'American Idol' Finale Scandal

There is a mini-scandal surrounding the results of Season 8 of American Idol. Conflicting reports indicate that AT&T, one of the show's major sponsors, may have intentionally influenced the outcome of the final, causing what is generally seen as an "upset win" for Kris Allen over the expected favorite, Adam Lambert. Yahoo! News reports that some AT&T employees took demo phones to several finale parties in Kris Allen's home state of Arkansas, where they allegedly instructed attendees how to "power text," i.e., send multiple texts to the same number at one time. It is reported that this was done in order to influence the outcome of the finale in Kris Allen's favor. An Arkansas newspaper Fox's KLRT-TV affiliate in Little Rock, reported that 38 million votes came out of Arkansas that night, a stunning 13 times the population of the entire state. Hard to believe, yes. Impossible, not in the least. Particularly if AT&T insiders were involved. The station has since retracted the report, and AT&T of course, denies all allegations, claiming that the results of the finale are "fair and verified."

Really? Is that why the employees who took the demo phones to finale parties were chastised by AT&T? Or, maybe that's why American Idol producers are refusing to release the actual vote tally? Or why AT&T is reporting that customer-base voting in this season's show are 70% higher than last season? I would dismiss it all as in invented scandal except for the scramble to cover up and dismiss. Could it be, just maybe, that Fox, the producer of AI, is just a little bit homophobic? Just ask Clay Aiken, who now admits that he knew he was gay when he was on Idol, but "for personal reasons" chose not to disclose his sexuality. And now we see Adam Lambert going through the same thing -- admitting that he didn't want the sensation of his sexuality overshadowing the contest. I'm sure Kris Allen did win. But, I'd bet you anything it was with a little help from the sponsors.

Maine Senate Passes Same Sex Marriage Law

Following on the heels of New Hampshire, the state Senate in Maine has passed a bill re-defining marriage as "between two people" rather than between a man and a woman. Maine Governor, John Baldacci (D) has pledged to "keep an open mind" on the matter, and the Democratically controlled state has a fairly decent record on human rights. Massachusetts pioneered the movement and legalized same-sex marriage in 2003, becoming the first state to allow gay marriage. In November 2008, Connecticut followed suit, then in a single week in April 2009, first Iowa then Vermont did the same. A round of polls this week indicates the majority of the US now favors legal recognition for gay couples, and for repealing "Don't Ask Don't Tell," in favor of allowing gay members of the Armed Services to be open about their sexuality. (Note that I despise the term, "openly gay." So, are people, "openly straight"? Ug.)

The state of New York is hemming and hawing over passage of a similar law, with Gov. David Patterson pushing for the vote in Albany, the state capital, but lawmakers are hesitating, claiming the want to "make sure they have the votes." It's an encouraging sign, however, that the governor, Patterson, is openly criticizing opponents of gay marriage, saying guilt propels them to hate. The state of Nevada just passed a domestic partnership law, giving possible signs that a marriage initiative could be next. Sen. John McCain (R-NV) has recently made statements in favor of recognizing same sex couples legally, which is an encouraging sign as well. These statements came directly on the heels of his daughter, Meghan McCain's editorial calling for a "Gayer GOP."

Meanwhile in California, the "Gay State," haters have a new poster girl: Miss. Haterfornia Miss California, who after getting booed on stage for saying she believes marriage is between a man and a woman -- to celebrity judge Perez Hilton of all people--, and likely losing the Miss USA pageant over it, is now appearing in an anti-gay ad campaign. In November, "Prop 8," an anti-gay marriage law was passed in California, and the state Supreme Court will be ruling on the decision sometime before June 3rd. Who would have thought California would become the touchstone for anti-gay sentiment. It seems however, that the rest of the country is reacting, and reacting with a, "Oh really? Well, look what we can do, oh so liberal, cool California. We can let gay people get married. In Iowa."

I have to say I'm pretty pleased to see what is becoming a snowball effect on same sex marriage. Activists are approaching lawmakers the right way this time: as an equity issue, and as a Constitutional issue, not as a social issue, or even specifically a gay issue. State governors and legislators are being painted into a corner in a way, now that the debate is being framed on equality; you can't single out a specific group of people and deny them rights guaranteed to them by State and Federal constitutions. Hopefully the days of Anita Bryant, where gay people were grouped with prostitutes and thieves (ok don't get me started on prostitution and what's not wrong with that...) are behind us. With the exception of Miss California, but I doubt she'll get the toe-hold Anita got. Note she got booed, and denied a crown over it, not a standing ovation.

Of note as well, Sweden legalized gay marriage today, May 1, 2009, as well, redefining their marriage laws with gender-neutral language.

Rick Warren Pick In Baste Taste

As a gay man, and a concerned activist, I find the pick of Rick Warren, senior pastor of Saddleback Church in Southern California, to deliver the invocation at Obama's inaugural, to be in extremely poor taste. It feels like a singular insult to the LBGT constituency. An outspoken anti-gay preacher, in an anti-gay ministry, in California, after the Prop 8 human rights fiasco. This is not dismissing partisan poisons of the past, it is a bungle; I will say, it was probably not an intentional insult, but it should not have taken too much 2 + 2 to think this one through and maybe make a more neutral pick. In fact, I would rather separation of church and state, as mandated by the First Amendment of the US Constitution, were observed, and that no state-sponsored religious ceremonies were part of the Inaugural. Regardless, the pcik of Rick Warren is in poor taste, and hopefully the President-elect will privately encourage Warren to reconsider. I don't want an apology, I would rather see action.