Dogged Blog

Queerly Beloved

It looks like Kevin and Scotty got married last night. I know because I saw it on YouTube!

If you don't know what I'm talking about, that's okay, because I don't actually watch "Brothers and Sisters" either,  although I think that their proposal scene may be the most romantic thing I've ever watched totally out of context.

I also wrote a lengthy history of same-sex weddings on TV and film over on AfterElton.com:

When Kevin and Scotty marched down the aisle Sunday night on ABC's Brothers and Sisters, it marked the first same-sex wedding of a series regular in the history of American network television. But even when the field is expanded to include cable and British television, its on-bended-knee proposal and family wedding will still be one of only a very, very few same-sex weddings ever shown in a scripted drama or comedy on the small or the large screen.

In fact, excepting a handful of documentaries, one mockumentary, and the increasingly gay-inclusive folks on reality TV, scavenging for same-sex weddings in the media requires a lot of detective work. Finding those that depict genuine marriages between two people in love where no one is left standing at the altar requires a magnifying glass. And if you want to count only legal weddings, without Canada, there'd be nothing at all.

Full article, with lots of photos and video clips, here.

GLAAD Media Awards in San Francisco

The interviews and tons and tons and tons more photos by KT will be on AfterEllen.com and AfterElton.com next week, but since I mentioned blow-drying my hair and picking out shoes to go to the 19th Annual GLAAD Media Awards, I thought I'd show you how it all turned out.

Here is me, interviewing Sharon Stone, who was honored with the Vanguard Award, "presented to media professionals who, through their work, have increased the visibility and understanding of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community."

I think I'm going to stop wearing high heels to interviews, though. In addition to having to stand for THREE AND A HALF HOURS, I was taller than just about everyone, with the possible exception of David Bromstad.

Do you ever just sit there completely unable to think of any kind of title for a post?

So, I'm getting ready for the 19th Annual GLAAD Media Awards in San Francisco, which I'll be covering this evening for AfterElton.com/AfterEllen.com. KT is coming along to take pictures even though neither Lucy Lawless nor Renee O'Connor will be there (which, by the way, is COMPLETELY WRONG).

But as I was blow drying my hair (wasn't that a brilliant segue?), I realized I'd been ranting to myself about something.

I've tried hard not to give in to the Hillary-hate, for a few reasons.  One, a couple (literally) of people I care about support her candidacy. I don't know why they do; we've made the decision not to discuss it, although when we did, I don't think any of us knew how long this thing would drag on. Two, I happen to believe with Yoda that hating hurts me more than the target of my hate, and I'm against hurting myself. Three, I'm sick to death of negative politics so I prefer not to engage in them.

The thing I was ranting about was prompted by a very nice, civil expression of opinion on the part of a black man that since Hillary Clinton is not, in his view,  very feminist, certainly policy-wise no more supportive of women's rights than Obama or Edwards, white feminists must be supporting her because she's a woman.

And it was also prompted by the statements I've read (even though I try to avoid places where such things are said) that black people are only voting for Obama because he's black.

Well, newsflash for everyone: Both things are a load of crap. If all it took was being black to get the black vote, Alan Keyes would have gotten the black vote. And if all it took for women to support a candidate is that she be female, Elizabeth Dole would have gotten the women's vote.

Actually, if both those things were in fact true, Shirley Chisolm would have been our President a long time ago, which would have been fine with me. But I digress.

I'm white, so I won't speak to why black people support Obama. And although I'm a 49 year old white lesbian and a feminist, I can't speak to why older white feminists might support Clinton, because I don't understand it and thus, can't explain it. My issues with her were, from the beginning, that she represents the type of corporate "Republican-lite" version of liberalism that I feel has choked the life out of the progressive movement in this country for decades now -- which is exactly why I never voted for Bill Clinton, either.

Edwards and Obama, like Howard Dean, on the other hand, despite having that Y chromosome, represented a more populist political approach that more accurately reflects my lifelong values.  And it is that approach that I feel will actually address the racial, gender, and class imbalances that are killing America, rather than just try to nudge the pendulum leftward for a little while.

