Blogcritics Author: E.I.

Announcement: Short-content feeds

Phillip Winn — Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:00:00 EDT

Sunday, August 26, 2007, marks the switch of all Blogcritics.org article feeds from full-content to short-content. This is the result of several converging factors, and is unfortunately a permanent decision (as permanent as any decision can be on the web, that is). We are aware of all of the reasons that this is a Bad Idea, and we are aware that some of you will be quite upset about having to click on something to read the free content, and we're sorry. Unfortunately, despite great effort, full-content feeds are not currently economically viable. Two other factors are involved: full-content feeds have resulted in an unprecedented level of content theft, with BC content appearing on many websites, usually spam sites, without attribution or permission. This duplicate content causes a cascading set of problems, not the least of which is that search engines generally aren't favorable to duplicate content, and don't always guess correctly. Finally, our RSS advertising partner is strongly in favor of short-content feeds. We hope that you'll continue to subscribe to BC via RSS, and when an article grabs your eye, it's only a click away, still free on the BC website. Thank you for your understanding.

Same-Sex Couples Increase by 30%

E.I. — Sun, 15 Oct 2006 17:38:45 EDT

A Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy study (PDF) released Wednesday shows the number of same-sex couples in America has dramatically increased since 2000. The study, based on the Census Bureau's new American Community Survey (ACS), shows a 30 percent increase in same-sex couples between 2000 and 2005 -- nearly five times the six percent growth rate of the U.S. population. The increased numbers are most likely not from a greater number of gay people beginning relationships, but the increased willingness of same-sex couples to identify as such.When the census statistics were being collected in 1999 and 2000, it was still illegal to have gay sex in several states (until the Supreme Court overturned sodomy laws in 2003). It had been a little over a year since Matthew Shepard was beaten and tied to a fence in rural Wyoming and several years before same-sex marriage was believed to be a realistic goal for equality. But in the years between the 2000 census and the most recent ACS survey, much happened that has radically changed gay and lesbian people and their role in society. Gay and lesbian relationships have been used by presidential and Congressional candidates as a weapon for mobilizing anti-gay voters. Same-sex marriage has been legalized in Massachusetts and the Supreme Court ruled in favor of gay and lesbian people in Lawrence v. Texas. These events have encouraged same-sex couples to live their lives more openly and honestly, which is part of the reason we see the tremendous increase in same-sex couples between 2000 and 2005.In six of the eight states with anti-marriage equality amendments on the November ballot, the number of same-sex couples has increased more than the national average of 30 percent. The number of same-sex couples in Wisconsin has increased by 81 percent since 2000, Colorado by 58 percent and South Carolina by 39 percent. Although these numbers are unlikely to dramatically affect the outcome of these ballot initiatives, they could make moderate politicians reconsider their positions on these amendments. Support for anti-gay amendments will alienate a larger number of people than the 2000 statistics would suggest, and in close races, it could make a difference in whether a politician wins an election.The Williams Institute study estimates there are 8.8 million gay, lesbian and bisexual (GLB) Americans and that there are same-sex couples in every Congressional district in the United States. Although the study shows GLB people make up only 3 percent of the U.S. population, the actual number is likely higher because of the number of GLB people who are closeted or did not identify as GLB in the ACS survey. These numbers can make an important voting bloc in elections that have grown increasingly tight in recent years.As statistics on the gay and lesbian population continue to become more accurate, the impact of sexual orientation and gender identity issues on elections will become increasingly evident. While the average American voter feels less threatened by the possibility of same-sex marriage, gays and lesbians are continuing to come out and become an influence in American politics.

A gay progressive in New York City throwing out his thoughts and opinions on social justice issues, LGBT rights, politics and the media. Sometimes writing with anger, other times looking for compromise, but always with the intention of filtering through ideas to find common ground. Check out my blog at www.newsfittopost.com for more.

