Monthly Archives: July 2015
Our Moms Should Have Known: 18 Men Share Their Gay Giveaways
Queer No Longer Queer – Nor Is Privacy
Queer No Longer Queer – Nor Is Privacy
It’s been stunning how sociocultural worlds collided the past few weeks in essentially the blink of an eye – but I’m not referring directly to the U.S. Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling legitimizing gender-neutral marriage rights, which in turn “suddenly” triggered long-festering anti-gay reactions and ugly religious showdowns. Nor am I speaking of the “sudden” widespread wave of movements to remove vestiges of the Confederate Flag after more than 150 years, before that racist symbol of white supremacy vaulted to the front of news reports because a lone gunman had repeatedly brandished that banner and decided that nine churchgoing African-Americans shouldn’t live, along with all other blacks.
No, I’m referring to that other battle: the Congressional one about whether the U.S. government should be allowed to continue to collect private data and phone records on basically everyone. The tie-in is that, with the SCOTUS ruling on gay marriage — or, more accurately, marriage without regard to gender (don’t forget, this was a victory for transgender marriage rights as well: marriage without regard to gender, as far as I can tell) — the court, in Justice Kennedy’s ringing ruling of affirmation, in essence was saying “queer” was no longer queer, i.e., unusual: Being nonheterosexual was legitimate, LGBT relationship are legit and worthy of respect and LGBT people should “not…be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The constitution grants them that right.” That is: the 14th Amendment clause of equal protection, which had been lingering in the U.S. Constitution for a mere 147 years or so (give or take the argument that the amendment was never properly ratified).
So, if inherent in the ruling is the underlying acceptance that everyone is equal under the law and that our relationships are legit, therefore there is no reason to hide our relationships or enable others to hide: This is the “new” gay-positive/post-bigoted America: The court has basically said so.
But, OK, that’s overly simplistic: It ignores history, ignores truly-felt revulsion and “gay panic” about all things gay including seeing men kiss men, ignores deeply held religious beliefs and so forth. But by the same token, here we are: We’re not going back into the shadows, we’re not going back into the closet, we’re out, we’re proud and we won’t live in fear: Legions of LGBT activists and allies have shows incredible courage for decades if not centuries to get us to this point; there’s no turning back.
…But then there’s this concept called “privacy.” Well …why do we need “privacy” if the whole LGBT marriage battle was about NOT living in the shadows, not living a lie, not living in fear, not having to “pass” as straight? Is “privacy” a code word for enabling people to remain closeted?
I’m of course being a bit facetious, and I’ll disassemble part of my argument in a moment, but for now let’s look at why so many Americans are so concerned about the government looking over our shoulders — as queers, let alone as straights, if we’ve now been given the top court’s green light to be ourselves openly. As many national-security advocates note, if you have nothing to hide, then you should have nothing to fear from full discovery and disclosure by government surveillance, especially if the government is looking for terrorist plots. And since being queer is no longer a legal stigma, supposedly we can’t be blackmailed and we can’t be blackballed, right?
Well, of course not: There are still bigots aplenty and job discrimination, housing discrimination, relatives’ discrimination and so forth. Nor am I advocating a total end to privacy because, as we all know or maybe fear, we’ve collectively been scarred either actually or figuratively by the object lessons of literature’s Orwellian Big Brother or the Nazi/Stasi/KGB/McCarthy histories. But in the eyes of progressives, or at least some progressives, we’ve come such a long way in America, or certain parts of America, that the U.S. Supreme Court ruling should in turn have greased the skids of societal acceptance by pointing out the inherent injustices and in essence said: Get onboard the human rights express; we’re moving on.
…Except…: What if certain closeted people are not yet ready to be out? What if the government, in seeking to find terrorists in our midst, happens to also find out that someone is gay who’s been keeping this aspect of themselves from family and friends? Well, since the government wouldn’t have any reason to disclose this to anyone, is any harm done (other than the principle of the matter)?
