Darkside Rainbow

I’m not in the mood to be pissed off about gay news today. Being a blog columnist with a topic so political and divisive can be damned depressing sometimes, and today I refuse to do that. It’s my day off from my other jobs and I have all I need to relax right here: a huge mug of coffee, Haagen-Dazs flavored like Bailey’s Irish Cream (no, it’s not alcoholic), and some serious boy-toy eye candy to look at:

That, my friends, is Wentworth Miller, star of Fox’s Prison Break. I’ll confess, I had never taken more than a passing glance at the boy until now; I don’t watch TV, really. It’s just not my thing. I’m a book-nerd, I download a few hundred gigabytes of movies at a time on Vongo and love going to the movie theatre across the street from my apartment, and when I’m not reading I’m working on the novel or bumming around with the boyfriend. (Yes, I have one now. Long story.) But oh my, that piece of pretty right there might just change that when season three rolls around. I’m allowed to be shallow every once in a while, and I’d watch the show for him even if rumors weren’t floating around that he’s definitely gay and dating Luke McFarlane. That boy sets my adrenals off almost as much as Hugh Laurie or Vin Diesel. Yes, Vin Diesel. Every once in a while I get the hots for a big dumb lunk of smooth, bald-headed, gritty-voiced muscle.

While my mind is firmly entrenched in the gutter, though, let’s take a serious second to divert and talk about something sexual that’s not so sexy: STDs. You know it’s a serious issue in the gay community, unless you’ve had your head firmly buried in the sand. And it’s getting more serious:

U.S. tracks serious form of syphilis in gay men - Yahoo News

A particularly serious form of the sexually transmitted bacterial disease syphilis has been detected in gay and bisexual U.S. men infected with the AIDS virus, federal health officials reported on Thursday.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention tracked 49 HIV-infected gay and bisexual men who had “symptomatic early neurosyphilis” from January 2002 to June 2004 in four cities — Los Angeles, San Diego, Chicago, New York.

The CDC cited the report as further evidence that gay and bisexual men, many also infected with HIV, are the driving force behind increases in U.S. syphilis cases this decade.

The findings also indicate that these men are engaging in the same risky, unprotected sex that can spread the human immunodeficiency virus, which causes AIDS.

I can not stress enough that no matter how invincible you think you are, no matter how much you might think it’ll be okay “just this one time” because hey, what are the odds: always practice safe sex. I have too many friends, my generation and older, who are just too careless and reckless - in fact, it’s an unfortunate stereotype of the gay community that too many of us reinforce. Indiscriminate and unsafe sex. Why do we do it when we know the risks? Because it feels better that way?

Yeah, and I’m sure dealing with whatever disease you picked up, every day for the rest of your life, feels great. Guys: please, please make sure you use a condom. It’s not just there to prevent pregnancy, as that sure as hell ain’t a concern when you and your partner have the same junk ridin’ around in your jeans. Guys and girls: get tested regularly, whether you’re frequently sexually active or just have a one-nighter here and there, and be careful whose bodily fluids go where if you’re with someone that hasn’t been recently tested and that you don’t trust implicitly. Even if you’re in a long-term relationship and you trust the other person enough to have unprotected sex with them, both of you should be tested regularly not because you don’t trust each other, but for your own health. Sexually transmitted diseases are not to be taken lightly; they can infect you for life, and shorten that life expectancy severely.

I shouldn’t have to tell you that. But considering the statistics of STDs in the gay community, obviously many of us are far too careless, and we need all the reminders we can get.

Be safe. Care enough about yourself, and about others, to take that little extra step.

I am out of here, kids, so have a good weekend and I’ll see you Monday with a new No Style comic.

Don’t do anything I wouldn’t do before a few tequila shots,
~Adri

wentworth miller, luke mcfarlane, prison break, stds, unsafe sex, sexually transmitted diseases, hiv, aids, syphilis

Well, I was wondering how long it’d be before I got to b*tch about our darling President Shrubby-kins again.

Bush Threatens To Veto DC Budget For Not Blocking Domestic Partner Funds - 365gay.com

(Washington) President Bush issued a warning to Congress on Wednesday that he will veto budget appropriations for the District of Columbia unless the measure contains language barring the district from using any of the money for its domestic partner registry.

The registry allows same and opposite-sex unmarried couples to register their relationships.

[...]Under Republicans the legislation stated that none of the federal money could be used to support the partner registry. When Democrats took control of Congress the requirement was removed.

In threatening a veto the White House on Wednesday issued a statement saying: “The Administration strongly opposes the bill’s exclusion of a longstanding provision that disallows the use of Federal funds to register unmarried, cohabitating couples in the District, to enable them to qualify for benefits on the same basis as legally married couples. Under Federal law, legal marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Federal tax dollars are not used to extend employment benefits to domestic partners of Federal employees, and D.C. should not enjoy an exception to this rule.”

Oh gods, my head hurts. Get me the coffee and an ibuprofen.

Let me get this straight…Bush is fine with spending $120 billion on war, but he’s freaking out that part of a $120 million budget - only part, mind you - might be used to fund the domestic partner registry?

Say it with me now, kids: misplaced priorities. I know those are multisyllabic words, but I’m sure you’re not having any trouble wrapping your heads around ‘em, are you? No? Good.

Now wrap your head around this question: would Bush veto the budget if the domestic partner registry only allowed heterosexual couples to register for benefits?

Based on his past behavior and aggressive attacks on the rights of others in an attempt to preserve marriage as a religious artifact locked solely between male and female, thus imposing religion on government policy because marriage has a place in taxation…

…I’d have to say no.

If this were any other president, any other man, I would be happy to play the devil’s advocate and say hey, you know? I can see some reasoning behind this, something that has less to do with homophobic bigotry and more to do with controlling government spending and trying to make sure that allocated funds are used fairly and for their original intention.

But I’ve long since given up on giving Bush the benefit of the doubt. Oh, sure, in the early days even when I was sighing and saying “Look, I didn’t vote for him” I was still willing to step back and say “I may not agree with this man, but I do remember that he is a human being, just as flawed as the rest of us, and as a human being he is going to screw up…but at the end of the day he’s just a man, and it’s not so black and white as politics like to paint it.”

Seven years have disillusioned me of that idealism. It scares me to think that his man has presided over the years that are considered to be the prime of my life. Seven years, a botched war, frightening changes in domestic and foreign policy, repeated and alarming displays of prejudice and bigotry towards homosexuals, people of diverse faith, and many other minority and even majority groups that don’t suit his viewpoint…at this point, things like a threatened veto are just the icing on the cake.

