In a profile in the Daily Monitor earlier this week, Kalende is portrayed as a kind, church-going woman. However, her style of dress (simple jeans and teeshirts) provoke harassment from motorcyclists and other men who seize upon her wardrobe as proof of her sexuality. Kalende faces daily judgment from her church as well as men on the street, but nothing made her as fearful as a recent change in politics:

"In October, Ndorwa West MP Bahati brought an anti-gay law to the House, proposing in his document a new felony called "aggravated homosexuality", committed when the offender has sex with a person who is disabled or underage, or when there is HIV transmission. The crime should attract the death penalty, he proposed, while consenting homosexuals should be imprisoned for life."

The proposed law, which has the tacit approval of President Museveni, would also penalise a third party for failing to report homosexual activity, as well as criminalise the actions of a reporter who, for example, interviews a gay couple.

Kalende has identified as a lesbian since 2002, and has been at work with other gay rights organizations like Freedom and Roam Uganda since approximately 2005. Though she's actively in a committed partnership, safety concerns forced her partner to flee the country and Kalende is determined to bring her girlfriend home. How? By refusing to hide sexuality any longer. She made the huge step of allowing her picture to be published in the newspaper, knowing full well that may lead to even more harassment.

Katie Paul, writing for Newsweek, reached out to interview Kalende after the Monitor story broke.

"My phone has been ringing off the hook since Saturday," she said. "Some are telling me it was a brave thing to do. Others have been negative, saying they are going to start campaigning for the bill, that kind of thing." Her family told her the decision to talk about her personal life was too extreme. One member of her partner's family asked her to tell everyone the story was blackmail. Her pastor encouraged her to give another interview to the Monitor proclaiming a sudden miraculous transformation into a heterosexual. Failing that, he offered to counsel her to help her drop the habit.

I asked Kalende whether she'd received any threats. Not yet, she said, but she's been staying home every evening to protect herself. "I've noticed that everywhere I go, people recognize me now," she said. She remains convinced the bill is going to pass, even if some of the headline-grabbing punishments are dropped.

The anonymous blogger at GayUganda alternately salutes Kalende and despairs for her. His excited posting flips back and forth, as if he was just releasing all of his personal hopes and fears about being outed into the world for someone, anyone, to hear:

Anyway, the bill is making us get recklessly courageous. Val comes out, full face photo. With her partner. And the partner is disguised. Nothing is more poignant. They both are risking their very lives, grabbing the headlines like this, when they can. For, when the bill is passed, this kind of article will not be possible. But, she dared to do it. And, she grabbed the headline. [...]

I know what is driving them. A reckless courage. This bill is so terrible, that, even now, if we cant speak out now, we shall forever be damned. So, they are speaking out. Getting out of the closets, making sure that the world out there in Uganda does know that they are Gay, and that they are Ugandan, and that they are threatened by death and life time imprisonment for being gay and Ugandan. [...]

Dont know what your lives will be worth once it becomes law. Dont know. Dont want to know. Hope I will not know. But, the very risks that you are exposing yourself to at this particular moment just makes me shiver with fear. I am a coward. But, I thank your reckless courage.

Meanwhile, the lawmakers and pastors closely aligned with the Christian Right (including the infamous Rick Warren) have been scrambling to distance themselves from the Ugandan Parliament's bill. Why? Because they are affiliated with a fundamentalist organization (read: Christian version of the Illuminati) called "The Family" whose members initially showed support for the legislation. Senator Charles Grassley, from Iowa, is feeling the heat and Republican Senators like Ensign, Inhofe, and Brownback are scrambling to settle on a position. The White House is "strongly" against the bill and said so in a statement to The Advocate.

The story of a young Ugandan gay couple [Daily Monitor]
Out of the Uganda Anti-Gay Debate, a Hero Emerges: Valerie Kalende on Life Under Fire [Newsweek]
Reckless Courage [GayUganda]
"This Terrible Bill" [The Daily Dish]
Iowans call on Sen. Grassley to oppose Uganda hate bill [Gay Politics]
White House issues statement ‘strongly' condemning Ugandan Anti-Homosexuality Bill. [Think Progress]

Nussbaum's wearing some pretty kickass boots in the accompanying photo, and she mentions that the University of Chicago lesbian and gay alumni association thanked her for wearing leather to a speaking engagement. But the real meat of the interview is Nussbaum's take on relationships and marriage. She handily dispatches a classic Deborah Solomon underminer question, "Do you find it difficult being a single woman in her early 60s, in a culture that values youth over wisdom," thusly:

I think that's been overplayed. I'm just happy being myself. I sing for an hour before dinner, and right now I'm singing Cherubino's aria from "The Marriage of Figaro," and playing the part of a teenager is natural to me. I also go clothes shopping with my friends. It's one way I have fun.

Basically Solomon is saying "don't you hate being single, and also old?" And Nussbaum's like, "I'm busy singing opera, fuck you." But since marriage is just as important a subject for philosophy professors as it is for actors (as long as they're women), Solomon's gotta ask, "Do you think you will marry again?" Nussbaum says,

If I thought of getting married, I would worry that I was taking advantage of a privilege that I have that a same-sex couple wouldn't have.

The question of whether this makes sense as a political stance is a complicated one, especially in light of John Marcotte's statement that if gay Californians can't marry, straight ones shouldn't get to divorce. The 2010 California Marriage Protection Act that Marcotte's spearheading may not make it onto the ballot, and apparently not everyone understands that it's meant to be a form of protest against Prop. 8 (not against divorce). But the Meghan Daum of the LA Times writes that Marcotte is "fighting not just for the rights of gays and lesbians, who surely deserve to be feted as they parade down the street in post-wedding rapture, but also for the cause of irony itself, which — in this often painfully literal society — needs all the help it can get." I don't think the cause of irony needs fighting for — even talking about its death just makes it stronger — but gay marriage certainly does. So is forgoing marriage yourself the way to fight?

