I do also see good news…

There was good news this week, and, even better for me, it was something I correctly predicted. These days, it’s probablty a good idea for us all to take the wins when we get them.

This week, the US Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal incuding a request to overturn the Court’s 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges ruling that legalised same-gender marriage throughout the USA. This is exactly what I expected to happen. In fact, a couple days or so before the decision to decline the petition was announced, I said this in a Facebook comment to a friend:

As you can probably guess, I’m following this closely, but I doubt this case will succeed. The plaintiff and her case are both deeply flawed and problematic, and the Court has already lost most of its credibility in the eyes of the public because of their idiotic decisions, like the Dobbs case, inventing presidential “immunity” out of nothing, and constantly ruling to help the Republicans’ God-King and others in their party, especially through the slimy Shadow Docket. They won’t want to make yet another idiotic decision that would help Democrats in 2026, and they may be betting that if they lay low now, maybe real elections won’t happen after 2026, and they can then let their christfascism run free. At the very least, with so much disgust with the court right now, they’re most likely to wait for a better case, one with a plaintiff that can be more successfully marketed as a “victim”.

All up, it’s more likely they’ll decline to take the case, without comment, and bide their time.

I elaborated on this in a follow-up comment:

I don’t know if [marriage equality opponents] can get four votes to proceed—not impossible, but unlikely. Barrett has said people’s lives depend on the ruling standing, which, historically, has been a big reason for the Court to avoid overturning a ruling, and even Alito—a stinging critic of Obergefell—has said that, too. Roberts is the one MOST worried about how awfully most Americans see the Court. That leaves only Thomas, Kavanaugh, and Gorsuch to possibly vote to hear the case. But, whatever happens, we’ll probably never know who wanted to hear the case and who didn’t, though we can be sure that at least Thomas will vote to proceed. The other two could well see what a sham this particular case is and wait for a stronger one to use to destroy the human rights of married same-gender couples and LGBTQ+ people in general.

That second comment has the one thing I may have been wrong about: “We can be sure that at least Thomas will vote to proceed”. He may well have wanted to do so, for all we know, but the petition was rejected without dissent, so if Thomas did argue in favour of it, he didn’t officially register that opposition. That aside, it’s probably a good idea to elaborate on what I said. First, the issue wasn’t that Davis personally refused to allow a same-gender couple to legally marry after the Obergefell ruling, it’s that she forbade anyone in the office with complying with the law, and that’s where she crossed the line. She was found personally responsible for denying a gay couple’s right to marry, and that was later increased to $360,000. The original appeal was trying to get her out of having to pay the judgement, but her appeal said the issue was her supposed “religious liberty [sic]” to discriminate against gay couples, and that’s the main angle her petition to the Supreme Court took, and their justification for why the Court should reverse itself.

The professional anti-LGBTQ+ industry pushes supposed religious "liberty” in opposing anything pro-LGBTQ+ in part because those activists know that the far-right Republicans in various courts, including the Supreme Court, will usually back anything that claims to be upholding/promoting religious “liberty”.

Despite many of the Republican Supreme Court judges far-right views on religious “liberty”, they all nevertheless knew that because the case was originally about damages the plaintiff was charged by Kentucky courts, and was basically rebranded as being about religious “liberty”. So, its claim to actually be about religious “liberty” was dubious. This means that even if the far-right Republican majority really does want to overturn Obergefell, this case wasn’t the right case to do that because it would destroy way too much of what little legitimacy the court still has in the public’s eyes, and fall or dubious reasons. However, the professional anti-LGBTQ industry is nothing if not persistent, so if a case comes along that’s “cleaner”, one that doesn’t have a problematic plaintiff or origin, it could give the most hard-right justices an opportunity they may want—but not for at least a couple years.

It’s also worth noting that despite his many (many, many…) failings, the Felon in Chief has never expressed a desire to overturn marriage equality, but he did talk endlessly about overturning Roe v. Wade, appointed Supreme Court justices certain to do that, and then took personal credit for it when they did overturn Roe. The fact that he hasn’t said anything about ending marriage equality suggests he's not interested in it, and that would make it harder—though not impossible—for his vassals in the Republican Party to make that an actual priority, as opposed to just another attack line.

Some folks may point out that the Felon has repeatedly attacked trans people, his vassals have then followed suit, and all have taken concrete action to attack trans people. History shows us that it could merely be their opening act, and an attack on marriage equality is inevitable. Maybe so—but today is not that day, and right now the important thing is to focus on threats on freedom and liberty that are already underway.

Also, it's important to celebrate when there's good news, and the bottom line is that the Supreme Court declining to accept the case without dissent is definitely good news.

My brain’s morning intrusion

There have been many mornings when I woke up thinking about something. The subject could be anything, such as, thoughts about a project I’m working on (or merely planning), something in the news I’ve been thinking about, or even about a memory, often a complicated one. The latter is what I woke up to a couple mornings ago.

These morning ruminations are a little weird, even to me. They’re not extensions of a dream, as far as I’m ever aware, but instead it’s almost as if my thinking brain was bored with my sleeping brain and decided to just start mulling over something. Then rest of my brain groggily becomes aware of the ruckus in my head and starts to stir, bringing me with it. I realise that anthropomorphising all this only makes it weirder, and it’s probably not even remotely close to what’s really happening, but imagining the scenario at least gives me a way to perceive why this happens.

So, I recently woke up to my brain thinking about the ASVAB tests the boys in my high school class we’re required to take in 1975 or 76 (I’m not sure which). The test was actually called “Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery”, but I only ever heard it mentioned by its initials—ASVAB—which was pronounced as a word, “ASS-vab”. As far as I know, this was just the way people said it, and the first syllable wasn’t said that way out of spite, at least, not by me. Perhaps it should’ve been.

Wikipedia describes the test well:

The Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) is a multiple choice test, administered by the United States Military Entrance Processing Command, used to determine qualification for enlistment in the United States Armed Forces. It is often offered to U.S. high school students when they are in the 10th, 11th and 12th grade, though anyone eligible for enlistment may take it.

They go on to say that all branches of the armed forces adopted it in 1976, and that was probably for a good reason: Registration for the US military’s draft ended on April 1, 1975, and didn’t resume until 1980. Young men born between March 29, 1957 and December 31, 1959 were not required to register for the draft. I’m one of those folks who never had to register for the draft.

All of that is the essence of why I was so bitter about having to take the test—it was never about military service for those who chose it, but, rather, about the irrational, immoral, and unjustifiable compulsion and the discrimination. Yeah, that last part was huge for me.

Prior to its suspension in 1975, young women turning 18 were not required to register for the draft. I thought that was indefensible: Why should only young men be (possibly?) denied their freedom and liberty? In those days, most folks in Congress were old white men (well, actually, most of them still are…), and they didn’t think “young ladies” were capable of or suitable for military service, especially combat. It turned out that barring women from combat positions also made it impossible for them to attain higher rank. How convenient for “certain people”…

That same idiotic prejudice extended to the ASVAB: In my high school, only boys took the test, and it was mandatory. As I recall, we were threatened with suspension if we didn’t take the test. I hated and resented the entire experience, and from that moment until I graduated I considered the school administration and Board as adversaries for that reason alone (there were later other reasons, it turned out, because—surprise!—I’ve always chafed at authoritarianism).

Eventually the ASVAB became optional for young women to take, too, probably as a result of their growing emancipation—and the military establishment’s need for recruits. In 1980, President Jimmy Carter stupidly reinstated registration for the draft after the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, which was one of his biggest mistakes, in my opinion at the time—and ever since. The new registration still excluded young women (of course?), but it also was retroactive: Anyone born on or after January 1, 1960 had to register, not just those turning 18 on the date of the presidential order or later, as most folks would’ve expected. At the time, I thought that was immoral and unconscionable (it’s easy to be judgemental in one’s teens and early 20s). Back then, I also thought it was because the military needed cannon fodder, but in the end Carter didn’t send soldiers to Afghanistan, but, worse, in some ways, the USA’s covert actions helped encourage the eventual rise of the Taliban—and the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks on the USA. “Unintended consequences” with an exclamation point.

