Oh Give Me A Break Peter and George! Stop Picking on Pam!
Apparently Peter LaBarbera and the so-called Americans for Truth About Homosexuality never met a situation they didn't try to milk for all it's worth.
This week, there was an unfortunate situation on Pam Spaulding's web page in which a commentator threatened Peter LaBarbera. Pam was alerted about it and took the post down. She also made it clear that posts like that are way over the line and should not be allowed. She was not aware of the post until it was brought to her attention, by the way.
You think the situation would be over? Come on! You know how Peter is. Today he is continuing to talk about it, even linking to another blog by someone by the name of George Archibald. Archibald says this about Pam:
She has a right to be an announced practising lesbian, but she does not have a right to be hateful against Christians and heterosexuals, which is evident throughout her Web site.
She links to Kevin Jennings, founder of the Gay Lesbian Straight Educators Network (GLSEN) that pushes for acceptance of homosexuality in elementary, middle and high schools across our country.
Then on her Web site, Pamela Spaulding has a link called AmTALIBAN – meaning American Taliban – where she attacks by name 20 leaders of American Christian groups and makes spiteful, sexist, and hateful statements about their religious and cultural beliefs.
Now Archibald gets hypocritical because of what he says later in his blog:
Well, you get the tone of the crazies in this homosexual attack against heterosexuals and leaders of conservative Christian groups.
People like Pamela Spaulding, Kevin Jennings, and other homosexual activists want condoms given to everyone as part of their effort to promote gay sex. But maybe they all need diapers, as they obviously are intolerant and wetting themselves a lot over the fact that Americans mostly are actually a heterosexual religious culture that firmly rejects intolerance and promiscuity.
So calling Pam Spaulding a "crazie" isn't attacking her? Hardly.
That seems to be the new game the anti-gay industry is playing: whining that their "beliefs" are being attacked when they are called on their lies and hypocrisies. Catholic League for Religous and Civil Rights President William Donohue this week caused many problems with Sen. John Edwards using that same tactic. I still wait for his apology for his Anti-Semitic comments.
And the Family Research Council is getting in the act. This group is led by the same man, Tony Perkins, who thought it was okay to associate with the racist Ku Klux Klan and Council of Conservative Citizens.
I always wondered why there were no images of black people on the FRC site. Maybe now I know.
Now I am not one for making attacks. I like to use logic to make my case, and then go for the jugular. But in all honesty, I refuse to feel sorry for Peter LaBarbera or any of these "phony Christians (that's right, I said it). A man who has a web page that has a link called "Victims of Homosexual Murderers" does not get my sympathy.
I find it ironic that people who make it their life's work to use junk science and propaganda about gay people are now whining because they aren't getting a free pass for their nonsense.
Peter really should have not been threatened, but if you create a storm and then get caught in it, who should you blame other than yourself?
The anti-gay industry seems to want to play the victim now. I don't think so. I might remind them of just how ugly they were when President Bush won re-election in 2004. Their cocky bragging about how they "won the election" was disgusting. And as equally disgusting was the ways in which they attempted to move against the gay community, from plotting new ways to take away our rights to Paul Cameron thinking that it was okay to announce new lies about our life span and so-called propensity for dangerous behavior.
Don't even think about it, boys. You started this. And the vast majority of us who are trying to tell the truth about the lgbt community and how you have demonized us are not stooping to threats to get our point across.
We are the ones who you should be concerned about. Of course it really doesn't matter because we aren't going to stop until everyone knows how you lie.
Deal with that!
Saturday, February 10, 2007
Thursday, February 08, 2007
The kids are alright
An article today says that gay teens are coming out at earlier ages:
Gay teenagers are "coming out" earlier than ever, and many feel better about themselves than earlier generations of gays, youth leaders and researchers say. The change is happening in the wake of opinion polls that show growing acceptance of gays, more supportive adults and positive gay role models in popular media.
This means that slowly but surely we are winning this war. But what happens next is up to us elders. What we are dealing with is probably the first generation of the gay community who will define what it means to be lgbt rather than having society define it for them.