Of course, the middle and working classes always do better under Democratic presidents, and the rich can take care of themselves, so I would of course rather see a Democrat, even a DLC Democrat, in the White House than a Republican. But when I do that math, it has nothing to do with gender or race. The first woman, the first black person -- those are SYMBOLS. They are meaningful and important, but in and of themselves, they aren't enough to earn my vote, nor, I believe, the vote of any thoughtful person.

So I suspect, although I don't know, that the number of white older feminists who are voting for Clinton just because she's a woman is as small as the number of black people who are voting for Obama just because he's black. Not zero, certainly, but absolutely not the driving force behind that choice.

Okay, must go pick out my shoes for tonight.

Hey, Democratic Presidential Candidates: Read this

Mildred Loving has passed away.

You might be going, Mildred Who? Huh?

Back in 1967, there was a very famous case that made it all the way to the US Supreme Court, known as Loving v. the State of Virginia. It was brought by a married couple, Mildred Loving, who was black, and her husband Richard, who was white.

They were married in Washington DC in 1958, because their home state of Virginia didn't allow black and white people to marry each other. After marrying, they returned to Virginia, where they were arrested in their bed in their own home, their marriage certificate hanging on the wall above them, convicted, and sentenced to prison. In his ruling, the judge said:

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.

They were given the chance instead to leave the state, and they took it. But that's all they took. The Lovings, with the support of the ACLU, sued all the way up to the highest court in the land. And when they finally won that case, every law in the country prohibiting inter-racial marriage was overturned.

So often,  people offer up  arguments about religion and God and nature and the "true meaning" of marriage to justify depriving me and other lesbians and gay men of our civil rights and freedom to marry the person we love. Those same people become incensed, infuriated, outraged when we compare our struggle to the fight for inter-racial marriage waged by the Lovings. But Mildred Loving saw it differently.

Via Daily Kos, from Positive Liberty, Mildred Loving's statement from 2007, on the 40th anniversary of the landmark decision:

(O)n June 12, 1967, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that, “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men,” a “basic civil right.”

My generation was bitterly divided over something that should have been so clear and right. The majority believed that what the judge said, that it was God’s plan to keep people apart, and that government should discriminate against people in love. But I have lived long enough now to see big changes. The older generation’s fears and prejudices have given way, and today’s young people realize that if someone loves someone they have a right to marry.

Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don’t think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the “wrong kind of person” for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people’s civil rights.

I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard’s and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about.

Obviously she wasn't a political person, because apparently no politician in this country-- not John Edwards, not Hillary Clinton, and not Barack Obama -- believes she or he can say what Mildred Loving said and still get elected President. I've been waiting for the day that's no longer true all my life.

Thank you, Mildred Loving, for letting me be part of your vision of  justice. Rest in peace.

Feeling a little bitter, are we?

I still don't understand why the media people are angry or upset at what Rev. Wright said in any sermon or speech he ever gave. Do I agree with every single word he uttered? No, but I've been known to argue with myself about stuff; is there anyone alive I agree with on everything? Absolutely not.

It's been suggested (that's what journalists say when we heard it somewhere but can't remember where) that white people Americans feel hurt and attacked by some of his comments on race. Well, welcome to my world.

For my entire fucking adult life I've been listening to religious leaders condemning me to the fiery pits of hell for being a lesbian. I've heard nationally prominent pastors with TV shows and the ear of presidents bluntly state AIDS is "God's punishment on homosexuals" (note to right wing Christians: most people with AIDS are and were heterosexual. Your "god" has bad aim).

John McCain has courted, received, and bragged about the endorsement of virulent homophobe John Hagee, who said Hurricane Katrina was god's punishment on the City of New Orleans for planning a gay pride parade (see note above about aim, kthnx). He also doesn't like Catholics, Muslims, or the nation of Iran. And not so fond of women, either; in his book "What Every Man Wants in a Woman," he said, "Do you know the difference between a woman with PMS and a snarling Doberman pinscher? The answer is lipstick. Do you know the difference between a terrorist and a woman with PMS? You can negotiate with a terrorist."

So, I'm sitting around listening to this guy, this pastor of a Texas mega-church who has endorsed a grateful John McCain, this powerful and influential man, say:

"It [Gay marriage] will open the door to incest, to polygamy, and every conceivable marriage arrangement demented minds can possibly conceive. If God does not then punish America, He will have to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah."