By the mid-1970s, I knew I’d never be part of the military. Actually, one of my earliest memories is of a live draw for the draft lottery, and seeing them draw my birthdate. It sent a chill through me, even though I was probably less than half the registration age at the time. Around 1970, my family and I went on vacation that included Ontario. There, we happend across a Lutheran College (it was either there or another school where I first saw cricket being played—foreshadowing of my eventual adult life?). I thought when I turned 18 I’d chose that college—in Canada—so I could escape the draft. I was around 9 at the time, so I give myself a lot of slack on that reasoning.

When registration for the draft ended (briefly), I was ecstatic: I wouldn’t even have to entertain military service. Let alone ways to avoid it. On some level, perhaps basic and elemental, I understood that I’d never be safe in the military because I was gay, even though I was very deeply closeted at the time. But all of that was about me alone: I never thought badly of anyone who chose military service, I just knew on a fundamental and existential level that it wasn’t right for me.

My morning thoughts in this care were about literally all of that, and as such things often are, it was like an aural blog post. This written version is nothing like by brain’s original intrusion into my morning, not the least because, perhaps against appearances, this post is much less strident than that morning thinking session was. If that morning thinking—lecturing?—was a YouTube video, even I would’ve skipped ahead. But it made me wonder about things I wasn’t sure about—the ASVAB itself, the draft, even how long registration for the draft was (rightfully…) suspended. I ended up learing things, and that’s always a good thing.

Yeah, but, ya know, I really could do without waking up to my brain making morning intrusions.

Another friend is gone

This morning when I checked Facebook I learned that Tom, a friend I met through podcasting back when I first started, had died during the night my time, while I was asleep. That sort of thing has happened many times over the years, but this time I knew it was coming because we’d been told his cancer journey was nearing its end—but knowing that a loss is coming never makes it any easier, of course.

I met Tom through podcasting, and listened to his podcast, “Ramble Redhead”, that featured interviews of folks who were part of or connected to the LGBTQ+ community. In 2007 he asked to interview me after I started my podcast for that reason (surprisingly, moving to the other side of the globe for love isn’t all that common…). His was the second podcast I was on, after Paul Armstrong’s ArcherRadio. We lost Paul last year.

Tom was also the first podcaster I met in real life, way back in December 2007 when I was in Chicago to tie up a few loose ends. Tom and his partner at the time drove from Indiana to the far Northside of Chicago, where I was staying, so we could meet, have lunch, and hang out. It was an awesome—and unbelievably cold—day. The photo was taken on Northalsted across from the LGBT+ community centre that didn’t exist the last time I’d been in Chicago.

After that, we were often both on Paul’s ArcherRadio group shows, and frequently caught up online, especially on Facebook. He and I were also part of the Pride 48 Network of LGBT and LGBT-friendly podcasts, and we both participated in the live streaming events. Nigel and I always hoped to attend the in-person streaming events, but never got the chance, and so, Nigel never got the chance to meet Tom in real life. However, when I was in Chicago in 2007, we rang Nigel so Tom could say hello, and he spoke with Nigel like they were old friends, even though they’d never spoken before. That was just Tom. A few years later, they were both on shows with me (my own live shows, I think? It was a long time ago…).

Tom was one of the kindest people I’ve ever met, radiating positivity and support for others. As the years passed, we didn’t chat online as much as we once did, but even so I could tell how happy he was when he met and married his husband, Roger. Just as I understood what Tom was feeling then, I also understand what Roger will be going through now, and that, too, breaks my heart.

Tom was loved and admired by so many people, especially in the Pride 48 family. He used to end his podcast episodes by saying, “Just remember, a crazy redhead in Indiana loves you.” For so very many people, it was definitely mutual.

Farewell, my friend.

The photo up top is from a January 2008 blog post about my trip to the USA I mentioned above. This post is a revised version of what I posted to my personal Facebook page.

The unsupremes ruin everything

Friday evening is normally a relaxing time for me. Sometimes I get together with family for dinner, which is always nice, and then I settle in to watch some TV for the rest of the evening. But this past Friday, as I was beginning to wind down for bed, I got an alert on my iPad that the US “Supreme” Court had struck yet again dismantled more of the human rights of LGBT+ Americans. The ruling—yet another far-right ideologically-driven decision—is part of the Republican far-right majority’s agenda: Make America 1883 Again.

Like most people on the centre and left of US politics, I have zero respect for the far-right Republican majority of the court, precisely because they’ve worked so very hard to destroy the court’s reputation: Instead of standing up for justice and fairness and for ordinary people, and instead of ruling in accordance with the law and the US Constitution, the far-right Republicans are instead engaged in “comforting the comfortable and afflicting the afflicted,” as journalist Ian Millhiser put in the subtitle of his 2015 book Injustices

The Court’s latest ideologically-driven decision, 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis (21-476) [PDF of the decision], involved a fundamentalist “christian” web designer who thought one day she might like to create wedding websites, but her religious views compelled her to refuse to create a website for a same-gender couple, in the event she ever started providing such services, of course, and if a theoretical same-gender couple ever tried to hire her services. While the supposed “injury” to her was entirely hypothetical, she sued the State of Colorado, anyway—well, the ultra-far-right “Alliance Defending [sic] Freedom [lol]" sued on her behalf.

The extremist group has long shopped around for “victims” they can represent in their constant efforts to overturn all legal protections for LGBT+ people—and everyone else they don’t like. They have several suits at various stages of litigation at any given time, and it’s entirely likely that when the Court’s the far-right Republican majority inevitably strikes down Obgergefell v. Hodges, Lawrence v. Texas, Griswold v. Connecticut—and possibly even Loving v. Virginia—the A”D”F will be behind it one way or another.

What’s extraordinary about this decision, and two others just released, is that there was no one who had suffered actual legal “injury” that needed to be remedied. Instead, the Court decided to “afflict the afflicted” in order to “comfort the comfortable” by imposing their own ideological agenda onto everyone else. That could not possibly be more obvious than in this particular case.

When the plaintiff’s firm filed the lawsuit against Colorado, there was no possibility of harm because she wasn’t doing the sort of work she didn’t want to have to do for people she objected to. It’s clear that Colorado didn’t think she had legal standing to sue the state, and part way through the process it emerged that, allegedly, someone named “Stewart” had contacted her through her website’s contact form to try to hire her web services for his marriage to his “husband”. The problem was, the whole thing was faked by someone: He had been married to a woman for 15 years, and even if he was gay, he was actually a designer himself, so he wouldn’t need her services. He also had no idea his name and details had been used in a Supreme Court case.

The plaintiff's legal team claimed, “it’s undisputed that the request was received,” however, it appears that no proof of that has been made public. Still, assuming it really did happen—and, to be clear, it may have happened—it proves nothing whatsoever. The lawyer suggested it could have been a troll, which is possible, but that raises questions, like, who did it and what was their motivation? Mischief or malice? Was it done to strengthen the web designer’s case? We’ll never know because at no point did anyone ever check to see if it was a legitimate request, which is… odd. A legitimate request may have actually bolstered her case if she refused, but not even checking to find out if the request was legitimate just sounds… odd.

The lawyers claimed it wasn’t actually part of the case, anyway, which is technically true (at least, from their perspective), but the fact remains that the one thing that could have suggested real potential “injury” to the plaintiff was never vetted. Even so, the lawyers were happy to continue using the apparently faked contact, arguing after the ruling that “any claim that [the web designer] will never receive a request to create a custom website celebrating a same-sex ceremony is no longer legitimate because [the designer] has received such a request.” Did she, though? And if so, how do we know it wasn’t from a supporter trying to shore up her legally non-existent argument? This just sounds like spin. Obviously, either side in a political dispute like this may try to spin the results to their benefit, but that doesn’t make claims of relevancy valid. [See also: "Legitimacy of ‘customer’ in Supreme Court gay rights case raises ethical and legal flags" by Alanna Durkin Richer and Colleen Slevin, Associated Press]

This same thing—litigants who haven’t experienced any actual legal “injury” runs through two other recent decisions. In Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (20-1199) [PDF of the decision], which overturned affirmative action in university admissions, the driver was a long-time agitator against affirmative action, not a student. Similarly, in Biden v. Nebraska et al (22-506) [PDF of the decision], the decision that stopped President Biden from forgiving some student loan debt, the supposedly injured parties—six Republican-controlled states—were not actually injured (except for their feelings, perhaps). One state agency that handles student loans didn’t want to be part of the lawsuit (not the least because they stood to make more money if the debt relief plan had been permitted), but was forced into it, anyway, by Republican state officials who used their power to act on behalf of the plaintiff because it was a state agency. In all three of these cases, dubious—at best—speculative claims were accepted by the Court’s Republican far-right majority as legitimate and as good reasons to further erode the rights and freedom of ordinary people in order to, yet again, comfort the comfortable—and to advance a far-right Republican agenda.

