After Eleanor

The Girl Effect

2008-06-05T09:40:00.004-04:00

Really powerful video that just hit my inbox. Watch below or larger here.

Wow. I just wish they made it clearer at the end what you could do to help. This is a very powerful call to action, but I was left wondering what specific actions I could take...

That's the difference...

2008-06-04T18:30:00.003-04:00

After the California marriage decision was handed down, I bemoaned the fact that Senators Clinton and Obama weren't more excited about it. I compared their lack of enthusiasm (and their opposition to federal gay marriage) to that of John McCain.

My bad.

Here's McCain's response to the news that the anti-gay ballot initiative made it onto the CA ballot:

"I welcome the news that the people of California will have the opportunity to decide on the question of the definition of marriage, rather than having that decision made by judicial fiat as the California Supreme Court asserted in their recent ruling." -- John McCain

He "welcome[s]" it? How can you welcome discriminatory policies that essentially create a caste system based on sexual orientation? Asshole.

John Aravosis from AMERICAblog made an astute point about the whole situation:

Seeing as McCain is on his second marriage, after having dumped his first permanently disabled wife for a rich trophy bride 17 years his junior, he knows a thing or two about marriage.

Good point. I might add that example to my standard Britney-Spears-17-hour-marriage example of how heterosexuals aren't great at upholding the sanctity of the institution of marriage.

Whoa.

2008-06-04T14:48:00.003-04:00

A new USA Today/Gallup poll with some *startling results*. Most shocking among them was that 63% of Americans believe same sex marriage should be a private matter, and that the state should not interfere. From USA Today:

Six in 10 Americans say the government should not regulate whether gays and lesbians can marry the people they choose, a survey finds.

As same-sex couples line up to get marriage licenses in California on June 17, the USA TODAY/Gallup Poll found that 63% of adults say same-sex marriage is "strictly a private decision" between two people.

That the government has the right "to prohibit or allow" such marriages was stated by 33%, and 4% had no opinion.

I immediately scrolled to the bottom of the report when I saw these findings. I was expecting a big margin of error, but it's only plus or minus 3%, which is pretty standard. I'm particularly encouraged by the fact that support for gay marriage crossed region, religion, political affiliation, and age (though, admittedly, only 44% of respondents 65+ believed gay marriage should be a private decision).

Here are specific findings:

A majority of respondents at every level of education and income say same-sex marriage is "strictly private." This was true:

• In every region: East (71%), West (64%), Midwest (63%) and South (56%).

• Among all ages except "65 and older": 18 to 29 (79%), 30 to 49 (65%), 50 to 64% (62%) and 65 and older (44%).

• Among people who also say they have a favorable view of any of the three leading presidential candidates. For those holding favorable views for John McCain, 55% say marriage is a private decision; for Barack Obama, 75% say so; and for Hillary Clinton, 69% do. All three oppose same-sex marriage. Both Democrats both favor civil unions.

• Among people who say a relative, friend or co-worker personally has told them he or she was gay or lesbian (73%).

The strongest support for government regulation of same-sex marriage came from people who say they:

• Attend religious services weekly (56%).

• Are Republicans (56%).

• Are politically conservative (54%).

There's a quote in the USA Today article that I think is important in explaining the shift in opinion. As Mark Rozell, a professor of public policy at George Mason University argues:

"After Massachusetts, the public has seen that the decision there has not affected people's lives as much as was feared," Rozell says.

[...]

[T]hese poll findings "suggest caution" to conservative activists who think this will mobilize voters, he says. "People were warned, with lots of overheated rhetoric, about the consequences of gay marriage in Massachusetts. They didn't see it affect their own lives. Now, most people have let loose a collective yawn about the issue."

Something to celebrate!

Disappointed in Hillary

2008-06-04T13:44:00.005-04:00

I've written in this space before a little bit about my allegiances in the Democratic primary. I was an early and ardent supporter of Hillary Clinton, including a brief stint when I worked for a consulting firm that did work for the campaign. I truly believe that she would be a phenomenol President, and I'm disappointed that we won't get the opportunity to see her serve in that capacity.

Given that, I've also been aware of the reality of the situation for quite some time. Barack Obama has been the presumptive nominee for weeks, and Hillary Clinton's persistence has been difficult for the party. I was in the camp that believed she was justified to stay in the race as long as she felt was appropriate. I believed that, rather, until last night when Obama officially received enough delegates to win the nomination.

Hilary Rosen wrote a piece at Huffington Post that describes what I'm feeling perfectly:

Senator Clinton's speech last night was a justifiably proud recitation of her accomplishments over the course of this campaign, but it did not end right. She didn't do what she should have done. As hard and as painful as it might have been, she should have conceded, congratulated, endorsed and committed to Barack Obama. Therefore the next 48 hours are now as important to the future reputation of Hillary Clinton as the last year and a half have been.

I am disappointed. As a long time Hillary Clinton supporter and more importantly, an admirer, I am sad that this historic effort has ended with such a narrow loss for her. There will be the appropriate "if onlys" for a long time to come. If only the staff shakeup happened earlier; if only the planning in caucus states had more focus; if only Hillary had let loose with the authentic human and connecting voice she found in the last three months of the campaign. If only. If only. I have written many times on this site about the talents of Hillary Clinton and why I thought she'd make a great President.

After last night's final primary, she was only about pledged 100 delegates behind him. Ironic that after not wanting to make the decision for so long, it was in fact, the superdelegates who made the decision. But I guess they did so for another reason. It just isn't her time. It is his time. It's a new day that offers a freshness to our party that many have longed for. We felt the rush of new voices and a new energy in the Congressional sweep of 2006 and the sweep continues. It has been an organic shift. And a healthy one.

The life's work of Bill and Hillary Clinton in partnering with so many African Americans uniting our purpose and promoting our mutual issues is as responsible for Barack Obama's success as our first African American nominee as anyone. And yet, that joy is being denied for them by themselves. It is so sad.

So, I am also so very disappointed at how she has handled this last week. I know she is exhausted and she had pledged to finish the primaries and let every state vote before any final action. But by the time she got on that podium last night, she knew it was over and that she had lost. I am sure I was not alone in privately urging the campaign over the last two weeks to use the moment to take her due, pass the torch and cement her grace. She had an opportunity to soar and unite. She had a chance to surprise her party and the nation after the day-long denials about expecting any concession and send Obama off on the campaign trail of the general election with the best possible platform. I wrote before how she had a chance for her "Al Gore moment." And if she had done so, the whole country ALL would be talking today about how great she is and give her her due.

Instead she left her supporters empty, Obama's angry, and party leaders trashing her. She said she was stepping back to think about her options. She is waiting to figure out how she would "use" her 18 million voters.

But not my vote. I will enthusiastically support Barack Obama's campaign. Because I am not a bargaining chip. I am a Democrat.

