Lately, I’ve been trying to figure out who’s been making the biggest media tour of self-promotion under the guise of justice and truth-telling – Ted Haggard or Rod Blagojevich?
Since Blago is a pompous windbag who was impeached and is really yesterday’s news, let’s go to the Colorado pastor who famously was evicted from his flock after revelations of gay affairs that he insist do not make him gay. See, isn’t that more fun?
In case you don’t own a television, Haggard has been on Oprah, Larry King, and other news outlets on the heels of an HBO documentary on his life directed by Nancy Pelosi’s daughter. The married evangelical is openly calling himself a liar and a hypocrite for anti-gay declarations and fighting gay marriage when it turns out he had sex with men.
In 2006, Haggard confessed to a money-for-sex relationship with former escort Mike Jones, from whom he also purchased crystal meth. Haggard was forced out of New Life Church in Colorado Springs, Colo., and the National Association of Evangelicals. Meanwhile, it was recently revealed that Haggard was sexually involved with former church member Grant Haas.
It’s interesting that Haggard’s self-flagellation doesn’t extend to his admitting that he’s anything near gay. Instead, he has gone one to say that he is “heterosexual with homosexual attachments” or “heterosexual with complications.” Coy? Oy!
Haggard reminds me of presumably straight men who sleep with men but don’t see themselves as gay. For them, dalliances with men are just sex and not any point of identity. The irony is that they almost totally define gay men by their sexuality.
Gay critics (deservedly) have scorched Haggard with fire-breathing criticisms. I despise his character too, but I’m going to go out on a limb and say I feel sorry for him.
I don’t mean sorry as in I would give him a hug and say everything will be alright. I mean pity that he’s in deep denial and contorting his true nature to where his insides are more of a puzzle than his replies to interviewers’ questions. He’s creating his own Dante’s inferno without the Dante.
Even while Haggard praises his wife and makes pains to say he has a happy marriage and still wants his wife sexually, he still admits he’ s attracted to men – but he is no longer acting on it or trying not to, anyway. Perhaps the years in a religious environment that is virulently anti-gay, he morphed into a homophobic crusader even as the elephant in the room grew louder. Or maybe he thought any life without wife and kids seemed not normal and unspeakable.
However free he may sound, I know he in anguish. Those “feelings” won’t go away because they are a part of who he is. Haggard is just one soldier in an army of men who lead double lives and for whatever reason, can’t bring themselves to acknowledge and embrace gayness they have. For them, sexuality is never free because it’s bound by doubt and shame. He’s not overcoming anything so much as supplanting everything.
Some people are angry that the documentary seems to paint him in a sympathetic light. It does to a large degree. But it also gives us the picture of a man perpetually in conflict, trying in vain to convince people – maybe more so himself – that he’s not “really gay.”
So he can get a six-figure book deal, a talk show, and maybe a new church. But he doesn’t really win. As long as he tries to cocoon himself in a façade of heterosexuality, he will continue to break his own heart every day.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
A May-December Affair To Remember
The rising politician gets felled by sex scandal when his affair with a young intern comes to light and makes headlines, followed by calls for his resignation.
No, you’re not in caught in one of those Lost time warps, landing back in 1998 to watch the Bill-Monica fiasco. You’re watching the nation’s most prominent gay mayor – Sam Adams of Portland, Ore. – sweating in the spotlight after he copped to romancing an 18-year-old intern and then lying about the relationship before his election last November.
Adams, 45, last month publicly acknowledged that as a city commissioner he grew interested in Beau Breedlove, then 17, and had sex with him after he turned 18, the legal age of consent in Oregon. Adams has admitted lying about the relationship in 2007 as he was considering a run for mayor and asking Breedlove to lie about it, too.
The state’s attorney general is investigating to see if a crime was committed, namely third-degree sex abuse. What, you say? Well, twinkie Breedlove admitted that they kissed at least twice while he was 17, including a “lingering” smooch in a City Hall bathroom (I was ready to guess near the lockers after algebra class).
All this mess has made me wonder if Adams (and by extension Breedlove) will be treated differently because he’s gay. I suspect so.
Because sexuality is our most defining trait, fair or unfair, in the public mind, matters involving sex then take a disproportionately larger role in people’s perception of us. So some people wanting to bury Adams are motivated in part by their disapproval and disgust of homosexuality and gay sex.
Too much of a leap? Critics, including reporters, bloggers, officials and local residents, have already taken to calling Adams a "predator" and a "pedophile." It’s worth noting many of these criticisms came when all intimacy between the two was thought to occur after Breedlove’s 18th birthday – when both were consenting adults in the eyes of the law.
