Disturbing Matters -- and the Stonewall Again!

It's a shame to realize that even in these much more [but not completely] enlightened times there are still young gay men (and women) killing themselves. There's the tragic case of Tyler Clementi [pictured] who committed suicide after his roommate at Rutgers and another "friend" taped him having a homoerotic encounter and then posted it on the Internet. These people may not have thought Tyler was doing anything wrong, they may have felt they were doing the right thing in "outing" him, but a.) they were committing a gross invasion of privacy [which would have been the case even had the encounter been heteroerotic in nature] and b.) they should have realized that "coming out" is a rite of passage that everyone comes to in his or her own time. Outing hypocritical homophobes is one thing; an 18-year-old college student is another. [The legal aspects of this are so, sadly, fascinating that you can bet this story will be used as the basis for a Law and Order:SVU episode as well as many others].

Tyler probably had other issues. He seems like a sensitive young man. He was not conventionally handsome but he had a sweet face and other qualities that may have in time attracted someone to share his life with him, had that been what he desired. His roommate took what might have been a tentative first step into finding and accepting himself and turned it, whatever his intentions, into a dirty joke. Tyler may not have killed himself over being gay, but it's clear that having his actions taped and displayed for all the world to see drove him over the edge.

Despite all the achievements in Gay Rights, gay teen suicide is still a very real and terrible issue.

As is homophobia in general. Although things are much better than they once were, there still are plenty of reports that remind us that to some people we're as hated as ever.

Just the other day a man was gay-bashed in the famous [or infamous] Stonewall bar here in New York. Not that this surprises me, as I had an unpleasant encounter there myself many moons ago. The victim was taking an honest piss when they guy beside him asked what kind of bar it was, and when he discovered he was in -- gasp! -- a gay bar, took out his aggression on the customer. Another straight guy joined in. Both of the gay-bashers were arrested.

What kills me is that the Stonewall is claiming they do everything to protect their customers, to have a safe environment for everyone. But how did this [probably] shit-faced straight guy [or self-hater] get into the bar in the first place? There used to be a time when bouncers in gay bars made sure that every customer, especially the straight ones who wandered in, were aware they were in a gay bar, so that they could withdraw -- or be refused admittance -- if their reaction was hostile or negative. Now most gay bars don't even bother to do this, the reason allegedly being that gays and straights mingle more today and no one should be excluded etc. etc. but which really has more to do with money. Years ago straight people entered gay bars with their gay friends, and they were generally cool and respectful. Now we get inebriated meatheads who bounce in, unaware they're in a gay bar or too drunk to care [until they're made aware of it], and gay customers wind up paying the price for it.

I hope the guy who was gay-bashed sues the straight owners of the Stonewall. [Yes, they are straight, don't let anybody fool you. They gave a gay bartender at their other place, the Duplex down the street, a piece of the action and made him manager so they can say it's "gay-owned," which is a trifle disingenuous in my opinion.] The Stonewall gets the overflow from the Duplex, and it's been said that Duplex employees encourage [are told to encourage] the mostly straight, generally drunken tourists pouring out of the Duplex to go to the Stonewall; sometimes they mix with the gay customers like oil and water.

One of the gay-bashers' lawyers claims it wasn't a hate crime. But even if the guy turns out to be homosexual himself, it doesn't matter. If you beat somebody up because they're gay and call them a fag all the while it's a hate crime, be assured.

Rum Dump at the Stonewall Inn

I've reported in the past how utterly disappointed I was in the "new" Stonewall Inn -- to put it mildly -- the historic bar where began the modern-day Gay Rights movement. (There was a movement even before the Stonewall rebellion, let's make that clear.) This mostly straight-owned bar with its deluge of drunken straight tourists from The Duplex, closeted bartenders, weird hostesses, and an almost total absence of gay pride finally made a little burp in that direction, although it was activist Wayne Besen who deserves the credit for it. He got the bar's owners to stage a "Rum Dump" at the bar to protest and publicize the fact that Jamaica (from whence comes Myer's Rum and Red Stripe Beer) has become "the most homophobic place on Earth." But there are other world-wide trouble spots, as Besen reports on his blog, which is essential -- and scary -- reading.