For the web designer’s case, the whole rightwing argument was, as it has been in similar cases, about supposed “speech”: They argue that forcing a fundamentalist “christian” to “participate” in a same-gender wedding requires the creative professional to make “symbolic speech” in support of something they oppose on religious grounds. As someone who has worked in creative industries for decades, I think this argument is profoundly stupid: They’re hired to do a job, end of story.

The real issue here is that the rightwing wants their particular religious beliefs to always cancel out the human and civil rights of people they don’t “agree with”, which, of course, is code for, shall we say, “people they dislike very much”. I think that’s stupid, too, because it only ever works in one direction: If a graphic designer, photographer, cake baker, florist, or other creative professional refused to provide services to an opposite-gender fundamentalist “christian” couple because it would mean providing “symbolic speech” endorsing the couple’s religious views that ran counter to the creative professional’s, I feel certain that the current Supreme Court would never permit that objection. Turnabout is not fair play—it’d be prohibited.

The court’s far-right Republican majority is doing the one thing that Republicans have long pretended was an unpardonable sin: They’re legislating from the bench [See: “The Supreme Court’s conservatives are doing exactly what they claim to detest” by MSNBC Columnist Michael A. Cohen]. They’re doing this legislating from the bench in order to force a hard-core ideologically-driven agenda onto everyone. In so doing, the court’s far-right Republican majority is reversing decades of slow, often tortured and halting, progress toward more fairness, equity, and safety for ordinary people, and are instead working hard to raise elites above ordinary Americans—and ordinary people are very ones who  need the protection of the Constitution.

So, yet again, the Supreme Court’s Republican far-right majority has dismantled a bit more of the civil and human rights of LGBTQ+ people. This is far from the last time they’ll do that, and each attack will be just as ideologically driven. This is why defeating all Republicans everywhere is, for now, the only hope for saving democracy, the Constitution, and the rule of law. The Supreme Court’s Republican far-right majority has yet again reminded us: Elections have consequences.

One Day More

The video above is from this year’s “Broadway Backwards”, an annual “celebration of LGBTQ+ stories told through the great songs of musical theater,” as it was described by its producer, Broadway Cares. The evening raised a record $765,069 to benefit Broadway Cares/Equity Fights AIDS and The Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transgender Community Center in New York City.

The YouTube description for the video describes what this is in more detail:

At Broadway Backwards 2023, Les Misérables’ inspiring anthem “One Day More” was set among a modern-day, ragtag group of activists preparing for an equality march in Washington. Philippe Arroyo, Bradley Dean, Jeigh Madjus, Ellyn Marie Marsh, Chris McCarrell, Turner Riley, Alexandra Silber and Paul C. Vogt led the ensemble in an emotive rendition that ended with Les Misérables‘ iconic group march as a giant Pride flag behind them signaled the dawn of a new day.

Although the benefit show was held on March 13, 2023, the video was posted to YouTube on June 2. I didn’t see it until more than a week later, then saved sharing it for June 28 (US time) because it's the 54th Anniversary of the Stonewall Rebellion. The connection is simple: If the shadows of these times remain unchanged, a major conflict is coming. It will be inevitable.

When I shared the video on my personal Facebook, I said:

This is an awesome take on the song. I remember that back during the Reagan Abomination there was a popular slogan: “No More Mr. Nice Gay”. We need to bring back that attitude before it’s too late, because if we don’t organise and fight back, they will come for us all, and we’ll suffer the same fate as the folks who sang this song in the original show.

I’ve watched in shock, anger, dismay, disbelief, and fear—sometimes all at the same time—as rightwingers throughout the English-speaking world (and beyond) have been emboldened in their efforts to take away the human rights of LGBTQ+ people, and to criminalise them—or worse, as far-right US “christians” succeeded in doing in Uganda.

This was brought home to me once again when I saw an article published by Business Insider, “Don't say anti-gay: As GOP approval for same-sex relationships plummets, Republican senators insist they're only coming after trans rights, not gay rights”. Republicans are lying, of course.

For decades, Republicans pretended that they only wanted Roe v. Wade overturned so that “states can decide”. Every time anyone dared to suggest that their real agenda was to outlaw all abortions without exception everywhere in the USA, they feigned innocence and repeated their lies. Now, Republican politicians are quite open about their push for nationwide literal or defacto total abortion bans.

Republican politicians are doing the exact same thing about LGBTQ+ rights now: They’re boldly lying, smugly certain no one will realise it. Republicans absolutely will not stop with their war against trans people and drag queens—that’s just a warm up. If they win power, they’ll be coming for the “LBG” part, too, faster than anyone can say “evil liars”.

A recent Gallup poll reported a decline in support for the “morality” of same-gender relationships, and the largest driver of that has been Republicans turning against the very humanity of LGBTQ+ people. This is precisely why we know Republicans will inevitably turn against the “LGB” part of the acronym, too: Republican politicians always pander to the most extreme part of their party’s base, and that base is becoming increasingly—and increasingly aggressively—hostile to LGBT+ people.

Republican politicians—especially those whose lips are firmly planted on the back-end of their party’s Dear Leader—are already using vile extremist slurs like “groomer” and “pedophile” against trans people and drag queens, but considering those same hate-filled slurs were once hurled at gay people, do they really expect us to take their fake denials seriously?! On what planet would that be credible?!

Moreover, the cult members of the Republican Party's leader have been primed for violence, so it’s not hard to imagine increasing numbers of violent attacks on LGBTQ+ people, businesses, organisations, etc., and when that happens, it'll have been Republican politicians’ rhetoric that was the match that lit the fuse. No matter how many crocodile tears they pretend to shed after each attack, the result will be the same: Their words, their lies, and their cynical and bigoted propaganda will have been the motivation for the violence.

And what if they get all the power they seek? They will end marriage equality: If they can overturn Roe after nearly 50 years, they can overturn marriage equality easily, too. They’ll also overturn Lawrence, thereby making simply being LGB a crime (the T already could be by then). I warned about this several times, most recently when the Respect for Marriage Act was signed into law, when I also described why that law may not save marriage equality. When I talked about that same law while it was still in Congress, I described other laws that Republican politicians plan to kill.

So that’s why a simple video of an adaptation of a Broadway song struck me as hard as it did: I saw the possible future if Republican candidates aren’t defeated at the ballot box. Because Republicans are gerrymandering every place they can to ensure they can maintain minority rule, massive turnout by sane and rational voters will be necessary if Republican candidates are to be defeated. In fact, sane and rational voters are the only thing standing between democracy and the christofascism of the modern Republican Party.

I don’t know how this story will end, but the story of Les Misérables didn’t end well for the French people fighting for liberty. Still, hope is a powerful thing, so I continue to hope that this 21st Century version of the story has a happier ending—even that the forces of evil are swept off of history’s stage altogether, thereby changing the story itself and making that one day more bright and sunny.

But: If the shadows of these times remain unchanged? I know one thing for certain: Stonewall was a riot, but if Republicans win the power they seek, we’ll need a fucking revolution—before it’s too late for everyone.

Imperfect, but still a win

Yesterday, the US Senate voted 61-36 to pass the “Respect for Marriage Act” which will protect same-sex and interracial marriages in the USA from destruction by radical judges on the US Supreme Court. The bill now goes to the US House for it to pass the amended bill. The need to pass the legislation became urgent when the Supreme Court’s radical majority voted to end a 50-year-old constitutional right to abortion, paving the way for more rights to be taken away. The bill is not perfect—no bill ever is—however, it’s still a major victory for fairness, justice, and common sense, which makes it worthy of praise.

