 Thank you, Anne, for that far too glowing introduction. I'm very proud of P-Flag and of the San Francisco Public Library for having put on this series. And I think it's particularly appropriate that this last talk comes on the evening when Ellen Morgan comes out on television. It's appropriate because the tremendous hype that's taken place in the past few weeks on TV, on radio talk shows, and in the newspapers really has been focusing on the very issue that we've been discussing over these six lectures. And that is, where are we as a nation in our respect and understanding of gay and lesbian people? Is it really OK to be gay? Many of us in this room, gay and straight, have been working for a long time on a major social revolution that will see the stigma and discrimination against gay people give way to a new society that will value and respect and trust its gay members. Does Ellen's coming out represent real progress for us? Or is it merely some kind of superficial entertainment to raise the ratings? And are we really losing ground in the public arena? I'd like to look tonight at four major tasks that I see ahead of us as we strive to bring about true recognition and inclusion in society. Those of you who've heard me before or who know me know that when I think about an issue, I like to think about it in terms of an image. And tonight, that image is a sailboat. About 30 years ago, our family was invited to purchase a one-third share in a sailboat on San Francisco Bay. It was home ported in Coyote Point. And we went down to look at it. It was a 25-foot sloop named Sea Dancer. Well, our children were aged 10 and down. My husband was tremendously enthusiastic. He loved sailing. But I wasn't quite so certain that little boat looked pretty fragile for our four children. The only time I'd ever been out sailing, he had taken me out and thoroughly soaked me when we were in college sailing on the river basin and outside Cambridge, Massachusetts. I wasn't at all sure that I could or wanted to learn all about masks and booms and lines and rudders and stays, much less to figure out that port was left and starboard was right. It all seemed too complicated. But after a few trials, I found out that I really loved the sailing. And learning about the boat really wasn't that hard. It was sailing the boat that was hard. It's not quite like driving a car. When you want to sail a boat, you have to learn to manage the unpredictable and powerful pushes of the waves and the wind. I learned that a good breeze is essential if you want to go anywhere in a boat. But even with a good breeze, you have a problem if that breeze is blowing directly towards you. If you want to go in the direction that the wind is coming from, you can't do it. You head your boat into the wind and you completely stall out. So learning to sail meant learning to sail into the wind by going first off course one way, then off course another way, in a kind of a zigzag pattern called tacking. Only by veering from side to side could we get where we were going. I think you can see that there's an analogy I see here between sailing and working for gay rights. The boat that we sail, the ship of freedom from discrimination and stigma, is encountering some rough waters. There are strong winds of anti-gay rhetoric blowing directly at us from religious leaders, from political action groups, from elected officials, and even from some of our friends and neighbors who are suddenly frightened to discover gay and lesbian people in their midst. And so we find ourselves tacking back and forth. It's no secret that much of the progress that we make depends on the emotional, overblown, outrageous rhetoric of our anti-gay opponents. As they attack gay and lesbian persons, they call attention to who these people really are. Even as they mischaracterize them as immoral and threatening, they make possible the public debate that we're engaged in. They provide much of the forward thrust for our movement. And like a boat with our sails raised, we draw power from their opposition. It isn't that we should be grateful for these homophobes, but we should recognize that they are actually helping us out in the short run. The ship of gay rights that we're on, this voyage, has presented us with some challenging learning opportunities. First, we tried to sail directly into that wind with gays in the military, and we stalled out. We stalled out. So now we've been learning how to tack, to approach our goals in a variety of ways, first from one angle and then another, with one strategy and then another. But we still have unresolved problems before we are master mariners. So let's take a look at some of those four problems that we must cope with. And the first problem, I think, is the choice of destination. There's considerable confusion about where we are trying to go. One part of the crew wants us to be seen as gays and lesbians, a distinct group, a minority. They want to gain in Bruce Bauer's term a place at the table, a piece of the economic and political action. They see gay people as a distinctive group with its own leaders separate from the rest of American culture. They assume that all gay and lesbian people share common goals, common experiences, and common values, and that they have developed a subculture that is really distinct from the rest of