Gay/Lesbian
does jake ring a bell? not for the salvation army anymore
Link to Star Tribune's web site for article Sunday, July 15, 2001 When our son was young he was a bell ringer for the Salvation Army. The night before Jake was to ring the bell by his assigned kettle for the first time his father gave him some advice. Phil wanted Jake to have a successful day of collecting donations for the Salvation Army. Jake was always wanting to do work for justice. This was a place Jake could make a real contribution for an organization that had as its goal helping those that found themselves in real need. It was wonderful for us to see our child so committed at such a young age to making life better for others. Phil told Jake about the time he was in Los Angeles and heard the Rev. Jesse Jackson preach about Operation Breadbasket at a church service. Jackson was a gifted and powerful preacher. When it was time for the offering, he stood in the center aisle with the offering basket. Everyone had to pass by him to make their gift. They definitely dug a little deeper in their pockets that evening as they gave their offerings for Operation Breadbasket to Jackson. It was a good example. It showed Jake how important it was to be by the kettle and to ring that bell. Jake's smile, his welcome to all who passed by ould be much like Jackson standing with the basket collecting the offering for Operation Breadbasket. It is much harder to just walk by and not stop to give when you are greeted with a smile and thanked for your generous gift. Jake was a wonderful bell ringer for the Salvation Army. Anyone who knows Jake is aware of his big infectious smile, his warmth and his ability to communicate. Jake found real joy in greeting everyone and thanking for them for remembering those in need. Jake filled his kettles every time he rang bells for the Salvation Army. Each time I heard those bells I was reminded of Jake and his days collecting money for the Salvation Army. It made me more conscious to reach into my own purse as I passed a kettle. The sound of those bells won't be the same anymore. They will be singing a new song for me. It will be one of sadness. Sadness that an organization that is faith-based misses the whole message Jesus came to teach. The first and most important commandment Jesus came to teach was to love one another as he loves us. The Salvation Army won't be wanting Jake to ring for them next year. We didn't know they were so righteous that hiring gays "really begins to chew away at the theological fabric" of who they are. Our son, Jake, with the big infectious smile and a gift of communication, is bright, has a passion to work for justice and just happens also to be gay. The Salvation Army won't miss Jake, the young kid, who rang bells for them. But they will miss the man that Jake is becoming. He is excelling in college. He has a brilliant future ahead. But most important, Jake has a loving heart and knows what it means to love humankind as Jesus wants us all to do. Jake will always find ways to work for justice. It will always be important to him to give generously of his time, his talents and his money. Jake would have always held good memories of ringing the bells on those cold winter days and he would have remembered the Salvation Army with his gifts. I am sure there are many famlies, like ours, that feel they can no longer give to the Salvation Army. The Star Tribune reported that the Salvation Army receives nearly $300 million annually in government money. That should also end if the Salvation Army practices discrimination. We feel sorry for those leading the Salvation Army. They don't understand what it truly means to love everyone as Jesus loves us all. We are so proud of our son, Jake, for he truly does understand. -- Randi Reitan lives in Chaska
texas sodomy law upheldTexas Sodomy Law Ruled Constitutional by Appeals Court (03-15) 19:43 PST HOUSTON (AP) -- A Texas appeals court upheld the state's sodomy law Thursday in the case of two men charged with having sex in a private home. The nine-member 14th Court of Appeals voted 7-2 to overturn a June ruling by three members of the same panel that said the law was unconstitutional because it forbids sex between same-sex partners, yet allows the same acts between heterosexuals. The sodomy law, which has been on the books for more than a century, was challenged after John Geddes Lawrence and Tyron Garner were arrested on Sept. 17, 1998 and charged with engaging in homosexual conduct. Harris County sheriff's deputies had entered Lawrence's apartment after receiving a false report of an armed intruder inside but found the men having sex. Under the sodomy law, homosexual oral and anal sex is a Class C misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of up to $500. Lawrence and Garner pleaded no contest in a justice of the peace court and later in a Harris County Criminal Court-at-Law so they could start the legal challenge. Prosecutor Bill Delmore said he was pleased with the ruling. Ruth E. Harlow, legal director of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, who argued the case on behalf of the two men, said they would appeal. "The court's ruling failed to enforce the constitution's promise of equality," she said. She said the ruling also allows the government to overstep its bounds by "bashing down the bedroom door" to criminalize consensual sex between same-sex partners. "It guts the right to privacy," she said. Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas and Kansas are the only states that outlaw sodomy between same-sex partners. Texas has had a sodomy law since 1860 but decriminalized it for opposite-sex partners in 1974. Twelve other states prohibit sodomy between same- and opposite-sex partners. Harlow said similar laws in Georgia, Tennessee and Montana have recently been thrown out.
rev. phelps gets a royal welcome(For more information, contact Keith Orr, 734-994-3677, 734-994-0558, or keith@autbar.com.) ANN ARBOR, MI - When the Reverend Fred Phelps came to town, the gay community here decided not to get mad. They decided to get rich. Among the Ann Arbor locales the Kansas-based Phelps and his band elected to picket was the /aut/ BAR, a gay-owned restaurant, bar and community gathering place. When co-owner Keith Orr heard that his establishment was being targeted, he wanted to respond constructively. He and his partner, Martin Contreras, did not want to promote a counter-demonstration, feeling that Phelps gains the most attention - and hence is most effective - when he provokes anger and outrage from his opponents. Rather, Orr decided to use his Phelps visit to the community's advantage. Phelps's plans to picket the bar came to light only two days prior to his scheduled February 17, 2001 demonstration. With little time, Orr used the Internet to organize a unique fund-raising scheme. In an email message to customers, supporters, and friends, he proposed that people pledge money to the Washtenaw Rainbow Action Project (WRAP), a local gay advocacy group and community center, for every minute that Phelps picketed the bar. In this way, Orr explained, the longer Phelps stayed to spew hate, the more money he would raise for WRAP. He and Contreras kicked off the drive by pledging $1 per minute. Contreras explained why he felt it was important to organize a response to Phelps. "When I was first coming out fifteen years ago people told me, "You've got to watch out for this so-called reverend from Kansas named Phelps. He's out to wage war against the gay community." He had been showing up at funerals of people who had died of AIDS with signs claiming that gay people would burn in hell. At the time he was just a blip on the radar screen. But when he protested at Matthew Shepherd's funeral he became a national menace." At the same time, Orr continued, "I didn't want to give Phelps what he wanted," meaning a counter-demonstration. "But just ignoring him seemed wrong." Only two minutes after Orr sent out his email message pledges began to pour in, not only from Ann Arbor, but from as far away as New Hampshire, Texas and California. The pledge drive gained such momentum that by the day of Phelps's demonstration - only 48 hours after Orr and Contreras kicked off the drive - friends and supporters of Ann Arbor's gay community had promised to contribute a total of $107 for every minute Phelps picketed bar. "When I began the pledge drive I wasn't necessarily expecting anything big," Orr said. "I just wanted to give people an opportunity to turn Phelps's message of hate into something positive for our community." Even so, the size and speed of the response surprised him. "Normally a fund-raising event of this magnitude takes months of planning and a lot of up-front costs. In 48 hours we raised over $6000 without spending a dime. I was astonished." Pledges arrived in diverse amounts and from a wide range of sources. They varied in amount from as little as 10 cents per minute to as much as 5 dollars per minute. "The great thing about this kind of fund-raiser is that no one is excluded. People can participate at any economic level," said Orr. The range of contributors included neighboring business owners, a high school Gay/Straight Alliance and individual members of the Ann Arbor police force. On February 17, the day of the protest, Phelps's band numbered only four adults and two small children. Instead of confronting the hate-mongerers and giving them the attention they craved, over one hundred community members and supporters gathered in the bar on a Saturday afternoon, celebrating while they counted the minutes that Phelps's cronies stood outside raising money for Ann Arbor's gay community. That afternoon WRAP Board member Linda Lombardini received one notable pledge. "A father and his young son were driving past the bar and saw the protestors out front," she explained. "The son asked his father who they were and what they were doing there. The father stopped the car and brought his son into the restaurant to demonstrate to him that gay people are no different from anyone else. When he realized that we were holding a fundraiser he handed his son a ten-dollar bill to give to me." "We view this as a form of economic containment," Orr said. "Phelps is free to spread his message, however perverse we find it, wherever he wants. The First Amendment protects his right to do that. But we turned what could have been a negative into a positive. This has been an incredible community-building experience for us. "We hope that cities and towns across the country will do this everywhere he goes. I get a charge thinking that every time he hits the road he will help us build our communities and fund our organizations." Marsha L. Benz, MPH, MA marshua@umich.edu
