Guest Post: The Freedoms at Stake in the Gay Wedding Cake Case

by Marian L. Tupy

On December 5, 2017, the Supreme Court of the United States heard the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop v Colorado Civil Rights Commission. It’s a case that raises important questions about freedom of speech and of association that even the most fervent supporters of equality for gay people ought to take to heart.

In July 2012, Charlie Craig and David Mullins, a same-sex couple, visited Masterpiece Cakeshop in Denver to order a custom wedding cake to celebrate their nuptials. Jack Phillips, the shop’s owner and a practicing Christian, was happy to sell the couple any of the goods in the store, but he refused to create a bespoke cake for a gay wedding, arguing that it would contravene his religious beliefs.

Craig and Mullins bought their wedding cake from a different bakery and went ahead with their happy event. The couple also filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission that oversees the enforcement of the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act – a law prohibiting businesses open to the public from discriminating against their customers on the basis of race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation.

A lower court ruling decided in favor of the plaintiffs. The bakery was ordered to provide cakes for same-sex marriages and to “change its company policies, provide ‘comprehensive staff training’ regarding public accommodations discrimination, and provide quarterly reports for the next two years regarding steps it has taken to come into compliance and whether it has turned away any prospective customers”.

The Cato Institute, where I work, has been at the forefront of the fight for gay equality, submitting amici curiae briefs in favor of the gay community in such ground-breaking cases as Lawrence v Texas, which decriminalized sodomy in the United States in 2003, and Obergefell v Hodges, which legalised gay marriage throughout the country in 2015. In Masterpiece Cakeshop v Colorado Civil Rights Commission, we have taken Phillips’s side.

There is no inconsistency here. Just as we would support a gay baker’s right to decline to convey a homophobic message, we support this Christian baker’s right to decline to celebrate a same-sex wedding. That is because Masterpiece isn’t really about religious liberty – apart from claims that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission itself treats the religious and nonreligious differently, something that concerned the swing Justice Anthony Kennedy at oral argument – but about freedom of speech.

As my learned colleagues wrote, the Supreme Court has repeatedly held “that what the First Amendment protects is a ‘freedom of the individual mind’, which the government violates whenever it tells a person what she must or must not say. Forcing a baker to create a unique piece of art violates that freedom of mind…

“Although making cakes may not initially appear to be speech to some, it is a form of artistic expression and therefore constitutionally protected… Indeed, the Supreme Court has long recognized that the First Amendment protects artistic as well as verbal expression, and that protection should likewise extend to this sort of baking – even if it’s not ideological and even if done to make money.”

No matter which side wins, the final decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop v Colorado Civil Rights Commission is likely to reverberate for many years to come. That’s because the case does not deal with government discrimination, which everyone abhors, but with private discrimination, which is, in some fashion, unavoidable. Each day, all of us discriminate against things (which car to buy), actions (where to eat) and people (who to go out with).

The law says that private discrimination is fine so long as it does not involve a business, which ought to be open to everyone. That’s a perfectly fine legal distinction, but not a logical or moral one. Consider the following scenario:

Suppose that you operate a private dining club – such as the one described by Dana Bate in her superb 2013 book Girls’ Guide to Love and Supper Clubs. You rent a space where you can indulge your passion for cooking and choose from a list of paying gourmands in accordance with your preference for, exempli gratia, straight people. Is that discrimination? No court has ruled so. Yet, Bate’s supper club is basically a business, except for incorporation. Were you to incorporate, you would be guilty of discrimination. Without it, you are free to do as you please.

So, private discrimination is not cut and dried. As one of the pioneers of gay marriage, the British-born writer Andrew Sullivan, noted, advocates of gay equality ought to acquire some perspective. “I think it was a prudential mistake to sue the baker,” he wrote. “Live and let live would have been a far better response.” That’s where Cato stands as well.

Reprinted from CapX.

Marian L. Tupy is the editor of HumanProgress.org and a senior policy analyst at the Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity.

This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.

From the Archives: Crimes Against Nature Law Allows Virginia Police To Target Gays (2001)

This article, based upon survey research I did with Rasmussen Research for Virginians for Justice (later Equality Virginia), was originally published in the Free Lance-Star of Fredericksburg, Virginia, on February 9, 2001.  It preceded the U.S. Supreme Court's 2003 decision in Lawrence v. Texas, which invalidated the remaining anti-sodomy laws in the United States, including Virginia's "Crimes Against Nature" statute (Section 18.2-361 of the Virginia Code).

Crimes Against Nature Law Allows Virginia Police To Target Gays

Richard E. Sincere, Jr.

CHARLOTTESVILLE - When Republicans discuss the proper role of government, most agree that it should be low-cost, limited in scope, and nonintrusive in the lives of citizens.

Rank-and-file Republican voters, for the most part, stand by the words of the late U.S. Sen. Barry Goldwater:

"I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed in their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden.

