What An Ass!

I ran across a post about Freedom to Marry Week -- Mombian has a list of them with links -- that really boggled my mind with its stupidity.

Seems there's this bi-identified gal who's angry that the term "gay marriage" somehow excludes bisexuals.

What?

First of all the term "marriage equality" is used just as frequently as "gay marriage." Second, you might understandably wonder why our bi gal is so upset. After all, if she marries a man then she doesn't have to worry about marriage equality. And if she marries a woman she's part of a same-sex couple and will naturally want to have the protections that marriage equality may engender. Right?

Wrong. The bi-gal objects because -- as she puts it -- just because two women are a couple doesn't make them -- pardon me -- a lesbian [or gay] couple, and that's why she's in a dither. That's why she won't support gay marriage (or, presumably, marriage equality). Just because she may someday want to marry a woman doesn't make her, like, a yucky dyke. [Admittedly, she doesn't come right out and say that or use that term but that's definitely the inference I got. And they say bi's are never homophobic. Bullshit! For those who may be unaware of this some bi-identified individuals feel they are entirely separate from -- and sometimes superior to -- gay people.]

Now I understand that she feels invisible or excluded or something but to not support gay marriage, which would benefit not only gays but -- yes -- same-sex bisexual couples as well (whether it's one or both partners who consider themselves bi)! Does that make any sense at all? Does she seriously think any gay person would consider her an ally? Does she think her attitude will make people take her or the bi-cause she espouses seriously? The term gay marriage or even same-sex marriage is convenient and easy and hardly meant to oppress anybody who loves or desires a member of their own sex, which -- as far as I know -- bisexuals frequently do. So what's the fucking problem?

Frankly, I don't think this gal is going to get a lot of support, even from the bi community (except for a few homophobic dim wits). Most intelligent bisexuals recognize that when they are in same-sex relationships the world pretty much sees them as gay (and what the hell is wrong with that?) and they don't necessarily get hysterical about it. Some bi's strongly identify with gays and others would rather shoot themselves than be considered "monosexual" (although it's usually being thought homosexual that bothers them, not heterosexual. Wonder why?)You can bet that this gal probably wouldn't object half as much to being called one half of a straight couple when she's out with a boyfriend.

But I've often said that some bi's suffer from internalized homophobia, even if it's not politically correct to say so.

Way to go, gal. Show your support for homosexuality, gay people, lesbians, alternative lifestyles, and so on by acting like a fucking bigot.

Bisexuals have far more to worry about from the religious right than they do from gays, some of whom have supported bi-rights for decades.

This gal calls herself, if I remember correctly, cowtown bi.

I think cowpie bi might be more appropriate.

What an ass. If she decides to leave the GLBT movement, I doubt if it will be much of a loss.

FREEDOM TO MARRY WEEK

A quick post and a reminder that February 8th to February 14th is Freedom to Marry Week.

You can get more information here.

Marriage equality is as much about equality as it is about marriage. Frankly, while I can understand why bigoted Republicans have problems with gay marriage -- and gays in general -- I'm not exactly thrilled with supposedly liberal democrats (yes, I include Obama and Clinton etc.) who are presumably gay-friendly (or so we think) but who don't support Full Marriage Equality. Yes, maybe in some cases they want to take small steps and are thinking of their more narrow-minded constituents, but now that Obama is in office we'll have to see what happens (Rick Warren, anyone?)

Forgive me if I'm cynical, but I've been around the block a few times. Forty years since Stonewall and there's still so fucking far to go. Still, I have to remember that in the days right after Stonewall the idea of gay marriage would have been inconceivable.

So maybe there's reason to hope after all.

We'll see.

Gay Activists Alliance

Now that we've lost the battle with Proposition 8, and others as well, I've noticed a lot of talk over the Internet about getting back to the kind of gay militancy that existed in the seventies and eighties. It's being said that the polite approach of modern-gay GLBT groups just isn't working, despite the fact that such groups have undoubtedly done much good.

When I was in New York's Gay Activists Alliance -- I ran the media committee for several years through various regimes (I even pretty much ran it when I was ousted once) -- no one in the gay movement received a salary (except maybe some people in the budding National Gay Task Force), and there were no fancy cocktail parties. [That's me above on the left just before GAA days -- the enemy, time, in us all, as Tennessee Williams put it in Sweet Bird of Youth. I've often said that being a gay activist made all my hair fall out!]

