Yes, You're a Homophobe

This post is dedicated to my fearless friend Michelle - an individual who stands up for what she believes in and those she loves no matter what.  Special thanks to Feminism and Religion for always being a space where my voice and the voices of others are welcome!

__________________________________________________

A line has been drawn in the sand between those who support gay rights and those who do not.  While some call it being on the “right side of history,” I simply now refer to it as not sounding and looking like a bigot in the halls of history and in the various books, Facebook posts, and Tweets that our children will one day read.

I’ve spent a lot of my activist life attempting to educate or save for lack of a better term, individuals who say hateful things similar to Duck Dynasty’s Phil Robertson.In a recent GQ profile, the patriarch of the A&E series called being gay a “sin” and compared the sexual action between same sex individuals to bestiality.  Robertson said:

“It seems like, to me, a vagina – as a man –would be more desirable than a man’s anus.  That’s just me.  I’m just thinking: There’s more there!  She’s got more to offer…But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man.  It’s just not logical…Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there.  Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men.”
 (Note: The rainbow colors were added by me)

While this may seem like a run of the mill statement coming from someone with this man’s views and beliefs, his statement has created quite the controversy as he has been placed on permanent suspension from the show, his family refuses to film without him (something that is economically harmful to A&E since the show has broken many broadcast ratings records pertaining to reality shows and is a proverbial cash cow for the network and their investors) and, the craziest point of all, the people defending him are stating that his statement isn’t homophobic but rather an expression of his deeply held religious beliefs.

While I would usually just brush off the man’s statements as the actions of another delusional homophobe, I can no longer sit idly by when statements like his not only influence my personal life but also the way in which my human rights are restricted by a man who influences millions of people who tune into watch him on a weekly basis and buy his family’s countless products.

Does being against gay people make you a homophobe?  Yes.  Does being against gay marriage make someone anti-gay? Yes.  It is that simple.  We live in a country and exist in an academy where we can’t make value statements against those individuals standing on the wrong side of history and totally taking advantage and profiting from the homophobia they produce and I have a problem with that.

People are forming a metaphorical human shield around Robertson and the rest of his Duck Dynasty clan and I’m here to say that those individuals, defending him and toting the declaration that homosexuality is a sin are on the wrong side of history and people will not forget who stood on what side of that proverbial line in the sand when this is all over.

I no longer feel the need to save people who feel the same way as Robertson.  I no longer feel the need to educate them about how I am just like them but I just happen to like boys.  I no longer feel the need to explain, over and over again, that although Pope Francis stated: “If someone is gay and seeks the Lord with good will, who am I to judge?” it doesn’t make the Catholic church or any other similar fundamentalist or conservative faith-based tradition any less homophobic than they have been or erase the violent and hateful history to those groups who didn't fit their definition of normal.  

Is Pope Francis’ statement groundbreaking?  Yes.  Has Pope Francis, being the leader of the Catholic church and major social, political, and cultural influencer changed any type of church dogma pertaining to homosexuality?  No – and that’s the problem.  People and groups in power need to create the change that we all need to see in the world and until they and their cohorts are willing to do that, I will not sit idly by and feel bad for calling someone or something a homophobe and leaving it at that.  The time has come for activists from all walks of life, who no longer are willing to sit by and watch as their rights are taken away from them, to take up the reins and finish the hard work that our brother and sisters and not only fought but also died for. 

Lately, this problem has become all too personal.  From Facebook status’ that declare Robertson and his clan have the right to say whatever they want because the Bible told them so, to individuals who are openly upset (as they should be) about his statements, I know now that we no longer can live in a society where people can walk the line of the homosexuality argument, examine both sides, and come to the conclusion that it is wrong based on scripture – when you’re against homosexuality and you base your reasoning on your faith that God condemns it or that you’re simply following the teaching of Jesus, you’re wrong.  Jesus never said anything about homosexuality and Jesus, a man who hung out with the poor and downtrodden, wouldn’t be hanging out with Robertson and his homophobic brood who openly preach hate.  Jesus loved sinners and Jesus would rather be dancing with me in West Hollywood on a Friday night than lugging through a swamp luring ducks into a trap with a duck caller made by a clan who think that my sexual actions are similar to that of an individual having sex with an animal.

