How could I not read this book? I just had to! Precisely because I feel that I have been pretty good these last years at desiring Arabs. But what a disappointment! In spite of an obvious knowledge of his field, I found myself in a strong disagreement with Massad's point of view particularly as it is expressed in the chapter, "Re-Orienting Desire: The Gay International and the Arab World." Here, Massad analyzes the so-called "Gay International" movement in an effort to criticize Western gay activists and more generally international human rights agencies that purport to fight homophobia internationally. He argues that these activists operate without any understanding of non-western sexualities, and as such engage in a kind of cultural imperialism in their efforts. More specifically, he argues:
"By inciting discourse about homosexuals where none existed before, the Gay International is in fact heterosexualizing a world that is being forced to be fixed by a Western binary". (188)
Let me first raise some suspicion regarding Massad's assertion of a so-called "Gay International." I am reminded here of paranoid delusions of a very powerful communist movement in the USA during the McCarthy era. I'm not the first to argue this about Massad - as Joseph Scagliotti noted in his review of the book (titled "The Myth of the Gay International"):
In other words, sex was all cool and fluid in the ancient East, and guys used to be able to "penetrate" other guys and not have to worry about being called anything. Those were the good old days, when sex didn't have to have horrible Western identities. Everyone was straight, so life was easy and gay. Then along came the "Gay International" and ruined it all, compelling poor straight people or bisexuals in those countries who are practicing their same-sex expressions into a gay (or straight) identity, and bringing out the worst in governments that previously paid no attention but now are forced to call in the hangman for the lovers who choose the wrong side.
If the Gay International was as influential as Massad implies - able to organize thousands of activists with a multi-million dollar budget - then presumably it would have found some success in securing political exile for Arabic people who have fled their countries of origin because of homophobic persecution. This, of course, is not the case.
Moreover, in lumping "Western gay activists" into this category of the "Gay International," Massad is himself constructing a conception of "the West" as coherent and unproblematic. Yet we know that within the West there are spirited and highly contested debates over what should constitute a politics of (homo)sexual identity. Gay marriage, for instance, has been the site of considerable debate between those who think it is the end-all-be-all of "gay rights," while other, more radical perspectives view it is an assimilationist effort to gain access to a corrupt, sexist institution.
Thus, even if we take Massad to be correct in his critique of the Orient as the colonial production of a Western knowledge, he should also think that both the categories of "Western world" and "Arab World" need to be deconstructed: their coherence is a facade, their own identities are plural and often in opposition. So when Massad reproaches this mythological "Gay International" for imposing a western homosexual identity in the Arabic world, I wonder what kind of essential identity does he postulate for the Arab World, and why this cultural unity should not be challenged by marginal subcultures?
After all, if the existence of the Gay International is possible today, isn't it the consequence of some historical, aggressive, proud, and/or painful sexual liberation initiated by a bunch of queers many years ago? I understand that his kind of approach may be strategic - at least from a political point of view - in that it is clearly a response to racist and neo-colonial constructions of Arabic cultures. But how could Massad avoid the issue of questioning the cultural hegemony of one dominant identity over many subaltern identities struggling for survival and expression in the margins of the Arab World?
I am thinking here of Jarrod Hayes' argument in his recent book, Queer Nations: Marginal Sexualities in the Maghreb, in which he argues that North African writers (for instance Driss Chraibi, Rachid Boudjedra, Assia Djebar) succesfully deconstructed the idea of one, united, coherent identity for Arabic Nation. This national identity which, of course, is patriarcal and homophobic, is regularly challenged by arab artists who promote alternative identities and ways of live for the Arab world in which they live. On a more contemporary note, I wonder what would Massad make of Abdellah Taia, an openly gay Moroccan writer who fiercely advocates in the Moroccan media in favor of a political acceptance of homosexuality in Morocco. Is Taia a secret agent of the Gay International? Has he been brainwashed by western ideology?
