I was met with the typical response from some commenters that sexual ambiguity is a deal breaker and how can one be sure they shared similar values if the other person is ‘like that’. People are hilarious sometimes, especially when I think of the amount of people who are married to what has recently been identified to me as a ‘beard’.

“Beard is a slang term describing a person who is used, knowingly or unknowingly, as a date, romantic partner (Boyfriend or Girlfriend), or spouse either to conceal infidelity or to conceal one’s sexual orientation.”

Now I don’t mean to be mean or anything, but I do find it peculiar that I am personally aware of waaaay more marriages where one partner is perceived as ‘‘questionable’, than I know of married couples where one spouse openly identified as homosexual, though married to a heterosexual.

I’m not saying that couples have to openly affirm their sexual orientation to society, but its not like people aren’t confused when these relationships are vigorously presented as simply a case of ‘boy meets girl’ when the boy in question has never, ever, ever been interested in girl until he decided to marry —->her.

Dating and marrying a thirty year old virgin doesn’t make a man special. Though some would love to think their un-tampered with unicorn’s lack of interest in mating with men before them, just meant they were waiting for ‘the one’ and he thinks she’s that “one”.

I’m not talking about the sexually conservative, or strict religious followers, I’m just talking about what I consider average peculiar behavior.

Arranged marriages and marriages of convenience are nothing new, but since we’re out here promoting marriage as a willing union and not as a business deal what is to be said about those using marriage as a front to hide their sexual orientation?

Everyone asks questions regarding the sexual orientation of one partner or the other; teachers and other family associates inquire as to the gender identity of the parent and at some point in time everyone begins to wonder what the REAL deal is.

While I have no problem with any couple (gay, straight or mixed) that marries for the sake of wanting to be together to take on life as a team what I do have a problem with are people who feel that it’s okay to front for the sake of saving face.

One partner marries someone whom they know could never love them the way they want but they are still willing to take a fraud of a relationship in order to feel special. One partner may sit idly by while the other partner continues to maintain their REAL romantic relationship with a same sex partner who they call their ‘best friend’. Yes, the bills are paid, the family piles into the car to attend church on Sundays and the portraits do look amazing but is this how you saw your marriage?

Surely this satisfies the requirement for some people’s definition of marriage but pardon me if I want more. Using a person as a front is selfish and cruel; allowing yourself to be used as a front shows desperation. Unfortunately, your willingness to be a tool won’t barter you the love you seek.

I’m not a witch doctor hunting down the mythical DL brothers because that facet of life is merely a half truth at best. But just as much as a man or woman has to be willing to lie and deceive others regarding his/her sexuality he/she must also have a partner who is willing to eat those lies and lick the bowl clean. If the wedding ring is more important than being able to look yourself and your spouse in the eye then the marriage isn’t worth the paper it’s written on.

You may say these unions are no one business but their own…I disagree.

I do know White couples, Asian couples and some Middle Eastern couples who are married to a homosexual partner in spite of the variation of sexual orientation. They have chosen to live their lives this way for their own reasons, but what I do see is that they care about each other and their relationship is authentic, as it should be.

With the shortage of Black male dating prospects out here I’m sure there are plenty of women who would be willing to look the other way and forgive past transgressions for a man who was willing to ‘get saved’ and change his body language, social circle and friends in order to give a respectable “go” of the marriage.

But how many of them would marry a plain old bi/gay male who was willing to do the same thing but for change his orientation and sexual identity……not many I bet.

When little potential future homosexual children seek examples of who they will be when they grow up it saddens me to know the amount of people out there who are willing to lie and let lie rather than those willing to accept their authentic selves and each other.

With no space to exist some will feel forced to fit into roles that require them to wear a mask and there will be those heterosexual people right there ready for them when they do.

The post Gay People DO Get Married: The Curious Case of the Beard – When “the Gays” Marry Straight People appeared first on THE INTERSECTION | MADNESS & REALITY.

The Rev. Thomas Williams, a moral theologian and prominent American author, lecturer and television personality, said in a statement he was “deeply sorry for this grave transgression” against his vows of celibacy.

Williams, the author of such books as 2008’s “Knowing Right From Wrong: A Christian Guide to Conscience,” was the superior of the Legion’s general directorate in Rome in the late 1990s and early 2000s. More recently, he taught theology, promoted his books and lectured widely.

I don’t know why its so complicated for these men! If they simply described the pregnancy using ownership words like ‘I fathered a child’ then we could stop pretending like we don’t know what the hell their saying.

I’m not surprised by this and I think its safe to say the public stopped being shocked and awed years ago but for a few very gullible people that prefer to deny this pattern or those with an interest in keeping their secrets in tact.

