Truth & Consequences: Reflections on the Grantland Controversy

I am probably the reason a woman killed herself.

This is an uncomfortable truth I thought I had left buried deep in my memory. But it crawled back to the surface last weekend as my Twitter stream exploded with references to a controversial article over on the ESPN-sponsored sports and pop culture journalism website Grantland. [FN1].

You probably know the basic background. Caleb Hannan wrote a lengthy piece titled "Dr. V's Magical Putter", ostensibly about a revolutionary new golf putter and its designer. Except Hannan took the story in a different direction. When the putter's designer—a woman nicknamed "Dr. V"—put her personal life off-limits to Hannan's questions, Hannan chose to dig deeper into Dr. V's background. Soon, it became apparent that many of Dr. V's professional claims either could not be verified (her past work on top secret military projects) or were false (her educational credentials). Hannan's nice little "woman designs golf club" story was morphing into a bigger, badass "con artist hawks golf club to suckers" piece.

Hannan and his story, however, veered wildly off course when Hannan dug up the most salacious bit of gossip: Dr. V was transgender. Now this fact had absolutely nothing to do with the golf club or even Dr. V's suspect claims about her credentials. But in keeping with the Grantland frat house / guys' locker room culture of sports writing, Hannan chose to make this fact the focus of his story. She used to be a dude, dude!

Hannan followed his out-of-whack moral compass straight to tabloid town. Hoping for a sizzling quote, Hannan outed Dr. V to one of her business investors. Dr. V threatened, cajoled, and ultimately pleaded with Hannan to have her history kept private. After the fact, Grantland's editor-in-chief Bill Simmons assures us Hannan did not "badger" Dr. V, never threatened to out her, and his story would never have been run with the transgender angle.

Still, Dr. V committed suicide.

Still, Hannan wrote his story about Dr. V, the transgender con artist.

Still, Grantland's editors published it.

* * * * *

Like a lot of guys my age, I'm a big Bill "the Sportsguy" Simmons fan. Have been since he joined ESPN.com as a special columnist in 2001. Simmons' genius is capturing in writing how guys really talk about sports—veering from analyzing games and player transactions, to relating the emotional rollercoaster ride of supporting a team through wins and losses, to cracking snarky jokes at the expense of friends or opposing teams, all seasoned with a hearty helping of personal anecdotes, movie quotes, and pop culture references. The relatively new Grantland site reflects Simmons' influence: the current home page features articles on the NFL playoffs, a significant MLB player signing, a discussion of the NBA rivalry between the Celtics and the Lakers, a history of the movie Swingers, and a diary from the Sundance film festival. 

Following the outcry over Hannan's Dr. V story, Simmons posted a heartfelt apology, taking responsibility for the decision to publish the article. I have no doubt Simmons sincerely regretted that mistakes had occurred. But in a few places, his apology turned defensive, undercutting his message. For example, Simmons wrote:

Before we officially decided to post Caleb’s piece, we tried to stick as many trained eyeballs on it as possible. Somewhere between 13 and 15 people read the piece in all, including every senior editor but one, our two lead copy desk editors, our publisher and even ESPN.com’s editor-in-chief. All of them were blown away by the piece. Everyone thought we should run it. ...

Anyway, we posted the piece on Wednesday morning. People loved it. People were enthralled by it. People shared it. People tweeted it and retweeted it. A steady stream of respected writers and journalists passed along their praise. By Thursday, as the approval kept pouring in, we had already moved on to other stories and projects.

There's more than a whiff of rationalization in this passage. Call it the "Cool story, bro" defense: If a dozen editors and a bunch of early readers liked the piece, it couldn't be unreasonable for Grantland to run the piece, right? But the problem here is that these editors and readers are essentially Grantland insiders, acolytes for the peculiar Grantland vibe, raised on the Simmons style. In fact, I'm willing to wager at least one Grantland editor threw out an Austin Powers line, "She's a man, man!" to appreciative chuckles. It's hard to hear a contrarian voice in an echo chamber.

To his credit, Simmons did acknowledge in his apology post that he and his editors had all viewed the piece through the same flawed "lens". But this fact does not justify or excuse the errors made. More troubling is that Simmons seems oblivious to the possibility that this particular flawed lens, this blind spot as to serious issues not commonly encountered when breaking down the NBA playoffs or cracking jokes about The Bachelor, might be an inherent fault built into the Grantland model.

Simmons' lack of introspection also showed up in this passage:

But even now, it’s hard for me to accept that Dr. V’s transgender status wasn’t part of this story. Caleb couldn’t find out anything about her pre-2001 background for a very specific reason. Let’s say we omitted that reason or wrote around it, then that reason emerged after we posted the piece. What then?

First off, Hannan didn't make Dr. V's transgender status "part" of the story; he structured the article so that the the transgender reveal was the story's big Crying Game payoff. Second, if the story were truly about Dr. V, her putter, and her questionable (even fraudulent) claims related to the putter, what difference does it make why Dr. V's background has a specific gap prior to 2001? Let's say Hannan had discovered Dr. V changed her name (maybe even illicitly assumed a new identity) in 2001 in order to escape an abusive husband—would that information be fair game for publication? Once Hannan and Grantland knew that Dr. V had a legitimate reason for the gap in her personal history, there was no legitimate reason to report that information. The mere fact that someone else might subsequently discover that information is irrelevant to any analysis of whether it was proper for Grantland to publish it in that particular Hannan piece.

* * * * *

The final point where I thought Simmons' apology missed the mark is in connection with the circumstances leading to Dr. V's suicide. Here, however, my views are much more complicated, and colored by my personal experience.

It was more than 15 years ago. I was a young associate attorney, just a few years out of law school. Sexual harassment suits were the new big thing, and one landed on my desk. A professional was being sued by a former administrative assistant over allegations of a series of improper physical encounters. My assignment was to defend the professional. Without question it was a big case for me at that point in my career.

During the course of discovery, I learned that the plaintiff had a long history of mental health issues, including two hospitalizations for attempted suicide—one before and one after the events in question in the lawsuit. The deposition of plaintiff was difficult. It was a classic she-said-he-said case, and it would rise or fall with the credibility of the two primary parties. So, I had to pin down the plaintiff on the details of over a dozen events she alleged had happened, which my client denied entirely. Although I tried to keep the deposition as matter-of-fact as possible, the plaintiff repeatedly broke down in tears as she recounted her version of events. It was a grueling day for everyone involved.

Two weeks later, I received a large packet of new psychiatric records from the plaintiff's attorney. The  plaintiff had been hospitalized again for another week of in-patient mental health treatment. The emergency room intake note, dated the day after the plaintiff's deposition, read something like:

Patient brought to ER by husband. Patient was deposed in a lawsuit yesterday, was grilled very hard by an attorney about her pending sexual harassment case. Husband states patient has been highly emotional and depressed, has mentioned suicide. Patient states she just wants to get in her car, drive ... and end it all.

I was shocked and horrified. I didn't recall being confrontational in the deposition, but I did have to press plaintiff for details she was reluctant to provide, to enable me to determine whether her claims were credible and could be discounted or corroborated in any manner. I called her attorney who assured me he didn't think I had done anything improper (and he had not raised any objections or voiced any concerns about my line of questions during the deposition). Still, it was an uncomfortable fact that I had actually played a role in triggering plaintiff's suicidal thoughts.

Less than a week later, I got a call from plaintiff's attorney; plaintiff had passed away. The atorney faxed over a copy of the news article. As Caleb Hannan might say, a chill went down my spine. Plaintiff was the victim of a one-car accident on a rural road ... and it was almost exactly identical to the suicide scenario she had reported to the ER physician following her deposition. [FN2].

To my knowledge, plaintiff's death was ruled an accident. Nobody had reason to challenge that conclusion or press for an investigation. But to my mind, the coincidence is just too much to ignore. It was most likely a suicide.

It's easy to rationalize the situation. Plaintiff had a history of mental health issues, including suicide attempts. The legal process can be a terrifying and hostile environment for many folks, particularly when it involves claims which intrude deep into sensitive personal matters. Plaintiff put the details of the alleged harassment directly at issue by bringing the suit. My client was entitled to a defense of those claims, and if it weren't me taking that deposition, it would have been another lawyer, likely one with a more aggressive, confrontational style.

Problem is, it was me who took that deposition. Me who made plaintiff recount the details of multiple instances of alleged sexual harassment. Me who plaintiff pointed to as the reason for her thoughts of suicide following the deposition. Me.

