More Tuesday Male Beauty

Chick-fil-A Finally Admits It Finances Antigay Bigotry

This blog has frequently commented upon the large volumes of money flowing from Chick Fil-A and the Cathy family to fund anti-gay organizations.  In the past, Chick Fil- A officers have sought to dance around the issue and pretend that they don't support anti-gay hatred.  Now, in the wake of new disclosures that revealed that Chick Fil-A and the Cathy family have given roughly another $2 million to ant-gay organizations, Chick Fil-A chief operating officer Dan Cathy has admitted that Chick Fil-A is "guilty as charged." I for one have long boycotted Chick Fil-A and sought to encourage others to do likewise.  The Advocate looks at Chick Fil-A's belated honesty on its anti-gay animus.  Here are highlights:

 Dan Cathy, the chief operating officer of Chick-fil-A, said there is no denying that his company opposes marriage equality.

Cathy told the Baptist Press he aims to operate the restaurant chain "on biblical principles." When asked whether his company had an established position against marriage equality, Cathy said, "guilty as charged."
He added, "We are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that. ... We know that it might not be popular with everyone, but thank the Lord, we live in a country where we can share our values and operate on biblical principles."

The company has reported millions of dollars in donations to antigay groups including the Family Research Council and the Marriage and Family Foundation. Because of Chick-fil-A's ties to antigay organizations and causes, many LGBT people and allies are boycotting the restaurants, and plans to open a restaurant on the Northeastern University campus were quashed.

Boy Scouts Reaffirm Anti-Gay Bigotry; Bilerico Project Seeks to Out Secret Committee

Some had hoped that in light of the changing levels of acceptance in American society and especially among the younger generations that the Boy Scouts of America would discard its anti-gay policy which has been used to expel both LGBT scouts and LGBT scout leaders.  Sadly, such hopes have been dashed and the Boy Scouts have reaffirmed the organizations naked anti-gay animus.  Yes, as a private organization the Boy Scouts are free to be bigots.  But I suspect that over the longer term, the policy of animus and discrimination will further marginalize scouting.  Here are highlights from ABC News:

After a confidential two-year review, the Boy Scouts of America on Tuesday emphatically reaffirmed its policy of excluding gays, angering critics who hoped that relentless protest campaigns might lead to change.
The Scouts cited support from parents as a key reason for keeping the policy and expressed hope that the prolonged debate over it might now subside. Bitter reactions from gay-rights activists suggested that result was unlikely.

The Scouts' national spokesman, Deron Smith, told The Associated Press that an 11-member special committee, formed discreetly by top Scout leaders in 2010, came to the conclusion that the exclusion policy "is absolutely the best policy" for the 102-year-old organization.

Smith said the committee, comprised of professional scout executives and adult volunteers, was unanimous in its conclusion — preserving a long-standing policy that was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2000 and has remained controversial ever since.

As a result of the committee's decision, the Scouts' national executive board will take no further action on a resolution submitted at its recent national conference asking for reconsideration of the membership policy.

Not surprisingly, the Boy Scouts organization has failed to disclose the membership of this secret committee that made the decision to continue a policy that is little more than anti-gay animus.  And my blogger friend and editor of The Bilerico Project, Bil Browning, wants to know the names of these 11 individuals or a confession that the committee is just a ruse to cover bigoted asses.  In a post on The Bilerico Project, Bil raises some disturbing questions about the secret committee.  He also calls for corporate big shots on the Boy Scout national board to resign.  Here are some excerpts:

The Boy Scouts of America announced today that they'd formed a secret committee back in 2010 to study whether or not to change their ban on gay scouts and leaders. The committee suggested the group keep their current discriminatory policy. 

I'm calling bullshit. I don't believe them. Their story has too many holes in it to be remotely believable. This is a spin put in place to cover their ass at the recent blowback they've been getting as opinions change on gays and lesbians. There's more holes in their statements than a block of Swiss cheese.

First of all, anything decided by a secret committee isn't worth believing. If they truly think this is the best policy, why not release the names of the people who think so? Is it because the people involved don't want others to know they support discrimination? What's the reason for the secrecy?

Second, they say this secret committee was "comprised of professional scout executives and adult volunteers" and included "a diversity of perspectives and opinions." They also say the vote was unanimous. Do you know any supporter of LGBT rights who would decide that banning an entire group of people from an organization is a good idea? The majority of Americans support LGBT rights now. If that group included "diversity," I'm doubtful that vote would be unanimous. It just doesn't ring true.

Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association is touting that his organization - designated a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center - was consulted. I'd imagine an anti-gay group would be in favor of discrimination. But did the Scouts contact GLAAD? HRC? Courage Campaign? Any LGBT organization? If you're only contacting groups known to hate gays and lesbians, that's hardly a "diversity of perspectives." That's a circle jerk.

And lastly, they insist that the majority of the families involved in scouting supports the current policy. How do they know that? Did they do a survey for their secret committee?

And when they were consulting with these unknown entities outside of scouting, did they contact any health professionals that could have unequivocally told them that there is no danger to children from being around LGBT people? All the major medical groups support full LGBT equality and regularly smack down the bogus claims made by Fischer and his ilk.

So I'm calling bullshit. I don't believe they made a worthwhile effort to actually decide what's best for all children and everyone involved in scouting. They may have formed this "secret committee," but I'd posit they knew the outcome before they held their first meeting. 

Two high profile board members have already announced their opposition to the policy. Both of them are corporate bigwigs and their companies donate a ton of cash to the group. These men should resign immediately - and take their corporate cash and fundraising abilities with them.

I for one will not make any contribution to the Boy Scouts or any organization that supports them.  Yes, they are free to be bigots and I am likewise free to boycott them and to strive to convince others to do likewise.

Romney's Bain Problem Continues to Metastasize

I suspect some readers may think I am beating a dead horse, but Mitt Romney's Bain problem continues to metastasize.  Now a growing number of conservative pundits are almost screaming at Romney to release his tax returns - 12 years worth in some cases.  Even National Review is now stating that Romney must either release the tax returns now or later after further self-inflicted damage has been inflicted.  Ultimately, the question becomes that of what is Romney hiding?   If there is nothing damaging in the tax returns, then why the continued refusal.  I've always believed that those who act as if they are hiding something usually ARE hiding something.  Thus, the speculation continues to grow.  Were there years when Romney paid no taxes?  Or were there years when obscene levels of income yielded taxes at a lower rate than that paid by many working class families.  Here are highlights from a National Review editorial entitled "Release the Returns":

Romney argues that whatever he releases will not be enough to satisfy the Obama campaign and its factota in the media, who are, once again, proving their bias and double standards. Romney is right, but he should release the returns anyway. Let them go fish.

If there is scandal to be had of that, it can be had from the information that already is available. But there is no scandal in that: Romney is a wealthy man — and he has complicated personal finances, something that is typical of wealthy men. In fact, Romney’s personal finances are a very good case study in what’s wrong with the American tax system and regulatory climate.

The Romney campaign says he has released as many returns as candidate John Kerry did in 2004, and cites Teresa Heinz Kerry’s refusal to release any of her tax returns. Neither is an apt comparison. John Kerry actually released returns from 1999 through 2003, and also released tax returns during his Senate runs. As for Teresa Heinz, Romney isn’t the wealthy spouse of a candidate, but the candidate himself.

Romney protests that he is not legally obliged to release any tax returns. Of course not. He is no longer in the realm of the private sector, though, where he can comply with the letter of the law with the Securities and Exchange Commission and leave it at that. Perceptions matter.

Romney may feel impatience with requirements that the political culture imposes on a presidential candidate that he feels are pointless (and inconvenient). But he’s a politician running for the highest office in the land, and his current posture is probably unsustainable. In all likelihood, he won’t be able to maintain a position that looks secretive and is a departure from campaign conventions. The only question is whether he releases more returns now, or later — after playing more defense on the issue and sustaining more hits. There will surely be a press feeding frenzy over new returns, but better to weather it in the middle of July.

It is to President Obama’s advantage to fight the election out over tactics and minutiae. By drawing out the argument over the returns, Romney is playing into the president’s hands. He should release them, respond to any attacks they bring, and move on.

Andrew Sullivan notes as follows:

This [the National Review statement] is such obvious advice that the real question becomes: what on earth could be so damaging that Romney would risk this agonizing twist in the wind? Did he pay no taxes at all in 2009? Or in some other year? Meanwhile, TP has listed 15 prominent Republicans calling for the release of the returns - including Ron Paul, George Will, Haley Barbour, Brit Hume and Michael Steele. This crack in the ranks means that some kind of release is all but inevitable - the Palin strategy is not going to work here. 

The trouble is: it cannot be populist to hide most of your tax returns when you are running for president. Even Hannity is going to have a hard time justifying that one. Sure you can rail against the MSM. But in this case, the MSM includes Bill Kristol, Haley Barbour and National Review.