While I may not go so far as the article does to assume that the proposed veto is specifically and definitely anti-gay in intent (domestic partnerships are for heterosexuals too, kids, and they stand to lose out as well), I just don’t have the blind optimism left in me to say “Well, we don’t know that for sure, let’s wait and see”. That’s it. I’m worn out. Completely tired of this man. Screw Calgon; 2008, take me away.

This election can’t come too soon.

I’m out for the day.

P.S. Remember when I said that I love the Edwards? Elizabeth Edwards has given me another reason to love her even more: she actually called that toxic-tongued wretch Ann Coulter out on her reprehensible behavior. (Letia on HerDailyNews blogged about it yesterday, too.) That woman is too nasty even for my foul mouth, and I cannot understand how anyone that vicious and poorly-spoken (not to mention ill-behaved) continues to be a widely-liked political icon. Apparently neither can Elizabeth Edwards. You go, girl.

george w. bush, president bush, presidential veto, domestic partner registry, domestic partner benefits, washington d.c., elizabeth edwards, ann coulter

Today’s post has nothing to do with GBLTQ issues and the world of gay and lesbian life, save for the fact that we all fit into a part of the larger world around us. Some days you have to forget about a preset blog topic and focus on something that deserves attention whether it’s part of your niche or not, and the world does not revolve around our issues. And more people in the world need to know about this, and I’m just disgusted and pissed off enough to be one of the people with something to say about it.

Girl provoked pedophile - judge - News.com.au

A PEDOPHILE who raped a 10-year-old girl will be free in just four months after a British judge said his victim had “dressed provocatively”. [...] The same judge caused uproar earlier this year by setting free another paedophile and telling him to give his victim money “to buy a nice new bicycle”.

In the latest case, Oxford Crown Court heard harrowing details of the assault on the 10-year-old. She was attacked in a park in South Oxfordshire by Fenn and his accomplice Darren Wright, 34, on October 14 last year.

Fenn removed all her clothes and raped her, then Wright took her to his home and sexually assaulted her.

Yet Judge Hall said the case was exceptional because the “young woman” had been wearing a frilly bra and thong. [...] “It is quite clear she is a very disturbed child and a very needy child and she is a sexually precocious child. She liked to dress provocatively,” the judge said.

“Did she look like she was 10? Certainly not. She looked 16.”

Excuse me? No, excuse the **** out of me? There are sections snipped out of that, but trust me, no, you are not reading that out of context. In truth the things I cut only make it look worse, not better, so you can pick your jaw up off the floor right now because yes. Yes, you did just read that. Yes, it did damned well happen. And yes, it is oh-so-very damned wrong.

I just…there are no words. No, there are many, many words, but I can’t say them here and I don’t think you want to see five or six paragraphs of mostly asterisks. It’s bad enough that the rape of adult women has been trivialized for decades with the “she was asking for it” defense, as if provocative clothing somehow gives their rapists justification for behaving like animals - but now this is being applied to a child?

I don’t care if a 10-year-old child is walking around in something from Victoria’s Secret’s most naughty line and soliciting blowjobs for ten bucks on a street corner; in that situation you never, ever say that the child was provoking any pedophilic acts towards her. What she is doing is expressing something very wrong in her home life, and you know what the correct response is? “Let’s get that child somewhere safe, put her in some decent clothing, and see if we can get some counseling for her to find out what’s behind this behavior.”

I don’t care if she looked sixteen or if she looked sixty, rape is still rape and it should not ever, ever be looked at as the fault of the victim. The fact that the victim is a child just makes it all the more heinous.

You’ll have to excuse my sputtering and incoherency. I’m just absolutely sickened and outraged by this entire situation - oh, sure, I could say it doesn’t affect me as it has to do with judiciary systems across the pond in a country that I’m in no way affiliated with, but damn it, that sort of thing affects everyone.

That sort of thing is a lesson to anyone who witnesses it: no matter what country you live in, no matter what sort of government you live under, do not sit by passively and let the decisions of your government, lawmakers, and law enforcers go past without having some part in them. Take part in your local politics; participate in elections when you can, speak out when you can not. Make your voice heard, even if it means taking a risk. At the very least keep yourself informed of what is going on around you and play your part in keeping people with this sort of moral compass (which is apparently severely skewed in direction) out of public offices. Criminal trial systems exist in order to punish those who perpetrate such unforgivable acts, and when they are punished inadequately, those of a similar bent may well think that it’s quite acceptable to pursue their criminal tendencies when they know they’ll get off with just a slap on the wrist. When the system fails, it’s up to the people under that system to speak out and demand the correction of its flaws.

And if you think it doesn’t have anything to do with you, think again. It does. You can stand by and say “I have nothing to say about this because it doesn’t directly affect me”, but what about when it’s you? What about when it’s an issue that affects you - whether you’re the next victim of a violent homophobic hate crime or same-sex rape? That’s topical to this blog, isn’t it. What if it is you, next? Or one of your friends, or someone in your community, or hey, a stranger you just happen to care about the plight of because you’re all standing under the same rainbow flag? And when people outside the community shrug and say “I have nothing to say, I’m not gay and it doesn’t directly affect me”…

Well. That makes it different, doesn’t it.

So I refuse to stand by and say that. Instead I’m saying read the story of this girl, and the unjust and inadequate punishment meted out to the men who assaulted her, and the close-minded and downright sick statements of the judge who presided over the proceedings. I’m telling anyone who reads this to be aware, and to spread the story. Speak out. Speak up. Speak for her, and even if you can do nothing else, make your voice heard.

Even if you’ve changed nothing in the sentencing of those men, you’ve made other people stop and think. You’ve made them consider the actions of that judge, and consider themselves in the light of his decision and his words. Maybe you made someone re-evaluate their way of thinking after recognizing something in themselves. Maybe you opened their eyes to something they didn’t understand before, and made them a better person.

Maybe not. Maybe me posting this won’t do a damned thing for anyone, anywhere.

But that doesn’t mean I’m going to keep my mouth shut just because it doesn’t involve me.

Because one day, something will. And who’s going to speak for me, for you, for whomever the victim might be, then?

pedophilia, paedophilia, keith fenn, darren wright, oxford crown court, judge julian hall, rape

Who are the Edwards? Why, former senator and 2008 U.S. Democratic Presidential candidate John Edwards and his wife, Elizabeth.

