Equality California has had a rough go of it over the past few years. First, they were accused of messing up the Proposition 8 campaign, then they were chastised for deciding to wait until 2012 to challenge the marriage ban. But they certainly made the right decision when they chose to accept Miss California’s offer of 30 seconds of free ad time during the televised pageant this Sunday.

The group will be airing a touching little montage of a teenage girl and her two moms. It’s not too cheesy, won’t bring a tear to your eye, but it gets the job done.

The point is not really the ad, though.

Pageants are a phenomenon in all sorts of places where being gay is a serious problem. Beauty contests are important to parts of the country that never are exposed to the issue of homosexuality. We saw this during the first Prejean uproar – people were outraged that the pageant even addressed issues of sexuality at all. And that controversy did raise awareness, but it did so without much control over the message. We had Perez Hilton on our side ( not exactly a veteran gay rights spokesperson) and they had Miss Prejean (a complete dud as far as anyone can tell and certainly after the Larry King incident).

This time, that same audience (and maybe more given the news coverage) will see the issue of gay marriage as presented by a large, experienced advocacy organization. Finally, a spokesperson we can beleive in.

Sunday will be a moment, as in any campaign, where control is taken back, the issue is reframed and the agenda is refocused. If we are going to have that moment, best to have it in front of an audience that is more conservative, more sheltered and less supportive than the general population of San Francisco.

Against the pleadings of my better angels, I’m ending the week on the war of words between Adam Lambert and Out editor Aaron Hicklin. The “American Idol” silver winner and Hicklin are having a minor public disagreement. For the moment I’ll leave alone how Lambert, in his brief career, is suffering from diva-itis or how for the editor manufactured outrage is a boon for sales. The whole thing leaves me tired because once again it shows how much we yearn for heroes when they are useless.

You all read the web and newspapers. You know the struggle for gay rights. From marriage to school safety,  the times we live in are serious. Yet we all go ga-ga when someone on the fame machine comes out as a member of the tribe.

Suddenly the newly minted fame queen gets courage awards, gala dinners, magazine covers, requests to expound on the political struggle. [You know the names. Ellen DeGeneres, T.R. Knight. Rosie O'Donnell, Wanda Sykes, etc. etc]. She is asked to be a spokesperson for a diverse tribe,  and we give [fame gay] the microphone and clap with tears streaming down our faces. Does she speak for us because she is an expert on the vagaries of political power?  Knows how to form coalitions? A great fundraiser? No.  Her only claim is talent, appearances on the big or small screens, and sexuality.

That’s not enough. More sizzle than substance. [But we do it anway, convinced this media light will lead us somewhere].

If Lambert wants to sing as if the only gays who exist are the ones he brings home to bed down, good for him. [That's his right and anyone who wants to take that away does not understand the meaning of "small d" democracy]. He’s not required to be a spokesperson and his opinion would not have protected the two youngsters we recently lost. What keeps them alive, and the 16 year old Houston boy from a vicious beat down,  are the nameless ones. The folks who never grace Entertainment Weekly or get to share coffee chat with Regis and Kelly. The anonymous who make it known through action and word gay citizens have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

If Lambert wants to steer away from anything gay, it’s all good. He and the other fame queens out there are not going to save us or make us feel better about our lives. Those “austere and lonely offices” belong to us [and only us. To steal from a recent candidate for the White Hosue,  we are the ones we've been waiting for].

UPDATE: After reading the comments, it’s obvious I wasn’t clear. I made some additons with the ever helpful [  ] . Sorry for the confusion.

Today, a decision was released by the International Association of Athletics Federation that Caster Semeya, the South African runner whose gender identity stirred up huge controversy after her decisive win in the 800m race at the world championships, will be permitted to keep her title and prize money.

It is, without a doubt, the right decision.

But that does not mean that this is a moment to celebrate.

The debate surrounding Semenya’s gender illustrates the real lack of understanding – around the world – for gender identity and the many permutations that exist within the spectrum of male to female.