The Legion has been beset by scandal following revelations that its late founder, the Rev. Marciel Maciel, fathered three children with two women and sexually abused his seminarians. Maciel died in 2008, and in 2009 the Legion admitted to his crimes.

The Maciel scandal has been particularly sensational given that the Mexican-born priest was held up by Pope John Paul II as a model for the faithful, with his priests admired for their orthodoxy and ability to bring in money and attract new seminarians.

Just last week, the Legion admitted that seven of its priests were under investigation by the Vatican for allegedly sexually abusing minors — suggesting that the same culture of secrecy and silence that Maciel used to cover his crimes enabled other priests to abuse children.

THE LEGION OF CHRIST *blank stare* are the latest culprit in this week’s headlines. As usual, there is no direct admission of guilt by the hypocritical upper echelon gaggle of man sandals and the organization as a whole shows evidence that it is willing to cover up discrepancies for the sake of revenue and power.  How typical.

Honestly, if this is the type of behavior religious followers prescribe to then I say its high time to disassemble these bastards sect by sect for the betterment of civilized society. If a group of guys want to live together in harmony then they should support gay marriage rights. If a group of men want to live in the hills and have wild outlandish sex with their apprentices then they should present themselves as such, because I know of plenty of people that are into that sort of thing, they’re called ‘subs’ in the kink circle.

And while others would spin their wheels discussing nuances of faith and salvation, I would rather get to the heart of the matter, which seems to be that religious organizations do women and children more harm than good for the sake of money and power.

Secret sex, lies, bastard children, unwed mothers, questions of financial support, abuse of power, and money.

Women, babies, church resources, questions of financial obligations, and YOU ARE THE FATHER..exactly the reason why the Vatican restricted marriage among members, who is going to take care of all these dam babies!?

The church is very rich, and its resources should be protected, like any other tool of exploitation. This isn’t rocket science.

Either way, all the drama sounds like the makings of a Good Book to me, though I’m eager to find out how this ends, I worry about what the masses will do once their ‘moral’ yardstick is taken away. What would Jesus Do…? My guess is…he’d run screaming away from these ‘religious leaders’ but I”m an atheist so what do I know?

The post The Legion of Christ Sex Scandal: Oh, Father God… He’s Just My Baby Daddy!! appeared first on THE INTERSECTION | MADNESS & REALITY.

Uh uh, never mind the economy, or the fact that gay people are unemployed and unable to afford stuff like glitter or whatever else “the gays,” happen to purchase; no, never mind that. Instead, what’s important and on everybody’s mind is that Obama wants to make it legal for gays to marry. Keep in mind that this was just his personal opinion and no legislation has been advanced to suggest this becoming a reality. Nope, all that matters is that gays are gonna be married with the full blessings of Obama; and, straight people (whether married or single) will now have to deal with the hassle of not being able to get out of their driveways because they’re being blocked in by the gay married couple giving each other head in a parked car. Yep, forget the whole equal protection under the law thingy in the U.S. Constitution; shit, that’s an old-ass piece of paper anyway.

I mean, who wants to have gay people tossing salads within 500 feet of a school, right? So yeah, as absurd as it sounds, that’s what marriage equality means in the minds of many. That plus the idea that straight people will now have to contend with the obvious embarassment of being placed in a ompromising position, by a gay person getting down on one knee and offering them a marriage proposal in public. Yeah, straight people often get married for the wrong reasons, who wants to add a straight person being hitched to a gay person and having to act gay to  the list.

Yes, this is what people fear; and, it’s the reason there’s so much talk . And you better believe, as far as the politics of fear goes, as much as most try to deny it, this will have an impact on this years general elections. How significant an impact? I’m not sure. However, I am sure that these fears will be exploited by the many ignoramuses  among us over the next several months. Hell, you see how they’re already trying to play divide and conquer by using the black vote, right? Yep, they’re using the black church to divide the black electorate by making same-sex marriage the latest wedge issue. Smart move especially when you think about how black preachers are bent on not pissing off white Jesus in hopes that he would allow blacks and whites to drink from the same fountain if Negroes are allowed in heaven. Yes, it’s that deep for some of the members of the black clergy and the Sunday Communion Kool Aid drinkers they lead. So much so that I’ve heard that some of them are definitely going to sit this election cycle out. I’ve heard from good source that in one particular Obama For America campaign office, people are talking about walking out on the campaign.

It’s good to know that common sense still lives in the church…

The post Wait, is Barack Obama Gay? Uhm, is He Still Black?!! appeared first on THE INTERSECTION | MADNESS & REALITY.

The language on the ballot that NC citizens voted either ‘FOR’ or ‘AGAINST’ on May 8th, or earlier, stated:

Constitutional amendment to provide that marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State.

