Tracy Baim

Burris has pro-gay record

The following article I am posting on Windy City Times today. See here.

Roland Burris, tapped in a controversial move by Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich to fill the U.S. Senate post once held by Barack Obama, has a pro-gay record in his varied political career. As a perennial candidate, he has often sought gay support in his races, including his 2002 bid for state governor. The notable exception, which is more like the rule for pro-gay pols, is that he does not back same-sex marriage, but rather a form of civil unions.

Whether Burris gets to hold the post for any length of time will be up to politicians and judges, a fate also awaiting Blagojevich. To provide some background on Burris, who has been more out of the spotlight in recent years, Windy City Times takes a look back at his answers to candidate surveys and interviewer questions.

The following are quotes from an interview with Roland Burris that ran in the December 1997 and January 1998 issues of BLACKlines, a now-defunct sister publication to Outlines newspaper, which in 2000 merged with Windy City Times. The interviewer was Jon Dallas:

JD: Same-sex marriages recognized in other states [none at the time] will not be recognized in Illinois under a law [Senate Bill 1773 sponsored by Sen. Peter Fitzgerald, R-Palatine] signed in May 1996 by Gov. Edgar. If you had been governor, would you have signed that law? Will you work for its repeal?

RB: [This question] touches on a very philosophical point with me, a personal point. I have made sure that there will be no discrimination against gays and lesbians, as a matter of fact I’ve amended statutes, sexual orientation preferences for hate crimes saying that you can’t attack people and I’ve worked to pass laws for the interest of anti-discrimination. I’ve met with all of my gay friends and they know where I stand on this issue. We have discussed it and we have talked about it and they’ve sought to convince me, but guess what? They haven’t quite been able to do it yet. I’m not there. And the reason why I’m not there as I’ve told them [gay friends] is that they don’t have an answer for it either. If you take it [same-sex marriages] to its ultimate conclusion, it will then be the destruction of the species. So therefore, I am not there. The bill that would come to me I could not sign. Not that I don’t support all [lesbian and gay] efforts, but when it comes to the sanctity of marriage, that to me under my culture and my beliefs ... is a philosophical difference. In our structure in society, when we look for the perpetuation of mankind, we look for the opposite sex. There was a reason for the creation of the opposite sex—for procreation. Various things have to happen when you get the opposite sex together some person may not be able to produce. But under the biological existence, the circumstances are that they [gays and lesbians] can’t. But if you get two females together, you know that they cannot reproduce. You put two males together you know that they cannot reproduce. So given that as I see our societal structure, I see it [society] as having been created in this fashion some other societies and cultures are different as for the perpetuation of the species.

JD: Current statistics state that lesbians and gay men consist of about 10% of the population. Given that fact, how do you feel about [same-sex marriage]?

RB: That’s fine. It could be 30% or 40% of the population. But when you’re dealing with my personal, inner beliefs, and my gay friends have respected my views on this because they have parents the same way ... this is something that I’m not new at discussing. They’ve been trying to convince me [to support same-sex marriage] and some of them haven’t been able to do it. Some of the white [lesbian and gays] have been non-supportive but some Black lesbians and gays [have been supportive]. Marc Loveless [from The Committee] and I have been through this and a couple of [my] white staff members knew that some [in the white lesbian and gay community] didn’t support my task because it was racism. It had absolutely nothing to do with my personal belief in the sanctity of the homosexual marital relationship. I did not get that support from them [white lesbians and gays] anyway ... they have not supported my candidacy [while] other candidates didn’t believe in the marital situation either. It was a race question. To my Black gay and lesbian brothers and sisters, they’re dealing with my inner beliefs. And my belief is that I will protect every right that you have and I will go to death with you. But I don’t think that we can take it to that level of marriage. If the two [lesbians or gay men] want to get married, live together that is their decision. But don’t ask the societal structure to sanction that [marriage]. It would be like the common-law arrangement, and a lot of heterosexuals are in common-law arrangements, there’s some protection that [heterosexuals] get under that [arrangement]. Now in the same-sex arrangement, I don’t want to go down that path because it’s a path of no return. If you start down that [road], generations from now, what will happen to our species? If there’s a law [for same-sex marriage] I will not support it.

