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.

Statistics on same-sex couples have been available through analyzing Census data since 1990, but the 2010 count brings a new — out and open — approach in counting gay couples and reporting the statistics.

“This is a real change from the way we’ve been treated in the past,” said Molly McKay of Marriage Equality USA.
In 1990, the Census Bureau added “unmarried partner” to its Census questionnaire, and thus independent researchers, by looking at gender, could count same-sex unmarried couples.

Couples could do the same in 2000.

And, with the legalization of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts, a new opportunity opened for the head of a household, when listing others in the residence, to check “husband or wife” and be counted as same-sex married household.

But the Bush administration determined that the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act prohibited federal agencies from tabulating and reporting data on same-sex marriages. Thus, the administration directed the bureau to recategorize same-sex couples who identified as “married” in the Census to “unmarried.”

For the past two years, activists, lawmakers and government employees have advocated changing that policy before Census forms go out in March 2010.

“We have followed with great concern news reports that the U.S. Census Bureau intends to continue ‘scrubbing’ data on same-sex married couples in its 2010 Census public reports,” a coalition of lawmakers wrote Peter Orszag, director of the Office of Management and Budget, in May 2009.

“We are very concerned with this planned data modification and request your leadership in ensuring the Census Bureau adopt acceptable methods for identifying same-sex married couples in its publicly released data.”

Additionally, activists representing about 25 organizations met with administration and Census officials.

“We drew a line in the sand,” said Jaime Grant, director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute in Washington, D.C.

And they won, securing more than a reversal of policy. The bureau committed to counting same-sex couples — married and unmarried — next year, as well as officially releasing the statistics.

“The data set is going to be rich,” said Timothy Olson, an assistant division chief with the U.S. Census Bureau. “This will be a powerful data set and it will play a significant role in all of the issues on the political side, the social side, healthcare, housing, public transportation.”

“We really see it as the door opener on changing the way the feds think about LGBT questions,” “The Census is our Trojan horse.”

Earlier this month, the bureau announced the launch of its first-ever Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Complete Count Committees in California in preparation for the 2010 Census.

The committees are locally driven efforts to educate and engage people to complete the Census, and they exist to reach into a variety of communities, especially traditionally under-counted communities.

“Our goal is to sign up and engage 120,000 [community representatives] to spread the word about the Census — that it is safe, easy and simple,” Olson said. “We are really focused on the partnership program.”

The outreach dates back to 1990, when the bureau sought to reverse a decline in mail-in responses to the Census.
“We are really fortunate in 2010 to have a community outreach program that is about five times larger than 2000,” Olson said. And, he said, 2000 was substantially larger than 1990.

The outreach is important because the bureau’s task is to make an accurate assessment of the U.S. population. The U.S. Constitution mandates the count: “Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers.… The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct.”

“People don’t understand the real impact of the Census in our society,” Olson said. “Redistricting. Reapportionment. Legislation. Funding. It really has a huge impact as to how we are represented in our democracy and on the level of funding. $300 billion a year is based on Census data.”

Researchers — most prominently those associated with the Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law — have analyzed Census data and surveys in the past to document discrimination based on sexual orientation, to estimate the number of same-sex couples and to learn about the make-up of their families, their incomes and their healthcare situations.

“In 1990, we said, ‘Check the box,’” Grant said. “And in 2000, we said, ‘Check the box.’ Couples did. And we’ve been able to use that data to tell the story of our community.”

But there is more to the story, she said.

In addition to releasing official data about same-sex couples in the 2010 Census, the bureau plans to incorporate questions about same-sex couples in the American Community Survey, a bureau project that replaced the long-form questionnaire in the decennial Census.

The bureau has no plans to ask about sexual orientation or gender identity in 2010, but a nationwide “Queer the Census” campaign may provide the bureau with some numbers anyhow.

“We’re thrilled we’re going to see LGBT marriage in the Census,” Grant said. “But many of us are unpartnered and we should be just as visible. So we are very excited about this campaign.”

Through the campaign at www.queerthecensus.org, people can get a pink and purple “Queer the Census” sticker to affix to the back of their Census mailer.