Call me simplistic or call me a reductionist, but whether or not you call someone a faggot to their face or behind their back doesn't make you any less homophobic.  Using hegemonic biblical texts that no longer define or reflect the views of many individuals from all walks of life fighting for gay and lesbian rights and emphasizing the correct usage of genitalia that deduce a minority class of citizens down to nothing more than whom they decide to love is homophobia plain and simple.  

Just like radical feminists in the 1970s who no longer stood by as patriarchal forces took away their personal, political, bodily, and social autonomy to the ways that African American refused to be silent about how they had (and have continued to be treated) by racists, homosexual, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, and asexual men and women can no longer remain still in the face of targeted hateful attacks upon our communities. Until religion, politics, and society treat LGBTQIA people as equals no one is safe and until people are held accountable, both publicly and privately, for their actions and statements, this world will never change.

I recently tweeted that: “If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s most likely a duck; and in this case, its most likely a family full of homophobes hiding behind a statement that lies near the condemnation of shellfish.”  I stand behind this statement and I stand behind the millions of LGBTQIA people who know more about G-d’s love than a man and family who claim to be deeply religious.

Although I find it difficult to understand at times, I respect the position of those individuals and groups that frequently contribute to this blog who choose to remain in these types of traditions and fix the various problems equal rights activists must overcome from the inside.  I am clearly not from this camp and although I claim no religious identity, I do respect their call to action to make a difference in many of the conservative religious and faith-based communities I may and may not have mentioned above.  From the fight for women’s rights to the inclusion of LGBTQIA people in religious communities, the fight for equality, in my opinion, needs a flare of the radical.  Historically, I would call this the Alice Paul vs. Carrie Chapman Catt debacle – while some individuals choose to cozy up to those individuals in power and work for change from the inside out there are those who will literally starve themselves to death just for the ability to taste freedom.  Both are valid and worthy of respect but what one, at the end of the day, will achieve the equality we all so crave? 

If the Duck Dynasty debacle has taught us anything, it isn’t that we live in a country where people like Phil Robertson (and many others) have the ability to say whatever they want by hiding behind the Bible but rather the fact that there are millions of people who only wish to have the same inalienable rights as he does and solely takes for granted.  To be able to walk down the street holding the hand of the one you love is a great feeling and an action that some of us aren't able to perform without fear.  

To Have and to Hold: Gay Marriage and the Religion Question

I feel especially honored to have worked for a City that not only prides itself on human rights but also is a constant beacon to the community and the world, specifically during this critical moment in LGBT history.  If one boy, from Ripon, WI can hear the equality ringing from the streets of West Hollywood when he was younger, then I can only imagine what's next and how the City will continue to change the world for the better.  

This blog dedicated to both the City that I now call home but also the Feminism and Religion community that I am constantly honored to write for.  

_____________________________________________________________

Outrage. Anger. Fear. Hatred. These are just a few of the words that flashed across my Twitter feed as I woke up on that fateful Wednesday, June 26 morning when the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act (or DOMA) was unconstitutional and that supporters of Proposition 8, the hotly contested voter initiative in California that banned same-sex marriage, had no standing. People were mad. However, it wasn’t just the typical kind of mad that is associated with hatred, it was a type of mad that was met with impossible anguish because what I was reading and feeling was a result of one thing: there was nothing more they could do.

What does all this mean? Questions from friends and family were filling up my inbox and although I wanted to take a moment to just hit “Reply All,” and input the words: Equality, I had to hold back and start to examine the notion that although equality may now be firmly on the proverbial table, there is still a lot of work to be done, specifically for gay marriage and those wanting to marrying inside the traditional church spaces they grew up in and not just the ones that have come out as open and affirming in recent years towards LGBT individuals.

The ongoing shift of public opinion in support of gay marriage and LGBT rights in recent years is encouraging but it still is only one piece of the puzzle. Working for the City of West Hollywood has granted me the opportunity to see first hand the beauty and the work still left to be done. Although organizations such as California Faith for Equality or Equality California are doing an excellent job in recruiting faith-based communities and other religious organizations to join the fight for LGBT equality within religious communities the work and conversations that need to still occur outside of open and affirming churches is becoming a daunting and often overwhelming force of opposition. The amount of individuals who still do not support gay marriage or LGBT rights in general in conservative and oftentimes hyper patriarchal religious traditions such as Catholicism, Mormonism, Islam, Judaism and other conservative Evangelical traditions still remains a daunting number and it only appears to be growing now that there has been such a public declaration from public policy and legality standpoints that echo Hilary Clinton’s famous words that: “gay rights are human rights.”