Semenya was subjected to gender testing because of her muscular build, deep voice and quick improvement in running times. In short, she just seemed too boyish to be a girl.

She was tested for not being female enough even though the kind of conditions required to disqualify a self-identified girl from competing in boys sports are quite extreme. In fact, according to the IAAF’s own policy document on gender verification (2006), women can compete even if they are genetically male:

Conditions that should be allowed:

(a) Those conditions that accord no advantage over other females:
- Androgen insensitivity syndrome (Complete or almost complete – previously called testicular feminization);
- Gonadal dysgenesis (gonads should be removed surgically to avoid
malignancy);
- Turner’s syndrome.

As well, athletes who choose to have sex changes are permitted to continue to compete in sport as long as they have completed a mandatory number of months in hormone therapy.

If we know that women presenting some male characteristics are still likely to permissibly compete with women, then why are we singling those individuals out for genetic testing? More importantly, how do we really define what is too male to compete in women’s sport? And how do we distinguish being too male from being too tall, too efficient at using oxygen or too small? How do sex characteristics take on a level of importance above and beyond any other genetic advantage?

Well, I can answer that question: While we as a society are trained to celebrate strength, efficiency, natural talent and intelligence, we are not trained to celebrate those who stray from understood gender norms. Being too male is a serious transgression of social protocol, one to be punished and rectified.

But being born intesexed or identifying as a gender other than male or female might be no more of an advantage than Michael Phelps’ arm span. They are simply aspects of an individual’s make-up that assist their pursuit of athletic greatness. Nothing is stopping us from celebrating these athletes and their counterparts in everyday society as the unique and talented individuals they are.

I am happy that Semenya, after her long journey, will be recognized as an international athletic superstar. I hope that her struggle illustrates just how much work there is left to be done to promote understanding of and support for the variety of human gender expression all around us.

Jason Mattison Jr. is dead. The Baltimore teen, who was a quick wit and adored by teachers and peers,  was found in the closet of an aunt. Raped, stabbed, and gagged.

“He was a sweet young man. He wasn’t afraid of who he was. He had a life ahead of him. I just wish he could’ve had a chance to live it,” said Laquanna Couplin, the child’s cousin.

The gay young man, he was out at school and to his family, was the center of attention in his classes and family and made sure his personal stamp was never in the shadows.

The suspect? A Dante Parrish, 35, a family friend with a criminal record that includes murder. Maybe as a defense he’ll trot out the gay panic line, although the rape of a child will make that tactic slightly problematic.

There’s not much to add. Just like there isn’t much to say about the murder of another youngster. Considering the tenor of some of the recent comments though, I can imagine someone blaming Mattison for his own death.

Newsweek. Oh, Newsweek, Newsweek, Newsweek. What were you thinking? Were the interns in charge when you made the decision? Has the media meltdown forced you to get rid of some of your best minds, people who would have said the cover of Sarah Palin was 17 steps past wrong?

I’m no fan of the Wasilla terror but have no problem with her being covered in the news. She is a major player in the GOP and attention must be paid. Also reliable sources inform she has a book out (while we are on the topic of books, I hope you do a major  review of  Teachout’s Pops). But your cover? Really? Her in running shorts? Come on! That’s soft and weak, and you know it’s bad when a commie pinko queen  takes up for “Mrs. Real America.”

Yes she was a beauty queen back in the day, and yes a few straight men want to know her in a familial way. Heck some conservative writer described his moment of bliss when she winked during her debate with Joe Biden. However, she ain’t a waitress from Hooters and we all know you would have never taken the same shot if she were a man.

Thanks much for making me defend someone I don’t like. Appreciate it.

This Georgia story is wrong on so many levels I don’t even know where to begin. A substitute math teacher is accused of putting a hit on a student (what is the deal with these subs?). Suspect Randolph Forde got into an argument with one of his charges after he asked him if he were gay. Why the math teacher needed to know this is not clear, but I have my theories (and all of them involve something illegal considering how the student is 16).

