"The Right to be Boring" - The NYTimes questions whether gays seeking the right to marry are being radical or rather conservative, with choice quotes from Barney Frank (see above) and Larry Kramer ("I simply no longer want to fight for the right of people to have sex in the bushes.")

Wait and See - You wouldn't expect it, but Virginia has actually elected a relatively moderate congressional delegation. That's evident in this WaPo article covering the reluctance of Senators Allen and Warner and Representative Tom Davis (all prominent Republicans) to back the FMA. While none are pro-gay marriage (what politicans are, these days?) they disagree that a constitutional amendment is necessary and believe in proceeding "with caution."

Given that much of the Hill appears to be in the same defensive posture for now, this backgrounder on the legal complexities of allowing different states to have different definitions of marriage is quite timely. It suggests that Bush is probably right - legalization of gay marriage in some states will, perhaps sooner rather than later, require recognition nationwide. If so, the wait-and-see crowd will eventually back the FMA, unless we use the meantime to bring them around on the equality argument.

So how long have we got? Well, until the first judge strikes down the federal or a state DOMA. Those cases may even be filed based on the SF situation, even before "real" same-sex marriage licenses have been issued by Massachusetts. So I guess Scalia was right, too.

Safe - I have a terrible issue to raise: has the thought about security at San Francisco City Hall entered anyone else's mind? I haven't seen anything written about it, so this post has no links, but with throngs of gays and lesbians lined up on the sidewalk outside the Civic Center area, the spot seems like a really big target for a psycho. Of course, you can find those throngs of homos in SF all the time, although typically not not engaged in such a provocative activity. I worried about even broaching this subject at all, but then was concerned that not doing would be cowardly. Is anyone else aware of reassuring information that I haven't seen?

The TiVo Twitch - Hidden amidst this lackluster NYT review of a digital radio recorder is the first published mention I've seen of "the TiVo twitch." I can empathize completely with the newly diagnosed condition, common to DVR users, who

Having become addicted to the seven-second replay button ... are often seen reflexively pressing a nonexistent seven-second replay button, even when they're not in front of the television. Their brains helplessly fire the deeply ingrained "Let me catch that again" command when they're listening to the car radio, enduring a flaky cellphone connection or savoring a hard-won apology from a spouse.

It happens to me all the time while listening in the car, but I'm not so afflicted that I do it during live conversation.

Far East Bay - In today's San Francisco Chronicle, we hear from residents of the East Bay community of Oakley on their feelings about gay marriage. There is a mixture of opinions expressed, but it seems the intent of the article is to remind San Francisco readers that not everyone in the Bay Area shares their progressive views.

Some of the quotes in this piece are priceless, especially from Carol Oliviera. My intention is not so much to blast this woman's opinion as it is to blast her for being uncreative. The 60-year-old said "God said it is between Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve," which "cracked up the women sitting around the table, her weekly bowling partners." Such clever bumper sticker sayings don't really do a lot to engage in a meaningful conversation, do they? Come on, if you're going to make gay jokes, at least be a little more original. But clearly the joke was amusing enough to this crowd. It would be wrong of me to stereotype the kind of women of a certain age who bowl, but couldn't the Chron have found anymore more articulate to support the point of view in favor of the Amendment? I also fault the Chron for repeatedly relying on mentions of people wearing crosses as a means of encapsulating and representing their entire beliefs system.

The article closes with the reporter talking to two construction workers about the amendment issue. While the men had two different points of view, they agreed on one thing: "Their co-workers at the construction site aren't debating same-sex marriage at all. Ever. 'Nah,' said Smith. 'It's pretty much a San Francisco thing.'" It's critical to note that these words aren't coming from someone in Jefferson County, Kansas...they're coming from someone who lives within driving distance of San Francisco. However, the construction worker clearly feels a world away from the events transpiring one county (and a bay) over.

This reaction that gay marriage is a "San Francisco thing" makes me wonder if we should be afraid of the fact that fatigue is already starting to set in. Should we be optimistic that voters have other, more pressing matters on their mind and can't be bothered to expend much energy on caring about gay marriage? Or will people become so incensed that gay marriage feels like the only thing they ever hear about that they support the amendment just to make the discussion go away?

Must-Cringe TV - Goddamn, people are stupid! I was watching Airline again...something I really shouldn't do. Why should it be an emergency for the employees if you are too addlebrained to remember to bring your tickets? If you are deathly ill and require medication every two hours, what possessed you to pack it in your checked bags? If you require an oxygen tank at all times and checked out of the hospital AMA, why do you think your doctor would sign a letter saying you were well enough to travel via plane? The show is a train wreck, but it makes me appreciate the poor unsung heros who have to deal with idiot travelers every day.

Recall Redux - Might we have another recall situation on our hands in California? Actually, I think not. But some are threatening to targets Attorney General Bill Lockyer over his handling of gay marriages in San Francisco, saying that he hasn't acted quickly enough to put a stop to them.

Wednesday is the new Black - Longing for the nostalgia of the old 90210 parties of high school days, law students at UC Berkeley have formed a club for The OC. As someone who faithfully attended and hosted both 90210 and Melrose Place parties, I applaud the efforts of these future-lawyer Golden Bears.

Strategery - The NYTimes notes some very important political factors in amending the Constitution:

1. Percentage of amendments introduced in Congress which pass 2/3rds of both houses: about 0.003%.
2. Percentage of congressionally-approved amendments which pass 3/4ths of the states: 81.82%.

Translation: the Hill is where we draw the line in the sand. Another reason to be thankful for an evenly divided Congress, because we sure as hell can't trust our representatives to vote their consciences on this issue.

Star Power - While the President voices his support for the Federal Marriage Amendment, there haven't been any marquee names joining the organized campaign against the FMA. Even though an amendment faces high hurdles to pass, the effort to defeat this measure could be galvinized by a straight spokesperson, from outside the typical political fray.

Could someone have identified such a spokesperson already? This morning, I got an email forwarded from John's UVa gay alumni group. The intent of the message was encourage people to write to Oprah Winfrey and ask her to take a public position on the FMA, and to feature good news about gay families on a future show. The rational is that the talk show host is a person who is not only respected by millions of Americans, but also, as a woman and an African-American, is someone who would be sensitive to issues of discrimination.