"I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is ‘needed’ before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents’ ‘interests,’ I shall reply that I was informed their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can."

Do Virginia’s Republicans live up to this Goldwaterite ideal? Not always, but the impulse remains. Evidence for this is found in a recent poll from an unlikely source on an unlikely topic.

On Jan. 16 and 18, Rasmussen Research, an independent polling organization, conducted a statewide survey to determine knowledge and attitudes about Virginia’s Crimes Against Nature statute. This statute forbids certain intimate sexual activity, even in private and even for married couples. To be blunt, the law prohibits oral sex for any Virginian, whether they are gay or straight, married or single.

The law is enforced selectively. It is used to target gay men in public places who discuss having sex. It is used as a fallback when prosecutors cannot prove that a sexual assault has taken place, so the alleged perpetrator is accused and convicted of consensual sodomy instead.

And it is used as a pretext to deny child custody to gay or lesbian parents - for example, in the case of Richmonder Sharon Bottoms, which achieved nationwide infamy when the government forcibly took her son, Tyler, from her because she is a lesbian.

The Rasmussen Research poll found that, across the board, Virginians want the CAN law repealed. Large majorities in almost every conceivable category say they want to see the law eliminated, that they want their legislators to vote for repeal, and that legislators who support repeal will not be adversely affected at the ballot box.

This is true for Democrats, Republicans, and independents; it is true for men and women; it is true for whites and African-Americans.

In this random survey, Republicans showed clear consistency in their view that government should stay out of the private lives of citizens.

Virginia State Capitol in Richmond

Asked "Should it be against the law for an unmarried man and an unmarried woman to have sex in the state of Virginia?" 67.4 percent of Republicans answered "no," compared to 71.1 percent overall.

Asked "Should it be against the law for a married couple to have oral sex in the privacy of their own home?" 78.9 percent of Republicans answered "no" (81.7 percent overall).

Asked "Currently, according to Virginia law, it is illegal for consenting adults to have oral sex in the state of Virginia; a proposal has been made to eliminate the Virginia law; should the Virginia law be eliminated?" 61.4 percent of Republicans answered "yes" (65.2 percent overall).

Now, some members of the General Assembly say privately that they would support the repeal of the CAN law, but that they would have hell to pay on Election Day if they did. This is simply not true.

Survey participants were asked:

"Suppose your representative in the House of Delegates or the State Senate voted to eliminate the Virginia law. Would that make you more likely to vote for that person, less likely to vote for them, or would it have no impact on your vote?" Overall, 82.9 percent of Virginians said that they would either be more likely to vote for that representative, or it would have no impact on their vote; 83.5 percent of Republicans answered the same way, as did 77.5 percent of Democrats.

In other words, state legislators who vote to repeal the Crimes Against Nature law will have little or nothing to worry about in their re-election bids. The fear they cite is a red herring.

Republicans are part of a broad "leave us alone" coalition that wants the government to stop breathing down our necks. As speaker of the House of Delegates Vance Wilkins told The Washington Post, "It’s simply a matter of individual liberty versus not having the government be a nanny." We don’t trust the government to run our businesses, and we certainly don’t trust it to run our sex lives.

The spirit of Barry Goldwater lives on in Virginia.

RICHARD SINCERE serves on the national committee of the Republican Liberty Caucus.

From the Archives: CPAC bars GOProud; presidential candidate Gary Johnson presciently weighs in

CPAC bars GOProud; presidential candidate Gary Johnson presciently weighs in
August 3, 2011 11:54 PM MST

In the lead-up to the 2011 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), a minor controversy developed with regard to the presence of GOProud, an organization of gay conservatives and their allies. Several long-time CPAC participants announced that they would not take part in the 2011 conference because of GOProud’s presence.

The controversy came to a head, if not a conclusion, on July 29, when Gregg Keller, executive director of the American Conservative Union (ACU), which runs CPAC each year, sent a letter to GOProud’s Jimmy LaSalvia with what GOProud characterized as “disappointing news.”

‘Not invited’

Keller told LaSalvia: “As a courtesy to your organization, a previous co-sponsor of CPAC, this letter serves to inform you that GOProud will not be invited to participate in a formal role for CPAC events scheduled during the 2012 election cycle.”

According to the Daily Caller, a similar letter was sent to the John Birch Society, which had a formal presence at CPAC for the first time in 2011.

Keller went on in the letter to say that GOProud members were welcome to attend CPAC and its programs as “individual registrants.”

‘Divisive agenda’

GOProud’s board of directors issued a response to the letter that said, in part, ““For the last two years, GOProud has sought to support CPAC and keep the conservative movement united. Unfortunately, elements inside and outside of ACU have pushed their own narrow, divisive and sometimes personal agenda. They have done so at the expense of the conservative movement.”

The GOProud board added that the focus of the conservative movement should be on defeating Barack Obama next year, not on internal bickering.

