Musing's musings

What he said

As far as I'm concerned, Dan Savage has said all that needs to be said about President Obama's shameful record on gay rights since winning election--and also about the "wait your turn, faggot" crowd that inevitably pops up every time anyone has the temerity to point out that the Dear Leader is naked. The Dear Leader really hasn't been all that dear as far as the gay community is concerned, and he sure as hell hasn't been a leader. Or even that good of a follower.

But then Obama was sworn in under Rick Warren’s porcine gaze and the "fierce urgency of now" quickly morphed, in Andrew Sullivan’s damning turn of phrase, into the "fierce urgency of whenever." Never mind that gay people are being turned away from their partners’ bedsides during medical emergencies now. Never mind that people are being kicked out of the military now. Never mind that Arkansas banned adoptions by same-sex couples on the very same day that Obama was elected. (Gosh, where’s that bully pulpit when you need it?) The man who wasn’t afraid to appeal directly to us for our votes as a candidate -- and certainly wasn’t shy about asking us for our dollars -- couldn’t be bothered to acknowledge the promises he had made to us and seemed to greatly resent being asked to actually honor them.

That paragraph says, eloquently and concisely, everything I've been struggling to say for the last seven months. In all likelihood, I will be turning to it again and again throughout the next three and a half years because, as Savage concludes his piece:

Last fall we, along with everyone else, got swept up in the momentousness of the campaign, in the symbolism and the history and the drama, and lost sight of something important: Obama is a politician -- and a Chicago politician at that. Nothing is ever given to you. You have to ask and tell and demand and do the work -- not passing the legislation ourselves or signing it ourselves (no coup gay’tat is in the offing), but in making sure our "friends" in the White House and Congress understand that we won’t take "wait" for an answer.

What do we want? What we were promised. When do we want it?

Now.

We're not going to go away. We're not going to sit back and let you shove us back into the closet, or put our issues on a back burner until the next time you feel like coming around and begging for our time, our talent, and our treasure to help you get (re-)elected. In fact, if we don't start seeing some action--and I mean concrete action, not just pretty words or a cocktail party for the A Gays or a proclamation that carries with it no actual substance--you can beg us all you want for our support, but you still won't get it. Come 2010, if we're still standing on the outside looking in, the Obama administration and the Democratic Party are going to find out what "I just can't seem to find the votes" really means.

Sex, money, and amateur sports

Last August, I wrote about the two University of Nebraska wrestlers who were dropped from the squad after news became public that they had posed nude on a pornographic website that largely caters to gay men. The two wrestlers, Paul Donahoe and Kenny Jordan, were both interviewed (along with several other figures associated with the scandal) for an episode of ESPN's Outside the Lines which aired this morning.

While ESPN's reporting suggests that there may have been more to the story than was apparent 10 months ago, I nevertheless found the rationalizing of the Nebraska officials they interviewed about the dismissals both specious and self-serving. Their major concern, at least as expressed in the few public statements they have been willing to make about the incident and the very few documents the university was willing to release in response to ESPN's request under the Freedom of Information Act, seems to have been the damage done to the school's image by having two of its student-athletes appear in pornographic videos.

Considering that a third of the athletes on the Nebraska wrestling squad over the last two years have faced criminal charges--and yet were not dropped from the team--that reasoning seems mighty thin to me. When you consider that Tom Osborne, now the athletic director at Nebraska and head coach of its football team in the 1990s, handed out only token punishments to stars on his football team (suspension for one spring exhibition game for Christian Peter, who racked up eight separate arrests and at least one conviction, and an on-again, off-again suspension for Lawrence Phillips after he assaulted and injured an ex-girlfriend), the rationalizations look thinner still.

"How many years..."

"...can some people exist
Before they're allowed to be free?"

Bob Dylan penned those words the year before I was born, but they ring just as true today. But it's the next couplet from "Blowin' in the Wind" that's on my mind today:

Yes, 'n' how many times can a man turn his head,
Pretending he just doesn't see?

That's what I'd like you to tell me, President Obama. How many times are you going to keep turning your head and pretending that you don't see the signs telling you that your silence on gay rights has gone on far too long? How many times are you going to send insincere notes of condolence to soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines that you sat idly by and let be discharged from the military under a policy that you promised to end? How many times are you going to suck up to the forces of hatred and bigotry and division, in the misguided hope that you might be able to gain their support?