Winfrey might be sensitive to the issue, but would her audience be? I was watching show yesterday, which featured the "gorgeous men of decorating" including two gay men: Nate Berkus and Thom Filicia. The women in the audience went wild for them, but in a oh-look-at-the-cute-stuffed-animal kind of way. Would they be catcalling if Thom was there to talk about gay marriage? Oprah has, in the past, supported the gays, having been featured on "the puppy episode" of Ellen. Even though her core audience may not be ready for a conversation about the FMA yet, it sounds like Congressional action may not be that far away. Therefore, doing a balanced program on the issues may be one way to provide the facts to a broader audience. And perhaps the women in this audience can convince their husbands to soften their stances on the issue. People in middle America are clearly living in fear of something they know nothing about and don't understand. Look at the piece in yesterday's USA Today: "May the Williams boy or girl go to a classmate's birthday party if that classmate has two mommies? Not likely. But, Julie Williams says, 'We'll pray on it.'" Polling data shows that they aren't the only ones who are unsure of how to reconcile their desire to be tolerant while also respecting tradition.

A Harvard Conservative Speaks - Law prof Mary Ann Glendon writes in support of the FMA, in today's WSJ. (Free registration required.)

What struck me most about this piece is how incredibly hollow the usual anti-gay rhetoric of "special rights" sounds in the context of the marriage debate. Even the most hidebound bigot would be hard pressed to claim, with a straight face, that extending the right to marry to gay couples means "granting special treatment to one group of citizens." How credulous does she think her audience is?

Frankly, the "special preference" Glendon describes is really just the group of preferences already granted to every straight married couple. Does that mean the good professor actually thinks marital rights should be extended, for example, to "all the people in our society who are caring for elderly or disabled relatives whom they cannot claim as family members for tax or insurance purposes"? (Not a bad idea, but no, she doesn't make the logical connection.) WSJ readers are a smart bunch so I doubt many will be convinced by such sloppy reasoning.

Blood and Guts - David Denby really, really didn't like the gory violence of The Passion of the Christ. I saw him debate Richard Roeper (who liked the film) yesterday on NBC's Today show, and I have to say the description of the Passion's vividly lingering depiction of Jesus's public flaying and execution only confirms for me that Gibson has been psychotic for some time now.

News Waits for No One - Sorry about being mostly absent on the Bush "FMA thing" this week, but with all the network TV and cable news appearances I'm having to make, covering the center-right gay perspective, I just haven't had the time. Oh, wait, that's Andrew Sullivan, not me.

Kidding aside, I've been hard at work in the - gasp - office. However, thanks to the Washington Post, I can link to today's "White House Briefing" and thereby connect you to all the major press rumblings about this erstwhile victory for the bigot brigade. And even some blogs. (Finally, hyperlinking makes its way into the heart of mainstream media!) I promise to post a more thoughtful analysis in the near future, and am much obliged for your patience.

Bush Endorses FMA - But rather than cry, I choose to laugh. So here's twenty pages of political cartoons about gay marriage. Some of them pretty funny.

This Just In - The Bush Administration's education policy was already in enough trouble lately with legistures across the country criticizing the implementation of No Child Left Behind. But today, Secretary of Education Rod Paige called the largest teacher's union in the country, the National Education Association, a "terrorist organization". The first black education secretary later apologized, saying "As one who grew up on the receiving end of insensitive remarks, I should have chosen my words better." Any speculation as to who will be named the Secretary, John?

And Now for the Reception - As gay and lesbian newlyweds celebrated at the San Francisco Hyatt Regency, the Governator warns of a near future where "all of a sudden we see riots and we see protests and we see people clashing. The next thing we know is there's injured or there's dead people." Hard to imagine in SF, but as I was scanning radio on my drive down to Norfolk today, I came across a chirpy morning duo on a Richmond country station, discussing the continuting marriage license saga. While the male DJ relating the brief "same-sex marriage" news item kept his opinions to himself, his boisterous female co-host offered a unapologetic, disgusted "ugh" at the notion. Welcome to Red America, folks.

"John"? That's So Commonplace - As Ben notes, we held the obligatory all-gay farewell party for the SATC girls at our house last night. (Did every major daily run an article on the group TV theme?) I have to agree with the woman at Felix whose two-word review of the finale was a disdainful "Too easy." As the Post summarized:

[T]he show gave Carrie's friend Charlotte a Chinese baby, and Samantha told her boyfriend, Smith, he meant more to her than any other man ever, and Miranda showed that she loved her husband Steve enough to care for -- and bathe -- his frustrating but very sick mother...

But even worse than these tidy little plots, we had Carrie Bradshaw back at that damn PowerBook, voicing over another silly rhetorical question from her once-and-future sex column. Ugh. After six years, it turns out the story arc is actually a circle? I'd have expected a bit more from Sex than a corny Friends-style wrap-up. Oh, well - at least we've got everything neatly lined up for the big screen version, right?

P.S. When the Post mentions "a guy in a FDNY baseball cap" who attended the Felix party - the only male cited in the entire article - is that code for a homothexual?

TV News and Notes - The Comedy Central parody special Straight Plan for the Gay Man premieres tonight. And the NY Times honors the late Mary-Ellis Bunim.

Big John - The finale to Sex and the City was fairly predictable and left things wide open for a potential movie. The real question why wasn't the Mitchell soiree covered in the WaPo farewell party review.

P.S. One annoying pet peeve I need to note: it's just "Big," not Mr. Big.

Movie Trivia - Ben, as a native of SoCal, perhaps you can explain where Bronson Canyon is and its significance in B-movie history.

Just Keep the Gays Out of the Room - That appears to have been the strategy behind the successful passage of HB1016 - which permits DP health benefits in Virginia for the first time - according to this WashBlade report. Said the bill's sponsor, a Republican from Fairfax:

We were able to push this through because the gay community kept a very low profile and let us keep the focus on business recruitment. There wasn’t a single gay person who testified in front of the committee. They stood in the hall outside of the committee room and waited for the outcome.

As offensive as that sounds, I'm practical enough to applaud whatever works. Tactics need to be crafted to suit the political environment, and pride doesn't buy you a whole lot of health insurance.

Celebrity Fantasies - Ben, your infatuation with Limp Bizkit front man Fred "Red Cap" Durst is sooo 2000. "Nookie"? Gimme a break. You need to move on. Maybe you should pick Ben Moody, the lead guitarist for Grammy-winning newcomer Evanescence.

