David Frum: The gays created the modern Halloween

At least for adults.

Where did that adult dress-up party begin?

As best we can tell: in San Francisco's Castro neighborhood. In the 1970s, that neighborhood emerged as the heart of a new home-owning, bourgeois, coupled gay community. A local variety store had long sponsored a Halloween street festival for kids. In the 1970s, the street festival transitioned into an adult party of lavish costumed theatricality. The "Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence" -- a troupe of transvestite nuns -- got their start here.

The Castro Halloween party spread to other gay neighborhoods in the 1980s: Greenwich Village, West Hollywood, Key West, Florida. In 1994, University of Florida anthropologist Jerry Kugelmass published a book on the new trend, "Masked Culture," describing Halloween as an emerging gay "high holiday."

And after a while -- the straights imitated.

From the spread of disco in the 1970s -- to the habit of paying money for sparkling waters such as Perrier -- culminating in Halloween, gays have incubated and developed major cultural trends. Straights adopt, and then ungratefully forget whom they are adopting from -- just as American Christians forget how much of the modern Christmas music they enjoy was written by Jews, starting with the most popular of them all, Irving Berlin's "White Christmas." The majority culture forgets what the minority culture has produced.

The "masked culture" first developed by the gays of San Francisco has reached across the lines of orientation -- and now jumped across the boundaries between nations and languages. It's not just a party. It's an ideal of personal emancipation, self-expression and self-fulfillment -- an ideal that loses none of its power when it takes the form of a sexy nurse's outfit.

Read the rest of this post...

THIS JUST IN: Obama wins in court. Appeals court keeps DADT in operation, per administration request.

If the administration doesn't want to be blamed for this, then stop enabling it. Here's an excellent summary by Igor at ThinkProgress. Read the rest of this post...

Don't think Republicans won't try to block pro-LGBT policies

There's a lot of speculation about what will happen on LGBT issues if Republicans take control of the House (and, possibly the Senate). Many think we'll be dealing with the status quo. The logic goes: We won't get anything progressive passed, but they won't succeed in passing anything egregious.

I'd say: Watch the way the GOPers work the system. As an example, I'm going to refer us back to an effort by Rep. Alcee Hastings to defund the DADT investigations using the Appropriations process. That effort was stymied by the Obama White House. But that's what the GOPer used to do all the time:

Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL) had an amendment to the Defense Appropriations that would have prevented funding any DADT investigation. That's the kind of procedural tactic Republicans have used for years to stop funding of programs they didn't like. For years, Republicans blocked federal funding of DC's domestic partnerships and needle exchange. I'm not sure if this was the best approach, but, sometimes, the only way to make progress is to use (or abuse) the appropriations process. But, a funny (or not so funny) thing happened on the way to the Appropriations bill mark-up. In his own words, Hastings was pressured by the White House and others to drop his amendment.

Yes, needle exchange and DC's registry couldn't be funded. Republicans really know how to use -- and abuse -- the Appropriations process. What do you think the GOPers will do to prevent DC's same-sex marriage law from being implemented? Bishop Harry Jackson is probably writing the language to prevent the use of any of DC resources for marriage.

My point is that the Republicans will find ways to thwart and prevent pro-gay policies under their purview. All those LGBT-related initiatives proposed by the Obama administration are on their chopping block. Read through the DNC's list of "accomplishments." Anything that requires the use of federal funds will be under the GOP's control. The Republicans will find ways to screw with them. That's how they do business.

So, we could actually have a lot of LGBT-related votes in the next Congress. And, so you know, in 2007, even with Democratic control, our side lost a House vote to end the ban on funding DC's domestic partner registry. The GOPers could force votes on any number of things.

So, may need to count on the Senate and the President's veto pen to prevent anti-gay legislation from becoming law. Do you really think the Senate and the President are going to stop this from happening? I really doubt we'll see a veto threat to save any LGBT policy. Read the rest of this post...

Judge tells Ugandan paper to stop outing gays, paper says it will do it anyway

BBC:

Giles Muhame, editor of the two-month-old Rolling Stone paper, told the AFP news agency that he would defy the ban.