JD: What will you do to stop violence against lesbian and gay people?

RB: If someone attacks [lesbians and gays] because you are lesbian or gay, they ought to have an enhanced penalty because they have no right to interfere with whatever you want to be ... it your right. I’m not somebody who’s flippant about this [issue]. I’ve been in it, I understand it, I’ve changed and got educated [on lesbian and gay issues] and have become an advocate for violence against lesbians and gays. I will certainly speak out regarding any violence against any citizen anywhere in the state of Illinois.

JD: Do you favor increasing funds to pay for the new AIDS medications?

RB: I will support anything that will deal with the elimination of AIDS. Certainly. I’ve been out on AIDS Walks and I’ve hired an HIV-positive person on my staff. I think I’m on the right side of that issue.

JD: Do you support a bill to make discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation illegal in the state of Illinois?

RB: Absolutely.

For the complete interview see the following links:
http://www.windycitymediagroup.com/gay/lesbian/news/ARTICLE.php?AID=20127

or here.
and
http://www.windycitymediagroup.com/gay/lesbian/news/ARTICLE.php?AID=20126
or
here.

The AIDS Foundation of Chicago also surveyed the gubernatorial candidates that year. Burris scored a 73% rating on that survey, while Blagojevich was 100%.

And finally, below are Burris' answers to the 2002 Windy City Times/BLACKlines questionnaire for statewide candidates.

1. Would you support a state civil rights bill for gays and lesbians? YES.

Would you lobby for it? YES.


2. Do you favor a statewide registry of names of people who test positive for HIV? NO. That is an unreasonable invasion of privacy.

3. On AIDS services in the state, do you favor:
a. Increasing funding?    YES.
b.    Reducing funding?  NO.
c. Maintaining current funding?  NO.

4. What steps, beyond current programs, should the state government take to fight AIDS?
State government can do more in terms of incorporating responsible sexual awareness education into our public school curriculum; supporting community-based needle exchange programs; and providing financial support for community-based safe sex public education campaigns.

5. On Medicaid, do you favor mandatory coverage of persons with HIV/AIDS? YES.

6. Do you favor same-sex marriage?   NO. Explain:  I favor civil unions, extending employee benefits to include same-sex partners, and the addition of gay, lesbian and trans-gender protections under the human rights act, but I am opposed, on religious grounds, to recognition by marriage of same-sex couples.

7. Do you believe in the right of gays and lesbians to become foster parents in Illinois?
YES.

8. Should gays and lesbians have a right to adopt children? YES.

9. Should gays/lesbians have the right to custody of their own children? YES.

10.  Do you favor hate-crimes legislation that increases penalties for crimes committed based on the sexual orientation or gender identity of the person attacked? YES.

11.  Do you have rights for transgendered persons in employment, housing and public accomodations? YES.

12.  Do you support a woman’s right to choose abortion? YES.

13.  Do you favor maintaining current affirmative action programs? YES.

14.  Do you favor public funding of the Boy Scouts, given that the private agency has been allowed to discriminate against gays and lesbians? NO.

15.  Are any members of your current staff, either campaign staff or legislative staff, openly gay, lesbian, bi or transgendered? YES.

16.  Please list any and all experience you have on gay issues, whether on legislation, voting lobbying, personal, etc. As Attorney General, I was responsible for incorporating gay, lesbian issues into the Victim’s Rights, Domestic Abuse and Hate Crimes legislation. I created the first ever Women’s Advocacy Division to protect women from domestic abuse. Those protections extend to gay, lesbian and trans-gender victims.

Obama Wish List

Given that he's starting off on the wrong foot with our LGBT community, I thought I'd create an Obama Wish List for 2009 so that he can make it up to us. After all, he received millions of dollars and millions of votes from LGBTs. If we truly are part of his agenda, he can make Pastor Rick Warren yesterday's news quickly by making progress on long-awaited rights for our community.