I have often reflected on that experience. The past cannot be changed, but it is possible to grow from a tragic situation. I have tried to be more concerned with the experience of people brought into the legal system, and more aware of possible extra-legal consequences for those people. I know I have no legal or moral responsibility for that plaintiff's apparent suicide. I know there were many factors that contributed to her death. Yet I also know I was likely one of the prime factors, and that knowledge still haunts me.

* * * * *

Simmons's apology addresses the connection between Hannan's article and Dr. V's suicide:

To our dismay, a few outlets pushed some version of the Grantland writer bullies someone into committing suicide! narrative, either because they wanted to sensationalize the story, or they simply didn’t read the piece carefully. It’s a false conclusion that doubles as being recklessly unfair. Caleb reported a story about a public figure that slowly spun out of control. He never antagonized or badgered anyone. 

Let's set aside the "bullying into suicide" bit for a moment. Simmons' account of events is a bit of a whitewash. Dr. V wasn't a public figure, or to be a little more precise, her public status, such as it was, was clearly limited to the golf putter business. Dr. V's transgender status was a private matter unconnected to her public business activities. Further, the story did not "spin out of control". Events took an unexpected turn during the course of Hannan's research, but the story was always Hannan's to frame, Hannan's to write, and Grantland's to publish. Nobody forced Hannan or Grantland to move forward with the piece after Dr. V died.

Where things get morally complicated is the claim that Hannan "never antagonized or badgered anyone." I think that's correct in a narrow sense. But Hannan isn't quite so innocent as Simmons would suggest. Hannan, after all, outed Dr. V to an important business partner without any apparent regard for the consequences.

Here's Simmons' take on the outing issue, as he lists the lessons he thinks should be learned:

6. Caleb never should have outed Dr. V to one of her investors; you need to address that mistake either within the piece, as a footnote, or in a separate piece entirely.
(And maybe even ... )
7. There’s a chance that Caleb’s reporting, even if it wasn’t threatening or malicious in any way, invariably affected Dr. V in ways that you never anticipated or understood. (Read Christina Kahrl’s thoughtful piece about Dr. V and our errors in judgment for more on that angle.)

Address the improper outing of a transgender person in a footnote? Good grief. How about not publishing the piece in which a journalist's ethical lapse is the foundation of the entire story? At the very least, Hannan's decision to out Dr. V deserves more consideration from Simmons than merely lumping it in with a laundry list of errors, implying that outing a person is a mistake on par with using improper pronouns for a transgender person or crafting an inelegant sentence.

Frankly, though, the latter paragraph is much more troubling. To someone who is closeted, there is little more "threatening or malicious" than an intentional outing. Even if Hannan, Simmons, and the entire Grantland staff had a transgender blind spot, certainly in this day and age they have to be familiar with gays and lesbians; hopefully they don't need to resort to their GLAAD or AP handbooks to understand it is ethically wrong to out someone. Would Hannan and Simmons think it was acceptable to out a gay teen to his classmates, or a lesbian executive to her boss, just for the sake of getting a reaction quote? Would they be surprised if said teen or executive found such an outing to be "threatening and malicious"? Would they "anticipate or understand" that such an outing could lead to harmful consequences, such as the teen being bullied or the executive being fired?

Hannan deserves harsh criticism for his cavalier outing of Dr. V in pursuit of a minor sports story, certainly far more than Simmons' mild rebuke. But Hannan does not deserve to be blamed for Dr. V's suicide, and Hannan certainly does not deserve threats of physical harm. There seems no doubt that Hannan's actions were a significant factor in Dr. V's decision to commit suicide. But I do not think one can make the leap to from "significant factor" to "moral responsibility" in this case. Hannan outed Dr. V to one person. Dr. V might have feared Hannan would go public with the transgender story. But Dr. V might also have feared Hannan would reveal the questions surrounding her work, her education, and the scientific support for her golf putter. Those topics were all fair game for Hannan, and certainly a potential cause of mental stress for Dr. V. Also, Dr. V might have feared that, if Hannan discovered her secret so readily, it was only a matter of time before someone else found out, so it did not much matter whether Hannan outed her; Dr. V may have felt her outing was inevitable. Add in the fact Dr. V had prior issues with depression and attempted suicide, and it becomes difficult to pinpoint the root cause of her decision to commit suicide.

Caleb Hannan will always have to answer professional questions about his decision to out Dr. V. And, he will always have to live with the personal knowledge that, even if he wasn't morally responsible, he was certainly closely connected to Dr. V's suicide. That seems punishment enough.

As for Simmons and Grantland, even as I disagree with specific points in Simmons' apology post, I fully believe in the overall message Simmons was trying to convey—mistakes were made, and he feels horribly about the situation. But most important is Simmons' closing promise:

We will learn from what happened. We will remember what [Coach John] Wooden said — “If you’re not making mistakes, you’re not doing anything” — and we’re going to keep trying to get better. That’s all we can do.

The point of criticism, whether in sports or the arts, is to spur reflection and improvement. Hannan, Simmons, and Grantland all deserve a chance to move forward and show that they have grown from this controversy. And hopefully all of the discussion surrounding this article will help others reflect and grow as well.

---------------------------------------------------------

[FN1]  Many excellent writers have posted on-the-mark critiques of Hannan and Grantland, and their troubling journalistic ethics in publishing this story in this manner; in my estimation, these posts by Maria Dahvana Headley, "Iron Mike Gallego", Tim Marchman, and Ryan Glasspiegel provide particularly insightful commentary.

[FN2]  I have intentionally omitted details re the car accident as a matter of protecting the privacy of plaintiff and her surviving family in the highly unlikely event the accident details could be tied back to the identity of the plaintiff. The details of the car accident are not important, only that they match the specific suicide scenario described by plaintiff when she was admitted to the ER.

Dear Fathers: What If Your Son Is Gay?

Kurt's Dad:  My son's a homosexual, and I love him.  I love my dead gay son.

J.D.:  Wonder how he'd react if his son had a limp wrist with a pulse.

~Heathers (1988)

Friday, conservative Republican Senator Rob Portman published a shocking article coming out in favor of marriage equality for gays after years spent toeing the GOP anti-gay party line:

Two years ago, my son Will, then a college freshman, told my wife, Jane, and me that he is gay. He said he’d known for some time, and that his sexual orientation wasn’t something he chose; it was simply a part of who he is. Jane and I were proud of him for his honesty and courage. We were surprised to learn he is gay but knew he was still the same person he’d always been. The only difference was that now we had a more complete picture of the son we love.

At the time, my position on marriage for same-sex couples was rooted in my faith tradition that marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman. Knowing that my son is gay prompted me to consider the issue from another perspective: that of a dad who wants all three of his kids to lead happy, meaningful lives with the people they love, a blessing Jane and I have shared for 26 years.

I wrestled with how to reconcile my Christian faith with my desire for Will to have the same opportunities to pursue happiness and fulfillment as his brother and sister. Ultimately, it came down to the Bible’s overarching themes of love and compassion and my belief that we are all children of God.

Senator Portman's article drew plenty of criticism from fellow conservatives, hardly surprising given the influence of the religious right over Republican politics. More surprising—and disappointing—was sniping from many pundits on the political left who called Portman's change of heart a "confession of moral failure" or evidence of "a fundamental lack of compassion", causing "disgust" at Portman's lack of empathy and accusations of a "politics of narcissism".

All of the critics need to pipe down. There is no question marriage equality is a hot-button political issue, and a sitting U.S. Senator breaking with his party's position on the issue undoubtedly has political implications.  Yet I view Senator Portman's announcement as more of a personal and family matter, made public only because he is a fairly high-profile politician. Seeing the Senator and his wife publicly declare how proud they are of their son Will, how they love him as he is, not as they might have wanted him to be, and how they wish for their son to have the opportunity to be just as happy as they and their other children, only drives home for me how difficult the situation must have been for the entire family. Imagine being Will Portman, the gay son of a prominent politician whose party is anti-gay (often rabidly so), in a state where an anti-gay marriage amendment was cynically placed on the ballot in 2004 in a transparent effort to bring Republican voters to the presidential polls, whose father was even mentioned as a leading Vice Presidential candidate for an avowedly anti-gay Mitt Romney. Imagine the fear and anxiety that Will must have felt as he tried to work up the courage to tell his parents he was gay. Imagine Will's relief when his parents accepted him with love. Imagine Will's pride when his parents not merely accepted him, but went so far as to publicly advocate for his right to marry some day, in direct contravention of what would be politically expedient for his father. To me, Senator Portman's article was not a political statement, but a public declaration of love and support from a father to his son. I have nothing but admiration for how the entire Portman family has handled this situation.