And this:

"It is impossible to call yourself a Christian and defend homosexuality. There is no justification or acceptance of homosexuality.... Homosexuality means the death of society because homosexuals can recruit, but they cannot reproduce."

And this:

"The military will have difficultly recruiting healthy and strong heterosexuals for combat purposes. Why? Fighting in combat with a man in your fox hole that has AIDS or is HIV positive is double jeopardy."

Then there's another McCain endorser and a man he has called a "spiritual advisor," Rev. Rod Parsley. His enlightened view of the gays:

"Gay sexuality inevitably involves brutal physical abusiveness and the unnatural imposition of alien substances into internal organs, orally and anally, that inevitably suppress the immune system and heighten susceptibility to disease."

So, now the media everyone is all upset that Rev. Wright was mean to the poor widdle white people?

Boo fucking hoo.

Obama Advocate interview

One of the things that makes me want to scream and cry is that no presidential candidate in this country can be elected who supports full legal equality for lesbians and gay men. Not John Edwards, who I supported, not Howard Dean, who I supported, and not Barack Obama, who I support.

And not a whole bunch of candidates that I did not and do not support, either. Even a few I voted for.

Oh, and yes, I know Elizabeth Edwards came out in favor of equality. And if she runs, I'll campaign for her. But John didn't get any points for that.

Anyway, the Advocate did a in-depth interview with Obama and it was published today. Highlights:

The Advocate: Let’s start with what’s hot -- why the silence on gay issues? You’ve done only one other interview with the LGBT press. I know people wish they were hearing more from you.

Senator Obama: I don’t think it’s fair to say "silence" on gay issues. The gay press may feel like I’m not giving them enough love. But basically, all press feels that way at all times. Obviously, when you’ve got a limited amount of time, you’ve got so many outlets. We tend not to do a whole bunch of specialized press. We try to do general press for a general readership.

But I haven’t been silent on gay issues. What’s happened is, I speak oftentimes to gay issues to a public general audience. When I spoke at Ebenezer Church for King Day, I talked about the need to get over the homophobia in the African-American community; when I deliver my stump speeches routinely I talk about the way that antigay sentiment is used to divide the country and distract us from issues that we need to be working on, and I include gay constituencies as people that should be treated with full honor and respect as part of the American family.

So I actually have been much more vocal on gay issues to general audiences than any other presidential candidate probably in history. What I probably haven’t done as much as the press would like is to put out as many specialized interviews. But that has more to do with our focus on general press than it does on… I promise you, the African-American press says the same thing.

This is the part I found the most interesting:

The Advocate: Both you and your wife speak eloquently about being told to wait your turn and how if you had done that, you might not have gone to law school or run for Senate or even president. To some extent, isn’t that what you’re asking same-sex couples to do by favoring civil unions over marriage -- to wait their turn?

Senator Obama: I don’t ask them that. Anybody who’s been at an LGBT event with me can testify that my message is very explicit -- I don’t think that the gay and lesbian community, the LGBT community, should take its cues from me or some political leader in terms of what they think is right for them. It’s not my place to tell the LGBT community, "Wait your turn." I’m very mindful of Dr. King’s “Letter From Birmingham Jail,” where he says to the white clergy, "Don’t tell me to wait for my freedom."

So I strongly respect the right of same-sex couples to insist that even if we got complete equality in benefits, it still wouldn’t be equal because there’s a stigma associated with not having the same word, marriage, assigned to it. I understand that, but my perspective is also shaped by the broader political and historical context in which I’m operating. And I’ve said this before -- I’m the product of a mixed marriage that would have been illegal in 12 states when I was born. That doesn’t mean that had I been an adviser to Dr. King back then, I would have told him to lead with repealing an antimiscegenation law, because it just might not have been the best strategy in terms of moving broader equality forward.

That’s a decision that the LGBT community has to make. That’s not a decision for me to make.

The Advocate: Is it fair for the LGBT community to ask for leadership? In 1963, President Kennedy made civil rights a moral issue for the country.

Senator Obama: But he didn’t overturn antimiscegenation. Right?

The Advocate: True enough.