I've no doubt the owners of the Stonewall see this as a chance for publicity and probably don't care all that much about the situation in Jamaica (and can probably afford to lose the one or two bottles they had of Myers Rum) but at least it's a step in the right direction. But this Stonewall Inn is not and never has been (nor, I believe, will it ever be) the "historic" Stonewall Inn" regardless of its name and its location. LGBT groups will hold occasional events there because of this "history," but it's clear to me, at least, that the owners are less interested in history than they are in the kachung of the cash register, and I'm sure they would say "we're businessmen, who can blame us?" But they did play up the history of the bar in interviews for the gay press, in which they were often mistaken for a gay couple.

Wonder how big a crowd they got for the Rum Dump?

But if Besen can keep at the owners and get them to support more activist-oriented events and protests, maybe the bar can at some point turn into what it should be, or at least some approximation thereof.

But forgive me if I don't hold my breath.

In the meantime, if you see any of the offending Jamaican brands in your local gay bar, ask the manager not to order any more. A complete and total boycott of Jamaica and its products is what is called for, as Besen has noted.

Things Change -- But Not That Much

The straight people who went into gay bars twenty years ago are often very different from the straight people who go into gay bars today.

Twenty -- or even ten -- years ago the straight people (unless they wandered into the wrong bar) were generally accompanying gay friends, were very gay-friendly and supportive, and knew how to behave in a gay bar. Gay Liberation has helped make some straight people more comfortable around gays (good) and depictions of gay life on television have made gay bars seem like fun, straight-friendly places. So nowadays we have more and more straights going into gay bars -- but while they may be more tolerant, this doesn't always mean that deep down they're really that supportive or gay friendly. Besides, being tolerant of someone does not mean you think they're your equal (and if you don't believe me look at all the supposedly liberal democrats who support gay rights but won't go so far as to stand up for gay marriage).

Straights today often go into gay bars for the wrong reasons and with the wrong attitude. They're not afraid to go into a gay bar (since lots of straights do so they assume no one will think they're gay, God forbid), and often they feel a kind of titillation, like they're being just a bit hip and naughty by partying with homosexuals (although they often take up a corner of the gay bar and keep to themselves). Some of them smile or giggle when they see two guys kissing, staring as if the smoochers are behind bars in the zoo. And most of them have no problem with standing at the bar making out, as if arrogantly assuming that every gay person (who has seen straight couples necking in real life, in movies, and on television ad nauseam) is just dying to watch "normal" people show them how it's done. Some of them are just shit-faced and don't know or care where they are, driven by alcohol and lust to sloppy public displays of affection, but others clearly want to put on a show. We're here, we wanta neck, and it's too bad if it's a turn-off to you. As if straight couples couldn't go anywhere they wanted and neck -- including gay bars.

The thing is it doesn't work in reverse. You can say all you want that gay bars are dying out because gay couples feel comfortable being affectionate anywhere, but that's a load of horse shit. In mixed gay/straight bars or trendy lounges frequented by many gays, maybe. But if a gay male couple in particular were to try making out in one of the singles bars on Manhattan's second avenue (never mind Queens, Brooklyn or the Bronx!), I doubt that the bartender would be anxious to serve them a second drink or that most customers would tolerate it for long. Hell, I could stand down the block from the Stonewall Inn near 7th Avenue embracing a guy on a Saturday night and I wouldn't be surprised if even today someone driving by might not yell out "faggots!" and lob a bottle or two.

I rarely see gay couples walking down the street holding hands even in the West Village or Chelsea, and when I do they generally have a kind of wary look in their eyes, as if wondering where the verbal or physical attack might come from at any second. Not to whine or exaggerate, but Gay People who think there is no danger and total acceptance even in a big, liberal city like New York are living in a fool's paradise.

The thing is that even today gay couples can not be that demonstrative in public except in gay bars, whereas straight couples can make out anywhere. That's only one of the reasons why I can do without men and women lustily smooching in my local gay tavern. On the street or in the subway I can see a straight couple kissing and not be annoyed by it -- I may even find them charming, attractive and sexy -- but in a gay bar I can really do without it.