Senator Portman's article was a strange counterpoint to another note making the rounds on the internet this week, a note in which a father told his gay son there was no reason to worry about coming out:

I overheard your phone conversation with Mike last night about your plans to come out to me. The only thing I need you to plan is to bring home OJ and bread after class. We are out, like you now. I’ve known you were gay since you were six, I’ve loved you since you were born.

—Dad

P.S. Your mom and I think you and Mike make a cute couple.

This note was pretty much the opposite of my personal experience. When I came out, my friends were overwhelmingly supportive. My mother, however ... well, she returned my Christmas letter unopened, with a post-it note attached stating:

We have no desire to know anything about the lifestyle you have chosen. Your letter will just upset us, so I am returning it.

~Mom & Dad

Now, my parents and I eventually worked through the issue, and our relationship is stronger than ever. But my experience, and the experience of the Portmans, is a reminder to fathers of young sons everywhere—your own son might well be gay. Of course, the odds are overwhelming your son will be straight—he only has roughly a 1-in-20 chance of being gay. Still, considering around 5% of kids will turn out to be gay, you will almost certainly be confronted with the issue of a gay teen at some point in your life. If it's not your son, it will be the son of a friend, or one of your son's friends. So, how will you handle the issue of your son growing up gay, or his growing up with a gay friend?

If your son is interested in sports, will you steer him toward football, basketball, hockey, wrestling, or baseball because they are more "manly"? If you coach a youth sports team, will you tell your team they are playing like "fags" or "pussies"? Will you tolerate a coach or fellow parent who uses anti-gay language? Will you stand by and let the more talented or popular kids on the team use words like "gay" or worse to taunt their opponents or even their own teammates?

What if your son excels in a sport like swimming, diving, gymnastics, ice skating, or volleyball; will you be embarrassed to attend his meets? Will you be openly disappointed if your son doesn't want to watch sports or go hunting or snowmobiling or hiking with you? Or what if your son wants to participate in drama, show choir, band, dance, or art? Will you attend every show? Take him to rehearsals? Brag to your friends about his awards? Or will you tell your son that he should stick to sports? Avoid his shows with forced excuses? Hide your discomfort from your friends with uneasy jokes?

When your friend confides over a beer that his son is gay, will you silently give thanks that your son is straight? When you learn for certain your son is straight, will you breathe a sigh of relief?

Knowing that gay teens are at substantially higher risk for depression and anxiety, being bullied or assaulted, abusing alcohol or drugs, dropping out of school or having educational problems, and attempting / committing suicide, will you be the strong father, coach, or role model who is someone a gay teen can turn to for support?

If you learn your son is gay, will you love him just the same? Will your son know this even before you tell him?

Frankly, though, if it turns out your son is gay, there are only two questions that really matter:

Will you be proud of your son?

Will your son be proud of you?

Especially proud of my dad today

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/editorials/2013/03/15/gay-couples-also-deserve-chance-to-get-married.html …

~Will Portman, @wdportman, 6:34 AM; 15 Mar 2013

Marriage Equality & the Courage of Political Pandering

In a recent TV interview that seems to have flown under the national media radar, President Obama announced publicly that he supports the rights of gay and lesbian Americans to legally marry their same-sex partners. The President was immediately criticized by many in his own party for being a political coward who had not "evolved" far enough fast enough from support for civil unions to support for full marriage equality. The President also took political fire from Republicans who predictably claimed that the President was cravenly pandering to wealthy donors and liberal base voters by publicly admitting to his support for marriage equality. Frankly, both sets of critics are correct. But President Obama's statement on marriage equality fits quite comfortably in the context of gay rights issues in modern American politics.

Let's begin in 1980, the first presidential election I can remember (I was in fourth grade). The 1980 election was probably the defining moment in American politics in my lifetime, when Ronald Reagan finally mastered the dark art of fusing socially conservative voters to the traditional Republican base of financial conservatives and foreign policy hawks. Reagan's views on gay issues "devolved" quickly from his opposition as a former governor to a California initiative to ban gays from teaching in public schools to a presidential campaign where he courted social conservative voters and donors with campaign statements condemning gays as engaged in an immoral "alternative lifestyle". Reagan's administration kowtowed to the newly influential religious right on the paramount gay issue of the decade—the AIDS crisis. Reagan never even acknowledged the existence of the AIDS epidemic publicly until near the end of his second term in 1987, while his administration shamefully delayed taking any public policy position because many of his top advisers viewed AIDS as a gay disease where the victims "are only getting what they justly deserve." Reagan's loathsome communications director, Pat Buchanan, even authored a New York Post op-ed piece in which he declared, "The poor homosexuals—they have declared war upon nature, and now nature is exacting an awful retribution."

Reagan's presidency also coincided with the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Bowers v. Hardwick. The Supreme Court—the ultimate protector of justice and equality—declared in rather harsh language that if states wanted to make being gay a criminal offense, well that was perfectly OK under the Constitution. This decision and the vestigial anti-sodomy laws it endorsed were used over the next two decades by many conservative states to justify refusing to permit gays to adopt children. After all, gays were criminals by law.

Pandering on gay rights issues reached its zenith in the 1990s when Congressional Republicans whipped their social conservative base into a frenzy on the twin issues of patriotic support for military service and strengthening families by working to ban gays from serving their country in the military or creating families by getting married. The equally loathsome "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT) and "Defense of Marriage Act" (DOMA) were enacted with ease, thanks to hordes of Congressional Democrats falling all over themselves in a mad rush to reassure voters that, although they liked gays more than the Republicans and welcomed their votes and donations, they certainly weren't going to, you know, actually vote to support any recognition of gays as deserving of equality. Of course, Senate Republicans had to put a pickle on the shit sandwich of DOMA by voting down a proposed Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) that would have given federal protection to gays against employment discrimination (a law that has yet to be passed even today).

The 1990s also saw the genesis of the Republican tactic of using ballot measures to enshrine anti-gay bigotry into various state constitutions. Colorado voters bought into Republican rhetoric that gays should not be given "special rights" and passed a constitutional amendment prohibiting any state or local law or ordinance granting gays protection from discrimination in any form (targeted at local ordinances barring discrimination based on sexual orientation in employment or housing). Thankfully, the U.S. Supreme Court eventually invalidated the amendment in Romer v. Evans, but Republicans still use the "special rights" dog whistle to this day.

Moving into the current century (even if the Republican party would prefer not to do so), President George W. Bush campaigned on a "compassionate conservatism" platform. Apparently the "compassion" part was optional, as Bush (with the tacit support of the Gay Quisling) based his reelection strategy in 2004 in part by pandering to social conservatives in key swing states by instigating votes on state constitutional amendments banning gay marriage, not to mention openly endorsing the idea of a federal constitutional amendment also banning gay marriage.

Which brings us to the era of President Obama. Obama campaigned on the promise of repealing DADT, which had broad bipartisan public support. Yet Republicans led by supposed-moderate John McCain fought tooth and nail to preserve DADT and deny gay Americans the right to openly serve their country. My cynical view is that the Republican resistance was less about military service than it was about marriage equality. After all, if the public ever saw a gay soldier or sailor return from active duty to the embrace or even marriage proposal of a same-sex partner, the social conservative case against marriage equality would suffer a serious public relations blow. Also, gays serving in the military would be particularly vulnerable to the whims of the patchwork of state laws governing marriage equality, and a gay military couple would make a compelling example of the indignities imposed by DOMA and state anti-gay marriage laws.

In other recent political pandering, after years of Republican calls for marriage equality issues to be decided by legislatures not courts, Republican New Jersey Governor Chris Christie—his eyes firmly on social conservative support for a presidential campaign in 2016—vetoed a marriage equality bill and moved the equality goalposts back even further, demanding a statewide vote on a marriage equality constitutional amendment. Republican legislators in Louisiana voted to maintain laws that prohibit gays from adopting children under any circumstances, while Republican legislators in Virginia passed a law making it significantly more difficult for gays to adopt. Republican legislators in Missouri and Tennessee proposed laws to prevent public school teachers from even discussing gays. North Carolina Republicans pushed through a state constitutional amendment barring gays from marrying, even though state law already prohibited gays from marrying, and the Republican Speaker of the House admitted that the amendment would likely be overturned in a few years. And the leading Republican candidates for President fell over each other in declaring their anti-gay bona fides, with presumptive nominee Mitt Romney "evolving" from declaring his strong support for gay rights in the 1990s to pandering to social conservatives with a strongly anti-gay platform in the current presidential race. And just to drive the anti-gay point home, Romney recently hired then fired an openly gay adviser to placate the religious right.