ChronWatch - What does a reclusive, conservative Christian want with a derelict San Fran newspaper - a once upon a time legitimate competitor to the Chronicle? Maybe he just wanted somewhere to run Josh Ferrin cartoons.

No Offense - Josh Ferrin is a prize-winning collegiate politcal cartoonist - from Utah. I suppose that explains his tastelessness, not to mention ignorance. Too bad, because he's got great style.

City Gays, Country Gays - Ben, has Heather Fargo taken a position yet? I hear gays are the strength of Sacramento.

Meanwhile, the Post profiles the Maryland couple who have imported a newly minted San Fran marriage license back to their home state - and they don't plan to just frame it.

Rebuild.com - It worked for Howard Dean. Oh, wait, it didn't. I'm referring to the Internet-based grass roots campaign to scrap the plan for redeveloping Ground Zero and replace it with replicas of the twin towers. But can any group be taken seriously that chooses to present Paul Rodriguez as its first sponsor-celebrity? Aside from CNN, no one even seems to have noticed this effort, least of all the NYTimes.

CSI: Westport - Martha is gonna fry. Using a different kind of ink to write notes to obscure your guilt? Not the most brilliant move.

The TiVo Remote - Not just a coffee table status symbol, but also functional art.

Q: When is a civil union not a civil union? - A: When it is supported by a backer of the Federal Marriage Amendment. I've come to this conclusion after continually monitoring press coverage of the FMA debate, which frequently quotes supporters who say that the amendment won't abolish legislatively enacted CUs. Case in point: in profiling my good buddy Robbie George of Princeton, the school paper repeated what has now become a typical figleaf statement by the FMA crowd:

The amendment would create a national definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman, "but not forbid civil unions so long as the civil unions were created by the state legislatures and not imposed by the courts," George said.

But just a couple of days ago, the WaPo cited the theocon professor - whose religio-political views make Mel Gibson look like a lapsed Catholic - this way:

In an interview, George contended that marriage, at its legal core, is a "sexual union," and that the amendment would bar states from extending the legal benefits of marriage to gay couples, or anyone else, "based on the presumption that they have a sexual relationship outside of marriage." In his view, however, states could define a civil union as any two unmarried adults sharing a household.

Lesson to be learned? Don't trust a damn thing these guys say, and more to the point, don't let lazy reporting turn their misleading propaganda into conventional wisdom.

Love Won Out II - From the NYTimes editorial page today:

Opponents of gay marriage have been loudly calling for a constitutional amendment prohibiting any state from recognizing gay marriages. Despite the parade of horribles they haul out, their greatest fear appears to be that giving gay men and women the right to join legally and permanently with the ones they love will work out just fine, and that the American people will see that the fears being foisted on them are unfounded.

This, in defense of a federal approach to letting the states experiment with same-sex marriage. The prospect of a collective revelation about gay marriage is what activists proponents of the radical agenda make possible. (Unlike the navel gazing political theorists have been doing, which the public really doesn't notice at all.) Call it "the sky didn't fall" strategy. Maybe it's working, but we'll need editors from less decidedly liberal papers across the nation to embrace the idea before we can say it is.

Market Demands - Isn't the astonished tone of the NYT's review of the new Whole Foods Market in New York City a little misleading for non-Manhattanites? It's written as though the author has never been to a grocery store before. Wow, photo ID cards to mark the produce! Cheese cut into pieces and wrapped in plastic, amazing! I'll steel myself for the onslaught of "If only you understood urban living" comments now...

Warren Report - A backgrounder on one of the judges deciding the cases against San Francisco gay marriage appears in today's Oakland Tribune. He is James Warren: the Superior Court Judge who decided the SF dog mauling case, the grandson of Governor/Justice Earl Warren, and a gay man.

The Anti-Newsom - Meet Scott J. Bloch, the head of the Office of Special Counsel, a watchdog agency whose mission is to protect whistleblowers and other federal employees from retribution. He's in the news because he has removed information from the OSC website regarding the rights of federal employees who think they have been fired for being gay. It appears that most if not all references to "sexual orientation" as a protected class have gone missing, and the HRC and the umbrella group for gay federal employees are raising a stink. Quoth the lawyer-law professor and former head of the DOJ's faith-based task force:

"It is wrong to discriminate against any federal employee, or any employee, based on discrimination. But, it is wrong for me, as a federal government official, to extend my jurisdiction beyond what Congress gives me in the actual interpretation of the statutes."

There ya go, Ryan: one executive branch official who is proactive in interpreting the statutes according to his good conscience.

Forever Perky - Here's one more HDTV horror story for you--rumor has it Katie Couric is going to go under the knife because the new high definition images of her will just be too hideous for the morning viewers to handle over their cornflakes.

Cingular + AT&T = OmniTouch? - So it looks like I'm becoming a Cingular customer. Maybe now I can drive my wireless bill back under a hundred bucks a month. Stupid addictive text messaging! I need a package with more than 300 sent messages a month, dammit.

Political Savvy - Anyone else wonder if gay marriage is all part of San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom master plan to ascend to higher office quickly? Not that he doesn't actually support the issue strongly, but could Gavin have had two simultaneous realizations: 1) SF is the Gay Mecca and he needs to strike while the iron is hot before stuffy New England states steal his thunder! and 2) How better to ascend to higher office quickly than becoming a hero to an entire voting bloc? It almost worked for Howard Dean. Plus, I'm sure Mayor Newsom is looking at the calendar: DiFi ain't getting any younger and Ahnuld will be termed out soon, and a few years down the road, gay marriage will be common and which puts a trailblazer like Newsom on the political fast track. Too cynical?

UPDATE: Of course, some people view the politics of the mayor's actions in an entirely different way than I do. Sac Bee columnist Peter Schrag thinks Newsom has given a gift to Bush: "Maybe Newsom has no wider political ambitions. But just as Bush, fearing a weakening political base, is working overtime to inflame the cultural right, couldn't Newsom have done his fellow Democrats a favor and waited a year before adding fuel to the fire?"

baby steps - In the wake of the "municipal anarchy" in San Francisco, comes an article in the SF Chron about how gay candidates are answering the call of the Republican Party. Are these the kind of baby steps that are part of the progression toward bigger and better things? Is it the first attempt at "changing a homophobic image" in the hopes of eventually finding "qualified, credentialed" GLBT Republican candidates who can win in Republican districts. Or is running gay Republican candidates in Democratic-dominated districts just a half-hearted token effort at demonstrating diversity? Is working within the system as a gay Republican counterproductive toward gay marriage and equal rights?