Why do I love the Edwards? Certainly not for that sad little run alongside John Kerry in 2004 (and we had such hopes, too, but frankly to me Kerry was an indecisive mess who was only the lesser of two evils, and hardly a good choice). Possibly because I agree with some of John Edwards’ stances on key political issues, but not so much that he’s definitely got my vote for 2008 - I’m still watching candidates and the jury’s out on my final selection, so no, it’s not something as simple as that. I sure as hell don’t love them/him for his looks - he’s a funny-lookin’ little boyscout bugger, cute in a down-home way but lacking in Obama’s stately charm. I’m not that shallow.

No, I love them because of this:

Edwards says no awkwardness with wife over split on gay marriage - SFGate.com

There’s a split in John Edwards’ household over gay marriage, but he says his difference of opinion with wife Elizabeth hasn’t created any awkward moments.

“It’s not the only thing we disagree about,” the Democratic presidential candidate quipped Monday on “The Tonight Show with Jay Leno.”

“She actually says what she thinks,” Edwards said.

Don’t understand why that would be enough to make me smile favorably on the presidential hopeful and his wife? Read the rest of the article. It’s not so much that Elizabeth Edwards kicked off the S.F. gay pride parade, or even the telling and blunt statement she made of “I don’t know why someone else’s marriage has anything to do with me.” It’s the little things, like the fact that John didn’t even know how she felt about it until he saw her in the paper, or so he says - and yet it still didn’t turn into an issue between them. This could have made the papers as a hot political mess that tabloids and mainstream media alike would have jumped on to make a scandal out of, and instead it’s become just a simple story of marital solidarity that makes you stop and smile for just a few moments.

You’d think that since John Edwards doesn’t quite agree with his wife about supporting gay marriage (or at least getting out of its way), I’d disapprove of him strongly. But a statement in the article explains exactly why I don’t:

“A lot of people I love and care about feel the same way Elizabeth does,” Edwards said. “I’m very strong about ending discrimination against gay and lesbian couples.”

“But I’m not quite where Elizabeth is yet,” he added.

The word there is “yet”. That word makes him more than just the guy who lost with Kerry in 2004; it makes him more than just a candidate with little chance at winning who’s giving it a shot anyway. It makes him human. It makes him real, because he admits where he is but is open to the possibility of accepting more and moving further. He shows that he’s not perfect but he’s willing to take steps and make progress. After living with almost seven years of an administration that not only likes to speak for their god and dictate the lives of a nation according to him, but apparently seems to think they can do no wrong (yes, Cheney, your office is subject to the system of checks and balances, you o’erweening sack of arrogance), just seeing that willing admission of a perceived flaw is enough to warm me towards Edwards as a candidate. It’s things like that that can really mean a lot to public perception, and that can help sway undecided voters because they feel as if they can identify with someone on that level as a flawed human being. So yes, all it takes is the word “yet” to make me like him just a little bit.

Well, that and his sense of humor.

And he used the occasion to mock Vice President Dick Cheney, who is being criticized by Democrats for declaring his office exempt from sections of a presidential order involving matters of national security.

Edwards noted that the Constitution says the vice president is part of the executive branch.

“But it’s just the Constitution,” Edwards said.

Nice to know someone in politics knows what that is.

john edwards, elizabeth edwards, united states 2008 presidential election, presidential hopefuls, democratic presidential candidates, gay marriage, gay pride

Look, my subject line vaguely rhymes. Special. Didn’t I say I’d stop doing that many posts back? Anyway…before I dive into what I really want to talk about, let me just say that Isaiah Washington is full of you-know-what.

Washington says ABC should have fired cast mate Knight instead - Houston Chronicle

Isaiah Washington, fired this month from “Grey’s Anatomy” following the firestorm he started with a homophobic invective, hit back at the network Thursday.

“They fired the wrong guy,” the 43-year-old actor said in an interview with the Houston Chronicle.

He blames former cast mate T.R. Knight for stoking the scandal that led him to lose his role in the ABC hit. Knight is the one who should have been let go, he told the newspaper. [...] Washington, who said he is considering a lawsuit, accused Knight of exploiting the controversy in order to get a salary increase and to enhance his role.

I am so sick of hearing about this. Do I think he should have been fired? Honestly, no. He did his time, and the incident could have died down. He made the appropriate reparations and he’ll think twice about making idiotic comments afterwards. Do I believe his conspiracy theory about T.R. Knight exploiting the situation for a raise and an enhanced role?

[snort] Puh-lease. Tell me another one. Sour grapes, sour apples, whatever you want to call it, that’s just bitterness talking, and it’s as ugly as the backdrop in that press photo. I’d contact Washington myself to see what he would say in response to that (since he is a “hometown” boy and maybe his publicist might speak to someone local if they thought I had any press cred, since they spoke to the Houston Chronicle) but I doubt I’d even get a form letter in rejection.

Now that our daily dose of celeb gossip is out of the way, let’s move on to being ever-so-serious in discussing social perceptions and stigmas surrounding homosexuality. Specifically, I’d like to take a look at a recent little kerfluffle in Kentucky that probably won’t ever make it beyond local media coverage, but that I think illustrates the point I’d like to discuss rather well:

GOP chief accused of implying two Democrats are gay - Kentucky Courier-Journal

State Republican Party Chairman Steve Robertson drew bipartisan condemnation today for what critics said was a veiled effort to imply that two Democratic candidates are gay. … [In] a column he distributed to some newspapers, [it] draws an analogy to the fairy tale “Hansel and Gretel” and says that if Stumbo is Hansel, then attorney general candidate Jack Conway and Dan Mongiardo, Beshear’s running mate for lieutenant governor, “could easily play the role of Gretel.”

Conway, a Louisville attorney, reacted angrily, saying he resented the implication that he is gay.

“They start a false rumor and they peddle it,” he said in an interview, referring to Robertson and Gov. Ernie Fletcher. “When they can’t lead, they lie. They are hate-mongers and fear-mongers that owe my wife an apology.”

It’s not the first time Republicans have made such a suggestion about Mongiardo.

They were accused of gay-baiting in his 2004 campaign against Republican U.S. Sen. Jim Bunning. State legislators campaigning for Bunning said that Mongiardo, a state senator from Hazard, was “limp-wristed,” a “switch-hitter” and “not a man.”

You know what bugs me the most about this? It’s not the childish, dirty politics, though that alone is annoying enough. It’s the fact that not one side, but both viewed any allegations of being gay as an insult. Honestly, the whole thing is ridiculous and blown out of proportion, and I think they’re looking for things that aren’t there with the Hansel and Gretel reference implying homosexuality–though I can understand if they’re sensitive to it after the more obvious slurs used in the past. But it wouldn’t have been blown so out of proportion if “gay” wasn’t seen to be as grievous and blatant an insult as “your mother was a hamster and your father smelled of elderberries!” (If you don’t get the reference, you need to watch Monty Python.)