Whew! That's a lot of political pandering on gay rights issues. President Obama's pandering fits right in ....

That being said, there is some merit to President Obama's critics on the left who note that Obama's "evolution" on marriage equality was a cynical and cowardly ploy calculated to ensure his election in 2008. Those critics are correct—President Obama is hardly leading the charge for marriage equality. Compared to many marriage equality proponents—Washington Governor Christine Gregoire, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, Rhode Island Governor Lincoln Chafee, New Hampshire legislators, prominent Republican attorney Ted Olson, Iowa Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal, and former Iowa supreme court justices Marsha Ternus, Michael Streit, and David Baker, just to name a few—President Obama is downright cowardly in his evolution from supporting civil unions to his recent support for full marriage equality (qualified by pushing the issue off to the states).

Still, as a matter of pragmatism, it is rather politically unrealistic for gay rights proponents to expect politicians to openly endorse gay rights issues if doing so results in political suicide. After all, what good are politicians who support gay rights if their gay-favorable stances make them unelectable? In President Obama's case, it is arguable that a pro-marriage equality position in 2008 might have resulted in the election of John McCain. It seems obvious that gays are far better off with Obama as President than they would have been with McCain in the White House. In fact, President Obama has done far more to advance gay rights in three years—repealing DADT, rescinding the HIV travel ban, taking the position that DOMA is unconstitutional, publicly supporting marriage equality, nominating gays to positions as judges or significant administration posts—than all his predecessors have accomplished in over two centuries. Gays could use more cowards like President Obama fighting on their side.

In the long run, President Obama's public support for marriage equality both reflects and pushes the increasing public support for the right of gays to marry. But President Obama's support for marriage equality is not just merely a symbolic political position, it is a powerful statement of inclusion and equality for gays, serving as a beacon of hope to gays that they too can live the American dream of marriage, family, and a house with white picket fence (or tasteful shrubbery).

Just this spring, a teenage boy had the courage to come out as gay in his small rural high school in deeply conservative northwest Iowa. Kenneth Weishuhn, Jr. was by all accounts a happy and well-liked 14 year old. He created a Pinterest page— "When I get married. (: " —to share his plans for his wedding to the man of his dreams he had yet to meet. Yes, a 14 year year old gay Iowa boy was dreaming of his happily-ever-after wedding day. How much more traditional, more sappy, can any teen get?

A mere month after coming out, Kenneth committed suicide. Traumatized by the jeers and taunts of his classmates, Kenneth could no longer hide the emotional hurt behind his outward smile. Kenneth's death brought outrage, sympathy, and reflection. Hopefully Kenneth's death will be a catalyst for meaningful changes in attitudes towards gays in general and towards bullied teens in particular.

But no matter what happens, Kenneth will never meet the man of his dreams. He'll never fall in love. He'll never get to enjoy his perfect wedding day.

For the President of the United States to tell gay folks that their relationships are just as important as opposite-sex relationships, that gay people should be free to marry the person they love, is not just a merely symbolic political act, it is an important act of personal affirmation and support. President Obama's declaration of support for marriage equality, regardless of its political motivations, is a courageous and historical milestone in the struggle for gay rights. I don't give a flying pig how or why he arrived at this spot at this time; at the end of the day President Obama has chosen to stand with gay Americans in their quest for equality.

For the first President to show his support for gays as fully equal Americans, I can forgive a slow "evolution" of his views, and can overlook a reluctance to get too far ahead of public opinion. President Obama has made a historical choice on a major, controversial issue of his day, while in the midst of a heated campaign for reelection. Whether that announcement proves to be shrewd or foolhardy as a political decision remains to be seen, but it is undeniably courageous.

D-Bag O' the Day (v.2.1)—'Til Tantrums Do Us Part

It's been a few months since our last D-Bag O' the Day, not because there's been any real shortage of D-Bags, but more because none of them seemed all that worthy of my attention. Sure, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker (a Republican, natch) decided that gay couples didn't deserve even the limited right to visit or make health care decisions for their partners in the hospital. Minnesota legislators (again, Republicans) were hard at work addressing the state's infrastructure and economic issues by passing a state constitutional amendment to ban gay marriages. The Tennessee legislature and governor were working overtime to make sure schoolkids weren't exposed to the gay menace, and to strip away anti-discrimination protection from gays. The latter effort came with a shameful big assist from the Tennessee Chamber of Commerce whose members were shocked—shocked!—to discover Republicans were passing the law to target gays, who the Chamber members swear they really, really love. Still, given the impressive Republican achievements in bigotry and demagoguery the past couple of decades, this is all garden variety douchiness. To get my attention, you have to elevate your game.

Today, the anti-gay D-Bag gauntlet was thrown down from a rather unexpected source—a liberal gay man writing in the New York Times. Now liberals, gays, and Times writers are frequent contributors to the realm of political hyperbole and hypocrisy, but they generally have a good record on gay issues. Rich Benjamin—a gay man and blowhard of whom I have 'til now enjoyed the pleasure of blissful ignorance—makes a childish argument that, as long as it isn't legal for gays to get married, he will hold his breath until he turns blue while boycotting the weddings of his straight friends.

How utterly absurd to celebrate an institution that I am banned from in most of the country. It puzzles me, truth be told, that wedding invitations deluge me. Does a vegan frequent summer pig roasts? Do devout evangelicals crash couple-swapping parties? Do undocumented immigrants march in Minuteman rallies?

Benjamin's superficial analogies are particularly inapt. Gays aren't morally or politically opposed to straight marriage, they merely seek to be treated equally within that sacred institution. Why would Benjamin advocate the bizarre boycotting of straight marriages? Benjamin insists his reasons aren't political:

[My friend Zach] resents me for blowing off his special day, for putting political beliefs ahead of our friendship and for punishing him for others’ deeds. But screaming zealots aren’t the only obstacles to equal marriage rights; the passivity of good people like Zach who tacitly fortify the inequality of this institution are also to blame.

They’re proof of a double standard: Even well-meaning heterosexuals often describe their own nuptials in deeply personal terms, above and beyond politics, but tend to dismiss same-sex marriage as a political cause, and gay people’s desire to marry as political maneuvering.

What many straight people consistently forget is that same-sex couples aren’t demanding marriage to make a political statement or to accrue “special rights.” When I ask my gay friends why they wish to marry, they don’t mention tax benefits. They seek marriage for the same personal reasons that straight people do: to share life’s triumphs and trials with their beloved, to start a family, to have the ability to protect that family, and to celebrate their loving commitment with a wedding.

Benjamin misses the point on two fronts. First, my straight friends don't seem to regard marriage equality as primarily a "gay issue" or a "political issue". Certainly there is a political element to the issue, but the significant progress that has been made in advancing the cause of marriage equality is because straight folks have stopped thinking of the issue as a gay rights issue, and instead have reflected on the fundamental unfairness of depriving gay people the right to be in committed, loving relationships. Benjamin fails to give our straight supporters credit for understanding that the issue of marriage equality is fundamentally a moral, not a political, question.

Second, and more to the point, it is Benjamin himself who abuses his friendships by injecting politics into a meaningful personal celebration of love and commitment. It is Benjamin who is making a political statement at the expense of sharing in the joy his friends experience. I do not have kids, but I still get great pleasure from sharing in the births, baptisms, graduations, and weddings of my friends' children. Just because I and other gay folks may not be able to marry the person we love in most states isn't a valid reason to churlishly hold ourselves aloof from the weddings of our straight friends.

Benjamin ultimately betrays his truly childish motivation—if he can't play, then he's taking his ball and running home to pout:

In recent years, many straight people have admirably pledged not to get married until gay people have the right to do so nationwide. I can’t ask friends like Zach to cancel their weddings, but I expect them to at least understand why I won’t attend. Straight friends and family need to accept their wedding invitations as collateral damage to exclusionary marriage laws. They should feel the consequences of this discrimination as sharply as we do.

