Continue reading “Four words that might break my brain: “Black, gay Trump supporter””
Four words that might break my brain: “Black, gay Trump supporter”
LGBTQI
{advertisement}
Sorry Italy, no ‘Weekend’ for you
“Not advised”
“Unusable”
“Scabrous”
Those were three words used to describe director Andrew Haigh’s romantic movie Weekend. Released in the UK in 2011, the film was slated for release in Italian theaters to coincide with Haigh’s new film 45 Years. Unfortunately for pretty much anyone in Italy, the moral police put their foot down and told the 1,100 cinemas they own that the movie was not to be shown. By ‘moral police’, I mean the “lovely” organization we know as the Roman Catholic Church. As they own the vast majority of the theaters in Italy, the church uses the Italian Conference of Bishops’ Film Evaluation Committee to rate and/or censor films and they said the oppose they themes of the movie and its message. What could be so bad about the film?
Did I forget to mention that it’s a gay romantic movie?
The end of the world is nigh
Bigots of all stripes love to claim that homosexuality is destructive and the cause of so many of the ills in society. World-class bigots like Theodore Shoebat claim that homosexuality is a cancer that should be excised from our culture. There’s Mr. “Legitimate Rape” Todd Akin, who has said “[…] there is no civilization which has condoned homosexual marriage widely and openly that has long survived.” And then there are my “favorite people”. Oooh, and who can forget Pat Robertson, who thinks that God uses snow to punish people who want to do gay things. But my favorite are those like Scott Lively, who think acceptance of homosexuality is a dress rehearsal for the End Times:
It’s 2016 and we’re still being treated as less than human
There was a time not long ago, we had to hide the ways
we showed our love for one another, cuz people hated the gays.
Hounded by police we were, all across the nation,
told by leaders of the church–“you’re an abomination”.
Cast out by our families, and forced onto the street,
to lives of drugs and violence, to disease that can’t be beat.
Discrimination and bigotry, we had to face it all,
told by haters we would cause this great country’s fall.
As the years went by however, things began to change.
people started knowing us, and we became less strange.
On the big screen and the small, we began to be accepted,
by our friends and family, we were less rejected.
Now here we are in 2016, and everything is great,
free to marry, free to love, we’ve said goodbye to hate.
Right?
Mmmmmm, no. Some folks (::ahem:: Manny Pacquiao ::ahem::) are keeping the hate alive:
Continue reading “It’s 2016 and we’re still being treated as less than human”
A question for straight people
Dear straight people,
In the last few years, I’ve come across something that boggles my mind. It’s a concept that confuses my queer little brain, so I think I’m going to need some assistance with it. It’s something I’ve seen in online spaces as well as in meatspace. It’s something that a certain strain of heterosexuals seem to embrace. I’ve heard of it in conservative media and from right-wing politicians and pundits and it often pops up in discussions of Gay/Straight Alliances on school campuses. The idea behind the concept is counterintuitive to my brain, but my confusion is probably the result of those homosexual-inducing chemtrails I’ve been huffing all my life. Because of my difficulty understanding this concept, I’m hoping one of you can aid me in coming to comprehend
STRAIGHT PRIDE.
Now…I understand the importance of Pride as it relates to the gay community. Originating in the wake of the 1969 Stonewall Uprising, Pride is both a form of unabashed self-expression whereby we in the LGBT community show we are comfortable being who we are, as well as a public statement that there is nothing wrong with us and no need for us to hide. Historically, LGBT people have been sent the opposite message; that there is something wrong with us. That because our sexuality and gender identities deviate from the social norm we must be made to conform or be punished. As a result, LGBT people past and present have grown up in societies that display varying levels of hostility and intolerance towards us. This hostility manifests as anti-LGBT discrimination and bigotry. If you’re not familiar with the oppressive experiences of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people, allow me to help:
Kim Davis is like a rock
Kentucky clerk Kim Davis has been all over the news recently for her repeated refusal to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Last week, Federal Judge David Bunning ruled that Davis was in contempt of court and ordered federal marshals to take her into custody. While she was in custody, five of the six deputy clerks who work under Davis agreed to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples (with the exception of, surprise surprise, Davis’ son). She remained in jail until Tuesday, when Judge Bunning ordered her conditional release:
Gawker editorial: "This isn't about ethics in journalism"
A few days ago, Gawker posted a controversial and unethical article that outed a CFO who sought consensual sexual relations with a gay porn star. The CFO in question is not a politician with a history of crafting anti-LGBT legislation. Nor is he a renowned pastor famous for his anti-LGBT screeds. Outing someone in those circumstance is warranted. But this guy did nothing immoral or unethical.
