Mr. Gay Pride: The Blog

Equality for Us, Not You. Amid all the celebrating over the election of a (half-)black man as President, only a relative few people realized that on Election Day 2008, bigotry won three big triumphs. Existing same-sex marriage was undone by the yahoos of California, and banned by other yahoos in Arizona and Florida. That would be bad enuf. Worse, blacks and Hispanics — no: niggers and spics; if they can be bigoted against us, we can retaliate in kind — joined in the bigotry, voting in large majorities to take away from gay and lesbian Californians, rights that they assert for themselves, and to keep people in Arizona and Florida from ever having equal rights. This is not, for gay men, "the land of the free and the home of the brave".
+
So bigoted, at essence, is this country that you couldn't even hear that story until the second half hour of extended broadcasts of the network evening news on Wednesday, not even Tuesday nite. It did not even make it into the standard half-hour nitely newscast, because antihomosexual bigotry is of no importance to the straight people who control media, as they control government.
+
Obama and Biden helped take away gay men's and lesbians' rights in California, and to keep them second-class citizens in Arizona and Florida, in forthrightly standing against same-sex "marriage". So how are we supposed to rejoice in their victory? They are a tad less bigoted than the Radical Right, but still bigoted. Their election is not a big advance for human rights. Where was their bravery, to stand against bigotry in this "land of the free and the home of the brave"? What do they care about our rights? They've got theirs. Our not having ours is not their problem.
+
So much for brave words like "Freedom is indivisible", something we used to say in the Sixties. Who coined that expression? Here's a longer quote. You should be able to guess the speaker before you get to the end:

Freedom is indivisible, and when one man is enslaved, all are not free. When all are free, then we can look forward to that day when this city will be joined as one and this country and this great Continent of Europe in a peaceful and hopeful globe. When that day finally comes, as it will, the people of West Berlin can take sober satisfaction in the fact that they were in the front lines for almost two decades.

All free men, wherever they may live, are citizens of Berlin, and, therefore, as a free man, I take pride in the words "Ich bin ein Berliner."

— Speech in Berlin (26 June 1963)

It would seem that Barack Obama is the poor man's JFK, not a "new, improved" version. He might nonetheless meet the same fate, as the alienated white people who voted 57% against him decide to "take back this country". They may have lost it by the ballot, but feel they can take it back by bullet. Should that happen, do not be surprised if gay men do not join in the wailing and moaning over the death of a man who wanted equality for black people but opposed it for gay people.

Logo's Militant Antimale Propaganda. Most people may not be aware of it, but there is now supposed to be a "gay" cable channel, called Logo. Unfortunately, Logo is, quite the contrary of what you might expect, viciously anti homosexual. Gay men are marginal to Logo's concerns. Most of its schedule is given over to women and "transsexuals", and the bulk of its programming about gay men shows them (well, us) as diseased and dying, or as murderers. Yes, you read right: murderers.
+
While channel-surfing at 3:30 this morning, I checked Logo, and, once again, it is showing Swoon, a 1992 movie about the Leopold and Loeb case, in which two demented Jewish faggots in 1924 Chicago abducted and killed a little boy just to see how it felt. Oh, that's very gay, and gives us such a warm feeling about ourselves, doesn't it?
+
Another Logo offering about gay men is a lovely little 1997 film called The Delta, which ends with a gay Vietnamese man in Mississippi luring a gay black man to a boat, then strangling him to death! Isn't that charming?
+
Again and again, Logo shows gay men as peripheral to the "gay" (meaning "lesbian") world, dying from AIDS, and killing people. How on Earth did this happen?
+
The 'people' responsible for Logo need to be beaten, preferably to death, or at the very, very least, sued for hundreds of millions of dollars for group slander against gay men. The picture of gay men on Logo is unrelentingly negative: we are supposedly confused about gender, shot thru with disease that kills us (rightfully, it would seem from Logo's endless focus on AIDS as "gay plague"), and filled with homicidal rage toward each other — not homosexual lust.
+
I have tried to watch Logo, on average, twice a day every day since it started operations on June 30, 2005, but have had to turn it off in disgust, or rage, essentially every time, within at most 5 minutes. Typically, the first thing you see and/or hear when you tune to Logo is a woman. If there's not a woman onscreen that moment, there will be within three minutes. Never are men alone with men on Logo for more than five minutes. The commercials are essentially all straight. And Logo even shows HETEROSEXUAL commercials for "male enhancement", not just victimizing but also attacking gay men in trying to defraud them.
+
Logo has ONE program for gay men on its entire schedule, Noah's Arc, which is all-black. White gay men have no place on Logo, even tho we are the bulk of the community.
+
Queer as Folk, Showtime's odious Canadian "lesbigay" drama, takes up much of the time that is supposed to be devoted to programming for gay men, but it is heavily lesbian and heterosexual. Men's relationships with men are completely subordinated to the various heterosexual or lesbian plotlines, and, again, the longest that men are shown alone with men is approximately three minutes. Ever. The men (several, including the most central character, played by straight actors) are shown involved in various combinations of self-destructive behaviors, from smoking to using hard drugs: to quote Wikipedia, "(cocaine, methamphetamine, ecstasy, GHB, ketamine, cannabis)". But the AIDS developed by the drug-soaked "fast lane" homosexuals who used most of those drugs, in combination!, had nothing to do with the chemicals in drugs but only with sex. (Of course it did.) Some of the characters are effeminate. Some are airheads, even prostitutes (hustlers). Ah, so accurate a portrayal of our lives and loves.
+
Not surprisingly, Wikipedia says:

The American version of Queer as Folk quickly became the number one show on the Showtime roster. The network's initial marketing of the show was primarily targeted at gay male (and to some extent, lesbian) audiences, yet a sizeable segment of the viewership turned out to be heterosexual women.

