Box Turtle Bulletin

How ‘Love Won Out’ Is Promoted Through Local Churches

The most visible sign Love Won Out is coming to your town is the billboard that generally goes up about a month before the conference date. I’ve long suspected LWO is also promoted from within local churches and now have confirmation of that. LWO’s website has undergone considerable re-tooling in response to the paradigm shift caused by the emergence of the Ex-Gay Survivor’s Movement.

It’s not part of that response but the LWO site now includes resources for local churches that wish to put together groups to attend/promote the event. See “Church Resources” on the LWO site here. Most interesting is a PDF checklist titled “Promotional Plan.” Checklist items include:

-“Put LWO information in your bulletin” on four consecutive Sundays prior to the event. A sample bulletin text is provided.

-“Dates to make introductory announcement from your pulpit” again on four consecutive Sundays prior to the event.

-“Let Dr. Dobson assist you in introducing LWO to your congregation by playing the promotional CD.”

-Brochures Focus will provide to put on information tables.

-At your next church staff meeting choose 5 staff/lay leaders “who need to hear this message.” [There’s something about that phrasing I find creepy.]

-Discounted group rates for organized groups of more than 10 people ($40/person, the regular advance rate is $50).

-Recruit members of your church to volunteer at the conference.

The most comical part is LWO’s continued paranoia about security. Following the item about recruiting volunteers is a note that reads:

“*PLEASE recruit only volunteers that you or your pastoral staff can personally recommend”

Timothy Kincaid In New York Post

And speaking of media mentions, Box Turtle Bulletin author Timothy Kincaid made the New York Post. And no, it wasn’t on Page Six. The Post was interested in Timothy’s analysis of Qazi Rahman’s most recent study:

“Men and women do process spatial orientation differently,” Kincaid said. “And it’s also been known that gay men, in a number of areas, do things differently than straight men.”

Nor do the findings necessarily insult either group.

“Women and gay men have a different approach to finding direction than straight men,” Kincaid said. “It’s not that one is better or worse.”

Ken Hutcherson: Rejecting “Loving the Sinner?”

There was a very quick article in Thursday’s Christian Science Monitor about the Watchmen On the Walls. Yours very truly was interviewed for the story. The quote they used was a very quick one, about the Watchmen’s militancy and explicitly theocratic leanings. I wish reporter Ben Arnoldy had included my explanation that I am very careful about who I label theocratic. It’s a label that I very rarely use because very few fit it. But many of the Watchmen do. Nevertheless I think Arnoldy captured the gist of it.

Of course, I wasn’t the only one contacted for the article. Among others, so was Watchman co-founder Kenneth Hutcherson:

The Watchmen is a Christian movement that doesn’t teach hate or seek out violent followers, says Mr. Hutcherson, who is a pastor in Washington State. “God’s word does not allow us to hate. It tells us to stand up for righteousness and call a sin a sin,” he says. He rejects, however, the idea of loving the sinner while hating the sin. “The Bible says when a sinner will not separate himself from a sin then he is condemned with it. The one thing I’m trying to do is get heterosexuals out of the closet. We are the majority,” he says.

If Hutcherson really rejected the idea of loving the sinner while hating the sin, that represents an about-face from fellow co-founder and holocaust revisionist Scott Lively’s band-aide attempt in Riga, Latvia last November:

Say that with me. “We love the sinner, but hate the sin.” That must be your phrase because that will protect you from being misrepresented.

Presented that way, it sounds more like a magical incantation instead of theology. Understandably, Hutcherson doesn’t believe in magic. I get that. And since he’s won’t even avail himself of that simple fig leaf of a phrase, I guess the rest of the nakedness metaphor becomes appropriate as well.

Today in History: Kinsey’s “Sexual Behavior in the Human Male”

Two days ago, this web site suffered a case of premature celebration. How embarrassing. I swear, it’s never happened before.

The first volume of the “Kinsey Reports” was actually released sixty years ago today, not January 3rd. We regret the error on our earlier post.

