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.
Monday, May 24, 2004
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 Rodríguez 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 Rodríguez 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.
Tuesday, April 13, 2004
At Least Their Pockets Are Holier Than Thou
Anti-Gay Group Accused Of Cheating Own Lawyers
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: April 6, 2004 12:01 pm. ET
(Virginia Beach, Virginia) A law firm has asked a Virginia judge to seize the assets of the Christian Coalition to collect more than $75,000 in unpaid legal costs.
The firm of Huff, Poole and Mahoney says the coalition, one of the most vocal anti-gay organizations in the county, is seeking a garnishee of assets to pay bills that it says it is owed.
David M. Zobel, an attorney with the Virginia Beach firm, said the fees were from “a combination of several accounts owed on several files.” Zobel would not say if any of the unpaid work was dealing with gay issues.
The coalition has had an association with Huff, Poole and Mahoney since the conservative Christian organization was formed by Virginia Beach broadcaster Pat Robertson in 1989.
“It is unfortunate that it has come to this,” Drew McKissick , spokesperson for the Christian Coalition of America told the Virginian-Pilot newspaper.
“Our accountants have been working with the firm to work this out, and hopefully it will be worked out soon.”
The coalition reached the peak of its influence in 1994, when it was credited with playing a key role in the Newt Gingrich-led Republican Party’s takeover of Congress.
But three years later, its executive director, Ralph Reed, resigned. Currently he is a political consultant on the Campaign To Re-elect The President.
McKissick acknowledges the organization has had money problems. But he said things are looking up.
Since the gay marriage issue has been catapulted to national attention, McKissick said, more money has been coming in.
He said that the coalition is now emphasizing “voter identification, voter registration and voter education” in an all-out effort to support candidates that support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.
©365Gay.com® 2004
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: April 6, 2004 12:01 pm. ET
(Virginia Beach, Virginia) A law firm has asked a Virginia judge to seize the assets of the Christian Coalition to collect more than $75,000 in unpaid legal costs.
The firm of Huff, Poole and Mahoney says the coalition, one of the most vocal anti-gay organizations in the county, is seeking a garnishee of assets to pay bills that it says it is owed.
David M. Zobel, an attorney with the Virginia Beach firm, said the fees were from “a combination of several accounts owed on several files.” Zobel would not say if any of the unpaid work was dealing with gay issues.
The coalition has had an association with Huff, Poole and Mahoney since the conservative Christian organization was formed by Virginia Beach broadcaster Pat Robertson in 1989.
“It is unfortunate that it has come to this,” Drew McKissick , spokesperson for the Christian Coalition of America told the Virginian-Pilot newspaper.
“Our accountants have been working with the firm to work this out, and hopefully it will be worked out soon.”
The coalition reached the peak of its influence in 1994, when it was credited with playing a key role in the Newt Gingrich-led Republican Party’s takeover of Congress.
But three years later, its executive director, Ralph Reed, resigned. Currently he is a political consultant on the Campaign To Re-elect The President.
McKissick acknowledges the organization has had money problems. But he said things are looking up.
Since the gay marriage issue has been catapulted to national attention, McKissick said, more money has been coming in.
He said that the coalition is now emphasizing “voter identification, voter registration and voter education” in an all-out effort to support candidates that support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.
©365Gay.com® 2004
Sweet Land of Liberty
"All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression. Let us, then fellow citizens, unite with one heart and one mind."
"And let us reflect that, having banished from our land that religious intolerance under which mankind so long bled and suffered, we have yet gained little if we countenance a political intolerance as despotic, as wicked, and capable of as bitter and bloody persecutions."
Thomas Jefferson uttered these words during his first Presidential Inauguration on March 4, 1801. They are words the current President and many conservatives would do well to pay attention to. We seem to have strayed from these ideals: that minorities must possess equal rights and that the will of the majority is not always just or correct. In my opinion the so-called activist judges have done exactly what Mr. Jefferson said they must, making sure that the law protects a minority and to end oppression.
Popular opinion was against the legalization of interracial marriage even when the Supreme Court overruled any law that prohibited it in the 1960's. Popular opinion has been against same-sex marriage. It doesn't mean that the majority is right. Just because the majority isn't in favor of it, doesn't mean that right (and the Supreme Court defined marriage as a right in that landmark case) should be taken from a group. To put it in the words of William Lowndes Yancey, a Congressman of both the US Congress and Confederate Senate, "Constitutions are made solely for the protection of the minorities in government, and for the guidance of majorities."