It is important to note that prior to May 8, 2012, thirty states have included “same-sex marriage” bans in their constitutions. Legal scholars note that there are three types of language that these marriage bans maintain, and the rarest (and most broad) are language types such that Ohio used. North Carolina has now adopted such similar language, even though the consequences were proven in Ohio and the people of Ohio worked hard (and are still working) toward better legislation.

I am of the opinion that the amendment was framed this way before and during the vote in order to appeal to the emotions of the religious voters of the South. In fact, the people who thought it was about marriage and gays came out and expressed how much bigotry and privilege they maintained, quietly or not. However, the idea of marriage is less the focus in the language of the newly passed amendment, and the phrase the only domestic legal union is. Why? Because the courts have to interpret exactly what that means. Additionally, the newly passed “marriage amendment” is nearly identical to a tragedy that passed in Ohio, that opened the floodgates to consequences for more than just persons of the same sex/gender seeking marriage. In fact, in both Ohio and North Carolina, same sex marriage is already outlawed without the amendments.

Beyond further marginalizing the LGBTQ community, the marriage amendment has the potential to affect domestic violence victims. In Ohio, defense attorneys argued that unwed heterosexual couples did not meet the criteria for a “union”, however the court may decide to define it, and as such does not qualify for certain charges. Defense attorneys were also successful in overturning domestic violence convictions on this basis, and the courts were unclear on whether or not certain protections could be afforded to victims in the form of restraining orders. Also, the courts ruled inconsistently on these matters across the state, and so victims in different regions were not afforded the same protections. Eventually, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that the constitutional ban did not affect domestic violence laws; however, it took three years for the circumstances to reach the court and for a decision to be made. During those three years, damage was done.

Even more unfortunate is the language in North Carolina’s newly passed amendment is more vague, and potentially more dangerous, than that belonging to Ohio. While there are some extremely progressive parts of North Carolina, there are also very small, rural communities that may have different understandings of the phrase “legal domestic union” and, much like Ohio, provide unequal protection of the law. This matters. THIS MATTERS. This matters because people in rural communities may not have access to many of the resources in the larger cities, and it Amendment One is an issue of classism in addition to anti-gay, religious bigotry.

Along those same lines, Amendment One has a great potential affect legislation where children of unwed parents are concerned. Custody and visitation laws may be affected with parties who have never had a “legal domestic union” as the courts see fit to interpret. Additionally, insurance benefits provided by either parent therein have the potential to be affected. This is incredibly important because, as of 2010, 72% of Black mothers were unwed. Does this mean that in every instance, the father is absent? Absolutely not. In one way or another, either through the courts or voluntarily, I would suggest that it has been my experience that many fathers are around in some form. I do not have a statistic and I will not speculate on a statistic; I am saying this to say that the passing of this amendment and a courts subsequent decision could limit this involvement, ergo harming children and Black families. Amendment One is harmful because, in addition to the anti-gay, religious bigotry and classism, it has the potential to be racially discriminatory and harmful. It harms single-parent families which, by extension, harms the Black community greatly.

Also, it should be noted that in few counties in North Carolina, unwed heterosexual couples are allowed domestic civil unions; this provides that partners can be on one another’s insurance benefits in addition to other benefits. These include assisting with medical decisions, adoptions, will and trusts, and other financial decisions. However, since marriage between one man and one woman is now the only domestic legal union, many people will be at a disadvantage.

We do not know what will happen. I think that is important to say; however, we do know the things that have the potential to happen. Also, the fact that marriage between one man and one woman is the only form of marriage acceptable in the state of North Carolina (and the other states who have amendments) is illustrative of the fact that the governments are using emotional push-buttons in order to further underlying agendas. Moreover, Constitutional Amendments aren’t like trying on new shoes and deciding that we do not like the fit. It takes time, energy, and resources to ‘undo’ this; there is no easy fix. Once this gets out of hand and negatively affects the citizens of North Carolina, the legislature cannot simply pass a statute to remedy it; a new amendment has to be passed and this will be extremely difficult.

Again, as someone from North Carolina who has been on the ground working for just about a year against the passing of this very scary amendment, I’m torn between sadness, disgust, and rage. While not entirely surprised that the amendment passed, I did think that it would be closer; only seven of North Carolina’s 100 counties voted successfully against it. A few weeks before the election, I got a 21-year-old brother registered to vote because he specifically wanted to vote against the amendment. The day of actual vote, I got into many arguments with many religious Black people who felt as though voting for Amendment One was a testament to their religious convictions. Though I attempted to explain, I was devastated at how unchanged their minds were; and they were mostly in their twenties!