Looking back over the past decade, it's nothing short of astonishing what strides gay people have made in achieving equality: merely being gay is no longer criminal, gays are mere months away from finally being able to serve their country openly and with honor, and the idea of gay marriage has gone from being an alien concept to being legal in five states (with civil unions in several others). The future looks even brighter. Despite the occasional spasms of anti-gay rhetoric from the Republican social conservative machine, a majority of Americans now support marriage equality, and the head of the odious Focus on the Family group has admitted that, with overwhelming support from younger Americans, marriage equality is all but inevitable. The only real question is whether a lengthy state-by-state operation will be required to bring about equality, or whether the U.S. Supreme Court will deliver a speedier coup de grâce to anti-gay discrimination.

This remarkable progress toward gay equality has occurred because of the thoughtful support of our straight friends. In fact, without the support of straight folks, there would be no gay rights progress. When we ultimately achieve marriage equality, it will because of our many straight allies who rallied to our cause, even if only by rethinking their view of the essence of the bonds of marriage. Boycotting the weddings of straight friends is a childish temper tantrum. Instead, Benjamin should rejoice in the marriages of his friends, gay or straight, knowing they wish him the right to join in that joyous bond.

(Image source).

D-Bag O' the Day (v.1.18)—Desperate Oregon Fan Seeks E-Mail Order Auburn Bride

OK, I suppose it's time to let Daniel Negreanu off the hook and bump him from the front page featured D-Bag position. It was a good run, sir, but it's time to move on.

Our new featured D-Bag is one Ryan Tharp, who came to my attention via Deadspin. Apparently, Mr. Tharp is a young Oregon football fan who—like Mr. Negreanu—loves those hilarious prop bets. From his post on Craigslist:

I, along with several buddies, will be celebrating the Duck victory in Vegas from January 11th-14th. During that extravaganza, I plan on taking in the entire Vegas experience, including marrying a stranger. If you are cute enough, spontaneous enough, and an all around cool chick....let's get hitched. Loser of the bet has to pay the annulment costs. So, if you are going to be in Vegas after the National Championship, believe in your Tigers, and want to have stories to tell your grandchildren (won't be mine) then shoot me an email...with a pic!

 

Auburn ladies, this could be your future ex-husband!

Now, I do have to give Mr. Tharp kudos for being the rare college student who can be a drunken lout and still put together a coherent, grammatically correct paragraph. Nonetheless the entire premise of his prop bet is offensive.

The sig other and I have been dating for over four years, and have been living together and sharing our lives for more than three of those years. In a year or so, we intend to get married, which prior to April 3, 2009, would have been impossible in Iowa. Three good judges just lost their jobs because they had the courage to, well, do their jobs and rule on an important constitutional issue the way they felt the law required. Even after our wedding, there will be many states which will not recognize our marital status, should we find ourselves relocating or even merely traveling through, potentially creating issues related to health care decisions and property rights, among hundreds of potential legal landmines.

Now, I know that there are strong feelings on both sides of the marriage equality debate, and I fully accept that folks of good will toward gays might nonetheless oppose marriage equality based on any of a number of strongly held beliefs. It's an issue worthy of rational discussion, and at the end of the day, we may simply have to agree to disagree on some fundamental underlying principles. But please, stop trying to tell me that letting gay couples who are in loving, committed relationships marry will somehow undermine or destroy the "sanctity of marriage".

Looking just at Vegas, Mr. Tharp has good company in Nicky Hilton and Todd Andrew Meister (marriage annulled after two months), Dennis Rodman and Carmen Electra (marriage annulled after nine days), Axl Rose and Erin Everly (divorced after three weeks), and perhaps most famously, Britney Spears and Jason Allen Alexander who got drunk, got married, and had it annulled, all in roughly 55 hours. Britney does know how to live it up in Vegas! Of course, let's also give a special "sanctity of marriage" award to Darva Conger and Rick Rockwell—Darva competed on the reality TV show "Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire?" for the right to wed a guy just for his (financial) assets. Oh yeah, that marriage lasted less than a month before it was annulled.

There's no reason to fear us gay folks destroying the sanctity of marriage. You straight folks are doing a bang-up job all on your own.

Yo, Annie Duke—Don't Ask, Don't Tweet

Yesterday, the U.S. Senate passed a bill repealing the military's anti-gay "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT) policy.*    The vote was the final obstacle in a two-decade effort to allow gay and lesbian Americans to serve their country with integrity and honor.  For those of you who may not believe that the repeal of DADT was a major civil rights victory, I would encourage you to read these personal stories by current and former members of the military who happen to be gay or lesbian.  Although gay and lesbian Americans have served our country bravely for decades, allowing them to do so openly and honestly can only make the military stronger.

I was rather disappointed, unfortunately, in a Tweet posted by Annie Duke after the Senate vote:

They should have attached #reidbill to DADT. Then gays could play poker online in the military and tell people about it.

Seriously, Annie?  You want to juxtapose the passage of an historic civil rights bill with the defeat of a bill to legalize online gambling—errr, poker?  The DADT repeal took years of intense lobbying, while the poker bill was a last second attempt to pay off Senator Reid's corporate masters in the Nevada gaming industry.  The DADT repeal will allow gay and lesbian Americans to fight and die for their country, while the poker bill would've enabled more twenty-somethings to legally avoid real jobs in favor of multi-tabling sit 'n gos and chasing rakeback bonuses.  Ahh yes, Annie, I can certainly see how trivializing the DADT repeal is "good for poker".

Now, to be fair, Annie Duke's heart is in the right place on DADT repeal (immunizing her from inclusion on the infamous "D-Bag O' the Day" list):

Big victory in the Senate to repeal DADT. Big day for civil liberties and tolerance!

Duke, like most poker players, was likely disappointed in the Senate's failure to make any progress on legalization of online poker, an understandable reaction.  Duke also likely didn't intend for her breezy comparison of DADT repeal and the Reid poker bill to come off as insensitive to the DADT repeal victory.  Certainly in the grand scheme of things Duke's comment was more of a traffic violation than a serious misdemeanor, and substantially less offensive than the recent Twitter "jokes" of Duke's archnemesis.  But Duke's comment does trivialize the momentous importance of the DADT repeal.  Hopefully Duke will be a little more careful in how she advocates for poker going forward.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

* Special thanks are owed to Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-PA), an Iraq War veteran, as well as Senators Joe Lieberman (I-CT), and Susan Collins (R-ME), for their leadership in shepherding this bill through Congress.

D'Bag O' the Day (v.1.17)—Daniel Negreanu Loves C*ck ... Jokes

I was working on a poker and philosophy post last night, and had thought about doing some editing on it over the lunch hour.  Instead, I got a little sidetracked by a Pokerati.com news update that reported on a weird prop bet involving Daniel Negreanu.  Here are the details from Dan Moore at the Cake Poker Blog:

When your career is playing poker, but you're so bored by the game that you make all-in calls with 8-6 offsuit whenever you play on TV, you have to figure out new ways to entertain yourself.  And last night Daniel Negreanu did, by paying some guy $1,000 to get a tattoo.  And not just any tattoo...  He bribed the guy to permanently mark himself with the message "Loves C---" for about the price of a night of bottle service at Tao.

Really?  Daniel Negreanu did that?  Let's go to the November 12, 2010 @RealKidPoker Twitter feed (here, here, and here):

I'm paying a guy to get his 1st tattoo. $1000 to put "Loves C---" on his arm. He's down! This is so funny wow! So fun.

The tattoo artist is like the funniest guy ever he's laughing and cracking jokes the whole time. Here it is: http://plixi.com/p/56427035

Ladies and gentleman. Say hello to @dommatteucci what a trooper. Courtesy of Simply Ink "exotic tattoos" haha! http://plixi.com/p/56427631

Here's what Dom Matteucci, the man with the ink, had to say on Twitter (here and here):

Just got "loves cock" tattooed on my arm for $1000. Thanks @RealKidPoker

Waking up. Tattoo still on arm. Shit.

Of course, there was a thread about the prank in the 2+2 forums, including this account of events by Negreanu himself:

Ok some of you guys are just ridiculous. This guy is an actor creating a pilot for a show where he does ridiculous things. I was with a group of like 10 people and we went to a tattoo place cause the girls were thinking of getting something. Dom was there too and the girls started messing with him like "how much to get a tattoo of ---- on your stomach?" etc.

Then he said he'd get that tattoo for $1000 so I called his bluff! Much like me on TV when I pay off the nuts, this guy was a man of his word and went through with it. It was all in good fun, there was no "exploitation" at all, this Guy is a comedian and he loves to shock people.