Howard Dean's Vision

E.I. — Wed, 4 Oct 2006 09:05:18 EDT

While Sen. John Kerry stumped around blue states with a rather bland agenda during the 2004 Democratic primaries, Vermont Gov. Howard Dean had captured the imagination and idealism of America's youth. His no bullshit, less pandering approach convinced the more liberal Democrats that it was time for change... that speaking out against President Bush's failed and corrupt policies was both good politics and morally sound.This excitement and hopefulness came to an abrupt halt, however, because of a momentary rush of excitement that was over-analyzed and unfairly treated by the media. Dean's now infamous 'yelp' had officially ended his campaign for the presidency. Despite my disgust over voters who feel a one-time shriek is less forgivable than lying to put American troops into combat, most of us young liberals were thankful for the time Dean shared with us.Little did we know that Howard Dean would reenter the national scene so quickly. Just a few short months after the 2004 elections, in February 2005, Howard Dean was selected as chairman of the Democratic National Committee (despite reservations from many of the Washington elite). His new position at national headquarters would include a function beyond fundraising and handshaking... he was setting out a new vision for the Democratic Party. Upon taking office, Dean criticized the Party's focus on Blue and Purple (swing) states at the cost of completely ignoring Red states. Because copious amounts of money was poured into battleground states like Ohio, Florida and Wisconsin, states like North Carolina, Louisiana and Colorado were rarely if ever visited by Democratic presidential candidates and received little help from the DNC. In comes Howard Dean and the "50 State Plan". Dean realized, and continues to understand, that many poor white southerners are voting against their own interests because they somehow see the GOP as the party of GOD. Absurd as it seems, Dean and his allies realize that overturning this ill-conceived notion of Republicans-as-Christ could go a long way towards rebuilding the party in the South and West. After-all, does it really make sense that rural southerners are voting for the Republicans who gave tax-cuts to the super-rich, billions of dollars to a failed Iraq war policy and botched both response and recovery after Hurricane Katrina? Howard Dean and his allies realize southerners should not be voting Republican, and that issues like same-sex marriage, flag-burning and English as the official language should not outweigh issues that promote the health and well-being of their families and country. Southern states are most definitely winnable, but it will take a vision that extends beyond 2006 and 2008. As a recent New York Times Magazine article points out, Howard Dean's 50 state vision is quite controversial among Democratic insiders. Dean has his allies, but he also has his enemies (or opponents, to put it more tactfully). Opponents of the 50 state plan ask why Dean is providing funds for additional campaign staff in Alaska when there are much more competitive districts in Pennsylvania or elsewhere. On its face, it seems to make little to no sense, but Dean truly has a vision for the party.His vision includes building a Democratic party that may be willing to take minor setbacks right now in order to strengthen itself for the future. Democrats may not win Alaska in the next few years, but with a strong ground campaign they could succeed in 2012 (especially if Republicans remain as arrogant as they currently are). Although his critics believe it is important to win elections to build the party, the Clinton era proved that winning big elections means nothing to the long-term success of the party. America currently has a federal government dominated by conservatives - the legislative branch, executive branch and even the judicial branch (look at Bush v. Gore, for example). And this is right after one of the Democratic party's most popular presidents left office (so much for party-building via winning elections).Howard Dean wants to prove that the Democratic party is the values party, not the Republicans. While GOP tax cuts help the rich, middle and lower class Americans continue to struggle with rising healthcare costs and the threat of "privatized" social security. It is time for Democrats to stand up to the Republican party's claim on so-called "values", and in the long-term Democrats can win the reddest of the red states. It will take time, and defeat could be a temporary result, but the Democratic party will never return to its heyday unless it plans for the future instead of just the next election.

