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.”
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
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
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Secret Santa
Someone once said you spend Thanksgiving with the people you want to, and Christmas with the people you have to. You’re blessed if those two audiences are one in the same.
For me, the gatherings are almost always different for each holiday, but it’s not due to drama. It’s mainly because a) I prefer not to leave town on Thanksgiving (the day before is the busiest travel day of the year and I like my sanity), and b) I have such a big family on both sides, I rotate my destinations to try to see everyone.
Most of my friends have asked if my partner is going with me back home to L.A. He’s not, because of his work schedule. But my family knows about him and many will eventually meet him. Most of his family now knows me, and I spent Thanksgiving with all of them and enjoyed it.
But many gay couples will never have to think about this scenario. Because one is a secret from the other’s family.
An informal survey across my friends reveals something remarkable: many of them have not told their families about their long-term relationships, even as they hit the 5-year mark and beyond. So you can guess the holidays are resolutely a separate affair for them. But does this kind of arrangement devalue the relationship?
Family is tricky in of itself, let alone when you bring a boyfriend or girlfriend to the equation. You feel like you spend a lifetime learning the complicated rhythms and personalities of your family members, and how they can be incorporated into your life. And your plus-one may not be able to blend into that scene well. That alone can make someone hesitant to bring in a veritable in-law.
Some others have a more tangible fear. Their family may consist of conservatives, religious or otherwise, who would virtually disown them for their gayness. Or maybe the family is abusive or dysfunctional to where they don’t want to bring the unsuspecting partner into a dark milieu.
But an informal survey of friends and acquaintances doesn’t uncover such drastic scenarios save a very few exceptions. It frankly seems to be an extension of how out they are in general, and how comfortable they are making their homosexuality known.
My question, though, is how long can you keep your partner from the family, or be hidden from your partner’s family? And what purpose does it serve in the long run?
I can see if you’ve only dated someone several months, and don’t know the long-term potential. You don’t want to do the family rounds and then break up shortly afterward.
For me, keeping a partner in the closet for a long time is putting fear, pride, and a desire for acceptance above your relationship. And is that the priority list you want? Conceivably, a family member can scorn you for your career choices or your style of dress. So are you going to keep everything you think might elicit the slightest bit of disapproval away from the family to “keep the peace”? When does it stop?
When I bring this argument up to a few friends who fit the scenario, they bristle and see the words “closeted” and “fear” as judgmental. Their ears hear me saying that they are cowardly wusses. It’s complicated, they say, and I wouldn’t understand. One friend years ago said that it’s “not important” his family knows. Another unabashedly said he would never introduce a boyfriend to his family to avoid a sense of shame and discomfort that would be generated, even if it meant losing that boyfriend eventually.
Maybe I shouldn’t be surprised. I’ve met many men who are out to their friends, and maybe even co-workers. But family is still put behind the great wall, essentially creating a double life. One argument is you can get new friends, but not new family members. So even if prejudices fuel tensions and divides that may arrive due to sexuality or a relationship, it’s better to avoid that situation. Blood is thicker than water.
But if your long-term partner is as important in your life as a parent or sibling, why keep those important parts painfully separate? Sooner or later, there has to be a breaking point. I mean, will someone tolerate a 10-year closeted relationship? Will you be age 50 or 55 before you officially out your relationship? And isn’t that a teeny bit ridiculous?
Oddly, I know situations where one is out, but the other is not. So while the couple is enmeshed with one family, you only hear crickets on the other side. I can’t help but think that eventually the out person is going to feel resentful and throw down the gauntlet.
Sometimes, outside factors motivate outing the relationship – a prime example is if one or both has children. If the other person is serious, you scarcely can spend time with the kids and leave out the significant other.
If someone is bent on having separate holidays and separate lives, I can’t convert them. But they’re missing something good. Why talk about the turkey dinner and the glee from unwrapped gifts over the phone, when you can be there in person?
For me, the gatherings are almost always different for each holiday, but it’s not due to drama. It’s mainly because a) I prefer not to leave town on Thanksgiving (the day before is the busiest travel day of the year and I like my sanity), and b) I have such a big family on both sides, I rotate my destinations to try to see everyone.
