Pride & Opinions

Gay activists charged with trespassing at Covenant College in Ga. - Boston Globe

“TRENTON, Ga. –Deputies charged four gay activists including a Connecticut woman with trespassing at Covenant College, a northwest Georgia private school affiliated with the Presbyterian Church in America. [...] Brad Voyles, dean of students at Covenant, said the Soulforce group had earlier refused a campus offer of meetings with student leaders, administrators and faculty in a designated room. Administrators refused to allow the group members to “roam campus and meet with anyone of their choosing,” according to a Feb. 8 statement on the college website.”

Now, I could start frothing at the mouth about certain parts of that article, such as the listing of homosexuality as a “sexual sin”. But I’m going to have to abstain (no pun intended) in favor of saying: what the heck, Soulforce? I know I’m probably swimming against the current here by not blindly supporting all activities of gay activists, but frankly I think that Covenant College’s campus administrators were perfectly justified in calling the police. Excuse me for not being so outrageously pink that my rose-colored glasses blind me to common sense.

This isn’t making a stand for gay rights. This is blatant, immature stupidity.

C’mon, guys, you’re making us look bad.

Let’s forget, for a moment, that we’re talking about gay activists here. Let’s say we’re just talking about a group of four random adults, whose intentions and backgrounds are only marginally known to the school’s administration. These adults want to wander unchecked among a host of students, speaking to them unsupervised, with or without faculty approval. It doesn’t matter what they intend to speak to them about; it doesn’t change the fact that their intentions and what they consider to be acceptable behavior are unknown. It also doesn’t change the fact that if they do something unacceptable, the school administration would be held responsible by the parents of the students.

I wouldn’t care if they were Girl Scout troop leaders bearing an armada of fiendishly addictive cookies; I wouldn’t let them on my campus unsupervised, either. Ever heard of CYA? When you’re responsible for a large body of students you worry about covering your bottoms and theirs before anything else, or you could risk far more than simply being labeled a bigot.

It should tell you something that even the students warned the representatives of Soulforce that they could be arrested for trespassing. This isn’t a matter of discriminating against Soulforce for advocating tolerance of homosexuality; if that were the case, then they wouldn’t have been invited to make their presentation to a select audience when they first declared their intention to visit Covenant. They’d have been told in no uncertain terms to keep off campus, period. This is a case of willfully ignoring warnings and trespassing on private property.

Soulforce had the opportunity to make their case to student leaders, faculty, and administrative staff, and passed on the chance to establish a basis for further relations to instead make a public display that basically amounted to “We’ll have it our way or no way at all”. Considering that administrators were willing to hear them out and give them a chance to get their foot in the door, actions like this don’t help the activist movement; they harm it by showing reckless disrespect for common courtesy and basic boundaries of authority that should be respected by all regardless of sexuality. Now that’s a door that they’ve slammed in their own faces.

I’m a strong advocate of both peaceful protest and (of course) ending discrimination against members of the GBLTQ community - the basic principles that Soulforce stands upon. But there are ways to institute peaceful protest and make your message heard without stepping on so many toes that your message is ignored in favor of criticism of your behavior and lack of respect.

Diplomacy, kids. It’s not just the Dictionary.com word of the day.

Better luck (and better sense) next time.

Then again, if they didn’t learn after the Baylor University incident…

gay activism, gay rights, hello stupid, soulforce

…called separation of church and state.

I suppose it’s nice to know that the U.S. doesn’t have a monopoly on ecclesiastical interference in matters of state, but in this situation I hardly find it comforting. According to this New York Times article,

“A directive by Italian bishops telling Roman Catholic politicians that they have a moral duty to vote against gay rights legislation has prompted fresh charges of Vatican meddling in parliamentary affairs.”

Am I the only one sick of hearing that argument?

