Libby, Libby, Libby

I'm not losing any sleep over the Libby commutation. Another gift to the Democrats in '08 is how I see it.

Multiple wrongs do not make a right. At the same time, things like Bill Clinton's Mark Rich pardon set the stage for this to be seen as politics as usual. And it is things like the Mark Rich pardon which make the prospect of the Clintons in the White House less appealing to me than the Obamas.

And my monthly donation goes to

It really seems to be Hilary or Obama. And the way the Republicans keep tying the weight of the Libby commutation to their ankles, given the lack of a really strong candidate on the Republican side, and the disgust on both sides with the Bush administration, I find it hard to believe there will be much of a contest--except between she who would be the first woman president and he who would be the first African-American president.

The Clintons are the smartest politicians ever, and the amazing relationships Hilary has formed in the Senate would help her be an effective president. You have to be a master of politics to be an effective president.

Or extremely popular. Obama has appeal to those in both parties, and he does not reek of sleazly politics and opportunism the way the Clintons do. Clinton is disliked by so many; she would unify the "vast right-wing conspiracy" folks and the prospects of four or more years of polarization would be great.

Obama seems truly dedicated to cleaning up the system, which I don't see happening with another Clinton in the White House. And I don't know if I'm more scared or excited by the thought of Bill Clinton as first spouse.

Both Clinton and Obama support civil unions, taking fairly weak stances against "marriage." I'm for incrementalism as the more pragmatic course, so while on a personal level I find the idea of settling for civil unions dissapointing, politically I am optimistic that they will lead sooner than later to full, unequivocal marriage rights.

I've given it a good deal of thought. If Hilary gets the nomination, I'll support her. But I just signed up to give money montly to the Obama campaign.

Queer Sighted

I just discovered Queer Sighted, a multi-authored, diverse blog. Lots of cool links (and plenty of advertising). Richard Rothstein fumes today over the sense of entitlement shown by heterosexual culture as it decides what citizenship rights it will grant us queer folk. He gets the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence confused (see the comment I added to his post), but that can happen to the best of us when blinded by conservative-triggered fury.

Catchy name?

The title of this blog is accurate, if boring and perhaps a touch narcissistic. I doubt anyone actually reads it, but if you do, and you have an idea for a more imaginative, catchy title, let me know. "Queer Slant." "Assimilationist Perspectives." "In a Handbasket."

Something. Anyything!

Tax Me More. Cover Everyone.

Andrew Sullivan writes

I grew up with socialized medicine, and I know what a disaster it is. It's coming, of course. You can feel it. Bush paved the way. The golden era of American medicine and research will soon cede to more and more state control. It will exchange a great deal of its excellence for more access for more people. That's the bargain most democracies make.

There are people I love and care about with no health insurance. Mostly low-income, mostly self-employed, and many of the ones I know personally work in the arts, as part-time college faculty, etc.

And I know a lot of people, including myself, who remain in a full-time job they may not care for (I love much about my job, especially the teaching, and yet the negativity and pettiness that seems an inevitable part of academic life seems intolerable at times) or want to leave, stay in it to maintian health insurance for themselves and especially their dependents.

I know socialized medicine would bring with it many problems. But I'd rather pay some higher taxes and know that the people who can't get health insurance, and who can't pay the often higher-than-what-insurance-companies-pay-providers fees, are covered.

Wal-Mart

Wal-Mart is eliminating its funding of national LGBTQ groups, while continuing support for its LGBTQ employees. National groups are being pretty understanding, according to the article, but many individuals feel hurt and, it seems, betrayed.

Wanda Sykes on Gay Marriage

Just to clarify,

I'm in favor of same-sex marriage, called marriage. Thinking pragmatically, the introduction of civil unions could, in some states, be an appropriate and helpful first step, and avoid a constitutional showdown. Which will come eventually, I'm sure. But it would be nice to put it off until the Supreme Court has a different balance.

Tide turning in favor of equality?

I'm delighted, of course, that the Massachusetts anti-gay marriage amendment didn't make it to the ballot, and that some day I might be able to be legally married there--it's a state I loved since spending a summer studying at Tanglewood almost 30 years ago. And New York is getting in on the act as well, or at least moving towards it. The State Assembly passed a pro-gay marriage bill yesterday after an emotional debate. The bill is being blocked in the Senate by its majority later, but sooner or later it, or a similar bill, will get through. Nothing is as powerful as an idea who's time has come, Victor Hugo pointed out long ago.

Andrew Sullivan puts it well:

The reason the civil rights movement for gay equality under the law has been so successful so swiftly is because gay people have an army of allies: our families. Among the most powerful advocates in particular are relatively conservative families of gay people.

Giuliani on civil unions

Rudi Giuliani has finally clarified his views on various issues including abortion and gay rights. He's for civil unions, not same-sex marriage.

