Milk Screenwriter Dustin Lance Black

Thanks to the state legislature, Michigan has become the premier market for motion picture filming outside of Hollywood. The Michigan Film Incentive Program has brought vitalized growth to our movie industry. Chances are at some point over the past year (or in the near future), a Michigan made picture will be making its way to a theater near you. The most recent example was the directorial debut of E.T. darling Drew Barrymore, Whip It, starring Ellen Page.  Barrymore had these wonderful things to say about Michigan, “Michigan was such a great place to film. I hope to come back and film again, there are so many great places to shoot. I was so lucky to have made my film here. I’m the grateful one, I promise you.” Clint Eastwood raved about the state after the completion of 2008’s Gran Torino, “Michigan will be the new film capital of the world.” Michigan, for once in recent future, seemed to making strides in the right direction.

Two weeks ago I was notified by a friend at Hope College that Dustin Lance Black (Writer of Milk [2008]) was in Holland shooting his follow up. Eager, I researched the project only to find that it would be bringing big names like Ed Harris and Jennifer Connelly to Western Michigan. The news made me ecstatic: one of the biggest up-and-coming Hollywood screenwriters had enough faith (or at least incentives) in Michigan to choose it for his latest project.

Recently, students at Hope College reached out to Black and asked that he come and present at an open forum on homosexual rights. While this movement was student orientated, school administration has decided to ban Black from speaking. Richard Frost, Hope College Dean of Students, stated that, “from past experience, strongly-opinionated speakers usually don’t further academic discussions about gay, lesbian or transgender issues.” Instead, Frost opted to invite Black to give an educational lecture to the screenwriting department.

Dustin Lance Black has a lot to say on hope for LGBT-Q equality. While accepting his Academy Award for Screenwriting, Black said, “When I was thirteen years old my beautiful mother and my father moved me from a conservative Mormon home in San Antonio, Texas to California and I heard the story of Harvey Milk and it gave me hope. It gave me the hope to live my life. It gave me the hope to one day live my life as openly as I am and maybe I could even one day fall in love and get married.”

As long as institutions continue to suppress issues–teaching hate–and ignore homosexuality, hope will never exist. President Obama challenged the American population on election night, “If there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all things are possible; who still wonders if the dream of our founders is alive in our time; who still questions the power of our democracy, tonight is your answer.” I can only hope that we are at the dawn of a revolution where people understand that the founding fathers, a group of men driven by Christian beliefs, had in mind a nation where “all men are created equal.”

A picture may be worth a thousand words but one word was worth a thousand signatures in the small town of West Bend, Wisconsin. The word? “Gay,” of course. Citizens in the town of 30,000 are up in arms about a local library’s inclusion of homosexual literature in the “Young Adult” section, referring to it as “sexually A community tries to ban Stephen Chbosky’s classicexplicit” and “inappropriate” for teen readers. What started as a dull roar of a few parents quickly became a thunderous cry of outrage from over 1,000 citizens who signed a petition requesting that books such as, “The Perks of Being a Wallflower” which includes scenes of rape and sex, be put into the “Adult” section of the library.

Maybe they subscribe to the theory that being gay, much like H1N1, is a contagious virus from which their children, and our country, need protection.

Adding insult to injury, some citizens also requested the addition of ex-gay (reformed homosexuals who are now heterosexuals) authors that promote heterosexuality in order to be more “balanced”. As if this weren’t already egregious enough, one “outraged” citizen filed a claim against the library to have the book publicly burned. Really? Book burning? Upon reading this, I was of course sufficiently perturbed but as I continued to ponder on this debate, I began to wonder, just what the hell are these people so afraid of?

Are they afraid of sex? Sex is all over the place. It’s in Herbal Essences commercials with women all but pleasuring themselves while washing/conditioning their hair. It’s in Victoria’s Secret ads with scantily clad models salaciously displaying lingerie for viewers. It’s in Pussycat Dolls videos with six entertainers contorting their bodies over a horizontal titanium pole. It’s in Men’s Fitness magazine, highlighting bodacious buff bodies on its cover. It’s in children’s cartoons like “Sailor Moon” and “Teen Titans” which display either well endowed heroines meagerly covered and/or romantic relationships between animated characters. You can’t even have a reality television show anymore with there being some sex. In fact, some reality shows, such as “Daisy/Rock/Flavor of Love” and “The Real World” not only include but often highlight sex. And I would assume that most of the plaintiffs have had sex since they are, in fact, parents. But they aren’t going after any of the things mentioned…hmm, it must not be sex.