Moral duty. As the debate over gay rights rages up one hemisphere and down the other with little ground gained or lost to either side, we constantly hear these arguments trotted out to the point where they’re becoming as trite as the over-used phrase sanctity of marriage. We have a moral duty to oppose gay marriage, gay equality, gay everything. A moral obligation, to be precise. Homosexuality is immoral and must not be allowed.

What we don’t hear is why. If God loves all equally, why does God not love gays? How can God love the person picketing with a sign that says “When a fag dies, God smiles” and yet he cannot love a gay man or lesbian woman for wanting to join in sacred union (and even more sacred tax benefits) with his or her chosen same-sex partner? How is proclaiming hatred more moral than proclaiming love?

The answer, kids, is that it’s not. And if you’ll take a look at the definition of moral, you’ll see that nowhere in that rather lengthy breakdown of the word does it define specifics of morality beyond a distinction between right and wrong.

Right and wrong are relative, and too often what’s “right” is determined by those in power. This is why interpretation of the First Amendment demands a separation of church and state, so that those in power are not unduly influenced by morals that may vary from faith to faith and thus create instability in the process of government. Instead their morals rest on objective determination of right and wrong based not on faith, but on human rights and precedents set by past legislation. The right to life, the right to fair treatment–

–wait, what’s that you say? Fair treatment? Sure, back then fair treatment only applied to moneyed white males, but we’ve come a long way since then. We’ve established premises for fair treatment regardless of ethnicity, and regardless of gender. Men, women, black, white, Asian, Native–no matter the sex or the race, people are guaranteed fair treatment under the law…as long as they aren’t gay.

Why? Every homosexual is either a man or a woman, and belongs to some ethnic classification. Does a matter as simple as sexual preference strip away the rights to fair treatment given to every human being?

Under the principles of moral duty, yes, it does. Because we have a moral duty to discriminate against others over matters that, frankly, are none of our business. We have a moral duty to force our beliefs on others through legislation, when mere word-of-mouth discrimination will no longer work. We have a moral duty to treat others in a hateful and dehumanizing fashion in the name of God’s almighty love.

If that’s my moral duty, then I choose to be immoral. I choose to be immoral in advocating tolerance for all–yes, even tolerance for those who’d condemn me for loving another man. I choose to be immoral in believing that my love is as sacred and pure as a man’s love for a woman, or her love for him in return.

I choose to be immoral in standing up for my rights as a human being.

Moral is not perfectly synonymous with right, no matter how often we’re told that it is. Morality is wholly subjective from one individual to the next, and if we were to operate on the idea that what is moral is also unequivocally right, then only one person could be right at any point in time because no two individuals’ morals are exactly the same.

Life doesn’t work that way. So tell me: do you believe in what’s moral?

Or do you believe in what’s right?

gay marriage, gay rights, morality, separation of church and state, politics

Because unfortunately, you’re stuck with me.

Greetings and a very early good morning from Pride & Opinions on 451 Press. I’m your new GBLTQ blogger, Adrien-Luc Sanders (call me Adri, it’ll make all our lives easier), and I’ve dropped in to make your life just a little bit more fabulous.

All right, maybe not. I’m out and I’m proud, if not particularly loud, but I’m a pretty down-to-earth guy next door. Nice to meet you, drop by for a cup of my patented triple-black Doom Coffee, and we’ll talk about who’s in the closet, oh-no-he-didn’t, and the latest in the ever-controversial front of GBLTQ politics, news, and issues.

You know we’ve all got issues, honey.

One a more serious front, if you’d like to know a little bit more about me: I’m a professional web journalist for another online publication, and when I’m not doing that I’m working on writing and editing my first novel. I’ll admit that I have a bit of an agenda there: I’m trying to break into mainstream science fiction with prominently gay protagonists and antagonists, but without being classified as “gay literature” because the story isn’t about being gay. After all, our lives don’t revolve solely around our sexual identity. Why should the gay and lesbian heroes and heroines of our literature do the same?

