No kidding, Andrew

Andrew Sullivan is starting have a little buyer's remorse.

But I have a sickeningly familiar feeling in my stomach, and the feeling deepens with every interaction with the Obama team on these issues. They want them to go away. They want us to go away.

Here we are, in the summer of 2009, with gay servicemembers still being fired for the fact of their orientation. Here we are, with marriage rights spreading through the country and world and a president who cannot bring himself even to acknowledge these breakthroughs in civil rights, and having no plan in any distant future to do anything about it at a federal level. Here I am, facing a looming deadline to be forced to leave my American husband for good, and relocate abroad because the HIV travel and immigration ban remains in force and I have slowly run out of options (unlike
most non-Americans with HIV who have no options at all).

And what is Obama doing about any of these things? What is he even intending at some point to do about these things? So far as I can read the administration, the answer is: nada. We're firing Arab linguists? So sorry. We won't recognize in any way a tiny minority of legally married couples in several states because they're, ugh, gay? We had no idea. There's a ban on HIV-positive tourists and immigrants? Really? Thanks for letting us know. Would you like to join Joe Solmonese and John Berry for cocktails? The inside of the White House is fabulous these days.

What did you expect?

It wasn't just the Mormons

Read this post about problems with the No on Prop 8 campaign along with recommendations for the future. Rather than just throwing tantrums at Mormon Churches or Mormon-affiliated businesses, maybe we should look at how the opposition won and see what strategies we should adopt for the next fight.

Blagojaviaksuwdfgikicz and Obama

So far I think the corruption of the Illinois Governor is his own, and attempts to spread it to Obama before any facts are in look petty and are likely to be ineffective. Let O make his own mistakes and criticize him for them.

Obama Derangement Syndrome is just as unattractive as Bush Derangement Syndrome or Clinton Derangement Syndrome, which I like to think I am recovering from.

Staus Quo We Can Believe In

Obama is retaining Bush's current secretary of defense, Robert Gates.

On the one hand I think it's a good decision, on the other its fun to rub in the faces of everyone who voted for Obama's new direction on the war.

Obama's Economic Team

So far, I am not terribly unhappy. Perhaps we were all wrong about this man. Maybe I can live with him so long as he continues this course of not bringing us the radical changes he promised.

While I strongly disapprove of the Keynsian-redux we are seeing as response to an exaggerated economic crisis, the impulse to use fiscal policy to affect the overall economy (a strategy fruitless at best and disastrous at worst) is not limited to those politicians with a D after thier names. In these times of "Change we can believe in (but not really)" I welcome centrist economic advisers because I feared something more radical. This crew could have just as likely served in the administration of a moderate Republican--like McCain. Geithner provides continuity with Paulson (the advantage here is, of course, negligible except that markets like continuity); Summers is an ardent free-trade advocate and consistent free marketeer; and Romer has written extensively about the negative effect of tax increases on investment. At least Paul Krugman isn't in the picture--yet.

Perhaps, like the Dems for the past eitght years I can hope only to grasp at straws, but unlike the Dems for the past eight years I am actually looking for straws to grasp.

Silver Linings

I can't say I am surprised that the election didn't go my way, but 2 hours in the bathroom sobbing is quite enough. It is now time for me to look for bright spots. Here are a few:

1) Regardless of his policies, it is refreshing that America can final elect a black man to be its president. Is racism out the window? No, but this is still a tremendous step forward.

2) DOMA and DADT will finally have a chance of being thrown to the dustbin of history. If so, I will rejoice that. If not, it will just prove that Democrats don't really care about gays; they just want to take our votes.

3) The Republicans got a beating they needed to whip them back to principles. They have spit on the principles of the party in the naked pursuit of power. It's time to find those principles again, AND someone who can communicate them. Being merely "Not Democrat" is not a promising strategy.

4) Hillary Clinton looks to be out of the White House game. In 2012 she would be running against an incumbent from her own party and in 2016 she'll be 69 years old. Sure she'll stay relevent, but it looks like she's lost her chance for the Oval Office.

