Rounding out Gay Day here at Bleakonomy

I am loath to have Bleakonomy become a single-issue blog. Honest and for-truly I am. But, with the march and the speech and the upcoming referendum on my civil rights... well, there's just a lot to say. I promise to get back to making fun of Sarah Palin tomorrow.

Anyhow, this evening I caught the tail end of a report on All Things Considered about the ten-year anniversary of the Matthew Shepard murder and The Laramie Project, the play written about the murder. From the report:

Among the people that the Tectonic corps interviewed were investigators, ranchers, clergymen and Shepard's friends. They talked to the bartender at the Fireside Lounge, where Shepard and his killers were seen the night he was beaten; one of Shepard's teachers at the University of Wyoming; the policewoman who was called to the crime scene where Shepard, brutally beaten, lay on the ground tied to a fence; the lead investigator on the case; and a professor who followed the trials of Shepard's killers. "When they used gay panic as a defense," she told Tectonic Theater, "I said 'This is good.' Because if nothing else, the truth is going to come out."

Yes, but what is truth? Complicated, it seems.

Six years after the crime, the ABC newsmagazine 20/20 set out to debunk the idea that Shepard was murdered because he was gay. Like The Laramie Project, the one-hour episode included interviews with Shepard's friends, as well as investigators assigned to the case. ABC's Elizabeth Vargas interviewed Shepard's killers, Aaron McKinney and Russ Henderson, both serving life sentences.

Shepard, 20/20 reported, may have used methamphetamine. The report said that McKinney had been a dealer. "Meth is what made the world go around in Laramie," a friend of McKinney's and a former dealer told Vargas.

20/20 also reported that McKinney and Henderson had been on a meth binge in the days before meeting Shepard. And prosecutor Cal Rerucha told 20/20 that "the methamphetamine just fueled this point where there was no control. So, it was a horrible, horrible, horrible murder. But it was a murder that was driven by drugs."

So, of course the playwright has to question the veracity of 20/20's report, and we get an endless cycle of debunking.

For my part, I have always been uncomfortable with Shepard's murder being elevated to Grand Symbol, the history of violence against gays encapsulated in one person's murder in Wyoming. I don't need an official martyr, thanks all the same. Aaron McKinney is not Fred Phelps is not Dan White, and Matthew Shepard is not Harvey Milk is not me.

What's more, once you make someone your Symbolic Victim, you have to work assiduously to preserve the narrative of your choosing. Even the playwright admits as much:

Kaufman knows very well that which story you tell — and which story you choose to believe — depend a lot on your own agenda.

"Stories are malleable," he says. "History is malleable. And so we have to be doubly vigilant when we listen to history and we listen to stories."

Well, as someone who is broadly supportive of the so-called "gay agenda," I think the story is muddy, and serves as a poor proxy for the collective gay experience. I am obviously very sorry that Shepard was murdered brutally, and I am glad that his death has served some good by drawing attention to violence against gays and lesbians. But we have better things to do than preserve the version of the story that we like best. Life, as they say, goes on.

Because it bears repeating

Before I launch into one of my usual tirades about opposition to marriage equality here in Maine, I'm going to give a shout-out to The Critter, who managed to be almost entirely fuss-free for the first four plane rides of his life. Give it up for The Critter, everyone!!

Anyhow, our recent trip to my home state (proudly the first to constitutionally ban same-sex marriage, for those of you curious why I will never, ever move back) made me glad to live in a state that may yet treat The Better Half and me like full-fledged human beings. (Since we're on the subject, why not go here and make a contribution?) The Kennebec Journal has a whole mess of articles about the fight for marriage equality in Maine, and I'd like to mention a couple of things about the opposition.

From their summary of the fight so far (which doesn't really have any new information), I would like to highlight one thing:

Melcher said two things have struck him as somewhat surprising about the Maine campaign.

One is the heavy involvement of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland, which took up a second collection plate at churches to raise money to repeal gay marriage.

