Doug Lambert called gay Democratic Party Chair Raymond Buckley offensive names while a webcam was streaming to the Internet last weekend.

Lambert apologized to Buckley on the blog GraniteGrok. But New Hampshire Freedom to Marry Coalition executive director Mo Baxley said Monday the Republican Party should muzzle Lambert and denounce his comments as hateful to gays.

Party spokesman Ryan Williams later condemned Lambert’s comments as “completely inappropriate, offensive and hurtful.”

New Hampshire in June became the sixth state to legalize gay marriage, reflecting its changing demographics from reliably Republican and conservative to more liberal. The law takes effect Jan. 1.

In New York’s 23rd Congressional district, where longtime Republican Rep. John McHugh stepped down to be Army secretary, Dede Scozzafava, the candidate chosen by state GOP leaders to replace him, was forced out of the race by a surging Conservative Party candidate, Doug Hoffman. High-profile national Republicans endorsed Hoffman, saying Scozzafava, a state assemblywoman who supports abortion rights and gay marriage, had abandoned core GOP values.

In the New Jersey governor’s race, independent Chris Daggett has gone from afterthought to player in a contest pitting the unpopular incumbent, Democrat Jon Corzine, against Republican Chris Christie.

Daggett is not expected to win the New Jersey contest, and the GOP split in upstate New York could throw the race to Democrat Bill Owens.

But the impact of those candidacies on the high-profile contests points to an anti-incumbent, anti-establishment sentiment that could be a prevailing theme in the 2010 congressional elections and beyond.

“What it says is the public is looking for less self-interested parties and candidates who can reflect the needs of a very frustrated public,” said Douglas Astolfi, a history professor at Florida’s St. Leo University. “We have two wars and we’re in a recession that neither party seems to address in any positive way. There’s a deep sense that government has abandoned the common man. People are frustrated and angry.”

Indeed, a Wall Street Journal-NBC News poll released last week found that trust in government is at a 12-year low, and half of all Americans now support the creation of a new political party.

Both parties ignore such sentiment at their peril in 2010 and perhaps into the 2012 presidential race.

In Senate contests from Florida and Kentucky to New Hampshire next year, conservatives furious at the Republican establishment are mounting primary challenges against more mainstream candidates favored by the national party.

On the other side, Democratic strategists worry that progressives, disgusted by the big money bank bailout and disillusioned with President Barack Obama’s lack of fight on issues such as a government-run health insurance plan, might keep some people from voting. That could cost Democrats seats up and down the ballot.

Political operatives are keeping an eye on independent voters – an important and growing group that often decides elections. Will these voters send a signal to politicians Tuesday as well or will they stay home and leave it to the more ideologically driven base voters in both parties?

That was the case in the New York race, where polling found Scozzafava had fallen well behind her Hoffman and Owens, making it essentially a two-man contest days ago.

Sensing opportunity, ambitious conservatives across the country have jumped on the Hoffman bandwagon. The most prominent is Sarah Palin, the 2008 GOP vice presidential nominee and a potential high-profile contender for the White House in 2012.

Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, also looking at 2012, has announced his support for Hoffman. So has Chuck DeVore, a conservative California assemblyman hoping to run in a U.S. Senate primary against Carly Fiorina, the former Hewlett Packard executive backed by national Republicans to take on the Democratic incumbent, Barbara Boxer.

Former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich had endorsed Scozzafava, drawing the enmity of conservative bloggers scoffing at the possibility of a Gingrich presidential run in 2012.

Hoffman’s rise infuriated leaders of New York’s Republican Party, who insisted Scozzafava was a good fit for the district which favored Obama last year, but is one of the few still held by Republicans in the Northeast.

In New Jersey, Daggett, a businessman and former Environmental Protection Agency official, has appealed to voters who are turned off by both Corzine and Christie and fed up with the candidates’ campaign bloodbath. Daggett was widely believed to be the winner of a televised candidate debate and has been endorsed by The Star-Ledger of Newark, N.J., the state’s largest newspaper.

John Weingart, associate director of Rutgers University’s Eagleton Institute of Politics, said Daggett’s candidacy had succeeded in giving disillusioned voters a competent and credible alternative to Corzine and Christie.