The most frustrating thing is that when it happens it's often at a point when the gay customers are just talking politely and no one gay is smooching, damn it -- automatically the homoerotic level of the bar sinks to zero. Whenever straights kiss, I would love to see some gay guys start carrying on like the guys in the photo above, showing the necking, arrogant straights how it "should be done!" Sure, one straight couple necking in a bar full of gay men may not seem like much, but the very fact that it's one couple (or more) makes them stand out from the crowd.

It practically makes me go limp, if you know what I mean. It's not what I go to gay bars for.

On occasion I suppose one member of the straight couple could be bi-identified. If that's the case all I can say is bi men should neck with women in straight bars and bring their male dates to gay bars for smooching (and vice versa). Let's keep the homoerotic level of our spaces way up for those of us who are gay, still sexual, and are, after all, the chief customers of these places. Which is why they're called gay bars.

As I've said before, the owners and managers and sometimes the bartenders of gay bars welcome straights because they want to keep the cash registers ringing. Sometimes the straights (eventually the gay-friendly ones bring their not-so-gay-friendly friends, or they just wander in the door when they see all the heteros) chase off the gays, and the bar not only loses its gay clientele but the straight one as well, who figure they might as well just go to a regular straight bar now that the gays who made the place interesting are gone. Or the bar just goes straight.

Magazines can talk about the death -- and supposed dearth -- of gay bars all they want (Manhattan still has sixty or so, including popular new ones, so perhaps the death knell is quite premature), and the new "acceptance" (tolerance) of gays, but the fact remains that many of us, no matter how many great straight friends we have, will still want to have those golden hours in the company of our gay brothers or sisters in our favorite gay nightspot. We have a right to on occasion feel not like the minority we are constantly reminded we are, but like the majority, the rulers, in spaces we can call our own.

Any why not?

Doo Wop at the Stonewall -- or Not

OR HOW THE GAY COMMUNITY WAS HOOD-WINKED BY THE STRAIGHT OWNERS OF THE STONEWALL

So exactly how gay-owned is the new Stonewall Inn anyway?

While reviewing and updating my piece about being pounded on by an inebriated, supremely hideous straight guy at the not always gay-friendly Stonewall, something clicked in my mind about the name Bill Morgan, who is one of the co-owners of the Stonewall (as well as the primarily straight Duplex Inn up the street.)

I recall a few years ago there was a guy named Bill Morgan who sang and worked in the Duplex and other bars in the West Village area. He would occasionally poke into the Five Oaks and sing, and he was bartender there for a brief time (perhaps he was just filling in for someone). I only saw him in the mixed bars, never in the out and out gay cruise bars for hungry men such as Ty's and Boots and Saddle, and I really had no reason to think he was anything other than straight (and still don't for that matter). Morgan seemed perfectly pleasant and more or less gay-friendly, but I never did get to know him very well. I had a gay friend at the time who was a little smitten with Morgan -- I don't think poor Morgan quite knew what to make of him -- but Morgan was not my type and I had no particular interest in ferreting out any hidden truths about his orientation, assuming there were any. All I can say is that he specialized in a kind of "doo wop" kind of singing, that I have no appreciation for, and whenever he came on at the Five Oaks (I didn't go to the Duplex very often, and when I did usually went to the gayer bar upstairs) I figured it would be a good time to go to the rest room. I've no doubt he did Doo Wop as well as anyone, but I'm not surprised he didn't make a career of it. Can anyone make a career of Doo Wop these days -- who knows?

I read that after working at the Duplex for many years, he became the co-owner of that bar along with Tony DeCicco. Writing about their acquisition of the Stonewall Inn in 2007 (along with Kurt Kelly, who now manages Stonewall), most reporters assumed Morgan and DeCicco were a gay couple, but it is quite possible both are simply heterosexual business partners. On his "My Space" page Morgan mentions how he owns both bars (he does not mention either co-owner) and on the list of personal statistics says that he is "married" and "straight." Oddly, while there are several photographs on his page, there is none of his wife -- there doesn't even seem to be a mention of her. (I'm assuming there is or was a wife because he says "straight" and "married.") Morgan does not mention being married on his page on the Duplex web site, but DeCicco mentions his "lovely wife Donna" and his two children on the same site.

