Being on the DL, or the "Down Low," has gained much notoriety lately, largely due to the writings of several authors, the most recent of which is J.L. King. Mr. King's book On the Down Low: A Journey into the Lives of "Straight" Black Men who Sleep with Men has drawn much attention and Mr. King was featured on Oprah. E. Lynn Harris has written about this situation for some time, in mostly ficitional accounts, but has not drawn the attention that Mr. King's book has lately.
For those needing a primer, here's a link to a brief news clip about men On the Down Low .
I think a lot of unnecessary panic has risen over this topic. On the Oprah show, audience members were scared of Mr. King looking at their husbands in a seductive manner once he described how he could tell a man was interested. Still, I find the whole phenomenon of DL to be both complex and tragic.
Straight black women are one of the highest at-risk group for AIDS in America because of men pretending to be straight but having unprotected, high-risk sex with other men. As much as infedility outrages me, endangering another person's life, especially your spouse who trusts you implicitedly, for your own selfish reasons is unexcusable. This is a betrayal of the person who had commited the crime of loving you and the reward is death.
Certainly not all HIV positive people develop AIDS, and AIDS is much more controlled now, but still AIDS is physically and financially debilitating and certainly significantly reduces a person's life expectancy. Yet, the blame for this society is rooted firmly in societal expectations of not just black men, but concepts of masculinity.
I have played this harp before, but society expects black men to be tough. Popular media depictions almost always portrays the black man as womanizer and physically strong. More often than not, it is the image of the thug. Images of successful black men still carry an implication of hyper-masculinity portrayed through the accumulation of wealth and women. And both black and white culture buy into these images and perpetuate them.
The black man who is not macho is seen as victim. And any trace of feminity makes him pariah. And such, failing to acknowledge the feminine aspects of receiving in sex leads to unprotected sex. Not wanting to stop about the intimacy and sensualness of male to male sexual contact leads to risk for oneself and others.
In this I cannot fail to mention the strong influence that religion has in the black community. Conservative religious views dominate, at least in Southern black communities, leading to a supression of anything not in line with highly orthodox views. The church is such a locus of social interaction and status that to be removed from the church circles would mean almost total alienation and isolation for an individual. So, once again conservative religion, trying to save the world by policing behavior has helped lead to the destruction of its own children.
I believe the only way to help solve this problem is to change the images and expectations of black men. Conservative religious leaders, not just in the black community, but around the world, need to reevaluate how they implement their religion. And we need to help people understand homosexuality better and, also gender role stereotyping. We need, as a culture, to finally stop equating femininity with negativity. These may be pipe dreams, unattainable goals. Still, the only way to stop men from getting on the down low is to get real with ourselves and the world around us.
Thursday, September 02, 2004
A Do Ron Ron
From The Advocate, August 31, 2004 (full article here):
I’ve been married for 23 years. Pretty good for a gay guy,” laughs Ron Reagan over iced tea recently in Los Angeles.
Gay buzz has surrounded the reed-thin son of former president Ronald Reagan since he dropped out of Yale University in his freshman year in 1976 to dance with New York City’s Joffrey Ballet. It follows him still, even though he and his longtime wife, clinical psychologist Doria Reagan, appear to be happily married, ensconced in Seattle with their three cats.
Being typed as gay “has never bothered me,” says Reagan, 46, a political commentator for MSNBC and dog show host for Animal Planet. He was in town doing interviews for the Television Critics Association meeting. “I’ve always thought of it like someone thinking I’m Chinese or something. It’s not pejorative, as far as I can see. It’s simply incorrect.”
Over the years, Reagan says he’s been attacked by the gay press “for not coming out. I guess it’s because I’m a man and ballet dancer. If I had been a truck driver, nobody would have brought that up.” Also, being portrayed as a closeted gay man “can be used as a weapon against my father, even posthumously.”
You can't help but like this guy for his views. That and that he hates the current administration.
I’ve been married for 23 years. Pretty good for a gay guy,” laughs Ron Reagan over iced tea recently in Los Angeles.
Gay buzz has surrounded the reed-thin son of former president Ronald Reagan since he dropped out of Yale University in his freshman year in 1976 to dance with New York City’s Joffrey Ballet. It follows him still, even though he and his longtime wife, clinical psychologist Doria Reagan, appear to be happily married, ensconced in Seattle with their three cats.
Being typed as gay “has never bothered me,” says Reagan, 46, a political commentator for MSNBC and dog show host for Animal Planet. He was in town doing interviews for the Television Critics Association meeting. “I’ve always thought of it like someone thinking I’m Chinese or something. It’s not pejorative, as far as I can see. It’s simply incorrect.”
Over the years, Reagan says he’s been attacked by the gay press “for not coming out. I guess it’s because I’m a man and ballet dancer. If I had been a truck driver, nobody would have brought that up.” Also, being portrayed as a closeted gay man “can be used as a weapon against my father, even posthumously.”
You can't help but like this guy for his views. That and that he hates the current administration.
Wednesday, September 01, 2004
My Favorite Quote on the RNC
"When I wanted to see a second rate Arnold Schwarzenegger movie, I wait for it to come on basic cable." --my friend, Sharon Manson
Sunday, August 29, 2004
The Truth is that I am a Pissed-Off American
There is nothing about the McGreevey situation that fails to induce a string of epithets so vile as to embarrass the most blue comedian spewing from my between my clenched teeth like so much spittle threatening to drown anybody in front of me. In short, everything about the New Jersey soon-to-be-ex-governor's circumstances induces contempt and loathing in me.
The entire fracas is "chicken or the egg" in regards to wrong and right. Our societal norms and values are still sufficiently misalinged to the point that many gays and lesbians feel the need to hide their sexuality or worse pretend they are straight. American law offers no protection to gays and lesbians in the workplace; being queer is sufficient cause to fire someone. And while many Americans probably wouldn't vote out an open gay man or lesbian, being out certainly adds an extra struggle to getting elected in the first place. Relgion, of course, plays a huge role in this. While debate rages in our churches over the place of the homosexual, most religious leaders condmen and ostracize us.
I still find it hard to understand the public fear against homosexuals and the stigmitization that accompanies this fear. I struggle with how people can justify the way they treat sons, daughter, brothers, sisters, moms, dads, friends, co-workers, neighbors, etc. when they find out they are gay. So the American stage is set and ready for such a opera.
Still, the actors are not absolved from their roles. Simply and crassly stated, McGreevy let his dick rule his brain. Whether he put a lover in a position he was unqualified for or sexually harassed his unqualified appointment, he chose to allow his gonads to overrise common sense, professionalism, and respect and love for his wife and family.
And, returning to societal norms and values, what a condemnation of our culture and judicial system that Cipel could, for all intents and purposes, blackmail McGreevy, ostensively for being gay. This also speaks to McGreevy's apparent lack of ability to judge character. Talk about a bad trick.
Again, however, McGreevy put himself in the situation, through one method or the other. And this perhaps is what angers me the most; the complete and total abdication of personal responsibility until the moment he was metaphorically caught with his pants down. Where was the responsibility to his citizens, his state, and even more importantly his wife. I have much sympathy for men who feel the need to get married because of family or societal pressure. Simultaneously, I have zero tolerance for these or any other men who then cheat on their wives. If you need a beard, then your beard deserves to know prior to the marriage. I have actually heard that some women willing enter into a marriage with a closeted man, knowing that he will find sex with other men (and presumably they will not have sex as husband or wife). If that's what you need, go find it. If you don't know that's what you need, then you need to either honor your vows or make other arrangements with your wife.
Finally, a few "fuck you"'s are in order. Fuck you, McGreevy for your proclamation that"At a point in every person's life, one has to look deeply into themirror of one's soul and decide one's unique truth in the world. My truth is that I am a gay American." You say it as if you are out and proud; as if you have been soul searching and come upon some great truth. You were about to have your entire personal life ripped apart; otherwise, you never would have come out. You would have continued to be an adulterer and presumably making appointments according to how hard the guy made you.
McGreevy earns a "fuck you" for proclaiming gay marriage, while under the cover of the closet, as having a "detrimental impact" on his state. To his credit, McGreevy signed into law a domestic partnership act for the state, one of five such statewide laws in the country. This is still no excuse for speaking out some vehemently against gay marriage.
And lastly, I award McGreevey an honorary "fuck you" for the general timing of his scandal and exploits, giving homophobes an example to point to when arguing against gay civil rights and marriage as well as justifying gay stereotypes of being promiscuous and sex-crazed.
Societal norms, as explained above, also earns a de facto "fuck you." Cipel, for being a low-life blackmailer merits a "fuck you." (If Cipel's claim had merit, he would have persued legitimate routes of complaint.)
The HRC comes close to earning a big FU for promoting the fact they helped McGreevey in his press announcement. I have no problem that they advised him, since their advice seemed to be sound; namely that McGreevy should point out that intrinsically being gay has nothing to do with his resignation. However, I question their motive for announcing their tenuous association with him. Other than letting other closeted politicians know that they can help when they are outed and scandal ensues, what is the profit?
Lastly, fuck the press for latching on to this as a GAY affair. It's not sufficient to simply announce that the governor of New Jersey was having an affair that is resulting in his resignation. Every headline I saw in print or television blared that this was a GAY affair; providing certainly a more salacious bent to the whole thing. Hey, politicians have affairs all the time, but how much more tantalizing and tawdry is it because it's with another man? Thus proving that we still have a long way to go before society as a whole sees us as something other than perverts, sex-fiends, and/or abnormal.
The entire fracas is "chicken or the egg" in regards to wrong and right. Our societal norms and values are still sufficiently misalinged to the point that many gays and lesbians feel the need to hide their sexuality or worse pretend they are straight. American law offers no protection to gays and lesbians in the workplace; being queer is sufficient cause to fire someone. And while many Americans probably wouldn't vote out an open gay man or lesbian, being out certainly adds an extra struggle to getting elected in the first place. Relgion, of course, plays a huge role in this. While debate rages in our churches over the place of the homosexual, most religious leaders condmen and ostracize us.
I still find it hard to understand the public fear against homosexuals and the stigmitization that accompanies this fear. I struggle with how people can justify the way they treat sons, daughter, brothers, sisters, moms, dads, friends, co-workers, neighbors, etc. when they find out they are gay. So the American stage is set and ready for such a opera.
Still, the actors are not absolved from their roles. Simply and crassly stated, McGreevy let his dick rule his brain. Whether he put a lover in a position he was unqualified for or sexually harassed his unqualified appointment, he chose to allow his gonads to overrise common sense, professionalism, and respect and love for his wife and family.
And, returning to societal norms and values, what a condemnation of our culture and judicial system that Cipel could, for all intents and purposes, blackmail McGreevy, ostensively for being gay. This also speaks to McGreevy's apparent lack of ability to judge character. Talk about a bad trick.
Again, however, McGreevy put himself in the situation, through one method or the other. And this perhaps is what angers me the most; the complete and total abdication of personal responsibility until the moment he was metaphorically caught with his pants down. Where was the responsibility to his citizens, his state, and even more importantly his wife. I have much sympathy for men who feel the need to get married because of family or societal pressure. Simultaneously, I have zero tolerance for these or any other men who then cheat on their wives. If you need a beard, then your beard deserves to know prior to the marriage. I have actually heard that some women willing enter into a marriage with a closeted man, knowing that he will find sex with other men (and presumably they will not have sex as husband or wife). If that's what you need, go find it. If you don't know that's what you need, then you need to either honor your vows or make other arrangements with your wife.
Finally, a few "fuck you"'s are in order. Fuck you, McGreevy for your proclamation that"At a point in every person's life, one has to look deeply into themirror of one's soul and decide one's unique truth in the world. My truth is that I am a gay American." You say it as if you are out and proud; as if you have been soul searching and come upon some great truth. You were about to have your entire personal life ripped apart; otherwise, you never would have come out. You would have continued to be an adulterer and presumably making appointments according to how hard the guy made you.
McGreevy earns a "fuck you" for proclaiming gay marriage, while under the cover of the closet, as having a "detrimental impact" on his state. To his credit, McGreevy signed into law a domestic partnership act for the state, one of five such statewide laws in the country. This is still no excuse for speaking out some vehemently against gay marriage.
And lastly, I award McGreevey an honorary "fuck you" for the general timing of his scandal and exploits, giving homophobes an example to point to when arguing against gay civil rights and marriage as well as justifying gay stereotypes of being promiscuous and sex-crazed.
Societal norms, as explained above, also earns a de facto "fuck you." Cipel, for being a low-life blackmailer merits a "fuck you." (If Cipel's claim had merit, he would have persued legitimate routes of complaint.)
The HRC comes close to earning a big FU for promoting the fact they helped McGreevey in his press announcement. I have no problem that they advised him, since their advice seemed to be sound; namely that McGreevy should point out that intrinsically being gay has nothing to do with his resignation. However, I question their motive for announcing their tenuous association with him. Other than letting other closeted politicians know that they can help when they are outed and scandal ensues, what is the profit?
Lastly, fuck the press for latching on to this as a GAY affair. It's not sufficient to simply announce that the governor of New Jersey was having an affair that is resulting in his resignation. Every headline I saw in print or television blared that this was a GAY affair; providing certainly a more salacious bent to the whole thing. Hey, politicians have affairs all the time, but how much more tantalizing and tawdry is it because it's with another man? Thus proving that we still have a long way to go before society as a whole sees us as something other than perverts, sex-fiends, and/or abnormal.
August is the cruelest month
Well, this blog seems mostly dedicated lately to making up excuses as to why I haven't been posting, but most of my normal routine has been on hold since mid-July. As any regular reader knows, I've been consolidating two households with my husband, Peter. (Thanks for the kind words, Keith.) But also, I work for university housing and the past month has also been getting ready for the start of the school year. This includes helping train staff and students. This means fun, but working retreats - time away from the house, Peter, and other work functions. This means I am experiencing the first weekend without some type of work obligation since mid-July. I love my job, but this is hurricane season. So all of this is not just physical energy, but mental and emotional energy drains as well.
Routine, however, is beginning to set in and that is very welcome. The house tends to go through phases of lookng great to be junked up again as more stuff is unpacked or purchased to organize all this stuff the both of us have accumulated. It can all be terrific fun, but it is also a lot of effort.
As things settle down even more, I will be back to posting more regularly. Lots of news recently means I have lots of opinions stored up just waiting to be vented. The advent of the RNC is also sure to inspire plenty of blog material.
Another happy note is that my father is again gainfully employed!
Routine, however, is beginning to set in and that is very welcome. The house tends to go through phases of lookng great to be junked up again as more stuff is unpacked or purchased to organize all this stuff the both of us have accumulated. It can all be terrific fun, but it is also a lot of effort.
As things settle down even more, I will be back to posting more regularly. Lots of news recently means I have lots of opinions stored up just waiting to be vented. The advent of the RNC is also sure to inspire plenty of blog material.
Another happy note is that my father is again gainfully employed!
Saturday, August 28, 2004
The Sound of Silence
From Catholic World News
Swedish minister jailed for "anti-gay" speech
Stockholm, Sweden, Jul. 06 (LifesiteNews.com/CWN) - The Rev. Ake Green, the pastor of a Swedish Pentecostal church in Kalmar, Sweden, has been sentenced to one month in prison for inciting hatred against homosexuals. Green was prosecuted in January for "hate speech against homosexuals" for a sermon he preached last summer citing Biblical references to homosexuality.
Sweden has a "hate crimes" law that forbids criticism of homosexuality. According to the church newspaper Kyrkans Tidning , the prosecutor in the case, Kjell Yngvesson, justifies the arrest of Green: "One may have whatever religion one wishes, but this is an attack on all fronts against homosexuals. Collecting Bible citations on this topic as he (Green) does makes this hate speech."
Ok, this is going too far. You can't call all anti-gay rhetoric "hate speech." I know America would never pass a law this crazy (forbiding any type of criticism of an idea - although Bush has come close about criticism of his presidency in the Patriot Acts), but it gets to a problem that we experience here also. We can't shut off all negative speech.
Do I want to make it socially frowned upon to be negative towards gays, just as now it is to degrade blacks? Yes. But I want that change to come about because people think we're ok, that we are a welcome part of society. Enacting laws or going after everyone who makes a stupid remark is not the way to accomplish this.
I'm glad for media watchdogs like GLAAD, and they and others have done some truly good work, but I don't always agree with the relentless hounding they do, such as with Dr. Laura. Yes, she is an idiot; yes she said stupid, ignorant, hateful things, but is it necessary to financially ruin her because she's a bigot? Are we using tactics that the religious right would use on us?
Do we have to become the people who want to silence us and put us down? Is it necessary to meet equal parts force with equal parts force? I would suggest that this leads only not just to a cold war, but a cold world for all to live.
Swedish minister jailed for "anti-gay" speech
Stockholm, Sweden, Jul. 06 (LifesiteNews.com/CWN) - The Rev. Ake Green, the pastor of a Swedish Pentecostal church in Kalmar, Sweden, has been sentenced to one month in prison for inciting hatred against homosexuals. Green was prosecuted in January for "hate speech against homosexuals" for a sermon he preached last summer citing Biblical references to homosexuality.
Sweden has a "hate crimes" law that forbids criticism of homosexuality. According to the church newspaper Kyrkans Tidning , the prosecutor in the case, Kjell Yngvesson, justifies the arrest of Green: "One may have whatever religion one wishes, but this is an attack on all fronts against homosexuals. Collecting Bible citations on this topic as he (Green) does makes this hate speech."
