ShadowBoxer's Realm ...

Oh. Hell. No.

2011-02-10T16:35:00.001-05:00

This right here infuriates me.

To save you the trouble of reading that article, allow me to summarize: Dr. Phil advises the mother of a young boy that that while her son's attraction to playing with Barbies and girl's clothes is not unusual for a 5 year, particularly one with older sisters, the parent's job is to not support that behavior. The advice can be summarized with this quote - "Support him in what he's doing, but not in the girl things."

Okay, where do I even begin with this...

Dr. Phil states that this behavior is not a precursor to the child becoming gay and that the child will figure out his sexual orientation in time. I'm sorry, Dr. Phil, but the child probably has already figured out his sexual orientation. I understand the kid is only 5 years old but, if he's playing with Barbies and dressing in girls clothes, he probably already senses that he is different from other little boys. And about the whole "precursor" thing... being gay is not a choice and people don't "become" gay. Phrasing it that way annoys me to no end.

Moving on...

True, this child might not be gay. This child might have what is clinically referred to as "Gender Identity Disorder" (note, I do not condone the use of the word "disorder" as I don't believe this to be a disorder)... Perhaps this darling little boy is soon to discover that he identifies as female. Perhaps there is a gender reassignment surgery in this boy's future.

And perhaps this is just a phase that comes from having two older sisters and this young boy is going to grow up to be a normal heterosexual, or as normal as one can be.

Regardless of which path this young boy's life follows - gay, transgender, or straight - the advice to not support the child in his desire to play with Barbies and dress in girls clothes is bad advice. This advice supports the ideas of gender norms and that "boys do boy things and girls do girl things." This advice is damaging, no matter which path this boy journeys down. Let's take a look...

A) "He's straight!"

The enforcement of strict gender norms at such an early age could cause repercussions later in life, particularly once this boy is old enough to date and eventually get married. In a worse case scenario, this kid could grow up thinking that certain things are "woman's jobs" that he shouldn't have to do. Such as cooking, laundry, cleaning, etc... You think I'm kidding? If I remember correctly, strict adherence to gender norms was what oppressed women in the workplace and generally kept them at home tending the house. Sadly, in some parts of this country - and in the world - strict adherence to gender norms still has this effect. Do we really want this kid growing up thinking like this? Probably not.

B) "He's Gay!"

Great. Now you've taught the kid, at a very early age, that being gay is abnormal because "boys do boy things and girls do girl things." Adherence to gender norms and discouraging what may be expression of this boy's homosexuality has the potential to keep him in the closet for a very, very long time. If he ever comes out, that is... I'll come back to this after I address "C"...

C) "He's... a she!"

And now you've screwed the pooch. That's really about all I can say for this one... because now, by enforcing gender norms, this poor boy is probably going to live a life a torment because s/he can't reconcile what you've taught her/him about gender versus what s/he is feeling inside.

Actually, that's applicable to both "B" and "C" above... enforcing strict gender norms, particularly if this child is gay or transgender-in-the-making, will enforce the idea in this child's head that his behavior is abnormal and that it's not okay to be himself. I made the comment earlier about the possibility that this child, if gay, may never come out of the closet. It's actually much worse than that. Enforcing the idea that "boys do boy things and girls do girl things" without any forethought that this child could be gay or transgender could have devastating results.

I'm talking about suicide, if you haven't figured it out. There are way too many young men and woman committing suicide these days over the inability to come out or out of fear of being "outed". I'm not an expert but I'm going to speculate that a lot of these lost souls had parents who enforced strict gender norms and couldn't reconcile what they had been taught with who they were.

That's a pretty final, and avoidable, end result.

Obviously, I disagree with Dr. Phil's advice. If I could, I'll tell the parent of that 5 year to let her son be who he is... and to encourage him to be himself. That's the only proper way, I think, to deal with this situation.

And if this boy's mother is worried about the him getting bullied (an argument I've heard recently about letting boys play with dolls), or about the community's reaction, then she needs to do what actually is her job as a parent and intervene. The parent needs to be an unfearing, vocal, advocate for their child. Especially if it means standing up to a bully (more likely the bully's parents), working with the school (or taking on the school), and/or speaking out in the community against ignorance and intolerance. In my mind, if you are a parent that loves your child, then those are the things you need to be doing.

The same goes for everyone in a child's life... brothers, sisters, cousins, aunts, uncles, grandparents, friends, etc. I believe it to be everyone's duty, including /especially other youth who might witness bullying, to take a stand for what is right. Don't succumb to the notion that "oh, you shouldn't do that because you might get bullied"... stand up for a person's right to be who they are, regardless of who they may be.

So, in closing, I say to Dr. Phil... Oh. Hell. No. Tell that parent to let her son be himself and encourage him to be himself. Regardless of where his life takes him, he'll be a better person for it.

Update, RE: Groupon

2011-02-08T20:44:00.000-05:00

Interestingly enough, I saw the Groupon whale commercial on television this evening and noticed something that wasn't there before... and still isn't there in the online version of the commercials. The end of the commercial now has a banner reading "Support the cause at savethemoney.org".

I'm 100% sure that wasn't there in the original version of the commercials that ran during the Superbowl. Perhaps somebody out there was listening?

A response to Groupon.

2011-02-07T21:53:00.002-05:00

During Sunday's Superbowl, and the episode of Glee that followed, Groupon aired a series of commercials that many people found offensive. I only saw one of those commercials (I skipped right past the subsequent ones) and I have to say that I, too, was offended.

The commercial I watched was about Tibet and basically turned the struggles of Tibet into a gimmick promoting a past Groupon deal. I tweeted about this, as did my boyfriend and several other people in the Twittersphere, proclaiming my outrage at this particular ad. Groupon at least became aware of the criticism and posted a blog today in response... Unfortunately, I don't believe Groupon actually heard what people were saying.

I'd like you to take a moment to go read Groupon's response, which can be found here.

Now that you've read Groupon's response to the criticism, I'd like to say a few things...

First, I think it's great that Groupon explained that they really do care about the issues highlighted in their commercials. It helps to know that they care and that they have created a website to bring attention to these causes and facilitate donations to them.

That said, I believe Groupon has failed on multiple levels.

First, their message is lost - especially in the "informative commercials." I understand the concept they were going for; spend the first half of the commercial seriously describing a very real cause, spend the second half promoting Groupon. Albeit with absurd tie-ins ... common, "their culture is in jeopardy, but they still whip up an amazing fish curry"? Who thought that was a good idea? Anyway...

Groupon's commercials lack any sort of closure that reiterates the serious nature of the issues at hand. The commercials end after the serious issue has been seemingly trivialized and after the promotion of Groupon. Groupon's blog states that they worked with Greenpeace, buildOn, The Tibet Fund, and the Rainforest Action Network on this campaign and that "the feedback led us to make changes to the end of our ads that further encourage our fundraising."

Excuse me? Where? I've watched these commercials multiple times now looking for the part that encourages fundraising. I can't find it and neither could anyone else that I asked.