Activists in those days were not professional gays; they were dedicated human rights advocates who cared so damn much about making a difference that they neglected careers, love lives, went hungry, pretty much turned their whole lives over to their dedication to Gay Liberation. (Well we did get laid now and then, and I remember many companionable nights in Boots and Saddle and elsewhere. And it's not true that activists have no sense of humor --we actually laughed quite a bit. )

Don't get me wrong. I think it's great that today's gay activists can actually make a living at doing what we all did for free back when the dinosaurs roamed the earth (at least that's how some of today's activists make us older people feel). But when you're doing it for a living, maybe the dedication isn't quite as pervasive, maybe after all it just becomes a job.

The Gay Activists Alliance was the country's first militant Gay Rights group. When I say "militant," I do not mean violent. We were not terrorists or zanies (although there were a couple of zany members). I'm not suggesting today that we get so angry that we start lobbing bombs. But I believe that the militant approach of GAA is needed more than ever. Maybe it will be "ordinary" gay men and lesbians and not the "professional gays,"who will undoubtedly make the difference.

I have fond memories of GAA (and a few bitter ones), and I'm intensely proud of my activities with the outfit. Many in the group saw the media committee -- and there were a great, dedicated bunch of people on the committee -- as simply the part of the group that would get out the news about GAA's activities. I saw it differently, rechristening it the media image committee. I felt that the way gays were portrayed in books, movies, plays and on television could make a big difference in how we were perceived, as people then and now learn a lot (often a lot of wrong things) from popular culture. Years later the group GLAAD (Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation) basically started out from the same idea and ran with it.

Some of the other members were unimpressed."Who watches television?" they'd say. Millions of people, I'd rejoinder. One episode of All in the Family could educate more people (rightly or wrongly) than a hundred zaps or a thousand picketers. Monitoring our image was to me and others an extremely important thing to do. We organized protests against homophobic movies such as Cruising, Windows and A Different Story. The press releases we sent out about the films were quoted in reviews and elsewhere in the New York Times and other papers. We communicated and met with producers of various TV shows and magazines that presented homophobic portrayals and material, and tried to educate authors, performers and others that there was much more to the gay experience than shame, negation, "perversity," murder, and suicide.

Not that I didn't enjoy the "zaps" or actions that we held. Infiltrating a meeting of the homophobic cult the Aesthetic Realists (who married off self-hating lesbians to self-hating gay men, a forerunner of today's "ex-gays") and passing out pro-gay literature to the members and observers. Disrupting a lecture given by "S.O.B.," the trio of homophobic psychiatrists Socarides, Ovesy and Bieber, who made a living by convincing gay men they were "sick"and needed (to pay thousands) to be treated. Again we passed out leaflets with the truth printed on them. And there were plenty of other zaps, pickets, and actions.

I was not in GAA from the first, so I missed the famous "firehouse" era and the pioneer activists who were active at the time (most of whom had "burnt out"by the time I joined a few years later). GAA was a rag tag bunch with a slovenly Lower East Side HQ when I first joined up, but by the time Anita Bryant had reared her ugly head with her "Save Our Children" campaign(which posited the moronic theory that gay men had to molest and recruit children to get more "members") in the late seventies, GAA membership had swelled to over 300 men and women. Not all members had the time to devote to the group or the movement, and it wasn't long before AIDS activism became the number one concern and GAA eventually disbanded in favor of groups such as ACT UP.

GAA -- or at least its brand of in-your-face activism -- is sorely needed today. I'm not saying gays should run around ranting uncontrollably or without a game plan, but should employ intelligent actions as GAA did to get the maximum effect. To tell people we just won't put up with homophobia anymore. When a comic tells a fag joke on TV -- and yes comics still do this, although they generally are smart enough not to actually use the word "fag" -- their next live appearance should be picketed. GAA never let homophobic wise guys put down gays without calling them on it.

There was the New York Post or News columnist Bill Reel, who was constantly making "fag" and "fairy" remarks in his column. He wouldn't return phone calls, so I sent him a letter telling him to come down to GAA HQ -- by this time we were in a big building on 9th avenue and 14th street -- and call me and the other members names to our faces. I told him exactly when and where we held our meetings. Not only did he never show up (not that I expected him to, since homophobes, like bullies, tend to be cowards), but he never even answered the letter. (A few years later, when New York was in a grip of a rise in crime due to a crack epidemic, he wrote in a Long Island paper how he never came into Manhattan anymore because he was too scared to get mugged. What a complete wuss. Even my middle-aged mother came into Manhattan to attend the theater or Lincoln Center! Not that women of any age can't be brave.)