I challenged all of my Facebook friends to give me a reason to vote FOR Amendment One that had nothing to do with religion and I got no responses. However, I went to high school with a guy who is apparently becoming a minister, and very much disagreed with my stance on the amendment. He, as a minister, has a child out of wedlock and maybe might just be a Black Republican (I’m not quite sure of the latter). And so, to appeal to his religious nature, I introduced him to Loving v. Virginia, where a married Black woman and white man were sentenced to a year in prison (suspended for 25 years of probation) for their interracial marriage in 1959 because the court found that:

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.

Our government and constitutions should not be used as a sword, and it should not be used to prevent people from equal protection, rights, or benefits under the law. Our constitution is meant to give freedoms and not take them away. While in a way they’ve already begun, they are definitely coming for women and people of color next. Keep your religious opinions away from my constitution.

The post Amendment One: Wasn’t North Carolina The “Good” Carolina? appeared first on THE INTERSECTION | MADNESS & REALITY.

Not to mention the conversation between my graddaddy with my twin and I when we were (maybe) 10 years old. We were out with him and there were a couple of gentlemen who were, um… ‘together’ and my brother and I started making jokes at their expense… My granddad explained that they had done nothing to us and, in such, were due AT LEAST the respect due to any other human being. He started the lesson (which was surely longer than the above sentence) with “boy…” which meant that he was not pleased with our behavior. Needless to say, that approach has followed us on into adulthood. Sure, we’re macho men who still get our hands dirty, drive manual transmissioned cars and raise (somewhat) traditional families, but we allow people the personal respect to at least be indifferent to how they live their lives, so long as they play us the same.
Sure, my brain-to-mouth (or keyboard) filter often errs to the ragged edge of couth or politically correct or even mature sometimes, but dammit my intentions are usually good.

Anyway, looking deeper into the amendment, it not only carries the redundant banning of something that is already illegal, but goes on to remove legal recognition of domestic unions/partnerships. The language I am seeing used in support of the amendment is to “protect the union of marriage from activist judges,” which again is striking up a fight that shouldn’t need to be fought in the first place, but why in the hell are we needing to cut off the lines of benefits/support for (yes, even heterosexual) unmarried couples WITH this? Healthcare benefits, right to make emergency room decisions, childcare, domestic violence protections and more stand to be lost on people if this amendment is passed.
I actually got into it with a friend-since-12 on Friday over this one. He is a son of my churches former pastor, and is now a pastor himself and he went into this one with blinders fully on. When called on it, he never changed direction or even addressed any other issue than the gay marriage thing. I wound up leaving the conversation.

With the vote coming up on May 8th and knowing that I would be at work, and not wanting to take a 10 month-old out to the polls, my mom and I went to early voting on Saturday morning. She tagged along not because she wanted to vote or particularly even understood the measure, but when I mentioned Friday’s discussion with my friend (whom she knows as well) on the way home from work, she started with “yeah, I’d been meaning to ask you about that” and I explained the measure and what it attempted to accomplish on its surface, what it would mean to people around us, and what it would ACTUALLY accomplish in the name of claiming something that already exists anyway. Her response? “well, that’s fucking wretched! What time are you going to vote tomorrow?”

To be totally honest, I gave about a damn about ANYTHING else on my state’s primary ballots this year, and I do not even feel bad about that. With an incumbent president for whom I already planned to vote, I had no real plans to even VOTE in the primaries. I make no qualms that I randomly pushed buttons matching names I saw in my neighborhood on the way to the polling station only 2 miles away until I saw the “AGAINST” on amendment one; and as a black Christian male, I proudly voted against it. I was very much, in spirit and intentions, with the Triad People of Faith on this one, to the point where if anyone had offered to put one of their signs in my yard, I would have gladly and graciously supported it. Perhaps giving more clarity to my “Jesus was a Liberal” post from before, there is literally ZERO amount of out-of-context scripture that I would then or will from now allow me to vote for anything as damaging to families as NC’s Amendment One would be.
In the end, bigotry and zeal won out and an amendment that will conspire to screw a lot of people after people voted with their preacherman and his cronies instead of their informed consciences, but I know how I voted and I am vocally proud to say it.

The post North Carolina’s Amendment One, Same-Sex Marriage, & Me appeared first on THE INTERSECTION | MADNESS & REALITY.

You might even be so desperate for help that you reach out to a local radio show host like one father did recently for this exact same issue.

In response to an email from a listener concerning his daughter’s interest in girls, DJ Dominic Deiter declared over the air that the father could cure his daughter budding lesbianism by, “You should get one of your friends to screw your daughter straight.”

Once a person includes the words ‘father’, ‘daughter’,  ’your friends’ and ‘rape’ in the same sentence it becomes difficult to make things get worse than what they already are. However, the impact of the statement from this asshole gets even more insulting when you realize this is a broadcast from the ‘Rover’s Morning Glory’ radio program airing on WWMS 100.7 FM radio station.