5) When things go wrong (and they would no matter last night's results), the Democrats won't have a Republican to blame. They'll try of course, but it will sound as hollow as when Republicans try to blame Clinton for problems that arose after 2001.

6) We'll get to see just what the Democrats believe. Now that they have a Supermajority there will be no need to feign moderation anymore. If they truly are moderate, then wonderful. If they are as far left as I worry, I have confidence that the American public will not embrace them for long. This was a rejection of the kind of Republicans we have seen lately, not an acceptance of the kind of Democrats we are about to see.

7) In eight years (maybe even four) the Democrats will likely have squandered their power either from infighting or corruption much the way the GOP did. If so, it may benefit a young moderate (gay) Republican running for his first state office.

There. Oh, I just remembered that I need refill my Xanax prescription.

so that's that

The bar exam is over. I can now purge useless legal concepts like the Rule Against Perpetuities and the elements to Common Law burglary from my memory forever.

Much has happened over the summer. For instance I now have a definite individual right to own a firearm. Clinton is not running for president anymore. All sorts of good stuff, but sadly I had to spend much of the summer among fellow bar students. The Obamania was almost oppressive. The common attitude seemed to be, with apologies to John Von Neumann, “You say you will campaign for Obama tomorrow, but I say why not today. You say you will begin campaigning today at five o’clock; I say why not one o’clock.”* Nonetheless, I tended to be fairly respectful and quickly found my single confederate. (On a personal note, I am now seeing someone rather seriously, but my parents still think that its a girl).

But rather than talk about particulars (which shall come), after such a long hiatus, I’d like to get back to foundational principles. Why on EARTH am I still a Republican?

I have a stock answer (i.e. my sexual orientation has nothing to do with my views on national security, tax policy, abortions or the environment; the party will only change with pressure from the inside). But that answers only why I am a gay Republican, not why I am a Republican in the first place.

I could go on about the same old stuff—tax & spend, national security, gun rights, abortion—but I won’t. We can talk about those things later. Rather, I am still a Republican because the Party needs me. I’ll go further, YOU need me to be a Republican. You need Mary Cheney to be a Republican. You need Bobby Jindal to be a Republican, and Hector Barreto, and anyone else who is even a little diverse.

Right now there are a few (well more than a few, actually) of us willing to take the bitter with the sweet. But by showing our fellow Republicans that diverse is not bad, and that we don’t have to agree on everything to still share the same broad values, we can slowly but effectively change the face of the party. I find Republicans (especially younger ones) more willing to accept me as gay once they know I still share most of their values (whereas few gays accepts me as Republican). That’s how we change people, by reaching out, not abandoning. I truly believe that in a decade, definitely within two decades, the GOP will embrace this diversity. When that does happen, be thankful that in hard times, some of us didn’t leave the party to the kooks, bigots, and ignorant.

So what about the meantime? Does that mean I give my votes and cash and time to support the totally unsavory to curry favor so I can have a chance to change tomorrow? Not exactly. It does mean I retain credibility within the party by emphasizing what I do agree with and picking my battles. Understand, I have no intention of voting for or otherwise supporting the likes of Sally Kern (which is easy since I don’t live in her district). Yet, if I replace Republicans like her with Democrats, I win on gay issues, but lose on many others just as important to me. No, I want to replace them with better Republicans. Since I don’t have a giant political machine at my disposal I have to support the best of the lot and try to make the next lot even better. So I am content, for now, with Republicans who get maybe a C-/D+ on gay issues instead of a D-/F. I support These are steps, albeit a very small one, in the right direction.

*John von Neumann, one of the 20^th Century’s greatest mathematicians, a principal member of the Manhattan Project, and part inspiration for Dr. Strangelove, was, however, talking about preemptive nuclear strike on the Soviet Union and not anything as frivolous as a political campaign.

Tax day

As I'm sure you can guess, I hate tax day. If I expect a refund, I file right away; if I expect to have to pay, I procrastinate to the last possible day. It's my way of depriving the government of as much interest from my money as possible. Even so I hate writing that check.

This year, I had a federal refund, but state liability (a result of living and working in different states). After I finished my state forms, I found an article on CNN that described how tax day has particular ramifications for same-sex couples.

