Why it still matters that Fox’s Shep Smith is gay

There’s a lively debate going on over at the New York Times about the recent re-outing of Fox News anchor Shepard Smith.  Smith has been repeatedly outed over the years, the most recent a week ago by Gawker.

David Carr and Alex Williams at the NYT, in competing columns, find Smith’s outing to be oh-so-six-minute-ago. I disagree. Let’s discuss.

First Carr:

The culture has moved on. People see other people who happen to be gay at their workplaces, in their schools and on their televisions. Somewhere along the way, what was once a scarlet letter became just another consonant in the personal résumé. And now that gay marriage is a fact of life, a person’s sexual orientation is not only not news, it’s not very interesting.

Then Williams:

At a time when gay people can marry and fly helicopters in the Marines, is it time to consign outing to history, alongside other ’90s crazes like Zima and square-toed shoes?…

But as the puzzled responses from some Gawker readers would suggest, outing seems to have run its course. “I’m wondering why this is even news,” one commenter wrote. “So a news anchor is gay and has a boyfriend and a private life? Color me shocked. What is this, the 1950s?”

Carr and Williams, and more than a few gay people, live under the erroneous assumption that we live in a “post-gay” world where being gay is as normal, accepted and benign as being left-handed.  And admittedly, if someone kept telling me that they were left-handed, and insisting that I attend the left-hand Pride parade, it would get old fast.

But do we really in the world that Carr and Williams paint for us?

Fox News Anchor Shepard Smith, via his official bio on FoxNews.com.

Fox News Anchor Shepard Smith, via his official bio on FoxNews.com.

The notion that gays have “won,” so it’s not only safe to give up the fight, but practically our obligation to common decency to do so, is a common progressive fallacy that most famously crippled the pro-choice movement these past 40 years since Roe v. Wade became law of the land.

I remember ten years ago, sitting at lunch with then-head of Planned Parenthood, Gloria Feldt, on the day the Supreme Court issued its famous gay rights ruling in Lawrence v. Texas, striking down state sodomy laws.  Gloria warned me not to get lazy like the pro-choice movement had gotten after they won Roe.  I didn’t know what she meant.  Gloria explained: Women just assumed that with the advent of Roe they’d won with a capital W, and the battle was over. America was now firmly and legally pro-choice, and we would never step back into the back-alley ever again.

Except it wasn’t over, not for our enemies.

The religious right, hand in hand with the Republican party, took advantage of the women’s movement’s collective sigh of political relief and whittled away at Roe for 40 years, until now, in Gloria’s estimation, Roe has become a meaningless shell of what it once was in 1973.

When you live in a progressive pro-gay city, and your friends aren’t dying in droves, it’s easy to think that we live in a post-gay world where all that concern about “gay rights” is silly and passé.

And the problem isn’t limited to straight allies at the New York Times.  I suspect a lot of younger gays have become post-gay before its time.  It’s amazing how it focuses one’s mind having your best friend(s) die slowly, incrementally, and painfully before your eyes.  For younger gays (and older reporters), I wonder if AIDS isn’t as foreign to them as the Soviet Union – a kind of quaint historical relic, like World War II is to my generation.  All are moments in history of which we should certainly be aware, and have reverence for, but which don’t bear much practical meaning to our current lives.

Or to put it another way, AIDS (and gay rights generally) is that southern guy with the confederate flag still whining about the Civil War, when you wish he’d just get over it already and STFU.

But of course, while gays may be winning the culture wars, we haven’t won by a longshot.  You still can’t get married in the overwhelming majority of American states. And there still is no federal law protecting you from being fired for being gay, or trans.  And while not as many people are dying of complications associated with HIV/AIDS, the plague continues both here and abroad.

But putting aside American culture at large, Shepard Smith’s outing is equally important in his own milieu.  No one is outing Shep Smith in order to make life better for gay reporters at the New York Times.  We’re outing Shep Smith to make life better for the Shep Smiths of the world, people who work at conservative organizations, in conservative parts of the country, where gay-culturally it is still, to quote the Gawker reader, the 1950s.

The NYT’s Alex Williams provided a nice list of famous people who are now out, in an effort to prove why outing is no longer necessary.  Williams mentioned actress Jodie Foster, CNN anchor Anderson Cooper, and actors Matt Bomer, and Jim Parsons.

