Born This Way

I stumbled upon this blog, it's called 'Born This Way.' In the blog's own words, its goal is to provide "A photo/essay project for gay adults (male and female) to submit pictures from their childhood (roughly ages 2 to 12) - with snapshots that capture them, innocently, showing the beginnings of their innate LGBT selves. It's OUR nature, our TRUTH!"

Personally, I am surprised that I have not come across something like this sooner. It's an interesting blog. While it is presented in a lighthearted manner, the objective couldn't be more serious. The author decided to start this blog to counter the right-wing rhetoric that propelled Proposition 8 to success. I challenge any LGBT person who has unaccepting and bigoted relatives to show them this website along with a photograph of himself or herself as a queer child.

Oh, and in case you are wondering, the picture above my post is of me with a childhood friend circa '97 or '98...at a Spice Girls concert. Born this way, baby!

Natural Selection

The "unnatural" argument against homosexuality is truly the cleverest of all the stupid points raised by anti-gay forces. I believe it is so clever because the argument really summarizes homophobia at a very visceral level: we hate you because you are not like us.

To a person who does not really analyze his or her culture, homosexuality may actually seem unnatural. There is even a twisted logic to the argument. They say Men and woman are biologically complimentary, therefore heterosexuality is proper. They also make the claim that most people are heterosexual, so then it must be nature's norm. Finally, they point to Western Culture and how it has been built around Judeo-Christian values, the traditional family unit and a basic definition of a given individual that is inherently based on the man/woman divide. You are given a name at birth, and it is either intended to be masculine or feminine. In short, being heterosexual is just expected.

So if a person is not heterosexual, then he or she is falling short of traditional cultural expectations and is not following the natural order of things. But when a person really thinks critically of what constitutes the natural, this mentality should rapidly fall apart.

After all human behavior is not unchanging. By which standard to you measure a lifestyle in order to call it "natural"? A life of mansions and plastic surgery must surely be as unnatural to a nomad as a life of collapsible huts and fur skins would be to an heiress. they have different lifestyle standards. Or are both of their lives equally natural, as any anthropologist would claim?
Is the meat heavy diet of the paleolithic hunter-gather unnatural, or is the neolithic farmer, with his diet of mostly grains, truly representative of the natural human diet? Which invention is more natural, the Ipod or the hammer, and which paint colors are closer to nature, pink shades or earth tones?

Since there is not one universal measurement, when we start to pick and choose which aspects of human life to consider natural, we can easily start sounding absurd.

Some people actually believe that nature itself is that one universal standard. They go to great lengths, and spend a considerable amount of money, on trying to prove that homosexuality does not exist in the animal (even insect!) kingdom. Well it doesn't. How could it when the very word itself describes a group of human beings? However, Same-sex behavior is recorded among animals and yes, insects too (Still, these cases are purely in terms of mating because life forms obviously can't experience true love, a human emotion). In any case, nature is value-neutral and should never become the standard by which human beings judge others. After all, there is no constitution, or Bible for that matter, in the middle of the jungle.

And besides, why would human beings want to restrict themselves to behaving in ways that are defined by arbitrary social or biological norms. Isn't the sentient ability to overcome the confines of our environment and become more than the sum of our parts what really makes us human in the first place? Our very ability to grow to be more seems to be in our nature.

Gay Conservatives

While they are undoubtedly misguided, there is undeniable value of out gay and lesbian conservative organizations within the larger gay movement.

Openly gay conservatives support the Republicans' agenda and stand against the Democratic platform both financially and through volunteering. The two largest of these organizations are GOProud and Log Cabin Republicans, and these groups' raison d'etre is fundamentally subordinating civil equality to signature conservative stances such as limited government, individual liberty and national defense.

Recently, at a gay conservative fundraiser for GOProud, the audience posed tough questions for Ann Coulter over gay rights. The organization was, well, Proud to have her as their special guest and even deemed her "the Judy Garland of the Right" (not 100% sure who should be insulted by that title).

Does the existence of these organizations hurt or actually help the LGBTQ Movement?

They clearly provide a much different political outlet for some in the Gay Community, and that can be a very good change. The more the public sees how diverse gays and lesbians really are, the more they will see their sexuality as just another facet of their lives, rather than the defining facet. The staunch Republican working with the gay conservative on a common ground issue such as advancing the idea of limited government would presumably realize that gays are not necessarily political enemies.

Also, through cooperation on a campaign, they may even learn to see homosexuality for what it truly is: a healthy expression of the human experience. Therefore, organizations like GOProud are uniquely positioned to reach out to a significant part of the American population that other gay groups cannot.