Most of my friends have asked if my partner is going with me back home to L.A. He’s not, because of his work schedule. But my family knows about him and many will eventually meet him. Most of his family now knows me, and I spent Thanksgiving with all of them and enjoyed it.
But many gay couples will never have to think about this scenario. Because one is a secret from the other’s family.
An informal survey across my friends reveals something remarkable: many of them have not told their families about their long-term relationships, even as they hit the 5-year mark and beyond. So you can guess the holidays are resolutely a separate affair for them. But does this kind of arrangement devalue the relationship?
Family is tricky in of itself, let alone when you bring a boyfriend or girlfriend to the equation. You feel like you spend a lifetime learning the complicated rhythms and personalities of your family members, and how they can be incorporated into your life. And your plus-one may not be able to blend into that scene well. That alone can make someone hesitant to bring in a veritable in-law.
Some others have a more tangible fear. Their family may consist of conservatives, religious or otherwise, who would virtually disown them for their gayness. Or maybe the family is abusive or dysfunctional to where they don’t want to bring the unsuspecting partner into a dark milieu.
But an informal survey of friends and acquaintances doesn’t uncover such drastic scenarios save a very few exceptions. It frankly seems to be an extension of how out they are in general, and how comfortable they are making their homosexuality known.
My question, though, is how long can you keep your partner from the family, or be hidden from your partner’s family? And what purpose does it serve in the long run?
I can see if you’ve only dated someone several months, and don’t know the long-term potential. You don’t want to do the family rounds and then break up shortly afterward.
For me, keeping a partner in the closet for a long time is putting fear, pride, and a desire for acceptance above your relationship. And is that the priority list you want? Conceivably, a family member can scorn you for your career choices or your style of dress. So are you going to keep everything you think might elicit the slightest bit of disapproval away from the family to “keep the peace”? When does it stop?
When I bring this argument up to a few friends who fit the scenario, they bristle and see the words “closeted” and “fear” as judgmental. Their ears hear me saying that they are cowardly wusses. It’s complicated, they say, and I wouldn’t understand. One friend years ago said that it’s “not important” his family knows. Another unabashedly said he would never introduce a boyfriend to his family to avoid a sense of shame and discomfort that would be generated, even if it meant losing that boyfriend eventually.
Maybe I shouldn’t be surprised. I’ve met many men who are out to their friends, and maybe even co-workers. But family is still put behind the great wall, essentially creating a double life. One argument is you can get new friends, but not new family members. So even if prejudices fuel tensions and divides that may arrive due to sexuality or a relationship, it’s better to avoid that situation. Blood is thicker than water.
But if your long-term partner is as important in your life as a parent or sibling, why keep those important parts painfully separate? Sooner or later, there has to be a breaking point. I mean, will someone tolerate a 10-year closeted relationship? Will you be age 50 or 55 before you officially out your relationship? And isn’t that a teeny bit ridiculous?
Oddly, I know situations where one is out, but the other is not. So while the couple is enmeshed with one family, you only hear crickets on the other side. I can’t help but think that eventually the out person is going to feel resentful and throw down the gauntlet.
Sometimes, outside factors motivate outing the relationship – a prime example is if one or both has children. If the other person is serious, you scarcely can spend time with the kids and leave out the significant other.
If someone is bent on having separate holidays and separate lives, I can’t convert them. But they’re missing something good. Why talk about the turkey dinner and the glee from unwrapped gifts over the phone, when you can be there in person?
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Eight Is Not Enough
In the aftermath of California voters barely passing Prop. 8, which shot down gay marriage, many of the pundits seemed to dwell on one fact: nearly 70% of Black voters in the state voted for the proposition.
My first thought was disappointment that so many of my own people pulled the lever against a right I, and other LGBT people, should have had in the first place.
But in all the sniping from some White gay leaders who were infuriated that one minority group couldn’t understand the perspective of another minority group, and with all the grousing from some Black gay leaders that there are bigger priorities in life than marriage, there’s a lesson lost.
