When I was a teenager, this annual occurrence unnerved me. The “male interest” calendars”—think “Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Model of the Month”—held no appeal for me. Instead, I would nervously reach for a Chippendales calendar, hiding it behind something innocuously themed (race cars, puppies, whatever) so that I could stare admiringly at half-naked men.

As soon as I noticed anyone approaching, I would throw both calendars back on the shelf and dart out of the store.

I laugh now at the thought that I could ever find the overly pumped and coiffed 1980’s Chippendales dancers appealing. But when I see these calendars on the shelves today, I still feel a residual emotional tug. Like the underwear models in the J.C. Penney catalog (and so many other ordinary features of American life), the calendars were a painful signal: you are not like other boys.

I noticed a calendar display in a bookstore the other day just shortly after receiving an e-mail from a reader complaining that I waste too much time trying to win over straight society’s approval. “When are you going to stop seeking other people’s acceptance?” he asks.

My answer? I’ll stop seeking it once we get it.

The calendars reminded me of why. It’s not because I’m still scared that other people will know my “secret.” Today, I can walk into a bookstore and look at whatever I want. Indeed, I sometimes make a point of picking up the “female interest” calendars just to remind myself—and anyone else watching—that I can. It’s my way of saying: No, I am not like (most) other boys, and I’m okay with that. Honestly, I really don’t give a flying fig whether you give me a dirty look when I do it.

But there are plenty of boys and girls growing up who are not there yet. They still get unnerved when they see the calendars, or the catalogs, or countless other possible triggers. They still feel that nauseous shame and isolation. They have yet to learn that the feelings they dread can eventually be a source of great joy, and beauty, and comfort.

Social approval can make a huge difference in the lives of these kids, not to mention those who come after them.

This is one significant way in which LGBT people differ from most other minority groups. Whereas black children generally have black parents, Jewish children generally have Jewish parents, and so on, LGBT people can have any sort of parents—and most often have straight ones. Far from being able to take for granted our parents’ understanding of the discrimination we face, we often have to struggle for their acceptance, too.

So while their parents’ opinion on homosexuality may not directly matter to me, you can be damn sure it matters to them.

I don’t mean that they can’t go on to have happy, fulfilling, successful lives even if their parents ultimately reject them. I just mean that doing so will be harder—needlessly, sometimes tragically so.

Moreover, it’s not as if I have no stake at all in their parents’ opinion. As we’ve seen over and over, their opinion affects how they vote. And their votes make a difference to our legal rights, whether we like it or not.

Of course it isn’t fair. But that doesn’t mean it isn’t true.

So I’ll stop seeking their approval when we get it, and not a moment sooner. Because their approval helps make our political struggle easier. Because it’s crucial to the lives of their kids, some of whom are LGBT. And because it’s the right thing.

***********

John Corvino, Ph.D. is an author, speaker, and philosophy professor at Wayne State University in Detroit. His column “The Gay Moralist” appears Fridays on 365gay.com.

For more about John Corvino, or to see clips from his “What’s Morally Wrong with Homosexuality?” DVD, visit www.johncorvino.com.

I react to events that way.

I take them personally, and I react personally.

A celebrity offends LGBTs, I want to stay away from her movies or tune out his music.

A politician votes against LGBTs, I want to vote against him or her.

A church disparages LGBTs, I want to tally up all the injustices, crimes and offenses committed by the church.

The majority of a state votes for institutional discrimination against LGBTs, I want to return the pain.

Maine voters on Nov. 3 cast ballots to repeal a gay-marriage bill signed into law in May by Democratic Gov. John Baldacci.

There was a lot of money from both sides pumped into the election. There were a lot of television ads. There was a lot of knocking on doors and dialing phones. There was a lot of commitment to the campaigns inside and Maine and outside Maine.

And there was a lot at stake.

If voters had upheld the law, it would have been the first time a state’s voters endorsed marriage for same-sex couples.

Instead, voters delivered another first — the first time an electorate overturned a gay-marriage law enacted by state lawmakers.

Now I’m boiling over Maine.

Where to direct the anger?

Not at legislators, who voted for marital rights for same-sex couples.

Not at the governor, who signed the bill for marital rights for same-sex couples.

Not at the coalition of national, state and local LGBT groups that raised money and rallied volunteers.

Not at Maine’s newspapers, which in editorials urged voters to defeat the anti-gay initiative.

The anger is directed at the religious institutions — specifically the Catholic Church — and the right-wing organizations — specifically the National Organization for Marriage — that fueled the anti-gay drive.