The thing is, how many of the out-and-proud gay people on that list are either conservatives, or work for Republican organizations?


Gay visibility in America at large is far ahead of gay visibility in GOP America.  (How many transgender Republicans do you know?)  ABC News has had openly-gay reporters for years, as has NBC, CBS and now CNN.  But Fox News?  Crickets.

And Fox isn’t just a news organization – well, it’s not a news organization at all – Fox is the propaganda organ of the Republican party, a party that is still officially, and aggressively, anti-gay.  So while you could possibly argue that there’s less hypocrisy, and benefit, to a CNN reporter being gay, a reporter from Fox is an entirely different story, figure and example.

Fox’s audience has survived on a diet of anti-gay news since its inception.  And while Carr tries to argue that Fox has recently toned down its official homophobia, as Media Matters noted only yesterday, while it might be more subtle at times, anti-gay bias is still alive and kicking in Murdoch-land.

And for all the talk of late of GOP soul-searching on the gay question, when it became known last year that Mitt Romney’s foreign policy spokesman was gay, he was promptly self-deported from the campaign.  The only gay “controversy” on the Obama campaign was whether the President would finally endorse gay marriage.  And he did.

There’s one final point where I think Carr and Williams also fall short, and it’s explained by Michelangelo Signorile:

Heterosexual sexual affairs are all perfectly acceptable for gossip blogs, and even for the respectable New York Times to report on — including about news anchors, sports stars and politicians — even when those public figures don’t want this information reported. So is boozing, divorces, three-ways, jealous rage, pill popping, Botoxing, gastric bypass surgery, Craigslist profiles, sexting, undergarment choices, Twitter liaisons — you name it. It’s all grist for the mill, titillating and exciting, especially if it’s got a heterosexual tinge to it, no matter how traumatized the public figures may be by the revelations.

And this is where Carr’s statement that “being gay carries no higher burden” is so infuriating: He just doesn’t see that, in fact, by not reporting that a male public figure is out in public with a “boyfriend” when an incident occurred, when you would normally report that he was with a “girlfriend” if he were straight, you’re actually giving gays special treatment rather than treating gays equally. You’re also enforcing the closet and keeping gays invisible.

I’m sure Carr considers himself gay-supportive, but his view is paternalistic and, to borrow a phrase he hurls at Gawker, “old school.” He doesn’t seem to get the idea that we’re not going to get any further on LGBT visibility and equality if we keep coddling people of privilege and treating the reporting of public figures’ sexual orientation as if it were a revelation of terrible information that could psychologically damage them forever. And he doesn’t see that that’s not a consideration when reporting relevant details about other issues that public figures would rather not see reported.


Even if one were to buy into the notion that the world is now post-gay, and it shouldn’t matter that Fox News’ Shepard Smith is gay, it sure is interesting that he’s gay.

I mean come on.  A Fox News anchor, one of their most recognized celebrities, is gay, and that’s not news or interesting or worthy of comment?  To paraphrase Mike, puhleez.

Just on a basic titillation level, it’s interesting that an anchor on the conservative GOP flag-ship is gay.  And, as Mike notes, if it were any other “personal” news about Smith, everyone would gladly report it.  But because the news is that Smith is gay, we’re supposed to pretend that that’s totally cool, but it’s also something we still need to protect and remain hush-hush about.  In essence, we’re being asked to live in the post-gay and pre-gay world simultaneously: No one cares if you’re gay, but please don’t mention it in polite company.

So which one is it?  Are we not talking about Shepard Smith being gay because it’s totally cool that he is?  Or are we not talking about it because of some retro-paternalistic notion that closeted gays need to be protected, in the same way that famous gays are still often “inned” in their newspaper obituaries?

Follow me on Twitter: @aravosis | @americablog | @americabloggay | Facebook | Instagram | Google+ | LinkedIn. John Aravosis is the Executive Editor of AMERICAblog, which he founded in 2004. He has a joint law degree (JD) and masters in Foreign Service from Georgetown; and has worked in the US Senate, World Bank, Children's Defense Fund, the United Nations Development Programme, and as a stringer for the Economist. He is a frequent TV pundit, having appeared on the O'Reilly Factor, Hardball, World News Tonight, Nightline, AM Joy & Reliable Sources, among others. John lives in Washington, DC. .

Share This Post

55 Responses to “Why it still matters that Fox’s Shep Smith is gay”

  1. karmanot says:

    Cory Booker said the same thing when ‘accused’ of being gay.