Another source of disappointment, not to say anger, is the way Massad revisits the gay bashing that happened in Egypt on the Queen Boat. In the section "Defending Rights" of his third chapter, Massad offers his interpretation of the 2001 police raid against a gay party going on in a boat on the Nile in Egypt. In the end, 55 men were arrested and had to face, on top of a trial, the fury of the crowd. This police raid triggered a variety of reactions in Western news outlets, most of which tended to fault the police and sympathize with the Egyptian men who were arrested. This is what Massad writes:
"Clearly most Egyptian men who practice same-sex contact neither know English nor have the wherewithal to afford Internet access, much less know how to use it. This is important in that the police do not seek to, and cannot if they were so inclined, arrest men practicing same-sex contact but rather are pursuing those among them who identify as 'gay' on a personal level and who seek to use this identity as a group identification through social and public activities. The campaign of the Gay International misses this important distinction". (183)
Interesting distinction, indeed, between Egyptian men who do not identity as gay and Egyptian men who do identify as gay: Massad suggests we should not worry for the first group because their homosexual practices are an "authentic" cultural habit of the Arab world and are thus not subject to harassment. The latter group, however, appears to be interpreted by Massad as seeking persecution because of their provocative choice of adopting a "Western" conception of gay identity. Thus, their hassassment is not the result of any sexual deviance, per se, but rather the outcome of cultural transgression -- the product of "choosing" to import or impose in the Arab world some Western gay way of life.
It is very sad, in the end, to feel that Massad, in the name of a political resistance against western hegemony, is not able to understand and support the internal logics of sexual resistance that happen within what he likes to think of as a united, coherent, Arab World. The documentary by Parvez Sharma entitled A Jihad for Love about the Islamic faith of Arabic homosexual people living in the Arab World is a relevant illustration of the plurality of interpretation of the Koran and of the plurality of lifestyles that result from these interpretations. Massad's distinction seems rather Manichean: there is not on one side a Arabic correct and discreet homosexuality, and on the other side an imported, neo colonial western homosexuality.
The title of my post, "Join the homosexual intifada!" is a reference and a tribute to a political porn movie by Bruce LaBruce, The Raspberry Reich, which provocatively articulates in how, in Western societies, extreme left revolutionary activists struggled to understand that to defeat the capitalist system, they had to promote a political Revolution that was also a sexual liberation. When in 1970 Jean Genet visited Palestinian activists in refugee camps, they knew he was openly gay but welcomed him with hospitality and gratitude for his political commitments. In an interview, Jean Genet went as far as saying that he was on the side of Palestinians because of his sexual fetishism for Arabic men. He was, against his own country, in favor of Algerian independence and his grave can be found, today, in a beautiful village in Morocco. What I have in mind, when I think of an expression like the "homosexual intifada", is the political and emotional connections that can happen between queers from both Western and Arab societies. Desiring Arabs, indeed!
This has got to be one of the more bizarre and twisted uses of logic by SCOTUS in recent memory. In a 5-4 partisan decision, conservative justices argued that Prop 8 supporters would likely be subject to "irreparable harm" if they were shown on closed-circuit feed:
The high court's five conservatives formed the majority. They said federal judge Vaughan Walker didn't follow court rules when he ordered proceedings broadcast by closed circuit to federal courthouses in several cities. The Supreme Court's four liberals joined a dissent written by Justice Stephen Breyer. The main issue in the case is whether a 2008 voter initiative called Proposition 8 violates the U.S. Constitution by creating a law that discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation. Defenders of Proposition 8 say it validly defined marriage in traditional terms by restricting marriage to people who could have children naturally. The proposition's defenders said broadcasting the proceedings could expose witnesses favoring the gay-marriage ban to harassment and ridicule. The Supreme Court majority backed that view, saying Proposition 8 supporters would likely suffer "irreparable harm" if the proceedings were shown through the closed-circuit feed.
Notably, this decision did not discuss posting the trial footage on Youtube, which is being decided upon at a lower court presently. Nevertheless, there has been a great push to frame evangelical Christian and Mormon supporters of Prop 8 and other anti-gay statutes as victims in the past five years. Their right to free speech is infringed upon by the harassment that ensues when they declare homophobic statements in the public sphere. This is actually quite interesting, because indeed LGBT supporters also have a right to free speech in criticizing them. But is that threat so great that they could suffer "irreparable harm"? That seems to me to be a bit of a stretch, no?