Anyway Forde and the student get into an argument over the question. The nosey pedagogue (feeling jilted perhaps?) allegedly goes to another student and says there is someone who needs to be no more. He writes the name of the student on a piece of paper and hands it to the high-school version of Brother Mouzone (that reference only makes sense if you watch The Wire). This being high-school though, a place where there are never any secrets, the word spreads and the kid who “caused” all of this mess finds out.

“He says, ‘Ma, you’re not going to believe this but Mr. Forde offered another student money to kill me,’” said the young boy’s mother Marcia Killebrew.

Forde’s lawyer says it was all a big joke and no one’s name was on any piece of paper.

Sure. Okay. I’ll take that, but I still want to know why he needed to know the kid’s sexuality. Wait a minute. Maybe I don’t.

Yesterday, we found out that the Washington Blade, along with many other local LGBT papers and media were closing. It’s another blow to the LGBT advocacy project and a blow to print media.

Now maybe I shouldn’t knock blogging. I do it, after all, three or four times a week on two different websites. But as a blogger, I am all too aware of the pitfalls and shortcomings of our particular form of media. Blogging is generally unpaid, or paid very badly. No one is giving you budgets for investigative reporting, interviews, travel. Your greatest asset is the internet, the reporting of other papers and your own particular expertise.

So, I can pore over a recent court decision and give my opinion, but I certainly cannot go to Puerto Rico and find out exactly how the police force handles hate crimes when a 19 year old gay boy is murdered.

When you lose publications that actually report on LGBT events, you start to notice how bloggers are everywhere and reporters are scarce. You start to notice how no one is going to Puerto Rico to report on the LGBT angle.

This is a problem in all media: the rise of blogging, of recycled media, and the fall of investigative journalism. However, when a community is fighting for recognition, against discrimination and for legal equality, reporting is even more important. Officials aren’t always willing to give us the facts about LGBT related events. Reporters aren’t always worried about LGBT issues. Investigative media IS the backbone of our civil rights struggle.

I hope, against hope, that a new publication dedicated to reporting and investigating the news springs up to replace the Washington Blade and it’s sister publications. We need that more than any lobbying effort or any new liberal politician.

1. Dr. Bert Chapman writes nothing worth a darn; however, he doesn’t need to lose his gig at Purdue University.

2. I’ve taken the Human Rights Campaign to task many a time, but this morning a lift of the coffee cup for this website focusing on students at predominately black colleges and universities.

3. Need a good laugh? Or cry? Watch Donnie McClurkin expound on what it means to be gay.

4. Will marriage equality get a vote this week in New York? Wish I knew.

5.  Pops: A Life of Louis Armstrong is starting to appear in bookstores.

6. Anyone reading Sarah Palin’s new book? And yes that is a serious question.

7. Anyone watch the Colts/Patriots game last night? Not a fan of the pig skin but that match had me shouting.

8. There is nothing better than someone going on an extended homophobic rant and then coming up with a lame apology.

9. Who doesn’t need Cassandra Wilson on a Monday morning?

10. Why am I always late for work?

Fun week, no?

On the one hand we’ve got Carrie Prejean, whose 15 minutes of fame feel longer than “The English Patient,” throwing a temper tantrum on “Larry King Live” for King’s audacity to ask a legitimate question about her choices in the wake of a sex tape scandal.

And on the other, we’ve got Will Phillips, the 10-year old boy who refused to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance because he believes this country doesn’t treat gays and lesbians with “justice for all.”

Sometimes, I think God is a playwright at heart.

