Law and Order Gets One Right

I've already registered my dismay with what I felt was a really awful "gay" episode of Law and Order: Special Victims Unit.

But, in the interest of fairness, I did enjoy an episode of the regular Law and Order program about a week or two later. This wasn't a '"gay" episode, per say, as it encompassed a number of different issues, but it certainly had plenty of gay material.

The story had to do with a gay man who is murdered, gay-bashed, by a homophobic young punk. This fellow is arrested, put on trial, and quickly convicted of the crime [a great scene has the prosecutor getting his mother to reveal her own homophobia on the witness stand]. But the members of an Innocence Project take up his cause, and claim that the jury didn't have all the facts: the gay man's lover -- actually his husband, as the two were married in Massachusetts -- was allegedly having an affair with another man at the time of his partner's death, and had even seen a divorce lawyer for advice.

How would I have felt if the gay guy were guilty of murdering his lover? Well, as long as it was made clear that it wasn't his sexual orientation that made him murderous I guess I would have been okay with it, as gay people -- like straights -- are imperfect human beings; the gay community, like any other community, has both good and bad members. Still, I won't deny that I'm glad it didn't work out that way.

From there the story took a dramatic shift into examining the possibility that some of the people who work on these Innocence Projects -- they work to overturn convictions of people they either think are innocent, didn't have a fair trial, or both -- are not only gullible on occasion but massively overzealous. The main witness at a hearing is a drug dealer who sold meth to the dead man and who now claims that the man's husband asked him to find a hit man. To say the drug dealer lacks credibility is an understatement, especially when it's revealed that a member of the Innocence Project sort of wined and dined -- and may have coached and even paid -- him.

Then there's another twist as the woman who heads the project reveals that D.A. Michael Cutter (Linus Roache), who prosecuted the gay basher and is fighting the motion for a retrial [and is also a former student of hers] never really got his B.A. due to a lack of credits [although he did graduate law school], calling his entire career into question. [What makes it worse is that she reveals this to defend a gay-basher who is not innocent.]

In a powerful scene, Cutter --- knowing he could be throwing his entire career away [and who is hetero]-- refuses to give too cushy a deal to the loathsome gay basher, so appalled is he at the thought of the man serving too short a sentence for such a heinous hate crime. It all ends on a very satisfactory note, although the repercussions for Cutter may not be known until upcoming episodes are aired.

The script, by Richard Sweren and Julie Martin, tackled a whole variety of issues, had the obligatory twists and turns [none of which were dumb and improbable as in that SVU episode], and was altogether excellent. The gay aspects were just one aspect of the story, and were handled quite well, presenting gay characters who weren't perfect but recognizably human [unlike Kathy Griffin's supposed "lesbian activist'].

Bravo!

What An Ass!

I ran across a post about Freedom to Marry Week -- Mombian has a list of them with links -- that really boggled my mind with its stupidity.

Seems there's this bi-identified gal who's angry that the term "gay marriage" somehow excludes bisexuals.

What?

First of all the term "marriage equality" is used just as frequently as "gay marriage." Second, you might understandably wonder why our bi gal is so upset. After all, if she marries a man then she doesn't have to worry about marriage equality. And if she marries a woman she's part of a same-sex couple and will naturally want to have the protections that marriage equality may engender. Right?

Wrong. The bi-gal objects because -- as she puts it -- just because two women are a couple doesn't make them -- pardon me -- a lesbian [or gay] couple, and that's why she's in a dither. That's why she won't support gay marriage (or, presumably, marriage equality). Just because she may someday want to marry a woman doesn't make her, like, a yucky dyke. [Admittedly, she doesn't come right out and say that or use that term but that's definitely the inference I got. And they say bi's are never homophobic. Bullshit! For those who may be unaware of this some bi-identified individuals feel they are entirely separate from -- and sometimes superior to -- gay people.]