To commemorate the 60th anniversary of Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, we look at the controversies, the statistics, the methodological problems, and the revolutionary role the Kinsey surveys played in American culture in our latest report, “According To The Kinsey Reports: A Noisy Revolution In Social Science and Popular Culture.”

The Kinsey Intitute also has an interesting history page on their web site.

California Supreme Court – A Hint at Things to Come?

Same-sex couples who register for Domestic Partnerships in California receive treatment from the State identical to that of married couples. However, as the term “marriage” is denied same-sex couples, there are social inequities and other cultural and societal limits on same-sex couples.

Twice the legislature has voted to remove gender requirements for marriage and twice the Governor has vetoed the bill, citing questions before the State Supreme Court. Specifically, the Court is being asked 1) whether denying same-sex couples marriage is in violation of the state constitution and, 2) if not, whether a referendum passed by the voters in 2000 prohibits recognition of all gay marriages or only those performed in other states.

The California State Supreme Court has now received all written argument and oral argument, and a determination is predicted within the year. Today the court made a decision that may give us some clues as to how they are thinking on the issue.

In 1978 the voters in the state rebelled against the ever increasing property tax burden and changed the constitution (via Prop 13) to limit the increases in annual taxes and to limit reassessments upon the transfer to property to spouses.

In 2003 the State Board of Equalization decided that Domestic Partners were also entitled to transfer rights of property owned by a their partner. This was encoded into law by the legislature in 2005.

Some county assessors sued, claiming that the legislature could not tinker with propositions and redefine the terms of transfer.

The Third District Court of Appeal in Sacramento disagreed in October, saying neither Prop. 13 nor subsequent measures barred lawmakers from granting additional exemptions to changes in ownership.

The court noted the Legislature’s declaration that the 2005 law was part of an effort to promote equality for all Californians, regardless of sexual orientation.

Today the State Supreme Court let the decision stand. Without comment or a dissenting voice.

There are several important differences between the property tax decision and the marriage question. Yet I think that this does give us a hint of the perspective of the members of the bench and a clue as to whether they will be welcoming of arguments about the limits to which a populace can restrict the rights of a minority and about the inherent equality of same-sex couples.

The Iowa Republican Caucus – What Does It Mean?

Mike Huckabee was the clear winner of the Republican caucus process. Considering that most of the anti-gay posturing is from the Republican side and considering that Huckabee has demonstrated a deep antipathy to gay citizens, just what does that mean?

Not much, really.

Iowa is a tiny state with a population of about 2.9 million, about 1.8 million of which are registered to vote. Of the one and a quarter million registered Republicans, less than 120,000 voted in the caucuses. About 40,000 people voted for Mike Huckabee.

Of course pundits will all tell us what the vote means for all the candidates until your ears bleed. But let’s take some perspective. It’s still a long way to Super Tuesday where about half the delegates will be selected on a single day. After that, we’ll probably know who the nominees will be. And I guarantee you’ll be sick of hearing about them before November.

Good-Bye and Thank You, Governor Dreyfus

The AP is reporting that Lee Sherman Dreyfus, Governor of Wisconsin from 1979 to 1983 passed away peacefully today.

Dreyfus, a Republican, ran as an outsider on a platform of fiscal conservatism and tax cuts. However he maintained moderate social values.

Our community owes a debt to Gov. Dreyfus.

Dreyfus signed the nation’s first statewide gay rights law in 1982. The measure made it illegal to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation in housing, employment and public accommodations. Gay rights activists gathered in Madison last year to mark the 25th anniversary of the law.

Glenn Carlson, interim executive director of Fair Wisconsin, a gay rights group, said the law made Wisconsin a trailblazer.

“It really established Wisconsin in the forefront of nondiscrimination,” he said. “He’s been a great leader and will be sorely missed.”

After his retirement from politics, he remained an ally of our community. In 2006 he was a vocal opponent of the state’s constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage and civil unions.

State Sen. Fred Risser, D-Madison, was president of the Senate during Dreyfus’ term and with Dreyfus when he signed the bill.

