Two nude men are featured in this three-panel photograph, entitled Daybooks (2009). Photo courtesy of David Hilliard.

David Hilliard is the current Artist in Residence here at Dartmouth, creating photographic polyptychs: multi-paneled art praising ordinary life. Hilliard grew up in rural Massachusetts, and now creates photographs that are detached and isolated, much like the landscape of New England, from which he draws inspiration. This week, I got the chance to sit down with Hilliard and ask him a few questions about his recent exhibition, Highway of Thought, which was on display in the Hop a couple of weeks ago.

DFP: So your exhibition is called Highway of Thought, which I found it to be an aptly named collection. How did you come up with the concept of Highway of Thought, and how did you end up naming it that?

DH: Well it’s named after one of the pieces in the show, which is a portrait of my father’s—I call it his journal, but it’s not really his journal—it’s a book of quotations that he keeps. My father’s a kind of atheistic historian, so there are different quotes and Highway of Thought came from one particular quote in that journal. The photograph is my father’s book open with this beautiful penmanship. He has this incredible handwriting that he tries to perfect. And then on either side—it’s a four-panel photograph—on either side are just his big hands, which are working class hands. My father was a factory worker, never went to college, but is enlightened and self-taught, so I was interested in this kind of juxtaposition of those hands that seemingly couldn’t have written those words. I like that disconnect between the two, and that’s where the title came from.

But in general, the exhibition, which I think is 15 photographs, is a kind of overview. It was an opportunity coming here to Dartmouth for me to look back at my work and choose a series of pictures that show different ways in which I create pictures formally, that touch upon different themes in my work.

But Highway of Thought seemed like an apt title because it was like an overarching theme—if this were a show in New York or at a gallery, it’d be work made within the past year and it would be much more thematically cohesive. This is a bit of a stretch; I like to think the show is comprised of various portraits of people engaged in a search—a kind of journey, a spiritual journey, a sexual journey, a search for identity, people longing to forge their way in the world. And I know that’s a big net to throw around work, but that’s a portrait of free thinkers. The pictures range from my mother sitting on the beach in southwest Florida reading the Bible, two men together in a Connecticut cabin reading art books, a couple engaged in a kiss on a bed, a pregnant teenager with her boyfriend. It’s all a journey that everybody’s trying to figure out as it goes along. It’s a little touchy feely, but I like it; it seemed cohesive in that way for me.

DFP: How do you explore the diptych or triptych form, which a lot of your work features. Do you ever branch off from that or do you like the way you’re able to talk about space and time?

DH: Although I studied cubism, really my roots are in performance theatre and film. And I love narrative and I love narrative writing and fiction. But for me it’s like storytelling and it’s a way to link photographs together with shifting focus that allowed me to kind of move through a space. So it is very much about cinema. Although I love the triptych form, it’s really just about gathering pictures. You could say, “Why can’t you do that in a single photograph?” Maybe, but I don’t think you could point in quite the same way. It’s a combination of photography meets cinema: the still image meets the moving image.

DFP: Are you influenced by a certain geographic area or some other kind of space?

DH: I’m interested in this thing. The official term is environmental portraiture, which is quite simply the figure of a space, and the figure informing the space and the space informing the figure, so the two are in dialogue with on another. I’m definitely interested in the New England landscape. I’m from New England. I love the kind of gentle nature of the New England landscape. It’s not particularly grand; there’s a lot of subtlety. It’s softer; the weather isn’t particularly dramatic for the most part. But its subtlety— I like that.

DFP: I noticed that many of your photographs feature raw sexuality. Part of what appeals to me about your work is its discussion of being gay, especially in Daybooks, where there’ s this physical and emotional distance between two men. Could you tell me more about that?

DH: In that same exhibition, on the other side, there’s a picture from way earlier (in 1994) where you have a blatant kind of sexual moment where one man is bending down kissing the other man. And there’s also nudity, there’re testicles, there’s kissing. So it’s not just sex, it’s also love. And I made that a while ago. And that was a different time. Not that I was an angrier artist, but I was, as far as my politics, maybe pushing a little bit harder to be in-your-face about it. And that photograph is totally voyeuristic. You’re in a doorway looking at something. So depending on your politics or your point of view you’ll either walk by that door, close that door, so it implicates the viewer.

And then years later, quite recently, I make Daybooks, which is still about love between two men. There’s a physical distance between them, maybe an emotional distance, but I like the idea that they’re two men, they’re both undressed, they’re in the same room by the fire so it’s highly unlikely that they’re arguing. They’re just in their own space. They’re together but they’re not together and that’s another beautiful part about being in a relationship. It’s not just about the sex and the kissing; it’s also about being together but in your own space.

And it’s not just that I identify myself as a gay man. Yes, I make queer art. I’m politically active. And you know, it’s funny that you talk about Daybooks. One person who came into the gallery said, albeit nicely, that I was perpetuating stereotypes. And I said, “Well, you know, I’m sorry you feel that way, but I would just say that for me it’s quite political. I’m just standing up and being counted. These moments happen.”