The new law, if, as expected, passes the House and is signed by the president, will protect same-gender and interracial marriages, even if the radicals on the Supreme Court overturn rulings that established those rights. To understand what the bill will do, and why it’s necessary, we first need to review how we got to this point.

Ever since the Supreme Court handed down the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, which established a constitutional right to abortion, hardcore conservatives worked and schemed to find a way to overturn it. They slowly packed the Supreme Court with far-right extremist justices, finally adding three more such extremists during the term of the Republican occupant of the White House 2017-2021, done prior to his huge election loss in 2020.

In June of this year, all that cynical political manoeuvring by Republican extremists paid off in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision, which took away the 50-year-old constitutional right to abortion. The radical Republicans emphasised they were far from finished with taking away people’s rights.

The decision, written by Samuel Alito, who has often expressed his utter contempt for anyone who doesn’t share his peculiar far-right religious views, blandly claimed the decision wasn’t related to any other decision, though no rational person believed he actually meant it. He’s used every opportunity to trash all the legal precedents on which the Roe decision was based—and those same precedents also underpinned several other constitutional rights guaranteed by Supreme Court rulings. The relevant decisions, and the rights they guaranteed, now at risk of being overturned are:

Griswold v. Connecticut: The 1965 ruling established the right to use contraception, underpinned by a right to privacy;

Loving v. Virginia: The 1967 ruling established the right to interracial marriage, underpinned by a right to privacy, as well as the Griswold ruling;

Lawrence v. Texas: The 2003 ruling established the right of same-sex couples to have intimate relationships, and was underpinned by a right to privacy, and the Griswold and Loving rulings.

Obergefell v. Hodges: The 2015 ruling established the right to same-gender marriage, underpinned by a right to privacy, as well as the Griswold, Loving, and Lawrence rulings.

Of those rulings, the Respect for Marriage Act will help secure the right to marriage enshrined in both Loving and Obergefell, but will do little to help preserve the right to contraception or private intimate relations, nor can it protect the actual rulings in both Loving and Obergefell. It’s important to note that the radicals on the Supreme Court may still overturn all of those decisions, and that would allow states to make contraception, interracial marriage, private intimate relations, and same-sex marriage illegal in those states. The Respect for Marriage Act can only partially preserve part of the constitutional rights that US citizens now have because of all those rulings that are currently in grave danger.

Here’s how the Respect for Marriage Act can help.

The first thing it will do is repeal the infamous “Defense [sic] of Marriage Act”, a 1996 law that declared in Section 3, “the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.” Section 3 was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 2013 in United States v. Windsor, based on the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution, however, the rest of the law remained in place, and Section 2 was a huge threat if Obergefell is overturned:

No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.

This section was intended to void the Constitution’s Full Faith and Credit Clause as it relates to same-gender marriage. By repealing what’s left of DOMA, same-gender marriages will remain legal, even if the Supreme Court overturns Obergefell.

The Respect for Marriage Act will also require states to recognise legal marriages performed in other states, and they can’t discriminate “on the basis of the sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin of those [married] individuals”, and that “only the law of the jurisdiction applicable at the time the marriage was entered into may be considered,’’ and, further, a marriage performed overseas would also be valid if “the marriage could have been entered into in a State”. This is at the core of the whole issue: The Loving case happened in the first place, after all, because an interracial couple, Richard and Mildred Loving, were married in the District of Columbia, where interracial marriage was legal, and went back to Virginia, where it absolutely was NOT.

What’s going on legally is that the Respect for Marriage Act will enshrine in law that for federal purposes the standard for a valid marriage will be “place of solemnisation” (also called “place of celebration”), not “place of residence”. This means that an interracial or same-gender marriage performed in a state (or foreign country) where it’s legal will have to be recognised as legally married in states where it’s not legal. So, if (when?) the Supreme Court overturns Obergefell, a same-gender couple married in, say, New York will still be legally married if they move to Texas, a state absolutely certain to outlaw same-gender marriage if Obergefell is overturned (assuming their previous ban isn’t automatically reinstated).

There will be many thorns on the path to preserving liberty: A backward state might defy the Respect for Marriage Act and refuse to recognise an out-of-state same-gender marriage, for example, leaving it up to the Supreme Court to enforce it—if, in fact, the radicals do enforce it, because they could strike down the Act, or even just the full faith and credit provision. Or, backward states may simply refuse to recognise a same-gender marriage where one or both of the individuals are citizens of and/or ordinarily resident in their backward state, but travelled to a free state to marry. The Supreme Court might side with such a backward state.

Those risks aside, the Respect Marriage Act is currently the best hope to protect the constitutional right to interracial and same-gender marriage from the radicals on the Supreme Court. A stronger solution would be to pack the Supreme Court with rational, sensible, non-partisan, non-sectarian justices who actually believe in the rule of law and who would be certain to uphold their oath to defend the US Constitution, and so, its protection of individual freedom and liberty. That seems unlikely to happen, which leaves the Respect for Marriage Act as the best option there is until a brighter, saner day in the future when christofascism is defeated.

Some critics are upset about the carve-outs for conservative religionists (specifically allowing them to not participate in same-gender marriages without legal recourse for any couples discriminated against), and, yeah, I completely get that; I personally abhor special rights for rightwing religionists to impose their beliefs on everyone. However, I have ALWAYS believed that taking 75% of what we want now is FAR better than rejecting that and risking losing 100%.

I saw a commentator say that the better option would be to work to amend state constitutions, like a few states are doing on abortion rights. That’s a lovely idea that will do absolutely nothing right now. The Respect for Marriage Act is the only shot we have at preserving, protecting, and defending a nationwide constitutional right to same-gender marriage. If both Obergefell and the Respect for Marriage Act are struck down, same-gender marriage in free states would still be legal. Sure, if the radicals on the Supreme Court threw out Obergefell, Republicans would propose a nationwide legislative ban on same-gender marriage, but promising a nationwide ban on abortions in the wake of the Dobbs decision hurt the party in the recent US Midterm Elections; a clear majority of Americans appears to oppose Republicans’ culture war attempts to destroy constitutional rights and liberties.

Finally, while the Respect for Marriage Act would protect interracial and same-gender marriages, it’s important to note that it’s highly improbable that any US state would try to enact an outright ban interracial marriage: All states that had such laws in 1967 have repealed them (in 2000, Alabama became the last state to repeal a ban on interracial marriage). For that situation to change, things would have to have become very dire, indeed, and there would probably be a long list of threats to liberty and freedom if that was to happen.

The Respect for Marriage Act, then, is currently the best hope for preserving the right of same-gender couples to marry if the radicals on the Supreme Court overturn Obergefell. It doesn’t compel states to perform marriages for same-gender couples, as Obergefell does, but it’s not clear that a federal law could do that. It also has carve-outs for conservative religionists that, while distasteful, are quite common (they exist in many laws around the world, including New Zealand’s). And, of course, it does nothing to preserve the right to access contraception or the right to have intimate personal relations, which are also under threat from the radicals on the Supreme Court, because both of those are beyond the scope of a law about marriage—and any bill protecting both those rights would attract fierce opposition from far-rightwing politicians and lobby groups.

So, yeah, the Respect for Marriage Act is not perfect, however, it’s still a major victory for fairness, justice, and common sense. It’s entirely worthy of praise.

See also: "The fine print of the Respect for Marriage Act" from CNN, which has a really good summation of how far this USA has evolved on the issue.

Stupid games should fool no one

A bill to ban anti-LGBTQ “conversion therapy” used against minors passed its first reading in Parliament Thursday, no thanks to the New Zealand National Party. The party’s leaders claim to support the ban, but want changes. Seriously. Do they think we’re stupid, or are they?

In case it’s the latter, here’s a brief reminder for their MPs, who perhaps don’t understand how Parliament works: The first reading of a bill is only the start of the legislative process. If a party supports what the bill is for, they vote in favour of it at the first reading so it can go to select committee where hearings are held, feedback given, and amendments are considered. THAT is where MPs dig in their heels if they think a bill they genuinely support in most respects needs to be changed, not at the first reading.

