these silly little wounds

Posted Tuesday, January 6th, 2009

filed under gay rights

Imagine the joy of planning the happiest day of your life, the day when you marry the woman you love and vow to spend the rest of your life with her. What music would you play, what flowers would you use as decoration, what family and friends would you invite to the ceremony? This is the day you have dreamed about since you were a child, and those few minutes will be the most magical moments of your existence.

Now, imagine asking a photographer to document this glorious event, only to have her turn you down because she was opposed to your marriage on religious grounds.

This is what happened to Vanessa Willock and Misty Collinsworth when they started planning their commitment ceremony for September 15, 2007. It had to be a commitment ceremony, of course, because the state of New Mexico doesn’t allow lesbian couples to legally marry yet. Still, it seems unthinkable that someone would be told by a photographer that her relationship doesn’t meet with her approval.

And then things got really bizarre. Vanessa sued Elane Photography for discrimination, and a fine of $6,637.94 was awarded against the photography business.

Which brings me to my question: when do human rights become special rights?

Is it a special right if I have a job and don’t want to worry about being fired, looked over for promotions, harassed or treated differently from others simply because I’m gay? Is it a special right if I want to serve in the military and be free to mention my boyfriend to my friends and buddies? Is it a special right if I want to marry the one I love and don’t want to have that marriage denied because my partner is the wrong gender?

I don’t think so. I don’t think so at all.

But when does wanting to be treated equally change into demanding to be treated better than others?

My friend’s mother ran a dance studio in Nashville for a while (and being the Country capital of the United States, it isn’t surprising that some of the classes she offered were for squaredancing). Two gay couples wanted to join a class, which my friend’s mom had a problem with since there was already a gay squaredancing club they could have joined at another studio. In all honesty, however, she disapproved of homosexuals regardless, and it irked her that they wanted to dance in her class.

Obviously the gay couples were trying to make a point, and I think it’s a point that needs to be made. Gay and lesbian couples should have the same right to dance as anyone else, whether it’s in a dance studio in Tennessee or a Rockola in Cincinnati.

But the gay couples went further. Not only did they want to join the class, they also wanted to dance exclusively with men, claiming anything less would be discriminatory.

This is where I had a major problem. Squaredancing, from what I remember, involves at least four couples who frequently trade off partners. So there would have to be at least four gay couples, or some of the other men would have to agree to dance as couples. That’s no different from saying you don’t want to dance with black people, or Asians. It’s bigotry, pure and simple, and it’s the very definition of demanding special treatment.

I had another friend who worked at American Express at a time when they initiated a new policy: employees should no longer discuss their marriage or refer to their spouses as husband, wife, or spouse. Since same-gender marriage wasn’t legal, the company felt this would make their homosexual employees feel less discriminated against.

Here you have an example of someone thinking they can make certain people feel equal by stripping away the rights of other people. It’s like some of those “affirminative action” enthusiasts who wouldn’t hire qualified white males because they had to fill a certain quota that didn’t include Caucasian men. Equality is based on treating everyone the same, not taking away from one group in an attempt to balance out the prejudice.

By the way, I have no idea whether that policy was company-wide or just at the Greensboro facility, and I don’t remember now if it was mandatory or optional. I just know that at one point in time, someone thought not being able to acknowledge your husband or wife made for a better work environment.

In case you haven’t figured it out yet, I believe in equal rights but I do not condone special rights. I find it repugnant that religious institutions don’t have to pay taxes because they’re non-profit, yet can contribute millions of those non-taxable dollars to political organizations without fear. But I also find it reprehensible that black women can compete in the Miss America contest but white women can’t compete in the Miss Black America contest.

Which brings us back to Vanessa and Misty.

Now first, you need to know a few things. Elaine Huguenin, the main photographer from Elane Photography, specifically told Vanessa, “We do not photograph same-sex weddings, but again, thanks for checking out our site!” in an e-mail.

Later, when Misty contacted her and didn’t reveal that she was planning a same-gender ceremony, “Huguenin responded enthusiastically and sought to follow up.”

Also, while Huguenin did the majority of the work, she did sub-contract from time to time, so there was no valid reason why she couldn’t have had someone else that wasn’t “religiously opposed” to lesbians photograph the ceremony.

And finally, Huguenin registered her company as an LLC (Limited Liability Company), advertising both online and in the yellow pages of the phonebook, so her business was “open to the public.” Since public accomodations cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation in New Mexico, Elane Photography was fined almost $7,000.

With that in mind, I have extremely mixed feelings about this situation.

Part of me thinks the fine was well-deserved. If Elaine Huguenin does not approve of homosexuals, why not state this on her website? And let’s be very clear here: Vanessa and Misty did not sue the company, nor did they try to force Elaine Huguenin to photograph their ceremony. Instead, they reported Elane Photography and the government fined Elaine’s business.

But a part of me has a huge problem with this.

Let’s talk about Wal-Mart for a moment. If you go in your neighborhood store, you’ll see a variety of items for low prices. What you won’t see is porn magazines, adult movies, certain CDs with explicit lyrics, or “one-handed” paperbacks. Wal-Mart promotes a very family-friendly environment and avoids material that they consider sexually inappropriate.

It’s not censorship. In no way is Wal-Mart trying to stop the sale of Playboy or make it illegal to purchase a battery-operated vibrator. They just choose not to sell certain items.

