Knowledge is power and history is knowledge. Some have compared Obama to Jack Kennedy, but Obama's latest passion for ex-gay gospel singers teaches us otherwise. Ironically, I can't find a reason to be upset about pro-gay Obama going all pro-ex-gay, willing to shake his gospel booty next to a profoundly misguided and psychologically-damaged gay man. The gay blogosphere has been all atwitter with this scandal, Obama creatively waffles, now caught between gays and evangelicals--a moronic dilemma of his own amateurish making. But for me the real concern is his Forty Days of Faith all God all the time magical mystery tour. And when you consider that the only thing that stands between queers and equality is all faith, all the time, it would seem that we're now seeing, as Ms. Lauper would say, Obama's "true colors." The other thing that concerns me is how we defile the legacy of Jack Kennedy. Students of history would understand the true cowardice of Obama and most other candidates as well. You can read the truth here. But start with this video and consider the real meaning of American, constitution-centric leadership. Dry and boring history teaches us that there is another way, a better way and that our current crop of Democrats is sadly lacking.

The gay community is outraged that California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed AB 43, a bill that would have allowed same-sex couples to marry in California. Indeed, small protests in opposition to Schwarzenegger's decision were held in different parts of the state earlier this week--including in my own home, where I subjected myself to nude self-flagellation like that albino monk in The Da Vinci Code movie.

But after noticing how some conservatives and the religious right are covering the story, I think we would be remiss if we didn't recognize and applaud the legislative strides that were made last week in California. Progress is sometimes best measured by how upset the opposition is. And it's about time I put my whips away and my robe back on.

While CitzenLink (an offshoot of the ultra-right Focus on Family organization), for example, notes on its website that Schwarzenegger's veto is "a victory for traditional marriage," the group denounces the governor for passing "several bills detrimental to California families."

Mona Passignano, a spokesperson for Focus on the Family Action (another branch of Focus on Family), said that those other bills "will likely have a devastating impact on churches and Christian families in the state for years to come." This sentiment is echoed on similarly themed websites on the Internet.

The governor actually signed seven LGBT-friendly bills into law last week, after they were all passed by the Legislature:

Editor's Note: Today we have two essays about the most hotly debated issue in the GLBT community right now: the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, aka ENDA. The details are somewhat complex (they're explained further below), but boil down to whether to pass a stripped-down version of ENDA that could probably pass in the House now but would not include transgendered people, or holding out for a bill that includes everyone, meaning the "T" in GLBT, even if it means that the bill might be dead out of the gate due to a lack of Congressional support.

That's a simplified description of the situation, but each of these positions is argued more thoroughly and eloquently on QueerSighted today for your consideration.

First, guest blogger Chai Feldblum shares her views on why ENDA should keep the "T" in GLBT. Feldblum is a professor at Georgetown University Law Center, and a well-respected strategist within GLBT activism. She was one of the primary attorneys who drafted and negotiated the provisions of ENDA from 1992 until 2002, and we're lucky to have her voice on QueerSighted today.

QueerSighted writer Richard Rothstein writes in favor of a bill that can be passed in the House now, even if it means that transgendered protection will have to be excluded and revisited separately in the future. His essay is posted below this one, or you can click here to read 'Barney Frank Lives in America, Not Oz.'

After you've heard the arguments, tell us in the comments: What strategy do you support?

LET'S STOP THE TRAIN WRECK

By Professor Chai Feldblum

QueerSighted Guest Blogger

About two weeks ago, Congressman Barney Frank took a unilateral action that set into motion a potential train wreck for the LGBT community and for the Democratic party. Let's hope cooler heads can still prevail; that we will all take a collective deep breath; and perhaps we can still head off this train wreck.

The battle royale between Barney Frank and the majority of gay advocacy groups is likely providing delicious entertainment for the Christian right. Nothing pleases an enemy more than dissension in the ranks.--well maybe the one thing that pleases our enemies more is to see the ENDA debate suddenly focused on the complex transgender issue. It's a diversion and a misstep made in hell. With an ENDA vote already hanging by a thread we should be massing in front of Congress demanding an end to the outrage of minority discrimination in 21st Century America, instead gay advocacy groups across the nation are now taking to the streets to demand that ENDA be defeated.