It is important that we give them as much support as possible. Exposing the anti-gay industry is only part of what needs to be done.
We also should make sure they have positive role models to look up to. The "Queer As Folk" mentality ain't gonna cut it anymore. In the past, we had to hide who we were and pick up habits that, while they meant our transitory survival, were mentally and spiritually destructive in the long run.
"Cruising," basing the value of our lives on our possessions and clique of friends, and masking our human emotions under guarded cynicism is no longer an option.
Not just for ourselves but for those who will take our place, we have to take stock assessing ourselves as a community, embracing our diversity, and looking beyond materialistic ideas of beauty and success. How us older ones carry ourselves will serve as a blueprint for those who come after us.
Let's give them a reason to be proud of being an lgbt.
An article today says that gay teens are coming out at earlier ages:
Gay teenagers are "coming out" earlier than ever, and many feel better about themselves than earlier generations of gays, youth leaders and researchers say. The change is happening in the wake of opinion polls that show growing acceptance of gays, more supportive adults and positive gay role models in popular media.
This means that slowly but surely we are winning this war. But what happens next is up to us elders. What we are dealing with is probably the first generation of the gay community who will define what it means to be lgbt rather than having society define it for them.
It is important that we give them as much support as possible. Exposing the anti-gay industry is only part of what needs to be done.
We also should make sure they have positive role models to look up to. The "Queer As Folk" mentality ain't gonna cut it anymore. In the past, we had to hide who we were and pick up habits that, while they meant our transitory survival, were mentally and spiritually destructive in the long run.
"Cruising," basing the value of our lives on our possessions and clique of friends, and masking our human emotions under guarded cynicism is no longer an option.
Not just for ourselves but for those who will take our place, we have to take stock assessing ourselves as a community, embracing our diversity, and looking beyond materialistic ideas of beauty and success. How us older ones carry ourselves will serve as a blueprint for those who come after us.
Let's give them a reason to be proud of being an lgbt.
Wednesday, February 07, 2007
100 posts later . . . no rest for the 'wicked'
First thing's first. A couple of you alerted me to an error I made on the last post regarding the Ted Haggard situation.
The guy speaking for Exodus International is Alan Chambers, not Alan Sears. A correction has been made.
Of course I should also point out that Alan Sears is with the Allied Defense Fund, another anti-gay industry group. It's so hard to keep up with those folks.
Also, there has been a bad situation brewing at Pam's House Blend. Apparently a commentor threatened our friend Peter LaBarbera, as well as posted his address.
As soon as Pam was alerted to this, she deleted the comment and made it clear that violence will not be tolerated in the fight to expose the lies of the anti-gay industry.
I would like to reiterate that point. When I say we must be aggressive in our fight for equality and the right to self-determination, I mean with our brains and our mouths, not with our fists and certainly not with guns. Despite what the anti-gay industry says about us, we are a people whose lives and loves should be celebrated. We are kings and queens and therefore should never have to stoop to the lowest common denominator to have our voices heard.
Now in the category of "there he goes again," but in a good way, Wayne Besen has a video from Dr. Kyle Pruett saying just how exactly did James Dobson misuse his work to make the case aganst gay parenting in a recent issue of Time magazine. Check it out.
In the category of "there she goes again," but in a bad way, Janet Folger is on WorldNetDaily whining about how Christians are going to be persecuted.
Her example of this is the recent Repent America situation. Of course Folger bypasses the truth that a judge threw out the lawsuit by Repent America. The group claimed its first amendment rights were violated when the group was arrested for disturbing a Pride festival in 2004.
Instead, Ms. Folger is attacking the heart strings by focusing on the fact that two of the Repent America members are elderly grandmothers.
Nice try, Janet but you really should ply your fear tactics on somewhere else. The fact that these two women were arrested is their own faults. They had no business trying to disrupt the festival. Sorry if I sound heartless but it is apparent that they was old enough to know better.
