LVW Col: Vegas Blew It, And Not In A Good Way

Here's the columnized version of the blog post of the other day. Also, you can hear me, Chuck and travel agent Terry Wilsey discuss the topic on Las Vegas Weekly Radio Mag tonight on KUNV, 91.5 FM, at 5:30p. I'll update this post with the link when there's a podcast version available. -sf

When it comes to gay marriage,
Nevada is a few states too late

By STEVE FRIESS

Like most gay Americans not on the happy streets of Greenwich Village on Friday as the New York Senate deliberated whether to make my home state the largest and coolest state to recognize same-sex marriages, I sat with one eye glued to cable news coverage and the other avidly scanning the web. And amid that hullabaloo, an email arrived from Nevada’s foremost conservative activist, Chuck Muth.

He, too, was paying attention and took the unfolding historic moment to call on his Silver State minions—those who sign his anti-tax pledges and cower when he unleashes his ire—to embrace marriage equality because “it’s inevitable. It can and will be delayed, but not stopped. And eventually, it will be as acceptable as black/white marriages.”

It was at once a reality check and a warning against being on the wrong side of history. It wasn’t the first time Muth or other principled conservatives—those who follow their credo all the way to the belief that government should stay out of personal as well as economic lives—had made such remarks, but his timing heightened the message.

To sweeten the pot, Muth added this: “As an economy based almost solely on tourism and entertainment, Nevada—and especially Las Vegas —should accept reality, embrace the inevitable, repeal the state’s ban on gay marriage and scarf up on the tourism bonanza that would result rather than suck hind teat behind the likes of Hawaii and New York.”

Sorry, Charlie.

Read the REST at LasVegasWeekly.Com

Top Nevada Conservative: Gay Marriage Is Inevitable, Just Do It

As the New York State Legislature works into the night on a track to become the largest state to grant marriage equality to same-sex couples, the effort to make this happen in Nevada may have hit a turning point today as well.

Chuck Muth, the outspoken conservative activist whose wrath is feared by most Republican elected officials in Nevada, wrote this in his daily email blast that goes to GOPers and journalists:

Many, if not most of you won't like this but gay marriage is coming. Nationwide. It's inevitable. It's only a matter of time. It can and will be delayed, but not stopped. And eventually, it will be as acceptable as black/white marriages. The problem isn't letting gays into marriage, but having already let the government into marriage.

As an economy based almost solely on tourism and entertainment, Nevada -- and especially Las Vegas -- should accept reality, embrace the inevitable, repeal the state's ban on gay marriage, and scarf up on the tourism bonanza that would result rather than suck hind teat behind the likes of Hawaii and New York.

I suspect that Muth has uttered similar views before, but it's especially notable because this missive will be read more closely than most as it also announces that the GOP presidential debate he was helping organize has been postponed from July. And I know that Muth has never been all that interested in the Sharron Angle-Richard Ziser wing of the Nevada Republican universe because he doesn't think the guvmint belongs in personal lives any more than in anything else they're in.

But if GLBT activists are wise, they'll ring up Muth and see if they can team up with him on getting the marriage amendment undone in the state constitution. Maybe they can sit down together with Mayor-Elect Carolyn Goodman, who is misinformed about what her own religion says now on this very topic, too.

I will say this, however: As much as I love tempting the right wing with promises of economic bonanzas, my sense is that Nevada has actually missed that boat now -- for good. There was a time back around 2003 when legal marriage for gays was a novelty and there were county clerks all over the country suddenly deciding to issue marriage licenses. Gays were flocking to remote parts of New Mexico and Oregon and certainly San Francisco to get married because it was exciting and felt politically important.

Today, there are five states where it is legal and, by tomorrow, perhaps six. There are major court challenges that are working their way to the Supreme Court which, if it reads the Constitution the way true conservatives like Muth do, will only be able to conclude that marriage bans violate the full faith and credit clause, among other niggling details.

But gay couples today are well aware that the legal marriages they entered into in Massachusetts or Iowa mean nothing in Nevada or Arkansas or Florida. This is something Goodman didn't understand when she suggested that gay couples go to other states to get married and then come back; gays aren't just doing it for the legally insignificant thrill anymore.

So even if Nevada undid its marriage amendment and legalized it -- a process that would take years -- gay couples from other states will not stampede here en masse anymore. Gays, like most minorities, reward the early adapters, not opportunistic stragglers. And in order for out-of-state gays to be able to bring their Nevada marriage licenses home and have it mean anything, marriage equality would have to be federally recognized, most likely via Supreme Court fiat.

All that said, the fact that Muth is being so direct and vocal about this is meaningful and this doesn't mean it's not an effort worth doing. I'd love to see Nevada permit same-sex marriages willingly and affirmatively rather than because what will inevitably be called "activist judges" foist it upon us. I doubt it's a tourism panacea in any measurable way, but it certainly would be nice to know that Nevada still operates on the small government, live-and-let-live credo it claimed but surrendered by approving Question 2 in 2000 and 2002.

Carolyn Goodman's Contextual Problems

There is a very troubling pattern emerging with Las Vegas mayoral front runner Carolyn Goodman that came up last Wednesday when I moderated the forum for the Lambda business group with both candidates and again tonight: Mrs. Goodman is not capable of admitting when she's wrong or unclear. She touts her own fallibility, but then when she actually must answer for her own prior remarks, she blames the media or the audience, not herself.