Certainly Queer as Folk is unfit for gay men's eyes and ears. It is horrible, horrible, antigay garbage that should be destroyed in every copy.
+
Logo is a project of Viacom, one of the world's largest media companies, which, according to Wikipedia, comprises:

Film Production and Distribution: Viacom International, Paramount Pictures, DreamWorks, Republic Pictures, MTV Films, Nickelodeon Movies, Go Fish Pictures
Television Networks: Comedy Central, Logo, BET, Spike, TV Land, Nick at Nite, Nickelodeon, Noggin, The N, Nick Jr., TEENick, MTV, VH1, MTV2, CMT, MHD
Television Production and Television Distribution: DreamWorks Television
Video Gaming: Xfire, Harmonix, GameTrailers, Neopets

It plainly has the resources to create quality programming directed to self-respecting, well-adjusted gay men. The refusal to create such series or even TV movies speaks volumes about media hatred of gay men.
+
If comparable, viciously negative stereotypes about blacks were aired by a cable network proclaiming itself "black", the Al Sharptons and Jesse Jacksons would be leading demonstrations in the streets. Gay men, almost completely absent from mainstream media, are expected to shut up and accept crumbs, even if those crumbs are laced with rat poison.
+
Logo's sole real focus is lesbians and "transsexuals", who are praised explicitly and implicitly. Gay men are NEVER to be seen unless their presence is 'balanced' (overbalanced) by equal or greater numbers of lesbians, within seconds or at most a very few minutes. The idea of so much as a half hour being given over to gay men, WITHOUT women, is unthinkable. Again and again the message is sent: women with women is OK; men with men but WITHOUT women is just plain wrong, utterly evil and insane.
+
Gay men who choose to keep their genitalia are viciously and repeatedly defamed, and encouraged to redefine themselves as women, then have themselves castrated to conform to the anti-gay, antimale prejudices of the lunatics who control Logo.
+
A firebomb or three tossed into the executive offices of the subhuman scum responsible for Logo, at the height of the business day, could do a lot of good.

Saving a Senator. Idaho Senator Larry Craig is expected to announce his resignation today. I am trying to head that off. A few minutes ago, at about 7:20am, I sent the following message via feedback form at the Senator's website.

DON'T RESIGN; FIGHT BACK!

(Note to staff: I know that Senator Craig is not in Washington today. I'm not even certain anyone is in his office on a Saturday, altho this Saturday of all Saturdays, someone assuredly SHOULD be. PLEASE contact the Senator urgently, as by cellphone, BEFORE he makes any statement to the press, to convey to him the sense of this message, if not even to read aloud every single word or forward it to his email in Idaho. He needs to consider this.)
+
IF SENATOR VITTER, also a Republican, wasn't forced to resign despite his illicit heterosexual activity, why should you resign over illicit homosexual activity? It's time for you to come out fighting. That means first, to "come out" and come clean with Idahoans about your biological need for sex with men, and second, to fight, not just for yourself, but for the right of all men to have sex with men in dignified settings if they so desire, and not be forced into the shadows.
+
I am the man who in 1970 coined the term "Gay Pride" as it is now used. You need to listen to me. I'm on your side (assuming you really are sexually drawn to men; but, then, why else would you resign? Resignation constitutes admission, and no one will reach any other conclusion if you resign).
+
Vitter admitted to involvement with prostitutes. You didn't pay anyone – except the State of Minnesota, which should be ashamed of itself for entrapping you and other men seeking consensual sex, and extorting money from you. There is a fundamental issue of equality here that you as a United States Senator must stand up for. You weren't caught "in flagrante delicto" in front of little children. You were arrested for tapping your foot! How on Earth does that rise to the level of an offense that requires resignation from the United States Senate?
+
There's another public-policy issue I have not seen discussed. Is it really proper for a police department to release to the public the tapes of a police interrogation? Aren't there serious privacy issues involved here?
+
Moreover, WHAT ABOUT entrapment? You raised the issue when arrested, and it is a HUGE issue. Surely in a country as filled with robbery, drugs, gangs, violence, and murder as ours, there are far better uses for police than entrapping men who are merely looking for trivial physical activity that gives pleasure to both participants. Give the cops hell. Tell Minnesota that if it has police to waste on entrapping homosexuals, then its police department is too large, and should be cut drastically in staffing and budget, as to save Minnesota taxpayers, gay and straight alike, from the obligation to PAY for police misconduct.
+
What you pled guilty to was not a felony, not a crime against humanity, but little more serious than a speeding ticket. You must not resign from the Senate over a speeding ticket. Sex is TRIVIAL, and every adult KNOWS it is trivial. Say so, repeatedly.
+