I have great respect for those campaigning for full marriage rights, and I am in favor of them. But I've always thought that from a pragmatic point of view the best way to achieve them is through civil unions as a first step. The word "marriage" is so polarizing, especially at a time in which Christian nationalists have had so much influence. "Civil unions" is less threatening to those in the middle. Once it's been demonstrated that "marriage light" (as some dismissively refer to civil unions) doesn't bring catastrophic consequences, it will be easier to rename them.

This made me sick

Nothing in recent weeks has made me feel as physically ill as this Southern Voice story about the six-year old girl whose adoption had been given the highest endorsement by all authoirities, as well as the girl's birth mother, yet was halted by an anti-gay Georgia judge when he found out the mom-to-be is a lesbian. It's one of the clearest examples yet of the need for legal same-sex marriage, and for other case or positive law giving full parenting rights to LGBT adults.

I defy anyone other than the most fanatical idealogue to consider the facts as presented and find an a way to argue that what has happened could have done anything other than traumatize all concerned, especially the girl.

Gays in the military? (Maybe) the time has come,

says former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. John Shalikashvili in a piece in today's New York Times.

Last year I held a number of meetings with gay soldiers and marines, including some with combat experience in Iraq, and an openly gay senior sailor who was serving effectively as a member of a nuclear submarine crew. These conversations showed me just how much the military has changed, and that gays and lesbians can be accepted by their peers.

This perception is supported by a new Zogby poll of more than 500 service members returning from Afghanistan and Iraq, three quarters of whom said they were comfortable interacting with gay people. And 24 foreign nations, including Israel, Britain and other allies in the fight against terrorism, let gays serve openly, with none reporting morale or recruitment problems.

I now believe that if gay men and lesbians served openly in the United States military, they would not undermine the efficacy of the armed forces. Our military has been stretched thin by our deployments in the Middle East, and we must welcome the service of any American who is willing and able to do the job.

As I discussed in the previous post, these sexual-orientation things are a generational matter. In the 13 years or so since "don't ask, don't tell" was put into place, we've come a long way. At DePauw University, where I teach, it's now pretty much the norm that fraternities welcome openly gay pledges, when even 10 years ago the opposite was true.

Straight teenage men have discovered that they can have warm, close, and even physically affectionate, yet non-sexual, friendships with openly gay friends. Straight and gay men can be friends, and, yes, even take showers together after gym class or playing sports without horrible sexual tension.

What always seemed silly to me about the showers argument was that in nudist subcultures in this country and others, people of all generations have discovered that once you get used to it, being naked doesn't make a situation any more or less sexual than it would be with clothes on. Long ago I read an article on nudists in which a teenager said it was even harder to "get the clothes off" someone in a nudist colony than in clothed communities.

There's another, probably more important force at work here as well (nothing is more important than fairness, of course, but I think this is what will be the deciding factor in changing the policy). From the military perspective, there's really no choice than to end the ban on LGBTQ people serving openly in the military. Why? There are no longer any truly significant societal repercussions for being gay.

Which means that if the draft is reinstituted, which seems less and less improbable as the Iraq situation deteriorates and we face possible conflicts with Iraq and North Korea, there's no disincentive to avoid compulsory military service by claiming to be gay. No need to escape to Canada if you can just say you are turned on by other guys, when employers not only couldn't care less that you got a draft deferment for being gay, but also would give your same-sex partner health and dental benefits.

That's what is going to end this silly policy. With relatively small, peacetime all-volunteer armed services, the resistance to change might still be too intense to overcome. But the top people in the Pentagon must be thinking about a potential draft if we face multiple crises, and the spectre of a virtually unlimited number of young women and men claiming to be gay has got to be a frightening one.

Edwards: Marriage Coming, Just Not Yet

I saw a bit of an interview with John Edwards and his wife the other day; I don't remember now which network it was on---probably CNN. I came upon it just as a discussion of same-sex marriage was coming to an end. Mrs. Edwards was explaining, as I understood it, that one of their teenage children had canvassed other kids of senators and congressmen, both Republicans and Democrats. And virtually every one of those kids thought same-sex marriage would be a non-issue once they were adults (non-issue as in non-controversial and accepted). An issue, both Edwards seemed to agree, that was going to resolve itself on a generational basis. But John Edwards says he is "not there yet."

Not there yet.

I don't see how anyone advocating same-sex marriage could get elected president--yet. So it's fine with me that he's taking the position he is, which is that acceptance of same-sex marriage is self-evidently something coming, but the country, like himself, isn't quite ready for it.

I do think he's right--it's much more a generational issue than a political-party issue. Especially now that the Republican party is splintering, with conservative evangelicals losing their stranglehold and moderates becoming more assertive.

Many Young Republicans at DePauw are in favor of same-sex marriage. And I see an increasing number of straight young evangelical Christians for whom sexual orientation is no big deal. As they know more and more openly LGBTQ people, the fact that some people are naturally, intrinsically attracted to the same sex is something they are comfortable with. LGBTQ people are no longer the other; they are part of us. So being personally accepting of, and comfortable with, their same-sex attracted peers is becoming the default mode. And the same thing happens with same-sex relationships.