In case you weren't aware of it -- yes. Yes, the Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland recently instructed all the churches in the diocese to take up a second collection on a recent Sunday for the express purpose of fighting the civil rights of gays and lesbians. A diocese that is closing many of the churches in the state because of low attendance has decided that it can do without gays, lesbians and their loved ones. Being as it were that I don't show up at parties when I'm not invited, I think it's safe to say that I won't be bothering to attend any Catholic masses in Maine for the next ever. Since I'm trying to keep things civil around here, I'll leave my comments at that.

However, these days the other loud voice in opposition to treating gays and lesbians like human beings belongs to the Rev. Bob Emrich. (I'm sure going to miss you, Michael Heath.) From the KJ profile:

On a beautiful Sunday, in a small white church in rural Maine, the Rev. Bob Emrich began his sermon by recalling a question he'd been asked by a television reporter.

"Is this a religious issue?" Emrich was asked.

Emrich, a major player in the effort to overturn the state's gay-marriage law, said at that moment, he didn't have a good answer to the question.

But on this Sunday, he used the question as a way to share his belief that religion shouldn't be confined by the walls of a church.

"It's sort of sad the question even needs to be asked," he said to the 70 or so gathered. "Every part of life is defined by your relationship to God."

No. No, what's sort of sad is that, in the United States of America, people think that their religious beliefs should have any bearing on the civil rights of people who don't share them. Actually, that's really sad. There are plenty of people who think their lives are just dandy without defining them in religious terms whatsoever. Every part of Emrich's life might be defined by his relationship to God, but I'd prefer it if said relationship would butt out of my ability to share a life and a home with the consenting adult of my choice. The appalling arrogance of the fundamentalist Christian movement never ceases to amaze me.

All of this makes me incredibly grateful for my own faith community, and the voice of my bishop. Still, given that the opposition to marriage equality is coming almost entirely from religious institutions and people, it's no surprise that gay and lesbian people often choose to leave the church. Hard to blame them, really.

Why I remain hopeful about Obama and gay rights

Can I say that some of my best friends are gay? Really, it's true! In fact, my dearest, most amazing friend is gay (you know who you are).

And I so clearly endorse the moral argument in favor of gay marriage that the arguments for the other side fails to move me one iota. And I feel that about no other controversial issue of our day that I can think of. Abortion, death penalty, euthanasia, torture, health care reform, etc. - I feel the force of the arguments of the other side. Not so gay marriage.

Yet I feel more patient and more confident than most others on this side of the issue that Obama will be remembered as doing right by gays and lesbians.

I have to wonder if that is because I am not gay myself and therefore I'm not feeling the issue's urgency. I would be a bit dismayed if that were the case, that is, that I need self-interest to motivate moral passion. But it's possible.

But here's the more charitable reason for my patience. I have three beliefs about Obama that not everyone shares, and the conjunction of these beliefs is what makes me patient. 1) I am very, very confident that Obama knows what the right thing to do is. 2) I also believe that he takes this issue seriously, and means to prioritize it. 3) I have also recently read a bunch of Lincoln biographies. Lincoln felt strongly that change went over much more smoothly if motivated by a shift in public sentiment. I know as a parent, I am much more likely to get pleasant compliance if I can get my son to want to do a given task. We none of us like to be told what to do. I believe Obama is hyper-aware of this, and I think he is waiting for the moment when public opinion demands change. Currently a greater and greater percentage of the public is making that shift. Ideally, the military would itself shift as well, since the military's sentiment on the matter is crucial, too.

I may be wrong about any one of these beliefs - time will, of course, tell. And they are all arguable. But it is because I have them that I have the patience that I do.

Update: Forgot to add this. The irony is that this strategy will only work if people are impatient and are demanding change loudly (as Andrew Sullivan is). It is when peole's fed-up-ness reaches a critical mass that the change will work best.

In which I am probably in line with the Corner

I very rarely read the Corner, as I am fond of refraining from doing spit takes. But I had a reaction to some news this morning that I imagine was not dissimilar to many Cornerites.

From day one, I have been one of the worst of the mesmerized Obamatons. Unlike many Democrats, I am very much in favor of his willingness to compromise, and his pragmatism before idealism, and his measured pace for changing precedent. I believe time will prove that he will do the right thing on important issues, such as DADT, that he has not already done.