Back up a bit. If queer is no longer queer, and gay is now legally OK, can a “fag tag” be used for blackmail anymore? In the past, the mere mention that a person MIGHT be queer was grounds for a defamation lawsuit, or, vice versa, discrimination. Can such a suit ever again be upheld in court if it’s no longer a slight? (Actually, as I recall, that’s been the case for years in certain jurisdictions: that calling someone homosexual or even implying such is no longer seen as defamatory because, well, there’s nothing wrong anymore with being LGBT, in the eyes of the law.)
So back to the question of why queers — and anyone else, for that matter — need privacy. Well, I can think of at least one reason offhand: surprise-birthday-party planning – I’d hate to be the government spy who lets that cat out of the bag inadvertently. (OK, I’m being a little silly there.) And I don’t like anyone watching me poop, but maybe that’s just me being inhibited because of old social conditioning. (Less silly, but still silly.) Here’s another, though: Say I’m in a straight marriage and haven’t told my spouse that I’m bi or gay or whatever — shouldn’t I be allowed to disclose that, if at all, at a time of my own choosing and in my own way? Why should the government know something about me that my own spouse doesn’t yet know? Or my paramour? Or my bigoted boss? Or…you get the idea.
… On the other had…after 9-11, I’ve personally had no qualms about the government knowing everything there is know about my (boring) bi life, even my occasionally salacious word searches in Google — it’s not as though my (unimaginative) sexual fantasy life is going to overthrow the very government that I want protecting my freedom and liberty to do such word searchers or have such a (boring) life. More to the point, I’ve had virtually no qualms about the government trying to ferret out nefarious people; in fact I’ve even proudly ended up working as a technical editor for a nonprofit agency that deals in part with national security, and — irony of ironies — I’ve also ending up being a board member/officer for that nonprofit’s LGBT employee affinity group: Talk about an entity coming full circle in a field that used to drum out queers, destroy livelihoods and exist with the haunting excesses of J. Edgar Hoover’s FBI or other agencies.
But I get it: I don’t want secret police storm-trooping into my bedroom to arrest me for certain consensual acts if some antigay zealot gets into office; the abuses against personal liberty in the name of national security or some such other excuse have been rampant in the past. And I respect others’ rights to privacy — some folks just want to keep personal things personal, or as they say in Las Vegas, “What happens in Las Vegas,…” well, you know. …But you SHOULDN’T know, if you know what I mean.
I guess, though, I’m at that point in my life where I’ve either become cavalier, indifferent or fearless or all of the above, because I’ve had decades to get accustomed to being out, and while I haven’t always been happy being outed on occasion at times not of my own choosing, in the long run I’ve usually been happily relieved that the “secret” was no longer secret (if it ever was). And now, with the Supreme Court ruling, it’s almost downright de rigueur to be queer or queer-friendly. No need to be secret and private about that. But that’s me, that’s not other people who might not find an invasion of their privacy to be convenient, to say the least.
So this “new nation” of queer acceptance will take awhile to trickle down into the souls, behaviors and conditioned responses of those who still react negatively, and maybe that’s reason enough to take a go-slow approach to personal-data collecting while still trying to find all the terrorists under our beds (as long as we can still do what we want on TOP of the beds). I don’t expect folks to instantly adjust their attitudes and perceptions (including LGBT people who have internalized homophobia); these take time to unlearn. So I respect their right to privacy and the lessons of past governmental abuses. But I still hate surprises, whether it’s terrorists attacks, birthday parties or privacy invasions. It’s a dilemma, there is no “right” answer and it’s all a balancing act as we try to protect ourselves and our nation from terrorism (both internal and external). But I still wonder: In this day and age, with social acceptance on the rise, do we really need to be all that secretive and private anymore — as long as no one steals my credit card numbers and personal identity, of course… Oh, and I’ll keep the details of your next surprise party a secret from you. Just me and the government, yuh know.
— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.