Nussbaum makes a lot of other interesting points about gay marriage, arguing that much opposition to it is really about "disgust." She reminds us that people are disgusted by many things that aren't actually harmful (like "a sterilized cockroach, as studies have found"), and that the most insidious kind of disgust "is the projective kind, meaning projecting smelliness, sliminess and stickiness onto a group of people who are then stigmatized and regarded as inferior." In a way chalking homophobia up to disgust almost seems to excuse homophobes, by attributing an immoral point of view to some kind of visceral impulse. On the other hand, it may be valid to examine whether those who say they just want to "protect traditional marriage" actually look at gay people the way they look at cockroaches.

But Nussbaum's rejection of marriage may actually be better as a defense against Solomon than as support for gay rights. Solomon's not-so-subtle hints that Nussbaum must be lonely are just one version of the kind of shit single women get every damn day, and to say, "I'm single for a cause" is a decent rejoinder (though maybe not as good as, "lalalala I'm singing!"). The truth is, to reject marriage as a straight woman is kind of empowering — but to straight women, not necessarily gay ones. And while challenging stereotypes about gender and relationships might have some effect on homophobia, that effect is still tangential. In order for gays to get the rights they deserve, lawmakers (looking at you, New York State Senate) need to think about simple equality rather than the complicated calculus of reelection. Voters (looking at you, my home state of California) need to get over their disgust or bigotry or whatever makes them think that anyone else's marriage could threaten theirs. And yes, straight allies need to stand up and speak out — but that doesn't necessarily mean not getting married.

Gross National Politics [NYT]
John Marcotte: Defending Marriage By Denying Divorce [LA Times]

According to CNN, the bill in question would impose a lifetime prison sentence on anyone caught having gay sex. It would impose the death penalty on homosexuals who have sex with minors, or who have gay sex more than once (because obviously, those things are morally equivalent). It would effectively ban HIV/AIDS prevention education, would imprison those who fail to report homosexual behavior, and, perhaps most disturbing of all, would allow people to be executed for having HIV. The bill even mandates that Ugandans who engage in homosexual sex abroad be returned to Uganda for prosecution. A coalition of American Christian leaders have denounced the bill, and human rights groups are asking Western countries to deny aid to Uganda if it passes. But some Americans seem to have helped inspire the bill.

Rick Warren, for instance, told a conference of Ugandan Anglican Bishops last year that the right to homosexuality was not a valid human right, and that "We shall not tolerate this aspect at all." His mentor, C. Peter Wagner, was a direct inspiration for the legislators behind the bill. According to Jeff Sharlet, a professor of religion and media at NYU, the legislator who introduced the Ugandan bill is a member of the fundamentalist group called The Family, which also includes American lawmakers like Sen. John Ensign (known for his impeccable sexual morality).

Then there's Richard Cohen. Cohen claims he is both a former gay man and a therapist (he's not licensed). His book Coming Out Straight was cited as an authoritative text at the conference that led to the Ugandan anti-gay bill, as proof that homosexuality was actually misdirected love for a parent. On Rachel Maddow, he responded to Maddow's claim that he has "blood on his hands."

Throughout the interview, Cohen tries to distance himself from the legislation and appear as harmless as possible. He claims his organization teaches compassion and tells Maddow, "we are for your right and anyone's right to live a homosexual life." Cohen's book claims that gays are much more likely to molest schoolchildren, feeding Ugandan fears of "recruiting" — but Cohen says he's going to excise that quote from the next edition (potentially, after the bill is passed). He says that he's not trying to "cure" homosexuality. And when Maddow points out that his other book, Gay Children, Straight Parents, lists "race" as a risk factor for homosexuality, he claims not to know how that got in there.

Cohen repeats a number of times that he's only interested in treating "unwanted" same-sex attraction, that he thinks people have the right to live as they wish, and that he's against the Ugandan bill. All these things may be true. At the same time, it's hard not to suspect him of double-talk — of saying one thing on a show with a liberal audience and hosted by an openly gay woman, and another to groups of homophobes and zealots. He's not the only one — Warren too has tried to distance himself from the Ugandan bill without condemning it outright. American fundamentalists appear to have learned that there are certain things you can't say in front of American audiences without losing your mainstream cred. However, you can still say those things (like that practicing your sexual orientation is not a human right) overseas, and you can support others who say them — as long as you're not worried about people dying.

Why Is Uganda Attacking Homosexuality? [CNN]
The Secret Political Reach Of 'The Family' [NPR]
Rick Warren And Uganda's Looming Gay Genocide [Daily Dish]

Setoodeh argues that between Perez Hilton, Adam Lambert, Kurt on Glee, Marc on Ugly Betty and "the dozens of squealing contestants" on Projet Runway, it seems that one stereotype — "fey" — is the only kind of homosexuality represented. Back when Will & Grace, The L Word, and Queer Eye were on, there was a more multifaceted image of what it means to be gay. He adds:

Lesbians face a different problem. They are invariably played by gorgeous, curvy women straight out of a straight man's fantasy-Olivia Wilde on House, Sara Ramirez on Grey's Anatomy, Evan Rachel Wood on True Blood-and they're usually bisexual. How convenient.

Should we even be worried about fictional characters? Actually, yes: According to Setoodeh, "A survey by the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation found that of the people who say their feelings toward gays and lesbians had become more favorable in the past five years, about one third credited that in part to characters they saw on TV."