Ok, this is going too far. You can't call all anti-gay rhetoric "hate speech." I know America would never pass a law this crazy (forbiding any type of criticism of an idea - although Bush has come close about criticism of his presidency in the Patriot Acts), but it gets to a problem that we experience here also. We can't shut off all negative speech.
Do I want to make it socially frowned upon to be negative towards gays, just as now it is to degrade blacks? Yes. But I want that change to come about because people think we're ok, that we are a welcome part of society. Enacting laws or going after everyone who makes a stupid remark is not the way to accomplish this.
I'm glad for media watchdogs like GLAAD, and they and others have done some truly good work, but I don't always agree with the relentless hounding they do, such as with Dr. Laura. Yes, she is an idiot; yes she said stupid, ignorant, hateful things, but is it necessary to financially ruin her because she's a bigot? Are we using tactics that the religious right would use on us?
Do we have to become the people who want to silence us and put us down? Is it necessary to meet equal parts force with equal parts force? I would suggest that this leads only not just to a cold war, but a cold world for all to live.
Tuesday, August 10, 2004
A Tale of Two Cities
Well, the craziness of consolidating two households into one is subsiding somewhat. We still have a ton of stuff to do, but Peter has been wonderful about helping get things organized and set up. This time of year is one of the busiest for me at work and he's been a wonderful support of helping me stay sane during this whole time.
Internet access at the house has just recently been achieved, although I haven't had much time to post anything in any case. I was about to post something the other day during a lunch break, but became distracted and now I've lost the material that I was contemplating.
It's a fun and exciting time for Peter and me. We're finally starting our life together after five years of knowing each other and dating off and on with the last two years a fully committed relationship. We seem to both be in a good place in all sense of the phrase, and I hope that continues to be true.
The parentals are doing a bit better, but things are not as good as they could be. I hope things look better for them soon.
I cannot even begin to thank the wonderful people who took a great deal of time, effort, and energy to help us accomplish the move of two apartments in two different cities in two days: Turi, Carla, Anne, Leslie, Casey, Allan, Valencia, and last, but certainly not least, my little sis. These people went beyond being simple labor for us (and they all worked their butts off), but emotional support as well. Thanks to each and every one of you from the both of us!
Internet access at the house has just recently been achieved, although I haven't had much time to post anything in any case. I was about to post something the other day during a lunch break, but became distracted and now I've lost the material that I was contemplating.
It's a fun and exciting time for Peter and me. We're finally starting our life together after five years of knowing each other and dating off and on with the last two years a fully committed relationship. We seem to both be in a good place in all sense of the phrase, and I hope that continues to be true.
The parentals are doing a bit better, but things are not as good as they could be. I hope things look better for them soon.
I cannot even begin to thank the wonderful people who took a great deal of time, effort, and energy to help us accomplish the move of two apartments in two different cities in two days: Turi, Carla, Anne, Leslie, Casey, Allan, Valencia, and last, but certainly not least, my little sis. These people went beyond being simple labor for us (and they all worked their butts off), but emotional support as well. Thanks to each and every one of you from the both of us!
Wednesday, July 28, 2004
I'll Be Back
Apparently some gays are mad at Califohniah Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger for his recent comment calling some Democratic politicians "girlie men." I say we shouldn't be mad at him for making any type of allegedly "homophobic" remark, we should be mad at him for using an ancient and annoyingly over-repeated pop-culture reference best left in the grave with Dana Carvey's career.
Oh, and no blog entries for at least a week; I've got to move this weekend and then I'm off on a business trip. Be good while I'm gone.
Oh, and no blog entries for at least a week; I've got to move this weekend and then I'm off on a business trip. Be good while I'm gone.
Saturday, July 24, 2004
For It Is A Shame For Women To Speak
According to 365gay.com, Mike White, the head of the Oregon Family Council, said that he hoped that Lynne Cheney "doesn't address the gay marriage issue " at the Oregon state Republican convention and that he was "troubled" that she refused to endorse the Federal Marriage Amendment.
Furthermore, Mr. White, who clearly suffers from severe cranial-rectal inversion, further stated that "[s]he is here to rally support for the president, and common sense would saythat she will only make remarks on issues she and the president agree on." Fortunately, the Oregon GOP Chairman Kevin Mannix was tactful enough to just comment that the convention is"just delighted that she's coming. She's an excellent speaker."
I suppose that Mr. White would also favor Mrs. Cheney's, and probably all his female's constituents' silence in any religious matters, given Paul's command that "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. / And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." (I Corinthians 14:33-34). After all, what do women know about anything other than cooking and homekeeping?
A mother bear is not begrudged for protecting her cub, but Mrs. Cheney apparently should sit passively by and say nothing while legislation that would negatively impact her daughter tries to pass. Mr. White's suggestion that Mrs. Cheney should ignore a threat to her child is an interesting family value. Why can't Lynne follow Laura Bush's example of having no personality and letting her man make all the decisions?
Common sense seems to dictate, in this case, that Mr. White should only make remarks on issues that don't expose him as a hypocrite and dolt. Or to quote a non-Biblical piece of advice, "Best to be silent and thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt."
Furthermore, Mr. White, who clearly suffers from severe cranial-rectal inversion, further stated that "[s]he is here to rally support for the president, and common sense would saythat she will only make remarks on issues she and the president agree on." Fortunately, the Oregon GOP Chairman Kevin Mannix was tactful enough to just comment that the convention is"just delighted that she's coming. She's an excellent speaker."
I suppose that Mr. White would also favor Mrs. Cheney's, and probably all his female's constituents' silence in any religious matters, given Paul's command that "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. / And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." (I Corinthians 14:33-34). After all, what do women know about anything other than cooking and homekeeping?
A mother bear is not begrudged for protecting her cub, but Mrs. Cheney apparently should sit passively by and say nothing while legislation that would negatively impact her daughter tries to pass. Mr. White's suggestion that Mrs. Cheney should ignore a threat to her child is an interesting family value. Why can't Lynne follow Laura Bush's example of having no personality and letting her man make all the decisions?
Common sense seems to dictate, in this case, that Mr. White should only make remarks on issues that don't expose him as a hypocrite and dolt. Or to quote a non-Biblical piece of advice, "Best to be silent and thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt."
Tuesday, July 20, 2004
God, Love, and Fags
From the gay spiritual magazine, White Crane, an exerpt from an article by Timothy Leary on same-sex love:
So, if God did not approve of homosexuality, God would not allow homosexuals to actually love one another. Homosexual people would only be able to experience the physical sensations of sex, but not know the rich life-giving experience of shared ecstasy. We would not know that sensation of being lost in ecstasy with another human being. The idea that same-sex love creates ecstasy and direct experiences of the Divine is frightening to people who want (or need) these cultural myths about heterosexual-only romantic love to be true. They do not want to face the idea that God may not care who makes love with whom. From their perspective it's OK if what queer people experience is furtive and hollow, but they dare not assume that we can actually experience real ecstasy. That would mean that God approves of our love because God is involved in it. Perhaps that is why the idea of same-sex marriage is so threatening. It shakes many ideas of love and sex to the core.
As long as same-sex couples can be seen as people who do not, or cannot, love in the same way as heterosexual people, we can be discriminated against. If our experiences of love are incomplete we do not need to be treated as fully human. If our relationships were accepted as loving and life affirming, the entire tenor of the debate over same-sex marriage, and queer civil rights in general, would have to change. If the layer of sentimentalism about heterosexual-only romantic love were lifted, it would blow the "God Hates Fags" arguments right out of the water.
The idea that heterosexual-only romantic love comes from God is a key factor in the mind-set of the religious right and those who oppose our right to live our lives freely and openly. This idea makes it possible to objectify us, demonize us and discount our loving relationships. Our love is thought to be of less value because it is thought to be for only furtive pleasure. Opponents of queer rights and same-sex marriage ignore us when we say that our relationships are life-affirming because it is important for them to believe that the Divine is not involved in our relationships. They are wrong about this.
So, if God did not approve of homosexuality, God would not allow homosexuals to actually love one another. Homosexual people would only be able to experience the physical sensations of sex, but not know the rich life-giving experience of shared ecstasy. We would not know that sensation of being lost in ecstasy with another human being. The idea that same-sex love creates ecstasy and direct experiences of the Divine is frightening to people who want (or need) these cultural myths about heterosexual-only romantic love to be true. They do not want to face the idea that God may not care who makes love with whom. From their perspective it's OK if what queer people experience is furtive and hollow, but they dare not assume that we can actually experience real ecstasy. That would mean that God approves of our love because God is involved in it. Perhaps that is why the idea of same-sex marriage is so threatening. It shakes many ideas of love and sex to the core.
As long as same-sex couples can be seen as people who do not, or cannot, love in the same way as heterosexual people, we can be discriminated against. If our experiences of love are incomplete we do not need to be treated as fully human. If our relationships were accepted as loving and life affirming, the entire tenor of the debate over same-sex marriage, and queer civil rights in general, would have to change. If the layer of sentimentalism about heterosexual-only romantic love were lifted, it would blow the "God Hates Fags" arguments right out of the water.
The idea that heterosexual-only romantic love comes from God is a key factor in the mind-set of the religious right and those who oppose our right to live our lives freely and openly. This idea makes it possible to objectify us, demonize us and discount our loving relationships. Our love is thought to be of less value because it is thought to be for only furtive pleasure. Opponents of queer rights and same-sex marriage ignore us when we say that our relationships are life-affirming because it is important for them to believe that the Divine is not involved in our relationships. They are wrong about this.
Sunday, July 18, 2004
Words, Words
I was listening to a fascinating interview with journalist Hendrik Hertzberg on NPR the other day. Hertzberg served as President Carter's speechwriter for a time and is author of a recent book, Politics: Observations and Arguments, 1966-2004. He was being interviewed about many different areas of interest, but the interview began with a look at the term "liberal" and the "far left." The author noted that the far left does not exist any longer. The far left was truly alive during the 60's various civil movements and has actually become now the "far right" with the various militias and "people..who blew up Oklahoma City."
Hertzberg bemoans the demonization of the term "liberal" and bemoans the fact that "progressive" has replaced it, since, for Hertzberg, liberty (the root of liberal) is a better virtue that progress. He also rightly comments on how "liberal" and "far left" are both inappropriately applied to John Kerry, and, in general, are grossly misused to stir controversy.
Arguably, Kerry strides the liberal fence, although Republicans seeking to villify John Edwards as a liberal clearly have no conception of what the word means. For a North Carolina politician, the man is a bleeding-heart, but on a wide-scale, he's a step away from Republicanism.
Like Hertzberg I've also thought that "liberal" is a weak attempt at an insult. Why do people consider it insulting. People who are truly liberal must shed the label often just to be heard. Yet conservative retains a positive connotation largely, when conservative politicians have continued to put power and advantage in the hands of large corporations at the expense of working citizens.
Prior to this broadcast, I was struck by a sermon from a local church broadcast on televison. The preacher railed on about the homosexual agenda and how homosexuals were working against traditional marriage. This was no simple country preacher; the man seemed educated and well-spoken. How then can he, like so many in the Religious Right, draw such a simple distinction between "homosexual" and "Christian." People use the terms like they are mutually exclusive. Just as one can be Southern and Catholic, one can be homosexual and Christian.
Even from a theological perspective, there is no exclusion. Even if homosexuality is viewed in the context of being sin, the gospels boldly proclaim that all people are sinners . How is this one supposed sin worse or different? Again, words are used thoughtlessly and perhaps purposefully to hurt and divide.
All of which leads up to my most recently fume-inducer. Bill James is the Mecklenberg County Commissioner. (Mecklenberg is the county where Charlotte is located. I happen to live just outside of the county in Cabarrus County.) James is a fundamentalist with a mission: define or redefine the county according to his faith. According to the July 7-13 edition of the Charlotte Creative Loafing, James commented that he "[doesn't] know any liberal preachers of note anymore. the left doesn't seem to have any activist ministers...Liberals in Charlotte have given up...and won't even bring up gay rights. I don't know if there are any true liberals in Charlotte."
Actually, many liberal voices exist around Charlotte, no matter how James or his allies may try to drown them out. This mere statement angers me for its complete dismissal of many good men and women who are fighting the good fight in the region. It's the view of a man who probably sees anyone or anything that disagrees with him as, if not non-existant, inconsequential.
James, who opposes benefits for unmarried couples (gay or straight) and who thankfully failed to pass recently a bill prohibiting gays and lesbians from being foster parents or adopting, is proud of his attack on a 1997 production of Angels in America at the Charlotte Repetory Theatere. James proudly and smugly sees himself as the man to "rid society of behavior that is un-Christian and wrong." He also implies that liberals can't be true Christians because liberals "historically [have] this inability to accept that Christ is the only way to God...Without the anchor of Christianity...they just make it up as they go along."
James's actions and words mark him as the mean and stupid individual that he is. Clearly ignorant of anything outside his own world-view, he lacks the meekness, compassion and humility that Christ exhibited in His ministry. Still, they are but words from a small man and, as they say," sticks and stones".
Hertzberg bemoans the demonization of the term "liberal" and bemoans the fact that "progressive" has replaced it, since, for Hertzberg, liberty (the root of liberal) is a better virtue that progress. He also rightly comments on how "liberal" and "far left" are both inappropriately applied to John Kerry, and, in general, are grossly misused to stir controversy.
Arguably, Kerry strides the liberal fence, although Republicans seeking to villify John Edwards as a liberal clearly have no conception of what the word means. For a North Carolina politician, the man is a bleeding-heart, but on a wide-scale, he's a step away from Republicanism.
Like Hertzberg I've also thought that "liberal" is a weak attempt at an insult. Why do people consider it insulting. People who are truly liberal must shed the label often just to be heard. Yet conservative retains a positive connotation largely, when conservative politicians have continued to put power and advantage in the hands of large corporations at the expense of working citizens.
Prior to this broadcast, I was struck by a sermon from a local church broadcast on televison. The preacher railed on about the homosexual agenda and how homosexuals were working against traditional marriage. This was no simple country preacher; the man seemed educated and well-spoken. How then can he, like so many in the Religious Right, draw such a simple distinction between "homosexual" and "Christian." People use the terms like they are mutually exclusive. Just as one can be Southern and Catholic, one can be homosexual and Christian.
Even from a theological perspective, there is no exclusion. Even if homosexuality is viewed in the context of being sin, the gospels boldly proclaim that all people are sinners . How is this one supposed sin worse or different? Again, words are used thoughtlessly and perhaps purposefully to hurt and divide.
All of which leads up to my most recently fume-inducer. Bill James is the Mecklenberg County Commissioner. (Mecklenberg is the county where Charlotte is located. I happen to live just outside of the county in Cabarrus County.) James is a fundamentalist with a mission: define or redefine the county according to his faith. According to the July 7-13 edition of the Charlotte Creative Loafing, James commented that he "[doesn't] know any liberal preachers of note anymore. the left doesn't seem to have any activist ministers...Liberals in Charlotte have given up...and won't even bring up gay rights. I don't know if there are any true liberals in Charlotte."
Actually, many liberal voices exist around Charlotte, no matter how James or his allies may try to drown them out. This mere statement angers me for its complete dismissal of many good men and women who are fighting the good fight in the region. It's the view of a man who probably sees anyone or anything that disagrees with him as, if not non-existant, inconsequential.
James, who opposes benefits for unmarried couples (gay or straight) and who thankfully failed to pass recently a bill prohibiting gays and lesbians from being foster parents or adopting, is proud of his attack on a 1997 production of Angels in America at the Charlotte Repetory Theatere. James proudly and smugly sees himself as the man to "rid society of behavior that is un-Christian and wrong." He also implies that liberals can't be true Christians because liberals "historically [have] this inability to accept that Christ is the only way to God...Without the anchor of Christianity...they just make it up as they go along."
James's actions and words mark him as the mean and stupid individual that he is. Clearly ignorant of anything outside his own world-view, he lacks the meekness, compassion and humility that Christ exhibited in His ministry. Still, they are but words from a small man and, as they say," sticks and stones".
Voters in the Hands of an Angry GOP
Bush continues to try and sell the line that a few special individuals (like, say, the same ones who put him in office) are trying to redefine the institution of marriage, an institution that hasn't changed for hundreds if not thousands of years. I find it interesting that Bushie wants to maintain and/or establish an enduring definition of marriage.
The Constitution was established to be able to adapt to the needs and demands of the times and people. Many religious texts, the Bible included, are understood differently given societal changes and advancements. Shakespeare, for example, while rooted firmly in his time, has themes, situations, and characters that are so universal, they are easily enjoyed and understood by modern audiences or are readapted with modern dressings.
If a society or a people want to redefine marriage, they should be able to. I find it interesting that although the Bible explicitedly prohibits women from being church leaders or even speaking in church, many evangelical leaders and ministers are women today. Why? We have different cultural understandings and values. Sounds a little hypocritical doesn't it to ignore or reinterpret one part and not another?
I'm tired of this slippery slope argument that says gay marriage leads to cats and dogs living together, mass hysteria. Society always has the right to draw a line in the sand. We can say two men marrying is fine, but marrying your sister or daughter is not. Laws are a negotiation among different people for a common understanding. We may think one thing is fine, but not another. People said the EXACT SAME THINGS about interracial marriage. I don't think Rome is burning quite yet.