On the other hand, the diversification of political expressions for gays and lesbian that these groups represent can be a weakness. The damage to the Gay Community caused by infighting over the status of gay conservative groups is self-evident. A political and social movement fighting amongst themselves severely weakens their effectiveness. The presence of gay conservative groups, as well as their vocal detractors within the Gay Community, compromises the overall goal of equality.

The divergent activities of gay conservatives and the mainstream gay-rights movement also undermines the bigger picture. How much longer will the battle for equal rights take when GOProud donated and volunteered for John McCain while more mainstream gay political action groups did the same for Barack Obama? True, both candidates were against gay marraige but politcal groups of the Gay Community would have more of an impact on politicians if they all worked together on one candidate. Since gays and lesbians are s minority group, it is only logical that they pool their resources together in order to have the maximize impact in politics.

To many within the Gay Community, civil rights trump all other issues. It is not that gays are single-issue voters but rather the suffering they have to endure as a direct result of inequality comes before any other political concern. Civil rights becomes the trump card when voting, and this is why many are enraged by gay conservatives. In some cases, they are considered worse than ordinary conservatives because they are perceived as betrayers of their own kind.

Yet groups like GOProud and Log Cabin Republicans are not the Judases of the Gay Community. They have decided, like countless other political groups throughout history, that the integrity of the State comes before civil rights. To them, this integrity means limiting government and maintaining an overwhelmingly strong defense. Their position is not unique and their political positions fall within reason. Indeed in terms of history, the position of mainstream gays are the true anomalies. Conservative gays are not suffering from internalized homophobia, they are simply expressing their beliefs. While they can, and frankly must, vehemently disagree, the mainstream gay political groups must also treat gay conservatives as equals.

Under pain of disunity, this basic divide must some how be bridged by all within the Gay Community. A reasonable, realistic perspective is absolutely urgent. Mainstream gays must accept the existence and legitimacy of gay conservatives and work within this reality. Many conservative gays have ample time and money that can be used to advance equality, and all of them have valid viewpoints so long as they do not directly advocate inequality. However, the conservative gay groups must stop supporting candidates that are overtly anti-equality such as John McCain.

In order for real change to occur, the Gay Community as a whole must stop advocating for one party over the other and advocate for individual candidates that support gay rights. If mainstream gay political groups expect to work with gay conservatives, then they must compromise. As a result, more candidates could become more conducive towards equality. If enough do, then the party platforms will follow. Gay conservative groups are certainly legitimate, if misguided. In this modern age, there still should be enough room for the whole Gay Community to work together, and if there isn't then they need to learn to change. I hope our society will come to a time when both parties are for full civil rights and the Gay Community has the luxury of dividing itself over economic and national defense matters.

Snuffed.

Seth Walsh was 13. He was incessantly taunted by his peers for being perceived as gay. He went to his backyard. He hung himself from a tree. Yet the rope didn't snap his neck. Instead, the noose strangled him. But slowly. His lips turned blue. His body produced one last adrenaline rush. So he involuntarily struggled against the noose. His legs twisted wildly. He gasped. Often in these cases fear and reflex causes them to vomit. Eventually he went limp. His body was tortuously deprived of oxygen. He slipped into a coma. Nine days later, he died. During the police interrogation, his tormentors broke down in tears. They said they wished they had stopped.

Walsh's family does not wish to place blame, but rather focus on promoting tolerance and understanding. As a grieving family, they have every right to react in the way that best gives them some solace. However, there is much blame to be cast, and frankly those responsible more than deserve to be exposed.

Here are the people who are responsible for Walsh's death and thousands of other LGBT youth:

1) The monster who promotes and maintains a culture of homophobia. This person wishes that gays would deny who they are and not assert their civil rights. He or she fights them in the public arena with the ultimate goal of re-closeting. He or she calls them faggots. Sometimes he or she is more clever and uses phrases such as 'disordered,' 'sinful,' 'unnatural' and 'perverted.' He or she is religious, but dirties the concept of god through such intolerance.

2) The bigoted peer who uses the word 'gay' as an insult and teases the gay or perceived to be gay kid. It is true that this person is a child and does not fully understand the potential consequences of she or her actions. However, it is the careless taunting and bullying without regard to the consequences that is the problem with this person. Thoughtlessly throwing around words or actions have real consequences.

