Weekend Diversion: 1986, Part 11

A new month and a new song reached Number One on the Billboard “Hot 100”: On June 7, 1986 “Live to Tell” (video up top) by American singer Madonna went to Number One. The song was the first single from her third studio album, True Blue, which was released on June 30, 1986. The song was a re-working of what had been an instrumental to make something suitable for the film At Close Range, which starred her then-husband Sean Penn.

I liked Madonna in this era of her career, and I liked this particular song well-enough, even though it was a bit slower than I typically liked at the time, but I didn’t necessarily like it as much as some of her other songs in that era. However, I was never a super-fan: I never saw her in concert, and I never bought one of her albums, as far as I can remember, though I think I bought a single or two. However, when I arrived in New Zealand in 1995, I found that Nigel had her 1990 compilation album, The Immaculate Collection, which isn’t really relevant to this blog post except that this week’s song is on it. Of course.

As the years when on, I continued to like some of Madonna’s songs, and others not as much. Once again, something that’s not unusual for me. However, forty years ago it was stereotypical for young gay men to be presumed to be big fans of Madonna, and, like most stereotypes, it was exaggerated. Nevertheless, I was 27 when this song and its album were released, and that made me a bit too old to be included in the stereotype, but also, as it turned out, a bit too old to understand why the stereotype existed. Maybe it was my first “kids these days” moment?

“Live to Tell” reached Number 7 in Australia, Number One and Canada, Number 6 in New Zealand, 2 in the UK (Silver), and Number One on the USA’s “Billboard Hot 100” and on their “Adult Contemporary” charts. It was also Number One on the Cash Box “Top 100”. The song wasn’t certified in the USA.

The album True Blue reached Number One in Australia (4x Platinum), Canada (Diamond), New Zealand (5x Platinum), and the UK (7x Platinum), as well as reaching Number One on the USA’s ”Billboard 200” chart and on the Cash Box “Top 100 Albums” chart. It was certified 7x Platinum in the USA.

Since I mentioned it, the 1990 album The Immaculate Collection reached Number One in Australia (14x Platinum) and Canada (7x Platinum), 3 in New Zealand (7x Platinum), Number One in the UK (13x Platinum), and also reached Number 2 on the USA’s ”Billboard 200” chart. It was certified 11x Platinum in the USA.

This series will return in next week, on June 14, with the next new Number One from 1986. Unlike this week, that one wasn’t a one-week hit.

Previously in the “Weekend Diversion – 1986” series:

Weekend Diversion: 1986, Part 1 – January 18, 2026
Weekend Diversion: 1986, Part 2 – February 15, 2026
Weekend Diversion: 1986, Part 3 – March 1, 2026
Weekend Diversion: 1986, Part 4 – March 15, 2026
Weekend Diversion: 1986, Part 5 – March 22, 2026
Weekend Diversion: 1986, Part 6 – March 29, 2026
Weekend Diversion: 1986, Part 7 – April 19, 2026
Weekend Diversion: 1986, Part 8 – May 3, 2026
Weekend Diversion: 1986, Part 9 – May 10, 2026
Weekend Diversion: 1986, Part 10 – May 17, 2026

Weekend Diversion: 1986, Part 1

A new year, and a new series of Weekend Diversion posts! This week is the first post in this year’s “Weekend Diversion: 1986”, though this was technically the second Number One song of 1986 because the last Number One song of 1985, Lionel Richie’s “Say You, Say Me” (the subject of last year’s Part 26) was also Number One for the first two weeks of 1986 (four weeks altogether).

On January 18, 1986, the first new Number One song of the year was “That's What Friends Are For” (video up top) by "Dionne and Friends”, which was led by Dionne Warwick, alongside Elton John, Gladys Knight, and Stevie Wonder. It was a charity single to raise funds for the American Foundation for AIDS Research, and raised more than US$3 million for the organisation. The song was included on Warwick’s 1985 album, Friends

Like most Number One songs, this was one I heard on the radio quite a lot at the time. I thought it was pleasant enough as a song, and I could tell it was written by Burt Bacharach and Carole Bayer Sager, two of the most talented and prolific songwriters, especially in the 1970s and 1980s. They were also married at the time this song was a hit.

I thought I bought the single of the song, but if I did I no longer have it, though I certainly got it on a compilation album at some point. In 1986, I was working for modest wages, and spent my free doing LGBT+ activism, so I never had big piles of cash. Yet I knew men who had AIDS, so I may have bought the single as a small way of contributing.

However, AmfAR, which the American Foundation for AIDS Research became known as, was often seen as a way for celebrities and other rich people to “do something” without doing very much. It also felt to many folks like it was trying to “straightwash” the issue, especially at a time when people living with AIDS needed support that was hard to get or pay for.

As was so often the case with me in those days, I had a different perspective. First, I felt that raising money for AIDS research was valuable in itself, especially because the US Government of that time couldn’t possibly have cared less about AIDS or the people living with it. If a bunch of celebrities helped make it easier for “Middle America” to not hate gay people in general, or people living with AIDS in particlar, quite as much as they had before, that in itself was a moral good. Eventually, the tide did turn, as it usually does, and things became somewhat easier, especially once Reagan was out of the White House. Maybe this song helped at least a little bit? In my opinion, the attention the celebrities brought—especially Elton John’s massive fundraising—helped society to become more human and humane.