Remember how the old Fame movie dealt so explicitly and compellingly with homosexuality? Well, apparently, it's feasible to make a new take on the old classic while applying a bit of white-out to those parts that made the original so fabulous. AfterElton has this to say in their review:
Yesterday, AfterElton.com broke the story of how one of the characters, Kevin, was originally written as gay, but then the scene that established him as gay was cut, because the director felt it was too "campy" and inauthentic. The director told us he thought it was still "clearly obvious" that the character was gay anyway.
[snip]
Worse, very early on in the movie, there's a sequence with a very effeminate kid - one of the talentless wannabees that auditions for the school - that's played for laughs, and his queeniness is part of the joke.
The point is I taught at a high school for the performing arts a few years back (I'd like to think I was a cross between Lydia Grant and Mr. Shorofsky, but I suspect I was probably more like Mr. Vernon in The Breakfast Club).
Anyway, the idea that a story set at a school for the arts would have no visible gay presence among the students or faculty is outrageous.
If you missed it, here's what was said yesterday in an interview with the actor (Paul McGill) who plays the character (Kevin), who was allegeldy originally slated to be gay:
Was the character gay when he auditioned for the part? "Originally, he was," said McGill, who explained that the character also started out as "campy" and "superficial" but evolved in rewrites so he now has "... the darkest moments in the movie. The most ...emotional scenes in the movie."
Listen, fuckhead: Just because you don't know how to give authenticity or depth to a sissy doesn't mean that it can't be done. It just means you're a crap actor in a crap film.
This story out of Ontario, Canada is nothing short of terrifying:
John "Jake" Raynard suffered 15 fractures to his cheekbone, a broken eye socket, a broken jaw and a broken upper palate when six to eight men surrounded him near a North Cumberland Street business. Raynard, 30, and two friends were smoking outside of a bar after last call when a man approached them for a cigarette. The three friends walked away from the man after he became aggressive. Raynard said as they walked toward the Water Street Bus Terminal a group of males followed them shouting derogatory comments about their sexual orientation. "It was like they were waiting in the woodwork," said Raynard, who is gay, from his hospital bed. "The crowd just seemed to get bigger." One of the men grabbed Raynard's friend and started choking him. Raynard said he struck the man that was assaulting his friend and then began yelling at the group to try and scare them away. "I managed to fend off six to eight people by yelling long enough to get them (Raynard's two friends) into a cab," said Raynard. Once his friends were in the cab, Raynard said the group surrounded the taxi, preventing him from getting in. He decided to run through a nearby alley towards a local restaurant instead, grabbing a brick for self-defense as the men chased him. "I was screaming loud enough to wake up six blocks," said Raynard. "How did nobody hear me?"
A spirited defense of gay anger from San Francisco's National Sexuality Resource Center's Christopher White. Here's a taste:
As we all know, there was a brutal campaign to support Proposition 8 in California over the past year. We had to sit and watch as advertisement after advertisement scared voters by telling them that their children would have to be taught about us in their schools and that churches would lose their tax-exempt status for discriminating against us. And we had to defend ourselves by saying that wasn't true and that those were just lies and scare tactics. (Instead of saying "HELL, YES!" you have to teach about us and our struggles in schools and that churches need to pay taxes if they are promoting discrimination and/or engaging in political activism.) We even had to watch our own anti-Prop 8 campaigns make statements about how it was okay to not think that same-sex marriage was okay but "you don't want to take away anyone's rights, right?" Fuck you.
This hurts us. It slashes into our souls and makes us hemorrhage. We are left wounded, defeated, and sometimes feel like lying down to die. Straight people - I ask you to think about what it must feel like to have your life, your very existence discussed and debated in an open forum. Forget about the negative, hateful rhetoric for a second. Just think about strangers talking about your life and debating your rights on television. Think about the public being allowed to vote on how you live or what rights you have. This alone is enough to make you feel as though you weren't as good as everyone else. Now add the vitriol and hate - sulfuric acid thrown into an open wound. Think about being told that you are worthless, sick, disgusting, horrible, sinful, nasty, and not even worthy of living. Now think of this happening every single day of your life. You might start to feel just a little angry.