I don’t seriously think they’re too stupid to know that’s how Parliament works—they’re just playing political games. We know this because ALL the political parties in Parliament, regardless of ideology, supported the first reading except National. They knew their votes were irrelevant and the bill would pass the first reading without them, and that gave them a good opportunity to wage more of their divisive culture war bullshit, which is what their stunt was really all about.

Simon Bridges, who was dumped as party leader well before the last election, is now their “justice” spokesperson. He used his speech [Read: Full transcript of the debate] to spread disinformation to present the sort of typical rightwing nonsense arguments against a ban that have been used in other countries—despite the fact that his disinformation was also completely irrelevant to a ban on conversion therapy. Worse, he also flat out lied.

He said that the bill would mean “that good parenting will be criminalised”, and he added that a parent advising their trans child not to take puberty blockers could be prosecuted. It seems to me that he was either deliberately lying or else he doesn’t understand what “conversion therapy” actually is.

Do Bridges and National seriously mean to suggest that a “good parent” is one who would subject their child to electric shock treatment, forced fasting, sleep deprivation, drugs, psychological manipulation, and the other extreme techniques often used in “conversion therapy”? By definition, a real good parent would never subject their child to such harm, and so, they would never face prosecution. Ever. But even bad parents who would choose “conversion therapy” wouldn’t face prosecution unless they were also practitioners who conducted the sessions themselves. From what Bridges actually said in Parliament, apparently any parents willing to personally effectively torture their own children would be what National thinks are “good parents”.

Also worrying is that the party’s youth wing, the Young Nationals, had urged the party’s caucus to support the bill, and when the entire caucus failed to do so, the Young Nationals said they were “very disappointed” in their own party’s caucus. Maybe the National Party just doesn’t care about the views of young people, even when they’re stalwart supporters of the party?

The National Party has become more and more disgusting in recent months. They had a disastrous loss in 2020, and they’ve apparently decided their salvation lies in divisiveness, like rightwing populists around the world. Their leader has been spouting rank racist rhetoric, like the other day when the National Party Leader said there should be a taxpayer-funded referendum on banning the use of New Zealand’s Māori name, Aotearoa, by government agencies. That came a day after one of her MPs floated the idea of banning it.

The reality for me is that I have problems with, and criticisms of, every party in Parliament, without exception. That’s perfectly normal in a democracy. But when a party’s behaviour becomes so disgusting that it becomes an object of contempt, that’s not normal—and it’s definitely not okay. National’s problems go beyond their leader and senior MPs: For example, they apparently may be about to dump their party president. If the National Party doesn’t reverse its slide into rightwing, racist, culture warrior populism, they’ll deserve to lose in another landslide at the next election.

This is a revised and greatly expanded version of something I posted to my personal Facebook yesterday,

40th Outaversary

Today was an anniversary I didn’t even notice at first, not until a friend pointed it out to me: Today is my 40th “Outaversary”. That’s because 40 years ago today was the first time I did anything to publicly identify myself as gay.

I knew that today was the anniversary because of a Facebook “Memory” I shared today (partial screenshot above). All I noticed was that it was calling attention to a 2019 blog post about the 60th anniversary of my baptism. That post was titled, “60 and 38 years ago today”, and all I thought was that it was the year of my sixtieth birthday, and that inevitably made me think of what a terrible year that ended up being. That happens pretty much whenever I see any reminder from 2019.

That means that I didn’t stop to think much beyond that the post was talking about something that was now 62 years ago—but it never occurred to me to add two years to the other anniversary, the one that 2019 post actually points out was more important. I probably wouldn’t have noticed at all if my friend Andy hadn’t pointed it out to me. I don’t know if that’s ever happened to me before.

The fact that I’ve now been out for 40 years is significant, especially because so many of the gay men who came out when I did died decades ago. I survived through a combination of luck and my generally cautious nature. Along the way, I like to think, I did some good for us all.

The biggest and most important thing that happened to me after I came out is that I met Nigel, and we legally formalised our relationship, first with a Civil Union (because that’s all we had), then marriage when that became legal. The happiest and proudest thing I’ve ever done in my life so far was marrying Nigel. It mattered to me on a completely personal level, but also as someone who had struggled for so long to make the world a little less hostile to LGBT+ people: I felt like all the sacrifices I made in the 1980s and early 1990s were repaid.

When Nigel died, none of what I felt about our marriage died: I was still proud to be married to him. It’s one of the reasons I never changed my Facebook relationship status to “Widowed”—though, if I’m truly honest, good old fashioned lethargy was probably a much bigger reason. Regardless, I wanted to be an example of a happily married gay man.

That same thing showed up in so many other ways, including photos, as a I noted in a post back in January about birthday selfies:

I don’t know if I intended for the photos in 2015 and 2016 to have the same theme (I probably did), however, I do know that in both photos, as with so many others, I deliberately made sure that my left hand was visible because then my rings would be, too. I’ve always felt a responsibility to be a symbol of a happy, long-term gay relationship, and that’s the most consistently visible way I did that, even though I didn’t actually ever say that until now

I didn’t mean to keep that a “secret”—it probably just never occurred to me to mention it. What I do know is that I still wear my rings—the one from our civil union and the one from our marriage—and I do so for the same reason I said in January. I know some gay widowers take their rings off after awhile—sometimes they switch hands, sometimes they put them on a chain they wear around their neck, and some even have them made into something new. None of that is me. I have no intention of taking them off, and when I die I want them to go with my ashes (though I won’t be here, so, ya know, whatever).

For me, the bottom line is that I fought too hard for too long to not continue being an example now. I may not have my husband any more, but I’m still an out gay man, proud of trying my best to make the world better, and mostly, proudest of all about my years with and marriage to Nigel.

All of that—all of it—began forty years ago today. Damn right I’m celebrating it.

Related:

"Outaversary" – My 2016 blog post where I talked about my 35th Outaversary.

Rush Limbaugh is dead

You know the old saying, right? If you can't say anything good about someone who's died, then say nothing at all. Here's my official statement on the death of Rush Limbaugh:

Forgiveness is a gift

I posted the above to the AmeriNZ Facebook Page yesterday. The questions raised by the linked article are simple: Can we forgive those who have caused us grievous harm? Also, should we?

The story is about a man who promoted the myth that gay people can be “cured” though so-called “conversion therapy”, which is also known by the colourful phrase, “pray the gay away” and the more pointed, “ex-gay torture”. His work harmed countless vulnerable LGBT+ people over the 20 years he promoted that nonsense. Can they forgive him? Should they?

By promoting the ex-gay myth, he also harmed the friends and families of LGBT+ people, not merely through giving them “false hope”, but especially by putting them through it all for nothing. Moreover, it also gave people without LGBT+ friends or family members reason to hold onto their anti-gay animus: They could continue to believe that “change” was possible, that gay people who lived their lives with honesty, integrity, and authenticity were being wilfully sinful and disobedient, instead of the reality, namely, that they were being themselves. Can they forgive him? Should they?

People like this guy harmed specific LGBT+ people and their family and friends, and he hurt us all by providing a sort of moral cover for his kindred religionists to cause us great harm. That can’t possibly be undone merely because he’s repudiated his past and come out as gay.

The now openly gay former “ex-gay” torturer was part of a whole system that leads to hatred and violence against LGBT+ people. He cannot escape his role in that. So: Can we forgive him? Should we?

I think that the answer is entirely personal: We each must decide for themselves. But we also have to realise that there are no easy answers, that each instance is unique and requires thought and reflection.

Personally, I think the “ex-gay” torture guy could merit forgiveness if he sincerely and appropriately atones for his wrongdoing—and merely turning away from it or saying it was wrong isn’t enough. Similarly, the fact he’s now out doesn’t absolve him of his duty to atone. Because he did such enormous damage to individuals and to an entire community, he has a moral obligation to try and make up for that. Then we might be able to talk about forgiveness.

People often say, “forgive and forget”, as if they’re the same thing, or at least connected. They’re neither. We can forget about grievous wrong done to us without ever forgiving the person who did it. Basically, we move on with our lives. Or, maybe based on our personal belief structure we forgive such a person, despite the fact we can’t forget what they did. Others can’t do either.

It is a rare person, I think, who can do both. Forgiveness really is a gift of sorts, as I said in the Facebook post. It’s something that many of us can never quite achieve when it comes to the big wrongs done to us individually or as part of a larger community. I think that’s okay.