It's a time-worn politician's trick, but as Sharron Angle and Mitt Romney have more recently learned, it's losing its efficacy because, more often than not, there's VIDEO or AUDIO recordings.

At the Lambda event, I revisited the issue of the DREAM Act and Mrs. Goodman complained that what was gleaned from that discussion about her ignorance about it and her understanding of its history was untrue and "taken out of context." And yet I had transcribed the conversation verbatim and posted the entire audio for everyone to hear specifically to avoid such a claim.

Now, tonight, Carolyn Goodman did it again during a live televised debate moderated by Steve Sebelius and Jonathan Humbert on KLAS Channel 8. Here's an exchange between Sebelius and Goodman:

Sebelius: Speaking at the Lambda business lunch last week, you said if you were gay and you wanted to marry your partner, you would move to state where gay marriage is already legal. My question is, why should somebody have to do that? Why shouldn’t somebody have be able to marry the person they love and stay in the city that they love?

Goodman: Okay, were you there?

Sebelius: I was not.

Goodman: It was taken a little out of context whoever wrote it down. I was answering some questions. My words were, if there was some urgency, I totally support of the domestic partnerships. In fact it was the city and the council in 2008, or, oh, wrong, eight years ago, passed the ordinance so, um, that those of the same [sic] who would have it legalized and have the opportunity to share in those things. From a legal standpoint I'm 1,000% in support of that. The question that was asked of me was about lobbying going forward -- [muddled chatter I'm not even sure how to transcribe] -- my sense was, if there’s an urgency. I’m all about individual rights. There’s nobody stronger about individual rights than myself. Anybody should have the right to their own lives. And if there’s an urgency for some reason to get married, it is not legal in the state of Nevada. So what I said was were I in that situation, I would go to another state where it was legal but I would still come back here because in my heart and soul, I would feel as though I was legally married. Taken out of context, it’s a little different.

Now, compare that to what actually happened. This was the exchange from Wednesday. You can hear it on this audio recording or watch it on this YouTube video:

If you don't want to watch or listen, here was the very first exchange between us:

Friess: Do you support legalized same-sex marriage?

Goodman: I support domestic partnerships for sure. I support the collective voice, and I support the laws of our state. But were I in your situation and it were important to me, until the state's legislative body hears your voice, were I in your situation, I would be going to a state right now that legalizes a marriage of same sex individuals.

So here's the thing. I didn't believe then nor now that Mrs. Goodman was saying she wants gay couples to move away. Even in the moment, I knew what she was saying, which is what she clarified in her response to Sebelius, because the alternative reading was simply ridiculous and mean-spirited. Her explanation of her remarks makes a certain sense -- and a certain nonsense as I'll get to in a moment -- and her position of being pro-DPs but against gay marriage is still the same as what President Obama and Sen. Harry Reid profess.

But there are two other things here:

(a) Nothing was taken out of context. It was badly articulated. This is clearly the fault of the speaker. Mrs. Goodman should have said, "I'm sorry, I wasn't clear, that didn't come out right," etc. Instead, this woman who claims to be a non-politician, behaved as politicians love to, imagining they can bend time and history simply by saying the blue sky is purple.

(b) She wasn't being truthful on other details, either. She wasn't answering "some" questions; she was answering the very first question. Also, I didn't ask her a thing about "lobbying."

Look, Carolyn Goodman is probably not a homophobe. There is a way that she talks about all of this -- her lack of modern vocabulary makes it a wonder she doesn't use the word "homosexual" -- that makes it clear she just doesn't know very much about the topic. Yes, that's troubling given that she's likely to be the next mayor, but being ignorant is not the same as being a hater.

I suspect that were a set of gay activists to sit down with her in a non-pressurized circumstance and explain to her what exactly the issues were, she may have a different view. It is clear that she simply doesn't get it, doesn't know that going to another state to marry does nothing for couples who live here, that a Nevada domestic partnership does not give a gay couple Social Security benefits or enable a man to keep his non-citizen spouse in the U.S. or any number of other details that make federal marriage equality important to those who want it.

I also suspect that there are plenty of Jews, including her own rabbi at Temple Beth Sholom, who could explain to her that religious teachings -- which she has cited as her opposition to same-sex marriage -- have evolved since she was young. In 2006, the overlords of Conservative Judaism endorsed same-sex unions and the ordination of openly gay clergy. So she is actually not in step with her own faith. When she was young, very few girls had Bat Mitzvahs. Her daughter had one and, from what she told me, the FBI spied on it because of the mobsters who attended. So times change.

Carolyn Goodman may be teachable on this stuff and, in fact, has come a long way from my first interview with her in March when she didn't even understand why gays needed domestic partnerships.

So I'm not troubled by her statements because I know lots of Jewish grandmas like her. I had two, in fact, until I came out and fell in love and they figured out how to square their desire for my happiness with whatever they had been told decades before.

But her knee-jerk willingness to be dishonest about her own prior comments should alarm even her. She must have watched politicians her whole life do that, as we all have, and hated it. She'd be more human, more reasonable, more sympathetic if she could resist that instinct and offered up more humility.

Odds are good she's going to have to make many, many more public statements in the future. It would be nice if we didn't have to take them with grains of salt.

The Gayest Neighborhood in Vegas?!?

