June. The transition to summer. June. A month most popular for weddings. June. National Gay and Lesbian Pride Month. June. Why bother? The White House has not recognized Gay & Lesbian Pride Month since Clinton left office. The current Administration and a handful of fundamentalist legislators, preachers and businessmen with a sinister agenda refuse to give any validity to the homosexual lifestyle. State legislatures across this land are crafting theocratic laws which will bar members of the same sex from “marriage.” The populous is barraged with campaigns for and against gay rights with the fundamentalists taking the upper hand in their opposition because they've got the money. By now you think I'm going to blame Bush, the GOP and Christianity as the collective roadblock to advancing the cause of gay rights. Guess again. The buck stops here, at the door of every gay person on the globe. Living in self loathing, shadows and shame only bolsters those who condemn homosexuality. In order to achieve tolerance, we must tolerate the intolerant and work to find those things which are common to all sides. As long as the lines of communication are open, dialog can be exchanged.
Pride. It's interesting what one finds when looking up the word pride in the dictionary. Two definitions that stand out most clearly to me are: 1) A sense of one's own proper dignity or value; self-respect; and 2) Arrogant or disdainful conduct or treatment; haughtiness. I try to believe that I have a sense of my own proper dignity but I know that I am most guilty of arrogant conduct. Most people on either side of the argument are. When I was 20, I was a pretty self-loathing kind of guy. It only got worse as I hit 30. You see, in gay terms, being 30 is tantamount to qualifying for Medicare. Then comes the mid-age crisis and the old “I want to be accepted by society routine.” Some of us are so closeted and fearful that we marry members of the opposite sex. Others become victims of extortion and yes, others resort to alcohol, drugs and/or suicide. By the time 40 rolls around it all blows up in one's face. The lies. The hypocrisy. The self-loathing. It's been a vicious quarter century living in shame and in the shadows. All because God, my family and society at large thinks I'm an aberration. The real problem is that I've allowed myself to believe that which the masses have told me. I'm different. I'm “queer.” I'm not as good as the next guy. And now I'm about 50. I've wasted the first half century of my life and God willing, I won't repeat the mistakes I've made. Not when I feel like I have a second chance.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - gonzo marx
/thunderous golfclap
nothing to add to that but a hearty well done and i like the movie Quote
>bows, hand over fist<
Excelsior!
2 - Natalie Davis
Bravo, and happy Pride!
"I am what I am
I am my own special creation
So come take a look
Give me the hook or the ovation
It's my world that I want to have a little pride in
My world and it's not a place I have to hide in
Life's not worth a damn
'Til you can say,
Hey world, I am what I am
I am what I am,
I don't want praise I don't want pity
I bang my own drum,
Some think it's noise I think it's pretty
And so what if I love each feather and each spangle
Why not try to see things from a different angle
Your life is a sham
'Til you can shout out loud
I am what I am
I am what I am
And what I am needs no excuses
I deal my own deck
Sometimes the ace, sometimes the deuces
There's one life and there's no return and no deposit
One life so it's time to open up your closet
Life's not worth a damn
'Til you can say,
Hey world, I am what I am"
-- Harvey Fierstein, from La Cage Aux Folles
3 - Natalie Davis
Correction: Harvey Fierstein wrote the libretto for LCAF, however, Jerry Herman wrote the music and lyrics. Dumbass me, I thought Herman did the score and Fierstein did the lyrics. Wrong. Bad homo me.
4 - Silas Kain
Thanks Gonzo and Natalie. I love that song, Natalie. It speaks so much to me.
I am really hoping that some of our astute conservative bloggers will weigh in on this discussion.
5 - Steve S
In order to achieve tolerance, we must tolerate the intolerant and work to find those things which are common to all sides.
Can you give me an example of what you mean about tolerating the intolerant? A reference point or an analogy.
I've wasted the first half century of my life and God willing, I won't repeat the mistakes I've made. Not when I feel like I have a second chance.
This is why I want you to elaborate. Because that is what the closet is, tolerating the intolerant.
Many of us go around preaching "love, toleration and acceptance" yet we have the most difficult time tolerating opposite points of view.