The question that remains is not why do these religious groups not support gay marriage or LGBT rights in general but how are individuals, typically on the outside, supposed to convince members of these faith-based traditions to leave or possibly change their opinions if they still remain steadfast and stubborn on other progressive causes that are often discussed on this very blog. Women’s ordination, sexual ethics, women’s rights, and theological and religious equality in general are just a few causes that individuals on the outside believe would be no brainers when compared to tackling the issues of gay marriage and LGBT rights but still we have on-going and often exhaustive conversations about ensuring the full rights of women in faith-based traditions and communities.

The other question that remains may seem to be the icing on the cake but it is really the tip of the iceberg when we discuss issues like equality within religion: if people refuse to leave their religious traditions and communities when women, who are oftentimes the reason for the very success of not only religion but also faith-based communities in general, then do we really think or expect that they’ll leave when their LGBT brothers and sisters are also denied that same type of recognition but on top of it constantly told they are sinners and are going to hell? If a conservative religious traditions can’t give their mothers or sisters full equality, how can we expect them to give LGBT individuals the time of day?

The issue of equality doesn’t just stop at gay marriage and LGBT rights but only begins there. Women’s rights, women’s ordination, and even the idea of a woman President are the only a few of the other pieces of the equality puzzle anxiously awaiting to be put together. As we have seen with the fight for equality, groups are banding together now more than ever before and although gay marriage may be on the front page of newspapers today, who knows what tomorrow could bring.

 

 

 

            

Second Class Rape Victims: Rape Hierarchy and Gender Conflict

While most of my life has been dedicated to studying for my qualifying exams, finishing up a few book chapters, and working for the City of West Hollywood, I am constantly thrilled for the opportunity to step away from it all and engage in these thought provoking conversations.  I hope you enjoy this blog and visit the Feminism and Religion Project to view the new conversation occurring in the field.  

____________________________________________________________________

The most disturbing part of the 2006 documentary Deliver Us from Evil isn’t that fact that Father Oliver O’Grady is rewarded by the Catholic church with a new congregation in Ireland after his short stint in prison for the rape of dozens of children in the 1970s but rather the hierarchy of gendered victimization which is often created throughout the various rape cases that both are reported and unreported throughout history.  

Deliver us from Evil

I am often troubled by the ways in which rape cases are discussed and even deconstructed via the mediums such as blogs, online communities, social media networks, the news, and popular culture.  No series of events troubled me more than the Jerry Sandusky trial but more importantly, the ways in which the young boys and adult men who were subjected to Sandusky’s abuse quickly overshadowed the other rape cases that are reported on a daily basis, specifically those involving young girls and women. 

Our country needs to have a serious conversation about the ways in which masculinity is not only constructed but also deconstructed through the acts of rape, incest, sexual assault, domestic violence, and virility.  How do these horrific actions pinpoint and break apart the depiction of the hegemonic and virile man who is impenetrable.  How do these acts, which have historically occurred throughout time, gain greater significance in our 24hr news cycle, tech obsessed culture? 

Although the rape of a women on a bus in India by six men didn’t go unnoticed by the world, I have to wonder what would have happened if her story would have occurred on November 4^th, 2011, the date when a grand jury, who had convened in 2008, indicted him on 40 counts of sex crimes against young boys.  Would it have gotten the same amount of attention it did when it came across U.S. news screens on December 16^th, 2012?  Would the outcry from women across the world silence those of both Penn State as well as various other sports fans and individuals from across the United States? 

What these events and society’s obsession with them for the weeks and months and even year after signify isn’t that more attention is being given to violent sexual crimes against all types of bodies but rather a resignification of the hierarchy that is already all too present within our culture today: stories about men in all forms get top billing. 

