Show Us the Protocols! William Masters and Virginia Johnson were the science gurus of the Sexual Revolution of the 1970’s whose research into human sexual behavior explored, usually with experimental rigor, the dynamics of male and female desire and performance. While most of their findings on topics such as sexual arousal and orgasm have stood the test of time, one finding in particular has always been controversial and hasn’t been replicated in subsequent research, namely a claim that they had successfully “converted” more than seventy percent of gay men and lesbians who wanted to change their sexual orientation. Writing in a recent Scientific American, Thomas Maier has dissected their 1979 book Homosexuality in Perspective and discovered that virtually no documentation exists for the alleged cases of conversion. He also learned that when Robert Kolodny, the top associate at Masters and Johnson’s clinic, asked William Masters for the files, he was repeatedly turned down. Decades later, Virginia Johnson in effect repudiated the work, calling it “a bad book.” All of which leads Maier to conclude that this putative research, which has done so much mischief as a scientific justification for “ex-gay therapy” in later years, was essentially a fabrication, a fraud. Admitted Johnson of her husband: “Bill was being creative in those days.” Such a schnookums! Little did he foresee that lives would be shattered due to this midlife decision to try his hand at fiction.
Insult on Top of Injury There was a lot of second guessing and outright criticism of the “No on 8” effort in California after the referendum banning same-sex marriage was carried last November. Now the ad man who engineered the “Yes on 8” campaign, Frank Schubert, has walked off as the big winner in the 2009 “Pollie Awards” for his come-from-behind victory. In accepting his award at the American Association of Political Consultants’ annual meeting, Schubert reserved his biggest thanks for Mayor Gavin Newsom, whose shoot-from-the-hip comments in support of gay marriage were the gift that kept on giving for the pro-8 side. As for the organization that spearheaded the anti-8 effort, Equality California, this had to be a sobering moment. It’s one thing to lose a referendum, but to have the opposing side win a media award for kicking your ass when they had absolutely no right to—that’s gotta hurt.
What’s the Opposite of Disaster? Opponents of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts (and elsewhere) predicted unspecified social catastrophe once gay couples started to marry legally in May 2004. It’s not entirely clear what they had in mind—Pat Robertson hinted that natural disasters would wipe the Commonwealth off the map, but five years have now passed without even a serious nor’easter. And if it was economic disaster that marriage opponents foresaw, quite the opposite has actually transpired. A new study by Williams Institute at UCLA indicates that Massachusetts has done quite nicely during this period, gaining a competitive advantage over other states precisely because of its stand on marriage equality, which has helped the state to attract young, highly educated professionals, both gay and straight, who are drawn to the tolerant atmosphere that same-sex marriage has come to symbolize. “Data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey show that same-sex couples in the ‘creative class’ were 2.5 times more likely to move to Massachusetts after 2004 than before,” noted the Institute’s Gary J. Gates. Of course, now that every state bordering Massachusetts save Rhode Island has legalized same-sex marriage, this competitive advantage may evaporate; or perhaps New England will again become the region to which pilgrims migrate in search of freedoms not available in the old country.
“Queer” —Still Their Word It’s official: the word “queer” can no longer be used by GLBT people hoping to neutralize an old slur. The idea was that we would embrace the word as our own, proudly flaunting it so that it no longer stung when hurled by homophobes. Well, they’ve officially stolen it back. It all happened one day when “Joe the Plumber” decided it was OK to use the word, not as an insult, but to show how open-minded he was. “Some of my best friends are queer,” he remarked, adding: “but I wouldn’t let them near my kids.” Asked about his use of the “q” word, Joe explained that it isn’t an insult at all, since gay people now use the word to describe themselves. So relax! “Queer means strange and unusual. It’s not like a slur, like you would call a white person a honky or something like that.” Oy. There’s no untangling this mess, no possibility of getting Joe to understand that when gay people use the word “queer” among themselves, there’s always a touch of irony, a bit of mockery of precisely the kind of person who would use words like queer or honky to denigrate others. So now that we’ve given them permission to use the word queer, they’re using it, not with irony, but in the same old way, as a word to describe the kind of person you wouldn’t let near your kids. Time to call the whole thing off?
Miss Statement Then there’s the case of Miss California, Carrie Prejean, the almost winner of the Miss Universe pageant who grabbed an extra fifteen minutes of fame with her answer to a question 
about same-sex marriage: “We live in a land that you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage and, you know what, in my country and in my family I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman.” While losing the contest—possibly because of this statement—she became the instant darling of the anti- marriage equality crowd, and even signed on as a spokesmodel for one such group. Only then did a bevy of photographs come out showing Ms. Prejean posing topless in a photo shoot. That put her in violation of Miss Universe rules, meaning she had to have lied to enter the pageant in the first place. But no, there was a perfectly logical explanation, she insisted, claiming that she’d been caught by a photographer and, just at that moment, the wind picked up and… yeah, that’s the ticket! So what if she’s looking straight at the camera and her hair remains unblown? At that point she’d bought herself another fifteen minutes—as fodder for the late-night comedians.