Why should men who feel sexual attraction to men go along with society's preposterous prejudices? Don't play their game. For once in your life, stand up for yourself. Because it's NOT JUST YOURSELF that you would be standing up for. You need to stand up for all men struggling with an attraction to men that they did not choose to feel and can do nothing to deny. You tried, didn't you? You lost. Because in a contest between your authentic self and the person others may want you to be, the authentic self can be suppressed only so long. Eventually, he's going to win out. And that's a good thing.
+
Stand up for the kid just starting to wonder what's wrong with him. Stand up for the men entrapped, arrested, intimidated, robbed, beaten, even killed by bigots and opportunists. If you had stood up ten years ago, and done something to change social attitudes, people like Matthew Shepard in your neighboring State of Montana might still be alive. Conversely, however, if you let the bigots win, and run away from the challenge, there may be other men who will suffer death or psychic destruction at the hands of a society that doesn't mean to be monstrously intolerant, but is.
+
I have been to Idaho, twice, and do not believe the people of Idaho in general are vicious bigots, tho of course some are. You need to give Idahoans the chance to show their true colors, as understanding human beings who can appreciate how difficult it must be for someone who was raised to be straight but finds it's just not in him, or as narrow-minded yahoos who can't accept the right of anyone to be different from themselves.
+
I think you, and the Nation, might be pleasantly surprised by the decency and tolerance of the people of Idaho. What disgusts Idahoans, as it disgusts Americans generally, is not so much your need for men but your disgraceful hypocrisy. Disown the hypocrisy. Own up to being homosexual, and the revulsion people feel for your conduct will drop to manageable proportions. Yes, some people will be offended that you want sex with men. Most people will understand that everybody wants sex with somebody, and it's all pretty much the same.
+
What matters is not whom you want but how you treat the person. If David Vitter can get away with kinky sex with female prostitutes, surely you should be able to get away with nonkinky sex with men, in which no money changes hands. It's all in how you handle it (the issue, that is). Do not accept the right of straights to be perverts yet remain in the Senate while gay men must resign just for being gay. Jim McGreevey, Governor of my State (New Jersey) did that. He could have served as the first openly gay governor of a State!, but resigned. You can serve as the first openly gay member of "the world's greatest deliberative body". (And stop the definitional quibbling, "gay" as against "homosexual". You want sex with men, you're gay. You're "bisexual", as provocative Comedy Central comic Carlos Mencía says, you're gay. The DENIAL is what infuriates people. Stop denying. Own up. Take responsibility. Be yourself. Then people will respect you. They may not agree with you, but they'll respect you. And that's a lot more than you've got right now.
+
Idahoans can grow, to accept the otherness of others, but they need leadership. You're supposed to be a leader.
+
To understand what homosexual boys and then men go thru in trying to cope with their different nature when surrounded by people unlike themselves, Idahoans need an actual person to sympathize with. You are a person.
+
The Republican Party also needs to grow, and stop being the party of vicious intolerance and closed-mindedness. If the national party won't support you, shame them. They want to shame you. No. Shame them! People such as the present leadership of the Republican Party are the ones responsible for making your life miserable. They are the ones who made you feel bad about yourself, who forced you into a lie of a marriage, who forced you to say terrible things about people like yourself, in order to curry favor with them. You owe antihomosexual bigots nothing. You owe homosexuals everything, because they are you. And you have an obligation to you.
+
You need to accept your nature and become champion for gay men. You didn't ask for this responsibility. It was thrust upon you. If you are not up to it, then, and only then, the fault will be in you. Be certain of this: if you resign, you WILL regret not accepting the challenge and fighting your best fight, for your best self.
+
So apologize to everyone you have deceived. Apologize for the terrible things you felt you had to say to cover up your nature. But don't "go along to get along" anymore. Break with the past. Be a man— a man who needs men. There is no shame in that. There is, however, great shame in denying your nature, turning against yourself and your own people, and sending the wrong message. Resigning would send the wrong message: that gay men should be ashamed of themselves, and that there is no room in the highest levels of government for an open, self-accepting, yes proud, gay man.
+
The press is expecting a resignation today, which would send the message that homosexual men have no right to be in the United States Senate. Surprise the bastards. Tell them that 62 years of trying to be something you're not is enough, and that it's time now for you to be you, no longer ashamed, no longer intimidated, no longer hiding and playing the game.
+
You're not going to live forever. You have the right to some happiness before you die. You won't get it by caving in to the bigots, sticking to the lie, and hiding in shame until you die in disgrace.
+
Thirty years from now, you can be a footnote or a giant. How do you want to be remembered?