I'm proud of Hillary Clinton. Again, I wish that she had won the nomination. But I've gotten over it. There are some things more important than our pride. It's time for her to move on, too.

"Gayfacing"?

2008-06-03T10:52:00.006-04:00

I saw Hamlet the other night at Carter Barron amphitheatre here in DC (shout out to the amazing Shakespeare Free for All program of the Shakespeare Theatre that brings Shakespeare to the public for free every summer!), and was someone put off by a choice the director had made. The play-within-a-play scene was done in a kabuki-theatre style. Fine. Weird, but fine. But the actors had all put on heavy makeup and adopted exaggerated Japanese accents. I got the point, but it reminded me of nothing more than blackface performances that most find horribly offensive. In the end, I'm not entirely sure how I felt about the performance, but coincidentally, I ran across an article this morning that addressed a similar issue.

Over at straight.com, Craig Takeuchi wrote an article asking if "gay-for-pay actors" were, as I've always assumed, really "socially progressive," or if they were instead "gayfacing" it.

Straight actors playing gay roles openly is certainly progressive in helping to remove the stigma career-wise in Hollywood.

On the other hand, there is still some ways to go.

There's always been the protest of blackface (and even yellowface) when Caucasian performers played ethnic roles.

Should there be a similar outcry when it comes to straight actors playing gay roles? When straight actors play "gayface"?

Having straight actors play gay roles takes the roles away from openly gay actors, and the development of their careers.

There are very few openly gay A-list actors. (And undoubtedly still numerous closeted ones.)

And while I'm sure many gay actors do not want to be restricted to just playing gay roles, when there are high profile, mainstream gay roles, such as Brokeback Mountain, Queer as Folk, or Will and Grace, the end result is that the income and career-boost goes to straight actors, not openly gay ones.

Ultimately, the opportunity to develop openly gay celebrities in mainstream entertainment is taken away.

Not only as role models for the community (including for closeted youth living in homophobic environments), but also in developing bankable openly gay names, which is the bottom line in Hollywood.

Takeushi is exploring a really interesting question, but I wish he'd explored it more thoroughly. He's right to note that there are too legitimate arguments that could be made in response to this issue. The first is the one I've always automatically assumed: gay characters in film and television are good, regardless of who plays them. The second argument Takeushi raises also seems compelling, however. It is difficult to see the difference between straight actors playing gay and white actors playing black.

When I began thinking about this, I reflexively assumed that the cases must not be the same. After all, 19th century blackface performances were malintentioned, while modern Hollywood portrayals of gay characters were the opposite. Weren't they? Aren't they? I'd always made that assumption, but all the examples I immediately thought of seemed to support a comparison, rather than disprove it. Is Jack McFarland of Will and Grace anything but a modern minstrel show, after all? What about the Queer Eye guys?
Or the million and one gay best friend characters? I'm not so sure...

So given that the intention behind the inclusion of gay characters might not always be entirely progressive, is it offensive for straight actors to "play gay for pay"?

My answer? I'm not sure the question should matter in the end.

Straight actors playing gay (even when the portrayals were not always entirely appropriate or inclusive), have paved the way for the inclusion of more gay characters on television and in film. More characters in general have made it possible for those characters to be more well-rounded, better representations of the LGBT community as a whole. So while the Jack McFarland character might not have been a progressive windfall, he certainly made it possible for Showtime's Queer as Folk. QAF helped ease the introduction of The L Word.

Those all-gay-all-the-time programs showed networks and advertisers that it could be profitable to take a risk, and in recent television seasons we've had realistic, complex, and beautifully written LGBT characters like Kevin from Brothers and Sisters

and Carmelita on Dirty Sexy Money.

So while I find Takeushi's piece compelling, in the end I need to conclude that it doesn't particularly matter to me who's playing the LGBT characters on TV and in movies. I just want more of them.

UPDATE:

I did a little more thinking about this and started to wonder about how LGBT audiences respond to LGBT actors playing LGBT roles versus straight actors playing LGBT roles. I'm not entirely sure how to evaluate such a questions, but one example jumps out at me.

The L Word has been many things for the lesbian community. While it is somewhat appropriately mocked on occasion, it is also the most prominent and wide reaching pop culture depiction of lesbians today (except for Ellen, but she's not fictional...). It has also been the vehicle that has made stars out of a lesbian actress: Leisha Hailey.

As the only out actress on the show Leisha has, unquestionably, been embraced most enthusiastically by the lesbian audience of The L Word. AfterEllen.com's Hot 100 list is only one metric that demonstrates this. Leisha's band's, Uh Huh Her's, ability to sell out venues during a two month tour before its first album dropped is another. So maybe I was a little hasty to say it makes no difference whether LGBT characters are played by gay or straight actors... My entirely anecdotal evidence shows that it seems to matter to audiences.

"Feminist" Marc Rudov believes "most American women are as shallow" as Sex in the City characters

2008-06-03T09:41:00.003-04:00

I'm a longtime fan of the progressive media watchdog group Media Matters, and I'd recommend anyone who doesn't know about it to check it out.

But anyway, I got an email from someone at MM yesterday evening about something pretty disgusting that was said yesterday on the O'Reilly Factor. Now, my disdain for Bill O'Reilly is well-known, so I wasn't entirely surprised when I saw that his show was the subject of the MM email. But like the last time I mentioned him, however, BillO surprised me. MM's item was actually about a guest of the Factor, Marc Rudov, whose comments about women were so disparaging and misogynistic that even O'Reilly wouldn't agree with him.

From MM:

Marc Rudov said men should boycott the Sex and the City movie and would not see it because "paying to hear women whine is as stupid as paying for cobwebs, because you can get them both at home for free." When Bill O'Reilly asked Margaret Hoover whether she believed "that most American women are as shallow as" the four main characters in the movie, Rudov interrupted: "I do."

This is just wrong on so many levels, and *shockingly*, it's nothing new for Rudov. The MM report continues:

As Media Matters for America noted, on the April 10 edition of Your World, Rudov referred to this country as a "gynocracy" and said of Sen. Hillary Clinton: "The woman is not called a B-word because she's assertive and aggressive; she's called a B-word because she acts like one." On the April 10 edition of The O'Reilly Factor, Rudov stated that one reason "the beauty pageant industry is failing" is because "the contestants are supposed to be good girls, and there aren't good girls," later adding: "Girls just love to expose themselves." On the March 26 edition of The O'Reilly Factor, Rudov stated: "You know, you started talking about female happiness before, would women be happier and why our men are depressed. Men are depressed, and it's their own fault, because men are allowing women to take over the world. You know, female happiness is an oxymoron." During the March 10 edition of The O'Reilly Factor, when O'Reilly asked about the "downside" of a woman president, Rudov responded: "You mean besides the PMS and the mood swings, right?" On the January 4 edition of Your World, Rudov said: "When Barack Obama speaks, men hear, 'Take off for the future.' And when Hillary Clinton speaks, men hear, 'Take out the garbage.' "

Disgusting.