While it's true that there have been serious setbacks — Maine and California reversing existing laws legalizing gay marriage — is toning it down the answer? Setoodeh says"maybe": "It's not that gay men and women should pretend to be straight, or file down all their fabulously spiky edges," he writes. "The key is balance."

What I don't like about this argument is that it makes being intolerant of gay people a problem for gay people. When really, if you're intolerant of gays, you're the one with the problem — and it's everyone's problem.

Kings Of Queens [Newsweek]

Gay marriage opponents in Maine used the same strategist who got the job done in California, and the same bullshit. The Associated Press reports that the organization "Stand for Marriage based many of its campaign ads on claims - disputed by state officials - that the new law would mean 'homosexual marriage' would be taught in public schools." Apparently, not enough voters asked the obvious question: What the fuck does that even mean? They just heard "homosexual" and "schools" and decided it was worth showing up to take a stand against equality. Again.

National Organization for Marriage director Brian Brown "was elated by Tuesday's result, saying it shows that 'that even in a New England state, if the voters have a chance to have their say, they're going to protect and defend the commonsense definition of marriage.'" Which is exactly the problem. The states that have legalized gay marriage have done so "through legislation or court rulings, not by popular vote," while all 31 states that have put it to a popular vote have shot it down. Opponents of marriage equality see this as evidence that legislators are out of touch with the people and have no business telling folks what should and shouldn't be legal, conveniently forgetting that actually, that's what we elect them to do. Also, that when it comes to securing rights for an oppressed minority, if the majority would rather just keep on with the oppressing, our elected representatives and courts have a duty to stand up and protect more vulnerable citizens.

In The Daily Beast, Linda Hirshman lays out a persuasive argument for getting gay marriage off the ballots. Noting that the ostensibly liberal "Bow Out" movement opposing federal court involvement in gay marriage was founded by people who thought the Supreme Court overstepped its bounds when it insisted that public schools be racially integrated — and p.s., they've also got a big beef with Roe v. Wade — Hirshman underscores the absurdity of their position. "Painful as it is to them, as sincere supporters of abortion rights/gay marriage/your issue here, these wise ones think the federal courts should follow the election returns. Only when a majority of states have legalized something should the federal courts find that it was a fundamental constitutional right all along." If that seems even the tiniest bit logical to you, try this: "Imagine what the law would look like if the Brown court had waited until a majority of states were ready to pass the Civil Rights Acts."

The idea that we should just be patient until hateful bigots naturally come around to accepting the full equality of all citizens, and not rush into any crazy measures like writing that equality into law, is almost certainly not, despite the claims of said hateful bigots, what the founding fathers had in mind. On the output of legal scholars waving the Bow Out flag, Hirshman writes:

What these academic treatises ignore is the concern that Madison and others had that what they called the tyranny of the majority was legitimate. A majority, Madison predicted, often whipped up by demagogues, would oppress a helpless minority, a group so naturally small it could never hope to protect itself at the polls alone-using the government to deprive them of those aspects of life fundamental to a free society. No kidding.

According to the AP, "Richard Socarides, who was an adviser on gay-rights issues in the Clinton administration, said the loss in Maine should prompt gay-rights leaders to reconsider their state-by-state strategy on marriage and shift instead to lobbying for changes on the federal level that expand recognition of same-sex couples." At this point, it looks like he may be right. The fear, of course, is that it will backfire and leave the whole country farther behind, instead of just 31 states with a slight bigot majority. But given how successful demagogues have been at whipping those majorities up, and that — as Rea Carey, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, put it — "lies and fear can still win at the ballot box," waiting for reason and compassion to prevail among voters doesn't seem like the way to go.

Defeat In Maine A Harsh Blow To Gay-Marriage Drive [AP]
Get Gay Marriage Off The Ballot [Daily Beast]

Related: Washington Post Does Puff Profile Of NOM's Executive Director

Meghan McCain reserves the strongest words for Obama, arguing:

This is the point we should be emphasizing for those who refuse to see Don't Ask Don't Tell opposition as a human-rights campaign. We need to bring the issue back to the security of our country both overseas and at home. Every soldier in our armed forces is serving his or her country in the most admirable way an American can, and we should be able to respect them, by not asking them to hide their sexual orientation.

But the second part of her argument is a bit questionable (emphasis added):

Now, I cannot speak for my brothers, but I know many men and women who serve in the military. Let's give them more credit. Just as there are no atheists in foxholes, I suspect it could be said that there is no homophobia in foxholes either. I find it hard to imagine that when a soldier is in a Humvee fighting terrorist insurgents, that the thing on his mind is who his fellow soldier chooses to sleep with when he's off duty.

I get her point, but again...aren't religious assumptions partly responsible for this mess?

Still McCain's article is part of the clearer headed contingent. With the growing strain on the ground and the repeated calls to add thousands more troops to the effort overseas, it seems absolutely foolish to persecute enlisted soliders based on their sexuality. Yet, that is exactly the practice being defended. According to CBS News:

Ending "Don't ask, don't tell" is opposed in Congress, with several members (including Republican Senator Lindsay Graham) saying the military needs to be consulted before ending the policy.

The military has been consulted - they said they need more troops. What's the issue here?

Unfortunately, the issue is either the biased policy or entrenched members of the service working to uphold this bias:

Ainsley Kling, 26, just completed 7 1/2 years with the Coast Guard; after her commitment was up, she left voluntarily with the rank of petty officer, second class. She wished Obama had gone further and ordered a halt to all ongoing investigations under "don't ask, don't tell."