This station is owned by Clear Channel Communications, also the home of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and the rest of those red throat-ed eels. Bain Capital, the company that Mitt Romney began and is still involved with, is the majority owner of Clear Channel so as you can see, the gangs all here and doing what they do which is talk hateful and ignorant shit to the masses unfortunate enough to listen to it.

Of course this didn’t go over well with the folks over at GLAAD who had the following to say.

GLAAD’s Director of News & Field Media Aaron McQuade says “It was appalling and dangerous for this show to tell a father that he should have one of his friends rape his daughter. That’s essentially how Dieter responded to this listener, and this is no laughing matter in a world where people are too often the victims of violence and sexual assault based on their actual or perceived sexual orientation. And Dieter gave this vile advice to everyone who was listening, including educators, parents and children – sending the message that it’s okay to physically or sexually abuse people who are perceived to be gay.”

I’m not sure what it is that’s got my head so fucked up these days. As I sit down to write about certain topics I’m forced to reflect on myself and what it is that I’m trying to say to you people.

Sometimes the journey through what “is” and “is not” okay and what “is” and “is not” fucked up is still blurry in my world. Like when I hear about the sexual assault of a person who identifies as gay or is suspected of being gay, I can barely muster the interest to bat an eyelash because its part of what happens when you ‘choose’ to be gay. Being both gay and a woman makes the chance that a woman will be the victim of sexual assault that much more likely.

Dominic Dieter: Radio DJ, Potential Rapist, & Definitely Misogynist

Sexual assault is more prevalent for some people in society than for others and focusing on how wrong rape is immediately makes one also realize how common sexual assault is. The further you go down on the societal totem pole the more likely you are to be a victim of sexual assault.

The chances increase as you add various factors to the situation such as economics, race and especially sexual orientation, because the ladder makes a question of what one does up for public debate. Being gay or perceived as gay is something that is viewed as wrong by closed minded ignorant people of all nationalities, races and gender.

LGBT people insult everyone else with their presence so not only is the act of raping a gay person a sexual assault, it is also a hate crime because the initial motivation for the sexual assault is to exhibit power over another person because of their gender orientation or perception thereof.

Rape is about power.

The rape of a gay person is about power and erasure. It is a double theft of a person’s right to self determination and privacy.

The value of the victim decreases as the biases increase and I’m sure there were plenty of insecure men and quivering homophobics who agreed that indeed, a gay woman (or any woman for that matter) should have ‘the gay fucked out of her’ because there’s nothing more threatening to the world then a woman who isn’t susceptible or receptive to the almighty penis.

The post Female Sexual Assault + Hate Crime = How Men Turn Lesbians Straight? appeared first on THE INTERSECTION | MADNESS & REALITY.

This was the ultimate Twitter nightmare. It can be argued that a clear understanding of how twitter works, and what it’s reach is might have helped avert this situation. Even if he himself was unaware those around him – or there should have been some around him with an understanding of social media networks, Twitter especially since he frequents it so much.

How is it in the African American community who has such a high rate of users on twitter and other social networks, that it appears many are unaware of how this level of engagement TRULY works? There are some that know, but silence appears to be golden. Not so golden for Mr. Martin and others who have fallen prey to errant tweets. No one in this dimension can lay claim to the intent behind words on a screen. Technology is good but it is not yet that good to determine whether or not the text you see on a “screen” is authentic and any  more realistic than the device you use to connect in the first place.

The backlash was somewhat expected and even more so when one contemplates the fact that there are many of his co-workers and fellow journalists that are part of the LGBT community – at best this spells hostile work environment. The backlash TO the backlash was to be expected as well there has already been a Facebook page/group started in support of Roland Martin (Bruhs for Roland Martin)

Understandably, there has been a measure of what would be deemed an angry response from members of the African American community who feel that Mr. Martin was scapegoated, and or unfairly treated in this case.  One wonders if any  of those folks realize the kinds of contracts one has to sign in order to work for any organization of that size and magnitude and especially be in the public eye. Contracts often contain morality clauses or clauses that stipulate that if one’s behavior is not perceived to be in line with corporate policy – it is grounds for termination or breach of contract.

One also wonders if those screaming about the unfairness of Mr. Martin’s suspension have ever considered the creation of a news organization or media outlet LIKE a CNN and that would be minority owned and provide an alternative for individuals such as Mr. Martin so that situations like this would be non-issues.

With very little competition organizations can craft and execute whatever strategies they wish with very little impunity.  Having choices allows for more opportunities for fairness to exist. Having few choices means someone or some group gets to dictate to everyone else.

In the end, regardless of the “side” you may wish to take – reality says there are no sides because we are all humans in the end warts and all. Bad jokes or statements aside we still all bleed and we all feel. Not knowing Mr. Martin personally, the human side of me can and does feel compassion for what appears to be a situation that got quickly and totally out of hand. For all those celebrating this turn of events be careful what you Tweet or say online. The job/life you save may be your own.