Italian travel app putting LGBTIs in touch with ‘hosts’ to launch in US
Italian travel app putting LGBTIs in touch with ‘hosts’ to launch in US
A free, location-based travel app, which aims to put gay and LGBTI travelers in touch with ‘hosts, travel companions, lifts or local guides’ in their destination of choice is heading to the US.
Wimbify, which stands for ‘welcome to my back yard’ and is already available in some European countries, will launch in America this summer, according to the San Francisco Sentinel.
The Milan-based brand owners Sonders&Beach US, Corp. have explained the app as such: ‘Wimbify is not a gay dating app. Rather, it is a safe and secure community of like-minded people that want to host fellow travel lovers in their home for free.’
‘Engage in cultural exchange by becoming a local guide and meet new friends before or during their trips. Wimbify isn’t just a lodging sharing mobile app: we offer a community that grows, flourishes and expands with every new member.’
To see if Wimbify is available for download in your country, click here.
For more information about the app, visit the official website.
The post Italian travel app putting LGBTIs in touch with ‘hosts’ to launch in US appeared first on Gay Star News.
Jamie Tabberer
www.gaystarnews.com/article/italian-travel-app-putting-lgbtis-in-touch-with-hosts-to-launch-in-us/
Thomas Roberts Makes History as First Openly Gay Man to Anchor Evening News Program on Network TV
Breitbart Says The “Gay Rainbow Flag” Was Responsible For The Chattanooga Terror Attack
Breitbart Says The “Gay Rainbow Flag” Was Responsible For The Chattanooga Terror Attack
Admittedly, it was a slow news weekend — so slow that aggressively right-wing website Breitbart published an op-ed piece suggesting the rainbow flag is what prompted 24-year-old Muhammad Youssef Abdulazees to grab a gun and fatally shoot four Marines and a sailor in Chattanooga last Thursday.
“The gay rainbow flag,” writes Breitbart’s Editor-at-Large John Nolte, “is seen by many Christians as a symbol of hate and oppression, and for good reason. Under that banner, there has been an all-out assault by the media and the Left against our religious freedoms.”
Related: Obnoxious Teen Nash Grier Swears “Seriously! I’m NOT A Homophobe!” In Defensive New Op-Ed
Making what could safely be called an Olympic leap in logic, Nolte ventures to say “the defiant act of flying the gay rainbow flag, especially in the wake of the Supreme Court’s ruling that legalized same sex marriage in all 50 states, is undoubtedly offensive to devout Muslims, and therefore provocative.”
Wrapping up the screed, which ran on Saturday at a svelte 328 words, the columnist artlessly opines that “it’s time to shame and marginalize the gay rainbow flag — this offensive, provocative symbol of hate and oppression must be tossed on the ash bin of history… Before it kills again.”
It’s something of a pet theme in John Nolte’s work. The scribe has recently penned such pieces as “Take Down The Fascist, Anti-Christian Gay-Pride Flag” and “Be Afraid: Media Glosses Over Repeated Threats of Violence From LGBT-er.”
His work, to put it lightly, is punishingly stupid.
Did Daisy Dukes bring Ebola to America?
Was Jungle Juice responsible for 9/11?
Are Pet Shop Boys a front for ISIS?
Tune in to Nolte’s next column for answers to these burning questions.
Derek de Koff
Group Claims Christians Will Be ‘Carted Off to Jail’ in Pathetic, Last Ditch Attempt to Reverse Gay Marriage Ruling
Group Claims Christians Will Be ‘Carted Off to Jail’ in Pathetic, Last Ditch Attempt to Reverse Gay Marriage Ruling
Right-wing loon Janet Porter, the Faith2Action founder who was utterly convinced she could “pray away” the Supreme Court’s ruling on same-sex marriage, is apparently tired of holding her hands together and will now try something less batty but only has a slightly more realistic chance of succeeded in stopping the gays from marrying.