3) This bigot can be the straight parent who just doesn't care enough, or the straight friend who refuses to take that critical jump to acceptance. While not exactly as bad as bigot of #2 or the monster of #1, this person is clearly uncomfortable with gays and lesbians and shows it. Sometimes the things left unsaid can be most hurtful to an LGBT teenager.

4) The people who side with neither tolerance nor intolerance. They do not actively join the taunting, but they allow the bullying to continue unchallenged. These individuals are only slightly less contemptible than the previous type.

5) The Gay individual who does not try to make life easier for his or her kind. This person does not vote and does not call elected officials. He or she does not attend civil rights events. This person in fact does not contribute to the struggle for justice in any way either physically or financially. He or she does want the cycle of homophobia to be broken across the country, yet does nothing to contribute. This person should know better.

There is plenty of blame to go around. When a LGBT youth kills him or herself due to homophobia is a domestic travesty of the highest magnitude.

The Trevor Project is the best outreach organization for this topic, but unfortunately, it is still not enough. If there was greater cooperation between individuals in Tehachapi, California, to stamp out bullying and provide genuine mentors, perhaps Seth Walsh would be alive today.

Mea Culpa...Ego Operor Non Reputo Sic!

It came out today that Ken Hehlman, well, came out. Coming out ought to be a joyous occasion like any other fundamental assertion of the self. Often it is, but not when the likes of Ken Hehlman publicly states that he's gay.

This homosexual was the chairman of the Republican National Committee. This queer was George W. Bush's re-election campaign manager. The election of 2004 will forever be remembered by gays as when the Republican Party used the prospect of increased rights for gays to scare the Religious Right into tipping the balance that gave Bush the presidency again. He was Bush's Director of the White House Office of Political Affairs.

In short, he was at one point one of the most influential people in the United States, not to mention among the most powerful Republicans of the time. One could even argue that he was the homosexual in the most unique position to try to make tomorrow better than today. Here is what he did with his power:

1) I already mentioned his role in the election of 2004, a great setback for gay rights and civil rights in general.

2) He pressed not one, but TWO, constitutional amendment to explicitly deny gays the right to marry.

3)Helped develop the strategy where George Bush threatened to veto any hate crime bill-this one is surely the most sinister use of his influence.

4) Going back to the 2004, he developed the "72 hour strategy." Specifically appealing to homophobic churches in the preceding days to election day to scare them into voting Republican.

He is even worse than the religious radicals who come out or are caught in a compromising position because his position gave him real influence over the top executives of our nation.
So he is a collaborator, and an incredibly damaging one. There is a lot of suffering the Gay Community is yet to endure while it fights to dismantle the homophobic climate he helped to sustain. He must be chastised, no censured by any homosexual who cares about civil rights and healthy living. There must be no accommodation for collaborators who are not contrite.

Is he contrite? This is the closest thing he made to an apology:

"I can’t change the fact that I wasn’t in this place personally when I was in politics, and I genuinely regret that. It was very hard, personally...What I do regret, and think a lot about, is that one of the things I talked a lot about in politics was how I tried to expand the party into neighborhoods where the message wasn’t always heard. I didn’t do this in the gay community at all"

To those who are inclined to doubt his sincerity, he added that “If they can’t offer support, at least offer understanding.”

I do not understand, stating your regrets is no act of contrition. How convenient for him to not be "in this place" when he was chairman of the RNC, a position that had real influence. Now that he is defanged, he comes out. Nothing other than enmity is appropriate between this individual and the Gay Community. I do not understand.

He claims that he will start fighting for marraige equality, and has donated money to the cause in various states. Yet until he publicly and loudly apologizes for his past action, holds himself accountable for the damage and heartache he caused the LGBT Community for years and notes just how much he was in error. Then, and only then, will his quaint charitable actions have any substance and meaning. Even the future St. Paul had to apologize to the Christian Community for persecuting them before they welcomed him as one of their own.

Thus far have his statements been a true mea culpa...I don't think so!

What's in a Name (Change)?

When many gay couples marry, one of them changes their last name and adopts the last name of their husband or wife. Is there anything wrong with this and does it even matter?

One clear advantage that I've come across is that it represents a precaution to the dreaded hospital-rejection scenario. For example, if Latisha Amoretta is dying of coma in the hospital that is not gay-friendly, her wife, Kira Amoretta, formerly Kira Vancouver, can simply say to the workers that she is Jane's sister. The convenience of a name-change is undeniable in that sort of situation.

Gay couples who change their name also add great symbolic weight to their situations. If Buddy Henderson adopts the last name of his husband, Gregor de Oliveira, their marriage seems to be formalized even more. Their union is even more like the majority of heterosexual marriages.