The post Roland Martin’s Social Media Nightmare appeared first on THE INTERSECTION | MADNESS & REALITY.

What I did witness, however, were Roland Martin’s tweets (complete with exchanges from a few of my very sharp followers) that were, in short, homophobic, heterosexist, and disgusting. Now, I wasn’t entirely surprised at Roland, given how he defended Tracey Morgan’s remarks that he would stab his son is he turned out gay, writing it off as mere comedy. Roland tweeted advocating violence toward men who engage in behavior that is not hetero-normative, quickly distinguishing the difference between a “real” bruh and all others.

I’d like to say, though, that this is not that uncommon a stance within the Black communities. Roland’s homophobia is dangerous and damaging particularly to the Black community; and I am in support of GLAAD’s position that language matters and that there should be no space on CNN for a pundit who puts the LGBTQQI community in fear of being assaulted for expressing themselves (or, in many instances, minding their business and not physically expressing themselves at all!).

In the past, I’ve discussed how oppressed people often become oppressors, even while still being oppressed. Roland Martin’s tweets are a perfect example of that. I am a firm believer of calling people on their shit when they are wrong. What I am not a firm believer of, however, is fighting bigotry with bigotry. For Roland’s hate-filled words, he was called a N-word, an ape, made fun of due to his weight (during which, I interjected because fat-shaming is wrong), and even told by a psuedo-celeb for effect that he hopes he is “assraped”. I get it — we’re hurt, outraged, and upset. I do not by any means support any of what Roland Martin said; I absolutely agree with my LGBTQQIA family that he has a history of inappropriate and quite disgusting homophobia. I feel very strongly, though, that you cannot fight ignorance with ignorance. That, instead of encouraging more bigotry and even more violence (yes, Perez, I am talking to you), we must combat that shit with intelligence. Otherwise, we’re just as small-minded as the promoters of bigotry.

I stand with GLAAD, and yet I think that this may be putting a band-aid on a larger problem. We absolutely have to address LGBTQQIA rights on a larger scale, and within the home. We absolutely must do so within the Black community. If you think that we have, I’d encourage you to check the comment section under the video of the young man who was recently attacked – by multiple with a tire, by multiple men – in Atlanta for being (presumably) gay*. It’s sad and beyond offensive; hate speech, especially that provoking violence, infringes on basic civil and human rights owned by any individual.

*If anyone in the Atlanta area knows who the parties in the linked video are, please contact law enforcement.

The post Real Men Wear Ascots: Roland Martin, Homophobia, & Fighting Bigotry appeared first on THE INTERSECTION | MADNESS & REALITY.

I will never forget the first time my mother called me a faggot. It was Thanksgiving 2004. We had just gotten home from visiting my grandfather in the hospital. My mother and I had gotten into a fight, something that had become quite common since she was diagnosed with several serious mental illnesses in years prior. Driving home I had switched the radio station, which I assume triggered some distant memory as we began to dance a radio tango. She switched the station and I would switch it back.

Mother: “You better start showing me some damn respect. I’m your mother.”

Me: “I’ll show you some respect when you start acting like a mother.”

She went on to slap me across the face as the car was in motion causing my face to hit the driver’s side window. I swerved into oncoming lanes of traffic. Luckily, no cars were coming.

Finally, we made it home and the verbal aggressions continued. My mother looked me dead in the face with her cold, hollow eyes I thought I had become desensitized to. She venomously spewed the words, “Why don’t you suck a dick you faggot?” Suddenly, the tears streamed down my face masking whatever rage was boiling inside of me. How could my own mother say something like that to me?

This was the turbulent memory a climactic scene in Dee Rees’ Pariah brought me back to during a pre-screening of the highly anticipated film a few weeks ago. As 17-year old Alike, played by Adepero Oduye, navigates the blossoming of her sexuality, she also begins defining various parts of her identity in spite of what her mother, Audrey, wishes. Similar to my mother, Audrey, played by Kim Wayans, battles her own issues of love. Their shared issues include insecurity, living their lives based upon very rigid definitions of what it means to be a woman and mother, and perhaps even forgetting to take medication(s). Audrey’s rigid definitions meant she needed to submit to her husband for the sake of imagery, maintain a respectable (read: feminine) appearance and uphold her self against impossibly perfect standards.

Wayans’ performance is riveting, given many of us are familiar with her more comedic roles. Though some will find it hard to sympathetize with her character, Audrey is offered more humanity than I have seen tackled in other films. So often an individual possessing Audrey’s homophobic, narrow beliefs is viewed unsympathetically. We do not want to hear the stories that inform their views or why they are the way they are, despite our disagreement. We simply don’t care to listen. Pariah forces us to bear witness to some of homophobia’s catalysts, if only subliminally.