Brad and Angelina Stand Up, While Lance and Reichen Accept an Award

E.I. — Sun, 10 Sep 2006 10:04:45 EDT

Celebrity magazines across America were dealt a terrible blow yesterday: They will not have wedding pictures of Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie for a long time to come.Although my ignorance of celebrity gossip is a constant obstacle when talk about Project Runway and America's Next Top Model dominates lunchroom conversation, I was more than pleased to hear about the recent announcement by one of Hollywood's favorite men.In an interview with Esquire magazine, Brad Pitt announced he and Angelina Jolie will not be getting married until "everyone else in the country who wants to be married is legally able." In the obvious reference to gay and lesbian couples, Brad and Angelina (Brangelina, as my more hip friends tell me) have joined other celebrities like Charlize Theron in a stand for marriage equality.The announcement is a generous sacrifice on behalf of the Hollywood couple and is sure to generate positive media coverage about same-sex couples, but it is important to note the relative ease in which Brad and Angelina can make this decision. The couple is more than financially secure and is able to forgo the protections and benefits of marriage because of this security. In addition, Brad and Angelina have the money and resources to draft hundreds of pages in legal documents protecting their assets and ensuring their children will remain together if one parent were to be injured or killed. This is a great luxury most same-sex couples cannot afford, placing their children and assets at great risk if some unforeseen event were to occur. Brad and Angelina's move is welcomed, but remember that many gay and lesbian couples who need the protection of marriage do not have this choice to make.While Brad and Angelina take a stand in support of marriage equality, the Human Rights Campaign will be awarding another couple for reasons unknown. As a recent Washington Blade article noted, the nation's largest gay and lesbian organization will be giving their "Visibility Award" to the latest celebrity gay couple: Lance Bass and Reichen Lehmkuhl. Lance Bass, who was outed by the New York Post and countless bloggers, will be receiving the award despite refusing to take a stand for lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender issues. Here is what Lance Bass has said since coming out: It's helping the career: "I think, business-wise, it's been crazy, because everyone is paying attention to what I'm doing now... Everyone's been very supportive."I don't hate myself: "The thing is, I’m not ashamed – that’s the one thing I want to say. I don’t think it’s wrong, I’m not devastated going through this."Just enjoying what others work hard for: "I think the gay community is going to hop on my back because I’m not going to lead the parades and be this crazy activist. I don’t want to be a poster child."Although Lance Bass has every right to live his life the way he wants, the Human Rights Campaign should not be handing out awards to celebrities simply because they were outed. Celebrities are wonderful carriers for messages of equality: The media pays attention to their every word and countless movie-watching Americans consider them idols. But Lance Bass has essentially said he will not work to advance equality for gay and lesbian people, so it is shameful the HRC is wasting an award that should be going to a true advocate for gay and lesbian rights.In the last few days, Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie have taken a stronger stand for gay people than Lance Bass has in the past two months. Although Lance does not want to end up a "crazy activist", I have little doubt he will take advantage of all the rights and privileges those "crazy activists" have worked so hard for. Hopefully, the "crazy activists" at HRC will realize their fundraising-first decision to recognize Lance Bass will harm their credibility as an organization that places principles over budget concerns. Celebrities are great, but not at the expense of making the advancement of gay and lesbian rights the first priority.