Kling, who is lesbian, said harassment based on sexual orientation persists, recalling a Coast Guardsman who wrote "fag" on someone else's bicycle, though neither party was believed to be homosexual.

When she wanted to write up the violation, her supervisor urged her not to do so, saying that he "knew things about me he shouldn't know." She did not file the report.

Lt. Dan Choi (pictured above in a tee-shirt that says "Don't Hide") is rapidly becoming the face of the military's GLBTQ members.

A West Point graduate and Iraq war veteran, Choi is facing discharge under the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy for revealing in March that he is gay.

He appeared later at a rally in his Army uniform, a piece of black tape over his mouth.

"Many of us have been discharged from the service because we told the truth," he said.

In addition to the warring over Don't Ask, Don't Tell, gay rights activists also pushed hard for a repeal to the Defense of Marriage Act.

The president extended some benefits to the spouses of gay federal employees in June while voicing support for a House bill that grants them other rights. The State Department now allows married gay and lesbian couples to obtain passports with their married names. And the Census Bureau has agreed to release data on same-sex marriages.

But Obama is also clearly mindful of the politics of the combustible issue. Opposition remains strong in much of the country to extending rights to gays, especially where marriage is concerned.

House Democrats introduced a bill last month that would repeal the marriage act, but polls consistently show that opponents of legalizing same-sex marriage outnumber supporters. Twenty-nine states have banned same-sex marriage.

With a full plate of contentious domestic issues to solve, activists are beginning to wonder if Obama will actually make time for these issues, or allow his commitment to equal rights to waver in the face of pressure. However, Obama continues to say he fully supports civil rights:

He expressed strong support for the HRC agenda of ending discrimination against gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender people but stopped short of laying out a detailed plan for how to get there.

"My expectation is that when you look back on these years you will look back and see a time when we put a stop against discrimination ... whether in the office or the battlefield," Obama said.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell Makes America Unsafe [The Daily Beast]
Report: U.S. general calls for more troops in Afghanistan [CNN]
Obama renews pledge to gays to end 'don't ask, don't tell'[LA Times]
Gay rights marchers in DC: 'We won't back down' [Associated Press]
As Pressure Grows, Obama Addresses Gay Rights Group [Washington Post]
Obama again pledges to change policy on gays [AP]

Patrick Range McDonald writes that Bragman, openly gay himself, has helped numerous celebrities and pro athletes with the "tricky and, for decades, risky terrain" of coming out. He currently works with Chaz Bono, whose gender transition from female to male was recently reported on TMZ. He's brought out actor Mitchell Anderson and NBA player John Amaechi. But now, he says, it's time for someone really big. McDonald writes,

The publicist hasn't brought out an A-list, gay male actor - yet. But Bragman says that day is coming, and after the first superstar decides to reveal himself, a fundamental shift in American acceptance of gay leading men may not be far behind. He's currently working with a famous musician who's still closeted from the public, but who will come out next year. And the manager of one major movie star approached Bragman a year ago and asked about his client's possibly going public, but the actor still refuses to pull the trigger.

"I felt a little frustrated with that superstar," Bragman says in reflection, "because it had to be ‘handled.' "

Bragman's frustration aside, Hollywood remains "a surprisingly conservative entity." Stars mobilized for a "No on Prop. 8" campaign, but McDonald says "the big studios and their mostly male chiefs - and the scores of socially liberal men and women who play key roles as casting directors and agents - have together created a kind of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, which places enormous pressure on gay, male actors to remain in the closet." Bragman is confident this can change — he even says, "coming out can be used as a marketing tool." And McDonald cites some hopeful statistics — 89% of Americans now believe that gay people should have equal job opportunities, and 72% say they would not change their opinion of an athlete if they found out he was gay.

Still, gay actors face some challenges. Foremost is the fear that, as McDonald writes, "audiences would be uncomfortable seeing a known gay actor like Cheyenne Jackson kissing or fondling Kate Winslet, and box-office earnings would nose-dive." Neil Patrick Harris is famously both out and doing well, but he says that for years, "I wasn't thought of in a sexual way, which is easy when you have big ears and are called Doogie all the time." If someone who was a sex symbol and a "superstar" to boot chose to come out, the response might be different. And the process would be even more complicated if said superstar also had a high-profile heterosexual cover relationship, as it's safe to assume at least a few do.

Then again, the fiction that no one — or almost no one — in Hollywood is gay can't last forever. It's already been much remarked-upon that while straight actors can "play gay" (like Sean Penn in Milk), only a very few gay actors are permitted to "play straight." Given that the entire film industry is based on audiences agreeing to believe for a few hours that someone very famous is actually someone else, this seems obviously ludicrous. And perhaps it's true that if one "superstar" — one with enough clout to get movies made regardless of sexual orientation — actually came out, everyone would have to confront the ridiculousness of Hollywood's straight-washing. Still, when the movie industry can campaign against Prop. 8 one day and enforce a "don't ask, don't tell" policy the next, it's no surprise that no one's clamoring to be the first.

LA Weekly Discusses Hollywood's Closet [Mediabistro]
The Secret Lives Of Queer Leading Men [LA Weekly]

The House vote on the defense bill was 281 to 146. Unlike usual defense bill votes, most of those in opposition — 131 out of the 146 — were Republicans objecting strenuously to inclusion of what they referred to as "thought crimes" legislation in a defense bill.

"The inclusion of 'thought crimes' legislation in what is otherwise a bipartisan bill for troop funding is an absolute disgrace," said Rep. Tom Price of Georgia, head of the GOP conservative caucus.

