Sarah Palin will soon be the ex-governor of Alaska. Last year’s Republican nominee for VP is stepping down at the end of July and will not look for a second term. More later.

Joe.My.God (Happy Fourth Joe!) posted a community alert the Anti-Violence Project issued for the the Upper East Side of New York City. Looks like for the past month there have been a number of anti-gay attacks in that part of NYC. These crimes have been committed by the same group of men and there is a composite sketch of one of the culprits. If you know anything, or have been assaulted, please call the police and the AVP.

I hate to go old school on you, but let’s be careful out there.

He is just one justice. And the legallogic seems to be on our side. But what do you think, readers?

Food for thought: A quote from Scalia’s dissent in Lawrence v. Texes

“Many Americans do not want persons who openly engage in homosexual conduct as partners in their business, as scoutmasters for their children, as teachers in their children’s schools, or as boarders in their home. They view this as protecting themselves and their families from a lifestyle that they believe to be immoral and destructive. The Court views it as “discrimination” which it is the function of our judgments to deter. So imbued is the Court with the law profession’s anti-anti-homosexual culture, that it is seemingly unaware that the attitudes of that culture are not obviously “mainstream”; that in most States what the Court calls “discrimination” against those who engage in homosexual acts is perfectly legal; that proposals to ban such “discrimination” under Title VII have repeatedly been rejected by Congress, see Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 1994, S. 2238, 103d Cong., 2d Sess. (1994); Civil Rights Amendments, H. R. 5452, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. (1975); that in some cases such “discrimination” is mandated by federal statute, see 10 U. S. C. s654(b)(1) (mandating discharge from the armed forces of any service member who engages in or intends to engage in homosexual acts); and that in some cases such “discrimination” is a constitutional right, see Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U. S. 640 (2000).”

Is this an impartial observation or the legitimization of American homophobia?

India is a country where any discussion of sex, let alone homosexual sex, is pretty much taboo. It is a country where conservative social values permeate national and regional politics.

But today, it is also a country that overturned a law that criminalized being gay.

There are so many things about this ruling that are momentous. First, it is an example of a functioning, independent judiciary ruling in favor of a minority group with very little public support. Second, the hubbub around the ruling suggests that the law will be respected, at least for now, or at least to the extent that those who can afford adequate representation and garner enough attention will no longer be persecuted for their sexuality. Third, it places the question of sex, its relationship to public health and public welfare, in the center of India’s public discourse.

Now, the BBC reports that this ruling will likely be appealed and a higher court, after hearing all the hubbub, might be less courageous.

But for now, one judge with the tools necessary to render independent and enforceable judgments, has truly struck a blow for equality.

The rule of law - the notion that independent governments, enforcement agencies, lawyers and judges all work together to create a more ordered and just society - is part of the development plan for most struggling countries. The U.S. gives millions in rule of law development aid every year. For most countries, the origins of the rule of law are too complicated, too diverse, to ever come to fruition. India, with its large land mass, larger population and huge poverty problem, is perhaps one of the least likely candidates for rule of law success.

And perhaps we can’t call one judgment rendered under strict media scrutiny rule of law success.

But we can celebrate the victory today and appreciate the fact that, when laws are implemented in an objective independent manner, equality wins out.

If you saw Boys Don’t Cry, it’s difficult to forget the scene when Brandon Teena is recounting his rape to the town police. They surround him and the officer asking questions wears the standard shades and talks to Teena as if he is a suspect. The officer’s day has been interrupted and his disdain for Teena can only be missed by those who accept the myth that the police are always your friends. Read More: Withers: Fort Worth police chief shows his homophobia

I understand the magnetic allure of Washington, DC. I worked there for several years and it could, at times, be mesmerizing. I’ve attended press conferences on the steps of Capitol Hill with Ted Kennedy and marveled that I was standing next to the real icon, not a replica from Madame Tussauds wax museum. I have stood only a stone’s throw from President Clinton, as he greeted foreign dignitaries on the White House lawn. (I might have actually thrown the stones at Bush)

It makes one feel, well, important.

From a media perspective, there is also nothing like being swept into the tidal wave of presidential politics. Last year, I made national news by slamming candidate Barack Obama for sponsoring a South Carolina gospel tour featuring “ex-gay” singer Donnie McClurkin. My second foray into the spotlight involved Sarah Palin’s church promotion of an “ex-gay” conference in Anchorage.