The end result is that anyone who watches these commercials without already knowing about Groupon's campaign (essentially anybody who hasn't also read Groupon's blog or heard about www.savethefunds.org) is going to come away not understanding the intended message. That's a bad thing. These commercials leave the viewer to draw their own conclusions regarding Groupon's intent and, unfortunately for Groupon, many viewers were offended.

Which brings me to my second point... I don't think Groupon fully understands, nor appreciates, the fact that people were offended. Groupon's blog attempts to describe why they don't think these ads are offensive. This paragraph, from their response, highlights what I believe to be a serious lack of understanding:

"When we think about commercials that offend us, we think of those that glorify antisocial behavior – like the scores of Super Bowl ads that are built around the crass objectification of women. Unlike those ads, no one walks away from our commercials taking the causes we highlighted less seriously. Not a single person watched our ad and concluded that it’s cool to kill whales. In fact – and this is part of the reason we ran them – they have the opposite effect."

I'm sorry but I don't really care what Groupon, or a representative from Groupon, finds offensive. I don't care that they didn't find these ads offensive because it doesn't really matter what they find offensive. The point is that I found these ads offensive and so did many, many other people.

And while I may not have watched the commercial on whaling and concluded that it's cool to kill whales, I did conclude that Groupon thought it in good taste to state that watching whales jump and play was more fun than saving them. I personally found that to be in bad taste and was appalled that they would say that. I also didn't walk away from the ad taking the cause less seriously but, again, I felt that Groupon wasn't taking the cause seriously. Watch this ad here and judge for yourself.

My final point is that Groupon's response never really acknowledges that these commercials were offensive to many people. The majority of the response is spent defending their ad campaign, explaining the message we should have gotten (but didn't) from the commercials, and assuring us that they really do care about these causes. The closest Groupon come to acknowledging that they offended people is this statement at the end of the blog:

"The last thing we wanted was to offend our customers – it’s bad business and it’s not where our hearts are."

Okay, that kind of acknowledges that some Groupon customers were offended. But not really. I see that more as a statement of fact. Of course Groupon doesn't want to offend its customers. Of course it's bad business. I'll take Groupon's word that that's not where their hearts are...

But that statement is not an explicit acknowledgment that these commercials were offensive, that they failed to communicate the message that Groupon thought they communicated, and that Groupon is sorry for offending not only their customers but any potential customers who were also offended by these commercials.

In short, Groupon, I believe your commercials are a collective failure and clearly did not communicate what you thought, or perhaps still think, that they did... and your response really didn't help in making me any less offended. I applaud your intentions but I have to say I'm sorely disappointed with your execution and subsequent attempts at justifying what you have done with your commercials.

That's all I have to say about that...

My "Coming Out" Story

2010-03-10T18:54:00.002-05:00

My coming out story… Sit back and relax, this could be a long one. You might want to grab a beer or a whiskey, if that’s your thing.

The year was 2006 and it was a few months before my 30th birthday. As I got further along into my 29th year, I realized how alone and absolutely miserable I was. I spent the majority of my twenties avoiding any kind of intimacy – physical or emotional – with anyone. I had a few friends, and more than a few casual acquaintances, but I kept most people at bay. I spent a significant amount of my time alone, holed up in my apartment, plotting with my cats to take over the world.

Yes. I was becoming the crazy cat guy. Once I realized this, I decided enough was enough. I was going to leave my closet and I knew who was going to be the first person I shared my secret with.

The timing was perfect. One of my best friends, whom I can honestly say I love like a brother, and I were going to be having a guys night out just the two of us at the local driving range, Top Golf. He had recently shared a lot of things with me and, as our bond grew, I felt comfortable that he was the first person I should tell. We had been there for a few hours and, with plenty of beer in my system, I was ready to tell him.

Like a sign from above, his cell phone started ringing literally at the moment I was going to open my mouth and proclaim “I’m gay.” He spoke on the phone for a few minutes and then, when he hung up, he said “So, I have something to tell you. I, um, have a girlfriend. She’ll be here in about five minutes.” What I haven’t mention yet is that he was in the middle of a divorce … so the revelation of a girlfriend, much less one I was about to meet, sent me screaming back into the closet. It would be many more months before I finally tip-toed out again.

The setting was the same, with him and I at Top Golf, in the spring following my 30th birthday. Only this time, it was to hang out for one last time before he moved to Michigan with his girlfriend. Also joining us that night were his girlfriend, whom I had come to love, and one of our other really good friends. At one point during the night, he and I were alone, having sent the others for food. I decided to go for it…

“I think I might be gay.”

He eyed me seriously while sipping his beer. “Really… How do you plan on finding out for sure?”, he asked me and then broke out into a huge grin. After a big sigh of relief, we started talking and he was completely cool about it. He told his girlfriend when she got back and she was cool with it, too. All was good.

That experience gave me the courage to venture a little further out of the closet and I came out to a co-worker a few weeks later one night after we had gotten called in for an emergency. That, too, went well and I was getting better at "coming out." Getting better at talking about it was a good thing, since I was basically rehearsing for what would come next ...

[ Cue scary music. ]

Coming out to the parents.

Well, good planning aside, my coming out to my parents happened rather spontaneously and not at all as I had imagined it would. One evening in April, not that long after coming out to my friend and my co-worker, my mom and I were exchanging emails and we somehow got on the subject of “When am I going to get grandchildren.”

Normally, I would have shrugged those emails off, changed the topic, and moved on. That evening, however, I had had a few beers and was feeling a little bold. So, after a few back and forth emails, I went for it and told her I was gay.

Well, truthfully, I told her I was attracted to guys. I wasn’t yet fully sold, or comfortable, labeling myself gay at that moment in time. But just admitting that I liked guys was a huge first step. An admission that they, my parents, were completely fine with and had known for years without me explicitly telling them.

[ March 12th Editorial Comment: My Mom would like everyone to know that getting me to tell her I was gay was harder than pulling teeth. She is, of course, correct. ]

After that, things kind of spiraled out of my control and within a week or so I was out to the entire family. My parents took on the burden of relaying my news themselves and although I was a little unsettled by this at first, I now fully appreciate what they did for me. As it turns out, my entire family was, and is, supportive of me and I am forever grateful for that fact.

With family and a few friends out of the way, I was getting pretty comfortable talking about being gay and not hiding it anymore. Over the next few months, I slowly came out to a few other really good friends, attended my first Capitol Pride celebration, and was generally taking things one day at a time … sharing when it seemed appropriate but otherwise not making a big deal of it.

The last big hurdle was coming out at work and, once again, this did not quite happen as planned. That seems to be a common theme here … as is the presence of alcohol. Every so often my co-workers would gather for an all-you-can-drink happy hour at one of the local bars. I had always avoided this situation in the past for fear that I might slip and say something that would give my sexuality away. This time, however, I decided to go and let fate (and alcohol) guide the evening. Going in, there was only one co-worker that I suspected I was going to tell that night … but just to be safe, I appointed a guardian who was supposed to intervene if I became a little too talkative.

The following day, from what I could remember, I had managed to keep my mouth shut and told only the person I suspected I would tell. I also remember my guardian intervening to keep me in check.