Exclusion of transgender Americans from ENDA is heartbreaking, but Frank and a few others argue that casualties are an inevitable part of any war as are sacrifices and compromises. Victory is expensive--and not in terms of the dollars endlessly demanded by our generally ineffective gay advocacy groups. And compromise is essential to real progress, not extremism. Ironically, so many of us of have accepted necessary phased progress and compromises in the fight for same sex marriage, an effort that has almost exhaused the resources of gay advocay groups in the service of a very tiny minority within they gay community. But on an issue that profoundly matters to every single one of us, hundreds of gay advocacy groups around the nation are prepared to sabotage 30 years of work in the name of "all or nothing."

Until today, I've stood silent on the ENDA transgender issue because I've caused enough of a ruckus over these past few months with my belief that growing visibility dominated by gay stereotypes has done and continues to do serious damage to our fight for civil rights. But Barney Frank's October 11 press conference demands that I flap my jaws on this issue.

If you're going to f**k with a queer, the last place you'd want to do it is in the gayest of all gayborhoods and just a swish, pirouette and grand plie around the corner from Stonewall Inn. You'd have to have one serious death wish, n'est-ce pas? Oh, and, of course, you want to do it during Pride.

By now, most of us are well versed on the case of Khadijah Farmer, a lesbian, who on June 24, 2007, after the Pride Parade down 5th Avenue, couldn't resist one of the world-famous frozen magaritas in 14 flavors differentes served in the 24 oz souvenir Hurricane Glass that gives the Caliente Cab Company restaurant about its only reason for staying in business.

At some point the lady in question entered the women's restroom. Caliente's bouncer burst in and threw her and her friends out of the restaurant because he thought she looked too masculine to be in the women's restroom. Even photo ID confirming her gender failed to dissuade the bouncer from giving Farmer the old 86. Farmer, of course, is suing for discrimination. And although there are no federal laws to cover this kind of service denial and harassment, this is New York City and boy are there laws and girl are they clear.

The New York City Human Rights Law prohibits discrimination in public accommodations on the basis of gender - including appearance, behavior, and expression - and sexual orientation. Similarly, the New York State Human Rights Law prohibits discrimination in public accommodations on the basis of sex and sexual orientation.

Who would have or could have imagined a lawsuit for sexual orientation discrimination in 2007 in Greenwich Village, New York City? Caliente, welcome to the neighborhood and Ms. Farmer's lawyers.

But the latest development in the story is enough to caliente the cockles of my heart. A collaboration of five activist groups, the Transgender Legal Defense and Education Fund, the Transgender Health Initiative of New York, the Queer Justice League, Gays and Lesbians of Bushwick Empowered and Make The Road New York are pooling their resources and members to stage what I hope will be a gay activist's dream and a homophobe's nightmare. Yes, you ivory tower advocates, a real, honest-to-goodness take to the streets demonstration--and just around the corner from Stonewall.

Tuesday, October 16, 5:30 P.M. And if you attend because of this post, seek me out and I'll give you a shot from my flask. (Happy Hour is Happy Hour.)

I grew up in North Carolina, the daughter of a beloved father who had attended Duke University. I went to the Duke basketball games every weekend as a child and to this day, I watch Duke basketball whenever there is a televised game. Part of loving Duke is hating the University of North Carolina and North Carolina State University. Hate is a strong word, but It's what we do in the Tar Heel State. Remember Jesse Helms?

I mention my upbringing because the Log Cabin Republicans have launched an ad campaign against Mitt Romney, and when I saw the ad, I felt like I was watching a UNC vs NC State basketball game. I was oddly compelled to root for someone, and yet, I don't care for either of them.



I first saw Log Cabin's 30 second anti-Romney ad last week in Tim Grieve's "Killing him with kindness" post on salon.com. The ad is also available for viewing on the Log Cabin Republican's website. (www.ivelostmygaymind.com)

So as we were all heading off for a lovely autumnal weekend, a very confused Terminator ran off to the local 7/ll for a quart of milk, a copy of Variety, some Depends and to veto the California same sex marriage bill. One can't be completely sure that he meant to do that, but Arnie's not terribly clever at multi-tasking.

I would never be so rude as to call the governor of California an "idiot". However, I don't agree with other gay voices who are this morning calling him a hypocrite and a bigot simply because he vetoed the gay marriage bill passed by the California State Legislature.