And why were they so upset? They were just looking out for hate speech:

GOP opponents were not assuaged by late changes in the bill to strengthen protections for religious speech and association — critics had argued that pastors expressing beliefs about homosexuality could be prosecuted if their sermons were connected to later acts of violence against people who are gay.

Supporters countered that prosecution could occur only when bodily injury is involved, and no minister or protester could be targeted for expressing opposition to homosexuality.

Well, as long as that's settled...

This legislation comes at an interesting time. One of the Republicans protested:

"This is radical social policy that is being put on the defense authorization bill, on the backs of our soldiers, because they probably can't pass it on its own," House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio said.

Right...because soldiers couldn't possibly have an interest in protections that now include sexual orientation, gender, gender identification, and disability. I mean, obviously, every single red-blooded American solider is male, het, and proud! Well, unless you're a female soldier being dismissed due to Don't Ask Don't Tell:

All the services kicked out a disproportionate number of women under the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, according to Department of Defense data obtained by the Palm Center at the University of California, Santa Barbara. The center studies gender and sexuality in the military. [...]

In addition, the Army removed more women under the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy at a greater rate than men when compared with the ratio of women to men in each service.

Of those discharged under the policy, 36 percent were women, although women make up only 14 percent of troops in the Army, the data showed.

But who cares about facts? To the Republicans, these are "thought crimes" not "losing my job to discriminatory practices" problems or "tie someone to a fence after pistol whipping and torturing them" crimes. So, it's perhaps a good thing that "The Laramie Project: 10 Years Later" is showing at 120 theaters around the globe on October 12th, to commemorate the 11th anniversary of Matthew Shepard's death from "thought crimes."

House Votes To Add Sexual Orientation To Law On Hate Crimes [Washington Post]
House Extends Hate Crime Law To Cover Gays [MSNBC]
More Women Than Men Dismissed From Military For Being Gay [CNN]
Guthrie To Present 'Laramie Project' Epilogue [MPR News]

In a long and affecting new New York Times Magazine cover story, Benoit Denizet-Lewis looks at what it's like to come out at 14, 13, even 12 years old. Encouragingly, being young and openly gay seems to be getting easier. Denizet-Lewis writes that when he started working for the gay men's magazine XY in 1998, "we received dozens of letters each week from teenagers in the depths of despair." Three years later, he says, "a new kind of gay adolescent was appearing on the page - proud, resilient, sometimes even happy." He explains,

That's not to say that gay teenagers didn't still suffer harassment at school or rejection at home, but many seemed less burdened with shame and self-loathing than their older gay peers. What had changed? Not only were there increasingly accurate and positive portrayals of gays and lesbians in popular culture, but most teenagers were by then regular Internet users. Going online broke through the isolation that had been a hallmark of being young and gay, and it allowed gay teenagers to find information to refute what their families or churches sometimes still told them - namely, that they would never find happiness and love.

Thanks to the Internet and to increasing cultural acceptance of homosexuality (an increase marred, we should note, by measures like Proposition 8), kids who might once have waited until high school or even college to come out are now doing so earlier. At least 120 middle schools in the country have gay-straight alliance groups, and others let students observe the national Day of Silence in protest against anti-gay harassment. Denizet-Lewis visited LA's Daniel Webster Middle School on that day, and found 50 kids, many of them wearing pink shirts, filling out cards with slogans like "You Are What You Are - Embrace It." They were not, however, silent: "Good luck getting middle-schoolers not to talk," the school counselor said.

The youth of the Webster kids and other gay middle-schoolers is a sign of how far gay rights have come — but it's also these kids' biggest obstacle to acceptance. A telling anecdote comes from Nadia, the mom of a gay 15-year-old named Austin. She says, "We just couldn't wrap our heads around the idea that Austin would know what he was at 13, and that he would want to tell other people." But she had actually asked Austin if he was gay when she found out he had called a gay chat line. The irony of a parent suspecting her kid is gay and then refusing to believe he could know his own orientation highlights how much more difficulty some parents have with burgeoning gay sexuality than they would with a straight kid's desires.

Part of this may have to do with the misconception that you have to have gay intercourse to be gay, or that homosexuality is somehow a more "sexual" orientation than heterosexuality. But Austin tells Denizet-Lewis,

I knew I was different in second grade - I just didn't really put a name to it until I was 11. My parents said, ‘How do you know what your sexuality is if you haven't had any sexual experiences?' I was like, ‘Should I go and have one and then report back?'

Eileen Ross, director of a Mountain View, CA program for gay youth, says that when a 12-year-old boy says he likes girls, "No one says to them: 'Are you sure? You're too young to know if you like girls. It's probably just a phase.'" We are totally accepting of people who "just know" that they're heterosexual from an early age, and we recognize that heterosexuality encompasses not just intercourse but also crushes, flirting, dating, behaviors many parents of middle-schoolers not only allowed but find charming. A "schoolboy crush" is usually considered cute — as long as it's on a girl.

A lawyer in Florida argued that gay-straight alliances promote the "premature sexualization of the students," and when Austin started a gay-straight alliance, his Michigan school made him call it something "less controversial" (he chose "Peace Alliance"). But now that kids are able to come out younger, perhaps more adults will understand that liking and dating boys should be as uncontroversial for other boys as it is for girls. Denizet-Lewis reports the hopeful words of developmental psychologist Ritch Savin-Williams: "This is the first generation of gay kids who have the great joy of being able to argue with their parents about dating, just like their straight peers do."