As for Bush, regardless of his belief, he is using this issue as a way to solidfy his base of the Religious Right and other conservatives. It's disgusting. He's playing with my citizenship and making a statement about my worth as a human being and American citizenship for political gain. I loathe the chimp that is Bush.
Do you want an American theocracy? Then vote for the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA).
If this amendment were to be ratified, this would only encourage and fortify the position and power of the Religious Right. Already the false idol of the Republican party, this movement will not be satisfied with making homosexuals second-class citizens.
Fundamentialist continue to define our great nation in the image they think is morally correct. I'm trying to avoid a slippery slope argument here, but it is not too hard to see that we could easily be headed for even more breakdown between state and religion. Recently on Charlotte public access, I heard a conservative minister extolling the virtues of Christians becoming involved in politics. Indeed, this is one of the few points I agreed on with the man. People of all religions, as a matter of fact, should be encouraged to run for public office. Mostly because if only Fundamentialist run, they will continue a clear agenda for setting the moral code by their faith.
Fundamentalists seem to completely miss the point of the Christian faith. The whole gospel, indeed the entire message of the Bible, is about people choosing God. God never imposes Himself on people. Yet, Fundamentalists seek to remove the choice that is our God-given right. As an aside, I find it interesting to note that most Fundamentalists are economically conservative, cutting money to charitable organizations. I personally think that Christianity, taken to its logical extreme, leads to a very socialistic society. In any event, Fundamentalists labor under the delusion that they are, at any moment, about to be thrown to the lions for the hedonist secular throng. So, apparently, their tactics is to turn the lions loose on the public (or worse, try to invoke God to divinely punish the great unwashed masses).
Secondly, Fundamentalists assert that they are returning us to our great Christian foundation as a country. Much has been written and debated on this subject, and I don't have the time, length, or energy to get into it here, but a quick perusal of information on this matter leads to the conclusion that while some of the founding fathers were Christian, many were not. Most certainly weren't the raving evangelicals we know today.
Regardless of their religious faith, this country was established with the promise of freedom of a state-imposed religion. Part of the creation of this country was for the exercise of whatever religion you wanted to. Trying to re-create a "Christian" nation is wrong both theologically, morally, and historically. Yet, under the guise of persecution, Fundamentalists seek to create a theocratic society. And we all see how well theocracy works in the middle East. You think Calvin Klein will be excited to design burkas for the modern working woman? Oops, wait, she can't work. Never mind.
Despite what the Religious Right tells us, I don't feel like God is dangling us over the flames of hell like a spider over a fire so much as we are dangling over a fire created by these zealots. A fire probably created by book burning and the destruction of our Bill of Rights.
The Constitution was established to be able to adapt to the needs and demands of the times and people. Many religious texts, the Bible included, are understood differently given societal changes and advancements. Shakespeare, for example, while rooted firmly in his time, has themes, situations, and characters that are so universal, they are easily enjoyed and understood by modern audiences or are readapted with modern dressings.
If a society or a people want to redefine marriage, they should be able to. I find it interesting that although the Bible explicitedly prohibits women from being church leaders or even speaking in church, many evangelical leaders and ministers are women today. Why? We have different cultural understandings and values. Sounds a little hypocritical doesn't it to ignore or reinterpret one part and not another?
I'm tired of this slippery slope argument that says gay marriage leads to cats and dogs living together, mass hysteria. Society always has the right to draw a line in the sand. We can say two men marrying is fine, but marrying your sister or daughter is not. Laws are a negotiation among different people for a common understanding. We may think one thing is fine, but not another. People said the EXACT SAME THINGS about interracial marriage. I don't think Rome is burning quite yet.
As for Bush, regardless of his belief, he is using this issue as a way to solidfy his base of the Religious Right and other conservatives. It's disgusting. He's playing with my citizenship and making a statement about my worth as a human being and American citizenship for political gain. I loathe the chimp that is Bush.
Do you want an American theocracy? Then vote for the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA).
If this amendment were to be ratified, this would only encourage and fortify the position and power of the Religious Right. Already the false idol of the Republican party, this movement will not be satisfied with making homosexuals second-class citizens.
Fundamentialist continue to define our great nation in the image they think is morally correct. I'm trying to avoid a slippery slope argument here, but it is not too hard to see that we could easily be headed for even more breakdown between state and religion. Recently on Charlotte public access, I heard a conservative minister extolling the virtues of Christians becoming involved in politics. Indeed, this is one of the few points I agreed on with the man. People of all religions, as a matter of fact, should be encouraged to run for public office. Mostly because if only Fundamentialist run, they will continue a clear agenda for setting the moral code by their faith.
Fundamentalists seem to completely miss the point of the Christian faith. The whole gospel, indeed the entire message of the Bible, is about people choosing God. God never imposes Himself on people. Yet, Fundamentalists seek to remove the choice that is our God-given right. As an aside, I find it interesting to note that most Fundamentalists are economically conservative, cutting money to charitable organizations. I personally think that Christianity, taken to its logical extreme, leads to a very socialistic society. In any event, Fundamentalists labor under the delusion that they are, at any moment, about to be thrown to the lions for the hedonist secular throng. So, apparently, their tactics is to turn the lions loose on the public (or worse, try to invoke God to divinely punish the great unwashed masses).
Secondly, Fundamentalists assert that they are returning us to our great Christian foundation as a country. Much has been written and debated on this subject, and I don't have the time, length, or energy to get into it here, but a quick perusal of information on this matter leads to the conclusion that while some of the founding fathers were Christian, many were not. Most certainly weren't the raving evangelicals we know today.
Regardless of their religious faith, this country was established with the promise of freedom of a state-imposed religion. Part of the creation of this country was for the exercise of whatever religion you wanted to. Trying to re-create a "Christian" nation is wrong both theologically, morally, and historically. Yet, under the guise of persecution, Fundamentalists seek to create a theocratic society. And we all see how well theocracy works in the middle East. You think Calvin Klein will be excited to design burkas for the modern working woman? Oops, wait, she can't work. Never mind.
Despite what the Religious Right tells us, I don't feel like God is dangling us over the flames of hell like a spider over a fire so much as we are dangling over a fire created by these zealots. A fire probably created by book burning and the destruction of our Bill of Rights.
Wednesday, July 14, 2004
All Signs Point to "Maybe"
Well, the FMA has been delayed for now by the failure to pass cloture in the Senate. I've been trying to fully understand the ramifications of the vote. At one point I heard that Republicans were actually filibustering their own bill, trying to buy time to raise more "yes" votes. Some politicians felt this would actually work against them, losing more votes, so it seems Republicans moved for an end of discussion, or cloture.
The failure to pass cloture means that debate can continue indefinitely on the bill, although C-SPAN notes that it means the bill is usually just set aside. So, many are calling this a victory. Certainly from the perspective that 50 "Nay" votes is 19 less votes than needed to pass a full amendment in the Senate, we have a victory. However, this was a procedural vote largely. So, in some respects, it was easy to vote against ending discussion. Legislators can easily still say they oppose the amendment, but feel like more discussion is needed before passing a Constitutional Amendment.
I feel somewhat badly because I only tried twice to contact my Senators and when the lines were busy did not try again. I feel less bad because my two Senators are Elizabeth Dole and John Edwards. Libby (R - in case you're living under a rock) was not going to be swayed. I understand why Bob needs viagra with her around the house. And, John, well John didn't vote. Neither did Kerry.
According to the Washington Post the two of them would have voted if they were needed, but with a clear win apparent, they abstained. This doesn't cut it with me. They just didn't want to be seen taking a stand for political reasons. And so they avoided the bullet. Still, they're better than the alternative, Mr. "I'm disappointed, but keep on bashin' those gays" Bush.
On a side note, both Senators from my previous home state of Georgia voted to invoke cloture, presumably in favor of the amendment. If I were still there, I would actively campaign to get Zell Miller, the Democratic Senator, out of office as soon as I could.
And after all is said and done, wouldn't have passing cloture been a good thing? Politically it is advantageous for Senators running for re-election. They can say they don't support gay marriage, but feel like we need to think about a big step like this. But, if cloture had passed, then they could have voted and, presumably, defeated the Amendment. Am I misunderstanding this? Wouldn't this have been the true victory?
Still, I'll take it however I can get it. It's an encouraging sign, but just the start of the long haul. Things, I suspect, will get worse before they get better. Nonetheless, I'm cautiously optimistic and see this as certainly a good thing. I'm just don't see us in the winner's circle quite yet.
The failure to pass cloture means that debate can continue indefinitely on the bill, although C-SPAN notes that it means the bill is usually just set aside. So, many are calling this a victory. Certainly from the perspective that 50 "Nay" votes is 19 less votes than needed to pass a full amendment in the Senate, we have a victory. However, this was a procedural vote largely. So, in some respects, it was easy to vote against ending discussion. Legislators can easily still say they oppose the amendment, but feel like more discussion is needed before passing a Constitutional Amendment.
I feel somewhat badly because I only tried twice to contact my Senators and when the lines were busy did not try again. I feel less bad because my two Senators are Elizabeth Dole and John Edwards. Libby (R - in case you're living under a rock) was not going to be swayed. I understand why Bob needs viagra with her around the house. And, John, well John didn't vote. Neither did Kerry.
According to the Washington Post the two of them would have voted if they were needed, but with a clear win apparent, they abstained. This doesn't cut it with me. They just didn't want to be seen taking a stand for political reasons. And so they avoided the bullet. Still, they're better than the alternative, Mr. "I'm disappointed, but keep on bashin' those gays" Bush.
On a side note, both Senators from my previous home state of Georgia voted to invoke cloture, presumably in favor of the amendment. If I were still there, I would actively campaign to get Zell Miller, the Democratic Senator, out of office as soon as I could.
And after all is said and done, wouldn't have passing cloture been a good thing? Politically it is advantageous for Senators running for re-election. They can say they don't support gay marriage, but feel like we need to think about a big step like this. But, if cloture had passed, then they could have voted and, presumably, defeated the Amendment. Am I misunderstanding this? Wouldn't this have been the true victory?
Still, I'll take it however I can get it. It's an encouraging sign, but just the start of the long haul. Things, I suspect, will get worse before they get better. Nonetheless, I'm cautiously optimistic and see this as certainly a good thing. I'm just don't see us in the winner's circle quite yet.
Tuesday, July 13, 2004
Is it genetic?
A friend sent this to me; don't know where it originates from, but found it fairly amusing...
The discovery that affiliation with the Republican Party is genetically determined was announced by scientists in the current issue of the journal NURTURE, causing uproar among traditionalists who believe it is a chosen lifestyle.
Reports of the gene coding for political conservatism, discovered after a decades-long study of quintuplets in Orange County, CA, has sent shock waves through the medical, political, and golfing communities.
Psychologists and psychoanalysts have long believed that Republicans'
unnatural disregard for the poor and frequently unconstitutional tendencies resulted from dysfunctional family dynamics.
A remarkably high percentage of Republicans do have authoritarian domineering fathers and emotionally distant mothers who didn't teach them how to be kind and gentle. Nonetheless, biologists have long suspected that conservatism is inherited.
"After all," said one author of the NURTURE article, "It's quite common for a Republican to have a brother or sister who is a Republican." The finding has been greeted with relief by Parents and Friends of Republicans (PFREP), who sometimes blame themselves for the political views of otherwise lovable children, family, and unindicted co- conspirators.
One mother, a longtime Democrat, wept and clapped her hands in ecstasy on hearing of the findings. "I just knew it was genetic," she said, seated with her two sons, both avowed Republicans. "My boys would never freely choose that lifestyle!" When asked what the Republican lifestyle was, she said, "You can just tell watching their conventions in Houston and San Diego on TV: the flaming xenophobia, flamboyant demagogy, disdain for anyone not rich - you know."
Both sons had suspected their Republicanism from an early age but did not confirm it until they were in college, when they became convinced it wasn't just a phase they were going through and "came out".
The NURTURE article offered no response to the suggestion that the high incidence of Republicanism among siblings could result from their sharing not only genes but also psychological and emotional attitude as products of the same parents and family dynamics.
A remaining mystery is why many Democrats admit to having voted Republican at least once -- or often dream or fantasize about doing so. Polls show that three out of five adult Democrats have had a Republican experience, although most outgrow teenage experimentation with Republicanism.
Some Republicans hail the findings as a step toward eliminating conservophobia. They argue that since Republicans didn't "choose" their lifestyle any more Than someone "chooses" to have a Roman nose, they shouldn't be denied civil rights which other minorities enjoy.
If conservatism is not the result of stinginess or orneriness (typical stereotypes attributed to Republicans) but is something Republicans can't help, there's no reason why society shouldn't tolerate Republicans in the military or even high elected office -- provided of course that they don't flaunt their political beliefs.
For many Americans, the discovery opens a window on a different future. In a few years, gene therapy might eradicate Republicanism altogether.
But should they be allowed to marry?
The discovery that affiliation with the Republican Party is genetically determined was announced by scientists in the current issue of the journal NURTURE, causing uproar among traditionalists who believe it is a chosen lifestyle.
Reports of the gene coding for political conservatism, discovered after a decades-long study of quintuplets in Orange County, CA, has sent shock waves through the medical, political, and golfing communities.
Psychologists and psychoanalysts have long believed that Republicans'
unnatural disregard for the poor and frequently unconstitutional tendencies resulted from dysfunctional family dynamics.
A remarkably high percentage of Republicans do have authoritarian domineering fathers and emotionally distant mothers who didn't teach them how to be kind and gentle. Nonetheless, biologists have long suspected that conservatism is inherited.
"After all," said one author of the NURTURE article, "It's quite common for a Republican to have a brother or sister who is a Republican." The finding has been greeted with relief by Parents and Friends of Republicans (PFREP), who sometimes blame themselves for the political views of otherwise lovable children, family, and unindicted co- conspirators.
One mother, a longtime Democrat, wept and clapped her hands in ecstasy on hearing of the findings. "I just knew it was genetic," she said, seated with her two sons, both avowed Republicans. "My boys would never freely choose that lifestyle!" When asked what the Republican lifestyle was, she said, "You can just tell watching their conventions in Houston and San Diego on TV: the flaming xenophobia, flamboyant demagogy, disdain for anyone not rich - you know."
Both sons had suspected their Republicanism from an early age but did not confirm it until they were in college, when they became convinced it wasn't just a phase they were going through and "came out".
The NURTURE article offered no response to the suggestion that the high incidence of Republicanism among siblings could result from their sharing not only genes but also psychological and emotional attitude as products of the same parents and family dynamics.
A remaining mystery is why many Democrats admit to having voted Republican at least once -- or often dream or fantasize about doing so. Polls show that three out of five adult Democrats have had a Republican experience, although most outgrow teenage experimentation with Republicanism.
Some Republicans hail the findings as a step toward eliminating conservophobia. They argue that since Republicans didn't "choose" their lifestyle any more Than someone "chooses" to have a Roman nose, they shouldn't be denied civil rights which other minorities enjoy.
If conservatism is not the result of stinginess or orneriness (typical stereotypes attributed to Republicans) but is something Republicans can't help, there's no reason why society shouldn't tolerate Republicans in the military or even high elected office -- provided of course that they don't flaunt their political beliefs.
For many Americans, the discovery opens a window on a different future. In a few years, gene therapy might eradicate Republicanism altogether.
But should they be allowed to marry?
Monday, July 12, 2004
Why FMA?
The Great Uniter of our nation said this past February that "The union of a man and a woman is the most enduring human institution, honored and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith." This week the Senate is debating the Federal Marriage Amendment to see if marriage can "be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society," as the President believes it cannot. This debate is being carried out for the sole purpose of forcing a vote during an election year. This is a tactic of the proponents of the amendment.
The President, an expert on historical and international affairs further commented earlier this year that, "After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence and millennia of human experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization," Definitely the expert on confusion, our President further stated that "their actions have created confusion on an issue that requires clarity."
I agree this is an issue of much confusion. Let me provide a little clarity. Since many of the proponents of the FMA point to the emphasis the Bible puts on family and traditional marriage, and argue that gay marriage would certainly undermine these great institutions, I thought I would investigate what the Bible has to say about this great institution.
Now, mind you, the following is a strict literalist interpretation of the Bible, which is just as most evangelicals would have it. No need to be throwing confusing details like historical context or linguistic nuances in there.
We start off with a very cheerful passage in Hebrews 13:4 Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure... Although perhaps if we should all honor marriage, then we should let gay people marry. I know, I know, I'm being silly.
But other passages paint a very different view of the great institution of marriage.
Paul the Apostle, who causes most Baptists to just salivate with Pavlovian glee upon mention of his name, isn't so keen on the idea of marriage.
I Corinthians 7:1 It is good for a man not to marry
7:8-9 Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. / But if they cannot control themseles, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
Sure, Paul ends up saying, "go ahead and marry," but it's just so you won't have sex outside of wedlock. That's a fairy-tale wedding come true. Get married so you can get knocked up.
That house with a dog, and a kid, and a white picket fence? Forget it. Paul makes it clear later on, (v. 28) But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this.
Why is Paul so down on marriage? Verse 33-34 explains it, a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world - how he can please his wife - /and his interests are divided [between this and God]. Paul just wants us to live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord. (v 35)
And apparently Paul isn't so far out on a limb here. Jesus said it first in Matthew 19:9-11 [Jesus replied,] "I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery." / The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry." / Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given."