Clearly The Terminator is confused--which is very different from being an "idiot." The Republican party has insisted that the decision on same sex marriage should not rest with activist judges in the courts because the United States Constitution rests law-making power with elected representatives and not via popular vote and it was a popular vote five years ago in California that determined that the constitution was wrong and that civil rights and equality did not apply to gay Americans but under the constitution law-making power and determinations on civil rights rests with the legislatures which actually then passed a law approving same sex marriage but it is, as the Constitution says, up to the courts to determine the constitutionality of laws so The Terminator vetoed the same sex law constitutionally passed by the state legislature because he wants the determination to be made by the courts even though his party says the courts shouldn't be making such decisions rather such decisions should be made by lawmakers as outlined in the constitution.

Are you confused? Well, imagine how a brain ravaged by decades of steroids and fantasy role-playing both on the silver screen and with that insatiable Kennedy girl, gets all bewitched, bothered and bewildered in attempts to understand same sex marriage and the constitution.

Arnie is not an idiot, but how can he be anything other than terribly confused? However, his party, the Republicans--you've heard of them, I suspect? They're appearing every other Thursday in the men's room at Chippendales on the Vegas Strip--are counting on the notion that we're all idiots. And for the most part they seem to be right. The majority of Americans are idiots. What other explanation can there be for the widespread acceptance of the convoluted perverse logic that the GOP keeps using to block equality for all Americans?

As the news broke that yet another supposedly macho, homophobic, Roman Catholic Latin American nation is on the verge of federal legislation banning discrimination based on sexual orientation, it occurred to me that George W. Bush has likely done more for gay rights--everywhere but here--than all the world's gay activists combined.

I was raised by profoundly dysfunctional and cruel parents. As I observed my peers and their families and watched television families, I quickly came to realize that my parents had it wrong. It dawned on me that the solution to learning what is right was simple and elegant. In any situation, I would just ask myself what would mommy and daddy do and then I would do the opposite.

I think this philosophy has come to dominate politics and social and cultural life in many nations around the world. The presidents and legislatures of many countries have put aside their learning, religious teachings and old traditions and asked themselves, "What would George W. Bush do?" And then they just do the opposite. What other reason could there be for an evil dictator like Hugo Chavez standing tall for gay rights?

Countries like Mexico, Brazil, Colombia and now Venezuela are hardly known as paragons of human rights. The gap between rich and poor in these nations is a thousand times worse than even here. Corruption and violence are the order of the day. And yet one by one these nations are "fixing" their constitutions to extend civil rights and social benefits and protections to all citizens, gay and straight alike.

On Thursday of this past week, we learned that the evil president of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, high up on Georgie's hit list, directed the Venezuelan legislature to amend his nation's constitution to formally outlaw discrimination based on sexual orientation. Last week, I reported that Colombia extended the customary legal and social benefits allowed straight couples to include gay couples. But 40 years after civil rights legislation was passed by the United States to protect women and all minorities--minus us--from discrimination in employment, housing, education, services and social benefits the Bush Administration and the current Congress blather on and on while we remain second class citizens.

Frankly, I find it revolting and profoundly embarrassing to consider that as an American citizen living in the self-proclaimed most robust democracy in the world, I would have more civil rights living in Colombia or Venezuela. I love my country and will go on fighting for my rights, but George W. Bush and the 110th Congress need to join the 21st Century or we need another revolution. The American voters sent a clear message to Washington in November of 2006: change. Just under one year later, things have changed, but for the worse. The Republicans screwed us--all of us--gay and straight but at least they were honest about their intention to do so. The Democrats lied to us and are guilty of betrayal. A Democratic-controlled Congress can't even muster enough votes to pass ENDA much less end the embarrassment and disaster that George W. Bush calls the world's newest American-made democracy, Iraq.

Marriage discrimination inspired one of the most mainstream public figures in the country to come forward for equality this week: Jeanne Phillips, aka 'Dear Abby.'

Phillips, who offers advice through her widely syndicated column, said, "I believe if two people want to commit to each other, God bless 'em. That is the highest form of commitment, for heaven's sake."

Abby (as she prefers to be called), the daughter of the original 'Dear Abby,' made the comments to a reporter in relation to a "Straight for Equality" award she's to receive from GLAAD. Abby says she isn't planning to devote a column to her statement about gay marriage -- which is too bad. She has a strong record for addressing gay issues in a positive way in the advice she doles out to everyday Americans who read her, however, making her a powerful and respected voice in raising awareness of gay issues to the mainstream.