The polite "cocktail party" activists have done as much as they can --or want to. Peaceful but firm protests by angry "ordinary" gays who are sick of waiting for their full rights can only complement the efforts of these "professional" gays with their inflated six figure salaries.

Much more on GAA in future posts. For now I'll recall a number of my GAA colleagues. I don't remember the names of all of them after these many years, but I certainly remember Fred Goldhaber and R. Paul Martin (who were both on the media committee); Brian O'Dell; Art Gursh; Joe Kennedy ("I'm a real man who likes real men") whom I rather idolized for a time and who organized some of GAA's most noteworthy zaps; David Thorstaad, who was president when I first joined ("I'm actually bisexual you know") and was quite a character; Seth Lawrence; David Wynyard ("I am ipso facto president of GAA"); my old pal Frank Richter (at least he and I co-produced and co-hosted a WBAI radio show with Wynyard and GAA member David Pike); the inestimable Larry Quirk; the lovable Wally Hoffmann; Tony Dolce; Bobby Drew; and others that I distinctly recall but whose names have become foggy in my memory. My apologies!

Movie: "The Gay Marriage Thing"

The Gay Marriage Thing. A film by Stephanie Higgins.

The debate over gay marriage and how it affects the gay community receives a warm, humorous and sympathetic treatment in The Gay Marriage Thing, an excellent new documentary directed by Stephanie Higgins. The film follows a young lesbian couple, Lorre and Gayle, who have been together for fifteen years, as they prepare to wed in Massachusetts. The two women have moved in with two elderly aunts who can no longer live on their own. As we see them discuss the particulars of their upcoming nuptials and reception with the aunts and each other, various individuals voice their opinions on gay marriage.

There’s the African-American Reverend Carlton Smith, who points out that it’s not him but the state who actually makes the marriage "official" in legal terms. Representing the anti-gay marriage side is Reverend Richard Weisenbach, who tells how he "loves" everyone in the most cloying terms but can’t congratulate two gay men – "great fellows" he "loves" – on their marriage because homosexuality is just plain wrong. Pro-gay representative Kathi Anne Reinstein tells how shocked she was to get virulent hate messages from people "whose lives are not affected by this at all."

One young woman on camera makes it clear that gay marriage opponents just don’t get it. She says that she knows that gay people can love each other, but if love is the only requisite for marriage, then why can’t she marry her mother or father or anyone she loved. She just can’t grasp the reality that gay people can have romantic feelings for one another just as straight people do. After she then claims that most gay people are not in relationships and are not monogamous (as if all heterosexuals are), Higgins cuts to shots of several gay couples who have been in committed relationships for decades.

Higgins allows gay marriage opponents their say; it’s not her fault if they’re clueless. As the bigots wave their vile, ignorant banners, we are reminded that gay marriage, like desegregation, is another important progression in basic human rights and freedom.

You can learn more about the film, including how to buy or rent/download it, at its website: www.thegaymarriagething.com. The film would be perfect to start off a discussion on this important issue in the home or classroom. Of special note, Ms. Higgins recently married her wife and honeymooned in Europe. "It was an amazing, exciting, emotional experience for everyone," says Higgins.

But "it was hard to learn in Italy that Prop 8 passed."

I have to say that I've been very surprised -- and a little dismayed -- by the lack of support that Ms. Higgins' film has been given by the New York gay media. Although a review was submitted to The New York Blade, it wasn't even posted to their web site. (Of course the Blade does not publish as often as it used to, has less space each issue, and its publisher is apparently having serious financial problems). When I queried the editor of Gay City News if he'd like to run an interview with the film's director, I never even heard back. Let's see -- here we have a film made by a member of our community about the issue that's being talked about the most -- gay marriage -- and neither paper can bother to cover it? Yet the Blade had room for a write up on the DVD of that awful old Boys in the Band (which is supposedly still "relevent" -- give me a break!) and Gay City News has room for a piece about Puccini's La rondine. (Now I'm a big opera fan and love La rondine, but the last I heard Puccini wasn't gay.) There's nothing wrong with covering the arts in a gay paper but why not cover The Gay Marriage Thing? I can't believe it's because the film was made by a lesbian instead of some hot young gay guy, so what's going on here?