Upon asking a small groups of friends whether or not they have heard about the rape case involving the Indian woman on December 16^th, 2012 or even the rape of an elderly bird-watching woman in Central Park in September 2012 the resounding silence pinpointed the reasons why, when asked whether or not they had heard about Jerry Sandusky, their answers were an unequivocal yes.

While the activist in me wanted to cry out and scream “Are you serious!” the scholar in me knew to take a step back and examine the situation from various angles.   

Why are violent crimes against women cast aside in light of new stories that involve men sexually or violently abusing young boys or other men?  What about masculinity makes it seem both impenetrable and innately hegemonic? 

While we could reduce the actions down to the violent response men have when any form of their power and social/sexual status is threatened, we have to step back and examine the issue about the innate power that men are endowed with not only through social institutions but also religious ones as well.

Men are seen as “on top” both figuratively and literally throughout the various images that bombard both young girls and boys immediately from the expulsion of their mother’s womb (and some would argue even before their expulsion).  From early on, young boys are taught that they are #1 and that “the other,” i.e., the young girl, is not only below them but also an object that they must possess, whether through violent action or the eternal dance of courting.   However, when there is a disruption to this innate system of power structures, the response that we often see is one of violence.  While men are taught that they should not show emotion or deviate from the heteronormative society acted out in front of them on a daily basis, their crisis of masculinity often comes with the inability to negotiate what their identities as men actually mean to themselves personally.  Giving men the ability and space to discuss what their masculinity means to them creates the opportunity to change the narrative of “men on top.”  From small ripples of change that eventually overtake the mainstream current, deconstructing masculinity during times when violent actions are inflicted upon male bodies creates a new chance for scholars and activists to draw attention to not away from the victims at hand but rather into the larger narrative of social, sexual, and domestic violence that occurs all around the world every day to all types of bodies. 

Deconstructing masculinity isn’t the key to solving social, sexual, and domestic violence across the world but it is a step worth taking when attempting to engage men in affecting change to stop these violent actions since men, statistically are the perpetrators of such crimes that both cause such outcry as well as perpetual silence. 

(I was fortunate enough to get to spend some time this month talking with Dr. Gina Messina-Dysert at lengths about our lives, our careers, and like with most scholar/activists eventually about the topics we are passionate about.  Always a source of inspiration, Gina frequently helps me hash out the many topics I’m interested in writing about and pointing me in the right direction. This post (and the blog it is housed on) would not be possible without her continual presence as a force for change and progress within Feminist and Religious communities.)

Don’t Worry, I Won’t Marry Your Girlfriend: Sexuality, Identity, and the Easy Laugh

Although finals are upon us and I am busy doing a multitude of things, I always welcome the ability to take time out of my day to blog for the Feminism and Religion Project.  I hope you enjoy this post and are both able to laugh and reflect upon the serious issues at hand.

________________________________________________________________________

I must say, I will be the first to admit that the recent outbreak of videos promulgating the idea that gay men will marry a straight guy’s girlfriend or lesbians will marry a straight girl’s boyfriend all for the sake of marriage equality left me stifling my laughter as I attempted to pay attention in class.

However, after the calamity died down I took a moment to reflect upon the intrinsically embedded aspects of misdirected norms of sexuality, gender, and misogyny latent within the laugh lines and the guffaws throughout each video.

The images that are present within each video not only work to reinforce the cultural and sexual stereotypes that propagate that ideas that gay men are inherently more sophisticated that their heterosexual counterparts (as well as better dressers) or that lesbians are just like a straight girl’s boyfriend who loves videogames, sports, and beer (and has no problem with his World of Warcraft Addiction) but also work towards breaking down the proverbial bridge that activists have attempted to build between individuals and groups, such as religious organizations, in order to get them to not see the error of their ways, but rather understand that love and committment, comes in multiple forms.

Although these videos were created to shed light on some of the issues that are present within popular culture as well as to get the easy laugh and adoration of fans from across the world who are fighting for marriage equality, the creators must be held accountable for the responses that have developed as a result of the challenge each of these videos presents to heterosexual society.  These videos dare to tackle the inborn quality that men not only should marry women but also that they are suppose to marry them as an acquisition of property rather than an object of affection.