Woah, now... - I said maybe we should welcome a stand-up fight. I would never go so far as to say "Bring on the fire-hoses and police dogs," Drew.

Polaroid Warns Film Users Not to 'Shake It' - Patrick says this Reuters article - "the story of the year so far" - should receive its own special Pulitzer.

Love Won Out - You'll have to excuse my display of bipolar disorder about all the same-sex marriage hubbub recently. I can't help debating tactics in my own head.

The extreme moderate in me recoils against the revolutionary fervor of the gay-marriage-at-all-costs crowd. "Baby steps!" I cry. "Think of the DP health benefits!" But then I wonder: Am I being a coward to cringe before the backlash? To bemoan that we're driving middle America into the arms of the bigot brigade? Maybe there comes a time to consider that nothing's gained when nothing's ventured. Maybe we should relish a stand-up fight for once.

We may not win the battle, and we could certainly end up battered and bruised for it. But as one who believes firmly in the righteousness of the cause - that gays are equal in every way before man and God - I don't doubt our ultimate victory for a moment. Any setback for us is but temporary - any victory for discrimination but fleeting. That's got to put real fear into the hearts of our enemies!

These thoughts occur to me when I see the simple, powerful images of longtime gay partners wedding in the halls of justice in San Francisco. (Think how much more effective those scenes will be come May in Massachusetts, when the marriage licenses will be for real.) The simple message being delivered into hearts all across the country is a new one for our movement. Notes one observer:

When the gay rights movement focused on marriage, it changed the image of homosexual America. Today the gay poster couples are middle-aged parents with a kid, a golden retriever and a soccer schedule. The 'gay agenda' is a wedding.

Maybe it will finally start sinking in that homosexuality fundamentally is about love, not sex. Who can be opposed to that? It's given me a new courage to face the haters, too. Contrasted with devoted gay couples are the shrill, spitting visages of our most ardent foes - whose "family values" message is finally exposed for the bilious loathing it really is. How can you be scared of that? You almost have to laugh.

Okay, so the maybe I need to chill on the manic as much as on the depressive. LOL. I can't say I'm not still scared. But I see a silver lining. And it's not like we can stuff this genie back in the bottle. So onward to victory, homo soldiers!

Space Ennui II - It took them a while, but the NYTimes agrees with me.

The Fightin' Andys - Valentine's Day always seems to be a popular time for gay activism. This year, a couple of recent UVa graduates decided to take on the University on the issue of domestic partner benefits, which it does not offer. While I certainly applaud their goal, I have to question their tactics.

Prominent Class of '03 activists Andrew Borchini and Andrew Bond have organized a boycott of alumni charitable giving, centered around a website called DontGiveToUVa.com. They ask that alums donate to their group instead, saying the funds will go to buy health insurance for partners of gay employees. Even assuming their bona fides, these guys are asking for as much as $100,000 in donations without generating much confidence in their group. The primitive website provides little information and less comfort for the donor. There's no sign of mature governance, accounting controls, wise investment policies or the like. Do they intend to get qualified under IRC 501(c)(3) so that donations to them would be tax-deductible, as gifts to the school are? These are basic concerns any purported charity should be able to answer. Caveat donor.

Aside from such issues, the entire premise of their protest may be misplaced. DontGive alleges that UVa could offer DP benefits if only it wanted to, but university spokespeople claim that Virginia state law doesn't allow any such thing. A recent student paper article tried to get to the bottom of this issue, without much resolution. Yet if we let gay faculty be our guide, at least one senior member seems to think the protest is doing more harm than good.

The confrontation boils down to disputed legal interpretations. The administration is reportedly standing on an Attorney General's rulling that "providing partner health insurance is a matter of state law rather than of university policy, and that universities have no flexibility in this area." (Note: I haven't been able to find this AG opinion, unless they are reading between the lines from this one from 1997.) The DontGivers for their part claim that "law on this matter is vague at best" and that "top legal scholars differ" on whether the University can offer such benefits. Maybe they are right on so-called "soft benefits," like library or rec center privileges, but on health insurance, I have my doubts. Neither the law nor the courts are favorable in Virginia on this topic.

We come back to an issue I've wondered about before. Does the University really have powers that Virginia counties clearly don't under a 2000 supreme court's decision? True, that case turned on "Dillon's Rule" limiting the powers of municipalities. Regardless, I think the Andys bear the burden of proof on this issue. No subject is nearer and dearer to the hearts of public university lawyers than the degree to which they are regulated as a government - as opposed to private - entity. I have e-mailed the site, and if I get more info, I will post it here. Until then, I'm going to remain as skeptical of their legal reasoning as I am of the rest of the project.

Bonus coverage: Here's an update on the two pro-gay bills making their way through the current General Assembly session. The House has narrowly passed the DP health insurance bill (50-49!), while the Senate has tabled the sodomy reform legislation until next year, despite its being passed somewhat convincingly (9-6) by the Courts of Justice committee. Hope the insurance bill fares better following transmittal to the upper house.

John Walker Lindh Redux - Was Ryan Anderson really serious when he went online in extremist Muslim webchats and tried to contact Al Qaeda representatives to pass on U.S. military secrets? Does he also have a gay dad who drove him out of a comfortable middle-class American upbringing into the arms of global terrorists? Is there a secret connection between Marin and Snohomish?

Sadly, the probable answer is no. Sounds more like the kid was a paramilitary nut-case, and you have to question if his conversion to Islam (including taking the name Amir Abdul-Rashid) was legit. Besides, his dad is remarried - to a woman.

Holiday. Celebration. - Happy Friday the Thirteenth, Valentine's Day and Presidents Day to you all. In celebration, we're going to see Margaret Cho tonight! Whether you're headed to IBR, drawing a romantic bath for your luvah, or just staying home to watch the second-to-last Sex and the City, have an enjoyable, relaxing long weekend.

Obligatory Hot Boy Story - And here it is...hottie athlete Jeremy Bloom is appearing in a new ad campaign for Equinox Fitness Clubs. Shirtless.

Picture It - See, the use of a camera phone can be worthwhile.

Valentine's Day Journalistic Nonsense - So Census Tract 13 is the top hot spot for singles between the ages 20-34? Um, DUH, there's a reason: this is where The Gays live! Some (not me) even call it Lavender Heights!

