Dear Governor Christie

Dear Governor Christie -

Thank you for the statement you made on 770 WABC Radio denouncing Viki Knox's homophobic statements on Facebook and, allegedly, in school. Thank you for supporting an "examination of how that teacher conducts herself in the classroom."

Of her words you said, "I think that kind of example is not a positive one at all to be setting for folks who have such an important and influential position in our society. I'm really concerned about those kinds of statements being made." I couldn't agree more. I am concerned as well. You are the governor of our state and you hold an "important and influential position in our society" as well. This is why I'd like to point out that while your words are more subtle than Ms. Knox's, your opposition to marriage equality sends the same message. It is a message that says we, New Jersey's LGBT citizens, are different. It is a message that says that based solely on who we are, we will be barred from participating in society in the same way as our straight friends, parents, co-workers, brother and sisters. It is a message of inequality. We are not the only ones who get that message. To me, the most disturbing aspect of Viki Knox's Facebook tirade is that the law in our state, rather than rebuking her bigotry, confirms it.

Governor Christie, I urge you to reconsider your position on marriage equality. I urge you to consider the example you are setting.

Sincerely,

Roger I. Rosen

Frank Kameny - American Hero

Frank Kameny, a hero of mine since I discovered him in college, passed away yesterday. Fittingly, Frank Kameny died on National Coming Out Day. A day, it can be argued, that Frank Kameny helped to make possible. While I never met Frank Kameny, I can’t help but feel connected to him. I can’t help but feel a direct link between Frank Kameny’s life and work and the fact that yesterday I had the opportunity to speak on behalf of HRC at a National Coming Out Day event sponsored by an astounding young man in a library in the middle of New Jersey. It was a remarkable event for two reasons – because it was remarkable to those who attended and because it was not remarkable to those who didn’t. The fact that a GLBT group can meet openly in a public library in the middle of New Jersey without so much as a raised eyebrow from passersby can be traced directly to a handful of notable people whose strength, courage, fortitude, fearlessness, vision and certitude launched a movement. Frank Kameny is – was - one of those people.

It is not without thought that I used Frank Kameny’s name repeatedly in the previous paragraph instead of surrendering to smoother-sounding pronouns. The least I can do is sacrifice the pace of a paragraph so that Frank Kameny’s name can be read and re-read - and hopefully remembered.

Sometimes the people who change the world aren't treated to a collective mourning when they die - a Facebook hand-wringing and cyber-competition for the title of Most Affected and Grief-Stricken. Sometimes they get neither a bowed head from the media nor impromptu pop-up memorials. It seems that Mr. Kameny’s passing has registered barely a blip on the media radar.

I fear that no one knows who Frank Kameny is. I fear that while we enjoy the fruits of his legacy everyday, he himself is already largely forgotten.

This was a man who did the unthinkable - he protested his discharge from the army – a discharge based solely on the fact that he was gay - and appealed his case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. The court declined to hear the case and a lower court's ruling against him was upheld, but to dwell on the outcome would be missing the point entirely. He did this in the '50s!!! On his own. He was a gay activist when there were few gay activists. His anger predated Stonewall by a decade. He taught us that “gay is good” when gay was considered not only not good, but sick.

He had no apology in him.

He said, out loud, what no one was saying – what no one was even thinking. He marched when marching was truly dangerous. He laid a path where there had been no path. His courage made my own life easier and better. His courage made the lives of all GLBT people easier and better.

I am sad that he is gone, although at his age it can hardly be described as surprising.

I am profoundly sad that he seems to be largely forgotten.

Dear Rachel

In an interview she gave to the Hollywood Reporter, Rachel Maddow voiced her opinion on marriage equality:

"'I feel that gay people not being able to get married for generations, forever, meant that we came up with alternative ways of recognizing relationships,' she explains. 'And I worry that if everybody has access to the same institutions that we lose the creativity of subcultures having to make it on their own. And I like gay culture.'"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dear Rachel -

I am a 39 year old gay man. I am a huge fan of yours and while I agree with you on almost every issue, I have to tell you that I found your views on marriage equality short-sighted at best.