In the AP article about this which ran on AOL (and which has more on the story here), a poll shows some interesting but not too surprising reactions to Abby's gay-friendly stance: Readers were split fairly evenly on her comments, with a slight majority in favor of her position that gays should be allowed to marry.

The heated debate about whether or not Piedra Vista High School in Farmington, New Mexico, should allow the formation of a Gay-Straight Alliance is over for now. QueerSighted reader Marshall e-mailed me within minutes of the school board's unanimous decision to let the club meet. But this is a bittersweet victory at best.

The board faced a tough choice. They couldn't just outright ban the club because they would be in violation of, you know, the law, and would face legal action by the ACLU. So they had to either remove all clubs from campus or allow the group to meet, much to the dismay of many in the community.

According to the local paper, The Daily Times, the school board's decision to allow the club wasn't really born out of a desire for tolerance and understanding. Are you ready to get queasy? Board Deputy Secretary Mike Isaacson said, "The choice to ban all clubs would eliminate any benefit we as a school board are currently contributing back to the community. Banning all clubs means we would ban all community access to the schools, which would include churches, the Boy Scouts, Special Olympics, Little League practices, powwows, etcetera. It would be unfortunate to let a small group of students, who believe they need to join this club, eradicate all the good we've been able to achieve by allowing the public to use our facilities."

Reading that quote again makes me want to throw up, really. Isaacson seems to suggest that there is no value to having a Gay-Straight Alliance, a group meant to promote tolerance at a high school that seems to need it. Just take a look at video clips of Piedra Vista students arguing against the club. One angry girl declares, "I don't want to be hanging around a whole bunch of queers." And an upset boy asserts, "If gay people want to be gay, they should go and get their own place to be gay!"

Perhaps it is that kind of hate that motivated some students to build enough courage to form a Gay-Straight Alliance in the first place. It's nice to know you have allies when you're facing that level of vitriol on a daily basis, whether it is spoken out loud or not.

If you were to believe the Okeechobee County School Board in Florida, gay-straight alliances on high school campuses are a hotbed of salacious activity and a forum for explicit discussion about dirty, nasty gay sex--because, as you know, that's what gay-straight clubs are all about: your peers pressuring you to have same-sex intercourse and lots of it.... Okay, well, the board didn't say all those things exactly, but I can read between the lines.

When a student met administrative resistance after she tried to form a gay-straight alliance at Okeechobee High School, the ACLU filed a lawsuit on her behalf. Earlier this year, a judge ruled that the club could meet until the case is settled, which won't be until at least March.

In a preemptive strike to ban any future gay-straight groups on campus, the school board decided this week that from now on any clubs based on sexual orientation are not allowed. Superintendent Patricia Cooper stated in a memo that the policy change would "assure that student clubs and organizations do not interfere with the School Board's abstinence-only sex education policy."

Her statement makes me roll my eyes for so many reasons.

Can an entire American political party be based on homophobia? It would seem so. No, smarty pants, not the Republicans. They have a whole array of other issues to focus on: Iraq, terrorism, Islam, Shiism, Sunniism, Iran, the Koran and that 700-mile-long wall along the U.S.-Mexican border that will save us from an epidemic of mothers with starving children intent on destroying our economy.

No, we're talking about an entirely new third party. Of course, single issue parties aren't new. We already have the Green Party, for example. And many of our older readers may remember the Mugwumps, but this new third party will have numbers and financial clout that will make it a force to contend with.

So while many of us were horrified when our most powerful military leader, General Peter Pace told Congress that queers are immoral, light bulbs went off for the evangelicals. An idea was born. President General Pace. After all, if you have the courage and moral fortitude to take a very public stance against abominations, you've got the right stuff for leader of the free world.

As you've likely heard by now the Evangelicals are disgusted with the Republican offerings for 2008. George W. Bush set the bar way too high, almost as high as an axle in a trailer park. Giuliani? Does drag. Romney? Christian wannabe.

Under the divine guidance of Dr. James Dobson, 50 of America's leading vermin Evangelical leaders convened last week to discuss the formation of a fundamentalist Christian political party that would take on the misguided Republicans and the queer-loving Democrats.