society. Their destination for this trip is protection from discrimination based on being identified as membership in this minority. They argue that gay people gain as a group, but they can never achieve as individuals. They see themselves as one among many other competing groups in our society that struggle for recognition and power. But there are other gay crew members who disagree. They reject being included simply because they belong to a group or represent a group and wear that label that says gay. They see the claims of minority status as breeding a kind of tokenism, one black at the table, one gay at the table, one woman at the table, and the very opposite of being accepted as an individual whose intrinsic worth is not dependent on their sexual orientation or who else they represent. In addition, they often find that they may not agree with the positions of the individual's leaders or groups who purport to represent their interests as gay people. These crew members would prefer to be integrated into the larger society to be accepted as an openly gay member, but someone who shares some of the same values, interests, experiences as those of the rest of society. They often feel that they cannot shed the stigma and the label in its stereotypes unless they are seen as individuals, not representing an amorphous group. Only then, as individuals, can they move freely as a member of the larger society then of a small subset of America. But they also admit that choosing this kind of a destination has its own risks. They run the risk of retreating into the clod of being perceived as passing, just one like all the rest of us. They may lose the political and social clout that they could have as part of an organized gay constituency. And by minimizing the differences of their experience from that of the straight community, they lose some of their uniqueness and the validation and gifts that they bring as someone different. They may also lose the sense of support that comes from working in solidarity with others who may share many of their same experiences. This debate about what goal to strive for, what definition to reach, group recognition or individual integration is not unique to gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered persons, blues, blacks, Asians, Jews, women, all other minority groups face the same dilemma. It's a continuing tension, but it can be very confusing for those who want to work, who those who want change. The reality is that whatever the goal, finally, group action is essential to get the boat moving ahead. But a second reality that we're aware of is that the more gains the group makes, the more they achieve what they are after, the more likely it is that individuals will feel that group action is no longer imperative and that their minority status is irrelevant. If you look at the history of the NAACP that peaked after the civil rights movement and then the new generation fell away and now they are trying to reconstitute themselves as representatives of the black community, the feminist movement also has gone through some of these ups and downs. They show how quickly succeeding generations can take for granted the hard won achievements of the group and consider that group passe. I look at my own daughters. They never have considered themselves feminists. They felt that the struggle to open up professions and careers for women had been won. And it's only now as they are encountering difficulty with daycare, with the glass ceiling, as they see the bias to boys in the education of their own daughters that they are becoming radicalized and feminists. The leadership of gay organizations is acutely aware of this tendency for support to dwindle as some success is achieved. Will new generations of gay people drift away from the very organizations that have worked so hard to secure their rights? So far that doesn't seem to be a problem. As long as Pat Buchanan, the Christian Coalition and the Family Research Council and a host of other groups keep the virulent anti-gay rhetoric flowing in obvious ways, they will fill the sails and the coffers of gay rights organizations. But the opinions about group versus individual recognition will continue to divide gay people. And as more gains are made, it will be harder and harder for gay organizations to mobilize for action. The first problem, deciding where we're going to go. A second problem, what course should we set? We've created a host of organizations to address problems from many different angles. My own group, PFLAG, Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, Lambda Legal Defense Fund, Human Rights Campaign, Service Members Legal Defense Network, ACT UP, AMFAR, I'm sure you could add hundreds of others. Who's strategy is best? Which is most effective? Do they compete? Do they overlap? Or do they try to divide up the work? And who makes those decisions? For the past three years, the board chairs of some of the major gay organizations have been talking about getting together and trying to discuss this problem, but it hasn't happened yet. If you're like me, your mailbox overflows with appeals for support from all of these organizations based on one strategy or another. How do you measure success? How do you know which one is effective? It's wonderful and encouraging to see all of