Now of course I know a top priority has to be cleaning up the massive toxic dump left by Bush/Cheney. The economy, the wars, the environment, all the criminal changes in rules and regulations, enforcement and oversight ... what a mess. But what I hate is when people think you can separate justice issues from "bread and butter" issues. You can't. Not just because it's morally wrong, but also because if you are a gay person kicked out of the military, that is an economic issue for you and for our government. They wasted tax dollars training you. They need to spend more to recruit a replacement. And it impacts our ability to defend our country; if all those gay Arab translators had not been kicked out, would we know more about terrorism? So gay issues are integral to solving many of the difficult tasks facing Obama. He just needs to think more broadly. If he involves more LGBTs in his administration, he will have that much more expertise and brain power solving all those big problems.

So, given the general top issues listed above, I have my own Obama LGBT wish list. While all may not happen in 2009, it won't get easier as the right wing rebuilds, so it may be best to do these early in the administration.

1) The Supreme Court. Start planning now, just in case. Please do not compromise in a middle-right way on this one. Pastor Warren is bad enough; but if you "reach out" across the aisle on any Supreme Court picks, we are royally screwed for decades. You ran middle-left, you won middle-left ... please do not go "right" on this critical decision.

2) Employment. Make sure any statements and resolutions you include on employment in your administration include all our alphabet community: gay, lesbian, bi and trans. And then when you work to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, make sure it, too, includes the T and makes its way through quickly. This is among the most important bills to help your LGBT allies. If you sign it into law, we promise to forget all about Rick Warren. (Even if Melissa Etheridge seems ready to have his baby; see HuffingtonPost.com.)

3) Don't Ask, Don't Tell ... Just Do It, cut it down. Most generals support lifting the ban, and maybe you will even give us an openly gay Navy Secretary to help you get this done fast. We need the troops, it's simple justice, and a lot more palatable than when Bill Clinton tried to do it. Most straight people are now OK with gays dying for their country. 

4) Hate crimes. Hey, we know you get this one. Make sure there is not just a comprehensive law passed in your first six months, but also documentation and enforcement equally across the country. 

5) Appointments. Your cabinet does not have any openly gay people. Maybe we have to wait now for some openings, or new positions. But come on, you know lots of LGBTs ... make sure your "to do" list includes some bench warmers from our community. As I said before, we can bring lots of talents and ideas to your team.

6) While you hypocritically believe marriage is for a man and a woman, you have also said marriage is a state issue. As a lawyer, you know that is only a partial truth. The federal government provides more than 1,000 benefits to married people. And because states are basically violating the full faith and credit clause of the U.S. Constitution (in not recognizing marriages legal in other states), this is a federal issue. The federal Defense of Marriage Act needs to be overturned; states may not allow marriage in their own borders, but they must be forced to recognize those in others or we will have huge legal battles and tax nightmares ahead. 

7) If we can't get all 1,000+ benefits fixed for marriage, at least fix a few important ones, such as: Inheritance made the same, so no Gay Tax on those who die and try to give their property and money to a surviving partner; immigration (married partners of citizens being allowed citizenship); and getting rid of taxes on work-related health benefits given to domestic partners.

8) Signing on to international United Nations resolutions supporting equal rights for LGBTS. Use your amazing goodwill worldwide to put our rights out front.

9) An LGBT Round Table. President Jimmy Carter made history in having a staffer invite gays to the White House. He didn't meet with them, but it still made history for its location. An ongoing Presidential Round Table on LGBT Issues (where sometimes you attend) would help advise you on a range of issues, and would be a good model for issues impacting other groups. Make sure however that those groups are not segregated or isolated, and that ideas are allowed to bubble up to the top (you), not just your advisors.

10) Finally, I think it is critical that each key area of your administration makes sure to be fully aware of issues of diversity, to make them smarter and more effective. Education, environment, healthcare (for better AIDS and cancer prevention policies and funding), and all departments should have fully diverse and integrated departments, so that the very best our country has to offer, including LGBTs, are attracted to government work once again. Corporate America can tell you about their diversity policies, and how those help them attract top talent. 

Despite the fact that he can sometimes be infuriatingly dispassionate and practical, I believe we have the best chance, under an Obama Administration, to make solid gains on LGBT issues, and on all areas of civil rights. But we need proof now, and we also need to make sure we are not taken for granted. He said he is a "fierce" advocate for our community. Now it's time to walk that talk.

The Lesbian Lens

I tend to view the world through lesbian-colored glasses. I know it can distort reality, and I tend to see LGBT even when it's not there. That's what happens when you cover a community for 24+ years ... things just always seem queer.