a remarkable mom from vermont Sunday, April 30, 2000 As the mother of a gay son, I've seen first-hand how cruel and misguided people can be. Many letters have been sent to the Valley News concerning the homosexual menace in Vermont [recently become the first of 50 United States to pass legislation stopping barely short of gay marriage]. I am the mother of a gay son and I've taken enough from you good people. I'm tired of your foolish rhetoric about the "homosexual agenda" and your allegations that accepting homosexuality is the same thing as advocating sex with children. You are cruel and ignorant. You have been robbing me of the joys of motherhood ever since my children were tiny. My firstborn son started suffering at the hands of the moral little thugs from your moral, upright families from the time he was in the first grade. He was physically and verbally abused from first grade straight through high school because he was perceived to be gay. He never professed to be gay or had any association with anything gay, but he had the misfortune not to walk or have gestures like the other boys. He was called "fag" incessantly, starting when he was 6. In high school, while your children were doing what kids that age should be doing, mine labored over a suicide note, drafting and redrafting it to be sure his family knew how much he loved them. My sobbing 17-year-old tore the heart out of me as he choked out that he just couldn't bear to continue living any longer, that he didn't want to be gay and that he couldn't face a life without dignity. You have the audacity to talk about protecting families and children from the homosexual menace, while you yourselves tear apart families and drive children to despair. I don't know why my son is gay, but I do know that God didn't put him, and millions like him, on this Earth to give you someone to abuse. God gave you brains so that you could think, and it's about time you started doing that. At the core of all your misguided beliefs is the belief that this could never happen to you, that there is some kind of subculture out there that people have chosen to join. The fact is that if it can happen to my family, it can happen to yours, and you won't get to choose. Whether it is genetic or whether something occurs during a critical time of fetal development, I don't know. I can only tell you with an absolute certainty that it is inborn. If you want to tout your own morality, you'd best come up with something more substantive than your heterosexuality. You did nothing to earn it; it was given to you. If you disagree, I would be interested in hearing your story, because my own heterosexuality was a blessing I received with no effort whatsoever on my part. It is so woven into the very soul of me that nothing could ever change it. For those of you who reduce sexual orientation to a simple choice, a character issue, a bad habit or something that can be changed by a 12-step program, I'm puzzled. Are you saying that your own sexual orientation is nothing more than something you have chosen, that you could change it at will? If that's not the case, then why would you suggest that someone else can? A popular theme in your letters is that Vermont has been infiltrated by outsiders. Both sides of my family have lived in Vermont for generations. I am heart and soul a Vermonter, so I'll thank you to stop saying that you are speaking for "true Vermonters." You invoke the memory of the brave people who have fought on the battlefield for this great country, saying that they didn't give their lives so that the "homosexual agenda" could tear down the principles they died defending. My 83-year-old father fought in some of the most horrific battles of World War II, was wounded and awarded the Purple Heart. He shakes his head in sadness at the life his grandson has had to live. He says he fought alongside homosexuals in those battles, that they did their part and bothered no one. One of his best friends in the service was gay, and he never knew it until the end, and when he did find out, it mattered not at all. That wasn't the measure of the man. You religious folk just can't bear the thought that as my son emerges from the hell that was his childhood he might like to find a lifelong companion and have a measure of happiness. It offends your sensibilities that he should request the right to visit that companion in the hospital, to make medical decisions for him or to benefit from tax laws governing inheritance. How dare he? you say. These outrageous requests would threaten the very existence of your family, would undermine the sanctity of marriage. You use religion to abdicate your responsibility to be thinking human beings. There are vast numbers of religious people who find your attitudes repugnant. God is not for the privileged majority, and God knows my son has committed no sin. The deep-thinking author of a letter to the April 12 Valley News who lectures about homosexual sin and tells us about "those of us who have been blessed with the benefits of a religious upbringing" asks: "What ever happened to the idea of striving . . . to be better human beings than we are?" Indeed, sir, what ever happened to that? [Sharon Underwood lives in White River Junction, Vt.]
personal contact erases prejudice SAN FRANCISCO EXAMINER By Carol Ness "I haven't beat up a gay guy yet," says one 16-year-old, a boy. "It's just wrong to be gay. It's nasty to me," says another 16-year-old, this one a girl. "If a gay girl tried to touch me, I'd hit her," said a third, also a girl. For people who think hate or intolerance exist only in places like Wyoming and Texas, think again: these three, plus a fourth, are San Francisco's own students at Downtown High School. And they aren't the least bit hesitant to express their views in front of TV cameras for an hourlong "Teen Files" special called "The Truth About Hate," airing in 19 U.S. cities in the next week. Bay Area viewers can catch it at 10 p.m. Friday on KBHK-Channel 44. In each of its four segments, teenagers are forthright, even proud, of their prejudices; racial, anti-gay, religious, ethnic. And in each, they are transformed by face-to-face confrontations with the people they think they hate, and with the consequences of such hatred. It's a technique pioneered by the program's executive producer, Arnold Shapiro, in his award-winning 1978 documentary "Scared Straight," in which prison "lifers" confronted juvenile offenders about the road ahead. This is the third in an ongoing series of "Teen Files" by Paramount. "Sure, I'm racist. So what?" says one young girl -- meet a Holocaust death camp survivor and the mother of an African- American Marine beaten into paralysis because of his race. The bravado fades, the tears well up. Armenian and Latino kids whose mutual mistrust had turned a San Fernando Valley school into a battleground agree to spend a couple of days visiting each other's homes, churches, family gatherings. Discovering their similarities breeds a schoolyard truce. The San Francisco segment, focusing on homophobia, turns on police Officer Chuck Limbert, who spends two days with the Downtown High School four, touring the Police Department's Hate Crimes Unit, and cooking dinner for homeless youth, some of them gay, at a Diamond Street center. It's a tour de force of education, friendly confrontation and humanization by Limbert, who said the attitudes expressed in the show are prevalent among San Francisco teenagers. Limbert, 43, who works with juveniles in the Sunset and through the schools, sees the results of such prejudice daily; fights, beatings, weapons brought to school. All are on the rise, he said Thursday. "There is a total lack of respect for anyone," he said. "The easiest way for someone to deal with anger is to hit. They gain respect and popularity. I see it all the time." In the TV show, by the time the four meet Limbert, they've been taken on a tour of the Castro, disgust crossing their faces at the sight of men holding hands. In the Hate Crimes Unit, Limbert gets through to one African- American girl who doesn't mind using the f-word for gays, but sure doesn't want to hear the n-word. "It's disrespectful. That's not who I am," she explains. Doesn't she think gay people feel the same when they're called names, Limbert asks. The light dawns. In an emotional moment, the four meet with the parents of a gay teenager who killed himself after schoolmates beat him up. Afterward, the boy who had talked about maybe beating up gays says, "I never realized that gay people... are like anybody else, like they're the son of a mother. I have a mother." Throughout, Limbert had to bite his tongue, not wanting to blow his cover before the dramatic finale. Having won the students' trust and respect, he tells them: "I am a gay officer... I didn't choose this, but it's me." "I would lay down my life for you and that's why I chose this job," he adds. "And it doesn't matter if I'm straight or gay." It only takes a moment for the shock and silence to give way to hugs, even one from the hardest case among the four. Said Limbert on Thursday, "If you spend enough time and they get to know you, a personal relationship will always change attitudes like that." It's a method the seven-year officer brings to his job. Just last month at A. P. Giannini Middle School in the Sunset, tensions between African-American and Asian students boiled over into schoolyard fights. As school resource officer, Limbert set up a ropes course and put kids from the hostile camps on the same teams. "They had to intermingle, and depend on each other. It built trust," Limbert said. "And it worked."