President Jefferson also alludes to slipping the snare of religious prosecution and intolerance. Fundamentalist want to insist that this is a Christian nation built upon Judeo-Christian ethics. This piece of creative rewriting of history ignores the fact that while many of our founding fathers believed in God or a god, several of them (Jefferson included) were Deist, who believed that God set the wheels in motion and left the system to run on its own. This nation was set up in part to escape state-imposed religion, yet this is exactly what the Religious Right seeks to establish. Fundamentalists will not be satisfied until the United States is a theocratic democracy: you get to participate if you're a right-wing Christian. Christians who disagree are heretics and may not participate. The Religious Right has already done a great job of sinking its hooks into the Republican party. Christians need to wake up and realize that the Religious Right is a political movement about the establishment of power for certain individuals, not about the protection of some idealized Christian nation or even the protection of Christian rights and beliefs. The Religious Right seeks to become that "despotic, wicked" persecuting power not seen since the American Revolution or perhaps the Inquisition.
Hope does exist, however. A recent LA Times study shows an increased support for gay marriage, although not an overwhelming or even a majority numer. Slightly over half the respondants favored at least civil unions. Other values and ideas about gays also tend to be improving. A vast majority support keeping gays in the military (70%) and many feel that gays should have civil right protections similar to other minorities (62%). So, the picture is looking up, although the struggle is not over. Although some may object to my discounting the majority when it disagrees with me, but fully embracing it when its opinion is favorable, certainly that does not inherently make the majority right, but it does make this minority happy.
"And let us reflect that, having banished from our land that religious intolerance under which mankind so long bled and suffered, we have yet gained little if we countenance a political intolerance as despotic, as wicked, and capable of as bitter and bloody persecutions."
Thomas Jefferson uttered these words during his first Presidential Inauguration on March 4, 1801. They are words the current President and many conservatives would do well to pay attention to. We seem to have strayed from these ideals: that minorities must possess equal rights and that the will of the majority is not always just or correct. In my opinion the so-called activist judges have done exactly what Mr. Jefferson said they must, making sure that the law protects a minority and to end oppression.
Popular opinion was against the legalization of interracial marriage even when the Supreme Court overruled any law that prohibited it in the 1960's. Popular opinion has been against same-sex marriage. It doesn't mean that the majority is right. Just because the majority isn't in favor of it, doesn't mean that right (and the Supreme Court defined marriage as a right in that landmark case) should be taken from a group. To put it in the words of William Lowndes Yancey, a Congressman of both the US Congress and Confederate Senate, "Constitutions are made solely for the protection of the minorities in government, and for the guidance of majorities."
President Jefferson also alludes to slipping the snare of religious prosecution and intolerance. Fundamentalist want to insist that this is a Christian nation built upon Judeo-Christian ethics. This piece of creative rewriting of history ignores the fact that while many of our founding fathers believed in God or a god, several of them (Jefferson included) were Deist, who believed that God set the wheels in motion and left the system to run on its own. This nation was set up in part to escape state-imposed religion, yet this is exactly what the Religious Right seeks to establish. Fundamentalists will not be satisfied until the United States is a theocratic democracy: you get to participate if you're a right-wing Christian. Christians who disagree are heretics and may not participate. The Religious Right has already done a great job of sinking its hooks into the Republican party. Christians need to wake up and realize that the Religious Right is a political movement about the establishment of power for certain individuals, not about the protection of some idealized Christian nation or even the protection of Christian rights and beliefs. The Religious Right seeks to become that "despotic, wicked" persecuting power not seen since the American Revolution or perhaps the Inquisition.
Hope does exist, however. A recent LA Times study shows an increased support for gay marriage, although not an overwhelming or even a majority numer. Slightly over half the respondants favored at least civil unions. Other values and ideas about gays also tend to be improving. A vast majority support keeping gays in the military (70%) and many feel that gays should have civil right protections similar to other minorities (62%). So, the picture is looking up, although the struggle is not over. Although some may object to my discounting the majority when it disagrees with me, but fully embracing it when its opinion is favorable, certainly that does not inherently make the majority right, but it does make this minority happy.
