Gay Patriot Header Image

2005 Was Good For Gays! 2005 Was Terrible For Gays!

Posted by Bruce Carroll at 6:36 am - January 4, 2006.
Filed under: Gay America

These two interpretations of the success, or lack thereof, of the gay community last year certainly illustrate the phrase “looking at things ‘half-empty’ versus ‘half-full’.

First, the optimist….. Deb Price at the Detroit News: 2005 Was a Year of Good Cheer for the Nation’s Gays

But we should honor 2005 as the year Maine voters overwhelmingly refused to repeal a law banning anti-gay discrimination and the year Illinois adopted such protections. Connecticut quietly followed Vermont’s 2000 lead, becoming the second state with civil unions. In Congress, legislation to allow gays to serve openly in the military was finally introduced and gained 109 co-sponsors.

In the past two centuries, our planet has warmed up to the rights of women, people of all races and religious minorities. Gay people have been part of that warming trend for decades, but 2005 marks the moment when it really heated up.

And now the gloom, doom and fundraising-esque picture reflected in most of the Gaystream Media….. courtesy of Chris Crain at the Washington Blade: A Year of Living Dangerously.

After almost a decade of editing gay newspapers, this was the year that our struggle against ignorance and intolerance for me became personal — really personal.

For most of my thirties, covering our fight for equality and fairness, from government and from society, was more a matter of principle. If you believe in American and Judeo-Christian values, and I do, then you believe that informing people about the injustices of the world is the first and most important step toward correcting them.

I have never approached this task with rose-colored glasses. I have lived almost all my life in the Deep South, and I know a thing or two about how misguided even good people can be about our lives and our “agenda.”
But each and every week, as we reported about hate crimes and unjust laws, I felt mostly empathy. Not anymore.

Now in defense of Chris’ piece, he did have a very horrible 2005 at a personal level — he and his partner were attacked in Amsterdam and Chris was hurt quite badly. So I can cut him some slack in his anger.

But the overall negative ‘victims-R-Us’ themes are reflected in other places (the Blade labeling the Pope as 2005’s Anti-Gay Poster Child…while ignoring hangings of gay kids in Iran — a country we are in a virtual “cold war” with), the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force having an Imam attack Christianity (under the cover of the “religious right”), and finally Chris himself has now firmly and finally planted his seed of anger in the “Forced Outing” coalition of the Rabid Gay Left. (I can’t give him slack here… he knows better).

My wish for 2006 is that those dwindling moderates who remain in positions of influence (hey, Patrick…. this means YOU!…I think.) in the gay community will start to speak more of the language of America and less of the language of victims.

There are too many examples in the year 2006 of successful gays across America (“out” or not) for our community to be continuing their self-loathing victimization much longer. Especially when all it serves is to advance the Liberal political agenda and so-called non-partisan “charitable” fundraising efforts. It is really getting old and pathetic.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Share

46 Comments

  1. Maybe Chris Craine would have had a better year if he had saved money on car insurance by switching to GEICO.

    Comment by V the K — January 4, 2006 @ 7:17 am - January 4, 2006

  2. I think the main point of all of this is fund-raising. Both the Right and the Left use fear, anger, and prejudice in an attempt get people to give them money. I’ve been getting fundraising letters from each side lately. It’s like being forced to watch a never-ending marathon of Scare Tactics.

    Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — January 4, 2006 @ 12:01 pm - January 4, 2006

  3. LOL to #1.

    Comment by Hello Moto — January 4, 2006 @ 12:31 pm - January 4, 2006

  4. Is Chris Crain really the “usual” gay media?

    Chris hired Jeff Gannon to write for the paper in spite of controversy. He wrote about the Muslims who beat him, even though it’s taboo in many gay circles to discuss the violent rage so many Muslims have towards homosexuals. If, as many claim, the gay liberal culture is afraid of criticizing Islam, then how would Chris talking about his attack help his fundraising? If he had focused on gay kids being hanged in Iran, wouldn’t that be just more doom-and-gloom? Most of the liberal gays I know hate Chris and think he has ruined the Blade/Southern Voice/etc. papers.