If the possibility of being gay wasn’t considered by society to be such a negative thing, then this wouldn’t be an issue. Even people who are supportive of gays and our rights will often recoil, insulted, if you ask if they’re gay. Why? Asking if someone likes the same sex should be as much of a personal insult as asking if someone likes broccoli. (For the record? I hate broccoli.) Don’t like it? No? Then say so and move on. It’s not something to be mortally offended over, and it shouldn’t be a question that would somehow cause harm to your personal reputation. Thinking someone is gay is not something that you should have to apologize to them or their spouse for, at least not in such a serious manner. A simple “Oh, you’re not? My bad” should suffice for both parties, and then it’s forgotten.

But it’s not so easy as that, is it? The pink triangle has become the scarlet letter of the twenty-first century, a label that no one wants to be slandered with, and even those who are “guilty” face being stigmatized for wearing the label proudly. How do you change the mindset of an entire culture? How do you educate millions - even billions - of people to change the deep-set stigma against the possibility that one might be gay? This stigma is why children are afraid to come out to their parents. This stigma is why even those who are openly gay are often insecure about it. This stigma is why, even if you ask a “tolerant” person if they’re gay for some reason or another, they often can’t just brush the question off with a laugh and will instead behave as if you just accused them of some perversion. This stigma is why people face insecurity about their sexuality, whether gay or straight, with violent rejection.

This stigma is, in a large part, why homophobia exists.

Being gay is not wrong. Being gay should not be an insult. Whether being gay is or is not a part of who you are…mere allegations of homosexuality should not be a cause for a scandal.

Confirm or deny, but don’t take insult to something that never should have been an insult at all.

isaiah washington, t.r. knight, grey’s anatomy, homophobia, gay slurs, bunning, mongiardo, steve robertson

Last night I was cruising the NY Times website and ran across Michael Brick’s coverage of a rather interesting issue: the case of three muggers who were directly responsible for the death of gay man Michael J. Sandy after they picked him as an easy target for robbery because he was gay and presumably less likely to resist. Was this actually a hate crime targeting the victim out of animosity caused by his sexual orientation, or a crime of victimization where his sexuality was only incidental to his identification as an easy target?

To Commit a Hate Crime, Must the Criminal Truly Hate the Victim? - NY Times

[...]The crime in question was the killing of Michael J. Sandy, 29, a gay man who was lured to a parking area in Sheepshead Bay last October, beaten and chased into traffic. He later died in the hospital.

Prosecutors have said a group of young men contacted Mr. Sandy through an online gay chat room, selecting him as a robbery victim in the belief that a gay man would be unwilling or unable to put up a fight and unlikely to report the crime.

The defendants — John Fox, 20; Ilya Shurov, 21; and Anthony Fortunato, 21 — have been charged not just with murder, but with murder under the state Hate Crimes Act of 2000, which provides longer prison sentences for crimes motivated “in whole or in substantial part because of a belief or perception regarding the race, color, national origin, ancestry, gender, religion, religious practice, age, disability or sexual orientation of a person.”

This…is a tricky issue. On one hand I could agree with a statement made in the full article, saying that it was a crime of opportunity and not of hatred, as distasteful as the idea might sound. The defendants didn’t kill him because he was gay; they targeted him because of a belief in stereotypes about gays, and his murder was an unfortunate result of an already malicious crime going even more terribly wrong. There was no active homophobia involved in the murder, and so it wasn’t a hate crime. Belief in stereotypes doesn’t constitute hatred; it constitutes ignorance with possible but not definite prejudice. I know dozens of straight people who actively support and encourage gay rights and freedoms, and yet who still believe some of the most asinine stereotypes and have to be gently trained and educated out of them.

On the other hand, the rest of my brain is screaming, “This is murder in the second degree. Forget dispensing sentences based on whether or not there was hatred involved, and prosecute to the fullest extent of the law.”

That’s my problem with these kinds of trials and these kinds of questions. Sure, they’re great for intellectual fodder. Sure, I think that as long as we have hate crime legislation, the distinction is important to set a precedent. But in the real application I just can’t forget that a man is dead and people are debating sentencing his killers based on how they felt about the victim.

Forget that the victim was gay, for a moment. Look at the basic facts: the defendants deliberately conspired to lure Sandy with criminal intent, based on a perceived weakness that made him a more ideal target. In the course of robbing him, they caused grievous injuries which directly resulted in Sandy’s death. Thus they are responsible for his murder, even if murder was not their original intent. Regardless, a man is dead as a result of their criminal activities.

For that, in my opinion, they should receive the maximum sentence allowable, with negotiations of time served debatable only based on good behavior while behind bars. Forget the hate crime legislation. The distinction of whether to prolong the sentence may matter in the case of lesser crimes; if they were just on trial for his robbery but Sandy still lived, I’d say sure, go ahead and call it a hate crime, as that fits the definition of the crime being motivated at least substantially, if not wholly, by a prejudiced belief. But when it crosses that final line to murder, how the murderer felt about their victim(s) should not be a factor in the length of their sentence. Crimes of passion, crimes of hate - both can take a life, and all should be punished equally and to the fullest extent.

I do believe that a distinction should be made regarding crimes motivated by prejudice and hatred, particularly in making people understand that it is not in any way allowable to act against others based on their personal prejudices. But I think sometimes we get so wrapped up in making a public outcry about who’s being discriminated against and why…that we forget to look at things at the basic human level.

I don’t know Michael Sandy from the guy in front of me in the check-out line at Wal-Mart; his death isn’t a personal loss to me. But regardless of that I’d rather think of him as a human being whose life was unduly taken from him, a life with the same value as any other, rather than as a trophy in a debate regarding what does and does not constitute a hate crime. I think his murderers should be punished with that in mind; gay or straight, male or female..we’re all people, when that first shovel-full of dirt goes in. Isn’t that what those hate crime laws are about? Punishing criminals for treating their victims as if their difference makes them somehow less than other human beings? Think about it in reverse: if they had attacked an older woman just because she might be weaker and more vulnerable, would they receive a lesser sentence, thus meaning that her life had less value than that of a recognized minority?

No matter what they decide, in this case or in any other in which the line is not so clear-cut, it isn’t going to bring Sandy or any past or future victims back. And I sincerely doubt that it’s going to prevent a recurrence, sadly enough. Honestly, the question doesn’t matter, and I don’t care if it makes me unpopular for saying so. Murder is murder. Treat it as such, without all the pretty trappings involved.