Now let me make it clear that I am not saying that this is the case, but wouldn't it be bizarre -- and a little funny/sad considering the bar they co-own -- if DeCicco were Morgan's "wife?" If Morgan and DeCicco were gay or bi but say they're strictly straight when they co-own the bar that ushered in the whole modern-day Gay Rights Movement? I'm not saying this is the case -- and frankly I hope it isn't -- but remember it was in the Stonewall Inn that I met young Mike, the bartender who told everyone he was straight with a girlfriend but confided in me that he also "fooled around with men" (but couldn't even go so far as to identify as bisexual). So who the hell knows?

Now if both Morgan and DeCicco are actually straight -- which they may be (and with a wife and children DeCicco is clearly living a straight lifestyle, but this doesn't necessarily make him a married homosexual) -- they get points for not going out of their way to point that out in all the interviews they gave on their acquisition of the Stonewall. They could be two cool straight guys who know there's nothing wrong in being gay and don't really care if some people wrongly think they're homos. Or do they get points? Perhaps they only let everyone assume they were gay and didn't correct them because they didn't want everyone in the gay community to know that the ol' Stonewall was still primarily straight-owned, that it was two straight businessmen who were taking over a spot that meant so much to the gay community. Which may explain why the place hasn't fulfilled its promise to become a great gay bar for the whole community and has just turned into a bland (gay and straight) mixed cocktail lounge that might as well be called The Duplex II. They downplayed their hetero status, played up that house queer Kurt Kelly would be co-owner (of how big a chunk, one wonders?), and made him manager, even as all three men made statements about how the previous owner of the Stonewall had done such a lousy job because he was -- you guessed it -- a straight guy (with a gay staff and probably gay manager, so what's the diff?)

I'd be willing to bet that the two straight guys are really calling the shots at the Stonewall Inn, and that they bought the place not to preserve it for the gay community but to eventually turn it into just what it's become, the Duplex II. They brought in prominent and gullible gay and lesbian investors for cash and appearance's sake, all the while knowing that most of the younger bar-happy gays in the city didn't remember and in general couldn't care less about the Stonewall Rebellion. If the straight overflow from the Duplex drove the gay customers away, why should Morgan and DeCicco care? That's ultimately just what they were hoping for, and that's just what's happening. If some gay groups who aren't in the loop occasionally hold a function there, so much the better. The bar will continue to hold on to some form of gay pedigree, and gay tourists with a sense of history will inoocently wander into the place and buy drinks -- although they probably won't stay very long.

I have to say I'm troubled that on Morgan's MySpace page he has a photo of himself with good buddy Danny Bonaduce - I think I'd be embarrassed to be a friend of Bonaduce's -- and lists one of his favorite TV shows as Hardball with the virulently homophobic host Chris Matthews! Also on his MySpace page Morgan has one "moving" photo of himself standing in front of the Stonewall. Jeez -- the camera pans down over his basket as if its some gay code or something. I'm not saying there aren't some gay people who might find him attractive but he's more likely to find them across the avenue at Boots and Saddle or down at the Dug Out -- well, maybe not, he's not exactly a macho bear-type -- than at the Stonewall, which seems more welcoming these days to drunken straights than it is to Out and Proud Gay Men.

But who knows?

All I know is that the slogan of the Stonewall Inn is "Where Pride Began" without the word "Gay." And I also know that a straight man (no matter how presumably gay-friendly or gay-supportive) -- or possibly a gay/bi man who says he's straight on his MySpace page? -- is probably not going to have much of a vested interest in making The Stonewall Inn the living homage to Gay Rights, and the Great Gay Bar, that people like me were hoping it would be.

Personally, I think the gay community was taken for a ride.

But then, The Stonewall Inn is all about money and has nothing whatsoever to do with Gay Pride. And anyone who doesn't realize it is a fool.