  2. Tamarind Lemur says:

    Except for Joseph Gordon Levitt, apparently, but I suppose he could be bisexual. He said his sexual orientation was no one else’s business, & has dated at least a few women…

  3. Butch1 says:

    He’s actually gotten on a few of their cases when they go over the line at that station which I find a breath of fresh air. He won’t let them step on his toes about certain issues or if he’s interviewing someone who’s being an ass. He does have a backbone and cojones.

  4. scottrose says:

    Worse still, when the New York Times first reported about the Regnerus study supposedly, (but not actually) about gay parents’ child outcomes, they parroted lies about the study that had been given to them by the perpetrators of the hoax. For example, they quoted Dr. Paul Amato as endorsing the study’s scientific validity, and said that Amato was not connected to the study. In truth, Amato was a paid consultant on the study, which alone gave him a fiduciary conflict of interest in endorsing its validity. But additionally, Regnerus and his anti-gay-rights funders paid for Amato’s wife to have an all-expenses-paid luxury vacation to Austin. And, Regnerus arranged for Amato to peer review his paper. In whose mind can Amato accurately be said not to be connected with the Regnerus study? That is just one example out of many about how the Times misreported this story, parroting the anti-gay-bigots’ lies about the study. The Times has refused to publish corrections at the bottom of the original article — even as the anti-gay bigots promoting the Regnerus study continue to quote from the Times article as an endorsement of the study, and even as I have repeatedly alerted Times reporters and editors to this situation. They also so far have declined to report in full on the known unethical circumstances of the Regnerus “study.” And that is to say, the Times is knowingly abetting anti-gay bigots in their political gay bashing. I wrote to Carr about these circumstances but have yet to receive the courtesy of a reply.

  5. Bill3419 says:

    I see Satan staring back. :-(

  6. Butch1 says:

    I will snatch his gay-club card out of his hand and burn it! He will NOT belong to OUR club. ;-) He doesn’t deserve it after all that he has done and said anti-gay wise.

  7. Butch1 says:

    Look into his eyes. ;-)

  8. Phaerisee says:

    Boy, my gaydar failed on this one! I had no idea.

  9. dave3137 says:

    I have been “out” in PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SCHOOLS in small town Pennsylvania, Manhattan, São Paulo, İstanbul, Berlin… And the only place where I suffered any adverse reaction was in Yemen, where I was fired. I am now out as a volunteer with kids — in small-town Pennsylvania!!! I’m even asked for my advice. Does that mean there’s no problem? Of course not. (BTW, I capped schools earlier, because that’s where you might expect more discrimination than in the corporate or government worlds.) My comment here would be partly to Signorile, and that is that if WE “take the temperature” of every commentary, are “we” not at least partially causing what you decry — that “paternalistic” avoidance by either allies or the PC-ers of treating us like everybody else? (I do get weary of how some of us pounce on every act of omission or commission. E.g. DAMN — so and so SHOULD have come out a few years ago!!!!!! So let’s trash her, or him, for the very thing we demand others to respect — the right to come out, be out, on one’s own terms.) And the second part of my commentary is to my own experience with kids. Do we really think that demanding that everybody be out and proud and instant activists as soon as they suspect they’re gay? Obviously not. But perhaps we could give some thought to the idea that not everyone who reads these columns is attuned to all the historical or political nuances that those of us who knew Len Matlovich, for example, have. I’m not suggesting that everyone tone things down to a 10th grade level. But I guess I am suggesting that to a large extent “we” can seem like a “closed club” that has all this history and perspective (and sometimes way too much inside the beltway crap), and we talk about minutia that does not make “newcomers” feel welcome.

  10. Bobo65 says:

    It is my belief that we are currently in an open, gay friendly society is because of all those brave souls that have come out, and now most all people just yawn when someone in high profile does come out, but that could change, the Tea Party of conservatives want to overturn this and bring us back to the 50’s, and if they get the money backers of the religious right, then we may again see the day when gays are pushed back to the end of the line.

  11. Indigo says:

    Let’s see . . . does a straight man ever say his sexuality is nobody’s business but his and his “partner’s”? No. The horndog hangs it from his guitar and everybody applauds.

  12. Jafafa Hots says:

    I remember going to a huge pro-ERA rally in DC with my mom when I was a kid in the late 70s.