And the anger is directed at the voters who gobbled up the lies and hate like candy — or, like dope.

Yes, considering the relationships between NOM and the voter, the church and the voter, I’m reminded of the drug dealer and the user — one pushes dope, one gets doped and we suffer, society suffers.

People cling to lies about LGBT people because they confirm pre-existing beliefs. They seek out information to support their beliefs, and oh, yes, they do feed on the false information when it is pushed on them.

A study by researchers at the University of Buffalo examined why voters clung so to the belief that Saddam Hussein was responsible for the terrorist attacks on the United States in Sept. 11, 2001, even after evidence proved otherwise.

The researchers, in a paper in Sociological Inquiry, argued that people continued to believe in a connection because of their pre-existing beliefs about the Bush administration. Believers in the president and his administration sought justification for the decision to go to war and held to the false belief.

The researchers explained this as “inferred justification,” a phenomenon in which someone has a belief and finds information — regardless of its accuracy — to support the belief.

The researchers also cited the theory of cognitive dissonance, which explains that information that contradicts a pre-existing belief prompts a defense — the information is ignored as if it doesn’t exist or the information motivates a person to discredit the source.

So, remembering Maine, how do we go forward?

We’ve already declared war on the anti-gay pushers and, just like the war on drugs, it’s a costly battle.

What we’ve got to do more effectively is break the cycle of addiction to lies and hate, prejudice and misinformation among those who don’t realize they’ve got a problem, among those who, when their pre-existing belief is challenged, score some more dope.

Like many, I was dispirited but not surprised when we lost. The rights of minorities (gays especially) generally don’t do well when put to a popular vote. And the opposition’s central message—that gays want to influence schoolchildren—remains as effective as it is sinister.

The message conjures up the image of gays as child molesters—a myth debunked but never fully extinguished.

A slightly less sinister (but still false) version portrays us as anti-family and anti-morality. Still another falsehood is that we’re trying to “recruit.”

Then there’s the underlying truth that sustains the myth as plausible. Yes, of course marriage equality will affect what children are taught in schools, because if same-sex marriage is legal, they will naturally be taught that it’s legal. That it’s an option for consenting adults who want it. That women sometimes fall in love with women, and men with men, and live happily ever after.

We should not shrink from saying these things, but we do. No doubt, the ugliness of the sinister versions—not to mention our opponents’ penchant for quoting us out of context—makes us nervous about discussing the truthful version. And that’s surely one lesson of this loss: the closet is still powerful, and our opponents use it to their advantage.

But we will not go back in the closet again.

We will keep telling our stories. We will keep showing our faces. We will keep getting married, even if—for now—Maine doesn’t legally recognize our relationships. We will not go back in the closet again.

And though we’ve lost this particular battle, we will continue to win the war.

On the same day that Maine voters took away marriage equality, Detroit (where I live) elected an openly gay city council president. This, in a city that’s 84% African-American and where churches exert considerable political influence. The rest of the country hardly noticed, but Detroit defied several stereotypes on Tuesday.

His name is Charles Pugh. A popular newscaster before running for City Council, Pugh was actually endorsed by both the Council of Baptist Pastors and the AME Ministerial Alliance. They knew he was gay and they endorsed him anyway.

One could argue that Pugh was endorsed—and won—because of name recognition. Detroit elects all nine councilmembers-at-large, and the top vote getter automatically becomes council president. It’s a dumb system in several ways, and in the past it has resulted in famous but incompetent councilmembers—Martha Reeves, of Martha and the Vandellas, leaps to mind. (Incidentally, in this year’s primary Reeves was voted out, and in the general election voters overwhelming approved a referendum for council-by-district.)

But even if Pugh’s landslide can be attributed to sheer popularity, it sends an encouraging message about the way the world is changing. Being openly gay is no longer an absolute bar to getting public support. And even those who regularly oppose us will sometimes let other factors trump whatever makes us scary otherwise.

Meanwhile, the more they know us, the less scary we become.

It’s unfair and unfortunate that we need to work harder than our opponents to win. They win by exploiting fear, which is easy to do when you’re in the majority. We win by building relationships—by letting voters know who we really are. That takes time.

So our opponents have a soundbite edge, but we have a long-term advantage. The closet is crumbling.

In the wake of the Maine loss, we will catch our breath and press on. We will continue to live our lives; we will keep speaking our truth. We will stand up in the firm conviction that our love is real, and valuable, and worthy of equal treatment under the law.

Because whatever legal roadblocks they may put in our way, we will never go back in the closet again.