We’re not communicating with and reaching out to each other before crucial decisions are made. And as a vote from the DC City Council on gay marriage will be coming up in early 2009 in a city that is 60% Black, we need to do this like yesterday.
First, the Black vote fixation was myopic. Apparently, some people didn’t realize that upward of 80% of Republicans, conservatives, white evangelicals, and weekly churchgoers also voted yes on Prop. 8. The initiative would have passed, albeit barely, even if not a single African-American had shown up at the polls. Besides, Mormons pumped $20 million into the “Yes on 8” campaign, so it’s safer to say they really tipped the scales.
The morning-after chattering confirmed that a crucial problem was messaging and outreach. Apparently, the African-American outreach from mostly white gay groups was sorely lacking. There were a couple of town hall meetings in the state and an urging of the NAACP to issue a press release. Uh, that’s it?
Imagine if you had large numbers of LGBT campaign organizers approaching churches, community centers, civil rights groups, nonproifts, colleges, and local leaders to discuss the benefits and importance of gay marriage and to offer to hear out and dispel myths and worries. Imagine if you had a series of town hall meetings in which gays of all races and ethnicities discussed in detail the discrimination they faced in health care, employment, education, and the like. Imagine a scene where Black gay couples with children discussed the legal hurdles and challenges to their parental rights to various audiences (Remember there are still states, like Florida, Utah, and Arkansas, where gay adoption is illegal.)
A good friend in L.A. who has marched in protests in the aftermath of the election believes this idea is rather naïve. In his mind, there is nothing anyone can say or do to persuade a homophobe, particularly a Bible-thumping one. I’m not so sure. You can never convert everyone. Some conservatives will never, ever believe global warming exists, for example. But putting a human face on an issue can change some hearts. It’s not so easy to condemn neighbors, metaphorically and literally, who live, work, eat, and go to school just like you. (Besides, if Americans gave up on an idea because it would be met with some resistance, we wouldn’t have declared independence from England or created the Civil Rights movement).
But my friend did bring up a good point. In general, there are relatively few out, prominent people in the Black communities, whether they are in entertainment, business, politics, or sports. We don’t have our own Elton John, perhaps because fear of backlash and rejection have allowed timidity to govern, instead of courage.
When comedian Wanda Sykes publicly came out after the election and declared she had a wife and she was angry about Prop. 8 setting us back, I was proud and pleased. But quickly, I also thought, “Where the hell was she before Nov. 4?” Wouldn’t it have been great is Sykes and other celebrities also went around to stump against Prop. 8. And what about high-profile Black heterosexuals who are gay-friendly providing a voice? On that front, things were eerily quiet, and that’s a shame. And I think it cost us.
So there’s some blame to go around. But the key is there was little dialogue between communities on the campaign trail. People were either suspicious of the other or took things for granted. Now that D.C. will be in the middle of a national debate on gay marriage soon, we should be in a position to do things differently and set a better example.
I read this week in the Washington Blade that some DC gay leaders were looking to connect with Black groups and leaders, straight and gay, to help elicit support for gay marriage if it goes to a referendum vote like in California. They’d better do it fast. Prop. 8 was a wake-up call, and we can’t be caught sleeping at the wheel.
My first thought was disappointment that so many of my own people pulled the lever against a right I, and other LGBT people, should have had in the first place.
But in all the sniping from some White gay leaders who were infuriated that one minority group couldn’t understand the perspective of another minority group, and with all the grousing from some Black gay leaders that there are bigger priorities in life than marriage, there’s a lesson lost.
We’re not communicating with and reaching out to each other before crucial decisions are made. And as a vote from the DC City Council on gay marriage will be coming up in early 2009 in a city that is 60% Black, we need to do this like yesterday.
First, the Black vote fixation was myopic. Apparently, some people didn’t realize that upward of 80% of Republicans, conservatives, white evangelicals, and weekly churchgoers also voted yes on Prop. 8. The initiative would have passed, albeit barely, even if not a single African-American had shown up at the polls. Besides, Mormons pumped $20 million into the “Yes on 8” campaign, so it’s safer to say they really tipped the scales.