Gay men have no Senators to champion their interests. Larry Craig could be our champion. Will he? I have done what I can to persuade him. If he is intent on getting this whole thing behind him as soon as possible, he may rush to do the wrong thing. Will he understand that, subconsciously, he brought this exposure upon himself deliberately, because he wanted to be forced to deal with being gay, and to assume his responsibilities as a gay man in a powerful, political position? Darn. I neglected to make that point above. Ah well, he's unlikely to hear what I tried to tell him before he meets the press today. When one has no influence, one has no responsibility. But I tried anyway. If he makes the wrong decision, it's not my fault.

Hypocritical, Puritanical Noise. Media have been abuzz the past couple of days about — heaven forfend! — sex. It seems a U.S. Senator from Idaho was arrested in the Minneapolis-St. Paul airport for soliciting sex in a men's room. Except of course he didn't actually DO anything. He didn't touch anybody, didn't expose himself, didn't say a word to ask for sex. In short, he did NOT commit anything that the law should regard as a crime, not ANYTHING.
+
He was entrapped by antihomosexual police in a supposedly liberal state. That is both unexpected and outrageous. If the police in the Minneapolis area have so little to do that they have to induce gay men into approaching vice officers, then the Minneapolis police force should be chopped drastically in size and budget, so Minnesotans — including gay Minnesotans — can save some money on their tax bill. Are all parts of the Twin Cities crime-free? Or are police too cowardly to face off against real criminals, preferring to work the men's room while armed thugs victimize Minnesotans elsewhere, free of worry that they might be caught by cops who are busy harassing homosexuals in safe areas?
+
The evil cops working to trap gay men should be transferred to the worst neighborhoods of America's cities, to face down the Bloods and Crips, and protect college kids from being murdered in cold blood in schoolyards. Send them to Newark, L.A., or the South Bronx. Let them earn their pay and actually protect somebody.
+
Hoping to avoid public exposure, Senator Larry Craig (Hm, "L. Craig". Now, where have I heard that?) pled guilty to disorderly conduct and paid a fine of several hundred dollars. He also got a year's unsupervised probation. For tapping his foot in a men's room stall. Has this society lost its mind?
+
We have murders all over this country that the police can't solve, and we're misdirecting police resources to arresting men for tapping their foot in a men's room. Senator Craig should be fiting such nonsense, not paying extortion to the state. But it's worse than extortion by criminals. The typical blackmailer doesn't take the money and then tell the secrets anyway.
+
The self-righteous claptrap — an appropriate word, considering how much venereal disease there is in this Nation of Whores — about how 'disgusting' it is of some gay men to seek sex in public places, is nothing but bullsh*t. Straight people, various media commentators declaim virtuously, don't cruise lavatories for sex. Oh? And why might that be? Because men's rooms and women's rooms are separated, that's why. And why, exactly, is that? Because if both sexes shared the same lavatories, nobody offended by sex could use them much of the day and nite because straight people would be screwing around in them at all hours, that's why. Late-nite cable TV runs a commercial for a phone-sex line in which a man and woman come out of a stall in a public restroom. But that's just fantasy, right? And, of course, 'normal', so not disgusting. Are we to believe that heterosexual sex in public restrooms never really happens? Then how is it we hear stories about it? Because it does happen. And heterosexual public sex doesn't happen just in lavatories when no one's around. Straights have sex everywhere!
+
The delicate, antisexual sensibilities we hear all over the media would be persuasive in the Islamic Republic of Iran, but not in the United Whores of America. In the typical year, 1.5 million babies are born out of wedlock (36% of all births in the United States; 64% for black women). 19 million cases of venereal disease (or "STD's", to use this week's fad term) are recorded each year. Millions of (heterosexual) marriages have been destroyed by infidelity, including on the part of at least one leading contender for the Republican Party's nomination for President. There's an awful lot of illicit sex going on among straight people in this country, and everybody knows it.
+
So why are so many people in media feigning shock over sex among gay men in supposedly 'public' places (tho plainly not in public view)? Straight people are having sex all over the place, in movie theaters, airliners (the "Mile High Club" we hear so much about), parks, parking lots, "lover's lanes" — hell, in the car at the curb outside their girlfriend's house. Under bleachers, behind garages, in alleys, in bars and dance clubs, in sex clubs, in strip clubs. Babysitters and their boyfriends screw on the couch while the kids sleep a few yards away. What about all those lapdances in "gentlemen's clubs"? Porno videos offered by 'legitimate' video rental companies? Porn on cable TV that is shown not just in one's bedroom but even in public places? Straight porno theaters and peep shows? Legal prostitution in Nevada? Brothels in other places that the police take payoffs to let operate unfettered? "Escort" services? Hardcore and softcore heterosexual porn magazines available on publicly viewable racks at newsstands? Talk Sex with Sue Johanson on Oxygen TV? The repellant dwarf Ruth Westheimer? As long ago as 1992-96, Bob Berkowitz had a sex-talk show on CNBC. Where there's talk, there's action. (More talk than action, perhaps, but still some action.) TV takes ads for phone sex. And the Internet is filled with sexchat. What about that ad campaign from the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority, "What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas"? I don't think those ads are talking about sightseeing trips to Hoover Dam. And do we really need to point out that the Internet is filled with fotografic and video porn?
+
On the Tonight Show this evening, a young man told of staying at his girlfriend's house overnite. The girl's parents put him and their dauter in separate rooms. After they had all gone to bed, however, he sneaked into his girlfriend's room. They thought they had got away with it until the following morning when the family dog sauntered into the kitchen during breakfast, with a used condom in his mouth. What a deliteful, charming story about today's upstanding youth. (That particular youth was Canadian (as is Talk Sex hostess Sue Johanson), but American kids sneak around in their parents' house too, to screw around very quietly while their parents sleep in the next room.) So why the pretense that gay men's looking for sex wherever they might find it is somehow outrageous, but heterosexual society's obsession with sex is completely unobjectionable?
+
Straight society needs to admit that it is saturated in sex. Four-year-old girls dress up like sluts in kiddie beauty pageants and 12-year-olds gyrate suggestively in talent contests, their face painted like that of an aging $5 hooker.
+
John McCain, the Superloon among the announced Republican candidates for President, has disgraced himself yet again in urging Senator Craig to resign from what is called "the world's greatest deliberative body" because he tapped his shoe on a men's room floor! The 'crime' of which McCain complained was a misdemeanor, about as significant, legally, as a speeding ticket. I've said it before and will probably have to say it again: John McCain is out of his mind. I don't know if he always was, or if the North Vietnamese destroyed his mind in the Hanoi Hilton. At end, it doesn't matter. He's nuts.
+
Mormon candidate for President, Mitt Romney, member of a cult that has ruined myriad lives with its lunacy, forced Craig out of his campaign committee, apparently fearful of being 'tainted' by association with homos. Romney is more than a bit too goodlooking to be seen as comfortable with "faggots". I wonder about him. That's called "gaydar", and mine pings when I watch Romney.
+
I am indignant and contemptuous of all this ridiculous posturing by imitation-righteous straight people that gay men are somehow depraved for looking for sex in public restrooms. Straight society makes it impossible for gay men to meet one another in the wholesome places straight people go to "hook up". We can't look openly at each other at a church social, PTA meeting, supermarket, laundromat, or (straight) bar, and strike up a relaxed conversation, to find out if we have enuf in common to investigate forming a relationship or even just take a quick roll in the hay. No, we're forced into the shadows, and then bitched at for living in the shadows!
+
By contrast, this supposedly antisexual society pushes boys and girls at each other from a very early age. It not only countenances sexual activity that it supposedly disapproves of, but actually facilitates it. Prom nite is almost a required virginity-ender, and despite the best efforts of modern-day Puritans to promote abstinence, the age at which Americans typically lose their virginity is 17, and only 4% of Americans remain virgins their entire life. Presumably many of those people have serious physical handicaps or are in religious orders that forbid sexual activity (not that that stops everyone in such orders).
+
Last nite, on MSNBC Live With Dan Abrams, the host and fellow rightwingers Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson all played very innocent, as tho a sexual thought never entered any of their heads. Carlson bragged about having fought back against a man who "bothered" him in Washington. The poor baby was so scared he had to run for help to a friend, then bring the friend back, throw the offender against a wall, and have him arrested. For what? Today he clarified why he reacted so violently, while denying the violence he had admitted the nite before:

Let me be clear about an incident I referred to on MSNBC last night: In the mid-1980s, while I was a high school student, a man physically grabbed me in a men’s room in Washington, DC. I yelled, pulled away from him and ran out of the room. Twenty-five minutes later, a friend of mine and I returned to the men’s room. The man was still there, presumably waiting to do to someone else what he had done to me. My friend and I seized the man and held him until a security guard arrived.