and you thought texas lawmaking was interesting Molly Ivins TUCSON, Ariz. - The thing I like about Arizona is that you can count on politics here having real bite - like a habanero pepper. Any state could have a debate on whether government should provide insurance benefits to the partners of gay employees; lots of place are debating exactly that. Only in Arizona, the bill is not whether to extend health insurance to gay partners - it's a bill to forever `outlaw' extending benefits to gays, and to make any place in the state that has already done so take it back. And this is because, according to a particularly peppy and well-informed sponsor, homosexuality shares a room with bestiality, cannibalism and human sacrifice. That purple Teletubby has a lot more to answer for than we have previously suspected. The author of these novel ideas concerning homosexuality is state Rep. Barbara Blewster, R-Dewey, who explained that throughout history, cultures that have embraced homosexuality have also embraced bestiality, human sacrifice and cannibalism. She pointed to the Aztec culture at the time of the Spanish conquest as an example. Blewster also said that history repeats itself and that the Ten Commandments are still relevant. Blewster said she does not know of any gay people who practice bestiality, human sacrifice or cannibalism, and she is not claiming that homosexuality always leads to these things. However, she said, "That's a progression of perversion, as I know it," and is akin to marijuana leading to harder drugs. There seems to be some anthropological confusion on the Aztec end of this. The Aztecs did practice human sacrifice - possibly, some scholars have theorized, out of a desperate protein shortage. But it seems to have been more misogynist than homosexual in origin, the victims having always been women. The culture was noted for neither homosexuality nor bestiality, although it is possible that Blewster was confused by the often reported fact that the Aztecs were fond of wearing pink feathers. Blewster spoke in support of her friend Rep. Karen Johnson, R-Mesa, author of the no-benefits-for-gays bill. Johnson said that homosexuals undermine "the natural family," are "morally suspect" and are at the "lower end of the behavioral spectrum." Johnson also spoke at length about "gay bowel syndrome," which is something she claims affects gays and came as news to everyone else at the hearing. According to one Arizona columnist, Johnson gets her information about gays from a virulently anti-gay Web site. As you might imagine, Johnson's remarks upset Rep. Steve May, an openly gay member of the Legislature, who according to `The Arizona Republic' said: "When you attack my family and you steal my freedom, I will not sit quietly in my office. This Legislature takes my gay tax dollars, and spends my gay tax dollars the same as your straight tax dollars. If you're not going to treat me fairly, don't take my money." This being Arizona, May is also a conservative Republican. Adding to the festivities at the hearing on this bill was Frank Meliti of the Traditional Values Coalition, who testified: "Homosexuals are known for telling lies and twisting the truth." Johnson said, "It's critical to our national health and survival to restore social virtue and purity to our state and nation." (She probably has her life's work cut out for her there.) An angry gay countered, "Aren't you the people who were always telling us in the civil rights days that we couldn't legislate morality?" Now, if you think all we have here is a nasty case of gay-bashing, you have underestimated your Arizona politics. As it happens, Johnson and Blewster are Mormons (Latter-day Saints, to be formal); and in the West, anti-Mormon bigotry is an old dog that still hunts. Rep. Ken Cheuvront, who is also gay, said after the bitter hearing that it is ironic that the strongest supporters of the bill are Mormons, who were once persecuted for polygamy. This was considered by some to be a low blow. "It is unfortunate that the Mormons are trying to dictate their morals on Arizona," he said. May, who was also reared as a Mormon, then played a further card, noting that Johnson has been married five times and has 11 children, thus presumably stirring up the anti-divorce and overpopulation bunch. May indicated that his tax dollars have paid benefits for Johnson's five husbands over the years, so why not his one partner? Johnson in turn quoted Dr. Paul Cameron, writing in a right-wing periodical out of Colorado Springs, Colo., who says that homosexuality is very bad stuff. But the enterprising newspaper columnist Dan Dunn dug up another study by Cameron in which he held divorce to be the downfall of civilization. "Divorcees are more likely to have sexually transmitted diseases and to engage in other socially destructive behavior, such as cheating on income taxes and criminality, both sexual and non-sexual," reported Cameron. "Divorce is as bad or worse than homosexuality." (Take that, Rep. Johnson!) Just as the slugfest was getting interesting, the grown-ups interfered. Johnson's bill was passed out of committee on a 3-2 party-line vote, leaving everyone to hope for a truly entertaining fight on the Legislature floor. But Arizona politics has not been as much fun since they recently got over their habit of electing hopeless nincompoops to the governorship. Gov. Jane Hull flatly said that legislators need to focus on the state's business, not what goes on in bedrooms: "I may morally feel one way, but I do not believe that I need to pass laws to put my beliefs on the record." I hate when they get reasonable here. It's not nearly as much fun. Molly Ivins is a columnist for the `Star-Telegram.' You may write to her at 1005 Congress Ave., Suite 920, Austin, TX 78701; call her at (512) 476-8908; or email her at mollyivins@star-telegram.com.
Purple -- Hue Knew?: Thanks to Rev. Falwell, color is out of closetThursday, February 11, 1999 By JOHN CARMAN Barney, the purple dinosaur? Gay. Thanks to the Rev. Jerry Falwell and his kinky Tinky Winky theory for helping us with that. Falwell said this week that Tinky Winky, the TV Teletubby from Itsy Bitsy Entertainment and PBS, is in all likelihood gay. Why? Like Barney, Tinky Winky is purple. Tinky Winky carries a bag. Tinky Winky has a triangular antenna on his head. Purple, the gay pride color, is a pretty good tip-off. The so-called magic bag? A purse, and you know what that means. But the triangular antenna is the clincher. A big gay pride signal. Whenever I see someone wearing a triangular antenna on his head, the first thing I always think is: gay. Or at least very happy. I'm also thinking that Tinky Winky and Barney might even be lovers, off camera. "I love you, you love me. . . ." Any chance that Laa-Laa is jealous, or is Laa-Laa enjoying a little Dipsy on the side? Anyway, thank God for the religious right for yet another searing insight into television's sordid world of crummy Christian role models. This is the best one since the Rev. Donald Wildmon woke up in Tupelo, Miss., one morning in 1988 and saw Mighty Mouse snorting cocaine. Maybe you've forgotten. Wildmon -- and how -- was sure he saw it on "Mighty Mouse: The New Adventures" on CBS. These revelations raise all sorts of questions. Like, does Falwell ever miss a "Teletubbies" show? Also, since Wildmon is an aficionado of Saturday morning cartoons, how does he rate "Oggy and the Cockroaches" versus "Space Goofs"? And just what is Oggy doing with those roaches, anyhow? There are also questions about what Falwell called "subtle depictions" of gay lifestyles on American TV. Take, for example, the Minnesota Vikings, who have lost four Super Bowls and tanked in the conference championship game this past season. The Vikings wear purple, and there are horns on their helmets. Gay. Not to mention the fact that their most famous quarterback was named Fran. On "Kung Fu," the protagonist wandered around the Old West carrying a handbag and uttering cryptic comments about the oneness of all things. Extremely gay. We have our long-standing suspicions about Dr. Smith of "Lost in Space." (Danger, Will Robinson!) How about all that form-fitting lavender -- to say nothing of chartreuse -- on the original "Star Trek"? Don't you just know that Pinky Lee was a Communist? (Oops, wrong topic.) Twist your color control just a little bit, and "Hill Street Blues" becomes "Hill Street Purples." Lassie was a guy with a serious gender identity crisis. We have no idea how many characters in old black-and-white shows were actually swathed in purple, secretly beaming insidious gay rights messages. Consider Paladin, from "Have Gun Will Travel." You thought he dressed in black. But are you sure? My "Complete Directory to Prime Time Network and Cable TV Shows" notes that Paladin lived in San Francisco (hell-llo!) and "was a man of culture, enjoying the finest clothes, epicurean meals, and literate company. . . ." Do we need a bullhorn? Gay. It goes on and on. How about that clergyman, Jerry Falwell, you sometimes see with purple vestments? Gay? Then there is NBC's "Will & Grace," in which Will Truman plays poker, lives with a beautiful woman, never wears purple, owns no handbag and, as a general rule, steers clear of all triangular headgear. Obviously, straight.