But Weingart said lack of money, the institutional obstacles to a third party candidacy and a growing awareness among voters of the ideological differences between Christie and Corzine would cause Daggett’s campaign to stall.

“To vote for an independent candidate, you have to believe either that the person can win or that there is no difference you care about between the Democratic and the Republican candidate,” Weingart said.

A Quinnipiac Poll released Wednesday found Corzine ahead of Christie by a 43-38 percent margin with 13 percent for Daggett and 5 percent undecided. But a majority of voters said they had an unfavorable view of both Corzine and Christie.

In the 1992 presidential race, money wasn’t an issue for billionaire businessman Ross Perot, whose rise was powered by the same kind of populist anger brewing today. Perot vastly altered the dynamic of that contest, running as an independent and winning 19 percent of the vote.

Democrat Bill Clinton was the beneficiary of that three-way contest, taking away the presidency from George H.W. Bush with just a plurality of the vote. Clinton did so in part by adding a populist flair to his message, drawing voters who had been attracted to Perot.

Detachment from the major parties some of the success of New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, another billionaire who appealed to a city craving for competence in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks.,

Bloomberg, who ran as a Republican that year, announced in 2007 that he would switch parties and become and independent, leading to speculation he would run for president at some point. Bloomberg is expected to cruise to a third term on Election Day.

Sipping cocktails and swapping gossip on a roof terrace decorated with pink balloons and rainbow flags at a gay-oriented disco, leading figures of Britain’s once-hidebound Conservative Party mingle happily with those many in its ranks once derided.

Once described – by a senior Conservative official, no less – as the “nasty party,” the traditional home of Britain’s sometimes intolerant upper classes has undergone something of a transformation as it bids to win power for the first time since 1997.

But critics ask: is the makeover real or cosmetic?

Activists gathered in the northern England city of Manchester for an annual conference certainly showed off the newly inclusive spirit this week – dancing at the party’s first official gay reception, promoting aspiring lawmakers from Britain’s minority communities and cheering a newfound commitment to tackling poverty.

The loudest praise was reserved for the architect of the party’s niceness transfusion – David Cameron, the slick 43-year-old ex-public relations executive who’s overhauled his organization’s image and now seeks to oust Prime Minister Gordon Brown.

“You only have to look around the conference and see the different types of people who are here,” said Stuart Andrew, a gay Conservative candidate for a House of Commons seat. “They just wouldn’t have been here 15 years ago.”

But Tory suspicion runs deep in much of Britain – largely because of a reputation for heartlessness toward the poor.

The Conservatives swept to power under Margaret Thatcher in 1979 on a promise to modernize Britain’s economy, sweep away bureaucracy and tame powerful trade unions. They were reelected in 1983, 1987 and 1992, but without ever shaking off their image as the party of the white, affluent and sometimes intolerant.

Thatcher once shut down school programs for milk distribution, earning the nickname “Thatcher the milk snatcher.” In the 1980s, the party imposed laws banning the promotion of homosexuality in schools and shuttered coal mines – ruthlessly crushing strikes and putting generations of men in mining communities out of work.

By 1997, Tony Blair’s Labour Party was able to paint itself as the party of progress and an inclusive, modern Britain – and the Tories knew they had a problem.

Theresa May, the Conservative chairwoman, admitted as much in a speech to the party conference in Bournemouth, England on Oct. 7, 2002.

“There’s a lot we need to do in this party of ours,” she said. “Our base is too narrow and so, occasionally, are our sympathies. You know what some people call us – the nasty party.”

The notion stuck – even though many still view Thatcher as a savior of Britain’s economy reversing the country’s steep decline, breaking its dependence on unions and industrial behemoths – giving the country needed a dose of nasty medicine.

But Cameron’s skeptical stance toward the European Union has angered leaders in France and Germany, who warn relations with London could sour if he takes power.

Many hear echoes of Thatcher, and Ronald Reagan, in Cameron’s attacks on big government and welfare dependency.

Some conference delegates – and outsiders – were angered by convention invitations extended to Latvian and Polish lawmakers from parties accused by human rights activists of being homophobic or anti-Semitic.