On the sticker, people can check a box for all that apply — lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and straight ally. The sticker proclaims, “Everyone deserves to be counted. It’s time to queerthecensus.org.”

“But they are going to see a million pink and purple stickers,” Grant said. “We’re really hoping ‘Queer the Census’ is going to catch fire.”

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.

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.

National Coming Out Day is Oct. 11, and it will be marked worldwide with a series of events — demonstrations, letter-writing campaigns, lobbying pushes.

National Coming Out Day, not coincidentally, falls on the day of the National Equality March, when GLBT activists will come out, come out to the National Mall to demand “equal protection in all matters governed by civil law in all 50 states.”

But the majority of GLBT people in the United States will not be marching on Washington. A majority of GLBTs will not be coming out to America from the Capitol, but coming out in smaller ways, more subtle ways — and possibly not even recognizing the significance of their actions.

Even those of us who have been out for decades still come out on a daily basis to acquaintances or long-lost friends, to distant relatives or new co-workers, to new neighbors and sometimes strangers.

Just the other day, I came out 16 times.

The first pronouncement of my sexual orientation was an awkward reply to my new gynecologist, who had wanted to know the answer to, “Are you engaging in intercourse?”

“Um, well, not the straight kind,” I clumsily answered.

He just made a note on his scratch pad and nodded matter-of-factly like, yeah, OK, a member of the low-maintenance club.

But I came out to him, and study after study shows that these interactions, however, small, have an impact.

Later that day, back home from the doc, I set about to accomplish the agonizing task of trying to get a stable Internet connection after installing the buggy new Snow Leopard operating system on my MacBook.

I made 15 telephone calls to the technical support division of my Internet service provider, and each technician asked me the standard, “What is your relationship to the account holder?”

The account is in my partner’s name, and I could have saved time by pretending to be her, but I once pretended to be her when renting “Spice World” and she got irked.

So I came out to each and every technician as I answered, “She’s my partner” and “She’s my girlfriend.”

Sometimes the technicians repeated the statement for verification. Sometimes they responded with an “OK” and sometimes “Thank you.” At no time did I get attitude, though the technicians did get touchy when they failed to resolve my computer challenges.

Did the technicians think twice about my answers? I can’t say, but at least they had to think once about them, and doesn’t that illustrate the power of GLBTs coming out, living out and celebrating National Coming Out Day?

Many of us have had big coming-out moments — the talk with the parents, the full-disclosure to best friends, the this-isn’t-working confession to the boyfriend or girlfriend, the first “I’m gay and I’m proud” march in a pride parade.

Such moments, we might even say occasions, are profound, meaningful, likely life-changing happenings, but the small outings have such impact too, the small outings are the ones in which we say, “Yep, I’m gay” or “He’s my guy” or “I like a girl.”

Looking ahead to National Coming Out Day, I see that I have a record to break: I’m going for a personal best and planning to come out to 17 people that day, though I’m hoping it won’t be to 16 cable company customer service representatives and another doctor.

So, what’s your record? And can you break it?

On Sept. 15, U.S. Reps. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis., and Jared Polis, D-Colo., introduced the Respect for Marriage Act, which would repeal the so-called Defense of Marriage Act.

I say “so-called” — and I’m not alone — because the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act does not defend marriage, does not provide anything to encourage people to marry or stay married or improve marriages.

And I don’t think DOMA was passed with the intention of defending marriage any more than literary tests were enacted to preserve the integrity of the election process.

DOMA was enacted to maintain legal discrimination of gays and lesbians; to perpetuate the prejudicial notion that gay and lesbian relationships are lesser than straight unions, illegitimate, improper, wrong; and, sickly, if you’ll recall the time, to play partisan games.

We have lived with DOMA for 13 years, and we have seen DOMA cited in multiple ways to deny — not defend — marriage rights. Because of DOMA, legally married same-sex couples in the United States are denied many benefits extended to opposite-sex married couples, some of them small, some significant:

• Social Security survivor benefits are not awarded to the same-sex partner of a deceased spouse.

• Federal COBRA health insurance benefits are not extended to the partner of a policyholder.