Winning Gay Rights With the Help of Wal-Mart

E.I. — Sun, 27 Aug 2006 18:37:37 EDT

The white and conservative face of Wal-Mart is attempting to give itself a make-over, reaching out to diverse groups through both corporate donations and company policies. It's most recent outreach to the gay and lesbian community is creating a bit of a stir among social conservatives, but Wal-Mart is only one of many global companies that have realized the importance of standing up for equality.According to the Human Rights Campaign, 86 percent of Fortune 500 companies have non-discrimination policies that include sexual orientation and 253 of the 500 companies also offer domestic partner benefits for same-sex couples. These numbers are particularly impressive considering only 34 percent of states have non-discrimination protections for gay and lesbian people, and even fewer offer any kind of protections for same-sex couples.There are several reasons for American companies' progressive policies towards gay and lesbian issues:Smart business decision: According to some estimates, gay and lesbian consumers spend about $514 billion a year. Studies have shown that gay and lesbian people react more favorably to products that are advertised or marketed specifically to gays and lesbians, and that gay and lesbian people are more likely to support companies or businesses that support gay and lesbian rights.Obtain the best and the brightest: When presented with a choice, gay and lesbian people are much more likely to work for companies that protect them with non-discrimination policies and domestic partner benefits. Just recently, the University of Wisconsin-Madison lost one of its most "promising" researchers (who brought in $3.4 million in grants) because the university does not offer domestic partner benefits.Looking to the future: Many companies are beginning to realize that the gay and lesbian movement truly is a civil rights movement and that future generations will judge companies based on their support. Ford Motor Company has been haunted by its anti-Semitic and prejudice-filled past, and like other gay and lesbian supportive companies, it is making sure it does not make the same mistake again.Although American companies are encouraging progressive social policies, there is no evidence that it influences public opinion on gay and lesbian issues. Where it has the potential to make an impact, however, is with conservative business owners who increasingly realize the importance of respecting gay and lesbian consumers. Business owners and Chambers of Commerce from Arizona to South Carolina have opposed anti-marriage equality amendments because of its potential impact on the economy.Unfortunately, companies like Wal-Mart have been accused of broadening its appeal to more progressive consumers by embracing "inexpensive" social issues, while ignoring other important problems that would cost the company more money. Nelson Lichtenstein of the University of California - Santa Barbara, said, "It’s easier to open their arms to the enormously divergent aspects of American cultural lifestyle. It’s cheaper and easier than trying to satisfy their critics who are looking at their wage and health-benefit policies."This is a tremendous draw-back to some companies' support of gay and lesbian issues, so it is important to consider a wide-range of issues before supporting large businesses.When emotional pleas don't work, the almighty dollar can sometimes change the opinions of companies and business owners. They may not be standing up for equality for the right reasons, but when you are fighting for equal rights, you take what you can get.

The Anchor Wars: Will Katie Couric Change the Landscape of American News?

E.I. — Sun, 20 Aug 2006 14:32:54 EDT

The Most Trusted Name in News. Fair and Balanced. Your Trusted Source. More Americans Get Their News... Than From Any Other Source. America's News Leader.As Katie Couric gets set to take over for Bob Schieffer on the Evening News, CBS spokespeople have touted their ability to launch the new anchor without a "fancy slogan". This lack of a catchy slogan, however, does not imply an absent public relations campaign. CBS has launched an ad blitz that would cost over $10 million dollars if they had to pay for the advertising media buys, although it is not the case because much of the ads appear in CBS-owned media. But will the relatively young anchor, mostly known for her fluffy reporting on The Today Show, be able to compete with the typical middle-aged men on the other two networks? Currently CBS is third in the evening news rankings, with NBC's Brian Williams leading the pack and ABC's Charles Gibson at least 800,000 viewers behind. CBS Evening News with Bob Schieffer has lagged behind NBC Nightly News by 1.5 million viewers.Katie Couric represents modernity and a welcome change from the cookie-cutter anchors of the past, but being a woman may prove a difficult obstacle in an evening news setting dominated by men. Former ABC World News Tonight anchor Elizabeth Vargas was removed from the anchor chair a few months ago... some say because of sexism, others because she was pregnant. Regardless, being a female played a critical role in both her arrival and departure on World News Tonight. Is America still hesitant to accept a female anchor?Couric's gender also has the potential to play a role in her success. Many people would find it difficult to find a distinguishing characteristic between Charles Gibson and Brian Williams... or Tom Brokaw, Peter Jennings, and Dan Rather for that matter. Couric's stark contrast to other newscasters, in both approach and appearance, could help bring the trailing CBS Evening News back to the top again.Some argue that Couric will attract female news viewers and therefore push CBS news into the top slot. Although this remains a possibility, a similar argument was set forth regarding politics during the women's rights movement. With more women voters would come more women elected to political offices. This turned out to be somewhat true... the number of women holding public office did increase, but women have yet to come close to holding a majority of seats in Congress, despite being the majority gender. It seems as if women do not attach themselves to politicians, or maybe news anchors, simply because they are of the same sex.It is an exciting time of intense competition for the broadcast evening news programs. Promotion campaigns matching those of primetime sitcoms have dominated CBS for weeks now. But it is all about "trust," at least according to the prized news slogans, and Couric has never been known for her hard-hitting reporting or memorable interviews.Many, including myself, hope that Katie Couric proves to be the anchor CBS is looking for. She has charisma and integrity, but it has yet to be determined whether gender will play a role in her success or failure. I thought America was ready for a woman anchor when Elizabeth Vargas teamed up with Bob Woodruff in January 2006, but I may have been wrong. If Katie Couric is not able to attract viewers and close the gap with the other two networks, broadcast news boards may be more hesitant to place a woman in the top seat. For the sake of not having another generation of monotonous, indistinguishable, white male news anchors, let's hope America comes to love Katie Couric.