There’s something very political about making this fireside, almost Edwardian, photograph of two men together. I don’t see a many pictures like that. As a graduate student, I set out to make work righting that wrong. I want to make beautiful photographs of men together languishing in landscapes and kissing and holding and I want to fill all those voids that exist in the history of art where [gay men] were shamed and avoided. At the same time, I make other work. I don’t put the pressure on myself to address every major topic, but I think being a gay man and standing up and showing normal sides of a lifestyle is very political. And if someone sees that as perpetuating a stereotype, then that’s unfortunate.

DFP: But it’s interesting how, in Daybooks, the image of two men involved romantically is not just sexualized, but seems to be going something beyond that to something more taboo.

DH: Yeah, maybe it’s taboo. Well you’re a smart guy; you’re at Dartmouth. I’m going say something you probably already know: the reason it’s interesting for me to have the picture of two men kissing, and across from it is Hot Coffee, Soft Porn. It’s two photographs that represent two men each engaged in something that is decidedly personal, private, like two men in a bedroom kissing, making love, and then the other photograph—it’s two brothers eating crappy food and watching porn together. One isn’t better than the other. It’s a personal choice. At the end of the day, it’s the choices that we make and I could keep going. Many of my photographs dealt with that.

I had a whole body of work about that (and some of the pictures are in the show). I was making pictures down in Florida with my mother, who’s a born-again Christian, and she has her crazy lifestyle. It makes her happy, it keeps her going everyday. She gets out of bed and reads the Bible, I get out of bed and I do something else, and you get out of bed and you do something else. I love the idea, that in that picture, in those two photographs are men engaged in their own kind of personal choice and moment. Sometimes it’s funny to see who takes issue during First-Year Family Weekend; it’s funny to see who wouldn’t look at what, who got a chuckle. There are issues of taste in that show that are brought up.

DFP: It is very homoerotic. When I saw that picture, I thought about the possibility of this pseudo-incestuous relationship going on.

DH: Oh you mean the homoerotic between the two brothers? Wow (laughs), I love that.

DFP: It’s not quite like they’re together but then it is.

DH: That’s a very interesting read. It is intimate because it’s not a bunch of men. It’s two men watching porn and they’re sitting on a couch together. Whether it’s homoerotic or not, it’s definitely an intimate photograph; it’s more intimate than a lot of men would get with one another.

DFP: And I guess a lot of it goes back to defining masculinity, because I know much of your work also does that.

DH: There are definitely rites of passage. Of course, I’m a man; I’m a gay man. My world was decidedly masculine. I address the feminine in my work, but it’s very different, it’s somewhat distanced in a way. But men fascinate me. Straight, gay, old, young, boys becoming older boys, becoming teenagers, becoming young men, becoming middle-aged men, becoming old men. All of those phases of your life have their complications. You’re 20-something and I’m 40-something. At 19, I had very different issues than I have now and I love that.

There was a time, when I was 19, that I wasn’t making my artwork—but it was a time like the Kiss photograph. That’s me in that picture. I was young, that moment was real. And now in some of my photographs, it’s more like an older man looking back and remembering. It’s funny getting older as an artist. I make work in real time about being 40. And this is to answer your question about the rites of passage: the evolution of men is great. I love that there’s a subtext to my work on masculinity.

Gay Pride Parade. Photo courtesy of iwona_kellie, Flickr.

Whether you’re Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Allied (LGBTQA) or anything else (XYZ), this week has certainly been a spectacle of sexuality: men dressed as women, women dressed as men, androgyny, genderbending. Once again Dartmouth has had an educational, fun-filled, and successful PRIDE Week. Our celebration here in Hanover was not a part of a national PRIDE holiday—Ally Week, Day of Silence, International Drag Day, and National Coming Out Day—so considering our independent effort, the full schedule of Dartmouth PRIDE Week was something of which we can all be proud. Despite the inopportune weather, our rainbow-spangled banners were still there looking better than ever. Can’t rain on this parade!

This year’s PRIDE week events ranged from the inspirational Bishop Robinson talk, the fabulous gender-bending fashion show TransForm, and the hilarious Drag Bingo Night, to the slightly underwhelming Dartmouth CookOUT and 24-hour SpeakOUT chat, to the downright deplorable Denis Dison’s keynote address. PRIDE week had its weaknesses, and sure, Frank Karger may not triumph in his campaign to become the first gay president in 2012, but just like Jesse Jackson before him—or any pioneers for that matter—we all have to start somewhere. Without a doubt, continuing these pioneering traditions will lead to important advancements for the LGBTQ and straight communities of this College and the nation.

Here at the DFP, we support the LGBTQ community in its quest for equality. The goal of PRIDE Week at Dartmouth is to allow the students and faculty to evolve and develop into a more inclusive community. Bishop Robinson said it best: PRIDE Week is not only a celebration of how far the LGBTQ community has come, but also a reminder of how much work there’s left to do. PRIDE Week promotes visibility and discussion of LGBTQ issues.

The College has hosted numerous famous speakers in the past—Urvashi Vaid of the Arcus Foundation and writer and trans activist Kate Bornstein—and it added New Hampshire Bishop Gene Robinson this year. These speakers had distinct voices, and have shared their ideas for making the world better for LGBTQ people by offering real solutions.
The Dartmouth PRIDE committee also hosted an online chat that was designed to create an open, anonymous environment for students’ opinions on queer topics. Unfortunately, the chat was poorly designed, and the premise of anonymity, while it certainly allowed people to speak freely, interfered with any focused conversation. For the first hour, most of the contributions were either egregiously homophobic or whimsical remarks about lesbian porn. We should not assume that people wouldn’t want to participate in a forum just because they must be responsible for their own opinions. The LGBTQ community is brave, and we should have let its members speak for themselves. Anonymity, here, sent the wrong message about the confidence and pride of today’s LGBTQ community.