At least that’s how I remembered it on Sunday morning. Monday morning, however, brought forth some interesting news from a coworker … not only had I told the person I had planned to tell, I told anyone that would listen. This coworker had heard me come out to a vast majority of the people that were there that night. It turns out the my guardian had fallen victim to the $20 all-you-can drink happy hour, just as I had, and between the two of us we weren’t very good at preventing me from sharing my news.

Amazingly, everyone was fine with it. I know, I know … it doesn’t seem possible but they were. Nobody treated me any differently at work or outside of work. It was such a non-issue that I was still discovering people who I told that night, and didn't realize it due to their acceptance, some 6 months later.

And that’s my story… at least the beginning. Although I am completely out now, every day is a “coming out story” in a way as coming out isn’t a “once and done” type of deal. Every day, just by being myself, I am essentially always coming out as I make new friends and acquaintances. I’m still waiting for the day I encounter a negative reaction from someone I honestly want in my life but I promise you, I’m ready for it when it happens.

The last thing I'd like to say is this ... I know my coming out story ended on a happier note than most. That said, coming out was not easy for me and I experienced the same fears that every LGBT person feels when opening up and revealing their true self. If anyone reading this has questions about taking the first step, or has just come out into a situation where those fears were realized, my door is open. Feel free to shoot me an email (ewl1976@gmail.com) ... I can't promise profound wisdom but I'm always willing to listen and offer support.

Support Equality?

2010-03-07T16:16:00.002-05:00

Of course you do, otherwise you wouldn't be here!

I'd like to ask everyone to check out this couple in Crate & Barrel's Ultimate Wedding Contest:

Gregory and Jonathan's Ultimate Wedding Profile

Gregory and Jonathan have been through a lot in their young lives and although they've gotten a lot of support in this contest, they are experiencing a fair amount of bigotry and gay bashing in response to their entry. The couple in the #1 spot appears to be resorting to maligning Gregory and Jonathan in the blogosphere and encouraging people to vote against them simply because they are gay. Those blog postings and the comments they've generated have been pretty hurtful; Gregory and Jonathan don't deserve that.

Anyway, I'd consider it a favor to me if you would check them out. If you feel inspired to vote for them to win this contest, that'd be awesome ... but all I'm asking is to check them out and consider lending your support.

Awkward.

2010-01-29T19:06:00.002-05:00

So, for the first time since I've come out, I encountered a situation that was both awkward and aggravating (although I couldn't show my aggravation) because of my sexuality.

Have you ever had to tell someone that you couldn't participate in a socially good cause that everyone else was doing and, really, you should be doing too? Have you ever experienced seeing the hurt, confused, and finally angry look of rejection when you can't be persuaded to change your mind?

It sucks and it happened to me yesterday. My company is holding a blood drive and I had to say no because homosexuals aren't allowed to donate blood. This is the result of a ruling made by the FDA back in the 1980's in an attempt to prevent the spread of HIV. A ruling was made at the height of the AIDs crisis, at a time when HIV/AIDs was thought be be a disease that only afflicted gay men...

While this ruling may have made sense back then, it sure as hell doesn't make any sense now. We've learned a lot in the last 20 some odd years and one of the biggest things we've learned is that unprotected, high risk, heterosexual sex carries the same risk of spreading HIV/AIDs as homosexual sex. There have also been major advances in HIV/AIDs screening and now all donated blood is tested prior to being used for transfusions. The American Red Cross and other blood collection agencies have asked the FDA to end the lifetime ban on homosexuals based on these advances in testing and research that was unavailable in the 1980s. Does the FDA care? Nope.

Even more frustrating is the "guilt by association" aspect to this story. Check this ... a straight person can have sex with someone who is positive for HIV/AIDs and still give blood. The provision is that it has to have been at least a year since the last sexual encounter with the HIV+ individual. Homosexuals that are healthy, don't engage in high risk behavior (aside from having sex with their partner), and have tested clean repeatedly are still banned ... and it all goes back to the early association, in the 1980s, that forever linked homosexuality with HIV/AIDs. We now know that this is an unfair linkage but the damage has been done.

Due to this ridiculous policy, I had no choice but to say no when I asked if I wanted to do my part and give blood. Okay, okay, I could have lied ... but that's not my style. And of course I want to do my part ... I just can't because the FDA is content to exclude an entire class of healthy donors. It would have been nice to be able to at least explain this to the person asking but the best I could do given the circumstances was to offer an apology and state that I couldn't.

This made me feel like shit especially when my refusal to be persuaded was met with an air of disgust from the person asking. I can only imagine the negative opinion they must now have of me for not being able to participate. You and I both know that I'm willing but I think, to them, my refusal was interpreted as "I'm not really interested in helping but I'm going to tell you I can't to make myself look better in front of all these people." At least that's what the look on this person's face told me.

Thanks, FDA, Thanks. The next time you make a public appeal for blood donations just remember that I, along with countless other healthy homos, am here and am willing to help ... if only you'll let me (us.)

Rant.

2009-12-15T20:56:00.000-05:00

The sound you just heard was me stepping up onto my soapbox.

I am quite often amazed, shocked, and disgusted ... not by the behavior of those that condemn the LGBTQ community but by those within that community.

The subject of my ire, at the moment, is the idea that it's okay to openly celebrate, with hatred, the death of another human being simply because their ideology is different than yours. This has come up twice within the last two days. Yesterday, it was a letter to Savage Love (Dan Savage's column) promoting the idea of having a massive celebration, including the picketing of his funeral, when Fred Phelps dies. Today it was open, obviously hateful, celebration in an online forum after the death of Oral Roberts.

I agree, and understand, with taking an issue with the ideology and/or teachings of these men, especially as it pertains to the LGBTQ community. I understand thinking that Fred Phelps is a lunatic and that his protests of funerals, including those of men and woman who died while serving their country, is despicable. I can understand being offended and angered by what little Oral Roberts is on record as saying about the LGBTQ community. I can empathize with all of this...

I cannot, however, understand why anyone would think it is okay to celebrate, in a hateful manner, the death of either man. The LGBTQ community is so quick to condemn those on the religious right for preaching hate against us ... yet a good portion of that same community sees no contradiction in turning around and behaving in the same way.

Seriously ... explain to me why it is okay for the LGBTQ community to condemn Fred Phelps for his hate-filled rhetoric and picketing funerals while at the same time advocating doing to the same at his funeral?

Does anybody else out there think that's a little messed up?

I don't mean to preach - pun intended - but I fail to see why it's okay to celebrate the death of anyone in a juvenile, hateful, manner. It's one thing to be happy at the death of a hateful ideology ... it's a completely different matter to be happy at the death of a human being.

Personally I find this behavior within the LGBTQ community to be both disgusting and detrimental to what we're supposedly fighting for ... I don't see how we can honestly expect acceptance and understanding when we're so quick to treat the "other side" in such an undignified manner.

Here's my message to my LGBTQ brothers and sisters:

If we're serious about what we're fighting for ...
If we truly believe that we deserve equal rights ...
If we truly believe that we deserve acceptance ...
And that the religious right has it wrong ...
then we need to grow up and start acting like adults.