During CPAC, the Charlottesville Libertarian Examiner had an opportunity to interview Republican presidential candidate Gary Johnson and asked him specifically about the GOProud controversy. His words presaged GOProud's reaction to its banishment from CPAC.


‘Gay rights are included’

Johnson, who has distinguished himself within the Republican presidential field with his libertarian positions on social issues, said the situation was “unfortunate.”

Governor Gary Johnson at CPAC 2011

Republicans, he said, quoting the Declaration of Independence, espouse as central values “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

Johnson said that “liberty and freedom” are basic “tenets of what this country" stands for and that “gay rights are included in that" vision.

The former two-term New Mexico governor went on to say that “what I’m really trying to do is grow the Republican Party” because he thinks the GOP “is the only party capable of fixing where we’re at right now.”

Looking toward 2012, Johnson stated his hope “that Americans would give Republicans another shot at doing that -- but to do that, the Republican Party’s got to grow, got to be bigger than a narrow focus.”

In July, Johnson followed up on his comments at CPAC by becoming the first presidential candidate to refuse to sign the so-called “Family Leader” pledge in Iowa, calling it “offensive and unRepublican” because of its animus toward members of minority groups. At the same time, he released a campaign video titled “Tolerance Is American.”

Publisher's note: This article was originally published on Examiner.com on August 3, 2011. The Examiner.com publishing platform was discontinued July 1, 2016, and its web site went dark on or about July 10, 2016.  I am republishing this piece in an effort to preserve it and all my other contributions to Examiner.com since April 6, 2010. It is reposted here without most of the internal links that were in the original.

Guest Post: The Qur’an, the Bible and homosexuality in Islam

Christopher van der Krogt, Massey University

Neither the Bible nor the Qur’an (Koran) has a lot to say about homosexuality, and what they do say relates only indirectly to contemporary discussions about gay rights and same-sex marriage. Like pre-modern scholars of law and ethics, these books assume heteronormativity.

Peter Paul Rubens, Lot and his family escaping from the doomed city guided by an angel, circa 1615.

As a concept, homosexuality is relatively recent, even if there is plenty of evidence for homoerotic pleasure in the past – albeit illicit in religious terms.

Scriptures and later writers usually referred only to particular sexual acts and did not raise the issue of personal sexual orientation. For religious conservatives, though, both Muslim and Christian, the occasional derogatory reference to same-sex acts is enough to prove their inherent sinfulness in all circumstances.

More liberal interpreters point to broader ethical considerations such as compassion and empathy. They argue that the condemnations of scripture do not apply to committed relationships founded on love.

Such a perspective, however, is inevitably more common among believers concerned with human rights, influenced by gender theory, and trained in contextual and holistic methods of interpretation.

Homosexuality in the Bible

Leviticus 20:13 (cf. 18:22) declares it abominable for a man to lie with another man as with a woman, and both partners are to be executed. The possibility that one party has been coerced is not discussed: both are defiled. However, the offence seems to be no worse than other capital crimes mentioned in the same context, such as adultery and incest.

Paul evidently regarded the prohibition of sexual acts between men or between women as violations of natural law known even to non-Jews – at least if their minds were not clouded by idolatry (Romans 1:18–32; 2:14–16).

He seems to have reflected contemporary views that men should be sexually assertive and women passive, and that sexual activity must be at least potentially procreative.

Sodom and sodomy

Lot fleeing with his family, by Peter Paul Rubens, 1615.
via Wikimedia Commons

For Jews, Christians, and Muslims alike, the story of Sodom is central to the traditional condemnation of male homosexuality. As recounted in Genesis 19, however, this is not a story about love or consensual sex between men: it is about rape and inhospitality.

The mob that gathers outside Lot’s house need not be exclusively male (the Hebrew plural anashim can include both genders), and the text says all ages were represented (Genesis 19:4, 11). When the crowd demands Lot’s visitors, he offers his two virgin daughters in their stead. Perhaps he considers the rape of his daughters a lesser evil than the rape of his guests.

The fact that the guests are male is not emphasised. After the visitors (angels in human form) rescue Lot and his family, God rains down fire and brimstone upon Sodom, Gomorrah, and other cities nearby.

Actually, he had already determined to punish all these towns and their inhabitants, male and female, young and old, before the angels’ visit and the attempted homosexual rape (Genesis 18:16–33). When the wickedness of Sodom is recalled in other parts of the Bible, homosexuality is not mentioned. Yet, despite this broader context, the story was often interpreted primarily as a condemnation of homosexual activity in any form.

In the Qur’an, the somewhat ineffectual Lot of Genesis becomes the Prophet Lut. The Arabic term for homosexual anal intercourse, liwat, comes from his name rather as English derived the term sodomy from the name of the town.