To quote the judge who threw the case out:
“There is no constitutional right to drown out the speech of another person.”
And for that matter, Ms. Folger should know better. The Repent America members were not "witnessing." They were being rude and disruptive and got what they deserved.
End of story.
First thing's first. A couple of you alerted me to an error I made on the last post regarding the Ted Haggard situation.
The guy speaking for Exodus International is Alan Chambers, not Alan Sears. A correction has been made.
Of course I should also point out that Alan Sears is with the Allied Defense Fund, another anti-gay industry group. It's so hard to keep up with those folks.
Also, there has been a bad situation brewing at Pam's House Blend. Apparently a commentor threatened our friend Peter LaBarbera, as well as posted his address.
As soon as Pam was alerted to this, she deleted the comment and made it clear that violence will not be tolerated in the fight to expose the lies of the anti-gay industry.
I would like to reiterate that point. When I say we must be aggressive in our fight for equality and the right to self-determination, I mean with our brains and our mouths, not with our fists and certainly not with guns. Despite what the anti-gay industry says about us, we are a people whose lives and loves should be celebrated. We are kings and queens and therefore should never have to stoop to the lowest common denominator to have our voices heard.
Now in the category of "there he goes again," but in a good way, Wayne Besen has a video from Dr. Kyle Pruett saying just how exactly did James Dobson misuse his work to make the case aganst gay parenting in a recent issue of Time magazine. Check it out.
In the category of "there she goes again," but in a bad way, Janet Folger is on WorldNetDaily whining about how Christians are going to be persecuted.
Her example of this is the recent Repent America situation. Of course Folger bypasses the truth that a judge threw out the lawsuit by Repent America. The group claimed its first amendment rights were violated when the group was arrested for disturbing a Pride festival in 2004.
Instead, Ms. Folger is attacking the heart strings by focusing on the fact that two of the Repent America members are elderly grandmothers.
Nice try, Janet but you really should ply your fear tactics on somewhere else. The fact that these two women were arrested is their own faults. They had no business trying to disrupt the festival. Sorry if I sound heartless but it is apparent that they was old enough to know better.
To quote the judge who threw the case out:
“There is no constitutional right to drown out the speech of another person.”
And for that matter, Ms. Folger should know better. The Repent America members were not "witnessing." They were being rude and disruptive and got what they deserved.
End of story.
Tuesday, February 06, 2007
What the hell was that I just saw on the Anderson Cooper Show
Okay, I believe in civil discussions but what I just saw on the Anderson Cooper Show was not just civil, it was a damn garden party. Some guy, a pro-gay advocate (yaaahhh!) was debating Exodus International head Alan Chambers on whether or not Ted Haggard was believable in his claim that he was no longer gay.
The young man talking for our side was articulate and knew his facts. But he was too nice. I personally felf that the discussion was not geared towards what it should have been.
Sears got off the subject of Haggard and used the "I was not happy with being gay and I should have the right to change my life" argument. That was all well and good.
That young man arguing our point should have said, "well that's nice but why does the ex-gay movement make it a point to speak out against pro-gay laws and ordinances."
This is where the debate should have been. The fact that this question was not asked just goes to prove yet again how we are always using the playbook of the anti-gay industry. We allow them to set the tone of the argument and we follow them like hungry puppies, unable or unwilling to flip the script and put them on the defensive.
I hardly ever hear the fact that supposed "ex-gays" like Stephen Bennett, Michael Johnston, Alan Chambers, and Melissa Fryrear are willing pawns in the war against the gay community. At the same time they say that they should be willing to make a choice about their lives, they work to make life harder for us who are happy with our lgbt orientation.
When will their subterfuge be made public? Probably not until we get past our garden party mode.
Wasting time in Paris eating Snicker bars
I am going to be honest here. I understand why some of us are upset over the Snickers bar commercial that aired during Superbowl Sunday, but it really isn't worth all of the controversy.
I saw the commercial. It was stupid. End of story.