Perhaps people are afraid of controversial issues in literature. I mean, it’s not like schools include novels that tackle the oppression of African Americans like “The Souls of Black Folk” or “The Invisible Man”. I can’t imagine a curriculum comprised of books that address issues of sexism like “A Handmaid’s Tale” or “Persepolis 1 and 2”. And what kind of world would we live in if we allowed our country’s youth to read books that illustrate illicit drug use like “A Clockwork Orange” or “A Million Little Pieces”? Exposing students to these topics in literature wouldn’t at all be beneficial in helping them to learn about issues of social justice and equality, or educate them to be informed, productive members of society. Wait, high schools do use such literature in their curriculums? And people aren’t asking for these books to be burned? I guess it can’t be that either.

Maybe these people are just plain afraid of gay. Maybe they subscribe to the theory that being gay, much like H1N1, is a contagious virus from which their children, and our country, need protection. What people like this fail to understand is that this kind of mentality is one of bigotry, and teaching it to your children is passing down a bigoted legacy of ignorance, keeping the next generation’s minds as closed as the last. Far be it from me to attempt to be the law on nature vs. nurture but I’m fairly certain that people don’t become gay by talking to gay people, going to school with them, playing sports with them or by reading books about gay issues. (I’m also pretty sure that gay parents don’t “produce” gay children because my straight parents somehow produced me…but, I digress.)

The bottom line is that the idea that teenage youth shouldn’t be “exposed” to literature addressing gay issues is nothing more than a euphemism for homophobia. Adolescents are exposed to all sorts of vulgar, controversial and challenging ideas every day that nobody thinks twice about. I am not arguing that parents don’t have the right to censor what their children watch, read, say or do but they do not have the right to censor the media thousands of other youth have access to simply because they aren’t comfortable with it. Maybe instead of exhausting so much energy trying to shelter these children, they can take half of that energy and use it to educate them – a novel concept, really.

By Justin Ford

Photo: flickr.com user kattestrophe

Too often it is said that gay men are “so promiscuous” and that we are seemingly incapable of maintaining a monogamous relationship. To that I say, monogamy, schmonogamy! Monogamy isn’t just difficult for gay people, it’s difficult for everyone. I would venture to say that most of us, if not all, have seen someone to whom we have been attracted and had an inappropriate thought or two. It is also very likely that the majority of us have been unfaithful to a significant other, be it emotionally or physically (yes, there is emotional cheating). The problem here, isn’t that society is chock full of salacious skank-bags, it’s that we have bought into this social construct that monogamy is more than a possible attribute of a relationship, but it is THE standard to which all relationships are to be held. Why is it that we can’t view monogamy the same way we do most other qualities and traits? Some people are good at sports, for others maybe crosswords or Sudoku, still others enjoy bungee jumping, things that rush the adrenaline and traveling the world, while another may be perfectly content never having left the state of Michigan. All of these things are fine, to each his or her own we say, but when it comes to monogamy, people think everyone should want and aspire to have a monogamous relationship – why is this?

Let’s unpack this a bit, shall we? Monogamy is ingrained into the very fabric of our society. Marriage vows, for instance, are filled with conditions (sickness, financial ruin, until death, etc.) under which one will remain with their partner, reinforcing the notion that one should be bound to one partner for the rest of his/her life. Of course there is always the option of divorce but that isn’t a subversion of monogamy, it just becomes serial monogamy. It’s also more convenient to be monogamous in this country. Marriage and partner benefits, such as creating certain life estate trusts, joint insurance and health care, and filing joint income taxes, add incentive and essentially reward people for entering into a monogamous unions. These benefits don’t allow for the possibility of more than one partner or any alternative to a traditionally monogamous relationship, but rather discourage them.

The idea of casual dating has also fallen victim to the monogamy epidemic. Instead of being able to comfortably get to know two or three, or more, people at once, people are labeled as “players” and “sluts” for such behavior. Instead of appreciating that people are taking the time to carefully select a mate, we brand them as having “commitment issues” or being “promiscuous” because they aren’t adhering to society’s definition of “proper monogamy.” I understand that some people abuse this privilege, dating several people at once, all the while being deceitful and hurting others in the process – that’s not what I am suggesting. What I am suggesting however, is that we no longer consider monogamy the goal toward which all relationships should work, and stop classifying other approaches to dating as “second rate” or “dysfunctional.”