Romans 7:3 also emphasizes that if you divorce while your spouse is still alive, and you re-marry, you are commiting adultery. Why aren't we passing an Adultery Marriage Amendment?
Ultimately, though, I guess marriage isn't all that important to God. Jesus makes it clear in Matthew 22:30 At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage. The ties that bind apparently are truly until death do you part. God doesn't do windows nor weddings.
Oh, and for all of you with mail-order brides or wives from another country, repent sinners: You have been unfaithful; you have married foreign women, adding to Israel's guilt. ...Separate yourselves from the peoples around you and your foreign wives.Ezra 10:10
So, why bother with the FMA? If these Bible passages are to be believed, God doesn't seem to be all gung-ho over marriage. I guess if we're saying we value it now, then the institution has changed over millenia. Or maybe Dubya is calling God a liar.
Come to think of it, if wedding is about all of this, why don't we let them pass it?
The President, an expert on historical and international affairs further commented earlier this year that, "After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence and millennia of human experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization," Definitely the expert on confusion, our President further stated that "their actions have created confusion on an issue that requires clarity."
I agree this is an issue of much confusion. Let me provide a little clarity. Since many of the proponents of the FMA point to the emphasis the Bible puts on family and traditional marriage, and argue that gay marriage would certainly undermine these great institutions, I thought I would investigate what the Bible has to say about this great institution.
Now, mind you, the following is a strict literalist interpretation of the Bible, which is just as most evangelicals would have it. No need to be throwing confusing details like historical context or linguistic nuances in there.
We start off with a very cheerful passage in Hebrews 13:4 Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure... Although perhaps if we should all honor marriage, then we should let gay people marry. I know, I know, I'm being silly.
But other passages paint a very different view of the great institution of marriage.
Paul the Apostle, who causes most Baptists to just salivate with Pavlovian glee upon mention of his name, isn't so keen on the idea of marriage.
I Corinthians 7:1 It is good for a man not to marry
7:8-9 Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. / But if they cannot control themseles, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
Sure, Paul ends up saying, "go ahead and marry," but it's just so you won't have sex outside of wedlock. That's a fairy-tale wedding come true. Get married so you can get knocked up.
That house with a dog, and a kid, and a white picket fence? Forget it. Paul makes it clear later on, (v. 28) But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this.
Why is Paul so down on marriage? Verse 33-34 explains it, a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world - how he can please his wife - /and his interests are divided [between this and God]. Paul just wants us to live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord. (v 35)
And apparently Paul isn't so far out on a limb here. Jesus said it first in Matthew 19:9-11 [Jesus replied,] "I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery." / The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry." / Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given."
Romans 7:3 also emphasizes that if you divorce while your spouse is still alive, and you re-marry, you are commiting adultery. Why aren't we passing an Adultery Marriage Amendment?
Ultimately, though, I guess marriage isn't all that important to God. Jesus makes it clear in Matthew 22:30 At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage. The ties that bind apparently are truly until death do you part. God doesn't do windows nor weddings.
Oh, and for all of you with mail-order brides or wives from another country, repent sinners: You have been unfaithful; you have married foreign women, adding to Israel's guilt. ...Separate yourselves from the peoples around you and your foreign wives.Ezra 10:10
So, why bother with the FMA? If these Bible passages are to be believed, God doesn't seem to be all gung-ho over marriage. I guess if we're saying we value it now, then the institution has changed over millenia. Or maybe Dubya is calling God a liar.
Come to think of it, if wedding is about all of this, why don't we let them pass it?
Saturday, July 10, 2004
All We Need is Love
June 26 was Gay Pride in Atlanta and San Francisco. There was no way to get to San Fran (although some day I would love to experience Pride there), and Atlanta was on the list. I hadn't been in a few years and thought it would be fun to return.
But I did something better. I celebrated Pride with my partner at a celebration of two women's love for each other. We went to the ten year celebration of our friends Anne and Leslie, joining in recognition of their commitment with friends and family of theirs.
Clearly, the sanctity of marriage is highly threatened. I think straight people are probably just jealous that their ceremonies aren't as much fun or don't have nearly as fabulous food.
Good food, good drink, and good times were all had. And not a mullet or flannel shirt to be found anywhere. I think the most touching moment for me was when the father of one the women toasted them, stating he was happy to have gained two daughters.
May every parent realize they stand to gain two daughters or two sons; may people everywhere realize they stand to gain two friends or two church members or two bingo players or two neighbors with fabulous taste or the ability to fix your sink. May everyone realize that they only stand to gain more love in the world.
But I did something better. I celebrated Pride with my partner at a celebration of two women's love for each other. We went to the ten year celebration of our friends Anne and Leslie, joining in recognition of their commitment with friends and family of theirs.
Clearly, the sanctity of marriage is highly threatened. I think straight people are probably just jealous that their ceremonies aren't as much fun or don't have nearly as fabulous food.
Good food, good drink, and good times were all had. And not a mullet or flannel shirt to be found anywhere. I think the most touching moment for me was when the father of one the women toasted them, stating he was happy to have gained two daughters.
May every parent realize they stand to gain two daughters or two sons; may people everywhere realize they stand to gain two friends or two church members or two bingo players or two neighbors with fabulous taste or the ability to fix your sink. May everyone realize that they only stand to gain more love in the world.
Auntie Em, it's a twister, it's a twister!
Keith, thanks for the kind words.
Never fear, I shall not disappoint my entire readership of what, three, at most? No, the blogging continues despite the whirlwind of changes, most good, one bad, that have happened in a two week span.
About three weeks ago, my partner, Peter, who lives in Atlanta, found out his apartment complex was going to be destroyed to make way for assisted living housing. His lease runs out in August, so he decide that this was a pretty good sign from God that it was time to make to move up with me in Charlotte. We had planned on this eventually, but not for another year.
Since he's working on his doctorate, he has been unemployed other than a graduate assistantship. The weekend of June 26, lesbian friends of ours celebrated their 10th anniversary together. Peter came up for that event and thought he would stay through July 5 so we could look for a bigger apartment than the one I have now for the both of us. (Conveniently, my lease expires in August also).
No apartment complex really struck us as quite the right fit. We settled on one, only to feel like it was not the best choice for us, and then pulled the application. We ended up almost buying a house, but, in the nick of time, realized we were not ready for that step, particulary given Peter's unemployment and the fact that we had no idea what we are doing. (As an aside, we now have a great book "100 Questions Every First Time Home Buyer Should Ask" to help us when we are ready - I'm strongly recommend it.)
During this time, the technology person for my department quit after working six days. And before you know it, Peter has a job replacing this guy! Simply amazing!
We also seem to have located the nicest townhouse to rent. We're still waiting for everything to be finalized, but it's looking good. Keep your fingers crossed for us. Hopefully by Monday we will know. If we get it, it'll be a perfect place for us.
Karma is a bitch, however, and this is no exception. My parents received some unfortunate news this week that was shocking. I will not get into it here, other than to say that my parents have been completely wronged by small-minded (and probably small-endowed) selfish scared little men.
So, my life has been a rollercoaster that is not slowing down. Not only does the emotional peaks and valleys continue, but physical hills still exist. One of the busiest times of the year for my job is upon me in three weeks and we are planning on moving by the end of July because there's no better time before the end of August with our multiple obligations.
So, the blog may be slow for a bit while my life is slowing rearranging itself. But I look at it like this, once we land, there'll be no place like home.
Never fear, I shall not disappoint my entire readership of what, three, at most? No, the blogging continues despite the whirlwind of changes, most good, one bad, that have happened in a two week span.
About three weeks ago, my partner, Peter, who lives in Atlanta, found out his apartment complex was going to be destroyed to make way for assisted living housing. His lease runs out in August, so he decide that this was a pretty good sign from God that it was time to make to move up with me in Charlotte. We had planned on this eventually, but not for another year.
Since he's working on his doctorate, he has been unemployed other than a graduate assistantship. The weekend of June 26, lesbian friends of ours celebrated their 10th anniversary together. Peter came up for that event and thought he would stay through July 5 so we could look for a bigger apartment than the one I have now for the both of us. (Conveniently, my lease expires in August also).
No apartment complex really struck us as quite the right fit. We settled on one, only to feel like it was not the best choice for us, and then pulled the application. We ended up almost buying a house, but, in the nick of time, realized we were not ready for that step, particulary given Peter's unemployment and the fact that we had no idea what we are doing. (As an aside, we now have a great book "100 Questions Every First Time Home Buyer Should Ask" to help us when we are ready - I'm strongly recommend it.)
During this time, the technology person for my department quit after working six days. And before you know it, Peter has a job replacing this guy! Simply amazing!
We also seem to have located the nicest townhouse to rent. We're still waiting for everything to be finalized, but it's looking good. Keep your fingers crossed for us. Hopefully by Monday we will know. If we get it, it'll be a perfect place for us.
Karma is a bitch, however, and this is no exception. My parents received some unfortunate news this week that was shocking. I will not get into it here, other than to say that my parents have been completely wronged by small-minded (and probably small-endowed) selfish scared little men.
So, my life has been a rollercoaster that is not slowing down. Not only does the emotional peaks and valleys continue, but physical hills still exist. One of the busiest times of the year for my job is upon me in three weeks and we are planning on moving by the end of July because there's no better time before the end of August with our multiple obligations.
So, the blog may be slow for a bit while my life is slowing rearranging itself. But I look at it like this, once we land, there'll be no place like home.
Saturday, June 26, 2004
Senate Ready to Vote on the FMA
The Human Rights Campaign has announced that a vote will take place in the Senate in early July on the Federal Marriage Amendment to the US Constitution. The HRC is asking everyone to please contact their Senators today and ask them to oppose this hateful legislation. Visit the HRC action center to easily email your Senators or to find text for a letter. A little input could make a huge difference in our lives as American citizens.
Personally, I don't think the FMA has much chance of passing, but we cannot be complacent on this issue. We need to send a clear message NOW that this politicially-motivated and Religious-Right pandering homphobic piece of legislation is unacceptable and unAmerican.
Personally, I don't think the FMA has much chance of passing, but we cannot be complacent on this issue. We need to send a clear message NOW that this politicially-motivated and Religious-Right pandering homphobic piece of legislation is unacceptable and unAmerican.
Friday, June 25, 2004
Mythic Proportions
"The evil that men do lives after them,/ The good is oft interréd with their bones." So sayeth Marc Anthony in Shakespeare's Julius Ceasar. However, just as President Ronald Reagan dodge the bullet of Tecumseh's Curse, perhaps he has also dodged the Bard's bullet as well.
Perhaps it is the American way to build up our fallen leaders. We certainly seem to enjoy tearing them down while they are alive, but a dead American President tends to be a saint. Even Nixon has been much less maligned after death, while controversy swirls around Clinton and Bush the Second.
I was not out or even aware that I might be gay while Reagan was president. During the 80's I had a huge crush on my high school best friend, but had no idea that meant I was gay. As so we cross path with another friend of Julius Ceasar, Cleopatra, Queen of Denial. In any event, I do not remember much about how he handled anything much less gay issues. Recent editorials concerning Reagan have shown that he didn't really get involved with any gay civil rights issues, mostly because gay civil rights was not a topic of national thought, concern, or debate. It is generally conceeded that he ignored AIDS until almost the end of his presidency, when he made some initial attempts to combat it, although at that point it was too little too late. Many believe that his inaction allowed AIDS to progress much further than if research was carried out sooner.
We'll never know. And although AIDS was primarily a gay issue in the 80's, we all know now that AIDS is a human issue and not the "gay cancer" people believed it was two decades ago. So, I don't have much of an opinion on how Reagan benefitted or hindered gays.
What does bother me, however, is the iconic status that has generally been bestowed upon him. He has become the Man Who Did No Wrong and most notably the Destroyer of Communism. I'm not a fan of the man, but I'm not out to villanize him either. I suspect that years from now we'll find out that, much like Woodrow Wilson, he was incapacitated for much of his second term and Nancy and his advisors ran the government. Alzheimer's, upon initial symptoms, often sets in about five years or less. And he was showing signs during his first half. Still, I'm not interested in that debate currently.
The man is quickly being lost in the myth. Like some Greek hero, he's becoming invincible and a conqueror of giants. Some have called for his face to be added to Mount Rushmore. Others suggested replacing FDR's face on the dime. When Nancy objected, they suggested he share every other dime. These are presidents who formed and gave direction to the country during crucial and unstable times. Reagan, for whatever good he did, was not even president during any particularly delicate time. Sure we had the Cold War going on, and everyone was afraid of Russia, but the country was not going through any true war or upheaval, as was the case with the presidents on these monuments and currency. Class points to Nancy Reagan for nixing the dime idea and for also asking for her husband's image to be striken from a Bush political ad seeking to capitalize on the current groundswell of positive feeling for the departed President.
So let us pay our due respects to the dead, feteing what he accomplished, but tempered by his faults and errors. The Bard also reminds us in Twelfth Night that "some are born great, some achieve greatness and others have greatness thrust upon them." Let us not thrust greatness where it does not fit.
Perhaps it is the American way to build up our fallen leaders. We certainly seem to enjoy tearing them down while they are alive, but a dead American President tends to be a saint. Even Nixon has been much less maligned after death, while controversy swirls around Clinton and Bush the Second.
I was not out or even aware that I might be gay while Reagan was president. During the 80's I had a huge crush on my high school best friend, but had no idea that meant I was gay. As so we cross path with another friend of Julius Ceasar, Cleopatra, Queen of Denial. In any event, I do not remember much about how he handled anything much less gay issues. Recent editorials concerning Reagan have shown that he didn't really get involved with any gay civil rights issues, mostly because gay civil rights was not a topic of national thought, concern, or debate. It is generally conceeded that he ignored AIDS until almost the end of his presidency, when he made some initial attempts to combat it, although at that point it was too little too late. Many believe that his inaction allowed AIDS to progress much further than if research was carried out sooner.
We'll never know. And although AIDS was primarily a gay issue in the 80's, we all know now that AIDS is a human issue and not the "gay cancer" people believed it was two decades ago. So, I don't have much of an opinion on how Reagan benefitted or hindered gays.
What does bother me, however, is the iconic status that has generally been bestowed upon him. He has become the Man Who Did No Wrong and most notably the Destroyer of Communism. I'm not a fan of the man, but I'm not out to villanize him either. I suspect that years from now we'll find out that, much like Woodrow Wilson, he was incapacitated for much of his second term and Nancy and his advisors ran the government. Alzheimer's, upon initial symptoms, often sets in about five years or less. And he was showing signs during his first half. Still, I'm not interested in that debate currently.
The man is quickly being lost in the myth. Like some Greek hero, he's becoming invincible and a conqueror of giants. Some have called for his face to be added to Mount Rushmore. Others suggested replacing FDR's face on the dime. When Nancy objected, they suggested he share every other dime. These are presidents who formed and gave direction to the country during crucial and unstable times. Reagan, for whatever good he did, was not even president during any particularly delicate time. Sure we had the Cold War going on, and everyone was afraid of Russia, but the country was not going through any true war or upheaval, as was the case with the presidents on these monuments and currency. Class points to Nancy Reagan for nixing the dime idea and for also asking for her husband's image to be striken from a Bush political ad seeking to capitalize on the current groundswell of positive feeling for the departed President.
So let us pay our due respects to the dead, feteing what he accomplished, but tempered by his faults and errors. The Bard also reminds us in Twelfth Night that "some are born great, some achieve greatness and others have greatness thrust upon them." Let us not thrust greatness where it does not fit.
Saturday, June 19, 2004
Gay Days
The following comes from a column from the Orlando Sentinel on June 9, 1999. It just made me laugh.
Well, I spent three hours at the big Gay Days bash Saturday at the Magic Kingdom and didn't get hit on once.
Nobody likes older men anymore.
After talking to David Caton of the American Family Association, I expected a San Francisco-style gay parade. In fact, there were more traditional families than there were gays. And all the latter did was mill around, looking hot, eating ice cream, socializing, a few discreetly holding hands. Kind of what we all do at Disney. If not for the red shirts, I doubt anyone would have known it was Gay Days.
But I must say the lesbians were completely out of control.
Two hugged when greeting each other by Cinderella's Castle, and a couple on the ferry boat exchanged a quick peck.
If I had had my camera, I could have snapped off a picture for Dave to put on his Web page. The American Family Association says the event is designed for Disney and gay leaders to acclimate children to the hedonistic homosexual lifestyle.
Well, they did a darned poor job of it. The only thing the kids probably noticed was that the adults were hogging the line at Winnie the Pooh.
Well, I spent three hours at the big Gay Days bash Saturday at the Magic Kingdom and didn't get hit on once.
Nobody likes older men anymore.
After talking to David Caton of the American Family Association, I expected a San Francisco-style gay parade. In fact, there were more traditional families than there were gays. And all the latter did was mill around, looking hot, eating ice cream, socializing, a few discreetly holding hands. Kind of what we all do at Disney. If not for the red shirts, I doubt anyone would have known it was Gay Days.
But I must say the lesbians were completely out of control.
Two hugged when greeting each other by Cinderella's Castle, and a couple on the ferry boat exchanged a quick peck.
If I had had my camera, I could have snapped off a picture for Dave to put on his Web page. The American Family Association says the event is designed for Disney and gay leaders to acclimate children to the hedonistic homosexual lifestyle.