Depressing...

2008-06-03T09:23:00.001-04:00

I'm pretty depressed about this, so I'm just going to bring it to you via Queerty:

We were really hoping not to have to report this, but we’re powerless. Sorry.
California’s Secretary of State Debra Bowen yesterday approved four measures for this November’s ballot, including a reversal of last month’s gay marriage ruling:
California voters will have a chance to overturn the recent state Supreme Court decision to legalize gay marriage just five months from now, as the secretary of state certified a measure to define marriage as “between a man and a woman” for the November ballot.
Proponents of the measure submitted more than 1.1 million signatures to qualify for the general election ballot. A random sampling by the secretary of state’s office determined they had collected more than the 694,354 valid signatures needed.

Gay rights activists have already started revving up for a battle to the finish. For now, gay folk can still marry between June 17 and the November election. Unless, of course, the Supreme Court stays its decision, in which case we’ll be back where we began.

Since they'd handed in almost twice the necessary number of signatures, this was an expected development. But still. Sad face.

Bill O'Reilly challenges guest to come up with a "real reason" why gay marriage is bad. Sweet.

2008-05-30T12:07:00.003-04:00

In a somewhat surprising interview Wednesday night, Bill O'Reilly challenged conservative California family law attorney Don Schweitzer to come up with a "real reason" why gay marriage should be rejected.

Schweitzer made fall-back points about tradition, the bible, and the Constitution, but as you can see in the video below, Schweitzer's arguments didn't persuade O'Reilly, who asserted that if conservatives wanted to will in California they'd need to be able to explain what about gay marriage would be so harmful to the state.

I took a lot of pleasure from watching BillO just absolutely destroy every soft argument the guy laid out...

While I don't want to speculate about BillO's motives, I'm glad someone on the right (ANYONE on the right) is pointing out that religion is not a legitimate justification for legislation...

Lesbians given kissing ultimatum at Mariners game

2008-05-30T11:45:00.002-04:00

And not a good one...

Why am I not surprised by this?

Sirbrina Guerrero says she was approached at a baseball game and told to stop kissing her girlfriend after a woman complained to staff at Seattle's Safeco Field that they were "groping and making out."
Guerrero was told by a seating host that the woman didn't want to explain to her son why two women were kissing, she said to KOMO 4 TV, but she refused to give in.

"If you want to kick me out, you're going to have to," she told the host. After the exchange, Guerrero took pictures of heterosexual couples kissing that were not targeted by staff.

My favorite part is Guerrero's argument about how she knew that she and her date weren't doing anything inappropriate:

"We were eating garlic fries," Guerrero told the reporter, when asked if she and her partner were acting inappropriately or "carrying on." "The last thing we want to do is make out with each other."

Gov. Paterson keeps promise, and starts to bring equality to NY

2008-05-29T14:23:00.001-04:00

From Queerty:

New York Governor David Paterson’s sticking to his good, gay word.

The politico, who took over after Eliot Spitzer’s hooker scandal, vowed earlier this year to bring same-sex nuptials to the Empire State. While couples can’t yet marry within state lines, Paterson and his team this month declared that New York must accommodate gay marriages performed elsewhere, like California, which will likely start issuing same-sex marriage licenses June 17th.

In a directive issued on May 14, the governor’s legal counsel, David Nocenti, instructed the agencies that gay couples married elsewhere “should be afforded the same recognition as any other legally performed union.”

The revisions are most likely to involve as many as 1,300 statutes and regulations in New York governing everything from joint filing of income tax returns to transferring fishing licenses between spouses.
…
Legal experts said Mr. Paterson’s decision would make New York the only state that did not itself allow gay marriage but fully recognized same-sex unions entered into elsewhere.

Paterson’s move comes after a New York court ruled in February that the state must honor all marriages performed elsewhere, even if they’re of the lavender variety.

New York agencies now have until June 30th to review policies and ensure they don’t conflict with same-sex nuptials. The ruling will not, however, apply to certain civil sectors, like family courts that would decide custody. Nor, it seems, will gays be protected from testifying against one another. Those small details, some say, prove that the state still needs to pass its own marriage laws, which would definitely cut down on travel time!

Macy's joins the majority of Californians who support gay marriage...

2008-05-28T18:06:00.004-04:00

Macy's took out a full page ad in today's LA Times in celebration of the gay marriage decision (and the possibility of expanding their wedding registry program)!

And now it's a milestone every couple in California can celebrate. Let Macy's Wedding Gift & Registry help you start your new life together. With hundreds of great brands to register for, we'll make sure you're happy with your choices every step of the way.

While this might be entirely about profit margins or a bottom line for Macy's, it's great to see a large corporation willing to take a risk and come out in support of the Supreme Court's decision. Anything that normalizes gay marriage can only help as we move towards November and the ballot initiative...

Harvard students mess with the big, bad army... [UPDATED]

2008-05-28T17:12:00.006-04:00

I have this thing for student activism. It just really gets me excited when I see people who aren't being paid, aren't being rewarded, but are just so passionate about an issue that they are driven to take action and try to make change.

A group of openly gay Harvard students did just that this week, when they entered a military recruitment center in Maine and tried to apply for the service:

SOUTH PORTLAND, Maine -- A group of openly gay Harvard University students were in South Portland, Maine, Wednesday morning hoping to enlist for military service.This despite the federal policy known as "don't ask, don't tell" that bars people who are openly gay from serving in the military.The group made its way into the recruitment station as part of its right to serve campaign.
After Harvard student Jacob Reitan was denied enlistment for being openly gay, the students formed a sit-in at the center. Police arrested four students on charges of trespassing.

Their action reminds me of The Granny Peace Brigade, a group of women between the ages of 59 and 91 who have repeatedly tried to enlist in the United States military. According to their website, they want to enlist "in order to replace grandchildren who had been deployed in Iraq unnecessarily." Like the group of Harvard students, the Granny Peace Brigade was arrested for trespassing, and eventually went through a six day trial before being acquitted. Their story is pretty cool...

But anyway, kudos to Jacob Reitan and the other students. Keep up the good work.

UPDATE:

While I was writing this post, I thought the name Jacob Reitan sounded familiar, so I did a little Googling. Turns out his was one of the featured stories in the amazing documentary For the Bible Tells Me So. If you haven't seen it, you should tonight. I mean it. Tonight.

Here's the film trailer:

According to the filmmakers, "through the experiences of five very normal, very Christian, very American families-- including those of former House Majority Leader Richard Gephardt and Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson-- we discover how insightful people of faith handle the realization of having a gay child." One of the more moving stories is Jacob Reitan's. His parents evolve from having very serious religious concerns about his coming out into LGBT rights activists who are arrested with Jacob for trespassing on the grounds of Focus on the Family.