    Doesn’t that sound quaint these days?

  13. Jafafa Hots says:

    Have any of these people, y’know.. WATCHED the network he’s on? Where they have people say gays are sick? Immoral? Where people come on routinely to say same sex marriage is an attack on marriage?

    It’s like saying that the Klan is “post-gay” because one of the guys under a hood is on the down-low.

  14. Oh don’t think for a minute that gawker wasn’t trying out him.

  15. 1) it’s not his own business at all. No one says mentioning that someone was with their wife is “their own business.” We only pull the privacy card when the spouse is same-sex. So it’s not at all the same as with straight people.

    2) You should care about it because bad people care about it and pass or block laws with the goal of taking away our civil rights. So I’ll stop worrying about whether Shep Smith is gay when his bosses and viewers stop worrying about me being gay.

  16. NCMan says:

    Because the main point was his atrocious behavior. The reporting of who he was there with was an aside the same way it would have been in reporting about heteros.

  17. NCMan says:

    NOW and other women’s’ groups are in VA right now campaigning door to door against the “Cooch”. The fact that the media may not be reporting on their activities doesn’t mean they aren’t being active. One of their reps was just on MSNBC this week talking about their activities in VA.

  18. NCMan says:

    If a straight personality caused a scene in a restaurant while accompanied by an opposite-sex partner, the identity of the companion would be reported. So, to treat a gay personality the same as a straight one, you also need to report who the gay personality is with when they cause a public scene.

    This seems so easy.

  19. Bose says:

    And, it’s not hard to see the directions the fight for LGBT freedom and equality will go as the big picture gets Roe-ified with anti-gay campaigns for:

    * So-called “religious freedom” exclusions which decimate the concept of equal access and opportunity
    * Vilifying, marginalizing, segregating trans kids

    * Gutted campaign financial disclosure rules and making names of petition and initiative signers secret

    * Micro-regulated access to fertility services (a la TRAP, Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers)

    * Outlawed insurance coverage of medical services related to trans* and intersex people
    * Russia-like “propaganda” bans on LGBT-inclusive textbooks
    * Exploiting and supporting the kidnapping of troubled kids with LGBT parents
    * Preempting parental rights of LGBT folks who happen to have troubled kids
    * Children’s “rights” laws supervising and second-guessing all non-bio parents
    * Nullifying anti-bullying rules and laws with “conscience” clauses

    Of course, the shotgun approach will be happy to hit any non-bio hetero parents, Muslims, atheists and progressive-faith groups, etc., etc. along the way. But it’s not hard to imagine, for example, a few of the states with anti-gay marriage amendments rushing up new amendments after the freedom to marry goes nationwide.

  20. JB says:

    You know,maybe we shouldn’t talk about it because it’s his own freaking business. Same with straight people. Seriously remind me why I am supposed to care about what news reporters, celebrities, etc do in their private lives?

  21. emjayay says:

    And I’m guessing a great majority of Tony Perkin’s appearances on major networks are on the major network Fox News. You know, Shephard Smith’s network.

    We are certainly moving relatively quickly in the post-gay direction, even among some people in the most conservative rednecky areas, but only mostly there in the hipgeoisie worlds where NYT writers live.

  22. emjayay says:

    I was going to say the same thing about the lively not-a-debate.

  23. Houndentenor says:

    The same day i saw this I also saw links to a story about an actress and her director (both married to other people) making out in a parking lot. If they don’t have a right to privacy, then why does Smith? Does it matter? Not really. The NYT piece was (typically for them, sadly, these days) a twisted bit of nonsense. If it really didn’t matter why wouldn’t they be writing about it at all. If it shouldn’t be discussed, why were they discussing it. Is this what the Times has come to these days?

  24. karmanot says:

    My guess is that Kansas hasn’t gotten your message yet.

  25. karmanot says:

    Let me tie him in knots first…..come to think of it, he probably comes that way.

  26. karmanot says:

    The eye liner is a clue.

  27. karmanot says:

    Absolutely! Women of all political persuasions are facing a dangerous movement to reverse suffrage. The war is on and this feminist is on board.

  28. karmanot says:

    “Changing things from the inside” in other words collaboration , cocktails, openings and collusion.

  29. karmanot says:

    Excellent article John. I await the day Lindsey Graham can wear his frilly thong on the outside of his beard uniform.