Well, they did a darned poor job of it. The only thing the kids probably noticed was that the adults were hogging the line at Winnie the Pooh.
Friday, June 18, 2004
This Little Light of Mine
Although you've probably rarely heard of him unless you like watching the cotton-candy hair changes of Jan Crouch on Trinity Broadcasting Nework, Benny Hinn is one of the most prominent modern faith healers. Most sensible people write him off as a sham and modern carpet bagger, and you can even find many Christian websites warning devotees of Hinn's errant teachings.
You can take Hinn about as seriously as you do Pat Robertson. Their predictions are about as accurate. Robertson claimed several years ago that Orlando was about to be devestated by a hurricane. (I believe because said devestation would take place for a reason related to Disney hosting gay days.) You'd think that a fairly safe prediction would have come true by now, but hasn't.
Far better and bolder than this prediction, however is one made by Hinn on December 31, 1989, :
"The Lord also tells me to tell you in the mid 90's, about '94-'95, no later than that, God will destroy the homosexual community of America. [audience applauds] But He will not destroy it - with what many minds have thought Him to be, He will destroy it with fire. And many will turn and be saved, and many will rebel and be destroyed."
The prediction is laughable. It's so far-fetched, it's comical. I wish Mitt Romney and some others could see that not even the threat of gay marriage has brought down this fire. Although it's hard to claim victory against such a controversial and fringe element like Hinn, still, Cheers, queers, we're still here!
What is not so laughable is the audience clapping immediately after Hinn says God will destroy homosexuals. Although this happened on the last day of the 80's, it chills me to think that anybody who is supposed to be a follower of Christ would applaud the destruction of a people. (Although one has to wonder if God was going to destroy a particular community: the Castro? South Beach? Palm Springs? And will God be destroying gay Christians too? Or do we only get partially destroyed?)
Maybe I'm forgetting the part where Jesus said to nuke thy neighbor. Relgion doctrine aside, (ideally I should be asking "what, in spite of religious doctrine...") what causes humans to feel so deeply against other humans that they want them eradicated?
Racist thought has been driven underground. It's not socially acceptible to be racist; that's the good part. The bad part is racism is now more covert and insidious. Homophobia is going down the same path. Within the next decade we will likely have full civil marriage. We may have federal employment protection even. But we still have work to do with how people perceive us. We must continue to work to help people understand that being gay means you're like anybody else: different. Not better, not worse, just different. Let this extreme example remind us of the mainstream impact we have left to make.
You can take Hinn about as seriously as you do Pat Robertson. Their predictions are about as accurate. Robertson claimed several years ago that Orlando was about to be devestated by a hurricane. (I believe because said devestation would take place for a reason related to Disney hosting gay days.) You'd think that a fairly safe prediction would have come true by now, but hasn't.
Far better and bolder than this prediction, however is one made by Hinn on December 31, 1989, :
"The Lord also tells me to tell you in the mid 90's, about '94-'95, no later than that, God will destroy the homosexual community of America. [audience applauds] But He will not destroy it - with what many minds have thought Him to be, He will destroy it with fire. And many will turn and be saved, and many will rebel and be destroyed."
The prediction is laughable. It's so far-fetched, it's comical. I wish Mitt Romney and some others could see that not even the threat of gay marriage has brought down this fire. Although it's hard to claim victory against such a controversial and fringe element like Hinn, still, Cheers, queers, we're still here!
What is not so laughable is the audience clapping immediately after Hinn says God will destroy homosexuals. Although this happened on the last day of the 80's, it chills me to think that anybody who is supposed to be a follower of Christ would applaud the destruction of a people. (Although one has to wonder if God was going to destroy a particular community: the Castro? South Beach? Palm Springs? And will God be destroying gay Christians too? Or do we only get partially destroyed?)
Maybe I'm forgetting the part where Jesus said to nuke thy neighbor. Relgion doctrine aside, (ideally I should be asking "what, in spite of religious doctrine...") what causes humans to feel so deeply against other humans that they want them eradicated?
Racist thought has been driven underground. It's not socially acceptible to be racist; that's the good part. The bad part is racism is now more covert and insidious. Homophobia is going down the same path. Within the next decade we will likely have full civil marriage. We may have federal employment protection even. But we still have work to do with how people perceive us. We must continue to work to help people understand that being gay means you're like anybody else: different. Not better, not worse, just different. Let this extreme example remind us of the mainstream impact we have left to make.
Thursday, June 10, 2004
The Reality of the Situation
Fox network canned the upcoming reality show "Seriously Dude I'm Gay" where two straight contestants tried to convince friends and family they were gay for a monetary prize. Reports indicate that thecontestants found their experience "hell[ish]" and a "nightmare." Fox decided to cancel after prescreenings with GLAAD and other groups did not go well.
I am also glad that Fox, for once, displayed taste and decorum. Lately they had been travelling the Jerry Springer route to fame, trying to out-low themselves with each new show. Out of the litany of reality programming Fox has brought us: Joe Millionaire, Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire, Paradise Hotel, Forever Eden, Temptation Island, Mr. Personality, The Littlest Groom, and My Big Fat Obnoxious Fiance (among others), none have shown the slightest modicum of respect or decorum towards their contestants or the audience. Luckily, this long list clearly demonstrates that Fox is an equal opportunity humiliator and opportunist. It's hard to call them homophobic when they haven't exactly done the straight community any service.
Still, the fact the network thought the show stood a chance does point to America's latent homophobia. The show was originally marketed with the phrases "It's a heterosexual male's worst nightmare: turning gay overnight" and "a jury of their queers." Even though these phrases were pulled even before the show itself was, this is a clear indicator that, and they were probably right, most Americans would be drawn to the show because being gay is still seen as humiliating and degrading. Reality shows for the most part are just freak shows at best; The Littlest Groom is obviously evidence of the circus having come to television.
So it is with us queers. If being gay were not still seen as something undesirable, freakish, or lurid, shows like this would not be made. Probably shows like Queer Eye for the Straight Guy would not be made because people wouldn't care. To me, being gay is something special and distinctive about myself. I take pride in being gay. I don't want to lose what I perceive to be almost a cultural distinction as we gain the civil rights and acceptance we deserve. Nonetheless, we still have a lot of education and outreach to do to change the way our fellow human beings (particularly American citizens) see us. Getting rights does not mean losing distinction. But getting rights does not mean gaining acceptance. We still have a road of activism we must travel after gaining our full rights; that's just the reality of the situation.
I am also glad that Fox, for once, displayed taste and decorum. Lately they had been travelling the Jerry Springer route to fame, trying to out-low themselves with each new show. Out of the litany of reality programming Fox has brought us: Joe Millionaire, Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire, Paradise Hotel, Forever Eden, Temptation Island, Mr. Personality, The Littlest Groom, and My Big Fat Obnoxious Fiance (among others), none have shown the slightest modicum of respect or decorum towards their contestants or the audience. Luckily, this long list clearly demonstrates that Fox is an equal opportunity humiliator and opportunist. It's hard to call them homophobic when they haven't exactly done the straight community any service.
Still, the fact the network thought the show stood a chance does point to America's latent homophobia. The show was originally marketed with the phrases "It's a heterosexual male's worst nightmare: turning gay overnight" and "a jury of their queers." Even though these phrases were pulled even before the show itself was, this is a clear indicator that, and they were probably right, most Americans would be drawn to the show because being gay is still seen as humiliating and degrading. Reality shows for the most part are just freak shows at best; The Littlest Groom is obviously evidence of the circus having come to television.
So it is with us queers. If being gay were not still seen as something undesirable, freakish, or lurid, shows like this would not be made. Probably shows like Queer Eye for the Straight Guy would not be made because people wouldn't care. To me, being gay is something special and distinctive about myself. I take pride in being gay. I don't want to lose what I perceive to be almost a cultural distinction as we gain the civil rights and acceptance we deserve. Nonetheless, we still have a lot of education and outreach to do to change the way our fellow human beings (particularly American citizens) see us. Getting rights does not mean losing distinction. But getting rights does not mean gaining acceptance. We still have a road of activism we must travel after gaining our full rights; that's just the reality of the situation.
Tuesday, June 08, 2004
Ok-lahomo!
This year's Tony Awards was an even gayer celebration than usual. Super-hot host Hugh Jackman aside, several shows with gay stories, characters, and/or themes took home the more prominent awards.
AVENUE Q which features the hysterical yet affirming song, "If You Were Gay" along with "Fantasies Come True" by Rod, a puppet in the closet, took home Best Musical, Best Original Score, and Best Book. Avenue Q is an irreverant, non-PC musical comedy featuring puppets and live actors that features other songs such as "Everyone's a Little Bit Racist" and "The Internet is for Porn." It definitely carries queer sensibilities,although not exclusively a gay story.
Hugh Jackman took home Leading Actor in a Musical for THE BOY FROM OZ. This play showcases the life of Peter Allen, the gay ex-husband of Liza Minelli, and famous song writer who died of AIDS in the 80's.
I AM MY OWN WIFE took home Best Play and the leading (and only) actor, Jefferson Mays, took home the Leading Actor in a Play award. This one man show is about Charlotte von Mahlsdorf, a real-life German transvestite who survived both the onslaught of the Nazis and the repressive Communist regime that followed after World War II.
It's nice to see such strong support for works of art featuring gay themes and characters, particularly in a year that has seen polarization around gay issues. It could have been easy for voters to be turned off from all the "gay hype" and go with potentially less controversial or, in their eyes perhaps trendy, choices.
AVENUE Q which features the hysterical yet affirming song, "If You Were Gay" along with "Fantasies Come True" by Rod, a puppet in the closet, took home Best Musical, Best Original Score, and Best Book. Avenue Q is an irreverant, non-PC musical comedy featuring puppets and live actors that features other songs such as "Everyone's a Little Bit Racist" and "The Internet is for Porn." It definitely carries queer sensibilities,although not exclusively a gay story.
Hugh Jackman took home Leading Actor in a Musical for THE BOY FROM OZ. This play showcases the life of Peter Allen, the gay ex-husband of Liza Minelli, and famous song writer who died of AIDS in the 80's.
I AM MY OWN WIFE took home Best Play and the leading (and only) actor, Jefferson Mays, took home the Leading Actor in a Play award. This one man show is about Charlotte von Mahlsdorf, a real-life German transvestite who survived both the onslaught of the Nazis and the repressive Communist regime that followed after World War II.
It's nice to see such strong support for works of art featuring gay themes and characters, particularly in a year that has seen polarization around gay issues. It could have been easy for voters to be turned off from all the "gay hype" and go with potentially less controversial or, in their eyes perhaps trendy, choices.
It's Fun to Marry at the YMCA
According to Vh1's "Best Month Ever" show, the cowboy from 70's disco gay super-group The Village People has married. What, didn't know the VP were gay?
A little googling revealed this AP article:
NEW YORK - The cowboy from the Village People has gotten married. MTV News reports Randy Jones married acid lounge artist Will Grega Friday at a New York club.
Grega and Jones have been together for 20 years. Grega proposed that night and they were married on the spot.
Gay marriage is still illegal in New York state, but Jones says, "It's only a matter of time before the courts rule in favor of what's morally right and humanly decent." Grega, meanwhile, points out, "I have a lifetime membership to the YMCA."
It kills me not knowing if the perennially favorite wedding reception song "YMCA" was used for the happy copule.
A little googling revealed this AP article:
NEW YORK - The cowboy from the Village People has gotten married. MTV News reports Randy Jones married acid lounge artist Will Grega Friday at a New York club.
Grega and Jones have been together for 20 years. Grega proposed that night and they were married on the spot.
Gay marriage is still illegal in New York state, but Jones says, "It's only a matter of time before the courts rule in favor of what's morally right and humanly decent." Grega, meanwhile, points out, "I have a lifetime membership to the YMCA."
It kills me not knowing if the perennially favorite wedding reception song "YMCA" was used for the happy copule.
Monday, May 31, 2004
A Queer By Any Other Name
I think this is progress...at the very least I like the judge's reasoning. So take that Tom Cruise...
Judge: Homosexual Isn't Libelous Term
MARTIN FINUCANE
Associated Press
BOSTON - Stating that someone is homosexual does not libel or slander them, particularly in light of new court decisions granting gays more rights, a federal judge has ruled.
The ruling by U.S. District Judge Nancy Gertner came as she threw out a lawsuit by a former boyfriend of pop singer Madonna who claimed he was libeled because his name appeared in a photo caption in a book about Madonna - under a picture of Madonna walking with a gay man.
"In fact, a finding that such a statement is defamatory requires this court to legitimize the prejudice and bigotry that for too long have plagued the homosexual community," she wrote in her opinion Friday.
The attorney for plaintiff James Albright, who had worked for Madonna as a bodyguard, didn't immediately return telephone and e-mail messages seeking comment Saturday. Attorneys for the defendants, who included Madonna biographer Andrew Morton and St. Martin's Press, the publisher, also didn't respond to messages.
Gertner said other courts' rulings that stating someone is homosexual is defamatory had relied on laws criminalizing same-sex sexual acts that might well be unconstitutional. Previous decisions hadn't taken into account more recent decisions recognizing gays' equal rights, she said.
She pointed to a Supreme Court ruling last year that found a Texas sodomy law unconstitutional, and to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling last year that it would be unconstitutional to prevent gays in the state from marrying.
Judge: Homosexual Isn't Libelous Term
MARTIN FINUCANE
Associated Press
BOSTON - Stating that someone is homosexual does not libel or slander them, particularly in light of new court decisions granting gays more rights, a federal judge has ruled.
The ruling by U.S. District Judge Nancy Gertner came as she threw out a lawsuit by a former boyfriend of pop singer Madonna who claimed he was libeled because his name appeared in a photo caption in a book about Madonna - under a picture of Madonna walking with a gay man.
"In fact, a finding that such a statement is defamatory requires this court to legitimize the prejudice and bigotry that for too long have plagued the homosexual community," she wrote in her opinion Friday.
The attorney for plaintiff James Albright, who had worked for Madonna as a bodyguard, didn't immediately return telephone and e-mail messages seeking comment Saturday. Attorneys for the defendants, who included Madonna biographer Andrew Morton and St. Martin's Press, the publisher, also didn't respond to messages.
Gertner said other courts' rulings that stating someone is homosexual is defamatory had relied on laws criminalizing same-sex sexual acts that might well be unconstitutional. Previous decisions hadn't taken into account more recent decisions recognizing gays' equal rights, she said.
She pointed to a Supreme Court ruling last year that found a Texas sodomy law unconstitutional, and to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling last year that it would be unconstitutional to prevent gays in the state from marrying.
Saturday, May 29, 2004
Enya Face
Currently I'm listening to Enya's Orinoco Flow, which is really a fine, soothing piece of music. Unfortunately it has been forever tainted by an incident where I was kidnapped by the drunk ex-girlfriend of my roommate. Too drunk to drive herself, one of her roommates drove her to our apartment where she, on the edge of an emotional breakdown, asked me come over and visit. She then locked me in her room, lit candles, and played an Enya CD that repeated in an endless loop. She asked me to lay next to her (fully clothed) while she drifted off to sleep. No way I could possibly sleep and was horrified at the possibility of her trying to make a move on me (this is not vanity speaking; she had, at a previous incident, acted incredulous when I refused to invite her inside my apartment after having dinner with her). Luckily, she drifted off in a drunken stupor and I departed post haste.
See, now that's why I'm gay!
See, now that's why I'm gay!
Tuesday, May 25, 2004
Men for All Seasons
If you haven't ever followed the Adam & Andy link here on my blog, do so today.
A&A is just the cutest little strip (not cute in that make me want to sacrifice Bil Kean's children to the devil kind of way) about a mid-thirties gay couple.
Now, James Asal the creator of A&A has posted the original run of strips on his website along with DVD-style commentary. And everyone I know knows that I just LOVE DVD-commentary.
Check it out here and then go read the modern stuff.
A&A is just the cutest little strip (not cute in that make me want to sacrifice Bil Kean's children to the devil kind of way) about a mid-thirties gay couple.
Now, James Asal the creator of A&A has posted the original run of strips on his website along with DVD-style commentary. And everyone I know knows that I just LOVE DVD-commentary.
Check it out here and then go read the modern stuff.
Way Down South
You must understand that growing up in the South means you look at the Confederate flag on a regular basis. Maybe not every day or even every week, but the Confederate flag, or at least the representation of its bars and stars, is pervasive. In the South, someone somewhere near you believes that the Confederate flag is a symbol of pride and heritage, and many, although certainly not all, of these people truly do not understand how anyone could see it as an image of exclusion, hatred, or oppression.
Thus, you must also understand that, to a certain extent, this pervasive exposure dulls the senses to the inherent symbolism of the flag somewhat. Although I firmly believe that if a large majority of the black population sees the flag as offensive, then we have a moral obligation to remove it from our governmental buildings or anywhere else it is associated with a formal representation of the American people, the sight of the Confederate flag does not inspire in me much of any kind of feeling.
So, I was taken by surprise somewhat as I was driving home tonight by an abundant display of Confederate flags that drew not just my attention, but some deeper reflection. On my way home I pass a major NASCAR speed track and this week is one of the larger races, the Coca Cola 500, I believe. NASCAR, despite its mainstreaming, for some reason manages to draw out copious numbers of Confederate flags, whether they be flown over an RV trailer or worn as a dew rag on the head. For reasons that seem both obvious and confusing to me, NASCAR, despite popular acceptance (at least by white middle-class America), has held on firmly to its anti-establishment, redneck roots and character.