For that matter, I really don't care what Paris Hilton says. Granted, her comments were rude and apparently hateful but for God' s sake, other than being rich, her biggest claim to fame is making a porno. If anything, the porno relaxed my concerns that she was anorexic. Paris is a very healthy looking woman with her clothes off.
Meanwhile in the real world . . .
I found yet another web page that posted Paul Cameron's research as gospel truth,
Ted Haggard claims to be completely straight. From struggling with homosexuality all of his life to being completely gay-free. Despite all that has been said and done, my heart goes out to Mr. Haggard and his family. I'm also moving out of the way because when and if he suffers another fall, it's gonna hurt.
In Texas, so-called "pro-family" groups are angry at former ally Governor Rick Perry because he made the HPV vaccine mandatory for young girls. Apparently according to them, inoculating young girls from getting cancer encourages promiscuity. A very interesting part of this story that no one is talking about is why so-called "pro-family" groups oppose making HPV vaccine mandatory. The reasons go deeper than trying to discourage promiscuity. In several columns in the past, spokespeople of so-called "pro-family" groups have said:
"Gay marriage will encourage children to experiment with homosexuality. This will put more kids at risk for HIV, hepatitis A, B and C, ‘gay bowel syndrome,’ human papillomavirus (HPV), syphilis, gonorrhea and other sexually transmitted diseases."
This vaccine takes away an arsenal from their anti-gay lies.
Let's focus on the things that do matter in our fight for equality and self determination.
Okay, I believe in civil discussions but what I just saw on the Anderson Cooper Show was not just civil, it was a damn garden party. Some guy, a pro-gay advocate (yaaahhh!) was debating Exodus International head Alan Chambers on whether or not Ted Haggard was believable in his claim that he was no longer gay.
The young man talking for our side was articulate and knew his facts. But he was too nice. I personally felf that the discussion was not geared towards what it should have been.
Sears got off the subject of Haggard and used the "I was not happy with being gay and I should have the right to change my life" argument. That was all well and good.
That young man arguing our point should have said, "well that's nice but why does the ex-gay movement make it a point to speak out against pro-gay laws and ordinances."
This is where the debate should have been. The fact that this question was not asked just goes to prove yet again how we are always using the playbook of the anti-gay industry. We allow them to set the tone of the argument and we follow them like hungry puppies, unable or unwilling to flip the script and put them on the defensive.
I hardly ever hear the fact that supposed "ex-gays" like Stephen Bennett, Michael Johnston, Alan Chambers, and Melissa Fryrear are willing pawns in the war against the gay community. At the same time they say that they should be willing to make a choice about their lives, they work to make life harder for us who are happy with our lgbt orientation.
When will their subterfuge be made public? Probably not until we get past our garden party mode.
Wasting time in Paris eating Snicker bars
I am going to be honest here. I understand why some of us are upset over the Snickers bar commercial that aired during Superbowl Sunday, but it really isn't worth all of the controversy.
I saw the commercial. It was stupid. End of story.
For that matter, I really don't care what Paris Hilton says. Granted, her comments were rude and apparently hateful but for God' s sake, other than being rich, her biggest claim to fame is making a porno. If anything, the porno relaxed my concerns that she was anorexic. Paris is a very healthy looking woman with her clothes off.
Meanwhile in the real world . . .
I found yet another web page that posted Paul Cameron's research as gospel truth,
Ted Haggard claims to be completely straight. From struggling with homosexuality all of his life to being completely gay-free. Despite all that has been said and done, my heart goes out to Mr. Haggard and his family. I'm also moving out of the way because when and if he suffers another fall, it's gonna hurt.
In Texas, so-called "pro-family" groups are angry at former ally Governor Rick Perry because he made the HPV vaccine mandatory for young girls. Apparently according to them, inoculating young girls from getting cancer encourages promiscuity. A very interesting part of this story that no one is talking about is why so-called "pro-family" groups oppose making HPV vaccine mandatory. The reasons go deeper than trying to discourage promiscuity. In several columns in the past, spokespeople of so-called "pro-family" groups have said:
"Gay marriage will encourage children to experiment with homosexuality. This will put more kids at risk for HIV, hepatitis A, B and C, ‘gay bowel syndrome,’ human papillomavirus (HPV), syphilis, gonorrhea and other sexually transmitted diseases."
