DOMA Grows Weaker

I just heard about this and thought I'd share it with others. Apparently, today, Obama ordered the Department of Justice to stop defending section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in their litigation. The following is a link to an article describing the transition:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politic ... tml?r=news

This came about due to the DoJ's defense of DOMA in two cases where plaintiffs claimed DOMA unconstitutional. The two cases, unlike previous cases, were in jurisdictions where there was no prior judicial decisions regarding whether sexual orientation, as a class, was subject to a heightened scrutiny. In previous cases, it was judicially pre-determined that sexual orientation was subject to the least rigorous form of judicial review, rational basis. This meant that the DoJ never had to actively engage itself in a legal battle of whether sexual orientation was suspect class (given heightened scrutiny) or not (where it would receive rational basis). However, with these two cases currently pending, the DoJ actually has to argue the issue of how to classify the class of sexual orientation. It is this added piece that has led to the DoJ's stance on DOMA.

One thing the article mentions, which is worth mentioning here, is that the DoJ, while it will stop defending the law in court, will continue to enforce DOMA out of respect for the previous Congress that voted yes to this abortion of a law. It will not stop enforcing the law until Congress repeals it or the SCOTUS declares it unconstitutional.

Honestly, I don't really know what the above distinction means. It certainly is a good thing to have the White House declaring DOMA section 3 unconstitutional and will, therefore, stop defending it. Whether this amounts to anything due to the "enforcement" language is something yet to be seen.

One last thing, this declaration regards DOMA section 3, which is the provision stating that marriage, for federal government purposes, is only between a man and a woman. The other major provision of DOMA, section 2, states that no state has an obligation under the Full Faith and Credit Clause to recognize the same-sex marriages of other states.

The Big, Pink, Limp-Wristed, Flaming Elephant in the Room: Is it as Easy to Spot as People Think?

Part II:

Last night I wrote about the trouble gay men and women come across when they meet an allegedly closeted homosexual person. The idea that a person we know might be gay can be both troubling and perplexing. As I explained earlier, when first asserting to the relevant people that a person might be gay, the normal reaction from heterosexuals (although not exclusively) is one of complete bewilderment. People just can't imagine a closeted gay man acting straight.

I was watching a very funny episode of 30 Rock. Tina Fey's character was attending her high school reunion. She was nervous because she always thought she was the antagonized geek that no one liked and she thought attending the reunion would bring about all those old dynamics with her high school peers. When she finally did arrive, she learned that her classmates despised her not because she was a geek, but rather because she herself was the actual bully. One of the people she used to be "friends" with was a man that she always assumed was gay and always tried to make him feel comfortable by telling him that she knew and it was OK. In a hilarious dialogue between Fey and the angry, flamboyantly gay man, he introduced her to his wife with whom he raised two very beautiful . . . dogs. Because he was so angry with Fey for always thinking he was gay, the only thing he could do was "dance."

I think that situation depicted in 30 Rock is what heterosexual people expect when it comes to closeted gay men and women. However, something that people don't seem to realize is that the whole point of being closeted is to keep people from knowing you are gay. It does not make much sense to be closeted when it oozes through your every pore and invades your every gesture.

No doubt, those men and women do exist. I think there are many people whose homosexuality is embodied in their mannerisms and other features, no matter how hard they try to hide it. I myself have known many guys in that situation. However, I think that is a precarious judgment to make simply because, as we all know, one's sexuality does not necessarily have to match up with our outer appearance and demeanor. However, I think heterosexuals, and many times even homosexuals, think that those are the only closeted people that exist. What they don't realize is that there are people out there who superficially embody the paradigm of heterosexuality and still are gay.

Actually, I take that back, I do think people realize that those people do exist. What I am trying to get across is that it never registers that the outwardly heterosexual friend might actually be gay and we cannot tell because they have no characteristics or mannerisms that would define them as gay. Indeed, I myself was shocked when my close, happily married law school friend started coming on to me. He seemed so straight. He was married. It then hit me that the only element necessary to make a person gay is a sexual attraction to the other person. Indeed, it is the only thing that matters and is relevant to a judgment as to whether someone is gay.

