, I found myself at the corner of 18th and Castro, deep in the heart of the gayborhood. Called “the gayest corner in the world” by some, I found myself intimidated and intrigued, frightened yet excited.

Yet my pilgrimage was successful – I had a revelation. I realized then that being gay only means being who you are. It’s not about fitting some stereotype. Liberating myself to be myself was the final step on my journey. I think that my revelation came because of the diverse nature of the Castro. I saw gays in so many guises, and realized that I didn’t need to do anything other than be who I was born to be – which is not to say that I don’t fulfill some stereotypes – I absolutely love musicals.

We often work hard to dispel negative stereotypes about homosexuality that contribute to homophobia and heterosexism, but I wonder if stereotypes are negative even when they are perpetuated by the gay community. I don’t mean to suggest that people who fit stereotypes are necessarily fake, but I do sometimes get the impression that some gays only do certain things because they think it’s how they’re supposed to act. It just seems unhealthy to me. It’s the natural course of human development to come to terms with the Self, to become comfortable with who we are, but I think that stereotypes place hurdles in that process, no matter who is creating them.

Thoughts?

In 1983, Bobby Griffith jumped to his death from a freeway overpass. For four years he had been struggling with his sexual orientation–and his family’s reaction to it. While tragic, his death inspired his mother to become a strong advocate of gay rights.

Bobby’s life and his mother’s reaction to his death were the subject of a 1996 book by Leroy Aarons, called, “Prayers for Bobby: A Mother’s Coming to Terms With the Suicide of Her Gay Son.” Saturday, Lifetime Television aired a film adaptation of the book. Called simply, “Prayers for Bobby,” the movie was a sad, yet inspiring.

When Bobby is outed to his conservative, evangelical family, it starts a harrowing part of his life. Desperate to find his mother’s acceptance yet be true to himself, his self-esteem continued to fall until his soul was beyond repair. Believing that his mother would never love him for who he was, he took his own life.

Yet that act shocked his mother into questioning her own beliefs. Eventually, she found herself an advocate for gay sons and daughters. Her transformation is heartwarming, but is tragic because of her loss.

Bobby’s struggle with his family somewhat reminded me of my own. I came out to my parents over three years ago, but I don’t feel like I’ve made very much progress beyond the few baby steps made in the first few months. And I can’t for the life of me figure out why it bothers me so much.

I can still remember when I came out to them–like it was yesterday. I made a trip home from college, which was only about 50 miles, but was fairly rare, so they knew something was up. I suppose I really surprised them. My dad said “Bullshit” and my mom said “Why do you think that?” Despite my best efforts to explain to them that I was gay and that there was nothing wrong with me, I went back to Atlanta disappointed and stressed more than ever.

I hadn’t really been ready to come out to my parents, but I’d had little choice in the matter. I’d been coming out to friends at college for a couple of weeks, and while I hadn’t come out to my (conservative, fundamentalist) roommate, I knew he’d figure it out eventually. And his mother knew my mother. And my roommate, always eager to help, would have seen it as his duty to help me by making sure my parents found out. He would have intended for them to get me “help.” So I headed him off and did it myself. I didn’t want my parents to hear it from someone else.

Over the next few months I had to deal with a lot of the same issues that came up in the film. My dad wanted to know how I could be sure I was gay if I’d never been with a man. My mom thought I just hadn’t met the right woman yet. At least originally, my father was convinced that all gay people eventually died of AIDS. All the gay people he’d ever known (like three) had died in the early 1980s of that disease, and I suppose he feared his only son would too.

Even today, three years later, my mom thinks it’s “just a phase.” Of course that’s an improvement from her original belief that I was just confused. Both of my parents still refer to me as their son, “who thinks he’s gay,” not their gay son. Of course, they don’t discuss it much.

Like Mary Griffith, my mother grew up in a fundamentalist church, and that has shaped her views. She thinks it’s a sin, and she thinks it’s unnatural. But unlike Bobby’s mother, she doesn’t condemn me for it. Neither of my parents has disowned me or mistreated me because of my orientation. But they haven’t accepted it either.

Originally, I was loathe to discuss any relationships I was having. I was afraid that when one failed, it would only prove to them that they were right–that I was a confused straight male and that gay people were doomed to miserable lives. I still think that they believe that last bit. They seem to think that all my life, I will be denied jobs and be at risk for homophobia. They don’t think I will be happy as long as I masquerade as a fruit.

But despite the lack of my parents’ acceptance, I am happy. I have a good life, and other than this recession, I have few complaints. I have tried to show them that I am happy, but it doesn’t seem to have made much difference. In May, my boyfriend and I flew down from Washington to go to a wedding in Atlanta. We stayed at my parents’ house. In separate rooms, as my mom insisted. Still, I hoped that introducing my boyfriend would prove something. It doesn’t seem to have done so.

They met him again in July and for Thanksgiving here in Washington, and yes, it was the same boyfriend. I’ve been with the same man for over a year now, but my mom still thinks my orientation is a phase.

When I saw that the film was debuting, I had my parents watch it. I haven’t yet heard their reflections of it, but it would surprise me if it has made much of a difference in their attitudes.

I have no intention on giving up (either on life or on my parents), but I’m at wit’s end as far as what I can do to get acceptance from my parents. I’m also at a loss to understand why it’s so important to me. If I’ve not had to face any negative consequences, why do I find it so important for my parents to start thinking of me as their gay son, and not accepting any apologies for it?