these people really engaged in working for change, but it's also confusing and frustrating. And each time I feel that I choose one organization instead of another, I know that I am setting the course. I'm setting the strategy for how we're trying to reach that destination, even if we could decide on the destination. And on the strategy, the course to set to reach it, we have an uncomfortable problem that we don't like to discuss, is deciding who belongs in this boat with us in the first place. And it's not as easy as it may seem. Obviously, gay and lesbian people belong. But do we include bisexual and transgendered persons as well, or is it transsexual? I know several organizations that have yet to resolve this question, including my own. And how do we define gay issues? Are the concerns of lesbian moms gay issues or women's issues? And to what extent do we sail with and include and work with other oppressed groups like blacks, immigrants, or women? Their problems often stem from the same attitudes, laws, and customs that affect gay people, and they are seeking some of the same changes. Or should we limit our focus solely to gay issues, feeling that we have unique concerns that these other groups do not completely understand or share, and that they in turn have an agenda which we cannot easily accommodate into our own? So whom do we work with? Who belongs in this boat? A part of that problem, that few people voice, I think is still important. Just how much trust are gay people willing to put into working with the straight community? I have a gay son and I've worked with gay and lesbian people, many of you are my friends, I've known for years, but I do not understand from the inside out what it is to be gay or lesbian. Does that mean I'm not competent to talk about these issues? That only a gay person can really speak for gay and lesbian people? This is not a facetious question. I believe that there's an attitude among many gay people that only they are devoted enough and trustworthy enough to work on gay issues. Consider that a number of AIDS patients would not go to a straight doctor for treatment. A few years ago, there was a meeting in San Francisco of the leaders of gay groups who were concerned about some legislation coming up in the California Assembly. PFLAG was not invited. When I called to ask that we be included, I was told that there wasn't room. It was for gay groups only it seems. Are we not seen as competent or trustworthy? And I expect you as I have seen a few organizations and people that appear to thrive to derive their strength from loudly scolding all the straight leaders who do not immediately carry the torch for their latest gay rights initiative. And the thing that hurts me perhaps most is that I have encountered routine disparagement of religious leaders, despite the evidence that many are supportive of gay people. At some level, I think most of us realize that straight allies are necessary for the massive social change that we are seeking. And yet distrust and uncertainty of our commitment as straight people remains. So we've learned to tack. We draw power from the headwinds of the opposition and that's been difficult. Determining who really belongs in this boat of gay rights is still being debated. We're working to determine what is the best course to chart and important as these three elements are. It's the fourth fundamental fact of sailing that I really want to focus on and that is the tide. I remember several years ago in that small sailboat, one breezy Sunday afternoon sailing off Angel Island and it was fabulous. It was a gorgeous day. We were healed over the sails were full. The water was rushing past. I mean, it was terrific. We were flying. And then I happened to look over at the island and I realized that was the same point of land that we were opposite 10 minutes ago. Unaware of the tide that had been running against us, we were staying in exactly the same place even though we thought we were making terrific progress. Well, I think it's the silent often unseen tides that determine whether and how fast we will move in this movement. For me, those tides are the tides of public opinion. Those tides are the private attitudes that drive public policy. Right now there are so many visible cross currents that it's very hard to determine if we're really making any progress at all. Gaze in the military, tide against us. The Employment Nondiscrimination Act, tide beginning to rise for us. The Jamie Nabozny case, tide rising. The Hawaii marriage case, tide rising but what about all of those offshoots in our state legislatures? The censoring of art, a whole myriad of conflicting things are happening right now in our society and it's very hard to discern where the tides are carrying us. But we do know that the future will depend upon swinging public support behind us, getting public support to push us along instead of pushing against us. It's no revelation that popular opinion heavily influences public policy. Leaders need followers. Elected officials from city councils all the way up to the U.S. Congress will not act very far ahead of what they think their constituents will support. And it isn't only politicians. It's corporate officials too. We vote with our pocketbooks. Look at the producers of Ellen who debated for months whether this plot