•  Married gays are penalized in taxes due to DOMA and not guaranteed unpaid leave to care for a sick spouse.

And the list goes on to include about 1,000 bullet points.

So last week, two of our openly gay members of the U.S. House joined Nadler to introduce the Respect for Marriage Act, which, on the day of its introduction, already had 91 co-sponsors.

Nadler was among the 67 members of the House who voted against DOMA in 1996. He knew then the harm it posed, but, he said last week, that injury was not apparent to all members because in 1996 no state allowed for gays to marry.

“This made it easy for our opponents to demonize gay and lesbian families,” Nadler said. “Now, in 2009, we have tens of thousands of married same-sex couples in this country, living openly, raising families and paying taxes in states that have granted them the right to marry, and it has become abundantly clear that, while the sky has not fallen on the institution of marriage, as DOMA supporters had claimed, DOMA is causing these couples concrete and lasting harm. Discrimination against committed couples and stable families is terrible federal policy. But, with a president who is committed to repealing DOMA and a broad, diverse coalition of Americans on our side, we now have a real opportunity to remove from the books this obnoxious and ugly law.”

Neither Baldwin nor Polis were serving in Congress when the obnoxious and ugly law was passed. But some prominent politicians who held office at the time have endorsed the Respect for Marriage Act, and their support proves how far America has come on the issue of same-sex marriage since the hypothetical yesterdays of 1996.

To gays and lesbians saying, “I do,” former US. Rep. Bob Barr, R-Ga., said, “I wish I didn’t.”

Barr wrote DOMA. In 1996, GLBT newspaper reports usually referred to him as the “anti-gay Georgia congressman” and GLBT newspaper columnists usually referred to him as the “virulently anti-gay Georgia congressman.”

Barr no longer believes in DOMA. “This legislation would strengthen the principle that each state is free to set the definition of marriage the citizens of that state have adopted,” he said.

Former President Bill Clinton, who signed DOMA into law, issued a statement last week: “When the Defense of Marriage Act was passed, gay couples could not marry anywhere in the United States or the world for that matter. Thirteen years later, the fabric of our country has changed, and so should this policy.”

And U.S. Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., offered a most candid statement reversing his position on DOMA: “On July 12, 1996, I cast the worst vote of my political career. Having served in public office since 1973, that says something. While I’ve made other mistakes, this was different: It was a deliberate vote that I knew to be poor public policy and was against my values.”

Blumenauer thought passage of DOMA would mellow the right-wingers. “Far from stopping it, this vote fed the bigotry,” he wrote in an op-ed piece for HuffingtonPost.com.

And the right-wingers feasted for years.

Now, can we say the banquet is over?

The Respect of Marriage Act would not legalize same-sex marriage across the United States, though some loud mouths on cable news programs and talk radio have a segment of America believing that’s the intent of the bill.

Rather, the Respect for Marriage Act would repeal DOMA and, by adopting the place-of-celebration rule recommended in the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act, embrace the common law principle that marriages that are valid in the state where they were entered into will be recognized, according to Nadler’s office. Marriage recognition under state law would continue to be decided state by state.

R-E-S-P-E-C-T, take care, TCB.

Did the summer get away from you and you’re left with 40 hours and you’d rather do anything besides try to schedule that family visit in December?

Well, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force has taken on the role of travel agent and is lining up GLBT folks from across the country for an October holiday.

No, it isn’t a cruise in the Caribbean with 250 of your favorite lesbian comics.

No, it isn’t a weekend white party with 1,000 of your favorite club boys.

And no, it isn’t a black-and-blue festival for leatherfolk.

This is a New England holiday, a meet-up in Maine, where, next month, Mainers and their out-of-state allies will be courting votes to defend marriage rights against a wrong-wing attack.

In May, through the legislative process not the courts, Maine became the fifth state in the United States to legalize same-sex marriage.

But GLBT civil rights advocates were not surprised that anti-gay organizations launched a petition drive urging a “people’s veto” of the new law.

The ballot measure was certified earlier this month and in the November referendum election voters will decide Question 1 on the ballot, which will read, “Do you want to reject the new law that lets same-sex couples marry and allows individuals and religious groups to refuse to perform these marriages?”