I don’t think my own mother will ever stand at the front of the PFLAG delegation at the Pride Parade, but I do hope for some improvement. I’ve encouraged her to go to PFLAG meetings amongst other things, but the best I can get out of her is for her to talk to her minister. And trust me, that’s bad. He’s not the gay-friendly type of minister.

I hope that in time, things will work out. But I’m impatient. Three years is a long time to wait, and I wonder how many more are yet to come. Regardless, I’ll continue to struggle. And someday, I pray I’ll be successful.

If you’ve ever baked a cake, you know that a successful recipe depends upon getting all of the ingredients right. If any of the parts are spoiled or if any of the incorrect ingredients are mixed in, the cake won’t turn out the way you intended. Policy is the same way.

There is often a lot of talk about Education Policy or Transportation Policy or Environmental Policy. These are all red herrings. In reality there is only one Policy (capital P). Now I know this sounds strange. I can hear you saying, “of course there is such a thing as Education Policy,” and you’d be right. There is something called Education Policy. It’s how we address schools and curriculum, among other things. But it is often doomed to fail by other policy areas, Transportation and Housing Policies for instance. This is because the way we view policy (lower case p) divides public policies into silos. Essentially, we insist on continuing to think of the egg as an egg, even long after it’s become part of the cake.

If for example, we’re baking a cake (Policy) which seeks to further the aims of a chef (administration), it would include ingredients such as eggs (Education), flour (Transportation), sugar (Environment), and much, much more. Even if the eggs are fresh, the cake might turn out badly if we forget to include the flour.

Let’s consider Education in more detail. Our last President pushed for a bill called No Child Left Behind. This act was to improve our education system by doing things like punishing underperforming schools, offering choice, and holding teachers accountable. It placed lots of emphasis on standardized tests and other measures such as attendance and graduation rates. But schools are in largely the same shape they were eight years ago. Why didn’t No Child Left Behind significantly change schools?

For simplicity’s sake, let’s forgo the criticisms of the Act itself. Instead I would like to focus on how other Policy areas affect educational outcomes. Studies show that neighborhood poverty has a huge impact on educational attainment. But because we have “silos” for policy, fixing neighborhoods, while integral to fixing schools, is not considered part of Education Policy. In that regard, we’re leaving out part of the recipe.

When it comes to Education, we’ve been dooming urban schools since the 1930s at least. Many of the same things that created the Gayborhood contributed to the decline of our schools. Housing Policy encouraged suburban housing construction, while covenants limited that development to whites. Transportation Policy, beginning in the 1950s, gave (white, middle-class) Americans the ability to leave the city, while still being able to commute over freeways to work. At the same time the destruction of urban transit systems split many lower income people from their jobs. As policy decisions in other policy areas encouraged the creation of urban ghettos, our schools started a nosedive which they’ve yet to recover from. Just last week, I saw that school segregation is increasing in the United States.

I don’t want to belabor the discussion on education, however. My thinking about this Policy/Cake concept started when the Obama Administration left the Secretary of Transportation off of his Green Team. This group of high-level officials consists of the Energy Czar, Secretary of Energy, Director of the EPA, and the Secretary of the Interior. And while these department heads certainly run agencies which have a large role to play in solving the climate change dilemma; without seriously changing the way we approach transportation, we won’t be able to stop greenhouse gas accumulation.

According to Growing Cooler a report on the relationship between urban development and climate change, “Transportation accounts for a full third of CO2 emissions in the United States” (page 2). This report refers to the “Three-legged Stool” of Fuel Economy, Carbon Content of Fuel, and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). Any policy that fails to address all three legs of the stool will fail to reduce greenhouse gas emissions far enough to reach targets. Because the Department of Energy projects that increases in VMT will outstrip improvements in fuel economy and carbon content, any emissions savings from those two legs will be outpaced by increases from the third leg, VMT.

So even if we are able to transition cars to cleaner sources of fuel and make them more efficient, we can really only solve the problem by encouraging walkable communities and public transit in addition. Luckily, this reimagining of the urban environment gives us the opportunity to rethink the selfsame policies (like housing) which have resulted in a failing education system and a gridlocked transportation network.

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. once said:

“The best cure for destructive sprawl is to build cities people don’t want to abandon, places where they can live healthy, fulfilling lives in densities that don’t devour our landscapes, pave our wilderness and pollute our watersheds, air, and wildlife. To achieve this, we need to invest in urban schools, transportation, parks, health care, police protection, and infrastructure that makes cities great magnets with gravity sufficient to draw back the creeping suburbs.”

In other words, in order to save the city, we have to focus on all of the relevant policy areas–from Education to Transportation. We can’t confine our Policy to just one silo.

I’m reminded of an example from Atlanta. As the region was building a MARTA (metro) extension to the Northeast, the Georgia DOT was widening the adjacent gridlocked Interstate 85. Not surprisingly, ridership on the Doraville train never reached what planners had hoped. Here in Washington, on the other hand, a series of freeway battles helped ensure that Metro would be successful by limiting freeway construction. So while Mr. Obama has promised transit investment during the next few years, he has also promised road building. And his stimulus gives more money to roads. One wonders if his Policy (capital P) will be end up truly being “green” or if policy silos will leave the frosting off the cake.