I have an example of this. One of my friends had a boyfriend for twelve years. I've met him on numerous occasions and he was a wonderful guy. One night, she was going through his e-mail (I realize that's improper, but let's quell our moral issues with that for now) and came across dozens of e-mail exchanges between him and his online boyfriends. These e-mails were very explicit and left nothing to the imagination as to what they were about. So basically, this guy, whom no one ever suspected had any homosexual tendencies (including myself), and never once acted in a suspiciously homosexual manner, was caught red-handed.

The situation described above exemplifies the problems I see with the staunchly closeted homosexual person. I think the problem is that cleverly secret homosexual men go such lengths to hide their sexual identity, they end up putting themselves in precarious, morally suspect positions. My friend was devastated when she read her boyfriends e-mails. She actually did not even believe them at first, she thought they had to be a joke, that he was playing a trick on her . . . a trick that involved over sixty fabricated e-mails written over the course of a couple months. The chances of that being the case have to be zero.

I feel like this is where gay men and women play an integral part in the development of good heterosexual relationships and marriages. Like I said before, the only reliable indicator of a person's sexual identity is their sexual and romantic behavior. Since there are closeted gay men and women out there that do not embody the persona of a gay man, that is the only device that can be used in making these determinations. The only way these men are going to act is if they a) know (or suspect) another man is gay and b) they are certain they can get what they want without blowing their secret. I was the only gay man in the group I was with during that recent evening. I was the only person that had any chance of figuring out that this guy might actually be gay. My heterosexual friends were never going to figure it out (or get a hint of his possible homosexuality) simply because there was nothing to look for. The only thing they, as heterosexuals, could observe is the rare occurrence of him hitting on another man, which they probably would never see.

Now, I am not saying that I, as a gay man who has a first-hand account (indeed, the only account) of what happened, have any business going and telling his wife. I, of course, told my close friend, but she is my confidante and I do not think it is inappropriate to do so. A lot of people would disagree with me on the disclosure issue. Several of my good girlfriends in law school (after realizing that our friend was gay and witnessed him coming precariously close to cheating on his wife) were adamant that someone should tell his wife. I and one other friend adamantly disagreed with them. Even if I could find some string of logic that would morally allow me to do so, she'd never have believed any of us. Further, I do believe it is a conversation that someone should have exclusively with their spouse.

I was reading an interesting article on one of my favorite legal blogs by one of my favorite legal writers. Her name is Julie Hilden and she writes on a lot of free speech, first amendment issues, as well as intellectual property. In this particular article, she was discussing how people were outraged when Tom Cruise was speaking negatively about postpartum depression and psychology. The retorts that Tom Cruise received were that he did not have the personal experience necessary to speak on such subjects. Hilden adamantly disagreed with those assertions, saying that personal experience, although valuable, is not a valid a prerequisite to knowledge. I partly agree, and partly disagree. I think she is right. A male gynecologist, although he is not a woman and has never had a personal experience with his areas of practice, still is (most likely) an expert in the field of gynecology (I know some of my female friends may disagree with me on this, but I am trying to be brave). I also saw her point when talking about Tom Cruise. She said his comments sparked furious, good debate on the issue. That is very true. However, I wonder what Hilden would say about personal experience as being an alleged prerequisite for my topic.

In all honesty, I think out and proud gay men and women have a lot to offer due to their experience with the coming out narrative. As strange as it may sound, there is something in gay men and women that picks up on the subtle tendencies in other members of our same gender that hint to us that someone might be gay. I also believe that most heterosexual people simply do not have this ability. Now let me clear, I am not a proponent of "gaydar," I do not think homosexuals can smell it on each other. I think it's simply recognizing the subtle behavior in people that reminds us of ourselves when we were first learning of our sexual identities. I think the experience is invaluable and usually necessary. You know your own kind. Also, I do not think this is something on which heterosexuals are incapable of speaking or that all heterosexuals are deprived of the ability to recognize the subtle gay man. I do think it's a rare case though, the heterosexual person who has so much familiarity with the gay culture that their actual heterosexuality is not an impediment in their judgment.

Now, of course, there is the whole "does it matter" question. Personally I think it does, it greatly matters. I've known several people, all women (save for one), who have dated men that have turned out to be gay (or have a homosexual attraction). I think it is a serious problem, especially when the situation involves a married couple. For the record, I am only speaking of closeted men and women that are hiding their sexuality from relevant people, such as a heterosexual spouse. I am a firm believer that people should be able to design their personal relationships in whatever way to suit their emotional and sexual needs. If a heterosexual, female fiance is aware that her future husband has homosexual tendencies and she is put on notice of the consequences, then I think the couple is free to live how they want. It is when men are blatantly lying to their spouses about these things and they didn't disclose their tendencies before their marriage, or even before starting a serious relationship that is not a marriage. I think that is a major breach of the marital agreement. Actually, I think it is an egregious breach. It's a double lie.