As tough as it is discussing these issues at Dartmouth, a college with a long history of lagging behind in gender/sexuality issues and a Greek System that lives and breathes heteronormative values, we must insist on pushing the discourse into the open. With the exception of one or two sororities and fraternities that have begun to support the PRIDE movement, we have yet to see any large-scale participation by Greek organizations. Even if these organizations think they are separate from PRIDE issues and do not consider themselves “alternative social spaces,” they are still responsible for representing their LGBTQ membership, which is present whether they acknowledge it or not.

Even students who are convinced they hold no responsibility for gender equality and sexual freedom for others can benefit from educating themselves of the values and motivations of the gay community. Is the LGBTQ community more concerned with acceptance or changing society? Where is the modern gay rights movement heading? What is the ideal vision of queer people within society? These questions concern queer and straight people alike, and the queer community cannot answer them alone.

It’s unfortunate that this year’s keynote speech with Denis Dison was so poorly attended. Dison is the Vice President of External Affairs for the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund, a political action committee that helps train LGBTQ political candidates. We admit that the Victory Fund is not very well known, and we don’t necessarily agree with the Victory Fund’s blanket support of LGBTQ candidates. Nor do we claim that his speech would have produced any goosebumps or sudden changes of heart. But potential audiences couldn’t have known this beforehand, and the meager attendance therefore hinted at our campus’ disinterest in having a discourse about the emerging role of LGBTQ people in politics.
There is still much work to be done. Bored at Baker is full of homophobic comments. The 24-hour SpeakOUT blog was host to numerous trolls spewing anti-gay remarks. The Greek system at large is still too heteronormative and gender exclusive. But we should be able to recognize and rectify these issues while celebrating the achievements of the LGBTQ community: the addition of gender-neutral housing, for instance, or the formation of an LGBTQ mentor program, OUTreach. This week, we can celebrate: dress in drag, play bingo, and dance. But come Monday, we must continue the push to raise LGBTQ awareness on campus. We’re here, we’re straight and we’re queer, so get used to it.

April 1st is Census Day in the U.S., and as the US Census Bureau continues to collect data, some conservative politicians like Representatives Michelle Bachmann (R- Minn) and Ron Paul (R-Texas) are concerned that census questions may be “too personal” and “invasive.” They think the census counts as “government intrusion.” But their criticism is more likely aimed at how the census has changed over the past two centuries, and their claims are less substantiated by fact than by paranoia (C’mon, your telephone number is “too personal”? Yeah, right!) Though silent on the issue, these conservative politicians are probably more peeved by the increasingly LGBTQ-friendly policies adopted by the US Census Bureau in order to make sure that data on LGBTQ people is collected. Bachmann’s argument that the census isn’t private enough is in opposition to society’s push to do the right thing and “queer the census.”

LGBTQ people must be aware of the covert homophobia laced throughout Bachmann and Paul’s condemnation of the census. Although their attack on the census may be a shallow ploy to win political points and galvanize the conservative base, it’s ultimately demeaning to the community. It’s a position whose logic suggests that we can’t count LGBTQ people, which makes gathering hate crime statistics even more difficult.

Ever since the census was first conducted in 1790, it has always asked questions beyond the number of people living in each household. Bachmann and Paul, in particular, have argued that the census can only ask people how many people are living in their house; anything else is unconstitutional. But this claim has no merit whatsoever.

The first census, for example, asked for respondents’ sex and free or slave status. In 1840, the census asked for the number of blind, deaf, and “insane or idiotic” persons living in each household. And in 1850, it asked for respondents’ race and occupation. 2000 marked the first year multiracial people were counted. The census has always been an indication of the socially progressive direction the U.S. is taking.

Data collected by the Census is also used to shape much-needed policies that promote equality. Data related to race is used in our judicial system in order to help rule on cases related to discriminatory voting practices. Asking demographic questions is not invasive; the census has proved, then and now, extremely effective in rolling back past social bigotry. Yet despite the many gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people around the country, they are still not accurately represented in the census..

As it stands, there is no question on the census that asks about a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity. However, the US Census Bureau for the 2010 Census has enacted some LGBTQ-friendly policies. For example, same-sex couples living together can mark themselves as either “married” or as “unmarried partners,” whichever they consider
themselves in spite of legal obstacles. Previously, if same-sex couples living under the same household marked “married,” the Census would automatically modify their answer to “unmarried partners”—or in some cases modify the gender of one partner. Additionally the US Census Bureau has urged transgendered individuals to mark the sex with which they identify, rather than their “legal” gender.

Although these policies are steps forward for the queer community, they ultimately fall short. Like their heterosexual counterparts, LGBTQ people are far more likely to be single than coupled. Bisexual people in mixed-gender relationships are simply treated as heterosexual. Transgendered people are just ignored. To bridge the gap, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force put together the Queer the Census campaign, which seeks to add a question about sexual orientation and gender identity to the census in order to get a larger, more accurate picture of the number of LGBTQ individuals in the United States.