On Gay Issue, Psychoanalysis Treats ItselfDecember 12, 1998 By ERICA GOODE There was no epiphany, Dr. Ralph Roughton recalls, no precise moment of realization. But there came a point, two years ago, when he looked around at his profession and recognized that the need for secrecy, for pretending to be someone that he was not, was no longer so urgent. He sat down at his word processor and wrote a letter to the 28 other psychoanalysts on the faculty of the Emory University Psychoanalytic Institute. "The time now feels right for me to answer the unasked questions," he said in the letter, "and I am writing to each of you so that you will hear it directly from me." What they heard was that Roughton, then 63 - a supervising analyst and former director of the institute, with 41 years of marriage behind him - was gay. "It felt risky," Roughton said, "but it also felt very freeing." He did not have to wait long for a reaction. Soon after mailing his declaration, he began receiving calls and notes from his colleagues. They congratulated him on his courage. They said they felt they knew him better now. They even sent him more referrals. The response, many psychoanalysts say, is a measure of just how much has changed in a field that for more than a half century viewed homosexuality as an illness and deemed homosexuals unfit to become psychoanalysts. And in an unusual illustration of this turnaround, the American Psychoanalytic Association at its annual meetings in Manhattan next week will present an open forum, "Homophobia: Analysis of a 'Permissible' Prejudice," featuring Rep. Barney Frank, the gay congressman from Massachusetts, Roughton and others as speakers. As part of the forum, Roughton said, the Association, which was founded in 1911 by American followers of Sigmund Freud and remains the dominant psychoanalytic organization in the United States, plans to acknowledge its own past homophobia, though "we won't dwell on it at length or do a lot of breast beating," he said. Nothing happens quickly in psychoanalysis, and the shift in attitudes about homosexuality is no exception. Unlike the American Psychiatric Association, which removed homosexuality from its list of mental disorders in 1973, psychoanalysts persisted well into the 1980s in describing homosexuality as a "perversion," and analysts continued to speak of their ability to "cure" the "serious character disorders" of their gay patients. Roughton himself went through two long analyses, he said, in an effort to become heterosexual. "My perspective was the same as the whole analytic community, that this was something wrong with me that needed to be changed," he said. Even a decade ago, an admission of homosexuality by a senior analyst often meant a damaged career and a chilly reception from other analysts. In "Becoming Gay" (Pantheon, 1996), Dr. Richard Isay, a New York analyst, wrote bitterly of his experience of "coming out" in the analytic profession in the 1980s. Until 1991, when the Psychoanalytic Association adopted a policy prohibiting training institutes from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation, homosexual applicants were summarily turned away; many, aware of the prevailing view, did not even bother to apply. Eventually, however, things began to change, spurred by the arrival of new leaders, the constant badgering by Isay on the issue, and the greater visibility and acceptance of homosexuality in American culture as a whole. There are now 35 to 40 openly gay and lesbian candidates training in 29 psychoanalytic institutes around the country, and 15 of about 1,000 faculty members are openly gay, according to members of the Psychoanalytic Association's Committee on Issues of Homosexuality. A welcoming reception was held for gay and lesbian participants at meetings in San Diego in May. And last December, an executive committee passed, by an overwhelming majority, a resolution asking states "not to interfere with same-gender couples who choose to marry." To be sure, there remain some among the 3,200 psychoanalysts who make up the National Association who disapprove of these changes. In 1992, a group of analysts, led by Dr. Charles Socarides, founded the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, an organization that advocates therapy to change homosexuals into heterosexuals. Dr. Houston MacIntosh, a Washington psychoanalyst who has presented papers at the Association's meetings, said the group "provides a counterbalance to the current rush to embrace the gay political agenda by the leadership of the American Psychoanalytic Association." But most analysts view the Socarides-led group as extreme. "Those who still pathologize homosexuality are a distinct minority," said Dr. Marvin Margolis, past President of the Psychoanalytic Association, "and they are gradually decreasing in number and influence." Freud himself was tolerant of homosexuality. Though he described it as "an arrest of sexual development," he argued that homosexuals should not be prevented from becoming analysts purely on the basis of their sexual orientation. "Homosexuality is assuredly no advantage," he wrote in a famous 1921 letter to an American woman concerned about her son, "but it is nothing to be ashamed of, no vice, no degradation. It cannot be classified as an illness." In the United States, however, prominent psychoanalysts, many of them Europeans who immigrated just before or after World War II, took a much more rigid stance, classifying homosexuality firmly as a neurosis in need of treatment. At least one analyst, Dr. Edmund Bergler, ventured far beyond clinical detachment. "Homosexuals are essentially disagreeable people regardless of their pleasant or unpleasant manner," he said in a 1956 paper. "Like all psychic masochists, they are subservient when confronted with a stronger person, merciless when in power, unscrupulous about trampling on a weaker person." Still, Dr. Paul Lynch, a Boston analyst who in 1993 was one of the first two openly gay candidates to begin analytic training, said he thought that for most analysts, prejudice was born of life within a sheltered profession rather than active bigotry. "Many of these analysts didn't know a gay person as a friend or a social acquaintance, or somebody they were able to talk about it with outside of their offices," Lynch said. His own experience when he entered the institute was positive, he said. "I was worried when I first joined because there were so few of us. But there really does seem to be a hunger for people to know more about this." In his second year in training, Lynch said, he realized that negative attitudes toward homosexuals laced much of the analytic literature he was reading for his courses. When he raised the issue, the institute took steps to change the curriculum. "They really went to work and thanked me for exposing this," he said. Although attitudes have changed, the theory most psychoanalysts rely on to guide them in treating patients lags far behind. Classical psychoanalytic theory held that the path of normal development led children to be attracted to the opposite- sex parent and to compete with the same-sex parent: the drama of the Oedipus complex. Homosexuality represented a derailment of this sequence, a so-called developmental arrest. And while Freud viewed the cause of homosexuality as a mystery, later theorists attributed it to early traumas and failures in parenting. With the changing climate and advances in scientific knowledge about human sexuality, a number of analysts now are trying to develop new theories that take account of homosexuality as an expression of normal development. Dr. Richard Friedman, clinical professor of psychiatry at Payne Whitney Clinic at New York Hospital-Cornell Medical Center and co-author of "Male Homosexuality: A Contemporary Psychoanalytic Perspective" (Yale University Press, 1990), for example, integrates psychoanalytic theory with findings from genetics and neurobiology. Current science, Friedman said, indicates that sexual desire begins somewhere between the ages of 5 and 10, later than Freud believed, and that it is not primarily directed at either parent. "As a result," Friedman said, "homosexual men are not on an abnormal developmental track: they were never destined to be sexually attracted to their mothers in the first place." Isay has also written about male homosexual development from a psychoanalytic viewpoint, and he argues that analysts who fall back on traditional theory in treating homosexual patients are doing more harm than good. "I've done a number of consultations with people who are seeing traditional analysts," Isay said, "and it seems to me that there's still an adherence to heterosexual theories." Two Chicago analysts, Dr. Robert Galatzer-Levy and Dr. Bertram Cohler, have undertaken a comprehensive review of scientific work on homosexuality, with the hope of helping consolidate and extend psychoanalytic thinking. In their report, which was financed by the American Psychoanalytic Association and will be published in book form sometime next year by the Chicago University Press, they conclude, Galatzer-Levy said, that "homosexuality is not associated with any psychopathology in any way" and that "there is no evidence that any form of therapy, including psychoanalysis and the Christian therapies, can change sexual orientation." Yet the Chicago analysts also found that the case for homosexuality as purely biological in origin was still inconclusive and that the field still awaited a single coherent theory. "We simply don't have enough good information," Galatzer-Levy said, "and one of our major points is to emphasize and to be comfortable with how much we don't know."