Sometimes columnists, including me, insert themselves into their stories because we can be vain or lazy. This week, there was no other way. I've wanted to do something on Nevada's fake-gay-marriage thing for a while and thought maybe finding a crusty old couple in some unlikely corner of the state would make a fun piece. But it was hard to ignore that gift from the Columnist Gods, the fact that somehow I happened to live in the Fake Gay Married Mecca of Nevada and I'm Fake Gay Married. So here goes. Enjoy. -sf

Feeling good in the gayborhood
Apparently 89121 is the gayest ZIP in the state
By STEVE FRIESS

I have noticed that my local Albertson's tends to display the Froot Loops just a little more prominently than other stores in town. I’ve also peeked into my neighbors’ iTunes lists and noticed that Broadway show tunes are disproportionately popular around here, but I try not to read too much into this sort of thing. And, yes, even though Rainbow Boulevard is way across town, those colorful arcs are undeniably brighter in the skies over my house after a good rain.

But, still. I live in the gayest ZIP code in the Silver State? Really?

It sure seems that way. It’s been six months since Nevada began allowing gays to fake-marry, creating a registry that confers to same-sex couples just about all of the statewide benefits of being hitched without calling it that, because the semantics-obsessed voters decided early last decade to constitutionally bar marriage equality. I call it “fake-married,” because we’re not allowed to call it married, and it means nothing to the government, where all the real goodies lie for married couples—in the tax code, anyway.

As of last week, 1,717 couples had declared they had “chosen to share one another’s lives in an intimate and committed relationship of mutual caring” and reside together “on at least a part-time basis,” as the form reads. Nearly 300 couples a month plunk down either $50 for a boring black-and-white certificate or—as this is the state of the upsell—$65 for a colorful “ceremonial” one that looks like the sort of thing a kindergarten teacher prints out for her prized students. (Just three partnerships have been dissolved, by the way.)

Back in November, when 1,150 couples had taken this plunge, writer Alex Richards did a fun by-the-numbers box for the Las Vegas Sun, indicating that the most popular ZIP code in Nevada for gay fake-marrieds—with 50 couples registered—was 89121.

That is to say, mine.

Last week, I checked again, by obtaining the database of all the couples and their ZIP codes from the secretary of state. There were now 61 couples registered in my ZIP, including me and my partner, Miles. We’re still No. 1, with 3.5 percent of the state’s registered couples.

Huh. Who knew?

Read the REST at LasVegasWeekly.Com

Postscript on the Gay Sex Museum Drama

Remember how I got all concerned last week that the first images the media would have of gays tying the knot under the domestic partnership law that went into effect on Oct. 1 would look like this...


...instead of like this?


Well, thanks to this blog and a whole lotta other folks who saw the common sense in what I was saying, this is what ended up on the front page of the R-J was this Craig L. Moran shot:


Isn't that sweet? Mainstream? Inoffensive?

And the folks at the Erotic Heritage Museum had a small gathering with no media coverage and no gay couples celebrating their domestic partners. From what I hear, it ended up being more a roast in my dishonor.

Now, I know some folks are really, really mad at me. This angry screed from the Sin City Sex Blog gave me an enormous amount of credit/blame as if I alone can get, as she wrote, Nevada legislators and politicians to make calls at 2 a.m. to put the kibosh on the plan for a public celebration at the sex museum involving drag-queen nuns and other outlandishness. (It's a very colorful post that I encourage you to check out. Sample: "I was sickened by their willingness to accept what he had done – sickened by the diarrhea that spewed from his fingertips onto the Internet for the whole world to read.")

What's fun about that blog post is that it essentially states that I was right -- "Steve Friess might have been right, in fact, he probably was" -- but that I should have handled it quietly even though a press release had already been issued all over the place and had as its contact someone who should have had a better grip on the PR issue here, the associate publisher of the local gay paper. (He turned out to be the would-be star of the debacle, too.)

So, once again for the record:

* I am not against the Erotic Heritage Museum and I do look forward to checking it out soon.
* I don't mean to take anything away from the fine fundraising and HIV/AIDS awareness work of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence.
* I still think Elvis impersonator weddings are silly and cliche.

As for why I didn't make quiet phone calls, maybe that's because I have no desire to be a part of power structures. I work alone. I do not conspire with gay leaders or politicians or business leaders to make certain things happen. I am a member of the media. I point out things I see on this blog and elsewhere and let others decide for themselves whether my view is sensible or stupid, ingenious or ignorable.

But it is interesting that the same folks who think it's unseemly, embarrassing and counterproductive for gays to debate legitimate issues publicly were not concerned at all about the PR mess that this event would have created.

ACK! It's actually STILL on!

It was too easy, too logical, for it to be true. And it wasn't.

QVegas associate publisher Earl Shelton canceled his public nuptials at the Erotic Heritage Museum, but evidently some other couples are still moving forward with this horrible idea of marking the commencement of the new domestic partnership law with ceremonies at a sex museum officiated by an Elvis and, maybe, featuring drag-queen nuns.

Laura Henkel, the museum's curator, wrote this comment on the prior post:

Steve,I'm really glad you raised valid points. The event is still happening tonight. There were other couples who were going to participate in the celebrations. Earl backed out due to public pressure. I don't know if the Sisters are participating are not. People from various communities are showing up at 3pm at EHM to discuss what is indeed happening tonight. Jesse Garon does not own the Erotic Wedding Chapel exhibit as it is one of the exhibits at the Museum. Jessie Garon is going to overseeing commitment ceremonies at the Museum. He currently runs The Knot at the Plaza Hotel. I look forward to meeting you in person soon. Best, Laura

That's just swell, Laura. You've now officially proven yourself more concerned with your own bottom line and publicity than for what is obviously right for the community you claim to support. The best answer, if you must follow through, is to not allow media to cover it, period. But then what good would that do you, huh? And how will you repair the damage when this footage ends up being used against us to scare the bejesus out of straight people? You seem to believe you know something about marriage equality politics that those who study these things for a living don't.