Of course, even if this question were asked, the census would still underreport the number of LGBTQ individuals on both local and national levels. Given the shame and oppression LGBTQ people face in society, LGBTQ people sometimes choose to stay in the closet. But any number of LGBTQ people, even if it represents less than one percent of the population, means that we know where we stand in terms far more concrete than any approximation can offer. As the old saying goes: “We’re here, we’re queer, get over it.” The census is long overdue to heed this call.

As society has changed, the census has reflected a long history of both demographic and, whether implicit or not, sociological change. We no longer count the number of slaves in our country; they simply don’t exist. And with same-sex marriage now being performed in five states and in DC, same-sex couples can self-identify honestly with state and country. It’s progress, and it’s happening. Let’s keep this going.

Rest in peace, Washington Blade. Low resolution image of December 1st, 2006 front page of The Washington Blade.

As far as LGBT news publications go, The Advocate magazine may be the most prominent LGBT news source, but the D.C.-based Washington Blade is also a strong contender. That may no longer be the case—on Monday, November 17th, Blade’s parent company, Window Media LLC, announced that it had ceased all of its operations, including the publishing of Blade, Atlanta-based Southern Voice, and South Florida Blade.

It was hardly unforeseen. Since 2001, Window Media had gone on a buying spree, purchasing a plethora of gay newspapers and magazines, including national newspapers like Washington Blade, but also local LGBT papers like New York’s Genre magazine and New England’s IN Newsweekly. When Window Media acquired these papers, it replaced largely local content in favor of national stories. Major brand labels, instead of local, small businesses, largely comprised the newspapers’ and magazines’ advertisements. Whenever it bought a local LGBT paper, Window Media tried to nationalize it, much to the chagrin of the local LGBT non-profit organizations.

However, gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered people did not appreciate being treated like a marketing commodity. They naturally didn’t continue buying newspapers that sacrificed their alternative voice to become national media advertising machines. By the beginning of 2009, Window Media’s publications were in financial trouble. In March, Genre magazine was the first of the company’s magazines to suspend its operations. Four months later, the New York Blade folded.

Although it may not be any surprise that Window Media and its subsidiaries have gone under, it’s a disturbing trend that plagues not just LGBT press, but all print media. Just this month, The Advocate announced its plans to market itself and combine subscriptions with Out magazine, ending its 40+ years of stand-alone status. When announcing the decision, the CEO of The Advocate’s parent company, Here Media, cited problems with the print publication model including the costs of paper, printing, and postage. Additionally, the Obama administration currently is in talks about a potential bailout of major newspapers including very well-respected mainstream papers like The New York Times and The Washington Post.

While the loss of LGBT newspapers may not be such a big loss compared to the potential downfall of The New York Times (I could never see The Advocate conducting “in-depth” reporting at the level of the big newspapers like The Washington Post), their demise certainly doesn’t help LGBT visibility. The Washington Blade, the oldest and one of the most well respected LGBT news sources, had conveyed to queer people that they were not alone. Founded shortly after the Stonewall riots in 1969, it encouraged gays and lesbians to come out of the closet during a politically tumultuous era. It was a long-standing tradition for these newspapers and magazines to give LGBT Americans a voice when others tried to silence them. So now, without them, will the LGBT community lose their voice?

I don’t think so. After all, mainstream newspapers, even traditionally conservative ones like the Chicago Tribune, are covering many LGBT events without sharp disdain for LGBT Americans. The social environment has changed in a way that allows discourse on LGBT issues by the mainstream. With the general media now covering more of these issues, it will no longer be up to specifically gay media to prompt active LGBT discussions.

Moreover, part of the reason that print news media is failing is due to the Internet. Free expression is encouraged on the Internet and there is something inherently democratic about a place where a complete amateur can have as much voice as the elite. There is no shortage of gay news blogs, and while they may not have as many features or look as tidy or neat as gay print magazines, they still provide a voice for the LGBT community.

However, I am troubled with blogs claiming they are the only “authoritative” news source or dictating how LGBT politics should be discussed. While there are blogs like Towleroad.com and JoeMyGod.com that discuss LGBT issues, they don’t foster real discussion. These blogs are written by single individuals and marketed towards those with the same ideological and political point of view. Furthermore, most blogs don’t publish editorials where people can stake a claim, support it with evidence, and potentially convince others to join their side.

When this practice existed in gay newspapers, this meant internal debate by queers for queers. Now there are many clamoring voices, but they are all isolated. I worry that these newspapers and magazines are still more likely to spark debate on a topic, compared to blogs. Although there is little danger of complete silence on LGBT issues, the quality of and—ironically—grassroots participation in the debate may suffer with the rise of Internet blogs.

The loss of LGBT print media represents a sad state of affairs for the community. In spite of the numerous problems with Window Media’s publications, the magazines and newspapers added voices to the discussion about a variety of LGBT issues, including marriage equality.

Although I feel that the queer community will be heard in spite of Windows Media’s bankruptcy, it will suffer if current trends continue. Trying to buck the trend, the former Washington Blade staff met this week to try to re-launch the paper under the new name, DC Agenda. But amidst a recession and the quickly thinning field of profitable newspapers, it doesn’t seem likely that they’ll succeed. For the time being, the story remains grim. Let’s just hope that there will still be someone left to report on it.