If the views we are preaching are 'love, toleration and acceptance', then the opposite view would be 'hate, intolerance and ostracization'. Yes, some of us do have a difficult time tolerating that, I would be one of those people.
In order to truly achieve pride, we need to recognize our worth in the community and humanity and recognize that those who are driven to hate homosexuality may very well do so from a position of fear and misunderstanding.
I actually believe very few people hate homosexuality, but I could be naive. I think fear and misunderstanding is behind most of it, but I believe the hateful actions we face don't always stem from hatred inside.
There are many things in the Bible that are condemned. Eating shellfish, using pigskin, makeup, working on the Sabbath, and there are parts of the Bible where it says if you want to atone for your sins, you need to rub dove's blood all over the walls. Fundamentalists zero in on homosexuality, because it involves sex, because it is completely alien to them and so they fear. That's what I believe. They pick and choose and blaspheme the Bible far more than the expression of love ever could.
You can tell when they condemn AIDS victims for suffering the wrath of God (less condemnation now, than at the onset), it is a religion of fear (not true Christianity, but what is evangelicized today). It's all about putting the 'fear of God' into you. Everything is an attack to them. If a student can't use the high school microphone to prosletize, then that students faith was attacked. If a judge can't put a biblical reference in a courthouse, then it must be a direct attack on the religion alone. Geez, just saying Happy Holidays to everybody is now apparently a direct attack on Christianity. Our attempts at equality and the protection of our children are fought against with phrases like 'Defense of Marriage'. It is paranoia, fear and ignorance that drives our opposition. Falwell or Robertson once said meteors will hit San Francisco, sent by God. Even on the other side of the world, Muslims over there are saying the tsunami victims weren't pure enough. Many people of many faith attribute many world events to the direct actions of God. If you watch reality tv, like the Amazing Race and see a Christian team race against others, you can see how they are convinced God also has a hand in reality tv. Seriously. These people are desperate for the Coming. So desperate they see Mary in grilled cheese (minimum bid 50k, serious inquiries only). They also disregard the volumes of research, gathered over decades, that substantiate the theory of evolution, in exchange for absolute Creationism.
To me, Silas, logic is rationality. Without logic, all you have is irrationality. I do know that some of our political/ideological opponents cannot be rationalized with. You can tell which ones within a few sentences usually. They are the ones who live in fear but don't know it.
If anything we should be working to convert this world into a place of peaceful coexistence. The problem is that in doing so religious machinery would not be funded as well as it is today.
It's always about the money. Example - 100%, yes 100% of Bush's faith-based initiative money went to Christian or Interfaith ministeries. No other religion has received a dime in faith based money. Much of that money went to churches in the inner cities to help out the dire conditions there. That happened shortly before the election. Many of those inner city church goers are predominately African American and traditionally a Democratic base, but suddenly that changed. Numerous blogs have already reported this, it isn't hard to track down.
Faith based initiatives have been used for political gain from the beginning, and quite effectively meshing church and state. Because most of the alternate faiths can be found in inner cities too. They just don't have the voters.
There's nothing to be ashamed of in being gay. There's plenty to be proud of in being tolerant.
I should not be expected to be tolerant of a 'compromise' that consists of continuing the ostracization and stigmatization of my community, because such a compromise changes nothing. Most of the compromises put forth change nothing. We can't make people accept us into their lives, but who the hell wants that anyway? We can not settle for compromises that allow the bullying, the harassing, the violence, the discrimination, and the violation of civil liberties to continue.
The trend of the Right has been to close down lines of communication. For generations gay people were demonized. Then someone realized it was so effective, they began to demonize liberalism. They have completely changed the definitions of words. Politically correct used to mean what you are advocating. A middle ground where everybody gets along. Say Politically Correct now and conservatives immediately think 'stifling of religion'. There isn't much ability for the Left and the Right to communicate effectively anymore. Words mean different things to different people now. Mention Social Security or welfare, something all Americans used to believe in, and now you get liberals who think 'support for our later years' or 'help to get back on your feet' and you get conservatives who think 'giving some stranger a free ride' or 'giving some stranger a free ride'.