Hold Everything - Learn more about of Chuck Williams, founder of the Williams-Sonoma empire, in this entertaining NYT profile.

Doomsday Calculator - My personal day of death (estimated) is Wednesday, July 15, 2043. There go my dreams of making it to my fifty-fifth college reunion.

Primary Concerns II - Ben, don't count your California primary winners before they hatch. Have you seen today's John Kerry news? Sounds like he might have a Monica problem. (Courtesy of BoiFromTroy via Poliguy.)

SF says 'I Do' - Okay, enough with the lighthearted break. John, why haven't you yet posted on the lesbian couple wedded at SF City Hall this morning? Rather than talk and debate like in MA, San Francisco has gone and actually performed a gay marriage. Come on, Mr. Gay Marriage Commentary, we need to know how this latest development will affect the ongoing debate.

What about poor Ellen K? - In a week heavy with politics, I know we all need a breather. So, on a lighter note, Rick Dees has been forced out! I know the concentration of Los Angeles Beaverhausen readers is low, but this is big news, people! I spent my formative high school years listening to Rick Dees. Broadcasting from high atop the intersection of Sunset and Vine, he was a fixture of LA morning drive-time radio. And who is replacing him? That blasted Ryan Seacrest. Who ever imagined that a 29 year old with leathery orange skin would be so ubiquitous?

Freedom To Marry - Happy FTM Day 2004, Ben! (Doesn't that sound like some kind of tranny celebration?)

Two Small Steps for Mankind - Two bills important to Virginia gays and lesbians passed their first tests in the General Assembly this week.

Decriminalization - The first is a post-Lawrence restructuring of the criminal laws against sodomy. As the Daily Press reports, the Senate's Courts of Justice committee approved Pat Ticer's bill with minor changes. The draft would legalize sodomy except in public or as an act of prostitution and also reduce the penalty for public sodomy from a Class 6 felony to a Class 3 misdemeanor.

DP Benefits - The second bill, mentioned here in passing before, legalizes domestic partner health insurance for the first time in Virginia. The House Committee on Commerce and Labor passed a revised HB1016 which expands group coverage beyond an employee's spouse and children to include any other person the employee elects, provided that the insurer and the employer both agree to such coverage.

Damn - you could almost say the Commonwealth was getting gay friendly. Almost. Now each bill goes on to votes in their respective houses. Keep your fingers crossed. Oh, and in case you're wondering, Ben - both committees are dominated by Republicans.

Primary Concerns - Last week I received my sample ballot for California's March 2nd primary election. Officially, I am a "Decline to State" voter, meaning that I'm registered, but I am not affiliated with any particular party. And because of my status, I would normally be eligible to vote only on the Propositions and in the race for Mayor of Sacramento. I realized I would need to declare a party affiliation to vote in the primaries.

The fact is that by March 2nd, the Democratic nomination for President will already be locked up. Thinking that voting in the Democratic primary would be a waste, I opted to cross-over and receive a Republican ballot. (The GOP will be selecting a nominee to face unchallenged incumbent Barbara Boxer in November's race for California's junior Senate seat.) I have mentioned this fact to several people, and I've encountered passionately negative responses that surprise me because of their vitriol. I've been called traitorous and I've been asked why am I supporting a party that hates gays.

I don't believe that I am supporting the Republican party by voting in their primary. My rationale is actually to help the Democrats. Rather than waste my vote in the Democratic column, why not use it to help select a weak opponent, so that Boxer will have an easier race come November? What people fail to appreciate is that actually makes me more hardcore than most Democrats. I'm deep undercover in the GOP balloting as an agent provocateur! I don't agree that my Republican primary vote could do harm to the Democrats. Nor do I think that my vote would cause Boxer to lose momentum in her reelection bid. Yet still I feel defensive. Apparently, registering as "Decline to State" and then choosing to vote in the GOP primary - even if I vote for Democrats across the board in the general election - makes me a Bad Gay.

But voting for a Democrat in the primary election wouldn't do much much good anyway. You see, in the Presidential primary election, my ideology is probably the closest to Kucinich or Moseley-Braun. But neither of them could beat George W. Bush, so I wouldn't vote for them anyway. If I was to vote in the Democratic primary, I would likely select the most electable candidate - not the candidate who most closely shares my beliefs - because I want to defeat the President. Therefore, I'd only vote for the frontrunner anyway - so it's still a wasted vote.

I believe that intelligent people can have fundamentally different points of view. I was raised in a house were party lines were not drawn; we were taught to consider each issue on its own merits. That's why I don't believe that all gays have to be Democrats. Even if I am a bleeding heart, I don't have to agree that all Republicans are evil - or that all Democrats are righteous. I should recognize that this statement is hard to believe in an era of Fox News and Michael Moore, but nevertheless the stinging rebukes from my liberal compatriates surprised me.

The intention of this post is to encourage thoughtful discussion. I'd like for Beaverhausen readers to help me understand some of reactions I've encountered. But Ann Coulter-esque "you are a doo-doo head" comments aren’t very constructive. So what do you think?

Troublemaker - Hehe. I caused a bit of controversy this morning by posting the following question to a gay alumni listserve:

Anyone else think civil unions might actually be preferable to gay marriage, because a separate institution acknowledges the "unique qualities" of gay relationships vis à vis straight ones?

(Drew's perspective notwithstanding.)

UPDATE: The NYTimes investigates what's in a name. It reports that among the surprising "solutions" proffered in the Massachusetts debate are (1) changing the name of all state-sanctioned unions to something other than "marriage" or (2) getting the state out of the sanctioning business entirely. (A sort of "massive resistance" to same-sex marriage, I guess?)

What If? - Looks like if Martha had kept her ImClone shares, she not only would have avoided major legal problems but even come out ahead as an investor.

Abraca-Pocus - Many proponents of gay marriage are elated that Massachusetts' slow constitutional amendment process means that real marriages will exist before the Goodridge rulings could be overturned. (The rulings go into effect in May; the earliest amendment could be ratified is November 2006.) Not so fast. In a novel twist, the Massachusetts legislature - sitting as a constitutional convention - is set to review a proposed amendment that would, post hoc, convert any gay marriages performed before the amendment can be ratified into civil unions.

UPDATE: Both amendments failed. (The one with the civil union transmogrification and the one without.) So I guess it's back to the drawing board.