To get our collective panties in a bunch because of something the far right has done or said and then turn around in behave in a similar manner is immature, at best, and only serves as fuel for those that oppose us. Let's knock that shit off, okay?

RIP, Oral Roberts. I hope you have found peace with your God and my sympathy goes out to those that loved you.

( Curtain drops as I step off of my soapbox ... let the tomatoes fly! )

Almost 5 months later...

2009-11-22T18:31:00.034-05:00

and I resurface to post a new blog. I apologize for such a long break between blogs ... life has been obnoxiously busy lately but it is finally settling down.

So, some of you may wonder what I've been up to since June while others may not care. Whichever category you fall into, you're going to find out whether you like it or not ... ;)

The main thing that took up all that time was accepting a new position in a city that is 155 miles from my former home in Virginia. I thought I was done with business travel at the end of June only to be sent on more travel in July. The travel in July wasn't that bad as it was only to Pennsylvania but a strange thing happened on that trip ... I was recruited for a project lead position, quite unexpectedly. I accepted the job in early August and then spent the next couple of months traveling back and forth between PA and VA while I transitioned off of one job and into another. Just recently, within the last couple weeks, I finally moved to PA.

And here I am ... finally settled in ... and ready to start blogging again. Aside from explaining away my absence, there are a few things that I've done/experienced recently that I'd like to tell you all about.

The first experience I'd like to share is participating in the "Out for Work" conference at the end of September. This is a conference for LGBTQ college students and, aside from being really fun, is designed to help prepare them for dealing with issues that may arise in the workplace due to their sexual orientation or gender identity. It also provided the standard conference staples - resume writing workshops, interviewing workshops, etc. The main focus, though, was on how the workplace can be uniquely challenging for LGBTQ employees.

One thing that was really cool was that Peggy Burns, a vice president within Lockheed Martin (my employers), gave a keynote address. Peggy is a very entertaining woman and I think she gave a lot of great advice while telling her story of working at LM. Her main message, which carried into some of the follow on sessions, is something I think every LGBTQ person needs to hear. I'll paraphrase it here:

While you shouldn't hide your sexual orientation, or gender identity, in the workplace you shouldn't be beating your co-workers over the head with a rainbow flag either.

Peggy said a lot of other good things, discussing her coming out story and her efforts to make the culture at LM more inclusive ... but her main message was about scaling your level of "outness" depending on your work environment.

I found it interesting that some of the students, I think, were not happy to hear this. There was this feeling of "What? You mean I can't be as gay as I want to be at work?" ... Ummmm. No, honey, you may not. Be yourself, for sure, but recognize that you are there to work and that some things aren't appropriate for the workplace. Also, remember that what may be appropriate in one work place may not be appropriate in another.

As I mentioned, this message carried over into some of the follow-on sessions. In particular, it came up again during a round table discussion that I participated in about being out in the aerospace industry. Here again, students found it shocking that they may have to adjust how they express their sexuality, or gender identity, while at work. I think they understood, though, as we explained that it is critically important to know your environment - and your co-workers - well enough to judge just how open you can be. In an ideal world this wouldn't be the case but, unfortunately, there are still many workplace environments where you have to be careful. I think ... no, I hope ... that this message got across.

Another important point that I think got across is that in most cases, and work environments, how your co-workers react to you being gay largely depends on how you present the information. A few of us on the panel had observed that if you don't make a big deal, or production, out of being gay then no one else will either. Of course, you will occasionally run into an individual that has problems with it ... and that's what human resources is for. It is also why, again, it is important to know your environment really well. If you know Sally has issues with gay people, you may not want to tell her about your wonderful experience at Pride. Or maybe you do, in order to confront Sally and maybe open her mind. But make sure you really want to go there before you do because it might not end the way you want. Remember, it's still legal to fire someone for being gay in the majority of the states so consider that before biting off more than you can chew.

... Anyway, moving on ...

As I hope you can tell, we dealt with some pretty interesting topics at this conference. I found it very rewarding to be able to share my experiences with these students, to answer their questions, and also to give them resume and interviewing advice. I hope to be able to participate again next year, assuming I'm still working for Lockheed Martin come next September. (What did I just say??)

If you're still reading this, let's take a 10 minute break before I tell you about the HRC National Dinner. My fingers need to rest for a few.

[ 10 ... 9 ... 8 ... 7 ... 6 ... 5 ... 4 ... 3 ... 2 ... 1 ... ]

Ahhhh. That's much better. I hope you enjoyed the break as much as I did. Now, continuing along a few weeks into the month of October. Thanks to my participation in the "Out For Work" conference my boyfriend and I were invited to attend the HRC National Dinner as guests of Lockheed Martin. This is a yearly event to raise money for the HRC which, if you don't know, is one of the organizations fighting for LGBTQ equality. While I may disagree with their approach, and think that they need new leadership, I fully believe that they are serving an important role in the LGBTQ community. Therefore, I was really excited to attend this event ... and let me tell you, it was a blast.

Some of the highlights ... enjoying drinks at a sponsors reception and getting to know fellow LGBTQ Lockheed Martin employees, seeing the cast of "Glee" in person, hearing Lady Gaga sing (amazing!), and listening to Joe Solmonese (president of the HRC) speak about the organization's accomplishments and agenda. The food was also excellent ... steak and chicken, along with two yummy desserts. Here I must pause to thank one of my table mates for scoring the second dessert for me. She was a lot bolder than I was and practically demanded a chocolate cake for me ... and I love her for that. Even though I like guys and she likes girls.

Oh, I forgot all about this ... The President of the United States gave the keynote address.

(Yes, I'm being sarcastic. I didn't really forget. How could I???)

I don't really remember a lot of his speech, as it was almost two months ago now, but it was freaking awesome being that close to the President. LM's table was right up near the stage, off to the side, and we had a really good view of him. I remember that he talked a lot about what he wants to accomplish ... and that he acknowledged that his administration is not moving as quickly on LGBTQ issues as the community would like. In acknowledging that fact, he asked for our patience and our faith that he will follow through on the things that he promised. He also challenged our community to do more. Specifically, he asked us to keep him, and congress, on the right track. He related that he needs the support of congress to get some things done and it is partly our responsibility to make sure he has that support. As part of that, he also encouraged us to continue holding him accountable.

I think that's pretty admirable. We have a leader, finally, who acknowledges that he isn't perfect and needs us to hold him accountable. I think we should remember this whenever we, as a community, are bashing him for not moving fast enough. He knows his administration is not moving fast enough, admits that, and is asking for us to remind him of this. Let's try to keep a level head and do so in a civil manner, instead of throwing temper tantrums (as our community sometimes does when we don't get what we want exactly when we want it.)

Okay, so apparently I remembered more of his speech than I thought. I guess President Obama made quite an impression on me. =)

Aside from POTUS being there, another cool thing was that U.S. Representative Patrick Kennedy was on hand to award the first ever Edward M. Kennedy National Leadership Award. Rep. Kennedy gave a very moving speech about his father and his father's fight for equality for all people, regardless of race, sexual orientation, or gender identity. After speaking about his father, Rep. Kennedy presented the award to Judy & Dennis Shepard for their work with the Matthew Shepard foundation.