Still, I did like the song well enough, and that’s really the point of all pop music.

“That's What Friends Are For” reached Number One in Australia, Number One in Canada (Platinum), 3 in New Zealand (Gold), 16 in the UK (Silver), and Number One on the USA’s Billboard “Hot 100” as well as their “Adult Contemporary”, and “Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs” charts. The song was also Gold in the USA.

The album Friends reached 29 in Australia, 16 in Canada (Gold), and 12 on the USA’s Billboard “Top Pop Albums” chart, as well as 9 on their “Top Black Albums” chart. It was also 14 on the Cashbox “US Top 100 Albums” and Number 4 on their “US Top 75 Black Contemporary Albums” charts. It was certified Gold in the USA. The album didn’t chart in New Zealand or the UK.

This series will return February 15 with another new Number One from 1986.

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.

Weekend Diversion: 1985, Part 17

Here’s a first: This week’s song contains words that younger or more sensitive viewers/listeners may find inappropriate. This week in 1985 a song that was not from a movie was reached the top of the charts. On September 21 1985, “Money for Nothing” (video up top) by British rock band Dire Straits reached Number One on the USA’s Billboard “Hot 100”. It was the second single from their fifth studio album, Brothers in Arms.

Let’s get ”the lyrics controversy” out of the way first: The second verse uses the word “faggot”, though many versions used a different word, like for broadcasts (I can remember Chicago-based stations using the word “bozo”, though I could well be remembering that incorrectly because it was 40 years ago, after all, and because the actual song uses the word “yoyo” in the first verse). At any rate, I bought the album Brothers in Arms, and I remember feeling a little squirmy at hearing the word. However, It was also clear to me that the song is from the point of view of a blue collar worker, and that person uses the word as a matter of course, but, in context, he’s also grudgingly admiring someone who gets “money for nothing”. I absolutely get all that, and got it way back when, however, I still had some reservations.

First, not everyone would get the fact that singer Mark Knopfler was basically performing a role, not endorsing a world view. Also, in 1985 there was a still a LOT of stridently—often aggressively so—anti-gay rhetoric coming from church and state, and using the word would inadvertently reinforce the negativity and bigotry. Ironically, even though the developed world (perhaps no longer including the USA…) has moved forward on LGBTQ+ issues, it’s no longer socially acceptable to use the word.

In general, I think that the acceptability of various words is, always has been, and probably always will be, a topic of often heated debate. My general attitude is that context is important, and so, I seldom engage with those who hold strong opinions about words used in songs. For me, this song and that word were no different.

Another thing about this song that is notable is its music video. The video was an early—and primitive—use of 3D computer animation, and it almost didn’t happen. Knopfler hated the idea of music videos because, as a performer, he felt it degarded the song and the performance by relegating it. The video director, Steve Barron, was asked by the label to convince Knopfler to have a video because while MTV was interested in the song, they didn’t want a video that was just a performance video of Knopfler and the band: They wanted a concept.

I was never a huge fan of Dire Straits, or of “Money for Nothing”, but I liked them both well enough to buy the album Brothers in Arms on vinyl, and I liked that a lot. I may have also bought one or two other albums, but I don’t know for sure because, again, it was a long time ago, but also because I only brought maybe a dozen or so albums with me to New Zealand, and there were no Dire Straits albums among them. But I remember having this particular album, and one of the reasons I remember it so clearly is because of that one controversial word.

“Money for Nothing” reached Number 4 in Australia, Number One in Canada (Gold), Number 4 in New Zealand (5x Platinum), Number 4 in the UK (Platinum), as well as Number One on the USA’s Billboard “Hot 100” and also on their “Top Rock Tracks” chart, and it was alss Number One on Cash Box. The song wasn’t certified in the USA.

The album Brothers in Arms was rather successful: It reached Number One in Australia (17x Platinum), Canada (Diamond), New Zealand (24x Platinum), the UK (15x Platinum), and also on the USA’s “Billboard 200” (9x Platinum). Successful? It’s among the most successful of any of the albums I’ve mentioned in this series.

This series will return in two weeks, on October 12 with another first in this series—or, all of them, actually.

Previously in the “Weekend Diversion – 1985” series:

Weekend Diversion: 1985, Part 1 – February 2, 2025
Weekend Diversion: 1985, Part 2 – February 16, 2025
Weekend Diversion: 1985, Part 3 – March 12, 2025
Weekend Diversion: 1985, Part 4 – March 30, 2025
Weekend Diversion: 1985, Part 5 – April 13, 2025
Weekend Diversion: 1985, Part 6 – May 11, 2025
Weekend Diversion: 1985, Part 7 – May 18, 2025
Weekend Diversion: 1985, Part 8 – June 1, 2025
Weekend Diversion: 1985, Part 9 – June 8, 2025
Weekend Diversion: 1985, Part 10 – June 22, 2025
Weekend Diversion: 1985, Part 11 – July 6, 2025
Weekend Diversion: 1985, Part 12 – July 13, 2025
Weekend Diversion: 1985, Part 13 – July 27, 2025
Weekend Diversion: 1985, Part 14 – August 3, 2025
Weekend Diversion: 1985, Part 15 – August 24, 2025
Weekend Diversion: 1985, Part 16 – September 7, 2025

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.