Frank Rich's 12/05/1998 Journal on Family Research CouncilNew York Times, Frank Rich column "It's Gay Awareness Week!" taunted one of the two men charged with murdering Matthew Shepard just before they slammed a pistol butt into the University of Wyoming student's head 18 times. Police testimony at a preliminary hearing two weeks ago also indicates that Matthew had not made a pass at his assailants, which didn't stop them from referring to him repeatedly as "queer" and "faggot." By the time the beating was over, Matthew's head was entirely covered with blood except, as a sheriff's deputy explained, "where he'd been crying and the tears went down his face." Was this a slaughter driven by pathological hatred or just by robbery? (The wallet he was carrying contained $20.) The trial will tell, we can hope. What remains as certain now as on Oct. 12, the day Matthew died, is that this murder happened against the backdrop of a campaign in which the far right, abetted by political leaders like Trent Lott, was demonizing gay people as sick and sinful. Since F.B.I. figures show that hate crimes due to "sexual-orientation bias" are rising even as the national crime rate goes down, the most pressing question now is: Has that ugly backdrop changed? Not enough. In the aftermath of the Wyoming killing, the same groups that worked overtime to stigmatize gay people have mounted a furious propaganda defense to assert that their words and ads demeaning gay people have nothing to do with any anti-gay crimes. Given that these are the same groups that claim the "pro-gay" rhetoric of an Ellen DeGeneres or Joycelyn Elders foments homosexuality, it isn't easy for them to argue now that their own words have no consequences. So they instead attack those who call them on their game, hoping we might be intimidated and shut up. As one of their apologists, Hadley Arkes, wrote in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece, my columns on this subject are "vibrant with a hatred of the Family Research Council and evangelical Christians." It's a nice try at changing the subject, but taking a stand against the anti-gay crusade of the political organizations of the religious right is not a stand against Christians, evangelical or otherwise. Most people who abhor homophobia are themselves Christian -- and so, for that matter, are most gay Americans. As for the Family Research Council, it is not even a quasi-religious organization but a moneyed secular outfit whose leader, Gary Bauer, wants to be President. And the Shepard killing has hardly deterred its demonization of gay people as sub-human. One new tack -- according to a council draft document I've seen -- is to show that "homosexuals are at much greater risk from one another than from bias-related attacks." And so the plan is to inform us that more gay men die of AIDS than of bias-related murders -- a nonsensical pairing intended to brand gay men as diseased. Since gay women can't be stigmatized en masse with AIDS, the council had to use real ingenuity to prove that they, too, are vermin at "much greater risk from one another" than from gay-bashers. The solution turned up in a "Culture Facts" newsletter it published only nine days after Matthew Shepard's death and is still posted on its Web site. Titled " 'Gay' Violence Escalates," it asserts that "The University of Houston-Downtown in a recent study found that 47.5 percent of lesbian relationships involve some form of domestic abuse," compared with 0.22 percent for married women. I reached the unnamed source of this "fact" in Houston -- Lisa Waldner, an assistant professor of sociology. Previously unaware of what she called the council's "misleading" use of her work, she told me that this so-called "recent study" was a paper she co-wrote as a student in 1992 about the lifetime experiences of a non-random sample of gay people she knew and their circle. She said it was wrong to "say this is the average for all lesbians" and that the council's comparison of her study with another on married women was meaningless since they used completely different methodologies. But if not even Matthew Shepard's death could derail the Family Research Council's "loving" crusade against homosexuality, the unmasking of its fallaciously "scientific" slurs won't stop it now. What, you have to wonder, will?
really what it's all about New York Times
When I read the account of Matthew Shepard's murder, the words that I could not forget were those reportedly used by one of his killers after he and a companion had lured Mr. Shepard out of a Laramie, Wyo., tavern and into the pickup truck in which they would drive him to his place of execution: "Guess what? I'm not gay - and you just got jacked." These words - odors from the abyss, as Forster might have put it - recalled others spoken by the narrator of Eudora Welty's 1963 story "Where Is the Voice Coming From?" which she wrote in a white heat after the assassination of the civil rights leader Medgar Evers. "Now I'm alive and you ain't," Evers's killer tells his dead victim in the story. "We ain't never now, never going to be equals, and you know why? One of us is dead." Certain commonplaces cannot be restated enough: hatred of gay men in this country is an epidemic as pernicious as AIDS, and as unfathomable. Nor is any gay man untouched by this epidemic. It haunts not only the drag queen who takes her life in her hands every time she steps onto the street, not only the middle-aged man who invites a stranger home with whom he has spoken on a phone sex line, not only the isolated college student in Wyoming longing for friendship and trusting in the overtures of moles from the Stasi of hate, but also the forward-thinking, well-adjusted, worldly homosexual man who imagines that in his urban corner of sanity and tolerance, in Greenwich Village or Los Angeles or London, he is somehow immune. He is not immune - either from hatred or from the fear of hatred, which is in many ways even more destructive. Thus even though Mark Mitchell and I have lived together for almost seven years, even though when we stay at the homes of our enlightened parents we are treated by them no differently than, say, my brother and his wife, even though we share a house, a bed, a car and a bank account, when we walk together in any city we never hold hands - and not because we flinch at "public displays of affection" (as might my brother and his wife, for whom such decisions carry little weight) but because we are afraid of being killed. No, gay killings are not everyday occurrences, any more than lynchings were ever a daily event in the South, but the fear colors everything - especially in a year when reported bias crimes against gay people in New York City have increased 81 percent. Certain commonplaces cannot be restated enough. In the brutal con game to which Matthew Shepard fell prey, what was exploited was nothing less than a young man's trust and hope and eager longing, if not for love, then at least for friendship, for camaraderie. In this game, kindness can be held out as bait; sex can be used as a lure. The payoff may be death, as it was for Matthew Shepard, or it may be robbery or gay-bashing or merely unkind, ignorant words. But few of us walk away unscarred, if we are lucky enough to walk away at all. For years AIDS conveniently helped the hate-mongerers do their job, by wiping out gay men in appalling numbers. But now, for the first time in more than a decade, AIDS deaths are down, and it seems as if ignorance is stepping in and pick up the slack. "Shoot a gay or two," a piece of graffito in Laramie announced several years ago. I have seen - and become inured to - a blunter epithet, one that is found too often on bathroom walls and in university libraries: "Faggots die." Die: that's really what it's all about, if for no other reason than that it is only when faggots die that their systematic persecution ever gets any attention. In part this is our own fault. For instance, when I was robbed a few years ago in Paris by a man who invited me to his apartment building for "coffee," I never reported the incident to the police, or even spoke of it, out of shame. Nor, I suspect, would Matthew Shepard have gone to the police had he merely been beaten to a pulp. And if he had, would it have done any good? Shoot a gay or two. Psychiatrists have long speculated that many killers of gay men are themselves repressed homosexuals, which is why, so often, they murder their victims after sex. For these attackers, the mere fact that another man desires them (not to mention the possibility that others might consider them to be gay) is seen as justification for an act of retaliatory violence. This may have been what happened to my friend Lou Inturrisi, a journalist and travel writer, whose body was discovered last August on the floor of his apartment in Rome. His skull had been bashed in; he had not, however, been robbed. His was one of a spate of gay killings in Italy in recent years, only one of which has been solved. In that case, the killer turned out to be a male prostitute. There are many reasons a gay man would go home with a stranger. Perhaps because the thrill of danger excites him. Perhaps because he is naive. Perhaps because he does not know any better. In the end, however, none of this excuses the person who kills - or those who blame the victim for his own murder, in much the same way that women are often blamed for having encouraged the men who raped them. When I was Matthew Shepard's age, my greatest fear was AIDS, because I had no idea then how the virus was spread. Now, 16 years later, there is still no cure for AIDS, but there is prevention: we can instruct a Matthew Shepard in how to protect himself against infection by H.I.V. But could we instruct him in how to protect himself against hatred?