A friend of mine came out to me the summer after our ninth grade year, when he was 14. He came out to the rest of our friends the following year, and to his parents the year after that. While his mom was trying to keep him from dating boys, my mom was telling me to date more boys. Although I wasn't a big fan of our "he's-cute-why-don't-you-go-out-with-him" conversations (nothing screams "nerd" like a mom who thinks you need to get out more), they did reflect a basic acceptance of my sexuality, even though I hadn't had sex yet — and Mom definitely didn't want me to. My friend deserved the same acceptance. And maybe today's gay kids are slowly starting to receive it.

Image via New York Times Magazine.

Coming Out In Middle School [NYT Magazine]

After a gruesome lead that covers the story of Hisham, an Iraqi refugee now living in Beirut, the article goes on to explain:

In Baghdad a new series of murders began early this year, perpetrated against men suspected of being gay. Often they are raped, their genitals cut off, and their anuses sealed with glue. Their bodies are left at landfills or dumped in the streets. The nonprofit organization Human Rights Watch, which has documented many of these crimes, has spoken of a systematic campaign of violence involving hundreds of murders.

Weaving the key aspects of the persecution with humanizing narratives, writers Juliane von Mittelstaedt and Daniel Steinvorth (originally writing for Der Speigel) produce a rich discussion of the current climate for homosexuals in increasingly theocratic areas. While their analysis revolves around same gender loving men, they do paint a detailed picture of the issues at play.

• There's something a wee bit familiar about these justifications for homophobia:

  Islamists are now a dominant cultural force in many of these countries. They include figures such as popular Egyptian television preacher Yussuf al-Qaradawi, who demonizes gays as perverse. Four years ago the Shiite grand ayatollah Ali al-Sistani issued a fatwa saying that gays are to be murdered in the most brutal way possible. These religious opinion leaders base their hatred for gays on the story of Lot in the Koran: "Do ye commit lewdness such as no people in creation [ever] committed before you? For ye practice your lusts on men in preference to women: ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds." Lot's people suffered the destruction of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah for their sins. The prophet Mohammed has a number of dicta in which he condemns these acts by Lot's people, and in one of them he even goes as far as to call for punishment by death.

• As is the case in many cultures, homosexuality was not always universally condemned:
  

  It looks as if a wave of homophobia has swept over the Islamic world, a place that was once widely known for its open-mindedness, where homoerotic literature was written and widely read, where gender roles were not so narrowly defined, and, as in the days of ancient Greece, where men often sought the companionship of youths[...]

  The story of Lot and related verses in the Koran were not interpreted as unambiguous references to homosexual sex until the 20th century, says Everett Rowson, professor of Islamic studies at New York University. This reinterpretation was the result of Western influences — its source was the prudery of European colonialists who introduced their conception of sexual morality to the newly conquered countries.

  The fact of the matter is that half of the laws across the world that prohibit homosexuality today are derived from a single law that the British enacted in India in 1860. "Many attitudes with regard to sexual morality that are thought to be identical to Islam owe a lot more to Queen Victoria than to the Koran," Rowson says.

• Often, intrusions of the state into the realm of the personal aren't as founded in religion as they appear:
  

  "The most repressive are secular regimes such as those in Egypt or Morocco, which are under pressure from Islamists and so try to outdo them with regard to morals," says Scott Long of Human Rights Watch. "In addition, the persecution of homosexuals shows that a regime has control over the private lives of its citizens — a sign of power and authority." For several years now, a sense of "moral panic" has been systematically fomented in many Muslim countries.

• What is moral and what is immoral? The lines, when examined, begin to blur:
  

  The persecution of gays has led to a boom in the demand for sex-change operations in Iran. More operations of this kind are carried out in the Islamic Republic than anywhere else in the world apart from Thailand. These procedures were approved by Ayatollah Khomeini himself in 1983. Khomeini defined transsexuality as a disease that can be healed by means of an operation. Since then thousands of people have requested this kind of treatment, and the Iranian government even covers part of the costs.

  "Family members and physicians urge homosexuals to have operations to normalize their sexual orientation," Parsi says. This way it was possible for a high-ranking Shiite religious scholar to finance his secretary's physical transformation into a woman and then to marry him.

• The reality on paper isn't always the reality on the ground:
  

  The archconservative kingdom of Saudi Arabia is the only Arab country where sharia law is the sole legal code, under which homosexuals are flogged and executed. "Homosexuals are freer here than they are in Iran," says Afdhere Jama, who traveled through the Islamic world for seven years doing research for his book "Illegal Citizens."

  Gay men and women have a surprising amount of space in Saudi society. Newspapers print stories about lesbian sex in school lavatories, while it is an open secret that certain shopping centers, restaurants and bars in Jeddah and Riyadh are gay meeting points.

• And, as always, bigotry wilts in the face of common sense:
  

  [Openly gay imam Daayiee Abdullah] regularly receives death threats but now laughs them off, saying: "How can two loving men pose a threat to the foundations God has laid?

  "

  Homophobia on the rise in the Muslim world [Salon]

[Washington, D.C., September 15. Image via Getty]

Jen and Dawn Barbouroske (L) pose with their daughters McKinley and Bre following a news conference with married same-sex couples, on legislation to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) outside the Capitol Hill in Washington, DC, on September 15, 2009. AFP PHOTO/Jewel SAMAD (Photo credit should read JEWEL SAMAD/AFP/Getty Images)

According to an AP story, a six-member APA panel examined 83 studies on the issue, and found that not only is therapy to change sexual orientation (like that received by Ted Haggard, pictured) likely worthless, it can also cause patients to become depressed and consider suicide. Instead, the APA says therapists should recommend a range of solutions, from celibacy to changing church affiliation, to patients who have a conflict between their sexuality and their religion. Psychologist and panel leader Julia Glassgold told the AP,

Both sides have to educate themselves better. The religious psychotherapists have to open up their eyes to the potential positive aspects of being gay or lesbian. Secular therapists have to recognize that some people will choose their faith over their sexuality.