Gay-Bashed at the Stonewall Inn

I've gone to the new "gay-owned" Stonewall Inn almost every week on one night or another since it opened in early 2007. I was very excited when it opened and made sure to be there on the very first day (I wanted to be the first customer but got there too late).

I've had some good times there, but my main reason for going is to support the bar, since the Stonewall Inn -- frankly and ironically -- is not nearly as much fun as the straight-owned Stonewall Bar that occupied the same place up until about five years ago. That Stonewall was always packed wall to wall with men of all ages (mostly younger, however), had fun entertainers and party nights, a disco upstairs if you felt like dancing, and early in the evenings on some weeknights one of the great bartenders, Danny, would be behind the bar upstairs where there was a chummy, more intimate feeling. The place should have been a goldmine, but somehow the owner completely screwed up and the Stonewall Bar closed down. The new Stonewall was going to play up the fact that it's "Where Pride Began" (its slogan) and I was all in favor of it. So I went, even if I didn't always enjoy it. (By the way, keep in mind as you read this that the slogan "Where Pride Began" doesn't have the word "gay" in it. You'll understand why later.)

Yes, I was overjoyed to hear that it was going to reopen, this time with a gay owner. [I believe there are actually three owners. The first two are the same men (Bill Morgan, Tony DeCicco)who own the Duplex down the street -- I have no idea of their sexual orientation. The third owner, Kurt Kelly, -- and the manager of the Stonewall Inn, apparently worked as a bartender and manager in the Duplex for many years and is gay. So I guess it's safe to say that the Inn is at least partly "gay-owned." The Duplex is considered gay-friendly -- especially the upper level -- but as far as I'm concerned it's always been basically a straight or mixed bar.]

I had a feeling right from the first, however, that the new Stonewall Inn might have a problem surviving, even if the old place was thriving practically until the day it had to close its doors (and not for lack of customers.) The idea was to have a place where all factions of the gay community (and presumably the LGBT community) could mingle -- gay men and lesbians, drag queens, leather kings, bears, and so on. There are both gay men and lesbians in the Inn, but I've never seen a drag queen or leather man, and the only bear (otter) I've ever noticed in there is me. Of course, although I've been going for months I'm not there every night. I could easily have missed a lot. Still, what works for the LGBT center wouldn't necessarily work for a bar.

I knew the new Stonewall would not be a hot, cruisy, mostly all-male establishment like the straight-owned version, but I applauded the decision to bring different factions of the community together. But I thought to myself -- will this mixed bar idea really work? Bears and lesbians and leather men and drag queens already have their own hang-outs to go to -- why will they need the Stonewall? I had a feeling that "mixed" was eventually going to mean gay and straight, which is pretty much what's happened.

Because many of the gay customers have gone to new bars in Chelsea, many of the gay places in the West Village -- where the Stonewall is located -- now have a kind of "open door" policy. Cool straight people were always welcome in gay bars before, but a doorman would check them out and make sure they knew what kind of establishment they were entering. The straight people who went into gay bars twenty years ago are often different from many of the straight people who go in today (and often there are no doormen). Back then, they almost always went in with gay friends, but nowadays they often come in on their own, wanting to have a hip gay experience or just too drunk to care with whom they're getting loaded. Often they don't even realize they're in a gay bar. To say that this can be a recipe for disaster -- and lawsuits -- is an understatement.

Before I go off on a tangent, let's look at this in the context of the Stonewall Inn. A gay man manages and co-owns a gay bar to which he hopes many different kinds of gay people (but drinkers all!) will come. Unfortunately, not enough gay people come. Straight people come in, buy drinks -- he doesn't care, he's just grateful for the business -- he has bills to pay. (And I'm sure the straight and gay owners of many other gay bars feel the same.) Some gay bar owners get bitter, angry that the community isn't "supporting" them. Let the straight people come -- and who cares if they don't really like "fags" deep down and have no idea that the Stonewall Inn was the site of the Birth of the Modern-Day Gay Rights Movement (all this has pretty much been down-played in the Stonewall despite the grandiose plans). I can sympathize to a point with bar owners who are afraid of losing their shirts and managers and bartenders who are afraid of losing their jobs. But still ...