This vaccine takes away an arsenal from their anti-gay lies.
Let's focus on the things that do matter in our fight for equality and self determination.
Monday, February 05, 2007
Me and 'gay bowel syndrome'
Yeah, I know that everyone is talking about last night's Snickers commercial and I have certain opinions on it too.
But forgive me if I focus on something else.
I am moving back the deadline for turning in my manuscript to my publisher until March 1. One reason is a good one. The other reason is interesting.
The good reason being that for the first time in two years, I will be able to take a vacation from my job. Long story, fast ending - I have a week to tie up loose ends and compile my book's index. The vacation begins next week, so naturally I am happy about that.
Now for the very interesting reason and thus the title of my post. Ever since I began my book, I have been trying to find concrete proof that the term "gay bowel syndrome" does not exist. The good news is that in legitimate media sources, I have found very little on it. This is the most complete thing I found:
According to the "Free Online Dictionary and Thesaurus," http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com:
"Gay bowel syndrome was a term first used in 1976 prior to the discovery of AIDS, to describe a series of parasitic disorders caused by oral/anal contact and allegedly related to gay male sexual activity. The term was abandoned by the medical community in the 1980s because the problems that attributed to it were not specific to homosexuals, not confined to just the bowels, nor did it meet the medical definition of a syndrome."
The bad news - a: the term is practically everywhere on anti-gay industry sites and b: my digging in credible medical sources sometimes found me accidentally glancing at interesting, albeit, disgusting images of the human body.
Yet another thing to "thank" the anti-gay industry for.
I also found where the term was stricken from a medical textbook in 2001. But I want to really nail down the fact that the "gay bowel syndrome" is obsolete. In other words, I want more proof . Therefore, in the final weeks before I turn my manuscript in to my publisher, I have to gird my stomach from nausea and keep looking until I find what I need.
So you will forgive me for not focusing on the Snickers commercial. I have a feeling that I won't want food for a while.
Yeah, I know that everyone is talking about last night's Snickers commercial and I have certain opinions on it too.
But forgive me if I focus on something else.
I am moving back the deadline for turning in my manuscript to my publisher until March 1. One reason is a good one. The other reason is interesting.
The good reason being that for the first time in two years, I will be able to take a vacation from my job. Long story, fast ending - I have a week to tie up loose ends and compile my book's index. The vacation begins next week, so naturally I am happy about that.
Now for the very interesting reason and thus the title of my post. Ever since I began my book, I have been trying to find concrete proof that the term "gay bowel syndrome" does not exist. The good news is that in legitimate media sources, I have found very little on it. This is the most complete thing I found:
According to the "Free Online Dictionary and Thesaurus," http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com:
"Gay bowel syndrome was a term first used in 1976 prior to the discovery of AIDS, to describe a series of parasitic disorders caused by oral/anal contact and allegedly related to gay male sexual activity. The term was abandoned by the medical community in the 1980s because the problems that attributed to it were not specific to homosexuals, not confined to just the bowels, nor did it meet the medical definition of a syndrome."
The bad news - a: the term is practically everywhere on anti-gay industry sites and b: my digging in credible medical sources sometimes found me accidentally glancing at interesting, albeit, disgusting images of the human body.
Yet another thing to "thank" the anti-gay industry for.
I also found where the term was stricken from a medical textbook in 2001. But I want to really nail down the fact that the "gay bowel syndrome" is obsolete. In other words, I want more proof . Therefore, in the final weeks before I turn my manuscript in to my publisher, I have to gird my stomach from nausea and keep looking until I find what I need.
So you will forgive me for not focusing on the Snickers commercial. I have a feeling that I won't want food for a while.