    GP, I see what you are getting at, but perhaps we should consider the possibility that having a negative view of gay life in 2005 does not automatically equal being a leftie. Deb Price is more of a liberal than Crain. Sometimes people just have a bad year.

    Comment by Carl — January 4, 2006 @ 12:54 pm - January 4, 2006

  5. Most of the liberal gays I know hate Chris and think he has ruined the Blade/Southern Voice/etc. papers.

    Which is probably why he decided to turn around and favor outing; that’s the one foolproof way I know to buy street cred with the liberal gay crowd.

    It’s a pity, actually; if he had realized that the irrational hatred is what drives him and his fellow leftists to alternately condemn Islam and coddle it, demand privacy for themselves while denying it to others, bewail why the religious won’t shake his hand while he’s spitting in their face, wonder why the Republicans won’t do a thing for him when he makes it clear that he’ll hate them regardless of what they do, and ponder why Democrats constantly stab him in the back when he publicly acknowledges he’ll support them regardless of what they do….he could have been useful.

    But for now, he’ll just be another gay leftist wondering why gay conservatives, when asked to “come out” and lend credibility to the movement, continually tell him to go f*ck himself.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 4, 2006 @ 1:09 pm - January 4, 2006

  6. It’s interesting that Chris Crain was attacked in Amsterdam. Not in America.

    I’m in no way suggesting that all America has evolved beyond anti-gay violence. But obviously, Old Europe is not better. I hope Chris stops to notice that he personally was not (or hasn’t been) gay-bashed in America.

    In his article, Chris writes that he was attacked “by seven young Moroccan men on the streets of Amsterdam, of all places”. That answers my next question about his attack. It was done by Muslim extremists.

    I have to say, I am not terribly surprised. But notice that Chris was. Notice he wrote, “…Amsterdam of all places.”

    Was Chris ignorant of the van Gogh murder? Or of Europe’s huge problems with un-assimilated Muslim immigrants? Is he ignorant of what Muslim extremists are up to in Iran and other places, and why they are, in fact, qualitatively far different from (much worse than) Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson?

    Well, at least Chris acknowledged in his article that it was Clinton who gave us DOMA, and that the Bush administration frequently grants asylum to persecuted gays from abroad.

    But he only acknowledges it in a fragmentary, disconnected way – not drawing obvious inferences.

    Overall, it would appear that Chris was attacked by America’s and civilization’s very own enemies in the War on Terror – yet his just anger at the attack is now to be directed inside America, to some extent “at America”.

    Comment by Calarato — January 4, 2006 @ 1:11 pm - January 4, 2006

  7. Good post Bruce.

    Unfortunately, it looks like 2006 will be another “Year of the Victim” for gays because the radical GayLeft groups have to feed the DNC political machine with money and activists –GayLefties can’t expect to be enslaved without paying for that affiliation with the LibLeftAmerica. As countless other LibLeft groups have proven: victimhood well worn can led to pity, public sympathy and some progress on your agenda. Feeding the machine of the LibLeft means the GayLeft have to use THEIR mechanisms and slogans and proven strategies because that’s the common tongue.

    But like you, I wish it weren’t so.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — January 4, 2006 @ 1:18 pm - January 4, 2006

  8. -Which is probably why he decided to turn around and favor outing; that’s the one foolproof way I know to buy street cred with the liberal gay crowd. –

    Outing isn’t the exclusive territory of liberals. In Maine a few years ago one of the anti-gay leaders, something Heath, tried to out homosexual legislators and only backed down after both parties blasted him.

    It’s a pity, actually; if he had realized that the irrational hatred is what drives him and his fellow leftists to alternately condemn Islam and coddle it, demand privacy for themselves while denying it to others, bewail why the religious won’t shake his hand while he’s spitting in their face, wonder why the Republicans won’t do a thing for him when he makes it clear that he’ll hate them regardless of what they do, and ponder why Democrats constantly stab him in the back when he publicly acknowledges he’ll support them regardless of what they do….he could have been useful.-

    I haven’t read everything Chris Crain has written, but I thought he had been as critical of backstabbing Democrats as you and other people have been. I didn’t know he had said he would support them whatever they did. I can also sympathize with him for being disullisioned with the Methodist Church after they restored the minister who did not want a gay man attending his church.