***********

John Corvino, Ph.D. is an author, speaker and philosophy professor at Wayne State University in Detroit. His column “The Gay Moralist” appears Fridays on 365gay.com.

For more about John Corvino, or to see clips from his “What’s Morally Wrong with Homosexuality?” DVD, visit www.johncorvino.com.

His upcoming speaking appearances include:

November 10: Central Washington University (debate with Glenn Stanton)

November 11: Colorado State University, Pueblo (debate with Glenn Stanton)

November 12: Miami University of Ohio

November 16: Bergen Community College (NJ)

Check school websites for rooms and times.

Win or lose, there’s one truth this campaign has made abundantly clear. It’s an unpleasant truth, one that most of prefer not to dwell on. Yet it’s important to face:

Many people still find homosexuality weird, disgusting, or abhorrent, and they don’t want it around their children.

If you found that last sentence distasteful to read, let me assure you that it was not pleasant to write. But it’s what we need to reflect on if we’re ultimately going to win.

Confronting this truth is necessary for countering a pervasive myth in our community—namely that, when it comes to securing our rights, it doesn’t really matter what other people think of us.

This myth gets expressed in various ways: Morality is a private matter. What we do at home is no one else’s business. Our rights don’t depend on other people’s comfort-level.

Like most myths, it sounds plausible because it contains a measure of truth: the objective value of our relationships indeed does not depend on what other people think of us. But political battles don’t track objective value. They track public opinion.

And so our opponents run apparently effective ads stating that (for instance) if Maine keeps gay marriage, kids will be taught homosexuality in schools.

This claim is, strictly speaking, false: Maine curriculum is controlled locally, and whether or not Maine schoolchildren learn about homosexuality doesn’t directly hinge on whether the state embraces marriage equality. But the claim also contains a germ of truth: the greater the number of states with marriage equality, the more likely it is that, in the course of regular instruction, students will learn about the existence of gay people.

Such a result is very scary for some parents. As Matt Foreman writes at Bilerico:

“[T]he kid/schools attack ads are effective because they go right to the parental-protection gut of parents. They carry a double-whammy: first, that young people can be taught (read ‘recruited’) to be gay or lesbian, and second, that kids will come home asking questions about sex and sexuality. Whether we like it or not, most parents deep down would really rather their children not turn out to be gay and certainly don’t want to be talking about sex, period, let alone gay sex with their kids. This is deep, non-rational stuff.”

(It should go without saying, but age-appropriate discussion of gay people and relationships does not usually involve explicit discussion of gay sex. It SHOULD go without saying, but it can’t, because many opponents seem unable to make that simple distinction.)

There are several lessons to be gleaned here.

First, the closet is still powerful. While some of us treat “National Coming Out Day” as a quaint relic of bygone times, the reality is that many who claim to be our friends and neighbors are still viscerally uncomfortable with us at some level. I don’t care how popular Ellen is: a majority of her fellow Californians voted to deny her the right to marry.

What this means is that merely knowing that we exist is not enough. Our fellow citizens need to know us at a deeper level. It DOES matter what they think of us.

Second, and related, the case for marriage equality can’t be divorced from the case for moral equality—that is, the case for our relationships’ being positive and valuable (and holy, for those of a religious bent). Those of us who make the moral case are sometimes dismissed as “apologists.” We need more apologists (in this classic sense of the term).

Third, we need to keep exposing our opponents’ true intentions, which have become increasingly evident in this campaign season. As Jonathan Rauch explains at the Independent Gay Forum,

“Opponents of gay marriage in Maine do not just want to block gay marriage. They want to use the law to force all discussion of gay marriage out of the schools. In other words, they demand to turn the public schools into closets.”

This, despite the fact that nearby Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire and Connecticut have marriage equality. And despite the fact that some of these schoolchildren have gay relatives. Or are being raised by gay parents. Or are gay themselves.

In short, our opponents’ agenda is a truly radical one, which aims not merely to deny us marriage but to obliterate our very existence. We need to call them out on it.

I’d love to be pleasantly surprised next Wednesday morning, and discover that our opponents’ appeals to voters’ irrational fears were no match for our appeals to their better nature. It could happen. But whatever happens, we have much work left to do.

***********

John Corvino, Ph.D. is an author, speaker, and philosophy professor at Wayne State University in Detroit. His column “The Gay Moralist” appears Fridays on 365gay.com.

Check school websites for rooms and times.

We are not trying to “recruit” your children, if by that you mean “turn them gay.” As gay people, we understand enough about how sexual orientation works to know that you can’t turn people gay—or straight, for that matter—by some act of will.