But where to turn? Jesus' main bitch, Jimmy Dobson was rolling naked in his $138 million annual income (he likes to be paid in cash) wondering what to buy next. A private jet? A new $39,000 wardrobe for his wife from Chico's? The White House? And Jesus gave him the answer. Right there on the old telly, General Peter Pace instructing Congress that homosexuals are abominations.

An important thing happened in the gay world today: The New York Times told the shocking story of what happens when homophobia collides with gay men and lesbian as they grow old and begin to navigate health care systems for the elderly. It's not a pretty story, and it's one that has barely been told.

What is particularly heartening is that the Times chose to put this story and a photo on the front page of the print edition. The article is also the second most-emailed story on their Web site today.

NYT reporter Jane Gross uncovers the hardships that many of the estimated 2.4 million GLB folks over 55 face, from discrimination in health care facilities by both staff and non-gay residents, to real-life health consequences like depression and suicide that can result when there are no gay safety nets in place to help an older population that is often unable to defend itself against anti-gay people and institutions.

The article does explore some successes where programs and facilities have made room for, or been created especially for, gay seniors. These are still the exception, however.

There are useful links and resources on the Times' site for this story, but the most moving thing is a slide show narrated by Fred Riley and Emile Dufour, a gay couple who have been "together for two decades and married in 2004. But their default position, should they need nursing care," the article says, "will be to hide their gayness, as they did for half a lifetime, rather than face slurs and whispers."

"As strong as I am today," Mr. Riley said, "when I'm at the gate of the nursing home, the closet door is going to slam shut behind me."

Read the entire NYT article here, and click the image below to see and hear Fred and Emile's story.

Comedy is surely a subjective thing. I never found America's Funniest Home Videos funny in the least, and yet it was one of the most popular shows on television for years. It had the word "funny" right in the title, but to me, it was just a series of unfortunate accidents caught on tape and set to wacky music. Subjective.

For years I did stand-up and never mentioned the fact that I was gay. My generic, gender neutral material was funny enough to get me work, but after about 12 years of doing jokes about my grandmother, lunging tweezers and stupid Southern people I couldn't stand stand up anymore. I quit.

The most fun I ever had as a stand-up was when I was working for RSVP cruise lines. My idea of heaven is being on a cruise ship stage with an audience full of happy, tanned, gay men. RSVP knew I was gay and their audience knew I was gay, but they didn't hire a gay comic. They hired a comic who happened to be lesbian. I was not so lucky with the Dinah Shore entertainment organizers. They politely told me I wasn't "lesbian enough". So I'm a lesbian who isn't lesbian enough working on a cruise ship full of gay men doing straight stand up. I am a queer queer. Sorry, a QQ.



I quit doing stand-up because I couldn't be myself. I couldn't be gay and funny and get enough work to pay my bills. Remember, I wasn't gay enough for the lesbians. I've actually had lesbians walk out on my show. Why? I do a Powerpoint presentation called "Debunking Gay Myths and Stereotypes", and the first slide that appears is, "Lesbians are humorless". I stand there for a few moments looking confused and then say, "I got nothing" and move to the next slide. Some lesbians are furious over this, but to me, a lesbian comedian, it's hilarious on a number of levels.

Some will kick around the new British hate crime proposal as a stellar violation of free speech and freedom of religion, but in an evolved society based on reason and responsibility, when language is used to incite violence, persecution and oppression of a class of people, it is as damaging as sticks and stones no matter how you cut it.

Under a new proposed British law, a number of United States politicians, including members of Congress, prominent members of the American clergy and certain members of the United States military would be subject to up to 7 years of imprisonment. Fred Phelps would probably end up with a dozen consecutive life sentences.

The British government has announced its intention to make it a crime to incite hatred because of a person's sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation. The offense will carry a maximum sentence of seven years.

Last night the British Justice Secretary outlined the plans to members of parliament. The details of the measure are yet to be finalized but the Secretary will insert a clause to create the offense when the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill, which had its second reading last night, reaches committee stage.

Under the proposal it would be considered a crime to incite hatred against homosexual, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered and heterosexual people. The Secretary explained to the London Times, "It is a measure of how far we have come as a society in the past ten years that we are now appalled by hatred and invective directed at people on the basis of their sexuality. It is time for the law to recognize this."