Hm, what else, what else? I’m originally from the New Orleans area, just a little brown-sugar boy from the Big Easy who packed up and relocated to Houston, TX back in 2000 so I could attend the Art Institute of Houston and graduate with a degree in Animation, Art, and Design. I’ve been living in Houston for seven years now and I still couldn’t tell you how to avoid getting lost on the 610 Loop, but I can tell you where to get a good steak, a better martini, or the worst dye job that you’d never want inflicted on your poor, unsuspecting hair.

Stick around for more from a cynical and caffeine-fueled geek-boy who’s probably still just a little too 80s for his own good.

I don’t always know when to shut my mouth, but at least you’ll never be in doubt as to what I’m thinking.

This site is currently in need of a writer. If you have any interest in writing on the topic this site covers, feel free to submit an application at 451 Press. Thank you.

Writers Needed

Scientists will study anything, including the prevalence of “straight� men having sex with gay men. WebMD.com reports a New York City poll claims one in 10 heterosexual men have sex exclusively with men. A majority of those men are married, with 10 percent acknowledging having gay sex during the last year. So, I guess that means 20 percent of us are gay. Apparently, half of us are in denial.
Adam can call himself “straight.� But, if he’s knockin’ boots with Steve, the reality is that he’s gay. “Straight� men who admit having gay sex are just exhibiting internalized homophobia. The most prevalent group seems to be Black men on the down low, who are fueled by macho pride and fear of the Black church.
Some men play the bisexual card. Sorry for the skepticism, I’m still struggling with the concept of bisexuality. People are born gay. They can be born bisexual. I realize that. While I can grasp bisexuality exists, that doesn’t mean I’ve accepted. I’m still on the fence as to whether it’s just a convenient excuse to keep from labeling oneself “gay.� Either way, if these men are only having gay sex, it’s a little disingenuous for these men to claim their straightness.
It seems to me that these men are using a poll as a tool to come out of the closet. (Pardon the puns.) I believe if you have gay experiences and label them something else, you’re just taking one long trip down Denial.
The concept of “straight� men and gay sex is an oxymoron. If you’re a man being polled more ways than one, then you’re not as straight as you think.

Being Black in America is hard. After spending years in denial about racism, I’ve accepted that reality. Living in a world surrounded by certain white people who refused to acknowledge its existence fueled that denial. As if being part of one minority group weren’t stressful enough, I’m a member of two minority groups. While I’m black and beautiful, I’m also fabulously gay.

So, I face racism and homophobia. When I haven’t dealt with people trying to insure the Black boy knows his place, others question my intentions when in the presence of straight males, no matter the age—if they know I’m gay. Therefore, it’s not safe to be out 24/7.

Then, there are the outraged people. They include the Black church. Being gay in that community is worse than a brother dating a white woman. I guess I had to take it to the next level. I prefer dating white men. In fact, I married one.

While I won’t equate the struggles African-Americans and gays and lesbian Americans have faced, it doesn’t change the fact that both groups have endured their fair share of hardships. While many of fellow African-Americans didn’t deserve to be lynched, Matthew Shepard didn’t deserve his fate either.

It would seem some in the Black community could learn to be less judgmental, given what they and their ancestors have been through. Getting flak from brothers doesn’t make being gay any easier. Drag Queen and fashion designer Kevin Aviance attested to that during a recent appearance on the Tyra Banks Show.

Treating gays and lesbians like everyone else. That’s a novel concept. It’s a concept that New Jersey’s highest court seems to grasp. According to the New York Times, the court decided Wednesday, by a vote of 4-3, to allow same-sex couples to enjoy the financial and legal rights their heterosexual counterparts do. But they left it to lawmakers whether to decide between “marriage� and “civil union.�

Don’t let the 4-3 vote fool you. The justices were split on how to proceed. But they all agreed same-sex couples deserve the same rights as heterosexuals. In fact, they stipulated New Jersey’s constitution provides those rights. Whether certain people want to admit it, the U.S. Constitution does too.