In fact, there are a lot of things Wal-Mart doesn’t sell. I had to look elsewhere for my computer desk (the one I finally settled on is exclusive to Staples), and if you need a framed, autographed 8″x10″ of Tahmoh Penikett, you won’t find it on one of Wal-Mart’s shelves. They don’t sell cars, houses, or even recliners for the most part. And that’s fine.

As a corporation, Wal-Mart decides what they will sell and what they won’t. Some of those decisions are based on a specific point of view: most families would probably not feel comfortable shopping at Wal-Mart if their five-year-old daughters could find leather cock-rings on aisle 7. Some of those decisions are based on a specific vision of the company: they’re a retail store, not a used-car lot. And some of those decisions are based on what is profitable and what is not. Why carry every brand and every item available if only certain brands and certain items tend to generate a profit?

So what does that have to do with anything?

I believe businesses should have the right to determine what they want to sell and what they don’t. I disagree with Wal-Mart’s decision to sell “clean” versions of CDs - if a CD isn’t appropriate for a certain age group, then don’t sell it to that age group. Besides, I’m always afraid that I’ll end up buying a “clean” version instead of the real one. I also disagree with Target’s decision to sell wine but not beer. Sometimes I need to pick up a few things, and it would be a lot more convenient if I could also buy some Bud Lite at the same time.

Yes, Elaine Huguenin did not want to photograph a lesbian commitment ceremony. Yes, she’s a bigot who really needs to get over herself.

But the truth is, Vanessa and Misty wanted her (or someone affiliated with her business) to take photographs of their wedding. They wanted Elaine to create a specific product that would bear her company’s name, a product that would suggest that Elaine condoned lesbian partnerships and would brand her as a hypocrite if she ever said anything to the contrary.

Do I believe in her views? Of course not. A bigot is a bigot, whether or not they claim religious reasons for being a bigot.

But I don’t like the idea that because she didn’t want her name and her company’s name associated with photographs that would - in any reasonable person’s view - call into question her beliefs and make her seem like a hypocrite who abandons her views whenever money is involved, she was fined almost $7,000 by her own state.

That doesn’t seem like equal rights at all. Instead, it sounds suspiciously like tyranny.

If she had refused to take photographs because Vanessa was a lesbian, I’d be more than happy to see her pay through the teeth. But that wasn’t the case. I seriously doubt Elaine Huguenin has ever asked a potential client their sexual orientation.

She didn’t want to take photographs because she would be documenting and essentially approving of a ceremony that she was taught was immoral.

I hate religion and its obsession with demonizing gays and lesbians. It’s ridiculous and it’s extremely painful to those targeted as victims. But when we start asking for people to not only treat us the same as others but publically demonstrate their approval of us, then I get frightened.

That’s not asking for equality, it’s asking for special rights. It’s demanding for our voices to be heard while insisting that others can’t be.

I think Pat Robertson is the epitome of evil, a shameless charlatan who has no morals and no conscience. But the day the government says he cannot spew his bile freely, then the good guys have lost and the bad guys have won.

Equality means nothing if it’s won through intimidation and fear. And denying the rights of certain people to have an opinion in no way makes others free; it only makes things worse.

Comments

Posted Monday, January 5th, 2009

filed under thoughts

I haven’t posted anything in a few days because I’ve been working on a few things that aren’t quite ready to publish.

Sometimes I like to post things that are fun or interesting, and in a few weeks, this blog is going to be overrun by pesky posts about American Idol. But some of the things I like to write about aren’t quite so off the top of my head.

Tomorrow I should start posting things again. I’ve been working on a rather long article about what constitutes equal rights and what are actually special rights. And I’m writing a series of posts related to homosexuality and the Bible that would probably be roundly condemned by religious activists if anyone actually read my blog, LOL.

Just wanted anyone that does check in from time to time know that new posts are coming.

Comments

Posted Tuesday, December 30th, 2008

filed under music

I have no problem with a well-done cover of a good song. I still think Whitney Houston’s version of “I Will Always Love You” was amazing (taking the song in a completely different direction from Dolly Parton’s fragile, heart-breaking original). And I’m biased because of my love for all things Buffy, which might explain why I think The Sundays did a better job with “Wild Horses” than the Rolling Stones did. Johnny Cash did an astonishing cover of Trent Raznor’s “Hurt,” and most people would agree that Jeff Buckley’s haunting version of “Hallelujah” is more memorable than Leonard Cohen’s original.

But sometimes covers are just wrong. If there was a soundtrack for Satan’s biography, it would include Sheryl Crow’s “Sweet Child of Mine,” Phil Collins’ “True Colors,” Hillary Duff’s “My Generation,” Faith Hill’s “Piece of My Heart,” Limp Bizkit’s “Behind Blue Eyes,” No Doubt’s “It’s My Life,” MC Hammer’s “Have You Seen Her,” Jessica Simpson’s “These Boots Were Made for Walking,” The Ataris’ “Boys of Summer,” and Kelly Osbourne’s “Papa Don’t Preach” among many others. You don’t even have to hear Britney Spears sing “(I Can’t Get No) Satisfaction” or “I Love Rock and Roll” to know how horrible her covers sound, and although the world has desperately tried to forget Madonna’s “American Pie,” the memory still has the power to maim.

