New post on the Creative Loafing blog. Hit the link below for ramblings on South Park, GLAAD, and Professor X:

Word's Worth: Sacred cows and coddling sheep

As before, older posts at this link

Tags: hype, lgbt, television, writing

I talked my way into getting a slot at Creative Loafing's blog a few weeks ago. The basic subject matter is language, though as you'll notice, I'm not especially strict in how I apply my "beat." This is the most recent entry:

Word's Worth: Traditional definitions

There's an 'author archive' with the first blurbs from all the others and links to the full entries by clicking here.

Tags: hype, lgbt, writing

This probably isn't an omission so much as it's due to the fact that I'm probably one of the only people reading the book, but with all the gay representation talk I'm reading on comics blogs of late, I haven't seen anyone note that C.B. Cebulski and Karl Moline's The Loners seems to be ready to out Julie Power as a lesbian.

Given that Julie roughly corresponded to Karolina in the first appearance of the group vs. the latter's Runaways, and since Karolina was the gay-in-residence there, it's an interesting choice to gay up Julie, as well.

And while I suppose you'd expect me to scream about a raped childhood, I have to say, most of Power Pack's appearances were while they were pre-pubescent. By and large, then, Alex was the only character who had any romantic entanglements*, so there's very little "proof" of any of the kids' potential sexuality. The past can stay pretty well intact without counteracting this new status quo.

At least, I hope Cebulski plans to out Julie before the mini-series finishes. The "hinting" is getting rather heavy-handed and tedious at this point, and I don't get the impression the mini-series is likely to get a follow-up.



*Julie had an apparent crush on a boy during Michael Higgins' tenure near the end of the book's original run, but most people (rightfully) discount those issues when considering significant continuity. And she has/had a boyfriend in the more recent "Power Pack + Guest Heroes" minis by Marc Sumerak, but those seem to take place in their own pocket continuity.

Tags: comics, commentary, lgbt, power pack

Skimming the recent Ron Marz interview at Newsarama I hit on this seemingly innocuous Marz comment:

Certainly the Wildstorm Universe is not a mirror image of the DC universe. As far as we know, there are no analogous versions of Midnighter or Apollo and we explored that a little bit with stuff like Captain Atom traveling to the Wildstorm Universe. [emphasis mine]

Really? Maybe I'm wrong, but isn't it common knowledge that Apollo and Midnighter are meant to be Superman and Batman analogues? I swear I even saw a comment in an interview somewhere with Ellis or Millar saying one of the things they enjoyed about writing The Authority was that their Batman was topping their Superman (apologies, but my Google-fu isn't strong enough to find it).

So, pardon me if this comes across as an overreaction, but am I the only one who reads the above quote and interprets it as a refusal to consider even implying there might be a gay Batman or Superman?

Communist Superman? Good to go. Vampire, Graverobber, or demon Batman? Sounds great. Batman kissing Superman? What, are you insane???

Tags: comics, commentary, lgbt

alyx_chance recently asked for opinions on political outing. In no particular order, my thoughts:

I believe in a right to privacy. That some people use said right to hide their hypocrisy doesn't change their right to have it. And if the point is to punish hypocrites, violating my own arguments re: privacy rather makes me the pot and them the kettle, yes?

I think coming out is hard enough on one's own, and anyone who has come out to any extent understands that fact. Every time anyone forces an outing, especially if it's with the intent of harming the person outed (and let's not for one minute pretend that political outing is being done for the outed person's "own good"), it makes it more difficult for other people to come out: when you use "look who's gay!" as a weapon, it raises the level of hostility we associate with the process.

Identity, sexual and otherwise, is personal. I don't think I have much right to tell someone who they are, and that's exactly what outing is: someone deciding that X level of male/male sexual contact = gay, as opposed to bisexuality, or bi-curiosity, or experimentation, or gender dysphoria, or pre-op trans-sexuality, or just a Really Drunk Night.

Political outing creates more gay villains: the outing organization become gay terrorists; the outed party is a dirty closet case who only goes to show how far our moral fiber has been degraded by the horrible homos. I fail to see how this serves an agenda ostensibly working toward wider acceptance and civil rights.