move would increase ratings or depress ratings. When Chrysler and J.C. Penney ran scared and pulled their ads from this episode, they based their decision on what they thought we thought. What we see on TV and what we hear out of Congress reflects a reading on what our leaders, both corporate and public leaders, think we as consumers and voters will support. And if that public policy and corporate policy is to change, it will be because those who make the decisions feel that there is popular support for change and perhaps equally important that there is a loss of public support if they don't make those changes. There are so many factors that cause the tides of public opinion to shift. TV and the media not only reflect popular culture, they help to mold it. A powerful pull on popular culture and popular opinion lately has been the organized, highly funded foundations and groups that focus their time and energy and expertise on bringing us negative messages about gays and lesbians. They have an express political purpose. They have a grassroots political base that targets state and local community officials with scare tactics. And they buttress that activity by organizing followers through direct mail, publications, talk, radio, televangelist, and churches. For a long time they were unseen because they functioned without much media coverage. And we have the media to thank for beginning to make us aware of their influence. Groups like Focus on the Family, the Family Research Council, have only recently become very visible. Their propaganda has influenced everybody from the housewife listening to the radio to the militia movement. They've mobilized a vocal segment of public opinion and that segment has had title implications. It heartens me to see the increasing awareness of these groups because it's like reading the tide tables. You can plan your trip if you know when and where the tides will be moving. So it's this tide of public opinion and private attitudes that is important. And is it helping or hindering us now? I believe we're in a very confusing time when the tide is actually turning. Every week I learn about a new video or a new book that brings to light some new facet, some reality of the gay experience. I read on my email about gay straight alliances in high schools from Alaska to Florida. They are popping up in every state. Youth groups, many of them founded with the support of PFLAG are emerging even in small towns. Just last month I reviewed one of the first university studies of teenagers in the process of coming out to their families and their schools. I remember quite recently when a gay or lesbian teenager coming out to family members in high school was a rarity, a real phenomenon. And now there are hundreds of them online in clubs, in social groups. Besides the appearance of new resources and the emergence of this new generation of out youth, I see the tide turning in the sometimes nasty debates going on in our Christian faith communities. That may sound strange. I've spent the past 15 years working on the Presbyterians to change their policy of banning the ordination of gay and lesbian persons. In the past six months, that has turned into a battle over a constitutional amendment, a ban on ordination, a battle that we lost last month. So how can I see this as a sign of hope? I think it's a sign of hope because every vote we have taken in the past 15 years, and we have taken one almost every year, has seen the anti-gay minority shrink. This past spring, a swing of a mere 5% of the votes would have defeated that constitutional amendment. This is not the end for the Presbyterians. That minority, that majority is gonna continue to shrink, and we will pick up the 5% and more, and we will see that ban reversed. The Methodists, the Episcopalians, the Disciples, and even the Catholics are experiencing these same debates as are some of the Jewish communities. And even there in some of the hierarchical systems, the anti-gay sentiment is being challenged and is declining. So we must focus on changing fundamental attitudes if we are going to make any headway. An experience this past year gave me renewed confidence that unlike the tides in the bay, we can do something about these tides of attitude and opinion and turn them even more strongly in my direction. I've been working, as I said, to turn the tide within the religious community. My own Presbyterian church is a more light congregation that's Presbyterian speak for a congregation that's open to gay and lesbian persons. We went to our regional Presbytery meeting last fall when it was considering a motion to ban gays and lesbians from ordination as not only clergy, but as lay board members. My congregation fully expected that the motion would pass in our very conservative San Jose Presbytery, but we had come prepared to speak against it, to make our witness, to show the churches what the effects of that kind of a ban would be. Well, what we did not anticipate was that the Presbytery would decide to eliminate all discussion and all debate. We were not even given a chance to be heard before the vote was taken. It was an extremely bitter moment. We were angry and upset, but we decided not to leave the issue alone. One church in our Presbytery had spearheaded the move to get that ban adopted. Our pastor decided