Monday, April 12, 2004
The Hand of Providence
According to 365gay.com, Providencetown is set to issue marriage licenses to out-of-towners without checking up on if their state forbids same-sex marriage. You may already be aware that a law passed in 1913 that forbids non-Massachusetts residents from getting married in Massachusetts if their home state does not legally allow it. The law was originally passed to restrict interracial marriage and hasn't been enforced in years. Many have been concerned that this law will be enforced come May 17 to restrict gays in DOMA states from coming to Massachusetts.
In a very surprising turn of events, officials in Providencetown said they will not check up on applicants if applicants claim that their state permits same-sex marriage. Other municipalities in the state may or may not follow this example.
I'm exceptionally happy about this news and hope it continues to stand. I have been skeptical of gay marriage becoming a reality so soon, but signs are now very positive. I thought that Mitt Romney might actually prevail in derailing the ceremonies, but he is almost out of options. Although Romney is currently trying to get a special appointee to plead to the court to delay their ruling, so he could still prevail. Hopefully it will be a long-shot, however, as this attempt is very unusual and exceptionally desperate. I have to agree with Rex Wockner who questions why Romney is so fervently anti-gay. Doth the governor protest too much?
In a very surprising turn of events, officials in Providencetown said they will not check up on applicants if applicants claim that their state permits same-sex marriage. Other municipalities in the state may or may not follow this example.
I'm exceptionally happy about this news and hope it continues to stand. I have been skeptical of gay marriage becoming a reality so soon, but signs are now very positive. I thought that Mitt Romney might actually prevail in derailing the ceremonies, but he is almost out of options. Although Romney is currently trying to get a special appointee to plead to the court to delay their ruling, so he could still prevail. Hopefully it will be a long-shot, however, as this attempt is very unusual and exceptionally desperate. I have to agree with Rex Wockner who questions why Romney is so fervently anti-gay. Doth the governor protest too much?
Instead of a garter, guess what the guys wear...
A friend sent this to me and I thought it was hilarious. We all certainly need some levity while we struggle with this important issue.
Same-Sex Wedding Etiquette
A couple of things you should know before the same-sex wedding.....
1) On the day of a gay wedding, it's bad luck for the two grooms to see each other at the gym.
2) Superstition suggests that for good luck the couple should have: Something bold, something fierce, Something trashy, something dirty.
3) It's customary at gay and lesbian nuptials for the parents to have an open bar during the ceremony.
4) Gay wedding tradition dictates that both grooms refrain from eating wedding cake because it's all carbs.
5) It's considered bad luck for either of the grooms to have dated the priest.
6) During the first dance, it's considered unlucky to use glow sticks, flags, whistles or handheld lasers.
7) For good luck at the union of a drag queen, the bouquet is always thrown in the face of a hated rival drag queen.
8) A local saying from colonial Northampton: A lesbian who owns a horse will never tell a lie, But a lesbian who votes Republican will leave you for a guy.
9) The wedding singer is not allowed to play/sing Let's hear it for the boy, YMCA or I will Survive.
10) The father of the Bottom pays for everything!
Same-Sex Wedding Etiquette
A couple of things you should know before the same-sex wedding.....
1) On the day of a gay wedding, it's bad luck for the two grooms to see each other at the gym.
2) Superstition suggests that for good luck the couple should have: Something bold, something fierce, Something trashy, something dirty.
3) It's customary at gay and lesbian nuptials for the parents to have an open bar during the ceremony.
4) Gay wedding tradition dictates that both grooms refrain from eating wedding cake because it's all carbs.
5) It's considered bad luck for either of the grooms to have dated the priest.
6) During the first dance, it's considered unlucky to use glow sticks, flags, whistles or handheld lasers.
7) For good luck at the union of a drag queen, the bouquet is always thrown in the face of a hated rival drag queen.
8) A local saying from colonial Northampton: A lesbian who owns a horse will never tell a lie, But a lesbian who votes Republican will leave you for a guy.
9) The wedding singer is not allowed to play/sing Let's hear it for the boy, YMCA or I will Survive.
10) The father of the Bottom pays for everything!