In came Gawker’s managing partners who voted to remove the post (which is one reason why this post has no link to it; the other reason being HEY, even though this is the internet and the article has probably been saved somewhere, given the harm done, I’m not going to participate in spreading that tabloid bullshit). This was apparently an unprecedented move, as editorial was under the impression they had the final say on stories and they were pissed that the partners would overrule them. Virtually every member of Gawker editorial leadership protested removing the post.
Continue reading “Gawker editorial: "This isn't about ethics in journalism"”
Gawker editorial: “This isn’t about ethics in journalism”
A few days ago, Gawker posted a controversial and unethical article that outed a CFO who sought consensual sexual relations with a gay porn star. The CFO in question is not a politician with a history of crafting anti-LGBT legislation. Nor is he a renowned pastor famous for his anti-LGBT screeds. Outing someone in those circumstance is warranted. But this guy did nothing immoral or unethical.
In came Gawker’s managing partners who voted to remove the post (which is one reason why this post has no link to it; the other reason being HEY, even though this is the internet and the article has probably been saved somewhere, given the harm done, I’m not going to participate in spreading that tabloid bullshit). This was apparently an unprecedented move, as editorial was under the impression they had the final say on stories and they were pissed that the partners would overrule them. Virtually every member of Gawker editorial leadership protested removing the post.
Continue reading “Gawker editorial: “This isn’t about ethics in journalism””
Marriage equality has come to the United States
The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled in favor of marriage equality!
“The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State.”
There it is, the ruling that gay-marriage advocates and opponents have been waiting for since April when the Court took up the case—but really, for years long before that. There is now a constitutional right for people of the same sex to get married in the United States.
In the Court’s opinion—authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy, a Catholic who has long been seen as the possible swing vote on gay marriage, joined by JusticesStephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor, and with four separate dissents authored and joined by combinations of Samuel Alito, John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas—lists four major reasons for its decision in Obergefell. First, Kennedy writes that “decisions about marriage are among the most intimate that an individual can make.” Allowing LGBT people to marry is a matter of personal choice and autonomy, just as it was in the Court’s 1967 in the case Loving v. Virginia, which outlawed bans on interracial marriage.
Second, Kennedy writes, marriage is a distinctive institution: “It supports a two-person union unlike any other in its importance to the committed individuals.” Here, he points to the Court’s opinion in Griswold v. Connecticut, which affirmed the right of married couples to use birth control. “Same-sex couples have the same right as opposite-sex couples to enjoy intimate association.” But then, the decision takes an interesting turn: The Court seems to flip the oft-used reasoning of same-sex marriage opponents, who claim that gay marriage is harmful to children and families, and disruptive to the longstanding order of American society. In the oral arguments for Obergefell, several justices raised this very question—even Breyer, who joined in the decision, said that marriage between a man and a woman “has been the law everywhere for thousands of years. Suddenly you want nine people outside the ballot box to require states to change [this configuration].” But on Friday, Breyer joined four of his colleagues to do exactly that.
“Protecting the right to marry is that it safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of childrearing, procreation, and education,” Kennedy writes. Not all straight married couples have children, and they’re certainly not required to do so by law, he reasons; the same rule should apply to gay married couples. But more importantly, for those gay couples that do want to have kids—including the many, many couples who adopt or have children using the genetic material of one parent—seeing their unions as less than marriage under the law creates a “more difficult and uncertain family life. The marriage laws at issue thus harm and humiliate the children.”
Finally, Kennedy affirms that marriage is “a keystone of the Nation’s social order.” It is the institution at the center of the United States’ legal and educational structures, and because of this, “it is demeaning to lock same-sex couples out of a central institution of the Nation’s society, for they too may aspire to the transcendent purposes of marriage.”
“Rising from the most basic human needs, marriage is essential to our most profound hopes and aspirations,” Kennedy writes. This is, perhaps, the most striking argument of all, for it is an argument about the nature, significance, and dignity of marriage itself. “The ancient origins of marriage confirm its centrality, but it has not stood in isolation from developments in law and society,” Kennedy writes, but the “institution—even as confined to opposite-sex relations—has evolved over time.”
I really have nothing to say other than I feel almost blissfully, joyously happy. Not just for myself (really, I don’t have anyone in my life, so marriage remains theoretical for me), but for so many other people out there. There are who knows how many people who have wanted to marry, but were prevented from doing so bc they were lesbian, gay, or bisexual. And it comes during Pride month! This is one step closer to being treated as full human beings in the eyes of the law. Thank you SCOTUS. Thank you for doing the right thing!
Any questions about LGBT Pride?
Festivals!
Marches!
Events!
Oh my!
Yep, it’s that time of year again-LGBT Pride Month. What is Pride? Who celebrates it? Who hates it? What groups don’t need to celebrate Pride? When did it begin? Let’s fire up my first ever Shoop FAQ for the answers! To the Shoop-mobile!