These videos create a world that is reinforced by the idea that straight men have something to fear from gay men and that both gay and lesbian individuals are lacking an important aspect that signifies their identity as a member of society: the acquisition of a woman.  The dialogue that remains, after we essentially walk through the proverbial smoke and mirrors that these videos create, is both dualistic and reductionist at best.  No longer having to deconstruct the larger cultural and sexual narratives, heterosexuals who do not support marriage equality or feel threatened by homosexuals return to their one source of power that reinforces the ideology that they are on the right path: the Bible.  “Marriage is between a man a woman,” or “A man shall not lie with another man as he would a woman,” becomes the newly reinforced heterosexual rallying cry and the progressive progress that occurred in the past becomes nothing more than a joke.

Although these videos make it difficult to ignore the issue at hand without breaking into a fit of laughter, the issue of equal rights or marriage equality should never be reduced to a laugh line. 

8 Simple Rules for Being a Queer Godfather

This month I decided to write about an event that changed my life: the day I became a Godfather.  I am honored that I am able to write about issues on the Feminism and Religion Project but proud that I have the ability to share my story with our readers.  Enjoy.

xoxo

________________________________________________________________________________

I often wondered why I wasn’t asked to be the Godfather of my niece and nephew.  It made perfect sense to me that I would be the best person to guide and provide spiritual care for either of them as I was the only member, in both my family and my brother-in-law’s, getting a PhD in Religion.  I didn’t think there would be much to it.  I would go, hold my nephew, and watch a priest pour water over his head, and then go and enjoy some very sugary cake in my sister’s backyard. 

On August 18^th, 2012 my wish came true and I became the Godfather to my sister’s second child, Drew.   I had always believed that there was nothing to being a Godfather.  That it was a title in name only and a tradition that many individuals bestowed upon members of their family as ritualistic habit rather than a sacred institution of spiritual care and upbringing.  Boy, was I wrong.

In various posts housed on this blog, authors discussed their hopes for the future and their wish to change the systems of domination that many believe to be a source of entrapment in specific religious traditions.  As an advent agnostic, I always found religion to be an interesting force of social control rather than way of life that some people believe it to be.  Becoming a Godfather was more than just a reentry into the Catholic traditions I had long given up but rather a journey back in time that would grant me the ability to rewrite the wrongs I felt as a kid growing up in a tradition I not only didn’t understand but also didn’t feel like I belonged in. 

Looking into my nephew’s eyes as he quietly sat in my arms while the priest poured water over his head, I made a wish for my nephew and said my first prayer in a long time:

Dear Nameless Deity,I know I haven’t been the most faithful as of recent but I want you to know that I promise to take my role as Godfather seriously.  I understand now that Drew’s journey is just beginning and that I am here to help him along his way.  Bestow me with the ability to answer Drew’s questions when he gets older and to be there to guide him through life as a friend in his spiritual journey rather than an authority who dictates instead of listens.  Keep him safe and keep him in your thoughts, amen. 

(Me Holding My Godson Drew, my mother holding my nephew Brady, and my niece Emma dancing)

I realized that I wasn’t going to be the a-typical Godfather.  As a self-identified queer male, I realize that Drew, if raised in the same traditions that I was, would one day have questions not only about faith but also about his Uncle and now Godfather.  How would I answer them and more importantly, what would I say when and if he ever asked me if I was going to hell? 

While he slept in my arms I came up with 8 rules I promised to live by when and if Drew ever would require the spiritual guidance I was sworn to deliver.  I reinvented the tradition to create a better future for my Godson rather than the recapitulate the dominating forces that entrap rather than empower and confuse rather than answer:

1. Answer all his spiritual questions regardless of how hard they may be for me and how awkward they might be for him to ask.
2. Treat him with respect and dignity.
3. Give him the resources he needs to continue his spiritual journey if he so chooses.
4. Do not lie to him about the Bible.
5. Educate him about various interpretations of the Bible and g-d. 
6. Go to church or whatever religious institution he chooses to attend without hesitation or judgment. 
7. Teach him the differences between theological questions and religious ones. 
8. Love and listen to him, no matter what he chooses to believe or what he does throughout his life.