“He had a real concern for the people of the state of Wisconsin,” Risser said. “He had a compassionate feeling. I consider him a good governor. … He was an inspiration to people.”

Our hearts and prayers go out to his family and friends.

You Drive Like a Woman

Dr Qazi Rahman is a leader in the study of sexual orientation and one of the authors of Born Gay?: The Psychobiology of Sex Orientation.

Dr. Rahman has released the results of a new study that lends further support to the assertion that the brains of gay men operate differently than those of straight men.

Gay men are as bad as women at navigating research has shown.

Both share the same poor sense of direction and rely on local landmarks to get around, a study suggests.

They are also slower to take in spatial information than heterosexual men.

These tests did not find unequivocal mirroring of female spacial processing in gay men. In some tests they performed similarly to heterosexual men and not like women. Lesbians tended to perform without observable difference from heterosexual women. However, the responses in some parts of the test showed that gay men and straight men unquestionably process spacial information differently.

“Not only did straight men get started on the MWM test more quickly than gay men and the two female groups, they also maintained that advantage throughout the test,” said Dr Rahman.

“This might mean that sexual orientation affects the speed at which you acquire spatial information, but not necessarily your eventual memory for that spatial information.”

So we can toss another study on the growing pile of evidence that sexual orientation has some connection to biology. It’s hard to fathom how spatial information processing can be an acquired trait through any psychosocial conditioning or how anyone could make the claim, “Fathers, hug your son or he will drive using landmarks rather than an innate sense of which way is North”.

P.S. It should be noted that while women may not reach an unknown destination as quickly as men, they are in far fewer automobile accidents.

Contrasting Huckabee’s and Giuliani’s “Sin” Remarks

Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee made some remarks about the sinfulness of homosexuality on Meet the Press on December 30. Some have found them similar to those made by Rudy Giuliani on December 9. (Transcripts below)

At a first glance it would appear that both candidates agree: homosexual acts are sinful. And all people sin.

But a closer look may illustrate why these two people, Mike Huckabee and Rudy Giuliani, are saying very different things. And to understand the difference we have to look at difference between “sin” and “sinful”.

Orthodox Christian theology includes the notion that certain behaviors are “sins” and that God forgives sins of those who ask Him. Both Huckabee’s Southern Baptist and Giuliani’s Catholic faith observe that doctrine.

While “sin” literally means failing to live up to God’s expectations and can include anything from murder to lying about your weight, not all “sins” are seen as equal. Both politicians are speaking from a consistent place when they say that all people fail in their lives, but clearly they do not see eye to eye on what “degree” of sin would best describe homosexuality.

The key is seen in the use of the word “sinful”. Unlike a sin, which can quickly be forgiven and forgotten, sinful describes a state of being. Generally, that which is sinful is willfully rejecting God’s direction and rebelliously flaunting that which is right.

While Huckabee acknowledges that others sin, heterosexual sex outside marriage – which too is sinful and falling short of the mark – is not “aberrant” or “unnatural”. Nor is it similar to pedophilia, sadomasochism and necrophilia in being outside “the traditional concept of sexual behavior”.

When Huckabee proclaims, “I feel homosexuality is an aberrant, unnatural and sinful lifestyle” he includes all persons who identify as gay or engage in sex, regardless of whether it is in the context of a committed relationship or anonymously at a bathhouse. All of those who are openly gay – i.e. live this aberrant, unnatural and sinful lifestyle – are deserving of treatment different from those who do not. This notion of deserving blame and condemnation is readily evident in the way in which Huckabee discusses orientation and behavior.

People who are gay say that they’re born that way. But one thing I know, that the behavior one practices is a choice. We may have certain tendencies, but how we behave and how we carry out our behavior … [sentence unfinished]

Giuliani, on the other hand, believes that the way “that somebody leads their life is not—isn’t sinful.” In other words, they are not living in a condition of rebellion against God.

“My, my, my—no, I don’t believe it’s sinful.”