When I hear stories of black transgender women being murdered and the media failing to pick up the story and the white leaders of the LGBT movement failing to speak out against this horrible crime, I feel sick and angry. When I hear stories of a lesbian dying alone in a hospital room with her partner of twenty years and biological children being denied the right to be by her side, I feel sick and angry. When I read a story about a child killing himself because he was ridiculed as suspect of being gay, I cry, and I feel sick and angry.
I get asked why I'm so angry. Now, you know. Please don't ask me to stop screaming and yelling when I hear someone call someone (usually me) faggot or dyke. I know it's not always safe to speak out, but I have to do so. Please understand that if I get pissed because my queer space is invaded by straight people it's because I need, we need sanctuary. And please, please, please don't just give lip service to gay rights and don't just show up at a march. I need for you to get pissed off. We need for you to get pissed off. When you see me start acting crazy and ready to riot, don't tell me to calm down. Pick up a stick. Start screaming like an insane person. And let's scare the hell out of them.
There was quite an uproar over judge Nigel Lythgoe's homophobic comments in regards to an audition from two male dancers. He told the couple, "I think you probably alienate a lot of our audience. I mean, we've always had the guys dance together on the show, but I've -- they've never really done it in each other's arms before." Shortly thereafter, he added, "Do you know what? I'd like to see you both dancing with a girl." He later took to his Twitter account and noted that "The same sex ballroom guys did remind me of 'Blades of Glory.' However, I'm not a fan of 'Brokeback' Ballroom."
You can watch the original comments here:
Well, he's now trying to do some "damage control" rather poorly by insisting that it wasn't the men's sexuality that had him in a tizzy, it was rather their gender -- namely, that they were too effeminate for the dancefloor. He says on his Twitter:
I hear I'm taking a beating on the web due to my comments regarding same sex ballroom I thought I was the most accepting of it on the panel?
The same sex ballroom guys did remind me of "Blades of Glory." However, I'm not a fan of 'Brokeback' Ballroom.
I am very sad the word 'homophobe' is being used. That is someone who hates homosexuals. I dislike effeminate dancing! Wake up and listen!
I believe overtly effeminate dancing destroys the opportunity for many male dancers to be supported. Being gay doesn't mean effeminate.
We have had same sex dancing on SYTYCD from Season 1. Last year Joshua and Twitch. Before that Mia's Prince's routine with Danny and Neil.
I am passionate about dancers and dancing. I am not interested in their sexual preferences only their dancing and performances. Offstage ??
NL: Because they need to be very strong. Dancing is role-playing most of the time. And you need to be strong and lift girls. You need to look stronger than the girl you're dancing with. You control the dance, especially in ballroom. So if you mince about the stage, you're not doing what the choreographer is asking you to do. He's asking you to be strong. If your choreographer then wants to do an effeminate routine, then that's fine, but most of the time we don't do effeminate routines so straight or gay doesn't come into it for me.
This all reminds me of the way another reality TV show competition treated gay dancers -- Step It Up and Dancer. I wrote last year about how the judges routinely mocked or chastised the gay dancers for being overly effeminate, and that this was unacceptable behavior for the dancefloor.
I have two words for these assholes: FUCK YOU. It's almost worse than homophobia in my eyes because its homophobia's insidious veiled gender-fied core that is widely tolerated and promoted in every aspect of our culture (see my essay, "The Making of a Southern Faggot" in Beyond Masculinity for more on this). We need to destroy it -- to call it out by its name and expose it as nothing but disgusting and repellant bigotry.
Don't be fooled by his dance routine around the issue: Nigel Lythgoe is a sissyphobic, gender-policing bigot. He is one of many. We need to be vigilant in calling out the assholes who perpetuate this systematic prejudice and work to systematically reorder acceptable gender. That may include redefining and broadening masculinity, or it may include destroying the entire concept altogether. Whatever our project, gender as we currently understand it needs to go.
Sorry to clutter up the blog with all these news from France, but there is another great news today, and a historical one : French Minister of Health, Roselyne Bachelot, has just decided to remove transexualism from the list of mental disorders.