Throughout the film, I was captivated by Alike’s relationship to her mother. In one scene, I watched as Alike said exactly what she needed to say to her mother in order to begin releasing the demons her mother attempted to plant within Alike. I love you.

As tears flow down Audrey’s face (and my own), audiences capture a glimpse of the inner turmoil Audrey’s rigidity leaves with her. She is miserable. She has spent the majority of her life placing faith in ideas that have only served to isolate her. Audrey would rather remain faithful to those beliefs than begin the process of re-evaluating her relationship to those beliefs and her family.

Living in a culture that teaches us our parents are the people who will teach us about our identity, Alike and I know better. For some of us, our parents exit our lives for various reasons. It becomes our friends and lovers who help shape how we identify and express ourselves in the world. Perhaps our parents re-enter. Perhaps they don’t. As Alike’s relationship with her mother deteriorates, she spends a great deal of time talking with her best friend, Laura, played by Pernell Walker, about being sexual with other women, fantasizing and what it means to be an “AG”—a term some women of color use to identify aggressive lesbians.

Eventually Alike meets Bina, played by Aasha Davis, and their exchange provides insight and plenty of social commentary on what identity means, including a conversation on being gay gay, I do not believe it is their relationship Rees wants us focused on. It is not the obvious intimacy between Alike and Bina or Alike’s relation to Audrey that makes Pariah a love story.

The most fascinating relationship in this film is the one Alike has with her self. Beginning the film, Alike is timid about who she is and curious about what she likes. However, through her experiences with other women, like Laura, Bina and Audrey, we see Alike blossom until she can verbally confirm her parents’ suspicions and come out to her mother and father. It gets messy and scars are left, seen and unseen. Like so many of us, Alike takes her negative experiences and transforms them into a pathway for self-discovery.

Rees takes us on this journey, Alike’s expedition towards self-love and acceptance. In the film’s final scenes, Alike recites a poem written in her journal. The voice over plays as we watch Alike step into the many new beginnings of her life. She reads:

Heartbreak opens onto the sunrise.

For even breaking is opening and I am broken.

I am open.

See the love shine in through my cracks.

See the light shine out through me.

My spirit takes journey.

My spirit takes flight, and I am not running, I am choosing.

I am broken.

I am broken open.

Breaking is freeing.

Broken is freedom.

I am not broken.

I am free.

Alike’s freedom begins when she unleashes the pain her mother inflicts upon her and lovingly releases the hold her pain had. Releasing our pain is a choice. The choice is the difference between being held captive and freedom. But this wound takes time to heal.

As I left the theatre, I wondered if Alike’s path to forgiveness would be as tumultuous and expansive as my own. After all, cinema is constricted; in real time, these processes occur in phases. Forgiving her mother on-screen took less than thirty minutes; forgiving my mother in real life took several years. In relating to the story, I wondered if Alike would eventually face similar difficulties. Was the process of forgiveness over for Alike? Would she relapse? How many attempts would she make to reconcile her relationship with her mother before she deemed it hopeless? Was it hopeless? Would she eradicate the internalized homophobia from her mind? One thing was certain: Alike had the power to look in the mirror and see her beauty, inside and out.

Once You Go Black, discussing the politics of examining Black-queer-intellectual life, Robert Reid-Pharr states, “The real action of both politics and culture always takes place at the surface and in the present. Though our efforts at memorialization and recovery may prove to be incredibly important therapeutic strategies, they nonetheless would be hard-pressed to stop a war.” His sentiment expresses the significance of healing and how recovery is a part of freedom. Rees’ film is not only powerful for its narrative but also given its timing. In a moment where the spotlight has been thrust on queer youth, the political nature of Pariah lies in its ability to shine light in places the mainstream frequently overlooks.

While the film acknowledges the forging of chosen community, it also confronts homophobia in family life and how this impacts adolescence. It covers the displacement of LGBT youth who were kicked out after coming out. Yet, as we racialize and gender these numbers, they only increase. Rees’ decision to place themes of homelessness and sex work was strategic as these issues increasingly affect Black queer youth. The Center for American Progress highlights that homeless gay youth have strong racial divides. Black gay youth make up approximately forty-four percent of homeless youth, while Black transgender youth are a staggering sixty-two percent. 

As a white gay man, I was able to watch and listen to Alike’s story and tackle parallels between our journeys and mothers. But I constantly had to remind myself of the distinctions separating our narratives, the obvious being I am not Black nor am I lesbian. These distinctions left me walking out of the theatre with hypothetical questions. After leaving her family behind, would Alike find community in the imaginary safety of some mythically inclusive gay metropolis or be outcast as a Black lesbian? Would she be told the money of “her kind” was not wanted in a mediocre queer establishment, as was the case in a Chicago gay nightclub in 2010?