If we look at the divorce rate and the amount of adultery that occurs, it’s evident that people just aren’t too great at this whole monogamy business. Just like bungee jumping, Sudoku, living in a big city or having children aren’t for everyone, perhaps monogamy isn’t either – at least in the traditional sense. I am not proposing that everyone go out and be polyamorous, but rather entertain the possibility that traditional monogamy isn’t the only way to love someone. We all have urges so what’s wrong with communicating those to our partners and, should our partners approve, acting on them? Is one still “cheating” if there is no deceit and both partners agree to the supplementary tryst? Does that make two people love each other less or de-legitimize their relationship? Instead of having a secret affair, (which can be destructive to relationships and the emotional well-being of those in them), could being honest about those desires and creating a shared meaning of monogamy between two people be a better option?

Perhaps we’re too insecure with ourselves and our relationships to entertain the possibility that our partner finds someone else attractive, or maybe monogamy works well for you, both of which are valid. I understand that, for some, this kind of “progressive thinking” may not be possible or desirable. However, what if it is possible that “traditional monogamy” may be, in fact, holding us back from new and more realistic ways of loving one another? Whether monogamy is your “thing” or not, make sure that your love is an honest, functional and positive one – isn’t that what we all really want anyway?

By Justin Ford

Last month, on June 28, a local gay bar in Fort Worth, Texas made headlines as a “Routine Alcohol beverage code inspection” became anything but routine. Local police and the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission (TABC) were allegedly conducting code inspections in bars all around the Fort Worth area and “The Rainbow Lounge” was just another establishment on the list, but, for some reason, this inspection rather quickly went south – pun intended. 

Official police statements maintain that officers entered the Rainbow Lounge and found several intoxicated individuals making sexually suggestive and explicit movements toward them (Hmm…a gay bar with drunk people moving flirtatiously, how strange…). Some officers describe allegedly being “pressed up against” and “groped,” while others explain having kisses blown at them and being “dry humped.” Officers responded to the alleged suggestive behavior by arresting several patrons, charging them with “public intoxication.” According to witnesses, many of the arrested patrons were apprehended violently and whether these cops were dry humped or winked at, the fiasco ended with seven arrests, and at least one person badly injured and hospitalized from this “routine inspection.”

The real question here is: would there have even been one arrest if this had been a heterosexual establishment and the ones making the advances were women?

This incident has no doubt caused a stir in both the gay and straight communities alike but let’s take a minute and analyze what actually happened here. Police officers and the TABC entered a gay night club and found “intoxicated” patrons, dancing “provocatively” and (dare I say it) touching each other in a “sexually explicit manner” so they decide to arrest them for it. People were essentially arrested for their method of socializing. Admittedly, a predominately gay environment can be a bit overwhelming when first exposed, but every culture, or subculture in this case, has its own patterns of socialization and gay men are no different. Gay men are socialized into a culture where it is largely acceptable to casually be affectionate, and often flirtatious or ambiguously suggestive toward one another. It is not uncommon to see two gay men salute each other with a hug or kiss, link arms as they walk, rub one another’s shoulders, or even dance provocatively together (also known as “grinding”), so it stands to reason that at a gay establishment, one might find a person or two dancing/moving “suggestively” in their general direction. Does this warrant being zip-tie handcuffed and detained?

It’s also not uncommon for one to have their ass/groin grazed or grabbed in any night club, not just a gay one. Hell, if you go to a club enough times and you haven’t been groped, you’re probably doing something wrong. This is a space with a highly sexual atmosphere and generally intoxicated clientele so is it that unexpected that someone might advance on you sexually? This behavior, in concert with suggestive dancing, merits seven arrests?

The real question here is: would there have even been one arrest if this had been a heterosexual establishment and the ones making the advances were women?

These authorities didn’t come into the Rainbow Lounge for a “routine inspection.” They came to send a simple message: You are no longer safe here. In a world where you are constantly a minority and others get to dictate your right to marry the person you love, one of the few remaining safe havens in the LGBT community is the club. It acts as not only a place where one can be (for a few hours) in the majority, free of oppressive glares and slurs but also a safe and affirming space. Authorities took that safety away from patrons at the Rainbow Lounge. Not only were LGBT persons punished for what is rather commonly accepted bar behavior but they were reminded of the harsh truth that our society has not come nearly as far as we’d like to believe.

On the 40^th anniversary of the Stonewall Riots, one would hope that law enforcement abuse would no longer be an issue for the LGBT but it seems that we need to send a message too, a message that these kinds of injustices will not be tolerated. Perhaps the LGBT community has gotten so wrapped up in the national discourse over same-sex marriage that local injustices like what occurred at the Rainbow Lounge are being overlooked, but if that’s the case, it’s imperative that the community re-focus. Large or small, all civil rights are worth fighting for and we can’t forget that. What good are same-sex marriage rights if we can’t even guarantee our own personal safety? Keep the joint dental insurance, I’ll take my physical well-being any day.