To Know Me is to Love Me
I'm solidly convinced the way to get gay rights in America is to humanize ourselves. That doesn't mean "mainstream" ourselves - we should be who we are whether that is flamboyant, conservative, campy, quiet, partiers, 9 to 5ers, urban dwellers, country folk. I'm solidly against trying to Aberclone ourselves or fit into some preconceived notion of who we should be. Although I've made the point before, it was saddening to hear at a recent talk on gay marriage a student in the audience ask, "What's wrong with our community? Why do we fight and label ourselves? We call people circuit boys or ask in our personal ads for no fats or fems." We need to start accepting the diversity within our community if we are going to ask American society to accept us as a whole.
But I think the best way to fight any "isms" is to make ourself known, to let others we work and play with, let others in our families know that we are gay. If people can put a face to what they hate, it's harder to hate. Probably a gruesome analogy, in Silence of the Lambs, the senator whose daughter is kidnapped starts repeating her daughter's name "Kathryn" on a television ad. Jodie Foster's character comments on how smart that is because it makes the victim a person and not just an object. A similiar principle holds true here. If people can see that we're not freaks, or at least no more freakier than they are, then they are less likely to view us as such.
Another example comes from when I was a graduate hall director. One night I had a white freshman guy screaming racial slurs constantly and loudly in the middle of the hallway. One of the black residents on the floor, whom he knew, looked like he was on the verge of hitting the guy (and rightfully so). I pulled the white guy into a room and pointed out, "how do you think your screaming that word makes your friend feel?" His reply? "Well, he's different; he's not like the others." Okay, maybe the guy didn't quite get the point. But, he was at least beginning to see that not all black people fit into his tiny world view. His object of hate had a face that he couldn't hate or reject. As for extending his worldview, well it was nothing a good sledgehammer couldn't cure.
Being out also builds allies. They can help put a human face on what seems to be a ponderously huge metaphysical and legal entanglement. One of the smartest things I ever did was come out to my sister early on. My sister has been a wonderful supporter of me. She's never waivered in her devotion. She has actively advocated for me and gay rights. She is the inspiriation for this particular entry. A photographer, she recently did a photo project on gay marriage for one of her college classes. One particular student was being fairly aggressive and provocative and asked her, apparently spoiling for a good debate, "well, why did you choose gay marriage?" My sister simply stated, "because my brother is gay and I think he should have the right to marry just like I do." Her questioner immediately shut up with an "oh."
It's hard to argue with love.
But I think the best way to fight any "isms" is to make ourself known, to let others we work and play with, let others in our families know that we are gay. If people can put a face to what they hate, it's harder to hate. Probably a gruesome analogy, in Silence of the Lambs, the senator whose daughter is kidnapped starts repeating her daughter's name "Kathryn" on a television ad. Jodie Foster's character comments on how smart that is because it makes the victim a person and not just an object. A similiar principle holds true here. If people can see that we're not freaks, or at least no more freakier than they are, then they are less likely to view us as such.
Another example comes from when I was a graduate hall director. One night I had a white freshman guy screaming racial slurs constantly and loudly in the middle of the hallway. One of the black residents on the floor, whom he knew, looked like he was on the verge of hitting the guy (and rightfully so). I pulled the white guy into a room and pointed out, "how do you think your screaming that word makes your friend feel?" His reply? "Well, he's different; he's not like the others." Okay, maybe the guy didn't quite get the point. But, he was at least beginning to see that not all black people fit into his tiny world view. His object of hate had a face that he couldn't hate or reject. As for extending his worldview, well it was nothing a good sledgehammer couldn't cure.
Being out also builds allies. They can help put a human face on what seems to be a ponderously huge metaphysical and legal entanglement. One of the smartest things I ever did was come out to my sister early on. My sister has been a wonderful supporter of me. She's never waivered in her devotion. She has actively advocated for me and gay rights. She is the inspiriation for this particular entry. A photographer, she recently did a photo project on gay marriage for one of her college classes. One particular student was being fairly aggressive and provocative and asked her, apparently spoiling for a good debate, "well, why did you choose gay marriage?" My sister simply stated, "because my brother is gay and I think he should have the right to marry just like I do." Her questioner immediately shut up with an "oh."
It's hard to argue with love.