American Public Moving Towards Equal Rights for Same-Sex Couples

E.I. — Sat, 5 Aug 2006 18:44:14 EDT

Pew Research Center for the People & the Press has just released a comprehensive public opinion survey on America's attitude towards gay and lesbian people and their issues. The polling numbers will leave lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people with a fairly optimistic view of the future, but also reveals a relatively long road towards achieving equality and respect from the American people.The majority of Americans oppose marriage equality, but a majority also support civil unions for same-sex couples. Americans seem to realize the unfairness of denying benefits to committed partners and their families simply because they are of the same sex, yet the general public is hesitant to repair this inequity through same-sex marriage. Fifty-six percent of Americans oppose same-sex marriage and 54 percent support civil unions, which are generally believed to grant the same rights and benefits of marriage if enacted at the federal level. It seems as if Americans are generally supportive of equal rights for same-sex couples, but are opposed to using the word "marriage" to describe those rights.The number of Americans in support of equal rights for same-sex couples is higher than the media or polling numbers would suggest. Although 42 percent are opposed to civil unions, a portion of those "opposed" likely support same-sex marriage and are opposed to civil unions only because they believe it is a compromise that voids the likelihood of obtaining marriage equality. The number of Americans who are in favor of granting same-sex couples marriage rights, without using the word "marriage", could be as high as 60 percent.This 60 percent estimate is bolstered by poll numbers showing that only 30 percent of those who oppose same-sex marriage also support a Federal Marriage Amendment that would ban same-sex marriage. The Federal Marriage Amendment would likely block access to both marriage rights and civil unions, which the public does not support. Americans are less divided than their representatives in Congress would suggest considering less than 30 percent of Americans support writing a ban on marriage equality into the United States Constitution. President Bush was hesitant to speak in favor of the amendment because poll numbers suggest that outside the Republican base, the support is simply not there.Only a minority of Americans (35 percent) support full marriage equality for same-sex couples, but the Pew survey suggests support for marriage will increase in the future. Since 1996, support for same-sex marriage has increased by eight percent despite a large dip in 2003 and 2004. The Supreme Court's 2003 decision in Lawrence v Texas which outlawed bans on sodomy, and the 2004 Goodridge decision in Massachusetts which legalized same-sex marriage in the state, created a backlash in support for marriage equality. Support for same-sex marriage dipped to 29 percent following the two court rulings but has managed to return to pre-Lawrence and Goodridge numbers as people's fears about same-sex marriage subside.The trend is clearly moving towards support for marriage equality. The future of America, people ages 18-29, support same-sex marriage by large numbers (53 percent in favor and 38 percent opposed). The age group that currently has a tremendous impact on American politics, ages 65 and over, remains adamantly opposed to same-sex marriage (with only 16 percent in favor). Young people are less likely to vote and seniors have high voter turnout, which is part of the reason rights for same-sex couples are more divisive in Congress than in the general public. As today's 18-29 age group grows older and begins to represent a larger portion of America's voting block, members of Congress will naturally begin to reflect their viewpoints, including support for same-sex couples.The media tends to look at polling numbers for marriage equality and conclude that Americans are not supportive of rights for same-sex couples. But looking beyond the initial "number in support" and "number opposed" statistics reveals a much more complicated and optimistic trend for LGBT people and their families. As today's seniors begin to play a less significant role in politics and today's youth become more engaged, support for marriage equality will become a majority position and all but the most conservative Americans will be supportive of civil unions. It is difficult to build a timeline that can predict when these changes will occur, but the increasing visibility of loving same-sex couples will play a crucial role in expediting that change.The optimistic numbers on marriage are complimented by an increasing number of Americans who believe sexual orientation is not a choice and cannot be changed. Forty-nine percent of those polled believe sexual orientation is unchangeable compared to only 39 percent who believe it can be altered. The number of Americans who believe sexual orientation is unchangeable has risen by seven percent in the last three years, a remarkable change in public opinion. Most believe that as more Americans realize sexual orientation is no more a choice than skin color or ethnicity, people will become more supportive of equal rights for LGBT people.While many LGBT people and their allies have been disheartened by the judicial branch's reluctance to protect same-sex couples, it appears as if public opinion may play a crucial role in changing the status of gay and lesbian people in American society. All polling numbers continue to move towards acceptance and a better understanding of LGBT people, and it is only natural for protections and equal rights to follow. It is relatively safe to assume that Americans can talk about when, not if, marriage equality becomes law of the land. As democracies across the globe continue to stand up for the rights of same-sex couples, the United States will realize it can either support equal rights or fail to protect all of its citizens.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell: Harming the War on Terror