Rather, we’re trying to do just what those scary “protect marriage” ads say we’re trying to do. We’re trying to teach them about same-sex marriage. In school.

There—I said it. The secret’s out. The gay agenda has been leaked. Call the Maine Yes-on-1 campaign and tell them there’s new material for Frank Schubert and company to quote out of context.

Meanwhile, let’s talk about that campaign—specifically, the ads warning that if Maine keeps marriage for gays and lesbians, Maine schoolchildren will be taught about homosexual marriage.

Put this way, the claim is extremely misleading. Maine (unlike California, which micromanages everything) does not dictate teaching about marriage. Maine curriculum is controlled locally, and individual schools can teach about same-sex marriage (or not) whether or not Maine has marriage equality.

To put the point another way: just because something’s legal, that doesn’t mean it must be taught in Maine schools (or vice-versa).

But whatever happens with Maine’s Question 1, I want Maine schools to teach about gays getting married. Other states’ schools, too.

Part of my reason for wanting this has nothing whatsoever to do with my support for marriage equality. I also want schools to teach about genocide, and I’m pretty staunchly anti-genocide. Schools are supposed to inform students about what’s happening in the world. For better or worse, same-sex marriage is happening in the world. Even if it is taken away in Maine, it will keep happening elsewhere. Indeed, even if it were somehow eliminated everywhere, it would remain part of our history. Students need to know this.

Of course, when we teach about genocide, we make it clear that genocide is a Very Bad Thing. By contrast, responsible teaching about same-sex marriage would have to acknowledge that it is a controversial thing, with sane and decent people on different sides of the issue.

And that is doubtless one reason why you, dear parent, fear teaching about same-sex marriage in schools. You’d rather that your children not know that there are some sane and decent people who deny that same-sex marriage is a Very Bad Thing. Indeed, that there some who think it is a Perfectly Fine Thing. You want to shelter them from such diversity. I don’t.

I want them to know that there are people with different views on marriage, and that gay people are getting legally married in parts of the United States and elsewhere. I want them to know it because any informed citizen ought to know it. But I also want them to know it because some of them might themselves be gay.

That’s right: there’s a small but statistically significant chance that your child might be gay. Ignoring the issue won’t make it go away. And isolating him from the fact of other gay people won’t make it go away, either. It will just make him…well, isolated.

Now, your child might not be gay, and if that’s so, learning about gay marriage isn’t going to make him gay. Sexual orientation doesn’t work that way. (If it did, I’d be straight.) If your child is straight, he will remain straight, regardless of what happens in Maine, California, Massachusetts and elsewhere.

But let’s suppose he’s gay. If so, and if I’m right that he can’t willfully change that fact, then his best chance for a happy, fulfilling life is probably in a relationship with someone of the same sex. (I say “probably” because some people—a very rare subset—are happier single; let’s assume he’s not one of those.) Realistically, his choice is not between a gay relationship and a straight relationship; it’s between a gay relationship and none at all.

Now I don’t expect you simply to take my word for any of this. You want your child to be happy, and you can’t imagine his happiness as a gay person. Maybe you’re deeply convinced that he’d be better off alone than with someone of the same sex.

I don’t doubt that you sincerely believe this. But I sincerely believe that you are wrong—badly wrong, wrong in a way that does needless harm to your gay child.

I want your child to know that his love is a good thing. I want him to know that he deserves a chance at romantic bliss. I want him to know that, regardless of sexual orientation, he can seek someone to have and to hold, for better or for worse, until death do they part.

I want him at least to have that option.

And that, to be very frank, is the bigger part of my reason for wanting schools to teach about gay marriage. I want all kids, including gay kids, to have a fair shot at happiness.

That’s my homosexual agenda in a nutshell.

******

John Corvino, Ph.D. is an author, speaker, and philosophy professor at Wayne State University in Detroit. His column “The Gay Moralist” appears Fridays on 365gay.com.

Check school websites for rooms and times.

by Lisa Neff

The security camera didn’t provide much security for Jack Price, beaten by two men on a Queens, N.Y., street early Oct. 9.

But the security camera captured the crime — for three minutes two men punched and kicked Price, 49, who was on the ground for most of the assault.

And the video — first made public by WABC, a Queens ABC affiliate — may help authorities put two men in jail for assault, aggravated assault as a hate crime and aggravated harassment.

Jack Price is gay. And apparently his assailants knew that.

They encountered Price outside a neighborhood grocery, shouted anti-gay slurs at him.

The taunts picked up again as Price left the grocery to make his way to his nearby home.

