ProudlyOut

Across the Great Divide

There are some in the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community who are uncomfortable with the fact that Barack Obama is reaching out to Evangelical Christians. How could he break bread—literally and metaphorically—with people who hate us? Doesn’t that mean he hates us too?

The answer is no. It’s time for the LGBT community’s penchant for “guilt by association” politics to go by the wayside. If Obama can bring a new brand of politics to America, why can’t we do the same for our own community?

The fact that Obama is reaching out to some in the Radical Christian Right and others who just consider themselves Evangelical is actually a stroke of political genius. In the past year or so, we’ve seen the goose step agendas of folks like Jim Dobson of Focus on the Family and Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council turn into a mosh pit of Christian politics.

The voting age kids of Radical Christian Right voters who put George Bush into office aren’t so enamored with the narrow minded politics of their parents. The likes of Dobson and Perkins are painting themselves into a smaller and smaller corner because they can’t seem to see that there are other issues—besides abortion and same-sex marriage—that concern their Christian constituencies.

We’re seeing Christians of all persuasions concerned with global warming and the environment, with health care, with poverty, with the war . . .  we’re seeing Christians of all persuasions recognizing that they can no longer afford to be defined by two issues in a world that needs careful thought and action to save it from itself.

And, we see Obama recognizing the trend and taking advantage of this shift. Why shouldn’t he? He wants to get elected and that won’t happen unless he builds a broad coalition of voters. That broad coalition must run the gamut from conservative Christians to progressive queers if we’re to be successful in November and change the direction of our country.

But, just because Obama is meeting with folks from the Radical Christian Right doesn’t mean he agrees with them. In fact, he’s more than willing to do what no other candidate has yet to do—call James Dobson out on the carpet for his narrow-minded, my way or the highway interpretation of the Bible.

This past Tuesday, Dobson aired a segment on his radio program that gave his personal dissection of a 2006 speech Obama gave to Call for Renewal, a progressive Christian organization. In that speech, Obama said that religion does not have a monopoly on morality, that our country is not a Christian theocracy and that political agendas, even if they are firmly rooted in religious beliefs, must use moral arguments rather than religious arguments to win the day.

Sounds pretty pluralistic to me. Perhaps that’s what got Dobson’s goat launching a diatribe that misrepresented  Obama’s words saying the candidate was “deliberately distorting the Bible,” “dragging biblical understanding through the gutter,” “willfully trying to confuse people,” and that Obama has a “fruitcake interpretation of the Constitution.”

Like the one brave kid who’s not afraid of the playground bully, Obama shot right back and said Dobson was “making stuff up” when he accused the candidate of distorting the Bible. Obama went on to say that people of faith, of which he considers himself one, “try to translate some of our concerns in a universal language so that we can have an open and vigorous debate rather than having religion divide us.”

Throughout the campaign, Obama has shown a fearlessness rooted in a political savvy that we haven’t seen in this country since Roosevelt. He has deftly weakened John McCain’s ability to attack by telling the public what McCain will attack him on. He’s reached out to constituencies and states that are traditional Republican strongholds—not to draw all those votes but enough of them to build a voting bloc that will mean victory in November. He has stood up to the Radical Christian Right’s playground bully and, in turn, is changing the rules of discourse within the religious community.

It’s time to heal the wounds that the Dobsons of this country have inflicted upon our citizenry. It’s time for all us—gay and straight, black and white, Jewish, Christian and Muslim—to take a giant step across the great divide that has become our country and bring us back to where guilt by association is a children’s game and the adults among us understand how important it is to find our common bonds.

Winning and Losing

There’s so much to write about this week.

Should I give you my take on the Mets’ unseemly firing of Willie Randolph? Should I shift my focus to November when we must go into the Presidential election without the late, great Tim Russert and his white board? And when the legality of all those new same-sex marriages in California will be up for grabs because of a ballot initiative to amend us out of a currently inclusive state constitution?

Well, since I know a lot more about LGBT issues and politics than I do about baseball permit me to say that I’m disappointed that the Mets let Randolph go. His calm elegance in the face of recent baseball hysteria set a good example for players and managers alike. I was happy that at least one of New York’s two Major League teams finally had an African-American manager. And, let’s face it, the Mets did better with him as manager than they had in quite a while.

Unfortunately the old adage of sportsman-like conduct, “it’s not whether you win or lose but how you play the game” just isn’t cutting it anymore. As goes baseball, so does our other national pastime—politics. It’s no longer about statesmanship and bipartisan honor—we’re far from that these days. Now, politics is just about winning at all costs.

What we’re about to see in the upcoming presidential election will make all other races pale in comparison—that’s why it would have been so good to have Tim Russert around. He had a way of getting to the heart of matters at hand and in the last few years, didn’t shy from asking presidential contenders their views on LGBT issues, most specifically same-sex marriage.

The difference between Barack Obama and John McCain on LGBT concerns is stark. Obama is supportive on all our issues except for same-sex marriage. He does support civil unions and providing us with the same rights and responsibilities as straight, married couples. I think he understands the “rose by any other name” dilemma he’s in but the bottom line is he wants to get elected and same-sex marriage isn’t the issue to run on.