Before people go and say that this is just a waste of time and nobody really cares, there are psychologists and therapists out there that have dedicated their practices to helping straight men and women who have inadvertently found themselves in a serious relationship with a homosexual spouse. I would direct people to look up Bonnie Kaye on the internet, a licensed therapist who has counseled over 30,000 women, all of whom found out their husbands were gay. It's an extremely interesting website. I've engaged in some e-mail conversation with her on the topic and it is very interesting and emotional.

There is a question begged by all this analysis. What are heterosexual people supposed to do? If a man could be gay, but there is basically no way to tell unless you catch him red-handed, how is a woman supposed to protect herself against this kind of trap? What if he is just extremely careful and leaves absolutely no tracks? Bonnie Kaye has some very interesting ways of being able to figure out if a man is closeted, and with most of them I disagree. She suggests getting online tracking devices and lists a number of ways to tell if your husband is gay, i.e. he has gay friends or he watches homosexual pornography (well . . . yeah!). Again, I think those can be somewhat indicative of homosexuality, but I do not think they are in the least bit reliable and should never be given too great of weight. If my friend's long term boyfriend and I decide to get a beer once a week or something like that, I would hope she wouldn't think I was trying to get on her man. Bonnie Kaye assumes that the woman will be able to come across evidence of that sort. I think closeted men are much more clever than that. Indeed, many of them spend years and years perfecting their secrecy.

To be honest, I think the best device is good judgment and intuition. I think every woman, even those without any experience with homosexual culture, knows her man well enough to suspect if something is wrong. Men and women are not that resilient to moral guilt. If the man you love, and loves you, is engaging in behavior like that, then you are likely to pick up on it, even it you cannot identify it as homosexuality. Of course there is always the off-chance that you find the person who is incapable of feeling guilt, but I do think that is rare.

I do think it is terribly sad to find men and women in this situation. For as much contempt as I have for these lying, closeted individuals, I do have pangs of sympathy. Being an out gay man or woman is not always easy, and there are times when even the most out and proud members of the gay community feel the need to tone down their "gayness." Until society really comes around and accepts being gay as normal, there will always be closeted homosexuals. Even then, I think there are people, mostly men, who simply refuse to "be gay" because it's not manly. But who knows? There is always hope.

As for what to do about the debacle, I am a firm believer that marriage laws need to reflect the pain and suffering heterosexual spouses go through after finding out their spouse is homosexually active. In addition to the health problems (I really hate to think about that), the revelation that your spouse is gay and has been cheating with members of their same gender creates such emotional turmoil. Bonnie Kaye sent me several packets of letters she has received from women over the years who have been subjected to this problem. They are heart-wrenching and tear-jerking to say the least. I think it is time for society to stop condoning these marriages between homosexual men and women and their uninformed spouses. Under the no fault divorce regimes active in most states, spouses who breach their marital agreements in this egregious form receive no sort of punishment. I hate using the word "punishment," but I truly believe that is what form the retribution for that breach should be. I think it raises major moral problems.

For the record, I am not saying that criminal sanctions should be used. Actually, I adamantly believe that criminal sanctions should never be used to rectify a marital breaches (except for killing your spouse of course). I think there should be some form of civil liability placed upon these cheating spouses. I think the law needs to deter these men and women from entering into heterosexual marriage. Obviously, every person has a right to heterosexual marriage, but not a right to go and cheat on your spouse with another man or woman. I wont get into a major legal discussion, but I will admit that my proposal is highly controversial and is not without its problems. However, I do think the burdens of this type of legal reform would be greatly outweighed by the benefits.

The Big, Pink, Limp-Wristed, Flaming Elephant in the Room: Is it as Easy to Spot as People Think?

Part I:

The last few years have been interesting to say the least. In law school, I came across a lot of wonderful people, professors, students, lunch ladies, security guards, all of whom were incredibly kind and lovely. However, my life in a conservative, Catholic law school introduced me to a new group of people, a group whose members I rarely came across before. This group is the band of closeted homosexual men that exists in every conservative, homosexually unsympathetic culture. What was even more strange was the reaction I received from my friends after I confided my stories in them. Some of them were cautious about believing my assertions that these men were actually gay. Ultimately, I've realized that most heterosexual people are not in a proper place to discern whether a man or woman might be actually hiding in the closet.

