Blog Archives Click on any of the links below to view Blogs from our past issues. September 7 - 13 September 14 - 20 September 21 - 27 September 28 - Oct 4 October 5 - 11 More Archives...

HOUSTON VOICE BLOG

I take it back

There's a blind item on Page Six today that I hope I have the answer to: "Which boy-band member is going to shock his female fans when he comes out of the closet?"

I hope they're talking about Jonathan Knight of New Kids on the Block, whose gayness Perez Hilton hinted at a few weeks ago. I wrote a record review of comeback album "The Block" around the same time, and I deeply regret the mountain of criticism I piled on my favorite boys.

Why the change of heart? Well, I went to their packed concert at the Verizon Center in D.C. on Thursday, and the surge of joy that filled my heart cannot be denied. Cutie maybe-gay Jonathan sang songs in an Obama T-shirt. The boys played old favorites and peppered the set with new tracks and members' solo hits. And even the songs that I slammed in my review were fabulous. I take it all back. Toss "The Block" a Grammy.

Posted by Rebecca Armendariz, Online Edito| Oct. 6 at 11:10 AM | RArmendariz@washblade.com

Ifill, Biden let Palin off easy

Last night’s presidential debate included one awkwardly worded gay question. Moderator Gwen Ifill, who was nearly as neutered and deferential toward Sarah Palin as Joe Biden was, directed the following question to Biden: “Do you support, as they do in Alaska, granting same-sex benefits to couples?”

There are myriad problems with this wording. First, who cares what Biden thinks of DP benefits in Alaska? There are much more pressing issues to ask about. Second, the question implies that Alaska is a gay rights haven, when it certainly is not. Third, it further implies that Palin herself must be supportive of these rights, when the opposite is true.

Ifill was referencing Alaska’s domestic partner benefits for state employees, which were mandated by the state Supreme Court. Palin opposed extending those benefits and even supported a constitutional amendment that would have barred the state from offering them; they include retirement, health care and other benefits offered to straight married state employees.

It is deeply disappointing that Ifill and Biden didn’t press Palin on this very basic fact, instead allowing her to escape with the usual condescending line about “tolerance” and an increasingly tiresome reference to her unnamed gay friends.

Quite simply it is outrageous to suggest, as many media outlets including Reuters did, that Palin and Biden are somehow in agreement on gay rights. They could not be further apart in their views.

Biden’s answer, apart from his unconvincing insistence that he and Obama oppose same-sex marriage, is noteworthy for its progressive take on federal recognition for gay relationships. This is nothing new for Obama, who supports a full repeal of DOMA, but Biden’s remarks last night represent a 180-degree turn from his 1996 vote in favor of DOMA. Palin clearly didn’t grasp the significance of this. If she had, she and McCain would be hollerin’ for the Federal Marriage Amendment to be reintroduced in Congress. Log Cabin based its McCain endorsement on his opposition to the FMA, yet McCain confirmed again this week in an exclusive interview with the Blade that he would support the FMA if DOMA were overturned.

“I voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2004 and 2006,” McCain said. “I continue to oppose such an amendment today, because as I’ve explained this should be a state matter, and not one for the federal government — as long as no state is forced to adopt some other state’s standard.”

That last part is key and opens the door to a flip-flop on the FMA. It demonstrates that Log Cabin’s endorsement is based on rather flimsy evidence.

Palin’s rambling answer failed to directly address the question, a common occurrence last night. She insisted that she tolerates us and opposes redefining marriage. Then Ifill turned back to Biden for a response about his position on marriage. He, too, responded clumsily, referencing the freedom of religions to call “it” whatever they want. He knows that this is not a question about religion and shouldn’t have raised it. And when Ifill pressed Palin about whether or not she and Biden “really don’t have a difference” on gay rights, Palin dodged and reiterated her opposition to same-sex marriage.

Somehow Biden and the mainstream media interpreted her convoluted, dishonest answers as agreement. The opposite is true. Shame on Ifill for not pressing Palin to come clean on her extreme anti-gay views. The same goes for Biden, who shouldn’t have shied so much from challenging his opponent. The conventional wisdom is that Biden couldn’t stand up to Palin without being perceived as sexist. I can’t imagine a more serious setback for feminism. Why on earth would Palin be entitled to such deference? Hillary Clinton sure wasn’t.