And how long, gay and lesbian and bisexual Americans, are we going to sit idly by and let him get away with this kind of crap? This man came to us, time and again, for money and for support during his two-year campaign for the presidency. And we showed up, time and again. He promised us that he would be a "fierce advocate" for our rights. Can we honestly say that he has even tried living up to that promise? No. For proof, I invite you to examine the White House web site. Can you find any page there, or even a bullet point, that speaks to a single gay rights issue? I've looked and looked, and I can't.

UPDATE: OK, taylormattd at Big Orange caught a boo-boo. There is actually some language on that page about gay rights issues. Not much, however, as he pointed out, and not that the president has actually gotten around to doing anything about any of the issues he listed there.

We have, yet again, been used and tossed aside by a politician who has cynically calculated that we will just swallow the outrage and come crawling back in two or four years when he will again ask for our time, our talent, and our treasure. In all likelihood, he will again cynically promise to do better on our issues this time. Many of us will believe him.

I, however, will not be among them. Because unless I see some concrete action on one or more of the following, Barack Obama will not even get my vote in 2012, much less any more concrete forms of my support:

Mr. President, I need your voice

The following is an e-mail I sent to the White House last night:

To quote your recent e-mail to me, Mr. President, I need your voice. You wanted me to speak up in favor of your health plan. Well, Mr. President, I want you to start speaking up on gay rights. You and your staff keep telling me how fierce an advocate you are on gay rights. When were you planning to start proving those repeated assertions? Vermont legalizes gay marriage--you say nothing. Iowa legalizes gay marriage--you say nothing. The Department of Defense fires an Arabic linguist because he's gay--a policy you promised to do away with--and you say nothing. The California Supreme Court twists itself (and the law) into a pretzel to uphold an amendment saying that only marriage between one man and one woman is valid, but the 18,000+ marriages that don't fit that definition and that took place before the amendment was enacted are still valid. And you say nothing.

Are you starting to see a pattern here? I sure am.

Now, I'm not surprised at the shape of that pattern. I was never under the impression that you were a liberal or a gay-rights supporter. But an awful lot of your supporters kept telling me that you were both, and that if I'd only wait a little while longer, you'd show me how wrong I was.

Well, Mr. President, I've been waiting for forty-five years thus far. Just how much longer do you think I'm going to have to wait? Because, as happy as it makes me to be able to rub the noses of those people who told me you'd be a great president for gay rights in your failure to live up to that promise, I would be far happier to have them rubbing my nose in my epic fail after you stepped up to the plate and proved me wrong.

A common excuse that's offered in your defense is that you've just started your term and there are plenty of huge problems on your plate to handle, so gay rights will just have to wait. My answer to those people is one I'm sure you're familiar with, because it's from Martin Luther King's famous "Letter from a Birmingham Jail":

We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have never yet engaged in a direct action movement that was "well timed," according to the timetable of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease .... For years now I have heard the words [sic] "Wait!" ...This "Wait" has almost always meant "Never." We must come to see with the distinguished jurist of yesterday that "justice too long delayed is justice denied."

I'm not waiting any longer, Mr. President. And if you expect to keep my vote in 2012, you won't, either. Show me some concrete progress on those issues you campaigned on, and we're OK. But keep putting me off with empty words and insincere promises, and I'll be looking for a better candidate to support in 2012.

I'm not expecting any reply, directly or indirectly. But I'd love to be proven wrong.

I won't be going to California any time soon

Yes, the outcome was what I anticipated it would be: upholding Proposition H8, but also upholding the 18,000 marriages that took place before it was approved. That still doesn't mean I'm inclined to do anything that supports the ignorant people who voted (albeit narrowly) in favor of that bigoted piece of misguided legislation.

I haven't had a chance to read all of the 186-page opinion (I managed to download a copy before the servers crashed), but I have to say I'm not thrilled by the Court's reasoning thus far. And I'd love to see how they managed to twist themselves into pretzels to come up with a ruling that (a) upholds the validity of the 18,000 existing same-gender marriages and (b) at the same time upholds the constitutional amendment that says, quite plainly, that only opposite-gender marriages will be considered valid in California.

The silver lining in this particular dark cloud is that the decision is likely to trigger an appeal to the federal courts, which could poke our allegedly "fierce advocate" of a president into taking some real action on getting rid of DOMA at the federal level so those 18,000 California marriages might mean something in the other 49 states even if they don't mean anything where they were performed. And I do think California voters will be voting on this question again in 2010, though hopefully this time those of us who recognize that separate most definitely is not equal will do a better job of presenting our case and pointing out just how many lies and half-truths the other side is putting out there.

But until this odious claptrap is removed from the California lawbooks, I won't voluntarily be setting foot in that state.

Nice business you have there. Be a shame if anything happened to it.