But, um, Nobel committee? Barack Obama really hasn't done anything yet. He has brought peace to nowhere. He means well, but so do lots and lots of people. Could we please wait and see how he does and what he does before we go awarding him like this?

One gets the sense that the Nobel committee has been choosing candidates, where possible, merely to stick it to George W. Bush. I'd like to stick it to George W. Bush, too. But do you really want to spend millions of dollars in prize money and an incalculable amount of prestige to insult him over and over again?

Update: And of course, by 9 am, I find that everyone has just said all this, and not just Cornerites.

Apologies for light posting

The Better Half and I are introducing The Critter to Middle America over the next few days, so prolonged access to All Things Blog-related will be spotty, at best.

I'll be back to regular pronouncements on Monday.

Dancing delicately around the subject

While we wait to see if marriage equality holds out in Maine (and, since we're on the subject, what say you go here and donate?), let's check in on progress in DC. From the Times:

City Council members introduced legislation Tuesday to allow same-sex marriage here. If it passes, as expected, Washington would be the first city below the Mason-Dixon line to allow such unions. The city’s bill is expected to become law by December. But the measure is likely to draw harsh criticism from Congressional Republicans and conservative Democrats, many of whom face mid-term elections next year, and they could act to overturn it.

[snip]

Rep. Jason Chaffetz, a Republican from Utah, said he did not believe his fellow opponents of same-sex marriage would be able to block the city’s measure legalizing it.

“Given the other issues Congress is focused on, such as health care, it hasn’t got much attention,” said Representative Chaffetz, the ranking member of the House subcommittee that oversees the District. “You couple that with the Democrats’ stranglehold on House rules, and the minority is left out of the legislative process.”

Leaving aside Rep. Chaffetz's gripes about the legislative process as a member of the minority party (and a certain expression about turnabout springs to mind), I'd just like to say that I'm pleased that [people who are cranially reminiscent of phalli] from Utah aren't able to prevent people in DC from getting married. It's bad enough that he and his ilk can make gays and lesbians in Utah (the ones crazy enough to live there, that is) miserable.

A stickier subject is this:

For the city, the issue has piqued race and class tensions, as most of the vocal opponents represent inner-city black churches, while the more liberal and white population largely backs the measure.

[snip]

“ ‘Let the People Vote,’ is the cry that is rising among the many ministers and churches in the D.C. area,” said Bishop Harry Jackson, senior pastor of Hope Christian Church and chairman of a group called Stand4MarriageDC [ed: if you think I'm keeping the link active, you're crazy]. Bishop Jackson, who helped file the petition for a referendum, said: “The faith community has been concerned for months, that it’s been cast as bigots, racists, and worse. Nothing could be further from the truth.”

Ta-Nehisi raised serious doubts about the role the black community played in overturning marriage equality in California, and I'd rather not touch the issue with a ten-foot clown pole. But it's hard to ignore the role the black church is playing in DC. Sad to say, Bishop Jackson, but bigoted is as bigoted does, and wrapping yourself in the defense of "faith" doesn't make your actions any less lamentable.

Imagine how upset I'd be if I gave a crap about football

Via HuffPo:

Rush Limbaugh is part of a group bidding for ownership of the St. Louis Rams football team, it has been confirmed.

Limbaugh — a native of Cape Girardeau, Missouri — first mentioned his interest in owning the NFL team this spring, and has now teamed with St. Louis Blues owner Dave Checketts to submit a bid.

Limbaugh released the following statement to KMOX radio:

"Dave and I are part of a bid to buy the Rams, and we are continuing the process. But I can say no more because of a confidentiality clause in our agreement with Goldman Sachs. We cannot and will not talk about our partners. But if we prevail we will be the operators of the team."

As it happens, I'm from a small town within two hours of St. Louis. (When I am compelled by circumstance to pretend to care, I root for the Chiefs.) I'd hate to have to root against a Missouri team, but nothing will turn me more quickly into an ardent Rams detractor than knowing that The Bloated One owns them.

Update: For the perspective of a genuine football fan, I would direct you to Ta-Nehisi.