It is my dream that one day we can create a world with new traditions started by the simple actions of making new spiritual promises rather that reifying old ones.  One step at a time and one wish and a prayer later, change may be right around the corner or in the hopes and dreams of a child just starting their journey in their Godfather’s arms. 

(Me Holding my Godson Drew and his sister Emma)

"If You Allow Gay Marriage..."

I have been taking an interesting class this semester called Gendering Mormonism. It is both liberating and frustrating but the ability to blog about issues we are talking about on Feminism and Religion have made this class both revolutionary in the study of gender as well as its unique connections to Mormonism. Make sure to check out the blog here and on www.feminismandreligion.com.

_____________________________________________________________________

… you have to allow polygamy, bestiality, and everything else!” The title for my post this week is a quote from an individual I used to associate with. This individual, haling from a conservative evangelical background, tried to explain to several others and myself the reasons why gay marriage would eventually lead to the repeal of anti-polygamy and bestiality laws across the United States.

The problems that I have with this particular argument are conflating gay marriage with religious freedom. Activists and scholars can draw comparisons to anti-polygamy cases such as the 1878 U.S. Supreme Court case Reynolds v United States and the 1882 Edmunds Act and 1887 Edmunds-Tucker Act that disfranchised and led to the imprisonment of Mormon polygamists. But in the end, gay marriage is not about religious freedom but rather human rights.

I often feel that there is this need both within and outside religious communities to promulgate the idea that LGBTQ individuals want to get married within the sanctified walls of “the church” just as much as heterosexual couples do. Although I do not want to disqualify those who desire to see LGBTQ equality within their faith based communities, buying into a heternormative ideal of what traditional marriageshould look like needs to result in LGBTQ individuals asking why marriage should be performed in sacred spaces in the first place The normative traditions that have often defined marriage have also served as shackles keeping LGBTQ couples in the mindset that to achieve fully marriage equality with their heterosexual counterparts is to fully immerse themselves within the same traditions and practices.

During the fight for LGBTQ marriage equality there has been a rise in the fetishism of polygamy and its inherent natural link to gay marriage because they both work off the defining characteristics that the individuals within these relationships are “in love,” and that people should be able to do what they want when it comes to who or how many people they want to marry. Television shows such as Big Love and Sister Wives have distorted the fact that gay marriage and polygamy are in fact two separate issues. They have turned the discourse around polygamy away from the issues of women’s rights and roles within families consisting of more than one wife into an idea and concept that is hip to be a sister wife rather than be in a plain, old, boring marriage consisting of only one man and one wife. Big Love and Sister Wives attempt to promote the equal relationships that wives share with their husbands in polygamist relationships by furthering the argument that people “in love” should be able to do whatever and marry whomever they want. Shows like Big Love and Sister Wives, while complicating the traditional monogamous view of marriage, actually recapitulate the idea that marriage, even in its “transgressive” mode, is still a relationship of consenting heterosexual adults.

Polygamy should not be compared to gay marriage because it stems from both a heteropatriarchal and heteronormative narrative where one man can take as many wives as he sees fit. The technical argument for polygamy remains strictly about one man taking many wives and does not promote the idea of a woman taking as many husbands or even a man taking as many husbands as he or she sees fit based off of their doctrinal beliefs. Legal gay marriage is about LGBTQ individuals having the right and ability to live together with their singular partner. Conflating the issue of legal marriage equality with the issue of polygamy opens up a floodgate of new problems. Although polygamists do still exist in the world, tokenizing them on television as a hip alternatives to the idea of one man and one woman only stresses the fact that although we may see a man with two to three wives on television, we still have yet to see any type of show that places married LGBTQ individuals in the same light. Popular shows like Modern Family do have a token gay couple as part of their cast but these characters still remain closeted in terms of actually being able to portray sexuality outside of the confines of heteronormativity. Polygamous marriage has become an acceptable form of viewing on TV, while gay characters and their lifestyles are still forced to show their affection offstage and ultimately out of mind.

Homosexuals and others who a normative culture defines as deviant are scapegoated. We need to start examining the underlying questions of counter-cultural relationships that view one man marrying many women to be hip because we begin to see that although a polygamist idea of marriage may be sexy from a popular culture standpoint, the thought of legally recognized gay marriage always gets the short end of the stick.