They may sin, as all do, and that means they need to seek redemption through their faith, but they are not viewed as willfully rejecting God.

This is a very strong distinction. And this difference can also be seen in the way in which the two politicians define their own relationship to sin.

Huckabee says he misses the mark every day. Even married couples do. But it is quite clear that Huckabee’s “missed marks” are not in any way similar to the aberrant, unnatural, sinful “missed marks” of homosexuals. When Huckabee talks about his imperfections, he’s not talking about sexual sins or faults.

Giuliani, on the other hand, seems to feel as though his “sins” are similar to those of gay persons.

Which includes me, by the way. I mean, you know, unfortunately, I’ve had my own sins that I’ve had to confess and had to deal with and try to overcome and so I’m very, very empathetic with people, and that we’re all, we’re all imperfect human beings struggling to, to try to be better.

This may not be readily evident to others, and some may disagree with my conclusion, but I think the distinction is that Huckabee thinks of “them who live a sinful lifestyle” while Giuliani thinks of “us who live a sinful lifestyle”. Perhaps this is because Huckabee’s Southern Baptist denomination holds him in high regard while Giuliani, on his third marriage and an enemy of his church on a number of social issues, is not strongly lauded by the Catholic Church.

Some within the gay community – especially those with no firm faith affiliation – may find any association of homosexuality with sin as being strongly offensive. Yet few candidates from any party could speak consistently from their own denomination’s position and honestly state that “homosexuality is not sin” (Barack Obama, as a member of the United Church of Christ, may be the only one who could do so).

Some tie Giuliani’s comments to those of Huckabee for partisan reasons, and some simply out of ignorance of Christian theology. But the important issue is not whether Huckabee or Giuliani or Clinton or Obama or Edwards or Romney or McCain think that homosexual acts are sin. This is, after all, the default theological position in Christian America. What matters is what they plan to do about it.

We know that Huckabee would be an active enemy of gay people in all facets of their lives. We will watch closer to see whether we can determine what the other candidates will do.

The full transcript of the relevant portions of the interviews can be found after the break

From the transcript of the Huckabee interview
MR. RUSSERT: Peggy Noonan, a woman of faith who writes for The Wall Street Journal, said that sometimes it appears your philosophy is “This is what God wants,” and that doesn’t encourage discussion, it squelches it. And, and this is what you wrote in your book, “Kids Who Kill,” in 1998: “It is now difficult to keep track of the vast array of publicly endorsed and institutionally supported aberrations–from homosexuality and pedophilia to sadomasochism and necrophilia.” Why would you link homosexuality with sadomasochism, pedophilia and necrophilia?

GOV. HUCKABEE: Well, what I was pointing out is all of these are deviations from what has been the traditional concept of sexual behavior and men and women having children, raising those children in the context of a, of a traditional marriage and family. And, again, taken out of the larger context of that book, speaking about how so many of our social institutions have been broken down.

MR. RUSSERT: But do you think homosexuality is equivalent to pedophilia…

GOV. HUCKABEE: Oh, of course not.

MR. RUSSERT: …or sadomasochism?

GOV. HUCKABEE: No, of course not. I didn’t say…

MR. RUSSERT: But this is what concerns people. This, this is what you did say about homosexuality: “I feel homosexuality is an aberrant, unnatural and sinful lifestyle.” That’s millions of Americans.

GOV. HUCKABEE: Tim, understand, when a Christian speaks of sin, a Christian says all of us are sinners. I’m a sinner, everybody’s a sinner. What one’s sin is, means it’s missing the mark. It’s missing the bull’s eye, the perfect point. I miss it every day; we all do. The perfection of God is seen in a marriage in which one man, one woman live together as a couple committed to each other as life partners. Now, even married couples don’t do that perfectly, so sin is not some act of equating people with being murderers or rapists…

MR. RUSSERT: But when you say aberrant or unnatural, do you believe you’re born gay or you choose to be gay?

