Queer

Not only that, Matt Sanchez, who also worked as a male prostitute, claims to be "bad at being gay".

Towelroad has the whole story. And, get this, Pat at Towelrod met him 18 years ago --as a gay man.

Could he have gone to the same rehab center as Ted Haggard?

Anyhow, this is the drivel Michelle Malkin posted about the 'situation':

Last night, hate-filled liberals on MSNBC attemped to smear Marine Corporal Matt Sanchez and conservatives who honored him at CPAC for his support of the military at Columbia University. They gleefully showed photos of Cpl. Sanchez at the event--including ones I took--in mockery after his gay porn past was outed by left-wing blogs. They cackled "Semper Fi."

I said the other day I thought CPAC organizers would be justified in being embarrassed if the rumors about Sanchez's porn star past 15 years ago turned out to be true. Well, the rumors are true. But it is neither CPAC nor Cpl. Sanchez who should feel embarrassed.

Wow! Sister is so compassionate. I had no idea given all the digital ink she wasted in calling Amanda Marcotte a nut during her Christian League vs. Edwards Bloggers debacle.

Published by Kortney Ryan Ziegler, M.A. : My reasons for blogging are many, but most important, I blog to improve my writing, to connect with other bloggers of color, and to provide a space where my research has an audience outside of academia.

Who is hysterical blackness? She is a black, queer, feminist academic who lives, writes, and teaches in the US northeast.

Liza gave us little plastic bricks rather than edible eggs and peeps for Easter, but now the Pastafarians present (entirely in Legos) the amazing Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster!

Thus edible faith has now been rendered in the true building blocks of the universe, Legos, which although not edible, do multiply miraculously like the symbolic foods of the faithful -- Legos are limitless fishes and loaves in every room of OUR house, how about yours?

I've always had transcendent faith in food as holy, in chefs and chocolatiers as divine. My own most enduring ritual of faith is devouring human creativity in any form it presents itself. I'm not such an omnivore as Anthony Bourdain and his extreme cuisine -- his favorite eggs are the eggs of sea urchins, not exactly conducive to the traditional holiday rituals I know! -- but I do enjoy a variety of foods and well-rendered cultural infusions and combinations, and as you'd expect now that you're getting to know me, I especially savor the stories BEHIND the food.

There's nothing like it! The old, the new, the coming-soon and the never-was blend seamlessly. Multidiscipline, multicultural and lingual, multieverything. I think Cirque du Soleil shows are incomparable even to each other, though the NYTimes review of "Corteo" opening last night suggests it's the only comparison we should even attempt.

[quote=John Rockwell]Drawing, like other major circuses, from the same international pool of small traveling circuses and circus schools, augmented by fresh talent from Eastern Europe and Asia, Cirque du Soleil has elevated the once marginal and innovative "new circus" experiments of Europe into an international brand name.

The Cirque format has surpassed the older-fashioned. . .
This is another exercise in slightly fey Cirque fantasizing
. . . accompanied by the sort of music mimes would make if mimes made music.[/quote]

I saw their resort show at DisneyWorld's Pleasure Island a few years ago, from the equivalent of center court, only three rows from the stage -- at any moment I was sure the tower of 50 chairs would fall directly on my head or a careening vehicle would drive off the lipless edge into my lap. And performers did come into the seats from all directions, you never quite knew what was coming or what it meant. Talk about live!

The Concerned Women for America blog continues with its hate-filled agenda, and has chosen a school district near you for its latest campaign of compassionate extermination.

The CWFA is distributing, through its web site, a “Risk Audit Plan,

On Saturday night, I went to see Kate Clinton at the Somerville Theater on her "It's Come to This! 25th Anniversary Tour." I want you to think about that; while many people know her as a columnist for The Progressive, Kate Clinton has been making a living as a lesbian comic since 1981. Along with people like Marga Gomez and Lea DeLaria, Kate Clinton has been a queer political cultural pioneer. Here's her own diddy from the program notes:

It's come to this: for twenty five years, I have thanked you for coming out--out of the closet, out of your homes, out of your daily routines--to come to my shows. You have shown up through snowstorms, earthquakes, bomb scares, picket lines, transit strkes, orange alerts, breakups, epidemics, recessions, weddings, child care emergencies, juntas, peace time and war time. you have screamed, shouted, cried, cruised, smeared mascara, gotten hoarse, groaned, pounded your friends, gone quiet, been offended, moaned, whooped, lost bodily fluids, talked back.