Before I delve into discussion on this topic, I do want to inform anyone who reads this that I am a major proponent of all people being able to keep their private lives behind closed doors. I also think everyone has an unfettered right to control their image in the public sphere. I do believe that a person's sexuality is their business and their business alone. With that said, I do have difficulties, however, supporting the gay man or woman who chooses to hide their sexuality. This difficulty is augmented when they do so to the detriment of other people involved in their lives, i.e. a heterosexual spouse.

The reason I chose to write about this topic at this time was because I had a rather awkward encounter with a male acquaintance a few days ago. I was out with some friends at a bar. One of them was this acquaintance. I remember having a secluded casual conversation with him away from my friends' ears. I wont go into great detail about the conversation (we were talking about movies or something of that nature), but there was a point at which I noticed the conversation steering in a very unexpected direction. I began to get the impression that he was coming on to me. The things that were coming out of this guy's mouth, specifically directed at me, were incredibly shocking and made me blush out of discomfort. What made me all the more appalled was that I knew this gentleman was married to a woman whom I have met and whose company I've enjoyed.

Needless to say, I was pretty sure this guy was trying to initiate some super-platonic encounter with me. The next day, I phoned one of my close friends who was there, told her about the situation, and asked her opinion. Her first comment was she was certain he wasn't gay because he had a wife. She also said she had never witnessed any behavior from him that would remotely constitute as "gay." It was apparent that she didn't believe me, or at the very least thought my opinion was suspect.

My conversation with her got me thinking. What was it that was preventing my friend from believing my account of this story? I will admit, it's not like this guy was getting so physically aggressive that observers would have no choice but to believe he was gay. However, I know what I heard from this guy and, although I would never say that our encounter makes him a homosexual as a matter of fact, his tone and words were highly suspect. It then hit me, my friend does not recognize the subtle signals that I see as being indicative of a homosexual orientation.

Now, my friend is a very liberal, open-minded, accepting person. She has many gay male friends and she loves them dearly. She is not one of those people who thinks all homosexual men think every other man is gay. However, she, like the vast majority of the heterosexual American population, has very limited experience in the homosexual arena. The gay men she knows are out and proud, they are the stereotypical gay men you see in the media. There is no questioning their sexuality because they announce it in every possible way. To her, gay men exist in only limited form. Unless a guy is either open about his sexuality, or is running around in a pink polo with bleached hair kissing men, a man is not gay.

What I found really interesting while talking to my friend was that she gave absolutely no deference to my experience as a gay man that, quite frankly, includes dealing with a lot of closeted gay men. Although she agreed that what he said was weird, she couldn't fathom it being said in a homosexually provocative context. She said he must have been joking. No doubt she could be right, but what I found strange is that she had no problem immediately denouncing my opinion as incorrect. There was never a moment where she thought the guy could actually be a closeted homosexual.

This experience with my friend was not the first of this sort. As most people who know me know, I had several suspicious encounters with several of my male law school classmates throughout my time in school. Of course I shared these strange interactions with my close friends. Some of those people with whom I spoke often doubted my ability to discern gay from straight. I am sure many of them did not believe the strange stories I told. What made my stories all the less convincing was that all of these men were allegedly heterosexual and two of them were married to women.

Now, I don't actually think my friends ever really disbelieved my accounts of these situations. I think most of them doubt my interpretations of these events as circumstantial proof that those men were gay. I know my friend does not think I am lying about what this guy said to me the other night, nor do I think my law school friends think the situations I described to them were fabricated. When it comes down to it, they do not believe closeted men really exist, at least not at the level these men would have to be.

Now obviously, people know closeted homosexual men and women exist. It's just that they don't believe anyone they know could be that way. I think the heterosexual population has prematurely lulled itself into thinking the vast majority of the American population is ok with men and women being gay. For a lot of these people, they do not believe men and women are closeted because they see no real reason for such secrecy anymore. To them, the world is a friendly, accepting place that loves gay men and women. States are slowly but surely allowing gay men and women to marry, the media is depicting openly gay men and women both in television shows and in the news, and gay men and women are everywhere in almost all areas of American society. Why on earth would a gay person be closeted nowadays?