This may seem like a nice gesture on the surface, but the act of changing one's last name to his or her spouse's seems to me the wrong thing to do. It is a gesture that recalls the worst aspect of traditional heterosexual marriage-fundamental inequality based on gender.

Why do wives change their last names to their husbands anyway? They do it because the act is a throwback to the time when wives left their families upon marriage to begin their lives as a member of their husband's family-til' death do they part I should add. She no longer belonged to her father's family and now she belongs to her husband's family. The justification for this action is the underlying assumption that women are inferior (or at least must defer) to men. This is the true symbolism of the last name-change: family unity through deference to the man.

The concept of ownership in a relationship ought to be dead by now. Human beings don't belong to one another no matter what the circumstance. Marriage is an emotional investment, it is no longer viewed as an ownership contract.

Modern couples, and explicitly Homosexual couples, have the luxury of choosing which traditions they will accept in their marriage and which they will not. This luxury must not be wasted by retaining the vestiges of oppression and inequality. Yes it seems nice, yes it is romantic. But last name changing is also antiquated and symbolic of the wrong ideas. How can the thinking person accept it in the long term?

If you want to make a symbolic statement, yet still be romantic, hyphenate your last names in alphabetical order. For example, our couples from before should be known in their married lives as Latisha and Kira Amoretta-Vancouver and Buddy and Gregor DeOliveira-Henderson. It's not as traditionally romantic as one of them completely changing their last names, but it is healthier and fair.

Where's Athena When America Needs Her??

The Spartans, no not the steroid movie crazies, the real ones, had institutionalized homosexuality (or what we modern people would call homosexuality) as an important aspect of their army. Basically all we remember Sparta by is their fabulous army-for Zeus's sake they were the "elephant" in the War Between the "Elephant" and the "Whale." If they don't need "Don't Ask Don't Tell" we sure as Hades certainly do not.

Today Justice Vaughn Walker of the US District Court of Northern California has reached a decision deeming Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot measure that nullified gay marriage in California, unconstitutional.

This is truly a victory for marriage equality, but merely a small battle in a struggle that has no end in sight. The decision will be appealed by supporters of the unconstitutional measure. Since our judicial system is divided into geographic zones (kind of like county level -state level -federal level but the geographical organization is different), the case decision will be appealed by the supporters of Prop 8 to the 9^th circuit.

Then the decision that the 9th makes has the possibility to be appealed as well. If that happens then the highest court in the land will weigh in, the Supreme Court, and make a final decision on the matter. Therefore, this will prove to be a long, hard campaign that has an uncertain course.

However, one thing is for certain, if the case were to go to the Supreme Court tomorrow, it would fall apart and Proposition (H)8 would be the law of the land in California. Besides the fact that the members of the Court aren’t very socially progressive, the strongest indication that the law would be upheld is that the Court rarely, if ever, makes decisions that the overwhelming majority of American would not endorse. Unfortunately, most Americans still do not support gay marriage. So it really is an uphill battle from here.

This victory had been long predicted and the Gay Community must not let it cloud their judgment of the two lawyers who took up the marriage equality position. Most gay rights organizations only reluctantly agreed to support the stubborn lawyers in their bid. Ted Olsen and David Boies have taken a great risk with this case that has and will gather much publicity (not to mention considerable historical prestige for the courtroom victors).

They have taken possibly too great a risk. While I guess I should not presume to know their true underlying motivations for initiating Perry v. Schwarzenegger, the truth of the matter remains that the cards are definitely stacked against Olsen and Boies. The risk is probably too great because it would be disastrous for the Supreme Court to rule against marriage equality, since any unjust court decision takes agonizingly long to fix. The prospect of waiting decades for a future court to overturn a bad ruling would be utterly tragic for gays and the integrity of the United States as a whole. At this point, the Gay Rights Movement cannot afford a legal defeat of that magnitude. It would set everything back decades at least.

The opponents of marriage equality have used many tricks in the past, including scare tactics, they have monetary resources that regularly surpass the resources of those who fight for equality, and they have well entrenched political allies-especially on the Supreme Court. Yet they lack the one special weapon that is the most important factor in any campaign: time.

Attitudes in the US are changing towards Gays and Gay Marriage. The younger generations are already greatly accepting of gay marriage and as the “Greatest Generation” and older “Baby Boomers” slip into senility or die out, their political influence will also. Yet the political influence of the younger generations will only increase. Hopefully by the time the Supreme Court hears this case, if it indeed gets that far, public opinion will have decisively turned towards marriage equality. So the key is not how fast things go for homosexuals and their families, but rather how slowly.