E.I. — Thu, 27 Jul 2006 18:04:17 EDT

The Bush administration has made sure the entire world knows the immense threat terrorists and Islamic extremists pose to world peace. Controversial domestic spying programs have been initiated to combat the threat, including wire-tapping, scanning financial transactions, and purchasing extensive phone records from America's largest wireless phone providers. Despite concerns over privacy rights, the administration has argued that in times of war, drastic steps are often taken to protect the nation.One of the largest obstacles to fighting the war on terror has been the communications gap between intelligence services in the United States and Islamic extremists abroad. As Newsweek reported recently, it has been difficult for the government to find the Arabic speakers necessary to effectively monitor the thousands of communications between potential terrorists worldwide. The language-barrier has been an on-going challenge for the FBI, CIA, and Department of Defense.Despite the almost desperate need for qualified Arabic-speaking intelligence officers, a 30-year-old decorated sergeant and Arabic language specialist was dismissed by the U.S. Army last January. Sgt. Bleu Copas had served his country for almost four years, saying he joined up because he wanted to fight for America after the horrific events of September 11th. Now, this valuable player in the war on terror is job-hunting with discharge papers in hand.Sgt. Copas was not dismissed because of harassment, sexual assault or any of the other problems that have plagued our military in recent years. He was dismissed because a fellow servicemember sent an email to his superior that claimed Copas was gay. After confirming the email's assertion, Copas was honorably discharged from the U.S. military under the government's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy."Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was enacted during the Clinton administration as a compromise bill. President Clinton wanted gay and lesbian people to be able to serve openly in the military and conservative members of Congress hoped to maintain the ban on gay members. The compromise allowed gay and lesbian people to serve in the military, but forbid them from telling a soul about their sexual orientation.In the last year, 726 servicemembers were kicked out of the military because they are gay or lesbian. Since the World Trade Center fell in 2001, 55 Arabic language specialists have been dismissed under "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."At a time when Neo-Nazis and white supremacists are infiltrating the military in record numbers, the U.S. government is dismissing invaluable Arabic-speaking gays and lesbians simply because of their sexual orientation. In addition to disrespecting gay and lesbian people serving the country, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" has compromised the Bush administration's war on terror. The government faces an immense task in controlling Islamic extremists, yet precious resources are being thrown out the door because of a policy that relies on blatant discrimination."Don't Ask, Don't Tell" needs to be repealed because it places our country in greater danger and discriminates against people who fight for a free and fair America. The military has never had to follow civilian laws, including legislation banning discrimination, but that does not mean "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is what's best for the country. There are many reasons "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" should be repealed, and only one preventing it from happening: homophobia.If the Bush administration truly believes the war on terror is a higher priority than pleasing social conservatives, he would immediately call for the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." His extremist base may hate the idea of gay and lesbian servicemembers being treated as equal, but pleasing his base should not take priority over valuable men and women who are willing to fight the war on terror.Find out more at the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network.