It would be one thing if these criticisms emphasized the unequal balance of power in this relationship, which I think is a key point of concern. When someone is technically your boss, are the boundaries completely set? Can you really go to 100% professional mode from 9-5, and freakydink mode at night, and no issues of control and power ever come into play? I doubt it. That was a legitimate issue with Clinton, Leader of the Free World, and Lewinsky, flirtatious Valley girl.
The bigger problem is that Adams lied about it and asked his former lover to lie. If he did nothing wrong in his mind, why cover it up? And there is the age difference. Breedlove claimed that he knew the full ramifications of what he was doing even when he first met his “mentor” Adams – more than twice his age – before the hanky-panky. Yeah, I thought I knew everything when I was 17 and 18, too.
But most of the current flack really comes from the idea of Adams as chicken hawk swooping down on boy Breedlove. The “pedophile” tag comes out of hoary stereotypes linking homosexuality with child abuse.
Unless this investigation does determine laws were broken, I don’t think Adams should lose his job, just like I didn’t think Clinton should have lost his. That’s not to say Adams did nothing wrong. He behaved inappropriately in his capacity as a local lawmaker. If he had a hankering for barely legal things, he could have gone to Portland’s version of Apex on Thursday nights instead of City Hall. Just like Clinton shouldn’t have been blown in the Oval Office while waiting for Yasser Arafat’s phone call.
But it’s not quite the same, is it? It’s hard to assume if Breedlove were female that Adams would be seen as a threat to all impressionable young women, like he’s seen as now with impressionable young men. Clinton, and other straight politicians (think John Edwards, David Vitter) caught up in sex scandals, are rascally and tacky skirt chasers. Gay politicians, or those caught up in a gay scandal (think Larry Craig), have a deeper shadow cast on them. They become “sick,” “disgusting” or “predatory.” There's an exaggerated sense of shock and titillation perpetuated by the media.
Maybe that’s why Adams lied. He knows there are different standards and perceptions. And once the haze of romance cleared and the reporters started sniffing around because of the affair rumors, he knew he’d be dead meat if he was honest. Unfortunately for Adams, that may happen anyway.
No, you’re not in caught in one of those Lost time warps, landing back in 1998 to watch the Bill-Monica fiasco. You’re watching the nation’s most prominent gay mayor – Sam Adams of Portland, Ore. – sweating in the spotlight after he copped to romancing an 18-year-old intern and then lying about the relationship before his election last November.
Adams, 45, last month publicly acknowledged that as a city commissioner he grew interested in Beau Breedlove, then 17, and had sex with him after he turned 18, the legal age of consent in Oregon. Adams has admitted lying about the relationship in 2007 as he was considering a run for mayor and asking Breedlove to lie about it, too.
The state’s attorney general is investigating to see if a crime was committed, namely third-degree sex abuse. What, you say? Well, twinkie Breedlove admitted that they kissed at least twice while he was 17, including a “lingering” smooch in a City Hall bathroom (I was ready to guess near the lockers after algebra class).
All this mess has made me wonder if Adams (and by extension Breedlove) will be treated differently because he’s gay. I suspect so.
Because sexuality is our most defining trait, fair or unfair, in the public mind, matters involving sex then take a disproportionately larger role in people’s perception of us. So some people wanting to bury Adams are motivated in part by their disapproval and disgust of homosexuality and gay sex.
Too much of a leap? Critics, including reporters, bloggers, officials and local residents, have already taken to calling Adams a "predator" and a "pedophile." It’s worth noting many of these criticisms came when all intimacy between the two was thought to occur after Breedlove’s 18th birthday – when both were consenting adults in the eyes of the law.
It would be one thing if these criticisms emphasized the unequal balance of power in this relationship, which I think is a key point of concern. When someone is technically your boss, are the boundaries completely set? Can you really go to 100% professional mode from 9-5, and freakydink mode at night, and no issues of control and power ever come into play? I doubt it. That was a legitimate issue with Clinton, Leader of the Free World, and Lewinsky, flirtatious Valley girl.
The bigger problem is that Adams lied about it and asked his former lover to lie. If he did nothing wrong in his mind, why cover it up? And there is the age difference. Breedlove claimed that he knew the full ramifications of what he was doing even when he first met his “mentor” Adams – more than twice his age – before the hanky-panky. Yeah, I thought I knew everything when I was 17 and 18, too.
But most of the current flack really comes from the idea of Adams as chicken hawk swooping down on boy Breedlove. The “pedophile” tag comes out of hoary stereotypes linking homosexuality with child abuse.
Unless this investigation does determine laws were broken, I don’t think Adams should lose his job, just like I didn’t think Clinton should have lost his. That’s not to say Adams did nothing wrong. He behaved inappropriately in his capacity as a local lawmaker. If he had a hankering for barely legal things, he could have gone to Portland’s version of Apex on Thursday nights instead of City Hall. Just like Clinton shouldn’t have been blown in the Oval Office while waiting for Yasser Arafat’s phone call.