It has led to questions about Cameron’s drive to end his party’s former hostility toward minority groups – a sentiment traced back to Thatcher’s era, when a contentious law, known as Section 28, barred teachers from promoting homosexuality in school lessons.

Other skeptics also question Cameron’s commitment to reducing poverty, pointing to his plans to freeze the pay of millions of government workers while helping the wealthy by cutting taxes on inherited mansions.

Nonetheless, Cameron, elected leader in 2005 with a mandate to drag his traditionalist followers into the modern era, has worked doggedly to shed the party’s image as a haven for the rich and expensively educated.

He rides a bicycle to work, rather than a chauffeured limousine. He’s quashed borderline racist rhetoric on immigration to focus on the environment and health care, and has demanded that his party promote more women and ethnic minorities to key positions.

In intimate Web videos, Cameron shows off his domestic life – washing dishes in the sink of a chaotic kitchen while patting the heads of playful young children.

His wife Samantha – a successful businesswoman who updated the tired image of stationery brand Smythson – is in tune with the party’s mood, eschewing haute couture for a relatively inexpensive dress from mainstream department store Marks & Spencer on the day of her husband’s keynote convention speech.

It’s a makeover designed to combat the party’s corrosive image as Tory “toffs,” and summed up in their slogan: “We’re all in this together.”

Yet opinion polls show many Britons aren’t persuaded that Cameron has transformed his party, or convinced his political rebranding is genuine. Pollsters say voters often recall how Cameron was photographed cycling to Parliament – as a car and driver followed close behind with his suit and briefcase. They also note the leader’s privileged education at Eton and Oxford.

Though Cameron is overwhelmingly favored to win Britain’s next national election, some detractors suggest his victory would be a rejection of Brown’s flagging government, rather than enthusiasm for the Conservatives.

Britain has thus far not embraced the Tory chief as it did Labour’s Tony Blair before his landslide election 1997 win – when millions were swept along by ‘Cool Britannia’ rhetoric, and promise of sweeping social reform.

“It’s not the groundswell of support that Blair received before 1997,” said Julia Clark, head of political research at Ipsos MORI. “Cameron has successfully detoxified his party and is seen as a credible leader – but that’s the problem, it’s all about Cameron. People aren’t so sure about the rest.”

Cameron won praise after he formally apologized for the anti-gay Section 28 in July at an event ahead of London’s Gay Pride rally.

He was also applauded for a 2006 speech in which – pledging tax incentives for marriage – he said a union was just as valid “whether you’re a man and a woman, a woman and a woman or a man and another man,” a key break with party tradition.

Ben Summerskill, chief executive of the gay rights group Stonewall, insists Cameron’s attempt to change attitudes has been a success.

“There has been a transformation,” he said. “I think it is inconceivable – not just 10 years ago, but five years ago – that we would have had the leader apologizing for the damage and offense caused by Section 28.”

The highlight was jilted former Miss California, Carrie Prejean, starting a brand new religion — “MEvangelical Christianity.” In her remarkably self-centered, narcissistic speech, she cast herself as a martyr on a mission and repeatedly had to remind the audience that she wasn’t as stuck up as she appeared on stage.

Prejean’s introspective idolatry was almost outdone by Michael Schwartz, the chief of staff for Sen. Tom Coburn. For those who do not remember, Coburn is the Oklahoma Republican who once criticized the movie Schindler’s List for its nudity.

Thank God for our watchdog, Senator Coburn, or lusting after malnourished and gaunt holocaust victims might have caught on.

With a mentor like Coburn, it was only natural for Schwartz to become an expert on pornography, and we were fortunate to have him share his wisdom at a Values Voter discussion on “The New Masculinity.”

On the cusp of insulting gay people, Schwartz told the rabid right crowd that he was about to get “politically incorrect.” Why bother with a disclaimer, as if gay bashing is actually controversial at such rallies? If he really wanted to shock the crowd, he would have introduced “Schwartz’ List” – naming all the social conservatives caught in tawdry sex scandals.

But, alas he only had an hour, clearly not enough time for this endeavor.

Schwartz called pornography a “blight” and a “disease”. Although he failed to point out it disproportionally afflicts Republicans, with “Red States” having the highest rates of pornography subscriptions.