Jimmy Carter 1924-2024

President Carter's official portrait.

Today we all heard the sad, but totally expected, news that former President Jimmy Carter has died, aged 100. [See also: “Jimmy Carter, the 39th US president, has died at 100”, AP News].  While I never voted for President Carter, I nevertheless grew to respect him—so much so, that I wish I’d voted for him the one chance I had.

I’ve mentioned a few times that in 1976 I was too young to vote, so instead I volunteered to do some election work for President Gerald Ford, who died in 2006. There were many reasons for that, including the fact I grew up in a Republican home, but there was one thing more: I didn’t trust Carter’s religiousness.

In 1976, I was still very deeply closeted, but on some level I recognised that fundamentalist Christians were the greatest threat to my freedom, liberty, and human rights. I knew Carter was a Southern Baptist, and had helped to popularise the phrase “born again”, so I was suspicious. As it turned out, I was also very wrong about him and his beliefs.

The Carter Administration ended the ban on gay and lesbian people working for the US Foreign Service. In 1977, his presidential advisor, Midge Costanza, invited gay and lesbian activists to the White House for a meeting to discuss relevant federal policy—the first time any presidential administration had done that. In 2012, he spoke out in favour of gay people and, specifically, his support for our right to marry, something I talked about at the time.

All of this by itself demonstrates that Carter was nothing like I’d assumed in 1976, but there was far more evidence. In 2000, he left the Southern Baptist Convention after they decided to stop ordaining women as pastors. He also spent his post-politics life working for peace and justice, and by building homes for poor people through Habitat for Humanity. Put another way, he was putting his Christianity into action, something very few “evangelicals” ever do, possibly because they’re too busy ordering other people how to live their lives in ways that the “evangelicals” approve of. Jimmy Carter was never like that, and I was totally wrong about him in 1976.

After he left office, he went on to become what many people—including me—consider to be the most effective former president in US history. I remember back when Reagan finally left office I said that when Jimmy Carter left office, he volunteered to build houses for the poor, and when Reagan left office, he registered as a paid lobbyist for for a foreign government. That pretty much sums up the huge difference between the character of Jimmy Carter and his successor as president. Also, if President Carter had won re-election in 1980 I’m certain that the federal government’s handling of HIV/AIDS would have dramatically better and actually humane and just than it was under Reagan. I’m certain that there’s absolutely no way it would’ve taken President Carter FOUR YEARS to acknowledge HIV/AIDS, and it’s definite that it wouldn’t have taken him SIX YEARS to give an address on it, unlike President Carter’s awful successor.

Jimmy Carter wasn’t the USA’s best president—I doubt anyone would seriously claim he was—but, apart from the Rightwing, not many folks would say he was the worst, either, not with so many other presidents having the “worst” rankings sewn up. Personally, I think he was good man who perhaps wasn’t suited to the presidency, though he tried his best. Regardless, all of that is overshadowed by what he did over the nearly four-and-a-half decades since he left the White House.

I still wish I’d voted for him in 1980, and maybe even volunteered for him in 1976, but all any of us can do at any time is to try to do our best, as far as we’re able. Jimmy Carter did that, and I’m profoundly grateful he did.

Weekend Diversion: 1984, Part 19

This week forty years ago, on December 22, 1984, a new song became the final Number One of the year. That week, ”Like a Virgin” (video above) by American singer Madonna became the new Number One, the first for Madonna. The song was the lead single from her second studio album, also called Like a Virgin. The song—spoiler alert!—would stay at the top of the Billboard “Hot 100” for six weeks.

Like many of the other Number Ones of 1984, this song was played on the radio a lot and was also part of MTV and other video music programming, but it wasn’t her first hit: In 1983, “Lucky Star” reached Number 4 on the Billboard “Hot 100”, and it and her previous single, “Holiday”, both went to Number One on the Billboard “Dance Club Songs” chart. I first became familiar with her because of those two 1983 songs, probably from going to gay clubs.

In those days, there was a stereotype that if a boy or young man liked Madonna, he had to be gay, and so, many of them wouldn’t admit to liking her music, whether they were gay or not. It would be a long time before young men and adolescents would say that they liked an artist like Madonna not just despite the perception among some that she appealed to The Gays, but even because of it. She helped usher in a time in which young gay men and youth could start to feel a bit safer to be who they were, and they first started exploring that by openly liking Madonna. I was mostly an observer to all that: I was still in the “young man” category when I first heard of her (24, to be exact), and I became aware of the stereotype somewhere around the time “Like A Virgin” was released, but by then I was a grassroots gay activist, so I was past hiding anything.