Politics Today - The lead story on John Kerry's "only I can beat Bush" juggernaut pushed today's WaPo article about the FMA into second position, but it's worth a read. The key points:

1. Bush will endorse having Congress "take up" the amendment and act on it "sooner rather than later" - i.e., during the current election year. The article notes the political risks and benefits of such a move. On the positive side, it diverts attention from Bush's negatives, like Iraqi WMD and his National Guard service. It could be used as a wedge against "Massachusetts liberal" Kerry, who is fighting hard to express similar opposition to gay marriage while not backing the FMA. The Post doesn't get into how the issue obviously energizes Bush's base among the bigot brigade, who could be a deciding factor in November if they didn't turn out to vote. But the paper does give schrift to Democrats' belief that the President, if he ends up looking too mean-spirited on this issue, could lose his moderate supporters.

2. The savvier media are beginning to pick up on the debate about whether the FMA, as proposed, nukes civil unions. The Post's article describes how the FMA's backers say it won't, while gay rights groups are calling the characterization "deliberately deceptive." On a related note, it appears the text of the FMA may change to address this concern. No less an authority than the head of the Alliance for Marriage is quoted as saying there's a "'good chance' hearings will result in minor wording changes to make clear that the amendment would not block state legislatures from enacting civil unions." That's the first time I've heard backers suggest such a thing.

You have to give credit to the Post for being far better educated on these issues than most media, for example the NYTimes. I'd expect that from a paper that gave us a very thoughtful and cautious reaction to the news out of Massachusetts last week.

Can't Beat / Join 'Em - You wouldn't think a good thing could come of the union of two such dark forces of evil as Verizon and Rupert Murdoch. Nevertheless, I'm hoping Jamie and I can catch a break on our utility bills by signing up for a video-phone-Internet package offered jointly by the "Baby" Bell and satellite-provider DirecTV. Heck, we already subscribe separately to both companies anyway, to the tune of two hundred bucks or more a month. (Now if I could also combine my Earthlink account, we'd really be cooking with gas.) With local competitor Starpower on the ropes, however, these bad guys are the only ones left who might really stir up the market and make Comcast work hard on its cable franchise. So that's where we are in DC, Ben. How's Sacto?

Quincy, M.E. - Dr. Atkins was obese? And suffered from heart disease? And now his wife is pissed off at the nuts-and-twigs eaters for publicizing these facts? Hehe. I say bring on the death match between the smarmy Atkins crowd and the vegan lunatics! (Haven't we all been spoiling for this fight for awhile?)

Taking the Culture War to the Airwaves - Today's PRI's Marketplace Morning Report covered the new front in the battle over same-sex marriage - general radio and TV advertising. This strikes me as a long overdue strategy to educate those Americans who are confused about gay marriage but who haven't yet been wooed by the siren song of the bigot brigade. With the President already using the bully pulpit to preach against us, it comes not a moment too soon. Using time-tested techniques, the HRC ads work hard to associate classic American values - family and fairness - with this new and mystifying (admittedly in some ways frightening) concept. The only question is whether any of our billionaire gay moguls will open their wallets enough to fund the blitz we need to actually make a difference on this subject.

Know Your Rights! - Not exactly meshing with the HRC's advertising campaign to turn homos into the nice couple-next-door is Lamda's release of their updated "Little Black Book" - which counsels us on the legal ins and outs of public park cruising. I especially appreciated this tidbit of post-arrest marital counseling: "Be sure to tell your lawyer whether you have a relationship with anyone who you don’t want to find out about your arrest."

TiVo Twofer - The Marketplace section of today's WSJ has two articles on our favorite DVR: this one about TiVo's abilities to monitor users television-watching behavior and this one expressing disdain for TiVo's patent-infringement lawsuit against DishTV.

The former article digs up some "privacy consultant" to find complaint with the fact that TiVo collects lots of information from its users but does not release that data without the user's permission:

Still, some privacy experts say TiVo users are forced to take the company's word that it's not violating its own policies. "What they're saying is, 'You have to trust us,' " says Richard Smith, a privacy and security consultant, who has examined TiVo's technology. " 'We're going to snoop on you, but we will disconnect all that information we have about you from your actual identity.' "

And the problem with that is? How odd for the Journal to be touting the views of another "it ain't broke, but let's regulate it anyway" expert.

The second article takes its theme from the "information wants to be free" camp, by casting doubt - without anything like serious legal analysis - on TiVo's claim to patents on part of the DVR concept (the part involving saving video files to disk). Maybe they have a point. It is possible that TiVo is just hitching a ride on the over-expansive patent-litigating bandwagon so popular these days. (Why NPR was just decrying the phenomenon on Friday, in relation to the battle shaping up between streaming video patent-holder Acacia and porn websites.) But before we tar our friends in Alviso with the same brush, shouldn't we at least do a little better job looking into their claims, rather than just assuming they are frivolous?

Same-Sex Parenting - In penguins. I think Jamie and I just saw a nature special on this called The Truth about Gay Animals on Trio.

Social Call - The NY Times and SF Chronicle run different versions of the same story about how social networking sites, like Friendster, are trying to keep ahold of users while bringing in revenue.

Getting Good Press - Funny, I wasn't interviewed for this story, a rip-off of September's Voice of the Hill piece. But since we're listed on DCBloggers.com - though I don't recall signing up - and we have one of the better blog names - maybe we'll see more traffic anyway, Ben.

P.S. Do you think we should join one of these blog clubs that seem to have sprung up everywhere? Groups of likeminded bloggers seem to glom together into groups like the Beltway Bloggers and the Cato Blog Mafia - the two mentioned in the Post article. Wonder how we'd go about finding the group that best fits our off-beat, sardonic style? Or maybe our blogroll and we should just form our own.

What to serve at your gay-wedding reception - Will the first publicly traded gay-owned company in the U.S. be a specialty winemaker marketing specifically to homos? Color this securities lawyer skeptical. (Their online solicitation for investment inquiries may even be a violation of law.)

Can't say I'm impressed by that marketing concept in this post-gay age where the rainbow flag is tres passé and even straight men are purchasing cross-over products like moisturizer. But I guess if you are a struggling small business in an incredibly cutthroat industry like craft wine-making, you try any angle you can. (Pity they don't simply rely on the merits of their wines, which seem to have garnered fair praise.)