Some Highlights:

Take two couples where one partner has a taxable income of $20,000 and the other makes $40,000. If they can file their federal taxes jointly, the tax bill would be $8,217.50. Filing separately, the combined bill would be $9,032.50 -- more than $800 higher.

Another disparity comes with the federal government's treatment of employer-provided health insurance, which also affects unmarried heterosexual couples. . . [Someone who gets health insurance through the employee benefits of a same-sex partner] is required to count the company's cost of his partner's benefits as additional income for tax purposes.

And

It's not just the higher bills that can be frustrating for same-sex taxpayers; it's also the process of filing taxes, particularly in states that offer some joint benefits to gay couples

. . .

In New Jersey and the other states where same-sex unions are formally recognized, couples can file their state taxes jointly, but they must file their federal tax returns as individuals.

That means doing income calculations twice. Many tax programs such as Intuit's TurboTax are set up to deal with that extra math.

Even so, there are more problems:

[C]ouples with children must decide which partner gets to claim them as dependents for tax purposes on federal returns and returns in states that don't recognize same-sex unions. Similarly, couples who own homes together have to sort out how much of the mortgage interest payments each partner gets to use as a deduction, said Lara Schwartz, the Human Rights Campaign legal director.

I've said it before: Gay marriage is not my issue, but I strenuously support the recognition of same-sex partners as "spouses" by the Department of the Treasury (and frankly any other executive department, but the Treasury and the SSA are by far the biggies). Give us that, and you can call it an Icky-Sex-Pervert Union for all I care.

(Yes, I know--the GOP isn't going to do that for me any time soon, so no need to remind me. Don't forget that the Democratic controlled Congress hasn't attempted to amend the tax code in our favor either.)

Condi's out

No, not our kind of out.

For someone who had fairly little enthusiasm about the primaries, I am unusually titillated about the Republican VP spot. Anyway, despite reports that Condi Rice was angling for the number 2 position, McCain has said that he was oblivious to any such angling, and Condi said she has no interest in elected office whatsoever. She wants to return to Stanford.

I’m glad.

Don’t get me wrong, I like Condi. Even if you hate her politically, there is much to admire about her. Growing up in the Jim Crow South, she graduated from high school at 16 and went to the University of Denver (not Harvard, but don’t be a hater). She graduated Phi Beta Kappa at age 19. She then worked at the State Department during the Carter Administration. After getting her PhD in international studies, she became a prominent academic and the Provost of Stanford University. Outside of the ivory tower, she is an accomplished pianist and is a huge NFL fan. She is usually considered the most intelligent and poised (if gap toothed) member of the Administration. Plus she can crush your head.

Still I don’t want to see her on a ticket.

She would add little and subtract much. She adds little because she’s a foreign policy/national security specialist. Mac considers that his strong suit. Choosing a foreign policy oriented running mate would send the signal that the McCain administration would care little about the domestic issues that seem to be very important to voters this election. Not a winning strategy. Similarly, she’s not especially conservative socially, another weakness (this time in the eyes of his own party rather than the general electorate) of McCain himself. Finally, some might think a black woman on the ticket would diffuse or even overtake the diversity vote that either Democrat can expect. An attempt to usurp the diversity vote is likely to backfire for Republicans who criticize affirmative actions by claiming to put forth candidates on the basis of qualifications rather than minority status.

What does she subtract? Mostly one thing, but it’s a big one thing: she is VERY closely identified with the Bush Administration. Support for the war notwithstanding, Mac has (wisely) made attempts to distance himself from the current Republican Administration.

So whom should Mac choose? Well, I’m only 25, so it'll probably have to be someone else :) He or she (whom am I kidding? He) should have domestic issue gravitas, most importantly economic expertise, as that is McCain’s admitted weak point. Another asset in a race between a bunch of senators is executive experience—so I’d choose a governor. Finally, I’d choose someone who will placate the right wing screamers who only begrudgingly support McCain. This last criterion is a dangerous one, though. McCain has to find someone closer to the wingnuts than he is, but not so close as to lose the moderates and independents that McCain can draw better than any other Republican.