As in Genesis, Lut seems to argue with the men of Sodom over the relative propriety of abusing his daughters or his guests (11:78–79; 15:67–69). More often, though, the emphasis is on his condemnation of lusting after men instead of women (7:80–81; 26:165–66; 27:55; 29:29). In the Qur'an, Lut says:

Indeed, you approach men with desire, instead of women. Rather, you are a transgressing people.

Traditional Islamic perspectives

In the Hadith (thousands of stories reporting the words and deeds of Muhammad and his companions that are comparable in authority to the Qurʾan itself), there is some support for the notion that the principal offences of Sodom were idolatry and avarice. These led in turn to inhospitality and the rape of male visitors.

Hadith Silsilat al Dhahab (Golden Chain Statue) in Nishapur, Iran.
Sonia Sevilla, CC BY

Nevertheless, the Hadith do unequivocally condemn male homosexual acts. The Qur’an (4:16) demands unspecified punishment for men guilty of lewdness together unless they repent.

Yet, the Prophet is supposed to have declared that both the active and the passive partner should be subject to the same penalty as for zina (illicit heterosexual sex, usually adultery), namely execution by stoning. Abu Dawud’s authoritative hadith collection records a report from Abdullah ibn Abbas:

The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: If you find anyone doing as Lot’s people did, kill the one who does it, and the one to whom it is done (38:4447).

It is doubtful whether any passage of the Qur’an refers to lesbian acts though the condemnation of women who commit indecency (4:15) is sometimes read this way. A few hadith warn women against seeing or touching each other when naked.

Traditional Islamic jurisprudence assumed strict gender roles. The 17th-century Muslim scholar Haskafi explicitly included “a male” in his list of those whom a man could not legally marry.

Marriage was understood in hierarchical terms, but although a man could have sexual relations with female slaves, he did not have the same rights over male slaves.

Pre-modern scholars who produced lists of “enormities” included liwat and sometimes tribadism (“rubbing”, that is, lesbian intercourse) after zina. Prescribed penalties for homosexual acts varied according to different schools and individual scholars. In any case, it was difficult to attain the required level of eye-witness testimony.

In practice, homosexual encounters, including with young male prostitutes, seem to have been quite common in Islamic societies. They were no more or less a cause for moralistic concern than other forms of illicit sex.

Reinterpreting the Islamic tradition

Without actually endorsing homosexuality, some Muslims in Western societies have recognised a parallel between the religious acceptance they demand and the acceptance demanded by gays and lesbians.

The New Zealand Muslim MP Ashraf Choudary (who did not realise that the Qur'an does not urge the stoning of homosexuals) observed that,

if the law allows one minority group in our society to be discriminated against then all minorities are vulnerable.

Some, such as Cambridge philosopher Abdal Hakim Murad (Timothy Winter), have accepted that a homosexual orientation may be innate but say that does not make homosexual sex permissible.

Deducing that it may therefore be legitimate remains a step too far for most.

Traditionally, if sins can be forgiven when repented, declaring forbidden acts not to be sinful has been regarded as heresy or even apostasy. Commentators such as Mehdi Hasan, after wrestling thoughtfully with the issues, have concluded that while they do not approve of homosexual acts, they cannot condone homophobia.

A similar message was offered by Tariq Ramadan, Professor of Contemporary Islamic Studies at Oxford, when he visited New Zealand: Muslims and others have to respect each other, which includes accepting that the law permits gay marriage.

Imam Daayiee Abdullah, seen here with Reverend Dwayne Johnson discussing religion and LGBT rights in the U.S., is openly gay. He’s argued that ‘there is nothing wrong with Quran. The problem is with how people have interpreted it.’
East-West Center, CC BY-NC-SA

For Muslims generally, as for conservative Christians, homosexual acts are sinful. It is difficult to be openly gay or lesbian in predominantly Islamic countries, but in the West, there are even (a few) gay imams.

There are also support groups for gay and lesbian Muslims. Writers such as Scott Kugle (Siraj al-Haqq) try to reconcile Islamic identity with alternative sexual orientations. Like their Jewish and Christian counterparts, they seek the “original” meaning of scriptural texts obscured by generations of patriarchal, heteronormative interpreters.

They also question the authenticity of certain hadith – in the traditional manner by scrutinising their chains of transmission – and reopen past debates such as that concerning “temporary” marriage. The latter need not be short-term and may offer an alternative framework for co-habitation without formal marriage.

Christian gays and lesbians have had to work hard for a measure of recognition among fellow-believers; their Muslim counterparts are just beginning that struggle.

---

Acknowledgement: The most useful source for this essay has been Kecia Ali, Sexual Ethics and Islam: Feminist Reflections on Qur'an, Hadith and Jurisprudence (Oneworld Publications, new edition, 2016).

Christopher van der Krogt, Lecturer in History, Massey University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Guest Post: Debunking the 'gaydar' myth

William Cox, University of Wisconsin-Madison

Kids are often told that you can’t judge a book by its cover.