Now I understand that she feels invisible or excluded or something but to not support gay marriage, which would benefit not only gays but -- yes -- same-sex bisexual couples as well (whether it's one or both partners who consider themselves bi)! Does that make any sense at all? Does she seriously think any gay person would consider her an ally? Does she think her attitude will make people take her or the bi-cause she espouses seriously? The term gay marriage or even same-sex marriage is convenient and easy and hardly meant to oppress anybody who loves or desires a member of their own sex, which -- as far as I know -- bisexuals frequently do. So what's the fucking problem?

Frankly, I don't think this gal is going to get a lot of support, even from the bi community (except for a few homophobic dim wits). Most intelligent bisexuals recognize that when they are in same-sex relationships the world pretty much sees them as gay (and what the hell is wrong with that?) and they don't necessarily get hysterical about it. Some bi's strongly identify with gays and others would rather shoot themselves than be considered "monosexual" (although it's usually being thought homosexual that bothers them, not heterosexual. Wonder why?)You can bet that this gal probably wouldn't object half as much to being called one half of a straight couple when she's out with a boyfriend.

But I've often said that some bi's suffer from internalized homophobia, even if it's not politically correct to say so.

Way to go, gal. Show your support for homosexuality, gay people, lesbians, alternative lifestyles, and so on by acting like a fucking bigot.

Bisexuals have far more to worry about from the religious right than they do from gays, some of whom have supported bi-rights for decades.

This gal calls herself, if I remember correctly, cowtown bi.

I think cowpie bi might be more appropriate.

What an ass. If she decides to leave the GLBT movement, I doubt if it will be much of a loss.

FREEDOM TO MARRY WEEK

A quick post and a reminder that February 8th to February 14th is Freedom to Marry Week.

You can get more information here.

Marriage equality is as much about equality as it is about marriage. Frankly, while I can understand why bigoted Republicans have problems with gay marriage -- and gays in general -- I'm not exactly thrilled with supposedly liberal democrats (yes, I include Obama and Clinton etc.) who are presumably gay-friendly (or so we think) but who don't support Full Marriage Equality. Yes, maybe in some cases they want to take small steps and are thinking of their more narrow-minded constituents, but now that Obama is in office we'll have to see what happens (Rick Warren, anyone?)

Forgive me if I'm cynical, but I've been around the block a few times. Forty years since Stonewall and there's still so fucking far to go. Still, I have to remember that in the days right after Stonewall the idea of gay marriage would have been inconceivable.

So maybe there's reason to hope after all.

We'll see.

Movie: "The Gay Marriage Thing"

The Gay Marriage Thing. A film by Stephanie Higgins.

The debate over gay marriage and how it affects the gay community receives a warm, humorous and sympathetic treatment in The Gay Marriage Thing, an excellent new documentary directed by Stephanie Higgins. The film follows a young lesbian couple, Lorre and Gayle, who have been together for fifteen years, as they prepare to wed in Massachusetts. The two women have moved in with two elderly aunts who can no longer live on their own. As we see them discuss the particulars of their upcoming nuptials and reception with the aunts and each other, various individuals voice their opinions on gay marriage.

There’s the African-American Reverend Carlton Smith, who points out that it’s not him but the state who actually makes the marriage "official" in legal terms. Representing the anti-gay marriage side is Reverend Richard Weisenbach, who tells how he "loves" everyone in the most cloying terms but can’t congratulate two gay men – "great fellows" he "loves" – on their marriage because homosexuality is just plain wrong. Pro-gay representative Kathi Anne Reinstein tells how shocked she was to get virulent hate messages from people "whose lives are not affected by this at all."

One young woman on camera makes it clear that gay marriage opponents just don’t get it. She says that she knows that gay people can love each other, but if love is the only requisite for marriage, then why can’t she marry her mother or father or anyone she loved. She just can’t grasp the reality that gay people can have romantic feelings for one another just as straight people do. After she then claims that most gay people are not in relationships and are not monogamous (as if all heterosexuals are), Higgins cuts to shots of several gay couples who have been in committed relationships for decades.