Sounds like Mitt. At least it doesn’t sound like the Huckster. Barely.

Some good(ish) news and a book

I got a little too worked up a little too early. The latest Reuters-Zogby Poll put Clinton ahead of Obama, and McCain beating both of them. Gallup has similar results, though McCain's lead there is statistically significant over Obama but not Clinton.

Does this mean the tide is turning? Not really. It just reminds me that it is still far too early to call the race. I need to think positively--I've been reading too much of the morose Andrew Sullivan

New book: I bought Grover Norquist's Book Leave Us Alone: Getting the Government's Hands Off Our Money, Our Guns, Our Lives. He describes gay Republicans thusly:

Gay Americans who simply want to be left alone recognize that the modern center-right movement has no agenda to outlaw homosexuality or use the power of the state to tax or attack gays. Gay Americans who are also homeowners, businessmen, shareholders, gun owners or men and women of faith will find the modern left ready, willing and able to tax, regulate and attack them--not as gays--but as income earners, property owners, gun owners, etc.

That nicely complements my view: why does being gay have to change my views on unrelated issues like guns, taxes, national security, or abortion. Why does gay marriage, to which I am personally indifferent, (or even civil unions, which I support but much of the gay othrodoxy decries as insufficent) have to become my top priority litmus test issue?

Why I'm becoming an Alcoholic

If I thought Republicans could regain at least one chamber of congress, I'd be able to just roll my eyes and go along for the ride.

Back in 2002 when Republicans regained the senate and suddenly controlled both chambers as well as the White House a Republican Professor (There about about as many of those as there are Republican gays--eleven) said to me "I voted for all Republicans, but I am a little worried that they actually won everything. I don't want to live in a one party state--I don't want to be in Argentina." He was exaggerating for sure, and at the time I laughed him off. I have since decided, however, that one of the reasons Republicans lost their way on limited government is that they had no opposition. Human nature is to exercise power once you have it, and without any checks Republicans become the same big government wastrels we accuse Democrats of being.

But with both the legislature and the executive branches controlled by the party that doesn't even pay lip service to limited government, I'm bracing for disaster. I'm getting ready for mandatory health care I don't want paid for by my higher taxes. As a professional, I'll be one of the "wicked rich," despite the fact that my graduate school loan payments will eat up every extra dollar I make over that of others my age. Even with all this "fiscal discipline" (which to Democrats means higher taxes) the looming social security catastrophe will continue to be ignored. Corporations will be squeezed by even higher corporate taxes and more regulation, making it harder for them to employ me and other middle class folks, let alone less skilled employees. Then again, the less skilled employees will be all right because they have unions who will see renewed power to keep the wages of their members high by creating barriers to entry (and thus unemployment). There will be a withdrawal from Iraq (whether we should have gone in the first place is no longer the debate--at this point, the U.S., unlike a Catholic teenager, should not just pull out) and a weakening of our national defenses. Oh, and I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that they will make no real progress on gay issues either.

Well, it's 5 o'clock somewhere.

Never thought I'd Say This

I'm pulling for Clinton.

Certainly one reason is that she is more beatable than B. Hussein Obama, but frankly I am starting to get pessimistic at any Republican winning the White House. The economy is likely to be the primary issue of the election, but McCain's focus is on foreign policy. McCain's economic policies (free trade, tax cuts coupled with spending limits, deregulation) are all great, but they aren't sexy. They won't quickly fix anything. We (by which I mean Americans--I am using the nontraditional meaning of "we" that doesn't include me) want our government to meddle right now, to give us money we haven't earned by taking it from rich people we don't like anyway. Never mind that we bought houses we couldn't afford (or conversely made unnecessarily risky loans--both sides of the transaction want bailouts, and neither deserve them).

So why am I pulling for Clinton over Obama--didn't I just say here that there is little difference between the two? A few Reasons:

First, she's beatable...if not in 2008, then in 2012.
Second, she's highly criticizable until then.
Third, her policies are, unexpectedly, like 10% less socialist than Obama. Right now, I'll take whatever crumbs I can get.