This isn't about the preservation of gay culture. This is about equality, and while I will certainly utilize my right to marry the instant I get it, it is ultimately not about my equality or your equality. To me, this about our gay children. Our gay children who should look forward in their lives and see as many choices, options and opportunities as their straight counterparts - who should not have to unlearn all they have been taught about themselves. I couldn't be prouder of my community for building families and defying laws and odds and norms. I look at those who came before me in utter awe - of their strength, their fearlessness, their creativity, their internal fortitude in knowing that there was nothing wrong with them when the world was telling them the exact opposite. But I want those who come after me to read about our history and our struggles - I don't want them to know firsthand. It is my most fervent wish that they not fully understand what it was to be gay way back when we could not get married; when we could not adopt and create families which received full protection under the law; when we could be fired from our jobs or evicted from our homes simply for being gay. Let there be a great, wide generational chasm! I wish for them an easier path than yours or mine. That's why, to me, marriage matters. It is the same reason that the repeal of DADT mattered. So that our children can look forward and see no difference.

I have heard from friends and now read your views that this lack of difference is worrisome. That it will lead to the end of gay culture. To that I say this:

I would gladly give away my sense of humor as I know it to not have felt tortured as a child when I knew I was gay and I "knew" it was "bad." I would gladly give away any creativity I have to never have been taught that parts of this world were closed off to me simply because of who I am. I am not worried about the loss of gay culture. I am worried about the loss of gay children at their own hands because they are being tortured at school and on the omnipresent internet. I am worried about the loss of gay adults at the hands of ignorant, angry people who see in the media their own hate dressed up as a difference of opinion; who see in our laws not a condemnation of their own fears and prejudices, but a reflection of them. I am not worried about the loss of the next great gay game changer if the reason that they are a game changer stems from their hesitation at holding their boyfriend's or girlfriend's hand in public, from their fear of kissing their significant other goodbye at an airport, from the loss of a natural sexual coming of age. If that is what creates gay culture, then I would just as soon give it all away so that our next generation can grow up average. Perhaps fewer of us will be special. Perhaps more of us will be happy.

Sincerely,

Roger Rosen

What Do We Want? Anarchy! How Do We Want It? Through Marriage!

Last week, former football player David Tyree came out against marriage equality. In a videotaped interview he did with NOM, he went on the record spouting all the hate-filled, manipulative lies we've heard time and time again - protect the children, one man/one woman, family, mother/father, God. Same old, same old. But then he said something new. Something I hadn't heard before. And noteworthy in its sheer, brash illogic. He actually went so far as to say that “If they pass this gay marriage bill...this will be the beginning of our country sliding toward, you know, it's a strong word, but anarchy.”

Anarchy.

Anarchy!

Merriam-Webster's online dictionary defines anarchy as:

1 a: absence of government; b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority; c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government

2 a : absence or denial of any authority or established order; b : absence of order : disorder anarchy of nature

Marriage equality will lead to anarchy - an astounding leap! Absence of government? State of lawlessness? Absence or denial of any authority or established order? Those of us who seek marriage wish to be MORE a part of society. We wish to follow MORE rules. We want MORE responsibility. We are not looking to destroy anything. Indeed, we want the structure of this country whole and healthy. WE WANT TO BE INCLUDED IN IT! We are looking to gain access to a contract that will enmesh us further into the machinations and fabric of society. We wish to become more stable and more committed to each other and to the institutions that bind us. What we are looking for is the opposite of anarchy. WE ARE LOOKING FOR BANALITY! Marriage - the squarest, most non-rebellious, middle America institution that exists - leading to anarchy?

At the moment I heard these words come out of David Tyree's mouth, I began to understand that people such as he, people who work at NOM and people who spend their time and their money traveling the country with the goal of ensuring that gay people remain in the shadows of society are deranged. Deranged.

Merriam-Webster's online dictionary defines deranged as:

1 to disturb the operation or functions of; 2 disarrange deranged — G. W. Stonier> 3 to make insane

They have been made insane by hate. By ignorance. By a lifetime of lies told first to them, then by them.

And now it seems that David Tyree is going to take his lies - his melodramatic, hate tinged, manipulative lies - to Albany, where the Senate is but one vote away from granting marriage equality to the Empire State. He will likely be listened to and taken seriously, this deranged man who spouts nonsense and calls it love.

“Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it”

Adolf Hitler

Will Gays Bring Down The Great American Military?