It's shameful. The museum people may have started out trying to mix good business with good intentions, but when it has been clearly explained to them and they still persist to follow through, there's only one explanation: Greed.

P.S. I'm quite certain Garon told me this was his idea because he was the owner of the chapel at the museum. So now I'm confused but I'll take Laura's word for that.

The Worst Idea Of The Week Has Been Canceled!

Common sense has somehow, against all odds, prevailed!

This statement just arrived from QVegas's Earl Shelton, who was to hold a public wedding to his partner at the Erotic Heritage Museum officiated by an Elvis impersonator and surrounded by drag-queen nuns known as the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence. The press was invited to cover this historic first, the first couple to hold a ceremony tied to their domestic partnership, which becomes legal for same-sex couples tomorrow:

“After further consideration, the ceremony that I had planned in celebration of the passing of the Domestic Partnership Bill (SB283) for this evening will no longer be celebrated in a public manner. While I do continue to believe that Las Vegas is the wedding capital of the world and feel that same sex couples should celebrate their unions in our city’s chapels and affirming places of worship, I no longer feel that the ceremony scheduled for tonight will help to move Nevada forward in full marriage equality. Therefore, the ceremony originally scheduled for 12:01 a.m. tonight, Oct. 1, 2009, will not occur. This decision in no way affects my support for any of the establishments or the parties involved with the ceremony.”

Well, that's a relief. What's interesting is that I don't think anyone's told the Erotic Heritage Museum people yet since I just got off the phone moments ago with Jesse Garon, the Elvis impersonator and owner of the wedding chapel at the museum. It was all his idea in the first place and I have to say he sounded like quite a nice fellow. He had called earlier and asked me how this thing could be "made right" and indicated the Sisters had already backed out. I kept telling him it didn't matter how credible the museum was, the media would reduce it to a sex museum. He asked for some say and I promised I'd post whatever he wanted to write.

So this blog post was SUPPOSED to be Garon's remarks, but instead they're posted as comments in the prior post because his pleas for help making this thing happen "the right way" are now moot. It was never, ever going to be able to be done "the right way."

I do wish Earl and his partner all the best, even if their tastes and mine aren't the same. Q Vegas does tons of good for the community. This thing could have undone a lot of it, though.

FOLO: Of Sex Museums, Sisters and Cocktoberfest

With the rather swift reaction to the prior post about the horrifying "first nuptial" stunt occurring tonight as the Nevada domestic partnership law takes effect, I felt it was necessary to clarify a few things.

1. I was not slamming the Erotic Heritage Museum, whose artistic director wrote this impassioned response in the comments of the prior post that's worth reading.
2. I was not slamming the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, whose outrageous get-ups and good deeds I have personally often enjoyed and whose humor I totally get in the right context.
3. I was not suggesting that anyone should have anything other than the wedding or ceremony of their choosing.

However. Per No.3, the ridiculous event slated to take place tonight is primarily a publicity stunt; the media is being beckoned to come watch as "history is made," per the release. And that makes the private choices of the couple involved a matter worthy and appropriate for broader debate especially among other gay couples who are supposedly being represented by these self-appointed models. And combining No. 1 and No. 2, both fine and dandy in their own rights, with a media event for No. 3 is so obviously a bad idea that even Q Vegas editor Cory Burgess admitted as much in a comment on my Facebook page defending it:

"Yes, we're quite aware of how the public may perceive our community, but considering no other organization in town is (to our knowledge) doing anything special to celebrate the occasion, this is better than the big day passing and nobody doing a thing."

Cory had written to clarify that Q Vegas hadn't "orchestrated" this event as I wrote but was approached to promote it. Yet they're not just promoting it, they're sort of the stars, too! As I now understand it, half of the couple at the center of this embarrassment is the magazine's associate publisher, Earl Shelton. Shelton appeared in this Review-Journal story, too, when pre-registrations for domestic partnerships were first being accepted. So this isn't a heartfelt ceremony planned out and contemplated the way normal weddings are; it's a spur-of-the-moment exercise in wish fulfillment for an advertiser at the expense of the entire community.

It's also a potential derailment of the political future of the only openly gay elected official in the state's history, State Sen. David Parks, at a time when he is considering a 2010 run for Clark County Commission. Sen. Parks has spent decades fending off the worst kind of homophobia from his opponents and he is the most significant figure responsible for the passage of any and all pro-gay legislation in Carson City over the past 12 years. That includes SB283, the domestic partnership law.

It doesn't take a political mastermind to imagine what the TV commercials and fliers in future campaigns will look like after tonight's event. It's open to the press, so anyone can come in, shoot some video of the painted-faced nuns and the sexual apparatuses on display and bank that footage to air against Parks or, say, supportive and straight Secretary of State Ross Miller or whenever Nevadans try to repeal the state's constitutional ban on gay marriage. "They wanted gay marriage," the demonic voice will intone, "but look what they did when they got domestic partnerships. Protect our children." Eeek! Don't believe they'd do that? This is running in Maine, where same-sex marriage is legal but about to be put to a vote:




See? That's how they play. Imagine that ad with some of this:




Cory defended the Erotic Heritage Museum event by saying that (a) a horrible event is better than none at all and (b) "I don't think it's much worse than any other public gay event." Which is funny because Q Vegas sponsors and in some cases orchestrates several public gay events, including this weekend's National Coming Out Day street fair, and this doesn't sound like a ringing endorsement of that effort.