Right Wing Watch reports that Porter is currently leading an effort to pressure Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine “to file a Motion to Rehear Obergefell v. Hodges” with the Supreme Court – this time without the participation of Justices Elena Kagan and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, whom Porter says must recuse themselves because they’ve both presided over same-sex marriages.
Tomorrow is the last day to file such a motion and as Porter has yet to hear word back from God or DeWine that either plans on intervening, she has now begun ramping up the fear-mongering. In an email sent out today, Porter warns that should the gay marriage decision stay in place, Christians will soon be “carted off to jail.”
Sorry Janet, no one will be carting you off to any jail anytime soon. A mental hospital perhaps..but no jail.
The post Group Claims Christians Will Be ‘Carted Off to Jail’ in Pathetic, Last Ditch Attempt to Reverse Gay Marriage Ruling appeared first on Towleroad.
Kyler Geoffroy
Black Trans Woman 'Profiled' as Sex Worker Gains Online Following, But May Remain Jailed
Black Trans Woman 'Profiled' as Sex Worker Gains Online Following, But May Remain Jailed
As the #FreeMeaganTaylor movement takes off, activists say the prison system as thrown up roadblocks in bailing the 22-year-old out of a segregated Iowa jail cell.
Mitch Kellaway
Caitlyn Jenner Bonds With Laverne Cox At 'I Am Cait' Premiere
Caitlyn Jenner Bonds With Laverne Cox At 'I Am Cait' Premiere
Caitlyn Jenner and Laverne Cox had a moment at the premiere of Jenner’s new E! reality series, “I Am Cait.”
Jenner and Cox met in person at the private event held Sunday ahead of the July 26 premiere. The “Orange Is the New Black” star posted a photo with the 65-year-old on Instagram that evening, writing how happy she was to finally meet the trans icon.
“@caitlynjenner and I finally met in person at a special private advance screening of #IAmCait. #TransIsBeautiful #girlslikeus #caitlynjenner,” she captioned the pic.
Others in attendance included Candis Cayne and Trace Lysette.
A photo posted by laverne cox (@lavernecox) on Jul 19, 2015 at 10:41pm PDT
— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.
Glasgow Pride event bans drag in case it is ‘offensive’
Glasgow Pride event bans drag in case it is ‘offensive’
A Pride event in Glasgow has banned drag queens from performing in case they are ‘offensive’ to the trans community.
Free Pride Glasgow, a separate ‘anti-commercialist’ alternative to the city’s main Pride event, would not welcome drag queens at their event next month.
‘It was felt by the group within the Trans/Non Binary Caucus that some drag performance, particularly cis drag, hinges on the social view of gender and making it into a joke, however transgender individuals do not feel as though their gender identity is a joke,’ the group said in a statement.
‘This can particularly difficult for those who are not out and still present as the gender they were assigned at birth. While it was discussed whether we could have trans drag acts perform, it was agreed that as it would not be appropriate to ask any prospective drag acts whether or not they identified as trans.’
Drag has played a part in Pride for decades. It was a drag queen, Marsha P Johnson, who was one of the first to fight back against police oppression at the Stonewall riots and kicked off the modern LGBTI rights movement.
Pride Glasgow has said they have, themselves, considered whether or not to ban drag queens from their own event.
‘We can understand the actions behind Free Pride over the banning of drag performers but believe this is the wrong action to take and is going against what an inclusive event should be about,’ they said in a statement.
‘As an organization Pride Glasgow had a similar discussion back in 2010 over how drag could cause discomfort to people. However, we took the decision that drag queens and kings play an important part in the history of the Pride movement and should be included in the event.
They added: ‘Pride Glasgow believes that any community group should be given their place to flourish but that success should not be built on the negativity and ignorance towards other events, groups and like-minded people.
‘We are saddened to see that this is the direction that Free Pride has chosen to take.’
The post Glasgow Pride event bans drag in case it is ‘offensive’ appeared first on Gay Star News.
Joe Morgan
www.gaystarnews.com/article/glasgow-pride-event-bans-drag-in-case-it-is-offensive/