Some People Just Don't Get It

Boston Legal craps out.

On tonight's episode of Boston Legal -- the series finale, and not a moment too soon -- two heterosexual male characters, Denny (William Shatner) and Alan (James Spada) get married.

Anybody really feel like watching this storyline considering what happened with Proposition 8 and so on?

Boston Legal has had a few pro-gay episodes in the past, but this one -- written by the producer David E. Kelley (pictured) comes off as something cobbled together by a liberal -- who like many liberals -- just doesn't get it when it comes to gays.

Frankly I'm sick of shows and movies that try to equate the platonic love between two heterosexual men with the romantic love between two gay men. [And yes, I do understand that Kelley was in part underlining the irony that the most significant relationship these two skirt-chasing heteros had was actually with each other.] I have lots of friends -- gay and straight, male and female, but for now let's stick with gay men -- whom I love and care about very much, but I would never consider marrying them. I have experienced romantic love and passion and know that it is very different from the love of platonic friendship. Non-romantic love, especially between a parent and child, can certainly run very deep, but it is a different experience altogether from romantic passion.

On the show Alan argues before a judge and snippily debates a gay activist who, rightly, finds the idea of these two straight guys getting married to be offensive, making a complete mockery of what marriage equality -- emphasis on equality -- is all about. Alan insists that having sex is not always a deciding factor in marriage, and that many people marry individuals that they do not love in the romantic sense. The judge adds that homosexuals often marry heterosexuals in passionless relationships, and sometimes gay men marry lesbians. "You wouldn't want the government telling them they couldn't do that, would you?' she asks the activist.

Of course this sentiment completely misses the point that the whole emphasis of gay liberation (including marriage equality) is to remove the stigma and shame that is still attached to being gay for those very people who wind up in those sham "mixed" marriages. Besides, even in cases such as those -- as well as cases where one person marries another for, say, financial gain -- at least one party has some romantic feelings for the other (for instance the straight wife of a husband whom she doesn't realize is secretly homosexual). In the case of Denny and Alan, neither party feels any romantic attachment to the other. But hey, they love each other, Kelley seems to say, so they're just a gay couple without the sex.

Wrong.

To be fair, Boston Legal is all about being irreverent, and the show has been playing up the brotherly love between the two men for quite some time now. They have had sexless sleepovers, for instance. Perhaps we're supposed to see these fellows as being so cool and secure that they can get married and have no problem with it, but it's hard to forget that Denny is a Republican who in one episode referred to a character as a "faggot, a total faggot." As is often the case with Boston Legal, the whole situation is completely contrived anyway. Denny wants the younger Alan to get his money, and could simply leave it to him in a will, but even the judge observes that a marriage will give them certain tax benefits. Chuck and Larry anyone?

So this is a mockery and nothing more. Even the supposedly more liberal Alan doesn't seem to understand what he's doing wrong. The gay activist says -- and the judge agrees (although she allows the marriage to take place) -- that this will only open the door to the kinds of excesses and stupidities predicted by the religious right. [Let me make it clear that gay marriage opponents argue that if gays can get married simply because they love each other, then why can't, say, a sister and brother, or mother and son, get married as well because, after all, they love each other too. Yes, they are that stupid.]

Gay marriage equality is being compared to the fight against interracial marriage years ago. One can't imagine Alan -- or David E. Kelley -- arguing during that period that if a white and black person could marry one another then two white male friends should be able to get married, too, because, well, love is love.

Yes, some people don't marry for love. And yes, there are sexless marriages. But I can bet that the vast majority of gay couples who line up in Massachusetts and hoped to line up in California to get married did feel romantic passion for each other and that most of them had a fulfilling sex life as well.

To say that the "love" between these two silly guys Alan and Denny (they chase after women so relentlessly and indeed pathetically at times that they come off like Don Juan homosexuals, but Kelley never had the guts to go into that) is similar to the romantic love between two gay men, two lesbians, or indeed a straight man and woman, is ludicrous. Besides, after what happened in California and elsewhere, who the hell wants to see a show where two straight guys get married when millions of gay people who truly love each other can't?

When it comes to gays, some people just don't get it and probably never will.

How sad that this sometimes applies to the purportedly gay-friendly as well as to the bigots.