    I think if anything Crain’s comments showed a violent event can shake up any ideology whether the ideology be conservative or liberal. He shows whether he means to or not just how destructive the prejudice of Islam can be.

    Comment by Carl — January 4, 2006 @ 1:21 pm - January 4, 2006

  9. If, as many claim, the gay liberal culture is afraid of criticizing Islam,

    I think it equally accurate that the Right is generally unwilling to criticise Islam either. And both are unwilling to criticise Christianity when they should. The Atlanta bomber Rudolph, was motivated by his religion. He is a Christian extremist. But instead he was for the most part labed an “anti-abortion” extremist. But thats really only a partial descrption of what he is. But what would happen if he were openly labled as a Christian extremist ? We would be told that we were being bigoted toward Christianity. And of course if we were talking about both the Islamist attackers and Rudolph and referred to them as “religious extremists” we would be called “anti-religion”, secular humanists, etc.

    Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — January 4, 2006 @ 3:15 pm - January 4, 2006

  10. #9 – Bad argument, Gryph.

    Small point of fact: The Right criticizes Islam all the time. Just go to littlegreenfootballs.com, which is fairly obsessed with it. But on to more important points.

    I have yet to meet a conservative / rightist who is unwilling to criticize and condemn clinic bombers. Or any form of Christianity so corrupt and extreme that they could lead a person to that.

    On the other hand, I have met several leftists – and several Muslims – who are fairly unwilling to criticize and condemn Islamic mass-murder bombers. There seems to be something about Islam where they are often unwilling to stand up to their extremists.

    The issue is: What does the mainstream of a given group/religion practice, condone, reject, support or condemn?

    Every group and religion in existence is, sooner or later, going to attract someone profoundly corrupt who practices monstrosities in its name. Does the group or religion make it clear to that person, and the world, that he is NOT what they stand for?

    Christians, and/or conservatives (remembering the 2 are by no means synonymous), sincerely and consistently condemn clinic bombers. BTW, they also condemn gay-bashers. For that reason, they do not deserve to be tarred with the actions of the crazy bomber/basher who CLAIMS (wrongly) to be acting for them.

    Muslims, and/or far-leftists, frequently stay silent about their bombers – if not applauding the bombers outright. For that reason, they deserve to be tared with the actions of the crazy bomber/basher who claims to be acting for them.

    Comment by Calarato — January 4, 2006 @ 4:36 pm - January 4, 2006

  11. #10 – P.S. This would be one of the reasons that voicing one’s moral approval / disapproval is important in life. And please forgive the typos.

    Comment by Calarato — January 4, 2006 @ 4:39 pm - January 4, 2006

  12. #10 Final conclusion: Not all “religious extremists” are the same (or acting with the same support of their religion). And not all religions deserve to be tarred with the murderous actions of their crazy extremists, to the same degree.

    Comment by Calarato — January 4, 2006 @ 4:45 pm - January 4, 2006

  13. Therefore it is fair and legitimate to speak of “Islamic extremist” mass-murder bombers, but NOT “Christian extremist” clinic bombers.

    (Sorry for the trail of add-ons, but I want to make sure I’ve addressed your argument as directly as possible.

    Comment by Calarato — January 4, 2006 @ 4:47 pm - January 4, 2006

  14. I think 2005 was a relatively squandered year for gays… in 2004 11/11 states voted ‘no’ to allow gay marriage… the gay community needed to work on this and acknowledge this in 2005. Maybe in 2006 they’ll address the problem in anticipation of the midterm elections..

    Comment by Kevin W — January 4, 2006 @ 5:10 pm - January 4, 2006

  15. Outing isn’t the exclusive territory of liberals. In Maine a few years ago one of the anti-gay leaders, something Heath, tried to out homosexual legislators and only backed down after both parties blasted him.