GOV. HUCKABEE: I don’t know whether people are born that way. People who are gay say that they’re born that way. But one thing I know, that the behavior one practices is a choice. We may have certain tendencies, but how we behave and how we carry out our behavior–but the important issue that I want to address, because I think when you bring up the faith question, Tim, I’ve been asked more about my faith than any person running for president. I’m OK with that. I hope I’ve answered these questions very candidly and very honestly. I think it’s important for us to talk about it. But the most important thing is to find out, does our faith influence our public policy and how? I’ve never tried to rewrite science textbooks. I’ve never tried to come out with some way of imposing a doctrinaire Christian perspective in a way that is really against the Constitution. I’ve never done that.

From the transcripts of the Giuliani interview

MR. RUSSERT: And we’re back. Our remaining minutes with Rudy Giuliani.
Mike Huckabee, leading the field in Iowa, told the Associated Press back in the ’90s that AIDS patients should be quarantined and that “homosexuality was aberrant, unnatural and a sinful lifestyle.” What’s your reaction?

MR. GIULIANI: My reaction is that I haven’t seen—on the second of that, I haven’t seen Mike’s comment. The first one I think he says that he didn’t have the information, that he’s changed his mind about it, it’s not his current position. Look, I got enough of my own statements and issues, as we’ve seen, that I have to deal with. I think Mike has to…

MR. RUSSERT: But you don’t believe homosexuality is aberrant…

MR. GIULIANI: Oh, no, no, no.

MR. RUSSERT: …unnatural or sinful.

MR. GIULIANI: My, my, my—no, I don’t believe it’s sinful. My, my moral views on this come from the, you know, from the Catholic Church, and I believe that homosexuality, heterosexuality as a, as a way that somebody leads their life is not—isn’t sinful. It’s the acts, it’s the various acts that people perform that are sinful, not the—not the orientation that they have.

MR. RUSSERT: The Congress is discussing and…

MR. GIULIANI: Which includes me, by the way. I mean, you know, unfortunately, I’ve had my own sins that I’ve had to confess and had to deal with and try to overcome and so I’m very, very empathetic with people, and that we’re all, we’re all imperfect human beings struggling to, to try to be better.

Today in History: Kinsey’s “Sexual Behavior in the Human Male”

Sixty years ago on January 5, 1948, the first installment of what would become known as “The Kinsey Reports” was released. (Correction: The actual release date was January 5th, 1948.) The dry, scientific Sexual Behavior in the Human Male was published by a little-known publisher of medical textbooks and journals, who had no idea what they were getting into when they agreed to publish the book. Their experience was with a limited customer base where a run of 5,000 copies was considered a huge success. They ended up publishing a quarter of a million during that first year instead.

The only one who wasn’t surprised by the runaway success of Sexual Behavior in the Human Male was Alfred Kinsey himself. He and his colleagues had spent the previous nine years interviewing nearly 12,000 people across the country, asking them questions covering more than five hundred details of their intimate, sexual lives. And the book came out just as America was emerging from the frugality that marked the Great Depression and World War II, full of economic and cultural vitality and itching to make thousands of babies at the start of the Baby Boom.

The Kinsey Reports quickly entered popular culture along with Tiki-chic, bachelor pads, and a huge post-war baby boom. Sex was breaking out all over, and “Kinsey” became a popular code-word for anything risque. Now, sixty years later, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (and its companion volume Sexual Behavior in the Human Female, which appeared in 1953) are still the books that everyone loves — especially those who never read them. They are also the books that social conservatives love to hate, blaming them for sparking the sexual revolution of the 1960’s.

To commemorate the 60th anniversary of Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, we look at the controversies, the statistics, the methodological problems, and the revolutionary role these two book played in American culture in our latest report, “According To The Kinsey Reports: A Noisy Revolution In Social Science and Popular Culture”

New Ex-Gay Survivor Testimony: Eric

Home for the holidays I had the opportunity to sit down and film Eric of TwoWorldCollision who gave his ex-gay survivor testimony in four segments. Eric’s ex-gay experience is centered around time spent in Living Waters as well as a suicide attempt in high school. After he finished telling his story I still had a few questions so I left the camera running and the result of that is the bonus Q&A.