Mixed Emotions

I have very mixed emotions, as many gays do, with the results of the recent elections.

One one hand, the democrats won, which is good, to say the least. We have the first Africa-American president -- also very good. And he is at least gay-friendly, although he doesn't support gay marriage and has too many evangelical-type friends to suit me. The main problem -- among many -- with the Republicans is their idiotic alliance with the religious right, their failure to understand the need to separate church and state. I hope Obama doesn't make the same mistake. Certain of his remarks during the whole mess when he had that homophobic, ex-gay gospel singer on his tour gave me the idea that on some gay issues Obama just doesn't get it. But that's true of most family men when it comes to us gays.

At least we have a better chance under the democrats of getting various gay rights bills and gay marriage bills passed. If the Republicans had won, we wouldn't have had any chance at all.

Still, whatever [relative] elation many of us feel over Obama's win is minimized by the passing of Proposition 8 in California, which bans same-sex marriage. While I appreciate that Obama always mentions gays and lesbians when he talks of Americans, we must keep in mind that religious family man Obama does not support gay marriage (which, I have said, is as much about human equality as it is about marriage).

Wayne Besen looks at the reality that many blacks do not support gay marriage or gay rights and are indeed homophobic, but he argues -- correctly, I believe -- that it is more about educational levels than race. His column on this makes for an interesting read. While I think an anti-gay "machismo" can affect even educated men, it does tend to be less educated males of all races who are externally or internally homophobic, and are -- if homosexual -- on "the down low." Still, many gays -- many of whom supported civil rights for blacks their entire lives and even worked hard for civil rights -- are disappointed that some members of this oppressed minority group are so willing to oppress another.

But as I have said before, rather than letting this engender inappropriate and equally hypocritical racist feelings in those of us who are gay and non-black, it is better to remember that their are many out and proud black gay people, and many straight blacks are very supportive of gay rights. Besides, think of the mixed emotions that many Americans who are both black and gay feel during this time.

Let's keep things in perspective.

Still, it's hard not to see the irony and feel just a bit bitter. The same day that the first African-American president is voted into office -- an historical occasion, long in coming -- gays are told by the passage of Proposition 8 and other bills that we are second-class citizens. that our lives and loves are unequal and our feelings don't matter.

In other words, the more things change, the more they stay the same.

Write to Marry Day

The fight for gay marriage is in reality a fight for equality. There have always been loving, committed gay couples-- many of whom have been together longer than many of their straight counterparts -- and gay couples deserve the same protections and privileges under the law that heterosexual couples have.

Sure I may snicker from time to time at modern-day gay couples who lust for the proverbial house with the white picket fence in the middle of the suburbs, not to mention 2.5 children -- it almost seems like an imitation of the conventional straight life I was raised in and longed to escape from -- but since I'm always yammering about the diversity of the gay community I have to say I'm all for everyone getting what they want whether it's my cup of java or not.

So I support gay marriage hands down. It won't automatically make some people easier with what we do in the privacy of our bedrooms, but it will bring us one step closer to equality.

Bloggers of all stripes and persuasions across the land are posting on or before October 29th to register their opposition to Proposition 8, which would amend California's constitution by banning sex-sex marriages. This would not only be a giant step backward, but would increase the likelihood of a national bill, such as that supported by the likes of Sarah Palin, opposing same-sex marriages.

In these days of an uneasy economy, there are those who might feel that gay marriage is not an important issue. I say that when the equality of several million Americans is called into question, then that certainly makes it an extremely important issue.

It goes to the very heart of the bedrock upon which this nation was built. Freedom from intolerance, equality for all. It is as much of paramount concern as the ongoing civil rights struggle for African-Americans, not to mention the fight for women's rights and against anti-Semitism and all other forms of blatant discrimination.

Hence this post in honor of "Write" to Marry Day.

Nastiness in the Blogosphere

I've been a bit appalled by the level of nastiness I see on GLBT message boards and blogs and I wondered if it was getting worse (due, perhaps, to the election year) and what other factors might be responsible. I contacted some prominent as well as lesser-known bloggers and well-known gay people (Wayne Besen, Andrew Sullivan, Michael Musto etc.) from all sides of the political spectrum for their responses and have written an article which I call "Nastiness on the Blogosphere." I think it contains some interesting opinions on the subject. [This was originally intended for the New York Blade, but since they've gone from weekly publication to bi-weekly they don't have as much room for general think pieces as opposed to hard news.]

