In which I am here and queer
That article I linked to yesterday? The homophobic one? It still makes me mad. So I wrote them out a comment. I'm sure no one will care, but it made me feel better to write it. I'm putting my comment here too, because, hey, why not?
Militant gay-rights activists strike out
By: Alana Goodman, Collegian Columnist
Posted: 11/14/08
Fortunately, last week's historic election of the most liberal, inexperienced U.S. president of all time had a silver lining. California, long considered a lost cause for conservatism, passed Proposition 8 to ban same-sex marriage.
But while I was quietly shedding tears into a tall glass of Rubinoff after John McCain's defeat, militant gay rights activists in California weren't accepting their loss as graciously. "No on Prop 8" protests flooded the state's streets last week, occasionally turning violent.
Counter-demonstrator Phyllis Burgess soon learned that the easiest way to shock a bunch of nipple-pierced, leather-clad activists is to bring a religious symbol to their rally. The local Channel 2 affiliate for Palm Springs caught footage of protestors assaulting the elderly, cross-wielding Burgess. They then grabbed the religious effigy out of her hands and stomped on it.
"I don't want to keep it peaceful anymore. We should fight!" yelled one demonstrator, before the mob lashed out at the Channel 2 news crew.
The peace-loving, tolerance-preaching gay activists also took their anti-Christian anger to the blogosphere. Most of their invectives were directed towards Mormons, who are avid supporters of Prop 8.
"Burn their f---ing churches to the ground, and then tax the charred timbers," insisted the popular Web site and blog, JoeMyGod. One poster listed the addresses of local Mormon churches, writing, "I do not openly advocate firebombing or vandalism. What you do with the information is your own choice."
While these threats of violence came from extremists and certainly don't represent the views of all pro-gay marriage activists, the movement's behavior toward the Mormon Church has become increasingly hostile.
A commercial paid for by an independent "No on Prop 8" group shows actors dressed as Mormon missionaries storming into the charming home of two beautiful newlywed lesbians.
"Hi, we're here from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. We're here to take away your rights," the Mormons say as Hitchcock-esque music plays. They proceed to rip off the women's wedding rings, pillage their home and destroy their marriage license.
"Hey, we have rights!" the foxy lesbians pout.
"Not if we can help it," reply the missionaries.
Some gay activists are even attempting to strip the Mormon Church of its status as a religious organization.
"[Show] the world that gay people…know how to hit back. Sign this petition to support the legal effort to strip the Mormon Church of its tax-exempt status," wrote Mario Ruiz in a Huffington Post article.
While it's true that the Mormon Church gave millions of dollars to "Yes on Prop 8" efforts, they had good reason to do so. Despite insistences by gay activists that same-sex marriage promotes inclusiveness, its legalization in Massachusetts has led to an atmosphere of intolerance for religious and moral values.
Millions of taxpayer dollars are being used to teach homosexuality in Massachusetts public schools - often against parents' objections. In 2006, some families filed a Civil Rights lawsuit to force the schools to notify parents before homosexual-related subjects were taught. The judge ruled that because same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts, the schools aren't obligated to notify parents or let them opt out their children, even for religious reasons.
Some of the lessons being espoused in public schools are disturbing. During an interview with NPR radio, an eighth-grade Brookline teacher, Deb Allen, recounted her numerous discussions with her class about lesbian sex toys.
In Brockton, a social worker was brought into a third-grade class to teach eight year olds about sex change operations.
Even more shocking was the distribution of a piece of smut literature called "The Little Black Book - Queer in the 21st Century" to underage students at Brookline High School. The book is a poorly disguised pornographic sex manual; featuring sections titled "Lickin' Butt," "Piss Play," "Fisting," "Mutual Jerkin' Off," and gave sex tips that would make Jim McGreevy blush.
Think homosexuality is a sensitive subject that should be discussed with your children in the privacy of your home and in accordance with your values? Not in Massachusetts. In this state, teachers decide how your children should learn about homosexuality. Parents who complain are ignored, labeled intolerant or encouraged to send their children to private school.