I well remember the music video for “Like a Virgin” from various music video shows on broadcast TV at the time, but especially in—surprise!—the gay clubs in Chicago, the video bars in particular.
I liked Madonna back in the day, and over time I both admired and was fascinated by her ability to reinvent herself and take on new approaches to pop music. That appealed to in the same way it appealed to me when David Bowie did that: It kept their work fresh and interesting. Over time, I may have paid less attention to her, but that didn’t change how I felt about her earlier work. Madonna is around five months older than me, and I think it’s safe to say that we’ve probably both changed a lot since the early-to-mid 1980s.

The song “Like a Virgin” reached Number One in Australia, Number One in Canada, 2 in New Zealand (Platinum–Digital, meaning it wasn't certified before the digital era), 3 in the UK (Gold), as well as Number One on the USA’s Billboard “Hot 100” and their “Dance Club Songs” charts, and was also Number One on Cash Box “Top 100 Singles”, Radio & Records “CHR & Pop Chart”, as well as Number One on the “Disco” chart from Music Week”. It was also certified Gold in the USA.

The album Like a Virgin reached Number 2 in Australia (7x Platinum), 3 in Canada (Diamond), Number One in New Zealand (5x Platinum), Number One in the UK (3x Platinum), and Number One on the USA’s “Billboard 200”, as well as Number 3 on the Cash Box “100 Albums” chart. It was Certified Diamond in the USA.

This is the final post about the Number One songs of 1984, however, there will be a series finale on December 31, and perhaps one more between now and then. The first post in the 2025 series will be published on February 2, due to the fact that “Like a Virgin” remained Number One throughout January. I guess I get a “Holiday”, but probably not “Like a Virgin”.

Previously in the “Weekend Diversion – 1984” series:

Weekend Diversion: 1984, Part 1 – January 21, 2024
Weekend Diversion: 1984, Part 2 – February 4, 2024
Weekend Diversion: 1984, Part 3 – February 25, 2024
Weekend Diversion: 1984, Part 4 – March 31, 2024
Weekend Diversion: 1984, Part 5 – April 21, 2024
Weekend Diversion: 1984, Part 6 – May 12, 2024
Weekend Diversion: 1984, Part 7 – May 26, 2024
Weekend Diversion: 1984, Part 8 – June 9, 2024
Weekend Diversion: 1984, Part 9 – June 23, 2024
Weekend Diversion: 1984, Part 10 – July 7, 2024
Weekend Diversion: 1984, Part 11 – August 11, 2024
Weekend Diversion: 1984, Part 12 – September 1, 2024
Weekend Diversion: 1984, Part 13 – September 22, 2024
Weekend Diversion: 1984, Part 14 – September 29, 2024
Weekend Diversion: 1984, Part 15 – October 13, 2024
Weekend Diversion: 1984, Part 16 – November 3, 2024
Weekend Diversion: 1984, Part 17 – November 17, 2024
Weekend Diversion: 1984, Part 18 – December 8, 2024

Weekend Diversion: 1984, Part 17

On November 17, 1984, a new song went to Number One, and it was one of my favourites of the year. This week 40 years ago, ”Wake Me Up Before You Go-Go” (video above) by English pop duo Wham! went to Number One. The song—the duo’s first Number One in the USA—was the lead single from their second album, Make It Big, and it would stay at the top of the Billboard “Hot 100” for three weeks.

I don’t know when, precisely, I first became aware of Wham!, but it was probably through a video. As I’ve mentioned in previous posts, in the mid-1980s, “video bars”, that is, bars that played music videos, were quite popular, and there were several gay bars in Chicago that featured them. It could be that the reason I saw the video for their single ”Club Tropicana” was because of the success of “Wake Me Up Before You Go-Go”, since that song the album it was on marked the beginning of their success in the USA.

Regardless of what the timeline actually was, I distinctly remember going to a long gone video bar called “Take One” with one of my childhood friends, and that video was played. I loved that video, not the least because the band’s lead singer, George Michael, was definitely my type at the time, and I thought he was hot (for the record, I was around four years older than him, though I didn’t know that at the time). That bar played several videos that have stuck in my mind for decades, also including We Close Our Eyes by another English pop duo, Go West, mainly because at the time I thought their video was visually interesting. There were plenty of others that seared themselves into my brain, too, but it was those two songs most of all.

The music video for “Wake Me Up Before You Go-Go” was directed by Andy Morahan, and was a very energetic performance video. What I remember most about it to this day are clothes. First, the “Choose Life” t-shirts (designed by English fashion designer Katharine Hamnett). By the mid-1980s, that slogan was being adopted by US anti-abortion activists, and even in 1984 it was kind of confronting—in fact, I briefly wondered if the Wham! were righwingers, which is hilarious to me now, of course, especially because of the US-centric assumptions about what the shirt's words meant. The second memorable clothing was at a little more than a minute into the video when their outfits suddenly changed, and George’s shorts! I’m pretty sure I swooned.

When I was a teenager, I didn’t have the chance to have crushes on pop stars, because they would’ve been male. Even so, I remember that in the 1960s, when I was probably too young to realise the significance (or danger…) of it, I thought that Davy Jones of The Monkees was really cute—when he was in his early 20s, actually—though my age wasn't even in double digits yet. He was probably my first celebrity crush.