The trouble is that the gay customers who do keep coming and are loyal to the bar are sort of forgotten. I have no problem with a few friendly straight people in most gay bars, but as the months went by I noticed that the Stonewall got straighter and straighter. All right, it was never exactly the greatest gay bar and some of the straight customers were perfectly okay, it just wasn't exactly the gayest of experiences. I wasn't surprised that many of the straights were coming directly from the Duplex, even though there are two straight bars in between the Duplex and the Stonewall. Gee, I wonder how that happened?

Curiously, some bars in the West Village have managed to remain predominently gay (The Monster and Ty's), probably because they give their customers what they want. Ty's (my favorite bar) is for masculine, mostly middle-aged gay guys who want to cruise and converse, and The Monster is a fun place where you can cruise, sing at the piano, or dance downstairs -- there are more options than in the Stonewall. Marie's Crisis is more straight than gay on most nights, and the less said for now about the former Boots and Saddle the better. (Let's just say that what was once one of the best gay bars in the city, a village institution, is now one of the worst, except for certain times and evenings, and despite some friendly staffers and customers.)

The co-owner/manager of the Stonewall Inn is probably a perfectly nice guy; I've only seen him at the Stonewall two or three times and he's never been what I would call warm and welcoming, hale and hearty, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that the compromises he's had to make to keep the bar open have him so harried, maybe even frightened, that a man who must have had a nice personality when he worked all those years at the Duplex has become just a bit taciturn. I have to assume that he does give a friendly greeting to the regulars he's known for years. (Then again, he could be a complete stiff who's in the wrong business and is his own worst enemy -- who knows?)

So I continued to go the bar, although sometimes it was dead, sometimes "overrun" with straight drunken tourists (but I thank them for helping New York City's economy and some of them can be nice and fun, of course, if not exactly what I'm looking for), and sometimes I didn't bother to stay. There was the very nice gay bartender who they moved down from upstairs at the Duplex. And a nice conversation one evening with the brilliant performer Everett Quinton. I made out with more than one attractive male. It wasn't all bad and sometimes it was pretty gay. I very much wanted the bar to succeed. Some friends commented that you never knew exactly what you'd find when you walked into the bar, which made it kind of interesting but probably has also kept it from building a big, devoted following like, say, Ty's.

Okay there were a few odd things along the way. There was that weird "straight" bartender who "fooled around with men." And the somewhat bizarre ad they had during Gay Pride week. But nothing compares to what happened to me on the Thursday night of January 31st, 2008 around 11 or 12. I was by myself, and wanted to start a conversation. While waiting to catch a bartender's attention -- the place was fairly busy -- I gave a friendly greeting to what I thought was a gay male couple standing nearby. I asked them how long they'd been together. I mean, this is a gay bar -- what's wrong with that?

Well, I guess they weren't gay. Almost before the words were out of my mouth, one ugly little wretched creature -- who I realized was not just drunk but shit-faced -- raised his fist in outrage and began punching my chest repeatedly. Apparently he didn't like my suggestion that he was gay. Flabbergasted, I stepped back, held up my arms, and told him to calm down. Frankly, another gay man might have socked this idiot in the face, but I did my best to defuse the situation. I am not a violent man -- I have nothing to prove -- but I'm not a doormat, either.

Suddenly out of the blue an attractive, poised young Asian-American woman (I only mention her ethnicity so readers can "watch out" for her, assuming anyone would actually want to go here), approached us and asked one of us to leave.

Was it the shit-faced homophobe who was physically assaulting a friendly gay man in the gay bar "Where Pride Began?"

Nope.

It was me.

That's right, me. I was so shocked that for once in my life I was speechless. I could tell she wasn't interested in hearing my side of it (although surely she had seen who was hitting whom?) "Are gay men no longer welcome in this bar?" I asked her. She only smirked in reply. (I was so completely outraged that I didn't argue or say anything more. I just left, determined never to darken this gin joint's door ever again.)

So let's see. The gay man was asked to leave and the gay basher was allowed to stay. And this in the Birthplace of the Modern-Day Gay Rights Movement, no less.