A few years ago, I heard a song I loved by a group I had never heard of. “Run” by Snow Patrol is a mesmerizing song, at times epic in scope and yet always subtle and extremely personal. It wasn’t written to change the world, yet somehow it feels like it does.

 

 

The song was later covered by Leona Lewis (the “Bleeding Love” singer), and while I have enormous respect for her talent, it almost physically hurts me to hear her turn a powerful song into a forgettable Whitney Houston ballad. She drains the mystery and pathos out of the lyrics, instead giving a generic performance that even stoops to having a choir enter at the end to try and give it some desperately needed drama. (The attempt doesn’t work, by the way; it just makes her version sound like yet another manufactured Martina McBride “inspirational” ditty.)

I’ll let others decide what they think the worst cover song of all time is, but for me, it’s Leona Lewis delivering a painfully bad rendition of “Run.”

 

 

Snow Patrol performs their song with an honest intensity that makes you believe that sometimes love does conquer all. Leona Lewis sings like she thinks the song is pretty and wants to club it to death like a baby seal.

So what cover songs do you like or hate?

Comments

Posted Monday, December 29th, 2008

filed under gay rights, politics, religion

Last Sunday night, Pastor Rick Warren recorded a video message to his congregation, addressing President-Elect Barack Obama’s controversial choice to have his Presidency begin with a prayer from Warren. Here are a few more excerpts from that message.

I believe the definition of marriage should only be included one definition: a man and a woman for life. It’s not an anti-gay view. In fact, it’s the view of the vast majority of the world and the vast majority of religions.

Besides being stunned by the idea that – because the “vast majority” of the world thinks something – it is acceptable to decide what rights a minority will be allowed to share, I am also floored by the ridiculous logic of this statement.

It’s the “view of the vast majority of the world and the vast majority of religions” that women are inferior to men. Most Christian religions (which actually are far more tolerant of women than other religions) believe that a wife should be subservient to her husband. Hell, it’s only been in recent years that the traditional wedding ceremony was changed from pronouncing a couple “man and wife” to “husband and wife.” Although that prejudice is still common everywhere in America, there are laws that protect women (to a certain degree) from being treated as less than equal to men.

Does Pastor Warren believe we should introduce legislation that will put women back in their place?

Just because a “vast majority” thinks a certain way does not make it right. And I find it fascinating that heterosexuals (which make up an estimated 90-97% of the world’s population) have no problem insisting that homosexuals should ignore their natural desires and attractions and instead “act straight” or be considered evil and degenerate. What sounds more immoral, having sex with someone you love, or forcing people to shun both sex and love because they’re different from you?

And while I believe that the gay view of sexuality is contrary to God’s word, I do believe that God gives us free choice. And he gives us the choice to obey his word or to disobey it. And you know what? God has given me that choice. He’s given me the free will that I can choose to follow him and his ways and his rules and his, his precepts or I can, I’m free to not follow them. And because of that, I believe I must give everybody else that same freedom of choice. Now, I’m opposed to forcing people to act the way I believe that I ought to act. That’s not what it’s about.

This is the part that made me angry.

I’m not even going to discuss the idea that homosexuality is a choice. That’s an old chestnut that’s become completely irrelevant to any discussion on gay rights. Even if it is a choice – if some men just happen to be attracted to other men just as some men are attracted to blonde women or females with large breasts – that in no way makes it acceptable to make laws prohibiting them from being with the ones they’re attracted to. Personally, I believe it’s determined more by biology, but again, that’s completely beside the point.

What pisses me off is that Rick Warren would have the balls to say that he is “opposed to forcing people to act the way I believe that I ought to act.” This is a man who not only strongly supported Proposition 8 (stripping same-gender couples of their right to get married) but also had members of his church actively campaigning for its passage on the streets of Southern California.

Let’s cut through the bullshit. If Rick Warren does not “believe” in same-gender weddings and thinks gays and lesbians who have sex are committing a sin, then Rick Warren should not marry a man nor have sex with one. It’s as simple as that. If he doesn’t want homosexual couples joining his church and doesn’t want to perform same-gender weddings, then he has every right to enforce those restrictions.

But when Rick Warren decides that it is his duty to stop other people from marrying their loved ones, that is the very definition of forcing people to act the way he believes they should act. There is no grey area here. Every single person on this earth has their own beliefs, their own dreams, their own opinions, and that’s part of what makes humanity so rich and amazing. But when someone insists that every other person must follow his beliefs and dreams, when he thinks his opinion overrides the opinion of everyone else, then that is wrong.

Rick Warren says he doesn’t want to force other people to act a certain way, yet he famously told his congregation and others during the 2004 election that there are five “non-negotiable issues” that should determine their vote. He told them they should vote for candidates who are against abortion (to protect “the lives of unborn children”), against “using unborn babies for stem-cell harvesting,” against homosexual marriage, against human cloning, and against euthanasia (“the killing of elderly and invalids”).

This is certainly his right. But at the risk of being a name-caller, Pastor Warren is a bold-faced liar when he says he doesn’t want to force other people to act the way he thinks they should. The truth is, he wants everyone to act the way he thinks they should, and he actively campaigns for and supports any legislation that will force all Americans to abide by his religious views. How, in any definition of the word, is this not forcing his beliefs on everyone else?