But it’s not quite the same, is it? It’s hard to assume if Breedlove were female that Adams would be seen as a threat to all impressionable young women, like he’s seen as now with impressionable young men. Clinton, and other straight politicians (think John Edwards, David Vitter) caught up in sex scandals, are rascally and tacky skirt chasers. Gay politicians, or those caught up in a gay scandal (think Larry Craig), have a deeper shadow cast on them. They become “sick,” “disgusting” or “predatory.” There's an exaggerated sense of shock and titillation perpetuated by the media.
Maybe that’s why Adams lied. He knows there are different standards and perceptions. And once the haze of romance cleared and the reporters started sniffing around because of the affair rumors, he knew he’d be dead meat if he was honest. Unfortunately for Adams, that may happen anyway.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
A Whiter Shade of Pale
Two good friends attended last week’s “Out For Equality” Inaugural Ball, hosted by the Human Rights Campaign.
When I asked one of them the day after what he thought of the event, I was expecting tales about noshing on shrimp with Melissa Etheridge and getting Thelma Houston to sing the hook of “Don’t Leave Me This Way.” Instead, they were kind of bummed because the Mayflower room hardly had any people of color. Apparently, it was whiter than the population of Maine.
Here we were, ushering in the nation’s first African-American president and the diversity didn’t extend to the gayest event in the city. I don’t blame organizers because, well, they con’t populate the hotel with a greater racial mix if that mix isn’t already in the gay power structure.
And that’s the bottom line. The Mayflower that night reflects a reality and a constant problem that the gay movement is still embarrassingly un-diverse. And it will continue to cost us.
Exhibit A: Prop. 8. The voter turnout – with a majority of African-Americans and Latinos voting for the anti-gay marriage measure – and the postmortem analysis by gay activists revealed a lack of outreach efforts by gays to minority groups on this issue. There was an arrogant assumption that one minority should always be in the corner of another minority.
What it also showed is that increasing diversity from the grassroots level to the big financial and political players is not a priority. Things may be a little better that ten years ago, but there is still a startling lack of people of color in gay activism. For example, can you name three non-white leaders or spokespeople of mainstream gay groups or interests? I’ll wait.
Now part of the problem may be a Catch-22. An organization or group that is vastly white may make an effort to recruit members of color. But gay minorities, suspicious there aren’t very many people like them, may demur because they are uncomfortable with the lack of diversity. So two well-meaning sides can’t meet in the middle.
The time has come to not assume every LGBT person is progressive and knows to be inclusive within our community. Look at how many gay DC residents willingly segregate themselves on racial terms when they socialize. Look at how some gays and lesbians scorn, or are uncomfortable with, transgendered people.
It only benefits the greater cause when the gay movement becomes more integrated, incorporates different points of view, and amasses a bigger collective of people that can change the world as much as President Obama likely will.
Sadly, the fact that we are discriminated against by heterosexuals doesn’t seem to lend itself to us being conscientious about our own prejudices.
When I asked one of them the day after what he thought of the event, I was expecting tales about noshing on shrimp with Melissa Etheridge and getting Thelma Houston to sing the hook of “Don’t Leave Me This Way.” Instead, they were kind of bummed because the Mayflower room hardly had any people of color. Apparently, it was whiter than the population of Maine.
Here we were, ushering in the nation’s first African-American president and the diversity didn’t extend to the gayest event in the city. I don’t blame organizers because, well, they con’t populate the hotel with a greater racial mix if that mix isn’t already in the gay power structure.
And that’s the bottom line. The Mayflower that night reflects a reality and a constant problem that the gay movement is still embarrassingly un-diverse. And it will continue to cost us.
Exhibit A: Prop. 8. The voter turnout – with a majority of African-Americans and Latinos voting for the anti-gay marriage measure – and the postmortem analysis by gay activists revealed a lack of outreach efforts by gays to minority groups on this issue. There was an arrogant assumption that one minority should always be in the corner of another minority.
What it also showed is that increasing diversity from the grassroots level to the big financial and political players is not a priority. Things may be a little better that ten years ago, but there is still a startling lack of people of color in gay activism. For example, can you name three non-white leaders or spokespeople of mainstream gay groups or interests? I’ll wait.
Now part of the problem may be a Catch-22. An organization or group that is vastly white may make an effort to recruit members of color. But gay minorities, suspicious there aren’t very many people like them, may demur because they are uncomfortable with the lack of diversity. So two well-meaning sides can’t meet in the middle.