On the gay web site queerty, a heated debate is going on as to whether a certain gay periodical has improved since the new editor has taken over, and if said editor is gay, straight or bisexual -- and if it matters. A diversity of opinions are expressed, so diverse in fact, that it’s as if the people posting are not only not part of any community, but are actually from separate planets. The comments become increasingly personal. One poster who is an actor is told that he’s too ugly and untalented to get a job. Another person, quivering with self-hate, leaves a message that reads "I’m not bisexual but I wish I were and I’d kick the asses of all the faggots who say it has to be one way or the other." The majority of posts, at least on this particular thread, are jarringly nasty.

What’s going on here? Is the level of viciousness on LGBT blogs and message boards increasing, and if so, why is it happening? There could be several factors to blame for all the in-fighting: 1.) different factions of the LGBT movement who have been lumped together for political reasons but who may not really relate to one another; 2.) Out and Proud gays versus in-the-closet gays who use the anonymity of the Internet to put in their two cents but who look at gay life very differently from out-of-the-closet gays; 3.) young gays versus older gays; 4.) Other, less obvious factors. The question was put to several bloggers.

Andrew Belonsky of Queerty says " I think it's primarily political differences - on queerty, at least. I don't think that blogs have made gays any nastier, no. There's always been infighting in every social community, so why should we be any different? That said, however, many commentators can get particularly cruel and ugly, which really isn't the most constructive activity unless you actually have a point."

Andrew Sullivan sees it a bit differently: "I'm afraid it has always been true that gays have viciously attacked other gays online." he says. "It gets personal very quickly. Some of it is classic minority group self-loathing; part of it is just classic gay bitchiness; part genuine outrage, especially at pretty useless gay political groups; and partly it's a function of very familiar patterns of varying outness. We really do need to get better at being calmer."

Andres Duque, who has a Gay Latino blog entitled Blabbeando [blabbeando.blogspot.com] says "Some bloggers engage in over the top demagoguery, sensationalistic arguments and shock tactics to engage their readership -- and increase traffic -- and some responses might react to that. Personally I prefer to stake a view without slandering or insulting others and try to be respectful of others who may disagree with my views and perhaps this is why I rarely get a negative or nasty comment on my blog. It might not be as titillating to some, but not sure that I want to attract readers who run on the latest scandal."

Aureliano DeSoto, Post-Doctoral Fellow in LGBT studies at Carleton College in Minnesota [americanqueer.blogspot.com], says "LGBT folks as well as everyone else, have very little sense of etiquette or really know, for that matter, how to articulate critical commentary in ways that are not ad hominem and personal. This might just be a general function of the coarsening of our larger public culture."

"From a socio-cultural perspective," DeSoto adds, "lesbians and gay men have engaged in sometimes quite vociferous debate over what, how, why, and who constitutes gayness, really from the Mattachine Society of the 1950s onward, when the question was whether gay people constituted a separate category of experience or were just sexually different ...The movement of these questions onto the Internet is just a continuation of conversations that used to mostly happen in community papers, newsletters, flyers, wheat-pasted manifestos, and at the bar.

"And I would say, for what it's worth, that LGBT people are avatars of Internet culture, so perhaps there is some greater meaning to whatever perceived increase of hostility and aggression [there is] on gay blogs. Generational differences and dimensions of outness do seem to be more prominent in online media, especially the latter, since for many the Internet is an anonymous space, and that has empowered ... closeted men who have no public expression of gay identity but an investment, sometimes quite conservative, in these questions -- not to mention their participation in sexual online cultures such as Manhunt or Craig's List."

"I think the Internet has always been a place where cowards become bold and attack anonymously," says activist and Truth Wins Out President Wayne Besen [waynebesen.com]. "What has changed, of late, however, are the issues - two in particular. The first is the presidential elections. There are many spiritually and emotionally empty people who live vicariously through candidates and wrap their identities around these leaders. They become larger than life - almost like Gods. So, if you criticize the candidate, these individuals take it as a personal sleight and react insanely over the Internet. I saw a glimpse of this when I criticized Obama over using "ex-gay" gospel singer Donnie McClurkin. The level of irrational Internet comments and e-mail was mind blowing. People really need to get lives - or at least get a grip."