It's really a must see...

At long last... the VIDEO of Jenna Bush on Ellen!

2008-05-28T15:37:00.005-04:00

I wrote over the weekend that Jenna Bush Hager had taped an episode of Ellen last week to air today. During the interview, Jenna mentions how beautiful the ranch was to have a wedding, so Ellen, of course, asked if she and Portia could borrow it for their wedding. Jenna's response? "Sure!"

Watch here, and if you want, fast foward to about 3:45:

P.S. Am I going to be struck by lightening if I observe that Jenna Bush has grown up quite nicely in the past few years? In the interest of preserving my sanity (and my big nametag that screams LIBERAL), I'm just going to leave it there...

P.P.S. But, seriously, she's super hot all of a sudden.

P.P.P.S. Just finished watching the video, and Jenna wouldn't publicly disclose who she's voting for. If she were voting for John McCain, she'd just say so, right? Which means that she might not be a big, scary Republican after all?

Newest poll: a majority of Californians are in favor of gay marriage!

2008-05-28T13:45:00.004-04:00

The newest poll out of California has great news: for the first time, a majority of respondents indicated that they opposed the proposed Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. From Reuters:

The Field Poll survey found 51 percent against approving a possible November ballot measure to prohibit gay marriage, with 43 percent in favor. A slightly differently worded question on the same issue found 54 percent opposed and 40 percent in favor.

Even better news is buried within the demographic breakdown.

The poll found a strong generational gap on the issue, with those aged 18-29 approving of gay marriage by 68 percent and those 65 or older disapproving by 55 percent.

While the news that young voters tend to skew progressive is hardly surprising, last week's LA Times poll did not show the same split. If this poll's findings are true, a high turnout among young voters could be enough to win this thing. And in the year of Barack Obama, getting young voters to the polls is looking more and more like a sure thing...

ACTION ALERT: Call in for equality...

2008-05-28T10:14:00.003-04:00

John Aravosis at AMERICABlog wrote yesterday that the religious right is flooding Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's office with phone calls in opposition to the same-sex marriage ruling.

While the next step in this fight is unlikely to directly include the Governator (and he's said that he would enforce the Supreme Court's ruling), we need to make sure our voices are heard as loudly as the freepers'.

Call (916) 455-2841. If you're a freak like me and don't like talking to strangers on the phone, don't worry, it's automated!

Once you beat the busy signals, you'll be directed to press 1 for English or 2 for Spanish. Then you'll press 5 to comment on a hot-button issue, 1 to designate the same-sex marriage ruling, and 1 again to express your support.

It'll only take a minute or so, please take the time to do this!

Vernon Robinson... sucks the most.

2008-05-27T10:37:00.004-04:00

Uber-conservative Vernon Robinson made a couple headlines in 2006, when, during his race against NC's Brad Miller, he released a series of the most offensive (and ironically funny) television ads possibly ever. Robinson (thankfully!) lost the election, but now he's won something else.

From Blue NC:

Growth & Justice, a progressive think tank in Minnesota, just gave Vernon Robinson the "Willie" award for WORST Political Advertisement. The award is "named for the infamous fearmongering Willie Horton ad that led to George Bush defeating Michael Dukakis." See a small clip of U.S. Senate candidates Al Franken and Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer announce the award here.

The advertisement that won the award for Robinson is quite a delight. My favorite part is Robinson's declaration that "homosexuals are mocking holy matrimony, and the lesbians and feminists are attacking everything sacred."

Watch here, you won't regret it...

Thanks to Pam's House Blend for the news...

Maybe she should have asked Daddy first...

2008-05-26T18:50:00.004-04:00

People.com is reporting that Laura Bush and Jenna Bush Hager will appear on Wednesday's episode of Ellen. The show was taped last Thursday, and the conversation, perhaps unsurprisingly, quickly turned to weddings. More surprising, was Jenna Bush Hager's willingness to offer up the Crawford family ranch as a site for Ellen's and Portia's nuptials. From People:

Observes DeGeneres: "So, the ranch was a great place to get married – it looked like nobody could fly over and get pictures or bother you, really."

"Yeah," concurs Hager, "that was really nice" – which prompts DeGeneres to ask, "So, can we borrow it for our wedding, can we get the ranch?"

"Sure," replies an obliging Hager.

"Okay, great," says DeGeneres.

If I could somehow, some way, be in the same room as George Bush when this conversation airs, it would make my life. I mean it. My entire life. I'm currently imagining the colors his face will turn when he hears the news, and it is not a pretty sight. Methinks Jenna should have asked Daddy's permission before she offered up the ranch, even in jest...

So in honor of Jenna's kind offer, I'd like to offer a list of things I'd gladly trade in order to witness this scene:
1. My new, really cool and shiny aviator sunglasses
2. The sum contents of my wallet (it's like, 11 bucks, don't get excited...)
3. My dignity

What about you, readers? What would you swap in order to get a front row seat to a Bush family meltdown?

(A/N: I've been watching my Google Analytics like a crazy person, and I've learned that I've gained a loyal little audience in the week since I've started writing. I don't know why you're reading, but apparently you are. The one thing you're not doing enough of is commenting! So I'm going to be a total comment whore and just beg... wade on in, the water's just right, drop a comment on this post or any other. I'd love to hear from you!)

That would be called context...

2008-05-25T14:35:00.004-04:00

I get accused pretty often by people who know me of wanting too much too soon. I'm one of those people who thinks that LGBT people deserved equal rights, well, yesterday, and so I tend to not want to compromise. Ever. (See HRC's position on ENDA for an example of a not-okay compromise.) One of my pet peeves are people who believe we'll get rights due to us "in time" once "people adjust." I think it's crap that people need time to adjust. Every year, every month, every week that goes by that isn't marked by full equality is one that will be regretted in the future as wasted. Every day, every hour, every moment that passes while we wait for people to get comfortable is time that we won't be able to get back. The time for change is now, I tend to argue, people can get comfortable later.

But then every once in a while, I get slapped in the face by a thing I like to call context.

Last year, it was Ahmadinejad's declaration that there were no gays in Iran that made me thankful that while I might not get to get married anytime soon, at least there weren't people who denied my existence. Or at least not too many of them. American fundies are all too aware of my existence, after all, and while they each had a ex-gay cure they'd like to try out on me, most of them weren't trying to pretend I didn't exist. A subtle distinction, to be sure, but one I feel keenly. I have the ability to fight back in this country, a right that Ahmadinejad reminded me isn't enjoyed by LGBT people around the world.

I came across a story this morning, however, about a guy who makes Ahmadinejad look like a freaking friend of Dorothy. The horror I'm feeling at the moment will stay with me for awhile, especially as we move forward in our discussions about same-sex marriage here in the US.