Tuesday, April 06, 2004
Heather Has Two Narrow-Minded Bigots
According to Q-Notes, a North Carolina GLBT newspaper, a couple in Wilmington, NC are holding a children's book hostage because they are outraged that their daughter (age undisclosed) checked out book called "King and King" from her elementary school library. The children's book is the tale of a young prince whose mother demands he get married, and so he does, to another boy (and he doesn't settle for a "separate but equal" civil union). Publishers Weekly deems the book suitable for children age six and up. But the conservative Christian couple disagrees and is refusing to return the book until the school promises to keep it out of circulation. Although the county has a review process for books that concerned parents can utilize, Michael and Tonya Hartsell prefer to enforce their position on the entire community. One suspects the Hartsells would not give back copies of Catcher in the Rye or Huckleberry Finn either. One also wonders if they also favor banning the Bible from the same library, given its graphic depictions of violence and sexual situations.
Fortunately, the school principal is standing firm on the issue for not removing the book and demanding it's return. According to Q-Notes, Principal Elizabeth Miars stated, "What might be inappropriate for one family, in another family is a totally acceptable thing." My full range of thanks and appreciation to Ms. Miars for taking this position, particularly in such a conservative state and during such a volatile time over gay rights. (Others who wish to express their appreciation to Ms. Miars may email her at the school, Freeman Elementary at freeman@nhcs.k12.nc.us. I know I plan to do so.)
The Hartsells say they are considering removing their daughter and putting her in a Christian Academy where views contrary to their own will not be expressed. Has anyone else noticed this trend among the Religious Right? Homeschooling is very popular with Conservative Christians nowadays so they can protect their children from undesireable viewpoints and experiences. These couples want to "rear their child up in the ways of the Lord." Politicially, the Religious Right tries to institute laws that enshrine their own views into mainstream American society. Anybody who challenges laws they favor is instantly labelled as persecuting Christianity. Although nothing new, book banning and censorship seems on the rise, particularly after all the hub-bub over Ms. Jackson's nub. And family groups have labored for years to "clean up" television and movies to make them more suitable for children.
I wonder if this new strategy is a misunderstanding of Jesus' proclamation that "you do not belong to the world, but I have chose you out of the world." (John 15:19). They must have missed the other parts about "going out into the world" (Mark 15:16). I don't recall Jesus telling Christians to be isolationists. It also seems to reveal a fundamental uncertainty about Fundamentalism if these people don't think their faith and tenets are strong enough to be tested. Isn't it good to have the opportunity to teach a child why you believe a certain way or disagree with a certain viewpoint? And, furthermore, what ever happened to the responsibility that parents have to monitor and control what their children see in various media? Why have conservative Christians decided to abdicate their God-given mandate to watch over their child and hand that responsibility over to media watchdog groups and media networks? Are Fundamentalists unaware of the censorship technology of, not the V-chip, but the "off" button?
But, I digress. I'm both amused and disturbed at the hijacking of this book. Parents have every right to chose what their child reads, but not a right to mandate what other children read. Truly, it's a snapshot of the struggles going on currently in America in micro-scale.
Fortunately, the school principal is standing firm on the issue for not removing the book and demanding it's return. According to Q-Notes, Principal Elizabeth Miars stated, "What might be inappropriate for one family, in another family is a totally acceptable thing." My full range of thanks and appreciation to Ms. Miars for taking this position, particularly in such a conservative state and during such a volatile time over gay rights. (Others who wish to express their appreciation to Ms. Miars may email her at the school, Freeman Elementary at freeman@nhcs.k12.nc.us. I know I plan to do so.)
The Hartsells say they are considering removing their daughter and putting her in a Christian Academy where views contrary to their own will not be expressed. Has anyone else noticed this trend among the Religious Right? Homeschooling is very popular with Conservative Christians nowadays so they can protect their children from undesireable viewpoints and experiences. These couples want to "rear their child up in the ways of the Lord." Politicially, the Religious Right tries to institute laws that enshrine their own views into mainstream American society. Anybody who challenges laws they favor is instantly labelled as persecuting Christianity. Although nothing new, book banning and censorship seems on the rise, particularly after all the hub-bub over Ms. Jackson's nub. And family groups have labored for years to "clean up" television and movies to make them more suitable for children.