I'd say you should drop in on them, Ben, on your and Kevin's next visit to Napa - except that they don't seem to have an established vinyard. Their offices are in Palm Springs, heh. But whatever you do, keep your investment dollars far, far away.

Redfaced - Oops. Even big Internet content companies - like WashingtonPost.com - sometimes forget to renew their domain registrations.

Watching What You're Watching - Perhaps in an effort to counteract the appearance that television networks are hemorrhaging young male viewers, Nielsen has teamed up with TiVo to track the recording and viewing habits of PVR users. Sign me up for the volunteer group! It was my fault that Family Guy got cancelled, and I have to make things right!

Very Delicious Gossip - Things are finally getting juicy at the Martha Stewart trial. First off, we've now learned that Faneuil has "repeatedly used Ecstasy and marijuana, and that he has experimented with the party drug ketamine, or 'Special K,' and cocaine." No word as to which circuit parties said drugs may have been taken at. We also saw some email from Faneuil about his interactions with Ms. Stewart: "Martha yelled at me again today, but I snapped in her face and she actually backed down! Baby put Ms. Martha in her place!!!" Suuure you did, Baby.

It sounds like this line of questioning was intended to discredit Faneuil, but instead just made Martha out to be even more of a Cybill Shepard caricature: Stewart told the assistant that "she was going to leave Mr. Bacanovic and leave Merrill Lynch unless the hold music was changed" which caused jurors to break up in laughter at her arrogance.

Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics - As you saw in the comments to both of John's gay marriage pieces this week, the inclusion of statistical data about gay couples really intrigues me. For one, the data seems almost completely out of context and provides little information on the methodology used to obtain the figures.

For example, in yesterday's AP story about gay marriage the following statistics appeared:

Massachusetts has one of the highest concentrations of gay households in the country with at 1.3 percent of the total number of coupled households, according to the 2000 census. In California, 1.4 percent of the coupled households are occupied by same-sex partners. Vermont and New York also registered at 1.3 percent, while in Washington, D.C., the rate is 5.1 percent.

These stats come from a report by the Urban Institute funded the Human Rights Campaign Foundation. This study analyzed the data from the 2000 Census, looking specifically at same-sex unmarried partners who live together. The data does not include gays who are single and only reflects the couples who chose to select the "unmarried partner" option on the census form. The way in which the percentages were calculated was to take the number of same-sex unmarried partners and divide by the total number of same-sex and opposite-sex unmarried partners plus married opposite-sex partners.

Then today's Washington Post article on gay marriage referenced entirely different numbers:

If it were a state, the District of Columbia, where 1.5 percent of all households are formed by same-sex couples, would lead the nation in this category. Massachusetts, with a 0.7 percent rate, is tied for third with Washington state, behind Vermont and California, each with 0.8 percent.

The Post says that its information comes from the Urban Institute study. However, when I read the text of the study, and pulled up information from the Census, the Post's numbers simply don't match up.

In trying to hunt for additional background, I found an old story from The Advocate that contained another misleading factoid:

In most states, gay male couples and lesbian couples are represented in almost equal numbers--the remarkable exception being Washington, D.C., where gay male couples make up 73% of the reported same-sex couples.

Yes, when you compare Washington, DC to states, the percentage seems "remarkable." But, the statewide data isn't all that relevant for this particular comparison. Instead, compare the percentage of gay male couples vs. lesbian couples in *counties* and you'd see that San Francisco County, California also has 73% male couples; New York County, New York has 72% male couples; and Suffolk County, Massachusetts has 62% male couples. Conversely, you also need to look at counties that seem to be more popular with lesbian couples, including Dane County (Madison), Wisconsin (38% male couples), Santa Fe County, New Mexico (43% male couples) and Chittenden County (Burlington), Vermont (36% male couples).

Time and again in this survey, the treatment of DC as a state makes it a statistical anomaly that reporters seem to find significant. The journalists must wonder if there is an undiscovered wave of gay patriotism that is causing us to flock to the nation's capital. But when you compare DC to similar counties (like San Francisco, New York and Suffolk) then things start to fall more in line. Washington also piques my interest because the District, Alexandria City, Arlington County and Baltimore Counties all appear on the list Top 25 Counties for unmarried gay/lesbian partners even though the Washington-Baltimore region does not appear on the list of Top 25 Metropolitan Statistical Areas. I'm sure it probably has something to do with Simpson's Paradox, and with the heavily hetero outlying suburbs dragging down the average, but it's just another reminder of how easily data can be manipulated to prove a particular point.

So, yes, California and New York and Massachusetts and Vermont have more coupled households who are gay than other states do. And that's why these states are the primary battlegrounds for gay marriage rights. But that's also precisely why we need to remember that the fight will continue in Santa Fe and Bloomington and Austin. Therefore, we must also strategize how to effect change in these places, where gay couples have a strong presence, but may not have statewide political clout to drive legislation.

Independent Analysis from the Washington Times - During my quest for background on the statistics relevant to percentages of gay couples, I also found this little gem of an article that ran in the Washington Times this summer. The gist of the article is that gay relationship don't last very long...as based on a study of "young Dutch homosexual men." This term is, of course, never clearly defined. The author then equates the average duration of the Dutch gay male relationships with the percentage of first marriages in the United States that last at least ten years. (Unfortunately, there's no indication given if the brides and grooms in the American group practiced abstinence before their weddings.)

But here is the kicker of a quote from the Times:

[Gay] "Fidelity is not defined in terms of sexual behavior but rather by their emotional commitment to each other," the authors said. "Ninety-five percent of the couples have an arrangement whereby the partners may have sexual activity with others.

NINETY-FIVE percent! That should be scary news to conservatives and religious types: gays are going to redefine what it means to be monogamous! Screw the equal rights and tax breaks of marriage...James Dobson needs to be worried that his flock could start thinking about going to a swingers parties if they see that gay couple Jim & Jason Smith-Smith from down the street have an "understanding" even though they are married.

Forty Years Later - Is this what the Sixties felt like for those (i.e. all Americans) caught up in the black civil rights movement? This sense that progress is messy, and that society sometimes lurches forward in a sudden and unsettling way, leaving many if not most people unprepared for the "next stage" of civilization?