Whatever their underlying motivations, Ted Olsen and David Boies are now the true defenders of marriage in all its forms. Today’s victory in the Perry v. Schwarzenegger was a limited one, but one that made tomorrow, Aug 5, a better day than today.

When In Rome...

Well, it isn’t too often that you hear about Catholic priest scandals involving sex with adults. Ever since the Italian magazine “Panorama” published an expose revealing the numerous homosexual activities within the Priesthood of Rome, the Vatican and its allies have had no choice but to push back hard-yet again. One of them is Bill Donohue, the president of the so-called “Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights.” He has been defending the Church during this year’s wave sex scandals and his explanation of the underlying cause is broad indeed: homosexuality. Yet his analysis is as ignorant as it is broad. The underlying problem is homophobia within Catholicism, not homosexuality itself.

He claims that there is a statistically “overwhelming” link between “homosexuality and the sexual abuse of minors." He further commented, “As I have said many times, most gay priests are not molesters, but most of the molesters have been gay." His conclusion is that the root of the problem with the abuse scandals is caused by homosexuality within the priesthood.

However absurd his claim is, he backs it up with sound evidence. It is true that many studies have found that the overwhelming majority of priestly abuses involved the same sex. However, to blame the gays is an incorrect analysis of the available data. After putting aside the cases that are genuinely pedophiliac (that is a completely different issue) this situation just begs the next logical question: why are homosexuals becoming Catholic priests only to covertly act on their desires?

The answer to me is clearly homophobia, the true cause of this crisis. For a homosexual to join the Roman Catholic Priesthood and then clandestinely have affairs with men belies a deep-rooted conflict within the priest regarding his homosexuality. If a man cannot and will not accept his own sexuality, then it is probable that such actions become logical consequences of his denial. The “Panorama” expose describes the guilt and shame the priests would experience during and immediately after their encounters. Things would be different if the priests didn’t belong to an organization that forces them to consider themselves disordered and their sexual behavior loathsome. The organization and its attitude towards homosexuality is really to blame, the behavior of the gay priests are simply tragic symptoms of the larger problem.

It is not homosexuality that drives these priests to act dishonorably, but rather it is the denial, hatred and fear of their homosexuality that causes them to act in such ways.

The issue is not the status of homosexuality within the Church, but the status of homophobia in the Church. If the church was not so homophobic, perhaps its priests would act better than they do today.

Still, the Vatican did get something right for once when it urged that these people should no longer be priests.

You can read the “Panorama” expose here (If you know Italian).

Reply

Forward

"...And No Religion Too"

Religion should not be opposed, but when the religious take the rights of others, they must be opposed.

Many within the LGBT community have profound issues with religion. They look at most religions with disdain and view adherents with disgust. They voice their opposition to religions that have been traditionally active in public discourse. Not only are they opposed to religion, but they also alienate the believers through insults. They could not be more wrong in handling oppressive religions.

However, the way to do it is not by overtly hurling insults at people of faith or attacking their church head on. While this may be a temporary emotional outlet, it is overall not an effective approach in actually combating religious ignorance. Religion can’t be destroyed, only reduced and controlled.

The Catholic Church, for example, survived the Romans, the early heresies, the Great Schism, the Reformation, the Age of Reason, and communism. Modern-day progressives won’t change this historical trend.

Yet it is without question that the Catholic Church has recently lost a significant amount of influence in the Western World. People simply stopped caring as much, yet they were actively prodded to care less.

From advertisers using sex to sell products, to the diminished position of the Lord’s Day in society, traditional religious thought was challenged indirectly. The result was a mass decline of ordinary Americans’ commitment to traditional religion. Advertisers and corporate bosses achieved what warlords and revolutionaries before them had not: the destruction or severe regulation of Christianity to the private sphere of life. Of course concepts built into our society, such as secularism, laid the groundwork for change.

Ordinary gays and lesbians themselves did much more to erode religiously-fueled hatred by simply becoming familiar with religious Americans than all the overtly anti-religious ever did. After all, it is much harder to use your religion as a weapon if you know the target of your prejudice personally.

That is the key to reducing religion: bleed it dry by attempting to form relationships with its mild/moderate adherents and treating them like human beings. The die-hards within each religious group must be approached in this way because they will not change, but without receptive ears they will lose relevance. The key is to win over people, not crush them. To make tomorrow better than today, acts of hate cannot be matched by acts hate. This probably doesn’t hold true for every situation, but for this one it does.