to approach the minister of that congregation. She suggested a meeting of the lay boards of the two churches who were at such opposite poles on this question. It took months of negotiation, but finally last September the 30 lay leaders of the two churches got together for a morning. They held a short preliminary worship service and then they broke into pairs, one from each congregation. To talk one on one, the purpose was not even to discuss this issue, to argue or to convince, but to learn about the other person's experience, to hear the other person's concern, to hear their personal story, to hear their questions. For every single participant, what came out of these personal encounters were misconceptions on both sides, fear on both sides, surprise on both sides, and ultimately a new appreciation for each other. In our slightly self-righteous way, we had thought that they were all zealots and bigots. We learned that they really never had discussed this as a board. They'd never even talked about the issue. It was their pastor's proposal. We found that some of them did not agree with their pastor who had spearheaded this move. Indeed, a few were quite troubled by it, and they were startled to learn that some of the wonderful gay people with whom they were engaged in dialogue were actually gay. They had assumed falsely that our pastor was lesbian, which she assured they is not, and that she had forced this political position upon us that gave me a little clue about how their pastor operates. They were astounded to discover that our commitment to including gays and lesbians had been initiated by our straight membership over 12 years ago that we had spent two years in study and discussion, and they were even more surprised to learn that we had felt immensely blessed by the presence and the leadership of our gay members. In our anger at their motion in the Presbytery, we had assumed that they were all of one mind, that their opposition was much more unified than it was, and we had again underestimated the power of personal stories to reveal the truth of our lives and to open up people's understanding. I don't know if we convinced them of anything, but I do know that we engaged them personally in a non-threatening way, and I want to mention a footnote. When that ban came back before our Presbytery for ratification this spring, we were prepared. We ensured that there was full discussion in small groups before the vote, as well as debate upon the floor, and this time the anti-gay measure was defeated, a complete turnaround within our Presbytery. I think this tells me something crucial. We cannot master the tides of public opinion until we can talk with the straight community in non-threatening ways. I call this the after the shouting strategy, because much of what we have done is to lobby others or to point at their ignorance and their bias. Well, folks, it's unlikely we are going to win converts by lambasting them and by accusing them of not caring. We have not sat down with them to discuss their concerns. We have not taken them seriously and respectfully, and dialogue is not possible between people who are yelling so loudly that they cannot hear who they are talking with. If we lower our voices and listen carefully, we can ask others to listen to us as well. That is a strategy of seeking mutual acknowledgement of who we are as individuals who start with opposing views but often have common concerns, and I think it is important to recognize the genuine concerns and good motives that lie within many of these folks. I've discovered that safety for children is one such concern, a concern we all share. Another is freedom to practice one's religion and to hold fast to one's belief. I certainly share that. Even hobbies, similar work experience, tastes, and food or music can be the springboard for building common ground, and we must consciously seek out and use these underlying positive affinities to begin the dialogue. I saw one such affinity at work last fall. I attended a reception for donors to a theological seminary. When the host got up to welcome the donors, he commented on how much he as a gay man appreciated the work of the seminary and the contributions it had made to his personal life and the life of his church. He then went on to make gracious introductions of the president of the seminary and the members of the faculty so that they could talk about their work. I doubt that many of the donors who were attending that event had admitted to knowing that their host was gay until the moment he stated it. His coming out was not the focus of his remarks, but it gave a special depth to his involvement in the seminary, and that involvement was an affinity and interest everybody in that room shared. He naturalized his presence as a gay man in that predominantly straight environment by talking about things that bound them together. This incident was particularly striking to me because it's one time when I think gay consciousness was effectively raised in an affluent straight setting, and we need more occasions like this. One of the concerns that I have is that the rich and the powerful remain in the closet, and I don't mean only gay people. I mean their families as well. They are protected by money from the economic and social discrimination that affect most of us, and they