McCain on the other hand is not supportive of our issues despite what the Log Cabin Republicans say. For those of you who don’t know, Log Cabin Republicans are Gay Republicans—yes, Virginia, there are Gay Republicans and they mainly vote their pocketbook not their personal well being. While they haven’t endorsed him yet, Log Cabin features McCain prominently on their website and talks about how the Senator has a long, friendly relationship with the organization and that he’s even met gay and lesbian Republicans.

We all know that in the rough and tumble world of politics, warm and fuzzy does not cut it. McCain is no friend to the LGBT community. He’s against the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and the Matthew Shephard Act also known as the national hate crimes bill. He’s for Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and supports the ballot initiative in his own state this November to ban same-sex marriage. He does not support civil unions or repealing the Defense of Marriage Act. With friends like John McCain, we know who our enemies really are.

But, that’s not all. McCain is also bad for our health. He has flip-flopped so many times on Roe v. Wade that we have to go with his February 2007 Associated Press quote when he said the right to reproductive freedom should be overturned. He also supports S. Dakota’s law that outlaws all abortions, even for those pregnancies that are a result of rape or incest.

Like most anti-choice politicians, he’d rather see women barefoot and pregnant. Perhaps that’s why he opposed spending $100 million to prevent unintended and teen pregnancies and opposes legislation that would mandate abstinence-only programs to be medically accurate and scientifically based. He opposes requiring insurance companies to cover prescription birth control and supports the “global gag rule” that bars foreign non-governmental organizations from receiving U.S. family planning assistance if the organization uses its own money to provide abortion services, information or advocacy on behalf of pro-choice laws and policies in its own country.

The Mets may not have Willie Randolph’s calm competency and Meet the Press will never be the same without the passion and diligence of Tim Russert, but one thing is for sure—winning IS everything in this presidential election because we all have a lot to lose if John McCain gives Bush a third term.

Urgent Marriage Alert

Just when you thought it was safe to board a flight to California to say “I do” the Radical Christian Right wing nuts have come out of their closet with threats of lawsuits and radio attack ads.

Reaching a quick fever pitch with an “Urgent Marriage Alert,” the National Organization for Marriage has an ad running on a local talk radio across New York. It starts with “Grandma, my teacher says if grandpa was a girl it’s okay, you can still be married . . .”  A young girl contends that Adam and Eve and, essentially, God, are old-fashioned and a boy asks if Dad married a man, who would be his mom?

The announcer then steps in with an “Urgent Marriage Alert”—likes there’s a weather-system of same-sex marriage spreading across the nation undermining every straight married couple out there. He tells listeners that New York Governor David Paterson “just ordered state officials to use our tax dollars to help same sex couples evade New York’s marriage laws.”

Well, the last time I looked, my partner and I paid our taxes just like every one else--so, some of that hard-earned tax money comes from the LGBT community.

We don’t evade our taxes and we’re certainly not trying to evade the marriage laws as the ad contends. If that was the case, we wouldn’t be fighting for our right to get married. In fact, we’re trying to invade the law so that we’re part of it. And, if it takes the executive order of a progressive governor for us to get our foot in the door of marriage here in New York then so be it.

However, whipping up a bit of same-sex marriage hysteria on the radio waves isn’t enough for these folks. Arising from Arizona like the Darth Vader of the Christian Right comes the Alliance Defense Fund, a legal wrongs group, which will sue Governor Paterson for what they consider to be his sidestepping of the legislature.

They contend legalizing same-sex marriage is the purview of the legislature since the Court of Appeals threw it back to our two houses in its legal decision a few years back. Well folks, the governor hasn’t with a stroke of a pen legalized same sex marriage here in New York. Lynn and I can’t walk into our local clerk’s office and get a marriage license. The “I do’s” we say here are not legally binding.

All Governor Paterson has done is bring the rest of state law into compliance with a recent appellate division ruling that says the state must recognize same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions. That’s a lot different than saying gays and lesbians can walk down the aisle legally in New York.

But given the state’s dire fiscal predicament, our elected officials may want to take a second look at passing New York’s legislation. Well actually, the Assembly looked at the bill and passed it and Governor Paterson is ready to sign it. The hold up is in the State Senate.

But back to our state’s budget deficit—legalizing same-sex marriage would be a windfall for state coffers and local economies. But instead of NY cashing in, California is expected to clean up.

A recent study by the Williams Institute, the foremost LGBT think tank which calls the UCLA Law School its home, predicts that same-sex marriages in the Golden State will bring nearly $700 million to the California wedding industry and pump almost $65 million in new revenue into the state coffers over the next three years. That money, according to the study, will come from the over 50,000 California same-sex couples and nearly  70,000 out of state lesbian or gay couples who will get married there. Not only will revenue increase for the public and private sectors but all those nuptials are likely to create and sustain over 2,100 jobs in California.

How about kick-starting the nation’s sagging economy? A recent study conducted by the Congressional Budget Office found that if all 50 states and the federal government recognized same-sex marriage, our weddings would generate almost $1 billion in revenue each year. According to other estimates, same-sex marriages could tack on more than $16 billion annually to the $70 billion wedding industry.

Here’s the real Urgent Marriage Alert—same-sex marriage isn’t a threat to hets. It’s a good thing--for us, for our families, for our economy and for our country.