Friday, February 02, 2007
Hate crimes legislation and Dire Consequences
It gets frustrating to seek the depths that the anti-gay industry will stoop to in its quest to demonize the gay community and deny us any protection under law.
Case in point: Americans for Truth About Homosexuality's latest batch of lies about hate crimes legislation.
The piece claims that adding homosexuality to hate crimes legislation will ultimately lead to a curtailing of some Chrisitians' first amendment right to free speech.
This is a lie.
Even sadder than the fact that we need hate crimes legislation at all is the constant distortion tactics used by members of the anti-gay industry when they speak out against it.
Hate crimes protection already exists for certain groups but you never hear the religious right whining about it. They only sound the alarm when someone thinks of adding the gay community the groups protected by hate crimes legislation.
Then they use what I like to call the Dire Consequences tactic in order to scare Christians. The anti-gay industry constantly raises the notion that creating laws protecting the interests of gays and lesbians will lead to negative consequences, but they hardly ever provide actual proof as to the validity of these charges
In this particular case, Peter LaBarbera uses incidents that took place in foreign countries to make the claim that hate crimes legislation for the gay community will eventually lead to Christians going to jail for speaking out against homosexuality.
Hate crimes legislation do not cover speech. They cover motivation behind violent crimes. Christians who declare in that homosexuality is a sin are in no danger of going to jail if homosexuality is added in hate crimes legislation.
Americans For Truth About Homosexuality is clearly trying to motivate their troops based on fear - a most un-Christian tactic.
It gets frustrating to seek the depths that the anti-gay industry will stoop to in its quest to demonize the gay community and deny us any protection under law.
Case in point: Americans for Truth About Homosexuality's latest batch of lies about hate crimes legislation.
The piece claims that adding homosexuality to hate crimes legislation will ultimately lead to a curtailing of some Chrisitians' first amendment right to free speech.
This is a lie.
Even sadder than the fact that we need hate crimes legislation at all is the constant distortion tactics used by members of the anti-gay industry when they speak out against it.
Hate crimes protection already exists for certain groups but you never hear the religious right whining about it. They only sound the alarm when someone thinks of adding the gay community the groups protected by hate crimes legislation.
Then they use what I like to call the Dire Consequences tactic in order to scare Christians. The anti-gay industry constantly raises the notion that creating laws protecting the interests of gays and lesbians will lead to negative consequences, but they hardly ever provide actual proof as to the validity of these charges
In this particular case, Peter LaBarbera uses incidents that took place in foreign countries to make the claim that hate crimes legislation for the gay community will eventually lead to Christians going to jail for speaking out against homosexuality.
Hate crimes legislation do not cover speech. They cover motivation behind violent crimes. Christians who declare in that homosexuality is a sin are in no danger of going to jail if homosexuality is added in hate crimes legislation.
Americans For Truth About Homosexuality is clearly trying to motivate their troops based on fear - a most un-Christian tactic.
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
A dangerous change of heart underscores community problems
Venus Magazine, a publication that for 13 years targeted the Black gay and lesbian community, is now a voice for the ex-gay movement.
Its publisher, Charlene Cothran, recently announced that she has been “redeemed”; is no longer a lesbian; and is changing the mission and direction of the magazine. On the Web site she writes, “As the publisher of a 13-year-old periodical [ that ] targets Black gays and lesbians, I have had the opportunity to publicly address thousands, influencing closeted people to ‘come out’ and stand up for them selves, which is particularly difficult in the African-American community.
This is not a joke. It is for real and it is sad. From reading the article, I can tell that Ms. Cothran isn't one of the usual "ex-gay for pay" who are employed by the anti-gay industry. She genuinely believes that God spoke to her heart and made her change her orientation and her magazine's focus.
I sincerely hope that anyone reading this won't be forming any thoughts to send Ms. Cothran negative emails. It is the last thing she needs.
Her changing the direction of her magazine covers so many issues our community tends to ignore.
It has been my experience that so many African-Americans lgbts have a problem reconciling our cultural ideas of faith and God to our orientation. We view our orientation as lgbts as separate to our identities as African-Americans.