I sighed heavily; initially because of the impending wave of traffic that would impair my way home from work in the approaching days, but quickly my exasperation with the traffic- jam-to-be turned into an annoyance with seeing so many Confederate flags on display. Why must these people insist on putting the flag in peoples' faces, especially after so much debate in recent years over its symbolism and meaning.
And then it struck me: this is exactly the question we face as gay people every day. "Why do those queers have to flaunt their sexuality? Why do gays have to talk about being gay so often?" Many straight people, and even some gay people, do not understand why anyone would choose to fly a rainbow flag in front of a house or put a rainbow decal on the back of a car. I myself have been conservative in this area, but understand and respect those who choose to do so. After some consideration, I recently decided to put an HRC sticker on my car to show solidarity and support for gay rights issues in these turbulent political times.
Gay people can easily hide their sexual orientation. It's not like race or ethnicity which is typically very obvious (although skin color is much less telling than it used to and certainly an accent or dialect is no clear indicator either). Nobody ever has to know that a gay person is gay. So why do we choose to "flaunt" it? Why wear that t-shirt that says "I'm not gay, but my boyfriend is"?
The answer is simple; we do it for the same reason some Southerners or NASCAR fans fly a Confederate flag. We do it for the same reason that you put a "My kid is an honor student" bumper sticker on your mini-van or that high school kid wears a shirt featuring his favorite band. We do it for reasons not unlike the one someone puts a "Vietnam Veteran" license plate on their car. We're proud of who we are and you need to know it.
All human beings fight a constant paradox; we desire both to be unique individuals and to belong. As such, we choose to identify ourselves with labels and indicators of our characteristics, personalities, and/or preferences that people might not otherwise know about us. We identify ourselves in order to serve our warring needs. Gay people also do it because you need to realize that we're sitting right next to you. We do it because you need to know we are your son, daughter, neighbor, brother, sister, mother, father, co-worker, boss, cashier, teacher, church pew sharer. We do it because we're here, we're queer, and, by God, you're not used to it by now?
If you don't want us putting our gayness in your face, then don't put your Confederate flag, Mary Kay lapel pin, favorite sports team banner, Shriner order, or kid's perfect attendance in ours. Don't want us to talk about being gay? Stop talking about being heterosexual then; you know, how great your girl/boyfriend, husband/wife is, how little Johnny/Suzie did the cutest thing one year after he/she popped out from between yoru legs, or what a beautiful wedding your best friend just had despite the trouble with the caterer.
The thing is that we aren't asking you to stop talking about these things. And despite my internal monologue, I wouldn't suggest we ban individuals from displaying a Confederate flag. All we are asking is to be included in on the conversation; to be allowed to share every part of ourselves that we choose to share just as you do. All we're really doing is, like the people who display a Confederate flag, letting you know what we like way down south.
Thus, you must also understand that, to a certain extent, this pervasive exposure dulls the senses to the inherent symbolism of the flag somewhat. Although I firmly believe that if a large majority of the black population sees the flag as offensive, then we have a moral obligation to remove it from our governmental buildings or anywhere else it is associated with a formal representation of the American people, the sight of the Confederate flag does not inspire in me much of any kind of feeling.
So, I was taken by surprise somewhat as I was driving home tonight by an abundant display of Confederate flags that drew not just my attention, but some deeper reflection. On my way home I pass a major NASCAR speed track and this week is one of the larger races, the Coca Cola 500, I believe. NASCAR, despite its mainstreaming, for some reason manages to draw out copious numbers of Confederate flags, whether they be flown over an RV trailer or worn as a dew rag on the head. For reasons that seem both obvious and confusing to me, NASCAR, despite popular acceptance (at least by white middle-class America), has held on firmly to its anti-establishment, redneck roots and character.
I sighed heavily; initially because of the impending wave of traffic that would impair my way home from work in the approaching days, but quickly my exasperation with the traffic- jam-to-be turned into an annoyance with seeing so many Confederate flags on display. Why must these people insist on putting the flag in peoples' faces, especially after so much debate in recent years over its symbolism and meaning.
And then it struck me: this is exactly the question we face as gay people every day. "Why do those queers have to flaunt their sexuality? Why do gays have to talk about being gay so often?" Many straight people, and even some gay people, do not understand why anyone would choose to fly a rainbow flag in front of a house or put a rainbow decal on the back of a car. I myself have been conservative in this area, but understand and respect those who choose to do so. After some consideration, I recently decided to put an HRC sticker on my car to show solidarity and support for gay rights issues in these turbulent political times.
Gay people can easily hide their sexual orientation. It's not like race or ethnicity which is typically very obvious (although skin color is much less telling than it used to and certainly an accent or dialect is no clear indicator either). Nobody ever has to know that a gay person is gay. So why do we choose to "flaunt" it? Why wear that t-shirt that says "I'm not gay, but my boyfriend is"?
The answer is simple; we do it for the same reason some Southerners or NASCAR fans fly a Confederate flag. We do it for the same reason that you put a "My kid is an honor student" bumper sticker on your mini-van or that high school kid wears a shirt featuring his favorite band. We do it for reasons not unlike the one someone puts a "Vietnam Veteran" license plate on their car. We're proud of who we are and you need to know it.
All human beings fight a constant paradox; we desire both to be unique individuals and to belong. As such, we choose to identify ourselves with labels and indicators of our characteristics, personalities, and/or preferences that people might not otherwise know about us. We identify ourselves in order to serve our warring needs. Gay people also do it because you need to realize that we're sitting right next to you. We do it because you need to know we are your son, daughter, neighbor, brother, sister, mother, father, co-worker, boss, cashier, teacher, church pew sharer. We do it because we're here, we're queer, and, by God, you're not used to it by now?
If you don't want us putting our gayness in your face, then don't put your Confederate flag, Mary Kay lapel pin, favorite sports team banner, Shriner order, or kid's perfect attendance in ours. Don't want us to talk about being gay? Stop talking about being heterosexual then; you know, how great your girl/boyfriend, husband/wife is, how little Johnny/Suzie did the cutest thing one year after he/she popped out from between yoru legs, or what a beautiful wedding your best friend just had despite the trouble with the caterer.
The thing is that we aren't asking you to stop talking about these things. And despite my internal monologue, I wouldn't suggest we ban individuals from displaying a Confederate flag. All we are asking is to be included in on the conversation; to be allowed to share every part of ourselves that we choose to share just as you do. All we're really doing is, like the people who display a Confederate flag, letting you know what we like way down south.
Monday, May 24, 2004
A Gay Old Time in Seattle
I just returned from Seattle, where I was attending an educational conference. During my stay I was able to explore a little of the downtown area. Last year I was in nearby Olympia, Washington and had very little time to see downtown Seattle, but I fell in love with it anyway. The people were friendly and relaxed and the weather happened to be beautiful and warm. (This year the weather ranged from chilly to warm, with sunshine and rain sharing time.) Although Seattle suffers somewhat from having the same chain-stores that every other major city has (Gap, Macys, etc.), you can easily escape the corporate businesses for a slice of Seattle life and local ownership. Starbucks are much more prolific than churches in the South; you can find one every few feet, even in the community neighborhoods, but they don't overwhelm it.
One of my favorite aspects of Seattle is that the gay population is evident. Actually, a totally remarkable aspect of Seattle is, as a colleague put it, the crazy homeless black man walks right beside the professional upper-class white woman and she doesn't clutch her purse. Seattle is home to a true diversity of people and everybody seems quite ok with the arrangement. The only required fashion statement seems to be a backpack.
But, as I said, the gay community is out and evident in every part of the city. Having lived in or near Atlanta for several years, I'm used to seeing gays heavily populating a city. Charlotte, NC, where I live now, has a small but proud gay population that isn't very evident. Gay sightings here tend to be limited to Targets, Garden Ridge, and grocery stores (surprise, surprise). Even then, you need to be fmaily or have well developed 'dar to usually recognize these queers. In Seattle, it's much different than even Atlanta. I saw more gay couples holding hands walking down the street, and not just in the "gay section" of downtown, than I did straight people. And nobody gave them funny stares; no heads turned, no whispering lips.
I obtained a map of "gay Seattle" from a Seattle gay bookstore, Beyond The Closet, a nice little bookstore with some great deals. So, using the map, I set off in search of said bookstore, as well as another bookstore on the map. Mostly, I just wanted to see the gaytto .
My search took me up a steep hill on Pike street (a fairly fitting name for a street leading into the gay area of town) which brought me first to the Seattle Eagle, a leather bar. I probably would have passed on by it without even noticing it has it not been for a large crowd gathered outside, and a police contingent. Not wanting to pass through what I thought was a fight, I started to cross over the street until I saw another crowd. The crowd that stopped my crossing held signs that said "God hates fags" and "Thank God for 9/11" (I'm not sure what that had to do with God hating fags; I guess we died too in the Towers.) Looked like the Fred Phelps gang was in town. I chose to stay on my side of the street and passed through, what I then realized were, the Eagle patrons angrily shouting back. Nobody was accomplishing anything, but it made for an interesting welcome committee.
I found Beyond the Closet and made a few purchases. I continued on into a lesbian sex toy shop (Toys in Babeland). I didn't stay long; I didn't want to be evicted by a lesbian, but who could resist a window display of dozens of dildos waving at you? I peeked in some other local vendors and made my way to a couple other bookstores. The sun came out and the day seemed about perfect as I walked amid locals eating or drinking outside by alternative shops and cafes that nobody else has ever heard of (no Starbucks here although still plenty of coffee shops).
My gay adventure didn't quite end there. On the plane trip home, a woman in her late 50's/early 60's easily sat beside me, her husband on the other side. She sat without speaking a word. I was reading Fast Food Nation and wearing an Evergreen College t-shirt (which has a rather phallic looking clam on it, their mascot the Geoduck) so I don't know if my apparent liberalism discouraged her from speaking. Her husband sat on her other side. She wore numerous gold braclets on each arm and large gold earrings. She smelled faintly of that heavy sweet parfume smell older women smell like no matter what time of day it is.
She pulled out a workbook, "When Godly People do Ungodly Things: Arming Yourself in the Age of Seduction." A little checking on Amazon reveals this to be a book; this woman was clearly working on the companion reader's supplement. "Week One"'s course of the study included "Background on Satan" and Day Three:"Sexual Orientation Bondage."
Oh boy. The truly perverse side of me wanted to lean over and demand to see Chapter Three. The question, "Oh, are you into bondage too? Guys in chaps are hot, huh?" wanted to slip past my lips. I demured instead, hoping that if she happened to strike up a conversation that I would find myself with an opportunity to articulate a reasonable and sensitive perspective this woman was undoubtably unfamiliar with. She never said a word the whole time. In silent (or not so silent, I can't tell how loud my earbuds are to others) protest, I listened to the cast recording of Naked Boys singing on my ipod.
One of my favorite aspects of Seattle is that the gay population is evident. Actually, a totally remarkable aspect of Seattle is, as a colleague put it, the crazy homeless black man walks right beside the professional upper-class white woman and she doesn't clutch her purse. Seattle is home to a true diversity of people and everybody seems quite ok with the arrangement. The only required fashion statement seems to be a backpack.
But, as I said, the gay community is out and evident in every part of the city. Having lived in or near Atlanta for several years, I'm used to seeing gays heavily populating a city. Charlotte, NC, where I live now, has a small but proud gay population that isn't very evident. Gay sightings here tend to be limited to Targets, Garden Ridge, and grocery stores (surprise, surprise). Even then, you need to be fmaily or have well developed 'dar to usually recognize these queers. In Seattle, it's much different than even Atlanta. I saw more gay couples holding hands walking down the street, and not just in the "gay section" of downtown, than I did straight people. And nobody gave them funny stares; no heads turned, no whispering lips.
I obtained a map of "gay Seattle" from a Seattle gay bookstore, Beyond The Closet, a nice little bookstore with some great deals. So, using the map, I set off in search of said bookstore, as well as another bookstore on the map. Mostly, I just wanted to see the gaytto .
My search took me up a steep hill on Pike street (a fairly fitting name for a street leading into the gay area of town) which brought me first to the Seattle Eagle, a leather bar. I probably would have passed on by it without even noticing it has it not been for a large crowd gathered outside, and a police contingent. Not wanting to pass through what I thought was a fight, I started to cross over the street until I saw another crowd. The crowd that stopped my crossing held signs that said "God hates fags" and "Thank God for 9/11" (I'm not sure what that had to do with God hating fags; I guess we died too in the Towers.) Looked like the Fred Phelps gang was in town. I chose to stay on my side of the street and passed through, what I then realized were, the Eagle patrons angrily shouting back. Nobody was accomplishing anything, but it made for an interesting welcome committee.
I found Beyond the Closet and made a few purchases. I continued on into a lesbian sex toy shop (Toys in Babeland). I didn't stay long; I didn't want to be evicted by a lesbian, but who could resist a window display of dozens of dildos waving at you? I peeked in some other local vendors and made my way to a couple other bookstores. The sun came out and the day seemed about perfect as I walked amid locals eating or drinking outside by alternative shops and cafes that nobody else has ever heard of (no Starbucks here although still plenty of coffee shops).
My gay adventure didn't quite end there. On the plane trip home, a woman in her late 50's/early 60's easily sat beside me, her husband on the other side. She sat without speaking a word. I was reading Fast Food Nation and wearing an Evergreen College t-shirt (which has a rather phallic looking clam on it, their mascot the Geoduck) so I don't know if my apparent liberalism discouraged her from speaking. Her husband sat on her other side. She wore numerous gold braclets on each arm and large gold earrings. She smelled faintly of that heavy sweet parfume smell older women smell like no matter what time of day it is.
She pulled out a workbook, "When Godly People do Ungodly Things: Arming Yourself in the Age of Seduction." A little checking on Amazon reveals this to be a book; this woman was clearly working on the companion reader's supplement. "Week One"'s course of the study included "Background on Satan" and Day Three:"Sexual Orientation Bondage."
Oh boy. The truly perverse side of me wanted to lean over and demand to see Chapter Three. The question, "Oh, are you into bondage too? Guys in chaps are hot, huh?" wanted to slip past my lips. I demured instead, hoping that if she happened to strike up a conversation that I would find myself with an opportunity to articulate a reasonable and sensitive perspective this woman was undoubtably unfamiliar with. She never said a word the whole time. In silent (or not so silent, I can't tell how loud my earbuds are to others) protest, I listened to the cast recording of Naked Boys singing on my ipod.
Wednesday, May 19, 2004
Your Honor, I Present Exhibit A in the Case for the Gay Agenda
GAY MILITIA STORMS CHRISTIAN MEETING
Bandanna-wearing lesbians stormed the national convention of the Concerned Christian Coalition April 17 in Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Seven women and one man burst into the conclave at the Coast Plaza Hotel, screaming, "Right-wing bigots go away, Gay Militia is here to stay."
According to the Calgary Sun, convention attendees held hands and prayed as the protesters unfurled a banner reading, "Liberation: Queer Invasion."
Police are reviewing tapes of the intrusion and may charge militia members with mischief or with disturbing a peaceful assembly, said Calgary police Constable Doug Jones.
******************** (news from Rex Wockner (where else do I get this stuff?))******************
People, please, do we really have to give people a reason to fear and hate us? Are people just not paranoid enough for you? What gives? Despite this completely irresponsible and banal act, I can't help but find a touch of humor that it was a group comprised solely of lesbians. Which isn't all that surprising because fatigues just are much too drab, dearie, for any self-respecting gay man to be seen in them.
Now if they'd just worn black, then it'd be kind of a Hefner thing. It says "I can fight all day in the jungle and in the evening, come in, put on some pearls and I'm ready for dinner." (with apologies to Robin Williams).
Bandanna-wearing lesbians stormed the national convention of the Concerned Christian Coalition April 17 in Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Seven women and one man burst into the conclave at the Coast Plaza Hotel, screaming, "Right-wing bigots go away, Gay Militia is here to stay."
According to the Calgary Sun, convention attendees held hands and prayed as the protesters unfurled a banner reading, "Liberation: Queer Invasion."
Police are reviewing tapes of the intrusion and may charge militia members with mischief or with disturbing a peaceful assembly, said Calgary police Constable Doug Jones.
******************** (news from Rex Wockner (where else do I get this stuff?))******************
People, please, do we really have to give people a reason to fear and hate us? Are people just not paranoid enough for you? What gives? Despite this completely irresponsible and banal act, I can't help but find a touch of humor that it was a group comprised solely of lesbians. Which isn't all that surprising because fatigues just are much too drab, dearie, for any self-respecting gay man to be seen in them.
Now if they'd just worn black, then it'd be kind of a Hefner thing. It says "I can fight all day in the jungle and in the evening, come in, put on some pearls and I'm ready for dinner." (with apologies to Robin Williams).
While the Rest of the World Moves Forward...
I'm suddenly having flashbacks to Kermit the Frog as the Sesame Street newsreporter, so "Hi Ho Everybody"..
**FLASH**
Spanish Prime Minister José Luis RodrÃguez Zapatero promised to legalize same-sex marriage during an April 15 speech to Parliament.