But a lot of pop culture can be viewed through such a lens these days. The hot new video "Sober" by Pink surely has some lesbian undertones ... well, at least self-infatuation undertones. But it is hot.

Then I came across the simply beautiful, and beautifully simple, music video by Sara Bareilles, "Winter Song," with Ingrid Michaelson. See http://www.vh1.com/video/play.jhtml?artist=2005059&vid=324143 or click here.

It is an animated video featuring two females living in an isolated cabin in the middle of winter. Can you say "lesbian"! It is about love and the change of seasons, and they go out planting and playing together, sometimes holding hands, sometimes lovingly looking at one another. Hearts are everywhere, including as symbols on their rosy cheeks. The words are absolutely a love song, maybe to a woman, maybe to nature -- who knows, who cares? "My voice a beacon in the night, my words will be your light, to carry you to me." "This is my winter song ... cause you're not where you belong ... inside my arm."

Yes, this could be a video about friendship; but my lesbian-colored glasses see a heartwarming winter love story between two women. It doesn't matter how you view it; it's just an excellent music video, and a wonderful song for these cold and snowy holidays in Chicago.

"Is love alive?" they sing. Yes, it is, despite Prop 8, despite Rick Warren, and despite the blistering cold of winter.

Hope's Litmus Test

OK, sorry, this is my third post on the Rick Warren mistake ... it's just too big to ignore.

Most of Barack Obama's campaign was about hope. In stirring speeches across the nation, his words inspired millions to believe in a new path to a better future. I am not saying it was empty rhetoric, but it was all just words. I too am hopeful because of the inclusive nature of his dialogue, and because of his past actions in Illinois.

This is perhaps why so many gays and our allies were shocked when Obama's team announced the invocation at his inauguration would be delivered by Rick Warren, who thinks he can cure gay people and won't allow unrepentant gays into his church. Warren is touted for his (late) work on AIDS issues, but if he hates gays so much, I doubt his AIDS work is very educated and effective. It's probably motivated by money.

Since Obama was so much about symbolism and hope, what a betrayal to have such a symbolic position be given to a hater like Warren, who represents the opposite of hope. Therefore it is disingenuous of Obama's people to placate us now by saying it's just words, that Warren does not represent Obama's views. Words are all we have until Obama is in office. Warren's words would send us back in time, not towards an egalitarian future. After all, Obama's pastor Jeremiah Wright was just full of hateful words; Obama distanced himself from Wright, why bring himself closer to Warren? Words are what took down gay marriage in California, words are used to "cure" gays; words do hurt, and words lead to hateful actions.

Here is what Obama needs to do. Bring in at least two more invocation speakers. My suggestions: Openly gay Bishop Gene Robinson of the Episcopal Church and lesbian Dr. Yvette Flounder, founding pastor of the Fellowship Churches in San Francisco. I think two gays can out-religion Mr. Warren quite nicely. 

Who Defines Tolerance?

I blogged earlier today (see below) about Obama's unfortunate choice of Rick Warren to give the invocation at his historic inauguration. I have been reading and watching the debates on this topic, and it is driving me crazy in so many ways.

It's very difficult to give gay rights a historic perspective without comparing this battle to previous civil-rights battles. The fight for African-American civil rights has not been the same as the gay-rights fight, but it did inform the movement and there are some parallels. The same for the women's movement, immigrant's rights movements, and more. Racial and gender injustice have very different paths than the specific gay movement.

But it does help to use some examples of other discrimination to explain how infuriating our enemies can be -- and how equally infuriating our allies usually sound. That is what seems to be going on right now with the Rick Warren issue. However, I am extremely impressed with the sophistication of this debate, and the support of other gay allies in denouncing Warren's selection for this honor. It is refreshing, and possibly precedent-setting, to see so many allies being interviewed and blogging so strongly for our community. The Prop 8 defeat (and Milk film) may have been a wake-up call for some people to see the hypocrisy of a change movement that does not lift all boats. I also think it is hilarious when the right wing says we are the ones being intolerant -- by defending ourselves against a hater, we are intolerant. I'd like to see what they'd say to those who denounced Hitler -- "they don't tolerate diversity of opinions about Jews."