---------------

By showing up and laughing, we have put our bodies on the line. It has been good practice. It has come to this. We have made community. We have changed history. It has been a blast. Thank you for celebrating with me tonight!

Back in October, I wrote about a mini-controversy that erupted when the fact that Catholic Charities in Boston is, in order to comply with the Commonwealth's anti-discrimination laws, facilitating the adoption of hard to place children by gay couples. The four Massachusetts Bishops are none too happy, and are looking for ways to get around the Bay State's laws. Yesterday's Boston Globe reported:

The four Roman Catholic bishops of Massachusetts plan to seek permission from the state to exclude gay couples as adoptive parents, according to two board members of the church's largest social service agency who were briefed on the plan.

The decision follows a three-month study of the theological and practical impact of having Catholic Charities of Boston, the Boston Archdiocese's social service arm, place children with gay couples, given the Vatican's teaching that describes such adoptions are ''gravely immoral."

This decision to seek an exemption from state anti-discrimination rules pits the bishops against the 42-member board of Catholic Charities of Boston, which is made up of some of Boston's most prominent lay Catholics. The board voted unanimously in December in support of continuing to allow gay couples to adopt children.

I give the ambiguously gay clothing store for Dutch men ... drum roll please ...

Here's my entry for MediaGirl's 2nd Annual Feminist Valentine Blog Awards. Enjoy!

"But valentines are only supposed to be between boys and girls!"

These were the words that rolled off my oldest son's lips after I suggested the make valentines for all his team mates and soccer coach. "For my coach? Ewww. He's a man", said heterosexually my eight year-old. It's funny, but Thing #1 seems to be deciding these days he likes the girls and their smoochies after all.

His father is quite alarmed that I made this observation impassively, diagnostically. Well, I do look at pregnancy, mothering and the whole parenting thing as one big human Wild Kingdom experience. It's like I am looking at animals in the zoo but I am one of them.

And let me tell you, there's a couple of boys that by their choices are really hell bent on liking Peter and Paul waaaay more than Mary. It really is amazing to see, how some of us are just, well, gay from the day we were born. I think it's beautiful.

From WCVB in Boston:

A teenager accused of going on a rampage at a Massachusetts gay bar with a hatchet and a gun was captured Saturday in northern Arkansas after shootout with police.

State troopers said a local police officer and a woman accompanying the teenager were shot dead.

The suspect -- 18-year-old Jacob Robida -- was taken to a hospital in Springfield, Mo., after an exchange of gunfire with police in Norfork. Moments earlier, Robida allegedly shot Gassville police officer Jim Sell a few miles away from Norfork.

Unfortunately, at least one person is dead. (They are still not releasing information on one of the men wounded in the bar attack, and as far as I know, there's still at least one person in critical condition from that attack.)

[Update] Watching the news right now, they're only mentioning a hatchet, and are saying two men are in critical condition. Here's a more detailed article from the Boston Globe. You can even see the suspect's MySpace page here....some disturbing comments from his friends near the bottom of a disturbing page.

--------------------------------

You've got to admit, it's not often you hear about a machete and hatchet attack in a gay bar:

NEW BEDFORD -- Police continued their hunt late today for an armed suspect who shot two people and slashed another inside a popular gay nightclub.

The incident occurred about midnight inside the Puzzles Lounge on North Front Street. A bartender, who asked that his name not be used because he feared for his life, said a man armed with a hatchet, a machete, and a handgun attacked patrons before he fled the bar.

[snip]

The bartender said the man came into the bar, ordered a drink, and asked if it was a gay bar. He was told that it was.

I decided to take a break from reading about the historical development of states and rights in Europe to check in on the Australian Open women's singles final. Since I don't have ESPN, I tuned in to the on-line audio broadcast of the final just in time to hear Justine Henin-Hardenne forfeit the final, giving Amelie Mauresmo a 6-2, 2-0 victory, and her first Grand Slam title. As much as I enjoy Henin-Hardenne's game (lord, that backhand is a thing of beauty), I'm thrilled about Mauresmo's victory (she, too, has a lovely backhand; yeah, I like one-handed backhands (Roger Federer's is the most beautiful I've ever seen)).