Even so, people often believe they can rely on their gut to intuit things about other people. Stereotypes often influence these impressions, whether it’s that a black man is dangerous, a woman won’t be a good leader or a fashionable man is gay.

Stereotypes related to gay men and lesbians often operate under the guise of “gaydar” rather than stereotyping. “Gaydar” (a portmanteau of “gay” and “radar”) is a term that first appeared in the 1980s and refers to a “sixth sense” for identifying who is gay. Like many purported intuitions, however, gaydar often relies on stereotypes.

While many people believe stereotyping is wrong, calling it “gaydar” merely provides a cover for using stereotypical traits – like someone’s fashion sense, profession or hairstyle – to jump to conclusions about someone being gay. Nonetheless, some researchers have published studies that, at first glance, appear to show that people have accurate gaydar.

In some recent work, my colleagues and I have been able to demonstrate how the perpetuation of the gaydar myth has unintended negative consequences. We’ve also identified a mathematical flaw in some previous gaydar research, calling into question the results.

Stereotyping in disguise

My colleagues and I suspected that even people who would normally try to refrain from stereotyping might be more likely to use gay stereotypes if they are led to believe they have gaydar.

Two people dress up as Gaydar bots during San Francisco’s 2014 gay pride parade.
Scott Schiller/flickr, CC BY-NC

To test this idea, we conducted an experiment. We told some participants that scientific evidence says gaydar was a real ability, led others to believe that gaydar is just another term for stereotyping and said nothing about gaydar to a third group (the control).

Participants then judged whether men were gay or straight based on information ostensibly taken from social media profiles. Some of the men had interests (or “likes”) that related to gay stereotypes, like fashion, shopping or theater. Others had interests related to straight stereotypes, like sports, hunting or cars, or “neutral” interests unrelated to stereotypes, like reading or movies. This design allowed us to assess how often people jumped to the conclusion that men were gay based on stereotypically gay interests. Those who were told gaydar is real stereotyped much more than the control group, and participants stereotyped much less when they had been told that gaydar is just another term for stereotyping.

These patterns provided strong support for the idea that belief in gaydar encourages stereotyping by simply disguising it under a different label.

What’s the big deal?

In some ways, the idea of gaydar – even if it’s just stereotyping – seems useful at best and harmless at worst. But the very fact that it seems harmless may actually be responsible for its most pernicious effects. Using gaydar as a way to talk innocuously or jokingly about stereotyping – “Oh, that guy sets off my gaydar” – trivializes stereotyping and makes it seem like no big deal.

But we know that stereotypes have many negative consequences, so we shouldn’t be encouraging it on any level.

First, stereotyping can facilitate prejudice. In a study on prejudice-based aggression, we had participants play a game that involved administering electric shocks to a subject in the other room. Participants learned only one thing about this other person, either that he was gay or simply liked shopping (people tend to assume men who like shopping are gay).

In one condition, therefore, the participants knew that the man was gay and in the other they might have privately inferred that he was gay though it wasn’t confirmed, but that wasn’t known to anyone else (who might have accused them of being prejudiced).

These conditions are especially important for a subset of people who are covertly prejudiced: They’re aware that they’re prejudiced and ok with it, but don’t want others to know. We can identify these people with some well-established questionnaire measures, and we know that they express prejudice only when they’re able to get away with it.

As we predicted, these covertly prejudiced people tended to refrain from shocking the man who was confirmed as gay, but delivered extremely high levels of shocks to the man who liked shopping. If they had shocked the first man, people could accuse them of prejudice (“You shocked him because he was gay!”). But if others accused participants of prejudice in the second condition, it could be plausibly denied (“I didn’t think he was gay!”). In other words, stereotyping can give people opportunities to express prejudices without fear of reprisal.

Second, stereotypes – even innocuous ones – are troublesome for a number of reasons: They lead us to think narrowly about people before we get to know them, they can justify discrimination and oppression, and, for members of stereotyped groups, they can even lead to depression and other mental health problems. Encouraging stereotyping under the guise of gaydar contributes – directly or indirectly – to stereotyping’s downstream consequences.

But what if gaydar is actually accurate?

Some researchers say that stereotypes about gay people possess a grain of truth, which could lend credence to the idea of having accurate gaydar.

In these studies, researchers presented pictures, sound clips and videos of real gay and straight people to the participants, who then categorized them as gay or straight.

Half of the people in the pictures, clips and videos were gay and half were straight, which meant that the participants would demonstrate an accurate gaydar if their accuracy rate were significantly higher than 50 percent. Indeed, participants tended to have about 60 percent accuracy, and the researchers concluded that people really do possess an accurate gaydar. Many studies have replicated these results, with their authors – and the media – touting them as evidence that gaydar exists.

Not so fast…

But as we’ve been able to show in two recent papers, all of these previous studies fall prey to a mathematical error that, when corrected, actually leads to the opposite conclusion: Most of the time, gaydar will be highly inaccurate.

