NEWSBYASHER HUEY

Several House Republicans have proposed eliminating the National Endowment for the Arts, as well as other essential programs.

Arts funding has long been the bane of many a conservative politician's existence, and with the new majority in the House, some Republicans sense an opportunity to eliminate the federal agency once and for all. By eliminating the NEA from the budget under the guise of budget restraint, they hope to end funding for an agency that doesn’t regularly promote a conservative religious world view.

The NEA has historically been ahead of the curve on LGBT issues. By backing Robert Mapplethorpe’s Project X in the 1980s, which was decried for its homoerotic undertones, the NEA took a stand for artistic expression and the value that a queer perspective can bring to art. And thus began a long crusade by the right wing to curb artistic expression, in the name of family values. Sen. Jesse Helms authored amendments meant to curb any HIV/AIDS awareness and prevent funding for art that he considered “homoerotic” and “religiously offensive.” In the 1990s Rep. Peter Hoekstra decried Cheryl Dunye’s Watermelon Woman as an offensive waste of taxpayer money. Even today, LGBT-themed art makes conservatives uncomfortable.

America’s investment in the arts has been under attack for the better part of a century. When the Federal Theatre Project was a part of FDR’s New Deal, his political opponents worked tirelessly until it was dismantled. Artists have been blacklisted, plays and books have been banned, hearings have been held  even since Hallie Flannagan was questioned by the House Un-American Activities Committee where one Congressman went so far as to question whether or not 16th century playwright Christopher Marlow was a communist. In the 1990s, Congress had epic battles with President Clinton over the NEA. And even in the recent stimulus bill, Sen. Tom Coburn included a provision that prohibited any arts organization from receiving stimulus funding. Conservatives simply don’t like arts funding, because the arts tend to be socially progressive.

The current budget for the NEA is $167.5 million (coincidentally, the same approximate amount as under Reagan’s last budget). That’s approximately 53 cents per person in the United States. Though opponents claim scuttling the agency is a way to reduce the national debt, which stands at over $14 trillion, the NEA’s budget is a drop in the bucket. The elimination of the NEA has as much, if not more, to do with conservative religious distrust of the arts than it has to do with the debt or deficit spending.

Arts funding is vital to society. Arts centers and projects create a sense of community, keep kids off the streets, allow people outlets to express their thoughts and even create jobs. And investing in these things are important for the well-being of society. When we think about past eras and cultures, we define them using the art they created: when we think of Ancient Greece, we think or architecture and theater; when we think of the Renaissance, we think of Italian painting; when we think of cave men, we think of wall paintings. Today, if the NEA were funding Michelangelo’s David, you can bet a conservative would object to the public funding of a nude male sculpture.

The NEA has supported the queer community and given voice to some of the most important queer artists. For a vibrant society, we must continue supporting this often neglected agency. Congress needs to know that we fully support the National Endowment for the Arts. Be sure to tell them that they need to find their budget cuts somewhere else.

Photo credit: National Endowment for the Arts

President Obama has nominated two openly gay men to federal courts. If confirmed, J. Paul Oetken and Edward C. DuMont would become the first openly gay men to serve on the federal bench.

Oetken, who has been nominated to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York , has incredible credentials. He holds a law degree from Yale Law School and is currently a senior vice president and associate general counsel at Cablevision.  Prior to Cablevision, he clerked for a federal district court, a federal appeals court and for Supreme Court Justice Harry A. Blackmun, worked for the Justice Department and the White House counsel’s office and worked in private practice for four of years.

Dumont, who has been nominated to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, has equally impressive credentials. DuMont has a J.D. from Stanford Law School; he has been with the law firm WilmerHale since 2002. He also served as a clerk on the 7th circuit court of appeals and as Assistant to the Solicitor General, where he tried 18 cases before the United States Supreme Court.  With qualifications like these, one would hope they would have a smooth confirmation.

In the middle of a recession, when Republicans promise that job creation will be the number one priority, what bill do House Republicans propose in the first month?  A bill to repeal marriage equality in D.C.

Marriage equality has been legal in D.C. since March of 2010. The D.C. City Council voted overwhelmingly to legalize same-sex marriage.  In the November elections, marriage equality opponents ran candidates against pro-LGBT candidates with little success. They have asked for a vote on the issue, which was rejected even by the United States Supreme Court.  Now, they have turned their sights on Congress.

Because Congress has final say in matters relating to the District, all bills and new laws are subject to Congressional oversight. With this power, Republicans in the majority are going to try to force the issue.

Sunday night’s Golden Globe awards were a great example of progress in the LGBT community. In addition to Chris Colfer’s win, as Kurt in “Glee,” Annette Benning won for portraying a lesbian mother in The Kids Are All Right, as well as fellow Glee actor Jane Lynch, an outspoken gay rights proponent who made sure to thank her wife.

But it’s Colfer, who won the award for Best Supporting Actor in a Television Series, Miniseries or Made for Television Movie, whose timely speech and important character stands as both a symbol of how far we’ve come and the direction we should be headed.

Minorities have historically used media as an outlet to gain mainstream acceptance, and the LGBT community has made great strides over the past few decades in major part due to exposure in television and film. Early films like Longtime Companion paved the way for Brokeback Mountain. Pedro Zamora’s presence on The Real World was essential to a mainstream understanding of HIV/AIDS. These and many other productions led the way for Will and Grace to attain popular mainstream status, with gay characters in the lead and driving the action.