“Suicide & The Porcelain Punisher” – Part 1

“The Ex-Gay Program” – Part 2

“Isolation and Exclusion” – Part 3

“Side X Culture” – Part 4

Bonus Q&A

And, Such As…

Happy New Year! As always, we hope your new year will be better than the last.

One improvement for the new year that I think we can all hope for would be this: that some of those phrases we heard in 2007 don’t make it into 2008. The title of this post is my favorite candidate. What’s yours?

Were Oregon Domestic Partnerships Put on Hold by an Activist Judge?

UPDATED

When courts find that constitutional protections include gay people, anti-gays often raise the cry of “Activist Judge”. It seems to matter little if the judge has a long history of conservative affiliation or careful judicial determination.

Well, it may be that in the latest judicial decision on the rights of same-sex couples there actually was an activist judge, an anti-gay activist judge.

This is not Judge Michael W. Mosman’s first words on gay couples and their right to equivalent treatment. An Oregonian article from April 21, 2003 (via www.sodomylaws.org) provides us with some disturbing precedent.

Mosman, 46, emerged as the top candidate in January after Ray Baum, a lawyer for Smith’s family business, withdrew. But controversy erupted in March, when Basic Rights disclosed Mosman’s role in a pivotal 1986 case, Bowers V. Hardwick.

The group uncovered and presented to Smith two “bench memos” that Mosman had written as a clerk to Supreme Court Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr. Mosman urged Powell to uphold Georgia’s anti-sodomy law against a claim that police invaded a man’s privacy by arresting him in his home.

Powell, who was the tie-breaking vote, later regretting making the legal decision to deny the same constitutional protections to the sex life of gay couples that the Supreme Court granted to heterosexual couples. It would not be until Lawrence v. Texas in 2003 that gay persons would no longer be automatic criminals in many states.

It is unclear at this point whether Mosman’s advice to Powell was due to legal position or how much was due to his own religious idealogy. In a book referenced by the article he suggest that another legal argument might have been more convincing. However, the language used by Mosman in 1986 makes quite clear that at that time he did not include gay and lesbian families within even the broadest definition of “family relationship”.

“Without belaboring the point, I am convinced that the right of privacy as it relates to this case has been limited thus far to marriage and other family relationships,” Mosman wrote to Powell. “So limited, the right of privacy does not extend to protect ‘sexual freedom’ in the absence of fundamental values of family and procreation.”

Judge Mosman met with the Democratic Oregon Senator, Ron Wyden, at the time of his confimation and convinced him of his impartiality and that he was not an anti-gay advocate. I am wondering if Wyden regrets his support. For that matter, I wonder if Senator Gordon Smith, the Republican who nominated him is having second thoughts. Both are long time allies of the gay community with Senator Smith often leading Republican support in the Senate.

In the upcoming months we will see whether or not this judge is abusing his authority to impose on Oregonians his own personal values. I’m not encouraged that the judge found a new “fundamental right” where none had been before – what appears to be a “fundamental right” not to have your signature disqualified if it doesn’t meet the established decades-standing requirements that were known to all upon the distribution of petitions. Further he determined that allowing gay Oregonians to form domestic partnerships would do irreparible harm to the anti-gay activists in Arizona (or perhaps to local anti-gays, I’m not certain) that were fighting against any measure of equality and dignity for gay persons.

We will, of course, keep you updated.

UPDATE

Judge Mosman ruled for the state and for gay couples. Clearly my concerns were unwarranted.

It feels wonderful to be wrong about him.

Today in History: The Temerity Of A Kiss

This essay first appeared last year. Since then, the readership of Box Turtle Bulletin has increased ten-fold, so I thought it might be appropriate to re-post this to premiere our series for 2008, “Today In History.”

You must remember this
A kiss is just a kiss, a sigh is just a sigh.
The fundamental things apply
As time goes by.