I think that George Michael was among my first celebrity crushes after I came out, and since then I’ve certainly appreciated the beauty of famous men (singers, actors, etc), but it was all innocent. In the 1980s, I formed my first relationships, none of which lasted very long until 1984 (though even that one only lasted around four years). So, for me, crushing on George Michael and others was all just part of me figuring out who I was was. I had no idea back then that figuring out would be a lifelong process—nor that pop music would always be the backing track to my story. George Michael and Wham! were definitely part of that soundtrack. Skimpy shorts were always optional, though.

“Wake Me Up Before You Go-Go” reached Number One in Australia (2x Platinum), 2 in Canada (Platinum), 2 in New Zealand, Number One in the UK (Gold), as well as Number One on the USA’s Billboard “Hot 100”, and was also Number One on Cash Box, and on the “Contemporary Hit Radio” chart from Radio & Records. It was certified Platinum in the USA.

The album Make It Big reached Number One in Australia (Platinum), Canada (6x Platinum), New Zealand (Platinum), in the UK (4x Platinum), and on the USA’s “Billboard 200”. It was Certified 6x Platinum in the USA.

Back on December 8 with the next Number One song of 1984.

Previously in the “Weekend Diversion – 1984” series:

Weekend Diversion: 1984, Part 1 – January 21, 2024
Weekend Diversion: 1984, Part 2 – February 4, 2024
Weekend Diversion: 1984, Part 3 – February 25, 2024
Weekend Diversion: 1984, Part 4 – March 31, 2024
Weekend Diversion: 1984, Part 5 – April 21, 2024
Weekend Diversion: 1984, Part 6 – May 12, 2024
Weekend Diversion: 1984, Part 7 – May 26, 2024
Weekend Diversion: 1984, Part 8 – June 9, 2024
Weekend Diversion: 1984, Part 9 – June 23, 2024
Weekend Diversion: 1984, Part 10 – July 7, 2024
Weekend Diversion: 1984, Part 11 – August 11, 2024
Weekend Diversion: 1984, Part 12 – September 1, 2024
Weekend Diversion: 1984, Part 13 – September 22, 2024
Weekend Diversion: 1984, Part 14 – September 29, 2024
Weekend Diversion: 1984, Part 15 – October 13, 2024
Weekend Diversion: 1984, Part 16 – November 3, 2024

65 and 43 years ago today

Today is an anniversary, a bit of an odd one, even by my standards: Sixty-five years ago today I was baptised. That’s probably the sort of anniversary I might mention in a blog post—but it wasn’t on my list of posts for this month. However, I knew that today is also the 43rd anniversary of the first time I ever did anything to publicly come out as gay, and that fact was on my list, though I wrote “Outaversary (43rd, so probably no post)”. And so, here we are.

I’ve talked about this coincidence of anniversaries a few times (links at the bottom of this post), but what interested me this year was that the baptism part wasn’t the first thing I thought of, even though it was 65 years ago. Instead, I just thought of it as my “Outaversary”, which makes perfect sense. As I said in my 2009 post about the anniversaries:

Fifty years and twenty-eight years later—again, to the very day—it’s clear it was the second event that had the bigger personal effect on me because on that day, in a sense, my parent’s work was completed as I began my own life. On that 1981 day I started to stop being afraid, though I had more work to do.

I guess the fact that I wasn’t planning on blogging about my “Outaversary” this year means that the more significant of the two anniversaries still wasn’t significant enough. To me, that was kind of funny, actually.

When I did finally remember that this was the 65 th anniversary of my baptism, I suddenly wondered something I’d never bothered to look up before: When was Easter in 1959? It turns out it was Sunday, March 29, 1959, and that was an issue because my grandfather, who baptised me, was still working as a minister at the time, and so, wouldn’t have been available on Easter Sunday. Also, my dad wouldn’t have wanted to have my baptism on Easter Sunday, either. So, my they picked the next Sunday, April 5. The next time it falls on a Sunday will be in 2026, which will be the perhaps somewhat more interesting (to me, anyway…) “Outaverssary” number: 45.

From time to time, I’ve thought about changing at least some of the anniversaries I mention to once every five years, on the zero and five years. That’s simply because it’s hard to come up with something new and fresh to say every year, and that’s literally doubly true for what I’ve described as “the only truly double-barrel anniversary I have”, this one—these two? Whatever.

It turns out that this date may have two different anniversaries, but it’s because of the second one—the one that’s more important in my life’s path—that I remember either one. I may not talk about either one every year, but I nevertheless remember them both. And I think that’s a very good thing.

The photo up top is from my 2009 post. I STILL really need to re-scan that slide sometime.

Related:
”Coincidence of baptisms” – 2009
”Outaversary” – 2016
”60 and 38 years ago today” – 2019
”40th Outaversary” – 2021

A new read among others—and re-reads

Have I ever pre-ordered a book? I don’t know about the past, but on January 8 of this year I pre-ordered the new novel by Armistead Maupin, a few weeks after I saw his Facebook page announcing the publication of his latest novel, Mona of the Manor, likely to be the final novel in Maupin’s Tales of the City series of novels. The book arrived Monday (photo above). This was also a bittersweet thing.