For those of you who have never heard of Matthew Shepard before, he was a young gay man who was brutally beaten, tied to a fence post, and left to die in Wyoming. Following his death, his parents started a foundation in his honor to fight hate crimes against LGBTQ individuals. One of the recent accomplishments is the passage of the Matthew Shepard Act. This act expands the definition of hate crimes to include crimes committed due to perceived or actual sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, or gender.

It is for the work the foundation has done that Judy & Dennis Shepard are more than deserving of the award they were given. At this point, I can truly say that I don't remember a thing that either Judy or Dennis Shepard said when the accepted the award. I can, however, describe how I was feeling ... overcome with emotion. For what they went through as parents when their son was brutally murdered, for the struggle getting the Matthew Shepard Act passed (although this happened a few weeks later, it was all but guaranteed the night of the dinner), for the verbal attacks they have endured from those that oppose the work they are doing.

Emotional for a lot of reasons, really. But also proud of what they've done and how they've used their son's death to make the world a better place. As I said, Judy & Dennis Shepard are very deserving of the Edward M. Kennedy National Leadership Award ... and I'm grateful that I was there to see them receive it.

In summary, the HRC dinner was a freaking awesome experience. I truly feel privileged to have been there that evening, with my boyfriend, to experience it. I hope to be able to go again next year. That is, of course, if I am still working for Lockheed Martin come next October. (Did I just say that again? WTH?)

...

Well, I think I've covered everything I wanted to relate from the last few months. Even if I didn't, I surely have written much more than I intended to and probably much more than any of you wanted to read!! As always, thanks for enduring my ramblings and feel free to leave a comment, if you are so inspired.

Later!

Of God and Men

2009-06-30T13:04:00.008-04:00

One of the most public struggles facing the GLBT community is the one between them and their chosen religion. The religious aspect permeates the struggle for rights; it is used as a basis for denying marriage rights, workplace rights, adoption rights, and many other rights that non-GLBT people enjoy, and view, as a matter of entitlement.

I have never understood using religion as a mechanism for denying basic rights that most everyone in society agrees are basic civil rights. To me, this seems to be contrary to the central tenants inherent in the idea of religion, regardless of which specific religion one practices in their daily lives. I will admit that I'm not a religious scholar and, to be honest, I'm not what you would call a good Catholic. That said, I've attended church often enough and read enough of the Bible to understand the basic message that God loves all his children and wants what is best for them - like any good parent. I find it impossible to believe that a loving God would ever condone treating an entire class of people like second class citizens by denying them rights and subjecting them to outright hate.

Unfortunately, though, this is what good (Christians|Catholics|Muslims|Jews) would have you believe. They point to certain passages in the (Bible|Torah|Koran) and, using a literal interpretation, proclaim that God hates the GLBT people and that those people are condemned. Really? If we look to history, as we should, there is a familiar pattern in this line of reasoning. It has been used in the past to justify slavery, subserviate African Americans and Women, deny voting rights to anyone other than white males, etc, etc. In all of those cases, a re-interpretation of the holy texts has revealed that those beliefs were not supported by God. It took time but most of the major religions came to realize this and have reversed course on these subjects. Apparently, though, the lesson embedded in those experiences was not fully embraced and the same class of arguments, although historically shown to be invalid, are being used yet again.

So, what to do about this? I think dialogue and education are the key in this matter. I am reading a book right now, entitled "Jesus, the Bible, and Homosexuality", that I think should be required reading for anyone who is devout and struggling with accepting the idea that GLBT people are people of God and should have the same respect, love, and rights as everyone else. It documents, specifically, some of the ideas I've talked about above and lays a framework for interpreting God's true message as it related to GLBT people. While many may find the book offensive, I believe that for the majority it will open their hearts and minds to constructive dialogue with GLBT (Christians|Catholics|Muslims|Jews|etc) ... that dialogue, in the end, will help transform the religious institutions in the same way that it has in the past for African Americans and women.

I also think that the devout Christians, who seem to be the most vocal against the GLBT community, should ask themselves - honestly, not flippantly - what Jesus would do.

Would Jesus condone espousing hate toward GLBT people? I think not. Remember, it was Jesus that encouraged Christians to love and accept the Jews.

Would Jesus condone turning one's back on loved ones who are GLBT? I think not. Remember, Jesus's message was that all people are children of God and all are loved equally.

Would Jesus encourage you to love your GLBT brethren and to support them? I think so.

The main message here, for all people of religion, is that you should consider the intent of God's message and not focus on literal interpretations. Whatever your chosen religious text, remember that it was recorded by Man ... and that Man is both fallible and inclined to convey the message in a way that suits his/her needs. The literal interpretation is of secondary importance and should be viewed with an eye toward historical, cultural, and personal influences. Once those factors are removed, and the moral of the story is clear, I fully believe that you will find that God does not, in fact, condone violence, hatred, or the denial of rights for GLBT people.

I know this blog will not convince the closed-minded "devout" of anything but I surely hope that it provokes thought and, through that thought, eventual understanding and acceptance among the truly devout. Till next time, thanks for reading!

Counterpoint.

2009-06-19T15:04:00.012-04:00

There's been a lot of fuss lately over whether or not President Obama has betrayed the LGBT community. A lot of what I'm about to write is a direct counterpoint to this blog at Salon.com.

Stop reading now if you're likely to be offended by my defense of the President.

One of the first concerns, that has been being voiced since January, is the selection of Rick Warren to give the invocation at the inauguration. This is often pointed to as the first instances where Pres. Obama turned his back on the LGBT community. I'm sorry but I don't agree with this perception.

One of Obama's consistent messages is that we, as a country, need to bring divergent viewpoints together "at the same table." Rick Warren represented one view that, unfortunately, is held by many in this country. Let's not forget, though, that Bishop Gene Robinson, who is openly gay, was selected to give the prayer at the opening of the inauguration events. This is a clear case where two religious leaders, representing opposing viewpoints, were given a place "at the same table."

Some can, and will, argue with me that Rick Warren played a larger role in the inauguration than Bishop Robinson. As you're formulating that argument, though, remember that each man had fairly equal amounts of media exposure and that - in reality - they both only got a few short minutes on the national stage. In the grand scheme of things, the presence of either man at the inauguration events was fleeting, at best, and likely to be forgotten in the annals of history.

Moving on ...

The next argument, at least in the blog I'm basing this off of, is that President Obama did away with 5 of the 8 commitments he had made on his transition website. Specifically, that his promises to repeal DOMA and DADT were gone. This is an excerpt from the Whitehouse website:

"President Obama also continues to support the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and believes that our anti-discrimination employment laws should be expanded to include sexual orientation and gender identity. He supports full civil unions and federal rights for LGBT couples and opposes a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. He supports repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell in a sensible way that strengthens our armed forces and our national security, and also believes that we must ensure adoption rights for all couples and individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation."

This covers 5 of the original 8 items that were called out on the Obama/Biden Transition website:

1. Fight Workplace Discrimination
2. Support Full Civil Unions and Federal Rights for LGBT Couples
3. Oppose a Constitutional Ban on Same-Sex Marriage
4. Repeal Don't Ask-Don't Tell
5. Expand Adoption Rights

The remaining 3 items dealt with HIV/AIDS prevention (which actually is 2 of those 8 items) and expanded hate crime statutes. Further reading on the Whitehouse website reveals that hate crime legislation and HIV/AIDS prevention are covered in other sections.

