The headlines have been filled with missing babies, Eastern leaders captured or dead, and Star Trek movie star Zachary Quinto coming out of the closet as a gay man. Why is this news, and does it really matter?
Many people will say, "who cares if you're gay or not, can't you just keep it to yourself?" which is a very ignorant statement. A guy who sits in his office cubicle with a picture of his wife on his desk is considered a "good family man". He is expected to bring his wife to company parties and events. But what if he has a picture of his boyfriend or husband on the desk? Trust me, I've been in that situation so many times! It doesn't matter how liberal or diverse a company is, there will always be someone who will ask you "So what does your wife do?" Luckily things have changed enough in many parts of the country that a reply of "My husband is a photographer" won't get you fired or lynched...sometimes.
Years ago Michelangelo Signorile used to write for the gay news magazine The Advocate (he's now on XM Sirius Radio) and he stirred up huge amounts of controversy by going on a campaign to out popular actors and actresses, politicians and sports players. Many gay people were aghast and wanted him to stop this practice, after all it's up to the individual to come out when they feel it is most appropriate. Although I agree it is usually up to the individual, those people who are in the public eye need to come out soon or be forced out. Like I said, it's controversial, but it's so important. The more people that come out or are forced out, the more gays will be visible. People are more likely to accept something that is not dark and shadowy, some fringe activity that the religious right can claim is evil, perverted, sinful and deserving of nothing but derision and avoidance.
When I was growing up there were no role models at all. The only people I ever saw on t.v. or the movies were insane killers, twisted perverts, or the sad but funny sidekick. These are the images the Religious Right still wants gay kids to see so that we won't "choose" this lifestyle. Paul Lynde, (Hollywood Squares original Center Square and Bewitched's Uncle Arthur) who couldn't even remotely be considered straight, landed his own self-titled show. The show's opening credits has Lynde opening the door to his home in a pose that said, "Hello, I'm fab-u-lous!", but then his wife comes up to give him a peck on the cheek and his daughter (played by Phil Silvers' daughter) smiles warmly. How could such a show actually work? Well, there were many, many households in America which looked exactly like this example. If the show had continued maybe they would have introduced a new character, 'daddy's very close friend John, who will be staying in the guest room, and daddy will spend the night in there too because mommy kicks in her sleep'.
Recently a gay couple who have been together over 35 years invited Robert and me to a party at their house. At the party they had hired a young gay college student to play piano. When the party was winding down, many of the patrons gathered around the piano player and asked questions. The first question was, "are you out?" to which the reply was an immediate "yes" but answered with a bit of shock. Of course the young man was out, why wouldn't he be? In the age of Ellen, Elton, Rosie, the L-Word, Queer as Folk, the Real World, Will & Grace, there are a lot of examples out there of gay people who are not tragic, psycho, or comedy relief. One of the lesbian couples told how, when they were in their 20's or 30's they had to move around in bands or else they could get attacked. They'd actually lost friends who, when walking to their car in the parking lot of a gay bar, were attacked and killed simply for being gay.
I was talking at another soiree to the parents of a young gay friend of mine. The parents told me that Michael not only came out at a young age, he purposely spoke at an assembly at his high school, set up a Gay-Straight-Alliance club, and was very popular. Times are definitely changing.
Now Spock is gay. Well, not the character Spock of course, but at least the actor is out which is going to help even more young people feel that being gay is not a death-sentence. This is the exact thing the religious right is so panicked about. Good.
Saturday, October 22, 2011
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
on Bad Neighbors
We used to live in a wonderful and artsy area of Portland, Oregon, just off Alberta Street. The houses were all either traditional bungalows or Portland Style (four-square houses with the large front porches), or a combination thereof. The neighbor to our South was a nice quiet family of four. The father was a professor, the mother a retired teacher and the kids were smart, quiet, clean and polite. Nearly every night I could see the mother and daughter washing dishes from an angled view out my kitchen window.