Consider also, that when you run a movement on the basis of your faith, then any compromise is a compromise of your faith. Can't really do that now, can they? Do Frist, DeLay, Santorum or even Dr. Dobson or Pat Robertson seem like the compromising kind of people? Does assaulting the judicial system and portraying conservative Republican judges who rule for gay marriage as 'activist' judges sound like compromise? In the filibuster episode, which conservatives were the ones who compromised? Sure weren't the ones I just mentioned.
I think the compromise lies in educating the ignorance, fear and misunderstanding. Then it cannot be used as a political tool against us.
6 - D L Ennis
Great write!
Please pardon me while I ramble…
My wife and I live in the state of Virginia where nearly everyone has a stick-up-their-ass, we moved from eastern Va. To the mountains, just northwest of Lynchburg Va. 21 years ago; Jerry Farwell land. That’s not why we moved here, it was the scenery.
Most everyone around here is one of Jerry’s little pets give a great deal of what they earn to Jerry while he gets fatter, literally and figuratively, everyday. Most men in this area are straight and beat their wives regularly (assholes.) In our 21 years of life here my wife and I have made two friends, (we have nothing in common with anyone else around here.) Our two friends are a gay couple that live next door…good people!
People around here judge you by your religion and how much money you have, thankfully I have neither, that is unless you are gay then they avoid you. Oh and we have caught something too, I guess from our association with our gay friends. It amazes me how backward and out of touch with reality most Americans are, you would think that mankind would have evolved beyond such incredibly petty differences by now. Well, I guess that I have no room to talk because my petty dislikes are for the rednecks and religious fanatics of the world. If having gays populate the earth was our only problem, what a pleasant world we would live in.
D L
7 - GAF
As a mother of a young gay man, I plan on printing this out and giving my son a copy. He is helping me to learn to deal with the fact of him being gay, all the dreams I had for him (note, these were my dreams, not his) that will not come true now, and the fact, that I have no idea how to explain this "gayness" to friends and family that ask about him.
I see him as my son, and always will, and have a hard time on why his being gay has to be such an issue. People tend to think of only the sexual part of being gay, nothing more about the person. He is much more than his sexual preferances!
My thoughts are getting so muddled right now, trying to express a thanks to you for this article, that I am best just say thank you and close. I really enjoyed this. By the way, I am one of those religious right people that many speak of. Yes, I am Rep, Christian, and a mother of a wondeful, loving gay son.
Thank you for this article. It will open doors of conversation for me, and those who really read the message in it.
8 - Justin
I'm under 30 and I posted something similar (albeit shorter!) on my blog. You can check it out here: http://www.meetjustin.com/Blog/2005/06/june-is-gay-pride-month.html
My generation has grown up with a lack of inspirational leadership - we are still finding our way.
9 - Silas Kain
Justin... I enjoyed your blog. Though we are separated by a generation, I think we share much of the same view. I admit I was very long-winded but once I started writing the piece I couldn't stop. If you look at my own blog, you'll see I address that point.
GAF, thanks for what you said. I hope that my piece does open up dialog for you. Your son is blessed to have you for his mother.
10 - Natalie Davis
Ms. GAF, ditto Mr. Kain's thoughts. Oh, if more parents were like you...
Mr./Ms. Ennis, I have been to Lynchburg (met Falwell even). Stay strong. And avoid Candler's Mountain -- just about everyone is a Falwellian there. When I was there, it was my good fortune to meet folks who were not at all thrilled with Falwell and his worldview. Even found a delightful, arts-related caf&eacure (near the all-women's college); filled with intelligent, broad-minded people.
I'm wondering: Mel and Gary wouldn't be the names of your neighbors, would it? If so, we know the same couple.
11 - Patrick Townson
Justin is to be commended for exceptionally good writing. As a 62-year old male who has been gay, or GLBT as we now say, since he was 10 years old, I could not have said it better.