And regardless of who they killed, or why…I say lock them up, and throw away the damned key.

michael j. sandy, hate crimes, hate crime legislation, murder, john fox, ilya shurov, anthony fortunato, justice jill konviser-levine, seth lieberman, gerald di chiara, homophobia

I’m short on time today, so I’m going to leave you with two things that are definitely worth reading and then flee to ‘handle mah business’, as they say.

First, something heartening: Advocate.com talks to openly gay U.S. military servicemembers currently on duty in Iraq. It discusses the lives of soldiers who have come out in the field, and the impact that it’s had on their units, defying the Pentagon assumption that homosexuality in the ranks would cause the units to collapse. It’s really a great read.

And next, something saddening (with rather strong imagery): The story of Aaron “Shorty” Hall. “Bookshop” tells the story far better than I ever could, so I’ll leave it in her capable hands. (Lyndsey has coverage on it, as well.) Hall’s story is not for the weak of heart or the weak of stomach - he died brutally, painfully. And the worst part?

Hardly anyone seems to care.

aaron shorty hall, hate crimes, don’t ask don’t tell, gay military, lesbian military

You know what? People make my head hurt. And sometimes, skimming headlines in gay news is enough to make me descend from cynicism into downright misanthropy. Humanity is depressing. Games of he-said-she-said, discrimination, entitlement…when the hell is it all going to stop?

Wondering what I’m talking about? Let’s take a cruise through a few selected headlines.

Gay groups call for homophobic lawmaker’s job - Advocate.com

A Florida legislator who allegedly told a group of HIV/AIDS activists and lobbyists that his gay cousin deserved to die after contracting AIDS has sparked an outcry.

Gay and AIDS activists have called for everything from a formal censure of Republican representative D. Alan Hays to his being removed from the state house of representatives.

Minutes after a Friday press conference with many groups, Hays released a statement denying the alleged comments.

Well? Who’s telling the truth? On one hand I’m not the type to blindly support anyone’s claims of anti-gay statements without validation just because “hey, I’m gay too, and I support the cause so if they say it it must be true!” But on the other hand…according to the article, Hays already has a previous record of publicly spoken anti-gay sentiment. Past actions don’t automatically indicate guilt in current situations, but they do point towards a tendency to repeat said situations. Either way, someone is lying - either the activists or Hays. That, more than anything, pisses me off.

Which one? Your call. Likely we’ll never know. Let’s move on, shall we?

Grocer pulls gay papers from rack - The Washington Times

NASHVILLE, Tenn. — A regional homosexual newspaper has been pulled from racks at Nashville-area Kroger grocery stores; the newspaper’s publisher calls the action discriminatory. [...] A Kroger Co. spokeswoman said the Cincinnati-based company has a policy against displaying publications that promote “political, religious or other specific agendas” and cited the need to remain neutral.

Newspaper supporters say Kroger enforces the policy inconsistently, noting that Kroger allows the display of homosexual newspapers at its stores in other markets, such as Atlanta, and alternative weekly newspapers with political columns and ads for strip clubs in the Nashville area.

Oh, just come out and say it. Someone in that store has some whiny little homophobic issue with the newspaper, but when pulling the papers based on discriminatory personal preference turned into a problem, they tried to backpedal and pull the company policy excuse. If you’re going to enforce company policy, enforce it uniformly. Don’t pick and choose who’s going to hide behind it whenever it’s convenient and who’s going to ignore it.

But you want to see the one that really twists my weave? (No, I don’t really have a weave.)

Catholic ‘witch-hunt’ to expose gay clergy - TimesOnline.co.uk

Patricia McKeever does not like to be photographed. She does not like people to know where she lives and prefers to communicate with the outside world by letter or e-mail.

But, from the security of her home, the 58-year-old former secondary school teacher has co-ordinated a relentless campaign to name and shame gay Roman Catholic priests.

Hey, lady? Hypocrisy’s a sin, too, while you’re going through your list and checking off the “thou shalls” and “thou shalt nots”. You know, the hypocrisy you’re practicing when you’re dragging people’s private lives - which are none of your damned business - into the public eye and yet refuse to let your life be invaded in the same way?

It’s difficult enough to be a gay member of the clergy. “Don’t ask, don’t tell” is as stringent as it is in the U.S. military, and can have the same results: expulsion. These men are trying to live their lives and devote themselves to service to a faith that they believe in without letting said faith’s stigma against the way they were born interfere with that. They’re trying to do good things for their community and for their religion while avoiding dealing with falsely labeling stereotypes almost always assumed about gay clergy members.

They’re trying to be good Christians. There aren’t many of those left, it seems, or so I’m gathering from reading the news every day. And this one busybody thinks it’s her business to expose them, publicly defame them, and interfere in their valid right to live as best they can while trying to reconcile their sexuality and the tenets of their faith?

I find that wholly disgusting.

Some days, it just doesn’t pay to read the news.

I need my thrice-damned coffee.

HIV, AIDS, florida, representative alan hays, nashville, kroger, gay newspaper, patricia mckeever, catholicism, gay priests

All right, I know that at least a good percentage of my readers are Christian. I am not. I’m not even agnostic. I’m an atheist, have been since adolescence despite my mother’s best efforts. So that is why I’m calling on my Christian readers, as more expert authorities in this subject, to tell me: is this right?

Fort Collins Homeless Shelter Accused Of Gay Discrimination - TheDenverChannel.com

FORT COLLINS, Colo. — A Fort Collins shelter is being accused of discrimination, after allegedly kicking out a man because he’s gay.

John Garon, 34, said he stayed at the Open Door Mission for about three weeks until shelter director Reverend Richard Thebo told him he was no longer welcome.

The reason, according to Garon, is that Thebo said, “I don’t allow homosexuals to use these facilities.”

See this? This is what twerks my nerves about the more hypocritical arm of Christianity. This is what gets me pulling my hair out about the fallacious logic involved in worshiping a god who supposedly loves everyone…except people his followers happen to just not like for one reason or another. This is what has me slamming my head against the desk trying to comprehend how anyone can preach tolerance from one side of their mouth and discrimination from the other.

This isn’t something like the eHarmony case. In the eHarmony lawsuit, gays and lesbians are being denied a service that is not crucial to everyday life. It’s a side frill. A fringe entertainment. It is not a necessity. And while eHarmony most likely has the right to exercise legal discrimination in that case no matter how right or wrong it might be outside of legal terms, their discrimination honestly isn’t harming anyone.