Getting thrust into the national storyline means hundreds of news stories that feature your name and the bright lights of television. Of course, such massive media hits are important and serve a larger purpose. But, the downside is our movement can become intoxicated with Washington at the expense of broader issues.

Let me be clear, it is crucial that the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender movement have a strong voice in Washington. It is vital that we support our national lobby groups. Solutions at the federal level are often preferable because they apply to conservative states where it may take decades to achieve equality.

Still, this past week underscored how the gay movement’s engagement with Washington has become an unhealthy obsession. I have seen hundreds of articles and e-mails with people opining on Obama, the Democrats and the gay movement. (I’m as guilty as anyone else. Indeed, my column last week was about the administration’s timidity on gay issues)

It seems every person wants to be the star of Meet the Press, every activist is now Chris Matthews and we are all experts at political chess, prattling endlessly in the cyber salon about the machinations of the administration. Everyone with a computer is now a master strategist and can regurgitate the records of previously obscure members of Congress.

Political discourse has become an aphrodisiac that has seduced our community away from equally important issues. Perhaps it is time we go into rehab and free ourselves from the Washington crack pipe. It is a cheap high that rarely lasts and often leaves us broke and unsatisfied.

We all wanted King Obama to sweep into office, wave his magic wand and make discrimination disappear. I really wish he would, but it is clear that he won’t - or at least not as quick as we desire. So, why don’t we pry ourselves away from DC for a moment and try using our resources in alternative ways?

Anyone remember AIDS?

Ever hear of the multi-million dollar ex-gay industry that pumps out reams of propaganda to portray gay people as sick and “sexually broken?” Few people seem to notice, even though these groups spread harmful myths and poisonous stereotypes that impact our daily lives.

What about increasing funds to help GLBT youths who are thrown out of their homes? Or, scholarships, so these teens can succeed in life and maybe one day run for Congress?

How about focusing on the abuses against GLBT people overseas?

The aforementioned issues will not get you on a Congressman’s speed dial. It is unlikely that you will win a sparkling trophy or have a marble bust made of your head. The cable shows may not be dialing you at a frenzied pace. But, you might have a disproportionately positive impact and even save a few lives.

The other problem with our political addiction is that it breeds bad messaging. We are coming across as a powerful lobby that is demanding action as payback for money and votes. While there is a place for such muscle flexing, it masks our true agenda.

The immediacy of our cause has to do with the trauma we all faced as children. Now that we are strong, we don’t want one more GLBT teen to commit suicide while Congress dithers. It is unconscionable for another youth who dreams of serving his or her country to be turned away while Obama plots his reelection. It is an insult - right down to the core of our soul - when our government tells us that we can’t marry the person we love.

Our movement is not about Obama’s career, nor the happenings in Congress. What we seek is to reclaim our basic dignity and end needless suffering - both goals that one is unlikely to achieve solely in the glamorous quicksand of Washington.

While our fate in DC hangs in the balance, how about returning some balance to the GLBT movement by ending our fatalistic fixation on all-things political?

Mocking Michael Jackson in my mother’s house followed a routine. You could go on and wonder about his butchered face and some of his other  eccentricities. She would patiently listen and even smile at a good joke at the gloved one’s expense. But when she said the following line, all teasing had to end. Read More: Withers: Requiem for Michael

When Ted Olson and David Boies filed federal suit against Proposition 8 on behalf of their clients, the case was newsworthy for two main reasons. The two lawyers at the helm famously opposed each other in Bush v. Gore, and most of the national LGBT organizations were quick to distance themselves from the case. In fact, the Human Rights Campaign, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamantion, Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, the Equality Federation, Freedom to Marry, and even the American Civil Liberties  joined together to urge couples to “Make Change, Not Lawsuits,” discouraging, in particular, the case Olson and Boies were bringing.

The case did not make news because people assumed it would bring about the end of Proposition 8.

No one is saying yet that the case will be successful, but based on an action made today by the judge hearing the case, he’s at least convinced this case has serious implication.

Today, Judge Vaughn R. Walker of the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California said that the case should “proceed expeditiously to trial.”

The plaintiffs, represented by Olson and Boies were seeking an injunction on Proposition 8– which would, in effect, allow same-sex marriages to begin again immediately in California– but Judge Walker instead ordered that all parties move forward as quickly as possible toward primary resolution, rather than proceeding with arguments on injunction. “Given that serious questions are raised in these proceedings…” the Judge said, “the court is inclined to proceed directly and expeditiously to the merits of plaintiffs’ claims.”