Alan Chambers, president of a group that purports to use religion to change sexual preference, and himself someone who says he "overcame unwanted same-sex attraction," says he is satisfied with the APA's report. Others are less happy. David Pruden, Executive Director of a nonprofit that claims to help gay Mormons become straight, plans to ignore the APA report. He tells Rosemary Winters of the Salt Lake City Tribune, "The doctrines and standards of the church don't change because of statements by quasi-political organizations."

In a way it's surprising that the APA is even still talking about this issue. Homosexuality was removed from the DSM (a comprehensive handbook of mental illnesses and problems) in 1973, and the APA already has a brochure on sexual orientation that reads, in part,

All major national mental health organizations have officially expressed concerns about therapies promoted to modify sexual orientation. To date, there has been no scientifically adequate research to show that therapy aimed at changing sexual orientation (sometimes called reparative or conversion therapy) is safe or effective. Furthermore, it seems likely that the promotion of change therapies reinforces stereotypes and contributes to a negative climate for lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons.

However, in April, Slate's William Saletan wrote that therapists could in good conscience help patients change their sexual orientation in cases of "borderline homosexuality." He said,

Would you tell [...] a patient that her understanding of God is wrong? Are you sure her attraction to women is more fundamental than her religious beliefs? Is peace with the lesbian part of her sexuality worth the destruction of her family or her faith? And most important: Do you think you can answer these questions without knowing more about her?

Michael King, the professor who led the British study, tries to do just that. When gay people seek therapeutic escape, he argues, "Mental health practitioners and society at large must help them to confront prejudice in themselves and in others."

Help them confront prejudice in themselves? Isn't that just the substitution of one inner war, one purification quest, for another?

Except the war to confront prejudice is one the patient might actually win. Saletan mentions friends of his who have dated both men and women as proof that sexuality can change "at the margins." And yes, sexual preferences are not necessarily static, especially over the course of a lifetime. But there's no evidence that these preferences can change as a result of therapy, and a therapist's attempt to force such change likely does more harm than good. More and more, it appears that attraction is something we can't control, is something perhaps mutable but not "reparable." Therapists shouldn't reinforce an untenable status quo that regards people's natural desires as sinful and in need of fixing. The fact that Saletan — conservative, yes, but writing in a publication as mainstream as Slate — thinks they should is evidence that the APA's statement is still necessary.

Psychologists Reject Gay ‘Therapy' [AP, via NYT]
Psychologists Repudiate Gay-To-Straight Therapy [AP, via Breitbart]
APA's Stance Another Positive Step For Gays, Utah Therapist Says [Salt Lake City Tribune]
Shades Of Gay [Slate]

Klinghoffer joins the grand new tradition of social conservatives from bestiality-lover Rick Santorum to sister-schtupper Glenn Beck who view social acceptance of same-sex couples through the narrow prism of their own fantasies. At least Klinghoffer's don't involve the family pet!

Klinghoffer does, however, come in the company of another man, Joshua Berman, a professor who argues that without societal strictures condemning male-on-male anal sex, men would undoubtedly prefer it to heterosexual vaginal copulation. His evidence for this is the widespread acceptance of male homosexuality in ancient Rome.

It turns out that where homoeroticism is granted full social sanction, as it was in Rome, it flourishes — so much so, that one writer noted that the emperor Claudius exhibited an unusual trait: he was sexually interested in women alone!

Men, we learn from ancient Rome, will enjoy sex with other men, if there is no social censure.

Well, as Melissa McEwan of Shakesville points out, homoeroticism in ancient Rome was, more or less, limited to the upper classes and involved some pretty strict hierarchical rules: older men topped, younger, lower-status men bottomed. This is rather a far cry from fully consensual homosexuality, and was far more concerned with the sexual pleasure of who was on top.

Berman, with Klinghoffer right behind him, uses (and abuses) the state of male homosexual affairs to determine that male-on-male anal sex is so good that otherwise-heterosexual men would forgo vaginal intercourse all together if they could. Projection, anyone? His evidence, of course, is specious at best: a satirical play in which (one assumes) a woman offers her husband anal sex to stop having it with his boyfriend, and the man's refusal. From one ancient play, Berman and Klinghoffer extrapolate this:

The winners — big time — are homosexual men, because the historical record shows that they can expect their potential pool of partners to expand exponentially. Of note here is that this expanded pool of partners accrues to gay men, but not to homosexual women. At the risk of getting too explicit, I leave it the reader's basic grasp of anatomy to figure out why in ancient Rome a man who found pleasure in a woman, could also find pleasure in a man, while the record shows that a heterosexual woman rarely found sexual satisfaction in the company of another woman.

Basically, male-on-male anal sex is good for the top — and, again, the bottom is left out of the equation — and "the record" (not, obviously, including Greek poet Sappho) reflects that women can't get a good pounding from another woman, so lesbian sex is obviously inferior to penetrative vaginal intercourse.

Berman and Klinghoffer — as one assumes they often do offline — ignore the facts, namely, that many, many women get intense pleasure from cunnilingus and manual or gadget-driven stimulation of their genitalia; that some women — even heterosexual ones — actually don't achieve orgasm any other way; that women have also been known to enjoy anal sex; that some men achieve orgasm through anal penetration; and that not every guy who gets off from anal penetration is homosexual (see: pegging). Then there is this:

The losers from all this will be the vast majority of women. With full social sanction given to homoerotic activity, the historical precedent suggests that tomorrow's women will have a harder time finding and holding on to suitable men. As women will suffer, so will the vitality and stability of the nuclear family.