Don't get me wrong. I'll campaign and vote for McCain, and I have already given him money. I'm just afraid I'll need a lot of wine over the next four and a half years.

Maybe I can borrow a little vino from those of you who felt the same way for the last 8.

I guess I just don't get it.

My politics puzzle some and anger others. Apparently I am some sort of Uncle Tom's Log Cabin Republican. As a gay man, I guess I am required by some contract I do not remember signing to focus the entirety of my political energy towards the legalization of gay marriage. I am not allowed to consider fiscal policy, foreign policy, or any other policy above gay marriage. Excuse me for thinking that terrorism and the social security crisis are a little more important than legalizing something I don't really need anyway.

Why I don't hate McCain

So it seems pretty well set that the GOP will nominate McCain. I can live with this. Is he my ideal candidate? No, but since I am not yet old enough to run for president myself (gimme another ten years), he’ll do. I don’t love him, but I don’t hate him either.

First, part of me is excited about his “maverick” reputation. It’s almost admirable that he is not afraid to buck party orthodoxy when he believes in it. It shows a commitment to principle, which I consider a good thing (let’s save for a moment a discussion of what those principles he’s committed to actually are). I am (yes, still) a gay Republican. I like the idea of a nominee who, while still Republican, doesn’t quite fit the cookie cutter.

Now , there’s a lot that John McCain stands for that I can get behind. He’s pro-life (hardly a litmus test for me, but still I’m more comfortable protecting a fetus). He’s in favor of the death penalty (please don’t make me get into a discussion of reconciling those views. I can do it, but that’s not the point here). He’s hawkish on foreign policy (though he’s staunchly against torture). He’s on the conservative side of universal healthcare. And most importantly for me, he’s pretty much a fiscal conservative.

“BUT WAIT,” the conservative McCain haters shout, “He voted against the Bush tax cuts, not once but TWICE!”

True, but he was worried about tax cuts without corresponding spending limits. That is a very tenable position for a fiscal conservative. Now he did vote for the tax cuts, the third time around, but hey, it’s hard to fault someone for becoming more conservative in voting (where it matters, instead of mere campaign speeches, Mssrs. Huckabee and Romney).

So, he’s looking pretty darn conservative. The only problem is that maverick streak I mentioned is on the wrong issues. Campaign finance reform under McCain-Feingold has been a disaster. The immigration thing was wrongheaded. The other problem is that there are my maverick issues: on most gay rights he’s just like the majority of GOP members.

So what I have here I a Republican I can agree with on, say, 65% of issues (and several of my priority issues are among those) versus a Democrat (either one, they believe pretty much the same things) whom I agree with on, say, 15% of issues. The choice for me is clear: 65% > 15%. I can live with president McCain more easily than I can live with President Clinbama.

Pass me a McCain button, it’s time to look towards November.

Ezra Levant

After a lengthy hiatus, and without any forewarning, I am posting again. At least for today. This is not an indication that the blog will return in full force or that I will even semi-regularly resume my blogging habit--I just wanted to share (more like save) something a former professor sent me.

Background:

Ezra Levant is a Canadian publisher. In February 2006 Levant's Western Standard magazine (a conservative and libertarian leaning Canadian magazine) reprinted the Danish cartoons that caused the riots after most editors of the Canadian media decided not publish them. A member of the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada complained about the publication to the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission. The Commission called Mr. Levant in for a hearing this month. What follows is Mr. Levant's opening statement at the hearing.

Public Transport

Whenever I have the opportunity, I am a consumer of public transportation. The fact that it reduces my carbon footprint is immaterial to me, really I just find it cheaper and more convenient.

Consider a Washington Metro trip from Vienna/Fairfax to Farragut West during rush hour. The cost is $2.35 (or less if you buy weekly passes and even just use them for commuting on weekdays), and it takes about half an hour. During that half hour you leisurely listen to your iPod, read a newspaper, and the only real inconvenience of the experience is the crowding.

Now consider driving into DC from Fairfax the time is already into the hours. Parking is going to be a minimum of $10, and that doesn't include the costs of gas, wear and tear on your auto, or the disutility of the maddening fury that dealing with DC traffic causes.