There is a dispute over whether some questionable fundraising tactics might have put the measure on the ballot, but state officials may not be able to resolve the dispute before the Nov. 3 election.

So supporters of marriage equality are rallying a No on 1 campaign and the NGLTF, partnering in the effort, is seeking volunteer vacationers or vacationing volunteers to connect with fair-minded people and prevent a repeat of the California Proposition 8 vote.

“We need volunteers who can commit to spending at least a week in Maine in October to be part of an unprecedented get-out-the-vote operation,” reads the action alert from the NGLTF. “We have several shifts to choose from, each lasting one week. If you can, feel free to take more than one shift.”

This would not be an all-expense-paid vacation of course. Volunteer vacationers need to get to Portland —  “nestled between Maine’s forest-covered mountains and spectacular rugged coast, a rough-hewn gem of New England” — and back home, unless the Pine Tree State proves to captivating to leave.

Volunteer vacationers also need to cover incidentals, including food — but oh, what food you’ll find on that working holiday in Maine. Lobster. Steelhead trout. Cod. Chowder. Mustard pickles. Wild berries. Buckwheat pancakes. Maple butter. Moxie.

No on 1/NGLTF organizers are lining up housing and readying crash courses to teach volunteer vacationers strategies for courting the vote.

And, for those who want to mix play with work, I can promise Maine is a superb vacation destination, especially in the fall, when the leaves burst with color and the temperatures mellow.

Time your travel just right and you might catch Portland’s Harvest on the Harbor, the state’s largest food and wine celebration.

Time your travel to book-end the campaign work with some sightseeing and you might get to see the world’s only full-size chocolate moose (in Scarborough), hike a stretch of the Appalachian Trail, shop at L.L. Bean, sip a Sebago Lake Trout Stout, take a “Wicked Walking Tour” of haunted Portland, shout “Thar she blows” on a whale cruise and get lost looking for the Bush compound in Kennebunkport.

If you take that Maine volunteer vacation, send 365gay.com a postcard.

And, for those who can’t trek to Maine, join the stay-cation volunteer campaign. Pledge support or donate to No on 1/Protect Maine Equality.

This man recently profiled in that newspaper is effective in his advocacy work because he is “pleasantly, ruthlessly sane.”

This man, according to the reporter, is likeable, a thoughtful talker.

His “children are precocious and sweet; his wife is gracious and funny.”

This man, Brian Brown, will be home late from work because, according to that newspaper profile, he’s “going off to quietly crusade for the hearts and minds of people who, like Brown, pride themselves on being rational, mainstream and sane.”

And do you know what Brian Brown is “quietly” crusading for?

He’s crusading — and not so quietly — to keep same-sex marriage illegal in most states and overturn same-sex marriages in states where it is now recognized.

Brian Brown is the executive director of the National Organization for Marriage, and he’s troubled that some people think he’s a bigot for trying to block our access to equal treatment under the law.

“He tries to help people see that opposing gay marriage does not make them bigots, that the argument should have nothing to do with hate or fear, and everything to do with history and tradition,” the Post story on Aug. 28 read.

I don’t like to publicly complain about the press. For me, that’s akin to airing the family’s dirty laundry — of which my family has none, by the way.

But I’m offended with the Post story as both a journalist and as a lesbian who someday wants to marry her partner — a 16-year engagement ought to be evidence of our commitment.

I’m troubled by the one-sided, gratuitous, assuming, fawning nature of the story — offered as a news report, not a column.

And troubling is the omission in the story of any serious exploration of Brown’s “rationale” argument against the legalization of same-sex marriage. Essentially his simplistic argument is that he says historically and traditionally marriage has been between a man and a woman and it is rational to never change. If the reporter had simply Googled “same-sex marriage history,” she would have realized that Brown means for white people, marriage historically has been between a man and a woman. She would have found numerous references to same-gender marriage in Africa and among Native North Americans.

And, while the reporter glosses over some NOM “missteps,” such as the offending “Gathering Storm” commercial intended to rally voters against gay marriage in California, where is the reference to the ethics questions involving NOM in Iowa and Maine?