Why now? In 2005, my dear friend (and ex roommate) Louis-Georges Tin (who was also the editor of a wonderful Dictionary of Homophobia that has been translated into English in 2008) launched an International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia (IDAHO) that is celebrated every year on May 17th (because it was on May 17th, 1990 that homosexuality was removed from the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems by the World Health Organisation - the ICD is an international equivalent of the US DSM -- Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders). This event is being celebrated in more than 50 countries and has been officially recognized by several governments.
I must confess to having been sometimes skeptical about the advances that might result from an emphasis on "phobias" of any kind, rather than on "pride." Yet, I must also admit that I was wrong and that yesterday's decision of the French Minister of Health is a clear outcome of this International Day. Indeed, every year, Idaho picks up a specific topic and the 2009 one was transphobia. Therefore there is not the slightest shadow of a doubt that French Minister's decision, which was announced two days before May 17th, is related to the event. So, to Louis-Georges and the many activists who run this celebration : CONGRATS!
(For those of you who may be interested in my criticism of some French gay association's reaction to this news, just go to my blog... It is French stuff maybe of little interest for US readers)
A campus Christian group that receives funding from the student activity fee is coming under scrutiny after a student was asked by advisors to step down from its leadership team when he told them that he had openly accepted his homosexuality. This incident is also raising questions about the effectiveness of campus mechanisms for addressing instances of discrimination.
Chris Donohoe '09, who joined the Chi Alpha Christian Fellowship when he was a freshman, said he had been openly struggling to reconcile his sexuality with his faith in Chi Alpha before he was asked to step down from the leadership team by Matt and Tracy Herman, the organization's pastors. The Hermans, both members of Chi Alpha at Missouri State University before graduating in 2002, became Cornell Chi Alpha's campus pastors in 2006.
The leadership team consists of 12 or 13 especially dedicated students who lead bible studies, teach and are "good examples," according to Danielle D'Ambrosio '10, Chi Alpha's president. The leadership team differs from titled leadership positions because students do not have to apply to be part of the team.
Before joining the leadership team, Donohoe was vice president during his junior year. To enter a titled position in Chi Alpha, students must apply through the Hermans and demonstrate that they uphold certain values, including not engaging in premarital sex, and refraining from drinking alcohol and taking drugs, according to Donohoe.
"I thought it would be an awesome opportunity to be an openly gay man in a Christian organization," Donohoe said.
After Donohoe finished his term as vice president, he was going to be on the leadership team last fall. The Hermans told Donohoe that they were comfortable with his position as long as he did not engage in a relationship. However, after Donohoe met his boyfriend last summer and affirmed his acceptance of his sexuality, the Hermans asked him to step down from the team without consulting the rest of the organization.
"I told them I've thought about [my sexuality] and I'm 100 percent OK with my sexuality. ... I wanted the opportunity to show them I love god and I'm gay and it's OK," Donohoe said.
D'Ambrosio explained that Donohoe was asked to step down because he no longer believed his sexuality was a sin and stopped actively working to overcome it, disregarding the Bible.
"The decision to ask Chris to step down was not that he did something wrong in having homosexual tendencies. [It was because] he no longer thought it was wrong. ... I support the decision fully," D'Ambrosio said.
A number of interesting things happening here. Note the comparison of homosexuality to doing drugs, drinking alcohol, and having premarital sex. Note the pastors' insistence that it wasn't because Donahoe had homosexual DESIRES, its because he had homosexual PRACTICES. Desire is okay, but action is not. But then the organization President says it's also not because he did something "wrong," but that he stopped believing what he was doing was wrong! So it's okay to have desires, and okay to practice, as long as you believe you're a sinner in the end. Sigh. Fucking religious wonks.
I am reminded here of a situation at UNC Chapel Hill when a Christian Fraternity -- Alpha Iota Omega -- refused to sign an anti-discrimination policy required of all student groups who received campus funds. They claimed religious discrimination, and then university eventually caved and revised the policy to allow religious and political organizations the right to discriminate.
Debates about Hate Crimes Legislation are heating up again, and I want to take a moment to take an unpopular stance by asking an unpopular question: why are hate crimes worse than other kinds of crimes?
Let's start by unpacking their rationale. It seems there are a few principles that underlie hate crimes prohibitions:
1) Deterrence: Legislation against hate crimes would deter people from committing such crimes.