Now let me talk to you about civil rights for a little bit because, while I’m at it, I want to cover this, because I feel deeply, as deeply about these as I do the other things I just said. First, no American should ever be discriminated against because of their beliefs. Period. There is no excuse. We are Americans. And we do not discriminate against each other because of our beliefs, period. Second, I would say no church should ever be discriminated against either, because of their beliefs, or for that matter, no house of worship. In other words, free speech has to be free speech for everybody. Even if I don’t like it. It’s in our Constitution. Now some people feel today that if you disagree with them, then that’s hate speech. Either if you disagree with them, you either hate them or you’re afraid of them. I’m neither afraid of gays, nor do I hate gays, in fact, I love them. But I do disagree with some of their beliefs, and I have that Constitutional right just as I would fight for their Constitutional right to. Free speech is for everybody.

This is one passage that hit a major nerve. My mother used to get angry with me, wondering why I wanted her to respect my “beliefs” while I refused to respect hers.

It’s amazing that this has to be said, but evidently, it has to be said over and over and over again.

Number one. When someone says having a gay relationship is wrong, they in no way are respecting anyone’s “beliefs.” Instead, they are judging, and it’s a judgment based on their definition of morality. They want to have the right to say whatever they think and have that considered a belief, a Constitutional right to free speech. But if anyone disagrees, if someone dares to suggest that they are prejudiced against people different from them, suddenly they are victims. This is ludicrous!

Bigots believe in free speech, but only when that free speech conforms exactly with their own beliefs. Anything else is a personal and religious attack. And they want respect for their beliefs while refusing to let others have their beliefs.

Number two. Rick Warren is not a homosexual. Neither, for that matter, are an estimated 90-97% of Americans. Understand that: it’s statistically likely that 97% of Americans are not sexually attracted to people of their own gender.

So who the hell gave them the right to decide what is proper and acceptable for the 3-10% of Americans who do not share their sexual inclinations? There has never been one law proposed in this wonderful country forcing heterosexual people to have sex with others of their same gender. Yet there have been countless laws insisting that homosexual relationships are illegal. There are actually Christian organizations that specialize in “curing” self-loathing gays (who are self-loathing because, surprise, surprise, of Christian organizations).

Cracker Barrel fired employees who weren’t heterosexual. In many states, gays and lesbians can be evicted from their apartments and homes, denied coverage for their partners, and yes, fired from their jobs simply and only because they are not heterosexual.

Thinking that the son of your god was born of a virgin is a belief. Thinking that because you are straight, everyone must be straight is a bigotry. And thinking that because you are in the “vast majority” you have the right to force the minority to conform to your bigotry is nothing short of an abomination.

If you’re a man and you’re not sexually attracted to another man, then there is absolutely no reason why you would want to have sex with another man. That makes no sense. If you asked me to have sex with an animal, for example, not only would the thought repulse me, it would seriously creep me out. If you asked me to have sex with a woman, it wouldn’t disgust me, but it wouldn’t interest me either. I love women and many of my most cherished friends have been women. But I’m not sexually attracted to them, and when I did try to have sex with a woman once, my erection deflated rather rapidly. It’s not that she wasn’t a beautiful and incredible woman. It’s just that I’m attracted to men.

I’m not asking straight men to have sex with other men. That makes no sense. Why would I want people to be sexually active with people they’re not attracted to in any way whatsoever?

But why is it so difficult for some people to realize that I want that same privilege? I want to be able to have sex (or not) with people that I’m actually attracted to. What is so incredibly hard to understand about that concept?

Number three. If someone has the right to say that my relationship – whether it’s love, lust, a one-night-stand or a fuck buddy – is immoral, then I have the right to challenge that statement. Rick Warren says “free speech is for everybody,” but he obviously doesn’t believe it.

That doesn’t change the fact that in America, we all have the right to free speech.

Rick Warren claims that Americans and churches are being discriminated against because people are protesting their involvement in legislating bigotry. Again, let’s cut through the bullshit. No one has ever passed a law prohibiting the practice of religion, and as long as the Constitution guides us, no one ever will. Yes, laws have been passed to stop Christians from forcing their own views on innocent children (by eliminating mandatory prayers in public schools), but Christians are still free to practice their religion amongst themselves.

On the other hand, religions are constantly trying to legislate their beliefs on the entire country. Just a couple months ago, one state banned gay and lesbian couples from adopting, despite the fact that study after study has shown that homosexual couples provide just as healthy and loving environments as heterosexual couples do, and despite the fact that many children will never know caring parents as a result.

This makes no sense. How can a majority of people punish others for being different, then claim discrimination when the minority complains? How can anyone with any kind of dignity or human feelings state that his freedom of speech has been compromised when he’s the one with all of the power and the speech he’s trying to stop is that of anyone who dares oppose him?

Comments

Posted Monday, December 29th, 2008

filed under gay rights, politics, religion

Last Sunday night, Pastor Rick Warren recorded a video message to his congregation, addressing President-Elect Barack Obama’s controversial choice to have his Presidency begin with a prayer from Warren. Here are a few excerpts from that message.

The media loves to create conflict. The problem with that is it’s creating a more and more polarized nation, and that polarization is causing people to be ruder and ruder and more and more inflamed, and I, I blame that on two groups. One, one is all the talk radio and other programs where the goal is to simply get people to yell at each other. And the other is bloggers who really need to get a life. A lot of people think that because they can sit in the quietness of their own home and hide behind the screen, they can hurl all kinds of bombs at people and, and, and get away with it. Well, no, they’re just being rude.