"The second issue was the debate over including trans people in ENDA," says Besen. "From the standpoint of trans people - and many of their supporters - this was not just policy, but an existential question. If abandoned by the GLB community, they would have been left to fend for themselves. So, it was quite understandable that it got ugly, raw and personal. Were the trans people about to get shafted supposed to smile and take it? Sometimes it is important to throw down and duke it out. Much of this occurred on the Internet and it wasn't pretty - but, in the end, the fight may have been pretty important."

Some bloggers have had kinder, gentler experiences. Says Michael Musto, "I recently started a blog, "La Daily Musto," on villagevoice.com and the tone of the comments is generally upbeat. There’s some bitchiness, but generally in a good-humored way. So not all gay blogs elicit pure hate from their readers -- except whenever I mention Clay Aiken. But if there IS a rise in blog comment bitchiness, I’d say all of those factors [you mentioned] are involved. The anonymity gives people who generally can’t express themselves a chance to vent and to go overboard because they don’t have to suffer any consequences for it. And the different LGBT subgroups often resent each other (the "straight acting" ones often hate the out, femmy ones, and so on), and drag out their darkest biases which they probably would not trot out in public."

"This is a political year with much at stake," says Wayne Besen, "so there is a natural tendency for such attacks to multiply. Politics is about power and with this comes a brutal struggle, and this accounts for much of the nastiness online.

"I wouldn't get alarmed, as things ought to calm down in 2009."

Endangered New York City Nightlife?

In the past few months there as been much talk of an anti-nightlife campaign being waged in the city, with gay venues especially being targeted. Is this an exaggeration or are gay New Yorkers really in danger of losing a lot of their homo-friendly spaces?

Last March several clubs in Chelsea, including gay bars Splash and View, were raided, along with several non-gay establishments, a few of which held gay parties on occasion. Drugs were cited as the reason for the raids. Back then several owners of gay bars in Chelsea, as well as a representative of the New York Nightlife Association [NYNA] told The New York Blade that gays or gay clubs were not being targeted. Despite highly exaggerated accounts of the places being shuttered for good, most of the clubs were re-opened within days.

The problem was not just drug use, but the fact that residents of the area dialed 311 to complain of the noise generated by bar patrons lounging on the sidewalks to have a smoke. This is a problem for straight bars as well as gay. According to Robert J. Benfatto, Jr., the president of Community Board 4, which oversees the Chelsea area and determines which establishments will be granted liquor licenses, "The clubs can’t control the crowds once they leave the bar."

The situation was not helped when Splash and two other bars that had planned to hold Gay Pride events were again raided over Gay Pride weekend. The timing understandably engendered much suspicion and paranoia. However, Splash was the only gay bar out of the 13 establishments to be hit over that weekend. Nevertheless, given the negative history between gay bars and the police, gay activists are quick to investigate any possibility of discrimination.

Much of the controversy recently centered on the Roxy nightclub on West 18th Street. The

Roxy was not a gay place, but had a popular gay night on the weekends. Suspicions were fomented when the Roxy reapplied to Community Board 4 for a liquor license and the hearing was delayed on more than one occasion. On August 12th the application for a license was withdrawn by the club itself, and they will probably not reapply. Robert J. Benfatto, Jr. told me "it is my understanding that something happened between them and the landlord."

According to Benfatto, the problem with the Roxy and other clubs has little to do with an anti-nightlife attitude in Chelsea or anywhere else. "Years ago The Roxy was in a manufacturing area that was approved for big clubs. Re-zoning has turned the area into a residential neighborhood." It is no longer a good mix.

Many of the people who seethe when the noise level of the street smokers goes too high don’t necessarily have anything against nightlife and may even enjoy it themselves. It’s when they’re trying to sleep and have to get up early on weekdays to go to work that they reach for the phones. Some bar owners in Chelsea have gotten together to address the problems. One solution was to hire off duty cops to stand outside the bar in their uniforms and keep order. Unfortunately, the city doesn’t allow "pay detail" – the name of this program – for establishments that have liquor licenses, with the exception of large venues such as Madison Square Garden. As for the drug issue, the Roxy went so far as to hire undercover agents to make sure their employees weren’t dealing.