But more to the point, veteran gay activist and fundraiser Lee Plotkin agreed with me entirely. He responded to Cory in the Facebook thread:

"We all know there are fun and edgy events within the gay community. But if anyone believes local non-gay media is going to focus on Earl and Richard, they're fooling themselves. If non-gay media covers the Erotic Museum event, it will minimize all the intensely hard fought battles in Carson City to attain this civil right. It will fuel the argument the gays see domestic partnership as a joke. And we may as well kiss away any legislative progress in the near future as the planned caricature will most certainly be used to paint us all with the same brush of this perhaps well intentioned, but misguided event."

Oh, and hey! I just noticed this. Guess what else begins on Oct. 1 at the Erotic Heritage Museum? Cock-tober Fest! This just keeps getting better and better!

Vegas Gays Prove They're As Tacky As Straights!

OK, folks. I'm embarrassed by the Vegas gays at this very moment.

Here's an image of the first couple who married in Massachusetts in 2004:


Here's what one of the first gay couples to wed in Iowa earlier this year looked like on their wedding day:



And, most touchingly, here's what the first couple in California, ages 84 and 87, looked like on their wedding day last year:


And here's an example of what the news media is going to circulate two days from now when Nevada gays begin to legally unite under the new domestic partnership law:


No, really. Let me explain.

The push for marriage equality is about showing that, as couples, gays are essentially the same as any hetero couple in ways that matter. The same relationship issues, same motivations for wanting to be devoted to one another, same variation of "lifestyles" including being parents or childless, urban or rural, conservative or liberal, etc. To persuade straight people that gay couples deserve the rights they have, gays must show that they're more similar than different.

That's part of why the first couples to join in other states have enjoyed elegant, tasteful ceremonies that are palatable to a still-uncertain Middle America.

But not in Vegas! Check it out:

History to be Made when Nevada’s First Same-Sex Couple Walks Down the Aisle Under New SB 283 Legislation

LAS VEGAS – At precisely midnight Thursday, Oct. 1, the first same-sex couple to be legally united under SB 283 Domestic Partnership legislation will walk down the aisle at the Erotic Heritage Museum Wedding Chapel. The ceremony will represent the first domestic partnership recognized under the newly-passed legislation effective Oct. 1.

Elvis-impersonator Jesse Garon, named the ‘official Elvis impersonator of Las Vegas’ by Mayor Oscar Goodman, will officiate the ceremony. The first couple to be united under the new legislation will also release seven doves to commemorate the number of years it took to pass Act 283.

...

Celebration of the new legislation will officially kick off at 10 p.m. on Wednesday, Sept. 30 at the Erotic Heritage Museum. Courtesy of the Cupcakery, a giant wedding cake with seven symbolic candles will be unveiled to guests with a surprise guest popping out of the cake. DJ Chris Adams will get guests in the groove with hot beats and a performance is scheduled by the Sin Sity Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence. Various Las Vegas artists and entertainers will be on hand to mark the occasion, including famed Frank Marino of An Evening at La Cage.

Yep, you read that right. The first same-sex couple(s) to hold a ceremony tied to their Nevada domestic partnerships will do it at a SEX MUSEUM and be officiated by an ELVIS IMPERSONATOR. It takes place after a party with RELIGION-MOCKING DRAG QUEENS.

You've gotta be kidding me. Is there nobody involved who can't see the obvious and humiliating PR disaster in the making for those who hate the gays and seek proof we're all just a bunch of sex-crazed, debauching, godless cross-dressers?

I've got nothing against sex, nothing against drag queens, nothing about religious spoofery. (Lots against Elvis impersonators, but that's besides the point.) Yet if the gays were bound to make a symbolic show out of this landmark, this is how they choose to do it? What's worse, this is apparently orchestrated by the fine folks at Q Vegas, the local gay monthly, who ought to know a thing or two about how the media works.

It would be one thing if the Erotic Heritage Museum did this on their own -- and it's clearly a publicity stunt to them to promote a wedding chapel there that also opens on Thursday -- but for Q Vegas to assist in building this whole freakfest around the moment? Why do I have the feeling that, had someone asked, queer-adoring Harrah's would've been more happy to throw a thing atop the Eiffel Tower or something? But instead it's this?

Thursday should've been a proud day for Vegas gays and their supporters. Instead, what'll be beamed out across the valley and around the world is that the gays around here have no class, no sense of propriety, no sense of occasion. Lame.

So getting fake-married in NV...

...will cost almost as much as -- or more! -- than getting real-married.

Odd, no?

I'm very pleased that SB283 passed and that Miles and I will be able to register as domestic partners in Nevada. According to the new law, the term "domestic partner" equals "spouse" wherever in Nevada law "spouse" is written. So it's virtual marriage except we can't call it that and it means nothing to the federal government or most other states. Oh, and nobody's employers are required to provide health benefits to same-sex partners or, presumably, any children you have together.