Gambian President Yahya Jammeh declared at a political rally last week that gay people had 24 hours to leave his country, or they would be executed.

He promised "stricter laws than Iran" on homosexuality and said he would "cut off the head" of any gay person found in The Gambia.

Unsurprisingly, the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Council has condemned Jammeh's speech, and says spokesman Carey Johnson believes that it was at attempt to scapegoat gay people and blame them for the country's ills.

In an attempt to preserve his rapidly slipping control over the chaotic nation, Jammeh has ramped up his attempts to cultivate an image of being a devout Muslim, and his faith, he says, is at the root of his actions against gays in Gambia.

The Gambia is a country of believers... sinful and immoral practices [such] as homosexuality will not be tolerated in this country.

I'm not really sure how to respond to such a disgusting and horrible statement. It's not an exaggeration to compare Jammeh's words to those of the more terrifying dictators of history, and I can only hope that something can be done to preserve the safety of the Gambian gays and lesbians.

And so again, as we move forward in our own domestic battles over LGBT rights, I say... let's not forget the context. I won't give up my position on compromise-- we shouldn't have to be willing to compromise our claims on humanity and equality-- but I'm also going to be thinking about the bigger picture a bit.

New poll out of CA... and the news is less than fabulous.

2008-05-24T14:25:00.004-04:00

The LA Times released a new poll yesterday that shows a bare majority of Californians oppose the Supreme Court's recent decision to allow same-sex marriage and support the upcoming ballot initiative that would amend the state constitution to redefine marriage as between a man and woman only.

The survey wasn't all bad news, however:

More than half of Californians said gay relationships were not morally wrong, that they would not degrade heterosexual marriages and that all that mattered was that a relationship be loving and committed, regardless of gender.

Overall, the proportion of Californians who back either gay marriage or civil unions for same-sex couples has remained fairly constant over the years. But the generational schism is pronounced. Those under 45 were less likely to favor a constitutional amendment than their elders and were more supportive of the court's decision to overturn the state's current ban on gay marriage. They also disagreed more strongly than their elders with the notion that gay relationships threatened traditional marriage.

The generational divide reflects what has been seen in other polls, and is encouraging because it suggests that the state will grow more pro-marriage equality as time passes. It is discouraging, however, because if age is a significant factor of where people stand on the issue, there is not much that can be done to change minds between now and November.

In the report of the poll, the LA Times asked a few interesting questions:

Will the younger, more live-and-let-live voters mobilized by likely Democratic nominee Barack Obama doom the gay marriage ban? Or will conservatives drawn to the polls by the amendment boost the odds for the presumptive Republican nominee, John McCain?

I tend to think that a third option will prevail. Conservative voters are obviously not excited about the McCain candidacy. (A look at the April fundraising numbers make that evident-- both Barack Obama AND Hillary Clinton outraised John McCain. Together, they raised three times as much money as the Republican candidate...) Hopefully, those conservative voters aren't going to be motivated enough by McCain to turn out in November, especially if he's not going to be willing to talk about wedge issues like this one to the base.

The Kiss Heard Round the (Lesbian) World

2008-05-24T14:05:00.004-04:00

When I started this blog, I wrote that I intended to fill a niche-- gay news from a lesbian perspective. I noted that I loved the other gay news blogs, but they were written by men whose experiences are pretty different than mine. I also wrote that I love the lesbian blogs, but most of them are focused on entertainment news.

So I vowed to myself that I'd focus on that missing link. I was going to share my thoughts on LGBT news, from a gay girl perspective, and leave the entertainment stories to others.

But then the kiss happened.

THE KISS.

Drs. Callie Torres and Erica Hahn, of the much watched prime-time series Grey's Anatomy, had a hot, steamy, I-can't-tear-my-eyes-away-from-the-screen kiss during last Thursday's season finale.

It's not that I've never seen lesbian kissing before, obviously. But the sight of a girl on girl kiss on television, done in a way that is respectful rather than salacious, is still few and far between. It's affirming, in many ways, to see people who are like you, who behave like you on television.

I remember when I first came out I spent weeks watching every gay and lesbian movie I could get my hands on. I was so thrilled to finally see a representation of myself and the people I was starting to get to know on screen, that I hardly cared the movies generally sucked and that shows like Queer as Folk had few redeeming qualities. There were lesbians! And trans people! And (less shocking, perhaps) gay men! It was a dream come true for me, and went a long way to help me become comfortable talking about my own orientation with others.

So kudos to Grey's creator and writer Shonda Rhimes. I hope this story does for others what my forays into shitty gay movies did for me...

New Rights for Marylanders!

2008-05-23T12:18:00.004-04:00

Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley signed two LGBT-friendly bills on Thursday:

Despite the objections of some religious leaders, Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley has signed into law two bills that grant gays hospitalization rights and tax breaks.
Signed by O’Malley on Thursday, the laws become effective July 1.
The Health Care Facility Visitation & Medical Decisions law grants gay Marylanders the right to visit a partner in the hospital and make certain medical decisions for them. It passed the Senate 30-17 and the House 88-46.
Another law, which adds domestic partners to a list of blood and legal relatives that are exempted from recordation and transfer taxes, passed the Senate 26-21 and the House 86-47.
Both bills were targeted by Catholic protestors, who pushed for O’Malley to veto the measures.
In letters distributed earlier this month, Baltimore Archbishop Edwin O’Brien said the bills “would seriously undermine and clearly set a precedent for a further erosion of the legal status of marriage.” He asked Catholics to urge O’Malley to veto the bills.
O’Malley instead recognized the Health Care Facility Visitation & Medical Decisions law in a statement announcing his approval of several health care bills.
“With today’s bills,” he said, “we are helping to secure the long-term fiscal health of the Prince George’s County Hospital Center, providing prescription drug coverage to thousands of Maryland seniors and giving domestic partners equal rights by allowing them to make health care facility visitation and medical decisions.”

Not quite a bobbleHEAD...

2008-05-23T10:12:00.004-04:00

I don't really know what to say about this, besides hahahahhahahaha.

The St. Paul Saints, long known for offbeat, sometimes edgy, promotions, have come up with a real doozy for this Sunday's game.
While lots of sports franchises hand out bobblehead dolls, usually depicting their players, the Saints are handing out 2,500 "bobblefoot" knicknacks.

The keepsakes consist of a miniature bathroom stall with a couple of lower legs and feet. One of the feet is springloaded and "taps," which, the Saints' press release says, is in honor of National Tap Dance Day.

Right.

The team also takes pains to note: "It doesn't matter if your tapping style is done with a 'wide stance' or is used as some sort of code."

The reference is, of course, to Idaho Senator Larry Craig, who was arrested last year in the St. Paul/Minneapolis airport for soliciting public sex in a restroom.

My queer theory background wants to make me question why we privilege private sex over the public variety, and what the exact delineation of a private sphere is anyway, but I'm going to resist. This is just funny.