It all began exactly forty years ago this New Year’s Eve, on Sunset Blvd., in the Silverlake neighborhood of Los Angeles, in a small bar called the Black Cat. There were some sixty or seventy patrons gathered during those final moments of 1966, counting down the last few seconds to midnight. Couples gathered and stood next to each other, and as the countdown approached zero, they leaned into one other, and, amid the shouts of “Happy New Year!” and the opening strands of Auld Lang Syne, they did something all couples do all around the world.

They kissed.

And immediately at least six plainclothes officers who had infiltrated the gay bar began viciously beating and arresting the kissing offenders. As the melee widened, several people tried to escape to the nearby New Faces bar. Undercover officers followed and raided that bar as well. One of the New Faces workers was beaten so badly by police that they cracked a rib, fractured his skull and ruptured his spleen.

Six Black Cat kissers were tried and convicted of “lewd or dissolute conduct” in a public place, conduct that consisted of male couples hugging and kissing. According to one police report, one couple had “kissed on the mouth for three to five seconds.” Apparently, three to five seconds are what constituted “lewd or dissolute conduct” among the LAPD.

It’s hard to describe what it was like to be gay in Los Angeles in the 1950’s and ’60’s. It was virtually illegal to be gay in LA, where undercover officers displayed unusual zeal to “clean up the streets.” No place was safe, not even private homes, bars or clubs. “Gay bars” barely existed. If one establishment gained a reputation as a gay hangout, it would be raided and shut down. Undercover officers would infiltrate private parties and bars suspected of being frequented by gay men. If they saw anyone who engaged in any sort of social touching, hand-holding, dancing, or even simple small-talk that might, in the imagination of the undercover officer, conceivably lead to “something more”, they were arrested. Entrapment was the norm and it didn’t take much to get arrested. Simply arranging to meet for dinner or exchanging phone numbers with an undercover officer was often enough to trigger an arrest — and being labeled a sex offender under California Law.

But all of that began to change with the profoundly radical act of a kiss.

It’s still the same old story
A fight for love and glory
A case of do or die.

Two and one half years before the Stonewall rebellion in New York, there was another rebellion underway in Los Angeles as the gay community stood its ground in defense of a kiss. In this case of do or die, more than 200 activists gathered at the corner of Sanborn and Sunset to protest the arrests and the ongoing police brutality and intimidation. At a time when few would dare to publicly identify themselves as homosexual for fear of intimidation and arrest, this first open gay-rights protest in Los Angeles was a very bold step. It led to the formation of PRIDE, a gay rights group in Los Angeles, and it swelled the ranks of the Mattachine Society. Where previous raids drove gay men further underground, this time the reaction was different. Gay activism in Los Angeles came of age that night forty years ago.

In the ensuing publicity, two of the convicted kissers, Charles W. Talley and Benny Norman Baker, were able to find some very brave heterosexual lawyers who agreed to handle their appeals. No gay lawyers were willing to publicly come out to take the case. Charles (the one described in the police report kissing someone “on the mouth for three to five seconds”) and Benny appealed their convictions all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court. But their kiss was much too radical for that august institution. In 1968, the court refused to hear Talley vs. California, and so their convictions stood.

There’s no question that we have come a very long way since 1966. But in some ways, we haven’t yet come far enough. Male couples can still be beaten for simply holding hands in public. The ordinary act of placing one’s hand in another’s – the same thing so many heterosexual couples do with such ease and innocence – is still too provocative even today in many places. A kiss would be downright heroic.

In a society where heterosexual couples can kiss wherever they please and lesbians kissing is considered “hot”, a kiss is still a very radical act when that kiss is shared between two men. Critics point to the popularity of Will & Grace as evidence that gay men are accepted, but long-suffering Will Truman (Eric McCormack) rarely had a boyfriend. And when he finally got one, he wasn’t allowed to kiss him on the lips for the longest time. It wasn’t until the the show had been on the air for eight seasons that Will was finally allowed to kiss James Hanson (Taye Diggs).