So, was Richard Nixon a hero of the queer movement? This, and associated topics, was the subject matter of this year’s annual Stonewall lecture delivered by Professor John D’Emilio of the University of Illinois at Chicago, at Dartmouth on Thursday, October 29th.

In his speech, “Queering the Past or: Richard Nixon: Gay Liberationist?” D’Emilio suggests that forces beyond gay and lesbian groups helped to end Chicago police raids on gay bars.

D’Emilio began with an overview of the current literature on LGBT history. The LGBT movement has been described as being primarily grassroots in recent history. As D’Emilio said, most stories in the literature are about “gays and lesbians… taking control of their own destinies” and working against the theme of silence associated with homosexuality, which largely fosters invisibility and isolation. Essentially, D’Emilio states that LGBT history constitutes stories of resistance, initiated and conducted by gay and lesbian people.

He points specifically to homophile groups in the 1950’s who sought to improve life for gay and lesbian Americans. While these homophile groups focused more on cultural privacy rather than visibility, they did help to break the silence about homosexuality.

The two major homophile groups, The Mattachine Society and the Daughters of Bilitis, began publishing magazines, holding demonstrations, and creating slogans such as “Gay is Good” and “Gay Power.” There was some visibility, but it was limited. However, these were not the only groups working towards early gay and lesbian rights. D’Emilio also describes a large social network among butch lesbians in Buffalo, NY during World War II. These women wanted to dance in bars with other women or hold their girlfriend’s hand in public, and were very aware of their oppressive lifestyle.

These stories, in addition to the Stonewall Riots, helped to write this history of resistance. But D’Emilio takes issue with retelling all of the stories to fit this history.

Most historians look to Chicago to explain trends in major cities. LGBT historians, however, have largely ignored Chicago in favor of studying San Francisco or New York. D’Emilio, having lived in Chicago, discovered evidence of an LGBT community in the 70’s, but also a different kind of history.

D’Emilio explains, “The 50’s and 60’s were the worst time for gays and lesbians.” During this time, McCarthyism targeted not only potential communists and Hollywood-types, but also the supposed “sexual deviants,” i.e. homosexuals. The Chicago Tribune, a somewhat conservative publication, referred to gay and lesbian Americans as “nests of perverts” and “moral degenerates.” In the city, women could not wear pants with the zipper in front without risking some penalty for dressing as men and gay men were arrested for cruising for sex.

But the worst of these grim times, and what D’Emilio focused on, was the gay bar raids. Gay bars were meant to be a safe haven at a time when it was dangerous to be out of the closet. When gay bars were raided and forced to close, gays and lesbians found it more difficult to meet gay and lesbian friends and sexual partners.

D’Emilio would like to say that pressure from gay and lesbian groups helped to end the raids and constant harassment on gay bars in the early 70’s. However, upon further analysis, he could not find compelling evidence for this view. Instead, it was a change in government—specifically, the election of the Nixon administration—that solved the problem.

To understand how this occurred, one must understand that Mayor Richard Daley ran Chicago at the time. Daley, a Democrat, established a corrupt political machine where other Democrats (police chiefs and city attorneys, for example) bribed Daley to obtain certain political positions. Because they were a part of the corruption, they saw no reason to end it.

When Richard Nixon, a Republican, was elected in 1968, he appointed Jim Thompson as U.S. Attorney to investigate corruption in Chicago. The Justice Department inevitably found evidence of police corruption; for six weeks, there was continuous news about the investigation of Chicago police officers. Over 30 police officers were eventually found guilty of using their power to illicitly raid bars.

When the bar raids and harassment stopped in the early 70’s, change occurred quickly. Out gay entrepreneurs opened their businesses with at least partial success. D’Emilio explains that knowing this story, we should be cognizant of a new kind of a history, what he calls “top-down history.” While I mostly agree with D’Emilio, I find problems with his approach and some of his speech’s implications.

Firstly, D’Emilio finds only one instance of top-down history in earlier LGBT history. He says that we must be aware that these kind of stories happened too, and he does a fair job of elucidating this kind of history.

However, it seems almost too random. D’Emilio admits that the title of the lecture, in which he calls Nixon a potential “gay liberationist” was in jest. Nixon, like his Democratic opponent, did not support gay and lesbian rights. Ending corrupt police raids of gay bars was simply a bi-product of larger political strategy.
While this top-down history might have taken place, it does not mean it is worth noting. If we are to learn from history, then this suggests that gay and lesbians are powerless to a larger political system.

But this is not true. Gays and lesbians had to get people thinking about homosexuality by breaking the silence. Had they not, gay bars wouldn’t have formed in the first place. If we took D’Emilio’s account as a typical scenario, this would suggest that gays and lesbians must simply passively wait for political opportunity instead of acting independently; protests and grassroots activism are worthless.

D’Emilio claims that this is the opposite of what he wants to happen. Top-down and bottom-up histories should both be seen equally and gays and lesbians should feel as if they have power as part of a larger political context. However, I think isolating this random occurrence helps no one. When it comes to obtaining fair and equal law (i.e. achieving marriage equality, eliminating Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell), a random political occurrence will not help the LGBT community.