Referring to NOM’s anti-gay marriage work in Iowa, W. Charles Smithson, director and counsel for the Iowa Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board, recently wrote to Brown: “I want to remind you that an ‘insignificant amount’ of NOM’s income is permitted to come from business corporations. Thus, as you solicit for your organization please keep this in mind in the event that you are going to continue to be active in Iowa elections.”

Smithson also referred to NOM’s claim that it need not disclose donors to its campaign against gay marriage in Iowa.

“If people are going to donate to your organization for express advocacy activities in Iowa and those donations exceed $750 in the aggregate in a calendar year, your organization will be required to form a PAC and disclose those contributors. The independent expenditure process in Iowa is not a vehicle to shield political contributors.”

In Maine, the Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices recently notified Brown that it will decide Oct. 1 whether to “conduct any investigation” regarding alleged fundraising violations by NOM and the Stand for Marriage Maine PAC.

Did NOM raise money — as much as $250,000 — for the campaign to repeal Maine’s same-sex marriage law and then donate the money to Stand for Marriage without filing campaign finance reports?

We know NOM can raise that kind of money. The organization helped bankroll the costly Proposition 8 campaign in California.

Did NOM, with its campaign against gay marriage in New England, seek to hide donations? A complaint filed by Fred Karger of Californians Against Hate notes that a March solicitation for donations to NOM states, “And unlike in California, every dollar you give to NOM’s Northeast Action Plan today is private, with no risk of harassment from gay marriage protestors (sic).”

That NOM donation request announced its need to fund a new “hard-hitting radio ad” to air in Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine and New Jersey that was developed by the public affairs group that managed the Prop 8 campaign.

The ad is titled “Consequences,” is aimed at the “potential marriage activists who listen to talk radio” and emphasizes that “legalizing gay marriage has consequences for kids.”

“As the ad says — if our politicians adopt same-sex marriage, our rights won’t matter much — not parents, not people of faith, not any of us who will experience the consequences of redefining marriage. If we don’t step up now, we’ll all have to accept gay marriage — ‘whether we like it or not.’”

Ahh, Brian Brown and NOM, “going off to quietly crusade for the hearts and minds of people who, like Brown, pride themselves on being rational, mainstream and sane.”

The “Ballad of John and Yoko” caught my ear.

“Drove from Paris to the Amsterdam Hilton

Talking in our beds for a week

The news people said, ‘Say what’re you doing in bed?’

I said, ‘We’re only trying to get us some peace.’”

You know the next line: “Christ you know it ain’t easy.”

No, it’s not.

I had caught the near-start of an NPR report on the 40th anniversary of the bed-ins staged by John Lennon and Yoko Ono on the occasion of their honeymoon.

At the risk of giving readers more cause to think me a hippie — despite the fact that I’m 45 and was more interested in the theme song to “The Brady Bunch” than The Beatles in 1969 — I listened and teared up.

Organizers with The World March for Peace and Nonviolence, bringing back the bed-in to promote global peace, placed a bed in New York’s Central Park not far from Strawberry Fields and the Dakota apartment building where Lennon and Ono lived and where Lennon died.

One peace-minded person after another stepped forward to a microphone or settled on the bed to make a statement.

I tried to visualize the event — NPR usually does a pretty good job of helping listeners do just that.

I imagined a gay couple climbing into bed in Central Park to make a statement for peace and, in the course of doing so, making a statement for GLBT equality and justice, too.

A bed.

An ordinary household item.

A playground for children.

A comfort zone for sleepers.

A hot zone for lovers.

And a political stage for peaceniks.

Why not a political stage for gays and lesbians seeking equal treatment for their relationships?

For me, the shared bed was among the first outward expressions of my relationship with my partner. We purchased our queen-sized bed before our rings, and its existence in our small apartment served as a statement of our relationship to anyone who didn’t know us well — and as a reminder to some who did.

One bed.

Two women.

The Kenmore repairman who fixed the fridge got the idea. The plumber who fixed the tub caught on. The handywoman who replaced our windows understood.