So, while I agree that there is no longer a page dedicated to LGBT issues, I think it's clear from a little research and reading that the message and intent is still there. Also, all 8 of the original promises are still there ... not just 3 of the 8, as the referenced blog asserts.

Moving on ...

The remainder of the referenced blog spends time talking about the DoJ Brief filed in support of DOMA. I agree that some of the wording in the brief was offensive and, for that, people should be disciplined. However, I take issue with the assertion that President Obama no longer supports repealing DOMA just because his DoJ filed a brief supporting it. I see people falling into the same trap here that they've fallen into when speaking out against the CA Supreme Court for upholding Prop 8 ... they are equating holding the view that something was done in a constitutional manner with implied support for the law being discussed. This is absolutely a false conclusion.

In legal matters, one has to be able to separate the constitutionality of a law from their own feelings about whether or not that particular law is a good one. It is possible to feel that law is bad and should be repealed while at the same time holding that the law was passed in a constitutional manner. This is because these are two completely separate issues. President Obama has never said that he thought DOMA was unconstitutional ... he has said that he thinks it should be repealed. The DoJ brief is consistent with this message as their brief was filed in response challenge to the constitutionality of DOMA. Again, they could have been a little less offensive with the wording of their brief, but at the heart of it just the fact that they are supporting DOMA on constitutional grounds does not change President Obama's stated view that the law should be repealed.

( Side note here: Many people are unhappy that President Obama has not publicly criticized the DoJ for the language of their brief. All I'm going to say on this is that many sources agree that a good leader is one who praises in public and criticizes in private. Unless we can say for sure that he hasn't taken action behind the scenes, internal to the DoJ, then I don't think it's fair to accuse him of inaction. )

And Lastly ...

Another topic that is frequently pointed to as evidence of President Obama's betrayal is the dreaded "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." policy. The main argument here, that I've seen, is that the President has not yet fulfilled his promise to repeal DADT. People point to the fact that DADT is still on the books as evidence that the President is never going to take action on this subject. Funny, I don't remember seeing the memo stating that he was going to lift the ban immediately upon taking office or even within the first 6 months (of which there's still a month left.)

The Obama/Biden Transition website said, in part, this about DADT:

"Obama will work with military leaders to repeal the current policy and ensure it helps accomplish our national defense goals."

This has been slightly adjusted to add the words "in a sensible way" on the Whitehouse website. Nowhere is a timetable given and nowhere, that I can find, did President Obama ever promise that this would happen over night. I know that there are folks who encourage the issuing of an Executive Order reversing DADT immediately. I don't think that would a be a sensible thing to do for many, many reasons. I'll spare you most of those reasons but I would like to present the two that I think are most important.

First, The infrastructure is not in place to support openly GLBT members of the military and if DADT were to be repealed without this infrastructure, the results could be disastrous. Military life is not the same as civilian life. You cannot just up and move away if you come out and your platoon, shipmates, squadron, etc, don't support you. You could be outed while deployed and surrounded by people 24x7 who are anti-GLBT. There are no protection mechanisms or infrastructure to help service members who are outed into a hostile environment. That supporting infrastructure, or at the very least plans for dealing with these situations, needs to be in place before DADT is repealed.

Second, all of the Military leadership needs to be on-board before this change is made. Remembering what I learned in Management 101, a good leader knows that you cannot make a major policy change and expect it to be carried out effectively if your supporting leadership, like the Military Brass in the case of DADT, doesn't support it. A policy change made without the support of the middle level leadership typically leads to ineffective implementations, outright refusals to follow policy, and deceptive practices that make it appear that policy is being followed when it really isn't.

Based on those reasons, I think that we need to allow the time necessary to build the supporting infrastructure and to gain the support of the Military leadership if we want DADT repealed in an effective manner. I believe this is what President Obama means when he states that it needs to be done in a sensible way and I agree with him.

So, after all of that, I think my stance is clear ...

I do not agree with the people, such as the author of the referenced blog, that proclaim President Obama a failure when it comes to supporting the GLBT community. I'll agree that there hasn't been a lot of forward movement on GLBT issues but that is not the same as proclaiming failure. Especially since we're only 5 months into his 4 year term as President. Yeah, he promised change ... but he did not promise immediate change. I think we all need to remember that real change needs to be done carefully and with the support of the people (at least a vast majority) in order to be truly effective.

Sober ramblings ...

2009-06-17T23:09:00.007-04:00

So, I had this really long blog written that I composed while drunk and several thousand feet in the air, somewhere between California and Washington, D.C. After opening said blog and realizing it was two full pages, typed, single-spaced, with .5 inch margins I decided it was a little too long ... So, I'll spare you that dissertation and get to the heart of what I wrote about.

( Fair warning - I failed when I rewrote this and ended up writing another dissertation. The only difference is that I wasn't drunk this time. )

For those that don't know, I'm working in California for about a month and am not that far from San Francisco. Not even two weeks before I left for California, the California Supreme Court handed down their ruling on Proposition 8. The night before I left for Cali, my boyfriend and I watched Milk - which takes place in San Francisco. Two days later, I was walking the same streets depicted in the movie and, in particular, spent some time in Harvey Milk's neighborhood. This collision of circumstances - being in a state that recently wrote discrimination into their constitution and visiting the old stomping grounds of a pioneer in gay rights - has me thinking about marriage rights, the history of our struggle for equality, and how the greater GLBT community has approached obtaining these rights.

The subject of marriage rights has always been a struggle for me on a personal level. I see a distinct dichotomy between the legal rights that are conferred by the state and the ceremonial rights that are typically conferred by a religious institution. In my mind, this leads me to the thought that civil unions are enough in terms of equality, since they afford all of the same legal rights as marriage. In short, the ceremonial aspect for me is somewhat secondary. However, I understand that full marriage rights - both the legal and ceremonial - are important to a vast majority of people. Also at issue is the freedom of choice ... While the ceremonial aspects may not be as important to me as the legal aspects, I fully believe that those who want the ceremonial aspect should have the choice to get married. Unfortunately, since the ceremonial component is intrinsically tied to religion, I don't foresee us obtaining that portion of the rights any time soon. So what do we do here?

There is no easy answer. On one hand, we could make great headway by removing the components that invoke religious objection and obtain the legal rights. This could, however, lead to the reasoning that once we have the legal rights then the majority will be less likely to give us full marriage rights. The argument would be that with full legal equality, there is no need to grant us what the CA Supreme Court called "access to the term marriage."

Another option is to take the idea of civil unions off the table and push for marriage, and only marriage, as hard as we can. I think this can work in several states but will be much more difficult than obtaining legal rights would be in other states.

Perhaps another option is to pursue both in parallel or to push for marriage, gaining ground on that front in states that are friendly to it, and compromising on civil unions in states where marriage fails. This allows for the marriage movement to continue gaining momentum while securing at least legal equality in those place where marriage is going to take more time.