And may be this is because of the second issue the article brings up.
If this story was about a predominantly white gay magazine, it would get a lot of attention. I strongly suspect that since this is an predominantly African-American magazine, it will not get the attention it deserves.
This is indicative of how the mainstream gay community tends to ignore lgbts of color. In the recent conversations we have all had about the "down low" no one has ever said that African-American gays and lesbians feel that we have to pick which community we will invest ourselves in. Both communities tell us that we must sacrifice a part of ourselves. The African-American community tells us to be closeted, while the gay community tells us to be silent, remain in the background, and be constantly reminded about how we don't "fit" someone's idea of a perfect gay, be it due to income, racial heritage, or social background.
And take it from me; an African-American in the closet tends to get more support from the Black community than an out African-American gets from the gay community.
The gay community needs to address the idea that our identities as lgbts is multi-faceted and sometimes dependent on sociological and cultural factors. The attempt to homogenize the gay and lesbian community into one single entity dependent on a single fight for equality (i.e. gay marriage) or a single gathering (i.e. gay pride rallies), or single images (i.e. middle class white gays) harms us more than anything the anti-gay industry can do.
The ironic thing about this situation is that I read in another article that some gays interrupted a Senate hearing in Indiana when a bill banning same-sex marriage made it out of committee. Apparently they began to sing "We Shall Overcome."
They should have changed the lyrics to "Some of Us Shall Overcome."
Venus Magazine, a publication that for 13 years targeted the Black gay and lesbian community, is now a voice for the ex-gay movement.
Its publisher, Charlene Cothran, recently announced that she has been “redeemed”; is no longer a lesbian; and is changing the mission and direction of the magazine. On the Web site she writes, “As the publisher of a 13-year-old periodical [ that ] targets Black gays and lesbians, I have had the opportunity to publicly address thousands, influencing closeted people to ‘come out’ and stand up for them selves, which is particularly difficult in the African-American community.
This is not a joke. It is for real and it is sad. From reading the article, I can tell that Ms. Cothran isn't one of the usual "ex-gay for pay" who are employed by the anti-gay industry. She genuinely believes that God spoke to her heart and made her change her orientation and her magazine's focus.
I sincerely hope that anyone reading this won't be forming any thoughts to send Ms. Cothran negative emails. It is the last thing she needs.
Her changing the direction of her magazine covers so many issues our community tends to ignore.
It has been my experience that so many African-Americans lgbts have a problem reconciling our cultural ideas of faith and God to our orientation. We view our orientation as lgbts as separate to our identities as African-Americans.
And may be this is because of the second issue the article brings up.
If this story was about a predominantly white gay magazine, it would get a lot of attention. I strongly suspect that since this is an predominantly African-American magazine, it will not get the attention it deserves.
This is indicative of how the mainstream gay community tends to ignore lgbts of color. In the recent conversations we have all had about the "down low" no one has ever said that African-American gays and lesbians feel that we have to pick which community we will invest ourselves in. Both communities tell us that we must sacrifice a part of ourselves. The African-American community tells us to be closeted, while the gay community tells us to be silent, remain in the background, and be constantly reminded about how we don't "fit" someone's idea of a perfect gay, be it due to income, racial heritage, or social background.
And take it from me; an African-American in the closet tends to get more support from the Black community than an out African-American gets from the gay community.
The gay community needs to address the idea that our identities as lgbts is multi-faceted and sometimes dependent on sociological and cultural factors. The attempt to homogenize the gay and lesbian community into one single entity dependent on a single fight for equality (i.e. gay marriage) or a single gathering (i.e. gay pride rallies), or single images (i.e. middle class white gays) harms us more than anything the anti-gay industry can do.
The ironic thing about this situation is that I read in another article that some gays interrupted a Senate hearing in Indiana when a bill banning same-sex marriage made it out of committee. Apparently they began to sing "We Shall Overcome."
They should have changed the lyrics to "Some of Us Shall Overcome."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)