Tomorrow, Mauresmo became (sorry, just had to do that since the final is played on Saturday but it's still Friday here) the first openly gay player to win a Grand Slam singles title since Martina Navratilova won her last Wimbledon title in 1990. (Amazingly, Navrativlova's last Grand Slam title--number 58--came in 2003, when, at age 46, she won the Australian Open mixed doubles title with Leander Paes. Navratilova still holds the overall record for professional singles titles--men or women--with 167.) While the fact that Mauresmo is a lesbian may not seem like a big deal, it was a big deal the last time she was in a Grand Slam final, the 1999 Australian Open:

You know, I’d sat on the phone in voicemail jail hell today and it occurred to me that, in spite of claims that all sex positive feminism is is flaunting your casabas and having sex twice a day, every single day and three times on Sundays, that the people who are really obsessed with sex are the people who think that is what sex positive feminism is about.

Which is to say: there are gradations along a continuum to the point that, when they are most hostile to sex positive feminism (rather than just ignorant of it — not dumb, just not knowledgeable about a specific topic), they are utterly obsessed with discussions of it.

That was an assertion. I’m sorely tempted to stroke it. Get out the old Boy Butter and Go. To. Town. With Boots On!

But wouldn’t that be unfair? Am I not supposed to be firmly planted in the reality-based community? And what does that mean? That you actually back up your assertions with some kind of argument. This Bitch likes to try to do that and, if I don’t, I like to be up front and say: “I’m just rantin’ here so send me a klew by four if I’m out of line.

Well, it's official: the queers (and liberals) dominated last night's Golden Globes. Brokeback Mountain won four awards, including Best Film (Drama); Felicity Huffman won Best Actress for her portrayal of a man undergoing a sex change in TransAmerica; and Phillip Seymour Hoffman won Best Actor for his sublime portrayal of Truman Capote, whose only moment of honesty came in the movie's first scene. If the 2003 Tonys were the "Gayest Ever" (so said Brent Bozell, so it must be true), this year's Oscar race should be equally fabulous.

As I wrote after I saw it, I loved Brokeback Mountain. I think that one of the things I found so haunting about it is that it seemed to tie together love and loss. Perhaps it's true that they can't be unlinked. After all, as Darren says in Bedrooms and Hallways: "All relationships end. Either you split up or one of you dies." Not very satisfying perhaps, but true nonethelss. Love will always be accompanied by some kind of loss.

But, there's something beyond the story of love and hurt that's driving BBM. Part of it is, of course, the political moment. At a time when the ability and right of gay people to form loving relationships is a topic of more than a little heated rhetoric, the story of two men deeply in love, two men whose relationship queers a central icon of American masculinity, is bound to stir up a bit of controversy. It's even showing up on ESPN.

Part of me is reminded of Philadelphia, which came as straight America was starting to take AIDS seriously. Tom Hanks "humanized" gay men with AIDS for much of America, and his Oscar speech was a plea to find a place for America's gay citizens (and became the basis for a nice little spoof in In and Out.) Both films brought an aspect of gay life to the forefront at a time when gay lives were the focus of political and social conflict. There are two other aspects of both that I'd like to highlight, though. First, in both stories, gay life is tragic. Second, and this is where they depart from previous eras' depictions of the tragic homosexual, both films place the roots for at least part of the tragedy within heterosexual society.

First of all, despite Tom Hanks winning the Oscar for Best Actor, the central narrative in Philadelphia actually belonged to Denzel Washington's character. In Joe Miller, we had a lawyer--straight America itself--coming to grips with gay men and AIDS. From his original fear to touch the same things Andy does to Joe is transformed into someone comfortable visiting Andy in his hospital room, we find a man who overcomes his fear of HIV and learns to see gay men as human beings. We're treated to the loving family, always beside Andy, supporting him and welcoming his partner into their family. We see a defense lawyer sickened by her own behavior in the courtroom. All of these, and the jury's (dramatically necessry) verdict for Andy redeemed straight America.

Likewise, Brokeback Mountain is a story in which homosexual lives are tragedies. The love between Ennis Del Mar and Jack Twist isn't allowed to develop into the relationship Twist desires because of the time and place in which they live (and because of Del Mar's inability to give himself fully to any relationship). The pain and loss that accompanies each meeting, each goodbye until the next "fishing trip," is only made more intense by the pain those fishing trips cause the two men's wives. In this case, it is a violently homophobic society that keeps the lovers apart, their lives--and the lives of those around them--miserable.