As you can see, there are a couple different approaches that can be taken in terms of what we elect to fight for and where. One thing that is for sure, no matter which overall approach is taken, is that the GLBT community as a whole needs to change its tactics.

Using Prop 8 as a base, and referring to something Tony wrote, the general tactic of the GLBT community has been reactive. While our so-called leaders are politicking in Washington, D.C. and debating each other, the GLBT community at large is sitting at home writing blogs.

Err, I mean, they aren't actively out in their community demonstrating that GLBT people are just as fucked up as everyone else.

Err, I mean, we aren't out showing that we are just like straight people - we have the same goals, dreams, problems, etc, that they have. We aren't adequately showing that we are regular people. It's only after the fact, after something has been done that is detrimental to our community, that we show ourselves in the form of rallies and demonstrations. After Prop 8 was passed, and after it was upheld, we were mad ... mad at the people in California that voted for Prop 8, mad at the religious institutions that backed Prop 8, mad at the CA Supreme Court.

My question is, why weren't we mad at our leaders and ourselves? I think we should have been. At our leaders for wasting time debating the likes of Brian Brown, the executive director of the National Organization for Marriage, instead of targeting open minded individuals who are more likely to be allies. I think our leadership has a problem knowing when they need to give up on an individual and move on ... instead, they continue to debate issues with people that aren't going to change their minds and, in doing so, neglect to talk to countless others that could be swayed.

We also need to be mad at ourselves. There are so many little things that many of us don't do that could help recruit allies. The easiest is to be out and active in our communities. Straight people need to see GLBT folks in everyday situations, rather than just what they see in Pride Parades and on reality television. Those two mediums provide such a biased view of GLBT life that I can understand why a large percentage of straight people have a stereotypical, and frankly bad, idea of what it means to be GLBT. They need to see less of the leather guys, queens, promiscuity, and more of the "regular" GLBT folks ... the mailmen & women, police officers, fire fighters, software engineers, grocery store clerks, barristas, educators, politicians, mechanics, etc, etc who are all those things and also members of the GLBT communities. Please understand that I'm not advocating anyone hiding their true selves - if you're a leather guy, be a leather guy and be proud. Same goes if you're a queen. I'm just saying that the entire community needs to be well represented. Think of it this way ... a person from another country would form a pretty bad opinion of straight Americans if the only examples they ever saw were of frat boys and scenes from spring break. Same thing applies to the GLBT community. That's why I firmly believe that it only benefits the GLBT community for us to continue coming out and, as hard as it is, putting ourselves out there as examples of GLBT individuals that don't fit the stereotypes. This is the only way to fight the stereotypes - otherwise they will persist and our struggle for rights will continue.

Interestingly enough, this is the same type of thing that Harvey Milk was combating and advocating 30 years ago. Harvey Milk knew that in order to change minds, and gain acceptance in the community, you had to be out and be a visible advocate for the GLBT community. He talked to people. He formed relationships with those that would oppress him and converted them. He even tried to form a relationship with the man that eventually killed him and tried to convert him. This is what we have to do. We have to talk to people. We have to let people know we are gay and then talk to them about it. If they have concerns, or are afraid that we are a threat, then we need to work with them to address their concerns. The more they get to know us as individuals - who, by the way, are gay - the more likely they are to become allies. There is a caveat, though ... as I said before, a problem our leaders have is not knowing when to give up and move on. We need to be careful of that trap and need to recognize when we've come across a person who isn't going to be convinced we aren't evil. Let's not spend our time spinning our wheels with those people ... we could spend a lifetime trying to convert them to allies or we could spend our time more productively and convert as many people as we can. Let's take the more productive approach.

To summarize, I think we need to take a look at what we're fighting for - be it marriage, civil unions, or some combination of the two - and as a whole community take a more proactive approach to obtaining those rights. It's far past the time where we stop being reactive and I really hope that the GLBT community has learned this from the recent setbacks that we've experienced. I know that I intend to be a positive, visible member of the GLBT community and will be talking to more and more people about GLBT issues. If you're reading this blog, whether you are GLBT or not, I believe you should be doing the same. My GLBT brothers, sisters, and in-between owe it to themselves to be doing this and it only helps further the cause if our straight allies are doing the same.

Assuming you made it this far, I'll say good night and kudos to you for making it through the whole blog! Thanks for reading ... =)

Attention Gay community (Both Out and Closeted)

2009-05-27T22:26:00.000-04:00

WTF?

Seriously, WTF?

After what just happened in California, and whats going on in other states; What are we doing to prevent this? It seems like nothing. It seems as if we are just letting hate get thrown down on us. In response to those heinous acts we protest. But I have to ask why. Why protest now? After the fact. After the hate has been thrown at us. After it is too late. The damage has been done. Where were all of the protesters in the months leading up to last November? Sitting on their heels doing nothing. Yes there were people in California, but it obviously wasn't enough. If more people who care now had cared then, perhaps Prop 8 wouldn't have been passed in the first place.

For far to long gay people have been slandered, abused, been the punch line of tasteless harmful jokes. We've been tarred and we've been brushed with the picture of pornography and sleaze. I have yet to meet a single gay person who hasn't been called a homophobic slur or been stared at for just holding hands with their partner. In response we elect candidates who can "relate" to our needs, who can "change" things, who are "friends" of the gay community. It's not enough anymore just to have friends represent us. No matter how good that friend may be. And the time has come when the gay community must not be judged by our criminals and myths. We have got to elect gay people. Like every other group, we must be judged by our leaders and by those who are themselves gay. Those who are visible. For invisible, we remain in limbo-a myth. A person with no parents, no brothers, no sisters, no friends who are straight, no important positions in employment. I think that a gay person, up-front, will not back down from responsibility or be afraid to be tossed out of office. They will stay in the fight.

We will not win our rights by staying quietly in our closets. We must come out together as one community, one group, as a whole with a unified message. The first step out of the closet is the first step towards equality. You must come out to fight the lies, the myths, and distortions. Together we can come out to tell the truths about gays. I am tired of the of the silence. Tired of the oppression. So I'm going to talk about it. And I want you to talk about it. You must come out. Come out to your parents, your relatives, your friends. Let them know who you are, not the pseudo version of your self. Until you create dialogue with other people you cannot begin to change their opinion(s). Once you have started dialogue you can begin to tear down the walls of prejudice and hate.

The anger, pain, and agony that some of us feel is because we are misunderstood, and friends can't feel the frustration. They can sense it in us, but they can't feel it. Because a friend has never gone through what we, you have gone through. They have never known the fear that comes just from everyday life. They don't know because they have never gone through "coming out". So I ask you now to come out to not only yourself but to everyone, let your clarity define you. Let you be you. Help inspire other gay people still stuck within their own closet. Let them know there is hope. Hope for a better world; Hope for a brighter tomorrow. As Harvey Milk once said "I know that you cannot live on hope alone, but without it, life is not worth living. And you have got to give them hope." Because Hope will never be silent.

5 days ago would have been the 79th birthday of the most influential figure in the gay rights movement. Do you think that Harvey Milk be proud of what the gay community has done since his assassination? Are you?