Then the beating began.

Watch the tape, see the hate.

Two men chase another in the street on the blue-tinted tape. The assailants push and punch the third man to the ground. The victim tries to stand, but is held down by his attackers, who continue to punch and kick him as they hold him on the pavement.

The victim roles toward the curb, trying to protect himself, but the blows continue against his head, his stomach, his back.

With the victim lying on the ground, the two assailants appear to shout, pointing their fingers at Price’s head, then unleash more blows.

The attackers turn away, but then turn back to take something from the victim’s pockets. Robbery was not a motive

A car drives past, just a few away from the two men standing over the victim, but never slows.

More blows.

Then the attackers leave, talking with another, and the victim rises from the ground and stumbles away, out of the camera’s range.

Price suffered a broken jaw, a lacerated spleen, fractured ribs and collapsed lungs.

When the public learned of the assault, he had been placed into a medically induced coma and was breathing with the aid of a respirator at New York Hospital Queens.

On Oct. 12 — 11 years to the day after gay college student Matthew Shepard died, the victim of two men who tricked him away from a bar and savagely beat him on the outskirts of Laramie, Wyo. — New York City officials gathered to denounce the attack on Price, the LGBT community and the good people of Queens.

“I know the Queens community is outraged that hate has tainted their streets,” said New York City Council Speaker Christine C. Quinn.

“This is the fourth time in 19 years that a gay man in Queens lies near death, or actually died, because he was beaten for being gay,” said Queens resident Daniel Dromm.

New York Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly called the assault “despicable” and vowed that the city would not tolerate the intolerance.

This week, the U.S. Senate is expected to take up a vote on a defense bill — reconciled through conference with the House — that includes, as an amendment, the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Act.

In anticipation of the Senate vote, I received press releases and action alerts from groups and lawmakers on both sides of the hate crimes issue.

Opponents and proponents of the hate crimes provision referred to the assault on Price as reason to vote up or down on the bill.

The opponents’ argument: Two men were arrested and face criminal charges. The system already works.

The proponents’ argument: Two men — Daniel Aleman and Daniel Rodriguez — were arrested and may face hate crimes charges in New York. But New York is one of only 31 states with a hate crimes law that includes sexual orientation and one of only 12 states with a hate crimes law that includes gender identity.

The proponents’ argument, which readers here probably know is the one I accept, continues: Passage of the hate crimes measure would help local authorities secure federal assistance to investigate and prosecute an anti-gay crime.

And add to the argument: Passage of the hate crimes measure would authorize the U.S. Justice Department to intervene in a bias-motivated case where local authorities refuse to act.

It is worth noting that Virginia is the home state of one of the two suspects in the Price assault.

It is worth nothing that Virginia law does not address hate crimes based on sexual orientation, nor does Virginia law does not address hate crimes based on gender identity.

Virginia is where, in April 2000, a teenager, motivated by anti-gay bias, beat another teenager with a metal pipe. Virginia is where, in a gay bar in September 2000, a gay man was killed and six others were shot. Virginia is where, in September 2002, a university student was assaulted on his way to an LGBT group meeting. Virginia is where, in May 2005, a teenager was beaten at a party because of his sexual orientation. Virginia is where, in July 2005, a church was the target of an arson attack after its national body adopted a pro-gay marriage resolution.

Virginia is where, in October 2009, we know federal hate crimes law must be expanded.

And I hope, 11 years after the Shepard murder, we know nationwide we must expand the law.

Of course, there are pleasant surprises along the way, like the scraggly welding major who came up after one talk and said, “I’m a former homophobe. Thanks for being here.” On the other hand, it’s hard not to react visibly when an audience member tries to establish his scholarly bona fides by announcing, “My views on this are very well thought out. I studied the Bible carefully when I was in prison.”

My travels through the Midwest got me thinking about national LGBT movement’s tendency to focus on California and the Northeast. There are good reasons for this bias, insofar as these are populous and influential regions. But having discussed Maine in my last column, (http://www.365gay.com/opinion/corvino-stand-up-for-maine-and-for-marriage/), I decided to spend this week discussing the other two gay-related ballot initiatives currently going on—in Kalamazoo, Michigan and in Washington State. They both deserve more attention than they’re getting.

Kalamazoo:

The Kalamazoo initiative is close to home for me—I live in Detroit, about two-and-a-half hours away. Kalamazoo is a small town in a conservative part of the state. Nevertheless, as the home of Kalamazoo College, Western Michigan University, and the Arcus Foundation, it has a vibrant progressive streak.

