An Inspiration for the Gay - and Straight - Communities

I begin this post knowing that the Wyoming House of Representatives just passed a terrible bill outlawing gay marriages AND civil unions performed in other states. Don't Ask Don't Tell, while technically repealed, will not fully disappear from the books for about another year or so. And elsewhere around the world, gay people are routinely tormented - and sometimes murdered - simply for loving the way nature intended them to love.

Yet, in the midst of all this, I found this amazing clip of a young woman - a high school student, in fact - who bravely got up in front of her entire assembled student body and came out of the closet. I repeat: this girl is in high school. And she appears to have the wisdom and courage of someone twice or even three times her age:



For the record, her name is Kayla Kearney, and she attends Maria Carrillo High School in Santa Rosa, CA (northern California).

This is what it's going to take to achieve full LGBT equality in our country. This is what has to happen. In spite of all the tragic, terrible news that often permeates the airwaves - the suicides, the discrimination, states voting to take away people's rights - every now and then someone and something like this comes along. Someone comes along who is strong enough to say, loudly and proudly, "THIS IS WRONG - and, deep in your heart, those of you who are not gay or feel unaffected by this - you know it to be wrong, too."

Andrew Sullivan, a pioneer on gay rights and marriage in particular, has written eloquently that, until gay people as a whole are confident enough to be BOLD, and VOCAL, about their sexuality, full equality will not be attainable. It's not enough to be quiet about it - even if you're not being discriminated against. It takes being out to those around you, because that's the only way to put a human face on something that is often misunderstood. With even just one or two degrees of separation, everyone everywhere (for the most part) knows someone who is gay. They are brothers, sisters, parents, cousins, friends, co-workers, teachers, students, acquaintances - they are there, right in front of you. But until they know that these ordinary people in their lives are gay - until they can demystify and connect to it on a personal level - it will remain difficult to change minds for the better.

But - it takes bold, brave steps like this one. Brava to this young girl, indeed. What a fighter.

(Editor's Note: I wanted to embed this video directly into the post, but I first found this video at Towleroad via this link.)

Meghan McCain: "I Believe in Gay Marriage"

With the retirement of Chuck Hagel and the long-ago deaths of Teddy Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln, Meghan McCain (yes, daughter of John) is quickly becoming my favorite Republican.

Here's a little snippet of Ms. McCain's interview with Larry King last night:

McCain: I consider myself a progressive Republican. I am liberal on social issues. And I think that the party is at a place where social issues shouldn't be the issues that define the party. And I have taken heat, but in fairness to me, I am a different generation than the people that are giving me heat. I'm 24 years old. I'm not in my 40s, I'm not in my 50s and older.

King: Therefore, you must, based on what you said, disagree with your father? ... Do you discuss it?

McCain: We have a very big generation gap between me and my father. Yes, we discuss them. He's very open-minded. I was raised in an open-minded home. I was raised a Christian, but I was raised open-minded Christian -- one to accept people, love people, not pass judgment. ...

I believe in gay marriage. ... I personally am pro-life, but I'm not going to judge someone that's pro-choice. It is not my place to judge other people and what they do with their body.

I couldn't have said it any better myself. See, one thing about the difference between Democrats and Republicans is that no reasonable person could ever seriously accuse the Democrats of stifling dissent; the Party is infamous for being historically disjointed and disagreeable. One recalls Will Rogers' famous quote "I'm not a member of an organized political party; I'm a Democrat."

The Republicans, on the other hand, have - at least in modern times - become a party of Yes Men that stifles any kind of dissent amongst its minority ranks. The result is that the party's standard-bearers have to adhere by very strict, sometimes ridiculous guidelines and positions (all in the name of "pleasing the base"). Just a few weeks ago, Michael Steele learned this the hard way when he went against Rush Limbaugh; not only did Steele had to retract his (sane) comments, but all the other GOP big shots then totally backed off of anything that could be perceived as remotely critical of what Limbaugh thought.

Anyway, to hear Meghan McCain promote a debate within the GOP - and to hear her declare her support for gay marriage (!) - is a breath of beautifully fresh air. She is correct in her assessment that the Republicans are not going to get anywhere by not changing anything. She should also be commended for her position that, while she personally is pro-life, she's not going to tell other women what they can or cannot do with their bodies. I believe Meghan's position on abortion to be very near the median position in the country: a personal pro-lifer comfortable living in a pro-choice nation. In other words, "I certainly won't be getting an abortion, but there's no need to ban it from everyone."

As I've said before, the GOP would do itself a lot of good to get off its "moral" high horse, start seriously looking inward at themselves and eventually figure out a way to join the healthy debate of reasonable people. We're all waiting for them. They can start by listening to Meghan McCain.

Warren Peace

Andrew Sullivan on the furor in some quarters over Obama's choice of Rev. Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at the inauguration:

One thing I'd say in defense of Obama. There were a few times in the campaign when my first reaction was that he had screwed up. In almost every case, he subsequently proved me wrong. And I think we need to take him seriously about a change in tone on these subjects. He's asking a lot from us. That doesn't mean we should not try to reciprocate.

I agree completely. Let's not spare all our energy on this - this is, I promise, part of a larger story that has yet to be written. And, in the end, it will favor gay equality.

Rick Warrin'

A lot of supporters of gay marriage and gay civil rights in general are furious that Rick Warren, who has said that gays marrying somehow infringes upon his civil rights, will deliver the invocation at Obama's inauguration next month. This comes on the heels of some gay rights groups believing that Obama didn't do enough (he didn't do anything, actually) to help prevent the passage of Prop 8 and that he is dragging his feet a bit when it comes to implementing a policy agenda that favors gay equality (no timetable on repealing DADT, etc.).