Out in the Park 2012 - Hampton Roads Pride

As a member of the board of directors of Hampton Roads Pride, one of the major tasks of the board each year is to put on "Out in the Park" - Hampton Roads' annual gay pride celebration.  After last year's successful event which saw attendance estimates as high as 17,000 people, the board needless to say feels pressured to put on an even more successful event for 2012.  We think that we are well on the way to doing so and have Kristine W and Matt Zarley as headliners and radio personality Frank Decaro from OutQ radio serving as master of ceremonies much of the day.  Full details of the event, event sponsors and why the event is important, especially here in Hampton Roads can be found here via VEER Magazine.

Given the subject of the prior post and the imporance that tolerace plays in an area's economic vitality, I set out below my piece from the VEER Out in the Park piece:

Last year’s presentation of “Out in the Park” by Hampton Roads Pride marked the first time that Hampton Roads has had a LGBT Pride event in a truly prominent venue. And the people did come out in numbers: between 14,000 and 17,000 depending on the estimate used. On Saturday, August 18, 2012, once again “Out in the Park” will take place in the prominent venue of Town Point Park. Some may wonder “Why Pride.” Why is this such a big deal and why is an event like Out in the Park is important? There are a number of reasons, in my view.

The first reason is the reality faced by LGBT Virginians each and every day. As a matter of state policy LGBT Virginians are stigmatized and discrimination is legally permissible. LGBT Virginian’s can be fired at will and have no employment non-discrimination protects. Similarly, LGBT tenants can face housing discrimination, and we receive zero legal recognition of our committed life partner relationships. For younger LGBT Virginians and those perceived to be gay, bully can be relentless with little protections afforded by Virginia’s current laws. If we needed any reminding of our second class citizenship, the recent handling of Tracy Thorne-Begland nomination to the District Court bench in Richmond served as a stark reminder. Although he is well respected and a very qualified Deputy Commonwealth Attorney with credentials superior to those of many sitting judges, Thorne-Begland was not approved by the Virginia House of Delegates for the simple reason that he’s a openly gay man. It is an atmosphere that can be corrosive to one’s very soul.

While Out in the Park does not address this shameful legal reality in Virginia, it can provide a much needed sense of solidarity. Sadly, too many individuals still feel forced to live “in the closet” whether they are members of the military or employed in the private sector. An event like Out in the Park which is open to all, LGBT and straight, allows these individuals an opportunity be themselves in a non-hostile, accepting environment. It also allows teens and youths to realize that they are not the freaks or misfits some among the Christian Right and elsewhere would have them believe themselves to be. For those of us who are “out,” a successful pride event is an opportunity to demonstrate our pride - and experience a sense of empowerment - at who were are in spite of the adversities one faces living in Virginia.

Out in the Park also represents an educational opportunity for the region and can boost its sometimes negative image. In 2010, a Brookings Institute study, Hampton Roads was described as “old, slow and not too bright.” If Hampton Roads wants to attract the so-called “creative class,” the best way to do so is to show that it is tolerant and open to diversity. Out in the Park goes some way towards putting aside Hampton Roads’ dowdy, conservative image. For those outside of the Hampton Roads LGBT community, the Out in the Park event will provide a venue for such individuals to learn that the LGBT community is very diverse with a wide spectrum of individual types and social, racial and professional backgrounds. This LGBT pride event can also educate businesses to the fact that they are overlooking a very significant segment of the community in their marketing plans and business models.

Hopefully, this second Out in the Park event in Town Point Park will further cement the positive experience generated last year.

The Geography of Tolerance - Virginia Doesn't Place

Click map to enlarge

I've written before about Richard Florida's studies on the rise of the creative class, the so-called gay index and how states that are more liberal socially are in general pulling ahead of states that are "conservative."  Florida has a new piece in The Atlantic that looks again at this issue and tracts metropolitan areas across America.  He also lays out the top 20 metropolitan areas in therms of how they score on the "Tolerance Index" which is based on "The share of immigrants or foreign-born residents, the Gay Index (the concentration of gays and lesbians), and the Integration Index, which tracks the level of segregation between ethnic and racial groups."  Not surprisingly, no where in Virginia makes the top 20 list.  The map above shows the USA based on the tolerance index.  Here are highlights from the article:

The map above shows how metros across the U.S. score on the Tolerance Index, as updated for The Rise of the Creative Class, Revisited. The chart below shows the top 20 metros. Developed by my Martin Prosperity Institute colleague Kevin Stolarick, it ranks U.S. metros according to three key variables—the share of immigrants or foreign-born residents, the Gay Index (the concentration of gays and lesbians), and the Integration Index, which tracks the level of segregation between ethnic and racial groups.