In the back of my mind, I can't help but picture a wholesome, heterosexual, God-fearing Massachusetts couple sitting down for a family dinner. Suddenly, two badge-brandishing muscle-men barge in, sporting short-shorts and Mystic tans.
"Who are you?" cries the couple, as ominous music begins to play.
"We're gay activists," the men say. "We're here to take away your rights."
The activists ransack the family's home, find the couple's seven-year-old daughter and begin lecturing her on the merits of "piss play."
"You can't teach her that! We have rights!" protest the girl's parents.
"Not anymore," cackle the activists as they exit the house.
The militant homosexual movement has proven time and time again it'll use fear and intimidation to intolerantly deny the same rights to the rest of society that it claims for itself. Thankfully, west coast voters were able to see through these tactics.
California, you made the right decision.
Alana Goodman is a Collegian columnist. She can be reached at agoodma@student.umass.edu.
[FYI, the pull quote was the rest of the paragraph above that begins "I can't help but picture..."]
I read the pull quote and was convinced this must be satire, because you can't seriously expect us to be terrified that pierced leather golden-showers-loving queer freaks are going to corrupt our precious innocent children. Oh, wait, what's that? You actually can? Well, that's just great. This is even more fun than the article last Friday that appeared to be under the impression that gay people want the Catholic church to bless our unions, which mostly, uh, no.
You seem to be annoyed that queer people aren't sitting down, shutting up and accepting their defeat graciously. That it would be a wonderful world if only no one ever had to hear about gay people and anything they do. We'd just talk about the "people" part of queer people and no one would ever know anything about the nasty wrong things they get up to with each other. Do you know *anything* about the history of queer rights in America? No, of course not.
Queer history in the US is generally divided into pre- and post-Stonewall. Before Stonewall, we kept our heads down. Met secretly in darkened bars. Invented all sorts of coded terms to talk about ourselves. Gay. Family. In the life. The problem was, that didn't keep the rest of America from bothering us. Gay bars were raided. People were arrested. In 1961 it was illegal in forty-nine states for two adults to have consensual homosexual sex in private. It's not like people just left us alone, you know. I've seen a CBS special about gay people where pretty much every gay person interviewed was standing in a shadow with their voices distorted while psychiatrists told the audience how perverted they were. Is that what you miss? Is that how you want to treat people? Is that how you think *anyone* should be treated? (I know: yes. I don't even know why I'm bothering.)
So do you know why we don't still live like that? On June 28, 1969, police attempted to raid a gay bar, the Stonewall Inn, in New York City. And instead of going quietly, like we did before, someone threw a punch. Eyewitnesses think it was a lesbian, if it matters. And the queers fought back. The drag queens. The dykes. The sissy faggots. Hell, probably even the pierced leather freaks. We rioted. (And, no, we're not all pierced leather freaks into golden showers, and I'm sure you know that. But we stand up for each other, we stand up for all of us, because straight America sure ain't gonna.)
And after that, everything changed. Slowly, but it started. And you know what we learned from that? That if we want anyone to pay attention to us, if we want anyone to treat us like people, we have to stand up. And we have to fight. (I know that other countries arrived at this through rational court decisions, viz. the UK's Wolfenden Report. We didn't. This is our history of violence.)
Everything else that happened only reinforced that. Have you ever heard the slogan "Silence = Death?" No one talked about AIDS when it was only queers dying. It was first called Gay-Related Immune Deficiency. Ronald Reagan did not publicly mention AIDS until 1987. By that time there were 60,000 AIDS cases in the US and 30,000 deaths. This was well after Rock Hudson had died, even. There was no funding for it. We'd known about AIDS since 1981. We'd asked for funding. We'd been polite. Think how many fewer people could have died if we hadn't spent those six years in silence. And don't tell me they deserved what they got for loving each other. They didn't. No one does. Or are you going to say that you only feel sorry for Ryan White? You can thank ACT-UP for the slogan, by the way. They were a group of militant AIDS activists, founded in '87, before Reagan mentioned AIDS. (Queer Nation was similar, but for general gay causes.) They had marches. They had demonstrations. They practiced civil disobedience. They got themselves arrested in very public ways. So, you see, we *know* that if we don't do something, you'll be perfectly happy to let us die. We're not stupid. We remember.