The porno politico then agreed with an “ex-gay” friend of his that said, “‘All pornography is homosexual pornography because all pornography turns your sexual drive inwards.’ Now think about that. And if you, if you tell an 11-year-old boy about that, do you think he’s going to want to go out and get a copy of Playboy? I’m pretty sure he’ll lose interest. That’s the last thing he wants.’ You know, that’s a, that’s a good comment. It’s a good point and it’s a good thing to teach young people.”

So, straight porn will turn you gay and holocaust nudity is erotic. Just plain, homespun common sense.

Now that the loons have finally left DC, there is the question of whether the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community should march on Washington. The main event is scheduled for October 11th and it is highly anticipated by a new breed of Internet-age activists.

There is, however, opposition from many local GLBT organizations and movement activists who believe that resources spent in Washington would be put to better use fighting battles in the states.

I am highly sympathetic to statewide leaders who have performed heroic work, even though they lack crucial resources. And they are correct that the GLBT movement needs to continue fighting and educating at the local level.

fThis will not only bring us victory in the states, but will change the facts on the ground in congressional districts, increasing the chance Congress will vote for equality.

Still, I agree with Equality Across America organizer Cleve Jones and long-time activist David Mixner that now is the time to go to Washington. No matter how much state organizers would prefer we march on state capitols, it is not the same. A rally in sleepy towns like Tallahassee or Albany changes your afternoon plans, while a trip to DC changes your life.

Detractors of the big march say that not enough organizing has been done to lobby members of Congress. But, what exactly would these citizen-lobbyists say that has not already been said by Human Rights Campaign lobbyists 1,000 times before? Besides, those who come to DC can always lobby the Representative in their district when they return home.

The march is really about inspiring a new generation. One of the highlights of my young activism career was attending the 1993 March on Washington. It moved me to a lifetime of advocacy and I believe that today’s youth deserve the same opportunity I got to come to DC and be counted.

Let’s not be jaded and forget how mesmerizing it was to step on the lawn and witness a sea of homosexuals and their allies campaigning for equal rights. I think those who oppose the march should close their eyes and relive the experience.

This march will likely be smaller than those in the past due to the economic recession. It will likely not spur an overnight legislative victory. But, it will invigorate and initiate a fire inside thousands of activists that will burn long after the last candle is blown out on the National Mall. And, as a bonus, compared to the crazies who marched last week, a gay pride march will finally seem positively boring.

Anyone voicing hateful or violent rhetoric, she told reporters, must take responsibility for the results.

“I have concerns about some of the language that is being used because I saw this myself in the late ’70s in San Francisco,” Pelosi said, suddenly speaking quietly. “This kind of rhetoric was very frightening” and created a climate in which violence took place, she said.

Former San Francisco Supervisor Dan White was convicted of the 1978 murders of Mayor George Moscone and openly gay supervisor Harvey Milk. Gay rights activists and some others at the time saw a link between the assassinations and the violent debate over gay rights that had preceded them for years.

During a rambling confession, White was quoted as saying, “I saw the city as going kind of downhill.” His lawyers argued that he was mentally ill at the time. White committed suicide in 1985.

Pelosi is part of a generation of California Democrats on whom the assassinations had a searing effect. A resident of San Fransisco, Pelosi had been a Democratic activist for years and knew Milk and Moscone. At the time of their murders, she was serving as chairwoman of her party in the northern part of the state.

On Thursday, Pelosi was answering a question about whether the current vitriol concerned her. The questioner did not refer to the murders of Milk or Moscone, or the turmoil in San Francisco three decades ago. Pelosi referenced those events on her own and grew uncharacteristically emotional.

“I wish that we would all, again, curb our enthusiasm in some of the statements that are made,” Pelosi said. Some of the people hearing the message “are not as balanced as the person making the statement might assume,” she said.

“Our country is great because people can say what they think and they believe,” she added. “But I also think that they have to take responsibility for any incitement that they may cause.”

Pelosi’s office did not immediately respond to a request for examples of contemporary statements that reminded the speaker of the rhetoric of 1970s San Francisco.