There seems to be an innate assumption that closeted men who fight against gay rights aren't being honest about their beliefs. It strikes me this thinking is flawed, and it's reasonable (if depressing) to think that the reason these men are closeted is because their public beliefs are honest. Punishing them for their homosexuality strikes me as more likely to bolster those beliefs than change them.

The context of political outing feels to me very much like catching politicians at drug use / prostitution / mob activity. Unfortunately, I think a lot of other people make that same connection, such that political outing makes it feel like being gay is of apiece with shooting up heroin. I don't think equating sexuality with destructive criminal activity does the cause any good, myself.

Tags: commentary, culture, lgbt

This just in, gay civil rights help heterosexual couples:

A state judge has ruled that North Carolina's 201-year-old law barring unmarried couples from living together is unconstitutional.

The American Civil Liberties Union sued last year to overturn the rarely enforced law on behalf of a former sheriff's dispatcher who says she had to quit her job because she wouldn't marry her live-in boyfriend.

And what legal precedent did the judge use to strike down this ridiculous piece of legislation?

State Superior Court Judge Benjamin Alford issued the ruling late Wednesday, saying the law violated Hobbs' constitutional right to liberty. He cited a 2003 Supreme Court ruling that struck down a Texas sodomy law.

Sadly, I'm sure there's some moron out there who thinks this proves that gays are ruining marriage further, what with their helping straights live in sin and all.

Tags: commentary, culture, lgbt

Johanna posted a link and discussion about a recent lawsuit in the "Christians are a persecuted minority" trend:

Ruth Malhotra went to court last month for the right to be intolerant.

Malhotra says her Christian faith compels her to speak out against homosexuality. But the Georgia Institute of Technology, where she's a senior, bans speech that puts down others because of their sexual orientation.

There's also a good discussion going on in the comments at Johanna's blog, so make sure to read those. I think that actually covers the various logical arguments about the rights involved just fine, so I'm not going to rehash it. There are, however, some rather choice quotes in the original article that lead me to something else:

"The message is, you're free to worship as you like, but don't you dare talk about it outside the four walls of your church," said Stephen Crampton, chief counsel for the American Family Assn. Center for Law and Policy, which represents Christians who feel harassed.

Cookie, cookie, cookie starts with C. Interesingly enough, C is the first letter of both "church" and "closet." Given his expressed concerns above, what else might Mr. Crampton find those two words have in common?

Christian activist Gregory S. Baylor [...] says he supports policies that protect people from discrimination based on race and gender. But he draws a distinction that infuriates gay rights activists when he argues that sexual orientation is different — a lifestyle choice, not an inborn trait.

Totally. I mean, all of our special protections are linked to inborn genetic traits. You can't help being born Black, or female, or physically challenged, or Christian... oh, wait a minute.

Yeah. Did I miss the scientific discovery of The Faith Gene? While there is continuing debate on the subject of homosexuality-as-choice, I have yet to find anyone who would contend that religion is inborn. And if the argument is that only inborn specialization deserves government protection ... then, really, why should religious organizations receive special tax credits and other legal protections?

My problem here is not with the specific argument that Fundamentalist Christians have rights of free expression, no matter how distasteful I might find that expression. The problem is that they so clearly miss the irony of their argument. If Fundamentalists have a right to walk through the world proclaiming the tenets of their lifestyle choice (so long as they don't incite riot), why is it that right only applies to them? Why can they "protect" their children from the horrors of knowing men sometimes love men, but homosexuals are only arguably allowed to be parents at all, let alone protect their children from encountering hateful proclamations of Divine Hate? Why does their religious mating ritual come with a lovely Civil Prize Package, but others still have to sit in the waiting room when their partner of several decades is in intensive care?

The issue, for me, is not that any given group doesn't have the right to live their life as they choose, expressing love or hate as they see fit, it's that they don't have that right if they're simultaneously insisting that I don't have the same right.

Tags: commentary, lgbt

Today is National Coming Out Day. This year's theme is "Talk about it." I'm not quite sure if that means talk about coming out, or talk about being gay in general.