It’s true that talk radio and bloggers are often prime examples of ugliness at its worst. Radio hosts gleefully give up all their convictions and civility for the sake of power and popularity, and bloggers (and blog posters) hide behind their anonymity, saying things they would never have the courage to say face-to-face. I’m not about to defend the vicious right-wing media machine with its constant barrage of hatred, lies and fear-mongering.

However, right extremists – while they certainly have a negative effect on America – are not the cause of polarization. From the beginning, Christianity has tried to dictate what this great country should be, even though the founding fathers specifically created a Bill of Rights prohibiting that kind of dictatorial intimidation.

Christians have been responsible for everything from the murder of “witches” and the enslavement of blacks to the second-class status of women, the enforcement of religion on children (the Pledge of Allegiance) and adults (the currency we carry in our wallets) via the government, and a multitude of laws that have nothing to do with commonsense or justice and everything to do with imposing a specific viewpoint on everyone.

Rick Warren is worried about polarization? Has anyone told him that the kettle and the pot are both black?

I’ve been accused of equating gay partnerships with incest and pedophilia. Now of course, as members of Saddleback Church, you know I believe no such thing. I never have. You’ve never once heard me in thirty years talk that way about that.

This is from the transcript of the December 17, 2008, interview with Rick Warren conducted by a representative of Beliefnet:

Rick Warren: “I’m opposed to having a brother and sister being together and calling that marriage. I’m opposed to an older guy marrying a child and calling that marriage. I’m opposed to one guy having multiple wives and calling that marriage.”

Beliefnet: “Do you think those are equivalent to gays getting married?”

Rick Warren: “Oh , I do.”

It seems odd to me that Pastor Warren would forget “equating gay partnerships with incest and pedophilia” just four days later. But what I find more fascinating is the examples of “marriage” he opposes.

Rick Warren says, “I’m opposed to having a brother and sister being together and calling that marriage.”

The Bible says, “And Abraham said, Because I thought, Surely the fear of God is not in this place; and they will slay me for my wife’s sake. And yet indeed she is my sister; she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife.” (Genesis 20:11-12) According to mythology, Jesus was a direct descendant of Sarah and her brother/husband Abraham, a man God pronounced “perfect.” (Genesis 17:1)

Rick Warren says, “I’m opposed to an older guy marrying a child and calling that marriage.”

The Bible says, “Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.” (Numbers 31:17-18) Granted, these verses don’t espouse marrying female children, just raping them. Still, the fact that it was Moses giving these orders has to be one of the creepiest things in a Bible filled with creepy things. And yes, Jesus was also a direct descendant of Moses.

Rick Warren says, “I’m opposed to one guy having multiple wives and calling that marriage.”

The Bible says, “Of the nations concerning which the LORD said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall not go in to them, neither shall they come in unto you: for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods: Solomon clave unto these in love. And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines: and his wives turned away his heart.” (I Kings 11:2-3) Yes, Jesus was also a direct descendant of Solomon and Solomon’s father, David (who had several wives of his own).

If someone is going to claim that marriage has always and will always be defined in one specific way, it would make the argument more convincing if his own Bible didn’t contradict his views so casually.

• • • • • • •

This article was starting to get very long, so I will post the rest of it later today or tomorrow.

Comments

Posted Thursday, December 25th, 2008

filed under music

On Friday, I’ll get back to trying to change the world one post at a time. But for right now, I wish everyone a joyous holiday season, and if you don’t happen to celebrate any holidays during the Winter Solstice, then I’m gonna wish you a happy time anyway.

This song needs no introduction, since it’s the best holiday song ever written or performed. Love you!!!

 

Comments

Posted Wednesday, December 24th, 2008

filed under gay rights

I don’t like racism. I’m one of those people who, when being confronted with a racist, will say, “Asshole much?” without hesitation. I figure, if people are so impolite they can proudly discuss their ignorance in public, then I can be impolite and call them on it.

What I hate more than the obvious bigots, though, are the closet racists. They’re the ones who “have nothing against blacks” but find it disgusting that someone they know would date a black person. They’re the ones who can prove they’re tolerant of all races because they work with black people, and commend them on being “hard workers.” They’re the ones who say, “I’m not prejudiced; I have black friends.”

Having a black acquaintance doesn’t make you the epitome of tolerance just like standing in a garage doesn’t make you a mechanic.

Sarah Palin wouldn’t laugh at that comparison, since she’s the person who thought being able to see Russia from her house made her an expert in international affairs. But she’d be the first to use the “I’m not prejudiced, I have black friends” argument.

The Republican Party likes to portray gays (or more accurately, homosexuals - pronounced as if the word had 17 syllables) as sexual deviants who want to rape your children and burn down your church. Queers are the new bogeymen, able to destroy institutions in a single bound, forcing God to punish us with 9/11, Katrina and the Jonas Brothers.

But Republicans have to be careful. Most people don’t believe that crap anymore, and its been decades since anyone bought the whole “love the sinner, hate the sin” bullshit. It didn’t make sense when the Orange Juice Queen spouted it, let alone 30 years later. So Republicans have to tread delicately when asked about their anti-gay stances.

Sarah knew the politically correct thing to say. She didn’t dislike homosexuals. Heavens, no! She had gay friends, after all.