I wonder if this new strategy is a misunderstanding of Jesus' proclamation that "you do not belong to the world, but I have chose you out of the world." (John 15:19). They must have missed the other parts about "going out into the world" (Mark 15:16). I don't recall Jesus telling Christians to be isolationists. It also seems to reveal a fundamental uncertainty about Fundamentalism if these people don't think their faith and tenets are strong enough to be tested. Isn't it good to have the opportunity to teach a child why you believe a certain way or disagree with a certain viewpoint? And, furthermore, what ever happened to the responsibility that parents have to monitor and control what their children see in various media? Why have conservative Christians decided to abdicate their God-given mandate to watch over their child and hand that responsibility over to media watchdog groups and media networks? Are Fundamentalists unaware of the censorship technology of, not the V-chip, but the "off" button?
But, I digress. I'm both amused and disturbed at the hijacking of this book. Parents have every right to chose what their child reads, but not a right to mandate what other children read. Truly, it's a snapshot of the struggles going on currently in America in micro-scale.
Monday, April 05, 2004
Georgia on My Mind
I'm distressed that the state of Georgia has passed through the legislature a state constitutional amendment against gay marriage. The amendment goes to the voters in November. Georgia is already a DOMA state, so here is yet another case of trying to make gay marriage more illegal than it already is. Advocates for these amendments say it's necessary because the DOMA laws may get struck down in court cases. But isn't that what the court system is for? If the law should stand, then won't the courts uphold it?
I lived in Georgia for six great years. And while I realize Georgia is a Southern state, I'm very disappointed. I always felt that Georgia was one of the more progressive Southern states. Georgia holds the great city of Atlanta, which is heavily populated by gays and lesbians. Atlanta is the Southern mecca for queers. Miami doesn't count because Florida is just a Northern state that got lost. Still among the gay residents of Atlanta is my partner. We're carrying on a long distance relationship since I have a job in North Carolina. And although we're trying to arrange things so we are eventually in the same city at the same time, I also have family in Georgia that I visit often.
Georgia played some significant roles in the black civil rights movement, and Atlanta is the final resting place of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. I would have hoped that the lessons and struggles of that movement would have sensitized the citizens of this great state to issues of discrimination. However, many in the black community support this amendment as well, due to the highly religious nature of Southern (and American) black culture.
Cynthia Tucker, a woman of color, and one of my favorite editors of the Atlanta Journal Constitution makes this same point in an article with WorkingForChange.com as she denounces black America's "knee jerk hostility towards gays." You can read Ms. Tucker's article here. I will at some point write an article parallelling and actually differentiating gay and black civil rights struggles, but I won't address that here.
I'm certainly not laying blame at the feet of black Georgians. And despite Atlanta's fairly progressive attitudes and policies towards gays, there has been plenty of discrimination for years from various quarters. Still, I never thought the Georgia legislature, seated in the center of Atlanta, would pass such a resolution.
It's painful to me to think that should my partner and I legally become husbands one day that while visiting Georgia, our rights and privledges could be stripped away. It's upsetting to think that if one of us were injured while travelling visiting my parents or just going back to Atlanta to play, we could be denied seeing each other. I can imagine worse than that even.
Even though I am in another state now, I will mobilize as much support as I can for people to vote against this hateful piece of legislation. I pray that the gay community in Georgia will rise up against this measure and soundly defeat it along with our straight allies. Then, I hope they vote every politician that supported this amendment out of office. Georgians, do what is right. Lead the way. In the 1960's, an NBC program said that Atlanta was an example to Southern cities in regards to civil rights. I hope that same sense of morality prevails in the 2000's.
Until these things are done, I'm afraid the state anthem rings truer than ever: "No peace I find / with that old sweet song / Georgia on my mind."
I lived in Georgia for six great years. And while I realize Georgia is a Southern state, I'm very disappointed. I always felt that Georgia was one of the more progressive Southern states. Georgia holds the great city of Atlanta, which is heavily populated by gays and lesbians. Atlanta is the Southern mecca for queers. Miami doesn't count because Florida is just a Northern state that got lost. Still among the gay residents of Atlanta is my partner. We're carrying on a long distance relationship since I have a job in North Carolina. And although we're trying to arrange things so we are eventually in the same city at the same time, I also have family in Georgia that I visit often.
Georgia played some significant roles in the black civil rights movement, and Atlanta is the final resting place of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. I would have hoped that the lessons and struggles of that movement would have sensitized the citizens of this great state to issues of discrimination. However, many in the black community support this amendment as well, due to the highly religious nature of Southern (and American) black culture.