About three years ago citizens began discussions with city representatives about expanding Kalamazoo’s non-discrimination ordinance (which prohibits discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodations) to include protections for sexual orientation and gender expression. In December of 2008, the Kalamazoo city commission unanimously approved the expanded ordinance, but opposition forced the city to subject it to public review.

As a result, in June of this year a new ordinance was introduced with stronger exemptions for churches and other religious organizations. Once again, the ordinance passed unanimously, and once again, opposition groups derailed it, this time by collecting enough signatures to suspend the ordinance until it can be put to a public vote in November. A YES vote would preserve the ordinance prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender expression; a NO vote would strike it down.

Opposition has largely been organized by the Michigan American Family Association (AFA)—a small-minded, sex-obsessed group that even some right wingers I know prefer to steer clear of.  (See http://www.afamichigan.org/)  They’ve been trying to instill fear in voters by raising the specter of men with “psycho-emotional delusions” preying on women and children in restrooms.

Reasonable minds can differ about whether, and to what extent, legal action is the right response to discrimination by private employers, landlords, and so on. But if we’re going to have non-discrimination laws at all, they should surely include sexual orientation and gender expression. I therefore urge readers to visit the One Kalamazoo site (http://www.onekalamazoo.com/) and support their efforts.

Washington State:

For some years Washington State has had limited domestic partnership rights which include hospital visitation, inheritance rights, the ability to authorize autopsies and organ donations, and legal standing under probate and trust law. This year legislators expanded the law so that domestic partners would be granted the remaining statewide legal incidents of marriage (though not under the name “marriage”)—including access to unpaid sick leave to care for an ailing partner, various legal process rights, pension benefits, insurance benefits, and adoption and child-support rights and responsibilities, among others.

Opponents then collected signatures to force the new law on the ballot. As in Kalamazoo, a YES vote here is the pro-gay vote: it would support the expanded domestic-partner law. A NO vote would kill the expanded domestic-partner law, leaving Washington staters with the far more limited domestic-partner rights they previously had.

The opposition’s campaign is ugly. Take a moment to visit

http://protectmarriagewa.com/ and click on the video on the right with the smiling white couple in wedding attire. There you will learn that “God established, and defined marriage, between a man and a woman….Senate Bill 5688 violates GOD’s mandate.”

Incidentally, you will also learn that Adam and Eve look like they should be doing Breck commercials—at least as depicted in a certain Lowell Bruce Bennett painting owned by the Mormon Church.

The visuals may be funny, but ignorance and discrimination are not. Visit http://approvereferendum71.org/ and support efforts to preserve robust domestic-partnership legislation in Washington State.

Polls for both of these initiatives show us close enough to win—but if, and only if, we support them.

******

John Corvino, Ph.D. is an author, speaker, and philosophy professor at Wayne State University in Detroit. His column “The Gay Moralist” appears Fridays on 365gay.com.

For more about John Corvino, or to see clips from his “What’s Morally Wrong with Homosexuality?” DVD, visit www.johncorvino.com.

His upcoming speaking appearances include:

October 20: Illinois State University

November 10: Central Washington University (debate with Glenn Stanton)

November 11: Colorado State University, Pueblo (debate with Glenn Stanton)

November 12: Miami University of Ohio

November 16: Bergen Community College (NJ)

Check school websites for rooms and times.

If you haven’t been following the campaign, you should. To my mind, our side has done a model job in framing the debate, telling our stories, responding quickly to opponents’ false messages, and perhaps most important, tailoring its own message to the local climate rather than simply going with stock arguments. Check out the ads at http://www.protectmaineequality.org/.

By contrast, the other side is essentially a re-run of the California Prop. 8 campaign (which is not surprising, as they’ve hired the same mastermind, Frank Schubert).

Of course, the other side won Prop. 8. Polls in Maine had us trailing until recently. But if ever there were a campaign that could come from behind, the Protect Maine Equality campaign is it. If you don’t believe me, compare their website to the opposition’s (http://www.standformarriagemaine.com/), and see if you don’t come away impressed and encouraged.

You are also likely to come away angry with the opposition. Good. Channel that anger into action by going back to http://www.protectmaineequality.org/ and making a sizeable donation.

Of all the things that irk me about the other side’s ads—and there are plenty—what struck me the most was Boston College law professor Scott Fitzgibbon’s claim that if marriage equality stands, “It will no longer be live and let live. Homosexual marriage will be the law whether Mainers like it or not.”

Let me repeat that, in case you didn’t get it the first time. Allow gays to marry, and “It will no longer be live and let live.”