Following the events that will hopefully result in the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell has always been frustrating. But lately it has been almost too much to bear. Had this much time, energy and money been focused on regulating big business, creating an even tax structure and reinstating The Fairness Doctrine, perhaps we might be in better shape. But what gets scrutinized, pulled apart and picked over? Whether or not an openly gay person will bring down the great American military. I guess we're more fragile than I was taught. So much for American exceptionalism.

For the record, everyone accepts the fact that there are gays in the military. The current conversation is about whether or not knowing who's gay would be too much to handle for those who dislike us. I'm guessing that the John McCains of the world think bigots make great soldiers, because this entire conversation centers around ensuring that they're kept happy and comfortable.

It's astonishing what we focus on.

It's astonishing to listen to this debated earnestly. To listen to the serious tone the hearings are taking. This is clearly something that we need to parse and splice - to look at from every conceivable angle. Something requiring a year long study and, if you listen to our opponents, many more months to review that study's findings. We didn't have this much debate before we started the fucking war! You can almost hear the Wicked Witch of the West rubbing her hands together, saying, "These things must be handled delicately," not referring to the war itself but to which sexuality is better qualified to get shot at, fly a helicopter, drive a tank or file paperwork. As if gay people are more of a threat to morale, military preparedness and unit cohesion than a lying president, an unconscionable amount of strategic bumbling, inadequate body armor and the almost guaranteed eventuality that if you are lucky enough to return home you'll find that your job has evaporated. As if gay people are more of a threat to the military than terrorists armed with explosives, bullets and the belief that dying is preferable to living. Dear Senator McCain et al, message received - What poses the greatest threat to the United States? The out homosexual.

You know what I think those opposed to the repeal of D.A.D.T. are really afraid of? What they really can't handle? I don't think that these people can wrap their heads around the fact that this dyke or that faggot might just be a war hero. Just like all the other veterans they embrace. Just like all the other soldiers who return home with a broken body and a broken spirit. Or the soldiers who don't make it home at all. It must be difficult to take us out of the bedroom. For as much as our opponents seem dismayed by what we do there, they seem equally obsessed with it. If we are to serve openly, we will be heroes openly. One day we will have openly gay war heroes in our history books! Our schoolchildren will learn about them. And before you wonder how being gay would come up in an elementary school history book I will tell you that George Washington was married to Martha. We all read it. And it's just that simple. And it's just another way that we will no longer be excluded from society, which must be a horrific thought to people who have only ever seen us as one thing. I don't think they can come to terms with the fact that they will have to forward to our gay veterans the same respect, deference and thanks that they instinctively forward to our straight veterans. Of course, with that same respect, gratitude and thanks, one must forward the same money.

The money faucet seems to gush freely, almost violently when it comes to the persecution and prosecution of gay people. Never have I heard one word uttered from the fiscally conservative right regarding the ridiculous, avoidable cost of waging a war on our military's gays. Never have I heard one word of complaint about the cost of investigating those "accused" and then routing those found "guilty." Not one word about the cost of retraining soldiers to fill the empty spots left by those who have been unceremoniously separated from the military. Not even during our current economic implosion. You'd think that there would be an outcry, a clarion call to conservatives that this could be a great way to save money - repeal D.A.D.T. But no. Better to cut funding for food stamps and unemployment benefits than to deprive these witch hunts of their financial oxygen. Gay hunting is necessary spending.

And yet - and yet! - mark my words - it's only a matter of time until someone comes up with the notion that caring for our gay troops is cost prohibitive. It is going to happen. Bet on it. Watch the narrative unfold: Those activist, progressive, Un-American homosexual veterans are going to bankrupt the nation with their outrageous demands. For equality.

And here, I think, is the final piece of the hate and fear - What happens when these men and women return home? Having fought for our country - having marched directly into harm's way, having faced separation from home, comfort and loved ones, having sacrificed so much to keep us safe, so the propaganda goes - will they be content with a system of laws that does not protect them with the same vigor that it protects their straight counterparts? Will they be content with the possibility of eviction based solely on their sexual identity? Of being fired from their job? Will not being able to legally marry the person they love be an acceptable fate? Oh my! Letting them come out of the closet opens up a whole Pandora's Box, doesn't it? And what of their husbands and wives? Of their widows and widowers? Might they stand up and scream, "We exist!"? Might they demand that their fears, their pain, their struggles and their horrors deserve legal recognition and support? Imagine!