Today, Secretary of State Ross Miller issued the instructions on how same-sex and unmarried heterosexual couples can sign up. The new law goes into effect on Oct. 1, and Miller says he wants to give folks a chance to have their registrations in hand the day it becomes legal. "October 1st is shaping up to be a very important and festive day for many Nevadans," Miller said in a press release. That's great, and Oct. 1 actually has special resonance for Miles and me as it will be the 5th anniversary of our first date.

But.

I'm baffled by the cost. We have to pay $50 to register, plus the cost of a notary public to certify it. This being Vegas, there's also a deluxe model, too; for a $15 upgrade, you can have a "ceremonial certificate" as opposed to merely a "black and white certificate." Here's what the fancy version looks like:


Meanwhile, it costs $55 for a hetero-marriage license. With that comes the whole enchilada -- pension and Social Security benefits and the other gazillion federal benefits being legally married provides. Dunno if it's as pretty as all that, but most people stick it in a drawer anyhow, right?

Seems to me that the cash-strapped Silver State has realized this darn thing could be revenue-positive. Let's make a few bucks off the grateful gays, why don't we? There's no other explanation as to why getting fake-married could cost $65 but getting real-married costs $55, is there? It certainly isn't much of a deal, really.

I know, I know. We should just shut up and be happy we got anything at all and not get all uppity in demanding a price befitting the product we're receiving. But these costs are totally arbitrary in the first place. They're symbolic, not related to any specific or actual costs. You tell me: Under what other circumstances would anyone pay the same or more for about 75 percent less of something?

And one more thing. I'm thinking the fine folks in the Secretary of State's office had a fun time coming up with those gender-neutral surnames with those oh-so-QUEER middle initials, huh? How much you wanna bet someone made references to the classic SNL skits around the office while conjuring this up?

Warm Fuzzies On A Hot Sunday

A trio of happy things to start the week...

* Frenemies Unite! The Nevada Legislature may have come up short of a veto-proof majority to extend domestic partnership rights to same-sex couples on Friday and the divorcing governor seems likely to defend the sanctity of an institution he himself has repeatedly demeaned, but something even more important happened this weekend. The Review-Journal's publisher, Sherm Frederick, leader of one of the most conservative editorial pages in America and someone whose journalistic decisions I frequently baffle over, endorsed -- I'm not making this up -- full-on gay marriage. What's more, he told his fellow conservatives that support of legal protections for families like mine is a conservative ideal that strengthens communities! I don't know if Sherm's commentary is enough to reverse the two votes in each house needed to override a veto, but it certainly is yet another significant landmark in the obvious and irreversible march toward marriage equality in America. And, as a side note, he also attacked the vermin Perez Hilton for his disastrous efforts to slime Miss California for stating her opinion. I can't believe I'm saying this, but I couldn't agree with Sherm more from beginning to end.

* While I'm At It... I have my problems with the Vegas media, to be sure, and I say so often enough. But my six days in South Florida made me realize we have it better here than I thought. The Sunday edition of the South Florida Sun-Sentinel was shameful and flimsy, with an awful design and precious little locally produced copy. What was there was incredibly dull and mostly puffery anyhow. I'm an alum of both newspapers (R-J 96-99, S-S 99-00) and I'm here to say that the Sunday R-J is a better, more substantive, more sophisticated, better-looking newspaper than the Sunday S-S. It's not even close. And I'm not even including the Pulitzer-winning Las Vegas Sun in the equation! The S-S' latest resdesign makes it resemble a high school newspaper, and that's sad because this was once one of the nation's most respected dailies. Also on a related front, there are three NPR stations operating in South Florida and each one of them goes to all-music at nights and on weekends? Wow. Congrats to Flo Rogers and the rest of the gang at KNPR and good luck on that fund drive.

* Happy economic news, too! Ben Spillman writes today that the classy British Airways will begin daily non-stop service from Heathrow to McCarran starting in October. Fares will start at $461 r/t. So somebody's crunching numbers and thinks that Vegas isn't completely dead yet.

Marketers discover "Carrie Prejean"

Miss California Carrie Prejean, whom the vermin Perez Hilton has singlehandedly minted as the newest and by far prettiest right-wing superstar, has complained that sponsors have told her to renounce her views opposing marriage equality. Instead, she's on a church tour.

This morning, a colleague asked me what I thought so I went to my blog to email her the post above. And that's when I spotted that automatic Google Ad associated with the post. Here it is closer up:


If you click on it, get to download a pdf of companies that "are involved in practices contrary to Judeo-Christian principles." It's an ad for a conservative investment fund called the Timothy Plan and the Hall of Shame includes, among others, pretty much every media company (including Fox News owner News Corp) for promulgating pornography. Here's their mission:

To help you exterminate the bugs from your investments using non-toxic methods, we have compiled this list of invaders who have earned the "Hall of Shame" award. These companies undermine traditional family values by becoming involved directly or indirectly in any of the following: abortion, pornography, anti-family entertainment, alternative lifestyles, alcohol, tobacco and/or gambling.

Two questions here:

* Is there a way for me to tell Google not to allow such ads to be paired with my blog?

* How is it the Timothy Plan has listed not a single gaming corporation even though there's a column on the chart for gambling? The only companies checked off are beer and amusement park purveyor Anheuser-Busch and Planet Out, the gay online media company that, so far as I know, does not provide any gambling services. Are Vegas interests just such lost causes, so beyond help that they don't even belong in the Hall of Shame?

