Socially Significant: ‘Bruno’ offers mixed messages on gay community
Sasha Baron Cohen’s first large scale movie, “Borat,” was a tremendous financial and critical success.
It both entertained audiences and also functioned as a tongue-in-cheek examination of xenophobia in the United States.
Those looking for that same combination in Baron Cohen’s new film, “Bruno,” are going to have to look a little harder. “Bruno” does challenge American society, but its attempts to lampoon homophobia while generating laughs confuses more than it enlightens.
If you’ve heard anything about the movie during the last few weeks, you’ve probably heard some rather polarized opinions on it.
Most people seem unable to find a middle ground with the film and can’t decide if the movie hurts the national view on the gay community and culture, empowers it or does nothing except make people laugh at the movies excessive use of penises.
Baron Cohen plays Bruno, a German fashionista trying to get work in the U.S. after his fashion commentary show is canceled in his home country. Bruno’s campy actions throughout the film attract the derision of nearly everyone he meets until he figures out the problem — he’s gay. The remainder of the film involves more wacky escapades as Bruno tries to straighten-out and eventually embrace his homosexuality. See Socially Significant: ‘Bruno’ offers mixed messages on gay community
LSU The Reveill
* Tags = gay men gay news lesbian news transgender bisexual
| Published by |
 |
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/07/socially-sign…
There’s no pride in bashing gays, Bishop
If you’re reading, Bishop Michael, I really didn’t want to have another pop at you about your trenchant and sometimes bizarre views about what constitutes Christian truth. As to the rest of you reading this, I’m sorry if it looks as if whenever Dr Michael Nazir-Ali, who retires as Bishop of Rochester in September, makes a public statement I launch an attack on him. Believe me, the routine is tiresome for me, too.
But his comments in yesterday’s Sunday Telegraph, which he is expected to repeat today, that homosexuals should “repent and be changed” cannot pass unchallenged. Or rather, they should not go challenged only by homosexual rights campaigners, such as Peter Tatchell, who you would expect to be somewhat antipathetic to the expressed view.
Because Dr Nazir-Ali is wrong in the eyes of a broad swath of kind and tolerant people of differing sexualities, social mores and of the Christian faith, other faiths and no faith at all. Badly, badly wrong.
I say that I didn’t want to have another fight with him because such fights polarise Anglicans, and we’re at our best when we’re talking. I went to a private lunch recently, to which Dr Nazir-Ali was also invited. He didn’t show. The seat next to me went empty. I do hope he didn’t bottle it; it’s important that religious leaders don’t just inhabit comfort zones with friends who share their views.
Dr Nazir-Ali’s friends are the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans (Foca), who this week will try to get the Anglican schism over homosexuality going again, while denying that they are doing any such thing. Had he turned up to our lunch, I would have asked him why he and Foca are so convinced that they know the mind of God better than those who disagree with them and that their interpretation of scripture is with absolute certainty the one and only true one.
When I write about the Church and homosexuality, inevitably I receive messages that read simply “Romans 1:26-27″ or “1 Corinthians 6:9″, as if that settles something. We can argue scripture until we’re at the pearly gates. But the essential difference between Dr Nazir-Ali and me is this: I accept, disappointing as I would find it in my fiery furnace, that he might be right. By contrast, he and his friends cannot accept that I might be right, claim that I can’t be a proper Christian, and some of them go so far as to suggest that I’ll burn in hell for all eternity.
And there’s the real problem: it’s an issue of intolerance. Anglicanism has long been characterised by a broad tolerance. But my tolerance of Dr Nazir-Ali and his friends, that they are Anglicans with whom I happen vehemently to disagree, doesn’t seem to be reciprocated.
See There’s no pride in bashing gays, Bishop Telegraph.co.uk
* Tags = gay men gay news lesbian news transgender bisexual
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/07/theres-no-pri…
LA Times Editorial: A court battle California doesn’t need
The Supreme Court’s ruling last week in the case of a grandiosely unethical West Virginia justice opened a new field of constitutional review — the high court may now consider when an elected state court jurist has been so tainted by politics that due process requires him to recuse himself from a case.