2) Symbolic Violence: Hate crimes are more egregious than other kinds of violence because they are the products of institutionalized prejudice and discrimination, which makes them unfairly patterned against particular groups of people. Therefore, they should be penalized more harshly.
3) Humiliating: Hate crimes are especially humiliating and denigrating, because the rationale behind their being committed is tied so closely to the victim's social group membership.
I have to say, I find none of these reasons particularly compelling. First, we have no evidence (that I'm aware of) to suggest that hate crimes statutes deter people from committing them. I think we could look similarly to the bulk of evidence for capital punishment that demonstrates that even having the penalty of death as a possible consequence for committing crime does not serve to deter or reduce violent crime. So it would make no sense to expect that Hate Crimes legislation would serve to do that.
Second, I really can't wrap my head around the idea that somehow an act of violence motivated by prejudice is somehow worse than the same act of violence motivated for any other reason. Being beaten up for being gay is a truly awful thing. But I do not believe that it is any worse than being beaten up for your money. Both are awful experiences that should be criminally punished, but I do not believe that there are adequate grounds for penalizing bias-motivated crimes more so than other kinds of crime.
Further, I truly believe that these kinds of statutes just further reify social categories and oversimplify complex situations. I'm reminded here of the case a few years ago when the Black gay DJ, Kevin Aviance, was assaulted in New York City while he was leaving the Phoenix club in drag. This was immediately labeled a gay hate crime, but it's clearly not that simple. Kevin's not just gay -- he was also in drag and Black. Sure, the assailants hurled anti-gay slurs. But how did they know he was gay? It's not about who he fucks -- it's about his gendered presentation. And were he white or not in drag, would the same situation have arisen? In other words, a potentially complex scenario gets reduced to homophobia in a "Hate Crimes" world.
Obviously I want hate rimes to end, but I don't think this kind of legislation is the right solution. I'm open to rethinking these ideas, but at the moment I believe that Hate crimes laws should not be the focus of LGBT organizations. It's the wrong battle, with very little to gain if we win. Focus on something more meaningful, like more subsidized housing for HIV-Positive people. Or immigration reform for same-sex couples. Or universal health care. Or employment non-discrimination! Sigh. But not Hate Crimes. What a waste of time, energy, and emotions.
What culture do we live in that rules that a 14 year-old should be tried as an adult? 15 year-old Lawrence King was murdered killed for being queer earlier this year. Obviously, the crime is heinous: Brandon McInerney shot him in the head during class with 20 other students around. But I strongly disagree that children should ever be tried as adults. McInerney faces up 51 year to life in prison. He was just ruled competent to stand trial (this was separate from the previous decision to try him as an adult, which several LGBT groups decried).
If you're unsure about whether those under 18 should be tried as adults, watch Juvies, a powerful documentary about 12 juvenile offenders being tried as adults. You will get a sense of the fucked up system that imprisons them and locks them away for their lives. Here's a preview:
(Sao Paulo, Brazil) Brazilian officials say a state police officer may be involved in the murders of 13 gay men in a low-income suburb of Sao Paulo.
The Sao Paulo State Public Safety Department says a police sergeant is suspected of taking part in the killings that occurred between February 2007 and August 2008 at the Paturis Park, a favorite meeting point for gay men.
The department said Wednesday that neither the sergeant nor anyone else has been arrested in the case. It said it would not provide further details to avoid jeopardizing the investigation.
Quote of the interview: "I live in New York City, so I think it's fair to say that I have more experience being around them. And I'll tell you this, religion is far more of a choice than homosexuality. And the protections that we have for religion -- we protect religion -- and talk about lifestyle choice! That is absolutely a choice." Nice, Jon!
This article has me so burnt up, I can barely type. The intro says it all: "They're smarter, sexier, and far more successful than you'll ever be. And they definitely don't speak with a lisp. Meet America's new ruling class—the Alpha Gays." In other words, successful gays today are masculine, sexy, and basically adhering to all the problematic standards of straightdom to cash in on economic success. Heteronormativity, embodied.