Higgins allows gay marriage opponents their say; it’s not her fault if they’re clueless. As the bigots wave their vile, ignorant banners, we are reminded that gay marriage, like desegregation, is another important progression in basic human rights and freedom.

You can learn more about the film, including how to buy or rent/download it, at its website: www.thegaymarriagething.com. The film would be perfect to start off a discussion on this important issue in the home or classroom. Of special note, Ms. Higgins recently married her wife and honeymooned in Europe. "It was an amazing, exciting, emotional experience for everyone," says Higgins.

But "it was hard to learn in Italy that Prop 8 passed."

I have to say that I've been very surprised -- and a little dismayed -- by the lack of support that Ms. Higgins' film has been given by the New York gay media. Although a review was submitted to The New York Blade, it wasn't even posted to their web site. (Of course the Blade does not publish as often as it used to, has less space each issue, and its publisher is apparently having serious financial problems). When I queried the editor of Gay City News if he'd like to run an interview with the film's director, I never even heard back. Let's see -- here we have a film made by a member of our community about the issue that's being talked about the most -- gay marriage -- and neither paper can bother to cover it? Yet the Blade had room for a write up on the DVD of that awful old Boys in the Band (which is supposedly still "relevent" -- give me a break!) and Gay City News has room for a piece about Puccini's La rondine. (Now I'm a big opera fan and love La rondine, but the last I heard Puccini wasn't gay.) There's nothing wrong with covering the arts in a gay paper but why not cover The Gay Marriage Thing? I can't believe it's because the film was made by a lesbian instead of some hot young gay guy, so what's going on here?

Some People Just Don't Get It

Boston Legal craps out.

On tonight's episode of Boston Legal -- the series finale, and not a moment too soon -- two heterosexual male characters, Denny (William Shatner) and Alan (James Spada) get married.

Anybody really feel like watching this storyline considering what happened with Proposition 8 and so on?

Boston Legal has had a few pro-gay episodes in the past, but this one -- written by the producer David E. Kelley (pictured) comes off as something cobbled together by a liberal -- who like many liberals -- just doesn't get it when it comes to gays.

Frankly I'm sick of shows and movies that try to equate the platonic love between two heterosexual men with the romantic love between two gay men. [And yes, I do understand that Kelley was in part underlining the irony that the most significant relationship these two skirt-chasing heteros had was actually with each other.] I have lots of friends -- gay and straight, male and female, but for now let's stick with gay men -- whom I love and care about very much, but I would never consider marrying them. I have experienced romantic love and passion and know that it is very different from the love of platonic friendship. Non-romantic love, especially between a parent and child, can certainly run very deep, but it is a different experience altogether from romantic passion.

On the show Alan argues before a judge and snippily debates a gay activist who, rightly, finds the idea of these two straight guys getting married to be offensive, making a complete mockery of what marriage equality -- emphasis on equality -- is all about. Alan insists that having sex is not always a deciding factor in marriage, and that many people marry individuals that they do not love in the romantic sense. The judge adds that homosexuals often marry heterosexuals in passionless relationships, and sometimes gay men marry lesbians. "You wouldn't want the government telling them they couldn't do that, would you?' she asks the activist.

Of course this sentiment completely misses the point that the whole emphasis of gay liberation (including marriage equality) is to remove the stigma and shame that is still attached to being gay for those very people who wind up in those sham "mixed" marriages. Besides, even in cases such as those -- as well as cases where one person marries another for, say, financial gain -- at least one party has some romantic feelings for the other (for instance the straight wife of a husband whom she doesn't realize is secretly homosexual). In the case of Denny and Alan, neither party feels any romantic attachment to the other. But hey, they love each other, Kelley seems to say, so they're just a gay couple without the sex.

Wrong.