Now that Rick Warren is coming under attack for his anti-gay views in light of President-Elect Obama’s decision to have him deliver the invocation at his inauguration, guess what familiar phrase he’s using? Yes, just like Sarah Palin, Rick Warren has gay friends. And he’ll prove it to you!

He actually went to a gay book store, purchased some books, and was photographed with - gasp - openly homosexual people. He even talked to Melissa Etheridge. There’s no way the man could be anti-gay, right?

Wrong.

Susan Eubank is my best friend. For those of you who don’t know her, I’m sorry. She is one of the most beautiful people - inside and out - that I have ever had the priviledge to know, let alone have the honor to call a friend.

If I found a man I loved enough that I wanted to spend the rest of my life with him, Susan would attend the wedding. Hell, if I needed her to, she would pay for the wedding, get a license so she could officiate the wedding, buy a camera so she could take plenty of pictures of the wedding, and tell everyone she knows how excited she is that I’m getting married.

She wouldn’t, on the other hand, actively campaign to make my marriage illegal. She wouldn’t compare me to child molesters and incestuous siblings. She wouldn’t ban me from her church.

I don’t know what the hell Rick Warren thinks a friend is, but I can tell you this. He is not a friend of gay people, no matter how many photo opportunities he sets up to prove otherwise. If anything, he’s the reason the “with friends like these who needs enemies” quote exists in the first place.

Friends love each other. They don’t try to get constitutional amendments passed to prevent their friends from getting married. They don’t tell friends they cannot belong to their church unless they either give up on love or fake love with someone “acceptable.”

If Obama was the supporter of gay and lesbian rights that he pretends to be, he would understand the difference between diversity and bigotry. No one has ever sought to prevent Barack Obama from tying the knot or fought for a constitutional amendment to invalidate Rick Warren’s marriage. But the fact that both Obama and Warren think it’s perfectly acceptable to legislate against other people getting married strongly suggests that the “I have gay friends” rational is complete bullshit.

If Sarah Palin, Rick Warren and Barack Obama really do have gay friends, then I feel sorry for them. They must realize what a mockery of friendship they actually have, and they must enjoy acting like nice, straight-acting, Christian white men. Because that’s the only way they can be certain that Palin, Warren and Obama will remain their friends.

Personally, I’d rather just call a bigot a bigot and hang around with my true friends. Thank you Susan and all the others that have blessed my life so far. With friends like you, I can survive enemies like them.

Comments

Posted Tuesday, December 23rd, 2008

filed under gay rights

The American Family Association is pissed. Campbell’s Soups are advertising in The Advocate, a queer magazine. The obvious assumption is that lesbians and gays enjoy soup and actually buy it occasionally. But that’s against traditional family values, right?

Campbell’s Soups have treated the AFAs hysteria with a shrug. They won’t pull the advertising or apologize for recognizing that they have homosexual customers.

Personally, I only buy Campbell’s chicken noodle soup, cream of mushroom soup, and split pea soup.

But tomorrow is Christmas Eve, and I decided I need to expand my horizons. So I’m buying at least ten dollars worth of Campbell’s soup. And I’m gonna buy at least ten dollars worth of Campbell’s soup every week from now on.

Because if it makes the AFA upset, then damn right, it’s Mm Mm Good!

Comments

Posted Tuesday, December 23rd, 2008

filed under gay rights

For a long time, there was a trend in gay male personal ads to define oneself as “straight-acting” (as opposed to effeminate).

The phrase irritated me for many reasons. It assumed that gay men usually acted effeminate and exceptions had to be pointed out. It assumed that acting like a “straight” man was preferable to coming across as gay. And it assumed that gay men who acted effeminate were weak and disgusting. For those unfamiliar with the real world, none of those assumptions was remotely true or even plausible.

Besides, the phrase itself was ludicrous. If a man was straight-acting, he was sexually attracted to women. If a man liked to suck dick and get fucked up the ass, that was pretty much the complete opposite of acting like a straight man.

Fortunately, that phrase has fallen out of favor for the most part. And so, for that matter, has the idea that gay men have to act a certain way to be acceptable both to themselves and to the heterosexual masses.

Every now and then the crap raises its ugly head again (most notably when so-called gay leaders ask for people to march for the cause or become activists). The gay leaders usually avoid phrases like “straight-acting” or “lipstick lesbian” - instead they use phrases like “family friendly” and “toning down certain elements” so straight people can “see who we really are.” And more and more people are willing to call them on their bullshit when they do it.

Have you ever heard of anything so bizarre? How do you fight for equality by pathetically pretending that you’re just like the ones you’re so desperate to be equal to? Isn’t that like using beige makeup so the whities won’t realize you’re black or taping your eyes so no one will guess you’re Japanese?

If people only accept the ones who can pass as straight, the ones who act butch, lie about the gender of their loved ones, avoid public displays of affection at all costs and worry constantly about conforming, than we will never be equal.

Not that all gay men should act like raging queens and all lesbians should act like bull dykes. But raging queens and bull dykes have every right to enjoy the same freedoms that straight-acting queers and lipstick lesbians are trying to gain. And there’s no reason in this world why women shouldn’t be allowed to act like leather daddies and men shouldn’t be allowed to act like lesbian bikers if they want to.

Sometimes I wonder if anyone ever graduated the fourth grade or if we are perpetually stuck in primary school.