He came out with us again last night and said he loves the tattoo and he's keeping it! It sure is a solid conversation starter, that's for sure.

None of it was my idea, the girls wanted to see it happen and for $1000 I figured it was worth the entertainment dollar and we got it all on video for his pilot.

Now go back to your regularly scheduled hatin'

Oh yeah, I get it.  It's funny 'cause he's straight, and he got a permanent tattoo saying he's, you know, gay.  'Cause if you're a straight guy, it's really embarrassing for people to think you're gay.  Freakin' hilarious. But, as long as Negreanu and the guy with the tattoo thought it was funny, well, laugh with them or you're "hatin'."

Would Negreanu have found the stunt nearly as funny and as worthy of sharing with his nearly 70,000 Twitter followers if the tattoo's punchline contained racial or anti-Semitic overtones?  Or what if the tattoo had been a joke at the expense of women?  Well, let's go to the archives.  Remember that little brouhaha this past summer over Shaun Deeb dressing in drag and playing the WSOP Ladies' Event ?  Here's what Negreanu had to say about that "joke":

As for Shaun Deeb handling himself in a classy manner playing the event, at least he wasn't the guy using a tampon as a card protector, but he did dress in drag and his goal was to make a mockery of the event, which in turn simply mocks the women who choose to enter it.

I'm sure Shaun Deeb made some people laugh in his dress, and I don't doubt that tampon-card-protector guy got a few chuckles for his stunt, even if only from his buddies.  I'm also certain that the tattoo prop bet was absolutely hilarious fun for Negreanu and his entourage, and probably funny for many of his followers.  But here's the thing—funny and offensive are not mutually exclusive.

Even though I'm gay and have a good life, things are still tough for many gay folks, particularly gay youths.  Making being gay the butt of a silly prop bet isn't the worst insult gay folks will face.  But, it certainly isn't the kind of conduct one should expect from an ambassador for Team PokerStars and one of the leading media figures for poker in general. 

Turning back to the WSOP Ladies' Event debate, Negreanu stated:

I'm not a woman, so I couldn't fully understand the level of intimidation a woman would face when she sits down at a poker table full of men.  For some, it's no big deal, but for a large majority, I imagine they are a bit worried about "looking stupid" or being judged.  It's human nature.

Negreanu is apparently equally clueless about gay poker players.  I hear plenty of anti-gay jokes and comments every time I play poker in a casino.  Now, I just let 99.9% of it slide off my back because I enjoy the game.  Also, taking chips from yahoos is the best revenge.  But those kinds of anti-gay attitudes probably do keep many gay poker players away from the game. 

It's kind of sad that Negreanu is so eager to champion the cause of women who want to play poker, but thinks of gays as nothing more than a putdown punchline.

Halloween Horrors & Happiness

In the wake of the depressing news that Iowa voters ousted three highly qualified judges (including the chief justice, a conservative Republican appointed by former-and-soon-to-be-Governor Terry Branstad), solely because of their vote on the gay marriage ruling, there are some welcome pro-gay links to share.

First, here's an interesting blog post from a mother whose 5-year old son decided to dress up for Halloween as Daphne from Scooby-Doo.  While his mother and his friends were fully supportive, let's just say the other kids' mothers ... disapproved.  Let's let his mother take it from here.

But here’s the point, it is none of your damn business.

If you think that me allowing my son to be a female character for Halloween is somehow going to ‘make’ him gay then you are an idiot. Firstly, what a ridiculous concept. Secondly, if my son is gay, OK. I will love him no less. Thirdly, I am not worried that your son will grow up to be an actual ninja, so back off.

Dang it, now I want to be a gay ninja when I grow up!

In other gay friendly news, a major NFL star, the NY Jets Antonio Cromartie, has signed on to the "NOH8" pro-gay marriage celebrity campaign.  It's incredibly heartwarming to know that a major pro athlete, from one of the more "macho" and presumably chilly-to-gays sports, has the courage to stand up for gay rights.  I may not be a Jets fan, but here's a high-five to Cromartie for his public support.

I must confess, my friends, the road ahead will not always be smooth.  There will be still rocky places of frustration and meandering points of bewilderment.  There will be inevitable setbacks here and there.  There will be those moments when the buoyancy of hope will be transformed into the fatigue of despair.  Our dreams will sometimes be shattered and our ethereal hopes blasted.  We may again with tear-drenched eyes have to stand before the bier of some courageous civil rights worker whose life will be snuffed out by the dastardly acts of bloodthirsty mobs.  Difficult and painful as it is, we must walk on in the days ahead with an audacious faith in the future. ... When our days become dreary with low-hovering clouds of despair, and when our nights become darker than a thousand midnights, let us remember that there is a creative force in this universe, working to pull down the gigantic mountains of evil, a power that is able to make a way out of no way and transform dark yesterdays into bright tomorrows.  Let us realize the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice.

—Martin Luther King, Jr.

* * * * *

As a note to my readers, I apologize for the slow posting recently.  I've been sidetracked by several work projects, unexpectedly coaching a junior mock trial team (now state-bound!), and a quick Vegas getaway this weekend.  Also, some posts recently required extra time to research, while a dozen or so posts are in various stages of drafting.  In any event, I hope to get back to a more regular posting schedule in a week or two.  Thanks for your patience!

National “Whatever” Day

“We are so accustomed to disguise ourselves to others that in the end we become disguised to ourselves.”

—François Duc de La Rochefoucauld, “Reflections; or Sentences and Moral Maxims”

“No man for any considerable period can wear one face to himself and another to the multitude, without finally getting bewildered as to which may be the true.”

—Nathaniel Hawthorne, “The Scarlet Letter”

Today is National Coming Out Day, dedicated to increasing awareness of gay and lesbian people, and to promoting discussion and understanding of gay and lesbian issues. Now I’ve been “out” for well over a decade, so I’ve really never paid much attention to Coming Out Day as an event. But a number of recent events—a rash of gay youth suicides, an assistant attorney general harassing the openly gay student body president at the University of Michigan, public debate over ending the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Policy” and expanding marriage rights to gay and lesbian couples, politicians espousing anti-gay rhetoric to pander to far-right voters, an NFL team ejecting a lesbian couple for kissing at a pro football game—have made me rethink my usual “eh, whatever” attitude toward the whole Coming Out Day agenda.

To those of you who are straight, it is difficult to describe the emotional and psychological struggle faced by your gay friends and relatives who are in the closet. Although living in the closet and the process of coming out are necessarily intensely personal experiences, I think my experience is probably rather typical in many respects.

I grew up in rural Nebraska, in a tiny farm town in the aptly named Republican River valley. The social calendar revolved around school functions and church events. The main two churches in the area were both Lutheran—not the more mainstream Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), but the smaller and starkly more conservative Missouri Synod Lutheran Church. During my days as a college philosophy and religion major, I often described the Missouri Synod as “Catholic Lite”—all the guilt, none of the fun. With church doctrine in favor of capital punishment, opposed to abortion, and clinging to the idea of women as subservient to men, it will come as no surprise that “homosexuality” was on the “burn in hell” side of the ledger.

Of course, in rural Nebraska in the 1970s and 80s, the idea of “gays” was probably a more foreign concept than Hinduism. After all, TV was basically still just over-the-air networks with strict FCC standards, while the only movies to make it to one of the single-screen theatres in our neck of the woods were mainstream flicks, months behind the national distribution cycle. So yeah, growing up I had heard the words “homosexual” and “gay”, and kids around school told plenty of gay/faggot jokes (mostly from the Truly Tasteless Jokes series of books), but frankly, I really had no concept of what it meant to be “gay”.

Nonetheless, as long as I can remember, I’ve known I’m gay. I’ve never been remotely interested in women as romantic or sexual partners at any point in my life. Instead, women have always just struck me as interesting people to be friends with. Now, the research is still unclear as to why some folks end up gay instead of straight—it’s likely a complex combination of genetic, hormonal, and psychosocial factors—but let me assure you, I never at any point in my life “chose” to be gay, any more than my straight guy friends woke up one day and thought, “Wow, girls are sexy!” But, I did always sense that my lack of attraction to women made me “different” in a way that was frowned upon by, well, just about everybody. So, like any other kid who wanted nothing more than to fit in, I simply hid anything that made me stick out from the crowd.