Several bloggers have characterized this is a sort of gay bashing. That’s absurd, and an insult to anybody who has fought back against an unsolicited sexual attack. I wasn’t angry with the man because he was gay. I was angry because he assaulted me.

Neither Hannity nor Abrams had ever had such difficulties, and gay men looking for sex are almost always easily discouraged by pointed shows of uninterest. If they persist, a firm "No" or "Hey, get away from me" suffices.
+
Let me point out to these innocent babes in the sexual woods that WOMEN are harassed by heterosexual men all the time, everywhere they go. They are "hit upon" by men they have no interest in. They are whistled at and hooted at by men on the street as they simply go about their business. In bars, aggressive men crowd them, brush against them, say suggestive things to them, offer to buy them drinks (which would, the men think, indebt the woman to the man who treated them), put their hands on them, in innocent places and not-so-innocent places. If every heterosexual man who crossed the line with a woman were thrown up against a wall and arrested, our entire national budget would be spent on jails and prisons.
+
So cut the crap. The little Mother Tucker was subjected to some of what women go thru every day, and it hurt his little feelings! Poor thing. That's the real issue here: heterosexual men's feeling threatened by being treated, to their mind, like women. That threatens their manhood. It shouldn't. A gay man's "hitting on them" proves not their lack of manhood but their masculine appeal, because gay men want men, not women. It is a compliment to his manhood that a gay man might be drawn to a (straight) man.
+
Straight men need to get a life — and stick to it. That's the real problem, and the real reason there are police actions against homosexuality, even after the Supreme Court struck down sodomy laws on the basis that they violate privacy rights. So cops go out of their way to entrap gay men into public "lewd conduct".
+
Straight men are terrified of their own homosexual thoughts and desires. They are afraid that if society doesn't keep them on the straight and narrow, they are going to find themselves in the arms (and other parts) of a man, because they know that they have all had thoughts about guys and cannot find men's bodies disgusting because they would have to find themselves disgusting. They may never have been tempted, yet, but, they think, that might just be because they haven't met the right man. Yet. Maybe there is a man out there, somewhere, with piercing blue eyes or a smile that lites up the room who would make their heart pound and other parts push them to contact.
+
I'm the last person in the world to say it couldn't happen. But straight men are much more commonly tempted to heterosexual sex. That does not argue for them outlawing heterosexual sex or forbidding all situations in which temptation might arise. Where is the insistence that Louisiana Senator Vitter, who cheated on his wife with (female) prostitutes, resign? Nowhere, that's where.
+
Senator Craig's real offense, and the reason people who should be sympathetic to a man who has sexual desires for men that cause him anguish, are instead indignant and out to "get him", is hypocrisy. He has made all kinds of antihomosexual noise, working to prevent gay marriage and otherwise promote antigay bigotry. We react to such behavior on the part of a man with overpowering sexual desire for men as we would to a "high yellow" 'black' man passing as white and becoming Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan.
+
The hypocrisy of straight society about opposing gay marriage allegedly out of concern over the sanctity of (heterosexual) marriage is detestable. The bulk of states in recent decades made marriage so trifling and the legal causes for divorce so trivial that they catastrophically weakened the institution long before gay men pressed for the extension of marriage to gay couples. Nevada, which could be regarded as Satan's home state, dares to pretend to be concerned about the sanctity of marriage, and inserted a provision into its constitution to define marriage as a legal union of one man and one woman. So all those legal prostitutes in Nevada surely must determine that a man is unmarried before having sex with him, right? No? If not, then Nevada isn't concerned about defending the sanctity of marriage at all, just in reserving some rights for straight people, including the right to have sex for money, there being no legal homosexual prostitution in that model of propriety. Dare one ask how many marriages have been destroyed by a spouse's calling upon a legal prostitute in Nevada? Or by compulsive gamblers' losing fortunes they could not afford, in Nevada, land of virtue? I think the gay movement should promote a boycott of Nevada by all progressives, to make an example of Nevada for hypocrisy, and show there are costs to antigay bigotry.
+
As for Senator Craig's state, Idaho, I have been to Idaho twice, once to Boise (which is pronounced with an S-sound, not Z) on my own and once to Coeur d'Alene with several members of my family. As I recall, there was a tiny gay contingent in Coeur d'Alene's Fourth of July parade who were not booed or threatened. I don't think Idahoans in general are vicious or fascistic, despite Idaho's reputation (like neighboring Montana's) for welcoming Neo-Nazi, survivalist groups. I don't think Idaho is a toxic place or that the people of Idaho mean to damage young gay people's self-acceptance. But they do, as all areas of the world do that assume that every child will be straight, and thus raise everyone to be heterosexual, and never so much as raise the possibility that something else will happen. Never raising the issue, they lead their young people to think that what the larger society has apparently not thought about is thus unthinkable. That causes kids who do think about such things, to think as well that there must be something wrong with them; that they are grotesque, abnormal, evil, not just something that most of the people around them haven't much thought about. Or admitted to thinking about.
+
Senator Craig's story is hardly unusual. He was made to hate himself by an oblivious, intolerant, and insecure society that seems to feel that if homosexuality is given free rein, it will wipe out heterosexuality and the human race will disappear because, they fear, homosexuality is preferable to heterosexuality! Is the human race really in danger of disappearing from too few children? Or is the prime threat to our survival not depopulation but grotesque overpopulation? I don't really have to answer that, do I?
+
If, as seems certain, Senator Craig is sexually drawn to men, he could still make the claim that he is not "gay", because he does not want a lasting, loving relationship with a man, and actively wants not to identify as gay. He is assuredly not "gay" in the ordinary sense, happy and carefree, which may be how he justified his denials. Bill Clinton was able to persuade himself that he wasn't really lying when he said he "did not have sexual relations with that young woman", because he played a definitional game in his head: "sexual relations" meant coitus. Senator Craig says he's not "gay". He may be able to say that with clear conscience because he has internally defined "gay" to mean wanting something more from men than sex, something emotional, something as to lifestyle and self-identity, and he doesn't want that (or so he may have persuaded himself).
+
Senator Craig toed society's heterosexual line rhetorically, and may actually have believed what he said when he said that homosexuality should be proscribed, perhaps out of the misguided notion that if he didn't have the internal strength to fite off his homosexual desires alone, society's prohibitions could strengthen his will and keep him in line. He internalized the antihomosexual crap he was raised with and then publicly fed it back to an appreciative audience, just as a parrot — or perhaps more appropriately, parakeet — delites people around by making noises that sound just like meaningful words, when they are to the bird only imitative noise.
+
Everything we hear from antigay activists is meaningless, empty noise. They have absolutely no basis for their hostility. They may, or may not, have reasons for any insecurity they may feel about society giving them, personally, too much freedom, freedom they can't handle. But temptations of many kinds are all around us. We find out, when first this ban is relaxed, then that, who has internal strength and who has not.
+
When Prohibition was ended, some people became alcoholics. When states legalized various forms of gambling, some people with weak wills and addictive personalities became gambling junkies. Some ghetto kids who became sports stars saw all kinds of barriers drop, and they promptly fell into drug addiction, sexual abuse, and other outrageous vices, even dogfiting. It is not the availability of alcohol that makes an alcoholic, nor the legality of gambling that creates a gambling problem, nor the presence all around us of dogs that makes a person descend into staging dogfites and then killing poor performers. It is not what is outside us that is responsible for our internal feelings, nor our actions.
+
Faithful people defeat temptations to infidelity, from any source, homosexual or heterosexual. People in love aren't interested in sex with strangers. And, most important always to remember, sex is TRIVIA. This country has got (literally) to grow the f*k up.
+
Senator Craig should 'fess up and ask forgiveness. If he needs sex with men, he should be forthrite about that. If he really loves his wife, he should just control himself, just as he would if he were attracted to another woman. But if he married only because society demanded he play the game, and he would really be happy only as a gay man, he should apologize profusely to his wife, get a divorce, and live the rest of his limited days happy, as a genuinely gay man, in every sense. As Shakespeare put it in Hamlet, "To thine own self be true, and it must follow, as the night the day, thou canst not then be false to any man." Then Idaho would have an honest man as its senior Senator.