The top 20 is a mix of big diverse metros like San Diego and Miami and smaller ones. Many of these smaller metros are college towns that are home to large concentrations of professional, technical and knowledge workers from diverse backgrounds, which lead to higher levels of ethnic and racial integration than larger metros, where economic differences are often greater.



Even more than its natural resources and native ingenuity, what has stood at the heart and soul of U.S. prosperity historically has been its openness to hard working, ambitious, and talented immigrants of all stripes—doctors, engineers, and uneducated laborers alike. Roughly half of Silicon Valley start-ups have a foreign-born person among their founding team, according to several recent studies. Careful studies by the economist Giovanni Peri of the University of California at Davis have found that immigrants add rather than detract from American prosperity, for the simple reason that "the skill composition of immigrants is complementary to that of natives."  .  .  .  .   A "more multicultural urban environment," Peri concludes, "makes U.S.-born citizens more productive."


Openness to gays and lesbians similarly reflects an ecosystem that is open to new people and new ideas. It’s amazing how consistently people have misconstrued what my colleagues and I have had to say about the connection between gays and economic growth. They miss the point. A strong and vibrant gay community is a solid leading indicator of a place that is open to many different kinds of people. Ronald Inglehart, who has studied the relationship between culture and economic growth for some four decades, has noted that the lack of societal acceptance of gays is the most significant remaining bastion of intolerance and discrimination around the world. Accordingly, communities that have long been more accepting and open to gay people have an underlying ecosystem which is also more likely to be accepting of new ideas and different types of people, including the eggheads and eccentrics who invent new things and start new enterprises. As Bill Bishop put it, "where gay households abound, geeks follow."

Economists frequently note the importance of industries having low entry barriers, so that new firms can easily enter and keep the industry vital. Similarly, a place can benefit from low entry barriers for people—where newcomers from different backgrounds are accepted quickly into all sorts of social and economic arrangements. All else being equal, such communities have an advantage in attracting and retaining the diverse and different types of people who power innovation and growth.


Tolerance - and openness to diversity and inclusiveness - is not an afterthought or something that happens when communities get rich. It is a key element of the new economic development equation.

These basics of good economics and ways to stimulate an improved economy are utterly lost on the Republican Party of Virginia as it prostitutes itself to hate merchants such as those at The Family Foundation and other allied organizations that seek to marginalize and stigmatize gays, immigrants and non-whites.  Of course, most of the states in the Bible Belt act the same way and, not surprisingly, their economies suffer as a consequence.

Tuesday Morning Male Beauty

James Dean: A New Film Tells the Sexual Truth

I'm not one for "outing" people after they have died, but at the same time until the lives and successes of gays from past generations becomes common place knowledge among society, it will continue make it easier for our enemies to malign us all collectively as freaks, perverts and whatever other derogatory terms folks in the anti-gay industry dream up.   While James Dean was perhaps not a role model in some ways, he was nonetheless a major stay who became a legend after his untimely death.  Thus, it is appropriate that the general public know the truth about who he was.  A new movie,  Joshua Tree 1951: A Portrait of James Dean, seeks to set the historical record straight.  Here are highlights from The Advocate:

What could possibly be left to say about late screen icon James Dean? After countless books, documentaries, and film bios, director Matthew Mishory thinks there’s plenty. Joshua Tree 1951: A Portrait of James Dean, his feature directorial debut currently making the rounds of film festivals around the globe, offers a breathtaking look at a little-known period in the actor’s life. 

Set in the early 1950s when the charismatic Indiana native was just another determined hopeful, Mishory’s Dean (portrayed by The Gates star James Preston) depends on the kindess of well-to-do gentlemen friends, while experimenting sexually with his male roomate as well as numerous females. It’s a portrayal that will likely excite many fans of the mercurial star but upset others unready for the sexual frankness on display here — all told in glorious black-and-white cinematography.

We wanted to create a very intimate and perhaps unexpected portrait of who this man was. And that is the core of James Preston’s performance — actually conveying who James Dean was, not as an icon but as a person.

What is it about Dean that keeps people enthralled nearly 60 years after his death?
On the one hand, there is the sort of self-created mythology of James Dean as sensitive rebel bad boy that perhaps exists in at least one of the screen performances but largely was created through publicity photographs and the public imagination.  .   .  .   .  Dean continues to enthrall and always will because he fundamentally changed acting. He changed the way actors act on-screen. He brought a naturalism and an intensity to his performance that I feel didn’t exist before him. As many have pointed out, watching him act opposite his contemporaries, one often wonders if he is in an entirely different movie. Without Dean, we would never have had the great young method actors who followed — River Phoenix, for instance. So I think he fundamentally changed the way actors act and also the way Hollywood portrayed young people. The three Dean performances represent probably the first three truly realistic and compelling young characters in studio movies. Dean marks perhaps the first real American teenager put to film.