Of course, critics will say the framers never considered the possibility of same-sex unions. That’s a flimsy excuse. Our forefathers didn’t consider African-Americans full-fledged human beings and thought interracial marriage as outlandish—just as outlandish as gays and lesbians pledging their love to one another. So, their judgment is suspect, despite having the fortitude to successfully found a country.

The judgment of our leaders has, unfortunately, not improved with time. President George W. Bush voiced his disapproval of the court’s ruling during a Des Moines, IA fundraiser. Bush, according to the Associated Press, launched into a case for “traditional marriage.�

“I believe it’s a sacred institution that’s critical to the health of our society and the well-being of families, and it must be defended,� the president said.

Bush’s desire to defend marriage is less about protecting a sacred cow than it’s about pleasing his political patrons—the religious Right. Conservatives’ fervor for fighting same-sex unions confounds me. Though they oppose it in the name of morality, those on the far Right seem to pick and choose their moral battles.

My conservative upbringing included hearing my ultra Right wing pastor railing against divorce. Although our church picketed abortion clinics and adult bookstores, it didn’t actively campaign against divorce. That surprised me since the Nazarene church’s decision to go “soft� on divorce, in part, led my pastor to found the church.

Furthermore, the entire conservative Christian community has been quiet on the issue of divorce. Although my former conservative comrades detested divorce, they didn’t launch a campaign to outlaw it in the name of protecting the “sacred� institution.

It seems their resistance to gay marriage (AKA same-sex unions) was just a means to an end. Capitalizing on that resistance propelled Bush to the White House. Thus, they gained untold power. Morals aren’t inspiring their actions. Tom DeLay, Jack Abramoff and Mark Foley. Need I say more?

Well, anyway, one more thing. Enjoying their prominence is what driving their actions. It’s a prominence gained by making gay and lesbian Americans second-class citizens.

We could really change the country. That’s what political activist Mark Dann thinks will happen, if Pennsylvania State Treasurer Bob Casey, a Democrat, defeats incumbent U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum in the 2006 midterm election. Dann voiced his hope in a story in the Advocate’s Oct. 24 issue.

Replacing Santorum with Casey, it seems, wouldn’t bring about much change. Advocate writer Allison Stevens described Casey as a “social conservative who opposes same-sex marriage.” Looking at his positions on gay rights, Casey reminds me of Sybil.

According to ontheissues.org, Casey supports the Defense of Marriage Act. But he doesn’t support a constitution ban on gay marriage, but opposes legalizing it. But Casey has said he supports civil unions. Apparently, his views change when the wind direction does.

To his credit, Casey supports allowing gay couples to adopt and share employment benefits and increased penalties for sexual orientation hate crimes. While that’s commendable, I wonder how long that support would last in a political pinch.

The only difference, it seems, between Casey and Santorum is that the incumbent has been more public about his antigay views. But, then, he was given a bully pulpit. Santorum has used that pulpit to denounce homosexuality in outrageous fashion.

“If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual [gay] sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything,� Santorum said in a 2003 Associated Press interview.

Someone that ignorant doesn’t deserve the kind of power he wields. But putting Casey in the Senate would just be giving a different homophobe a bigger, better soapbox.

Those mobilizing to oust Santorum have let emotion cloud their judgment. I’m no fan of his, but he’s a known commodity. I think a healthy fear of Casey’s unknown qualities and potential stands on issues is good. It seems his gay and lesbian supporters aren’t willing to consider they could end up out of the frying pan and into the fire.

That’s because they’ve missed the big picture and have been consumed by a myopic attitude.

Wanting to “stop Santorum now” is good in theory. Putting Casey in the Senate isn’t the answer. If the people supporting him really wanted to stop Santorum, they should’ve pushed the Democratic party to find a better candidate. Voters–especially gay and lesbian voters–shouldn’t settle, when it comes to picking their leaders.

Santorum should be sent packing, but only when a worthwhile opponent is there to challenge him.