I stand by what I said the other day, that when people do or say bad or stupid things, they need a path to redemption. I’ve laid out one path the “ex-gay” torture guy could take, but, obviously, that path won’t please everyone. Ultimately, he needs to choose his own path to redemption, and leave us to decide for ourselves whether he’s earned forgiveness. Or not.

Forgiveness is a gift. The people who have caused us harm are the best ones to give us that gift. The choice on forgiveness, ultimately, is theirs well before it’s ours.

Quislings and traitors?

The “gay” Republican group Log Cabin Republicans recently announced they were endorsing the current occupant of the White House in the 2020 elections. As a result, they were called quislings, traitors to the LGBTQ community, and far worse things. Was the criticism justified? Of course it was. They really are quislings and traitors.

The first issue is the endorsement itself. Their whole thing reads like a love letter to their hero, as if none of the horrible things he’s done—not just his racism, his anti-semitism, his cryptofascism and cult of personality, no, they also excuse the current regime’s war on LGBT+ Americans (the only thing it can be called). Their lame, pathetic statement, “While we do not agree with every policy or platform position presented by the White House or the Republican Party…”, it’s immediately undone when they declare how they actually do agree because of ideology they admit they share with the party that is now a wholly-owned subsidiary of the current occupant of the White House.

They never directly mention the current regime’s war on trans* people, not even when they declare, “we are committed to letting all qualified Americans serve in the military”. We know that doesn’t apply to trans* people because they then talked about how they supported an end to the infamous “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy that expelled LGBT+ people from the USA’s military. That was nice back then, but why are they such doormats now?

The group also highlights the current regime’s entirely fake “initiative to end the criminalization of homosexuality” in the 72 countries where it’s illegal. That was obviously a political stunt, and the current regime never had any intention whatsoever of doing anything even remotely similar to that. When the fake story broke, I pointed out the cynicism of the move, and I could have added that it was fake because the opposition of his fervent christofascist fans—and the current vice president—meant that there was no way this fake ”initiative” was ever going to happen.

The group swayed with ecstasy in declaring that the 2016 Republican Convention was so wonderful, and seeing their hero take the stage was “like a dream fulfilled” for “gay” Republicans. Pity they forgot their group’s own past about that very convention.

The group’s then-president sent an email to supporters telling them that their party had just “passed the most anti-LGBT Platform in the Party’s 162-year history,” and also, “This isn’t my GOP, and I know it’s not yours either.” But all that’s apparently forgiven by the current leaders of the group—including by that guy, actually.

Their current betrayal is also in stark contrast to the principled stand the group took in 2004 when it refused to endorse Bush the Second for election to a second term because of his support for a constitutional amendment to forever ban the freedom to marry. What happened to that kind of Log Cabin “gay” Republicans? When did they make betraying the LGBT+ community central to their idendentity?

All of that is the reason that the Log Cabin “gay” Republicans are rightly called quislings, a term for both a collaborator and a traitor. They’re giving cover to the current regime, “pinkwashing” it so it can pretend it gives a shit about LGBT+ people when they absolutely do not. The current occupant of the White House declared he was “very honored to receive [the endorsement]”, before adding, “I’ve done very well with that community. Some of my biggest supporters are of that community, and I think they—and I talk to them a lot about it. I think I’ve done really very well with that community.”

What they actual hell was that man talking about?!

The facts prove that the current occupant of the White House couldn’t possibly care less about the LGBT+ community, nor does it bother him at all that his regime is waging a Holy War against the community. It’s also fact that he did NOT win the vote of LGBT+ people.

So, when the “gay” Republicans pretend that this regime is so wonderful, it’s little wonder they’re called quislings—collaborators and traitors to the LGBT+ communities. Because, you know, well, they are.

One will want to suppose that the folks on that group’s Board of Directors aren’t really as stupid a their actions seem, nor that they’re as delusional as they sound, and if so, then something else must be going on. Naturally, I have some theories.

The group may be driven by their affinity for the current occupant himself: They support him because he’s one of them, that is, rich, classist, elitist, and even racist. People like the “gay” Republicans have always assumed their money and connections would protect them from any oppression faced by us mere peasants, and for a time, it does. But, sooner or later all authoritarian regimes turn on their rich, connected, elite, “gay” supporters. Always.

Evidence for their affinity for the current occupant is the leaders’ idiotic assertion:

The president’s tax cuts have benefited LGBTQ families and helped put food on their tables. His opportunity zones have helped create new LGBTQ-founded small businesses. The administration’s aggressive negotiations on trade deals have preserved LGBTQ jobs. His hard line on foreign policy has protected LGBTQ lives. What benefits all Americans benefits the LGBTQ community, as we cross every racial, socioeconomic, religious and cultural divide.

All of which is demonstrably false here in the reality-based world. We know that the regime’s tax cuts for the wealthy primarily benefitted corporations, the rich, the obscenely rich and, especially, the OMFG they’re rich. Any “benefits” that ordinary people got were temporary—only the rich elites will benefit long term. Aslo, the deficit is skyrocketing because of it, which isn’t a very Republican thing to do. Well, in the old days, when there were still real Republicans, back then it wasn’t okay.

Beyond that, there’s no specific evidence that the regime’s policies have “helped create” any LGBT+ small businesses, and it is a flat out lie that the regime’s trade wars have “preserved LGBTQ jobs”. To be fair, though, that may be true among the elites and trust fund babies the “gay” Republican group represents. The bit about foreign policy is also an outright lie.

The absolute ONLY thing in their entire fanboi letter that actually was unequivocally true is “What benefits all Americans benefits the LGBTQ community, as we cross every racial, socioeconomic, religious and cultural divide.” But the “gay” Republicans clearly have absolutely zero understanding of anyone not like them. That’s the only logical conclusion from reading their screed that ignores the very real issues faced by LGBT+ people who are black, Hispanic, trans*, poor, or just not rich enough, all in order to praise the man and regime who are the cause of so much suffering of, and growing oppression of, LGBT+ people.

As a result of the Log Cabin “gay” Republicans’ betrayal of LGBT+ Americans (LGBT+ Republicans in particular), the group is losing its supporters. One of them gave the best possible reaction to this.

Jennifer Horn, who resigned from the board of the “gay” Republican group, deserves the final word on this. She wrote, “There is no world where I can sit down at the dining room table and explain to my children that I just endorsed [the current occupant of the White House] for president. It is contrary to everything that I have ever taught them about what it means to be a good, decent, principled member of society.”

Indeed.

See also: “‘He gets it’: Evangelicals aren’t turned off by Trump’s first term” — Washington Post One of the things the current occupant “gets”, apparently, is that the rights of LGBT+ people must be rolled back

Stonewall 50

Today is the 50th Anniversary of the Stonewall Rebellion, which launched the modern LGBT+ movement for equality. It profoundly changed things in the USA and around the world because it meant that for the first time in the modern era, LGBT+ people were standing up to discrimination and oppression and asserting their right to be fully human and to live authentic lives. That struggle isn’t over yet.

I don’t remember hearing about the events of June 28, 1969 and the days following until I’d been at university for a few years, possibly as late as 1981. That was 12 years after the rebellion, and the following year I took part in my first LGBT Pride Parade in Chicago, and the year after that my real activist career began. All of that happened because of those June 1969 events, even though I couldn’t know that until I came out, more than a decade after Stonewall.

It’s not unusual for people not to know their own history, or the names of the trailblazers who came before them to clear the path. Each of us has to find our own path through life, after all, and that’s as true now as it was in my day or in the aftermath of the Stonewall Rebellion. The important thing, I think, is that when we find out what we didn’t know, we look for more of the story that we never even knew existed.

When I came out, I had a friend who gave me lots of books to read, especially history and fiction. I practically inhaled it all. Part of me was angry that all of that had been hidden from me—essentially denied to me—by a society that not only saw the stories and histories of LGBT+ as unimportant, but even as illegitimate. But I was also thrilled and excited to discover the stories of people who were like me, the first time in my life that had ever happened.