This, Not Tolerance, Is The Sin DENVER POST, October 13, 1998 Bill McKinney and Kristen Price want you to know how it really happened so you'll understand that Aaron James McKinney and Russell Arthur Henderson are just a couple of regular guys. Aaron McKinney and Henderson are accused of kidnapping Matthew Shepard, beating him savagely and tying his battered body to a fence post outside of town to die alone. They didn't mean to do it, though. It was an accident. McKinney's father and his girlfriend said they are sure this wasn't a hate crime. They talked to the suspects the morning after the little misunderstanding, and they're sure it wasn't really as bad as everybody says it was. Honest, it was all a big mistake. Shepard, who was 5-foot-2 and weighed 105 pounds, started the whole thing, they said. He was gay. He asked for it. He made a pass at Aaron McKinney at a bar. Boy, oh, boy, flirted with him. Right there, in front of his friends. Imagine that. Aaron McKinney was embarrassed by it, his father and girlfriend said. He didn't like being embarrassed in front of his friends, they said, adding that everybody knew he had a fierce temper and that he sometimes did stupid things to impress his friends. Jeez, we've all known guys like that, right? So Aaron McKinney, peeved and feeling an attack of stupidity coming on, recruited Henderson to help him teach Shepard a lesson about unwanted advances, his girlfriend said. They reportedly decided to lure him outside, rob him, tie him up a mile from town, beat him up a bit to slow him down and then burglarize his house. So what's the big deal? What's everybody so upset about? I mean, c'mon, this guy made a pass at Aaron McKinney. Bill McKinney says this whole thing is the media's fault. They "blew it totally out of proportion because it involved a homosexual," he said. "Now my son is guilty even before he's had a trial." His son is just a victim of circumstances, poor guy. Everybody can see that. The homosexual was the problem. He started it. They just want everybody to know the real story so they'll understand. What a stunning rationalization. Meanwhile last Saturday, another group of ordinary, average guys from a fraternity at Colorado State University in Fort Collins rode atop a homecoming float that featured a scarecrow figure designed to resemble the battered body of Shepard tied to a fence post and wearing a sign that said, "I'm gay." They thought it was funny. It didn't matter that Shepard, a guy about their age, was in a hospital a few miles away dying. They didn't mean to be insensitive. It was supposed to be a joke. Students at the CSU campus said they were horrified. The frat boys were idiots, they said. But here's the real atrocity: In the face of all this ignorance, violence, hostility and unabashed bigotry, there are still people living in Laramie, Fort Collins, Denver, Boulder, Colorado Springs - everywhere across America - who will say that teaching understanding and tolerance of homosexuality in schools is what's really immoral.
Sexual acts are a choice, but desire simply exists An editorial from the Rocky Mountain News, 6/30/98
After 30 years of life, I still don't know what I like about women. For some reason, I'm attracted to them. There is something about their appearance, their smell or the pheromones they exude that evokes passion in me. I'll occasionally find myself driving a full mile out of my way to circle back and get a second look at an attractive woman walking in the park. But why? That's the question I can never answer. I can't explain my desire. It simply exists, and I react to it. Of course, I can choose my actions. I can choose to not pursue women. I can choose to not have sex with women. But I can't choose that initial desire; it exists at a level that is beyond my control. That's why I give the benefit of the doubt to homosexuals. Sunday was Gay Pride Day in Denver. Thousands of people gathered downtown for a celebration of homosexuality and to create more awareness and perhaps compassions in people who don't know or understand the gay community. Undoubtedly, people who are opposed to public and/or governmental recognition of homosexuality were upset this weekend. People opposed to homosexuality often argue that being gay is merely a lifestyle choice, not a genetic trait. But how do we know? Do I choose to be heterosexual, or was I born this way? I certainly have the choice about whether I will act on my desires, but the desire itself is genetically programmed in me. Do basketball players choose to be tall or do they merely make a career choice after their genes carved a direction for them? Did Albert Einstein choose to be a genius to did he select a profession that made use of the ability that his genes gave him? Homosexuals, like heterosexuals, certainly choose to either have sex or not to have sex, but is that choice made before or after their genes create a path for their desires? Undoubtedly, there are straight people who choose to engage in gay sex out of curiosity, but that doesn't mitigate the reality that many or most gay people were probably born that way. Yes, homosexuality is unnatural. Yes, it's a form of sex that works in direct opposition to the survival of the human race. But in the vast array of genetic possibilities, homosexuality is just one of thousands of traits that do not benefit humanity. Congenital sterility is well within the range of genetic deviation, but humanity clearly could not survive if every child were born that way. The differences between black, white, short, tall, skinny, fat, strong, weak, healthy and unhealthy often can be traced back to minute differences in genetic makeup. Because science has taught us these undeniable truths about genes, how can we dismiss the very real -- and I'd say likely -- possibility that homosexuality is a genetic deviation as well? And if that's the case, how can we, in good conscience, say that gay people are less deserving of the legal protections and priviliges that are afforded to heterosexual people? I think the insistence that homosexuality is merely a "choice" is mean-spirited and ignores the reality that most of us aren't heterosexual by choice; we're born that way.
personal response from reggie riversI wrote to Reggie Rivers from his excellent web site and thanked him for his editorial, asking permission to post it online here. I was surprised and pleased to receive the following response: Hi Kathy, Thanks for the message and the support. As you might imagine, I'm getting a lot of e-mail from people who are pissed at me. I appreciate the kind words. I have no problem with you reprinting the column on your web site. In fact, I'm flattered that you would do so. My only request is that you also print the apology that I've written in the next paragraph. I've gotten a lot of e-mail from people taking exception to my use of the word "unnatural," and in retrospect, I can see that it was the wrong word. If you're going to reprint the column, probably other people who read it will have the same reaction, I think it would be helpful to have my apology right at hand to quell their anger or disappointment. So here it is: "Many people have taken exception to my use of the word "unnatural" in my column. I could get into a long, drawn out semantic debate about what the word "unnatural" means, but I think I would eventually lose that debate. When I used the word in my column, I did not mean it in the way that it sounded. In retrospect, I can see that "unnatural" is the wrong word to use in that context. Clearly, in the rest of my column, I was asserting that homosexuality is probably a natural permutation of the genetic combination that produces a human being. So in that sense, homosexuality occurs naturally. However, when I wrote the word "unnatural" I was merely trying to say that homosexuality does not satisfy the biological imperative of sex because it does not propogate the species. But, again, "unnatural" is not the right word to describe that. In fact, as many people have pointed out, homosexuality probably does satisfy some biological imperative in the sense that it helps to control population growth. I apologize for misusing the word." Sincerely,
Ellen's coming out is big deal only to those who make it so
by Leonard Pitts Dallas Morning News Wednesday, April 16, 1997Before we begin, let me give vent to a song that has been rambling around my head: Diana Ross chirping, "I'm coming out! I want the world to know, got to let it show!" I always have hated that song. Nor am I particularly fond of Ellen, the ABC sitcom that, in recent months, has made coming out a long, tiresome tease. It had been my intention to let the big look-at-me-I'm-a-lesbian episode slip by like the overinflated gasbag of hype that it is. But now, I have no choice but to watch the April 30 telecast, because if there is anything I hate more than an overinflated gasbag of hype, it is an overinflated gasbag of self-righteousness. Meaning, of course, the Rev. Jerry Falwell. It seems Mr. Falwell pressured General Motors, Chrysler and Johnson & Johnson to withdraw their sponsorship of the show. All three, displaying the courage and conviction for which American business is renowned, promptly folded like an auto club map. "It's important," Mr. Falwell crowed, "for us to do our part during the upcoming Ellen broadcast where the character of Ellen Morgan, played by Ellen DeGeneres -- some have said "DeGenerate" -- announces her lesbianism." I guess he is right; all the world's a stage, and we all have our parts to play. So Ms. DeGeneres plays the gay Jackie Robinson, and Mr. Falwell plays the intolerant yahoo. What do you suppose Mr. Falwell -- some have said "Fedwell" -- thinks is going to happen the day after Ellen leaves the closet? Here, as I see it, is the scenario that troubles him: Nation sees lesbian on television; nation realizes she has no horns, hooves or tail; nation finds her goofy and likable but otherwise unremarkable; nation fears gays a little less. No wonder Mr. Falwell wants to nip this in the bud. Fear is his stock in trade, a pillar of his power. Thus, anything that reduces fear reduces him and diminishes his ability to prey upon the pious ignorance of his followers. Mr. Falwell is a hatemonger, pure and simple. How do I scorn him? Let me count the gays. I scorn him for the boy I grew up with and for the teacher I had in 10th grade, for the woman who works in my office and the waiter who served me lunch the other day. And for Johnnie Mae and Ray, two guys who lived downthe street when I was a kid. The adults would waggle their hands and call them "funny" but otherwise didn't seem terribly troubled by their presence. And, somehow, I survived unharmed. So what is the big deal? Why does Mr. Falwell or anyone else care so much about Ellen? Because she is television. By the skewed reasoning of our media-addled age, a thing isn't quite there until you see it on the tube. For all the ways in which the medium has fragmented in the past 30 years, it still is the communal altar, the authority that confers validation. Thus, it is crucial ground int he battle for hearts and minds. But it still is only television. Some people fail to understand that television is just a mirror of life and not life itself. When Mississipians fought Sesame Street because it showed black children playing alongside white, when men rallied against Cagney and Lacey for its portrayal of forceful women, they were boxing shadows, trying to hit substance. Meanwhile, progress comes. And those who attempt to hold it back inevitably are flattened, left looking quaint and foolish as they recede in history's rear view. Mr. Falwell surely will suffer that fate. And the rest of us will find it hard to remember what all the fuss was about. Leonard Pitts Jr. writes for the Miami Herald.