  30. nicho says:

    “Changing things from the inside” is the ultimate copout. That’s what the Log Cabinettes have been claiming for years that they’re doing. They’re not. Instead the GOP is going further and further into insanity — and homophobia.

  31. dcinsider says:

    Can’t we throw this one back?

  32. judybrowni says:

    So…he’s self-hating House Negro. Doesn’t mean slavery has ended.

    Or, perhaps, he suffers from Stockholm Syndrome, also doesn’t mean he isn’t colluding with the bad guys.

    Each case is worth mentioning, because in each there are still bad guys threatening his kind.

  33. Strepsi says:

    LOL just you and me on the field, John! Good company. My solution — and it raises a few eyebrows when first meeting people — is, I always assume everyone is gay until they prove otherwise, or “in” themselves.

    As Aunt Ida always said, “the world of the heterosexual is a sick and boring life!”


  34. Hue-Man says:

    To close the books on anti-gay political positions, they have to become toxic to the political party (who might that be?) that has adopted them in the past. I believe I’ve mentioned the defeat of the Alberta Wildrose Party in the 2012 provincial election where a majority win was predicted and then lost by homophobic and racist statements of two candidates. (“Mr. Hunsperger had come under fire for a past blog entry that said gays will spend eternity in the “lake of fire, hell.” Mr. Leech told a radio
    station he had an advantage in his multicultural riding because he’s white, saying Sikh and Muslim leaders “speak to their own people, in many ways.””)

    Last weekend, the Wildrose Party (far right conservatives = Red State Democrats) approved new policy positions to avoid an electoral repeat. “With Wildrose MLA Rob Anderson saying the party was going to be “loud and proud” against discrimination, members resoundingly passed a special policy motion to protect the fundamental rights and freedoms of all people, regardless of a long list of factors including race and sexual orientation. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/wildrose-party-scraps-controversial-policies-tightens-process-for-selecting-candidates/article15102784/

    I don’t know how that’s achieved with the insanity that seems to have gripped the TeaParty/GOP but a good starting point would be the electoral humiliation of candidates like Ken Cuccinelli in Virginia.

    Will it take a Grand Coalition with women’s rights and minorities to turn up the heat on politicians – national, state, and local – to treat everyone equally?

    Having an out gay or lesbian headliner at Fox News would definitely help the cause…

  35. I’m still not sure what your point is. As Strepsi noted above, if it weren’t a big deal for Smith to be out, or outed, he’d be out, and he’s not. Nor was Anderson Cooper until only recently. Clearly there’s some pressure these guys feel that stops them from feeling they can be out, so the fact that they’re gay is still an interesting, even polemical, fact. And as Signorile has noted as well, the NYT doesn’t print two columns about the same topic in the same week virtually ever, and they certainly don’t do it about something that is a yawn to everyone but Strepsi and me :)

  36. Actually that’s a very good point – even Gawker buried the lede, as if they felt they couldnt’ write a post about Smith being seen with his hunky bf.

  37. Heh. Now you know why :)

  38. BeccaM says:

    I’ve noticed that as well. The LGBT community is making progress, whereas for women it is, at best a holding action, and more commonly being driven inexorably backwards.

  39. Swell Time says:

    Shepard Smith is despicable. I don’t believe in outing, EXCEPT when it involves high-profile people associated with organizations that have ripped at the heart of the gay community — and for years like Fox News has done. If a gay person chooses to work for such organizations, then they should be doing so with a mission of changing their homophobic ways internally. What has Shepard Smith done at Fox in that regard? NOTHING. He just collects the network’s blood money.

  40. lynchie says:

    NOW and other groups are silent on all fronts pertaining to women. They have their little luncheons and fund raisers but are now beyond dabbling in the issues. Where is Gloria Steinam. You are dead right battles matter but the war is still raging against women’s rights, LGBT issues, racial injustice, the 1% against the poor. Battles are tiring and they drain a lot of energy and it is necessary for people to still join these various movements especially the young. Like the OW group it has largely fizzled out of the public’s eye but needs to re invigorate itself. Time to have a drink, eat a great burger and take a breath and rejoin what ever movement you feel strongly about.

  41. Steve Weinstein says:

    With all due respect, guys like you & Aravosis are fighting the same battle when everyone else has left the field.

  42. Steve Weinstein says:

    Are you sure you aren’t setting up a straw man? Can you really cite a Times article that omitted the one guy with male arm candy? I’d say they’ll go out of their way to report it, because it makes them seem more hip and with it.