I worry how this film will be celebrated within various queer circles, if at all. My hope is that we do not participate in the too-common practice of de-racializing films, as Pariah is clearly Black. One can count the number of white actors in this film on one hand. Then there is the obvious fact this film centers on one Black family and the complexities of their lives together. In my opinion, Pariah was intended to be a conversation film for Black communities, conversations that need to be had from within and do not need to include white folks.

I hope Pariah will not be placed within the larger queer canon of painting Black families as more homophobic than the rest of society, as we see happening in the age of Obama. Oddly enough, the people making these claims rarely offer sources or stress the pervasive reach of anti-Black racism. Some of the film’s themes are certainly universal, as other reviews have highlighted. However, I think it is imperative we continue to address this film for exactly what it is: Black lesbian cinema. As is the case with many “universally-themed” films, certain elements of the feature become less salient as they garner popularity.

One of the most beautifully bittersweet things about Pariah is that Rees does not seem too concerned with these questions. She gives this film the life it was intended to have: one version of Black lesbianism. However, the questions and challenges that surface from Alike’s inspirational narrative offer each of us an opportunity to self-reflect, as individuals working towards a collective end.

Alike’s story is told with nuance and integrity in a way many films lack today. Rees’ work does not mimic reality, it captures it. Pariah reminds us that regardless of what we have been told in life or how we have been made to feel, we are beautiful and deserving. We can, and must, heal. We are worthy of love from others but, most importantly, from ourselves.

Pariah is in select theatres January 21, 2012.

2011 Trailer

The post Pariah: Not Just A Black Gay Love Story, It’s Real Life appeared first on THE INTERSECTION | MADNESS & REALITY.

This via TPM:

A proposed bill in Tennessee would create a loophole in the state’s anti-bullying laws to protect those expressing religious, philosophical or political beliefs, which one proponent says would ensure that people can still express their “views on homosexuality.”

The proposed bill would amend the state’s current anti-bullying laws to specify that the anti-bully policy should “not be construed or interpreted to infringe upon the First Amendment rights of students and shall not prohibit their expression of religious, philosophical, or political views” as long as there’s no physical threat or threat to another student’s property.

David Fowler, a former Republican state Senator and current Christian activist, is pushing for the legislature to take up the bill in the new year after it stalled before the end of the last session. According to the Chattanooga Times Free Press, Fowler sent out a newsletter for his group the Family Action Council of Tennessee (FACT) in December that said he wants “to make sure [the law] protects the religious liberty and free speech rights of students who want to express their views on homosexuality.”

“The purpose is to stop bullying, not create special classes of people who are more important than others,” Fowler told the Times Free Press.

Gay rights activists in the state say the new bill would create a “license to bully” gay teens, and point to the suicide of a teenager named Jacob Rogers, who had reportedly been repeatedly bullied for being gay.

Gay Tennessee Couple Assaulted At Church

“This kind of legislation can send a message that it’s OK to hate and we’ll even give you religious sanction for it. You can say what you want. As long as you say it’s for religious reasons, you’ve got backup,” Chris Sanders, of the Tennessee Equality Project, told WSMV4.

FACT said on its radio show of Rogers’ death: “It is wrong to bully people because of their sexual practices. But it’s wrong to bully people period. The larger lesson here is that these tragedies are often the rotten fruit of the all-about-me individualistic culture that comes when we deny the existence of God and his image in us. When life and people become cheap, tragedy is the result.”

Tennessee’s legislature previously considered a “don’t say gay” bill — which prevented teachers from discussing gays and lesbians with students in grades K-8 — but it also stalled in the last session.

A spokesman for state Sen. Jim Tracy (R), who sponsored the bill in the last session, said Tracy is “reviewing the legislation” and will probably “narrow” the “very broad” language.

In November, Michigan’s Republican-led state Senate approved a bill with similar language that carved out a “moral convictions” loophole for bullies, but they backed off and compromised in the resultant controversy.

I don’t know what side of this issue you support. However, I must say that it’s really nice of our state legislators to keep the religious-minded anti-gay folks in mind with this loophole. I mean, the Bible gives you licence to be a bigoted religious zealot when it comes to the issue of homosexuality. But it’s great to know that your religious belief or exercise cannot be infringed upon just as long as you quote Bible verses while kicking their ass. Yep, this from the people who are against Muslims and Sharia Law. Uh-huh, bullying homosexuals is only bad if you fail to quote Bible verses.

The post Tennessee Bill Would Give Anti-Bullying Laws A ‘Religious And Political Beliefs’ Loophole To Bully appeared first on THE INTERSECTION | MADNESS & REALITY.