In any event, Ms. Prejean is well on her way to full-fledged right-wing exploitation. I just hope she gets her cut, because clearly the Timothy Plan is placing these ads where her name appears without her knowledge. That would seem unethical -- immoral even! -- so maybe we shouldn't invest with them.

[P.S. If you're really into this Carrie Prejean stuff, my pal Rex Wockner, a prominent gay journalist, had a terrific Q-and-A with her posted to his blog. I only wish he'd asked her if she was a virgin since I suspect if she's dating stoner Michael Phelps she's not and that would see, as she likes to say, Biblically incorrect.]

Vermin Perez Hilton v Miss California

[UPDATE: Norm Clarke quizzed the vermin PH about this post and the vermin PH responded: "I am praying for Steve Friess." That's pretty funny.]

[UPDATE #2: Perez apparently also says he wishes he had called Ms. Prejean a cunt, too. That'll surely win the gays some friends, huh?]

I've avoided commenting on the flap over Miss California, Carrie Prejean, who answered the vermin Perez Hilton's question at the Miss USA contest in Las Vegas last weekend about gay marriage with an inarticulate response that rambled about alleged free choice -- no gay Americans can choose fully recognized marriage -- before revealing her personal view that marriage is between a man and a woman. (There she is to the right, looking awfully wholesome.)

The whole thing was disconcerting because while I obviously don't agree with Prejean, I'm not sure that political opinions are how we ought to choose beauty queens. And the vermin Perez Hilton, who heretofore has done nothing whatsoever for gay rights and didn't donate a dime to fight against Proposition 8 last year, decided this was a great time to exploit the issue by recording a video blog in which he cackles about all the attention he's gettin over this and then calls Prejean a "dumb bitch." Next thing you know, he's on Larry King Live as though he's been in the thick of this issue all along when he actually represents the worst, the grossest, the least productive and most unpleasant side of what gay America has to offer.

Worse, though, is that using that kind of nasty language is the surest way to shut down any serious debate or discourse. It's not the verbage of a thinking person, one who cares about something greater than his own fame. Once the vermin Perez Hilton attacked this young woman, she became a right-wing hero and handed the Hannitys and Limbaughs of the world a clear-cut case of politically correct aggression with which to paint all gays who argue for marriage equality. She may be wrong on marriage equality, but that doesn't (necessarily) make her dumb or a bitch. Conversely, the vermin Perez Hilton may be right but that doesn't (even remotely) make him smart or honorable.

It really, really bothered me that Prejean may actually have lost her crown on this answer. (She came in second to Miss North Carolina, whose name nobody knows or cares thanks to the vermin Perez Hilton.) That's why I'm delighted that my friend and Miles' colleague Alicia Jacobs, an entertainment reporter for KVBC and one of the vermin Perez Hilton's co-judges, explained to Advocate.Com better why the way Prejean answered cost her in the competition.



I don't know if I totally buy what she says there, but it's a better-reasoned answer than what the vermin Perez Hilton has had to say. See? You can be smart and pretty. Or you can be hideous and stupid. (And, yes, I have a bit of a chip on my shoulder over this creep. Click here to see why.)

Alicia, who talks in that video about attending gay weddings, was also at ours, as you can see:


Mostly, I wish this thing would go away. The vermin Perez Hilton did more to firm up the resolve of straight-only-marriage proponents and provide them with a widely sympathetic figure around which to rally than anything in recent memory. Nicely done!

Why Same-Sex Marriage Matters

I suspect most who read this blog support marriage equality or at least some form of civil unions. But if you don't or if you know lots of people who don't, I'm reposting with permission here a lovely essay written by my friend Jack LeVine. Jack lost his husband, J.J., on Tuesday afternoon after more than 30 years together. J.J. had emphysema.

J.J. died within hours of the Nevada Senate voting to pass a domestic partner law by a 12-9 vote, two short of enough to override a threatened veto by Gov. Jim Gibbons. It's on to the Assembly now, where State Sen. David Parks believes he has a veto-proof majority. Whether he can persuade Gibbons not to veto or pull two more votes over in the Senate to override remains unclear, but this debate so often takes place in the sanitized environs of media debate.

This, then, is the practical reality. This is a real couple. And, as a side note, I'll be on Nevada Week in Review tonight on VegasPBS discussing this issue as well.

Here's Jack's blog post after J.J. died. Jack blogs at VeryVintageVegas.Com. Grab a hankie.

A Memorial: James J. Pechacek 1954-2009

April 22nd, 2009

My husband passed away on Tuesday. Actually, he was my Fiance. We’d been engaged for 33 years. He tried to hang on long enough for us to get married. That goal helped keep him alive for the last several years. He’d have been perfectly content with “domestic partnership”.

JJ was a very private person. Few of you ever met him, nor even knew of his existence. Those who did were indeed, very privileged.

JJ was the counter balance force in my life. We were polar opposites in so many ways. He was a meticulous stickler for details, a deep thinker, a slow responder. He prided himself on his rationality, and his memory. JJ was the best “phone a friend” walking encyclopedia that anyone could have ever hoped to have known. And though he didn’t think so, he was the cutest little puppy in the world.

JJ was the first fan of Vintage Vegas. He’s the one who made me believe 20 years ago that we could create a vibrant, energetic, fun urban core. When we first moved to Las Vegas 1985, he’s the one who only wanted to live downtown. He’s the one who pointed out the first “mid mod” homes that I soon fell in love with. We didn’t know the words for mid mod, but JJ’s the one who showed me why they were important. JJ was my biggest supporter, my most ardent fan. And he was my most vocal critic. I’m so going to miss him.