After all, it was supposed to be a debate. Instead, it devolved into a dull recitation of campaign talking points.

Below is a transcript of the gay rights exchange:

IFILL: The next round of -- pardon me, the next round of questions starts with you, Senator Biden. Do you support, as they do in Alaska, granting same-sex benefits to couples?

BIDEN: Absolutely. Do I support granting same-sex benefits? Absolutely positively. Look, in an Obama-Biden administration, there will be absolutely no distinction from a constitutional standpoint or a legal standpoint between a same-sex and a heterosexual couple. The fact of the matter is that under the Constitution we should be granted -- same-sex couples should be able to have visitation rights in the hospitals, joint ownership of property, life insurance policies, et cetera. That's only fair.

It's what the Constitution calls for. And so we do support it. We do support making sure that committed couples in a same-sex marriage are guaranteed the same constitutional benefits as it relates to their property rights, their rights of visitation, their rights to insurance, their rights of ownership as heterosexual couples do.

IFILL: Governor, would you support expanding that beyond Alaska to the rest of the nation?

PALIN: Well, not if it goes closer and closer towards redefining the traditional definition of marriage between one man and one woman. And unfortunately that's sometimes where those steps lead. But I also want to clarify, if there's any kind of suggestion at all from my answer that I would be anything but tolerant of adults in America choosing their partners, choosing relationships that they deem best for themselves, you know, I am tolerant and I have a very diverse family and group of friends and even within that group you would see some who may not agree with me on this issue, some very dear friends who don't agree with me on this issue.

But in that tolerance also, no one would ever propose, not in a McCain-Palin administration, to do anything to prohibit, say, visitations in a hospital or contracts being signed, negotiated between parties. But I will tell Americans straight up that I don't support defining marriage as anything but between one man and one woman, and I think through nuances we can go round and round about what that actually means. But I'm being as straight up with Americans as I can in my non- support for anything but a traditional definition of marriage.

IFILL: Let's try to avoid nuance, Senator. Do you support gay marriage?

BIDEN: No. Barack Obama nor I support redefining from a civil side what constitutes marriage. We do not support that. That is basically the decision to be able to be able to be left to faiths and people who practice their faiths the determination what you call it.

The bottom line though is, and I'm glad to hear the governor, I take her at her word, obviously, that she think there should be no civil rights distinction, none whatsoever, between a committed gay couple and a committed heterosexual couple. If that's the case, we really don't have a difference.

IFILL: Is that what your said?

PALIN: Your question to him was whether he supported gay marriage and my answer is the same as his and it is that I do not.

IFILL: Wonderful. You agree. On that note, let's move to foreign policy. (LAUGHTER)

Posted by Kevin Naff, Washington Blade Edito| Oct. 3 at 12:57 PM | knaff@washblade.com

We shopped till we dropped

The financial crisis that has consumed Wall Street, Washington and the national media should teach Americans a simple lesson: Stop spending money you don’t have.

Don’t be confused by all the experts, economists and pundits now obsessing over derivatives and futures markets. The “complicated” financial crisis has its roots in one fundamental problem, namely that Americans have finally shopped until they dropped.

For decades, we’ve been slaves to marketing messages promising us happiness, fitness and desirability if we’d buy a Coke, a Thigh-Master, Trim-Spa or any of a zillion other products. Hell, even President Bush urged Americans to shop after the 9-11 attacks, eschewing talk of shared sacrifice in favor of a collective trip to Wal-Mart.

Perhaps this crisis was inevitable. Keeping up with the Joneses evolved from ensuring we had the best clothes to the biggest TVs to the most expensive cars to the house with the most square footage. Even the current issue of the Advocate features an oddly timed cover story about the high cost of being gay — they’re referring to the price of designer jeans, sunglasses and the like. Maybe Los Angeles gays are magically insulated from the financial crisis engulfing the rest of us.