In both of these cases, the lead characters are tragic figures, and their homosexuality figures as a large part of that tragedy. As I mentioned above, though, what sets these tragic figures apart from earlier gay characters is that the tragedy isn't located in homosexuality itself. In Philadelphia, it's the discrimination Andy faces as a gay man with AIDS; in BBM it's the fear of what would happen to two men who created a life together that's created by living in a homophobic society. As Steven Seidman noted in Beyond the Closet the 1990s, in particular, witnessed a transformation in film representations of queer people. Earlier representations had tended to focus on homosexuality as "polluting," in the 1990s we started to see representations of what Seidman calls the "normal gay:"

The normal gay is presented as fully human, as the psychological and moral equal of the heterosexual, and accordingly gays should be integrated into America as respected citizens. However, the ormal gay also serves a narrow social norm...And...the normal gay implies a political logic of tolerance and minority rights that does not challenge heterosexual dominance (p. 133)

Both films call for tolerance, but they both use the tragedy of gay life as a means to make that call. Now, that may be an effective way to do it, and both films tell compelling tales. But it also calls for a recognition that tolerance and not necessarily acceptance or, heaven forbid, celebration of queer life and love, in its many forms, is what we're talking about.

I suppose that's why it's important to remember that both films are also products of their time. In the early 1990s, AIDS was one of the few things much of straight American knew about gay life. As the decade proceeded, representations turned toward showing a more tolerant, maybe accepting, America than really existed. (Remember those "I am Spartacus" moments in In and Out and To Wong Foo: Thanks for Everything, Julie Newmar?) Now we have two men in love and the heterosexism that keeps them apart. It's progress. But we've got a way to go.

Apparently, supporters of a ballot measure to strip queer residents of Massachusetts of the right to marry are fussy over attempts by MassEquality to write and phone signatories of the initiative letting them know theit signature is on the petition and could possibly be invalid. I'm aware of their efforts because my home received notice.

The efforts of MassEquality are happening because signature gatherers for supporters of the amendment have done a few, well, troubling things. Tactics like telling people they're signing one petition--to allow alcohol sales in grocery stors--and having them sign the marriage petition have been noted in the Boston media. Indeed, the legislature even "acted" by holding a hearing on such tactics.

The mailing from MassEquality isn't the only way I found out someone had fraudulently used my address to sign the petition. I also found them on the site KnowThyNeighbor.org. Basically, she provided false information when signing the petition. I'll be contacting the Attorney General with this (and I've notified her of that--Google is wonderful). I know it's relatively minor and this one signature won't doom the amendment. They've got far too many signatures for this one to make a difference. I'm just pissed at this fucker for using my address...not cool, not cool.

In other news, GLAD has challenged Attorney General Reilly's certification of the petitions. The basic issue here is that the Massachusetts constitution bans any citizen-initiated petitions specifically to overturn Supreme Judicial Court rulings. GLAD is arguing that this amendment is specifically tied to overturning Goodridge v. Department of Public Health. Supporters of the amendment say that since those marriages already in existence when (if) the amendment passes won't be affected--it will only bar them moving forward into the future, along with any other form of family recognition--it isn't related to Goodridge. We'll see how this plays out.

Here's where things stand now. If GLAD's challenge (pdf) is rejected, the amendment will go to the legislature (or the General Court, as it is formally known here). It must then pass two consecutive General Courts with 50 votes (25% of the General Court--citizen-initiated amendments have a lower legislative bar than those coming out of the legislature). If it passes those two sessions, it will appear on the 2008 ballot for the citizens of Massachusetts to vote on.

We are also still waiting for a decision on Cote-Whitacre v. Dep't of Public Health. The SJC heard arguments in this case this fall. If the Court accepts GLAD's argument, out-of-state same-sex couples will be able to wed in Massachusetts.

Now, off to draft a letter to the AG.

In less than a week, I'll be heading back to Minnesota for nine days. Of course, I'll bring home work, very little of which I'll actually get done because it will also be "Old Home" week. I'll be running to spend time with folks I only see a couple times a year.

It will also be time to see my relatives. It's ok, I guess. But, many of them live in Iowa, and the ones that do are hyper-conservative. We're talking two uncles who were in the Promise Keepers. We're talking home deliver of Focus on the Family's monthly magazine. We're talking old school Dutch Calivinists, the folks my sister, the Methodist minister, says are like Dutch Southern Baptists--all of the rules but none of the emotion. (I often joke that the cool Dutch people stayed in Holland; their right-wing rejects moved to Iowa and Michigan.) At least they'll be coming to my parents' house, rather than us driving to Iowa (and I get to do some major cooking!)