The time has come to not assume every LGBT person is progressive and knows to be inclusive within our community. Look at how many gay DC residents willingly segregate themselves on racial terms when they socialize. Look at how some gays and lesbians scorn, or are uncomfortable with, transgendered people.
It only benefits the greater cause when the gay movement becomes more integrated, incorporates different points of view, and amasses a bigger collective of people that can change the world as much as President Obama likely will.
Sadly, the fact that we are discriminated against by heterosexuals doesn’t seem to lend itself to us being conscientious about our own prejudices.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Below the Surface
Since e-Harmony doesn’t want us, perhaps it’s time more of us who are relationship-oriented and seeking potential partners took the law of romance into our own hands.
That’s what psychotherapist Ken Page did over four years ago. The New Yorker led retreats on personal growth and wondered if there was a less superficial way for gay men and women to meet.
Out of the Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Community Center in Manhattan, he led a workshop called “Deeper Dating” one day in 2004. Just like the format that endures to this day, the event started with a talk on sexuality, intimacy, and spirituality and then led to social exercises where participants mingle and share personal feelings and insights with others. Each attendee was allowed to give a paper with a name and phone number to 10 other people, who had to accept the contact information but were not obligated to have to go out with that person.
Some 100 gay men attended the original workshop. On average, Page says, 50 people monthly turn out now for Deeper Dating in New York, which is always led by a trained clinician. (Page stopped leading the exercises but oversees the program.)
“It’s like speed dating with soul,” Page said. “I thought I’d do it once but people didn’t want to leave. People just don’t realize there’s a gentler way to do this.”
Deeper Dating (http://www.deeperdating.com/) promotes the idea that a desire for a substantial relationship also entails having deeper personal values, such as a sense of community. And unless we choose lovers – and friends for that matter – with similar values, Page believes, we will feel out of place and possibly lose a shot at happiness.
So far Deeper Dating is also in Provincetown, Boston, and New Jersey. (There have also been versions created for straights, lesbians, and bears at last count.) DC may be on the list sometime in the future. I think a lot of Washingtonians would welcome it.
Offhand, the premise of Deeper Dating may sound too Oprah-ish and feel-good for some folks. Values? Feelings? In some ways that flies against the currency of the gay modern dating world where cynicism and superficiality often muscle each other out for first place.
But there are plenty of us who have grown tired of what the dating and club scene has to offer. And from what I’ve been hearing anecdotally, match.com – which allows gay and lesbian online dating profiles unlike e-Harmony – hasn’t seemed to be the golden ticket for some subscribers.
Page said the idea for Deeper Dating percolated after a talk with his best friend on the travails of relationships, which made him realize that dating wouldn’t work with men whose values he didn’t share. So he set to work on designing a dating forum that would put emphasis on personality, feelings and values, what Page fancies as “re-learning dating skills.” He also feels Deeper Dating helps people avoid the tendency to create an “airbrushed” version of who they really are to try to impress people.
Sessions, for example, focus on not just going after others you find attractive, but conversing with someone who may not be your physical ideal, yet who shapes up to be interesting and inspiring. Attendees answer questions such as which faraway friend or family member is very important to their lives and why, so others get a better sense of their priorities and thoughts.
“The conventional wisdom is that you have to improve yourself, like lose weight,” he said. “The task is not to improve ourselves but be ourselves.”
Page, who has an adopted son and is still single, said this emphasis on relationships has helped him in his dating life. He is much braver about approaching people, and less afraid to let men know he’s interested.
“The people I date now are so much better people,” he said. “I wanted an event where people show the best part of themselves.”
That’s what psychotherapist Ken Page did over four years ago. The New Yorker led retreats on personal growth and wondered if there was a less superficial way for gay men and women to meet.
Out of the Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Community Center in Manhattan, he led a workshop called “Deeper Dating” one day in 2004. Just like the format that endures to this day, the event started with a talk on sexuality, intimacy, and spirituality and then led to social exercises where participants mingle and share personal feelings and insights with others. Each attendee was allowed to give a paper with a name and phone number to 10 other people, who had to accept the contact information but were not obligated to have to go out with that person.
Some 100 gay men attended the original workshop. On average, Page says, 50 people monthly turn out now for Deeper Dating in New York, which is always led by a trained clinician. (Page stopped leading the exercises but oversees the program.)
“It’s like speed dating with soul,” Page said. “I thought I’d do it once but people didn’t want to leave. People just don’t realize there’s a gentler way to do this.”
Deeper Dating (http://www.deeperdating.com/) promotes the idea that a desire for a substantial relationship also entails having deeper personal values, such as a sense of community. And unless we choose lovers – and friends for that matter – with similar values, Page believes, we will feel out of place and possibly lose a shot at happiness.