So desperate are the foes of marriage equality in California that Project Marriage, the umbrella coalition of groups trying to amend the state constitution to prohibit same-gender marriages has resorted to blackmail to get businesses to donate money to "protect marriage":

Leaders of the campaign to outlaw same-sex marriage in California are warning businesses that have given money to the state's largest gay rights group they will be publicly identified as opponents of traditional unions unless they contribute to the gay marriage ban, too.

ProtectMarriage.com, the umbrella group behind a ballot initiative that would overturn the California Supreme Court decision that legalized gay marriage, sent a certified letter this week asking companies to withdraw their support of Equality California, a nonprofit organization that is helping lead the campaign against Proposition 8.

"Make a donation of a like amount to ProtectMarriage.com which will help us correct this error," reads the letter. "Were you to elect not to donate comparably, it would be a clear indication that you are in opposition to traditional marriage. ... The names of any companies and organizations that choose not to donate in like manner to ProtectMarriage.com but have given to Equality California will be published."

The letter was signed by four members of the group's executive committee: campaign chairman Ron Prentice; Edward Dolejsi, executive director of the California Catholic Conference; Mark Jansson, a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; and Andrew Pugno, the lawyer for ProtectMarriage.com. A donation form was attached. The letter did not say where the names would be published.

Now, I'm not a lawyer and I don't even play one on TV. But I'm pretty sure that's blackmail, extortion, and criminal conspiracy. Maybe all three. I have absolutely no doubt that the letter (and the campaign to inject discrimination into California's constitution that it's intended to support) is merely the latest disgusting spectacle put on by a dying breed of haters who simply can't adapt themselves to the fact that the world is changing in ways that they don't like or understand. The individuals who signed that letter, and everyone associated with writing it or sending it out, should be hugely ashamed of themselves. And the lawyer should probably be disbarred for even lending his name to this pathetic attempt to coerce businesses into donating to his cause. He, at least, should know better.

I have to say, too, that the IRS should take a very long, very careful look at the participation of the LDS Church in this campaign. Everything I've heard suggests that they're the major movers and shakers--and providing the majority of the money--for the project. It's not exactly clear to me why people from Utah have any business trying to tell people who live in a different state and who do not subscribe to their faith how they should have to live their lives. But it seems reasonably clear to me that the activities of the LDS Church in pushing to overturn the ruling of the California Supreme Court are uncomfortably close to the line that circumscribes what churches and other charitable organizations are legally permitted to do in the political realm.

And really, that's what this campaign boils down to: attempting to foist religious beliefs on others who do not share them, and attempting to write religiously based discrimination into government policy. The former is reprehensible both morally and legally. The latter is just plain unconstitutional. The Mormons (and the Catholics, and any other flavor of religion that is opposed to recognizing same-gender marriages) have every right to believe as they do. But they can't make everybody else follow suit. They should all shut up and go home, and let Californians take care of themselves. They seem to be doing a pretty good job of it, all things considered.

This, on the other hand, DID surprise me

End of the Anglican crown - 300 year bar to be lifted

Downing Street has drawn up plans to end the 300-year-old exclusion of Catholics from the throne. The requirement that the succession automatically pass to a male would also be reformed, making it possible for a first born daughter of Prince William to become his heir.

It makes an enormous amount of sense. But when have "sense" and "politics" and "religion" ever gone together at the same time? Being British and being Protestant have, at least in the popular mindset, been more or less coextensive for a very long time indeed. If I'm not mistaken, there were some rumblings not terribly long ago because Cherie Blair, wife of the then-prime minister, is Catholic.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

The ignorant tight-ass club strikes again

Returning to a theme I touched on in my last post, the perniciously perverse American attitude toward sex is really beginning to get on my nerves. John Edwards admits to having had a fling with a woman not his wife, and people who would ordinarily be leaping to his defense against the Bible-thumpers and the Puritan wannabes are suddenly howling for his head because he was almost sorta-kinda-maybe the Democratic nominee frontrunner candidate for the presidency.

And now, via Towleroad, I hear that two wrestlers have been dismissed from the University of Nebraska team for "posing naked for videos and photographs on an Internet pornography site." The wrestling coach was quoted in the AP story as follows:

The history of behavior of these men, including the current matter, does not reflect the standard of excellence we aspire to on and off the mat. We have outstanding student-athletes in our program and we will move forward in a positive manner toward our goals.

I want to personally apologize for any embarrassment that may have been caused for our athletic department, the university and our fans.