In West Virginia, a coal executive spent more than $3 million to unseat a sitting state Supreme Court justice; it was money well spent, as the justice was defeated by voters and replaced by Brent Benjamin. Benjamin then did what was expected of him and cast a deciding vote in overturning a $50-million jury award against the executive’s coal company.
Indeed, California has wrestled with this problem before — and quite possibly could again.
California’s system for selecting Supreme Court justices is much better than West Virginia’s. Candidates for the court here are nominated by the governor, confirmed by a state commission and then placed on the bench. They must periodically stand for retention, but they are not, as they are in West Virginia, subject to direct challenge by rival candidates. A retention election can cost a justice his or her seat, but it does not let voters kick out one justice and install their own replacement.
California’s rules have helped balance the judiciary’s independence with the public’s fair insistence on accountability, but even this state’s reasonable retention process has been subject to tilt. Most notable was the 1986 retention election that removed Chief Justice Rose Bird and two associate justices, Cruz Reynoso and Joseph Grodin. Much reflection has gone into that race in the decades since, and opinions differ on its merits. Two truths, however, stand the test of deep inquiry: The forces arrayed against Bird were not motivated solely by her opposition to the death penalty — that was cover for a second complaint, which was her defense of consumer rights against corporate power — and Reynoso and Grodin were victims of a special-interest crusade against a vulnerable chief.
Would that we could relegate that episode to California’s history. In fact, the state rumbles with discontent over its high court and chief, and those stirrings contain alarming echoes of the battle of 1986.
At issue are the court’s rulings on same-sex marriage and Proposition 8, and its chief justice, Ronald M. George. In May 2008, the court overturned the state’s ban on gay marriage, striking a victory for civil rights in the grandest tradition of constitutional protection of minorities. A few months later, after voters approved Proposition 8 and amended the state Constitution to ban the same institution that the court had upheld, George and his colleagues upheld the amendment. Both times, George wrote for the majority. He thus angered opponents of gay marriage in 2008 and supporters of it in 2009.
By California’s rules, George faces a retention election in 2010, and some predict that he could face challenges from either side — or even both — in this polarizing debate.
That would be a shame for the state’s judiciary, an unfortunate attack on judicial independence and an unfair castigation of one of this state’s most principled and admirable public officials. In the gay-marriage cases, George’s votes demonstrated conscience, professionalismand restraint. He voted to uphold same-sex unions out of the strong conviction — which this page shares — that the Constitution does not allow society to deny the protection of marriage to gay couples any more than it once denied it to those united across race. The ruling was right on the law, and will certainly be validated over the long march of history.
Months later, voters tacked in the other direction, narrowly rejecting gay marriage and amending the Constitution to allow California to recognize only the unions of heterosexual couples. That was challenged, naturally, and the lawsuit offered the court the opportunity to extend its earlier ruling, though on shaky constitutional grounds — advocates for same-sex marriage argued that Proposition 8 was such an affront to the rights of Californians that it revised the Constitution rather than merely amending it. Scholars split on the merits of that argument, and although the strong consensus of legal opinion rejectedit, an opportunistic justice might have seized the chance to solidify his legacy.
Instead, George subordinated his politics — as evidenced by his writing — to the weight of constitutional opinion. He voted to uphold the proposition, even though it undid his own work. Permitted latitude within the strictures of the Constitution in the first case, George was able to vote his conscience; bound by the Constitution in the second case, he yielded.
Such is the lot of a principled judicial officer, but those concerned only with results already have signaled their unhappiness with George. The moneyed interests that supported Proposition 8 last fall are considering whether to finance a campaign against George next year. Supporters of gay marriage, who championed his heroism in 2008, were bitterly disappointed when the court upheld the hateful initiative.