So far Deeper Dating is also in Provincetown, Boston, and New Jersey. (There have also been versions created for straights, lesbians, and bears at last count.) DC may be on the list sometime in the future. I think a lot of Washingtonians would welcome it.
Offhand, the premise of Deeper Dating may sound too Oprah-ish and feel-good for some folks. Values? Feelings? In some ways that flies against the currency of the gay modern dating world where cynicism and superficiality often muscle each other out for first place.
But there are plenty of us who have grown tired of what the dating and club scene has to offer. And from what I’ve been hearing anecdotally, match.com – which allows gay and lesbian online dating profiles unlike e-Harmony – hasn’t seemed to be the golden ticket for some subscribers.
Page said the idea for Deeper Dating percolated after a talk with his best friend on the travails of relationships, which made him realize that dating wouldn’t work with men whose values he didn’t share. So he set to work on designing a dating forum that would put emphasis on personality, feelings and values, what Page fancies as “re-learning dating skills.” He also feels Deeper Dating helps people avoid the tendency to create an “airbrushed” version of who they really are to try to impress people.
Sessions, for example, focus on not just going after others you find attractive, but conversing with someone who may not be your physical ideal, yet who shapes up to be interesting and inspiring. Attendees answer questions such as which faraway friend or family member is very important to their lives and why, so others get a better sense of their priorities and thoughts.
“The conventional wisdom is that you have to improve yourself, like lose weight,” he said. “The task is not to improve ourselves but be ourselves.”
Page, who has an adopted son and is still single, said this emphasis on relationships has helped him in his dating life. He is much braver about approaching people, and less afraid to let men know he’s interested.
“The people I date now are so much better people,” he said. “I wanted an event where people show the best part of themselves.”
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Silent Prayer
Next Tuesday, I’m braving a crowd of millions, cold weather, and a wickedly high people-Porta Potty ratio to see Barack Obama sworn in as our next President. Yes, I’ll be huddling on the Mall with my partner and possibly a few friends watching the ceremony from a JumboTron screen if truth be told, but I’ll be there.
I’ve been asked how I’ll react when Rev. Rick Warren steps to the podium to deliver the invocation. In case you’ve been living under a rock, Obama’s pick of Warren to open the ceremony in prayer caused a furor from the LGBT community because of his vigorous support of Prop. 8 and his past remarks comparing gay marriage to incest, pedophilia and polygamy. And until just last month in fact, his Saddleback Church in California had language on its Web site stating gay people would not be accepted as members.
When Obama announced his pick of Warren, I was truly disappointed. If he wanted a massively popular evangelist to prove he was reaching out to the other side of the aisle, why not someone like Joel Osteen? At least from what I’ve seen on his recent “60 Minutes” profile, Osteen is all about extolling the positive qualities of Christianity, not the divisive ones. He avoids politics and “those people” talk.
But I won’t boo or hiss Tuesday morning. I’ll listen to what Warren will have to say, albeit without applause. I’ve learned over these few weeks, though, not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Despite being a lackluster choice, I don’t think it reflects Obama’s character or the progress we will enjoy with him in the Oval Office.
First, if Warren’s opposition to gay marriage is a sore spot, then that inauguration platform would be mostly empty. Remember, even Obama (yet) doesn’t endorse full gay marriage. And not very many pastors, even those who are affirming, do.
Yes, Warren is ignorant about homosexuality, despite professing that he loves us and he had a very nice talk with Melissa Etheridge at some event. (I had a nice talk with my calculus professor freshman year, but he still gave me a C.) But here’s why Warren’s presence fades when the big picture arises:
1. Obama chose Rev. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire, an openly gay bishop who advises him on gay issues, to open the inaugural festivities Sunday at the Lincoln Memorial. The Episcopal bishop said he was not asked in reaction to the furor over Warren. "They made it very clear with me, and I certainly do believe them, that this was in the works for some time," Robinson told USA TODAY.
2. The families accompanying Obama on a train ride to DC from Philadelphia on Sunday include a lesbian couple.
3. Obama has recently made several gay appointments. Nancy Sutley, a Los Angeles deputy mayor, has been named to head the White House Council on Environmental Quality. Gay advocates say they believe more gay appointments are in the offing. Fred Hochberg will head the Export-Import Bank, and Brian Bond will be deputy director of public liaison.
4. Incoming White House spokesman Robert Gibbs recently declared that Obama plans to end the "don't ask, don't tell" policy that requires gay members of the military to hide their sexual orientation.
Obama fancies himself showcasing different voices, even ones that offend, and encouraging reconciliation and that in of itself is not a bad goal. It’s worth noting that when Robinson’s role was announced, the Christian right started making declarations that Obama was remiss for selecting someone whose views offend some Americans (sound familiar?). And let’s not forget the ceremony will be closed out in prayer by Black minister and civil rights leader Joseph Lowery.