I certainly hope this doesn't come up (for the sake of a peaceful day), but it might:

Two retired Urbandale teachers said Tuesday that they are challenging a state law banning gay marriages because they believe they're entitled to the same kind of committed relationships that they grew up with during the 1950s.

Larry Hoch, 63, and David Twombley, 64, were one of six couples named as plaintiffs Tuesday in a Polk County lawsuit fighting an Iowa requirement that marriage must be "between a male and a female" to be valid.

Yup, that's right, the fight for Marriage Equality has landed right in the middle of The Heartland. Queers are trying to get hitched in IOWA, of all places!

"You mean there are queers in Iowa?!"

The first gay bar I ever went to was the Brass Garden (now it's just called The Garden) in Des Moines. I also marched in my first Pride Parade in Des Moines. I was the first openly gay Resident Assistant employed by ISU's Department of Residence, and was one of the student leaders in a fight to open campus family housing to same-sex couples (a fight we lost). I got my first death threat as an activist in Ames. All of this was over a dozen years ago. My connections to the state, other than directly via family and relatives (yes, I make a distinction between the two) have pretty much been severed, though.

In the part of Iowa where my relatives live, the northwest corner, this move is going to be incredibly unpopular. But, activists have made sure to target that part of the state (remember, the couples involved in these lawsuits are selected based on a number of criteria, one of which is geographical diversity within the state where the law is being challenged--these couples are more than just plaintiffs, they're also public spokespeople, and activists want to have some kind of presence in the different parts of the state--to humanize it, to give it a "local angle," etc.) and one of the couples suing Iowa lives in Sioux City, the largest city in the northwest part of Iowa.

[An aside here: I just loved the box directing people to info about the couples on the Des Moines Register:

The couples listed as plaintiffs in the case have been together for several years. Click here to read about their families
(emphasis added)

The italicized language alone will be enough to drive Iowa wingnuts crazy. They hate it when you admit we have families...now back to the rest of the piece.]

It might surprise folks to find out that Sioux City is no stranger to queer legal controversies. Two years ago, a judge in Sioux City granted a divorce to a lesbian couple who wanted to dissolve the Civil Union they had obtained in Vermont. So far, the divorce is still in effect. The Iowa Supreme Court threw out a challenge by several conservative legislators, and others, because they lacked standing; the Court didn't say whether or not the judge erred in his decision.

Who would have thought that Sioux City, Iowa would be a center of the Marriage Equality struggle? Actually, we should anticipate that every part of the country will be involved (since we queers do seem to be everywhere), but it still seems odd to have Sioux City as a hotbed of activity.

My relatives get their television and newspaper news from Sioux City. They'll probably be aware of this. I sure as hell hope they don't want to talk about it.

My grandmothers are probably the only two people who have ever come into contact with me and haven't figured out I'm gay. My mother has specifically asked me not to tell them. ("It'll make everyone's life easier if they don't know.") I only see them once or twice a year, and they really don't play a significant role in my life, so it's not that big a deal (other than keeping me from talking about my academic work, my activist work, my relationships, my friendships...actually, much of my life). Luckily, we've mostly managed to avoid talking about any issues that involved gay stuff (has any family in America actually managed to do this?) I dunno if I can keep holding my tongue, though, and I'm afraid something not very nice might come out of it.

Wish me--and, of course, the couples in Iowa--luck

[Addendum: I wanted to add this, but forgot. With the shock that might accompany all of this going down in Iowa, it's also useful to remember that the Iowa Democratic Party's platform endorses marriage equality (424-435):

REPEALING THE DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT
We support:

• Repealing the Defense of Marriage Act which defines marriage as between one man and one woman.

MARRIAGES/CIVIL UNIONS
We support:

• Legal recognition of domestic partnerships and same sex marriage.

We oppose:

• Any constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage

The were one of the first two state Democratic Party's (Colorado being the other, as I recall) to include such support in their Platform. There are progressives in Iowa folks. (I guess, living in New England, where I just saw Wyoming referred to as "Midwestern," and where they assume everyone in flyover country is an inbred bigot who's thrilled to get indoor plumbing, makes me a little more sensitive to things like that.)]