This is not West Virginia. Corporate interests are not knocking off justices who disagree with them and seating more accommodating replacements. But intimidation has no place in our judicial life any more than it does in Appalachia. The 1986 campaign against Bird and her colleagues now stands for many as a reminder that well-intentioned systems of accountability may be hijacked by special interests, a lesson learned too often and at great cost in California. It was misguided in its first iteration; it would be regrettable in its second.
See A court battle California doesn’t need
Los Angeles Times -
* Tags = gay men gay news lesbian news transgender bisexual
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/06/la-times-edit…
Church of Scotland magazine backs gay partnerships
A potential rift within the Church of Scotland over gay relationships emerged yesterday after the Church’s house magazine backed civil partnerships and openly gay ministers.
Accusing religious traditionalists of selectively quoting the Bible to support their attacks on homosexual relations, the editorial in Life And Work urged the Kirk to show strong leadership on an issue that has threatened to split the Church of England and could prove just as divisive in Scotland.
The article, which was written by the magazine’s editor, Muriel Armstrong, comes ahead of next month’s General Assembly in Edinburgh and has been timed to influence a key debate on whether openly homosexual ministers can be appointed to the Church.
Ms Armstrong rounds on the “selective literalists” who use parts of the Bible to bolster their own views but ignore other parts that undermine them. She says that these commentators “presumably no longer accept biblical teaching on sexual matters such as polygamy and sex with slaves” but are happy to quote Leviticus 18:22 on homosexuality: “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.”
The Church said yesterday that the magazine was editorially independent. “It is not the voice of the Church of Scotland, which is not trying to steer debate on this important issue,” the Rev Angus Morrison, convenor of the council of mission and discipleship said. He added that he had already received “a couple” of e-mails expressing concern that the magazine was interfering in the “due process” of the Church.
Senior figures within the Church fear that the issue of gay partnerships could prove as damaging for the Presbyterian ministry as the row that has split the Anglican Church.
A minority in the Presbytery of Aberdeen has already challenged the appointment of an openly gay minister, the Rev Scott Rennie, to Queen’s Cross Church in the city. They have appealed to the Commission of the General Assembly, with a final decision on the matter to be made next month.
In her editorial Ms Armstrong also champions the right of gay ministers to serve in the Church. She said said that two years ago the Church had effectively shelved its decision on the issue and that the moment had come to challenge those who use the “familiar arguments” of tradition, orthodoxy and the “plain meaning of scripture”.
“The question of the integrity of a relationship didn’t enter the \ argument. It has been suggested that if the Kirk stuck its neck out on this one it would upset other churches that are still in a reflective no man’s land on this issue. Isn’t it time for leadership?
“What is clear to the lay-person is that not everything Biblical is Christ-like. Every student of the Bible is a selective literalist. Those who swear by the anti-homosexual laws in the Book of Leviticus wouldn’t publicly advocate slavery or stoning women taken in adultery. They presumably no longer accept Biblical teaching on sexual matters such as polygamy and sex with slaves.
“And yet there are many who continue to be bound by a few Biblical verses — none of them in the Gospels — about homosexuality, nowadays understood as a matter of genetics rather than lifestyle.”
The debate on gays in the Church will involve members from every Presbytery, drawn from Scotland and overseas. It is likely to polarise opinion, just as it has in other Churches.
See Church of Scotland magazine backs gay partnerships Times Online
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/04/church-of-sco…
Tauscher moves to end gay ban
Walnut Creek Democrat Ellen Tauscher will move today to end the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” ban on gays in the military, a 15-year relic of the Clinton-era culture wars.
Tauscher last summer had promised a full-scale push to end the ban this year. The Obama presidency clearly lifts the veto threat that had blocked any such move during the Bush administration. Obama promised to support repeal during his campaign. His Republican opponent Sen. John McCain remained opposed.
Polls show solid public support for lifting the ban, with as many as 75 percent backing repeal, a number that has climbed steadily during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The argument for the ban is that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly would damage morale.