If someone were awarding prizes for bizarre commentary in the marriage debate, this claim would be a formidable contender. The statement is so self-contradictory that it’s hard to discern its intended meaning.

But I’ll try. For marriage-equality opponents, “live and let live” must mean something like, “You are free to live as you please as long as I am free to live in a world in which you are not free to live as you please.” (Ouch. My brain hurts.)

If there’s anything worthwhile about the Fitzgibbon ad, it’s that it sharply exposes our opponents’ real intentions. They don’t merely want the freedom to marry whom they love, to worship as they choose, to raise their children as they see fit, and so on. They want the freedom to live in a world where those who differ don’t get the same freedom. In short, they want the exact opposite of a free society.

Whenever an educated person (like Fitzgibbon, who is a law professor) says something so bizarre and stupid, I assume that there must be something true somewhere in the neighborhood. If not the neighborhood, the county, perhaps.

In this case, the truth lies in the fact that freedom has a flip side, so to speak—namely, that other people may freely choose to do things that you don’t like.

Whether Maine retains marriage equality or not, our opponents are free to teach their children (and anyone else willing to listen) that same-sex relationships are wrong, that our marriages are not “real” marriages, that our families are not “real” families, and so on. They are free to do the same with respect to interfaith marriages, second marriages, whatever. You and I are free to tell them why they’re wrong.

What they are not free to do is to live in a world where everyone agrees with them. Nor are they free to live in a world where marriage between two men or two women is unthinkable, unspeakable, or legally impossible. Even if we lose Maine, we will still have marriage equality elsewhere.

And there’s the crux of the matter, and the point at which the debate really becomes a zero-sum game. Our opponents want a world where same-sex marriage is not even an option. In particular, they don’t want their kids—some of whom might be gay—to see it as an option.

By contrast, I want every gay and lesbian child to know that when they grow up, they deserve someone to have and to hold, for better or worse, ‘til death do they part.

I want them to know that when they fall in love and seek commitment, their love is real, and worthy, and good. I want them to know that marriage IS an option.

If you want that, too, support marriage equality in Maine and elsewhere.

******

P.S. And while you’re at it, don’t forget Washington State, where a nasty campaign is aimed at taking away domestic partnerships. See http://approvereferendum71.org/. If we lose Maine, gay Mainers get civil unions instead of marriage. If we lose Washington State, Washington gays end up with nothing.

******

John Corvino, Ph.D. is an author, speaker, and philosophy professor at Wayne State University in Detroit. His column “The Gay Moralist” appears Fridays on 365gay.com.

For more about John Corvino, or to see clips from his “What’s Morally Wrong with Homosexuality?” DVD, visit www.johncorvino.com.

His upcoming speaking appearances include:

October 13: Wisconsin Indianhead College
October 14: Western Tech College (WI)
October 15: Northcentral Technical College (WI)
October 20: Illinois State University

Check school websites for rooms and times.

 The eight staff members arrested during the raid have had their arraignment postponed for the second time, now set for Nov. 3. The Atlanta LGBT community is calling for a hearing sooner than election day as fear runs high that the new mayor and chief of police may try to sweep public outcry into the political closet.

 Charges against the eight arrested rely solely upon whether or not the the Eagle is determined to be an adult entertainment venue. The Eagle currently holds all appropriate licenses for a nightclub. An adult venue requires club owners to hold a special license and all dancers to have an adult permit.

 Many Atlanta nightclubs regularly hold underwear, lingerie and wet t-shirt nights without resulting APD raids and permit arrests. Similar club venue raids in the past year all followed typical protocol, where suspected violators were issued a simple fine. So far, the Eagle is the only venue to have resulted in arrests for such license violations. Community questions revolve around why the Eagle singled out, and why staff and dancers were arrested and detained for over 19 hours without bond.

 Police Chief Pennigton seems to think his police officers’ documented accounts of male dancers in their underwear is a valid reason to declare a venue adult entertainment. The police department, however, does not make those decisions, the permit and licensing board does, further making the arrests appear extreme. Many in the community are calling for a drop of the permit and license charges altogether.

 Deputy Chief Carlos Banda made an official statement at the Sept. 15t City Council Public Safety meeting that was met with criticism by not only the 20 community members who voiced concern about the raid, but also council members themselves. In defense of APD actions during the raid, Banda referred to persons who were at the Eagle that night as “people who chose this lifestyle.” These kind of inflammatory statements have increased the already-concerned LGBT community.