Antigay Vandalism — By the Superintendent of Newark Schools! My friend Gaetano sent me links to two blog mentions of a Star-Ledger story yesterday about Marion Bolden's ordering the defacing of a yearbook to black out with marker what she termed an "illicit" foto of two boys kissing. The foto itself appears in the Star-Ledger, along with this information:

While the students waited, staff members in another room blacked out the 4½-by-5-inch picture from approximately 230 books [which cost $85 each; that's vandalization of $19,550 of private property by a public official; a felony?].

"I don't understand," said [Andre] Jackson, 18 [one of the two students shown kissing, who paid $150 for that page in the yearbook]. "There is no rule about no gay pictures, no guys kissing. Guys and girls kissing made it in."

East Side's is like most high school yearbooks. About 80 pages in the roughly 100-page tome is dedicated to class photos, formal shots of seniors, candids and spreads dedicated to a variety of sports teams and academic clubs.

The back of the book is a collection of tributes where students designed pages filled with pictures depicting them with their families, girlfriends and boyfriends, and friends.

Rules for publication of the pages prohibited shots of gang signs, rude gestures and graphic photos, said Benilde Barroqueiro, an East Side senior graduating with Jackson.

"You know, it couldn't be too provocative. No making out, no tongue," she said.

Students were surprised when they opened their books and found Jackson's picture had been covered with marker, Barroqueiro said.

"He purchased the page and fell under the rules," she said. "If they want to kiss, that's their page. If you don't like it, don't look at it."

It seems a teenage girl has more sense than a middle-aged woman.
+
Note that this offense occurred during the runup to the 38th anniversary of the Stonewall Riots, to be marked tomorrow, less than ten miles from East Side High, by the annual Gay Pride March in Manhattan that attracts hundreds of thousands of marchers and spectators. I was on the committee that organized the first such march, in 1970, and the term "Gay Pride" rather than the original "Christopher Street Liberation Day" attaches to that march because I offered that term in committee. Most of us on the first committee were scarcely more than kids, tho some were in their thirties. I was 25. Some of the stalwarts of The Movement have since died of the diseases of old age, never having lived a day without the discrimination we worked to end. Every now and then we think we've made progress — and then something like this happens.
+
"Benilde" is a name I was not familiar with, so I researched it on the Internet:

Origin: Derived from the German and composed from berno- "bear," and hildjo, "battle, war," and means "who fights for the good."

Very appropriate.
+
The first blog mention of this outrage I checked, carried a comment by someone who pointed out that the time to challenge a foto was before the money was accepted and the book printed, not after. That commentator also observed that some New Jersey employers are resisting the State's requirement that the partners in "civil unions" be granted the same rights as married people, which I had heard on TV last week. Such resistance must be crushed. It does, however, argue for converting the feeble "civil union" law into simple "marriage". That way, the simple box "Married" could be checked on forms of all kinds, and qualification for spousal benefits would be automatic. What do people who are 'civilly unioned' check? Hm. (By the way, I have seen both the awkward phrase "civilly unioned" and the more standard-English phrase "civilly united". I suspect those who use "civilly unioned" are making commentary on the awkward unnaturalness of that legal state. "Married" is so much more graceful, isn't it?)
+
Alas, New York State may beat NJ to the punch in legalizing simple gay "marriage", which would reduce the advantage in attracting prosperous gay couples to New Jersey, people who would contribute to the community but make minimal demands upon government services, such as schools.
+
I remarked to Gaetano:

DISGRACEFUL. If the objection was to the pose (with one guy behind the other, but fully clothed), the people in charge of the yearbook should have asked for a picture of the two face to face. If they didn't want to accept any foto, they should have said so before the guy paid for it, so he could either accept that and withhold his money — or sue the bastards, because antihomosexual discrimination is ILLEGAL in NJ. Marion Bolden should be ashamed of herself — and removed from office for violating the NJ Law Against Discrimination (LAD). There is no place in the Newark public schools for antihomosexual discrimination.