The public anger during health care town hall meetings in August spilled into the House last week when South Carolina Republican Joe Wilson shouted “You lie!” at Obama, the nation’s first black president, during his speech. On a largely party-line vote, the House reprimanded Wilson.

In a sea of American (and many Confederate) flags waved by more than a few secessionists, Obama was pictured as Hitler and portrayed as Stalin. The federal government was likened to an alien invader run by an illegitimate, foreign-born black president, who just happened to be elected by the American people.

I wish I could say that this unruly behavior is an anomaly, but it seems to be a growing and vocal part of the Republican Party. In the 1980’s, Rev. Jerry Falwell and Ralph Reed used direct mail and talk radio to organize what were previously known as busybodies into the Moral Majority. Today’s GOP has harnessed the power of the Internet and cable television to lure the loons and create a constituency of crackpots.

The result has been disastrous for this nation. Our healthcare system is broken and we are rated near the bottom when compared to nearly every other industrialized country. We pay more per person for healthcare and we live shorter lives. There is instability, as families often go broke when a loved one falls ill and there is insecurity because losing a job means forfeiting coverage. American businesses are saddled with growing healthcare costs, which make it more difficult to compete in the global marketplace.

Yet, instead of an adult conversation about an issue that is crippling our nation, our dimmest citizens have derailed the debate. These out-of-control, severely under-medicated, surreptitious partisans hijacked town hall meetings and may cost the rest of us decent healthcare reform. Obama’s powerful speech last week helped mitigate the damage, but having frittered away the summer, it may be too late for the president to regain momentum.

At fault is the media – who routinely offer right wing sickos a stage to air the most outrageous allegations. Max Blumenthal, author of the new book, “Republican Gomorrah: Inside the Movement that Shattered the Party,” discussed the media’s culpability last week on National Public Radio.

“The mainstream media attempts this veneer of balance of entertaining both sides,” said Blumenthal. “But when one side is completely hysterical, conspiratorial, and leveling baseless attacks, should it be taken seriously? And what are the consequences for taking these attacks seriously in a democracy?”

The result, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), is an explosion of militias and hate groups. In a new report, the SPLC documents at least, “50 new militia training groups — one of them made up of present and former police officers and soldiers.”

“Almost a decade after largely disappearing from public view, right-wing militias, ideologically driven tax defiers and sovereign citizens are appearing in large numbers around the country,” says the report. The bizarre theories include:

1) Nativist theories about secret Mexican plans to “reconquer” the American Southwest

2) A secret network of U.S. concentration camps to imprison “patriots” who stand up to the federal government

If these were just harmless blowhards, that would be one thing. The problem is, these nuts are heavily armed and are a staple at shows that hawk firearms. SPLC reports that, “Sales of guns and ammunition have skyrocketed amid fears of new gun control laws, much as they did in the 1990s.”

Unless the media culture changes, there will be another Oklahoma City-type disaster or even an assassination attempt on our President. Responsible media outlets must stop offering platforms to serial distorters such as Rush Limbaugh, Anne Coulter and Glenn Beck. The next time Sarah Palin makes up a lie, such as death panels, the story should be about how she twisted the truth. Not a single story should be written or broadcast giving legs to the lies and allowing mistruths to run amok.

Thanks to the press winking and nodding to the nuts, Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) felt empowered to heckle the President during his healthcare speech. More disturbing are reports that say many people in Wilson’s district applaud his sophomoric actions.

Clearly, it is time we stop calling these people “conservatives.” True conservatives, who believe in respecting authority and protocol, would have been appalled at the example Wilson set for children. After all, how can young people be expected to obey parents and teachers when the president is catcalled in the halls of Congress?

I’ve had it with such antics. This crowd destabilized Bill Clinton’s presidency. Then, they stole the 2000 election, by sending partisan thugs down to South Florida to disrupt the recount. Now, the paranoiacs are in a full-blown panic over the first black president.

This fight is no longer about healthcare, nor is about deficits. It is about the very health of the political process and turning back the deficit in decency exemplified by Joe Wilson, Sarah Palin and the demagogues out to undermine our system of government.

The New International Version, the Bible of choice for conservative evangelicals, will be revised to reflect changes in English usage and advances in Biblical scholarship, it was announced Tuesday. The revision is scheduled to be completed late next year and published in 2011.