The neighbor to our West was a very elderly woman who required the use of a mechanical chair lift installed at her front porch. You rarely even knew she was there except for the occasional whir and clang of the lift as she came home from grocery shopping. Unfortunately this little old lady was getting forgetful and her granddaughter had discovered the gas stove left on far too many times. The woman was put into a home and her two granddaughters moved in, along with their motorcycle-riding boyfriends. From then on we were treated to extremely loud tailpipes, angry arguments, heated battles, sirens and cops blocking the street, loud death-metal music, and the near constant sound of that darned mechanical lift going up and down (all four persons living there were very, very obese). They had two enormous dogs who would bark at any tiny instigation. One day Robert was sitting on our porch swing when he heard the following loud declaration emanate from their house: "The whole house smells like shit, but I looked around and couldn't find any shit!"
Keeping it classy.
However, these were not our worst neighbors, by far. To the immediate North was a man, probably in his fifties, who fancied himself to be a radio broadcaster. There had been a fire in his house at some time in the past and for at least a decade the walls had no covering, just exposed studs and pink insulation. He rarely ever left the house, but occasionally would have a few people staying there. To his North was a small connector road which he would line up large boulders and park vehicles across so no one could use it. His backyard and front porch was completely filled with horded items from broken washing machines to plastic chairs, all stacked up, rough and tumble with barely a pathway between. He ran an electrical wire along the top of his fence to keep trespassers from entering. And he erected a 50ft steel tower to broadcast his signals.
You would think he was breaking the law with the tower except that he didn't actually exceed the height limit for "antennae" in the city. He also typically kept his amplification rate just barely under the legal limit. This really didn't matter much because all the houses in the area, including ours, had old knob & tube electrical wiring. While this kind of wiring is fairly safe (despite many people's panic about "old" wiring) it kind of acts like a giant antenna, turning your house into a giant receiver. When we'd plug in anything that had a speaker, including our telephone, it didn't matter if the item was turned on or not, the speakers would broadcast anything our neighbor was outputting. Neighbors got together and complained to the FCC and to the councilpersons, but he was actually within the letter of the law.
I still remember a conversation I had with my grandmother. She had called me and suddenly the neighbor began to broadcast his intermittent "show" which consisted mostly of saying "holy guacamole" over and over with an echo, or playing one of those Christmas songs featuring dogs barking the tune. This time he was repeating, "you're a dirty bitch, you're a dirty bitch", to which my Grandmother replied, "what did you say, Bud?" I tried to explain that it wasn't me, but his volume was far too high for me to get this across.
We even tried to talk to him, but it seems we were part of the "establishment trying to take him down". He was paranoid and delusional and felt this radio broadcasting was his way to get back at the "man".
I don't miss him.
The neighbor to our West was a very elderly woman who required the use of a mechanical chair lift installed at her front porch. You rarely even knew she was there except for the occasional whir and clang of the lift as she came home from grocery shopping. Unfortunately this little old lady was getting forgetful and her granddaughter had discovered the gas stove left on far too many times. The woman was put into a home and her two granddaughters moved in, along with their motorcycle-riding boyfriends. From then on we were treated to extremely loud tailpipes, angry arguments, heated battles, sirens and cops blocking the street, loud death-metal music, and the near constant sound of that darned mechanical lift going up and down (all four persons living there were very, very obese). They had two enormous dogs who would bark at any tiny instigation. One day Robert was sitting on our porch swing when he heard the following loud declaration emanate from their house: "The whole house smells like shit, but I looked around and couldn't find any shit!"
Keeping it classy.
However, these were not our worst neighbors, by far. To the immediate North was a man, probably in his fifties, who fancied himself to be a radio broadcaster. There had been a fire in his house at some time in the past and for at least a decade the walls had no covering, just exposed studs and pink insulation. He rarely ever left the house, but occasionally would have a few people staying there. To his North was a small connector road which he would line up large boulders and park vehicles across so no one could use it. His backyard and front porch was completely filled with horded items from broken washing machines to plastic chairs, all stacked up, rough and tumble with barely a pathway between. He ran an electrical wire along the top of his fence to keep trespassers from entering. And he erected a 50ft steel tower to broadcast his signals.