This is the type of logic that goes on inside the doubtful heterosexual's head. I think this logic is coupled with America's well-known stereotypes of gay men and women. A man or woman cannot be labeled as gay unless they act as such. Indeed, my friend from the other night could not believe what I was saying simply because she's never seen that guy act like a gay man. My friends from law school could not believe our good male friend, married to an empirically beautiful woman, was trying to kiss me because he was gay. The only gay men who are closeted are those gay men who are married, yet are effeminate in gesture, dress, and tone. The archetypal manly man could never be gay.

Gay men and women are in a different place than open-minded, accepting heterosexual people. As people attracted to the opposite gender, heterosexuals do not as easily see the safe haven that the closet can provide. Most of them have never had to decide whether to keep their heterosexuality a secret. I would believe that most out gay men and women have, at some point before coming out, debated whether to keep their sexuality hidden. I certainly did and most of my gay friends did as well. Gay men and women understand and realize that a large part of their community is still not open about their sexuality. It's because we understand why people would remain in the closet. Most of us debated doing so.

Now obviously, most out gay men and women would never rethink their decision to be openly gay. Being out of the closet is a much better life for sure. However, that doesn't mean the alternative has no benefits. These benefits the closet provides make the secret homosexual a very real person to us. For people whose homosexuality poses an actual threat to their safety, reputation, or finances, hiding ones sexuality by whatever means available seems a viable and, often, necessary option.

I think that distinction is very important. Heterosexuals simply do not realize that there are men and women out there that endure great fear from the thought of their sexual identities becoming known. These men and women do not necessarily exhibit the stereotypical characteristics in gay culture. Indeed, it's part of being closeted. When my friend told me she couldn't believe her friend was gay because he's never acted gay and he was married, I told her she wouldn't ever see him act that way. The only thing that is gay about him is the fact that he comes on to other men. Unfortunately for him, that is the only necessary component. The only reason why I picked up on it is because of the things he was doing to me. Heterosexual people assume that the closeted homosexual is easy to spot. I used to think the same thing. However, my past experiences in law school and elsewhere have made me realize that it's not as easy as one would think. Indeed, it is often undetectable.

2009 Gay Pride Observations

This weekend was the annual GLBT Pride festival in Minneapolis. Although I do have some issues, both politically and personally, with the Minneapolis Gay Pride Festival, I decided to attend this year. While walking around Loring Park and it's surrounding areas, I made a few shocking observations, some of which I wanted to post on here.

One observation I made was that the younger crowd (perhaps ages 18-30) were very tame this year. In past years, I feel like the younger crowd has donned the more traditional Pride garb of brightly colored short-shorts, flip-flops, and perhaps a pooka shell necklace. This year, I noticed the younger crowd was not nearly as sexually provocative in their dress. While there were men walking around with the shirts hanging out of their pockets instead of on their persons, it did not seem to be for sexual arousal. Rather, it was just because they were hot (It was rather warm during the mid afternoon). Even with that, their bottoms were mostly baggy cargo shorts and not the tight "booty" shorts that are usually worn. Most of the younger crowd was dressed normally, dragging along their puppies and dogs.

The older crowd was drastically different. My friend and I were in the beer garden and she and I both commented on how so many "older" men were dressed provocatively and with the purpose of expressing sexuality (that's actually being polite, the actual statement I recall was "Why are there so many old, half-naked, fat men?"). One man, my guess would be he was in his early forties, was running around in a super-hero get up, complete with gold tights, some wretchedly tight, pink tank top, and a cape. If he was wearing under garments, their purpose was lost on me; the tights left little to the imagination. Another older gentleman (most definitely in his late 50s, early 60s) was wearing nothing but a kilt. These were the most shocking examples, but I noticed a great deal of older men who were wearing things that we'd all prefer to see on younger, more physically fit men.

Now I must admit, this was shocking to me. Usually, it's the younger gay men, with their well benched chests, running around in clothing that would make conservatives gasp. This year, there were way more older gay men publicly displaying themselves in "inappropriate" garb. In fact, my friend and I both jokingly (somewhat) remarked at how disappointed we were that there were so few "hot, half-naked guys."

