I
couldn’t let this issue pass without sharing this bit of ridiculous
dribble from the disappointed proponents of the inappropriately named “marriage
amendment.”
“This is not about gay marriage, it is an assault on traditional
marriage,” said Bishop Harry R. Jackson, Jr., Chairman of the High
Impact Leadership Coalition. “Gays are aggressive, gays declared
war, gays are attacking traditional marriage and we’re saying stop
it now.”
Aggressive, declared war, attacking? Is he for real?
You get this picture in your head of gays and lesbians in camo and face
paint, sneaking under the cover of darkness into the house of some unsuspecting
hetero married couple. Once the all-clear is given by the dyke with the
MK-47, the troop descends on the couples’ file cabinets, finds and
then destroys their marriage license. Additional tactics might include
hiding car keys, glasses, favored items of clothing or even indiscriminately
confiscating uneaten Hot Pockets — all things assured to create serious
consequences for a “traditional marriage.”
Since we’re on the topic of preposterous babble I thought I should
share this one with you too. It came across my desk just the other day:
“The Gay Left is increasingly becoming a mirror image of all the
hatred and intolerance they condemn. Specifically, they exclude over one
million gay voters who, according to the New York Times, are Republican
and represent one-out-of-four gay voters in exit polls.”
This came from the pen of a gay man named Matthew Tsien — who’s
with a Florida Log Cabin chapter. Tsien’s angry because so many of
us aren’t welcoming Mary Cheney into the fold with open hearts and
arms.
Mary Cheney is an old, tired subject and I’m not about to devote
too much more ink and paper to the topic — but I will say this: we
all know she sat tight-lipped when she should have spoken out. Because
she hurls expletives at gay supportive politicians who acknowledge her
sexual orientation, we also know she clearly has self-esteem issues. While
I appreciate her current efforts, I can’t forget the conflicting
signals she and her family have sent out along the way. However, I am a
forgiving man so I’m willing to say, Water under the bridge, Mary.
Let’s move on.
Tsien’s harsh words are actually more troubling to me. In his efforts
to disqualify what he refers to as “columnists and editors of the
hateful, ridiculing, ugly gay left,” he attempts to attack how out
they are to the public. He then goes on to throw out baseless accusations — somehow
claiming to know that “many” left-leaning writers and activists
aren’t as open about their sexual orientation as they claim:
“You eventually learn that when most gay people say they are completely
out, they really mean that they are “selectively out,” depending
upon the situation, e.g. people consider themselves “completely out” when
they march in a gay parade with dark sunglasses on and a baseball hat pulled
tightly over their head. Some say they are completely out at work, creating
a false impression of self-confidence and superiority, because they don’t
tell you of the closeted aspects of their lives. This “selectively
out” business applies to many, many left-wing writers and activists
in the GLBT community who still hold the keys of their own closet. While
they demand that everybody be “out” 24/7, many of these sanctimonious
gay leftists forget that they hide their true identity from even Democratic
family members and friends.”
What is his point? I’m baffled.
Because some people in the gay press have said they didn’t particularly
like Mary Cheney he’s trying to say they should be considered pointless
because they’re claiming to be out and they’re not? How does
he know this? Who are the “many” writers and editors he’s
referring to? I want names, not vague references. I also want to know how
he “eventually learned” his interpretation of being “completely
out.”
That’s not what I’ve come to know as being completely out.
For me, it’s exactly what it implies. Being out all the time no matter
what the situation is.
When my boyfriend and I went to my high school reunion a few years back
and all the attendees were introducing themselves and their husbands and
wives and it came my time to speak, I stood up in front of the spotlight,
introduced myself and took the hand of the man standing beside me. “And
this is my partner Bain,” I said to the crowded room.
You could have heard a pin drop. Apparently it was an uncomfortable moment
for some of my fellow classmates, but it was the right thing to do.
When we attended my father’s funeral at the church I had gone to
briefly when I was a child, a handful of elderly women flocked to my side,
inquiring about my life and asking if I was married.
I peered directly into the shiny blue eyes of a little old gray-haired
lady named Glynnis.
“I would be if I could,” I said with a smile. “But it’s
not allowed in this country, yet.” I then introduced her to my partner.
She wasn’t thrilled by my response and only lamely shook his hand
before scurrying off.
I know it made her uncomfortable — it was written all over her. But
it was the right thing to do.
Don’t get me wrong, it’s not like I’m being disrespectful
of anything or anyone or that I have some kind of in-your-face attitude
about my sexual orientation. It’s completely the opposite. For me
it’s about showing respect to the person I share my life with. So,
of course, I am out — to everyone.
But back to Tsien — what is it about his perception of “liberal” and “left” that
causes him to spew out such vitriolic prose against fellow gays and lesbians?
If we can’t cut out the squabbling and infighting the road to equality
is going to be a lot longer than we might think. The LGBT community — no
matter how conservative or liberal — must stay united if we are to
achieve acceptance and equality.
David Moore Editor
Want more Editor's Note? Click here for an archived listing.
<