“We want to reach English speakers across the globe with a Bible that is accurate, accessible and that speaks to its readers in a language they can understand,” said Keith Danby, global president and CEO of Biblica, a Colorado Springs, Colo.-based Christian ministry that holds the NIV copyright.

But past attempts to remake the NIV for contemporary audiences in different editions have been plagued by controversies about gender language that have pitted theological conservatives against each other.

The changes did not make all men “people” or remove male references to God, but instead involved dropping gender-specific terms when translators judged that the original text didn’t intend it. So in some verses, references to “sons of God” became “children of God,” for example.

Supporters say gender-inclusive changes are more accurate and make the Bible more accessible, but critics contend they twist meaning or smack of political correctness.

Acknowledging past missteps, the NIV’s overseers are promising that this time, the revision process will be more transparent and that they will actively promote what they describe as a long-held practice of inviting input from scholars and readers.

The NIV was first published in 1978 and more than 300 million NIV Bibles are in print worldwide; its publishers and distributors say the translation accounts for 30 percent of Bibles sold in North America.

The Committee on Bible Translation, an independent group of conservative scholars and translators formed in 1965 to create and revise the NIV, will oversee the new revision.

An effort earlier this decade to create a separate version of the NIV that used more gender-inclusive language in an attempt to reach a younger audience fell flat with groups that felt it crossed the line.

That edition, Today’s New International Version, will cease publication once the new-look NIV is released, said Moe Girkins, president of Grand Rapids, Mich.-based Zondervan, its North American publisher.

“Whatever its strengths, the TNIV has become an emblem of division in the evangelical Christian world,” Girkins said.

It was the TNIV that ushered in changes from “sons of God” to “children of God,” or “brothers” to “brothers and sisters.” In Genesis I, God created “human beings” in his own image instead of “man.”

Many prominent pastors and scholars endorsed the changes. But critics said masculine terms in the original should not be tampered with. Some warned that changing singular gender references to plural ones alters what the Bible says about God’s relationships with individuals.

The Southern Baptist Convention passed a resolution saying the edition “has gone beyond acceptable translation standards.”

“We fell short of the trust that has been placed in us,” said Danby, of Biblica. “We failed to make a clear case for the revisions.”

Danby said that freezing the NIV in its 1984 state was also a mistake, however. He emphasized that in the revision, about 90 percent of the NIV will be unchanged.

Douglas Moo, a professor at Wheaton College and chairman of the Committee on Bible Translation, said the group is committed to “a complete review of every gender related change.”

“I am not sure how it’s going to come out,” Moo said. “We have a genuine, authentic review process … Everything is on the table.”

One of the most vocal critics of gender-inclusive translations, Randy Stinson of the Louisville, Ky.-based Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, said the group supports updating the NIV. He credited organizers for their openness.

“We’re still probably going to differ on the way they handle some of the gender language,” Stinson said. “But we’re open and anxious to see what they come up with and we’re really going to be reserving judgment.”

Most changes will have nothing to do with gender inclusivity, Moo said. And the TNIV provides a glimpse of likely changes: In the ‘84 NIV, Mary is “with child,” but in the TNIV she is “pregnant.” In the NIV version of Psalm 146:9, “The Lord watches over the alien.” The TNIV used “foreigner” instead of “alien.”

This is a hard question. 

It’s hard partly because of its legal implications. Georgia Tech, another state school, recently lost a lawsuit because its safe-space program distributed literature uniformly criticizing traditional interpretations of the Bible. Not surprisingly, a federal judge ruled that this practice violated the First Amendment by favoring particular religious viewpoints. (Georgia Tech has kept its safe-space program but dropped the religious literature.)

Legal matters aside, the question raises difficult policy issues. What counts as “safe”? 

Safe-space programs generally involve a school-sponsored diversity training focusing on LGBT issues. Upon completing it, participants receive a sticker to display on their office doors announcing their “ally” status. 

Given how often religion is used as a weapon, I can understand why many LGBT students would not feel “safe” while being judged as sinners. We should never underestimate the potential damage done by telling youth, at a delicate stage in identity formation, that acting on their deep longings could lead to eternal separation from God. 