The bottom line is that Obama can and, I believe, will do more for gay rights and gay equality than any previous president, or any leading politician for that matter. So when Warren does his thing, I will quickly forget about him and think about the man who will later place his hand on the Bible, take his oath, and lead our country out of this mess.
I’ve been asked how I’ll react when Rev. Rick Warren steps to the podium to deliver the invocation. In case you’ve been living under a rock, Obama’s pick of Warren to open the ceremony in prayer caused a furor from the LGBT community because of his vigorous support of Prop. 8 and his past remarks comparing gay marriage to incest, pedophilia and polygamy. And until just last month in fact, his Saddleback Church in California had language on its Web site stating gay people would not be accepted as members.
When Obama announced his pick of Warren, I was truly disappointed. If he wanted a massively popular evangelist to prove he was reaching out to the other side of the aisle, why not someone like Joel Osteen? At least from what I’ve seen on his recent “60 Minutes” profile, Osteen is all about extolling the positive qualities of Christianity, not the divisive ones. He avoids politics and “those people” talk.
But I won’t boo or hiss Tuesday morning. I’ll listen to what Warren will have to say, albeit without applause. I’ve learned over these few weeks, though, not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Despite being a lackluster choice, I don’t think it reflects Obama’s character or the progress we will enjoy with him in the Oval Office.
First, if Warren’s opposition to gay marriage is a sore spot, then that inauguration platform would be mostly empty. Remember, even Obama (yet) doesn’t endorse full gay marriage. And not very many pastors, even those who are affirming, do.
Yes, Warren is ignorant about homosexuality, despite professing that he loves us and he had a very nice talk with Melissa Etheridge at some event. (I had a nice talk with my calculus professor freshman year, but he still gave me a C.) But here’s why Warren’s presence fades when the big picture arises:
1. Obama chose Rev. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire, an openly gay bishop who advises him on gay issues, to open the inaugural festivities Sunday at the Lincoln Memorial. The Episcopal bishop said he was not asked in reaction to the furor over Warren. "They made it very clear with me, and I certainly do believe them, that this was in the works for some time," Robinson told USA TODAY.
2. The families accompanying Obama on a train ride to DC from Philadelphia on Sunday include a lesbian couple.
3. Obama has recently made several gay appointments. Nancy Sutley, a Los Angeles deputy mayor, has been named to head the White House Council on Environmental Quality. Gay advocates say they believe more gay appointments are in the offing. Fred Hochberg will head the Export-Import Bank, and Brian Bond will be deputy director of public liaison.
4. Incoming White House spokesman Robert Gibbs recently declared that Obama plans to end the "don't ask, don't tell" policy that requires gay members of the military to hide their sexual orientation.
Obama fancies himself showcasing different voices, even ones that offend, and encouraging reconciliation and that in of itself is not a bad goal. It’s worth noting that when Robinson’s role was announced, the Christian right started making declarations that Obama was remiss for selecting someone whose views offend some Americans (sound familiar?). And let’s not forget the ceremony will be closed out in prayer by Black minister and civil rights leader Joseph Lowery.
The bottom line is that Obama can and, I believe, will do more for gay rights and gay equality than any previous president, or any leading politician for that matter. So when Warren does his thing, I will quickly forget about him and think about the man who will later place his hand on the Bible, take his oath, and lead our country out of this mess.
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Safety In Numbers
Friday after next, Mayor Adrian Fenty will meet with the group Gays & Lesbians Opposing Violence (GLOV) and discuss ways to end anti-gay violence in Washington after a spate of assaults and one murder.
Finally.
It took more than a little coaxing for that group and other activists to make Fenty and other officials finally pay attention to the string of incidents where gay men have been beaten up and, in a case not even a month old, murdered.
It’s interesting that someone like Fenty, who courted the gay community like mad in his election campaign (I think he was at more gay events that year than I was), repeatedly spurned the idea of a community meeting with police, top city officials, and residents to discuss anti-gay violence, including hate crimes.
It’s not unreasonable to assume Fenty’s acquiescence came in part after GLOV released a statement criticizing Fenty’s lack of response, while pointing out members of other entities – including the U.S. Attorney’s office and the City Council – have already discussed this disturbing trend with the group. He seems to have been embarrassed into action.
Even in the assault and killing of innocent people, sexual orientation becomes needlessly political. If another group – say the elderly, children, or immigrants – was being targeted, I imagine there would be a bigger deal in the mainstream media and on the lips of local policymakers. Can you see it now? “Old people victimized! Film at 11!”