Someone or some group will have to spearhead a movement to change the current discriminatory laws and most politicians require pressure from LGBT groups to make change.

Top-down history might have been true for this one instance, but I don’t see it becoming the main history of the LGBT movement. If LGBT people are to ever achieve equality, it will be a story of resistance and not one of random fortuitous events miraculously handing us equal rights on a silver platter.

When openly gay Congressman Barney Frank first heard about the LGBT National Equality March in D.C., he was far from thrilled. “I literally do not understand how [this march] will do anything. People are kidding themselves. I don’t want people patting themselves on the back for doing something that is useless.” Rep. Frank encouraged others to stay home, saying that demonstrations would do little to pressure Congress. And he was right.

Unlike the recent tea party protests, the press barely covered the National Equality March (NEM) that took place on October 10th and 11th. Like Frank said, the only thing NEM demonstrators put pressure on was the grass they trampled.

And it wasn’t just the lack of press coverage that made this year’s LGBT March on Washington so ineffective. Perhaps another reason is the national decline of activism, particularly LGBT activism. We can march in Washington once every year to demand rights, but if we are not galvanized as a community—if we are not well-organized—then we cannot grab the media’s attention. While the demonstrators are probably a more passionate group of LGBT activists, they were poorly organized and didn’t say anything new. There was no new platform for LGBT rights; we mainly demanded the same things, such as the passage of LGBT hate crime legislation and the end of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

More so, I think this particular march showed us that the modern LGBT movement lacks not just institutional organization, but organizational personalities—leaders who help bring us together as a community. If you were to ask several ordinary people on the street, “Who are some prominent American LGBT activists?” you would probably get many blank stares. Unlike the Civil Rights Movement, the LGBT rights movement doesn’t have any clear figures like Martin Luther King Jr. or Malcolm X. Our activists are not nationally known. They are people like Cleve Jones, who I had never heard of before he organized NEM or Urvashi Vaid, who heads the the relatively unknown Arcus Foundation. In fact, the most famous person to speak at the rally was Lady Gaga, who is not even an activist. In a way, the gay rights movement is still searching for its Franklin D. Roosevelt, someone who will hopefully unify us with mutual goals and powerful rhetoric.

But I don’t think there can be an FDR for the gay rights movement. There’s an evident internal struggle within the modern LGBT rights movement that is noticeable among different LGBT groups. The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force and the Human Rights Campaign both originally put out different statements on whether or not to try and push for a transgender-inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act. How can we fight for LGBT rights when we can’t even clearly define what the diverse LGBT community wants and how it wants it?
If there’s anything we can learn, it is that we should try to directly influence the legislative process directly rather than indirectly. By lobbying Congress and establishing allies there, the LGBT community can ultimately see the legislative changes it needs. LGBT people now have a friend in the White House who is open to more LGBT-friendly policies, including the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” The LGBT community has gained visibility over the past two decades; now, it just needs people to help move legislation through Congress. For actual results we should take a page from Barney Frank and work with members of Congress and other politicians. Results won’t happen without organization and cooperation. At the end of the day, we need pressure from the grassroots, and not merely pressure on grass roots.

Texas Judge Disputes Gay Marriage Ban

When most people think of which state will be the next to legalize same-sex marriage, they usually do not think of the red states. Blue state bastions like Rhode Island, New York, and California (again) immediately come to mind, but few would even consider the possibility in the Union’s most socially conservative states like Oklahoma, Louisiana, or Alabama—and certainly not Texas. That was, until October 1st, when a Dallas district judge ruled that two men married in Massachusetts had the right to get divorced in Texas.

The significance of the ruling goes beyond simply permitting divorce among same-sex couples married in other jurisdictions. Texas, like many other Southern states, has a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage and other formal same-sex unions. Gay divorce, unlike gay marriage, is not technically prohibited in the Texas Constitution, providing a legal “gray area” where judges can rule either way. However, the judge in this case, Justice Tena Callahan, ruled much more broadly, stating that the already-adopted constitutional ban on same-sex marriage is “unconstitutional.” Justice Callahan ruled that the ban on same-sex marriage in the Texas Constitution is incompatible with the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution.

But before we get our hopes up, we should keep in mind that Justice Callahan is politically liberal and donated thousands of dollars to the Democratic Party in 2008. Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott has already pledged to appeal the ruling. For this case to have a larger impact, it will need to reach the Texas Supreme Court, where all eight justices are Republican, five of which were appointed by anti-gay Governor Rick Perry. And because Texas Supreme Court justices run for re-election every six years, they’re more likely to try to appease their constituents by declaring the ban on same-sex marriage constitutional. Even so, judges are meant to be fair, and less partisan than politicians. They are guided not by policy or politics but by legal precedent. So perhaps it’s OK to be cautiously optimistic in this case.

Despite an uncertain future, this ruling still remains surprising, especially coming from a conservative state like Texas. In fact, it’s even more surprising when one looks at the history of Prop 8 in California. Unlike Justice Callahan, the Supreme Court of California was unwilling to declare its state’s ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. In the court’s opinion, majority rules, and unfortunately, the majority denied fundamental rights to a minority group.