The story further alleges that, along with a history of "past transgressions" in Lincoln that included underage drinking, trespassing, assault, and maintaining a disorderly house, the two violated an NCAA rule that, according to the Nebraska compliance director, "prohibits athletes from appearing in pictures for commercial use." I'm betting, however, that it has far more to do with the "embarrassment" that the coach alluded to than it does to any regulation--and, further, that the only reason anybody is or might possibly be embarrassed about this incident is that the two men appeared on a gay internet pornography site.

Wankers

If the events of the past week are any indication, clearly I should have extended my vacation. It was really quite pleasant not to wake up every morning to further grim economic and political news, and to stay in touch with things that really matter--like friends, and nature, and good food. Unfortunately, as is always the case, time away ends and we have to come, willy-nilly, back to what we are pleased to designate the "real" world.

It seems that one of the things that happened while I was gone was a brouhaha between PZ Myers and William Donohue and his so-called Catholic League. (No, I am absolutely not linking to either one of them: I categorically refuse to drive any more traffic to either place. Use teh Google if you want to get more details.) The brouhaha actually spilled over into last week, and since I've been commenting on it all over Left Blogistan, I figured I might as well write about it here where at least I can keep track of all the comments a little easier.

To reduce a great deal of sound and fury that might have signified little or nothing had not two ginormous egos gotten involved into something a little less cumbersome, here's a quick summary of the events as I understand them. A college student in Florida (who may or may not be Catholic; I haven't seen any clarification on that point) went to Mass and took Communion. But instead of consuming the Eucharist, he held on to it to show a friend (or so he says). This action upset a few people at the parish in question, and apparently there was some remonstration with the young man, who did, eventually, give back the host in question. Had it stayed there, no one not involved in the parish in question would likely ever have heard about it.

It did not, however, stay there. Bill DonoWho, blowhard and media-hog extraordinaire, got involved. I don't know how he found out about the incident, but he did, and he and some of his minions began calling for disciplinary action against the student in question. It is at least alleged that some of the people from DonoWho's group made death threats against the student--he has gone on record as saying that he felt his life was in danger. DonoWho himself merely called for the student to be disciplined, and hoped that expulsion would be on the table as one of the possible penalties.

That this reaction on the part of DonoWho and his minions is over-the-top is self-evident. But here, too, this mess might have stopped--had the other supersized ego not gotten involved: to wit, PZ Myers. PZ, for those of you who are not familiar with him, is a biology professor at a small state institution in Minnesota. He is also an avowed atheist. I want to make it very clear before continuing that I have absolutely not the slightest problem with PZ's atheism. I could wish, however, that PZ could manage to find a similar level of toleration for my Catholicism, as further details will more than amply demonstrate.

"Don't ask, don't tell": Don't keep it

According to Agence-France Presse, a federal appeals court in Boston has thrown out Major Margaret Witt's lawsuit challenging the Pentagon's (in)famous "don't ask, don't tell, don't pursue" policy. The court, striking down a previous ruling by a San Francisco appeals court (and I'm dying to know how an appellate court in Boston has jurisdiction over an appellate court in San Francisco--but this one is headed to the U.S. Supreme Court as sure as the sun rises in the east, unless there's some awfully quick fixin' done on Capitol Hill, about which I am, shall we say, less than entirely sanguine), argued that the courts owe "special deference" to Congress on matters regarding military policy.

That deference is quite traditional. It is, I would argue, equally wrong-headed, at least in some circumstances. I would not expect a court to get involved in a dispute, say, between a battalion commander and his or her superior officer about which was the correct strategy to employ to achieve a given tactical objective. But when it comes to something as fundamental as the right of any citizen to serve in this nation's armed forces without being discriminated against on the basis of any invidious characterization, that's another kettle of fish entirely. And that, ultimately, is exactly what Major Witt's lawsuit is about.

The Pentagon itself admitted, not long after the policy was implemented in the early 1990s, that it was fundamentally wrong-headed. That fact has been amply and repeatedly reiterated in the nearly two decades since then, each and every time we hear about another qualified officer or linguist or servicemember being kicked out--in what the Hedgemony is forever proclaiming to be a time of war--for the simple and irrelevant fact that s/he is sexually attracted to members of the same gender.

Big fat hairy fuckin' deal. Most of our major defense partners allow openly gay or lesbian individuals who are otherwise qualified to serve in their armed forces. They don't report discovering mass orgies in the gang showers, or massive desertions (or even requests for transfer) when "the unit" discovers "one of them" in its ranks. The world has not, to the best of my knowledge and belief, come to an end--and I think we are on safe ground in concluding that it will not do so should the United States decide to stop wasting valuable personnel whom it desperately needs in uniform, just because those individuals happen to be gay or lesbian or bisexual.