The morning-after chattering confirmed that a crucial problem was messaging and outreach. Apparently, the African-American outreach from mostly white gay groups was sorely lacking. There were a couple of town hall meetings in the state and an urging of the NAACP to issue a press release. Uh, that’s it?
Imagine if you had large numbers of LGBT campaign organizers approaching churches, community centers, civil rights groups, nonproifts, colleges, and local leaders to discuss the benefits and importance of gay marriage and to offer to hear out and dispel myths and worries. Imagine if you had a series of town hall meetings in which gays of all races and ethnicities discussed in detail the discrimination they faced in health care, employment, education, and the like. Imagine a scene where Black gay couples with children discussed the legal hurdles and challenges to their parental rights to various audiences (Remember there are still states, like Florida, Utah, and Arkansas, where gay adoption is illegal.)
A good friend in L.A. who has marched in protests in the aftermath of the election believes this idea is rather naïve. In his mind, there is nothing anyone can say or do to persuade a homophobe, particularly a Bible-thumping one. I’m not so sure. You can never convert everyone. Some conservatives will never, ever believe global warming exists, for example. But putting a human face on an issue can change some hearts. It’s not so easy to condemn neighbors, metaphorically and literally, who live, work, eat, and go to school just like you. (Besides, if Americans gave up on an idea because it would be met with some resistance, we wouldn’t have declared independence from England or created the Civil Rights movement).
But my friend did bring up a good point. In general, there are relatively few out, prominent people in the Black communities, whether they are in entertainment, business, politics, or sports. We don’t have our own Elton John, perhaps because fear of backlash and rejection have allowed timidity to govern, instead of courage.
When comedian Wanda Sykes publicly came out after the election and declared she had a wife and she was angry about Prop. 8 setting us back, I was proud and pleased. But quickly, I also thought, “Where the hell was she before Nov. 4?” Wouldn’t it have been great is Sykes and other celebrities also went around to stump against Prop. 8. And what about high-profile Black heterosexuals who are gay-friendly providing a voice? On that front, things were eerily quiet, and that’s a shame. And I think it cost us.
So there’s some blame to go around. But the key is there was little dialogue between communities on the campaign trail. People were either suspicious of the other or took things for granted. Now that D.C. will be in the middle of a national debate on gay marriage soon, we should be in a position to do things differently and set a better example.
I read this week in the Washington Blade that some DC gay leaders were looking to connect with Black groups and leaders, straight and gay, to help elicit support for gay marriage if it goes to a referendum vote like in California. They’d better do it fast. Prop. 8 was a wake-up call, and we can’t be caught sleeping at the wheel.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
No Longer a Prince Among Men
What do you do when a hero of yours – an icon, for crying out loud – not just has feet of clay, but also brain of Jell-o?
I’m talking about Prince, one of the most brilliant musicians of our time and still so, I must grudgingly admit. But if you haven’t heard, he thinks gay people are kind of disgusting. He said the Bible opposes homosexuality and God has said “enough.”
In an interview that appears in the Nov. 24 edition of the New Yorker, Prince talked at length about his Jehovah’s Witness faith. When asked for his views on social issues--gay marriage and abortion--Prince tapped his Bible and said, "God came to earth and saw people sticking it wherever and doing it with whatever, and he just cleared it all out. He was, like, 'Enough.' "
My first reaction when I read this was not anger, but laughter. After all, this is a man who:
1) Has worn high heels, make-up and flamboyant, often sequined, clothes that at one time had the butt cut out of them.
2) Wore a Speedo on the cover of his 1980 Dirty Mind album, which featured a song that fantasized about him having sex with his sister (in the appropriately tiled song, “Sister”).
3) Has sung frequently, exhaustively, and graphically, if imaginatively, about sex.
4) Has fragrantly played with sexual and gender roles in his performances and music, one-upping David Bowie and Madonna. (Safe bet that he’s had a sexual encounter with at least one man.)