So as a consumer the choice is clear. But I wonder, is it efficient?

A rail system undoubtedly requires an immense capital outlay as well as significant maintenance expenditures, and with fares like these, when do they recoup the investment? Washington DC doesn't seem to. Although rail ridership in Fiscal Year 2007 was almost 208 million, fares and other revenue (like advertising) provide only about 60% of the Metro's funding. In addition to fares and advertising revenues, the system receives money from each jurisdiction is serves [source (PDF)].

State and local taxpayers are funding a significant portion of the Washington Metro system. The Metro essentially operates at a loss (typical public program), which is disconcerting. It doesn't have to. The fare prices are extremely low compared to the cost of driving into and throughout DC. They could be doubled and it would still make rational sense to use the metro. Even if fare prices start to exceed the cost of commuting, the extra traffic into the city is going to raise parking prices and increase the psychological cost of driving (more commuters = more frustration). So before long, the metro would still be the more economical choice.

Perhaps, you think of the positive externalities, most significantly the reduction of the environmental impact of the daily commute into our nation's capitol. One can make an argument that the because of the tragedy of the commons and the public good problem of the environment, environmentally friendly enterprises such as mass transit should be subsidized. I don't quite buy it because as I pointed out above, there isn't really a market failure here: the market isn't for the environmental benefits, but for the transportation space. Transportation space is not a public good: it both is rivalrous and excludable, and a mass transit system can be operated for a profit. The positive externality of reducing emissions per commuter is just that: external to the market considerations at work here. It's gravy.

It doesn't make sense that public transit should be public in that it is owned and operated by the government. If it is operated at a loss, it is inefficient and then it is subsidized by taxpayers who may or may not use it. Further, in most cases could be operated at a profit. If it is operated at a profit then the private sector is better suited to own and operate it. Why should the government get profits in addition to the taxes they steal from us?

Self Protection

Shirley Katz, a teacher in Oregon, is suing the school board for the right to carry a concealed handgun in the classroom. As you might guess, I am on her side.

Although she seems primarily to be making a point about the second amendment, there are some legitimate concerns with being unarmed:

"Our safety plan at our school now is that if somebody threatening comes in, you try to avoid eye contact, and do whatever they say, and that is not acceptable anymore," [Katz] said. Shootings at Virginia Tech University and the one-room Amish school in Pennsylvania, "reinforced my belief we have to take action, we can't just acquiesce as we have been taught to do."

Ms. Katz has a concealed weapons permit, which requires a certified gun safety course, and she practices regularly. The school board is, naturally, against this (why am I reminded of Dolores Umbridge?). According to a CNN broadcast, the Superintendent noted that guns are banned in "courthouses, private work places, airplanes, and sports arenas, so why should schools have a lower standard of safety?"

The argument is asinine, not least of all because two of those areas are readily distinguishable. First, private citizens may not be allowed to bring guns into courthouses, but courthouses are crawling with police officers or U.S. Marshals who have very visible guns. Second, firing a gun in a pressurized cabin poses risks far beyond just being caught in the line of fire (although following Sept 11 and even today I think that pilots should be trained in firearm safety and be allowed to carry a gun).

As for the rest of the Superintendent's argument: allowing teachers (properly permitted) to carry handguns in school will make students safer! Gang members and psychos don't heed the prohibition against guns, and that just leaves the law abiding population unprotected. It is more than reckless to put our heads in the sand against the dangers posed to children rather than trying to protect them. Why aren't we affording a higher level of safety to our children than we do to sports fans or private office workers?

It's a start

Students in Tehran staged a protest against Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as the Iranian president presented a speech criticizing Western-style democracy.

This isn't the first time:

The president faced a similar outburst during a speech last December when students at Amir Kabir Technical University called him a dictator and burned his picture.

These are good signs.

Since it relates somewhat and I watched the movie last weekend, here's a clip:

Ain't gonna happen--though I wouldn't mind if it did

Seems if Rudy gets the nomination, a group of evangelical Christians has threatened to back a third party candidate.