    Notice that point, Carl — both parties. Both parties realized that outing was wrong, unfair, and completely destructive.

    Meanwhile, as to the current outing:

    Considering that Democratic Representative Louise Slaughter, whose PR director is one of John Aravosis’s cronies, has funneled money to both Aravosis and Mike Rogers to run their outing campaigns, with the full approval and knowledge of the Democratic Party, I would say that this is a deliberate effort on Democrats’ part. I wonder what their puppets Barney Frank and Tammy Baldwin think about this — or if they don’t already know and are deliberately aiding it.

    Considering that both Aravosis and Rogers, the ringleaders of outing efforts, have publicly stated the following:

    Both Aravosis and Rogers said they continue to collect information from their network of sources, which include employees of the Human Rights Campaign and Log Cabin Republicans, and plan on outing more staffers and members.

    Notice that exact phrasing — not members, not volunteers, employees. People who are paid by both of these organizations are supporting and assisting, no doubt using their on-the-job knowledge, these outing campaigns.

    Now Chris Crain apparently wants to add the Washington Blade and the rest of its media group to serve these people.

    Do you see why I have nothing but contempt for the Democratic Party, the gay rights organizations, and now Chris Crain, especially while they protect their own antigay bigoted Democrats who stay closeted?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 4, 2006 @ 5:25 pm - January 4, 2006

  16. #9 — Another attempt to smear Christianity. Every mainline denomination has condemned people who bomb abortion clinics (not that any actual clinic bombings have taken place in this century) Whereas there is no broad Islamic condemnation of terrorist acts. Indeed, Iran, a country run entirely by Muslim clerics, is the leading state supporter of terrorism in the world. Polls of Muslims worldwide show substantial and even majority support for terrorist acts in some countries.

    If the Vatican were encouraging Christians to blow up abortion clinics, your “Christian extremist” smear might be relevent to the debate. But until you can show me where churches are actively encouraging their members to commit acts of terrorism, it remains just a dirty smear against people of Christian faith.

    Comment by V the K — January 4, 2006 @ 5:59 pm - January 4, 2006

  17. -I think 2005 was a relatively squandered year for gays… in 2004 11/11 states voted ‘no’ to allow gay marriage… the gay community needed to work on this and acknowledge this in 2005.-

    It’s going to take a long time to settle this type of issue, because there is no one solution on how to stop these bans from passing. If I had any wish on how to deal with these bans the wish would be for people to stop arguing about who is to blame. I have heard a million times about how it’s all the fault of gays because gays pushed too far, when I think the Republicans were going to make this an issue no matter what – back in 2003 Ed Gillespie said they would run against civil unions if same-sex marriage was not on the table. I also think the gays who claim they did nothing wrong and they just want equality and happily ever after and everyone who disagrees is a bigot have a tin ear, and they’re unable to scale back their rhetoric for the general public. Both sides need to meet.

    Comment by Carl — January 4, 2006 @ 6:21 pm - January 4, 2006

  18. #16

    You prove my point. Even just suggesting that Christianity can be criticized in the first place is the great taboo. If you break it, or as I have done, merely just suggest that it should be broken, you immediately get labeled as smearing Christianity or of being intolerant or anti-Christian. There is absolutely nothing in my original post (#9) that can be interpreted as being “anti-Christian”. Its an observation of fact, that the correct description of both the men that attacked Evans and of Rudolph is “Religious Extremist”. That does not mean that all religions are morally equivalent either. I’ll take a Christian tyranny over an Islamic one any day. Christianity is clearly better than Islam, but thats just my opinion. But that doesn’t mean I have to consider the death sentence for eating shellfish a fair and reasonable moral punishment either. It should be OK to say that sometimes the Bible is just plain wrong.

    Really V the K, you are determined to be your own personal culture of victimization. Awwwwwwww… poor baby.

    Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — January 4, 2006 @ 7:29 pm - January 4, 2006

  19. Dan, I think you should write more about your time in MA College Republicans. Is it true what they said about Reagan’s regiments in the 1980’s? Did y’all really wear navy blazers and khakis and look like a bunch of stuffed shirts? Do you often hear in the news names you were familiar with back then?

    Comment by Hello Moto — January 4, 2006 @ 7:46 pm - January 4, 2006

  20. #18 — Ah, Gryph’s time-honored “debate” technique. Step 1: Assert a smear as fact. Step 2: When challenged to cite evidence, weasel and then insult the person who challenged you to cite evidence.

    Comment by V the K — January 4, 2006 @ 8:10 pm - January 4, 2006

  21. The Crain op-ed mentions the rating systems several times. How does the HRC determine the scoring? What kind of criteria points to what is pro/anti gay? Is the HRC non-partisan?

    For the record, Rudolph, under most definations, wouldn’t qualify as a Religious Extremist although Anti-Govt Extremist or Nihilist Extremist would likely fit. Sorry, I don’t know how to embed a link.

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-07-05-rudolph-cover-partone_x.htm?POE=NEWISVA

    Comment by cbi — January 4, 2006 @ 8:18 pm - January 4, 2006

  22. Carl @ #17… on the issue of 11 out of 11 “anti-gay” initiatives in 2005 passing, I like to thank the HRC for their collective LACK of leadership, third-rate political activism, and failed strategies in those states Carl. Let alone using scarce political resources and capital to fund non-essential efforts and reward political allies.

    I took an HRC bumper sticker… which looks terrific in maize and blue, btw… and turned it sidweways to make an “11” rather than an “equal” sign. Good use of the sticker. I’ve gotten more gay/lesbo/str8 friends asking me about it than I ever got in the early 90’s when I stupidly put one on my car after an HRC dinner… here in Ann Arbor, you see the stickers ALL over town –I love it when peers make note of it to me to “correct” my mistaken placement. HA

    And Carl, I think the first step is exactly what Bruce is offering here– we (gays in general) need to stop playing the victim-slash-pity-slash-fail-at-the-ballot-box-so-turn-2-the-courts game that the GayLeft’s politicalsisters in the enviromental movement and black civil rights movement have done so effectively over the last 20 years.

    We need to declare we AREN’T victims of anything.

    We deserve full rights; period.

    And the majority of us want a piece of the American dream –the ability to adopt, unite, and be free from harassment… plus whatever else gets added by the GayLibertarians, the GayGreens, the GaySecularists, the GayWhatevers.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — January 4, 2006 @ 8:23 pm - January 4, 2006

  23. Matt, I agree with you we don’t need to be victims. Unfortunately when we say we want full rights, the response from many who are hostile to gays is – “You already have the right to marry. You can marry someone of the opposite sex”. Or – “You want rights? Make up a will. Get a power of attorney.” They don’t want to discuss the complexities of this issue.

    Comment by Carl — January 4, 2006 @ 9:05 pm - January 4, 2006

  24. They don’t want to discuss the complexities of this issue.

    Just as the pro-same-sex marriage crowd is unwilling to realistically and conscientiously consider the reservations held by the other side. In your own answer, you simplistically dismiss the basis of opposition as “hostility to gays.”

    Comment by V the K — January 4, 2006 @ 9:21 pm - January 4, 2006

  25. #2
    Both the Right and the Left use fear, anger, and prejudice in an attempt get people to give them money.

    Really? I haven’t gotten any of those letters. What mailing list are you on?

    #9

    I think it equally accurate that the Right is generally unwilling to criticise Islam either.

    Would it be better if we sent th BATF in to storm some Mosques and have a few stand-offs?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 5, 2006 @ 12:05 am - January 5, 2006

  26. -Just as the pro-same-sex marriage crowd is unwilling to realistically and conscientiously consider the reservations held by the other side. In your own answer, you simplistically dismiss the basis of opposition as “hostility to gays.” –

    Most of the people who say something like, “marry someone of the opposite sex” are hostile to gays, in my mind. They are being glib and condescending. People who say, “get a will” are also being glib.