5) Has had sex with numerous people, numerous times.
Apparently that Prince is behind us and lo, a new one has taken his place. But does religious faith mean he has to turn into a hypocritical homophobe? I grant anyone the right to change his or her values, lifestyle, and belief system if it edifies peace of mind and quality of life. But that person doesn’t have to cast aspersions on those he or she still considers in the wilderness.
Prince has basically ascended to a higher moral level and has ruefully peered at those behind the pearly gates he shut behind himself. And the whole “people sticking it wherever and doing it with whatever” quote. That’s something base and ignorant, and it sounds like it’s coming from the mouth of a seven-year-old – or Fred Phelps.
This article made me think what would happen if one of my gay male friends, a consummate partier, changed his ways due to faith, a partner, etc., and he proceeded to strike out at those who used to be like him. It would rub me the wrong way. I’d appreciate and respect his new life. But that kind of judgmental thinking doesn’t do anyone good. The “moralists” feel superior and the “heathens” feel lacking.
The ideal in life is that each of us becomes responsible and accountable for his/her own life without telling others “the way.” Besides, who decides what the way is, and couldn’t there be more than one way.
Prince doesn’t have to worry about fallout from this article. He has his millions, musical legacy, and mansions to cushion him against any blows. (Although I wonder what his music industry and Hollywood friends have to say about an anti-gay tirade).
But he lost the respect of one die-hard fan. I’ll keep all the CDs and downloads, but the thrill is mostly gone.
I’m talking about Prince, one of the most brilliant musicians of our time and still so, I must grudgingly admit. But if you haven’t heard, he thinks gay people are kind of disgusting. He said the Bible opposes homosexuality and God has said “enough.”
In an interview that appears in the Nov. 24 edition of the New Yorker, Prince talked at length about his Jehovah’s Witness faith. When asked for his views on social issues--gay marriage and abortion--Prince tapped his Bible and said, "God came to earth and saw people sticking it wherever and doing it with whatever, and he just cleared it all out. He was, like, 'Enough.' "
My first reaction when I read this was not anger, but laughter. After all, this is a man who:
1) Has worn high heels, make-up and flamboyant, often sequined, clothes that at one time had the butt cut out of them.
2) Wore a Speedo on the cover of his 1980 Dirty Mind album, which featured a song that fantasized about him having sex with his sister (in the appropriately tiled song, “Sister”).
3) Has sung frequently, exhaustively, and graphically, if imaginatively, about sex.
4) Has fragrantly played with sexual and gender roles in his performances and music, one-upping David Bowie and Madonna. (Safe bet that he’s had a sexual encounter with at least one man.)
5) Has had sex with numerous people, numerous times.
Apparently that Prince is behind us and lo, a new one has taken his place. But does religious faith mean he has to turn into a hypocritical homophobe? I grant anyone the right to change his or her values, lifestyle, and belief system if it edifies peace of mind and quality of life. But that person doesn’t have to cast aspersions on those he or she still considers in the wilderness.
Prince has basically ascended to a higher moral level and has ruefully peered at those behind the pearly gates he shut behind himself. And the whole “people sticking it wherever and doing it with whatever” quote. That’s something base and ignorant, and it sounds like it’s coming from the mouth of a seven-year-old – or Fred Phelps.
This article made me think what would happen if one of my gay male friends, a consummate partier, changed his ways due to faith, a partner, etc., and he proceeded to strike out at those who used to be like him. It would rub me the wrong way. I’d appreciate and respect his new life. But that kind of judgmental thinking doesn’t do anyone good. The “moralists” feel superior and the “heathens” feel lacking.
The ideal in life is that each of us becomes responsible and accountable for his/her own life without telling others “the way.” Besides, who decides what the way is, and couldn’t there be more than one way.
Prince doesn’t have to worry about fallout from this article. He has his millions, musical legacy, and mansions to cushion him against any blows. (Although I wonder what his music industry and Hollywood friends have to say about an anti-gay tirade).
But he lost the respect of one die-hard fan. I’ll keep all the CDs and downloads, but the thrill is mostly gone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)