When I became an activist, I had two motivations. First, to make life a bit easier and safer for me and the rest of the LGBT+ communities. My other goal, or maybe my hope, was that doing so might one day mean that other LGBT+ youth wouldn’t discover their true nature and think they were the only one in the world. Much of the first part was successful, the second part somewhat, but more so after I left activism.

While I was proud of what I accomplished in my activist years, I was also keenly aware that I was standing on the shoulders of those who fought the battle years before I came on the scene, the people whose stories I’d finally learned. Those who began their activism after me have done and are doing the same. We are all inextricably linked, and always will be—even if sometimes it’s in spite of ourselves—in a great chain linking us all back to Stonewall, and to all the pioneers in the many decades before that.

So Stonewall is, for me, an intensely personal anchor, of sorts, a touchstone, even. The courage of those who struggled before me gave me strength to continue the fight, but they also helped me keep things real: It was never about me, it was never about my ego, and it sure wasn’t about what I could personally get out of it all. Other people, with the same general starting point I had, took a different path, and many became professional activists or politicians. That just wasn’t my path.

I’ll admit, there were times I regretted not becoming a paid activist, even though comparatively few actually did that in those days. The people who rebelled in June 1969, most of them, never made a professional career out of what they did then, and I didn’t from my time, either. That doesn’t make me (or them) “good” or whatever, it just means I was true to myself, to my nature, and to my path in life. I was being the most authentic me I could be—the very lesson I’d taken from my predecessors in activism.

At this major anniversary, as probably seldom before, I’m keenly aware of the tenuousness all the progress we’ve made over the past 50 years. Even now, there are people who want to turn back the clock and force us all into closets (or worse…), and some of them are very powerful, and some are even succeeding in starting to undo our work.

That’s precisely why it’s so important to remember Stonewall, and all the people who struggled before it and since, all working for the simple justice that LGBT+ people should have had as a birthright. Remembering them and what they did is one way to keep their work secure, and to honour the struggle that continues to this day.

That struggle isn’t over yet.

Pride and parades

LGBT+ Pride is about a lot of things, and even within our LGBT+ communities we don’t always agree with each other about what those things are. In fact, we have people in our communities who reject the very need for Pride Parades at all, or who say they’re “embarrassed” by them. Even so, it’s neither kind nor helpful when our adversaries belittle our very right to feel pride or to have a parade, and they often do that. One of our adversaries’ favourite old stunts is about to be revived, yet again, and it’s as offensive as ever.

In August, Boston may have to endure a “straight pride parade”. It is a massive trolling operation, stupid, childish, and offensive. As a veteran of the fight for social and legal equality for LGBT+ people, it would be natural to expect that I might be deeply offended by the whole “straight pride” nonsense, but I’m not. I feel sorry for them, sure, and shake my head at their shallowness, but if they want to act like idiots, that’s their business—and their own idiocy to wear—as long as they act entirely within the law, of course.

In the case of the “parade”, the city has no choice but to issue a permit for the “parade”. Boston’s mayor, Martin J. Walsh, explained it on Twitter:

I know everyone has read the news about the "Straight Pride Parade" group that's looking to host a parade in Boston. We want to clear a few things up.

First, Boston's values are clear: respect, diversity, and acceptance of all. As Mayor, I'm proud to host our annual Pride Week, where our city comes together to celebrate the diversity, strength and acceptance of our LGBTQ community.

Second, permits to host a public event are granted based on operational feasibility, not based on values or endorsements of beliefs. The City of Boston cannot deny a permit based on an organization's values.

This "Straight Pride Parade" doesn't yet have a permit, but is working to amend their application for permits to host a public event.

Whatever outside groups may try do, our values won't change. I invite each and every person to stand with us, and show that love will always prevail. Join us in celebration this Saturday for the @bostonpride Parade and in the fight for progress and equality for all.

Case law—including some very recent cases—is very clear on this: No unit of government can suppress free speech unless they can prove it poses the risk of imminent lawlessness. The possibility that the "parade" might inspire people to go out and commit acts of violence against LGBT+ people—as long as it's outside the "parade"—is not risking imminent lawlessness, and so, cannot legally be suppressed.

However, that doesn't mean that the phoney “parade” has to be treated as legitimate, and the city is free to ignore it after the permit, if any, is issued. There was separate talk by the organisers of having a "straight pride" flag, whatever that is, and having it flown from Boston's city hall, but doing that or not is clearly discretionary under law, and the city doesn't have to fly whatever flag they come up with. City decoration, as a nonofficial flag actually is, can be whatever the city wants.

The organisers know all this, and they're trying it on to push the city as part of what's actually a massive trolling operation (as they always are), and it may very well never happen (they usually never happen—have they ever?). Most of the time the sorts of people proposing a “straight pride” parade are merely seeking publicity and attention, giving the middle finger to LGBT+ people, and/or trying to cause trouble, probably for the first reason.

We know that this is just a stupid stunt because the reason there’s no such thing as “straight pride” is obviously that it’s completely unnecessary: Straight people don’t risk being fired or evicted from a rented home if someone finds out they’re in a relationship with or even—gasp!—married to someone of the opposite gender. Gay people still face that sort of discrimination in most of the USA and most countries in the world (not in New Zealand, not legally, anyway). Straight people are never beaten up or killed for being straight, but that happens to LGBT+ people throughout the world, including New Zealand (and trans* people are murdered at a much higher rate). Straight youth are never rejected by their families and churches merely merely for being straight, but LGBT+ youth often are because they're LGBT+.

All if which is why LGBT Pride is actually about celebrating the fact we’ve survived despite all the attempts to keep us down—or even to kill us. Sure, we’re as proud of living genuine and authentic lives as anyone else would be, but the main thing we’re proud of is that they haven’t defeated us. Straight people have never experienced anything similar.

Having said all that, the reason I’m not offended by the “straight pride” bullshit is simple: I fought long and hard and sacrificed WAY too much for one simple thing, namely, the absolute right of people to live their lives authentically. My fight was to make the world safer for LGBT+ people so they could live their true lives. All of that would be for nothing if I didn’t back the right of pathetic losers to act so petulantly and childishly.

They're definitely “pathetic losers”, too, because we fought hard for our rights, and we paid in blood, sweat and tears—and too often our lives. They had those rights handed to them at birth. They fought for absolutely nothing, but they get all weepy because an oppressed minority fought for and managed to win some of the rights straight people were born with, and because we dare to celebrate what we’ve achieved and our freedom to be fully human. It's their own shallowness and bigotry that makes them pathetic losers.

As the saying goes, though, instead of asking why there’s no “straight pride”, they should thank the universe every damn day that they’ve never needed it, and never will. We can't say that we don't need it, because our rights exist on the edge of a knife.

And THAT is why we march in parades, and why still we need to.

This post is a revised and greatly expanded version of a comment I left on a friend's Facebook post. The graphic up top is a meme that pops up on social media from time to time.

The historic second night of the Democratic Debate

Tomorrow is the 50th Anniversary of Stonewall, and tonight the United States made history. Mayor Pete Buttigieg was on the Democratic Debate stage, the first openly gay presidential candidate ever to be included in a nationally televised political party’s primary debate. Whatever anyone thinks of him, and whatever happens in the future, tonight was groundbreaking and it was incredibly important.

Most of the debate wasn’t particularly memorable because of the sheer number of candidates and the format of the debate. Later debates will become more enlightening as the field narrows—after we all start paying more attention. Still, it was what it was.

I didn’t think there were any clear winners tonight. The minor candidates didn’t win, but they mostly avoided hurting themselves, although I saw that one of the fringe candidates, Marianne Williamson, who the news media usually refers to as “a bestselling spiritual author,” was openly mocked on Twitter for saying that love would defeat the current occupant of the White House.

Here’s my take on the he top polling candidates, listed in their current polling rank: Former Vice President Joe Biden probably came out worse for wear, which isn’t surprising: He had a large target on his back. He didn’t fire as much as could have, and he should have been prepared for an exchange on race, but he didn’t seem to be. Sen. Bernie Sanders was, well, Bernie. He didn’t always answer questions, sometimes talked too long, and a lot of the time—I gotta be honest here—he came across like a grumpy grandad. Sen. Kamala Harris was Biden’s chief antagonist, and scored some major hits against him on race. Biden was clearly weakened by that exchange. On the other hand, her first one-liner didn’t seem spontaneous, which annoyed me because of that. South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg was pretty much the same as he always is—well spoken, on point, and quick on his feet. He also had some great lines.