Which brings me to another word I despise.

Do you know anyone who jumps on the table and shrieks hysterically if a lesbian walks in the room? For that matter, if gay bashers were afraid of, well, gays, then wouldn’t they do everything possible to avoid them instead of attacking them with baseballs, chains and broken bottles?

Can we once and for all stop using the word homophobia and all of its variations? It has to be the most meaningless and ridiculous word ever used to describe prejudice.

Right wing activists worked so hard to keep homosexuality classified as a disease. They still blame the huge homosexual “conspiracy mafia lobby agenda whatever” for the American Psychiatric Association’s decision to stop claiming it was a disease back in 1974. I never quite figured that one out, since Christians have always been thousands of times more organized and militant than any gay or lesbian group, but such is such.

I guess it would be ironic that now homosexuals want prejudice to be classified as a disease, labeling right wing activists as homophobic, but I just find it distasteful.

Some people are uncomfortable around homosexuals for various reasons that don’t necessarily include religious or moral beliefs. They just are uncomfortable - having never experienced attraction for someone of the same gender and having been raised in a culture that believes in opposite-sex relationships, they can’t comprehend how a man could love another man or a woman love another woman.

Is this wrong? I would argue that it’s not. These are people who are not afraid of gay people, nor are they likely to verbally or physically abuse someone for being homosexual. They just aren’t comfortable when it comes to the topic. Some will eventually come to understand better; some won’t.

Calling them homophobes seems silly and antagonistic.

Then there are the people who genuinely believe that homosexuality is wrong. I don’t think religious views justify bigotry - it wasn’t appropriate when religion was used to justify slavery, or insist that women were inferior to men, or fight the Civil Rights Movement, and it’s certainly not appropriate to allow religious views to dictate who does and doesn’t have the right to fall in love or get married.

But these aren’t people who are afraid of gays and lesbians. These are people who believe they have the right to judge others and determine what is “acceptable” and what is not. They’re not homophobic - they’re self-righteous assholes, and they should be addressed as such.

And speaking of people who embrace religion as a way of feeling powerful, there are the Christian televangelists and ministers who have quickly learned that ranting against gays and blaming them for everything from hurricanes to terrorist attacks translates into more contributions. Sheep want to hear feel-good messages that make them smile, but they don’t send money unless they feel threatened.

These sanctimonious millionaires aren’t afraid of homosexuals, they’re thankful for them. It’s a major reason why they are millionaires in the first place. And in case you haven’t noticed, they’re already making plans for that day when their followers figure out that gays and lesbians aren’t going to actually destroy the world and are actually pretty decent people for the most part. Why do you think they’ve been pushing the evils of illegal immigrants so heavily (just as they always lean heavily on the “holocaust” of abortion)? Once one profit-raising tactic stops working, they have to be ready with several others or risk losing their precious profits and power.

They’re not homophobes, they’re con men.

And finally, there are the people who represent the lowest chain of existence: the gay bashers who beat and kill gays and lesbians, the politicians and pastors who become known for their obsessively anti-gay views, the men who go on and on about how disgusting fags are.

Calling them homophobic is ridiculous. A far more accurate label would be “closet queers.” These are the men who attack gays because they secretly want to have hot, sweaty sex with Jason Statham or Dwayne Johnson but are terrified that someone will find out they refer to their anus as a “man cunt” and rationalize their “indiscretions” when they cheat on their wives with random men they meet off of Craig’s List.

They’re not homophobes. They’re liars.

From now on, can we call it what it is? When Fred Phelps protests gay funerals, he isn’t homophobic. He’s a twisted fuck who has become so obsessed with the things men do with each other in private that his self-hatred has become a parody of itself. When Pat Robertson says that bad weather is God punishing America for being gay-friendly (as if!), he’s not homophobic. He’s just a power-hungry demi-god who has replaced Jesus with hyperbole and sucks off the tits of the desperate and the broken. When Barack Obama states that same-gender marriage is wrong, he’s not homophobic. He’s just a dumb fuck who hasn’t learned from history, even though that history directly affected him (gee, when was the last time religion decided people couldn’t marry the ones they love? It wouldn’t be when interracial couples like Obama’s parents wanted to get legally wed would it?).

I refuse to call anyone homophobic. It’s meaningless, it’s clinical, it’s sterile.

Hate is hate. Calling it anything less diminishes both the reality and the hope that that reality will soon be considered as revolting as making blacks slaves and women property.

Comments

Posted Monday, December 22nd, 2008

filed under gay rights

“Starling, when I told that sheriff we shouldn’t talk in front of a woman, that really burned you, didn’t it? It was just smoke, Starling. I had to get rid of him.”

In Silence of the Lambs, there’s a moment where Jodie Foster’s character feels diminished because she’s female. Clarice Starling is training to be an FBI agent, but how can she possibly hope for respect if her boss implies she can’t handle certain parts of the job?

The truth is, when someone gives the impression that women are inferior, even just once, because of the situation or the context, then they are basically saying that women are always inferior, and they are saying that kind of belief is acceptable.

The situation wasn’t something Starling was physically unable to do, something that had to be done either by a stronger woman or by a strong man. No, they were just talking about a serial killer. Her boss made it very clear he thought that there were aspects of the case that women were too delicate to handle.

“It matters, Mr. Crawford. Cops look at you to see how to act. It matters.”