article on baptists denying church venue to chorusFirst Baptist Church Rejects Choral concert -- Mostly gay, lesbian choirs shift to First Methodist
By Aline McKenzie The opening concert for a March choral convention had to find a new venue this week after First Baptist Church of Dallas refused to let two primarily gay and lesbian choirs perform in its sanctuary. "It's kind of fun," said Timothy Seelig, artistic director of the Turtle Creek Chorale and The Women's Chorus of Dallas. "It's Dallas. It's just so Dallas." "We don't apologize for it," said Tim Hedquist, administrator of the huge downtown church. "This is a group that symbolizes a lifestyle that we believe is contrary to God's word. If we were having an adulterers' convention in town, we wouldn't have them here, either." Now, the March 21 performance will be around the corner at First United Methodist Church as the annual meeting begins for the American Choral Director's Association's southwestern division. "They're a fine performing group," said Dana Effler, director of music and arts ministry for the Methodist church. "We want to be helpful in that way, and we're not going to discriminate. All they're doing is performing a concert." First Baptist will remain a convention site for other events, such as a school choir concert and a welcoming session. The performance competition that led to the groups' selection used "blind" audition tapes, with judges listening without knowing anyone's identity, Mr. [sic] Seelig said. Once the judges realized they had chosen two Dallas groups at the convention, he said, they decided to make them headliners. "Both choruses were chosen strictly on musical excellence," he said. The Kansas City Chorale also was chosen for the opening-night concert. But First Baptist, which agreed last year to provide performance space for the March 20-23 convention, found the two groups unacceptable two weeks ago when the schedule was released, Mr. Hedquist said. The downtown church was one of three host sites, along with the Morton H. Meyerson Symphony Center and the Fairmont Hotel. The Turtle Creek Chorale has about 250 members, and the Women's Chorus about 125. Both groups are roughly 75 percent gay, Mr. Seelig said. "We don't discriminate on the basis of anything except tone-deaf people," he said. Mr. Seelig said he was not surprised at the church's refusal. He grew up in the Baptist faith, even marrying for a while and serving as an associate music minister in Houston. He lost his job when church leaders found out he was gay. When he learned last year that First Baptists was one of the sites, "I said, 'No way, they'll never let it happen, they'll never let us sing there,'" he said. Mr. Hedquist said the conflict was easily taken care of, and said it was an unfortunate result of miscommunication. The church has been without a minister of music for a long time, he said, so there was no close contact with the association. When the association first approached the church, he said, organizers said the performers would be church and school choirs, so the announcement of the two Dallas groups was a surprise for First Baptist leaders. "I'm sure it was inconvenient for them, and we regret it deeply," Mr. Hedquist said. "Tim, personally, I have the greatest respect for," said Mr. Hedquist. "I was his youth minister when he was growing up." Mr. Seelig said the matter was resolved as far as the chorales were concerned. "This is a blip in the big picture," he said. "We're not angry, we're not fighting, we're not going to burn the church down. We accept life how it is."
why homophobes hate usAccording to a study published in the Journal of Abnormal Psychology, homophobic men are far more likely to be aroused while watching gay sex videos than are nonhomophobic men. A research team led by Henry Adams, a professor of clinical psychology at the University of Georgia, recruited 64 young white male heterosexuals and showed them a video depicting heterosexual sex and another depicting homosexual sex. Their responses were measured by a gauge detecting penile erection. The result: 80% of the homophobic men showed a response to the gay video, while only one third of the nonhomophobic men did. "Men who are upset by being around gay men probably have these tendencies themselves," Adams said in the February issue of Esquire magazine. "The thing you dislike most in yourself is the kind of thing you might jump on somebody else for."The Advocate, March 4, 1997, p. 17
Disney Media Alert!If you support Disney's stance on health benefits for gay partners, you need to let them know! Our "Christian" brothers and sisters have been deluging Disney with demands for them to (in all brotherly love, I'm sure) halt health care benefits to their same-sex partners of employees AND to restrict gay access to their parks (what? yet ANOTHER place where I have to show my queer card?).E-Mail Disney's PR office or write to Michael Eisner, CEO and Chairman of Disney.
Michael Eisner Disney S. Buena Vista St. Burbank CA 91521-1010 (818) 560-2431
Statistics and FactsDid you know that, in our allegedly "modern" times, there are a number of countries where sexual relations between same-sex couples are punishable by death? Next time you think we're asking for "special rights", remember these facts!
Other countries where homosexuality is punishable by execution: Mauritania, Sudan, Yemen, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, Pakistan Other countries where homosexuality is punishable by corporal punishment: Kenya, India, Malaysia Other countries where homosexuality is punishable by torture or ill treatment: Venezuela, Romania, Turkey from OUT Magazine, September 1998
Indigo Girls Concert CancelledTHE GAY/LESBIAN AMERICAN MUSIC AWARDS DECRIES CENSORSHIP IN INDIGO GIRLS CONCERT CANCELLATIONSNEW YORK -- Unfortunately, homophobia is a constant, if subtle, presence in our world. With the cancellation of several free Indigo Girls concerts at high schools last week due to their sexuality and supposedly profane lyrics, we're also getting a first-hand look at the fear and hate that is being modeled for youth in our school systems. GLAMA considers the cancellations a fine example of homophobic censorship. What started out as a goodwill gesture by the award-winning Indigo Girls (including a 1998 GLAMA and a Grammy award), has turned into real-life censorship lesson for all of us, as well as the students at the high schools where the group would have performed. (A release by the NGLTF explaining the situation and a statement by Amy Ray of the Indigo Girls follows.) Here at GLAMA, we consider the Indigo Girls heroes for their commitment to nurturing musical talent and creative self-expression in all youth, for standing up in the face of homophobia and for careers based in openness and honesty. As a gesture of support for the Indigo Girls and to encourage the support of others, we suggest you call your local radio stations and request the song "It's Alright" from the Indigo Girls' cd "Shaming the Sun", or any other of your favorite Indigo Girls songs. Dedicate it to the students at Irmo or Germantown High School, or to a youth that's important in your life. We feel the best way to combat the attempts to silence honest music is to make sure that that music is heard.