**THIS JUST IN**
The mayor of Bègles, France, plans to perform a same-sex marriage in June. Bègles is a suburb of Bordeaux.
There's nothing in French law to prohibit the marriage, Noël Mamère says, and gays should have full equal rights.
**BREAKING NEWS**
The commission reviewing Portugal's Constitution approved adding a ban on discrimination based on sexual orientation April 23.
"Portugal is now one of the few countries in the world that include nondiscrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in the fundamental law of the nation," said João Paulo, editor of the Web site PortugalGay.PT.
Other nations that ban antigay discrimination constitutionally include Canada, Ecuador, South Africa, Switzerland and, possibly, Fiji
(news from Rex Wockner)
**AND NOW FOR SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT**
The Virginia legislature recently passed House Bill 751, which states:
"A BILL to amend the Code of Virginia by adding a section numbered 20-45.3, relating to the Affirmation of Marriage Act for the Commonwealth of Virginia.
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia:
1. § 20-45.3. Civil unions between persons of same sex.
A civil union, partnership contract or other arrangement between persons of the same sex purporting to bestow the privileges or obligations of marriage is prohibited. Any such civil union, partnership contract or other arrangement entered into by persons of the same sex in another state or jurisdiction shall be void in all respects in Virginia and any contractual rights created thereby shall be void and unenforceable."
You can read the law for yourself here.
What's so shocking about this bill is that it goes so far as to nullify any kind of legal arrangement including medical power of attorney or wills, even health insurance from domestic partner benefits at your workplace. Not merely satisfied to prohibit us from entering into marriage or trying to compromise with a civil union, Virginia leaps back in time (well perhaps Virginia didn't have to do so much leaping in the first place; go visit Gay American's blog on his encounter with Virginia's PR department) to strip any kind of legal benefit we might have.
What the hell is wrong with people? Why am I so frightening because I want to have a few basic protections for my partner and me. Why does my existance as a law-abiding, productive citizen (and hell I'm a Protestant white male even) provoke such hatred, evil, and maliciousness? Other have said it and I've repeated it here, but marriage is the most conservative demand/request in the world. The other major world powers see us as people worthy of dignity, rights, and respect, why do so many of my fellow Americans fail to rise to this level? We're a nation founded on bestowing proper rights, liberties, and responsibilities on people; we've struggled with it for centuries to grant it to all citizens. Why haven't we learned our lesson?
**FLASH**
Spanish Prime Minister José Luis RodrÃguez Zapatero promised to legalize same-sex marriage during an April 15 speech to Parliament.
**THIS JUST IN**
The mayor of Bègles, France, plans to perform a same-sex marriage in June. Bègles is a suburb of Bordeaux.
There's nothing in French law to prohibit the marriage, Noël Mamère says, and gays should have full equal rights.
**BREAKING NEWS**
The commission reviewing Portugal's Constitution approved adding a ban on discrimination based on sexual orientation April 23.
"Portugal is now one of the few countries in the world that include nondiscrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in the fundamental law of the nation," said João Paulo, editor of the Web site PortugalGay.PT.
Other nations that ban antigay discrimination constitutionally include Canada, Ecuador, South Africa, Switzerland and, possibly, Fiji
(news from Rex Wockner)
**AND NOW FOR SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT**
The Virginia legislature recently passed House Bill 751, which states:
"A BILL to amend the Code of Virginia by adding a section numbered 20-45.3, relating to the Affirmation of Marriage Act for the Commonwealth of Virginia.
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia:
1. § 20-45.3. Civil unions between persons of same sex.
A civil union, partnership contract or other arrangement between persons of the same sex purporting to bestow the privileges or obligations of marriage is prohibited. Any such civil union, partnership contract or other arrangement entered into by persons of the same sex in another state or jurisdiction shall be void in all respects in Virginia and any contractual rights created thereby shall be void and unenforceable."
You can read the law for yourself here.
What's so shocking about this bill is that it goes so far as to nullify any kind of legal arrangement including medical power of attorney or wills, even health insurance from domestic partner benefits at your workplace. Not merely satisfied to prohibit us from entering into marriage or trying to compromise with a civil union, Virginia leaps back in time (well perhaps Virginia didn't have to do so much leaping in the first place; go visit Gay American's blog on his encounter with Virginia's PR department) to strip any kind of legal benefit we might have.
What the hell is wrong with people? Why am I so frightening because I want to have a few basic protections for my partner and me. Why does my existance as a law-abiding, productive citizen (and hell I'm a Protestant white male even) provoke such hatred, evil, and maliciousness? Other have said it and I've repeated it here, but marriage is the most conservative demand/request in the world. The other major world powers see us as people worthy of dignity, rights, and respect, why do so many of my fellow Americans fail to rise to this level? We're a nation founded on bestowing proper rights, liberties, and responsibilities on people; we've struggled with it for centuries to grant it to all citizens. Why haven't we learned our lesson?
Transsexuals Cleared for Olympics
Back in November, it was reported that the IOC was going to allow transsexuals to compete in the Olympics and now it seems to have become reality. What a wonderful historic moment, seems we're having lots of those lately.
The following is from ESPN.com and called to my attention by my friend and OBSW, Countess, since she knows I don't pay any attention to sports news.
Athletes who have had sex change now eligible
Associated Press
LAUSANNE, Switzerland -- Transsexuals were cleared Monday to compete in the Olympics for the first time. Under a proposal approved by the IOC executive board, athletes who have undergone sex-change surgery will be eligible for the Olympics if their new gender has been legally recognized and they have gone through a minimum two-year period of postoperative hormone therapy. The decision, which covers both male-to-female and female-to-male cases, goes into effect starting with the Athens Olympics in August. The IOC had put off a decision in February, saying more time was needed to consider all the medical issues. Some members had been concerned whether male-to-female transsexuals would have physical advantages competing against women. Men have higher levels of testosterone and greater muscle-to-fat ratio and heart and lung capacity. However, doctors say, testosterone levels and muscle mass drop after hormone therapy and sex-change surgery. IOC spokeswoman Giselle Davies said the situation of transsexuals competing in high-level sports was "rare but becoming more common." IOC medical director Patrick Schamasch said no specific sports had been singled out by the ruling. "Any sport may be
touched by this problem," he said. "Until now, we didn't have any rules or regulations. We needed to establish some sort of policy." Until 1999, the IOC conducted gender verification tests at the Olympics but the screenings were dropped before the 2000 Sydney Games. One of the best known cases of transsexuals in sports involves Renee Richards, formerly Richard Raskind, who played on the women's tennis tour in the 1970s. In March, Australia's Mianne Bagger became the first transsexual to play in a pro golf tournament.
Michelle Dumaresq, formerly Michael, has competed in mountain bike racing for Canada. Richards, now a New York opthamologist, was surprised by the IOC decision and was against it. She said decisions on transsexuals should be made on an individual basis. "Basically, I think they're making a wrong judgment here, although I would have loved to have that judgment made in my case in 1976," she said. "They're probably looking for trouble down the line. There may be a true transsexual -- not someone who's nuts and wants to make money -- who will be a very good champion player, and it will be a
young person, let's say a Jimmy Connors or a Tiger Woods, and then they'll have an unequal playing field. "In some sports, the physical superiority of men over women is very significant."
The following is from ESPN.com and called to my attention by my friend and OBSW, Countess, since she knows I don't pay any attention to sports news.
Athletes who have had sex change now eligible
Associated Press
LAUSANNE, Switzerland -- Transsexuals were cleared Monday to compete in the Olympics for the first time. Under a proposal approved by the IOC executive board, athletes who have undergone sex-change surgery will be eligible for the Olympics if their new gender has been legally recognized and they have gone through a minimum two-year period of postoperative hormone therapy. The decision, which covers both male-to-female and female-to-male cases, goes into effect starting with the Athens Olympics in August. The IOC had put off a decision in February, saying more time was needed to consider all the medical issues. Some members had been concerned whether male-to-female transsexuals would have physical advantages competing against women. Men have higher levels of testosterone and greater muscle-to-fat ratio and heart and lung capacity. However, doctors say, testosterone levels and muscle mass drop after hormone therapy and sex-change surgery. IOC spokeswoman Giselle Davies said the situation of transsexuals competing in high-level sports was "rare but becoming more common." IOC medical director Patrick Schamasch said no specific sports had been singled out by the ruling. "Any sport may be
touched by this problem," he said. "Until now, we didn't have any rules or regulations. We needed to establish some sort of policy." Until 1999, the IOC conducted gender verification tests at the Olympics but the screenings were dropped before the 2000 Sydney Games. One of the best known cases of transsexuals in sports involves Renee Richards, formerly Richard Raskind, who played on the women's tennis tour in the 1970s. In March, Australia's Mianne Bagger became the first transsexual to play in a pro golf tournament.
Michelle Dumaresq, formerly Michael, has competed in mountain bike racing for Canada. Richards, now a New York opthamologist, was surprised by the IOC decision and was against it. She said decisions on transsexuals should be made on an individual basis. "Basically, I think they're making a wrong judgment here, although I would have loved to have that judgment made in my case in 1976," she said. "They're probably looking for trouble down the line. There may be a true transsexual -- not someone who's nuts and wants to make money -- who will be a very good champion player, and it will be a
young person, let's say a Jimmy Connors or a Tiger Woods, and then they'll have an unequal playing field. "In some sports, the physical superiority of men over women is very significant."
Monday, May 17, 2004
You Haven't Got a Prayer
I fully believe in praying for our nation's leaders. They can use all the help they can get. We can only benefit as citizens by God doing some intervention with the current administration. In this noble pursuit, an organizaiton has been formed, The Presidential Prayer Team. So, on the face of things, the PPT seems like a very noble and wise idea. Instead, unfortunately, while it does have an Adopt-a-Troop program (and hey, you can get your very own PPT dogtag for a minimal donation), it serves as a facade for the Relgious Right.
Rather than just putting forth issues that the President and his administration could use guidance on, and asking God to lead them to the right conclusion, the PPT presupposes what the answer should be. They ask God, much like lawyers ask a judge, to bring our leaders to the proper predetermined outcome.
The PPT has requested that we: "Pray for the President as he seeks wisdom on how to legally codify the definition of marriage. Pray that it will be according to Biblical principles. With any forces insisting on variant definitions of marriage, pray that God's Word and His standards will be honored by our government."
Futhermore, the PPT has The Presidential Prayer Team has since October 2003 urged members to "pray for the President as he seeks wisdom on how to legally codify the definition of marriage. Pray that it will be according to Biblical principles."
Also, on March 25, 2004, they asked members to "pray for the ongoing effort to strengthen our nation by creating and passing a constitutional amendment codifying marriage as being only between a man and a woman. Pray that godly values will be honored."
They even put up a picture in the October edition of a cute young white couple to remind us what American marriage is all about. Nonetheless, as my partner, Peter, pointed out, "any good religious person believes prayer should be balanced by action."
Therefore, I present to you the new PPT (Peter's Prayer Team) and its revised goals in
support of a proposed Constitutional Amendment codifying marriage entirely on Biblical principles:
A. Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5.)
B. Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines in addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21)
C. A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deut 22:13-21)
D. Marriage between a believer and a nonbeliever shall be forbidden. (Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30)
E. Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any State, nor any state or federal law, shall be construed to permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9)
F. If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law. (Gen. 38:6-10; Deut25:5-10)
G. Divorced people may not remarry without being considered adulterers. (Math. 5:31-32) (Mark 10:4) Adulterers shall be stoned to death. (Lev. 20:10)
Rather than just putting forth issues that the President and his administration could use guidance on, and asking God to lead them to the right conclusion, the PPT presupposes what the answer should be. They ask God, much like lawyers ask a judge, to bring our leaders to the proper predetermined outcome.
The PPT has requested that we: "Pray for the President as he seeks wisdom on how to legally codify the definition of marriage. Pray that it will be according to Biblical principles. With any forces insisting on variant definitions of marriage, pray that God's Word and His standards will be honored by our government."
Futhermore, the PPT has The Presidential Prayer Team has since October 2003 urged members to "pray for the President as he seeks wisdom on how to legally codify the definition of marriage. Pray that it will be according to Biblical principles."
Also, on March 25, 2004, they asked members to "pray for the ongoing effort to strengthen our nation by creating and passing a constitutional amendment codifying marriage as being only between a man and a woman. Pray that godly values will be honored."
They even put up a picture in the October edition of a cute young white couple to remind us what American marriage is all about. Nonetheless, as my partner, Peter, pointed out, "any good religious person believes prayer should be balanced by action."
Therefore, I present to you the new PPT (Peter's Prayer Team) and its revised goals in
support of a proposed Constitutional Amendment codifying marriage entirely on Biblical principles:
A. Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5.)
B. Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines in addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21)
C. A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deut 22:13-21)
D. Marriage between a believer and a nonbeliever shall be forbidden. (Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30)
E. Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any State, nor any state or federal law, shall be construed to permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9)
F. If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law. (Gen. 38:6-10; Deut25:5-10)
G. Divorced people may not remarry without being considered adulterers. (Math. 5:31-32) (Mark 10:4) Adulterers shall be stoned to death. (Lev. 20:10)
Who Invited Him?
Many of the couples in my life who got married had to decide on a critical factor of the wedding: must they invite that one strange or obnoxious relative that they really don't want there, but feel obligated to invite because he/she is family? In at least two of the weddings I can recall, the unwelcome, but still invited guest was an alcoholic who could have disrupted the solemn proceedings and/or caused a scene at some point in the ceremony or celebration following. Fortunately, none of these fears came to pass.
So why must Uncle George make a scene at one of the happiest day for gay Americans and certainly the most monumental one since Stonewall, if not ever?
According to journalist Rex Wockner, our esteemed (and frankly uninvited) President took time out to wish the newly married couples well:
"The sacred institution of marriage should not be redefined by a few
activist judges... I called on the Congress to pass...an amendment to our Constitution defining and protectingmarriage as a union of a man and a woman as husband and wife. The need for that amendment is still urgent, and I repeat that call today."
Wockner reports that Uncle G.D. made this comment while travelling to commemorate "the 50th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision that ended racial segregation in schools." Wockner rightly points to the irony of the situation, or, as Dubya would say, it's ironical.
Not to be outdone by noisy Uncle George, not-so-much Friend of the Family James Dobson proclaimed this day as the moment when "we will look back 20, 30, 50 years from now and recall this day as the day..[when]the documents being issued.. [that] may say 'marriage license' at the top...are really death certificates for the institution [of marriage]."
And again I get to ask how allowing people such as Paul McMahon, 71, and Ralph Hogdon, 69, life partners for 49 years, sounds the death kneel for a sacred institution. Are these people concerned that we might have longer lasting marriages? If queers start lowering the divorce rate, then I guess we really have flouted the institution of marriage. We will have wrecked the institution of 50% divorce rate. If our marriages start lasting, on average, longer than hetereosexual marriages, I guess we will have made a mockery out of their lack of commitment.
In the end, however, the point of all of this is to wish the couples getting married today the best of luck and love. I hope this is the start of something even more wonderful for them and the rest of us. As for Uncle Dubya and neighbor Dobson, who put their names on the guest list? Never mind, hand me that bouquet, I know a perfect receptacle for it.
So why must Uncle George make a scene at one of the happiest day for gay Americans and certainly the most monumental one since Stonewall, if not ever?
According to journalist Rex Wockner, our esteemed (and frankly uninvited) President took time out to wish the newly married couples well:
"The sacred institution of marriage should not be redefined by a few
activist judges... I called on the Congress to pass...an amendment to our Constitution defining and protectingmarriage as a union of a man and a woman as husband and wife. The need for that amendment is still urgent, and I repeat that call today."
Wockner reports that Uncle G.D. made this comment while travelling to commemorate "the 50th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision that ended racial segregation in schools." Wockner rightly points to the irony of the situation, or, as Dubya would say, it's ironical.
Not to be outdone by noisy Uncle George, not-so-much Friend of the Family James Dobson proclaimed this day as the moment when "we will look back 20, 30, 50 years from now and recall this day as the day..[when]the documents being issued.. [that] may say 'marriage license' at the top...are really death certificates for the institution [of marriage]."
And again I get to ask how allowing people such as Paul McMahon, 71, and Ralph Hogdon, 69, life partners for 49 years, sounds the death kneel for a sacred institution. Are these people concerned that we might have longer lasting marriages? If queers start lowering the divorce rate, then I guess we really have flouted the institution of marriage. We will have wrecked the institution of 50% divorce rate. If our marriages start lasting, on average, longer than hetereosexual marriages, I guess we will have made a mockery out of their lack of commitment.
In the end, however, the point of all of this is to wish the couples getting married today the best of luck and love. I hope this is the start of something even more wonderful for them and the rest of us. As for Uncle Dubya and neighbor Dobson, who put their names on the guest list? Never mind, hand me that bouquet, I know a perfect receptacle for it.
Sunday, May 16, 2004
If this is all we have left to complain about...
First, I'd like to say my term has been co-opted by the more famous; designer Isaac Mizrahi has obviously been sneaking a peek at my blog and found the term "gay face." If he'd only have given me credit, I wouldn't mind so much. Nonetheless, he makes an interesting point that minorities may have to have this transitionary period before acceptance, as he applies the term to the non-sexual, non-threatening, fairy godfathers of "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy."