Another observation I made was that there was way less public inebriation among the younger crowd this year. I was in the Beer Garden for a few hours and I did not see anyone who was being inappropriate or obviously too intoxicated. Also, my friends and I stopped by Nick and Eddie's in the Loring block to have some lunch. Next door, Cafe Lurcat was hosting a very loud, expressive gathering in honor of the Pride Celebration. Although things were very loud and people were celebrating, I did not notice one incident of improper, drunken behavior such as vomiting in the street. Although Cafe Lurcat was a bit more boisterous (their party beat the one at N&E's by far), it was very well contained and within the boundaries of the bar.

Let me be clear that I am only commenting on the behavior of the GLBT crowd in the public arena of the park. Of course, in the evening the gay bars became a complete mess. Mens' shirts came off, people were "trashed," and there was a lot of "sexy" going on. Now of course, this is not something with which I have a major problem. People go to clubs to get drunk, to meet people, sometimes with the intent of finding a torrid affair with a duration that lasts shorter than a bald man's haircut. This happens at both gay and straight bars. It's a part of our young culture. As long as that stays in the clubs and out of the Starbucks and Targets, I see no problem with people doing those things.

Further, this posting is not meant to say that there was no improper behavior going on publicly at all. I am sure there were some younger guys running around in undergarments, vomiting up Bacardi in the waste receptacles. I just never saw it and anything I did see was not what I'd consider terribly improper behavior. Also, I did not attend the parade this year. So who knows what happened during that.

Generally, I was pleased with my overall impression. I realize that attributing this lack of indecent behavior to any cause is a shot in the dark. Maybe the vast majority of promiscuous, younger gay men were just too hungover from Saturday night's events to make it to the park that day. Maybe it was something else. Personally, I like to think that it has something to do with a changing disposition in the younger gay community.

As a member of what I consider to be the younger gay community, the past few years have changed my behavior. With gay marriage nascent in Minnesota's and other states' legislatures, and its arrival in many other states, I have tried to put forth my very best behavior. I have encouraged other homosexual people to do the same. I think it is a very dangerous time to have gay men prancing down Hennepin in their bedroom attire and lesbian women walking around publicly with only conveniently-placed rainbow stickers. The gay community needs to show greater Minnesota that we, as a culture, are the type of men and women that can and should be married with children of our own and leading a publicly respectable life as such.

I wonder if this year's demure Pride was the result of such a phenomenon. To be sure, Minneapolis' Gay Pride event tends to be more family oriented than other cities. One of my friends from law school and his wife were super excited for their son's first Pride. They took him to the parade and carried him around the Loring Park festival. Thus, the multitude of children probably has a taming effect on the celebrants. However, there have been many Pride festivals where that has not been the case. There were certain parts of past Prides that I would never want my young child to observe. However, I can honestly say that I would have had no problem exposing my child to anything that occurred the day I spent in the park (with the exception of Old Kilt Man and Super Gay, I wouldn't want my child to go blind).

Another thing I've been thinking about is why there were so many older gay men exhibiting what I would consider to be inappropriate behavior and dress and so fewer younger men this year. The only explanation I can come up with is that there might be a cultural difference between younger and older gay men.

For older gay men who grew up in the 60s and 70s, I think the American gay community is currently dealing with a different set of problems than those with which older gay men and women dealt in their younger years. I think much of the 60s, 70s and 80s were about getting the greater public to realize that gay men and women existed. The "We're here, we're queer, get used to it" mantra was more relevant then than it is now. In the recent 90s and now in the early millennium, the mantra seems to have shifted to "Now that you know we're here, what are you going to do about it?" I think a lot of older gay men and women, in trying to get people to notice their existence maybe used devices of inappropriate dress and sexually provocative behavior to get the full attention of the predominant heterosexual community. The older gay men and women might still be stuck in their attempts to get noticed. I believe that now, since the gay community is far more prevalent in today's metropolitan and political communities, there is not as a great a need for shock value for purposes of getting attention. Thus, I like to think the younger gay crowds are adjusting themselves and their behavior to the new mantra.

Sadly, I have no statistics or studies on which to base my ideas. However, this year's Pride Festival was really quite lovely. I was very impressed by the vast majority of celebrants' behavior and dress. I like to think that my observations are due to a shift in the mindsets and attitudes of the gay community, specifically in the younger crowd. I think young gay men and women are beginning to see the possibilities for the general gay community and are starting to subdue and prepare themselves for leading a "normal" American life, something that a lot of gay men and women desperately need right now. I know I am and I am definitely looking to the future with high hopes.