I suppose there were many blacks, back in 1964, who felt like I do: happy and excited about progressive laws and court rulings that were opening up the apartheid of American life yet at the same time anxious about backlash and lingering animosity. Like the closet, second-class citizenship has its comforts. Everyone knows their place, and if you play by the rules, not only can you get by but you may even prosper. Equality sounds nice on paper, and well-meaning people probably agree that it's the right long-term goal, but the road getting there is rocky and maybe dangerous.

So, fair Beaverhausen readers: Here we all are, squarely in the middle of another social upheaval. Interesting times, indeed.

Thad, We Hardly Knew Ya - Playmakers has been cancelled. Not much to comment on, but I know it will leave a void in the hearts of many Beaverhausen readers.

Call to Arms - We already know that gyms have banned camera phones from their lockerroms, but should I be concerned that CSBA doesn't yet have a policy on camera phones on school campuses like Kentucky does?

"Separate is seldom, if ever, equal" - The SJC has settled the confusion over the Goodridge ruling by mandating gay marriage in Massachusetts. Here's the text of today's ruling.

Among the consequences? Possibly this "emergency act" proposed in the Virginia House of Delegates, which may prevent courts in the state from recognizing even private contractual arrangements among same-sex partners. Or this one in Ohio, passed today, barring state agencies from giving benefits to both gay and heterosexual domestic partners.

Travel Advisory - Playing on John's post about airport security, I offer this Reason article: Dominate. Intimidate. Control.: The sorry record of the Transportation Security Administration. I don't mock the TSA's charge, but have found my personal experiences to be unevenly enforced from one airport to the next and think that some standardized, more efficient procedures might not only help improve their record, but could also make the passengers who they have to screen a whole lot less cranky.

Crystal Clear - So, we've got high-definition straight porn coming to an HDTV near you. But what about the gay porn? I'm already incredibly distracted by men's faces being so flushed by Viagra that they look like a red delicious apple. How am I going to be able to pay attention when I can see every pock-marked pore and ingrown ass hair on some star's keister? Sorry, but I'm gonna hold off on prematurely jumping on John's HD bandwagon until they've got some of these bugs worked out.

This Just In - First Lady of California, Skeletor... I mean, Maria Shriver!...has announced that she is stepping down from her job at NBC News because of the difficulty in balancing her journalistic integrity with her new role representing the state.

Conflict of Interests - And on a sad note, speaking of RW (see below), Beaverhausen marks the passage of the Godmother of Reality TV, Mary-Ellis Bunim. The Real World of today can't even live up to the glory days of it's own past. (Have you seen RW: San Diego? It's unwatchable, even with the addition of cocky, tatted and hung Brad) However, the original series is the benchmark by which all unscripted reality shows must compete, and Survivor, Joe Millionaire and even Trading Spaces, along with any other reality show edited to manufactured conflict, owe it a debt of gratitude.

Well Hung - Rejection from American Idol has created a new hero at UC Berkeley. Cal junior William Hung a.k.a. Hong Kong Ricky Martin was mercilessly mocked by the judges for his rendition of She Bangs. The poor guy was simply trying his best, but clearly, he couldn't cut the mustard. He won a talent show with that rendition? Maybe he can channel his newfound fame into another direction, much like RW: Boston castmember Sean Duffy has done.

UPDATE: See the LA Times profile of Mr. Hung.

Oh Dear - Now, I know Gray Davis would like people to know that he has a softer side, but Yes, Dear? I think it's one of those Everybody Loves Raymond kind of shows that no one actually watches, but that is so inoffensive, it's simply ignored forever and just allowed to keep running.

Financial Woes - This WaPo retrospective on the failure of US Airways plans to become profitable after emerging from bankruptcy is thin on prophesy about its future. In wondering what to do with our frequent flyer miles (200,000 miles is a lot of magazines), that trip to see a Will & Grace taping in LA come March is looking more and more appealing, Ben.

I Want My BigTV - Appropos of the Super Bowl last weekend, the WaPo takes us inside the retail trends of large-screen TV buying and tells us women (specifically wives) are the new driving force behind flat-screen and slim-profile projection TVs. Maybe generally, but I can tell you WAF (wife acceptance factor) has little to do with my own severe coveting of such a set - but I'm holding off for HDTiVo (coming soon, late Q1 '04) before bothering. Know anyone who would buy a 32" Toshiba (component inputs!) and an 80-hour TiVo Series 2 off me?

Tasteless, Yes. Unentertaining? Well... - Yesterday's Super Bowl half-time show, produced by Viacom stablemate MTV, apparently needed to one-up the Madonna-Britney liplock, so the show climaxed with Justin Timberlake ripping Janet Jackson's bodice to clearly expose her right breast to world-wide broadcast. (Supposedly an unplanned clothing malfunction. Shyeah, that explains the costume, er, "pastey." ) I guess CBS has now redefined the reality programming notion of "the reveal."

Considering the very disappointing advertising performances - do network self-promotions usually fill more than half the slots? - we were lucky to be treated to a rare cliffhanger for the game itself. Adam Vinatieri - who unfortunately didn't reprise his bearded look from the 2002 playoffs - repeated his game winning field goal from two years ago, dashing the championship dreams of young Jake Delhomme, the Panther's handsome quarterback.

Will the real Kazuhito Tadano please stand up? - Scenes and musings about Babylon #34 can be found here. I knew the Internet would come through and satisfy our voyeuristic needs. Thanks, Andy, for the link.

Be-LEE-eve It - Pop singers have been lip-synching during performances? But, I thought Cher was really able to modify her OWN voice so that it sound like it had been electronically altered.

Get a Clue - I've finally figured out something about these airplane terror alerts. I always wondered what good it did for authorities to let a plane land, and then question the passengers. You would think that once a plane arrived safely, there'd be no more threat. That's true, if you were only looking for a hijacking. But according to this WaPo article, authorities are actually more worried in these recent scares about the use of chemical, biological or radiological weapons. The hint came in this paragraph:

Some of the nation's highest-risk and highest-profile airports have the capability to detect radiological materials, usually through an agreement with local law enforcement personnel who are trained to use such devices, said Carter Morris, vice president of transportation security policy for the American Association of Airport Executives. Morris said radiation detectors have been used on aircraft while passengers were kept on board.

So that's what the security forces have been doing when they sequester a plane on a distant portion of the tarmac for hours before allowing unloading. Of course, I'm not sure what good that does against an undetectable biological agent - although I guess authorities obtain full background checks on the passengers and possibly tracking information to keep tabs on them in coming days. Hard to say what more they could do.