    If someone says, “my religious beliefs make me oppose gay marriage, why should I feel differently” or “why not just civil unions”, then I don’t their hostile. Someone who just smirks that gays should marry a member of the opposite sex are on the same level of those people who talk about Adam and Steve.

    Comment by Carl — January 5, 2006 @ 3:08 am - January 5, 2006

  27. If they are being glib (which is a matter of perception, of course), it may be as a response to the way same-sex marriage advocates have framed the debate; making it all about grabbing benefits instead of framing it as a means to create an institutional framework for stable, long-term, monogamous relationships.

    Comment by V the K — January 5, 2006 @ 8:17 am - January 5, 2006

  28. -If they are being glib (which is a matter of perception, of course), it may be as a response to the way same-sex marriage advocates have framed the debate;-

    Perhaps, but if they aren’t even willing to have a real discussion, then I can’t blame their immaturity on gay activists. They are in a position of power, and they often feel threatened about losing that power.

    Comment by Carl — January 5, 2006 @ 11:02 am - January 5, 2006

  29. VdaK –bingo. You nailed it. Rather than argue about the benefits that same-sex unions fail to secure or enjoy, we should be demonstrating how same-sex unions can lead to stable, monogamous LTRs… and using our community’s best examples as posterboi and postergal. And we need to self-regulate our community and redefine LTR as something beyond 6 months or two instances of refraining from extracurricular sex.

    Slap those images of the gayposterboi on the sides of buses instead graphic condom ads related to STDs and we might start impacting American voters, policy makers, and the public policy elites.

    But that might be moving out the safe, preferred spot of victimhood for our community –and we’d split our political might into fragments with such a radical manuever… leaving the GayLeft and the LibLeft political culture of victimhood to fend for themselves. And I know those people will not TOLERATE moving away from victimhood as a tool –because they usually turn to “radicalism and in-ur-face activism is the only way to secure progress” approach. Just try talking with DemGayLefties and discuss whether ACT-UP harmed or helped our community long term. Yeow, there’s a screaming, heated, emotion laden instruction awaiting anyone who questions the merits of the ACT-UP movement.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — January 5, 2006 @ 11:16 am - January 5, 2006

  30. #20 – V, you forgot Step 0 of the Gryph Plan: Totally avoid the first guy who tried to answer you very carefully on 100% substance 😉

    Comment by Calarato — January 5, 2006 @ 12:18 pm - January 5, 2006

  31. #29 –

    The trouble with the posterboy/gal approach is: you’re setting them up as representations of an ideal – i.e., as superhuman. When it turns out they make mistakes, or relapse to less-than-the-ideal, your movement is exposed/viewed as phony. Just ask the ex-gays!

    There must be some other way we can change gay male culture. But I’m not sure what.

    Being able to screw around appeals to the “animal” in so many gay men. (I only mean the animal that every human has inside from our common evolutionary heritage, that civilized indoctrination normally tries to limit or counterbalance, in straights.)

    For 36 years, since Stonewall, gay men have fought and died (literally) for their right to have S-E-X whenever and with any willing partner they may decide. That’s “the animal part of us” at work, resisting and denying civilization.

    I don’t see that dynamic changing soon. It slightly changed when AIDS deaths were a crisis, but the change never went deep, and has largely un-wound since effective drugs made HIV less of a crisis.

    I know you are going to disagree with me, but I have concluded that in practice, society will have to offer us gay marriage / civil unions first. And then take the position with future gay generations, “No more excuses – why aren’t you setting down?” And even then, it will only be those future generations who change (and who then, understandably, view ours as a bunch of circus freaks).

    Comment by Calarato — January 5, 2006 @ 12:52 pm - January 5, 2006

  32. I agree with Calorado, almost completely. I’m not sure about the “be able to have sex whenever and with whomever” part. But I’ve led a sheltered life.

    Comment by hank — January 5, 2006 @ 4:02 pm - January 5, 2006

  33. The early Gay Liberation movement (1970s) focused on freewheeling, unlimited (male) sexuality in its writings and explicit program.