How can this be, if people in these studies are accurate at rates significantly higher than 50 percent?

There’s a problem in the basic premise of these studies: Namely, having a pool of people in which 50 percent of the targets are gay. In the real world, only around 3 to 8 percent of adults identify as gay, lesbian or bisexual.

What does this mean for interpreting the 60 percent accuracy rate? Think about what the 60 percent accuracy means for the straight targets in these studies. If people have 60 percent accuracy in identifying who is straight, it means that 40 percent of the time, straight people are incorrectly categorized. In a world where 95 percent of people are straight, 60 percent accuracy means that for every 100 people, there will be 38 straight people incorrectly assumed to be gay, but only three gay people correctly categorized.

Therefore, the 60 percent accuracy in the lab studies translates to 93 percent inaccuracy for identifying who is gay in the real world (38 / [38 + 3] = 92.7 percent). Even when people seem gay – and set off all the alarms on your gaydar – it’s far more likely that they’re straight. More straight people will seem to be gay than there are actual gay people in total.

If you’re disappointed to learn that your gaydar might not operate as well as you think it does, there’s a quick fix: Rather than coming to a snap judgment about people based on what they wear or how they talk, you’re probably better off just asking them.

William Cox, Assistant Scientist, Department of Psychology, University of Wisconsin-Madison

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

From the Archives: Gay-rights pioneer Franklin Kameny remembers his civil disobedience – Part I

Gay-rights pioneer Franklin Kameny remembers his civil disobedience – Part I
December 31, 2010 1:48 AM MST

Dr. Franklin Kameny is one of the pioneers of the modern gay-rights movement.

In the mid-1960s, he and other pre-Stonewall activists organized the first pickets of the White House to demand equal treatment under the law for gay men and lesbians (then known as “sex perverts” or, more kindly, “homosexuals”). He also arranged protests at Independence Hall in Philadelphia, at the Pentagon, and at other public places at a time in which openly gay individuals were exceedingly rare and even more rarely political active.

Fired for being gay

Earlier this year, Kameny sat down with the Charlottesville Libertarian Examiner to recall several incidents of civil disobedience in his lifetime. A veteran of World War II, now 85 years old and still involved in gay-rights issues, Kameny recounted how being fired by the federal government for being gay led directly to his career as an activist.

A Harvard-trained astronomer, Kameny was sacked by the Army mapping agency in 1957. “The next two years or so were very difficult,” he remembered. “There was a period of eight months in ’59 when I was living on 20 cents of food a day, which even at ’59 prices was not much.”

Much of Kameny's story from those years, along with those of others in similar straits, is told by historian David K. Johnson in his book, The Lavender Scare: The Cold War Persecution of Gays and Lesbians in the Federal Government.

Physicist by day, activist by night

“My bachelor’s degree is in physics. My master’s and Ph.D., as you probably know, [are] in astronomy. I got a series of jobs over the next decade, three or four of them, in that” field, he said, but “because of Eisenhower’s 1953 executive order 10450,” which was finally reversed by Bill Clinton more than 40 years later, “I was unable to get a security clearance which meant that I had a number of edgy jobs, [with] companies that went out from under me.”

While all this was happening – sporadic employment, lack of stability – “I began to get increasingly involved, starting in ’61, with the gay movement of the time.”

Through most of the 1960s, Kameny explained, “speaking figuratively, I was a physicist from nine in the morning until five in the afternoon on weekdays, and I was a gay activist in the evenings and on weekends. But the activism gradually took over things.”

That is how the astronomer-turned-activist found himself, on several occasions, in the back of a paddy wagon – which will be recounted in Part II of this interview.

Publisher's note: This article is drawn from my Examiner.com archives. It was originally published on Examiner.com on December 31, 2010. The Examiner.com publishing platform was discontinued July 1, 2016, and its web site went dark on or about July 10, 2016.  I am republishing this piece in an effort to preserve it and all my other contributions to Examiner.com since April 6, 2010. It is reposted here without most of the internal links that were in the original.

Guest Post: Oscar Wilde would have been on Grindr

Jack Sargent, University of Exeter

It has never been so easy to find love, or sex, quickly. In 2017, there is nothing shameful or illicit about using dating apps or digital tools to connect with someone else. More than 100 years ago, of course, things were very different.

Oscar Wilde and other men and women who, like him, desired same-sex relationships, had to resort to attending secret parties to meet potential partners. The idea that it would become normal to meet and flirt with an ever changing group of strangers, sending explicit pictures or a few cheeky sentences on a device you hold in your hand, would have amused the writer. The openness about conducting such relationships would have amazed him.

But would Oscar Wilde have enjoyed the most famous gay dating app, Grindr, and the way it has contributed to gay culture? We know he would probably have welcomed the fact that gay men and women could easily meet new sexual partners. In the late-Victorian period, Wilde’s membership of clandestine homoerotic networks of clubs and societies, was far more furtive. They were gatherings of forbidden passions and desires, shrouded in secrecy.