feel a level of social status that they are reluctant to risk. I call them the well-healed and the well-concealed, and we must reach them and help them to see the enormous difference that they can make. I have seen families in Hillsborough and Atherton and Wise Out of Minnesota and Lake Forest, Illinois, well-to-do families who have children and other relatives who are gay and feel no call to lend their support to the efforts to bring about the changes that will make the world safer for the family members that they care about. These folks are the CEOs and the stockholders and the companies whose policy needs revision. These are the members of the foundation boards and the community service agencies who do not yet see services to gay youth as falling within their guidelines. These are the donors to the symphony and the art museum, and may I say the library, whose annual gifts could fuel every gay rights organization in the country. We need the help of their gay and lesbian and bisexual children to reach them, to help make a compelling case for them, to encourage them to step out, to take leadership in providing for change. They can affect the tide of public opinion in ways that are profound simply by coming out themselves. If they give their personal prestige and financial support, they can bring new momentum to the drive to remove the stigma of the gay stereotype. They need to get on board with us. Of course, they're not the only ones. Ultimately, it's a telephone lineman and the checkout line at Safeway, it's the mom picking up her kids at school, it's the grandfather reading this morning's newspaper about Ellen, that's the public we need to engage. And that's what PFLAG set out to do with Project Open Mind. 18 months ago, we launched a media campaign to catch the attention of the uncommitted, movable middle in six pilot cities. We prepared extensive public education campaigns that were to be built upon the attention-getting TV ads that we were to run, that would bring the issues of safety for gay people into the public arena. We wanted attention and we got it in spades. The ads which were produced to make the public aware of violence and hate speech were so successful that the TV channels in the first three cities would not run them at all. That fact in itself became a center of media attention and propelled our educational campaign into new directions. First off, we realized we had to produce new ads. So we produced different ads that carried the same message but much more gently in a much more mild manner. And we prepared to launch them in the next three cities. In Seattle and Minneapolis, we encountered difficulty in getting even these ads on some channel is in prime time. And in St. Louis, none of the TV stations would run these mild ads, saying that the community was not ready for them. I wonder if they're ready for Ellen. In all of these cities, the campaign has moved into print, billboards, and radio. We learned a lot. We learned first how expensive and difficult it is to break into TV. Advocacy ads are extremely difficult to place, even on channels that routinely show murder, incest, stalking, rape, and other horrors. The mention of the words gay or lesbian in a positive way was considered too controversial. We've learned a great deal about the power of mass media to change and influence public opinion. It works well to raise consciousness of an issue, but it certainly isn't sufficient. It opens the door, it opens the door to new opportunities to engage the straight community. As a result of the ads, the PFLAG chapters in those communities have spoken to community groups who would never previously have considered addressing these issues. And this is where the movement and public opinion begins in personal and in group contacts where we can truly engage in a conversation. One surprise that we found in this program was that there were very few existing ties between the gay and the straight communities in these six cities. As they prepared for Project Open Minds, our chapters discovered more allies, more straight allies in each community than we had ever anticipated. They came out of the woodwork in government, churches, business, police, and social service agencies, straight allies that were willing to put their names in the reputation on the line in support of our campaign. And one of the successes of that campaign was in creating continuing ties with these allies. We've just finished our evaluation of the six cities, and we are now looking at how to extend our this campaign into other locations. So let's get back to where we started. Deciding on our destination, charting our course, and bringing others on board are all important. But turning the tide of public opinion is crucial. It's a long-term effort. It will require sustained attention for many years to come. And we in PFLAG hope that we will find the financial and the human resources to carry this on. We believe this is the most important work that we can do, and we invite you to join us in this voyage. The waters that we will travel are uncharted, but we have tremendous strengths. Our ship is well-designed and strong. It's keel is the United States Constitution, which undergirds our legal and civic structure. The rudder that steers us is the vision of full acceptance and respect for gay and lesbian