I've only been gay-bashed twice in my life and both times it was in a gay bar that allowed in inappropriate, overly inebriated straights (or self-hating homos). The first time was much more violent that the Stonewall incident, but luckily I was not seriously injured either time. You can bet I would have had the perpertrator arrested and filed a law suit against the bar if I had been.

Y'know, maybe I've lost a little sympathy for the owner and his bills and everything else. I go to a bar to support a gay business and businessman, to have a good time in a relatively gay-safe environment, and I wind up being smacked by a drunken asshole who is apparently preferred as a customer over me -- who has never hit anyone in a gay bar or anywhere else.

Frankly, I'm a little sick that it's come to this. I had such high hopes for the Stonewall Inn. Where Pride Began, eh? Bullshit. As usual, it's just about dollars and cents. I'm never setting foot in the place again -- it's just not worth it, and who knows what will happen next? -- and I'm getting the word out via blogs, message boards and word-of-mouth to avoid the place at all costs. A bar should not cater to violent homophobic assholes at the expense of its gay customers and expect its gay customers to come back, no matter who the fucking owner is. The fact that it's a gay guy makes it even worse. (I've no doubt he'll just see me as some "trouble maker" or "asshole" or "one of those horrible gay activists" or some such shit. Which is pitiful.)

The Stonewall Inn of today has nothing to do with "Gay Pride" and it shouldn't pretend that it does. It's obscene that it's going to continue to use "pride" as it's selling point when this kind of shit is going on.

I hope it changes its name to The Duplex II, because that's what it's become, as I feared. And that a year from now it'll be just another Bagel Joint.

Whatever you want to call it, it is not "The Stonewall Inn" and apparently never will be. In trying to be all things to all people -- and keep the cash register ringing -- it's managed to become nothing, just another bland "cocktail lounge" with no real character of its own.

And to think ... I wanted to be their first customer ........

What a joke.

Gay-Friendly Closet Cases

OR I GET A SHOCK AT THE STONEWALL INN

Some months ago a bartender at the newly reopened Stonewall Inn in New York City informed me that although he certainly "fooled around" with men, he had a girlfriend and that was that. "We’re very happy," he told me." I know that’s not what you want to hear."

Well... no. Not from a bartender working at the Birthplace of the Modern-Day Gay Rights Movement. Since he cut off all discussion once he noticed my understandable perplexity – this was the Stonewall, after all – I never did discover if he was telling me he was bisexual or simply a gay guy who needed a "girlfriend" to show to mama and papa and the outside straight world (which happens more often than anyone realizes, even today). Judging from his conspiratorial tone as he told me about his homoerotic activities, I fear it was the latter. It was as if he were saying that men were okay for sex, but for a real relationship he had to have a woman.

[Let me make it clear that I was not cruising this guy, who was in his twenties and nice-looking but not my type at all. I've been told that he generally tells patrons he's "straight" and he did not use the term "bisexual" with me, so he's not even proudly bi, let alone gay. Maybe he doesn't want it getting back to his girlfriend that he has the hots for men as well. Now and then the gal pals of these "straight" bartenders waltz into the bar all bubbly and totally clueless.]

So much for Gay Pride.

And this in the Stonewall Inn, no less!

At least he admitted he has sex with men, which many "straight" bartenders (most gay bars in New York and elsewhere now have at least a couple), go go boys, porn stars and hustlers do not. The strange thing is we are not talking about homophobic ex-gays or people like former gay porn star and Republicans' darling Matt Sanchez, who denounce gays and the gay lifestyle with vehemence. No, this is a much stranger phenomenon. It seems that nearly forty years of Gay Rights since the Stonewall Riots has created a bizarre and unexpected by-product: Gay-friendly closet cases, men (and undoubtedly women) who work almost exclusively among gays but who insist that they are straight, often despite evidence to the contrary. Or any half-intelligent gay person’s "gaydar."