Wilde loved being part of this underground community. He adored being with crowds of immaculately dressed people in beautiful rooms. He believed the most important goal in life was to experience emotion and sensuality, to have intense connections and embrace beauty.

‘I wish this book was a smart phone.’
Shutterstock

This belief came from his involvement in a movement called Aestheticism. Late-Victorian aesthetes proposed that beauty and sensation were the keys to an individual’s authentic experience of life. They argued that beauty and connections with beauty should be pursued even at the expense of conventional systems of morality, and what society considered right or wrong. For Wilde, this meant he thought about whether it was aesthetically – not morally – right to sleep with someone.

Oscar Wilde was born in Dublin in 1854 and died in Paris in 1900, a few years after his release from jail for “gross indecency” with other men. Before his imprisonment, Wilde was (I think almost uniquely) shockingly positive and active about his desire for other men. This was a time when same-sex desire and intercourse was illegal, seen as illicit and monstrous – an abhorrent illness which should be exercised from Christian culture.

Wilde met and slept with many other men, continuing relationships for years, months, weeks, or maybe even only a night, before effectively dropping them and moving on. Is this so different to how gay relationships are conducted now?

Every part of gay culture today stems from the way that Wilde and the group of men he mixed with lived their lives. Their philosophy that they should have their own dedicated spaces to meet still stands. At first they evolved into gay bars and clubs. Now those physical spaces are closing as members of the gay community go online to meet each other.

The importance of being on Grindr.
Shutterstock

Grindr, now eight years old, allows people to make connections, if they like the look of someone’s body. It is the same type of connection that Wilde was interested in, but it doesn’t give people the intense, sensual involvement with another human being he was looking for. You might see someone you like on Grindr, but there is no promise they will respond to your message. Downloading and using the app doesn’t automatically make you part of a network of people that are thinking and feeling intense emotional sensations. Wilde, at his parties and gatherings, taking risks and breaking the law, must have felt part of a group who came together to all feel something special and exciting.

This excitement was not only to do with the illegal nature of the acts undertaken in secret. It had something to do with the vibrancy and sensuality offered by being in a particular place, engaging sensually and physically with other people, reading them for signs of interest, right down to the smallest gesture.

Digital declarations

This is not possible on Grindr. Grindr offers instead a potentially unlimited amount of possible connections, but connections which are digital, not physical. Once downloaded, the app offers a digital network of people that can be loaded and reloaded with a simple swipe of the screen. The continual possibility of meeting someone different or better means that users don’t necessarily need to commit to connecting. It seems we are in danger of creating a generation of potentially disconnected individuals, who rather than going to a gay bar, choose to spend the night in, waiting for a stranger to send them a message.

Had he been able to, Wilde would have downloaded Grindr, of that I think we can be certain. Would he have liked it? Well, he may have found some beauty in the technology and the freedom it represents. And perhaps, sometimes, he would have enjoyed the novelty.

But he would probably have preferred the clubs, societies and networks he engaged with during the late 1800s. For while they did not promise successful or happy encounters, they did foster physical relationships between men within spaces of affirmation, liberation and fulfilment. And although Grindr also offers the chance for casual sex, I think late Victorian gay men would have been saddened by the lack of opportunity for their counterparts today to connect emotionally with others.

Jack Sargent, PhD candidate, University of Exeter

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

From the Archives: GOP congresswoman headlines youthful same-sex marriage event on Capitol Hill

GOP congresswoman headlines youthful same-sex marriage event on Capitol Hill
July 11, 2012 8:18 PM MST

Young Conservatives for the Freedom to Marry is a new organization that was launched at a reception on July 10 at the Capitol Hill Club, the social club for Republican party members and activists mere blocks from the U.S. Capitol, Supreme Court Building, and Library of Congress.

The featured speaker at the reception was Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Florida), who as chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee is one of the highest-ranking women and Hispanics in Congress. (Ros-Lehtinen immigrated to the United States from Cuba.)

Calling the gathering of just over 100 people a “great celebration,” Ros-Lehtinen used her brief remarks to outline the shared values of Republicans and conservatives.

‘Core principles’
“This new initiative,” she said, “helps highlight the role of young conservatives and Republicans from around the country who agree on this issue and many others. We are all here because we believe in the same core principles.”

Those principles, she continued, include limited government.

“We believe that the best way that the federal government can help in spurring economic growth, which we so badly need in this country, is to get out of the way and let the small and medium businesses thrive.”

Another shared principle is, she said, “the equality of opportunity that’s available for each and every one of us, no matter where we come from, no matter our circumstances.”

She emphasized a third principle, “that the individual and the family are the central engines in our society. The right of individuals to lead their lives without government intrusion is a bedrock Republican, conservative value.”