You would think he was breaking the law with the tower except that he didn't actually exceed the height limit for "antennae" in the city. He also typically kept his amplification rate just barely under the legal limit. This really didn't matter much because all the houses in the area, including ours, had old knob & tube electrical wiring. While this kind of wiring is fairly safe (despite many people's panic about "old" wiring) it kind of acts like a giant antenna, turning your house into a giant receiver. When we'd plug in anything that had a speaker, including our telephone, it didn't matter if the item was turned on or not, the speakers would broadcast anything our neighbor was outputting. Neighbors got together and complained to the FCC and to the councilpersons, but he was actually within the letter of the law.
I still remember a conversation I had with my grandmother. She had called me and suddenly the neighbor began to broadcast his intermittent "show" which consisted mostly of saying "holy guacamole" over and over with an echo, or playing one of those Christmas songs featuring dogs barking the tune. This time he was repeating, "you're a dirty bitch, you're a dirty bitch", to which my Grandmother replied, "what did you say, Bud?" I tried to explain that it wasn't me, but his volume was far too high for me to get this across.
We even tried to talk to him, but it seems we were part of the "establishment trying to take him down". He was paranoid and delusional and felt this radio broadcasting was his way to get back at the "man".
I don't miss him.
Friday, October 14, 2011
on Free Speech
Ah, the first amendment to our United States Constitution; what would we do without it?
This one little amendment has been fought for and against in courts, in Congress, everywhere throughout the U.S., for all of our history. What are we allowed to say, where, when and how is the subject of many contentious fights. The amendment itself states very plainly that "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble". However, it doesn't mention laws made outside of Congress.
This is how we got obscenity laws which certainly do abridge the freedom of speech. If something is obscene (a very vague and varied definition by the way) then citizens no longer have the right to say it, print it, distribute it, or even own it privately. Yes, by definition you are not actually allowed to own pornography in your own homes. This is how officials can break in (with a search warrant, unless it's deemed some kind of terrorism activity) take your computer and search for anything "obscene". Now regular ol' porn will probably be permitted in most cases, but are you 100% sure every person shown in that pornography is of legal age? Did you know the legal age varies depending on whether or not that person is engaged in "straight" or "gay" sex? Yup, varied definition for sure.
What about "sexting"? Should a high school student be sent to prison for the 'distribution of pornography' after she sent nude photos of herself to her boyfriend, who shared them with his friends? A few years ago a woman was arrested for child pornography because she took photos of her baby in the bath tub and (rather stupidly) sent them out as a Christmas card. More recently, this past summer, a major book store chain covered up a magazine because it featured a topless male model; a model that is renowned for having a very feminine face. Because he looked like a woman, but had exposed MALE breasts, they felt they needed to cover it up "for the sake of the children". Why is nudity so highly sexualized in America? A family in Florida recently tried to sue their next door neighbor because the neighbor had two 4ft tall statues of the David which of course has exposed genitals. The woman exclaimed, "what if my little boy saw that statue?"
People can peaceably assemble, this is our right guaranteed by the Constitution, and Congress can't make a law which prevents this. However, if the assembly is deemed terrorist in any way then the "peaceably" portion kicks in and the gathering can be quashed, even in private locations. Also, governments, Federal and Local can make laws stating the people must apply and be approved for a permit to gather in public places, presumably due to security and maintenance concerns. If someone in the governing body determines they do not approve or like why the people are assembling, they can simply not approve the permit, or revoke it later at their discretion.
I've devoted quite a few blog posts about the power of words. People certainly have the right to say whatever they want, but they must understand they have to accept the consequences of that freedom. If someone shouts on a street corner (or Facebook for that matter) the company they work for is terrible, then that company has a right to fire them over it. Sure, the person had every right to knock their employer, but the employer has a right to protect their image from slander. If a person stands on a street corner (or again, Facebook) decrying a certain ethnicity, personality trait, etc., it is certainly their right, but what if it incites violence or degradation of the ethnicity, etc.? This can be considered "hate speech" and can be outlawed.