Nigel had all the original Tales of the City books, and when I arrived in New Zealand to live, I read the first three. Auckland reminded me a bit of San Francisco, which I’d visited earlier that year, because of its waterfront and hilly streets. There’s no reason why I hadn’t read the books in the USA, I just didn’t—though I’d been aware of them since I was at university, and newly out, in the early 1980s. before I emigrated, I watched the first series of the TV adaptation of the books, and Nigel and I watched the second and third series together. We bought them on VHS, and we re-bought them on DVD (though I’m pretty sure that buying the DVDs was just Nigel’s doing).

Maupin began a series of sequels, though at first he didn’t call them that, with Michael Tolliver Lives in 2007, which I bought for Nigel. I also bought him Mary Ann in Autumn (2020), and also The Days of Anna Madrigal (2014), but I don’t know if he ever read that one (by that time he was mostly into audio books, which helped make his work commute much better). Mona of the Manor, then, is the first Armistead Maupin book that Nigel never got the chance to read, and, obviously, I was keenly aware of that fact when publication was announced. If anything, that awareness made me more determined to pre-order.

Nigel and I also bought the non-Tales book, “The Night Listener”, and we managed to read it before the movie came out. Actually, by “we” I mean me: One way or another, Nigel got through a lot more books than I did (as I’ve said many times, I’m a very slow reader). Nigel already had Maupin’s other non-Tales novel, Maybe the Moon, and both of those books had characters from Tales as supporting characters.

It’s clear that I have a long personal history with the Tales books, even if I’ve only read the first three books in the series. Right now, I think I’d like to start from the beginning and continue in order until I get to the newest one. We’ll see. Back in 2008, I published a post about book memes and said that the Tales series was what I’d want with me if I was on a desert island. I also said, “These will, one day, be books I re-read.” Yes, well, only three of them would’ve been be re-reads, and that hasn’t changes in the sixteen since I wrote that post. The other seven novels would still be new to me.

Buying this new book completes the set of Tales of the City novels in my personal library, and that appeals to me for many reasons. It’s bittersweet, too, though, because Nigel never got the chance to read Mona of the Manor. I’m sure I’ll enjoy it enough for both of us.

When something, even a new book, is connected to me so personally, and those connections include memories about Nigel, it’s understandable that I’d feel reflective. This time, it’s mostly happy memories and feelings, just tinged with the bittersweet. As time’s passed, this has become far more common than having memories that only make me sad. Now, I’m mainly just excited to see how time affected Mona. And Anna. And Mary Ann. And Michael. No matter how long it takes me.

Weekend Diversion: 1984, Part 2

It's five weeks into the year, and in this week in 1984, a new song went to Number One—but it was only the second new song of the three to reach Number One song that year, as I mentioned last time.

On February 4, 1984, ”Karma Chameleon” (video up top) by Culture Club became the new Number One song. It was the group’s biggest hit, and their only Number One in the USA, though they had Top Ten hits. The song was the lead single from their second album, Colour by Numbers.

This song is exactly the sort thing I think of when I think of pop music from the 1980s, the mid-1980s in particular. Because the song was everywhere at the time, spending three weeks at Number One on the “Hot 100”, it’s a song that was definitely part of my life’s soundtrack at the time.

The music video was shot in England, standing in for 19th Century Mississippi river and a riverboat. I liked the video for “Karma Chameleon” more than those for most of Culture Club’s other songs, possibly because the song was such a big hit, or maybe it was Roy Hay’s haircut, which I really liked (I was, and proudly still am, often shallow about such things). In any event, the peppy song and its video really appealed to me.

According to the Wikipedia article on the song, Boy George explained what the song is about:

"The song is about the terrible fear of alienation that people have, the fear of standing up for one thing. It's about trying to suck up to everybody. Basically, if you aren't true, if you don't act like you feel, then you get Karma-justice, that's nature's way of paying you back."

This explains the imagery in the video, where “the bad guy” meets his comeuppance when his thievery and cheating is revealed, and he encounters karma at the pointy end of ladies’ parasols. Not that I necessarily got that at the time, though I suppose I would’ve, or at least could’ve, if I’d paid any real attention to music videos. My ability (or willingness…) to do that came along much later.

One of the things I most remember about Culture Club in general was the negative reaction so many people—well, mostly men—had to Boy George’s appearance. Most of it was toxic homophobia—and pretty much as irrational and bizarre as modern US rightwingers’ current reflexive hatred of Taylor Swift, though for different reasons. The bigoted reactions to George certainly didn’t hurt Culture Club’s record sales or airplay, though, and George is still recording, so I’d say he and Culture Club pretty much won that early edition of the Right’s culture wars.

I was already a grassroots LGBT+ activist when this song came out, and I remember some more conservative gay men were quite adamant about their dislike of Culture Club, or Boy George specifically, because they thought he was projecting a “bad image”, or “perpetuating stereotypes” of gay men. As an activist, I ran into anti-gay and homophobic prejudices and bigotry all the time, but it really annoyed me when I ran across a version of the same thing coming from my fellow gay men.