If we let gays serve openly, how will we know where they become unequal?

That's what I think our opponents are most afraid of. Not the repeal in and of itself. But of the ripples that will surely come after. Of the repercussions. These people who claim to want to do anything and everything for our troops and veterans will now be caught between a rock and a hard place. They will no longer be able to chant their support for the military while preaching hate against gays. That will become an impossible political position.

What is possible is that D.A.D.T. is a staggering dinosaur and that its repeal, should it happen, when it happens, will be one giant, lurching step towards the end of the systemic, institutionalized bigotry that this country currently practices.

Tiger Woods

Tiger seems to have captured our national attention.  He is everywhere.  In magazines.  On the internet.  In the papers.  On television.  His exploits have been studied and dissected from every conceivable angle.  Of course there is the obligatory distancing angle.  This is when the media, in an attempt to save face, shakes it's head and wags it's finger at all the media attention.  They perfunctorily put on disapproving faces, complete with furrowed brow and slightly downturned lips in a mask vaguely resembling human concern, and wonder aloud about the toll all this attention might be taking on Tiger Woods and his wife; how having cameras shoved in their respective faces could be psychically damaging.  They do this while showing us footage of them having cameras shoved in their faces.  The media washes their hands of any seeming impropriety by covering the coverage, not the story.  

It seems this circular logic serves two purposes - two obvious purposes.  The newscasters get to pretend that they are removed from the feeding frenzy - that they are somehow above it.  At the same time it allows them to propagate it.    The signal this sends is that they know they've got actual stories to report on, but they're going to spend their time, and ours, on the whereabouts of Tiger Woods' dick.  Health care reform?  Later in the hour.  Two wars.  Later.  The economy.  Later.  The global warming extravaganza in Copenhagen.  Boring - but wait, there's some violence.  So that's a little better.  But still later.  Despicable.  

Why are we so fascinated?  

I think that the root of our fascination lies in the fact that we think we know Tiger Woods.  We have come to know him on the golf course and in thirty second commercial snipets.  We've seen his picture myriad times in magazines and on billboards.  They all repeat the same basic mantra:  Tiger Woods is a stand up guy - honest.  He may not be our friend, but he would be if he lived next door to us - if he weren't arguably the greatest athlete of all time.  We may not have ever met him, but we have come to believe that we know him nonetheless.  And that is the definition of fame - the people who know you outnumber the people that you know.

But we don't know him.  We know his image - his carefully crafted image.  He looks young and wholesome.  He's attractive, but not in an off-putting way.  He's seems open and friendly.  He looks kind.  In no way does he look like a cheater.  Of any sort.  His eyes convey a sense of honesty.  Add to that his comportment on the golf course.  In control.  Together.  Classy. 

All of these variables have been skillfully whittled and harnessed.  Ads were created and words were put into his mouth.  Words that we would believe coming out of this pure, honest looking guy.  And they were repeated.  Over and over.  And over again.  Until we began to think that this two dimensional figure - a creature of publicity machine magic - was a full and complete human being.

We were sold the idea of a man who would never cheat.  On the golf course or in his marriage.  And we bought it.  We live in an age where marketing is truth.  And we're fascinated when we peek behind the curtain to discover that these cartoon characters don't exist.

I think that is why we're so fascinated by how many women Tiger Woods has slept with.  Would we be half as fascinated if it were a pre-Annette Bening Warren Beatty?  I doubt it.  His stock in trade was his dick - which he supposedly happily shared with every woman in Hollywood.  Except for Shirley MacLaine.  The interesting story there would be if he actually didn't sleep with all those women.

Iconization doesn't lend itself to subtlety.  It is borne of repetition and gets its traction with broad strokes.  It is, by nature, simple.  Iconization shatters under the weight of the complex or complicated.  And certainly can not withstand the pressure of human contradiction.

Clearly we didn't know Tiger Woods.  Of course now we think we do.  Most of us still haven't met him, but we have this new piece of information which, once digested, will give us the impression that we know him now.  But the truth is that most of us will never meet him and will never know the slightest thing about him.  The truth is that it takes a lifetime to know friends.  A lifetime to know lovers.  A lifetime to know ourselves.  So how can we possibly know someone we've never even seen in person?