Do I support violence? No. I'm a pacifist. If it is in fact true that roving bands of queers were beating up on innocent churchgoing old ladies (and somehow I suspect, given the rest of the article, that this may have been distorted), I am appalled. No one should do that to anyone. Ever. But I understand why people are angry. I'm just saying this to try to explain why people are feeling violent about it. Because we've learned that that's the only way you listen to us. Because if we don't do that, we *die*.
Okay, back to your article. I see that you are aware that the Mormon church was one of the prime movers behind Yes on 8 in California, and that you feel that they were within their rights to fund this campaign because you feel that the big scary queer people are promoting an atmosphere of intolerance toward you. Well, guess what? It is still *illegal* for a tax-exempt church to do what the Mormon church has done, no matter how they feel about it. And being queer and being a good, moral, and even (shock!) religious person are not incompatible, you know. Besides, it's not you whose rights are being taken away here. But clearly you're not going to understand that.
You then attempt to use sex-ed in Massachusetts post-Goodridge as a horror story for what could have happened in California. First off, this is an inaccurate comparison. The laws in California are different. A California parent has a right to not have their children be taught anything they disagree with. This includes sex-ed. I went to California public schools for 13 years. My parents had to sign permission slips before my teachers could tell us about anything sex-related. If they hadn't signed, I'd have been pulled out of the class for the afternoon and given alternative work. So if you really wanted to be a bigot in California, you could. No one will stop you.
And, second, the sex-ed curriculum in Massachusetts is not actually about seducing children into a life of homosexuality. (Incidentally, do you think that just because they know it exists, it will ruin and corrupt their innocence forever? Or make them gay? I was six when my mother told me where babies come from. It didn't turn me straight.)
I've heard the NPR interview with Deb Allen. She was explaining what different kinds of sexual activity were possible to her students, as a normal part of the curriculum. I don't know about you, but my sex-ed class did in fact mention what oral sex and anal sex were, so if you're going to mention things other than procreative heterosexual vaginal intercourse, why not explain in an entirely non-prurient manner what two women can do? It's a fact. It's not going to hurt anyone to know that. She wasn't recommending her favorite dildos. Don't make it sound like she was.
Also, have you actually *read* "The Little Black Book: Queer in the 21st Century?" I have. You can find it online. It's not pornography. Nothing in it is meant to be arousing. It's a health and safer sex guide for gay male teens. It does mention, on exactly two pages, all the activities you listed -- in order to give information about STI risks from them. It doesn't even tell you what some of them *are*, other than the slang terms. It's not gonna teach you how to rim someone better. And, yes, there are pictures of penises. They're showing you how to put a condom on correctly. You think we shouldn't be allowed to know this stuff? Not knowing this is what *killed* us. No one is saying your seven-year-old needs to know this. We're saying your gay sixteen-year-old probably should. Unless you'd like him to be your dead gay sixteen-year-old.
Oh, and your final little nightmarish scenario there. Can you really, seriously not see the difference between the No-on-8 ad and the scenario you propose? Do you understand that queer people do not actually want to tell your little children all about watersports? Do you understand that what California has done is taken rights away from people? Created inferiority? Created second-class citizens? Told two people that they are not entitled to the same state benefits that the state will hand out freely to people who are not the same sex as each other? No, of course not. You wouldn't have said it if you had. We are not denying you anything. You are denying us the same civil rights you have. And, yes, we'll fight. We'll fight to love each other. We'll fight to stay alive. Wouldn't you?
I don't know why I've bothered writing this. I know it won't change your mind. But the amount of ignorance, hatred, and fear in your article saddened me. And I thought I had to say something. How would you feel if you opened the paper and read that people hated *you* because of your race, class, gender, religion, orientation -- people you hadn't even met, who didn't know you, and hated you anyway? We just want to live our lives in peace, with the same rights everyone has. You won't let us. The majority does not care about protecting minority rights, as is all too evident from the passage of Prop 8. There's a reason it was a Supreme Court case and not a popular vote that legalized interracial marriage. You wouldn't write anything like this if it were about interracial marriage. No, that would be racist. Well, this is homophobic. And the one thing I've learned is that we can't be silent about it.