The New York City Council introduced a Nightlife Security Initiative to address some of the problems. Their suggestions included changing the shift of the cabaret unit of the police to last until 5AM instead of four, so that they could deal with the noisy flow of often drunken patrons coming from the bars. Responding to the death of bar patron Imette St. Guillen, who was killed by a bouncer with a criminal record at The Falls, bars were to do background checks on all employees – this was also supposed to help deal with the drug problems as well, which persist.

Nightlife – gay or straight – isn’t going away any time soon. Benfatto told me that "most applications that come before this board are approved. Very few are turned down." But the larger clubs with the noisy smokers and drug deals in the bathroom will have to take more of the initiative in policing their establishments and patrons – and cooperating with the police and State Liquor Authority – or the raids will undoubtedly continue.

As for the Roxy? The beloved club appears to be gone for good. However, some people aren’t willing to let it go. Or at least let our nightlife go without a fight. Ryan J. Davis, who headed a "Save the Roxy" campaign, told The Blade "We’ll be turning the 'Save The Roxy' nightlife movement -- and it is a movement, with over 300 people activated -- into a committee as part of the Jim Owles Liberal Democratic Club. There, we'll be able to provide oversight of New York City's Appointed Community Boards."

"Family" Men

The number of supposed "family men" who fool around sexually with guys is probably legion, but because there's only an occasional Jim McGreevey "scandal" outing these guys most of the public still thinks if a man's got a wife and kids he's straight.

Now let's talk about Paul Newman.

Years ago I tricked with a guy who said to me: "Paul Newman is gay."

"He is?" I said. "How do you know?"

He said: "I only say people are gay if I've had sex with them."

Now it's true that many people will say they have had sex with celebrities as a way of making themselves more fascinating and the like, but I found this guy completely credible. He was also an actor, one of the actors in The Boys in the Band, in fact, and I could certainly see him and Newman together.

Whether you believe this or not, if it's true, Newman would certainly not be the first family man who liked dick. Whether you want to call him a bisexual or a married homosexual, I wouldn't be surprised if, however he defined himself, he was attracted to men and suppressed it as much as he could because, after all, "fags" don't become superstars. In this Newman would not be the first or the last movie star to closet himself with a wife and children for the sake of a career. Newman was not known as a skirt-chaser. He built a private cottage for himself on his property which wife and children were not allowed to enter. If he occasionally indulged in his passion for men while presenting a heterosexual front, it would make him no different from tens of thousands of other men over the decades. It's ironic that he played the conflicted "Brick" in the film adaptation of Tennessee Williams' Cat on a Hot Tin Roof.

When it came to Gay Rights Newman could be quite contrary. On one hand, he and wife Joanne Woodward were liberals who presumably supported Gay Rights. Newman gave serious thought to playing the gay coach in the film version of Patrica Nell Warren's gay novel The Front Runner. On the other hand he decided to make the film Slapshot instead of Front Runner, and while the homophobia of the hockey players and fans in the movie was hardly unrealistic, the script also had him telling a woman that her son would grow up to be sucking dick (the old domineering mother creates faggots nonsense). He also taunted a hockey player that his wife was a "dyke, dyke, dyke!" which some dumb-ass New York Post critic, writing about the "best" scenes in Newman's movies, seemed to think was hilarious (it wasn't). Many gay activists thought Newman's guilt or fear over his own activities so panicked him that he chose the macho, homophobic role of Slapshot over the sympathetic gay role of The Front Runner coach.

Whatever the true story with Newman, his legacy will be that of the typical heterosexual family man whose wife and kids meant everything to him. Of course, men who love dick can certainly love their children and (in their own way) care deeply about their wives, but it's not the whole story. Had he come out at least as a bisexual -- had he only appeared in The Front Runner -- it might have done a lot of good but he chose not to. Those heterosexual privileges, even when he was wealthy and essentially retired, clearly meant too much to him. Some men in this position don't come out because they don't want to hurt or embarrass their wives, but in Newman's case I bet it was more about his image. So the "family man" legacy, no matter how much of it is pure bullshit, will go on until some biographer or other person with solid, substantiated information tells the world otherwise, and even then much of the world won't want to believe it. Paul Newman a fag! We in the Gay Community have made great progress in the past few decades, but sometimes I think we haven't made any at all.

One last thing about Newman. As co-author of a book on Robert Redford, I can tell you that the rumors of an affair between Newman and Redford, no matter how delicious some people may find it, appear to be completely unfounded, and I've never uncovered any substantiated gay rumors about Redford.