One thing we can count on as GLBT reporters is controversy, and this week was no exception.

One of this week’s bugaboos is the return of the Coors controversy. In Chicago, a group of gay bars have organized a boycott of Coors beer in their venues and have taken out ads in the local press explaining why. This comes after Pete Coors, a member of the Coors family running for U.S. Senate in Colorado, stated during a recent debate that he opposed same-sex marriage.

The GLBT gripe with Coors isn’t going to go away any time soon, and we don’t think it necessarily should go away. While Coors has, since the mid-1990s when Mary Cheney served as the company’s gay liaison and largely succeeded in repairing the company’s image, courted GLBT customers and organizations with its left hand, so to speak, that’s no reason for us to ignore what its right hand is doing.

Good for GLBT organizations and regional press for following the money. Reportedly private, if not public, Coors money is still going largely to support conservative organizations and conservative family members running for office. So whatever Coors may be doing with 10 cents of your gay dollar, you can assume that the other 90 cents is going to something that would leave, let’s say, a bad taste in your mouth. We’ll follow the boycott – and what Coors does with both hands – closely in the coming weeks.

The Food and Drug Administration has released new rules barring sexually active gay men from donating sperm out of concern for the spread of HIV, as reported in this issue as our “Outrage of the Week” (page 28). The new rule comes as part of a much-anticipated set of new laws governing the tissue-donation industry at large.

While modern HIV testing techniques that can give a result within 72 hours make this ban seem preposterous – laughable even – the fact is that this ban has been in effect for a decade at most sperm banks across the country when it comes to anonymous donations of sperm. Banks have always allowed gay men to provide “directed” donations, where the donor’s history is known to the participating family, and will continue to do so. Gay organizations like Lambda Legal have spoken out against the ban, saying that it pegs HIV as a gay men’s disease and ignores the science. FDA officials say that it can take up to six months after an HIV infection to develop the antibodies within the blood that are gauged by HIV testing, so they claim the ban reduces risk of passing on the disease.

Perhaps this is a controversy where everyone should take stock of the gray area: Yes, gay men are being singled out, but the majority of the new FDA rules are to strengthen regulations for the donation of other tissues and to increase safety in a growing industry that has been under-regulated. Nevertheless, the fact also remains that gay men do not have a monopoly on HIV infection, and the procedure of merely asking gay men about their sexual activity seems an imperfect science anyway. Perhaps a compromise solution that puts safety first, but without singling out a group of people, is in order. Meanwhile, gay men can continue to donate sperm to friends and family, and we urge gay activists and organizations to continue monitoring the issue, but to be sure of the science and the issues before crying “Outrage!”

Political strategist James Carville’s slogan for the Clinton campaign in the 1990s applied this week to a Human Rights Campaign (HRC) message for Laura Bush. Mrs. Bush, who has spoken out several times about same-sex marriage, received a letter this week from HRC President Cheryl Jacques, one week after the First Lady questioned the wisdom of same-sex marriage in the Boston Globe. Jacques humbly suggested that Mrs. Bush might want to consider addressing more relevant issues, like … education maybe? Or, even the economy. Stupid.