But because the victims are gay men, you can almost feel the sea change of sympathies and priorities. Perhaps because many of these victims were coming from a known gay bar or club, some DC residents likely had a subconscious thought that these men were out partying and reveling in the “lifestyle” and, well, what do you expect? And if people are firmly homophobic, they see the victims as “the other” whose lives and well-being are of no consequence to them.
And I imagine officials like Fenty are timid about getting into the fray because they see the criticism coming. “Dozens of black men are murdered or assaulted each year,” critics cry. “So why are you spending your time on the gays? Are you with us or them?”
As if the police and the lawmakers have to choose? Why can’t resources be directed to wherever the needs are? Can’t we solve crimes in both the gay and black communities, for example (and whatever communities need our help the most at a given time)?
As with other more prominent cases (think Matthew Shepherd in Wyoming or, more recently, Sakia Gunn in New Jersey), the senselessness of the death and the toll it took on the victims’ families often took a back seat to discussions on how people feel about homosexuality. The bottom line should be someone was needlessly killed or assaulted. Period. And we should all mourn over an unfairly taken or compromised life.
I’m invested in seeing this dealt with not just because I’m gay, but also because I live in Logan Circle, where the recent attacks occurred. I’ve thought about all the nights I’ve walked home from bars or clubs late at night, and sometimes alone, and I took my safety for granted. Thank God for guardian angels.
But I can’t help but wonder if there will be a temporary chilling effect on some men and women wanting to go out because they fear they will be the next victims. Being in a group may not matter. Even one man with a gun instantly outnumbers five or six people. Violence is a great equalizer.
Perhaps Fenty will be enlightened during that Jan. 16th. Just once, he should imagine what it might feel like to have a target on his back.
Finally.
It took more than a little coaxing for that group and other activists to make Fenty and other officials finally pay attention to the string of incidents where gay men have been beaten up and, in a case not even a month old, murdered.
It’s interesting that someone like Fenty, who courted the gay community like mad in his election campaign (I think he was at more gay events that year than I was), repeatedly spurned the idea of a community meeting with police, top city officials, and residents to discuss anti-gay violence, including hate crimes.
It’s not unreasonable to assume Fenty’s acquiescence came in part after GLOV released a statement criticizing Fenty’s lack of response, while pointing out members of other entities – including the U.S. Attorney’s office and the City Council – have already discussed this disturbing trend with the group. He seems to have been embarrassed into action.
Even in the assault and killing of innocent people, sexual orientation becomes needlessly political. If another group – say the elderly, children, or immigrants – was being targeted, I imagine there would be a bigger deal in the mainstream media and on the lips of local policymakers. Can you see it now? “Old people victimized! Film at 11!”
But because the victims are gay men, you can almost feel the sea change of sympathies and priorities. Perhaps because many of these victims were coming from a known gay bar or club, some DC residents likely had a subconscious thought that these men were out partying and reveling in the “lifestyle” and, well, what do you expect? And if people are firmly homophobic, they see the victims as “the other” whose lives and well-being are of no consequence to them.
And I imagine officials like Fenty are timid about getting into the fray because they see the criticism coming. “Dozens of black men are murdered or assaulted each year,” critics cry. “So why are you spending your time on the gays? Are you with us or them?”
As if the police and the lawmakers have to choose? Why can’t resources be directed to wherever the needs are? Can’t we solve crimes in both the gay and black communities, for example (and whatever communities need our help the most at a given time)?
As with other more prominent cases (think Matthew Shepherd in Wyoming or, more recently, Sakia Gunn in New Jersey), the senselessness of the death and the toll it took on the victims’ families often took a back seat to discussions on how people feel about homosexuality. The bottom line should be someone was needlessly killed or assaulted. Period. And we should all mourn over an unfairly taken or compromised life.
I’m invested in seeing this dealt with not just because I’m gay, but also because I live in Logan Circle, where the recent attacks occurred. I’ve thought about all the nights I’ve walked home from bars or clubs late at night, and sometimes alone, and I took my safety for granted. Thank God for guardian angels.
But I can’t help but wonder if there will be a temporary chilling effect on some men and women wanting to go out because they fear they will be the next victims. Being in a group may not matter. Even one man with a gun instantly outnumbers five or six people. Violence is a great equalizer.
Perhaps Fenty will be enlightened during that Jan. 16th. Just once, he should imagine what it might feel like to have a target on his back.
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Auld Lang Syne
Tomorrow is my anniversary.
I met my partner at a New Year’s Eve party last year hosted by a mutual friend. When he walked through the door and I got a first look, I couldn’t stop looking (yes, this is kind of cliché, but indulge me). Who is this handsome man, I thought? I made sure to make my way over to have a conversation, and the rest is history (my last cliché, I promise).