In his quote from Bill Truitt, Justin and Bill were _almost_ correct; all those things _did_ happen, but some of us who are a wee bit older than either of them can also recall the days when we were totally 'illegal' in all 48 states. Neither Bill nor Justin commented on the times in the 1950's and 1960's when either 'confessing to' (or more likely getting caught, or perhaps having someone 'confess' in your name) earned you a trip to a state prison.
F'rinstance, the legal statutes in Indiana made it plain: putting a penis in your mouth, or up your ass, or 'inducing' someone else to do the same (upon a finding of or a plea of guilt) got you 2 to 14 years in the Indiana State Prison. All 48 states had the same laws on their books. (Recall, we did not get _fifty_ states until about the early 1960's when Alaska and Hawaii were admitted to the union.) In those states considered 'more enlightened' than others however, an option was to place the cocksucker or other 'sexual deviant' in the insane asylum where they -- according to the rules -- were to remain until they were 'fully and permanently recovered from their (mental) illness'.
In actual practice by the 1960's the asylum was the way things went almost everywhere. Indiana's practice was to keep homosexuals in the mental hospital for two years, or the minimum time the person would have been incarcerated in a penal setting, then assuming the homosexual had not 'acted out' during the time of hospitalization s/he was placed on parole to the asylum and given freedom. Kansas was a bit tougher; they just went the prison route.
The first state in the United States to completely decodify homosexual activity was Illinois, in 1961, when a complete rewrite of the criminal statutes went into effect on January 1 of that year. The state took the new position that any form of consensual sexual activity was permitted henceforth. Many other (but by no means all) states gradually began to change their laws as well, during the 1960-70's time frame; some states got clear into the 1980's before changing their laws and decodifying sexual activity, such as Indiana. Not bad, I guess, for a state which even had laws against masturbation earlier.
A few states (Texas and Kansas come to mind) never did decodify homosex ... but those old devils, the 'runaway activist' Supreme Court finally did away with the few remaining 'sodomy' laws sometime in the middle 1990's. I think Justin and Bill should have mentioned that theoretically our first time of anquish came in the 1950's when guys caught yanking their crank or God forbid, putting another person's sexual parts in their mouthes or asses were sent directly to jail / do not pass Go, do not collect $200.
In conclusion, I recall very well the date January 1, 1961 when I was invited to go to a New Year's Day brunch with some friends. Getting off the train at their station, I walked past a news stand where copies of that day's _Chicago Tribune_ were on sale. The
Tribune that day devoted their entire front page to discussing the several changes in the laws which took effect that day, including the infamous consensual sex decodification. Two young gay guys -- I suppose about 18 or 19 years old; I myself was 19 then -- were reading over the paper at the news rack. The one said to the other, in a serious, but almost mocking tone of voice, "You see, Jason, I _told_ you they made us legal, but you wouldn't believe me until you could read it in the paper for yourself." And Jason stood there, his mouth gaping open as he read the news in that day's newspaper.
From a guy who went through Stonewall in the late sixties, and was chairperson of 'Gay Pride Week' week in Chicago in 1974 ... hugs to you all!
Patrick Townson
mailto://ptownson@cableone.net
12 - George P. Wood
As one of BlogCritics "conservative" and "evangelical" commentators, I was actually moved by Silas Kain's comments. Not persuaded, mind you, but nonetheless moved. It's hard not to be moved by the eloquent testimony of a man who's toughed it out, despite opposition. Then again, Mr. Kain was not addressing his remarks to me. And interestingly, I think I agree with this assertion: "If society as a whole is that fearful of allowing 'gay marriage' then there is no reason why gay couples cannot forge their own contracts and enter in them with all the rights and provisions thereto. There's no reason why legislators can't allow gay partnership contracts to be enforceable." Conservative writer Ramesh Ponnuru makes a similar point"I think"in the current issue of National Review.
13 - SFC SKI
I have to wonder if "ptownson" is a pun as well as a name, in light of the subject.
14 - Steve S
aw, that's sweet. We're 'moved' by the pain you went through, Silas. Not motivated enough to do anything about it, but 'moved' nevertheless. So sweet.
15 - Patrick Townson
Regards post 13 by SFC SKI, I want you, whoever you are, to know that I am a real person and not a pun or a play on words.