    In one of Larry Kramer’s late-1980s plays about the AIDS crisis, a sympathetic supporting character asks the gay lead plaintively, something to the effect, “Why did you guys only fight for the right to screw around? Why didn’t you fight for the right to get married?”

    Today, many gays finally fighting for the right to get married. Just not always in a smart way 😉

    Comment by Calarato — January 5, 2006 @ 5:38 pm - January 5, 2006

  34. Oh, but just to clarify something else: Even today, many gays today continue to focus on the right to freewheeling sex, and not marriage.

    Even today, pick up any San Francisco gay newspaper, and there will be a drumbeat about how “they” want to oppress gays by restricting sex clubs, cracking down on lewd activity in public spaces, etc.

    In the late 90s, I re-connected with a high school friend who is gay. He was living in Manhattan. He said he was an activist in the fight for gay rights. Thinking it must be something like Domestic Partner Benefits or gay marriage – the causes I had done my time in – I said “Great – what exactly?” It turns out he was involved in a group called Sex Panic!, whose focus was to combat the “oppression” of Rudy Guiliani shutting down New York’s public park spaces (bushes) that men had once taken over for anonymous sex.

    Comment by Calarato — January 5, 2006 @ 5:46 pm - January 5, 2006

  35. And of course….Lambda Legal just wasted money trying to get the conviction of a man who pled guilty to soliciting AND wanting to perform sex in a public restroom overturned.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 5, 2006 @ 5:49 pm - January 5, 2006

  36. -And we need to self-regulate our community and redefine LTR as something beyond 6 months or two instances of refraining from extracurricular sex.-

    You can’t regulate gays. They are not in lockstep, no community is in lockstep. I know plenty of gays who are in long-term relationships that last many years. Some of them are completely monogamous. Some of them have fun on the side and say they would have split up years ago if they had to stay sexually focused on one person. I know just as many straight couples who have the same situation, only they pretend they are monogamous.

    -Slap those images of the gayposterboi on the sides of buses instead graphic condom ads related to STDs and we might start impacting American voters, policy makers, and the public policy elites.-

    Americans aren’t impacted by ads of cozy gay families or other safe images. Most people tune out ads. Americans are impacted by what they hear from friends, family, churches, and to an increasingly small degree, the news.

    Comment by Carl — January 5, 2006 @ 7:45 pm - January 5, 2006

  37. -Slap those images of the gayposterboi on the sides of buses instead graphic condom ads related to STDs and we might start impacting American voters, policy makers, and the public policy elites.-

    I remember visiting SFO a few years ago and seeing huge billboards reading “Bareback Tops Must Be Negative.” It made me happy I was living in a state where billboards were more likely to read “Got Jesus?” (Not too mention the whole aggressive-urine-soaked-vagrant -capital-of-the -world thing SFO has goin’ on.)

    Comment by V the K — January 5, 2006 @ 8:05 pm - January 5, 2006

  38. To Cal in #31
    I have concluded that…society will have to offer us gay marriage/civil unions first. And then take the position with future gay generations, “No more excuses – why aren’t you setting down?” And even then, it will only be those future generations who change And even then, it will only be those future generations who change (and who then, understandably, view ours as a bunch of circus freaks).

    It seems to me that straight couples are going in the opposite direction. They already have mom and dad saying “What excuse do you have for not settling down” and the still have no respect for commitment. What makes you think that society’s approval will make gay people commit?

    Comment by John — January 6, 2006 @ 12:02 am - January 6, 2006

  39. #38
    I apologize for the bad cut and paste(and paste) of your quote, Cal.

    Comment by John — January 6, 2006 @ 12:08 am - January 6, 2006

  40. Let me put it this way: At some point, either people will have to start swinging back to the “committed relationship” end of the pendulum…. or we will go the way of Europe – i.e., stop reproducing and have to prostrate ourselves before un-assimilated Muslim immigrants.

    I don’t know if we’ll swing back.

