So many things to be happy and upset about on this Friday . . .

Shirley Q. Liquor is not funny

I began the day highly pissed.

Or as the late comedia Robin Harris would say, "pissed off to the highest level of pissivity." And it wasn't the anti-gay industry that got me angry. It was my own community.

GLAAD gets a lot of flack for their stances. Some of it may be deserved, but I have to give the group credit for standing up for lgbts.

One stance they took seems to have gotten some gays upset. The group spoke out against comedian Charles Knipp.

Knipp, or as he is known, Shirley Q. Liquor, has an act where he puts on blackface and pretends to be a welfare mother with 19 children. Subsequently, many lgbts of color have protested clubs where he performs and he is beginning to lose bookings. GLAAD recently spoke out against him.

An editorial today in the New York Blade asked what in the world is GLAAD doing in this fight:

We commend GLAAD for condemning racism, but we question whether the organization’s goal is best attained by joining this particular fight.

It sounds like to me that the Blade feels that GLAAD shouldn't be in this fight because Knipp isn't insulting gays.

But yes he is. The editorial said glossed over the fact that many lgbts of color find him offensive. The editorial also made it a point to say that RuPaul (described as an icon) thought his act was funny.

I hope you all can see why I was upset. I have heard Knipp's act and as a black gay man, I am insulted. And I am not alone in this mindset. Many lgbts of color don't find Knipp to be funny. A white man in black face disrespecting black women with children (this includes lesbians because lesbians of color have children) is not satire. He is perpetuating the same type of nonsense that has kept black folks, Jewish people and gay people in bondage.

Just like some black heterosexuals want lgbts of color to ignore our homosexual orientation, some lgbts want us to ignore the fact that we are black. The New York Blade's stance on this issue just goes to prove how so many in the gay community can't seem to get with the fact that not all of us are club hopping, skinny white men with fashionable clothing. Some of us are fat, some of us are skinny, some of us are black, some of us are white, some of us are young, some of us are old.

But all of us deserve dignity and if we can't get it from within our own community, then lgbts in America has bigger problems than the anti-gay industry.

My 'friend' writes another letter

I received another comment from the guy I wrote about last night. This was about the anti-gay lecture series in Charlotte. He continues to assert that the lecture series is a dialogue. He also asked me:

Is everyone a gay basher who respectfully questions the homosexual movement?

Let me expand on what I told him because it illustrates how the so many people of faith are taken in by the anti-gay industry.

I don't think opposition to homosexuality makes one a bigot. I respect people who don't agree with or understand homosexuality. The commentator's question is flawed because the lecture series is not about "respectfully questioning the homosexual movement" nor is it about establishing a dialogue. I showed the press release and an article that quoted one of the organizers of the lecture series. The language in those two news items clearly showed that establishing a dialogue was the last thing the organizers in the lecture series want to do, right next to "respectfully questioning the homosexual movement."

And just because they are talking out of both sides of their mouths doesn't mean that I have to listen.


David Parker loses

This item brought my glee factor up. A year ago, David Parker caused a controversy in Massachusetts. His son brought home a "diversity bookbag" that contained a book showing a same-sex family.

Parker got upset and demanded that his son be taken out of class when someone mentioned a same-sex family situation, even if it happens spontaneously. The school tried to assure Parker that "learning about homosexuality" was not a part of the kindergarten curriculum. The school also told Parker that the state opt-out policy was not relevant because talking about different families didn't constitute a talk of human sexuality.

Parker persisted until he got himself arrested. He and the anti-gay industry tried to frame the case as a parent just trying to raise his child according to his values.

Parker's actions led to a lawsuit. Today, the federal judge threw it out.

Of course the anti-gay industry is going to try to frame the issue as schools teaching kindergarteners about homosexuality. According to some of their web pages, they have already begun.

Just par for the course.

By the way, I go into detail about the David Parker situation in my upcoming book.