To be fair, Boston Legal is all about being irreverent, and the show has been playing up the brotherly love between the two men for quite some time now. They have had sexless sleepovers, for instance. Perhaps we're supposed to see these fellows as being so cool and secure that they can get married and have no problem with it, but it's hard to forget that Denny is a Republican who in one episode referred to a character as a "faggot, a total faggot." As is often the case with Boston Legal, the whole situation is completely contrived anyway. Denny wants the younger Alan to get his money, and could simply leave it to him in a will, but even the judge observes that a marriage will give them certain tax benefits. Chuck and Larry anyone?

So this is a mockery and nothing more. Even the supposedly more liberal Alan doesn't seem to understand what he's doing wrong. The gay activist says -- and the judge agrees (although she allows the marriage to take place) -- that this will only open the door to the kinds of excesses and stupidities predicted by the religious right. [Let me make it clear that gay marriage opponents argue that if gays can get married simply because they love each other, then why can't, say, a sister and brother, or mother and son, get married as well because, after all, they love each other too. Yes, they are that stupid.]

Gay marriage equality is being compared to the fight against interracial marriage years ago. One can't imagine Alan -- or David E. Kelley -- arguing during that period that if a white and black person could marry one another then two white male friends should be able to get married, too, because, well, love is love.

Yes, some people don't marry for love. And yes, there are sexless marriages. But I can bet that the vast majority of gay couples who line up in Massachusetts and hoped to line up in California to get married did feel romantic passion for each other and that most of them had a fulfilling sex life as well.

To say that the "love" between these two silly guys Alan and Denny (they chase after women so relentlessly and indeed pathetically at times that they come off like Don Juan homosexuals, but Kelley never had the guts to go into that) is similar to the romantic love between two gay men, two lesbians, or indeed a straight man and woman, is ludicrous. Besides, after what happened in California and elsewhere, who the hell wants to see a show where two straight guys get married when millions of gay people who truly love each other can't?

When it comes to gays, some people just don't get it and probably never will.

How sad that this sometimes applies to the purportedly gay-friendly as well as to the bigots.

Mixed Emotions

I have very mixed emotions, as many gays do, with the results of the recent elections.

One one hand, the democrats won, which is good, to say the least. We have the first Africa-American president -- also very good. And he is at least gay-friendly, although he doesn't support gay marriage and has too many evangelical-type friends to suit me. The main problem -- among many -- with the Republicans is their idiotic alliance with the religious right, their failure to understand the need to separate church and state. I hope Obama doesn't make the same mistake. Certain of his remarks during the whole mess when he had that homophobic, ex-gay gospel singer on his tour gave me the idea that on some gay issues Obama just doesn't get it. But that's true of most family men when it comes to us gays.

At least we have a better chance under the democrats of getting various gay rights bills and gay marriage bills passed. If the Republicans had won, we wouldn't have had any chance at all.

Still, whatever [relative] elation many of us feel over Obama's win is minimized by the passing of Proposition 8 in California, which bans same-sex marriage. While I appreciate that Obama always mentions gays and lesbians when he talks of Americans, we must keep in mind that religious family man Obama does not support gay marriage (which, I have said, is as much about human equality as it is about marriage).

Wayne Besen looks at the reality that many blacks do not support gay marriage or gay rights and are indeed homophobic, but he argues -- correctly, I believe -- that it is more about educational levels than race. His column on this makes for an interesting read. While I think an anti-gay "machismo" can affect even educated men, it does tend to be less educated males of all races who are externally or internally homophobic, and are -- if homosexual -- on "the down low." Still, many gays -- many of whom supported civil rights for blacks their entire lives and even worked hard for civil rights -- are disappointed that some members of this oppressed minority group are so willing to oppress another.

But as I have said before, rather than letting this engender inappropriate and equally hypocritical racist feelings in those of us who are gay and non-black, it is better to remember that their are many out and proud black gay people, and many straight blacks are very supportive of gay rights. Besides, think of the mixed emotions that many Americans who are both black and gay feel during this time.

Let's keep things in perspective.