Thebo’s discrimination is harmful. Yes, according to the article, he is within his legal rights to deny shelter to anyone for any reason. But I’m not asking if it’s legally right. I’m asking if it’s right, period, as one human being to another, as a Christian advocating outreach, to deny shelter to a person who has no other place to go. A person who has not done anything wrong save for being different in a way that does not harm anyone else.

You aren’t a humanitarian if you pick and choose who you extend your kindnesses to. You aren’t a humanitarian if you judge those in need simply because they aren’t like you.

And I have trouble believing that anyone can be considered a good Christian when they would put a homeless man back out on the street just for being gay.

So tell me, my Christian friends: is this what your faith teaches you? Is this justifiable by the book which guides that faith? Is it justifiable by your own standards as a human being, by your own sense of compassion? Is this how you truly think that your god wishes you to treat others?

Is this right?

homeless shelter, denver, colorado, john garon, reverend richard thebo, open door mission, discrimination, homophobia, christianity

To really understand transgendering/transsexualism, it helps to have an idea of what it really is, and its root cause. The beginnings of transgendering lie in gender dysphoria.

gen·der (jěn’dər), n.:
     1. Sexual identity, especially in relation to society or culture.
     2. The condition of being female or male; sex.

dys·pho·ri·a (dɪsˈfɔriə), n:
     1. a state of dissatisfaction, anxiety, restlessness, or fidgeting.

Breaking down the definitions of those words, gender dysphoria seems like a fairly simple concept: a sense of dissatisfaction or discomfort with one’s gender, whether birth gender or chosen gender. Gender dysphoria is a characteristic of what is referred to as gender identity disorder, though honestly I don’t like that term as ‘disorder’ implies that those who feel gender dysphoria are somehow abnormal.

They’re not.

The feeling of gender dysphoria is often the very beginning of the path towards transition; to make it even simpler, it’s the feeling that one was born in the body of the wrong gender. Your body is male, and yet you feel female. Your body is female, but you feel male - in ways that go beyond mere social identification and rest on a deep psychological level that often cannot be explained but that know, quite firmly, what feels wrong and what feels right.

The sense of wrongness associated with the feeling of being in the wrong body is what can prompt transgendered individuals to begin crossdressing, taking hormones, and pursuing surgical options in order to ease that sense of discomfort and align the physical self more thoroughly with the mental and emotional self.

Because gender can be such a fluid concept defined by more than one’s physical body, it can make transition very complex. More than just modifying or disguising the body to better suit one’s chosen gender, there’s also the matter of filling one’s gender role in society. Male and female gender roles are now more easily blended and interchangeable than they were as little as fifty years ago, but there’s still a matter of perception; people treat you differently based on the gender that they perceive you as, which can either help or hinder in feeling more comfortable with living as one’s chosen gender. It’s as much mental and emotional as it is physical, and yet the three aspects always depend on one another.

Imagine gender dysphoria as wearing a pair of shoes that’s two sizes too small. Talk about walking a mile in someone else’s shoes, eh? Only these shoes you can’t take off. They’re always there, always cramping your feet painfully, making it difficult to walk - chafing, blistering, driving you more insane with every day and yet you don’t know what to do about it, or you don’t have access to a way that might be able to remove them.

Not pleasant, is it? Now imagine feeling that way about your entire body. As if your body was an ill-fitting garment thrust upon the body of the self with no choice given to you in the matter.

And imagine that you were given a choice, later in life, once you came to understand your own gender identity and what you wished to do about it, and the options available to you to find something that fits.

Imagine the relief of taking off that ill-fitting shoe and walking free.

Imagine that pain, imagine that relief, and imagine it affecting your entire life, your happiness, and your concept of self-identity. Imagine it making you question everything, to the point where you can’t even allow yourself to become interested in someone for fear that they’ll want you for the wrong gender, will reject you if they find out who you really are under that wrong skin - can’t even comfortably walk into a public bathroom without feeling as if you’re in the wrong place no matter which one you chose.

Imagine looking in the mirror and seeing a stranger to who you really are, and then you may understand gender dysphoria.

transgender tales, thursday transgender tales, transgender, transvestite, transsexual, crossdresser, crossdressing, mtf, ftm, m2f, f2m, male-to-female, female-to-male, gender identity, gender dysphoria, transition, transitioning, sex change, transamerica, felicity huffman, trans media, trans films

The following was submitted as an “Ask Adri” question, but while I’m honestly not sure what constructive opinion I could offer on this, I wanted to share it with everyone anyway. (Warning: graphic imagery ahead.)

Dear Adrian,

I wanted your take on the anti-discrimination campaign that started here last week to make people aware of the new laws Europe instated.

There’s posters, post cards, spots on tv and banners on the internet. The slogan is ‘Discriminating is illegal. And inhuman.’
In these pictures, people’s bodies are shown, and they have labels sewed on.

Amongst others, there’s a woman in a wheelchair with the label ‘dead weight’. There’s a coloured boy labeled ’scum’. There’s a young mother who’s pregnant with her second child labeled ‘takes advantage’. And there’s two guys kissing. One is labeled ‘abnormal’, the other ‘contagious’. (I added the picture, the only one I could find was of the gay couple, it’s the French version though.)

In the TV spot The label he get’s sewed on says ‘different’, and the voices in the back are saying:
‘They just don’t want to work, those parasites…’
‘If I get to choose, I’d rather hire a man for this job…’
‘You can never be too carefull, with all that AIDS and stuff…’
‘Those people don’t care about getting a job, they’re all scum.’

You can imagine the reactions. Half the people don’t care, one quarter is shocked and appalled, and the rest of us think it’s brilliant, daring, will open many eyes.

Me, I cringe when I see the spot on tv. You actually see them sew the label on. I’m not sure what to think. It could be good, really good. But it might be too much. Harsh images and shock effects can certainly work, but… It’s a double edged blade.

What do you think?

The TV spot in question:

Give me a second to stop squirming. Oh, jeebus. The video itself isn’t that bad; I just have issues with needles going into anything other that cloth. (Adri + syringes = NO.)

Truthfully I don’t even think there’s that much shock value involved, but then I’ve seen worse in American adverts, so I may be the wrong person to ask; cultural differences have probably desensitized me to this sort of thing. Still, I can see where some would be incensed or disturbed by this sort of advertising.

The question to ask is this: is it shocking enough to get them to take notice, and then stop and consider the message - or is it so shocking that the message is lost in the horrified reaction to the imagery? I think in this case it’s the former; yes, it’s a little graphic, but no more graphic than watching House or Grey’s Anatomy, and the graphic imagery isn’t played up to grotesque extremes. There’s just enough to be effective and to make sure that you’re paying attention while the point is driven home. At the same time it gives you something to think about on a more subtle level: those labels are painful. In the advert they become physically painful rather than emotionally painful, but the implication of pain is there and registers on a subconscious level to lead people closer to understanding that discrimination hurts in many ways.