McCain made that argument last year, saying, “I believe the polarization of personnel and breakdown of unit effectiveness is too high a price to pay for well-intentioned but misguided efforts to elevate the interests of a minority of homosexual service members above those of their units.”
A General Accountability Office study in 2005 showed the military lost 800 service members in 161 occupations. The ban has led to the discharge of desperately needed linquists and translators during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. See
Tauscher moves to end gay ban
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/03/tauscher-move…
Inviting Warren fits Obama’s inclusive ideals
By ANTHONY B. ROBINSON
GUEST COLUMNIST
SHOULD RICK WARREN be giving the invocation at Barack Obama’s inauguration?
You might think that after the months-long saga surrounding Obama’s former pastor, Jeremiah Wright, the president-elect would do whatever he could to avoid further pastor-politics dramas.
Apparently not. Inviting Warren, pastor of Saddleback Community Church in Orange County, Calif., and popular author of the “Purpose-Driven Life” series of books, has touched off a controversy.
During the Jeremiah Wright controversy I suggested that Wright needed to be seen within the context of the black church experience. In a similar way, it seems important to set Rick Warren within the context of evangelical Christianity in the U.S.
Warren embodies what many see as the new evangelical spirit. As an evangelical Christian, he is clear about his commitment to Christ and about conversion as the path. But Warren has parted company with fundamentalism and its political arm, the religious right, over its mean-spirited approach to politics and its fixation on abortion and homosexuality as the be-all and end-all.
Warren has emerged as an evangelical who puts both mouth and money on the line for AIDS prevention and care, issues of poverty and the global gap between rich and poor, and climate change. For this evolution Warren has incurred the wrath of those on the religious right. In the larger scheme of things, Warren represents an important shift in the influential evangelical world. This shift meant Obama captured support among young evangelicals who care about poverty, social justice and climate change.
While people on the fundamentalist religious right are incensed that Warren would agree to take part in the inauguration and give his blessing to a president who supports choice on abortion, folks on the other side are ticked off by Obama’s choice of the bearded, aloha shirt-clad pastor from Southern California because Warren has questions about gay marriage.
While Warren was not out in front on this, he supported Proposition 8 in California’s recent election, a measure that took back what California courts had granted, the right of gay people to marry. Warren is concerned about “redefining the 5,000-year-old institution of marriage,” which he sees as a foundation of human civilization. This has elicited charges that Warren has “defamed” gays. Others tagged Obama himself a bigot for daring to invite Warren.
Here’s what I think. Obama is doing what he said he would do, namely, reach across the culture-war divides, across the polarized minefield of American political life, to invite to the party someone who doesn’t agree with him on every issue. Some argue that Obama lacks the courage of his convictions on full inclusion of gays. It seems to me, rather, that Obama is remaining true to his convictions of a post-partisan, nonideological approach and style. After all, inclusion doesn’t really mean much if you include only those who already totally agree with you.
This is, remember, the man who wrote “The Audacity of Hope.”
“I believe any attempt by Democrats to pursue a more sharply partisan and ideological strategy misapprehends the moment we are in,” he wrote. And, “it’s precisely the pursuit of ideological purity, the rigid orthodoxy and the sheer predictability of our current political debate that keeps us from finding new ways to meet the challenges we face as a country.” Inviting megachurch pastor Warren, who is also challenging old orthodoxies, fits these sentiments.
Personally, I can think of people I would prefer to Rick Warren for the role of inaugural prayer-giver. But Obama’s choice seems to me consistent with what he has said and his operative philosophy. Moreover, the attempt to reach out to more centrist evangelicals, whom Warren represents, is important. To claim that because Warren has questions about gay marriage means that he’s a bigot or that he has “defamed” gay people is a stretch.
Finally, it is important to note that Rick Warren is not being asked to take up a cabinet post or otherwise make or administer policy. He’s been asked to give a prayer. My hunch is that if this country has a prayer, it will be because we do find a path beyond ideological purity and rigid orthodoxy.