A few years ago, Oliver Stone put Alexander the Great in bed naked with Hephaistion after they expressed their undying love for each other. But even though Stone’s reputation is supposedly built on his bold interpretations of history, he chickened out and only let Alexander share his kiss with Olympia in a love scene that was more a struggle for dominance than an expression of love. And while Ennis Del Mar and Jack Tripp Twist were finally allowed to kiss each other in the remotest reaches of Brokeback Mountain where nobody could see them, all of that kissing still came to an end some twenty-five years ago with Jack’s brutal murder.

Forty years after the Black Cat raid, men still cannot be seen kissing each other, unless ratings are tanking during the final season or one of them dies.

And yet, what are two lovers supposed to do?

And when two lovers woo
They still say, “I love you.”
On that you can rely
No matter what the future brings
As time goes by.

A lot has changed since 1966, but the passage of forty years has not tamed the temerity of a simple kiss. For gay men, a kiss is still seen a boldly radical act. But it is also our declaration of independence, on which forty years ago many have pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor.

So all you men out there, do something radical this New Year’s Eve. Kiss him. On the Mouth. For three to five seconds.

I don’t care who you kiss or why. You can kiss him for love, you can kiss him for lust, or you can kiss him just because he’s cute. You can kiss him because he’s the love of your life, or you can kiss him because he’s a total stranger who you’ll never see again. But just kiss him, and kiss him boldly.

Kiss him for all of those who were not allowed to kiss. Kiss him for those who were beaten and arrested for kissing, and for those who fought back to defend that kiss. Kiss him for those heroes who declared an end to the shame of kissing. Kiss him because now you can; because today your greatest freedom is in that kiss. Kiss him on the mouth. And for good measure, kiss him for much, much longer than three to five seconds. Kiss him hard and long, with a kiss of forty years and still counting.

And wish him a very happy New Year.

Update: When I first wrote this, I had very few readers to admonish me for leaving something very important out: Ladies grab your gal and plant one on her “for three to five seconds,” at least. And don’t let up until you’re good and ready! I sincerely apologize for leaving you out. It was very boorish of me.

The same good wishes goes for everyone else, whoever you are, and wherever you find yourself. And have a very happy New Year.

That’s the advantage of having a larger readership this time: it keeps us accountable and on our toes, and it holds us to ever higher standards for ourselves and for each other. Thanks for your comments.

On Monday Night, Pop a Cork or Light a Candle

After midnight while the world is celebrating a new year, gay couples in New Hampshire will be celebrating new equality. Civil Unions will become legal there.

Meanwhile those couples in Oregon who were expecting to join in Domestic Partnerships will have a while longer to wait. The state has a peculiar system whereby a law can be delayed in implementation if there are enough signatures collected to force a vote of the populace.

Those who opposed allowing same-sex couples have any rights similar to those granted to opposite-sex couples gathered signatures but fell 96 short of the 55,179 required to stop the law. However they were able to find a judge to put the celebrations on a hold until he can hear their complaints about possible legal signatures that were invalidated.

The surprise ruling comes four days before the law would allow gay couples to gain most of the same legal benefits of marriage. Couples across Oregon were planning to show up at county offices Wednesday to register as partners.

But U.S. District Judge Michael Mosman ruled that they will have to wait. He set a Feb. 1 hearing to decide a lawsuit challenging the state’s methods for verifying signatures on a November 2008 referendum.

Mosman said attorneys for opponents showed that the rights of voters may have been violated if their signatures were wrongly rejected. Setting the next hearing in a month reduces the harm to people who would be affected by the new law, he said.

Those who had hoped to strengthen their families will instead light a candle.

In New Hampshire champagne will flow and tears and smiles abound in midnight ceremonies planned by those who just can’t wait any longer.

Whether you will be lighting a candle or toasting in new freedoms, have a very happy, healthy and sane New Year. And resolve to do your part in 2008 to bring about equality for gay couples across the nation and around the world.