Senator Obama: As I said, I think the LGBT community has every right to push for what it thinks is right. And I think that it’s absolutely fair to ask me for leadership, and my argument would be that I’m ahead of the curve on these issues compared to 99% of most elected officials around the country on this issue. So I think I’ve shown leadership.

Read it all here.

Love and marriage: Who decides?

Today, the California State Supreme Court heard arguments from those in favor of marriage equality, and those against it. As Equality California puts it:

The core of this case is about whether we, as LGBT individuals, should be allowed to marry the person we choose, or whether the government gets to make that decision for us. It is about whether we will finally be afforded true equality under California law.

Attorneys Shannon Price Minter of the National Center for Lesbian Rights and Therese Stewart representing the City of San Francisco, along with lawyers from the ACLU, Lambda Legal, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, and the law firms Heller Ehrman, LLC and the Law Office of David Codell,  "eloquently made the case that domestic partnership is not equal to marriage and does not conform to the California Constitution's mandate of equality":

The State tried to argue that this inferior, separate and unequal status is somehow sufficient, that providing us with less-than equality was somehow actually equality, and that discrimination could be justified by tradition. Then, the right wing, anti-LGBT organizations did their usual hateful and mean-spirited song and dance, arguing against all evidence that we are inferior parents and should be denied our rights. Shannon and Terry did a terrific job rebutting the arguments of the State of California and the right-wing groups.

And you can watch it here.

I'm a fourth generation Californian, and if my state does a New York on me, yes, I'll cry. I might even spend a few days sobbing hysterically and in the fetal position under my blankets, hugging my dogs.

But after I cry, I'll get seriously angry.

I guess we'll know in 90 days.

It never changes

I'm a fairly eloquent person. I've been known to change people's minds with my words. There are those who consider me pretty persuasive.

But every single time I try to write about how I feel as a lesbian American in a country full of people who have rights I'm denied, and who feel perfectly justified in pontificating about the wrongness of all the ways that I'm going about getting my rights, I lose my ability to articulate my beliefs in one gigantic explosion of FUCK YOU.

I don't know how to end this post.

The Closet's Last Champion: Bill O'Reilly

There are very few articles I've ever worked as hard on as this one. Or felt so slimed while researching.

It's a look at Bill O'Reilly's attitudes toward lesbian/gay issues that I wrote for AfterElton.com -- so, okay, not exactly the kind of fun experience I had researching gay and lesbian clips in the Daily Show archive. But you know, a girl's gotta pay her shoe bill somehow:

It’s easy to call Fox News personality Bill O’Reilly a hypocrite, mostly, of course, because he is. He oozes concern for the plight of queer teenagers while doing his level best to make sure the world remains a dangerous place in which to grow up gay. He pontificates on the sanctity of the church while being sued by a former producer who claimed he whispered dirty fantasies to her over the phone. And he shakes his fist in defense of truth, justice, and the American way while repeating stories that are false.

But there’s one way in which O’Reilly shows a remarkable consistency. Whether on his nightly show The O’Reilly Factor on Fox News, his interviews on other people’s shows, or his radio program, the ideology of the closet permeates nearly every word about homosexuality that comes out of Bill O’Reilly’s mouth. He may describe himself as a moderate because he doesn’t want to see gay people bashed, imprisoned, or fired from our jobs, but the truth is, he just wants us to shut up, and doesn’t hesitate to say so.

The rest is here.

The craptastic ending to a craptastic day

It's not like I thought he gave a damn about my rights. I knew he didn't.

It's not even like I didn't know he was going to do this. But hey, I'm a fourth generation native Californian, and my governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, just told me that while he totally believes "that all Californians are entitled to full protection under the law and should not be discriminated against based upon their sexual orientation," he's still vetoing the marriage equality act passed by both the California House of Representatives and the State Senate.

He says he thinks the voters should decide if I'm equal to them or not.

Well guess what, voters? I don't care what you think. I'm a citizen of California and of the United States and I really refuse to accept a second class of citizenship based on the gender of who I love just because of your prejudice.

I've had a terrible, horrible, miserable day and I'm on the thin edge of using a lot of ugly language right now, so maybe I'll just say goodnight.

But hey, Arnold? I'll be back.