In contemplating my friend’s question, I mainly thought of those vulnerable students, and how best to protect them. I also thought of my friend John.

John is a faculty member at a small private liberal arts college. He is an evangelical Christian who believes that homosexual conduct conflicts with God’s plan as revealed in the bible. And yet John defies easy stereotypes. He supports civil marriage equality, decries the various ways religion is used to harm LGBT people, and avoids “heteronormative language” (his words) in his classroom. 

While he believes that homosexual conduct (not to mention plenty of heterosexual and non-sexual conduct) is sinful, he also believes that all humans – himself included – have an imperfect grasp of God’s will, and that we should generally strive to respect other people’s life choices and give them wide latitude in forging their own paths. John and his wife have welcomed me in their home, and during grace before the meal, his wife asked for God’s blessing on me, my partner Mark, and our relationship. (For the record, I did not take the latter to imply approval for every aspect of our relationship.)

In light of all I know about John and his loving treatment of LGBT persons, I can think of few spaces “safer” than his office. Any program that would disqualify him draws the circle of “safe spaces” too narrowly.

Moreover, there are good strategic reasons for wanting to make the circle of self-proclaimed allies as inclusive as possible, consistent with the well-being of LGBT students. We need people like John to make their presence known.

Yet I am not suggesting that we draw the circle so broadly as to rob “safe space” of any real meaning. Any student in any campus office – stickered or not – should expect to be treated with respect and professionalism. Presumably, the safe-space sticker denotes venues that substantially exceed that bare minimum (as John’s office would).

So how does one draw the circle broadly enough to include John and other conservative religious allies while excluding those who might rant about gays burning in hell? 

As with any policy question involving human beings, there’s no perfect formula here (just as there are no perfect people). To some extent, the desired group will be somewhat self-selecting. Those interested in condemning LGBT people to hell generally don’t attend voluntary pro-gay diversity trainings. 

Yet there are also steps one can take to tailor the circle. My recommendation would be to include, among various other elements of a pledge taken by safe-space training participants, something along the following lines:

“I understand that my own values and beliefs may differ from those of students who seek me out for a ‘safe space,’ and will refer students to appropriate resources given their particular values, beliefs, interests and desires.”

The idea here is that students who wish to retreat to a “narrower” circle will be assisted in doing so. Note that religious people offer such assistance all the time. Think, for example, of the Christian who helpfully directs a student to the Buddhist Student Center, despite her personal conviction that eternal salvation is through Christ alone.

On this approach, students who want pro-gay religious literature can receive it and evaluate it for themselves. At the same time, those who want the advice of fellow conservative evangelicals, for example, or fellow Orthodox Jews, can receive it and evaluate it for themselves. 

Admittedly, my recommendation would allow conservative religious students to request and receive – in a designated “safe space” – literature of a sort that’s often deeply damaging to LGBT people. But the approach is preferable to the alternatives: a public university’s (illegally) favoring particular religious viewpoints, on the one hand, or its becoming silent on religious issues–the Georgia Tech solution–on the other. 

Universities are places for free exchange of ideas. As long as that’s done in a compassionate manner that respects student autonomy, it should never be considered “unsafe.”
********************

John Corvino, Ph.D. is an author, speaker, and philosophy professor at Wayne State University in Detroit.
For over seventeen years he has traveled the country speaking on homosexuality and ethics. His writing has been featured in regional and national periodicals, at the online Independent Gay Forum, and in numerous scholarly anthologies. 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.

The Nevada Republican once called on President Bill Clinton to resign, declaring “the truth must come out.” In October 2007, he was sharply critical of former Sen. Larry Craig, of Idaho, calling the Republican’s arrest in an airport bathroom sex sting “embarrassing for the Senate.”

His own admission Tuesday came at a time when the two-term Nevada Republican was building his national profile and assuming leadership in his party. He had recently traveled to Iowa, fueling speculation about his White House ambitions.

The senator has said the Republican Party was in need of new leadership. He hoped to be among the fresh faces, and he built his resume by serving as the GOP’s top Senate candidate recruiter in 2008 and as chairman of the Republican Policy Committee in the Senate, the fourth-ranking leadership post. On Wednesday, he resigned from the position on the policy committee.