JJ liked his privacy and his anonymity. I was most shocked on Sunday when he told me that I could tell some of our story in public….as long as it was to make a point.

We met in 1975. We were both 21 year olds. He was hitchhiking to Florida. I was driving the semi-truck. I stopped to pick him up in Louisville, and was in love before we got to Nashville. He wanted to be a Gypsy. I wanted to be rich. He wanted to see the great cities and buildings and mountains and rivers and I wanted to meet a couple of million interesting people. We both got what we wanted.

It’s been a long, exciting, and fun journey since then. We’ve been rich and poor and rich and poor again. We’ve been healthy and sick. We’ve been fun loving and furious. We were a couple thru lots of thick and thin. We were PARTNERS. That’s the word we used to describe ourselves. And in our minds and in the reality of space and time we were married. We were married because we said we were. We could have cared less what any church might have thought. That our government considered us second class citizens… mattered a lot.

It was crushing to me yesterday when the coroner’s office didn’t have a category that described us for the death certificate. They wrote that he was SINGLE. They said I WASN’T THE NEXT OF KIN!

Back in January, the hospital recognized the legal power of attorney and other forms that had cost us thousands of dollars in legal fees. Most “not married” couples don’t have those papers ready when they need them. Many couldn’t afford them in the first place. We were fortunate in that regard. Without them, they would wouldn’t have even had to let me into the room.

There’s a thousand things, both big and small that require “the stamp of recognition” from our various governments. Social Security Survivor benefits, taxes, inheritance rules, property rights, parental rights, and on and on and on. This is no small matter to the lives of many millions of Americans.

And that brings us to the irony of the timing of JJ’s passing. Within a few minutes one way or the other of JJ’s death….The Nevada Senate passed “Domestic Partnership” legislation. JJ would be very proud of them. Many of our best friends are in Carson City this week to tell our stories, and to lobby for passage of the bill. JJ wanted me to go, but I couldn’t leave him alone for 3 days. I’ve asked them to deliver a copy of this obituary for me.

Our governor has said that he’ll veto it if it passes. Why? Because “he doesn’t believe in it” is the only answer he has. JJ believed in it and so do I. I hope you do, as well.

One of JJ’s final requests was that I tell you our story and that I ask all of you, in his memory, to PLEASE call or write the Nevada Legislature, AND THE GOVERNOR and tell them that you support domestic partnership legislation. For that matter, tell the Congress and the President as well.

All JJ wanted was that I be recognized, at the barest of minimums, as his LEGAL “next of kin.”

Prop 8: The Musical

Now, if only someone would figure out how to closed-caption stuff like this, then deafies like me could catch all the jokes...

See more Jack Black videos at Funny or Die

Wanda Sykes @ LV Gay Rally: "I’m Proud To Be Gay"

(UPDATE: Hear Wanda's speech and a brief interview by clicking here or right-click here to download the file. Also, hear our July 17 interview with Wanda on The Strip Podcast by clicking here.)

Dozens of rallies were held around the nation on Saturday to protest the passage of California's Prop 8, which re-banned same-sex marriage and sparked a fury. But only one that I know of featured a prominent celebrity coming out of the closet, and that would be the one here at the GLBT Community Center. Here she is...


I've just filed a few lines about it for tomorrow's New York Times, but I've also posted the audio of Sykes' remarks and my brief interview with her in the podcast feed. It adds up to about 8 minutes and you can hear it by clicking here or you can save it to your computer by right-clicking here. (The file also contains a brief chat with an 18-year-old UNLV student about why he was so fired up over Prop 8's passage.)

Here's a little bit of what Sykes said. She started by talking about how exciting it was to her to see Obama elected:

"I thought, man we are moving in the right direction. And then at about 11 o’clock I was crushed. We took a huge leap forward and then got dragged 12 feet back. I felt like I was being attacked, personally attacked, our community was attacked. I got married Oct. 25, I don’t really talk about my sexual orientation, I felt like I was living my life, I wasn’t in the closet, but I was just living my life. Everybody who knows me personally, they know I’m gay. And that’s the way people should be able to live our lives, really. We shouldn’t have to be standing out here demanding something we automatically should have as citizens of this country. ... They pissed off the wrong group of people. They have galvanized a community. We are so together now and we all want the same thing and we shouldn’t have to settle for less. Instead of having gay marriage in California, no, we’re gonna have gay marriage across the country. When my wife and I leave California, I want to have my marriage also recognized in Nevada, in Arizona, all the way to New York. ... I’m proud to be a woman, I’m proud to be a black woman and I’m proud to be gay."

In my interview with her, she said this: "People shouldn’t have to talk about their sexual orientation, we shouldn’t have to do it, but with the legislation that they passed, I can’t sit by and just watch. I just can’t do it."

Sykes also disputed the much-reported claim that 70 percent of black voters in California voted to ban gay marriage. Several prominent writers, including Dan Savage here, have railed against homophobic blacks. Wanda said the exit polls were wrong and admonished me, "Please stop spreading that 70 percent of African-Americans voted Yes on Prop 8 because it’s just not true."

After the speeches, the very large -- figure more than 1,000 people -- crowd lined Sahara Avenue with signs. This gives some sense of how immense this was.