In my case, it was actually fairly easy to blend in, to pass as straight. I’ve always had a natural love of sports, which serves as the lingua franca for “manly men”. My appearance and mannerisms aren’t notably feminine, my attire tends more toward the typical guy next door than urban metrosexual, and on the weekends I’m more interested in playing poker or watching a game and having a beer with friends than heading to a club. Frankly, I probably got more flack because I was the school uber-geek than because of any perception that I might be gay. In fact, being a bit geeky probably helped me blend in, as my friends and family attributed my lack of romantic life to my geekiness, rather than looking any deeper. None of this is meant to suggest that other gay men ought to act like me, only that I fell far enough from the classic gay stereotype that it was easy for me to play the closet game.

Ahh yes, the game. Throwing myself into studies, work, and extra-curricular activities to provide a ready-made “too busy to date” persona. Going on the occasional fix-up date or double date to keep straight friends from looking too closely at me. Creating an acceptable excuse why a suggested woman wasn’t “right” for me. Finding a date for weddings or the law firm holiday party.

Although I figured out I was gay in college (in the sense of understanding the concept of being gay), I really felt no connection to the few out gay students around campus, and I was so afraid of someone on my small college campus figuring out my secret that I didn’t actually do anything to act on those feelings until near the end of law school. So, in a way, my emotional development was stunted, having observed others go through things like crushes, hookups, dating, breakups, and other emotional milestones, but never experiencing any of them myself. Well, like other teens of my era, I had the John Hughes teen romance oeuvre and related knockoffs, but that’s not quite the same as actually living in a real-life relationship.

At some point, though, the game becomes corrosive to the soul, letting the background fear and anxiety crowd out any personal emotional happiness. It’s possible to fill the void for a while with other activities and pursuits, whether overachieving at work or throwing yourself into hobbies or causes, but at some point, the desire for a romantic connection, for love and companionship, just becomes too strong. Now it’s possible to date on the sly, maintaining the façade of the happy single person in public, but that arrangement is ultimately doomed to failure. Well-meaning friends and nosy coworkers alike all have innocent questions that are fraught with danger. What did you do this weekend? Who was the nice guy I saw you with at the mall? You and your friend went out of town again together? Eventually, one or the other of you wants to end the charade, which usually leads to ultimatums and heartache.

Which brings me to my coming out story. I had been super-associate by day (grinding out record billable hours and fees), but dating a guy by night. We were both in the closet, and at some point, one of his friends seemed to sniff out the possible relationship. He panicked a bit, wanted to cool things off. While we took a step back to “just friends” status (him keeping his distance), he met another guy and started dating him. I was devastated, though later it became obvious it was basically just my first bad breakup, something most straight people get past in their high school or college days. Anyway, my best friend at work, Brian, noticed I was not my usual jovial self, took me out for drinks, and next thing you know I was telling him, “Well, I had a bad breakup. With a guy.”

Now Brian was not just a good friend, he was also my supervisor and the ur-straight dude—sports fan, gambler, drinker, strip club patron, all around guys’ guy. But he said, “I don’t care if you’re gay” and then we drank and talked the night away until I felt a little better. It’s hard to explain the overwhelming sense of relief I had that evening, the monstrous weight that had been lifted. But, in a way, that night I had been myself—completely myself—for the first time ever with one of my close friends.

That week, I decided to call my other close friends, and let them know as well. Having one person accept me made me feel less apprehensive about telling other friends, since I knew I had at least one friend as a safety net. Although it was a high-anxiety few days, my friends were without exception completely supportive. Most of them had the same sort of reaction, sort of a combination of surprise, support, and acceptance. My buddy Todd was perhaps the most surprising to me, as I figured he would be least open to the idea of a gay friend. I had called Todd in Chicago during the week, but never got a call back. This wasn’t surprising for a social dynamo like Todd, but I was somewhat worried he had heard the news through the grapevine and was avoiding me. Then, around midnight on Saturday, I was watching a movie and sipping a beer when Todd called:

Todd:  “Blue!!” [his nickname for me, based on the fact I was umpiring softball when we met]  “How the heck are you? Got your message the other day, just wanted to call you back.”

Me:  “Umm, well, I called because I have some news I wanted to tell you, but I can call you tomorrow if you’re busy.” [me, praying he was busy]

Todd:  “Naww, now’s cool.  I'm at this house party, and the guys aren’t here yet, so I’m just getting to know 50 new friends and making some calls.”

Me:  “Well, I just wanted you to hear it direct from me. Ummm … Well, I’m gay.”

Todd:  “Oh? Really? I never guessed that.” [awkward pause] “Whatever. It’s cool.”

Me:  “Okay …”

Todd:  “Yeah. So did you hear Chris got engaged? ….”

Variations on the same theme happened over the next couple of weeks, as most of my friends seemingly called at random just to shoot the breeze, talk sports, catch up on friends, basically chat about anything except the fact I had just come out. In a way, it seemed that they all wanted to convey that nothing had changed, reassuring me we were still friends with a big “Whatever.” I certainly didn’t expect such a positive reaction, in large part because most of my friends shared my conservative Midwestern background, and came from the same hyper-masculine—and gay hostile—sports background. I don’t know if the collective acceptance by my friends was a function of the length of our friendship, the additional years of their own personal life experience and maturity, or just their inner decency and compassion. Although I wish I had had the nerve to come out to them earlier, perhaps I finally was ready to tell them when they had reached a point where they were ready to be accepting of a gay friend. No matter the dynamics, I am eternally grateful for their support in such an emotionally difficult moment in my life.

The workplace had a pretty similar reaction, with me telling a few closer friends, and letting the news just filter out at its own pace. For the most part, the reaction was still a yawn and a “Whatever.” Now, part of that might be due to Brian being influential with a couple of the then-senior partners, and part was likely due to the fact I was just too valuable economically to let a little thing like being gay matter (it’s amazing how all businesses can tolerate non-conformity from its most productive employees). But I also think the fact that our firm—large by Iowa standards, but still with a very “family” atmosphere—was a place where everyone had a chance to get to know me first as a lawyer and as a work friend, before having to consider whether my being gay mattered.

The family actually turned out to be the most difficult part of the process. I had told my brother Kevin along with my friends, since he and I have always been as close as friends. But my other two brothers and parents found out at Christmas, in a rather awkward chat at breakfast. As I expected, my father really took the news in stride. Dad’s the kind of guy who just takes life as it is, doesn’t get upset; I remember going with him to inspect hail damage one summer, and upon seeing one cornfield reduced to matchsticks, Dad just shook his head and started talking about replanting options. Having a gay son was just a new fact of life, nothing more or less.

My mother, however, was clearly unhappy, but I didn’t know how unhappy until a couple of weeks later, when I got a large envelope in the mail. Mom had taken my Christmas card I had mailed out, with my usual snarky Christmas letter inside, and returned it to me unopened, with a post-it note stating, “We have no desire to know anything about the lifestyle you have chosen. Your letter will just upset us, so I am returning it.” That led to a year and a half with no contact with my parents, broken only with a tearful reunion and rapprochement at my grandmother’s funeral. During that time, my mother had somehow came to terms with my being gay. Now, Mom and Dad are comfortable talking about my sig other the same as they do my sister-in-law.

Although I am completely out, there are still times when I elide the gay part of my life, notably with clients and at the poker table. In those settings, there is really nothing to be gained by openly acknowledging being gay, while there is a risk of running into someone who is strongly anti-gay having a detrimental reaction. I’ve heard plenty of clients and poker players alike make anti-gay jokes and derogatory comments, yet because of the nature of our relationship, my goal is to be polite, friendly, and focused on the business at hand. My sexuality is irrelevant to the relationship, so I revert to the old familiar game of letting others assume I am straight.

My point in sharing all of this with you is not to suggest my experience is typical. In fact, I think each gay person has his or her own set of circumstances and concerns to work through. For younger gays, financial support and physical safety might be greater concerns, while for older gays the concerns might focus more on educational and vocational opportunities. Similarly, some gays have a better environment for coming out, living in an urban or more liberal geographic area, having friends and family who are openly gay-supportive, or being financially independent. But all gays face some degree of anxiety, and take some amount of personal risk, in publicly acknowledging that they are different than the norm.

I’ve never been a gay activist. I keep informed about gay news and issues, and I don’t support politicians who are vehemently anti-gay. But otherwise I pretty much live my life much like straight folks—work, watch sports, play poker, spend time with the sig other, play with the puppy, hang out with friends, lather, rinse, repeat. But I think gays like me who simply live our lives as openly gay people are in fact making an important political and social statement. It’s easy for people to fear and hate in the abstract, but being confronted with an individual like me or another gay friend or family member makes people personalize and hopefully question and reevaluate their feelings. At the same time, gay youths see examples of successful gay people who they might know or who are prominent in their communities, easing the difficult process of coming to terms with their own sexuality. To be blunt, there’s less need for being out and proud, and more need for being out and about.