What seems to me to be obvious is that this is a classic case of Obama being Obama, and not letting himself be beholden to any particular group of people. Clearly he is in favor of progress on gay civil rights - civil unions, getting rid of DADT, et. al. - but the choice of Warren to take part in such an important moment in his career and our country's history is clearly a signal that, yeah, he will be the president of even bigots and homophobes as well as the rest of us:

In his short political career, Obama has deftly manipulated political symbols to his advantage, but he's never been one to pay homage to one of the most sacred regulations of identity politics, which is that one must take care of one's own kind before turning outward. His mind operates differently. Obama does believe, as many of his supporters do, that there are uncrossable demarcation lines between the reasonable and the profane. But he doesn't believe that Warren, someone he admires for reaching outside his (Warren's) comfort zone on AIDS, is all that different from himself. Obama is simultaneously capable of admiring Warren while disdaining Warren's oogedy boogedy appraoch to gay relationships and his uninformed response to torture. Warren's views might be hurtful to gays; Obama does not think they are harmful.

While somewhat hard to swallow, this incident should not come as a surprise. Again, it's classic Obama. His whole thing all along has been let's come together, let's embrace each other despite our differences, and he's probably right in that regard. How can we ever get to some kind of working majority or legislative consensus on gay rights without bringing the other side - the ones who are against it - into the tent? This doesn't mean that Obama secretly condones Rick Warren's disgusting views; it's just that he sees farther down the road than, frankly, many of us regular folks do. Obama recognizes the importance of having Warren participate in such a big moment, and figures that maybe he can score some political capital with it and use that capital down the road - say, in 2010, when he decides the time is right to do away with DADT.

Obama and the Gays

In my view, Obama's planning some pretty decent reform when it comes to gay civil rights in the United States (or, as Republicans would call it, THE GAY AGENDA!!!!!). The timing of all this, however, is wishy-washy. There are no specifics as to when all this will take place:

The plan the Obama transition team posted on its website last week addresses family issues, such as marriage and adoption, as well as employment discrimination and health concerns. It reconfirms that Obama does not support same-sex marriage, but that he opposes a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.

The plan says Obama believes the federal government should repeal the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which mandated that states do not have to recognize same-sex marriages, and approve legislation that would give gay and lesbian couples in civil unions the same legal rights as married couples.

His plan proposes expanding adoption rights for gay couples, saying the president-elect believes “a child will benefit from a healthy and loving home, whether the parents are gay or not.” Obama also favors repealing the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.

The article goes on to note that Obama will expand hate-crime statutes and anti-discrimination laws to cover homosexuals who are unfairly targeted because, well, they're homosexual.

The only thing Obama seems to plan to do within a specific time frame is create a national HIV/AIDS prevention program for agencies of the federal government. He wants to do that within a year.

With the shitty economy and other, much more wide-ranging issues that are sure to take precedent (energy, etc.), I'd be thrilled if all this stuff gets done in Obama's first term. There have already been rumblings that Obama will wait until at least 2010 to repeal DADT, which is probably a good idea, as he doesn't want to use the momentum he'll have right out of the gate on an issue that affects relatively few people. That's obviously not to say it's not important, because it is, but I'd be the first person to advise him to focus on other things first, and, well, obviously I want to repeal DADT.

It will be nice to have a Democratic president in office for a variety of reasons, one of them being that it's simply refreshing to have someone who doesn't think homosexuality is a sin (gee, imagine that). Although the gay community must watch Obama like a hawk and make sure he follows through on everything he's promised. Remember: Bill Clinton was a Democrat, and he gave us DADT and DOMA. Obama still doesn't believe in same-sex marriage and you also get the feeling (again, probably rightfully so) that gay rights reform is not one of his top priorities.

I just want it to happen while he's in office. 2010, 2011, 2012... whatever. Just ASAP, please. We're all tired of waiting.

Mormons, Gays and 2012

The Mormon Church is getting a big round of applause from the Far Right for their efforts - $30 million worth of efforts - in helping Proposition 8 pass in California. First Read ponders if that could have any effect on the level of social conservatives' support for Mitt Romney, if he does as expected and seeks the presidency again in 2012.

I'm sorry, but what kind of fucked-up fantasy land are Republicans living in if, as a result of Mormons' efforts in barely passing a gay marriage ban in a state unwinnable in a presidential contest, they all go out and support Robot Romney for president?

Yes, I believe that the insanity on the Right may get worse before it gets better. Perhaps they'll be a reasonable political party again by... oh, 2024, or something like that.

Could She Get Any Worse?

This kind of bullshit has no place in our Constitution, and Sarah Palin has no place in our federal government:

Vote No on Prop 8

For those of you who don't know, Proposition 8 is an initiative on the California ballot in November that would ban same-sex marriages in that state.  If passed, it would write same-sex discrimination into the California constitution for the first time.

California is the trendsetter for the nation, and we cannot let Prop 8 pass.  From what I understand, it looks like, if the election were held today, it would pass.  This is so important to me and to everyone who cares about equal rights in this country.  We cannot let discrimination become law in the nation's largest state.  If homosexuals can't marry in California, it will be a long, long time before they are allowed to marry anywhere else (outside of Connecticut and Massachusetts, of course).

You can contribute to the anti-Prop 8 cause here.  Thank you.