In closing, a personal note: I lost one of my most faithful readers last Sunday when 95-year-old Jim Jambor of Olympia died. Jim watched for this column, “the Saturday Special” as he called it, and seldom failed to comment. We’ll miss you, Jim!
See Articles of Faith: Inviting Warren fits Obama’s inclusive ideals
Seattle Post Intelligencer
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/01/inviting-warr…
In New Jersey, Push for Gay Marriage Meets Election Concerns
NEW JERSEY has never appeared so close to — and yet so far from — enacting gay marriage.
Gov. Jon S. Corzine; Richard J. Codey, the State Senate president; and Joseph J. Roberts Jr., leader of the Democratic-controlled Assembly, have all recently stated publicly that gay marriage is an idea whose time has come. Echoing the sentiments of a state commission report released last month, some state officials said that civil unions — the closest thing to marriage available to gay couples in the state — were woefully inadequate and that the legalization of gay marriage in New Jersey was not a matter of “if” but “when.”
But with the governor and all 80 members of the Assembly up for re-election in November, most of the officials say the “when” may not be for some time.
The New Jersey Civil Union Review Commission, a 13-member panel convened to evaluate the impact of the state’s 2006 civil union law, in its final report last month, called on the state to legalize same-sex marriage after finding that civil unions did not result in equal treatment. Likening the prohibition against gay couples marrying to the racial segregation laws imposed upon black Americans, the commission said hospitals were reluctant to recognize civil unions when it came to visitation rights, employers did not always extend health benefits to both partners, and the children of such unions were stigmatized.
Massachusetts and Connecticut are currently the only states that allow gay couples to marry, and in both instances the issue was decided by the courts rather than the legislatures. California was in that category until November, when gay marriage was overturned by voters.
Mr. Goldstein says his organization has been lobbying to get a measure passed.
“We are very, very close,” he said. “Do I believe we have the votes yet? It depends on how you count them. Even under our very conservative vote counts, we’re very close.”
While the governor had asked state lawmakers to refrain from raising the issue during the presidential election, for fear that it would sidetrack voters, he is now encouraging lawmakers to seriously review the commission’s report.
“While this administration is focused squarely on the economic crisis for the foreseeable future, it’s clear that this issue of civil rights must be addressed sooner rather than later,” Mr. Corzine said in a statement.
The governor promised to sign marriage-equality legislation when it reaches his desk. The question is whether state lawmakers will present him with the opportunity. “Politics will play a role in whether it actually gets posted to a committee,” said Assemblyman Reed Gusciora, a Democrat from Princeton and the deputy majority leader, who sponsored a gay marriage bill. “With the Assembly up this November, there will be a lot of members unlikely to get involved with such a polarizing issue.”
See Push for Gay Marriage Meets Election Concerns
New York Times, United States
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2009/01/in-new-jersey…
A gay Muslim, tested by faith and family
All she has left of the person she used to be is contained in a 5-by-7 photo album with “Aliyah Bacchus” written in blue pen on its cover, each picture inside tucked beneath a slip of clear plastic.
There she is at 17, barely 90 pounds, smiling sourly on her wedding day in Queens, N.Y., dressed in hijab — a pearl-toned princess bridal gown shimmering with beads, her slender hands dipped in sleek white gloves, a veil attached to a white qimar, or head scarf, fastened snugly around her face. The man her father chose for her stands behind Aliyah wearing a black bow tie, his hands resting on her bony shoulders.
That was before. Before she walked out on the marriage. Before her Guyana-born Muslim family discovered she was gay. Before she fled.
Aliyah is 22 now, still hovering at 90 pounds, the dark skin of her Indian roots hugging bone, a boyishly feminine lesbian with cropped black hair gelled into a tussle atop her head, long eyelashes and sharp cheekbones.
She has traded her abaya, which she wore throughout middle and high school, for an ankle-length black trench coat and sunglasses with metallic frames. She has one piercing in her left ear, four in her right, a metal rod bridging the cartilage in the ear’s upper rim, a ring in her bellybutton, another in her nose.