I’m encouraged by the growing acceptance of gays in society, which will only continue to improve as more gays live out and open lives in all of our communities, and in all walks of life. There’s still a long way to go, but hopefully more and more gay folks will make the tough decision to come out, only to be greeted by their family and friends with a rousing chorus of “Whatever.”

“To be nobody but yourself in a world which is doing its best, night and day, to make you everybody else means to fight the hardest battle which any human being can fight; and never stop fighting.”

—e.e. cummings

David Whitley Can Kiss My Cam

A kerfuffle broke out this week in St. Louis over whether gay couples deserved to be seen kissing in public at sports events the same as straight couples.  The controversy had its genesis in the recent NFL game between the local Rams and the visiting Ariziona Cardinals.  During a break in the action, the stadium management will occasionally run a "Kiss Cam" feature, where TV cameras spot couples in the crowd and feature them on the stadium video screens, at which point the crowd cheers to encourage the couple to kiss.  Generally, this results in an "aww shucks, how cute" vibe.  During the Rams-Cardinals game, however, two male fans in Cardinals jerseys were featured (hey, they're rooting for the other team, they must be, ya know, gay, hehe, hehe), much to their discomfort (like dude, we're so totally not gay!  Wanna fight?).  This little stunt was unquestionably tasteless and sophomoric, but in the grand scheme of sports locker room type humor, it was rather harmless and even a little funny.

What wasn't funny was the commentary posted by David Whitley, national columnist for the sports website FanHouse.com (hat tip to Tommy Craggs at the infinitely funnier sports site Deadspin.com).  Whitley proclaimed his support of gay folks, but suggested that gay couples should not be shown on the Kiss Cam because, well, he wasn't comfortable with kids seeing gay couples smooching.  Whitley's comments reminded me of a crAAKKer reader who recently posted a comment responding to my criticism of Republican gay weasel Ken Mehlman by referencing a blog post of his own.  Although his post rambles a bit (and makes a few different points that I would take issue with), one of his points was that he is personally uncomfortable with, and maybe even offended by, gay couples who show affection in public.

Digging into Whitley's complaints about the Kiss Cam controversy, let's first note what he is not advocating—Whitley's complaints are not that gays are crossing the line into publicly inappropriate behavior like the pawing, grinding, or otherwise sexually suggestive type of conduct most of us would find improper in any couple, gay or straight, at a family-friendly public event.  No, this controversy is about the "Kiss Cam", which is focused on the lighter side of romance.  So, Whitley obviously has no problem with couples kissing, hugging, or holding hands in public, but he definitely has a problem with gay couples doing so.

Now, while Whitley is getting all worked up over being subjected to the sight of a couple of guys kissing in public, maybe he should consider what those of us who are gay are confronted with on an everyday basis.  Look at ads, whether billboards, online, on TV, or in newspapers and magazines—plenty of straight couples being romantic.  Think of those "fluff" news stories at every level of the media about couples doing fun, quirky couples type stuff—all straight couples.  Go to a restaurant, the mall, the movies, the beach, a fundraiser, a party—lots of straight couples holding hands, hugging, or giving affectionate kisses.  On mainstream TV and in popular movies, with rare exception, the romantic storyline involves a straight couple being affectionate (and often more than just affectionate). 

Of course, popular culture is the way it is because most people are straight; hence, "straight" is "popular", "mainstream", or "normal".  And I'm fine with that, as I'm sure most gay folks are fine with it.  I also realize there is a certain "icky" factor for most straight guys when they see anything remotely gay (though remarkably, they often seem to find lesbians rather alluring).  But, most of us who are gay already go to great lengths to minimize the amount of "gayness" you straight folks are exposed to, partly to avoid awkward social moments, and partly out of self-preservation.  Straight folks put up pictures of loved ones at the office, bring a mate or date to office parties and outings, and discuss dates, trips, and weekend plans involving their spouse or boyfriend/girlfriend.  For many gays, being open about relationships at work can lead to negative consequences, such as lost promotions, negative reviews, or even termination.  Straight couples can kiss each other hello or goodbye, share a romantic meal, or hold hands in public, while gay couples who do so often risk enduring taunting or the possibility of physical violence.  A straight single person can "check out" and flirt with attractive single people of the opposite sex, risking, at most, having their advances turned down; if a gay guy gives even the suggestion of flirting with a straight guy, there's always a risk of physical violence.

But let's get back to poor Mr. Whitley.  He assures us he has gay friends and relatives, so his heart is pure.   Whitley personally doesn't have a problem with gays, he's just worried about the kids:

The sooner my kids see examples of racial harmony, the better.  But this issue has torn up entire religions.  Call me homophobic, but I just don't think a 5- or 10-year-old brain is ready to tackle those complexities.

Besides, can't we just enjoy our peanuts and Cracker Jacks?

Ahh, yes, the kids.  What parent wouldn't want to protect his or her kids from the awful, terrible, bad, evil things in life?  Like those gays and their darn kissing.  What an absolutely horrific, traumatic experience that would be, for kids to see two men or two women share an affectionate peck.  Yes, yes, by all means, let's save the kids from that peril!

Now, I understand how Whitley might be a little squeamish about discussing gays with his kids.  If only there were someone who could help him with that task.  Maybe some adult authority figure his kids already know and respect.  Someone who could give his kids an age-appropriate explanation that sometimes, guys love guys and gals love gals, and sometimes they kiss like Mommy and Daddy do, and it's A-OK if they do, because they love each other.  Someone to set a good moral example of love and tolerance to those who are different than the majority.

Someone like ... a parent?

You know, now that I think about it, I seem to recall that parenting involves more than just being good buddies with your kids, enjoying life, and avoiding anything that might interfere with the fun times.  When you sign up to be a parent, you get some responsibilities too, responsibilities that are often tough, unpleasant, and awkward for the parent, the child, or both.  Explaining death, or serious illnesses.  Discussing how to respect kids with disabilities, of other races, or from different socio-economic backgrounds.  Explaining divorce, whether your own or their friends' parents.  Tackling the awkward "where do babies come from?" and other sex education questions.  Warning kids about the dangers of gambling, drugs, tobacco, and alcohol. 

Now, it's nice to know Whitley is not entirely a jerk.  He wants to make sure we know he's actually fine with gays, he just doesn't want, you know, to see any gays:

If my daughter grows up and falls happily in love with another woman, I'll proudly walk her down the aisle.  But parents should be able to discuss such issues when they choose, not when the local sports team flashes them on a scoreboard.

So, what Whitley really wants is for all of us nice gay folks, the ones he completely supports, mind you, to kindly just act straight in public, so that his kids won't see anything gay, and won't ask him any gay questions, and he won't have to give any gay answers.   In other words, the millions of gays in America should make sure they don't act gay or express any sign of gay affection in public, just so Whitley can comfortably take his kids out of the house without fearing exposure to the gay menace.  Yes, that seems reasonable enough.

I'm going to let Whitley in on a little secret. This isn't the 1970s any longer. Gays are more visible than ever. Kids are going to see gay couples, on TV, in movies, on the internet, and yes, even in public. Some of their schoolmates may have gay parents.  At some point, kids are going to be naturally curious and ask about gays and gay couples.  This doesn't mean parents need to give some long, detailed, and uncomfortable explanation of what it means to be gay.  But a parent better anticipate the question, and have an age-appropriate response ready.

I do find it refeshing that Whitley expresses his open-mindedness toward his children being gay.  Odds are high his kids will be straight and this issue will never come up in his house.  But, odds are also high that one or more of his kids' friends will be gay.  Even in today's more tolerant society, teens viewed as gay suffer more bullying and attempt suicide more often than other teens.  What lesson will Whitley's kids have learned if Whitley's reaction to something as innoccuous as a gay kiss is essentially, "Ewww, icky!  I don't want to talk about it!"?  Does Whitley really think that squeamish avoidance is the best example to set for his kids in dealing with gay folks?

Whitley wants to think that "sometimes a kiss is not just a kiss."  I beg to differ.  A kiss, gay or straight, is an expression of love and affection.  If Whitley truly feels he needs to shield his kids and himself from such universal human emotions, then I can only hope he looks a little deeper into his own heart.