And lest anyone think that I've gotten so wrapped up in the felling of Tiger Woods that I've momentarily stopped being an angry gay male, consider this: his marriage is perfectly legal.  In all fifty states.  I've yet to hear even one of the "defenders of traditional marriage," one of the clergy who fight so virulently to ensure that my marriage remains lesser, one of the leaders of the National Organization for Marriage voice concern about teaching Tiger's marriage to young children.  I've yet to hear even one of them condemn his marriage or challenge it's sanctity.  Or legality.

He's fucking the right people. 

 

Visibility.

Tonight I find myself typing with trembling fingers.  It seems that the marriage equality fight might finally come to New Jersey.  And, if it does, there's a possibility that I might get the chance to marry my best friend, my love, my lover, my partner, my occasional tormentor, my comic relief, my shelter, my shield, my fan, my smack upside the head, my so many things.  I am grateful for all that he is to me.  And I am grateful for all that he allows me to be for him.  Sometimes I think the most loving act is the gleeful, gracious acceptance of love.  That he has fallen in love with me, and thus given me the opportunity to spend my life loving him, is a blessing I am not talented enough to express in words.  And while it's quite clear that in the apprehensive, skittish world of politics anything or nothing can happen at a moment's notice, it seems at this moment that New Jersey's number is about to be called.

I find myself frustrated, depressed, angry, horrified, driven to distraction by our recent losses.  The truth appears to be neither as flashy nor as seductive as fear.  It feels that we simply can not break up that generations old bedrock of ignorance that our opponents have built their house of cards on.  

It's a game of fear.  Our opponents use it to their advantage, brilliantly.  Marriage equality isn't even up for a vote yet (a despicable idea if ever there was one, yet here we are, voting on my relationship while peeking into Tiger Woods' marriage without the slightest thought that it should be put to a referendum) in New Jersey and already I've heard a horrific yet effective radio ad denouncing it.  At the end of the ad is a disclaimer from the station that the "views expressed may not necessarily be the views of the station."  Well, that's not entirely true.  I doubt they would take money from anyone who would advocate reverting to spousal ownership - a truly traditional idea.  So while they may not agree with the ideas expressed, at the very least they don't find them offensive enough to forgo that advertising money.

Fear.  On another level our politicians vote their own personal fears.  Although I think it is often the case that they fear marriage equality less than they fear winding up actually affected by the current "recession."  Like the rest of us, they are afraid of losing their jobs.  Unlike the rest of us, when they play politics, it's for real.  And the consequences of their fears are catastrophic.  

This is why I find myself occasionally overwhelmed with what feels like an impotent anger.  Their fears, to some extent, dictate my life.  Their fears place boundaries around some of us - around me - but not around others.  So I have to step back from my emotions.  When I read things day in and day out about myself that aren't true but which clearly resonate with the fearful and ignorant - when hypocrisy struts around with grandeur and arrogance - when religion is called upon to do the dirty work for those who's abnormal, fetishized obsession with gay people propels them to crisscross the country spewing bile and providing a breeding ground for intolerance, ignorance and hate, all the while disavowing any violence that might take place in their wake - I must step back and look at the bigger picture.

The bigger picture is, in a word, visibility.  As hurt and disgusted as I am on a daily basis, I must remind myself that even if it seems that we are losing, and even as those righteous defenders of inequality gloat in their momentary victories, they are a mercifully short-sighted group.  Visibility.  This is about the long haul.  Visibility.  This is about being on the news every single night.  Fighting.  Winning some.  Losing too many.  But still fighting.  And visible.  Visible on television.  Visible in our everyday lives.  Visible to kids who are struggling with being gay.  Visible to their parents.  There's not a more powerful political statement than being out of the closet.  That simply can not be overstated.  To paraphrase Harvey Milk:  When they know us they don't vote against us.  

Visibility.

Things will change when our elected officials fear not voting for equal rights.  When the negative repercussions to their livelihood stem from voting "no" on marriage equality.  I pray that the fury we felt this week when the New York Senate voted to deny us our civil rights will not ebb, but instead will fester and propel us to the voting booths come election time.  If that happens - if those cowardly men and women lose their jobs because of the vote they cast against equality - then last week will have been a victory for us.  Because their successors will understand that bigotry is no longer a bankable voting block, but equality is.