On the other hand, the Dallas case makes a much more interesting claim with possible national implications. It suggests that the only way to prevent gay marriage in Texas, and essentially anywhere else in the United States, is to repeal the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution. In other words, for Justice Callahan, institutions in our free society demand marriage equality for the LGBT community. Democracy doesn’t mean that 51 percent of the population can dictate the rights of the other 49 percent. Democracy sometimes means that the majority loses in favor of protecting the minority. This is hardly a new idea. Before the Civil Rights Movement, the majority (whites) thought it best to have whites and “coloreds” segregated. Brown v. Board of Education taught us that following the majority isn’t always fair. Similarly, a majority of Texans in this instance did not make a just decision when they voted on a constitutional ban against same-sex marriage in 2005.

I suspect that there will be some backlash amongst conservatives, who will accuse Justice Callahan of judicial activism. But I do not believe that she was acting as an “activist” in this case. She merely stated an honest opinion protecting LGBT people from the tyranny of the majority. A democratic society like ours cannot thrive unless the majority loses from time to time. In the case of marriage rights, the majority’s concession affords LGBT Americans the rights they duly deserve, even in as conservative a state as Texas.

t’s 9 o’clock on a Monday evening and I’m tired. I have a paper due in a couple of hours. I can barely keep my eyes open. I’m freaking out. I wonder if I’ll finish my paper in time. But until 10 p.m., I’m staying glued to my computer, watching Rachel Maddow on DarTV.

This is something new to me. Although I’ve been interested in politics for years now, never have I been this attached to any news program before. It’s a different feeling with good reason; The Rachel Maddow Show is a different kind of program with a different kind of host.

Maddow is striking. Appearance-wise, she’s not your average, clean-cut, attractive news anchor. She describes herself as a “big lesbian who looks like a man. I am not, like, Anchor Babe, and I’m never gonna be.” And indeed, she isn’t. On the show, Maddow’s wardrobe color spectrum is muted to just two colors: black and gray. She wears them well, sporting slimming pantsuits. Maddow comes off as professional while maintaining her butch characteristics, particularly her distinct short haircut. Her casual wear outside of the show is also interestingly nerdy: she wears big, round glasses.

Personality-wise, Maddow also stands out. Although most liberal news anchors like Keith Olbermann and talk-show hosts Bill Maher come off as arrogant, insulting, grumpy, and downright hard to watch, Maddow is surprisingly calm, yet forceful. Maddow clearly makes no effort to hide her own point-of-view, but invites others to “talk her down.” She speaks with intelligence and wit and asks the difficult questions. She is more a pragmatist than an idealist and even invites Republicans onto her show—not to have one-sided debates or dismiss the opposite view, but to genuinely listen to them. And the public likes what she does; she’s beaten powerhouse anchors like Olbermann and Larry King in the Nielsen Ratings on multiple occasions.

Maddow marks an important watershed for the LGBTQA community as she is the first openly gay anchor of a major prime-time news program. It is surprising how many people, perhaps we may use the term “fans” here, tune into Maddow’s show on a regular basis. This is comforting to know, as our community suffers not from visibility problems, but instead from problems dealing with the acceptance of homosexuality as being legitimate. So many people, who in all probability know of Maddow’s sexual orientation, watch the show and do not see it as an issue. The fact that Maddow is able to attract so many viewers—she virtually doubled the MSNBC timeslot average viewership from 800,000 to over 1.7 million. It means that we are making some progress.

As I continue to watch, there is a possibility here that Maddow is simply preaching to the choir. After all, she is a headstrong liberal, meaning that she unlikely to alienate already liberal allies. Maddow might not be a new voice within the LGBTQA community, but she is a new voice in television, which reaches out not to just pro-gay liberals, but even to the more conservative types. Republicans just coming on the show means that they are not afraid to “catch the gay.” Even better is that most don’t view her as liberal per se, but pragmatist. This means that when she spews her opposition to “Don’t ask, don’t tell” military policy, she’s not categorized into the “far left” group; she’s legitimate and sincere and above all else, right. And it’s true: most (a whopping three out of four) Americans now believe that gay men and lesbians should be able to openly serve in the armed forces, and 66 percent of self-identified conservatives support repealing DADT.

In any case, I find Maddow’s wide appeal a hopeful sign not only for the gay community, but also for other minority groups as well. Viewers tune into Maddow for her nerdish embrace of politics and the news rather than her sex appeal. On the issues, she is by and large more faithful to and supportive of gender equality than Sarah Palin. She’s relatively young for an occupation traditionally reserved for old men (proof: Olbermann is 50; Chris Matthews is 63, and we don’t even have to discuss Larry King’s age), but is not afraid to play big game with other newscasters. In general, Maddow is not afraid to challenge the purported norms of television media; she is almost squeamish about having to wear makeup on her show, but it surprisingly pays off. It’s quite interesting to see people flock to the news not for sex appeal or violence, but for smart commentary.