It might be nice to clear them out of the Party, but they will vote Rudy if he gets the nomination. Three words why: Madam President Clinton.

Gays in Iran

From the Washington Post today. Copied here in full:

I'm one of those people Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says don't exist. I'm a 25-year-old Iranian, and I'm gay.

I live in Tehran with my parents and younger brother and am studying to be a computer software engineer. I've known that I was different from my brother and other boys for as long as I can remember.

I was born in 1982, two years after the start of the Iran-Iraq War, and when I was growing up, most boys loved to play with toy guns, pretending to be soldiers in the war. I liked painting, and playing with dolls. My brother preferred to play with the other boys, so most of the time I was lonely.

I was 16 when I first realized that I was sexually attracted to some of the boys in my high school classes. I had no idea what I could do with that feeling. All I knew about homosexuals were the jokes and negative stories that people told about them. I thought a homosexual was someone who sexually abused children -- until I saw the word "homosexual" for the first time in an English encyclopedia, and found a definition of myself.

After that, I started searching the Internet for information about homosexuality. Eventually I came across two Iranian Web sites where I could communicate with other gays. I was 17. At first, I didn't want to give anyone my e-mail address because I was afraid that I could be abused or that my parents might find out, or that people on the site could be government spies. But I finally decided to exchange e-mails with one person, and after some correspondence, we spoke on the phone. I'll never forget the first time I heard the voice of another gay man. We arranged to meet at the home of a friend of his, and the three of us talked for hours. I felt so comfortable with them. The next day I learned that the friend was interested in me. His name was Omid, and we became boyfriends.

I also became interested in the gay social movement that started in 2000. Around that time, Iranian society became more open under President Mohammad Khatami's reformist government. The Internet became common, and everybody started talking about issues they couldn't even have thought about before.

Until then, the gay world had been underground and secret. Under the Islamic Republic, gays could face the death penalty; they could also lose their jobs and family support. Meetings and parties took place only in the most trusted private homes. Heterosexuals were almost never seen at these gatherings. Even fellow gays were only slowly accepted. It could take years for a homosexual to become known and trusted. Most older gays were married and even had children, and their family and friends had no idea of their sexuality.

There was a handful of gathering places for outcast homosexuals in Tehran, people who couldn't hide their sexuality and had lost their jobs, or people whose families had disowned them, and who had turned to selling sex for money. Those places were always being attacked by the paramilitaries.

My generation was the first to start the coming-out process. I decided to come out when I was 20. I thought that if I just talked to my parents about it, they would accept my reasoning. I was totally wrong. Their reaction was horrible. They started to restrict me -- I couldn't use the phone or invite any of my friends over, and they cut back on financial support. Part of their reaction was religious; part was their concern that I couldn't survive as a homosexual in Iran. They were also ashamed to tell the rest of our family and wanted to see me married to a woman.

We argued constantly; they insisted that I wasn't gay, that I only thought I was. It took me years to calm them down, but over time, they lost any hope of changing me, and they started to change themselves. Now they accept that I'm gay, but they're not happy about it.

Meanwhile, the gay community has worked to educate people via Web sites and dialogue with our friends and families. But we've found that the most effective way of changing people's minds is coming out. When people see us as reasonable humans, their negative views of homosexuality are shattered. I can honestly say there's been a change in the way Iranians view us now. Gay life in Iran isn't as underground as it used to be. We have gay parties with heterosexual guests -- and even our parents! We have places where we can congregate -- in coffee shops, special park areas and even certain offices. Many more homosexuals are willing to come out these days. Activists estimate that .5 percent of the Iranian population is homosexual, bisexual or transsexual.

But we weren't surprised by Ahmadinejad's comments about gays at Columbia University. What else could he say? We stone homosexuals in Iran because that's what God wants? It was a joke, but he gave the only answer he could.

I wish our president could learn to respect gays instead of denying us. But I'm not holding my breath. In the meantime, my only response to his remarks is this: Whatever he says, Ahmadinejad can't change the fact that we exist.

Amir is an activist in Tehran whose name is being withheld for his safety.