The Press is allowed to print whatever it wants. However, there have been laws enacted which prevent certain claims by advertisers. There used to be rules regulating how the media could portray the "truth", but those regulations were mostly gutted during the first few years of Bush Jr. Now we have Fox and many other "news" organizations making up whatever they want to and sometimes running an obscure apology if caught. Most of the time now, the media doesn't care if it's blatantly lying. An acquaintance once told me major news
agencies will never get eclipsed by bloggers because no one would know whom to trust in the blogosphere. Do we know who to trust in the major news agencies? The Egyptian uprising, now part of the so called "Arab Spring" was first reported from the site with hand held phones and broadcast over Facebook and Twitter. The major news agencies were at least 8 hours behind. Where will our news come from in the future, and will it be trustworthy?
This one little amendment has been fought for and against in courts, in Congress, everywhere throughout the U.S., for all of our history. What are we allowed to say, where, when and how is the subject of many contentious fights. The amendment itself states very plainly that "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble". However, it doesn't mention laws made outside of Congress.
This is how we got obscenity laws which certainly do abridge the freedom of speech. If something is obscene (a very vague and varied definition by the way) then citizens no longer have the right to say it, print it, distribute it, or even own it privately. Yes, by definition you are not actually allowed to own pornography in your own homes. This is how officials can break in (with a search warrant, unless it's deemed some kind of terrorism activity) take your computer and search for anything "obscene". Now regular ol' porn will probably be permitted in most cases, but are you 100% sure every person shown in that pornography is of legal age? Did you know the legal age varies depending on whether or not that person is engaged in "straight" or "gay" sex? Yup, varied definition for sure.
What about "sexting"? Should a high school student be sent to prison for the 'distribution of pornography' after she sent nude photos of herself to her boyfriend, who shared them with his friends? A few years ago a woman was arrested for child pornography because she took photos of her baby in the bath tub and (rather stupidly) sent them out as a Christmas card. More recently, this past summer, a major book store chain covered up a magazine because it featured a topless male model; a model that is renowned for having a very feminine face. Because he looked like a woman, but had exposed MALE breasts, they felt they needed to cover it up "for the sake of the children". Why is nudity so highly sexualized in America? A family in Florida recently tried to sue their next door neighbor because the neighbor had two 4ft tall statues of the David which of course has exposed genitals. The woman exclaimed, "what if my little boy saw that statue?"
People can peaceably assemble, this is our right guaranteed by the Constitution, and Congress can't make a law which prevents this. However, if the assembly is deemed terrorist in any way then the "peaceably" portion kicks in and the gathering can be quashed, even in private locations. Also, governments, Federal and Local can make laws stating the people must apply and be approved for a permit to gather in public places, presumably due to security and maintenance concerns. If someone in the governing body determines they do not approve or like why the people are assembling, they can simply not approve the permit, or revoke it later at their discretion.
I've devoted quite a few blog posts about the power of words. People certainly have the right to say whatever they want, but they must understand they have to accept the consequences of that freedom. If someone shouts on a street corner (or Facebook for that matter) the company they work for is terrible, then that company has a right to fire them over it. Sure, the person had every right to knock their employer, but the employer has a right to protect their image from slander. If a person stands on a street corner (or again, Facebook) decrying a certain ethnicity, personality trait, etc., it is certainly their right, but what if it incites violence or degradation of the ethnicity, etc.? This can be considered "hate speech" and can be outlawed.
The Press is allowed to print whatever it wants. However, there have been laws enacted which prevent certain claims by advertisers. There used to be rules regulating how the media could portray the "truth", but those regulations were mostly gutted during the first few years of Bush Jr. Now we have Fox and many other "news" organizations making up whatever they want to and sometimes running an obscure apology if caught. Most of the time now, the media doesn't care if it's blatantly lying. An acquaintance once told me major news
agencies will never get eclipsed by bloggers because no one would know whom to trust in the blogosphere. Do we know who to trust in the major news agencies? The Egyptian uprising, now part of the so called "Arab Spring" was first reported from the site with hand held phones and broadcast over Facebook and Twitter. The major news agencies were at least 8 hours behind. Where will our news come from in the future, and will it be trustworthy?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)