Some of my colleagues dismissed such complaints from gay men as “internalised homophobia”, and for some perhaps it was. To me, though, it suggested they were reacting not because they were gay so much as because of fear: They were well aware of what being identified as gay, different, or “other” could result in. I thought that it was more about their own feelings of insecurity because if the majority identified them as “just like” Boy George, their safety, livelihoods—and even their lives—could be in danger. Those weren’t irrational fears in the mid-1980s, and in far too many places, it’s still not irrational even now.

Because pop music is the background to many of our lives, for better or worse, that inevitably means it can drag up unpleasant memories as well as good ones—and sometimes, like with “Karma Chameleon”, it can do both. That’s a pretty powerful thing.

The 1980s was a pivotal decade in my life for all sorts of reasons, and that’s certainly part of why to this day so much 1980s music still resonates with me. That’s part of what led me to start this series last year: More often than not, a hit song reminds me of all sorts of other things. In this case, the song touched directly on the life I was building for myself 40 years ago, something that's not always true of a Numebr One song from that era, or any other, for that matter.

“Karma Chameleon” reached Number One in Australia, 1 in Canada (2x Platinum), 1 in New Zealand (Gold), 1 in the UK (Platinum), and Number One on both the USA’s “Billboard Hot 100” and on the Cash Box “Top 100”; the song was also Gold in the USA.

The album Colour By Numbers reached Number One in Australia, 1 in Canada (Diamond), 1 in New Zealand (Platinum), 1 in the UK (3x Platinum), and 2 on the USA’s “Billboard 200” chart (4x Platinum).

So, that’s the second of two Number One songs OF 1984, and the third IN 1984. The next post about a 1984 Number One will be in three weeks, on February 25. And knowing myself as I do, by then I'll probably already have forgotten about the OF/IN 1984 trivia. Probably. 

Previously in the “Weekend Diversion – 1984” series:

Weekend Diversion: 1984, Part 1 – January 21, 2024

NZ’s new government: A grab bag of hot takes

New Zealand’s new three-ring circus government goes back and forth from from comedy to farce, and the jokes that are its announced policies, while jokes, aren’t even remotely funny. This is going to a long—well, however long this government ends up surviving before it implodes.

So far, one announed policy scrapping has attracted worldwide attention: The Tripartite Regime has announced it will repeal the landmark world-leading smoke-free legislation adopted by the previous Labour-led Government. That legislation would have slowly raised the legal age to buy tobacco products so that no one born in 2009 or later would ever be able to buy tobacco products in New Zealand. It was also slowly reduce the number of places cigarettes could be purchased from 6000 to 600. Naturally, powerful forces moved against it.

The tobacco lobby claimed that not allowing today’s 14-year-olds to ever buy tobacco would lead to skyrocketing increases in blackmarket tobacco, a dubious claim that the National Party Prime Minister, Chris Luxon, has been parroting since coming to power. Given the declining rates of smoking in New Zealand, and that the law wouldn’t even affect anyone for another four years, this was an interesting claim—and probably utter nonsense.

The real reason for the change seems to be tax (though Chris Luxon now denies that, as well as denying the claim that senior National MP Chris Bishop, a former tobacco industry lobbyist, took part in coalition negotiations on the issue). However, ever since the current Job Share Deputy Prime Minister, Winston Peters (who himself has been a cigarette addict for decades), killed National’s promise to allow foreigners to buy private houses above $2 million, and so, also killed the 15% tax Luxon planned to charge foreigners, National was desperate to find revenue somewhere to pay for their planned tax cuts (which will almost certainly be targeted at helping the rich, if the past is any guide).

Winston apparently struck again in securing a promise to pull all sex and gender education guidelines from schools. Winston wants to prevent schools from addressing any Rainbow issues, gender identity in particular. During the campaign, he promised that if his party formed government, he would pass a law requiring business owners make sure that toilets for customers would only be used by people whose gender corresponded to their sex assigned at birth, though he didn’t say how, exactly, he expected businesses to do that—did he expect them to conduct inspections of customers’ genitals? Probably.

Winston knew he’d never lead any government—only a small fraction of NZ voters ever vote for his party—but by pandering to the most ignorant, bigoted and conspiracy-loving segments of society, he knew he could win votes and get donations to his party. With Winston, politics has always been transactional, not philosophical or ideological. Well, it never used to be.

The thing is, most of the curriculum was about how the body changes, about relationships, diversity, and—most importantly—consent. The goal was to help young people to understand the changes they were experiencing, that there are rules around sex, and that, most importantly, no means no. That, too, will be dumped so Winston can wage his “war on woke”.

Maybe this shows that Winston has spent too much time around cookers and other fans of conspiracy theories, because in many ways he seems to have gone weird. For example, attacking the news media has always been part of his cynical game: His fans ate it up because they hate the new media and/or just like to see Winston go after journalists. Lately, though, his attacks have become downright sinister.

He spread baseless disinformation and lies born out of conspiracy theories about the New Zealand news media, first at the singing of the coalition agreement, then during the photo op at the new cabinet’s first meeting, and also told a media outlet that he’s “at war” with the news media.