    I do know that we might, because we are not quite as far gone as Europe, and a large chunk of our society still holds the “family” or “reproductive” mindset.

    And I also know that the swingback, if it happens, will not necessarily be vicious to gays. It may take the form of society saying “OK, we know you’re gay, fine, have civil unions, but use them already, and sublimate your excess sexual energy into contributions to the greater good.” (Which some gays do already.)

    Comment by Calarato — January 6, 2006 @ 1:58 am - January 6, 2006

  41. #31 Calarato, actually I agree with much of what you posit. But the opportunity to enter into civil unions won’t be a force for civilizing the wild beast… we have to change the culture of gays, redefine what’s important or salient to us, work for the common good of society rather than play our usual card of “marginalized, ostracized, victimized” deviants just wanting to be loved and understood.

    That’s why Bruce/Dan’s effort and those of other mainstream society gays is important. It’s a departure from the selfish, ego-centric, destructive gay culture that finds solace in the LibLeft Dem MoonBat camp. Think about it for a moment –these guys and far too few others are on the otherside of our culture… arguing for the mainstream, standard cultural values rather than against it. And they get villified by many voices on the GayLeft for it…. ala, “you’re working for the man, dude. Sell out.”

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — January 6, 2006 @ 9:01 am - January 6, 2006

  42. Matt, many of those who are against the thought police, against liberal ideas, etc. are often very wild sexually. There really isn’t a case of good, chaste conservatives vs. orgy-seeking, whorish liberals. People on both sides can fall into either category.

    Comment by Carl — January 7, 2006 @ 5:45 am - January 7, 2006

  43. It’s a good thing that Chris Crain was gay-bashed in a tolerant and officially supportive First World country with a developed medical and tourist infrastructure.

    If he had been attacked elsewhere, and had to seek emergency assistance from the American Embassy, he would very likely have had serious difficulties.

    I know. I am a State Department Foreign Service Officer being disciplined for going to bat on behalf of an American citizen living with HIV/AIDS who was kicked off a plane in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 1994. [Yes, this is still pending.]

    Yes, the State Department apparently considers marginalized American citizens not to be worthy of effective consular protection in emergency situations.

    In other words, you’re on your own, even in matters of life and death. Just shut up and go away.

    And so it goes . . .

    Comment by Karl Olson — January 7, 2006 @ 6:19 am - January 7, 2006

  44. In NYC the few months before 9/11 I saw the City going the way of Singapore. A really lovely, safe place to visit, but believe me, I doubt that you’d want to live there. You get a ticket for chewing gum in oublic (among other things). Rudy (before he transformed himself in the eyes of the world) was busy tightening the screws on everybody here. At first blush, these “quality of life” issues were welcomed, until we began be began looking like Disneyland. Another lovely place I wouldn’t want to live. I didn’t miss the hookers on 8th Ave. Or the drug dealers on 42d St. Or the sex clubs (didn’t even know there were any here) But when it started to be “tickets for jay-walking! ” Uh-oh!

    I think that groups like “sex panic” were an over reaction, but there were plenty of other moderate voices saying” loosen up here! We’re New York!”.

    Don’t get me wrong. I really like Gulianni, and think he had our best interests at heart, but when people are pushed into a certain “Pottery Barn ” conformity, you’re likely to see the nuts come out. And sometimes that’s “a good thing”.

    Comment by hank — January 7, 2006 @ 8:57 am - January 7, 2006

  45. Long story short: You’re agreeing that the Sex Panic! high school friend I talked about is a nut.

    Comment by Calarato — January 7, 2006 @ 11:33 am - January 7, 2006

  46. I think Crain may have a worse 2006 than his previous year. You may have noticed that the founder of Windows media was recently taken off the Blade masthead; he was fired by a group of NY investors that now control the company. Seems William and Chris Crain sold their majority interest in Windows Media and Crain is next on the chopping block. Thanks to Crain for selling our gay owned press to the straights.

    Comment by Mike G — January 25, 2006 @ 7:02 pm - January 25, 2006

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.