When shock advertising is used with immaturity, where the blatant goal is only to disgust while the message itself is secondary, it fails and becomes a cause for public outcry. I don’t think this is one of those situations. I think it was handled with tact and maturity and even if I’m squirming looking at those needles, I admire how cleverly it was done.

I told you I have nothing of value to offer here, but that’s my opinion. Maybe others reading this will have a different take on things. Either way, thank you for sharing this with everyone.

Needle-phobically yours,
~Adri

ask adri, anti-discrimination campaigns, shock advertising, labels

Imagine that you’re a soldier deployed in the field. It’s been a hard day; you’ve been shelled and shot at, and you and your unit are now holed up under heavy cover trying to get an idea of the enemy numbers and whether or not you have enough ammunition left to survive them.

No, stupid, your eyes are still closed. Open your eyes and breathe deep, calm down. There’s a strange smell in the air - thick, but not wholly unpleasant. Soft, alluring, but increasingly strong. You pick yourself up off the ground carefully, brushing at a strange pink dust that clings to your gear. Glancing around you, you notice your compatriots doing the same. And suddenly you’re struck by just how dashing Private Smith looks in his uniform, and how he has the prettiest blue eyes that you’ve ever seen…

Think it’s a joke? I did, too; I’ve been skimming various articles on this topic over the past few days, thinking it had to be a joke. A satirical spoof.

It’s not.

Pentagon Had Plans for ‘Gay Bomb’ - Newsmax.com

The Pentagon considered a proposal to create a hormone bomb that could turn enemy soldiers into homosexuals and make them more interested in sex than fighting.

U.S. military officials told KPIX-TV in San Francisco that a “gay bomb” was on the drawing board in 1994 but then subsequently rejected.

I had to check this out before I could buy it. Turns out they were dead serious - at least, on the fact that the incident on KPIX-TV actually occurred. There’s reference to it on Wikipedia, the BBC, and CBS. I honestly don’t know if I believe they ever intended to do this, but I at least believe that they said they did. Maybe. Kinda. Okay, I’m still a little skeptical.

The idea is…well, the fact that someone even came up with it is hilarious, insulting, and mind-boggling. I mean, sure, there’s something hot about a man in uniform. But suddenly turning said man and his compatriots gay is not going to immediately result in an uncontrollable love-fest, not without some artificial stimulation of the sex drive to overcome the primary thought processes that say “Hey! We’re in a battle zone, and under fire! We should be firing at the enemy troops, not trying to find a place to deposit our little soldiers!” Suddenly becoming gay does not turn you into a ravening beast who instantly jumps anything male in sight. We’re human beings, not dogs in heat. You want people to act that way, you’re going to need a pretty potent aphrodisiac and not just a homosexualizing agent.

Yes, I just made that term up.

Reading various articles on it produces conflicting suggestions; some say it was just intended to be a gay bomb, while the aphrodisiac bomb was something entirely different. So I have no idea what the intention was behind it.

Either way, I can still laugh my bloody arse off. Can you imagine an entire metropolitan area saturated by this chemical? It would be like some screwed-up version of Wraeththu (which is, by a large margin, the worst piece of tripe that I’ve ever read short of a Laurell K. Hamilton novel; it reads like flowery yaoi mpreg fanfiction written by a twelve-year-old girl). There would be some pissed-off wives and girlfriends at home, unless the chemical was unisex and also turned them lesbian and quite content with one another rather than their wayward men. Maybe if Isaiah Washington had had a hot dose of this stuff, he’d still have his job.

As hilarious as that would have been, I’m glad that the Pentagon scrapped the idea. To look at things more seriously, we don’t understand enough about human sexuality and what causes it for us to be tampering around with chemically altering it. All the lab tests in the world don’t prepare you for how a chemical agent will behave in the field, and the effect it will have on large populations - especially not in the long term. In an attempt to create a chemical that would change someone’s sexuality, they may end up creating a biological agent that is permanently damaging not only to the individuals influenced by it, but their environment and those who come in contact with them.

Then again, when has a nation at war ever cared about those things?

gay bomb, pentagon, military, chemical warfare, alternative weapons, biological weapons, changing sexuality

You ever stumble on one of those issues where you’re of two minds about the overall conflict - where on one hand you understand the point and why something needs to be done, and yet at the same time you wonder what the hell the big deal is?

That’s pretty much how I feel about the eHarmony discrimination lawsuit.

eHarmony sued for excluding gays - Yahoo News

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - The popular online dating service eHarmony was sued on Thursday for refusing to offer its services to gays, lesbians and bisexuals.

A lawsuit alleging discrimination based on sexual orientation was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court on behalf of Linda Carlson, who was denied access to eHarmony because she is gay.

Lawyers bringing the action said they believed it was the first lawsuit of its kind against eHarmony, which has long rankled the gay community with its failure to offer a “men seeking men” or “women seeking women” option.

All right, I see the point here. It’s a good one. eHarmony.com is denying service to gays and lesbians based on sexuality, which can only be considered discrimination rather than an oversight based on ignorance when multiple prospective users have spoken to them about the issue and they haven’t changed their policy. It’s discriminatory, it’s unfair, it’s homophobic, it’s…not surprising from a dating service tied with a conservative evangelical religious group. But it’s still wrong, regardless of the “our business, our terms” clause inherent in most TOS agreements. Since it’s a publicly offered service, gays and lesbians should have the right to use it appropriately, and should also have the right to speak out and take action when that right is denied.

But on the other hand…there’s a nagging, irritable part of me that’s muttering about frivolous lawsuits. Why not just tell eHarmony to take a hike and use Yahoo! Personals, Matchmaker.com, Gayfriendfinder.com, OutinAmerica.com, or any of a dozen other well-established dating services that either cater to all sexualities or are specifically gay-oriented?

Seriously. Is eHarmony so much different from the hundred other online dating services that you can’t just take your business elsewhere? If a business doesn’t have what you want, you go to their competitors, who are - trust me - quite happy to take your money when the other company won’t. Suing eHarmony is a great statement for gay and lesbian rights, sure, but it’s almost like suing Target because they don’t carry your brand of dishwashing detergent (manufactured by a gay-friendly, eco-friendly, labor-friendly, pro-choice company, of course) and thus you had to buy it at Wal-Mart.