The former doesn't make for much of a story in my case. I had an amazingly (and thankfully) anti-climactic coming out. Got myself all geared up for being disowned and angsting about the Drama and Misunderstanding, and everyone was pretty much "Okay. So, are you dating anyone?"

The latter isn't all that likely to happen with me. Or, rather, it's not likely to happen in some weird "here was my gay experience list for the day." I'm not exactly sure which experiences count as the gay ones, anyway. Well, okay, there are a few that undeniably count as gay, but I'm not about to start documenting my sex life in public. You want mechanics, read a book or download some porn. You're already on the internet; use it for what it was meant for. :p

And I'm always weirded out by the implications of fronting anything with "as a gay man..." because it somehow assumes I'm speaking for more people than myself. Which, I feel pretty confident, I never am. About the only times I think I've done that was in response to someone else using it first, usually when they said something I found wrongheaded. In those cases, it was mostly to point out that the fact we both get hot and bothered by burly men does not, in any way, give someone else a mandate to start making pronouncements on my behalf. I'm perfectly capable of being offended or offensive for myself, thanks.

In any case, there it is. May there come a time when coming out itself has no more consequences than telling people you have a date. Or, if you have really obnoxious friends who sing songs where they spell out kissing and the like, even fewer consequences would work, too.

Tags: anecdotes, commentary, lgbt

In a shocking turn of events, Jerry Falwell has a problem with the Gay Games, in particular, Kraft Foods' sponsorship of them for 2006:

Critics of this protest say it is motivated by "hate," but that's far from true. That's the typical whiny mantra of homosexual-rights activists when people raise objections to their activities.

"If you disagree with us, you are hate-mongers!" Give me a break.

The fact is multiple millions of Americans who loyally purchase Kraft products have a right to express their opinion on the company's decision to link itself with the Gay Games. These people have a right to say, "If Kraft insists on sponsoring the Gay Games, I will be compelled to seek alternative brands at the grocery store."

I'm going to ignore the fact that Falwell seems to think "give me a break" constitutes proof that he's not a hater, and move right on to the telling Kraft what I think stage. So, my open letter to Kraft:

It's come to my attention that some of Kraft's many consumers are currently up in arms that their money may be going to support the Gay Games in Chicago in 2006. I tend to think that sort of hating on the part of consumers makes the Kool-Aid Man and Cheesasaurus sad. And frankly, a giant pitcher with a frowny face just isn't something I want on my conscience (an angry, imaginary, lactose-tolerant dinosaur is way up on my "to avoid" list, too).

Trying to find a way to save these lovely creatures from such an unseemly fate, I've decided to let you know that you should feel free to earmark any and all money you get from me as "Gay Games support money." I'm only one person, mind you, but when I took the time to look at your site, I note that even as a single entity, I seem to be contributing quite a bit to Kraft. You're getting my money for at least the following:

( my big old list of Kraft foods )

For my money, then, feel free to earmark Gay Games funds. Then those poor, horrified conservatives who fear little Timmy will catch the gay if he eats those tainted Pebbles or dunks a cookie can feel safe, knowing their money went somewhere else. Meanwhile, that scrappy Honey Comb monster needn't feel that his family is torn by strife, and can get back to the essential work of gobbling up cereal in the messiest way possible.

Best,

Jason Kimble

Tags: commentary, culture, lgbt

Two women in Iowa sought a legal dissolution to their Vermont-made civil union. A judge approved said dissolution. Then the conservative Iowa Family Policy Center and some state legislators sued the judge. You can't make this shit up. The Iowa Supreme Court, thankfully, had its head on, er, straight:

We fail to see how the district court's action in dissolving a civil union of another couple harmed in any specific way these plaintiffs' marriages and for this reason, they have shown no legally recognized interest or personal stake in the underlying action.

So is it more gay unions destroying the institution of marriage, or fewer? Or is it Hollywood this month? Sesame Street? Someone needs to make up a handy chart, 'cause I just can't keep track of it.

Tags: lgbt