Then he truly went off the deep end, spewing the utterly bizarre claim that the news industry was responsible for the long second Auckland Covid lockdown, asking, "Why did [the media] allow the second dramatic lockdown with only one case in Auckland”, and since he was a real, non-job share deputy prime minister when the lockdown first began—um, every accusation is a confession, maybe? Chris Luxon said that Winston puts things in ways he wouldn’t (which must be the understatement of the week), and the Deputy Leader of his Party, Nicola Willis, tried to diminish the seriousness of Winston’a ravings, calling it “hyperbole”. How long can Luxon and Willis carry on pretending like that?

These are only some of the latest highlights from the 3-ring circus, and there will be plenty more to come until Parliament finally goes away for Christmas and gives us a break from them. At the moment, my personal favourite description of the new government and it’s mishmash of policies came from Chlöe Swarbrick, Green Party MP for Auckland Central. Yesterday morning, she told TVNZ’s “Breakfast” programme:

It's definitely not the government of low wage workers, renters, or anybody who sits on the margins of our society. The priorities of the incoming government should be dealing with the dual crises of inequality and the climate crisis.

But instead, what we have with those two agreements is a grab bag of 200-plus-odd random policies that come across more as hot takes from your uncle at Christmas. It's not a vision for the future that New Zealanders deserve. I just can't see how we're gonna get anywhere near the issues that really matter.

Swarbrick also succinctly described the reality of this hodgepodge government: "It's a pair of scissors, it's not a vision for the future of this country.”

This is going to a long—well, however long this government ends up surviving before it implodes or is turfed out.

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.

Ten years of equality

Ten years ago last night, the New Zealand Parliament enacted marriage equality into law. I remember watching the final debate live on Parliament TV, so I saw the famous speeches and the waiata after the bill passed it’s final reading. It was a wonderful time.

This also means it’s just a bit more than six months until what would have been the tenth anniversary of when Nigel and I were married, what we both called the happiest day of our lives. We passed the 14th anniversary of our civil union back in January, the day we called that the second-happiest day of our lives, largely because, at the time, being able to legally marry was something neither of us expected would ever become reality—until it did. After that, marriage upped the ante of the happiness stakes. Ten years ago last night, the NZ Parliament made it possible for Nigel and me to be able to fulfill a dream.

I think about all that, of course, though not necessarily often or in depth—but I do think about it. I think, first, about how lucky I was to be able to marry my soulmate, which isn’t a gift given to everyone. Our “married life” was far too short, and it only a fraction of our time together.

I also think about what being ABLE to be married meant to me, something I talked about the night it was passed by Parliament in a post I titled, aptly, “Becoming real”, which, I think, is one of the best things I’ve ever published on this blog. Since then, I’ve often talked about how much it meant to me that marriage equality gave us the ability to take on the same commitment and obligations that any heterosexual could do without question. I finally felt part of society in a way I never had before.

I still believe in the power of love and, for those who choose it, marriage. What I argued for all those years ago was once simple word: Options. All adults ought to have the same legal options, and ten years ago the New Zealand Parliament agreed. It was a momentous day.

Things not counted

Five years ago this evening, Nigel and I completed the 2018 NZ Census. As it happens, I also planned on doing my solo census stuff this evening, but that was purely coincidental. It was only because of a FB “Memory” that I knew the coincidence of dates; there’s no way I’d have remembered that this was the same date we did the 2018 Census. Here’s the Memory of what I said five years ago on Facebook:

I always used to look forward to doing the census, but this year—not so much. It’s the “both individual forms” part I mentioned five years ago: This year, it’s just me, just one one individual form, and I listed my status as “widower”(screen grab above).

As I said at the end of last month, I knew this was coming. Of course I did. I was also aware it’d be the first to not count Nigel, and to count me as a widower. But the “weirdness”, as I called it, was a bit more unexpected. I guess it’s one of those things that are hard to grasp until they arrive.

This Census was the first to ask about sexuality, asking, “Which of the following best describes how you think of yourself?” The options were: “heterosexual/straight”, “gay or lesbian”, “bisexual”, “another identity”, “prefer not to say”. Nigel and I would’ve talked a lot about that, what the results might be, that sort of thing. I miss those chats more than I could ever express, no matter how hard I tried.

Most of the time, I’m not sad, aside from occasional teary times brought on by a reminder or memory (or nothing at all). Mainly, I’d describe what I feel in one word: Tired. It’s exhausting learning/relearning everything about living alone here in the last third (roughly) of my own life. There are so many things I never knew how to do, and many more I’d forgotten about, because someone else always took care if it.

I stumble and bumble about trying to figure things out without my best friend, adviser, confidante, and soul mate at my side, and that makes everything difficult every day. I don’t need a rare thing like a census to remind me. Still, I push on as best I can, screwing up constantly (and sometimes spectacularly), and pausing to rest whenever I need to.

This evening, I closed another chapter in this story when I completed my first solo census. There’s one more thing about this: It’s likely to be the last significant “first”. No wonder it all feels weird. Focusing on the task got me through it, but even though I tried my very best, it was incomplete. There was just too much missing.