And that’s what it all boils down to.

Even if Crawford felt like women couldn’t handle certain situations - an idea that has been proven false time and time again, even as some men remain far too stupid to absorb that fact - he shouldn’t have said anything in front of the cops. It undermined her authority and it reinforced the stereotype of women having fragile psyches that have to be protected.

It matters. It always matters.

I’ve been reading various articles and blogs regarding Barack Obama’s decision to have Rick Warren deliver the invocation at his inauguration. Some are angry about the choice, while others think it shows a willingness to embrace all views and beliefs. Some see it as a sign that Obama could care less about gay and lesbian Americans, while others are outraged that the President-Elect isn’t being respected for choosing who he wants at his own inauguration.

And many just think it’s a tempest in a teapot, a lot of protests over something meaningless.

Let me tell you why it matters.

Barack Obama will be the next President of the United States. Not only will he be the first interracial President, but he is taking over from a Presidency that manufactured wars, stripped Americans of Constitutionally-protected rights, made billions of dollars for his friends and family, dictated what the press could report, destroyed our country’s reputation around the entire world, and will most likely go down in history as one of the worst, if not the worst, Presidents.

Barack Obama represents change, hope, a chance for a better future.

And on the amazing day that he will be sworn into office, the first thing anyone will see of the ceremony is Rick Warren delivering the invocation.

He could have literally chosen anyone. Personally, I think choosing Bishop Desmond Tutu would have been a wonderful choice. This is a man who is a huge inspiration to many Americans, it would have shown that Obama is interested in mending bridges with the international community, and would have been a truly historical occasion.

Instead, he chose Rick Warren, a man reviled by many fundamental Christians because he has watered down the basic tenets of the Christian faith in his quest for fame, both as a “mega-church” pastor and a best-selling author. Rick Warren is also a man equally reviled by many progressive and liberal Americans because of his inflexible opposition of pregnant women having the right to choose, same-gender couples having the right to marry, terminal patients having the right to die with dignity, and even stem-cell research.

Barack Obama claims that he wants to embrace a diverse culture, but he’s actually embracing the mainstream as tightly as he can.

Rick Warren represents arguably the majority of Americans, people who believe in God but aren’t obsessed by it, people who think maybe gays should have rights, but don’t vote because it’s not a personal issue to them. Rick Warren represents warm milk and comforting messages.

And that is the first impression everyone will have of a President who promised to be above that kind of pandering.

Still, many people wonder why it’s such a big deal.

For one thing, Barack Obama has said on more than one occasion that he opposes same-gender marriage, even though - as the child of parents who, up until very recently, could not have legally married either - he comes across as somewhat of a hypocrite. And besides, most ministers think homosexuality is an abomination, right?

But let’s make one thing very clear. There are three states where same-gender couples are legally married, states that Obama will soon be President of. By choosing a vocal opponent of same-gender marriage, Obama is implying not only that opposing gay rights is acceptable, but that it is honorable. In doing so, he is clearly demonstrating his belief that certain Americans are inferior to others.

Does that scenario sound familiar? Many black people vehemently oppose the idea of referring to the struggle of gays and lesbians to obtain the same rights as straight people as a “civil rights movement.” And that’s understandable. No other minority (with the possible exception of Jewish people) has suffered and lost more than black people, and there will never be another struggle for equality that was as tragic or hard-fought as the Civil Rights Movement.

But that does not change the fact that gays and lesbians are fighting for basic civil rights that should never have been denied, let alone been subject to popular vote. Can you imagine anything more ludicrous? It is astonishing that people discriminate because of someone’s religion or race, the color of their skin or the country of their birth. It is just as astonishing that people discriminate because of who someone falls in love with or is sexually attracted to.

So Barack Obama chose a known bigot to deliver his invocation. And let’s stop pretending - calling prejudice an opinion or a religious belief does not change the fact that it’s still prejudice. It was prejudice when most people thought women weren’t intelligent enough to vote. It was prejudice when most people thought black men should not share public bathrooms with white men. And it’s prejudice when most heterosexuals think they are “normal” and gays are deviants.

What makes something a prejudice? When it can’t be supported by logic. And insisting that loving couples of the same gender should not be allowed to marry is anything but logical.

But Barack Obama went one step further. Instead of just promoting bigotry, he also chose to promote a man who played a role in stripping Californians from a civil right. Rick Warren didn’t donate 20 million dollars of tax-free contributions like the Mormons did, but he did strongly support the Constitutional Amendment that stripped people of their right to get married and nullified previous marriages retroactively.

Rick Warren is not only a bigot, he is in the center of one of the most bitter and disgusting chapters in our country’s history, and Barack Obama isn’t ignoring that, he’s rewarding it.

Barack Obama is going to be President soon. And Rick Warren will be welcoming him at the beginning of that celebration.

Barack Obama isn’t reaching out to others. If so, he would have chosen someone that better represents the fundamental right. Instead, he’s trying to conform to mainstream expectations. And in the process, he is affirming the “belief” that not only is same-gender marriage wrong, but if any state dares to legalize it, it must be fought by any means necessary.

Barack Obama is making it extremely clear that gays and lesbians are separate but not equal, that Americans are only important if they are heterosexual, that bigotry is not something to be ashamed of but something to be celebrated.

And yes, I think that matters. I think it matters a lot.

Comments