The second blogger, from Newark, rightly compared the discrimination in this incident to racial discrimination.

It's been noted that the bias seen today against homosexuals has parallels to discriminatory policies of the past. Consider if the administrators had blacked out a photo of an interracial kiss, and read the comments again. It's the same attitudes, by the same sorts of people, just in a new era. We've made a lot of progress on the civil rights and tolerance frontier (this couple is probably not in danger of being lynched) but to continue making progress it's necessary to be aware of and condemn behavior like this.

I left the following comment at that blog:

The superintendent's behavior was not just rude. It was also ILLEGAL. The New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD) bars discrimination on the basis of "affectional or sexual orientation". See this official webpage of the State of New Jersey: http://www.state.nj.us/lps/dcr/law.html#LAD. Superintendent Bolden said she did not review the entire yearbook. But she had a legal obligation to do so, in order to determine whether what she proposed to do was discriminatory. She could easily have ordered that every kiss in the yearbook be flagged so she could review all such pictures. She did not do that but chose to jump to suppress an image of two boys kissing. She violated the law and vandalized thousands of dollars worth of books. It's time for her to go. Everyone offended by this should write to Governor Corzine to demand her ouster: http://www.state.nj.us/governor/govmail.html.

I'll write to the Governor myself when I have time. I should also see if Mayor Booker has email. Bolden is a State appointee; Newark does not have control of its schools yet. But Booker can put pressure on the State to oust her — as might, incidentally, empower him to put someone of his own choosing into that key spot!
+
Gay men have lifted marginal neighborhoods all over this country, and Newark could surely benefit from an influx of gay people. Shows of antigay bigotry by someone high in local government hurt the future of Newark, more than just the feelings of the students offended. At least the kids had the good sense to be offended. Do Newarkers generally?
+
(This is borrowed from my Newark fotoblog.)

Different Perspectives. Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Peter Pace is out on his ass, and two television worlds, news and entertainment, had two different reactions.
+
The news commentators said not one word about Pace's antihomosexual public pronouncement of three months ago, but ascribed his firing (or failure to be renominated, however you want to put it) as being due solely to the failure of the Iraq policy he oversaw.
+
Jay Leno, however, pointed out that Pace had made a very public stand against homosexuality as immoral. Mind you, a professional KILLER dared to describe homosexuality as immoral. "Make war, not love" is Pace's stance, whether he ever put it that way or not. Wikipedia's article on Pace quotes him thus:

In a March 12, 2007 discussion with editors of the Chicago Tribune, Gen. Pace said, "I believe homosexual acts between two individuals [how about among 6 or 7?] are immoral and that [the U.S. military] should not condone immoral acts ... I do not believe the United States is well served by a policy that says it is okay to be immoral in any way ... As an individual, I would not want [acceptance of gay behavior] to be our policy."

What an interesting perspective: mass murder good, sex bad.
+
Why the sharp difference of perceptions between news commentators, not one of whom I saw mention Pace's antigay remarks, and entertainment commentators?
+
The same week (day?), a star of ABC's medical drama Grey's Anatomy, Isaiah Washington, received the same news: his contract will not be renewed. Isaiah — I was going to abbreviate his name to just "Washington", but I do not wish to confuse the actor with the great man of U.S. history, so go with his first name; at least it's spelled right, unlike former basketball player Isiah Thomas's — Isaiah (W.) didn't take it well. Good. He tried to make amends, but everyone knew he was insincere and was just trying to save his job. Now he's out on his ass, just like the other antigay public figure . Good.
+
It's all too rare that I see any good news, and regular readers of this blog will see my reactions to a lot of bad things that happen all around us. This is a nice change of pace — oops: Pace.