Michael Mitchell Executive Director, Gay/Lesbian American Music Awards www.glama.com 212.592.4455
NATIONAL GAY AND LESBIAN TASK FORCE SUPPORTS INDIGO GIRLS IN THE FACE OF HOMOPHOBIA; AMY RAY SPEAKS OUTWASHINGTON, DC---May 7, 1998--- The Indigo Girls keep singing in the midst of yet another cancellation of one of their high school performances. What began as a generous gesture to bring art into high schools has turned into an unfortunate lesson in intolerance and homophobia. The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force has been in ongoing contact with the Indigo Girls and activists in Columbia, South Carolina during the course of this week long drama (a statement from Indigo Girl Amy Ray is attached). "We are supporting the Indigo Girls as they battle ignorance and intolerance, and we remain hopeful that the administrators responsible for the cancellation of these shows will engage in sincere dialogue with Amy and Emily and their local gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender communities," stated Task Force executive director Kerry Lobel. "We know from Amy and Emily that they are disappointed in the actions of these officials. They also understand that this situation presents them with a unique opportunity to educate students, teachers, and parents about the vast limitations of homophobia," added Lobel. Last Wednesday in South Carolina, Irmo High School Principal Gerald Witt canceled a performance by the duo scheduled for today, saying through a spokesperson it was because Saliers and Ray are lesbians. The next day, the principal of Germantown High School in Tennessee called off a scheduled performance, claiming it was because of profanity in their songs' lyrics. And Tuesday, officials at another Tennessee High School nixed a show that was slated for yesterday. In the face of these insults, the Grammy Award winning duo is going on with the show. Today they will perform in Columbia, South Carolina but off high school grounds. The show is free to high school students. "We're very concerned for the gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender students of these high schools. We already know that sexual minority youth face more violence and harassment than non-gay youth, now, thanks to the actions of their principals, they may have more to look forward to," said Lobel. "It's unconscionable that these administrators are more concerned with appeasing a few intolerant parents than with the health and safety of their students," she added. The Indigo Girls are deeply committed to social justice issues and actively support a number of causes. Later this year they will be performing a benefit show for the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. "We are grateful for Amy and Emily's leadership and courage," said Lobel. "They are exceptional role models for all students," she added.
STATEMENT FROM AMY RAY OF THE INDIGO GIRLSTHE IDEA OF A HIGH SCHOOL TOUR CAME ABOUT AFTER EMILY AND I WERE JUDGES IN A STUDENT LYRIC WRITING CONTEST SPONSORED BY SCHOLASTIC MAGAZINE. THE WORDS WE READ BEGGED FOR AND EXALTED IN THE CHANCE TO BE EXPRESSED. THE BROAD RANGE OF TOPICS INCLUDED: POLITICAL ACTIVISM, LOVE, SONNETS, SEXUAL ABUSE AND ALIENATION. WE WERE STRUCK BY THE STUDENTS' ENERGY AND WILLINGNESS TO ENGAGE IN AND QUESTION LIFE. THE INTENT OF THIS TOUR WAS APOLITICAL. AFTER CAREFULLY READING AND APPROVING OUR LYRICAL CONTENT 6 HIGH SCHOOLS AGREED TO HOST A FREE SHOW WHICH INCLUDED A QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION. THE EXPENSES WERE TO BE COVERED BY THE INDIGO GIRLS. WE HAVE HAD 3 SHOWS CANCELED, CITING REASONS SUCH AS PROFANITY AND MOST IMPORTANTLY SEXUAL PREFERENCE. THE PROFANITY ISSUE IS AN OBVIOUS RED HERRING, THE IRONY BEING THAT WE HAVE MORE OFTEN BEEN ACCUSED OF BEING TOO SPIRITUAL AND "CLEAN." A MINORITY COMPOSED OF HOMOPHOBIC NARROW MINDED PARENTS AND WEAK-KNEED PRINCIPALS AND SCHOOLS BOARDS HAVE SUCCESSFULLY ENFORCED A POLICY OF HATE. OUR PUBLIC SCHOOLS SHOULD BE A SAFE ENVIRONMENT FOR AN OPEN EXCHANGE OF IDEAS AND A CHANCE TO EXPLORE ONE'S OWN INDIVIDUALITY. THE IMPOSSIBILITY AND HYPOCRISY OF A SITUATION WHERE KIDS ARE EXPECTED TO BE HONEST BUT ARE JUDGED AND ALIENATED FROM THEIR COMMUNITY BECAUSE OF IT SHOULD NOT ESCAPE US. IN RESPONSE TO THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WE ARE PLAYING ALTERNATE SHOWS - ALCOHOL FREE, ALL AGES, AFTER SCHOOL. THANKS TO THE KIDS WHO ARE STANDING BY US. Amy Ray - Indigo Girls
American Psychological Association July 1994 Statement on HomosexualityThe research on homosexuality is very clear. Homosexuality is neither mental illness nor moral depravity. It is simply the way a minority of our population expresses human love and sexuality. Study after study documents the mental health of gay men and lesbians. Studies of judgment, stability, reliability, and social and vocational adaptiveness all show that gay men and lesbians function every bit as well as heterosexuals.Nor is homosexuality a matter of individual choice. Research suggests that the homosexual orientation is in place very early in the life cycle, possibly even before birth. It is found in about ten percent of the population, a figure which is surprisingly constant across cultures, irrespective of the different moral values and standards of a particular culture. Contrary to what some imply, the incidence of homosexuality in a population does not appear to change with new moral codes or social mores. Research findings suggest that efforts to repair homosexuals are nothing more than social prejudice garbed in psychological accouterments.
Letter Exchange with John Walshfrom America's Most WantedI wrote the following letter to John Walsh, host of America's Most Wanted, in response to some statements he had made:
On the July 24 Entertainment Tonight, in your position as "America's most wanted" host, implied that the lives of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community were not as important as those of other people. Referring to the now deceased accused spree killer Andrew Cunanan, you claimed that "he crossed the line from killing gay people for revenge and started killing innocent bystanders." I was quite pleased to receive this response from Mr. Walsh's organization:
A MESSAGE FROM JOHN WALSH: Thanks, Mr. Walsh! You're a class act...
Media Alert!This is now an old story, but since I wrote a (IMHO) pretty cool published article on the issue, I'm keeping this blurb here for awhile still!The Women's Chorus of Dallas, along with the Turtle Creek Chorale, were selected via a blind audition process to perform at the Southwest Regional American Choral Directors Association. ACDA had already scheduled their events in several performance spaces throughout the city, and opening ceremonies were to be held at the First Baptist Church. This is a prestigious honor... and we were quite thrilled. The Baptists weren't, when they discovered that two of the four headliner choruses chosen through this audition were predominantly gay and lesbian. Of course, here's the rub... no telling what percentages of gays and lesbians exist in the other choruses! We just happen to acknowledge it... The Baptists had a conniption fit, and refused to allow us to perform in their hallowed halls. And since the date this decision went public, the media frenzy has not abated. The Dallas Morning News paper has prominently featured editorials just about every day since that announcement, including one from yours truly... Most of the points argued by the "Baptist" contingent focus strongly on the "sinner" aspect of our choruses. Interestingly enough, our two musical groups don't focus on our sexuality at all -- we focus on making incredible music. That's what we do... make incredibly beautiful music. We were chosen to perform at ACDA because we make incredibly beautiful music... but we have been refused admission to the scheduled performance because of who we are. I don't know about you, but in my book that means discrimination, same as if they had seen a photograph of us and discovered to their consternation that we were (gasp) people of color and therefore not worthy to come into their sanctuary. I use this analogy intentionally, as the Southern Baptists split off from Baptists at large over JUST this issue of racism years ago. What can we say? at least they are playing true to form! If you find prejudice and discrimination the true abomination, please read the media reports on this issue. Make sure you read the TRIANGLE article that I wrote and let me know what you think. And don't forget to let the First Methodist Church (214-220-2727) know how much you appreciate their kind relocation of our concert event to their sanctuary.
|
Other Sites: |
| Site by Web-Kat | |