Additionally, he also made the observation that "it is crazy to think that just because you are gay you have a great sense of style." Meanwhile, National Gay & Lesbian Task Force Executive Director Matt Foreman complained that "People [who watch TV] believe we are all single, rich white males ...and are all good at interior decorating. We need a more realistic portrayal of our lives." Really people, if this is how we're viewed nowadays, is it that bad? They could view us as insidious whore mongerers out to destroy Christianity, heterosexuality, western civilization, the sanctity of marriage, and boring wedding parties. Oh wait...
Additionally, he also made the observation that "it is crazy to think that just because you are gay you have a great sense of style." Meanwhile, National Gay & Lesbian Task Force Executive Director Matt Foreman complained that "People [who watch TV] believe we are all single, rich white males ...and are all good at interior decorating. We need a more realistic portrayal of our lives." Really people, if this is how we're viewed nowadays, is it that bad? They could view us as insidious whore mongerers out to destroy Christianity, heterosexuality, western civilization, the sanctity of marriage, and boring wedding parties. Oh wait...
You say to-may-to, I say to-mah-to
Rex Wockner reports that during an interview with MTV, Presidential candidate John Kerry said:
"My feeling is that what is important is equal protection under the law. An equal-protection clause, I think, pertains to the rights you give to people, not to the name you give to something, so I'm for civil unions. That gives people the rights: the rights of partnership, the rights of inheritance of property, the rights of taxation and so forth. But I think there is a distinction between what we have traditionally called
'marriage' between a man and a woman and those rights. ... I believe very strongly that we can advance the cause of equality by moving toward civil unions. But that's where my position is at this point in time.
What is distinct is the institutional name. Whatever people look at as the sacrament within a church or within a synagogue or within a mosque as a religious institution, there is a distinction. The civil state really just adopted that. It's the rights that are important, not the name of the institution."
Okay, so why not just call it marriage again? I'm not sure who exactly is indicted by this statement. Is this a sad reflection our social climate, where a candidate who is, for all intents and purposes, in favor of a civil arrangement that is equal to marriage in every way, forced to call it by a different name? Or does this reflect poorly on Senator Kerry? If he's in favor of gay marriage, which it sounds like he is, shouldn't he just have the courage to admit it and call it what it is? The answer is probably both. Mr. Kerry can't hope to win if he comes out in favor of gay marriage, but dancing around the issue and coming up with a "separate but equal" plan is laughable. We all know how well "separate but equal" worked. Still, while complete candor would be welcome, civil unions could be a good transistory step on our way to federally recognized full-blown gay marriage.
Although, with gay marriage set to happen in mere hours in Massachusetts, who really needs a transition? If Senator Kerry is proposing, however, that the government shouldn't be in the business of marriage at all, but rather leaving the sticky issue of marriage to religious institutions and creating civil unions, I'd find that pleasantly refreshing. This idea certainly isn't new, but, as far as I'm aware, this could be the first time a major political figure has suggested it (if that is what he is doing). If everyone is given a civil union in the eyes of the government, that certainly seems fair play all around. And then you have the option of joining a religious organization that supports the type of marriage you personally believe in. Sounds like everybody wins, no matter how you spell it.
"My feeling is that what is important is equal protection under the law. An equal-protection clause, I think, pertains to the rights you give to people, not to the name you give to something, so I'm for civil unions. That gives people the rights: the rights of partnership, the rights of inheritance of property, the rights of taxation and so forth. But I think there is a distinction between what we have traditionally called
'marriage' between a man and a woman and those rights. ... I believe very strongly that we can advance the cause of equality by moving toward civil unions. But that's where my position is at this point in time.
What is distinct is the institutional name. Whatever people look at as the sacrament within a church or within a synagogue or within a mosque as a religious institution, there is a distinction. The civil state really just adopted that. It's the rights that are important, not the name of the institution."
Okay, so why not just call it marriage again? I'm not sure who exactly is indicted by this statement. Is this a sad reflection our social climate, where a candidate who is, for all intents and purposes, in favor of a civil arrangement that is equal to marriage in every way, forced to call it by a different name? Or does this reflect poorly on Senator Kerry? If he's in favor of gay marriage, which it sounds like he is, shouldn't he just have the courage to admit it and call it what it is? The answer is probably both. Mr. Kerry can't hope to win if he comes out in favor of gay marriage, but dancing around the issue and coming up with a "separate but equal" plan is laughable. We all know how well "separate but equal" worked. Still, while complete candor would be welcome, civil unions could be a good transistory step on our way to federally recognized full-blown gay marriage.
Although, with gay marriage set to happen in mere hours in Massachusetts, who really needs a transition? If Senator Kerry is proposing, however, that the government shouldn't be in the business of marriage at all, but rather leaving the sticky issue of marriage to religious institutions and creating civil unions, I'd find that pleasantly refreshing. This idea certainly isn't new, but, as far as I'm aware, this could be the first time a major political figure has suggested it (if that is what he is doing). If everyone is given a civil union in the eyes of the government, that certainly seems fair play all around. And then you have the option of joining a religious organization that supports the type of marriage you personally believe in. Sounds like everybody wins, no matter how you spell it.
Thursday, May 13, 2004
They haven't closed off the borders to Gaston yet?
Good grief, I knew it was coming, but you still hold out hope. Still, it's not like moving from Georgia to North Carolina made a huge difference, since Georgia has introduced it's own constitutional amendment. Still, I don't think I hear of most of these proposed amendments trying to bar all forms of recognition for same-sex unions. That's just particularly thick icing on this devil's food cake.
I'm afraid that this will pass, however. North Carolina seems even more conservative than most of the Deep South, given that it's home to Billy Graham and much of the regional evangelicism, including the long-defunct Heritage USA. And given that the turnaround time for this amendment process is so quick, there is no time to show the gentle God-fearing populace of North Carolina that gay marriage won't bring about the next Soddom and Gamorrah. I'm still confused as to why a conservative request for marriage is more threatening and evil than gay people who choose to whore around and abuse drugs?
According to Equality NC, a statewide organization that advocates equal rights
and justice for North Carolina's lesbian, gay, bisexual and
transgender community:
Sen. Jim Forrester (R-Gaston), the newly-chosen Senate Minority
Leader, has filed a bill that seeks to amend the North Carolina
Constitution to discriminate against the lesbian, gay, bisexual and
transgender community.
North Carolina already discriminates against same sex couples by
denying us the right to marry, but Sen. Forrester's bill would
elevate that discrimination to the Constitutional level,' said Ed
Farthing, Executive Director/Development. 'The bill also seeks to
deny recognition of same-sex domestic partnerships, civil unions, or
other similar relationships recognized in other states.'
In order to become part of the Constitution, the amendment would
need to pass the North Carolina House and Senate by a three-fifths
margin; the amendment would then be placed before the voters on the
November ballot, where a simple majority is required for passage.
I'm afraid that this will pass, however. North Carolina seems even more conservative than most of the Deep South, given that it's home to Billy Graham and much of the regional evangelicism, including the long-defunct Heritage USA. And given that the turnaround time for this amendment process is so quick, there is no time to show the gentle God-fearing populace of North Carolina that gay marriage won't bring about the next Soddom and Gamorrah. I'm still confused as to why a conservative request for marriage is more threatening and evil than gay people who choose to whore around and abuse drugs?
According to Equality NC, a statewide organization that advocates equal rights
and justice for North Carolina's lesbian, gay, bisexual and
transgender community:
Sen. Jim Forrester (R-Gaston), the newly-chosen Senate Minority
Leader, has filed a bill that seeks to amend the North Carolina
Constitution to discriminate against the lesbian, gay, bisexual and
transgender community.
North Carolina already discriminates against same sex couples by
denying us the right to marry, but Sen. Forrester's bill would
elevate that discrimination to the Constitutional level,' said Ed
Farthing, Executive Director/Development. 'The bill also seeks to
deny recognition of same-sex domestic partnerships, civil unions, or
other similar relationships recognized in other states.'
In order to become part of the Constitution, the amendment would
need to pass the North Carolina House and Senate by a three-fifths
margin; the amendment would then be placed before the voters on the
November ballot, where a simple majority is required for passage.
Sunday, May 09, 2004
I Will Survive
Tonight the progress and acceptance that gay people have made in mainstream culture was surprisingly and pleasantly highlighted during the live television finale of Survivor: All Stars . Host Jeff Probst was going around talking about love matches various All Star Survivors had made since being on the latest installment of the show that made reality television the phenomenon that it is today.
Some Survivors had connected with other Survivors (Amber and Boston Rob got engaged on the show tonight) and so Jeff was talking about other matches. He then brought up that since being voted off, Richard Hatch, the winner of the first Survivor, had found love during a cruise the show sent him on. Richard said he met a man in Argentina and they had been together ever since. I'm unsure, but it seemed as if the camera tried to pan to this man, but was unable to for some reason.
I was really struck that a gay romance was casually mentioned liked any of the straight romances and somewhat touted and celebrated on a major show on a major network. It was a nice touch and one the producers or Probst could have easily glossed over. I'm glad they had the courage not to do so. I'm glad America is finally becoming a country where we can express our love openly and freely.
Some Survivors had connected with other Survivors (Amber and Boston Rob got engaged on the show tonight) and so Jeff was talking about other matches. He then brought up that since being voted off, Richard Hatch, the winner of the first Survivor, had found love during a cruise the show sent him on. Richard said he met a man in Argentina and they had been together ever since. I'm unsure, but it seemed as if the camera tried to pan to this man, but was unable to for some reason.
I was really struck that a gay romance was casually mentioned liked any of the straight romances and somewhat touted and celebrated on a major show on a major network. It was a nice touch and one the producers or Probst could have easily glossed over. I'm glad they had the courage not to do so. I'm glad America is finally becoming a country where we can express our love openly and freely.
Saturday, May 08, 2004
What Does It Mean to Have Pride?
Last Saturday, May 1, Charlotte, North Carolina held Charlotte Pride exceptionally early. Going on downtown simultaneously was "Taste of Charlotte" an outdoor food festival where numerous restaurants and chefs from Charloote shared their wares for partiers. I'm not sure if there was an intentional connection, although certainly Pride is a very particular taste. A salty and slightly bitter one if I'm to understand correctly.
Charlotte has not had a Pride event for many years; in fact, this was the fourth annual Pride. The Charlotte community is to be commended for starting one up and having it be so successful. A nice aspect of Charlotte Pride was the holding of free educational seminars. I'm not sure how many Pride events have those, but I think it's a wonderful idea.
What was interesting to me, however, was mostly the conservative nature of the attendees. I'm not being critical, just stating an observation. I showed up in khaki shorts and a white t-shirt with an embroidered pride ribbon. I thought I was being very conservative myself, but found that almost nobody else was wearing any pridewear other than volunteers. No "I'm not gay, but my boyfriend is" t-shirts, no dykes on bikes, and a surprisingly low number of people who don't know when to keep their shirt on. There were three leather men strutting about, but that was about it for outrageous. Normally I would ranting about how the media only focuses on the most outlandish people who attend Pride, but none really existed.
So, as Pride season typically does, I began thinking about if Pride was needed any more and if Pride has value or serves a purpose. We've come a long way, baby; we're days away from the first full blown, legally recognized gay marriages. Sodomy can no longer be used as a legal means to discriminate against us or lock us up. Many major companies offer domestic partner benefits. Even the universities I have worked at in the South have domestic partner benefits, although being state institutions, they're limited to what the university itself provides, rather than the state (ergo, no insurance or medical/dental plans, etc.). So, really other than knocking down DOMA laws once and for all, what's left to do? And although I'm not a fan (nor am I necessarily an opponent of) the more outlandishly or skimpily dressed Pride participants, if we're all just walking around Pride in every day casual dress with nothing at all to identify us as lesbigay and proud (like even dressing the same as your partner), then what's the point?
The point is that I still think that Pride is a wonderful place to experience the diversity of the gay community. For people just coming out, or still in the closet, it's a wonderful opportunity to realize that, hey, there are people who are gay and like you or, hey, there are people gay and very different from me. For the non-gay person, it shows them that actually it's hard to stereotype us. You can't, for the most part, tell the gay people from the straight people at Pride except for who is kissing who (and that's not necessarily telling either). We're all different shapes and sizes, of various dispositions and personalities, of various levels of hirsuiteness, of diifferent tastes in clothes, of different faiths, of different ethinicities and different ideas of fun. Gay people are as hard to characterize as straight people. We're, well, we're all the colors of the rainbow. In other words, we're like everybody else: different. And I'm proud of that.
Charlotte has not had a Pride event for many years; in fact, this was the fourth annual Pride. The Charlotte community is to be commended for starting one up and having it be so successful. A nice aspect of Charlotte Pride was the holding of free educational seminars. I'm not sure how many Pride events have those, but I think it's a wonderful idea.
What was interesting to me, however, was mostly the conservative nature of the attendees. I'm not being critical, just stating an observation. I showed up in khaki shorts and a white t-shirt with an embroidered pride ribbon. I thought I was being very conservative myself, but found that almost nobody else was wearing any pridewear other than volunteers. No "I'm not gay, but my boyfriend is" t-shirts, no dykes on bikes, and a surprisingly low number of people who don't know when to keep their shirt on. There were three leather men strutting about, but that was about it for outrageous. Normally I would ranting about how the media only focuses on the most outlandish people who attend Pride, but none really existed.
So, as Pride season typically does, I began thinking about if Pride was needed any more and if Pride has value or serves a purpose. We've come a long way, baby; we're days away from the first full blown, legally recognized gay marriages. Sodomy can no longer be used as a legal means to discriminate against us or lock us up. Many major companies offer domestic partner benefits. Even the universities I have worked at in the South have domestic partner benefits, although being state institutions, they're limited to what the university itself provides, rather than the state (ergo, no insurance or medical/dental plans, etc.). So, really other than knocking down DOMA laws once and for all, what's left to do? And although I'm not a fan (nor am I necessarily an opponent of) the more outlandishly or skimpily dressed Pride participants, if we're all just walking around Pride in every day casual dress with nothing at all to identify us as lesbigay and proud (like even dressing the same as your partner), then what's the point?
The point is that I still think that Pride is a wonderful place to experience the diversity of the gay community. For people just coming out, or still in the closet, it's a wonderful opportunity to realize that, hey, there are people who are gay and like you or, hey, there are people gay and very different from me. For the non-gay person, it shows them that actually it's hard to stereotype us. You can't, for the most part, tell the gay people from the straight people at Pride except for who is kissing who (and that's not necessarily telling either). We're all different shapes and sizes, of various dispositions and personalities, of various levels of hirsuiteness, of diifferent tastes in clothes, of different faiths, of different ethinicities and different ideas of fun. Gay people are as hard to characterize as straight people. We're, well, we're all the colors of the rainbow. In other words, we're like everybody else: different. And I'm proud of that.
Quote-arama
Civil rights issues should not be put on the ballot. ... How is my
marriage under attack if two gays or lesbians down the street want to
make a lifelong commitment to themselves ... Love is bigger than
government. Government should not have the right to tell you who you
fall in love with and who you want to spend your life with. ... I don't
like it when I see human rights violated. ... We are not the Hetero
States of America. America should be inclusive, not separating."
--Former Minnesota Gov. Jesse Ventura speaking against the proposed
Massachusetts constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, in an
appearance at the Massachusetts Statehouse, March 22.
************
"Gay marriage is simply not a civil rights issue. It is not a struggle
for freedom. It is a struggle of already free people for complete
social
acceptance and the sense of normalcy that follows thereof -- a struggle
for the eradication of the homosexual stigma. Marriage is a goal
because, once open to gays, it would establish the fundamental
innocuousness of homosexuality itself. Marriage can say like nothing
else that sexual orientation is an utterly neutral human
characteristic,
like eye-color. Thus, it can go far in diffusing the homosexual
stigma."
--Shelby Steele writing in The Wall Street Journal, March 18.
*****************
"The fundamentalist Christians and the Catholic Church and the
Republicans and the Bob Jones University assholes and the Fox media
guys, they're not fun to hang around with. They're mean, and you can't
have a normal conversation with them. So why bother?"
--Queer As Folk's Hal Sparks (Michael) to The Advocate, March 30.
marriage under attack if two gays or lesbians down the street want to
make a lifelong commitment to themselves ... Love is bigger than
government. Government should not have the right to tell you who you
fall in love with and who you want to spend your life with. ... I don't
like it when I see human rights violated. ... We are not the Hetero
States of America. America should be inclusive, not separating."
--Former Minnesota Gov. Jesse Ventura speaking against the proposed
Massachusetts constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, in an
appearance at the Massachusetts Statehouse, March 22.
************
"Gay marriage is simply not a civil rights issue. It is not a struggle
for freedom. It is a struggle of already free people for complete
social
acceptance and the sense of normalcy that follows thereof -- a struggle
for the eradication of the homosexual stigma. Marriage is a goal
because, once open to gays, it would establish the fundamental
innocuousness of homosexuality itself. Marriage can say like nothing
else that sexual orientation is an utterly neutral human
characteristic,
like eye-color. Thus, it can go far in diffusing the homosexual
stigma."
--Shelby Steele writing in The Wall Street Journal, March 18.
*****************
"The fundamentalist Christians and the Catholic Church and the
Republicans and the Bob Jones University assholes and the Fox media
guys, they're not fun to hang around with. They're mean, and you can't
have a normal conversation with them. So why bother?"
--Queer As Folk's Hal Sparks (Michael) to The Advocate, March 30.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)