The shared bed.

Now I’m singing “The Ballad of Lisa and Connie,” “The Ballad of Michael and Jason,” “The Ballad of Barb and Lucy” and imagining a bed-in on the National Mall in October.

Conservative groups probably would be expecting public sex — the same expectation the press had for Lennon and Ono — but find same-sex couples in bed, lounging on fat fluffy pillows and a cozy comforter, talking about justice, love and peace.

Reporters would say, Say what’re you doing in bed?

Demonstrators would say, We’re only trying to get us some peace and equality.

I sometimes feel that in the pursuit of equality we have sequestered our relationships the way closeted couples clean house before friends or family arrive. Our campaigns often talk about rights, but avoid displays of love. Our campaigns often focus on the Constitution but hide our affections.

We need to push civil rights legislation and the repeal of anti-equality measures, but we also need to help lawmakers and voters get comfy with our love and passion — our sharing of a bed and exchanging of kisses, holding of hands and caressing of cheeks.

We do that with public displays until such displays get no more than a first look and an “Ah, love sweet love” from their observers.

Imagine.

I’m accepting of help in household duties, because I’m not too handy with repairs, and only capable in the kitchen.

I’m eager to read responses to my columns because I cannot learn, I cannot grow, if I don’t get out of my head and swim around in someone else’s mind.

And really, a big part of a reporter’s job is following people as they show the way through complex, unfamiliar, and, on the best but rarest of assignments, dangerous territory.

I admit I need help, direction, and instruction — the way shown, from time to time.

But I don’t need anyone showing me the way out of homosexuality. Thank you, no, preachers Lou Engle and Michael Brown. Thank you, no, Exodus International.

They say god has a better way than the way I live my life. And I say, what do they know about the way I live my life?

I live true to my partner, with honor for my parents, care for family and friends and compassion for others. I love, and I am loved.

They want to show me the way out of love to what? Show me the way to lying about my true self, to denying my true self, and, along the way, hurting others?

Exodus International recently concluded its International Freedom Conference in Wheaton, Ill. The event was billed as “the largest gathering in the world for those struggling with or impacted by homosexuality,” with ExodusMen and Women’s Oasis forums, an xScape program for youth and a Steadfast program for heterosexual married couples.

Workshops took place exploring “what happens in the heart of a woman that leads her down the path of lesbianism,” “what to do with unwanted sexual attractions and how to become pure again,” the blessing and opportunity of gender roles as biblically defined and, “finding our home in Jesus, rather than other women.”

There’s much to lampoon here, were ex-gay therapy not so serious, were ex-gay therapy advocates not telling a wider and young audience through Twitter, Facebook, MySpace and YouTube that heterosexuality is “God’s creative intent for humanity.”

“We are excited about the unprecedented access these opportunities provide and are hoping many will respond to a message that reflects God’s truth as well as his heart for those who struggle with questions about their sexuality,” Exodus youth outreach coordinator Scott Davis said in a news release announcing the organization’s social networking adventures.

There’s much to lampoon here, were ex-gay therapy not so dangerous, destroying spirit and family, and promoting stereotypes that gays and lesbians are damaged, wounded people using sex as a “pain-killer.”

New information from writer Thomas Maier suggests that one of the major studies cited to support of ex-gay therapy was falsified.

Maier, in the book “Masters of Sex” and in an article in Scientific American, raises serious questions about the validity of a study by William Masters and Virginia Johnson.

In “Homosexuality in Perspective” in 1979, Masters and Johnson claimed to have “converted” more than 70 percent of women and men struggling with homosexuality.

Staffers at the Masters and Johnson clinic from 1969 to 1977, the research period for which the 70 percent “conversion rate” was made, say then never met any of the converts, the ex-gays.

One team at the clinic maintains they never treated gays, and heard virtually nothing about ex-gay therapy.

Masters, according to Maier, refused to show one associate any files or share tape recordings on alleged conversions, and even Masters’ colleague, Johnson, is on the record as saying, “Bill was being creative in those days.”

“Creative” becomes a soft word for reckless.

And this study showed ex-gay advocates the way?