An old friend from L.A. just last week asked me how serious I was and if I was in love. It’s definitely for real and for the long-term, I told her. I thought it was a strange question. After a year, would she think I’d still be dating someone casually?
But the question made me reflect on ways this relationship is different.
In my previous relationships, I pretty much had a “take things one day at a time” mentality. I didn’t project far ahead, partly because I was protecting myself. I have had the rug pulled out from under me more than once, so it was safer not to pin hopes on an ideal that could easily be dashed. Moreover, I’m an independent person with so many other things going on already – career, writing, friends, family, social outings, church, etc. A man was never needed to fill the space or be the missing piece of the puzzle – two phrases that make me vomit when I hear them being used.
And whether it was cynicism and/or pragmatism, I flatly believed nothing was forever and it was ludicrous to have expectations and set myself up for failure. After all, life happens as you're making plans. A man here today can easily be gone tomorrow.
My thinking has changed, though, and I've adopted a fresher perspective before I knew it. Finally, I felt comfortable imagining a partnership 5, 10, 20+ years down the road. I realized I can have my long-term goals of my career and such, and know my relationship can fit into that.
I have more of an acute sense of longevity and what work may have to be done to attain a goal I routinely scoffed at. I feel like whatever changes life brings, I can grow with my partner. And there’s not a fear a long-term relationship will reap mendacity, complacency, and resentment. It can bring constant discoveries, new adventures, and happiness if we allow it.
After many months, I began referring to my boyfriend as my partner to most everyone. I did it without thinking and can’t even remember when I started. ‘Boyfriend’ sounded too temporary, even teenager-y. The word partner just felt right.
This all makes it seem I never had great happiness, respect, honesty, communication in my previous relationships. I had most of those qualities in various degrees, but it all never seemed to come together until now.
It also makes it seem like the relationship is perfect, but it’s not and we’ve had a few hiccups along the way like every other couple. When you have two different people, you have challenges and embark upon a learning process.
The key is knowing that I can’t control my future, but I can control my viewpoints, priorities, and goals. And I can reach for the brass ring without worrying about doubts and “what if”s holding me back.
So I will ring in 2009 counting my blessings like before, but realize the great potential of what lies ahead. I can’t wait for the second anniversary
I met my partner at a New Year’s Eve party last year hosted by a mutual friend. When he walked through the door and I got a first look, I couldn’t stop looking (yes, this is kind of cliché, but indulge me). Who is this handsome man, I thought? I made sure to make my way over to have a conversation, and the rest is history (my last cliché, I promise).
An old friend from L.A. just last week asked me how serious I was and if I was in love. It’s definitely for real and for the long-term, I told her. I thought it was a strange question. After a year, would she think I’d still be dating someone casually?
But the question made me reflect on ways this relationship is different.
In my previous relationships, I pretty much had a “take things one day at a time” mentality. I didn’t project far ahead, partly because I was protecting myself. I have had the rug pulled out from under me more than once, so it was safer not to pin hopes on an ideal that could easily be dashed. Moreover, I’m an independent person with so many other things going on already – career, writing, friends, family, social outings, church, etc. A man was never needed to fill the space or be the missing piece of the puzzle – two phrases that make me vomit when I hear them being used.
And whether it was cynicism and/or pragmatism, I flatly believed nothing was forever and it was ludicrous to have expectations and set myself up for failure. After all, life happens as you're making plans. A man here today can easily be gone tomorrow.
My thinking has changed, though, and I've adopted a fresher perspective before I knew it. Finally, I felt comfortable imagining a partnership 5, 10, 20+ years down the road. I realized I can have my long-term goals of my career and such, and know my relationship can fit into that.
I have more of an acute sense of longevity and what work may have to be done to attain a goal I routinely scoffed at. I feel like whatever changes life brings, I can grow with my partner. And there’s not a fear a long-term relationship will reap mendacity, complacency, and resentment. It can bring constant discoveries, new adventures, and happiness if we allow it.
After many months, I began referring to my boyfriend as my partner to most everyone. I did it without thinking and can’t even remember when I started. ‘Boyfriend’ sounded too temporary, even teenager-y. The word partner just felt right.
This all makes it seem I never had great happiness, respect, honesty, communication in my previous relationships. I had most of those qualities in various degrees, but it all never seemed to come together until now.
It also makes it seem like the relationship is perfect, but it’s not and we’ve had a few hiccups along the way like every other couple. When you have two different people, you have challenges and embark upon a learning process.
The key is knowing that I can’t control my future, but I can control my viewpoints, priorities, and goals. And I can reach for the brass ring without worrying about doubts and “what if”s holding me back.
So I will ring in 2009 counting my blessings like before, but realize the great potential of what lies ahead. I can’t wait for the second anniversary
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)