One area of Dean’s persona that’s still constantly debated is his sexuality. Do you think he privately conformed to some label? Was he bi? Was he gay?
One of the things I really like about our film is that you’ll never hear the words “gay” or “bisexual” or “heterosexual” spoken. You won’t hear any sexual labels expressed because we approach the topic of sexuality without any angst or hand-wringing at all. The characters are who are they are and were, and we leave any judgments or labels to the audience. That said, the notion that James Dean was nonheterosexual hardly begins with this film, and what is essentially common knowledge is, to my mind, entirely uncontroversial. One thing that so fascinates about this era, the late ’40s and early ’50s, especially among the Hollywood elite, is that people lived much more freely, sexually, than they do in our more conservative times. The great difference is that privacy still existed, so they did so behind closed doors. And of course there was an entire studio publicity machine in place to keep certain realities hidden from prying eyes.

Do you think that grappling with his sexual orientation really gave him insight into playing these tortured characters?
I think that, as James Preston has often remarked, Dean had no lack of pain to draw upon. His mother died horrendously of brain cancer when he was 8 years old. He had a father who probably didn’t love him enough and definitely didn’t know how to show it. And then he made his way to Hollywood, without a trust fund or family name, to chase a truly impossible dream  . . . .

James Preston gives a mesmerizing performance. How did you decide he was right to play Dean?

.   .   .  .  When we got to the callbacks, it was between James, who had come to us through [Joshua Tree actress] Dalilah Rain, and a few others. And when James came in we knew that we had our Jimmy. It wasn’t that he looked more or less like James Dean, although he did, and it wasn’t that he could do a mimicry or an impersonation, because we didn’t want that at all. James had a naturalism to his performance style that fit what we were trying to do.

Mormons’ First Families Rally Behind Romney

It's only to be expected that some of Mitt Romney's fellow Mormons would rally to his support in the current presidential contest.  The irony, of course, is that the family histories of many of these "first families" makes a mockery of Romney signing onto the National Organization for Marriage's anti-gay manifesto.  And these family histories also most definitely demonstrate the lie of Romney's repeated statements against same sex marriage (one of many lies from Romney) wherein he claims that throughout recorded history, marriage has always been between "one man and one woman."  Romney apparently has amnesia as to his own genealogy and that of his fellow Mormons.  Or perhaps they retroactively withdrew from polygamy.  The New York Times looks at these "first families" and their role in Romney's political aspirations.  Here are some excerpts: 

In the mid-1800s, newly converted families from across the United States and Europe gathered in the growing Mormon town of Nauvoo, Ill., to help their prophet, Joseph Smith, build a New Jerusalem. 

Now, more than 150 years later, descendants of those first families of Mormonism are joining together in a new effort: delivering the White House to Mitt Romney.

These families — Marriotts, Rollinses, Gardners and others — have formed a financial bulwark and support network for Mr. Romney at every important point in his political career. Starting with his 1994 Senate race, moving into the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics effort that became his political springboard and continuing through his first foray into presidential politics, they have been there to open doors, provide seed money and rally support. 

Mr. Romney’s candidacy has produced great pride among many Mormons, known officially as members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. But for this core group of the religion’s most prominent families, the ties to Mr. Romney go deeper. They share with him not only a faith, but also a dramatic history in which they have scaled the ladder of American society,  .  .  .  .

In interviews, several of Mr. Romney’s supporters expressed their concerns that attention to the financial support he has received from other early families of the religion would raise old prejudices and accusations of clannishness that followed their forebears. 

On the manifests of the wagon carts that made the difficult trek with Young and then helped settle Utah were names that now dot the campaign filings for Mr. Romney and the political groups that support him. 

Mr. Eyre said the main attraction to Mr. Romney for most Mormons is their “common values” with him, not their “common faith.” But he nonetheless described a “giddiness” over his prospects. 

“It’s like an arc where the steps to mainstream understanding and inclusion were so small for so long — unfairly small, because other groups’ arcs seemed to move faster,” he said. “And now suddenly there is this big chance that the arc will complete itself very swiftly and very powerfully.” 

I am by no means anti-Mormon.  I do believe, however, in telling the full story.  And sadly, the Times piece doesn't note that almost all of these families involved polygamous marriages.  I guess it would have underscored Romney's hypocrisy on same sex marriage too heavily even for the Times' taste. 

More Monday Male Beauty