For Nevadans, he was known as a polished pro-business Republican and well-spoken ally of the state’s religious conservatives. He was a member of Promise Keepers, a men’s Christian group that espoused devotion to family and marriage.

As such, he talked openly about his biological father’s failing, calling himself the child of a deadbeat dad who never “told me once he loved me.” At a “Fatherhood Summit” in Reno in 2004, Ensign – himself a father of three – said fathers have been the biggest letdown in society.

Ensign was adopted at age 15 by his mother’s second husband, a Las Vegas casino mogul. He went on to veterinary school, ran an animal clinic and worked the family business as a casino executive before entering politics.

Ensign’s political life was entwined with his religious beliefs. Once in Washington, he lived for a time with other Christian lawmakers who organized prayer breakfasts and Bible study. When in Las Vegas, he continued to attend an Evangelical church in Las Vegas with his wife, Darlene, who did not move to Washington with him.

Ensign has opposed abortion and gay marriage and backed school vouchers.

“He’s been a very reliable ally and outspoken on marriage issues, on life issues,” said Richard Ziser, a leading religious conservative in the state. “His religious beliefs were a very high identifier with conservatives.”

As a candidate for Senate in 1998, Ensign was critical of Clinton’s handling of his admission of infidelity. Clinton blamed “other people for his problems, and that’s when he lost me.”

“He did lie to the American people. But he never looked at us and said he was sorry,” Ensign said.

On Tuesday, the senator apologized for his affair.

Many Christian conservatives will see Ensign’s public admission as brave and necessary, Ziser said.

“Some will be more forgiving than others, of course,” he said. “But I think his apology will be viewed as sincere. There is nothing wrong with holding yourself to high standard, even if you fail.”

Political science professor Fred Lokken said he believes the timing of the infidelity revelations won’t necessarily hobble Ensign’s ambitions.

It could be a tremendous bombshell – just as similar revelations damaged the career of former president candidate John Edwards, he said.

But Nevada has a long history of forgiving the personal troubles of its politicians, he said. Just two years ago, U.S. Rep. Jim Gibbons was elected governor while he was under investigation for assaulting a cocktail waitress. Charges were never filed in the case.

“I really do think that Nevada has a different standard for its politicians than the rest of the country,” said Lokken, of Truckee-Meadows Community College.

The Supreme Court rejected a challenge to Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell today, missing it’s opportunity to overturn the discriminatory policy:

“The Supreme Court on Monday turned down a challenge to the Pentagon policy forbidding gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military, granting a request by the Obama administration.

“The court said it will not hear an appeal from former Army Capt. James Pietrangelo II, who was dismissed under the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.

“The federal appeals court in Boston earlier threw out a lawsuit filed by Pietrangelo and 11 other veterans. He was the only member of that group who asked the high court to rule that the Clinton-era policy is unconstitutional.

“In court papers, the administration said the appeals court ruled correctly in this case when it found that “don’t ask, don’t tell” is “rationally related to the government’s legitimate interest in military discipline and cohesion.””

While it’s certainly disappointing that the Supreme Court would choose to let this opportunity to challenge the Constitutionality of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell pass, the Obama administration’s contribution to the case is even more problematic.

The administration has said all along that it will follow and support the law while it remains legal, and yet their argument– that the policy is “rationally relationed to the government’s legitimate interest in military discipline and cohesion”– seems callous to the extreme.

The complete dearth of leadership on this issue is made only more complicated by the reality that a vast (and growing) majority of Americans want to see the policy overturned. A new poll from Gallup shows that 69% of Americans want to see the policy overturned, an increase of six percent over the last five years. While liberal support for overturning the policy has consistently been high, the most dramatic change is among conservative and church-going voters.

Americans are six percentage points more likely than they were four years ago to favor allowing openly gay men and lesbian women to serve in the military, 69% to 63%. While liberals and Democrats remain the most supportive, the biggest increase in support has been among conservatives and weekly churchgoers — up 12 and 11 percentage points, respectively.

The significant– and diverse– support for ending Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell means that it is time for change. The Obama administration had better wake up and smell the progress on this one, before it becomes even more obvious that they’re playing politics with our national security.