While it is encouraging that Judge Walker intends to move quickly on this issue, it is important to remember that even a positive verdict from the District Court is not the final say on the issue. Any decision could, and likely would, be appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. A positive result in Appellate Court could, and would, be contested to the U.S. Supreme Court.

This case is a long way from resolution, but it is encouraging to hear the Judge acknowledge the real and serious impact of Proposition 8 on Californians.

The President of the United States, the leader of the free world, spent 20 minutes yesterday telling the world that he views Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell as harmful to national security, that he is calling on Congress to repeal the “so-called” — his words — Defense of Marriage Act, and that he wants a fully inclusive ENDA and hate crimes bills on his desk.

The Family Research Council has launched a website aimed at removing Kevin Jennings from his appointment as head of the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools at the Department of Education.

You can check it out here: www.stopjennings.org.

I don’t have to tell you, it’s pretty vicious.

The Family Research Council’s beef with Jennings has a little something to do with (wait for it…) his homosexuality. Jennings is the founder of GLSEN – The Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, an organization for students, parents and teachers that works to make school environments safer for LGBT students. (GSLEN started the Day of Silence, which has been embraced by schools across the country.)

Here’s FRC’s Pete Sprigg on why Jennings should be ousted:

“Jennings and the organization he founded have been the leaders in promoting a pro-homosexual agenda in America’s schools, beginning in kindergarten. His positions are extreme and narrow-minded, his rhetoric harsh and hate-filled, and his qualifications and ethical standards questionable at best.”

Their campaign goes on to pull out-of-context quotes from Jennings’ memoir, “Mama’s Boy, Preacher’s Son,” to paint him as a drug-using, God-hating, radical queer aiming to turn everyone on the planet gay before Labor Day. (For a nice compare-contrast of the quotes, check out Good As You’s analysis here.

If there’s one line of attack in anti-gay rhetoric that I hate the most, it’s the line that paints gay men and women as a threat to children – in the classroom, in the home, on the street, wherever the homophobes imagine we will be. It’s the line that gets hauled anytime the opposition wants to land a particularly low blow, one that reaches past logic and factual record into a purely emotional, purely personal place.

Threaten the safety of children, and you get a lot of people’s attention.

What I find particularly abhorrent about the FRC attack on Jennings is the idea that, by virtue of his homosexuality, he is unfit to know what’s best for children. Forget that his life’s work has been devoted to the safety of children, to the creation of safe spaces for all students, to the prevention of bullying.

Forget all of that. He’s gay. Which means he’s a danger.

I don’t think we’ve done the best job fighting this particular line of rhetoric. We seem to get wrapped up pretty quickly in other, sexier issues like DADT and marriage equality. And while those are absolutely important issues to deal with, this notion – with all its insidious tentacled reach among those in the Religious Right – demands our attention, demands our anger, demands our action.

Because that notion strikes at the core of what the anti-gay crowd believes about us, what they hang their attacks on: we are fundamentally the opposite of Good.

Good, to them, is heterosexuality. And so for us to be something other than heterosexual means we opt out of all the other Goods as well (this is, of course, a radically reductive view of human nature, but the Religious Right isn’t so good with shades of grey). If we’re gay we must, by extension, reject God, reject Family, reject Morality, reject the Welfare of Children – all of the capital letter Goods that make up Traditional Family Values.

We know the truth of the matter: that those values exist in our lives as well. Most of us practice those values every day and some of us practice those values in front of a classroom of students, like Jennings.

No amount of legislation will reduce the power of that rhetoric in the minds of those who know little to nothing about the reality of our lives. Marriage equality tomorrow will not make this FRC attack on Jennings less successful to their target audience.

What will reduce the power of the rhetoric? An embrace of this current historical moment as a teachable moment.

Because it is. Our lives – our simple, boring, sometimes complicated and average lives – are now, more than ever, our greatest asset in fighting the rhetoric of the FRC. We need to be more than activists. We need to be teachers.

Success legislatively in pursuit of equality is tempered by the problem of social acceptance. It’s an ugly fact, but a fact nonetheless. And we can’t expect the social tides to change simply because the legal ones do. So with one eye on activism, we should train the other on individual advocacy – being out, taking the time to correct someone who uses a gay slur in public, start a blog (seriously, go start one. Tell your story. What could it hurt?), demonstrate in every small way the reality of gay men and women – we can be gay and moral, we can be gay and ethical, we can be gay and good role models, we can be gay and be a good teacher.

You can’t learn what you aren’t taught. So, teachers we must become.