I do believe Obama is very supportive of gay rights. I do not agree with him on some of his positions, but I think he does see gays as not just money and votes for his campaign. But what I do not understand is why he and others continue to think it is OK to have one standard for general civil-rights issues, but another for gays and lesbians. There is a double-standard among (some) progressives, those who stand on the wrong side of history, willing to compromise their way to the future. It is often necessary to compromise to get ahead; and I can see that happening legislatively when we lose a vote and then keep plugging along.

But when it comes to opinions and honors, including selecting the person standing at the biggest ceremonial honor for the inauguration, why is it OK to compromise? Surely there are thousands of better selections for that position, ones who represent all (or at least most) of Obama's "change" ideals. It is as if Obama lost the election, or only won by a small margin. He won, and it's OK to then have your inauguration reflect the ideals of your campaign.

Those ideals are now in a shambles. It would not have been OK to have a racist give the invocation. It should not be OK to have a homophobe, either. Period. Obama may not be able to fulfill all of his promises to the gay community. We hope that will be only because Congress doesn't pass the bills, not because Obama did not lobby for them. But in this instance, poised at the dawn of a new age, Obama pushed us under the bus as sure as Bill Clinton did on several key issues. 

I can only hope this is a teachable moment, as Obama so often speaks about. Obama needs to learn that the gay community, and our allies, are not the same in 2008 as when Clinton was in office. We are stronger, angrier, and have more clout. We also have grown a new generation of queers not used to compromising, not used to losing, and they are even louder than those who went before them. 

It is no longer OK to say one thing and do another. If you believe in equality for gays and lesbians, do not honor those who call us names and strip of us our rights. If you believe in rights for women, do not honor those who fight against those rights. Yes, please work with them, argue with them, and even have them over for dinner. But do not honor them. But do not sell us out, do not use us as your fig leaf to the right wing. 

Finally, as I said before, I do not believe now that Obama politically can rescind the invite to Warren. But he can add in several others to share the honor of the invocation, representing a diversity of people (how about a woman?), religions and politics. Add more people into the mix, to drown out the hate of Warren.

For updates on this news story, see Windy City Times.

What Was Obama Thinking?

What could President-elect Barack Obama be thinking in inviting a notorious anti-gay minister to deliver the invocation at his inauguration? It is similar to when he campaigned using an anti-gay preacher -- maybe he wasn't thinking or listening. And that of course always is a problem. Without solid advice from LGBT people around him, Obama will continue to swim with homophobic sharks.

Stated GLAAD: "The inauguration of a new President is a day when Americans should be brought together, to signal a new beginning for our country. It is therefore deeply troubling that the President-elect has selected someone [Rick Warren] whose defamatory and damaging anti-gay statements and views, including linking marriage for committed same-sex couples to incest and pedophilia, clearly divide rather than unite American. Media outlets have a responsibility to scrutinize Rick Warren's history of using his powerful platform to advance anti-gay rhetoric and prevent loving couples from being able to take care of and be responsible for one another."

Obama likes to promote reaching across the aisle; but there are appropriate times for that, and the invocation is not that time. That time calls for healing, for someone who ALSO reaches across the aisle, and Warren does not. Obama has just given a collective slap in the face to all the LGBTs and our allies who gave him money or our votes. It was bad enough he stayed out of the Prop 8 debate; now he is giving this big honor to someone who helped pass Prop 8.

This is really a horrible blunder, and it also presents a big problem for Obama. Like the Chicago-based Museum of Broadcast Communications honoring homophobe James Dobson, it is very difficult to backtrack on an honor. If Obama were to pull this invite from Warren, it would send a bad message to Warren's backers, and cause a bad backlash.

What is the solution? First, if Warren wants this honor, he needs to repudiate his statements against gays, at least the worst of them linking gays to incest and pedophilia. For the honor of Jan. 20, Warren should at least do that. Second, Obama needs to add more diversity. Civil-rights leader James Lowery, who is pro-gay, is also going to be there; excellent. Maybe a third person, too? There are many welcoming and affirming pastors Obama can choose from, women and men, gay and straight, Black, white, Latino and otherwise, who would add an element of diversity to the invocation.