He says he is trying to protect Ugandans from those seeking to "recruit children to homosexuality".

Fifteen names were identified last month, next to a headline which read: "Hang them".

Read the rest of this post...

Administration deporting legally married gay spouses because of DOMA, the law Obama is defending in court

The President has a choice when it comes to defending and enforcing bigoted laws, as we've been saying all along, and as most experts now admit when it comes to DADT, but much of the same logic applies to DOMA as well. It's just the apologists and the folks wanting to work in the administration who are still defending Obama's defense of DOMA and DADT. And now that defense is forcing legally married gay couples to be literally ripped apart by the Obama administration.

ABC News:

Joshua Vandiver, a Colorado native who is earning his Ph.D. in politics at Princeton University, said he is the studious type who has rarely embraced activism. But now, just months into his legal marriage to Venezuelan Henry Velandia, he is fighting to save his husband from being deported.

Had the couple been straight and not gay, Vandiver would have been allowed to apply for permanent residence status for Velandia, who could then later apply for citizenship.

But their dream to build a life together is been derailed by the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defines marriage as between a man and a woman under all federal laws, including immigration.

Mind you, the President decided to ignore a federal law requiring him to kick out the not-yet-American-citizen spouses of deceased Americans. They get to stay. But gay spouses? No such empathy from the Obama administration and the apologists. Suddenly it's all "we simply MUST obey the rule of law."

No they mustn't. And no they haven't. They simply pull out this excuse when it's time to bash the gays. Read the rest of this post...

Tyler Clementi's roommate now claims the video only showed two guys making out

Tyler Clementi, you'll recall, is the Rutgers freshman who jumped off a bridge to his death after his roommate set up a secret Web cam in his room, tweeted to the entire university that Tyler was making out with a guy on cam, and then a few days later invited the entire university to watch Tyler and another guy on cam.

Now the former roommate is claiming that the video never showed Tyler having sex, just making out, and that they never broadcast the video publicly.

Oh so is this the "dead kid over-reacted" defense? Sure sounds like it. And it doesn't really matter whether or not we NOW find out the video didn't show them having sex. (Not that I believe a word this guy and his accomplice say - we're to believe they were watching Tyler and some guy making out alone in his room and they turned the cam off after only two minutes, before things got hot? Seriously? I don't believe that for a second.) But regardless, the idiot tweeted to the entire campus that his roommate was caught on cam making out with "some dude." Whether or not he also saw them having sex is irrelevant in terms of outing the poor kid to the entire universe.

And as for the "we didn't broadcast the video," that's what you claimed you did on Twitter. That's what Tyler read, and shortly thereafter killed himself. So how is this much of a defense?

I think the two are trying to lessen the "privacy violation" in order to lessen whatever punishment they face.

Let them try to make Tyler less dead, then we'll talk about lessening their sentence. Read the rest of this post...

Why the AIDS protesters are ticked at Obama

AIDS advocates heckled President Obama at a fundraiser Saturday in CT. The President told them he's funding AIDS programs, they should be yelling at the Republicans. That's his usual line for critics of any stripe - that he's better than the Republicans. Perhaps. But according to a recent LA Times editorial, the President is not without sin when it comes to the international AIDS battle.

Here's the title of the editorial:

Obama's funding to fight AIDS is weak

The president's suggested funding cut to the Global Fund is appalling. He should instead commit to generous annual increases.

And here's a snippet:

Neither Obama nor his predecessor showed due respect for the Global Fund, which is more efficient than most bilateral aid programs because its money goes directly to health systems in poor countries rather to than expensive U.S. contractors. Contributions to the Global Fund also have a leveraging effect, encouraging other countries to donate more — and when the U.S. shorts the fund, it gives other wealthy nations cover to do the same. Lee's goal is overambitious, but Obama's suggested funding cut is appalling. The president should commit to generous annual funding increases to the Global Fund from now on.

Sounds like the protesters, as usual, had a point. Read the rest of this post...