'ptownson' = Patrick Townson
I have used 'ptownson' as my login or user name for howmany ever years. On a couple of local area mailing lists/web sites I also sometimes am known as
'Radical Faggot' and/or 'Radical Queer' when I want to say something incredibly _snotty_ ...
16 - SFC SKI
I thought you of all people would get the connection, "ptownson" or "P-town Son".
17 - Silas Kain
Thank you, Mr. Wood. We may differ in our beliefs but the fact that we can discuss these things openly without fear of ridicule is refreshing. I was touched by your words.
Mr. Townson's words reminded me so much of the early days and the ridicule gays endured. Randy Quaid's "Far From Heaven" is a great movie for the younger generation to experience. The movie pretty much captures the spirit and mindset of that era.
Sadly, America really hasn't evolved all that much from those days. On the surface it seems that we've advanced, but let's be realistic. Racism and racial disparity remain a major problem in America. Women still have a lesser earnings potential than men. There remains a religious divide that seems to be widening. The country is as divided today as it was in the days of Lincoln.
I may be gay but I'm an American, too. Right now I think there are more pressing matters in our country and in the world than the according of marriage licenses to same sex couples. Instead of parading down Fifth Avenue in a pink wig and stiletto heels, we should be marching at Washington's Monument demanding government accountability and a level playing field for all Americans.
America remains the land of opportunity. It still is that "city on a hill" Reagan envisioned. We're basically a good people who are still trying to muddle through this grand experiment in freedom and mixing of nationalities. Gays are not your enemy. Straights are not our enemy. You want an enemy? Look at lobbyists and the corporations they represent. Look at your Senators and Congresspeople who are beholden to the special interests. Look at the terrorists around the globe who are so envious of what we have that they will stop at nothing to eradicate us. Let's look at ourselves. We are our own worst enemy.
18 - Natalie Davis
Be fair, Steve: Mr. Wood did say he might be amenable to Jim Crow for queers.
19 - Eric Berlin
If you believe that these people are trying to tell you what to do or think, why do you think it would be right to do the same in return?
BlogCritics works because it's a democracy, with all it's ups and downs. It's sloppy, it pisses you off, but it is, to paraphrase the great Winston Churchill, the worst form of website ever created... except for every other one that has been tried from time to time.
If you don't agree with someone's opinion, speak up, post, comment, convince others that your positions make the most sense.
20 - Steve S
You're worried about them overrunning the site? I've been bitching for two years that they've been overrunning the country! Folks, that don't mean 'over there'.
Silas, to be fair to your thread, I should offer a brief history of how I have come to be who I am as well. I will put that comment up as soon as I can.
21 - SFC SKI
Or if a poster or commenter is so frustatingly obtuse that you are sickened by what they write, or feel like you are banging your head against a wall, you can complete ignore their postings or comments, what a great blog!
22 - Eric Olsen
Should we exclude Christians? Should we exclude Christians who know each other?
23 - Eric Olsen
exceptionally powerful, personal and real Silas, thanks
24 - gonzo marx
"why are they allowed"
umm..i think it's called, Free Speech
even when it's bullshit, even when it's Propaganda, even when we dislike it
this is "the Public Square" of the 21st century
ya don't like 'em..don't read 'em
or, do what some of the rest of us do, call 'em on their bullshit, and lay out what you think for all to read..
nuff said?
Excelsior!
25 - Silas Kain
If you don't agree with someone's opinion, speak up, post, comment, convince others that your positions make the most sense.
Amen, Eric. This place is a democracy with a free flowing exchange of ideas. Perhaps the Fundamentalists are trying to stack the deck. To be fair, far left liberals resort to similar tactics.
Gay activists have fed into the fundie fear machine. We only have ourselves to blame. If we took the gay marriage bit off the table for a couple of years and confronted some real issues for a change, what would the hard core fundies do? The media must take some responsibility for their irresponsible reporting. They lament that the blogosphere is ruining the Fourth Estate. Sorry, Mr. Wanna-Be Randolph Hearst, you screwed yourselves by allowing advertisers and those with deep pockets to dictate your agenda.