Please Mr. Obama, we urge you to figure out a way to fix this. Warren's powerful work betrayed a core of your supporters. Inclusion of more people may help heal this open wound.

The Cost of Being Gay

The arguments for marriage cross a range of categories, including civil rights, justice, fairness, etc. But the bottom line is an economic argument: It costs us more to be gay. The actuarial scientists count on this. Their complex charts for insurance, social security, you name it, count on a certain number of "single" people who won't be able to pass on their benefits, or will pay a penalty for being on an insurance plan, or inheritance taxes, etc. Society, and business, rely on some people not being "married" to balance their books.

Let's call this a "gay tax." We just don't get the same benefits as straights.

I am actually not a proponent of marriage; I think the government should get out of the marriage business and stop discriminating against single people -- giving more than 1,000 benefits to people just because they are married. But since there is such a thing as marriage, and since the federal government is in the business of giving out breaks to straight marrieds, than it's simple economic justice to allow any two adults the same access.

Since marriage is this "watershed" type issue for us, I also see the value in it bringing up every other issue behind it. Meaning it is so "big" that other gay issues (gays in the military, hate crimes, employment bias, civil unions) become more attractive as the "lesser" compromise for our allies. That is a huge benefit of the gay marriage movement. 

But now it's time to put our money where our beliefs are. I just commented on David Mixner's blog, here, about a situation they are facing in NY, where gay rights/marriage are yet again used as a tool of compromise. In Illinois, we're pretty sick of that, too. Let's start having a stronger will to put our allies to a litmus test of gay marriage. If you really think we are equal, than how can you deny we should have marriage, too. Or do you want a "Gay Tax" to be like the old "Poll Tax"? 

Here's what I wrote on David's blog:

I have watched similar approaches in Illinois for many years. Promises, promises during election cycles and behind closed doors, and then once again back-seat when it comes to our rights. I fear Don't Ask, Don't Tell will also experience this "maybe next year" approach, while thousands more risk their lives for our country. We need to stop allowing compromise, or at least stop being nice little queers waiting our turn. This is an economic issue; it is a fairness issue. So it's Ok to bailout Wall Street but not OK to allow gay families the same economic benefits--meaning it actually costs more to be gay in this country: From taxing health insurance to not allowing pension and social security benefits to be transferred. Well, if it's an economic battle they want, I suggest we stop giving any money to any candidate who is not 100% for marriage. In Illinois, the following letter was sent to gay media in November (way before the governor's arrest). We need to stop pulling our wallets out and start asking for equality first, then you can get contributions. (We may have to hold our nose and vote for the lesser of two evils, but we don't have to pay them for the privilege.)

LETTER to Windy City Times Nov. 8, 2008:

Dear Editor:
 
Many of us are still catching our breath after this year’s historic election.  Yet it is not too early to begin thinking about the election in 2010, particularly in light of the heart-breaking repudiation of equal marriage rights in Florida , Arizona , and California .  Potential candidates for governor in Illinois have already begun to raise money and line up supporters.  We believe that the wisest course for the LGBT community at this point is to wait and see who the candidates are.  At that point, we will be able to compare the candidates’ positions to determine who will champion LGBT issues.  Most crucially, we should make clear that we expect our endorsed candidate to unequivocally support full marriage equality.  No longer should we accept candidates who attempt to straddle the fence by opposing marriage equality while supporting civil unions.
 
A pop star can get married to a total stranger at an all-night chapel in Las Vegas , but two same-sex partners who have lived together in a loving and committed relationship for decades cannot.  Illinois law currently states that same-sex marriage is against the public policy of the state.  We need a governor who will not only lead the fight to repeal that law, but will also lead the fight to guarantee equal marriage rights for all Illinois citizens.  There will be candidates for governor who will want and need the support of our community.  Making a premature endorsement would compromise our ability to make candidates earn our support.  Only by standing with us on one of the most significant civil rights issues in a generation should a candidate be entitled to claim the support of the community.
 