Well, a big fuck you to Details for glorifying their excellent performance at hegemonic masculinity while denigrating guys who "cruise the gay clubs," "steroid queens," guys who wear "torn jeans and leopard-print tops," and -- pointedly the "Carson Kressleys and Steven "Kojo" Cojocarus" of the world. This isn't just an expose on the new gay elite, it's a hit piece on sissies everywhere.
Again I say, Fuck you, Details! I haven't ever picked up your trashy excuse for a magazine, and I won't be anytime soon. It already has a history of being a racist pile of shit. Now it can add homophobic, masculinist, and sissy-bashing to its list of accomplishments for our community. I won't buy your crappy magazine, and I encourage my readers to do the same.
Chuck Norris is whining about the anti-Prop 8 activism:
The truth is that the great majority of Prop. 8 advocates are not bigots or hatemongers. They are American citizens who are following 5,000 years of human history and the belief of every major people and religion: Marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman. Their pro-Prop. 8 votes weren't intended to deprive any group of its rights; they were safeguarding their honest convictions regarding the boundaries of marriage.
For those keeping track of those so in love with "traditional marriage", Norris is twice-married with five kids, including a bastard child from an adulterous affair. His present wife, 28 years younger than Norris, is also younger than two of his children. He does not believe in evolution, but does believe in the Hair Club For Men.
My recently engaged queer friend in San Francisco recently tried to order custom M&M candies from their website to say "Gay Family." He was shocked to recieve this e-mail response, rejecting his order because it did not support the "family-nature of our brand":
Dear [Friend's Name],
Thank you for your interest in personalized MY M&M'S® Chocolate Candies.
We support the family-nature of our brand and therefore sometimes cannot accept orders based upon the requested customization regardless of the intended meaning. Unfortunately, while we are certain your message was submitted with the best of intentions, we must adhere to the strict guidelines posted on our website.
Please contact our call center at 1.888.696.6788 from 8:30 AM to 9:00 PM EST Monday through Friday to discuss with one of our specialists some alternative messages for your customization as we cannot print your originally requested text. We are eager to work with you to find a resolution. A response is needed within two (2) business days; otherwise, we would need to cancel.
Sincerely,
Your friends at MYM&M'S®\Kandy"
Fuck M&M's and their parent company, Mars. Boycott their asses.
How exactly does "Gay Family" not support the "family-nature" of their brand? Outrageous! Nothing on their official list of "Do's and Don'ts" indicates this would be a problem. Of the four listed do-not's, it seems that "Gay Family" must fall under the category of "Obscenity":
Please don't use objectionable words and phrases. No obscenities. We don't want to leave a bad taste in their mouth.
Custom printed MY M&M's are for personal use only. No business names, product names, celebrity names, specific sports teams, major events, landmarks, and names of schools or institutions.
To avoid any confusion and keep everyone safe we will not print any reference to drugs or prescription items, especially those that are in pill or capsule form.
We take great pride in the history of M&M's products, so the only single letter we print on our candy is the letter M.
Defamer notices that SNL's declining ratings has forced it to resort to making fun of gays in their skits. They note not just two or three -- but SIX skits this past Saturday that used homosexuality as a punchline:
Where do you mine for easy laughs when you no longer have the most satirizable election in history at your disposal? In SNL's case, that would be the Gays, a topic this week's Paul Rudd-hosted episode visited and revisited so often, we lost count. And where does the show stand on the subject, in this, arguably the most important week for gay civil rights in history?
Pretty gross, guys. Grow up. Click the photo above for their video reel highlighting the skits.
This is the most amazing / outrageous / fagtastic video I've ever seen in my entire life forever and ever. Omg. J over at CnC posted it to celebrate comedian Wanda Sykes coming out at a marriage rally yesterday. Yay, Wanda!
About Us Trevorade is a community of people just like you who spend their days thinking about sex, gay men's health, and HIV/AIDS. Welcome!
We Need Your Support We're supported almost exclusively by donations from generous souls like yourself. So please, if you enjoy the content here, shell out a few gay dollars to help us cover our hosting bills.
Pam's House Blend
She's a fabulous North Carolinian blogging about politics, LGBT and women's rights, the influence of the far Right, and race relations. What more can I say?