Among the minor candidates (again, in polling order): Tech entrepreneur Andrew Yang didn’t impress me. I wasn’t actually clear what he was advocating or how he’d do it. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand scored some good points, and probably did the best I’ve seen her do, which, as a low polling candidate, was important for her. Sen. Michael Bennet did similarly, but I wasn’t clear how he differs from other, better known candidates. Former Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper was all over the map on the issues, sometimes not even making sense, in my opinion. He attacked “socialism”, but what did he even mean? Social Security? The national highway programme? Dunno, but to me he sounded an awful lot like a Republican. Maybe that makes him the most conservative? US Rep Eric Swalwell is a candidate I’ve often thought was good, but I thought he did a really poor job on his MSNBC Town Hall. He redeemed himself tonight, doing much better, and he may have helped himself tonight. I’ll freely admit that when I first heard about Marianne Williamson, I assumed she’d be pretty loopy, however, she made some good points—all of which were undone by her “love will win” bit in her closing remarks. That was loopy.

Last night, none of the female candidates talked over or interrupted the other (male) candidates, but tonight they definitely did that. Was that better or worse? Well, neither. I wish ALL candidates could have resisted doing that.

I don’t think that any of the candidates changed my view of them very much, though Gillibrand may have a little bit. However, I liked both Bernie and Biden somewhat less than I did going in, in part because I think Swalwell was right: They should pass the torch. I didn’t really know anything about Yang going in, and I still don’t. I didn’t like most of Harris’ performance, though she was great when she took on Biden, though I recognise it could have been a contrived performance, and no one took her on for her criminal justice record, the thing that makes the Left, and many black voters, dislike her. Is that fair? I don’t know, and nothing tonight pushed me one way or the other about her. The one candidate who I liked going in and afterward was Mayor Pete, even though Swalwell scored a hit against him. In a debate like this, not changing opinions all that much may be the best that can be expected.

All in all, neither tonight’s debate nor last night’s changed anything for me. But it’s still very early in this campaign, after all, so that’s probably to be expected. I do know that I’ll vote for the Democratic nominee, no matter who that is.

All that aside, and regardless of the debate results, tonight the USA made history. On the eve of the 50th Anniversary of Stonewall, the first openly gay presidential candidate was included in a nationally televised political party’s primary debate. Whatever anyone thinks of him or the other candidates, tonight was groundbreaking and it was incredibly important—no, actually, it was fucking important.

Related:

“Race flares as dividing issue in Democratic debate” – ThinkProgress

“Winners and losers from the Democratic presidential debate’s second night” – Washington Post

“4 winners and 3 losers from the second night of the Democratic debates” – Vox

“Harris stops playing it safe, and 5 other takeaways from a raucous debate” – Politico

“Takeaways from night 2 of the Democratic debate” – Associated Press

“Buttigieg and Biden acknowledged an important truth about undocumented workers” – Vox

“Fact-checking the first Democratic debate (night 2)” – Washington Post

Political Notebook – 2019 Pride Edition

Four years ago today (US time), the US Supreme Court made marriage equality the law of the land in throughout the USA. Since then, the Radical Right has been working hard to reverse that and all other gains made by LGBT+ people over the past 50 years. Every single day we something in the news about (mostly) political attacks on LGBT+ people. The current regime controlling the White House has been waging a war against trans* people, and theocratic extremists in the Republican Party are working hard to turn the clock back on the human and civil rights of LGBT+ people. These are not all good days.

So today, as an important anniversary, is the perfect time to summarise just a small sample of all the bad currently going on in the USA—and some good things, too.

The enemies in government

The longterm plan of the Radical Right in the USA is to abolish marriage equality and to end protections of the civil and human rights of LGBT+ people. They have some “creative” solutions: “Alabama lawmakers pass bill to end marriage licenses” so that they don’t have to issue any to same-gender couples. That’ll show ‘em who’s boss! The main way Republicans are working to end LGBT+ equality is appointing extremist radicals to federal courts. This takes time, but it’s easy enough to do with Republicans constrolling the US Senate: “Senate confirms Trump nominee with anti-LGBTQ rights
record for lifetime federal judgeship”. This is their way to undo marriage equality and other advances for LGBT+ people because that happened afater positive rulings from federal courts. Meanwhile, there’s a detective with a sherrif’s office in Tennessee “called for the execution of LGBT+ people”. He didn’t have any reason other than his peculiar religious beliefs, and “on no more grounds than a cell phone photo of a person participating in a Pride event.” That went too far even for Cracker Barrel, something that may have surprised some LGBT+ activists.

Political and religious extremists are enemies, too

The current regime is controlled in many areas by extremist, far-right “Christians”, and that affects much of their domestic policy [see: “‘Brought to Jesus’: the evangelical grip on the Trump administration”). One of the strongest radical, extremist “Christian” supporters of the current occupant of the White House defended the regime of his Temporal Lord when they banned the Gay Pride Flag flying at US embassies. The charming guy declared it was “offensive to Christians and millions of people of other faiths”, which is pretty hilarious, really: The only time that those radical extremists ever care about“people of other faiths”is when they try to use them as props in their propaganda. That’s not just silly, it’s also yawn-inducingly boring, since religious crackpots attack the Gay Pride Flag all the time; in fact, I blogged about it way back in 2010. Still, it’s not all smooth walking across the water for them: “Mike Pence: Why his role as Trump's evangelical ambassador is facing new pushback”. Good news, indeed.

A bunch of fake “pastors” took part in a “death to gays” stunt in Orlando, Florida, chosen and timed deliberately to mock the anniversary of the Pulse massacre. Outside the event, one of the evil hoards declared, “Pray that if they do any protests, that it gets violent. They have Stand Your Ground in Florida. So we’re allowed to fight back.” A loving Christian, huh? A Missouri man threatened to "kill every gay person I can" at St. Louis’ PrideFest.

The Roman Catholic leadership cut ties with a school that refused to fire a married gay teacher, which is pretty awesome. But another school in the same archdiocese followed its orders and fired a gay teacher.

Community without unity?

The LGBT+ communities aren’t a monolith and more than Christians are. There are good Christians who stand up to the bigoted hate mongers on the Right, which means there are two sides even among Christians. So, it should be no surprise that there are divisions among the LGBT+ communities, too. “In Praise of Identity Politics and the Long History of Desire” looks at a different focus for Pride. “A match made in heaven” talks about the struggle between the two factions. The “corporatisation” of Pride events has long been a flash point in the LGBT+ communities. “These rainbow flag-waving corporations donated millions to anti-gay members of Congress”, which is a common enough criticism, though—in my opinion—unfair: Plenty of corporations give to both parties.

Despite it all, there is good news

Appropriate for today’s anniversary, Gallup reported that ” U.S. Support for Gay Marriage Stable, at 63%” . Sure, it should be higher by now, but a minority will still oppose it decades from now—after all, some still oppose interracial marriage. Meanwhile, as smaller majority, 53%, told Gallup that new anti-discrimination laws are needed to protect LGBT+ people. Gallup also found that “In U.S., 71% Support Transgender People Serving in Military”, which is stark contrast to the actions of the current regime controlling the White House. On gthe other hand, they also reported that "Americans Still Greatly Overestimate U.S. Gay Population".

Gallup also reported on the change over time: “Gallup First Polled on Gay Issues in '77. What Has Changed?”. Overall, things are much better now—but there are dangers looming. Finally, for a geeky take on it all, their Methodology Blog Blog answered the question, "How Do You Measure the LGBT Population in the U.S.?"

A couple last related pieces

There were a couple more things worth checking out, starting with "Stonewall at 50: stories from a gay rights revolution". An article that was unusual and targeted also answered a question more people ought to consider: "Here’s what a good LGBTQ ally looks like".

• • •

This is only a small sampling of the sort of stuff about LGBT+ people and our rights that I see all the time. On this special anniversary, and as we get closer to the 50th Anniversary of Stonewall, it’s worth the Notebook and putting in a page just about these issues.