Sincerely,
 
Clyde Alpert
Gregory & Michael Anderson
Kendra Beard
Philip P. Burgess
Cathie Calderon
Robert Castillo & John Pennycuff
Char Cepek
John Cepek
Terry Cosgrove
James C. Darby
W. Graunk Enzenberger
Rick Garcia
John A. Heintz
Art Johnston & Pepe Pena
Rev. Deborah Lake
James P. Madigan
Gregory E. Ostfeld
Aurora Pineda
Patrick Sheahan
Rev. Stan J. Sloan
Coco Soodek
Philip A. Terbay
Modesto Valle
John Geno Zaharakis
 

Positive Responses

LGBTs far outnumbered members of the anti-gay Fred Phelps klan who showed at Center on Halsted Dec. 13. Reporter Yasmin Nair will have pics and coverage in Windy City Times this week, and on the web Dec. 15, Monday. Phelps did not show, but a few family members and followers did; when they bring their kids to spout such hate, it really seems like child abuse.

There then followed a really terrific series of panel discussions inside, organized as part of thousands of similar "house parties" (gay and straight) by Obama's change agents. See Windy City Times for details on the panels, which included LGBT activists and politicians. I had to miss most of the panels because I was speaking elsewhere in the building to a few members of the Horizons Youth Project about LGBT Chicago history. 

It's always interesting to hear what young LGBTs want to know about our past. When I was 21, I wanted to hear from those generations before me to learn about their experience, and also to find mentors. I donated a copy of the book I edited this year, Out and Proud in Chicago: An Overview of the City's Gay Movement (Surrey Books). And I also mentioned the gay oral history site Chicago Gay History.

This site will hopefully eventually have thousands of interviews; right now there are 270 video interviews and dozens more included through e-mail surveys.

The Phelps klan and people like them are a distraction, but they can also be a reminder that we still have a long way to go for complete equality and justice. We can learn from our past, our present, and even the haters, as a way to a better future. 

Countering Hate

Anti-gay Rev. Fred Phelps'Web site godhatesfags.com has posted that he will be in Chicago Saturday, Dec. 13. One of his stops is allegedly the Center on Halsted at 1:45 p.m., 3656 N. Halsted, timed to coincide with a 2:30 p.m. forum on GLBT rights with community leaders. 

The Center is holding a peaceful response, just in case he shows. The Center is asking supporters to come with signs of peace, love and community, as well as GLBT Pride and American flags, starting at noon. They want to create a human chain around the Center.

The Center says it is possible Phelps will not show up, but they want to be prepared just in case.

See the Windy City Times Web site for updates: Windy City Times

Saving 'Face'

I have been avoiding a lot of the social networking sites for years. I did give in to Linked a couple years ago and passively confirm people who link with me. But I have never used the system.

Thanks to numerous family and friends, I now have joined Facebook. It is everything I dreaded -- both the good and the bad. Yes, I dreaded the good, too.

Being a journalist and editor, the Internet is my friend, and always has been. There are days I get 500 or more e-mails (and during the Gay Games I was getting thousands a day). But I don't complain, because I am thankful every day for the speed of information flowing because of the net. I started in journalism in 1984, which is like a century ago in terms of how we do newspapers now. "Newspapers" is almost as quaint a word as "album" -- we know what it means, but its meaning has changed. I publish a newspaper, Windy City Times (see here), but more people read us online weekly than read us in print -- we hit that tipping point (20,000 a week) this summer. And it is only speeding up. We are a "newspaper" but that also means much of what we do does not involve "paper."

So now I am on Facebook. Feel free to "friend" me. I have to remember that for all the dread, all the time it will now suck up, it also has a great benefit. I can re-connect with old friends more easily, and mass communicate information in a less intrusive way than e-mail. I will try not to put the boring details of daily deadline life, but it will be great to cross-promote all that we do to inform people in a timely way. And to let folks know of new and cool things to do, musicians, friends with new books out, new movies, photos, and more. (Feel free to also become a fan of Windy City Media Group's Facebook page.)

It does feel a lot like high school, when I did not care to hang out with the cool kids at Lane Technical H.S. in Chicago (1976-1980). Rather, I preferred the softball team (of course) and print shop (where I learned to hand set type, learned hot-lead Linotypes--I still have burn marks, and learned on the hot new machines of the 1970s--Compugraphic typesetters). Now, I have joined the high school cliques of the 2000s I guess -- I just hope the new-next-best-great-thing is a couple years away, so I can master Facebook by then.