I do, however, feel for the parents of all the kids who are going to leave the park chock full of questions after receiving their very own Bobblefoot doll...

Why the "This is Unconstitutional!" argument is just dumb.

2008-05-23T07:14:00.005-04:00

Check out Glenn Greenwald's total slap down of Ben Wittes. Wittes has an article in The New Republic decrying the decision of the CA Supreme Court striking down that state's ban on gay marriage. Wittes' argument is a standard one, and one that reveals, as Greenwald points out, a "profound ignorance about how our system of government works.

Read it here in its original glory, or check it out below:

The Brookings Institutions' Ben Wittes has an article in The New Republic decrying the decision of the California Supreme Court striking down that state's discriminatory marriage law. Wittes' criticism of the decision reflects the standard attack on the California Supreme Court, an attack that relies upon what can only be described as profound ignorance about how our system of government works.

Wittes' principal objection is that the California court's ruling was wrong because it is contrary to evolving democratic efforts to forge a "compromise" on the issue of gay marriage and because a large majority supports the law (h/t Andrew Sullivan):
Another cost is that slow drip-by-drip accretion of power to courts, that steady undermining of the right of people to govern themselves. In California, the deprivation of that right is exquisitely on display, for the compromise the court upset involved decades of negotiation and movement. The nucleus of California's domestic partnership law dates from the late 1970s. Over time, it has grown more generous, by 2006 including all of the rights and obligations of marriage. In 2000, however, the people of California voted overwhelmingly to limit marriage itself to opposite-sex unions. The legislature has twice voted to extend marriage to gay couples -- and Governor Schwarzenegger has twice vetoed the bill. The current arrangement, in short, reflects a series of evolving compromises set against the backdrop of a quickly developing social consensus concerning the value and honor of same-sex relationships -- a process that the court treated as just so much bother on the way to a self-evident truth. Once upon a time, this bother had a name. We called it democracy.
This reasoning -- that it undermines "democracy" and constitutes judicial tyranny when a court strikes down a popular law -- is so pervasive every time there is a controversial court decision. But it is as woefully misinformed as it is common.
That a law invalidated by a court is supported by a large majority is not an argument supporting the conclusion that the court's decision was wrong. Central to our system of government is the premise that there are laws which even the largest majorities are prohibited from enacting because such laws violate the constitutional rights of minorities. Thus, the percentage of people who support the law in question, and how lengthy and painstaking the process was that led to the law's enactment, is totally irrelevant in assessing the propriety of a court decision striking down that law on constitutional grounds.

Contrary to Wittes' extremely confused argument, a court striking down a law supported by large majorities is not antithetical to our system of government. Such a judicial act is central to our system of government. That's because, strictly speaking, the U.S. is not a "democracy" as much as it a "constitutional republic," precisely because constitutional guarantees trump democratic majorities. This is all just seventh-grade civics, something that the Brookings scholar and those condemning the California court's decision on similar grounds seem to have forgotten.

The duty -- the central obligation -- of judges faithfully applying the law and fulfilling their core duties is to strike down laws that violate the Constitution, without regard to what percentage of the population supports that law, and without regard to whether it would be "better" in some political sense if democratic majorities some day got around to changing their minds about it. It's perfectly appropriate for, say, marriage equality advocates or political candidates to take into account whether it would be preferable, in some political or strategic sense, to achieve gay marriage incrementally or legislatively, only once there is majority support for it. But that is a completely inappropriate factor for a judge to consider, because the judge's sole consideration is whether the law is consistent with Constitutional protections.

Alexander Hamilton, in defining the core function of federal judges in Federalist 78, explained this as clearly as it could be explained (though apparently not clearly enough for Wittes):
wherever a particular statute contravenes the Constitution, it will be the duty of the judicial tribunals to adhere to the latter and disregard the former.
When -- to use Hamilton's formulation -- judges "disregard" a "particular statute" in favor of constitutional guarantees, they aren't undermining our system of government. They're upholding it. The principal purpose of the Constitution is to prohibit the enactment of rights-abridging laws which, by definition (given that they are being democratically enacted), are supported by majorities. Anyone who argues that a court is acting improperly solely by virtue of the fact that it is striking down a popular law is someone who doesn't believe in the American system of government created by the Founders.
None of this is to deny that there are reasonable grounds for objecting to the California court's decision. A court acts improperly when it strikes down a law which no constitutional provision prohibits -- in exactly the same way, and to exactly the same extent, as it acts improperly when it upholds a law that does abridge a guaranteed constitutional protection. The only relevant question is whether the law abridges rights secured by the Constitution. Thus, one can coherently criticize the California court's decision by arguing that it misapprehended and misapplied the rights guaranteed by that state's Constitution as defined by binding California precedents interpreting those provisions.

But Wittes -- along with most of those objecting to this decision -- doesn't bother with any of that. The Brookings scholar never analyzes any provision of the California State Constitution, nor does he reference a single prior ruling from the California Supreme Court which defines the scope and meaning of those provisions. Instead, his attack on the court's decision rests on the fact that a majority in California liked this law; that California's marriage law is more "progressive" than those in most other states; and that the statute was the by-product of a long, evolving democratic negotiation. That isn't a constitutional or legal analysis. It's just ignorant demagoguery.

The part of Wittes' argument that I find most offensive (and yes, it was extraordinarily difficult to narrow it down to just one thing) was his assumption that because civil unions would represent a big step towards legal equality in the vast majority of states, they should be sufficient. He seems to say that the courts in MA and CA are being greedy by demanding full equality for all the citizens of their states:

In all but a small handful of states, such a compromise would represent a giant step forward for same-sex couples. Yet according to the Massachusetts and California supreme courts, that doesn't matter.

Their states, these courts have held, are constitutionally obliged to afford gay relationships all of the recognition given to heterosexual marriage. And the desire of Obama and millions of like-minded Americans to give gay couples everything but the name "marriage" somehow warrants comparison with the building of parallel African American institutions by way of keeping blacks out of white ones.

Maybe I'm missing something, but how are those situations different. What is the distinction between separate but equal unions for gays and straights and separate but equal schools, or restaurants, or hospitals?

Obviously, there is no difference, and separate but equal inevitably disintegrates into separate but almost equal. I'm just surprised more courts haven't reached the same conclusion.

Massachusetts, California... Wisconsin?

2008-05-22T17:18:00.005-04:00

I've been waiting for the CA marriage decision with bated breath (yes, I get that I'm a geek, and I'm ok with that), so it's possible I just missed that this was coming, but apparently a Wisconsin court will hear a case that has the potential to end the state's ban on same-sex marriage and civil unions.

The question before the court in Wisconsin is less sweeping than the one addressed in California. It hinges on a technicality of the amendment's language.