But Colfer’s win stands out as inspiring for his symbolic place, representing the bullied children of our society.

This past election cycle, a group of social conservatives got together to try and make life just that much harder for the LGBT community. Nothing out of the ordinary, right? Well, they messed up and also made life harder for some people they don't hate, and now everyone is trying to figure out how to fix it.

This time they set their sights on El Paso, Texas. They sponsored a ballot measure blocking the city from granting health-care benefits to same-sex partners. They ran a campaign around traditional family values by limiting these benefits to "city employees and their legal spouse and dependent children."

But the measure, which passed with 55 percent, was so poorly worded that they accidentally barred benefits from some 200 other people, and the number could supposedly grow to 10,000 over the next few years. There are many people who receive benefits, but are technically not city employees, including elected officials, retirees, contractors for agencies (i.e. Transportation Board) and grandchildren.

Well, now people are mad. Because it's okay to legislate against the gays, who cares about their health care, right? But God help us if we block benefits from elected officials.

If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again.

The folks over at the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) know that all too well. After they failed to gain any traction in Washington, D.C., they set their eyes on Iowa.

Back in 2009, the Iowa Supreme Court stunned everyone when they unanimously ruled in favor of marriage equality. But on Tuesday, Chief Justice Marsha Ternus and Justices David Baker and Michael Streit were voted out of office largely over their marriage ruling.

While there were many good things that happened for LGBT rights on Tuesday, including at least 106 openly gay candidates winning elections, the outcome of this race is a sobering reminder of how far we have to go.

When Anderson Cooper sounded the alarm on the homophobic language in the trailer for Ron Howard’s new film The Dilemma, the response was quick. Universal Pictures abruptly pulled the clip with a representative saying, "The use of the word ‘gay’ in this trailer as a slur is unnecessary and does nothing more than send a message of intolerance about our community to viewers." It was the right move for the studio. With the continued narrative of LGBT bullying and LGBT suicides, there is no excuse for the media and the arts to perpetuate the use of a slur without clear artistic justification.

Earlier this week Ron Howard responded to the various calls for removing the anti-gay language from the entire film, including a petition here. Unfortunately his response is a little disappointing.

Howard has decided to keep the objectionable language in the film. In his response he discusses artistic expression, censorship, and the use of objectionable traits for character development.

Howard is right when he says, “The debate about what is appropriate in films and advertising has been going on since well before I started in the business — which is to say a very long time — and will never have a conclusion.” But he misses much of the points of the criticism directed toward The Dilemma. The problem is not artistic expression. Should they be allowed to use the word 'gay' as a slur? Yes, they should. But just because they can doesn’t mean they should. Without an artistic statement about the loaded word itself, it is a simple, gratuitous, unacceptable perpetuation of a slur.

Here's why.

California’s absurd use of statewide propositions gained infamy in 2008 when just over 52 percent of the state voted in favor of Proposition 8, amending the state constitution and denying marriage equality to the LGBT community. Thankfully there is no discriminatory LGBT ballot measure in California this year; but even without a Prop 8 style question, marriage equality is still on the ballot.

After Prop 8 passed, the law was challenged by equality advocates and overturned by Judge Vaughn Walker in Perry V. Schwarzenegger. After Prop 8 was struck down, both Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown (the current Democratic gubernatorial nominee) announced that they would not appeal the ruling, and the State Supreme Court determined that they were not required to.

Now, this is where marriage equality will be on the ballot: Republican Attorney General nominee Steve Cooley has said that he will appeal the decision and Democratic nominee Kamala Harris has stated that she will not.

Cooley has a long history in Los Angeles, which is one of the state’s Democratic strongholds. He was first elected in 2000 and has a record as a moderate Republican. In the past, Cooley has not been incredibly hostile toward gay rights, but his stance on Prop 8 has become one of the defining factors in the campaign. Cooley’s campaign seems to be flying under the radar, based on his reputation as a moderate. But he is no friend to the LGBT community. His vocal support for Prop 8 masquerades as a defense of the will of the people (as if popular opinion should matter in civil rights), even though public opinion has shifted and an outright majority in the state now favors marriage equality.

Glee has its up and downs, and the wildly popular show has begun to play a role in the national dialogue about LGBT issues.

Last night’s episode was one of the more disappointing moments in the series. Since the show premiered in 2009, episodes have dealt with coming out, father/son relationships and the use of the “f-word” as a homophobic slur. Last week’s episode had one of the most honest portrayals of a young gay man's view of religion. This makes you wonder what happened this week?

The plot of this week’s episode revolved around duet partners within the glee club. Kurt, the openly gay character, approached a new student and asked him to sing a duet with him. In steps Finn, Kurt’s former crush/fellow glee club member, who apologizes to Kurt for his past homophobic remarks, but then begins to blame Kurt for his continuing homophobic actions.  Finn proceeds to “save” the new kid from the stigma of singing with a gay. Next, Kurt discusses the situation with his father (the working class macho man who became a television hero to gays across the country for standing up for Kurt) and his father proceeds to side with Finn, even accusing Kurt of inciting Finn's past homophobic remarks. And in the end, Kurt seems to accept some of the blame for causing this homophobia and backs out of the duet.

Why would Glee step back from the bold stance they’ve taken? Why is it okay to have a blame the victim mentality for homophobia? It’s worrisome that the brave writers of Glee somehow decided to take a Fox News style “Fair and Balanced” approach to seeing the other side of homophobia, and blame the victim for slurs and bullying.