We all know people who bought a house in the last five years that they couldn’t afford. What began as a sense of entitlement to the American dream has turned into a nightmare that threatens to impact even those who behaved responsibly and lived within their means. This crisis came about because greedy and impatient Americans, desperate to have it all right now, spent themselves into an impossible amount of debt. They were helped along by a government that openly encouraged such irresponsibility – from Bush’s shopping exhortations to laws and policies loosening the guidelines for lending practices.

It didn’t take a genius economist to figure out in 1999 that companies with no source of revenue were destined for bankruptcy. Similarly, it shouldn’t have taken an Ivy League-educated Wall Street financier to recognize that when banks hand out loans like lollipops to millions of people who lacked the means to repay them, that disaster would result.

So what’s next? Congress and Wall Street will figure out a short-term solution that keeps everything humming along until the election. But a quick-fix piece of legislation does not address the underlying problems of modern American society. We are greedy, entitled and impatient. We don’t think we should have to work hard to earn a 50-inch flat screen TV or a 4,000-square-foot house in the ‘burbs with a pool. We don’t save money. We are in debt at historically high levels.

Our problems are ingrained and won’t be solved by Congress, whose members care about one thing: re-election. They will require a dramatic change in the culture. We must live within our means. And cultivate hobbies that don’t involve shopping or eating. We must reduce our energy consumption even if it means doing without a third car.

Sadly, our quick-fix mentality will lead most Americans to assume that when the House finally passes a version of the bailout that the problem has been solved. If only it were that easy.

Posted by Kevin Naff, Washington Blade Edito| Oct. 3 at 12:45 PM | knaff@washblade.com

Sen. Coleman’s bi phobia

I have to apologize to my fellow Minnesotans. It seems that I’m partly to blame for St. Paul not celebrating Pride month when Norm Coleman was mayor.

Apparently, bisexuals such as myself unnerve Coleman, who’s now a U.S. senator. Bisexuality unnerves him so much that during his eight years as mayor, he refused to sign a proclamation celebrating Pride month because it would recognize bisexuals.

Minnesota’s leading newspaper, the Star Tribune, noted in May 1994 that Coleman had no problem with gays and lesbians. But he wouldn’t put his signature on a Pride proclamation that might be seen as promoting people who are bisexual or transgender.

“I see [being bisexual or having a sex change] as lifestyle issues,” Coleman said in the article. He noted that gays and lesbians, by comparison, have legal status as “protected-class” citizens because of their sexual orientation.

So I offer my apologies, Minnesota. Mea culpa.

Of course, it might be worth noting that I didn’t choose to be bisexual any more than Coleman chose to be heterosexual. And that 1.8 percent of American men and 2.8 percent of American women ages 18 to 44 identify as bisexual. And that two of Coleman’s predecessors and both of his successors signed the proclamation.

I contacted Coleman’s campaign this week to see if he’s changed his views since he was quoted 14 years ago. I didn’t get a response. It would seem that I continue to unnerve him.

But I suppose it’s OK that I unnerve him, because his ignorant and stubborn attitude unnerves me. And if he couldn’t bring himself to recognize bisexuals as recently as eight years ago, I see no reason for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Minnesotans to recognize him Nov. 4 in the voting booth.

Posted by Joshua Lynsen, News Editor| Oct. 3 at 12:01 PM | Lynsen

A hero a day: Stephen Sondheim

Today Equality Forum celebrates the life of composer Stephen Sondheim. Sondheim has written music and lyrics for major musicals and films. His most famous works include "West Side Story," which he wrote the lyrics for, and scores for "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum," "Sweeney Todd" and "Into the Woods."

He has won more Tony Awards than any other composer as well as Grammy and Academy Awards.

For more information, visit GLBT History Month on the web. Check back with the Blade for daily updates.

Posted by Rebecca Armendariz, Online Edito| Oct. 2 at 10:41 AM | RArmendariz@washblade.com

© Copyright 2006 Window Media LLC | User Agreement and Privacy Policy

Southern Voice | Express Gay News | David Atlanta | The 411 Mag | Genre Magazine