The APD appears to be wrought with biased LGBT stereotypes, despite the fact that Atlanta has an LGBT community liaison, Officer Dani Harris, who was not brought into the investigation or subsequent raid.

The community is also concerned that Chief Banda, who has been the most vocal voice of the APD regarding the raid, could be a potential candidate for chief of police come November. This concern has pushed community members to plan a mayoral community discussion similar to the one held with the APD on October 5th to discuss what changes will be made after the election, and who will be in charge of the police department.

LGBT residents have vocalized that the behavior of the APD the night of the Eagle raid should not be tolerated anywhere in the city toward any member of the Atlanta community. Midtown residents are standing alongside all Atlanta communities and unanimously demanding a full investigation into current APD practices, especially within the Red Dog unit which has come under strong criticism over the years.

Hundreds of gay and ally community members have turned out to public rallies and community meetings to show support for the 62 patrons that were targeted the night of the raid, simply for being in their local neighborhood bar.

Atlanta will not tolerate any further homophobic and bigoted treatment by the police. This year’s Atlanta Pride is the last weekend of October, and hopefully  thousands will continue to stand up for the message that equality is not an option, it is a right that will be fought for.

Laura Gentle is a community activist in Atlanta.

Look around these days at the supermarkets and department stores and you are likely to see a lot of pink.

October is National Breast Cancer Awareness Month.

And awareness we need. Awareness saves lives.

Today there are about 2.5 million breast cancer survivors living in the United States.

The American Cancer Society estimates that 192,370 new cases of invasive breast cancer will have been diagnosed among women in the United States this year.

An estimated 40,170 women will die from the disease this year.

And research shows that the rate of breast cancer among lesbians and bisexual women is higher than among heterosexual women.

“Cancer is a disease that shatters our lives and ravages our community in epidemic proportions,” reads the preamble to the Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Women Cancer Patients’ Bill of Rights from The Mautner Project: The National Lesbian Health Organization.

Yes, awareness we need, because a recent national survey found that too few — not even a majority — in the adult U.S. population know what breast cancer is, know that breast cancer is a malignant tumor that grows in one or both breasts, that breast cancer usually develops in the ducts or lobules of the breast.

Yet another survey found a large majority of the U.S. adult population knows the pink ribbon is a symbol for breast cancer awareness and associate pink with the disease.

How is it that a campaign to fight a killer disease, a campaign to raise money for research and discover new cures and identify causes, a campaign to promote preventative health measures and to improve treatment methods, has developed into a culture, a fashion, a trend, a marketing mania?

In a speech in 2001, feminist author Barbara Ehrenreich, then undergoing treatment for breast cancer, wrote about “breast cancer culture.”

“How to define breast cancer culture?

“It’s very pink and femme and frilly — all about pink ribbons, pink rhinestone pins, pink T-shirts and, of course, a lot about cosmetics. The American Cancer Society offers a program called ‘Look Good…Feel Better,’ which gives out free cosmetics to women undergoing breast cancer treatment. The Libby Ross Foundation gives breast cancer patients a free tote bag containing Estee Lauder body crème, a pink satin pillowcase, a set of Japanese cosmetics and two rhinestone bracelets. And no one, so far as I could determine, was complaining about the strange idea that you can fight a potentially fatal disease with eyeliner and blush.”

The culture has expanded since 2001, with a proliferation of pink-packaged products — soap, mouthwash, toothpaste, cookies, credit, gasoline, candies, cosmetics, teddy bears, T-shirts, shoes, handbags, totes, batteries, electronics, musical instruments, magazines, cereals, sodas and beers. Board an airline this month and you might be able to sip a Pink Ribbon Chardonnay as you jet from here to there.

Some companies are dedicating much higher percentages of sales for research and breast cancer programs than others — meaning buyers beware.

I don’t bemoan or want to tear down pink power, and I respect the sisterhood of women coming together in city after city to walk for a cure and march for a cause.

I don’t question the commitment of those in the women’s health movement advocating for change — in the medical professional and at the legislative level.

But this commercialization of the movement seems unprecedented and inappropriate, and I believe it has borrowed the spotlight from a grassroots effort for real reform.

Not one of the dozen press releases from companies touting the sale of a Breast Cancer Awareness pink product contained a quote or a statement encouraging women to get mammograms or conduct self-examinations. And not one corporate spokesperson I spoke with wanted to talk about health care policies, medical research and treatment options.

You might think of it this way: We who should be seeing red — over too few treatment options a lack of preventative care, denied treatment under their insurance and, most recently, denied a public option for coverage — are being encouraged to get cozy — and tricked into complacency — in pink.