It's Painful, But the ACLU Should Defend Fred Phelps

E.I. — Mon, 24 Jul 2006 21:38:10 EDT

A true ideological dilemma. As Fred Phelps and his incestuous family at Westboro Baptist Church began protesting outside military funerals with signs thanking God for dead American soldiers, lawmakers at the local, state, and federal level began passing laws banning protests at funerals. Phelps claims God is punishing America and its soldiers for the nation’s acceptance of gay and lesbian people.Shirley Phelps-Roper, spokeswoman for anti-gay hate group Westboro Baptist Church:I told the nation, as each state went after these laws, that if the day came that they got in our way, that we would sue them. At this hour, the wrath of God is pouring out on this country.Fred Phelps has an unlikely ally in carrying out his "wrath of God": the American Civil Liberties Union. The ACLU, which claims free speech rights as one of its main causes, has filed a lawsuit on behalf of Fred Phelps. The lawsuit argues that a Missouri law banning protests for an hour before and after funerals is unconstitutional because it infringes on freedom of speech. The ACLU has taken up the case despite Fred Phelps’ protests at the funerals of AIDS victims and gay hate crime victims such as Matthew Shepard.Liberals and many lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) advocates have harshly criticized the ACLU for the lawsuit, arguing that its defense of a group that wishes death on gay and lesbian people is contrary to progressive politics and the ACLU’s mission. As a gay man who works in the LGBT movement, it is hard to stomach the thought of the heroic ACLU using its resources to support a hate group like Westboro Baptist Church, but I believe the organization is doing the right thing.It is important to forget the plaintiff in this case and instead analyze the law being challenged. Although protesting at the funerals of innocent and good people is a repulsive use of free speech, I believe this right must be upheld. If the courts allow free speech rights to be taken away during funerals, where else will lawmakers find a constitutional right to block protests or rallies? If gay rights advocates want to protest outside Westboro Baptist Church or another anti-gay religious institution, will conservative lawmakers pass a ban on protesting outside houses of worship? The precedent is a scary one and I commend the ACLU for looking past the plaintiff to realize free speech needs to be defended.I would also argue that the ACLU is not harming the LGBT movement by allowing Fred Phelps to continue his “God Hates Fags” protests. Although it hurts to watch such a hateful man focus all his energy on condemning a particular community, I believe ordinary Americans are also turned off by such demonstrations. When mourners at a military funeral see Phelps with signs that say “God Loves Dead Soldiers” and “Fags Die, God Laughs”, there is the potential for an empathetic connection between two groups that are often times at odds: the gay and lesbian community and military families. These protests can help conservatives understand the viciousness behind anti-gay spokespeople and may result in changed hearts and minds.Even Focus on the Family, an anti-gay group, has denounced Fred Phelps and his entourage as “real haters within the church.” This condemnation was not done out of love for gay people, but because Focus on the Family realizes that this intense hatred backfires and creates sympathy for the gay and lesbian people who must cope with such vile rhetoric. Fred Phelps is too extreme -- his protests help bridge an understanding between everyday Americans and the gay and lesbian community, and conservatives don't like it.Where my frustration lies is not with the ACLU, which is acting appropriately, but with the lawmakers sitting in Congress and state legislatures throughout the country. I do not agree with laws banning funeral protests, but I wonder why such legislation is being proposed at this time. Why is it that lawmakers feel Phelps has crossed a moral line by protesting at military funerals, ignoring the fact that he has demonstrated outside the funerals of gay hate crime victims for years? Are dead soldiers on one side of a moral line and gay hate crime victims on the other side? Why didn’t lawmakers who believe in this law stand up for gay and lesbian people who have faced years of Fred Phelps' torture? There is a true political calculation in those supporting this flawed law banning the protests.I hope the ACLU is successful in defending Fred Phelps’ right to free speech. A loss for the ACLU and Fred Phelps is a loss for all progressives who believe community organizing and demonstrations are vital parts of affecting policy in Washington. The ACLU has been a leader in standing up for LGBT rights and it has not turned its back on the community by defending Fred Phelps. In this rare case, a win for Phelps is a win for the gay community; our free speech rights remain intact and Phelps is able to continue his anti-gay crusade that turns moderates away from the anti-gay right.Another benefit of overturning the ban on funeral protests: the LGBT community can show up in droves once Fred Phelps leaves this Earth for the fiery pit to which he claims gay people are headed.