Apparently this makes me rant. I am clearly still mad about Proposition 8.
Militant gay-rights activists strike out
By: Alana Goodman, Collegian Columnist
Posted: 11/14/08
Fortunately, last week's historic election of the most liberal, inexperienced U.S. president of all time had a silver lining. California, long considered a lost cause for conservatism, passed Proposition 8 to ban same-sex marriage.
But while I was quietly shedding tears into a tall glass of Rubinoff after John McCain's defeat, militant gay rights activists in California weren't accepting their loss as graciously. "No on Prop 8" protests flooded the state's streets last week, occasionally turning violent.
Counter-demonstrator Phyllis Burgess soon learned that the easiest way to shock a bunch of nipple-pierced, leather-clad activists is to bring a religious symbol to their rally. The local Channel 2 affiliate for Palm Springs caught footage of protestors assaulting the elderly, cross-wielding Burgess. They then grabbed the religious effigy out of her hands and stomped on it.
"I don't want to keep it peaceful anymore. We should fight!" yelled one demonstrator, before the mob lashed out at the Channel 2 news crew.
The peace-loving, tolerance-preaching gay activists also took their anti-Christian anger to the blogosphere. Most of their invectives were directed towards Mormons, who are avid supporters of Prop 8.
"Burn their f---ing churches to the ground, and then tax the charred timbers," insisted the popular Web site and blog, JoeMyGod. One poster listed the addresses of local Mormon churches, writing, "I do not openly advocate firebombing or vandalism. What you do with the information is your own choice."
While these threats of violence came from extremists and certainly don't represent the views of all pro-gay marriage activists, the movement's behavior toward the Mormon Church has become increasingly hostile.
A commercial paid for by an independent "No on Prop 8" group shows actors dressed as Mormon missionaries storming into the charming home of two beautiful newlywed lesbians.
"Hi, we're here from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. We're here to take away your rights," the Mormons say as Hitchcock-esque music plays. They proceed to rip off the women's wedding rings, pillage their home and destroy their marriage license.
"Hey, we have rights!" the foxy lesbians pout.
"Not if we can help it," reply the missionaries.
Some gay activists are even attempting to strip the Mormon Church of its status as a religious organization.
"[Show] the world that gay people…know how to hit back. Sign this petition to support the legal effort to strip the Mormon Church of its tax-exempt status," wrote Mario Ruiz in a Huffington Post article.
While it's true that the Mormon Church gave millions of dollars to "Yes on Prop 8" efforts, they had good reason to do so. Despite insistences by gay activists that same-sex marriage promotes inclusiveness, its legalization in Massachusetts has led to an atmosphere of intolerance for religious and moral values.
Millions of taxpayer dollars are being used to teach homosexuality in Massachusetts public schools - often against parents' objections. In 2006, some families filed a Civil Rights lawsuit to force the schools to notify parents before homosexual-related subjects were taught. The judge ruled that because same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts, the schools aren't obligated to notify parents or let them opt out their children, even for religious reasons.
Some of the lessons being espoused in public schools are disturbing. During an interview with NPR radio, an eighth-grade Brookline teacher, Deb Allen, recounted her numerous discussions with her class about lesbian sex toys.
In Brockton, a social worker was brought into a third-grade class to teach eight year olds about sex change operations.
Even more shocking was the distribution of a piece of smut literature called "The Little Black Book - Queer in the 21st Century" to underage students at Brookline High School. The book is a poorly disguised pornographic sex manual; featuring sections titled "Lickin' Butt," "Piss Play," "Fisting," "Mutual Jerkin' Off," and gave sex tips that would make Jim McGreevy blush.
Think homosexuality is a sensitive subject that should be discussed with your children in the privacy of your home and in accordance with your values? Not in Massachusetts. In this state, teachers decide how your children should learn about homosexuality. Parents who complain are ignored, labeled intolerant or encouraged to send their children to private school.
In the back of my mind, I can't help but picture a wholesome, heterosexual, God-fearing Massachusetts couple sitting down for a family dinner. Suddenly, two badge-brandishing muscle-men barge in, sporting short-shorts and Mystic tans.