Cynthia Tucker, a woman of color, and one of my favorite editors of the Atlanta Journal Constitution makes this same point in an article with WorkingForChange.com as she denounces black America's "knee jerk hostility towards gays." You can read Ms. Tucker's article here. I will at some point write an article parallelling and actually differentiating gay and black civil rights struggles, but I won't address that here.
I'm certainly not laying blame at the feet of black Georgians. And despite Atlanta's fairly progressive attitudes and policies towards gays, there has been plenty of discrimination for years from various quarters. Still, I never thought the Georgia legislature, seated in the center of Atlanta, would pass such a resolution.
It's painful to me to think that should my partner and I legally become husbands one day that while visiting Georgia, our rights and privledges could be stripped away. It's upsetting to think that if one of us were injured while travelling visiting my parents or just going back to Atlanta to play, we could be denied seeing each other. I can imagine worse than that even.
Even though I am in another state now, I will mobilize as much support as I can for people to vote against this hateful piece of legislation. I pray that the gay community in Georgia will rise up against this measure and soundly defeat it along with our straight allies. Then, I hope they vote every politician that supported this amendment out of office. Georgians, do what is right. Lead the way. In the 1960's, an NBC program said that Atlanta was an example to Southern cities in regards to civil rights. I hope that same sense of morality prevails in the 2000's.
Until these things are done, I'm afraid the state anthem rings truer than ever: "No peace I find / with that old sweet song / Georgia on my mind."
Sunday, April 04, 2004
King of My Heart
I understand the complexities of equating gay civil rights with black civil rights. There are some significant differences, yet also some significant parallels. Many black community leaders have balked at equating the two. Some black leaders support it, many others do not. If I thought black leaders would unilaterally support gay rights, I would happily acequesce in the debate. Given this, it's nice to hear from this prominent figure in the black community.
From the Miami Herald:
Posted on Wed, Mar. 24, 2004
MLK's Widow Supports Gay Marriage
Associated Press
POMONA, N.J. - The widow of Martin Luther King Jr. called gay marriage a civil rights issue, denouncing a proposed constitutional amendment that would ban it.
Constitutional amendments should be used to expand freedom, not restrict it, Coretta Scott King said Tuesday.
"Gay and lesbian people have families, and their families should have legal protection, whether by marriage or civil union," she said. "A constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages is a form of gay bashing and it would do nothing at all to protect traditional marriages."
Last month, President Bush said he backed an amendment that would ban same-sex unions, calling marriage "the most fundamental institution of civilization."
On Monday, more than two dozen black pastors rallied against gay marriage at a church in Atlanta, attempting to distance the civil rights struggle from the gay rights movement. They signed a declaration outlining their beliefs that marriage should remain a union between a man and a woman.
"To equate a lifestyle choice to racism demeans the work of the entire civil rights movement," the statement said. "People are free in our nation to pursue relationships as they choose. To redefine marriage, however, to suit the preference of those choosing alternative lifestyles is wrong."
King, the widow of the slain civil rights leader, made her comments Tuesday during a speech at The Richard Stockton College of New Jersey.
From the Miami Herald:
Posted on Wed, Mar. 24, 2004
MLK's Widow Supports Gay Marriage
Associated Press
POMONA, N.J. - The widow of Martin Luther King Jr. called gay marriage a civil rights issue, denouncing a proposed constitutional amendment that would ban it.
Constitutional amendments should be used to expand freedom, not restrict it, Coretta Scott King said Tuesday.
"Gay and lesbian people have families, and their families should have legal protection, whether by marriage or civil union," she said. "A constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages is a form of gay bashing and it would do nothing at all to protect traditional marriages."
Last month, President Bush said he backed an amendment that would ban same-sex unions, calling marriage "the most fundamental institution of civilization."
On Monday, more than two dozen black pastors rallied against gay marriage at a church in Atlanta, attempting to distance the civil rights struggle from the gay rights movement. They signed a declaration outlining their beliefs that marriage should remain a union between a man and a woman.
"To equate a lifestyle choice to racism demeans the work of the entire civil rights movement," the statement said. "People are free in our nation to pursue relationships as they choose. To redefine marriage, however, to suit the preference of those choosing alternative lifestyles is wrong."
King, the widow of the slain civil rights leader, made her comments Tuesday during a speech at The Richard Stockton College of New Jersey.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)