Klinghoffer, shaken to his core by Berman's revelation, doesn't understand how anyone could take that the wrong way. Or disagree! And he is so not pleased that people are being mean to him - on a blog - so he follows up his post about the joys of anal sex with one that, in effect, accuses gay men of being huge sluts and defines monogamy as "feminine."

Men are unruly in their passions, far more so than women with their natural affinity for monogamy. This is not a stereotype. It's reality. I suspect that women in the lesbian community would confirm that it is so. Normally, men's unruliness is somewhat limited by women. In gay culture, that's not the case at all. An important break on male sexuality has been removed.

Wait, so, even though men would be so entranced how awesome it is to stick your dick in another man's asshole that we need to prevent the social acceptance of homosexuality, access to pussy is now the reason men don't stick their dicks in other men's assholes more often? And here I thought if we just got the man a little bathroom sex, he'd leave us ladies alone.

How Women Will Be Hurt by Gay Marriage [Beliefnet]
How Women Will Be Hurt by Gay Marriage: A Postscript [Beliefnet]

Related: Excerpt From Santorum Interview [Associated Press]
In Things That Surprise Me [Shakesville]
Sappho [Wikipedia]

Earlier: "Conservatives: Just The People You Want In Charge Of Your Sex Life"

[New Dehli, July 2. Image via Getty]

Activists of Voices against 377 hug as they celebrate the New Delhi High Court ruling decriminalising gay sex outside the High court in New Delhi on July 2, 2009. A top Indian court issued a landmark ruling decriminalising gay sex between consenting adults, overturning colonial-era legislation that outlawed homosexuality. The New Delhi High Court ruled that an existing statute prohibiting homosexual acts was discriminatory and therefore a 'violation of fundamental rights' accorded under the constitution. AFP PHOTO/MANAN VATSYAYANA (Photo credit should read MANAN VATSYAYANA/AFP/Getty Images)

[Jerusalem, June 25. Image via Getty]

JERUSALEM - JUNE 25: An Israeli lesbian is dressed up as an ultra-Orthodox Jew during the annual Gay Pride event in a city center park on June 25, 2009 in Jerusalem, Israel. Thousands of alternative lifestyle Israelis and their supporters turned out for the heavily-secured parade and gathering, an event which has previously seen violent demonstrations by anti-gay protesters. (Photo by David Silverman/Getty Images)

Guards said the segregation at the Fluvanna Correctional Center for Women was deliberate, and that the "masculine-looking women" (like Summer Triolo, pictured) were moved to a wing of the prison referred to as the "butch wing," "little boys wing," "locker room wing" or "studs wing." Guards say building manager Timothy Back came up with the segregation plan as a way of breaking up relationships between inmates. One guard remembers Back saying, "we're going to break up some of these relationships, start a boys wing, and we're going to take all these studs and put them together and see how they like looking at nothing but each other all day instead of their girlfriends."

Though material conditions on the so-called "boys wing" were not worse than on other wings, inmates there were kept away from other inmates even at mealtimes, and say they suffered harassment. Prison staff made comments like, "Here come the little boys," when they arrived at the cafeteria for meals. Warden Barbara Wheeler denies that any segregation happened, but inmates say the policy was obvious. Inmate Trina O'Neal said, "I have been gay all my life and never have I once felt as degraded, humiliated or questioned my own sexuality, the way I look, etc., until all of this happened."

Va. Women's Prison Segregated Lesbians, Others [AP]

In the 1920s, frat guys started worrying that living together and being all friendly with each other would make them seem gay. Solution: public demonstrations of dominance over women, including rape. Syrett quotes several disturbing passages on this topic. In 1967, sociologist Eugene Kanin said that for frat brothers,

A successful 'snow job' on an attractive but reluctant female who may be rendered into a relatively dependable sexual outlet and socially desirable companion is considerably more enhancing than an encounter with a prostitute or a 'one night stand' with a 'loose' reputation.

Translation: getting a "nice girl" to have sex with you, possibly by any means necessary, is better than having sex with a slut. A contemporary frat boy offers an even more upsetting bit of sociology:

When my friends pick up chicks and bring them back to the fraternity house everyone else runs to the window to look at somebody else domineer a girl and I tell you what you almost get the same satisfaction. Some of the guys like to put on a show by doing grosser things each time ... Watching my friends have sex with other girls is almost as satisfying as doing it myself ... By the same token I enjoy conquering girls and having people watch.

Syrett notes that men who are in fraternities are more likely to rape than men who aren't, and that frat boys may perpetrate 70 to 90% of college gang rapes. Chilling as these statistics are, Amy Benfer of Broadsheet warns that we shouldn't think of all fraternities as horrible campus rape factories. She thinks frat culture may get better with the current acceptability of both gay marriage and "bromance" (although whether a movie and a silly term really make close heterosexual male friendship anymore socially accepted is debatable).

Still, Syrett's argument contradicts Greg Laden's view that peacetime society keeps men from raping. Rather, there may be social structures — and fraternities may be one of them — that encourage violent behavior among men as part of a fucked-up status system. As Megan has said time and again (and as too many people still don't get), rape isn't always about sex — it's about power. And society is eminently capable of creating toxic power structures in which rape as a form of advancement. It does us no good to think of men as natural sex maniacs who need civilization to keep them from assaulting. Instead, we need to realize that culture plays just as big a role in violence against women as biology — perhaps bigger — and that culture can be changed.

Bros Before Hos: College Fraternities and Sexual Exploitation [National Sexuality Resource Center]
Gang rapes, gay bashing and snow jobs [Broadsheet]