Choices ...

2009-03-12T20:25:00.009-04:00

I chose to wake up at 5:30 this morning.
I chose to have a beer after work.
I chose to work out yesterday.
I chose to come out to several more people this week.
I chose to help to a friend in need.
I choose to do a lot of things ...

But ...

I did not choose to be gay.

It amazes me, and sometimes frustrates me, that there are people in this world that believe that being a homosexual is a choice. This makes no sense to me and wouldn't make sense to me even if I was straight. Here's why ...

Looking at the issue objectively, there are two main reasons that homosexuality doesn't make sense as a choice. The first is the issue of legal rights.

In all but a handful of states, the love between two men, or two women, has no legal standing. Homosexuals, for the most part, cannot enjoy the legal protections and benefits that come from marriage. This includes, but is not limited to, the ability to make decisions for a partner who is hospitalized or to enjoy legal benefits such as the tax benefits that come from filing a joint return. Also from a legal standpoint, it is still permissible in over half of the United States to fire someone for being a homosexual or for giving off the appearance of being homosexual. And let's not forget the armed services, where being out is grounds for dismissal under "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

The second issue is that of how much hostility is directed at homosexuals. This hostility is evident in the overt hate crimes that take place all over this country. It is evident every time a homosexual is verbally harassed simply for being a homosexual. It is evident in the deaths of men like Matthew Shepard and Tony Hunter. It is evident in the countless numbers of friends lost, and families torn apart, when someone comes out of their closet. It is tragically evident in the number of men and woman who have committed suicide because the pain they'd be subjected to as a homosexual was too much for them to bear.

To the people who think homosexuality is a choice, I ask this question:

Why would anyone choose to be a homosexual knowing that they'd have few to no legal protections and that they'd be subjected to perhaps a lifetime of hostility?

The logical answer is that nobody would make that choice. Why is that so hard to understand and accept?

Two years in the making ...

2009-03-09T19:24:00.002-04:00

So, I've been officially "out of the closet" for two years, this month. That phrase is in quotes because I periodically go back into my closet, solely because I like it in there. I have a nice closet. Closets become very comfortable when you've been living in them a long time and let me tell you, my closet was fucking awesome ...

I digress. This post wasn't meant to be all about my closet. Where was I ... Oh, yeah, it's been two years since accepting, acknowledging, and shouting from the rooftops that I'm "not straight." (Just kidding; I have no rooftop to shout from.)

The past two years have been interesting in mostly good ways. I've learned a lot about myself and about other people. I dare say that I've grown as a man.

Here are some of the things that I've learned:

1. My gay / straight mix is something like 98.2% / 1.8%. Referencing my first blog, I always said I liked guys more than girls. It turns out I like guys a LOT more than girls.

2. I have picked my circle of friends well. Very well, I must admit. Although I was extremely worried about their reactions, and was prepared to lose some of them, they're all still here. For that, I am extremely grateful.

3. I'm still not interested in dating "raging queers" or the flamers ... but I am friends with some guys that are like that and I have to respect their ability to just be themselves. I may not always like how they act but they are far braver than I ever was for putting it all out there.

4. I mentioned in my first blog that I'm not the stereotype. It turns out that there are very few out there that are ... the point being that what you see in the media, be it a television show or the nightly news portraying some random pride festival, is hardly a representation of all things gay/lesbian/bi/trans. The majority of us queer folk are just as normal as the straight folk ... which, sadly, means that we're equally fucked.

5. I've learned that I'm a much happier, relaxed person now that I don't have to hide in my (fabulous) closet. If there's one thing I could change, I'd have taken the first step many, many years ago.

Those are just a sampling of the things I've learned over the last few years. So, where am I at today, you might ask ...

Well, I jumped into dating shortly after coming out. That was an "experience", to say the least. Fortunately, the awkwardness didn't last long and I'm closing in on a year with my boyfriend. He means a lot to me and puts up with my crap, which is really all I can ask of another human being.

I'm now out to anyone who wants to know ... I don't hide my sexuality but I don't go out of my way to call attention to it either. Several of my co-workers know and they're all cool with it. In a future blog, I'll tell you how it came to be that I came out to anyone within earshot one night.

(Things I've Learned #6: $20 all you can drink happy hours + newly out Ed + co-workers = some interesting Monday morning discussions. Full story later.)

I'm also active in the Pride affinity group at work. My hope is that by volunteering my time, and experiences, that I can help make my company a better place for GLBT individuals to work. Current efforts have been rather disappointing, as my company talks a great diversity game but doesn't fund it well, but I'm not going to let that stop me from trying to do great things.

And so, that's pretty much where I'm at two years later. Hope you enjoyed the update and I encourage you to stay tuned ... thanks for reading!

-E-

Guess What ...

2009-03-07T16:27:00.001-05:00

Editorial Comment: This posting is almost 2 years old. I first posted this on Myspace in April 2007. Myspace has pretty much been surpassed by Facebook and other sites, so I decided to bring it over here.

Well, this upcoming blog may be a surprise for some of you and some of you might not want to be my friend anymore after reading this ...

Within about the last 3 months, I've come to terms with and accepted that I'm not "straight". The reality of the situation, at least for me, is that I'm attracted to guys & girls - though to more guys than girls. That probably explains why I've only had one meaningful, long-term relationship with a woman. I was in love with her and I screwed it up badly, mostly due to my own confusion about myself. I'll say to her that I'm sorry and I should have never put her through the hell I did. She knows who she is and I hope she remains a good friend after reading this ...

To those that might not understand, one thing I'd like everyone to know and understand is that I didn't choose this ... Literally, my life has been a living hell with the amount of anger, depression, confusion, and denial that has ruled that last 15 years of my life. If this was a choice to be made, I certainly wouldn't have chosen to be the way I am. But I am the way I am, so I'm dealing with it.

A few other notes I'd like to pass along, if you're still reading ...

a) If you're a straight male friend of mine, relax. I know you're straight and I'm not interested in you as anything more than a friend. I may consider you a brother, and love you like one, but it goes no further than that.

b) I'm not the stereotype ... I don't wear makeup, I don't flaunt my gayness, I'm not into the gay club shit, and I'm not into raging queers. I'm a normal guy that happens to like other normal guys. Flamers need not apply.

c) I'm still the same person. If you can't accept this new knowledge of me, then you probably weren't a real friend anyway. I'm sorry to say that, but my liking guys really doesn't change my personality or any reason you might have had for being my friend in the first place.

I'm out to pretty much everyone now ... The family knows and is very supportive as are several of my good friends. Comments / questions are welcome ... If you need some time to evaluate how you feel about this revelation, that's cool, though I'd like to hear from you just to know that you're processing this new information. As for negative thoughts ... well, if you really must rage at me in order to salvage our friendship, go ahead ... I'm willing to listen and keep an open mind as long as you do the same.

A resource for my friends, if you feel like you need help in understanding this, is PFLAG. www.pflag.org contains a lot of good information - it might be helpful to check out their website.

Anyone who wants to talk can email me at ewl1976@gmail.com - probably the best way to get in touch with me. Thanks for listening and take care.

-Ed