Gay Activist Wayne Besen, author of Anything But Straight, once told me [via email]: "I think every town has at least one closeted bartender or stripper that slinks around the gay bar, but just can't quite come out. It is very sad." Watching a "straight" bartender one Saturday night at a hot leather/denim bar in Chelsea intermingling with sweaty gay guys and half-naked go go boys when he could easily be waiting on "hot babes" in a second avenue singles bar makes me wonder if he actually expects anyone to think he’s totally hetero. I have seen other "straight" bar backs and bouncers coming on to men under the influence of alcohol on their nights off, as if they can’t give in to their homosexual impulses unless they’re inebriated. This is not what we meant by Gay Power. [In a 2006 study by the NYC Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, 9.4% of men who identified as "straight" said they had sex with men; of those 70% were married.]

Why would a straight person want to work in a gay environment? Some will drag out that ancient canard about gays being better tippers (as if there’s been some kind of scientific survey) or that they simply "like" gay people (Which kind? Drag queens? Leather Kings? Bears?) Often gullible gays accept these people as 100% straight because they figure anyone who hated being perceived as homosexual would hardly work in a gay bar or in gay porn. But the very homoeroticism of the atmosphere is what often attracts them. Their internalized homophobia, a desperate need to be seen as "macho," somehow above and superior to the crowd, is what keeps them in the closet. It’s as if they’re saying, "hey, it’s okay if you’re gay – but me? I’m not gay!" If you kindly, ever-so-gently suggest they may have at least some gay or bi leanings they react as if you’re suggesting they’re terrorists.

Let me say that when I heard the Stonewall Inn was reopening I was very excited and made sure I was there for a drink on opening day. (Yes, I was alive during the Stonewall Rebellion, but I was much too young to go to bars, thank you very much, although I have great respect for those who were there, many of whom are thankfully still with us.) I mean, the Stonewall Inn was where it all began. Yes, there was a Gay Movement even before Stonewall, with such groups as The Mattachine Society, but the movement was much more low-profile before 1969. So perhaps one can imagine how I, a man who has had a lot of Gay Pride for many decades, felt when a bartender in The Stonewall Inn virtually whispered to me that he "fooled around" with guys as if it were something to be ashamed of. The man is as clueless as his alleged girlfriend (and you can imagine how clueless I think she is. But then I think women who date bartenders in gay bars -- or gay/bi men in general -- are about on the same level of reality as women who get engaged to lifers in prison.)

The whole point of the post-Stonewall Gay Rights movement was for gays and lesbians (and genuine bisexuals) to accept their homosexual feelings with pride, to seek out same-sex relationships that would be honest and fulfilling, not to hide behind the fake girlfriend or wife-as-beard. Even today, there are countless married homosexuals cruising bars for one night quickies.

But perhaps we should interpret it as a positive sign that we now have a better class of closet queen? Instead of telling fag jokes at the coffee machine (we hope), they’re serving us drinks and introducing us to their girlfriends!

Where Pride Began?

How's this for irony? During Gay Pride week in New York, I saw an ad in a gay magazine for the recently reopened Stonewall Inn. The slogan for the bar is "Where Pride Began." So you can imagine how surprised I was to read the following line in the ad:

"watch the 2007 parade from our doorsteps."

Watch the parade?

Yes, I know the Stonewall Inn is a bar and has to have customers, sell drinks, and make money, but how can the place "where pride began" suggest people merely watch the parade instead of marching in it? Couldn't they be satisfied with the inevitable crowds that would (hopefully) show up after the parade? No doubt there were gays who for one reason or another didn't want to participate -- the commercialization or de-politicalization of the "parade", the religious groups at the forefront -- and would sit in the Stonewall in the afternoon instead, but why encourage it? Yes, I know it's just a line in an ad, nothing that would seriously influence anyone's behavior, but ...

But then bars are about money, and parades (marches) are about pride. Years ago bar people and activists used to argue about the parade/march and various events for that day -- both groups had very different agendas.

Bars used to (still do) use sex to get customers. [The Stonewall ad is accompanied by a photo of a "hot" near-naked pretty boy (with absolutely no hair on his chest). ]

Now they use pride?

I hope the Stonewall Inn becomes the bar I hope it will become, and not turn into just another Duplex II.

Time will tell.