"Who are you?" cries the couple, as ominous music begins to play.
"We're gay activists," the men say. "We're here to take away your rights."
The activists ransack the family's home, find the couple's seven-year-old daughter and begin lecturing her on the merits of "piss play."
"You can't teach her that! We have rights!" protest the girl's parents.
"Not anymore," cackle the activists as they exit the house.
The militant homosexual movement has proven time and time again it'll use fear and intimidation to intolerantly deny the same rights to the rest of society that it claims for itself. Thankfully, west coast voters were able to see through these tactics.
California, you made the right decision.
Alana Goodman is a Collegian columnist. She can be reached at agoodma@student.umass.edu.
[FYI, the pull quote was the rest of the paragraph above that begins "I can't help but picture..."]
I read the pull quote and was convinced this must be satire, because you can't seriously expect us to be terrified that pierced leather golden-showers-loving queer freaks are going to corrupt our precious innocent children. Oh, wait, what's that? You actually can? Well, that's just great. This is even more fun than the article last Friday that appeared to be under the impression that gay people want the Catholic church to bless our unions, which mostly, uh, no.
You seem to be annoyed that queer people aren't sitting down, shutting up and accepting their defeat graciously. That it would be a wonderful world if only no one ever had to hear about gay people and anything they do. We'd just talk about the "people" part of queer people and no one would ever know anything about the nasty wrong things they get up to with each other. Do you know *anything* about the history of queer rights in America? No, of course not.
Queer history in the US is generally divided into pre- and post-Stonewall. Before Stonewall, we kept our heads down. Met secretly in darkened bars. Invented all sorts of coded terms to talk about ourselves. Gay. Family. In the life. The problem was, that didn't keep the rest of America from bothering us. Gay bars were raided. People were arrested. In 1961 it was illegal in forty-nine states for two adults to have consensual homosexual sex in private. It's not like people just left us alone, you know. I've seen a CBS special about gay people where pretty much every gay person interviewed was standing in a shadow with their voices distorted while psychiatrists told the audience how perverted they were. Is that what you miss? Is that how you want to treat people? Is that how you think *anyone* should be treated? (I know: yes. I don't even know why I'm bothering.)
So do you know why we don't still live like that? On June 28, 1969, police attempted to raid a gay bar, the Stonewall Inn, in New York City. And instead of going quietly, like we did before, someone threw a punch. Eyewitnesses think it was a lesbian, if it matters. And the queers fought back. The drag queens. The dykes. The sissy faggots. Hell, probably even the pierced leather freaks. We rioted. (And, no, we're not all pierced leather freaks into golden showers, and I'm sure you know that. But we stand up for each other, we stand up for all of us, because straight America sure ain't gonna.)
And after that, everything changed. Slowly, but it started. And you know what we learned from that? That if we want anyone to pay attention to us, if we want anyone to treat us like people, we have to stand up. And we have to fight. (I know that other countries arrived at this through rational court decisions, viz. the UK's Wolfenden Report. We didn't. This is our history of violence.)
Everything else that happened only reinforced that. Have you ever heard the slogan "Silence = Death?" No one talked about AIDS when it was only queers dying. It was first called Gay-Related Immune Deficiency. Ronald Reagan did not publicly mention AIDS until 1987. By that time there were 60,000 AIDS cases in the US and 30,000 deaths. This was well after Rock Hudson had died, even. There was no funding for it. We'd known about AIDS since 1981. We'd asked for funding. We'd been polite. Think how many fewer people could have died if we hadn't spent those six years in silence. And don't tell me they deserved what they got for loving each other. They didn't. No one does. Or are you going to say that you only feel sorry for Ryan White? You can thank ACT-UP for the slogan, by the way. They were a group of militant AIDS activists, founded in '87, before Reagan mentioned AIDS. (Queer Nation was similar, but for general gay causes.) They had marches. They had demonstrations. They practiced civil disobedience. They got themselves arrested in very public ways. So, you see, we *know* that if we don't do something, you'll be perfectly happy to let us die. We're not stupid. We remember.