[The judge allowed the litigants] to proceed on the question of whether the referendum on the fall 2006 ballot asked two questions rather than one -- whether to ban gay marriage and whether to prohibit anything "substantially similar" to marriage. Significantly, a provision in the Wisconsin Constitution, known as the single subject rule, prohibits referendum questions from asking multiple questions.

It is likely, however, that even if the judge agrees that the referendum posed two questions and overturns the ban that the decision would immediately be appealed and the Court of Appeals would stay any actionable judgment.

But rock on, Wisconsin. Why let the Left Coast have all the fun?

Major Margaret Witt, Lesbian Extraordinaire

2008-05-22T17:04:00.005-04:00

Three cheers for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for ruling yesterday that Major Margaret Witt's lawsuit against the US Air Force be reinstated. Witt is a decorated Air Force nurse who sued the Air Force after being discharged from the service for homosexual conduct. In his opinion, Judge Ronald Gould wrote that:

When the government attempts to intrude upon the personal and private lives of homosexuals, the government must advance an important governmental interest and the intrusion must be necessary to further that interest.

While the case is long from over, yesterday's decision does mark the first time a court has not automatically backed the military argument that gay and lesbian servicemembers hurt morale and operations as a good enough reason for dismissal.

And why am I not surprised that it took a lovely lesbian lady to get things moving on this? Never send in a fag to do a dyke's work...

In any case, congratulations Major Witt, and good luck as the case moves forward!

McCain lies to Ellen? Him? Never...

2008-05-22T15:36:00.007-04:00

I wrote quite a bit below about what I thought of McCain’s appearance on Ellen, but I hardly touched on his overall views of LGBT issues. (Note: he sucks on them.)

Thankfully, Jason Linkins has a great piece over at the Huffington Post about just this issue. Specifically, he takes on the many and varied ways John McCain misled Ellen and her audience this morning about his views on gay marriage.

McCain indicated that while he believes marriage should be between a man and a woman, he also said that gay couples should be encouraged to enter into legal agreements, particularly for insurance and other areas where decisions need to be made.

That has not, however, been McCain's view in the past, and as Cliff Schecter points out on his blog, such a statement is really misleading about McCain's opinions and past actions.

The problem is that McCain himself not only supported an amendment to the Arizona Constitution in 2006 that would have banned any "legal agreements" including "insurance" for domestic partners, but he cut advertisements for the measure (which failed). He also told prominent campaign supporter the late Jerry Falwell--who blamed 9/11 on gays and lesbians, among others--that if state constitutional measures such as this one were struck down by the courts, he would then support a federal gay-marriage ban.

Here's one of the ads McCain filmed in 2006:

Also, as always, the great folks at Brave New Films have pulled together a video about McCain's flip-flopping on LGBT issues:

It's hilarious, and when I say hilarious, I mean it. Check it out, get angry, and have a good afternoon, y'all.

Victory Fund Announces Endorsements, Oregon is a progresive leader

2008-05-22T15:27:00.004-04:00

The Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund announced a round of endorsements, including candidates from Kansas and Florida today.

The Victory Fund is coming off a very successful week, with two of its endorsed candidates-- Sam Adams and Kate Brown of Oregon-- winning their respective elections. Adams was elected Mayor of Portland on Tuesday, making him the first openly LGBT mayor elected to lead one of the 30 largest US cities. Kate Brown won her Democratic primary for Oregon Secretary of State the same day.

Oregon also has two openly LGBT Supreme Court Justices, and an out lesbian State Rep backed by a pro-equality Democratic majority in both houses of the legislature.

Here comes the backlash...

2008-05-22T12:41:00.005-04:00

I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that the backlash against the CA Supreme Court decision has already started.

The California based Campaign for Children and Families issued an Action Alter to its members today, asking that they do three things: write Chief Justice Ron George about the CA Supreme Court's decision, call Governor Schwarzenegger, and, most importantly, call their local county clerks in California to exhort them not to issue marriage license to same sex couples.

The CCF's call to action is based on a somewhat specious argument that they present as Constitutional analysis. Only the legislature can make law in California, they argue-- forgetting, of course, that the CA legislature has tried to overturn the gay marriage ban TWICE-- and a Court "opinion" not supported by the will of the people and legislature must necessarily be illegitimate. They also overlook the fact that the Constitutional experts in California-- who are they again? oh yea, the CA Supreme Court-- also took a look at the Constitution. And based on their rather more expert look at the Constitution, they found that a ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional. But regardless, the freepers write:

ACTION: If your county approved Prop. 22, please call your county clerk immediately. Urge him or her not to issue marriage licenses to anyone but a man and a woman. Urge your county clerk to:

“Do what’s right, maintain public order, uphold the marriage statutes, and respect the democratic process by NOT issuing any ‘same-sex marriage’ licenses until the people decide this issue in November. Please enforce the marriage statutes and Proposition 22, which both say marriage is only for a man and a woman. Decline to go along with the court’s nonsense. The separation of powers provision of the California Constitution prohibits the court from legislating from the bench. That's why even Chief Justice Ron George told the L.A. Times he didn't know whether his ruling would be accepted."

Remember, even if county clerks say they MUST follow the Supreme Court decision, that's not true and you should tell them so. The California Supreme Court has no constitutional authority to impose new laws -- especially laws that go against marriage and family, the foundation of society (see California Constitution, Article 3, Section 3 and Article 4, Section 1). Only the Legislature and the voters can make new laws with statewide application.

My favorite part comes when they start making ridiculous comparisons between the current situation in California and rather more dramatic historical events:

Ask your county clerk if they were a Nazi officer during WWII and had been ordered to gas the Jews, would they? At the Nuremberg trials, they would have been convicted of murder for following this immoral order. And should have states obeyed the 1857 Dred Scott decision designating black slaves as "property," not "persons"? Abraham Lincoln reacted with disgust to the ruling and was spurred into political action, publicly speaking out against it. Several state legislatures essentially nullified the decision and declared that they would never permit slavery within their borders, no matter who ordered them to do so. Likewise, the ruling to destroy the man-woman definition of marriage should not be obeyed.

Because really, issuing a marriage license to a couple of dykes or dudes is totally comparable to gassing Jews during the Holocaust. Or trading black slaves before the Civil War. Not. As a Jew and a lesbian, I'm particularly horrified by such a comparison, and not just because gays and lesbians were rounded up right alongside those murdered Jews and discriminated against as thoroughly as blacks in America. I'm also horrified because the CCF seems to be sayint that following rules is the same as appeasing or enabling a moral enemy.

Of course that's not always the case. Breaking the law is not always civil disobedience with a noble cause. Sometimes breaking the law is just breaking the law.

If the CCF and their ilk wants to argue that we should respect our federal and state Constitutions-- as they have been far before this call to action-- then they need to be willing to accept the ramifications of that. The CA Supreme Court has every legal right to interpret the CA Constitution as they did. And the have every right to expect the state government to enforce their rulings.