Prejean’s story has played out like a 60’s Bedroom farce with operatic dimensions — a dramatic moment of confrontation on national television (yeah it was a beauty pageant, and yeah Perez Hilton was her adversary, but still), a firestorm of media coverage in the wake, Prejean painting herself in the role of virtuous God-fearing woman trampled by the Big Bad Gays, half-naked pictures of her looking sort of slutty on rocks, a memoir (of course!) about the ordeal marketed to Christian conservatives, then the bombshell revelation that there are sexually explicit videos of her floating around.

Fabulous.

(And does anyone else enjoy that Carrie Prejean, who’s essentially spun celebrity out of her own narcissism, is the only celeb whose sex tape scandal doesn’t involve another person on camera with her? Always hogging the spotlight.)

Then, unexpectedly, along comes Will. Lovely, wise, understated, young Will, who in a simple gesture spoke more eloquently and powerfully than Prejean did in her entire book (called “Still Standing,” incidentally. Is she serious?). You can’t really accuse a 10-year old boy of having a political agenda or plans for a book tour, so our Will was simply doing something he believed was right. And I’m with him on this one: I want our flag to represent a country that really does what it promises.

The Will Phillips story isn’t a game-changer. It’s a lovely reminder of what standing up for your principles looks like (and it doesn’t hurt that it came from a 10-year old boy — way to make us adults look like spineless jellyfish, huh?). It would be wrong of us to make Phillips into anything more than a morale booster for the movement: he’s not a sign that sweeping generational changes have taken place, but if he becomes a lawyer, we have to recruit this kid to be a vocal leader for us!

The playwright in me would love to see this as the next scene in the play: Carrie Prejean and Will Phillips get a chance to meet. The face of a hypocritical, judgmental and narcissistic movement hell-bent on fostering inequality looks into the eyes of a ten-year old boy who stood up for equality without the promise of gain for himself.

“So, what are you famous for?” he’ll ask Prejean.

She’ll sputter and regurgitate some standard line about being persecuted for speaking her beliefs and her faith. But Phillips will see past the B.S and hear the voice in her most secret soul tell the truth.

“I’m famous being a hypocrite, which essentially means I’m famous for nothing.”

Phillips won’t judge her. If she’s even half-serious about her faith in God, she’ll get judged in time.

In the scene I’d write for them, they’re at an event where the Pledge will get spoken. And Prejean will throw her hand up to her heart and ramble the words off, putting up a good show for the cameras, not really listening to what she’s saying. And maybe she’ll glance over at Phillips, who’ll just be standing there, listening intently to the words and saying some little personal prayer-wish that the promise of the words will one day be fulfilled, and maybe she’ll get it. In a flash of understanding, she’ll get it, get what conviction and truth and integrity looks like, and the hand over her heart will feel it beat a little faster. It’s what happens when you’re surging with regret.

Probably not. But one can hope.

I know who gets my vote for man of 2009. Will Phillips.

Phillips is ten years old and hopes to be a lawyer in the future (Will,  if I’m still around I’ll be your first client). He’s a smart boy, skipping grades and such, and is comfortable talking about Teddy Roosevelt. He recently decided not to stand up for the Pledge of Allegiance when it was recited in his Arkansas elementary school. Why? Because there is a chasm between the words and the rhetoric, especially when gays and lesbians are involved.

“I’ve always tried to analyze things because I want to be  a lawyer,” Phillips said. “I really don’t feel that there’s currently liberty and justice for all.”

He didn’t come to the decision compulsively off the cuff. Asked his parents, who have many gay friends, if it was against the law not to stand for the pledge. When he got the legal, and parental, okay, in early October he stayed seated as his class stood up. The teacher, a substitute, and Phillips didn’t see eye to eye on this type of civil disobedience and eventually the young Henry David Thoreau was sent to the principal’s office.

So a ten year old boy has decided it’s time to show little solidarity with gays and lesbians. Typically some of his peers are giving him grief, but Phillips  notes many of his classmates have no problem with what he’s doing. And at least for now, he’s not standing up until gays and lesbians are treated as full, and equal, citizens.

Ten years old. What a wonder.