Do I support violence? No. I'm a pacifist. If it is in fact true that roving bands of queers were beating up on innocent churchgoing old ladies (and somehow I suspect, given the rest of the article, that this may have been distorted), I am appalled. No one should do that to anyone. Ever. But I understand why people are angry. I'm just saying this to try to explain why people are feeling violent about it. Because we've learned that that's the only way you listen to us. Because if we don't do that, we *die*.
Okay, back to your article. I see that you are aware that the Mormon church was one of the prime movers behind Yes on 8 in California, and that you feel that they were within their rights to fund this campaign because you feel that the big scary queer people are promoting an atmosphere of intolerance toward you. Well, guess what? It is still *illegal* for a tax-exempt church to do what the Mormon church has done, no matter how they feel about it. And being queer and being a good, moral, and even (shock!) religious person are not incompatible, you know. Besides, it's not you whose rights are being taken away here. But clearly you're not going to understand that.
You then attempt to use sex-ed in Massachusetts post-Goodridge as a horror story for what could have happened in California. First off, this is an inaccurate comparison. The laws in California are different. A California parent has a right to not have their children be taught anything they disagree with. This includes sex-ed. I went to California public schools for 13 years. My parents had to sign permission slips before my teachers could tell us about anything sex-related. If they hadn't signed, I'd have been pulled out of the class for the afternoon and given alternative work. So if you really wanted to be a bigot in California, you could. No one will stop you.
And, second, the sex-ed curriculum in Massachusetts is not actually about seducing children into a life of homosexuality. (Incidentally, do you think that just because they know it exists, it will ruin and corrupt their innocence forever? Or make them gay? I was six when my mother told me where babies come from. It didn't turn me straight.)
I've heard the NPR interview with Deb Allen. She was explaining what different kinds of sexual activity were possible to her students, as a normal part of the curriculum. I don't know about you, but my sex-ed class did in fact mention what oral sex and anal sex were, so if you're going to mention things other than procreative heterosexual vaginal intercourse, why not explain in an entirely non-prurient manner what two women can do? It's a fact. It's not going to hurt anyone to know that. She wasn't recommending her favorite dildos. Don't make it sound like she was.
Also, have you actually *read* "The Little Black Book: Queer in the 21st Century?" I have. You can find it online. It's not pornography. Nothing in it is meant to be arousing. It's a health and safer sex guide for gay male teens. It does mention, on exactly two pages, all the activities you listed -- in order to give information about STI risks from them. It doesn't even tell you what some of them *are*, other than the slang terms. It's not gonna teach you how to rim someone better. And, yes, there are pictures of penises. They're showing you how to put a condom on correctly. You think we shouldn't be allowed to know this stuff? Not knowing this is what *killed* us. No one is saying your seven-year-old needs to know this. We're saying your gay sixteen-year-old probably should. Unless you'd like him to be your dead gay sixteen-year-old.
Oh, and your final little nightmarish scenario there. Can you really, seriously not see the difference between the No-on-8 ad and the scenario you propose? Do you understand that queer people do not actually want to tell your little children all about watersports? Do you understand that what California has done is taken rights away from people? Created inferiority? Created second-class citizens? Told two people that they are not entitled to the same state benefits that the state will hand out freely to people who are not the same sex as each other? No, of course not. You wouldn't have said it if you had. We are not denying you anything. You are denying us the same civil rights you have. And, yes, we'll fight. We'll fight to love each other. We'll fight to stay alive. Wouldn't you?
I don't know why I've bothered writing this. I know it won't change your mind. But the amount of ignorance, hatred, and fear in your article saddened me. And I thought I had to say something. How would you feel if you opened the paper and read that people hated *you* because of your race, class, gender, religion, orientation -- people you hadn't even met, who didn't know you, and hated you anyway? We just want to live our lives in peace, with the same rights everyone has. You won't let us. The majority does not care about protecting minority rights, as is all too evident from the passage of Prop 8. There's a reason it was a Supreme Court case and not a popular vote that legalized interracial marriage. You wouldn't write anything like this if it were about interracial marriage. No, that would be racist. Well, this is homophobic. And the one thing I've learned is that we can't be silent about it.
Apparently this makes me rant. I am clearly still mad about Proposition 8.