More than sex
That central principle, Ros-Lehtinen said, “is more than just about sexual orientation.”

It is, she explained, “about the fundamental rights that we all share as Americans. It’s bad enough that we have to deal with the overregulation of our economy. No one should have to deal with government red tape when it comes to committing themselves to those whom they love.”

After her remarks, in an informal press gaggle that included the Charlottesville Libertarian Examiner, the twelve-term congresswoman pointed out that an organization like Young Conservatives for the Freedom to Marry represents “a generational shift.”

The question of whether to expand marriage equality in the United States, she predicted, is “a problem that many years down the road, we’ll look back upon this time and say, ‘This was a problem? This was an issue? This was a ballot initiative?’”

‘New image for Republicans’
Ros-Lehtinen, who is seeking re-election this year in Florida's 18th congressional district, said that “things are moving in the right direction thanks to the young people who are making a difference. To harness this energy on this issue,” she said, “is very important” because it presents “a whole new image for Republicans and we’ve got to win the minds and hearts of the next generation.”

From her perspective, she explained, “things are changing slowly -- too slowly for me, but you’ve got to be working the issues at the local level in order to get to the very top.”

She pointed out that the reception was being held in the Capitol Hill Club, a traditional Republican gathering place, yet “everybody’s here and there’s no problem. Maybe even only 20 years ago, this would have created a ruckus.” (Indeed, the room where the reception was held had a portrait of the late Senator Jesse Helms, an ardent opponent of gay rights, hanging on the wall.)

Young Conservatives for the Freedom to Marry, she said, “is organic. It’s from the bottom up. It’s going to change attitudes.”

Pressed by a reporter as to whether she is a supporter of gay marriage, Ros-Lehtinen said firmly, “I am” and then repeated, as if for more emphasis, “No, I am.”


Publisher's note: This article is part of a series to mark June as Gay Pride Month. It was originally published on Examiner.com on July 11, 2012. The Examiner.com publishing platform was discontinued July 1, 2016, and its web site went dark on or about July 10, 2016.  I am republishing this piece in an effort to preserve it and all my other contributions to Examiner.com since April 6, 2010. It is reposted here without most of the internal links that were in the original.

From the Archives: Gay groups comment on Obama's 2014 State of the Union address

Gay groups comment on Obama's 2014 State of the Union address
January 29, 2014 11:22 PM MST



Two gay conservative organizations, Log Cabin Republicans and GOProud, issued statements this week in response to President Barack Obama's 2014 State of the Union message.

Log Cabin

The older group, Log Cabin Republicans, released a statement from its executive director, Gregory Angelo, soon after Obama concluded his address to Congress on January 28.

“For a moment,” Angelo said, “I thought the news accidentally re-ran last year’s State of the Union, because all I really saw was more of the same.”

Obama's “only new ideas,” he continued, “involved using ‘a pen and a phone’ to push a liberal agenda for which hard-working Americans have no appetite.”

Angelo criticized “the absence of any mention of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act for LGBT workers” as well as Obama's “threat to exercise unilateral Executive actions with the explosive potential to ignite class warfare, while at the same time remaining silent on signing a common-sense Executive Order barring federal workplace discrimination.”

He called that last item “an empty promise to LGBT Americans that stands unfulfilled after six years. That’s one re-run we’re tired of seeing.”

GOProud
The next day, GOProud – which calls itself “a national organization of gay and straight Americans seeking to promote freedom by supporting free markets, limited government and respect for individual rights” – issued its own statement in reaction to the President's remarks.

GOProud caustically said that Obama's speech was made up of “the same baseless platitude- and hope-laden rhetoric that we’ve seen in every one of his flowery speeches. Fortunately, the American people don’t buy it anymore. The only thing new in the President’s address was the announcement that his vague agenda will now be guaranteed by threat of executive order.”

On specific issues, the statement (unattributed to any individual) continued by noting that “the President talked a good game about the need for quality education, but failed to mention anything about school choice. He talked about the minimum wage but did little more than toss out an arbitrary number to pacify his ultra-left wing groupies.”

The President, GOProud said, “spoke eloquently about the benefits of ending wars in the Middle East, yet spent a good portion of his time convincing Americans that they should instead be at war with each other. It’s always the us-versus-them mentality with Democrats, as they can’t seem to get Americans to believe in their message without convincing them to hate someone.”

Log Cabin Republicans (LCR) began in California in 1977 and has grown into a national organization with some three dozen local and state chapters. GOProud was started by former LCR members in 2009.

Publisher's note: This article is part of a series to mark June as Gay Pride Month. It was originally published on Examiner.com on January 29, 2014. The Examiner.com publishing platform was discontinued July 1, 2016, and its web site went dark on or about July 10, 2016.  I am republishing this piece in an effort to preserve it and all my other contributions to Examiner.com since April 6, 2010. It is reposted here without most of the internal links that were in the original.