In this situation, we aren’t dealing with a lack of choice. If eHarmony was the only option available for online dating/matchmaker services, then going to the extreme of a discrimination lawsuit would be understandable. But in this case it’s a bit excessive, as frankly if I were in this situation I wouldn’t want to give my business to a company that I had to force to take it in the first place…not when I have other businesses lining up to provide me with willing service.

Forget the lawsuit. Go get your damned soap - and your damned date - somewhere else. If eHarmony doesn’t want to cater to the gay dating market it’s their loss, not yours, when they lose out on paying customers and revenue from advertisers targeting to the gay market. You are a consumer with choices and you lose nothing by turning to another service. So why waste the money to fight a meaningless battle?

The creed of good business is that the customer is always right - but what’s right isn’t always what’s smart.

And if you ask me this lawsuit may be the right thing to do, but honestly?

It sure as hell ain’t the brightest.

eharmony, dating sites, lawsuits, matchmaker.com, outinamerica.com, personals sites, discrimination

Allow me a moment, my darling flytraps, my wee pimentos in the olive of my martini, to be a thoroughly wicked person. Allow me, even, a brief lapse into schadenfreude - unfair, I know. Despite my temper, I do usually try to be fair towards even my opponents and not wish ill on those who wish ill on me, or glory in another’s misfortune.

But right now, I’m snickering a little too hard at the karmic justice to adhere to those principles very closely.

Why?

Because while cruising the news this morning, I found the following headline: “Phelps Follower Arrested”.

Oh, and not just any follower, my dearest little chickadees. Oh, no. The good reverend’s own daughter. Arrested. For contributing to the delinquency of a minor.

Phelps Follower Arrested - 365gay.com

 
(Omaha, Nebraska) The daughter of homophobic preacher Fred Phelps was arrested Wednesday for suspicion of contributing to the delinquency of a minor.

Shirley Phelps-Roper was arrested in Bellevue, Nebraska, after her 10-year-old son stomped on an American flag during a protest at the funeral of a National Guardsman killed in Iraq.

Please reread that last sentence.

“her 10-year-old son stomped on an American flag during a protest at the funeral of a National Gaurdsman killed in Iraq.”

I’m going to run out of fingers to count on before I finish tallying up all the things so very, very wrong with that sentence. And the Phelps family advocates this kind of behavior as godly, just, and right, kiddos. Oh yeah. You? You’re going to hell because you and your lover have the same junk in the trunk. But committing public acts of desecration at the funeral of a man who died in service to his country, in front of his grieving family? That’s your ticket right to heaven, baby. It’s also your ticket to a free ride in a police car, shiny silver bracelets non-optional. At least they’re sparkly, hm?

[snort] That, my friends, my dumplings, my little pecan-crusted nougat centers, is what I like to call a good old karmic b*tchslap.

shirly phelps-roper, fred phelps, reverend phelps, westboro baptist church, picketing, protesting

…did the world of gay news just have a miniature explosion while I was asleep or something? First we’ve got California approving legislation for gay marriage and Arnie being a douche about vetoing it, then Bush nominating a man with an anti-gay record for surgeon general (does this surprise anyone at all?), and not to mention Kalamazoo, MI stripping away same-sex partner benefits (I was supposed to speak at an animation convention there last month; I’m glad I didn’t, now). Is it just me, or did the gay community take a few hits below the belt in the past few days? Then again, it does seem to go that way rather often. A few steps forward, a few punches recoiling back. But this is the story that really catches my attention today:

Teacher Suspended For Comparing Gay Slur With The N Word - 365gay.com

 
(Nashville, Tennessee) A Nashville middle school teacher who equated calling something “gay” with the use of the N word has been suspended for three days without pay.

Stephen Henry, a sixth-grade teacher at Creswell Arts Magnet School, overheard a student describe something as “gay.” Henry approached the girl who is reportedly African American and asked her how she would feel if he were to use the N word.

The girl later complained to her parents.

This is a teacher with twenty-one years of positive history; a teacher who used an apt example to make a student understand the kind of damage her words can cause. He didn’t call her the N-word. He asked her how she would feel if she was called the N-word, so she would understand how people would feel about the use of “gay” in a negative connotation. I know the N word is racially charged and sensitive. But what it comes down to is that it’s a word that’s used to label people negatively because of a trait they’re born with: skin color. “Gay” is a word that’s used to describe people because of another trait they’re born with: homosexuality. It’s not as charged as the N word. But it could be, given time and constant use in that fashion.

I don’t think the teacher deserved a suspension at all. I think he deserves a commendation for making his point so clearly, and I hope that his intention is considered and appreciated more thoroughly when his suspension is appealed.

The girl’s mother said she was too young for that kind of discussion. If she’s old enough to be calling things “gay” in a derogatory fashion then she’s old enough to understand the connotations of her words, and young enough to change her habits before they become an ingrained and rather ugly part of her personality.

And before you get started on me about how I’ve never been called the N word so I wouldn’t understand: button it. Feel like playing the Adri’s Mystery Ethnicity game today? One of the many pieces that make up this particular pile of sweet brown sugar is good old African-American, darlin’, and where I come from one drop is all that it takes for you to be considered full-blood. So yes, I’ve been called the N word. I’ve been called the N word, redskin, tomahawk, Squanto, chink, bonzai, and a half-dozen other racial slurs based on one or another aspect of my mixed ethnicity. And that’s before the barbs begin about my sexuality, my style, my hobbies and habits.

So don’t you effin’ well tell me I wouldn’t understand why it’s so serious that he used that word as an example. And don’t tell me that the N word and a phrase like “that’s so gay” cannot be compared in severity, either, because you know what? The N word started off as a common, innocuous part of everyday language, too. Negro: the Spanish word for the color black, nothing else. As harmless as the colors red, blue, and yellow. It wasn’t until it was applied in a derogatory, dehumanizing fashion to an entire ethnic group that it began to take on the connotations that its slang/slur form, the N word, has today. It wasn’t until we made it ugly that it became filth. It isn’t the word itself. It’s the decades of intention that were poured into it.

So how long, do you think, will it take for “gay” to pick up that same connotation? How many times will we say “that’s so gay” about something we find disgusting or inadequate before the meaning of the word “gay” changes and it becomes as much of a sensitive, painful issue as the N word?

Language evolves by the means and methods in which we use it. Words mean what we wish them to mean. Words reflect our intentions.

So when you call something “gay”…tell me, what are you intending to say?

gay marriage, california, arnold schwarzenegger, george bush, surgeon general, anti-gay, james holsinger, kalamazoo, michigan, same-sex partner benefits, healthcare, the n word, gay, racism, homophobia, slurs, slang