Aliyah is Muslim. It’s a part of her identity she can’t shed, like her sexuality, like her last name — Bacchus, as in the Roman god of wine and merriment — and like her ink-stained flesh: the angel tattooed between her shoulder blades, the dark dragons on her lower back, the polar bear on her stomach, the dying rose on her right wrist.
She knows that in some Muslim sects, homosexuality is considered a crime punishable by death. But Aliyah lives in America, raised in low-income housing projects 20 miles from Manhattan’s West Village, where police raided the Stonewall Inn in 1969, setting off riots that sparked the beginning of a national gay rights movement.
In America, Aliyah knows, it is acceptable to be gay. But how, she wonders, can she be true to who she is while also adhering to her family’s faith? How does she reconcile both sides of her existence?
The pictures, faded and fragile, show Aliyah hugging her little sister, standing next to her father, laughing with her brother — a smiling tribe living in the Far Rockaway neighborhood of Queens. The photographs remind Aliyah that she used to belong to a family.
On an evening this spring, the sun sets as Aliyah sits on a park bench in the West Village, police sirens blaring around her. Police show up to break up two drunken men fist-fighting a few steps away. Aliyah is calm, nearly oblivious to the urban chaos around her.
A gay Muslim, tested by faith and family
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2008/12/gay-muslim-te…
Fire Revives Palin Church’s ‘Ex-Gay’ Scandal
Sarah Palin and her church’s religious teachings are again making headlines — or at least propelling conversation.
The Alaska governor’s church, Wasilla Baptist Church, literally came under fire this weekend in what appears to be arson. And, considering the suspicious nature of the incident, one can’t help but wonder whether the church was specifically targeted because of Palin’s long history there. That’s one of the theories, of course, and has brought Palin’s right-leaning beliefs — and past scandals — back into the spotlight.
As Colin Powell pointed out last week, Palin was certainly a polarizing figure during her short stint on the campaign trail. She fired up supporters and burned up critics. But who would hate this woman enough to torch her church? Probably plenty of wackos, but some seem to be speculating that the “suspect class” can be narrowed a bit.
You may recall that last September, as people were just starting to examine Palin’s background, it came to light that her church had distributed a flyer for Love Won Out, a group that claims it can “cure” gay people. [There was also a scandal in which Palin was accused of asking her local library to remove gay-themed books from its shelves when she was mayor. She denied the charge.] Obviously gay people were not amused and called on Mrs. Palin to explain herself. It became a small thorn in her side, and one that Palin tried to avoid. Sure, the topic came up a bit, but it never became the headline grabber it could have during previous elections, when the culture wars raged. Well, the topic came up last night when Palin sat down with Fox News’s Greta van Susteren. See Fire Revives Palin Church’s ‘Ex-Gay‘ Scandal
Women on the Web, NY
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2008/12/fire-revives-…
Gay penguins expelled from zoo colony for stealing eggs are given their own to look after following animal rights protest
A pair of gay penguins thrown out of their zoo colony for repeatedly stealing eggs have been given some of their own to look after following a protest by animal rights groups.
Last month the birds were segregated after they were caught placing stones at the feet of parents before waddling away with their eggs.
But angry visitors to Polar Land in Harbin, northern China, complained it wasn’t fair to stop the couple from becoming surrogate fathers and urged zoo bosses to give them a chance.
In response, zookeepers gave the pair two eggs laid by an inexperienced first-time mother.
‘We decided to give them two eggs from another couple whose hatching ability had been poor and they’ve turned out to be the best parents in the whole zoo,’ said one of the keepers.
‘It’s very encouraging and if this works out well we will try to arrange for them to become real parents themselves with artificial insemination.’
Wildlife experts at the park explain that despite being gay the three-year-old male birds are still driven by an urge to be fathers.
See Gay penguins expelled from zoo colony for stealing eggs are given …
Daily Mail, UK
| Published by |
|
Original source : http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2008/12/gay-penguins-…