  43. caphillprof says:

    The best part of this post is the necessity that a movement win the war, not just the major battles.

    It is ridiculous in 2013 that Ken Cuccinelli should be running for any political office. Yet, a womans’ movement is no where to be seen.

  44. Josh Steichmann says:

    Heh. It’s funny to find out that Shep’s gay; I had no idea. I just thought he was the only one on Fox with a brain in his head.

  45. Bill Post says:

    I think Bill ” confirmed Bachelor” Hemmer has some input about all this.

  46. Strepsi says:


  47. AndyinChicago says:

    If it didn’t matter, he’d be out. Seven word response to everyone who says it doesn’t.

  48. Steve Weinstein says:

    But sites like Gawker and PerezHilton only gossip about celebrity’s sexual identity because they believe that it is a sleazy and titillating subject. It’s not necessarily a “post-gay” world when people don’t, but it’s a less slimy one.

  49. Strepsi says:

    I like yoru post, but disgree that “mainstream news organizations wouldn’t pick up unverified gossip” as if it’s integrity. If 25 male celebrities show up to a gala with dates, it gets reported on: that one of the dates is a man, and that’s the only one that gets omitted a mention, is an editorial choice based on the idea that calling someone gay is a harmful charge. And that the NYT does that, belies the entire point fo the 2 NYT articles.

  50. Strepsi says:

    Great list reminding us where we have to go, thank you.

  51. Strepsi says:

    Great article John, especially about reality of gay life vs. perception.
    There are 2 other points I’d add to yours:

    1) All the poster boys we currently hold for being out — Anderson Cooper, Matt Bomer, Neil Patrick Harris, Zachary Quinto, etc. — were OUTED by blogs like Gawker and PerezHilton. The mainstream media like the NYT participated in the closet. The above-mentioned guys handled it with grace, and aplomb, but they were outed. And, no mater what you think of the sleaziness of Gawker or Perez, the end results were good. So obviously, and quite evidently, outing is NOT passé.

    2) The NTY is doing something to me even more sleazy — outing Smoth by pretending to report on the “controversy” (even though both stories admit there is no controversy) — so they get to Out Smith to a different readership, while pretending to be journalists. At least be honest!

  52. Steve Weinstein says:

    And until I read this column, I haven’t heard anyone use the term “post-gay” since that British guy’s short-lived stint at Out back in the ’90s.

  53. Indigo says:

    Shepard Smith promotes the Fox agenda instead of the gay agenda (whatever that is). I volunteer to spank him. ;-)

  54. Steve Weinstein says:

    There’s no “lively debate” going on at the Times when there are a total of two articles, both of which agree on all points.

    Smith was publicly “outed” years ago when the editor of the Washington Blade, Kevin Naff, wrote about his hitting on him in an NYC bar. No one paid much attention then either.

    But the real reason why this “news” was treated with a collective yawn was because all but the most clueless had long ago figured out which church Smith, like Sam Champion and Cooper, belonged to. That, and the fact that mainstream news organizations wouldn’t pick up unverified gossip.

  55. 2patricius2 says:

    If the country were post-gay, we would have marriage equality in all fifty states. We would not be having a question about whether the IL House would vote for marriage equality. It would have voted for marriage equality and the bill would have been signed months ago. If the country were post-gay, Tony Perkins and his kind would not be on major networks pushing their lies. If the country were post-gay, LGBT youths would not still be getting bullied and harassed at school and elsewhere. If the country were post-gay, we would not have to deal with hundreds of bigoted religious people lining us to spout their lies and fears and beliefs before legislative committees in Hawaii. If we were post-gay, the Republican party leaders would not keep lining up to speak at gatherings of antigay hate groups. If we were post-gay, Republicans would be lining up to support marriage equality, ENDA, the outlawing of “reparative” therapy, open immigration for LGBT foreign partners, and equal rights for all lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.

    We have had decades of voting right decisions, and we are still dealing with laws whose intent is to restrict voting by minorities. We have had decades of laws designed to give equality to women and we still have laws designed to restrict those rights. It will take a long time for us to arrive at a “post-gay” era in America, and we will probably still have to deal with push-back from some who do not recognize our humanity.

© 2020 AMERICAblog Media, LLC. All rights reserved. · Entries RSS