Still, it's hard not to see the irony and feel just a bit bitter. The same day that the first African-American president is voted into office -- an historical occasion, long in coming -- gays are told by the passage of Proposition 8 and other bills that we are second-class citizens. that our lives and loves are unequal and our feelings don't matter.

In other words, the more things change, the more they stay the same.

Write to Marry Day

The fight for gay marriage is in reality a fight for equality. There have always been loving, committed gay couples-- many of whom have been together longer than many of their straight counterparts -- and gay couples deserve the same protections and privileges under the law that heterosexual couples have.

Sure I may snicker from time to time at modern-day gay couples who lust for the proverbial house with the white picket fence in the middle of the suburbs, not to mention 2.5 children -- it almost seems like an imitation of the conventional straight life I was raised in and longed to escape from -- but since I'm always yammering about the diversity of the gay community I have to say I'm all for everyone getting what they want whether it's my cup of java or not.

So I support gay marriage hands down. It won't automatically make some people easier with what we do in the privacy of our bedrooms, but it will bring us one step closer to equality.

Bloggers of all stripes and persuasions across the land are posting on or before October 29th to register their opposition to Proposition 8, which would amend California's constitution by banning sex-sex marriages. This would not only be a giant step backward, but would increase the likelihood of a national bill, such as that supported by the likes of Sarah Palin, opposing same-sex marriages.

In these days of an uneasy economy, there are those who might feel that gay marriage is not an important issue. I say that when the equality of several million Americans is called into question, then that certainly makes it an extremely important issue.

It goes to the very heart of the bedrock upon which this nation was built. Freedom from intolerance, equality for all. It is as much of paramount concern as the ongoing civil rights struggle for African-Americans, not to mention the fight for women's rights and against anti-Semitism and all other forms of blatant discrimination.

Hence this post in honor of "Write" to Marry Day.

Stepford Husbands at the New York Times

A couple of weeks ago [4/27/08] The New York Times ran an article in their Sunday magazine section about gay men in their twenties who are getting married ["The Newlywed Gays!"], contrasting them to gay men years ago who --while they may have entered into long-term relationships -- weren't neccessarily interested in the whole white picket fence, monogamy, supposedly straight boilerplate marriage contract business (not that straight marrieds are necessarily monogamous! I'll have more on this whole business in a future post.)

Looking at the somewhat grotesgue cover (pictured) I didn't expect much from the article; the supposedly liberal Times has published some surprisingly homophobic stuff in the past. However, I actually thought the article -- written by a Benoit Denizet-Lewis (I swear) -- was rather good and interesting (with some reservations), but I could have done without the idiotic photographs that accompanied it. Although the piece and some of the men interviewed tried to debunk a few gay stereotypes -- such as the stupid notion that in a gay male marriage one man is the "husband" and the other is the "wife" -- the kitschy, silly photos seemed to be trying to undermine it all (and I don't care if the photograher, Erwin Olaf, or the prop stylist, Jeffrey W. Miller, may be gay or not; I have no idea). The photographs seemed to be mocking the very men who were profiled in the article, making them seem like dizzy, infantile clones -- the unbelievably old-fashioned image of gay men as backward children. The poses were ridiculous. In a photo inside the magazine one poor guy was made up to resemble some kind of Stepford Wife (no, he wasn't in drag; again it was the pose).

It just seems that when it comes to gay men some people just can't get past the "camp," silly "fashionable" gay-men-are-boys (or, worse, girls) aspect no matter how many butch bears come out of the closet.

There were some aspects of the article itself that gave me pause as well. [I started my Ask Gay Dr. Bill online column for the very purpose of countering the dumb things said and written about gay people even by other gay people.] Deniset-Lewis writes that "like most gay men my age and older" he grew up thinking "happy gay men in a long-term relationship is an oxymoron." Why on earth should he think this when there have always been long-term gay couples, even in pre-Stonewall days and certainly after? The only conclusion I can reach is that he assumes just because he's had trouble maintaining a solid relationship that all gay men must be having the same problem.

Which says more about him than it says about gay men.