persons. And although our crew has limited experience, we are learning fast, and we are determined to see this voyage through to a successful conclusion because the cargo that we carry is precious. That cargo is hope. It's hope for our nation's future, a nation that values and benefits from the gifts of its widely diverse members. And that's the reason that you and I are here tonight. And that's the reason that we must turn this tide and bring this ship home. Thanks. I said I would answer questions if you have any. So have at it. Yes. Are you asking about the future of the Christian Coalition or the future of Ralph Reed? I don't know what it means for the future of the Christian Coalition. Pat Robertson has hardly been visible as the head of the Christian Coalition. And I think Ralph Reed has been a one-man think tank that has propelled that into a truly frightening national power organization, political organization. I don't know. I think it is an open question whether the IRS is going to grant them their tax exemption. And I think that decision is going to come down in the next year or so. Maybe one reason Ralph Reed is leaving, I don't know. As for Ralph Reed, I think he has tremendous political ambitions. He's going to work as a political consultant. And I think that he's going to build himself a reputation and a following. But I don't think that he's going to be content to be a consultant forever. I don't know whether he's going to run for public office. He hasn't ruled that out. I think personally, I think what he wants is power, not necessarily the title. And so I think he will move where he feels that he can draw power or that power will gravitate to him probably somewhere within the Republican Party. That's my opinion, a very inexpert personal opinion. Other questions? Yes. Kirby wants to know if the gay marriage debate has helped or hindered in winning public opinion. I think it has helped. A few years ago, I think such a question would have been unthinkable for most Americans. And now they're thinking about it. And they're thinking about it as a real possibility. And because they're thinking about it as a real possibility, they're listening to the debate. And so I think whatever happens, I mean there seems to be a consensus that the Hawaiian Supreme Court acting on the basis of the Hawaiian constitution will approve it. But that is somewhat uncertain because there is a move in the state legislature to amend that constitution. And it is possible that the Supreme Court will delay making any decision until after a referendum on that amendment. The Hawaii case will be decided at the state level. Because it's under the Hawaiian constitution, not the US constitution. And that's where the issue arises for other states is to recognize it. I think it's been very helpful. It's galvanized, pee-fly-guy-think. Because I don't think we were even thinking about this a few years ago. And it's helped us understand the tremendous, not only legal aspects of civil marriage. I mean the legal benefits. But the psychological ones as well. Because our society understands marriage. They don't understand domestic partnerships. There is a whole psychological aura about a couple that is married that gives it a place in the social structure. I don't know if you have unmarried straight friends, but we don't even have a term for this. This is Joe and his companion, his partner, his friend, whether it's gay or straight. Well, when you're living in a society that doesn't even have a respectable word for that person, that's not a respectable relationship. And so I think marriage is tremendously important for a whole host of reasons. Psychological, social, and legal. Other questions? Project Open Mind, anything else that you want to know about? The videos. For the one or two of you who may not have seen the ads that PFLAG produced, they've been put on a loop and are being shown out here at a kiosk just outside the hall where the reception is going to be. And so you can take a look at all four ads. The first two were really using the rhetoric and the images of Pat Robertson and the religious right. The second two that we prepared for Seattle, Minneapolis, and St. Louis are the ones that show the children and the photograph of the couple. And so I would encourage you to go take a look at those, to talk with one another, and if you have any further questions about Project Open Mind or anything else, I'll be glad to talk with you. Thanks. Thanks for joining us with Mitzi Henderson, past national president of PFLAG. Watch for other PFLAG's talk shows, featuring glisten founder Kevin Jennings, historian Jonathan Ned Katz, and Evan Wolfson, director of the Marriage Project of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund. You can purchase a video cassette of this and others in the PFLAG talk series by sending a check for $25 to Media Production, San Francisco Public Library, Civic Center, San Francisco, California, 94102. Homosexuality is moral perversion and is always wrong. God hates homosexuality. Homosexuality is an abomination. The practices of these people is appalling. It is a pathology, it is a sickness. A lot of us are sick and tired of all of the pretenses of injured innocence. They are not innocent. It is estimated that 30% of teenage suicide victims are gay or lesbian.