And if anyone has a problem with the Constitution, they can always try to change it. Which-- oh, yea-- they are.

Good luck with that, we’re ready for you.

Ellen asks McCain to walk her down the aisle. He "respectfully" declines her kind offer.

2008-05-22T10:19:00.007-04:00

I'm just a lucky girl today!

I got to work super early this morning, and was pretty depressed about the fact that I was up before the sun. Something important to know about me is that I NEED the sun. When I don't see it for awhile, I start to get cranky. And since I've been working quite a bit lately, I haven't been seeing much of the sun. So anyway, I got to work at some god awful hour this morning, cranky as hell, but I had the most wonderful news waiting for me in my inbox that just turned my whole day around

A friend had sent me an email notice, letting me know that John McCain had made the rather questionable decision to appear on Ellen today. Now, there are few people I love more than Ellen (Eleanor Roosevelt is, of course, one of them, but Ellen ranks right up there)

Luckily for me, John McCain made the rather questionable decision to appear on Ellen's show today, where my girl grilled him on a range of political issues, including gay marriage. I should disclose fully that I despise John McCain. I was an early Hillary supporter, have recognized the reality of the situation means Obama will be our nominee, and now back him. I am, however, a little stung by the fact that neither of them is stronger on LGBT issues. See their statements here on the CA Supreme Court decision as evidence.

So when I saw that McCain would be on Ellen, I was pumped. Who could rake him over the gay old coals better than Ms. de Generes?

Not surprisingly, the interview led to some fireworks:

When asked, McCain said that he "just believe[s] that marriage is between a man and a woman" and that he understood that he and Ellen had a "respectful disagreement on that issue." Ellen challenged his appeal to tradition by arguing that while suffrage for blacks and women was not always traditional, it has been a positive change. She goes on to try and appeal to what Queerty called "McCain's human side":

We are all the same people, all of us. You’re no different than I am. Our love is the same. When someone says, ‘You can have a contract, and you’ll still have insurance, and you’ll get all that,’ it sounds to me like saying, ‘Well, you can sit there, you just can’t sit there.’

McCain uh huh'd along with her emotional speech, and then said he’s heard her “articulate that position in a very eloquent fashion. We just have a disagreement. And I, along with many, many others, wish you every happiness.”

Since when is homophobia “respectful”? That’s crap, John McCain.

Ellen diffused the situation by asking whether he’d walk her down the aisle. McCain laughed awkwardly and said “touché.”

I’m not completely sure what he meant by “touché.” Because really, what’s funny about that situation? Is there any imaginable situation in which John McCain would walk Ellen down the aisle? Any possible world in which he would do anything that would bless her union with Portia. I don’t think so.

There’s been some talk on the queer blogs that he went on the show today in an attempt to court the gay vote. I tend to think that’s pretty unlikely for a couple of reasons. First, he’s not getting the gay vote. Even the Log Cabin Republicans, that longstanding group of self-loathers, can’t come up with legitimate reasons to support him (although they try pretty hard here). Second, the gay vote he wants and has a potential of reaching-- moderate, affluent, mostly male-- isn't watching Ellen.

No, McCain didn't go on Ellen to court the gays, he went on Ellen to court the women. Because McCain understands that Ellen has the kind of sway with her audience that can only be matched, perhaps surpassed, by Oprah.

Part of the reason I'm writing about this in my first substantive post is that I don't think the importance of Ellen's wedding announcement can be overstated. The issue of gay marriage is, like a lot of issues important to the LGBT community, an emotional one for most Americans. People's views are driven by fear, but also by love. Polls show that the most important factor impacting Americans' views on gay marriage is whether or not the poll respondents know a gay person. That kind of personal interaction is more important than political affiliation, region, age, religion-- anything.

Think about all the Ellen viewers-- most of whom are women, most of whom are at home during the day if they're watching the show-- who have developed an emotional connection with Ellen over the years. Regardless of their feelings on the big, bad institution of gay marriage, these women aren't going to cast their votes against Ellen's happiness. She got a standing ovation from her studio audience last Thursday when she announced her engagement; that kind of reaction is a spontaneous response to Ellen. I can't imagine many political ads that could engender the same amount of good will.

So no, I don't believe that John McCain went on Ellen to court the gays. But he did soften his image regarding the gays a bit. If he can stand next to Ellen long enough, get enough people to believe that his homophobia is as benign as a "respectful disagreement," then he's got a chance at winning over some of Ellen's audience.

Ellen's decision to ask him the hard questions-- to keep pushing when he tried to brush off her concerns about marriage-- was a good one. She kept him from looking like a bright and shining good guy, and that could go far.

So mazel tov to Ellen and Portia on their upcoming nuptials.

And thanks Ellen, for being willing to go public with your personal life in a way that's going to make a difference to millions of personal lives around the country.

Starting a personal blog. Bad idea? Or worst idea?

2008-05-21T17:42:00.005-04:00

For the LGBT community, it's been the best of times lately. It's also been the worst of times. Either way, it's certainly been an interesting time lately...

I have been thinking about carving out a little corner of the interwebs to call my own for quite a while. I do some blogging on group sites-- for a couple of organizations, my employer who shall remain nameless, and an academic blog-- but I've found that the things I want to write about always fall just beyond the stated purpose of each.

Thus... a personal blog.

Despite my proclaiming this space to be "personal," I'm not going to be sharing the gory details of my life. Sorry if that's disappointing, but my life is hardly interesting to me, so I can't imagine it would be particularly scintillating for others. Instead, I plan on looking at LGBT political news, from a gay girl's perspective.

I want to state clearly that I'm not trying to step on any toes. There are already some truly fabulous blogs out there that do political stuff, gay stuff, girl stuff, lesbian stuff, and all the other stuff you can think of. Queerty, Towleroad, and JoeMyGod do great coverage of gay news, but they tend to stick to the gay male point of view. And Dorothy Surrenders is one of my favorite places on the internet. Period. But while she provides a "gay gal's guide to pop culture" (and Tank Top Tuesdays, my favorite day of the week), that's not really my topic either.

All of these blogs have influenced what I hope to produce in this space, but I would be remiss if I didn't mention my namesake: AfterEllen. AE does great coverage of LB entertainment news with a healthy dose of comedy, and was one of the first sites I found on the internet when I was coming out not forever ago. It was a great resource then, is a great resource now, and while my rip-off of the title might be blatant, imitation is, as they say, the sincerest form of flattery.

I should also say I feel kind of silly even mentioning a lot of these shiny, professional sites, considering this blog is not even one post old and thrown up with a Blogger pre-fab template. But credit to where it's due and all that...

So welcome to AfterEleanor: 1 part politics, 2 parts dykedom, all parts fabulous.

Hope to see you around.