'Jersey' Madness. I was irritated to find on AOL's welcome screen for people from North Jersey yesterday a link to "JerseyPride.org" — not to be confused with JerseyPride.COM, a website that promotes respect for New Jersey. JerseyPride.ORG turns out not to have anything to do with pride in New Jersey but is instead an insane organization for "the LGBTI community". "I"? What on Earth is the "I" for? Don't tell me "Intersex". Yup: "Intersexed". Their website is headed "Jersey Pride, Inc. producer of New Jersey's Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgendered and Intersexed Pride parades." Unbelievable.
+
There is no such thing as an "LGBTI community" any more than there is a single genius-retardate, evangelical-atheist, or any other single community drawn from mutually incompatible groups.
+
As I note in the profile on the top left of this blog, I am the man who in 1970 offered the term "Gay Pride" as it is now used. June has in recent years been designated "Gay Pride Month" — or, in some antigay circles, "Gay and Lesbian Pride Month", since gay men are never entitled to anything to themselves. So this first day of June is an appropriate time to address the madness that has taken over and practically destroyed the gay-rights movement.
+
I am appalled at what has happened. The Gay Movement, which is about a lot more than political progress, was always weakened by inclusion of outsiders and enemies, and has now been completely taken over by anti-gay, and especially anti-male, lunatics. It was bad enuf that from early on, the Movement in this country was shot-thru with lesbians, with whom gay men have absolutely nothing, intrinsic, in common; only outside disapproval, an extrinsic and largely extraneous matter in the lives of gay men once they have fought their way out of the closet.
+
Hell, gay men and lesbian women disapprove of each other fully as much as straight society disapproves of either!
+
There were even occasional heterosexual intruders, such as the odious Madolin Cervantes of the early New York Mattachine Society. Men just coming to terms with their attraction to men would go to a meeting of what they thought was an organization for gay men, and who should be at the podium but a heterosexual woman! Many of them were hugely embarrassed and offended, and never returned.
+
Over the decades, various loons expanded, diluted, and self-confuted the Movement by incorporating "bisexuals" — that is, confused people who so hate themselves and everyone else that they can never commit to anyone, of either gender; transvestites (called also "transgendered people") — utterly insane, self-despising losers who want the world to accept their astoundingly mad delusion that a person could be born "the wrong gender", that a man could be "a woman trapped in the body of a man", and vice-versa; and then, in some formulations, "Queers" (to form a presumably single, unified but actually nonexistent "LGBTQ" community). Never mind that "Queer" is the exact equivalent of "Nigger". In the case of "Jersey Pride" (Pride? It is to laff!), they decided to include the "Intersexed", people who are neither here nor there. Never mind that there are very few genetic intersexes (Wikipedia says the best approximation is 0.018% of the general population, or about 1,584 people, of all ages, in New Jersey), and some of those that do exist are sterile and retarded, because distinct gender is fundamental to human functioning.
+
So gay men went from being linguistically only half of their own movement, and second at that (it's almost always "lesbian and gay"; men are second, forced to sit in the back of the bus in their own movement), to 1/5 of their own movement. They are to be lumped in with, and their interests subordinated to those of, people with whom they share nothing.
+
What happens when an organization incorporates not just extraneous causes but mutually antagonistic groups and purposes into itself? It destroys itself, that's what. In the quest for larger numbers of participants in events, the Gay Movement has destroyed itself. It is now an Everybody Movement, which is of course also a Nobody Movement.
+
Why stop at Intersexes — that immense 0.018% (eighteen thousandths of one percent) of the population? Why not incorporate every conceivable "sexual minority": pedophiles (LGBTQIP), asexuals (LGBTQIPA), antisexuals (LGBTQIPAA), castrati and eunuchs (LGBTQIPAACE)? If you really want to grab for numbers, you obviously have to incorporate heterosexuals (LGBTQIPAACEH)! Indeed, since there are more heterosexuals than all the others combined, you'd have to put them first in the list (HLGBTQIPAACE). How about sex addicts (HLGBTQIPAACESA)? Sado-masochists (HLGBTQIPAACESASM)? Bestialists (HLGBTQIPAACESASMB)? Fist-f*kers (HLGBTQIPAACESASMBFF)? Foot-fetishists (HLGBTQIPAACESASMBFFFF)? Rapists ((HLGBTQIPAACESASMBFFFFR)? And on, and on thru all conceivable variations and distortions of the sexual impulse.
+
Heck, why stop at sexual groups? If you really want to widen your potential membership base, why not bring in more groups now on the outside of society? Alcoholics (HLGBTQIPAACESASMBFFFFA)? Drug-users (for simplicity, we won't break out such people by type of drug used, be it heroin, cocaine, meth, marijuana, OxyContin, etc.) (HLGBTQIPAACESASMBFFFFADU)? Shoplifters and kleptomaniacs (HLGBTQIPAACESASMBFFFFADUSK)? And on and on thru all the various groups of the demi-monde. Wouldn't that make for a parade!
+
What an interesting concept: in striving for a larger membership and thus more political clout, expand beyond all reason and destroy internal cohesion. What a great idea! Let's extend this to its 'logical' conclusion. How about increasing numbers for each group by merging the NAACP and Ku Klux Klan: NAAKKKCP. Merge Mensa and the Association for Retarded Citizens (MARC). How about a single political party for the Republican, Democratic, Green, Socialist Labor, Socialist Worker, and Communist Parties, plus independents (with independents placed first, of course): the IRDGSLSWCP?
+
How about merging Catholicism, Protestantism, Judaism, Mormonism, Sunni Islam, Shia Islam, Buddhism, Taoism, Unitarianism, atheism, and agnosticism into a single religion/nonreligion/antireligion, the Universal Communion of Believers and Nonbelievers (UCBNB)? It could hold services in Pig Latin.
+
Small sports concerned about their lack of enthusiasts could join with other sports organizations to increase their visibility. Instead of an NHL for hockey, USSF for soccer, MISL for indoor soccer, AFL for arena football, USL for lacrosse, etc., they could all merge with each other and with the (outdoor) NFL, Major League Baseball, and NBA to create one big, happy sports family: the NHSAFLOFBBA.
+
Snap out of it! Organizations that dilute themselves to increase numbers at the expense of internal cohesion are doomed to failure, and deserve to fail. Thus it is that 55 years of gay activism in the U.S. have produced legal same-sex marriage in one state of fifty. One.
+
The solution to small impact of separate organizations is not merger but coalition. Separate organizations retain their separate memberships but form ad-hoc alliances for specific purposes, and only for specific purposes. In every other area they retain full independence and are not bound to any other group's stances or purposes they do not share. That way they retain their internal cohesion but still get to affect public perceptions and politics.
+
But be very careful what coalitions you join, and who else is part of those coalitions. Gay organizations should be particularly concerned about being tainted by groups like NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Love Association) and Eulenspiegel (sado-masochists). Alliance with such groups not only reinforces perceptions by the wider society that gay men are child molesters and self-hating, violent degenerates but also tells gay men that they should consider child-molestation and self-despising sexual violence as normal.
+
Gay organizations need desperately to recognize the confused state that almost all gay boys start in, and steer them to wholesome and self-reinforcing, not self-subverting, attitudes and behaviors. Gay boys cannot learn to be gay men by seeing themselves as lesbians, "bisexuals", "transsexuals", "queers" (not normal, but queer, bizarre) or "intersexes". They need to identify solidly and solely as gay males, first boys, then men, and not ever anything else.