Just before the clock strikes 10, Maddow invites her comrade Kent Jones to the show. She’s been talking about the fall of the GOP, problems in Afghanistan, and silly Republican arguments for a spending freeze for 50 minutes, but for the next two minutes, she’ll let Jones talk pop culture about a 79-year-old woman who was invited to enlist in the Army. Maddow then gives her little “cocktail moment” (she is a self-identified “hobbyist bartender”*). On the screen are a bunch of comet-like flashes of color coming together to make one “cell-like” organism. It’s cool, it’s distinct, and it’s definitely Rachel. I am amazed that I stick around for the entire hour watching the news, instead of just popping in at the end for the pop culture moment. It shows just how evolved Maddow’s show is—and because of that, I am proud to share a community with her.

* Note: Here is one of her favorite recipes. It’s simple, but I think it’s elegant. You can decide for yourself if it sounds delicious or not.

The Jack Rose cocktail

2 ounces of Applejack® or Calvados (apple brandy)

1/2 ounce Grenadine

Juice of one lime

Combine the three ingredients into a shaker. Shake with plenty of ice and serve into a glass.

uring the Inauguration festivities in Washington D.C., a pastor named Rick Warren was chosen to give the inaugural invocation almost immediately before the swearing in of the new President and Vice President. The selection was controversial, no doubt. People were angry—mostly people on the left of the political spectrum. Such a man really had no place at the inauguration. What kind of man was he? Well, the type of person who disregards evolution and publicly supported Proposition 8 in California—you know, that kind of person. However (and this was pretty surprising), Rick Warren’s inaugural invocation wasn’t that bad. It steered clear of bigotry and talk of “family values.” In fact, it offered a nice little tidbit about seeking the common good so that our nation may flourish. So does that mean Rick Warren wasn’t a bad choice?

Well, not quite. Although Warren’s invocation itself avoided the topic of homosexuality, did anyone really expect something different given the cheerful nature of the inauguration? And though Warren did remove his heinous opinions about gays from his church’s website (“we want you to come to church, just not be a part of our church”), it’s not hard to figure out where he still stands with the gay community now. (Which is to say he stands pretty much against the gay community) Make no mistake: Rick Warren is no ally—not to anyone who believes in little things like the actual story of man’s development, stuff like that. And if Obama still supports LGBTQ equality, like his website and acceptance speeches seemed to suggest, then he may have just undermined his own political views.

It’s just upsetting that a man, our President, who understands our struggles, could belittle our opinions by pulling something like this. With talk of repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and the Defense of Marriage Act (which prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages), Obama is considered to be the most gay-friendly president in American history, more so than even former President Clinton—who actually signed the DOMA into law. But Clinton at least made an important first impression for the gay community; he sought to allow all citizens, regardless of their sexual orientation, to serve openly in the military. It was one of the former president’s first issues, and though he compromised in the end by signing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, he set a significant precedent. Unfortunately, the Obama presidency cannot afford to address gay rights at a moment when our economy is in the weakest state since the Great Depression. Indeed, if Obama were to fight for gay rights now, I think everyone would be upset. But that fact alone makes Obama choosing Warren to give the invocation even more outrageous. Since equality will take a backseat, we need some encouragement; we can be patient if we could look forward to what rights we will gain in the coming years under the Obama administration. But now, we as a community can’t help but be prudent.

Furthermore, I think many people see Obama’s pick as some sort of a ploy—a political strategy designed to appeal to the (losing) right wing. Some see it as an olive branch, a peace offering to remove partisan hostilities and get necessary bipartisan support for important upcoming legislation. Or maybe it will display more of Obama’s “reaching outside of party lines” mantra. Or maybe Obama truly agrees with Warren. Or maybe he just respects him as a pastor. Whatever. In any case and for any reason, it’s hard not to feel at least a bit disrespected, given Warren’s blatantly anti-gay positions.

Even worse, however, is how poorly the Presidential Inaugural Committee handled the backlash after the Warren pick was made public. The openly gay Bishop Gene Robinson was their gift to the LGBTQ community because Obama’s choice could not be rescinded. Fair enough. Bishop Robinson was scheduled to deliver a prayer at the “We Are One” Concert Sunday Jan.‘th, two days before Obama’s official inauguration. Though Robinson wasn’t going to speak at the inauguration, his inclusion in the inauguration activities helped quell concerns. And he did give his invocation. Except folks at home didn’t watch it. And not because no one wanted to: HBO, which provided coverage of the event, simply didn’t show it. Their rationale? “The producer of the concert has said that the Presidential Inaugural Committee made the decision to keep the invocation as part of the pre-show,” said HBO. Thus, the gift went sour rather quickly.

I don’t mean to be cynical, but it’s almost impossible to predict what’s in store for the gay community now. In the wake of everything that’s occurring, I’m already beginning to question Obama’s word. And the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is already being pushed back further to as far away as 2010. I wouldn’t be surprised if this very well turns into another Clinton scenario of backpedaling and accommodation.

As Rick Warren said during President Obama’s inauguration, “When we fail to treat our fellow human beings and all the earth with the respect they deserve, forgive us.” Indeed, this is from the man who just last December compared homosexuality to incest, pedophilia, and polygamy. “I’m opposed to the redefinition of a 5000-year-old definition of marriage. I’m opposed to having a brother and sister being together and calling that marriage. I’m opposed to an older guy marrying a child and calling that marriage. I’m opposed to one guy having multiple wives and calling that marriage.” In that case, I have to ask: where is your respect, Mr. Warren? And finally, with great disappointment, to Obama: where is yours?